This article was downloaded by: [University of Alberta]On: 23 April 2015, At: 13:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Journal of Sustainable TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Communicating the World Heritagebrand: visitor awareness of UNESCO'sWorld Heritage symbol and theimplications for sites, stakeholders andsustainable managementLisa M. Kinga & Elizabeth A. Halpennyb

a Curtin Sarawak Research Institute, Curtin University Malaysia,Sarawak, Malaysiab Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University ofAlberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaPublished online: 16 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Lisa M. King & Elizabeth A. Halpenny (2014) Communicating the World Heritagebrand: visitor awareness of UNESCO's World Heritage symbol and the implications for sites,stakeholders and sustainable management, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22:5, 768-786, DOI:10.1080/09669582.2013.864660

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.864660

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

Communicating the World Heritage brand: visitor awareness of

UNESCO’s World Heritage symbol and the implications for sites,

stakeholders and sustainable management

Lisa M. Kinga* and Elizabeth A. Halpennyb

aCurtin Sarawak Research Institute, Curtin University Malaysia, Sarawak, Malaysia; bFaculty ofPhysical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

(Received 6 November 2011; accepted 27 August 2013)

The World Heritage (WH) brand signals property so irreplaceable that its values mustbe sustained intact in perpetuity. A primary function of the WH symbol, one elementof the WH brand, is to prompt positive visitor emotions and behaviors favored bymanagement agencies. This paper investigates if the symbol communicates anymessage to viewers. To determine visitor recognition and recall of the WH symboltested against a variety of variables, 1827 visitors to five WH sites in Queensland,Australia and 712 visitors to the WH part of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, USAwere surveyed. Sixty percent of visitors to the Queensland sites and 19% of visitors tothe Hawaii site were aware of the site’s WH status; 96% of Queensland site visitors,and 99% of Hawaii site visitors could not recall what the WH symbol represented.Park agencies appear to take a laissez-faire attitude to branding, have little interest orcapacity to brand properly or have strategically restricted usage of the WH brand tode-clutter their brand landscape. This limits opportunities to transmit to visitors andcommunities why WH properties should be valued and sustained, with significantimplications for the long-term sustainability of WH sites.

Keywords: World Heritage; brand identity; protected area logos; brand marks;Queensland, Australia; Hawaii Volcanoes National Park

Introduction

Branding plays a key role in the sustainability of protected areas (King, McCool,

Fredman, & Halpenny, 2012). The World Heritage (WH) brand signals to the public a

property so irreplaceable to humankind that its values must be sustained intact in

perpetuity for the benefit of future generations.

The WH brand has the potential to be used to promote sustainability. First, the main

function of the WH emblem, one element of the WH brand, is to prompt recognition and

recall of the brand and trigger the positive emotions and behaviors (Kotler & Gertner,

2002) in the visitor favored by management agencies. Positive actions and emotions are

an essential aspect of sustainable park visitation. Second, the WH brand has been used to

promote visitation to heritage sites, and if managed appropriately can result in positive

outcomes for the park and local populations (Drost, 1996; Pederson, 2002; Ryan &

Silvanto, 2009). As with other internationally recognized business-based ecolabels and

certifications for sustainable enterprises, WH properties conform to a UNESCO standard

certification of authenticity and quality. This standard promotes WH branding as a tool in

the advancement of more sustainable forms of tourism compared with more consumptive

*Corresponding author. Email: lisa.m.king@curtin.edu.my

� 2014 Taylor & Francis

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2014

Vol. 22, No. 5, 768–786, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.864660

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

activities such as gambling tourism or resort tourism. In short, the WH brand can play a

fundamental role in the sustainability of heritage sites and destinations (King et al., 2012).

Only properties inscribed on the WH List may display the WH name and emblem

(United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation [UNESCO] World Heri-

tage Centre, 2012). The WH emblem is often deemed too unwieldy for some applications,

for example, placement on road signs. In these instances, the WH symbol, which lacks the

encircling verbiage of the emblem, is the practical choice. See Figure 1.

The WH symbol is commonly displayed to identify a designated site. For example,

the symbol is found on directional street signage throughout the Historic Centre of Macau

in China and on entrance signage to the Head Smashed-In Buffalo Jump World Heritage

Site Interpretive Centre in Canada. Road signage approaching and within the Willandra

Lakes region and the Naracoorte section of the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites carries

the WH symbol. The symbol is the preferred design for the required WH plaque displayed

within listed properties. Additionally, the symbol is the preferred design for on-site artis-

tic endeavors and architectural elements such as etched glass, floor designs, metal doors

and as a design feature in many WH publications (King 2010a; Stolton, Dudley, &

Shadie, 2012).

To date, management agencies have assumed that the symbol is communicating the

WH values of the property to the public (Dewar, du Cros, & Li, 2012; King 2010a,

2010b, 2011). At a minimum, they presume the public understands that the symbol sig-

nals a WH site.

While UNESCO outlines the broad use of the emblem in the Operational Guidelines

for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO World Heritage

Centre, 2012), there are no guidelines for the use of the WH symbol. Fyall and Radic

(2006) and King (2010a) point out that the WH brand is often unevenly presented across

countries and even within sites managed by a single agency. Borges, Carbone, Bushell

and Jaeger (2011) suggest “the use of the WH emblem is not well done in many natural

World Heritage Sites” (p. 16). Ryan and Silvanto (2009) note that the skill and success

with which the WH brand is managed at international, national and site levels is difficult

to assess based on the paucity of relevant, useful data. Few studies have examined visitor

awareness and knowledge of the WH symbol.

Figure 1. The World Heritage emblem and the World Heritage symbol. Used with permissionfrom the UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 769

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

Using data from a large study designed to examine the use of the WH brand in mar-

keting and communicating to tourists, this paper reports whether the WH symbol is com-

municating the WH message to viewers inside five inscribed natural sites in Queensland,

Australia and in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park on Hawaii Island, USA. Specifically,

this paper reports on visitor recognition of the WH symbol and their ability to recall that

the symbol represents WH.

Literature review

Brand awareness and utility

To date, only limited empirical research on visitor awareness of the WH brand has been

published, with the majority of investigations focused on cultural sites. Dewar et al.

(2012), Hall and Piggin (2003), Hergesell (2006), Marcotte and Bourdeau (2006), Poria,

Reichel, and Cohen (2010), Reinius and Fredman (2007) and Yan and Morrison (2007)

all examined visitor awareness of the WH brand and its influence in the decision to visit

and concluded the brand exerts only a weak influence on travel plans. In a study linked to

this issue, King and Prideaux (2010) found a strong relationship between the influence of

the brand on travel plans and those who collect WH properties as a hobby.

Symbol awareness and use

The WH emblem has received much less research attention. Hergesell (2006) found that

only 6% of the 72 study participants inside Germany’s Elbe Valley (now delisted)

remembered having previously seen the WH emblem when shown the design. In a smaller

study with 55 participants, Poria et al. (2010) found that 10.2% of visitors to the Basilica

of the Annunciation in Nazareth, Nazareth, Israel, could recognize the emblem, while

only 6.5% of those interviewed correctly recalled its meaning.

To date, only one study has been published investigating visitor awareness of the WH

symbol. In a detailed study in the Historic City of Macau, Dewar et al. (2012) found that

24% of the 356 respondents correctly recalled what the WH symbol represented.

Brand names and brand marks

A brand’s identity usually consists of a brand name and brand mark (Aaker, 1991; Kotler,

1991). A brand name is what is spoken when individuals discuss the product or service

and may be categorized as individual names or a name of a group or family of products

(Kotler, Keller, Brady, Goodman, & Hansen, 2009). Effective brand names have positive

connotations, are protectable, distinctive, easy to remember, future-oriented, modular,

visual and meaningful (Wheeler, 2009). According to Wheeler (2009, p. 16), brand names

“communicate something about the essence of the brand.” World Heritage as a brand

name fulfills these requirements.

Brand marks usually consist of a graphic design, symbol or picture that includes dis-

tinctive lettering, colors or a combination of these elements (Healey, 2008; Schmidt &

Ludlow, 2002). The “job” of a brand mark is to serve as a memory trigger, to promote

recognition and recall in the mind of a viewer who is familiar with the brand (Schmidt &

Ludlow, 2002). It should communicate meaning to a viewer. Schmidt and Ludlow (2002)

argue these visual cues “can unite, motivate, signal change or continuity, appeal to the

emotions, trigger associations, bring order, differentiate and sell” (p. 32). A brand mark

770 L.M. King and E.A. Halpenny

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

does this job, using its minimal means, when viewed anytime 24 hours a day, 365 days a

year. As Keller (1993) comments, communication only occurs if the viewer recognizes

the brand mark, in this study the WH symbol, and has had sufficient prior experience

with the brand or its marketing campaign to recall what the brand mark represents. If the

viewer cannot recall what the brand mark represents, then no communication can take

place (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993) and the brand mark remains silent (King, 2010a).

Rossiter and Percy (1997) argue that brand awareness should be a universal commu-

nication objective for any management organization since an individual cannot form an

emotional attachment to a brand without it. The conceptualization of brand knowledge

used most widely in the literature is Keller’s (1993) model of brand knowledge (Schultz,

Barnes, Schultz, & Azzaro, 2009). Brand awareness consists of brand recognition and

brand recall (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). Brand recognition, according to Keller, is the

ability to confirm having previously seen the brand when given the brand as a cue. It is

only a superficial level of awareness. Brand awareness is developed by increasing the

familiarity of the brand with the visitor (Keller, 1993). The more a visitor sees, hears or

touches something that helps the individual repeatedly think about the brand, the greater

the likelihood the brand will become permanently placed in their long-term memory

(Keller, 1993). Brand recall is the ability to remember the brand when given the brand

category or some other type of memory cue (Keller, 1993).

In the case of the WH symbol, the meaning of the logo is not inherently apparent. Vis-

itors must be taught what the brand mark means by experiencing it linked prominently,

consistently and repeatedly with the WH brand name or other appropriate material (King,

2010b; King et al., 2012; Stolton et al., 2012). The more a visitor thinks about the WH

brand, the greater the likelihood the visitor will be able to recognize and recall the WH

brand and its elements, such as the WH symbol.

World Heritage as a brand

The WH brand was launched when UNESCO adopted the Convention Concerning the

Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972. The Convention aims to

identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit properties of outstanding universal value

to the entire world intact for the benefit of all future generations (UNESCO, 1972). The

WH List identifies the properties awarded WH status. Inscription on the List is the highest

honor a protected area can receive (Shackley, 1998) and signifies the best of the best

(Luly & Valentine, 1998) for the criterion under which they were awarded WH status.

Currently, there are 981 properties on the List (UNESCOWorld Heritage Centre, 2013a).

The brand’s values are largely based on the strict criteria set forth by the WH Com-

mittee (Hall & Piggin, 2003) and are linked to cultural and natural heritage conservation

worldwide. The brand’s cache has been successfully used to leverage financial support

from funding agencies and gain political support from governments and other entities

(PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007a, 2007b; Rebanks Consulting, 2009). The WH designa-

tion is increasingly used to attract tourist attention to heritage sites (e.g. Fredman, Friberg,

& Emmelin, 2007; King & Prideaux, 2010; Reinius & Fredman, 2007).

WH brand value for tourism

The brand a protected property possesses has the potential to significantly influence the

level of visitation to the property (e.g. Fredman et al., 2007; Reinius & Fredman, 2007;

Weiler & Siedl, 2004). However, many in the environmental field were reluctant to admit

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 771

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

that protected area designations were brands. Eagles and McCool (2000) were among the

first to suggest that these places actually possessed a brand identity. Tisdell and Wilson

(2001) moved toward accepting WH as a brand name, noting that “many regard the listing

as prestigious and believe that it acts as a signaling device like a brand name” (abstract,

para 1).

WH brand values stem from the qualities that each inscribed property possesses (Hall

& Piggin, 2003; Leask, 2006), the strict criteria that must be met to be placed on the List

and its potential for tourism (Drost, 1996; Fyall & Radic, 2006; Hall & Piggin, 2003;

Shackley, 1998; Tisdell, 2010). Based on its brand values, WH represents a “top brand”

(Buckley, 2002) or “elite brand” based on its prestigious brand values (Hall & Piggin,

2003) and potential value as a national tourism asset (Fyall & Radic, 2006; Hall & Piggin,

2003; Shackley, 1998; Timothy & Boyd, 2003). Today, WH is well recognized as an

international brand (Buckley, 2002; Dewar et al., 2012; Marcotte & Bourdeau, 2012;

Petr, 2009). However, brand recognition varies from country to county; Williams (2004)

notes “the vast majority of visitors to [U.S.] national parks have no idea that they are visit-

ing a World Heritage site” largely due to the lack of publicity about the brand (p. 413).

King (2013) identifies some of the constraints in conveying the WH brand to the public.

The World Heritage emblem

The WH brand is conveyed through the brand name World Heritage and its brand mark,

the WH emblem (see Figure 1). An emblem is a logo with the design interwoven with the

name of the organization. The elements of an emblem should never be isolated from one

another (Wheeler, 2009).

The WH emblem, according to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of

the World Heritage Convention represents the interdependence of cultural and natural

properties (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2012). The multiple messages the WH

emblem is to transmit to the viewer includes that the emblem

� is a symbol of protection;

� symbolizes the Convention;

� signifies adherence of State Parties to the Convention;

� identifies properties inscribed in the WH List;

� conveys information about the Convention to the public;

� represents the Convention’s credibility and prestige; and

� represents the universal values for which the Convention stands (UNESCO World

Heritage Centre, 2012).

This is a tremendous amount of information for the WH emblem to transmit in a short

period of time to anyone viewing the logo. Effectively conveying so much information

requires prominent, consistent and repeated exposure (King, 2010a, 2010b; King et al., 2012)

not only to the emblem but to all the information the emblem is charged with transmitting

along with sustained marketing efforts that connect the visitor emotionally with the brand.

The Operational Guidelines specify that the emblem should always include the encir-

cling text “WORLD HERITAGE. PATRIMOINE MONDIAL,” and proposes the third

phrase, “PATRIMONIO MUNDIAL” be translated into the national language of the State

Party (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2012). State parties are encouraged to allow

listed properties to make broad use of the emblem on letterheads, brochures, staff uni-

forms and other appropriate items (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2012). However,

772 L.M. King and E.A. Halpenny

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

neither the Operational Guidelines nor the UNESCO website makes any mention of the

appropriate use of the WH symbol.

The World Heritage symbol

The use of the WH symbol, the emblem stripped of the encircling WH words, presents

obvious communication challenges. See Figure 1. Abstract brand marks can be quite dis-

tinctive and thus recognizable; however, they may also lack the inherent meaning that

exists with a design inclusive of both the name and the brand mark (Keller, 2008). An

emblem stripped of its words is no longer an emblem but an abstract design requiring a

much higher level of marketing support to convey its message to the viewer (Wheeler,

2009).

Neither the literature nor UNESCO discriminated between the two brand marks (the

emblem and the symbol) until King (2010a) proposed two terms to differentiate the two

WH logos. Shortly thereafter, UNESCO made the decision to differentiate between the

two brand marks and settled on the name the WH symbol to represent the WH emblem

without the encircling phrases.

The aim of this study

The need for this study arose from observations that the WH symbol was seen frequently

on road signage throughout sections of the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage

Area in Australia; yet, from casual conversations with visitors and area residents, most

failed to remember seeing the brand mark. This led to questions about whether the symbol

was communicating the WH message, or any message, to its viewers. A study was devel-

oped to test that supposition.

The first objective was to determine if, after spending at least half an hour on-site, vis-

itors were aware that they were visiting a WH site. The percentage of visitors who can

recall they are inside a WH area is one indicator of the strength of the brand (King &

Prideaux, 2010). A follow-up question, asking respondents if they knew the park was

WH prior to their visit, would give some indication of how many visitors learnt that the

park was WH while on-site.

The second objective was to test if on-site visitors recognized the WH symbol without

a cue. Did the visitor remember seeing the brand somewhere prior to or during their visit?

The third objective was to determine if an on-site visitor could correctly recall from

memory what the symbol represented. Did the symbol communicate at least “World

Heritage” to the viewer?

The fourth objective was to examine how respondents who could recall and recognize

the WH symbol differed from those who could not, based on their responses to selected

variables that could have an impact on rates of recall and recognition. These variables

included frequency of WH site visits, knowledge about WH, observation of WH signage

at site, awareness that WH designation is the highest honor a protected area can achieve,

their education, level of international and domestic travel experience and whether they

were a domestic or an international tourist.

The study was part of a larger research project conducted within the five WH sites in

Queensland, Australia in 2008. In 2009–2010, the principal investigator (lead author)

wanted to determine if the WH symbol’s communication issues were similar in other

countries as well. Therefore, the research was expanded to include a well-known WH

area in the United States, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park located on Hawaii Island. In

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 773

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

2008, the Park was the only WH property in the Hawaiian Islands. Thus, this study exam-

ines visitor awareness of the WH symbol across two countries and six natural WH sites.

If the study determined that the WH symbol was not communicating any message to a

viewer, the research would raise awareness among agencies and international organizations

that current methods of conveying the WH brand were inadequate and provide data to jus-

tify channeling funds to rethink and retool their communication, signage or brand plans.

Methodology

Queensland study area overview

The Australian government was among the first 10 nations to ratify the WH Convention

and continues to vigorously support the WH concept (Commonwealth of Australia,

1996a). There are 19 WH sites in Australia (as of March 2013). Queensland contains five

listed sites. These sites play a major role in the promotion of not only the state’s tourism

image as a unique recreation and nature destination, but also in the promotion and expec-

tation of sustainable tourism development and activities, such as the encouragement of

environmental literacy and invasive species control. Over one-third of Australia’s

5,439,255 international visitors and 16,591,000 domestic visitors visited Queensland in

2011 (Tourism Research Australia, 2012). The top activity for international visitors in

Queensland in 2009 was visiting national/state parks while the top two activities for

domestic visitors were bushwalking/rainforest walks followed by visiting national/state

parks (Tourism Research Australia, 2010).

All five of Queensland’s WH areas were included in the study to provide a compre-

hensive snapshot of visitor awareness of the WH symbol across the state. The study loca-

tions were the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh), Fraser Island, the

Gondwana Rainforests of Australia, the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics of

Queensland. Detailed information about the sites and their outstanding universal values

can be found by visiting <http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/au>.

All WH properties in the state are managed on a day-to-day basis by the Queensland

Parks and Wildlife Service.

Survey sites focused on locations within each WH area with high visitor numbers. The

visitor survey site inside the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh) was the small

interpretive shelter at D Site. Lake McKenzie, Eli Creek and Central Station trailhead

areas were the data collection points for Fraser Island. The trail entrance near the Binna

Burra Lodge in the Binna Burra Section of Lamington National Park and the Natural

Arches Section of Springbrook National Parks were the visitor survey sites for the Gond-

wana Rainforests of Australia. The Green Island dock area was the survey point for visi-

tors within the Great Barrier Reef. The main trailhead inside the popular Mossman Gorge

Section of Daintree National Park was the survey site for the Wet Tropics of Queensland.

Hawaii study area overview

The first nation to ratify the WH Convention was the United States (US Department of

State, 2012). As of February 2013, there are 21 WH sites in the United States. The only

WH site in Hawaii in 2008, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, was inscribed onto the List

in 1987. In 2011, 7,423,697 visitors arrived in Hawaii (Hawaii Tourism Authority, 2013).

Approximately 1,352,000 million tourists visited Hawaii Volcanoes National Park

(National Park Service Office of Statistics, 2013), the most heavily visited park in the

state. Information about the park and its outstanding universal values can be found at

774 L.M. King and E.A. Halpenny

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

<http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/409>. The visitor survey site was the entrance to Nahuku

lava tube (formerly known as Thurston lava tube).

Survey instrument

The visitor survey instrument was informed by focus group data and then piloted and

refined. A copy of the instrument is available from the author by request. A pair of ques-

tions testing visitor recognition and recall of the WH symbol was placed on the first page

of the questionnaire. This page deliberately did not contain the phrase “World Heritage”;

thus, this question set was considered as unaided.

The first question tested respondent recognition of the WH symbol. The item pre-

sented a series of brand marks in a line across the questionnaire. A capital letter was

placed above each brand mark. The question above the letters asked the respondent to cir-

cle the letter of the logo(s) they recognized below. Immediately next to the question was a

sentence in bold letters asking respondents not to guess at an answer. The first brand mark

in the line was the McDonald’s�golden arches logo. This logo was placed first to help

respondents understand how to answer the question. It also provided a control element in

which to compare data from the second logo, the WH symbol. Additional logos were part

of the question, however, only the results for the WH symbol are presented here.

A second question tested if a respondent who indicated recognition of the WH symbol

could correctly recall what the symbol represented. This question tested if the symbol,

when viewed, communicated at the minimum the phrase “World Heritage” to the respon-

dent. Placed under the presented logos, the second question asked: “For the logos you do

recognize, please write the name of what they stand for in the space below. (Remember,

if you are not sure, please leave the line blank).” Lines were then provided under each

logo for the respondent to write their answer.

The second side of the page contained another question determining if a respondent

was aware they were visiting a WH area. This question was cued, using a categorical for-

mat and asked the respondent to “Please tick the term(s) you know apply to the area they

were visiting today. Please do not guess.” The choices included “National Park,” “WH

Area,” “Marine Park,” “State Park,” “Recreation Area” and “Conservation Area.”

A 5-point Likert scale item asked respondents to “strongly disagree” (1) through to

“strongly agree” (5) with the statement: “Obvious signage in the park made it clear to me

this place was a WHA.” Frequency of visits was measured using three categories: “This

is my first time here,” “two or more visits” and “I am a local and visit often.” Several

“yes/no” questions were also asked including “Are you aware that WH is the highest

honor any protected area can receive?” and “Were you aware that this place was a WH

area before your visit?” Respondents were asked to rate their level of international and

domestic travel experience and report whether they were a domestic or an international

tourist. A 7-point Likert scale gauged visitor self-rated knowledge of WH with “1” being

“not at all knowledgeable” and “7” being “extremely knowledgeable.” Finally, a categori-

cal question recorded respondents’ highest level of education ranged from “primary

school” to “PhD.” These latter two questions and level of domestic travel experience

were not asked in the Hawaii survey due to space constraints.

Survey distribution and statistical techniques

For the Australian study sites, surveys were conducted on a monthly basis within each

Australian WH area during a 4-month period between 1 April and 31 July 2008. The

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 775

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

study used a convenience sampling technique. Surveyors were trained in field methods by

the researcher. Surveyors approached every third visitor over the age of 18 years of age

and asked if they would participate in the survey when they were ready to leave. If the

visitor responded affirmatively, a clipboard with a questionnaire was handed to them

when they returned to the car park. A visitor had to have spent at least 30 minutes on-site

to participate in the study. A total of 1827 valid questionnaires were collected: 171 from

the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh); 466 from Fraser Island; 312 from the

Great Barrier Reef site; 599 from the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia and 279 from

the Wet Tropics of Queensland. The overall response rate was 54%.

In 2009–2010, a similar survey was conducted inside Hawaii Volcanoes National Park

with the same survey distribution methods and statistical techniques used. The primary

difference in the methodology was the expansion of the time frame to accommodate the

needs of the volunteer surveyors. Surveys were conducted between February 2009 and

August 2010. A total of 712 valid questionnaires were collected. The overall cumulative

response rate was approximately 58%.

Data analyses consisted of descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests for indepen-

dence. SPSS 15.0 was used to analyze the data. A Chi-square test for independence was

calculated to examine differences between those who recognized the WH symbol and

those who did not. A similar comparison was conducted for those who could recall versus

those who could not recall what the symbol represented. Pearson’s Chi-square coefficient

was used to identify statistically significant differences between these two groups when a

variable contained more than two categories and Yates’ continuity correction coefficient

when only two categories were present (i.e. 2 � 2 table). To examine effect size of signif-

icant differences between variables, phi coefficient was used to assess relationships

between variables with only two categories (2 � 2 tables) and Cramer’s V was used to

generate tests for relationships between variables with more than two categories (Pallant,

2007).

General field observations of signage

In addition to the visitor survey, general field observations on the presentation of the WH

symbol were made at each study location. Photographs were taken to document usage of

the WH symbol on-site and on nearby road signage. This information was then reviewed

to determine if the symbol was used prominently, consistently and repeatedly throughout

the site.

Results

Respondent profiles

Across Queensland’s WH sites, the majority of respondents were female (52.7%). Age

groups were split fairly evenly between those below 40 years of age (51.6%) and above

40 (48.4%) with the largest group being those 20–29 years old. See Table 1. More than

half of the respondents (56.7%) had taken some courses at the tertiary level or completed

a postgraduate degree. The largest employment group was “other” (40.7%) followed by

“professionals” (24%). First-time park visitors made up 64.9% (1181) of the respondents.

In comparison, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park data showed the majority of respond-

ents were female (53.1%). Approximately 44.6% (282) were under the age of 40 while

53.6% (284) were 40 years of age or older with the largest group of respondents being

776 L.M. King and E.A. Halpenny

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

those 50–59 years old. See Table 1. The largest employment group was “professionals”

with 33.6% (234) followed by “other” (31.6%). First-time park visitors comprised 88%

(618) of the survey respondents.

Awareness of World Heritage status and the World Heritage symbol

The first cued question consisted of a multiple-response item asking respondents to iden-

tify the category of protected area they were visiting by ticking one or more of the appro-

priate boxes. The choices were “National Park”, “WH Area”, “Marine Park”, “State

Park”, “Recreation Area” and “Conservation Area”. See Table 2. Sixty percent (1067) of

the 1827 Queensland respondents were aware that the site they were visiting was WH and

56% (1031) of the respondents knew the site was WH prior to their visit.

In comparison, of the 704 Hawaii Volcanoes National Park respondents, only 19%

knew they were visiting a WH site while only 13% were aware the park was WH prior to

their visit. See Table 3.

However, an uncued question regarding visitor recognition and recall of the WH sym-

bol revealed only 147 or 8% of the Queensland sample indicated that they recognized the

symbol after spending at least one half hour inside a Queensland WH site. See Table 2.

Table 1. Demographic profiles of Queensland and Hawaii respondents.

Study sitesQueensland Hawaii

Variable Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency

GenderFemale 52.7 943 53.1 372Male 47.3 847 46.9 328

Age (years)16–19 6.5 116 1.7 1120–29 28.6 507 22.5 14230–39 16.5 292 20.4 12940–49 13.9 247 15.1 9550–59 17.0 302 22.8 14460–69 12.8 227 14.6 92Over 70 4.7 84 2.9 18

EducationK-12 22.9 398 – –Tertiary to bachelors 61.4 1067 – –Graduate schoolþ 15.7 273 – –

OccupationStudent 14.3 254 10.2 71Professional 24.0 426 33.6 234Teacher 7.3 129 9.7 68Semi-retired/retired 13.7 243 14.8 103Other 40.7 775 31.6 220

Number of on-site visitsFirst time 64.9 1181 87.66 618Repeat 28.7 521 4.54 32Local and frequent 6.4 116 7.80 55

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 777

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

And only 5% (33) of the 712 Hawaii Volcanoes National Park respondents recognized the

symbol. See Table 3.

A second uncued question asked respondents to recall and write the name of the sym-

bol on a line underneath it. Thirty-three Queensland respondents who answered the recog-

nition question failed to reply to the visitor recall question. Correct answers were

identified as “World Heritage”, “UNESCO World Heritage” or “WH” in both countries.

Only 74 or 4% of Queensland respondents correctly identified the WH symbol. See

Table 2. In other words, 96% of the respondents could not recall what the WH symbol

represented. Again, in comparison, only six, or 0.8% of Hawaii Volcanoes National

Park respondents correctly recalled what the WH symbol represented. See Table 3. More

than 99% of the respondents could not recall what the WH symbol represented. Eight peo-

ple who answered the recognition question failed to respond to the recall part of the

question.

Recognition and recall of the World Heritage symbol tested against different variables

There were statistically significant differences between those who recognized the WH

symbol or recalled its meaning, and those who did not, based on a selection of variables

(Table 4–6). Variables with a probability value of .05 or lower demonstrated significant

differences between respondents who recognized or recalled the WH symbol and those

who did not. The effect size of this difference was reported when significant differences

were observed. All effect sizes were small to very small, suggesting a weak relationship

between each variable and respondents’ recall and recognition of the WH symbol. The

only variable that the groups did not significantly differ on, in both Hawaii and Queens-

land, was their agreement with the statement: “Obvious signage in the park made it clear

to me this place is a WHA”.

Participants in the Queensland survey demonstrated similar patterns of difference

regarding their recognition and recall of the WH symbol, when examined for relation-

ships between selected variables. Recall and recognition were more likely when the

Table 2. Awareness, recognition and recall of World Heritage status and symbol by Queenslandrespondents in valid%.

Variable N %

Aware site was World Heritage (cued) (N ¼ 1827) 1067 60Aware site was WH prior to visit (cued) (N ¼ 1791) 1031 56Recognized the WH symbol (N ¼ 1825) 147 8Correctly recalled what the WH symbol represents (N ¼ 1825) 74 4

Table 3. Awareness, recognition and recall of the World Heritage symbol for Hawaii VolcanoesNational Park respondents in valid%.

Variable N %

Aware site was World Heritage (cued) (N ¼ 704) 131 19Aware site was WH prior to visit (cued) (N ¼ 691) 91 13Recognized the WH symbol (N ¼ 712) 33 5Correctly recalled what the WH symbol represents (N ¼ 712) 6 0.8

778 L.M. King and E.A. Halpenny

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

respondent was aware that the park was a WH site prior to their visit and that the WH sta-

tus is the highest honor. Higher levels of education as well as international and travel

experiences in Australia were also observed among those who could recognize and recall

the WH symbol. More Australians than overseas visitors could recognize and recall the

WH symbol. Frequent local visitors were more likely to recognize and recall the WH

symbol than returning visitors and both groups were more likely to recognize and recall

than first-time visitors. This repeat visitation relationship may help explain visitor’s

awareness of WH status prior to the park visit. The strongest size effect was noted for

“self-rated knowledge of WH”. Individuals who rated their knowledge of WH more

highly, were more likely to recognize and recall the WH symbol.

Note: Effect sizes for 2 � 2 tables were determined by examining the phi coefficient

value. A value of �0.1 and <0.30 is considered a small effect size (Cohen, 1988); effect

sizes for tables � 2 � 3 were examined using Cramer’s V value. A value of �0.01 is con-

sidered small, medium �3.0, and large �5.0 (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2004; Pallant, 2007).

Scale values were recoded into dichotomous and three category variables; neutral

responses (3) were eliminated. Obvious signage was recoded into strongly disagree to dis-

agree ¼ 1 and agree to strongly agree ¼ 2. Self-rated knowledge about WH was recoded:

no knowledge at all (1) to very little (3) ¼ 1 and somewhat (5) to very knowledgeable

(7) ¼ 2. Education was recoded into primary school to high school ¼ 1, some tertiary to

bachelors ¼ 2 and graduate degrees ¼ 3.

Table 4. Recognition of World Heritage symbol with selected variables: Queensland WH siterespondents.

Variable N x2 df p phi Cramer’s V

First-time, return, frequent local visitor 1818 23.10 2 .00 – .11Aware site was WH prior to visit 1789 10.21 1 .00 .08 –Aware WH status is the highest honor 1758 9.33 1 .00 .07 –Australian vs. overseas visitor 1791 6.83 1 .01 .06 –Level of international travel experience 1751 4.43 1 .04 .05 –Level of Australian travel experience 1712 7.50 1 .01 .07 –Self-rated knowledge of WH 1241 13.86 1 .00 .10 –Obvious signage indicated WH 1216 1.91 1 .17 – –Education 1766 6.93 2 .03 – .06

Table 5. Recall of World Heritage symbol with selected variables: Queensland WH siterespondents.

Variable N x2 df p phi Cramer’s V

First-time, return, frequent local visitor 1181 19.78 2 .00 – .10Aware site was WH prior to visit 1791 9.10 1 .00 .07Aware WH status is the highest honor 1760 7.23 1 .01 .07Australian versus overseas visitor 1793 7.70 1 .01 .07Level of international travel experience 1753 4.32 1 .04 .05Level of Australian travel experience 1713 7.56 1 .01 .07Self-rated knowledge of WH 1419 13.34 1 .00 .10Obvious signage indicated WH 1217 1.51 1 .22 – –Education 1767 7.17 2 .03 .06

Note: See Table 4 for details on effect size measurement and variable measures.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 779

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

A similar analysis was conducted with the data from Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.

However, sample size constrained the number of tests that could be conducted. The num-

ber of respondents who could recall what the WH symbol represented (n ¼ 6) was too

small to conduct Chi-square tests for independence. Comparison of respondents who

could recognize against those who could not recognize the WH symbol is reported in

Table 6. Only one variable revealed significant differences between these two groups.

Individuals who were aware the Volcanoes National Park was a WH site prior to their

visit were more likely to recognize the WH symbol; however, the effect size of this rela-

tionship was very small. Visitors who were local and frequent, as well as those who knew

that WH status is the highest honor, were more experienced international travelers, and

were overseas tourists reported higher levels of WH symbol recognition; however, this

was not a statistically significant difference from those who were first-time visitors, did

not know that WH designation is the highest honor, were less experienced international

travelers and were domestic tourists.

Field observations of World Heritage signage within and across all study sites

General field observations of on-site signage and nearby road signage indicated that none

of the five study locations in Australia applied the WH brand name, emblem or symbol

prominently or consistently throughout the site or on external road signage. A report to the

Australian World Heritage Advisory Committee by King (2010b) documents the diverse

usage of the WH brand name, emblem and symbol presented within each of the five study

locations in 2008. The on-the-ground observations accurately reflected survey results.

A different situation was found in the United States. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park

did not include the WH symbol on any of its signage. Only the WH bronze plaque carried

the symbol. Use of the WH brand in general was minimal.

Discussion

The job of a brand mark is to trigger recognition and recall of the product or service and com-

municate a variety of messages to the viewer. At the very minimum, the brand mark should

transmit the name of the entity or evoke some sort positive emotional response when viewed

(Keller, 2008). However, nearly 96% of the 1827 survey participants in Queensland failed to

recall what the WH symbol represented. In Hawaii, over 99% of visitors to Hawaii Volca-

noes National Park could not recall what the WH symbol represented. In Queensland, 8%

claimed to recognize theWH symbol, while in Hawaii only 5% recognized it.

Table 6. Recognition of World Heritage symbol with selected variables: Hawaii VolcanoesNational Park WH site respondents.

Variable N x2 df p phi Cramer’s V

First-time, return, frequent local visitor 705 1.32 2 .52 – –Aware site was WH prior to visit 691 4.80 1 .03 .09Aware WH status is the highest honor 641 1.67 1 .20 – –US versus overseas visitor 698 .20 1 .90 – –Level of international travel experience 687 .66 1 .41 – –Obvious signage indicated WH 652 .20 1 .89 – –

Note: See Table 4 for details on effect size measurement and variable measures. Education, self-rated WHknowledge and travel experience in the United States was not measured in the Hawaii Volcanoes National Parksurvey.

780 L.M. King and E.A. Halpenny

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

In comparison, the study conducted by Dewar et al. (2012) found that nearly 24% of the

356 surveyed visitors to the Historic City of Macau recognized the WH symbol. This notable

difference may be due to the fact that the symbol is prominently, consistently and repeatedly

displayed on the numerous street signs within the Historic City of Macau, a requirement to

help transfer the logo into a visitor’s long-term memory (King, 2010a; King et al., 2012). All

six sites in Queensland displayed the symbol quite erratically while in the United States, the

symbol was only found in one location inside Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.

The variable data shows that knowledge of the site’s status prior to the park visit, level

of international or domestic travel experience, awareness that WH designation is the high-

est honor a heritage site can achieve and domestic versus international traveler status had

little bearing on visitors’ recognition or recall of what the symbol represents. If respond-

ents had a higher self-rated awareness of WH, were highly educated or had visited the

site previously, then this effect on recall and recognition was slightly higher, but still

small. It appears few people know about WH, or at least its visual identity. This is not

such an unexpected finding even though WH was launched over 40 years ago in both Aus-

tralia and the United States.

In Australia, the lack of adequate presentation of the WH brand has been commented

on for at least 16 years. As early as 1996, experts pointed out that the presentation of

World Heritage, including signage and the WH emblem, varied in Australia from site to

site and that there was little uniformity in the WH material presented to the visitor

(Commonwealth of Australia, 1996b). Presentation of the WH brand within the Queens-

land study sites was found to be highly erratic. The Parliament of Australia’s House of

Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts [SCERA],

in 1996, noted while visiting WH sites that there was a lack of WH signage. This was still

largely the situation in Queensland in 2008 and may reflect a lingering attitude by state

management agencies that the Australian Federal government does not provide adequate

funding to support the obligations placed on them by the Convention to appropriately

present WH (see Commonwealth of Australia, 1996b, Chapter 6, Sections 6.46–6.50).

The United States, in contrast, removed itself from active participation in the WH pro-

gram for a number of years due to a variety of political issues including site sovereignty.

Realizing that few Americans were familiar with the WH concept, Williams (2004)

wrote: “there is an urgent need for increased public education on the meaning and impli-

cations of WH designation” (p. 415). In a surprising move during the later part of the

George W. Bush presidency, the United States resumed active participation in the WH

program. However, the legacy of minimal emphasis regarding the brand was still evident

in Hawaii in 2009–2010. Signage across Hawaii Volcanoes National Park still barely

mentioned that the park was WH, though the required bronze plaque was quite promi-

nently displayed in front of the visitor center.

Many park managers may have assumed the symbol was triggering preferred responsi-

ble behaviors and “warm and fuzzy” feelings about WH in the visitor’s mind when viewed.

As protected area personnel often have little training (Larderel, 2002) or interest in market-

ing or branding (Eagles & McCool, 2000), these agencies sometimes simply do not realize

when their brand marks fail to “speak” to some of their most important constituencies.

In other instances, many protected area management agencies have plainly taken a

laissez faire attitude toward managing their brands. These agencies have assumed that

visitors were aware of what the WH brand represents, and that the brand mark is commu-

nicating to the viewer (King, 2010a). These assumptions have led to missed opportunities

toward achieving the goals and objectives of protected area agencies and destination

marketers.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 781

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

In general, the lack of public awareness concerning the WH symbol hinders the devel-

opment of greater visitor and community appreciation of the concept of WH and of the

natural and cultural outstanding universal values of individual sites. The situation also

limits opportunities to transmit to visitors and communities why WH properties should be

valued and sustained. Thus, these finding have significant implications for the long-term

sustainability of protected areas.

A third reason for visitors’ failure to recognize the WH symbol could be the result of a

strategic choice, by destination managers, to de-clutter the brand landscape. For example,

a recent review of WH brand use in Alberta, Canada revealed regional destination mar-

keting organizations have consciously downplayed the appearance of the WH brand

markers in favor of a unified, consistent provincial travel brand (Travel Alberta, personal

communications, 25 June 2011). This may reflect the strength of local political pressures

as against the weak and distant pressure of UNESCO.

In conclusion, UNESCO has allowed State Parties to develop and implement their

own WH brand plans, leading to a highly irregular presentation of the WH brand world-

wide. In the future, UNESCO might wish to formalize further how State Parties handle

the branding of their designated sites.

Limitations

As with any study, there were limitations to the methodology. The study was conducted

only within Queensland’s five WH areas and one WH area in the United States. There-

fore, the results should be generalized with caution to other WH sites. While the study

periods included a low and peak season at each site, results may not accurately reflect

visitor demographics on an annualized basis. Poor weather conditions limited the num-

ber of questionnaires collected in the Wet Tropics of Queensland and the Great Barrier

Reef. Additionally, the number of visitors at the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riv-

ersleigh) D Site over the four-month period was substantially lower than previously

published government figures indicated and this is reflected in the small number of

questionnaires collected on-site. At the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park location, the

study time frame was expanded to allow for the limited volunteer time available to col-

lect an adequate number of questionnaires. Large commercial tour groups were not tar-

geted at any site as they rarely had time to complete the entire questionnaire. Only

those visitors who could read English were surveyed. Last, there will be some degree

of social bias in the data.

Conclusions

Management agencies have assumed that placement of the WH symbol on road and inter-

pretive signage succinctly transmitted WH messages or at least the WH brand to the

viewer. The key finding from this study of six WH sites within two countries comprising

a total of 2539 respondents is that the WH symbol is failing to communicate any message

to the overwhelming majority of park visitors. Using Chi-square, a number of variables

were tested against visitor recognition and recall of the symbol. None of the variables

showed a strong influence.

Management agencies have either taken a laissez-faire attitude towards WH branding,

or made a strategic choice to forgo the WH brand mark in favor of promoting other local

brands, or do not have the training or budget to effectively transmit the symbol and its

meanings to the public. As logos are a proven method to convey succinct messages to an

782 L.M. King and E.A. Halpenny

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

aware viewer using minimal space, it is beneficial to the goals of park managers, market-

ers and other constituencies to better familiarize the public with the WH symbol through

a variety of well-recognized branding strategies. There is a plethora of literature on strate-

gic branding. However, a strategy which includes the development and implementation of

a visual identity guide and a brand plan that incorporates prominent, consistent and

repeated use of the WH emblem along with key points regarding the WH concept that

engages the visitor’s emotions is a good start.

The WH symbol in Queensland and Hawaii is currently unable to do its job and is

largely silent when viewed. Its placement on road signage, publications and interpretive

signage does little more than take up space.

Future research

Brand identity, the outward expression of a brand including its name, visual appearance

and communication, reflects how the owner wants the consumer to perceive the brand. In

contrast, the brand image is the consumer’s picture of a brand (Neumeier, 2004). Seeking

to bridge the gap between brand image and identity is something a brand owner will want

to address. In the case of WH this needs further investigation.

Future studies should be conducted to investigate the level of presentation of the WH

symbol and emblem at other WH sites and what visitors actually learn about WH during

a site visit. The various dimensions of brand equity associated with WH among significant

visitor variables should also be explored. Additionally, how WH is marketed within a par-

ticular destination, as well as at the national and international level should be examined.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a joint PhD scholarship between James Cook University, Cairns andthe Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC). The authors would also like tothank Ted Brattstrom and Lyn Hogan for comments on the draft.

Notes on contributors

Lisa M. King holds a PhD degree in tourism (James Cook University, Queensland, Australia), anMA degree in ecotourism (James Cook University, Queensland, Australia), an MEd degree in cur-riculum and instruction (University of Hawaii, Hilo, HI) and a BSc degree in marine biology (Uni-versity of Texas, Austin, TX). She is a member of the IUCN Tourism and Protected AreasSpecialist Group. Lisa currently conducts research in protected area marketing, the presentation ofWH sites and the relationship between WH certification and tourism development. She is based atCurtin Sarawak Research Institute, part of Curtin University, Sarawak, Malaysia. Current projectsinclude investigating visitor knowledge of UNESCO protected area brands and the impacts of com-munity-based natural resource management programs in Asia.

Elizabeth A. Halpenny has a PhD degree in recreation and leisure studies (University of Waterloo,Waterloo, Canada), an MES degree in environmental studies (York University, Toronto, Canada),and a BA degree in geography (Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada). She teaches andconducts research in tourism, marketing, and protected areas management, based at the Universityof Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Elizabeth’s research focuses on individual’s interactions with natureenvironments, attachments to place, tourism experience and environmental stewardship. Currentprojects include (1) nature-based volunteerism, (2) the effect of mobile digital technologies ontourists’ visitation experiences, (3) individual’s attitudes toward and use of natural areas and (4) therelationship between WH designation and tourism development.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 783

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

References

Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. San Fran-cisco, CA: Free Press.

Borges, M.A., Carbone, G., Bushell, R., & Jaeger, T. (2011). Sustainable tourism and natural WorldHeritage – priorities for action. Gland: International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Buckley, R. (2002).World Heritage icon value: Contribution of World Heritage branding to naturetourism. Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission.

Cohen, J.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Commonwealth of Australia. (1996a). Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives StandingCommittee for environment and heritage. Managing Australia’s World Heritage (Parliamentarypaper 193/96, Chapter 3). Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=environ/whaing/whirpt/chap3.htm

Commonwealth of Australia. (1996b). Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives StandingCommittee for environment and heritage. Managing Australia’s World Heritage (Parliamentarypaper 193/96, Chapter 6). Retrieved from http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=environ/whainq/whirpt/chap6.htm

Dewar, K., du Cros, H., & Li, W. (2012). The search for World Heritage brand awareness beyondthe iconic heritage: A case study of the Historic Centre of Macao. Journal of Heritage Tourism,7(4) 323–339.

Drost, A. (1996). Developing sustainable tourism for World Heritage sites. Annals of TourismResearch, 23(2), 479–492.

Eagles, P., & McCool, S. (2000). Tourism to national parks and protected areas: Planning andmanagement. Wallingford: CABI.

Fredman, P., Friberg, L., & Emmelin, L. (2007). Increased visitation from national park designa-tion. Current Issues in Tourism, 10(1), 87–95.

Fyall, A., & Radic, T. (2006). The future market for World Heritage sites. In A. Leask & A. Fyall(Eds.).Managing World Heritage sites (pp. 160–175). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Gravetter, F.J., & Wallnau, L.B. (2004). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (6th ed.). Belmont,CA: Wadsworth.

Hall, M., & Piggin, R. (2003). World Heritage sites: Managing the brand. In A. Fyall, B. Garod, &A. Leask (Eds.). Managing visitor attractions: New directions (pp. 203–219). Oxford: Butter-worth-Heinemann.

Hawaii Tourism Authority. (2013). Arrivals by air. 2011 monthly highlights revised. Retrieved fromhttp://www.hawaiitourismauthority.org/research/reports/annual-visitor-research/

Healey, M. (2008).What is branding? Hove: RotoVision.Hergesell, A. (2006). Influence of the World Heritage certification on destination choice (Master’s

thesis). Bournemouth University, Bournemouth.Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Jour-

nal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.Keller, K. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity

(3rd ed.). New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India.King, L. (2010a). Communicating the World Heritage brand in Australia: A general overview of

brand usage across Australia’s World Heritage areas. Report prepared for the AustralianWorld Heritage Advisory Committee, 1 August 2010, 2nd draft. Cairns: James CookUniversity.

King, L. (2010b). Communicating the World Heritage brand: A general overview of some issuesand considerations regarding use of the World Heritage emblem. Report prepared for the Aus-tralian World Heritage Advisory Committee, 16 October 2010. Cairns: James Cook University.

King, L. (2011). Investigating the role of the World Heritage brand in attracting visitors to pro-tected areas in Queensland, Australia (Unpublished PhD thesis). James Cook University,Cairns.

King, L. (2013). Communicating the World Heritage brand: Building appreciation andcommitment to the World Heritage concept. In P. Figgis, A. Leverington, R. Mackay,A. Maclean, & P. Valentine (Eds.). Keeping the outstanding exceptional: The future of WorldHeritage in Australia (pp. 192–197). Sydney: Australian Committee for the IUCN.

784 L.M. King and E.A. Halpenny

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

King, L., McCool, S., Fredman, P., & Halpenny, E. (2012). Protected area branding strategies toincrease stewardship among park constituencies. Parks: The International Journal of ProtectedAreas and Conservation, 18(2): 54–63.

King, L., & Prideaux, B. (2010). Special interest tourists collecting destinations and places: An Aus-tralian World Heritage case study. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 16(3), 235–247.

Kotler, P. (1991). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kotler, P., & Gertner, D. (2002). Country as brand, product, and beyond: A place marketing andbrand management perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 9(4–5), 249–261.

Kotler, P., Keller, K., Brady, M., Goodman, M., & Hansen, T. (2009). Marketing management.Harlow: Pearson Education.

Larderel, J. (2002). Foreword. In A. Pederson (Ed.): Managing tourism at World Heritage sites: Apractical manual for World Heritage site managers (pp. 5). World Heritage Manuals, No. 1.Gland: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Leask, A. (2006). World heritage site designation. In A. Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.). Managing WorldHeritage sites (pp. 6–19). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Luly, G., & Valentine, P. (1998). On the outstanding universal value of the Australian Fossil Mam-mal Sites (Riversleigh/Naracoorte) World Heritage area: A report to the World Heritage Unit,DEST. Townsville: School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James CookUniversity.

Marcotte, P., & Bourdeau, L. (2006). Tourists’ knowledge of the UNESCO designation of WorldHeritage sites: The case of visitors to Quebec City. International Journal of Arts Management,8(2), 4–13.

Marcotte, P., & Bourdeau, L. (2012). Is the World Heritage label used as a promotional argumentfor sustainable tourism? Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Develop-ment, 2(1), 80–91.

National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office. (2013). Park reports. Annual Park RecreationVisitation. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (1904-Last Calendar Year). Retrieved fromhttps://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/Park%20Specific%20Reports/Annual%20Park%20Recreation%20Visitation%20(1904%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)?Park=HAVO

Neumeier, M. (2004). The dictionary of brand. New York, NY: AIGA Center for Brand Experience.Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for win-

dows (3rd ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.Pederson, A. (2002).Managing tourism at World Heritage sites: A practical manual for World Her-

itage site managers. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.Petr, C. (2009). Fame is not always a positive asset for heritage equity: Some clues from buying

intentions of national tourists. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 26, 1–18.Poria, Y., Reichel, A., & Cohen, R. (2010). World Heritage Site – is it an effective brand name? A

case study of a religious Heritage Site. Journal of Travel Research, 50(5), 482–495.PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2007a). The costs and benefits of World Heritage site status in the UK –

case studies. London: UK Department for Culture, Media, and Sport.PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2007b). The costs and benefits of UK World Heritage site status – a liter-

ature review for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. London: UK Department ofCulture, Media, and Sport.

Rebanks Consulting. (2009). World heritage status: Is there opportunity for economic gain? LakeDistrict World Heritage Project. Kendal: Lake District World Heritage Project.

Reinius, S., & Fredman, P. (2007). Protected areas as attractions. Annals of Tourism Research,34(4), 839–854.

Rossiter, J., & Percy, L. (1997). Advertising communications and promotion management. SanFrancisco, CA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Ryan, J., & Silvanto, S. (2009). The World Heritage list: The making and management of a brand.Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 5(4), 290–300.

Schmidt, K., & Ludlow, C. (2002). Inclusive branding: The why and how of a holistic approach tobrands. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schultz, D., Barnes, B., Schultz, H., & Azzaro, M. (2009). Building customer-brand relationships.London: M.E. Sharpe.

Shackley, M. (1998). Introduction – world cultural heritage sites. In M. Shackley (Ed.): Visitor man-agement: Case studies from World Heritage sites (pp. 1–9). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 785

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15

Stolton, S., Dudley, N., & Shadie, P. (2012).Managing natural World Heritage. Paris: UNESCO.Timothy, D., & Boyd, S. (2003). Heritage tourism. Harlow: Pearson Education.Tisdell, C. (2010). World Heritage listing of Australian natural sites: Effects on tourism, economics

value and conservation. Economics, ecology and the environment. (Working Paper No. 172,September 2001). Brisbane, Queensland: University of Queensland. Retrieved from ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/94306/2/WP%20172.pdf

Tisdell, C., & Wilson, C. (2001). World Heritage listing of Australian natural sites: Tourism stimu-lus and its economic value. Economics, ecology and the environment. (Working Paper No. 60,October 2010). Brisbane, Queensland: University of Queensland. Retrieved from http://www.ageconrsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/48382/2/WP60.pdf

Tourism Research Australia. (2010). Nature tourism fact sheet 2009. Retrieved from http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/research/tra/publications/2010/Pages/2010.aspx

Tourism Research Australia. (2012). International visitors in Australia – December 2011. Quarterlyresults of the International Visitor Survey. Canberra: Tourism Research Australia. Retrievedfrom http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/research/tra/publications/2012/Pages/2012.aspx

United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation. (1972). Convention concerning theprotection of the world cultural and natural heritage. (Report No. WHC-2001/WS/2). Paris:World Heritage Centre. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf

United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation World Heritage Centre (2012a). Theoperational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (Report No.12/01). Paris: Author. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide12-en.pdf

United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation World Heritage Centre. (2012b).World Heritage emblem. Paris: Author. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/emblem

United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation World Heritage Centre. (2013a).The World Heritage list. Paris: Author. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list

United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation World Heritage Centre. (2013b).Guidelines and principles for the use of the World Heritage emblem. Paris: Author. Retrievedfrom http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom98a12.htm

United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation World Heritage Centre. (2013c).Australia. Paris: Author. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/au

United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organisation World Heritage Centre. (2013d).Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Paris: Author. Retrieved from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/409

United States Department of State. (2012).World Heritage sites in the United States (as of 2/15/12).Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/p/io/unesco/c48319.htm.

United States National Park Service. (2008). Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park business plan 2008.Washington, DC: Author.

United States National Park Service. (2013). Visitor use statistics. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.Retrieved from https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/Reports/ReportList

Weiler, S., & Seidl, A. (2004).What’s in a name? Extracting econometric drivers to assess theimpact of national park designation. Journal of Regional Science, 44(2), 245–262.

Wheeler, A. (2009). Designing brand identity: A complete guide to creating, building, and main-taining strong brands (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Williams, K. (2004). Commentary: The meanings and effectiveness of World Heritage designationin the USA. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(4–5), 412–416.

Yan, C., & Morrison, A. (2007). The influence of visitors’ awareness of World Heritage listings: Acase study of Huanshan, Xidi and Hongcun in Southern Anhui, China. Heritage Tourism, 2(3),184–196.

786 L.M. King and E.A. Halpenny

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

lber

ta]

at 1

3:08

23

Apr

il 20

15