Do intangible factors enhance sociocultural productivity and economy in World Heritage Sites?

María Martín Lucas¹Ana Leal-Solís¹Ángel Pizarro Polo²Rafael Robina-Ramírez^1*Libertad Moreno-Luna¹

• ¹Departamento de Negocios y Sociología, Universidad de Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain
• ²Department of Building, Universidad de Extremadura, Cáceres, Spain, Cáceres, Spain

Heritage sites, renowned for their cultural, historical, architectural and natural significance, attract visitors from all areas of the world (Sites, 2008). They not only contribute to local economies through tourism and cultural exchange (Cochrane & Tapper, 2006), but also define part of the productivity of urban spaces (Campoy-Muñoz, 2017;Rypkema, 2008).The factors that explain the productivity of urban areas remain difficult to measure and identify (Lobo et al., 2011). These factors depend on urban development models. Some urban models evaluate the level of productivity in terms of the economic density that such areas maintain (Ahlfeldt & Pietrostefani 2017). Others measure productivity in urban areas in cost reductions from improved communications (Glaeser, 2010) and the development of innovation in firms (Quigley, 1998).Sociocultural productivity in heritage site is directly connected to their designation as sites of cultural, historical, architectural scientific or natural heritage for their unique and significant value (Flores de León, Babere, & Swai, 2020). This heritage is not only tangible but also intangible, based on mythologies, and is a resource for the present (Ranwa, 2022;Su, 2020).This new approach to productivity in historic sites brings with it an added difficulty of balancing conservation and urban development (Puren & Jordaan, 2014). This balance is put at risk by the constant tourism challenges to which traditional sites are subjected (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2020;United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2020). This challenge involves investing in the education and cultural, historical or religious experiences (McKercher, 2002). These experiences generate emotions as a form of knowledge (d 'Hauteserre, 2015). However, how these emotions impact the productivity of historic environments has not yet been determined. Emotions are significant drivers of heritage tourism experiences (Medina-Viruel et al., 2019); how heritage tourism elicits positive (joy, happiness and pleasure) and negative (e.g. guilt, sadness and regret) emotions needs further research (Prayag & Del Chiappa, 2021).The role that emotions play in enhancing sociocultural productivity is also affected by several sociocultural factors. 1. The application of technological advances to maintain the integrity of historic environments through multimedia installations, narratives and interactive exhibits (Song & Selim, 2022). 2. Historical and cultural invigoration through: organizing cultural events, festivals and performances (Ebejer, 2019). 3. Community educational engagement triggering positive emotions associated with learning and discovery (Fan, 2014). Literature review Due to the importance of the tourism sector, international agencies have placed a high value on productivity analysis (Sliem et al., 2019). Urban WHSs have immense cultural, historical, architectural and economic importance and effectively contribute to local economies (Bowitz & Ibenholt, 2009). Economic productivity has been widely studied in the simplest dimension and measured through the number of visitors, tourism income, job creation and contribution to the local economy (Parte & Alberca, 2023;Loulanski, 2006;Petronela, 2016). Sociocultural productivity, in the context of urban WHS, goes beyond mere economic production (Caust & Vecco, 2017).The cultural and social productivity of an urban WHS is related to its ability to foster a sense of identity, pride and social cohesion among local communities (Tan & Tan, 2020;Folgado-Fernández et al., 2024). To measure this dimension, some studies have included the participation of local residents in cultural activities, educational programmes and community events related to the heritage site (Parga-Dans et al., 2020).This socio-cultural participation can be extended from residents to the parties that interact in the WHS, such as the local tourism administration, companies on the supply side and tourists (Moli, 2011). This interaction makes it possible to develop sociocultural tourism products that can be measured (McCamley, 2016). Sociocultural products also contribute to developing an identity, culture and heritage based on the historical and cultural revitalisation of said ancient spaces (Nocca, 2017). The study of the emotions generated by the experiences of employees working in heritage places offers very relevant information for the analysis of the productivity of these spaces. Hotel employees are first-hand witnesses to the day-to-day experiences at heritage sites and can provide more qualified information than tourists themselves by knowing how the attractiveness of these places' impacts on life within these historic spaces (Robina-Ramírez et al., 2023). Although emotions play an important role in the tourism experience, rigorous empirical research on this topic is limited (Hosany et al., 2020;Robina-Ramírez et al., 2023a). As Timothy (2021) noted, we know relatively little about the psychological and emotional underpinnings that drive WHS visitation.According to cognitive appraisal theory, emotions are mental states that result from the processing or evaluation of personally relevant information (Robina- Ramírez et al., 2020;Roseman et al., 1990). In particular, goal congruence as evaluation determines the emotional response (Hosany et al., 2020). Furthermore, several studies argue that a location's WHS status is an important aspect of its attractiveness (Nguyen & Cheung, 2014), but increased visitation as a result of being listed as a WHS can have negative impacts on the site's sustainability (Tarawneh & Wray, 2017).Cultural, historical and natural treasures are not mere physical landmarks, but repositories of stories and traditions that have shaped human civilisation by connecting visitors to their origins (Tung & Ritchie, 2011). When visitors explore venerable temples or ancient ruins, they may feel a sense of awe and reverence for the people who built these places (Salemink et al., 2020), beauty and joy (Nisbet & Zelenski, 2011) Urban heritage contributes significantly to the cultural identity of a city. For locals and tourists alike, these places often evoke feelings of belonging and pride (Butler et al., 2022;Folgado-Fernández, 2024). Locals may experience a deep sense of attachment, as their personal histories become intertwined with the city's history generating empathy and connection related to the achievements of past generations (Lang et al., 2023). This intertwining can give rise to a sense of nostalgia from the collective memories embedded in the architecture, streets and landmarks (Prayag & Del Chiappa, 2023).Fostering positive emotional connections can create a virtuous circle that benefits both visitors and workers at the sites themselves (Veetikazhi et al., 2023;Van Dijk & Kirk, 2008). When tourists connect emotionally with a site, they become advocates for its protection (Fang et al., 2021). This emotional investment can lead to increased awareness of the importance of sustainable tourism practices, ensuring that these sites remain intact for future generations.Based on what has been indicated so far, we can formulate hypothesis 1 (H1):H1: E positively affect P. Heritage sites are invaluable repositories of the evolution of human civilisation (Loulanski, 2006). These sites are not mere relics frozen in time, but dynamic entities that reflect the constantly changing interaction between culture, history, architecture and society (Hede, 2008).Heritage sites encapsulate moments that shaped societies and civilisations, allowing future generations to glimpse a distant era (Lowenthal, 2005). By maintaining these physical links to the past, heritage sites help individuals to better understand origins, achievements and challenges (Rouhi, 2017). These sites embody cultural practices, traditions and values that have been passed down through the generations (Vecco, 2010).Local communities and societies often derive a sense of pride and belonging from these sites (Jimura, 2018), facilitating interactions between diverse communities and fostering a greater appreciation of different cultures (Su & Wall, 2011). This cultural exchange enriches societies by broadening perspectives and promoting tolerance (Musitelli, 2002). The attractiveness of heritage sites has a significant impact on tourism, which in turn contributes to socio-economic development (Chong & Balasingam, 2019). The two hypotheses we can formulate are:H2: DHC positively affects E.H3. DHC positively affects educational dynamisation (DE). In recent years, there has been a growing interest in promoting responsible tourism and fostering a deeper understanding of these sites among local visitors (Leslie, 2012). To achieve this goal, tourism authorities play a crucial role in providing educational training programmes that enhance the experience of local visitors at heritage sites (Robina Ramírez & Fernández Portillo, 2020;Ritchie, 2003).Educational training programmes organised by tourism authorities at heritage sites provide opportunities for local visitors to connect with their own history and cultural identity (Timothy, 2011). Those programmes bridge this gap by providing knowledge beyond what is on display (Leask & Fyall, 2006).In preserving these sites, tourism authorities have a responsibility to promote responsible tourism practices among local visitors protecting the heritage sites of mass tourism (Pedersen, 2002).An enhanced visitor experience is at the heart of educational training programmes making heritage sites come alive for local visitors (Alazaizeh et al., 2019). The successful implementation of educational training programmes requires collaboration between tourism authorities, local communities, historians, archaeologists and educators. Based on the above, the following hypotheses can be formulated:H4. DE positively affects E.H5. DE positively affects P. To date, numerous studies have addressed the role of technology in urban areas by identifying new business opportunities (Graziano & Privitera, 2020;Koukopoulos et al., 2017).Heritage places do not only seek a consolidated, accessible and safe destination positioning (Santa-Cruz & López-Guzmán, 2017). In the continuous effort to improve customer engagement, the incorporation of technology is beginning to play an important role in improving visitor perception (Shafiee et al., 2022).In parallel, research on interactive technology design for the cultural sector has also shifted its focus to implementing digital forms to provide means of dialogue and community engagement around heritage (Ciolf et al., 2015). The quest for greater community engagement in the heritage sector has been encouraged by new possibilities offered by the advancement of digital technologies (Affleck & Kvan, 2008). In this scenario, cultural institutions seek to increase audience engagement with their collections and foster dialogue with their visitors, adopting more audience-centred practices (Simon, 2010).Technology co-design methodologies have also contributed to empowering cultural heritage professionals to enhance visitor experiences (Ciolf et al., 2016). In addition to the impact on heritage professionals, digital technologies are also having a significant impact in terms of supporting community participation and engagement in the cultural sector (Giaccardi, 2012). As a result, we have witnessed a proliferation of community-led cultural heritage initiatives that leverage platform solutions to manage cultural heritage (Giglitto, 2017). The hypotheses to be explored are:H6. T positively affects DHC.H7 T positively affects E.H8. T positively affects P. In order to study the socio-cultural productivity of the WHS, we turned to the two main sources of knowledge: (1) the tourism authorities of the 14 territories with heritage sites in Spain, and (2) the tourism companies operating in the historical destinations of the cities, specifically the hotels located within the heritage sites.On the basis of a pre-test, we analysed the validity of the variables that the literature defines as essential elements of socio-cultural productivity in heritage destinations. We contacted the senior positions in the tourism structure by email. The 14 territories agreed to send us the updated contacts of its manager hotels in the heritage sites.In order to adapt the indicators to the scope of this research, three focus groups were conducted with a total of 27 hotel employees. Most of the questions were modified in the focus groups. The questionnaires were approved through the "ethical clearance" process, informed by the University of Extremadura document 18-2023. The online questionnaire involved a short introduction and three distinct parts. The first part contained a set of factors measuring the productivity of WHSs. The second block included indicators related to the experiences derived from technological advances, as well as historical, cultural and educational dynamisation. The third part dealt with socio-demographic data that completed and closed the questions. The indicators can be seen in Table 1.Tabla 1. Constructs indicadors The data for this study were collected from hotel managers and employees of different departments in Spain by means of an online questionnaire. For the selection of the hotels, the research team approached the tourist agencies located in the vicinity of the heritage sites. Information was sent to a total of 114 hotels, 62 of which responded affirmatively. From the information obtained by the tourist agencies located in the vicinity of the 14 heritage cities, a total of 51 hotels were selected from which 597 valid questionnaires were obtained (see Table 2).Table 2. Population and sample The five variables analysed in the literature were taken into account for the elaboration of the model. The model presented in Figure 1 shows the indicators that were finally accepted, discarding those that were not significant.Figure 1. Model Partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), coupled with SmartPLS 4, provides tools for gauging the model's capacity to predict endogenous constructs (Hult et al., 2018). SEM techniques, including the PLS methodology, have gained popularity in analysing tourists' motivations due to several reasons that make them more suitable than traditional covariance-based SEM techniques in this context (Hair et al., 2011). Tourists' motivations are a complex and multifaceted aspect of behavioural research in the field of tourism and hospitality. The demographic analysis explains that of the 597 workers, 58% were women, 68% were under 35, 49% were married and 30% were single. The evaluation of a PLS-SEM reflective measurement model is a rigorous process that requires to ensure the reliability and validity the internal and external consistency of the model. External loadings represent the strength of the relationship between each latent variable and its indicators, whose value should be >0.7 (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). A considerable number of items were discarded (see Table 3).Table 3. LoadingsTo study the validity and reliability, we analysed the parameters listed in Table 4. The values range from 0 to 1 (Hair et al., 2011). All conditions are met. It is important to note that the Fornell-Larcker criterion only assesses discriminant validity indirectly, by comparing the average variance extracted and correlations (Henseler et al., 2011). This may affect the discriminant validity (see Table 5). The heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) was proposed by Henseler, Ringle and Sarstedt in 2015 as an alternative to the Fornell-Larcker criterion for assessing discriminant validity in PLS-SEM. The HTMT is based on comparing correlations between latent variables with indicators of each latent variable (Dash & Paul, 2021). If the HTMT< 0.90, there is discriminant validity between the two latent variables (see Table 6).Table 6. HTMT PLS-SEM is a versatile statistical approach that accommodates the nuances of complex models and latent constructs. PLS-SEM thrives in the realm of relationships, enabling researchers to dissect causal connections and indirect effects. Hypothesis formulation is a foundational step in the research process, guiding investigations and providing a roadmap for analysis. In hypothesis testing, p-values and significant t-test are recommended (Cepeda-Carrión et al., 2018). Six out of eight hypothesis are significant (see Table 7). A fundamental concept within PLS-SEM is the coefficient of determination, (R²), which represents the proportion of variance explained in the endogenous constructs. The values for this model were found to be 0.67, 0.33 and 0.10, substantial, moderate, and weak, respectively (Chin, 1998; Table 8).Table 8. R-squareTo measure the fit of the model, several indicators were set. (1) The standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) measures the discrepancy between the observed correlation matrices and the correlation matrices estimated by the model (Dash & Paul, 2021). An SRMR value of less than 0.08 indicates a good model fit. In this case, 0.073 is accepted. (2) d_ULS and d_G evaluates the discrepancy between the observed and predicted covariance matrices.(3) The chi-square (χ²) compares the observed covariance matrix with the covariance matrix implied by the model. (4) The normed fit index values closer to 1 indicating a better fit (see Table 9).Table 9. Saturated model According to the results, six of the eight hypotheses are fulfilled. Among them, H6 and H3 are particularly significant. H6 proposes that T -> DHC (H6: T -> DHC, β=0.667; T=28.511; p-value=0.000). According to employees, technology offers new organisational dynamics that affect the socio-cultural productivity by providing better planning of experiences in urban destinations (Graziano & Privitera, 2020). Technology also affects firm productivity at the heritage sites (H8: T -> P, β=0.231; T=6.013; p-value=0.000). In fact, technology allows a better visualisation of the assets within the service delivery chain (Moli, 2011) by improving the visitor's perception and the configuration of the services provided at historical places (McCamley, 2016).In traditional areas, technology affect the sociocultural productivity by facilitating community engagement around heritage (Ciolf et al., 2015) through web-based cultural heritage initiatives (Giglitto, 2017). This favours the cultural and historical dynamics that shape heritage sites by strengthening physical links to the past, as well as their cultural identity (Rouhi, 2017) and values that have been passed down through the generations (Vecco, 2010).This technology-based cultural dynamisation in turn allows for the improvement of education, as another key factor to improve the socio-cultural productivity as it is stated in H3 (H3: DHC -> DE, β=0.667; T=28.511; p-value=0.000). Educational revitalisation generate tourism more responsible for their conservation (Leslie, 2012) connecting with their own history and cultural identity (Timothy, 2011). These programmes are designed to gain a comprehensive understanding of the significance of the site, as well as a more enriching and meaningful view of the visit (Leask & Fyall, 2006).Emotions also play an essential role in directly improving the sociocultural productivity. As H1 indicates: E -> P (β=0.455; T=16.321; p-value=0.000). Employees experience a range of emotions when visiting other heritage places, such as a sense of awe and reverence for the people who built and inhabited these places (Salemink et al., 2020), beauty, joy (Nisbet & Zelenski, 2011), empathy and connection (Lang et al., 2023). Heritage richness also evokes feelings of belonging and pride (Butler et al., 2022) or nostalgia from the collective memories embedded in architecture, streets and landmarks (Prayag & Del Chiappa, 2023). According to Williams (2006), the emotions generated by positive experiences lead visitors to repeat their visit and to suggest the destination to others which positively affect the sociocultural productivity. These emotions not only influence the tourist's decision to return, but also allow them to maintain the experience over time by returning repeatedly to remember memorable actions (Tung & Ritchie, 2011).As reflected in H2 emotions generated from the historical and cultural dynamisation affect the sociocultural productivity (DHC -> E (β=0.520; T=12.146; p-value=0.000) The recreation of the past through historical and cultural revitalisation not only brings a sense of continuity and shared identity (Rouhi, 2017), but also creates a kind of connection that allows for a greater appreciation of the value of historical sites. That recreation generates a range of positive emotions for both visitors and site workers which invite visitors to return to the ancient sites (Van Dijk & Kirk, 2008).The model presented has a high explanatory power (P: R²=0.656). We can say that productivity is "moderately" explained by DE=0.455, DHC=0.446 and E=0.313. According to Table 10, if we focus exclusively on the values that define the high significance of P, we observe that 65.6% is explained by 30.6% by the emotions (E) derived from the experiences obtained by employees when they visit other heritage sites, 20.6% by the learning capacity (DE) and 14.5% by technology (T).Table 10. Explained variance of the model On the basis of the studies analysed and in accordance with the results obtained, we can highlight some theoretical implications:First, for a high number of the employees who participated in this study, the sociocultural productivity of heritage sites is connected not only with physical heritage but also with cultural, historical, scientific or natural heritage because of its unique and significant value (Flores de León, Babere, & Swai, 2020). This intangible heritage enables the development of cultural, historical (Su, 2020), educational and learning activities.Second, more than half of the improvements in the sociocultural productivity of heritage sites are explained by the emotions of visitors to heritage places. Fostering positive emotional connections not only contributes to improved visitor expectations for these environments, but also creates a virtuous circle that benefits both visitors and site workers (Van Dijk & Kirk, 2008).Third, technology currently plays an essential role in cultural-historical dynamization. Advances in technology also allow for the pursuit of greater community participation, which also facilitates the promotion of dialogue between visitors (Simon, 2010) and their dissemination and access impacting positively to the sociocultural productivity at the historical sites (Affleck & Kvan, 2008).Fourth, emotions are generated from historical and cultural dynamisation. This evidence comes from the affirmation of H3 and rejection of H4 and H7. Historical-cultural dynamisation becomes the primary reason for the generation of emotions, as explained by the third hypothesis. Emotions are generated not only by the ability of heritage sites to connect with the past through their architectural wonders and narratives (Lowenthal, 2005), but also because they help to build the identity of visitors who come to these places to better understand their history (Rouhi, 2017) from the traditions and values passed on through the generations (Vecco, 2010). First of all, it is necessary to highlight the importance of the proposed model as a tool for improving the productivity of heritage sites based on the experience of hotel employees. The fact that they work in these historic sites makes them qualified agents in defining the main factors that affect the productivity of these sites. This information may be of great interest to the tourism authorities and businesses residing in such historic environments.Second, with the growth in technological advances, cultural institutions are beginning to orient the promotion and productivity of heritage places towards participatory design approaches that encourage dialogue with their visitors, adopting practices that are more focused on cultural demand (Simon, 2010). This also allows for the better management of both visitor experiences and the emotions generated from them (Ciolf et al., 2016) through better control over cultural content to decide what, where and how to share it with visitors (Giaccardi, 2012). All this activity allows for the better collection, management or display of cultural heritage (Giglitto, 2017), which has an impact on improving its productivity.Third, the improvement of educational dynamics has a positive effect on productivity, as stated in the fifth hypothesis (SD -> P, β=-0.312; T=8.152; p-value=0.000). This enhancement requires fostering a deeper understanding of these sites among local visitors (Leslie, 2012) through educational training programmes designed by tourism authorities (Ritchie, 2003). The aim of these cultural actions is to provide a better connection with the historical and cultural attractions of heritage sites (Timothy, 2011), places that help to deepen the visitor's understanding of the reality of the past by fostering emotions such as a sense of belonging and pride. This study has several limitations. First, the data were collected only from tourism enterprises and not from the authorities. If this investigation had covered both perspectives, it would have been able to provide a more complete picture. The current political situation in Spain has made it impossible to implement this second option, since many of the Directorates-General of Tourism still do not have a person appointed to gather data. This limitation suggests a future line of research that the research team will address in the coming months.Future studies could include the proposal of suggestions for the incorporation of technology based on an increase in their productivity aimed at both ICOMOS bodies and the tourism authorities that manage heritage sites for the promotion of historical places. 10. Tables Table 1