1

The Role of Interpretation as Determines of

Willingness to Pay for Preservation

The case of Auschwitz- Birkenau

13 April 2011

Gila Oren | College of Management Academic Studies, Israel.

Avital Biran | University of Surrey, United Kingdom.

Yaniv Poria | Ben- Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.

Research in Progress

College of Management Academic Studies

Structure of The Presentation

Introduction

Conceptual framework

The site- Auschwitz Birkenau

Research Objectives

Methodology

Findings

Discussion and Conclusion

Managerial Implications

Limitations and future research

Introduction- The Preservation Of Auschwitz

The relics of Auschwitz extermination camp are in danger of disintegration.

Poland established (January 2010) an international fund hoping to raise 120 million Euro.

3

44

5

Conceptual framework | WTP, preservation and

heritage sites WTP towards preservation is investigated in the context of natural

heritage, ignoring cultural heritage sites (Kim et al. 2007; Tuan & Navrud 2008).

Studies highlight the importance of understanding people’s WTP for the management of heritage preservation (Reynisdottir et al. 2008).

Visitors vs. Non visitors

Use value vs. Non Use (i.e. Optional, Bequest) (Togiridou et al. 2006).

Clarifying attitudes towards preservation requires an understanding of the meanings assigned to heritage sites (Lowenthal 1998)

Dissonant heritage (Tunbridge & Ashworth 1996), heritagization (Poria & Ashworth 2009).

)

6

Conceptual framework | Preservation and

Interpretation

The roles of heritage interpretation

Constructing the visitor experience (Moscardo & Ballantyne 2008)

Encouraging preservation through education (Timothy & Boyd

2003)

A political resource in the heritagization process (Buzinde &

Santos 2008; Poria & Ashworth 2009)

A source of revenue (Muzaini et al. 2007)

Studies dealing with heritage construction and heritage tourism support the notion that individuals, and organizations are interested in

different on-site interpretation (Wight & Lennon 2007).

7

The site | Auschwitz- Birkenau

“A universal symbol of evil" (Miles 2002: 1175).

A popular visitor attraction, 1.38 million visitors in 2010 (Auschwitz-Birkenau, 2010).

A must see tourist attraction (Limor 2010).

A World Heritage Site (Since 1979).

Research Objectives

WTP/ WTV

Universal symbol

of atrocities

WTP/ WTV The story of all

Auschwitz victims

WTP- willingness

to pay

WTV – willingness

to visit

WTP/ WTV The story of the

Jewish victims

Reasons for preservation

Attitudes towards the

preservation

Benefits from the Visit

Who is reasonable

for the

preservation

A

B

C

D

EH

I

G F

Perception ofthe site as

personal heritage(PSOH)

9

Research methodology

Exploratory stage: Literature review, semi-structured

interviews with individuals (n=30) and experts (n=10).

Main study: Structured questionnaire (English, Hebrew,

Polish and German) completed through face-to-face

interviews.

Sampling strategy: Convenience sampling.

Location: Major cities in Israel, Poland, Germany and UK.

Population: Citizens over the age of 15 (Apter et al. 1998).

Feasibility study: March 2010.

Main data collection: Starting April 2010.

10

Findings | Sample characteristics

Current sample size: 319 participants

Nationality: Polish 40.6%, German 32.8%, Israelis 26.3%

Gender: 53.8% female, 46.2% male

Age: 21-30 (12.5%), 31-40 (29.2%), 41-50 (26%)

Education: 46.7% academic education

Religious affiliation: 63.4% Christian, 28.7% Jewish

Previous visits: 51.1% visited Auschwitz before

11

Findings | Perception of Auschwitz as personal

heritage Perception of the site was measured using the PSOH scale

(1=Disagree, 7=Agree)

Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.784

Cluster Analysis:

Group 1

Low

(n = 49)

Group 2

Middle

(n = 135)

Group 3

High

(n = 126)

One Way

ANOVA

PSOH 1.87 4.09 6.16F = 831.5

p<0.01

Group 1: Low perception of the site as personal heritage

Group 2: Middle perception of the site as personal heritage

Group 3: High perception of the site as personal heritage

12

Findings | Three stories

The story of the Jewish victims

The interpretation will highlight the murder of the Jews in Auschwitz.

The story of all Auschwitz victims

The interpretation will dedicate equal attention to each group of Auschwitz victims.

Universal symbol of atrocities

The site’s interpretation will refer to acts of genocide which occurred in different times and places around the world (e.g. Darfur, Rwanda, and the genocide of the Armenian people).

14.3$7.65$2.79 $2.79 $ 14.3$7.65$

2.95

1.81

5.64

4.67

5.88

4.83

13.62$4.20$

9.71$

5.22

4.06

9.78$

5.22

4.06

9.78$

9.71$

low(n = 49)

Findings | PSOH & willingness to payMiddle

(n = 135)High

(n=126)

Overall

Mean

Jewish victims

Willingness to visit 4.74 4.82

Willingness to donate 3.34 3.64

Amount ($)

Diversity of Auschwitz’s victims

Willingness to visit 3.67 5.17

Willingness to donate 2.59 3.88

Amount ($) $7.98

Universal symbol

Willingness to visit 3.44 5.08 5.43 4.97

Willingness to donate 2.44 3.55 4.30 3.65

Amount ($) 3.29$ 8.23$ 11.9$ 9.02$

Willingness to donate: 1= disagree, 7= agree, Amount: 0 to 30$,

4.20$ $7.98 13.62$

• Willingness to visit/donate: 1= disagree to 7= agree, Amount: 0 to 30$

• Significant differences were found between the groups in all cases.

14.3$7.65$2.79 $

2.95

1.81

5.64

4.67

5.88

4.83

13.62$4.20$

9.71$

5.22

4.06

9.78$

low(n = 49)

Findings | PSOH & willingness to payMiddle

(n = 135)High

(n=126)

Overall

Mean

Jewish victims

Willingness to visit 4.74 4.82

Willingness to donate 3.34 3.64

Amount ($)

Diversity of Auschwitz’s victims

Willingness to visit 3.67 5.17

Willingness to donate 2.59 3.88

Amount ($) $7.98

Universal symbol

Willingness to visit 3.44 5.08 5.43 4.97

Willingness to donate 2.44 3.55 4.30 3.65

Amount ($) 3.29$ 8.23$ 11.9$ 9.02$

Willingness to donate: 1= disagree, 7= agree, Amount: 0 to 30$

14.3$

5.64

4.67

5.88

4.83

13.62$

High

(n=126)

5.43

4.30

11.9$

2.79 $

2.95

1.81

4.20$

low(n = 49)

3.67

2.59

• Willingness to visit/donate: 1= disagree to 7= agree, Amount: 0 to 30$

• Significant differences were found between the groups in all cases.

9.71$

5.22

4.06

9.78$

low(n = 49)

Findings | PSOH & willingness to payMiddle

(n = 135)High

(n=126)

Overall

Mean

Jewish victims

Willingness to visit 2.95 4.74 5.64 4.82

Willingness to donate 1.81 3.34 4.67 3.64

Amount ($) 2.79 $ 7.65$ 14.3$

Diversity of Auschwitz’s victims

Willingness to visit 3.67 5.17 5.88

Willingness to donate 2.59 3.88 4.83

Amount ($) 4.20$ $7.98 13.62$

Universal symbol

Willingness to visit 3.44 5.08 5.43 4.97

Willingness to donate 2.44 3.55 4.30 3.65

Amount ($) 3.29$ 8.23$ 11.9$ 9.02$

Willingness to donate: 1= disagree, 7= agree, Amount: 0 to 30$

2.95 4.74

1.81 3.34

2.79 $ 7.65$

• Willingness to visit/donate: 1= disagree to 7= agree, Amount: 0 to 30$

• Significant differences were found between the groups in all cases.

16

Discussion and Conclusion

The relevancy of the experientially based approach

in the conceptualisation of heritage tourism

(Apostolakis 2003).

Those perceiving the site as personal heritage,

present higher WTV and WTP for the site

preservation.

The data highlight the economic role of

interpretation.

The findings challenge the WHS concept

17

Managerial Implications

The need to recognize the role of interpretation as

a source of revenue for preservation.

The need for mass customisation of interpretation

to increase WTP for site preservation.

The findings emphasizes the importance of making

heritage sites relevant for wide audience in order

to increase WTV and WTP

Ethical issues.

18

Limitations & Future Research

Limitations:

An Iconic site.

The study centers on one site only.

This study explores intentional behavior.

Future research:

This study is a “snapshot”- a qualitative research in each of the countries may further explore the relationships between sense of heritage ownership and financial support.

Integration of site management perspectives (e.g. ethical and ideological issues).

19

Thank you !