Methodological study demonstrates a standardized workflow for assessing conservation willingness in heritage site visitors, suggesting enhanced reproducibility and behavioral evidence collection.
Heritage-site visitor surveys must generate usable behavioral evidence without disturbing site operations or weakening conservation priorities. However, recruitment boundaries, exclusion rules, measurement checks, model diagnostics, and data archiving are often incompletely reported in heritage tourism studies. This protocol presents a minimum-disruption field-survey workflow for measuring visitor conservation willingness and self-reported responsible travel behavior at Longmen Grottoes, Luoyang, China. The workflow integrates public-area visitor interception, anonymous electronic questionnaire administration, eligibility screening, attention checks, daily raw-data locking, predefined exclusion rules, construct scoring, reliability testing, confirmatory factor analysis, regression and path-model diagnostics, sensitivity checks, and reproducibility archiving. The questionnaire separates heritage knowledge, perceived heritage value, place attachment, pro-environmental message quality, perceived crowding, facility and service support, conservation attitude, conservation willingness, and self-reported responsible travel behavior. Representative implementation showed that the workflow produced an analyzable dataset with auditable exclusions, acceptable measurement diagnostics, and interpretable model outputs. The protocol is intended for heritage-site studies that need transparent visitor-behavior evidence rather than a single satisfaction measure. It can be adapted to other heritage settings by retaining the core procedural sequence while revising site-specific constructs, survey points, language versions, behavioral items, and fieldwork restrictions according to local conservation risks and visitor composition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jia et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: