Heritage Tourism on the World Heritage Sites in China:

An Evaluation Approach

Yixiao Xiang1, Geoffrey Wall2

1Department of Tourism Management of Management School, Shandong Univeristy, Jinan, China

2Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

[Abstract]Evaluation of tourism practices on the world heritage sites seldom occurs in part because of a lack of standardized evaluative criteria. This paper seeks to contribute to filling this gap by presenting and justifying a heritage tourism evaluation criteria framework adapted from previous research, focused on three variables: heritage conservation, local community well-being and tourism (quality visitor experience), and providing corresponding indicators for each criterion.

[Keywords]Heritage tourism; planning; evaluation; criteria; indicators; community approach

Introduction

Tourism has made heritage a major concern in recent years in both the developed societies (Hall & McArthur, 1993; Timothy & Boyd, 2003, Stubbs, 2004) and the developing countries (Nuryanti, 1996; du Cros, 2001; McKercher et al, 2005). It is believed that heritage tourism is often used as a strategy to assist heritage resource conservation and to improve sustainable local development (Hall and McArthur, 1993). However, judging from the existing literature, what is practiced on the heritage sites is often not in agreement with what is theoretically advocated (Timothy, 1999; Ross and Wall, 1999; Wall and Black, 2005). A balance among resource conservation, tourism development, and local community well-being becomes a big challenge faced by heritage planners of the developing countries including China.

Tourism planning is now playing a more significant role in the eastern developing countries than in the western developed ones where there are less government interventions (Pearce, 2000). Since the literature shows that few efforts are made to assess world heritage tourism, it should be meaningful to approach the task of examining the current tourism performance on the world heritage sites by evaluating relevant plans and their implementation. With a community perspective, this paper seeks to contribute to filling this gap by developing criteria and indicators which could guide and facilitate the work of evaluating tourism plans and their implementation on the world heritage sites in China, so as, ultimately, to aid in decision-making about future tourism operations on these special sites.

Rationale for the Research

Sustainability Principles

Sustainable development was defined in the Bruntland Report, Our Common Future, as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”(WCED, 1987:43) Since then, in spite of criticisms and debates, this concept has been embraced by more and more disciplines from the environmental sphere to economic, social and even cultural policy. Heritage conservation is of direct relevance (Stubbs, 2004) as heritage is considered to be a primary kind of resource “to sustain” with its ever-rising natural, cultural, economic, and socio-political issues which have inevitably flowed into ideas associated with sustainable development.

Through research on environmental assessment, and in an attempt to combine concerns of environment and socio-economic issues, Gibson (2001) summarized six principles of sustainability or sustainable development (the two terms are interchangeable as indicated by Gibson in his work), which have been widely accepted in North America. They are: 1. integrity, 2. efficiency, 3. equity, 4. governance, civility and commitment, 5. precaution, and 6. immediate and long-term integration.

Table 1. Sustainability principles

1. Integrity: We must maintain ecological integrity at every scale in order to maintain the irreplaceable life support functions upon which human well-being depends.

2. Efficiency: We must provide more economic opportunities for human well-being while reducing overall material and energy demands and other stresses on socio-ecological systems.

3. Equity: We must ensure material security and effective choices for all, including future as well as present generations, and in so doing reduce dangerous gaps in wealth and power between the rich and the poor.

4. Governance, civility and commitment: We must build our capacity to apply sustainability principles through a better informed and better integrated package of administrative, market, customary and personal decision-making practices.

5. Precaution: We must avoid even poorly understood risks of serious or irreversible damage to the foundations for sustainability, and we must design for surprise and manage for adaptation.

6. Immediate and long-term integration: We must apply all principles of sustainability at once, seeking mutually supportive benefits.

Source: Gibson, 2001

Gibson emphasized the interconnection and interdependence of society, economy, and ecology which should be conceived as a series of concentric rather than interlocking circles with the circle of economy inside the circle of society, which in turn is inside the circle of ecology, implying that anything in the smaller circles that undermines the larger (and vice versa) is weakening its own foundation. These principles help clarify the ideas of sustainable development and provide a useful basis for evaluation of the different practices guided by this concept.

Sustainability of Heritage Resource Conservation

In responding to sustainability in the area of heritage, Rodwell (2003) proposed principles involving “(1) the wise use of resources to ensure their continuity of supply; (2) minimum intervention into fabric and cultural identity (physical, social, economic, artistic); and (3) constructive evolution as opposed to destructive evolution.” It should be noted that these principles accept the supply function of heritage (and the “client” could be people around and afar) and allow change and development (but only constructive), and that the proponent took heritage conservation and development as dialectical and complementary.

The emphasis of heritage conservation went through several shifts from conserving the heritage resource itself by the late 1970s to more attention to visitor management during the 1980s, and then to greater attention given to the human dimension of heritage in terms of the allocation of resources since the 1990s (Hall and McArthur, 1998). It is believed that heritage management should provide services not only for visitors but also for all stakeholders. Stakeholders are the individuals, groups and organizations with an interest in a common heritage management problem or issue and are directly influenced or affected by the actions or non-actions taken by others to resolve the problem or issue (Gray, 1989; Hall and McArthur, 1998). Here it is argued that, drawing on Robinson (1999), the local communities living around the heritage site with people who may or may not directly participate in heritage-related activities are key stakeholders who should not be ignored, as they are the very people who are bound to live with the impacts and consequences of heritage activities (Wall, 1996). The sustainability of their life is essential to the holistic sustainability of the heritage resource.

World Heritage and Principles of Heritage Tourism

According to Hewison (1989: 16), heritage is “that which a past generation has preserved and handed on to the present and which a significant group of population wishes to hand on to the future.” The UNESCO definition of World Heritage may lend more understanding to heritage from an international point of view. World heritage, designated and listed by the World Heritage Convention (WHC), is in general a rare, fragile, non-renewable resource with special historic, scientific, or esthetic qualities, and of universal value to the whole world (summarized by the authors from UNESCO, 1972). The general objectives of WHC are to enhance worldwide understanding and appreciation of heritage conservation. Many cases have shown that the designation can, in fact, attract more tourists and thus increase the economic prosperity and status of the place where the world heritage is located. Therefore, many state parties (especially those in the developing world) consider the designation of world cultural heritage site to be beneficial in both political and socio-economic (du Cros &McKercher, 2000; Harrison, 2005).

Principles of Heritage Tourism

The World Tourism Organization (WTO) has recognized that heritage has become a component in almost 40% of all international trips undertaken (WTO, 2003). The attempt at clarifying the concept of heritage tourism nevertheless remained insufficient. The World Tourism Organization (WTO, 1992) defined heritage tourism as an immersion in the natural history, human heritage, arts, philosophy and institutions of another region or country. Poria et al. (2001: 1049) conceptualized heritage tourism as “a subgroup of tourism, in which the main motivation for visiting a site is based on the place’s heritage characteristics according to the tourists’ perception of their own heritage” based on the three types of heritage tourists they identified. This definition has been criticized by some researchers like Garrod and Fyall (2001), who claimed it is too much demand-sided and fails to consider the perspective of those who actually supply the heritage tourism experience which is believed to be the most essential element of this kind of tourism.

In searching for a holistic understanding of heritage tourism, Silberberg (1995:361) directed people’s attention to the destination community by defining cultural tourism, of which cultural heritage tourism is a part, as “visits by persons from outside the host community motivated wholly or in part by interest in historical, artistic, scientific or lifestyle/heritage offerings of a community, region, group or institution.” Laws and Pan (2004) also arguedthat heritage is supposed to play a dual role in attracting visitors to a certain destination while fulfilling the social, cultural and recreational aspirations of locals. It is contended that, ideally, heritage tourism should bring economic benefits to host communities and provide a significant means and motivation for them to manage their heritage and continuing traditions.

Therefore, to synthesize the above discussion, the key principles underpinning a holistic understanding of heritage tourism could be as follows according to Xiang and Wall (2005): (1) it is based on cultural or natural heritage resources; (2) it provides a special visitor experience particularly of the unique cultural, natural or historical attractiveness of a certain site; (3) it undertakes an educative role in cultivating awareness of heritage conservation in both the visitors and the heritage managers and owners, including the local residents. Meanwhile, it also contributes financially to the conservation of heritage resources; (4) it generates economic benefits for local communities and helps them to sustain their life traditions and cultural identities which are an integral part of the heritage environment.

In addition to providing enjoyable experience with heritage attractions, the essential functions of heritage tourism are promoting resource conservation and sustainable local development. Heritage tourism will not be successful without effective planning and management (Hall & McArthur, 1998). A fundamental mission of heritage planning and management is to guide tourism practice to ensure good operations of all the functions, as each is basic to the overall success of heritage tourism. Conversely, it could be a meaningful approach to assess the tourism operation through evaluating tourism planning in terms of how well the three aspects are practiced under its guidelines.

Criteria and Indicators for Evaluation

An Evaluation Framework

Literature review shows that there were few practical assessments of heritage tourism planning and practice on specific locations partly owing to the lack of standardized evaluative criteria since heritage tourism has emerged only in recent decades as a research focus. Deriving from the aforementioned principles, building upon Ross and Wall’s Ecotourism Paradigm (1999), this paper discusses a framework which indicates the ideal relationship among the three relevant variables: heritage resource, local community and tourism (with quality visitor experience as the essential element) (see Figure 1). It maintains that the sustainability of heritage tourism lies in the healthy relationship among the three aspects. Ideally, the heritage resource, local community and tourism (quality visitor experience) may each benefit the other in a synergistic and symbiotic way. To be specific,

1

2 3

Source: Adapted from Ross and Wall’s (1999) Ecotourism Paradigm.

Figure 1. An evaluating framework for heritage tourism

(1) It should protect the heritage resource and its environment. It should maintain least impact on the integrity and authenticity of the heritage resource, finance conservation with the money it generates, and increase conservation awareness and understanding among tourists and locals. (2) It should enhance the local economy and promote local community well-being. It should help to promote pride in the heritage among the local people and, provide a means of living for them, especially those whose livelihoods are affected by use limits placed on heritage resources, and promote local involvement in both benefit sharing and decision making. (3) It should provide quality tourist experiences with the heritage attractions. It should provide agreeable service facilities, and provide tourism products for visitors to have enjoyable learning experiences.To assist in evaluation, some generic indicators[1] are suggested. Adherence to each of the criterion is necessary for the development of sustainable tourism at heritage sites.

Relevant Indicators

Indicators are “a set of rules for gathering andorganizing data so they can be assigned meaning” (quoted in Seasons, 2003). The use of indicators is increasingly common among managers and researchers for site-specific assessments of social and biophysical changes and impacts (Stankey et al., 1990; Wallace, 1993). For the purpose of this study, the following sets of relevant indicators are developed to go with each criteria discussed above.

Table 2. Indicators for each criterion

Criteria / Corresponding indicators
Sustainability of heritage resource conservation /
  1. resource integration and authenticity
a. the condition of existing cultural and natural heritage resource
b. the condition of the resource environment -air, water, plants, soil, etc.
  1. laws and institutional guarantee for conservation
  2. status of participation of the local communities in conservation
  3. resource and environmental education (education center, presence of codes of behavior towards the resource)
  4. monitoring mechanism
  5. share of tourism revenue going back to finance conservation.

Sustainability of tourism
(quality visitor experience) /
  1. development of competitive quality tourism products
  2. information availability for tourists (information center, road signs)
  3. quality of guides and interpretations
  4. tourist purchase of local commodity
  5. frequency of tourist-local interactions and attitudes
  6. tourist perception of the authenticity of both heritage attraction and local tourism commodities
  7. safety for tourists
  8. extent of use of transport
  9. method of waste disposal
  10. architecture style and material used for building.

Sustainability of Local
community (tourism-related) /
  1. decent livelihood opportunities (locals selling products to tourists or supplying stores, etc.)
  2. poverty incidences and alleviation in tourist areas
  3. numbers of tourism businesses owned and operated by the locals
  4. percentage of staff employed by tourism businesses from the local communities, and job structure of the locals (percentages of local job opportunities)
  5. local communities’ share of profits from tourism (parking fee, entrance fee, etc.)
  6. tourism income of the local, and the average percentage it takes among their total income
  7. training for locals to acquire competence and skill for participating heritage conservation and heritage tourism
  8. respect for local intellectual property as indicated by laws prohibiting the trading in these assets
  9. local’s accessibility to heritage as tourism resource and use of tourism facilities
  10. gender equality in the employment esp. concerning the locals
  11. local community participation in decision making relating to tourism development of heritage resource, including：community involvement in the planning, research and decision-making process and community satisfaction with tourism practice and heritage conservation
  12. percentage of leaders of heritage conservation and tourism from local community
  13. resettlement and compensation
  14. education opportunity of the local people.

According to Kreutzwiser (1993), indicators may be an effective means for site-evaluations provided they are practical, facilitate prediction, sensitive to temporal and spatial variation, and are relevant to a valid conceptual framework. Indicators are intended to be site specific, and ideally should be selected and approved by people who know the area or site being evaluated and who understand the criteria. The use of indicators as a tool for evaluating the sustainable development of heritage tourism will be more likely to succeed if the indicators are developed in consultation with all stakeholders, particularly with local community representatives. The generic indicators are still to be tested, readjusted and refined when applied to the evaluation of tourism practice on a specific heritage site, and the socio-economic context should always count.

Conclusions and Discussion

Heritage tourism has been growing at a great speed with the value of heritage being more and more recognized by various parts of society including governments, the tourism industry, visitors, and the local people. This is particularly stimulated by the World Heritage designation of the World Heritage Convention of the UN. The evaluation, monitoring and control of the activities undergoing on the world heritage sites so as to keep a balance among resource conservation, tourism development, and local community well-being should become an important commitment for heritage planners and managers of countries like China which is rich in cultural and natural heritage and whose sustainable development is more focused on economic development and poverty alleviation. This paper has presented and justified a model which can be used for evaluating tourism operations on the world heritage sites in China. It is maintained that a balance among resource conservation, tourism development, and local community well-being should be a fundamental goal for heritage and tourism planners and managers. The evaluation of heritage tourism could be approached by examining how well the goals and objectives of tourism plans are met; i.e., whether they observe the principles of conserving the heritage resource, providing quality tourism experiences, and improving local life, and whether a symbiotic relation among the three is created. For each of the three fundamental principles, a set of generic indicators have been provided to assist in evaluation. Drawing on Wall (1996), thorough measurement of all aspects and implications of tourism are almost impossible to acquire given the multitude of interrelated variables involved. Adopting a community approach, this research is more focused on the links between heritage and people in the community.