THE MEANING OF CULTURAL HERITAGE: EXPLORATION OF A HIDDEN FUTURE Michiel Flooren m.w.j.flooren@saxion.

nl Anastasia Juritsjeva

ABSTRACT Reflections on current trends in the consumption of cultural heritage as leisure activity, and its supposed influence on meaning and motivation among visitors and residents are speculative because few empirical data are available to support the insights. The purpose of this study is to identify key elements of meaning and related contemporary use of cultural heritage. With a hybrid approach between qualitative and quantitative fieldwork, this study emphasizes both consumer and supply perspectives and addresses important factors that shape their interpretations and meanings. One of identified gaps is between the expectations and actually undertaken leisure activities among visitors and residents. The second is between the available cultural heritage as resource for leisure activities among suppliers and regional government and the expectations and meanings of it for residents and visitors. Key words: meaning, value, heritage, leisure, focus group

INTRODUCTION: UNDERSTANDING VALUES IN THE RESEARCH ON THE MEANING OF HERITAGE The contemporary use of heritage is growing and the recent boom of initiatives to develop and promote the visiting of (in)tangible heritage as a leisure product provides an incentive to examine the influence of values and meaning on the product mix of cultural tourism, since this is assumed to be a growing industry in future leisure scenarios. The still ongoing debate on the definition of cultural heritage and its various related terms have often made scholars and students become frustrated with the lack of an accepted clear theoretical framework (Hewison, 1987; Lowenthal, 1991; Brett, 1996; Harvey, 2001,). Cultural heritage has often been defined as tangible or intangible (Ahmad, 2006), also as cultural and natural (Lowenthal, 2005), authentic and inauthentic (Hall, 2007), contested and not contested (Ashworth and Tunbridge, 1990), this many distinctions highlight the complex character of heritage. It is suggested here, that in order to develop understandings of heritage, and to gain insights into its value, meaning and relevance for society, the focus ought to be upon how individuals perceive heritage in their own terms and as representatives of a specific group in the tourism and leisure market. Such an approach stresses how people benefit from the contemporary use of heritage as resource, addressing their perceptions as individual and as a group perspective. The purpose of this study is to identify key elements of meaning related to contemporary use of cultural heritage. This study emphasizes both the consumer and supply perspectives and addresses important factors that motivate them and shape their interpretations and meanings. In this perspective, it is important to realize that heritage is interpreted and/or consumed through unique values, attitudes and experiences of the individual involved (Goulding, 1999;; Jewell & Crotts, 2001; Lengkeek, 2001;). Moreover, a focus on values, rather than attitudes, is supported by the view that values are the determinants of attitudes as well as behaviour[values are] more stable over timeand more central to an individual's cognitive systems than attitudes (Crick-Furman & Prentice, 2000). Moreover, with the realization that various people relate to the past in different ways (Dicks, 2007) comes the recognition that the meaning and experience of cultural heritage cannot be disconnected from its highly multivalent and plural character. Howard (2003) suggests that the values people hold shape the heritage they engage with; whilst Timothy and Boyd (2003) propose that social groups filter heritage through often different value systems and mental frames (Jacobs, 2006). Values are assigned; they are constructed and situational. They are not inherent; attributing value to a place, person or object is partly a subjective act. The production of heritage is closely related to the way people remember, organise their memories, think about them and wish to use them. As such, research exploring these

values and the ways in which heritage is perceived would enhance the development of the theoretical framework of heritage. An emerging view of the nature of heritage, and in particular the distinctions between tangible and intangible heritage, is described by Smith and Waterton (2009) who noticed that heritage cannot only be defined by its materiality or non-materiality. Rather it is what is done with heritage that creates scope for different interpretation. These authors suggest that regardless of the specific context of heritage, be it tangible or not, the essence is the same; what heritage is - is the performance and negotiation of identity, values and a sense of place (Smith & Waterton, 2009). This supports the theory for heritage to be understood as a dynamic process (Ashworth & Graham, 2000; Howard, 2003) and as a set of values and meanings (Smith, 2006) strongly connected and with mutual influence. In this approach, the emphasis on values is strong, which becomes clear as an important aspect from the review of the literature. In order to achieve a better understanding of these values in relation to meaning and the different processes involved, this paper focuses on the perception of heritage without prescriptive definitions that may have influenced the research on specific types of heritage. The object of this research is the use of heritage as a resource in leisure and tourism. In that perspective it describes heritage and its context but aims to incorporate the assumption that there is a multiplicity of different meanings among different people, even within the specific groups in the tourism and leisure market. In this article, a theoretical framework on the meaning of cultural heritage and an overview of methods and techniques that are used to analyze the empirical data will be given. Thereafter, the results of data analyses will be illustrated; starting with an analysis of the focus groups, followed by an analysis of the conducted surveys. Finally, a conclusion and research limitations will be given regarding the applied methodology and related results. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Heritage, leisure and the visitors journey According to Chick (1998) leisure has traditionally been described in three ways. In the first one leisure is considered as free, or unobligated, time. The second way describes leisure as an activity apart from obligations, such as work and family. The final description aims at leisure in a more subjective way, as experience, a state of mind, or a condition defined by the individual at leisure (Chick, 1998). On the contrary Godbay (1999) does not completely agrees with these definitions and proposes the following definition: Leisure is living in relative freedom from the external compulsive forces of ones culture and physical environment so as to be able to act from internally compelling love in ways that are personally pleasing, intuitively worthwhile and provide a basis for faith. This definition includes internal motivations for undertaking leisure activities and implies that leisure has a meaning for each individual. Stebbins (1992) did research on motives to undertake leisure and found nine factors which explain them in two categories: personal compensation and social compensation. These categories imply not only pleasure, relaxation, but also self-actualization, self-enrichment on intellectual, cultural and social level. Pine and Gilmore (1999) argue in their work, about experience economy in relation to leisure, that ambiance and experience are regarded as most important elements of the (leisure) product, even more than its physical attributes. In the experience society, meaning production is an important phenomenon, because concepts (meanings) organize experiences (Jacobs, 2006). In turn meaningful experiences influence ones perception and interpretations, which lead to emotional experiences, whether they are positive or negative (Frijda, 1986). There is a growing awareness among academics and the leisure industry that cultural tourism has a worldwide development (Mommaas, 2002; Richards, 1996; Richards & Wilson, 2006) which is strongly influenced by the existence of heritage. The commodification of cultural heritage can be seen as vehicle to revitalize traditional urban centres and deteriorating neighbourhoods as well as rural areas into attractive cultural landscapes in which the emphasize on production is transformed into consumption. In the human and social geography the emphasis is put on the identity of specific places, developed by cultural and individual connections which people relate to their environment (Tuan, 1974). The social-psychological meaning of heritage is all about the well-being of people. It relates to the senses, feelings, thoughts, values and attitudes towards places, landscapes and regions, originated from narratives, experiences, memories and associations related to the past. This can vary from a personal level, to be exact the meaning of tangible heritage as an object and its environment. A home village or intangible aspects as a local event towards a collective meaning of a

region or nations cultural and social traditions like festivals and rituals. The strong bonds between cultural identity and heritage influence the contemporary use of the past within society. This cultural identity is derived from the underlying values in society, as a result of a collective phenomenon which is originated from individual perspectives (Lowenthal, 1985). The linkage between society and sense of place is in line with cultural identity and heritage. This sense of place, thoroughly described by Lowenthal (1985), Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) is considered as the unique characteristic of a place. This uniqueness contributes to the social-psychological well-being of people for instance as residents or visitors. People identify themselves with a specific place or region and (un)consciously attach meaning and value to these entities. In identifying cultural identity, the connection to society and sense of place are crucial. Landscapes can be a cultural image, a pictorial way of representing, structuring or symbolising surroundings (Cosgrove & Daniels, 1988). Reading of landscapes has to focus on the visual images and symbols that assist to create and identify it. Assumptions that the visual is central to the cultural construction of life (Rose, 2001) and assertions that what is potentially visible is omnipresent (Lowenthal, 1985) underlines the idea that the cultural landscape is a key resource in the articulation and interpretation of heritage. Semiotics or the study of signs deliver understanding of visual images in the landscape (Eco, 1979; Sebeok, 1991; Chandler, 2002) which provides society knowledge about themselves and others, how they make and convey meanings (and heritage) and how they understand what happens in the world. Marschall (2006) underscores the importance of using semiotics to interpret meanings in which simple signifiers have the power to evoke emotional reactions across time, space and cultures. Symbols in relation to their context and environment act as a sort of shorthand, conveying and concentrating complicated values or sentiments (Turner, 1967). Hence, societies reinvent signs and symbols constantly and read them in different contexts, transforming their reference and meaning. As a result, landscapes are consequently open to interpretation in which visual entities of the cultural landscape such as churches, farms and public buildings that are tangible representation in the surrounding landscape, map selective interpretations of the past and present onto public spaces among people. They articulate heritage and can be seen as icons of identities where the cultural landscape delivers a resource for better understanding of complex connections between heritage, memory and identity and its influence on the contemporary use. The dynamic temporality of all cultural landscapes (McGlade, 1999) underlines the dynamic and fluid constructs of the past that are always in the process of being shaped and reshaped, visually as well as cognitively. The design of cultural landscapes is based on the perceived heritage value of morphological and material artefacts which has the potential to freeze it in space and time since changes to these objects (especially engineered and built structures) are discouraged by following managing regimes and related policy. In this perspective it is important to understand that this emphasize on tangible relationships between place and culture neglects the myriad cultural practices and performances of intangible heritage that are integral part of the significance and relevance of place to culture. Spatial quality is a package of attributes and as a resource and environment for leisure activities, this underline the importance of place and high quality amenities. Empirical research verifies the value of a strong spatial quality for both urban and rural areas. The contemporary leisure and tourism industry transform places and regions into destinations and transform museums into performances (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998) as constructions of visitors realism where disappearing cultures and disposed objects are used in a second life as heritage. In this line, Ashworth (2005) describes this as the consumption of places where the institutional heritage communities still dominates the use of the past as a characteristic treasury of art in a classical museum approach where there is less influence of active transfer and meaningful experiences. In the tourist gaze (Urry, 1990) it is argued that heritage has no value till the touristic use of places makes it worth seeing and influence the reality as subjective place based experiences (Prentice, 2001). In the Netherlands the spatial policy is aiming to achieve spatial quality by a balanced use of a triangle in values, described as: utility value, experience value and future value (VROM, 2006). During the last decade, the Belvedere guideline (Feddes, 1999) has made this operational for heritage but restrict the importance of a bottom up approach in which the meaning of heritage among local people is integrated and underlines the need to incorporate the individual and collective construct through which a meaningful relationship between culture and place is constituted and sustained over time and space. Although there has been exploration of how consumers actually engage in the production process while consuming (Holt, 1995), there has been relatively little in-depth research into the experience of tourists at visitor attractions, and the research that has been undertaken has been focused primarily on consumer behaviour (Mick & Buhl, 1992; Swarbrooke & Horner, 1999). This modest amount of indepth research into the visitor experience/guest journey is surprising because in the 1990s Urry

(1990) identified the concept of the tourist gaze and in doing so identified the ways that tourists manipulate contexts and create their own personal experiences. This enhances the idea of the subjectivity of tourist experiences .Uriely et al. (2002) applied primary research that revealed the tourist experience as a diverse and plural phenomenon and Uriely (2005) developed this theme in an extensive way when he identified conceptual developments in the broader tourist experience including the subjectivity and multiplicity of experiences. In exploring the shift toward postmodernist or late modernist theorizing, Uriely (2005) suggests that future research should not ignore the nature of the visited object or the particular form of tourism as a determinant of the subjective experience and suggests that future research should aim on the nature of the relationships between the objects and the subjects that constitute the experience. This is obvious in case of the (in)tangible character of heritage. Because of this lack of research into visitor experiences, as opposed to consumption, the nature of visitors and their subjective interactions with heritage attractions are not fully understood. It is argued that research into the visitors experience whilst they are at heritage attractions will provide a deeper understanding of the interaction between visitors and attractions, the visitors shaping of the experience, the meaning of the experience for the visitor, and their interpretation of the heritage site and objects. It is this subjective experience that is real to the visitors, therefore, this study seeks to understand visitor experiences in the phases of a customers journey (Voss & Zomerdijk, 2007) or to be more specific a visitors journey (Lane, 2007). In this journey approach the attention is concentrated entirely around the visitor. It follows the visitor through a sequence of events and emotions from the initial planning stages, to leaving home environment, through the return journey and beyond as a continuous visitor journey with key interrelated stages. In this paper the focus is on the first stages in which the visitor has specific expectations about a region, engages and experiences the destination and shows specific activities and experiences during the visit. There are two principles that underline the importance of the visitor approach: (1) Visitors are the genuine life blood of leisure and tourism and need to be taken into account of any related strategy. To succeed, the visitor experience must match and exceed expectations. This means right from the point when a visitor starts to think about where to go, as far as returning home and beyond. (2) The choice of process that is used to develop a leisure and tourism strategy is as important as the strategy itself. During their journey, visitors can easily encounter the services of a whole range of different organizations. Whilst these organizations may be entirely separate entities, collectively they deliver the experience for the visitor. This will be greatly enhanced if they can all be engaged meaningfully in developing and delivering a strategy together within the regional destination. The perception of cultural heritage is rooted in the interpretive socialscience paradigm, in which reality is assumed to be socially constructed and this reality does not exist independently, but is given subjective meaning by actors as individual and in a social setting. Heritage, Values and Social Representations Within social research, the constructivist vision focuses on the meaning of heritage as an outcome of a negotiation between the (in)tangible heritage object and its context, the individual and society. In this vision, ...the categories that people employ in helping them to understand the natural and social world are in fact social products (Bryman, 2008). In this perspective heritage can be understood as a social construct, produced and reproduced by interaction, rather than existence of heritage that has no part in society. In constructivist epistemology, there exist more associated concepts, like history, which are seen as being constructed by historians, aiming at their subjective interpretations and conceptual knowledge needed to reconstruct the past (Jenkins, 1991; Lorenz, 1998). Also identity is seen to be a constructed concept (Jenkins, 2003; Munasinghe, 2005) like experiences (Pennington-Grey & Carmichael, 2006) and memories (McDowell, 2008). In fact, the construction of heritage is a well established view of heritage (Brett, 1996; Macdonald, 2006) considering that heritage is a key factor and means in the process of how people remember their pasts, how they interpret the past and its significance and use this to create their own sense of place and time, and eventually transform it into place and regional identities. According to Lowenthal (1985) the ability to recall and identify with the past gives existence, meaning, purpose, value and enhances communal and national identity. Research by Hall (1995) and Allen et al. (1998) showed the importance for communities to identify a place by attaching a value and meaning to it with respect to the collective and the individual interests. In order to explore individual perceptions of heritage, within the socially constructed view of research, Social Representation Theory (Moscovici, 1984) is selected as it avoids a predominance of individualistic narratives. This is reflected in the suggestion that the rise of social representations is partially attributed to a reaction against reductionism, over-simplification, and an individualistic psychology (Puckhardt & Stockdale, 1993). The theory goes beyond the level of opinions, attitudes and images of a concept, and is focused on the underlying values, beliefs and common sense

explanations that relate to the concept in question (Carmichael, 2006) with respect to the differences in the strengths and priorities that individuals give to these values within any given context (Billig, 1993). This relates well to the way in which values are theorized, in that there is a finite number of universally held values, the difference consists in the levels of influence these values have upon individuals behaviour and wider group cultures (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987 1990; Schwartz et al., 2001; Hitlin, 2003). Understanding the social representations of heritage, will contribute a valuable insight into the ways in which heritage is perceived, shared and designed as a social concept, process and activity. Furthermore, the socially constructed nature of both heritage and values lend themselves well to research within this perspective. Something that is captured well in the following passage by Philogne (2001) in that social representations are: once stable and rigid, because they are determined by the central core which is profoundly crystallized in the value system shared by the members of a group. At the same time they are dynamic and fluid, because they integrate a wide variety of individual experiences with the social conditions that mark the evolution of the individuals or groups. Philogne emphasize that individuals may have divergent views concerning any given object, but their differences are structured around shared representations of that object or context. This is supported by Bloor et al. (2001) who underlines that a key strength of focus groups is the access they provide to group meanings, processes and norms, making a clear link between focus groups and gaining socially meaningful data. Furthermore, focus groups can be seen to be an appropriate method within this overall research design and in particular in relation to social representations in that: focus groups can yield data on the uncertainties, ambiguities, and group processes that lead to and underlie group assessments, focus groups can throw light on the normative understandings that groups draw upon to reach their collective judgments (Bloor et al., 2001). This idea, that both individual and group understandings become apparent in focus group discussions, highlights the potential this method has within this research method. Furthermore, in terms of application social representations and their underlying values in relation to heritage, this idea of groups and shared understandings is a useful one. Foster (2001) prefers focus groups, over individual interviews, as an appropriate method within social representations research, in that as a social situation, they are often more appropriate for studying the social phenomena of social representations. Social representation theory facilitates the use of values in a qualitative methodology, and avoids dominant participants towards surface level responses to direct questions about their values, as they may not have consciously thought through. METHODOLOGY This research adopts an interpretive hybrid approach in order to combine an in depth understanding of the multiplicity of meanings and values that people associate with the use of heritage in leisure and tourism. Taken into account the multivalent concept of meanings and value that people associate with heritage and with the debate focused on its almost fluid definition, the research approach is a combination of qualitative research aiming on the stakeholders in the leisure supply chain and a quantitative survey among residents and visitors. Any attempt to understand the thoughts and experiences of people requires analysis to be based on the participants own concepts, as opposed to pre-defined notions of the researcher (Jennings, 2001). Focus groups are a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher (Morgan, 1997). The main purpose is to understand how people feel or think about an issue, and to uncover factors that underlie the participants opinions. Focus groups are an ideal method when trying to understand differences in perspective between groups of people (Krueger & Casey, 2000). The first data collection phase was conducted in two focus groups during December 2008 and February 2009, aiming to identify the importance of heritage as part of the complete set of core qualities a region characterize in respect of tourism and leisure. Derived from extended survey analyses and desk research on destination characteristics, a set of categories on core qualities is defined to classify each given core quality by the group members. These focus groups are divided in two groups; a group with all the policy representatives (14 persons) of the regional communities by their alderman in charge for tourism and leisure affairs and a separate group of key stakeholders (20 persons) among the entrepreneurial organizations like entrepreneurs, museums, retailers, destination management officers and hotel managers. The double aim of these focus group approach was: a first stage to identify the most important regional core qualities including heritage in a leisurescan (Flooren, 2008) which shows the actual and preferred level of these core qualities. In the second stage to relate and define meaning between these identified core qualities by voting and emphasizing the importance which resulted in a top three group preference.

In this research the focus groups were designed to enable individual presentations, combined with group review by dialogue to enhance associations on specific outcome of the preferred regional core qualities and reshape them in terms of prompting depth and specificity (Myers, 2007). By allowing the group participants to decide the salient aspects of the topic and by engaging them in a presentation and discussion they define their own leisurescan figure. Finely the assessment of the leisurescans among the focus group members results in valuing the specific shown core qualities on each individual leisure scan to donate a certain amount of hypothetical investment capital. The total sum of the complete group leisure scans in counting the highest score of investment, the final group leisure scan is designed. Furthermore the remarks of group members are used to unravel the meaning of core qualities. The quantitative data are derived from various surveys among residents, visitors and non visitors during April and May 2009 to unravel and characterize the expectations and motivations before their visit and the realized activities and value during their stay. The same categories of core qualities as applied in the focus groups, are used to classify the responses. In a match mismatch analyses the outcome of the qualitative data derived from both focus groups are compared to the survey outcome. According to the visitors journey approach, the survey results are analyzed to compare the expectations and preferred activities with the realized activities. Regional case study The scope and scale of this research is regional. In the province Overijssel demonstrates the region Twente a clear identity among its residents and the governmental status of Region Twente (Amelink, 2003; Simon, 2004). Region Twente is characterised by the dominance of a variety of nature landscapes with a high conservation status and typical cultural landscapes in which the occupation history and agricultural influences are still present. These signs in time can be read as a biography of the region in so called coulissen; landscapes as if the countryside is dominated with historic farms, performing as chambers between the forest. Large scale forests originated by ice pushed ridges and a natural gradient to brooks and rivers shape the green environment. In the eastern part dominates the adjacent cities of Enschede, Almelo, Hengelo with a past where the textile factories and metal processing industry dominated the urban landscape which developed since the industrial revolution at th th the end of the 19 century till the 1980s . At the end of the 20 century most of these industries were shut down and disappeared with remaining industrial deteriorating sites and starting revitalising industrial heritage sites. RESULTS Results in the region Twente The two focusgroups were carried out and a thematic analysis was conducted on the resulting data. This analyses was concerned with the classification of given and identified core qualities among the individual members in categories and the rates in which the groupmembers rated the actual and potential value. These identified categories are: Nature and Landscape, Infrastructure, Active Leisure, Culture, Accommodations, attractions & entertainment, and Built environment & cultural heritage. In figure 1 the results of the focus group Government and in figure 2 the results of the focus group Entrepreneurs are represented in a leisure scan. The ambition of each core quality, presented on the corresponding axe in the leisurescan, similar to a spiderweb, is seen as the difference between the actual and potential value. In fact this figure shows a kind of compass for policy development in which axes with high ambitions stress the need for intervention by policy making. The importance of these core qualities are calculated in the formula: Importance = (Ambition + 1) x Investment which results in a focus group top three of preferred core qualities to develop. The leisurescan government top three of preferred Importance is as follows: Horsebackriding and equestrian tourism, Unique landscapes and Industrial heritage (see figure 1). In order to denote speech patterns and emphasis during the focus group, these flow of words is described as key statements. Something that was assumed at the research phase was the plural understanding of heritage and related connotations where the stress on heritage is ambiguous as it can be a part of it in a greater image called core quality. In order to plan for this, a preparation activity was included in the invitation to attend the focus group members. This activity invited participants to think about the regional character and the proposed regional tourism and leisure development. Each participant

presented their ideas on core qualities and mixed this with the unique selling points in which heritage could take part as a conscious or unconscious aspect without concerning the aim of this research on the meaning of heritage. Finally the complete set of individual leisurescans are combined, aggregated on similarities, entitled and generalized in a summarized focus group leisurescan. The participants identified the following key statements: Accessibility of the unique environment in the rural culture landscape and adjacent city borders need space for leisure use across community borders. Combinations and connections between regional products, culture and shopping in characteristic city centres can be obtained by events to realize a strong brand.
Unique landscapes(NL) 10 Various landscapes(NL) 9 8 Water & recreation(NL) 7 6 5 4 Cultural infrastructure(IN) 3 2 1 0 Routenetwork bike- and footpaths(IN)

Roombeek architecture(BH) Plechelmus basilica(BH)

Industrial heritage(BH)

Recreation parks(AA)

Watersport(AA)

horseriding and equestrian tourism(AL) Actual value Potential value

Events(AA) Glasrijk event(CU)

Walking, biking, skating(AL) Museums & galleries(CU) Music performances(CU)

Figure 1: Leisurescan Government region Twente The Entrepreneurs leisurescan shows the following top three of preferred Importance: Hospitality with quality, Characteristic varied landscapes and Accessibility (see figure 2). The participants thought of the following key statements: React but act on the distinctive environment which attracts our guest. The story of the region Twente connects the characteristic biography with the contemporary use of cultural resources in which government and entrepreneurs must cooperate.

Shopping(BH) Storytelling&experience (intangible)(BH) Industrial heritage (tangible)(BH)

Unique events with appearance(AA)

Characteristic varied landscapes(NL) 10 Unique special landscape units(NL) 9 8 Hospitality & leisure experiences(NL) 7 6 Accessibility(IN) 5 4 3 2 Auto-mobility &-facilities(IN) 1 0 Biking(IN)

Variety in events(AA)

Hospitality with quality(AA) Characteristic Twents(CU) Professional skills & entrepreneurship(CU)

Topsport image(AL)
Actual value

Wellness(AL) Sports & outdoor(AL)

Potential value

Cultural facilities/sites with cultural programmes(CU)

Figure 2: Leisurescan Entrepreneurs region Twente

A match mismatch analyses between both focus groups provides the following outcome: Corresponding core qualities underline the significance of unique, special en varied cultural landscapes and the importance to bring these to the visitor in facilitating a more easy visit with a matching infrastructure. Industrial heritage shapes the past as a strong and characteristic resource for future leisure use and the ambition to develop the linked stories enhance the importance to combine intangible and tangible heritage. The influence of event in combination with sport and culture could provide an asset for cooperation between government and entrepreneurs in the leisure chain. Different opinions between both focus groups exists on: The influence of infrastructure to open the amenities and attractions which characterize this region, the dedicated regional attitude of hospitality to facilitate guests to unwind and relaxation in the rural atmosphere which is typical for the regional services. The governmental outcome focuses more on specific heritage objects and places (museums, churches and architecture) while the entrepreneurs are more concerned with the connecting activities in which the historical environment is part of. Table I: Preferred regional core qualities among focusgroup members divided in government and entrepreneurs Core quality category Nature and landscape Infrastructure Active leisure Culture Accommodations, attractions and entertainment Built environment & cultural heritage Frequention government 27,6% 5,7% 16,7% 14,9% 11,5% 23,6% Frequention entrepreneurs 24,3% 18,9% 10% 14,9% 18,5% 13,5%

Table II: Image on typical regional core qualities of the market (visitors and residents) in the region Twente Core quality category Nature and landscape Infrastructure Active leisure Culture Accommodations, attractions and entertainment Built environment & cultural heritage Frequention residents 45,1% 1,6% 10,3% 22,4% 8% 12,6% Frequention visitors 45,8% 1,2% 10,1% 26,5% 6,3% 10,1%

In the perspective of the contemporary use of heritage, the cultural landscape with a focus on the countryside appeals visitors and residents and offers opportunities for entrepreneurs and government. Cultural heritage with emphasize on tangible artefacts inspires the government but entrepreneurs meet the expected demand among visitors and residents. The influence of culture as attractive core quality among visitors and residents invites development of comprehensive cultural tourism with opportunities to relate this with heritage (see Table I, II and III).

Table III: Leisure & tourism activities planned and realized among visitors, residents and non visitors Visitors(n=175) Which tourism & leisure activities are appealing? -Visit nature and landscapes -Visit cultural heritage -Visit folklore events -Visit museums Which category of core qualities is appealing? - Built environment and 10.7% cultural heritage - Nature and landscapes 23.7% Realized or planned tourism & leisure activities? -Visit nature and landscapes -Visit cultural heritage -Visit folklore events -Visit museums 24.8% 21.7% 9 % 12.2% Residents(n=200) Non visitors(n=143)

10.9% 5.7 % 2.9% 4.6%

7.7% 3.7% 2.1% 3.3%

6.7% 4.8% 2.0% 5.1%

11.5% 4.3% 2.6% 4.3%

According to the visitors journey, the first two steps namely expectations and undertaken activities are analysed among visitors of the region Twente. The specific tourism and leisure activities are counted as intended (before the visit) and realized visits (during their visit). Actual visits to nature and landscapes among visitors are a little higher than the intended visits called appealing before the visit. Overall the two phases match in case of the visitors. A comparison between visitors, residents and non visitors demonstrate that the intensions to visit appealing heritage attractions is relative higher among visitors, especially the cultural landscape which are part of the nature and landscape visits. It is surprising that the opinion of non visitors about appealing tourism and leisure activities in relation to heritage without a specific regional destination are not much different compared with the visitors and residents of Twente. A dedicated marketing to promote the importance and potential meaning of heritage could offer visitor value to the region. CONCLUSION In a review of existing literature and insights from participants of two focus groups and a survey among visitors, residents and non visitors, this paper suggests a need to locate heritage within the perception and understanding of individuals as well as groups in a region. This can inform commercial and government efforts in policy making and a balanced contemporary use of heritage in leisure and tourism. The unconsciousness and unawareness of the influence heritage has on leisure activities within cultural landscapes focus on the need for a dedicated promotion. The influence of tangible heritage as a symbolic feature in valuing core qualities among governmental officials offers a sound foundation for regional identity. This research invites to develop a better understanding of what people mean by heritage and its relevance within their leisure and tourism related activities avoiding prescriptive and specific definitions with space for individual terms. Intangible and tangible elements are interrelated and through their associations offer engagement of corresponding storytelling and narratives. It provide a confirmation on the title of this article: The meaning of cultural heritage: exploration of a hidden future. The influence of the cultural landscape with an emphasize on the rural part connects the demand and supply side of leisure use and tourism activities. With this research approach the (un)conscious influence of heritage in these preferred environments like the rural idyll during active leisure in the countryside or shopping and museum facilities in historic city centres explains the low rate of the scores on the specific topic cultural heritage as core quality in the visitors journey as well as the opportunities seen among the participants of both focus groups. This makes the potential value of heritage high and proposes dedicated marketing to meet these expectations. The results of this research identify two gaps. One of them is the gap between the expectations and actually undertaken leisure activities among visitors and residents. The second gap focuses on the available cultural heritage as resource for presumed leisure activities among suppliers and regional government and the expectations, and meanings of it for residents and visitors. Understanding the gap between on the one hand these expectations and actual undertaken activities and at the other hand the actual supply of leisure activities provides input for improving policies for future development of cultural heritage. The study also identifies the challenge that needs to be taken into account in attempts to increase the quality of visitor experiences and their interaction with heritage sites. This has implications for the sustainable management and development of heritage sites and for visitor management where the experience of visitors are placed at the heart of the process. Issues identified relate to enhancement of efficiency in product development of heritage destinations by combining a demand of the market with the supply chain to improve visitors enjoyment LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH This paper has described the meaning of heritage and the relation with tourism and leisure, applied in one region. It has suggested ways in which a combined quality research among suppliers and a survey among visitors, residents and non visitors offers a sound base for meeting visitor expectations. The period of data collection during spring and limited numbers of respondents in the survey delivers indications and is not representative for visitors, residents and non visitors. It has suggested ways in which the match between the supply of heritage destinations and contemporary use of heritage in leisure can meet the supply and related marketing activities. Research must deliver insight in the needs and desires to participate in heritage tourism? Through studying the character of specific and future visitors, a method can be developed in empirical studies.

Another possible limitation is that the prediction of activities by expectations does not measure meeting with other people which influence the perception during the visitors journey. In the research on the meaning of heritage the focus was on regional core qualities without a direct linkage with (in)tangible heritage features. To unravel the specific meaning of heritage to individuals and among groups a dedicated research is needed. In order to do so motivation and satisfaction theory can provide a better understanding of individual meaning and valuation.

REFERENCES Ahmad, Y. (2006). The scope and definitions of heritage: from tangible to Intangible. International Journal of Heritage Studies 12(3), 292-300. Allen, J., Massey, D. & Cochrane, A. (1998). Rethinking the Region. London: Routledge. Ashworth, G. J. & Tunbridge, J. E. (1990). The Tourist-Historic City: Retrospect and Prospect of Managing the Heritage City. London: Belhaven. Ashworth, G. & Graham B. (2005). Plural pasts for plural publics in plural places: a taxonomy of heritage policies for plural societies. In G. Ashworth, P. Groote & T. Haartsen (eds.), Nederlandse Geografische Studies 348, (pp. 13-26). Groningen, Department of Spatial Sciences University of Groningen. Ashworth, G. (2005). Heritage and the Consumption of Places. In: R.vd. Laarse(eds), Bezeten van vroeger. Billig, M. (1993). Studying the thinking society: Social representations, rhetoric, and Attitudes. In G.M. Breakwell & D.V. Canter (eds), Empirical approaches to social representations (pp. 39-61). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research. London: Sage. Brett,D., (1996). The construction of heritage. Cork: Cork University Press. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carmichael, B. A. (2006). Linking quality tourism experiences, residents quality of life, and quality experiences for tourists. In G. Jennings & N.P. Nickerson (eds), Quality tourism experiences (pp. 115135). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Chhabra, D. , Healy R.& Sills E. (2003). Staged authenticity and heritage tourist. Annals of Tourism Research 30(3)pp. 702-719, ElsevierScience Ltd.

Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics, the basics. London: Routledge. Chick, G. (1998). Leisure and Culture: Issues for an Anthropology of Leisure. Leisure Sciences 20, 111-130. Cosgrove, D. & Daniels, S. (eds), (1998). The Iconography of Landscape. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crick-Furman, D. & Prentice, R. (2000). Modeling tourists multiple values. Annals of Tourism Research 27(1), 69-92.

Dicks, B. (2007). Memories on display: ownership and identity. Paper read at Enabling Access: Heritage and Communities, 26 & 27 March 2007. Glasgow: Caledonian University. Eco, U., (1979). A theory of semiotic., Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Feddes, (1999). Belvedere: beleidsnota over de relatie cultuurhistorie en ruimtelijke inrichting. Den Haag: VNG Uitgeverij. Flooren, M.W.J. & Bouwmeester, R. (2008). Identity, image and tourism: a case study in strategic branding of the region Veluwezoom. In Poceedings Eurochrie conference. Dubai. Foster, J. (2001). Unification and differentiation: a study of the social representation of mental illness. Papers on Social Representation 10. Frijda, N.H. (1986).The emotions: studies in emotion & social interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press. Godbay, G. (1999). Leisure in Your Life: An Exploration. Venture Publishing, Inc. State College, Pennsylvania. Goulding, C. (1999). Heritage, nostalgia, and the grey consumer. Journal of Marketing Practice 5(6/7/8), 177. Graham, B., Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. (2000),. A geography of heritage: power, culture and economy. Pergamon: Great Britain. Hall, C.M. (2007). Response to Yeoman et al.: the fakery of the authentic tourist. Tourism Management 28(4), 1139-1140. Hall, S. (1995). New Cultures for Old. In D. Massey & P. Jess (eds), A Place in the World (pp. 175215). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D.C. (2001). Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: Temporality, Meaning, and the scope of Heritage Studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 7(4), 319-338. Hewison, R. (1987). The heritage industry, Britain in a climate of decline. London: Methuen. Hitlin, S. (2003). Values as the core of personal identity: drawing links between two theories of self. Social Psychology Quarterly 66(2), 118-137. Howard, P. (2003). Heritage: management, interpretation and identity. London: Continuum. Jacobs, M. (2006). The production of mindscapes. Thesis (Phd). Wageningen: Mansholt Graduate School. Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1998). Tourismification of historical cities. Annals of Tourism Research 25(3), 739-742. Jennings, G.R. (2001). Tourism Research. Brisbane: Wiley.

Jenkins, K. (1991). Re-thinking history. London: Routledge. Jenkins, G.A., (2003). Contested space: heritage and identity reconstructions: An inquiry into conservation strategies within a developing Asian city, George Town, Penang, Malaysia. Thesis (PhD). Hull: University of Hull Jewell, B. & Crotts, J. C. (2001). Adding psychological value to heritage tourism experiences. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 11(4), 13-28. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1998). Destination Culture. Tourism, Museums and Heritage. Berkeley, University of California Press Kreuger, A. & Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. California: Sage. Lane, M. (2007). The visitors journey, the new road to success. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 19(3), 248-254. Lengkeek, J. (2001). Leisure Experience and Imagination: Rethinking Cohen's Modes of Tourist Experience. International Sociology 16, 173. Lorenz, C. (1998). De Constructie van het verleden: Een inleiding in de theorie van de geschiedenis. Boom, Amsterdam Meppel. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lowenthal, D. (1991). Heritage and the English landscape. History Today 41, 7-10. Lowenthal, D. (2005). Natural and cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies 11(1), 81-92. Macdonald, S. (2006). Undesirable heritage: fascist material culture and historical consciousness in Nurnberg. International Journal of Heritage Studies 12(1), 9-28. Marschall, S. (2006). Visualising Memories: The Hector Pieterson Memorial in Soweto. Visual Anthropology 19, 145-69 . McDowell, S.,] (2008). Heritage, Memory and Identity. In B. Graham, & P. Howard, Heritage and Identity. Asghate: Hampshire. McGlade, J. (1999). Archeology and the Evolution of Cultural Landscapes: Towards and Interdisciplinary Research Agenda. In P.J. Ucko & R .Layton (eds), The Archeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping your Landscape (pp. 458-482). Routledge: New York. Mick, D.G. & Buhl C. (1992). Meaning-based Model of Advertising Experiences. The Journal of Consumer Research 19(3). Mommaas, J.T. (2002). City branding: the necessity of socio-cultural goals. In T. Hauben, G. Ball, & E. Brinkman (Eds.), City branding: image building & building images (pp. 32-48). Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers.

Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In S. Farr & S. Moscovici (eds), Social representations (pp. 3-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Myers, G. (2007). Enabling talk: how the facilitator shapes a focus group. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies 27(1), 79-105. Munasinghe, H. (2005). The politics of the past: constructing a national identity through heritage conservation. International Journal of Heritage Studies 11(3), 251-260. Pennington-Gray, L. & Carmichael, B. (2006). Political-economic construction of quality tourism experiences. In G. Jennings & N.P. Nickerson (eds), Quality tourism experiences (pp.208-223). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. Philogne, G. (2001). A theory of methods. In K. Deaux & G. Philogne (eds), Representations of the social (pp. 39-41). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Pine, B., & Gilmore, J. (1999). The Experience Economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Prentice, R. (2001). Experiental Cultural Tourism: Museums & The Marketing of the New Romanticism of Evoked Authenticity. Museum Management and Curatorship 9(2), 5-26.

Purkhardt, S. C. & Stockdale, J. E. (1993). Multi-dimensional scaling as a technique for the exploration and description of a social representation. In G.M. Breakwell & D.V. Canter (eds), Empirical approaches to social representations (pp. 272-297). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richards G. & Wilson.J. (2006). Developing creativity in tourist experiences: A solution to the serial reproduction of culture? Tourism Management 27, 12091223 Richards,G. (1996, ed.), Cultural Tourism in Europe, Wallingford, CABI Rose, G.(2001).Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials, London, Sage. Rokeach, M. (1968). The role of values in public opinion research. Public Opinion Quarterly 32(4), 547-559. Schwartz, S.H. & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(5), 878891. Schwartz, S. & H., Melech, G. et al. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32(5), 519-542. Sebeok, T. (1991). Signs : An Introduction to Semiotics. University of Toronto Press: Toronto. Smith, L. (2006). Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge.

Smith, L. & Waterton, E. (2009). The envy of the world? Intangible heritage in England. In L. Smith (eds), Intangible heritage (pp. 289-302). London: Routledge. Stebbins, R. A. (1992) Amateurs, Professionals and Serious Leisure. Montreal and Kingston: McGillQueens University Press. Tuan,Y. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes and values. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs. Tunbridge J.E., & Ashworth, G.J. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The management of the past as resource in conflict. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Turner, V. (1967). The Forest of Symbols. Cornell University Press: London. Timothy, D. J. & Boyd, S.W. (2003). Heritage tourism. Essex: Pearson Education. Uriely, N. (2005), The tourist experience. Annals of Tourism Research 32( 1), 199-216. Uriely, N., Yonay, Y. & Simchai, D. (2002). Backpacking experiences: a type and form Analysis. Annals of Tourism Research 29(2), 519-37. Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze. Sage: London. Voss, C. & Zomerdijk L. (2007). Innovation in Experiential Services An Empirical Vie. In DTI (eds), Innovation in Services (pp. 97-134). London: DTI VROM, Min. v. (2006). Nota Ruimte, Ruimte voor ontwikkeling. Den Haag.