Dr. Yaniv Poria*, Prof. Richard Butler** and Prof. David Airey**
*Department of Hotel and Tourism Management, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel;
**School of Management, University of Surrey (UK)

The tourists' perception of the site in relation to their own heritage ( should it play a role in the management and understanding of heritage tourism?

The key role of heritage in today's tourism industry is demonstrated by Li who describes tourism as 'the industry of heritage' (Li, 2000: p. 115). Currently, two main approaches to heritage tourism can be found in the tourism literature. The more common one emphasizes the heritage presented at the site, i. e. the object, as the core of the phenomenon (see, for example, Peleggi, 1996). The second approach puts emphasis on the links between the subject ( the tourist ( and the object ( the historic artefact(s) presented (Poria et al., 2000, 2001). This study looks at the link between the individual and the heritage presented at the site, i. e. the individual's perception of the site in relation to their own heritage. And, more specifically, this link is explored in relation to various aspects of the visitation patterns of tourists.
     The study was conducted using a quantitative research approach in which the links between the perception of a site in relation to a tourist's own heritage and their visit to the site were investigated. The results presented indicate that a tourist's perception of a site is linked to several aspects of their behaviour at the site.
     The implications arising from the findings relate to the theoretical understanding of heritage tourism as well as its management. For example, recognizing that a subject projects symbolic meaning on to the object could lead to better marketing in which consumers are targeted differently based on their perception of a site. Also, the tourists' perception of a site may influence the interpretation provided at the site.
     Regarding the understanding of heritage tourism as a social phenomenon, our findings suggest that an approach which joins heritage tourism and cultural tourism together (e. g. Susan, 1998; Zeppel and Hall, 1991) is not always accurate. The results also challenge our understanding of heritage tourism as a phenomenon motivated mainly by an openness for education and entertainment (Swarbrooke, 1994). Other implications of this study relate to the way tourism subgroups are defined and understood. The findings imply that the relationship between tourists and the space they are visiting should be taken into account (Poria et al., 2001).

Reference list
Harris, F. (1989). 'From the industrial revolution to the heritage industry', Geographical Magazine Vol. 61, pp. 38-62.
Li, Y. (2000). 'Ethnic Tourism: A Canadian Experience', Annals of Tourism Research Vol. 27, No. 1: pp. 115-131.
Peleggi, M. (1996). 'National heritage and global tourism in Thailand', Annals of Tourism Research Vol. 23, No. 2: pp. 432-448.
Poria, Y. (2001a). 'The show must not go on', Tourism and Hospitality Research Vol. 3, No. 2: pp. 115-119.
Poria, Y. (2001b). 'Challenging the present approach to heritage tourism: is tourism to heritage places heritage tourism', Tourism Review Vol. 56, No. 1/2: pp. 51-53.
Poria, Y., Butler, R. and Airey, D. (2000). 'Clarifying heritage tourism: a distinction between heritage tourism and tourism in historic places', Annals of Tourism Research Vol. 28, No. 4: pp. 1047-1049.
Poria, Y., Butler, R. and Airey, D. (2001). 'Tourism sub-groups: do they exist?' Tourism Today Vol. 1, No. 1: pp. 14-22.
Swarbrooke, J. (1994). 'The future of the past: heritage tourism in the 21st century', in A. V. Seaton (ed) Tourism, the State of the Art. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 222-229.
Susan, P. (1998). 'The construction and analysis of the cultural heritage: some thoughts', International Journal of Heritage Studies Vol. 4, No. 1: pp. 1-9.
Zeppel, H. and Hall, C. M. (1991). 'Selling art and history: cultural heritage and tourism', The Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 2, No. 1: pp. 29-45.