Travel Behaviour and Tourists’ Motivations for Visiting Heritage Tourism Attractions in a Rural Municipality

Abstract

This study examines the travel behaviour and motivations of tourists visiting heritage attractions in the Sekhukhune District Municipality (SDM) in South Africa, as part of the sustainable development of rural heritage tourism. A quantitative approach through a means of a questionnaire was used to collect data from a sample size of 208 respondents at major heritage attractions in the study area. The results indicate that the respondents are primarily motivated by cultural performances, historical stories and sites associated with mining and agricultural heritage. This study identified that tourists are more concerned about the level of crime and environmental degradation as inhibiting factors to their attitudes and behaviours of participation. This study also demonstrates the socio-economic and environmental barriers rural municipalities deal with. This study provides practical recommendations for enhancing cultural engagement, addressing safety concerns, and promoting local economic development, thereby fostering a more sustainable and inclusive approach to heritage tourism in the SDM.

1. Introduction

Tourism in rural areas, particularly that which focuses on sustainable heritage tourism, plays a crucial role in economic growth and cultural preservation (UNWTO, 2024). Understanding tourists’ travel behaviour and motivations in such contexts is essential for effective tourism planning and development (H. Chen et al., 2022). Rural municipalities often face unique challenges and opportunities in balancing tourism growth with environmental and cultural sustainability (Dias et al., 2024). Heritage tourism stands at the crossroads of opportunity and growth, particularly in the context of Africa’s development, with Saarinen and Rogerson (2015) highlighting its significance as a powerful driver of economic progress on the continent. This form of tourism transcends the conventional boundaries of cultural exploration and instead looks into rich, tangible and intangible heritage. Van Der Merwe (2016) underscores the broad spectrum that heritage tourism encompasses, covering natural, cultural and industrial heritage, all of which are found at specific locations across the globe, often in forgotten rural areas. To look deeper into these classifications, it is essential to understand the diverse elements that comprise heritage tourism as outlined by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO, 2024). Despite global research on heritage tourism, limited evidence exists on rural South African municipalities, which this study addresses.

Natural heritage, which forms a foundational pillar, encompasses ecological elements. It unveils the perfect beauty of the environment and highlights the ecological marvels that motivate tourists to visit destinations worldwide (UNESCO, 2023a). In contrast, Phori (2023) highlights that cultural heritage focuses on the anthropological and historical facets of societies, revealing the customs, traditions and historical narratives that define a community. Andrieux (2022) also indicates that industrial heritage explores the relics of bygone industrial eras, shedding light on activities such as mining and manufacturing that have left their imprints on the landscape. Heritage tourism is a type of travel which incorporates both supply and demand side elements, where heritage is considered the main product (supply) and also the primary motivator for visitors (demand).

Motivation can be described as an integral component of human experience (Morris et al., 2022). Mengich (2013) defines motivation as a state of necessity, a circumstance that drives an individual toward specific forms of behaviour perceived as capable of yielding gratification. Despite these definitions, there is still controversy regarding who exactly could be considered a heritage tourist. Nguyen and Cheung (2013) suggest that heritage tourists can be identified and classified based on their travel motivations, as it influences their behaviour at a destination. Meanwhile, Subadra et al. (2019) argue that tourists’ behaviour at a destination is closely related to their motivations for travelling to that destination. Tourists can be grouped based on their expressed behaviour predictors, such as their choice of destination and their experiences during their visit. Having knowledge about the motivation of tourists enables tourism practitioners to intervene more effectively at various stages of the visitors’ decision-making process (Negrușa & Yolal, 2012, p. 549). According to Kruger et al. (2014), the successful management of visitor services can only be achieved by first comprehending the reasons behind visitors’ travel choices. By understanding the motivations and activities of tourists, tourism service providers can enhance their offerings and gain insight into their customers’ preferences and origins (Muzeza et al., 2018). This understanding is crucial for improving products and services and tailoring them to meet the specific needs and desires of visitors.

The study addresses an underexplored gap by focusing on tourist behaviour and motivations in Sekhukhune District Municipality (SDM) to understand how these influence sustainable rural heritage tourism planning. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to investigate the travel behaviour and motivations of tourists visiting heritage sites in SDM. More specifically, the study aims to identify, primarily, the main socio-demographic and motivational characteristics of tourists travelling for rural heritage tourism; secondly, to assess the relationship between these motivations and tourists’ perceptions of heritage tourism; and thirdly, to provide managerial and policy recommendations to improve the sustainable heritage tourism development in SDM. In this regard, the study seeks to answer two main research questions: what are the main motivations and activities of tourists visiting heritage sites in SDM, and how can the implications and consequences of such motivations be utilised in sustainable heritage tourism planning and management in rural municipalities? A deep understanding of these behaviours and motivations is essential for developing rural tourism products, improving marketing strategies, enhancing service delivery and creating competitive advantage (Phori et al., 2024). The findings will also guide the formulation of policies that align with tourists’ expectations while addressing their concerns, fostering responsible and sustainable rural heritage tourism development (Alvarez-Sousa, 2018). Yet, the challenge in SDM extends beyond understanding tourists; it lies in achieving a balance between the growth of rural heritage tourism and the preservation of the district’s natural and cultural treasures (Sieras, 2024). Striking this balance is vital to prevent overexploitation and safeguard rural heritage resources for future generations.

2. The Study Area

This study places a specific focus on the SDM, which is located in the Limpopo Province, South Africa’s northernmost province (Limpopo Tourism, 2025). The district, as shown in Figure 1, comprises four local municipalities, namely: Elias Motsoaledi, Ephraim Mogale, Fetakgomo-Tubatse and Makhuduthamaga (Phori et al., 2024; Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, 2024).

The area is predominantly rural, with a landscape characterised by mountains, valleys, and agricultural lands. It is regarded as one of South Africa’s traditional heartlands, home to the Bapedi people, whose cultural practices, royal households, initiation schools and sacred sites remain integral to local identity and social cohesion (Phori et al., 2024; Limpopo Tourism, 2025). The district also played a pivotal role in anti-colonial resistance, most notably under King Sekhukhune I in the 19th century, an episode that reinforces its historical significance (Brand South Africa, 2025). These cultural and historical assets offer opportunities for heritage and community-based tourism, including cultural events, traditional festivals and heritage routes such as the Pedi Living Culture Tourism Route, which invites visitors to engage with Bapedi traditions, historical narratives and living heritage in situ (Limpopo Tourism, 2025; South African Tourism, 2025). The Tjate Heritage Site (Figure 2), situated in Ntswaneng Village, is a significant location commemorating the Bapedi Kingdom under King Sekhukhune I and symbolising indigenous resistance to colonial expansion (van Kessel, 2007).

Other attractions that are found in SDM include the Mohlake Royal Valley, which represents a living cultural landscape that embodies the continuity of the Bapedi royal lineage and traditional authority structures within a natural setting (Limpopo Tourism, 2025). There is also Ekholweni Heritage Site which contains archaeological remnants of early Ndebele settlements and serves as the venue for the annual Ekholweni Heritage Festival celebrating local traditions and unity (SDM, 2025). Additionally, sites such as Manone, where the Kgosi Mampuru II Annual Commemoration is held, memorialise the struggle for justice and cultural resilience of the Bapedi people (Lebaka, 2020).

3. Literature Analysis

Heritage tourism is a mixed field that encompasses both tangible and intangible aspects of cultural and historical significance (UNESCO, 2023b). As a tourism product, heritage sites, artefacts, and traditions may hold immense potential for attracting tourists seeking authentic experiences and a deeper understanding of a destination’s identity. In this case, the tourist’s essential motivation to travel is to learn, discover, experience and consume the tangible and intangible cultural attractions/products in a tourism destination (Richards, 2018). To support this study, the literature review examines the role of heritage as a tourism product. Additionally, it examines the complex dynamics of heritage tourism, exploring the interplay between tangible heritage, such as historic monuments and museums, and intangible elements like traditions, folklore, and local customs, as well as indicators for sustainable tourism within the context of heritage destinations. By investigating these dimensions of heritage tourism, this review provides valuable insights into travel behaviour and tourists’ motivations for heritage tourism.

3.1. Characteristics of Heritage Tourism Products

The relationship between tourism and heritage has been extensively discussed in academic literature, leading to the development of the concept of ‘heritage tourism’ (Fernández et al., 2016). Shifflet and Associates (1999) categorise heritage tourists based on the importance of heritage tourism in their choices of visits, namely (1) core heritage travellers, (2) moderate heritage travellers and (3) low heritage travellers. Even though heritage tourism is considered a novel concept in academic literature, it is one of the oldest forms of leisure travel (Phori, 2023). Heritage tourism generally involves, amongst other purposes, visiting special and unique objects and places associated with royalty or the elite, which increases its appeal (Navarrete, 2019). It has gained significant importance in the tourism industry due to its significant value in cultural, historical and environmental dimensions (Ballantyne et al., 2014). Heritage attractions and activities include a wide range of cultural and historical elements. These include historic sites, cultural landscapes, ruins and archaeological sites associated with mining, industrial, and agricultural heritage, along with places of important events, which are also significant (Angelidou et al., 2017). Collections, including museums, trails and festivals, promote objects of heritage value, while created landscapes and built structures further showcase heritage (UNESCO, 2023b). According to UNESCO (2020a), cultural performances, languages, rituals, and social practices are integral to cultural heritage. Traditional dance, music, human activities, multi-cultural interactions, stories and histories, as well as traditional cuisine, are key elements that shape the identity and essence of communities (Forgeard, 2023).

Heritage tourism may bring about positive and negative effects to local communities. On the positive side, heritage tourism can play a critical role in promoting tourism-led local economic development, especially in economically weak or marginalised areas of the country (Rogerson, 2014, 2015; Rogerson & Nel, 2016; Rogerson & Van Der Merwe, 2016). This is particularly relevant in South Africa, where heritage tourism has been identified as a key driver of regional development and economic upliftment (Magutshwa, 2020). Recent research underscores the importance of heritage tourism in sustaining local craft markets and empowering local artisans through tourist demand (Nkwanyana & Ndlovu, 2021). Additionally, it has been shown to improve infrastructure and enhance the visibility of previously overlooked heritage sites (Tlabela & Munzhedzi, 2022). In addition to preserving and promoting traditions, customs and knowledge, heritage tourism boosts the local economy and increases employment opportunities (Weng et al., 2019). The strategic use of heritage assets as tourism products can stimulate growth in related sectors such as hospitality, retail and transportation, contributing to a diversified local economy (Marschall, 2019). Therefore, heritage assets should be viewed not just as cultural treasures but as valuable products for tourism consumption.

On the negative side, many heritage tourism attractions were not originally intended for tourism, and developing and managing these assets as tourism products requires a sensitive and balanced approach (Navarrete, 2019). Negative impacts can include the physical deterioration of heritage sites due to overuse, as well as disruptions to local communities through increased foot traffic, commercialisation and the commodification of cultural traditions (Yang & Wall, 2020; Su, 2021). In South Africa, over-commercialisation has been noted as a growing concern, where the focus on economic benefits can undermine the authenticity of cultural experiences and alienate local communities (Ndhlovu, 2022). Studies also highlight issues of unequal access to heritage tourism benefits, with larger operators profiting more than local communities, leading to socio-economic disparities (Briedenhann & Wickens, 2020). This can lead to the erosion of the heritage’s intrinsic value and a disconnection between heritage custodians and their cultural assets.

3.2. Heritage Tourism: Tangible and Intangible

The Heritage Council (2025) defines heritage as a cultural legacy passed down from previous generations, encompassing both tangible things such as buildings and objects and intangible aspects such as traditions, customs and languages. According to Bonet (2013), heritage tourism refers to the intentional and voluntary engagement of tourists with heritage by visiting or consuming heritage products and services outside of their usual place of residence. In South Africa, tourism has become an increasingly important sector of the economy, providing both revenue and potential solutions to poverty reduction (Habanabakize & Dickason-Koekemoer, 2021). The growth of the tourism industry has also led to the development of niche or special interest tourism (Henama, 2017), such as heritage tourism.

George (2013) highlights the significance of niche tourism in achieving the objectives of the South African National Department of Tourism, such as increasing the duration of the tourist’s visit and expenditure, broadening geographical distribution, boosting volume, reducing seasonality and promoting transformation in the industry—all contributing to the economy. Apart from boosting the economy, Viljoen and Henama (2017) suggest that heritage tourism is a crucial element in promoting the identity of a region or country and may be used to express both national and regional unity, touching on the intangible value of heritage tourism. Khumalo et al. (2014) show that heritage tourism encompasses both tangible and intangible aspects of culture and heritage, as well as the contemporary use of the past. These explanations are comprehensive as they account for the historical significance of cultural and historical events and values, which are both tangible and intangible, and their influence on modern civilisation. Smith and Richards (2013) assert that heritage tourism is an extensive category of specialised travel which involves a yearning for the past and a wish to encounter diverse cultural forms, both tangible and intangible. Tangible heritage tourism denotes tourism activities which engage with physical artefacts which are produced, preserved and passed down between generations within a society. According to Timothy (2022), tangible heritage tourism includes material cultural assets such as artistic works, historic buildings, monuments and other physical expressions of human creativity that hold significance for a community. The existence of intangible heritage tourism involves showcasing cultural practices, expressions, knowledge, skills and associated artefacts recognised as part of a community or group’s cultural heritage (UNESCO, 2020b). Examples of intangible heritage tourism include oral traditions, local languages, social practices, rituals, beliefs and performing arts, among others. Lötter (2016) support the notion of tangible and intangible heritage tourism by showing that the latter is a niche form of tourism which includes travel to cultural festivals and events, visits to sites and monuments, travel to study nature, folklore, art or pilgrimages. According to Isa et al. (2020), heritage tourism, both tangible and intangible, is experiencing growth despite economic challenges, due to higher levels of education, increased income, greater global awareness, the effects of technology and media, and the emergence of new types of heritage attractions, to name a few contributing factors.

To determine whether tourism development at a destination is sustainable, a set of indicators measuring progress toward sustainable development must be used (Dimoska & Petrevska, 2012). These indicators help identify current issues, potential risks and necessary actions while also evaluating the outcomes of implemented measures (Griffin, 2011). Dimoska and Petrevska (2012) emphasise that these indicators must meet criteria such as relevance, availability, meaning and reliability to be effective. When applied to heritage tourism, these indicators also help assess the motivations driving visitation, including cultural preservation, education, and spiritual enrichment. Heritage tourism motivations often involve intangible cultural elements, making the interconnection of tourism impacts even more significant (Khunou, 2016). Sustainable tourism indicators are vital for destination managers to mitigate risks and promote sustainable development at all levels (UNWTO, 2004; Griffin, 2011). Indicators related to the socio-cultural, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability (Ceron, 2003; Gebhard et al., 2007) are highly relevant in heritage tourism, where preserving cultural integrity and ensuring economic benefits for local communities are key concerns. Indicators related to local satisfaction, such as perceptions of tourism’s contribution to infrastructure and services, or the balance between tourist influx and local needs, must be customised to reflect the unique motivations behind heritage tourism (Dimoska & Petrevska, 2012). Understanding tourist satisfaction within heritage contexts includes assessing factors such as cultural authenticity, educational value and return visitation (Bam & Kunwar, 2020). Sustainable heritage tourism also involves managing environmental impacts by considering resource conservation, such as energy and water use and preserving the integrity of heritage sites through responsible waste management and conservation efforts (European Space Agency, 2024).

3.3. Tourist Motivations and the Theory of Planned Behaviour

Heritage tourism motivations are an important element to consider when applying sustainable tourism indicators, as they influence both the socio-cultural and economic dimensions of sustainability. Tourists are often driven by a desire to connect with history, culture, and identity, which underscores the importance of preserving and promoting heritage sites in a sustainable manner (McKercher & du Cros, 2018). These motivations also relate to indicators like local satisfaction, as communities benefit from the preservation and interpretation of their heritage, fostering a sense of pride and identity (Su & Wall, 2019). Additionally, heritage tourism can drive economic sustainability by attracting tourists who contribute to the local economy through spending on accommodation, transport, and other services. Consequently, incorporating heritage tourism motivations into sustainable development frameworks is crucial to ensure that the cultural significance of destinations is maintained while achieving socio-economic benefits (Timothy, 2017). These indicators have the ability to measure factors such as tourist motivations in heritage destinations, including the desire for historical knowledge, identity formation or connection to ancestral roots.

To deepen this understanding, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) provides a structured framework for linking tourist motivations with behavioural intentions. Developed by Ajzen (1991), TPB explains how attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control shape behavioural intentions. This framework is particularly relevant for rural municipalities such as the SDM, where heritage tourism relies on both cultural preservation and sustainable practices. By aligning motivations with TPB constructs, this study examines not only why tourists visit heritage sites but also how their intentions translate into behaviours that support sustainability. For instance, a study by Han et al. (2020) demonstrated that tourists’ environmental motivations significantly influence their intentions to engage in sustainable tourism. This is crucial for rural municipalities that rely on natural and cultural heritage as primary attractions. Motivations towards sustainable tourism, such as environmental conservation and cultural preservation, are important in determining whether tourists will engage in behaviours that support these goals (Vos, 2020). Subjective norms, or the perceived social pressure to perform or not perform a behaviour, also play a vital role in relation to the TPB (Ajzen & Kruglanski, 2019). In the context of tourism, subjective norms may include the influence of friends, family and societal expectations on tourists’ decisions to engage in sustainable practices (Guggenheim et al., 2020; Han & Hyun, 2017; Kim & Hwang, 2020). Lee and Jan (2019) found that tourists are more likely to participate in eco-friendly activities when they believe that significant others expect them to do so. This finding is particularly relevant for SDM, where promoting community-led tourism initiatives can create a normative environment that encourages sustainable practices.

Perceived behavioural control, the third component of TPB, refers to the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour and is closely linked to self-efficacy (Kim & Hwang, 2020). In sustainable tourism, this could involve tourists’ perceptions of their ability to minimise their environmental impact or support local heritage conservation efforts. Lam and Hsu (2021) highlight that tourists are more inclined to engage in sustainable behaviours if they feel capable and equipped with the necessary knowledge and resources. For SDM, enhancing tourists’ perceived control could involve providing clear information about sustainable practices and ensuring that facilities and services support these behaviours (Huang et al., 2020). The TPB may provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and influencing tourists’ perceived behaviours regarding heritage tourism in rural municipalities. By addressing attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control, SDM may develop targeted strategies to promote sustainable tourism practices that preserve its rich natural and cultural heritage.

Heritage tourism continues to grow despite global economic challenges (Isa et al., 2020, p. 6). This growth is attributed to factors such as higher levels of education, increased income, enhanced global awareness, the influence of technology and media and the emergence of new types of heritage attractions. Consequently, understanding tourists’ motivations for visiting heritage sites is of paramount importance (Negrușa & Yolal, 2012). Several theorists, including Maslow (1943), Dann (1977), Crompton (1979) and Iso-Ahola (1982), have developed theories on motivation that help explain tourist behaviour. Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of human needs arranges these needs from the most fundamental to the most advanced: physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualisation needs (Whitaker, 2019; Ștefan et al., 2020, p. 126). The theory suggests that once a particular need is satisfied, it ceases to be a motivator, prompting the individual to pursue the next level of need.

Dann (1977) and Crompton (1979) introduced the concepts of push and pull factors to elucidate tourism behaviour. Pull factors are external elements that attract individuals to a destination, accommodation, or event, whereas push factors are internal psychological forces that generate a desire to travel. Pull factors are associated with external, situational, or cognitive aspects of motivation and can stimulate push factors. Crompton (1979) identifies two pull factors—novelty and education, and seven push factors: (1) the need to escape from a mundane environment; (2) the desire for self-exploration and evaluation; (3) the need for relaxation; (4) the pursuit of prestige; (5) the desire to regress to a previous state; (6) the enhancement of kinship relationships; and (7) the facilitation of social interaction (Yoon & Uysal, 2005; Crompton, 1979). A study by Mangwane et al. (2019) emphasises the importance of attraction attributes as pull factors motivating individuals to visit heritage sites. Additionally, various factors contribute to pushing individuals towards specific actions that are anticipated to bring satisfaction.

Iso-Ahola’s (1982) model posits that two primary motivational forces influence tourism behaviour: escapism and the search for novelty. Expanding on this, Fodness (1994) categorises tourists’ motivations for visiting destinations into five motives: (1) cultural or knowledge-seeking; (2) educational; (3) pleasure and sensation-seeking; (4) self-esteem and social prestige-seeking; and (5) escape, stimulus-avoidance or punishment minimisation. These travel motives corroborate the findings of previous studies by Kruger and Saayman (2013), Viviers et al. (2013), Hermann and Du Plessis (2014), Hermann et al. (2016), Muzeza et al. (2018), and Grobbelaar et al. (2019), which indicate that tourists possess varied travel motives specific to different tourism offerings. Mbaiwa and Siphambe (2023) show how rural heritage tourism shapes community livelihoods in Botswana and other African settings. Their findings link directly to the challenges faced by SDM in balancing cultural preservation and economic gains.

4. Materials and Methods

This study made use of a descriptive quantitative methodology utilising a survey research design. A quantitative research method was chosen to quantify tourists’ behaviour and motivations, with a focus on analysing data using statistical methods. The participants had a clear understanding of the study’s objective and their consent was obtained prior to data collection. The researcher ensured that each participant provided written consent. Data was collected from tourists at various major attractions in the SDM from visiting tourists using self-administered questionnaires between 4 October 2021 and 24 February 2022, by 4 trained fieldworkers through the supervision of the researcher. A five-point Likert-type questionnaire was used to gather information on tourists’ perceptions on heritage tourism development. A non-random convenience sampling method was used to select the 208 (N) respondents from various SDM respondents. The sample size was deemed appropriate as the researcher conducted a Cronbach alpha test on the results to check for reliability.

The survey was adapted from previously validated instruments developed by Hermann and Bouwer (2023) and Ngondo et al. (2024). Sections A, B, and C of the questionnaire covered demographics, travel behaviour and motivations, respectively. The questions measured multiple dimensions of motivation including relaxation and escape motives, exploration and novelty motives, social and family motives, cultural and educational motives, as well as experiential and entertainment motives. For example, participants were asked to indicate the importance of factors such as relaxing, escaping daily routines, exploring new destinations, spending time with family and friends, learning about history and culture, visiting museums and galleries, appreciating nature and architecture, enjoying traditional cuisine and participating in cultural performances. Before collecting actual data, it was necessary to validate the research instrument. The research instrument which in this case, tourists’ questionnaire, underwent a pre-data collection test to determine its effectiveness in measuring the intended variables, among other reasons. This preliminary test is commonly referred to as a pretesting and is widely accepted as an essential part of quantitative research (Jennings, 2001). The pretesting of the survey involved a small number of tourists at the Tswaing Meteorite Crater, north of Pretoria, in the City of Tshwane Municipality. The feedback received indicated that the instrument was effective, as respondents understood the questions and found the provided response options to be adequate.

Responses were rated on Likert scales and analysed using statistical analysis software, employing descriptive, inferential and regression statistical methods to understand tourists’ perspectives on sustainable rural heritage tourism. The study used a descriptive statistical method and regression analysis to provide an overview of the significant perceptions of SDM tourists. To ensure the internal consistency of the survey, the researcher performed the Cronbach’s alpha reliability test, revealing scores of 0.7 or higher, indicating suitability for descriptive research (Zhang & Li, 2023). Consequently, the items demonstrating such reliability were retained, affirming convergent consistency within the construct.

5. Results

The primary objective of the survey was to gain insights into respondents’ behaviour and motivations for engaging in heritage tourism within the SDM region. Specifically, it examined the frequency of visits for heritage-related purposes, the enjoyment and engagement with various attractions and activities and analysed regression coefficients to understand factors influencing these behaviours. Findings are compared with international studies to highlight theoretical contribution, extending motivation theory in a rural African context.

5.1. Demographic Profile of Visitors to the SDM

The demographic characteristics of tourists who visit the heritage attractions in the SDM are presented in

Table 1. Demographic profile of visitors to the SDM.

Demographic Characteristics	Category	Frequency (N)	Percentage
Gender	Male	98	47%
	Female	110	53%
Year of birth	1960–1969	4	2%
	1970–1979	27	13%
	1980–1989	83	40%
	1990–1999	73	35%
	2000 and after	21	10%
Highest level of Education	No formal education	11	5%
	Matric	33	16%
	Higher Certificate	32	16%
	Diploma	68	33%
	Advanced Diploma	42	20%
	Postgraduate Diploma	14	7%
	Masters	5	3%
	PhD/Doctorate	2	1%
Employment Status	Employed	134	65%
	Self-employed	45	22%
	Student	10	5%
	Unemployed	16	8%
Annual Income	<R25,000	24	12%
	R25,001–75,000	2	1%
	R75,001–150,000	16	8%
	R150,001–250,000	54	27%
	R250,001–350,000	55	27%
	R350,001–500,000	44	21%
	>R50,000	11	5%
Province of permanent residence	Gauteng	132	64%
	Mpumalanga	25	12%
	North West	20	10%
	Free State	7	4%
	Northern Cape	1	1%
	Limpopo	21	10%

. An understanding of these characteristics of tourists is important in understanding their motivation to travel, their preferences and their participation in heritage tourism. This type of data illustrates the socio-economic composition of visitors to the area, and helps destination managers to focus on specific segments of the population when planning tourism development and marketing (George, 2013; Kruger & Saayman, 2013).

The demographic profile of visitors to the SDM shows that heritage tourism in the district is largely represented by an educated, economically active local clientele. The majority of respondents were female (53%), born between 1980 and 1999 (75%), and held post-matric qualifications, including Diplomas, Advanced Diplomas and Postgraduate Diplomas, which are levels of tertiary education that follow South Africa’s National Senior Certificate (Matric) and signify professional or academic advancement (Council on Higher Education, 2020). Most respondents were employed or self-employed (87%) and earned between R150,001 and R350,000 annually, reflecting a stable middle-income segment with disposable income to spend on cultural tourism products.

Visitors came predominantly from Gauteng (64%), followed by Mpumalanga (12%) and Limpopo (10%). Gauteng is South Africa’s most urbanised and economically developed province, located approximately 200–300 km from the SDM, while Mpumalanga and Limpopo are semi-rural provinces within 100–250 km of the district. This distribution suggests that the SDM primarily attracts short-haul, regional markets (Rogerson & Rogerson, 2020). The educational attainment and income levels indicate that heritage tourists to the SDM are motivated more by learning, cultural authenticity, and appreciation of local heritage than by mass tourism consumption.

5.2. Frequency of Travelling for Heritage Tourism Purposes

This section examined the number of times the respondents had previously travelled for heritage tourism purposes in a year. The results obtained are presented in

Table 2. Frequency for travelling for heritage tourism purposes.

Frequency of Heritage Tourism Travel	Frequency (N)	Percentage
Once a year	64	31%
Twice a year	123	59%
More than twice a year	21	10%
TOTAL	208	100%

.

Most of the respondents (59%) travelled for heritage tourism purposes at least twice a year, followed by 31% who travelled for heritage tourism once a year. Only a small number of respondents (10%) indicated that they frequently travelled for heritage tourism more than twice a year. The first two groups represent a great potential for understanding the behaviours of tourists regarding rural heritage tourism at SDM.

5.3. Attractions/Activities, Enjoyment and Participation

In questions relating to preferred heritage attractions and activities, respondents were asked to select their top three options to reflect the diversity of their tourism interests. Consequently, the total number of responses recorded exceeds the total sample size (N = 208), resulting in aggregate frequencies greater than 208 and percentages summing to more than 100%. The responses are summarised in

Table 3. Heritage attractions/activities tourists enjoy visiting (multiple responses allowed; N = 620 responses from 208 participants).

Heritage Attractions/Activities	Frequency (N)	Percentage
Historic sites (i.e., Tjate Heritage Site)	14	7%
Cultural landscapes (i.e., Mohlake Royal Valley)	12	6%
Ruins and archaeological sites (i.e., Ekholweni Heritage Site)	60	29%
Sites associated with mining, industrial and agricultural heritage	70	34%
Sites of important events and commemorations (i.e., Manone—Kgosi Mampuru II Annual Commemoration & Ekholweni Annual Heritage Festival)	52	25%
Collections which collectively promote objects of heritage significance (i.e., museums, trails, tours and festivals)	16	8%
Created landscapes (i.e., botanic and public gardens)	6	3%
Built structures and surroundings	9	4%
Cultural performances (i.e., Menyanya)	103	50%
Cultural Languages	16	8%
Rituals and beliefs (i.e., Go phasa badimo)	37	18%
Social practices (i.e., Koma, lebollo)	28	14%
Traditional dance, drama and music (i.e., Kiba, dinaka, dipepetlwane, diketo)	68	33%
Human activities (traditional modes of transport, gardening, household chores)	6	3%
Multi-cultural interactions	20	10%
Stories and histories which shape the character and essence of the host community (i.e., the history of Bapedi)	75	36%
Traditional cuisine/food (i.e., Malamogodu)	28	14%

. This multiple-response approach was used to capture a broader spectrum of visitor preferences and to account for overlapping interests in both tangible and intangible heritage experiences, a method consistent with heritage tourism studies employing multi-choice preference data (Timothy & Boyd, 2015).

The top three types of heritage attractions and activities respondents enjoyed visiting, as indicated in Table 3, were: cultural performances at 50%, stories and histories which shape the character and essence of the host community at 36%, and visiting sites associated with mining, industrial and agricultural heritage at 34%. Two other attraction types and activities, which were rated high by the respondents, included traditional dance, drama and music at 33%, visiting ruins and archaeological sites, and visiting sites of important events and commemorations at 25%. It is evident from these results that SDM possesses various types of tangible (UNESCO, 2020b) and intangible (Manetsi, 2017) tourist heritage attractions and activities, which have been recognised by the SDM in its STR project, which has never been implemented.

5.4. Exploratory Factor Analysis

In facilitating the interpretation of results, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted on 27 motivation variables using principal component extraction and varimax rotation to identify underlying motivational dimensions (

Table 4. Exploratory factor analysis of visitors’ motivations.

Motivator to Visit Heritage Attractions	Impact Loading
Factor Label	Relaxation and Novelty Motivators	Fun and Family Motivators	Educational Motivators	Heritage Appreciation Motivators	Socio-Cultural Motivators
Factor 1: Relaxation and novelty motivators
To relax	0.713
To get away from my daily routine	0.845
To explore a new destination	0.770
To meet people with similar interests	0.671
To experience different lifestyles	0.677
Factor 2: Fun and family motivators
To have fun		0.580
To get refreshed		0.809
To spend time with family and friends		0.831
Factor 3: Educational motivator
To learn about history			0.497
To learn about culture			0.686
To learn new things			0.665
To escape from a busy environment			0.529
Factor 4: Heritage appreciation motivators
To rest physically				0.639
To do something out of the ordinary				0.807
To visit museums and galleries				0.814
To appreciate nature				0.786
To appreciate architecture				0.767
To visit historical places				0.601
Factor 5: Socio-cultural motivators
To visit cultural attractions					0.508
To participate in entertainment					0.622
To share a familiar or unfamiliar place with someone					0.633
To participate in cultural performances					0.541
To study, learn or research					0.650
To participate in recreational activities					0.799
To view and buy art and craft					0.797
To experience traditional dance, drama and music					0.819
To enjoy traditional cuisine and drink					0.830
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy: 0.86
Bartlett’s test of sphericity: 4377.574
Significance: 0.00
Cronbach’s Alpha	0.863	0.852	0.835	0.908	0.907
Eigenvalue	1.822	1.221	1.172	11.579	3.127

). The Kaiser–Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of 0.86 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ² = 4377.574, p < 0.001) confirmed the adequacy of the sample for factor analysis.

Five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted, explaining 68.3% of the total variance. These were labelled as (1) Relaxation and Novelty Motivators, (2) Fun and Family Motivators, (3) Educational Motivators, (4) Heritage Appreciation Motivators and (5) Socio-Cultural Motivators. The internal consistency of each factor-based scale was evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha. All five factors demonstrated high reliability (α between 0.835 and 0.908), well above the conventional 0.70 cut-off for acceptable consistency. Specifically, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were: 0.863 for Relaxation & Novelty, 0.852 for Fun & Family, 0.835 for Educational, 0.908 for Heritage Appreciation and 0.907 for Socio-cultural. These values indicate that the items within each factor coherently measure the same underlying construct. In particular, the Heritage Appreciation factor showed the highest reliability (α = 0.908) and also the largest eigenvalue, suggesting it is a dominant motivator in this sample.

The EFA results support a five-factor structure of visitor motivation, with each factor demonstrating adequate sampling adequacy, significant model fit (Bartlett’s test) and strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s α). These factors can be interpreted as distinct dimensions (relaxation/novelty, fun/family, educational, heritage appreciation and socio-cultural) that jointly describe why individuals visit the heritage site.

5.5. Regression Coefficients Results

The study further explored how various travel motivators influence tourists’ perceptions and attitudes toward heritage tourism. Items from EFA, with loadings below 0.45 or cross-loadings on multiple factors were excluded for regression analysis. The five retained factors, comprising 15 high-loading items, were then used as composite variables for the subsequent regression analysis (

Table 5. Regression coefficient.

Dependent Variables	Predictors			Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.	95.0% Confidence Interval for B
Travel Motivators	Perceptions and Attitudes	R	R-Square	B	Std. Error	Beta			Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Overall	Overall	0.211a	0.0446	0.2191	0.0706	0.2112	3.1014	0.0022	0.0798	0.3583
To explore a new destination	Increased awareness and respect for local culture	0.387a	0.1499	0.2390	0.1044	0.3021	2.2898	0.0232	0.0330	0.4450
To experience different lifestyles	Sexual promiscuity and prostitution	0.358a	0.1285	0.3041	0.0945	0.3517	3.2170	0.0015	0.1175	0.4906
To learn about history	Increased incidents of crime	0.356a	0.1266	−0.2170	0.0633	−0.3700	−3.4279	0.0008	−0.3420	−0.0921
To escape from a busy environment	Increased incidents of crime	0.356a	0.1269	−0.1404	0.0666	−0.2274	−2.1071	0.0365	−0.2718	−0.0089
To do something out of the ordinary	Enhanced participation in cultural activities	0.355a	0.1261	0.2697	0.1239	0.2662	2.1760	0.0309	0.0251	0.5143
	An opportunity to learn about other cultures			−0.3126	0.1571	−0.2636	−1.9896	0.0482	−0.6226	−0.0026
To visit museums and galleries	More income for community members	0.412a	0.1700	−0.1577	0.0739	−0.1892	−2.1337	0.0342	−0.3036	−0.0119
	Increased incidents of crime			−0.1392	0.0680	−0.2152	−2.0456	0.0423	−0.2734	−0.0049
	Enhanced participation in cultural activities			0.3100	0.1250	0.2957	2.4806	0.0140	0.0634	0.5566
To appreciate nature	An increase in pollution in the community	0.350a	0.1225	0.1511	0.0763	0.2194	1.9790	0.0493	0.0004	0.3017
	More diseases in the community			0.2988	0.1204	0.3013	2.4821	0.0140	0.0613	0.5364
To appreciate architecture	Less poverty in the community	0.384a	0.1471	0.1643	0.0735	0.1850	2.2372	0.0265	0.0194	0.3093
To visit cultural attractions	More income for community members	0.393a	0.1545	−0.1986	0.0730	−0.2435	−2.7208	0.0072	−0.3426	−0.0546
	Enhanced participation in cultural activities			0.4007	0.1234	0.3908	3.2479	0.0014	0.1572	0.6441
To participate in entertainment	Enhanced participation in cultural activities	0.370a	0.1372	0.4333	0.1292	0.4075	3.3532	0.0010	0.1783	0.6882
To share a familiar or unfamiliar place with someone	An increase in the value of land and property	0.391a	0.1529	−0.1910	0.0780	−0.2345	−2.4485	0.0153	−0.3449	−0.0371
	An increase in littering			−0.2047	0.0955	−0.2448	−2.1437	0.0334	−0.3930	−0.0163
To participate in recreational activities	Increased incidents of crime	0.404a	0.1630	−0.1555	0.0668	−0.2459	−2.3277	0.0210	−0.2873	−0.0237
	More investment in the community			−0.2786	0.1405	−0.2547	−1.9828	0.0489	−0.5558	−0.0013
	An opportunity to learn about other cultures			0.3978	0.1555	0.3316	2.5572	0.0114	0.0908	0.7047
To view and buy art and craft	More diseases in the community	0.434a	0.1885	0.2921	0.1133	0.3010	2.5784	0.0107	0.0685	0.5156
	An opportunity to learn about other cultures			0.4100	0.1543	0.3392	2.6563	0.0086	0.1054	0.7146
To experience traditional dance, drama and music	An opportunity to learn about other cultures	0.399a	0.1591	0.4216	0.1602	0.3420	2.6311	0.0093	0.1054	0.7378
To enjoy traditional cuisine and drink	An opportunity to learn about other cultures	0.423a	0.1791	0.4817	0.1536	0.4028	3.1366	0.0020	0.1787	0.7848

). By analysing the relationship between these motivators and respondents’ awareness, respect for local culture, crime perception and participation in cultural activities, the study aims to provide insights into how different factors can enhance or impede travel motivations towards heritage tourism. The regression results offer a detailed examination of these relationships, highlighting significant predictors and their impact on tourists’ overall experiences and satisfaction with heritage tourism.

The regression analysis underscores several motivations shaping tourists’ perceptions and experiences in SDM’s heritage tourism landscape. The overall R-squared value of 0.0446 indicates that a small yet significant portion of the variance in travel motivations is influenced by respondents’ perceptions and attitudes. Key motivation results reflect the complexity of heritage tourism experiences, where positive engagements with local culture and nature are often tempered by concerns over social and environmental factors.

One prominent motivator, the opportunity to learn about other cultures, positively correlates with tourists’ experiences in cultural activities (Beta = 0.3316, p = 0.0114), which aligns with Khumalo et al. (2014), who emphasise that the quest for cultural enrichment drives heritage tourism. This aligns with Iso-Ahola’s (1982) concept of “novelty-seeking” as a fundamental motivator in heritage tourism.

Additionally, those who wish to participate in cultural performances, traditional dance and cuisine report an increased appreciation for learning about other cultures (Beta = 0.4028, p = 0.0020). This reinforces the role of cultural authenticity, as highlighted by Su and Wall (2019), in strengthening tourist engagement with heritage tourism through immersive experiences.

Similarly, the motivation to visit museums and galleries is associated with income generation for community members, though this relationship is negatively impacted by perceptions of crime (Beta = −0.1892, p = 0.0342). This reflects how crime can diminish tourists’ engagement in specific heritage attractions, as observed by Rogerson and Van Der Merwe (2016). Another insight is that the desire to appreciate nature links to concerns over pollution (Beta = 0.2194, p = 0.0493), echoing findings by Dimoska and Petrevska (2012), who argue that sustainable tourism indicators should address environmental quality to enhance visitors’ experiences in heritage sites.

Interestingly, motivations to participate in recreational activities are impacted by the perception of crime (Beta = −0.2459, p = 0.0210) and concerns about littering (Beta = −0.2448, p = 0.0334), suggesting that tourists’ willingness to engage in outdoor heritage activities is sensitive to the quality of the local environment. This observation is supported by George (2013), who notes that environmental degradation can directly affect tourist satisfaction and their propensity to visit heritage attractions.

The motivation to “do something out of the ordinary” is positively associated with enhanced participation in cultural activities (Beta = 0.2662, p = 0.0309), further supporting the notion that experiential and unique activities can elevate tourists’ cultural engagement (Mangwane et al., 2019). Additionally, tourists who seek experiences in art and craft consumption report concerns over disease prevalence in the community (Beta = 0.3010, p = 0.0107). This highlights the importance of health-related infrastructure in rural heritage tourism, as poor health perceptions can deter potential tourists (Gupta & Dada, 2014).

The desire to experience architecture is positively associated with poverty alleviation perceptions (Beta 5 = 0.1850, p = 0.0265), which reflects the broader economic aspirations often tied to heritage tourism (Magutshwa, 2020). This motivation points to a sense of socio-economic responsibility and a desire to contribute to community upliftment through tourism, reinforcing findings from Rogerson (2015) that heritage tourism holds potential for driving local economic development.

Lastly, the motivation to share a familiar or unfamiliar place with others is tempered by the perception of rising property values and littering issues, with tourists indicating concern over the environmental and social consequences of tourism expansion (Beta = −0.2345, p = 0.0153; Beta = −0.2448, p = 0.0334). This aligns with Su and Wall’s (2019) findings that sustainable tourism strategies should aim to balance economic benefits with environmental integrity to maintain heritage sites’ long-term attractiveness.

6. Implications of the Study

The results of this research have significant managerial and policy implications for the promotion of sustainable heritage tourism in the SDM. The managers of destinations should use the information derived from this research to develop targeted marketing strategies which are appropriate for the desired target audience because of their travel motivations. Targeting these travel motivations will involve placing emphasis on cultural authenticity, storytelling and experiential heritage involvement. As for policymakers, they will need to think about ways to include heritage tourism within the broader context of local development in terms of the priority areas of safety, environmental degradation and equitable benefit sharing of the local communities. Possible means to strengthen security at heritage sites, waste disposal structures and incentives for smaller cultural enterprises will lead to improvements in both visitor satisfaction and well-being of local communities. Furthermore, encouraging local community participation in tourism development through co-management structures and participation in capacity-building programmes which have a spin-off effect for local ownership of heritage tourism ensuring that it directly empowers local communities. In summary, all these strategies will ensure that SDM have a strong inclusive sustainable rural heritage tourism development model.

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study explored the travel behaviours and motivations of tourists visiting rural heritage attractions in the SDM, and findings align with the broader comparative evidence. Mbaiwa and Siphambe (2023) note that, in Botswana, rural heritage tourism also faces the competing demands of livelihoods and heritage preservation. In turn, D. Chen et al. (2023) establish a strong link between perceived heritage value and satisfaction, which is consistent with the regression analysis of the present study. Giliberto et al. (2023) established that crime perception and degradation of the natural environment impact post-COVID-19 tourist behaviour in Africa. Wijayanti et al. (2023) demonstrate the importance of community-based tourism management, noting that all of them reinforce the need for fair engagement from communities. Brooks et al. (2023) point out that without equitable benefit sharing and engagement, local communities remain at risk. Together, these studies provide further justification for the recommendations made for the SDM. Theoretically, this research extends the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to rural African heritage settings. Future research may expand the inquiry of motivations beyond other rural contexts to increase comparative implications.

The findings highlight the significance of understanding tourist motivations to support sustainable rural heritage tourism development. Among the key results, a significant positive relationship emerged between tourists’ desire to explore new destinations and their heightened awareness and respect for local culture. This indicates that tourists, especially first-time or novice visitors, are strongly influenced by opportunities to engage with and learn about the cultural heritage of a destination. This relationship highlights the importance of cultural education and awareness as primarily appeals for new visitors. SDM can enhance its attractions to novice visitors by showcasing unique cultural offerings such as festivals, cultural events and local community tours. These activities not only draw tourists but also foster a deeper appreciation of the area’s cultural heritage, aligning with Kruger et al. (2014), who argue that cultural participation enhances the tourism experience. To promote heritage sites effectively, SDM should develop promotional strategies that emphasise its cultural experiences, specifically those showcasing local customs, traditions and histories. For example, promotional efforts could highlight annual cultural festivals, historical re-enactments and tours led by local guides to appeal to first-time visitors seeking immersive cultural experiences. Partnerships with local artisans and cultural practitioners could further enhance these efforts by offering workshops or exhibitions, providing tourists with hands-on experiences in traditional crafts and customs.

The study also found that perceptions of crime negatively impact tourists’ motivation to visit museums and galleries. This finding is significant as it suggests that enhancing safety around these sites is crucial for attracting and retaining visitors. Consequently, SDM should prioritise security improvements, potentially through community-based policing initiatives and increased law enforcement visibility around key heritage sites, as recommended by Su and Wall (2019). Another key finding is that tourists motivated by a desire to appreciate nature showed concerns about pollution levels. Addressing environmental quality by implementing strict conservation measures and waste management programmes would not only enhance visitor satisfaction but also contribute to the long-term sustainability of SDM’s natural heritage sites. Promoting eco-friendly practices, such as guided nature walks accompanied by environmental education, would reinforce SDM’s commitment to sustainable rural tourism. The study also revealed that motivations for cultural participation are associated with positive perceptions of poverty alleviation. SDM can leverage this by developing initiatives that connect cultural tourism with community economic benefits, such as creating local craft markets and supporting cultural performances that directly benefit local artisans and performers. Expanding programmes that provide direct economic opportunities for community members aligns with recommendations by Nkwanyana and Ndlovu (2021) to promote an equitable distribution of tourism revenue.

To address the varied motivations among tourists (from exploring new destinations to appreciating local history and nature), SDM should tailor its marketing to these distinct interests. Segment-specific campaigns could emphasise different aspects of SDM’s heritage, catering to tourists seeking novelty, relaxation or cultural immersion, as suggested by Nguyen and Cheung (2013). For instance, digital campaigns targeting international visitors might focus on historical sites and cultural festivals, while those aimed at domestic tourists could highlight recreational and educational opportunities tied to natural and cultural heritage. In conclusion, the findings confirm that heritage tourism in SDM holds considerable potential for socio-economic development and cultural preservation. However, to fully realise these benefits, SDM must address key factors such as safety, environmental sustainability and community involvement. By implementing targeted, culturally engaging tourism strategies, SDM can enhance tourist satisfaction and promote sustainable growth, ensuring that both visitors and local communities benefit from the heritage tourism experience.

8. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Several limitations are recognised in this study. Firstly, the study focused exclusively on the SDM in Limpopo Province, making it destination-specific and not broadly generalisable. Nonetheless, the insights derived from this case may contribute valuable lessons to the broader discourse on heritage tourism development in South Africa and internationally. Secondly, collecting data from visitors proved challenging, as many preferred to enjoy their holidays rather than complete questionnaires. Consequently, the use of convenience sampling limits the representativeness of the findings. Thirdly, the study’s predominantly South African sample limits external validity, as cultural, social and economic factors unique to South Africa may influence tourist behaviours in ways not applicable to other contexts.

Future research should expand on this work by undertaking comparative analyses across more municipalities or provinces to check if the motivation patterns and behavioural tendencies found in the SDM have similar effects in other rural contexts in South Africa. For example, a longitudinal design would also be very useful to determine how tourists’ motivations and perceptions evolve over time, especially in regard to infrastructural, environmental or policy changes.