How is Intangible Cultural Heritage Valued in the Eyes of Inheritors? Scale Development and Validation

Abstract

Intangible cultural heritage (ICH) is an important part of human civilization and a major tourism resource type. In the ICH tourism development process, many stakeholders are involved. Although inheritors have a core position in this group, there is not enough research investigating the sustainable development of ICH tourism from the perspective of inheritors. Since value cognition is the basis that guides people’s behaviors, the value cognition of the ICH inheritors might be the starting point to understanding their behaviors. Considering this context, the main aim of this research is to describe the development and validation of a scale to assess the cognition values by ICH inheritors. By generating items, purifying, examining the scale’s dimensionality, and evaluating reliability and validity, a 25-item instrument is developed. The article concludes with a discussion of potential applications of the scale.

Keywords

value cognition intangible cultural heritage inheritors scale development

Introduction

Inheritors are at the core of intangible cultural heritage (ICH; Stefano et al., 2014). However, due to aging or death, many of the valuable skills and experiences of ICH inheritors have not been imparted to young people (S.-K. Tan et al., 2019). Many young people with the ability to inherit ICH protection are employed, or those who are about to enter the ICH industry have gradually left (Stefano et al., 2014). Some scholars believe that in most cases, inheritors are passively engaged in the protection of ICH, yet they have not made efforts to make ICH part of their daily lives (Beardslee, 2016). Smith (2006) believes that the value and significance of ICH is not in the heritage itself but in the interaction between the inheritors and the practice of the heritage. Therefore, if the inheritors have left the industry, the protection of intangible heritage becomes weaker. What, therefore, has caused the inheritance of ICH to lose its original glory? What are the values of ICH in the eyes of its inheritors? This is a topic worthy of further discussion.

ICH is an important part of human civilization, and studying ICHs is an effective way to explore this topic. The universal value advocated by the ICH Convention has been accepted gradually (Lenzerini, 2011). Currently, 173 countries are parties to the ICH Convention, and 508 programs have been listed on the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s ICH list. Among them, 40 are from China, accounting for 7.87% of the total programs and establishing China as the country with the most ICH programs. Moreover, a four-level ICH protection system (i.e., national, provincial, municipal, and county levels) has been established in China, and it includes 1,372 national-level protection programs with a total of 3,068 national-level representative inheritors (China intangible cultural heritage Network: http://www.ihchina.cn/). There are a very large numbers of programs at lower levels (provincial, municipal, and county levels). The ICH is also an important tourism resource (Su et al., 2019); due to the uniqueness of ICHs, their existence inevitably relies on inheritors, and if there is no inheritor, there will be no ICH (Li, 2012). Many stakeholders are involved in the development process of ICH tourism, and inheritors are at the core of these stakeholders (H. Yang, 2015); only after inheritors’ interests are fully protected will it be possible for ICH tourism to pursue sustainable development (Shi et al., 2016). However, the inheritance of ICH has not been adequately investigated, and the effect of tourism on the inheritance of ICH, as well as the study of ICH as a tourism resource, has rarely been addressed.

In previous studies, ICH tourism has been mainly studied from the following perspectives. First, the experience of tourists on ICH tourism has been examined from the perspective of tourists (Prayag et al., 2013). Second, the ICH, as a tourism resource, has been studied from the perspective of tourism resource development, for example, how to develop tourism and what principles to follow (Kolar & Zabkar, 2010). Third, the relationship between ICH tourism development and ICH protection has been studied, and the main conclusions include the following: Tourism may cause certain adverse impacts on ICH (e.g., authenticity; Swanson & Timothy, 2012). ICH tourism development can create income for ICH protection, and in poor areas lacking the protection funds, tourism development is of great importance (Nagaoka, 2011). ICH tourism development and protection should be balanced, and tourism should be developed under the premise of not damaging the ICH. ICH tourism development from the perspective of the supply side of ICH tourism products, including ICH inheritors, has rarely been examined (Fu et al., 2015). Because many ICH inheritors are poor and living in difficult circumstances, they are concerned about whether ICH development is more helpful than the cultural value of the ICH in solving their economic difficulties (Shi et al., 2016). Therefore, it is of great significance to investigate the sustainable development of ICH tourism from the perspective of inheritors.

Value cognition is the basis that guides people’s behaviors; the value judgment of an individual about one thing affects the individual’s attitude toward that thing or adoption of a certain behavior. For example, in terms of the perception of ICH authenticity, tourists’ value cognitions directly affect their perceptions of ICH authenticity (Yi et al., 2018). In economics, value cognition refers to the judgment of a customer about the value of a product that he or she wants to purchase. In tourism research, most studies on value cognition have been based on the experience economy, and tourists’ value cognitions are generally measured through their willingness to pay. Pine and Gilmore (1998) divided the customer’s “experience realm” into four parts, that is, entertainment, educational, escapist, and aesthetic realms. Based on these parts, tourism value cognition has been developed, including heritage tourism value cognition (ICH tourism value cognition). However, the studies in this regard have used tourists as subjects, and it is unclear if ICH inheritors have the same value cognition on ICH as tourists. Do they differ in their cognitions of the value of ICH? We wanted to answer these questions through this study.

Using value cognition’s place in human behavior, inheritors’ cognition of the value of ICH may affect their other behaviors (e.g., self-identification) and their willingness to inherit. However, existing studies on cognition of the value of ICH have been limited to case studies using qualitative methods (e.g., in-depth interviews). The value cognition of ICH has been rarely addressed quantitatively, especially from the inheritor’s perspective; this has posed a challenge to the theoretical validation of ICH inheritors. Therefore, in this study, we developed a scale for inheritors’ cognitions in the value of ICH, providing the basis for other scholars to conduct quantitative studies.

Literature Review

Related Definitions

In this study, there are two main objects that need to be defined. The first is defining the research object of this study, that is, the concept and scope of the inheritor. Second, this study seeks to determine what cognition is—that is, the inheritor’s cognition of ICH.

Definition of an ICH inheritor

For the ICH inheritor, UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003 pointed out that communities, groups, and individuals are the main carriers of the ICH, and they are required to participate in the confirmation of the ICH as well as the development and implementation of protective measures. It can be seen that, in the above concepts, the definition of the inheritor is not very specific or informative. For this reason, many countries have further defined the inheritors of ICH. In Japan, where the concept of ICH was first proposed, they called ICH “intangible cultural property” and those working in this industry “Living Human Treasures.” In Korea, the successor is recognized by the government. These successors often receive training arranged by the government, and qualifications can be obtained after passing the training assessment. The successors receive some financial support, and they are mainly responsible for ICH protection, publicity, training, and inheritance (Dronjić, 2017). Since Japan is a pioneer of ICH protection, Japan’s definition of the inheritor has influenced many countries. For example, South Africa also calls ICH a “human living treasure,” and the carriers of ICH are called custodians. However, in most countries, ICH is considered a community-owned property, and people who support themselves through ICH are called ICH practitioners (Aikawa-Faure, 2008).

According to the definition issued by the Chinese Ministry of Culture and Tourism in the Interim Measures for Recognition and Administration of Representative Successors for National Intangible Cultural Heritage Projects, the national-level ICH inheritor refers to a person who is certified by the State Council’s administrative department of culture and assumes the responsibility of inheriting and protecting a program on the national ICH list; this person should have recognized representativeness, authoritativeness, and influence while meeting the following three requirements: (a) having mastered or inherited a certain national-level ICH, (b) being recognized as representative and influential in a certain region or field, and (c) being actively involved in inheriting activities and training successor talents. Wang and Zheng (2008) argued that inheritors must integrate the ICH culture into modern life, abandon backwardness, and innovate. Pearce (2000) pointed out that ICH inheritors should better serve human civilization and adapt traditional culture to the current system rather than merely inherit a typical heritage.

In this study, we define an ICH inheritor according to the above definition as an individual who has mastered and inherited a certain ICH program above the county level; has been recognized as representative and influential in the field; has been engaged in ICH inheritance, innovation, and talent training; and has been certified as a representative inheritor by cultural departments above the county level.

In the developmental process of ICH tourism, ICH tourism products are mostly goods, foods, and performing arts (Fu et al., 2015). Therefore, in this study, we chose ICH programs in the categories of traditional crafts and performing arts that are most closely related to these tourism products.

Definition of cognition of the value of ICHs

Zeithaml (1988) analyzed value cognition from the perspective of value comparison and noted that customers comprehensively evaluate the utility of a product by comparing the cost of the product and the value gained. Sheth et al. (1991) defined the value cognition of a product from the customer’s perspective as the perceived utility gained by the customer from the product’s ability to awaken the customer’s curiosity, allow them to discover new things, and satisfy their desire for knowledge. Sweeney and Soutar (2001) argued that perceived value is the sum of all the benefits that a customer receives from a product.

According to the above definitions, we define value cognition as the comprehensive and overall judgment of an ICH inheritor about the value of an ICH program that he or she is undertaking.

Related Research on Cognition of the Value of ICHs

The Burra Charter was established as early as 1979 with subsequent amendments in 1981, 1988, and 1999. The Charter reflected the importance attached to the value of ICH. In the “Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage” adopted in 2003, the universal value of ICH is repeatedly mentioned; this convention calls on society to pay attention to the intangible value of heritage, such as aesthetics, history, science, and social value, among other values (Labadi, 2013). However, value cognition is different for different people, and therefore, some scholars have asserted that the research perspective may have an impact on the results of value cognition (Bortolotto, 2007). In addition, the methods of ICH value cognition research are also worth exploring, and a diversity of methods will be helpful for further research.

Dimensions of cognition of the value of ICHs

In the early days, the value of ICH was centered more on its outstanding universal value. People also realized that ICH is valuable in multiple ways. However, the existing research on the types of ICH is not detailed or sufficiently thorough. Throsby (2010) and Velthuis (2008) believe that the value of cultural heritage can be divided into simply economic value and cultural value. Economic value is almost universally acknowledged because it creates employment opportunities and provides employees with remuneration (Sotiriadis, 2017). The difference in economic value between different ICHs is just the difference in value. In the field of ICH tourism, the measurement of economic value relative to other intangible values is relatively simple. From a macro perspective, most of the literature is based on the perspective of industrial development, which is used to estimate the economic benefits brought directly or indirectly by the ICH industry (Jin, Xu, et al., 2017). The micro perspective mostly evaluates the economic value of ICH from the perspective of tourists. The main method used in this perspective is to estimate the value that tourists are willing to pay (Jin, Hu, et al., 2017; Kim et al, 2007). For the ICH inheritor, the measurement of economic value may depend more on the economic benefits one obtains in the job.

In terms of cultural values, Avrami et al. (2000) believe that cultural values include social values, historical values, aesthetic values, spiritual values, and symbolic values. Ahmad (2006) believes that cultural values include scientific values, aesthetic values, social values, and historical values. Xinhe (2018) believes that the artistic value of ICH is an important component of cultural value. Golinelli (2015) believes that ICH makes a certain contribution to human well-being, so it has a certain use value. In addition, ICH has many potential values due to human cognitive limitations. Because each researcher’s research object is different, it may lead to different results in the division of value types. In view of previous achievements, ICH can include social value (X. Y. Yang, 2018), historical value (Kwon, 2017; Suarez et al., 2016), aesthetic value (Howard, 2016; Lombardo et al., 2016), spiritual value (Davis et al., 2010; González, 2008), symbolic value (Zhang et al., 2008), educational value (Foster & Gilman, 2015), and scientific value (Gilman, 2015; Sedita, 2012). From the perspective of value measurement, cultural value is not the same as economic value, as economic value is easier to quantify, and cultural value is more qualitative (del Barrio et al., 2012). After all, artistic value, symbolic value, historical value, and spiritual value depend on personal value orientation, preferences, taste, cognition, and cultural consumption experience (Stigler & Becker, 1977).

Research perspectives of cognition of the value of ICHs

In the definition of ICH ownership by the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, the community, related groups, or specific individuals are the main owners of the ICH (Uriely et al., 2003). George (2010) believes that the ICH is shared by the community, and it should be owned by the community. Concepts such as “folklore,” “oral heritage,” “traditional culture,” “lifestyle,” and “ethnic culture” among others, must involve community involvement in the inheritance and protection of these ICHs (Kurin, 2004), the same as tourism development. However, for many traditional handicraft ICH projects, the tradition may be shared by many places or many people. However, certain skills are in the hands of individual people, especially some superb skills. How people judge the value of the project will lead to the survival of this project (Vrdoljak, 2005) and will eventually lead to the tragedy of “inheritors dying with their crafts.” Therefore, the research perspective should be different for different types of ICH.

According to the existing literature, the stakeholders involved in ICH tourism development mainly include governments (Yoshida, 2004), inheritors (Karjala & Paterson, 2003), residents (George, 2010), tourists (Rodzi et al., 2013), tourism developers (Nic Eoin & King, 2013), experts (Shi et al., 2016), civil society (George, 2010), media (Zhang et al., 2008), and others. From the conclusions or viewpoints of the research, different subjects have different perceptions of the value of ICH. For example, the government pays more attention to the social value and symbolic value of ICH (Bingham et al., 2005). The inheritors pay more attention to the spiritual value of ICH (Shi et al., 2016), while the general public and tourists pay more attention to the aesthetic and practical value of ICH (Kurin, 2004; B. Pan et al., 2007). Tourism developers are most concerned about the economic benefits of ICH (Lin, 2018), and civil society (nongovernmental organizations) is concerned about the protection and inheritance of ICH and advocating for the balance of economic and cultural values (George, 2010). The media are more interested in the social value of ICH. Of course, the media also provides very good marketing for ICH tourism. The media helps realize the economic value of ICH (S. Pan & Ryan, 2013; Zhang et al., 2008), and experts pay more attention to the social and economic value of ICH (B. Pan et al., 2007). In terms of the economic value of ICH, the developer pays the most attention among the many subjects. After all, the developer has invested capital in the tourism development process of ICH, as has the government, inheritors and tourists (Shi et al., 2016). Generally, for tourism development of ICH, different stakeholders have different judgments as to their value.

Research methods for cognition of the value of ICHs

The diversity of research methods helps increase the breadth and depth of research. In the field of ICH, case study methods are the most used. Scholars using case studies often focus on a specific type of ICH, and some scholars focus on a certain type of ICH. For example, Jin, Xu, et al. (2017) used Beijing Tongrentang Angong Niuhuang Wan as an example to construct an ICH value evaluation indicator system and evaluate the value of the ICH project, thereby helping people understand the value of traditional Chinese medicine. Additionally, Jin, Hu, et al. (2017) discussed the economic benefits brought by tourism development due to an ICH project. They used the “flower table” of Yongnian county, Hebei province as an example. Second, interviews are another of the main methods. For example, S.-K. Tan et al., (2018) took George Town and Melaka as a case study to discuss the role of the sense of loss, justice, and mission that constitutes the “combination of people and land” in promoting the community’s participation in the protection of ICH, and how the community inspires ICH to create more value. Again, quantitative methods have also been employed to study the value of ICH. Lee (2015) used conditional valuation to determine the benefits of the ICH Museum of Jeju Island in Korea, and used a spike model to examine the zero-sum response of respondents. In addition, there are other methods, such as multimedia semantic models (G. Tan et al., 2012), a method of 3D reconstruction (Hisatomi et al., 2009).

Research Methods

In the field of scale development, Churchill (1979; cited 19,031 times, Source: Google Scholar) has been widely adopted by scholars; the guidelines for the development of this research scale adopted the suggestions of Churchill (1979) and includes three steps. First, a questionnaire was designed, and the validity of the items was tested; second, the first-round data collection was performed. Based on this data collection, the items were modified, and reliability testing, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), item modification, and construction validity were conducted. Third, a second-round data collection was performed; based on this data collection, the scale was retested using reliability testing, EFA, and model fitness evaluation, the detail process is shown in supplementary material (available online).

Item Generation

Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework is the basis for generating items, and it provides a direction for the generation of items. Previous scholars have made diversified claims about the type of value of ICH, such as simple dichotomy (cultural value and economic value; Throsby, 2010; Velthuis, 2008). However, this division is too simple and general. There are also subdivisions of cultural values, but these divisions are based on the specific research objectives of researchers, such as scientific value, educational value, social value, and so on. Because the research objective of this study is traditional arts and performing arts ICH projects, scientific and educational value is not prominent in the process of tourism development. In previous research results, when ICH was developed for tourism, its value was more reflected in economic value (Jin, Hu, et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2007), social value (X. Y. Yang, 2018), aesthetic value (artistic value; Howard, 2016; Lombardo et al., 2016), historical value (Kwon, 2017; Suarez et al., 2016), spiritual value (entertainment value; Davis et al., 2010; González, 2008) and symbolic value (Zhang et al., 2008). We referenced the results of Aratani et al. (2000), Throsby (2010) and Velthuis (2008) in creating the theoretical framework of this study and divided the inheritors’ cognitions of the value of ICH into six dimensions: economic value, social value, aesthetic value, historical value, spiritual value, and symbolic value.

Item source

DeVellis (2016) proposed that the ideal number in the item bank of a scale should be five times the number of items in the final version of the scale (1.5 times that at least). To expand the item bank and generate more items, we extracted the items from the literature, relevant official documents or charters, and in-depth interviews (the interviewees’ information are shown in supplementary material, available online). A total of four questions were designed for the interview, and the design basis was based on the theoretical basis of previous work. Scheler believes that an individual’s emotional intentions directly affect his or her judgment of value (Yoshikawa, 2019). Therefore, the first interview question is, “Why do you want to learn ICH?” Husserlian believes that emotional experience will affect the value cognition of individuals (Yaegashi, 2019). Therefore, the second question is, “How do you evaluate the ICH you are engaged in?” von Hildebrand (1916) believes that the value cognition of individuals come from the sense of value they have gained, so the third interview question is, “What you get from this job?” Aristotle believes that individuals’ value cognition of objects comes from their rational judgment (Hamalainen, 2015), so the fourth question is, “How do you think about the future of ICH?” The researchers took a one-to-one approach and conducted in-depth interviews with each interviewee on the above issues. Then, the three authors conducted an independent text analysis of the interview content, excluding parts with different analysis results. Then, they extracted the corresponding keywords for the same part, merged the same or similar keywords, and finally integrated them into 31 items. In addition, 43 items were obtained from the existing literature, and 18 items were obtained from official documents and charters. The total number of the above items reached 92. To better reflect the original meaning of the item, we tried to retain the original expression when constructing the item bank as much as possible.

Content validity

In this study, the content validity of the item bank for the scale was examined using the expert consultation method. Experts were invited from different fields such as cultural studies, ICH study, and research methods, detail information are shown in supplementary material (available online).

First, the scale items were sent to seven experts for back-to-back review, and comments were solicited for the following aspects: (a) retaining the item, (b) retaining the item with a revised expression, (c) combining with other item(s), (d) adjusting the dimension of the item, (e) deleting the item, and (f) other operations. Second, after the feedback of the experts was collected, the first-round screening was performed by comprehensively considering the experts’ recommendations. Screening was conducted as follows: an item that is suggested for deletion by two or more experts will be deleted; an item that is suggested for adjustment on a dimension by two or more experts will be adjusted accordingly; items that are suggested for combination by two or more experts will be combined; whenever an expert suggests revising the item expression, the item will be revised accordingly. Ultimately, the screened items were collated, giving rise to the second-round item bank, with a total of 45 items.

Based on the results of the first-round screening, second-round comments were solicitated in various forms, such as on-site consultation, e-mail consultation, and telephone calls. Recommendations regarding the following aspects were sought: (a) retaining an item, (b) retaining an item with a revised expression, (c) combining with other item(s), (d) adjusting the dimension of an item, (e) deleting an item, and (f) other operations. After the experts’ feedback was collected, the second-round screening principle was determined as follows: an item that is suggested for deletion by two or more experts will be deleted; an item that suggested for adjustment on a dimension by two or more experts will be adjusted accordingly; items that are suggested for combination by two or more experts will be combined; whenever an expert proposes a revision to an item expression, the item will be revised accordingly. In the cases that an expert suggests deleting an item, combining two items, or adjusting the dimension of an item, the expert was contacted via telephone for further communication, and after the expert agreed, the item was retained. After collation, a preliminary scale, with a total of 35 items, was generated.

First Data Collection and Purification of Measures

Data collection

From September 8 to October 15, 2018, per a recommendation from the Chinese ICH Protection Association of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, we conducted a questionnaire survey on inheritors above the county level using the snowball sampling method. The questionnaire adopted a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). From 350 copies of the questionnaire that were distributed, 335 copies were recovered, of which 332 were valid questionnaires, with a recovery rate of 94.86%. Among the inheritors, 59.23% were men and 40.77% were women. The main age groups were 26 to 35 years (n = 43 or 12.95%), 36 to 45 years (n = 98 or 29.52%), 46 to 55 years (n = 111 or 33.43%), and 56 to 65 years (n = 59 or 17.77%). A majority of the respondents had a high school diploma (n = 135 or 40.66%) or college degree (n = 109 or 32.83%). The working experience of the respondents was between 11 and 25 years (n = 264 or 79.52%), and the personal monthly income was between 3,000 and 7,000 RMB (n = 245 or 73.80%).

Descriptive statistics

Using descriptive statistics, we examined the kurtosis and skewness of the data and the extreme values and missing values to determine whether the data are acceptable. In the recovered data, no missing values were present. The analysis of the items indicated that all the items were statistically significant at the level of .000, the correlations between items were all greater than .3, and the total correlation of the items was greater than .5. The internal consistency and reliability tests of the items indicated that the Cronbach’s α values were all greater than .7, with good internal consistency (Hair et al., 2010), indicating that the 35 items in six dimensions could be retained.

Exploratory factor analysis

The feasibility of factor analysis on the collected data was determined through the Kaisere–Meyere–Olkin (KMO) test and the Bartlett sphericity test. The KMO value was 0.919, and the Bartlett sphericity test was statistically significant at the level of 0.000, indicating that these data are suitable for further EFA. When performing EFA, we adopted the principal component analysis with the maximum variance rotation method and purified the items with the criteria of an eigenvalue greater than 1 or a factor load greater than 0.5 (Hair et al., 2010). Using these criteria, we repeatedly tested the 35 items in six dimensions until all items met the criteria and no additional items needed to be deleted. Through the EFA, eight items that did not meet the criteria and were excluded, and the remaining 27 items met the criteria, cumulatively explaining 70.299% of the variance (Table 1). To further verify the appropriateness of the six factors extracted through EFA, we performed a parallel analysis on the samples according to the recommendation of Thompson (2004), and the randomly ranked eigenvalue results of the parallel analysis were (1.5655, 1.4791, 1.4166, 1.3611, 1.3121, and 1.2670), in which the minimum eigenvalue of the factors extracted through EFA was 1.272; this value was higher than 1.2670, and thus, the six factors extracted through EFA were reasonable.

Table 1

Results of the Modified Exploratory Factory Analysis (n = 332)

Constructs/Items	Factor Loading	Eigenvalue	Total Variance	Interpretation Variance	Alpha
Factor 1: Historical value		10.064	12.129%	14.129	.877
Hi4: I think this ICH program is a reflection of and witness to historical development.	0.753
Hi3: This ICH program is a supplement to the deficiency of traditional historical records.	0.727
Hi6: I think this ICH program is a continuation of history and culture in the contemporary era.	0.717
Hi2: This ICH program is related to certain historical events or characters.	0.712
Hi1: This ICH program has a long history.	0.661
Hi5: I think this ICH program is the reflection of the cultural tradition of the community.	0.648
Factor 2: Economic value		2.904	13.565%	27.694	.898
Ec1: I think that the commercial development of this ICH program can bring some benefits to the inheritor.	0.838
Ec4: I think the development of this ICH program can generate economic income for the local area.	0.836
Ec3: I think that the protection of this ICH program can promote the employment of local people.	0.836
Ec2: I think this ICH program is a resource with commercial development value.	0.798
Ec5: I think the ICH program has certain economic value.	0.790
Factor 3: Symbolic value		1.735	13.055%	40.749	.891
Sy1: I think that this ICH program is a symbol that distinguishes this nation from other nations.	0.810
Sy3: I think this ICH program has a rich humanistic symbolic significance.	0.769
Sy5: I think this ICH program is a symbol of the prosperity and development of mass culture.	0.742
Sy4: I think this ICH program is a symbol of excellent culture.	0.737
Sy2: I think this ICH program is a symbol that distinguishes this region from other regions.	0.732
Factor 4: Social value		1.618	10.408%	51.157	.870
So5: I think this ICH program reflects cultural diversity.	0.806
So1: I think this ICH program has a certain cultural influence.	0.744
So7: I think this ICH program is an important achievement of human civilization.	0.742
So6: I think this ICH program can enhance local importance.	0.679
Factor 5: Aesthetic value		1.387	10.310%	61.466	.846
Es5: I think this ICH program is in line with the aesthetics of contemporary people.	0.778
Es6: I think this ICH program has entertainment value.	0.763
Es3: I think this ICH program can give people aesthetic enjoyment.	0.734
Es4: I think this ICH program is a cultural landscape.	0.721
Factor 6: Spiritual value		1.272	8.832%	70.30	.863
Sp3: I think this ICH program has a spiritual value.	0.848
Sp5: I think this ICH program has strengthened my feelings about this place.	0.802
Sp2: I think this ICH program reflects the spirit of the nation.	0.801
Kaisere–Meyere–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy					.919
Bartlett’s test of sphericity (significance level)					.000

Note: ICH = intangible cultural heritage.

Second Data Collection and Reanalysis of Measures

Data collection

From November 12 to December 29, we conducted the second data collection, in which a questionnaire survey was given to inheritors above the county level using the snowball method. However, 400 copies of the questionnaire were distributed; of these copies, 365 were retrieved (with 361 valid copies), with a recovery rate of 90.25%. Among the inheritor respondents, 62.04% were men and 37.96% were women, with the majority (66.48%) between 36 and 55 years (n = 240). The educational level of the respondents was stratified as follows: high school diploma (n = 107 or 29.64%), college degree (n = 128 or 35.46%), and bachelor’s degree (n = 78 or 21.61%). The work experience of the respondents was between 11 and 30 years (n = 302 or 83.66%), and the personal monthly income of the respondents was between 3,000 and 7,000 RMB (n = 277 or 76.73%).

Analysis method

First, we examined the collected data using descriptive analysis, and we did not find any extreme values or missing values. The kurtosis and skewness results showed that the data assumed a normal distribution, indicating that the data are suitable for further analyses.

Second, we examined the validity of the scale through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and tested the meaning and structure of latent variables. The scale was then modified and refined based on the CFA results to improve the applicability of the scale.

Finally, we assessed the model’s fitness based on the criteria recommended by Kline (2015), and Hair et al. (2010).

Confirmatory factor analysis

The model fit evaluation results showed that the chi-square (χ²) value was 656.405 (degrees of freedom [df] = 309, p < .000) and the χ²/df ratio was 2.124, which is lower than 3 and thus was in line with the criterion recommended by Kline (2015) and Hair et al. (2010). We also examined other indicators of model fitness, and the results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Results of the Model Fit Measures

Index	Absolute Fit Indexes				Incremental Fit Indexes
Index	χ²/df	GFI	SRMR	RMSEA	AGFI	NFI	RFI	CFI	IFI
Original value	2.124	0.878	0.0465	0.056	0.851	0.872	0.855	0.928	0.928
Modified value (six factors)	1.609	0.915	0.0397	0.041	0.894	0.908	0.894	0.963	0.963
One factor	5.504	0.695	0.0838	0.112	0.640	0.667	0.636	0.708	0.710
One second-order factor with six first-order factor	1.671	0.909	0.0463	0.043	0.890	0.901	0.890	0.957	0.953
Fitted value	<3.0	>0.9	<0.05	<0.05	>0.9	>0.9	>0.9	>0.9	>0.9

Note: GFI = goodness-of-fit index; df = degrees of freedom; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; AGFI = adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI = normed fit index; RFI = relative fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index. The bold values showed the target coefficient was good.

The model’s violation estimation, overall model fit, and the evaluation of internal structure fit indicated that the model needs modification to meet the rigorous standards. Therefore, we adopted the modified indexes (MIs) as the model correction method, with an MI value of 20 (Horng et al., 2013). The results of the analysis showed that the MI values of “Sy1” and “Sy2,” “Sy1” and “Es3,” “Hi6” and “Social,” and “Hi1” and “Hi2” were 84.669, 28.475, 21.935, and 26.178, respectively, and close correlations were present among the items. Therefore, some items needed to be excluded to make the model meet the strict standards.

The model fitness index is the basis for determining whether the model can be further used in data observation. The fit of the internal structure of the model can test the reliability of the measured indicators and that of latent variables while assessing the statistical significance level of the estimation parameters. According to Hair et al. (2010), the factor load of each item should be greater than 0.6, and the strict standards of the model are as follows: the combination reliability of latent variables should be greater than 0.7, and the average variance extracted (AVE) should be greater than 0.5. Additionally, the loose standards are as follows: the combination reliability of latent variables should be greater than 0.6, and the AVE should be greater than 0.36.

The fit results of CFA are shown in Table 2 (original value). All the fitness indicators reached the loose standards. In addition, two indicators, the comparative fit index (CFI) and relative fit index (RFI), were 0.9 or above, and the other indicators—adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and normed fit index (NFI)—reached 0.8 or above. The RMSEA value was 0.06 and reached the loose standard of 0.05, although it did not reach the strict standard of 0.08, while the root mean square residual value was 0.053, which was slightly above the strict standard of 0.05. The factor loadings of all items were above 0.6. After examining the MI, we found that the model still had room for modification. After comprehensively examining the MI value between the items and the factor load, we further checked the decrement of the χ² value after deleting an item and ultimately deleted the items Sy1 (This ICH program is a symbol that distinguishes this nation from other nations) and Hi2 (This ICH program is related to certain historical events or characters) from the scale. After the model modification, 25 items from six dimensions were retained, and the majority of model fit indicators reached the strict standards. After excluding the two items with higher correlations, the model fit was further improved: The χ² value was 418, 447 (df = 260, p < .000) with a χ²/df ratio of 1.609, which is lower than 3; GFI = 0.915, AGFI = 0.894, and RMSEA = 0.041, indicating that the fitness essentially reaches the strict standards (Figure 2). We further examined other model fitness indicators and found that, aside from RFI = 0.894 not reaching the strict standard of 0.9, all other indicators reached the strict standards, as shown in Table 2 (Modified value, SRMR = 0.0397, NFI = 0.908, CFI = 0.963, IFI = 0.963).

In this study, we assessed the internal consistency of the model by further examining the composite reliability (CR) values and AVE of each latent variable of the model. The results showed that the CR values of six latent variables were between 0.8 and 0.9, which are above the standard of 0.7 or above recommended by Hair et al. (2010), and the AVE values of the six latent variables were all greater than 0.5 and above the standard recommended by Hair et al. (2010). The factor loads of all items were above the recommended standard of 0.6, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results (n = 361)

Constructs/Items	Factor Loading	T	CR	AVE
Factor 1: Historical value			0.837	0.508
Hi4: I think this ICH program is a reflection of and witness to historical development.	0.774	11.658
Hi3: This ICH program is a supplement to the deficiency of traditional historical records.	0.674	10.530
Hi6: I think this ICH program is a continuation of history and culture in the contemporary era.	0.747	11.373
Hi1: This ICH program has a long history.	0.633
Hi5: I think this ICH program is a reflection of the cultural tradition of the community.	0.727	11.150
Factor 2: Economic value			0.827	0.559
Ec1: I think that the commercial development of this ICH program can bring some benefits to the inheritor.	0.756
Ec4: I think the development of this ICH program can generate economic income for the local area.	0.784	14.780
Ec3: I think that the protection of this ICH program can promote the employment of local people.	0.743	13.959
Ec2: I think this ICH program is a resource with commercial development value.	0.633	11.737
Ec5: I think the ICH program has economic value.	0.809	15.276
Factor 3: Symbolic value			0.8	0.502
Sy3: I think this ICH program has rich humanistic symbolic significance.	0.765	10.727
Sy5: I think this ICH program is a symbol of the prosperity and development of mass culture.	0.659	9.746
Sy4: I think this ICH program is a symbol of excellent culture.	0.786	10.876
Sy2: I think this ICH program is a symbol that distinguishes this region from other regions.	0.609
Factor 4: Social value			0.82	0.534
So5: I think this ICH program reflects cultural diversity.	0.753	12.009
So1: I think this ICH program has cultural influence.	0.675
So7: I think this ICH program is an important achievement of human civilization.	0.75	11.975
So6: I think this ICH program can enhance local influence.	0.741	11.858
Factor 5: Aesthetic value			0.848	0.582
Es5: I think this ICH program is in line with the aesthetics of contemporary people.	0.781	15.595
Es6: I think this ICH program has a certain entertainment value.	0.691	13.481
Es3: I think this ICH program can give people aesthetic enjoyment.	0.814	15.128
Es4: I think this ICH program is a cultural landscape.	0.761
Factor 6: Spiritual value			0.826	0.612
Sp3: I think this ICH program has spiritual value.	0.785	14.734
Sp5: I think this ICH program has strengthened my feelings about this place.	0.777	14.573
Sp2: I think this ICH program reflects the spirit of the nation.	0.785

Note: ICH = intangible cultural heritage; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Verification of Discriminant Validity and Target Coefficient

In this study, we tested the discriminant validity based on the square root of AVE and the Pearson correlation coefficient, and the results shown in Table 4 indicate that there were no issues with construct validity and discriminant validity for any dimension.

Table 4

Construct Inter Correlations (Calibration Sample, n = 361)

	AVE	Symbolic	Economic	Historical	Aesthetic	Spiritual	Social
Symbolic	.502	.709
Economic	.559	.507	.748
Historical	.508	.577	.546	.713
Aesthetic	.582	.531	.643	.591	.763
Spiritual	.612	.634	.610	.673	.687	.782
Social	.534	.479	.700	.578	.553	.585	.730

Note: AVE = average variance extracted. The bold values are the square root of AVE.

We compared the levels of model fit for the one-factor model, the six-factor correlation model, and the six-factor second-order model (Figure 1) to determine which model is more suitable for the data in this study. The target coefficient was calculated as the ratio of the χ² value of the first-order model with correlation over that of the second-order model, with a range of 0 to 1. It should be 0.7 or above; the closer the target coefficient is to 1, the less information the second-order model loses, and thus, the more the second-order model represents the first-order model. The target coefficient was 418.447/449.513 = 0.931, indicating that the second-order model is very suitable for substituting the first-order model. The indicators of the three models are shown in Table 2 (modified value, one factor, and one second-order factor with five first-order factors).

Figure 1

The Model of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Verification of Predictive Validity

To validate the predictive validity of the scale, we determined outcome variables related to value cognition (Khan & Rahman, 2016). Crompton and Kasser (2009) argued that value cognition is a part of and affects an individual’s self-identity. Verplanken and Holland (2002) maintained that value cognition may constitute an important part of an individual’s concept of self and thus help the individual establish an identity. Biddle et al. (1987) pointed out that an individual’s self-identity is a reflection of his beliefs, values, and attitudes. Van der Werff et al. (2013) investigated the relationship between value cognition and self-identity using the biosphere and the environment as subjects and found that value cognition positively influences self-identity and that self-identity plays a mediating role between value cognition and behavioral preference. Based on the above results, self-identity was used as the outcome variable, and the measures of self-identity were adapted from the exercise identity scale (Anderson & Cychosz, 1994, 1995; West et al., 2011), composed of three variables and nine items measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).

First, we conducted CFA to verify the consistency and discriminant validity of value cognition and self-identity. The results showed that, overall, the model fit met the strict criteria (χ²/df = 1.504, RMSEA = 0.037, CFI = 0.962, GFI = 0.896, AGFI = 0.873, SRMR = 0.0411), the CR value was between 0.800 and 0.905, the AVE value was between 0.502 and 0.733, and the square root of AVE was greater than the correlation coefficient between the respective variables. Therefore, the value cognition and self-identity of each variable showed consistency and discriminant validity.

Second, we adopted the structural equation model to test the impact of value cognition on self-identity. The results showed that overall, the model fit met the strict criteria (χ²/df = 1.520, RMSEA = 0.038, CFI = 0.959, GFI = 0.890, AGFI = 0.873, SRMR = 0.0490). The second-order coefficients of value cognition were as follows: spiritual value = 0.84; aesthetic value = 0.80; economic value = 0.78; historical value = 0.76; social value = 0.75; and symbolic value = 0.69. The second-order coefficients of self-identity were in the range of 0.73 to 0.89, the impact factor of value cognition on self-identity was 0.55, and all indicators reached the satisfactory statistical significance level (p = .000); the factor loading values of the items were in the range of 0.604 to 0.889, all reaching satisfactory statistical significance (p = .000), as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

The Structural Equation Model for Predictive Validity

Discussion and Conclusion

In this study, we aimed to develop a scale to measure ICH inheritors’ perception of ICH value. Based on the recommendations of Churchill (1979), the inheritors’ value cognition scale was divided into six dimensions, that is, economic value, social value, historical value, aesthetic value, spiritual value, and symbolic value. The results of this work are consistent with the findings reported by others (Aratani et al., 2000; Throsby, 2010; Velthuis, 2008) and with the theoretical framework used in this study. To ensure that enough items were included for screening, this research uses a literature review along with interviews and extraction of charters and documents to extract 92 items. After two rounds of expert validity verification and two rounds of data receipt and verification in addition to prediction validity verification, a set of value recognition scales consisting of six dimensions and 25 items was generated. In addition to being strict and standardized, the results are also reasonable.

The results for the verification of the relationship between value cognition and self-identity indicate that value cognition has a positive impact on self-identity. Empirical tests have evaluated the inference of Biddle et al. (1987) that self-identity is a reflection of value cognition. This result agrees with that of Verplanken and Holland (2002). The results of Verplanken and Holland (2002) also confirmed that value perception has a positive effect on self-concept, which then affects individual behavior. Meanwhile, this result is also consistent with the results of Van der Werff et al. (2013). In their research, the path coefficient of this relationship reached 0.68, and the explanatory power reached 46%, which has a high explanatory power. In this study, the path coefficient was 0.55, which is slightly lower than 0.68, and the explanatory power was 30%, which is also slightly lower than 46%, signifying moderate explanatory power. The reason for this difference may be that in the research of Van der Werff et al. (2013), value perception is first-order with only four items; self-identification is also first-order with only three items. In this study, value cognition and self-identification are second-order variables (value cognition has six dimensions, and self-identification has three dimensions). In general, the relationship between value cognition and self-identification in this study is consistent with previous research results, and value cognition variables have predictive validity.

In terms of predictive validity, spiritual value had the most profound impact on the value of ICH inheritors; this outcome is inconsistent with the conclusion that economic value is the most important part of ICH because it meets the requirements of people’s lives and has the greatest force in sustaining ICH development by some investigators (Lee, 2015; Wright & Eppink, 2016). Thus, inheritors’ perceptions of ICH value are more aligned with its spiritual aspect; this is also the reason that, despite great economic pressure, inheritors are still committed to ICH work. The aesthetic value had the second highest impact, with a greater weight than that of economic value, reflecting the inheritors’ aspirations for the aesthetics and artistic aspects of ICH programs.

The research results are also different from previous studies in regard to tourists. In previous studies, tourists’ cognition of value was more frequently calculated from the currency they are willing to pay (Jin, Hu, et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2007), which is a tangible value and easier to quantify. This research is measured from the perspective of the inheritor. In addition to the economic value, which is easy to quantify, many other values are more intangible, such as historical value and symbolic value, and are therefore difficult to quantify. Tourists measure the value of ICH based on their own experience, while the inheritor ‘s evaluation of ICH value is based on the contribution of ICH to society (of course, it also includes factors such as employment opportunities, economic benefits, social recognition, etc.). Hence, the evaluation of ICH value from the perspective of the inheritor is more comprehensive than that from the perspective of tourists.

Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications

Theoretical contributions

The results of this study provide a holistic evaluation system for the value of ICH. At present, there are still some disputes regarding ICH as a complete global framework for culture and values. For example, Hafstein (2018) argues that when people call festivals “intangible heritage” and protect them, they are actually intervening, and such interventions can lead to disturbing results. In other cases of ICH protection projects, the dispute over the value of ICH never stops. For example, does the concerned ICH project have artistic value? Is it truly endangered? Is there a complete protection plan (Labadi, 2013). Then, the overall evaluation of the value of ICH will help reduce this dispute and can provide a reference for the selection of ICH projects.

This study provides theoretical references for future scholars to further investigate related topics from the perspective of the inheritor. In previous research in other fields, we find that value cognition may have an effect on self-identity (Van der Werff et al., 2013; Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Does the inheritor’s ICH value perception also affect his self-identity? This question deserves further discussion. In addition, what are the antecedent variables of value cognition? What factors will affect the value cognition of the inheritor? As we all know, the individual’s value cognition will directly affect their behavioral intentions, so does the ICH value cognition of the inheritor also affect their behavioral intentions, such as willingness to inherit or willingness to participate in tourism development? This scale provides a measurement tool for similar studies.

Practical implications

This study provides a reference for managers to effectively manage inheritors. An inspection of the inheritors’ value cognition can provide much useful information, including their overall understanding of ICH and their demands in carrying out ICH inheritance work, which provides effective management information for the managers of ICH and facilitates the formulation of more detailed incentives and protection measures. For example, some ICH projects do not necessarily have a high value in people’s eyes or cannot be valued in contemporary times, such as local music, opera, and handicrafts (Howard, 2016). However, the inheritor, as the carrier of ICH, does not hold the same opinion. Therefore, management should listen more to the inheritor’s voice and pay attention to their concerns. Another example is that many inheritors are engaged in very meaningful work, but their remuneration is very low, which is highly inconsistent with their value cognition (Yu, 2015). How to change the status quo and protect inheritors’ enthusiasm is a problem that competent authorities should consider. In addition, in the process of cultivating inheritors, improving learners’ value cognition level is the greatest motivation in stimulating their learning. Only by effectively training ICH talent can heritage protection work be sustainable (Ott et al., 2015). In other words, the inheritor’s recognition of the value of ICH should be a key consideration for management when protecting and developing ICH.

The results of this study showcase the importance that developers attach to inheritors when developing ICH tourism. In the process of ICH tourism development, the participation of the inheritor is indispensable. Only when the inheritor has a positive evaluation of the value of the ICH project can ICH tourism development be successful. Therefore, developers must put the inheritor in the same position as tourists when developing ICH tourism. At the same time, the inheritors’ concerns about value may be multifaceted. Management should try their best to meet inheritors’ needs in various aspects and should fully mobilize their enthusiasm for participating in tourism development to ensure the sustainable development of ICH tourism.

The scale also has a good reference value for the training of ICH inheritors. It can be used to test the participants in training and to understand whether they are suitable for ICH or ICH tourism-related work; it can provide effective guidance on new participants in the education or training process. The inheritors can also use the scale to conduct a self-assessment as a reference when examining whether they are fit for the job.

Research Limitations and Future Research

In this study, we examined the inheritor’s perception on the value of ICH. However, this study still has certain limitations. We investigated inheritors in only some parts of China due to time and resource constraints, making it difficult to apply the results to other areas. Therefore, it is recommended that other researchers collect data from other countries and regions to test the reliability and validity of the scale, which will improve the scale’s applicability. There are many types of ICH. In this study, we only conducted a case study on traditional crafts and performing arts highly associated with tourism. In future studies, other types of ICH can be similarly investigated and compared with this study to optimize the scale. Moreover, value cognition is core to ICH inheritors; in future studies on ICH from the perspective of inheritors, value cognition should be used as an important dimension, for which the scale developed in this study provides a good tool.

Conclusion and Summary

Inheritors’ cognitions of the value of ICH will affect their attitudes and behaviors. For the purpose of promoting the sustainable development of ICH, this study developed a scale of value cognition of ICH from the perspective of the inheritor. The scale consists of six dimensions, namely economic value, social value, spiritual value, aesthetic value, historical value, and symbolic value. The aforementioned inheritors’ value cognition dimensions provide a diverse perspective for ICH projects evaluation. At the same time, the results show that the inheritors’ value cognition of ICH has a significant predictive effect on their self-identification. To this end, this study also has important implications for how to stimulate inheritors to participate in the protection of ICH. Looking forward to the follow-up study, the scale developed in this study has high reliability and validity, and can be used as an effective tool for related researches focusing on the ICH inheritors.

Supplemental Material

research_data_1 – Supplemental material for How Is Intangible Cultural Heritage Valued in the Eyes of Inheritors? Scale Development and Validation

Supplemental material, research_data_1 for How Is Intangible Cultural Heritage Valued in the Eyes of Inheritors? Scale Development and Validation by Xinwei Su, Xi Li, Yanbin Wu and Limei Yao in Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Xinwei Su

Xi Li

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Xinwei Su (e-mail: suxinwei01@126.com) is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of International Tourism and Management, City University of Macau. Xi Li (Corresponding author, e-mail: xli@cityu.edu.mo) is an associate professor at the Faculty of International Tourism and Management, City University of Macau. Yanbin Wu (e-mail: wuyanbin18@163.com) is a Lecturer at the School of Culinary Art and Hospitality Management, Hanshan Normal University. Limei Yao (e-mail: lmuylm@126.com) is an associate professor at the School of Tourism, Liming Vocational University.

References

Ahmad

(2006). The scope and definitions of heritage: From tangible to intangible. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 12(3), 292-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250600604639

Aikawa-Faure

(2008). From the proclamation of masterpieces to the convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. In Smith

Akagawa

(Eds.), Intangible heritage (pp. 27-58). Routledge.

Anderson

D. F.

Cychosz

C. M.

(1994). Development of an exercise identity scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78(3), 747-751. https://doi.org/10.1177/003151259407800313

Anderson

D. F.

Cychosz

C. M.

(1995). Exploration of the relationship between exercise behavior and exercise identity. Journal of Sport Behavior, 18(3), 159-166. https://doi.org/10.1037/t74647-000

Aratani

Osuka

Kim

Y. H.

Jeong

D. H.

Kim

(2000). Extremely long, discrete meso–meso-coupled porphyrin arrays. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 39(8), 1458-1462. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-3773(20000417)39:8%3C1458::AID-ANIE1458%3E3.0.CO;2-E

Avrami

Mason

de la Torre

(2000). Report on research. In Avrami

Mason

de la Torre

(Eds.), Values and heritage conservation: Research report (pp. 3-11). The Getty Conservation Institute.

Beardslee

(2016). Whom does heritage empower, and whom does it silence? Intangible cultural heritage at the Jemaa el Fnaa, Marrakech. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 22(2), 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2015.1037333

Biddle

B. J.

Bank

B. J.

Slavings

R. L.

(1987). Norms, preferences, identities and retention decisions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(4), 322-337. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786817

Bingham

L. B.

Nabatchi

O’Leary

(2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547-558. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00482.x

10.

Bortolotto

(2007). From objects to processes: UNESCO’S “Intangible Cultural Heritage.” Journal of Museum Ethnography, 19(March), 21-33. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40793837

11.

Churchill

G. A.

Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110

12.

Crompton

Kasser

(2009). Meeting environmental challenges: The role of human identity. https://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/meeting_environmental_challenges___the_role_of_human_identity.pdf

13.

Davis

Huang

H.-y.

Liu

W.-c.

(2010). Heritage, local communities and the safeguarding of “Spirit of Place” in Taiwan. Museum & Society, 8(2), 80-89. https://journals.le.ac.uk/ojs1/index.php/mas/article/view/155

14.

del Barrio

M. J.

Devesa

Herrero

L. C

. (2012). Evaluating intangible cultural heritage: The case of cultural festivals. City, Culture and Society, 3(4), 235-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2012.09.002

15.

DeVellis

R. F.

(2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Sage.

16.

Dronjić

(2017). An outline of the Republic of Korea’s intangible cultural heritage safeguarding framework. Etnološka istraživanja, 22, 9-24. https://hrcak.srce.hr/197953

17.

Foster

M. D.

Gilman

(2015). UNESCO on the ground: Local perspectives on intangible cultural heritage. Indiana University Press.

18.

Kim

Zhou

(2015). Staging the “authenticity” of intangible heritage from the production perspective: The case of craftsmanship museum cluster in Hangzhou, China. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 13(4), 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2014.983439

19.

George

E. W.

(2010). Intangible cultural heritage, ownership, copyrights, and tourism. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(4), 376-388. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081541

20.

Gilman

(2015). Demonic or cultural treasure? Local perspectives on Vimbuza, Intangible Cultural Heritage, and UNESCO in Malawi. Journal of Folklore Research: An International Journal of Folklore and Ethnomusicology, 52(2-3), 199-216. https://doi.org/10.2979/jfolkrese.52.2-3.199

21.

Golinelli

G. M.

(2015). Cultural heritage and value creation: Towards new pathways. Springer.

22.

González

M. V.

(2008). Intangible heritage tourism and identity. Tourism Management, 29(4), 807-810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.003

23.

Hafstein

V. T.

(2018). Intangible heritage as a festival; or, folklorization revisited. Journal of American Folklore, 131(520), 127-149. https://doi.org/10.5406/jamerfolk.131.520.0127

24.

Hair

Black

Babin

Anderson

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.

25.

Hamalainen

(2015). Aristotle on the cognition of value. Journal of Ancient Philosophy, 9(1), 88-114. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v9i1p88-114

26.

Hisatomi

Tomiyama

Katayama

Iwadate

(2009). Method of 3D reconstruction using graph cuts, and its application to preserving intangible cultural heritage [Conference session]. 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, ICCV Workshops, Kyoto, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCVW.2009.5457605

27.

Horng

J.-S.

M.-L.

Teng

C.-C.

Hsiao

H.-L.

Liu

C.-H.

(2013). Development and validation of the low-carbon literacy scale among practitioners in the Taiwanese tourism industry. Tourism Management, 35(April), 255-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.08.001

28.

Howard

(2016). Music as intangible cultural heritage: Policy, ideology, and practice in the preservation of East Asian traditions. Routledge.

29.

Jin

J. C.

Wang

J. X.

(2017). Estimation of the economic value of non-profit-seeking intangible cultural heritage of flower table lifting in China. Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech, 28(3), 3725-3728.

30.

Jin

S. Q.

L. B.

(2017). Understanding the value of Angong Niuhuang Wan Processing Technology of Beijing Tongrentang, China. Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech, 28(1), 228-230.

31.

Karjala

D. S.

Paterson

R. K.

(2003). Looking beyond intellectual property in resolving protection of intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 11, 633-670. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1438148

32.

Khan

Rahman

(2016). Retail brand experience: Scale development and validation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(5), 435-451. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2015-0943

33.

Kim

S. S.

Wong

K. K.

Cho

(2007). Assessing the economic value of a world heritage site and willingness-to-pay determinants: A case of Changdeok Palace. Tourism Management, 28(1), 317-322. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2015-0943

34.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

35.

Kolar

Zabkar

(2010). A consumer-based model of authenticity: An oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tourism Management, 31(5), 652-664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.010

36.

Kurin

(2004). Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention: A critical appraisal. Museum International, 56(1-2), 66-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00459.x

37.

Kwon

(2017). Villagers’ agency in the Intangible Cultural Heritage designation of a Korean village ritual. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(3), 200-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2016.1261920

38.

Labadi

(2013). UNESCO, cultural heritage, and outstanding universal value: Value-based analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions. Rowman & Littlefield.

39.

Lee

J. S.

(2015). Measuring the benefits of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Hall in Jeonju Korea: Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 16(2), 236-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2014.05.001

40.

Lenzerini

(2011). Intangible cultural heritage: The living culture of peoples. European Journal of International Law, 22(1), 101-120. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chr006

41.

(2012). Does intangible cultural heritage law resolve everything in China. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 7(4), 355-362. https://www.neliti.com/publications/28840/does-intangible-cultural-heritage-law-resolve-everything-in-china

42.

Lin

(2018). The accounting analysis of the intangible cultural heritage enterprises’ brand value: Take the Chinese medicine industry as an example. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 8(7), 1716-1731. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2018.87115

43.

Lombardo

Pizzo

Damiano

(2016). Safeguarding and accessing drama as intangible cultural heritage. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage, 9(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1145/2812814

44.

Nagaoka

(2011, November 27-December 2). Revitalization of Borobudur: Heritage tourism promotion and local community empowerment in cultural industries [Conference session]. ICOMOS 17th General Assembly, Paris, France.

45.

Nic Eoin

King

. (2013). How to develop intangible heritage: The case of Metolong Dam, Lesotho. World Archaeology, 45(4), 653-669. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2013.823885

46.

Ott

Dagnino

F. M.

Pozzi

(2015). Intangible cultural heritage: Towards collaborative planning of educational interventions. Computers in Human Behavior, 51(Pt. B), 1314-1319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.039

47.

Pan

MacLaurin

Crotts

J. C.

(2007). Travel blogs and the implications for destination marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507302378

48.

Pan

Ryan

(2013). Film-induced heritage site conservation: The case of echoes of the rainbow. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37(1), 125-150. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348011425497

49.

Pearce

S. M.

(2000). The making of cultural heritage. In Avrami

Mason

de la Torre

(Eds.), Values and heritage conservation: Research report (pp. 59-64). The Getty Conservation Institute.

50.

Pine

B. J.

II. Gilmore

J. H.

(1998, July-August). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1998/07/welcome-to-the-experience-economy

51.

Prayag

Hosany

Odeh

(2013). The role of tourists’ emotional experiences and satisfaction in understanding behavioral intentions. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(2), 118-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2013.05.001

52.

Rodzi

N. I. M.

Zaki

S. A.

Subli

S. M. H. S

. (2013). Between tourism and intangible cultural heritage. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 85(September), 411-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.370

53.

Sedita

S. R.

(2012). Leveraging the intangible cultural heritage: Novelty and innovation through exaptation. City, Culture and Society, 3(4), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2012.11.009

54.

Sheth

J. N.

Newman

B. I.

Gross

B. L.

(1991). Consumption values and market choices: Theory and applications. South-Western Publishing.

55.

Shi

Zhu

Yang

(2016). Applying semantic web and big data techniques to construct a balance model referring to stakeholders of tourism intangible cultural heritage. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 54(3), 192-200. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCAT.2016.10000522

56.

Smith

(2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge.

57.

Sotiriadis

(2017). Pairing intangible cultural heritage with tourism: The case of Mediterranean diet. Euromed Journal of Business, 12(3), 269-284. https://doi.org/10.1108/EMJB-07-2016-0019

58.

Stefano

M. L.

Davis

Corsane

(2014). Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage (Vol. 8). Boydell & Brewer.

59.

Stigler

G. J.

Becker

G. S.

(1977). De gustibus non est disputandum [There is no disputing about tastes]. American Economic Review, 67(2), 76-90. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/1807222

60.

Kang

(2019). A bibliometric analysis of research on intangible cultural heritage using CiteSpace. SAGE Open, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019840119

61.

Suarez

Alonso

Sendra

J. J.

(2016). Archaeoacoustics of intangible cultural heritage: The sound of the Maior Ecclesia of Cluny. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 19(May-June), 567-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2015.12.003

62.

Swanson

K. K.

Timothy

D. J.

(2012). Souvenirs: Icons of meaning, commercialization and commoditization. Tourism Management, 33(3), 489-499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.10.007

63.

Sweeney

J. C.

Soutar

G. N.

(2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0

64.

Tan

Hao

Liang

Lin

(2012). Research on construction method of multimedia semantic model for intangible cultural heritage. In Tan

Hao

Liang

Lin

(Eds.), Instrumentation, measurement, circuits and systems (pp. 923-930). Springer.

65.

Tan

S.-K.

Lim

H.-H.

Tan

S.-H.

Kok

Y.-S.

(2019). A cultural creativity framework for the sustainability of intangible cultural heritage. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348019886929

66.

Tan

S.-K.

Tan

S.-H.

Kok

Y.-S.

Choon

S.-W.

(2018). Sense of place and sustainability of intangible cultural heritage: The case of George Town and Melaka. Tourism Management, 67(August), 376-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.012

67.

Thompson

. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association.

68.

Throsby

(2010). The economics of cultural policy. Cambridge University Press.

69.

Uriely

Israeli

Reichel

(2003). Religious identity and residents’ attitudes toward heritage tourism development: The case of Nazareth. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 27(1), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348002238881

70.

Van der Werff

Steg

Keizer

. (2013). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34(June), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006

71.

Velthuis

(2008). Value and valuation in art and culture: Introduction and overview. In Hutter

Throsby

(Eds.), Beyond price: Value in culture, economics and the arts (pp. 1-22). Cambridge University Press.

72.

Verplanken

Holland

R. W.

(2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434-447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.434

73.

von Hildebrand

. (1916). Die Idee der sittlichen Handlung [The idea of Moral action]. Jahrbuch für Philosophie und Phänomenologische Forschung [Yearbook of Philosophy and Phenomenology], 3, 126-251.

74.

Vrdoljak

A. F.

(2005, May 26-28). Minorities, cultural rights and the protection of intangible cultural heritage [Conference session]. ESIL Research Forum on International Law, Conference on Contemporary Issues, Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266405740_Minorities_Cultural_Rights_and_the_Protection_of_Intangible_Cultural_Heritage/link/5769cc1508ae3bf53d332146/download

75.

Wang

Zheng

(2008, November 22-25). Development research of cultural creative industry based on the intangible cultural heritage in Hangzhou [Conference session]. The 2008 9th International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design and Conceptual Design. Kunming, China. https://doi.org/10.1109/CAIDCD.2008.4730802

76.

West

D. S.

Gorin

A. A.

Subak

L. L.

Foster

Bragg

Hecht

Wing

R. R.

(2011). A motivation-focused weight loss maintenance program is an effective alternative to a skill-based approach. International Journal of Obesity, 35(2), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2010.138

77.

Wright

W. C. C.

Eppink

F. V.

(2016). Drivers of heritage value: A meta-analysis of monetary valuation studies of cultural heritage. Ecological Economics, 130(October), 277-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.001

78.

Xinhe

(2018). The research on the current situation of inheritance of the folk dancing Gun Long Lian Xiang from the perspective of intangible cultural heritage. International Journal of Social Science Studies, 6(8), 16-21. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v6i8.3474

79.

Yaegashi

(2019). A Husserlian account of the affective cognition of value. In de Warren

Taguchi

(Eds.), New phenomenological studies in Japan: Contributions to phenomenology (Vol. 101, pp. 69-82). Springer.

80.

Yang

(2015). The pros and cons about the digital recording of intangible cultural heritage and some strategies. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, XL-5/W7, 461-464. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W7-461-2015

81.

Yang

X. Y.

(2018). Chinese traditional perceptions of the calendar year: Implications of Jieqi for contemporary product development and sustainability. Tourism Management, 64(February), 202-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.08.013

82.

Jiang

(2018). Authenticity and loyalty at heritage sites: The moderation effect of postmodern authenticity. Tourism Management, 67(August), 411-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.01.013

83.

Yoshida

(2004). The museum and the intangible cultural heritage. Museum International, 56(1-2), 108-112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00464.x

84.

Yoshikawa

(2019). Akrasia and practical rationality: A phenomenological approach. In Taguchi

de Warren

(Eds.), New phenomenological studies in Japan (pp. 1-15). Springer.

85.

(2015). A vernacular way of “safeguarding” intangible heritage: The fall and rise of rituals in Gouliang Miao village. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 21(10), 1016-1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2015.1048813

86.

Zeithaml

V. A.

(1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302

87.

Zhang

Tang

Shi

Liu

Wang

(2008). Chinese calligraphy and tourism: From cultural heritage to landscape symbol and media of the tourism industry. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(6), 529-548. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802475836

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.53 MB