Urban Forum (2014) 25:501515

DOI 10.1007/s12132-014-9241-5

The Perceived Authenticity of Iconic Heritage Sites

in Urban Tourism: the Case of Constitutional Hill,
Johannesburg, South Africa
Milena Ivanovic
Published online: 11 October 2014
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Cultural heritage sites play multiple roles in the development of urban
tourism. Amongst these roles, the authentic properties of cultural heritage generate a
sense of place, are the main source of authentic tourist experience and assume an
important role in reaffirming cultural and national identity. This paper provides a
contribution to authenticity discourse both theoretically and empirically. The study
examines and re-evaluates the main sources of authenticity of tourist experience
generated from South African iconic places which serve a dual function, as mustsee tourist attractions and as places of new post-1994 national African identity
building. The focus is the Constitution Hill heritage site in Johannesburg. The research
explores how authentic is the individual tourist experience of the site and whether
differences exist in the way domestic and international tourists perceive the authenticity
of the iconic place as representative of new South African identity. The results show
that the majority of tourists perceive the place as authentic and derive an authentic
experience from the visit. No statistically significant differences are observed between
the experience of domestic versus international tourists experience of the site which
was measured by four variables of authentic experience, namely, attraction, attention,
outcomes and feelings.
Keywords Perceived authenticity . Iconic cultural heritage . Constitution Hill .
Johannesburg

Introduction
Cities across the world are increasingly deploying culture and heritage as a catalyst of urban
regeneration (Richards 1996; Rogerson and Kaplan 2005; Richards and Wilson 2006;
Rogerson and Visser 2011) as well as an element of building competitive tourism destinations (Law 2002; Ashworth and Graham 2005; Apostolakis and Jaffry 2007). Cultural
M. Ivanovic (*)
Department of Tourism Management, School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg,
Johannesburg, South Africa
e-mail: mivanovic@uj.ac.za

502

M. Ivanovic

heritage also plays an important socio-cultural role in reaffirming national or collective

identity (Yu Park 2010; Wang 2011) as well as in building new identities as is the case of
South Africa in the post-apartheid period (McGregor and Schumaker 2006; Marschall
2009). Heritage places of memorialisation and commemoration of a turbulent historical past
are continuously revalorised through public consumption, most notably through tourism
(van der Ark and Richards 2006; Middleton 2007; Weidenfeld 2010; Graham and Howard
2012; Ivanovic and Saayman 2013a, b; Ramukumba 2014). The process of place
memorialisation and revalorisation generates the unique sense of place (Ashworth and
Page 2011) as a representation of new national identity. As such, a place becomes an iconic
attraction as it embodies a dialogue over history while the values of authenticity are
constantly re-negotiated (Weidenfeld 2010: 852). In an evaluation of an attractions iconicity,
its symbolic representation is perceived as iconically authentic if the perceived tourist
experience of the sense of place is authentic (Grayson and Martinec 2004: 298). Arguably,
therefore, a sense of place, the iconicity and perceived authenticity are inextricably interrelated in generating an authentic tourist experience.
Graham et al. (2009: 14) outline two broadly accepted approaches to defining a
sense of place, namely, as a genius loci (Norberg-Schulz 1980; Nuryanti 1996) or spirit
of the place and as lived experience. The former refers to different aspects of built
environment which are distinct to every place (Ashworth and Graham 2005) whereas
the latter lays greater emphasis on the way in which people experience, use and
understand place (Graham et al. 2009: 1516). The concept of authenticity follows
the same polarity. It denotes the authenticity of the toured objects (genius loci) and the
authentic nature of tourist experiences (lived experiences) (Wang 1999: 351). The
authentic properties of cultural heritage as toured objects are conceptualised in the
modernist theory of objective authenticity (MacCannell 1973, 1976, 2014). This
delineates a proof of realness or trueness of the objects (Collins and Murphy 2010:
324) which is considered an inherent property of urban cultural heritage places. The
nature of tourist (lived) experience is outlined in the post-modern theories of constructive (Cohen 1979, 1988) and existential authenticity (Wang 1999).
Constructive or perceived authenticity is defined as the tourists perception of
authenticity which is socially constructed and individually negotiated (Cohen 1988).
It means that even if the place is not authentic, the resultant tourist experience can be
perceived to be so and vice versa (Moscardo and Pearce 1986: 473). Existential
authenticity denotes tourist experience of the authentic self as being more true to
their personal values (Kim and Jamal 2007; Brown 2013) which can only be attained
through tourism participation (Wang 1999; Zhu 2012). The objective authenticity of
heritage attractions, or lack thereof, has no bearing (Kim and Jamal 2007) on the
experience of the authentic self (Middleton 2007). Consequently, objective authenticity
becomes obsolete in the conceptualisation of existential tourist experience (Steiner and
Reisinger 2006; Brown 2013) which in turn proves problematic for the growth of
cultural heritage tourism (Oakes and Minca 2004). What motivates tourists to get
engaged in cultural heritage tourism is precisely the opposite; they visit cultural heritage
places in order to learn about the historical past and to experience the attractions
authentic properties (McKercher and du Cros 2003; Ivanovic 2008).
It is argued that even though the authenticated properties of a historical place represent
the core value of its iconicity as a sense of place (Weidenfeld 2010), it exists separately
from the visitor and has meaning only insofar as the visitor interacts with the place (Ryan

The Perceived Authenticity of Iconic Heritage Sites

503

2002). The nature of this interaction depends on the nature of individual and social
memories (Selby 2004) which further implies that tourists independently negotiate their
own meanings (McKercher and du Cros 2003) while actively engaging with the place.
Furthermore, the nature of this interaction is not only different between those motivated
and not motivated by culture, or genuine and general tourists (Richards 1996), respectively, but also differs between different types of cultural tourists whose motivation ranges
from strong to weak and a depth of their experience goes from shallow to deep
(McKercher and du Cros 2003). In addition, Timothy and Boyd (2006: 3) suggest that
an intended role of a heritage place also can differ between domestic and international
visitors. At the domestic level, it is to build patriotism through the process of
memorialisation, national healing and identity building as well as to propagate a poignant
story of human suffering for international tourists as part of marketing the country. Iconic
places therefore assume a dual role as the symbols of the collective past and shared
identity and as must-see tourist attractions.
Unlike other classes of cultural heritage attractions, such are townships, cultural villages
and cultural routes, which attract all types of mass tourists as well as different types of
cultural tourist, South Africas iconic places are expected to attract a higher number of
genuine cultural tourists because of their dual role as tourist attractions and places which
signify the new national identity. At the same time, the way in which the history of
apartheid is represented, selected and constructed can generate different perceptions of
authenticity by tourists regardless of the intended role of the place. It is therefore of interest
to explore if the historical past depicting the history of apartheid is presented in such a way
that its representation and symbolism generate authentic tourist experience and if the places
are perceived as authentic by tourists regardless of their country of origin.
The discussion thus leads to the highly contested issue of authenticity of historical urban
heritage places, one aspect of which is the perceived authenticity of tourist experience. This
paper seeks to explore the cultural heritage tourism nexus in Johannesburg by focusing on
the issue of perceived authenticity of domestic and international tourists visiting South
African cultural heritage sites depicting the history of apartheid as part of the new post-1994
national identity. Robben Island in Cape Town, the Hector Peterson Memorial in Soweto
and Constitution Hill in Johannesburg represent a new class of iconic South African tourist
attractions (Delmont 2004; Marschall 2009; van der Merwe 2013). The task here is to
investigate if tourists perceive South African iconic places as authentic and to what extent
tourists visiting iconic heritage sites in Johannesburg are genuine cultural tourists. In
particular, the paper will explore differences in the perceived authenticity of tourist experience between domestic and international tourists. Methodologically, the paper involves the
analysis of two sets of sources. The theoretical framework for a discussion pertinent to an
issue of constructive or perceived authenticity in cultural heritage tourism is derived from the
secondary sources which provide an overview of the main arguments in current academic
discussions. The second set of material comprises primary data derived from a 2010 to 2011
survey at the Constitution Hill cultural heritage site in Johannesburg.

Theoretical Approaches to Perceived Authenticity

For the past four decades, the issue of authenticity has remained the most persistent,
most debated but the least agreed upon issue in tourism discourse (see e.g. MacCannell

504

M. Ivanovic

1976; Cohen 1979, 1988; Harkin 1995; Cohen 2002; Reisinger and Steiner 2006;
Steiner and Reisinger 2006; Kim and Jamal 2007; Belhassen et al. 2008; Cohen 2010;
Wang 2011; Chhabra 2012; Cohen and Cohen 2012; Zhu 2012; Rickly-Boyd 2013;
MacCannell 2014). There are several reasons why authenticity remains a theoretical
minefield. First, authenticity is a juxtaposition on the demand and supply sides of
tourism travel while simultaneously delineating both the nature of tourist experiences
and the authenticity of the toured objects (Wang 1999:351). Second, authenticity is
defined by three incompatible theories, namely, objective, constructive and existential
whereby each theory is founded in divergent world views, modernism and postmodernism (Zhu 2012; Brown 2013). Third, authenticity varies from one type of
tourism to another (Poria et al. 2007), from one type of tourist to another (Poria et al.
2004) and from one type of attraction/site to another (Cohen and Cohen 2012). Finally,
in informing the tourist experience, different tourist demographics appropriate different
tenets of authentic experience (Prentice et al. 1998; Ryan 2002) while even among
culturally motivated tourists, the authenticity of experience fluctuates on a continuum
from shallow to deep (McKercher and du Cros 2003). Notwithstanding these complexities, authenticity remains the single most important attribute of cultural heritage
attractions in urban spaces.
With the paradigm shift from modernism to post-modernism, the issue of authenticity shifted from the realist theory of objective authenticity (MacCannell 1973, 1976)
towards newly conceptualised relativist theories of constructive and existential authenticity (cf. Cohen 1988; Wang 1999). Henceforth, the post-modern take on authenticity
moved away from the modernist obsession with the realness and proven authenticity
of the object, to authenticity as an attribute that characterises tourist activities and the
resultant tourist experiences. The objectivist principle if the attraction/site is not
authentic, then the tourist experience cannot be authentic (Waller and Lea 1998:
111) was substituted by the constructivist proposition that even if the attraction/site
is not authentic, the tourist experience can be authentic (Moscardo and Pearce 1986;
Cohen 1988). The existential theory of authenticity proposed by Wang (1999) is of the
experience of the authentic self arising from tourism participation whereby tourists may
feel that they themselves are much more authentic when they engage in non-ordinary
activities, in which they are more freely expressed than in daily life (Uriely 2005: 207).
Nevertheless, the authenticity of the site and constructed authenticity of the experience
have nothing to do with the experience of the authentic self (Kim and Jamal 2007: 193).
When applied to cultural heritage tourism, an apparent detachment of existential
authenticity from objective authenticity poses a theoretical impediment because the
tourist experience cannot be isolated from the attributes and meaning of the heritage
place. Despite growing calls to declare objective authenticity as obsolete in the postmodern conceptualisation of authentic tourist experience (Reisinger and Steiner 2006:
81), a consensus has been reached that the existential theory does not explain the
relationship between the tourist and the object in the situated touristic space (Jamal and
Hill 2002: 88).
The theory of constructive or perceived authenticity is regarded as the most useful
experiential theory. Building on Boorstins (1992) theory of simulations and pseudoevents, it states that authenticity is an individually negotiated and socially constructed
concept (Cohen 1988) whereby tourists play an active role in creating their own,
individual experiences (Poria et al. 2007). The founder of the theory of constructed

The Perceived Authenticity of Iconic Heritage Sites

505

authenticity Erik Cohen (1979, 1988) asserted that even though the tourists are in
search of authenticity in real time, there is no one single type of tourist in search of one
single total authenticity as implied by MacCannell (1989). Indeed, Cohens so-termed
five modes of touristic experiences (Cohen 1988: 377; Cohen 2002: 271) have shown
that the perceived authenticity (of tourist experience) is not a given, but negotiable
(Cohen 1988: 374) and a socially constructed concept. Moscardo and Pearce
(1986:473) in their benchmark research on the authenticity of tourist experiences in
six Australian historical theme parks demonstrate that it is possible for tourists to attain
an authentic experience despite the fact that both the historical objects and constructed
space were not genuine.
The theory of constructive authenticity consists of two dimensions, cognitive and
affective. While the former denotes mindfulness (Moscardo 1996) as the learning
component (Prentice et al. 1998) derived from the interaction with authentic cultural
heritage, the latter signifies insightfulness (McIntosh and Prentice 1999) as an emotional response to objectively authenticated attributes of the sites. This theory is
especially pertinent to the nature of tourist experience which is derived from the
consumption of cultural heritage in urban areas. McIntosh and Prentice (1999: 607)
argue that, as tourists are more than cognitive in their response to cultural heritage
contexts, insightfulness is a much broader concept which also includes the affective or
emotional dimension of the tourist experience. These authors suggest that tourists
consciously and emotionally interact with the attraction setting, with their own personal
meanings induced and the benefits gained from this process (McIntosh and Prentice
1999: 607). Since constructive or perceived authenticity incorporates both components,
the cognitive component arising from the tourists learning from the place and the
affective component denoting an emotional response to the historical narrative, it is
rightfully regarded as the most valuable descriptor of authenticity of tourist experience
at the heritage places.

The Authenticity of Historical Cultural Heritage

Cultural heritage is about the past, and heritage sites must be able to bring the past to
life (Selby 2004: 57). This means that pastness (Wang 2011) must be activated in
the present in order that it can be experienced (Graham et al. 2000). Since the past is
localised in space but not in time, the sense of place must be related to a sense of time
(Ashworth and Graham 2005: 4). Graham and Howard (2012: 3) maintain that
cultural heritage is present-centred and is created, shaped and managed by, and in
response to, the demands of the present. The contentious issue is that the historical
past, when materialised in cultural heritage, signifies an inheritance as a symbolic
representation of national or group identity. Hence, the question remains which
selected meaning of the past in the present is the most authentic representation of
identity and whose identity is it? (Graham and Howard 2012: 5). Inheritance denotes
a transfer of historical values from one generation to another and thus embodies the
objective authentic value or, at least, a perception of it (Chhabra et al. 2003: 703). The
objective value of the past is achieved through acts of memorialisation, commemoration, dramatisation and selected interpretations of the past as part of a groups
identity (Marschall 2009: 339).

506

M. Ivanovic

Evidently, cultural heritage can only exist as an interpretation of the past and, as such,
is constantly revised and changed. Arising from this argument is that heritage cannot
possess any universal, eternal and inalienable values (Graham et al. 2000) and therefore
cannot be objectively authenticated. This directly contradicts the reliance on objective
authenticity in authenticated cultural heritage (Ivanovic and Saayman 2013b: 176). On
the contrary, the attractions historicity can be objectively validated by an undistorted
standard to determine what is or is not genuine (authentic) (Wang 1999: 353). Hence,
proven or objective authenticity should be adopted as the key measure of an attractions
representativeness of the past. MacCannells (2014: 287) stance is that what is real in an
attraction emerges as its symbolic representation. This reiterates the standpoint advanced
that the unique qualities of cultural heritage resources inherited from the past can only be
signified through objective authenticity. Furthermore, the symbolic representations of an
attractions pastness in the MacCannells sense combined with the elements of objective
authenticity generate a mental perception of an attraction as an iconic attraction.
An attractions iconicity is a complex concept which denotes a dialogue over history,
space and identity (Weidenfeld 2010: 852); negotiates the values of authenticity; and is
directly affected by social and cultural objectives (Grayson and Martinec 2004). In an
evaluation of iconicity, the symbolic representation of an attraction is iconically authentic
if the tourist has some reference point as an idea how the place should look like (Grayson
and Martinec 2004). It is argued that objective authenticity, being the symbolic representation of the selected past (Yeoman et al. 2007: 1131) , provides this reference point for
tourists to perceive the attraction as iconically authentic. Since the tourist experience of the
place is derived from a plurality of meanings which are historically, culturally, politically
and even personally determined (Tribe and Airey 2007: 11), there is no guarantee that the
place will be perceived as authentic, not to say iconically authentic.

Historical Cultural Heritage in Johannesburg and the Issue of Authenticity

Johannesburg is fast emerging as a popular urban tourism destination (Rogerson 2002,
2006, 2013a, b, 2014; Rogerson and Visser 2007; Rogerson and Rogerson 2014). The
citys modern cosmopolitan feel is seamlessly fused with its vibrant cultures and an
iconic status as the centre of South Africas liberation struggle against apartheid. Even
though each of these elements contributes to the tourist experience of the city as a
memorable place (Clark 2012), it is the citys historical post-apartheid cultural heritage
focusing on apartheids atrocity sites as part of political or justice tourism that holds a
potential to enrich the urban travel experience (Rogerson and Visser 2005: 75). The
Hector Pieterson memorial in Soweto (Marschall 2009) and the Constitution Hill
cultural precinct (van der Merwe 2013) are Johannesburgs most important legacy
projects (Delmont 2004: 31) both epitomising post-apartheid commemorative site and
iconic attraction. Their historical meanings were so eloquently illuminated by
Marschall (2009: 336) as follows: Post-apartheid monuments (and the heritage sector
in general) strive to represent the South African success story, the miracle of a peaceful
transition of power, inspiring narratives about resistance against oppression and injustice and the ultimate attainment of freedom.
Heritage sites are referential of human suffering and capable of conveying a
powerful and universal message which transcends not only gender or religion but a

The Perceived Authenticity of Iconic Heritage Sites

507

country of origin whilst triggering a personal transformation (Noy 2004), changes in a

persons worldview and evoking mindful, emotional responses (Moscardo 1996). In
common with, for example, the World Trade Centre memorial site in New York (SatherWagstaff 2008), it is suggested that post-1994 South African cultural heritage related to
the history of apartheid possesses the same universal qualities. It holds a quality of
global citizenship while at the same time promoting nation building, inclusion and
reconciliation in post-1994 South African democracy (Delmont 2004: 31).
Against this backdrop, the analysis now seeks to investigate to what extent tourists
visiting historical heritage sites in Johannesburg are genuine cultural tourists, whether
South African historical cultural heritage is perceived as authentic and whether the
South African struggle against apartheid possesses values which symbolise a universal
struggle of human kind for freedom and that sentiment, in turn, goes beyond a
collective or national identity. In the context of a historical heritage site, such as the
Constitution Hill in Johannesburg, the narrative and objective authenticity should
become the alleged source of authentic tourist experience.
Research Methods
The study was conducted at the Constitution Hill national cultural heritage site in
Johannesburg. Constitutional Hill was selected due to its dual role as a prison site
during apartheid where Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi were imprisoned and as
the seat of the South African Constitutional Court in the post-1994 South African
democracy. The survey took place during NovemberDecember 2010 and January
February 2011. The sampling strategy was a non-probability sampling, and the convenience or accidental sample was a sampling method. The tourists were approached at
the exits of both sites after finishing the tour. The main survey instrument was a
structured questionnaire. The survey yielded a total of 437 usable questionnaires.
The questionnaire contains scales of measurement which are adapted from various
studies and fine-tuned for the purpose of this study. The questionnaire comprised
demographic and behavioural sections with scales evaluating the importance of authenticity in the tourists experience, how authentic the actual experience was from the
sites, and sections containing the variables of the four main dimensions of authentic
tourist experience, namely, authenticity, attention, outcomes and feelings. A five-point
Likert scales (15, strongly disagree to strongly agree) was developed for the purpose
of measuring the variables pertinent to each dimension.
Authenticity as the appearance of the attraction contains items which measure the
authenticity of the setting (prison site in respect of Constitutional Court) and the
authenticity of interpretive media and services (for example, photographs, videos, audio
recordings, exhibits and sculptures). The scales pertaining to attention the tourists pay
to activities and demonstrations measure the attentional (how much attention they pay
to each of the listed media: audio-visual media, objects, plaques, exhibits and interpretation provided by a site guide) and the perceptual (how important each of the media
was in their understanding of the site dimensions of objective authenticity). The
outcomes denote the cognitive and affective dimensions of tourist experience. The
cognitive dimension is measured by the level of learning or mindfulness (to what extent
the site provoked the respondents thoughts), while two variables of affective authenticity related to insightfulness are emotional responses (how the experience made them

508

M. Ivanovic

feel) and empathy (how moved they are by the experience). Feelings are measured by
seven statements on a five-point Likert scale which assess how deep and extraordinary
were the feelings which were triggered by visits.
Microsoft Excel is used for data capturing and software SPSS version 18.0 (2010) to
process the data. The statistical services of the University of Johannesburg were used
for capturing and analysing the data. The data analysis is conducted in two stages. First,
descriptive statistics are used for the data analysis of the whole sample pertaining to the
various aspects of authenticity in particular as a motivation for a visit and as a resultant
tourist experience. This is followed by inferential statistics to test the associations
between the four dimensions of the authentic tourist experience. The significance of
the association between the four variables is measured by the independent samples t test
and Mann-Whitney U test (Pallant 2011) in order to provide statistically significant
evidence of the difference between the means of the two groups, domestic and
international, for each variable of authenticity.
The Authenticity and Tourist Experience
The results of a cross-tabulation of the two questions: how important it is to have an
authentic experience and whether the Constitution Hill provided tourists with an
authentic experience, reveal interesting results (Table 1). From 80 % of tourists for
whom it is very important and somewhat important to have an authentic experience
when visiting the cultural heritage sites, it was found that 93 % had an authentic
experience (strongly agree 56 % and agree 37 %).
As 56 % of all tourists who strongly agree that it is important to have an authentic
experience when visiting cultural heritage sites and also strongly agree that their experience
at the Constitution Hill was authentic are representative of the genuine cultural tourist.
Taking into consideration that the total Constitution Hill sample (N=437)consists of both
domestic and international tourists in the ratio of 1:1.3 (n=185:252), the result is that
domestic tourists make up 24 % and international 32 % of the 56 % group of genuine
Table 1 Cross-tabulation of the importance of having an authentic experience and the authenticity of the
actual experience from the Constitution Hill
How important is it for you to have an authentic
experience when visiting historical heritage sites?
Constitution Hill provided me with an
authentic experience of the freedom
struggle in South Africa

Very important

Somewhat important

Not so important

Fr

Fr

Fr

Strongly agree

56

197

24

13

33

212

Agree

37

128

66

35

50

166

Uncertain

16

19

Disagree

17

Strongly disagree

Total

100

351

100

53

100

410

Source survey

The Perceived Authenticity of Iconic Heritage Sites

509

cultural tourists. Furthermore, the percentage of genuine international tourists for the site is
60 % higher (32 %) than the 21 % of genuine cultural tourists estimated for the entire South
African long-haul population (Ivanovic and Saayman 2013a: 149). Application of the
Pearson chi-square test (2 (8, N=410)=36.91, p=0.00) shows that the result of crosstabulation is statistically significant, as it reveals here a strong correlation between the two
variables which are not the result of a sampling error.
Tourists evaluation of authenticity of their actual experience (Table 2) shows that
nearly half of tourists (49 %) gave the highest ratings (9 and 10) to the authenticity of
their experience at the Constitution Hill. Furthermore, half of the tourists (52 %)
actually had an authentic experience from the site. Overall, these results are encouraging in comparison to South African tourism statistics (SAT 2014: 65) which disclose
that only 7 % of international tourists selected culture and heritage as their best
experience while in South Africa, even though 40 % of leisure tourists visited a cultural
attraction during their stay (SAT 2014: 64).
The Role of National Identity in Informing the Authentic Tourist Experience
The significance of the association between the four variables for two groups, domestic
and international tourists, is measured by the parametric independent samples t test and
non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test.
The independent samples t test was set to provide statistically significant evidence of
the difference between the means of two groups, domestic (N=183) and international
tourists (N=251) (Missing=3), for each variable of authenticity (authenticity, attention,
outcomes and feelings). The two-tailed parametric t test was used for a non-directional
null hypothesis H0 which predicts that the sample values will be statistically different at

Table 2 Tourists evaluation of authenticity of their actual experience

How authentic was my experience on a scale 110

Had an authentic experience

1 Least

0.7

Strongly agree

52.0

1.1

Agree

40.0

0.7

Uncertain

4.7

0.5

Disagree

1.2

1.0

Strongly disagree

2.1

4.5

N=425

100

10.3

Missing=12

32.1

28.0

10 Most

21.1

N=425

100

Missing=12
Source: survey

Feelings

Outcome

Attention

Authenticity

Equal variances not assumed

Equal variances assumed

Equal variances not assumed

Equal variances assumed

Equal variances not assumed

Equal variances assumed

Equal variances not assumed

Equal variances assumed

1.505

1.687

0.047

0.136

0.221

0.195

0.828

0.712

3.348

3.307

0.706

0.718

1.057

1.054

0.170

0.171

408.485

432

367.166

432

391.108

427

390.974

432

df

0.001

0.001

0.481

0.473

0.291

0.292

0.865

0.865

Significance (two-tailed)

Significance

t test for equality of means

Levenes test for equality of variances

Table 3 Independent samples t test for two groups, international and domestic tourists

0.154

0.154

0.032

0.032

0.055

0.055

0.008

0.008

Mean diff.

0.04586

0.04642

0.04578

0.04503

0.05206

0.05218

0.05211

0.05207

Std. error diff.

0.11134
0.05756
0.15736
0.12084
0.12236

0.09358
0.04755
0.04735
0.05618
0.05770
0.06339

0.24368

0.24477

0.11122

0.09345

0.06229

Upper

Lower

95 % Confidence interval
of the difference

510
M. Ivanovic

The Perceived Authenticity of Iconic Heritage Sites

511

p<0.05. The results of Levenes F test (Table 3) show that all p values are greater than
0.05 and are therefore not statistically significant at the 95 % confidence level.
Consequently, the null hypothesis (Ho) of assumed equal variance fails to be rejected,
and the assumed equal variance is reported for the t test. The Cohens effect size (d) of
the effect between means of two groups for the independent samples t test (0.1 is small,
0.3 is moderate, and 0.5 is large effect) is measured for each variable of the authentic
experience.
The results of the independent samples t test for four variables feelings presented in
Table 3 revealed that origin of the tourists is not statistically significant in determining
the tourist assessment of the authenticity of the site (authenticity) (d=0.003), the
amount of attention they pay to on-site interpretative media (attention) (d=0.133) and
the outcome of the tourist experience, both in terms of mindfulness and insightfulness
of their experience (outcomes) (d=0.121). The results of the Mann-Whitney U nonparametric test of significance confirm that there is the statistical significance for the
means differences in feelings (U=18,561.00, p=0.001) while the remaining three
groups have the test statistics which fall outside the critical area of p<0.05. Even
though the t test for feelings is statistically significant, the Cohens effect size (d) d=
0.267 represents a small effect size; therefore, any of the four dimensions of authentic
tourist experience were not, in any significant way, influenced by tourists national
identity.

Conclusion
The data presented in this analysis reveal interesting findings. First, the results show
that the authenticity of the site is important for 80 % of the tourists of whom 92 % had
an authentic experience. Furthermore, 32 % of international and 24 % of domestic
tourists were genuine cultural tourists; for 56 % of the total sample, the authenticity of
the site was simply non-negotiable. Second, the results further provide insight into the
tourists perception of authenticity of their own experience by rating it on a 110 scale.
As almost half of all tourists rated their experience as most authentic (9 and 10), it can
be concluded that the tourist experience at the Constitution Hill was highly authentic
for the majority of tourists. If we add 32 % of tourists who gave a rating of 8, a total of
81 % of the sample (N=425) gave the highest ratings to the authenticity of their
experience at the Constitution Hill. This result is in stark contrast with the findings of
other research which suggests that South Africas heritage products are not authentic
enough (DEAT et al. 2004) and with findings reported in the South African Tourism
Annual Report (SAT 2014: 63) that only 7.5 % of international tourists selected culture
and heritage as their best experience in South Africa. It is evident from this analysis of
the Constitution Hill that the group of political cultural heritage sites cannot be held
responsible for the low overall ratings of the countrys culture and heritage attractions.
This suggests that the problem must rest in the lack of authenticity and low experiential
value associated with other types of cultural heritage products such as cultural villages,
township tourism or cultural routes.
Currently there is no available data on desirability and the perception of domestic
tourists regarding the experiential value of cultural heritage products or authenticity of
their experience. Regarding a desirability to visit South African political cultural

512

M. Ivanovic

heritage sites, it comes as no surprise that according to the Global Competitiveness

Report (GCS), 50 % of domestic tourists (DEAT et al. 2004: 354) expressed a desire to
visit Robben Island, the most famous iconic cultural heritage site in South Africa which
plays an important role in informing the new South African national identity. The most
significant piece of data comes from GCS (DEAT et al. 2004: 354) that the most
important quality of holiday for 24.2 % of domestic tourists is uniqueness and having
an authentic experience for 18.3 %. The fact that almost 20 % of domestic tourists
regard authenticity of experience as the most important quality of their holiday justifies
their inclusion together with international tourists into the sample of the Constitution
Hill in researching the authenticity of the tourist experience.
The most unexpected research findings relate to difference, or rather lack thereof, in
the authenticity of the experience between domestic and international tourists. The
association between the two segments for all four variables, namely, authenticity,
attention, outcome and feelings measured by the parametric independent samples t
test and the Cohens d size effect (d) showed that there is no difference between how
domestic and international tourists perceive the authenticity of the site, how much
attention they pay to the interpretive media or how mindful or insightful their experience is. These results serve as a confirmation that South African historic sites are
iconically authentic and that the message of human suffering as part of South African
national identity resonates at the level not restrained by the tourists origin. Given that
the message has universal appeal, it should be used more effectively in marketing South
African political heritage sites as iconic attractions.
The results presented in this paper confirm that the authentic properties of urban
historical cultural heritage places are the foremost source of authentic tourist experiences. The distinctiveness of a destinations history and heritage remains the main
source of perceived authenticity of tourist experiences. It is further confirmed that the
sense of place is highly dependent on the authentic properties of the historical cultural
heritage places and, as such, is experienced as authentic by most tourists visiting
heritage sites. The issue of perceived authenticity therefore remains central to any
discussions of the role of historical cultural heritage in the contemporary urban tourism
economy of South Africa.
Acknowledgments Thanks are due to helpful and detailed comments from anonymous reviewers which
assisted in the revision of this paper.

References
Apostolakis, A., & Jaffry, S. (2007). The effect of cultural capital on the probability to visit cultural heritage
attractions. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 1(2), 1732.
Ashworth, G. J., & Graham, B. (2005). Sense of place, sense of time and heritage. In G. J. Ashworth & B.
Graham (Eds.), Sense of place: senses of time (pp. 314). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Ashworth, G. J., & Page, S. J. (2011). Urban tourism research: recent progress and current paradoxes. Tourism
Management, 32, 115.
Belhassen, Y., Caton, K., & Stewart, W. P. (2008). The search for authenticity in the pilgrim experience.
Annals of Tourism Research, 35(3), 668689.
Boorstin, D. J. (1992). The image: a guide to pseudo-events in America (first published in 1962). USA:
Vintage Books.

The Perceived Authenticity of Iconic Heritage Sites

513

Brown, L. (2013). Tourism: a catalyst for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 40, 176190.
Chhabra, D. (2012). Authenticity of the objectively authentic. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 480502.
Chhabra, D., Healy, R., & Sills, E. (2003). Staged authenticity and heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 30, 702719.
Clark, M. (2012). Achieving memorable places: urban sense of place for successful urban planning and
renewal? In I. Convery, C. Gerard, & D. Peter (Eds.), Making sense of place: multidisciplinary
perspectives (pp. 119132). Rochester NY: Boydell & Brewer.
Cohen, E. (1979). A phenomenology of tourist experiences. Journal of British Sociological Association,
13(2), 179201.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 371386.
Cohen, E. (2002). Authenticity, equity and sustainability in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10, 267
276.
Cohen, S. (2010). Searching for escape, authenticity and identity: experience of lifestyle travellers. In M.
Morgan, P. Lugosi, & J. R. B. Ritchie (Eds.), The tourism and leisure experience: consumer and
managerial perspectives (pp. 2742). Bristol: Channel View Publications.
Cohen, E., & Cohen, S. A. (2012). Authentication: hot and cool. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 12951314.
Collins, N., & Murphy, J. (2010). The Hajj: an illustration of 360-degree authenticity. In N. Scott & J. Jafari
(Eds.), Tourism in the Muslim world (pp. 321330). Bingley: Emerald.
DEAT (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism), DTI (Department of Trade & Industry & SAT
(South African Tourism). (2004). Global competitiveness project: phase 1. Pretoria: DEAT.
Delmont E. (2004). Re-envisioning greater Johannesburg: South African heritage development in the first
decade of democracy. African Art (June), 3035.
Graham, B., & Howard, P. (2012). Introduction: heritage and identity. In B. Graham & P. Howard (Eds.), The
Ashgate research companion to heritage and identity (pp. 118). Farnham: Ashgate.
Graham, B., Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2000). The tourist-historic city; retrospect and prospect of
managing the heritage city. Oxford: Elsevier.
Graham, H., Mason, R., & Newman, A. (2009). Literature review: historic environment, sense of place, and
social capital. International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies (ICCHS). Available at http://www.
ncl.ac.uk/sacs/icchs/ Accessed 10 September 2014.
Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perception of iconicity and indexicality and their influence on
assessment of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 296312 (September).
Harkin, M. (1995). Modernist anthropology and tourism of the authentic. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(3),
650670.
Ivanovic, M. (2008). Cultural tourism. Cape Town: Juta.
Ivanovic, M., & Saayman, M. (2013a). South Africa calling cultural tourists. African Journal for Physical,
Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 19(2), 138154.
Ivanovic, M., & Saayman, M. (2013b). Selling or telling? Experiencing South African cultural heritage
tourism products. African Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and Dance, 19(2), 172
186.
Jamal, T., & Hill, S. (2002). The home and the world: (post)touristic spaces of in authenticity. In G. Dann
(Ed.), The tourist as a metaphor of the social world (pp. 77108). Wallingford: CABI International.
Kim, J.-H., & Jamal, T. (2007). Touristic quest for existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1),
181201.
Law, C. M. (2002). Urban tourism: the visitor economy and the growth of large cities. London: Continuum.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal
of Sociology, 79(3), 589603.
MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist: a new theory of the leisure class. New York: Schocken.
MacCannell, D. (1989). Introduction: semiotics of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 16(1), 16.
MacCannell, D. (2014). Comment on Lau and Knudsen/Rickly-Boyd. Annals of Tourism Research, 47, 285287.
Marschall, S. (2009). Landscape of memory: commemorative monuments, memorials and public statuary in
post-apartheid South Africa. Leiden: Brill.
McGregor, J., & Schumaker, L. (2006). Heritage in Southern Africa: imagining and marketing public culture
and history. Journal of Southern African Studies, 32(4), 649665.
McIntosh, A., & Prentice, R. (1999). Affirming authenticity: consuming cultural heritage. Annals of Tourism
Research, 26(3), 589612.
McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2003). Testing a cultural tourism typology. International Journal of Tourism
Research, 5, 4558.
Middleton, M. C. (2007). Framing urban heritage and the international tourist. Journal of Heritage Tourism,
2(1), 113.

514

M. Ivanovic

Moscardo, G. (1996). Mindful visitor: heritage and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 376397.
Moscardo, G., & Pearce, P. (1986). Historic theme parks: an Australian experience. Annals of Tourism
Research, 13, 467479.
Norberg-Schulz, C. (1980). Architecture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Academy Editions.
Noy, C. (2004). This trip really changed me: backpackers narratives of self-change. Annals of Tourism
Research, 31(1), 78102.
Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 249260.
Oakes, T., & Minca, C. (2004). Tourism, modernity, and postmodernity. In A. A. Lew, C. M. Hall, & A. M.
Williams (Eds.), Companion to tourism (pp. 280290). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual. Crows Nest Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2004). Links between tourists, heritage, and reasons for visiting heritage
sites. Journal of Travel Research, 43(8), 1928.
Poria, Y., Biran, A., & Reichel, A. (2007). Different Jerusalems for different tourists: capital citiesthe
management of multi-heritage site cities. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22, 121138.
Prentice, R., Guerin, S., & McGugan, S. (1998). Visitor learning at a heritage attraction: a case study of
discovery as a media product. Tourism Management, 19(1), 523.
Ramukumba, T. (2014). The role of tourist icons for a destination: the case of the closure of the Outeniqua
Choo Choo train in the Eden district municipality in the Western Cape Province, South Africa. African
Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 3(2), 112.
Reisinger, Y., & Steiner, C. J. (2006). Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research,
33(1), 6586.
Richards, G. (1996). Production and consumption of European cultural tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,
23, 261283.
Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2006). Developing creativity in tourist experience: a solution to the serial
reproduction of culture. Tourism Management, 27(6), 12091223.
Rickly-Boyd, J. M. (2013). Existential authenticity: place matters. Tourism Geographies, 15, 680686.
Rogerson, C. M. (2002). Urban tourism in the developing world: the case of Johannesburg. Development
Southern Africa, 19, 169190.
Rogerson, C. M. (2006). Creative industries and urban tourism: South African perspectives. Urban Forum, 17,
149166.
Rogerson, J. M. (2013a). Reconfiguring South Africas hotel industry 19902010: structure, segmentation,
and spatial transformation. Applied Geography, 36, 5968.
Rogerson, J. M. (2013b). The economic geography of South Africas hotel industry 1990 to 2010. Urban
Forum, 24(3), 425446.
Rogerson, J. M. (2014). Hotel location in Africas world class city: the case of Johannesburg, South Africa.
Bulletin of Geography: Socio-Economic Series, 25, 181196.
Rogerson, C. M., & Kaplan, L. (2005). Tourism promotion in difficult areas: the experience of Johannesburg
inner city. Urban Forum, 16, 214243.
Rogerson, C. M., & Rogerson, J. M. (2014). Urban tourism destinations in South Africa: divergent trajectories,
20012012. Urbani Izziv, 25, S189S203.
Rogerson, C. M., & Visser, G. (2005). Tourism in urban Africa: the South African experience. Urban Forum,
16(23), 6387.
Rogerson, C. M., & Visser, G. (Eds.). (2007). Urban tourism in the developing world: the South African
experience. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
Rogerson, C. M., & Visser, G. (2011). Rethinking South African urban tourism research. Tourism Review
International, 15(1/2), 7790.
Ryan, C. (2002). The tourist experience. London: Thompson Publishing.
SAT, South African Tourism. (2014). 2013 annual tourism report. Pretoria: SAT.
Sather-Wagstaff, J. (2008). Picturing experience: a tourist centered perspective on commemorative historical
site. Tourist Studies, 8(1), 77103.
Selby, M. (2004). Understanding urban tourism: image, culture and experience. New York: I.B. Taurus & Co.
Steiner, C. J., & Reisinger, Y. (2006). Understanding existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research,
33(2), 299318.
Timothy, D. J., & Boyd, S. W. (2006). Heritage tourism in the 21st century: valued traditions and new
perspectives. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(1), 116.
Tribe, J., & Airey, D. (2007). A review of tourism research. In J. Tribe & D. Airey (Eds.), Developments in
tourism research (7th ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience: conceptual developments. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 199
216.

The Perceived Authenticity of Iconic Heritage Sites

515

van der Ark, L. A., & Richards, G. (2006). Attractiveness of cultural activities in European cities: a latent class
approach. Tourism Management, 27, 14081413.
van der Merwe, C. D. (2013). The limits of urban heritage tourism in South Africa: the case of Constitution
Hill, Johannesburg. Urban Forum, 24, 573588.
Waller, J., & Lea, S. E. G. (1998). Seeking the real Spain: authenticity in motivation. Annals of Tourism
Research, 25, 110129.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 349370.
Wang, S.-Y. (2011). In search of authenticity in historic cities in transformation: the case of Pingyao, China.
Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 9(1), 1830.
Weidenfeld, A. (2010). Iconicity and flagshipness of tourist attractions. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(3),
851854.
Yeoman, I., Brass, D., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2007). Current issues in tourism: the authentic tourist.
Tourism Management, 28(4), 11281138.
Yu Park, H. (2010). Heritage tourism: emotional journey into nationhood. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(1),
116135.
Zhu, Y. (2012). Performing heritage: rethinking authenticity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(3),
14951513.