Visitor Motivation and Destinations With Archaeological Significance in The Philippines

79
Visitor Motivation and Destinations with

Archaeological Significance in the Philippines
Jack G. L. Medrana1 and Richard Philip A. Gonzalo2
Abstract
Intramuros, the historical nucleus of Manila, is a sixty-four hectare
cultural and touristic district which has been archaeologically excavated since the
past four decades. This study examines the motivations of Filipino visitors,
adolescents to fifty years of age, to historical attractions in general and to
Intramuros in particular with the aim of identifying the nature of visitor
motivations, and determining how motivations are produced and articulated.
Results of the study show that activities desired and engaged in when visiting
Intramuros are more related to motivations about consumption of history and
culture, and visitors believe that ample information about archaeology of the place
is being delivered. For historical attractions in general, motivations for Filipino
visitors of these age ranges are characterised by preferences to interactive exhibits,
affordable entrance fees, information about museum contents, bonding time with
family or friends, and sensitivity of the attraction to the regional or ethnic identity
of the visitor. Digital communication is the most subscribed form of marketing
communication for these particular types of visitor clientele.
1Ph.D. Student, Archaeological Studies Program, University of the Philippines

Email: jglmedrana@yahoo.com
2Assistant Professor, Asian Institute of Tourism, University of the Philippines
Email: rpgonzalo@gmail.com
Hukay Volume 20, pp. 79-114

Visitor Motivation and Destinations 80
Introduction
While research has been started on the potentials of tourist objects
and destinations in our country such as transportation economics,
beaches, festivals, and accommodations, there is virtually nothing about
archaeological attractions. This study sheds light on the potentials of our
cultural heritage resources which we can develop to deliver more
opportunities to their local communities.
There is an utter neglect of scholarship on archaeological tourism,
the causes of which may range from a condescending attitude towards
tourism as non-theoretical by the orthodox academic archaeologist, to a
left of centre stance that negatively views tourism as one of the forces of
globalisation and capitalism. In countries where a good fraction of the
economy is based on tourism, products may also be prioritised according
to comparative advantage. Thus, archaeology as a product is often
overlooked in the Philippines as focus is directed towards beaches and
coral reefs, which may also be an excuse not to put more effort into
studying and developing our archaeological resources for visitors.
Several reasons have been presented as to the reasons why tourists
patronise destinations. What would be interesting here is to determine to
what extent and in what ways archaeological sites and museums become
the reason why visitors go to a particular destination. In many cases,
places in consideration have archaeological significance but their
archaeology may not be the only, or never was the, reason why they
become popular with travellers. This study would like to investigate not
only the relationship between places with archaeological significance and
motivations why visitors go to the place, but also the consumption
dynamics of the Filipino public with archaeology. In seeking a thorough
understanding of these, the study aims:
1) to identify the nature of visitor motivations to particular places
with archaeological significance; and
2) to determine how these motivations are produced and how they
are articulated.
Review of Related Literature

Motivational needs as seen from the perspective of tourism studies
have been outlined by Ryan (1997), in the style of classical Maslowian
81 Medrana and Gonzalo
hierarchy of needs. These include the intellectual component, assessing
the extent at which the motivation to participate in recreational activities
should include the mental exercises of learning, exploring, discovering, or
imagining; social component, which highlights searching for good
interpersonal relationships and the need for the esteem of others;
competence-mastery component, which centres on the need to achieve,
challenge, and compete; and the stimulus-avoidance component, which
stresses the necessity to detach at least temporarily from mostly routinary
and stressful lifeways.
Moving away from a simplistic Maslowian model, Mahika (2011)
mentions a proposal by Swarbrooke and Horner (2007) that motivations
be classified using two schemes. The first of these considers motivations
that would either explain why a person wants to travel, or why a
particular travel activity is chosen. The second of the scheme sees
motivation in different natures, such as psychological, emotional,
personal development, statural, and cultural. Complications surrounding
motivation factors appear when we consider that it is unlikely to have just
a single factor affecting the traveller’s decisions but a set of them making
influences, and each in various degrees.
Zooming in on archaeology as a tourist attraction, Holtorf (2005)
explains that there are certain reasons why the public patronises
archaeology. By viewing archaeology as a “brand,” he argues that the
field has a special appeal that satisfies some fantasies of the public.
Among these fantasies are the desire to hunt for treasure, the persistence
to search for answers to a mystery, or the longingness for adventure.
Some scholars have also suggested that the way archaeological products
and destinations communicate with visitors, such as through being
facilitators of emotional experience and stimuli to the senses, are
important aspects of the motivation process (Bonn et al. 2007; Poria et al.
2009).
The literature regarding visitor motivations to tourist attractions
has caught the attention of scholars for several decades now. Theoretical
approaches put forward by MacCannell (1976) suggest that the
relationship between the tourist and an attraction could be illustrated by a
model that links the two by way of a marker, much the same way as
concepts and language relate to each other, and which involves a process
that emphasise various stages of sacralisation. Much of these frameworks
derive from postcolonial perspectives that emphasise on the politics of
power and representation. Urry (1990) for instance developed the idea of
the “tourist gaze” which refers to the tourist’s view of the toured, the
latter of which is positioned to warrant a gaze from the former who is
considered the agent. The tourist gaze assumes that there is a boundary
between organised work, the routine, and the normal, and that recreation
is the antithesis of the structured system. An individual would become a
tourist and create his or her gaze when the introducing medium supplies
him or her with information about the attraction. This medium could
come in the form of posters, magazines, brochures, documentary
television shows, or movies which reinforce the tourist’s fantasy.
Nostalgia and authenticity are related to the search for one’s
beginnings. Nostalgia, in a summary of working definitions and related
aspects made by Ray and McCain (2012), consists of desiring a past
through artefacts, space, activities, or memories without really wanting to
be in that past. It includes a connection to the past and the formation of
identity facilitated by this past. Nostalgia is a motivation for part of the
visitors in a cultural heritage site, being called an important experiential
factor (Goulding 2001) in the marketing of destinations, and as such there
has been an evolving series of research devoted to it. Authenticity relates
to a truth, most especially when speaking of archaeological materials.
Marketing has noticed that authenticity is significant in endowing an
object or site with value (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996). The authenticity
issue is the theoretical underpinning of landscapes or territories being
considered as heritage, of souvenirs being bought, of vernacular
architecture and ruins being celebrated (Butler 2006), and eventually of a
whole conservation philosophy that has come to exist.
The value of heritage can be used to manage tourists and
conservation in heritage sites. There is a need to distinguish “real” site-
visiting tourists from sightseers by identifying the determinants of
monument visitation (Petr 2015). But more than managing visitation, a
critical analysis of value of tourists is imperative when employing tourism
for heritage conservation. Tourism can reintroduce people back to their
cultural roots through heritage but it can also compromise values when
tourism in heritage sites is corrupted by commercial gains (McKercher et
al. 2005).
An important issue when analysing tourism markets is how
values are created and reinforced in heritage sites. An appreciation of
value can help design efforts to encourage acceptable behaviour in
heritage sites. There is evidence that tourists’ perception of value is a
direct determinant of behaviour (Chiu et al. 2014). Individual or personal
values are guiding principles regarding how individuals ought to behave
(Parks and Guay 2009). However, values are not inherent in an object,
action, or landscapes, and are contingent in on the circumstances in which
a judgment is being made (Scheld et al. 2014).
Values are closely linked to motivation because they are general
beliefs that one ought to behave in a certain way (Parks and Guay 2009).
But in seeking to understand tourism markets, it is necessary to take into
account the influence of some other variables that may be important in
determining market segment characteristics (Rid et al. 2014). Tourist
profile, the context of tour vacation, and previous knowledge about the
place can also lead to favourable intentions to come to the heritage place
(Petr 2015).
Mason (2002) has constructed a typology of heritage values that
may help in investigating the myriad of issues connected to these values.
This typology shows a dichotomy between sociocultural values
(comprised by historic, cultural, social, spiritual, and aesthetic values of a
destination) and economic values (constituted by present and future,
oftentimes monetary, valuations) that the destination may have.
Intramuros, the focus of this study, is one of the premier tourist
destinations of Metro Manila and the historic nucleus of this big urban
complex. Its roots extend to the last seven hundred years when traces of
human settlement appeared along the banks of the Pasig River.
Archaeological excavations in the 1960s carried out in the Manila district
of Santa Ana, four kilometers to the east of Intramuros, revealed many
elite burials with radiocarbon dates extending into precolonial times
(Peralta and Salazar 1993), indicating that communities here have a long
history. The first accounts however, that mention settlements on the
estuary of the Pasig on what is now Intramuros are chronicles written by
members of Spanish expeditions to the island of Luzon in the 16th century
at the eve of colonial rule (Anonymous 1572).
Serving as the capital of the archipelago throughout the Spanish
colonial period, Intramuros became the administrative, ecclesiastical, and
educational centre of the Philippines, and together with its growing
industrial suburbs, also the economic dynamo of the colony. When
American rule was established at the dawn of the 20th century,
governmental and other functions diffused into the suburbs, and the old
city centre slowly lost its importance as the nation’s headquarters.

Intramuros was by then regarded as an area to be preserved “as a quaint
artefact of the Spanish period,” (Shatkin 2005/2006:583-584) with its moat
filled to form part of a public park and golf course, although segments of
its walls were opened to help ease the flow of traffic in the surrounding
areas.
Before the outbreak of the Second World War, the historic core
may have already attained the status of a major heritage destination as
shown by a travel guide catering to Japanese Catholics (Repetti 1939). The
sustained interest by successive administrations after Philippine
independence in 1945 regarding the preservation of the historic core had
been reflected in several policies developed. Tourist activity initially
diffused to Luneta (Rizal Park), Manila Hotel and its waterfront, and the
Ermita-Malate districts, then accelerated in 1970 and onwards with the
addition of the reclamation area in Pasay City to the modern tourism area
south of Intramuros. The Binondo-Sta. Cruz business complex which had
been Manila’s Central Business District (CBD) during the 19th to mid-20th
centuries was slowly being eclipsed by Makati when the latter’s rice fields
and swamps were valued as prime real estate, converted to built-up land,
and became the modern CBD of the metropolis by this decade.
Intramuros continued to be a tourist destination and it was also in the
1970s when a spate of archaeological work was taking place in the walled
city.
The 1970s also saw the acceleration of a series of archaeological
work done in Intramuros which was led by the National Museum (NM).
Several of these were salvage archaeology work mitigating destruction of
cultural resources in the light of construction activities happening all over
the walled city (Paz 2009). The main impetus however, for doing
archaeological investigations especially with the birth of the Intramuros
Administration (IA) has been the assessment of the historic core’s sections
being planned for reconstruction. It was the 1980 Intramuros
Development Plan that emphasised the role of archaeology in a grand
plan for the tourist-historic city. This developmental blueprint included a
whole section of provisions for archaeological excavation and emphasised
on identifying “areas of archaeological significance,” (Santiago 2003:137-
138) reiterated the importance of archaeology for an authentic
reconstruction of Intramuros, and for the establishment of museums. For
instance, Gatbonton (1985), in her detailed report about the excavation of
the Bastion de San Diego, emphasises the importance of using the
archaeological information obtained to guide the intricate procedures of
restoring this fortified corner of the old city’s walls.
Two other cases illustrate this objective of archaeology done by the
IA and the NM. The Maestranza site, located at the northern side and a
stone’s throw from the Pasig waterfront, had been part of the city’s wall
and fortification up to the end of the 18th century when it was torn down
to give way to developments along the river bank, and also to warehouses
at the onset of the 20th century. The archaeological data provided clues on
what the old walls looked like when they were standing, and this became
the basis from which to make the reconstruction plans for the area
(Bautista 2009).
The Jesuit-built Iglesia de San Ignacio (or Church of St. Ignatius) was
first constructed in the 17th century, only to be rebuilt again in 1898 when
the order returned to the country after a century of exile and the church
having been toppled down by an earthquake. Archaeological data from
the site has been seen to assist in the construction of a proposed
ecclesiastical museum, such as architectural information from the
excavation guiding its structure and design (Bautista and Dalumpines
2010).
Intramuros receives a good share of promotion in travel
guidebooks such as Lonely Planet Philippines (2012), with places such as
Fort Santiago, the San Agustin Church, Manila Cathedral, and Casa
Manila among the first destinations featured in its chapter on Manila.
Methods
Research methods was conducted in three stages, producing data
from qualitative methods. This study has limited the age of its
respondents to Filipinos from adolescents to 50 years old. Phase One, the
exploratory stage, included qualitative interviews and projective tests of a
sample size consisting of 50 individuals who are familiar with the site,
and with most having visited the site.
In this part of the study wherein we need to extract a higher
volume of data from a larger set of respondents but within a shorter
length of time, we employed qualitative interviews and projective
techniques. Morrison et al. (2012:66-68) mention three characteristics of
qualitative interviewing, namely, that it should be conducted in the
natural setting of the phenomenon being studied, it is relatively lengthy
than the regular interview, and should be from the participant’s point of
view. Except for the first one, all suggestions were followed by our
research methodology.
We have decided instead to hold interviews in other settings such
as respondents’ offices and classrooms because of interviewee scarcity per
unit time in the tourist destination under study. Projective tests were
given to elicit unconscious reactions aside from the initial, often straight-
forward answers in the interviews (Morrison et al. 2012:91). It was also
appropriate because we were giving another set of stimuli to the same set
of respondents who were already sensitised to giving out answers about
the same topic.
These 50 respondents consisted of four occupational groups such
as: a) managerial employees of a fast food company; b) regular Research,
Extension, and Professional Staff (REPS) and administrative employees of
an office at the University of the Philippines, Diliman; c) students of a
Revised General Education Program (RGEP) class at the University of the
Philippines, Diliman; and d) technical staff of a solar energy company
based in Laguna province.
These groups were chosen because we decided to limit our
respondent to demographic segments that are likely to be middle class,
have ample purchasing power for luxury goods like tourism products,
and are likely to try unusual or new offerings in the market like historical
and archaeological tours. This phase was done during the second to sixth
months of the project (November 2014 to March 2015). Among the
interview questions were the following:
What activities do you engage in when in Intramuros?
How would Intramuros rank to other cultural attractions and
other tourist destination types of Metro Manila and
neighboring provinces in terms of your preferences for a
weekend or holiday destination?
What can you say about archaeological information regarding
Intramuros?
Would it bother you if objects and buildings in Intramuros are not
in their original form?
What feelings and thoughts do you have about Intramuros as
being part of your heritage?
What feelings and thoughts do you have about yourself if people
knew that you visited Intramuros or had your personal event
being held in the place?
Raw data from the interviews were processed in accordance to
data analysis of grounded theory through coding (Morrison et al. 2012: 33-
35) by grouping concepts and constructs from the transcriptions and
examining relationships between groupings. The products of this analysis
were generalized statements that summarize the main points of the
interviewees’ answers.
The projective tests of the first phase were as follows:
Mind mapping or Word Association
Give ten (10) words that you associate with “Archaeology.”
Sentence Completion
I walked into the museum and saw three objects in display. The
first made me proud because __________________;
The second made me angry because
_____________________________;
The third made me cry because ______________________.
I will visit a museum if _____________________.
I want to visit an archaeological site because
______________________.
Data from the first phase was processed through the procedures of
grounded theory to search for links and commonalities among
respondents. Results of the projective tests were pooled as a whole and
did not differentiate between age and sex categories because they were
used to construct a questionnaire for Phase Two and another set of
projective tests for Phase Three.
Phase Two of the project involved ethnographic procedures
conducted on-site and in the internet. The on-site ethnography took the
form of regular visits to the Fort Santiago area for a period of four months
from January 2015 to April 2015.
Its aim was to observe behaviours that may offer details or some
aspects about data from Phase One. Ethnography also became helpful in
providing new information not present in the previous phase. Most of the
ethnographic data were recorded through photography and written

notes. The internet ethnography on the other hand, sometimes called “net
-nography,” a method of qualitative data collection from digital sources in
the world-wide web (Miller and Slater 2000) was done through an
examination of visitor write-ups in www.tripadvisor.com, a leading
website for reviews on tourist destinations, from January 2015 to August
2015.
Phase Three probed deeper into data obtained from Phase One
and Two through another round of qualitative analysis. Another set of
projective tests were constructed as shown in Appendix A composed of
Sentence Completion, Speech Bubbles, and Thematic Apperception tests
(TAT). These tests were given to the same sets in Phase I, but this time
only two in each age-sex category were chosen to for the last phase due to
logistic constraints. New data from the third phase was also interpreted
using Grounded Theory.
Results and Discussion

Phase One
For the interviews in Phase One we have divided our respondents
into four age groups: (1) younger than 21 years old; (2) 21-30 years old; (3)
31-40 years old; and (4) 41-50 years old. Appendix B summarizes the
responses of these age groups.
Preliminary information from the interview suggest that visitors to
Intramuros across these four groups engage in activities that primarily
have something to do with the history and culture of the place. Most of
the male interviewees, and females aged 41-50 years, told us that they
often bring balikbayan (Filipinos living in other countries coming over to
visit) relatives or friends to Intramuros for a cultural tour.
Most females in all age categories and young adult males (21-30
years old) replied that they take particular interest in the scenery, with the
oldest group of both sexes the most likely to take photographs during
their visits. Many females of the oldest age group also visit Intramuros to
attend Roman Catholic mass and to join a guided tour.
Most of respondents believe that information for visitors
displayed in the place communicate knowledge about the archaeology of
Intramuros to them. Interviewees were much particular on the
authenticity of artefacts in museum displays, preferring the original object
to be seen. However, many of them do not think that the renovation and
reconstruction of buildings in the Walled City diminishes the historical
character of the place. With regards to aspects of heritage, many of the
interviewees especially in the older three age groups are more interested
in visiting cultural-historical places and museum highlighting their
specific ethnic and regional identity.
Several of the females of the third and fourth age groups also said
that Roman Catholics strongly identify with Intramuros, but Moslems
could also be cultural stakeholders. When asked about what a visit to
Intramuros imparts to perception of the self, several males across the four
age groups replied that it makes them feel educated and possess “good
taste,” while this feeling of having been educated in the females were said
mostly by adolescents.
For the section on projective tests, responses did not differentiate
between age and sex categories because these were to be folded into
phases two and three wherein information about sex and age were not
considered statistically. In the preliminary gathering of data in Phase One,
the top seven ranking words associated with “Archaeology” from a total
of 88 words given in (a) are as follows:
1st: history, artefacts, ancient or old;
2nd: bones and fossils;
3rd : science and research;
4th: digging;
5th: discoveries, culture;
6th: mud or soil;
7th: treasure, Indiana Jones.
The Sentence Completion test looks into the articulation of
heritage formation with the three emotions of pride, anger, and sadness. It
also elicited responses about possible reasons why people go to museums
and archaeological sites. Results from these were also processed through
coding.
Pride derives from being part of a perceived rich culture and
history, seeing that a great artefact or material is from this country, seeing
representations of a perceived magnificent time in our past, the
uniqueness of materials in display as being only from this country, the

displays’ representation of ancestor greatness, being privileged to see
materials not seen by everybody.
Anger derives from object inauthenticity, offensiveness to own
race/identity, being reminded of a resentful experience; sadness derives
from having the display/material go to waste, not being known by many
people inspite of its importance, seeing and sensing human remains and
representations of death and tragedy, being reminded of a person
important to the viewer.
Phase Two
1) On-site Ethnography
The four month-long ethnography in Fort Santiago (Figure 1) took
place from March to June 2015. Observations and interactions were done
in selected days but represented weekends, working days, and holidays.
These were done for three hours in the afternoon from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
in each observation day, the hours when visitors often go to Intramuros.
The on-site work took place approximately once a week, totaling 50 hours
of on-site ethnography time.
Figure 1: Map of Fort Santiago in Intramuros by the Philippine Department of Tourism

and Intramuros Administration (Photo by J. Medrana).
Routes of visitors were observed. One route taken by visitors after
entering is to proceed to the Medio Baluarte de San Francisco. From here
they walk beside the wall forming the south embankment of the Pasig
River and take photographs with the river and buildings of San Nicolas as
background, and continue into Falsabraga de Media Naranja and
Falsabraga de Sta. Barbara.
In this tower complex is Baluarte de Sta. Barbara, which features a

Rizaliana Furniture Exhibit. An entrance fee of Php 10 is being collected
for those who would like to view the displays, but only few tourists
bother to look inside. Almost all of them would proceed instead to the
famous Rizal Shrine, a museum dedicated to the more important
memorabilia of Dr. Jose Rizal, the Philippines National Hero, just south of
this tower complex.
After visiting this museum many visitors proceed to walk along

the west wall until reaching Baluarte de San Miguel where they descend
beside the ruins of the Spanish barracks fronting the Plaza Armas before
taking a last look at the whole fort enclave and exiting it.
Another route often taken by Filipino visitors is to stroll to the

Plaza Armas after entering the gate. From here some would walk towards
the Dulaang Rajah Sulayman from the Plaza Armas, and continue in the
same fashion as visitors of the first route until they reach the Shrine. The
other tendency from Plaza Armas is to observe the barracks ruins before
proceeding to the Rizal Shrine entrance and the other areas of interest.
The most important set of data collected from this ethnography is

on taking photographs. For visitors who are Filipinos, Filipinos
accompanying non-Filipinos, and non-Filipinos alike, taking pictures is an
integral part of the tourist experience in Intramuros.
The spots of the fort enclave where photographs are oftentimes

taken include those presenting with dramatic landscapes such as at the
walls between Medio Baluarte de San Francisco and Casa del Castellano
where the Pasig River and buildings of San Nicolas district become the
subject, or the background to the human subject. Some of the individuals
posing in scenic backgrounds add gestures and unusual postures in their
shots (Figures 2-3).
Figure 2: Photograph taking at the Falsabraga de Media Naranja (Photo by J. Medrana).
Figure 3: Photograph taking at the wall between Medio Baluarte de San Francisco and
Falsabraga de Media Naranja (Photo by J. Medrana).
Doorways, entrances, and arches are the most popular areas

where photographs are taken. The main gate to Fort Santiago is always
included in shots (Figure 4), where at times the guard on duty is the one
requested by visitors to take photographs of themselves.
Figure 4: Photograph taking at Fort Santiago gate (Photo by J. Medrana).
There is a tendency for Filipinos to arrange a mock pictorial of

themselves when visiting touristic historical sites. The Dulaang Rajah
Sulayman during the study period was seen to be a setting for shots, with
a particular focus on the arches (Figure 5). Arches of the Spanish Barracks
ruins are also catching the attention of visitors (Figure 6) before they enter
the Rizal Shrine because they have to pass through these building
remains.
Figure 5: Photograph taking at the Dulaang Rajah Sulayman (Photo by J. Medrana).

Figure 6: Photograph taking at the ruins of the Spanish Barracks (Photo by J. Medrana).
Another favourite photo subject type are iconic historical

representations and markers. For non-Filipinos learning about Dr. Jose
Rizal, the bust of the national hero is occasionally included in their shots
(Figure 7). Historical markers, oftentimes placed beside a door or
walkway, also become featured in visitor photographs. In the duration of
the study most visitors came in groups of two or more. Pictures were
taken of individuals by a companion in their group, and the group selfie
more than the individual selfie was the familiar sight in the enclave.
Figure 7: Taking a photograph of Dr. Jose Rizal’s bust (Photo by J. Medrana).

The second interesting set of data from this ethnography concerns
posted message pieces written by visitors as comments to their
experiences in the Rizal Shrine (Figure 8). A salient theme coming up
from the content of these messages is the visitors’ regard of Dr. Jose Rizal.
In the messages, visitors have called him idol and papa. The first term of
endearment is usually used by both Filipino males and females to refer to
an iconic personality or to praise someone informally (applicable to both
sexes but more of the male than female), oftentimes jokingly said. Papa on
the other hand is used by Filipino females or gay males to refer to a male
personality of worship.
Figure 8: Messages written by visitors posted at the exit of the Rizal Shrine (Photo by J.
Medrana).
Other terms seen in the comments include “astig” and “you rock!”
Astig is a syllabic inversion of the Filipino term tigas, meaning “hard” but
figuratively translates into “tough,” or “macho;” while saying that
persons, places, or things “rock” means that they are “great” or are
“cool.” Other thoughts written down about Dr. Rizal was “you’re the
man,” “a great man,” “inspiring,” “be Rizal, be a hero.” Accompanying
these positive attributes to him was the feelings derived from being in the
Shrine: “I just love history and stor[ies] about Rizal,” “nostalgic,” “worth
it,” “fun and educational,” “meaningful history,” “unforgettable
experience”.
2) Internet Ethnography
The internet ethnography showed predominant themes associated
with visitor motivations. These are lines from the reviewers’ pages in Trip
Advisor’s (www.tripadvisor.com 2015) Intramuros thread showing
Filipino reviewers’ responses from January 2015 to August 2015. The
qualifying criteria for being respondent was the Philippine address
indicated in the review, and 39 reviewer entries were found for
examination.
One major theme is about expectation of a tourist destination, in
which a staged environment of a nostalgic past that is accommodating but
at the same time perceived as safe and hygienic figures largely:
“…please keep it as a tourist destination and not a dwelling place for informal
settlers.” (whentravelingblogger 2015)
“The only drawback in this place are the vendors and beggars and occasional
security guards who prohibit you from shooting photos.” (Rollymagpayo 2015)
“I do not know what makes people go there, old rundown buildings, partly dirty
streets…” (JO B 2015)
An expectation of experiencing a nostalgic past links itself to how
visitors regard the Walled City as an object of heritage. One informant
wrote of getting a feel of how things were when national icon Dr. Jose
Rizal was nearing death:
“…my most favorite spot is the chamber/prison where Dr. Jose Rizal stayed for
his remaining days before he was killed by Spaniards through firing squad. That
particular place always gives me goosebumps!” (CheParacuelles 2015)
To other respondents, merely seeing the beauty of old structures,
walking within, and sampling its gastronomy revalidates claims to
heritage:
“I really like Intramuros and learned to discover it. You have to do the Fort
Santiago, have lunch at El Mitre, walk to Manila Cathedral and St. Augustine
Church and finish it with a drink on the roof of Bay Leaf Hotel.” (Sebastien J
2015)
“I love old things and history that is why I am so mesmerized by this place. This
part of Manila has endured the test of time and it (sic) still standing there proud
and tall.” (Larry Chase G 2015)
An important revelation by these two ethnographies is the sensual
and emotional aspects in the personal creation of heritage. This feeling
towards a heritage is facilitated as the senses obtain stimuli from the
destination site. Heritage claimants refashion historical information and
the present space and material culture of the destination site to strengthen
claims from a collective bequeathed history.
Phase Three
In the third phase there is an effort in elaborating aspects of data
from the previous two phases. In addition to these, we examine other
components that we believe could give us insights on how and why these
areas are the way they are to the tourist-client. The results of the third
phase did not exhibit a significant grouping of responses between age and
sex categories. Areas that were investigated further include:
Perception of archaeology;
Details of a cultural attraction preferred; and
How Intramuros stands against popular attractions in Metro Manila
and surrounding provinces;
Museum entrance fees;
Information about cultural attractions and how to get there; and
Tourist destinations featured in popular media.
Perceptions of Archaeology
Because the archaeological component is perceived by most
respondents to be present in their experiences in Intramuros, we elicited
their thoughts and feelings that put them into a closer relationship with
archaeology. Three pictures were chosen for the TAT to probe into the top
seven word association rankings produced in Phase One.
The first set of responses cluster on archaeology as a scholarly
field of interest. Respondents see archaeology as a rigorous discipline by
ehaviording the work as “field work” and “exacavation,” that is “tedious
and painstaking” and were “in awe (of the archaeologist’s) patient and
meticulous work.” The second set of responses cluster on human remains
in archaeology where respondents brought out their references to
interpersonal relationships (“family,” “love,” “together even after life”
where “even death cannot separate them apart”), mortality and death
(“buried,” “calamities”), and curiosity (“evidence,” “identity of the bones
and how they died”). The third cluster was on archaeology as a subject of
popular culture. Respondents associate this with adventure and an
exciting performance that includes imaginings of a “hero,” “treasure,”
“discovery,” and “travel.” Responses suggest a desire to partake in this
experience in any form (participating in an excavation, “[Indiana Jones] is
asking me to join him in his adventures,” or by watching all of the Indiana
Jones movie series).
These results are likely to illustrate that a positive affinity for
archaeology by Filipino respondents is likely to be based on a reflexivity
with the archaeological. In particular, an emotional and experiential focus
constitute significant aspects of relating to the archaeological. Another
factor appearing in these tests is the knowledge component of the visitor’s
relationship not only in their mentioning of archaeology as a systematic
work but more so in curiosity as an element that could direct their
attention to archaeology. These findings seem to stand parallel with
Holtorf’s (2009) educational and public-relations models of archaeology
which broadly suggests that the discipline’s popularity could be bolstered
by demands in educating and entertaining the public, respectively. It may
therefore become a useful instrument in crafting interpretations.
Details of a Preferred Cultural Attraction
Respondents were made to choose one preference from four
different types of museums shown in pictures and to tell why they like it.
Even though choices vary, reasons behind the preference are surprisingly
non-conflicting and could be presented as follows.
Visitors would like a museum that makes them feels intimate with
the displays and physical setting. An interactive setting is more preferred,
and this is expressed as either wishing to have physical contact with the
museum displays or environment, or having multidirectional
communication between audience and museum content. Related to this is
the expectation that the cultural attraction will influence their senses (“3D
objects appeal to me,” “to see how huge [they] were,” “aesthetic,” “almost
real”) and emotions (“historical ambience takes me back in time…past
should be experienced,” “mind blowing”).
Information is another theme identified by our respondents.
Sources of information about displays should be freely accessible to the
audience by having captions, and allowing the possibility to move “freely
back and forth between displays” with ample time. Some mentioned that
they like a museum that could afford them a good bonding place for their
family and friends.
How Intramuros Stands Against Popular Attractions in Metro Manila
and Surrounding Provinces
The tourist destination of Intramuros is associated with education.
Since it is a historical place, almost all respondents expect their visit to be
a learning experience in history and a revalidation of their claims as
cultural stakeholders. These characteristics of Intramuros given by the
respondents provide for a positive contrast against the more mundane
attractions of Enchanted Kingdom, Tagaytay City, and Mall of Asia (“you
learn more about history [here in Intramuros], [while] in other places you
just spend [money] but don’t learn anything”). The site’s “vintage” appeal
invites visitors to “imagine what had happened in the past” and a desire
to replicate the experience by “writing blogs and taking pictures to be
circulated in Instagram.” While a respondent mentioned that the
attraction “still has a long way to become a world-class destination,”
another interesting input is the idea that an Intramuros experience lingers
because “people hold on to things that bring deep meaning and
knowledge, like history about themselves.”
Museum entrance fees
Most respondents prefer a free or affordable entrance to cultural
attractions such as museums, where an entrance fee higher than one
hundred pesos is perceived to be costly. According to them, affordability
should be most applicable to students and the local community. There are
still some other thoughts on pricing: some replied that museum product
quality should not be sacrificed in the name of free or affordable entrance,
while others suggested that pricing schemes should be socialised or part
of it be dependent on government subsidies.
Information about cultural attractions and how to get there
People are unanimous that in order to reach a wider clientele,
information about cultural attractions should be sent to different kinds of
mediated communication channels. A standout among these channels is
the internet. Respondents wish that information are clear and detailed,
such as putting contact details for clarification, but should also stimulate a
sense of “mystery and discovery.”
Tourist destinations featured in popular media

Featuring a heritage site in popular culture is one way of
articulating McCannell’s (1976) signifier and signified in the process of
sacralization. Respondents indicate that they want to go to places featured
in telenovelas and films. Many are aware that places chosen as film and
telenovela locations are “often in culturally rich areas” with “old houses
and buildings” that “help in publicity and promotion.” Their concern
about featured historical places is the issue of hyperreality, as the
possibility for discrepancies exist between what is shown in the media
and what is there in reality. This is appears in their replies such as
“should be historically accurate,” “must be the ways they look like in
reality.”
Summary and Conclusions

This project has been a research on investigating visitor
motivations to Philippine archaeo-historical tourist destinations such as
Intramuros. It used qualitative methods to give an understanding of the
various dimensions of motivational aspects in the tourist clientele of this
kind of destination. The results of this study show that:
1. Filipino visitors to Intramuros within the adolescent to 50 years
old age range come to Intramuros primarily to engage in activities
related to the consumption of history and culture of the place;
2. most Filipino visitors believe that information for visitors
displayed in the place communicate knowledge about the
archaeology of Intramuros to them;
3. a strong component of the visitors’ sense of heritage touches on
their emotions and their identification with what is sensed in the
destination site;
4. ethnographic procedures suggest that a great proportion of
activities performed by visitors in Intramuros is photograph-
taking; historical iconic signs, landscapes, and perspectives (such
as arches and doorways) of the Walled City are the objects of focus
or are included in photographs of the selves;
5. visitors associate Intramuros very much with learning something
about history and culture, which differentiates it from other tourist
attractions of Metro Manila and its surrounding provinces;
6. a strong element in motivations to visit cultural attractions such as
museums and archaeological sites is related to the expectation, or
the presence, of interactive exhibits, affordable entrance fees,
availability of information about the museum contents, and
bonding time among companions;
7. Communication and the media play a significant role in
connecting the tourist clientele to the attraction, which in this
study has been shown by a heavy reliance of consumers on the
internet for information about the attraction, and the effect of
popular media in producing a positive image of an attraction.
Middle class Filipino university students and early- to middle-
aged adults spanning adolescence up to 50 years old are likely to visit
places of archaeological significance such as Intramuros primarily because
of their historic and cultural significance. A large part of this motivation is
facilitated by onsite sensorial and nostalgic relationships between the
visitor and cultural resources, wherein the artefact or monument,
authentic or not, has a role in heightening the experience. Other tourist-
related activities in Intramuros such as those that are wellness (jogging or
strolling) and spiritual (attending Roman Catholic mass) in nature are a
second-priority addition to the cultural and historical motivations. A
greater number of respondents are satisfied with the amount of
archaeological information about this place being communicated to them.
Possibly because interviewee answers and tests suggest deeper meanings
to the place in terms of heritage, their responses in the succeeding tests
associate things that are archaeological more with collective memory and
nostalgia than with plain adventure.
A greater proportion of respondents told us that they also
associate archaeology with research and science. It is thus imperative that
heritage interpreters such as tour guides be equipped with ample
information generated by academic research. Ideally they are tasked to
inform the clientele but should allow the latter’s reflexive participation to
encourage the formation of a particular heritage’s “plurality” that would
suit the different backgrounds and experiences of the clientele. While the
Filipino visitor of these demographic segments require several ways of
relating to objects and sites of heritage, they also like to have a monetary
charge for cultural attractions that is commensurate to their status as
heritage stakeholders and to the good preservation of the cultural
resources.
Acknowledgements
We express our sincerest thanks to the following who made this work
possible:
University of the Philippines – Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research
and Development;
The Intramuros Administration under Administrator Marco Antonio L.V.
Sardillo III, and with the assistance of Miss Raidis Bassig and Miss Sandra
M. Martinez;
University of the Philippines – Archaeological Studies Program:
Miss Mylene Q. Lising, Miss Dianne M. Catibog, Miss Pauline Basilia, Mr.
Edwin Valientes, Mr. Jessie Anain, Miss Digna Jacar, Miss Obelia
Cutiongco, Mr. Cesar Oandasan, Miss Jennifer A. Perez, Miss Kamille O.
Aldover, Miss Sheena D. Onate, Miss Shane M. Katipunan and
Mr. George Narag.
References
Anonymous. 1572. “Conquest of the Island of Luzon” in The Philippine
Islands, 1493-1898, Volume III. Edited by E. H. Blair and J. A.
Robertson, pp. 141-172. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Company,
1903.
Bautista, A. P. 2009. “The Archaeology of the Maestranza site, Intramuros,
Manila” in Manila: Selected Papers of the 17th Annual Manila
Conference, August 13-14, 2008. Edited by B. R. Churchill, pp. 36-
68. Manila: National Commission for Culture and the Arts.
Bautista, A. P and M. K. C. Dalumpines. 2010. “Archaeological excavation
at the Iglesia de San Ignacio site, Intramuros, Manila” in Manila:
Selected Papers of the 18th Annual Manila Conference, August 23-24,
2009. Edited by B. R. Churchill, pp. 1-40. Manila: National
Commission for Culture and the Arts.
Bonn, M. A., S. M. Joseph-Matthews, M. Dai, S. Hayes, and J. Cave. 2007.
Heritage/Cultural Atmospherics: Creating the Right Environment
for the Heritage/Cultural Visitor. Journal of Travel Research 45(3):
345-354.
Butler, B. 2006. “Heritage and the Present Past” in Handbook of Material
Culture. Edited by C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Kuchler, M. Rowlands,
and P. Spyer, pp. 463-479. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
CheParacuelles. 2015. Historical rich in the middle of a busy city. Accessed 24
August 2015 from http://www.tripadvisor.com.
Chiu, Y.T., W. I. Lee, and T. H. Chen. 2014. Environmentally responsible
Behavior in Ecotourism: Antecedents and Implications. Tourism
Management 40: 321-329.
Gatbonton, E. B. 1985. Bastion de San Diego. Intramuros Administration.
Manila.
Goulding, C. 2001. Romancing the past: heritage visiting and the nostalgic
consumer. Psychology and Marketing 18(6): 565-592.
Holtorf, C. 2009. Archaeology Is A Brand!: The Meaning of Archaeology in
Contemporary Popular Culture. Left Coast Press. Walnut Creek.
JO B. 2015. I do not know… Accessed 24 August 2015 from http://
www.tripadvisor.com.
Larry Chase G. 2015. Amazingly real. Accessed 24 August 2015 from http://
www.tripadvisor.com.
Lonely Planet. 2012. Philippines. 11th Edition. Singapore. Lonely Planet
Publications.
MacCannell, D. 1976. The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New
York: Schocken Books, Inc.
Mahika, E.C. 2011. Current trends in tourist motivation. Cactus Tourism
Journal 2(2):15-24.
Mason, R. 2002. Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological
Issues and Choices. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles:
J. Paul Getty Trust.
McKercher, B., P. S. Ho, and H. du Cros. 2005. Relationship between
tourism and cultural heritage management: evidence from Hong
Kong. Tourism Management 26: 539-548.
Miller, D. and D. Slater. 2000. The Internet: An ethnographic approach.
Oxford and New York: Berg.
Morrison, M. A., E. Haley, K. B. Sheehan, and R. E. Taylor. 2012. Using

Qualitative Research in Advertising - Strategies, Techniques, and
Applications. Second Edition. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi,
Singapore, Washington D.C.: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Parks, L. and R. P. Guay. 2009. Personality, values, and motivation.
Personality and Individual Differences 47: 675-684.
Paz, V. J. 2009. “Defining Manila through archaeology” in Manila: Selected
Papers of the 17th Annual Manila Conference, August 13-14, 2008.
Edited by B. R. Churchill, pp. 1-35. Manila: National Commission
for Culture and the Arts.
Peralta, J.T. and L.A. Salazar. 1993. Pre-Spanish Manila: A Reconstruction of
the Pre-History of Manila. National Historical Institute. Manila.
Petr, C. 2015. How heritage site tourists may become monument visitors.
Tourism Management 51: 247-262.
Poria, Y., A. Biran, and A. Reichel. 2009. Visitors’ Preferences for
Interpretation at Heritage Sites. Journal of Travel Research 48(1):92-
105.
Ray, N. M and G. McCain. 2012. Personal identity and nostalgia for the
distant land of the past: Legacy tourism. International Business and
Economics Research Journal 11(9): 977-990.
Repetti, W.C. 1939. A guide to old Manila. Monumenta Nipponica 2(1):287-
290.
Rid, W., I. O. Ezeuduji, and U. Pröbstl-Haider. 2014. Segmentation by
motivation for rural tourism activities in The Gambia. Tourism
Management 40: 102-116.
Rollymagpayo. 2015. This is old Manila. Accessed 24 August 2015 from
http://www.tripadvisor.com.
Ryan, C. 1997. “Similar Motivations – Diverse Behavior” in The Tourist
Experience – A New Introduction. Edited by C. Ryan, pp. 25-47.
London: Cassell.
Santiago, A. M. 2003. The Restoration of Historic Intramuros: A Case Study in
Plan Implementation. Quezon City: University of the Philippines
School of Urban and Regional Planning and UP Planning and
Development Research Foundation, Inc.
Sebastien J. 2015. It can’t be more Manila than that. Accessed 24 August 2015
from http://www.tripadvisor.com.
Scheld, S., D. H. Taplin, and S. M. Low. 2014. The Values-Based Approach
for Cultural-Heritage Preservation in U.S. Public Parks. APT
Bulletin 45: 49-56.
Swarbrooke, J. and S. Horner. 2007. Consumer Behavior in Tourism. London:
Routledge.
Shatkin, G. 2005/2006. Colonial capital, modernist capital, global capital:
The changing political symbolism of urban space in Metro
Manila, the Philippines. Pacific Affairs 78(4):577-600.
Tunbridge, J. E. and G. J. Ashworth. 1996. Dissonant Heritage: The
Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict. Chichester: John
Wiley and Sons.
Urry, J. 1990. The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies.
London: Sage.
Whentravelingblogger. 2015. Please Keep Informal Settlers Away! Accessed
24 August 2015 from www.tripadvisor.com.
Appendix A: Projective Tests for Phase Three

I. There are three (3) pictures in this form. Take a look at each picture
and answer the questions below.
A)
Image source: http://www.livescience.com/16537-gallery-ancient-toolkits.html
What do you feel about this picture?
B)
Image source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html

C)
Image source: http://scooterksu.blogspot.sg/search/label/DVD%20Review
II. Complete the following three (3) sentences:

A) The museum entrance fee________________________________________
________________________________________________________________.
B) Information about a cultural attraction and how to get there _________
________________________________________________________________.
C) Places featured in telenovelas and films ___________________________
_________________________________________________________________.
III. There are four kinds of museums in this form. Choose the museum
that you like most by (1) writing the letter corresponding to the photo
that you chose; and (2) explaining why you like it. Write your answers
after the 4th picture.
A)
Image source: http://www.houzz.com/ideabooks/2834654/list/designers-touch-10-

wonderful-wine-storage-spaces
B)
Image source: http://www.7zhou.com/tour-6364.html

C)
Image source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/219409813070608529/
D)
Image source: https://www.marketingcloud.com/blog/category/customer-journeys/
Write Your Answers Here:

IV. In this form there are four place names. Imagine all of them to be
contestants in a popularity contest, each intensely arrogant and would
do anything to outwit one another (or destroy another’s reputation!).
If they happen to come together in a backstage of the contest venue,
what would they say to each other? Write the statements below each
place name.
(1) Enchanted Kingdom:
(2) Tagaytay City:
(3) Sm Mall Of Asia:
(4) Intramuros:
Appendix B: Results Of The Interviews
In each age group are the summarised responses of two-thirds or more of
the respondents.
(1) < 21 years old, male, N = 6

Intramuros is a place where I bring foreigner or balikbayan relatives and
friends who visit me.
I visit Intramuros to learn something about history and culture.
Visiting Intramuros makes me feel educated.
Renovations don’t diminish the historical character of the place.
Available information in the place amply tells something about
archaeology.
Intramuros is a “must-see” destination in Manila.
(2) 21-30 years old, male, N = 6

Visiting Intramuros makes me feel that I have good taste.
I visit Intramuros because of its good setting and scenery.
I visit Intramuros to take pictures.
I’m more interested in visiting places that highlight my ethnic or regional
identity.
Museums should display real artifacts.
archaeology.


identity.
archaeology.
(5) < 21 years old, female, N = 6

identity.
archaeology.
(6) 21-30 years old, female, N = 6

archaeology.

identity.
Intramuros is significant to Roman Catholic Filipinos.
archaeology.

I visit Intramuros to attend mass or visit Roman Catholic churches for re-
ligious reasons.
I like to join guided tours.

identity.
Intramuros is significant to Roman Catholic Filipinos.
Intramuros is significant to Moslem Filipinos.
archaeology.

Visitor Motivation and Destinations With Archaeological Significance in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Visitor Motivation and Destinations With Archaeological Significance in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Visitor Motivation and Destinations With Archaeological Significance in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

79

Visitor Motivation and Destinations with

1Ph.D. Student, Archaeological Studies Program, University of the Philippines

Hukay Volume 20, pp. 79-114

Review of Related Literature

city centre slowly lost its importance as the nation’s headquarters.

ethnographic data were recorded through photography and written

Results and Discussion

uniqueness of materials in display as being only from this country, the

Figure 1: Map of Fort Santiago in Intramuros by the Philippine Department of Tourism

In this tower complex is Baluarte de Sta. Barbara, which features a

After visiting this museum many visitors proceed to walk along

Another route often taken by Filipino visitors is to stroll to the

The most important set of data collected from this ethnography is

The spots of the fort enclave where photographs are oftentimes

Figure 2: Photograph taking at the Falsabraga de Media Naranja (Photo by J. Medrana).

Doorways, entrances, and arches are the most popular areas

Figure 4: Photograph taking at Fort Santiago gate (Photo by J. Medrana).

There is a tendency for Filipinos to arrange a mock pictorial of

Figure 5: Photograph taking at the Dulaang Rajah Sulayman (Photo by J. Medrana).

Another favourite photo subject type are iconic historical

Figure 7: Taking a photograph of Dr. Jose Rizal’s bust (Photo by J. Medrana).

Tourist destinations featured in popular media

Summary and Conclusions

Morrison, M. A., E. Haley, K. B. Sheehan, and R. E. Taylor. 2012. Using

Appendix A: Projective Tests for Phase Three

Image source: http://www.livescience.com/16537-gallery-ancient-toolkits.html

What do you feel about this picture?

Image source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/index.html

What do you feel about this picture?

Image source: http://scooterksu.blogspot.sg/search/label/DVD%20Review

What do you feel about this picture?

II. Complete the following three (3) sentences:

Image source: http://www.houzz.com/ideabooks/2834654/list/designers-touch-10-

Image source: http://www.7zhou.com/tour-6364.html

Image source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/219409813070608529/

Image source: https://www.marketingcloud.com/blog/category/customer-journeys/

Write Your Answers Here:

(1) Enchanted Kingdom:

(2) Tagaytay City:

(3) Sm Mall Of Asia:

(1) < 21 years old, male, N = 6

(2) 21-30 years old, male, N = 6

(3) 31-40 years old, male, N = 6

(4) 41-50 years old, male, N = 6

(5) < 21 years old, female, N = 6

(6) 21-30 years old, female, N = 6

(7) 31-40 years old, female, N = 6

(8) 41-50 years old, female, N = 8

I like to join guided tours.

You might also like