The growth of information and communication technology makes people neglect their cultural heritage due to various factors, and it leads to a lack of cultural heritage transformation from one generation to the next generation. It greatly impacts on pilgrimage attitude towards cultural heritage. Besides, the expansion of heritage places improves the economic worth of any nation. Further, pilgrimage attraction is a major concern, which in turn improves the business opportunities. In general, cultural heritage depends on the historical, aesthetic, and architectural value of a particular place. Apart from these factors, some other parameters are also associated with cultural heritage. Therefore, it is significant to understand the behavioral pattern of the pilgrimage and their likeliness. This paper makes a phenomenological approach to uncover subliminal values associated with the cultural heritage places of Odisha, India. The prime objective is to study the attitude of pilgrimage towards visiting cultural heritage places. The attitude of pilgrimage depends on different dimensions, such as historical, aesthetic, architectural, spiritual, environment, economic, and management. Looking into uncertainty and frequent changes in human behavior, we employ variance-based structural equation modeling using partial least square and rough set for analyzing the information system. Variance-based structural equation modeling using partial least square help us to identify the factors that are essential for the study, and then the rough set is used to generate the rules. It, in turn, study the attitude of pilgrimage towards cultural heritage place of Odisha.
Rough set Partial least square Historical value Aesthetic value Architectural value Cultural heritage Pilgrimage attitude
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
D. P. Acharjya declares that he has no conflict of interest. Biswajit Acharjya declares that he has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Acharjya DP (2014) Rough set on two universal sets and knowledge representation. In: Issac B, Israr N (eds) Case studies in intelligent computing: achievements and trends. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 79–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acharjya DP, Das TK (2017) A framework for attribute selection in marketing using rough computing and formal concept analysis. IIMB Manag Rev 29(2):122–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acharjya DP, Tripathy BK (2008) Rough sets on fuzzy approximation spaces and applications to distributed knowledge systems. Int J Artif Intell Soft Comput 1(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmad Y (2006) The scope and definitions of heritage: from tangible to intangible. Int J Herit Stud 12(3):292–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed NSS, Acharjya DP, Sanyal S (2017) A framework for phishing attack identification using rough set and formal concept analysis. Int J Commun Netw Distrib Syst 18(2):186–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anitha A, Acharjya DP (2015) Neural network and rough set hybrid scheme for prediction of missing associations. Int J Bioinform Res Appl 11(6):503–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagozzi RP, Fornell C (1982) Theoretical concepts, measurements, and meaning. Second Gener Multivar Anal 2(2):5–23Google Scholar
Bisoyi N, Gupta H, Padhy NP, Chakrapani GJ (2019) Prediction of daily sediment discharge using a back propagation neural network training algorithm: a case study of the narmada river, india. Int J Sedim Res 34(2):125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne BM (2001) Structural equation modeling with amos, eqs, and lisrel: comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. Int J Test 1(1):55–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davig T, Hall AS (2019) Recession forecasting using bayesian classification. Int J Forecast 35(3):848–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eklund P, Wray T, Goodall P, Lawson A (2012) Design, information organisation and the evaluation of the virtual museum of the pacific digital ecosystem. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 3(4):265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(3):382–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia I, Sebastia L, Onaindia E (2011) On the design of individual and group recommender systems for tourism. Expert Syst Appl 38(6):7683–7692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau MC (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun Assoc Inform Syst 4(1):1–74Google Scholar
Kar AK (2016) Bio inspired computing—a review of algorithms and scope of applications. Expert Syst Appl 59:20–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KC C, Karuppannan S, Sivam A (2019) Assessing the values of living heritage sites in kathmandu valley: a community perspective. J Cult Herit Manag Sustain Dev 9(1):93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keitumetse S (2009) The eco-tourism of cultural heritage management (ect-chm): linking heritage and environment in the Okavango delta regions of Botswana. Int J Herit Stud 15(2–3):223–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keitumetse SO (2011) Sustainable development and cultural heritage management in Botswana: towards sustainable communities. Sustain Dev 19(1):49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotsopoulos KI, Chourdaki P, Tsolis D, Antoniadis R, Pavlidis G, Assimakopoulos N (2019) An authoring platform for developing smart apps which elevate cultural heritage experiences: a system dynamics approach in gamification. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01505-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar NTG (2017) An analytical study of Odisha’s heritage prospectus in tourism development. Int J Res Appl Sci Eng Technol 5(10):2130–2135Google Scholar
Levi D, Kocher S (2013) Perception of sacredness at heritage religious sites. Environ Behav 45(7):912–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu G (2010) Rough set theory based on two universal sets and its applications. Knowl Based Syst 23(2):110–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long PT, Perdue RR, Allen L (1990) Rural resident tourism perceptions and attitudes by community level of tourism. J Travel Res 28(3):3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maji S, Arora S (2019) Decision tree algorithms for prediction of heart disease. In: Fong S, Akashe S, Mahalle P (eds) Information and communication technology for competitive strategies (LNNS), vol 40. Springer, New York, pp 447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer É, Grussenmeyer P, Perrin JP, Durand A, Drap P (2007) A web information system for the management and the dissemination of cultural heritage data. J Cult Herit 8(4):396–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munjeri D (2004) Tangible and intangible heritage: from difference to convergence. Mus Int 56(1–2):12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navrud S, Ready RC (2002) Valuing cultural heritage: applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artifacts. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ngamsomsuke W, Hwang T, Huang C (2011) Sustainable cultural heritage tourism indicators. Int Conf Soc Sci Humanity IPEDR 5:516–519Google Scholar