How does gender affect visiting a world heritage site?: the case study of Guimarães

To date few studies have been undertaken in Portugal dealing with the attitudes, motivations, and profile of tourists who visit World Heritage Sites. Also, few studies have dealt with destination image (e.g., Agapito, Mendes & Valle, 2010; Lopes, 2011). As far as it is known, none have approached the issue of gender differences in the choice of a Portuguese heritage destination. Since cultural tourism destinations need to differentiate themselves from each other, appropriate market segmentation must be based on a deep understanding of the customers’ motivations and preferences. Keeping in mind results from empirical literature (e.g., Silberberg, 1995; Beerli & Martin, 2004; Richards, 2004; Pérez, 2009; Sheng, Shen, & Chen, 2008), gender seems to be a possible approach to market segmentation, whether for Guimarães or for other cultural tourism destinations around the world. Located in the north-western region of Portugal, Guimarães is a city of strong symbolic and cultural significance, and the nomination of its historical centre as a World Heritage Site in 2001 enhanced its tourism potential. This study analyses the possible relation between gender and attitudes and motivations towards a World Heritage Site, such as Guimarães. Additionally, the empirical approach used in the study tries to capture differences in the perceived attributes of the city. Commonalities and distinctions within and between groups of tourists, by focusing on the specific characteristic of gender, were analysed. The study addressed two main questions: first, whether males and females have similar or different preferences in choosing the city as their destination; and, second, whether there are gender differences in the perception of the attributes of Guimarães. A better understanding of the gendered nature of the destination is a valuable cue for shaping products and services according to visitors’ preferences.

“Enriquecimento Injustificado”: simples ignorância ou disparatada incompetência?

Pelos fundamentos expostos no Acórdão nº 377/2015, de 27/7, o T.C. decidiu pronunciar-se pela inconstitucionalidade das normas constantes do n.º 1 do artigo 1º e do artigo 2º do Decreto da Assembleia da República nº 369/XII, por violação dos artigos 18º/2 (necessidade, adequação, proporcionalidade e intervenção mínima do Direito Criminal/Penal), 29º/1 (Princípio da Legalidade Criminal) e 32º/2 (Presunção da Inocência) da Constituição. Imagine-se que depois de se ser condenado pela Comunicação Social, ainda temos que provar a nossa inocência! § On those grounds in Judgment No 377/2015 of 27/7, the Constitutional Court decided to rule the unconstitutionality of the rules in paragraph 1 of Article 1 and Article 2 of Decree of the National Assembly No. 369 / XII, for violation of articles 18/2 (necessity, appropriateness, proportionality and minimum intervention of Criminal Law / Criminal), 29/1 (Principle of Criminal Legality) and 32/2 (Presumption of Innocence) of the Constitution. Imagine that after being convicted by the Social Communication, we still have to prove our innocence!