Resident well-being and perceptions of World Heritage Site management: divide between urban and rural WHSs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comparative case study focuses on residents’ subjective well-being (SWB) and their perceptions of conservation and tourism in two prominent World Heritage Sites (WHSs) in Turkey, i.e. (rural) Cappadocia and (urban) Istanbul’s Historical Peninsula, to evaluate them in tandem with their governance frameworks. A modified SWB survey instrument is administered to residents in both WHSs. The most notable differences in SWB surface in community, environment, and standard of living domains favouring Cappadocia – underlining tourism’s varied influence on SWB domains in rural and urban settings. While the perceived association between conservation and tourism is stronger in Cappadocia, Istanbul’s residents view conservation more positively. These differences point towards conservation’s perceived instrumental role in facilitating tourism development in rural WHSs and the disconnection of urban WHS residents from conservation efforts and tourism management. Our findings suggest SWB may complement tourism impact analysis and build a bridge between residents, policymakers, and administrators. Addressing the disconnection between residents and tourism and conservation-related frameworks and initiatives to increase resident awareness of heritage value are suggested as potential contributors to the long-term viability of WHSs as heritage tourism destinations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".