Words: 1244
The reasons of this choice of subject are linked with the requirement to assist the Greater Bending municipality to assess if the different City heritage assets can be implemented and integrated together to create an unique heritage precinct competent to boost overnight visitors as well as international tourists (Laying et al. 2014). Moreover the research will have the additional purpose of providing guidelines for the development of suitable marketing traceries. Laying et al. (2014) claim in their introduction that hitherto the studies on the subject leave a considerable gap on understanding how the heritage assets effect on the creation of the tourist experience. For this reason the researchers state the aim of covering this knowledge gap with the practical example of the Bending case.
The research question is stated distinctly and several times in the first part of the article, indeed with a rapid look it is possible to get a good understanding about all the article’s key points. The article page one is literally a Cicero that takes the reader y the hand and drives him toward every step of the rest of the article. Literature Review The authors cited consistent literature following a path that gradually brings to the theoretical vision later adopted in their research.
However the first sentence of the second paragraph leaves a shadow area, in fact the writers’ list four different authors’ names, giving that they have divergent ideas on how to best achieve the tourist experience but then they do not explain all of this author’s opinion, leaving the reader with the research work. Nevertheless the rest of the paragraph and, in mineral, the rest of the paper cite the various literatures sufficiently to get a broad view on the best ways to gain a successful memorable tourist experience.
The literature is mostly quite dated compared to the paper, even though appropriate and instrumental for the topic. Some of the theories are even essential for the further development of the research to assess the experiential potential of the Bending heritage assets. Methodology The research methodology is clearly explained and identified and takes its steps from the previous research of Impeacher and Ho ( 2006) that was perfectly suited for its tauter. I nee sconce AT ten assessment tool could not De more sulfated Tort ten nature of the assets and the sought results.
The assessment tool, like the original, is qualitative and distinguishes between four indicators of cultural, physical, product and experiential values. However, while Impeacher and Ho (2006) highlight the importance of product value for tourist purpose, Laying et al. (2014) prefer to point the emphasis on the experiential value dimension and develop their audit explaining every facet and every possible implication with explicit reference to the literature rebelliously used.
Again the authors follow the directives of the original model to assess every asset by at least two trained researchers conducting their audit independently. Subsequently each researcher wrote individual reports in order to enable different views and so the “heritage dissonance”(Triggering & Seaworthy, 1996). Furthermore this multi-appraisers method enables the model to overcome the risk of personal bias created by individual taste and knowledge. For the participant sample selection the authors have relied on probably one of the best methods for this type of research.
Indeed qualitative research is purposeful; participants are selected who can best inform the research questions and enhance understanding of the phenomenon under study. One of the most important tasks in the study design phase is to identify appropriate participants (Sergeant, 2012. P. L) Accordingly Laying et al. (2014) select a sample of stakeholders representative of bodies that are directly interested in Bindings heritage assets. The researchers adopt both mimic and etc perspective to step into the tourist shoes and on the other hand to distance themselves to understand the stakeholders point of view.
The model is very well chosen and implemented to allow the reader to understand every step and compare that with the previous one. Results The results section is highly well developed and is easy to recognize the authors’ big effort to explain every considered asset taking into account all the research questions previously presented. Furthermore, in order to address the prearranged objectives, at the beginning of the paragraph the writers report a table which summarizes the findings and gives the reader a comprehensive overview of everything that is important to know.
The table is structured in such a way that the assets are ordered in a hierarchical manner from the highest experiential value to the lowest, and also are divided between peak experience (higher potential to become an appealing tourist attraction; Quant ; Wang, 2004) and supporting experience (that function as a foil or Backdrop to a peak experience; Quant ; Wang, 2004). Whereupon each asset is described in terms of cultural, physical, product and experiential value (Impeacher and Ho, 2006), for each of them the authors identify those that could be improved upon for future tourism development.
Discussion In the discussion portion of the study Laying et al. (2014) do not simply repeat the results of the audit, indeed they go much beyond to present a rational and detailed Interpretation AT want ten Tailings nave inelegant Almost Immediately ten autonomous take a step away from the original research by saying that a memorable tourist experience requires much more than simply cosmetic changes to the assets (Laying et al, 2006, p. 89), in fact it requires a weaving of meaning capable of triggering the fuse so as to give rise to the full tourist experience. Therefore a series of commendations are proposed for the sake of the experiential value, and among these stands the suggestion of introducing thematic interpretation across a range of attractions (Laying et al. , 2006, p. 189). The interpretation here is seen as a key to link the different assets together toward the creation of a whole heritage precinct.
However, the authors do not emphasize enough the nature of the contemporary tourist; no more passive students but active and curious people that expect the interpretation to provide specific knowledge and reinforce their identity (Prior, Brian ; Reich, 2009, p. 03), hence it is important to customize this interpretation. The authors recommend amendments to the research methods which they employed throughout their study, and call on others to replicate the experiment suggesting future researches pointing rather on the authenticity factor or on the idea of heritage as performance ( Franking, 2003).
Conclusion As a whole the article appears fluid and well argued. The language is clear, accessible and keeps the reader “awake” and interested through the various paragraphs. The topic is current enough and especially useful in terms of Australia, here small assets are disorderly placed along a huge territory and the tourism is becoming more and more vital to the livelihoods of the assets and the communities living around them.
The names of the participants in the research are kept confidential according to the research ethic protocol, but their participation in the audit is well stressed and often the authors faithfully reproduce entire parts of speech that give a thorough idea of the stakeholders exact point of view. Other researchers are constantly kept in mind and the occasional deviations from their thoughts are Justified and implemented. The overall feeling about this article is very positive and sparks the desire in the reader to see more by the same authors.