透過您的圖書館登入
IP:54.159.186.146
  • 學位論文

從文化觀光觀點探究文化遺產之價值

Exploring the Values of Cultural Heritages form the Cultural Tourism’s Viewpoints

指導教授 : 顏宏旭
若您是本文的作者,可授權文章由華藝線上圖書館中協助推廣。

摘要


過去研究對於文化遺產價值的討論多為專家學者在專業上之判定,而鮮少利用實證方式來檢視文化遺產所具備的價值面向。此外,對於不同社會行動者在文化遺產價值差異之探討、以及文化遺產認知價值與願付價格間關係之研究亦較少見。有鑑於此,本研究研擬如下三個目的:(1)建立文化遺產價值模式、(2)探討不同社會行動者對於文化遺產價值所存在之差異、(3)透過願付價格的經濟評價來了解文化價值對經濟價值之影響。本研究首先利用文獻回顧及專家訪談建構文化遺產價值項目,接著透過專家問卷檢視各衡量問項之適宜性並確定文化遺產價值問項;在願付價格方面則採用條件評估法(CVM)來進行文化遺產之經濟價值評估。針對遊客、居民、以及專家三類對象進行問卷調查,共獲得有效問卷600份。在分析方面,首先運用結構方程模式之驗證性因素分析,進行模式適配度之檢測,以確立文化遺產價值模式之建構是否完善;接著再以多群組分析來評估理論模式在不同樣本群體間是否具恆等性,並檢視不同群體對文化遺產價值之差異;最後再運用徑路分析探討文化遺產價值對願付價格之影響。研究結果顯示:(1)文化遺產價值模式的七個構面具有良好的聚歛效度和區別效度,包含「環境價值」、「社會價值」、「觀光價值」、「經濟價值」、「精神價值」、「歷史價值」、以及「象徵價值」,整體模式均達適配標準(RMR= .023, RMSEA = .050, GFI= .932, AGFI= .914, SRMR = .043, NFI = .918, RFI = .906, IFI = .950, TLI = .942, CFI = .950, PGFI = .734, PNFI = .796, PCFI = .823),顯示模式與樣本資料具備良好適配度。(2)多群組分析結果顯示遊客、居民、以及專家對於文化遺產價值具有異同之處。相同的是,遊客、居民和專家對於「環境價值」認同普遍較低,而「社會價值」和「象徵價值」較能達到一致的價值共識,其次是「觀光價值」。不同的是,遊客較認為文化遺產具有「象徵價值」(λ= .98)、「精神價值」(λ= .90)、以及「觀光價值」(λ= .90);居民較認為文化遺產具有「象徵價值」(λ= .97)、「社會價值」(λ= .97)、「歷史價值」(λ= .94);專家則較認為文化遺產具有「社會價值」(λ= .99)。(3)在願付價格部分,遊客和居民較願意透過「捐款」來支持文化遺產,而居民和專家在「門票」的支付意願較低,專家則較傾向透過「增稅」來支持文化遺產。(4) 就遊客、居民以及專家而言,文化遺產價值對於願付價格的影響程度均未達顯著(p> .05),亦即文化遺產本身的價值並不會影響受訪者對於願付價格的支付。

並列摘要


The past researches concerning the value of cultural heritages were all based on each scholar’s judgment and opinion. Seldom research has employed the survey technique to testify the dimensions of the value of cultural heritages. Moreover, the discussion of the social actors’ differences toward the value of cultural heritages and the relationship between the value of cultural heritages and the willing to pay were rare, too. As a result, this study drew up three research purposes: (1) Establishing the cultural heritages value framework. (2) Exploring the differences of three different social actors’ perception toward the cultural heritages value. (3) Applying the contingent valuation method (CVM) to explore how the perceptive value of cultural heritages influenced the economic value. First of all, this study used literature review and in-depth interviews to construct the cultural heritages value framework; following by consulting the scholars to examine the suitability of each item in the value framework. The CVM was used to understand the social actors’ willing to pay toward the development of cultural heritages. 600 valid questionnaires were collected from the tourists, residents, and experts. The fitness of the cultural heritages value framework was tested by using the “Confirmatory Factor Analysis”. The “Simultaneous Analysis of Several Groups” was adopted to check the measurement invariance of the framework across different groups. At the end, the “Path Analysis” was used to explore the relationship between the perceptive values and the willing to pay. The results showed: (1) the cultural heritages value framework contained seven dimensions which were “environmental value”, “social value”, “tourism value”, “economical value”, “spiritual value”, “historical value”, “symbolic value” (The fitness index were RMR= .023, RMSEA = .050, GFI= .932, AGFI= .914, SRMR = .043, NFI = .918, RFI = .906, IFI = .950, TLI = .942, CFI = .950, PGFI = .734, PNFI = .796, PCFI = .823 which indicated the overall framework fit the data.) (2) In the value framework, the tourists, residents, and experts all tended to consider the “environmental values” had the lowest contribution to the cultural heritages value. The “social value”, “symbolic value”, following by the “tourism value” contributed significantly to the cultural heritages value. The tourists’ cultural heritages value based mainly on the “symbolic value (λ= .98)”, “spiritual value (λ= .90)”, and “tourism value (λ= .90)”. The residents’ cultural heritages value based mainly on the “symbolic value (λ= .97)”, “social value (λ= .97)”, and “historical value (λ= .94)”. The experts’ cultural heritages value based mainly on the “social value (λ= .99)”. (3) The tourists and residents were more likely to use the donation to support the development of the cultural heritages. Comparing the tourists to the other two social actors, tourists tended to pay more on the ticket price. The experts were more likely to utilize the tax to support the development of the cultural heritages. (4) For tourists, residents and experts, the perceptional value of the cultural heritages does not significantly affect (p> .05) their willingness to pay for the cultural heritages.

參考文獻


Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
比爾-安德略•那普洛德. (2006, 4/18~19). 保存與修復:專業倫理與實踐. Paper presented at the 2006文化資產保存政策國際研討會, 國立台灣文化資產保存研究中心籌備處國際會議廳.
波多野想. (2007). 挪威文化景觀的保存:系統的方法與網路的理論. 海峽兩岸世界遺產規劃與管理機制研討會論文集, 115-126.
馮久玲. (2002). 文化是好生意. 台北: 城邦文化事業股份有限公司.
傅朝卿. (2003). 從教育導覽到文化觀光-由「國際文化觀光憲章」談熱蘭遮城城址試掘在永續經營上的助益. 熱蘭遮城考古試掘計畫通訊月刊, 11(5), 3-11.

被引用紀錄


詹雅霖(2013)。農業旅遊意象、認同感與遊後行為意圖關係之研究-以清境農場為例〔碩士論文,國立虎尾科技大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6827%2fNFU.2013.00066

延伸閱讀