MARKETING CULTURAL HERITAGE TO PROMOTE TOURISM

GROWTH IN AREAS OF LOW TOURISM PATRONAGE: CASE STUDY OF

PHETCHABURI PROVINCE'S DOWNTOWN
By
Lamson Lertkulprayad
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Architectural Heritage Management and Tourism
(International Program)
Graduate School
SILPAKORN UNIVERSITY
2007










MARKETING CULTURAL HERITAGE TO PROMOTE TOURISM GROWTH IN
AREAS OF LOW TOURISM PATRONAGE: CASE STUDY OF PHETCHABURI
PROVINCE'S DOWNTOWN
By
Lamson Lertkulprayad
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Architectural Heritage Management and Tourism
(International Program)
Graduate School
SILPAKORN UNIVERSITY
2007










The Graduate school, Silpakorn University has approved and accredited the
Thesis title Marketing Cultural Heritage to Promote Tourism Growth in Areas of
Low Tourism Patronage: The Case Study of Phetchaburi Provinces Downtown
submitted by Mr. Lamson Lertkulprayad as a partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Architectural Heritage Management and
Tourism.

...
(Associate Professor Sirichai Chinatankul, Ph.D.)
Dean of Graduate School
/../.
The Thesis Advisor
Dr. Colin Long
The Thesis Examination Committee
. Chairman
(Professor Emeritus Trungjai Buranasomphob, Ph.D.)
././
Member
(Professor Emeritus Taweep Sirirassame, Ph.D.)
././
Member
(Colin Long, Ph.D.)
././










47056963 : MAJOR : ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT AND TOURISM
KEY WORD : HERITAGE MARKETING, PHETCHABURI PROVINCE
LAMSON LERTKULPRAYAD : MARKETING CULTURAL HERITAGE TO PROMOTE
TOURISM GROWTH IN AREAS OF LOW TOURISM PATRONAGE : CASE STUDY OF
PHETCHABURI PROVINCE'S DOWNTOWN. THESIS ADVISOR: DR. COLIN LONG. 250 pp.
Petchaburi downtown contains plenty of heritage sites which retain cultural
significance and appropriateness for conservation in national level. Misunderstanding
of heritage significance is the major obstacle which obstructs conservation and
management to become a sustainable attraction. Low government budgets conveyed
to heritage maintenance are another cause of historic sites deterioration and low
volume of incomes from tourists support. Marketing cultural heritage to promote
tourism growth by researching tourism demands and creating impressive visitors
experience is probable solution. It is focus on degree of conservation in each heritage
areas in Petchaburi town and balance marketing mix of tourism with all benefits
among involving stakeholders by outlining marketing plan for sustainable heritage
improvement.
From survey and in-depth interviews, it had been found that tourists who were
interested in heritage and cultural tourism were rare and there were no attractive
activities at the heritage destinations. Most tourists lacked knowledge of heritage and
history and had no specific intention to visit cultural sites. In contrast, heritage
officers had become accustomed to the current tourism situation. Due to a small
budget and strict regulations, the creation of tourism activities based on heritage
marketing has not occurred. Furthermore; plenty of departments and communities
that were involved in conservation and tourism development in Phetchaburi heritage
town contributed to advantages and disadvantages of heritage administration, and the
marketing mixes applied in this heritage destination to increase tourism were not
satisfied with visitors demand.
The recommended plan of heritage marketing to promote this town is setting
up a new vision, a top tourism attraction as an ancient heritage and cultural town at
the gate of southern Thailand. By developing visitors segmentation, target and
position to match with its vision and objectives, the marketing plan is expected to be
designed in three phases:
Phase 1: Phra Nakhon Kiri Historic Park (Khao Wang) and Ram Ratchanivet Palace
Phase 2: Wat Yai Suwannaram, Wat Kamphaeng Laeng, and Wat Maha That
Worawihan (all historical temples)
Phase 3: Old traditional houses near Phetchaburi River and central market
These overall details of content can be a good example of marketing cultural
heritage to the other provinces in Thailand.
Architectural Heritage Management and tourism Graduate School, Silpakorn University Academic Year 2007
Student's signature ........................................
Thesis Advisor's signature ........................................










Acknowledgements
My proud thesis, Marketing cultural heritage to promote tourism growth in areas
of low tourism patronage: the case of heritage sites in Downtown Phetchaburi,
Thailand' was a major part towards graduation in the Doctor or Philosophy program,
Architectural Heritage Management and Tourism, at Silpakorn University. It required
my ultimate effort in thoroughly studying secondary data, observing heritage sites in
Downtown Phetchaburi, surveying questionnaires, interviewing many stakeholders,
etc. It was confidently combined with concepts of business marketing, heritage
conservation, tourism development and management strategies. The exciting part was
that it had to be a thesis in the initial stage of Thailand, which primarily focuses on
heritage development utilizing the theory of sustainable tourism marketing. The
thesis would sincerely promote all tourism stakeholders to realize the goals of
marketing demand, appropriate protection of heritage sites, and other benefits from
the accurate management of low patronage tourism areas.
Thanks to Professor Dr. Trungjai Buranasomphob, my advisor who generously
provided a great chance for me to study in this program and contributed her excellent
assistance during all processes of creating this thesis. She advised me on my thesis
topic and introduced me to Dr. Colin Long, my helpful and handsome supervisor. He
helped me constantly by advising me on my work as well as correcting my sentences
and unclear paragraphs. He did an excellent job as no one had ever done for me. As
for the outcome, my thesis has been greatly improved through his advice on many
essential parts. Special thanks to him. Without his consultation, I could not have
improve my knowledge as I have. His encouragement inspires me greatly!
For my first opportunity, I deeply appreciate the great assistance rendered by
Associate Professor Siriwan Sareerat and Associate Professor Supada Sirikutta, who
pushed me forward on this Ph. D. program. They generously supported me as a state
scholar and provided essential information on this program at Silpakorn University. I
owe them so much.










Thanks to Professor Dr. Taweep Sirirassame who was so kind to read and
comment on my thesis. Actually, I appreciate him for being such a valuable person in
the Thai tourism industry. Furthermore, I would like to express great appreciation for
Mr. Tom Radzienda and Ms. Erin Linn for perfect editing of my thesis. In addition, I
would be satisfied for all lecturers, my colleagues at Srinakharinwirot University and
friends who have been very kind and generous in sharing ideas and offering me
special help, including Mr. Lee Chee Wai, Dr, Panit Kulsiri, Dr. Tanaphum Atiwatin,
and others.
Thanks to all interviewees and questionnaire respondents who gave good co-
operation as well as assistance in providing useful information for this thesis,
including Khun Silachai Sulai , former director of TAT in Phetchaburi Province;
Assist Prof. Sunan Nelapong, secretary of Muang Pet Conservation club; Khun
Saruckjit Chalearnjit, Chief of Planning and Budgeting Department; Khun Tom, the
owner of a travel agency in Amphur Muang Phetchaburi; Khun Saksri Larpprasit, a
group leader in Phetchaburi; An abbot's assistant at Wat Yaisuwannaram; Army
Captain Worawat Varanyok; a heritage officer at Ram Ratchaniwet Palace; Khun
Patrom, Chief of Phra Nakhonkiri National Museum; Khun Kitti Chuchue, Head
Department of Public Relations in Phetchaburi; Khun Surakit Sutharomna, General
Manager of The Royal Diamond Hotel, Phetchaburi; Khun Chatrachai Kannadhep,
General Manager of Phetchaburi Tourism Development Co., Ltd. (Khao Wang Cable
Car); Khun Kittisak Tanawattanakul, Deputy Governor of Phetchaburi Province, and
many others.
Finally very special thanks to my parents and my sister who became my
inspiration to do everyday better and to climb to a higher position. Importantly, thanks
to my wife, Ms. Sujira Suttaboot who is always with me and is patient with my
disrespectful conduct. She normally supports me when I confront my difficulties and
pull me out of troubles. I love her so much.










Table of Contents
Page
Abstract
Acknowledgments
List of Figure
Chapter
1 Introduction................................................................................... 1
Statements of the Problem........................................................ 1
Introduction.. 1
Goals and Objectives.... 2
Research Questions.. 3
Scope of Study. 4
Research Methodology.... 6
Process of the Study. 9
Specific Definitions. 12
2 Theoretical Frameworks and Review of Related Literature.. 14
Impact of Tourism Environment 15
Heritage Marketing and Its Relevance to Heritage Sites 30
Heritage Conservation and Management 65
3 Background of Phetchaburi Province and Its Cultural
Significance 78
Location and Territory Scale. 78
Geographic Character. 80
Provincial Climate.. 81
Phetchaburi Archaeology and Myths. 82
Ancient Khmer Culture in Phetchaburi Province... 82
The Legend of Phetchaburi Province. 83
Outstanding Art in Phetchaburi.. 86
Gold Makers in Phetchaburi... 88
Heritage Attractions in Phetchaburi 89










Chapter Page
Traditional Heritage in Phetchaburi 105
Thai Traditional Houses in Phetchaburi.. 107
Review of Related Literature.. 110
4 Findings of Survey and In-depth Interviews..... 113
Amphur Muang Phetchaburi, Which Is the Location of
Heritage Attractions, Became an Area of Low Tourism
Patronage. 113
The Tourists Who Visit in This Area of Low Tourism
Patronage. 115
The Stakeholders Who Take Responsibility in Conservation
and Development of Heritage Attractions in Amphur Muang,
Phetchaburi.. 117
The Marketing Mixes Applied in This Heritage Destination .. 121
Tourism Attractions in Phetchaburi Downtown Ought to Be
Improved or Created to Become Model Conservation
Destination in the Near Future 123
Statistical Results from Quantitative Survey in Marketing
Demand of Visitors Traveling in Heritage Attractions of
Phetchaburi Downtown... 124
Demographic Data of Visitors Traveling in Heritage Sites
at Downtown Phetchaburi 125
Visitors Opinions of Marketing Mix Strategies (4Ps)
Concerned in Heritage Management 126
Segmentation among Various Groups toward
Visitors Opinion of Marketing Mix Strategies (4Ps)
Concerning Heritage Management 128
Tourist Behavior in Heritage Tourism in Downtown
Phetchaburi 165
Conclusion of Survey and In-depth Interviews.. 209










Chapter Page
5 Model of Marketing in Heritage Sites and Recommendations 214
Recommendation of Marketing Plan to Encourage Tourism Growth
in Downtown Phetchaburi 218
Involving Stakeholders To Push Each Successful Marketing Project 231
Inbound Tourism and Phetchaburi Heritage Sites... 233
Further Study for Next Thesis. 234
Bibliography.. 235
Appendix 245
Appendix A.... 245
Appendix B.... 248
Appendix C.... 249
Autobiography 250










List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Five aspects of environment.. 28
2
A summary of the generic disciplines applied in heritage marketing
32
3 The dynamic wheel of tourism stakeholders.. 35
4 Gilbers differentiation strategy.. 45
5 The main environmental factors that reflect on heritage marketing... 51
6 Matrix indicating the relationship between the continuums of
robustness and market appeal.

56
7 Destination life cycle.. 59
8 Map of Phetchaburi province.. 78
9 Geographic character of Phetchaburi province... 80
10 Map of Phetchaburi City. 81
11
Mold Plaster/Ornamental Stucco Made of Poon Tum of Pet
Plaster
87
12 Wood sculptured door at Wat Yai Suwannaram 88
13 Art of Gold Making 88
14 Heritage sites in Downtown Phetchaburi 89
15 Phra Thart Chompet' Pagoda. 90
16 The royal temple of Wat Phra Kaew and Red Pagoda 91
17 Phra Tenang Petphumpairod... 91
18 Picture of Phra Nakhonkiri Palace and Museum 92
19 Hor Sutchawan Veanchai' or Kachom Keao' 92
20 Phra Ram Ratchaniwet 93










21 Phra Ram Ratchaniwet and the monument of King Rama V. 94
22 Sala Kanparient of Wat Yai Suwannaram.. 95
23 Hor Tri, A hall for keeping scripture 96
24 Buddhist Monastery of Wat Yai Suwannaram 96
25 Sala Kanparian ... 97
26 Relics of Wat Kamphanenglaneng in Downtown Phetchaburi.. 98
27 Jedi or Pagoda of Wat Mahathat Worawihan. 99
28 28 Area inside Wat Mahathat Worawihan. 100
29 Wat Ko Kaeo Suttharam. 100
30 Mural Painting (Ringis, 1990) at Wat Ko Kaeo Suttharam 101
31 Buddha Image or Phra Phuttha Saiyat. 101
32 Wat Phlapphla Chai............................................................................. 102
33 Phra Ubosot (Buddhist monastery) of Wat Phlapphla Chai 103
34 Buddhist Monastery of Wat Mahammanaram.................................... 103
35 Old Thai Traditional Houses (Ruang Thai) 108
36 Old wooden houses near Phetchaburi River... 109
37 Old local market in Downtown Phetchaburi.. 109
38 Houses of Tai Song Dam (Ruang Tai Song Dam or Lao Song) 109
39
Model of marketing in heritage sites to promote tourism growth
in areas of low tourism patronage. 214
40 Circle road around Phetchaburi heritage sites 221
41 An example of modern trade building located in old wooden houses 230












Chapter 1
Introduction
Statement of the problem

1. Introduction
The growth of the tourism industry is a major concern in many countries, particularly
in third world countries such as Thailand. Specifically, the annual income from
inbound tourism of more than 482,319 million Baht and the recent rise of visitors
volume to more than 13.82 million foreign people in Year 2006 is necessary for
Thailand to continue the development of tourism and to help stimulate the Thai
economy. (Tourism Authority of Thailand, 2008)

Within the organizational structure of Thai tourism, all tourism places in Thailand that
are financially supported by the government, such as the charming beaches of Phuket,
the night market in Chiengmai and the world heritage historic city of Ayutthaya, must
show their maximum potential for revenue generation or as tourist attractions.
Tourism attractions that are not popular enough with inbound tourists are less likely to
receive financial support from the state.

Consequently, most low tourism areas have problems getting political support for
conservation. Some places have been ignored and fallen into ruin without residents
realizing the significance of their cultural value. Furthermore, local stakeholders such
as local authorities and residents perceive the heritage deterioration and demolition as
a normal phenomenon. There are no organizations willing to take serious
responsibility for the preservation of the nations inherited assets. Even though most
of them are under the regulatory care of various governmental departments, they have
not received proper conservation.

Despite small government budgets and uncertain policies, the construction of an
infrastructure for rural tourism location is still needed. Reliance on government
1










funding for the development of low tourism patronage areas is problematic. Hence, an
optional solution may be for them to stand on their own two feet, developing a
marketing plan for the local community. Such a strategy may provide communities
with the perfect opportunity to preserve their own heritage resources and give local
residents more sustainable careers and stable incomes.

In this study, the area of Downtown Phetchaburi is particularly interesting since it
retains a large number of both tangible and intangible heritage values. The cultural
identity of architectural designs, mural arts and customary traditions together with the
legendary stories of places related to famous historical persons such as King Rama
IV-V and the great chief monk, Somdej Chao Tangmo, are important to local
residents. Unfortunately, this important heritage town is hidden behind the beauty of
Cha-Am and Hua Hin beaches. Thai and foreign people seem to be more interested in
natural heritage and often ignore historic heritage sites because of unpopularity of
cultural tourism in this area and low public awareness of all stakeholders to promote
their own heritage sites. Even though Phetchaburi is close to Bangkok, most visitors
bypass the historic town and go directly to the beaches. Some local residents
explained the low tourism numbers in Phetchaburi as being a result of the new bypass
road that has been constructed close to Phetchaburi. Others suggest that community
conflicts have hampered tourism growth. The purpose of this thesis is to explore the
problem of low tourism visitation and to find a solution by applying the theory of
heritage marketing as the means of promoting sustainable growth in this low tourism
use area.

2. Goals and Objectives

1) To analyze the current tourism situation in relation to the heritage
attractions of Downtown Phetchaburi.
2) To study how heritage marketing strategies can promote tourism
growth in areas of low tourism patronage.
3) To outline a sustainable management plan and policies to attract more
visitors while maintaining conservation quality and integrity.
2










3. Research Questions

1) Which marketing strategies do tourism developers use to promote
tourism growth in this particular heritage area?
2) How do the local stakeholders, i.e. local authorities and communities,
share responsibility for the creation of sustainable management plans
and policies?

Sub-questions

1. What is the cultural significance of Phetchaburis heritage sites?
2. Why does this heritage area have low tourism patronage?
3. What are the types of visitors visiting Phetchaburis heritage sites?
4. What are the behaviors of tourists visiting Downtown Phetchaburi
heritage sites?
5. What are the roles of stakeholders in the conservation of significant
cultural values?
6. What is the difference in the perception of value between local
stakeholders and visitors?
7. What are the important motivation factors which influence visitors
traveling in this heritage area?
8. What is the expectation of the impact of tourism after heritage
promotion?
9. Who should be the key players in planning sustainable heritage
marketing programs and policies; how do they perform?
10. What should be the proper treatment for heritage fabric and the
maintenance of its authenticity?
11. How do local communities know if their plans are implemented
successfully?



3










4. Scope of the study

1. Area of academic survey: It includes three varieties of heritage
sites, which are located in a particular down town area i.e. palaces,
temples and Thai traditional houses. Some groups of old markets,
temples and Thai traditional houses have not commenced tourism
development, but they retain sufficient culturally significant value
to be promoted. However, it is necessary to set the strategic
precedence of heritage conservation into various level to inspire
active and successful management plans and policies as well as to
implement the heritage-marketing concept properly.

2. Focus of the active study: The main concern is to apply sustainable
marketing ideas to promote sites that currently experience low
tourism. This is to increase financial support for heritage
conservation and to add value to the historical places by the
creation of marketing strategies that are suitable for various visitor
groups, while maintaining common concern for the perception and
knowledge of future generations. They should feel affection and be
proud of their ancestors architectural wealth.

3. Target groups: The stakeholders who understand tourism
development problems and willingly suggest the best solutions are
very important. The following groups are the most important:
1) Government agencies: each heritage place is involved in
complicated responsibility. Such registered heritage sites, for
example, are officially protected by the Department of Arts.
Any drastic modification of architectural design or even the
conservation plans requires authorization from the designated
department, which maintains a bureaucratic form of
organization. The difficulty is that the responsibility of daily
operational duties concerning heritage conservation may be
4










transferred to unqualified or uninformed staff at the site such as
abbots, soldiers or museum rangers. The person selected to be
in charge of heritage protection will be determined by the type
of heritage site concerned and the political powers that
influence it. Moreover, in terms of tourism promotion, the
governor and local authorities hold powerful influence to make
all decisions concerning heritage preservation and tourism
development by accepting some questionable ideas from
Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT). It is essential for the
state agencies to investigate carefully the basis of the heritage
conservation problems and the available processes of how the
marketing idea was previously used in each heritage asset.
2) Community leaders and Non-government organizations
(NGOs): Several heritage protection groups in Phetchaburi
province are influential in convincing community
representatives to take care of their heritage resources. Their
attitudes probably represent the thought of the overall
communities and guide us in determining which marketing
strategies are most suitable.
3) Visitors to Downtown Phetchaburis historical places: This
group is critical to the success of a marketing management plan
since they are the primary source of assets in preserving
heritage resources. Further, they possess the ability to transmit
significant heritage knowledge to others. Thorough
understanding of visitor segmentation supports accurate
management of suitable projects and policies. Likewise, it
explores both internal and external motivation factors, which
affect traveling to Phetchaburis low tourism area. The
academic survey of their opinions can assist in determining
better marketing strategies, which balance the economic gains
of particular stakeholders with the conservation requirements of
heritage places.
5










4) Tourism operators in Downtown Phetchaburi: Tourism
operators have a significant role in heritage tourism. Their
marketing plans influence and have the ability to promote
heritage development growth in many of the areas defined as
low tourism destinations.

5. Research Methodology

To accomplish the dissertation objectives, the research applies both qualitative
and quantitative research methodologies. The major tools are the questionnaire
survey and the in-depth interview.

The research begins with determining the cultural significance and sense of
place in the low tourism use area. Observation in Downtown Phetchaburis
heritage sites is considered essential, in addition to consideration of available
information from many secondary resources such as historical textbooks and
articles. This methodology helps produce a preview of the heritage
background. After setting the target groups for the in-depth interview and
appropriate topic subjects that concern the dissertation, the research
emphasizes open-ended questions to research more information in order to do
subsequent questionnaire surveys. Then defining group of population which is
the Thai domestic visitors traveling in heritage sites of Phetchaburi downtown.
Since the sampling volumes of population are non-probability or unknown, the
quantities of the prospective survey visitors are determined by using
TaroYamanes formula. The calculations are as follow:

n = _Z
2
_
4E
2



n = _(1.96)
2
_ = 384.16
4(0.05)
2

6










Z
.975
= 1.96, E = 0.05
n = Sampling Number
Z = Standard Value from formula tables at 95% confident level
E = Standard Deviation of Total Population at 5 per cent

Since the demonstration size is unknown, 385 questionnaire surveys are
theoretically acceptable and reliable (Yamane, 1973). A total of 400
questionnaires were collected for increased reliability. The technique to survey
is accidental sampling which is convenient to receive information at heritage
sites. The pattern of the questionnaire is built in five point Likert scales in the
region of 4Ps marketing strategy and combined with individual factors and
visitor behavior. Then, fifty drafted questionnaires were tried out to test their
consistent reliability by applying the Cronbachs Alpha Coefficient.
Consequently, the total testing value was 0.8829, which exceeded 0.6. This
means that the relevant questions in this study were reliable. Whole
questionnaires were surveyed and analyzed by statistical computer program.
For the independent and dependent variables such as gender and tourism
behaviors that are nominal, the used statistic is the Chi-Square Test. Yet, for
the dependent variables that are interval and ratio compared with nominal or
ordinal independent variables, the used statistic is t-test and One-Way
ANOVA (for more than two independent variables). If finding a Sig. in One-
Way ANOVA, I would compare the degree of variables significance by
Fishers Least Significant Difference.

The findings are illustrated in the following tables. The statistical formulas
that are applied (Malhotra, 1996) are as follows:-

1) Percentage Value

P = _f_ x 100
n


7










P = Percentage Value
F = Total Summed Number
n = Total Sampling Number

2) Mean
_
= x
n
_
x = Average Value or Mean
x = Total Summed Observed Values of the Variable x
n = Total Sampling Size

3) Independent Sample t-test

_ _
t = _________x
1
x
2
_______
_____________________
(n
1
-1)S
1
2
+ (n
2
-1)S
2
2
1 + 1
n
1
+n
2
-1 n
1
n
2


t = t- Distribution
_
x
1
= Average Value of Sampling Group 1
_
x
2
= Average Value of Sampling Group 2

S
1

= Value of Standard Deviation in Group 1

S
2

= Value of Standard Deviation in Group 2

n
1
= Sampling Size of Group 1

n
2
= Sampling Size of Group 2

4) One-Way Analysis of Variance

F = MS
b

MS
w


F = F-Distribution Value
MS
b
= Mean Square between Groups
MS
w
= Mean Square within Groups
8











5) Fishers Least Significant Difference
_____________
LSD = t
1-/2;n-k
MSE 1 + 1 n
i
n
j

n
i
n
j

______
LSD = t
1-/2;n-k
2MSE n
i
= n
j

n
j


LSD = Value of Significant Difference between i and j Sampling groups

t
1-/2;n-k
= t-Distribution at confident level (1-)

MSE = Value of Mean Square Error
k = Sampling tested group
n = Sampling data
= Significant Level

6) The Chi-Square Test

2
=
r
i=1

c
j=1
(O
ij
E
ij
)
2

E
ij


2
= Value of Person Chi Square
O
ij
= Frequent Value of Observation
E
ij
= Frequent Value of Expectation
i = Number of Row
j = Number of Column
r = Number of Sampling Volume
c = Number of Sampling Type

When the desired results are concluded, they are required to be logically
matched with results from many other target stakeholders in-depth interviews
and observations. Finally, the analyzed findings are written in an outline
pattern of management plans and policies.

6. Process of the study

1. Set the topics of interest that can be effectively examined.
9










2. Visit and take photos of all identified prospective heritage sites that
retain sufficient cultural significance and sense of place for further
study.
3. Search secondary data such as conservation textbooks and heritage
marketing articles to read, take notes and record their citations and
abstracts in library program for the literature review.
4. Commence preliminary in-depth interviews with some important target
groups, for the purpose of refining the questions and to apply the
heritage marketing concepts.
5. Develop a draft questionnaire for testing visitors demand that is
comprised of individual information, opinions of visitors in 4 Ps
strategies, and tourism behavior toward the heritage attractions of
Downtown Phetchaburi. After that, fifty questionnaires are used to
conduct the try-out surveys to prove reliability of all relevant
questions. In addition to reliability, the proper order of the questions is
important. The first part is individual information that contains
nominal questions about the visitors demographics, i.e. gender, age,
marital status, education level, monthly income and occupation. The
second part is designed in 5 scales of importance which illustrate the
level of notable interest of 4 Ps strategies in the visitors opinions as
follows:

5 = the most important
4 = important
3 = not certain
2 = not important
1 = the least important

To calculate means of different opinions levels, the following formula
is used (Suffolk County Community College, 2006)

10










Largest Data Value - Smallest Data Value

Desired number of cl asses
5 - 1 = 0.8
5

Therefore, we can distribute the frequency table as follows:

4.21 5.00 = the most important level of visitors opinions
3.41-4.20 = very important level of visitors opinions
2.61-3.40 = medium level of importance of visitors opinions
1.81-2.60 = not very important level of visitors opinions
1.00-1.80 = the least important level of visitors opinions

The final part concerns issues of tourism behaviors, mixing multiple-
choice questions and free text questions. All points concern the
purpose of traveling, transportation used, time of arrival at cultural
attraction, type of visitor, accommodation, number of overnight stays,
travel costs, accompanying visitors, time spent at the heritage site,
intention to return, the most frequently visited place and traveling
occasion.
6. Collect all questionnaire surveys and key all findings into a statistical
computer program while grouping valid data and calculating means of
the level of importance.
7. Analyze the findings by using a statistical computer program.
8. Conduct the second in-depth interviews with more specific target
groups; determine by comparison if the tourists needs can be
developed into marketing strategies, which can be balanced with other
stakeholders benefits and suitable heritage conservation.
9. Lastly, create a conclusion and submit the dissertation in the form of
outlined management plans and educational guidelines applied in the
academic theory of heritage marketing

11










7. Specific Definitions

Marketing is defined as the systematic investigation of various
visitors needs and satisfying those needs without damaging the
heritage sites in Downtown Phetchaburi, while encouraging sustainable
tourism.

Heritage sites are defined as historic sites that maintain significant
value in Downtown Phetchaburi. They can be categorized into three
major types i.e. summer palaces, temples (Wat), and old Thai
traditional houses.

Areas of low tourism patronage are defined as those heritage sites of
Downtown Phetchaburi that have significant value, but lack monetary
support, appropriate management, and record few visitors throughout
the year. Sometimes these are called short-trip tourism attractions, as
they receive few long-term visits.

Visitors are defined as all people who visit and have traveled to
heritage sites in Downtown Phetchaburi.

Government agencies are defined as all government sectors
that are directly involved in management and conservation of heritage
sites and surrounding areas in Downtown Phetchaburi.

Community leaders and Non-government organizations (NGOs)
refer to individuals or groups of local people who are concerned with
tourism growth and the conservation of historic sites in Downtown
Phetchaburi.

Tour operators refers to business owners or persons who conduct
tourism business activities in areas nearby heritage sites in Downtown
12










Phetchaburi such as the general manager of the Royal Diamond Hotel,
close to Khao Wang; another example is the cable car manager at Khao
Wang.

4 Ps Strategy (Product, Price, Place and Promotion) refers to a
process of planning that allows heritage sites to reach their objectives.
It can be illustrated as follows:

Product strategy indicates designs to improve production in
terms of heritage conservation, cleanliness, aesthetics, historic
value, convenience, facilities, interpretation, heritage interest,
and hospitality skill of heritage site guardians.
Price strategy indicates strategies to improve the price in
terms of donations, maintaining a low price level, good value
for the expense of admission fees, and differentiation of
admission fees for various visitor groups.
Place strategy means inspiring strategies to improve the
delivery system in terms of increased purchasing, convenience
of purchasing ticket, and the number of ticketing distribution
centers.
Promotion strategy refers to strategies to improve promotion
in terms of advertising, tour packages, expo arrangements, and
interpretation in cultural themes, distribution of leaflets and
souvenirs, and other public relations activities.




13











Chapter 2
Theoretical Frameworks and Review of Related Literature

This chapter discusses theories and relevant examples of management, tourism impact
and heritage marketing occurring within Thailand and abroad, which support heritage
conservation. Further, it examines the application of marketing theories in heritage
management and the encouragement of tourism growth in areas of low tourism
patronage. These lead to background knowledge that makes it possible to integrate
concepts of marketing orientation with heritage preservation. Travel marketing
usually concentrates only on economic benefits without regard for preservation. It
should not be merely a marketing ploy to seek individual advantages, but also to
deliver significant cultural value to all stakeholders. Beginning with significant
effects in tourism development, advantages and disadvantages of cultural
revitalization are studied. Analysis of the situation in other countries reveals many
risks concerning heritage tourism growth. Change is continuous, yet as heritage
preservationists we endeavor to seek the best solutions. The next part is concerned
with marketing acknowledgement and developing a dissertation that enables detailed
definitions of strategic methods utilized in heritage sites. What are the management
plans and factors involved in stakeholders cultural conservation? The final part
analyses management theories that contain authenticity, cultural significance, and
conservation policies. Each part is described in further detail and in sub-topics that
relate to the success of management plans in each of the aspects concerned.

In conclusion, the relevant concepts that are useful in this dissertation can be divided
into three main subjects as follows:

1. Impact of Tourism Environment
2. Heritage Definition and Marketing Theories
3. Heritage Conservation and Management Approaches
14











CONCEPT 1: IMPACT OF TOURISM ENVIRONMENT
From ancient times, humans have liked traveling to explore new places and dream of
a paradise on earth. Formerly, it was quite difficult to take a journey from one area to
another far away from the ancestral home. In the present era, tourism responds to the
demands of humans who want to experience the world and increase their knowledge
of different cultures. Sometimes it is difficult to control or balance tourism conflicts;
yet study and understanding of their various aspects enhances better management of
tourism and helps determine the most appropriate conservation policies.

Economic Impacts

According to Law C. M. (2002), it is difficult to calculate the economic impact of
tourism because of the complexity of the methods required. For example, permanent
structural facilities such as roads, shops, restaurants and hotels perhaps are costly and
it takes time to measure their employment and income benefits. Even though it is
possible to count the number of visitors, measure the expenditures of visitors, and
calculate the number of jobs created by increased tourism, many official organizations
refuse to undertake this kind of measurement. They ultimately conclude that simply
quantifying the number of tourists is the only important point.

To support the ongoing development of the global economy and the distribution of
social growth, tourism is necessary. An increase in tourism raises not only the profile
of lesser-known destinations, but also supports the standard of living for local
communities. All this should appear to be positive if the heritage sites have been
operated sensitively and responsibly due to a changing tourist profile of well-educated
and high-spending visitors who conserve environments into a kind of mass tourism.
(Smith, 2003).

From further literature review, many tourism situations, especially in heritage sites,
illustrate more negative effects than positive, which, according to Pearce (1989) and
Mason (1995), include:
15










Inflation
Opportunity costs
Over-dependence on tourism

The higher cost of living in tourist towns effects the local population and changes the
traditional pattern of jobs. Traditional occupations such as farming and agriculture
can no longer generate enough income to cover living expenses. Many have to move
to new areas or become employees of outside investors. Connected to the job change,
investment in area use focuses narrowly on economic value. Instead of land being
used for farming or fisheries, owners may sell it for redevelopment as hotel sites or
other tourism activities. While spaces available in a city change into service industries
and are no longer involved in commodity production, more and more goods and
services must be imported. The uniqueness of traditional living is going to disappear.
The following case reveals the impact of tourism as presented by Fiona Simpson
(1999) in The Disclosing of Prague. She explains how mass tourism has affected
changes in land-use in historic city centers. In Prague, most of the houses are now for
tourist rental. The community must struggle to keep its cultural identity within the
current of globalization. As usual, the battle between tourism and historic
preservation is going on in historic European cities (Ashworth and Tunbridge, 1990).
Chamberlin (1979) regards the tourist as the innocent enemy of the past and goes on
to discuss the highly destructive impact of entrepreneurial selling and profiting from
the quick sale of heritage to tourists.

Involving a physical risk to the heritage fabric, tourism encourages economic gains to
finance the required conservation measures directly and indirectly (Simpson, 1999).
Local people still need financing to increase and preserve their sustainable heritage
sites. It is not surprising that heritage tourism remains in many ancient towns around
the world. It encourages an increasing number of visitors, more income generated to
local communities, more jobs and more variety of occupations for locals (Law, 2002).

From a positive perspective, the economic impacts of heritage tourism include:
Contribution to foreign exchange earnings
16










Contribution to government revenues
Generation of employment
Contribution to regional development (Lickorish, 1991).

Tourism provides a significant boost in revenues for the state and develops rural areas
through physical regeneration, maintenance of facilities and well-known image of
towns. Nevertheless, promoting tourism in towns can still be troublesome. Tourism
can be more profitable than export-oriented manufacturing. The overall cost of
tourism is quite low and the process is less complicated than the procedure for
exporting goods. Local authorities are able to have their own development budgets
from tourism commercialization.

In contrast, the negative impact normally emerges from progressive development
beyond an acceptable point. For historic places, it perhaps means over exploitation of
the capacity of tourist sites. If we do not balance tourism environments sustainably,
we will be required to regulate the carrying capacity of heritage attractions (Simpson,
1999). Many tourism attractions are so fragmented that development needs to be
done sensitively. On the optimistic side, in terms of the generation of employment, the
development of tourism is vital not only to generate business volume, but also affects
the nature of jobs.

Negatively, mostly non-locals are employed in the higher professional and managerial
positions (Mathieson and Wall, 1982a). This conflict discourages tourism promotion
in historic areas because the locals get nothing from what they have or their own
heritage resources. Heritage tourism does not help them improve their standard of
living. In addition, the generation of created jobs makes them feel inferior. All are
concerned with job opportunities, skill level, performance and wage rates
(Marcouiller, 1997). With low skill of employees, entrepreneurs or executive
managers may not pay high salaries, and worse, provide only casual or temporary
employment opportunities in a low tourism area. The push of social and political
expectations to boost the economy may not be a good idea and may affect the
dynamics of growth that impact the region (Ribeiro and Marques, 2002). The urgent
17










tourism improvement reflects an imbalance of society. It opens an opportunity for
overseas or other outside investors to take profits from community assets and take it
abroad, which creates dissatisfaction for locals and management repatriation
(Apostolopoulos, 1995, Apostolopoulos, 1996, Britton, 1996, Brohman, 1996).
Moreover, where tourism is successful, this will be followed by congestion on streets
and in pedestrian areas. In most popular tourist attractions, the locals have to wait in
line and prices of products have increased dramatically (Law, 2002).

Furthermore, development of heritage tourism can lead to internationalization, which
transforms heritage into a tourism commodity. Local authenticity can be undermined.
Academic research shows that in Prague, for example, the opening of the post-
socialist old town to tourists has led to divergent perceptions between local residents
and tourists in terms of the deep meaning of the area. The value of the historic center
of Prague has been ignored. The region has been homogenized. This case displays
the necessity of having tourism management related to projects within the historic
core of Prague. Meanwhile, the quality of life for residents depends on foreign
tourists for sustainable tourism (Simpson, 1999).

Unfortunately, as it has been called a new form of imperialism, tourism currently
flows from the developed countries to developing countries. Without realization of
the current tourism situation, locals can suffer from the urgent push of promoting their
home heritage sites. Three economic conditions are relevant here:

1. Developing countries grow to depend on tourism as a means of
securing revenue.
2. A large proportion of outputs and earnings flow back to foreign
investors and high leakage occurs.
3. Non-locals are employed in professional and managerial positions
(Mathieson and Wall, 1982a).

Facing these factors, a community may lose its sovereignty. With disappointment to
some developing countries, the residents agree that economic dependency is a normal
18










relationship between urban and rural societies. They are unlikely to question their
subservience since it has become quite normal (Hall, 2000).

Whether or not a community accepts its own fate in tourism development, the control
of growth from tourism can perhaps be minimized. In the paper of Benjamin W.
Porter and Noel B. Salazar (2005) there is a statement that Greenspan, Breglia, and
Levine et. al. first suggested attention to the disparity in power and access between
distinctive stakeholder communities. The influence of commercial interests,
government bodies or even basic traditions can build barriers in heritage management.
Once their power is established and dominates decisions of the community, small
stakeholders can be ignored. Therefore, to excel in heritage tourism, all sharing
partners must be heard and acknowledged. As a case of tourism development at a
heritage center in Lowell, it presents a contest between commercial space, race
politics and urban preservation. The knowledge workers transform their desire to
awaken the communitys awareness of local immigrant communities and inspire an
admiration of local diversity into a folk-life presentation. All local voices can be
shared equally and integrated into reasonable policy.

Another management situation involves the local politics of a global heritage site at
Chichen Itza in Mexico. The employment opportunities of Maya residents cannot
gain elite status in the local community by passing on their rights as the sites
caretakers from their ancestors. Economic monopoly causes conflict that impacts
disenfranchised residents who should have job opportunities at the site (Porter and
Salazar, 2005). They further state that heritage tourism conflicts that arise on the
local level revolve around economic interests more than heritage concerns. Should
community members be vital to exchange heritage resources for income? When
tourism has been promoted in a historic town, it immediately transformed the town
into a valuable asset as a tourist attraction. At the same time, the resistance of
management is going beyond tourism development. Eventually, state organizations
hold the primary rights to manage such precious resources. They always design the
sites public representation though other stakeholders desire to take responsibility in
heritage management (Porter and Salazar, 2005).
19











It is a tough question to ask who should hold the major rights in heritage
development. The perception of positive or negative tourism depends on the value
position and judgment of the spectator (Mason, 2003). For example, building a hotel
in low tourism areas has a positive impact in the creation of more jobs. In contrast,
these are usually considered part time, semi-skilled, or poorly paid jobs. Although it
is erasing traditional forms of employment, tourism has become a major source of
employment worldwide. Decisions concerning heritage tourism reflect several
factors. As a case in point, tourism job opportunities in Zhouzhuang are perceived as
the second best situation. Locals want to identify themselves as producers rather than
service staff. They dont understand that service staffs are also valuable.
Furthermore, migrants who work in the tourism sector are likely to start small shops
and hire local employees with lower pay. One study shows what has happened to a
small, peaceful old town that has been developed into a busy tourist destination (Xu,
2003). Another matter of positive and negative tourism consideration involve a
footpath through a national park to cater for tourists. This is a good method to scope
the environmental damage by just walking along the tourist route. Yet some
observers comment on the need for convenience to attract more tourists, and therefore
increasing the chances of environmental destruction. As Peter Mason (2003) argues:

Any relevant debate of tourism impacts needs to consider the value
position of observers and commentators and should be set within cares
of the wider context of tourism.

Obviously the declaration of Butler and others indicates that changes in different level
of tourism development impact residents perceptions and causes potential conflicts
between locals and tourists. Between the growth of tourism, and benefits for local
communities, it is not possible to graph using a simple linear equation (Williams and
Shaw, 1998).

20










Moreover, Doxey and Gunn forecast an inverse relationship between tourism
development and local support. Opposition to heritage tourism in places like
Zhouzhuang is caused by the following:

1. Some attractions are reserved for tourists rather than for locals.
2. The living environment for residents has not been much improved to
preserve traditional buildings.
3. Although jobs are created in the tourism service sector, economic leakage
is high.
4. Houses have become very expensive for living (Xu, 2003).
Tourists and Locals
In recent years, the regeneration or rejuvenation of destinations has become a
widespread phenomenon. Many destinations have upgraded their production,
diversified into new forms of tourism and are targeting higher spending visitors
(Smith, 2003). The locals generate more new strategies to maintain the high level of
tourists. Optimistically, tourism helps reduce the misunderstandings in distinctive
cultures and societies. Yet, arguments from pessimists concentrate on the relationship
between the guests and hosts. How do they learn from each other when contact is
very limited (Law, 2002)? Visitors never have a chance to learn about the
diversification of local cultures. The situation is even worse for short city break
visitors who are free from any involvement in a place, but still criticize heritage
conservation without having any responsibility to do anything about it (Pocock,
1997b). This creates friction between locals and tourists. The inhabitants feel very
alienated and this results in low hospitality.

Nevertheless, if visitors can find opportunities to learn about the communitys
culture through local activities, museums and heritage centers, they better understand
the local community (Law, 2002). Glasson et al. (1995) describe the difficulties that
occurred from the application of the above concept to tourism. Perceptions of tourists
and host communities are seldom similar. The pattern of more complicated features
relating to tourism including economic, cultural and socio-political dimensions ought
21










to be analyzed. As an example, from an analysis of the destruction of cultural
uniqueness, four characteristics for performance consideration in Zhouzhuang cultural
tourism are:

1. The overall pattern of cultural tourism development is determined by
feedback structures.
2. The decline of cultural values, especially intangible cultural attractions, is
a slow process.
3. There are long delays between the perceived impact of tourism and the
implementation of tourism development strategies.
4. Institutional capacity to address the negative feedback is low (Xu, 2003).

Even though it seems to involve long-term impacts, residents in China are alert to the
growth of tourism and the change of heritage towns. The more tourists come, the
more jobs are available for migrants. While tourism growth continues rapidly, it
creates uncomfortable situations for locals. Eventually, they move out and live
outside their historic towns. This leads to a decline in traditional local culture since
their lifestyle is gradually changed. Tourism is not focused on sustainability, but
making wealth and improving the modern environment for the locals. Furthermore,
migrants come to live in the heritage city just for their jobs. If there were no jobs,
they would move out.

The main characteristics of heritage attractions can be divided into three categories,
i.e. local cultural identity; basic necessities, including easy access and good
accommodation; and the quality of the physical environment (Xu, 2003). Prosperity
in society is the result of the successful cooperation of community leaders. Abdou
Khadre Diagne, a researcher concerning tourism development in the Senegalese Petite
Cte, notes that the human and physical geography including ecosystems are now
shaped by new entrepreneurial activity. Modification of the traditional structures of
the Petite Cte society interrupts local traditions and conflicts with Islamic moral
codes. It even causes social problems such as prostitution and muggings. Most of the
locals have abandoned their traditional occupations and are now employed as service
22










laborers. Furthermore, formal political power used to belong to male elders who
monitored the change of position in society. At present, the positions of leadership
have altered to young entrepreneurs who gain profit from tourism. They are
aggressive and disrespect their leaders by refusing to follow the time-honored
tradition of Islamic regulations (Diagne, 2004a).

Sex tourism impacts traditional social structures and endangers locals with new
problems such as AIDS, the elimination of social control, and immoral behavior under
traditional Islamic codes. Tourism development is responsible for growth in
prostitution. Some local girls turn to prostitution to feed their own poor families,
while others earn their livelihood in this way. It is recognized that the arrival of these
types of tourism is dangerous to traditional society. Even prostitution is normally
illegal and supposed to be punished, yet in fact, prostitutes are not arrested. The case
of Senegalese Petite Cte reveals that even after spending a night in jail, the next
morning they return to prostitution. In addition, male prostitution is increasing. It
targets the group of male or older female tourists (Diagne, 2004a). In this case, the
residents must develop a close relationship with tourism activities and prevent the
spiral of its adverse effects, creating a sustainable harmony between heritage tourism
and the local economy while protecting against negative transformation of
metropolitan power.

Lundgren (1972) describes the relationship between a core and periphery as the
transfer of metropolitan values that are adopted by local residents to accommodate the
demands of metropolitan visitors. Tourism development responds to tourists in urban
areas, who influence the thoughts and attitudes of local residents. Britton (1991)
notes that superior resources, commercial skills and power is the main factors to
encourage foreign companies to take over many third-world tourist destinations.
Foreign companies establish themselves, and control tourism operations worldwide.
Mathieson and Wall (1982) indicate that most income and profits from heritage
resources are sent back to the foreign investors country. Tourism development may
be just one-way transfers of capital. Hall and Page (1991) suggest that in terms of
social impact, tourism must involve improvement in collective and individual value
23










systems, patterns of behavior, community structures, lifestyles and a reasonable
quality of life.

Perhaps an imbalance of sustainability is happening and residents are the ones
sacrificed for development. For example in Estonia, due to the influence of tourism in
the post-socialist nation, culture and history are transformed into tourist experiences.
They become the new international identity of each of the countries in the area
(Unwin, 1996). In tourism, it is important to recognize such a dynamic meaning of
heritage. It is common for visitors and residents to experience and perceive heritage
places in distinctively different ways (Simpson, 1999).

The misunderstanding of perceptions between locals and tourists sometimes causes
conflicts with development in tourism. Indeed, it can be seen as a threat to the
expression of nationality within the international environment. In contrast, creating
an image of a destination perceived as international seems to be unsuitable for the
locality or history of a place (Kearns and Philo, 1993, Ashworth, 1995, McCrone et
al., 1995). Loss of cultural identity, especially from globalization, is a common
consequence. It can be referred to as the demonstration effect. Foreign tourists
travel to a local town and motivate the locals to change their traditional behavior. For
example, people from the developing world may begin to adopt foreign practices,
such as wearing brand name clothes or eating junk foods like McDonalds. Despite
the negative effects of tourism that many researchers have repeatedly discovered since
the late 1970s (Wall, 1997, Jafari, 1990), community members continue demanding
that visitors come; they still depend largely on tourism. For community members,
better jobs, higher incomes, increases in tax revenues and a brighter future for their
children require more tourism. With the realization of negative effects, the
inhabitants prepare well for handling the question of tourism development, while they
consider the trade off of tourism benefits. They ignore the long-term consequences of
negative impacts and enjoy the benefits from tourism in the present (Wall, 1997).
This is not a good method of cultural conservation in heritage development.


24










As Wall (1997, P.2) argues:

The situation is extremely complex. But impacts are often
desired, are extremely difficult to assess, may require the
acceptance of trade-offs and in a policy context, may involve
the development of strategies to mitigate undesirable impacts.

In some sense, the stakeholder community can be seen as a parasite, consuming what
is there, but contributing nothing to the development of heritage. They expect high
prosperity in their own cities, but expect others to undertake management of heritage
sites without good tourism planning (Roberta Gratz, quoted in the Guardian, 13
September 2000). When the outside investors control all tourism resources, a sense of
a place and its identity that the community contributes to heritage has been reduced.
Therefore, it is essential for the stakeholders to understand the perceived meaning of
the condition as it changes (Mason, 2003).

It is not only who concerning in management of tourism, but Davison (1996) also
notes the important issue of where and when tourism impacts. It is similar to the
declaration of Butler (1980), Tourism impacts are likely to change over time as a
destination area develops. The gradual impacts are dependent on tourisms
seasonality, which is comprised of seasonal and holiday periods.

Furthermore, the major influences on tourism impacts as stated by Peter Mason are:

1. Where is tourism taking place?
2. What is the scale of tourism?
3. Who are the tourists?
4. In what type of activities do tourists engage?
5. What infrastructure exists for tourism?
6. For how long has tourism been established?
7. What is the tourist season? (Mason, 2003)

25










The built environment is changed for profit and land-use change performs a
significant role (Mason, 2003). Heritage adaptation such as building and plan layout
boost tourist business, but also change traditional behaviors.

William (1998, p. 153), acculturation theory states that when two societies come into
touch for any length of time, an unrestricted trade of opinions and products occurs.
Through time, this produces convergence between the societies and they become
similar (Williams, 1998). The particular process of acculturation may be dubbed the
McDonald-ization or Coca-cola-ization of global cultures (Mason, 1992,
MacCannell, 1995). The worst impacts undermine a variety of cultures around the
globe. More than a compromise to Western values, it leads to imitating the European
visitors lifestyle. As a result, residents ignore old customs such as native dancing
(Diagne, 2004a). Consequently, they become mere folklore shows to European
tourists, and become devoid of the deeper meaning of their traditions.

Despite the process of acculturation now taking place, the major motivations for
tourism still include the experience of different cultures (Ryan, 1997) as illustrated
through art, music, dance and handicrafts. At its best, tourism promotes the survival
of traditional art and handicraft activity, and does not just increase revenues to an
area. The earnings from tourism are utilized in restoration and maintenance of
heritage attractions. Most research has repeatedly noted the economic benefits to
stakeholder communities and the creation of jobs. Conversely, the increased price of
food, land and housing is a negative impact. More serious impacts include drug use
and prostitution. Once socio-cultural problems have arisen, the locals will not be
pleased, and it will take time for the situation to be improved (Mason, 2003).

In terms of local souvenirs, due to the shift towards tourism, handicrafts are mass
made. The local uniqueness of traditional art has become commercialized. The style
of souvenir marketing to tourists must also be designed to match the imported tastes
and the vagaries of foreign tourists. On the positive side, tourism contributes to the
survival of traditional arts and crafts, but unfortunately most souvenir retailers are
unlicensed.
26










Environmental Damage

Lack of awareness of social, economic and environmental values results in the
absence of a monitoring system to identify conflicts between local communities and
tourism. These conflicts can cause a huge negative impact on the environment. For
example, in Zhouzhouang, overcapacity of tourism has damaged the environment.
Water pollution is happening in most of the narrow canals due to the increasing
number of tourists and the launch of 24 large-scale restaurants, which discharge
wastewater into the canals. In addition, there are damaging hotels and other service
facilities constructed ringing the old town, such as free riders of the historic town and
a Japanese style golf course, which attracts more tourists and creates more pollution.
Though there are strict controls for new construction inside the heritage town, the
reputation of a peaceful water town can hardly be revived.

If the developers do not pay close attention to significant values other than economic
significance, whole heritage cities are at risk from pollution. The lack of proper
management in garbage waste leads to a pollution problem (Diagne, 2004b). While
polluted waste is recognized very quickly, declining cultural uniqueness occurs
slowly. Without warning, negative impacts of tourism increase and it may be too late
to implement resolutions to the crisis.

With quick development of tourism towns, all stakeholders probably do not realize
what happening to their environments. It should not be just for the economic earnings
of outside investors since they run tourism businesses for only a limited time and can
leave tremendous problems such as pollution of the natural environment in their
wake. Swarbrooke (1999) mentions five aspects of environment, i.e. the natural
environment, wildlife, the farmed environment, built environment and natural
resources. All are interrelated to each other.
27











Figure 1: Five aspects of environment

In any particular situation, the environmental impacts must be considered as follow:

1. The where factor is significant. Some environmental areas are more
fragile than the others
2. The characteristic of tourism activities
3. The facilities of tourists are important
4. Particular seasonal demand (Mason, 2003)

Some environmental areas need to be managed carefully since they are fragile and not
easily sustained. As in the case of remote urban historic areas, development for
tourism possibly impacts the surrounding society; natural resources such as rivers and
canals; and local inhabitants. Tourist facilities such as roads and paths should not just
be built, but should be considered as a part of the environmental organization
structure and managed through planning processes (Williams, 1998). The group of
tourism activities also must be clarified. Some tourism activities are not appropriate
to a site, such as a nightclub in an old palace, or 24-hour restaurants in old heritage
villages. However, there are many traveling activities that encourage tourism
sustainability. For example, in the Petite Cte, since market gardening is well known,
The natural environment:
Mountainous areas
Seas
Rivers and lakes
Caves
Beaches
Natural woodland
Wildlife:
Birds
Insects
Flora Land-based mammals
Farmed environment:
Fish farms
Man-made forests
Natural resources:
Water, Air, Climate
The built environment
Individual buildings and
structures
Dams and reservoirs
28










the stakeholders promote it as an activity which promotes better direct contact with
the natural environment (Diagne, 2004a).
There is an indirect relationship between facilities for tourists and the seasonality of
tourism. Even though hotels and resorts are constructed for tourists convenience for
the time tourists require, they do not visit year round. The more such facilities are
constructed usually means a higher impact on heritage and natural conservation and
increasing numbers of tourists. For example, in the natural environment, the impact
of improper liquid waste treatment leads to serious negative effects:

1. Noxious smells
2. Fermentation leading to a contamination of the water by sewage
3. The presence of rodents and insect vectors of contagious diseases
4. The degradation of the site (Xu, 2003)

Conservation of the environment is of equal importance with conservation of heritage
fabric. Another risk of conservation is an excess of visitors. McKercher (1993)
argues that tourism activities tend to massively over use assets. For example, serious
losses of environment can be caused by a small group of trekkers who visit a remote
area in Nepal because of improper tourism management (Holden and Ewen, 2002).
The forms of carrying capacity are summarized below:

Environmental (or physical) carrying capacity usually refers to physical space
and the number of people (or the number of cars) in a particular place.
Ecological carrying capacity is a threshold measure, which if exceeded will
lead to actual damage of plant/animal habitat.
Perceptual carrying capacity; this is the level of crowding that a tourist is
willing to tolerate before he/she decides a particular location is too full and
then goes elsewhere (Mason, 2003).

To prevent environmental damage, heritage conservationists primarily start
teaching stakeholder community and government authorities to be aware of the
impacts of heritage tourism and to realize the positive and negative effects before the
29










development of their own resources. It is very important that before creating a
market, they must be aware of tourisms impact on the environment. Clarifying the
impacts on the heritage environment first is essential for developing sustainable
tourism.

CONCEPT 2: HERITAGE MARKETING AND ITS RELEVANCE TO
HERITAGE SITES

Marketing is the management function that is involved in identifying,
anticipating, and satisfying customer requirements, profitably.

(Chartered Institute of Marketing, UK)

Marketing is a process by which individuals and groups obtain what
they need and want through creating, offering and exchanging products
and value with each other.

(Philip Koter, 1994)


Marketing is to establish, develop and commercialize long-term
customer relationships so that the objectives of the parties are met.
This is done by a mutual exchange and keeping of promises.

(Christian Grnroos, 1989)

The process to know appropriate target markets for products and services is usually
done through market segmentation. Individual groups have distinctive needs.
Therefore, suppliers must understand and segment target groups, then follow up with
a suitable situation or environment. However, demand is satisfied when products and
services are consumed. To be a successful destination in terms of marketing, a site
might wish to add value through the use of strategic tools such as information
technology, customer relationship management, and brand creation. These disciplines
provide added value for marketing. Even though marketing a rock concert at a
heritage site would not be considered appropriate, some non-profit organizations add
tourism activities in order to receive funds for heritage maintenance and economic
30










growth. For example, by starting stores, bars and restaurants alongside heritage
places, they encourage commercial profits for organizational stability. Heritage
authorities must define the suitable demand of visitors and deliver it at the right place
and right time, while ensuring a minimum impact from commercial activities.
Friction may emerge from an excess of gains. Hence, a stable relationship between
marketing projects for consumers satisfaction and preserving heritage for future
generations is essential (Misiura, 2006).

In conclusion, heritage marketing is a process to ensure visitors greatest satisfaction
by choosing the right segmentation with an appropriate combination of tourism
activities. It requires that overall purposes are developed in balance with heritage
conservation. Nevertheless, the success of heritage marketing is impossible if we lack
knowledge in the aim of marketing which is to know and understand the customer so
well that the product or service fits him/her but allows the organization to achieve its
goals (Dibb and Simkin, 2002).

A case study of heritage tourism by Yiping Li, Raymong Lap & Bong Lo (2003)
defines heritage tourism as a form of special interest tourism that invites tourists to
learn about history and lifestyle (Craik, 1997, Williams, 1998). These include
activities such as cultural tours, festivals, cultural events, monuments, folklore and
arts (Apostolakis, 2003, World Tourism Organization, 1985, Zeppel and Hall, 1992).
Most heritage tourism involved visits to tangible assets such as historic buildings,
archaeological sites and cultural artifacts that convey intangible values, such as the
patterns of life and indigenous cultural traditions. Three remarkable factors that
promote this special kind of tourism are nostalgia, globalization, and social shift.
Experts (Williams, 1998, Goulding, 1999, Graham et al., 2000, Halewood and
Hannam, 2001, Hewison, 1987, Lowenthal, 1985) have shown these findings over the
years.




31










ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

THE HERITAGE THE SEGMENTS THE MARKETING
PROVIDERS IN THE MARKET MIX
(Need to Understand) (Apply to the selected visitors &
A combination of the marketing mix strategy)

Figure 2: A Summary of the generic disciplines applied in heritage marketing
(Misiura, 2006)

As shown in figure 2, visitors or customers are central in the heritage marketing
process, yet it is controlled by environmental factors such as heritage sites,
cooperation with local communities, and authorities. Over the past 30 years, the
whole world seems to have developed a growing enthusiasm to recover national
history, both in recorded history and the unknown timeless history of traditional
events (Samuel, 1989). It is one of the significant driving forces in heritage marketing
to appeal to the motivations and aspirations of visitors. However, development
activities must realize the benefits of long-term heritage tourism, especially
concerning the wider issue of national identity and how significant cultural values are
frequently realized nationally and internationally (Misiura, 2006).

Adopted from the view of Kotler (1994), marketing as a management tool supports
more visitation and sales maximization, while realizing social responsibility. It
assumes increasing growth of cultural or heritage attractions using a customer-focused
strategy. Furthermore, achievement of organizational goals by delivering appropriate
products and services to the correct target market must include both financial and
non-financial forms. Hence, in terms of environmental responsibility, marketing
should recognize the functional use of heritage by the host population (Seaton and
Bennett, 1996). Indeed, the certain type of knowledge in heritage sites is suitable
only for some groups of tourists. Perhaps if too much mass tourism appears at a
heritage site, marketing management could be an excellent tool to de-commercialize
the asset, moderate demand, transfer demand between seasons, or even shift pressure
32










away from fragile areas to more robust ones. In this case, promotion of many
distinctive places must enhance appropriate enjoyment for tourists visits. For
example, in reference to the marketing notion applied with tourism arrangement of
Canterbury Cathedral in England, Reverend Canon Brett stated that careful and
accurate description of the character of the area, and of the desired message that
management wishes to promote, sincerely advances more specific attention to diverse
visitors interests (Brett, 1999).

In contrast, the failure of heritage marketing can be found in several cases.
Identification of sales targets, advertising budgets and promotional material are
created without clarifying what and why marketers exactly want to earn from these
efforts. They lack real knowledge of marketing and have no apparent objectives or
goals. Eventually, the reaction to heritage marketing is reduced to consumer
orientation rather than a balance of overall tourism growth between stakeholders.
Tourism investors may receive the best profits and leave negative impacts to host
community. Local government collects tax payments without taking care of travelers
facilities. Moreover, experience of heritage tourism is a lower priority than increasing
the amount of visitors. The initial measure of success is the maximum increase of
tourists and maximum generation of revenue. Instead of visitors pleasure and
sustainable conservation of historic places, the suitable aims of heritage tourism are
harmed. The heritage providers abandon the core objective of arranging tourism
activities within heritage sites. The message conveyed by much promotional literature
is controlled by movement traders who require maximum profits from heritage
tourism.

Non-financial goals, such as conservation, educational awareness building, creating
pride in ones past, and even religious contemplation, should have equal or even
stronger roles in marketing. Excess visitors impact on the success of non-financial
objectives.

In considering cultural tourism attractions, industry concerns are only a small part
compared to other heritage objectives. It is vital to share assets between tourists and
33










local markets. The best chance for this to succeed is to encourage community support
in cultural tourism, especially at the developmental stage. Local residents should be
the leaders and always be first priority users.

In circumstances where heritage sites are launched for free to the public, marketers
must manage the facilities to accommodate the number of visitors to the site.
Restrooms and public gardens ought to be clean and safe. These issues must be
addressed before considering more advanced marketing issues (McKercher and du
Cros, 2002). Visitors perceptions of cleanliness and safety in heritage places are
fundamental. If marketers cannot provide these, subsequent steps to attract tourists
through marketing approaches are impossible.

Heritage marketing initially tended to emphasize increasing the volume of visitors,
assuming that the tourism industry was like any other product. The marketers concern
only sales volume and economic benefits without recognition that special treatment,
specific geographical, environmental and socio-cultural features are significant.
Modern theory of tourism planning, in contrast, recognizes the fragile environment of
tourism destinations, and altered lives of indigenous people, by studying the negative
impacts of tourism revitalization. Social marketing strategies should be adopted to
prioritize the satisfaction of various stakeholders rather than narrow money benefits
sought by entrepreneurs.


34










Figure 3: The dynamic wheel of tourism stakeholders (Buhalis and Fletcher, 1995)

However, friction may sometimes occur between stakeholders who emphasize short-
term benefits and those who emphasize long-term success. A compromise for
beneficial gains among them is difficult but not impossible (Yuksel et al., 1999,
Palmer and Bejou, 1995, Jamal and Getz, 1996, Buhalis and Fletcher, 1995, Buhalis,
1999).

Tourists perceive an image of a destination through the management of service
providers. Expectations of a heritage attraction can be developed before traveling
through word of mouth, press reports, prior experience, advertising and norm beliefs
(Baloglu and Brinberg, 1997, Chon, 1991, Chon, 1992). Eventually, during traveling
consumption, the visitors perception is influenced by their overall experience from

Tourism
Enterprises
and SMTEs

Tour
Operators

Public
Sector and
government


Tourists
Host
population

Interest &
benefits
Responsibilities
35










small single service elements such as taxi drivers, hotel receptionists, theme park
gatekeepers etc. All of these contribute to other peoples attitudes toward the heritage
destination.

As visitors are more concerned with the cultural significance of assets, they are
willing to pay higher prices for protection of destinations (Archer, 1996, Garrod and
Willis, 1992, Laarman and Gregersen, 1996, Palmer and Bejou, 1996, Thomas, 1992).
Hence, heritage resources are positioned in the center of tourism dynamics and their
conservation or sustainability remains as a core of tourism marketing surrounded by
destination stakeholders. Middleton and Hawkins (1998) explain that a marketing
perspective is essentially an overall management orientation reflecting corporate
attitudes that, in the case of travel and tourism, must balance interests of a destination
and at the same time contact the demands and expectation of customers.

As shown in figure 3 (above), all stakeholders are interconnected and need to share
equally in local resources on the basis of interests, benefits, and responsibilities.
Therefore, tourism marketing is not only a tool to encourage more visitations, but also
to develop long-term competitive advantages for the next generation. The marketing
objectives are to support long-term prosperity for local communities by making
maximum profits to small local entrepreneurs, managing socio-cultural and
environmental costs, as well as delighting visitors. Not only a tool for sales, a
marketing plan can assure local residents a worthy return on utilized assets by de-
marketing, which is a marketing method used to increase organizational revenue and
to reduce customers demand in case of excess demand, i.e. charging a premium price
for single purpose visitors or niche segmentation, as well as arranging limited visiting
hours in certain periods. By this method, heritage resources can be made sustainable
or can even recover from asset deterioration. For example, Cambridge town
developers seek only visitors who are able to stay overnight since they contribute
more economic value than day excursionists (Buhalis, 2000).

To be successful in heritage promotion, it is not necessary to choose all kinds of
visitor groups. In contrast, we would rather select only specific tourists who are
36










interested in heritage study and willing to follow regulations put in place by
stakeholders. The marketing strategies suitable for this use customer focus on niche
marketing. In all heritage sites that seek to become tourist attractions, the concerns
of developers and heritage providers are less important in determining marketing mix
strategies. Some just spend the government budget to construct useless monuments,
without realization of any applied heritage marketing. It is better to at least
understand segments in the visitor market and understand how to utilize the scarce
heritage resources for maximum benefit in balance with environmental factors.
Likewise, consideration of various risks or conflicts from implementing heritage
marketing in local communities is vital because tourism revitalization tends to come
with short-term benefits and bring huge profits to wealthy investors. Lack of
marketing skills may cause negative impacts and produce an unrealistic expectation
among tourists.

How Marketing Can Improve the Experience of Heritage

Marketing enhances the experience of heritage by researching tourists motivations.
This identifies the demands of each target group by segmentation. In heritage
tourism, the motivations of each individual stimulate decisions to choose what
tourism activities they intend to undertake. If the marketing mix and management are
planned in accordance with research concerning customer motivation, the heritage
experience that visitors receive can be varied to satisfy the appropriate target group of
tourists. For example, a historical place has family visitors traveling on holidays.
The heritage provider should research their motivation factors and offer tourism
products such as heritage toys and cartoon interpretations about heritage sites in order
to fascinate this kind of tourist group. In conclusion, marketing concepts applied in
heritage places are able to create more charm and comfort for travelers.

Visitor Segmentation

From the review of Asad Moksin, tourism marketing involves understanding visitor
segmentation, interest generated and the attitude of buyers. Knowledge of visitor
37










demand is very useful for marketing tourism destinations. Additionally, detailed
analysis, suitable planning and proper creation of tourism programs are vital for
understanding visitors needs and expectations. Managers of heritage sites must
handle limited resources relative to fluctuating visitor demand. This encourages
greater tourism sustainability. Due to more education and availability of prompt
information, visitors have a much wider range of choices, and seek new opportunities
for more unique experiences (Mohsin, 2003). To increase sales of distinctive products
to an unlimited market (Coathup, 1999), it is essential to learn marketing strategies
and to understand the attitudes and interests of buyers who have high expectations.
Leisen (2001) points out that with differentiated destination competition, travelers
tend to make their choices primarily on time and money values (Woodside and
Lysonki, 1989). Associations such as positive, neutral or negative feelings are
dependent on a visitors image of a destination. Tourist choice behavior mainly
involves attitude (Ajzen and Briver, 1991, Chen, 1998, Fesenmaier, 1998, Iso-Ahala,
1980, Mathieson and Wall, 1982b, Um and Cromption, 1990). The motivation of
tourists tends to reflect push and pull factors. This idea describes how particular
parties are pushed to travel by some motivation factors, and how destination areas pull
or appeal to tourists (Baloglu and Uysal, 1996). Moreover; various factors such as
attitudes, expectations and perceptions of holidaymakers are important in determining
goals, influencing behavior and determining total satisfaction (Ryan, 1995b).

In terms of psychological tendencies, traveler preferences can be categorized along
four spectrums:
1. From complete relaxation to constant activity
2. From traveling close to ones home environment to a totally strange
environment
3. From complete dependence on group travel to traveling alone
4. From arranging traveling plans in order or disorder (Goeldner et al., 1999)

Furthermore, Cohen (1972) includes a merger of different level in novelty to
familiarity as well as the distinctive security between old habits and excitement of
change.
38











Holiday makers consider needs and desires, availability of time and funds,
expectations based on experience and information, in order to make consumption
decisions, ostensibly expressed through various emotions such as anxiety, optimism,
indecisiveness or enthusiasm. To promote heritage tourism and marketing
destinations, it is important to study tourist characteristics and their diverse demands.
For example, the classic categories of segmentation are classified by age, social class,
spending pattern, family development and preferences, holiday trend (alone or in
group), social and religious restrictions, special interests etc. (Mohsin, 2003). The
four major characteristics of tourists concluded by Bukart and Medlik, (1981) cited in
Ross, (1998) are particularly identified as follows:

1. They are the people who undertake a journey to, and stay in, various
destinations.
2. Their destinations are distinct from their normal place of residence and
work, so that their activities are not the same as those of the resident and
working populations of their destinations.
3. Their intention is to depart within a few days or a month, so the journey is
of a temporary and short-term nature.
4. Their purpose for undertaking the journey is other than to take up
permanent residence or employment remunerated from within the
destinations.

Calantone and Johar (1984) reveal how to segment the travel market by various
factors in different seasons. The results reflect that visitors seek diverse benefits
during one season, but different in another season. For example, beachgoers and
outdoor enthusiasts probably travel to beaches and visit cultural heritage sites in
summer, while the same groups go skiing during winter. Arguably, segmentation on
seasonal differences is not relevant to heritage tourists since their motivation is more
concerned with education and knowledge orientation (Fletcher, 1997). There are so
many influence factors that motivate travel decisions. Additionally, Fodness (1992)
and Lawson (1991) point out the importance of the factor of family life stages
39










concerning searching for information and final travel decisions. These do not include
factor of segmentation based on types of vacations, nor spending funds. Tourism and
hospitality service providers must understand all concerned motivation factors
including different types of visitor characteristics and other segmentation factors to
provide the best services.

Despite there being many methods of segmentation, there is still no standardized
instrumentation. Mo, Havity, and Howard (1993) describe a method of segmentation
based on an international tourism roles (ITR) scale applied from the framework of the
tourist role typology (Cohen, 1972). It is possible to classify four different clusters,
based on theory that tourism combines the curiosity to seek new experiences with the
need for the security of familiar reminders of home. Each cluster targets specific
socio-demographic and behavioral trip characteristic variables. The clusters consist
of organized mass tourists, individual mass tourists, explorers and drifters. First,
organized mass tourists are low on adventurousness. They always buy ready-made
package tours and have little contact with local culture or people. Second, individual
mass tourists are quite similar to the first group, but more flexible and likely to have
more personal choices. Third, explorers organize independently and often seek to
avoid the normal pattern of tourism. They demand getting in touch with real local
culture. However, comfortable accommodation and reliable transport are still
required. Lastly, the drifters have no fixed itinerary. Leaving behind home and
familiarity, they live with local residents and immerse themselves in host cultures.
This description supports Cohens classification scheme, and the composition of the
clusters discloses the multidimensional interpretation of international tourism.

In addition to suitable planning for visitors holiday experience, marketers should
realize the various attitudes and perceptions of a destination image as understood by
different sectors of targeted visitors in order to create a strategic approach. Such a
study in Greece by Buckly and Papadopoulos (1986) reveals a suggestion:

Greater attention must be paid to the characteristics of visitors when
trying to develop a more rational marketing strategy. For example, a
40










clear market segment must be identified and an investigation made of
the buying decision factors, which predominate in that segment. The
regions tourism product must be aligned with the client profile. It is
however important to recognize that the tourist product is a composite
product and that there is more than one type of client. In particular a
careful distinction must be made between the tourist and the
intermediary (travel agent and tour operator) in deciding on the
marketing mix, with particular attention being paid to promotional
elements and pricing policies.

Middleton (2001) classifies seven segmentations within most developed countries as
follows:
1. Local residents living within approximately a half an hour drive from the
attraction.
2. Regional residents making day visits away from home and who are drawn,
depending on the motivation power of the site, from a distance of two
hours or more driving time in the case of sites of national significance.
3. Visitors staying with friends and relatives within about a one hour drive
from the site.
4. Visitors on holiday staying in hotels, caravan parks and other forms of
commercial accommodation within about a one hour drive from the site.
5. Group visits, usually arranged in association with coach companies or
organized by direct-marketing contact between groups and the
management of the attraction.
6. School visits and other educational groups.
7. Corporate and other users of facilities such as conference and seminar
rooms, and uses of buildings for receptions, weddings and other functions
(Middleton, 2001).

Importance of Motivation Factors in Heritage Tourism

Why tourists choose to travel to a certain place involves two interrelated factors: the
management of tourism and academic investigation (Haukeland, 1992, Yuan and
McDonald, 1990). The holiday maker or marketers must study the linkage of tourist
motivation with the distinctive aspects of behavior connected to tourism management
41










and theoretical understanding. Such behavior, for example, determines the choice of
destination and mode of travel (Pearce and Caltabiano, 1983), expectations (Rekom,
1994), and information sources used. Decrop, Hanqin and Lam (1999) conclude that
helpful information in marketing tools such as advertising, sales promotion and even
public relation is able to stimulate needs with individual motivation and the socio-
demographic characteristics into the act of traveling. The question, why do tourists
travel? is more complicated than analyzing the meaning of plan of recreation, leisure,
and work. (Poria et al., 2001). There are many unseen motivations and individual
factors beneath the surface.

Motivation Factors in Heritage Tourism

The definition of heritage tourism is more complex than an activity by tourists in a
space where historic artifacts are presented (Garrod and Fyall, 2001). Tourism
studies are concerned with the relationship between the individual and the heritage
presentation. A further concern is with specific tourists perceptions of an area as part
of their own heritage (Poria et al., 2003a, Poria et al., 2000, Poria et al., 2003b, Poria
et al., 2003c). When tourists cultures are similar to the target culture, or have some
cultural connection to a heritage site, their comprehension comes more easily, for they
are building upon their existing knowledge base.

Prentice (1993) reveals six motivations of heritage consumers: pleasure of viewing,
education, information, relaxation, entertainment and exercise. It is argued that these
motivations can be recognized in any pattern of cultural tourism; not necessarily just
heritage tourism.

Moscardo (1996) acknowledges two interpretation roles, educational and
entertainment, in the management of heritage sites. The study identifies three types of
motivation in its explanation of why people regularly visit heritage sites.
1. Traveling as it links to their own heritage
2. Traveling as it illustrates historic artifacts
3. Traveling entirely for relaxation (nothing to do with historic or heritage sites)
42











All of these groups relate to emotion, willingness to learn and other factors that are
not related to the core of heritage attractions.

In the conclusion of this study, motivations for travel are arranged into three
categories: heritage experience, learning history, and recreational experience. These
groups of people desire taking a day trip to see famous places, in addition to sharing
valuable time with their family or loved ones.

The first two groups share similar reasons for visiting heritage sites. The heritage
experience group associates the reason for visiting heritage sites with their
perceptions of their own culture and memorial places. Similarly, the learning
history group requires learning and observing the historic background and physical
nature of sites. The association between the individual and the area is of major
importance in interpreting heritage tourism as a social phenomenon (Poria et al.,
2004).

Strategic Marketing

Most inexperienced marketers do not really understand complicated marketing
strategies. The products or physical experiences do not have universal appeal.
Furthermore, advertising that intentionally conveys the wrong message results in
lower level of visitation and inefficient utilization of scarce resources. In order to be
more successful in heritage tourism, attraction managers should study the
benchmarking method. They could learn from the many cases of achievement from
famous heritage leaders. A key element is establishing accurate segmentation of
heritage visitors, cultural heritage management, and professional marketing strategies.
Aaker (1995) suggests these questions that should be considered before planning
marketing:

1. What products do I choose to offer?
2. What products do I choose not to offer?
43










3. What markets do I choose to target?
4. What markets do I choose not to target?
5. What competitors do I choose to compete with?
6. What competitors do I choose to avoid? (Aaker, 1995)

Deciding what heritage should be presented is as important as what must not be
presented. Ineffective managers may set up too broad an array of products and
experiences for too many distinctive target audiences. In the end, no one is satisfied.
Instead of a target market that is too broad, it is beneficial to limit to one or two core
focused targets for a more efficient marketing plan. Additionally, destination markets
and travel trade organizations are comfortable in promoting cultural attractions and
exerting pressure to appeal to the specific types of visitors by noticeably boosting or
inhibiting accessibility such as a control on operation hours, entrance fees, limits on
visitation, encouragement/prohibition of bus tours, and tourism programs (McKercher
and du Cros, 2002).

Likewise, focusing on one or two intended audiences, identifying the length of time
per visit, previous background knowledge, and individual perceptions are significant
for developing better heritage products and services for those audiences. If the target
audience includes casual or incidental tourists, they mostly spend a short time in
cultural sightseeing and have low basic knowledge and interest in heritage sites.
Therefore, the pattern of heritage presentation must be easily consumable. In
addition, if a traveler is a sightseeing cultural tourist, heritage knowledge can be
generously provided more deeply. For cultural specialists, who can spend all day in
heritage sites, and have a good education in history, tourist guides can adjust
information load appropriately (McKercher and du Cros, 2002).

Strategic Concepts for Heritage Destinations

There are three strategic models for directly forming tourism strategies i.e. Porters
generic strategies, Giberts proposition for differentiation of the destination and
Poons concept of flexible specialization. First, Porter (1980) represented three
44










major strategies, i.e. cost leadership, differentiation and focus strategies in order to
formulate competitive advantages for a business. Overall strategic methods seem to
be successfully applied to heritage tourism, but do not respond to the particular needs
of tourism, in particular the scarcity and limited nature of assets. Both the natural and
man-made assets are non-renewable. Once the heritage assets have been demolished,
they are not available to be reproduced in the original pattern. Therefore, the strategic
model used should be careful not to threaten their long-term sustainability. Second,
Gilbert (1984 & 1990) disputes the notion that tourism attractions can be divided into
two distinctive zones i.e. status and commodity areas as shown in figure 4 below.
Status areas represent intentional demand resulting from the specialized
characteristics of heritage resources. Since they are irreplaceable, visitors perceive
them as unique heritage assets and demonstrate their loyalty by paying a premium
price. In contrast, commodity areas are known to be substitutable and have price
elasticity. Therefore, they do not retain significant cultural value and merit to attract
tourists. Even though the model compares unique areas and common areas that affect
the willingness of visitors to pay higher prices while traveling, it fails to realize that
the majority of heritage attractions are in the middle of the continuum. Further, the
model is incompatible with the life style at the destination where several regions are
launched as status areas and thus cease to be commodity areas.
Figure 4: Gilberts differentiation strategy (Gilbert, 1990)

Finally, Poons flexible specialization concept illustrates a strategy of permanent
innovation and ceaseless change that is appropriate for the new tourism
45










phenomenon. Traditionally, tourism is provided in a mass standardized package, yet
nowadays with customized marketing, tourism is flexibly arranged for more specific
segments. Flexible specialization requires cooperation from an alliance of all partners
and new modern technology. In real situations, it is quite difficult to implement since
some permanent resources cannot be easily changed. Hence, the level of flexibility is
the key problem in applying this concept. (Poon, 1989, Poon, 1993)

Heritage Competitors

Competition with other cultural attractions is considered an error, since the cultural
uniqueness of historic sites is incomparable. Unlike business products, cultural
tourism attractions should not compete with each other to gain market share.
Moreover, only one-third of all travelers participate in cultural tourism activities.
Most cultural tourism participants are classified into five different behavioral
segments (serendipitous, incidental, casual, sightseeing, and purposeful).

In order to protect the position of other destinations (not for competition) it might be
useful not to offer similar products. Each heritage attraction needs to retain unique
features or a sustainable competitive advantage (SCA). This is defined as a real
competitive advantage that is sustainable over time in the face of competitor reaction
(Aaker, 1995). Considering the differentiated features of heritage, there are a number
of attributes as follows:

They are substantial enough to make a difference; a marginal advantage is
meaningless.
They are sustainable in the face of competitor reaction; in other words, they
are immune to competitors actions.
They must be real or perceived to be real by the consumer and must also be
seen to be valuable to the consumer.
They form a central platform in the overall positioning of the product.
They must be rare among current competitors (Aaker, 1995, Bharadwaj et al.,
1993).
46










The Marketing Plan and Marketing Mix

Similar to general marketing activities, the designing of plans is important. They
should be flexible and dynamic documents. Richardson (1996), Seaton and Bennett
(1996) point out the procedure of marketing plans divided into six elements:

1. A situation analysis
2. A review of the organizations mission
3. Objectives and strategies for both financial and non-financial goals
4. An action plan
5. A budget
6. Evaluation of its effectiveness

Each stage of marketing plans must recognize the interrelationship between overall
objectives and goals; specific and quantifiable targets; and marketing strategies,
including implementation.

Another significant element of a marketing plan is marketing mixes, which are
strategies to provide consumer satisfaction. Kotler, (1984) cited in Middleton (1994),
defines it as the mixture of controllable marketing variables that the firm uses to
pursue the sought level of sales in the target market. Nowadays, the marketing mix
is classified into many diverse patterns of elements such as the four Cs (consumer,
cost, convenience, and communication) and eight Ps (product, people, package,
programming, pricing, place, promotion, partnership). Yet the original marketing mix
of four Ps (product, price, place, and promotion) is still used successfully in cultural
heritage management; therefore it has been widely adopted.

Product
In heritage management, attraction managers control developmental growth and
visitors experience to accomplish managerial goals. They must balance the heritage
products and activities with a mind for sustainable tourism. By contrast, an incorrect
marketing approach or inappropriate plans made by external agencies may result in
47










the formation of unsuitable products, ultimately appealing to the wrong target
audiences.

Middleton (2001) argues that in some historic buildings and sites the comparative
level of management control may be limited by planning and policy restrictions, but
the essential components of the product are internationally the same and may be
summarized as follows:

Quality of the advertising material, promotional literature and Web site
information, which establishes a promise and influences the initial
expectations of a visit.
Effectiveness and appeal of signage that guides first-time visitors to a site or
building.
First visual impression of the appearance of a site and the interest it arouses in
prospective visitors related to pre-visit expectations. Efficiency of parking
arrangements and ease of access to the entrance.
Physical appearance, ambience, and motivating appeal of the entrance to an
attraction.
Appearance, friendliness and effectiveness of staff in the reception and
payment areas where most visitors make first contact; plus other locations on
the site.
Efficiency of receiving visitors at the entrance or in a reception area including
process of ticketing, information provision and initial orientation at the point
of sale or admission.
Effectiveness of visitor circulation patterns around the site/building, managed
through the logical layout of the resource elements, paths, signposting, leaflets
and personal guides.
Displays, presentation of the main elements of the resource, including any
audio-visual materials and any events or activities provided.
Location, layout and quality of any subsidiary attractions on the site.
Location, layout and quality of facilities such as toilets, cafes, and shops.
48










Facilities to assist visitors with disabilities to have access and enjoy the
experiences available (Middleton, 2001).

Price
The most significant marketing tool that reflects the perceived value in visitors minds
is pricing. The price formally imposed reflects the value of heritage and quality of
customers experience. On the other hand, it may be used as a tactic to control the
number of visitors. Sensitive cultural areas use premium pricing to encourage
visitation that is appropriate to the heritage conservation purpose. Through this
marketing mix, the historic sites are able to be successful in both conservation and
commercial benefits (McKercher and du Cros, 2002).

Place
The place or distribution channels encourage the impact of visitor volume,
contribution of information, demand expectations, and characteristics of target
audiences. It is categorized into two major channels: direct and indirect distribution.
The former means any form of products delivered to visitors directly while the latter
depends on a variety of intermediaries, especially travel agencies.

Promotion
The basic purpose of a promotion mix is to convey a message to motivate individuals
to visit a heritage area. It not only creates heritage awareness, but also shapes the type
of visitors and heritage expectations. Untruthful, misleading or incomplete messages
are potentially dangerous for heritage marketing (Wheeler, 1995). It is considered
unethical conduct and increases dissatisfaction and complaints to heritage managers.
Efficient communication enables accurate market segmentation, and appeals to
suitable target audiences while they can mutually satisfy their needs.

Marketing Challenges in Sensitive Heritage Sites

Two key marketing challenges at historic sites include preventing sites from
becoming merely entertainment activities, plus maintaining a stable level of visitation.
49










Even when there is minimal importance of cultural value at a heritage site (Hewison,
1987), interpretation provides an opportunity to promote tourism, educate, and
entertain people as well (Garrod and Fyall, 2000). Likewise, exaggerated information
and interpretation can lead to distortion of resources and misunderstanding for
audiences (Fowler, 1992). It may depend on site managers to determine what should
be presented or kept secret (Herbert, 2001).

In addition, the nature of visitation in sensitive heritage sites is dependent on the prior
expectations of the visitor, the emotional state of the tourist at the time of the visit,
and distinctive interrelationships of the visitor group. One study (Walker and Baker,
2000) described prior expectations as the standard in service evaluation of valued
consumers. This has significant bearing on subsequent behavior, experience of place,
decision making and actual encounters (Pocock, 1992, Kurtx and Clow, 1998). In
cases where tourists actual experiences are more rewarding than their prior
expectations, based on the information searches that motivated the visit, they will be
satisfied with their experience in heritage sites. Secondly, the emotional states of
visitors are mostly influenced by the physical environment of the site (Kurtx and
Clow, 1998). This effects the nature of visitation at a historic site (Averill, 1991).
Emotion is clearly defined as:

A complex psychological phenomenon that motivates us to behave in
a manner consistent with our social beliefs about specific situations
and which may also influence our decision making (Moore and Isen,
1990, Lewis and Haviland, 1993).

Even though emotion can be controlled from being visibly displayed (Lewis and
Haviland, 1993), it tends to reflect visitors own feeling of happiness or sadness
(Izard, 1978). Their emotions affect their judgment of heritage sites. Familiar
emotional states such as happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust, interest, and surprise
may be different in some aspects of national culture (Stephan et al., 1996). Finally,
the nature of inter-group conflict situations is illustrated by Sherif (1996), whose
research indicates that conflict is primarily rooted in previous social actions. For
example, Thai and Burmese visitors travel to Ayutthaya heritage sites. Conflicts may
50










occur due to wars in the past. Sometimes, a resisting and debilitating differentiation
of interests, or the belief that different groups cannot be agreeable, causes an obstacle
(Boardman and Horowitz, 1994). As an issue, the constraints of historic events lead
to biased behavior concerning the site, and aggression based on the beliefs and
attitude of these conflicting groups.

The marketing role in management of visitor emotions is definitely thought-
provoking. A study at Cape Coast Castle, a sensitive heritage site relating to slavery,
relates the events of slave trade, traditions and culture of Ghana, colonialism, the
struggle for the independence of Ghana, and the emancipation of Blacks in America
(Nathan, 2002). Visitors, especially African-American tourists, exhibit diverse
emotional responses to the heritage presentation and interpretation. The presentation
impacts inter-group conflicts, with some tourists arguing that Caucasians were
responsible for events of the past. Therefore, they argue for the prohibition of the
entrance of Caucasians to this heritage place.

It is the obligation of site marketers to find a balance between the expressive emotions
of divergent visitor groups and their satisfaction with a heritage site. Identifying
different emotions to develop suitable messages to promote tourism and providing
other support services to solve unresolved issues are difficult tasks. As Henderson
(2000) notes, it is difficult to balance a mixture of propaganda, entertainment and
education together, particularly in terms of tour-guide services.
Environmental Factors in Heritage Tourism

SOCIAL FACTORS

ECONOMIC FACTORS POLITICAL FACTORS

TECHNOLOGICAL FACTORS

Figure 5: The main environmental factors that reflect on heritage marketing
51










Social Factors

Social changeover is occurring quickly and heritage marketers must observe carefully.
In the areas of music, literature, television dramas and art, the case is particularly
serious. Trends in popularity of Western culture are spread in many Asian countries
through DVD and CD sales in famous department stores, for example. Furthermore,
with the greater desire of consumers in many developing countries, the new Western
culture becomes one factor of peoples quality of life index both in tangible form and
intangible assets (Misiura, 2006).

Heritage marketers have to consider this social variable and realize that heritage is
becoming more popular. Lowenthal (1996) states that:

All at once heritage is everywherein the news, in the movies, in the
marketplace in everything it is the chief focus of patriotism and a
prime lure of tourism. One can barely move without bumping into a
heritage site. Every legacy is cherished. From ethnic roots to history
theme parks, Hollywood to the Holocaust, the whole world is busy
lauding or lamenting some past, be it fact or fiction.

Lowenthal argues that people officially know that heritage is important at one level,
yet long-term conservation by a range of different stakeholders is vital to avoid
heritage distortion through cultural redevelopment, theft, and vandalism. From a
publication entitled Power of Place: The Future of Historic Environment (2000),
MORI (the market research agency) makes the following qualitative conclusions
concerning peoples attitudes toward the historic environment, condensing it into five
major messages:

1. Most people place a high significance on the historic environment; hence the
majority of surveyed people agree to provide public funds for its preservation
and consider it an important source of the regeneration of cities.
2. Since people are a part of their own environment, they need to be concerned in
making decisions that affect historic environment and their multicultural
society.
52










3. The people care for the whole essence of their heritage environment. Not only
physical sites and buildings, but also the manner of heritage identification and
its cultural significance.
4. All stakeholders share a part of historic responsibility. Central government
and local authorities are the leaders, but work together with amenity societies,
community groups, owners, developers, and professionals in the field
including schools and universities.
5. Accurate history is based on sound knowledge and understanding. Everything
must be proven through highly reliable research and open debate (Misiura,
2006).

Political Factors

The political parties have significant roles in supporting funds and decision-making in
the heritage tourism industry. To maintain values of heritage, cash may be received
from the national budget or generated through the lottery. In the UK, English
Heritage under establishment of the UK Governments Department for Culture,
Media and Sport has responsibility for three aspects concerning heritage i.e. Historic
Royal Palaces, The Royal Parks Agency and The Heritage Lottery Fund. Its role is to
manage the linkage between heritage, conservation, sustainability and education.
Including five specific tasks, the department published a report entitled The Historic
Environment: A Force for Our Future in year 2001:

1. Providing leadership
2. Realizing educational potential
3. Including and involving people
4. Protecting and sustaining the historic environment, and
5. Optimizing its economic potential
Libraries and communities
Museums and galleries
National lottery
Public appointments
53










Sport
Tourism (Department of the Environment, 2001)

Moreover, the UK Government invested 13 million in Culture Online Internet,
which aims to reach target audiences who are interested in learning more about the
heritage sector. The monitoring of heritage building by the Secretary of State for
Culture, Media and Sport is another political element. Their duties include the listing
of heritage buildings, processing a national register of heritage and grading heritage
buildings into three categories:

Grade 1 Identified as exceptionally interesting buildings.
Grade 2 Particularly significant buildings with more than special
interest
Grade 3 Special interest buildings that require appropriate maintenance.

Relevant to the Thai case study in terms of political power, the current government
readily allows the establishment of zoning areas for heritage conservation. Unlike
categorization of heritage buildings in the UK, the zoning in Thailand covers both the
designated region of an ancient town and new residential houses close to heritage
sites. Constraints arise when the strict authority of building construction limits the
freedom of local communities. Hence, conservation regulations are quite troublesome
for surrounding residents and heritage protectors. Perhaps conservation laws issued
without participation of the host parties damages the quality of life in the area.
Residential zoning, for an example, becomes a politically important issue. At last, the
actual force of laws is useless and is not helpful for heritage protection nor for the
interests of local communities.

Economic Factors

Macro- and micro- economic factors are closely interrelated with heritage marketing
especially in terms of price setting, which stimulates tourism demand. Research
results of the Historic Environment Steering Group, English Heritage and the National
54










Trust, argue that the regeneration of towns and cities influences the economic value of
these places, their capacity, and perceptions towards them.

By correctly providing in the physical fabric of towns and villages
the buildings and the public spaces between them- we pump prime
wider regeneration initiatives and together improve industry
confidence, give pride to local communities and strengthen the sense
of place which makes the historic environment so popular (English
Heritage, 2002).

Technological Factors

Advances in technology encourage heritage tourism benefits by involving
stakeholders in many ways. Rapid developments in modern technology draw more
tourists and create more opportunities for heritage marketing such as 3-D virtual
tours, digital language interpretation, and written explanations on computers. From
relevant news presentations to multimedia, innovation in the technological
environment attempts to present intangible experiences to various types and level of
visitors. However, it must be based on the capacity of educating, informing and
entertaining too.

Market Appeal and Cultural Heritage Management

Mckercher B. & du Cros H.(2002) discuss the cultural significance of heritage sites.
They argue that there are two major interrelated steps in measuring whether heritage
assets have suitable features: One, whether the sites are appealing to tourists; two,
whether or not they have the capacity to cope with increasing tourism. This can
easily be described as market appeal and robustness assessment. Development of
heritage tourism must involve examining the degree to which visitation compromises
the resources significant value and unique characteristics that attract visitors.
55











Figure 6: Matrix indicating the relationship between the continuums of robustness
and market appeal (McKercher and du Cros, 2001)

For example, Kat Hing Wai in Hong Kong is estimated to be prospering in heritage
promotion since it embodies high architectural, historical and social value.
Placed at A2 in the matrix, it illustrates high market appeal but only moderate
robustness. Its features are outstanding with surrounding walls that were built of
local grey bricks on top of a 6 meter high foundation of granite, with watchtowers at
four corners and a moat on one side. The construction of the enclosing walls was
specific, demonstrating its defensive function and a symmetrical layout that
represented the coherent social unity and harmony of traditional Chinese society (Chu
and Uebegang, 2002). Nevertheless, they should be careful to manage the volume of
visitors since its internal lanes are too narrow for tourists to wander about. Heavy
visitation might cause damage to the assets fabric and the life style of local Tang
residents.

The functions of this assessment model are basically recalled as a guideline for
management decisions. Usually when conservation and visitor management plans are
initiated, the written policies for tourism activities should be determined by grading
the distinctive level of market appeal and robustness. This covers the physical
construction of heritage assets, its fame on the national or international level, overall
56










tourism activities of the destination area, spatial distribution of heritage resources,
heritage accessibility, services and infrastructure facilities in terms of market
attraction. Robustness of heritage assets is considered in concrete terms, its integrity,
and cultural significance, including its image and educational value.

Researchers who expect to do academic studies using this theory must consider its
advantages and constraints. All evaluations of historic resources must depend on
sufficient evidence such as site observation, in-depth interviews, survey
questionnaires, and accurate documentary analysis. Product design concepts are not
suitable enough to follow tourism development plans because more diverse factors
should be considered for easier tourism use such as on-site interpretation and facilities
in hospitality and infrastructure.

Understanding of local communities is another obstacle not accounted for in the
matrix. The outlook of local stakeholders towards the heritage development plan is
very important. Negative impacts of tourism activities should be avoided or at least
must be recognized by local environmental committee. Likewise, the plan set up by
state authorities ought to include local participation as well as the viewpoints of
business operators. Tourism needs to be supported through efficient mutual
communication.

Marketing Research

Athiyaman (1997) states that the marketing research approach is applied to various
types of visitors who intend to visit tourist attractions, but who do not have a
particular agenda. The multiple contributions of marketing research in tourism
marketing can be concluded as following:
Identification of the main attributes anticipated by each market
segment
Design and attributes required for tourism products and services
Evaluation and development of destination image
57










Segmentation of market and development of corresponding marketing
mixes
Opening new markets and reducing dependency on existing ones
Evaluation of the elasticity of demand for each market segment
Reduction of seasonality by matching market segments
Examination of reasons deterring people (suppressed demand) from
visiting destinations
Assessment of compatibility with other target markets
Examination of alternative distribution channels
Assessment of tourism impacts on the destination and selecting
appropriate segments
Evaluation of marketing effectiveness and selection of media for
promotion (Baker et al., 1994, Calantone and Mazanec, 1991, Ritchie
and Crouch, 1993)

The value of research findings is dependent on its reliability and cooperation between
local communities and organizations. It also leads to the creation of suitable tourism
policies and marketing strategies (Hawes et al., 1991, March, 1994).

The Marketing Life Cycle of Heritage Destinations

Development of heritage places requires careful attention to the previously mentioned
areas, particularly in relation to the limitations these impose on marketing strategies,
such as high entrance fees at heritage sites and local stakeholders demands for safety
and cleanliness. Visitor satisfaction is not the only concern during development. It is
essential to have a clear understanding of existing tourism roots and the present state
of development when determining tourism strategies. To be successful in this crucial
work, the most suitable tool that is commonly used is the destination life cycle
(Butler, 1980). Similar to product life cycle in the commercial field, this concept
enhances the understanding of tourism stage evaluations and provides a guideline for
strategic decision-making. It illustrates the distinctive periods of the tourism life
cycle from initial launch stage to final decline stage (Cooper, 1989, Cooper, 1992,
58










Cooper, 1994). The model is useful in generating strategic planning, but difficulties
remain in determining turning points of development, tourism growth stages, length
of stages and level of aggregation. Hence, the destination life cycle is still in a
paradoxical stage of which many marketers are quite critical in terms of evaluating
which tourist destinations are in the involvement stage or the development stage.
Many factors are involved such as economic growth rate, market trends, and
government policy (Haywood, 1986).


Figure 7: Destination life cycle (Butler, 1980)

Exploration Stage

Here the tourist destination lacks access and facilities. It remains unchanged by
tourism and high contact with local residents. Some small groups of explorer-type
tourists come for traveling.

Involvement Stage

Host communities have decided to increase the volume and types of visitors.
Marketing tools are emerging such as advertising and improvement of tourism places.
At this point, stakeholders need to ensure the destination is well organized in capacity
and in a sustainable environment.
59












Development Stage

At this stage, large numbers of visitors are attracted. Visitor numbers can get out of
control if local decision-making is weak and outside investors have influential power.
Especially during peak periods, the number of tourists can be greater than local
services and amenities can support.

Consolidation Stage

In this stage, disputes occur concerning the growth of tourism development, the rate
of increase of visitors begins to decline, although there are still a significant number
of tourists. The associated town becomes overrun by recreational and tourism
business development and the natural beauty and heritage authenticity become less
attractive.

Stagnation Stage

By this stage, large promotional tools are required to attract visitors since the
destination is no longer fashionable. Only conservative travelers continue to visit.
The sites begin to develop significant environmental, social and economic problems.

Decline Stage

Eventually, tourism numbers decline as tourists find alternative destinations and
tourism becomes limited to weekend and day trips. Tourism facilities fall into decline
and many go out of business. Some businesses may look for ways to revitalize
tourism by targeting new markets or destination re-positioning.




60










Rejuvenation

In some cases, host communities are able to rejuvenate interest in the tourist
destination by prospecting new markets or establishing new types of facilities such as
casinos. For example, the group of MICE (Meeting, Incentive, Conference, and
Exhibition) may perhaps become a new market for rejuvenation.

Heritage Interpretation

Definition and Audiences in Heritage Interpretation

According to Alpin (2002), heritage interpretation is Any form of presentation of
factual material and interpreted meaning about site or other heritage item, whether on
site or off site. Heritage value is usually based on how communities conceive its
importance at the local, national and global level. Through extensive research and
analyses from various sources, heritage professionals are able to provide critical
information regarding heritage sites, places or objects, from which interpretive
materials can then be produced.

Initial heritage reports are often dry reports and unappealing to general visitors.
Visitors come from diverse backgrounds with varying interests and it is critical to
understand who the prospective audience is when developing interpretation plans.
As highlighted by Aplin (2002), Making heritage interpretation accessible and
meaningful to others, thus, requires a conscious effort on the part of the professional
interpreter to get outside their own social context and inside someone elses.
(Aplin, 2002)

By taking into account background, knowledge, age, gender, language, and the
abilities of prospective audiences, a more successful and accessible heritage
interpretation plan can be achieved. Interpretive content can be divided into three
broad groups:

61










1. The message
2. The detail
3. The means

Firstly, the most basic form of interpretation is the general message that informs the
visitor what the heritage is. It points out the character of heritage objects, but not in
any detail. Secondly, the description relates deeper factual information about the
heritage. The interpretation focuses on detailed content. It may be the age or duration
of the heritage. Nevertheless, it is not connected with the communication of the
material meaning into background of audiences. Finally, relating to how the heritage
material is presented, its values are connected with existing background knowledge of
the audiences. For example, a temple in the reign of King Rama IV was built during
the year 1858-60. The audiences can relate their new knowledge with their perception
of year.

Uses and Techniques of Interpretation

The purpose of heritage interpretation is not only to stimulate external awareness of
heritage experiences, but also to encourage the cooperation of internal stakeholders.
Heritage promotion should be done for both off-site and on-site interpretations.
Billboards, brochures, web sites and other methods of communication are useful tools
by which to raise the value of heritage for visitors who are eager to explore cultural
tourism. For on-site interpretation, explanatory signs and labels help promote the
image of heritage sites. This type of promotion increases the amount of travelers and
encourages more serious support from the local governments with regard to heritage
protection. Even though interpretation and promotion are different things, promotion
is necessary to get people to visit a site; interpretation includes the information and
stories that communicate the heritage significance of a site to the visitor. In addition
to the establishment of public awareness, reassuring visitors, adding value, building
identity and providing resources for learning and knowledge, heritage interpretation is
also critical in establishing financial support. To achieve significant financial support
from the public, advertising is required to publicize significant historical assets and
62










motivate tourists to participate in tourism activities. Unique and original ideas may be
required to help stimulate financial growth such as adventure trekking in a heritage
site with interpretation activities. This adds value and originality to a traditional
walking tour in a historic site. This offers visitor groups a more fulfilling experience
and may help them understand their own cultural identity.

Heritage interpretation helps enhance the visitors experience and interest in tourism,
which may increase appreciation and awareness of minority groups within society. It
conveys the natural development processes of humans in various kinds of
environments, for example in the evolution of architectural styles, building
techniques, and industrial processes. This specific knowledge can then be understood
and applied towards the conservation of that heritage. Site management is needed to
protect sensitive or threatened heritage areas. It may occasionally call for the closure
of sites, or restrictions on heritage areas. Visitors frequently prefer conservation
explanations to be displayed in brochures or signs rather than through the construction
of fences or other barriers. In addition to providing adequate and factual information,
the interpretation must be publicly available and not influenced by myths or
unverified stories. In terms of interpretation techniques, heritage managers should be
innovative and try to work outside traditional practices. This requires combining
education with entertainment, while balancing detail and brevity. For example,
guides do not have to talk continuously during a tour; they can provide only the
necessary information and allow visitors to think and interpret the information and
experience in their own way. However, it is extremely important not to misconstrue
information or to trivialize the heritage value. A common form of heritage
interpretation is the use of signage that can take the form of labeling, graphics, maps,
photographs and diagrams. These need to be large enough to read and should be brief
but informative. Signs are the most effective in the role of providing front-line
information, or as an introduction to present brief information about heritage places.
For more detailed messages, other media tools are more suitable.
Guides, both professional and volunteer, are a valuable method by which to provide
interpretation. They are very effective in adapting the contents of their presentation to
63










accommodate different tourist groups and their needs. Age, gender, language,
personal background, and prior knowledge should not create a barrier to conveying
heritage information successfully. The best guides have an interest in visitors, and
they have the enthusiasm to provide knowledge and entertainment while presenting.
Printed materials such as books, booklets, postcards, brochures and leaflets are
attractive methods of heritage interpretation for tourists. Like souvenirs, they provide
excellent information and can vary in style, design, and decoration. Some printed
materials are published for commerce and provide details for those unable to visit the
site in person.
Audio-visual aids such as audio cassettes or digital recorders are another form of
interpretation available to visitors. When tourists arrive at designated points, they can
listen to the tape or recorded speech of heritage interpretation. This method of
interpretation overcomes language barriers and allows for recruitment of a wider
range of guide members. Therefore, well-organized communication of heritage
interpretation should contain funny and attractive presentations, accurate historical
information, and useful knowledge for tourists.
Web sites and other IT media are magnificent tools for advertising. For example,
through a visual tour, tourists can search for details about particular heritage sites
through the Internet and/or CD-ROMs that contain on-site and off-site interpretations
of heritage sites. However, maintenance costs for using these types of media tools
can be expensive. Electronic machines and software can be easily broken and need
to be quickly repaired (Aplin, 2002).
Visitor centers are meeting points for visitors where all kinds of interpretation
materials such as books, brochures and maps are usually provided. Visitor centers
should also provide amenities such as food, souvenir shops and information points
with staff to respond to travelers queries. This provides visitors with an ideal
starting point from which to further explore the heritage site.
Heritage interpretation plays a significant role in promoting tourism growth,
especially in areas of low tourism. By emphasizing heritage meaning, tourism
64










developers can choose the most appropriate media tools by which to engage and
attract visitors. In many instances, government budget constraints may be a
significant obstacle in heritage promotion. This can sometimes be overcome if local
stakeholders can provide suitable interpretation at low cost. Moreover, accurate
information and planning are other areas that developers must consider when
developing tourism promotion. The details and meanings of heritage interpretation
are ultimately designed to combine education and entertainment, promote and
preserve the cultural significance of heritage sites, while avoiding misinformation
and the creation of unverified stories. Interpretation should be used as a tool to
increase visitor numbers at sustainable level by developing effective internal
management strategies and dividing responsibilities between multiple management
divisions so that officers can control the total quality of tourism. Likewise,
prohibition in certain areas must be reasonably determined and provide prompt
heritage conservation.

Concept 3: Heritage Conservation and Management Approaches

Cultural Significance

Many institutions and researchers describe the criteria of cultural significance.
Duglas Pocock (1977a) identifies the following criteria for determining cultural
significance:

1. Represent a unique artistic or aesthetic achievement, a masterpiece of
the creative genius
2. Have exerted considerable influence, over a span of time or within a
cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture,
monumental sculpture, garden and landscape design, related arts,
town-planning or human settlements
3. Be unique, extremely rare, or of great antiquity
65










4. Be among the most characteristic examples of a type of structure, the
type representing an important cultural, social, artistic, scientific,
technological or industrial development
5. Be a characteristic example of a significant style of architecture,
method of construction or form of town-planning or traditional human
settlement that is fragile by nature or has become vulnerable under the
impact of irreversible socio-cultural or economic change
6. Be most importantly associated with ideas or beliefs, with events or
with persons, of outstanding historical importance or significance
(Pocock, 1997a)

Furthermore, NSW Department of Planning divides their list of criteria into eight
categories:

A. Its importance in the course or pattern of Australias natural or cultural history
B. Its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australias natural
or cultural history
C. Its importance to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of
Australias natural or cultural history
D. Its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a class of
Australias natural or cultural places, or of a class of Australias natural or
cultural environments
E. Its importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a
community or cultural group
F. Its importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical
achievement at a particular period
G. Its strong or special associations with a particular community or cultural group
for social, cultural, or spiritual reasons
H. Its special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons,
of importance in Australias natural or cultural history (adopted from National
Trust of Australia) (Aplin, 2002)

66










Cultural significance is precisely described as

Aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future
generations
(The Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, 1999)

This definition is comprehensive, covering all aspects of heritage meaning. These
values include the place itself, its components, its larger context as well as any
associated elements.

Authenticity of Heritage

The publication, Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments (1964) describes
the following story raising the dilemmas regarding the understanding of authenticity:

According to Plutarchs life of Theseus, the ship of the legendary
founder of the Athenian state returning victorious over the Cretan
minotaur, was preserved by the Atheniansfor they took away the old
planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their
place. Plutarch notes that this prompted a long-standing debate: the
ship became a standing example among philosophers for the logical
question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained
the same, and the other contending that it was not the same (Smart,
1972, Scaltsas, 1980).

The issues regarding how to preserve original materials, design and traditional
techniques of heritage sites and places are continuously debated among heritage
professionals. The methods and theories of preservation seem incoherent. Therefore,
this could be a good opportunity to give more consideration to the formulation of
preservation theory and practice, as well as authenticity.

From the perspective of preservationists, the term authenticity or authentic has
varied over the past 200 years within European languages (Larsen, 1995, Lowenthal,
1995). Previously, it was defined as fidelity to feeling that swamps facts in
anachronistic invention; a search for roots so engag as to include very little of the
67










actual past (Lowenthal, 1985). The Venice Charter states that an authentic asset
should be imbued with a message from the past, the historic monuments of
generations of men continue to the present day as living witnesses to their age-old
traditions (Petzet, 1995). Jokilehto (1995) defines authenticity as, being sufficient
to itself and commends, sustains, proves itself, and has credit and authority from
itself. This definition tends to be associated with local area of origin. Authenticity is
derived from time-honored tradition of maintaining heritage assets in their original
state. The site becomes a witness of historical identity, which is relevant in the field
of urban conservation design. Authenticity is necessary when evaluating heritage
assets such as historic sites or ancient materials. Conservation methodology
constantly includes the concept of authenticity in approaching a restoration
methodology.

The concept and definition of authenticity was discussed and defined in the
UNESCO World Heritage Convention in 1972. It was determined that all
monuments and sites registered in the World Heritage lists must pass the test of
authenticity. It was an initial requirement. Authenticity is a major principle to
safeguarding heritage assets and continues to be the conceptual base of all modern
doctrine on the conservation and restoration of heritage objects (Lemaire, 1994).
During the twentieth century, concentration on historic maintenance became focused
on the original identity of heritage assets, i.e. character of heritage buildings, style of
decoration, and types of materials, since these influence the overall cultural
significance of a heritage site. The use of new materials or styles during
reconstruction of heritage places should be minimized. (Jokilehto, 1995) The motto
Conservation, not Restoration is very practical. As published in the Victorian
Architectural Magazine, the conservation rule is doing just a little seems out of the
question, when something more than repair (and still much less than rebuilding) is a
necessity (Denslagen, 1994). This concept is expanded upon by Camillo Boito when
he drafted the text of The Resolution for an Italian Congress of Architects and
Engineers in 1983. This resolution states that:

68










Consolidating a building is to be preferred over repairing it: repair is
better than restoration. The resolution specifies that any modern
intervention should be detectable and labeled as such; that renovations
or additions from the historical past should be treated as integral parts
of the structure (with the proviso that decidedly inferior or obstructive
accretions were candidates for removal); that any fragments or
elements removed should be carefully documented and, where
possible, preserved on the site (Boito, 1983).

The management of heritage preservation must operate along the lines of existing
conservation plans and policies (Bell, 1997). It is vital to record any alterations of
materials or heritage fabric, both before and after intervention. A regular monitoring
system is appropriate in conservation heritage management. Its success is dependent
on an excellent management plan and policy (McKercher and du Cros, 2002). The
conservation of heritage sites requires stabilization and reinforcement as well as
maintenance of relics, while the new fabric must not be an imitation or copy original
heritage materials.

In Ahmed M. Salah Oufs publication, Authenticity and the Sense of Place in Urban
Design, he refers to the importance of authenticity in urban conservation. Initially,
conservationists ought to differentiate between a conservation concept and
conservation methodology. Similar to management programs, they can adopt a
variety of methodologies, which is the practical process for conservation. This
concept or policy is widespread. The goal is to determine the best methodologies and
the most suitable geographic location. Hence, the conservation methodology is part
of the larger heritage conservation concept (Ouf, 2001). Article 11 in the Nara
Document on authenticity recognizes the importance of different preservation
techniques in different national cultures. Hence, the test of authenticity that
previously placed emphasis on genuine materials has been modified as shown below:

All judgments about values attributed to cultural properties as well as
the credibility of related information sources may differ from culture to
culture, and even within the same culture. It is thus not possible to
base judgments of value and authenticity on fixed criteria. On the
contrary, the respect due to all cultures requires that heritage properties
69










must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which
they belong (Ryan, 1995a).

Urban designers have recently become more concerned with the genus loci, the power
of place, and other urban phenomena, which generate their own identity. A
consequence of this has been focus on the conservation of the physical characteristics
of authentic sites that may be categorized into three approaches:

1. A street-first approach; heritage conservation is concentrated on building and
urban features along a main corridor to make it a coherent tourist route.
2. An area-bound approach; heritage conservation is concentrated on building
and urban characteristics within a clearly delineated urban area.
3. A sense of place approach; heritage conservation is concentrated on a small
urban nucleus to anchor a strong necessity of heritage and proceed in
restoration efforts (Ouf, 2001).

Any conservation strategy should have an understanding of space as an expression of
sentiments, images and thoughts, since it clearly identifies intended actions(Ralph,
1976). Visitors usually evaluate good heritage conservation from their perception of
physical characteristics of authentic sites.

In a situation where tourism development plans are more concerned with
homogenization of performance, it is critical to identify whether heritage assets are
authentic or inauthentic. For example, how can visitors who are serious in their
endeavor to perceive authentic heritage experiences know whether or not they are
witnessing true cultural identity or the original fabric of heritage materials? As
heritage resources and awareness are continually growing across the world, heritage
sites have begun copying one another in heritage practices. Thus, tourists have
become familiar with attractions they see. These heritage places frequently lack
specific cultural uniqueness and sometimes fail to form communal relationships. This
can cause conflicts in terms of the larger economic, social and political contexts that
70










can lead to delays in construction, alteration and perpetuation (Ritzer, 2000, Wahab
and Cooper, 2001).

To understand why people choose to travel to particular heritage sites over others is
essential. Tourists may be motivated to visit specific places for various reasons such
as aesthetic value or historic interest, as well as cultural or political interests. They
may not be specifically concerned with the authenticity of a place. Theoretical
literature shows that authenticity of a historic place is often used as a promotional
tool. In some cases, the authenticity of heritage sites is used as a central marketing
point, regardless of whether or not the site is truly authentic. At its worst, authenticity
is nothing more than a marketing ploy designed to boost commercial value. In fact,
authenticity can be proven through research (Widdis, 2000). Moreover,
MacCannells famous concept of stage authenticity further illustrates that tourists
often assume they are experiencing an authentic experience, although perhaps they are
only experiencing invented authenticity. MacCannell argues that:

Tourist consciousness is motivated by its desire for authentic
experiences, and the tourist may believe that he or she is moving in this
direction, but often it is very difficult to know for sure if the experience
is in fact authentic. It is always possible that what is taken to be entry
into a back region is really entry into a front region that has been
totally set up in advance for tourist visitation (MacCannell, 1976).

John Urry suggests that the invention of a tourist experience has become a kind of
game (Urry, 1990). Similarly, Brian Osborne tests tourists attitudes in his case study
of Moose Jaw and Saskatchewan. He discovers that authenticity is less significant
than the creation of a good story for economic success and tourist happiness
(Osborne, 2002).

However, it is still too early to assume that tourism demand for authenticity is not
important or that it can be defined as a game for commercial promotion. Yet, it is
vital to be aware of the negative impacts of the inappropriate creation of heritage
authenticity. Tom Selwym identifies an apparent distinction between the myths and
fantasies of tourism and real political-economic and socio-cultural processes in
71










order to avoid an eventual wholesale Disneyfication (Selwyn, 1996). The creation
of inauthentic images can upset the local communitys life in historical, social and
cultural aspects. However, he does not emphasize how said myths and fantasies
gained popularity.

David Lowenthal (1985) criticizes the concept of authenticity by saying,

Particularly in regard to historical sites, authentic is often heavily
informed by a presentist bias that leads us to portray, reform, or
purify the past in ways that suit our present values.

Supporting the notion of Lowenthal, Erik Cohen explains the idea of authenticity in
dynamic terms. Instead of existing at a fixed point, authenticity resembles a part of
the negotiable continuum (Cohen, 1988). A tourists personal view of authenticity is
probably much more flexible than what most academics allow. This means that they
do not simply view heritage sites as either authentic or inauthentic; they choose their
own explanations through various possibilities.

Authenticity is not only concerned with material objects, but is also related to visitors
preoccupation with an existential state of being which can be activated by attending
particular tourist activities.(Wang, 1999) A tourist may participate in a cultural
activity in which one can be true to oneself as the heritage authenticity.
Nevertheless, Wangs theory is realized as an activity-based concept, which is not
universally used.

As existing concepts are continually developed and challenged, Hughes (1995)
suggests that,

Authenticity must be rethought when there are no longer stable
reference points for comparison. Ideological content is measured in
the disparity between social constructions rather than comparing any
single social construction with some stable autonomous reality
(Hughes, 1995).


72










Similarly, Edward Bruner (1994) comments that:

No longer is authenticity a property inherent in an object, forever fixed
in time; it is seen as a struggle, a social process, in which competing
interests argue for their own interpretation of history. Culture is seen
as contested, emergent, and constructed, and agency and desire become
part of the discourse (Bruner, 1994).

Authenticity is of the utmost value when creating heritage marketing. This must be
realized and given equal weight when considering marketing and conservation
demands. Therefore, a portion of conservation should include the value of
authenticity as well as heritage conservation policies. When developing marketing
strategies, it is essential to consider heritage conservation policies. To avoid the
development of artificial or staged tourism interpretations it is important to remember
that the concept of authenticity is associated with concrete objects as well as abstract
subjects such as dancing and drama.

Heritage Conservation Policies

Heritage conservation policies are general and formal so that they may be adopted in
general planning strategies and applied to many ideas related to heritage marketing.
Policies can have sharp impact on the pressures and actions related to the cultural
significance of heritage resources. The sense of place at a heritage site can be
acquired through surveying and fieldwork. Research allows conservationists to
estimate the cultural significance of sites and develop planning methods to avoid
harming the heritage value of a site. Kerr ( 2000) provides some excellent examples
of policies that have been developed and publicly displayed as follows:

Advice to protect alienation of land important to the significance of the place
Programs for mitigation of and recovery from cyclone, flood, fire, earthquake,
termite and rabbit damage
Reduction of vandalism, theft and unintentional damage due to overcapacity

73










Wilkinson (1997) successfully combines policy and planning issues by identifying the
relevant plan as the management target objective. Policies are seen as the driving
course of action. Public policies determined and developed by state planning
authorities are started and implemented by political authorities (Dye, 1992).

Planning generally reflects the needs of governments, communities and private
businesses. Although public policies are generally more concerned with local
communities, it is vital that commercial values and business enterprises are taken into
consideration, for their survival depends on it (Elliot, 1997). Social, economic and
environmental contexts must be included when making policies to guarantee that all
will benefit. Hence, it is essential to realize that written policy is the element that
combines political influence, significant value system, institutional frameworks,
power contribution and the process of decision making (Simeon, 1976, Hall and
Jenkins, 1995).

The policy development process is similar to putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Each
process constantly requires consideration and understanding of significant values,
feasible and compatible uses of sites, legal requirements, and available resources as
well as the anticipation of potential threats. This can be done easily by developing a
flexible approach based on previous background experience when attempting to
resolve likely problems. The following conservation policies are some of the most
common approaches:

1. Basis of approach
2. Control of change
3. Provision of services and retention of character
4. Specific elements
5. Care of fabric
6. Setting
7. Management
8. Vulnerability
9. Interpretation
74










10. Positivity and certainty(Kerr, 2000)
Basis of Approach

The general policies and vision for heritage conservation should be established in
according to philosophical approach. It should take into account of issues such as the
definition of significance, appropriate character of materials and suitable methods of
conservation. Conservation management of heritage sites should be based on
feasibility, compatibility and appropriate uses.

Control of Change

It is necessary to develop guidelines to control future changes to heritage assets to
make sure that any changes or adaptations to heritage assets do not negatively impact
the significance of the site. Additionally, it is necessary to establish specific
conditions regarding the removal or change of important fabrics or intrusive elements
to heritage assets. The plans should include records of the heritage assets and include
records of any changes or improvements, both before and after. These plans should
also include records of physical enquiries for future developments and extensions.

Provision of Services and Retention of Character

A successful management plan that incorporates the basis of approach policy and
control of change policy must also provide electrical mechanical, hydraulic and
communication services with retaining unique character of heritage. The conservers
should incorporate the retention and recovery of the significant character and quality
of heritage assets by attending the details of form and texture during restoration or
reconstruction. This definitively includes the treatment of surfaces and methods of
lighting, as well as infrastructure services for all visitors, including the disabled.




75










Specific Elements

For aspects of heritage requiring special methods of conservation, the preservation
methods applied must take into account varying level of significance. Therefore,
specifically formulated policies should be a conglomeration of different heritage
treatment methods that include elements such as the faade and roofs.

Care of Fabric

Management plans must incorporate specified treatments for heritage maintenance,
repair, reconstruction, consolidation, demolition of damaged parts of the heritage and
specifications for future protection.

Setting

In terms of heritage setting, management plans need to include regulations for
controlling the atmosphere within historic sites such as parking regulations,
established distances between landscapes, garden layouts and regulations for
environmental pollution.

Management

Necessary actions must be taken for the enhancement of internal management plans to
improve the efficiency of heritage attractions. For example, there must be coherent
organizational structures so that staff members fully understand their responsibilities.
Furthermore, it is helpful to provide management training regarding conservation,
security and heritage protection to help reduce the deterioration of heritage assets and
reduce the risk of fire, vandalism, and theft.




76










Vulnerability

Plans need to be formulated to protect heritage assets against damaging forces that
may have consequences or cause destruction to historical places.

Interpretation

Educational schemes to control false representation and/or interpretation must be
much more sensitive. The objective of most management policies is to prevent
visitors from intentionally or unintentionally endangering the character of heritage
places. In contrast, interpretation plans seek to assist in providing visitors with
detailed information and conservation plans.

Positivity and Certainty

In situations where business in the future is uncertain, policy makers, owners,
prospective purchasers, and developers are often eager to clarify which aspects of
heritage conservation are negotiable and which are non-negotiable parts of the
heritage sites value. Overall, heritage policies must be positive and relevant. The
policies themselves should be clear and communicate tangible meanings.

Established conservation policies help to identify and protect aspects of heritage sites
during marketing development. They also help clarify which aspects of heritage can
be removed and which should be maintained. Incorporating conservation policies into
marketing plans leads to more sustainable tourism.
77











Chapter 3
Background of Phetchaburi Province
And Its Cultural Significance

Location and Territory Scale
Phetchaburi province is situated in the central region of Thailand close to the Gulf of
Thailand. One hundred twenty three kilometers from the metropolitan city of
Bangkok, Phetchaburi has a long history dating back to the Khmer and Dvaravati
Periods. During the Ayutthaya period the province was assigned as the general
headquarters of the military, whose definitive function was to protect the great empire
of Ayutthaya.
Figure 8: Map of Phetchaburi Province
78










Phetchaburi covers nearly 6,225.138 square kilometers (3,890,711 rai in the Thai
measurement system). It is the southernmost province of the central region of
Thailand, and has a complicated geography. The western side is full of complex
forests and mountains such as Da Nao Sea mountains that separate Thailand from
Myanmar. The eastern side of the province consists mostly of plains that extend to
the Gulf of Thailand. There are three significant rivers flowing through Phetchaburi;
the Phetchaburi river, the Bang Kloy River, and the Taboon River. Consequently, the
primary occupations of the local inhabitants are agriculture and fishing (Envir Tech-
consultant Co., 2006).

Phetchaburi is comprised of eight districts:

1. Downtown (Ampur Muang)
2. Khao Yoyt district
3. Nong Ya Bong district
4. Band Lard district
5. Ta Yang district
6. Kangkrachan district
7. Cha-am district
8. Ban Lamp district

Phetchaburi province borders the following areas:

North: Near Amphawa district in Samut Songkram province and Parktoo district in
Ratchaburi province
South: Near Hua Hin district in Prachuabkirikhan province
East: Near the Gulf of Thailand
West: The Union of Myanmar

The map on the following page provides more detail.

79












Figure 9: Geographic character of Phetchaburi province

Geographic Character

In the western districts of Kangkrachan and Nong Ya Pong , the general landscape
consists of high plain areas and some tall mountains. These are the source of fresh
water that flows into the Burmese rivers as well as Phetchaburi and Pranburi rivers.
The surrounding areas are rich in natural resources with lower settlement populations
as there is less infrastructure and few facilities. Only migrants currently live in the
area.

The Gulf of
Thailand
The Union of
Myanmar
Samut Songkram Province
Ratchaburi Province
80










Downtown Phetchaburi province used to be a prosperous city from marine trading and
a strategic royal fort in the west during the ancient periods (Suthithum S., 1996).
Furthermore, three kings, Rama IV, V, and VI, gave much attention to the
development of Phetchaburi town. Evidence of its prosperity can be observed in the
numerous Buddhist temples and two royal summer palaces in the downtown area.
Figure 10: Map of Phetchaburi City (Information Development Section, 2001)

Provincial Climate

Located next to the Gulf of Thailand, Phetchaburi province is subject to weather
pressures such as south-western monsoon winds during the rainy season and north-
eastern monsoon winds during the winter season. These characteristics create a
81










comfortable climate during these seasons and are a good time for traveling. The best
time for tourism is between December and April. Phetchaburi has three seasonal
periods:

Summer season: The middle of February through mid-May
Rainy season: The middle of May through mid-October
Cool season: The middle of October through mid-February

The average yearly temperature is 28.7 C with the maximum recorded temperature
reaching a high of 36.5 C and a low temperature of 16.5 C (Envir Tech-consultant
Co., 2006).

Phetchaburi Archaeology and Myths

Evidence from the past in Phetchaburi comes in the form of historic places, antique
objects and artifacts. For example, around the western mountain area in the Ta Yang
district, archaeologists discovered the remains of a pre-historic community. In the
ancient Dvaravati culture, many developed societies existed, such as the community
group known for statue production located near Nong Prong in Khao Yoyt district and
the community group Nong Phra Nean Poyai located in Phra Pande Temple in the
Ban Lard district. Khao Kacheu group in Ta Yang district and the ancient community
of Tung Satee in Cha-am district both left behind significant archaeological remains
in the region of Phetchaburi. Unfortunately, archaeologists have not discovered any
city structures in Dvaravati style along the Phetchaburi River. However,
archaeologists have found numerous artifacts in the eastern basin of the Phetchaburi
River.

Ancient Khmer Culture in Phetchaburi Province

There is evidence of the expansion of influence of ancient Khmer culture throughout
the surrounding areas of the Phetchaburi River, which noticeably improved social
development in various areas. Evidence from air photography studied by Pongsri
Vnasin and Tiva Supachanya has revealed nearby remnants of the old city moat and
82










walls in a square pattern. This represents influence from ancient Khmer culture in
city construction from the Post Dvaravati period to the early Ayutthaya Kingdoms.
These remnants are located in Tumboon Chong Scare, Downtown area (Amphur
Muang). The moats are more than one kilometer in length. The style of the old city
tends to use the Phetchaburi River as a moat in the west. The overall city layout,
probably created after the Dvaravati period, is in the shape of a smooth rectangle. In
the past, city construction was influenced by Khmer culture. This tradition was
popular until the beginning of the Ayutthaya period. The Khumpang Lang temple is
one of the only remaining examples of a site built in the ancient Khmer style. It is
believed that five laterite pagodas were created as Bayon art of the Khmers between
1800 and 1900 B.E. If this is true, it could be evidence that the earliest city of
Phetchaburi dates back to the era of the seventh King Chaivoramon, named
Srichaiwatburi (Envir Tech-consultant Co., 2006). However, no reliable evidence
has yet been put forth to confirm that Phetchaburi province was once dominated by
Khmer forces. Some sources suggest that all pagodas were previously constructed in
the ancient Khmer style because of its popularity.

The Legend of Phetchaburi Province

The legend relating to the origins of the name of the city has been in existence for
many generations. It continues to be told by locals that there was once a mountain
full of diamonds and gems that shined light up in the mist of darkness. Residents
could occasionally see it in the distance. Many local residents tried to find it and they
even dug into the mountain is search of it. Eventually, locals named the city
Phetchaburi: City of Diamonds. No one knows if it has treasure hidden behind the
mountain, or whether that is just a myth. Based on an 800-year-old stone inscription,
many archeological professors confirm that its former name was
Srivichaiwatcharapura. It is possible in Thai phonetic script to convert this into the
name Phetchaburi (Vallibhotama, 1991)

Whatever the case, this name has been used for more than seven hundred years ago.
A message was crafted in a stone inscription during the Sukhothai Kingdom that a
83










scion of the royal Khunsri house, Khunsri Sudtha, who was bored with the unreality
of the world, desired to enter the priesthood. He took to the road as a form of merit
making to Sri Lanka. During the return trip, he walked through Phetchaburi,
Ratchaburi, and Ayutthaya back to Sukhothai. This provides evidence that a
permanent community was there at that time. Antique objects such as Buddha statues
and old relics of pagodas also confirm the existence of the old town.

There is proof that Phetchaburi had a relationship with the Ayutthaya Empire. A
foreigners dispatch describes a significant legend told by many generations of priests
that King U-thong, the first ruler of the Ayutthaya Kingdom, stayed and governed
Phetchaburi town before the creation of the great Ayutthaya Empire.

During the Ayutthaya period, Phetchaburi was most important in terms of its strategic
military location. It was the west royal fort of Ayutthaya Kingdom for planning and
implementing war strategies. It also had a good source of food since the geographic
area was suitable for agriculture. To indicate the significance of its location,
Burmese invasions tended to pass through Phetchaburi on their way to Ayutthaya.
Therefore, it was vital to set up Phetchaburi as the head province of the west in terms
of commerce and military to control other western and southern provinces.

During the burning of the City of Ayutthaya by Burmese troops, many monasteries,
temples and pagodas were destroyed. Its aesthetic value was lost forever. In spite of
the loss of architectural heritage of the old capital city, it remains alive in Phetchaburi
province. Mural paintings and patterns of the magnificent ornamental plaster on the
faade of the temple confirm the direct relationship between Ayutthaya and
Phetchaburi. For example, a Chedi with stucco ornamentation in Khao Luang Cave,
the stucco is in the Ayutthaya style. As well, Murals depicting the gathering of devas
in the Ubosot of Wat Yai Suwannaram illustrate the Phetchaburi craftsmanship in the
period of late Ayutthaya. (Vallibhotama, 1991) It is fascinating that the continuity of
the Phetchaburi culture has remained intact since ancient times. In addition to the
physical significance, an intangible asset is the heritage knowledge of culture and
tradition. Archan Loam Penkeao, an expert on Phetchaburi history, states that
84










Phetchaburis heritage knowledge has survived longer than Ayutthayas, because it
suffered no internal war between royal family members

In the late Ayutthaya period, there were two famous Buddhist priests to whom King
Suea (Phra Chao Suea) of Ayutthaya paid much respect. One was Somdej Phra
Sungkarad Tangmo, the supreme patriarch of the Buddhist monastery. He formerly
lived at Wat Yaisuwannaram, Phetchaburi. After a long term as supreme patriarch, he
asked permission from King Suea to return home to Phetchaburi. The king gave him
leave, and generously ordered the construction of a royal teak house (Sala Kanparian)
to be used as a stunning multipurpose hall, still standing in modern Phetchaburi. The
other Buddhist priest was Phra Anchan Sang at Wat Khao Bundai It. It was believed
that he was the master of King Suea because of his expertise in incantations.
Although King Suea had invited him to stay in Ayutthaya, the priest refused.
Subsequently, the king ordered the construction of a brick road from a pier in
downtown to the priests hermitage. Thereafter, temple was renamed Wat Khao
Bundai It (Feature Magazine Publishing, 1993).

Temples (Wat) in the past were the best sources of knowledge. In Downtown
Phetchaburi several temples represented the cultural growth of knowledge.
Customarily, when a person had a chance to be ordained, he had to produce textbooks
or literature as a reference before leaving the priesthood. The temples still collect
original textbooks on Buddhism, medical textbooks, plus the original painting
methods of murals. Some priests built handicrafts like bookcases. When hearing of
coming war, the priests hid valuable books and other important documents in remote
caves for protection. Many documents from the Ayutthaya era remain in Phetchaburi
temples. The highly ranked lord, Chao Phraya Dumrong Rachanuparb, once sought
versions of ancient textbooks. He was surprised that there were plenty of ancient
books still in existence. The most important one was a lineage written in the reign of
King Narain the Great, who had opened the Ayutthaya Empire to be the center of
international trade. After reading and comparing it with other texts, it was deemed to
be the most accurate.

85










In addition to books, Anchan Lorm describes other aspects of knowledge derived
from the ancient Brahmans. Traveling in Downtown Phetchaburi, the magnificent art
of painting cement as well as Thai murals can be seen in the old temples and gorgeous
palaces, intermingled with box-shape commercial buildings. This is living
Ayutthaya that maintains authenticity even in the new modern environment of
Phetchaburi (Feature Magazine Publishing, 1993).

Outstanding Art in Phetchaburi

The art of Phetchaburi is unique in its style and obtained praise as significant as art
from Ayutthaya (Department of Environmental Promotion, 2003). The heritage arts
are more than 400 years old. Ornamental plaster is a technique that requires highly
skilled craftsman. The ornaments found in many ancient temples display religious
beliefs. With the differentiation of Phetchaburi craftsmen, the style of ornamental
stucco is easily recognized. Generally, ornamental plaster is damaged more by human
activity than natural deterioration. Fortunately, this situation creates a chance for a
new generation of craftsmen to build and repair the art works of their cultural
ancestors. The repair of heritage temples is an important job of Phetchaburi
craftsmen. Not only within Phetchaburi, they also have plenty of repair jobs outside
the province. Both in new and old temples, they are hired to build and repair
ornamental plaster because of the reputation of their heritage skills.

The production of plaster requires a proportionate mixture of lime, sand, palm sugar
or cane sugar and straw paper. The craftsmen must be patient in training. They must
carefully observe when plaster is sufficiently integrated and ready for use. Then the
plaster must be kept in containers in order to protect it from the air. Otherwise, it
could turn into useless black plaster (Feature Magazine Publishing, 1993).

86










Figure 11: Mold
Plaster/Ornamental Stucco
Made of Poon Tum; of Pet
Plaster






In the use of Pet plaster, the craftsman first designs the graphic pattern on prepared
paper. The same design is then sketched onto the desired location, such as the temple
faade. Sketching the picture design is not completely finished because it may still be
changed. After sketching a framework, the artisan first plasters Portland cement into
the planned model of the object, called Koen. The purpose of using cement is its
holding strength on the structured block. Next, the object is covered again with Pet
plaster or pounded plaster and sculpted into the required patterns.

The technique of plaster sculpture, especially in the temple faade, is descended from
artisans in the late Ayutthaya period. The subject pattern is placed in the middle and
stands out with double curves of Thai design. In the late Ayutthaya era, and the early
period of Rattanakosin, popular faades had double curve backgrounds, with Phra
Narain on the Garuda in the middle. Some temples had an angel sitting on the throne
or molded plaster of the Ramayana war on the faade. Moreover, the background was
modeled in the figure of a deva clasping hands in worship, with the head of a lion or
other animal with a lions body and an elephants trunk. This type of background is
called Tour Tublai (Feature Magazine Publishing, 1993).

In the modern era, temple roofs are decorated with elongated and elaborately carved
apex on the gable of Buddhist temples. The old style of ornamental plaster is also
applied in new decorations by molding plaster from framed faades. More than this
Punt Loy technique, golden veneer over ornamental plaster and decoration with
87










small pieces of colored mirrors are excellent ways to encourage eminent grandness. It
depends on the craftsmans distinctive formula in decorating the ornamental plaster
and mixture of lime, sand, palm or cane sugar, and straw paper (Silpakorn University,
2000).

Figure 12: Wood sculptured door
at Wat Yai Suwannaram
(Suthithum S., 1996)







Wood sculptured works are another outstanding skill of Phetchaburi craftsmen. Their
characteristics are beautiful and graceful. They can be seen in many temples such as
the doors of Wat Yai Suwannarams stunning multipurpose hall and the doors and
windows at Wat Phub Prachai. In addition to mural painting, it is a valuable art.
Becoming most famous in the late period of Ayutthaya and early period of
Rattanakosin Kingdom, the significant mural at Wat Yai Suwannaram is the oldest in
Phetchaburi. Murals at Wat Ko Suttharam and Wat Mahatrat are also splendid
(Ringis R, 1990).

Gold Makers in Phetchaburi

Figure 13: Art of Gold Making
(Suthithum S., 1996)


88










The art of ancient gold has been eminent since the skill of gold makers has been
practiced for centuries. The first generation of the gold maker Khru Tarnwanta, who
was a student of the famous priest Luang Poo Rit, took the tough job as gold maker
for 30 years. After that, the next generation of gold makers had the surnames of
Suwannachang and Thongsumlit. At present, the group of commercial buildings,
which are gold shops, are praised as The home of gold makers of Phetchaburi.

Heritage Attractions in Phetchaburi


Figure 14: Heritage sites in Downtown Phetchaburi

Phra Ram Ratchaniwet Palace
Phranakhonkiri Palace and National Museum
Wat Yai Suwannaram
Wat Prubprachai
Relics of Wat Kamphang Laeng in
Wat Ko Kaeo Suttharam
Wat Phuttha Saiyat
Wat Mahathat
Wat Pubprachai
89










Phranakhonkiri Palace and National Museum

The most well known destination in this province is Phranakhonkiri Palace, which has
become the Phetchaburi logo. First traveling in this town, visitors tend to travel on to
Phranakhonkiri Palace or Khao Wang (Suthithum S., 1996).

Khao Wang, in the period of Ayutthaya, was forested and had a temple on the sloped
hill. The locals named it Wat Mahasammana. Later, King Rama IV ordered the
construction of the 95 meter tall leisure palace on the top of the hill. Somdej Chao
Phraya Barommaha Srisriyawong (Chung Bunnark) was the controller of the palace
construction. King Rama IV named the new palace Phranakhonkiri Palace and the
mountain Khao Mahisawan. There are three major peaks of the mountain:

1. On the first peak, there was an old pagoda of unknown origin. It had
deteriorated naturally. Therefore, King Rama IV ordered a new one on the
same field, containing Buddha relics inside. He conferred the new pagodas
name as Phra Thart Chompet.
2. King Mongkut (King Rama IV) ordered the building of a Buddhist temple,
Wat Phra Keao on the second peak. Within the temple there was a glass
Buddha statue in the middle. After the end of the reign of King Rama IV, it
was moved to Bangkok and it was replaced by a marble Buddha statue.
3. The last western peak of Phranakhonkiri mountain is the location of palace
containing many elegant rooms (Suthithum S., 1996).


Figure 15: Phra
Thart Chompet
Pagoda




90











Figure 16: The royal temple of Wat Phra Kaew and Red Pagoda

The largest hall in the royal palace, Phra Tenang Petphumpairod consists of dining
rooms, bathrooms, bedrooms and dressing rooms. In back of the largest hall, Phra
Tenang Pramod Mahaisawan resembles a Chinese hut. Inside the hall is the bedroom
of King Rama IV. The near hall building close to Phra Tenang Petphumpairod and
Phra Tenang Pramod Mahaisawan is Phra Tenang Ratchatumsapa, used for royal
meetings and reciting the teachings of Buddha.

Figure 17: Phra Tenang Petphumpairod
91










Figure 18: Picture of Phra Nakhonkiri Palace and Museum









Figure 19: Hor Sutchawan
Veanchai or Kachom Keao


Phra Nakhonkiri also has many interesting features such as an astronomy tower, Hor
Sutchawan Veanchai or Kachom Keao, which is situated close to Phra Tenang
Ratchatumsapa. Since King Rama IV was very interested in astronomy, he carefully
investigated the movement of planets and asteroids at night. With the beautiful
decoration of lanterns shining bright light, sailors formerly used it as a lighthouse to
guide their boats home (Suthithum S., 1996).
92










Phra Ram Ratchaniwet

The official name, Phra Ram Ratchaniwet, is locally known as Phra Ratchawang Ban
Puen or Wang Ban Puen, located on the west side of the Phetchaburi River. The
surrounding region is 558,832 square meters (Yotyong V., 1983). The palace is
square, ornamented with a garden and a huge spring in the middle of the royal house.
Two floors and a high roof dome are derived from German style. It is the mixed style
of Baroque and Art Nouveau (Feature Magazine Publishing, 1999). King
Chulalongkorn (Rama V), who had visited Phetchaburi several times during his
fathers reign, laid the foundation stone on August 19, 1910. He decided to build a
new palace closer to the local community (Phetchaburi Province, 1982). With the
purchasing price of 22,394.49 Baht, the king bought land from locals (Department of
National Annals, Reign of King Rama 6 1/45) and assigned Mr. Karl Dohring, a
Germany architect, Dr. Baiyer, a Germany engineer, and three French assistants, Mr.
Donecer, Mr. Suitman and Mr. Posa, to create the design. The palace was
intentionally constructed in European style, duplicating the palace of the German
Kaiser, a friend of King Chulalongkorn. Unfortunately, not long after the Wang Ban
Peun construction was completed, he passed away. The new King, Rama VI,
continued further construction until 1916. It took eight years for the enormous
assembly of Wang Ban Puen (Sornpet Prasart) to be completed (Phetchaburi
Province, 1982).

Figure 20: Phra Ram
Ratchaniwet/ Summer
Palace of King Rama
V (Suthithum S., 1996)





93












Figure 21: Phra Ram Ratchaniwet and the monument of King Rama V

Wat Yai Suwannaram

This temple, about 1 kilometer from the city hall, has been a royal monastery since
the age of Ayutthaya. A huge repair occurred in the age of King Rama V by the
Buddhist abbot, Phra Khru Mahaviharapiluck. Inside the temple, there was an ancient
mural of angels meeting, drawn by Phetchaburi craftsman during the Ayutthaya
period. Moreover, there was a statue of Somdej Prasangkarat Tangmo, the supreme
patriarch of the Buddhist monastery in Ayutthaya period, holding a lotus in the
worship manner (Yudee, 1957).

From the history of Somdej Prasangkarat Tangmo, a highly ranked royal officer,
Somdej Klom Phraya Dumrongrachanuparb wrote that the supreme patriarch was
formerly named Thong. He was local person from Nong Wa, central Phetchaburi
province. After entering the priesthood in a temple, one day he took a bath in a river
and saw a peel of melon floating in the river. He ate it hungrily. After that, his
friends ridiculed him about eating the melon and annoyed him until he left for
94










Ayutthaya. There he studied the teachings of Buddha. After he was promoted to
supreme patriarch, he came back to build Wat Yai Suwannaram and Wat Nong Wa, a
Buddhist temple (Phetchaburi Province, 1982).

The special heritage attraction in this temple is a stunning multipurpose hall received
from the King Suea of Ayutthaya (Somdej Phraya Dumrong Rachanuparb, 1898-
1900). Perhaps it was the hall of Prince Apaitosarat, the son of King Narain the
Great. The hall contains an eight angled column ornamented with an Ayutthaya
mural, Lai Lot Nam. The outside structured panel was written in golden strips and
had dust painting inside. The wood sculptured doors are magnificent, despite a
serious scratch on the right door. Locals believed that the scratch was the act of
Burmese enemies to indicate people in hiding during the national war.



Figure 22: Sala Kanparient of Wat Yai Suwannaram


95











Figure 23: Hor Tri: A hall for keeping scriptures

















Figure 24: Buddhist Monastery of Wat Yai Suwannaram

96
























Figure 25: Sala Kanparian close to the monastery

Wat Kamphang Laeng

Located in downtown Phetchaburi, Wat Kamphang Laeng consists of five laterite
pagodas. There is one main pagoda plus four minor pagodas. It is the art of Bayon
with stucco ornamentation dating back to the 13
th
century. Similar Khmer style
pagodas can be found at Phra Prang and Prang Sam Yod in Lopburi province, and
Prasat Muang Singha in Kanchanaburi province.

Besides Khmer style pagodas at Wat Kamphang Laeng, some ancient artifacts are
significant such as an eight-handed image of Radiating Avalotikesuar, a Bodhisattva,
and also a four-handed image of Bodhisattva. This is apparent evidence of Khmer
cultural expansion to the central area of Thailand around the 13
th
century.
Archeologists also found that the artifacts were stylistically changed from the
originals. The craftsmen probably intended to build their own uniqueness, possibly
representing an anonymous desire for independence from Khmer influences
(Vilaikaeo, 1991).
97










Figure 26: Relics of Wat
Kamphang Laeng in Downtown
Phetchaburi









Wat Mahathat Worawihan

This temple is close to Phetchaburi River in Kachang district, downtown Phetchaburi.
The royal records of dynasty indicate that the historic place was constructed by
Khmer craftsmen, similar to Wat Phra Sri Mahathat in Ratchaburi, about 800 years
ago. It is assumed that both temples are examples of Khmer cultural influence in Thai
territory.

98










Inside the temple there are five Khmer laterite prangs. The principle prang is 42
meters tall, surrounded with four satellite prangs. Perhaps it was built in the spirit of
Mahayana Buddhism during the Sukhothai period (Suthithum S., 1996). The main
prang contains Buddha relics conferred from the present King Rama IX on May 17,
1954. Moreover, there are three merit Buddha images i.e. Luangpoo Mahathat,
Luangpoo Bang Lamp, and Luangpoo Takuel. The latter two of them were
formerly placed in Wat Ban Lamp and Wat Khao Takuel.

Visitors who are interested in the art of stucco or ornamental plaster appreciate the
masterpieces of many local craftsmen in Phetchaburi. All the art is beautiful and
unique because they create the features of stucco different from normal traditional
pattern. The design of gable-board is tiny different between left-and-right hand side
(PHETCHABURI PROVINCE, 2005).


Figure 27: Prang or
Pagoda of Wat
Mahathat








99











Figure 28: Area inside Wat Mahathat Worawihan

Wat Ko Kaeo Suttharam

In the late Ayutthaya period, this temple was creatively found with ship-galley
curving base style of Phra Ubosot, a Buddhist monastery. Originally, this temple was
ideally located close to the Phetchaburi River, where water floated around it, creating
the feeling of staying on an island. This is why the community named it Wat Ko.
The current geographic situation has been changed because of dam construction
(Department of Environmental Promotion, 2003).


Figure 29:
Wat Ko Kaeo Suttharam
(Boonyakajohn, 2000)


100











Figure 30 (above and right): Mural Paintings at Wat
Ko Kaeo Suttharam (Ringis, 1990)


The murals inside Wat Ko Kaeo Suttharam illustrate the ten previous lives of the Lord
Buddha. The opposite side of the main Buddha image represents the universe and 27
groups of stars. At the back of the Buddha statue is a depiction of the defeat of Mara.
The wooden paneled walls of its external walls or Fa Prakon are widely considered
the most beautiful in Thailand (HI-Phetchaburi www.tyha.org/image/place).






Figure 31: Buddha Image,
Phra Phuttha Saiyat






101










Wat Phuttha Saiyat

Wat Phuttha Saiyat or Wat Phra Non (the local name) is situated on a hill of
Phranakhonkiri mountain. Within the temple, there is a huge beautiful Buddha image,
Phra Phuttha Saiyat, in stucco and brickwork ornamented and covered with gold foil.
The Buddha image has been recorded as one of the largest reclining Buddhas in
Thailand. It is thought to date from middle period of the Ayutthaya Kingdom
(Department of Environmental Promotion, 2003).

Wat Phlapphla Chai

This temple was created on Dumneunkasem road, downtown district. Assumed to be
built in the late Ayutthaya period, it previously was a training center and headquarters
for military troops as well as a royal pavilion beside the river. Currently, the area is
the location of the Sunthon Pu Monument, in honor of the great poet composer during
the Rattanakosin period. Inside this temple is a 170 centimeters wide molded Buddha
image created during the Sukhothai period, plus beautiful carved wooden doors of
Phra Ubosot (Buddhist monastery) by Phetchaburi craftsmen during the reign of King
Rama VI-VII.



Figure 32: Wat Phlapphla
Chai(Department of
Environmental Promotion, 2003)







102
















Figure 33: Phra Ubosot
(Buddhist monastery) of
Wat Phlapphla Chai

Wat Maha Summanaram (Wat Khao Wang)

Formerly this temple was called Wat Khao Samon. After restoration by King Rama
IV, he conferred the new name, Wat Maha Sammanaram. The temple mural, drawn
by a famous craftsman during the Rattanakosin era, Khour Inkrong, depicts local
people visiting to worship in various holy temples, especially Wat Phra Phutabath in
Saraburi province (Department of Environmental Promotion, 2003).






Figure 34: Buddhism
Monastery of Wat Maha
Sammanaram






103










Traditional Heritage in Phetchaburi

Phranakhonkiri Festival

It is held annually for ten days beginning on the first Friday of February. The purpose
of the festival is to remind people of the historic significance of Muang Pet
(Phetchaburi province) and promote heritage activities such as demonstration of local
art, culture, and ox racing competition. On Khao Wang, there are the beautiful light
ornaments during the festival period (Department of Environmental Promotion,
2003).

Traditional Festival Varlan or Varlradog

This festival was adapted from the use of animal labour. Thai traditional farmers
usually tie an ox with a wood pole and let it push a large mortar for pounding paddy
to separate the grains from the chaffs. At present, it becomes a competitive game.
The powerful ox, moving in circles from a long distance, eventually wins the fierce
competition. Farmers play this outdoor event for amusement. Additionally, the game
encourages a doubling of the purchasing price of the champion ox (Department of
Environmental Promotion, 2003).

Ox Cart Racing Festival

The ox racing competition is held annually during the Phranakhonkiri festival in order
to conserve traditional heritage. The community tends to play this event to show off
their oxs strength. It actually represents the richness of the master. The competition
begins with two oxen on a cart, or four oxen on two carts, walking for three rounds
between two columns, without touching the lines. The two oxen on a cart that walks
faster through the third round become the champions. During the competition, music
is played to increase local excitement (Department of Environmental Promotion,
2003).

104










Dancing Drama Played on the Floor (Lakorn Chartee)

Lakorn Chartee is the oldest dancing drama, influenced from Indian culture. There
is no record of how Lakorn Chartee initially became a drama performance in
Phetchaburi province. Mom Muang, a mistress of King Rama V, was skilled in
performing this dancing drama. She often presented Lakorn Chartee for the king and
was rewarded with the drama stadium Na Phra Lan for her show. During the reign
of King Rama VI, Lakorn Chartee became mixed with another type of drama, Lakorn
Nork. Together, it became Lakorn Chartee Krung Yai, the dancing drama
composed of singing and dancing together (Feature Magazine Publishing, 1993).

Thai Song Dams customs and traditions

Thai Song Dam, Tai Dam, Thai Song or Lao Song are the names of Thai indigenous
groups in Phetchaburi province that live in Kao Yoi district. Their main occupations
are rice farming (both ordinary and glutinous rice), cash crop farming, gathering
forest products, animal hunting, and fishing in lakes and rivers, plus minor
occupations such as basket weaving (Udomvait, 1991). The Thai Song Dam people
have maintained their own indigenous culture, including, for example, the tradition of
courting a woman, Long Kueng; marriage ceremony, Inn Korn; and house
celebration ceremony, San Hueng. Unfortunately, these local traditions have
already disappeared. Yet, the community of Thai Song Dam in Kao Yoi fortunately
created a group to recover the old customs and cultures by holding a cultural
ceremony once a year to show their unique singing, playing and dancing. Other
nearby communities join it by dressing in original style costumes for their heritage
conservation. Otherwise, these traditions would only survive in photographs or
museums (Udomvait, 1991).

Long Boat Racing Festival

During November to December, many temples near the Phetchaburi River hold a long
boat racing festival once a year. The final round of their competition is always on the
105










day of Kathin ceremony, a Thai Buddhist activity. The time of the race is usually at
midday. A pair of long boats contend with each other. The prize for the fastest team
is colorful silk fabric for the 4-5 pairs of female crew members who stay in front of
the boat, and fancy loincloths or tatans for the 8-10 pairs of male crew members
sitting at the rear of the boat (Envir Tech-consultant Co., 2006).

Parade of Land Boats Ruar Bok

This tradition is adapted from the parade of river boats. Almost 20 years after dam
building at Ta Yang district, the level of water in Phetchaburi River has reduced
continuously and is not appropriate for the grand parade of river boats. The locals
decided to improve the old tradition of a boat parade to be shown in land. The song
and the rhythm of the music playing were changed to harmonize with the outward
face of the new parade. The parade attendants include both males and females
standing in the land boats, Ruar Bok, which are beautifully decorated. Beginning
with the first worshipful song of masters, the music is played continuously until the
final farewell and audience blessing songs (Envir Tech-consultant Co., 2006).

In the old tradition, Ruar Bok is involved with a boat angel, Ma Yanang, who
protects racing boats. If Ma Yanang is good, the boat will defeat the rest of the
competitors. Therefore, before competition, the crew and ship owner must pay
respect to Ma Yanang by offering flowers, joss sticks, candles, rice, eggs and liquor,
etc. as a sacrifice. Most of the boat-racing owners select a beautiful woman to be the
ambassador of Ma Yanang sitting in front of their boats. Yet, some owners do not
agree with this point since the front of the boat is the place of god. A female sitting
there is extremely inappropriate. In Thai tradition, female status is lower than males,
and therefore they should not touch or enter into any sacred places. Another rule of
this tradition is that the boat controller must be male. Stepping down to the racing
boat in Ruar Bok tradition, the racers must go under the edge of boat instead of
passing over to the crews standing position (Phetchaburi Province, 1982).


106










Thai Traditional Houses in Phetchaburi

The wealth of Thai society is measured by the number of temples and houses. The
root of Phetchaburi culture is clearly seen from the group of traditional Thai houses.
Although they are in decline due to changes in modern society, they still exist in the
central downtown area. Some families have separated into stand-alone housing since
the new generation of house owners have fewer members. In the past, Thai husbands
were able to have many wives. All could live under the same roof with a lot of
children. When their children get married, they built another Thai house (Ruan Thai)
close to their home. Due to tremendous changes in Thai society, traditional Thai
houses are no longer functional. New material technology and house styles have
replaced the old designs. Some owners have demolished Ruan Thai houses that had
been donated to a temple, in order to build a new one in modern Thai style.
Nevertheless, if traveling by boats along the Phetchaburi River, visitors are able to see
some remaining old houses constructed more than 100 years ago. All of them are
made of real teak wood, as the Thai craftsmen call this type of house, Ruan
Kuengsub. The owner must be rich enough to build the expensive house. For the
poor, their houses tend to be temporary. Their living construction is made of bamboo
wood and palm leaves (Feature Magazine Publishing, 1993). From Silpakorn
Universitys research on the tourism development project, the local house architecture
that reflects the lifestyle of old Phetchaburi communities is classified into four types
as follows:

1. Old Thai Traditional Houses (Ruan Thai)
Original Thai traditional houses in central area are generally found in
Phetchaburi province in both downtown and Ban Lard districts. Moreover,
plenty of them can be seen in the edge area of Phetchaburi River from the Ban
Lamp district to central city area.

2. Houses of Thai Song Dam (Ruan Thai Song Dam or Lao Song)
This character of house is more specific and very interesting. The real
authentic Thai Song Dam houses have nearly disappeared because of the new
107










fabric construction and modern society. The artificial Thai Song Dam houses
can be found and studied in museums and educational institutions.

3. Fisherman Houses on Phetchaburi beach
From the eastern side of the sea near Bang Taboon Gulf to Ban Lamp district
is the location of many fisherman villages. Even though there is less value
aesthetically, the spacious buildings connect the pattern of life and culture of
fishermen who have maintained a close relationship with the sea for
generations.

4. Other kinds of Houses Containing Architectural Value
For example, wooden houses in Phetchaburi and the first styled summer
houses in the Cha-am district were built during the era of King Rama VII.
Although most of the houses have been destroyed, a few of them still remain.




Figure 35: Old Thai Traditional Houses (Ruan Thai)

108












Figure 36: Old wooden houses near
Phetchaburi River





Figure 37: Old local market in Downtown Phetchaburi





Figure 38: Houses of Thai Song Dam
(Ruan Thai Song Dam or Lao Song)

109










This chapter has described the main cultural heritage features of Phetchaburi. In the
remainder of the thesis I first of all examine the predominant characteristics of the
visitors to the town, and their intentions and desires in visiting, before discussing how
marketing of the towns heritage assets can be improved to meet these visitor needs
and expectations. My point is to examine the nature of the tourists that do visit the
site, with a view to understanding what attracts them, and what improvements they
would appreciate. The results of this analysis are then used to suggest ways of
improving the attraction of these currently poorly patronized heritage sites.

Related Literature Review

Related articles start from a case study which describes how a heritage destination
was created in 1998 through entrepreneurial marketing by Anja Praesto, a marketing
staff person at the Vstergtland Museum. She initiated the destination named in
Arns Footsteps (I Arns Fotspr). Her insiders account is used as a data collection
device to illustrate the development of this destination in the Vstra Gtaland region
in Sweden based on the fictitious story of the knight Arn in the 12
th
century from the
best-selling novels by Jan Guillou. The success in mobilizing local opinions and the
general public around locations where historical events occurred made it possible to
create a stable, expanding heritage destination in collaboration with private parties,
the church and various authorities. (Mattsson & Praesto, 2005)

The next story of Applicability of the market appeal - robusticity matrix: a case study
of heritage tourism is illustrated as Hong Kong is a city where contemporary global
culture coexists with traditional Chinese heritage. One way of promoting Hong
Kongs traditional built heritage is to develop a number of linked sites as a heritage
trail. For helping the development of such, this study evaluates the applicability of
the market appeal robusticity matrix on heritage tourism development, by assessing
the potential for tourism in the single-surname villages of Hong Kongs New
Territories. The study techniques include documentary research, questionnaire survey
and interviews. The findings indicate the matrix is effective for enabling the
assessment of heritage tourism potential because it simultaneously demonstrates the
110










importance of two major considerations for both tourism industry and heritage
managers, namely market appeal an assets appeal to tourists, and robusticity its
ability to endure visitation. The shortcomings of the model includes the
inappropriateness of the technical term product design needs in the market appeal
subset and lack of community concerns in the robusticity subset of the matrix. (Yiping
Li, Raymond Lap, & Bong Lo, 2003)

Another article is concerned in tourism images. This paper explores from a supply-
side perspective how image and language are used to promote destinations and how
images change over time in response to consumer demand. The paper focuses on the
representation of natural and cultural heritage in the region of Northwest Territories
(NWT), Canada. Visual and oral components of the regions heritage, history, and
early literature are, with contemporary travel literature, reviewed in the form of
promotional brochures for the region as a whole. It was found that unique auras of
destination image formation have developed over time through creative use of
language and imagery, which tourism suppliers have used to differentiate products
and invoke existential desire in the mind of potential visitors. Over time NWT
tourism imagery has moved from promoting a natural heritage to focusing on the
cultural heritage opportunities in the region. The paper concludes by proposing a
model of perceptions of possibility as a result of the interaction between supply-
induced imagery, organic imagery and visitor characteristics. (Amoamo & Boyd,
2005)

The last related article is Heritage issues in urban tourism: An assessment of new
trends in Lancaster County. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, a popular heritage
tourism destination in the northeastern US Megalopolis, is undergoing new trends that
have significant implications for its natural and cultural heritage. One involves
growing direct participation of segments of the Amish community in tourism. Is the
growing complexity of the Amish response towards tourism a sign of the incipient
breakdown of the Amish cultural heritage, and what are the implications for the future
of tourism? A second trend, promotion of major new discount outlet centers, has
contributed to further diversification of the countys tourist base and a partial move
111










away from focus on the Amish. Has this development affected the countys unique
cultural heritage and produced environmental problems? The premise of the
investigation is that a passive response by the public planning sector to tourist
marketing in the private sector may have been detrimental to Lancaster Countys
authentic heritage; therefore, a proactive planning approach seems needed. (Hovinen,
1995)

The related articles describe tourism marketing applied on heritage sites in oversea
countries and issue significant points to be used in heritage sites of downtown
Phetchaburi such as marketing segmentation and participation of local community.


112










Chapter 4
Findings of Survey and In-depth Interviews

From personal interviews involving thirteen stakeholders, the findings are released
interestingly. Each interview took from half an hour to two hours. In-depth
interviews were semi-structured, concentrating on an applied marketing mix at
heritage sites and conservation. All interview results can be grouped in these
following topics.

Part One: Amphur Muang Phetchaburi, which is the location of heritage attractions,
is an area of low tourism patronage.

Many stakeholders such as tourism business owners and heritage officers provided
very interesting comments. They said that tourists who were interested in heritage
and cultural tourism were rare and there were no attractive activities at the heritage
destinations. Most tourists lacked knowledge of heritage and history and had no
specific intention to visit cultural sites. They just wanted sightseeing tours rather than
spending all day traveling in boring historic places. Tourists may have had other
purposes on their itinerary such as playing golf, shopping, or going to the beach in
Cha-Am or Hua-Hin districts. If inbound tourists took a tour with a travel agency,
their destination would be a half-day tour program before going on to Hua Hin or the
floating marketing in Samut Songkram.

Normally Thai visitors travel to Phetchaburi cultural attractions only on short-term
holidays. During working days, the number of Thai tourists is very low, especially in
the low season. The high season normally runs from October to May. The summer
palace, Khao Wang is the most popular, while old Buddhist temples are rarely
recognized because of the lack of promotion. Tourism billboards and maps that point
to destinations are not helpful enough to attract more visitors. Furthermore, the
bypass roads to Cha-Am and Hua Hin beaches are the major barrier to attracting
visitors to downtown Phetchaburi. Since it is a huge curve-shaped road to Cha-Am
113










and Hua-Hin beaches, but only a small narrow street direct to downtown, general
travelers probably do not notice, and therefore go straight to the beaches without
visiting the ancient town.

In contrast, involved residents and local authorities feel less concerned with coming
visitors. A deputy governor and local officers said that most residents were busy with
their own lives and had no time to take care of heritage sites. They felt that it should
be the responsibility of heritage managers and the Fine Arts Department to distribute
an effective plan to maintain and develop cultural attractions. The local communities
are too poor to help, and local authorities serve many aspects of local development
other than just tourism. Government funds are not sufficient for heritage
conservation. A community leader commented that locals still did not understand
how tourism development could raise their standard of living. They lack knowledge
in how heritage culture and attractions are concerned with their lives. Some local
people reported playing at heritage sites since they were young. They were opposed
to paying admission fees to conserve heritage sites, which already felt like home.
Training in tourism development and marketing in heritage sites still has not created
understanding among locals.

Heritage officers have become accustomed to the current tourism situation. Due to a
small budget and strict regulations, the creation of tourism activities based on heritage
marketing has not occurred. In the opinions of high-ranked officers, they are
concerned only with their mission and are not innovative in considering new ideas of
cultural tourism and heritage conservation. They do not understand marketing
methods to attract visitors. For example, the tourism promotion of a road show to
Singapore was a waste of time and the government budget. Visitors who come for a
cultural tour in Phetchaburi are primarily domestic. Marketing plans to promote
tourism are rarely used. The head of the department of public relations accepted the
fact that they did not have systematic approaches in targeting visitors in Phetchaburi,
and were unable to apply theory of marketing wisely.

114










Not all tourism shareholders work in close cooperation as in a private company.
Individuals often think differently, leading to conflicts and trying to maintain their
own power. Each project tends to be developed with divergent goals and planners
have not unified an overall picture for tourism growth in Phetchaburi province.
Perhaps they need a revision of compatibility between heritage and eco-tourism.
Phetchaburi River, old Buddhist temples and Thai style houses should be able to be
packaged along tourist routes with mutual financial and non-financial benefits for all
stakeholders.

Part Two: Tourists who visit the area of low tourism patronage

There are five distinctive groups of visitors that regularly proceed in this cultural area:
students, pilgrims, inbound tourists, domestic seminar groups, and families. Their
tourism behavior in heritage places is different and should be studied for selecting
appropriate marketing strategies.

Students in heritage tourism

An abbots assistant at Wat Yaisuwannaram explained that student groups tend to
visit this temple for culture and art classes. Teachers are the leaders of knowledge
and bring their students to receive historic and heritage interpretation from skillful
monks. During school breaks, these tourist groups do not visit. For a trip to see the
royal palaces, students of primary schools and universities visit frequently. There is a
special admission rate for this group of students if they make contact in advance and
dress in their school uniforms. Usually they request a palace guide to interpret
heritage places, but sometimes they come alone and take many photos without using a
heritage guide. Some students, especially in architecture and art, are fascinated by
Ram Ratchanivet Palace. They are content to walk all day observing the beauty of
European architecture and internal decoration. Unfortunately, the Fine Arts
Department now prohibits people from taking photos or drawing sketches of heritage
objects and decorations, because some of them have been copied for commercial use.
This rule is not appropriate because it limits students opportunity to study art. Most
115










students do not feel comfortable with old Thai cultural art and heritage; therefore they
rarely return.

Pilgrims

These groups come to pray in Buddhist temples, mostly at Wat Mahathat. Many visit
during significant religious festivals such as Thort Kathin ceremony. From an in-
depth interview with the abbots assistant, pilgrims are local residents living in
Phetchaburi. An officer of public relations said that some groups had faith in The
Kuan Im Inter-Religious Park, the site of the worlds tallest carved wooden statue of
the Goddess Huan Yin. They come from Bangkok to pray to Pra Po Ti Sat Kuan Im
(a Goddess in Buddhist religion). It is a Chinese temple in Amphur Muang,
Phetchaburi, but seems to not have sufficient cultural value to become a heritage site.
The pilgrims do not have a specific focus on heritage conservation, nor to study
artifacts from the past such as mural paintings. Their primary intention is to pray and
make a miracle for their own life. However, funding from Buddhist ceremonies can
support monks for living, but is not enough for heritage restoration.

Inbound Tourists

Some inbound tourists visited a Thai Buddhist temple, Wat Kumpanlang, which has
Khmer style pagodas. Khun Tom, the owner of a travel agency in the downtown area
and other businessmen revealed that long stay backpackers were interested in all Thai
culture such as local lifestyle of residents and palm sugar making. They have studied
Thai heritage places and culture from tourist guide books. The general manager at
the cable car, Khao Wang, reported that long-stay tourists always rent mini vans from
Hua Hin to visit this summer palace and other places. Many French tourists are eager
to learn Thai culture. On the other hand, German and Scandinavian visitors tend to be
satisfied by relaxing on the beaches. Usually the groups of inbound visitors take a
half-day tour in these heritage areas before continuing their trips to Samut Songkram
and Kanburi. At these heritage sites, the lack of a sizable souvenir center is another
limitation to impressing visitors.
116











Seminar Groups

Interviews with Khun Chatrachai, Khun Kitti and Khun Patrom, revealed that most
seminar groups usually visit during the low season between May and September.
This is a great time for traveling since the price of hotels is lower. Factory workers
and local communities from the north and northeast part of Thailand are the best
target, since they prefer traveling to the sea. During their trip, it is a wonderful
opportunity to drop in at Phetchaburi heritage sites. Many visitors take only short
breaks at these places and few travelers consider the admission fee to be too
expensive. Perhaps they expect a complete package for a seminar should include
everything with no additional payment.

Family Groups

Relaxed from hard work, parents tend to bring their children to beaches and heritage
places. Thai families frequently bring extended family members on their visits. This
can be quite a big family; therefore it is normal for sons or daughters bringing elderly
parents to visit cultural heritage sites. A group of friends who usually travel together
might also be identified as family as well. An in depth interview with heritage
officers found that family groups chose a short break in the historic town for
relaxation purpose. Less information is required, and they are concerned only with
the aesthetic appeal of places. Sightseeing tours and taking photos is enough.
Perhaps someone might argue that they may be interested in receiving more heritage
knowledge, but few such activities are provided.

Part Three: The stakeholders who take responsibility in conservation and
development of heritage attractions in Amphur Muang, Phetchaburi.

Plenty of departments and communities that are involved in conservation and tourism
development in Phetchaburi heritage town contribute to advantages and disadvantages
of heritage administration. Confusion of goals, which causes deterioration to cultural
117










sites, is possibly the major problem. The level of power and individual management
attitudes limit their concept of heritage innovation. They may require guidelines to
develop the ancient town.

Tourism Authority of Thailand

Formerly, this department had its role in tourism encouragement and training of other
stakeholders such as residential communities to know how to treat natural and human
resources for sustainable tourism. Nowadays it only takes charge of tourism
marketing. Khun Sirachai, former director of TAT in tourism promotion, has worked
in Phetchaburi and surrounding areas. He gave his expert assessment that strategic
marketing of Phetchaburi and Prachuab Kirikhan should be connected as the same
tourism route. Hua Hin, Cha-Am, and Amphur Muang, Phetchaburi contain valuable
tourism resources and various kinds of hospitality. Cultural visitors will enjoy
walking around Phetchaburi downtown, the nearby summer palaces and the old
temples. TATs function is the creation of tourism projects and advertising through
mass media and other tourism channels. It has become its duty to keep overall
travelers statistics in Phetchaburi, but has not directly measured the number of
tourists who come for heritage tourism. Counseling with TAT department, he
recommended that local authorities be able to utilize tourism budgets more efficiently.

Fine Arts Department

Regarding heritage conservation, all rules and regulations are established through this
department. Its primary concern is to conserve registered heritage places in good
condition for the future. Any repair or maintenance work must be authorized by this
department. Optimistically, these national heritages are under good control and well
managed. According to the interviews, much control over heritage conservation may
engage more trouble. At present, very few officers in heritage sites can work
efficiently enough to solve the problems of heritage deterioration. The Fine Arts
Department does not have a lot of restoration funds to fix or maintain heritage places
or even to hire more staff to draw structural conservation models to do heritage
118










restoration. Another obvious problem is the bureaucratic system and complicated
restrictions that diminish the participation of local authorities, communities or even
TAT. All tourism projects have a time frame. If the official process of decision-
making in Fine Arts Department takes so long, their plans will expire. In tourism
business, a suitable time of operations is important. Otherwise, they might lose
opportunities.

Heritage officers

Various heritage officers have ruined distinctive historic places. In Phetchaburi
province, there are three summer palaces: Khao Wang, the Summer Residence of
King Mongkut; Phra Ram Ratchanivet Palace; and Maruka Thai Yawan Palace. The
first two are located downtown and registered on the heritage list of the Fine Arts
Department. All areas in Khao Wang are under the responsibility of the chief officer
of Phra Nakhon Kiri National Museum. The main office of the Fine Arts Department
in this area is located in Ratchaburi province. Phra Ram Ratchanivet is under the
control of the military. The military commander shares a part of heritage
conservation by finding restoration funds from the donations of institutional groups.
However, the heritage buildings of Phra Ram Ratchanivet palace are protected by the
Fine Arts Department. Soldiers have duties to find maintenance funds and manage
visitors. In old temples like Wat Ko Kaew Suttharam, it is the responsibility of the
abbot to operate daily religious works and to take care of their cleanliness. The
abbots assistant of Wat Yai Suwannaram disclosed that if the Fine Arts Department
prepares a grant to renovate the temple, the donated money from pilgrims can support
this effort. Nowadays, many abbots in heritage temples do not have enough money to
do building restoration by themselves.

Local Authority

With new managerial rules of government, all administrative powers have been
decentralized to the municipality level. Now, local authorities take responsibility for
tourism development by themselves. Yet because of many needs in local
119










development, the budget must be geared toward priority projects, leaving only a small
amount for heritage conservation each year. Most funds are used for basic
construction such as roads, pathways, and landscape improvement around many old
temples. Therefore, a tourism project such as Tordnong Tongmuang, which targets
local and inbound tourists to recognize tourism attractions downtown is relatively
unsuccessful since due to a lack of promotion and specific objectives to increase
tourism.

Provincial Government

The overall picture of tourism in Phetchaburi is planned and implemented by the
provincial government. The governor has CEO budget to promote strategic tourism
projects into action. With participation from corporate stakeholders such as local
authorities, heritage officers, NGO and community leaders, and tourism business
owners, the governor can be more successful. Phra Nakhon Kiri Festival is the most
important activity in Phetchaburi province. The provincial government usually makes
a request from each stakeholder to run this festival smoothly. Beginning with
residents who live near Khao Wang, they have to arrange car parking for visitors.
Another concern is for the cable car manager and heritage officers to welcome
travelers at night. Many activities and drama performances from various cultural
communities are performed inside. In addition, management of the market area in
front of Khao Wang is complex. TAT staff and officers of the provincial public
relations department do local promotion as well as in the mass media.

Community Leaders

Communities in Phetchaburi are strong even though they have no official power. For
example Archan Sunun, a former secretary of Muang Phetchaburi Conservation
group, tells the story of how the local community worked to protect the Phetchaburi
River. At one time, local government had a plan to build a bridge across the
Phetchaburi River, but this group disagreed with its plan. They held a memorial
ceremony of Phetchaburi River by inviting the governor and all residents to join in old
120










Thai tradition. Consequently, they were successful in halting the proposed
development project. In the following year, HRH Maha Chakri Sirindhorn went to
open this ceremony. Now, the governor continues it every year on August 7 as the
memorial day of Phetchaburi River. This event has become a major success story of
community power over local government. There are many conservation teams in
Phetchaburi such as commercial groups and natural conservation club. Though they
do not give much notice to heritage tourism, they could learn and realize benefits
from sustainable development of tourism.

Part Four: The marketing mixes applied in this heritage destination to increase
tourism

According to interviews with stakeholders, the target market of heritage tourism in
this town is not clear enough to determine appropriate marketing strategies. Local
government and the deputy governor want to increase the number of tourists by about
6 per cent. Without knowledge of their exact marketing mix and situation analysis of
cultural tourism, the current situation of 4Ps (Product, Price, Place, and Promotion)
can be analyzed as follows:

Product

With less concern for mere decoration, heritage officers tended to retain heritage sites
as they are. Some places might be restored occasionally, but renovation or functional
change is very rare. Insignificant areas close to Khao Wang and Ram Ratchanivet
palaces have been set up as small souvenir markets for tourists. Since the area is quite
small and many merchandisers sell similar kinds of souvenirs, the market is not so
attractive. Many kinds of products can be seen in the other attractions such as
traditional musical instruments and toys. The unique art of Phetchaburi was not
applied in local gifts or souvenirs. Furthermore, various facilities in the area of
heritage attractions such as toilets are not available because of the limits of the
governments renovation budget.

121










Price

Determining the price of admission and facility usage is not reasonable. For example,
Phra Nakhon Kiri National Museum collects admission fee of 20 Baht for Thai
residents and 40 Baht for foreign tourists. Is it enough to support heritage
conservation? Even for the fee of facility usage such as the cable car, the Fine Arts
Department controls its ticket price at 30 Baht for adults per round trip and 10 Baht
for children. These are meager amounts for tourists to spend. In addition, students
and bureaucratic officers who travel in groups obtain special rates. These are major
causes of the financial deficit in cultural tourism.

Place

The distribution channels are now only in the heritage areas. Some business owners
advised expansion of traditional distribution channels by selling tickets in the form of
tourism packages through travel agencies, yet this might be against the regulations of
the Fine Arts Department. For the old Buddhist temples in Phetchaburi downtown,
whose main income is derived from visitors donations, marketing more distribution
channels or a channel to collect administration charges is unlikely to be used.

Promotion

Common promotional projects that all local authorities have applied can be classified
into three categories:

1. Road Show in Foreign Countries and Domestically

Last year, local government went to Singapore to promote tourism by presenting
VCDs and brochures about Phetchaburi province. Many participants were interested
in this new, unknown destination. Furthermore, TAT staff properly conducted road
shows in the north and northeast part of Thailand to motivate groups such as factory
workers and local communities to visit Phetchaburi.
122










2. Advertising

Thousands of brochures have been made and distributed to hotels, official
departments, tourism clubs and travel agencies in order to promote recognition of
Phetchaburi attractions. Periodically, promotion on mass media and local radio
stations is another important activity to stimulate tourism demand. The promotion mix
used of Phetchaburi is often not effective because of the inappropriate sources of
segmentation and inefficient official management. The message of promotion usually
is not reached to the visitors and the evaluation of promotional media is never done.

3. Event Marketing

Phra Nakorn Kiri Festival receives the greatest promotional activity in Phetchaburi
province. Giant billboards, lighting on Phra Nakhorn Kiri Mountain and marketing
on the street always attract tourists from other provinces to visit during February.
Although on a smaller scale, Tordnong Tongmuang is another promotional event to
show tourists and local residents how to cover Phetchaburi heritage sites by walking
around downtown. This event usually involves walk racing and playing games at
historic places. Municipality staffs provide information that many participants would
join this event if it was held on normal holidays. Its ideal aim is to promote
recognition of heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown.

Part Five: Tourism attractions in Phetchaburi downtown ought to be improved or
created to become a model conservation destination in the near future.

Like other historic towns in Thailand, there are no strict laws or regulations to control
physical changes. A chief officer in municipality planning revealed that meetings
have been held to determine conservation areas, but no commitments have been made.
Local residents do not place much value on environmental heritage conservation. Old
houses are demolished or donated to local temples. No incentives or certificates are
provided to community leaders who conserve heritage. Only the Fine Arts
Department has registered heritage sites to protect unique human-made resources.
123










Moreover, low monetary budgets and very few heritage officers is a huge barrier to
limit heritage deterioration. Without systematic management and concerned
stakeholders, appropriate sustainable conservation of the ancient town is unlikely to
occur in the near future. Communities and tourism providers on the supply side still
do not perceive the important role of trading in heritage tourism. They require being
only the cultural tourism for the local and are not the main monetary resources for the
province. Therefore they are satisfied with only a knowledge center instead of a
souvenir shop or restaurant that creates functional change in heritage places. Some
rejected a definite plan for mass commercialization since a lot of tourists terminate the
peacefulness of local communities. What they expect for heritage tourism here is just
small group of tourists or the kind of alternative tourism. The full system of heritage
management in tourism was very far from their thoughts. Some stakeholders
commented that local residents were accustomed to their present environment and
were not eager to support tourism growth because of conflicts among community
members who are gaining prosperity from tourism.

Statistical Results

This section reveals statistical results from quantitative surveys in marketing
demand of visitors traveling in heritage attractions of Phetchaburi Downtown.
From the survey of marketing demand of visitors traveling in heritage sites, which
consist of demographic data, tourist behavior, and visitors opinions of marketing mix
strategies concerned with heritage management, the issues can be concluded in tables
of descriptive statistics as follows:








124










Table 1: demographic data of visitors traveling in heritage sites at Phetchaburi
downtown from May October 2006

Items Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Gender Male 150 37.5 37.5 37.5
Female 250 62.5 62.5 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Age <15 6 1.5** 1.5 1.5
15-24 89 22.3 22.3 23.8
25-34 157 39.3 39.3 63.0
35-44 97 24.3 24.3 87.3
>45 51 12.8 12.8 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Marital status Single 246 61.5 62.6 62.6
Married 147 36.8 37.4 100.0
Divorced 7 1.8*
Total 400 100.0


Education

<Bachelor

128

32.0

32.0

32.0
Bachelor 228 57.0 57.0 89.0
>Bachelor 44 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Income/month 5000 60 15.0 15.0 15.0
5001-10000 104 26.0 26.0 41.0
10001-15000 84 21.0 21.0 62.0
15001-20000 52 13.0 13.0 75.0
>20000 100 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Occupation Government
officer
112 28.0 28.0 28.0
Businessman 42 10.5 10.5 38.5
Employee 163 40.8 40.8 79.3
Student 63 15.8 15.8 95.0
Others 20 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0
* The divorced variable is not countable or cannot be calculated in the statistics
since its percentage is too small.
** The <15 variable is included in the next 15-24 variable for reasonable
calculation in the statistic since its percentage is too small.


The demographic data in Table 1 shows that most travelers were female (62.5%).
Many of them were single (61.5%) and highly educated to the level of bachelor
125










degree (57%). Their age was mostly between 25-34 years old (39.3%) and their
occupation was employee (40.8%). Furthermore, their income per month was
primarily in two groups i.e. 5001-10,000 Baht (26.0%) and more than 20,000 Baht
(25.0%). Secondly, the descriptive data indicated that male (37.5%), married person
(36.8%), government officers (28.0%), lower education (32.0%) and age between 35-
44 years old (24.3%) and lower than 24 years old (23.8%) could be a good target
market as well.

Visitors opinions of marketing mix strategies (4Ps) concerned in heritage
management

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Product Strategy

Items Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Level of Importance
Heritage care 1 5 4.68 0.51 Most Important
Heritage cleanliness 2 5 4.53 0.59 Most Important
Heritage image 1 5 4.36 0.68 Most important
Heritage beauty 1 5 4.43 0.67 Most Important
Historic value 2 5 4.67 0.53 Most Important
Accessibility 1 5 4.12 0.69 Very Important
Heritage labels 1 5 4.20 0.68 Very Important
Heritage meaning 1 5 4.29 0.66 Very Important
Convenience 1 5 4.10 0.79 Very Important
Hospitality 1 5 4.12 0.83 Very Important
Adaptation 1 5 4.34 0.76 Most Important
Knowledgeable guide 1 5 4.29 0.75 Most Important
Authenticity 2 5 4.26 0.70 Most Important
Heritage interest 1 5 4.19 0.71 Very Important
Facility 1 5 4.22 0.73 Most Important
Conservation partner 1 5 4.26 0.67 Most Important
Total 2.25 5.00 4.31 0.37 Most Important

From surveys of visitors opinions at heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown, all
travelers agreed that product strategy was most important in terms of heritage care,
cleanliness, image, beauty, historic value, adaptation, knowledgeable guide,
authenticity, facility and conservation partner. From calculated mean shown in table
2.1, heritage care and value, including conservation, were the highest, respectively,
while cleanliness, beauty and image of heritage attractions were of secondary
significance. In addition, easy accessibility to heritage sites, readable signs and
labels, understandable meaning of heritage sites, convenience in traveling, hospitality
of guardians and interest of heritage places were very important.
126











Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Price Strategy

Items Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Level of Importance
Cheap admission fee 1 5 3.68 1.03 Very Important
Donations 1 5 3.58 0.99 Very Important
Price worthiness 1 5 3.97 0.87 Very Important
Other expenses 1 5 3.32 1.04 Medium
Price difference by
nationality
1 5 3.31 1.16 Medium
Price difference by age 1 5 3.32 1.14 Medium
Total 1.67 5.00 3.53 0.69 Very Important


Price strategy was considered very important in terms of cheap admission fee,
donations and price worthiness. Surveyed visitors recognized the suitable price of
admission fees. It is valuable enough to travel relative to the admission fees. Their
prices are not expensive and visitors can afford it. Perhaps some heritage places could
use heritage donations instead of expecting payment of entrance fees. Interestingly,
the corrected price difference by age and nationality were of medium importance even
though the upper price for foreigners entrance fee was still very cheap and there was
no price difference based on age. Expenses in addition to the entrance fee were
considered of medium importance as well.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Place Strategy

Items Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Level of Importance
Purchasing admission
tickets in advance
1 5 3.06 1.09 Medium
Convenience of
purchasing admission
tickets
1 5 3.78 0.95 Very Important
No. of ticket centers 1 5 3.60 0.99 Very Important
Total 1.00 5.00 3.47 0.85 Very Important

The interviews revealed that place strategy was very important. Travelers noted the
significance of convenience of purchasing admission tickets and the number of
ticketing centers. They might need better location for buying tickets and minimal
queuing. However, they placed medium importance on getting admission tickets in
advance, since the amount of visitors per day was still low.

127










Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of Promotion Strategy

Items Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Level of Importance
Promotion of heritage
attractions
2 5 4.25 0.63 Most Important
Arranging of tourism
package
1 5 3.92 0.79 Very Important
Heritage exhibition 1 5 3.97 0.75 Very Important
Advertising in heritage
conservation
1 5 4.12 0.74 Very Important
Advertising to promote
Thai domestic tourism
1 5 3.90 0.92 Very Important
Giving souvenirs 1 5 3.35 1.08 Medium
Public relations by
using well-known
persons
1 5 3.46 1.06 Very Important
Promotion by linkage
between heritage
places and important
persons history
1 5 3.95 0.82 Very Important
Distribution of
brochures
1 5 4.02 0.75 Very Important
Public relations through
art and culture
exhibitions
1 5 4.12 0.73 Very Important
Holding charity activities 1 5 3.67 0.93 Medium
Total 1.27 5.00 3.88 0.51 Very Important


Visitors positively identified the significance of promotion strategy at the degree of
very high importance. They commented on the promotion of heritage attractions as
the most important variable. Advertising in heritage conservation, public relations
through art and culture exhibitions, distribution of brochures, promotion by linkage
between heritage places and important persons history, advertising to promote Thai
domestic tourism, public relations by using well-known persons, and advertising to
promote Thai domestic tourism were categorized at the very important level. Only
promotion strategy by giving souvenirs and holding charity activities were considered
of medium importance to visitors.

Segmentation among various groups toward visitors opinions of marketing mix
strategies (4Ps) concerning heritage management is illustrated in the following
tables:


128










Table 6: Segmentation by gender, and visitors opinions of marketing mix strategies
concerning heritage management

Male
N = 150
Female
N = 250
Visitors opinions of marketing
mix strategies
X SD X SD
t Sig.
Total product 4.25 0.41 4.35 0.33 -2.48* 0.01
Total price 3.42 0.70 3.59 0.68 -2.64* 0.02
Total place 3.46 0.82 3.48 0.86 -0.30 0.75
Total promotion 3.84 0.52 3.90 0.51 -1.03 0.30
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

From t-test statistical calculation in Table 6, Sig. value of the total products and price
are 0.01 and 0.02 respectively. These values represented statistical difference between
males and females in the opinions of total product and price strategies at 0.05
statistically significant level. In contrast, the gender of visitors at heritage sites in
Phetchaburi downtown did not show a statistically significant difference of visitors
opinions of total place and total promotion strategies.

Table 7: Segmentation by gender and visitors opinions of product strategies
concerning heritage management

Male
N = 150
Female
N = 250
Visitors opinions of product
strategies
X SD X SD
t Sig.
Heritage care 4.69 .557 4.68 .493 0.12 0.90
Heritage cleanliness 4.49 .642 4.56 .566 -1.01 0.30
Heritage image 4.28 .706 4.41 .672 -1.81 0.07
Heritage beauty 4.41 .744 4.43 .638 -0.26 0.79
Historic value 4.62 .642 4.70 .466 -1.51 0.13
Accessibility 4.09 .780 4.14 .630 -0.71 0.47
Heritage labels 4.11 .773 4.26 .621 -2.08* 0.03
Heritage meaning 4.22 .741 4.34 .614 -1.69 0.09
Convenience 3.94 .914 4.19 .691 -3.12* 0.00
Hospitality 4.03 .941 4.18 .752 -1.79 0.07
Adaptation 4.29 .871 4.36 .699 -0.84 0.40
Knowledgeable guide 4.23 .770 4.33 .748 -1.34 0.17
Authenticity 4.29 .719 4.24 .695 0.67 0.49
Heritage interest 4.16 .676 4.20 .739 -0.54 0.58
Facility 4.13 .857 4.27 .651 -1.82 0.06
Conservation partner 4.13 .726 4.34 .628 -3.10* 0.00
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.


129










Table 7 shows most Sig. values represented no statistical difference between males
and females in the opinions of total product strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level, except variables of the heritage labels (0.03), convenience (0.00) and
conservation partner (0.00). This means that in terms of convenience of traveling at
heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown, easily readable heritage labels and attention
of being a conservation partner, males and females gave distinctive opinions on these
product strategies.

Table 8: Segmentation by gender and visitors opinions of price strategies concerning
heritage management

Male
N = 150
Female
N = 250
Visitors opinions of price
strategies
X SD X SD
t Sig.
Cheap admission fee 3.59 1.09 3.74 1.00 -1.39 0.16
Donations 3.52 1.03 3.62 0.96 -1.01 0.31
Price worthiness 3.84 0.94 4.05 0.82 -2.30* 0.02
Other expenses 3.21 1.02 3.39 1.05 -1.71 0.08
Price difference by nationality 3.19 1.14 3.38 1.17 -1.57 0.11
Price difference by age 3.21 1.20 3.38 1.10 -1.41 0.15
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 8 reveals that most Sig. values represent no statistical difference between male
and female opinions of total price strategies at the 0.05 statistically significant level,
except for the variable of price worthiness (0.02). This indicates that in terms of price
worthiness while visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown, males and females
gave distinctive opinions about these product strategies.

Table 9: Segmentation by gender and visitors opinions of place strategies concerning
heritage management

Male
N = 150
Female
N = 250
Visitors opinions of place
strategies
X SD X SD
t Sig.
Purchasing admission tickets
in advance
3.06 1.08 3.06 1.10 0.00 1.00
Convenience of purchasing
admission tickets
3.76 0.96 3.79 0.95 -0.28 0.77
Number of ticket centers 3.57 1.00 3.62 0.99 -0.51 0.60


130










Overall Sig. values in table 9 represented no statistical difference between male and
female opinions concerning total place strategies at the 0.05 statistically significant
level. This verifies that in relation to visitors opinions of place strategies about
heritage management, males and females showed no distinctive difference.


Table 10: Segmentation by gender and visitors opinions towards promotion strategies
concerning heritage management

Male
N = 150
Female
N = 250
Visitors opinions of promotion
strategies
X SD X SD
t Sig.
Promotion of heritage
attractions
4.26 0.63 4.24 0.64 0.24 0.80
Arranging of tourism package 3.89 0.82 3.94 0.77 -0.70 0.48
Heritage exhibition 3.99 0.80 3.96 0.71 0.39 0.69
Advertising in heritage
conservation
4.11 0.82 4.12 0.70 -0.17 0.86
Advertising to promote Thai
domestic tourism
3.85 1.00 3.93 0.87 -0.85 0.39
Giving souvenirs 3.29 1.14 3.38 1.05 -0.83 0.40
Public relations using well-
known person
3.35 1.10 3.52 1.03 -1.55 0.12
Promotion by linkage between
heritage places and important
persons history
3.90 0.91 3.99 0.75 -1.03 0.30
Distribution of brochure 3.99 0.78 4.03 0.73 -0.49 0.62
Public relations through art
and culture exhibitions
4.17 0.78 4.10 0.69 0.93 0.35
Holding charity activities 3.56 0.98 3.74 0.89 -1.87 0.06

Table 10 shows that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference between
male and female opinions of total promotion strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level. This reveals that in terms of visitors opinions towards promotion
strategies in heritage management, males and females showed no significantly
distinctive difference.










131










Table 11: Segmentation by age: visitors opinions toward marketing mix strategies
concerning heritage management

24
N = 95
25-34
N = 157
35-44
N = 97
>45
N = 51
Visitors opinions of
marketing mix strategies
X SD X SD X SD X SD
Total product 4.34 0.32 4.30 0.41 4.34 0.33 4.27 0.41
Total price 3.57 0.67 3.51 0.72 3.51 0.70 3.55 0.66
Total place 3.61 0.78 3.53 0.81 3.18 0.86 3.62 0.97
Total promotion 3.94 0.46 3.89 0.51 3.82 0.58 3.87 0.51

Visitors opinions of
marketing mix strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Total product Between
Groups
.235 3 .078 0.56 0.64
Within Groups 55.148 396 .139
Total 55.383 399
Total price Between
Groups
.314 3 .105 0.21 0.88
Within Groups 192.660 396 .487
Total 192.973 399
Total place Between
Groups
11.917 3 3.972 5.66* 0.00
Within Groups 277.909 396 .702
Total 289.826 399
Total promotion Between
Groups
.686 3 .229 0.85 0.46
Within Groups 105.675 396 .267
Total 106.362 399


Using One-Way ANOVA statistical calculation in Table 11, Sig. values of the total
product, price, place and promotion are 0.64, 0.88, 0.00 and 0.46 respectively. These
values represent no statistical difference between distinctive ages in their opinions of
4Ps strategies at the 0.05 statistically significant level except for the total place
variable. This means that visitors at heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown of
different ages had different opinions concerning total place strategies.










132










Table 12: Multiple comparison of mean difference by age and visitors opinions of
total place strategies concerning heritage management

X Age
24 25-34 35-44 >45
Age
Total place
3.61 3.53 3.18 3.62
24 3.61 - 0.08 0.43* -0.00
25-34 3.53 - - 0.34* -0.09
35-44 3.18 - - - -0.44*
>45 3.62 - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

From multiple comparison of mean difference among the age of travelers visiting
heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown, using the LSD method in Table 12, the mean
of visitors opinions of total place strategies, whose ages were less than 24 years old,
25-34 years old and more than 45 years old, was more than those whose ages were
between 35-44 years old, 0.43, 0.34 and 0.44 respectively. All statistical values
reveal that less than 24-year-old, 25-34 year old and more than 45 year old visitors
concentrated on improvement of total place strategies more than visitors aged
between 35-44 years old.

Table 13: Segmentation by age and visitors opinions of product strategies concerning
heritage management
Visitors opinions of product
strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Heritage care Between
Groups
1.495 3 0.498 1.87 0.13
Within Groups 105.182 396 0.266
Total 106.677 399
Heritage cleanliness Between
Groups
1.455 3 0.485 1.37 0.25
Within Groups 140.122 396 0.354
Total 141.578 399
Heritage image Between
Groups
1.128 3 0.376 0.79 0.49
Within Groups 187.032 396 0.472
Total 188.160 399
Heritage beauty Between
Groups
0.393 3 0.131 0.28 0.83
Within Groups 183.357 396 0.463
Total 183.750 399
Historic value Between
Groups
1.762 3 0.587 2.03 0.10
Within Groups 114.336 396 .289
Total 116.098 399
133










Table 13: (Continued)
Visitors opinions of product
strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Accessibility Between
Groups
0.706 3 0.235 0.49 0.68
Within Groups 189.044 396 0.477
Total 189.750 399
Heritage labels Between
Groups
1.499 3 0.500 1.06 0.36
Within Groups 185.691 396 0.469
Total 187.190 399
Heritage meaning Between
Groups
1.739 3 0.580 1.31 0.27
Within Groups 175.039 396 0.442
Total 176.778 399
Convenience Between
Groups
3.999 3 1.333 2.15 0.09
Within Groups 245.199 396 .619
Total 249.198 399
Hospitality Between
Groups
2.294 3 0.765 1.11 0.34
Within Groups 272.703 396 0.689
Total 274.997 399
Adaptation Between
Groups
0.320 3 0.107 0.18 0.91
Within Groups 234.790 396 0.593
Total 235.110 399
Knowledgeable guide Between
Groups
1.810 3 0.603 1.05 0.36

Within Groups 226.967 396 0.573
Total 228.778 399
Authenticity Between
Groups
1.645 3 0.548 1.10 0.34
Within Groups 195.793 396 0.494
Total 197.438 399
Heritage interest Between
Groups
0.592 3 0.197 0.38 0.76
Within Groups 203.718 396 0.514
Total 204.310 399
Facility Between
Groups
0.148 3 0.049 0.09 0.96
Within Groups 216.492 396 0.547
Total 216.640 399
Conservation partner Between
Groups
2.616 3 0.872 1.93 0.12
Within Groups 178.344 396 0.450
Total 216.640 399


Table 13 demonstrates that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference
between ages concerning opinions of product strategies at the 0.05 statistically
134










significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of product strategies
concerning heritage management, age made no significantly difference.

Table 14: Segmentation by age and visitors opinions of price strategies concerning
heritage management

Visitors opinions of price
strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Cheap admission fee Between
Groups
2.013 3 0.671 0.61 0.60
Within Groups 429.027 396 1.083
Total 431.040 399
Donations Between
Groups
1.117 3 0.372 0.378 0.76
Within Groups 389.993 396 .985
Total 391.110 399
Price worthiness Between
Groups
2.403 3 0.801 1.03 0.37
Within Groups 305.237 396 0.771
Total 307.640 399
Other expenses Between
Groups
1.744 3 0.581 0.52 0.66
Within Groups 435.653 396 1.100
Total 437.398 399
Price difference by
nationality
Between
Groups
2.868 3 0.956 0.70 0.55
Within Groups 537.922 396 1.358
Total 540.790 399
Price difference by age Between
Groups
1.477 3 0.492 0.37 0.77
Within Groups 519.201 396 1.311
Total 520.677 399

Table 14 indicates that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference
between ages in their opinions of product strategies at the 0.05 statistically significant
level. This confirms that in terms of visitors opinions of price strategies concerning
heritage management, age made no significantly difference.









135










Table 15: Segmentation by age and visitors opinions of place strategies concerning
heritage management

Visitors opinions of place
strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Purchasing admission
tickets in advance
Between
Groups
13.838 3 4.613 3.91* 0.00
Within Groups 466.722 396 1.179
Total 480.560 399
Convenience of purchasing
admission tickets
Between
Groups
12.964 3 4.321 4.83* 0.00
Within Groups 354.233 396 .895
Total 367.198 399
Number of ticket centers Between
Groups
10.138 3 3.379 3.46* 0.01
Within Groups 385.862 396 .974
Total 396.000 399

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

One-Way ANOVA statistical calculation in Table 15 demonstrates Sig. values of
variables (purchasing admission tickets in advance, convenience of purchasing
admission tickets and number of ticket centers) are 0.00, 0.00 and 0.01, respectively.
All values represented the statistical difference between distinctive ages concerning
their opinions of place strategies at the 0.05 statistically significant level. This means
that visitors of heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown, who were of different ages,
had various opinions in purchasing admission tickets in advance, convenience of
purchasing admission tickets and number of ticket centers.

Table 16: Comparison of dual mean difference by age and visitors opinions of place
strategies in terms of purchasing admission tickets in advance

X Age
24 25-34 35-44 >45
Age
Purchasing admission
tickets in advance

3.22 3.07 2.76 3.29
24 3.22 - 0.15 0.46* -0.07
25-34 3.07 - - 0.31* -0.22
35-44 2.76 - - -0.53*
>45 3.29 - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

136










From multiple comparison of mean difference among the age of travelers visiting
heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the LSD method in Table 16, mean of
visitors opinions of place strategy concerning purchasing admission tickets in
advance, whose ages were less than 24 years old, 25-34 years old and more than 45
years old, was more than those whose ages were between 35-44 years old, 0.46, 0.31
and 0.53, respectively. All statistical values reveal that less than 24-year-old, 25-34
year old and more than 45 year old visitors concentrated on improvement of place
strategy in terms of purchasing admission tickets in advance more than visitors aged
between 35-44 years old.

Table 17: Comparison of dual mean difference by age and visitors opinions of place
strategies in terms of convenience of purchasing admission tickets

X Age
24 25-34 35-44 >45
Age
Convenience of
purchasing admission
tickets
3.93 3.85 3.46 3.88
24 3.93 - 0.08 0.46* 0.04
25-34 3.85 - - 0.38* -0.04
35-44 3.46 - - -0.42*
>45 3.88 - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

From multiple comparison of mean difference among various ages of travelers
visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the LSD method in Table 17,
mean of visitors opinions of place strategy concerning the convenience of purchasing
admission tickets, whose ages were less than 24 years old, 25-34 years old and more
than 45 years old, was more than those whose ages were between 35-44 years old,
0.46, 0.31 and 0.53 respectively. All statistical values reveal that less than 24-year-
old, 25-34 year old and more than 45 year old visitors concentrated on improvement
of place strategy in terms of convenience of purchase admission tickets more than
visitors aged between 35-44 years old.






137










Table 18: Multiple comparison of mean difference by age and visitors opinions of
place strategies in terms of the number of ticket centers

X Age
24 25-34 35-44 >45
Age
Number of ticket
centers
3.71 3.68 3.32 3.71
24 3.71 - 0.03 0.39* 0.00
25-34 3.68 - - 0.36* -0.03
35-44 3.32 - - -0.39*
>45 3.71 - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

From multiple comparison of the mean differences between the age of travelers
visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the LSD method in Table 18,
mean of visitors opinions of place strategy concerning the number of ticket centers,
whose ages were less than 24 years old, 25-34 years old and more than 45 years old,
was more than those whose ages were between 35-44 years old 0.39, 0.36 and 0.39,
respectively. All statistical values reveal that less than 24-year-old, 25-34 year old
and more than 45 year old visitors concentrated on improvement of place strategy in
terms of the number of ticket centers more than visitors aged between 35-44 years
old.

Table 19: Segmentation by age and visitors opinions of promotion strategies
concerning heritage management

Visitors opinions of
promotion strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Promotion of heritage
attractions
Between
Groups
1.062 3 0.354 0.86 0.45
Within Groups 161.938 396 0.409
Total 163.000 399
Arranging of tourism
package
Between
Groups
2.152 3 0.717 1.14 0.33
Within Groups 248.446 396 0.627
Total 250.598 399
Heritage exhibition Between
Groups
.299 3 0.100 0.17 0.91
Within Groups 224.279 396 0.566
Total 224.578 399
Advertising in heritage
conservation
Between
Groups
1.006 3 0.335 0.59 0.61
Within Groups 221.704 396 0.560
Total 222.710 399


138











Table 19: (Continued)
Visitors opinions of
promotion strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Advertising to promote Thai
domestic tourism
Between
Groups
.609 3 0.203 0.23 0.87
Within Groups 338.189 396 0.854
Total 338.797 399
Giving souvenirs Between
Groups
7.431 3 2.477 2.11 0.09
Within Groups 464.959 396 1.174
Total 472.390 399
Public relations using well-
known person
Between
Groups
2.219 3 .740 0.65 0.58
Within Groups 449.141 396 1.134
Total 451.360 399
Promotion by linkage
between heritage places
and important persons
history
Between
Groups
.465 3 0.155 0.22 0.87
Within Groups 268.725 396 0.679
Total 269.190 399
Distribution of brochure Between
Groups
1.559 3 0.520 0.91 0.43
Within Groups 225.319 396 0.569
Total 226.878 399
Public relation as art and
culture exhibitions
Between
Groups
1.697 3 0.566 1.06 0.36
Within Groups 211.300 396 0.534
Total 212.998 399
Holding charity activities Between
Groups
5.503 3 1.834 2.13 0.09
Within Groups 340.595 396 0.860
Total 346.098 399
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 19 indicates that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference
between ages in opinions of promotion strategies at the 0.05 statistically significant
level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of promotion strategies
concerning heritage management, age made no significantly difference.






139










Table 20: Segmentation by marriage status and visitors opinions of marketing mix
strategies concerning heritage management

Single
N = 246
Married
N = 147
Visitors opinions of marketing
mix strategies
X SD X SD
t Sig.
Total product 4.32 0.38 4.31 0.33 012 0.89
Total price 3.50 0.71 3.56 0.68 -0.76 0.44
Total place 3.50 0.82 3.41 0.86 1.00 0.31
Total promotion 3.88 0.51 3.89 0.48 -0.13 0.89

Table 20 indicates that most of these Sig. values represented no statistical difference
between single and married visitors in opinions of product strategies at the 0.05
statistically significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of total
marketing mix strategies concerning heritage management, marital status showed no
significant difference.

Table 21: Segmentation by marriage status and visitors opinions of product strategies
concerning heritage management

Single
N = 246
Married
N = 147
Visitors opinions of product
strategies
X SD X SD
t Sig.
Heritage care 4.66 .553 4.71 .453 -0.95 0.33
Heritage cleanliness 4.56 .608 4.50 .578 0.96 0.33
Heritage image 4.33 .729 4.41 .605 -1.10 0.27
Heritage beauty 4.40 .720 4.46 .611 -0.80 0.41
Historic value 4.63 .577 4.76 .458 -2.43* 0.01
Accessibility 4.15 .698 4.08 .678 0.95 0.34
Heritage label 4.22 .681 4.18 .673 0.45 0.65
Heritage meaning 4.35 .658 4.22 .667 1.91 0.05
Convenience 4.15 .776 3.99 .815 1.90 0.05
Hospitality 4.12 .851 4.12 .802 -0.05 0.95
Adaptation 4.35 .760 4.34 .736 0.06 0.94
Knowledgeable guide 4.34 .698 4.22 .809 1.51 0.13
Authenticity 4.28 .688 4.21 .733 1.00 0.31
Heritage interest 4.16 .747 4.25 .606 -1.28 0.20
Facility 4.21 .742 4.26 .683 -0.62 0.53
Conservation partner 4.24 .701 4.33 .553 -1.44 0.15
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 20 indicates that most of these Sig. values represented no statistical difference
between single and married visitors in opinions of product strategies at the 0.05
statistically significant level except the variable of historic value (0.01). This means
that in terms of historic value in visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown,
140










single and married visitors disclosed significantly distinctive opinions of this product
strategy. Through comparison of the mean differences, it seems that females are more
concerned with historic value.

Table 21: Segmentation by marital status and visitors opinions of price strategies
concerning heritage management

Single
N = 246
Married
N = 147
Visitors opinions of price
strategies
X SD X SD
t Sig.
Cheap admission fee 3.65 1.04 3.72 1.04 -0.61 0.54
Donations 3.59 0.97 3.56 1.02 0.28 0.78
Price worthiness 3.99 0.88 3.95 0.83 0.39 0.69
Other expenses 3.33 1.02 3.33 1.06 -.038 0.97
Price difference by nationality 3.23 1.14 3.44 1.17 -1.71 0.08
Price difference by age 3.26 1.14 3.38 1.13 -1.01 0.31

Table 21 shows that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference between
single and married visitors in opinions of price strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of price strategies
concerning heritage management, marital status showed no significant difference.

Table 22: Segmentation by marital status and visitors opinions of place strategies
concerning heritage management

Single
N = 246
Married
N = 147
Visitors opinions of place
strategies
X SD X SD
t Sig.
Purchasing admission tickets
in advance
3.12 1.09 2.93 1.10 1.72 0.08
Convenience of purchasing
admission tickets
3.79 0.95 3.73 0.96 0.64 0.51
Number of ticket centers 3.61 1.00 3.60 0.97 0.06 0.94

Table 22 shows that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference between
single and married visitors in opinions of place strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of place strategies
concerning heritage management, marital status showed no significant difference.





141











Table 23: Segmentation by marital status and visitors opinions of promotion
strategies concerning heritage management

Single
N = 246
Married
N = 147
Visitors opinions of promotion
strategies
X SD X SD
t Sig.
Promotion of heritage
attractions
4.30 0.60 4.17 0.65 1.94 0.05
Arranging of tourism package 3.91 0.81 3.94 0.72 -0.29 0.76
Heritage exhibition 3.91 0.74 4.07 0.71 -2.05* 0.04
Advertising in heritage
conservation
4.12 0.71 4.11 0.75 0.17 0.86
Advertising to promote Thai
domestic tourism
3.89 0.89 3.93 0.95 -0.36 0.71
Giving souvenirs 3.34 1.07 3.35 1.10 -0.04 0.96
Public relations using well-
known person
3.46 1.02 3.46 1.12 -0.06 0.94
Promotion by linkage between
heritage places and important
persons history
3.94 0.75 3.99 0.86 -0.60 0.54
Distribution of brochure 4.06 0.72 3.98 0.73 1.07 0.28
Public relations through art
and culture exhibitions
4.11 0.73 4.15 0.70 -0.47 0.63
Holding charity activities 3.68 0.95 3.66 0.90 0.19 0.84
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 23 shows that most of these Sig. values represented no statistical difference
between single and married visitors in opinions of product strategies at the 0.05
statistically significant level, except the variable of heritage exhibition (0.01). This
means that in terms of holding heritage exhibitions while visiting heritage sites in
Phetchaburi downtown, single and married visitors disclosed significantly distinctive
opinions of this product strategy. By comparing the mean differences, it seems that
females are more concerned about holding heritage exhibitions.

Table 24: Segmentation by education and visitors opinions of marketing mix
strategies concerning heritage management

< bachelor
N = 128
bachelor
N = 228
> bachelor
N = 44
Visitors opinions of
marketing mix strategies
X SD X SD X SD
Total product 4.34 0.37 4.29 0.37 4.36 0.36
Total price 3.53 0.70 3.53 0.69 3.50 0.67
Total place 3.60 0.89 3.40 0.85 3.51 0.65
Total promotion 3.94 0.47 3.89 0.54 3.82 0.44
142











Table 24: (Continued)
Visitors opinions of
marketing mix strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Total product Between
Groups
.268 2 .134 0.96 0.38
Within Groups 55.115 397 .139
Total 55.383 399
Total price Between
Groups
.035 2 .017 0.03 0.96
Within Groups 192.939 397 .486
Total 192.973 399
Total place Between
Groups
3.549 2 1.775 2.46 0.08
Within Groups 286.277 397 .721
Total 289.826 399
Total promotion Between
Groups
1.030 2 .515 1.94 0.14
Within Groups 105.331 397 .265
Total 106.362 399

Table 24 reveals that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference among
visitors education level in opinions of place strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of marketing mix
strategies concerning heritage management, visitors of various educational levels
showed no significantly distinctive difference.

Table 25: Segmentation by education and visitors opinions of product strategies
concerning heritage management
Visitors opinions of
product strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Heritage care Between Groups .261 2 0.130 0.48 0.61
Within Groups 106.417 397 0.268
Total 106.678 399
Heritage cleanliness Between Groups .509 2 0.254 0.71 0.48
Within Groups 141.069 397 0.355
Total 141.578 399
Heritage image Between Groups .529 2 0.265 0.56 0.57
Within Groups 187.631 397 0.473
Total 188.160 399
Heritage beauty Between Groups 1.433 2 0.717 1.56 0.21
Within Groups 182.317 397 .459
Total 183.750 399
Historic value Between Groups .500 2 0.250 0.85 0.42
Within Groups 115.598 397 0.291
Total 116.098 399
Accessibility Between Groups 1.126 2 0.563 1.18 0.30
Within Groups 188.624 397 0.475
Total 189.750 399
143










Table 25 (Continued)
Heritage labels Between Groups 1.009 2 0.505 1.07 0.34
Within Groups 186.181 397 0.469
Total 187.190 399
Heritage meaning Between Groups .549 2 0.274 0.61 0.54
Within Groups 176.229 397 0.444
Total 176.778 399
Convenience Between Groups 2.448 2 1.224 1.97 0.14
Within Groups 246.749 397 .622
Total 249.197 399
Hospitality Between Groups .331 2 0.166 0.23 0.78
Within Groups 274.666 397 0.692
Total 274.997 399
Adaptation Between Groups 1.496 2 .748 1.27 0.28
Within Groups 233.614 397 0.588
Total 235.110 399
Knowledgeable guide Between Groups .998 2 0.499 0.86 0.42
Within Groups 227.780 397 0.574
Total 228.777 399
Authenticity Between Groups 1.127 2 0.563 1.13 0.32
Within Groups 196.311 397 0.494
Total 197.438 399
Heritage interest Between Groups 1.743 2 0.872 1.70 0.18
Within Groups 202.567 397 0.510
Total 204.310 399
Facility Between Groups .200 2 0.100 0.18 0.83
Within Groups 216.440 397 0.545
Total 216.640 399
Conservation partner Between Groups .334 2 0.167 0.36 0.69
Within Groups 180.626 397 0.455
Total 180.960 399

Table 25 reveals that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference among
visitors education level in opinions of place strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of product strategies
concerning heritage management, visitors of various educational levels showed no
significantly distinctive difference.











144










Table 26: Segmentation by education and visitors opinions of price strategies
concerning heritage management

Visitors opinions of price
strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Cheap admission fee Between
Groups
.395 2 0.197 0.18 0.83
Within Groups 430.645 397 1.085
Total 431.040 399
Donations Between
Groups
.023 2 0.011 0.01 0.98
Within Groups 391.087 397 0.985
Total 391.110 399
Price worthiness Between
Groups
1.865 2 0.933 1.21 0.29
Within Groups 305.775 397 0.770
Total 307.640 399
Other expenses Between
Groups
1.054 2 0.527 0.48 0.61
Within Groups 436.343 397 1.099
Total 437.398 399
Price difference by
nationality
Between
Groups
1.585 2 0.793 0.58 0.55
Within Groups 539.205 397 1.358
Total 540.790 399
Price difference by age Between
Groups
.135 2 0.067 0.05 0.95
Within Groups 520.543 397 1.311
Total 520.677 399

Table 26 indicates that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference among
visitors education level in opinions of price strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of price strategies
concerning heritage management, visitors of various educational levels showed no
significantly distinctive difference.

Table 27: Segmentation by education and visitors opinions of place strategies
concerning heritage management

Visitors opinions of place
strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Purchasing admission
tickets in advance
Between
Groups
5.608 2 2.804 2.34 0.09
Within Groups 474.952 397 1.196
Total 480.560 399
Convenience of purchasing
admission tickets
Between
Groups
3.513 2 1.757 1.91 0.14
Within Groups 363.684 397 0.916
Total 367.197 399
145










Table 27 (Continued)
Number of ticket centers Between
Groups
2.083 2 1.042 1.05 0.35
Within Groups 393.917 397 0.992
Total 396.000 399

Table 27 shows that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference among
visitors education level in opinions of place strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of place strategies
concerning heritage management, visitors of various educational levels showed no
significantly distinctive difference.

Table 28: Segmentation by education and visitors opinions of promotion strategies
concerning heritage management

Visitors opinions of
promotion strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Promotion of heritage
attractions
Between
Groups
1.678 2 0.839 2.06 0.12
Within Groups 161.322 397 0.406
Total 163.000 399
Arranging of tourism
package
Between
Groups
.015 2 0.008 0.01 0.98
Within Groups 250.582 397 0.631
Total 250.597 399
Heritage exhibition Between
Groups
3.662 2 1.831 3.29* 0.03
Within Groups 220.916 397 0.556
Total 224.578 399
Advertising in heritage
conservation
Between
Groups
4.172 2 2.086 3.78* 0.02
Within Groups 218.538 397 .550
Total 222.710 399
Advertising to promote Thai
domestic tourism
Between
Groups
1.617 2 0.809 0.95 0.38
Within Groups 337.180 397 .849
Total 338.798 399
Giving souvenirs Between
Groups
5.840 2 2.920 2.48 0.08
Within Groups 466.550 397 1.175
Total 472.390 399
Public relations using well-
known persons
Between
Groups
2.359 2 1.179 1.04 0.35
Within Groups 449.001 397 1.131
Total 451.360 399




146










Table 28: (Continued)
Visitors opinions of
promotion strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Promotion by linkage
between heritage places
and important persons
history
Between
Groups
.216 2 0.108 0.16 0.85
Within Groups 268.974 397 0.678
Total 269.190 399
Distribution of brochure Between
Groups
.129 2 .065 0.11 0.89
Within Groups 226.748 397 0.571
Total 226.877 399
Public relation through art
and culture exhibitions
Between
Groups
1.268 2 .634 1.18 0.30
Within Groups 211.730 397 0.533
Total 212.998 399
Holding charity activities Between
Groups
1.138 2 0.569 0.65 0.52
Within Groups 344.959 397 0.869
Total 346.097 399
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 28 indicates that these Sig. values represented no statistical difference between
single and married visitors in opinions of product strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level, except the variable of heritage exhibition (0.03) and advertising in
heritage conservation (0.02). This means that in terms of holding heritage exhibitions
in visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown, and advertising in heritage
conservation rather than pricing, visitors of various educational backgrounds
disclosed significantly distinctive opinions of these promotion strategies.

Table 29: Multiple comparison of mean difference by education and visitors opinions
of promotion strategies in terms of heritage exhibitions

X Education
<bachelor bachelor >bachelor
Education
heritage exhibition
4.10 3.89 3.98
<bachelor 4.10 - 0.21* 0.12
bachelor 3.89 - - -.09
>bachelor 3.98 - - -
*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

From multiple comparison of the mean differences between the various educational
backgrounds of travelers visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the
LSD method in Table 29, the mean of visitors opinions of promotion strategy
147










concerning heritage exhibitions, whose education was less than a bachelor degree,
was more than those whose education level was a bachelor degree (0.21). All
statistical values reveal that visitors with less than a bachelor degree were more
interested in holding heritage exhibitions than bachelor degree visitors.

Table 30: Multiple comparison of mean difference by education and visitors opinions
of promotion strategies in terms of advertising in heritage conservation

X Education
<Bachelor Bachelor >Bachelor
Education
Advertising in heritage
conservation
4.23 4.03 4.23
<Bachelor 4.23 - 0.21* 0.01
Bachelor 4.03 - - -0.20
>Bachelor 4.23 - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

From multiple comparison of the mean differences between the various educational
backgrounds of travelers visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the
LSD method in Table 30, the mean of visitors opinions of promotion strategy
concerning advertising in heritage conservation rather than pricing, whose educations
were less than bachelor degree, was more than those whose educations were bachelor
degree. All statistical values reveal that less than bachelor degree visitors were more
interested in advertising of conservation of heritage sites and genuine culture than
bachelor degree visitors.

Table 31: Segmentation by income per month and visitors opinions of marketing mix
strategies concerning heritage management

5000

N = 60
5001-
10000
N = 104
10001-
15000
N = 84
15001-
20000
N = 52
> 20000

N = 100
Visitors
opinions of
marketing mix
strategies X SD X SD X SD X SD X SD
Total product 4.37 0.34 4.39 0.30 4.30 0.34 4.23 0.38 4.25 0.44
Total price 3.60 0.63 3.55 0.75 3.50 0.67 3.50 0.68 3.49 0.69
Total place 3.61 0.88 3.62 0.82 3.45 0.85 3.29 0.88 3.36 0.81
Total
promotion
3.96 0.48 4.00 0.48 3.87 0.46 3.79 0.44 3.75 0.60



148










Table 31: (Continued)
Visitors opinions of
marketing mix strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Total product Between
Groups
1.546 4 .386 2.83* 0.02
Within Groups 53.837 395 .136
Total 55.383 399
Total price Between
Groups
.538 4 .134 0.27 0.89
Within Groups 192.436 395 .487
Total 192.973 399
Total place Between
Groups
6.585 4 1.646 2.29 0.06
Within Groups 283.242 395 .717
Total 289.826 399
Total promotion Between
Groups
4.044 4 1.011 3.90* 0.00
Within Groups 102.317 395 .259
Total 106.362 399

Table 31 shows that most Sig. values represented no statistical difference between
visitors income per month and their opinions of marketing mix strategies at the 0.05
statistically significant level, except total product (0.02) and total promotion strategies
(0.00). This means that in terms of marketing mix strategies, visitors at different
levels of income per month disclosed only significantly distinctive opinions of more
concerns in total product and promotion strategies.

Table 32: Comparison of dual mean difference by income per month and visitors
opinions of marketing mix strategies in terms of total product strategy

X Income per month
5000 5001-
10000
10001-15000 15001-20000 >20000
Income per
month Total product
strategy
4.37 4.39 4.30 4.23 4.25
5000 4.37 - -0.02 0.07 0.14* 0.12*
5001-10000 4.39 - - 0.09 0.16* 0.14*
10001-15000 4.30 - - - 0.07 0.05
15001-20000 4.23 - - - - -0.02
>20000 4.25 - - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

From multiple comparison of the mean differences between different income per
month of travelers visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the LSD
method in Table 32, the mean of visitors opinions of marketing mix strategy
concerning total product strategy, whose income was less than or equal to 10,000
149










Baht per month was more than those whose income was 15,001-20,000 Baht and
more than 20,000 Baht per month. All statistical values reveal that visitors who
earned income per month less than or equal to 10,000 Baht were more concerned
about total product strategy in heritage sites than visitors generating income 15,001-
20,000 Baht and more than 20,000 Baht per month

Table 33: Comparison of dual mean difference by income per month and visitors
opinions of marketing mix strategies in terms of total promotion strategy

X Income per month
5000 5001-
10000
10001-15000 15001-20000 >20000
Income per
month Total
promotion
strategy 3.96 4.00 3.87 3.79 3.75
5000 3.96 - -0.04 0.09 0.17 0.21*
5001-10000 4.00 - - 0.13 0.21* 0.25*
10001-15000 3.87 - - - 0.08 0.12
15001-20000 3.79 - - - - 0.04
>20000 3.75 - - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

From multiple comparison of the mean differences between different income per
month of travelers visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the LSD
method in Table 33, the mean of visitors opinions of marketing mix strategy
concerning total promotion strategy, whose income was less than or equal to 5,000
Baht per month was more than those whose income was more than 20,000 Baht per
month. Furthermore, the mean of visitors opinions of marketing mix strategy
concerning total promotion strategy, whose income was 5,001-10,000 Baht per month
was more than those whose income was 15,001-20,000 and more than 20,000 Baht
per month. All statistical values reveal that visitors who earned income per month less
than or equal to 10,000 Baht were more concerned about total promotion strategy in
heritage sites than visitors generating income more than 15,001 Baht per month.





150










Table 34: Segmentation by income per month and visitors opinions of product
strategies concerning heritage management
Visitors opinions of
product strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Heritage care Between Groups 1.564 4 0.391 1.47 0.21
Within Groups 105.113 395 0.266
Total 106.678 399
Heritage clean Between Groups .041 4 0.010 0.02 0.99
Within Groups 141.536 395 0.358
Total 141.578 399
Heritage image Between Groups 2.148 4 0.537 1.14 0.33
Within Groups 186.012 395 0.471
Total 188.160 399
Heritage beauty Between Groups 3.394 4 0.848 1.85 0.11
Within Groups 180.356 395 0.457
Total 183.750 399
Historic value Between Groups .629 4 0.157 0.53 0.70
Within Groups 115.469 395 0.292
Total 116.097 399
Accessibility Between Groups 4.999 4 1.250 2.67* 0.03
Within Groups 184.751 395 .468
Total 189.750 399
Heritage labels Between Groups 3.070 4 0.768 1.64 0.16
Within Groups 184.120 395 0.466
Total 187.190 399
Heritage meaning Between Groups 2.135 4 0.534 1.20 0.30
Within Groups 174.643 395 .442
Total 176.777 399
Convenience Between Groups 9.507 4 2.377 3.91* 0.00
Within Groups 239.691 395 0.607
Total 249.198 399
Hospitality Between Groups 5.127 4 1.282 1.87 0.11
Within Groups 269.871 395 0.683
Total 274.998 399
Adaptation Between Groups 13.810 4 3.452 0.72 0.57
Within Groups 1870.628 395 4.736
Total 1884.438 399
Knowledgeable guide Between Groups 2.851 4 0.713 1.24 0.29
Within Groups 225.926 395 0.572
Total 228.778 399
Authenticity Between Groups 2.392 4 .598 1.21 0.30
Within Groups 195.045 395 0.494
Total 197.438 399
Heritage interest Between Groups 1.854 4 0.463 0.90 0.46
Within Groups 202.456 395 0.513
Total 204.310 399
Facility Between Groups 3.691 4 0.923 1.71 0.14
Within Groups 212.949 395 0.539
Total 216.640 399
Conservation partner Between Groups 1.115 4 .279 0.61 0.65
Within Groups 179.845 395 0.455
Total 180.960 399
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
151










Table 34 shows that most Sig. values represented no statistical difference between
visitors income per month and opinions of product strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level, except variables of accessibility (0.03) and convenience (0.00). This
means that in terms of product strategies, visitors at different levels of income per
month disclosed significantly distinctive opinions of accessibility to heritage sites and
traveling convenience inside the attractions.

Table 35: Comparison of dual mean difference by income per month and visitors
opinions of product strategies in terms of accessibility to heritage sites in Phetchaburi
downtown

X Income per month
5000 5001-
10000
10001-15000 15001-20000 >20000
Income per
month Accessibility
of heritage
sites 4.32 4.18 4.12 4.10 3.97
5000 4.32 - 0.13 0.20 0.22 0.35*
5001-10000 4.18 - - .06 .09 0.21*
10001-15000 4.12 - - - .02 0.15
15001-20000 4.10 - - - - 0.13
>20000 3.97 - - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

From multiple comparison of the mean differences between different income per
month of travelers visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the LSD
method in Table 35, the mean of visitors opinions of product strategy concerning
accessibility to heritage sites, whose income was less than or equal to 5,000 Baht and
5,001-10,000 Baht per month was more than those whose income was more than
20,000 Baht per month. All statistical values reveal that visitors who earned income
per month less than or equal to 5,000 Baht, and 5,001-10,000 Baht were more
concerned about accessibility to heritage sites than visitors generating income more
than 20,000 Baht per month.







152










Table 36: Comparison of dual mean difference by income per month and visitors
opinions of product strategies in terms of convenience during traveling in Phetchaburi
downtowns heritage sites

X Income per month
5000 5001-
10000
10001-15000 15001-20000 >20000
Income per
month Convenience
during
traveling 4.22 4.29 4.10 3.96 3.90
5000 4.22 - -007 012 026 032*
5001-10000 4.29 - - 019 033* 039*
10001-15000 4.10 - - - 013 020
15001-20000 3.96 - - - - 006
>20000 3.90 - - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

From multiple comparison of the mean differences between different income per
month of travelers visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the LSD
method in Table 36, the mean of visitors opinions of product strategy concerning
convenience during traveling in the heritage sites, whose income was less than or
equal to 5,000 Baht was more than those whose income was more than 20,000 Baht
per month. In addition, the mean of the visitors opinions, whose income per month
was 5,001-10,000 Baht, was more than those whose income per month was 15,001-
20,000 and more than 20,000 Baht. All statistical values reveal that visitors who
earned income per month less than or equal to 5,000 Baht were more concerned with
convenience during traveling than visitors generating income more than 20,000 Baht
per month. Visitors who had 5,001-10,000 Baht income per month were more
concerned with convenience during traveling than visitors generating income between
15,001-20,000 Baht and more than 20,000 Baht per month.

Table 37: Segmentation by income per month and visitors opinions of price strategies
concerning heritage management

Visitors opinions of price
strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Cheap admission fee Between Groups 2.268 4 0.567 0.52 0.71
Within Groups 428.772 395 1.085
Total 431.040 399
Donations Between Groups 1.113 4 0.278 0.28 0.89
Within Groups 389.997 395 0.987
Total 391.110 399

153










Table 37: (Continued)
Visitors opinions of price
strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Price worthiness Between Groups 1.753 4 0.438 0.56 0.68
Within Groups 305.887 395 0.774
Total 307.640 399
Other expenses Between Groups 4.629 4 1.157 1.05 0.37
Within Groups 432.768 395 1.096
Total 437.397 399
Price difference by
nationality
Between Groups 2.810 4 0.702 0.51 0.72
Within Groups 537.980 395 1.362
Total 540.790 399
Price difference by age Between Groups 1.763 4 0.441 0.33 0.85
Within Groups 518.914 395 1.314
Total 520.678 399

Table 37 indicates that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference based
on visitors income per month and their opinions of price strategies at the 0.05
statistically significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of price
strategies concerning heritage management, visitors with different levels of income
per month showed no significantly distinctive difference.

Table 38: Segmentation by income per month and visitors opinions of place
strategies concerning heritage management

Visitors opinions of place
strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Purchasing admission
tickets in advance
Between Groups 10.540 4 2.635 2.215 .067
Within Groups 470.020 395 1.190
Total 480.560 399
Convenience of
purchasing admission
tickets
Between Groups 3.642 4 .910 .989 .413
Within Groups 363.556 395 .920
Total 367.197 399
Number of ticket centers Between Groups 7.872 4 1.968 2.003 .093
Within Groups 388.128 395 .983
Total 396.000 399

Table 38 reveals that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference due to
visitors income per month and their opinions of place strategies at the 0.05
statistically significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of place
strategies concerning heritage management, visitors generating different levels of
income per month showed no significantly difference.
154











Table 39: Segmentation by income per month and visitors opinions of promotion
strategies concerning heritage management

Visitors opinions of
promotion strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Promotion of heritage
attractions
Between Groups 3.105 4 .776 1.91 0.10
Within Groups 159.895 395 .405
Total 163.000 399
Arranging of tourism
package
Between Groups 8.000 4 2.000 3.25* 0.01
Within Groups 242.597 395 .614
Total 250.598 399
Heritage exhibition Between Groups 4.363 4 1.091 1.95 0.10
Within Groups 220.214 395 .558
Total 224.578 399
Advertising in heritage
conservation
Between Groups 4.872 4 1.218 2.29 0.06
Within Groups 217.838 395 .551
Total 222.710 399
Advertising to promote
Thai domestic tourism
Between Groups 4.209 4 1.052 1.24 0.29
Within Groups 334.589 395 .847
Total 338.798 399
Giving souvenirs Between Groups 19.890 4 4.972 4.34* 0.00
Within Groups 452.500 395 1.146
Total 472.390 399
Public relations using
well-known person
Between Groups 8.873 4 2.218 1.98 0.09
Within Groups 442.487 395 1.120
Total 451.360 399
Promotion by linkage
between heritage places
and important persons
history
Between Groups 2.013 4 .503 0.74 0.56
Within Groups 267.177 395 .676
Total 269.190 399
Distribution of brochure Between Groups 2.033 4 0.50 0.89 0.46
Within Groups 224.845 395 0.56
Total 226.877 399
Public relation through art
and culture exhbitions
Between Groups 4.270 4 1.06 2.020 0.09
Within Groups 208.728 395 0.528
Total 212.998 399
Holding charity activities Between Groups 9.813 4 2.453 2.88* 0.02
Within Groups 336.285 395 0.851
Total 346.097 399
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 39 shows that most of these Sig. values represented no statistical difference
between visitors income per month and their opinions of promotion strategies at the
155










0.05 statistically significant level, except variables of arrangement of the tourism
packages (0.01), giving souvenirs (0.00), and holding charity activities (0.02). This
means that in terms of promotion strategies, visitors at different levels of income per
month revealed significantly distinctive opinions of the promotional campaigns by
arrangement of the tourism packages, giving souvenirs and creating charity activities.

Table 40: Comparison of dual mean difference by income per month and visitors
opinions of promotion strategies in terms of arranging tourism packages at
Phetchaburi downtowns heritage sites

X Income per month
5000 5001-
10000
10001-15000 15001-20000 >20000
Income per
month Arranging of
tourism
package 3.97 4.06 4.02 3.87 3.70
5000 3.97 - -0.09 -0.06 0.10 0.27*
5001-10000 4.06 - - 0.03 0.19 0.36*
10001-15000 4.02 - - - 0.16 0.32*
15001-20000 3.87 - - - - 0.17
>20000 3.70 - - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Applying multiple comparison of mean difference among different income per month
of travelers, visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown, using the LSD method in
Table 40, mean of visitors opinions of promotion strategy concerning the
arrangement of tourism packages, whose income was more than 20,000 Baht, was
lower than those whose income per month was less or equal to 5,000 Baht, 5,001-
10,000 Baht and 10,001-15,000, respectively. These statistical values reveal that
visitors who earned more than 20,000 Baht income per month were less concerned
with arranging tourism packages than visitors generating income less than or equal to
5,000 Baht, between 5,001-10,000 Baht, and 10,001-15,000 Baht per month.










156










Table 41: Comparison of dual mean difference by income per month and visitors
opinions of promotion strategies in terms of giving souvenirs in Phetchaburi
downtowns heritage sites

X Income per month
5000 5001-
10000
10001-15000 15001-20000 >20000
Income per
month Giving
souvenirs
3.60 3.57 3.35 3.21 3.03
5000 3.60 - 0.03 0.25 0.39 0.57*
5001-10000 3.57 - - 0.22 0.36 0.54*
10001-15000 3.35 - - - 0.13 0.32*
15001-20000 3.21 - - - - 0.18
>20000 3.03 - - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 41 shows multiple comparison of mean difference among different income per
month of travelers visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the LSD
method. The mean of visitors opinions of promotion strategy concerning to giving
souvenirs, whose income was more than 20,000 Baht, was lower than those whose
income per month was less than or equal to 5,000 Baht, 5,001-10,000 Baht and
10,001-15,000, respectively. All statistical values reveal that visitors who earned more
than 20,000 Baht income per month were less concerned in promotion through
souvenirs than visitors generating income less than or equal to 5,000 Baht, between
5,001-10,000 Baht, and 10,001-15,000 Baht per month.

Table 42: Comparison of dual mean difference by income per month and visitors
opinions of promotion strategies in terms of holding charity activities in Phetchaburi
downtowns heritage sites

X Income per month
5000 5001-
10000
10001-15000 15001-20000 >20000
Income per
month Holding
charity
activities 3.72 3.88 3.65 3.38 3.59
5000 3.72 - -0.17 0.06 0.33 0.13
5001-10000 3.88 - - 0.23 0.50* 0.29*
10001-15000 3.65 - - - 0.27 0.06
15001-20000 3.38 - - - - -0.21
>20000 3.59 - - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 42 applies multiple comparison of mean difference among different income per
month travelers visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the LSD
method. The mean of visitors opinions of promotion strategy concerning holding
157










charity activities, whose income was between 5,001-10,000 Baht was more than those
whose income per month was between 15,001-20,000 Baht as well as more than
20,000 Baht. All statistical values reveal that visitors who earned between 5,001-
10,000 Baht income per month were more concerned with promotion of holding
charity activities than visitors generating income between 15,001-20,000 Baht, and
more than 20,000 Baht per month.

Table 43: Segmentation by occupation and visitors opinions of marketing mix
strategies concerning heritage management

Government
Officer
N = 112
Businessman

N = 42
Employee

N = 163
Student

N = 63
The others

N = 20
Visitors
opinions of
marketing
mix strategies X SD X SD X SD X SD X SD
Total product 4.32 0.38 4.23 0.46 4.30 0.36 4.35 0.32 4.40 0.23
Total price 3.56 0.71 3.55 0.72 3.44 0.71 3.59 0.62 3.78 0.47
Total place 3.50 0.87 3.35 1.09 3.39 0.79 3.67 0.78 3.66 0.77
Total
promotion
3.86 0.55 3.86 0.56 3.87 0.49 3.92 0.48 4.00 0.44

Visitors opinions of
marketing mix strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Total product Between
Groups
.594 4 .149 1.07 0.37
Within Groups 54.789 395 .139
Total 55.383 399
Total price Between
Groups
2.871 4 .718 1.49 0.20
Within Groups 190.103 395 .481
Total 192.973 399
Total place Between
Groups
5.027 4 1.257 1.74 0.14
Within Groups 283.799 395 .721
Total 289.826 399
Total promotion Between
Groups
.490 4 .122 0.45 0.76
Within Groups 105.872 395 .268
Total 106.362 399

Table 43 shows that most Sig. values represented no statistical difference between
visitors occupation and their opinions of marketing mix strategies at the 0.05
statistically significant level. This means that in terms of marketing mix strategies,
visitors at different occupation disclosed no significantly distinctive opinions of
marketing mix strategies.
158











Table 44: Segmentation by occupation and visitors opinions of product strategies
concerning heritage management
Visitors opinions of
product strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Heritage care Between Groups 2.092 4 0.523 1.97 0.09
Within Groups 104.585 395 .265
Total 106.678 399
Heritage cleanliness Between Groups .104 4 .026 0.07 0.99
Within Groups 141.473 395 .358
Total 141.577 399
Heritage image Between Groups 1.616 4 0.404 0.85 0.49
Within Groups 186.544 395 0.472
Total 188.160 399
Heritage beauty Between Groups 1.382 4 0.346 0.74 0.55
Within Groups 182.368 395 0.462
Total 183.750 399
Historic value Between Groups .308 4 0.077 0.26 0.90
Within Groups 115.790 395 0.293
Total 116.098 399
Accessibility Between Groups 4.669 4 1.167 2.49* 0.04
Within Groups 185.081 395 0.469
Total 189.750 399
Heritage labels Between Groups 2.480 4 0.620 1.326 0.26
Within Groups 184.710 395 0.468
Total 187.190 399
Heritage care Between Groups 2.092 4 0.523 1.97 0.09

Within Groups 104.585 395 .265
Total 106.678 399
Heritage cleanliness Between Groups .104 4 .026 0.07 0.99
Within Groups 141.473 395 .358
Total 141.577 399
Heritage image Between Groups 1.616 4 0.404 0.85 0.49
Within Groups 186.544 395 0.472
Total 188.160 399
Heritage beauty Between Groups 1.382 4 0.346 0.74 0.55
Within Groups 182.368 395 0.462
Total 183.750 399
Historic value Between Groups .308 4 0.077 0.26 0.90
Within Groups 115.790 395 0.293
Total 116.098 399
Accessibility Between Groups 4.669 4 1.167 2.49* 0.04
Within Groups 185.081 395 0.469
Total 189.750 399
Heritage labels Between Groups 2.480 4 0.620 1.326 0.26
Within Groups 184.710 395 0.468
Total 187.190 399
Heritage meaning Between Groups 2.378 4 0.594 1.346 0.25
Within Groups 174.400 395 0.442
Total 176.777 399
Convenience Between Groups 6.673 4 1.668 2.71* 0.03
Within Groups 242.524 395 0.614
Total 249.198 399
159










Table 44: (Continued)
Visitors opinions of
product strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Hospitality Between Groups 2.018 4 0.504 0.730 0.57
Within Groups 272.980 395 0.691
Total 274.998 399
Adaptation Between Groups 18.250 4 4.562 0.96 0.42
Within Groups 1866.188 395 4.725
Total 1884.438 399
Knowledgeable guide Between Groups 0.706 4 0.176 0.30 0.87
Within Groups 228.072 395 0.577
Total 228.778 399
Authenticity Between Groups 1.005 4 0.251 0.50 0.73
Within Groups 196.432 395 0.497
Total 197.438 399
Heritage interest Between Groups 1.090 4 0.273 0.53 0.71
Within Groups 203.220 395 0.514
Total 204.310 399
Facility Between Groups 1.787 4 0.447 0.82 0.51
Within Groups 214.853 395 0.544
Total 216.640 399
Conservation partner Between Groups 1.475 4 0.369 0.81 0.51
Within Groups 179.485 395 0.454
Total 180.960 399
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 44 indicates that Sig. values represented no statistical difference between
visitors occupations and their opinions of product strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level, except variables of accessibility (0.03) as well as convenience
(0.04). This means that in terms of product strategies, visitors with different
occupations revealed no significantly distinctive opinions of product strategies in
terms of accessibility of heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown and convenience
during tours inside heritage attractions.















160










Table 45: Comparison of dual mean difference by occupation and visitors opinions of
product strategies in terms of accessibility to heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown

X Occupation
Government
officer
Businessman Employee Student The
others
Occupation
accessibility
of heritage
sites

4.13 3.90 4.09 4.32 4.20
Government
officer
4.13 - 0.23 0.04 -0.18 -0.07
Businessman 3.90 - - -0.19 -0.41* -0.30
Employee 4.09 - - - -0.23* -0.11
Student 4.32 - - - - 0.12
Others 4.20 - - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 45 shows multiple comparison of the mean differences between different
occupations of travelers visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the
LSD method, the mean of visitors opinions of product strategy concerning
accessibility of heritage sites, whose occupations were businessmen and employees,
was less than those whose occupation was identified as students. All statistical values
reveal that students were significantly more concerned with convenient accessibility
to heritage sites than visitors whose occupations were businessman and employee.


Table 46: Comparison of dual mean difference by occupation and visitors opinions of
product strategies in terms of convenience while traveling in Phetchaburi downtown

X Occupation
Government
officer
Businessman Employee Student The
others
Occupation
Convenience
during
traveling 4.12 4.05 3.99 4.37 4.15
Government
officer
4.12 - 0.07 0.13 -0.25* -0.03
Businessman 4.05 - - 0.06 -0.32* -0.10
Employee 3.99 - - - -0.38* -0.16
Student 4.37 - - - - 0.22
Others 4.15 - - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.


Table 46 shows multiple comparison of the mean differences between different
occupations of travelers visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the
LSD method. The mean of visitors opinions of product strategy concerning
161










convenience during traveling, whose occupations were government officers,
businessman and employees was less than those whose occupation was listed as
student. All statistical values reveal that students were significantly more concerned
with convenience while traveling than visitors whose occupations were government
officers, businessman and employees.

Table 47: Segmentation by occupation and visitors opinions of price strategies
concerning heritage management

Visitors opinions of price
strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Cheap admission fee Between Groups 8.036 4 2.009 1.87 0.11
Within Groups 423.004 395 1.071
Total 431.040 399
Donations Between Groups 1.845 4 0.461 0.46 0.75
Within Groups 389.265 395 0.985
Total 391.110 399
Price worthiness Between Groups 2.955 4 0.739 0.95 0.43
Within Groups 304.685 395 0.771
Total 307.640 399
Other expenses Between Groups 9.135 4 2.284 2.10 0.07
Within Groups 428.263 395 1.084
Total 437.397 399
Price difference by
nationality
Between Groups 5.662 4 1.416 1.04 0.38
Within Groups 535.128 395 1.355
Total 540.790 399
Price difference by age Between Groups 3.284 4 0.821 0.62 0.64
Within Groups 517.393 395 1.310
Total 520.678 399


Table 47 shows that overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference based on
visitors occupations and their opinions of price strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of price strategies
concerning heritage management, visitors occupation implied no significant
difference.








162










Table 48: Segmentation by occupation and visitors opinions of place strategies
concerning heritage management
Visitors opinions of place
strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Purchasing admission
tickets in advance
Between Groups 11.080 4 2.770 2.33 0.05
Within Groups 469.480 395 1.189
Total 480.560 399
Convenience of
purchasing admission
tickets
Between Groups 4.402 4 1.101 1.19 0.31
Within Groups 362.795 395 .918
Total 367.198 399
Number of ticket centers Between Groups 6.705 4 1.676 1.70 0.14
Within Groups 389.295 395 .986
Total 396.000 399

Table 48 shows overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference relative to
visitors occupations and their opinions of place strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of place strategies
concerning heritage management, visitors occupations implied no significant
difference.

Table 49: Segmentation by occupation and visitors opinions of promotion strategies
concerning heritage management
Visitors opinions of
promotion strategies
Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Promotion of heritage
attractions
Between
Groups
3.572 4 0.893 2.21 0.06
Within Groups 159.428 395 0.404
Total 163.000 399
Arranging of tourism
package
Between
Groups
1.064 4 0.266 0.42 0.79
Within Groups 249.533 395 0.632
Total 250.598 399
Heritage exhibition
Between
Groups
4.096 4 1.024 1.83 0.12
Within Groups 220.481 395 0.558
Total 224.578 399
Advertising in heritage
conservation
Between
Groups
1.738 4 0.435 0.77 0.54
Within Groups 220.972 395 0.559
Total 222.710 399
Advertising to promote Thai
domestic tourism
Between
Groups
5.780 4 1.445 1.71 0.14
Within Groups 333.018 395 0.843
Total 338.797 399

163











Table 49: (Continued)
Giving souvenirs Between
Groups
2.865 4 0.716 0.60 0.66
Within Groups 469.525 395 1.189
Total 472.390 399
Public relations using well-
known person
Between
Groups
3.617 4 0.904 0.79 0.52
Within Groups 447.743 395 1.134
Total 451.360 399
Promotion by linkage
between heritage places
and important persons
history
Between
Groups
1.204 4 0.301 0.44 0.77
Within Groups 267.986 395 0.678
Total 269.190 399
Distribution of brochure Between
Groups
1.466 4 0.367 0.64 0.63
Within Groups 225.411 395 0.571
Total 226.878 399
Public relation through art
and culture exhibitions
Between
Groups
1.126 4 0.281 0.52 0.71
Within Groups 211.872 395 0.536
Total 212.997 399
Holding charity activities Between
Groups
1.947 4 0.487 0.55 0.69
Within Groups 344.151 395 0.871
Total 346.097 399

Table 49 shows overall Sig. values represented no statistical difference relative to
visitors occupations and their opinions of promotion strategies at the 0.05 statistically
significant level. This verifies that in terms of visitors opinions of promotion
strategies concerning heritage management, visitors occupations implied no
significant difference.
















164










From studying tourist behavior in heritage tourism in Phetchaburi downtown,
the following conclusions can be made:

Table 50: behavior of tourists visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown,
May October 2006

Items Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Traveling purpose relaxation 236 59.0 59.0 59.0
education 115 28.8 28.8 87.8
religion act 49 12.3 12.3 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Transportation

tour bus 37 9.3 9.3 9.3
private car 298 74.5 74.5 83.8
rent car 52 13.0 13.0 96.8
scheduled
bus
11 2.8 2.8 99.5
others 2 0.5 0.5 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Number of visits first time 213 53.3 53.3 53.3
second time 85 21.3 21.3 74.5
third time 39 9.8 9.8 84.3
more than
forth time
63 15.8 15.8 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Types of travelers excursionist 183 45.8 45.8 45.8
overnight
tourist
217 54.3 54.3 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Quantity of
overnight stays
1 162 40.5 74.7 74.7
2 49 12.3 22.6 97.2
3 6 1.5 2.8 100.0
Total 217 54.3 100.0
165










Table 50: (Continued)
Items Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Accommodation downtown 30 7.5 13.8 13.8
Cha-Am 119 29.8 54.8 68.7
Hua-Hin 51 12.8 23.5 92.2
others 17 4.3 7.8 100.0
Total 217 54.3 100.0

Traveling
expenses

less than or
equal to
100 Baht
112 28.0 28.0 28.0
101-200 Baht 67 16.8 16.8 44.8
201-300 Baht 36 9.0 9.0 53.8
301-500 Baht 65 16.3 16.3 70.0
501-1000
Baht
82 20.5 20.5 90.5
more than
1000 Baht
38 9.5 9.5 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Travel partners

alone 13 3.3 3.3 3.3
lover/
betrothed
33 8.3 8.3 11.5
family 190 47.5 47.5 59.0
friend 160 40.0 40.0 99.0
others 4 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Time spent at the
heritage site

less than or
equal to 1 hr
137 34.3 34.3 34.3
more than
1 hr to 2 hrs
149 37.3 37.3 71.5
more than
2 hrs to 3 hrs
55 13.8 13.8 85.3
more than
3 hrs
59 14.8 14.8 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0


166










Table 50: (Continued)
Items Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Intention to return yes 384 96.0 96.0 96.0
no 16 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0
The most
frequently visited
heritage site
temple 124 31.0 31.0 31.0
palace 256 64.0 64.0 95.0
old houses 8 2.0 2.0 97.0
others 12 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0
Traveling
occasion
normal
weekend
157 39.3 39.3 39.3
normal day 15 3.8 3.8 43.0
special
weekend
228 57.0 57.0 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Table 50 shows that the main purpose of most visitors traveling to heritage sites in
Phetchaburi downtown between May and October 2006 was spending leisure time for
relaxation (59.9%), education (28.8%) and religious activity (12.3%). Their mode of
transportation was mostly private cars (74.5%). Other types of transportation used in
traveling to heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown such as rental car and scheduled
bus were rare. Most were first time visitors (53.3%), and second time visitors
(23.3%), within the two previous years. Surprisingly, some visitors (15.8%) traveled
to heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown more than four times during the two
previous years. It is necessary to explain clearly in more detail. Survey information
revealed that almost equal numbers among excursionists (45.8%) and overnight
tourists (54.3%) traveled to the heritage sites. 40.5% of them stayed for one night and
only 12.3% stayed for two nights. 29.8 percent stayed in Cha-Am, 12.8 percent in
Hua-Hin, and only 7.5 percent in Phetchaburi downtown. Total traveling expenses
within heritage sites of Phetchaburi downtown, including admission fees, donation
167










fees, souvenir purchases, and catering costs were very low. 28 percent of visitors
responded that they spent less than or equal to 100 Baht per trip. The second group of
visitors, 20.5 percent, paid between 501-1000 Baht per cultural trip. Travel partners
to these heritage sites were 47.5% family and 40.0% friend. Visitors time spent at the
heritage site was nearly equal between 34.3% were there less than 1 hour and 37.3%
were there between 1-2 hours. 96.0% of visitors were willing to return to these
heritage sites again. The most frequent visiting places in Phetchaburi downtown
were the palace, 64.0%, and temples, 31%. Tours in old houses or local markets were
very rare. Most chances of traveling to these cultural attractions were special
weekend, 57%, and normal holidays, 39.3 %.

Table 51: Comparison by gender and tourist behavior in terms of traveling purpose

Traveling Purpose
Gender
relaxation education religious act

Total
Male 90
(60.0%)
44
(29.3%)
16
(10.7%)
150
(100.0%)
Female 146
(58.4%)
71
(28.4%)
33
(13.2%
250
(100.0%)
Total 236
(59.0%)
115
(28.8%)
49
(12.3%)
400
(100.0%)
= 0.56 Sig. = 0.756


Table 51 illustrates more details of travelers gender, showing that Sig. value by
calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.756, which is more than 0.05 significant level.
It can be interpreted that males and females had no significant difference in their
traveling purpose. Most of them required relaxation in traveling to heritage
attractions. Educational and religious purposes were the second and third objectives.










168










Table 52: Comparison by gender and tourist behavior in terms of traveling
transportation

Transportation
Gender
tour bus private car rental car scheduled
bus
others

Total
Male

13
(8.7%)
124
(82.7%)
9
(6.0%)
4
(2.7%)
150
(100.0%)
Female

24
(9.6%)
174
(69.6%)
43
(17.2%)
7
(2.8%)
2
(0.8%)
250
(100.0%)
Total

37
(9.3%)
298
(74.5%)
52
(13.0%)
11
(2.8%)
2
(0.5%)
400
(100.0%)
= 12.489 Sig. = 0.014*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 52 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.014, which is
less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that males and females had
significant differences in their behavior in terms of traveling transportation. The
percentage of males traveling to the heritage sites by private car was more than the
percentage of females. By contrast, the percentage of females going to the cultural
attractions by rented car was nearly three times more than males.

Table 53: Comparison by gender and tourist behavior in terms of number of visits

Male
N = 150
Female
N = 250

Gender
X SD X SD

t

Sig.
Number of visits 2.92 3.555 2.00 1.940 3.33* 0.00
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.


Table 53 reveals Sig. value by calculation of t- Test was 0.00, which is less than 0.05
significant level. It can be interpreted that males and females had significant
differences in their behavior in terms of the number of visits. Mean values show that
males visit more frequently.







169










Table 54: Comparison by gender and tourist behavior in terms of types of travelers


Type of travelers


Gender

Excursionist overnight tourist

Total
Male

85
(56.7%)
65
(43.3%)
150
(100.0%)
Female

98
(39.2%)
152
(60.8%)
250
(100.0%)
Total

183
(45.8%)
217
(54.3%)
400
(100.0%)
= 11.524 Sig. = 0.001*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 54 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.01, which is
less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that males and females had
significant differences in their behavior in terms of types of travelers. Males tended
to be same day travelers or excursionists while females mostly did overnight stays in
areas of tourism attractions or nearby places.

Table 55: Comparison by gender and tourist behavior in terms of quantity of
overnight stays

Male
N = 150
Female
N = 250

Gender
X SD X SD

t

Sig.
Quantity of overnight stays 1.36 0.574 1.25 0.477 1.47 0.14

Table 55 reveals that that Sig. value by calculation of t-test was 0.14, which is more
than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that males and females had no
significant difference in their behavior in terms of the quantity of overnight stays.














170










Table 56: Comparison by gender and tourist behavior in terms of the accommodations


Accommadation


Gender

downtown Cha-am Hua hin others

Total
Male

11
17.2%
30
46.9%
20
31.3%
3
4.7%
64
100.0%
Female

19
12.4%
89
58.2%
31
20.3%
14
9.2%
153
100.0%
Total

30
13.8%
119
54.8%
51
23.5%
17
7.8%
217
100.0%
= 5.258 Sig. = 0.154


Table 56 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.154, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that males and females had no
significant difference in their behavior in terms of the quantity of overnight stays.

Table 57: Comparison by gender and tourist behavior in terms of traveling expenses

Male
N = 150
Female
N = 250

Gender
X SD X SD

t

Sig.
Traveling expenses 540.27 642.796 567.84 635.412 -0.41 0.67


Table 57 shows that Sig. value by calculation of t-test was 0.67, which is more than
0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that males and females had no significant
difference in their behavior in terms of traveling expenses.

Table 58: Comparison by gender and tourist behavior in terms of travel partners


Travel partners


Gender


alone
Partner Family Friend Others

Total

Male

9
(6.0%)
15
(10.0%)
78
(52.0%)
47
(31.3%)
1
(0.7%)
150
(100.0%)
Female

4
(1.6%)
18
(7.2%)
112
(44.8%)
113
(45.2%)
3
(1.2%)
250
(100.0%)
Total

13
(3.3%)
33
(8.3%)
190
(47.5%)
160
(40.0%)
4
(1.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 12.272 Sig. = 0.015*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

171










Table 58 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.015, which
is less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that males and females had
significant differences in their behavior in terms of travel partners. 52% of males
came to travel with family, 31.3% with friends and 10% with their partners. In
conclusion, males travel to cultural attractions with their own family more than
friends while many females traveled with family and friends equally. In addition, the
percentage of females traveling with partners was less than males.

Table 59: Comparison by gender and tourist behavior in terms of time spent at the
heritage site

Male
N = 150
Female
N = 250

Gender
X SD X SD

t

Sig.
Time spent at the heritage
site
141.30 101.539 118.43 81.087 2.48* 0.01
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 59 shows that Sig. value by calculation of t-test was 0.01, which is less than
0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that males and females had significant
differences in their behavior in terms of time spent at the heritage site. Males spent
about 20 minutes more traveling time than females. Even though average time spent
at the heritage site was approximate 2.0 hours or 120 minutes per person, both males
and females spent less time touring at heritage attractions and became the light users.

Table 60: Comparison by gender and tourist behavior in terms of intention to return


Intention to return


Gender

yes no
Total

Male

143
(95.3%)
7
(4.7%)
150
(100.0%)
Female

241
(96.4%)
9
(3.6%)
250
(100.0%)
Total

384
(96.0%)
16
(4.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 0.278 Sig. = 0.598

172










Table 60 reveals that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.598, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that males and females had no
significant difference in their intention to return.

Table 61: Comparison by gender and tourist behavior in terms of the most frequently
visited heritage sites


Most frequently visited heritage sites


Gender

Wat/temple palace old houses others

Total
Male

39
(26.0%)
103
(68.7%)
5
(3.3%)
3
(2.0%)
150
(100.0%)
Female

85
(34.0%)
153
(61.2%)
3
(1.2%)
9
(3.6%)
250
(100.0%)
Total

124
(31.0%)
256
(64.0%)
8
(2.0%)
12
(3.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 5.685 Sig. = 0.128

Table 61 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.128, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that males and females had no
significant difference in their behavior in terms of the most frequently visited heritage
sites.

Table 62: Comparison by gender and tourist behavior in terms of traveling occasions


Traveling occasion


Gender

normal weekend normal day special weekend

Total

Male

61
(40.7%)
8
(5.3%)
81
(54.0%)
150
(100.0%)
Female

96
(38.4%)
7
(2.8%)
147
(58.8%)
250
(100.0%)
Total

157
(39.3%)
15
(3.8%)
228
(57.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 2.106 Sig. = 0.349

Table 62 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.349, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It reveals that males and females had no significant
difference in their behavior in terms of traveling occasions.


173










Table 63: Comparison by age and tourist behavior in terms of traveling purpose

Traveling purpose
Age
relaxation education religion act

Total
24

56
(58.9%)
29
(30.5%)
10
(10.5%)
95
(100.0%)
25-34

100
(63.7%)
41
(26.1%)
16
(10.2%)
157
(100.0%)
35-44

51
(52.6%)
31
(32.0%)
15
(15.5%)
97
(100.0%)
>45

29
(56.9%)
14
(27.5%)
8
(15.7%)
51
(100.0%)
Total

236
(59.0%)
115
(28.8%)
49
(12.3%)
400
(100.0%)
= 2.106 Sig. = 0.349

Table 63 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.349, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of visitors had no
significant difference in their behavior in terms of traveling purpose.

Table 64: Comparison by age and tourist behavior in terms of transportation

Transportation
Age
tour bus private car Rental car scheduled
bus
others

Total
24

8
(8.4%)
71
(74.7%)
11
(11.6%)
5
(5.3%)
95
(100.0%)
25-34

18
(11.5%)
114
(72.6%)
22
(14.0%)
2
(1.3%)
1
(0.6%)
157
(100.0%)
35-44

6
(6.2%)
72
(74.2%)
16
(16.5%
3
(3.1%)
97
(100.0%)
>45

5
(9.8%)
41
(80.4%)
3
(5.9%)
1
(2.0%)
1
(2.0%)
51
(100.0%)
Total 37
(9.3%)
298
(74.5%)
52
(13.0%)
11
(2.8%)
2
(0.5%)
400
(100.0%)
= 12.168 Sig. = 0.432

Table 64 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.432, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of visitors had no
significant effect on their behavior in terms of transportation.




174










Table 65: Comparison by age and tourist behavior in terms of number of visits

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Number of visits Between
Groups
27.916 3 9.305 1.28 0.28
Within Groups 2870.781 396 7.249
Total 2898.697 399

Table 65 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.128,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of visitors
had no significant influence on their behavior in terms of number of visits.

Table 66: Comparison by age and tourist behavior in terms of types of travelers


Types of travelers


Age

excursionist overnight tourist

Total
24

56
(58.9%)
39
(41.1%)
95
(100.0%)
25-34

61
(38.9%)
96
(61.1%)
157
(100.0%)
35-44

39
(40.2%)
58
(59.8%)
97
(100.0%)
>45

27
(52.9%)
24
(47.1%)
51
(100.0%)
Total

183
(45.8%)
217
(54.3%)
400
(100.0%)
= 11.939 Sig. = 0.008*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 66 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.008, which
is less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that age of visitors had
significant differences in their behavior in terms of types of travelers. Visitors less
than 24 years old tended to be same day excursionists, while visitors between 25-34
years old as well as 35-44 years old mostly stayed overnight. Surprisingly, visitors
more than 45 years old were equally excursionists and overnight tourists.




175










Table 67: Comparison by age and tourist behavior in terms of quantity of overnight
stays

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Quantity of overnight stays Between
Groups
1.103 3 0.368 1.43 0.235
Within Groups 54.749 213 0.257
Total 55.853 216

Table 67 illustrates the Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was
0.235, which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of
visitors had no significant effect on their behavior in terms of the quantity of
overnight stays.

Table 68: Comparison by age and tourist behavior in terms of accommodation


Accommodation


Age

downtown Cha-am Hua hin others

Total
24

6
(15.0%)
22
(55.0%)
9
(22.5%)
3
(7.5%)
40
(100.0%)
25-34

12
(12.5%)
57
(59.4%)
21
(21.9%)
6
(6.3%)
96
(100.0%)
35-44

7
(12.3%)
30
(52.6%)
12
(21.1%)
8
(14.0%)
57
(100.0%)
>45

5
(20.8%)
10
(41.7%)
9
(37.5%)
24
(100.0%)
Total

30
(13.8%)
119
(54.8%)
51
(23.5%)
17
(7.8%)
217
(100.0%)
= 9.546 Sig. = 0.3888

Table 68 establishes that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.3888,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of visitors
had no significant influence on their behavior in terms of accommodation.












176










Table 69: Comparison by age and tourist behavior in terms of traveling expenses

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Traveling expenses Between
Groups
3787434.
245
3 1262478.082 3.157* 0.025
Within Groups15838186
5.755
396 399954.206
Total16216930
0.000
399
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.


Table 69 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.025,
which is less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of visitors
had significant impacts on their behavior in terms of traveling expenses.

Table 70: Multiple comparison of mean difference by age and tourist behavior in
terms of traveling expenses

X Age
24 25-34 35-44 >45
Age
traveling expenses
620.11 463.89 543.09 756.47
24 620.11 - 156.22 77.01 -136.37
25-34 463.89 - - -79.21 -292.59*
35-44 543.09 - - -- -213.38
>45 756.47 - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Using the LSD method in Table 70 shows the mean of traveling expenses of
visitors between 25-34 years old was less than those more than 45 years old.
Therefore, the statistical values reveal that average visitors more than 45 years old
spent significantly more on traveling expenses than visitors between 25-34 years old.
















177










Table 71: Comparison by age and tourist behavior in terms of travel partners


Travel partners


Age


alone
Partner Family Friend Others

Total

24

5
(5.3%)
8
(8.4%)
38
(40.0%)
43
(45.3%)
1
(1.1%)
95
(100.0%)
25-34

6
(3.8%)
16
(10.2%)
65
(41.4%)
69
(43.9%)
1
(0.6%)
157
(100.0%)
35-44

1
(1.0%)
8
(8.2%)
56
(57.7%)
31
(32.0%)
1
(1.0%)
97
(100.0%)
>45

1
(2.0%)
1
(2.0%)
31
(60.8%)
17
(33.3%)
1
(2.0%)
51
(100.0%)
Total

13
(3.3%)
33
(8.3%)
190
(47.5%)
160
(40.0%)
4
(1.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 16.712 Sig. = 0.161

Table 71 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.161, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of visitors had no
significant effect on their behavior in terms of travel partners.

Table 72: Comparison by age and tourist behavior in terms of time spent at the heritage
site

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Time spent at the heritage
site
Between
Groups
113080.1
12
3 37693.371 4.801* 0.003
Within Groups 3109365.
878
396 7851.934
Total 3222445.
990
399
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 72 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.003,
which is less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of visitors
had significant impacts on their behavior in terms of time spent at the heritage site.





178










Table 73: Multiple comparison of mean difference by age and tourist behavior in
terms of time spent at the heritage site

X Age
24 25-34 35-44 >45
Age
time spent at the
heritage site
139.74 117.07 112.37 161.71
24 139.74 - 22.67* 27.37* -21.97
25-34 117.07 - - 4.70 -44.64*
35-44 112.37 - - -- -49.33*
>45 161.71 - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Multiple comparison of mean difference among various ages of travelers visiting
heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown using the LSD method is shown in table 73.
The means of time spent at the heritage site of visitors less than 24 and more than 45
years old was larger than those between 25-34 and 35-44 years old. Statistical values
reveal that visitors less than 24 and more than 45 years old spent more traveling time
than visitors between 25-34 and 35-44 years old.

Table 74: Comparison by age and tourist behavior in terms of intention to return


Intention to return


Age

yes no
Total

24

94
(98.9%)
1
(1.1%)
95
(100.0%)
25-34

150
(95.5%)
7
(4.5%)
157
(100.0%)
35-44

92
(94.8%)
5
(5.2%)
97
(100.0%)
>45

48
(94.1%)
3
(5.9%)
51
(100.0%)
Total

384
(96.0%)
16
(4.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 3.042 Sig. = 0.385

Table 74 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.385,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of visitors
had no significant effect on their behavior in terms of intention to return.


179











Table 75: Comparison by age and tourist behavior in terms of the most frequently
visited heritage sites


Most frequently visited heritage sites


Age

Wat/temple palace old houses others

Total
24

24
(25.3%)
63
(66.3%)
4
(4.2%)
4
(4.2%)
95
100.0%
25-34

47
(29.9%)
102
(65.0%)
2
(1.3%)
6
(3.8%)
157
100.0%
35-44

32
(33.0%)
64
(66.0%)
1
(1.0%)
97
100.0%
>45

21
(41.2%)
27
(52.9%)
1
(2.0%)
2
(3.9%)
51
100.0%
Total

124
(31.0%)
256
(64.0%)
8
(2.0%)
12
(3.0%)
400
100.0%
= 11.093 Sig. = 0.269

Table 75 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.269, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of visitors had no
significant effect on their behavior in terms of the most frequently visited heritage sites.

Table 76: Comparison by age and tourist behavior in terms of traveling occasion


Traveling occasion


Age

normal weekend normal day special weekend

Total

24

43
(45.3%)
4
(4.2%)
48
(50.5%)
95
(100.0%)
25-34

48
(30.6%)
4
(2.5%)
105
(66.9%)
157
(100.0%)
35-44

42
(43.3%)
4
(4.1%)
51
(52.6%)
97
100.0%
>45

24
(47.1%)
3
5.9%
24
(47.1%)
51
(100.0%)
Total

157
39.3%
15
3.8%
228
57.0%
400
(100.0%)
= 11.001 Sig. = 0.088
180










Table 76 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.088, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of visitors had no
significant effect on their behavior in terms of the traveling occasion.

Table 77: Comparison by marital status and tourist behavior in terms of traveling
purpose

traveling purpose
Marital status
relaxation education religious act

Total
single

142
(57.7%)
73
29.7%
31
(12.6%)
246
(100.0%)
married

89
(60.5%)
41
(27.9%)
17
(11.6%)
147
(100.0%)
Total

231
(58.8%)
114
29.0%
48
(12.2%)
393
(100.0%)
= 0.306 Sig. = 0.858

Table 77 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.858, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that marital status of visitors
had no significant influence on their behavior in terms of traveling purpose.

Table 78: Comparison by marital status and tourist behavior in terms of transportation

Transportation
Marital Status
tour bus private car rental car scheduled
bus
others

Total
Single

20
(8.1%)
180
(73.2%)
40
(16.3%)
6
(2.4%)
246
(100.0%)
Married

15
(10.2%)
114
(77.6%)
11
(7.5%)
5
(3.4%)
2
(1.4%)
147
(100.0%)
Total

35
(8.9%)
294
(74.8%)
51
(13.0%)
11
(2.8%)
2
(0.5%)
393
(100.0%)
= 9.794 Sig. = 0.044*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 78 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.044, which is
less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that marital status of visitors had
significant effect on their behavior in terms of transportation. Both single and married
visitors mostly selected the same modes of transportation except for rental cars.
181










Single visitors traveled to heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown by rented
automobiles in twice the volume of married visitors.


Table 79: Comparison by marital status and tourist behavior in terms of number of
visits

Single
N = 246
Married
N = 147

Marital status
X SD X SD

t

Sig.
Number of visits 2.43 3.172 2.17 1.673 0.93 0.34

Table 79 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of t-test was 0.34, which is more than
0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that marital status of visitors had no
significant influence on their behavior in terms of number of visits.

Table 80: Comparison by marital status and tourist behavior in terms of types of
travelers


Types of travelers


Marital status

Excursionist Overnight tourist

Total
Single

115
(46.7%)
131
(53.3%)
246
(100.0%)
Married

63
(42.9%)
84
(57.1%)
147
(100.0%)

Total
178
(45.3%)
215
(54.7%)
393
(100.0%)
= 0.562 Sig. = 0.453

Table 80 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.453, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that marital status of visitors
had no significant effect on their behavior in terms of types of travelers.







182










Table 81: Comparison by marital status and tourist behavior in terms of quantity of
overnight stays

Single
N = 246
Married
N = 147

Marital status
X SD X SD

t

Sig.
Quantity of overnight stays 1.29 0.471 1.28 0.570 0.15 0.88

Table 81 shows that Sig. value by calculation of t-test was 0.88, which is more
than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that marital status of visitors had no
significant impact on their behavior in terms of quantity of overnight stays.

Table 82: Comparison by marital status and tourist behavior in terms of
accommodation


Accommodation


Marital status

downtown Cha-am Hua hin others

Total
Single

15
(11.4%)
74
(56.1%)
31
(23.5%)
12
(9.1%)
132
(100.0%)
Married 15
(18.1%)
43
(51.8%)
20
(24.1%)
5
(6.0%)
83
(100.0%)
Total 30
(14.0%)
117
(54.4%)
51
(23.7%)
17
(7.9%)
215
(100.0%)
= 2.427 Sig. = 0.489


Table 82 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.489, which
is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that marital status of visitors
had no significant influence on their behavior in terms of accommodation.

Table 83: Comparison by marital status and tourist behavior in terms of traveling
expenses

Single
N = 246
Married
N = 147

Marital status
X SD X SD

t

Sig.
Traveling expenses 522.48 640.120 605.92 629.843 -1.25 0.20

183










Table 83 shows that Sig. value by calculation of t-test was 0.20, which is more than
0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that marital status of visitors had no
significant effect on their behavior in terms of traveling expenses.

Table 84: Comparison by marital status and tourist behavior in terms of travel
partners


Travel partners


Marital status

alone partner family friend others

Total

Single

9
(3.7%)
22
(8.9%)
87
(35.4%)
126
(51.2%)
2
(0.8%)
246
(100.0%)
Married

3
(2.0%)
10
(6.8%)
100
(68.0%)
32
(21.8%)
2
(1.4%)
147
(100.0%)
Total

12
(3.1%)
32
(8.1%)
187
(47.6%)
158
(40.2%)
4
(1.0%)
393
(100.0%)
= 42.058 Sig. = 0.00*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 84 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.00, which is
less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that marital status of visitors had
significant influence on their behavior in terms of travel partners. Many single
visitors chose to travel with friends more than family, while most married visitors
chose to travel with family instead of friends. Unmarried couples participated in
cultural tourism more than married visitors.

Table 85: Comparison by marital status and tourist behavior in terms of time spent at
the heritage site

Single
N = 246
Married
N = 147

Marital status
X SD X SD

t

Sig.
Time spent at the heritage site 123.37 87.136 128.21 89.314 -0.52 0.59

Table 85 shows that Sig. value by calculation of t-test was 0.59, which is more than
0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that marital status of visitors had no
significant impact on their behavior in terms of time spent at the heritage site.
184











Table 86: Comparison by marital status and tourist behavior in terms of intention to
return


Intention to return


Marital status

yes no

Total

Single

237
(96.3%)
9
(3.7%)
246
(100.0%)
Married

140
(95.2%)
7
(4.8%)
147
(100.0%)
Total

377
(95.9%)
16
(4.1%)
393
(100.0%)
= 0.287 Sig. = 0.592

Table 86 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.592, which
is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that marital status of visitors
had no significant effect on their behavior in terms of intention to return.

Table 87: Comparison by marital status and tourist behavior in terms of the most
frequently visited heritage sites

the most frequently visited heritage sites Marital status

Wat/temple palace old houses others
Total
Single

74
(30.1%)
159
(64.6%)
6
(2.4%)
7
(2.8%)
246
(100.0%)
Married

48
(32.7%)
93
(63.3%)
2
(1.4%)
4
(2.7%)
147
(100.0%)
Total 122
(31.0%)
252
(64.1%)
8
(2.0%)
11
(2.8%)
393
(100.0%)
= 0.754 Sig. = 0.860

Table 87 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square was 0.860, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that marital status of visitors
had no significant influence on their behavior in terms of the most frequently visited
heritage sites.

185










Table 88: Comparison by marital status and tourist behavior in terms of traveling
occasion


Traveling occasion


Marital status

normal weekend normal day special weekend

Total

Single

92
(37.4%)
7
(2.8%)
147
(59.8%)
246
(100.0%)
Married

64
(43.5%)
7
(4.8%)
76
(51.7%)
147
(100.0%)
Total

156
(39.7%)
14
(3.6%)
223
(56.7%)
393
(100.0%)
= 2.875 Sig. = 0.238

Table 88 reveals we found that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square was 0.238,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that marital status of
visitors had no significant influence on their behavior in terms of the traveling
occasion.

Table 89: Comparison by education and tourist behavior in terms of traveling purpose

Traveling purpose
Educational Level
relaxation education religion act

Total
<bachelor

65
(50.8%)
40
(31.3%)
23
(18.0%)
128
(100.0%)
bachelor

141
(61.8%)
62
(27.2%)
25
(11.0%)
228
(100.0%)
>bachelor

30
(68.2%)
13
(29.5%)
1
(2.3%)
44
(100.0%)
Total

236
(59.0%)
115
(28.8%)
49
(12.3%)
400
(100.0%)
= 10.187 Sig. = 0.037*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 89 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.037, which is
less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that educational background of
186










visitors had significant effect on their behavior in terms of traveling purpose.
Noticeably, visitors whose education was less than bachelor degree were more
interested in religious activities than those with a bachelor degree and above, all
educated visitors chose to travel to heritage places for relaxation and education,
respectively.

Table 90: Comparison by education and tourist behavior in terms of transportation

Transportation
Educational Level
tour bus private car rental car scheduled
bus
others

Total
<bachelor

18
(14.1%)
88
(68.8%)
13
(10.2%)
7
(5.5%)
2
(1.6%)
128
(100.0%)
bachelor

15
(6.6%)
178
(78.1%)
32
(14.0%)
3
(1.3%)
228
(100.0%)
>bachelor

4
(9.1%)
32
(72.7%)
7
(15.9%)
1
(2.3%)
44
(100.0%)
Total

37
(9.3%)
298
(74.5%)
52
(13.0%)
11
(2.8%)
2
(0.5%)
400
(100.0%)
= 16.644 Sig. = 0.034*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 90 reveals that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.034, which is
less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that educational background of
visitors had significant influence on their behavior in terms of transportation.
Noticeably, visitors whose education was less than bachelor degree traveled to the
heritage sites by tour buses and regular schedule buses more than those with bachelor
degree and above. Visitors with bachelor and higher selected private cars and rented
cars more than travelers whose educational level was less than bachelor degree.


Table 91: Comparison by education and tourist behavior in terms of number of visits

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Number of visits Between Groups 28.172 2 14.086 1.948 0.144
Within Groups 2870.525 397 7.231
Total 2898.697 399

187










Table 91 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.144,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that education of
visitors had no significant influence on their behavior in terms of number of visits.

Table 92: Comparison by education and tourist behavior in terms of types of travelers


Types of travelers


Educational Level

Excursionist Overnight tourist

Total
<bachelor

80
(62.5%)
48
(37.5%)
128
(100.0%)
bachelor

92
(40.4%)
136
(59.6%)
228
(100.0%)
>bachelor

11
(25.0%)
33
(75.0%)
44
(100.0%)
Total 183
(45.8%)
217
(54.3%)
400
(100.0%)
= 24.780 Sig. = 0.000*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 92 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.000, which
is less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that educational background of
visitors had significant impact on their behavior in terms of types of travelers.
Noticeably, visitors whose education was less than bachelor degree tended to take day
trips more than visitors whose education was bachelor degree or above. In contrast,
visitors whose education was bachelor degree and higher tended to stay overnight.
The percentage of overnight visitors whose educational background was above
bachelor degree was higher than those with bachelor degrees.

Table 93: Comparison by education and tourist behavior in terms of quantity of
overnight stays

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Quantity of overnight stays Between
Groups
.557 2 .279 1.078 0.342
Within Groups 55.295 214 .258
Total 55.853 216
188











Table 93 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.342,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that educational level
of visitors had no significant influence on their behavior in terms of quantity of
overnight stays.

Table 94: Comparison by education and tourist behavior in terms of accommodation


Accommodation


Educational Level

downtown Cha-am Hua hin others

Total
<bachelor

10
(20.8%)
26
(54.2%)
11
(22.9%)
1
(2.1%)
48
(100.0%)
bachelor

15
(11.0%)
80
(58.8%)
29
(21.3%)
12
(8.8%)
136
(100.0%)
>bachelor

5
(15.2%)
13
(39.4%)
11
(33.3%)
4
(12.1%)
33
(100.0%)
Total

30
(13.8%)
119
(54.8%)
51
(23.5%)
17
(7.8%)
217
(100.0%)
= 8.959 Sig. = 0.176

Table 94 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.176, which
is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that education of visitors had
no significant impact on their behavior in terms of accommodation while traveling.

Table 95: Comparison by education and tourist behavior in terms of traveling
expenses

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Traveling expenses Between
Groups
400469.591 2 200234.796 0.491 0.612
Within Groups 161768830.409 397 407478.162
Total 162169300.000 399

Table 95 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.612,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that educational level
of visitors had no significant effect on their behavior in terms of traveling expenses.
189










Table 96: Comparison by education and tourist behavior in terms of travel partners


Travel partners


Educational Level

alone partner family friend others

Total

<bachelor

6
(4.7%)
7
(5.5%)
65
(50.8%)
47
(36.7%)
3
(2.3%)
128
(100.0%)
bachelor

6
(2.6%)
16
(7.0%)
110
(48.2%)
96
(42.1%)
228
(100.0%)
>bachelor

1
(2.3%)
10
(22.7%)
15
(34.1%)
17
(38.6%)
1
(2.3%)
44
(100.0%)
Total

13
(3.3%)
33
(8.3%)
190
(47.5%)
160
(40.0%)
4
(1.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 21.914 Sig. = 0.005*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 96 reveals that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.005, which is
less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that educational background of
visitors had significant impact on their behavior in terms of travel partners.
Noticeably, visitors whose education was less than bachelor or with bachelor degrees
tended to travel with family more than visitors whose education was higher than
bachelor degree. In contrast, visitors whose education was higher than bachelor
degrees tended to travel with their partners more than visitors with bachelor degree or
less. In addition, most visitors tended to travel with their friends in quite the same
percentage, except bachelor degree travelers.


Table 97: Comparison by education and tourist behavior in terms of time spent at the
heritage site

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Time spent at the
heritage site
Between
Groups
23214.269 2 11607.135 1.440 0.238
Within Groups 3199231.721 397 8058.518
Total 3222445.990 399

190










Table 97 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.238,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that educational level
of visitors had no significant impact on their behavior in terms of time spent at the
heritage site.

Table 98: Comparison by education and tourist behavior in terms of intention to return


Intention to return


Educational Level

yes no
Total

<bachelor

127
(99.2%)
1
(0.8%)
128
(100.0%)
bachelor

218
(95.6%)
10
(4.4%)
228
(100.0%)
>bachelor

39
(88.6%)
5
(11.4%)
44
(100.0%)
Total

384
(96.0%)
16
(4.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 9.755 Sig. = 0.008*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 98 reveals that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.008, which is
less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that educational background of
visitors had significant influence on their behavior in terms of intention to return.
Significantly, more than eleven percent of visitors with education higher than
bachelor degree have no intention to return to heritage sites of Phetchaburi downtown.
Less than one percent of visitors whose education was less than the bachelor degrees
has no intention to return to these heritage sites.











191










Table 99: Comparison by education and tourist behavior in terms of the most frequently
visited heritage sites


Most frequently visited heritage sites


Educational Level

Wat/temple palace old houses others

Total
<Bachelor

44
(34.4%)
76
(59.4%)
2
(1.6%)
6
(4.7%)
128
(100.0%)
Bachelor

69
(30.3%)
149
(65.4%)
4
(1.8%)
6
(2.6%)
228
(100.0%)
>Bachelor

11
(25.0%)
31
(70.5%)
2
(4.5%)
44
(100.0%)
Total

124
(31.0%)
256
(64.0%)
8
(2.0%)
12
(3.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 6.055 Sig. = 0.417

Table 99 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.417, which
is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that educational level of
visitors had no significant impact on their behavior in terms of the most frequently
visited heritage sites.

Table 100: Comparison by education and tourist behavior in terms of traveling occasion


Traveling occasion


Educational Level

normal weekend normal day special weekend

Total

<Bachelor

53
(41.4%)
10
(7.8%)
65
(50.8%)
128
(100.0%)
Bachelor

88
(38.6%)
4
(1.8%)
136
(59.6%)
228
(100.0%)
>Bachelor

16
(36.4%)
1
(2.3%)
27
(61.4%)
44
(100.0%)
Total

157
(39.3%)
15
(3.8%)
228
(57.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 9.877 Sig. = 0.043*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 100 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.043, which
is less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that educational background of
192










visitors had significant influence on their behavior in terms of traveling occasion.
Noticeably, visitors with less than bachelor degree tended to travel to heritage sites in
Phetchaburi downtown on normal days and normal weekends more than visitors
whose with bachelor degree and above; the latter enjoyed visiting the heritage
attractions especially on special weekends.

Table 101: Comparison by income per month and tourist behavior in terms of
traveling purpose

Traveling purpose
Income per month
relaxation education religion act

Total
5000

32
(53.3%)
25
(41.7%)
3
(5.0%)
60
(100.0%)
5001-10000

58
(55.8%)
29
(27.9%)
17
(16.3%)
104
(100.0%)
10001-15000

50
(59.5%)
23
(27.4%)
11
(13.1%)
84
(100.0%)
15001-20000

25
(48.1%)
14
(26.9%)
13
(25.0%)
52
(100.0%)
>20000

71
(71.0%)
24
(24.0%)
5
(5.0%)
100
(100.0%)
Total

236
(59.0%)
115
(28.8%)
49
(12.3%)
400
(100.0%)
= 23.655 Sig. = 0.003*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 101 reveals that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.003, which
was less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that educational background
of visitors had significant influence on their behavior in terms of traveling purpose.
Noticeably, visitors earning less than 5,000 Baht made more visits for knowledge at
Phetchaburi heritage sites than higher income visitors. Conversely, visitors who
earned more than 20,000 Baht per month traveled there mainly for relaxation. Neither
of these groups sought religious activities.

193










Table 102: Comparison by income per month and tourist behavior in terms of
transportation

Transportation
Income per
month tour bus private car Rental car scheduled
bus
others

Total
5000

10
(16.7%)
39
(65.0%)
6
(10.0%)
5
(8.3%)
60
(100.0%)
5001-10000

10
(9.6%)
74
(71.2%)
16
(15.4%)
3
(2.9%)
1
(1.0%)
104
(100.0%)
10001-15000

9
(10.7%)
65
(77.4%)
7
(8.3%)
2
(2.4%)
1
(1.2%)
84
(100.0%)
15001-20000

2
(3.8%)
40
(76.9%)
10
(19.2%)
52
(100.0%)
>20000

6
(6.0%)
80
(80.0%)
13
(13.0%)
1
(1.0%)
100
(100.0%)
Total 37
(9.3%)
298
(74.5%)
52
(13.0%)
11
(2.8%)
2
(0.5%)
400
(100.0%)
= 23.513 Sig. = 0.101

Table 102 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.101,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that income per month
of visitors had no significant impact on their behavior in terms of transportation.

Table 103: Comparison by income per month and tourist behavior in terms of number
of visits

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Number of visits Between Groups 102.209 4 25.552 3.609* 0.007
Within Groups 2796.488 395 7.080
Total 2898.697 399
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 103 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.007,
which is less than 0.05 significant level. Therefore, it can be interpreted that the age
of visitors had significant impacts on their behavior in terms of number of visits.
194











Table 104: Multiple comparison of mean difference by income per month and tourist
behavior in terms of number of visits

X Income per month
5000 5001-
10000
10001-15000 15001-20000 >20000
Income per
month Number of
visits
3.50 2.34 2.01 1.90 2.18
5000 3.50 - 1.16* 1.49* 1.60* 1.32*
5001-10000 2.34 - - 0.32 0.43 0.16
10001-15000 2.01 - - - 0.11 -0.17
15001-20000 1.90 - - - - -0.28
>20000 2.18 - - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Using the LSD method in table 104 shows the mean number of visits of visitors who
earn less than or equal to 5,000 Baht was more than visitors earn 5,001-10,000,
10,001-15,000 Baht, 15,001-20,000 and more than 20,000 Baht. Therefore, all
statistical values reveal that visitors who earn less than or equal to 5,000 Baht visited
these heritage sites more often than any other visitors.

Table 105: Comparison by income per month and tourist behavior in terms of types of
travelers


Type of travelers


Income per
month
Excursionist Overnight tourist

Total
5000

39
(65.0%)
21
(35.0%)
60
(100.0%)
5001-10000

68
(65.4%)
36
(34.6%)
104
(100.0%)
10001-15000

31
(36.9%)
53
(63.1%)
84
(100.0%)
15001-20000

17
(32.7%)
35
(67.3%)
52
(100.0%)
>20000

28
(28.0%)
72
(72.0%)
100
(100.0%)
Total

183
(45.8%)
217
(54.3%)
400
(100.0%)
= 44.027 Sig. = 0.000*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
195











Table 105 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.000,
which is less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of visitors
had significant impact on their behavior in terms of types of travelers. Travelers who
earn less than or equal to 5,000 Baht and 5,001-10,000 Baht mostly enjoyed same day
tours, while higher income visitors tended to stay overnight.

Table 106: Comparison by income per month and tourist behavior in terms of quantity
of overnight stays

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Quantity of overnight stays Between
Groups
1.051 4 0.263 1.016 0.400
Within Groups 54.802 212 0.258
Total 55.853 216

Table 106 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.400,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that income per month
of visitors had no significant impact on their behavior in terms of volume of overnight
stays.













196










Table 107: Comparison by income per month and tourist behavior in terms of
accommodation


Accommodation

Income per
month

Downtown Cha-am Hua hin Others

Total
5000

5
(22.7%)
14
(63.6%)
2
(9.1%)
1
(4.5%)
22
(100.0%)
5001-10000

6
(17.1%)
20
(57.1%)
9
(25.7%)
35
(100.0%)
10001-15000

7
(13.2%)
27
(50.9%)
14
(26.4%)
5
(9.4%)
53
(100.0%)
15001-20000

5
(14.3%)
21
(60.0%)
7
(20.0%)
2
(5.7%)
35
(100.0%)
>20000

7
(9.7%)
37
(51.4%)
19
(26.4%)
9
(12.5%)
72
(100.0%)
Total

30
(13.8%)
119
(54.8%)
51
(23.5%)
17
(7.8%)
217
(100.0%)
= 11.320 Sig. = 0.502

Table 107 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.502, which
is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that income per month of
visitors had no significant influence on their behavior in terms of accommodation
while visiting heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown.

Table 108: Comparison by income per month and tourist behavior in terms of
traveling expenses

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Traveling expenses Between Groups 1336399.407 4 334099.852 0.821 0.513
Within Groups 160832900.593 395 407171.900
Total 162169300.000 399

Table 108 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.513,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that income per month
of visitors made no significant difference in their behavior in terms of traveling
expenses at heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown.

197










Table 109: Comparison by income per month and tourist behavior in terms of travel
partners


Travel partners


Income per month

Alone Partner Family Friend Others

Total

5000

5
8.3%
4
6.7%
31
51.7%
19
31.7%
1
1.7%
60
100.0%
5001-10000

4
3.8%
7
6.7%
45
43.3%
47
45.2%
1
1.0%
104
100.0%
10001-15000

3
3.6%
9
10.7%
34
40.5%
37
44.0%
1
1.2%
84
100.0%
15001-20000

3
5.8%
30
57.7%
19
36.5%
52
100.0%
>20000

1
1.0%
10
10.0%
50
50.0%
38
38.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Total

13
3.3%
33
8.3%
190
47.5%
160
40.0%
4
1.0%
400
100.0%
= 15.923 Sig. = 0.458

Table 109 reveals that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.458, which
is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that income per month of
visitors made no significant difference in their behavior in terms of travel partners.

Table 110: Comparison by income per month and tourist behavior in terms of time
spent at the heritage site

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Time spent at the
heritage site
Between
Groups
38696.502 4 9674.126 1.200 0.310
Within Groups 3183749.488 395 8060.125
Total 3222445.990 399

Table 110 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.310,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that income per month
of visitors made no significant difference in their behavior in terms of time spent in
heritage sites in Phetchaburi downtown.

198











Table 111: Comparison by income per month and tourist behavior in terms of intention
to return


Intention to return


Income per month

Yes No
Total

5000

60
(100.0%)
60
(100.0%)
5001-10000

103
(99.0%)
1
(1.0%)
104
(100.0%)
10001-15000

81
(96.4%)
3
(3.6%)
84
(100.0%)
15001-20000

49
(94.2%)
3
(5.8%)
52
(100.0%)
>20000

91
(91.0%)
9
(9.0%)
100
(100.0%)
Total

384
(96.0%)
16
(4.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 11.975 Sig. = 0.018*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 111 reveals that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.018, which
is less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the age of visitors made a
significant difference in their behavior in terms of intention to return. About 9
percent of travelers who earn more than 20,000 Baht decided not to return to travel in
heritage sites of Phetchaburi downtown. The higher the income, the more likely that
visitors didnt want to return to these heritage places.











199











Table112: Comparison by income per month and tourist behavior in terms of the most
frequently visited heritage sites


Most frequently visited heritage sites


Income per month

Wat/temple Palace Old houses Others

Total
5000

18
(30.0%)
38
(63.3%)
1
(1.7%)
3
(5.0%)
60
(100.0%)
5001-10000

36
(34.6%)
62
(59.6%)
2
(1.9%)
4
(3.8%)
104
(100.0%)
10001-15000

27
(32.1%)
54
(64.3%)
1
(1.2%)
2
(2.4%)
84
(100.0%)
15001-20000

19
(36.5%)
30
(57.7%)
2
(3.8%)
1
(1.9%)
52
(100.0%)
>20000

24
(24.0%)
72
(72.0%)
2
(2.0%)
2
(2.0%)
100
(100.0%)
Total

124
(31.0%)
256
(64.0%)
8
(2.0%)
12
(3.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 7.117 Sig. = 0.850

Table 112 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.850, which
is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that income per month of
visitors made no significant difference in their behavior in terms of the most
frequently visited heritage sites.













200










Table 113: Comparison by income per month and tourist behavior in terms of traveling
occasions


Traveling occasion


Income per month

Normal weekend Normal day Special weekend

Total

5000

31
(51.7%)
3
(5.0%)
26
(43.3%)
60
(100.0%)
5001-10000

36
(34.6%)
6
(5.8%)
62
(59.6%)
104
(100.0%)
10001-15000

32
(38.1%)
52
(61.9%)
84
(100.0%)
15001-20000

24
(46.2%)
2
(3.8%)
26
(50.0%)
52
(100.0%)
>20000

34
(34.0%)
4
(4.0%)
62
(62.0%)
100
(100.0%)
Total

157
(39.3%)
15
(3.8%)
228
(57.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 12.168 Sig. = 0.144

Table 113 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.144, which
is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that income per month of
visitors made no significant difference in their behavior in terms of traveling
occasions to these heritage attractions.

Table 114: Comparison by occupation and tourist behavior in terms of traveling
purpose
Traveling purpose
Occupation
Relaxation Education Religion act

Total
Government officer

69
(61.6%)
30
(26.8%)
13
(11.6%)
112
100.0%
Businessman

22
(52.4%)
10
(23.8%)
10
(23.8%)
42
(100.0%)
Employee

100
(61.3%)
48
(29.4%)
15
(9.2%)
163
(100.0%)
Student 35
(55.6%)
21
(33.3%)
7
(11.1%)
63
(100.0%)
Others 10
(50.0%)
6
(30.0%)
4
(20.0%)
20
(100.0%)
Total 236
(59.0%)
115
(28.8%)
49
(12.3%)
400
(100.0%)
= 8.903 Sig. = 0.351
201











Table 114 show that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.144, which is
more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that the occupation of visitors
made no significant difference in their behavior in terms of traveling purpose.

Table 115: Comparison by occupation and tourist behavior in terms of transportation

Transportation
Occupation
Tour bus Private car Rent car Scheduled
bus
Others

Total
Government
officer

13
(11.6%)
85
(75.9%)
13
(11.6%)
1
(0.9%)
112
(100.0%)
Businessman

6
(14.3%)
31
(73.8%)
4
(9.5%)
1
(2.4%)
42
(100.0%)
Employee

13
(8.0%)
123
(75.5%)
22
(13.5%)
3
(1.8%)
2
(1.2%)
163
(100.0%)
Student

5
(7.9%)
44
(69.8%)
9
(14.3%)
5
(7.9%)
63
(100.0%)
Others

15
(75.0%)
4
(20.0%)
1
(5.0%)
20
(100.0%)
Total 37
(9.3%)
298
(74.5%)
52
(13.0%)
11
(2.8%)
2
(0.5%)
400
(100.0%)
= 17.091 Sig. = 0.380

Table 115 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.380,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that occupation of
visitors had no significant impact on their behavior in terms of transportation.

Table 116: Comparison by occupation and tourist behavior in terms of number of
visits

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Number of visits Between Groups 41.737 4 10.434 1.443 0.219
Within Groups 2856.960 395 7.233
Total 2898.698 399

202










Table 116 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.219,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that occupation of
visitors made no significant difference in their behavior in terms of number of visits.


Table 117: Comparison by occupation and tourist behavior in terms of type of
travelers


Type of travelers


Occupation

Excursionist Overnight tourist

Total

Government
officer
42
(37.5%)
70
(62.5%)
112
(100.0%)
Businessman

19
(45.2%)
23
(54.8%)
42
(100.0%)
Employee

75
(46.0%)
88
(54.0%)
163
(100.0%)
Student

35
(55.6%)
28
(44.4%)
63
(100.0%)
Others

12
(60.0%)
8
(40.0%)
20
(100.0%)
Total

183
(45.8%)
217
(54.3%)
400
(100.0%)
= 7.157 Sig. = 0.128

Table 117 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.128, which
is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that occupation of visitors
made no significant difference in their behavior in terms of the type of travelers.

Table 118: Comparison by occupation and tourist behavior in terms of quantity of
overnight stays

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Quantity of overnight stays Between
Groups
4.616 4 1.154 4.77* 0.001
Within Groups 51.236 212 0.242
Total 55.853 216
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

203










Table 118 show that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.001,
which is less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that occupation of
visitors made a significant impacts in their behavior in terms of volume of overnight
stays.

Table 119: Multiple comparison of mean difference by occupation and tourist
behavior in terms of quantity of overnight stays

X Occupation
Government
officer
Businessman Employee Student The
Others
Occupation
Quantity of
overnight
stays 1.20 1.65 1.22 1.31 1.57
Government
officer
1.20 - -0.45* -0.02 -0.11 -0.37
Businessman 1.65 - - 0.44* 0.34* 0.08
Employee 1.22 - - - -0.09 -0.36
Student 1.31 - - - - -0.26
Others 1.57
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Using the LSD method in Table 119 reveals that mean volume of visitors overnight
stays among businessmen was more than among government officers, employees and
students. The statistical values reveal that businessmen traveling in these heritage sites
stayed longer than government officers, employees and students.




















204










Table 120: Comparison by occupation and tourist behavior in terms of
accommodation


Accommodation

Occupation
Downtown Cha-am Hua hin Others

Total
Government
officer
9
12.9%
43
61.4%
12
17.1%
6
8.6%
70
100.0%
Businessman

2
8.7%
12
52.2%
8
34.8%
1
4.3%
23
100.0%
Employee

11
12.5%
45
51.1%
24
27.3%
8
9.1%
88
100.0%
Student

6
20.7%
15
51.7%
7
24.1%
1
3.4%
29
100.0%
Others

2
28.6%
4
57.1%
1
14.3%
7
100.0%
Total

30
13.8%
119
54.8%
51
23.5%
17
7.8%
217
100.0%
= 9.848 Sig. = 0.629

Table 120 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.629, which
is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that occupation of visitors
made no significant difference in their behavior in terms of accommodation.

Table 121: Comparison by occupation and tourist behavior in terms of traveling
expenses

Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Traveling expenses Between
Groups
5369546.827 4 1342386.707 3.38* 0.01
Within Groups 156799753.173 395 396961.400
Total 162169300.000 399
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 121 shows that Sig. value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.01,
which is less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that occupation of
visitors made a significant impacts in their behavior in terms of traveling expenses.



205










Table 122: Multiple comparison of mean difference by occupation and tourist
behaviors in terms of traveling expenses

X Occupation
Government
officer
Businessman Employee Student The
Others

Occupation Traveling
expenses
669.20 509.52 449.57 715.40 415.00
Government
officer
669.20 - 159.67 219.63* -46.20 254.20
Businessman 509.52 - - 59.95 -205.87 94.52
Employee 449.57 - - -- -
265.83*
34.57
Student 715.40 - - - - 300.40
Others 415.00 - - - - -
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Using the LSD method in Table 122 shows the mean of traveling expenses of officers
and students was more than those employees. All statistical values reveal that
government officers and students traveling in these heritage sites spent more on
traveling expenses than employees.

Table 123: Comparison by occupation and tourist behavior in terms of travel partners


Travel partners


Occupation

Alone Partner Family Friend Others

Total

Government officer

4
3.6%
7
6.3%
62
55.4%
38
33.9%
1
.9%
112
100.0%
Businessman

1
2.4%
2
4.8%
24
57.1%
15
35.7%
42
100.0%
Employee

5
3.1%
18
11.0%
58
35.6%
80
49.1%
2
1.2%
163
100.0%
Student

3
4.8%
5
7.9%
37
58.7%
17
27.0%
1
1.6%
63
100.0%
Others

1
5.0%
9
45.0%
10
50.0%
20
100.0%
Total

13
3.3%
33
8.3%
190
47.5%
160
40.0%
4
1.0%
400
100.0%
= 21.747 Sig. = 0.152

206










Table 123 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.152, which
is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that occupation of visitors
made no significant difference in their behavior in terms of travel partners.

Table 124: Comparison by occupation and tourist behavior in terms of time spent at the
heritage site

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Time spent at the
heritage site
Between
Groups
61870.710 4 15467.677 1.933 0.104
Within Groups 3160575.280 395 8001.456
Total 3222445.990 399

Illustrated in more details of travelers occupation from Table 124, we found that Sig.
value by calculation of One-Way ANOVA Test was 0.104, which is more than 0.05
significant level. It can be interpreted that occupation of visitors made no significant
difference in their behavior in terms of time spent at the heritage site.

Table 125: Comparison by occupation and tourist behavior in terms of intention to
return


Intention to return


Income per month

Yes No

Total

Government officer

105
(93.8%)
7
(6.3%)
112
(100.0%)
Businessman

39
(92.9%)
3
(7.1%)
42
(100.0%)
Employee

158
(96.9%)
5
(3.1%)
163
(100.0%)
Student

63
(100.0%)
63
(100.0%)
Others

19
(95.0%)
1
(5.0%)
20
(100.0%)
Total

384
(96.0%)
16
(4.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 5.603 Sig. = 0.231

207










Table 125 shows that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.231, which
is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that occupation of visitors
made no significant difference in their behavior in terms of intention to return.

Table126: Comparison by occupation and tourist behavior in terms of the most
frequently visited heritage sites


Most frequently visited heritage sites


Income per month

Wat/temple Palace Old houses Others

Total
Government officer

35
(31.3%)
75
(67.0%)
1
(0.9%)
1
(0.9%)
112
(100.0%)
Businessman

15
(35.7%)
24
(57.1%)
3
(7.1%)
42
(100.0%)
Employee

49
(30.1%)
103
(63.2%)
5
(3.1%)
6
(3.7%)
163
(100.0%)
Student

16
(25.4%)
43
(68.3%)
2
(3.2%)
2
(3.2%)
63
(100.0%)
Others

9
(45.0%)
11
(55.0%)
20
(100.0%)
Total

124
(31.0%)
256
(64.0%)
8
(2.0%)
12
(3.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 11.371 Sig. = 0.497

Table 126 indicates that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.497,
which is more than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that occupation of
visitors made no significant difference in their behavior in terms of the most frequent
visiting heritage place.

Table 127: Comparison by occupation and tourist behavior in terms of traveling
occasion


Traveling occasion


Occupation

Normal weekend Normal day Special weekend

Total

Government officer

40
(35.7%)
1
(0.9%)
71
(63.4%)
112
(100.0%)
Businessman

21
(50.0%)
3
(7.1%)
18
(42.9%)
42
(100.0%)
Employee

56
(34.4%)
6
(3.7%)
101
(62.0%)
163
(100.0%)

208










Table 127 (Continued)
Student

30
(47.6%)
2
(3.2%)
31
(49.2%)
63
(100.0%)
Others

10
(50.0%)
3
(15.0%)
7
(35.0%)
20
(100.0%)
Total

157
(39.3%)
15
(3.8%)
228
(57.0%)
400
(100.0%)
= 20.187 Sig. = 0.01*
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 127 reveals that Sig. value by calculation of Chi-Square Test was 0.01, which
was less than 0.05 significant level. It can be interpreted that occupation of visitors
made a significant difference in their behavior in terms of traveling occasions. Most
government officers and employees tended to travel during special weekends more
than normal weekends and normal days, while most businessmen and the others such
as farmers spent their leisure time on normal weekends. During normal days, there
were very few visitors traveling to these heritage attractions.

Conclusion of Survey and In-depth Interviews

From several in-depth interviews and questionnaire surveys, the interesting points of
conclusion that can be applied with the marketing plans are identified as follows:

1. From in-depth interviews of supply side stakeholders, most tourists did not
concentrate on heritage and cultural tourism; campaigns and activities while
visiting heritage sites were not attractive.
2. Other purposes of traveling such as shopping and visiting beaches were much
more attractive.
3. Signs and advertising tools to facilitate tourism in this ancient town were small
and not particularly attractive to prospective visitors.
4. Hosts and local authorities were not adequately concerned with tourism
promotion and development. Many official departments did not coordinate
their policies.
5. Training for stakeholders in heritage conservation was not sufficient to create
true understanding.
209










6. Laws and regulations in zoning of heritage sites were far reaching, but there
was confusion in the alliance between urban planning and tourism
development.
7. Poor use of government funds occurred because of unclear policies in
sustainable tourism development. In addition, very little marketing research
was applied.
8. There were many hidden conflicts between official departments and local
communities.
9. There were five distinctive groups of visitors (students, pilgrims, inbound
tourists, domestic seminar groups and families). They demonstrated different
tourist behavior.
10. Targets for increasing tourism volume were not suitably connected to current
marketing mix strategies. Renovation or improvement of heritage sites has not
taken place. Price policies diverged from sustainable tourism goals. Increase
of distribution channels for selling tickets was not possible and promotion
strategies were not on target. No marketing plan was co-operatively
developed nor implemented in an appropriate way.
11. From the questionnaire surveys, demographic information of visitors revealed
that single female visitors with high education (bachelor degree) were most
attracted to the heritage attractions in Phetchaburi downtown. They were
between 25-34 years old and their occupations were most frequently
employees of private companies. Their income per month was between 5,000
10,000 Baht and over 20,000 Baht.
12. From the questionnaire responses, it is clear that product improvement was the
most important factor that all visitors required. Heritage care, cleanliness,
image, beauty, historic value, adaptation in the method of conservation,
knowledgeable guides, authenticity, facility and conservation partner are the
highest priorities for consideration in heritage improvement.
13. In terms of price strategies, visitors opinions indicated that the cheap
admission fee, donations and price worthiness were very important.
Moreover, they expected more convenience in the purchase of tickets.
210










14. Promotion of heritage attractions is necessary. Strategies could include sale of
tourism packages, organizing heritage exhibitions, advertising, public relation
events using well-known people, making links between heritage places and
important personal history, distribution of brochures, and holding art and
cultural events at heritage sites.
15. By segmentation of gender, we found that price and product strategies in terms
of heritage labels or signs, convenience of visiting heritage sites, conservation
partners, and value for money were factors affecting female attitudes more
than males.
16. Segmentation by age provided the result that visitors less than 24 years old,
25-34 years old and more than 45 years old emphasized improvement of place
strategy in all aspects more than visitors between 35-44 years old.
17. Married visitors demonstrated greater interest in the historic value of sites and
heritage exhibitions than single tourists.
18. Visitors with an educational level lower than the bachelor degrees were
interested in promotion strategies consisting of heritage exhibitions and
advertising of heritage conservation.
19. Visitors earning less than or equal to 5,000 Baht and 5,001-10,000 Baht placed
more emphasis on accessibility of heritage sites and convenience than visitors
earning more than 10,000 Baht.
20. Visitors with different income levels reacted differently to different
promotional strategies. Travelers earning less than or equal to 20,000 Baht
liked tour packages and souvenirs more than travelers earning more than
20,000 Baht. In addition, tourists earning between 5,001-10,000 Baht were
interested in holding charity activities as promotional campaigns more than
higher income travelers.
21. Segmentation of travelers occupation shows that accessibility of heritage sites
and convenience during traveling was more important to students than any
other career segment.
22. The main purpose of heritage tourism in Phetchaburi downtown is for
relaxation.
23. Private car was the most common means of transportation.
211










24. Most survey respondents were visiting Phetchaburi for the first time.
25. Overnight tourists constituted a higher percentage than excursionists and
stayed one night on average. Most stayed at Cha-am district.
26. The cost of visiting heritage sites was very low and the majority of visitors
consisted of families who spent between 1-2 hours visiting each site.
27. Most visitors intend to come back again if possible and nominated their
favorite place as the summer palace in Phetchaburi downtown i.e. Ram
Ratchanivet and Phra Nakhon Kiri National Museum.
28. Many made the trip during public holiday weekends.
29. Mode of transportation varies across genders. Female visitors were more
likely than males to rent automobiles to visit cultural attractions. In contrast,
male visitors were more likely to drive private cars to tour heritage sites.
30. Males were more likely than females to return to visit the sites and spent time
at heritage sites.
31. Males tended to be day trip excursionists, while female tourists stayed
overnight near cultural attractions.
32. Male visitors most often traveled with family rather than friends while female
tourists traveled equally with friends and family.
33. Visitors less than 24 years old and over 45 years old tended to be day-trippers,
while travelers between 25-44 years old were likely to stay overnight.
34. Travelers 25-34 years old spent significantly less traveling expenses during
visitation of heritage sites than tourists over 45 years old.
35. On average, visitors less than 24 and over 45 years old spent more time
visiting than visitors between 25-44 years old.
36. Single visitors used rented cars at double the rate of married visitors.
37. Most single visitors chose to travel with friends rather than family, while most
married visitors chose to travel with family rather than friends.
38. Visitors with less than bachelor degree were interested in religious activities to
a greater extent than more highly educated tourists. All visitors nominated
relaxation and education as their main reasons for traveling.
39. Visitors with less education traveled by tour buses and scheduled buses more
often than more highly educated visitors.
212










40. Less educated visitors were likely to be excursionists while visitors with
bachelor degree and higher tended to stay overnight.
41. Visitors with less than bachelor degree tended to travel with family while
visitors with higher than bachelor degree were more likely to travel with
friends.
42. Visitors with higher than bachelor degree were less likely to return than
visitors with lower education.
43. Visitors with less than bachelor degree were more likely to travel on normal
weekdays and weekends than visitors with higher education.
44. Visitors with low monthly income were interested in the educational purpose
of traveling while visitors earning more than 20,000 Baht were more likely to
nominate relaxation as the main purpose of visiting.
45. Low income visitors made up a greater proportion of visitors than high income
visitors; they were mostly day-trippers.
46. Higher income visitors were less likely to return to the heritage places.
47. Businessmen were more likely to enjoy longer overnight stays than people
from other occupations.
48. On average, government officers and students spent more money visiting these
heritage attractions than employees in private companies.
49. Significantly, most government officers and employees tended to travel during
special weekends rather than normal days and weekends; businessmen and
people engaged in other careers spent more leisure time on normal weekends.



213










Chapter 5
Model of Marketing in Heritage Sites and Recommendations of Marketing
Plan in Promoting Tourism Growth in Areas of Low Tourism Patronage







































Figure 39: Model of marketing in heritage sites to promote tourism growth in area of
low tourism patronage
I I I I I I I I I I I



I
Conservation
TRAVELERS HERITAGE
SITES
Authenticity
Historic Value
Economic Value
Social Value
Scientific Value
Aesthetic Value
STP
MICRO-STAKEHOLDERS
Destination Dynamic
Pricing
Distribution
Channel
Diversified
Advertising
Local Authorities
Local Leaders Local Residents
Local Tourism
Business Owners

POLITICS TECHNOLOGY SOCIAL&CULTURE ECONOMICS
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ETC.
MACRO-ENVIRONMENT
214










From the conclusions of dissertation findings and the literature review, a prototype of
marketing heritage sites to promote tourism growth has emerged. Its main purpose is
to conserve heritage sites with minimum dependency on government support and to
attract tourism under sustainable conditions. The model comprises three parts:

1. Conservation Model
2. Model of Sustainable Tourism Marketing
3. Model of External Environment

1. Conservation Model

Development of heritage places is required to define the importance of specific areas.
The degree of conservation normally needs to be adjusted to various historic places,
depending on the distinctiveness of their significant value. For example, Phra Nakhon
Kiri Historic Park (Khao Wang) is a summer palace built during the reign of King
Rama IV. Its area was previously categorized into 3 majestic areas: outer, middle
and inner (Thatsanaleelaporn, 2000). The outer area consists of royal parking lots,
residential area for crown servants, and fortifications, which are of less significance.
Therefore, the level of adaptation to satisfy travelers demands is higher, opening a
coffee shop or information center. Any improvement attempts must balance
economic interests with significant values such as social and historic value. Fragility
of heritage sites is another factor in determining the degree of conservation. Old
materials must be changed as little as possible to retain their authenticity. The
procedures in this model of conservation are described as follows:

1. Look into overall theme concepts of heritage conservation
2. List the vital significant values contained in prospective heritage areas
3. Illustrate demands and direction of travelers to improve heritage attractions
4. Weigh the balance between non-adjustable heritage sites and tourism demands
5. Define possible and realistic alternatives
6. Choose the best alternative
7. Monitor the effectiveness of outcomes
215











2. Model of Sustainable Tourism Marketing

The objective of sustainable segmentation of travelers is much different than the
general business sector. Normally, it is classified by the maximizing of corporate
profits or level of customer satisfaction. Yet, the main purpose of sustainable tourism
marketing is to offer maximum satisfaction to micro-stakeholders while assuring
long-term conservation. Satisfaction of the right target group of travelers is just one
component in marketing. Local authorities, leaders, tourism business owners and
residents are the major partners to select the most appropriate tourist target and match
their demand with satisfaction of travelers. This will reduce conflicts between tourists
and hosts as much as possible. This is a sustainable approach for tourism
development, although it might be slow since there are so many partners involved in
the heritage sites. It is possible to attract small investment from the local community
and also to manage it locally. Mixed with the marketing plan, it is necessary that all
micro-stakeholders be fully coordinated in segmentation, selection of the right
audience, and suitably positioning their own destination to travelers perceptions. The
sustainable marketing model has to be consistent with the conservation model.
Otherwise sustainable development will not occur.

For strategic implementation, my own 4Ds strategic concept (Destination, Dynamic
Pricing, Distribution Channel and Diversified Advertising) is adapted from the
general marketing concept of 4Ps (Product, Price, Place, and Promotion). Since the
present model of 4Ps marketing mix is not suitably fitted for heritage marketing, I
prefer creating a new one which is clearer. Improvement in heritage destinations
constantly makes specific demands about adjustment in heritage tourism such as
landscape and signage in the historic town. The character of dynamic pricing,
distribution channels and diversified advertising include more dimensions of tourism
such as promotion by linkage of history with a famous person in the heritage town,
and price determinant of entrance fee. Distribution channels of physical products
usually imply selling goods through a wholesaler and a retailer. In terms of heritage
marketing, it can be defined as selling entrance tickets through travel agencies or
216










increasing the number of ticketing centers. This is distinctive from the distribution of
physical products.

3. Model of Macro-Environment

The external environment is another prominent part that indirectly impacts heritage
attractions. The environment can be comprised of technology, society, culture,
politics, economic situation and natural environment.

Technology is able to motivate peoples interest in cultural tourism, but also
encourage local people to abandon their own heritage. Travelers expectations can be
increased through technological media, while the presentation of heritage culture may
become artificial and exaggerated through the use of high technology. Sometimes
abuse of traditional culture or heritage sites has been created in order to satisfy
tourists.

Cultural differences between tourists and hosts can create miscommunication. An
excellent marketing strategy might be totally ruined if travelers from other cultures
did not perceive or appreciate the traditional stories of the hosts society. This occurs
frequently in cultural tourism. A tourist usually knows only the heritage beauty and
some meaning of heritage, but lacks true understanding. It should be the
responsibility of marketing planners to interpret the unique importance of heritage
places.

Politics affect both negative and positive trends of tourism policy. Some powerful
governments encourage sustainable tourism while others operate tourism as a tool for
short term benefits. Development is narrowly defined as rapid economic growth,
which benefits foreign investors with little advantage for local stakeholders. Profits
are the primary evaluation of tourism performance, without realization of other
significant values. Foreign investors can build luxury hotels and other tourism
facilities without social responsibility and government control. Therefore, the
217










government should be aware of long-term dangers from use of non-renewable
resources in heritage tourism.

The economic situation is an uncontrollable factor that boosts tourism growth since
activities in tourism are defined as a prosperity demand. Once an economy is
growing, people usually think of relaxation by traveling. They are eager to spend
their income to travel to destinations away from home. From the supply side, most
investors feel confident in opening their business during a growing economy.

Natural environment, and other factors such as seasonal climate, attracts visitors to
travel to heritage sites. Local animals, trees and beautiful geography of natural trails
enhance human relaxation. A good environment is very important to visitors well
being. It establishes a positive impression and stimulates more visitations in tourism
areas. That means increased income for local stakeholders and a better standard of
living for their children. If tourism development destroys nature and creates a lot of
toxic waste, the pollution made from human acts will return to destroy tourism growth
in heritage destinations and contribute to bad health of the local community.

Recommendations of marketing plan to encourage tourism growth in
Phetchaburi downtown based on stakeholders in-depth interviews and
questionnaire survey.

Visitors who travel to heritage sites of Phetchaburi downtown can be profiled as
follows:

1. Professional female can be described as female holding a bachelor degree
or higher; single; overnight-stay tourist; business owner or employee; travel
with friends; most arrive by private car; income per month higher than 20,000
Baht; between 25-44 years old.
2. Working class female can be described as female; single; lower than
bachelor degree; income per month lower than or equal to 10,000 Baht;
218










employee; less than 24 years old; excursionist, and some arrive with rented
cars.
3. Family man can be described as married male; excursionist; arrive by
private car; government officer (most often); between 25-44 years old; main
traveling purpose is education and relaxation.
4. Student can be described as visitors with less than bachelor degree; income
per month less than 5,000 Baht; arrive by private cars with family; interested
in relaxation and edutainment; excursionist; and travel mostly on normal days
and weekends.

Each group of visitors sought unique demands while traveling in Phetchaburi
downtown. They all have specific opinions for improvement of heritage attractions in
Phetchaburi as a historic town. Heritage care, cleanliness, image, beauty, historic
value, adaptation in terms of sustainable conservation, knowledgeable guide,
authenticity, facilities, and conservation partner were main priorities in destination
improvement. Therefore, heritage sites around downtown must be operated using the
concept of sustainable tourism. According to the AUSTRALIA ICOMOS (1999) on
the conservation of historic towns, the second principle indicates that the qualities to
be preserved include the historic charter of the town or urban area and all those
material and spiritual elements that express this charter, especially:

a) Urban patterns as defined by lots and streets
b) Relationships between buildings and green and open spaces
c) The formal appearance, interior and exterior of buildings as defined by scales
size, style, construction, materials, color, and decoration
d) The relationship between the town or urban area and its surroundings, both
natural and man-made
e) The various functions that the town or urban area has acquired over time

Building a circle road around the heritage town, connecting Phet Kasem road at Phra
Nakhon Kiri Historical Park and circling to the back of Wat Kamphaeng Laeng is
219










recommended. This circle road would cover the total area of downtown to Ratcha
Damri road as shown in Figure 40 on the next page.

The purpose to build a circle road around the historic town would be to increase
accessibility to many heritage sites and overcome the problem of low tourism since
this road construction would provide tourists another alternative to Cha-am and Hua-
hin beaches by visiting the historic town at the beginning of their trip. Upon return,
they could come back by Phet Kasem road, which has many souvenir shops nearby.
Nevertheless, the character of being a small heritage town must be preserved. Better
services, a parking lot and a tourist tram running around the circle road would
minimize pollution from traffic.

In contrast, the circle road is supposed to determine zoning of heritage territory for
local stakeholders and visitors to realize conservation and control of new modern
construction in the heart of this ancient town. The construction outside the circle road
can be done freely. Within it, the infrastructure or changing of the town should be
prohibited or allowed for case by case. It should have many levels in area concern.
This is to preserve attraction of heritage sites. The shown map below illustrates the
prospective route to cut through many heritage sites within Phetchaburi downtown.
It is another highway to Hua Hin and Cha-Am district, which must pass around the
heritage sites to the road parallel to the beach. It should have a car parking for tourists
who will travel in Phetchaburi heritage sites by electric car. The visitors can add on
the heritage tourism within their program instead of passing by.

220











Figure 40: Circle road around Phetchaburi heritage sites

Inside the heritage town, conservation zoning should be provided with three physical
characteristics:

1) Within area of residential homes, shops or department stores and government
places, internal decoration is freely adjustable, yet external decoration and
Circle road
around
Phetchaburi
heritage sites
221










outer construction must be approved by heritage conservation committee
selected from local stakeholders.
2) Streetscape (paving surfaces, lighting, street furniture, street signage) must be
upgraded to Phetchaburi culture, which emphasizes traditional design of
stucco and art of Phetchaburi mural paintings.
3) Area of heritage sites such as Wat Yai Suwannaram, Wat Kamphaeng Laeng,
Phra Ram Ratchanivet Palace are conserved under authority of the Regional
Fine Arts Department, but share some insignificant territory to be renovated
as a place for tourism activities as well as improvement of fragile heritage
areas.

The degree of conservation varies according to zone. The zone of significant heritage
sites must be highly protected since they are non-renewable. Signage to inform
visitors about rules and guidelines of traveling in heritage sites as well as knowledge
to train them about historic conservation is very important. Interpretation in stories of
heritage destinations creates a positive impression on visitors.

In the marketing plan, the vision of heritage improvement of Phetchaburi downtown
is to become a top tourism attraction as an ancient heritage and cultural town at the
gate of southern Thailand. The mission statement of the plan is to build and
maintain heritage sites and the town for the next generation by arranging and
managing them as a destination of heritage tourism. The objectives are declared as
follows:

1) Conserve local culture and authenticity of heritage sites in more than 70
percent of total historic town.
2) Increase volume of visitors coming to travel in Phetchaburi downtown by
more than 300,000 people within 1 year, while controlling the period of peak
season to avoid overcapacity at each heritage site by diversifying the
entrance of people to various heritage places within the town.
3) Increase traveling expenses in heritage sites to more than 500 Baht per
person per trip.
222










4) Maximize visitors satisfaction in relaxation and edutainment during short
trips, while balancing conservation of heritage sites.
5) Increase standards of living of local community through self management of
local stakeholders.
6) Establish a strong relationship among local stakeholders within Phetchaburi
province.

Segmentation

To understand tourists demand in Phetchaburi downtown, segmentation of domestic
visitors is a marketing technique to divide various groups to analyze their unique
characters. As a consequence of the questionnaire survey, target visitors can be
classified by consideration of demographic factors, consumer behavior, and their
opinions concerning marketing strategies.

Target Market

As profiled earlier, the primary target groups are classified as professional female,
working class female, family man and student. Each has different characteristics, yet
many appropriate multi-marketing strategies can be applied. However, all selected
marketing tools should have only one objective such as To build and maintain
heritage sites for the next generation by arranging and managing them as good
examples of heritage tourism.

Market Positioning

Historic ancient town is a suitable marketing theme for Phetchaburi downtown.
The level of heritage awareness is a national attraction like other Thai heritage sites
such as the ancient kingdom of Ayutthaya or Suan Pakkad Palace, the only local
heritage museum in Bangkok. The expected market positioning that satisfies cultural
visitors is shown in the following chart:




223














Even though each heritage site is unique and should not be compared in terms of
cultural significance, it is vital to determine clearly the marketing position.
Therefore, the marketers need to determine the present marketing position, and know
what they are going to do to establish the marketing position of the historic town.

Marketing plan in heritage sites is expected to be designed in three phases:

Phase 1: Phra Nakhon Kiri Historic Park (Khao Wang) and Ram Ratchanivet
Palace
Phase 2: Wat Yai Suwannaram, Wat Kamphaeng Laeng, and Wat Maha That
Worawihan (all historical temples)
Phase 3: Old traditional houses near Phetchaburi River and central market





High Visitation
Low Visitation
Local
Significant
Level
International
Significant
Level
Suan Pakkad
Palace
Historic Town in
Phetchaburi
Ayutthaya
Kingdom
224










Phra Nakhon Kiri Historic Park (Khao Wang) and Ram Ratchanivet Palace

Main objectives

1) Create clear heritage image in the eyes of visitors
2) Improve historic value in visitors minds
3) Build perception of heritage care and cleanliness
4) Entertain visitors through adaptation of a heritage place as follow:-

Improvement of
Phra Nakhon Kiri Historic Park
Prospective Target
1. Monkey Paradise All target groups
2. Traditional Coffee/Tea Shop 1. Professional female group
2. Family man group
3. Traditional Spa 1. Professional female group
4. Night Cuisine 1. Professional female group
2. Family man group
5. Information and Child Library Center 1. Family man group
2. Student group
6. Conservation Team Club All target groups
7. King Rama IV Museum and Art
Exhibition of The Royal Family
1. Working class female group
2. Student group
8. Holiday Market of Hand-made
Products and Local Food Fair
All target groups

To adapt the heritage sites, the summer palace of King Rama IV is classified into
three zones (Thatsanaleelaporn, 2000). The inner and middle areas of the kings
residence are most significant since only he and his family used to live there.
Therefore, it is appropriate to be kept as the King Rama IV museum and art exhibition
of the royal family. However, good management should step forward in overall
performance in the following areas:

225










1) Arranging tour guides regularly to interpret life within the palace, the art
collection of the royal family and dynamic stories of royal kings associated
with this palace.
2) To control appropriate quantity of visitors, a tour in the heritage museum is
going to be designed in different rounds. Each round might have 10-15
visitors in order to concentrate on heritage conservation.
3) The autobiography of King Rama IV, political situation in his kingdom,
architectural structure of Khao Wang, conservation plans, royal family of King
Rama V and traditional art of Phetchaburi are the primary themes in
presentation.
4) Aesthetic decoration of rooms within the museum is attractive for visitors to
appreciate a nostalgic atmosphere.
5) Layout planning and facilities such as toilets are very important. The marketer
should plan visiting treks and universal signs for clear directions.
6) To conserve a group of wild monkeys and maintain safety for visitors is the
responsibility of local stakeholders who should build a large cage for the
monkeys. We should not let them walk around the palace.
7) Provide amenities in heritage places such as coffee and tea shop, spa and
souvenir shop are essential to earn profit and attract longer stays at the
heritage site. However, decoration within the shops must not destroy its
significant value and must blend in well with the historic site.
8) For the professional females and family man groups, dinner in the atmosphere
of a traditional dance show such as Lakorn Chatree and art performance such
as Nang Yai are most appropriate. Show time is expected to be from 06.00-
09.00 p.m.
9) Tickets for various activities can be distributed through travel agencies, local
business owners and heritage officers.
10) The holiday market is located outside the palace. Local hand-made products
and arts will introduce the aesthetic image of this unique town. A food fair in
the palace is another attraction to illustrate the culture of Phetchaburi.
11) Maintain cheap prices and offer reasonable prices for dinners and shows.
226










12) Create information and child library center, open free for all people who are
interested in history and tourist attractions. Despite opening an information
center at Khao Yoi now, it may not be successful compared to an information
and child library center at Khao Wang. The goal is to educate more travelers
to visit other heritage sites in Phetchaburi province.
13) Create conservation clubs for groups of family man and students who want to
learn conservation methods with real practice. It is always fun to join in the
cleaning of the heritage site and to take care of the heritage gardens.
14) Promotion is critical, such as billboards, brochures and newspaper advertising.
All should have a clear message of a top tourism attraction with ancient
heritage and culture at the gate of southern Thailand. The promotional theme
may be the history of King Rama IV and his astronomy study in Khao Wang.
The package tours as well as heritage exhibition for students and working
class females are useful.

Improvement of
Ram Ratchanivet Palace
Prospective Target Groups
1. Royal Drama Show of King Rama VI
and Dinner
1. Professional female group
2. Family man group
2. English Royal Garden All groups
3. Tourist Bus Around Downtown All groups
4. European Art Exhibition All groups
5.Furniture Restoration and Guided Tour 1. Family man group
2. Student group
3. Working class female group
6. Souvenir and Jewelry Shops All groups
7. Heritage Conservation Signs All groups

1) Organize royal drama shows and executive dinner during special weekends
and make advanced reservations through travel agencies, local business
owners, and heritage officers.
227










2) Dinner prices should be high for luxury tourists; these should be promoted
through television advertising, newspapers and travel magazines.
3) Improve landscape by maintaining old durable trees, but rearrange the
surrounding royal garden with flowering plants in cooperation with the
ministry of agriculture.
4) Provide free tourist electrical buses to reduce city pollution, which works well
on special weekends.
5) Rearrange more furnished rooms within the palace to be recognized for
heritage interpretation. At present, many rooms in Ram Ratchanivet Palace
are empty. Therefore, most visitors cannot imagine how elegant it was, and do
not perceive its heritage value. Old pictures and artificial furniture to increase
their satisfaction are required in order to support the palaces image. Further,
souvenir shops offer gifts to remind visitors of their visit and give student
groups some free souvenirs.
6) Establish conservation signs to insist on strong heritage care and stimulate all
stakeholders participation in heritage protection. These signs may be
displayed at the entrance to each property as in the following example:




228










Wat Yai Suwannaram, Wat Kamphaeng Laeng, and Wat Maha That
Worawihan

Main Objectives

1) To encourage conservation of important Buddhist heritage temples in
Phetchaburi downtown.
2) To inform visitors of Buddhist precepts through tourism. When visitors travel
in a Buddhist heritage temple, a tourist guide or monk will lead them to pray
and participate in religious activities.
3) To increase cultural tourists who seek to spend their leisure time participating
in religious activities.

Improvement of
Wat Yai Suwannaram,
Wat Kamphaeng Laeng,
and Wat Maha That Worawihan

Prospective Target
1. Modification of temple Landscape All groups
2. Ethical practice on holiday weekends 1. Student group
2. Family man group
3. Wai Phra package tour Working class female group

1) Improve landscape of Wat Yai Suwannaram at empty area close to the
pond to become a lawn for religious activities and grow flowering plants in
area surrounding the temple.
2) Renovate and maintain some structures and decoration of all temples and
pagodas such as heritage mural paintings. Remove unnecessary structures
that block the aesthetic value of heritage sites.
3) Train monks and residents in the temple to understand concepts of heritage
conservation.
4) Cooperate to create practice courses in Buddhist philosophies such as
meditation, and ethical practices through cleaning of temples.
229










5) Train visitors about tourism concepts and connect with tourism business
owners in Phetchaburi to do Wai Phra package tours.

Old traditional houses near Phetchaburi River and Central Market

Main Objectives

1) To respond to visitors interest in traditional Thai lifestyle.
2) To conserve local traditions and examples of old wooden houses for future
generations as well as reducing risks of destruction from modern development.
Destruction of old houses is generally done to make room for modern
buildings such as 7-11 convenience stores. Actually, it is possible to decorate
modern shops to match the valuable heritage environment, but most locals
dont realize this possibility.


Figure 41: An example of
modern trade building
located in old wooden houses








Improvement of old traditional
houses near Phetchaburi River and
central market

Prospective Target
1. Morning floating market All groups
2. Cultural package tour 1. Working class female group
2. Student group
230











1) Train locals about operating period and location of floating markets and
appropriate improvement of heritage environment.
2) Be original with unique products that are not available for sale elsewhere.
Improve shopping area to be clean and convenient.
3) Price of shopping goods must be cheap, worthwhile and attractive for
tourists.
4) Promotion by linkage of Phetchaburis historic value and emphasize the
nostalgia of ancient Phetchaburi town. Most urban tourists wish to see
some sense of how life used to be, and appreciate the ambience of heritage
cities.
5) All old surrounding traditional houses should be adapted to become a
shopping area to promote unique Phetchaburi floating markets.
6) The landscape around the river and the river itself must be clean and
beautiful.
7) Some traditional houses built more than one hundred years ago may be
presented as local museums for cultural tourists. Inside the houses, the
owners may have old pictures, locally produced crafts and equipment on
display.

Involving stakeholders to push each successful marketing project

Heritage officers

1) All of them have to have open minds to accept changes at heritage sites
and become leaders in developing the marketing concepts used in heritage
conservation.
2) They may acquire some funds to improve the heritage sites.
3) They and local community should fairly divide the profits from marketing
operations and return some money to restore heritage sites with approval
of the Fine Arts Department.
4) The most important goals are to improve quality of life, deliver heritage
value to the next generation, and undertake marketing plans cautiously.
231











Local Authority

1) Provide full support for marketing strategies with appropriate use of
government budgets.
2) Evaluate success of marketing plans periodically and concentrate on the
local communitys satisfaction.
3) Each marketing project needs real cooperation from various stakeholders.
Therefore the local authority must be the central co-coordinator to link all
collaborating organizations, including internal and external stakeholders.
4) Those representing the local authority will receive formal tuition from
heritage specialists to ensure that they are knowledgeable in heritage
marketing.

Local Residents

1) They should be grouped together to identify what marketing plans satisfy
their wants, while local authority must provide knowledge of the
advantages and disadvantage of marketing concepts at heritage sites.
2) They must be represented as a committee in every marketing project to
inspect all prospective planning processes and protect against corruption
from illegal policies.
3) All marketing activities should be managed and operated by staff hired
from the local area. For sustainable tourism, local residents must be
central in the management process and should not be dependent on outside
investors to develop their own home area.






232










Tourism Business Owners

1) Share mutual benefits in a win-win situation with other stakeholders.
2) Provide good services and deliver satisfaction in all marketing projects in
Phetchaburi heritage town.
3) Concentrate on creating new experiences for different segments of visitors
instead of just maximizing their own benefits.
4) Take care of heritage sites and their tourism image. Advertising heritage
destinations of Phetchaburi must not be exaggerated and should conserve
the good reputation of heritage sites.

All stakeholders ought to plan several meetings to consider marketing in tourism
projects to decide what they can do. They need to predict advantages and
disadvantages in long-term and short-term periods if each marketing project is worth
doing.

Inbound Tourism and Phetchaburi Heritage Sites

International tourists may be more interested in Phetchaburi heritage. From in-depth
interviews, a marketing project to attract foreign tourists could be the creation of a
route that combines natural and heritage attractions in a one-day tour package.
Normally, some travel agencies have this tour package available for sale. However,
these groups still spend less time in the heritage city of Phetchaburi because of a lack
of good tourism interpretation and weak monetary incentives for tourist guides.
Moreover, it is visitors need for themselves to have more time on beaches or in
national parks. Therefore, heritage marketing in the historic city of Phetchaburi
requires providing attractive presentations in visitors own languages and
interpretation relevant to visitors nations. Universal signs for facilities, and written
explanations of heritage objects, are important for travelers to learn from heritage
sites. Any tourism activities for international tourists such as drama shows at the
palace or holiday market ought to be easily understandable. If tourism improvement
233










takes a step forward into preparation of hosting international tourists, conservation
concerns in Phetchaburi heritage town similarly improve.

Further Study for Next Dissertation

1) Comparing situation of other provinces areas of low tourism patronage
may be essential to evaluate the real tourism performance of Phetchaburi
downtown.
2) Research methodology to develop tourism marketing may include taking
photos of heritage sites and asking visitors directly instead of applying
questionnaires.
3) Architectural study may apply this dissertation to create architectural
drawings of heritage sites.
4) Designing the visiting routes of electric tram for leisure tourism in heritage
sites.


234










Bibliography


AAKER, D. (Ed.) (1995) Strategic market management, Brisbane, John Wiley and
Sons.
AJZEN, I. & BRIVER, B. L. (1991) Prediction of Leisure participation from
behavioral, normative, and control beliefs: an application of theory of planned
behavior. Leisure Sciences, 13, 185-204.
AMOAMO, M., & BOYD, S. (2005). Shifting Images: An Historical and
Contemporary View of Tourism Development in the Northwest Territories of
Canada. Tourism and Hospitlity Planning & Development, 2(1), 1-15.
APLIN, G. J. (2002) Heritage identification, conservation and management, Oxford
University Press.
APOSTOLAKIS, A. (2003) The convergence process in heritage tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 30, 795-812.
APOSTOLOPOULOS, Y. (1995) The Tourism Industry and Foreign Exchange
Leakages in Developing Economies: The Revenues Distribution from
Package-Holidays in Greece. Coral Gables, Florida: Unpublished manuscript,
University of Miami.
APOSTOLOPOULOS, Y. (1996) The Effects of Tourism Expansion in the Greek
Islands: Regional Tourism Planning and Policy Lessons for Sustainable
Development. Athens: Papazisis.
ARCHER, B. (1996) Sustainable tourism- Do economists really care? Progress in
Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2, 217-222.
ASHWORTH, G. J. (1995) Heritage, tourism and Europe: a European future for a
European past? London, Mansell.
ASHWORTH, G. J. & TUNBRIDGE, J. E. (1990) The tourist historic city, London,
Belhaven.
ATHIYAMAN, A. (1997) Knowledge development in tourism: Tourism demand
research. Tourism Management, 18, 221-228.
AVERILL, J. (Ed.) (1991) Emotions as episodic dispositions, cognitive schemas and
transitory social roles: steps towards an integrated theory of emotion,
London, 137-165.
BAKER, K. G., HAZIER JR., G. C. & ROGERS, R. D. (1994) Marketing research
theory and methodology and the tourism industry: A non-technical discussion.
Journal of Travel Research, 32, 3-7.
BALOGLU, S. & BRINBERG, D. (1997) Affective in the age of tourism
destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 35, 11-15.
BALOGLU, S. & UYSAL, M. (1996) Market segments of push and pull motivations:
a canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 8, 32-38.
BELL, D. (1997) The historic Scotland guide to international conservation charters,
Edinburgh, The Stationary Office.
BHARADWAJ, S. G., VARADARAJAN, P. R. & FAHY, J. (1993) Sustainable
competitive advantage in service industries: A conceptual model and research
propositions. Journal of Marketing, 57, 83-89.
235










BOARDMAN, S. & HOROWITZ, S. (1994) Constructive conflict management and
social problems. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 1-12.
BOITO, C. (1983) Questioni Pratiche di Belle Arti, Restauri, Concorsi, Legislazione,
Professione, Insegnamento, Milan, Ulrico Hoepli.
BOONYAKAJOHN, S. (2000) Nam Fa Phar Khao Phetchaburi, Bangkok, PSP
Traveler Co. Ltd.
BRETT, R. P. C. (1999) Principles of visitor management and care for historical
sites, with special reference to Canterbury Cathedral, Mexico, ICOMOS.
BRITTON, S. G. (1996) Tourism, dependency and development: a mode of analysis,
London and New York, Routledge.
BROHMAN, J. (1996) New Directions in Tourism for Third World Development.
Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 48-70.
BRUNER, E. M. (1994) Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction: a critique of
postmodernism. American Anthropologist, 96, 397-415.
BUCKLEY, P. J. & PAPADOPOULOS, S. I. (1986) Marketing Greek tourism-the
planning process. Tourism Management, 7, 82-100.
BUHALIS, D. (1999) Limits of tourism development in peripheral destinations:
Problems and challenges. Tourism Management, 20, 183-185.
BUHALIS, D. (2000) Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism
Management, 21, 97-116.
BUHALIS, D. & FLETCHER, J. (1995) Environmental impacts on tourism
destinations: An economic analysis, England, Avebury.
BURNS, P. (1999) Paradoxes in planning: Tourism elitism or brutalism? Annals of
Tourism Research, 26, 329-348.
BUTLER, R. W. (1980) The concept of tourist area cycle of evolution: implications
for management of resources. Canadian Geographer, 24, 4-12.
CALANTONE, R. J. & MAZANEC, J. A. (1991) Marketing management and
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 18, 101-119.
CHEN, J. (1998) The tourists cognitive decision making model. The Tourist Review,
53, 4-9.
CHON, K. S. (1991) Tourism destination image modification process: Marketing
implications. Tourism Management, 12, 68-72.
CHON, K. S. (1992) Self-image/destination image congruity. Annals of Tourism
Research, 19, 360-363.
CHU, C. & UEBEGANG, K. (2002) Saving Hong Kongs cultural heritage. IN
CIVIC EXCHANGE (Ed.).
COATHUP, D. C. (1999) Dominant actors in international tourism. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11, 69-72.
COHEN, E. (1972) Toward a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39,
164-182.
COHEN, E. (1988) Authenticity and commodification in tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 15, 371-86.
COOPER, C. (1989) Tourist product life cycle, London, Prentice Hall.
COOPER, C. (1992) The life cycle concept and tourism, London, UK, Mansell.
COOPER, C. (1994) Tourism product lifecycle, Chichester, Wiley.
CRAIK, J. (1997) The culture of tourism, London, Routledge.
236










CROMPTON, J. L. (1979) Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 6, 408-24.
DANN, G. M. S. (1977) Anomie, Ego-Enhancement and Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 4, 184-194.
DECROP, A. (1999) Personal Aspects of Vacationers Decision-Making Processes:
An Interpretivist Approach. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 8,
59-68.
DENSLAGEN, W. (1994) Queries as to "Restoration". The Builder, 31, 741.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROMOTION (2003) Phetchaburi River:
One River in One city, Lothong Master Print Co., Ltd.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL ANNALS (Reign of King Rama 6 1/45) Conferring
Wang Ban Puen in Phetchaburi to be city hall.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (2001) A Force for Our Future. IN
LONDON (Ed.).
DIAGNE, A. (2004a) Tourism Development and its Impacts in the Senegalese Petite
Cote: A Geographical Case Study in Centre-Periphery Relations. Tourism
Geographies, 6, 472-492.
DIAGNE, A. K. (2004b) Tourism Development and its Impacts in the Senegalese
Petite Cte: A Geographical Case Study in Centre- Periphery Relations.
Tourism Geographies, 6, 472-492.
DIBB, S. & SIMKIN, L. (2002) Marketing Concepts, Techniques and Strategies,
London, Houghton Mifflin.
DYE, T. (Ed.) (1992) Understanding Public Policy, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
ELLIOT (1997) Tourism Politics and Public Sector Management, London,
Routledge.
ENGLISH HERITAGE (2002) Heritage Dividend: Measuring the Results of Heritage
Regeneration from 1999-2002. IN DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, M. A. S.,
LONDON (Ed.).
ENVIR TECH-CONSULTANT CO., L. (2006) Master Plan and Guideline of
Tourism Development in Phetchaburi (First stage). Provincial Authorities of
Phetchaburi.
FEATURE MAGAZINE PUBLISHING (1993) Phetchaburi, Bangkok, Feature
Magazine Publishing.
FEATURE MAGAZINE PUBLISHING (1999) "Nay Robrue" Traveler: Phetchaburi.
2 ed. Bangkok, Feature Magazine Publishing.
FESENMAIER, D. R. (1998) Integrating activity pattern into destination choice
models. Journal of Leisure Research, 20, 175-191.
FLETCHER, J. (1997) Heritage tourism: enhancing the net benefits of tourism. IN
NURYANTI, W. (Ed.) Tourism and Heritage Management. Yogyakarta,
Gadjah Mada University Press.
FODNESS, D. (1992) The impact of family life cycle on the vacation decision-
making process. Journal of Travel Research, 31, 8-13.
FOWLER, P. (1992) The Past in Contemporary Society: Then, Now, London,
Routledge.
GARRROD, B. & FYALL, A. (2000) Managing heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 27, 682-708.
237










GARRROD, B. & FYALL, A. (2001) Heritage Tourism: A Question of Definition.
Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 682-708.
GARRROD, B. & WILLIS, K. G. (1992) The amenity value of woodland in Great
Britain: A comparison of economic estimates. Environmental and Resource
Economics, 2, 415-434.
GILBERT, D. (1984) The need for countries to differentiate their tourist product and
how to do so. Tourism managing for results. University of Surrey, Guildford.
GILBERT, D. (1990) Strategic marketing planning for national tourism. The Tourist
Review, 1, 18-27.
GLASSON, J., GODFREY, K. & GOODEY, B. (1995) Towards visitor impact
management: Visitor impacts, carrying capacity and management responses in
Europes historic towns and cities, Aldershot, Avebury.
GNOTH, J. (1997) Tourism Motivation and Expectations Formation. Annals of
Tourism Research, 21, 283-304.
GOELDNER, C. R., RITCHIE, J. R. B. & MCINTOSH, R. W. (Eds.) (1999)
Tourism: principles, practices, Philosophies, New York, USA, Wiley.
GOULDING, C. (1999) Interpretation and presentation, London, Cassell.
GRAHAM, B., ASHWORTH, G. & TUNBRIDGE, J. E. (2000) A geography of
heritage power, culture and economy, New York, Oxford University Press.
GRONROOS, C. (1989) Defining marketing: A market-orientated approach.
European Journal of Marketing, 23, 52-59.
HALEWOOD, C. & HANNAM, K. (2001) Viking heritage tourism Authenticity and
commodification. Annals of Tourism Research, 28, 565-580.
HALL, C. M. (2000) Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place, Chichester,
John Wiley & Sons.
HALL, C. M. & JENKINS, J. M. (1995) Tourism and public policy, London ; New
York, Routledge.
HALL, C. M. & PAGE, S. J.
HAUKELAND, J. V. (1992) Motives for Holiday Travel. Tourist Review, 11, 14-17.
HAWES, D. K., TAYLOR, D. T. & HAMPE, G. D. (1991) Destinations marketing by
state. Journal of Travel Research, 30, 11-17.
HAYWOOD, K. M. (1986) Can the tourist-area life cycle be made operational?
Tourism Management, 7, 154-167.
HENDERSON, J. (2000) War as a tourist attraction: the case of Vietnam.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 2, 269-280.
HERBERT, D. (2001) Literary places, tourism and the heritage experience. Annals of
Tourism Research, 28, 312-333.
HEWISON, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline,
London, Methuen.
HI-PHETCHABURI . Places of Interest. from www.tyha.org/image/place.
HOLDEN, A. & EWEN, M. (2002) Understanding the motivations of eco-tourists.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 435-46.
HOVINEN, G. R. (1995). Heritage issues in urban tourism: An assessment of new
trend in Lancaster County. Tourism Management, 16(5), 381-388.
HUGHES, G. (1995) Authenticity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 22, 781-
803.
238










ISO-AHALA, S. E. (1980) The Social Psychology of Leisure and Recreation,
Dubuque, IA, William C. Brown Co.
ISO-AHALA, S. E. (1982) Towards a Social Psychology Theory of Tourism
Motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 9, 256-62.
IZARD, C. (1978) Emotions as motivations: an evolutionary developmental
perspective. IN HOWE, H. (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.
Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press.
JAFARI, J. (1990) Annals of Tourism Research, 16, Editors page.
JAMAL, T. & GETZ, D. (1996) Does strategic planning pay? Lessons for
destinations from corporate planning experience. Progress in Tourism and
Hospitality Research, 2, 59-78.
JOKILEHTO, J. (Ed.) (1995) Authenticity: A general framework for the concept,
World Heritage Centre (France), Agency for Cultural Affairs(Japan),
ICCROM (Italy), and ICOMOS(France).
JOKILEHTO, J. (1999) A history of Architectural Conservation, Oxford, Butterworth
Heinemann.
KEARNS, G. & PHILO, C. (1993) Selling places: the city as cultural capital, past
and present, Oxford, Pergamon.
KERR, J. S. (Ed.) (2000) Conservation Plan: A guide to the preparation of
conservation plans for places of European cultural significance, Sydney, The
National Trust of Australia (NSW).
KIM, Y., WEAVER, P. & MCCLEARY, K. (1996) A Structural Equation Model:
The Relationship between Travel Motivation and Information Sources in the
Senior Travel Market. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 3, 55-66.
KOTLER, P. (1994) Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation
and Control, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.
KURTX, D. & CLOW, K. (1998) Service Marketing, New York, Wiley.
LAARMAN, J. G. & GREGERSEN, H. M. (1996) Pricing policy in nature based
tourism. Tourism Management, 17, 247-254.
LARSEN, K. (Ed.) (1995) "The test of authenticity" and national heritage legislation,
World Heritage Centre (France), Agency for Cultural Affairs(Japan),
ICCROM (Italy), and ICOMOS(France).
LAW, C. M. (2002) Urban Tourism Second Edition: The Visitor Economy and the
Growth of Large Cities, London and New York, Continuum.
LEISEN, B. (2001) Image segmentation: the case of a tourism destination. Journal of
Services Marketing, 15, 49-66.
LEMAIRE, R. (1994) Authenticit et patrimone monumental. IN LARSEN, K. &
MARSTEIN, N. (Eds.) Preparatory Workshop, Conference on Authenticity in
Relation to the World Heritage Convention. Bergen, Norway, Tapir Forlag,
n.p.
LEWIS, M. & HAVILAND, J. (1993) Handbook of Emotions, New York, The
Guildford Press.
LICKORISH, L. J. (1991) Roles of government and private sector, Harlow, Longman.
LOWENTHAL, D. (1985) The past is a foreign country, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
239










LOWENTHAL, D. (Ed.) (1995) The changing criteria of authenticity, World
Heritage Centre (France), Agency for Cultural Affairs(Japan), ICCROM
(Italy), and ICOMOS(France).
LOWENTHAL, D. (1996) The Heritage Crusade and Spoils of History, London,
Viking.
MACCANNELL, D. (1976) The Tourist: a New Theory of the Leisure Class, New
York, Schocken.
MACCANNELL, D. (1995) The Tourist Papers, London, Routledge.
MALHOTRA, N. K. (Ed.) (1996) Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, New
Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
MARCH, R. (1994) Tourism marketing myopia. Tourism Management, 15, 411-415.
MARCOUILLER, D. W. (1997) Toward integrative tourism planning in rural
America. Journal of Planning Literature, 11(3), 337-357.
MASON, P. (1992) The environmentally-friendly traveler, London, Wexas.
MASON, P. (1995) Tourism: Environment and Development Perspectives.
Gadalming, UK, World Wide Fund for Nature.
MASON, P. (2003) Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management, Oxford,
Butterworth-Heinemann.
MATHIESON, A. & WALL, G. (1982a) Tourism : economic, physical, and social
impacts, London ; New York, Longman.
MATHIESON, A. & WALL, G. (1982b) Tourism: Economic, physical, and social
impacts, New York, Longman.
MATTSSON, J., & PRAESTO, A. (2005). The Creation of a Swedish Heritage
Destination: An Insider's View of Entrepreneurial Marketing. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 5(2), 152-166.
MCCRONE, D., MORRIS, A. & KIELY, R. (1995) Scotland-the brand: the making
of Scottish heritage, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
MCKERCHER, B. & DU CROS, H. (2001) A New Model to Assist in Planning for
Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 3, 165-170.
MCKERCHER, B. & DU CROS, H. (2002) Cultural tourism: the partnership
between tourism and cultural heritage management, New York, The Haworth
Hospitality Press.
MIDDLETON, V. & HAWKINS, R. (1998) Sustainable tourism: A marketing
perspective, Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.
MIDDLETON, V. T. C. (2001) Marketing in Travel and Tourism, Oxford,
Butterworth-Heinemann.
MISIURA, S. (2006) Heritage Marketing, Oxford, UK, Butterworth-Heinemann.
MOHSIN, A. (2003) Tourist attitudes and destination marketing: the case of
Australias Northern Territory and Malaysia. Tourism Management, 26, 723-
732.
MOORE, B. & ISEN, A. (Eds.) (1990) Affect and social behavior, New York,
Cambridge University Press.
MOSCARDO, G. (1996) Mindful Visitors: Heritage and Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 23, 376-97.
240










NATHAN, K. A. (2002) Managing heritage attractions: marketing challenges at
sensitive historical sites. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 447-
457.
OSBORNE, B. (2002) Moose Jaws great escape: constructing tunnels,
deconstructing heritage, marketing places. Material History Review, 55, 16-
28.
OUF, A. M. S. (2001) Authenticity and the Sense of Place in Urban Design. Journal
of Urban Design, 6, 73-86.
PALMER, A. & BEJOU, D. (1995) Tourism destination marketing alliances. Annals
of Tourism Research, 22, 616-629.
PALMER, A. & BEJOU, D. (1996) Best practice environmental management and the
tourism industry. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2, 261-271.
PEARCE, P. L. (1996) Recent Research in Tourists Behavior. Asian Pacific Journal
of Tourism Research, 1, 7-17.
PEARCE, P. L. & CALTABIANO, M. L. (1983) Inferring Travel Motivation from
Travelers Experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 17, 16-20.
PHETCHABURI PROVINCE (1982) 200 year anniversary of Rattanakosin City:
Samut Phetchaburi, Bangkok, Ruan Keal Publishing.
PHETCHABURI PROVINCE (2005) Phetchaburi: Traveling Town, Boon Hor
Co.,Ltd.
PETZET, M. (Ed.) (1995) "In the full richness of their authenticity"-- The test of
authenticity and the new cult of monuments, World Heritage Centre (France),
Agency for Cultural Affairs(Japan), ICCROM (Italy), and ICOMOS(France).
POCOCK, D. (1992) Catherine Cookson country: tourist expectation and experience.
Geography 77, 236-243.
POCOCK, D. (1997a) Some reflections on World Heritage. Area, 29, 260-268.
POCOCK, J. G. A. (1997b) Deconstructing Europe London, Verso.
POON, A. (1989) Competitive strategies for new tourism, London, Belhaven Press.
POON, A. (1993) Tourism, technology and competitive strategies, Oxford, CAB
International.
PORIA, Y., BUTLER, R. & AIREY, D. (2000) Clarifying Heritage Tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research, 28, 1047-1049.
PORIA, Y., BUTLER, R. & AIREY, D. (2001) Clarifying Heritage Tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research, 28, 1047-1049.
PORIA, Y., BUTLER, R. & AIREY, D. (2003a) The Core of Heritage Tourism:
Distinguishing Heritage Tourists from Tourists in Heritage Places. Annals of
Tourism Research, 30, 238-54.
PORIA, Y., BUTLER, R. & AIREY, D. (2003b) The Meaning of Heritage Sites for
Tourists: The Case of Massada. Tourism Analysis, In print.
PORIA, Y., BUTLER, R. & AIREY, D. (2003c) Revisiting Mieczkowskis
Conceptualization of Tourism. Tourism Geographies, 5, 26-38.
PORIA, Y., BUTLER, R. & AIREY, D. (2004) Links between Tourists, Heritage, and
Reasons for Visiting Heritage Sites. Journal of Travel Research, 43.
PORTER, B. W. & SALAZAR, N. B. (2005) Heritage Tourism, Conflict, and the
Public Interest: An Introduction. International Journal of Heritage Studies,
11, 361-370.
241










PORTER, M. (1980) Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and
competitors, New York, Free Press.
PRENTICE, R. (1993) Motivations of the Heritage Consumer in the Leisure Market:
An Application of the Manning-Haas Demand Hierarchy. Leisure Sciences,
15, 273-90.
RALPH, E. (1976) Place and Placelessness, London, Pion.
REKOM, J. V. (1994) Adding Psychological Value to Tourism Products. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 3, 21-36.
RIBEIRO, M. & MARQUES, C. (2002) Rural tourism and the development of less
favoured areas - between rhetoric and practice. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 4, 211-220.
RICHARDSON, J. I. (1996) Marketing Australian travel and tourism: Principles and
practice, Melbourne, Hospitality Press.
RINGIS, R. (1990) Thai Temples and Temple Murals, New York, Oxford University
Press.
RITCHIE, B. & CROUCH, G. (1993) Competitiveness in international tourism: A
framework for understanding and analysis, Bariloche, Argentina.
RITZER, G. (2000) The McDonaldization of Society, Thousand Oaks, CA, Pine Forge
Press.
ROSS, G. F. (Ed.) (1998) The Psychology of Tourism, Melbourne, Hospitality Press.
RYAN, C. (1991) Tourism and marketing-A symbiotic relationship. Tourism
Management, 12, 101-111.
RYAN, C. (1995a) The Diversity of Cultural Values in Charters and Guidelines for
the Conservation of the Worlds Cultural Heritage and Charters. The Getty
Conservation Institute, Marina Del Rey, California.
RYAN, C. (1995b) Researching tourist satisfaction: issues, concepts, problems,
London, New York, Routledge.
RYAN, C. (1997) The Tourist Experience, London, Cassel.
SAMUEL, R. (1989) Patriotism: the Making and Unmaking of British National
Identity, London, Routledge.
SCALTSAS, T. (1980) The Ship of Theseus. Analysis, 40, 152-7.
SEATON, T. V. & BENNETT, M. M. (1996) The marketing of tourism products:
Concepts, issues and cases, Boston, International Thompson Business Press.
SELWYN, T. (Ed.) (1996) The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism,
Toronto, Wiley.
SHERIF, M. (1996) In common predicament: social psychology of intergroup conflict
and co-operation, Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
SIMEON, R. (1976) Studying public policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 9,
558-80.
SIMPSON, F. (1999) Tourist Impact in the Historic Centre of Prague: Resident and
Visitor Perceptions of the Historic Built Environment. Geographical Journal,
165, 173-183.
SILPAKORN UNIVERSITY (2000) Project of Conservation in Vernacular
Architecture and Environment For Attracting Tourists into Phetchaburi
Province, Silpakorn University.
SMART, B. (1972) How to Reidentify the Ship of Theseus. Analysis, 32, 145-8.
242










SMITH, M. K. (2003) Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies, London and New York,
Routledge.
SOMDEJ PHRAYA DUMRONG RACHANUPARB (1898-1900) Annals of official
visiting in Somdej Phraya Dumrong Rachanuparb. Department of
Administration.
STEPHAN, W., STEPHAN, C. & CABEDAS DE VARGAS, M. (1996) Emotional
expression in Costa Rica and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 27, 147-160.
SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE. (2006) Creating a Frequency
Table and Histogram from www2.sunysuffolk.edu./wright/ma22/stat/chart.htm
SUTHITHUM S. (1996) Phetchaburi, Bangkok, O.S. Printing House.
SWARBROOKE, J. (1999) Sustainable Tourism Management, Wallingford, CABI
Publications.
TOURISM AUTHORITY OF THAILAND. (2008). Tourist Statistics. from
www2.tat.or.th/stat/web/static_index.php
THATSANALEELAPORN, B. (2000) An Architecture Design Study of Pranakorn
Kiri, City of Phetchaburi. Related Arts and Architecture. Bangkok, Silpakorn
University.
THE AUSTRALIA ICOMOS (1999) The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS
Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Australia ICOMOS Inc.
THOMAS, J. (1992) Tourism and the environment: An exploration of the willingness
to pay of the average visitor. Tourism in Europe: The 1992 conference.
Durham, UK.
UDOMVAIT, S. (1991) Tai Song Dam: the Ethnic Tais of Phetchaburi. Muang
BoRan.
UM, S. & CROMPTION, J. (1990) Attitude determinants in tourism destination
choice. Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 432-448.
UNWIN, T. (1996) Tourist development in Estonia: images, sustainability and
integrated rural development. Tourism Management, 17, 256-276.
URRY, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies,
London, Sage.
VALLIBHOTAMA, S. (1991) Phetchaburi: a City of History. Muang Bo Lan, 17, 17-
42.
VILAIKAEO, J. (1991) Phetchaburi and Historic Town. Muang BoRan, 17, 110.
WAHAB, S. & COOPER, C. (2001) Tourism in the Age of Globalization, Landon and
New York, Routledge.
WALKER, J. & BAKER, J. (2000) An exploratory study of a multi-expectation
framework for services. Journal of Services Marketing, 14, 411-431.
WALL, G. (1997) Rethinking impacts of tourism, Chichester, John Wiley and Sons.
WANG, N. (1999) Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26, 349-370.
WHEELER, M. (1995) Tourism marketing ethics: An introduction. International
Marketing Review, 12, 38-49.
WIDDIS, R. W. (2000) The murals of Moose Jaw: commodification or articulation of
the past? Historical Geography, 28, 234-252.
WILKINSON, P. (1997) Tourism Planning on Island, New York, Cognizant
Communications.
243










WILLIAMS, A. M. & SHAW, G. (Eds.) (1998) Tourism and Economic Development:
European Experiences, Chichester, New York, John Wiley.
WILLIAMS, S. (1998) Tourism geography, London ; New York, Routledge.
WOODSIDE, A. G. & LYSONKI, S. (1989) A general model of traveler destination
choice. Journal of Travel Research, 36, 65-69.
WORLD TOURISM ORGANIZATION (1985) The states Role in protecting and
promoting culture as a factor in tourism development and the proper use and
exploitation of the national culture heritage of sites and monument for tourists.
IN ORGANIZATION, W. T. (Ed.) Madrid.
XU, H. (2003) Managing side effects of cultural tourism development- The case of
Zhouzhuang. Systems Analysis Modeling Simulation, 43, 175-188.
YAMANE, T. (Ed.) (1973) Statistic: an introductory analysis, New York, Harper &
Row.
YIPING LI, RAYMOND LAP & BONG LO (2003) Applicability of the market
appeal-robusticity matrix: a case study of heritage tourism. Tourism
Management, 25, 789-800.
YOTYONG V. (1983) Brief History of Phra Ram Ratchaniwet, Bangkok.
YUAN, S. & MCDONALD, C. (1990) Motivational Determinates of International
Pleasure Time. Journal of Travel Research, 29, 42-44.
YUDEE, C. (1957) Overall Historic Place in Thailand, Bangkok, Fine Arts
Department.
YUKSEL, F., BRAMWELL, B. & YUKSEL, A. (1999) Stakeholder interview and
tourism planning at Pamukkale, Turkey. Tourism Management, 20, 351-360.
ZEPPEL, H. & HALL, C. M. (Eds.) (1992) Arts and Heritage Tourism, London,
Routledge.






















244










Appendix A
Questionnaire
Subject: Marketing cultural heritage to promote tourism growth in areas of low
tourism patronage: Case Study of Phetchaburi Downtown
Explanation This questionnaire is a part of study in Silpakorn Universitys international program,
Architectural Heritage Management and Tourism by collecting opinions of sustainable marketing
factors associated with visitors behavior in Phetchaburi Downtown. All objectives are involved strictly
with dissertation only.
Part 1 Individual Information
Part 2 Opinions of sustainable marketing factors
Part 3 Visitors behavior in Phetchaburi Downtown
___________________________________________________________________________________

Part 1 Individual Information
Please put the sign () on its true position.
1. Gender ( ) Male ( ) Female
2. Age ( ) Less than 15 ( ) 15-24 ( ) 25-34 ( ) 35-44
( ) 45 and Over
3. Marriage Status ( ) Single ( ) Married ( ) Divorce
4. Educational Level ( ) Lower than Bachelor ( ) Bachelor
( ) Upper than Bachelor
5. Average Income/Month ( ) Less than $125 ( ) $125 -$250
( ) $251- $375 ( ) $376- $500
( ) Over $500
6. Occupation ( ) Government Authority ( ) Business Owner
( ) Employee ( ) Student ( ) Others..
Part 2 Opinions of sustainable marketing factors to promote tourism
Please put the sign () on the gap of opinions level in sustainable marketing
Level of Importance
Message
Heritage Tourism Attraction
The Most
Importance
Important
Not
Certain
Unimportance The Most
Unimportance
1. Conservation of Heritage site
2. Cleanliness of Historic site
3. Well-known reputation of heritage
4. Beauty of historic place
5. Historic value of heritage place
6. Convenience to reach historic site
7. Clearly readability of written labels and
signs on historic site

245










8. Understanding of heritage meaning
9. Convenience enough during your visit in
historic place

10. Warm welcome from service providers
in heritage place

11.Improvement of heritage place for
conservation purpose

12. Knowledge provided in guiding heritage
place.

13. Heritage authenticity in Phetchaburi
Downtown

14. Heritage attractiveness in Phetchaburi
Downtown

15. Facilities like car park and rest chairs in
historic place

16.Visitor Participation in heritage
preservation

Entrance Fee of Heritage Attraction
1. Cheap entrance fee
2.Cash donation for being heritage income
instead of having entrance fee

3. Received edutainment worth enough
compared with your entrance fee

4. Other expenses paid inside heritage place
(except entrance fee)

5.Unequal entrance fee between Thai and
foreigner

6. Unequal entrance fee of Thai people
segmented by Age

Place/Distribution for Heritage Entrance
Tickets

1. Buying the entrance ticket in advance
2. Convenience of purchasing the entrance
ticket

3. Number of selling points to purchase
heritage entrance tickets.


Marketing Promotion of Heritage Site





1. Promotion of Heritage Site
2. Having package tour program for
heritage site in Phetchaburi Downtown

3. Exhibition involving with historic place
246










4. Advertising to emphasize on heritage
conservation and culture more than only
cheap price.

5 .Advertising concerning with domestic
more than inbound tourism.

6. Sale promotion by giving heritage
souvenir

7. Promotion by inviting famous person to
visit heritage site

8. Promoting history of V.I.P. linkage to
historic place

9. Tourism promotion through brochure
10. Promotion by having art and cultural
exhibitions

11. Promotion by arranging charity
activities


Part 3 Visitors behavior in Phetchaburi Downtown
Please put the sign () on the true position about Visitors behavior in Phetchaburi
Downtown
1. Objective in traveling in Heritage site, Phetchaburi Downtown is (Mark 1 choice
only)
( ) Leisure ( ) Edutainment ( ) Religious Activity ( ) Others.............
2. You travel by ( ) Tour bus ( ) Individual car ( ) Rental car
( )Schedule bus ( ) Others............
3. You have come to Heritage site, Phetchaburi Downtown for.............times within 2
years.
4. You are the type of ( ) Day tour visitor ( ) Overnight tour visitor staying here
for..........nights at ( ) Downtown, Phetchaburi ( ) Cha-am District
( ) Hua Hin ( ) Others.........
6. Average of your spending expenses (Entrance fee +Cash donation + Souvenir +
Food &beverage) in Historic place is approximately....................... Baht.

7. You come here ( ) Alone ( ) with spouse ( ) with family
( ) With friends ( ) others........

8. You take time visiting in heritage site, Phetchaburi Downtown
about................Hrs.........Minutes

9. Do you intend to come back to historic places in Phetchaburi Downtown?
( ) Yes ( ) No

10. Where do you (often) visit heritage site in Phetchaburi Downtown?
( ) Temple ( ) Palace ( ) Old house ( ) Others.

11. When do you (often) visit heritage site in Phetchaburi Downtown?
( ) Sat. & Sun. ( ) Mon. Fri. ( ) Vacational holiday
247











Appendix B

In-depth interview Questions

1. What do you work for the cultural tourism in Phetchaburi?
2. What about conservation of heritage sites?
3. What should it be improved in Phetchaburi tourism?
4. What kind of tourists did you notice?
5. How about the tourism situation now in Phetchaburi?
6. What roles of the government do you realize in promotion of tourism?
7. Which segment of tourists arriving here do you think that is important?
8. What about seasonality of tourism here?
9. What roles of local community in Phetchaburi do you think that it should
participate in tourism?
10. What do you hope for the Phetchaburi cultural tourism?
11. How do the local have a part in conservation of their own heritage?
12. Did they know about heritage conservation and tourism?
13. Are they interested in local tourism?
14. How did the officers spend the budget of government in the past?
15. Do the local have training for heritage tourism?
16. What was the marketing success for the cultural tourism in the past?
17. How about the legal force in heritage conservation?
18. Is it profitable for doing business about the heritage sites now?
19. What should all stakeholders do to improve cultural tourism?
20. What should be the promotional materials for tourism in Phetchaburi?
21. What is the marketing target for cultural tourism here?
22. What is tourist behavior in these heritage areas?
23. When do the visitors come for traveling normally?
24. What is your attitude about marketing on cultural tourism here?


248











Appendix C

List of interviewees and date of in-depth interviews


Category of stakeholders

Name

Interview Date

TAT

Khun Silachai Surai

28 MAR 2006

NGO

Assist Prof. Sununt Nelapong

31MAR 2006

Heritage Caretaker

Khun Patrom at Khao Wang

8 APR 2006

Travel Agency

Khun Tom

9 APR 2006

Local Authority

Khun Saruckjet Chalearnjit

29 APR 2006

Heritage Caretaker

Army Captain Worawat Varanyok

30 APR 2006

Community Leader

Khun Saksri Larpprasit

19 OCT 2006

Heritage Caretaker

Abbots assistant at Wat Yai

19 OCT 2006

PR Officer

Khun Kitti Chuchue

20 OCT 2006

GM of Diamond Hotel

Khun Surakit Sutharomna

20 OCT 2006

GM of Tourism
Development Co. Ltd.

Khun Chatrachi Kannadhel

21 OCT 2006

Deputy Governor

Khun Kittisak Tanawattanakul

21 OCT 2006




249










Autobiography

Name-Surname Mr. Lamson Lertkulprayad

Permanent Address 33/53 soi 3 Patsorn1 Villege, Klong Sam,
Rungsit Rd., Pathumtanee, Thailand

Contact Address 33/53 soi 3 Patsorn1 Villege, Klong Sam,
Rungsit Rd., Pathumtanee, Thailand

Educational Background Master of Business Administration in General
Management, University of Colorado at Denver

Bachelor of Business Administration in
International Business Management,
Assumption University

Special Training

- A training course: Business Consultant and Professional Guest
Speaker in Srinakharinwirot University, 7-21 December 2002
- A training course: Writing of Research Proposal Organized by The
Association of Researchers in Social Sciences
- A training course: Basic Air Reservation Abacus Distribution Systems
(Thailand) Ltd., 02-05 March 2004


International Seminar/Workshop

- Competitive Service Strategies for Excellence in Tourism Organized
by The School of Travel Industry Management, University of HawaiI,
USA, October 19-20, 2004
- The Fifth Asia Pacific Forum for Graduate Student Research in
Tourism Organized by Tourism Academic Association (Thailand),
September 20-22, 2006
- 2007 International Tourism Biennial Organized by The School of
Tourism & Hotel Management, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University,
Turkey, 29 April 2 May 2007
- The SKK Asia MBA Short-Term Study Program Organized by The
SKK Business School, Sungkyukwan University, South Korea, 12-14
December 2007

250