Short Communication

Comparing International and Domestic Climber Profiles, Motivation and the Influence of World Heritage Site Status at Mount Fuji and Mount Kinabalu

Thomas E. JONES and Huong T. BUI*

Abstract：Mount Fuji (3,776m) and Mount Kinabalu in Malaysia (4,095m) are iconic UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHSs) both attracting increasing numbers international climbers. Both involve non-technical, overnight climbs with a pre-dawn start to see sun-rise from the summit. A comparative survey was conducted to investigate climbers’ profile, motivation, and influence of WHS status. At Fuji, questionnaires were distributed in English, Japanese and Chinese to descending climbers at Fuji-Yoshida, the busiest of the four trails. A total 733 questionnaires were collected from 4–7 August 2016. At Kinabalu, 560 questionnaires in English and Malay were collected from 27 March – 11 May 2017 at Laban Rata Lodge. The refusal rate (44%) was equivalent to Fuji’s (50%). Results show similar profiles dominated by young, first-time male climbers. Significant differences were observed in prior climbing experience and mean scores of motivation among both sets of international and domestic climbers. Kinabalu climbers claimed to be more motivated by WHS status and education, but self-scored higher overall, so further research is needed to assess if WHS did indeed exert a greater influence on motivation levels.

Key Words：World Heritage Site; awareness; motivation; Mount Fuji; Mount Kinabalu

variables such as nationality, income and INTRODUCTION education. For example, the gap between domestic and international visitor awareness was also noted Evidence of the “tourist enhancing effect” of by Williams (2004), who found the majority of US World Heritage Sites (WHSs) (Yang, Lin & Han, national park visitors to be unaware of WHS 2010) includes a meta-analysis that found a status. However, little research has holistically positive relationship between visitor numbers and investigated visitor demographics, motivation and the presence of WHSs in 66 countries from 2000 to WHS awareness (Jones & Yamamoto, 2016). Few 2009 (Su & Lin, 2014). However, other research comparative studies tackle the rapidly emerging disputes the inscription-visitation correlation Asia-Pacific region despite significant differences (Poria, Reichel, & Cohen, 2010; Huang, Tsaur & observed elsewhere between Western and Asian Yang, 2012). The debate over the effect of WHS visitors (Lee, 2000). This study aims to fill that listing hinges on visitor awareness comprising gap by utilizing the results of consecutive visitor recognition and recall (King & Halpenny, 2014). surveys conducted in 2016-2017 at two of Asia’s But those same authors found low WHS awareness premier mountain tourism destinations, Mount at two national parks, noting that the WHS Fuji and Mount Kinabalu in Borneo. The aim is to symbol was “failing to communicate any message cross-analyse climbers’ profile, motivation and the to the overwhelming majority of park visitors.” influence of WHS status. Results draw on primary Further, WHS awareness levels appear especially data collected from descending climbers to shed low amongst certain visitor segments demarked by light on WHS status amongst motivators to climb.

* Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University (APU) Journal of Environmental Information Science 2018-1 67 . MEHS destinations. esignated as the first national park English where necessary. onvalid responses whereas inabalu had more veterans climbing in Sabah in 64, Kinabalu was listed in 2 as were removed to leave a total of 1. ata from often (1%) or very often (2%). . Literature review Malaysia’s earliest WHS for its biodiversity. y field surveys were processed with er.20. 2, foreigners outnumbered Malaysian climbers, Freuency analysis and chisuare tests were used 2.2 otivation to climb How much does a WHSs’ listed status influence with the Sabah locals constituting the smallest to analyse the demographic profile of the two the visit motivation yan and Silvanto (2) saw proportion of the climbers (idder et al, 2). samples surveyed in the Fuji and inabalu areas esults revealed heterogeneous motivations to WHS listing as a signpost for international visitors, As inbound segments’ behavior often differs from (able 2). 1 items measured climbers’ motivation climb (able ), with only a single case of both but King and Halpenny (24) found that in that of eisting visitors, this poses challenges for structured in four domains (adapted from eard datasets converging on an identical score (. reality very few respondents could recognie and management (Kruger et al., 2). Monitoring the agheb, 1) Esteem ( items) Escapism () “eplore a new and different destination”). recall the correct symbol at a natural WHS. few motivation of international climbers in comparison Epertise (5) and Education (). items measured itespecific motivators also showed similarities studies have compared domestic and international with domestic benchmarks is thus fundamental to influenced motivation (ing alpenny, (M=4.4: “reach the highest point in Malaysia or segments, but to date no research has holistically effective management (Mok verson, 2). 201). limbers were reuested to rate each Japan”; 4.2: “to climb a worldfamous icon”). investigated mountain climbers’ profile and However, despite differences in the behaviour of variable on a five point ikert scale ranging from 1 ean scores for all motivational items at inabalu motivation with the influence of WHS status. Western and sian visitors (Lee, 2), little (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). ean were significantly higher than for Fuji climbers, WHSs include sacred mountains such as Fuji research to date has tackled the domestic scores were calculated for each item, followed by especially Escapist motivations such as “meet new and Kinabalu, two nontechnical, overnight climbs international tourist spectrum. inpointing precise an independent ttest performed on all 1 people/make new friends” (M=.1). he proportion with a predawn start. oth are iconic enough to motivations to climb remains ambiguous beyond variables to measure the level of difference of Fuji’s climbers seeking “solitude” scored lowest belie a reason to climb. et grasping climbers’ escapism or historical aspirations to follow in the between the respective mean scores (able ). among all replies (2.). his implies that motivation is vital due to the increasing numbers footsteps of pilgrims (Wilson et al, 2). he focus Escapism is not a motivational factor to climb, nor and need for targeted management (Kruger for this study was thus Mt. Fuji and Mt. Kinabalu. 2. E is Esteem as few climbers at Fuji want to “climb Saayman, 2). together with family/partner” (M=2.6). Kinabalu’s oth are attracting increasing numbers of .2 omparative field survey sites datasets 2.1 emographic profile corresponding score was significantly higher international climbers, in addition to high volumes (M=3.8), albeit still lower than “climb with friends” of domestic climbers. Despite a maxim that Fuji’s omparative uestionnaires were conducted in able 2 shows valid uestionnaires collected at (.2). inabalu climbers were also motivated by summit is more suitable to gae at from afar than 262. t Fuji, the oshida route on the north Fuji (77) and inabalu (50). he amount the chance to “meet new people/make new friends” climb, its short summer season attracts over face was selected because it accounted for 6 of of international respondents was similar (Fuji (.1). 3, climbers (ME, 26). Such accessibility all climbers in 26 (ME, 26). f Fuji’s 4 trails, % inabalu %). ale climbers were more he twin datasets scored relatively similarly in is transforming mountains into ‘honeypots’ the oshida th station trailhead has the second freuent, accounting for 2% of Fuji and 71% of attitude to Education. owever, related (ickering uckley, 23). et the sensitive highest elevation (23m) and shortest access time inabalu respondents. oth sites also showed a scores were low, with Fuji climbers (.1) and environments are susceptible to visitor impacts from okyo, attracting the bulk of foreign climbers. similarly young profile, with only 1% (Fuji) and inabalu (.2) ambivalent about going “out of and harder to restore (Eagles, 22). omparing ur survey was conducted from ugust 4 26. 2% (inabalu) aged 0 years old. n terms of my way to visit.” Likewise the tepid response to visitor motivations is indispensable at iconic peaks uestionnaires were distributed in English, nationality, Asian climbers account for 72.% of “learn more about the WHS concept,” but inabalu that form the ‘front line’ for diversification. Japanese and hinese at umigataki Junction to the total inabalu sample compared to 5.% of climbers (.1) claimed that status eerted Malaysia ranks among the top countries in sia climbers descending the oshida rail. o eclude the Fuji respondents (including apanese). ver a greater influence on the motivation to climb. for international arrivals, and in Japan they have casual tourists and daytrippers, only those who 0% of Fuji climbers came from Europe and orth ntrasegment analysis showed mean scores of increased from 4 million in 23 to 2 million in had attempted to reach the summit were America, compared to less than 25% at inabalu. Fuji’s Japanese domestic climbers to be lower than 2, triggering a diversification in itineraries intercepted. n early 2, a similar multilingual he majority were first time climbers of Fuji (%) the international euivalent. onversely, inabalu that reflects the global demand for national parks survey was carried out at Laban ata guesthouse and inabalu (7%), but whereas % of Fuji domestic climbers outscored internationals in and WHSs (Tisdell & Wilson, 2012). Japan’s (323 m), the largest of 4 lodges at the analaban climbers preferred to make independent trip almost all motivational items. As with the inter highest peak (3776m), Fuji’s pilgrim climbing base camp. o raise the response rate, an incentive arrangements, 7% at inabalu were on a package segment analysis, there were only a few variables heritage was a core component of WHS listing in was offered at both survey sites (see able ). tour. Another notable difference is that 0% of in which the difference was not significant and the 23. n 2, foreigners accounted for 6 of uestionnaires comprised one sheet of double inabalu respondents had some prior eperience two datasets converged on similar scores (“climb a climbers (Jones amamoto, 26). y 2, the sided 4 paper with open and closed uestions of mountain climbing, hiking or trekking. At Fuji, world famous icon” and “reach the highest proportion had risen to 2 at weekends and 3 filled in on site to minimie recall bias. uestions a larger proportion of respondents never (20%) or point”). status, however, shows greater in the week (ME, 2). Like Fuji, Kinabalu monitored climber profiles and motivating factors. rarely (%) go climbing hiking or trekking. n influence on domestic visitors decision to climb t. (4m) ranks among the regions’ top tourist ollected data was coded and translated into short, the Fuji sample comprised more novices inabalu (.5), and learning (.70).

68 Journal of Environmental Information Science 2018-1 . MEHS destinations. esignated as the first national park English where necessary. onvalid responses whereas inabalu had more veterans climbing in Sabah in 64, Kinabalu was listed in 2 as were removed to leave a total of 1. ata from often (1%) or very often (2%). . Literature review Malaysia’s earliest WHS for its biodiversity. y field surveys were processed with er.20. 2, foreigners outnumbered Malaysian climbers, Freuency analysis and chisuare tests were used 2.2 otivation to climb How much does a WHSs’ listed status influence with the Sabah locals constituting the smallest to analyse the demographic profile of the two the visit motivation yan and Silvanto (2) saw proportion of the climbers (idder et al, 2). samples surveyed in the Fuji and inabalu areas esults revealed heterogeneous motivations to WHS listing as a signpost for international visitors, As inbound segments’ behavior often differs from (able 2). 1 items measured climbers’ motivation climb (able ), with only a single case of both but King and Halpenny (24) found that in that of eisting visitors, this poses challenges for structured in four domains (adapted from eard datasets converging on an identical score (. reality very few respondents could recognie and management (Kruger et al., 2). Monitoring the agheb, 1) Esteem ( items) Escapism () “eplore a new and different destination”). recall the correct symbol at a natural WHS. few motivation of international climbers in comparison Epertise (5) and Education (). items measured itespecific motivators also showed similarities studies have compared domestic and international with domestic benchmarks is thus fundamental to influenced motivation (ing alpenny, (M=4.4: “reach the highest point in Malaysia or segments, but to date no research has holistically effective management (Mok verson, 2). 201). limbers were reuested to rate each Japan”; 4.2: “to climb a worldfamous icon”). investigated mountain climbers’ profile and However, despite differences in the behaviour of variable on a five point ikert scale ranging from 1 ean scores for all motivational items at inabalu motivation with the influence of WHS status. Western and sian visitors (Lee, 2), little (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). ean were significantly higher than for Fuji climbers, WHSs include sacred mountains such as Fuji research to date has tackled the domestic scores were calculated for each item, followed by especially Escapist motivations such as “meet new and Kinabalu, two nontechnical, overnight climbs international tourist spectrum. inpointing precise an independent ttest performed on all 1 people/make new friends” (M=.1). he proportion with a predawn start. oth are iconic enough to motivations to climb remains ambiguous beyond variables to measure the level of difference of Fuji’s climbers seeking “solitude” scored lowest belie a reason to climb. et grasping climbers’ escapism or historical aspirations to follow in the between the respective mean scores (able ). among all replies (2.). his implies that motivation is vital due to the increasing numbers footsteps of pilgrims (Wilson et al, 2). he focus Escapism is not a motivational factor to climb, nor and need for targeted management (Kruger for this study was thus Mt. Fuji and Mt. Kinabalu. 2. E is Esteem as few climbers at Fuji want to “climb Saayman, 2). together with family/partner” (M=2.6). Kinabalu’s oth are attracting increasing numbers of .2 omparative field survey sites datasets 2.1 emographic profile corresponding score was significantly higher international climbers, in addition to high volumes (M=3.8), albeit still lower than “climb with friends” of domestic climbers. Despite a maxim that Fuji’s omparative uestionnaires were conducted in able 2 shows valid uestionnaires collected at (.2). inabalu climbers were also motivated by summit is more suitable to gae at from afar than 262. t Fuji, the oshida route on the north Fuji (77) and inabalu (50). he amount the chance to “meet new people/make new friends” climb, its short summer season attracts over face was selected because it accounted for 6 of of international respondents was similar (Fuji (.1). 3, climbers (ME, 26). Such accessibility all climbers in 26 (ME, 26). f Fuji’s 4 trails, % inabalu %). ale climbers were more he twin datasets scored relatively similarly in is transforming mountains into ‘honeypots’ the oshida th station trailhead has the second freuent, accounting for 2% of Fuji and 71% of attitude to Education. owever, related (ickering uckley, 23). et the sensitive highest elevation (23m) and shortest access time inabalu respondents. oth sites also showed a scores were low, with Fuji climbers (.1) and environments are susceptible to visitor impacts from okyo, attracting the bulk of foreign climbers. similarly young profile, with only 1% (Fuji) and inabalu (.2) ambivalent about going “out of and harder to restore (Eagles, 22). omparing ur survey was conducted from ugust 4 26. 2% (inabalu) aged 0 years old. n terms of my way to visit.” Likewise the tepid response to visitor motivations is indispensable at iconic peaks uestionnaires were distributed in English, nationality, Asian climbers account for 72.% of “learn more about the WHS concept,” but inabalu that form the ‘front line’ for diversification. Japanese and hinese at umigataki Junction to the total inabalu sample compared to 5.% of climbers (.1) claimed that status eerted Malaysia ranks among the top countries in sia climbers descending the oshida rail. o eclude the Fuji respondents (including apanese). ver a greater influence on the motivation to climb. for international arrivals, and in Japan they have casual tourists and daytrippers, only those who 0% of Fuji climbers came from Europe and orth ntrasegment analysis showed mean scores of increased from 4 million in 23 to 2 million in had attempted to reach the summit were America, compared to less than 25% at inabalu. Fuji’s Japanese domestic climbers to be lower than 2, triggering a diversification in itineraries intercepted. n early 2, a similar multilingual he majority were first time climbers of Fuji (%) the international euivalent. onversely, inabalu that reflects the global demand for national parks survey was carried out at Laban ata guesthouse and inabalu (7%), but whereas % of Fuji domestic climbers outscored internationals in and WHSs (Tisdell & Wilson, 2012). Japan’s (323 m), the largest of 4 lodges at the analaban climbers preferred to make independent trip almost all motivational items. As with the inter highest peak (3776m), Fuji’s pilgrim climbing base camp. o raise the response rate, an incentive arrangements, 7% at inabalu were on a package segment analysis, there were only a few variables heritage was a core component of WHS listing in was offered at both survey sites (see able ). tour. Another notable difference is that 0% of in which the difference was not significant and the 23. n 2, foreigners accounted for 6 of uestionnaires comprised one sheet of double inabalu respondents had some prior eperience two datasets converged on similar scores (“climb a climbers (Jones amamoto, 26). y 2, the sided 4 paper with open and closed uestions of mountain climbing, hiking or trekking. At Fuji, world famous icon” and “reach the highest proportion had risen to 2 at weekends and 3 filled in on site to minimie recall bias. uestions a larger proportion of respondents never (20%) or point”). status, however, shows greater in the week (ME, 2). Like Fuji, Kinabalu monitored climber profiles and motivating factors. rarely (%) go climbing hiking or trekking. n influence on domestic visitors decision to climb t. (4m) ranks among the regions’ top tourist ollected data was coded and translated into short, the Fuji sample comprised more novices inabalu (.5), and learning (.70).

Journal of Environmental Information Science 2018-1 69 Location targetsSurvey Response rate Languages Survey date Annualclimbers WorldHeritage Site National Park trail above aban ata, but by the time of the survey normal operations had resumed. had operations normal survey the of time bythe but ata, aban above trail the numbe Thereafter rescued. later stranded, climbers other 137 ith 1 fatalities suffered Mt inabalu seconds. Table 1.Overviewcaseofstudy sites

Frequency c of s s experiencePrevious Trip arrangement Age group Gender s s s Sample Table ofprofile demographic climbers’ 2.Comparison

n n ss

s s

s s s

(incentive)

June 20 June

r of annual climbers declined due to trail closures for repair, for closures trail to due declined climbers annual of r s

limbing/hiking/trek s s

the Sabah earthuake occurred ith a moment magnitude of 6.0 lasting for 30 for 6.0 lasting of magnitude a ith moment occurred Sabahearthuake the s s M s s s s s s s – oun

c ※ t Fujit (3 ultural

s s s s king ※

s s s s s s ss s

, s s 776 m)

Journal ofEnvironmental InformationScience 2018-1

ss s s s s s M

oun

and theopening of a ne section of

n t Kinabalu (4 t Kinabalu

atural

※ ※ – s s s

s ss

095 m)

Table 3. Motivation of climbers (Independent sample t-test) Fuji Kinabalu

(N=773) (N=560) Fuji (N=773) Kinabalu (N=560) Int'l Dom. Int'l Dom. Motivational items Mean Mean t-value Sig. t-value Sig. t-value Sig. (N=495) (N=238) (N=366) (N=192) Esteem accompany someone who invited me 3.10 3.80 -8.50 *** 3.14 3.10 0.36 0.72 3.77 3.85 -0.85 0.40 climb together with friends 3.70 4.20 -7.50 *** 3.87 3.22 4.90 *** 4.14 4.28 -1.89 0.06 climb together with family/partner 2.60 3.80 -15.60 *** 2.74 2.38 2.51 *** 3.69 4.12 -5.26 *** climb a world-famous Japanese/Malaysian icon 4.10 4.30 -3.00 *** 4.21 4.13 0.71 0.48 4.36 4.33 0.43 0.66 Escapism get away from work/relieve everyday stress 3.40 4.00 -9.40 *** 3.43 3.29 1.22 0.22 3.89 4.20 -4.00 *** meet new people/make new friends 2.50 4.10 -24.20 *** 2.72 2.00 5.86 *** 4.03 4.37 -4.61 *** seek solitude/spend time on my own 2.30 3.90 -24.40 *** 2.47 1.88 5.45 *** 3.76 4.10 -3.97 *** Expertise have a daring and adventurous experience 3.90 4.20 -5.10 *** 4.09 3.47 6.14 *** 4.10 4.35 -3.89 *** reach the highest point in Japan/Malaysia 4.30 4.50 -4.60 *** 4.31 4.32 -0.10 0.92 4.54 4.59 -1.11 0.27 challenge my physical abilities 3.90 4.20 -4.10 *** 4.05 3.62 3.99 *** 4.08 4.36 -4.03 *** exercise/do training/keep in shape 3.60 4.10 -6.60 *** 3.71 3.33 2.74 *** 3.98 4.27 -3.82 *** improve my climbing skills 2.90 3.90 -14.90 *** 3.18 2.54 5.45 *** 3.90 4.17 -3.37 *** Education learn about Fuji/Kinabalu’s nature/flora/fauna 2.70 3.60 -13.60 *** 2.85 2.39 4.35 *** 3.41 3.93 -6.03 *** learn about Fuji/Kinabalu’s culture/history/religion 2.90 3.50 -8.10 *** 3.20 2.44 7.51 *** 3.26 3.87 -7.38 *** visit a protected area/cultural heritage site 3.40 3.70 -4.30 *** 3.56 3.04 4.78 *** 3.49 4.02 -6.34 *** to explore a new and different destination 3.80 3.80 -0.20 0.86 4.15 3.13 10.17 *** 3.67 4.15 -5.49 *** WHS-related motivation

I go out of my way to visit WHSs 3.10 3.20 -0.70 0.49 2.96 3.53 -5.70 *** 2.98 3.59 -7.02 *** WHS status influenced my decision to climb 2.60 3.10 -7.90 *** 2.64 2.61 0.34 0.73 2.94 3.59 -7.63 *** I want to learn more about the WHS concept 3.20 3.30 -1.10 0.28 3.25 3.33 -0.84 0.40 3.15 3.70 -6.60 ***

*** p<0.001

Location targetsSurvey Response rate Languages Survey date Annualclimbers WorldHeritage Site National Park trail above aban ata, but by the time of the survey normal operations had resumed. had operations normal survey the of time bythe but ata, aban above trail the numbe Thereafter rescued. later stranded, climbers other 137 ith 1 fatalities suffered Mt inabalu seconds. Table 1.Overviewcaseofstudy sites

Frequency c of s s experiencePrevious Trip arrangement Age group Gender s s s Sample Table ofprofile demographic climbers’ 2.Comparison

n n ss

s s

s s s

(incentive)

June 20 June

r of annual climbers declined due to trail closures for repair, for closures trail to due declined climbers annual of r s

limbing/hiking/trek s s

the Sabah earthuake occurred ith a moment magnitude of 6.0 lasting for 30 for 6.0 lasting of magnitude a ith moment occurred Sabahearthuake the s s s s s s s s s M – oun

c ※ t Fujit (3 ultural

s s s s king ※

s s s s s s ss s

, s s 776 m)

ss s s s s s M

oun

and theopening of a ne section of

n t Kinabalu (4 t Kinabalu

atural

※ ※ – s s s

s ss

095 m)

Table 3. Motivation of climbers (Independent sample t-test)

Journal ofEnvironmental InformationScience 2018-1 Fuji Kinabalu

*** p<0.001

3. DSSS & SS next, more detailed analysis could pinpoint the effect of WHS status on climber motivation. Technical report These preliminary findings monitored domestic and international climbers at Fuji and inabalu to AWDMTS Tree Decline and Soil Acidification in the Japanese Cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa) compare profiles, motivation and WHS influence. ecipient of JSS fund 1H0327. An earlier version as Grove at the Awaga Shrine in Hyogo, Japan oth Fuji and inabalu are iconic WHSs that have presented at the Japanese Forest Society in ochi, March 201. increasing numbers of international climbers. oth Kazuo ITO*, Kotaro NISHIOKA* involve nontechnical, overnight climbs ith a FS predan start to see sunrise from the summit. eard, J.. & agheb, M.. (13). Measuring leisure eyond this superfical goal, pinpointing climb motivation. Journal of eisure esearch, 1(2), 2122. Abstract： Japan’s Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines have long histories. Many are motivators is vital to mitigate negative impacts on idder, ., olus, .., & Jones, T.. (2017). So close yet so far surrounded by sizable groves that have been carefully preserved and are regarded today as the environment or experience (Wilson et al, 2017). conomic accessibility of Mount inabalu. Journal of sacred. We investigated whether soil acidification might be causing tree decline at the Awaga oth sites had similar amounts of international Tourism, Hospitality & ulinary Arts, (1), 1126. Shrine (Hyogo, Kansai, Japan). The shrine site is more than 1000 years old and has a large respondents. oth samples centred on young, male agles, .F.J. (2002). Trends in park tourism conomics, sacred grove of Japanese cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa). This species has extremely durable climbers, but Fuji (20) had more novices ith no finance & management. Sustainable Tourism 10(2), 13213. wood, and some buildings built with it have stood for more than 1000 years. We found serious prior trekking experience. Analysis of the climbers’ Jones, T.., & amamoto, . (2016). isitor perspectives of to severe tree decline in the Awaga cypress grove. The shrine’s soils have undergone motivations (after eard & agheb, 13) revealed S World Heritage Site branding A comparative acidification, which was significantly correlated with cypress decline. Chemical analysis of the a heterogenous spectrum, ith only one example of study of domestic anfd international climbers at Mount Fuji. shrine’s soils suggests that their nutritional status has declined relative to the national an identical score beteen groups. As scores at roceedings of the JT Annual onference, 31, 770. average. This suggests that soil acidification may be related to the cypress decline. inabalu ere generally higher, caution is needed ing, .M. & Halpenny, .A. (201). ommunicating the World Key Words： soil acidification, tree decline, acid rain, Japanese cypress, Awaga shrine to revie the claim that WHS status exerted a Heritage brand visitor aareness of Ss World greater influence on the motivation to climb. Also, Heritage symbol and the implications for sites, stakeholders intrasegment analysis shoed loer mean scores and sustainable. J. of Sustainable Tourism, 22, 7676. et al., 2003) have suggested that soil acidification amongst Fuji’s domestic climbers than for the ruger,M. & Saayman, M. (2010). Travel Motivation of Tourists INTRODUCTION is one of the causes of forest decline. Such internationals, hereas at inabalu the opposite to ruger and Tsitsikamma ational arks A omparative acidification has been shown to result from acidic held true. As ith the intersegment analysis, Study. S.A. Journal of Wildlife esearch 0 (1), 3102. Forests associated with shrines and temples deposition (Bresser et al., 1990 ; Tamm and there ere only a fe variables in hich the ee, .. (2000). A comparative study of aucasian and Asian have historical and cultural values, and have been Hallbacken, 1988). Ito et al. (2011) reported difference as not significant and the to datasets visitors to a ultural xpo in an Asian setting, Tourism protected for a long time as sacred sites. They are relationships between cedar decline and soil converged on similar scores (“climb a world famous Management, 21, 16176. also natural forests, and have ecological value acidification in two shrine forests in Kyoto, in icon” and “reach the highest point”). o scores for Ministry of nvironment (M) (2016). eport on Fuji climbers. from the viewpoint of biodiversity. In recent years, Japan’s Kansai region. ducation and WHSrelated categories suggests Accessed 121 at httpkanto.env.go.jpto201623.html. green spaces have drastically decreased in size We looked for signs of decline in Japanese that S WHS messages are inadeuately ickering, .M. & uckley,..(2003). Sarming to the summit. owing to the progress of urbanization, so these cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa). This species, communicated, corroborating prior research (Jones Mountain esearch and Development 23 (3), 230233. forests play an important role in preserving urban which grows naturally only in Japan and Taiwan, & amamoto, 2016), implying that WHS status did yan, J. & Silvanto, S. (2011). A brand for all the nations The green spaces (Ishii et al., 2010). However, tree has extremely durable wood. Some shrine and not rank highly as a motivator to climb either peak, development of the World Heritage rand in emerging decline has been reported in some temple and temple buildings which have stood for more than hich has implications for policymakers. markets. Marketing ntelligence & lanning, 2(3), 3031. shrine forests throughout Japan. For example, 1000 years were built from this wood. For this This research also had some limitations such as Su, .W. & in, H.. (201). Analysis of international tourist Nashimoto et al. (1993) reported decline of reason, Japanese cypress is customarily grown in the difference in WHS categories beteen Fuji arrivals orldide The role of orld heritage sites. Tourism Japanese cedar (Cryptomeria japonica) at 26 sites shrine and temple groves to provide a source of (cultural) and inabalu (natural). inabalu limits Management, 0, 6–. (shrines or temples) in the Kanto and Koshin wood for future renovation of the buildings. the number of daily climbers based on the bed Wilson, ., ielsen, ., Scherrer, ., aldicott, .W., Moyle . & regions of Japan. They suggested that the decline However, in the groves of two shrines in Kyoto, it capacity of the lodges, but at Fuji no registration is Weiler, . (2017). To climb or not to climb alancing was related to soil acidification. In addition, Izuta appears to be declining. The soils of these groves reuired. There ere also technical and linguistic stakeholder priorities at an iconic national park. Journal of et al. (1997) revealed a correlation between soil pH showed low pH and low nutrient content. Soil challenges related to standardiation of multi cotourism, 16, 110. and seedling growth in experiments using acidification appears likely to be the cause of this lingual survey sheets. onetheless, these findings ang, .H., in, H.., & Han, .. (2010). Analysis of Japanese cedar seedlings. Studies in Europe tree decline (Ito et al., 2011). Here, we investigated arrant future research first, a more detailed international tourist arrivals in hina The role of World (Schulze et al., 1989) and North America (Driscoll the decline of Japanese cypress found in the sacred Heritage sites. Tourism Management, 31(6), 2737. comparison beteen Asian and Western climbers * Course of Environmental and Materials Chemistry Osaka Prefecture University College of Technology

72 Journal of Environmental Information Science 2018-1