10.6092/issn.1973-9494/12794
L'interesse dei turisti a recarsi a Lahore (più specificamente alla moschea di Badshahi e al Forte reale) è aumentato negli ultimi anni e l’incremento dovrebbe continuare. Nonostante ciò, si hanno pochissime informazioni sull'atteggiamento delle persone nei confronti del patrimonio culturale. Questo studio esamina i fattori pre e post visita che incoraggiano i turisti a recarsi nei siti del patrimonio culturale e identifica anche variabili che aiutano a stimare la loro disponibilità a pagare (WTP) per visitarli. I dati di 200 turisti sono stati raccolti attraverso un questionario ben preparato e poi utilizzati nell'analisi finale. Il metodo di valutazione contingente (CVM), considerato il metodo più utile, con una domanda a scelta dicotomica, è stata utilizzato per stimare il WTP. Per la stima del WTP sono stati utilizzati due modelli, ovvero la regressione binaria e i minimi quadrati ordinari (OLS). I risultati hanno evidenziato che i turisti erano interessati a conservare ricordi, esperienze e conoscenze positive durante la visita. Più del 75% dei turisti è disposto a pagare per il patrimonio culturale, ha un atteggiamento positivo nei suoi confronti e vorrebbe visitare nuovamente queste destinazioni. Il reddito dei turisti è stato un fattore positivo determinante e significativo del WTP; il costo totale della visita e le questioni ambientali erano correlate negativamente al WTP. Poiché il turismo fornisce un'importante fonte di reddito, i risultati di questo studio forniscono alcune raccomandazioni pratiche che potrebbero essere implementate in futuro dalle autorità locali.
application/pdf
1973-9494
12794
en
Asad Afzal Humayon
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0
Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage
Lahore
Tourists’ Attitude Towards Cultural Heritage and their Willingness to Pay to Visit: a Case Study of Lahore, Pakistan
Text.Serial.Journal
https://conservation-science.unibo.it/
20
Articles
2021-05-13
2021-04-27
2021-05-13
2021-05-13
125-138
CSCH
Asad Afzal Humayon
2020
10.6092/issn.1973-9494/12794
125
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Vehari, Pakistan
1973-9494
Lahore
en
138
Tourists’ Attitude Towards Cultural Heritage and their Willingness to Pay to Visit: a Case Study of Lahore, Pakistan
https://conservation-science.unibo.it/article/download/12794/12510
20
T    OURISTS’ ATTITUDE TOWARDS CULTURAL HERITAGE
     AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PAY TO VISIT:
     A CASE STUDY OF LAHORE, PAKISTAN

   Muhammad Hassan Mahboob*, Muhammad Ashfaq
   Institute of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Agriculture
   Faisalabad, Pakistan

   Rao Aamir Khan
   Department of Management Sciences, COMSATS University
   Islamabad, Pakistan

   Yasir Kamal
   Institute of Management Sciences
   Peshawar, Pakistan

   Asad Afzal Humayon
   COMSATS Institute of Information Technology
   Vehari, Pakistan


   Keywords: cultural heritage, tourism, willingness to pay, Lahore



   1. Introduction

     The history of Lahore covers thousands of years; it is the second largest city and
also the second largest district in Pakistan. Over time, many rulers have changed vari-
ous aspects relating to its identity, from “Jain, Hindu, Buddhist, Greek, Muslim, Afghan,
and Sikh to the British”, so Lahore has become the cultural capital and the heart of
present-day Pakistan. During the rule of the Mughal Empire (1524-1752) Lahore reached
its peak of architectural glory, because the Mughals (Mongols) were well-reputed build-
ers and constructed many of the finest architectural monuments extant today, including
the Badshahi Mosque or Emperor’s Mosque, and the Royal fort. The Emperor’s Mosque
and the Royal Fort were officially listed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a world heritage site (WHS) on 14 December 1993.
The front view of the two sites is shown in Figure 1.
     Over the past two decades Pakistan has faced many terrible terrorist attacks in
several cities, including Lahore, which has been the most victimized city. As a result,
tourists in Pakistan greatly decreased in number. The current situation is different due
to the fact that Pakistan has taken several steps to counter the threat of terrorism in the
country and the government and other state institutions are focusing on promoting
tourism through several changes in visa policy and security issues; the soft image of the
destination is important in promoting tourism and urging tourists to revisit destinations


   * Corresponding author: m.hassan1695@gmail.com
                                                                                                                                  [1]. Culture, moreover, shows how nations act together (i.e. traditions, folklore, knowl-
M.H. Mahboob, M. Ashfaq, R.A. Khan, Y. Kamal, A.A. Humayon - Tourists’ attitude towards cultural heritage and their willingness



                                                                                                                                  edge and language) and how heritage concerns our past, present and future history
                                                                                                                                  (i.e. buildings, historical structures, monuments, landscapes, artifacts, books and doc-
                                                                                                                                  umentation [2,3]. In this respect, cultural heritage has a significant impact on people’s
                                                                                                                                  attitude and actions at both the individual and social level [4].




                                                                                                                                                       a)                                              b)

                                                                                                                                            Figure 1. a) Badshahi Mosque and b) the Royal Fort, Lahore, Pakistan.


                                                                                                                                      Lahore’s cultural heritage holds massive attraction for both national and interna-
                                                                                                                                  tional tourists, as cultural heritage is an inspiring factor in people’s travel behavior
                                                                                                                                  and affects tourism in both positive and negative ways [5]. Modern-day tourism has
                                                                                                                                  been increased both nationally and internationally for people to experience different
                                                                                                                                  cultures and histories and includes visiting sites of historic or archeological interest,
                                                                                                                                  festivals, watching conventional dances or ceremonies or simply shopping for hand-
                                                                                                                                  crafted articles [6].
                                                                                                                                      Tourists’ enjoyment through the collection of new information before the journey,
                                                                                                                                  which may include their interest in customs, acquaintance with the language, the lore
                                                                                                                                  of other nations, motivation for the trip, cultural history, the architecture of the destina-
                                                                                                                                  tion and/or area of outstanding beauty are several, or in some cases, even all of the
                                                                                                                                  elements that encourage tourists to visit a particular destination [7]. In particular, mid-
                                                                                                                                  dle-aged and older tourists with a high level of education and income show great inter-
                                                                                                                                  est in these activities of cultural heritage tourism and represent important elements in
                                                                                                                                  tourists’ WTP (willingness to pay). Spending during the visit is an important factor in
                                                                                                                                  tourists’ financial plans, which represents one-third of tourist expenses and is a pri-
                                                                                                                                  mary source of revenue for the tourism industry [8,9]. The preservation of historical
                                                                                                                                  buildings and sites is therefore vital in upholding and conserving a nation’s history and
                                                                                                                                  heritage sites [10]. The aim of the paper is to study the socio-economic characteristics
                                                                                                                                  of tourists, make a pre- and post-tour analysis and to estimate their willingness to pay
                                                                                                                                  for visits to heritage sites.


                                                                                                                                     2. Literature review

                                                                                                                                      Hall et al., stated the supply definitions for cultural tourism and heritage tourism
                                                                                                                                  in a simple way [11]. The former is tied to visual attractions, performing arts and fes-


                                                                                              126
tivals, whereas the latter involves visits to buildings, historical sites and monuments.
Silberberg provided a common pattern of cultural heritage tourists (CHTs) [12]. This
study identified the CHT as one who earns more money and spends more money
while on vacation; spends more time in an area while on vacation; is more highly edu-
cated than the general public; is more likely to be female than male and tends to be
in an older age category. Lee, on the other hand, examined the demographic vari-
ables of the tourists and investigated the specific characteristics of an individual’s trip
and past travel experiences [13]. His study analyzed the relationship between expe-
rience and attachment to the place. It is worth noting that these are dependent on
peoples’ decisions to travel and are formed consciously or unconsciously in a two-
stage sequence [14]. Many studies on tourist attitudes have been performed by en-
hancing knowledgeable instruments in order to research more deeply and thus reveal
new relationships [15].
    Mahirah et al., estimated the WTP of the tourists for UNESCO World Heritage Sites
(WHS) [10]. A contingent valuation method was used for this study. The results showed
that public involvement in tourism services has a positive influence on the protection of
cultural heritage, as well as on the development of local communities. ‘’It has been
supported that motive is the internal push factor that initiates the desire of the individual
to engage in tourism activity to satisfy various needs’’ [16].


   3. Research methodology

    This study is based on a quantitative methodology and analyzed the results ob-
tained from a well-prepared questionnaire. A sample of 220 respondents’ interviews
was completed between November and December 2019 through a simple random
sampling technique. Twenty of those interviews were conducted in October 2019 as
a pre-test using an open-ended question format. The main purpose of the pre-testing




                                                                                                  Conservation science in Cultural Heritage
was to allow respondents to elaborate and so improve the divisions in the main re-
search session. This provides clearer willingness to pay estimates and eradicates
confusion or field survey problems [17,18]. These 20 questionnaires were not in-
cluded in the final study. Only 200 questionnaires were used for the final analysis.
The data of 200 respondents were collected during November and December 2019.
In the final questionnaire, the questions were converted into a closed-ended type
so as to be time-efficient and avoid the questionnaire being too long. The interviews
were conducted in both languages (i.e. English and Urdu) and the questions were
presented directly to the respondent to minimize misunderstanding of the question-
naire itself.
    The research focused on the two major heritage sites in Lahore (the Badshahi
Mosque and the Royal Fort). A map of the study area is shown in Figure 2. Selection of
the respondents was based on approaching every tenth person going back home after
completing their visit; most of the respondents were targeted at the exit point. Data
collection was carried out from 11 am to 2 pm or from 4 pm to 7 pm every day. The more
educated tourists were positive (90%) about responding, with only a few tourists refus-
ing to take part in the survey.
    This study employs the contingent valuation method (CVM) which is a survey-based
economic technique to measure the WTP. Using the contingent valuation method
highlights the market valuation of a non-market good to compute total preservation
value. The contingent valuation method (CVM) contains both components of use and


                                                                                                127
                                                                                                                                  non-use [19]. The principle of contingent valuation was used for gathering the data of a
M.H. Mahboob, M. Ashfaq, R.A. Khan, Y. Kamal, A.A. Humayon - Tourists’ attitude towards cultural heritage and their willingness



                                                                                                                                  tourist’s willingness to pay for visiting the cultural heritage. It was completed for all
                                                                                                                                  contingent-valuation questioning arrangements; dichotomous-choice questions were
                                                                                                                                  included in the survey by presenting contributors with a contingent market. The ex-
                                                                                                                                  ceptional feature of the dichotomous-choice question is that respondents were asked
                                                                                                                                  if they would pay a flat sum of money for the item being evaluated or not, responses
                                                                                                                                  taken as dependent variable (yes or no) [20]. Among other studies of WTP, this was
                                                                                                                                  one of the methods employed [21,22].




                                                                                                                                               Figure 2. Map of study area: Badshahi Mosque and the Royal Fort.


                                                                                                                                      Tourists’ WTP was estimated through two different models, binary logistic regres-
                                                                                                                                  sion and ordinary least square (OLS). Factors affecting the tourists’ WTP are given in
                                                                                                                                  Figure 3. Logistic regression was used in accordance with circumstances in which the
                                                                                                                                  practical outcome for the explained variable (Y) can have only two probable types. This
                                                                                                                                  model was chosen due to its capability to pact with a dichotomous explained variable
                                                                                                                                  and deep-rooted theoretical background [23,24]. Meleddu & Pulina investigated the
                                                                                                                                  individual’s willingness to pay for tourism and used it on quantitative data and applied
                                                                                                                                  the logistic model [25]. On the other hand, the ordinary least square (OLS) method
                                                                                                                                  uses the values of an explained variable (Y) and other values of the explanatory vari-
                                                                                                                                  ables (X). The values of an explained variable are defined as a linear relationship of the
                                                                                                                                  explanatory variables adding an error term (εᵢ).


                                                                                              128
                          Figure 3: Factors affecting tourists’ WTP.


   The equations of both models are given below respectively.

   Y = Β0 + β1D1 + β2 X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β5X5 +εᵢ                        (i)
   Yi = bo + biDi + biXi + μi                                           (ii)

    Where Y = Final bid (Dependent variable), Yi = Dichotomous variable (Yes and No)
    Bis = Coefficients to be determined, D1 = Gender & Environmental Issues (1, 0)
    Xi = Independent variables like age, income, total cost
    The surveyed data were used to analyze the socio-economic characteristics of the
tourists through MS Excel and the econometric techniques were applied to estimate
the WTP of the tourists through statistical package (SPSS v. 21).



   4. Findings and analysis




                                                                                               Conservation science in Cultural Heritage
    The results relating to tourists’ socio-economic characteristics are given in Table 1.
It shows that there were a higher number of male tourists (60%) than female tourists
(40%). Nunkoo & Gursoy claimed that in general female tourists support tourism less
than male tourists [26]. As regards the age group of the tourists, the majority were in
the age group ranging from 16-25 (42.5%), while the percentage of other tourists’ age
groups were respectively 33.5%, 14% and 9%, according to the answers obtained
from the open-ended question. Of the sample, 12.5% were those who had studied or
were currently studying in schools, 34.5% were from colleges and a high percentage
(53%) was from universities. The level of education of the tourists was not taken into
consideration in the estimation of WTP; furthermore, the higher level of education of
the tourists shows they have a positive attitude toward tourism [27]. Over 55% were
married and 45% were single. The categories according to their occupation included a
high percentage of students (35.5%); 18% were public servants, 21% worked privately,
6.5% were retired, 13% were self-employed and 6% were unemployed. Students were
found to be the most interested in visiting cultural heritage. According to income level,
the majority of the tourists, 52% belonged to the middle-income bracket, 15% were in
the low-income bracket, 13.5% were average and 19.5% belonged to the higher in-
come level. Income level is a key determinant in this study because income level plays
an important role in tourists’ WTP. The majority of the tourists were predominantly local
86.5% and 13.5% were foreigners.


                                                                                             129
                                                                                                                                  Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents (tourists)
M.H. Mahboob, M. Ashfaq, R.A. Khan, Y. Kamal, A.A. Humayon - Tourists’ attitude towards cultural heritage and their willingness




                                                                                                                                             Tourist profile                  Frequency                   Percentage (%)
                                                                                                                                                                                Gender
                                                                                                                                  •   Male                                        120                          60
                                                                                                                                  •   Female                                       80                          40
                                                                                                                                                                                  Age
                                                                                                                                  •   16 – 25                                      85                         42.5
                                                                                                                                  •   26 – 35                                      67                         33.5
                                                                                                                                  •   36 – 45                                      30                          15
                                                                                                                                  •   46 or above                                  18                          9
                                                                                                                                                                            Education level
                                                                                                                                  •   School                                       25                         12.5
                                                                                                                                  •   College                                      69                         34.5
                                                                                                                                  •   University                                  106                          53
                                                                                                                                                                             Marital status
                                                                                                                                  •   Single                                       90                          45
                                                                                                                                  •   Married                                     110                          55
                                                                                                                                                                              Occupation
                                                                                                                                  •   Student                                      71                         35.5
                                                                                                                                  •   Public servant                               36                          18
                                                                                                                                  •   Private employee                             42                          21
                                                                                                                                  •   Pensioner                                    13                          6.5
                                                                                                                                  •   Self-employed                                26                          13
                                                                                                                                  •   Unemployed                                   12                           6
                                                                                                                                                                             Income level
                                                                                                                                  •   Low                                          30                          15
                                                                                                                                  •   Middle                                      104                          52
                                                                                                                                  •   Average                                      27                         13.5
                                                                                                                                  •   Higher than average                          39                         19.5
                                                                                                                                                                       Tourist residence status
                                                                                                                                  •   National                                    173                         86.5
                                                                                                                                  •   International                                27                         13.5


                                                                                                                                       Of the sample, tourists’ pre-visit analyses are given in Table 2. An almost equal
                                                                                                                                  percentage of tourists gathered information about their destination from the Internet
                                                                                                                                  and family/friends (37%-37.5%); 10.5% from newspapers, 12.5% from TV and 2.5%
                                                                                                                                  tourists learned about it from co-workers/colleagues. 44% of the tourists made the
                                                                                                                                  decision to travel of their own accord, 31% were those who came on the suggestion of
                                                                                                                                  family members, and 25% came through friends. Today, technology is accessible to
                                                                                                                                  everyone, so people obtain information through social media/internet, etc. The major-
                                                                                                                                  ity of tourists, i.e. 40%, came to visit to make it memorable, 8% were those who wanted
                                                                                                                                  to experience cultural heritage, 18.5% were already familiar with the place and 33.5%
                                                                                                                                  came due to the popularity of the place. The tourists were well-educated and pos-
                                                                                                                                  sessed a good understanding and knowledge about cultural heritage sites; therefore,


                                                                                              130
they probably visited for a variety of reasons. This type of cultural tourist is a prominent
typology nowadays and generally seeks a deep cultural experience of diverse cultures
or heritage [28]. Familiarity with the place also encourages people to visit [29]. Lank-
ford & Howard indicated that tourists who have greater familiarity with the place or are
more knowledgeable about tourism are more favorable [30]. There are also other au-
thors who have reached the same conclusion [31,32]. Only 8% came alone to visit the
heritage site; an almost equal percentage of tourists came with friends (35.5%) and in
groups or trips organized by educational institutes (37.5%) and 19% came with their
families. As for tourists’ motivation to go on holiday, 35% wanted to have a positive
change in mood, 12% wanted to decrease their stress level, 26.5% had a desire to
explore new places, 9.5% came to spend time with family members or friends and 17%
were interested in meeting new people. The tourists’ motivation to visit cultural heritage
was explored [33]. Results have shown that tourists go on holiday to have a positive
change in mood and also to decrease stress levels.

Table 2. Tourists’ attitude toward cultural heritage (pre-visit analysis)

                      Tourists’ attitude                       Frequency        Percentage
                                         Pre-tour analysis
                              Information acquisition before travel
•   Newspaper                                                      21              10.5
•   TV                                                             25              12.5
•   Internet                                                       74              37
•   Friends/family                                                 75              37.5
•   Co-workers/colleagues                                           5               2.5
                                      Travel decision maker
•   Tourist themselves                                             88              44
•   Family                                                         62              31




                                                                                                    Conservation science in Cultural Heritage
•   Friends                                                        50              25
                                        Reasons for Travel
•   To make it memorable                                           80              40
•   To have experience of cultural heritage                        16               8
•   Familiarity with the place                                     37              18.5
•   Popularity of place                                            67              33.5
•   Who is with you during this visit?
•   Alone                                                          16               8
•   Friend                                                         71              35.5
•   Group/trips                                                    75              37.5
•   Family                                                         38              19
                                   Motivation to go on holiday
•   To have a positive change                                      70              35
•   To decrease stress                                             24              12
•   To explore new places/heritage                                 53              26.5
•   To spend time with family and friends                          19               9.5
•   To meet new people                                             34              17

     Tourists’ attitude has been the focal point of many studies that have examined the
different factors that influence such an attitude [34]. The results of tourists’ post-visit at-


                                                                                                  131
                                                                                                                                  titude are given in Table 3. The majority of tourists 93.5% agreed that both sites had a
M.H. Mahboob, M. Ashfaq, R.A. Khan, Y. Kamal, A.A. Humayon - Tourists’ attitude towards cultural heritage and their willingness



                                                                                                                                  strong attraction as tourist destinations, 91% would like to visit again, 94.5% were
                                                                                                                                  satisfied with their visit. Tourist satisfaction also substantiated the factor of tourists’
                                                                                                                                  WTP [35], and most importantly, more than half of the tourists were satisfied with the
                                                                                                                                  management of the Badshahi Mosque and the Royal Fort.

                                                                                                                                  Table 3. Tourists’ attitude toward cultural heritage (post-visit analysis)


                                                                                                                                      Post-visit analysis                                                                 Yes     No
                                                                                                                                  •     Are both cultural heritage sites attractive for tourists?                         93.5%   6.5%
                                                                                                                                  •     Would you like to return to this destination?                                     91%     9%
                                                                                                                                  •     Are you satisfied with your visit?                                                94.5%   5.5%
                                                                                                                                  •     Are you satisfied with the way Management conserve cultural heritage?             67%     33%

                                                                                                                                     Tourist expenditure was the significant factor of the visit; this is the factor that sup-
                                                                                                                                  ports local industry or builds opportunities for unemployed people. A descriptive break-
                                                                                                                                  down is given in Table 4. Average spending on transportation was 13081.4 PKR; food
                                                                                                                                  and beverages resulted in a mean value of 1408.9; accommodation expenses were
                                                                                                                                  2770; shopping was 1267.7 and other costs including tickets were 646PKR.

                                                                                                                                  Table 4. Description of travel costs for visiting tourists

                                                                                                                                                       Costs (PKR)                                  Mean (Standard Deviation)

                                                                                                                                                •   Transportation                                      13081.4 (27371.9)
                                                                                                                                                •   Food and beverages                                  1408.9 (1246.1)
                                                                                                                                                •   Accommodation                                       2770 (5424.6)
                                                                                                                                                •   Shopping                                            1267.7 (1390.3)
                                                                                                                                                •   Other costs                                         646 (881.1)
                                                                                                                                                •   Total cost/expenditure                              19174 (34981.5)


                                                                                                                                      Tourists’ opinions about improvements at cultural heritage sites and an analysis
                                                                                                                                  of their WTP are given in Table 5. Almost a quarter of the tourists suggested that
                                                                                                                                  walking tracks, hospitality issues and traffic safety should be improved; 17% and
                                                                                                                                  7.5% of the tourists respectively, suggested that plantation or greenery and cleanli-
                                                                                                                                  ness are much required here. This is consistent with other studies that state people
                                                                                                                                  are generally willing to pay more for cultural heritage if there is a well-kept, orderly
                                                                                                                                  and user-friendly environment at cultural heritage sites [36,37]. There were several
                                                                                                                                  options given to tourists who came to visit Lahore regarding the amount they were
                                                                                                                                  asked to pay and how much they were WTP. The majority of the tourists agreed to
                                                                                                                                  pay 20PKR, 23% were willing to pay 40PKR; 13.5% were satisfied to pay 60PKR and
                                                                                                                                  a good number 27%, were those who agreed they would pay more than 60PKR.
                                                                                                                                  When tourists were asked if they were willing to pay for a cultural heritage visit, more
                                                                                                                                  than half (83.5%) of the tourists agreed they would like to pay for a visit to see the
                                                                                                                                  cultural heritage [38].


                                                                                                   132
Table 5. Summary of tourists’ opinions about improvements at cultural heritage sites and WTP

    What type of improvement would you like to see at            Frequency         Percentages
    this destination?
•    Walking tracks                                                 52                    26
•    Plantation or greenery                                         34                    17
•    Hospitality                                                    50                    25
•    Traffic safety                                                 49                    24.5
•    Cleanliness/bathrooms                                          15                     7.5
                                   How much are you WTP?
•    Up to 20rs.                                                    73                    36.5
•    Up to 40rs.                                                    46                    23
•    Up to 60rs.                                                    27                    13.5
•    More than 60rs.                                                54                    27
                                        Are you WTP?
•    Yes                                                           167                    83.5
•    No                                                             33                    16.5

     Results of the binary regression and OLS are given in Table 6, where age nega-
tively related with WTP as age increases, the WTP of the tourists goes down, but here
age is not a significant determinant of the WTP. Studies about the age factor are mixed
and probably ambiguous. Kuvan and Akan, as well as Ritchie, observed in their study
that younger tourists had a positive relationship compared to older age groups [39,40];
there are also studies that show older visitors had a positive attitude towards tourism
[41,42]. Income is the significant determinant in both models as the income level goes
up, which also encourages tourists to pay more. For the most part, income level has a
positive association with WTP [1]. Total cost has a negative relationship with WTP in




                                                                                                   Conservation science in Cultural Heritage
both models, but is only significant in binary regression, which indicates that as the
total expenditure of the tourist increases, the WTP of male/female tourists goes down.
Finally, environment is also a key factor for tourists’ WTP, and indicates a negative re-
lationship with their WTP; also significant is if the environment is unsuitable or is not up
to the mark according to tourists’ expectations, which means they would probably like
to pay less for the visit. Many studies with similar findings noted that tourists’ WTP to
visit cultural heritage sites depended on the money spent on sustainability, improvement
and conservation [43,44]. In the findings of Teo et al., it was shown that environmental
concerns have a significant relationship with cultural heritage tourism [45].

Table 6. Results of the logistic model and OLS

                   Variables                     Binary logistic                   OLS
              Dependent variable                 WTP (Yes/No)                    Final bid
•    Age                                  -.0062 (.02) ns                .024 (.058) ns
•    Income                                .00013 (.00003) ***           .00042 (.000034) ***
•    Total cost                           -.000067 (.00002) *            .000009 (.000060) ns
•    Environment issue                    -.0013 (.001) *             -.005 (.001) ***

   Note: standard error in parenthesis (R-square .63). Note: significant level *ρ<0.05,
**ρ<0.01, ***ρ<0.001, ρns>0.05


                                                                                                 133
                                                                                                                                        5. Conclusion and Implications
M.H. Mahboob, M. Ashfaq, R.A. Khan, Y. Kamal, A.A. Humayon - Tourists’ attitude towards cultural heritage and their willingness




                                                                                                                                       Several studies have examined many aspects relating to tourists’ attitude towards
                                                                                                                                  cultural heritage and also estimated their willingness to pay. Lahore’s cultural heritage,
                                                                                                                                  (i.e. the Badshahi Mosque and the Royal Fort), has the potential to attract tourists from
                                                                                                                                  all over the world due to its historical background. This study provides an appreciation
                                                                                                                                  of this cultural heritage and assesses tourists’ attitude towards visiting the sites and
                                                                                                                                  also estimates their willingness to pay for the visit. A contingent valuation method was
                                                                                                                                  used to estimate the WTP of the tourists for both destinations. Male tourists were those
                                                                                                                                  who were the most attracted towards cultural heritage; younger tourists came in high
                                                                                                                                  numbers; and educated people were those who had a greater interest in visiting. The
                                                                                                                                  major determinant in tourists’ WTP was their income level; consequently, tourists with
                                                                                                                                  a good level of income visit the destinations. Badshahi Mosque and the Royal Fort not
                                                                                                                                  only attract local tourists they also attract foreign tourists. Social media and internet
                                                                                                                                  play an important role in tourists’ interest in visiting cultural heritage sites, because
                                                                                                                                  many tourists obtain information through the internet and TV. Most tourists preferred
                                                                                                                                  travelling in the company of friends or family and to make decisions about the journey
                                                                                                                                  themselves. Tourists do not just come for fun, they come with the sole purpose of mak-
                                                                                                                                  ing the cultural heritage visit memorable, regardless of whether they are coming for the
                                                                                                                                  first time or have visited several times. The popularity of the place is also a vital factor
                                                                                                                                  which encourages tourists to visit. Tourists are motivated in different ways and their
                                                                                                                                  attitude towards cultural heritage varies when deciding what heritage site to visit [35].
                                                                                                                                  Tourists come in large numbers and their spending is another key element in their at-
                                                                                                                                  titude and visit. Tourist’s WTP is not just determined by their socio-economic or demo-
                                                                                                                                  graphic characteristics but rather by their attitude, actions and their motivation. In this case,
                                                                                                                                  tourists were more willing to pay for cultural heritage if they knew the money went to-
                                                                                                                                  wards cultural heritage conservation and providing better facilities. Tourists’ WTP was
                                                                                                                                  estimated through two different models, i.e. binary regression and OLS, using several
                                                                                                                                  variables, including income, total cost and environmental issues to show how they af-
                                                                                                                                  fected tourists’ WTP; overall, the explanatory power of the model was also good (63%).
                                                                                                                                       Most tourists were young and educated; this indicates that tourism planners need
                                                                                                                                  to start a tourism curriculum in schools and colleges and to involve local residents and
                                                                                                                                  national organizations. Understanding tourists’ attitudes is also a useful tool in making
                                                                                                                                  marketing decisions. Tourists’ attitude towards cultural heritage, especially with regards
                                                                                                                                  to Badshahi Mosque and the Royal Fort also depends on the authorities [38]. Tourists’
                                                                                                                                  spending during their visit can help local businesses and industry (e.g. hotels, handi-
                                                                                                                                  crafts, local products and transportation) to flourish and make a profit. A large number
                                                                                                                                  of tourists get information from websites; it is recommended that the official websites
                                                                                                                                  for tourism departments update their information on a regular basis to facilitate tourist
                                                                                                                                  travel. Tourists from other countries and continents also visit these sites, so they may
                                                                                                                                  help to enhance the balance of payment (BOP) through offering improved facilitation.
                                                                                                                                  Furthermore, the income earned from tourism should be reinvested to “educate” tour-
                                                                                                                                  ists on the importance of preserving the environment and cultural heritage.


                                                                                                                                        References

                                                                                                                                  [1]    Chen, W. Y. (2015). Public willingness-to-pay for conserving urban heritage trees
                                                                                                                                         in Guangzhou, south China. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 796-805.


                                                                                                134
[2]    Hardy, D. 1988. Historical geography and heritage studies. Area, 333-338.
[3]    Millar, S. 1989. Heritage management for heritage tourism. Tourism management,
       10(1):9-14.
[4]    Mokhlis, S. 2009. Malaysian Chinese consumers: Their ethnic attitudes and shop-
       ping orientations. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(11):53.
[5]    Dora, D.V. (2012) Setting and blurring boundaries: Pilgrims, tourists, and land-
       scape in Mount Athos and Meteora. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2):951-974.
[6]    Vander Stoep, G. A. 1998. Perceptions and status of Michigan as a heritage tour-
       ism state: results of an eleven-month telephone survey.
[7]    Tigu, G., & Arsene, O. (2008). Redefining Romania as tourism destination: a stra-
       tegic approach. CONTENT/KAZALO 2/2008, 32.
[8]    Meler, M., and Z. Cerovic. 2003. Food marketing in the function of tourist product
       development. British Food Journal, 105(3):175-192.
[9]    McKercher, B. and Du Cros, H. 2002. Cultural Tourism: The Partnership Between
       Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management, New York: The Haworth Press.
[10]   Mahirah, K., Nazatul, F. H., & Mohd, A. S. R. (2020). Tourists’ Preferences for Pres-
       ervation of World Heritage Site Stadthuys, Malacca. Journal of Environmental
       Management and Tourism, 11(2), 281-289.
[11]   Hall, C. M., & Zeppel, H. (1990). History, architecture, environment: Cultural her-
       itage and tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 29(2), 54-55.
[12]   Silberberg, T. (1995). Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums
       and heritage sites. Tourism Management, 16(5), 361-365.
[13]   Lee, C. (1999). Investigating tourist attachment to selected coastal destination:
       An application of place attachment. Clemson University.
[14]   Kim, S. S., Wong, K. K. F., and Cho, M. (2007). Assessing the economic value of a
       world heritage site and willingness-to-pay determinants:
[15]   Kuvan, Y. and Akan, P. (2005) Residents’ attitudes toward general and forest-relat-
       ed impacts of tourism: The case of Belek, Antalya, Tourism Management, 26(5),




                                                                                                 Conservation science in Cultural Heritage
       pp. 691–706.
[16]   Schiffman, L. G., & Leslie, L. K. (2000). Consumer Behaviour (7 ed.). New Jersey:
       Prentice-Hall.
[17]   Halstead, J. M., Lindsay, B. E., & Brown, C. M. (1991). Use of the Tobit model in
       contingent valuation: experimental evidence from the Pemigewasset Wilderness
       Area. Journal of Environmental Management, 33(1), 79-89.
[18]   Ransom, K. P., & Mangi, S. C. (2010). Valuing recreational benefits of coral reefs:
       The case of Mombasa Marine National Park and Reserve, Kenya. Environmental
       management, 45(1), 145-154.
[19]   Echeverria, T. W. 1995. Sea-ice conditions and the distribution of walleye pollock
       (Theragra chalcogramma) on the Bering and Chukchi Sea shelf. Canadian Spe-
       cial Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 131-136.
[20]   Carson, R.T., 2000. Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environ. Sci. Technol.
       34 (8), 1413–1418. case of Changdeok Palace. Tourism Management, 28(1),
       317–322.
[21]   Mahboob, M. H., Ashfaq, M., Humayon, A. A., & KAN, M. (2020). Tourists Attitude
       towards Cultural Heritage and Halal Products: A Case Study of Lahore. Journal
       of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 24(2), 1-8.
[22]   Bishop, R., & Heberlein, T. (1979). Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are
       Indirect Measures Biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(5),
       926-930. doi:10.2307/3180348


                                                                                               135
                                                                                                                                  [23] Alberini, A. 1995. Efficiency vs bias of willingness-to-pay estimates: bivariate and
M.H. Mahboob, M. Ashfaq, R.A. Khan, Y. Kamal, A.A. Humayon - Tourists’ attitude towards cultural heritage and their willingness



                                                                                                                                       interval-data models. Journal of environmental economics and management,
                                                                                                                                       29(2):169-180.
                                                                                                                                  [24] Kanninen, B. J. 1995. Bias in discrete response contingent valuation. Journal of
                                                                                                                                       environmental economics and management, 28(1):114-125.
                                                                                                                                  [25] Meleddu, M., and M. Pulina. 2016. Evaluation of individuals’ intention to pay a
                                                                                                                                       premium price for ecotourism: An exploratory study. Journal of Behavioral and
                                                                                                                                       Experimental Economics, 65:67-78.
                                                                                                                                  [26] Nunkoo, R., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Residents’ support for tourism: An identity per-
                                                                                                                                       spective. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 243-268.
                                                                                                                                  [27] Haralambopoulos, N., & Pizam, A. (1996). Perceived impacts of tourism: The
                                                                                                                                       case of Samos. Annals of tourism Research, 23(3), 503-526.
                                                                                                                                  [28] McKercher, B. (2002), Towards a classification of cultural tourists. Int. J. Tourism
                                                                                                                                       Res., 4: 29-38. doi:10.1002/jtr.346
                                                                                                                                  [29] Mark Morrison & David John Dowell (2015) Sense of Place and Willingness
                                                                                                                                       to Pay: Complementary Concepts When Evaluating Contributions of Cultural
                                                                                                                                       Resources to Regional Communities, Regional Studies, 49:8,1374-1386, DOI:
                                                                                                                                       10.1080/00343404.2013.827335
                                                                                                                                  [30] Lankford S.V. Howard D.R. (1994). Developing a Tourism Impact Attitude Scale.
                                                                                                                                       In: Annals of Tourism Research 21(1) pp. 121–139.
                                                                                                                                  [31] Davis C. A., Noble-Topham S. E., Rossant J., and Joyner A. L. (1988) Expression
                                                                                                                                       of the homeobox-containing gene En-2 delineates a specific region ofthe devel-
                                                                                                                                       oping mouse brain. Genes Dcv. 2, 361-371.
                                                                                                                                  [32] Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents’
                                                                                                                                       perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of tourism research, 32(4),
                                                                                                                                       1056-1076.
                                                                                                                                  [33] Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2004). Links between Tourists, Heritage, and Rea-
                                                                                                                                       sons for Visiting Heritage Sites. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 19–28; https://
                                                                                                                                       doi.org/10.1177/0047287504265508
                                                                                                                                  [34] Akis, S., Peristianis, N., & Warner, J. (1996). Residents’ attitudes to tourism devel-
                                                                                                                                       opment: the case of Cyprus. Tourism management, 17(7), 481-494.
                                                                                                                                  [35] Kerstetter, D. L., Confer, J. J., and Graefe, A. R. (2001). An exploration of the spe-
                                                                                                                                       cialization concept within the context of heritage tourism. Journal of Travel Re-
                                                                                                                                       search 39(3), 267-274.
                                                                                                                                  [36] Togridou, A., Hovardas, T., & Pantis, J. D. (2006). Determinants of visitors’ willing-
                                                                                                                                       ness to pay for the National Marine Park of Zakynthos, Greece. Ecological Eco-
                                                                                                                                       nomics, 60(1), 308-319.
                                                                                                                                  [37] Petrosillo, I., Zurlini, G., Corliano, M. E., Zaccarelli, N., & Dadamo, M. (2007). Tour-
                                                                                                                                       ist perception of recreational environment and management in a marine pro-
                                                                                                                                       tected area. Landscape and urban planning, 79(1), 29-37
                                                                                                                                  [38] Mahboob, M. H., Ashfaq, M., Humayon, A. A., & KAN, M. (2020). Tourists Attitude
                                                                                                                                       towards Cultural Heritage and Halal Products: A Case Study of Lahore. Journal
                                                                                                                                       of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 24(2), 1-8.
                                                                                                                                  [39] Kuvan, Y. and Akan, P. (2005) Residents’ attitudes toward general and forest-re-
                                                                                                                                       lated impacts of tourism: The case of Belek, Antalya, Tourism Management, 26(5),
                                                                                                                                       pp. 691–706.
                                                                                                                                  [40] Ritchie, J. B. (1988). Consensus policy formulation in tourism: Measuring resident
                                                                                                                                       views via survey research. Tourism management, 9(3), 199-212.
                                                                                                                                  [41] King, B., Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Social impacts of tourism: Host percep-
                                                                                                                                       tions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(4), 650–665.


                                                                                                136
[42] Tomljenovic, R., & Faulkner, B. (2000). Tourism and older residents in a Sunbelt
     Resort. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(1), 93–114.
[43] Reynisdottir, M., Song, H., & Agrusa, J. (2008). Willingness to pay entrance fees
     to natural attractions: An Icelandic case study. Tourism Management, 29(6),
     1076-1083.
[44] Kim, S. S., Wong, K. K. F., and Cho, M. (2007). Assessing the economic value of
     a world heritage site and willingness-to-pay determinants in Tourism management,
     v.28, no.1, p.317-322. Pergamon Press.
[45] Teo, C.B.C., Abdul Rahim, F., Khan, N.R., Chuah, S.C., and Hassan, F.H. (2011),
     Assessing tourists’ attitude towards responsible cultural heritage tourism.


   Biographical notes

    Muhammad Hassan Mahboob works in several universities as a visiting lecturer
of Economics. He is currently working as a visiting lecturer at Muhammad Nawaz Sharif
University of Agriculture, Multan & University of Education Vehari Campus. He has com-
pleted a post-graduate degree in Economics at UAF (2018). He has published several
research papers on tourism, cultural heritage, waste management and recycling, and a
book chapter as well. He is at present working on some research papers. His main areas
of interest are tourism perspectives and waste management.

    Muhammad Ashfaq works as a Professor at the University of Agriculture, Faisala-
bad, Pakistan. He has more than 30 years of teaching and research experience. He
has supervised 12 PhD students and more than 150 MS/M.Phil students. He has pub-
lished 5 books and more than 100 research articles in peer-reviewed journals. He has
organized and participated in many international workshops, seminars and confer-
ences. He has also won many grants from various national and international agencies




                                                                                           Conservation science in Cultural Heritage
and completed more than 25 research projects. The Australian High Commission award-
ed him the ‘Australian Alumni Excellence Award in 2013 for Innovation and Research,
Pakistan’.

    Rao Aamir Khan works at COMSATS University, Islamabad, Pakistan, as an As-
sistant professor in the Department of management sciences. He has done a Ph.D. in
Project Management from chair of project management University of Kassel. He earned
his European master’s in project management from the University of Applied Sciences
and Arts, Dortmund. Dr. Khan has many research publications in the areas of manage-
ment, culture, ethics, social responsibility, quality management, risk management and
project management. Dr. Khan also teaches courses at the University of Kassel and
FH Dortmund University in Germany.

    Yasir Kamal is an Associate Professor of Finance & International Trade and has
worked at IM Sciences, Peshawar for the last 11 years. He got his PhD in 2008 with
distinction He has expertise in financial modeling, international trade, and economic
policies and has 17 years of experience in the corporate sector, teaching and in re-
search. He has served in important positions at the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of
Commerce, SZABIST and the Institute of Management Sciences. He also has strong
national and international institutional links, which include, SDPI, SPDC, PIDE, GIZ,
World Bank and Planning Commission.


                                                                                         137
                                                                                                                                      Asad Afzal Humayon is the Ex-head of the Management Sciences Department,
M.H. Mahboob, M. Ashfaq, R.A. Khan, Y. Kamal, A.A. Humayon - Tourists’ attitude towards cultural heritage and their willingness



                                                                                                                                  COMSATS, Vehari (1 August 2013-14 to June 2016). He has more than 10 years of
                                                                                                                                  teaching and research experience. He has supervised 15 PhD and MS/M. Phil. students.
                                                                                                                                  He has published several books and more than 100 research articles in peer-reviewed
                                                                                                                                  journals. He has organized and participated in many international workshops, semi-
                                                                                                                                  nars and conferences. He has also won many grants from various national and inter-
                                                                                                                                  national agencies and completed more than 7 research projects.


                                                                                                                                     Summary

                                                                                                                                       Tourists’ interest in traveling to Lahore (more specifically to the Badshahi Mosque
                                                                                                                                  and the Royal fort) has increased in recent years and is expected to continue. Despite
                                                                                                                                  this, very few facts are known about an individual’s attitude towards cultural heritage.
                                                                                                                                  This study looks at the pre- and post- visit factors that encourage tourists to come to the
                                                                                                                                  cultural heritage sites and also identifies variables that help to estimate their willingness
                                                                                                                                  to pay (WTP) for admission to visit them. The data from 200 tourists was collected
                                                                                                                                  through a well-prepared questionnaire and then used in the final analysis. The contin-
                                                                                                                                  gent valuation method (CVM), considered to be the most useful, with a dichotomous
                                                                                                                                  choice question, was used to estimate the WTP. Two models were used in estimating
                                                                                                                                  the WTP, i.e. binary regression and ordinary least squares (OLS). The findings acknowl-
                                                                                                                                  edged that tourists were interested in retaining happy memories, experiences and knowl-
                                                                                                                                  edge through the visit. More than 75% of the tourists were willing to pay for cultural heri-
                                                                                                                                  tage, had a positive attitude toward it and would like to visit these destinations again.
                                                                                                                                  Tourists’ income was a positive and significant determiner of WTP; the total cost of the
                                                                                                                                  visit and environmental issues were negatively related to WTP. As tourism provides an
                                                                                                                                  important source of income, the findings of this study point to some practical recommen-
                                                                                                                                  dations that may be implemented in the future by local authorities.


                                                                                                                                     Riassunto

                                                                                                                                      L’interesse dei turisti a recarsi a Lahore (più specificamente alla moschea di Badshahi
                                                                                                                                  e al Forte reale) è aumentato negli ultimi anni e l’incremento dovrebbe continuare. Nono-
                                                                                                                                  stante ciò, si hanno pochissime informazioni sull’atteggiamento delle persone nei con-
                                                                                                                                  fronti del patrimonio culturale. Questo studio esamina i fattori pre e post visita che inco-
                                                                                                                                  raggiano i turisti a recarsi nei siti del patrimonio culturale e identifica anche variabili che
                                                                                                                                  aiutano a stimare la loro disponibilità a pagare (WTP) per visitarli. I dati di 200 turisti sono
                                                                                                                                  stati raccolti attraverso un questionario ben preparato e poi utilizzati nell’analisi finale.
                                                                                                                                  Il metodo di valutazione contingente (CVM), considerato il metodo più utile, con una
                                                                                                                                  domanda a scelta dicotomica, è stata utilizzato per stimare il WTP. Per la stima del WTP
                                                                                                                                  sono stati utilizzati due modelli, ovvero la regressione binaria e i minimi quadrati ordinari
                                                                                                                                  (OLS). I risultati hanno evidenziato che i turisti erano interessati a conservare ricordi,
                                                                                                                                  esperienze e conoscenze positive durante la visita. Più del 75% dei turisti è disposto a
                                                                                                                                  pagare per il patrimonio culturale, ha un atteggiamento positivo nei suoi confronti e vor-
                                                                                                                                  rebbe visitare nuovamente queste destinazioni. Il reddito dei turisti è stato un fattore
                                                                                                                                  positivo determinante e significativo del WTP; il costo totale della visita e le questioni
                                                                                                                                  ambientali erano correlate negativamente al WTP. Poiché il turismo fornisce un’impor-
                                                                                                                                  tante fonte di reddito, i risultati di questo studio forniscono alcune raccomandazioni pra-
                                                                                                                                  tiche che potrebbero essere implementate in futuro dalle autorità locali.


                                                                                                138
