Advertisement

Locals’ Motivations for Recreational Visits to Urban Cultural Heritage Sites: The Seyh Edebali Tomb, Bilecik, Turkey

  • Ayşe OkuyucuEmail author
  • Mehmet Somuncu
Conference paper
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Heritage sites are open to tourists and local residents alike. Heritage site areas are visited by different local, national, and international groups for different purposes. In tourism studies, the role of locals as service providers and impact receivers has often been considered. However, locals’ recreational use of heritage sites is rarely examined. In order to develop touristic products and provide services, it is also important to understand locals’ recreational motivations. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the locals’ motivations, experience with, and perceived value in visiting heritage sites. This work focuses on locals’ motivations for visiting, and patterns of visiting, the Seyh Edebali Tomb in Bilecik, Turkey. This site was chosen for study in part for convenience, as well as because it is a place used by both tourists and locals. Given the purpose of this research, this study employed qualitative research methods. The interview was conducted with 10 participants who are residents of the city of Bilecik. All the interviews were conducted at the Seyh Edebali Tomb. A semi-structured interview technique was used in the study. The interviews were conducted in June 2018. Content analysis and descriptive analysis were used to analyse the data. The study found that locals’ use of the tomb took various forms. Locals reported spending time at the tomb and its surroundings chatting with friends, praying, and viewing the natural and cultural landscape. Nine reasons for visiting emerged from the study results. Seeing the natural and cultural landscape, enjoying time with family and friends, fresh air, and worship are the main reasons why locals visit the Seyh Edebali Tomb. Many locals regarded the tomb not just as a tourist place but as a recreational place. The practical implications of the findings can guide management decisions at the Seyh Edebali Tomb.

Keywords

Heritage tourism Tourism and recreation Seyh Edebali Bilecik Turkey 

References

  1. Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 28–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almeida-García, F., Peláez-Fernández, M. Á., Balbuena-Vázquez, A., & Cortés-Macias, R. (2016). Residents’ perceptions of tourism development in Benalmádena (Spain). Tourism Management, 54, 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altunel, M., & Erkurt, B. (2015). Cultural tourism in Istanbul: The mediation effect of tourist experience and satisfaction on the relationship between involvement and recommendation intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4, 215–221.Google Scholar
  4. Andreu, L., Kozak, M., Avci, N., & Cifter, N. (2005). Market segmentation by motivations to travel. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 19(1), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v19n01_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayno, P. M., & Jani, D. (2016). Residents’ attitudes on the contribution of cultural tourism in Tanzania. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 16(1), 41–56.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2016.1211663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, L. L., Backman, K. F., & Chih Huang, Y. (2014). Creative tourism: A preliminary examination of creative tourists’ motivation, experience, perceived value and revisit intention. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality, 8(4), 401–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Egresi, I., & Kara, F. (2018). Residents’ attitudes to tourists visiting their mosques: A case study from Istanbul, Turkey. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 16(1), 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2016.1192182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jimura, T. (2011). The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities A case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa–mura, Japan. Tourism Management, 32, 288–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Krippendorf, J. (1987). The holidaymakers: Understanding the impact of leisure and travel. London: Heinemann-Butterworth.Google Scholar
  10. Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism: Economic, physical and social impacts. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
  11. Murdy, S., Alexander, M., & Bryce, D. (2018). What pulls ancestral tourists ‘home’? An analysis of ancestral tourist. Tourism Management, 64, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism A community approach. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  13. Özel, Ç. H., & Kozak, N. (2012). Motive based segmentation of the cultural tourism market: A study of Turkish domestic tourists. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 13(3), 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Özgür, E. M. (1994). Bilecik İlinde farklı karakterde iki şehir: Bilecik ve Bozüyük [Two different characteristic city in Bilecik Province: Bilecik and Bozüyük]. Ankara Üniversitesi Türkiye Coğrafyası Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi [Journal of Ankara University Research Center of Turkish Geography], 3, 179–193.Google Scholar
  15. Pitkänen, K., & Vepsäläinen, M. (2008). Foreseeing the future of second home Tourism: The Case of finnish media and policy discourse. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(19), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pizam, A. (1978). Tourism impacts: The social costs to the destination community as perceived by its residents. Journal of Travel Research, 16, 8–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Biran, A. (2005). Heritage site management motivations and expectations. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 162–178.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2005.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ramires, A., Brandãob, F., & Sousa, A. (2018). Motivation-based cluster analysis of international tourists visiting a World Heritage City: The case of Porto, Portugal. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Richards, G. (2018). Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 36, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rye, J. F. (2011). Conflicts and contestations. Rural populations perspectives on the second homes phenomenon. Journal of Rural Studies, 27, 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Su, M., & Wall, G. (2017). Residents’ recreational and social use of and perspectives on aWorld Heritage Site: Temple of Heaven, Beijing, China. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 15(1), 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Timothy, D., & Boyd, S. (2006). Heritage tourism in the 21st Century: Valued traditions and new perspectives. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(1), 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17438730608668462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. TSI. (2018). Turkey Statistical Institute. Retrieved March 12, 2018, from Turkey Statistical Institute: https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=95&locale=tr.
  24. Vuuren, C. V., & Slabbert, E. (2011). Travel motivations and behaviour of tourists to a south African resort. International Conference on Tourism & Management Studies. I, pp. 295–304. Algarve: Book of Proceedings I.Google Scholar
  25. Yeniakit. (2018). Yeniakit Newspaper. Retrieved May 10, 2018, from Yeniakit Newspaper: https://www.yeniakit.com.tr/kimdir/%C5%9Eeyh_Edebali.
  26. Zhang, X. N., Ryan, C., & Cave, J. (2016). Residents, their use of a tourist facility and contribution to tourist ambience: Narratives from a film tourism site in Beijing. Tourism Management, 52, 416–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Faculty of Sciences and ArtsBilecik Seyh Edebali UniversityBilecikTurkey
  2. 2.The Faculty of Languages, History and GeographyAnkara UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations