| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立虎尾科技大學 === 休閒遊憩研究所 === 99 === 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.
|
|---|
