Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Responsible tourism in cultural heritage destinations involves questions of preservation, local welfare, and visitors’ responsibilities. This exploratory study examines how 15 Generation Z participants described cultural heritage and responsible tourism in Gaziantep, Türkiye, including perceived barriers, social media use, local contact, and responsibility for the future. Responses from one online focus group were examined across eight question areas and four related analytical areas. Participants expressed historical, aesthetic, and local meanings of heritage, while their definitions of responsible tourism varied in content and detail. They identified prices, transportation, crowding, food waste, and limited awareness as possible obstacles. Accounts of social media included both its value for remembering and sharing visits and concerns that recording could interrupt an experience. References to historical sites, local crafts, and gastronomy situated these views within both tangible and living cultural heritage. Particular encounters with local people were meaningful to some participants, whereas views about who should protect heritage for future generations differed. The findings offer a context-specific, preliminary account of how these participants discussed individual choices alongside destination conditions, digital practices, and living heritage; they do not establish effects on observed tourist behaviour. Future research with multiple groups, larger and more diverse samples, and mixed-methods designs is needed to extend and test these initial interpretations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çelik et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: