Heritage Assets, Cultural Significance, and Sustainable Community-Based Coastal Tourism: The Role of Authentic Experience

Coastal tourism has increasingly become an important pathway for sustainable local development, particularly in communities where ways of life, social identity, and economic livelihoods are deeply connected to the sea. In many coastal areas, tourism not only generates income and employment but also creates opportunities for communities to preserve and communicate their cultural distinctiveness to visitors. As tourism demand continues to grow worldwide, coastal destinations are under increasing pressure to balance economic development with the protection of local culture, identity, and environmental integrity [1]. In this regard, community-based coastal tourism has emerged as a promising model for promoting inclusive development while maintaining local control over tourism resources and cultural representation [2].

Within this context, heritage assets play a central role in shaping the attractiveness and sustainability of coastal destinations. Heritage assets refer to both tangible and intangible cultural resources embedded in a community, including traditional architecture, fishing landscapes, rituals, culinary practices, oral histories, festivals, and local knowledge systems [3]. In coastal communities, such assets are not merely remnants of the past but living elements of everyday life that reflect the historical relationship between people and the maritime environment. When properly recognized and managed, heritage assets can strengthen tourism competitiveness while reinforcing community identity and intergenerational continuity [4]. Their value lies not only in their visibility as attractions but also in their capacity to embody meanings, memories, and local narratives that distinguish one destination from another.

However, the tourism value of heritage assets does not depend solely on their physical existence. Their contribution to sustainable tourism is strongly influenced by the degree to which they are perceived as culturally meaningful by both residents and visitors. This highlights the importance of cultural significance, which refers to the symbolic, historical, social, and identity-based meanings attached to local heritage by the community [5]. Cultural significance shapes how residents interpret, protect, and present their cultural resources, and it influences whether tourism development is perceived as compatible with local values and traditions [6]. In community-based tourism settings, the recognition of cultural significance is particularly important because it helps communities define what should be preserved, how it should be represented, and under what conditions it may be shared with outsiders [7].

At the same time, contemporary tourists are increasingly seeking experiences that go beyond passive sightseeing and superficial consumption. They are drawn to destinations that offer Authentic Experiences (AE) rooted in everyday local life, genuine social interaction, and meaningful cultural engagement [8]. In coastal communities, AE may include participating in traditional fishing activities, learning local cooking methods, attending local festivals, interacting with residents, or observing customary practices in their original setting. Such experiences are increasingly recognized as a key component of sustainable tourism because they foster emotional connection, learning, and mutual respect between hosts and guests [9]. More importantly, authenticity enhances the experiential value of tourism products and may serve as the mechanism through which heritage assets and cultural significance are transformed into memorable and sustainable tourism outcomes [10].

Despite growing recognition of heritage-based tourism, the translation of local cultural resources into sustainable community-based tourism remains challenging. In many destinations, tourism development has tended to prioritize commercialization, visual consumption, and short-term visitor appeal, often at the expense of local meaning and cultural integrity [11]. When heritage is commodified without community consent or detached from its original context, tourism may weaken rather than strengthen local identity and participation [12]. This concern is particularly relevant in coastal communities, where traditional lifestyles are already vulnerable to rapid urbanization, environmental degradation, and socio-economic transformation. Sustainable community-based coastal tourism, therefore, requires more than simply showcasing heritage assets; it depends on ensuring that these assets retain their cultural significance and are experienced by visitors in ways that are perceived as authentic by the host community [13].

In Thailand, the promotion of community-based tourism has gained increasing policy attention, particularly under the Bio-Circular-Green (BCG) Economy Model, which emphasizes local participation, cultural preservation, and sustainable resource use [14]. While previous tourism studies in Thailand have largely focused on historic cities, temple destinations, or internationally recognized heritage sites, coastal communities with rich cultural landscapes remain relatively underexplored. Sattahip District, Chonburi Province, represents a compelling case of community-based coastal tourism due to its diverse coastal heritage, long-standing fishing traditions, local seafood culture, community rituals, and maritime ways of life shaped by both continuity and change [15]. The district encompasses a variety of coastal spaces and community settings in which heritage assets and local meanings remain deeply embedded in daily life. These characteristics make Sattahip District an appropriate setting for examining how cultural resources can contribute to sustainable tourism development through community-based approaches.

Against this background, this study argues that the sustainability of community-based coastal tourism is not determined solely by the presence of heritage resources, but by the dynamic relationships among heritage assets, cultural significance, and AE. First, heritage assets provide the foundational resources upon which tourism activities and destination identity are built [16]. Second, cultural significance influences how these assets are valued, protected, and interpreted within the community [17]. Third, AE functions as a critical experiential mechanism that connects local heritage with tourist engagement and satisfaction, thereby strengthening the sustainability of community-based tourism [18]. This integrated perspective offers a more nuanced understanding of how coastal communities can utilize their cultural resources without reducing them to commodified attractions [19].

The significance of this study is threefold. Theoretically, it contributes to the growing literature on sustainable tourism by integrating heritage-based and experience-based perspectives into a community-based coastal tourism framework. Specifically, it advances understanding of how heritage assets and cultural significance interact with AE to shape sustainable tourism development in a coastal district setting [20-22]. Practically, the study offers useful insights for policymakers, tourism planners, and community leaders seeking to design tourism strategies that are culturally sensitive, economically inclusive, and socially sustainable. Socially and culturally, it supports the recognition of coastal heritage as a living legacy rather than a static tourism product, thereby encouraging communities to preserve and transmit their cultural identity to future generations [23, 24].

In conclusion, sustainable community-based coastal tourism requires a careful balance between cultural preservation, local participation, and experiential innovation. Heritage assets and cultural significance form the cultural foundation of tourism development, while AE plays a pivotal role in transforming that foundation into meaningful and sustainable tourism outcomes. The diverse tourism settings across Bang Saray Subdistrict, Sattahip District—including traditional fishing areas, local culinary environments, community festivals, and everyday coastal life—represent more than tourism attractions; they embody the cultural meanings and lived heritage of the district’s coastal communities. By focusing on Bang Saray Subdistrict, Sattahip District, this study provides important empirical insight into how coastal communities in Thailand can mobilize their heritage resources and cultural meanings through AE to achieve more sustainable forms of community-based tourism development. While previous studies have examined individual relationships among participation, authenticity, and community support, limited research has integrated these constructs into a unified framework within the context of community-based coastal tourism. In particular, the combined roles of Cultural Participation (CP), Heritage Awareness (HAW), and AE in shaping sustainable tourism outcomes remain underexplored.

This study contributes by proposing and empirically testing an integrated model that explains how participation-driven mechanisms translate cultural resources into sustainable development through both experiential and social pathways.

3.1 Research design

This study adopted a quantitative research design using a cross-sectional survey approach to investigate the structural relationships among CP, HAW, AE, PCS and SCTD. A quantitative design was considered appropriate because the study aimed to examine the perceptions of local residents and tourism-related stakeholders at a single point in time and to empirically test the proposed conceptual model. The cross-sectional approach enabled the collection of standardized responses from a large number of participants within the study area, thereby allowing for statistical examination of latent constructs and their interrelationships.

To analyze the hypothesized causal paths among the constructs, this study employed Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS–SEM). PLS–SEM was selected due to its suitability for predictive and exploratory model testing, especially in studies involving latent variables measured by multiple indicators and complex interrelationships among constructs. It is also appropriate for tourism and social science research where theoretical extension and practical model development are central objectives.

3.2 Population and sampling

The target population of this study consisted of local residents and community-related stakeholders in Bang Saray Subdistrict, Sattahip District, Chonburi Province, who had direct or indirect involvement in local tourism activities, cultural heritage practices, or community-based coastal development. This population included residents, local entrepreneurs, tourism service providers, community leaders, and individuals engaged in cultural or coastal livelihood activities relevant to the study context.

The sample size was determined based on the widely accepted rule of thumb for structural equation modeling, which recommends a sample size of at least 20 times the number of observed variables in the measurement model. Since this study included 25 observed variables, the minimum required sample size was calculated as: 25 observed variables × 20 = 500 respondents. Accordingly, a total of 500 respondents were targeted for data collection.

This study employed a combination of purposive sampling and convenience sampling. Purposive sampling was first used to ensure that participants met the inclusion criteria, namely that they were residents or stakeholders located in Bang Saray Subdistrict and had familiarity with local tourism, heritage resources, or coastal community activities. Subsequently, convenience sampling was applied to facilitate practical access to respondents through community networks, public gathering spaces, tourism-related locations, and local events. This combined approach was considered appropriate given the absence of a complete sampling frame for all individuals involved in community-based coastal tourism in the study area.

3.3 Instrument development and measurement

Data were collected using a structured questionnaire designed to measure the core constructs of the study. The questionnaire was organized into two major sections. The first section gathered demographic information from respondents, including gender, age, marital status, education, occupation, and monthly income. The second section measured the five latent constructs included in the proposed model: CP, HAW, AE, PCS, and SCTD.

All measurement items were adapted from established literature related to heritage tourism, cultural sustainability, authentic tourism experience, and community-based tourism. The items were then refined to fit the socio-cultural and coastal context of Bang Saray Subdistrict. The wording of each item was adjusted to reflect the local tourism environment, cultural identity, and heritage-related experiences associated with the area.

To ensure content validity, the questionnaire was reviewed by three experts in the fields of tourism management, cultural studies, and community-based development. Their feedback was used to improve the clarity, relevance, and contextual appropriateness of the instrument before the full-scale survey was conducted.

All items were measured using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. This response format was selected because it is widely used in perception-based tourism research and allows respondents to express varying levels of agreement consistently across constructs.

3.4 Data collection procedure

Data collection was carried out in Bang Saray Subdistrict, Sattahip District, Chonburi Province, where community-based tourism and coastal cultural practices remain visible in everyday life. The fieldwork focused on local areas associated with cultural and tourism activity, such as community spaces, seafood-related commercial areas, festival locations, coastal public spaces, and local gathering points where residents and stakeholders interact with tourism-related activities.

Questionnaires were distributed directly to respondents who met the study’s inclusion criteria. Prior to participation, respondents were informed about the purpose of the study and their right to voluntarily participate or withdraw at any time. The on-site distribution approach was adopted to increase response rates and to ensure that the sample reflected individuals with lived familiarity with the heritage and tourism context of the study area.

3.5 Ethical considerations

This study was conducted in accordance with established ethical standards for research involving human participants. The research protocol, including the survey procedure, participant information process, and data confidentiality safeguards, received formal approval from the Ethics Committee in Human Research, Sripatum University Khonkaen Campus (No. SPUIRB-2025-058) on October 6, 2025.

Participation in the study was entirely voluntary. All respondents were informed of the objectives of the research, and no personally identifiable information was disclosed in the analysis or reporting of results. The study adhered to internationally recognized ethical principles, including respect for autonomy, confidentiality, anonymity, and the responsible treatment of participant data.

The results of the structural model provide strong empirical evidence that CP functions as the primary upstream construct in shaping both HAW and AE within the context of Bang Saray Subdistrict. The significant effects of CP → HAW (β = 0.863, p < 0.001) and CP → AE (β = 0.825, p < 0.001) indicate that active engagement in cultural practices serves as the foundational mechanism through which individuals develop both cognitive understanding of heritage and meaningful experiential connections. This finding reinforces prior research suggesting that participation is essential for transforming cultural resources into both knowledge and lived experience [35, 36].

Furthermore, the significant relationships HAW → PCS (β = 0.405, p < 0.001) and AE → PCS (β = 0.484, p < 0.001) highlight the complementary roles of cognitive and experiential dimensions in fostering PCS. HAW contributes to a rational understanding of the importance of preservation, while AE enhances emotional and symbolic engagement with local culture. Together, these dimensions strengthen residents’ willingness to support tourism development, suggesting that both knowledge-based and experience-based mechanisms are necessary to build collective support. This interpretation aligns with previous studies emphasizing the dual importance of awareness and experience in shaping community attitudes [37, 38].

The findings also demonstrate that PCS has the strongest direct effect on SCTD (β = 0.594, p < 0.001), confirming its role as a key social driver of sustainability outcomes. In addition, AE exerts a significant direct effect on SCTD (β = 0.245, p = 0.002), indicating that authenticity not only enhances tourism value but also contributes to long-term sustainability by reinforcing cultural identity and integrity. These results suggest that sustainable tourism development is achieved not merely through the existence of cultural resources, but through the interaction between experiential quality and collective social support.

However, the non-significant relationship between HAW and SCTD (H6: β = 0.078, p = 0.356) provides an important theoretical insight. This finding indicates that awareness alone is insufficient to directly drive sustainable tourism outcomes. Instead, awareness must be translated into social processes—particularly community support—before it can influence development. In this sense, HAW operates indirectly through PCS, highlighting the mediating role of community dynamics in transforming cognitive recognition into actionable sustainability outcomes. This result helps explain why some communities with high levels of HAW may still struggle to achieve sustainable tourism if such awareness is not accompanied by collective engagement and support [39-42].

Overall, the findings reveal a coherent structural pathway in which CP stimulates both HAW and AE, which in turn enhance Community Support, ultimately leading to SCTD. This integrated mechanism reinforces theoretical perspectives on community-based tourism by highlighting the interdependence of participation, authenticity, and social support as key drivers of sustainability [43-45].

More importantly, this study extends existing theory by demonstrating that participation-driven mechanisms, rather than awareness alone, are central to achieving sustainable tourism outcomes. In line with recent research, sustainable tourism behavior is not shaped by single direct effects, but by the interaction of ethical (moral norms), cognitive (perceived effectiveness), and social mechanisms that jointly translate cultural engagement into sustainability outcomes [46-48].

Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the research was conducted exclusively in Bang Saray Subdistrict, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other coastal or non-coastal destinations with different cultural and socio-economic characteristics. Future studies should consider comparative analyses across multiple locations to enhance external validity.

Second, the study employed a cross-sectional research design, collecting data at a single point in time. This approach may not fully capture temporal changes in community perceptions or the dynamic nature of tourism development. Longitudinal studies are therefore recommended to examine how these relationships evolve over time.

Third, the data were based on self-reported measures, which may be subject to response bias, including social desirability effects. Although widely used in tourism research, future studies could incorporate mixed-method approaches, such as qualitative interviews or observational data, to strengthen the robustness of findings.

Finally, while the model successfully explains key relationships among CP, HAW, AE, PCS, and SCTD, other potentially influential factors were not included. Variables such as environmental sustainability, governance quality, stakeholder collaboration, and tourist behavior may also play important roles and should be examined in future research.

For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. The following statements should be used: Conceptualization, D.T and J.L.; methodology, D.T and J.L.; software, S.O.; validation, D.T. and J.L; formal analysis, J.L.; investigation, J.L. and S.O.; resources, J.L.; data curation, D.T.; writing—original draft preparation, J.L. and S.O.; writing—review and editing, D.T and J.L.; visualization, D.T.; supervision, S.O.; project administration, J.L.; funding acquisition, D.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.