Communicating World Heritage: Case studies from Australia, the United States and Asia

Transcription

1 Communicating World Heritage: Case studies from Australia, the United States and Asia Dr. Lisa M. King Senior Research Fellow Curtin University Malaysia Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J

2 Presentation Overview Review the basics of a brand Background about World Heritage Study aims and objectives Review study highlights from Australia, the United States and Malaysia with findings from each location List three strategies that work in helping communicate the World Heritage brand to the public

3 Every brand consists of: Brand Identity Tangible elements Intangible elements Brand name Brand mark/logo Emotions, thoughts, feelings Everything a person knows about the brand (Keller, 1993)

4 The tangible elements of the WH brand Brand Marks Logos WH emblem WH symbol World Heritage Brand Name

5 World Heritage Represent places so valuable to all of mankind that they should be preserved intact in perpetuity for future generations to enjoy and learn from. Represent the best of the best (Luly & Valentine, 1998) based on the ten criteria identified by World Heritage Convention. State Parties to the World Heritage Convention are encouraged to raise awareness of the need to preserve World Heritage. In particular, they should ensure that World Heritage status is adequately marked and promoted on-site (P 217, Operational Guidelines)

6 Visitors Communities Governments Protected Area Brands have a variety of roles & functions Park management Entrepreneurs (Adapted from King, 2011 )

7 The Roles of Protected Area Brands For the Visitor Great Barrier Reef ID s brand category & site specific name Communicates property is protected Indicates site quality Evokes specific behaviors & emotions Bestows site with unique associations Signals availability for certain recreational & educational uses Risk reducer in site choice (Taken from King, 2011)

8 The Roles of Protected Area Brands For Park Managers Fraser Island Means of site identification Signals how site will be managed Visitor & staff attractor Evokes behaviors & emotions beneficial to park objectives Provides competitive advantage & leverage among agencies for funding Fosters research Means to encourage best practice (Adapted from King, 2011)

9 Study aims and objectives Aims: to investigate how WHAs presented the WH brand on-site to the public and determine visitor awareness of the brand when on-site. Objectives: to photo document on-site signage within WH study sites to determine how the WH brand was conveyed to the visitor; To use a standardized survey instrument to identify the level of visitor awareness of the WH brand while visiting a study site; To determine the challenges agencies faced in conveying the WH brand to the visitor; and, To develop strategies to heighten awareness and knowledge of the WH brand on-site.

10 Keller s (1993) Model of the Dimensions of Brand Knowledge

11 Literature review The literature suggested that visitors generally have a low awareness of the World Heritage brand during a site visit. Hall & Piggin (2001); Smith(2002); Bentrupperbaumer & Reser (2002), Beck (2006). Hergersell (2006); Leask (2006). Dewer et al (2011); Portia et al (2010) suggested slightly higher brand awareness at cultural sites. Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J

12 Methodology 5 WHAs Monthly data collection across all 5 sites for a 4 month period in ,827 valid questionnaires Photo documentation Visitor observations Based on Bentrupperbäumer (2002) and others.

13 Gondwana Rainforests of Australia

14 Status of Communicating World Heritage to the Public Erratic

15 Fraser Island Australia

16 Status of Communicating World Heritage to the Public Erratic

17 Great Barrier Reef Australia

18 Status of Communicating World Heritage to the Public Erratic

19 Wet Tropics of Australia

20 Status of Communicating World Heritage to the Public Highly erratic

21 Australian Fossil Mammal Sites Riversleigh, Australia

22 Status of Communicating World Heritage to the Public Effective

23 (Taken from King, 2011)

24 Visitor awareness of the name of the WHA they were visiting Gondwana: Out of 599 surveys 0 respondents knew the correct name for the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia WHA. 1.6 knew it as the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserve. Fraser Island: Of 466 respondents, 54% gave the correct response Great Barrier Reef: Of 312 respondents, 55.2% of respondents gave the correct name or were close Wet Tropics: 1.9% of 279 respondents knew the correct name or were close knew Mossman Gorge.Australian Fossil Mammal Sites: 0% of 171 knew the correct name, while 2.9% came close. 66% knew it as Riversleigh plus another 16.7% wrote Riversleigh-related responses (Taken from King, 2011)

25 Percentage of respondents aware they were visiting a WH site with a cue (Taken from King, 2011)

26 Visitor awareness of WH status Variable R DS FI GBR GRA WT Total % Top of mind awareness after at least 1/2 hour on-site Awareness of WH status with a cue Aware of WH status prior to visit Total (Taken from King, 2011)

27 Comparison between the World Heritage & National Park brands on decision to visit (Taken from King, 2011)

28 Challenges to conveying the WH brand The size of some WHAs allows for hundreds of access points. This situation makes it impossible for management agencies to communicate to a visitor that they are entering a WHA at all possible points of entry. The fragmented nature of some WHAs makes it difficult and costly for management to make effective visitor contact across numerous properties; and, for visitors to understand the relationship between distinctly separate sites encircled within a single WH brand name. Some WHAs cross state/national boundaries adding additional layers of coordination and bureaucracy between agencies. Some properties are prone to damage in weather events such as cyclones, seasonal flooding, etc. making it difficult to maintain the visitor infrastructure already in place or justify the need for additional infrastructure. (Taken from King, 2013)

29 Challenges to conveying the WH brand Working with the agencies that control road sign installation and/or modification can be a long-term, politically time-consuming task; thus, hampering WH branding efforts. A lack of agency personnel trained in marketing and branding has led to ineffective branding exercises. Low visitor numbers at some WH sites allow cash strapped agencies to justify channeling funds elsewhere. Changes in Federal and state governments often lead to changing agency priorities over time that affect communicating the WH message to the public. Multinational visitation makes it challenging to present the brand in a manner that visitors will understand. (Taken from King, 2013)

30 Challenges to conveying the WH brand The lack of understanding by agency personnel that branding can be a pro-active visitor management tool, aiding the overall goals and objectives of an agency charged with managing a WH property has led to a number of missed opportunities to better articulate and transfer the WH message to the public. The lack of emphasis placed by marketers in conveying a consistent World Heritage message in effective formats has created, in some instances, weak linkages between the public and specific WH site names. The lack of accurate up-to-date visitor data has led to best guesses by management agencies when developing long term brand strategies. The lack of long term, comprehensive brand strategies has lead to the uneven presentation of the WH brand within individual sites and across sites managed by the same agency. (Taken from King, 2011)

31 Hawaii Volcanoes National Hawaii Volcanoes Nation Park USA Park

32 Facts about Hawaii Volcanoes NP About 1,480,000 visitors annually Protects about 439,220 acres of land 78% is designated wilderness.

33 Status of Communicating World Heritage to the Public Minimal

34 Data for Hawaii Volcanoes 712 visitor questionnaires over a nine month period in 2009/2010 Only 4.6% of respondents recognized the WH symbol and only 0.8 correctly recalled what the WH symbol represented Approximately 13.2% knew it was World Heritage site prior to their visit However, 18.2% knew the site was World Heritage after spending ½ hour on site.. (Taken from King, 2011, unpublished data) Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J

35 More challenges to conveying the WH brand Governments promoting their own national protected area brands often lack the political desire or need to promote the World Heritage brand to its citizens, frequently allowing the WH designation to become more or less invisible. Agencies prefer to show their independence and use their own branding protocols instead of being dictated to by UNESCO s guidelines on how to convey the World Heritage brand.. (Taken from King, 2011 unpublished data) Curtin University is a trademark of Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 00301J

36 Gunung Mulu National Park Malaysia

37

38

39

40 Quick Facts about Gunung Mulu Inscribed as WH in ,864-ha park Over 90 % is wilderness 23,000 visitors annually Park management is outsourced to a private company One of the best presented World Heritage sites in Asia (King, 2013 forthcoming)

41 Status of Communicating World Heritage to the Public - Exceptional

42 First sign a visitor sees inside the park

43 Visitor reception and registration area

44

45 Create exceptional visitor experiences to emotionally connect visitors to the WH brand

46 Tree top canopy walk

47 Outstanding Boardwalks and Trails

48 Gunung Mulu Visitor Data n=200 Top of mind (uncued) awareness that they site was WH after ½ hour on-site: 89.3% Awareness that site was WH prior to visit: 70% Awareness site was WH after ½ hour on-site: 100% with a cue Recognized the World Heritage symbol 41% Recalling what the WH symbol represented 26.7% (Taken from King, 2013 in preparation)

49 Three strategies that work to Build brand awareness by prominently, consistently and repeatedly display the WH brand. Teach brand meaning by explaining what World Heritage means in several locations throughout the park Grow positive brand equity over time by designing a variety of meaningful experiences for the visitor to engage in Avoided brand clutter (Taken from King, 2010 & 2011)

50

51 References Keller, K. (1993). Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customerbased brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), King, L. (2010). Communicating the World Heritage brand: A general overview of usage of the World Heritage brand across Australia. Report prepared for the Australian World Heritage Advisory Committee. 2 nd draft. King, L. (2011). Investigating the role of the World Heritage brand in attracting visitors to protected areas in Queensland, Australia. PhD thesis. James Cook University, Cairns.. King, L. (2013). Communicating the World Heritage brand: Building appreciation & commitment to the World Heritage concept. (Figgis, P., Leverington, A., Mackay, R., Maclean, A., Valentine, P., Eds.). Keeping the outstanding exceptional: The future of World Heritage in Australia. Australian Committee for IUCN, Sydney, pp King, L. (2013, forthcoming). Gunung Mulu National Park: A best practice case study in communicating World Heritage to visitors. In Yu-Fai Leung, G. Hvenegaard, Anna Spenceley (Eds.). IUCN Best Practice Guidelines for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Luly, G. & Valentine, P. (1998). On the outstanding universal value of the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh/Naracoorte) World Heritage Area : A report to the World Heritage Unit, DEST. Townsville, Qld. School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James Cook University.