Integrating management and marketing strategies at heritage sites

Abstract

Purpose - This paper examines the integration of management and marketing practices at

heritage sites in Ireland.

Design/methodology/approach - The research process involved: phase one, a survey of 224

heritage attractions in Ireland and phase two, semi-structured interviews with the six

organizations that represent the heritage sector on the island of Ireland.

Findings - The findings suggest that market research and marketing communication are vital in

achieving a balance between targeting cultural tourists and tourists with no specific interest in

heritage.

Research limitations/implications – The study has the restriction of being limited to the Irish

case. However, these findings provide scope for further investigation, namely extending to other

destinations and to sites which use different techniques.

Originality/value - A combined commitment to visitor research by the individual heritage sites

could provide information to the representative organizations to facilitate target marketing and

improved on-site management. However, a change of mindset is required among heritage

practitioners in Ireland regarding the use of marketing and the implications for on-site

management. The authors propose that this is achievable through education linked to the study of

models of best practice.

Keywords – Heritage, Culture, Marketing, Management, Demarketing, Ireland

Paper type – Research paper

1

Introduction

This study explores the potential role of marketing in creating a balance between visitor

impacts and the preservation of heritage resources. The research seeks to determine the effect

that tourism has on the preservation of heritage sites in Ireland. The study involves two phases:

firstly, the study examines relationship between marketing and visitor management. Secondly,

the study explores perceived effect of modifications, visitor routing and staged heritage events.

Cultural resource management (CRM) involves the management, protection and preservation of

cultural resources, such as archaeological sites or artifacts, for future generations. By attracting

fee paying visitors, many of these sites and artifacts make an economic contribution to the

tourism industry. According to Fáilte Ireland (2006) when people think about Irish cultural

resources they think of the main attractions such as Blarney Castle and Brú na Bóinne, but other

attractions are not marketed to the same extent. Why? Misiura (2006) cites Drummond and

Yeoman (2001) advising that successful heritage tourism threatens the assets on which the

industry is based. Therefore, this issue is one for the management of more vulnerable and

popular cultural resources to find a balance between access and preservation.

Managing Heritage Sites

Tourism is one of Ireland’s largest service sectors. In revenue terms, the sector generates

€6.5 billion for the economy in 2007 (Irish Tourism Industry Confederation, 2008). Experiencing

the heritage of Ireland is a motivation for the majority of tourists, with eighty percent rating

heritage as an important factor in their decision to visit. On average, tourists will visit more than

four heritage sites while on holiday in Ireland (Fáilte Ireland, 2006). According to Fáilte Ireland

(2006) cultural tourism is the point at which culture meets tourism, a leisure activity for people

who wish to become immersed in a particular society. Chhabra et al. (2003) state that on the

2

demand side, heritage tourism is representative of the desire of visitors to experience and

consume culture and in terms of supply, are widely seen by governments and private businesses

as an economic tool. The research concludes that people are nostalgic about old ways of life and

want to re-live them, at least temporarily. The main issues for heritage attractions are satisfying

the expectations of visitors and managing their impacts, without compromising the authenticity

of the visitor experience (Fyall and Garrod, 1998).

Misiura (2006) cites Ashworth and Howard (1999) in proposing that heritage is a process by

which things come into the self-conscious arena when someone wants to preserve or collect them.

Cultural resources potentially have economic value, in that by attracting fee paying visitors, they

contribute to the tourism industry. Fáilte Ireland state in Tourism Product Development Strategy

2007-2013 that Ireland’s cultural heritage is a strong magnet for tourists. Along with scenic

landscapes, coastlines, rivers and lakes, cultural heritage is the bedrock upon which Irish tourism

has been built (Fáilte Ireland, 2006). Acknowledging the vulnerability of non-renewable

resources, Fáilte Ireland’s Environmental Action Plan 2007-2009 notes that Ireland’s tourism

industry can only be sustained if the quality of its resources is maintained.

According to McKercher et al. (2004) popularity is not necessarily an indicator of successful

heritage tourism because popularity can result in undesirable social, experiential and physical

degradation impacts. The relationship between the interests of tourists and their bond with

specific places is an emerging area within research (see, for example, Gross et al. 2007). Misiura

(2006) explains that the essence of heritage marketing follows that of marketing in a business

setting; that is the process involves finding out and delivering what the tourist wants, subject to

the necessity of site protection. Therefore, marketing activities should encourage demand and

satisfy the visitor but not to the detriment of what has to be preserved for future generations. For

3

example, the Skellig Michael World Heritage Site Management Plan 2008 – 2018 proposes to

manage visitor numbers by establishing a defined annual season for visitors and enhancing the

visitor experience by maintaining a quality guide service.

According to Beeton (2003) in the attempt to increase revenue, marketing typically increases

visitor numbers, which is the most common measure of tourism success and that this short-term

focus has an adverse effect on sustainability. The Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC) (2001)

identifies the conflict of interests in managing and marketing natural heritage, with particular

reference to parks:

The sheer volume of people using parks impacts on them, but numbers are necessary

to generate income. (CTC, 2001, p. 81)

Richards and Wilson (2006) who cite Russo (2002) outline, what the author terms, a vicious

circle of heritage tourism development in historic cities such as in Venice, Italy where increasing

visitor numbers results in a devaluation of the tourist experience. The author claims that this

causes the up-market cultural tourist to be replaced by day visitors who leave less money and

more mess. However, the European Travel Commission (ETC) and the World Tourism

Organization (WTO) (2005) note that too little tourism can also have a negative effect on

cultural resources:

Abandoned to negligence and decay, lack of public interest and insufficient

financial resources for its proper maintenance can be the consequence of too

little tourism. (ETC and WTO, 2005, p. 40)

Goeldner, et al. (2000) proposes that the two primary considerations for a heritage site are

competitiveness and sustainability and that these should be mutually supportive. However,

4

Beeton (2003) reports the variables exist usually after demand has been created through effective

marketing that sustainability issues and visitor management are considered.

Marketing Heritage Sites

Misiura (2006) explains that the marketing of heritage coincides with the birth of marketing

as an academic discipline in the 1950s. Kotler and Armstrong (2007) state that understanding,

creating, communicating and delivering value and satisfaction are at the core of modern

marketing. According to McManus (1997) many cultural resources are transformed into

experiences to be marketed, sold and bought. Therefore, the basic marketing activities of

advertising, packaging and target marketing play a central role. Middleton (1989) identifies

seven components of a visit which can be influenced by marketing: the appearance of the

entrance, the ambience in reception areas, the orientation at the start of a visit, visitor routing

within an attraction, the quality of interpretation and displays, the attitudes and welcome of staff

and the overall feeling of satisfaction and value. Furthermore, Ryan and Cave (2005) highlight

the importance of developing an appropriate image for a region or specific tourist attraction.

According to Guerin (2000), conflict between the needs of cultural activities and marketing

practices which results in skepticism among heritage practitioners regarding the usefulness of

marketing. Guerin (2000) suggests that what is required is a measured understanding of

marketing rather than forcing a commercially oriented model into heritage tourism. The

straightforward approach to marketing which McManus (1997) suggests contrasts with Beeton

and Benfield (2002) who believe that marketing, management and tourism development are

interwoven at all stages. They argue that the approach is not simply a task of researching

customers, producing and selling what they want.

5

Groffe (1998) and Beeton (2003) propose that marketing and visitor management be

integrated through demarketing, an aspect of marketing that deals with discouraging consumers

or a certain class of consumers either temporarily or permanently. The difference between

demarketing and visitor management is not in the activity itself, but the stage at which one is

applied. Visitors tend to access marketing material at the decision stage of their trip whereas

visitor management occurs when people are actually at the site (Beeton, 2003). According to

Apostolakis (2003) marketing in a heritage context is directed at repackaging the initial product

to make the product more appealing and accessible to the mass market. Craik (1997) argues that

the heritage product must be shaped for tourists or vice versa.

The act (art) of making heritage sites understandable and meaningful to visitors is known as

heritage interpretation and is a central component of modern heritage tourism (Prentice et al.,

1998). Visitors learn more by using interactive exhibitions than traditional static exhibitions. In

addition, they are attracted to interactive exhibitions and generally prefer them to traditional ones

(Moscardo, 1996). According to Harrison (2000) interpretation involves presenting information

in a form that is accessible to visitors. Prentice et al. (1998) study the effects of tour guides on

learning, concluding that the experience of the tour has a significant emotional impact on visitors.

Moscardo (1996) expresses the importance of interpretation as a visitor management tool for

relieving pressure on a heritage site. He explains that crowding and inappropriate behavior, such

as touching delicate surfaces, littering and vandalism, can be minimized by effective

interpretation that educates visitors and generates support for conservation by providing a

positive visitor experience. Successful heritage attractions must effectively tell a story, make the

experience participatory and relevant to the tourist, whilst providing a sense of authenticity

(McKercher and du Cros, 2002). MacCannell (1979) introduces the concept of staged

6

authenticity, whereby hosts put culture on sale to create an appealing package. However, when

packaging alters the nature of the product, the authenticity sought by visitors becomes staged.

Poria et al. (2003) advise that heritage sites have two distinct markets: firstly, consumers who

visit heritage sites for educational enjoyment and secondly, consumers who come to be

emotionally involved in an experience. According to Poria et al. (2003) the fact that tourists visit

historic attractions for different reasons should be reflected in the marketing strategy of a

heritage site. Psychographic segmentation based on perception of the site is required, which in

turn, has implications for promotional efforts. The successful identification of these differences

can result in changes to the marketing process, the pricing system, and the interpretation

provided (Poria, 2001). Greffe (2004) explains that by classifying visitors into categories,

suitable marketing and pricing policies can be selected. Greffe proposes five segments; educated

middle-income or affluent consumers, families with children, slightly older people with more

money and free time, socially underprivileged and marginalized groups and potential associates,

who, after several visits can decide to involve themselves in supporting artistic activities through

donations and lobbying activities. Each segment seeks different information and experiences.

Poria et al. (2006) explain that because the same historic artifact or site is perceived differently

by different segments, understanding behavior requires identifying the link(s) between the person

and the place.

Integrating management and marketing

Beeton and Benfield (2002) claim that while the tourism industry is keen to maximize

visitation and revenue through marketing and promotion, less attention has been paid to

accommodating or reducing high levels of demand, especially at the planning and marketing

stages. Liu (2003) explains that effective marketing can channel tourist demand to places that are

7

more impact-resilient. The ETC and WTO (2005) note that the timing of the decision to visit a

cultural attraction is of great importance for marketing purposes. The majority of cultural visitors

decide to visit before leaving home, which brings about the opportunity to market in source

regions or countries. As the majority of marketing material are consulted before arriving at an

attraction, this opportunity informs potential visitors of desirable behavior or restrictions at a site

before they arrive, thus reducing the visitor management required. Wicks et al. (2004) agree that

attracting more visitors may not always be the best strategy. Therefore, visitor numbers should

not be the measure of success. Accordingly, the target audience should be visitors that spend the

most money, have a quality learning experience, respect the local population and have the least

impact on resources.

Wicks et al. (2004) recommend demarketing, a term first proposed by Kotler and Levy

(1971). According to Beeton and Benfield (2002) up until the 1970s marketing dealt with a

limitless supply of a product. In a reversal of this paradigm, periods in the marketplace of

product shortages or scarcity to which marketers respond are apparent (Kotler and Levy 1971).

The response is termed demarketing and is defined as an aspect of marketing that deals with

discouraging customers or a certain class of customers on a temporary or permanent basis.

Beeton and Benfield (2002) explain that the definition is not the opposite of marketing, but a

fundamental aspect within marketing. Kotler and Levy (1971) describe three different types of

demarketing:

1. General demarketing: when an organization wishes to reduce the level of total

demand;

2. Selective demarketing: where demand from certain market segments is

discouraged; and

8

3. Ostensible demarketing: in which marketing gives the appearance of wishing a

reduction in demand as a result of scarcity, which in turn stimulates greater demand for

the desired and increasingly scarce product.

The relevant literature in the 1980s includes discussions of demarketing with regard to

tourism. Clements (1989) states that while the market for tourists may or may not be suitable for

segmentation, it is clear that market sub-groups are not equally profitable. This is when a

demarketing policy should have an active role in the management process. Beeton (2003) advises

that consciously increasing demand, revenue and visitor numbers through marketing may result

in the loss of the tourism industry’s natural market. Instead, by including demarketing in the

marketing mix, a destination may attract environmentally aware visitors and select specific

markets, thereby enforcing two of the three types of demarketing Kotler and Levy (1971) suggest.

Groff (1998) identifies three circumstances where demarketing strategies are used. The first

is where temporary shortages of the product exist, either due to lack of supply or underestimation

of demand. The second is when a resource’s popularity is threatening the quality of the visitor

experience. Thirdly, demarketing may be utilized when conflict arises between the demands of

visitors and the need for safety.

According to Jamrozy (2007) tourism management uses the concept of sustainability but

marketing still uses the classic economic paradigm, that is, profit is the goal. Jamrozy advises

that a sustainable marketing philosophy needs to incorporate societal, consumer and

environmental perspectives. The model represents four dimensions; sustainability, economic

viability, social equity and environmental protection. A focus on just one dimension, such as

marketing under the economic paradigm, is insufficient, whereas a sustainable marketing

approach integrates the four dimensions, but not necessarily in equal measures.

9

Referring to British heritage attractions, Middleton (1989) suggests that a greater

professionalism in marketing is required, and that a commitment to market research is essential

to monitor changes in visitor behavior and expectations, leading to updates and enhancements of

the product. Middleton (1989) identifies a range of issues which remain relevant today. The ETC

and WTO (2005) recommend that visitor management should be an integral part of the policy for

various issues at sites such as traffic control, parking, signage and marketing. When the flow of

tourists is already greater and at times out of balance, stronger measures need to be taken, such

as increasing the costs of the visit, restricting traffic, pre-booking, encouraging visitors to visit

alternative attractions in the area or stimulating visitors to come in low season periods.

Furthermore, heritages sites could think about the kind of tourists they want to attract. For

example, day-trippers with a relatively low spend per visit, overnight visitors with a relatively

high spend and individual or group tourists. Heritage sites need to develop a clear strategy

regarding how they can utilize tourism revenues to develop their site.

Beeton (2003) suggests five demarketing tools that can be incorporated into the marketing of

attractions in combination with visitor management. The tools are:

Educating potential visitors with marketing and promotional

literature;

Encouraging specific desirable markets while discouraging

undesirable ones;

Publicizing alternative sites;

Limiting permitted activities either seasonally or entirely; and

Making access to fragile areas more difficult while simultaneously

promoting less fragile areas.

10

Moscardo (1996) claims that if the interpretation at built heritage sites is effective and creates

what the author terms mindful visitors, then the management and sustainability of the sites is

improved. According to NWHO (1999) careful design of interpretative programs influences the

distribution of visitors at a site. Mindful visitors, in turn, have a greater appreciation and

understating of a site, know the consequences of their actions and how to act in ways that lessen

negative impacts. Wearing et al. (2007) advise that conservation messages should guide

marketing strategies of heritage sites and that marketing activities should identify only markets

that are appropriate.

Method

Data are collected in two phases: firstly, a questionnaire is circulated to examine the practices

of the 224 registered heritage sites in Ireland. Of the 224 questionnaires, 100 valid responses are

received; a response rate of 45 percent. A mix of multiple choice questions, rank-order rating

scales and dichotomous questions are used. Where dichotomous questions are used, respondents

are asked to explain their answer. The areas of site preservation, demarketing, authenticity and

visitor impact are explored using open ended questions. As appropriate, narrative structuring is

used to analyse the qualitative answers from the questionnaire.The questionnaire examines ten

key issues: the role of marketing; visitor management; information management; visitor

education; market research; market segmentation; pricing strategies; promotional tools;

demarketing; site modification and preservation strategies. Secondly, depth interviews are

conducted to explore the key issues arising from the questionnaire. The interviews are conducted

with the six organizations which represent the heritage sector in Ireland. The organizations are:

the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, National Trust, Houses Castles and Gardens of Ireland,

11

Fáilte Ireland, Heritage Ireland and Office of Public Works (Visitor Services). The interviews

explore the following topics: marketing strategies, pricing, on-site management and the impact(s)

of visitors. The interviews are taped, transcribed, and superfluous material removed such as

digressions and repetitions to assist the analysis. Narrative structuring (Kvale, 1996) is used to

create a coherent story of the interviewee’s experience(s) of integrating management and

marketing strategies for heritage resources.

Research findings

Respondents are asked if they consider tourism to have a positive or negative effect on the

preservation of heritage attractions. The majority (70 percent) believe tourism has a positive

effect and 24 percent are of the opinion of no effect at all. A small minority (six percent)

consider tourism to have a negative effect on the preservation of heritage attractions. The

following quote encapsulates many of the points made:

Managed tourism allows for the visitor centre to be developed and

maintained and significant visitor volumes restricted to only areas where

visitor management is in place. The tourism dividend finances preservation

and education measures. (Respondent 4)

Furthermore, two thirds of respondents believe no conflict between preserving heritage

attractions and increasing the number of visitors. However:

Access and preservation is a balancing issue. Buildings and collections

experience wear and tear but it is important that they are seen and used.

(Respondent 17)

12

The interviews indicate the representative organizations share the view of the individual

heritage sites; believing that visitors make a positive contribution to the preservation of heritage

attractions and not just in terms of revenue generation. One interviewee explains that:

In both cases [entrance fee or not] visitors help keep information in

circulation and pass on knowledge that would otherwise get lost quite

quickly...without getting the flow of visitors a lot of sites wouldn’t be able to

stay open and would get worn down. (Representative body B)

Visits to sites with no entrance fee generate positive feedback, which increases the

knowledge and importance of the sites. Revenue at sites with entrance fees contributes to general

maintenance costs.

State owned heritage attractions use a variety of visitor management tools. The majority of

charity/trust owned heritage attractions have traffic and parking restrictions and most privately

owned attractions use variations in admission fees as a visitor management tool. During peak

periods pre-booking requirements are enforced by the majority of respondents. According to

Beeton and Benfield (2002) marketing does not always deal with an unlimited supply of product.

In cases of product shortages or scarcity, such as limited capacity, marketers must respond

accordingly. The data collected by the questionnaire indicates that marketing activities are

impeded by capacity restrictions for 22 percent of the heritage sites. The findings indicate that

apart from the respondents who suggest no capacity or visitor volume issues exist, the most

common response is that management activity, rather than marketing, is important for reducing

the negative impacts of visitors. Educating visitors and influencing routing throughout the

attractions is ranked second, suggesting that when capacity constraints exist, the heritage sites

use on-site visitor management before they use marketing initiatives. The survey results also

13

indicate variations in how marketing is carried out at heritage attractions. The majority of

respondents from state owned heritage attractions indicate that marketing is carried out by a

representative organization and not by the individual sites. For the majority of respondents from

charity/trust owned heritage attractions state marketing is guided by a marketing plan. Privately

owned heritage attractions mainly conduct marketing on an unplanned basis when deemed

necessary.

Based on the visitor classifications of Greffe (2004) tour groups are the visitor type deemed

most preferable by respondents. However, 25 percent of respondents choose none of the options

and emphasize that they do not have a preferred visitor type. Furthermore, the majority of

respondents from all ownership categories state that no customers are considered undesirable or

unprofitable. However, some of these respondents note unsupervised children, teenagers and

language students as potentially problematic.

The most popular promotional tools used by the heritage sites are web presence, brochures,

signage and print media advertising. Television is the least utilized promotional tool. The main

purpose of web presence is to inform visitors of what is available at the attraction. Web presence

is under-utilized as a visitor management tool, with only one fifth of respondents using the

service for pre-bookings and educating visitors about desirable behavior at the site. In addition,

respondents report using web presence to obtain visitor feedback and to provide basic

information such as opening times, upcoming events and directions.

The admission price at heritage attractions is usually set by the appropriate representative

organization. The majority of respondents indicate that admission fees are set at the current

rate(s) to cover running and maintenance costs and attract more visitors. This is not aligned with

Greffe (2004) who explains that entry price is usually set by dividing costs by the number of

14

visitors expected. Making a profit to reinvest in the attraction or for commercial purposes is not

deemed to be priority. Fyall and Garrod (1998) recommend that if a site gets damaged by

tourism, those responsible for the damage should pay for the prevention or repair. However, the

income from admission fees does not result in surplus revenue after running and maintenance

costs are covered. Therefore, the funding required for the long-term sustainability of the site is

generated by other means.

Apostolakis (2003) explains that marketing in a heritage context involves repackaging the

resources to make them more appealing and accessible to the mass market. In this research 75

percent of respondents provide details of modifications to the original heritage resource. These

include: disabled access, cafes and restaurants, exhibitions and displays, barriers to protect both

displays and visitors, live performances and interpretative centers. According to MacCannell

(1979) when packaging alters the nature of the resource, the authenticity is affected. However,

the majority of respondents believe that the modifications have a positive effect on authenticity.

Making heritage sites understandable and meaningful to visitors is termed heritage interpretation

(Prentice et al., 1998). Literature is the most common form of interpretation of the heritage sites,

followed closely by signage and tour guides. Prentice et al. (1998) suggest that tour guides have

an emotional impact on visitors and in this research their importance is clearly evident with over

80 percent of respondents employing guides.

The literature recommends the inclusion of demarketing in the marketing mix to attract

environmentally conscious visitors (Beeton, 2003). Only four percent of respondents claim to

use/have used demarketing on receiving the explanation. The examples given by respondents

include withdrawing from brochures that list attractions suitable for children and turning visitors

away when maximum capacity is reached. In addition respondents also restrict activities at the

15

sites, discourage access to fragile areas and promote less fragile areas. Therefore, demarketing is

not supported while visitor management is enforced. The difference between the two is not so

much in the activity itself but the stage at which one is applied (Beeton, 2003). Therefore,

demarketing would facilitate a proactive approach, whereas the reality is that sites are reactive in

imposing visitor management.

Conclusion

A need exists for demarketing and sustainable marketing in the heritage tourism industry.

The authors recommend these two concepts be included in the wider marketing literature rather

than mainly in models based on scenarios of unlimited supply. Subsequently, the incorporation

of visitor management at the visitors’ decision-making stage through marketing may reduce the

level of visitor management required when they arrive at the site. The process requires site

managers to develop an awareness of the benefits of sustainable marketing for preservation. In

this process marketing is not seen as a means of generating visitor volumes for commercial

purposes. The authors recommend that heritage sites should be guided in appropriate marketing

and promotional strategies thus encouraging a move away from possibly less appropriate

traditional commercial marketing. The development of market research programmes by the

representative organizations and the enforcement of these on-site by individual attractions would

give a direct insight into the expectations of visitors and their levels of satisfaction. This

approach would use fewer resources than if the representative organizations carry out research

independently. Real time information would enable sites to predict busy and quiet periods,

enabling them to staff accordingly and reduce queues and congestion. The resulting quality of

the visitor’s experience justifies charging a price high enough to generate the revenue for

marketing and sustainability. Finally, the authors recommend the involvement of stakeholders in

16

the development of interpretation practices. This ensures that the remit of the heritage

practitioners, marketers and management are met while achieving a balance between

communicating to the cultural tourist and the general tourist alike. Marketing is a vital

component of the communication process and helps to make heritage accessible and meaningful

to more than just the specialist cultural tourist. The main issues for heritage attractions are

satisfying visitors’ expectations and managing their impacts without compromising the

authenticity of the site.

17

References

Apostolakis, A. (2003), “The Convergence Process in Heritage Tourism”, Annals of Tourism

Research, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 795-812.

Beeton, S. (2003), “Swimming Against the Tide - Integrating Marketing with Environmental

Management via Demarketing”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 10

No. 2, pp. 95-107.

Beeton, S. and Benfield, R. (2002), “Demand Control: The Case for Demarketing as a Visitor

and Environmental Management Tool”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp.

497-513.

Canadian Tourism Commission (2001), Best Practices in Natural Heritage Collaborations:

Parks and Outdoor Tourism Operators, Vancouver: Canada: CTC.

Chhabra, D., Healy, R. and Sills, E. (2003), “Staged authenticity and heritage tourism”, Annals

of Tourism Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 702-719.

Craik, J. (1997), “The Culture of Tourism Sites” in Rojek, C. and Urry, J. (Eds), Touring

Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory, Routledge, London.

Drummond, S. and Yeoman, I. (2001), Quality Issues in Heritage Visitor Attractions,

Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

European Travel Commission and World Tourism Organisation (2005), City Tourism and

Culture, the European Experience, Brussels, Belgium: ETC and WTO.

Fáilte Ireland: The National Tourism Development Authority (2006), Cultural Tourism: Making

it work for you: A New Strategy for Cultural Tourism in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.

Fáilte Ireland: The National Tourism Development Authority (2006), Tourism Product

Development Strategy 2007-2013, Dublin, Ireland.

18

Fáilte Ireland: The National Tourism Development Authority (2006), Environmental Action Plan

2007-2009, Dublin, Ireland.

Fyall, A. and Garrod, B. (1998), “Heritage tourism: at what price?”, Managing Leisure, Vol 3 No.

4, pp. 213-228.

Goeldner, C.R., Ritchie, J. R. B. and McIntosh, R. W. (2000), Tourism, principles, practices,

philosophies (8th ed), John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.

Greffe, X. (2004), “Is heritage an asset or a liability?”, Journal of Cultural Heritage, Vol. 5 No.

1, pp. 301–309.

Groffe, C. (1998), “Demarketing in park and recreation management”, Managing Leisure, Vol. 3

No. 1, pp. 128-135.

Gross, M. Brien C. and Brown G. (2006), “Examining the dimensions of a lifestyle tourism

destination”, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 No.

1, pp. 44-66.

Guerin, H. (2000), “Marketing: Complement or Compromise”, in Buttimer, N., Rynne, C. and

Guerin, H. (Eds), The Heritage of Ireland, The Collins Press, Cork, Ireland.

Irish Tourism Industry Confederation (2008), “Contribution of Tourism to the Irish Economy”,

Dublin, Ireland: Irish Tourist Industry Confederation.

Jamrozy, U. (2007), “Marketing of tourism: a paradigm shift toward sustainability”,

International Journal of Culture Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1 No. 2 pp. 117-

130.

Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2007), Principles of Marketing! (12th ed), Prentice Hall, New

Jersey.

19

Kotler, P. and Levy, S.J. (1971), “Demarketing? Yes, Demarketing!”, Harvard Business Review,

Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 74–80.

Kvale, S. (1996), Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Sage,

London.

Liu, Z. (2003), “Sustainable Tourism Development: A Critique”, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,

Vol. 11, pp. 459-475.

MacCannell, D. (1979), “Staged Authenticity: Arrangements of Social Space in Visitor Settings”,

American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 589–603.

McKercher, B., and du Cros, H. (2002), Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism

and Cultural Heritage Management, Haworth Press, Binghamton.

McKercher, B., Ho, P. S.Y. and du Cros, H. (2004), “Attributes of Popular Cultural Attractions

in Hong Kong”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 393–407.

McManus, R. (1997), “Heritage and Tourism in Ireland-an unholy alliance?”, Irish Geography,

Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 90-98.

Middleton, V.T.C. (1989), “Visitor attractions, marketing implications for attractions.”, Tourism

Management, pp. 229-232.

Misiura, S. (2006), Heritage Marketing, Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Moscardo, G. (1996), “Mindful Visitors Heritage and Tourism”, Annals of Tourism Research,

Vol 23 No. 2, pp. 376-397.

Nordic World Heritage Office (1999), Sustainable Tourism and Cultural Heritage: A Review of

Development Assistance and its Potential to Promote Sustainability, Oslo, Norway: NWHO.

Poria, Y. (2001), “Challenging the Present Approach to Heritage Tourism is tourism to heritage

places heritage tourism?”, Tourism Review, No 56 Vol 1, pp. 51–53.

20

Poria, Y., Butler, R. and Airey, D. (2003), “The core of heritage tourism”, Annals of Tourism

Research, Vol. 30 No 1, pp. 238–254.

Poria, Y., Reichel, A. and Biran, A. (2006), “Heritage Site Management Motivations and

Expectations”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 162-178.

Prentice, R., Guerin, S. and McGugan, S. (1998), “Visitor learning at a heritage attraction: a case

study of Discovery as a media product”, Tourism Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 5-23.

Richards, G. and Wilson, J. (2006), “Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A solution to

the serial reproduction of culture?”, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1209-1223.

Russo, A. P. (2002), “The Vicious Circle of tourism development in heritage cities”, Annals of

Tourism Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 165–182.

Ryan, C. and Cave, J. (2005), “Structuring Destination Image: A Qualitative Approach”, Journal

of Travel Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 143-150.

Wearing, S., Archer, D. and Beeton, S. (2007), “The Sustainable Marketing of Tourism in

Protected Areas Moving Forward” available online at: http://www.crctourism.com.au ().

Wicks, B., Hasara, K. and Lakshtanova, Y. (2004), “Vladimir Tourism Development Plan”

available online at: http://www.serendipityrussia.com.