1 / 31

Cultural tourism taxonomies and folksonomies

This study aims to create a comprehensive map of cultural attractions that draw tourists to towns/cities. It compares traditional classification taxonomies with user-generated folksonomies to enhance cultural tourism experiences.

npottorff
Download Presentation

Cultural tourism taxonomies and folksonomies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cultural tourism taxonomies and folksonomies Chris Tweed School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering Queen’s University Belfast

  2. The problem

  3. Aims and objectives • To develop a comprehensive map of the elements of cultural heritage that attract different people to towns and cities by: • identifying and categorising a comprehensive range of cultural attractors • identifying interests and motivators for different types of tourists • identifying relations of attraction between attractors and interests • To identify governance strategies based on analysis of the relations

  4. Existing classification taxonomies • Prentice’s typology—23 main types • natural history attractions, science based attractions, attractions concerned with primary production, craft centres and craft workshops, attractions concerned with manufacturing industry, transport attractions, socio-cultural attractions, attractions associated with historic persons, performing arts attractions, pleasure gardens, theme parks, galleries, festivals and pageants, fieldsports, stately and ancestral homes, religious attractions, military attractions, genocide monuments, towns and townscape, villages and hamlets, countryside and treasured landscapes, seaside resorts and 'seascapes', regions • not all cultural, not all urban, though difficult to exclude from “culture”

  5. Existing classification taxonomies • PICTURE D7 list—16 main types, with many sub-types • tangible heritage within the surrounding environment/landscapes, cultural clusters, individual monuments, public spaces, heritage attractions, traditional local markets, festivals and special events, traditional crafts, languages (living and used/signs), information systems, industry and commerce, religious sites, iconic buildings, sites associated with historic or legendary events and famous people, sport and leisure activities, traditional food and drinks, modern pop culture • offers a list which is more closely related to PICTURE tasks

  6. Classification problems • Dewey, 200: Religion • 210 Natural theology220 Bible230 Christian theology240 Christian moral & devotional theology250 Christian orders & local church260 Christian social theology270 Christian church history280 Christian sects & denominations290 Other religions

  7. US Library of CongressD: History (general) DA: Great BritainDB: AustriaDC: FranceDD: GermanyDE: MediterraneanDF: GreeceDG: ItalyDH: Low CountriesDJ: Netherlands DK: Former Soviet UnionDL: ScandinaviaDP: Iberian PeninsulaDQ: SwitzerlandDR: Balkan PeninsulaDS: AsiaDT: AfricaDU: OceaniaDX: Gypsies Classification problems

  8. Existing classification approaches are … • designed for specific purposes • object-oriented rather than experience-oriented • generally too complicated for anyone without specialised training • require strict control over the creation of new entities and branches • become fixed and inflexible

  9. A design analogy

  10. From taxonomy to folksonomy

  11. Folksonomy • folksonomy = folk + taxonomy • Also known as ethnoclassification • Main feature is user-generated metadata in the form of tags or keywords • Tags exist in a flat namespace with no hierarchy • It is a bottom-up as opposed to a top-down approach • A folksonomy is more about categorisation than classification

  12. Traditional hierarchy

  13. Hierarchy with links

  14. Just links (no hierarchy)

  15. Limitations of folksonomies • Ambiguity • The same tag may be used in different ways • Different tags may be used for the same concept • Acronyms not differentiated from actual words, e.g. ANT • Imprecision • Lack of controlled vocabularies allows great inaccuracies • Chaos • Lack of structure creates possibility of chaos

  16. Strengths of folksonomies • Accessibility • Low barriers to entry for general public • Low cognitive costs • Folksonomies reflect response of general public • Generate socially shared data • Dynamic • Feedback on tagging is immediate • Tags evolve to reflect new concerns

  17. Developing a folksonomy of cultural tourism attractions • Develop a Web-based questionnaire providing opportunities for visitors to record their: • descriptions • feelings • evaluations and • relevant personal details • for selected sites (represented as Web pages) • Analyse data for emergent relations across attractions and visitors • Provide tools for browsing explicit and implicit relations

  18. Potential added value

  19. Work to be done • Finalise Web questionnaire and database • Identify selected sites • Collect data from tourists • Analyse data

More Related