A Tourism-Driven Archaeological Value Evaluation Framework for Heritage Sites

Thesis Abstract

This study addresses the tension between heritage preservation, archaeological integrity, and the expanding demand for heritage tourism by proposing a Tourism-Driven Archaeological Value Evaluation Framework (TDAVEF) for heritage sites. The problem arises from inconsistent valuation practices that undervalue archaeological significance when commercial tourism pressures dominate interpretation, access, and conservation priority-setting. The aim is to develop a theoretically informed, empirically testable framework that integrates archaeological value with tourism metrics to guide management decisions. Specific objectives are (1) to identify dimensions of archaeological value relevant to visitors, archaeologists, and site managers; (2) to operationalize these dimensions into measurable indicators; (3) to examine how tourism indicators influence perceived and actual archaeological value; (4) to validate the framework through a mixed-methods assessment across multiple sites; and (5) to propose policy and practice guidelines for balanced conservation and visitor experience. The methodology combines a multiphase, mixed-methods design anchored in value theory and stakeholder theory. The population comprises heritage sites with ongoing archaeological interpretation and tourism programs within a defined national network of 12 sites. A stratified purposive sample of 6 sites will be selected to reflect varying levels of visitation, preservation status, and governance models. Data collection instruments include structured visitor surveys (n=1,200), semi-structured interviews with archaeologists (n=40), site managers (n=30), and tour operators (n=20), as well as a Delphi panel (n=15 experts) to refine indicators. Archival data will be drawn from site records, visitor numbers, ticket revenues, conservation budgets, and incident reports for the preceding five years. Data analysis uses a sequential explanatory design descriptive statistics and reliability testing for survey scales; exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to derive a robust indicator set; regression analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) to test relationships among archaeological value indicators, tourism variables, and conservation outcomes; thematic analysis of interview transcripts to contextualize quantitative results; and scenario-based sensitivity analysis to assess policy implications. The theoretical foundation integrates the Stakeholder Theory and the Archaeological Value Theory with the Tourism Experience Model, enhanced by the Resource-Based View to explain sustainability outcomes. Reliability will be established via Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability, with validity through content validity assessments and cross-validation across sites. Key expected findings include (a) a validated, parsimonious set of archaeological value indicators that respond to both intrinsic heritage significance and tourism pressures; (b) empirical evidence on the extent to which tourism indicators (visitor throughput, interpretive quality, accessibility, and commercial concessions) mediate or moderate perceived and actual archaeological value; (c) identification of governance configurations and conservation practices that correlate with higher composite value scores without compromising site integrity; and (d) predictive SEM pathways demonstrating how improvements in interpretive quality and visitor management can enhance overall value while reducing negative impacts on archaeological resources. The study anticipates heterogeneity across site types, with larger, centrally managed sites showing different dynamics from smaller, community-led sites. The contribution to knowledge is methodological and practical a replicable, theory-grounded framework to quantify and integrate archaeological value with tourism value, enabling evidence-based decision-making for conservation, interpretation, and access management. The framework advances archaeological valuation by treating value as a multi-criteria construct shaped by visitor experience, conservation status, governance, and economic considerations, rather than as a solely expert-driven assessment. Policy implications include guidelines for balancing visitor capacity with conservation thresholds, standardized indicators for national heritage reporting, and decision-support tools for prioritizing investments in interpretation, site stabilization, and capacity-building. The study concludes that explicit incorporation of tourism dynamics into archaeological valuation yields more resilient heritage management, fosters stakeholder alignment, and supports sustainable visitation practices. Recommendations emphasize the adoption of the TDAAVEF as a standard assessment protocol across national sites, periodic recalibration of indicators in response to evolving visitor profiles, and targeted interventions—such as enhanced interpretation, controlled access, and conservation finance mechanisms—to maximize archaeological value while accommodating sustainable tourism growth.