📄 earth_science

Reassessing Climate Comfort in Cultural Heritage Tourism under High-Temperature Conditions: Can Climate Indices Reflect Tourists’ Actual Perceptions?

This study challenges the assumption that standard climate indices accurately reflect tourist perceptions in cultural heritage settings by demonstrating, through a Nanchang case study, that perceived climate comfort is a contextualized experience shaped by heritage engagement and behavioral adaptation rather than a direct function of objective meteorological conditions.

Original authors: LAI SHIWEN, Chen Xinhui, Zhou Wenxuan, Kuang Yuxiang

Published 2026-06-24

📖 4 min read☕ Coffee break read

CC BY 4.0

Original authors: LAI SHIWEN, Chen Xinhui, Zhou Wenxuan, Kuang Yuxiang

Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ✨ This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer

The Big Idea: The Thermometer vs. The Tourist's Heart

Imagine you have a very strict, scientific weather app that tells you exactly how "comfortable" the weather is for a walk. It looks at the temperature, humidity, wind, and rain, and gives you a score from 0 to 100. If the score is low, the app says, "Don't go out! It's too hot and miserable."

This paper asks a simple but tricky question: Does that scientific score actually match how real people feel when they are walking around a historic city?

The researchers took a trip to Nanchang, China, during the scorching summer of 2025. They looked at two famous "weather scorecards" used by scientists (called HCI:Urban and HERCI) and compared them to the actual feelings of 8,784 tourists visiting cultural sites like the Tengwang Pavilion and old historic districts.

The Surprise: The Scorecards Were Wrong

Here is the twist: The weather scorecards were being too pessimistic.

The Science said: "Oh no, it's 36°C (97°F) and humid. The comfort score is terrible! Tourists should be miserable."
The Tourists said: "Actually, I'm having a great time! The weather is a bit hot, but I'm loving the history and the vibe."

The study found that while the scientific indices were good at measuring the actual weather, they were terrible at predicting the tourist's mood. Even when the weather was objectively "bad" (hot and sticky), the tourists still rated their comfort as "Good" or "Excellent."

Why Did This Happen? The "Cultural Shield" Analogy

The paper suggests that tourists in heritage sites have a special "shield" that protects them from feeling the heat as badly as the weather apps predict.

Think of it like this:

A regular park visitor is like a person waiting for a bus. If it's hot, they are just standing there sweating, bored, and uncomfortable. The heat is the only thing they are thinking about.
A heritage tourist is like a person watching their favorite movie in a theater. Even if the theater is a little warm, they are so distracted by the story, the characters, and the excitement of the plot that they don't notice the heat as much.

The researchers call this "Heritage-Context-Modulated Climate Comfort." In plain English: Your enjoyment of the culture acts as a buffer against the heat.

The "Tolerance Threshold"

The study discovered that tourists have a much higher "heat tolerance" than scientists thought.

The Scientists' Rule: If it gets above 25°C (77°F), comfort starts dropping fast.
The Tourists' Reality: Tourists kept feeling comfortable even when it hit 32°C to 33°C (90–91°F). They didn't start complaining until the heat got really extreme.

It's like a car's speedometer. The scientists thought the car would break down at 60 mph. But the tourists kept driving happily until they hit 85 mph. The "breaking point" was much higher than expected.

What Actually Made Tourists Happy (or Unhappy)?

The study found that the weather wasn't the only thing that mattered. Here is what actually changed how tourists felt:

The "Why" Matters: Tourists who were there specifically to learn history or see revolutionary sites were much more tolerant of the heat. Their passion for the site acted like an air conditioner for their mood.
Smart Moves (Behavioral Adaptation): Tourists who were smart about the heat felt better.
- Night owls: Those who visited at night felt much more comfortable.
- Indoor explorers: Those who went into museums or memorial halls escaped the sun and felt great.
- The "Plan B" crowd: Tourists who had to change their plans because of the weather felt the worst. It wasn't the heat itself; it was the frustration of having their trip ruined.
The Real Enemies: While heat was tolerable, rain and humidity were the true villains. If it was raining or super humid, tourists felt miserable no matter how much they loved the history. A gentle breeze, however, was a lifesaver.

The Bottom Line

The paper concludes that we can't just look at a weather report to guess how tourists will feel.

Old Way: "It's 35°C, so the destination is 'Unsuitable' for tourism."
New Way: "It's 35°C, but because the site is fascinating and tourists can go inside or visit at night, they will likely still have a great time."

The researchers are saying that for cultural heritage sites, comfort isn't just about the weather; it's about the experience. A hot day can still be a perfect day if the story you are hearing is good enough to make you forget you're sweating.

Technical Summary: Reassessing Climate Comfort in Cultural Heritage Tourism under High-Temperature Conditions

Problem Statement
As global climate warming intensifies the frequency of extreme heat events, tourism climate indices (TCIs) are increasingly used to assess destination suitability and predict impacts on tourist demand. However, existing indices, such as the Holiday Climate Index: Urban (HCI:Urban) and the Heritage Climate Index (HERCI), operate on the assumption that objective meteorological conditions adequately represent tourists' subjective perceptions of comfort. This assumption remains insufficiently validated, particularly within the context of cultural heritage tourism. Unlike general leisure tourism, heritage tourism involves specific visitation contexts—such as historic districts, archaeological parks, and cultural landscapes—where tourist experiences are embedded in historical and cultural values. The central research question is whether objective climate indices can accurately reflect tourists' actual Perceived Climate Comfort (PCC) under high-temperature conditions, or if significant discrepancies exist due to the mediating roles of cultural motivation and behavioral adaptation.

Methodology
The study employs a mixed-methods approach using data collected during the 2025 summer peak tourism season in Nanchang, Jiangxi Province, China—a region characterized by hot, humid summers and rich cultural heritage resources.

Data Collection:
- Survey Data: 8,784 valid questionnaires were collected from tourists at major transport hubs (railway stations and the international airport). Respondents rated their PCC on a continuous 0–100 scale based on weather experiences over the preceding three days (or their entire stay if shorter). The survey also captured socio-demographic characteristics, travel motivations, visitation behaviors, and itinerary adjustments.
- Meteorological Data: Concurrent daily observations (temperature, precipitation, wind speed, relative humidity, cloud cover, sunshine duration) were obtained from the Nanchang National Basic Meteorological Station.
Index Calculation:
- HCI:Urban: Calculated daily for each tourist's stay duration using the formula $HCI:Urban = 4TC + 2A + 3P + W$, where $TC$ is the Thermal Comfort Index, $A$ is the Aesthetic/Cloud Cover Index, $P$ is the Precipitation Index, and $W$ is the Wind Index.
- HERCI: Calculated on a monthly scale based on the month of visitation, utilizing weighted scores for mean monthly temperature, sunshine duration, cloud cover, precipitation, and relative humidity. HERCI scores were normalized to a 0–100 scale to ensure comparability with HCI:Urban and PCC.
Statistical Analysis:
- Correlation and Distribution Analysis: Compared the distributions of objective indices against PCC and calculated correlation coefficients across different thermal comfort intervals.
- Regression Modeling: Estimated regression models to identify meteorological determinants of PCC. A piecewise specification was used for the Thermal Comfort Index (TC) to test for threshold effects ($TC$ and $TC^2$ ).
- Extended Models: Incorporated socio-demographic variables (age, gender, origin), travel motivations (historical sightseeing, red tourism, leisure), and behavioral adaptations (nighttime visitation, museum visits, itinerary adjustments) to assess their explanatory power.
- Quantile Regression: Analyzed heterogeneity in determinants across the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of PCC to understand how factors influence low, moderate, and high comfort levels differently.

Key Results

Discrepancy Between Objective and Subjective Measures: While HCI:Urban and HERCI effectively captured temporal variations in objective weather, they exhibited weak correlations with tourists' PCC ( $r = 0.236$ for HCI:Urban and $r = 0.318$ for HERCI). Both indices systematically underestimated tourists' comfort; for instance, 59.3% of tourists rated their experience as "Ideal," "Excellent," or "Very Good," whereas the indices classified only 30.8% (HCI:Urban) and 48.2% (HERCI) of observations in these top categories.
Threshold Effects: Regression analysis revealed a non-linear relationship between thermal conditions and PCC. Tourists exhibited a high tolerance threshold, with PCC remaining stable until the Thermal Comfort Index exceeded approximately 32.7°C. This threshold is significantly higher than the optimal ranges assumed by existing indices.
Role of Non-Meteorological Factors: The explanatory power of meteorological variables alone was modest ( $R^2 \approx 0.16$ $R^{2} \approx 0.16$ ). However, incorporating socio-demographic and behavioral variables increased the explanatory power to $R^2 \approx 0.24$ $R^{2} \approx 0.24$ .
- Cultural Motivation: Motivations such as historical sightseeing and red tourism experiences positively influenced PCC, even under high thermal stress.
- Behavioral Adaptation: Strategies such as nighttime visitation and visiting indoor museums significantly increased PCC. Conversely, tourists who adjusted itineraries due to weather reported lower comfort.
- Heterogeneity: Quantile regression showed that while meteorological factors (temperature, humidity, precipitation) were decisive for tourists with low-to-moderate comfort levels, their influence diminished for those with high comfort levels. For the latter group, cultural motivations and behavioral adaptations became the primary drivers of perceived comfort.
Specific Meteorological Impacts: Precipitation and relative humidity consistently exerted negative effects on PCC. Wind speed had a positive effect, particularly in high-heat conditions. The impact of cloud cover and sunshine was context-dependent, varying with thermal stress levels.

Key Contributions
The paper proposes the concept of "heritage-context-modulated climate comfort" to explain the divergence between objective indices and subjective perceptions. The study demonstrates that climate comfort in cultural heritage tourism is not a direct reflection of meteorological conditions but a contextualized perception jointly shaped by:

Heritage Attractiveness: The cultural and historical value of the site.
Cultural Motivations: The purpose-driven nature of the visit (e.g., educational, emotional resonance).
Behavioral Adaptation: Active adjustments in timing (night visits) and space (indoor vs. outdoor).

The research challenges the linear logic of traditional TCIs, which assume a direct "higher temperature = lower suitability" relationship. It argues that in heritage tourism, the "meaning" of the visit can buffer thermal discomfort, allowing tourists to maintain positive comfort evaluations even when objective indices suggest unfavorable conditions.

Significance and Claims
The authors claim that their findings necessitate a shift in how climate comfort is evaluated for cultural heritage tourism.

Theoretical Significance: The study moves the field from assessing "objective climatic suitability" to explaining "contextualized perceptual mechanisms." It clarifies that while indices like HCI:Urban and HERCI are valid for measuring objective weather, they cannot substitute for actual tourist perceptions in heritage contexts.
Practical Implications: The paper suggests that destination managers should not rely solely on low climate-index scores to predict negative tourist experiences. Instead, adaptation strategies should focus on enhancing the "heritage experience" (e.g., improving indoor facilities, promoting nighttime tourism, optimizing routes) to maintain comfort continuity under warming conditions.
Limitations: The study acknowledges that its empirical analysis is specific to Nanchang during the summer peak season. Future research is needed to test these findings across different seasons, climatic regions, and heritage types, and to integrate microclimate monitoring and tourist trajectory data for more precise exposure assessments.

The paper concludes that climate comfort in cultural heritage tourism is a complex outcome where the "heritage context" modulates the impact of thermal stress, requiring a new explanatory framework that integrates perception, behavior, and context.