Residents’ Motivations to Participate in Decision-Making for Cultural Heritage Tourism: Case Study of New Delhi

Abstract

While academic research has established the need and importance of community participation in decision-making for cultural heritage tourism (CHT), there is still a lacuna in our knowledge when it comes to understanding what are the perspectives and motivations of people to participate in collaborative governance; thus, policymaking suffers from a lack of knowledge on how to effectively motivate and engage communities in heritage tourism management. Participatory approaches often focus on the management of various stakeholders without emphasising enough the understanding of practical and ideological factors that affect their participation. This study seeks to fill this gap in knowledge by attempting to understand residents’ attitudes and motivation towards participating in collaborative decision-making for cultural heritage tourism in their area. The objective of the study is twofold: (1) to identify residents’ attitudes towards CHT in their area and (2) to understand residents’ motivation for participating in participatory governance of CHT. The attitudes and motivations of the residents are looked at from a Weberian lens of formal and substantive rationality and it is established that residents are affected by both economic and non-economic factors in their support for tourism activities in the areas as well as to participate in collaborative decision-making. The study adopts a qualitative approach to study two heritage precincts of New Delhi, India. While the findings are based on the case study areas, they can be used to understand communities of other developing nations as well.

1. Introduction

While tourism is only one of the many functions of heritage, it has increasingly played an important role in the conservation and management of heritage given its immense economic potential [1]; this intertwined relationship between heritage and tourism has given birth to a distinct category of tourism, cultural heritage tourism, or CHT. According to Lane [2], the central concept of sustainable tourism is the use of heritage as a tourism product and, at the same time, the use of tourism as a tool for heritage conservation. Crucial to developing a symbiotic and sustainable relationship between tourism and heritage is the need to involve all stakeholders in the management of the cultural resources [3,4,5,6].

Any tourist activity overwhelmingly affects the local community as tourists, as visitors interact with residents (both formally and informally) and directly influence the design and function of destinations and heritage sites and the behaviour of the population [7,8,9]. Tourism can influence residents’ values, behaviours, lifestyles, and quality of life in both positive and negative ways [10,11]. Given the impact of cultural heritage tourism on the lives of residents, it becomes imperative to involve them in its management. Community involvement can make residents perceive more benefits of tourism and thus support tourism development rather than resist it [12]. The sustainability of tourism development depends heavily on residents’ perceptions of the impacts of tourism and their support for tourism development [9,13] including their participation in decision-making. Several studies have analysed factors (such as economic benefit, community attachment, environmental attitude, level of involvement) that exert influence over residents’ positive or negative attitudes towards tourism development in their areas [9,13,14,15,16,17,18].

Since the approval of the UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, community participation is recognised as a central tool in heritage management practices [19]; this was further reiterated by the Faro Convention the recommended community involvement in identification, interpretation, protection and preservation of cultural heritage and collaboration of institutions, associations and citizens based on the recognition of cultural heritage as a common good [20]. It is not adequate to only seek the opinion or acceptance of local stakeholders on policies. To design sustainable heritage management and tourism development policies, stakeholders need to be identified and involved from the initial design stage itself [18,21]. Policy making, thus, needs to be a collaborative effort between experts and local communities. Residents’ knowledge of local conditions and cultures can be a source of knowledge and ideas which, when harnessed through meaningful participation, can help develop long-term sustainable policies [18,22]. High community participation contributes to a wider mobilisation of residents, thereby favouring local heritage along with positive grassroots initiatives in both decision-making and benefit-sharing [23,24]; hence, it is necessary to generate high levels of participation from local communities in the entire management process [25].

Despite the widespread consensus on participatory cultural heritage tourism planning, there is only a limited knowledge of how policy-makers can approach and engage communities in decision-making meaningfully [26]. While the definition and management of stakeholders have received academic and policy attention, it has also been realised through experience that there can be practical and ideological barriers preventing residents to take part in any decision-making exercise [1] or maintaining sustainable collaboration and participation [27,28]. Limited studies have been done to decode the factors that motivate or demotivate residents from participating in the heritage tourism decision-making process and the attitude of residents towards tourism development [29,30]. Willingness to participate in communities in decision-making is, therefore, not a given. Dragouni & Fouseki [29] propose that tourism perception studies should be linked with decision-making heritage tourism planning to make more democratic and informed policies as a means of informing policy approaches to community engagement.

Heritage tourism planning then needs to move towards a paradigm that places the communities and their aspirations at the centre of any inquiry and attempts to understand the public’s perception of heritage tourism, their needs and ways to accommodate these needs and aspirations through meaningful involvement [31,32]. If one wants to understand how the communities will react to CHT and related policies in the area, it is important to understand their attitudes towards CHT and their motivation to participate in related activities such as collaborative decision-making; this study looks at residents’ attitudes and motivations through the Weberian lens of formal and substantive rationality.

Several studies have attempted to understand residents’ attitudes and motivation toward participating in CHT [8,9,13,14,15,33]. Social Exchange Theory (SET) has been widely used by researchers in tourism studies [34,35]. Emerson [36] explains SET as “a two-sided, mutually contingent, and mutually rewarding process involving ‘transactions’ or simply ‘exchange’”. The theory successfully expands the neoclassical economic understanding of rationality to include the variability inherent in relational exchanges [36] and thus integrates the heterogeneous nature of the host community in explaining how individuals may perceive the costs and benefits of tourism [34] and its impact on their attitudes [16,33,37,38].

While SET has been used extensively in the tourism research literature, there have also been some criticisms, especially arguing that the economic exchange component has been given importance over the social exchange component of the theory [39,40]; this research thus uses Weber’s theory of formal and substantive rationality (WFSR) to further explain and strengthen SET. Weber, in his theory, argues that individuals are motivated by both economic and non-economic rationalities in making decisions [41]. The theory seeks to explain the reasons (or “means”) behind an individual’s decisions (or “ends”) [14,41,42,43] for different forms of economic activities [44,45]. Based on his examination of various cultures, Weber concludes that some form of rationalisation process is present across cultures and is comprised of both formal rationality (means-end, rational action) and substantive rationality (value-rational, non-market action); this research, thus, moves beyond SET to explain residents support or opposition to tourism.

This research offers a qualitative insight into the non-economic factors (perceived community gains, place image and heritage value) that affect residents’ attitude toward CHT and their motivation to participate in collaborative decision-making. Each of these factors is further disaggregated to offer insight into the behaviour of the participants. The research collected detailed open-ended interviews and field observations from its two case study areas in New Delhi to understand residents’ attitudes and motivations. The interview transcripts are analysed through content analysis using MAXQDA software.

This study would also attempt to understand the motivation and attitude of people against their socio-economic backdrop. The majority of studies on residents’ attitudes towards the place and tourism development have been carried out in developed nations; thus, this study aims to narrow the structural knowledge gap for developing nations such as India. The study looks at the historical quarters of New Delhi, one of the largest and most populated cities in the world [46]. As the flag bearers of civilisations, urban centres attract tourists interested in exploring culture and heritage in large numbers. Tourists and the residents end up depending on the same urban facilities [47,48] resulting in competition and extreme situations conflict. Relatively few studies have explored the perceptions of residents toward tourism development in urban destinations, particularly in areas with WHS [8,35,49,50]. Therefore, the current study assesses the attitudes and motivations of participants in an urban setting in a developing nation.

This paper is organized into five sections. The first section outlines the relevant literature and draws a background of the current research. The next section spells out the research objective and research design of the study; this is followed by a discussion and analysis of the findings. The fourth section is the conclusion that describes the contribution of this study to the field of cultural heritage tourism and community participation; this is followed by policy implications and limitations of the current research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Defining Heritage Tourism and Its Relation to Heritage

Tourism has emerged as one of the major functions of heritage given its economic potential, which can then support heritage conservation and the community’s economic development [51]. One could argue that historic sites, along with their associated spaces, have become tourism resources; this has also given rise to tensions between tourism managers and cultural heritage managers. The approach of heritage managers is to protect and preserve, while tourism has the overriding aim of becoming a profitable business [52]. Researchers such as Murzyn-Kupisz [53] argue for tailoring heritage preservation according to the needs of the local community and not the tourists, which may fluctuate. The high costs involved in the conservation of cultural heritage, however, make the revenue from tourism indispensable and crucial [1].

Thus, heritage management and cultural tourism development need go hand in hand. For this study, cultural heritage tourism has been defined as “A type of tourism activity in which the visitor’s essential motivation is to learn, discover, experience and consume the tangible and intangible cultural attractions/products in a tourism destination. These attractions/products relate to a set of distinctive material, intellectual, spiritual and emotional features of a society that encompasses arts and architecture, historical and cultural heritage, culinary heritage, literature, music, creative industries and the living cultures with their lifestyles, value systems, beliefs and traditions” [54].

Tourism also provides a genuine channel for the expression of culture and, thus, heritage can find both support and incentive through its tourism function. The co-dependence of both sectors thus offers the opportunity to generate economic opportunities for the local community while simultaneously supporting the preservation of culture; however, this symbiotic relationship cannot be harnessed unless there is an involvement of all stakeholders especially local residents who are impacted directly by any changes in the policy (ibid.). Hall and McArthur [3] argue that many of the problems in the sector arise due to exclusion of communities or lack of interaction between stakeholders.

While tourism brings in revenue and creates pride in local culture, it also has the potential to negatively affect local communities. Several negative effects of tourism, such as increasing the cost of living, inflating property prices, overcrowding and traffic congestion, and increasing the prevalence of crime and drugs have been highlighted [9]. In addition, pressure from the growing number of tourists necessities an expanding infrastructure (such as roads, hotels, transportation etc) that may endanger the very heritage resource that holds the entire sector together [55].

2.2. Defining Communities and Their Role in CHT

Both academia and international principles have now established the need for and importance of community participation in CHT. The significance of stakeholder involvement in heritage identification, protection and preservation is highlighted in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention UNESCO, 2012 [21]. Furthermore, with the approval of UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, community participation is recognised as a central tool in heritage management practices [19]. It is not adequate to only seek the opinion or acceptance of local stakeholders on policies. To design sustainable heritage management and tourism development policies, stakeholders need to be identified and involved from the initial design stage itself [18,21]. Policymaking thus needs to be a collaborative effort between experts and local communities. Residents’ knowledge of local conditions and cultures can be a source of knowledge and ideas which when harnessed through meaningful participation can help develop long-term sustainable policies [18,22]. High community participation contributes to a wider mobilisation of residents, thereby favouring local heritage along with positive grassroots initiatives in both decision-making and benefit-sharing [23,24]. Active involvement can also make residents perceive the benefits of tourism better and thus support tourism development rather than resist or oppose it [12]. Community-based bottom-up initiatives contribute to outcomes that are well received by the public [56]; hence, it is necessary to generate high levels of participation from local communities in the entire management process [25].

Several studies have highlighted the benefits of community participation in heritage tourism decision-making. McKercher [57] noted that community support for, or opposition to, tourism will influence the level of public-sector involvement in the area. Tourism can also potentially enhance the self-image of communities and engender a stronger sense of community pride among residents [58,59]. Heritage-related tourism activities in general play a positive role in shaping community identities [60]. On the other hand, there are also studies that would argue that tourism inevitably leads to gentrification of spaces and conflict between residents and tourists [61]. The authors suggest that tourism leads to a social restructuring of places, leading to conflict over tourism’s goal and place identity; such concerns over the imbalance between tourism and local needs, however, further strengthen the argument for the involvement of communities in making decisions for tourism development and cultural preservation in their areas.

While discussing or designing policies for collaborative decision-making, it is extremely important to define the word “community” at the outset. While several definitions of the term are available, for this study, the author has used the definitions of core and the broader community, as suggested by Poulios [62]. Local communities living within or near heritage properties act as both cultural custodians and associated users of local heritage through their continuous association with a local identity, a sense of belonging and custodianship of heritage [62]; they can be identified as the core community [62,63,64]. The core community shares a deep personal connection with the heritage through their daily routines and rituals [62,65], and this core community needs to not only be included in the decision-making process, but actively empowered—it should have the faculty to set the agenda, arrive at decisions and have overall control over the process. The next tier is formed by the experts, governments, NGOs and economic actors, or the facilitators [62,66]. The broader community should have a secondary supporting role in guiding and assisting the core community in the management of local cultural heritage. Experts can provide scientific and technical knowledge whilst governments should decentralise management power to local communities [67]. There is a need for heritage managers to move away from the current discourse of authoritative heritage [68] and engage community members as equal partners. When heritage is used as part of plans to boost economic and social well-being, sustained dialogues between heritage managers and local communities are required, based on reciprocal relationships of trust and honesty.

It is also crucial to understand that community participation on a large scale is an ideal rather than a reality, since there is no legal obligation for individuals to participate and their decision and capacity may be influenced by an array of factors [12]; it can be further said that democratic and collaborative models of decision-making should not be seen as an end but rather a means of ensuring that the negative impact of tourism development can be minimised and bene/fits can be disturbed as widely as possible [18].

Keeping the crucial role of local residents in managing and developing CHT in mind, this study looks at their attitude towards CHT and their motivation to participate in decision-making. Understanding the residents’ perspective can allow policymakers to design for the local initiatives and policy in a way that minimizes the potential negative impacts of tourism development and maximize its benefits, leading to support for tourism and overall community development [69]. Since the support and cooperation of local community is essential for the long-term sustainability of tourism development, an understanding of residents’ attitudes and motivations can be of great importance to the policymakers, local governments as well as private businesses [30].

2.3. Social Exchange Theory (SET)

SET as a theory emerged in the fields of sociology and social psychology through works done by scholars such as Blau [70] and Homans [71]. Emerson [36] explains SET as “a two-sided, mutually contingent, and mutually rewarding process involving ‘transactions’ or simply ‘exchange’”; according to him, SET expands the neoclassical economic understanding of rationality to include the variability inherent in relational exchanges. As a result, SET has become the dominant theory used to explain resident attitudes toward tourism [9]. According to Nunkoo et al. [34], SET successfully integrates the heterogeneous nature of the host community in explaining how individuals may perceive the costs and benefits of tourism. Several studies have used SET to explain how residents’ perception of the positive or negative impact of tourism affects their attitude towards it [16,33,37,38]. SET is seen as beneficial to understanding resident attitudes because it is a logical “theoretical framework, which can account for both the positive and negative impacts of tourism as perceived by the host community” [72].

While SET has been used extensively in the tourism research literature, there have also been some criticisms especially arguing that the economic exchange component has been given importance over the social exchange component of the theory [39] (this study defines “economic exchange” (or a rational economic exchange) as the exchange of goods or services in lieu of a (monetary) compensation that advances the personal interests of both the parties involved). McGehee and Andereck [39] critique the theory for its two incorrect assumptions: (1) first, personal gains is the prime motivation behind decision-making for individuals and (2) residents may think they are making the best decision at the time, but will later come to realise that certain choices were not beneficial. Woosnam et al. [40] further critique SET for explaining the relationship between residents and tourists as purely an economic exchange.

While SET offers crucial insights into understanding residents’ perception and support for tourism based on economic exchange value, there is a need to develop a theoretical basis for understanding both economic and non-economic factors while analysing residents’ attitudes towards tourism [13]. Látková and Vogt [13] suggest that it might be useful to apply SET in conjunction with another theory to get better insights into residents attitudes. Weber’s theory of formal and substantive rationality (WFSR) widens the scope of SET by explaining such attitudes through a balance between formal and substantive motivations [44,45]. WFSR has been used in some tourism research but there remains a lack of studies that apply the theory to understand residents’ attitudes towards tourism as well as their motivation to participate in decision-making for the same.

2.4. Weber’s Theory of Substantive and Formal Rationality

Max Weber (1864–1920), a German sociologist proposed four kinds of rationality: theoretical, practical, formal and substantive rationality. His theory of formal and substantive rationality seeks to explain the reasons (or “means”) behind an individual’s decisions (or “ends”) [41] for different forms of economic activities [44,45]. Based on his examination of various cultures, he concludes that some form of rationalisation process is present across cultures and is comprised of means-end, rational action (formal rationality) and value-rational, non-market action (substantive rationality) [45].

Weber defines formal rationality as the degree to which action happens as a result of quantitative and appropriate calculations [41]. Formal rationality involves the rational calculation of means to ends that are founded on laws, rules and regulations that apply in general [45]. Kalberg [45] writes that formal rationality focuses on maximizing economic gain through the laws of the market, “regardless of either their effect on individual persons or the degree to which they may violate ethical substantive rationalities”. Thus, Weber’s idea of formal rationality supports the arguments given by SET to argue that residents who receive economic benefits from tourism are likely to support its development [14]; however, Weber expands this argument by acknowledging that purely formal motivations are unusual and are usually supported by some sort of other motivations [73].

Substantive rationality, on the other hand, refers to the beliefs, values, ideological motivations and morals that inform non-market activities and decisions [14]. Kalberg [45] described substantive rationality as ‘being guided by a values-postulate; that is, the necessity to have one’s actions be consistent with the values that he or she holds’. Thus, formal and substantive types of reasoning and motives have the potential to shape individual perceptions with respect to decision-making and subsequent behaviour [14,43]. McGehee [43] explains it as “motivated by a particular philosophical bent or sense of morality or simply as a vision for societal change”.

This recognition of a spectrum of rationality that includes values, beliefs, morals, and philosophy has great potential for resident attitude research [9]. Weber’s theory allows room for both the economic benefits of tourism as well as non-economic (substantive) factors such as emotional solidarity, trust, and power that influence residents [14].

As the descriptions above indicate, Weber’s theory can provide for both the economic and non-economic reasons residents support or disdain tourism. Regardless of whether residents are employed in the tourism industry, they still live within the destination and have their daily lives affected by tourism. Residents are influenced by both the economic rewards offered by tourism and its socio-cultural and environmental impacts [74]. There must be additional explanations for why some residents still support tourism development despite the lack of direct economic benefit. Weber’s theory, when aligned with SET, provides a solid theoretical lens to investigate the wide range of economic and non-economic factors influencing resident attitudes toward tourism.

WTSFR can help in the understanding of the effects of economic (e.g., economic gain and benefits) and non-economic factors (e.g., environmental and cultural values, motivations, knowledge and perceived power) on residents’ perceptions of and support for tourism development [14]. In addition, this economic–non-economic dichotomy is inclusive of a wide range of factors influencing residents’ perceptions of (i.e., means) and support for (i.e., ends) tourism development [9]; moreover, recent studies provide some empirical support for the potential of WTSFR to explain residents’ perceptions and support for tourism development [14,43].

This research analyses impact of three non-economic factors (place attachment, heritage value and perceived community gains) on residents’ attitudes toward CHT and their motivation to participate in collaborative decision-making.

2.5. Place Attachment

Rapidly expanding cities of the 21st century are suffering from weakening identity, which can be seen through the apathy of our planners towards local communities and their social and emotional relationship with places [75]. Owing to tectonic demographic shifts in cities such as Delhi, the cultural and intellectual outlook of its population has changed and as a result, requires significant effort towards preserving people’s attachment to heritage places in order to secure their identity (ibid). Although some empirical studies have explored residents’ attitudes and reactions to local tourism development, few consider residents’ place image and place attachment as antecedents [30,76].

Altman and Low [77] define place attachment as the bonding or connection of an individual with a particular place. The concept of place attachment is rooted in environmental psychology and significant research has been done to conceptualize, understand, and measure individual-place bonding [78]. Place identity and place dependence has been used in recent research, especially in the field of environmental psychology and tourism management, as the two most significant dimensions of place attachment [78,79]. Researchers have attempted to psychometrically distinguish between these two dimensions as functional goals (place dependence) and symbolic meanings (place identity) [80]. Chen et al. [78] also argue that apart from the person’s attitude towards the place (place identity and place dependence), his attachment may also be a result of interactions with the place. Owing to the diverse character of the study population and the place, this research treats place attachment to be a multi-dimension variable as done by some recent studies [78,81,82]; thus, this study also includes two more dimensions of place attachment: place memory (the memories of interactions associated with a place) and place expectation (an individual’s expectation of the future experiences perceived as likely to occur).

Place attachment influences a person’s perception and consequent behaviour toward the place, such as satisfaction, loyalty, attitude, and pro-environmental behaviour. Thus, a relationship can be seen between an individual’s place attachment and his attitude towards tourism and further motivation to participate in decision-making. There has been only limited research to probe and understand this relationship [76] especially through a qualitative understanding of residents’ attitudes and perceptions. Further, there seems to be no consensus on the nature of this relationship [78].

Eusébio et al. [76] in their study of Boa Vista Island, Cape Verde, and Gu and Ryan [83] in their study of Shi Cha Hai hutong, Beijing, establish a positive relationship between residents’ place attachment and their attitude to tourism. Using SET, Choi and Murray [37] establish that “highly attached residents appeared to evaluate additional tourism development positively.” Through research in Jiuzhaigou, China, Zhang et al. [84] found that place attachment was the strongest influencing factor of local residents’ environmental conservation behaviour, surpassing awareness of environmental consequences and values.

2.6. Heritage Values

An increasing number of studies in the field of heritage conservation and management are taking a values-based approach towards heritage resources [85,86]. Mason [87] defines values as socially constructed meanings and actual or potential qualities associated with a heritage resource. Values inscribed in local heritage can be defined in terms of the personal and communal importance that community members attach to the heritage assets of their area [88]; these heritage values are diverse and subjective but continue to deeply impact how individual’s and community’s attitude towards heritage.

If we look at heritage from an economic value theory perspective, heritage can have use and non-use value. Together, these would make up the total value of the heritage. Use value would typically reflect the market value of the heritage resource, and it is possible to charge for it. Non-use values are not captured by the market; these can be further divided into:

• The option value of heritage refers to an individual’s desire to preserve the possibility (the option) that he/she might consume the heritage at some future time.
• Bequest value stems from the wish to preserve a heritage asset for future generations.
• Heritage’s existence value is not linked to actual or potential use, but is a valuation by an individual solely based on ethical considerations [89].

Dragouni and Fouseki [29] argue in favour of understanding and assessing heritage significance for heritage tourism decision-making; this would allow an understanding of how heritage tourism would be relevant to the community and at the same time allow an understanding of the motivations for stakeholder’s engagement in decision-making. A values-based approach can be useful in facilitating community engagement and designing a more inclusive planning process.

Based on the aforementioned, it is imperative to assess the role of heritage values on residents’ attitudes towards heritage tourism and the relationship between heritage values held by an individual and its impact on his/her motivation to participate in collaborative decision-making; however, only a limited number of studies had explored this dynamic and a clear relationship has not been established. In their study of Kastoria, Greece, Dragouni and Fouseki [29] show that heritage value can play both positive and negative roles in influencing residents’ willingness to participate in heritage tourism planning; this varied according to the type of value (inclusion value has a positive influence, whereas place identity value has a negative influence) and the population subgroup under question (bequest values drive only those who have certain heritage expertise, whereas inclusion values are irrelevant for those with low place attachment).

2.7. Perceived Community Gains

While studying close-knit communities and their response to CHT, it is important to understand their aspirations and their impact on their future participation in CHT planning [29]. Tourism impacts are commonly classified as economic (e.g., invigoration of the local economy, employment), socio-cultural (e.g., capacity building, development of infrastructure and services) and environmental (e.g., preservation of local heritage and local arts/crafts [90]. Residents’ support for tourism development is influenced by their perceptions of the benefits and costs of the industry [38]. Previous studies suggest that residents perceive tourism to result in employment opportunities, better infrastructure, more business and investment opportunities, more public development, and improvement in the local economy [91]. Therefore, residents perceive impact both on self and the community on a larger scale, and this study would be looking at the perceived gains for the community by individuals; this is treated as a data-driven code as the importance of community gains on an individual’s decision was discovered during the field research.

The majority of studies investigating the relationship between perceived economic benefits and support report a positive relationship between the two constructs [38,92]. Studies have mainly adopted a cost–benefit approach or a domain approach to understanding the perceived impacts of tourism on residents; however, in both the cases researchers rely on an a priori categorization of the impacts (into positive or negative economic, social-cultural or environmental impacts or simply costs and benefits), thus taking away the autonomy and opportunity from the respondents to define the impacts from their own worldview [9]. To overcome these shortcomings, studies are moving towards a non-forced approach where residents are approached based on neutrally phrased statements, and they can define their own perception and directionality; such an approach was considered appropriate for a destination such as Delhi, as the communities in question have never been studied before and display a complicated relationship with their heritage and tourism. A non-forced approach allowed the participants to define and explore the perceived impact of tourism on the community.

3. Research Objectives and Methodology

The study’s objectives are summarised as follows:

• What are the resident’s motivations for participating in collaborative governance of CHT?
• What are residents’ attitudes towards local heritage sites?

3.1. Data Collection

This study uses an interpretivism paradigm. Interpretative research believes that people create reality [93]. Accordingly, the researcher tries to understand a phenomenon from the interviewee’s perspective; this research was carried out through qualitative interviews and field observation in the two case study areas. A qualitative research methodology is considered appropriate for this research as it allows the researcher to gather rich information from descriptive data sources such a government reports, archives etc. and from primary sources such as interviews and observation. By using less structured tools such as open-ended interviews and discussions, the participants were given the opportunity to come up with new ideas and build upon the researcher’s knowledge rather than be restricted to pre-determined responses. The following two tools were used to gather primary data:

• Participant observation

Participant observation has been used in a variety of social science disciplines as a tool for collecting qualitative data about people, process and cultures. For the purpose of this research, such an observation and participation enabled the researcher to study people and their activities and opinions in their natural settings; this exercise provided the researcher with a backdrop to develop (indicative and open-ended) questions for the qualitative interviews.

2.

Semi-structured interviews

This study is restricted to residents of the case study areas; thus, participants were selected if they maintained a permanent residence in the area (determined by their Election Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India). A theoretical sampling approach was adopted where the process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory; thus, the data were simultaneously collected, coded and analysed to decide which data should be collected next and who should be interviewed. Sampling decisions were made in favour of individuals (or groups of individuals) who could promise to provide the greatest insights in light of the material already used and knowledge drawn from it. The number of interviews was not pre-determined but was instead determined once an identifiable saturation of data was achieved and no new information would seem to emerge from new interviews.

3.2. Geographical Scope of the Study

This study adopts a case study approach and looks at two heritage tourism areas in New Delhi, India. While both the areas receive a high number of domestic and international tourists every year, their conditions are vastly different which makes them ideal for such a study. Though the findings of this study are limited to the case studies, they can be used to understand similar communities in other developing nations.

• Case Study 1: Nizamuddin Basti

Nizamuddin Heritage Precinct centres around the UNESCO World Heritage Site Humayun’s Tomb, the shrine (or dargah) of Nizamuddin Auliya and comprises the living quarters called Hazrat Nizamuddin Basti (Urdu word for a settlement). The Basti had approximately 1600 households as of 2015 and a large floating population of tourists [94]; the area is also one of the most densely populated ones with almost 80,000 people living in a square kilometre [95]. Along with Humayun’s tomb, which attracts domestic and international tourists, the area also houses the Dargah (shrine) of Saint Hazrat Nizamuddin, which is visited by pilgrims in high numbers. In 2019, 2 million people visited Humayun’s tomb and another 4 million came as pilgrims to the Basti [95]; however, the area had fallen into degeneration by early 2000, and this was followed by the launch of the Nizamuddin Urban Renewal Project in 2007 as a non-profit Public-Private Partnership between Aga Khan Trust for Culture and several government departments (including the Archaeological Survey of India, Central Public Works Department and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi). The project focuses on heritage conservation (of over 60 monuments) along with environmental and socio-economic development of the local community. The project focuses on inclusion and capacity building of the local communities and stakeholders. The demographic profile of research participants in Nizamuddin Basti is shown in

Table 1. Demographic profile of research participants in Nizamuddin Basti.

No.	Sex	Age	Level of Education	Occupation	Years of Living in the Area
1	M	27	High school	Shop keeper	3
2	M	22	Graduation	Student	22
3	F	31	Post-graduation	Social worker	31
4	F	21	Graduation	Student	21
5	F	36	None	Security guard	2
6	M	41	Middle school	Shop keeper	7
7	M	58	Graduation	Business man	58
8	F	18	High school	Student	18
9	F	19	High school	Student	19
10	M	32	Graduation	Priest	32
11	M	28	High school	Shop keeper	6
12	M	43	Graduation	Shop keeper	32
13	M	38	Middle School	Shop keeper	12
14	F	35	None	Shop keeper	15
15	F	21	Graduation	Student	21
16	M	29	High School	Cleaner	29

.

• Case Study 2: Shahjahanabad

Shahjahanabad or the Walled City of Old Delhi was founded by Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in 1639. While the city survives even after 350 years, it is now reduced to a fraction of its original grandeur. Along with the UNESCO World Heritage Site Red Fort and Jama Masjid, the area is also home to several other monuments and structures, along with a diverse residential and commercial community. The area has transformed from a royal capital to a wholesale market with crowded housing and depilated infrastructure. Despite this, it records a high number of tourist footfall every year; the Red Fort alone attracted 3.6 million visitors in 2018–2019 [96]. The walled city covers an estimated 7.12 sq. km of area. An estimated 19,625 people to 26,683 people occupy per sq. km of space as of the last census in 2011. One can imagine the tremendous pressure on land in this 17th-century city that was designed for only 60,000 people [97].

Shahjahanabad was also identified by the Government of National Capital Region of Delhi to be nominated for inscription as UNESCO’s list of World Heritage Cities in 2015 (the nomination was later withdrawn due to political reasons but nevertheless highlight the importance of the area as a prime tourist location) [98]. Delhi’s draft Master plan for 2041 recognises the walled city as a Heritage Zone and envisages a conservation of heritage assets and improvement in quality of life and economic vitality for the area [99]. Shahjahanabad future largely depends on its socio-economic revival along with investment in heritage revitalisation. The essential precondition to the revitalisation effort requires a consensus among its diverse stakeholders. The demographic profile of participants in Shahjahanabad is summarised in

Table 2. Demographic profile of research participants in Shahjahanabad.

No.	Sex	Age	Level of Education	Occupation	Years of Living in the Area
1	M	52	Graduation	Retired professional	52
2	M	49	High school	Shopkeeper	49
3	M	22	Graduation	Engineer	19
4	F	23	Post-graduation	Researcher	23
5	F	22	Graduation	Student	22
6	M	47	High school	Shop keeper	20
7	M	60	High school	Shop keeper	32
8	F	38	Graduation	Home maker	38
9	F	42	Graduation	Home maker	10
10	M	42	Middle school	Shop keeper	14
11	M	21	Graduation	Student	21
12	M	29	Graduation	Engineer	29
13	F	31	Graduation	Shop keeper	31
14	F	27	Graduation	Student	27
15	M	34	High school	Shop keeper	34

.

3.3. Data Analysis

This research uses qualitative content analysis for data analysis. Qualitative content analysis emerged out of its quantitative counterpart in the first half of the 20th century [100]. The first authoritative definition of quantitative content analysis was put forward by Berelson in 1952, which defined it as “content analysis is a research technique for the objective, systematic and quantitative description of the manifest content of the communication; this definition was later refined by researchers such as Kracauer [101] and Holsti [102] to establish the non-quantitative branch of content analysis.

Qualitative content analysis is a systematic method of analysing and assigning meanings to qualitative data [103]. The analysis is done by assigning successive parts of the data a category or “codes” and then constructing a coding frame. The three major features of this type of analysis that it is systematic, flexible, and it reduces data. Schreier [100] suggests that codes within a coding frame should be: (a) unidimensional, (b) mutually exclusive, and (c) exhaustive. Content analysis has been used in social science research to understand latent and context-dependent meanings.

Codes can be generated in both a data-driven and a concept or theory-driven way. Researchers such as Gibbs [104] argue that the researchers should use a combination of both to understand the data and at the same time not colour their interpretation by any pre-existing theory. For this study, two out of the three codes for analysis of the interview transcripts were generated in a concept-driven way and the third (perceived community gains) was a data-driven way.

4. Findings

The content analysis performed using MAXQDA software (version 20.4.0) generated interesting findings, which can be categorised into three main factors shaping residents’ attitude towards CHT and their motivation to participate in collaborative decision-making. Data collected from residents of the historical precincts of Delhi were compared to understand the factors affecting their decisions. In doing so, this study used SET and WTSFR to provide the overarching framework from which to better understand residents’ attitudes.

The purpose of this study was to provide a deeper insight into residents’ attitudes and motivations for participating in collaborative decision-making for CHT. While several previous studies have outlined the quantifiable or economic factors that influence residents’ perspectives towards CHT, this research sought to understand the non-economic influences on residents of historical precincts. As the following sections point out, the attitude and motivations of individuals towards heritage and CHT are shaped by complex processes which demand an immersive understanding. The empirical findings of this study display much diversity, which emphasizes the heterogeneous nature of communities themselves, whose fluid and multifaceted character is shaped by interacting sociological, geographical, psychological and political elements [105]. The sections below summarise the findings followed by detailed explanations.

Table 3. Shahjahanabad residents’ motivation for participating in decision-making for CHT.

Motivating Factor	Frequency	Salient Features/Examples
Place attachment
Place identity	23	“It is not only a matter of pride for me. It is a matter of pride for everyone who appreciates that kind of construction and architecture. What is old city all about? It is all about its planning and architecture. The main beauty of the old city is the architecture; the way it was built” “I am proud of where I am” “The heritage plays a very important part as to how people identify with this place.”
Place dependence	14	“But still, the only advantage is that we are at the centre. There still lies most of the basic hospitals, civic amenities, railway stations, bus stations. They are all quite near about Shahjahanabad.” “People still prefer old city for business.”
Place memory	15	“When you go through Daryaganj you will come across Delhi gate. The Delhi Gate that we saw 30 years ago is still the same today. Nothing is added or subtracted from them. I think it is better the way it is. It is going fine.” “I grew up with a lot of heritage around me. I saw a lot of traditional houses which were in my locality, what the culture of Old Delhi was—the tehzeeb, the literary culture—everything was imbibed in my whole life.”
Place expectation	12	“I hope to see this area restored to its former glory. Some initiatives are being taken by the young generation. If we get proper support, we might be successful.” “I think the situation of heritage is deteriorating every day here. Infrastructure for the local residents is not in a good shape.”
2. Heritage Value
Existence value	33	“Heritage is found in every turn, every nook of this place”. “I admire the old monuments here; the old constructions and the way the houses were built earlier. It is all amazing and beautiful. It cannot be replicated today despite us having all the resources, modern science, and modern material.”
Option value	6	“Firstly, the people need to introspect the value and importance of the heritage. Unless and until you cherish your own place, how can you expect it from others?”
Bequest value	6	“We have been seeing this (referring to his heritage home) as kids. We grew up (seeing this). And I am fortunate that my daughter has seen it. Otherwise the next generation won’t even see it.“
3. Perceived community gains	19	“If you see heritage, or the tourist places, why are they kept so well? Because people are earning revenues out of it. If they don’t keep it well, from where will they earn the revenue?” “It seems good that people are visiting here from outside (foreign nations), appreciating the place. And there are some shops here whose livelihoods depend on them.”

and

Table 4. Nizamuddin Basti Residents’ Motivation for participating in decision-making for CHT.

Motivating factor	Frequency	Salient Features/Examples
Place attachment
Place identity	35	“The traditions that are running here have been in place since a long time. We have to do as what our elders have told us to. So there is a faith here.” “Till date I haven’t seen any fights happening in Nizamuddin between the Hindus or Christians. We all live together in love and harmony. It is a very small Basti of mixed culture and I am very much attached to it.”
Place dependence	20	“Our homes and our business are here. The (financial) situation is not good since COVID but before that our business got all the revenue from tourists”.
Place memory	4	“The biggest thing is that I have seen these lanes from my childhood.”
Place expectation	10	“I want that our people stay here. Our everything is here, our families, our lineage, and our busines.”
Heritage Value
Existence value	25	“My mother and I are very attached to this place due to the (dargah of)Nizamuddin Auliya and the history”.
Option value	9	“This is our heritage. If we don’t look after it, who will?”
Bequest value	3	“I would like to stay here as well my children.”
Perceived community gains	27	“It(tourism) is very important. The youth of the Basti, most of whom are my friends work as tourist guides. So their English is getting better, knowledge is getting better. They are able to communicate better. So many good things are happening. Even financially, it(tourism) is a good thing.” “Tourism is very important for this area. I think all the breadwinners here are dependent on tourism. There are 2 main hotspots here which are centres for tourism. First one is the Dargah, for which people come from faraway places. 10,000 people come here on Sundays; this is the normal situation when there was no covid.”

summarises the findings on motivating factors for the participants of Shahjahanabad and Nizamuddin Basti respectively. Along with it, Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows the MAXQDA code matrix for Shahjahanabad and Nizamuddin Basti respectively. Figure 3 and Figure 4 shows the material condition of Shahjahanabad followed by Figure 5 that captured Nizamuddin Basti.

The following section presents the details of these findings.

4.1. Place Attachment as a Motivating Factor

The heritage resource in destinations makes these places unique and different from others, which leads to residents’ perception of their identity and the pride associated with such identity. Several interviewees emphasised that the heritage and culture of their local area have helped shape the unique features of the place and its people. Residents took pride in their respective areas, especially due to the national and international recognition that the cultural heritage of the place bought to them, and this emotive value, or as Weber puts it, “substantive rationality”, in turn acts as a motivating factor for residents to participate in community-led decision-making activities; this section explains the aspects of the community’s place attachment to highlight how they shape the rationalities of the people living in the two case study areas. Despite variations in the reasons for place attachment, participants from both areas expressed pace attachment as a rationality behind their decision to support tourism and related activities in the area. The findings of this study are consistent with previous studies that show a positive relationship between place attachment and residents’ perception of tourism, as well as their residents’ motivation to participate in decision-making [84,106].

Residents of Nizamuddin Basti emphasised their spiritual connection with the area and shrine or Dargah of Saint Hazrat Nizamuddin. Residents take immense pride in the fact that their pir (spiritual leader) is buried in the area and they have the opportunity to carry forward his legacy. Even those respondents who were not aware of the local history and didn’t identify with several other important heritage sites (including the World Heritage Site of Humayun’s tomb), expressed their deep spiritual connection with the shrine; this was reflected through the celebration of festivals (such as Urs and Basant Panchami) as well as regular visits to the Dargah. Residents of Shahjahanabad, on the other hand, talked about their place attachment in terms of their association and identification with not only the built heritage of the area but also intangible aspects such as culinary traditions, festivals, language/dialect, etc. Despite the rampant destruction of traditional houses and neighbourhoods, residents took pride in the spirit of the place in the form of its intangible traditions; this intangible heritage is an important component of community’s intrinsic identity that has stood the test of time through constant recreation and evolution. Thus, as policymakers and managers strive for sustainable heritage and tourism management, one needs to understand and decode the complex relationship between people and heritage. More often than not, residents and users define heritage differently than the experts. As argued by Smith [68] the Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD) focuses on aesthetically pleasing or grand material objects, sites, places and/or landscapes. As discussed in the later sections, it becomes imperative to decode people’s definitions of heritage in order to understand the functioning of their place attachment as a form rationality for them.

Place dependence has been defined as the functional relationship of a person with the place. Owing to their central location in the city, both the case study areas seem to have a functional utility for its residents. Residents pointed out the easy availability of urban facilities such as public transport, schools, medical centres, shopping centres and so on. A resident of Nizamuddin talked vividly about their place attachment in terms of their functional dependence on the neighbourhood “All the facilities are available here. There are no issues with the water supply. The electricity goes for a very short time. Then there are parks here for the children. So, the ones who have come here do not want to go back. I will give my own example here. My sister-in-law has purchased a new house in XYZ area (Area of Delhi cannot be revealed to protect the identity of the participant), but she doesn’t want to go there. She doesn’t want to leave this place. So people do not want to leave this place when every facility is available at the same place”. While they appreciated their respective area for its accessibility, most participants pointed out the worsening condition of infrastructure.

Residents of Shahjahanabad pointed out the deteriorating condition of traffic and sanitation due to congestion; however, this did not impact their perception of tourism negatively. Lack of state regulation, oversight and pressure from the building lobby were held as the main culprits for their problems rather than the tourists. As a respondent pointed out, “builders illegally construct buildings which exerts pressure on the already fragile infrastructure of the area. The local authorities have turned a complete blind eye to the issue. We all know about the corruption, but nobody acts on it”. Similar views were held by residents of Nizamuddin Basti, who pointed out the increasing pressure on resources due to the popularity of the area among tourists as well as devotees. The area hosts several religious festivals during the year, which attracts huge crowds, creating congestion and traffic jams.

Personal and family memories attached to the place were important factors shaping residents’ attitude towards their local area as well as its heritage and culture; this is especially the case for older generations who have spent a significant time of their life in the neighbourhood and have thus formed interpersonal bonds; this was reflected in their greater support for heritage preservation and the overall development of the area.

Both the case study areas are historical precincts of the city that have been under continuous occupation for generations. For example, most of the shopkeepers in Shahjahanabad are 3rd or 4th generation operating out of the same structure; their skills as businessmen and their business space are considered a vital part of their family heritage and thus, they displayed greater motivation to participate in decision-making activities for heritage conservation and tourism. The reverse was found to be true as well. For some shopkeepers in Nizamuddin Basti, there was no particular place attachment; this was particularly the case with low-income tenants who only saw the area as a source of income and were thus not invested in any long-term development plans.

Residents of the two case study areas displayed polar views on their place expectation. The Nizamuddin Urban Renewal initiative by AKTC has led to a positive impact on the quality of life of people over the past 12 years. Apart from heritage conservation and tourism development, the project also invested in urban renewal schemes such as sanitation infrastructure, environment conservation, early childhood and development and skill development [95]. Such tangible improvement in the quality of life made the residents more confident about the future of their neighbourhood and community. As a respondent pointed out, “We did not have any parks in the neighbourhood earlier. It was also very dirty. Since Aga Khan (AKTC) started working in this area, we have an area to play”. On the other hand, a sense of pessimism can be observed among the residents of Shahjahanabad. Despite their place identity and memories, residents had low expectations for the future; moreover, despite its designation as a regulated heritage zone, the area has seen rampant destruction of heritage buildings, as well as a decline in the quality of life. As a participant highlighted “if the government doesn’t take some drastic steps, nothing would remain in this area. It will be destroyed. What can you and I do?”. Such a decline in quality of life is also leading out emigration especially among the younger generations. Thus, one of the major barriers preventing residents of the area from participating in decision-making activities is their lack of trust in the authorities; this in turn has a negative impact on residents’ motivation to participate in any decision-making activities (CHT or otherwise).

4.2. Heritage Value as a Motivating Factor

Residents’ value for their local heritage had a direct positive relationship with their motivation to participate in CHT; however, these values were not inherent or ascribed to the physical objects or sites but are rather held by individuals to maintain shared social institutions and customs of the society, which in turn shapes the local identity [107].

The existence value of the heritage resources had a positive influence on residents’ attitude towards heritage management as well as participation in decision-making for tourism. Existence value among residents implies some awareness about the importance of heritage, its preservation and its linkages to tourism which amounted to motivation for participation. As a participant in Shahjahanabad pointed out, “if you talk to people who reside in such (heritage) places, they don’t want to demolish it. If they have kept it for the last 200 years, they want to keep it for the future too. But sometimes the situations get worse, so they have to remove it.” As this statement and others during the interaction reveal, individuals’ value heritage as an important source of their legacy and culture; this, unfortunately, is overshadowed by other infrastructural and living concerns and in absence of incentives and support, they are forced to forego their heritage assets [108].

As argued by Dragouni and Flouseki [29], bequest values have both positive and negative effects on residents attitude towards CHT and their motivation to participate. Bequest value had a positive impact on the motivation of those residents who had a certain level of awareness about heritage or those who have maintained a residence in the area over generations. The former group confirms the notion of “authorised heritage discourse” and its idea that heritage experts are the custodians of the past and those who should pass it on to future generations. The latter’s bequest value is related to their desire to safeguard social ties and institutions, rather than a direct value for built structures. For those who were financially weak and driven by their need to earn their daily bread, heritage and culture seemed to be a low priority and thus not something they would like to preserve for future generations.

4.3. Perceived Community Gains as a Motivating Factor

The main contribution of this research is to place community gains as a major factor influencing residents’ perspectives. It was observed that participants placed the collective interests of the community above their personal gains. One could then see a sense of community attachment along with a sense of place attachment. Community attachment refers to the social relationships that an individual develops with others in the community and social participation.

The peculiar and strong sense of community among individuals can also be explained through the unique socio-cultural dimensions of South Asian societies. Asia is home to some of the oldest religious, cultural and philosophical traditions that play a crucial role in defining communities such as those studied in this research. At the level of a family or a clan, heritage is often defined in terms of common traditional livelihood, clan deities, ancestral worship and shared everyday cultural practises that acts as a glue binding diverse individuals. The notion of common ancestry is especially celebrated in south Asian societies [109], which might explain the strong sense of community even in modern socio-political contexts.

While the individual conditions of the two case study areas differed widely, a strong sense of community and collective interests could be observed in both. Nizamuddin Basti is a site for urban revival projects by AKTC, which has a component of community development and participation. Several activities such as heritage awareness drives, community fairs, crafts training, capacity enhancement for youth are regularly held, which may partially explain individuals’ emphasis on community gains as an important motivating factor; however, spiritual attachment to the hospice of Saint Nizamuddin can be seen as another strong influence. One of the participants highlighted that “all of us are devotees of baba (saint Nizamuddin)”, whilst another participant said “I like living here because I can go to the dargah (shrine) any time and I feel safe with “my” [referring to the same religion] people here”. The core of the community clearly lies in a spiritual and religious connection of the local heritage. Another reason for participants of this case area expressing community gains as a significant motivating factor could be the state of economy and dependence on tourism. Previous studies suggest that the more negatively the residents perceive the state of economy in their region, the more they are likely to overestimate the gains from tourism (and underestimate the costs) [15]. The neighbourhood is a low-income area with high dependence on tourism. Most of the participants for the study were directly involved in tourism business (as guides, artists, shopkeepers, etc.) and thus might have regarded perceived collective community gains as a significant motivating factor.

Shahjahanabad exhibits a peculiar case. The walled city is a complex and layered area with a diverse population. It is almost impossible to capture the myriad viewpoints and positions of every group; this section attempts to outline a broad understanding of its community dynamics based on the interviews taken for this study. Historically, the area has suffered from several waves of migration and demographic changes. Following the partition of British Indian in 1947, a significant population of the erstwhile Mughal capital migrated to the newly formed state of Pakistan. In the next few decades continuing till date, families have moved out as the old heritage houses or Havelis were no longer suitable for modern living [110] and the area was slowly transforming into a commercial hub. As a result, most of the residential area is now either under tenant occupation or is being used for commercial purposes. Despite the immense pressure from commercial and builder lobby as well as tourism, the core community seems to have preserved its sense of belonging and appreciation for local culture. There is an innate understanding of the positive impact of tourism on the community. An increasing number of locally-led initiatives are reviving cultural heritage and promoting tourism in the area. Purani Dilli Walo ki Baatein is one such initiative that promotes local culture and heritage through heritage walks, talks and digital events. Such bottom-up initiatives are leading the way in fostering a sense of community among the locals as well as bringing benefits of tourism to the locals. As compared to Nizamudinn Basti area, residents of Shahjahanabad emphasised less on community gains as a motivating factor. Based on the interviews, I would suggest two possible reasons for the same. Firstly, the community is large and divided; thus, it was difficult (but not impossible) for the respondents to perceive impacts on a larger level. Secondly, tourism is not the main economic activity in the area. Being one of the largest wholesale markets in India, the area has a trading and commercial sector that is much less dependent on tourists.

5. Conclusions

The study draws several important conclusions not only for CHT development and community participation but also towards our understanding of how communities define their heritage and themselves.

Residents may participate in tourism either by taking part in the activity or collaborating with the local governments in overall planning for its sustainable development. As highlighted by several studies, support and participation of the local community are essential for tourism activities to flourish [9,11,13,111] as well as support heritage conservation [21]. This study specifically looked at residents’ motivation to participate in decision-making for CHT in their local areas; this was done through a qualitative study of residents’ attitudes through open-ended interviews among residents of Nizamuddin Basti and Shahjahanabad in New Delhi. The results revealed three main motivations, namely, place attachment, heritage value and perceived community gains. For this study, motivation was defined as residents’ willingness to become involved in the decision-making processes for CHT with the local government as well as other stakeholders, such as experts and NGOs. Residents with higher motivation and a positive attitude towards the impact of tourism were more willing to become involved in planning and decision-making; this finding is consistent with the substantive rationality perspective of Weber’s theory revealing that non-economic factors are a crucial factor in understanding community motivation, support and participation in CHT [8]. The results of this research are also consistent with earlier research which argues that positive perceptions of tourism among residents is tied up to their support for the activity [9,11,13,15,111].

The main contribution of this study lies in establishing perceived community gains as a motivation for individuals to participate in decisions for CHT. I argued that individuals even when they do not receive direct economic gain from tourism activities might support the development of the sector; this was primarily because of their community attachment which led them to perceive collective community gains as an important motivating factor. Analysing this attitude of residents through the lens of WFSTR, one may argue that perceived community gains is an important factor shaping residents’ attitude towards the sector as well as their decision to participate.

Owing to the qualitative nature of the study, it draws up a complex and detailed picture of communities and their relationship to their heritage. While understanding humans, it is important to not reduce them into participants and data but treat every opinion as a valid and crucial insight. As Luxen [112] argues, the question to be asked is not “how to conserve” or “what to conserve” but rather “for whom to conserve”; thus, heritage conservation and tourism planning professionals need to step back and (re)define what is heritage. When approached from a people-centric lens, heritage would appear to be a constantly evolving and changing living being and not a static object [109]; thus, this study supports a call for involving local communities from the preliminary stages of heritage definition to management and not just seeking their approval at a later stage. In addition, people-centric heritage management should aim for not only the conservation of built heritage structures but for integrating the present needs of those who are associated with the resource. There is a need to balance heritage conservation with economic development and infrastructure improvement.

6. Policy Implications

These findings also have practical implications for policymakers, local governments as well as those within the tourism industry looking for strategies to increase their residents’ support toward tourism development.

While planning for community-led CHT, policymakers need to ground these collaborations in community values. As suggested by Mydland and Grahn [107], local communities value heritage resources not as physical objects (of national or international importance) but for their social role in the community to maintain social institutions; thus, any process for collaborative planning should reinforce such existing social voluntary institutions (such as religious trusts, cultural groups, Residents Welfare Associations or the RWAs). These can serve as a starting point for grassroots engagement. The value of such voluntary local networks could already be recognised during this research, as they served as an important point of contact between the researcher and the community. Any outsider, be it a researcher, an expert or an official, would need the support of such networks founded on community values.

Given the low level of awareness and education in communities such as those highlighted in this study as well the distrust of authorities, it is crucial to develop communication and engagement programmes that allow residents to understand the importance of local heritage as well as their role in CHT development. As highlighted by Chauhan [113] there are capacity barriers and a lack of awareness that prevent residents from meaningfully participating in decision-making; moreover, it is crucial that such engagement activities are sustained over a period to raise awareness and build capacities rather than tokenistic involvement.

7. Limitations

This study has several limitations that require additional investigation. Most importantly, this study was carried out between December 2020 and March 2021 in New Delhi in the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the scope and demographics of the participants were limited. Several participants’ views and opinions were marred by their recent experience with the pandemic. The culture and travel industry of the study areas suffered immensely due to lockdowns and travel restrictions.

This study adopted a qualitative approach. Future research could build on the findings of this research and develop a measurement scale for residents’ motivation for participation so that quantifiable results can be obtained.

In addition, the study used WTSFR in the context of an urban area; however, the results of the study should be assessed for their applicability in various urban and rural contexts. Therefore, to understand residents’ perspectives in different areas and generalise the results, further comparative investigations are required in developing and developing nations and in different contexts (urban/rural). areas), might elucidate the differences between them and further our understanding of residents’ perceptions in different contexts.