Managing

World
Heritage
Sites
For Mum and Dad (Anna Leask)

For Alix and Elliot (Alan Fyall)

 Managing
World Heritage
Sites
Edited by
Anna Leask
and
Alan Fyall

AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON • NEW YORK • OXFORD

PARIS • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier
Linacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford OX2 8DP
30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA

First edition 2006

Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system

or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written
permission of the publisher

Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science &

Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (+44) (0) 1865 843830;
fax (+44) (0) 1865 853333; email: [email protected]. Alternatively
you can submit your request online by visiting the Elsevier web site at
http://elsevier.com/locate/permissions, and selecting Obtaining
permission to use Elsevier material

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN-13: 978-0-7506-6546-9
ISBN-10: 0-7506-6546-7

For information on all Butterworth-Heinemann publications

visit our web site at http://books.elsevier.com

Typeset by Charon Tec Ltd, Chennai, India

www.charontec.com
Printed and bound in The Netherlands

06 07 08 09 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 Contents

List of figures vii

List of tables ix
About the Editors xi
Contributors xiii
Foreword by Professor Henry Cleere xxi
Preface xxiii
List of abbreviations xxv

Part One Introduction to World Heritage Sites 1

1 World Heritage Site designation 5
Anna Leask
2 Implementing the World Heritage Convention: what happens after listing? 20
C. Michael Hall

Part Two Management of World Heritage Sites 35

3 Stakeholders and community participation 37
Sue Millar
4 Marketing issues and World Heritage Sites 55
Stephen W. Boyd and Dallen J. Timothy
5 Destination management: a holistic approach. Liverpool – Maritime
Mercantile City 69
Bryn Parry
6 Visitor management at World Heritage Sites 83
Myra Shackley

Part Three Generating and managing revenue 95

7 Tourism’s contribution to World Heritage Site management 97
Janet Cochrane and Richard Tapper
8 Juxtaposing the timeless and the ephemeral: staging festivals and events at
World Heritage Sites 110
Melanie Smith, Elizabeth Carnegie and Martin Robertson
9 Information communication technology applications for World Heritage
Site management 125
Dimitrios Buhalis, Ruth Owen and Daniël Pletinckx
Contents

Part Four Strategy 145

10 Strategy and policy for the World Heritage Convention: goals, practices and
future solutions 147
G. J. Ashworth and Bart J. M. van der Aa
11 The future market for World Heritage Sites 159
Alan Fyall and Tijana Rakic

Part Five Case studies 177

12 Visitor management at Stonehenge, UK 181
Peter Mason and I-Ling Kuo
13 Sustainable development in tourism: a proposition for Machupicchu, Peru 195
Otto Regalado-Pezúa and Jesús Arias-Valencia
14 Managing visitor impacts at Lijiang, China 205
Hilary du Cros
15 Managing an urban World Heritage Site: the development of the Cultural
Avenue project in Budapest 215
László Puczkó and Tamara Rátz
16 Tourism development, empowerment and the Tibetan minority: Jiuzhaigou
National Nature Reserve, China 226
Li, Fung Mei Sarah
17 World Heritage Sites in the Americas 239
Dallen J. Timothy and Stephen W. Boyd
18 World Heritage Listing: the case of Huangshan (Yellow Mountain), China 250
Li, Fung Mei Sarah and Trevor H. B. Sofield
19 The Megalithic Temples of Malta: towards a re-evaluation of heritage 263
Nadia Theuma and Reuben Grima
20 The Rainforest Ways: managing tourism in the Central Eastern Rainforest
Reserves of Australia 273
Jo Mackellar and Ros Derrett
Conclusions 285
Index 289

vi
 Figures

Figure 1.1 The World Heritage Site inscription process 9

Figure 2.1 Elements in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention 23
Figure 3.1 Brand structure for the Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership.
© Alcazar Limited 2002 52
Figure 5.1 A cultural tourist typology.
Source: Amended from McKercher and du Cros, 2003: 46 72
Figure 5.2 Destination management is the management of change 73
Figure 8.1 Overlapping outcomes for resident, festival visitor and place.
Source: Adapted from Derrett, 2003, 2004 121
Figure 9.1 ICTs and Cultural Heritage. Source: Adapted from Buhalis 2003 127
Figure 9.2 ICTs functional for WHS 130
Figure 9.3 Online booking for the Uffizi, Italy.
Source: http://www.tickitaly.com/ 132
Figure 9.4 Trusty children’s web pages from the National Trust.
Source: www.nationaltrust.org.uk/ 133
Figure 9.5 Virtual tour of Royal Observatory. Source: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/ 134
Figure 9.6 Avatar example. Source: Ryder et al., 2004 135
Figure 9.7 AR in use at ENAME, Belgium. Source: www.ename974.org/ 136
Figure 9.8 Users of the ARCHEOGUIDE mobile devices at Olympia.
Source: Vlahakis et al., 2002 140
Figure 9.9 Online access to collections information.
Source: National Maritime Museum www.nmm.ac.uk 141
Figure 10.1 Home Study Museum of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo, Mexico 152
Figure 10.2 Castle of the Teutonic Order, Malbork, Poland 152
Figure 12.1 Breakdown of respondents’ normal place of residence 187
Figure 13.1 Peru’s main tourist destinations. Source: PromPerú (2004: 9) 197
Figure 13.2 Current concerns about Machupicchu 200
Figure 13.3 MHS management proposal structure 201
Figure 14.1 Shops selling traditional music CDs and other souvenirs to
outsiders are now the most common on Lijiang Ancient
Town’s central streets 212
Figure 15.1 Territory of Cultural Avenue and WHS 220
Figure 15.2 The Cultural Avenue logo 223
Figure 19.1 Map of Megalithic Temples of Malta 264
Figures

Figure 19.2 Hagar Qim, Malta 267

Figure 19.3 Free and paying visitors to Hagar Qim Temples 1979–2003.
Source: Department of Museums Annual Reports, 1979–2000;
Heritage Malta Annual Report, 2003–2004 269
Figure 20.1 Rainforest reflection. Copyright Northern Rivers Tourism 275
Figure 20.2 Map of the region for the Rainforest Way.
Source: Northern Rivers Tourism 276
Figure 20.3 Project phases 280

viii
 Tables

Table 1.1 Selection criteria for World Heritage Site status 8

Table 2.1 General principles for the management of natural and cultural
heritage in Australia’s World Heritage Sites 29
Table 2.2 What management plans for a declared Australian World Heritage
Site should include 29
Table 12.1 Demographic characteristics of the sampled visitors 186
Table 12.2 Major motivations for visiting Stonehenge 187
Table 12.3 Visitors’ views on their visit to Stonehenge 187
Table 12.4 Visitors’ views on the future of Stonehenge 188
Table 12.5 t-test results for Stonehenge questionnaire survey 189
Table 16.1 Key tourism development in Jiuzhaigou Valley 229
Table 17.1 Numbers of WHS in the Americas (2005) 241
This page intentionally left blank
 About the Editors

Anna Leask
Anna is Senior Lecturer in Tourism at Napier University, Edinburgh,
UK. Her teaching and research interests combine and lie principally
in the areas of heritage visitor attraction management, visitor attrac-
tion pricing and general conference management. She has also
co-edited Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions (2003) with
Alan Fyall and Brian Garrod and Heritage Visitor Attractions: An Oper-
ations Management Perspective (1999) with Ian Yeoman. Anna has pre-
sented and published extensively in the field of visitor attraction
management in both UK and international contexts. She is currently
leading research in the School of Marketing & Tourism and the
Centre for Festival and Event Management at Napier University.

Alan Fyall
Alan is Reader in Tourism Management in the International Centre for
Tourism & Hospitality Research, and Head of Research for the School
of Services Management at Bournemouth University, UK. Alan has
published widely with his areas of expertise spanning the manage-
ment of attractions, heritage tourism and destination management.
Alan has co-edited Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions (2003)
published by Butterworth-Heinemann, while he has co-authored
Tourism Marketing: A Collaborative Approach (2005) and the third edition
of Tourism Principles and Practice (2005) published by Channel View
and Prentice Hall respectively. Alan has recently completed a number
of projects for external clients in the South-West of England exploring
suitable structures for emerging Destination Management Organiza-
tions and has conducted work in the Caribbean and Southern Africa
for the Commonwealth Secretariat.
This page intentionally left blank
 Contributors

Jesús Arias-Valencia BSc, MBA from ESAN, is former National Dean

of Machupicchu Program (1997–2002). A project funded by a negoti-
ation of a debt exchange with the governments of Peru and Finland
with the main objective of helping to develop preservation processes
of the natural heritage and the protection of the extraordinary
archaeological environment in Machupicchu.
Professor Gregory Ashworth is Professor of Heritage Management
in the Department of Planning at the Faculty of Spatial Sciences,
University of Groningen, Netherlands.
Professor Stephen Boyd is Professor and Chair of Tourism in the
School of Hotel, Leisure and Tourism, University of Ulster, Northern
Ireland, UK. His research interests in tourism include heritage, com-
munities, national parks, partnership, planning and management,
disadvantaged regions, peripheral areas and trails. His most recent
co-authored book is Heritage Tourism, and he is currently Associate
Editor of the Journal of Heritage Tourism. His current research investi-
gates community feeling on event hosting and second home devel-
opment across the North Coast region in Northern Ireland, the
impact of the Internet on travel agencies and the constraints of trav-
elling with young children.
Dr Dimitrios Buhalis is Course Leader MSc in Tourism Marketing
and Leader of eTourism Research at the School of Management
University of Surrey and Adjunct Professor at IMHI/ESSEC in Paris.
Dimitrios has been an active researcher in the areas of ICTs and
Tourism and he was the UniS based Principal Investigator for a num-
ber of projects. He is a registered European Commission IST evalu-
ator and reviewer and he was the cluster rapporteur for the IST
tourism projects for the period 2000–2004. He served as Vice Chairman
on the International Federation of Information Technology and
Tourism (IFITT) Board and was Chair of Events and Meetings and a
member of the Executive Council of the Tourism Society. He has edi-
torial roles in a number of academic journals and he has written,
edited or co-edited 12 books on eTourism, Tourism Strategic Issues
and Distribution Channels of Tourism and the Future of Tourism.
Elizabeth Carnegie lectures in arts and heritage management at the
University of Sheffield having previously worked at Napier University
Contributors

where she was a member of the Centre for Festival and Event
Management. She has considerable experience of the museums and
galleries sector, both as a curator with Glasgow Museums where she
participated in a number of high profile, award winning projects
including setting up the St Mungo Museum of Religious Life and Art
(1993) and redisplaying the People’s Palace in 1998; and latterly, as a
museums manager. Research areas include museum audiences and
public memory, community festivals and cultural identity.

Dr Janet Cochrane enjoyed a successful career in the tourism indus-

try and in overseas consultancy, specializing in activity tourism,
tourism in protected areas, and South-East Asia. Now Senior Research
Fellow at Leeds Metropolitan University, recent projects have cov-
ered practical ways of strengthening the links between biodiversity
conservation and tourism. Current research interests centre on
understanding the interaction between tourism, biodiversity conser-
vation and socio-economic development, on the significance of pil-
grimage tourism to sacred sites in South-East Asian national parks,
on the recreational needs of domestic tourists in developing coun-
tries, and on finding ways of accommodating these needs within
protected areas.

Dr Hilary du Cros has interests in tourism and cultural heritage

management research, scholarship and teaching. She has worked in
the cultural tourism field for the past seven years and has over 20
years’ experience in cultural heritage management. Dr du Cros is the
Associate Asia-Pacific representative on the International Council on
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) International Scientific Committee
on Cultural Tourism. Prior to entering academia, she owned and
operated one of Australia’s largest cultural heritage consulting firms,
where she supervised or conducted over 250 projects, including a
number of projects funded by the National Estate Grants Programme.
She has published over 60 scholarly books, journal articles, conference
papers, monographs and book chapters. Dr du Cros is the co-author
with Bob McKercher of Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between
Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management published in 2002 by The
Haworth Press, Binghamton, New York.

Dr Ros Derrett OAM is an academic at Southern Cross University,

Australia. She delivers programmes in event planning and manage-
ment, tourism planning and the environment, marketing and special
interest tourism. She has worked extensively in education, commu-
nity development, arts administration and tourism. Her research
activity reflects her interest in regional consultation, cultural tourism,
community cultural and economic development and tourism with a
special focus on heritage, festivals and event management. She is the
Project Manager of the Centre for Regional Tourism Research based

xiv
 Contributors

at Southern Cross University and part of the CRC for Sustainable

Tourism.
Reuben Grima is the curator of prehistoric sites that are inscribed on
the UNESCO World Heritage List and managed by Heritage Malta.
He joined the Archaeology section of the Museums Department as
an assistant curator in 1992. He formed part of the management team
that delivered the Hypogeum Conservation Project in 2000. Reuben
has degrees in archaeology and history from the University of Malta,
and a Master’s degree in Roman archaeology from the University of
Reading. He is presently reading for a PhD at the Institute of Archae-
ology, University College London, funded by a Commonwealth
Scholarship. His present research interests include the landscape
context of Maltese late Neolithic monuments, and the creation of
archaeological narratives that are accessible to wider audiences.
Professor C. M. Hall At the time of writing Michael Hall was
Professor in the Department of Tourism, University of Otago, New
Zealand, and Docent, Department of Geography, University of Oulu,
Finland. Co-editor of Current Issues in Tourism he has written widely
in the areas of tourism, mobility, regional development and environ-
mental history. He has researched World Heritage issues since the
1980s when his graduate studies focused on Tasmania and Australian
approaches to wilderness conservation. Among other interests he is
currently studying wilderness and nature-based tourism issues in
peripheral areas of Australia, Canada, Finland, Iceland, and alpine
areas of Sweden.
Dr I-Ling Kuo currently serves as Assistant Professor at the Emirates
Academy of Hospitality Management in Dubai, UAE, teaching vari-
ous courses in tourism programmes and statistics. She gained her
MSc in Tourism Planning and Development from the University of
Surrey in 1996, and PhD from Bournemouth University in 2003. Her
research focuses on visitor management, interpretation and tourism
management in resource-sensitive areas.
Li, Fung Mei Sarah (BSc, Dip Ed, MSc Tourism) is a graduate of the
Chinese University of Hong Kong and University of Surrey, and is
currently completing her doctoral degree at Murdoch University,
Western Australia. She has undertaken numerous research and con-
sultancy activities in China for more than 10 years and her lecturing
career has taken her from Hong Kong to Australia. Her research activ-
ities are grounded in geography, ecotourism and cultural tourism and
include countries as diverse as China, the UK and Australia.
Joanne Mackellar MBus is a PhD student at Southern Cross
University, Australia. Having recently gained her Master of Business,
Jo specializes her current research into areas of tourism and event

xv
Contributors

planning, and the study of networks and innovation. Her previous

experience in the tourism industry extends over 20 years and includes
consultancy projects for local governments as well as positions in
government tourism offices and in international corporations.
Dr Peter Mason is Professor of Tourism Management at the
University of Luton. His early research concentrated on tourism
development and impacts. More recently he has focused on tourism
planning and management. He has published a number of journal
articles concerned with visitor management and is known for his
work on education and regulation in tourism and particularly for the
first academic study that discussed and critiqued tourism codes of
conduct. Recently he has researched tour guiding and interpretation
in tourism. He is the author of Tourism Impacts, Planning and Manage-
ment published by Elsevier in 2003, which discusses a number of
visitor management issues.
Sue Millar is Chair of ICOMOS-UK Cultural Tourism Committee.
She established a suite of MAs in Heritage, Museum, Arts and
Cultural Tourism Management as Director of the University of
Greenwich Business School in the late 1990s. She has lived and
worked in two World Heritage Sites – Ironbridge Gorge and
Maritime Greenwich – first at the Ironbridge Institute and then at the
National Maritime Museum and later at the Old Royal Naval
College. She currently works as an independent consultant in fields
of cultural heritage and cultural tourism and is co-director of Culture
Works (London) Ltd.
Ruth Owen studied for an MSc in eTourism at the University of
Surrey before taking the position as a Research Officer at the
University of Surrey contributing to the business plan for the
Harmonise www.harmonise.org project, which created a tool to sup-
port interoperability within tourism. Her current research is involved
in defining the ICT uses and needs of visitors to cultural heritage
sites, as part of the FP6 EC funded EPOCH Network of Excellence
www.epoch-net.org.
Bryn Parry is a Senior Lecturer in the Southampton Business School,
at the Southampton Solent University, specializing in Strategy; hold-
ing qualifications in Hotel & Catering Administration and in Facilities
Management, his management experience encompasses hospitality
management and international consultancy. He is co-author of
Successful Event Management and has contributed book chapters on
Facilities Planning and Risk Management.
Daniël Pletinckx was trained as a civil engineer, with specialization
in digital imaging and computer science. He gained extensive
experience in system design, digital image processing, digital image

xvi
 Contributors

synthesis, 3D and virtual reality through a career of 15 years in pri-

vate industry. He is the author of several articles on computer graph-
ics and cultural heritage presentation and has lectured extensively at
major computer graphics and cultural heritage conferences. He was
Conference Chair of the international conferences VAST2004 (Brussels)
and VSMM2005 (Ghent). As Director of New Technologies, Daniel
Pletinckx is responsible for designing new cultural heritage presen-
tation systems and oversees planning, development, quality control,
and management of the Ename Centre’s heritage presentation proj-
ects. He also serves as chief consultant to the Ename 974 Project and
is Project Coordinator for the Integrating Activities within the
European 6FP IST EPOCH Network of Excellence, that deals with
optimizing the use of IT technology in Cultural Heritage.
Dr László Puczkó is head of tourism at Xellum Ltd. He graduated
in Business Administration at Budapest University of Economic
Sciences (1993). He holds an MA in Art & Design Management
(Hungarian Academy of Arts and Crafts), a PhD (Budapest University
of Economics and Public Administration) and is a Certified Manage-
ment Consultant. He is a Board Member of ATLAS, the Hungarian
Society of Tourism, and professor at Heller Farkas College. His main
areas of expertise are visitor management, health and heritage
tourism, theme parks and routes. He is a co-author of books on the
impacts of tourism, visitor management and tourism management
in historic cities.
Tijana Rakic is a PhD student at Napier University, UK. Her current
research focuses on World Heritage, tourism and national identity,
while her previous research includes a global study on the future of
the World Heritage List. Her research interests are heritage, tourism
and national identity, heritage authenticity, post-modernity and the
consumption of culture and space in tourism.
Tamara Rátz, PhD is Professor of Tourism at the Tourism
Department of the Kodolányi János University College, Hungary,
and Visiting Lecturer at Häme Polytechnic University of Applied
Sciences, Finland. She has a particular interest in cultural and heri-
tage tourism development and in interpretation and visitor manage-
ment at heritage sites. Her recent books include The Impacts of
Tourism (4th edition, co-authored with László Puczkó, in Hungarian,
2005), European Tourism (2004) and Tourism in Historic Cities: Planning
and Management (co-authored with László Puczkó, in Hungarian,
2003).
Otto Regalado-Pezúa is Professor at ESAN of the Marketing Area
and consultant for Marketing projects of sustainable tourism and
development. He has a PhD in Management Sciences from the
Institut d’Administration des Entreprises (IAE) of Université de

xvii
Contributors

Nice-Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France; DEA in Management Sciences of

Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis; DESS in Marketing of École
Supérieure des Affaires (ESA) from Université Pierre Mendès France,
Grenoble, France; MBA from ESAN, Peru; Bachelor on Management
Sciences from the Universidad de Lima, Peru. He has been visiting
professor at CERAM, Sophia-Antipolis European Business School
and ESC Troyes, France.
Martin Robertson is lecturer in the School of Marketing and Tourism,
Napier University, Edinburgh. He has presented conference papers
and authored published texts in the areas of urban tourism and
events management; festival and event management and destination
marketing; and the management of narrative as a leisure manage-
ment function. He has co-edited two publications, Managing Tourism
in Cities: Policy, Process and Practice (1998) and Festival and Events
Management: An International and Culture Perspective (2004). His areas
of research focus are urban tourism planning and development; the
economic and social evaluation of the impacts of festival and events
in the urban environment; strategic destination marketing, and the
social science of leisure and urban tourism.
Professor Myra Shackley has a background in archaeology, geog-
raphy and business management and is Professor of Culture
Resource Management at Nottingham Business School, part of
Nottingham Trent University. She has a particular interest in the
management of visitors to historic sites and protected areas and has
published thirteen books (the latest being Managing Sacred Sites:
Service Provision and Visitor Experience published by Continuum 2001)
plus many journal articles, book chapters and reports. Her most
recent work deals with issues affecting World Heritage Sites, the
management of sacred sites and developments in cultural tourism.
Melanie Smith is a Senior Lecturer in Cultural Tourism Manage-
ment at the University of Greenwich. Her teaching and research
interests include cultural tourism, heritage management, cultural
regeneration, and wellness tourism. She is also Chair of ATLAS
(Association for Tourism and Leisure Education). She is currently a
Visiting Lecturer in Budapest, Hungary.
Dr Trevor Sofield is Professor of Tourism, School of Tourism and
Leisure Management, University of Queensland, and Technical
Director, Sustainable Tourism, for GRM International, one of
Australia’s largest consultancy companies. Dr Sofield combines
degrees in social anthropology and environmental science with more
than 35 years’ experience in development in more than 20 countries,
first as a diplomat in the Australian Foreign Service with oversight
of aid programmes, and more recently as a tourism researcher and
consultant, including working with UNESCO as an expert on World

xviii
 Contributors

Heritage Sites in the Asia Pacific. He has been undertaking research

and consultancies in China for the past 12 years.
Dr Richard Tapper is an expert in sustainable tourism development,
and directs the Environment Business & Development Group consul-
tancy. He is also a Visiting Fellow at Leeds Metropolitan University,
and advises the Tour Operators’ Initiative for Sustainable Tourism
Development. Recent projects include a programme involving tour
operators in an analysis of good practices for sustainability in
tourism for the United Nations Environment Programme, work
for UNESCO on biodiversity conservation and tourism at World
Heritage Sites, and preparation of International Guidelines on
Biodiversity and Tourism Development, which were adopted by the
UN in 2004. His special interests include sustainable tourism
management at mass tourism destinations and in protected areas.
Dr Nadia Theuma is an anthropologist and has a doctorate degree in
cultural tourism management from the Scottish Hotel School in
Glasgow. She currently lectures in tourism studies at the Faculty of
Economics, Management and Accountancy at the University of Malta.
Nadia has conducted research on the impacts of tourism on culture
and has contributed to the Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessment of
the Maltese Islands. Her current research interests include the use of
culture in tourism, the management of cultural events, and commu-
nity development through culture and tourism activities. She has
authored and co-authored articles on tourism in Malta and the
Mediterranean.
Dr Dallen J. Timothy is Associate Professor of Community Resources
and Development at Arizona State University, USA, and Visiting
Professor of Heritage Tourism at the University of Sunderland, UK.
He is the Editor of the Journal of Heritage Tourism and serves on edi-
torial boards of ten international journals. Dr Timothy is also editor
of Ashgate’s Heritage Tourism Reference Series and co-editor of the
Aspects of Tourism book series published by Channel View. His
research interests in tourism include heritage, political boundaries
and issues of sovereignty, shopping, planning, community empower-
ment, and developing world dynamics.
Dr Bart van der Aa researched World Heritage Site selection from
2000, completing a PhD in 2005 at the Faculty of Spatial Sciences,
University of Groningen, Netherlands where he currently works as a
lecturer.

xix
This page intentionally left blank
 Foreword

The UNESCO Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural

and natural heritage came into being in 1972, at a time when some of the
important economic and political powers in the world were belatedly
becoming aware of the growing threats to the cultural and natural heri-
tage of the planet. There had been inconclusive discussions for fifty
years aimed at creating some mechanism whereby the more affluent
countries might assist their poorer neighbours to protect and conserve
the rich heritage on their territories that they were unable to finance
themselves. The first faltering steps were taken in the 1920s by the
League of Nations, and these continued after World War II when
UNESCO took over the relevant portions of the League’s remit, but
nothing concrete emerged despite many years of debate and drafting.
The situation changed in the 1960s when the US Government began
to take an active interest in environmental protection, spurred on by
non-governmental bodies such as the Sierra Club and the World
Wildlife Fund. A White House Conference in 1965 recommended
that ‘there be established a Trust for the World Heritage for the iden-
tification, establishment, and management of the world’s superb
natural and scenic areas and historic sites’. This initiative was taken
up by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
and later by the International Council on Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS), set up with UNESCO encouragement in 1965, and the
resulting Convention was adopted by the General Conference of
UNESCO at its 17th Session in Paris on 16 November 1972 – an
unusually rapid gestation period for an international convention.
The early years of the Convention (which came into force in 1977,
when it had been ratified by twenty countries) were marked by a
great deal of enthusiasm but a lack of coherent policy-making.
Cultural and natural properties were nominated to be evaluated in a
somewhat ad hoc fashion by the two Advisory Bodies to the World
Heritage Committee, and the World Heritage List gradually grew. In
the Convention the sole criterion for inscription on the List is ‘out-
standing universal value’, a noble phrase but one that proved almost
impossible to define, as a result of which ten more detailed criteria
were painfully evolved.
By 1994 the World Heritage List had grown in an uncontrolled
manner to more than 400, and the Committee recognized that a more
systematic approach was needed. This resulted in a Global Strategy,
Foreword

which has been striving to ensure a more equitable and logical

representation of the heritage of outstanding universal value, both
geographically and thematically – so far, it has to be admitted, with
only limited success.
The most significant development in the Convention over the past
two decades has, however, been related not to its representative nature
but rather to the establishment of standards and criteria for the man-
agement, presentation and promotion of World Heritage Sites. No
property is now inscribed on the List unless it can show evidence that
it has ‘an appropriate management plan or other documented man-
agement system which should specify how the outstanding universal
value of a property should be preserved, preferably through parti-
cipatory means’ (Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention, 225, para. 108). The scrutiny of these sys-
tems by the two Advisory Bodies is now rigorous, and the inscription
of a number of important sites has been deferred to await the prepa-
ration and implementation of a suitable plan. Perhaps the most sig-
nificant example of this rigour was the deferral, in 2000, of the famous
archaeological site of Bagan (Myanmar) because there was (and still
is) no effective management plan in force.
It is axiomatic that management implies presentation to the public,
at all levels from the local to the global. The mere act of listing may
increase the visitor numbers at World Heritage Sites many times
over: for example, visitor numbers at Sammaladenmäki, a Bronze
Age cairn cemetery in Finland, rose tenfold in the first year after list-
ing. The need for close collaboration with tourist bodies cannot
therefore be too highly stressed: the approaches to Machupicchu in
Peru serve to highlight the dangers of failure to develop a policy of
sustainable tourism at ‘honeypot’ sites of this nature.
Serious consideration is now being given to what the visitor to
World Heritage Sites will need (in addition to the sine qua non of car
parking and toilets). The presentation and display techniques pion-
eered by the US National Park Service and more recently by English
Heritage are now finding favour elsewhere around the world, pro-
viding worthwhile visitor experiences in intellectual as well as in
material terms.
Only comparatively recently have specialized courses in the man-
agement of cultural sites begun to appear in universities around the
world, accompanied by a slowly growing literature, both for stu-
dents and for heritage managers. The present volume is an out-
standing addition to the invaluable corpus.

Henry Cleere
Honorary Professor, Institute of Archaeology, UCL;
World Heritage Coordinator, ICOMOS, 1992–2002

xxii
 Preface

Whenever you mention World Heritage Sites, the person you are
talking to asks if there are any in that particular country. In attempt-
ing to answer them, one finds oneself trying to recall those that are
inscribed and justifying both them and the properties that are not
listed. On deeper questioning, few people actually know what the
UNESCO designation really means and can rarely think where their
own countries and properties celebrate the inscription. That said,
they are never at a loss to list a lengthy catalogue of sites that they
think should be listed and those that should not!
When the editors originally discussed embarking on this project
we carefully considered the worth of trying to inform and contribute
to the growing body of knowledge on World Heritage Sites – how
could we make a valuable contribution to a complex environment
where tourism is often seen as a necessary evil and is not often uni-
versally welcomed? It is our hope that we have provided both explan-
ation of what the designation means and encouraged analysis of its
impact on the successful future of the care of precious resources and
sites across the globe. The content of the book will include fantastic
sites such as the rainforests in Australia, historic cities in China,
Europe and South America, and the role of tourism within their
management. The case studies will review cultural and natural sites,
those on the List of World Heritage in Danger and those considered
to be ‘safe’. There is significant interest in the future of these sites on
both a local and global level with growing public interest and aware-
ness in the successful sustainability of these resources. Governments
recognize the value of them in the global scene, yet with a view to
economic prosperity in some situations, but also their role in conser-
vation, developing local culture and stimulating tourism activity.
The text attempts to address these issues in a practical and applied
manner, with use of case studies in each chapter and in-depth cases
towards the end of the book to demonstrate the very individual
needs of the properties on the World Heritage List (WHL). One clear
aim of the text is critically to review the role of tourism activity
within the issues under discussion and to encourage discussion of
the positive ways to balance tourism, economic benefit, and cultural
aspects and to minimize physical damage to resources.
The whole area of tourism and World Heritage Site (WHS) man-
agement has been the subject of various international academic
Preface

gatherings and conference themes in recent years, with special edi-

tions in Tourism Recreation Research (2001) and the International
Journal of Heritage Studies (2002), and the most recent Current Issues in
Tourism (2005) special edition and textbook edited by Harrison and
Hitchcock (2005). This collection of papers discusses World Trade
Law and focuses on the contested nature of WHS and the politics that
surround the whole process. Alongside the development of the aca-
demic debate has been the publication of more practical approaches,
such as The Illustrated Burra Charter Good Practice for Heritage Places
Australia, 3rd edition (ICOMOS, 2004) that ‘encourages the co-existence
of cultural values, particularly where they conflict and recognize the
importance of interpretation’, where ‘conservation is an integral part
of good management’. In addition, the World Heritage Centre has
published Managing Tourism at WHS: A Practical Manual for WHS
Managers (Pedersen, 2002) as part of their World Heritage Series,
offering practical solutions to the variety of issues that they may
encounter. The aim of this text is to combine the issues raised via the
academic debate and research, with the more practical and applied
results from individual properties and those involved in their man-
agement. The chapters contain broad coverage of the issues and are
then followed by specific and applied case studies, thus providing a
useful text for students, academics and practitioners alike.
The editors would like to recognize the considerable effort on behalf
of the contributors for their initial interest and willingness to partici-
pate in the project and their continued support in submitting work to
us. Their views and comments regarding the content of the chapters
and text overall have led to a great wealth of content and depth
throughout each section. This has contributed to the diverse range of
resource and site choices, and the broad geographical spread.
The title of the book was chosen specifically to reflect the broad
scope of the overall management of World Heritage Sites and the
manner in which tourism activity participates in this context, rather
than simply approaching tourism practice at these sites in isolation. It
was not the aim of the editors only to consider tourism activity at the
WHS, more to view the impacts and issues raised in combining the
tourism activities within the broader context of the WHS, to establish
how it results in wider socio-cultural and economic impacts and how
it can contribute to the benefits gained overall. It is anticipated that
this academic debate and contribution will stimulate further publica-
tions in the area. The debate over the future sustainability of the World
Heritage List will continue and perhaps there is no definitive answer,
more a recognition of the need to continually work towards balancing
the huge variety of activities that occur at World Heritage Sites.

Anna Leask and Alan Fyall

November 2005

xxiv
 Abbreviations

EH English Heritage
ICCROM International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of Cultural
Property
ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources
WH World Heritage
WHC World Heritage Committee
WHConvention World Heritage Convention
WHL World Heritage List
WHS World Heritage Site
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization
This page intentionally left blank
 PA RT
1
Introduction to
World Heritage Sites
Managing World Heritage Sites

Part One of this book explores the broad context within which
UNESCO designated World Heritage Sites (WHS) operate. While the
book considers the management issues involved in heritage sites in
general, it specifically focuses on the UNESCO designated WHS as
being indicative of the need successfully to manage these properties.
The variety of the sites on the World Heritage List is indicative of the
complex issues involved in the effective management of these natural
and cultural resources. The aim of this initial section is to consider the
role of tourism within the whole World Heritage process, in that it has
a significant role to play but that a careful balance of activities is
required to maintain the very nature of the resource that visitors seek.
The key themes and issues addressed in this Part include a précis of
how a heritage property or resource becomes designated as a World
Heritage Site – from the initial suggestion to the final inscription by
the World Heritage Committee. In Chapter 1 Anna Leask outlines
the process of inscription, before investigating the motivations for
pursuing this accolade and the implications for a States Party and
site. She then moves on to consider the current representation on the
World Heritage List (WHL) and where the main advisory bodies of
ICOMOS and IUCN have identified gaps. These bodies have identi-
fied some inequalities in the WHL across the categories of designa-
tion – natural, cultural and mixed – and geographically, with a heavy
lean towards European cultural properties. There follows some dis-
cussion concerning the future of the WHL, though this is dealt with
in much more detail in Chapter 11. Throughout the chapter, the
author recognizes that there are varying viewpoints with regards to
tourism activity at WHS. To some it is the key motivation for pursu-
ing the status, while for others it is a marginal activity. For some it is
already an established factor in the dynamics of the site, while for
others the lack of infrastructure or the political situation precludes
effective and appropriate tourism activity. This aspect of politicization
is a recurrent theme, of relevance to the motivations for inscription,
the decisions around which sites are nominated and how the World
Heritage Convention operates and will be revisited throughout the
book. Not least there needs to be recognition of the variety of breadth
of stakeholders involved in the nomination, inscription and ongoing
management of World Heritage Sites, resulting in a challenging
operating environment.
In Chapter 2 C. Michael Hall explores the differences in implemen-
tation of the World Heritage Convention between States Parties,
investigating what the designation means for a country as well as a
site. One key theme here is that of the implications of designation –
what they are, how they are measured (if at all) and how they can be
optimized appropriately to the WHS. Does a site attract more vis-
itors following WHS inscription and what other implications might
there be, for example legislation? He concludes with the thought that

2
 Introduction to World Heritage Sites

there needs to be a change in the whole focus of WHS management,

with less emphasis on the process of gaining inscription, rather to the
implementation of the WHConvention following inscription. His
view being that the story does not end once a site gains the status,
rather that it should be the start for the improved management of the
site via systematic evaluation, monitoring and reporting on the
impacts of WHS listing.

3
This page intentionally left blank
 C H A P T E R
1
World Heritage
Site designation
Anna Leask
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to:

• Introduce the concept and process of UNESCO World Heritage
Site (WHS) inscription
• Outline the process and role of stakeholders involved in their
designation
• Describe the current profile of the World Heritage List (WHL)
• Identify and discuss the issues surrounding WHS designation
and management.

Introduction

This chapter acts as an introduction to the process of identification,

nomination and inscription for WHS across the globe. This enables
the future chapters to concentrate on the specific issues in relation
to their implications and applications within various settings, rather
than each re-examining the process. The content will cover the aims
above in seeking to explain the at times complex process whereby a
site deemed to be of significant worth is inscribed onto the WHL. It
will consider the vast range of bodies, organizations and stakehold-
ers who become involved in the process and the role that they play.
The key management role is that of UNESCO to identify and aid
the conservation of those sites deemed to be of outstanding universal
value. While the sheer variety of resources protected by the designa-
tion creates its own difficulties in the application of UNESCO practices
and sustainable management of the sites, a fact noted by Bandarin
(2005), UNESCO recognizes this and uses its ‘coveted WHS pro-
gramme as a means of spreading best practice in sustainable man-
agement’. The chapter will then raise many of the controversial and
political issues surrounding the whole concept of World Heritage
in attempting to highlight the disparate views on the success and
potential longevity of the designation process. It will then conclude
with a summary of the process to act by way of introduction to later
chapters that will tackle many of these points more directly.

What is a World Heritage Site?

Approved in 1972, the ‘Convention concerning the Protection of the

World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage’ was adopted by the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
and came into force in 1976, when it had been ratified by twenty

6
 World Heritage Site designation

countries. It has since been ratified by 180 States Parties across the
globe. The purpose of the Convention is to ‘ensure the identifica-
tion, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future
generations of cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal
value’ (UNESCO, 2005a). The Convention states that the World
Heritage Committee (WHC) should coordinate the process of desig-
nating these sites through a system known as inscription, which
includes an evaluation of the resources by experts against a set of
known criteria. The aim is to encourage conservation of the resources
within the designated sites and surrounding buffer zones on a local
level and also to foster a sense of collective global responsibility
via international cooperation, exchange and support. While designa-
tion only incurs additional legislative power in a few States Parties,
South Africa and Australia for example, ‘the prestige of being on the
WHL is deemed such that a high level of protection will exist on the
site’ (Historic Scotland, 2005). Once designated, the States Party
accepts responsibility for the effective management of the site and
commits to adopting the ‘Operational Guidelines for the Implemen-
tation of the World Heritage Convention’ and the systems of reactive
and periodic reporting set in place by UNESCO. If it fails to do this
effectively then the threat of removal from the WHL is present, though
it has not, to date, been exercised.
Sites may be nominated as cultural, natural or mixed criteria, with
designation reliant upon the type of criteria that they are deemed to
present in an exceptional form. The diversity of WHS is vast, includ-
ing the Great Barrier Reef, Australia as the largest, former colonial
cities such as the Historic Town Centre of Macau, engineering feats
such as the Mountain Railways of India, artistic works such as those
of Gaudi, natural phenomena such as the West Norwegian Fjords
and cultural and natural resources combined in situations such as
the Island of St Kilda off the coast of Scotland. Prior to 2005 nomin-
ations were evaluated against a set of six cultural and four natural
criteria, though these have now been combined into one set of ten
including:

to represent a masterpiece of human genius or to contain super-

lative natural phenomena; or areas of exceptional natural beauty and
aesthetic importance; or to bear a unique or at least exceptional
testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilisation which is living or
which has disappeared (UNESCO, 2005b).

The criteria are listed in full in Table 1.1. Sites may be nominated as
representing examples of one or more criteria, indeed, many of the
early nominations cover all six of the cultural criteria, for example
Venice. While every attempt has obviously been made to clarify
what is meant by terms such as ‘outstanding universal value’, the

7
Managing World Heritage Sites

Table 1.1 Selection criteria for World Heritage Site status

(i) to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius

(ii) to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within
a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology,
monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design
(iii) to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a
civilization which is living or which has disappeared
(iv) to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological
ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history
(v) to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-
use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with
the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of
irreversible change
(vi) to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or
with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance.
(The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in
conjunction with other criteria.)
(vii) to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty
and aesthetic importance
(viii) to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s history, including
the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of
landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features
(ix) to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and
biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water,
coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals
(x) to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ
conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened
species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or
conservation

Source: UNESCO, 2005b

boundaries of ‘uniqueness’ and the criteria themselves, with these

being the topic of debate and revision in recent years, evaluation is
still essentially a subjective process. ICOMOS (2004) has commented
that ‘Unlike natural heritage, cultural heritage is fragmented and
diverse and not predisposed to clear classification systems’.

How are WHS designated?

The initial step in the inscription process is for a site to be identified

within a States Party as suitable for nomination. It is this stage that is
often crucial and subject to a significant level of political negotiation,
where some commentators might comment on the questionable pri-
ority given to some sites over others. Each States Party should then
develop a Tentative List (TL) – an ‘inventory of the cultural and natural

8
 World Heritage Site designation

Tentative List
Prepared within the States Party via consultation with local authorities,
non-government organizations, members of the public, private owners

Nomination document and management plan preparation by States Party

Central government in States Party with advice from WH Centre, advisory
bodies from within the States Party, IUCN, ICOMOS, regional authorities,
local government, local trusts and experts and consultation

Nomination submission to UNESCO World Heritage Centre

By States Party, to include nomination and management plan

Evaluation of nomination
Independent evaluation by IUCN and ICOMOS expert panel relevant to each
site IUCN/ICOMOS considers nomination and criteria, management aspects
and makes recommendation to World Heritage Bureau

World Heritage Committee

Decision taken at annual meeting to decide if a site should be:
• Rejected
• Deferred
• Included
on the basis of recommendation from World Heritage Bureau

WHS inscribed on World Heritage List if recommended for

inclusion by the World Heritage Committee

Figure 1.1 The World Heritage Site inscription process

properties of outstanding universal value within its territory, which

it considers suitable for inclusion and it intends to nominate for
inscription on the WHL in the following years’ (UNESCO, 2005c) –
though some are yet to be encouraged to develop these. Tentative
Lists can be helpful in the planning process in identifying poten-
tial sites and allowing adequate preparation time for their nomin-
ation. Canada and the UK have been congratulated on their TL in their
inclusion of trans-boundary (where nominations include a number
of sites based on a theme but not necessarily in the same geograph-
ical area, e.g. Cave Paintings in Northern Spain) and trans-national
sites (nominations where sites cross borders, such as the recently
announced Frontier of the Roman Empire including Hadrian’s Wall

9
Managing World Heritage Sites

and sites in Germany) and the amount of public consultation that

has been included in arriving at the list. Sites are nominated for
inscription by the central government within the States Parties and
must have been listed on the Tentative List (TL) for that country
prior to nomination. Each States Party may nominate up to two sites
each year, provided that one is a natural nomination. This represents
a change from the decision taken in 2000 to limit nominations to one
per annum, in an attempt to reduce the number of nominations from
well-represented States Parties, such as China, Italy, Spain and India.
Once a site has been selected from the TL, again a matter of much
local negotiation in terms of priority, then the nomination document
can be prepared. This outlines the criteria for inscription, boundaries
of the site and buffer zone (area immediately surrounding the resource)
and as much detail as possible relating to the uniqueness and import-
ance of the site resource. In addition, since 1996, a Management Plan
must be presented to demonstrate how the integrity of the site and
its universal value are to be presented, covering aspects such as trans-
port, conservation and tourism activity. Advice is available from the
World Heritage Centre and advisory bodies, such as ICOMOS-UK
and IUCN-UK, within the States Party prior to this submission. The
World Heritage Centre then arranges for the nomination to be inde-
pendently evaluated by an expert representative from either one
or both of the two Advisory Bodies mandated by the WHC: the
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN), which respectively provide evaluations of the
cultural and natural sites nominated. A third advisory body, that
of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and
Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), an intergovernmental
organization, provides the Committee with expert advice on the con-
servation of cultural sites and training activities.
Mission reports relating to conservation and management, reports
on the cultural/scientific values, and consultations with specialists
are used to produce detailed recommendations on a site. These are
then studied by special panels of the respective Advisory Bodies and
at these meetings recommendations are formulated which are later
presented to the World Heritage Committee. The options are to rec-
ommend inscription, deferral (to seek further detail) or to reject the
nomination. The WHC agreed that it would consider a maximum of
45 nominations per annum at their meeting in 2004, this to include
any proposed extensions to already inscribed sites. The final step is
for the formal inscription of the site as a WHS and committing it to
being managed in accordance with the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. In some cases, sites
are also immediately placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger,
currently containing 34 WHS, when the resource is considered to be at

10
 World Heritage Site designation

substantial risk of damage from situations such as war, flood or indus-

trial activity or in need of major conservation measures and assist-
ance to protect and maintain the values for which it was originally
inscribed. The further implications of listing will be covered in future
chapters of this text.

What is the current profile of the World Heritage List?

The first 12 World Heritage Sites (WHS) were inscribed on the World
Heritage List (WHL) in 1978 and the total has risen now to contain
812. The profile is varied, with 628 cultural, 160 natural and 24 mixed
(those meeting both cultural and natural criteria) WHS, representing
137 States Parties (UNESCO, 2005d). Initially nominations tended
to initiate from built heritage in European settings, leading to a
geographic bias towards this area (Cleere, 1998), though the Global
Strategy of 1994 has made some headway in attempting to redress
this imbalance and encourage nominations that meet other criteria
and originate from less well represented States Parties and themes.
Most recent properties to be inscribed include sites from Bahrain
and the Republic of Moldova appearing on the WHL for the first
time. A situation has arisen whereby a few States Parties represent
the majority of the properties on the WHL, while others may have
none. Indeed, the number of WHS listed by States Party ranges
from zero to 34, with 43 currently having no sites inscribed. This
issue will be discussed in further detail later in the chapter. In
recent years, attempts have been made to identify such gaps in
the WHL with reports from ICOMOS and IUCN specifically address-
ing this issue and suggesting amelioration techniques. One such
suggestion has been to increase the number of trans-boundary
nominations (IUCN, 2004) and to encourage the exchange of expert-
ise in the preparation of nomination documents and conservation
techniques.

Current issues surrounding WHS designation and

management
The previous paragraphs have covered the technical process
involved in attaining World Heritage Site status from UNESCO.
In attempting to clarify a complex political and administrative
process, a huge number of issues have come to the fore and require
further discussion. The author is not attempting to answer these
issues, merely to raise them to inform the debate in later chapters in
the text.

11
Managing World Heritage Sites

Motivations

Why do States Parties nominate sites for inscription? Is it for the oppor-
tunity to access international conservation expertise and exchange, the
true basis of the WHConvention, or is it for the perceived benefits of
economic growth encouraged by increased tourism activity and oppor-
tunity to access the World Heritage Fund? Perhaps it is simply to gain
the recognition and prestige associated with achieving this interna-
tional accolade or maybe simply a matter of political esteem and pride.
The motivations usually relate to the specific governmental aspirations
within a States Party, be they prestige within Europe or financial in
developing countries. Whatever the reasons, they are varied, debatable
in their benefits and often politically intensified.

Implications of World Heritage listing

One of the more tangible ways of assessing the above might be to

review the actual implications of listing – the benefits and costs, the
opportunities and threats. This issue has naturally been the subject
of debate (Hall and Piggin, 2001; English Heritage, 2005) as States
Parties want to see clear benefit in exchange for the expense of mount-
ing a nomination bid. This is a suggested list of the key implications
as summarized from these authors:
• international recognition and accountability – international pres-
tige, increased opportunities for promotion, improved quality stan-
dards on sites and accountability if on the List of World Heritage in
Danger
• improved protection and management of site via the system of
site specific management plans providing a framework for decision-
making and participation in monitoring activities and participa-
tion in periodic reporting from UNESCO
• planning implications – rarely legislative but often key material
planning consideration or some level of recognition
• new partnerships and projects – the opportunity to form ones, for
example at Stonehenge where 70 bodies now work together on
the site proposals, and potential access to funding via WH Fund
or locally, international exchange of expertise and personnel
• economic and social improvement
• political and ethnic recognition, for example in former colonial
territories
• increased tourism activity – potential increases in visitation depend-
ent upon the existing levels, location, theme and promotion.
What is abundantly clear is that the greatest benefits to the resources
themselves appear to follow where a clear planning structure is in

12
 World Heritage Site designation

place and adherence to the site specific management plan and the
UNESCO Operational Guidelines is set, rather than in countries with
less developed planning and management frameworks. IUCN (2004)
have commented that there is a need for national legislation relevant
to World Heritage that is complementary to and supportive of other
laws on protected areas and natural resource management, with
management plans for each property and the inclusion of an assess-
ment of management effectiveness as part of the management cycle.

Tourism activities at WHS

The key focus of this book concerns the role of tourism within the
much wider resource management practices. The perceived benefits
of tourism activity to an area are one of the key motivations for States
Parties in nominating sites. Various authors (Shackley, 1998; Hall and
Piggin, 2001) have debated the actual economic impacts of listing, to
gauge the role of designation in any achieved increases in visitation
and income generation, though none has arrived conclusively in sup-
port of such benefits – usually due to a lack of data available for even
the most developed sites. The key dilemma here is that it is difficult to
balance tourism activity with the conservation role, often creating a
tension or conflict between the usually large number of stakeholders
involved. Each of the stakeholders is likely to hold conflicting agendas
and priorities, resulting in difficulties arriving at consensus of opin-
ion on site and resource management. McKercher et al. (2005) have
researched this conflict between tourism and other stakeholders, stat-
ing that ‘tourism and cultural heritage management often have an
awkward relationship’, then go on to suggest that formal partnerships
may not be the best route to success, indeed that ‘successful cultural
tourism is most likely to occur when both sets of stakeholders have a
realistic appreciation of the tourism value of the asset, the need to con-
serve core cultural values and clearly defined roles’.
‘The very reasons why a property is chosen for inscription on
the WHL are also the reasons why millions of tourists flock to those
sites year after year. So how do we merge our convictions with our
concerns over the impact of tourism on World Heritage Sites?’
(Pedersen, 2002). Their response has been for UNESCO and the advis-
ory bodies of IUCN and ICOMOS to publish a range of texts and
manuals to assist in directing site managers (Feilden and Jokilehto,
1998; Pederson, 2002), though often it might not be the practical man-
agement issues that require guidance, more intervention or encour-
agement to change attitudes from purely conservation to the wider
context. Additionally, the sheer variety in resources, locations and
staff expertise dictates that these publications are more generalist
than specific and may not offer particularly practical solutions to

13
Managing World Heritage Sites

each individual, ‘unique’ WHS. The clearest route to balancing these

activities would appear to be in the effective inclusion of them within
management plans and recognition of management practices that
can be used to control and maximize the benefits. It is vital that the
management of WHS should be integrated into tourism and land
management plans at all levels – local, regional and national.

Representation and balance on the WHL

One critical flaw in the WHS listing process is that UNESCO does not
nominate nor invite nominations for sites that they deem appropriate –
instead it is the central governments within each States Party that do
this. This inevitably leads to a situation whereby some countries are
not members, do not recognize membership and designation follow-
ing political changes, or indeed nominate sites at all. Additionally,
the highly politicized process of Tentative List and nomination
means that it is not always the most obvious resource that is nomi-
nated. van der Aa (2005) suggests that this may be due to a variety of
reasons including, social unrest, availability of exploitable resources
on a site, overlooking suitable sites in error or attempts to exclude a
minority’s heritage. The political will must be there for the nomina-
tion of sites to become a priority and be awarded the required funds
to enable it to happen. Additionally, the political nature of UNESCO
incurs a situation noted by Harrison (2005) where ‘on the World
Heritage List … the outcomes will depend on the balance of status
and power at any one time and on who among the numerous stake-
holders has the loudest voice … it is an inter-subjective and highly
political process’.
As mentioned previously, the WHL is more biased to sites in Europe
and North America and towards cultural sites. The Global Strategy, set
up in 1994 to encourage a balanced, representative and credible WHL,
has an action programme designed to identify and fill gaps in the
WHL, and has been effective in encouraging nominations from new
States Parties and a broader range of categories, for example industrial
heritage, heritage routes and cultural landscapes, but there are still
opportunities for improvement. Future plans include further broaden-
ing of categories possibly to include community involvement and the
engagement of young people in the process. Also, to encourage re-
presentation from less well represented States Parties via trans-national
and trans-boundary nominations, though with a precursor that they
need additional assistance with the preparation and implementation
of management plans, ‘increasing use of serial site and trans-boundary
nominations by a number of States Parties is positive but needs clearer
direction and guidelines to ensure strong nomination and effective
management post-inscription’ (IUCN, 2005).

14
 World Heritage Site designation

One further future issue for UNESCO is that of adequate funding

fully to support the activities of the WH Centre. The funds raised
through the WHF are inadequate, particularly as more sites are des-
ignated in less developed countries and with the increasing cost of
policing the now large number of sites. Calls for further research to
inform the practices of the Centre (Harrison and Hitchcock, 2005)
would also require increased levels of funding, most effectively via
ICOMOS and IUCN, which can call on superior professional and sci-
entific advice in an efficient and effective manner.

The process of WHS inscription

The whole process of inscription has been criticized for its complex-
ity, political bias and expense. These may represent the key reasons
why some countries fail to have representation on the WHL. ICOMOS
(2004) suggest that the structural gaps are the result of a ‘lack of tech-
nical capacity to promote and prepare nominations, lack of adequate
assessments of heritage properties, or lack of an appropriate legal or
management framework, which either individually or collectively
hinders the preparation of successful nominations’ (ICOMOS, 2004)
and that qualitative gaps are ‘associated with certain types or themes
of properties’. So, further work is required in order to overcome
these issues internationally, in identifying suitable sites and assess-
ing their cultural assets for suitability. It also may take several nomin-
ation bids and many years for some sites to be inscribed, often due
to factors outside their control, such as redefinition of criteria or
political wrangling. It may take years for a site even to make it onto
a Tentative List, often it is particularly difficult for regions to gain
recognition on national lists. Personnel changes and budgetary con-
trols may mean that the sheer will to push for nomination may
expire. Many States Parties do not have Tentative Lists in place,
therefore automatically precluding them from nominating sites,
while most WHS designated pre-1996 still do not have management
plans in place. The lack of legislative power associated with designa-
tion is the key factor in much of this, both at international and national
level. It allows questionable activities, such as planning approval for
roads and housing or mining activity, to take place at or near desig-
nated WHS and frustrates experts seeking recognition and care
for worthy resources. Hitchcock (2005) views this ‘legal ambiguity’
to be one of the key issues of the whole system. Additionally, there
is also the confusion raised where a WHS is also awarded other
designations. Since the WHConvention was set up there has been
a great increase in the volume and applicability of other schemes
for recognition and conservation of resources, such as national des-
ignations and the use of different terminology to discuss the same

15
Managing World Heritage Sites

item, e.g. World Heritage Areas/World Heritage Sites in Australia.

These designations rarely follow identical boundaries, purposes
and management practices – all contributing to the multiplicity of
stakeholders.

Total number of WHS and future completion of the WHL

Both IUCN and ICOMOS completed investigations into the future of

the WHL and voiced, interestingly conflicting, statements regarding
their positions. While ICOMOS (2004) state that there should be:

no limit on the number of properties inscribed on WHL – the

definition of potential properties to be nominated will necessarily
remain an open question, subject to evolving concepts, policies,
strategies and available resources … and the perception of whether
or not there are gaps, cannot simply be based on numerical
analysis.

IUCN (2004) counter that:

there must be a finite number of existing and potential properties

for inclusion on the WHL … IUCN considers that a number in the
range of 250–300 natural and mixed WH properties should be
sufficient.

The IUCN statement (IUCN, 2004) goes on to say: ‘it was never
intended that the WHL should ensure complete representivity of all
the earth’s ecosystems and habitats – other international instruments
available’. One area that they do agree on, however, is that Tentative
Lists need more work to assist in the further identification of poten-
tial natural and mixed properties in particular, with further harmon-
ization at regional and thematic level between States Parties being
one avenue for development. So the debate is likely to continue in
terms of arriving at a fully geographically and thematically represen-
tative WHL, with continued discussion of the contentious idea of
re-evaluating existing sites, removal of those no longer deemed to
be of ‘universal value’ and of compulsory nomination of sites from
non-member nations. Existing and new political situations may also
become volatile and impact on the progress of WHS management,
for example between Korea and China or Israel and Palestine.
A lack of public awareness surrounds the whole aspect of designa-
tion too, the author has lost count of the number of times she has
been asked if Scotland even has any WHS! People often ask why
sites do or do not have the status, usually in complete ignorance of
what it even means – though it sounds good, doesn’t it? This is par-
ticularly true in local contexts, as noted by Williams (2005).

16
 World Heritage Site designation

Conclusion

An action plan to address some of these issues has been drafted

by ICOMOS (2004) and includes: developing Tentative Lists for all
States Parties; optimizing success of nominations; developing new
Operational Guidelines; encouraging sustainable development on
WHS; the introduction of periodic reporting to monitor WH; and rais-
ing awareness of the WHConvention.
The key aim of the WHConvention is to conserve cultural and nat-
ural heritage resources, but does the present structure of the WHC
and associated processes actually do this? According to IUCN (2004)
and ICOMOS (2004) the WHConvention is an effective framework
for implementation of conservation strategies but needs better
integration of Convention and international, national and regional
conservation instruments, to achieve universal membership of Con-
vention and to involve communities. This would indicate that it is
effective, but then again both organizations are closely affiliated with
and bound by UNESCO. Independent commentators might have
reservations, but a realistic view must be taken regarding how
improvements could be made to such an international, politically
sensitive system. The chapters following this one investigate the
issues surrounding the effective management and conservation of
WHS, with the case studies then highlighting particular features of
the issues applied in key WHS. In reading the following chapters and
cases, it is critical to emphasize that the role of designation is not spe-
cific to tourism, rather for conservation, although there is also a need
to recognize the significant role of tourism in the effective sustainable
management of World Heritage Sites. As stated by Barbosa (2003),
‘We have a collective responsibility to safeguard our human heritage.
It is a responsibility, furthermore, that links past, present and future
generations in a chain of reciprocity and care’, and tourism has a vital
role to play in that future.

References

Bandarin, F. (2005) Foreword. In Harrison, D. and Hitchcock, M. (eds)

The Politics of World Heritage: Negotiating Tourism and Conservation.
Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Barbosa, M. (2003) World Heritage 2002: Shared Legacy, Common
Responsibility. http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_report
2002_en.pdf UNESCO (accessed 21 August 2005).
Cleere, H. (1998) Europe’s Cultural Heritage from a World Perspective.
In ICOMOS UK Conference proceedings: Sustaining the Cultural
Heritage of Europe. London.

17
Managing World Heritage Sites

English Heritage (2005) http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/

show/nav.8673 What are World Heritage Sites? (accessed 10 August
2005).
Feilden, B.M. and Jokilehto, J. (1998) Management Guidelines for Cultural
World Heritage Sites. Rome: Ograro.
Hall, C.M. and Piggin, R. (2001) Tourism and World Heritage in
OECD countries. Tourism Recreation Research, 26, 103–105.
Harrison, D. (2005) Contested narratives in the domain of World
Heritage. In Harrison, D. and Hitchcock, M. (eds) The Politics of
World Heritage: Negotiating Tourism and Conservation. Clevedon:
Channel View Publications.
Harrison, D. and Hitchcock, M. (2005) (eds) The Politics of World
Heritage. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Historic Scotland (2005) World Heritage Sites. www.historic-
scotland.gov.uk/txtonly/index/ancientmonuments/world_
heritage (accessed 10 August 2005).
Hitchcock, M. (2005). In Harrison, D. and Hitchcock, M. (eds) The
Politics of World Heritage: Negotiating Tourism and Conservation.
Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
ICOMOS (2004) http://www.international.icomos.org/world_her-
itage/whlgaps.htm Executive Summary of The World Heritage
List: Filling the Gaps – An Action Plan for the Future. February
2004. Paris: ICOMOS (accessed 10 August 2005).
IUCN (2004) Executive Summary of Draft Strategy Paper – The
World Heritage List-future. http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/
wheritage/WHList_FuturePriorities.pdf (accessed 10 August 2005).
IUCN (2005) Special Expert Meeting of the World Heritage Conven-
tion. Background Paper, April. Paris: IUCN.
McKercher, B., Ho, P. and du Cros, H. (2005) Relationship between
tourism and cultural heritage management: Evidence from Hong
Kong. Tourism Management, 26 (4), 539–548.
Pedersen, A. (2002) Managing Tourism at WHS: A Practical Manual
for WHS Managers World Heritage Paper 1 2002. http://whc.
unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_01_en.pdf Paris:
UNESCO (accessed 15 August 2005).
Shackley, M. (1998) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage
Sites. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
UNESCO (2005a) World Heritage. http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/
(accessed 18 August 2005).
UNESCO (2005b) World Heritage Criteria. http://whc.unesco.org/
en/criteria/ (accessed 18 August 2005).
UNESCO (2005c) World Heritage Tentative List. http://whc.unesco.
org/en/tentativelists/ (accessed 18 August 2005).
UNESCO (2005d) The World Heritage List. http://whc.unesco.org/
en/list/ (accessed 18 August 2005).

18
 World Heritage Site designation

van der Aa, B. (2005) Preserving the heritage of humanity? Obtaining

world heritage status and the impacts of listing. Netherlands
Organisation for Scientific Research.
Williams, K. (2005) The meanings and effectiveness of World Heritage
Designation in the USA. In Harrison, D. and Hitchcock, M. (eds) The
Politics of World Heritage: Negotiating Tourism and Conservation.
Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

19
 C H A P T E R
2
Implementing the
World Heritage
Convention:
what happens after
listing?
C. Michael Hall
 Implementing the World Heritage Convention

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to:

• Emphasize the importance of understanding the different means
by which the World Heritage Convention (WHC) is implemented
in different States Parties
• Identify the importance of legislation and regulation in meeting
country’s obligations under the Convention
• Highlight the extent to which it is possible to say that listing
actually influences visitation
• Emphasize the need for systematic evaluation strategies to be
developed for WHS and the Convention as a whole.

Introduction

World Heritage Site (WHS) listing usually carries with it enormous

expectation. At first glance these expectations often focus on the
extent to which listing is meant to bring in extra tourists to the site or
attract more government and agency support for the maintenance
of the site’s values. However, on closer inspection it is apparent that
there are many other implications of WHS listing, including poten-
tially changed access and use of the site, new regulatory structures,
and changed economic flows. In addition, the listing of one site may
also have an affect on other site nominations or even other existing
sites in terms of management, the politics of heritage and even who
visits. These issues can be collectively examined as issues that arise as
a result of the implementation of the WHConvention. This chapter
addresses some of these significant, but understudied issues with
respect to two main issues: the regulatory dimension of listing and
evaluation of the impacts of listing. The chapter concludes by empha-
sizing the need for more systematic evaluation and monitoring strate-
gies of WHS and how States Parties meet their obligations under the
Convention.

Implementation

In thinking about the implications of listing sites as WHS it is useful

to draw upon the idea of implementation. Implementation refers to
the process by which policies and decisions are put into effect. Imple-
mentation is often conceived of in terms of a planning/implementa-
tion dichotomy, i.e. planning occurs first then, once a document is
produced, it is put into effect. However, just a conceptualization is

21
Managing World Heritage Sites

very misleading as planning and implementation are actually two

sides of the same coin. In other words, the various stakeholders and
interests who sought to influence the development of policies, plans
and the decision-making process do not suddenly disappear once a
decision has been made – they still continue to seek to influence what
happens! Therefore, planning and implementation need to be con-
sidered as part of an ongoing process (Hall, 2000). Nevertheless, the
notion of implementation is still significant as it also raises issues of
how it is known which policies and decisions have actually been
achieved. Have they managed to achieve what was intended of them?
To answer this question therefore means that one needs to evaluate
plans and decisions so that their effects can be monitored.
In the case of WHS there are a wide number of factors that can be
evaluated at different scales, e.g. international, national, local or
regional and at specific WHS, as well as with respect to different fac-
tors or indicators as to how the obligations under the Convention
have been met (Figure 2.1). For example, it is possible to evaluate the
extent to which a country has implemented its responsibilities under
the WHConvention, as well as the effects that WHS listing has had
on individual properties and/or their surrounds. This chapter exam-
ines the implementation of the WHConvention with respect to regu-
latory instruments as well as make some brief comments about the
effects of listing can have on particular sites.

Implementing the Convention: regulatory dimensions

The WHConvention is widely regarded as one of the most signifi-

cant and successful international heritage agreements. Unlike many
international treaties that deal with environmental issues it is widely
ratified. Ratification of the Convention imposes obligations on those
that sign it. The WHConvention is an example of ‘hard’ international
law. Hard international law refers to firm and binding rules of law,
such as the content of treaties and the provisions of customary inter-
national law, to which relevant nations are bound as a matter of obli-
gation. However, ‘soft’ international law is also significant for WHS.
Soft law refers to regulatory conduct which, because it is not pro-
vided for in a treaty, is not as binding as hard law (Hall, 2000). Exam-
ples of soft law include recommendations or declarations which
are made by international conferences, agencies and associations,
such as that of WHS cities, that are part of the institutional fabric that
surrounds the Convention. Soft law is particularly important in the
area of international environmental law because treaties and con-
ventions often require parties to attend regular meetings which
make recommendations for implementation, as in the case of the
WHConvention.

22
 Implementing the World Heritage Convention

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE ADVISORS TO

• Makes recommendations with WHC
respect to nominations and sites, • e.g. ICOMOS,
e.g. World Heritage in Danger List IUCN
• Prepares the Operational Guidelines
for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention

SIGNATORIES TO THE WORLD

HERITAGE CONVENTION

INTERNATIONAL

NATIONAL

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
OF STATE PARTY
• Signatory to the Convention
with obligations to implement
the Convention
• Responsible for nominations
• Responsible for management
and regulation of sites

PUBLIC/PRIVATE LOCAL
STAKEHOLDERS GOVERNMENT
• Those affected by and • Often has important
interested in World regulatory, economic,
Heritage listing and its social, and management
outcomes roles

WORLD HERITAGE SITE

• A wide range of elements that serve as
indicators of whether the site is being
managed in such a way as to ensure that
the values that are the reason for being
inscribed on the World Heritage List are
being maintained, e.g. management plan
and strategies, appropriate regulation
and funding regimes, development of
management and reporting structures;
as well as individual indicators relating
to the quality of the site, e.g. visitor
numbers, maintenance of heritage values

Figure 2.1 Elements in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention

23
Managing World Heritage Sites

International law cannot be enforced in the same manner as domes-

tic law, because nations can only rarely be compelled to perform their
legal obligations. However, the moral obligations that accrue to mem-
bers of the international community and the norms of international
relations are usually sufficient to gain compliance in most areas of
international law. Indeed, van der Aa (2005) notes that, while most
WHS have some degree of local or national legal protection, designa-
tion does not necessarily lead to an increase in legal protection under
domestic law. Of the 64 sites he studied only 39 per cent (25 sites)
received further protection under law although, as he noted, in certain
situations, increased protection may be a precursor to nomination so as
to assure the WHC that a site has suitable protected status so as to
enable appropriate management strategies. Moreover, in the case of the
WHConvention there is no standard legislative or regulatory approach
that nations use to ensure that their obligations to the Convention are
met, although the vast majority of WHS are protected at the national
level under existing national and local legislation and regulation. There
is no common approach to developing participatory structures in the
nomination and management process for example. In fact WHS listing
is not universally supported, with some stakeholders opposing nom-
inations or the boundaries of nominated sites (e.g. van der Aa et al.,
2004), particularly if they believe that it may restrict land use or devel-
opment options. Instead, there is a vastly different array of regulatory
and institutional instruments that States Parties utilize, ranging from
National Park acts and heritage law through to planning ordinances
and policy statements to manage WHS and processes. To complicate
the picture even further, in some States Parties a number of the legal
instruments that are used to help preserve WHS values and particular
sites are derived from local or regional legislative authority even though
the actual nomination must be undertaken through the national gov-
ernment as the State Parties to the Convention.
In England, planning policies were changed in 1994 so as to pro-
tect WH properties from inappropriate development (Rutherford,
1994; Wainwright, 2000). No additional statutory controls follow
from the inclusion of a UK site in the WHS list. However, inclusion
‘highlights the outstanding international importance of the site as a
key material consideration to be taken into account by local planning
authorities in determining planning and listed building consent
applications, and by the Secretary of State in determining cases on
appeal or following call-in’ (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister,
2005: para.2.22). This has already occurred with respect to an appli-
cation to engage in mining activities near Hadrian’s Wall (Rutherford,
1994). Under the Policy Guidance from the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister each local authority, as well as other interested par-
ties, such as other public authorities, property owners, developers,
amenity bodies and all members of the public, has to recognize the

24
 Implementing the World Heritage Convention

implications of WHS designation as well as other statutory designa-

tion, in the formulation of

… specific planning policies for protecting these sites and include

these policies in their development plans. Policies should reflect the
fact that all these sites have been designated for their outstanding
universal value, and they should place great weight on the need to
protect them for the benefit of future generations as well as our own.
Development proposals affecting these sites or their setting may be
compatible with this objective, but should always be carefully scru-
tinised for their likely effect on the site or its setting in the longer
term. Significant development proposals affecting [WHS] will gener-
ally require formal environmental assessment, to ensure that their
immediate impact and their implications for the longer term are fully
evaluated (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005: para.2.23).

Such an approach means that, in the UK, development projects that

affect WHS, ‘should always be carefully scrutinized for their likely
effect on the site or its setting in the longer term’ (Cookson, 2000: 698)
before planning approval can be given. Significantly, the UK planning
guidance with respect to WH specifically refers to the WHC’s Opera-
tional Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
(first produced in 1978 and regularly revised) as a document that local
authorities should refer to with respect to the planning and manage-
ment of WHS. In addition, local planning authorities are encouraged to
work with owners and managers of WHS in their areas, and with other
agencies, to ensure that comprehensive management plans are devel-
oped. According to the planning guidance (Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister, 2005) these plans should:

• appraise the significance and condition of the site

• ensure the physical conservation of the site to the highest standards
• protect the site and its setting from damaging development and
• provide clear policies for tourism as it may affect the site.
A similar philosophy with respect to the management and plan-
ning of WHS and values has also developed in Australia. However,
unlike the UK example and unusually in global terms, WHS has
been subject to the introduction of specific legislation. Indeed, WHS
listing has arguably been more controversial in Australia than any
other country because it has become part of debates on economic
development and the relative conservation and economic values of
an area, as well as debates over state and national government
rights. As Suter (1991: 4) observed: ‘Insofar as calculation is possible,
Australia has probably had more litigation and political challenges
to the Convention than all other states party to the Convention com-
bined’. Nevertheless, despite, or perhaps because of the arguments

25
Managing World Heritage Sites

that have raged over WHS, Australia is recognized as having one of

the world’s most rigorous sets of institutional arrangements for the
implementation of the Convention (Hall, 2000). The development of
these arrangements is detailed in the following case study.

Case study: The Development of Australia’s National

Regulatory Framework on World Heritage
On 16 October 1979, the Tasmanian Hydro Electric Commission (HEC)
released a report that recommended state parliamentary approval for
the Gordon-below-Franklin Dam as the first stage of an integrated
power development. The proposal involved the flooding of a major
temperate rainforest wilderness area that was part of the Wild Rivers
National Park, a park of international conservation significance, as well
as other impacts associated with dam construction. The proposal led
to one of the most controversial and bitter environmental issues in
Australia’s history (Hall, 1992).
On 7 and 15 September 1982, the newly elected state Liberal gov-
ernment revoked sections of the Wild Rivers National Park vesting
the area in the HEC and, as a result, the proposed dam construction
become a national issue. The Tasmanian government launched an
Australia-wide advertising campaign explaining its decision and
warned federal politicians not to interfere in the state’s development
schemes. In line with previous statements, the Liberal Common-
wealth (national/federal) government announced its decision on
8 December to nominate the wilderness area affected by the dam to
the WHS List, but refused to exercise its authority to prevent the
dam being built, instead offering financial compensation, which the
state government refused.
From 12 December to March 1983, the Franklin Dam issue became
one of open confrontation between conservationists and the Tasmanian
government, as the Tasmanian Wilderness Society launched a dam-site
blockade designed to hinder construction and maintain national and
international media interest. As a Commonwealth election loomed, the
Labour opposition followed the lead of the Australian Democrats and
gave a firm undertaking that they would prevent dam construction if
elected to office. Conservation groups all around Australia then
decided to campaign openly against the federal Liberal government.
On 5 May 1983, the Labour Party won the Federal election and
immediately passed regulations under the National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation Act 1975 and passed the World Heritage Properties
Conservation Act 1983 in order to prohibit the construction of the dam
in an area of WHS quality with the Act also being applicable to other
WHS. The WHC (1983: 11) commended ‘the Australian government

26
 Implementing the World Heritage Convention

for enacting the necessary protective legislation so rapidly’. In a

landmark decision, the Australian High Court decided in favour of
the Commonwealth’s power to intervene. The decision effectively
prevented construction work on the dam scheme and helped to pre-
serve one of the world’s last remaining temperate wildernesses.
Nevertheless, the fact that the Commonwealth overrode state policy
and law in order to stop certain activities that were regarded as being
at odds with WHS values meant that the debate over WHS became
more than just a conservation issue and instead focused on issues of
state and political rights. For example, despite the apparent willing-
ness of the Commonwealth to work with the states and territories
to nominate areas to the WHS List, severe resistance emerged from
the Queensland and Tasmanian state governments. The Queensland
Minister for Tourism, National Parks and Sport, Bob McKechnie,
stated in 1985 that ‘not one more square inch’ of Queensland would
be added to the list (Weekend Australian, 13–14 April 1985: 16).
Similarly, the Tasmanian Minister for the Environment said that the
31 per cent of Tasmania already included on the National Estate
Register or the WHS List was ‘quite enough’ (Weekend Australian,
13–14 April 1985: 16).
In 1986 and 1987, the Labour Federal government made three
major unilateral decisions regarding the preservation of natural heri-
tage, all of which can be regarded as wilderness. First was the
Commonwealth’s announcement of intent in June 1987, to nominate
the North Queensland rainforest to the WHS List, despite the likeli-
hood of a Queensland government challenge in the High Court.
Second was the declaration of Federal legislation to prevent timber-
felling in the Southern and Lemonthyme Forests in Tasmania until
an examination of the area’s WHS properties has been completed.
Third, the Commonwealth nominated the second stage of Kakadu to
the WHS List. All three actions were opposed in court and all three
cases were won by the Federal (Commonwealth) government,
thereby reinforcing their powers to regulate WHS. As Boer (1989)
commented with respect to the Queensland government’s action in
the High Court to determine whether the areas that were subject to
nomination came within the meaning of ‘natural heritage’ as found
in the WHConvention (State of Queensland v. The Commonwealth
1988), the case represented:

a transparently clear statement of the Commonwealth power to fulfil

its obligations under the World Heritage Convention, and it appears
that further challenges brought by the states against the Common-
wealth in this area will have little chance of success. … It has
become clear that the Federal government has the power to nomin-
ate to the World Heritage List any area which it identifies as being
of World Heritage status. The protestations and challenges of state

27
Managing World Heritage Sites

governments and private companies, though impeding the nomin-

ation process, have not been able to stop it (Boer, 1989: 144, 143).

WHS listing and the maintenance of WHS values that could be poten-
tially listed continued to be a significant issue in federal-state relations
during the 1990s and into the new century. However, the election of a
Liberal federal government in 1996 led to the development of new
institutional approaches to WHS. In November 1997, a Heads of
Agreement on Commonwealth and State Roles and Responsibilities for
the Environment (Council of Australian Governments, 1997) was
signed by all heads of federal and state government and by the
Australian Local Government Association. Part I of the Agreement
states that ‘The Commonwealth has a responsibility and an interest in
relation to meeting the obligations of the Convention for the Protection of
the World Cultural and Natural Heritage’. A new Act governing the
Commonwealth’s responsibilities with respect to WHS, as well as other
significant environmental matters of national interest, was also intro-
duced. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
came in force from 16 July 2000, arguably enhancing the management
and protection of Australia’s WHS properties. Some of the key dimen-
sions introduced by the Act included:

• greater up-front protection for WH properties

• a modified assessment and approvals process
• application of consistent WH management principles for all WH
properties regardless of location and
• a new set of Commonwealth/State government arrangements.
Following the legal precedents set in the 1980s, the 1999 Act protects
all Australian properties that are inscribed on the WHS List; where a
site has been nominated for, but not yet inscribed on, the WHS List;
and where, even though a site has not been nominated for WHS, the
Minister believes that the property contains WHS values that are
under threat. The Act regulates actions that will, or are likely to, have
a significant negative impact on the WHS values of a declared WHS
property, including those actions that occur outside the boundaries
of a WHS. Actions that are taken in contravention of the Act can
attract a civil penalty of up to Aus.$5.5 million, or a criminal penalty
of up to seven years imprisonment.
Regulations pursuant to the Act (Environment Protection and Biodiver-
sity Conservation Regulations 2000) outline the Australian WHS manage-
ment principles for the management of natural heritage and cultural
heritage (Table 2.1). The regulations also state that at least one man-
agement plan must be prepared for each declared WHS property
which includes a number of specific elements that must be included
(Table 2.2), as well as the environmental impact assessment and
approval process. Under the regulations, the assessment of an action

28
 Implementing the World Heritage Convention

Table 2.1 General principles for the management of natural and cultural
heritage in Australia’s World Heritage Sites

• The primary purpose of management of natural heritage and cultural

heritage of a declared World Heritage property must be, in accordance
with Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention, to
identify, protect, conserve, present, transmit to future generations and,
if appropriate, rehabilitate the World Heritage values of the property
• The management should provide for public consultation on decisions
and actions that may have a significant impact on the property
• The management should make special provision, if appropriate, for the
involvement in managing the property of people who have a particular
interest in the property and may be affected by the management of the
property
• The management should provide for continuing community and
technical input in managing the property

Source: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000:

regulation 10.1

Table 2.2 What management plans for a declared Australian World

Heritage Site should include

(a) State the World Heritage values of the property for which it is prepared
(b) Include adequate processes for public consultation on proposed
elements of the plan
(c) State what must be done to ensure that the World Heritage values
of the property are identified, conserved, protected, presented,
transmitted to future generations and, if appropriate, rehabilitated
(d) State mechanisms to deal with the impacts of actions that individually
or cumulatively degrade, or threaten to degrade, the World Heritage
values of the property
(e) Provide that management actions for values, that are not World
Heritage values, are consistent with the management of the World
Heritage values of the property
(f) Promote the integration of Commonwealth, State or Territory and local
government responsibilities for the property
(g) Provide for continuing monitoring and reporting on the state of the
World Heritage values of the property
(h) Be reviewed at intervals of not more than 7 years

Source: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000:

regulation 10.2.02

that is likely to have a significant impact on the WHS values of a prop-

erty occurs whether the action is inside the property or not (reg.
10.3.03). The assessment process should identify the WHS values of the
property that are likely to be affected by the action; examine how the
WHS values of the property might be affected; and provide adequate
opportunities for public consultation. Finally, the regulations state that,

29
Managing World Heritage Sites

‘An action should not be approved if it would be inconsistent with the

protection, conservation, presentation or transmission to future gener-
ations of the WHS values of the property’ (reg. 10.3.04) with monitor-
ing of compliance with respect to actions also identified under the
regulations.
The Department of the Environment and Heritage (2004) provides an
example of how the Act and the regulations pursuant to the Act serve
to protect WHS values in Australia. During 2003–04, an industrial min-
erals company proposed to develop the Mourilyan silica sand deposit
situated between Mourilyan Harbour and Kurrimine Beach, approxi-
mately 20 km south of Innisfail in North Queensland. The proposed
boundary was situated 3 km west of the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Site at Kurrimine Beach and 1 km west of the boundary of
Kurrimine Beach National Park, which is part of the Wet Tropics World
Heritage Area. The proponent referred the development to the
Department of the Environment and Heritage in July 2003 claiming that
it was not a controlled action under the Act. However, under Section 12
and Section 15A of the Act, the Department considered that significant
impacts were likely on the WHS values provisions. On the basis of con-
sultations with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the
Wet Tropics Management Authority, the mining operation was there-
fore determined to be a controlled action and was prohibited.
The case study indicates how implementation of the WHConvention
has been undertaken in Australia with respect to its obligations. New
regulatory procedures have been developed rather than using existing
legislation. Just as significantly, the Australian example indicates the
importance of taking a long-term perspective on the nature and relative
success of implementation.

Evaluating the effects of designation

Another significant aspect of understanding the implementation of the

WHC is identifying the effects of listing on various sites. Despite the
various positive claims that are made with respect to WHS listing, par-
ticularly with respect to their tourism impact, there is a lack of effective
consistent evaluation and monitoring strategies not only between sites
but in specific sites over time (Buckley, 2004). Tourism is just one area in
which there is inadequate monitoring and evaluation at WHS. For
example, Buckley (2004: 82) noted that, ‘even for Australia’s largest and
best-known WHS, past data on visitor numbers and origins are gener-
ally too incomplete to track historical trends except at the broadest
scale’.
Despite the enthusiasm of authors such as Shackley (1998: preface)
who claimed that WHS designation was ‘virtually a guarantee that
visitor numbers will increase’, there is substantial evidence to suggest

30
 Implementing the World Heritage Convention

that this is not necessarily the case. For example, Rodwell (2002)
noted that with respect to cultural heritage sites in the UK there
was no proven relationship between status and visitor numbers.
Similarly, Hall and Piggin (2001), in a survey of tourism and WHS in
OECD States Parties reported that, while two-thirds of the 44 sites
they examined did report an increase in visitor numbers since listing
usually of the order of 1–5 per cent per annum, this figure was not
significantly different from that of the average rate of tourism growth
in those States Parties anyway. Indeed, with respect to the Australian
data Buckley (2004: 82) reported
In so far as can be determined from available data, any significant
increases in the growth of visitor numbers at WHSs seems to have
coincided more closely with periods of major environmental contro-
versy rather than the date of WHS listing, as such, though there are
too many factors and inadequate data to establish this pattern
definitively. If so, it seems that the tourism industry of today should
be indebted to the conservation activists of the past not only for pro-
tecting one of their primary resources, but also for advertising it.

Substantial questions can be asked as to whether people sometimes

even know that they are visiting a WHS. For example, Hall and Piggin
(2001) also noted that less than half of the sites in their survey had spe-
cific areas for the explanation of the WHConvention and why the sites
were granted WHS status, even though this is one of the elements of
the WHC’s guidelines for the implementation of the Convention. This
may lead to a situation in which local stakeholders have little under-
standing of the Convention and of the values that site designation rec-
ognizes and seeks to preserve (Hall and Piggin, 2002). In many cases
significant conservation and heritage sites were recognized well before
WHS status was provided, and people visit the site with those pre-
existing values in mind rather than the values identified by WHS sta-
tus. Another interesting study on the effects of WHS listing on visitor
numbers is that of Wall (2004) who surveyed visitors to the Laponian
WHS in north-western Sweden which was declared a WHS in 1996.
According to Wall only 3.7 per cent of respondents stated that the visit
would never have occurred or would have had different travel plans if
it had not been a WHS. Nevertheless, 64 per cent agreed in part or com-
pletely that WHS designation had value for the surroundings, with 51
per cent agreeing in part or completely that designation was of value
for visitors. Interestingly, in this Swedish example, only 26 per cent
agreed in part or completely that designation restricted human use.

Conclusions
The WHConvention has been in existence for over 30 years. Yet,
despite the large number of sites that have been declared, the evolution

31
Managing World Heritage Sites

of criteria and systems for listing, and the development of guidelines

for implementation of the Convention, the wider understanding of the
effectiveness of listing, particularly in terms of how countries imple-
ment the Convention on a national and site basis and the impacts of
designation, are actually very poor. As van der Aa (2005: 140) observed,
‘most actors involved in the [WHConvention] – UNESCO, countries
and stakeholders of world heritage sites alike – have been able to use
the convention for their own purposes’. Although such an approach
may further the goals of some stakeholders, there are substantial ques-
tions about how the qualities that are being sought to protect are being
managed as well as the wider impact of designation.
To undertake a systematic programme for the evaluation and moni-
toring of WHS would seem to be a logical progression in the develop-
ment of the Convention and in ensuring that State Parties’ obligations
are being met. However, to do this effectively requires not just the
development of appropriate indicators, which is arguably a relatively
easy part of the process given the precedents set by impact assessment
processes around the world, but also the development of regulatory
and institutional processes that provide for such regulation to occur on
an on-going basis as well as the funding for such actions. Such meas-
ures are being gradually developed by the WHC as part of a regular
cycle of reporting, although the value of such reporting measures in
implementation terms is dependent on selection of indicators, monitor-
ing procedures and capacity to respond to issues identified in reporting
procedures. As Hall and Piggin (2001) reported, lack of funding was
one of the most significant management issues at WHS in the wealthier
States Parties of the OECD, let alone those in less developed countries.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that some of the assumptions
regarding the benefits of listing, for example with respect to visitor
numbers, are increasingly being questioned. Much attention has
focused on the nominations and policies of WHS listing rather than
how effectively the Convention is implemented. However, if WHS
listing is to remain more than a symbolic act, it is vital that not only
is the nomination process subject to greater rigour (van der Aa,
2005), but also the means by which countries’ obligations are met
through a systemic evaluation, monitoring and reporting process of
the impacts of listing.

References

Boer, B. (1989) Natural resources and the National Estate. Environmental

and Planning Law Journal, 6 (2), 134–144.
Buckley, R.C. (2004) The effects of World Heritage listing on tourism
to Australian national parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12,
70–84.

32
 Implementing the World Heritage Convention

Cookson, N. (2000) Archeological Heritage Law. Chichester: Barry Rose

Law Publishers.
Council of Australian Governments (1997) Heads of Agreement on
Commonwealth and State Roles and Responsibilities for the Environment.
Canberra: Council of Australian Governments.
Department of the Environment and Heritage (2004) Department of the
Environment and Heritage, Annual Report 2004. Canberra: Department
of the Environment and Heritage.
Hall, C.M. (2000) Tourism Planning. Harlow: Prentice-Hall.
Hall, C.M. and Piggin, R. (2001) Tourism and World Heritage
in OECD countries. Tourism Recreation Research, 26 (1),
103–105.
Hall, C.M. and Piggin, R. (2002) Tourism business knowledge of World
Heritage Sites: a New Zealand case study. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 4, 401–411.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Planning Policy Guidance 15:
Planning and the Historic Environment. London: Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister.
Rodwell, D. (2002) The World Heritage Convention and the exem-
plary management of complex heritage sites. Journal of Architectural
Conservation, 3, 40–60.
Rutherford, L. (1994) Protecting World Heritage sites: Coal
Contractors Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment and
Northumberland County Council. Journal of Environmental Law, 6
(2), 369–384.
Shackley, M. (1998) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage
Sites. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Suter, K.D. (1991) The UNESCO World Heritage Convention.
Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 8 (1), 4–15.
van der Aa, B.J.M. (2005) Preserving the Heritage of Humanity?
Obtaining World Heritage Status and the Impacts of Listing,
Doctoral Thesis, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of
Groningen, Groningen.
van der Aa, B.J.M., Groote, P.D. and Huigen, P.P.P. (2004) World her-
itage as NIMBY: the case of the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea.
Current Issues in Tourism, 7 (4–5), 291–302.
Wainwright, G.J. (2000) The Stonehenge we deserve. Antiquity, 74,
334–342.
Wall, S. (2004) Protected areas as tourist attractions. Paper presented
at Tourism Crossroads – Global Influences, Local Responses, 13th
Nordic Symposium in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Aalborg,
4–7 November.
World Heritage Committee (UNESCO, Intergovernmental Committee
for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage) (1978)
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO.

33
Managing World Heritage Sites

World Heritage Committee (UNESCO, Intergovernmental Committee

for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage)
(1983) Report of the Rapporteur, Sixth Session of the World Heritage
Committee, Paris, 27–30 June 1983, CLT-83/CONF.021/8. Paris:
UNESCO.

34
 PA RT
2
Management of
World Heritage Sites
Managing World Heritage Sites

Part Two concentrates on the operational management of the WHS,

with a particular emphasis on the fundamental interdependencies
involved in managing the various components and stakeholders
associated with important heritage resources. Managing heritage
resources requires the integration of a wide range of complex and
interrelated management considerations, which arise both from
within and outwith the resource itself. While tourism activity at some
sites is well developed and recognized, at others it is marginal and
not a significant management consideration. However, external fac-
tors, such as improvements in infrastructure, increased propensity to
travel and political instability, mean that growth in visitor access may
well be an inevitable result. The very significance of the heritage
resources means that the sites all require individual approaches to
their effective management. This section of the text aims to highlight
the issues and suggest appropriate mechanisms for this.
In Chapter 3, Sue Millar tackles the issue of managing stakeholders
at WHS – an issue that remains an obstacle to the successful future of
many sites currently listed on the WHL. The importance of forging an
effective stakeholder system is critical from the initial stages of World
Heritage nomination, since sites cannot even be nominated until they
have appeared on a States Parties Tentative List – this requiring at the
very least a consensus of opinion on the significance of the resource
from local, regional and central government bodies, in conjunction
with resource owners, members of the public and visitors. Naturally
this relationship will vary in effectiveness and participation, but is
essential in then following through with the development of a nomi-
nation document and management plan specifically written for the
World Heritage Site. This chapter considers the issues in a variety of
UK settings including the Lake District, Stonehenge and Hadrian’s
Wall, examining the role of the local community within the planning
process in balancing the contrasting views of stakeholders to encour-
age effective resource management.
In Chapter 4, Stephen Boyd and Dallen Timothy examine the mar-
keting issues that surround the designation of a WHS. They challenge
commonly held tourism marketing principles and critically appraise
the application of the marketing mix within a WHS setting. Their case
study on the Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland demonstrates the
value of marketing the wider context of a resource, rather than simply
focusing on the WHS itself. In Chapter 5, Bryn Parry then examines
the destination management at Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City
to demonstrate how a holistic framework can enable the multiple
aspects of a WHS to combine successfully, again taking the view that
the resource should not be seen in isolation from the surrounding
context and dimensions. The final chapter in Part Two is written by
Myra Shackley and focuses on Visitor Management at WHS. Key
issues such as maintaining ‘spirit of place’, managing security and
cultural sensitivity are identified, with examples of both positive and
negative techniques at a host of WHS being used as exemplars.

36
 C H A P T E R
3
Stakeholders and
community
participation
Sue Millar
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to investigate:

• Stakeholders’ views, value systems and interpretations of heri-
tage significance
• Collaboration, consensus and conflict among stakeholders
• Layers and levels of community participation
• Re-branding World Heritage Sites.

Introduction

Stakeholders and community participation

Memory is vital to creativity: that holds true for individuals and for
peoples, who find in their heritage – natural and cultural, tangible
and intangible – the key to their identity and the source of their
inspiration. (UNESCO, 2005a)

How can a multitude of stakeholders be actively involved in man-

aging World Heritage Sites (WHS) to ensure they are inspirational
places for individuals and peoples both now and in the future? In
particular, how can different communities be involved in the process?
What kind of interface should there be between the aspirations and
values of local community groups, communities of interest, commu-
nities of practice and the aspirations and values of local councils,
national governments, national and international cultural heritage
organizations and tourism organizations? On what terms should the
local people meet visitors to World Heritage Sites? What does the real
involvement of local people mean in terms of management struc-
tures, management styles and brand image? Can the question be
answered ‘Whose heritage is it anyway?’ in relation to the manage-
ment and interpretation of World Heritage Sites?
A quiet sea change is taking place in the approach to the inscription
and management of World Heritage Sites in the first decade of the
21st century. Theoretically ‘all the peoples of the world’ are stake-
holders in World Heritage. In practice, until recently, a limited num-
ber of stakeholders – governments, conservation experts and local
authorities – were involved in the process. Local people, local amenity
and community groups, local businesses, tour companies and visitors
were largely left out of the consultation and management processes. In
numerous countries and at many World Heritage Sites around the
world they still are. In the UK in the 20th century, many people often
did not know they lived or worked in or near a World Heritage Site
and cared less. In states with weak economies World Heritage Site

38
 Stakeholders and community participation

status was eagerly sought as a kite mark for the promotion of mass
tourism, under the guise of international cultural tourism, without
any consideration as to whether the local people and local infrastruc-
ture had the capacity to respond effectively to the demands.
The focus of responsibilities concerning the protection and conser-
vation of World Heritage is shifting from a forum of conservation
experts and national and local government representatives to a part-
nership approach involving an expanded list of local and regional
stakeholders covering a wide spectrum of interests located both
inside and outside the boundaries and buffer zones of a World
Heritage Site. These new stakeholders include private sector busi-
nesses, developers, owners, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
and community groups (see paragraphs 39 & 40 Operational Guidelines
for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO, 2003).
The World Heritage Committee acknowledges that there must be a
link between universal and local values for a WHS to have a sustain-
able future. The ambition for world ownership of the world’s special
and diverse natural and cultural heritage remains strong. ‘What
makes the concept of World Heritage exceptional is its universal appli-
cation. World Heritage Sites belong to all the peoples of the world,
irrespective of the territory on which they are located’ (UNESCO,
2005b). Yet such idealistic rhetoric, such global aspirations can create
problems when they are transposed into the reality of the local context
on the ground. If, in fact, WHS status encourages indiscriminate mass
tourism, compromises authenticity, distorts traditional values, gives
rise to the need for congestion management at ‘honeypot’ tourist des-
tinations and thereby creates a need for additional conservation man-
agement, then inscription – however well intended – is problematic.
The World Heritage Committee now accepts that such grandiose
statements of aspiration are incontrovertible, but it also recognizes
that they can no longer remain in the stratosphere of European inter-
national diplomacy in an era of global economic interdependency,
global cultural tourism, global migration, global terrorism and the
increasing homogeneity of culture and cultures.
The urgency of the need for communities of all types –
international, national, regional, local, business, learning, leisure,
tourism, conservation – and individuals worldwide to participate in
celebrating cultural diversity and in developing a sense of cultural
identity as a springboard for the future has placed World Heritage
Sites centre stage. Paradoxically, the shift in the emphasis of cultural
significance from the tangible to the intangible heritage that is taking
place is putting ‘people’ into the heart of the WHS debate. People are
important not only in terms of their commitment to the inscription
and management of a WHS, but also in terms of their contribution to
the intangible aspects of a site in the first place. The International
Committee of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Report The World

39
Managing World Heritage Sites

Heritage List. Filling the Gaps – an Action Plan for the Future states,
‘While the List based on the 1972 Convention generally expects some
physical evidence on a site, the need to acknowledge intangible aspects
is one of the current challenges of the listing process …’ (ICOMOS,
2004). In every country around the world there is one over-riding guid-
ing principle: the support of local people as well as world visitors is the
key to a dynamic sustainable future for World Heritage Sites.

Case study: Stakeholders’ views, value systems and

interpretations of heritage significance – The
Lake District, UK
World Heritage Sites are not like ‘motherhood and apple pie’. They
are not entirely wholesome. World Heritage Sites are deeply political
entities that arrive in local communities with clearly defined bound-
aries and ‘buffer zones’ following inscription on the World Heritage
List. They come with baggage and have not always been welcomed.
Therefore, current nominations must have the full support of the
principal stakeholders and this is not always easy to obtain. For
example, the UK nomination of the Lake District as a cultural land-
scape is seen variously as a new opportunity and yet another bur-
den. The area is already a National Park. Some conservation bodies
remain sceptical. In 2002, the five main partners were brought
together as the World Heritage Liaison Group under the leadership
of ICOMOS-UK: the Countryside Agency, English Heritage, English
Nature, the Lake District National Park Authority, and the National
Trust. They explored what additional benefits World Heritage status
would bring and whether the boundaries of the proposed World
Heritage Site should be the same as the National Park.
There is a considerable amount of political pressure at national
level. The UK Government is keen to pursue the Lake District’s nomin-
ation as a Cultural Landscape: it is on the Government’s Tentative List.
However, as part of the nomination process, the main parties must not
only agree the boundaries and buffer zones, taking into consideration
the perceptions of user groups, they must also subscribe to a manage-
ment plan. The management plan has to be based on a clear under-
standing of what is significant about the site, why and how it is
vulnerable and come to a consensus on what needs to be managed.
The Lake District is a complex cultural landscape. It is viewed as
both quintessentially English and of international importance. Since
the 18th century it has been a place for spiritual refreshment and quiet
countryside recreation. The strong associations with Wordsworth and
other Lake Poets, and influential figures, such as Ruskin and Beatrix
Potter, are reflected in the preservation of the places where they lived.

40
 Stakeholders and community participation

Considerable areas are protected by national and international nature

conservation designations. Herdwick sheep have heritage significance
for farmers and the tourism industry in terms of preserving the land-
scape as a romantic idyll. Their role became fully apparent during the
foot and mouth crisis. Keith Twentyman comments, ‘A lot of people,
particularly visitors, think the Lake District is natural. It isn’t. It is a
managed environment and the management is done by these sheep’
(Smart, 2001). They are sometimes called the Lake District’s gardeners.
The ‘universal significance’ of the physical location of the Lake
District as a whole as we know it today is difficult to define. The spe-
cial significance of the Lake District is not just the sum of individual
aspects of its landscape, but rather a remarkable alliance between the
aesthetic appeal of its farming and mining traditions, and the output
of painters and poets who, inspired by the landscape, showed how
it could appeal to the higher senses and be accessible to all. It relates
to the inter-relationships between the physical, social, economic and
cultural impacts placed in the context of a set of core values – aesthetic,
ethical, spiritual and intellectual. These close interdependencies have
created the overarching ‘universal significance’ of the Lake District.
The difficulty of defining the area of the Lake District as a cultural
landscape combining tangible and intangible values and attributes, as
well as a number of practical management factors, means that enthu-
siasm on the ground among local people has been somewhat muted.
The National Park and the National Trust already manage the area in
a sustainable manner. However, since 2004 the National Park Service
has made a firm commitment to World Heritage Site inscription pro-
viding £50 000 towards the cost of the Project. It now believes ‘inscrip-
tion can help renew local pride in the area and focus attention and
resources on actions that will benefit the local community in a variety
of ways’ (Lake District, 2005). A cross-partnership group will produce
a budget, create a project team, identify a boundary and prepare a
management plan. From the National Park’s point of view, the main
benefit of inscription is its social and economic value to the commu-
nity. Although the National Park Service is in one sense the mouth-
piece of current government policy, the wholesale commitment of
such a major partner at local level is essential if the nomination is to
have any chance of success with the World Heritage Committee.

The expansion of World Heritage

The major stakeholder in World Heritage Sites in the UK is the

Government. Like other States Parties worldwide who have signed
up to the World Heritage Convention, the UK Government nomin-
ates one site for inscription each year. Practical pressures of ‘realpoli-
tik’ can be seen to sit uncomfortably with the notion that World

41
Managing World Heritage Sites

Heritage Sites must be of ‘outstanding value to humanity’ and of

‘universal significance’. One glance at the map of World Heritage
properties shows that the overwhelming number and the highest
density of World Heritage Sites currently inscribed on the World
Heritage List are in Europe. Therefore Europe and European States
Parties are the largest stakeholders.
States Parties from the developing world are under-represented as
stakeholders. At the World Heritage Committee meeting in Australia
in 2000, it was decided to develop a global strategy for a credible,
representative and balanced List. ICOMOS was commissioned to
analyse the World Heritage List and the Tentative List on a regional,
chronological, geographical and thematic basis. Their report Filling
the Gaps – an Action Plan for the Future (ICOMOS, 2004) lists some
48 states which do not yet have any properties on the List and cites
two main reasons. First, these states lack the technical capacity to
prepare a nomination and second, among World Heritage experts
there is a qualitatively different understanding of value systems that
do not fit the European norm. This situation is changing.
Philippe Segadika explains that the intangible heritage of the
Tsodilo, Botswana – inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2001 –
continues to be of great cultural significance today.
The Ju/hoansi and Hambukushu communities living at Tsodilo
know that Tsodilo is the ancestral home to the spirits of all living
creatures. As proof to this, the local shamans, guides and herbalists
point to specific areas, which are testimony to the marks of the first
animals, the first people, first sex spot as well as the first and eter-
nal water spring in the Tsodilo landscape. (ICOMOS, 2003)

Yet the focus of the description from the World Heritage Centre
remains Eurocentric and primarily refers to the tangible heritage assets.
With one of the highest concentrations of rock art in the world,
Tsodilo has been called the ‘Louvre of the Desert’ … Local commu-
nities in this hostile environment respect Tsodilo as a place of wor-
ship frequented by ancestral spirits. (UNESCO, 2005c)

The ICOMOS Report provides an irrefutable rationale and justifi-

cation for the continuing expansion of the concept of a monument or
site, building on the Venice Charter, in order to include a large spec-
trum of stakeholders worldwide. ‘Monuments and sites can encom-
pass the authentic spirit of a holy place, possibly only tangible in
weak traces, as well as witnesses of the past erected of seemingly
indestructible stone material’. The definition reflects UNESCO’s
adoption of the International Convention for the Safeguarding of the
Intangible Cultural Heritage (17 October 2003). Some major cultures,
such as the Bantu States in Central Africa, have not yet been recog-
nized. Approximately half (49 per cent) of the Sites on the Tentative

42
 Stakeholders and community participation

List in 2002 were from Europe while Sub-Saharan Africa had less
than 5 per cent and the Near and Middle East, North Africa, Asia and
the Americas each had just over 10 per cent.
Equity and excellence are admirable, ethically sound principles.
But it is open to debate whether they are applicable to a division of
universal world heritage largely within modern state boundaries.
Andorra, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iceland, Saint
Lucia and Togo made their first appearance on the List in 2004.
Trans-boundary properties are increasing. Togo is one of these. The
inscription indicates a deeper level of understanding, respect for and
sensitivity to the combined tangible and intangible values within an
historic cultural landscape that is vibrant and sustainable today.
The Koutammakou landscape in northeastern Togo, which extends
into neighbouring Benin, is home to the Batammariba whose remark-
able mud Takienta tower-houses have come to be seen as a sym-
bol of Togo. In this landscape, nature is strongly associated with the
rituals and beliefs of society. The 50 000-ha cultural landscape is
remarkable due to the architecture of its Takienta tower-houses,
which are a reflection of social structure, its farmland and forest,
and the associations between people and landscape. Many of the
buildings are two storeys high and those with granaries feature an
almost spherical form above a cylindrical base. They are grouped in
villages, which also include ceremonial spaces, springs, rocks and
sites reserved for initiation ceremonies. (UNESCO, 2005c)

The viability of the World Heritage Committee’s approach as the inter-

national stakeholder of World Heritage remains fundamentally
flawed. First, there is the possibility of devaluing the meaning of the
term ‘universal significance’ by placing it so firmly within the context
of an equitable division across State Parties. Second, by correcting the
imbalance of inscriptions in favour of State Parties in the developing
world, there is a real possibility of seriously increasing the number of
World Heritage properties in danger with limited resources for polit-
ical intervention and remedial action. Failure to take action to delete
sites from the List further devalues the notion of a WHS as a uniquely
special place owned by the peoples of the world rather than just
another meaningless label. The majority of the WHS inscribed on the
List of World Heritage in Danger in 2004 came from the developing
world. Already poor in terms of economic and technical resources
to protect their World Heritage Sites, many of these countries were
further affected by natural or man-made disasters – earthquakes
and war. They include the Iranian City of Bam; Bamiyan Valley,
Afghanistan; Katmandu Valley, Nepal and the historic towns of Baku
in Azerbaijan and Zabid in Yemen. Money is available from the World
Heritage Fund.
If the number of World Heritage Sites in the developing world
increases – as it rightly should – the cost of their upkeep in terms

43
Managing World Heritage Sites

of conservation and management has to be addressed. The local

community who live in or near a World Heritage Site and visitors arriv-
ing as tourists become the most significant stakeholders in this new
arena. They need to be trained and nurtured. As the UK Government
juggles with the competing priorities of economic development and
competing interpretations of sustainable communities their commit-
ment to World Heritage is measured. Their position becomes vividly
apparent in the Stonehenge ‘Sound Bite’ case study.

Case study: Collaboration, consensus and conflict among

stakeholders – the case of Stonehenge
World Heritage Site inscription can be the impetus for cooperation and
collaboration among key stakeholders, but also the complexities and
animosities can lead to atrophy and inaction. In the UK World Heritage
designation currently carries no formal status in terms of designation
and organizational management. No additional finance is attached to
being a World Heritage Site. Cooperation depends on the goodwill of
the stakeholders coming together in a loose knit fashion under the aus-
pices of the World Heritage Site coordinator. The locus of power and
control at WHS is difficult to determine, it often shifts and is different
at each site both in the UK and in other countries round the world.
Stonehenge is an icon of international importance and a symbol of
national pride. It has been a popular visitor attraction for generations
of English people and international tourists travelling to Cornwall
and the West Country. It is on the coach route for day trips from
London. Recently, part of the stone circle featured on the Royal Mail
stamps. Yet plans to improve the visitor facilities, the visitor experi-
ence and the road – the infamous A303 – have stalled.
Much of the conflict among stakeholders stems from the fact that
interpretations of cultural heritage conservation and visitor manage-
ment are dynamic processes. Ideas change. But decisions affecting
Stonehenge are so important to the British sense of cultural identity
and national pride that progress is slow and currently non-existent.
Simultaneously, the costs of building dual carriageways, tunnels and
roundabouts are escalating exponentially. The Master Plan 2000
involved an extensive and wide-reaching but unmanageable consult-
ation process as indicated by the long list of invitees. Stonehenge and
Avebury were inscribed on the World Heritage List as prehistoric
monuments and not as cultural landscapes. At the Public Enquiry into
the Highways Agency’s plans, February 2004, ICOMOS-UK took an
entirely different stance from English Heritage. ICOMOS-UK viewed
Stonehenge as a group of monuments in their setting – a ceremonial
cultural landscape – and stated that any intrusion of a dual carriageway
into two-thirds of the World Heritage Site was entirely unacceptable.

44
 Stakeholders and community participation

English Heritage along with the Department of Culture, Media and

Sport (DCMS) took a strict view of World Heritage status and the
inscription referring to the pre-historic monuments. They were primar-
ily concerned that the iconic stone circle should be free of traffic and
seen in an appropriately restored landscape by taking a 2.1 km short-
bored tunnel underground.
The proposed Visitor Centre – a state-of-the art modern struc-
ture designed by Australian architect Denton Corker Marshall of
Melbourne – to be located outside the boundaries of the World
Heritage Site on the far side of Countess Roundabout, was the subject
of a second enquiry. The main issues for residents and visitors alike
were that this new facility, to be placed approximately 1.6 km (one
mile) from the stone circle would mean taking a bus ride (from the
Visitor Centre), walking or cycling to see it. Car parking will only be
available officially at the Visitor Centre. Passions run high.
This case study explores the reasons for the opposition to the pro-
posed road, landscape and visitor centre developments from the
point of view of different stakeholders. It consists of sound-bites jux-
taposed to enable the reader to listen to their voices and examine their
comments. The approach reveals what little thought government
agencies gave to the needs of local people who were not involved in
the planning process; how alliances of convenience are made; how
throwing money at a problem via consultants and working groups
solves nothing unless it is accompanied by an overall vision; that the
real long-term solution to the roads issue – a long-bored tunnel
mooted in 1995 – is getting further and further away on grounds of
cost. But the Summer Solstice Festival is still happening with car
parking adjacent to the Stone Circle while the English Heritage
Stonehenge Project remains on the drawing board.

‘Sound-bites’ on Stonehenge

English Heritage: the facts

Stonehenge and Avebury were inscribed on the World Heritage List
in 1986 for their outstanding prehistoric monuments. At Stonehenge,
the unparalleled stone circle (3000 BC–1600 BC) is surrounded by a
ceremonial landscape comprising more than 300 burial mounds and
many other prehistoric remains. The Stonehenge World Heritage Site
is owned by English Heritage, the National Trust, the Ministry of
Defence, farmers and householders. (English Heritage, 2005a)

English Heritage: The Stonehenge Project

Stonehenge is one of the country’s most important prehistoric mon-
uments, but has been famously described by a United Kingdom
government committee as a ‘national disgrace’ (English Heritage,

45
Managing World Heritage Sites

2005b). It is currently surrounded by roads and its visitor facilities

are inadequate for today’s needs.
The Stonehenge Project will rescue this iconic World Heritage
Site from the noise and clutter of the 21st century and give it the
dignified setting it deserves. Roads will be removed or tunnelled
and ploughed fields returned to open grassland. A new world-class
visitor centre will be built outside the World Heritage Site and there
will be improved access through the Stonehenge World Heritage
Site landscape. Summer 2005

Countess Road Residents Group

Here is some more good news! Previously we reported that visitors
would have to spend a minimum of about half a day to visit the
Stones, with a 1 mile/1.8 km walk each way. The good news is that
new routes are under consideration that have a 15 minute journey in
a land train and only a 0.75 mile/1.2 km walk each way. So you won’t
get quite so wet or muddy, the children won’t get quite so fractious,
and the buggy won’t feel quite such a drag (CRRG, 2003).
Please tell us, on the ‘contact us’ page, your views about having
to walk this distance, in all weathers, with a minimum visit of about
2 hours if one includes getting from your transport, going through
the visitor centre, the shop, toilets and café (not necessarily in that
order!). March 2003

Stonehenge Public Enquiry: Pre-historic Society

A public inquiry was held in Salisbury between 17 February and
5 May 2004 into the Highways Agency’s £200 million proposal for a
short-bored tunnel and 3.4 km of four-lane dual carriageway on the
A303 road line through the World Heritage Site (UCL, 2004). The
Prehistoric Society is just one of many archaeological and con-
servation organizations – including the National Trust, the Royal
Archaeological Institute, the World Archaeological Congress, Rescue,
ICOMOS-UK and the CBA (Council of British Archaeology) – to be
unhappy with the scheme because of its negative impact on archaeo-
logical remains and landscape within the World Heritage Site. The
Prehistoric Society formed part of a loose coalition with the CBA and
the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society. June 2004

Save Stonehenge
World Heritage Site threatened by road building scheme! One of the
world’s most famous heritage sites, Stonehenge, is threatened by a
massive and highly destructive road-building scheme. ... barbaric ...
No other country in the world would contemplate treating a site
which is a world icon in such a way. (Lord Kennet, February 2004)

Statement from the Member of Parliament for Salisbury

Following the Public Enquiry, the Inspector delivered his report on 31
January 2005. Meanwhile estimates of the cost have been spiralling.

46
 Stakeholders and community participation

In a clever wheeze that kicked the whole thing into the long grass, in
December last the Secretary of State for Transport announced that
a decision on the financing of the Stonehenge project would now be
put to a ‘regional consultative body’ and it will have to compete with
funds for other road improvements in the whole of The South West.
Then came the big one. The current ‘approved’ budget for
Countess Flyover, the 2.1 km tunnel and the Winterbourne Stoke
bypass stands at £223 m.You won’t be surprised to hear that unattrib-
utable sources close to the truth have whispered to me that the esti-
mated (as opposed to the approved) budget is fast approaching
£400 m. (Robert Key MP, February 2005)

‘Managed Open Access’ to Stonehenge for the Summer Solstice … a

free festival 2005
English Heritage is likely to again provide ‘Managed Open Access’ to
Stonehenge for the Summer Solstice. Please help to create a peace-
ful occasion by taking personal responsibility and following the condi-
tions. The car park (on the Western side, enter off the A303 from the
roundabout – it’s signposted) will open at around 8pm on 20th June,
and close at around 1pm on 21st June. Access to the stones them-
selves is from around 10pm until 9am (efestivals, 2005).
There’s likely to be entertainment from samba bands and drum-
mers but no amplified music is allowed.Van loads of police have been
present in the area in the past in case of any trouble, but generally a
jovial mood prevails. Sunrise is at around 4:45am. April 2005

Salisbury District Council Press Release

Stonehenge Visitor Centre is Refused
Salisbury District Council has thrown out English Heritage’s plans
to develop a new visitor centre for Stonehenge.The council’s Planning
and Regulatory Committee refused the scheme when it met on
Tuesday night (July 26th). Their reason for refusing the plans was
related to the proposed land train and access to the site. (SDC, 2005)

Layers and levels of community participation

In the UK once a site is on the Tentative List the hard work begins –
defining the boundaries and buffer zones, ensuring that community
support is in place and writing the nomination and management
plan documents. Increasingly, there is an emphasis on the economic,
social, environmental and cultural impacts of inscription – the benefits
and disbenefits to the community. Wearmouth–Jarrow’s candidature
for WHS status is supported by both Local Authorities and the
Government Office for the North East. A coordinator is in place to liaise
with different stakeholders and prepare the necessary documentation.

47
Managing World Heritage Sites

The cost to the Local Authority is substantial, not only at the outset, but
also in terms of their on-going responsibilities. In England, Local
Authorities usually employ a WHS coordinator who is a cultural heri-
tage manager. The Local Authority World Heritage Forum, LAWHF, is
available for peer support. In Scotland, Historic Scotland has assumed
many of these responsibilities and currently employs the World Heri-
tage coordinator at New Lanark.
At Ironbridge Gorge in the late 1990s, The Ironbridge Gorge
Initiative Framework for Managing the WHS was circulated widely
in the valley. It was a large glossy brochure and represented a real
attempt to seek comments from local people in order to ‘work
together to care for the WHS for our and future generations’. At
Greenwich, at the same time, a secondee from English Heritage wrote
the management plan. Community involvement was minimal. A
leaflet was circulated to residents, but the boundaries were set by the
cultural heritage expert without wide consultation and were based
on traditional art-historical architectural and landscape criteria. The
WHS Coordinator now employed by the Local Authority has set up
Executive, Education and Marketing Groups. The WHS Steering
Committee, chaired by a Greenwich councillor, ensures WHS issues
are discussed on a regular basis. Initiatives for the joint marketing
of Corporate Hospitality and the very existence of the Cutty Sark
Docklands Light Railway station would probably not have happened
without pressure from this Committee. However, at Greenwich, as
elsewhere, individual heritage organizations are conscious of main-
taining their own identities, visitor numbers and separate applica-
tions for funds.
Similarly, volunteers are committed to individual organizations.
Therefore sites such as Kew or Canterbury benefit from the services of
volunteers who are not directly involved in WHS matters. Perhaps
there is an opportunity for an international organization of Friends of
World Heritage Sites with local branches, but it does not exist at pre-
sent. Amenity societies find World Heritage status useful in chal-
lenging unsuitable developments from the height and density of
buildings to the quality of design. During 2005 The Greenwich Society
has been watching the Stockwell Street Development intended to
provide ‘A New Square’ and the redevelopment of the last large site in
Greenwich Town Centre within the WHS. It is working alongside the
World Heritage Committee. The Society responded to the planning
application for tower blocks on the Lovells Wharf site saying: ‘The
height of the two towers is unacceptable. They will loom over East
Greenwich and over the Park and the World Heritage Site’. Pressure
group politics succeeded. A revised plan eliminating the two high-rise
towers has been submitted by the developers. At Ironbridge Gorge
in the late 1980s, not long after inscription, Residents’ Groups from
the Jackfield, Broseley, Coalport and Ironbridge communities – using

48
 Stakeholders and community participation

World Heritage status – were effective in overturning Shropshire

County Council’s plans for an undistinguished design for a bridge to
replace the worn out ferro-concrete ‘Free Bridge’. Instead, a modern
bridge of distinctive design was erected scarcely visible from the
famous Iron Bridge ancient monument in the heart of the World
Heritage Site.
Visitor expectations of World Heritage Sites are high. Tourists in
general and cultural tourists in particular are generally amorphous
intractable stakeholders. Yet tourists are the ‘peoples of the world’ to
whom world heritage belongs. At World Heritage Sites tourists
anticipate having an interesting time that is guaranteed to be authen-
tic. The precise quality of the visitors’ experience, however, is influ-
enced by their own expectations about the place prior to their visit.
McKercher and du Cros (2001) have identified five major categories
of cultural tourists:
1 The ‘purposeful cultural tourist’ for whom cultural tourism is the
primary motive for visiting a destination, and the individual has a
deep cultural experience
2 The ‘sightseeing cultural tourist’ for whom cultural tourism is a
primary or major reason for visiting a destination, but the experi-
ence is more shallow
3 The ‘serendipitous cultural tourist’, who does not travel for cul-
tural tourism reasons, but who, after participating, ends up hav-
ing a deep cultural tourism experience
4 The ‘casual cultural tourist’, for whom cultural tourism is a weak
motive for visiting a destination, and the resultant experience is
shallow
5 The ‘incidental cultural tourist’, who does not travel for cultural
tourism reasons but, nonetheless, participates in some activities
and has shallow experiences.
Heritage sites, they suggest, are likely to have all five categories of
tourists at any one time, with the mix dependent on the nature of the
place and the origin of the majority of the visitors.
This research is a helpful starting point in terms of how it might be
possible to engage all visitors and all tourists in different ways and at
different levels more fully, more effectively and more actively as
stakeholders in World Heritage. Cultural tourists need improved vis-
itor management at WHSs. Individual cultural heritage organizations
within World Heritage Sites need visitors and the money they bring
with them. But, the World Heritage conservation movement also
needs a myriad of committed stakeholders world-wide who under-
stand and care about the future viability and sustainability of World
Heritage. Cultural tourists to World Heritage Sites, as much as local
people, have a significant role to play. The development of strategies
to encourage the participation of visitors – and especially ‘cultural

49
Managing World Heritage Sites

tourists’ – as stakeholders in World Heritage conservation remains an

opportunity to be grasped by the World Heritage movement. Because
States Parties agree to safeguard the World Heritage Sites in their care,
there is an added expectation by visitors that these States Parties, as
the principal stakeholders within a nation state, will take their respon-
sibilities seriously. There is a belief among visitors to World Heritage
Sites that they are – or should be – carefully managed and controlled,
often at a national level, to protect the values for which they were first
recognized. In reality the reverse is often the case. Many World
Heritage Sites experience extreme tourism pressures, particularly in
regard to their more sensitive characteristics or heritage values.
Recently, The Times newspaper highlighted the dilemma of Hadrian’s
Wall: ‘The World Heritage Site survived invasions and battles but is
being wrecked by a surge in tourism’. Professor Peter Fowler’s report
Hadrian’s Wall and the National Trail addresses the issues. Peter com-
mented in The Times interview: ‘To put it mildly, I was somewhat dis-
concerted at what I found … serious inadequacies in the management
of the Trail are apparent … the commitment by the Countryside
Agency and the Highways authorities “to manage the Trail effectively”
was not apparent on the ground’ (Alberge, 2005). States Parties and
national agencies can no longer operate effectively independently,
either individually or together, at a strategic or an operational level
as has been illustrated at Hadrian’s Wall. A broader operational
stakeholder partnership arrangement is necessary for effective action
with clear accountable shared leadership.
Only by developing a positive, dynamic interface between local
people and tourists as key stakeholders will it be possible to continue
to provide a distinctive cultural tourism experience celebrating cul-
tural diversity at each World Heritage Site as well as improved visitor
management. The ICOMOS International Charter for Cultural Tourism
addresses the primary relationships between the cultural identity and
cultural heritage of the host community and the interests, expect-
ations and behaviour of visitors, both domestic and international
(ICOMOS, 1999). It promotes the engagement of the host community
in all aspects of planning and managing for tourism. At sites where
the managed engagement between the host community and the vis-
itor is strongest, visitor management is also the most successful.
Many natural and cultural World Heritage Sites are highly valued
by the local community who identify with the character and qualities
of these places. As committed stakeholders local people combine an
understanding and appreciation of the heritage assets and willingness
to communicate this sensibility and knowledge to others. Canterbury
Cathedral – located within a World Heritage Site – appoints an
ordained minister to manage Visitor Services. The principle adopted
by the first incumbent, Canon Peter Brett, was in sympathy with the
spirit of a place of worship: it was one of winning over visitors not

50
 Stakeholders and community participation

pushing them around. ‘Spaces were formed for pause and reflection
… It was a bold, but extremely effective, decision to make the whole of
the massive Crypt a place where silence was expected. Signage which
indicates that the Crypt has its own silence which is there already, and
to be felt by being quiet oneself, proved a subtle and generally suc-
cessful appeal. The quietness itself, paradoxically, facilitates move-
ment’ (Brett, 2001). The significance of maintaining spiritual values in
a cathedral of world significance in architectural heritage terms and
the importance of involving and training members of the congrega-
tion as volunteer guides to communicate with visitors from around
the world are essential aspects of developing a working, workable
stakeholder partnership at local level.
Communities are often keen to present their World Heritage Sites to
visitors or to exploit them as tourism resources in the anticipation of
economic gain. They are also likely to be protective of their own priv-
acy and lifestyles, which can be overwhelmed during peak tourism
seasons. At both natural and cultural World Heritage Sites local
people are often the tour guides and interpreters. At others they are
the guardians and purveyors of the intangible heritage in the form of
priests, musicians, dancers, story-tellers, craftspeople, demonstrators,
cooks and farmers or gardeners. The quality of the tourism experience
is greatly enhanced if members of the local community are engaged as
key stakeholders and encouraged to welcome visitors. The confidence
of communities to invite strangers to join in with their local festivals
held within the boundaries of a World Heritage Site often means that
they can benefit directly from the financial rewards tourism brings.
In addition, genuine community support can ensure that the promo-
tional images of the destination presented to the outside world are
those actually experienced by the visitors as they interact with local
people during their visit.

Re-branding World Heritage Sites

The development of an approach to branding World Heritage Sites

in the UK and elsewhere, based on the fundamental sets of experi-
ences offered to visitors by the local community in the setting of a
World Heritage Site, is a new opportunity. Where a World Heritage
Site achieves the full integration of the community into the appreci-
ation, interpretation and operation of the cultural heritage assets it
is able to enhance its local distinctiveness, manage better and appeal
successfully directly to a wide audience. When the local community
is perceived by cultural heritage professionals as just ‘the work-
force’ or ‘the vocal minority’ getting in the way of the development
of grandiose schemes, such as at Stonehenge, then cultural heritage

51
Managing World Heritage Sites

values themselves are in danger of being ridiculed, even under the

umbrella of World Heritage Sites.
Early attempts at branding World Heritage Sites were a useful
exercise but missed the essence of the special significance of World
Heritage Sites – the reason for nomination in the first place. Hadrian’s
Wall Tourism Partnership explored some options with a model
dividing the audiences into two, external and internal. The External
Audience was the consumer, media, community and the Internal
Audience the Partnership, funders, community, partners, suppliers,
and media (Partnership based stories).

Admin/Lobby and Marketing (Presenting)

Fundraising (co-ordination)

HWTP HWWHS Corridor

Brand Brand

Communities Arts Education Business Transport Tourism and

Leisure

Roving Marking the Wall Hadrian Means Access and

Romans Business Sustainable
Transport

Community Visitor

Figure 3.1 Brand structure for the Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership.
© Alcazar Limited 2002 (reproduced with permission)

In moving towards establishing a new approach to branding World

Heritage Sites, where the values and attributes of the people and the
place are combined, in turn an agenda is set whereby the confidence
and creativity of the community and visitors alike can flourish. Brand
identity is based on cultural identity and becomes a source of inspir-
ation for all. A new brand can give a new sense of pride for local people
and visitors something they never dreamed of needing or wanting –
something beyond their expectations. This is good business sense. It
maintains market differentiation and allows an organization or part-
nership to become a market leader. But it is also good heritage sense as
it can provide a platform for a dynamic, sustainable heritage for the
future. It is no accident that the Regional Development Agencies see
the benefits of World Heritage status as an opportunity to bring

52
 Stakeholders and community participation

people living in adjacent communities together, to develop a sense of

self-worth and civic pride. As a caveat, development initiatives based
on a new-found brand identity must take place in tandem with and in
the context of a robust community-based conservation programme, if
the opportunities are to be maximized and disasters averted.

Conclusions

Communities have moved centre stage in the World Heritage debate.

Their roles have yet to be defined in detail. But in the process of the
democratization of heritage, a greater emphasis on intangible values
and the pressing need to conserve and celebrate cultural diversity
across the world, World Heritage Sites have the chance – both in the
UK and elsewhere – to engage their stakeholders, community sup-
porters and visitors alike in a new agenda. This new agenda is one
that is more exciting, more fulfilling, more refreshing and more par-
ticipatory than in the past. In establishing an environment for mutual
exploration, investigation and learning at World Heritage Sites, the
conservation of cultural heritage assets will be secure, for the time
being at least.

References

Alberge, D. (2005) Walkers put Hadrian’s Wall on road to ruin. The

Times, 9 August.
Alcazar (2002) Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership Combined
Brand Strategy Report Stages 1 and 2, Helen Powell, Director,
Alcazar Limited, November.
Brett, P. (2001) Case Study on Canterbury Cathedral. (Unpublished)
Prepared on behalf of ICOMOS – UK Cultural Tourism
Committee.
CRRG (2003) Article, Countess Road Residents’ Group Newsletter,
21 March.
efestivals (2005) ‘Managed Open Access’ to Stonehenge for the
Summer Solstice … a free festival 2005 (www.efestivals.co.uk,
accessed 20 April 2005).
English Heritage (2005a) The Facts, Background Information on
Stonehenge, English Heritage website (www.english-heritage.
org.uk/stonehenge accessed 12 April 2005).
English Heritage (2005b) The Stonehenge Project, English Heritage
website (www.english-heritage.org.uk/stonehenge 12 April 2005).
ICOMOS (1999) ICOMOS International Charter for Cultural Tourism,
Adopted by ICOMOS, 12th General Assembly, Mexico, October.

53
Managing World Heritage Sites

ICOMOS (2003) Mapping and Managing the Intangible Heritage at

World Heritage Sites. Proceedings of the ICOMOS Scientific
Symposium Place, memory, meaning: preserving intangible values
in monuments and sites, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe 27–31 October.
ICOMOS CD-ROM.
ICOMOS (2004) The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps – an
Action Plan for the Future, An Analysis by ICOMOS (International
Committee of Monuments and Sites), February 2004 (www.
International.icomos.org accessed 22 March 2005).
Key, R. (2005) The Stonehenge Saga: A View from the Commons,
Robert Key MP for Salisbury, 12th February 2005 (www.druidnet-
work.org accessed 12 April 2005).
Lake District (2005) Statement by the Lake District National Parks
Service, A Special Place, World Heritage Status, April 2005
(www.lake-district.gov.uk accessed 3 May 2005).
Lord Kennet (2004) Save Stonehenge, Lord Kennet, Save Stonehenge
Society, February 2004 (www.savestonehenge.org.uk accessed
23 March 2004).
McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. (2001) Cultural Tourism: The Partnership
between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management. Binghamton,
New York: Haworth Press.
SDC (2005) Stonehenge Visitor Centre is Refused, Salisbury District
Council Press Release, 26 July.
Smart, K. (2001) ‘The irreplaceable ‘wild’ sheep who are the Lake
District’s gardeners’ quotes Keith Twentyman, Cumbria NFU
Group Secretary, K. Smart, News and Star, 24 March.
UCL (2004) Stonehenge Public Enquiry: Prehistoric Society Statement,
June (www.ucl.ac.uk/prehistoric accessed 23 March 2005).
UNESCO (2003) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of
the World Heritage Convention, paras. 39 & 40, Intergovernmental
Committee for the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural
Heritage, World Heritage Centre, (Revised) 2 February, 2005
(www.whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05.en.pdf accessed 11 April
2005).
UNESCO (2005a) Tangible Cultural Heritage, UNESCO (www.unesco.
org accessed 11 April 2005).
UNESCO (2005b) The World Heritage Centre, UNESCO (www.whc.org
accessed 12 April 2005).
UNESCO (2005c) The List UNESCO (http://whc.unesco.org/en/
list/1140 accessed 5 October 2005).

54
 C H A P T E R
4
Marketing issues and
World Heritage Sites
Stephen W. Boyd and
Dallen J. Timothy
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to:

• Examine a range of marketing issues relevant to World Heritage
Sites (WHS)
• Challenge commonly held tourism marketing principles, particu-
larly the marketing mix as to its value where WHS are concerned
• Examine critically the role that factors such as scale and acces-
sibility play in how sites are marketed
• Through application of a case study to present the merits of mar-
keting not just the site, but the wider setting in which it is situated.

Introduction

Marketing is a highly complex topic that holds an important place

within tourism (Holloway, 2004). Conventional thinking has often
focused on the development of a market as central to successful
tourism development as opposed to the development of an attrac-
tion base that has long-term potential. World Heritage Sites are often
the icons used to market destinations. For example Australia delib-
erately makes use of its WHS in its tourism image making, whereas at
the same time, the sites themselves stand as exemplars of long-term
visitor attractions that have come to represent powerful evocative sym-
bols of a country’s identity, helping to acknowledge the presence of
properties ascribed for their outstanding natural and cultural prop-
erties. As leading attractions in many parts of the world, their suc-
cess in terms of tourism is not often the result of their designation as
having World Heritage status, but rather other factors, such as how
the sites are marketed and how accessible they are to the marketplace
(Shackley, 1998). Furthermore, there is the irony that the success of
many sites as places heavily visited is at the expense of why they
were initially inscribed, namely to protect and conserve ‘valued’ heri-
tage resources.
This chapter explores a plethora of issues associated with market-
ing of WHS, including the role marketing plays as only one dimen-
sion against issues such as conservation, interpretation, sales, customer
provision; the extent to which the marketing mix concept can be
applied to WHS; the prominence of scale and peripherality in deter-
mining site level visitation; the role of branding and the merits of de-
marketing of sites; the need to market sites as part of wider attraction
spaces and the value of strategic thinking in terms of marketing of
World Heritage Sites. An in-depth case study of the Giant’s Causeway
in Northern Ireland is presented at the end of the chapter in which

56
 Marketing issues and World Heritage Sites

many of the above issues are addressed, albeit within a site that has
peculiarities and factors that make its marketing distinctive.

Marketing issues

Type, scale and market reach

The type of site matters when it comes to how world heritage sites
are marketed. The reality that sites can be nominated for their nat-
ural or cultural attributes, or in some cases both, has marketing impli-
cations. Natural sites are often marketed as part of wider systems of
protected areas and national parks, where issues of peripherality,
sensitivity, and threshold use levels take on importance along with
the multi-purpose behind visiting either passively to enjoy outstand-
ing natural scenery or to use that backdrop as the venue for thrill-
seeking activity. In contrast, in many cases cultural sites situated in
urban areas are on the agenda of many urban tourists, have better
access, are often parts of diverse and modern world cultural spaces,
where issues of interpretation and education assume importance. As
such, in both contexts, appeal is to both the passive heritage visitor
(akin to the mass tourist) and the serious heritage visitor (akin to the
special interest traveller) market, and the challenge is to market to
different ends of the visitor spectrum.
Heritage is not homogeneous; it exists at different levels or scales,
namely world, national, local and personal (Timothy, 1997; Timothy
and Boyd, 2003). Many WHS draw large masses of tourists from
many countries, for which a visit to these sites themselves is likely to
be only a small part of a more extensive itinerary, and as such the
amount of time spent at a WHS is often as short as a few hours. For
many international visitors, while WHS are viewed as attractions that
may invoke feelings of awe, they probably do not invoke feelings of
personal attachment. Visits to ancient monuments are largely moti-
vated by the belief that such objects really are linked to the remote
past. Indeed, for many tourists, visiting international heritage attrac-
tions that have been accorded WHS status is a way of appreciating
universal civilization and achieving some degree of human unity
(Moulin, 1991). In contrast, while local residents and domestic visi-
tors are an important part of the market to WHS, these people also
serve the function of supporting heritage spaces that are of a local,
regional and national scale, and their attachment to sites of interna-
tional significance is often indirect as a result of visiting as part of the
visiting friends and relatives (VFR) market where they feel obligated
to show WHS to their international guests (Robinson et al., 1994).
Psychographic characteristics also apply when it comes to market-
ing WHS. Plog (1973, 1991) proposed that tourism places develop

57
Managing World Heritage Sites

differently as a result of the types of visitors they attract. He argued

that tourists could fall between two extreme poles on a psycho-
graphic spectrum, where psychocentrics display tendencies towards
nearness, comforts of home, and familiarity in their surroundings.
At the other end of the spectrum, allocentrics seek out the distant,
unusual and challenging experiences. In a similar way, psychographic
thinking can be applied to visitors interested in WHS. By visiting
sites within cities on the original Grand Tour circuit and for example,
UK sites within or close to modern urban places, modern-day visi-
tors to Europe are displaying psychographic tendencies to visit WHS
within well established tourism places. In contrast, visitors keen to
explore the cultural sites (e.g. temples of Asia, the ruins of the Mayan
and Aztec civilizations), experience the culture of first peoples and
their traditions (e.g. sites in the interior of Australia, and peripheral
regions of Canada and the Pacific Ocean) and are, in essence, creat-
ing new Grand Tours including international heritage sites they
prefer to explore, thus displaying more allocentric tendencies.
Marketers of WHS should take note of these trends (Timothy and
Boyd, 2003).

Branding

Branding has become common in marketing speak today, develop-

ing its own lexicon of terms: equity, identity, positioning, personality,
essence, character, soul, culture and image. In the context of this
chapter attention is given over to positioning and image. Positioning
refers to what a brand stands for in the minds of its customers and
prospects, relative to its competition, in terms of benefits and prom-
ises. The brand is obvious here, namely that of examples of outstand-
ing value worthy of universal recognition for their cultural and/or
natural heritage, as compared to other attractions within the vicin-
ity. Provided issues such as accessibility to site are not problem-
atic, many Destination Marketing Organizations have capitalized on
using the brand as the means to sell the experience of that particular
area. Travel to the Red Centre of Australia is not complete without
visiting Uluru, or a visit to the Agra region of India requires a
stopover to view the Taj Mahal. The dangers of using the WHS logo
are the possible exclusion of recognition of many other opportunities
and hence experiences WHS regions have to offer visitors, namely
the experiences derived from visiting non-WHS attractions. As such,
the brand becomes too myopic and centred around a visit and experi-
ence of only the world heritage site. Brand ‘image’ is referred to as
generally synonymous with the reputation of the brand as a whole.
Reputation may be taken and read as visitor experience. What ‘experi-
ence’ do visitors expect when they visit sites that have been accorded

58
 Marketing issues and World Heritage Sites

international heritage status? Surely, they expect to see evidence of

why the site has received this highest accolade, and then the visitor
experience that is created around it. The challenge therefore for
many site managers is to provide a quality product for a market that
they intentionally never expected to entertain, namely the tourist.
The mandate of WHS is one of protection and conservation, and fur-
thermore, member states who ratified the convention do not nom-
inate sites because of their tourism draw, but rather because they
satisfy a number of the natural and cultural criteria needed in order
to be considered for WHS status. Unfortunately, many sites have
turned to tourism and its market as a means of financing themselves,
and ensuring the necessary conservation measures are carried out.
Being proudly allowed to display the UNESCO logo at sites does not
come with monies or personnel to assist in its operation. As such,
tourism has become a necessary evil in many cases, albeit with the
consequences this market brings, such as visitor pressure, conges-
tion at peak times, and possible site damage. These consequences
have led to thinking that de-marketing of some sites is the preferred
alternative.

De-marketing

With the rise in interest of things cultural and heritage, it is hard to

conceive how WHS can take a de-marketing option given that such
destinations are on visitors’ ‘must see’ list. Horner and Swarbrooke
(1996) refer to the term as meaning action that is designed to discour-
age consumers from buying particular goods and services. In the
case of WHS, this would involve not producing any promotional
material, developing messages within advertisements and brochures
with the intent of discouraging certain people from visiting in gen-
eral or not to visit at certain times, or promotion of alternative places.
De-marketing is not an option to be applied to all WHS as many do
not receive visitors given they are not highly accessible, Easter Island
being a good case in point. The above strategies, while evidentially
positive in terms of what they aim to accomplish, would be very hard
to apply to WHS that are heavily visited by tourists. To many
Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) the idea of not
using the site in advertisements would not get widespread support,
and to suggest an alternative site to visit would in many cases be
unworkable in terms of finding sites and other attractions that would
be suitable substitutes. The concept of substitution of attraction and
place is untenable in most cases by visitors as why should they be
forced to view secondary sites in order to maintain the ‘real’ one?
The risk in achieving this substitution of experience is that the mar-
ket may choose then not to return to the WHS itself. While this action

59
Managing World Heritage Sites

is applicable for many tourism destinations, it is unlikely to apply in

the case of visitation patterns to WHS. In an ideal world, sites that
face extreme pressure from high levels of visitation at peak times
would benefit from de-marketing, if only to alleviate concerns over
the loss of ecological and cultural integrity within the site itself, and
in this case, one approach to de-marketing would be selectively to
market sites for niche markets, appealing to those that would be
classed as special interest travellers over those akin to mass tourists
with a passing interest in heritage and culture. In order to achieve
this, DMOs have to engage in a deliberate marketing campaign that
identifies those segments of the international and domestic market
they most want to reach. While de-marketing is a concept that
receives limited attention within the tourism marketing literature, it
is an issue that has merit in this chapter.

Peripherality and accessibility

Another issue that has received mention above is that of peripheral-

ity. Peripheral regions are attractive for tourism, and many WHS,
particularly those classified as ‘natural sites’, are found in peripheral
regions. Hall and Boyd (2005) noted the paradox that exists for
tourism in peripheral regions, namely that is the peripheral charac-
teristics of destinations such as naturalness, remoteness, isolation,
outstanding flora and fauna, to name a few, can be affected by the
influx of too much tourism to the extent that what originally attracted
visitors to the region is lost as a result of rising visitor numbers.
The irony, however, is that many of these peripheral regions rely on
tourism as the only viable form of economic development open to
them and have to accept getting the balance right between numbers
and maintaining the quality and integrity of sites. In the case of many
natural WHS, these are often found to be part of wider systems of
protected areas and national parks, and as such fall under the juris-
diction of the public sector management agency and their respective
managerial approaches and strategies to control visitor numbers so
that sites are not too severely impacted upon. Accessibility, or the rel-
ative absence of it, can be as strong a factor as marketing in terms of
determining how important individual sites will be as tourism
attractions. The inability to get to sites will be a strong enough incen-
tive to limit the type of visitor, and the volume of visitation. In the
case of ‘natural’ WHS, those areas selected from within wider sys-
tems of protected spaces are often the most well known parks within
the system and irrespective of location attract large numbers of vis-
itors. Yellowstone National Park and Grand Canyon National Park in
the USA, Rocky Mountain Parks in Canada and Tongariro National
Park in New Zealand are apt examples of sites that are relatively

60
 Marketing issues and World Heritage Sites

isolated and distant from large centres of population, but which yet
receive large numbers of visitors. While accessibility is central to
tourism, what is also important is the product at the destination itself
and its composite parts.

Marketing as one dimension of sites

Marketing is only one dimension of WHS, and others such as educa-

tion, information, on-site sales, and service provision need to be con-
sidered. While many of these will be addressed in other chapters of
this book, the purpose of alluding to them in this chapter is to make
the point that, while the purpose behind marketing is to sell the site
to a potential customer base, these other factors, when combined,
have an important role in creating an overall visitor experience. A
‘designate sites and they will come’ mentality requires that sites
are furnished with quality interpretation and educational facilities,
things to do and see as well as service provision that caters to the
basic needs of visitors to eat, sleep and shop. In many cases, where
sites are found in peripheral areas, some of these basic requirements
are not met, making it difficult to sell the site to visitors, and often in
this case, numbers of visitors are small. Uluru is popular as a destin-
ation as there is accommodation relatively nearby, good interpret-
ation and educational facilities are on hand, along with a cultural
centre where authentic and locally produced products are available
to purchase. It is these tangible elements, as well as the intangible of
the experience of being at the place, and the meaning behind the visit
that combine to make up what is ultimately being marketed in the
first place.

Marketing mix

This is a well known concept within marketing, known to involve

the traditional four Ps of product, place, promotion and price, and is
often referred to as the ‘core’ of marketing (Holloway, 2004). Product
is referring to what is actually delivered to the consumer and the
benefits that a consumer can gain to suit their needs and wants.
Goeldner et al. (2000) state that product also includes product plan-
ning, product development, breadth of the line, branding and pack-
aging. In the case of WHS, the product is self-explanatory. The
market is brought to either a natural and/or cultural product which
has been deemed of international status; a product borne out of the
need to safeguard sites of outstanding human value and a product
line that is constantly being added to on a regular basis each year by

61
Managing World Heritage Sites

those nations that have ratified the convention. In the case of WHS,
there is no such thing as ‘coming up with the right product’ as the
product exists not as a result of tourism, but rather as a by-product
of the need to protect and conserve them for current and future gen-
erations. Place is concerned with distribution, and the channels
by which consumers are given access to the product. In the case of
WHS, consumers are brought to the product through advertisement,
and selling sites as iconic and must visit places. The status that many
WHS hold in the minds of visitors often means that name recogni-
tion alone is often sufficient when it comes to satisfying the place ele-
ment of the mix. Promotion communicates the benefits of the
product to customers, and includes the techniques used to accom-
plish this. In some cases, tourism businesses within the vicinity of
sites have used the WHS brand to promote their ventures and sell
their experience as part of the wider opportunity the WHS region
offers. Research by Hall and Piggin (2003) noted that in the case
of Tongariro National Park and Te Wahi Pounamu (Southwest New
Zealand) WHS, the majority of tourism businesses surveyed recog-
nized the benefits of World Heritage listing for the wider region, and
that almost half of the businesses surveyed stated they believed such
status attracted visitors to the region and therefore used the term
‘World Heritage’ in their promotional materials. The last of the 4 Ps
‘price’ is the critical variable in the marketing mix. Goeldner et al.
(2000) state that the price set must both satisfy customers and meet
profit objectives. In many cases, admission is free, whereas in many
national parks, admission is based on a differential fee system between
international and domestic visitors. Other Ps have been added, but
often have limited bearing on marketing. For example, Boyd and
Timothy (2001) noted that partnership can be an effective tool in
terms of both interpretation and management of sites irrespective of
whether they are found within a mixed-use landscape or a protected
landscape. Mill and Morrison (1998) noted that other Ps included
programming and people, with other new ones being added to the
original mix, namely passion, purpose, performance, potential, pass-
along, position, practice and, lastly, profit. Regardless of whether it is
acknowledged that there are 4 or 13 Ps, what emerges is that the
thinking behind the marketing mix is not well suited when applied
to sites of World Heritage status.

Strategic approach to marketing

Marketing of heritage places should not necessarily entail attempts

to increase visitor numbers through advertising (Timothy and Boyd,
2003). Instead it means that managers of WHS, for instance, have
opportunities to target certain consumers and control their visits

62
 Marketing issues and World Heritage Sites

while, at the same time, improve conservation standards (Pearson

and Sullivan, 1995). One useful way of looking at marketing is to
consider the value of adopting a strategic approach. Hall and
McArthur (1998) argue that there are essentially three elements and
questions involved in strategic marketing planning:
1 Where are we now?
2 Where do we want to be in the future?
3 How do we get there?
To get answers to these questions, a five-stage marketing planning
process emerged: situational analysis; establishing objectives and
strategies; marketing activities; marketing management; and mar-
keting evaluation. Space does not permit a detailed discussion of
each here, except for the following brief comments as each applies to
World Heritage Sites. Understanding the present situation involves
realizing that WHS cannot be all things to all people, so tough deci-
sions are required as to what the target audience is and what type of
experience is being created for them. Also important here is how
much of a competitive advantage do WHS have over other heritage
attractions in the region in terms of accessibility, market segments,
facilities and services, marketing strategies, cost and maintenance.
As for marketing objectives and strategies, what is critical here is the
extent to which goals and objectives can deviate from selling the key
attributes of the site itself and on what its WHS status is based.
Developing marketing strategies is to translate current conditions
into desired situations (Heath and Wall, 1992), for instance, promot-
ing awareness of newly established sites through an advertising
campaign, or targeting specific market segments as a way of bring-
ing more money into the local region. Marketing activities refer back
to determining the most correct marketing mix for achieving the
stated goals and objectives of managers. Marketing management
involves the implementation of use of effective marketing strategies,
often requiring hiring more staff and spending more money, two
items that are often lacking where WHS are involved. Lastly, mar-
keting evaluation is useful in determining if strategies were success-
ful against initial marketing objectives. The most effective methods
to carry this out where WHS are concerned is measuring usage and
establishing visitor profiles – activities that have a long history for
natural heritage sites as opposed to cultural heritage sites. Timothy
and Boyd (2003) note that the primary purpose of evaluation is to
assist managers in understanding issues such as marketing effective-
ness, image creation/enhancement, and the number of people who
visited the heritage sites based on advertising efforts and media
usage, not necessarily to develop broad-based theories.
The following case study addresses many of the marketing issues
raised in this chapter.

63
Managing World Heritage Sites

Case study: Marketing of the Giant’s Causeway

World Heritage Site
The Giant’s Causeway, the UK’s first WHS was inscribed in 1986
under the following natural properties:

• be outstanding examples representing major stages of Earth’s

history, including the record of life, significant on-going geo-
logical processes in the development of landforms, or significant
geomorphic or physiographic features
• contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional
natural beauty and aesthetic importance.

The Giant’s Causeway lies at the foot of the basalt cliffs along the sea
coast on the edge of the Antrim plateau on the North Coast of Northern
Ireland. It comprises some 40 000 black basalt columns protruding
out of the sea. Geological studies of these formations over the last 300
years have greatly contributed to the development of the earth sci-
ences and show that this striking landscape was caused by volcanic
activity during the Tertiary period some 50–60 million years ago.
While the Giant’s Causeway was noted for its unique natural prop-
erties, it has had a long history of being a leading tourist attraction.
Ever since a Dublin woman’s realistic sketches publicized the Giant’s
Causeway in 1740, it has been a magnet for visitors to Northern
Ireland. Europe’s first hydro-electric tram operated between the key
resort community of Portrush on the North Coast to the Causeway
between 1883 and 1949, enabling early visitors to travel to see the
famous stone columns, as well as take leisurely journeys around the
coast. In more modern times, a visitor centre was built in 1986 that
symbolizes a rural cottage design and housed an interpretative cen-
tre that explains the geological enigma of the Causeway and tells the
stories of the legendary Irish giant, Finn MaCool who, it is claimed,
had a hand in the creation of the causeway. As early as accurate visi-
tor records were kept for attractions in Northern Ireland, the Giant’s
Causeway has been the Province’s leading visitor attraction. In 1986,
the year the visitor centre was constructed and WHS status was
achieved, visitor numbers were approximately 100 000, rising to
400 000 a decade later. By 2004, visitor numbers recorded at the
Giant’s Causeway visitor centre reached 450 000 visitors. High visi-
tation levels have been maintained as the hexagonal columns have
not been extensively altered. Apart from a paved road leading to the
causeway and a series of steps up from the base of the causeway to
the cliff top, the attraction has been pretty well left in its natural state.
The souvenir shacks that were a common feature of the route down
to the causeway during the 19th century have since been removed
and are now present in a modern form within the visitor centre.

64
 Marketing issues and World Heritage Sites

In May 2000, part of the original visitor centre was damaged by fire
and an international competition at present is underway to replace
the visitor facilities at the Causeway site, with the new visitor centre
to be open for the 2007 summer peak tourism season. There is some
concern by the owners of the World Heritage Site (jointly owned and
managed by the National Trust which is responsible for the stones,
headlands and cliff top paths, and Moyle District Council which is
responsible for the car park and site of the visitor centre) about over-
crowding during peak holiday periods, particularly bank holiday
weekends, the dangers of being swept into the sea off the rocks and
rising levels of graffiti on many of the columns, all aspects which
were addressed in a management plan that was prepared and sub-
mitted to UNESCO in February 2005.
The Giant’s Causeway is indirectly marketed by the Northern
Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) as the hexagon is a prominent part of
the logo for the Board. The hexagon ‘brand’ has become synonymous
with tourism in Northern Ireland. Recently, the NITB, along with the
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI), have com-
missioned a Causeway Coast Tourism Masterplan which aims to place
the Giant’s Causeway within the larger Causeway Coast and Glens
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), but with the Giant’s
Causeway being deemed as a priority area for the NITB (McBride,
2005). The Giant’s Causeway is an essential part of the long-term
visioning of the NITB and this is presented within their Strategic
Framework for Action 2004–07 document (NITB, 2003). The strategy
comprises three broad themes: growing visitor numbers; business
enhancement; and effective communication. Under the business
enhancement section, the following signature projects are to be pur-
sued with the goal of delivering international ‘stand out’ for Northern
Ireland:
• Giant’s Causeway/Antrim and Causeway Coast Area
• Titanic Quarter
• Walled City of Derry
• Christian Heritage/St Patrick
• Mournes National Park Area.
The Giant’s Causeway WHS has been linked to its wider setting of
the Antrim and Causeway Coast Area and is being marketed as part
of a wider tourism space. The actual site of the Giant’s Causeway is
relatively small, comprising 6 km of sheer cliffs, rising to over 90 m,
forming a series of bays and a coastal path 8 km long. It is, therefore,
appropriate to market the site as part of a larger and more diverse
coastal tourism space. Marketing is noted as an important element of
the Causeway Coast and Glens Tourism Masterplan 2004–2013, with
a strategic recommendation committing over £5 million to a market-
ing budget over the first 3 years of the Masterplan, to target priority

65
Managing World Heritage Sites

markets of Great Britain, Republic of Ireland, Mainland Europe,

North America and Domestic/Northern Ireland. The marketing
strategy has the following marketing objectives:
• to increase the number of out-of-state visitors to the region (407 000
staying visitors were recorded in 2002)
• to increase the level of awareness of the Causeway Coast and Glens
in priority markets
• to promote a coastal tourist trail as a major new product for the
island of Ireland (see below)
• to increase the economic contribution from tourism by extending
visitor dwell time and, as a consequence, visitor expenditure (out-
of-state visitors spent an estimated £56.4 million in 2002)
• to achieve spatial distribution of visitors throughout the region
through the promotion of a range of activity and rural holidays
and attractions (DETI, 2004).
The marketing strategy for the Causeway Coast and Glens will be to
focus on the following segment of the market:
• independent travellers/car touring
• short breaks/cultural holidays
• activity holidays (golf, walking, cycling, diving, surfing, sea fishing)
• rural breaks
• coach tours.
This marketing strategy is in keeping with many of the Winning
Themes (another element of the ‘Business Enhancement’ section of
the Strategic Framework for Action), which were identified as deliv-
ering a competitive advantage for Northern Ireland, namely through
short breaks, excellent events, business tourism, activity tourism and
cultural and heritage tourism. The strategy will be overseen by the
Causeway Coast and Glens Regional Tourism Organization (RTO),
which will work in close cooperation with the NITB in the design
and production of literature, advertising, packaging, trade market-
ing, cooperative marketing with neighbouring regions (e.g. the
Republic of Ireland and Scotland) and operate familiarization trips
and engage in event marketing and other programmes.
The Giant’s Causeway, as part of the wider Causeway Coast and
Glens (CCAG) region, will also be marketed through the creation of
a Coastal Tourism Route that will take in the whole of the CCAG
AONB, and thereby link the three signature projects of the Titanic
Quarter in the Docks of Belfast, the Giant’s Causeway on the North
Coast and the Walled City of Derry at the western tip of the region
(Wilmont, 2005). This is another example of how the actual WHS is
being promoted as part of a wider tourism space. In so doing, tourism
businesses and activities can associate themselves with being part of
the Causeway region and use the World Heritage status as part of

66
 Marketing issues and World Heritage Sites

their wider marketing literature to encourage visitors to their spe-

cific attraction.

Conclusions

This chapter has raised a number of wider considerations when it

comes to marketing of World Heritage Sites. While many of the
issues have general application to most WHS, the uniqueness of each
site will mean that the degree of application will vary considerably.
Issues of branding and the WHS label, market reach, access, and the
relevance of the marketing mix, need to be assessed on a site-specific
basis, taking in the context of place and the characteristics of each
designated site. The selection of the case example of the Giant’s
Causeway WHS demonstrates the value of broadening marketing
beyond the parameters of the site itself to incorporate the wider
tourism space in which it is part. Tourism marketing is an essential
element to tourism in general, and while the extent to which various
issues vary when considered in the case of WHS, marketing is a
necessity given many of these destinations have evolved as key
tourist spaces out of an initial interest to protect and conserve them.

References

Boyd, S.W. and Timothy, D.J. (2001) Developing partnerships: tools

for interpretation and management. Tourism Recreation Research,
26 (1), 47–53.
Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) (2004)
Causeway Coast and Glens Tourism Masterplan 2004–2013. Belfast:
Netherleigh House.
Goeldner, C.R., Ritchie, J.R.B. and McIntosh, R.W. (2000) Tourism:
Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 8th edn. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Hall, C.M. and Boyd, S.W. (2005) Nature-based Tourism in Peripheral
Areas: Development or Disaster? Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Hall, C.M. and McArthur, S. (1998) Integrated Heritage Management.
London: Stationery Office.
Hall, C.M. and Piggin, R. (2003) World heritage sites: managing the
brand. In Fyall, A., Garrod, B. and Leask, A. (eds) Managing Visitor
Attractions: New Directions. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann,
pp. 203–219.
Heath, E. and Wall, G. (1992) Marketing Tourism Destinations: A
Strategic Planning Approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Holloway, J.C. (2004) Marketing for Tourism, 4th edn. Harlow:
Prentice Hall.

67
Managing World Heritage Sites

Horner, S. and Swarbrooke, J. (1996) Marketing Tourism, Hospitality

and Leisure in Europe. London: Thomson Business Press.
McBride, K. (2005) Causeway Coast and Glens Signature Project
Manager, Northern Ireland Tourist Board, personal correspondence.
Mill, R.C. and Morrison, A.M. (1998) The Tourism System: An
Introductory Text. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Moulin, C. (1991) Cultural heritage and tourism development in
Canada. Tourism Recreation Research, 16 (1), 50–55.
Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) (2003) Strategic Framework for
Action 2004–2007. Belfast: NITB.
Pearson, M. and Sullivan, S. (1995) Looking After Heritage Places.
Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing.
Plog, S.C. (1973) Why destinations areas rise and fall in popularity.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 14 (3), 13–16.
Plog, S.C. (1991) Leisure Travel: Making it a Growth Market … Again!
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Robinson, R., Wertheim, M. and Senior, G. (1994) Selling the heritage
product. In Harrison, R. (ed.) Manual of Heritage Management.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 381–399.
Shackley, M. (1998) Introduction: world heritage sites. In Shackley, M.
(ed.) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 1–9.
Timothy, D.J. (1997) Tourism and the personal heritage experience.
Annals of Tourism Research, 34 (3), 751–754.
Timothy, D.J. and Boyd, S.W. (2003) Heritage Tourism. Harlow:
Prentice Hall.
Wilmont, D. (2005) Causeway Coasts and Glens. Personal
correspondence.

68
 C H A P T E R
5
Destination
management:
a holistic approach.
Liverpool – Maritime
Mercantile City
Bryn Parry
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to:

• Illustrate how new ways of looking at the central themes of
World Heritage Sites (WHS) can enhance their management
• Demonstrate how a holistic framework can encompass multiple
interpretations of a WHS
• Demonstrate how a holistic model of destination management
can enable one to learn from the strategic, operational and tac-
tical issues of differing WHS.

Introduction

The key ingredient for many World Heritage Sites (WHS) is their
profound sense of being in an iconic space. However, WHS do not
derive their power purely from the amount of ground, or just from
the surface of the surrounding buildings/environment, nor purely
from the people within that space. This chapter demonstrates that
successful management of a WHS is dependent upon managing the
interplay of all of these factors (in addition to others) each and every
day and over extended periods of time.
The framework used in this chapter to focus debate integrates and
enhances the existing ‘threads’ of activity and weaves them into the
‘bigger picture’; hence, the focus is not on the detail of any specific
aspect, but on how these can be woven together more effectively. The
framework enables lessons to be transferred to any WHS, but the
chapter focuses on a single example. As one of the newer WHS,
Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (LMMC) can draw upon lessons
learned by its predecessors. However, its urban site, with competing
stakeholders, throws the tensions often seen in other WHS into sharp
contrast. Those not familiar with Liverpool, or the specific LMMC site,
can access an online map via LCC (Liverpool City Council, 2005).

Context and challenges

UNESCO’s World Heritage Mission (UNESCO, 2005) is necessarily

ambitious and the criteria for individual WHS can be the subject of
heated debate. Hence, translating these into the management plan
required for each WHS and then getting that plan actually to work
requires great creativity.
The laudable aim of living with our legacy and passing it on to
future generations is quickly embroiled in questions of contested

70
 Destination management: a holistic approach. Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City

interpretations and competing imperatives. The sheer range of WHS

on the World Heritage List (WHL) accentuates these challenges.
Urban city sites are charged with ‘spiritual, emotional and symbolic
values’ that can divide the very groups that a successful manage-
ment plan needs to unite it, while natural sites might find the most
fragile of ecologies set in extremely volatile physical surroundings.
The very nature of inscripted sites can put them among the rarest
and most finely balanced parts of our heritage. As with other forms
of tourism, the enhanced profile that can protect a site can also set in
train its erosion; the current length of the WHS ‘in danger’ list is
already unacceptably long.
The aims of this chapter are to demonstrate how it should be pos-
sible to evaluate critically the central themes of managing WHS in a
holistic way. The model used is deliberately simplistic. This allows
one quickly to ensure that the overall thrust of the intended approach
is sound, before using it as the basis for fleshing out critical aspects of
the management plan with what is essential for a specific WHS.

Motivation and engagement

The issues of motivation and engagement (Trauer and Ryan, 2005:

481–491) with a destination have been explored elsewhere in the
tourism literature. For a WHS, this can be thrown into further com-
plexity as to how one should serve serendipitous and incidental
tourists alongside the provision of the all-encompassing experience
that purposeful tourists are looking for. One only has to think of the
recent furore over Wal-Mart seeking to site a supermarket near the
WHS at Teotihuacan, Mexico to see how not managing this aspect
can cause unnecessary conflict.
Figure 5.1 illustrates the range of tourist experiences that each
WHS must take into consideration. In Figure 5.1, the level of Intimacy
is used as a measure, rather than knowledge or engagement, as it
denotes a more accurate understanding of what is at the heart of a
place. When you are closer to a person, you not only have a better
understanding of how different people perceive them, but you have
an insight into their ‘true’ character. Initially, ‘blinded by love’ to their
faults, you grow to recognize these as well, but see them as an inher-
ent part of that person’s essential character. Hence, asking how intim-
ate we feel with a particular WHS requires us to reflect on whether we
really know it, as others might, and on whether the flaws that we
might seek to remove are really ‘defects’ (to be removed) or part of its
inherent character (to be addressed as such).
Dicks (2003: 1) recognizes that:
Places today have become exhibitions of themselves. Through heavy
investment in architecture, art, design, exhibition space, landscaping

71
Managing World Heritage Sites

Deep
Purposeful
Serendipitous Cultural Tourist
Cultural Tourist

Experience
sought

Incidental Casual Sightseeing

Cultural Tourist Cultural Tourist Cultural Tourist

Shallow
H

Serendipitous Cultural Tourist Purposeful

Cultural Tourist

‘Intimacy’

Incidental Casual Sightseeing

Cultural Tourist Cultural Tourist Cultural Tourist

L
L H
Importance of cultural tourism in
the decision to visit a destination

Figure 5.1 A cultural tourist typology.

Source: Amended from McKercher and du Cros, 2003: 46
(Copyright John Wiley & Sons, reproduced with permission)

and various kinds of redevelopment towns, cities and countryside

proclaim their possession of cultural values … and this identity is
expected to be easily accessed by … visitors … to be legible.

How far should a WHS go in managing this process? Not to engage

with it would mean that the WHS loses ground in the increasingly
competitive marketplace for visitors’ time and money; while too
commercial an approach might undermine the very uniqueness of
the heritage that it was set up to protect.
As Figure 5.1 illustrates, it might be that a purposeful cultural
tourist lacks the ‘intimacy’ with a site’s heritage really to appreciate its
fundamentals, while an incidental tourist is actually much more aware
of detailed aspects of the site’s true heritage, but merely has more press-
ing deadlines during their visit.

Destination management model

Having identified the broad themes and competing imperatives, an

easily identifiable framework on which to structure an approach that

72
 Destination management: a holistic approach. Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City

DESTINATION MANAGEMENT IS THE MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE

DESTINATION MANAGEMENT INTEGRATES OVERLAPPING LIFE-CYCLES

MARKET/CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

RESIDENTS (INTERNAL & EXTERNAL)

‘STUFF’

SPACE-PLAN Conception
Definition
SUPPORT SERVICES (ORGANIZATION) Development
Operation
SUPPORT SERVICES (BUILDINGS) Divestment/Legacy
VISITORS
STRUCTURE

SKIN

SITE

SITUATION

RESIDENTS – Internal: e.g. householders, local landowners CONCEPTION: identification of intention/purpose of WHS
RESIDENTS – External: e.g. property companies, national governments, UNESCO DEFINITION: setting parameters of WHS and its buffer zone
‘STUFF’: e.g. statues, signposts, buses, benches, etc. DEVELOPMENT: implementation/construction phase
SPACE-PLAN: e.g. ‘Public Realm’, road layout, planning zones OPERATION: operational phase
SUPPORT SERVICES (Organization): e.g. councils, heritage competences DIVESTMENT/LEGACY: termination/decommissioning/
SUPPORT SERVICES (Buildings): e.g. electricity, water & gas, IT sale of components within WHS
STRUCTURE: e.g. shell, framed, pre-fabricated, historical/modern
SKIN: e.g. brick or glass, loadbearing or façade, authentic or replica
SITE: e.g. parkland/roadside, flat/sloping, above ground/subterranean
SITUATION: e.g. rural/urban, prosperous/deprived
MARKET/CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT: e.g. commercial/cultural environment within which WHS and its buffer zone operate

Figure 5.2 Destination management is the management of change

enables the various inputs and outputs of WHS to be addressed holis-

tically is required. Figure 5.2 provides such a framework. Its evolu-
tion and application to single settings has been dealt with elsewhere
(Parry and Norman, 1996; Parry, 2004).
Since some elements seem ‘obvious’ and others just seem to raise
questions, this framework helps to identify the critical components
and internal conflicts that will need to be fully addressed when
developing the management plan. As with Figure 5.1, it also serves
as a catalyst to reflect on the true nature of the WHS that is being per-
petuated and whether the intention is to sustain its heartland char-
acteristics or merely preserve its ephemera.
Although the first attempt may take some thought and a little time,
such an approach has several advantages. It enables those managing
WHS to make the overlapping interactions, inherent within any des-
tination, much clearer to the various stakeholders, while highlighting
the emergence of critical trends. Further, it enables one to reconsider
and challenge the fundamentals that actually underpin the distinct-
iveness of each WHS. For instance, Choi (2002) noted that a failure
to recognize the unique acoustics of ancient monuments can lead to
their loss, recounting the argument that the determining factor in the
look of some Mayan buildings was actually the echo that they gener-
ated and not the aesthetic look of them.

73
Managing World Heritage Sites

Since this chapter is going to explore the LMMC in more detail, one
aspect of this WHS gives us an example of the means by which Figure
5.2 can be used with the critical evaluation of options for commem-
orating the world’s first enclosed commercial, wet-dock which, in 2005,
was a cleared site awaiting redevelopment. While no visible remnants
of the ‘Old Dock’ remain the site can be easily located, since its ‘space-
plan’ was echoed in a number of buildings built above it (most recently
by Canning Place and its surrounding roads). Indeed, archaeological
evidence suggests that the bulk of the dock wall (its ‘skin’) has survived
under the ground (the ‘site’). Since there is a trend to leave archaeo-
logical remains in situ, UNESCO (an ‘external resident’) and the local
authorities (‘internal residents’) needed to enable the developers of the
£750 million Paradise Street Development Area regeneration scheme
(PSDA) that envelopes the site to continue this preservation; best
achieved by converting them from an unconcerned investor (a ‘visi-
tor’) to somebody intimately engaged with the site’s heritage (a ‘resi-
dent’) (Grosvenor, 2005). That still leaves the question of what might
form an appropriate interpretation above ground, especially as that
interpretation cannot deliver the same richness and nuances of experi-
ence as a tangible site might. However, strong links with local agencies
(support services organization) and the creative use of information
technology (support services buildings) ought to go a long way in solv-
ing the problem.
Having become comfortable with the different ‘layers’ of the model
and how they interact, it is now appropriate to turn to the different
stages of the life cycle. Liverpool’s ‘Old Dock’ has clearly undergone a
number of redevelopments and thus can be treated either as a single
life cycle or as a number of life cycles, each passing on to the next. The
original concept was ‘defined’ by its architects’ drawings and ‘devel-
oped’ by its construction, before entering the ‘operation’ phase, and
before being ‘divested’ as ships outgrew it and leaving its ‘legacy’;
space for dock-related buildings and heritage above ground, plus
industrial archaeology below ground. The WHS management plan
must, therefore, decide if sustaining the LMMC can encompass both
the commercial imperative of the PSDA development above ground
and the preservation of the physical heritage below ground.

Managing the life cycle – LMMC

Concept

In most projects, the concept that won approval is often markedly

different from that which goes into operation. While that may not be
critical for a tourist attraction it cuts to the very heart of WHS and
their purpose; hence, a holistic approach should help to ensure that

74
 Destination management: a holistic approach. Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City

the heartland characteristics of the concept proposed in the nomin-

ation documentation encompass the twin objectives of communicat-
ing the significance of the WHS and establishing a concept that has
the potential to sustain that significance over its full life cycle.
The interplay of layers should help in critically evaluating what
actually goes into creating and sustaining the LMMC. Is it the collect-
ive history, the remaining artefacts, the evolving culture, or its future
potential? The heated debates over whether such high profile proj-
ects as the European Capital of Culture 2008 initiative, or the PSDA,
actually reflect the ‘true’ nature of the city illustrates the need for a
structured approach to the multi-layered concept of WHS, many of
which can involve contested heritages.
Justification for the inscription of LMMC as a WHS (Liverpool
City Council, 2002: 25) stems from the city’s:
… historic role as an eminent international seaport … and the sur-
viving urban landscape that testifies to the role … The nominated
site is a complete and integral urban landscape that encompasses
much of the very heart of the City of Liverpool and provides tangible
and coherent evidence of the city’s historic character and signifi-
cance … [whilst recognising that] the city is at the forefront of the
urban regeneration movement.

This is where the level of Intimacy from Figure 5.1 becomes critical
when evaluating the heartland characteristics of the concept for
WHS. For, while much of the recent and proposed urban regener-
ation involves the opening up of access between the city centre and
the docks, this does not reflect the reality of its heritage. As Sharples
(2004: 123–124) observed, a dock wall evolved:
… until it stretched the length of the docks, a physical and psycho-
logical barrier c.18ft (5.5 metres) high, behind which the docks were
a mysterious world to most Liverpudlians. The novelist Nathaniel
Hawthorne, American consul in Liverpool in the 1850s, likened it to
the Great Wall of China.

Indeed, such were the divisions that, during one of the many riots
that have punctuated Liverpool’s history, sailors fired a cannon at
the town hall, while employers sheltered inside. So, how should the
concept for the LMMC balance the need to present a unified and eas-
ily accessible interpretation for the WHS with the need to commem-
orate the often divided and contested nature of that heritage?

Definition
If the challenges in agreeing the central concept for a WHS are so
stark, the complexities of translating that concept into a workable
definition should not come as any surprise. The definition of a WHS,

75
Managing World Heritage Sites

both in terms of its characteristics and its boundaries, might be influ-

enced by political and topographical issues as much as by historical
or heritage issues. Further, the level of definition put into place at
this stage can heavily influence both the levels of interaction by vis-
itors (something explored in Figure 5.1) and the potential length of
the destination life cycle that the WHC might expect.
All WHS need not only to demonstrate clearly the criteria required
for inscription but also to balance the management of these with the
requirements of sustainability and other elements of UNESCO’s World
Heritage Mission. As such, the management plan required for each
WHS involves a ‘buffer zone’ around the WHS itself, to mitigate some
of the interactions with surrounding areas. Initially, the definition of the
buffer zone in the map of the LMMC Management Plan (Liverpool
City Council, 2005) looks fairly obvious; however, one quickly begins
to ask how easy it will be to manage the heritage of LMMC when:
• only one half of the River Mersey actually falls within the buffer
zone
• a significant part of that buffer zone overlaps with other significant
initiatives, such as the £750 million PSDA regeneration scheme
(Grosvenor, 2005).
Although Liverpool’s maritime heritage is unquestioned, the
definition of LMMC initiatives should not succeed at the expense of
smothering other aspects of the city’s rich heritages; after all, this is
the city that gave the world the radio, goal-nets, prefabricated con-
crete buildings, purpose-built department stores, dual-carriageways,
district nurses, scheduled steam-powered railways, and a host of
other innovations.
To show how Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2 can be combined to help
thread through these difficult issues, one can look at the issues
involved in addressing the heritage of Liverpool’s ‘Chinatown’. Since
shipping companies like the ‘Blue Funnel line’ were seen as instru-
mental in the city becoming the site of Britain’s first ‘Chinatown’, the
link with the LMMC is clear. However, while the imposing arch and
street furniture (the ‘stuff’) of the modern ‘Chinatown’ area provide
an easily accessible guide for the average tourist, those with a more
intimate understanding of the heritage would know that the original
site is actually located a few streets away.
Just as decisions on how to define appropriately the ‘Chinatown’
aspect of LMMC will impact on both the concept and the operation
of the LMMC, so will similar management decisions on comparable
aspects of other WHS.
It is at this stage that one ‘opens’ and ‘closes’ critical doors to later
success and so it is vital that one considers the full life cycle. The real-
ities (Towner, 1996: 68) of the much-quoted ‘Tourism Area Life cycle’
need to be understood if the production of a flawed Definition phase

76
 Destination management: a holistic approach. Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City

is not to lock a WHS into an unsuitable future. Voase (1995: 40) helps
to explain why it is that initially hated characteristics can often end
up being the most loved and, so, receive an unwarranted amount of
interpretation.

Production

In addition to the issues of conservation and redevelopment, this

phase will also encompass the effective integration of the diverse
range of stakeholders upon which the success of any WHS depends.
Further, it is here that the difficult process of developing appropriate
means of making the WHS more ‘legible’ to visitors, without impos-
ing bias on the competing interpretations of its heritage, takes place.
For most WHS, compromise and re-interpretation will be inevitable
during the later operational phases of each layer and so the expertise
with which the concept of each layer is defined and made tangible is
likely to be critical to its success. This is why the multi-layered
approach in Figure 5.2 is recommended.
Like many British cities, Liverpool was boldly redeveloped during
the 1960s (Sharples, 2004: 36–37), a wide-scale production phase of
the city’s fabric that swept away much of its historical space-plan and
altered the city’s natural rhythms. Ironically, as the LMMC was being
confirmed, many of the city’s Victorian terraced houses were again
threatened with demolition, this time under the government’s
‘Pathfinder’ housing regeneration scheme. The public debate that fol-
lowed echoed many of the themes already explored, namely whether
the heartland of an area can be found in its people, its space-plan, in
its texture (the ‘skin’), or in a combination of these. It also brought
into focus the competing beliefs of those who argue that community
spirit is embedded in the fabric of structures and those that believe
that rebuilding with the community in mind is the best way forward.
Success for Liverpool lies in whether heritage can make its voice
heard and find champions among the key stakeholders in the critical
decisions. Figure 5.2 should ease the challenge of integrating the
design and management principles laid out by the city for its ‘public
realm’ (Liverpool Vision, 2004: 3) with the similar objectives of the
WHS and in managing the differing life cycles of each layer.
The evolution of the two cathedrals (Sharples, 2004) that overlook
the WHS are a constant reminder of how much can change between
the start and end of the production phase of a project. The Roman
Catholic cathedral demonstrates that it is possible to change tack
radically during the production phase and to reinterpret a building’s
purpose, while the Anglican cathedral’s fabric contains many official
and unofficial commemorations of key events, such as the loss of the
RMS Titanic, during construction.

77
Managing World Heritage Sites

Among WHS across the world, similar tensions are being felt. Using
the dynamics emerging from Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2 to identify
them correctly as they emerge should help to provide the best oppor-
tunity for being in a position to manage the decision, as opposed
merely to mitigate the impact of the decision. As already discussed,
this chapter can only provide the framework for such an approach
with many of the case studies included in the second half of this book
serving as additional material with which to test the framework.

Operation
It costs more to run a building than it does to build it (Brand, 1994)
and so the simplest of all interventions is to guard against the over-
spending and false-economies that are prevalent with most projects.
If the awareness and understanding of what is required to integrate
a successful WHS into a community has been effectively communi-
cated to key stakeholders during the previous phases then this phase
should be more about focusing and fine-tuning effort rather than rec-
tifying mistakes. The target of the WHS management team should be
to facilitate the interplay of the different layers seen in Figure 5.2, so
as to strike an optimum balance between effective visitor interpret-
ations and resident satisfaction.
Since each stage of each layer is undertaken by a set of stakehold-
ers, the WHS management team can use Figure 5.2 to identify where
the dynamics of the destination are already flowing freely, where
they can be unblocked and where an intervention might stimulate a
beneficial outcome. Jacobs (1961: 431) argues that:
The invention required is not a device for coordination at the gener-
alized top, but rather an invention to make coordination possible
where the need is most acute – in specific and unique localities.

Jacobs (1961: 161), also, reminds us that merely putting large num-
bers of people together does not make them residents:
At the other extreme, huge city settlements of people exist without
their presence generating anything much except stagnation and,
ultimately, a fatal discontent with the place.

Jacobs (1961: 156) recognizes that well-balanced destinations become

home to the clusters of activities that provide the right environments
for innovation and sustained development; thus ensuring the best
possible chance for the operational phase to be a suitably lengthy
one and one that is in line with UNESCO’s World Heritage Mission.
Freeman (1990: 260–261) notes that:
Evidence also suggests that external firms erected buildings of
greater height than local firms … External firms have further disrupted

78
 Destination management: a holistic approach. Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City

the traditional townscape by their use of external cladding materials

out of harmony with those already existing … These observations
suggest that non-local firms are less imbued with a ‘sense of place’
than local firms, many of which are of small size, often family-run
and with a long period of association with a particular town.

This supports the comment, made earlier, that WHS are likely to
have more success if critical stakeholders are made to feel more like
‘residents’ than ‘visitors’. The tendency for many buildings within
the LMMC area to be built to an international scale was a key reason
for the LMMC being designated in the first place, but the sustained
development of this area is still likely to reflect the tensions explored
above. Those managing the LMMC need to balance medium-scale
refurbishment projects that are sympathetic with Liverpool’s current
fabric with the more radical and innovative developments that
(although at odds with the current cityscape) reflect the city’s bold
heritage.
Jacobs (1961: 271) recognized some time ago that ‘single-use areas’
are not attractive to outsiders (‘visitors’) and that the borders of such
areas have the weakest appeal to the ‘residents’ within them. So the
management of the LMMC should seek to avoid it becoming a heritage
ghetto and to focus on managing the tensions between the full range of
resident and visitor expectations that Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2 have
highlighted.

Divestment/legacy

Although previous phases have been shown to govern the effective

management of a destination, this phase is likely to be the most con-
troversial for a WHS. If, having guided the area’s heritage through
the myriad competing tensions of previous phases, the legacy passed
on to future generations is seen as irrelevant or ‘false’ in any way, then
the WHS is likely to be judged a failure. Since the sustained evolution
of any WHS, inevitably, results in aspects of it becoming redundant
for their original purposes, the debate over what components it is
critical to retain and what might be sacrificed is always likely to be a
heated one.
The destruction in 1980 of the initially derided, but later much-
admired, Firestone Factory in London is viewed as a milestone in
raising the profile of conserving 20th century industrial archaeology.
However, since the factory’s architect was on record as saying that
his factories should be demolished when their usefulness is outlived
(Jones and Woodward, 1992: 379), one wonders whether he would
view the survival of his Hoover Factory façade as the wrapping
around a Tesco supermarket with much pride. Like many WHS, the

79
Managing World Heritage Sites

LMMC needs to find appropriate ways to conserve the nuances of a

building’s heritage along with the fabric that encases it.
Liverpool’s Pier Head and its famous trio of buildings, the ‘Three
Graces’, help to illustrate some of the complexities facing the LMMC.
Once at the bustling heart of passenger services crossing the Atlantic
and the ferry services crossing the River Mersey, with the ground-
breaking railway and road tunnels running beneath, it is now more
likely to be seen as a windswept space braved mainly by those tak-
ing the ‘heritage cruise’ that sustains the world famous ferries.
Exciting plans envision a nearby cruise terminal that could revive
Liverpool’s cruise liner heritage and a riverside canal, though a
metro system linking it all with the city centre failed to find funding.
The challenge is deciding whether the priority should go to pre-
serving the site’s maritime heritage or ensuring its continued mer-
cantile use and whether priority in the ‘space-plan’ should go to the
planned uses or to retaining the poignancy of the avenue of trees that
commemorate the Canadian sailors and airmen who gave their lives
protecting the vital World War II convoys. Working as a team that
sees the issues holistically is much more likely to deliver a solution
that enables the full range of visitors to the WHS to coexist alongside
the full range of residents within a vibrant maritime city.

Conclusions

This chapter set out to demonstrate that while the lessons learned in
other chapters will enhance the management of WHS, the approaches
recommended will work best when supported by a robust and well
thought through framework that furthers understanding of the dynam-
ics of a destination. Jacobs (1961: 155) argued that:
It is too easy to fall into the trap of contemplating a city’s uses one at
a time, by categories … To understand cities, we have to deal out-
right with combinations of mixtures of uses, not separate uses, as
the essential phenomena …

going on to argue (Jacobs, 1961: 422) that,

For this kind of planning, it is not enough for administrators in most
fields to understand specific services and techniques. They must
understand, and understand thoroughly, specific places.

Reflecting on the level of Intimacy that both the management and

the visitors might have with a site can lead to one asking searching
questions as to what might reflect the ‘true’ heritage. Many books
note the influential Oriel Chambers building in Liverpool and that
severe criticism of it curtailed the career of its architect. Few though
mention a statue depicting a gorilla applying make-up that was added
as a humorous riposte to the criticism that ‘Art is to architecture, like

80
 Destination management: a holistic approach. Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City

lipstick is to a gorilla’. The debate as to which is the more accurate

reflection of Liverpool’s heritage is a rich one.
The framework in Figure 5.2 should be seen as a first step in
deepening the level of understanding needed to enable a better
insight into what constitutes the heartland characteristics that WHS
seek to protect. Recognizing the full range of visitor experiences,
illustrated by Figure 5.1, will help to keep vibrant those heartland
characteristics, the ones that inscription sought to protect in the first
place.

References

Brand, S. (1994) How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built.
London: Viking.
Choi, C. (2002) Saving the sounds of our distant past. New Scientist,
December 7, p. 7.
Dicks, B. (2003) Culture on Display, the Production of Contemporary
Visitability. Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill.
Freeman (1990) Commencing building development: the agents of
change. In Slater, T. (ed) The Built Form of Western Cities. Leicester:
Leicester University Press.
Grosvenor (2005) Liverpool Paradise Street Development Area. Grosvenor
Group http://www.liverpoolpsda.co.uk (accessed 4 April 2005).
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. London:
Penguin.
Jones, E. and Woodward, C. (1992) A Guide to the Architecture of London.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Liverpool City Council (2002) Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City:
Nomination of Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City for Inscription on the
World Heritage List. Liverpool: Liverpool City Council/DCMS.
http://www.liverpoolworldheritage.com/nomination.asp (accessed
4 April 2005).
Liverpool City Council (2005) Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City
Management Plan. Liverpool: Liverpool City Council. http://
www.liverpoolworldheritage.com/management.asp (accessed 4
April 2005).
Liverpool Vision (2004) Liverpool City Centre: Public Realm Implemen-
tation Framework. Liverpool: Liverpool Vision. http://www.liver-
poolvision.co.uk/documents/corearea.pdf (accessed 4 April 2005).
McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. (2003) Testing a cultural tourism
typology. International Journal of Tourism Research, 5 (1), 45–58.
Parry, B. (2004) Facilities planning. In MacMahon-Beattie, U. and
Yeoman, I. (eds) Sport & Leisure Operations Management. London:
Thomson Learning.

81
Managing World Heritage Sites

Parry, B. and Norman, P. (1996) Facility performance in the European

hospitality industry. Euro FM Conference, Barcelona.
Sharples, J. (2004) Pevsner Architectural Guides: Liverpool. London:
Yale University Press.
Towner, J. (1996) An Historical Geography of Recreation and Tourism in
the Western World 1540–1940. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Trauer, B. and Ryan, C. (2005) Destination image, romance and place
experience: An application of intimacy theory in tourism. Tourism
Management, 26, 481–491.
UNESCO (2005) UNESCO World Heritage Mission. http://
whc.unesco. org/en/home (accessed 5 August 2005).
Voase, R. (1995) Tourism: The Human Perspective. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.

82
 C H A P T E R
6
Visitor management at
World Heritage Sites
Myra Shackley
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to consider:

• Contemporary visitor management issues at World Heritage
Sites (WHS)
• The ways in which WHS have responded to growing visitor
numbers
• Methods being utilized to increase visitor security
• Issues surrounding cultural sensitivity at WHS.

Introduction

Increased interest in, and awareness of, WHS has led inevitably to an
overall increase in visitor numbers, although this is not evenly spread
throughout the world. However, easier access, the growth of low-
cost airlines (not only in Europe but also in Australia and Asia), more
diverse use of discretionary time, increased consumer confidence in
making travel bookings and the extensive publicity given to WHS
have all contributed to this phenomenon. Even political or security
crises only pose temporary interruptions to this upward trend, as
discussed elsewhere in this chapter, where the effect of temporary clos-
ure of Uluru (Ayers Rock) actually produced more publicity (and
more visitors) for the site. All WHS confronted by a growth in visitor
numbers also face the same set of problems and issues, centred,
inevitably, upon the dual need to balance conservation with generating
revenue from visitors, either directly or indirectly (ICOMOS, 1993).
Most WHS now attract increasingly mature and experienced con-
sumers of heritage tourism products whose requirements for facil-
ities and interpretation have become steadily more sophisticated.
Moreover, visitors accustomed to the highly professional levels of
site interpretation often offered in the developed world are increas-
ingly expecting similar standards to be available universally. This is
sometimes difficult for WHS site managers in the developing world
who may have restricted access to finance and expertise. In addition
to these general issues, over the last decade two other factors have
become significant in visitor management, namely crime and secur-
ity and cultural sensitivity. The reasons behind this are not hard to
seek. Uncertainty created by ongoing acts of global terrorism has
meant that many visitors have become increasingly concerned about
their personal security at major visitor attractions and site managers
are concerned about possible threats to the site. Arguments over
the ‘ownership’ of world heritage and the increasing diversity of the
travelling public have meant that more attention is being paid to the

84
 Visitor management at World Heritage Sites

cultural sensitivities surrounding WHS interpretation. The same

factors, combined with an increasingly high media profile for WHS,
have resulted in increased visitor numbers.
This chapter aims to illustrate these points by introducing several
specific WHS where these problems appear, and offering some com-
ments and conclusions. It is widely recognized that most World
Heritage Sites are major cultural tourism attractions and several are
icons of national identity. Although it is assumed that the ‘average’
visitor to World Heritage Sites is motivated either by an interest in
cultural heritage or by a love of the natural world, this is not neces-
sarily the case. Visitors to WHS can also be motivated by adventure
(see Uluru, below), or simply by the desire to use the site as a back-
drop for some social function (see Mogdao, below), a phenomenon
long recognized at Asian sites such as the Taj Mahal, but increasingly
seen at Chinese sites including giant panda reserves (Urry, 1990).
This diversity of visitor motivation makes it quite difficult to gener-
alize about visitor management trends in a worldwide context, espe-
cially as sites vary so widely in the standard of visitor facilities that
they are able to offer to the public.

Contemporary visitor management issues at WHS

Maintaining the ‘Spirit of Place’

The UK’s network of World Heritage Sites illustrates many of the

issues mentioned above. Of the 26 UK sites, some on the WH List
have very low levels of visitation (such as Gough and inaccessible
islands in the South Atlantic or St Kilda, a protected island bird sanc-
tuary in the Outer Hebrides). However, others are the lynchpins of
the UK’s cultural tourism industry such as Westminster Abbey,
Canterbury Cathedral and the cities of Bath and Edinburgh whose
visitors probably do not realize that they are in a World Heritage Site
(Borg et al., 1996). Some recent additions to the WH List such as the
Dorset and East Devon Coast (2001) have not seen significant
increases in visitor pressure since designation and have lower levels
of visitation than the urban sites, although they do not escape the
need to deal with adverse visitor impacts. However, WHS status has
undoubtedly led to increased interest in the environmental signifi-
cance of these sites. Of all the UK locations, the most controversial
cultural site is undoubtedly the oldest, namely Stonehenge, one of the
country’s most important prehistoric monuments but famously
described by a UK government committee as a ‘national disgrace’.
Although located in the middle of Salisbury Plain, the monument is
surrounded by roads, creating traffic problems, and its visitor facil-
ities are inadequate for today’s needs. Over the last 20 years various

85
Managing World Heritage Sites

plans have been produced to improve the quality of the visitor experi-
ence, the latest being ‘The Stonehenge Project’ which supposedly
would remove the traffic noise and enable the visitor to appreciate the
site in its archaeological context (see Chapters 3 and 12 for further
insights into the contemporary management of Stonehenge in the UK).
The solutions proposed for Stonehenge are not unique, most have
been tried elsewhere – the Valley of the Kings in Egypt (Sinai) uses a
non-polluting land train, for example, and St Katherine’s Protectorate
has established a new visitor centre to focus the visitor on the entire
cultural landscape rather than just on the site. However, if one day it
is successfully implemented, the Stonehenge Project will undeniably
provide a spectacular new set of visitor facilities for Stonehenge and
enable visitors to see the monument within its proper context, appre-
ciating the full extent of the cultural landscape in which it is con-
textualized. The experience quality will be maximized, but is the
massive cost justifiable? Getting the balance right between providing
a quality experience for the visitor and ensuring the long-term sus-
tainability of the site is a very delicate matter and mistakes can often
be made. It is not always easy to reconcile the needs and wants of the
various WHS stakeholders.
An interesting example of this can be seen at quite another type of
site, the grove of giant cedar trees (Cedrus libani) in the Quadisha
valley in North Lebanon (Shackley, 2004b). Lebanon receives about
750 000 visitors/year, attracted by a diverse tourism portfolio includ-
ing WHS such as Baalbeck and Tyre (Berraine, 1997). The most sig-
nificant survivors of Lebanon’s once magnificent cedar forests are
the ‘Forest of the Cedars of God (Horsh Arz al-Ra)’ in a managed grove
near the mountain village of Becharre, at the head of Ouadi Quadisha
(the Holy Valley). Valley and cedars were inscribed on the WH list in
1998, under criteria C (iii)(iv). The grove includes about 375 cedars of
great age with four trees more than 1500 years old and 35 m high, and
receives around 200 000 visitors/year, about 20 per cent of the total
visitors to Lebanon. The cedars survive in a walled grove located
anomalously in the middle of a bleak over-grazed landscape near a
ski resort, and are managed not as a small living forest but as a tree
museum. Visitors access the grove via a smart new entry/exit post,
with the site being policed by members of the Committee of Friends
of the Cedars who ask for a voluntary donation on entry (replacing a
former admissions charge). The visitor experience is highly con-
trolled. In order to protect the cedars visitors must walk only on the
3 km of surfaced paths, which have been laid through the 102 hectare
enclosure and delineated by posts and hemp ropes, and which are
highly unsuitable for the disabled or for small children. The general
impression given is that both cedars and visitors are fiercely regi-
mented. The grove is afflicted by loud Middle Eastern pop music
from the nearby complex of souvenir shops and cafés.

86
 Visitor management at World Heritage Sites

The resulting experience does not give the visitor any taste of what
it was like in the original forest. Shackley (2004b: 422) concluded that
‘the grove has preserved the trees, but without the spirit of place’
and contrasted the grove with the Chouf cedar reserve in southern
Lebanon. This reserve, which is not a WHS, receives only 30 visi-
tors/day who are allowed to wander through the quiet, spectacular
misty forests just with a naturalist guide. But the WHS at Becharre has
turned an ecological attraction into a sanitized tree museum, mostly
for the protection of the trees, but also to regiment and commercialize
the experience. Visitors can see the trees but not experience them, which
is unusual in a cultural landscape, although distressingly common
where buildings have been over-reconstructed so that architec-
ture has survived in a lifeless, sterile environment. The unhappy
post-Soviet reconstructions of Silk Road cities of Bukhara and
Samarkhand are excellent examples here (Shackley, 1998). However,
there is actually no evidence that the majority of visitors to Becharre
are disappointed. Expectations are poorly formed and differ between
incoming international tourists and local people. The initial WHS
management plan recommended that attention be paid not just to
the conservation needs of the indigenous flora and fauna but also to
displaying the trees in as natural a manner as possible. Supporters of
the present plan have clearly conserved the trees but provided little
interpretation and a poor quality experience – with the Chouf reserve
(not a WHS) demonstrating how it could be done better.
Visitor numbers to Lebanon are increasing steadily as confidence
builds in the stability of the country, but its WH Sites are certainly in
no danger of being swamped by huge numbers. However, this is not
true elsewhere and real anxieties exist over visitor management issues
at some sites under pressure. This can also be exacerbated by gov-
ernment policies promoting access to such sites, and by technologies
through which visitor information is widely disseminated. The Mogao
Caves in China, one of the most splendid of hundreds of Buddhist
sites that studded the Silk Road linking China and the West, are an
excellent example here. Over the course of 1000 years, from AD 336,
more than 700 caves were carved into a mile-long sandstone cliff and
most are covered with magnificent paintings. Although sporadically
visited over the centuries by pilgrims, it is only now that mass tourism
has reached the site, which comes under intolerable pressure, partic-
ularly in the Chinese ‘golden week’ holidays of May and October
when as many as 5000 Chinese tourists crowd into the caves, causing
an increase in humidity levels with the leaching of salts through lay-
ers of plaster, damaging the painted surfaces. When the proposed
desert railway from Liuyuan to Dunhuang is completed this prob-
lem will escalate – just as the deterioration of the Potala Palace in
Lhasa, Tibet will be affected when the Qinghai-Tibet railway to Lhasa
is completed in 2007. It is Chinese government policy actively to

87
Managing World Heritage Sites

promote tourism to marginal areas, including the desert sites of the Silk
Road. Factories in the booming coastal belts are encouraged to send
their workers there on holiday trips and, in June 2004, China
announced plans to intensify desert area tourism, ostensibly to raise
funds for combating desertification. This is likely to damage perma-
nently the Silk Road sites. Although there is an attempt by a local con-
servation organization to control tourist numbers and monitor the
impact, this seems doomed because it is partially financed by revenue
from ticket sales. China wants to be the world’s number one tourist
destination and of the 812 sites on the WH List China has 30, just
behind Italy and Spain, but Beijing is reputed to want 100 more.
Tourist revenue can increase up to 25-fold after World Heritage listing,
as it did in the walled city of Pingyao in Shanxi province, with income
now reaching $2 billion per year, of which foreigners contribute only
$42 million, the rest resulting from a huge growth in poorly-controlled
domestic tourism (Righter, 2004). It is far from uncommon to see major
buildings that had been destroyed being rebuilt when it was realized
that they could attract more visitors. This is exactly what is happening in
part of the old town of Lhasa in Tibet at present, with cosmetic facings
being applied to buildings in the central historic area to create a more
authentically Tibetan appearance (Tibet Information Network, 2004).
The difficult balance between needing to earn revenue from sites
by increasing visitation, which may potentially damage the site, is
managed differently elsewhere. Twenty years ago the Indian Supreme
Court banned night-time visits to the Taj Mahal, which had been
popular with tourists wishing to see the sight by moonlight. This ban
has now been lifted, ostensibly as part of the celebration of the 350th
anniversary of the monument, with a three-month trial which took
place between December 2004 and February 2005 for five nights
around each full moon. Cynics might say that the relaxation of the
rules was less to celebrate a birthday but more to compensate for the
fact that Agra hotel occupancy has been down since the Taj Mahal
was closed at night in 1984, as a result of worries over internal polit-
ical security and external issues. Without the inducement to stay
overnight many tourists now visit Agra (250 km from Delhi) only for
the day, reducing visitor revenue and having a serious impact on
employment. The new opening policy will partially redress this
balance, but the cost on the fabric of the Taj Mahal may be high.

Crime and security

The events of the past few years, including 9/11 and subsequent
terrorist activities, have increased levels of security virtually every-
where. WHS, by virtue of their cultural uniqueness and high level of
awareness are vulnerabe to terrorist attacks and those that are national

88
 Visitor management at World Heritage Sites

icons particularly so. During the aftermath of 9/11 the Taj Mahal (dis-
cussed above) was felt to be a potential target for extremist attacks,
and many large and spectacular sites, which would normally wel-
come thousands of visitors in the course of a day, experienced a drop
in visitor numbers as they are places where visitors feel vulnerable,
despite high levels of security. This effect has even been felt in the
churches and cathedrals of London. Nor is terrorism the only kind of
crime to which WHS are vulnerable, and the last decade has showed
increasingly high levels of looting, especially at locations whose
remoteness means that they are difficult to police. For example, in
December 2004 it was reported that five German tourists had gone
missing in the Sahara Desert in southern Algeria, which caused con-
cern since this was an area where 32 European tourists were held
captive for several months by Army rebels in 2003. However, in this
case the tourists were found safely but it transpired that they had
stolen 130 artefacts from the Tassili n’Ajjer National Park, famous for
its prehistoric cave art. In December 2004 they were tried, found
guilty, jailed for three months and fined £262 000. Nor is this an isol-
ated example. For nearly 400 years, Robben Island, 12 km from Cape
Town, was a place of banishment, exile, isolation and imprisonment.
It was here that rulers sent those they regarded as political trouble-
makers, social outcasts and the unwanted of society. During the
apartheid years, Robben Island became internationally known for its
institutional brutality. The duty of those who ran the Island and its
prison was to isolate opponents of apartheid and to crush their morale.
Robben Island came to symbolize, not only for South Africa and the
African continent, but also for the entire world, the triumph of the
human spirit over enormous hardship and adversity, most notably
personified in Nelson Mandela who was imprisoned there for 27
years. Mandela’s prison was turned into a museum and national
monument in 1997, and is also a WHS. However, Cape Town author-
ities are considering posting police there to crack down on crime that
threatens to deter tourists from visiting the former prison as reports of
rape, vandalism and drug-related crimes threatened to ruin its tourist
trade (Shackley, 2001b). There have also been concerns that tourists
themselves are vandalizing the island by illegally taking away memen-
tos. Nor is the issue of illegal taking of souvenirs restricted to Robben
Island; there are examples of this from Hawaii, where tourists
remove rocks from the volcanoes of Mauna Loa and Kilauea, and
from the Taj Mahal, where visitors (and guards) remove fragments of
inlay for sale. However, incidents of theft and vandalism by visitors to
World Heritage Sites still remain (fortunately) extremely rare, although
professional theft is far more common, such as the removal of Khmer
statues from the temples at Angkor in Cambodia, but is usually car-
ried out by professional gangs. Looting at the former Khmer capital
had been a problem since the 1980s. The Cambodian government

89
Managing World Heritage Sites

sought the help of UNESCO, which placed Angkor on its List of

World Heritage in Danger in 1992. The listing caught tourist attention,
and the money they brought in has allowed the Angkor protection
group to hire local guards to prevent looting, a policy which has been
so successful that the site has been removed from the endangered list.
In some cases, the need to ensure visitor safety and protect the
monument has resulted in a diminution of experience quality, and
this has been claimed by visitors to the Statue of Liberty in New York,
which re-opened on 3 August 2004, nearly three years after the
effects of 11 September 2001. It was that noticeable that after re-
opening there was a marked change both in the interpretation of the
monument and in the level of security for visitors. The decision had
been taken to divide tourists into smaller groups and to close off the
body of the Statue to visitors so that it is no longer possible to go up
the winding 21-storey staircase. Visitors are now only able to view
inside the Statue through a glass ceiling, guided by a park ranger
and with an enhanced lighting and new video system. However,
they can once again walk out onto the Statue’s observation deck to
see the panoramic views of New York City and the Harbour.
Previously, visitors had been able to climb from the toe of the Statue
to the crown but now they can only stand just below the staircase in
the pedestal, and stare up at the interior structure.
According to members of the National Parks Service, the decision
to close off the body of the Statue had to do with the heat, which can
apparently reach 40.5°C (105°F) in summer, but other sources sug-
gest that the Parks Service determined that it would be impossible to
protect the winding staircases and relatively narrow interior of the
Statue adequately from terrorist attack. New staff training programmes
have been devised including ‘Behavior Pattern Recognition™’ which
focuses on the observation of people and suspicious behaviour, includ-
ing spotting what visitors are wearing, bags they are carrying and
any mannerisms that seem suspicious. Other innovations within
the Statue include additional emergency lighting and exits, upgraded
and expanded fire detection and suppression systems and a series of
compartmentalized spaces, expanded smoke detection and speaker
systems on and around the Island, additional communication systems
to alert visitors with safety messages, and new and upgraded eleva-
tors, ramps and evacuation routes. But is this technology gone mad?
National Parks Service employees have been trying to put a positive
spin on the changes claiming that, in the past, it had been a very long
climb just to see out of three small windows and that today’s experi-
ence is more educational, more exciting and queue free. Tourists are
not all happy with this – some feeling that the Statue stands for free-
dom and it should therefore be able to be freely visited. Some claim
that security procedures can take two hours involving two security
checkpoints and an ‘air puffer’ for possible biological contaminants,

90
 Visitor management at World Heritage Sites

which seems a little excessive. Others complained about the confis-

cation of unopened water bottles, although this is a common precau-
tion elsewhere, including Vatican City. Even with timed tickets the visit
now requires visitors to arrive two hours in advance to get through
the security screenings, the ferry and the queues for the tour. A visitor
also wanting to see nearby Ellis Island must now allocate an entire
day. Other visitors see the increased presence of Park Rangers as a
plus, with visitors assigned timed tours, each led by a Park Ranger
in groups of 15 to 20 booked either in advance, over the Internet, or
when they buy ferry tickets and are given an assigned time to show
up and begin. But undeniably the visitor experience now includes
the very antithesis of that freedom for which the Statue stands.

Cultural sensitivity

In the case of Robben Island (above), it might have reasonably been

assumed that visitors to a site, which has now become virtually a secu-
lar pilgrimage destination because of its connections with Nelson
Mandela, would treat the site with great respect. However, there are
many examples of sites where visitors demonstrate unexpectedly
high levels of cultural insensitivity, of which an excellent example is
the great monolith of Uluru (Ayers Rock), which lies at the heart of
the WHS landscape in central Australia and is sacred to the Anangu
aboriginal people who have lived there for 30 000 years. It receives
more than 350 000 visitors per year and is probably the most familiar
visual landscape element in Australia. Visiting Uluru is a unique
opportunity to encounter aboriginal art, mythology and culture and
visitors consume its landscape in a variety of different ways, from
guided walks to helicopter flights, some of which may be inappro-
priate for a sacred site. The most contentious of these is climbing
the monolith itself, a procedure discouraged but not forbidden by its
Anangu custodians. Temporary closure of the climb in 2001, as the
result of the death of a tribal elder, resulted in increased awareness of
the sacredness of the Uluru landscape, a process already started by
Anangu-led tours. The Anangu would like visitors to appreciate Uluru
as a node in a sacred landscape rather than just a monolith to be
climbed, although many tourists visit the site solely to climb the rock.
For the Anangu, Uluru is the focus of several ‘dreaming tracks’ and
ceremonial exchange routes; climbing it is seen as impious and spir-
itually dangerous. Both Uluru and Kata Tjuta are full of sacred sites,
some accessible only to particular social groups. For the Anangu, it is
both unsafe and forbidden for men to look at women’s sites and vice
versa. Some sites, such as the Kantju waterhole at Uluru, require special
behaviour, where visitors are asked to approach quietly and remain
respectful. Photography of such sites of special spiritual significance

91
Managing World Heritage Sites

is forbidden, with clear notices to inform visitors. Parks Australia

has produced a new management plan for Uluru which confirms
that crowding is considered by them to be a significant problem
within the park. Visitors’ safety and the provision of visitor facilities
also figure highly. Twenty-seven people have died on Uluru since
1965 and there have been many accidents despite restrictions on the
climb when the temperature exceeds 35°C or when the rock is windy
or slippery.

Conclusions
As discussed above, this case study of Uluru encapsulates the three
main elements of contemporary visitor management already identi-
fied. Uluru has issues of visitor safety and security, it has problems
with managing the large numbers of visitors to the site and in main-
taining and interpreting its sacredness to visitors. Uluru is a land-
scape icon for Australia and of huge cultural significance, not just as an
archaeological site and visitor attraction. The identification of crowd-
ing as a major problem has become common. The issue of site degrad-
ation at Mogao, as a result of visitor pressure, has already been referred
to. Strategies to manage large numbers of visitors are only successful
where they can be adequately policed – for example the booking sys-
tem for the tomb of Nefertari in the Valley of the Kings, and crowd-
ing impacts on both visitor experience and visitor safety.
As the writer has discussed before (Shackley, 1998, 2001a) crowd-
ing is often made worse by the way in which tours are organized and
this can also vary with the kind of activities that visitors to the sites
partake in. At Uluru, for example, crowding is made worse by coach
company itineraries taking visitors to the same places at the same
times of day, with around 40 per cent of Uluru’s visitors coming on
such organized tours which are very tightly scheduled. But it is often
difficult to regulate visitor flows at WHS and, indeed, there may be
pressure to increase visitor flows for political reasons, as can be seen
from the Chinese example (above). WHS stakeholders want different
things, as was seen at Stonehenge, and such visitor management issues
may take years, and sometimes decades, to resolve. Just as at Uluru,
where visitor infrastructure is to be relocated away from culturally
sensitive places including the development of new visitor notes near
the climb and new walks diverting visitors from culturally sensitive
locations (Parks Australia, 2000), the new centre at Stonehenge would
enable visitors to appreciate the site in its landscape setting, to con-
sume it appropriately and to reflect on its meaning. This, after all,
must be the ultimate aim of managing visitors at WHS which provide
unique opportunities for displaying the very best of our global heri-
tage. Inevitably, in a world where cultural tourism is becoming more

92
 Visitor management at World Heritage Sites

popular and its participants better informed, issues of visitor pressure,

security and safety are going to remain significant, but it can be seen
from the above examples that it is perfectly possible to deal with
these at a local level and arrive at acceptable solutions. The issue of
balancing conservation and visitor pressure will always be con-
tentious for WHS managers but there is room for optimism that new
vision and new technologies will result in continued improvements
over the next decade, just as greater levels of awareness have raised
their profile over the last.

References

Berraine, M. (1997) Tourisme, culture et developpement dans la Region

Arabe. Rabat: UNESCO.
Borg, J. van der, Costa, P. and Gotti, G. (1996) Tourism in European
heritage cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 306–321.
ICOMOS (1993) Tourism and World Heritage Cultural Sites: The Site
Manager’s Handbook. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.
Parks Australia (2000) Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Visitor
Infrastructure Master Plan. Canberra: Parks Australia.
Righter, R. (2004) The greatest show on earth. Time Magazine, 4
December, pp. 45–48.
Shackley, M. (1998) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World
Heritage Sites. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Shackley, M. (2001a) Managing Sacred Sites: Service Provision and
Visitor Experience. London: Continuum Press.
Shackley, M. (2001b) Potential futures for Robben Island; shrine,
museum or theme park? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7
(4), 355–365.
Shackley, M. (2004a) Tourist consumption of sacred landscapes:
space, time and vision. Tourism Recreation Research, 29 (1), 67–75.
Shackley, M. (2004b) Managing the Cedars of Lebanon. Current Issues
in Tourism, 7 (4–5), 417–426.
Tibet Information Network (2004) Central Lhasa Gets Facelift
with ‘Tibetan Characteristics’. http://www.tew.org/development/
lhasa.facelift.html (accessed 13 March 2005).
Urry, J (1990) The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage.
Whittaker, E. (1999) Indigenous tourism; reclaiming knowledge, cul-
ture and intellectual property in Australia. In Robinson, M. and
Boniface, P. (eds) Tourism and Cultural Conflicts. Wallingford: CABI
Publishing.

93
This page intentionally left blank
 PA RT
3
Generating and
managing revenue
Managing World Heritage Sites

Part Three focuses on the operational and practical aspects of provid-

ing financially sustainable heritage properties. The majority of heritage
sites suffer from a basic lack of funding, resources and expertise,
though part of the purpose of the World Heritage Convention is to
encourage international cooperation and exchange of knowledge,
expertise and funds. Recognition of the conflict between conserva-
tion and tourism activities is required, in conjunction with recogni-
tion of the necessity of generating revenue to ensure resource
sustainability and meet visitor expectations. The heritage sector is
undergoing a significant period of change in terms of central gov-
ernment support, so appreciation of the option to involve the private
sector in the future management of public-owned sites and the asso-
ciated issues would be appropriate.
In Chapter 7, Janet Cochrane and Richard Tapper examine part-
nership approaches and other management initiatives which can
maximize potential revenues and conservation benefits from tourism.
They appraise the often conflicting views of WHS managers and the
tourism sector, leading to suggestions of how stronger links between
the two can be forged. Opportunities to build relationships between
tour operators and tourists, plus WHS managers in enhancing the
contribution of tourism to the maintenance of sites, are discussed.
With reference to a range of WHS, including the Bunaken Marine
National Park in Indonesia they demonstrate how this relationship
can be enhanced to the mutual benefit of both parties.
A popular route for generating revenue at heritage sites is hosting
events and festivals. This next chapter, written by Melanie Smith,
Elizabeth Carnegie and Martin Robertson, provides an overview of the
conflicts inherent in organizing temporary events in heritage spaces
such as WHS. This chapter attempts to assess the degree of local com-
munity engagement with festivals and events that often have a wider
national or international remit. The use of Edinburgh Old and New
Towns and Maritime Greenwich WHS as case studies demonstrates
these issues and argues that many of the issues could be addressed
through integration of ideas within the WHS Management Plans.
The final chapter in Part Three offers a concise and accessible explo-
ration into the use of Information Communication Technology appli-
cations (ICT) in WHS settings. The text is well supported visually,
allowing the non-technical reader easily to absorb the huge variety of
opportunities and developments in this field. Dimitrios Buhalis, Ruth
Owen and Daniël Pletinckx examine the concept of ICT, before pre-
senting some current uses of ICTs at WHS such as Olympia in Greece
and the Uffizi in Florence, Italy. These indicate how the advances in
communications technology and increased market forces present sites
with a number of challenges, as well as opportunities, as WHS man-
agers attempt to meet the needs of the resource and the stakeholders.
The chapter ends with consideration of the extent to which ICTs can be
applied to WHS and how the cost of this type of development does not
need to be prohibitive or compromise the resource itself.

96
 C H A P T E R
7
Tourism’s contribution
to World Heritage
Site management
Janet Cochrane and Richard Tapper
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to:

• Show how changes in approaches to the strategic and delivery
mechanisms for socioeconomic development are affecting
tourism management at World Heritage Sites (WHS)
• Examine partnership approaches and other management ini-
tiatives which can maximize potential revenues and conserva-
tion and development benefits from tourism
• Suggest ways that WHS managers can forge stronger links with
the tourism sector
• Outline specific means of generating income from tourism
• Provide case studies which illustrate successful management
approaches.

Introduction

Tourism to WHS and other protected areas is increasing, bringing

with it challenges to the sites from wear-and-tear and the impacts
that large numbers of visitors can have on their ‘spirit of place’. In
turn, this is forcing a search for methods of balancing conservation
with the livelihood needs of local people and the right of tourists to
enjoy such places. WHS and other protected areas can benefit from
tourism in several ways, in that additional funds for conservation
can be generated from tourism, and the profile of the site can be
raised, both of which help to generate greater government support.
Furthermore, where local people experience economic benefits from
these sites, they are also more likely to become aware of the import-
ance of conservation.
Historically, funding for many WHS has often been inadequate,
and most have received their funding from the national or inter-
national public sector. Now, increasing emphasis is being placed on
the role of other groups in civil society in contributing to their man-
agement. One obvious way of encouraging the participation of other
groups is to maximize non-damaging forms of using the sites for rev-
enue generation which, for many places, means tourism. This chapter
will add to the many existing studies on the economic value of tourism
to conservation by suggesting practical ways of ensuring that tourism
provides greater support to WHS. Information from published mate-
rial has been supplemented with primary research carried out among
outbound tour operators based in several countries into actual expe-
riences of links between WHS and tourism companies.

98
 Tourism’s contribution to World Heritage Site management

Support from tourism for conservation and

management of World Heritage Sites
The sometimes uneasy relationship and mutual dependence between
tourism and heritage attractions has been explored in a number
of academic and practical texts, including Prentice (1993), Nuryanti
(1997), Shackley (1998), Robinson et al. (2000), McKercher and
du Cros (2002), Pedersen (2002) and Tapper and Cochrane (2005).
The management of attractions important enough to be listed
as WHS presents particular challenges because of the sites’ inter-
national significance: by their designation, they become part of the
global heritage, and demand resources consistent with this status.
Further challenges are provided by the fact that cultural artefacts
and natural areas designated as WHS require very different man-
agement techniques, although there is an overlap where sites
include elements of both. In many cases, an attraction which is
overtly natural is actually a creation of human endeavour, and
Howard (2003) makes the useful point that nature – or at least
interpretations of it and assessment of its value – is itself a cultural
construct.
The ideal situation is a symbiotic relationship between tourism and
WHS, in which tour operators use them to add value to their prod-
ucts and local service providers earn money from tourists, while the
sites earn higher revenues and achieve a higher profile nationally,
which can encourage government bodies to devote stronger protec-
tion measures to them. However, at the same time, tourism can add
to the costs of managing protected areas, since sites have to invest in,
manage and maintain tourism facilities in order to prevent damage
to sensitive areas, while the presence of visitors can threaten the
integrity of ecosystems, of fragile buildings or other cultural arte-
facts, or the ‘spirit of place’, which is often a hugely significant elem-
ent of the site. Tourism has therefore to be managed with care: it
is essential for site managers to assess and balance the costs and
benefits of visitation, and it is equally important for local people
and communities to benefit from tourism, as this will demonstrate
the economic value of resources which have been protected under a
World Heritage designation and, in some cases, alienated from other
forms of exploitation which might have been of more immediate
benefit to the resident population.
There is a range of goals and means for maximizing the benefits of
tourism to biodiversity and to economic and social development,
and the benefits of biodiversity to tourism, while minimizing nega-
tive social and environmental impacts. These include:

• generating sufficient revenues to reduce threats to biodiversity

from local communities

99
Managing World Heritage Sites

• encouraging all stakeholders, particularly the private sector, to

support the active conservation of biodiversity and the sustain-
able use of its components
• ensuring the effective participation of local communities in the
development, operation and monitoring of tourism activities
• channelling tourism revenues towards conservation, for example
through management of protected areas, education, research pro-
grammes, or local community development
• zoning and control of tourism developments and activities
• diversification of economic activities to reduce dependency on
tourism
• encouraging the role of protected areas as key locations for
good practices in the management of sustainable tourism and
biodiversity.
Some WHS are unsuitable for use as tourist attractions because of
geographical or political factors, which make them inaccessible, or
because of their fragility. In the case of other places, while site-specific
management will vary considerably depending on their type and
location, some common features can be identified. These relate to the
underlying principles which guide the approach to revenue creation
and to the range of methods available to generate this revenue.

Management structures and the partnership approach

Traditionally, government departments have had sole responsibility

for the administration of WHS, with funds for managing them allo-
cated from the national budget or from international bodies. How-
ever, in countries with budgetary constraints, conservation is not
generally prioritized and levels of funding are likely to be low.
Furthermore, some countries have legal restrictions that prevent
government departments from generating their own incomes – for
example, by selling concessions to businesses – or which require rev-
enues raised by government departments to be returned to the national
treasury. Restrictions of this type may inhibit WHS from supplement-
ing their government funding with other sources of income. In conse-
quence, sites managed through government departments are often
under-funded.
Recognition of these limitations has meant that a partnership
approach is increasingly applied in managing WHS. Generally, the
partnership philosophy is assuming a wider influence at a strategic
level because project-based or single-sector initiatives aimed at
addressing economic decline often fail to achieve lasting results; the
approach is relevant to many spheres and is becoming increasingly
common in tourism (WTO, 2003). Even greater opportunities arise

100
 Tourism’s contribution to World Heritage Site management

where the tourism and conservation sectors join forces, with the advan-
tages revolving around economies of scale in human resources and
marketing, greater effectiveness in product development, improved
quality of service, increased community awareness of conservation,
resolution of potential conflicts of interest, and a reduction in over-
lapping initiatives.
Increased focus on partnerships is an example of how the current
rationale of heritage site management is informed by international
trends in governance, one aspect of which is the devolution of
resource management. Local communities are increasingly being
given the opportunity to make decisions over their own resources
and livelihood infrastructure. This reflects the policy shift, both
nationally and internationally, away from a paradigm of manageri-
alism and ‘government’ towards entrepreneurialism and ‘govern-
ance’ (Scott, 2004: 50). Another aspect of this is the greater integration
of private and public sectors. Practical outcomes are the increasing
privatization of service delivery, and the development of cross-
sectoral partnerships between the public and private sector and with
community and voluntary groups. In the UK, for instance, the deliv-
ery of much government policy now depends on Local Strategic
Partnerships, which often unite different government departments
as well as private and community groups.
There are many different types of partnership, ranging from simple
marketing alliances between neighbouring attractions to more com-
plex management arrangements. In 2004, seven historic houses in
Yorkshire, in the UK, created a joint marketing strategy around a
single product theme. Some of the individual properties were in pri-
vate ownership while others were owned by English Heritage or the
National Trust, an important NGO. In some cases there was initial
reluctance to participate in the scheme because of fears that smaller or
less well-known properties would suffer competitive disadvantage.
However, in the event, the results of the scheme were excellent in that
marketing budgets were used more efficiently, while the target mar-
ket proved keen to visit each of the seven properties over the course
of the season in order to follow through each aspect of the theme.
The shifting approach to heritage site management is also evident
in the increasing adoption of parastatals as a form of management
structure. Parastatals are essentially public sector organizations which
incorporate some elements commonly found in private sector organ-
izations. English Heritage, which has responsibility for managing
many of England’s historic monuments – including the WHS of
Stonehenge and Hadrian’s Wall – is an example of this. Parastatals
have much greater flexibility than government departments to set
fees and charges, establish funding mechanisms such as concessions,
implement staffing policies based on efficiency and market salaries,
and respond to customer needs, while their ability to retain the money

101
Managing World Heritage Sites

they earn gives more incentive to generate funds through greater

entrepreneurship. Another example of a parastatal is the KwaZulu-
Natal Nature Conservation Service, in South Africa, which manages
its protected areas under cooperative agreements with landowners.
Again, such arrangements are effectively a partnership between the
public and private sector.
WHS can benefit from the partnership approach through more
sophisticated and cost-effective marketing, acquiring additional
managerial capacity, and ensuring good relations with local commu-
nities. So, while government departments may still maintain overall
responsibility for protected areas and important cultural sites, a vari-
ety of more flexible management structures is being developed. At
the Indonesian WHS of Komodo, for instance, a collaborative man-
agement scheme, initiated in 2002, involves the national park author-
ity, the local government, an international conservation NGO, and a
local tourism company as well as local communities, government
agencies, and private sector organizations. Through the initiative,
the capacity of the park authority to implement conservation manage-
ment, sustainable livelihood activities and conservation awareness
is strengthened, while improved channels for funding conservation
through tourism are being created. A looser partnership has been
formed at the Jurassic Coast WHS in southern Britain, where a steer-
ing group oversees management of the site and includes local council
officers, business representatives, landowners, and the chairs of vari-
ous working groups covering science and conservation, education,
tourism, museums, and local towns, which use their proximity to the
site to capture tourism revenues.

Building links with the tourism sector

In many cases it may not be appropriate for WHS to create a formal

partnership with other agencies, but there are still many advantages
in building a closer cooperation with the tourism industry. WHS
offer tourism companies important possibilities to add value to their
holiday products, since global recognition of the World Heritage
‘brand’ can be an important selling point. Specialist operators may
include visits to sites as an integral part of their itineraries, while
mass tourism companies increasingly offer cultural excursions as
add-on options to their holiday packages. For example, one German
mass tour operator provides excursions from its main destinations to
around 120 different WHS (Tapper and Cochrane, 2005).
While the benefits to the tourism industry of WHS are fairly obvi-
ous, however, the advantages to WHS of tourism are less well appre-
ciated. A study of tourism at the WHS of Luang Prabang, Laos,
examined the relationship between various stakeholders and found

102
 Tourism’s contribution to World Heritage Site management

low levels of communication between the tourism sector and heri-

tage agencies, with the heritage sector more reluctant to engage in
dialogue than the tourism industry, and poor levels of political will
to increase the contribution of tourism to local heritage through a
proposed bed-tax. On the other hand, the tourism industry was pro-
active in encouraging donations from clients which went towards
restoration work (Aas et al., 2005).
The unwillingness of the heritage sector to work with the industry
is symptomatic of the traditional lack of a marketing philosophy
among heritage site managers (Prentice, 1993) and to a dichotomy
between ‘preservers’ and ‘users’: in other words, the suspicion of
people charged with looking after heritage sites towards greater
public access. This has come about partly because the wear and tear
caused by tourism is often only too clear, and partly because the
advantages tourism can bring are under-recognized. These benefits
derive not only from the increased finances, which can be channelled
directly from tourism into conservation, but also from the indirect
benefits of improving acceptance of the site among local populations
through ensuring economic benefits to them.
Even where these benefits are accepted, however, and a site is con-
vinced of the need to encourage tourism, the opportunities may not
be fully exploited because of poor understanding of the complex
structure and operation of the tourism industry. While the basic
requirements considered by tour operators when assessing a new
tour or excursion include the quality of a site’s cultural attraction or
wildlife, its accessibility, the ‘fit’ with the company’s existing prod-
ucts, its marketability, and the standard of food, accommodation and
infrastructure, including reliable local ground handling agents, an
additional factor is that the relationship between the tourism and
conservation sectors has to be long term and on a firm basis of trust.
One reason for this is that tour operators are legally responsible for
the quality of every element of the tour packages they assemble and,
to avoid fear of litigation, have to know that the product matches
what was represented to their clients through the brochure, and that
high standards are maintained by all their suppliers. Also, because of
the cycle of product development and marketing, it can be two years
between the initial idea for a new product and the time clients start
arriving, and this means establishing long-term agreements between
tour operators and sites: for example, tour operators need firm infor-
mation about entry fees at least 12 months in advance, so that these
can be factored into holiday costs that are published in their brochures.
Even in the case of independent travellers, sites must offer a good
quality, consistent experience if they are to maintain or increase market
share.
Having an understanding of the industry will put WHS managers
in a much better position to encourage tour operators to visit. It is

103
Managing World Heritage Sites

also important to have a basic knowledge of the market for the

attraction, so that the most appropriate visitor segments or tour
operators can be targeted and catered for. Once a relationship has
been formed with tourism personnel from local or overseas tour
operators or from the local tourist board, it should be possible to take
advantage of this. For instance, tour company personnel can be
asked to help with specific aspects of enhancing the possibilities for
tourism, such as devising tour circuits, identifying key target mar-
kets, and advising on pricing structures and the appropriate design
of visitor facilities; many tour operators will be interested in doing
this if they see the potential for including the site in future tours.
Naturally, the main purpose of creating closer links with the tourism
sector is not just to promote the site to a wider audience but also to
maximize the financial benefits. There are a number of mechanisms
for doing this.

Maximizing revenues from tourism

The standard way of collecting revenues for WHS and other pro-
tected areas is through entrance fees. However, these rarely cover the
operational costs other than in exceptional cases such as the Galapagos
Islands, where visitor fees make a major contribution to Ecuador’s
national budget. Nevertheless, studies have shown that entry fees
can often be raised without affecting visitor numbers, resulting in an
overall increase in income.
While more and more sites are setting fees according to market
principles based on the quality-price ratio for the service received,
elasticity of demand and willingness to pay, political considerations
also have to be taken into account. For instance, one of the policy
aims may be to allow reasonably-priced access to the domestic popu-
lation, for whom the attraction may be an important recreational
facility. Alternatively, particularly where sites are more remote and
expensive to reach, the policy may be to maximize revenue from
overseas visitors. Differential fees can be a useful mechanism to bal-
ance these issues, for example, by charging nationals lower fees than
those set for international tourists, or by charging reduced fees at
times when resident nationals are most likely to visit, such as at
weekends and on public holidays.
In many cases it is appropriate to generate income through user
fees, either instead of or in addition to entrance fees. This entails get-
ting visitors to WHS to pay, for example, for car parks, campsites,
visitor centres, mountain huts, or canopy walkways, or for activities
such as diving, hiking or mountain climbing. In some cases, these
fees can be generated through commercial operation of businesses
by the managing public authority, but in other cases, the legislative

104
 Tourism’s contribution to World Heritage Site management

structures or human resources to permit this may not exist. This is

one of the reasons why the partnership arrangements outlined earl-
ier can be very successful, in that the public sector can formalize its
links with private companies in order to channel funds into site man-
agement. In some cases, policy may be to allocate concessions in the
form of permits, leases or licences which allow private companies,
individuals, NGOs or community groups to run commercial ope-
rations while generating financial benefits for the site. Activities may
include diving operations, provision of accommodation or catering
facilities, souvenir shops, or the hire and sale of recreational and
sports equipment. WHS can often also generate funds through mer-
chandizing themed items such as clothing, books, or other souvenirs.
A further way in which protected areas can benefit from tourism is
to encourage volunteer help and donations from companies or from
individuals. Several organizations offer holidays where people pay
to work on conservation projects, including helping at archaeologic-
al digs or with habitat management in national parks. An example of
how these ventures can help WHS is a project which sends English-
speaking volunteers to the Museum of the Terracotta Warriors, in
China, where they help with signs in the museum, teach English to
museum staff, and lead guided tours for visitors. More widespread
is the trend for companies to express their corporate social responsi-
bility through donations to charitable causes, often with aims linked
to the company’s holidays. For example, a UK-based tour operator
running safaris to Zambian national parks supports a school in
Zambia, while a walking holiday company funded the rebuilding of
an ancient track to the Benedictine Abbey of Sant’Eutizio in Umbria.
Most tour operators will expect some benefit in return for this type of
action: for instance some may display the logo of the projects they
support in their brochures, while a German tour operator, which
provided funds for training Cambodians in restoration techniques at
Angkor Wat, has special guided tours of the temple for its clients
conducted by project staff.
Barnes and Eagles (2004) note the increasing tendency for com-
panies to encourage philanthropic donations by their clients. Maximiz-
ing the opportunities for individual tourists to make donations to
projects associated with WHS is another important way of ensuring
that tourism supports conservation. An important aspect of promot-
ing donations, and of revenue generation generally, is for sites to ensure
that management of the funds raised is transparent and accountable, so
that tourists and tourism companies, as well as local stakeholders,
can see that funds are being used properly and effectively. A further
way of supporting WHS is for tour operators to select accommoda-
tion and other services that emphasize conservation and community
involvement and implement sustainability policies such as efficient
use of water and energy.

105
Managing World Heritage Sites

An illustration of a successful partnership created around tourism

to an important marine national park in a developing country is
given below.

Case study: Bunaken Marine National Park, Indonesia

Bunaken Marine National Park, in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, was

gazetted in 1991 because of its outstanding biodiversity, including
coral reefs, mangrove forests and seagrass beds, and it has won sev-
eral awards for its achievements in blending the needs of tourism
and conservation. It is currently under consideration as a WHS.
Dive tourism in the area began in the early 1980s, and by the late
1980s there were at least four privately-owned dive centres handling
around 4000 tourists per year. The founder of the first dive centre
won the Indonesian Kalpataru conservation award for his actions in
the mid-1980s, and it was partly due to local tourism entrepreneurs
that the coral reefs were preserved from the destructive fishing
methods which affect many other Indonesian reefs.
After the area’s protected status was declared there were several
management challenges. First, in common with other Indonesian
national parks, Bunaken was managed by the Directorate General of
Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (PHPA), which sits within
the Ministry of Forestry. This was clearly an anomalous situation for
a marine park. Secondly, the local government was reluctant to relin-
quish management of the area to PHPA because of the substantial
returns from tourism. Thirdly, there was resentment from the then
20 000 or so residents of the park because they felt they had not been
consulted over its formation or management, they were anxious about
rumours that they would be moved from their homes, and because
they gained little economic benefit from tourism. Although by 1992 at
least 150 Indonesians were employed by the dive centres as dive
guides and buddies, boat-drivers, maintenance men and hotel staff,
most of these people were not actually residents of the park.
To some extent, local resentment was defused by entrepreneurial
responses to the backpacker market, who began arriving by the early
1990s as the area became more widely known and appealed to wider
markets as well as to divers. There was also considerable domestic
interest in marine tourism by residents of the nearby city of Manado.
Several ‘homestays’ were set up on islands within the marine national
park, with around a dozen small establishments in existence by 1993.
Although none of these had an official licence to operate, they were
allowed to remain by the park authorities in order to allow some eco-
nomic benefits to reach the wider community.
A management plan for the park was prepared under a Natural
Resources Management Project funded by the United States Agency

106
 Tourism’s contribution to World Heritage Site management

for International Development in the early 1990s, and WWF wrote

guidelines for developing sustainable marine tourism at the park. As
part of these initiatives a number of tourism-related activities were
introduced, including the installation of mooring buoys to prevent
dive boats anchoring on the reefs, training courses for dive guides to
improve their awareness of reef conservation issues and their ability
to look after clients safely, and conservation awareness materials
aimed at tourists, dive operators, and residents of the park. The plan
also allowed for the development of small, locally-owned tourism
developments.
A significant eventual outcome of the plan, with supportive lobby-
ing from the local dive industry and concerned individuals, was the
establishment of a new national park management structure, which
moved away from the ‘sole responsibility’ role of the PHPA in favour
of a multi-stakeholder approach. This is Bunaken National Park Man-
agement Advisory Board (BNPMAB), which was formally established
in 2001. Of the 15 seats on the board, members are drawn from dive
operators, environmental organizations, universities, government
departments and communities within the park.
The provincial government of North Sulawesi enacted legislation
to allow the BNPMAB to collect income generated by the park and
manage this. In most Indonesian national parks, entrance fees are
not used directly to manage the park where they are generated, but
are returned to provincial or national budgets. At Bunaken, however,
only 20 per cent of the entrance fee revenue is split between local,
provincial, and national government, which provides an incentive
for the government to continue to support the scheme. The remain-
ing 80 per cent is used specifically for conservation programmes at
the park, including enforcement of regulations, conservation educa-
tion, waste management, rehabilitation of coral reefs and mangroves,
and environmentally-friendly village development projects. Thirty
per cent of the entrance fee revenue goes directly to the community
through a grants programme; there are now around 30 000 villagers
living in 22 villages.
Entrance fee levels are based on surveys of visitor willingness to
pay and in 2005 stood at US$6 for a daily fee and US$17 for an annual
tag. The fee collection system has been designed in consultation with
the local tourism sector, so that it is practical and efficient, with dive
tags purchased through dive operators. Enforcement of the tag
system is conducted via spot checks by park rangers on land and at
sea. During the first three years of operation, the fee system raised
US$420 000.
The BNPMAB was active in promoting the formation of the North
Sulawesi Watersports Association (NSWA) which, in 2005, grouped
17 dive operators and resorts. The NSWA ensures that its members
are properly trained in customer safety, reef protection techniques

107
Managing World Heritage Sites

and general environmental awareness, and makes a specific point of

encouraging visitors to support local enterprises, such as purchas-
ing food and souvenirs, while discouraging practices such as ‘over-
bargaining’, whereby prices are haggled down to unrealistic levels.
Materials produced by both the BNPMAB and the NSWA stress the
environmental and social responsibilities of the tourism industry,
and both provide means whereby tourists can make donations to
sponsor conservation and development activities, such as contribut-
ing to a fund which pays school fees for children from the park.
The BNPMAB has also diversified its revenue streams in order not
to depend completely on user fees: other revenue is generated from
national/international grants, merchandizing, and an international
volunteer system.
In 2003, the park won the prestigious ‘Tourism for Tomorrow’
award, sponsored by British Airways, and in 2004 it won the Equator
prize, sponsored by UNDP, in recognition of its efforts to ensure that
tourism supports both conservation and development. It is largely
due to the major contribution made by tourism to management of
the park that it has been put forward for WHS status.

Conclusions

The techniques outlined in this chapter for enhancing the relation-

ship between WHS and tourism provide an overview of the chan-
ging rationale of heritage management. In an era when sites can no
longer rely on government support, other means have to be sought
for ensuring the preservation of cultural and natural attractions. It
is entirely reasonable to apply the ‘user pays’ principle by ensuring
that the tourists who benefit from visits to the sites should pay for
their upkeep. At the same time, there are many reasons why site
managers cannot become over-reliant on this source of income.
Tourism is a fickle industry, subject to fluctuations due to national or
international political or economic factors and to trends in destin-
ation appeal. Some WHS are too small, too inaccessible or insuffi-
ciently robust to cope with the volume of tourists that would make a
significant difference to their budget. Site managers therefore have to
be realistic in their dealings with the industry, including gaining a
good understanding of how tourism works.
Of course, closer links with the tourism industry can bring disad-
vantages in terms of over-crowding and damage to the fabric of the
site, but there are well-known techniques for managing these issues.
The focus on diversifying funding sources and in taking an entrepre-
neurial approach is likely to increase over the coming decades, and it
is essential for conservation policy-makers and managers to appreci-
ate that while the tourism industry needs them to provide a constant

108
 Tourism’s contribution to World Heritage Site management

flow of attractions, they also need the tourism sector to provide not
only funding, but also as part of a continued justification for the
sites’ survival as an accessible part of the global heritage.

References

Aas, C., Ladkin, A. and Fletcher, J. (2005) Stakeholder collaboration

and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 128–148.
Barnes, M.L. and Eagles, P. (2004) Examining the relationship between
ecotourists and philanthropic behaviour. Tourism Recreation Research,
29 (3), 35–38.
Howard, P. (2003) Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity.
London: Continuum.
McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. (2002) Cultural Tourism: The
Partnership Between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management.
Binghamton, New York: The Howarth Hospitality Press.
Nuryanti, W. (1997) Tourism and Heritage Management. Yogyakarta:
Gadjah Mada University Press.
Pedersen, A. (2002) Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites: A
Practical Manual for World Heritage Site Managers: UNESCO.
Prentice, R. (1993) Tourism and Heritage Attractions. London and New
York: Routledge.
Robinson, M., Evans, N., Long, P., Sharpley, R. and Swarbrooke, J.
(eds). (2000) Tourism and Heritage Relationships: Global, National and
Local Perspectives. Sunderland: Centre for Travel and Tourism in
association with Business Education Publishers.
Scott, M. (2004) Building institutional capacity in rural Northern
Ireland: The role of partnership governances in the Leader II pro-
gramme. Journal of Rural Studies, 20 (1), 49–59.
Shackley, M. (1998) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World
Heritage Sites. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Tapper, R. and Cochrane, J. (2005) Forging Links Between Protected
Areas and the Tourism Sector: How Tourism Can Benefit Conservation.
Paris: UNEP.
WTO (2003) Co-operation and Partnerships in Tourism: A Global
Perspective. Madrid: World Tourism Organization.

109
 C H A P T E R
8
Juxtaposing the
timeless and the
ephemeral: staging
festivals and events at
World Heritage Sites
Melanie Smith, Elizabeth Carnegie
and Martin Robertson
 Juxtaposing the timeless and the ephemeral

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to:

• Provide an overview of the conflicts inherent in organizing tem-
porary events in heritage spaces and conservation areas
• Explore the relationship between global heritage, international
tourism and local cultural provision in the context of World
Heritage Sites
• Assess the degree of local engagement with festivals and
events that have a national or international remit
• Provide analyses of two case studies of Edinburgh and Green-
wich as a means of contextualizing some of the aforementioned
issues.

Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to explore the complex relationship

between World Heritage Sites (WHS) and temporary festivals and
events, analysing some of the impacts and implications of staging
‘ephemeral’ arts projects in the context of ‘timeless’ heritage envir-
onments. While the physical impacts of visitation to both World
Heritage Sites and festivals have been well documented in recent
years, this chapter also seeks to consider some of the more intangible
and symbolic aspects of management. Many of these relate to the
often-dissonant juxtaposition of global status symbols (e.g. WHS),
international tourism attractions (e.g. festivals and events), and local
cultural provision. Cultural providers within urban environments
are becoming more adept at programming a range of arts events
for local communities, however, these are frequently delivered in
isolation from heritage or tourism developments. In the contexts
that have been chosen for analysis in this chapter (Edinburgh and
Greenwich), the entire historic centres are designated WHS, and
both were busy tourist attractions, even before designation. Thus,
any analysis of cultural and arts developments – in this case, multi-
venue festivals spanning several days – cannot be considered in isol-
ation from heritage and tourism. It is the intersection of these
elements that provide the key challenges for these and many other
WHS: in short, how to conserve physical structures, while promot-
ing tourism, at the same time as fostering local cultural engagement
and understanding.

111
Managing World Heritage Sites

WHS management and cultural space

With the production of the compulsory WHS management plan,

WHS are now obliged to set themselves the ambitious task of being
all things to all people: beacons of conservation and sustainability;
international tourist attractions; educational institutions encouraging
local engagement; and catalysts for regeneration and business devel-
opment. The reconciliation of all of these often conflicting elements is
by no means easy. Most notably, restrictions on physical access for rea-
sons of conservation are coupled with demands for greater symbolic
engagement and access. The tools most frequently used to engender
this are education, interpretation and marketing. Increasingly,
attempts are being made to integrate the educational, experiential
and symbolic to this end. Many agencies responsible for WHS
(e.g. heritage steering groups, tourism offices and cultural organiza-
tions) are trying to animate the spaces and create greater local and
visitor engagement. While conservation imperatives still tend to
dominate in the majority of cases, this does not exclude more cre-
ative approaches to WHS management, including, for example, the
hosting of festivals.
Nevertheless, in contrast to this, one could cite Shackley’s (1998: 1)
plea that ‘visiting a World Heritage Site should be a major intellec-
tual experience, on a different scale from visiting some theme park’.
Accordingly, as festivals tend towards being experiential or jubilant
performance rather than educational occurrence, questions may be
raised as to their appropriateness for a WHS setting. Do they, for
example, serve merely as an attractive backdrop and/or magnet for
visitors? Moreover, where they provide the animation necessary to
attract local people to sites that otherwise they would not visit, is the
engagement of the audience at anything other than a superficial
level? Is any depth in communication about the site and its history
facilitated by the performance? So, while they offer a conscious and
strategic platform for enlivening otherwise dead spaces or creating
cultural access, festivals do not always sit comfortably with the con-
servation and education remit of WHS.
WHS that are whole cities or historic centres need to be viewed
differently from individual monuments or sites. They are not only
sites, they are also living places for communities, where the com-
plexities of history, culture difference, local and national identity and
the whole pulse of coexistence is necessarily served by pragmatic
management. In Greenwich (inscribed in 1997) a number of histori-
cal buildings have been linked to create Maritime Greenwich. In
Edinburgh the World Heritage Site (inscribed in 1995) embraces the
entire historic city centre. Both WHS are vibrant, working areas as
well as busy tourist destinations and cultural venues. Lippard (1997)
suggests that place is a result of the union between space and lived

112
 Juxtaposing the timeless and the ephemeral

culture, and that a sense of place is based on a combination of

heritage and contemporary lifestyles. This is particularly relevant
to WHS that are essentially whole towns or historic centres, and
which are likely to have a multi-functional contemporary usage.
Local populations may feel more affinity with contemporary cultural
developments than they do with a history or heritage from which
they feel alienated (e.g. imperial legacies or symbols of past oppres-
sion). Their tendency to visit attractions within the WHS may be lim-
ited as a result. As is the case of Greenwich, residents from the wider
Borough tend to visit the historic centre rather infrequently. Tourists,
on the other hand, may be drawn to the uniqueness of place that is
offered by the existence of a site of universal value, i.e. a WHS.
The implications of this are that resident communities may be more
drawn to experiential events such as festivals. Indeed, this may be the
main way of encouraging visitation to the WHS if that is the specified
aim of the WHS agencies in any particular locale. The staging of a cul-
turally diverse festival in the same location may encourage atten-
dance because local people feel that their cultures are somehow
represented. Thus it may be the animation of space in the context of
WHS that transforms it into a place where local people feel culturally
connected, albeit for a short time. Longer-term engagement is more
challenging, and may be achieved through both formal and informal
educational channels, outreach programmes and interpretation.

WHS and festival venues

The bestowing of the World Heritage Site accolade can be seen as pri-
marily of symbolic significance. It serves as a reminder that the site
or area in question is of outstanding universal value. Of course,
questions can (and should) be raised about who makes such value
judgements and who are the main beneficiaries. World Heritage
Status reflects the value of architectural space in terms ‘of the impor-
tant interchange of human values, over a span of time’ but the evi-
dence suggests that the inscription on the list, which creates a forum
for the ‘better protection and safeguarding of the site’ (Edinburgh
World Heritage Conservation Manifesto, www.edinburgh.gov.uk,
2005) is viewed as having planning implications rather than cultural
ones. In addition, it should be remembered that, in many cases, the
WHS inscription was awarded many years after the first tourist
arrivals and the original programming of cultural events. Indeed the
first Edinburgh Festival took place in 1947 while WHS inscription
did not arrive until 1995.
World Heritage Site status is often perceived to offer advantages over
other, non-inscribed, cities for the combined functions of destination

113
Managing World Heritage Sites

marketing, promotion and branding and, ultimately, boosting tourist

visitor numbers. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that tourists
are usually non-expert audiences and may fail to spot or recognize a
(WHS) logo. Even in cases where they do, it may not have any reso-
nance for them unless they are knowledgeable about the true mean-
ing of status (and on which there is no consensus anyway). More
importantly, it could be argued that traditional heritage tourism has
had its heyday and that there needs to be diversification of products
in historic towns in order to meet changing consumer demands. The
work of Pine and Gilmore (1999) implies that there has been a shift
in leisure consumption towards more experiential activities, and
Richards and Wilson (2005) suggest that, subsequently, cities need to
take more creative approaches in order to compete in the interna-
tional marketplace.
Clearly, the commercialization of heritage of universal value and its
reduction to a form of entertainment is not advocated here. However,
the observation is made that creativity can take many forms, moving
even beyond the ubiquitous heritage trail to more innovative and
inclusive engagement strategies. Some of these may involve festivals
or special events. One of the problems for heritage is its static location
and the need to encourage local engagement through geographical
displacement. While heritage can be seen to be inanimate and imper-
sonal, festivals are by contrast full of animation, vibrancy and spon-
taneity. They are to be found in multiple locations and can be taken
to the people wherever they may reside. In addition, festivals can
be more socially inclusive than other forms of culture and are often
viewed by festival directors and residents alike as expressions of cul-
tural diversity and identity.
Yet there are some problems with the favouring of festivals over
heritage or the way in which – it is opined here – heritage may act as
distant backdrop to the event itself. Unlike the permanent fabric of
tangible heritage, festivals are usually temporary, fleeting or elusive
experiences. They can fail to sustain or support cultural continuity if
they are not repeated. Furthermore, as public events become increas-
ingly internationalized, festivals may endanger their very own roots
and connections to specific localities in the desire to have globally
recognizable appeal factors. Small community festivals are often
described as offering more for the local people than large mega-
events. Nevertheless, without extensive public funding their long-
term success is less sure and long-term funding more often than not
requires evidence of commercial viability. Viability often means
attracting more non-local, often international, visitors.
More significantly, stakeholder relationships in the context of
WHS and festival management tend either to be rather complex
or no more than embryonic. In the UK, there is no real tradition of
local government departments working together, even if they are all

114
 Juxtaposing the timeless and the ephemeral

somehow connected to the provision of culture elements. It is not

uncommon for whatever WHS agencies exist (e.g. specifically
appointed Committees, Steering Groups) to work entirely independ-
ently from cultural offices, which generally take responsibility for fes-
tivals, events and community arts projects. This complicates not only
management and conservation but also the allocation of funding and
issues of responsibility and security. In addition, these organizations
are not necessarily adept at marketing and promotion (and almost
certainly will not have the resources). Even where they do have
appropriate resources promotion may be largely or entirely local (e.g.
in the case of community-based festivals and events). Therefore the
role of tourism offices and tourist information centres (TICs) may be
crucial to the wider dissemination of information about both WHS
and local festivals. This is not to say that there will be harmonious
and symbiotic relationships between tourism, heritage and arts
organizations. The philosophies governing the respective sectors are
still rather different in orientation (as a historical generalization, heri-
tage tends to be more conservation-orientated, tourism more com-
mercial/economic, and the arts more socially/community focused).
However, in some cases (e.g. the Millennium Year in Greenwich)
strong synergies and complementarities can be explored and often
retained. Since WHS management plans were made mandatory, this
has also had positive impacts on the integration of different areas of
function and operation.
What have been explored in less detail are the symbolic aspects of
WHS status. Of course, these are intangible and difficult to measure.
The creation of animation, engagement and a sense of place are all
being cited as crucial to retaining the character of historic towns (e.g.
English Historic Towns Forum, 2005). However, there is still very little
guidance on how this should be achieved. The role of festivals may be
pivotal to this process given that programming is fluid and flexible
and can be adapted to the local environment, its communities and
their cultures. The incorporation of aspects of the location’s heritage is
also imperative where a WHS is being used as a venue. This may be
the tangible fabric of the built environment as well as the intangible
narratives that are constructed around it. In some cases, festivals may
be able to address issues of dissonance that frequently plague WHS of
an imperial or politically sensitive nature. Whereas the physical struc-
ture of heritage buildings cannot be altered, associations, perceptions
and interpretations can easily be explored through the arts, especially
where local people are actively involved in modes of expression and
representation. This can help to challenge historical patterns and
emphasize the contemporary relevance of heritage. Although some-
thing similar can be achieved through exhibitions or interpretation
panels, often there is less scope for interaction, animation and the use
of multi-perspectives.

115
Managing World Heritage Sites

Case study: Edinburgh and Greenwich – WHS, festivals,

culture, community and market forces
Using research based evidence the following case studies of
Edinburgh and Greenwich attempt to exemplify and put in context
some of the issues raised so far in this chapter.
The first Edinburgh Festival took place in 1947 in Edinburgh, in large
part a conscious and active move to regenerate the city after the Second
World War. WHS status was not achieved until 1995, some 48 years
later. World Heritage status can therefore be said to have had little rela-
tionship with the history of festival audiences in Edinburgh. The World
Heritage Site that is Edinburgh’s Old and New Towns – distinct and
clear elements of the city – are essentially functioning and pragmatic
lived in spaces. They are also the focus for concentrated bursts of
cultural activity throughout the year, especially in August when ‘this
essentially historic resource is transformed’ (Prentice and Anderson,
2003: 9). Indeed, 80 per cent of visitors most recently surveyed for the
city organizers stated that visiting the festival was either their sole
reason for coming to Edinburgh or an important part of their decision-
making (The Audience Business, www.eif.co.uk). While Prentice and
Anderson (2003) argue that in 1996/1997, 51 per cent and 42 per cent of
visitors to the city cited the WHS status as a reason for their visit, it
should be remembered that these figures cover the period immediately
after Edinburgh’s inscription and as such can be viewed as a direct
response of the immediate publicity machine rather than a deep rooted
knowledge indicative of all subsequent visitors. Moreover, analysis of
publicity materials (1999–2003) for the International Festival and
Festival Fringe indicated that there has been very little advice or infor-
mation offered to prospective festival visitors to the city as regards the
WHS status. The same is true of the official Edinburgh tourism website
(over the one year period it was studied). Correspondingly, it is
unlikely that there would be knowledge of the status, at any level, at
such a prevailing high rate as that in 1996/7.
In the case of Greenwich, the first Greenwich and Docklands
International Festival did not take place until 1998, one year after WHS
inscription. It could, however, still be argued that the two were largely
independent of each other until relatively recently. Initially, WHS status
created greater political and financial support, followed by measures to
improve conservation and tourism development (Smith, 2002). Despite
this, the issue of local engagement with heritage and culture has more
recently become a key issue for the WHS Steering Groups. Question-
naire interviews with 158 local people in 2003 revealed that 74 per cent
of people claimed to know that Greenwich was a WHS, but when
probed further in a focus group, it transpired that they did not actually
know what WHS status meant and seemed to view the status as merely
being a label that was used to attract more tourists.

116
 Juxtaposing the timeless and the ephemeral

The WHS Steering Groups for Marketing and Education in

Greenwich are working hard to promote the WHS brand – that is, the
collective sites that form the WHS. This is starting to include more
intangible and experiential aspects of the site (e.g. shopping opportu-
nities, evening entertainment, and festivals and cultural events). As
advocated in a branding review by MORI (2002), the brand image is
increasingly marked by attempts to be ‘trendy’. Although this review
showed that visitors viewed Greenwich as one of the most beautiful
sites in London because of the impressive architecture, the negative
implication of this perception was that the buildings were seen as
imposing and Greenwich was deemed to lack animation and vibrancy.
The Tourist Information Centre (TIC) manager also stated in an inter-
view in 2002 that Greenwich needed more animation in the streets, ide-
ally through festivals. Research with local people showed clearly that,
although they liked the WHS for its beauty and attractions, they also
found it imposing and inanimate. Royal and military/naval connec-
tions were deemed interesting but of little local consequence. What
is more, they were seen to represent the history and legacy of white
aristocracy, rather than the ‘true’ heritage of local dockworkers, ship-
builders and sailors, not to mention the dissonant heritage of slavery.
In recent years, Edinburgh’s festivals have grown beyond the
WHS boundaries, and indeed have been encouraged to do so. This is
part of local government agendas for regeneration of peripheral
areas. A key example of this is the Edinburgh Mela, which is held in
Pilrig Park in Leith, an area (once separate from the city) that suffered
the highs and lows of life revolving round a once active vital port. The
Mela has retained its significance to the local audience (who in 2004
were 79 per cent of the audience/participants), and has never func-
tioned as a mainstream international festival, despite being by its
very nature a multicultural event (Carnegie and Smith, 2005).
The Greenwich and Docklands International Festival (GDIF) is
sited in multi-locations, that is, it uses different venues and spaces for
artistic performance such as music, dance and other spectacles. The
WHS spaces are only used for some of the events. This means that the
impacts of the GDIF on the physical structure of the WHS are rela-
tively limited and contained, but then so too are the economic bene-
fits (e.g. contribution to local businesses). Nevertheless, restrictions
are still placed on the Festival organizers by the estate owners regard-
ing the use of the WHS as a venue, mainly for reasons of conserva-
tion. However, residents questioned in a focus group made it clear
that they would only venture out locally for such events, especially at
night. They would not cross the River Thames, despite its proximity,
for example. Tourists may have even more restricted geographical
definitions than the residents, as tourism tends to be concentrated in
the historic centre of Greenwich, thus restricting them to see only
those events that were in public spaces within the WHS. The WHS is

117
Managing World Heritage Sites

therefore an ideally located venue for attracting audiences of both

locals and tourists alike, despite the necessary restrictions imposed by
conservationists.
A survey conducted on behalf of the Edinburgh Festival in 2002
highlighted that while 43 per cent of audiences were from Edinburgh
and the Lothians (42 per cent in 2004, EIF Annual Review, 2004), 65
per cent of those surveyed were shown to be socioeconomic group
A or B with a further 28 per cent being C1s. This overall figure of
93 per cent being ABC1 is higher than other cultural activities includ-
ing art gallery and museum attendance (Hargreaves, 1997; Carnegie,
2003). All of which seems to suggest that cultural programming
through festivals is geared more towards its economic value than its
capacity for social regeneration.
Greenwich’s heritage sites and museums tend to attract local vis-
itors (as well as tourists) because of the dynamic nature of their out-
reach and the educational programmes that support and accompany
them. Nonetheless, focus group participants made it clear that they
were most fond of spectacles (e.g. arts events); 49 per cent of the 158
questionnaire respondents were also very positive about festivals and
events compared to the 33 per cent who enthused about heritage. A
content analysis of 90 copies of the local newspaper, Greenwich Time,
over four years showed that arts and events featured most promi-
nently, with 73 articles compared to 24 on heritage and only eight on
tourism. Although many of these were promotional, it demonstrated
clearly the Local Council’s commitment to an ongoing local festival
and event programme (as part of their social regeneration agenda).
A focus group in Greenwich – consisting of twenty local women –
demonstrated that they were most interested in festivals and events
that fostered an understanding of different cultures, claiming that
the mixing of cultures was ‘lovely’ and ‘the best thing’. The pro-
gramming of the GDIF is rich and varied, combining global arts spec-
tacles with local ethnic cultural performances (e.g. schoolchildren
performing Bollywood dancing). Links are frequently made to
Greenwich’s heritage too, e.g. Elizabeth I was the focus of the 2003
Festival as it was the celebration of the 400th anniversary of her
death (she was born at Greenwich Palace in 1533).
However, during a local discussion group in Greenwich entitled
‘Who cares about Culture?’, a comment was made that festivals and
events were sometimes seen to be sucking resources away from
ongoing cultural provision. In parallel, many of the criticisms
directed against the local area were linked to the environment and
conservation, with clear suggestion that its significance should not
be neglected at the expense of cultural programming. Thus the orig-
inal aims of WHS management plans were brought to the fore.
The GDIF continues to attract large numbers of local people despite
growing in size. So, although it is branded as international, this label

118
 Juxtaposing the timeless and the ephemeral

appears to refer to the quality of the programming and performance

rather than audience numbers or profiles. The Festival Director states
that it is a priority to bring cutting edge professional performances to
people who would otherwise not have the opportunity to see them,
and thus break down some of the psychological and physical barriers
to the arts. However, a series of in-depth interviews with festival
directors (Smith and Forrest, 2003) suggested that few tourists will
visit Greenwich specifically for cultural events and festivals, includ-
ing the GDIF, and are therefore not always economically viable. Many
tourists attend incidentally, if they happen to be in the area. This is
perhaps not surprising given the significantly lower profile of the GDIF
compared to the Edinburgh Festival. It can also be seen as a result of
limitations in any attempts in marketing strategically. Similarly, eco-
nomic impact research is limited. The latter undoubtedly due to lack
of funding, and both actions affected by the fact that many of the
events are either free or allow special access. As a result exact impli-
cations for tourism have been historically difficult to measure.
Unlike Greenwich, which aims to animate the global through the
local, Edinburgh aims to be as international as possible, both in terms
of its cultural products but also in terms of the audience attracted to
it. The current aims of the International Festival include displaying
arts of the highest possible standard to the widest possible audience,
and thereby reflecting international culture to Scottish audiences
and Scottish culture to international audiences (EIF Annual Review,
2004). Much is made of the number of repeat visits to the various
festivals, with the 2002 survey showing that 50 per cent of the
audience surveyed had attended at least nine previous festivals
(www.eif.co.uk/about). Prentice and Anderson’s research also sug-
gests that there is a ‘core of repeaters whose imagery of Scotland (is)
as an arts rather than a historical destination...’ (Prentice and
Anderson, 2003: 11). As such it can be argued that to a festival audi-
ence events are the core expression of culture and not the historic fab-
ric of the city. This has clear implications for the perceived role of
Edinburgh’s World Heritage Status. The city is clearly enlivened and
animated as a cultural space by the addition of festivals, but the
actual contribution to WHS status in real terms can be questioned.

Case study: Edinburgh and Greenwich – paths towards

reconciliation of WHS and festivals
Robertson and Wardrop (2004: 124–5) hypothesize that Edinburgh’s
recognition has as its satellites ‘Edinburgh the festival city; Edinburgh
the world heritage city and Edinburgh the contemporary city’. They
suggest that any profound assimilation of festivals with the values
of being a world heritage city are compromised by the strategic

119
Managing World Heritage Sites

function of the city’s festivals to ‘have a community – host resident –

responsibility’ (125) maintained through repeated public sector sub-
sidy as well as commercial partnership. Interviews with key players in
the City of Edinburgh Council (CEC), with direct responsibility for the
festivals (2004–5), reflect clear awareness of the WHS status and great
show is made, privately, of explaining how festivals are not impinging
on this. However, no mention is ever made in the documentation relat-
ing to the city’s festivals of how one can aid or support the other. In fact
no public reference to the WHS status is present in the strategic docu-
ments for Edinburgh’s festivals. This includes the two main strategic
plan documents: Events in Edinburgh (2002) and The Edinburgh Festival
Strategy (2001). Similarly, the City of Edinburgh Council’s more recent
evaluation of the impacts of Edinburgh’s summer festivals (2004),
undertaken by respected Edinburgh based consultants and thus, one
would imagine, conversant with Edinburgh’s WHS status, give no ref-
erence to the city’s special status despite looking at many events within
the boundaries set in that special area. The research by Prentice and
Andersen (2003) and, more recently, in the first phase of its study,
Interbrand (2004) – the consultancy appointed by the Edinburgh City
Region Brand Project (a public and private sector partnership steering
group) to develop the identity of the city – conclude that in the mind of
visitors and prospective visitors the city does create a sense of being a
cultural place but not a history-specific one.
While its festivals appear to have little synergy with the built and
cultural history in Edinburgh, the strategic purpose that holds it
together can nonetheless be positive. It does have potential benefits
for the community and can bring together, as Derrett (2003; 2004)
suggests, a sense of community and place within the overlapping
desires to market the destination, attract visitors, and create a differ-
entiated cultural tourism product (Figure 8.1). The fact that World
Heritage Site status has not, as yet, been seen as an important aspect
of this does not necessarily mean it will not become so in the future.
Conversely, in Greenwich, World Heritage status is stated as being
something on which tourism and hospitality visitor and business
interest can be further developed (Greenwich Council, 2002) as well
as support the more clearly associated aims of economic regenera-
tion, conservation and pride.
Edinburgh World Heritage (the trust set up in 1999 to manage
Edinburgh’s status) acknowledge that Edinburgh’s festivals are signif-
icant, vital and rewarding to the city, but it also warns that ‘the pres-
sure on the physical capacity of the Site at Festival times is immense’
and states that the challenge is to ‘maintain harmonious balance
between the needs of the city’s Festivals and other communities’
(2005: 60). Accordingly, it sets policy 55 and 56, respectively, to seek the
maintenance of the Festivals within the city centre, and support
policies aimed at stimulating festival activities in less used areas

120
 Juxtaposing the timeless and the ephemeral

Place

Place
Community
marketing

Festivals

Residents Cultural Visitors

tourism

Figure 8.1 Overlapping outcomes for resident, festival visitor and place.
Source: Adapted from Derrett 2003, 2004

outside the world heritage area. These suggest that the strategic
managers of Edinburgh’s festivals, principally the City of Edinburgh
Council, may have myopic views towards culture as capital. However,
diverting their gaze from the historic significance of the city and the
value of being a WH designated area, the Edinburgh World Heritage
Trust similarly indicate in their most recent management plan a com-
plicit agreement not to intervene with the festival and its operation.
This illustrates some of the major conflicts and dilemmas for all
WHS that host festivals. What should be the relationship between the
festival organizers and the WHS Committees, if any? How can local
and tourist audiences be reached simultaneously? Should there be a
one-brand image or is segmentation required for different products
(i.e. pure heritage versus heritage as a backdrop for cultural events?).
Conservation dilemmas also abound, especially where visitation is
heavily concentrated (e.g. in the case of seasonal festivals). One obvi-
ous question is who should foot the bill for increased wear and tear?

Conclusions

It is the conjecture of the authors that the existence of WHS status for
any town or city that hosts a festival or festivals is significant but that it
is often under-stated. As backdrops to the performance of festivals, the
built heritage is seen as pleasing, but its significance as moderator of
that pleasure is most often nominal. That is to say that its aesthetic
appeal is generally valued above its intrinsic historic importance.
Although attempts are sometimes made to highlight the historical rele-
vance of location in festival themes or performances, this could be seen

121
Managing World Heritage Sites

as tokenistic. Only where more intangible aspects of heritage interpre-

tation are explored (e.g. local perceptions, associations and narratives)
could the role of festivals be said to be truly transformational.
Some of the research in Edinburgh suggests that the city wishes to
be a world phenomenon – for visitors, business and its residents. It is
competing with many cities sharing similar aspirations. A precise
historical backdrop, rightly or wrongly, does not seem to catch peo-
ple’s imagination as much as other forms of entertainment. The same
could not necessarily be said of Greenwich as its scale is so different,
often being perceived as an appendage to London rather than a cul-
tural destination in its own right. However, marketing efforts there
are also shifting away from ‘traditional’ heritage marketing towards
the promotion of more contemporary and experiential activities. The
role of WHS clearly cannot be extrapolated from market forces. In
the case of Edinburgh this appears on one hand to threaten it and on
another to ensure that the Festival is not dependent on it (a result no
doubt of its much longer history as a visitor destination).
What makes the events in Greenwich stand out from those of
Edinburgh is that the events are consciously set within, and in rela-
tion to, the identified WHS. While the knowledge of the festival
interviewees in Greenwich suggest that there is only a limited
knowledge of what WHS means, this is still in contrast to those in
Edinburgh where festival revellers partake in the Festival with no
knowledge of either WHS status or, indeed, that it has significance to
Edinburgh as a festival performance area at all.
World Heritage status arguably has a symbiotic function for the fes-
tivals of both Greenwich and Edinburgh. In the former it announces
a more organic role than in the latter. In neither can it be said that
the status is central to the festival performance offered. In Greenwich
the WH status offers an additional spotlight. For Edinburgh, it may be
a barely noticed backdrop. The real performance – the magic and the
vitality – are the events themselves. Despite this, it is the view of the
authors that noticed or not, the spell of the festivals would never be so
effective were it not for the fantasy that the heritage-scape allows.
To close, a number of lessons are forthcoming from this study for
WHS in general. Ostensibly these are related to potential for the sin-
gularity of the spectacle and activities of a festival or festivals to
encroach on the needs of the WHS in which they are being held.
Accordingly, while the festivals in Greenwich and Edinburgh have
different relationships with their respective audiences – the first more
localized and the second more international – the retention, preser-
vation and understanding of the significance of WHS appears to be
obscured by the function of the event itself. It is concluded that the
needs would be better served if they were composite to the enjoyment
and respect of the festival and its location. The history and allocation of
control and power in those (people and organizations) with influence

122
 Juxtaposing the timeless and the ephemeral

over heritage, conservation, the arts, tourism, and the local community,
is the dynamic. Change may be conducted through alternative or com-
plementary promotion, and greater understanding by festival-goers
and incidental WHS visitors may arise.
Put simply, the WHS risks becoming an appendage to the market
forces and social functions of any given number of festivals if the
WHS management plan fails to address all elements of its responsi-
bility in a clear and measurable way. However, with exacting man-
agement, the overlapping benefits of a festival could in fact ensure
that the WHS is both a core part and a specific beneficiary of its activ-
ities. It is to this end that the authors ascribe their hope.

References

Carnegie, E. (2003) It wasn’t all bad: Representations of Working

Class cultures within social history museums in Edinburgh and
Glasgow and their impacts on audiences. IEFA, Vienna, March
(forthcoming in Picard et al. (2005) Tourism, Festivals and Social
Change: Nodes and Transitions, Clevedon: Channel View).
Carnegie, E. and Smith, M. (2005) It Takes Two to Bangra!: The Mela
in Edinburgh or Edinburgh in the Mela? Partnership building and
audience development within the festival city. Amsterdam: IFEA.
City of Edinburgh Council (2002) An Events Strategy for Edinburgh – the
biggest and the best? Edinburgh: The City of Edinburgh Council.
City of Edinburgh Council (2001) Festivals and the City: The Edinburgh
Festivals Strategy 2001. Edinburgh: Edinburgh City Council.
City of Edinburgh Council (2004) Edinburgh Festivals 2004–2005
Economic Impact Survey Stage 1 Results. Edinburgh: The City of
Edinburgh Council.
Derrett, R. (2003) Making sense of how festivals demonstrate a com-
munity’s sense of place. Event Management, 8, 49–58.
Derrett, R. (2004) Festival, events and the destination. In Yeoman, I.,
Robertson, M., Ali-Knight, J., Drummond, S. and McMahon-Beattie,
U. (eds) Festival and Events Management – An International Arts and
Culture Perspective. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 32–50.
Edinburgh International Festival Society (2004) Edinburgh International
Festival Review 2004. Edinburgh: Edinburgh International Festival
Society.
Edinburgh World Heritage (2005) Management Plan for Old and New
Towns of Edinburgh World Heritage Site. Final Draft April. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh World Heritage.
English Historic Towns Forum (2005) Using heritage and cultural assets
in regeneration, Gateshead & Newcastle, 8–9 June.
Greenwich Council (2002) Economic Development Strategy. April.
Greenwich: Greenwich Council.

123
Managing World Heritage Sites

Hargreaves, R. (1997) Developing New Audiences. In Hooper-

Greenhill, E. (ed.) Cultural Diversity: Developing Museum Audiences
in Britain. London: Leicester University Press.
Interbrand (2004) Live Invest Visit – Creating the brand for the future of
Edinburgh – project update, November. (www.edinburghbrand.
com accessed 18 April 2005).
Lippard, L.R. (1997) The Lure of the Local: Senses of Place in a
Multicentred Society. New York: The New Press.
MORI (2002) Visitor/User Perceptions of Greenwich – Summary of MORI
Findings, May 2002. London: MORI.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999) The Experience Economy. Harvard:
Harvard University Press.
Prentice, R. and Anderson, V. (2003) Festivals as creative destination.
Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (1), 7–30.
Richards, R. and Wilson, J. (2005) Developing creativity in tourist
experiences: A solution to the serial reproduction of culture?
Tourism Management (in press, available online 22 August 2005).
Robertson, M. and Wardrop, K. (2004) Events and the destination
dynamic: Edinburgh festivals, Entrepreneurship and Strategic
Marketing. In Yeoman, I., Robertson, M., Ali-Knight, J.,
Drummond, S. and McMahon-Beattie, U. (eds) Festival and Events
Management – An International Arts and Culture Perspective. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Shackley, M. (1998) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World
Heritage Sites. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Smith, M.K. (2002) A critical evaluation of the global accolade: The
significance of World Heritage Site status for Maritime Greenwich.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8 (2), 137–151.
Smith, M.K. and Forrest, K. (2003) Enhancing Vitality or Compromising
Integrity? Festivals, Tourism and the Complexities of Performing
Culture, IEFA, Vienna, March (forthcoming in Picard et al. (2005)
Tourism, Festivals and Social Change: Nodes and Transitions,
Clevedon: Channel View).
World Heritage Conservation Manifesto www.edinburgh.gov.uk/
heritagem (accessed 20 April 2005).

Web sites

www.eif.co.uk/about (accessed 17 April 2005)

www.edfringe.com (accessed 16 April 2005)
www.gildedballoon.co.uk (accessed 16 April 2005)
www.theunderbelly.co.uk/about/index.html (accessed 16 April 2005)
www.edinburgh.org/conference (accessed 15 April 2005)
www.edinburgh.gov.uk/heritage (accessed 13 April 2005)
www.greenwichwhs.org.uk (accessed 18 April 2005)

124
 C H A P T E R
9
Information communication
technology applications
for World Heritage
Site management
Dimitrios Buhalis, Ruth Owen and
Daniël Pletinckx
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to:

• Examine the concept of information communication technology
(ICT) and how it could be applied to World Heritage Sites (WHS)
• Present uses of ICTs at heritage sites
• Determine the extent to which ICTs can be applied to WHS.

Introduction

Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) present new oppor-

tunities for WHS to enhance the service that they currently provide.
ICTs can support site management; add to interpretation approaches;
and promote site conservation. This chapter focuses on built World
Heritage Sites and concentrates on heritage management within a
single site. This is in contrast to more complex World Heritage Sites,
such as the City of Bath, where management strategies are likely to
vary in accordance to the context.
The chapter begins by exploring the concept of ICTs within a heri-
tage management context. The main duties within cultural heritage
management are discussed and ICTs that can assist them are identi-
fied and explored. Each ICT is evaluated in terms of suitability for
the site. Finally, the implications of ICTs regarding visitor expect-
ations are presented.

Information communications technologies (ICTs)

ICT (information and communications technology – or technologies)

can be defined as :
an umbrella term that includes any communication device or applica-
tion, encompassing: radio, television, cellular phones, computer and
network hardware and software, satellite systems and so on, as well
as the various services and applications associated with them, such
as videoconferencing and distance learning (www.whatis.com, 2005).

ICTs and heritage management

In order to examine how ICTs can assist in the management of a WHS,

the main functions involved in heritage management have been

126
 Information communication technology applications for World Heritage Site management

Hardware Software
Input devices: keyboard, mouse, Database applications,
digital camera, scanners, word processing,
touch screen, web cams spreadsheets,
Output devices: monitor, printers graphics applications,
Storage: CD ROM, DVD ROM, operating system,
Zip disk, memory cards, management information system,
SIM cards, microchips visitor management software

ICTs
Network Humanware
Telephone, modem, LAN, Videotext, teletext,
WAN, satellites, telephones,
microwave, cables, world wide web, ftp,
broadband, e-mail, internet,
fibreoptic cables, extranets, intranets,
bluetooth, servers, electronic funds transfer at
use groups, e-mail, point of sale
web development
applications, browsers,
search engines

Figure 9.1 ICTs and Cultural Heritage.

Source: Adapted from Buhalis 2003

identified. These can be classified into three categories: conservation,

education and site management (Ambrose and Pain, 1998; McKercher
and du Cros, 2002).

Conservation
The purpose of conservation in heritage management is to preserve
cultural heritage resources for current and future generations to enjoy
(McKercher and du Cros, 2002). Conservation duties in heritage man-
agement involve documentation, environmental monitoring, treat-
ment and preventative care (Ambrose and Pain, 1998). People visit
WHS to view the extraordinary (Rojek, 1997) as they have a right to
do (http://whc.unesco.org). They are often motivated by educational,
cultural, sociological and psychological reasons and may be local,
domestic or international visitors. The most popular and significant
sites may attract up to several million visitors a year. However, visit-
ation can cause damage to, or wear out irreplaceable resources (Millar,
2004). This chapter examines how ICTs can assist conservation in
heritage management.

127
Managing World Heritage Sites

Education

Interpretation is an important aspect of education because it explains

the significance of the exhibit within the context of the site and its
wider historical and cultural context. Interpretation can be defined
as ‘the act or process of explaining or clarifying, translating, or pre-
senting a personal understanding about a subject or an object’ (Dean,
1996). Interpretation can also demonstrate how heritage is relevant
to people’s everyday lives (Edson and Dean, 2000).
Interpretation is a complex process because visitors differ in their
age groups, cultural background, motivations and desire to learn.
Visitors also vary from those who know little about the site before
they arrive, to knowledgeable experts or enthusiasts (McKercher and
du Cros, 2002). Interpretation must address the different needs of vis-
itors and enable each market segment to find sufficient information to
enhance their visit. Traditional interpretation media (such as posters
and leaflets) are limited in terms of the information they can provide
due to constraints of space. Therefore, marketers must decide on which
audience segments to focus the marketing material. ICTs offer unlim-
ited space and can use a wide range of multimedia formats such as
photographs, diagrams, videos and virtual reality representations.
The use of hypertext facilitates inter-linkages between interrelated
themes, exhibits and artefacts enabling visitors to explore Cultural
Heritage sites in greater depth. Hypertext links also allow audience
segments to be targeted simultaneously and in different depths. For
example, children may learn from animated cartoons, while histor-
ians from expert researchers.

Site management

Pre-visit
Publishing information that is designed to be used prior to visiting a
site allows the visitor to plan in advance. They can decide whether or
not to visit, or to narrow down the exhibits/areas within a site to those
that they specifically wish to view. In addition, they can use this infor-
mation to place the WHS into context and relate it to other areas or
sites visited before. From the visitor’s perspective gathering informa-
tion in advance allows them to make the most effective use of their
time. But from site management’s view, this information may result
in more accurate visitor expectations, thus reducing the likelihood of
disappointing visitors and preventing negative word of mouth from
spreading. Using multilingual information and interpretation tech-
niques staff can provide different perspectives of the same exhibit.
For example, the Auschwitz experience may require different

128
 Information communication technology applications for World Heritage Site management

interpretation for German and Jewish visitors to reflect their differ-

ent motivations for the visit. Similarly, a Buddhist visiting Indonesia
could have different information needs compared to fringe tourists.
Due to the nature of visitation the public decide for themselves when
to visit a site. This results in demand fluctuations (Barlow, 1999).
ICTs and Internet sites in particular can assist this situation by pub-
lishing demand patterns so visitors can make informed decisions about
the time of their visit. Visitors can choose whether or not to book in
advance to avoid queues. This increases visitor satisfaction. The infor-
mation that can be captured from an electronic ticketing system
enables site managers to analyse visitor behaviour and target resources
accordingly. For example, employing more guides and cashiers to
work during peak periods or creating special attractions in less busy
areas of the WHS.

During the visit

To manage visitor flow around the site and reduce bottlenecks trad-
itional navigational aids such as signs and audio guides can be com-
plemented by interactive mobile multimedia communications. These
devices can provide contextual based information facilitating the visit
through announcements and guidance that is dynamically adapted
to reflect the current location at the site. Personal Digital Assistants
(PDAs), for example, can assist site interpretation by guiding visitors
according to their needs, available time, cultural background, linguistic
ability and cultural segments. Not only can this provide information
according to location but it can also relate dynamically interrelated
areas, artefacts and stories. Also virtual visits can replace physical visits
to areas of a site that are fragile, in order to prevent further erosion.

Post-visit
The information provided at a site is intended to generate interest
rather than provide every minute detail on a subject (Ambrose and
Paine, 1998). Therefore post-visit, the site can provide additional infor-
mation, encouraging visitors to develop their knowledge in areas of
interest. Photos, videos, digital souvenirs, blogs, electronic games and
references to scientific articles are all potential electronic aids that
can enhance the post-visit experience (they can also be used pre-visit
if required). This may generate repeat visits to the WHS to study a
subject of interest in more detail.

How technology can assist heritage management

Figure 9.2 presents a summary of how ICTs can be used to assist the
heritage management process. The technologies were selected on the

129
 TECHNOLOGY SITUATION CONSERVATION EDUCATION SITE MANAGEMENT

Walk-ins Monitor attendance levels to For internal use to get closer Avoids overcrowding
prevent possible damage to site to the customer
TICKETING AND
RESERVATION
SYSTEMS Advanced Avoid site overcrowding and Visitors learn booking in advance Sites can prepare for groups/
bookings possible damage to site as guarantees a visit at time specified events in advance
restrictions are applied and avoids queuing

Site Educates visitors about Websites can be used before, Generates realistic visitor
awareness conservation issues and during and after the visit to expectations as well as reduce
increases awareness as to what supplement knowledge the needs giving orientation
to do to reduce impact and other information at the
time of visit

Information Opportunity to present Allows museum visitors to access Reduces staff’s time answering
provision conservation message the information they choose the publics’ questions
WEB SITE according to market segments

Inventory Fragile artefact need not be Showcase entire inventory range Site managers restrict access to
awareness displayed. A digital image can and interrelate with relevant fragile areas and artefacts
be used instead context, artefacts, sites, stories

Virtual Restrict public from fragile areas. Virtual tours provide ‘edutainment’ Addresses accessibility issues
tours Improve understanding of that is entertainment and education and provides better capacity
conservation issues combined management

Augmented Shows the effect of the Visitors can compare what was once Ensures every visitor sees the
Reality environment /visitors on the site to what there is today same reconstruction

MOBILE
MULTIMEDIA Orientation May reduce some impacts by Information is fed to visitor in Navigation assistance and
GUIDE monitoring visitor’s location accordance to location on site dynamic updates enable a more
ensuring they follow the responsive site management to
appropriate path market segments, demand levels,
weather, etc.

Remote Reuse of digital content Greater access to information for Connect to other research
access to private study and professional use institutions and exchange of
COLLECTION database information
MANAGEMENT
DATABASE
Record Record condition of the artefact use Collate information for use in Information stored in one place
information to compare artefact in the future interpretation and research

Figure 9.2 ICTs functional for WHS

 Information communication technology applications for World Heritage Site management

basis that they are particularly beneficial to heritage management.

WHS vary considerably and technologies will be more applicable to
some sites than others. The remainder of this chapter explores these
technologies and how they can be used at WHS.

Ticketing and reservation systems

Traditionally, site visitation was monitored manually to record the

number of visitors entering the site. Long queues often form at popular
sites and, to address this issue, the concept of booking in advance
was developed. To begin with customers were able to reserve tickets
over the telephone, speaking to a member of staff who input their
details into the computer reservation system. Some larger sites, such
as the Science Museum in London, use an interactive voice response
system which is connected to their computer reservation system. Thus
the booking system is automated. Today it is feasible for each com-
munication channel (telephone, Internet, walk-in) to be connected to
the site’s booking system (www.btconsulting.com). A computerized
system allows additional visitor information to be captured without
slowing down the entry process. This information can be used for vis-
itor management analysis. Marketing could use visitor attendance
information to identify their audience composition and then translate
the findings into developing suitable products or paths for appropri-
ate market segments, advertising campaigns, guiding systems,
souvenirs and relationships with intermediaries. Finance use attend-
ance figures to calculate income generated and predict future income
from tracking historical trends. In addition, invoicing systems can
be put into place to facilitate billing with tour companies and other
partners.
A computerized ticketing system can be installed for onsite use
only. This allows cashiers to have instant access to availability infor-
mation. Incorporating bar code readers allows membership cards to
be scanned and discounts are allocated automatically (http://www.
expsoft.com). Once the payment has been made, a ticket is printed
and handed to the visitor as a record of the transaction. Timed tours,
displays and shows can also be driven by this technology.
Advanced booking gives visitors peace of mind. They can avoid
spending time in queues and are guaranteed entrance at the time
specified. From a site management perspective, providing advanced
booking facilities effectively devolves the decision to the visitor who
has the choice of booking in advance or on the day. Thus it becomes
the visitor’s responsibility if they choose not to book in advance and
they arrive at the site to find a long queue.
Ticketing and advanced reservation systems are particularly use-
ful if the site attracts large numbers of visitors or if the site organizes

131
Managing World Heritage Sites

Figure 9.3 Online booking for the Uffizi, Italy.

Source: http://www.tickitaly.com/ (reproduced with permission)

special events, where reservations must be processed quickly and

advanced bookings can ease the administrative burden. Also, advanced
bookings can help the site maximize income generated from events
and exhibitions (www.btconsulting.com).
Automating the reservation and ticketing process not only reduces
labour cost but also enables better capturing of visitor patterns and
profile information facilitating WHS management.

Website

The World Wide Web’s global reach enables more extensive site pro-
motion. A WHS may have limited space to present exhibits. In this
situation, heritage managers have to select objects to go on display.
Websites have virtually limitless space (Janal, 1998) and can be used
to exhibit objects not on display at the WHS (Tsekeleves and Cosmas,
2003). Unlike print production, the incremental cost of adding extra
pages to a website is minimal (Janal, 1998). Therefore web content
developers are not restricted in terms of the numbers of web pages
they develop. This means that, unlike other marketing communica-
tions media, the choice of audience segments to target is more flexible.
Hypertext links can channel different audience groups to different
parts of a website site. For example children visiting the National
Trust’s website may select the link to ‘Trusty’ the hedgehog’s web

132
Information communication technology applications for World Heritage Site management

pages that are designed primarily for this audience group (www.
nationaltrust.org.uk/).

Figure 9.4 Trusty children's web pages from the National Trust.
Source: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/ (reproduced with permission)

A web presence extends opening hours to 24 hours a day, 7 days

a week, enabling more people to use the services of a WHS, at a time
that suits them. Also, people using a website effectively serve them-
selves searching for answers to their own questions, as opposed to
speaking to a member of staff which incurs costs to the site in the
process of answering the question (Keene, 1998). The website can
provide suitable themes for a wide range of market segments offer-
ing information in different languages, styles and depth according to
visitor requirements.
The general public are beginning to expect establishments of all
sizes to have a web presence at the very least. The difference between
a web presence and a website is that the website is designed solely
for that establishment. A web presence involves limited information
published on a special interest site. For example, Fishbourne Roman
Palace, which houses the largest collection of in-situ mosaics in
Britain, does not have a website of its own. Instead it features on other
websites, such as Sussex Past website (www.sussexpast.co.uk/),
which was designed by the Sussex Archaeological Society in the UK.
It is recognized that a web presence may encourage visitation to
sites that are already overcrowded. To combat this, the site can suggest
the best times to visit such as during off-peak periods. Nevertheless,

133
Managing World Heritage Sites

it cannot be assumed that the website always encourages visitation,

with competitors only a click away, some people are likely to be
deterred from visiting.

Virtual reality

Virtual reality (VR) is defined by Beekman (2005: 580) as ‘Technology

that creates the illusion that the user is immersed in a world that
exists only inside the computer …’
VR can also be employed in a virtual tour of the WHS. Virtual
tours allow remote access to a site. Therefore people can ‘visit’ a site
that they cannot otherwise do so because of distance, cost, or disabil-
ity. This often leads to a physical visit at a later stage. Figure 9.5
depicts a virtual tour of the Royal Observatory in the UK, part of the
Maritime Greenwich WHS.

Figure 9.5 Virtual tour of the Royal Observatory.

Source: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/ (reproduced with permission)

To an extent the virtual tour allows the site to fulfil its aim of pro-
viding access to all. Virtual tours can also be used within a site allow-
ing visitors to ‘virtually’ visit, rather than physically visit areas of
sites that are fragile (McKercher and du Cros, 2002) and also to pro-
vide ‘edutainment’, which is a combination of education and enter-
tainment (Buhalis, 2003).
VR can be used to enable new experiences such as the temporary
exhibition at the British Museum entitled ‘Mummy: the Inside Story’
(www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk). A CT scanner was used for digital
image acquisition without removing the mummy’s wrappings.
A virtual tour in 3D takes the viewer inside the mummy’s body
and also provides information about life in ancient Egypt as well as
the mummification process and rituals.

134
 Information communication technology applications for World Heritage Site management

Avatars are computer-generated images that have the appearance

of a human being. An Avatar can represent the user in a virtual envir-
onment (Beekman, 2005) or can take on the guise of a virtual tour
guide. Avatars can be static in a video sequence, or dynamic where
they interact with users. The use of Avatars ranges from a simple fig-
ure used to point to an image or to introduce a presentation to fully
interactive guides and presenters.

Figure 9.6 Avatar example.

Source: Ryder et al., 2004 (reproduced with permission)

Figure 9.6 depicts an application that recreates the city of Wolfen-

büttel, Germany. The user manoeuvres the Avatar shown in the bot-
tom right hand corner of the image. When the Avatar arrives at a
building, the user can ask questions, such as its historical signifi-
cance and the Avatar supplies the answer. This form of virtual tour is
expected to appeal to children who are used to playing computer
games. This application was developed as a museum installation but
could be made available on a website for use at home.
From a heritage management perspective, VR movies can show the
exact appearance of the site at the time the movie was taken. They
are quicker to produce and require less development costs than
computer-generated reconstructions. The latter are suitable when a
scene has to be re-created, for example to show the appearance of a city
several hundred years ago and to contrast it with the existing ruins.
In terms of use at a WHS, a movie or a simple use of Avatars may
be well within the financial reach of many WHS. Avatars using com-
plex computer-generated reconstructed environments would prob-
ably require corporate sponsorship.

Augmented reality

Augmented reality (AR) involves taking a ‘real world’ image,

usually from photographs or video, and then overlaying this with a

135
Managing World Heritage Sites

computer-generated reconstruction. The key difference between VR

and AR is that VR aims to immerse the user into a computer-generated
world (Laudon and Laudon, 2000; Beekman, 2005) while AR uses
technology to enhance and interpret reality.
AR does not always require the use of a dedicated computer sys-
tem. One image of a photo overlaid onto a computer reconstruction
is all that is required. AR can be used in posters, leaflets etc., thus
widening the number of WHS sites that could use this application.

Figure 9.7 AR in use at ENAME, Belgium.

Source: http://www.ename974.org/

AR can help visitors compare before and after scenarios. For

example, visitors to the archaeological site depicted in Figure 9.7 use
the touch screen (shown in the hut) to compare how the site looks
today with how it once looked. By pressing the appropriate area of the
touch screen, a computer-generated reconstruction of the abbey that
once stood at the site is depicted. Computer reconstructions can help
visitors to visualize a subject and will ensure that visitors see the
subject in the same way (Roussou and Drettakis, 2003). Computer
reconstructions can also assist in the provision of contextual infor-
mation and storytelling through representations, videos and other
reconstructions.

Mobile multimedia guides

A mobile multimedia guide is essentially a handheld device, such as

a PDA, which visitors carry around the site and use to access infor-
mation on the exhibits. The multimedia capability of these devices
allows movies, AR reconstructions, direct links to the website and
other interpretation methods to be shown. Information can be sent
wirelessly to the visitor according to their location on the site, or

136
 Information communication technology applications for World Heritage Site management

visitors can access information manually by pressing the appropriate

buttons. The multimedia device assists the user in orientation and
navigation around the site, while providing additional information
and interrelationships with other sites or locations. Thus there is less
need for signs which detract from the authenticity of the site. Questions
asked to the visitor at the beginning of the presentation, such as age
or country of origin, as well as time available for the visit and level of
expertise or interest allows a degree of personalized content to be fed
to the user. This makes interpretation much more relevant to the user
and to their particular needs and context.
In terms of suitability for a WHS, wireless devices require hardware
located on the site in order to deliver the information to the multimedia
guide. This can detract from the authenticity of the site and therefore
the infrastructure would have to be hidden, perhaps behind an exhibit
and so on. The costs incurred in developing such systems would make
this device only feasible in a site with high visitation levels to justify
usage, but would be particularly appropriate at WHS which contain a
wealth of heritage information such as Olympia, Greece (see case
study). Nevertheless, the proliferation of WiFi recently is reducing both
costs and size of antennas making this restriction minimal.

Case study: ARCHEOGUIDE – Olympia, Greece

This case study was written by Vassilios Vlahakis, Project Co-ordinator,

INTRACOM and describes the ARCHEOGUIDE system: an advanced
processing and mobile guiding system addressing the needs of
cultural sites. It provides navigation information, 3D virtual recon-
structions of ruined monuments and re-enactment of ancient life
with synchronized narration and on-line access to digital cultural
collections. The system was originally developed and used at the
archaeological site of Olympia, in Greece, the birthplace of the Olympic
Games and one of the most important WHS.

ARCHEOGUIDE description

The ARCHEOGUIDE system is a modular system making use of the

latest ICTs. It has been designed according to the client-server model
allowing a centralized infrastructure to be shared by a number of
mobile user devices, while the latter can also operate as standalone
entities. The heart of the system is a standard PC server incorporat-
ing a multimedia database where all relevant data (textual descrip-
tions, narration, photographs and drawings, 3D models, animations,
and video) are archived. These data are stored along with metadata
elements, that is descriptions identifying key scientific information

137
Managing World Heritage Sites

like dating of the original physical item, creator, material, etc., and
other information relating to the potential exploitation of the multi-
media objects. For instance, the geographic coordinates of a building
where a particular artefact was excavated may be used to describe
where a 3D model of the artefact will be presented in a virtual or aug-
mented tour of the site. The server incorporates a suite of windows-
based tools for creating the digital content, documenting it, and
editing the relevant metadata elements. As a result, archaeologists
can easily identify and group relevant objects into meaningful tours
in the site to be used with the mobile clients or virtual tours to be
delivered over the Internet.
The clients are a set of mobile devices, which visitors can carry
with them for the duration of their visit. According to their prefer-
ences, they may choose between a PDA, a tablet-PC, or an augmented
reality (AR) device. All devices are equipped with GPS receivers and
feature fully automatic operation. They continuously track the user’s
position and launch the presentation of the appropriate synchronized
audiovisual content once they approach a point of interest. For
instance, when the visitor approaches the Temple of Zeus, they are
automatically presented with a virtual reconstruction and other
information on the PDA’s screen. An advanced version of the same
information can be viewed on the more powerful tablet-PC where an
A4-sized screen offers higher visual quality. The user can also see
augmented panoramas that automatically align with his natural view
and which are augmented with reconstructed monument, annota-
tions, and events like the lighting of the Olympic Flame. Similarly,
he may walk to navigate through a virtual 3D site as it was in
antiquity.
To increase realism and provide a more intuitive and immersive
experience, the visitor may be provided with a mobile AR device. As
opposed to the e-book concept of the PDA and tablet guides, their AR
counterpart employs a pair of special glasses or binoculars equipped
with a digital compass and camera. These devices allow users to
experience reality as seen with their eyes, while at the same time vir-
tual buildings are rendered in their field-of-view in a seamless way,
creating the illusion of a 2500-year travel back in time. They can
enjoy this captivating experience simply by approaching and staring
at the ruins in their vicinity. The device uses position and orientation
data and combines them with a sophisticated real-time video track-
ing algorithm to calculate accurately the user’s field-of-view. It then
adapts the rendered graphics so as to avoid virtual buildings flying
over the physical ruins or getting out of alignment every time the
visitor turns his head.
A particular case occurs in the stadium where disciplines of the
ancient Olympic Games are re-enacted in the same venue as in
antiquity with the help of virtual athletes. The visitor may watch them

138
 Information communication technology applications for World Heritage Site management

come into life through his glasses or binoculars and mingle with
today’s visitors.

Tackling practical problems in a WHS

The use of ARCHEOGUIDE at Olympia posed several constraints on

its installation. Zero invasiveness on the site itself and interference
with its normal operation imposed such a difficult access that com-
munication hardware had to be installed outside the site.
Another serious problem when dealing with such a site is the cre-
ation of scientifically accurate content. Despite the use of the data
supplied by the Hellenic Ministry of Culture, ARCHEOGUIDE sup-
ports the presentation of multiple interpretations making it suitable
for scientific use, education and edutainment.
ARCHEOGUIDE targets the satisfaction of the site administrators
who want to use such an ICT system for promoting their site’s visi-
bility, visitor satisfaction, and use it as a development lever. Besides
being an attraction in itself, the system offers its users the opportunity
to experience information in an intuitive way, and to visit areas with
restricted access such as the interior of temples. Access to museum
exhibits and information from other historical sources provides an
integrated presentation. Furthermore, visitor satisfaction can also be
achieved through content personalization. The information that is
presented during the visit is automatically adapted in real time to the
user’s profile and behaviour. Different levels of detail are presented
to a child as opposed to an adult, and according to their language of
preference.

Future prospects

These features resulted in very positive comments from system

users. The realism of the AR device was praised, although size and
weight of the processing device makes the implementation more
challenging. The e-book concept proved very familiar as visitors
found it easy to use with the PDA scoring highest due to its pocket
size. The intuitive use of all devices was appreciated and computer-
literate users enjoyed the optional interaction with their devices.
The positive comments from ARCHEOGUIDE users led INTRA-
COM to develop and market intCulture. This system also provides
centralized monitoring and control of the operation of all devices, as
well as support for inventory monitoring, and statistics collection
and processing. It can support content reuse and services, such as
web and multimedia publishing, and educational applications.

139
Managing World Heritage Sites

Figure 9.8 Users of the ARCHEOGUIDE mobile devices at Olympia.

Source: Vlahakis et al., 2002

Collection management databases

Databases can be viewed as repositories for storing cultural heritage

knowledge. Traditionally, collections information was stored in
many different places: on paper, in books, journals and even in the
heads of staff (Keene, 1998; Fahay, 1999). Databases have the capabil-
ity of storing collections information in a variety of formats such
as images, movies, audio etc. Therefore, all the information about
collections can be stored in one place to facilitate easy access for
researchers, historians and interested visitors.
Some cultural heritage sites, such as the National Maritime
Museum in the UK, allow access to their catalogue over the Internet
(Figure 9.9). This benefits different types of users from casuals, to
enthusiasts, to experts, all who have access to a wider body of know-
ledge. Password protection must be installed and users given differ-
ent access rights. For example, the public would have permission to
view the collection, but would be restricted from adding, editing or
deleting records which authorized experts would have the ability to
do (Keene, 1998).
The costs involved in digitizing images alone can be an expensive
and time-consuming process. However once digitized, content is
reusable. There is much discussion in the literature concerning the
speed at which technology gets replaced and whether digital images
will be accessible in the future. The underlying question is ‘will this
investment in digitization be wasted?’ The current advice is to invest
in technology that meets agreed standards (Keene, 1998) and grad-
ually interoperability and standardization will prevail. In terms of

140
 Information communication technology applications for World Heritage Site management

Figure 9.9 Online access to collections information.

Source: National Maritime Museum http://www.nmm.ac.uk

suitability, a WHS with a small budget may consider purchasing a

Collections Management Database off the shelf, which is usually
considerably less expensive than a proprietary system, but at the
expense of functionality. A WHS that invests in a proprietary system
will be able to choose the functionality they require.
The heritage sector is effectively embarking on a recording pro-
gramme en masse. Future generations will benefit from this flurry of
recording activity undertaken at present.

Conclusions

This chapter demonstrates how ICTs can be used to support heritage

management. In terms of site management, visitors have been given
the tools to serve themselves; to make advanced bookings; search for
answers to their questions; or take a virtual tour. Technology now
presents the WHS with new ways of presenting information to edu-
cate visitors in terms of augmented reality and mobile multimedia
guides. The conservation message can be transmitted through the
Internet content as well as mobile guides on location. Augmented
reality can show a contrast between what used to be at a site and what
is there now and provide comprehensive contextual information to
improve interpretation. The technologies highlighted in this chapter

141
Managing World Heritage Sites

are technologies that are being developed today. Only time will tell
what new ways of interpretation will be used in the future.
The chapter has also sought to show that ICTs need not be prohibi-
tively expensive for the WHS. Collaboration between sites and with
research and development partners can provide substantial savings
in developing and maintaining ICT solutions. However, it is gradually
becoming evident that the visitor of the future will be used to a vir-
tual environment where information will be personalized, contex-
tualized and interactive. Hence, they will be expecting similar levels of
provision by WHS and other cultural heritage attractions. Organiza-
tions that perform well in these aspects therefore will increase their
competitiveness and will be able to attract visitors, while others will
offer limited satisfaction levels. Equally ICT enabled WHS will encour-
age further scientific research by interacting with the global scientific
community and by networking resources for maximizing opportun-
ities for understanding interpretation and further discovery.

Acknowledgements

This study forms part of the European Commission, FP6 Network

of Excellence IST-2002-507382 EPOCH. The authors would like
to thank the EPOCH partners for contributing and the European
Union for their substantial financial support, without which this
project would not have been possible. In addition, they wish to thank
Fraunhofer IGD, ZGDV, A&C2000, Post Reality, CCG, and the Hellenic
Ministry of Culture for their contributions to the ARCHEOGUIDE
case study.

References

Ambrose, T. and Paine, C. (1998) Museum Basics. London: Routledge.

Barlow, G. (1999) Managing demand and supply. In Leask, A. and
Yeoman, I. (eds) Heritage Visitor Attractions. London: Thomson
Learning.
Beekman (2005) Computer Confluence. London: Pearson Education
Limited.
Buhalis, D. (2003) eTourism Information Technology for Strategic Tourism
Management. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Dean, D. (1996) Museum Exhibition Theory and Practice. London:
Routledge.
Edson, G. and Dean, D. (2000) The Handbook for Museums. London:
Routledge.
Fahy, A. (1999) Collections Management. London: Routledge.

142
 Information communication technology applications for World Heritage Site management

Janal, D.S. (1998) Online Marketing Handbook. Chichester: John

Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Keene, S. (1998) Digital Collections, Museums and the Information Age.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Laudon, K.C. and Laudon, J.P. (2000) Management Information
Systems. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. (2002) Cultural Tourism: The
Partnership Between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management.
Binghamton, New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press.
Millar, S. (2004) An overview of the sector. In Leask, A. and Yeoman,
I. (eds) Heritage Visitor Attractions. London: Thomson Learning.
Rojek, C. (1997) Indexing, dragging and the social construction of
tourist sights. In Rojek, C. and Urry, J. (eds) Touring Cultures:
Transformations of Travel and Theory. London: Routledge.
Roussou, M. and Drettakis, G. (2003) Photorealism and non-
photorealism in virtual heritage representation. VAST 2003
Conference Proceedings.
Ryder, G., Flack, P. and Day, A.M. (2004) Adaptive crowd behaviour
to aid real-time rendering of a cultural heritage environment.
VAST 2004 Conference Proceedings.
Tsekleves, E. and Cosmas, J. (2003) The dissemination and promo-
tion of cultural heritage sites to people on the move employing
digital TV. VAST 2003 Conference Proceedings.
Vlahakis, V., Ioannidis, N. and Karigiannis, J. (2002) ARCHEOGUIDE:
Challenges and solutions of a personalized augmented reality
guide for archaeological sites. Computer Graphics in Art, History and
Archaeology Special Issue of the IEEE Computer Graphics and
Applications Magazine, September–October, 52–60.

Websites

BT consulting, 2005, Consulting & Systems Integration services from

BT, accessed 18 April 2005
http://www.btconsulting.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/corporate/
corporate_press_release_2003_03_17.htm
ENAME, 2005, Untitled Document, accessed 25 April 2005
http://www.ename974.org/
Explorer Systems Inc, 2005, Overview, accessed 25 April 2005
http://www.expsoft.com/overview.htm
INTRACOM, 2005, Archeoguide, accessed 20 April 2005
http://archeoguide.intranet.gr
Sussexpast, 2005, Museums & Properties – OFFICIAL SITE –
Fishbourne Roman Palace, accessed 20 April 2005
http://www.sussexpast.co.uk/property/site.php?site_id
11

143
Managing World Heritage Sites

The British Museum, Mummy: the inside story – homepage,

accessed 10 April 2005
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/mummy/index.html
The National Maritime Museum, Collections and Research, accessed
3 May 2005
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.005002
The National Trust, 2005, Learning & discovery; The National Trust,
accessed 20 April 2005
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/trusty/index_flash.htm
The Royal Observatory, 2005, ROG virtual tour – Meridian Line,
accessed 25 April 2005
http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500000d
Tickitaly.com, 2005, Italy – online ticket booking and reservation for
the Uffizi Gallery, Florence, the Accademia (David) and other Italian
museums and galleries, accessed 3 May 2005
http://www.tickitaly.com/xcart/product.php?productid
5&cat
1
UNESCO, 2005, UNESCO World Heritage Centre – Home, accessed
10 February 2005
http://whc.unesco.org
WHATIS.COM. 2005, Whatis.com, the computer and Internet dic-
tionary and encyclopaedia, accessed 27 April, 2005
http://www.whatis.com

144
 PA RT
4
Strategy
Managing World Heritage Sites

Part Four focuses on the strategic management of the World Heritage

List (WHL) with particular emphasis on the fundamental issues,
such as how many is practical, appropriate and feasible in the long
term. The chapters consider how effective current strategies are in
balancing the representation of the WHL and what can be done in
the future to ensure the successful achievement of the overall aims.
In Chapter 10, Greg Ashworth and Bart van der Aa critically review
the strategy and policy of the World Heritage Convention, elucidating
the differences in practice between various national decision-making
structures and investigating how the dominance of national interests
often exceeds those of international interests in WHS selection. They
then go on to raise some of the possible future solutions that would
increase the viability of site selection within the WHConvention.
These include consideration of options such as reassessment of the
whole concept of WHS, reassessment of resources appropriate for the
status or reassessment of the instruments used to determine this.
The final chapter in Part Four is written by Alan Fyall and Tijana
Rakic and considers the broader context within which WHS operate.
They start by reviewing the current relationship between World
Heritage and tourism and re-examines the relationship between
tourism and World Heritage Sites with particular regard to visitor
trends at sites. Current issues pertaining to the ‘sustainability’ of the
WHL are then explored with particular reference being made to a
study by Tijana Rakic into the future of the WHL and the views of
WHS managers, managers in the advisory bodies and heritage organ-
izations across the globe. The chapter concludes with the identifica-
tion of some future issues for World Heritage Sites with regard to the
development of tourism in States Parties and some of the measures
necessary to meet the needs and demands of visitors. This chapter
marks the completion of the issue-specific chapters within this text-
book and includes some conclusions gleaned from the authors pre-
ceding it. The following section moves to consider specific sites rather
than broader issues.

146
 C H A P T E R
10
Strategy and policy for the
World Heritage Convention:
goals, practices and
future solutions
G. J. Ashworth and
Bart J. M. van der Aa
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to:

• Demonstrate the dominance of the national over the inter-
national interest in World Heritage Site selection
• Elucidate the differences in practice between various national
decision-making structures
• Discuss some possible future solutions to the consequent prac-
tices which would increase the viability of site selection within
the WH Convention.

Introduction

The goals

The 1972 UNESCO WHConvention was introduced to preserve the

world’s ‘most outstanding’ heritage sites in the built or natural envir-
onment for the benefit of all humanity now and into an undeter-
mined future. A World Heritage List should thus comprise the best
heritage sites, selected on their intrinsic merit, conserved and man-
aged in a way that satisfies the aims of both preservation for future
generations and presentation to the very humanity in whose name
they have been designated. The argument of this chapter is simply
that a dangerous gap is increasingly evident between the goal and
the evolving reality stemming from its implementation. Such a dis-
crepancy is structurally embedded in the convention and inherent in
the processes of its application. It can thus only increase to the detri-
ment of the original goals, leading to an unsatisfactory list, inad-
equate management and lost opportunities unless quite radical
revision of the approaches, restructuring of the organization and
strengthening of the measures takes place.

The practices

The core of the problem lies in the simple and not unexpected domin-
ance of the national over the international interest. The rhetoric is
global: the practice is national. WHS are, of course, nominated not by
UNESCO or its agencies, such as ICOMOS (International Council on
Monuments and Sites), but by the national governments in whose
territories they are currently to be found. The only notable exception
to this was the listing of Jerusalem as a WHS in 1981, despite it being
nominated by Jordan, which neither occupied nor managed it.

148
 Strategy and policy for the WH Convention: goals, practices and future solutions

Despite the fact that the world heritage list should contain the
world’s ‘best’ natural and cultural heritage sites, it largely depends
on each State Party’s ability and willingness to nominate sites and,
although such nominations are assessed by ICOMOS or the IUCN
(World Conservation Union), 82 per cent of the ‘cultural’ sites and
68 per cent of the ‘natural’ sites nominated have ultimately been
designated (van der Aa, 2005a: 20). Thus WHS inscription is a com-
promise reaction among national governments to national nomina-
tions and interests. It is not a challenge to national sovereignty by a
supranational valuation.
As each nomination has to be initiated at the national level, States
Parties that do not actively participate in the WHConvention will not
have any listed WHS, even though they may possess sites likely to
fulfil the selection criterion of ‘outstanding universal value’. Saudi
Arabia, for example, has not nominated the cities of Mecca or Medina,
even though they can be regarded as the ‘heart’ of Islam. Conversely,
States Parties that actively participate in the WHConvention nom-
inate more sites. A total of 21 of the 178 participating States Parties
have seats on the WHC but this 12 per cent of members has actually
nominated more than 30 per cent of listed sites between 1978 and
2004 (van der Aa, 2005a: 81).
It can be argued that UNESCO has tended to support the national
rather than the international dimension through a number of its pol-
icies. For example, it asserts the paramount right of the national claim
to ownership of cultural property, favouring the present occupiers of
territory, which in practice means their governments, over any other
claim on heritage artefacts and sites. UNESCO, understandably
given its membership structure, has rarely contested the sovereign
rights of governments to determine their own priorities and act
accordingly, even if this resulted in damage or displacement of cul-
tural property. UNESCO may warn of the consequences of govern-
ment actions, provide advice and finance to mitigate their effects, but
it has not contested the rights of government to take them. Even the
currently discussed convention on cultural diversity is in practice lit-
tle more than support for national cultural protectionism which does
little for national cultural minorities nor for the consumption of cul-
turally diverse products (van der Ploeg, 2004).
The search for global balances (UNESCO, 1994: 3) and the imple-
mentation of the Global Strategy in 1994 (Fontein, 2000: 41) is likely
to prove not only a chimera but, in practice, is little more than a
bargaining counter in national competition. There is a claimed ‘over-
representation’ of historic towns, religious (notably Christian) build-
ings, and European sites and ‘under-representation’ of sites from
prehistory, the twentieth century, non-Christian and ‘living cultures’.
The harder UNESCO has tried to redress these ‘imbalances’,
however, the more they have grown, at least in terms of spatial

149
Managing World Heritage Sites

distribution. This is because, first, thirty-one States Parties, including

many in central and eastern Europe, have ratified the convention
between 1994 and 2003. The new European States Parties have des-
ignated four sites each on average, new States Parties in other contin-
ents about two. The new States Parties have had seventy-five sites
listed during this period, of which only three concern prehistory or
archaeology. Secondly, European States Parties make the best use of
the opportunities offered by the Global Strategy. Regardless of
whether one looks at cultural landscapes, modern twentieth century
heritage, industrial heritage, or prehistoric heritage, Europe has
taken most advantage of the opportunity to nominate sites in these
categories. Between 1995 and 2003, 29 of the 44 cultural landscapes
(Fowler, 2003: 24), 13 of the 14 industrial heritage sites, seven of the
10 modern heritage sites and four of the 11 prehistoric sites are
located in Europe. Not only does practice contradict intent, the very
use of ‘balance’ as a criterion fundamentally contradicts the criterion
of intrinsic quality: the choice can be of the best or of the fairest but
not both.
It has become increasingly evident in the past few years that the
current domination of national interests is at the expense of not only
the international but also the local dimension. There is a growing
resistance in many States Parties to local disinheritance by national
and international interests who may be represented by international
or national designations and by tourists manifesting the global claim
by exercising their rights of access to their heritage. Local inhabitants
are likely to select, interpret and use heritage differently from out-
siders and locally determined authenticity and identity is frequently
just different. Local rejection of world heritage inscription, as in the
Wadden Sea nomination by Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands
(van der Aa et al., 2004: 298) is no longer exceptional.
Finally, States Parties nominate for different reasons, in pursuit of
different national strategies, using different criteria as will be illus-
trated from the cases briefly introduced below.
These problems are manifest in three characteristics of the World
Heritage List. First, there has been an increasing inflation of the lists
in total and in diversity. Admittedly the 2004 figure of 788 does not
seem in itself an unduly excessive representation of the productivity
of a world population through many millennia. However, there are,
in addition, 1325 tentative sites under consideration and 75 per cent
of all member states are preparing nominations within the next
5 to 10 years (World Heritage Newsletter 2001/2: 5). Secondly, and
consequently, the composition of the list and the quality of the sites
is increasingly difficult to reconcile with the adjectives ‘outstanding’
and ‘best’ as required by the convention. Thirdly, there are manifest
deficiencies in the management and funding of many sites, as exem-
plified in many of the cases discussed at length elsewhere in this

150
 Strategy and policy for the WH Convention: goals, practices and future solutions

book, which threaten both the preservation for future and experience
by present generations.

Case study: Cases of national decision-making

In some States Parties, such as the Netherlands and Poland, the deci-
sions are made at the national level with the intent of using WHS as
‘national flag carriers, symbols in some way of national culture and
character’ (Shackley, 1998: 1) so that world heritage becomes a list of
‘national icons’ (Lowenthal, 1998: 228). Selection is made of sites that
reflect the ‘golden age’ or historical theme chosen as characteristic of
national qualities (van der Aa, 2005a: 41–48). The sites that were
nominated by Poland, for example, before the end of Communism in
1990 focused on that part of the State Party that had long been part of
Poland and which reinforced Polish national identity by focusing
upon a ‘Golden’, largely Jagellonian, age of Polish culture and expan-
sion. Heritage sites related to the parts of contemporary Poland set-
tled dominantly by Germans, such as the Castle of the Teutonic Order
in Malbork (previously Marienburg), the cities of Toruń (Thorn) and
Gdańsk (Danzig), the Church of Peace in Jawor (Jauer) and Swidnica
(Schweidnitz), were initially ignored and only nominated from 1997
onwards. In the Netherlands, most WHS are located in the western
part of the States Party, which lies below sea level, and are intended
to illustrate the selected theme of the Dutch ‘battle against the water’,
an important aspect of Dutch self-identity and externally projected
image (Kinderdijk, Beemster Polder, Schokland and the Wouda
steam pumping station).
Many States Parties treat WHS nominations as one instrument in
their creation of a distinctive recognized national identity. Mexico, for
example, attempts to balance pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial
heritages in search of some distinctive Mexican identity (van der Aa,
2005b). These heritages represent the Indígenas, the pre-conquest
inhabitants (now constituting 14 per cent of the population), colonists
from Spain (10 per cent) and a mixture of these two groups, the
Mestizo (who constitute about three-quarters of the population)
(Fischer Weltalmanach, 2001). The idea that, ‘only the Mestizos were
true Mexicans, since creole (that is, descendents of Spanish colonists)
landowners were European in cultural affiliation and Indians were
bound by the parochial loyalties of their pueblos …’ (Brading, 2001:
525), encourages a search for a Mexican identity through an increasing
nomination of post-colonial Mestizo heritage sites (van der Aa, 2005a:
52) such as Hospicio Cabañas and the works of Luis Barragán or WHS
expressing a combination of periods and cultures (such as Mexico City
and the floating gardens of Xochimilco as well as the amalgamation of
the colonial city of Oaxaca and the archaeological site of Monte Albán).

151
Managing World Heritage Sites

Figure 10.1 Home Study Museum of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo, Mexico

Figure 10.2 Castle of the Teutonic Order, Malbork, Poland

152
 Strategy and policy for the WH Convention: goals, practices and future solutions

States Parties with federal governmental systems, such as Spain

and Germany, will often place a higher priority in selection upon
balance between political units than any absolute values. In Spain,
although sites are nominated by the central government’s office in
Madrid, the goal of fair spatial distribution is an established policy
and by April 2005, all of Spain’s seventeen autonomous regions as
well as the two African enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla had a site on
the tentative list. Similarly, the UK, as a multi-national entity has
nominated sites in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales
since 1986 (van der Aa, 2005a: 55–61).
In some States Parties the local level has played a major role in nom-
ination and there has been a trend in many more States Parties for the
initiative to be increasingly delegated to sub-national jurisdictions.
The more decentralized the nominations the more dominant become
local considerations over national ones. Issues of local preservation,
encouraging tourism, local economic regeneration and restoration of
local self-esteem take precedence over national pride and national
identity. Blaenavon, for example, in the coal valleys of South Wales has
quite consciously attempted to use world heritage status as an instru-
ment in a programme of local economic regeneration.

Future solutions

A reassessment of the concept

If the idea of world heritage is a set of rights and obligations of

humanity as a whole towards what it regards as its heritage, there
should be a redefinition, or at least restatement of these international
rights and duties. The rights can be translated into a series of demands
of humanity upon this heritage. These may be only the knowledge
that the heritage continues to exist to satisfy an unspecified and pos-
sibly never exercised future demand (option demands); recognizing
the right to bequeath to futures (bequest demands), and direct par-
ticipation or consumption demands (Ashworth, 1998: 12). The first
two demands are satisfied just by knowing the heritage continues to
exist but the third is manifested in the most powerfully visible claim
of humanity upon its heritage, namely tourism. If a cultural property
or site is designated as being world heritage then it is difficult to
understand how the world can be excluded from experiencing it. Yet
this frequently occurs partially or wholly (see the discussion of tourism
management and even tourist exclusion in Shackley, 1998). The famil-
iar dilemma is that the preservation of the heritage is frequently seen
by its curators to be dependent upon restraining the exercise of a
tourist claim. However, the original designation is dependent upon
the building of a consensus valuation of the site and the publicity

153
Managing World Heritage Sites

that this allows is then used to generate support for its preservation
and maintenance. The creation of such a global consensus and the
concomitant publicity inevitably increases world consciousness of
the existence of the site, authenticates the quality of the heritage
experience and thus increases the demands to experience it.
Rights are necessarily accompanied by obligations and thus the
world is presumably responsible in some way for its own heritage.
Such responsibilities may be exercised through concern, monitoring,
and the donation of expertise and financial subsidy. However, at
what point does the exercise of these global obligations necessarily
impose upon the sovereignty of the nation-state? First, the protection
of the site by national legislation has to be assured before it can
be listed as World Heritage. Furthermore, the acceptance of inter-
national concern, expertise and aid implies the acceptance of inter-
national priorities, values, methods, and behaviours, which are not
inevitably the same as national or local ones. Indeed, it is likely in
many poorer States Parties that national economic priorities may
take precedence over global priorities for heritage protection. World
heritage designation is often treated by national planning agencies
as if it were an extra category or class of heritage to be added to those
that already exist at national or local level. However, it is not, for the
same site can have local, national and international significance. If
these different scales conflict there is little doubt that the national
scale uses and interpretations will take priority.
In most Western States Parties the differences are generally small
and the problem rarely arises: World Heritage Status is generally just
added marginal value to sites already valued and possibly some extra
leverage upon national funding. However, in less economically
advanced States Parties and especially those with a different cultural
background and economic priorities to the dominant value consensus
represented by the world organizations, problems are likely to arise.

A reassessment of resources

The financial contribution to the world heritage fund is currently

1 per cent of the national contribution to UNESCO. This amount is
small (US$ 4 105 000 in 2002, falling to US$ 3 995 000 in 2003) and
becomes derisory if calculated per designated WHS. The options
would seem to be more money or fewer commitments. More money
would allow more inspection, research, and help with maintenance
and the management of users. If the world is becoming more inter-
ested in its heritage, and rapidly increasing its quantity and variety
through the ever lengthening lists of natural and built environmen-
tal WHS, then it seems opportune to ask it to pay more for them. In
such an argument the growth of tourism interest may be seen as an

154
 Strategy and policy for the WH Convention: goals, practices and future solutions

opportunity to garner economic and political support rather than as a

threat. Ideas for new long-term financial partnerships with private
institutions or the use of UNESCO funds as ‘seed money’ which will
help generate funds from elsewhere are all under discussion but the
greatest need occurs in the areas least likely to generate such funding.
The alternative would be to exercise more selectivity and parsi-
mony in listing so that resources would not be spread so thinly. The
increase in sites designated is not matched by an anticipated increase
in resources and an increasing number of sites are likely to be nom-
inated in States Parties with limited technical and financial resources
of their own. List inflation with thin subsidies and with little guar-
antee of local or international protection, is likely to result in damage
and deterioration by accident and indifference as much as by design.
List inflation could be met by stricter pre-listing conditions or a
pre-selection process but these would tend to favour the richer States
Parties and not offer protection to vulnerable sites in poorer States
Parties where such protection is most needed. The list could in the-
ory be capped at a number of sites supportable with the current
resources and new sites only accepted as replacement for existing
sites. This would be financially prudent and allow the list to reflect
changing tastes and standards for why should listing be permanent
and eternal when ideas may change and even new discoveries made?
Less radically new inscriptions could be limited to one or two rather
than the current limit of thirty annually. Stricter criteria would not
only improve quality, increase the status of inscribed sites, but also
allow the WHC more opportunities to monitor the management of
listed sites. A quality graded listing is also a solution that is adopted
in most national lists of monuments. A division into ‘A’ and ‘B’ lists
or awarding stars to a limited number of sites would allow scarce
resources to be concentrated. None of these solutions would how-
ever be acceptable to the States Parties.

A reassessment of instruments

The power of UNESCO is both considerable and severely limited. It

is in a powerful position to influence and mobilize world opinion
and thus to persuade and put pressure upon national governments.
Its World Heritage declarations, as well as its conventions and pro-
nouncements are influential. However, if this moral and largely indir-
ect influence is insufficient then UNESCO has few instruments or
sanctions.
The most effective solutions should confront the central problem
argued above, namely the balance of international and national inter-
ests needs to be reassessed. The nomination of sites could become a
responsibility of cultural organizations and even individuals rather

155
Managing World Heritage Sites

than states. Nomination would then no longer be dependent upon

the willingness, ability and political influence of States Parties
nor their internal jurisdictional structures or cultural and political
tensions.
It is currently not clear what can be done when global concerns
diverge from national ones. The concept of world heritage implies
some obligation for intervention if a national government will not, or
cannot, maintain a WHS, or is in danger of damaging it through war
or neglect, or perhaps just has different and more pressing immediate
priorities for its attention and finance. There is a post-listing right
to inspection and regular monitoring but this is not only costly, it is
also unclear what sanctions would result from unsatisfactory reports.
UNESCO can in theory ‘de-designate’ a WHS. The political, economic
and promotional consequences of this possibility give considerable
leverage on governments failing to maintain, or threatening to dam-
age, World Heritage. This would have some direct financial implica-
tions, not least on the flow of international subsidies and World Bank
loans and be a clear signal to managers at listed sites that they have to
fulfil a wider responsibility. However, the international community
would also lose its influence over the future of the site.
It has even been mooted (World Heritage Newsletter, 2001/2) that
damage to World Heritage could become a legally indictable ‘crime
against culture’ that ought to be prosecuted by some international
tribunal. However, threats of sanctions, de-listing and even inscrip-
tion on the ‘List of World Heritage in Danger’ are unlikely to be
politically acceptable within the present states dominated structure
of UNESCO (van der Aa and Ashworth, 2002: 8). World heritage
depends upon a ‘consensual approach’ (King, 2001) but the political
reality is that this consensus is between States Parties, which ultim-
ately explains the powerlessness of the international agencies.

Conclusions

It is understandable and commendable that there is a growing senti-

ment in favour of recognizing and protecting a World Heritage
expressed through the best of human creativity. So also is the search
for diversity, for balances, for fairness, for equities among the differ-
ent regions, eras, philosophies, and cultures of the world. The World
Heritage List should reflect all of these ideas. The current list is far
from perfect, predominantly because of the role played by the States
Parties in how the list is constructed. There is an institutional and
conceptual contradiction within the idea of a World Heritage nomi-
nated and managed by national entities. This becomes apparent once
the questions, ‘who decides what is significant?’ and, ‘who acts to
make it manifest?’ are posed. UNESCO is not a world government

156
 Strategy and policy for the WH Convention: goals, practices and future solutions

but a forum for the interaction of national governments. It can only

operate within the powers allowed it and these are severely con-
strained. There is, in addition, a growing and perhaps inevitable mis-
match between commitments and resources. States Parties are more
eager to be included on lists than to pay for them. Consequently,
more is promised with less ability to fulfil such promises. This is just
one element in the much wider question of the necessity for a world
order managed by a world community. Clearly, there is no consensus
about what either term could mean but, equally clearly, there is a
growing consensus about the desirability of paralleling the increas-
ing globalization of economic power, population mobility, social and
consumer behaviour with some exercise of global responsibility. The
idea of World Heritage at sites with a global significance is an obvi-
ous and important part of such a world order.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the significant role in the

research programme from which this chapter is drawn of our faculty
colleagues, Peter Groote and Paulus Huigen.

References

Ashworth, G.J. (1998) Is there a world heritage? The Urban Age, 4 (4), 12.
Brading, D.A. (2001) Monuments and nationalism in modern
Mexico. Nations and Nationalism, 7 (4), 521–531.
Fischer Weltalmanach (2000) Der Fischer Weltalmanach: Zahlen, Daten,
Fakten. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.
Fontein, J. (2000) UNESCO, Heritage and Africa: An Anthropological
Critique of World Heritage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University.
Fowler, P. (2003) World heritage cultural landscapes, 1992–2002: A
review and prospect. In Caccarelli, P. and Rössler, M. (eds) (2003)
Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation. Paris: UNESCO,
pp. 16–31.
King, P. (2001) Interview. World Heritage Newsletter, 30 (May/June),
p. 2.
Lowenthal, D. (1998) The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shackley, M.L. (1998) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World
Heritage Sites. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
UNESCO (1994) Expert meeting on the ‘global strategy’ and thematic
studies for a representative world heritage list, 20–22 June. Paris:
UNESCO.

157
Managing World Heritage Sites

van der Aa, B.J.M. (2005a) Preserving the Heritage of Humanity?

Obtaining World Heritage Status and the Impacts of Listing. Enschede:
Febodruk.
van der Aa, B.J.M. (2005b) World heritage as a means of marking
Mexican identity. In Ashworth, G.J. and Graham, B. (eds) Senses of
Place, Senses of Time. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 133–148.
van der Aa, B.J.M. and Ashworth, G.J. (2002) Dertig jaar werelderf-
goedconventie: Een loze lijst? Geografie, 11 (10), 6–9.
van der Aa, B.J.M., Groote, P.D. and Huigen, P.P.P. (2004) World heri-
tage as NIMBY: The case of the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea.
Current Issues in Tourism, 7 (4–5), 291–302.
van der Ploeg, F. (2004) Comment. Journal of Cultural Economics,
28 (4), 257–261.
World Heritage Newsletter (2001/2) 33 (December/January).

158
 C H A P T E R
11
The future market for
World Heritage Sites
Alan Fyall and Tijana Rakic
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this chapter are to:

• Outline the current relationship between World Heritage and
tourism
• Explore the relationship between tourism and World Heritage
Sites with particular regard to visitor trends at sites
• Examine some of the current issues pertaining to the ‘sustain-
ability’ of the World Heritage List and explore some of the cor-
responding likely impacts on visitor trends
• Identify some of the future issues for World Heritage Sites with
regard to the development of tourism in States Parties and some
of the measures necessary to meet the needs and demands of
visitors.

Introduction

Although unique in its own right, this chapter brings together many
of the visitor-related issues discussed in a number of the preceding
chapters in order to assess the future market for World Heritage Sites
(WHS). With 812 sites currently inscribed on the World Heritage List
(WHL) of which 628 are cultural, 160 natural and 24 mixed, sites are
as plentiful as they are diverse and spread widely among 137 States
Parties. Although there is widespread recognition of the inherent imbal-
ance within the WHL vis-à-vis site type and location (see Chapter 1),
the Global Strategy (World Heritage Committee, 1994) has sought
to redress the imbalance by encouraging nominations that meet other
criteria and originate from less well represented States Parties and
themes. However, irrespective of the nomination process and the add-
itional hurdles put in place to make the WHL more rigorous, fair and
balanced geographically, the majority are likely to have to deal with the
issue of tourism and the likelihood of changing visitation patterns.
With such a mix of sites located around the world it is nearly impos-
sible to forecast the future market for WHS in their entirety. What is
possible, however, is to clarify many of the current trends at WHS and
in view of the future sustainability of the WHL, explore some of the
likely impacts on visitor trends. This chapter begins with an overview
of the sometimes conflicting relationship between World Heritage and
tourism and goes on to explore specifically the relationship between
World Heritage status and levels of visitation at sites. The chapter then
examines some of the issues impacting on the future sustainability of

160
 The future market for World Heritage Sites

the WHL before synthesizing a number of issues likely to impact on

the future development of WHS for purposes of tourism.

World Heritage and tourism

Rationale for inscription

As evidenced throughout this book so far, and in the case studies

that follow, irrespective of the site in question, motivations for inscrip-
tion are traditionally mixed. Although conservation, preservation
and protection may have historically been the principal drivers for
inscription, more recent trends suggest that the entire process is
becoming more political with motivations for nation building, iden-
tity, and an eagerness to tap into the economic benefits to be derived
from tourism at sites becoming more prominent (Bonnette, 2005). It
is accepted that despite the laudable intentions of the Global
Strategy, nominations are in fact very difficult to stop in that the
political drivers are simply becoming too strong a force. In an inter-
view conducted with Bonnette (2005) in her study of the future of the
World Heritage List, Rakic (2005) concluded that, whereas nomin-
ations used to be managed by experts and professionals, now that
countries have discovered the WHL’s significant tourism potential,
greater political involvement is apparent with the real purpose of
many nominations being tourism, with States Parties often seeking to
influence the opinions of the experts! In the same study, there was
also a reported unwillingness of the heritage sector to work with the
tourism industry and an ingrained reluctance to adopt visitor-oriented
practices.
Although deemed problematic and troublesome in some quarters,
the growth of tourism as a driver for inscription is understandable
in that the reasons why so many sites are proposed for inscription
are, in most instances, the same reasons why visitors find such sites
attractive and worthy of visitation in the first place. Depending on
one’s view of heritage generally, and World Heritage in particular, if
a site is inscribed on the WHL then it is difficult to understand how
the world at large can be excluded from experiencing it; tourism
representing the most powerfully visible claim of humanity upon its
heritage.
Interestingly, in the study conducted by Rakic (2005), in terms of
WHS status, stakeholders within the tourism industry, more than in
any other sector, deemed inscription to be most significant in that the
enhanced profile and opportunities for marketing were just too good
for sites to miss. In the same study, just under two-thirds of respond-
ents thought that increased visitation and overall attractiveness of the

161
Managing World Heritage Sites

site to visitors was a motivation for pursuing inscription with benefits

from tourism considered to be a principal advantage of listing.

Maintaining the balance

Clearly, one of the underlying problems with sites gaining WHS sta-
tus and the consequent economic benefits that may accrue, are the
means by which the two activities – conservation and tourism – are
managed. As identified in a number of chapters already, the large
number of stakeholders involved, conflicting agendas and priorities,
and funding mechanisms to name but a few, serve as impediments to
the achievement of consensus. McKercher et al. (2005) identified the
need for a holistic viewpoint to be adopted in that all parties in this
‘awkward relationship’ need to recognize ‘realistic appreciation of
the tourism value of the asset, the need to conserve core cultural val-
ues and clearly defined roles’ (McKercher et al., 2005). Above all,
those managing sites require a wider appreciation of the implications
for visitation levels once inscription has been achieved and those fac-
tors underpinning visitor levels in the first instance. Heritage and
tourism are ultimately mutually dependent where operators and des-
tinations can use them to add value to their products and local ser-
vices which, in turn, generates greater income from tourists while the
heritage sites achieve higher revenues and profile that help when
seeking assistance/funding for preservation from authorities.
In the context of World Heritage, one of the issues is the extent to
which WHS status does in fact lead to increasing visitor levels. As a
number of chapters have already identified, insufficient research has
been conducted throughout the world that explores fully this issue –
the relationship between inscription and levels and types of visit-
ation. The diversity of sites and varying resource levels, their location
in developing or developed countries, expertise of staff and the local
political context all contribute to making general findings inappro-
priate to many sites.

Heritage as an attraction

Irrespective of type, size, nature or ease of access, heritage represents

just one component of the attractions’ sector and competes for vis-
itors with a whole myriad of privately and publicly-funded attrac-
tions. Although maybe not the original intention of the founders of
the WHL, World Heritage Sites are in the marketplace for visitors,
albeit somewhat reluctantly in some quarters. In recent years, the
world has seen an unprecedented growth in the number of attrac-
tions, with particular growth recorded in the commercial attractions’

162
 The future market for World Heritage Sites

sector. Stevens (2003) goes as far to predict that the future attractions’
landscape is to experience a ‘new geography and typology of visitor
attractions’ that require different forms of management and organ-
izational structures. Stevens also forecasts growth in multi-faceted
and multi-occupier type attractions and suggests that the future lies
with destination-style attractions where visitors can experience shop-
ping, eating and other aspects of leisure at the one location. Clearly,
this leads to a growth in corporate-style ‘all-inclusive’ attractions
where shopping and entertainment come together.
At first glance, it is difficult to appreciate where heritage fits into
this future scenario, especially smaller heritage attractions. However,
although not instantly recognizable as a ‘corporate’ attraction, the
benefits to be gained from World Heritage ‘branding’ suggest that the
future for the majority of sites inscribed on the WHL is likely to be
positive vis-à-vis tourism. Listing provides a suitable magnet for vis-
itors and provides an effective ‘differential advantage’ for sites when
‘competing’ for visitors with other attractions. Although the use of such
language may appear offensive to some, heritage per se is a significant
catalyst for travel; Boyd (2003) commenting that 40 per cent of all
travel includes a heritage component, albeit partly due to increasing
grey markets within key origin markets.

Heritage and tourism

The growing demand for ‘heritage based’ tourism is best depicted

by Lowenthal (1979) and Hannabuss (1999). Lowenthal (1979) argues
that people’s nostalgia for the past is deepened by the contemporary
destruction of historic relics. The proof for that, as he describes it, is the
search by people for their roots and identity as well as the increased
appreciation of community culture and family legacy. Hannabuss
(1999) similarly claims that people consuming heritage (visitors) are in
search for coherence in their increasingly fragmented (post-modern)
lives. The phenomenon of heritage consumption (through tourism)
tends to portray tourism as a negative phenomenon which contributes
considerably to the utilization of heritage rather than conservation.
However, tourism can also be seen as being the only valid reason for
its preservation, especially in places where other economic develop-
ments would imply its destruction (Hall, 2001).
The never ending discussion trying to find the fragile balance
between tourism consumption and heritage conservation, frequently
engaging historians and tourism practitioners, further emphasizes
the indestructible connection between heritage and tourism. This
relationship is further explored by Robinson et al. (2000: v) who note
that it would be hard to imagine tourism without heritage. Heritage
is seen as an ‘exhibit’ used for the purposes of tourism, where the

163
Managing World Heritage Sites

past is ‘… continually being restored, and reconstructed, packaged,

interpreted and displayed …’ and where ‘… tourists are offered a
wide range of heritage products …’ (Robinson et al., 2000: v). It is
agreed that heritage has increasingly been commodified for touristic
consumption where, through further processing and packaging, it is
now more accessible, popular, entertaining and educational than
ever. Robinson et al. (2000) suggest that there are two different views
of the tourism and heritage interaction; one by which such actions
are re-enforcing the significance of the past and the other by which
we are challenging our link with the past.
Timothy (1997) argues that heritage is the essence of tourism.
Accordingly, he divides heritage and heritage tourism experiences,
while acknowledging category overlapping, to personal, local, national
and world heritage. The world heritage, he argues, are the heritage
attractions drawing large masses of international tourists and pro-
ducing little personal affection, while the national are the historical
monuments representing national ideals and pride, the local are the
landmarks of cities, towns and villages used by the community as a
connection to their collective past and the personal are places of
emotional importance for a person or a group of people. Clearly,
World Heritage Sites, although evident among all categories high-
lighted by Timothy (1997) predominate in the ‘world’ category.
Returning to the future scenario advocated by Stevens (2003), the
question to be asked in the context of World Heritage is the extent to
which such sites represent an appeal that can compete with other attrac-
tions and that can engender increasing levels of visitation afforded by
the endorsement by UNESCO of the World Heritage brand?

Visitation at World Heritage

The preceding discussion is clear in that World Heritage Sites, although

originally listed on the WHL for the purpose of protection and preser-
vation, have for the most part increasingly become visitor attractions,
with the WHL immensely important not only for heritage preservation
but also for the tourism industry (Bandarin, 2005). Tourism is an attend-
ant phenomenon as inscription to the World Heritage List ‘not only
confers recognition in terms of conservation, but also raises a site’s pro-
file and stimulates tourism demand’ (Bandarin, 2005: v).
One question that is repeatedly asked but fails continually to be
answered fully is the extent to which inscription does actually con-
tribute to higher visitor numbers at sites previously not on the WHL.
It is the view of Bandarin (2005: v) that for internationally well known
sites, such as the Tower of London, World Heritage status may have lit-
tle impact on visitor numbers. However, in less established destin-
ations inscription is usually accompanied by an upsurge in tourism.

164
 The future market for World Heritage Sites

Venice is also highlighted as an internationally well known example,

although the sheer volume of visitors to this unique city is in danger of
destroying the very assets that have attracted visitors over past
decades. What is difficult to ascertain is the extent to which World
Heritage Site status has contributed to this problem. Although there are
obvious pressures caused by visitor levels at many sites around the
world, Boyd and Timothy (2001) argue that tourism really is not the
great evil it is often made out to be. Lack of suitable resources to imple-
ment management plans, poverty and civil unrest, war, deprivation
and a lack of political will are responsible for more sites being recorded
on the List of World Heritage in Danger than the negative impacts of
tourism. Another point worth repeating is that raised by Buckley (2004)
in that it is the nature of the WHL and the work undertaken by conser-
vationists that have actually given tourism professionals a significant
hand in preserving their key resource – and advertising it!
One of the outcomes of inscription is that many sites, once on the
WHL, are elevated to the ‘status of global icon’ (Shackley, 1998: 205).
The ‘icon’ was also mentioned by Young (2001) who noted the strong
relationship between tourism and WHS status, and had additionally
described how such ‘icons’ are incorporating the values of World
Heritage which are looked for both by visitors and the tourism
industry. Hall and Piggin (2001: 204) emphasize that inscription on the
WHL endorses the site with an extremely strong brand, while Evans
(2001: 81) adds that ‘… WHS and “wonders” have become just that,
“must see” symbolic attractions in cultural tours and national tourist
board marketing, and the WHS award equivalent of a Michelin guide
5-star rating’.
Although there is a paucity of research that validates the views of
Bandarin (2005), it would appear at the outset that one can distin-
guish between international destinations, such as London, where vis-
itor numbers have always been significant, and less well-established
destinations, especially in the developing world, where World Heritage
status is particularly viewed as a catalyst to drive the local, regional
or even national tourism economy. Bandarin (2005) argues that prob-
lems often arise with relatively new World Heritage Sites in lesser
developed economies anxious to acquire the developmental benefits
of tourism. For such countries the fact that tourism can be an envir-
onmental or cultural threat is far outweighed by its perceived advan-
tages. Furthermore, ‘even though there are positive impacts from
tourism, it is not invariably the people who live in World Heritage
Sites who benefit’ (Bandarin, 2005: v).
The assumption that inscription on the WHL automatically results
in increased visitation levels is, however, naïve and overly simplifies
the nature of visitor trends at World Heritage Sites. Despite a growing
body of literature in the field of World Heritage vis-à-vis actual eco-
nomic impacts of listing and increased visitation and income levels as

165
Managing World Heritage Sites

a result of listing, findings remain inconclusive. In part this can be

attributed to the lack of quality research in the field. However, it can
also be accounted for by the considerable diversity of sites and range
of developed and developing States Parties ‘playing the game’.
One study, which explores the implications of listing, is that con-
ducted by English Heritage (2005). Understandably, international
recognition and accountability feature, as does the requirement for
improved protection and management, implications for planning,
and a number of opportunities afforded for new partnerships. It also
highlights the ‘potential’ increase in visitation which depends upon
existing visitor levels, location, theme and level of marketing and pro-
motion. Many of these issues have in fact been introduced in some of
the preceding chapters. For example, in Chapter 2, the inadequate
monitoring and evaluation of visitor numbers was highlighted as a
principal impediment to researchers wishing to gauge the impact
of WHS status on visitor numbers. This point was emphasized by
Buckley (2004) who stated that even in Australia, which benefits from
a strong research culture and infrastructure, past data on visitor num-
bers and origins are generally poor with only broad trends being rec-
ognized. Hence, evidence to suggest that increased visitation occurs
is often incomplete. In the context of the UK, work by Rodwell (2004)
found no proven relationship between WHS status and visitor num-
bers at cultural sites, while in a study conducted across OECD coun-
tries, Hall and Piggin (2001) found that increases in visitor levels were
predominantly in the range of 1 to 5 per cent and merely represented
average rates of growth in the States Parties surveyed. In a further
study by Wall (2004), a very small minority (less than 5 per cent) of
respondents suggested that a visit would not have taken place at all if
the site had not carried WHS status. This does actually raise the ques-
tion as to whether visitors, and the trade, actually understand what
WHS status is and means, either pre- or during the visit!
In addition to the above, Chapter 6 introduced the issues of easier
access to sites, the growth of ‘no frills’ airlines and the more diverse
use of discretionary leisure time by origin markets as some of those
factors contributing to the popularity of some WHS. Shackley (1998)
also refers to the extensive publicity given to WHS, not available to the
majority of sites of a heritage genre around the world not inscribed on
the WHL, as a catalyst for visitation. More generally, for many mature
markets around the world more sophisticated experiences are required
while expectations at sites are rising in that sites in the developing
world are expected to meet the ‘high’ standards anticipated at home.
Site location is a key issue in that safety and security is now a key
threat at some WHS, such as in Egypt, where tourists are clearly a tar-
get for some extremist groups.
Drawing on statements from ICOMOS (1999), Leask and Fyall (2001)
argue that WHS status increases a site’s attractiveness to visitors with

166
 The future market for World Heritage Sites

both positive and negative impacts with a number of visitors demon-

strating very little genuine interest in culture and who frequently dis-
play cultural insensitivities at sites. Returning to familiar themes,
visitors display a full variety of motivations in the first instance while
Boyd and Timothy (2001) claim that designation does not always result
in increased visitor numbers with marketing and accessibility possibly
even more significant. In Chapter 4, the same authors state that natural
sites, which tend to be less accessible and are often parts of national
parks and protected areas, experience less dramatic increases in visitor
numbers with issues of peripherality, sensitivity, and threshold use
levels taking on greater importance at such sites. Peripheral attractions
do, however, often rely on tourism even more as there are so few alter-
native options available with their remoteness also being very appeal-
ing to some markets. Clearly, peripherality will self-select certain
markets and cut out others. This was raised in Chapter 4 where the
national parks in the USA are often peripheral but are visited by large
numbers of tourists due to the sheer quality of the product on offer. In
contrast, urban sites have traditionally recorded good visitor levels due
to sites often appearing on established tourist routes already.
Interestingly, Chapter 17 introduces the contrasting fortunes between
Canada and the USA in that, whereas the overall effect of Canada’s
WHS designations on tourism was a positive one, relatively few sites in
the USA have experienced tourism growth that may be attributed to
WHS designation. Most sites in the USA have experienced a neutral
effect or only slightly positive due to a unique understanding of the
convention by the US authorities. This contrasts strongly with the
example of the Neolithic Temples in Malta (Chapter 19) where tourism
success on the island is driven by volume with very little consultation
with the appropriate heritage organizations taking place as the negative
impacts on such sites.
One example of a dramatic increase in visitation as a result of inscrip-
tion is that identified in Chapter 14 in Lijiang, China where the opening
of a new airport served as a further catalyst for a 20-fold increase in the
number of visitors. What is evident from the preceding discussion is
that those managing World Heritage Sites will have to come to terms
with techniques of visitor management and the need to improve the
visitor experience and manage visitor numbers at the same time as bal-
ance the need for conservation and protection. In short, a more stra-
tegic outlook is required as was advocated in Chapter 4 with the
example of the Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland, UK. Chapter 3
introduced similar themes to the above in that historically there have
been problems at some WHS with visitor expectation levels being too
high. The World Heritage ‘brand’ clearly brings with it responsibilities
as visitor expectations are naturally likely to rise once inscription is
achieved; despite the fact that very few people appear to understand
what it means and what it represents.

167
Managing World Heritage Sites

Sustainability of the World Heritage List

One of UNESCO’s significant achievements is that it marked the

international turning point in heritage protection and preservation
by ratifying the WHConvention (UNESCO, 2004). The Convention
introduced the World Heritage concept for the first time while States
Parties were to engage in identification, protection and preservation
of natural and cultural heritage of ‘outstanding universal value’ for
present and future generations. However, although the WHL has
achieved a significant global success and the WHS status is perceived
to be a highly appreciated accolade (Smith, 2002), the future of the
WHL is uncertain due to numerous problems that have emerged, as
partly introduced in the preceding chapter.
The first challenge to the List is that it is neither complete nor repre-
sentative, while the second challenge is that it has an inherent long-
standing bias towards cultural sites in Europe. The previous chapter
highlighted the fact that a dangerous gap is increasingly evident
between the goal and the evolving reality stemming from the WHL’s
implementation with the national agenda tending to dominate the
wider international domain. In Chapter 10 Ashworth and van der Aa
rightly stated that while the rhetoric is global, the action is local with
inscription now a compromise reaction among national governments
to national nominations and interests. In reality the spatial imbalance
has also grown, particularly in Europe, in that ratification of the
Convention by a number of Central and Eastern European States
Parties from the mid-1990s has led to many European nations par-
ticularly proactive in seeking new opportunities.
Although gradual change in the balance of the WHL is evident
via implementation of the Global Strategy (World Heritage Com-
mittee, 1994), worries remain over the third challenge, the potential
negative consequences of its indefinite expansion. With an annual
growth in new sites being inscribed standing at approximately 25–30
per annum, the sustainability of the WHL is threatened. Fears that it is
likely to become unmanageable exist, while one can argue that more
emphasis ought to be applied to the management of existing sites, so
guaranteeing their protection rather than continuing to add yet more to
the WHL. One could argue that the whole system is committed to cre-
ating more sites with a genuine potential for the dilution of the overall
value of the WHL caused by saturation of sites carrying the endorse-
ment of UNESCO.
In trying to manage the future of the WHL, clearly one has to
acknowledge the role played by the inclusion of Cultural Landscape in
1992 (World Heritage Committee, 1994) and the adoption of the Global
Strategy in 1994 (World Heritage Committee, 1994) which were
designed to assist filling in the existing gaps on the WHL. More
recently, ICOMOS published ICOMOS: The World Heritage List: Filling

168
 The future market for World Heritage Sites

the Gaps – an action plan for the future, which was produced to ‘contrib-
ute to the further development of the Global Strategy for a credible,
representative and balanced World Heritage List’ (ICOMOS, 2004: 2).
The ICOMOS analysis was based on three frameworks: typological,
chronological – regional and thematic, while the reasons for gaps in the
WHL were divided in two: structural (nomination process, manage-
ment and protection) and qualitative (identification, assessment and
evaluation of properties). The five principal aims of the plan were to:

• achieve a credible Tentative List for every States Party which has
ratified the Convention
• optimize the success of World Heritage nominations
• make the new Operational Guidelines operational
• achieve sustainable World Heritage properties in the sense of con-
stant protection and conservation
• raise awareness of the World Heritage Convention.
Similar proposals were also advanced by IUCN in their document
The World Heritage List: future priorities for a credible and complete list of
natural and mixed sites, published in April 2004. It is the view of the
chapter author that, in all reality, the most likely future of the WHL is
that it will continue expanding, never to be ‘complete’ and that more
sophisticated and rigorous measures to get sites listed are needed to
ensure its credibility and representativeness. This was alluded to in
Chapter 1 where Leask highlighted that agreement was needed
between the two key parties, IUCN and ICOMOS, as ICOMOS (2004)
state that there should be no limit on the number of properties
inscribed and IUCN state that there must be a finite number of existing
and potential properties for inclusion on the List. According to IUCN,
the WHL was never intended to ensure complete representativity of all
the earth’s ecosystems and habitats. However, from a visitor perspec-
tive, it is clearly the one that they generally recognize and the one that
represents the brand that in many cases is most likely to serve as a cat-
alyst for increased visitation.

Future issues for World Heritage Sites

In view of the above, the market implications for future patterns of

visitation at World Heritage Sites are difficult to gauge. If anything
this chapter has raised more questions than it has provided answers.
Certainly, those interested in pursuing further research on World
Heritage Sites are far from short of questions that need addressing!
For now, a few key issues have been identified by the author that
require specific attention in the years to come.

169
Managing World Heritage Sites

Balancing heritage with tourism

Increasingly, it is believed that tourism will acquire greater significance

in the process of inscription with an even greater need for those man-
aging the process to maintain the balance between heritage conserva-
tion and the development of tourism opportunities. This will especially
be the case in the developing world and those countries not yet mem-
bers, such as Korea. The planning for tourism and management of vis-
itors ought to be a central feature of future plans with suitable visitor
management techniques proposed that maintain a suitable balance
between guaranteeing accessibility and preserving authenticity.

Impact on visitation, visitor type and patterns of behaviour

It is important to emphasize that, although tourism is often the

‘accompanying phenomenon’ (Bandarin, 2005: v) of the WHS status, it
is not seen as a direct consequence but is often believed to be ‘assisted’
by stakeholders in the economic development of the area in which the
site is located. This belief is justified both by the fact that not all WHS
developed into tourism attractions, while some others (i.e. Venice)
were popular tourist attractions prior to inscription.
Notwithstanding, those managing WHS need to understand fully
what visitor groups frequent the site, their patterns of behaviour and
the trends in that market that are likely to make visitation to such sites
more or less popular in the years ahead. One also needs to keep
abreast of the varying, and often continuing expansion of motivations
for visiting sites. Inappropriate visitor activity and behaviour that
may endanger the brand image of WHS status needs to be managed
(as highlighted by Hall and Piggin, 2003), while visitors and the trade
need to be educated as to what inscription means and how – if at all –
it is to impact on future patterns of visitor behaviour. With regard to
different visitor types, work by McKercher and du Cross (2001) iden-
tified five categories of cultural tourists. These ranged from the ‘pur-
poseful cultural tourist’ who enjoys a ‘deep cultural experience’ to the
‘incidental cultural tourist’ who enjoys some cultural experiences (all
be it they are somewhat shallow) despite the fact that culture failed to
serve as a trip motivator in the first instance. Such typologies need to
be understood further by those managing WHS, while further typolo-
gies need to be explored.

WHS as a means of differentiation

For many sites, endorsement by UNESCO represents a significant

means by which differentiation can be achieved. Tourism is a highly

170
 The future market for World Heritage Sites

competitive phenomenon locally, regionally, nationally and inter-

nationally, so any means by which individual sites or destinations
are able to seek additional points of differentiation are welcomed
with open arms. Inscription brings with it a mark of externally rec-
ognized quality which is increasingly becoming an integral part of
site or destination marketing campaigns.

Market saturation and dilution of brand values

One of the problems of the continued expansion of the WHL is that
saturation is likely to occur at some point in the future. Overexposure
of the World Heritage ‘brand’ is likely to dilute the benefits to be
derived from such a quality ‘trademark’ with the source of differenti-
ation achieved through brand recognition no longer carrying influ-
ence in the market. As with many other sectors, there is always the
danger that the heritage marketplace becomes commodified, apart
from the most significant ‘icons’ around the world. This may in turn
lead to the creation of another ‘elite’ list, which will start the entire
process of inscription all over again.

Brand control

As is the case when developing brands for destinations, the sheer

volume and diversity of stakeholders at WHS ensures that any attempt
to manage and/or control the ‘brand’ is beset with difficulties. One
of the problems to date is that use of World Heritage status is not
consistent around the world – even within regions – so the market
is confused as to what it really represents. To date, there are too
many instances of misuse and misinterpretation of the brand despite
operational guidelines provided by UNESCO. For consistent use of
the brand to be achieved, significant resources need to be made
available – an unlikely event in many parts of the world.

Managing stakeholders

The previous issue leads directly for the need to manage better stake-
holders at sites and minimize the potential for stakeholder conflict.
When referring to attractions more generally, Henderson (2003) stated
that seldom are they driven by economic forces alone. Attractions are
employed by national governments and their agencies exploring, dis-
covering and expressing various dimensions of their national and cul-
tural identities. This is clearly true also of WHS so sites and wider

171
Managing World Heritage Sites

destinations inscribed on the WHL require effective strategies to man-

age their numerous and often conflicting stakeholder groups.

World Heritage Sites as literary and travel icons

Publications in the area that strengthen further the view that WHS sta-
tus is a stamp of authentication or ‘brand’ are increasing in number.
Evans (2001: 81) drew a parallel between WHS and the ‘Michelin guide
5-star rating’, while more generally a large number of books continue
to be published which raise the overall level of awareness of the World
Heritage List, both directly and indirectly. Publications to date
include: 50 Places of a Lifetime, published by National Geographic
(National Geographic, 2005); 1000 places to See Before You Die: The
World’s Wonders On and Off the Beaten Track by Patricia Shultz (2003);
Unforgettable Things to See Before You Die, by Steven Davey (2004); and
The Traveller’s Atlas: A Global Guide to Places You Must See in Your Lifetime
by Man et al. (1999). All these publications include a wide range of
World Heritage Sites, with particular emphasis being placed on the
status of WHS.

Economic benefits

It is fair to say that a number of sites have yet to capture fully the eco-
nomic benefits to be derived from tourism. Accepting that tourism is
to remain a central component of World Heritage more directed efforts
are required in the future for sites to reduce leakages and improve eco-
nomic benefits to be derived from tourism and to the local community.

Broad attraction trends

Fyall et al. (2003) identified a number of issues to be addressed in the

future by attractions of all shapes and sizes. Managing security and
gauging the impact of security on travel patterns is fundamental to all
attractions but particularly WHS where they are a magnet for visitors.
Sites need to be fully aware of changing patterns of demography and
leisure trends among their key markets and the principal sources of
competition. The migration to ‘destination’ style attractions advocated
by Stevens (2003) is significant in that those WHS that have around
them a critical mass of tourist provision are likely to be those that suc-
ceed in the longer term. Clearly, the wider destination needs to be con-
sidered in its entirety; the level of facilities available to accommodate
large numbers of tourists at Uluru, Australia for example serving as
the catalyst for the development of a tourism industry and making the

172
 The future market for World Heritage Sites

WHS a destination in its own right. Finally, those managing World

Heritage need to be fully conversant with developments in informa-
tion communication technologies (ICTs) (as highlighted in Chapter 9),
while all parties need to develop a more visitor-focused approach to
their management of the heritage product where appropriate to the
resource.

Marketing

Not only do many World Heritage Sites require more effective pack-
aging but more innovative approaches to the development of World
Heritage trails, cross-border initiatives and collaboration with other
destination stakeholders need to be developed to maximize the bene-
fits to be derived from tourism.

Conclusions

Despite the initial intentions of the WHL, it is difficult to foresee a time

when there is less pressure on States Parties to nominate sites for
inscription for purposes of tourism. The widely acknowledged increas-
ing politicization of the process of inscription appears to be here to
stay with the desire by States Parties to propose sites for inclusion on
the Tentative List reaching ‘arms race’ proportions on a global scale.
Tourism is clearly beneficial to a large number of sites carrying World
Heritage status, but two themes underpin this chapter and many of
those that precede it: the extent to which the WHS ‘brand’ really does
contribute to increased levels of visitation and greater economic bene-
fits to be derived from tourism. Although no firm conclusions can be
drawn, the chapter does bring together many of the issues that impact
on visitation levels and a number of strategies that can impact on the
development of sites for purposes of tourism. Clearly, more research,
and especially the collection, analysis and reporting of data at the micro
‘Site’ level, is necessary if sound judgements are to be made and effect-
ive strategies developed and implemented. With the constant expan-
sion of the WHL the need for more research output becomes critical if
the management of World Heritage is to move forward and make the
most of the tourism potential that exists – both now and in the future.

References
Bandarin, F. (2005) Foreword. In Harrison, D. and Hitchcock, M. (eds)
The Politics of World Heritage: Negotiating Tourism and Conservation.
Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

173
Managing World Heritage Sites

Bonnette, M. (2005) Personal communication. In Rakic, T. (2005) The

Future of UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Unpublished thesis, Napier
University, Edinburgh.
Boyd, S. (2003) Marketing challenges and opportunities for heritage
tourism. In Fyall, A., Garrod, B. and Leask, A. (eds) Managing Visitor
Attractions: New Directions. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Boyd, S. and Timothy, D. (2001) Developing partnerships: tools for
interpretation and management at World Heritage Sites. Tourism
Recreation Research, 26 (1), 47–53.
Buckley, R. (2004) The effects of World Heritage Listing on tourism to
Australian national parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12 (1), 70–84.
English Heritage (2005) What are World Heritage Sites? Available at
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.4194
(accessed 10 December 2005).
Evans, G. (2001) World heritage at World Heritage bank: culture and
sustainable development. Tourism Recreation Research, 26 (1), 81–84.
Fyall, A., Garrod, B. and Leask, A. (eds) (2003). Conclusion. In
Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Hall, C.M. (2001) Editorial. Tourism Recreation Research, 26 (1), 1–3.
Hall, C.M. and Piggin, R. (2001) Tourism and World heritage in OECD
countries. Tourism Recreation Research, 26 (1), 103–105.
Hall, C.M. and Piggin, R. (2003) World Heritage Sites: managing the
brand. In Fyall, A., Garrod, B. and Leask, A. (eds) Managing Visitor
Attractions: New Directions. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hannabuss, S. (1999) Postmodernism and the heritage experience.
Library Management, 20 (5), 295–302.
Henderson, J. (2003) Visitor attraction development in East Asia. In
Fyall, A., Garrod, B. and Leask, A. (eds) Managing Visitor Attractions:
New Directions. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 73–85.
ICOMOS (1999) Tourism at World Heritage Cultural Sites. Washington:
World Tourism Organisation.
ICOMOS (2004) The World Heritage List: Filling The Gaps – An Action
Plan for the Future. Paris: ICOMOS.
Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (2001) World Heritage Site designation: future
implications from a UK perspective. Tourism Recreation Research,
26 (1), 55–63.
Lowenthal, D. (1979) Environmental perception: preserving the past.
Progress in Human Geography, 3, 549–559.
McKercher, B. and du Cross, H. (2001) Cultural tourism: the partnership
between tourism and cultural heritage management. Binghamton,
New York: The Haworth Press.
McKercher, B., Ho, P. and du Cross, H. (2005) Relationship between
tourism and cultural heritage management: evidence from Hong
Kong. Tourism Management, 26 (4), 539–548.

174
 The future market for World Heritage Sites

Peard, G. (2005) Personal communication. In Rakic, T. (2005) The

Future of UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Unpublished thesis, Napier
University, Edinburgh.
Rakic, T. (2005) The Future of UNESCO’s World Heritage List.
Unpublished thesis, Napier University, Edinburgh.
Robinson, M., Evans, N., Long, P., Sharpley, R. and Swarbrooke, J.
(2000) Tourism and Heritage Relationships: Global, National and Local
Perspectives. Gateshead: Athenaeum Press.
Rodwell, D. (2004) The World Heritage Convention and the exem-
plary management of complex heritage sites. Journal of Architectural
Conservation, 3, 40–60.
Shackley, M. (1998) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage
Sites. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Smith, M.K. (2002) A critical evaluation of the Global Accolade: the
significance of World Heritage Status for Maritime Greenwich.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8 (2), 137–151.
Stevens, T. (2003) The future of visitor attractions. In Fyall, A.,
Garrod, B. and Leask, A. (eds) Managing Visitor Attractions: New
Directions. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Timothy, D. (1997) Tourism and the personal heritage experience.
Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (3), 751–754.
UNESCO (2004) Convention concerning the protection of the World
Natural and Cultural Heritage, also known as the World Heritage
Convention. http://whc.unesco.org/nwhc/pages/doc/mainf3.htm
(accessed 26 December 2004).
Wall, G. (2004) Protected areas as tourist attractions. Paper presented
at Tourism Crossroads – Global Influences, Local Responses, 13th Nordic
Symposium in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Aalborg, 4–7
September.
World Heritage Committee (1994) Expert meeting on the Global
Strategy and thematic studies for a representative World Heritage
List, UNESCO Headquarters, 20–22 June 1994. http://whc.unesco.
org/archive/global94.htm (accessed 14 March 2005).
Young, I. (2001) The influence of fundamental values on the relation-
ship between World Heritage Sites and tourism. Tourism Recreation
Research, 26(1), 109–112.

175
This page intentionally left blank
 PA RT
5
Case studies
Managing World Heritage Sites

Part Five relates directly to case studies from around the world,
demonstrating the issues raised in the previous chapters and provid-
ing examples of management techniques in practice. Each individual
case links with the relevant chapters in Parts One to Four, including
consideration of the relevant themes where appropriate. While a brief
amount of description is included in each case to set the context and
location, the case studies deal with issues and themes, rather than
simply describing the management of the particular WHS. Each case
study chapter also includes three questions at the end for the purpose
of further discussion and reflection on the key issues raised.
Part Five starts with Peter Mason and I-Ling Kuo tackling the
issue of visitor management with reference to Stonehenge, UK. The
key issues in this area are raised with reference to Stonehenge, fol-
lowed by research findings relating to the attitudes of visitors to the
WHS vis-à-vis motivations for visiting, management issues, visitor
experience and the future of the site. The debate over the future
of Stonehenge is very topical and aspects of the site were raised in
Chapters 3 and 6, though Chapter 12 is more applied. The findings of
this case study are interesting in that they largely contradict the
results of government reports pertaining to Stonehenge and suggest
that the majority of visitors do in fact have an enjoyable visitor experi-
ence. This therefore does question the need to spend in excess of £160
million in the development of the site, as currently proposed by
English Heritage!
Moving across the continents to Peru, Chapter 13 considers the
opportunities afforded by sustainable tourism development at
Machupicchu WHS. This chapter, written by Otto Regalado-Pezúa
and Jesús Arias-Valencia, seeks to provide reflective considerations
to contribute to solving the difficulties currently faced by Machupicchu
Historical Sanctuary. An outline proposal for the sustainable man-
agement of the WHS is suggested, promoting an integrated manage-
ment structure including elements of land management, tourist
development and education.
Chapter 14 by Hilary du Cros continues the theme of visitor man-
agement and investigates the management of visitor impacts at Lijiang
WHS, China. The chapter starts with an appraisal of the key issues,
the development of tourism activity on the site and draws from a
range of studies undertaken at the site by interested stakeholders.
This case study develops the theme of stakeholder participation,
concluding that tourism at the site may go into decline if the social
impacts of the activities are not addressed.
László Puczkó and Tamara Rátz tackle the issues of managing
urban WHS with specific regard to the Cultural Avenue project in
Budapest. They develop the key challenges in managing complex
urban environments and present an overview of the project in offer-
ing some solutions to the challenges. Again the issue of the large

178
 Case Studies

number of stakeholders interested in the management of the WHS is

raised, arguing that it is virtually impossible to find an effective
resource management approach that is able to satisfy all kinds of
interests. While not offering a complete solution, the Cultural Avenue
project is suggested as a mechanism to assist in combining some of
these interests by joint interpretation of the WHS resources.
The issue of local community participation is considered as part of
Li Fung Mei Sarah’s chapter relating to tourism development, empow-
erment and the Tibetan minority in Jiuzhaigou National Nature
Reserve in China. A brief statement on the development of tourism in
the Reserve is provided prior to examination of the effects of this devel-
opment on the Tibetan minority residents. Empowerment is used as a
framework to assess how tourism has changed the economic, social
and cultural environments of such communities. The overall outcome
of the research is positive and this WHS provides an example of
how mass tourism and the economies of scale that accompany it can be
harnessed.
Chapter 17 by Dallen Timothy and Stephen Boyd moves from site-
specific issues to broader States Party ones, and explores the WHS situ-
ation in the Americas. This concise chapter examines the growth and
distribution of WHS and the opportunities and challenges faced by
them. A great variety of views and values are reported as existing
across the countries of the Caribbean and North, Central and South
America, hardly surprising when consideration is given to the differing
political, economic and social situations. However, in most States
Parties the desire to achieve WHS status is strong and offers great
opportunities for cross-border and international cooperation – one of
the main aims of the World Heritage Convention. Perhaps surprisingly
though, the USA are reported as lacking in the political will to engage
further with the WHConvention, most notably following disagree-
ments between UNESCO and US Foreign Policy, though their recent
re-joining with the organization might aid the recovery of this link.
Trevor Sofield and Li Fung Mei Sarah’s case study on Huangshan
(Yellow Mountain) in China considers some of the aspects of World
Heritage listing raised in Chapters 10 and 11. It explores the concept
of world view and examines the predominantly western paradigms
that determine World Heritage listing. The case of Huangshan is uti-
lized to show how the Chinese world view sees cultural and natural
heritage as a single unitary construct in contrast to the Western, pos-
itivist, scientific approach. The issues raised by this contradiction are
discussed and offer a valuable insight into the differences that exist
between the States Parties and how these are incorporated (or not) in
the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.
Returning to the issue of integrating WHS management within
existing stakeholder settings, Chapter 19 refers to the situation expe-
riences in Malta with regard to the Megalithic Temples. Nadia Theuma

179
Managing World Heritage Sites

and Reuben Grima explore the impacts of WHS listing on local com-
munities and highlight the often conflicting views that appear
between heritage and tourism organizations. This chapter concludes
that the role of the site specific management plan is a crucial element
of WHS management and the accommodation of the variety of
stakeholder needs.
The final chapter in the book is written by Jo Mackellar and Ros
Derrett, with reference to managing tourism in the Central Eastern
Rainforest Reserves of Australia. Chapter 20 completes the discus-
sion of balancing stakeholder needs and the need for a strategic
approach in managing WHS. The case considers the facilitators and
barriers to progress in the development of the Rainforest Way and
how there is a need to progress through a series of phases, address-
ing the issues in each phase, in order to achieve the overall aims and
needs of the variety of stakeholders.

180
 C H A P T E R
12
Visitor management at
Stonehenge, UK
Peter Mason and I-Ling Kuo
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this case study are to:

• Discuss visitor management issues at Stonehenge
• Present research findings on attitudes of visitors to Stonehenge
vis-à-vis motivations for visiting; management issues, including
interpretation and regulation; visitor experience; and, the future
of the site.

Introduction

Managing visitors is one of the important ways of attempting to control

the impacts of tourism at a World Heritage Site (WHS) and particularly
to reduce negative impacts (Pearce, 1989; Hall and McArthur, 1996;
Mason, 2003). Three approaches are commonly used: diverting tourists
from the so-called ‘honey pots’, which are locations with large volumes
of visitors; ‘hardening’ (e.g. resurfacing paths and footpaths); modi-
fying visitor behaviour (Hall and McArthur, 1996; Mason, 2003). This
third approach usually involves attempts to regulate visitors, although
such tourism regulations are unlikely to have legal standing and are
more likely to be voluntary and of a self-regulatory nature (Mason and
Mowfoth, 1996). However, as well as regulation, managing visitors can
involve education, often via the process of interpretation (Mason,
2003). In certain situations, a combination of education and regula-
tion has been used in an attempt to manage visitors (Kuo, 2002).
This chapter discusses visitor management at a major WHS in the
UK, the prehistoric monument of Stonehenge. It focuses on the par-
ticular management issues of Stonehenge and reports on research
conducted via a questionnaire survey of visitor attitudes conducted
at the monument. The chapter initially discusses the specific man-
agement issues of Stonehenge, then presents results from a survey
conducted there, and this is followed by a discussion of these find-
ings. This case study clearly complements elements of Chapters 3
and 6 by offering some interesting insights into some valuable pri-
mary research conducted recently by the two authors.

Visitor management at Stonehenge

Stonehenge is located in the county of Wiltshire in England. It is a

stone monument dating back at least 4000 years and possibly as far
back as 4000 BC. Stonehenge is one of the world’s most important
archaeological remains. What the monument was used for has caused

182
 Visitor management at Stonehenge, UK

controversy over a period of several hundred years. This controversy

has generated much literature, which has acted as marketing to poten-
tial tourists. Mason (2003) indicated a number of theories exist in rela-
tion to Stonehenge’s purpose:

• it is a prehistoric temple or religious site

• it is a prehistoric calendar
• it has astronomical significance helping to mark the position of stars
• more fancifully, it is part of an earlier landscape which helped alien
beings locate themselves from space.

It seems likely that it was a combination of the first three above, with
compelling evidence that it was a calendar as the stones mark the
position of the sun at different times of the year, with mid-summer’s
day (June 21) and mid-winter’s day (December 21) given particular
prominence.
Stonehenge is one of the relatively few WHS that draws large num-
bers of both international and domestic visitors (Timothy and Boyd,
2003). According to English Heritage (EH) (Wilson, personal com-
munication), it had approximately 850 000 paying visitors in 2003
(plus at least 200 000 who looked from the road but did not pay). It is
the most visited prehistoric site in the UK and has consistently been
in the top ten UK visitor attractions since 1990. In 2001, as many as 73
per cent of visitors were from overseas (41 per cent from the USA)
and 98 per cent of visitors arrived by car/coach (Mason, 2003). Most
visitors stay for only 20–30 minutes and about half do not get beyond
the visitor centre/car park, so they do not actually go to the stones. It
has been estimated that up to 500 visitors per hour could be accom-
modated in the stone circle, if access was allowed, but there are up to
2000 visitors per hour in the peak summer season of July and August.
The facilities include a visitor kiosk, a souvenir shop, a take away
café/restaurant, toilets and a car park.
Stonehenge is owned by EH, an independent body set up in 1984
by Parliament to protect England’s archaeological heritage. It is mar-
keted globally, but particularly in the USA, by EH and VisitBritian
(previously the British Tourist Authority). The interpretation of
Stonehenge is almost exclusively by mobile phone-sized electronic
devices, known as audio-wands. These provide a basic interpretation
of the site, but also have the option of more detailed commentary.
There are numbered stopping off points with a linked commentary
in English, five different European languages and also Japanese.
There are a number of key management issues. These are as follows:

• The number of visitors (there is likely to be an increase to over

1 million paying visitors by 2007), which contributes to problems of
crowding at Stonehenge itself, as well as related car-parking prob-
lems, as the site is almost inaccessible by any means other than road.

183
Managing World Heritage Sites

• There is the problem of damage to the monument. Stonehenge has

suffered major deterioration as a result of past tourists who have
clambered over the stones (Timothy and Boyd, 2003). Although
visitor numbers vary throughout the year, 1000 per day is not
uncommon in winter and can reach as high as 2000/hour in the
peak summer season. Many of the stones show evidence of this, in
terms of their smooth surfaces. Of greater significance is that the
earthworks surrounding and supporting the stones have been
weakened, so some stones have fallen over. When it became clear
that Stonehenge was suffering irreversible damage, the Department
of Environment erected a perimeter fence in the spring of 1978
(Timothy and Boyd, 2003). Since then, to prevent damage the
stones are normally roped off. In addition to the rationale of
potential damage caused by paying tourists, another reason is that
alternative groups, those who claim to be Celtic priests (Druids)
and others, including so-called ‘hippies’ and travellers, have tried
to use Stonehenge for festivals and quasi-religious ceremonies. In
the early part of the 21st century, access was granted for the use by
‘Druids’ on the summer solstice (June 21st), but as most visitors
cannot get this type of access they may feel cheated.
• Entrance costs were relatively low – £5.20 for adults and £3.20 for
children in 2004 – at the time the fieldwork research was conducted.
With concessionary fares for groups and senior citizens, and free
entry for students in full-time education, this may encourage large
numbers of visitors.
• Authenticity of the experience and related tourist satisfaction is a
key factor. The large numbers of visitors coupled with the use of
roped off areas and the inability of visitors actually to touch the
stones may contribute to a less than satisfactory experience. Bender
and Edmonds (1992) actually suggested that visitors would feel
that they had not fully experienced Stonehenge unless they could
get close to the stones. They argued for greater access, though on
a limited basis. The visitor experience is also likely to be affected
by the current use of the landscape. The site is between two rela-
tively major roads, one linking London with South West England.
The traffic noise, particularly in summer, can be disruptive to the
experience of Stonehenge. In December 2002, after many years of
discussion, plans were finally accepted to divert, to the south, the
main A303 trunk road that passes close to the site, and build a tun-
nel to house it (Mason, 2003). This will remove the road from the site
of Stonehenge, with the added benefit of reducing noise levels.
• The Visitor Centre is currently underground and there is an under-
road by-pass to get to Stonehenge. This is for safety reasons as there
were road accidents in the past. The Visitor Centre was called ‘a
national disgrace’ by the House of Commons Select Committee on
Heritage in 1994 (Mason, 2003). A new visitor centre is planned

184
 Visitor management at Stonehenge, UK

near Amesbury, approximately 2.5 km away. This centre will pro-

vide an interpretation of the site over a 10 000-year period. Visitors
who wish to will then be able to walk to Stonehenge from this vis-
itor centre. However, siting a visitor centre away from Stonehenge
has raised authenticity issues.
• Who actually owns the site and for what purposes it should be
used, is a major area of controversy (Bender and Edmonds, 1992;
Mason, 2003). Stonehenge is in a curious position of being on a
small area of land owned by EH, which is set in a much larger area
owned by the National Trust (NT). The attitude of the NT to man-
agement is linked to the concept of estate management. This has
meant that the site of Stonehenge is viewed by the NT as one of its
many, albeit very significant, archaeological sites within its large
estate (Fowler, 1992) which should be managed as an area of land
and not solely because of its archaeological value. Since the early
1980s at least, various groups have claimed that they should have
access to the site, including ‘hippies’ for festivals and ‘Druids’ for
religious purposes. As these groups were viewed, until recently, as
outside mainstream society, it was relatively easy for the police and
authorities to get the support of locals to restrict access. However, in
the mid-1980s, a number of clashes between police and ‘hippies/
travellers’ led to serious injuries, resulting in compensation claims
against the police and access then returned to the agenda. Bender
and Edwards (1992) argued that there should be greater, although
regulated, access for a variety of both tourists and non-tourist
groups, including academics, Druids and international visitors, as
Stonehenge should be recognized as a place of enjoyment, research
and religious worship. However, in the early part of the 21st cen-
tury, Stonehenge remains roped off most of the time, although there
have been occasions, such as mid-summer’s day, when access has
been allowed. Increasingly, private access is being allowed out-
side normal opening hours, particularly for educational purposes,
but this raises the issue of who should be allowed regular access.
Is it fair, for example that scientists/archaeologists can gain easy
access, but not those who claim they want to use the site for reli-
gious purposes?

Methodology

A questionnaire was designed asking respondents to provide demo-

graphic information, as well as responding to some Likert scale ques-
tions. The questions were developed from issues raised in academic
literature, comments derived from media statements on Stonehenge,
and research on attitudes to tourism (see Mason and Cheyne, 2000;
Mason and Beaumont-Kerridge, 2003; Raybould et al., 1999). Prior to

185
Managing World Heritage Sites

its use, a draft copy of the questionnaire was sent to EH staff involved
in the management of Stonehenge. As a result the questionnaire was
slightly modified and EH staff also indicated there were likely to be
some differences between weekend and weekday visitors (Carson,
personal communication). Research, therefore took place over two
days; one in September and the other in November, 2004.

Results

The demographic characteristics of respondents are summarized in

Table 12.1. Figure 12.1 shows a more detailed breakdown of respond-
ents’ normal place of residence by geographical region.
Visitors responded to a series of Likert scale questions to indicate
their reasons for visiting Stonehenge. Table 12.2 shows the mean and

Table 12.1 Demographic characteristics of the sampled visitors

Demographic characteristics Number of visitors Percentage

Gender
Male 101 43.2
Female 133 56.8
Total 234 100.0
Age
20 or younger 24 10.3
21–30 79 33.8
31–40 46 19.7
41–50 30 12.8
51–60 38 16.2
Above 61 17 7.3
Total 234 100.0
Place of residence*
UK 87 38.5
Overseas 139 61.5
Total 226 100.0
†
Type of visits
First-time visit to Stonehenge 176 75.5
Repeat visits 57 24.5
Total 233 100.0
Level of education‡
Less than Polytechnic/first degree 65 28.9
Polytechnic/University degree 106 47.1
Postgraduate qualification 54 24
Total 225 100.0
*
8 invalid cases; †1 invalid case; ‡9 invalid cases.

186
 Visitor management at Stonehenge, UK

Americas
29.2%

UK Other Other European

38.5% 61.5% countries
15.9%
Asia and Pacific
14.6%

Africa and Middle

East
1.8%
Figure 12.1 Breakdown of respondents’ normal place of residence

Table 12.2 Major motivations for visiting Stonehenge

Motivator Mean Standard deviation

Stonehenge is unique 4.49 0.814

To expand my knowledge 4.07 0.954
I am interested in prehistoric monuments 4.03 0.94
Stonehenge is a World Heritage Site 3.72 1.265
I am interested in archaeology 3.55 1.261

Table 12.3 Visitors’ views on their visit to Stonehenge

Visitors’ perceptions on the following Mean Standard deviation

descriptions of the site

Overall my visit was enjoyable 4.31 0.783

The handheld audio guides 4.26 0.97
(wands) are useful
Visitors behave well 4.12 0.756
Not allowing visitors to touch the 4.11 1.147
stones is necessary to conserve
Stonehenge
Signs and signage are clear and easy 4.09 0.985
to understand
Stonehenge exceeded my expectations 3.65 1.007
Stonehenge is overcrowded with visitors 2.86 1.069

standard deviation for the five most important motivational factors

indicated by respondents for visiting Stonehenge.
A series of statements involving a Likert scale were used to
prompt visitors to indicate their views immediately post-visit.
Selected responses, showing mean scores and the standard devi-
ation, are shown in Table 12.3.

187
Managing World Heritage Sites

Table 12.4 Visitors’ views on the future of Stonehenge

Visitors’ views on the Mean Standard deviation

future of Stonehenge

Visitors who disobey instructions 3.5 1.180

on behaviour at the site should
be fined on the spot
Stonehenge needs a new visitor centre 3.42 1.179
There should be no entrance charge 3.16 1.23
to Stonehenge, visit should be free
It would be better to have a real person 2.69 1.17
to act as a guide rather than a hand-
held audio guide
All visitors should be allowed to 2.43 1.41
touch Stonehenge
Access to Stonehenge should only 1.64 1.015
be for archaeologists, historians or
those with special permission, such
as religious groups
Visitors should be encouraged to go 1.9 1.13
to a visitor centre rather than
Stonehenge itself

The final section of the survey involving Likert scale questions

asked respondents to give views on the future of Stonehenge. Table
12.4 provides selected responses, showing mean scores and the stand-
ard deviation, on the future of Stonehenge.
In an attempt to reveal any differences within the sample to ques-
tion responses such as that related to, for example, age or gender, the
student’s t-test was conducted. Table 12.5 shows results from the stu-
dent’s t-test, where there was a statistically significant difference.

Discussion

In terms of demographics, the age breakdown of the sample was com-

pared with that obtained in EH research and found to be very similar,
except there was a slightly higher proportion in the 21–30 age group
and a slightly lower one in the 41–50 age group, than EH research
(Carson, personal communication). The sample was also similar to
comparable EH research in terms of respondents’ origin, with a high
proportion from overseas (62 per cent) and, as with this EH research,
respondents from the USA were the single most important overseas
visitor group. As with comparable EH research, visitors were well
educated and a very high proportion (75 per cent) were first time
visitors (Carson, personal communication).

188
 Visitor management at Stonehenge, UK

Table 12.5 t-test results for Stonehenge questionnaire survey

Likert scale statement and t-test factor Mean Standard deviation

Stonehenge is unique
• Female visitor 4.64 0.762
• Male visitor 4.37 0.902
Not allowing visitors to touch the stones is necessary to conserve the site
• Female visitor 4.32 1.170
• Male visitor 3.90 1.758
Current entrance charges are acceptable
• International visitors 3.53 1.298
• British visitors 3.16 1.170
The entrance charges should be increased, with the extra money raised
used to help conserve the site
• International visitors 2.78 2.37
• British visitors 1.693 1.212
Access to Stonehenge should only be for archaeologists, historians or
those with special permission such as religious groups
• First-time visitors 2.02 1.498
• Repeat visitors 1.49 1.120
Current entrance charges are acceptable
• First-time visitors 3.47 1.273
• Repeat visitors 3.05 1.301
Visitors should be encouraged to go to a visitor centre rather than
Stonehenge itself
• First-time visitors 2.27 1.543
• Repeat visitors 1.65 0.991

Stonehenge is regarded as one of the most significant prehistoric

monuments in the UK and it inspires various motivational factors. The
apparent uniqueness of the site plays an important role in attracting
visitors. Given that a high proportion of visitors are well educated,
perhaps it is not surprising that ‘expanding knowledge’, and being
interested in archaeology and prehistoric monuments are important
motivational factors. Interestingly, visitors indicated that the fact
that Stonehenge is a WHS is an important motivational factor. This
implies that designating it as a WHS may have increased its status in
the mind of visitors, and may help to explain why Stonehenge attracts
significant numbers of both domestic and international tourists (see
Timothy and Boyd, 2003).
Much of the controversy surrounding the visitor experience of
Stonehenge has centred on its presentation and interpretation.
Although guided tours are provided, the great majority of visitors
are offered the free usage (in 2004) of an audio wand. The results

189
Managing World Heritage Sites

indicate that visitors find these particularly useful. There are num-
bered way-markers and signs at the site (which mainly request vis-
itors to stay behind the rope barrier) as well as signs immediately
off-site and in the car park, providing information on Stonehenge
and the surrounding area. Visitors generally indicated that these
signs were clear and easy to understand. The results suggest that vis-
itors responded positively to both the use of the audio wand and the
on-site signs and signage, with 80 per cent and 79 per cent of the vis-
itors, respectively, indicating the audio wands were useful and signs
were easy to understand. Further confirmation that visitors have a
positive reaction to the audio wands comes from response to a Likert
scale statement on the future of Stonehenge, where approximately
half of the visitors indicated that they would not support the use of a
real person in preference to the audio wand. At other heritage sites,
interpretative activity involving a guided tour has the constraints of
timing, lack of flexibility and potential language issues. When par-
ticipating in a guided tour, a visitor needs to follow the pre-planned
timing, routes and the pace of the tour. However, visitors’ average
stay at Stonehenge is less than 30 minutes (Mason, 2003). The audio
wands allow visitors to skip unwanted information, rewind, restart
and repeat as they wish, and proceed at their own pace. Also, obser-
vational evidence during the research revealed the audio wands are
not only free, but offered to visitors upon entry to the site. It seems
likely that they are perceived as convenient, as there is no need to
wait for the tour to start or to be at a certain location on time.
Since 1978, partly as a result of excessive wear, but also because of
‘illegal’ entry, almost all visitors have been prevented from entering
the stone circle. It has been argued (Bender and Edmonds, 1992) that
this could lead to visitors feeling they had not fully experienced
Stonehenge. However, as many as three-quarters of the visitors in
this research indicated that not allowing visitors to touch the stone is
necessary for conservation. Responses to a related statement sug-
gesting that all visitors should be allowed to touch Stonehenge sup-
port this view of ‘conservation by restricting access’, as here just over
half of those questioned disagreed with allowing access. There is fur-
ther confirmation of this belief of restricting access in responses to
the statement that visitors who disobey instructions on behaviour
at the site should be fined on the spot, as here a majority of respon-
dents agreed with this view. However, some care should be taken
with this particular response, as the visitors surveyed ‘strongly agreed’
that Stonehenge visitors behave well, and by implication it is likely
that they considered their own behaviour here!
There have been suggestions that the access to the site should be
reserved to selective groups such as archaeologists, historians and
special permit holders such as religious groups (see Mason, 2003).
However, the great majority of the sample (86 per cent) disagreed

190
 Visitor management at Stonehenge, UK

that access should only be for such groups. These findings suggest that
although visitors feel they should have access, they are also aware
that Stonehenge is of such significant historical and cultural import-
ance that their on-site behaviour and activity needs to be managed
and restricted. These findings also raise the issue of ownership of
Stonehenge. Visitors appear to believe that the site does not belong to
a specific group, but all peoples.
Less than 30 per cent of the samples felt the site was overcrowded
with visitors. However, this could be explained by the fact that the sur-
vey was conducted on two occasions towards the end of the main
tourism season (in mid-September and mid-November). Therefore, the
visitor volume was not as large as it would have been during the sum-
mer months where there are up to 2000 visitors per hour (Mason, 2003).
A staffed visitor centre usually plays a major role in visitor man-
agement at tourism destinations. Its function includes providing
information and assistance at the site. Some form of interpretation is
frequently delivered at a visitor centre. Currently, Stonehenge lacks a
true visitor centre, due in part to spatial constraints. One of the major
proposals is for a new visitor centre to be built at 2.5 km distance
from Stonehenge at Amesbury. However, this survey suggests that
visitors’ experience of Stonehenge is less likely to be ‘complete’ if
they are encouraged to go to only a visitor centre, rather than the site
itself. Only 13 per cent of respondents agreed that visitors should be
encouraged to go to the visitor centre instead of visiting the stone cir-
cle, while over 75 per cent of the visitors disagreed with such a sug-
gestion. Just over 50 per cent of the visitors felt there is a need for a
new visitor centre at the site itself, while approximately a quarter of
the sample felt a new visitor centre is unnecessary. However, it is
possible to argue that these responses do not provide strong support
for the Parliamentary Committee view of the site being ‘a national
disgrace’ (see Mason, 2003).
Opinion was almost equally divided on whether entrance to
Stonehenge should be free. However, the entrance charge in 2004 of
£5.20 for adults was deemed acceptable by nearly half of the visitors.
In addition, only 15 per cent of the visitors felt that the entrance charges
should be increased, with the extra income used for conservation of
Stonehenge. This suggests that although the ‘user-pays’ concept was
accepted by visitors, they were likely to object to increases on entrance
charges, even if the money raised was for conservation. In general, vis-
itors seemed fairly satisfied with their visit, with a small majority indi-
cating that Stonehenge exceeded their expectations and very strong
agreement with the statement ‘overall my visit was enjoyable’.
Although, in general, the t-test results revealed little difference
between male and female visitors’ responses, they did show that
female visitors felt more strongly about the uniqueness of the site
and also felt more strongly than the males that not allowing visitors

191
Managing World Heritage Sites

to touch the stones is necessary to conserve Stonehenge. There were

differences between British and international visitors in relation to
views on entrance charges. International visitors supported more
strongly than British visitors the entrance charge of £5.20 for adults,
and also showed a higher acceptance of increasing entrance charges
and using the extra income for resource protection. The frequency of
visits to the site may play a significant part in this finding. British
visitors are more likely to be repeat visitors and this seems likely to
affect what they consider to be value for money – repeat visitors are
less in agreement than first time visitors that ‘current charges are
acceptable’. Also, international visitors to the UK may spend a large
proportion of their budgets on transportation and accommodation
and the entrance charge may seem a relatively small amount within
this overall budget. In addition, as overseas visitors believe strongly
that Stonehenge is a unique attraction and since they have come
some distance to visit it, their perception of what constitutes a fair
entrance fee may be relative to this ‘uniqueness’ factor. Such visitors
may also be less likely to object to the idea of increased fees, particu-
larly if they do not intend to return to Stonehenge!
Repeat and first-time visitors also show some differences in their
views on the future of Stonehenge. The results show statistically
significant differences in relation to two particular issues: ‘access to
the site should be reserved for specialist groups’ and ‘visitors should
be encouraged to go to a visitor centre rather than Stonehenge itself’.
Repeat visitors are less in agreement on access restriction. They have
visited the site before, hence they are likely to feel that their access
to Stonehenge should not be restricted either now or in the future.
Repeat visitors disagree more with the idea of ‘visiting a visitor
centre only’, rather than Stonehenge itself. This seems most likely to
stem from their consideration that, if they can visit the site now, they
would want to be able visit it in the future.

Conclusions

In the mid-1990s a British Government Report described Stonehenge

as a ‘national disgrace’ (Mason, 2003). Since then, there have been
plans to improve the experience for visitors at what is the major
prehistoric tourism attraction in Britain. However, what was criti-
cized previously – the proximity of major roads, the access via an
underground tunnel, the almost continual roping of the actual stones,
the temporary nature of the toilets and the limited scale of the
food/refreshment and souvenir facilities and the lack of a real visitor
centre – still existed in late 2004 when the fieldwork was conducted.
The reaction of the visitors to the survey conducted as part of this
research reveals a variety of views, and a rather more complex

192
 Visitor management at Stonehenge, UK

picture than the outright damnation of the British Government

Report. Hence, overseas visitors are more positive in their reaction
than British visitors, first time visitors (who made up 75 per cent of
this survey) are more satisfied than repeat visitors and women, as
with other tourism issues have different views to men, with female
visitors somewhat more positive in their reaction than men. Largely
contradicting the Government Report claims, the majority of visitors
indicated that Stonehenge is a unique site, with good interpretation,
a fair entrance charge, generally good value for money and, overall,
is an enjoyable experience.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank English Heritage staff for their infor-
mation, advice and support. However, the research was solely that of
the authors and was not financially supported in anyway by English
Heritage.

References

Bender, B. and Edmonds, M. (1992) Whose past? What past? Tourism

Management, 13, 355–357.
Fowler, P. (1992) The Past in Contemporary Society: Then, Now. London:
Routledge.
Hall, C.M. and McArthur, S. (eds) (1996) Visitor management: prin-
ciples and practice. In Heritage Management in Australia and New
Zealand. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, pp. 37–54.
Kuo, I-Ling (2002) The effectiveness of environmental interpretation
at resource-sensitive tourism destinations. International Journal of
Tourism Research, 4 (2), 87–101.
Mason, P. (2003) Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Mason, P. and Beaumont Kerridge, J. (2003) Attitudes of visitors and
residents to the Sidmouth International Festival. In Yeoman, I.,
Robertson, M., Ali-Knight, J., Drummond, S. and McMahon-
Beattie, U. (eds) Festival and Events Management. Oxford: Elsevier,
pp. 311–328.
Mason, P. and Cheyne, J. (2000) Resident attitudes to tourism. Annals
of Tourism Research, 27 (2), 391–411.
Mason, P. and Mowforth, M. (1996) Codes of conduct in tourism.
Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 2 (2), 151–167.
Pearce, D. (1989) Tourist Development. London: Longman.

193
Managing World Heritage Sites

Raybould, M., Digance, J. and McCullough, C. (1999) Fire and festi-

val: authenticity and visitor motivation at an Australian folk festi-
val. Pacific Tourism Review, 3, 201–212.
Timothy, D. and Boyd, S. (2003) Heritage Tourism. London: Prentice
Hall.

Questions

1 Unlike some World Heritage Sites, Stonehenge attracts significant

numbers of both domestic and international visitors, why do you
think this is so?
2 In the mid-1990s, a UK Government committee described the site
of, and experience at, Stonehenge as a ‘national disgrace’. What
reasons would you suggest for this claim?
3 The visitor survey discussed in the chapter produced results that
do not fit with the claim that Stonehenge is a ‘national disgrace’.
What reasons would you give for this?

194
 C H A P T E R
13
Sustainable
development in
tourism: a proposition
for Machupicchu, Peru
Otto Regalado-Pezúa and
Jesús Arias-Valencia
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this case study are to:

• Create awareness of the environmental risks that endanger
Machupicchu Historical Sanctuary
• Provide reflective considerations to contribute to solving the
difficulties Machupicchu Historical Sanctuary is facing
• Contribute to current debate regarding the sustainable man-
agement of Machupicchu Historical Sanctuary.

Introduction

Peru, in spite of its vast geography and great variety of tourist prac-
tice, continues to be a unipolar tourist destination. Visitors concen-
trate on the city of Cusco, and in the so-called ‘southern circuit’
which contains the major attraction of Machupicchu Historical
Sanctuary (MHS). Thus, it is economically and socially important to
preserve, conserve and plan the development of such a cultural and
natural World Heritage Site (WHS). Despite this fact, the current
external factors involving tourist activity to the MHS are not the best,
with recent studies having shown a number of risks endangering the
ruins and their surroundings. This situation reflects how important
the government’s role is with regard to tourism development. On the
one hand, adequate policies may provide great advantages and ben-
efits in economic, educational and sociocultural conditions but, on
the other hand, deficient policies may contribute to environmental
degradation, and the loss of the local people’s identity, among other
negative effects at the WHS.
This case study is aimed initially to guide the reader through the
importance of tourism in Peru, and its main attraction. Secondly, it
describes the difficulties – causes and consequences – of MHS being
a natural and cultural tourist destination. Finally, it offers a likely
solution based on the key principles of sustainable development.

Peru’s tourism statistics

Various studies agree with Peru being shown as a historical, archaeo-

logical and cultural tourist destination. Peru’s Promotion Tourism
Board (PromPerú, 2000) points out that Cusco, the MHS, and/or the
‘southern circuit’ are considered worth visiting by 50 per cent of
tourists who arrive in the country, while the Monitor Company’s
report (1995) points out that between 70 and 75 per cent of the tourists

196
 Sustainable development in tourism: a proposition for Machupicchu, Peru

arriving in Peru visit Cusco and the MHS. Although the figures on the
tourist flow may be initially confusing, it is evident that Peru has a
very important position as a unipolar tourist destination in accordance
with Leiper’s Tourist Pattern (Leiper, 2004) where the city of Lima con-
stitutes a transit route (Regalado-Pezúa and Arias-Valencia, 2004).
Diverse sources point out the great variation evident in visitor stat-
istics, even among information provided by the official organizations.
For example, the World Tourism Organisation Barometer shows that
931 000 international tourists arrived in Peru in 2003. However, the
Ministry of External Trade and Tourism (MINCETUR) points out that
242 105 out of 587 112 tourists visiting Cusco and their main tourist
attractions in 2003 were national and 345 007 foreign visitors.
In accordance with the registered statistical records of the Inca
City and the Inca Trail in Machupicchu, managed by Cusco Culture
National Institute and by Machupicchu’s Management Unit, the
amount of tourists welcomed during the year 2003 surpassed 500 000
people, including both domestic and international visitors.
Figure 13.1 shows the main destinations across Peru during 2003
and the visitor breakdown obtained by each one. In accordance with
PromPerú (2004), although tourists visited Lima, most of them mainly

Tumbes (3%) Iquitos (3%)

Chiclayo (4%)

Trujillo (7%)
Puerto Maldonado (4%)

Huaraz (8%)

Cusco (52%)
Lima (92%) Machupicchu (47%)
Valle Sagrado (30%)

Ica (16%)
Nazca (14%) Puno (35%)
Pisco (10%)
Paracas (8%)

Arequipa (28%)
Cañon del Colca (17%)
Tacna (12%)

Figure 13.1 Peru’s main tourist destinations.

Source: PromPerú (2004: 9) (reproduced with permission)

197
Managing World Heritage Sites

travelled around Cusco, the MHS and the Sacred Valley (located 60 km
northwest of Cusco), and subsequently went on visiting other south-
ern destinations such as Puno, Arequipa, Ica and Tacna.
These figures are sufficiently clear to comprehend MHS’s import-
ant role as Peru’s principal attraction and the concerning interest in
its maintenance and preservation. In the following section, MHS is
introduced while the natural and cultural wealth it possesses and the
difficulties the tourist and agricultural activities cause without any
adequate management unit are discussed.

Machupicchu Historical Sanctuary (MHS)

The Inca city was rediscovered in 1911, and exposed to science by the
North American historian and explorer Hyram Bingham. However,
it was not until 1950 that tourist activities began and, therefore, the
development of infrastructure as well as the necessary tourist sup-
port services. At the beginning of the 1980s, rapid tourism growth
was observed; however, due to terrorist forces and the economic cri-
sis Peru was facing at the time, it declined considerably and it was
not reactivated until 1992, when the social situation stabilized. From
then on, tourism activity has been growing consistently.
The MHS, located in a Natural Preserve Area of 32 592 hectares,
was declared a Cultural and Natural World Heritage Site by UNESCO
in 1983.
This exceptional area is worth attention due to its multiple cultural
values: the Old Inca City of Machupicchu, the Inca Trail Network,
and more than 35 archaeological sites within an outstanding natural
environment. Peru has been recognized to be a rich States Party in
relation to flora and fauna species. Moreover, it has been noticed that
there are restrictively-distributed species, some of which are highly
endangered (PROFONANPE 2002a, 2002b and 2002c).
The world’s ‘nature and culture’ tourism growth is attracting
major interest in visiting the MHS. As stated previously, the tourist
registrations surpassed 500 000 visitors during 2003, and it is esti-
mated that more than 10 million visitors have already been attracted
by this mysterious place. It is evident that the growing number of
visitors has increased the environmental impact: bigger production
of solid wastes; development processes; uncontrolled and direct
influences on the evidently major cultural and natural attractive
sites, mostly at the Inca City, the Inca Trail Network, and some of
their primary forests. It is important to emphasize that the Vilcanota
River basin (also called Urubamba River), which flows through the
MHS, is a catchment for the residuals and the polluted water flows
of the region’s biggest human conglomerate.

198
 Sustainable development in tourism: a proposition for Machupicchu, Peru

This situation, as well as the ecosystem’s natural vulnerability, has

unleashed detrimental processes that threaten the MHS’s natural
and cultural values in relation to its long-term attractiveness. Under
this threat, UNESCO, in agreement with the Peruvian authorities,
has asked for a diverse evaluation and monitoring studies on the
current conditions of resources within this Preserve Area.
It is not only the tourist activities that endanger Machupicchu’s
ecosystem, but also the agricultural practices carried out within the
sanctuary have caused forest fires, deforestation and soil degrada-
tion because of over-shepherding, among other harmful effects.
Figure 13.2 shows the concerns about the MHS after analysis and
checking of the reports from different UNESCO ‘Evaluating Missions’,
and the records of other diverse public and private organizations that
have been working on the area.
Now that these concerns have been stated, as well as their causes
and effects, it is vital for their solution that the national government
takes part in the strategic consideration, and the local participants in
the operative one. For once there is a political will with priority being
given to preserving the MHS and when the local community actively
takes part, it will be possible to think about sustainable tourist devel-
opment for the MHS.
The design of these strategies and their applications must be com-
patible with the three fundamental sustainable development prin-
ciples: long-term profitability, the rational use and conservation of
natural resources, and the local community’s taking part.

Proposed solution

The main critical factor to success is related to participation mechan-

isms within strategic planning and programme execution processes.
These mechanisms are designed to set guidelines and limitations to
the development process, and not just negotiations by ‘consensus’
that only satisfy the interests of individual and particular institutions
leaving out the goals of the MHS preservation.
Moreover, the multiple participation of public organizations within
the MHS hinders the managerial activities and, inadvertently, wors-
ens its concerns.
Therefore, this proposal, aimed at the sustainable development of
the MHS, requires a management unit to be created in order to speed
up the ‘legal reorganization’ of this heritage, and to start the ‘environ-
mental services evaluation’ process. Everything is thus to be inte-
grated within regional development considerations.
To achieve this, the state authorities are to create an autonomous
organization (technical, economic, and administrative) that consists
of an international ‘World Heritage Committee’ which will serve as

199
Managing World Heritage Sites

Concerns Causes Effects

• The ‘carrying capacity • Tourist overcharging on the Inca’s City and Inca Trail
management’ concept is not Network tours; especially in high season, producing
understood so that it has not detrimental effects
been included in the planning • Unplanned tourist growth (large seasonal number of
process visitors)

• Great tourist service demand • Disorderly urban growth at the MHS various entrances
(transportation, lodging, and at mid-stops within the natural area
catering, among others) • Land invasion where poor service infrastructure is
developed
• Lack of adequate solid waste and polluted water flow
management systems
Concerns • Very poor tourist services
produced by • Hostelling services development
tourism activities
• Urban growth
• Public transportation service development (railroads,
helicopters, and buses)
• Over-demand on animals (horses, mules and donkeys)

• Lack of adequate strategic • Superimposing of jurisdictional and institutional

and operational planning responsibilities
processes (Master Plan, Site • Institutional chaos and disorganization when implementing
Plan, Annual Plan) to the individual operational plans
diverse attractions
• Irrational soil use and lack of zone discrimination (lack of
micro-zoning)
• Lack of conformity with in-force laws

• Incompatible farming • Forest fires

activities with the MHS • Decrease in tree varieties and deforestation
• Authorities’ limited • Fuel demand (firewood)
monitoring ability of the
• Introduction of diverse exotic species, competing against
activities developed within
Concerns and displacing native ones
the MHS
produced by • Domestic raising of exotic animals
farming • Shepherding fields erosion and degradation (carrying
activities capacity exceeded up to five times)
• Poaching and taking out of flora species
• Biodiversity loss

• Lack of planning in farming • Limited implementation

development

• Lack of planning in public • Hydroelectric power station enlargement and renovation

services activities without adequate environmental impact studies
development • Non-existent environmental monitoring of public
• Limiting environmental laws transportation services within and outside the MHS
to regulating public services • Lack of Operational Environmental Protocol
Concerns within the MHS
produced by • Fuel spillage, polluting noises and incomplete combustion
• Limited monitoring ability at gases emission
public services executing complementary
• Poor mastery and repair workshops (inadequate
economic and social
infrastructure)
activities within and outside
the MHS • Lack of Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) and
Environmental Impact Evaluations (EIE) relating to social
and economic activities

Figure 13.2 Current concerns about Machupicchu

200
 Sustainable development in tourism: a proposition for Machupicchu, Peru

the highest decision-making authority to handle the MHS. This

Committee is to be directed by an executive director, and integrated by
public state officers, preservation organizations, delegates from national
private companies and specialists from international organizations.
As a support unit the directorate is to have a ‘World Heritage
Convention’ integrated with national and international people from
diverse scientific and technological areas that are to cooperate with
the sustainable development of the MHS on behalf of their different
specialities.
As the principal unit for implementation there is a proposal to cre-
ate a ‘Management Committee’, bringing together the different
public and private organizations and delegates working at the MHS.
Their main objective will be to expedite and to support the identified
the MHS strategy risk management and planning processes.
Thus, six general strategies have been identified to achieve the
goals established by the MHS Master Plan, approved in 1998, which
will be updated and methodologically adapted to strategic planning
based upon a risk management focus. An outline proposal for the
sustainable management of MHS is highlighted in Figure 13.3.
As stated above, the MHS Master Plan will be permanently
updated and will benefit from the implementation of such a struc-
ture. The main goal will be to set guidelines aimed at the site’s tourist

World Heritage Committee

Strategy corpus

Tourist
World development
Heritage
Convention Management Land
Committee regulation
Planning and risk management

Heritage
research and
recovery
Management
Unit
Education,
training and
circulation

Economic
sustenance

Monitoring
and control

Figure 13.3 MHS management proposal structure

201
Managing World Heritage Sites

use and regulation, improvement in the quality of life of local people,

the ecological carrying capacity of the site, and the need to obtain
more benefits that will attainably assure the handling of the MHS’s
natural and cultural heritage.
The strategy relating to the area’s tourist development will allow
for activities planning. It will consist of: forecasting tourist-consumers’
level of comfort and satisfaction; guaranteeing service quality in accor-
dance with set standards; controlling tourist entry in accordance
with maximum visitor carrying capacity levels; diversifying service
offers; and foreseeing future needs in accordance with the environ-
ment sustenance of the site.
With regard to the land regulation strategy, the MHS structure and
legal reorganization will facilitate its implementation. Moreover, it
will be possible to evaluate the boundary’s area and extension. On the
other hand, this strategy will be useful to set up specific rural and
urban guidelines for the MHS’s economic and sociocultural activities.
The strategy concerning heritage research and recovery will allow
the evaluation, planning and implementation of natural and cultural
heritage renovation and preservation of the MHS. This planning is to
be based on scientific research and approved by the corresponding
organizations.
The education, training and circulation strategy is to pass the envir-
onmental vulnerability of the MHS on to all stakeholders, direct and
indirect. Thus, the implementation of this strategy will make the local
people actively take part in the MHS preservation programmes, and it
will make the visitors feel committed to the preservation of the MHS.
The economic sustenance strategy, as plainly stated, will aim at
economically benefiting the local people, creating employment oppor-
tunities and increasing the workers’ salaries and everything will be
carried out with respect for the carrying capacity indicators relating
to investment, adequate infrastructure, and the necessary equipment.
Finally, the monitoring and control strategy is to propose a moni-
toring system that permits the pre-emptive control and lessening of
the negative environmental impacts around the MHS, which were
produced by economic and sociocultural activities performed within
the sanctuary. These strategies interact with one another so that they
are to be taken as a whole (Regalado-Pezúa, 2005).

Conclusions

Various studies concur that Peru is seen as a historical, archaeo-

logical and cultural tourist destination. Diverse sources for figures
point out that between 50 and 75 per cent of all foreign tourists visit
Cusco and the MHS, which describes the States Party as a unipolar
tourist destination (Regalado-Pezúa and Arias-Valencia, 2004;

202
 Sustainable development in tourism: a proposition for Machupicchu, Peru

Lozato-Giotart, 2003). However, the current conditions of tourist

activity and development around the MHS are likely to endanger the
World Heritage Site.
Despite the fact that the MHS is Peru’s main tourist destination, it
is not managed with regard to sustainable warranty procedures. On
the contrary, the separately adopted steps only contribute to its envi-
ronmental degradation. Not only do excessive tourist activities cause
environmental degradation to the MHS, local farming practices
also contribute to degradation as do inadequate infrastructure or
unplanned housing.
This proposal to sustain the MHS is based on the key principles of
sustainable development. In fact, it is proposed that there is a man-
agement structure in charge of the MHS strategic planning, sup-
ported by both an international committee and a scientific consultant
convention, each one of them consisting of capable personnel.
Alongside, it is proposed that there is a management committee in
charge of expediting the implementation of the strategy: tourist
development; land regulation; heritage research and recovery; edu-
cation, training and circulation; economic sustenance; and monitor-
ing and control. These strategies are to be taken as a whole because
they are closely related to and interact with one another.
If the negative environmental impacts continue to increase, it will
decrease the number of visits to the MHS. At this juncture, the author-
ities would be compelled to close the MHS down, partially or com-
pletely, for some time in order to facilitate its recovery and relaunch.

References

Leiper, N. (2004) Tourism Management, 3rd edn. Frenchs Forest:

Pearson Education.
Lozato-Giotart, J-P. (2003) Géographie du tourisme: De l’espace con-
sommé à l’espace maîtrisé. Collection tourisme. Paris: Pearson
Education.
Monitor Company (1995) Construyendo las ventajas competitivas
del Perú. El Turismo.
PROFONANPE (2002a) Ampliación de la base de datos sobre diver-
sidad boilógica del Santuario Histórico de Machu Picchu:
Diversidad botánica. Informe final. Instituto de Investigaciones en
Ciencias Biológicas de la Universidad San Antonio Abad del
Cusco.
PROFONANPE (2002b) Ampliación de la base de datos sobre diversi-
dad boilógica del Santuario Histórico de Machu Picchu: Diversidad
zoológica. Informe final. Asociación para la conservación de la
selva sur y del Museo de historia natural de la Universidad San
Antonio Abad del Cusco.

203
Managing World Heritage Sites

PROFONANPE (2002c) Biodiversidad del Santuario Histórico de

Machu Picchu: Estado actual del conocimiento. Centro de datos
para la conservación de la Universidad Nacional Agraria La
Molina, Lima.
PromPerú (2004) Perfil del Turista Extranjero 2003.
Regalado-Pezúa, O. (2005) Hacia un desarrollo sostenible de la
industria turística en el Perú. Leadership, Magazine for Managers.
CLADEA, Lima, pp. 10–11.
Regalado-Pezúa, O. and Arias-Valencia, J. (2004) Posicionamiento de
Machu Picchu en el sistema turístico del Perú: ¿Riesgo u oportu-
nidad?. Seminario: Between Sustainable Tourism and Local
Development: Prospects and Paradoxes. Centro de Estudios y
Documentación Latinoamericanos – CEDLA, Amsterdam, 8–10 de
diciembre.

Questions

1 What would happen to Peru’s tourist activity and how would the
region’s economy be affected if the MHS were to be closed?
2 Would other tourist destinations be able to replace the MHS
tourist offer? Would such tourist destinations be in great demand?
3 How long can the MHS continue to bear its current management
policies? What policies should be adopted in order to avoid scien-
tifically and technically irreversible degradation?

204
 C H A P T E R
14
Managing visitor
impacts at
Lijiang, China
Hilary du Cros
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this case study are to outline:

• The main characteristics of Lijiang that have relevance for under-
standing the nature of visitor impacts and initiatives employed so
far to mitigate them
• Its tourism development through the 1990s with specific regard to
the legislation, policies and strategies that seek to retain these
unique characteristics
• The impact of the 1996 earthquake and UNESCO World Heritage
inscription on the heritage asset
• A growing number of studies undertaken on visitor impacts by
anthropologists and other analysts, because of their potential to
provide lessons for authorities elsewhere in China concerned
about their heritage assets and for the management World
Heritage Sites generally.

Introduction

The rationale behind exploring this case study is primarily that it is

one of the best managed and most studied World Heritage Sites in the
People’s Republic of China. This is due to the partnerships and initia-
tives that have provided major advances in conserving tangible and
intangible heritage. However, some problems still remain requiring
on-going attention, particularly with regard to minimizing visitor
impacts on the local community, which are common to many such
sites around the world.

Key historical and cultural characteristics

Lijiang lies in Northwest Yunnan, a province in the Southwest of

China. It is currently divided into Lijiang New Town and Ancient
Town (also known as Dayan Ancient Town). The latter was first recog-
nized as an administrative unit by the imperial authorities in 1253 AD
during the Yuan Dynasty. However, Lijiang had served as a meeting
place for Chinese and Tibetan groups before this date, being a market
town and trading post on the Tea and Horse Trade Route that was in
operation from before the Tang Dynasty until the 1950s. The town is
chiefly inhabited by the Naxi, a Tibetan derived cultural group.
The Naxi have their own rich intangible heritage comprising writ-
ing, art, craft, music, festivals, and customs known as Dongba culture.
Other aspects of non-Dongba culture were also retained in the town’s

206
 Managing visitor impacts at Lijiang, China

urban design, architecture and music (e.g. Ancient Han music is still
performed by a separate group from those that perform Dongba
music). Alternatively, the Naxi people combined elements of their
own traditional style of architecture with that of the Han Chinese and
ethnic Bai people to make up the vernacular architecture of Lijiang
Ancient Town (Duang, 2000). Most remarkably, the town still draws its
water supply in open culverts from the scenic Black Dragon Lake and
the catchment of Jade Dragon Snow Mountain nearby. The city also
has several ‘three eyed’ wells with separate pools for collecting drink-
ing water, cleaning vegetables and washing clothes. The water supply
can be adjusted upstream to allow sufficient water through to cleanse
the streets, a unique feature in China (Ebbe and Hankey, 2000).

Early planning for tourism

The cultural value of the town was formally recognized in 1986,

when it was made a Historical and Culturally Famous City under
the National Cultural Relics Protection Act, 1982 by the State Admin-
istration for Cultural Heritage (SACH). A plan to make Lijiang an
‘international level tourism city’ was devised in 1994 by the Yunnan
Provincial Tourism Administration. It included measures for increas-
ing transportation services, tourism infrastructure and services.
Measures were also proposed to enhance tourism product develop-
ment and to ‘strengthen propaganda1 to the outside world’ (Duang,
2000: 11). No specific measures were included to minimize or miti-
gate visitor impacts.
In 1995 a new airport was opened, capable of taking some inter-
national flights from the region. A five star hotel was also constructed,
one of only two in Yunnan until 2001. Other mostly three star and low
budget hotels followed. Domestic tourism to the town doubled and
international tour operators started to discover Lijiang.

1996 Earthquake

Lijiang was partially devastated by a severe earthquake on 3 February

1996. Many of the traditional timber and mud brick buildings sur-
vived. However, repairs and rebuilding were still required. The
Yunnan Provincial Government and the World Bank funded the
rebuilding. The funding came with strings attached and provided a
rare opportunity for the town authorities to rid the Ancient Town of
modern infill and other buildings that were not constructed in the trad-
itional style. Money was also designated as part of the earthquake
effort to carry out an informed reconstruction of an ancient Han man-
sion in the town, the Mu Fu complex (Ebbe and Hankey, 2000).

207
Managing World Heritage Sites

Lijiang already had a number of laws and regulations in place to

control redevelopment, but this was an opportunity to establish a set
of guidelines for building redevelopment that would aid the site in
passing UNESCO’s unofficial ‘Authenticity Test’. At the time, World
Heritage inscription for historic towns involved an assessment by
international experts of the integrity of historic and traditional fabric
in the precincts nominated by sovereign states. The removal of mod-
ern unsympathetic elements as part of the earthquake rejuvenation
gave Lijiang a major advantage over some other nominations in the
evaluation process.

1997 World Heritage inscription and its impact

The town achieved its inscription not long after the earthquake, pos-
sibly to assist in channelling more international aid into its conserva-
tion2. Visitor management and the planning for its impacts was not at
the forefront of local and international authorities’ minds, as they were
still trying to deal with the physical and social impacts of the earth-
quake. Also, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and Centre had
not yet developed the more recent and tougher guidelines on man-
agement planning at that stage. Therefore, the visitor management
and planning for Lijiang was being conducted ad hoc by local author-
ities with some support from international organizations.
However, Lijiang was not alone in the region in this predicament
so UNESCO and the Norwegian World Heritage Office developed
the Local Effort And Preservation (LEAP) programme in 1999.
Lijiang became one of the first WH Sites to be targeted for assistance.
UNESCO facilitated the project, along with its Norwegian partner,
with the aim of developing action plans and stakeholder involve-
ment models to assist WH Site managers to understand and deal
with tourism impacts. Overall, the main aim was to foster local com-
munity stewardship of heritage resources within the Asia-Pacific
Region with the World Heritage Sites to be developed and show-
cased as good examples (Yang and Hou, 2002).
Part of the requirements of the programme was that study and
documentation of visitor impacts be undertaken by local authorities
to give an international panel of experts working with local author-
ities some baseline data for analysis. The local heritage authorities
were given some guidelines to collect data and statistics regarding
the situation. Detailed surveys were done with visitors and residents
for the first time and some tentative conclusions reached about
emerging problems (Duang, 2000). It was hoped that this exercise
would assist the authorities to build skills in monitoring the situ-
ation in the future as well as providing data for present analysis.

208
 Managing visitor impacts at Lijiang, China

The Lijiang Report to UNESCO (Duang, 2000) identified four key

problems:
• tourist numbers had skyrocketed since the construction of the air-
port and the advent of World Heritage inscription and would likely
continue to grow with the recent advent of the ‘Golden Weeks’
Holidays for internal tourists within China
• lack of a planning and tourism management authority solely for
the Lijiang Ancient Town
• lack of an established heritage fund to make grants for ongoing
conservation works and training projects etc.
• difficulties with preventing revenue leakage or collecting tourism
dollars at the site. More needed to be done to benefit the host com-
munity and the heritage asset.
The conference in Bhaktapur, Nepal for LEAP in March 2000 exam-
ined these problems in detail and compiled an action plan. Its strat-
egies included those aimed at capturing more tourist revenue (bed
tax), establishing a cultural heritage conservation fund and overall
management authority, relieving traffic congestion (limitations on
vehicle access), and improving public amenities.
However, lurking in the background in these preliminary data were
indications that problems were starting to occur with the make-up of
local residents from different ethnic groups. If left to develop, these
would change the social fabric of the town and, with it, much of its
intangible heritage. Numerous residents were moving out in favour of
people from outside the prefecture wanting to develop tourist services
and retail businesses, but with no role in local culture. Locals were also
leaving because of decreased local amenities and increased income
from tourism that allowed them to afford larger, more comfortable
modern premises for them and their extended families in the New
Town (Duang 2000; du Cros, 2001). This left behind mainly those work-
ing directly in tourism and old people not wanting to leave their long-
time homes.
The LEAP programme held its final conference in Lijiang in 2001.
The conference reviewed progress on the implementation of the 2000
action plan and made suggestions for further improvements in
stakeholder relations and services for the host community. The bed
tax proposed for levying fees from tourists staying in ancient town
guesthouses worked well up to a point, but was being circumvented
by small illegal hoteliers setting up in New Town to attract tourists.
Even so, Duang Sonting, the heritage official who wrote the original
2000 report, was happy two years later that the action plan was still
working and, indeed, by 2003 the out-migration had slowed (Street,
2004). He believed the town had achieved a ‘win-win’ solution, with
tourist money going towards job creation and the restoration of
listed sites (China Daily, 2004).

209
Managing World Heritage Sites

However, another economic phenomenon was starting to affect the

social make-up of the host community. This was one that could not be
fixed easily with stakeholder relations models and heritage conserva-
tion action plans because it involved local income derived from
tourism. Although the land of Lijiang’s ancient town is still col-
lectively owned and cannot be sold on the open market, the value of
street facing residences for rent had dramatically risen with the advent
of greater tourism. After 2000, it became apparent that as rental fees
go up, fewer and fewer long-time residents would continue to stay in
their old residences preferring instead to rent them out. The problem
this creates had been noted in many other World Heritage historic
tourist cities and towns. That is the shopping and services for the local
community decrease as the dependence on tourism increases and with
it the community’s interest in staying in the town outside of the tourist
season. The ancient walled city on Rhodes, Greece, suffers this exact
problem, where after high season ends it gradually becomes a ghost
town. There are no schools and very few offices or local shops to entice
people to live or visit within its walls.
In Lijiang, efforts instead have gone into burying all electricity wires
and cables underground and reducing the pollution in the town’s
famous street canals (Yang and Hou, 2002; China Daily, 2005). While
these are worthy civic projects, other issues need to be dealt with too to
prevent the town becoming an ‘open air museum’, only of interest to
tourists (McKercher and du Cros, 2002). Retaining sufficient vitality
and amenities for the host community to continue to stay within the
bounds of these heritage sites is one of the key problems that Lijiang
and other such World Heritage Sites will face in the 21st century.

Lijiang’s shifting demography in response to tourism

UNESCO did not continue with this issue with Lijiang, because it has
had to move onto other projects once LEAP’s work was completed.
Fortunately, the town had attracted much interest from anthropolo-
gists, tourism academics and others wanting to study visitor impacts.
Since 2000, at least five studies have covered this topic in some way
(McKann, 2001; du Cros, 2001; Yang and Hou, 2002; Yamamura, 2004;
Street, 2004).
McKann (2001) noted that tensions had already arisen in 2000
between locals and the outsider population to whom they felt they
were ‘losing their town’. Newspaper articles and editorials devoted
space to a debate about banning ‘outsiders’ or waidi ren from setting
up businesses in the town (McKann, 2001: 159). Much of this relates
to people with more entrepreneurial skills and capital becoming
established there and out-competing locals. As the commodification
of the main streets for tourism moves away from the traditional

210
 Managing visitor impacts at Lijiang, China

ambience of the town and its meaning for locals, some may feel
alienated or inconvenienced by this new tourist development.
Yang and Hou (2002) visited not long after the UNESCO study, but
still found there was a ‘developer-driven’ preservation ethic in place
with local authorities and their partners. They estimated that along
the streets in the most accessible areas for tourists, already nearly 90
per cent of the original residents had moved out. By the end of 2001,
there were about 700 different stores in the historic area with 594
located along the main commercial corridors. Of these, merchants
from the local area operated only around 28 per cent. Later studies by
Yamamura (2004) and Street (2004) noted that the actual number
could have dropped to as low as 20 per cent, half of that stated
by local officials for UNESCO. In June 2004, it was observed that there
were local traders in dark shadowy doorways trying to sell hand-
crafted souvenirs being visibly out-competed by shops nearby rented
by outsiders with air-conditioned interiors (Street, 2004). Other local
merchants may just have found that the seasonality of tourism did
not appeal to them and have moved out to undertake other work.
Another finding that emerged from the most recent study by Paul
Street (2004) was both worrying and poignant. He discovered when
distributing questionnaires ‘that a significant number of people did
not have a clear understanding of the significance of working in a heri-
tage town’. He then added an additional question (that was also used
in the 1999 UNESCO study) about how the person learnt about the
meaning of the World Heritage status. Street (2004) found that most
people learnt about it from television, elders and at religious gather-
ings (50 per cent) and (22 per cent) had never had it explained to them
(the same number as in 1999). Inability to engage the host community
in understanding the significance of World Heritage inscription is
likely to have a long-term impact on maintenance of cultural values.
The same people were asked about impacts on their daily life. A
few more were negative about impacts than in 1999, although 40 per
cent did not admit to it having any impact on their daily life. Increases
in visitor numbers, however, are causing some friction with the locals,
particularly in the regard to persistent photographing and video tak-
ing. Also, they no longer use the central market square for traditional
dances or catching up on gossip as the space is often overcrowded
with no ‘sitting out’ areas. Even in a few places where there have been
signs posted restricting access to tourists in favour of local residents,
these spaces have been infringed (Street, 2004).

The tourists
It is not hard to understand how this situation has arisen given the
huge growth in tourism since 1990. Lijiang has actually managed

211
Managing World Heritage Sites

better than most Chinese key heritage attractions in being able to

increase its carrying capacity, because of the attention it has received.
In 1991, after China opened to domestic tourism, Lijiang attracted
around 150 000 visitors (Yamamura, 2004). By 1995, it had jumped to
around 700 000. After the airport, earthquake and WH inscription,
they had jumped to 2.8 million in 2000 (Yang and Hou, 2002). The
last figures available were for 2002 and numbers were still steadily
rising at 3.1 million (Street, 2004). Overall, it shows an increase of a
factor of twenty since it became a mass tourism destination.
Most visitors come from Yunnan, the region or elsewhere in China
and are internal tourists. Travel for educational benefit is not their pur-
pose, nor are they very experienced tourists on the whole. The main
way they consume Lijiang is through photography, buying cheap sou-
venirs and attending the musical performances. The retail sector along
the main streets answers this demand by selling music CDs and sou-
venirs common anywhere in China. More authentic handicrafts or
deeper tourist experiences in the form of niche heritage tours are rare
or poorly attended.

Figure 14.1 Shops selling traditional music CDs and other souvenirs to outsiders
are now the most common on Lijiang Ancient Town’s central streets

Conclusions

Lijiang is at the crossroads regarding the involvement of the local Naxi

community in tourism and the involvement of the inhabitants of
the town in local intangible heritage. The hardware has been well
preserved, but the software still needs work to prevent the town

212
 Managing visitor impacts at Lijiang, China

becoming an open-air museum or theme park. More effort is needed to

retain Lijiang ancient town’s living culture and the Naxi community’s
connection to the site. This, unfortunately, is a common problem for
WHS in many countries where tourism overwhelms everything else.
Although, Lijiang has been open to tourism for a long time by China’s
standards, it is yet to reach its full potential as a mature heritage
tourism area product and may start to decline when it does, if these
social impacts of tourism are not addressed.

Notes

1 The Chinese character used for the word ‘marketing’ is often liter-
ally translated as ‘propaganda’.
2 There are technically three towns included in the inscription:
Dayan, Baisha and Shuhe. The latter two were satellite villages to
Dayan market town that provided goods and services to the latter,
but which also displayed many of the unique Naxi cultural features
(du Cros, 2001).

References

China Daily (2004) Market can’t rule heritage sites. www.chinadaily.

com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/22/content_393530.htm (accessed 31
October 2005).
China Daily (2005) Photo on www.chinadaily.com/cn/english/doc/
2005-03/30/content_429279.htm (accessed 31 october 2005).
Duang, S. (2000) A Report for UNESCO Cultural Heritage Management
and Tourism Co-operation Example: Lijiang, China. Unpublished
report to UNESCO.
du Cros, H. (2001) Socio-cultural analysis. Yunnan Province Tourism
Development Master Plan. World Tourism Organisation, National
Tourism Administration of the People’s Republic of China and
Yunnan Provincial Tourism Administration. Madrid: World Tourism
Organisation.
Ebbe, K. and Hankey, D. (2000) Case Study: Lijiang China Earthquake
Reconstruction and Heritage Conservation. Cultural Sustainable
Development Series. An unpublished report by the East Asia and
Pacific Urban Development Sector Unit of the World Bank.
McKann, C.F. (2001) The good, the bad and the ugly: observations
and reflections on tourism development in Lijiang, China. In Tan,
C.B., Cheung, C.H. and Yang, H. (eds) Tourism, Anthropology and
China. Thailand, White Lotus Press, pp. 147–165.

213
Managing World Heritage Sites

McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. (2002) Cultural Tourism: The Partnership

between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management. Binghamton,
New York: The Haworth Press.
Street, P. (2004) A Tale of Two Towns. Unpublished MA in Geography,
Kings College, London.
Yamamura, T. (2004) Authenticity, ethnicity and social trans-
formation at World Heritage Sites: Tourism, retailing and cul-
tural change in Lijiang, China. In Hall, D. (ed.) Tourism and
Transition. Governance, Transformation and Development. Oxford:
CABI Publishing, pp. 185–200.
Yang, C.Y. and Hou, J. (2002) Remaking of a historical ethnic city:
World Heritage Site in Lijiang as a contested space. Conference
proceedings International Association for the Study of Traditional
Environments, pp. 1–19. December 2002, Hong Kong.

Questions

1 What could be done to increase the amenity and convenience of

Lijiang for local people?
2 What strategies could be devised to increase the local traders’ cap-
acity to compete with those from outside?
3 What incentives could be offered to feature more authentic han-
dicrafts that would also appeal to internal tourists?

214
 C H A P T E R
15
Managing an urban
World Heritage Site:
the development of the
Cultural Avenue
project in Budapest
László Puczkó and Tamara Rátz
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this case study are to:

• Discuss the challenges faced by World Heritage Site manage-
ment in an urban environment
• Present an overview of the Cultural Avenue project as a man-
agement tool
• Analyse the conceptual issues and the practical difficulties in
the development and the management of the project.

Introduction

The banks of the Danube and the Buda Castle Quarter in Budapest
were inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List in 1987 under
criteria C (ii) (iv). According to UNESCO’s verdict, the area is one of
the world’s outstanding urban landscapes and illustrates the great
periods in the history of the Hungarian capital. The World Heritage
Site (WHS), which displays the continuity of history as an urban
panorama, includes the House of Parliament, the bridges spanning
the Danube, the Gellért Hill and the Buda Castle.
In 2002, the WHS was extended to Andrássy Avenue and the
Millennium Underground. The extension area is a representative
example of late 19th century social development and urban plan-
ning, and it reflects the latest technical achievements of the day.
The buffer zone of the extension area includes the old Jewish quarter
of Pest. Although the entire WHS is located in the densely populated
inner core of Budapest, it also comprises a relatively sparsely inhabited
region of downs. As the River Danube is also an integral part
of the area, the predominantly architectural heritage is comple-
mented by a protected landscape including the Gellért Hill and the
cave system with a small dripstone cave beneath the Castle. Con-
cerning the urban functions represented within the WHS area, the
residential districts are complemented by public services, cultural
and religious institutions, tourist attractions, leisure facilities and
public parks.
In this case study, the discussion of the difficulties experienced in
tourism and World Heritage administration is followed by the detailed
assessment of the Cultural Avenue project, a complex interpretation
and development tool that aims to enhance destination and visitor
management in Budapest.

216
 Managing an urban World Heritage Site

Tourism and World Heritage in Budapest

Both the Buda Castle Quarter and Andrássy Avenue have tradition-
ally been the most visited districts of the city, due to their monu-
ments and sights as well as their historic atmosphere. Practically all
the international tourists to Budapest visit the key attractions of the
World Heritage Site, but they are also very popular among Hungarian
visitors to the capital. However, the Site’s key success factor is its
heritage value and its nationwide and international renown, and the
concentration of visitors in the area is not directly related to its World
Heritage status. Thus, the socially and politically welcomed World
Heritage designation of the areas has not significantly altered visit-
ation patterns or preferences within the city, although it may serve as
a seal of approval for tourists’ choice.
The role of tourism in the economy of Budapest and Hungary is
generally recognized by decision-makers. The role played by archi-
tectural heritage and the built environment in influencing tourists’
experiences and satisfaction is also understood. The preservation
and the appropriate reuse of the Castle District and Andrássy Avenue
have been a major consideration in all former and current tourism
development strategies of Budapest, although very little has actually
been done to realize strategic objectives. However, the World Heri-
tage status presents an additional challenge in heritage management
and conservation: the title may heighten tourists’ expectations and
at the same time increases the local community’s associated respon-
sibility (Rátz and Puczkó, 2003).
Although this World Heritage Site is the most visited urban destin-
ation in Hungary, the development of tourism services has been
rather unsystematic in the past, and only moderate changes have been
experienced to date. Compared to the more established tourism prod-
uct offered by the Buda Castle Quarter, the development of Andrássy
Avenue has been more spontaneous and also more dynamic following
the World Heritage designation, resulting, unintentionally however,
in new urban centres such as the cluster of cafés and restaurants in
Liszt Ferenc Square or the theatreland (the so-called ‘Pest Broadway
Project’) being created around Nagymező street.
The streetscape and the buildings of the Avenue have been essen-
tially preserved in their original form since their construction at the
end of the 19th century, and throughout history, most of the alterations
made have respected the overall character of the place. Recently, how-
ever, the opening of the House of Terror, which commemorates the
victims of Nazi and Communist terror, caused uproar in the city’s heri-
tage protection and architectural circles as its striking metal cornice is
in sharp contrast with the elegant style of the surroundings.
In the case of Budapest, it is the ensemble of heritage buildings, the
urban landscape and the historical-architectural development of the

217
Managing World Heritage Sites

city that create a universal value; on their own, probably none of the
buildings would deserve the World Heritage designation. Conse-
quently, interpretation of the WHS should increase visitors’ aware-
ness of the inherent interrelationship of the site’s components and
create an understanding of the overall evolution of the site (Puczkó
and Rátz, 2003). However, probably due to the highly complex and
bureaucratic nature of urban planning and management in Budapest
(described in this chapter), up to now the Cultural Avenue project is
the first and only attempt of integrated WHS interpretation and
management.

World Heritage management in Budapest

In order to be able to understand fully the complexity of World

Heritage management in Budapest, it is necessary to provide a short
overview of the protection of built heritage as well as the adminis-
trative system of the city. As this chapter indicates, decision-making
concerning the WHS is generally time-consuming and rather bureau-
cratic, since it requires the agreement of a multitude of interrelated
organizations with occasionally unclear division of labour as opposed
to a single responsible body.
The local government system of Budapest is rather unique: it is
based on a two-tier arrangement comprising the municipality of the
City and those of the 23 districts. The City and the district govern-
ments are not subordinated to each other: the districts independently
exercise the powers and rights granted to local governments within
the framework of the Act on Local Governments. Although it is a
fundamental principle of this dual system that the Municipality of
Budapest shall perform the duties which concern the whole of the
capital or more than one district, the complexity of decision-making
and the uncertainty of authority on certain occasions have definitely
hindered the joint management of the World Heritage area.
As a consequence, at the moment there is no accepted manage-
ment plan for the entire World Heritage area of Budapest. The cur-
rently valid Protection of Cultural Heritage Act 2001 does not
provide specific protection for the site either. Instead, individual
monuments within the area are protected at three levels: (1) district
level, (2) Budapest municipal level and (3) national level (including
both territorial and individual protection).
Management of the World Heritage values is organized at the
same levels as the legal protection, the result of which is a particu-
larly complex decision-making and funding process. At national
level, the main responsible bodies include the Ministry of National
Cultural Heritage (NKÖM), the National Office of Cultural Heritage
(KÖH), and the World Heritage Hungarian National Committee

218
 Managing an urban World Heritage Site

(VOMNB). At city level, within the framework of the Municipal Gov-

ernment, relevant authorities include, among others, the Department
for the Protection of Settlement Values, the Bureau of the Chief
Architect or the Committee of City Planning and Cityscape Protection
of the General Assembly of the Municipality. Moreover, to make the
situation even more complicated at district level, the territory and
the architectural values of the World Heritage area are managed by
seven independent district municipalities. The capital’s tourism
authority, the Budapest Tourism Office (BTH) is responsible for mar-
keting Budapest including the World Heritage area.
Within the WHS area, all types of property ownership are to be
found: municipal as well as private property, in addition to state
authority, government agencies and institutions, the church, and even
international rules for foreign diplomatic representations. Public
spaces within the territory of the World Heritage Site – such as roads,
public transport networks, tunnels, parks – are controlled by the
Budapest municipal government. District governments control certain
former state-owned properties acquired in whole or in part. Buildings
of mixed ownership where the resident community includes tenants,
private owners and the local government are also typical in the area.
The effective management of heritage resources relies on the suc-
cessful balance of conservation and visitor access. In the case of
Budapest, however, the entire World Heritage Site is a densely popu-
lated urban area as well as a traditionally popular tourist destination
with a metropolitan infrastructure, so the primary management chal-
lenge is to balance conservation and residential interests, including
interests of inhabitants, district governments and investors. Although
visitors’ needs partly differ from those of the local community, the
management of tourism within the World Heritage Site area is often a
secondary consideration, as successful urban development is expected
automatically to result in favourable visitation patterns.
At the moment, interpretation of the WHS is limited to the follow-
ing tools:

• four signposts scattered throughout the city centre bearing the

World Heritage logo and presenting a map of the area
• occasional city walks in the Buda Castle and along Andrássy
Avenue run by an independent non-profit organization
• the Cultural Avenue initiative,

whereas tools and techniques extensively used at other sites include:

• arrows/signs directing visitors to the WHS (not only to individual

buildings)
• plaques with a short description about the site at buildings which
are major entry points

219
Managing World Heritage Sites

• special maps/brochures introducing the WHS

• official guided tours
• CD-ROMs or DVDs or other memorabilia about the WHS.
It is anticipated that the new Management Plan (due by the end of
2005) should introduce additional interpretation tools and might
change the overall management approach of the Budapest WHS.

Initiation of the Cultural Avenue (CA) Project

The idea of creating a cultural route in Budapest occurred in 2000, as
an outcome of a marketing plan prepared for the Museum of Fine

Figure 15.1 Territory of Cultural Avenue and WHS

220
 Managing an urban World Heritage Site

Arts. Initially, the project was only partly related to World Heritage
as the original WHS – the banks of the Danube and the Buda Castle
Quarter in Budapest – was only extended to include Andrássy
Avenue and the Millennium Underground in 2002, i.e. after the
creation of the CA. Therefore the first versions of the brochures and
the website did not carry the World Heritage logo.
Throughout the completion of the marketing plan, numerous dis-
cussions raised the problem of lack of creative initiatives in the cul-
tural and heritage development and the marketing of Budapest.
Based on international experiences, the creation of a themed route
seemed to be a creative way to improve the cultural image of the city:
themed itineraries are popular among visitors, they offer flexibility
and efficiency in interpretation and visitor management, and their
initial development requires moderate investment (Puczkó and
Rátz, 2006; Rátz and Puczkó, 2002).
Looking at the topography of the city centre and locating all the
main cultural and heritage attractions, the initial idea of the Cultural
Avenue (CA) was born (Figure 15.1). The actual area of the WHS is
indicated by shading.
It has to be noted, however, that during the development of the CA,
the World Heritage status of the sites was not considered, for several
reasons. First of all, at the time it was not yet certain if the proposed
extension to the originally inscribed site would be accepted. More-
over, the CA was intended to incorporate contemporary as well as
heritage sites and attractions along its stretch. Being a private initia-
tive, the CA focused on the interpretation of the city rather than the
interpretation of the World Heritage area. Eventually, however, the
two fields have become closely linked, and the cooperation is to be
accelerated as the recently accepted Tourism Development Strategy
of Budapest declares the development of themed routes unquestion-
ably important.
Unlike typical themed routes that focus on a common topic (such
as the ‘Renaissance Évora Historical Itinerary’ in Portugal or the
‘Berlin Stadt der Engel’ route in Germany), the Cultural Avenue links
attractions that are similar and different at the same time, their com-
mon characteristics being their location along a virtual axis of Budapest
and their individual willingness to be represented in the project.
In addition, similarity also lies in certain – subjectively measured –
cultural and historic aspects, while differences are manifested in the
variety of stops along the trail, e.g. museums, churches, cafés, histor-
ical buildings, theatres, and even a spa, that represent the history,
culture and traditions of Budapest.
When selecting the stops of the CA, a wide and flexible under-
standing of culture, history and heritage was applied, from high cul-
ture (e.g. the Museum of Fine Arts) to common, popular or alternative

221
Managing World Heritage Sites

culture (e.g. the Erzsébet Square Cultural Centre hosting bands and
exhibitions). This approach concluded with 59 stops along the route,
most of which form part of the WHS.
One of the key purposes of the route is to encourage visits to
less popular or not too well-known areas, to divert traditional tourist
flows and to provide an alternative itinerary. Almost all tourists
visit the Castle District and Heroes’ Square or the Great Synagogue,
but only a very few are aware of the hidden treasures around
these key attractions, e.g. the Museum of East Asia, the House of
Photography or the former Jewish Ghetto. The intention of the
CA project is to make tourists realize that the cultural and heritage
assets of Budapest are too numerous and complex to discover in just
one visit.

Implementation of the idea

The process of physical implementation started in 2002, with the

help and financial support of the Cultural Tourism Department
of the Ministry of National Cultural Heritage. Although every organ-
ization, site and institution approached during the preparation
process supported the idea in principle, only a few contributed
any useful information, such as a photo or a short description, so
the project team had to compile most of the texts and photos on
their own.
Selection criteria for the route’s name included easy recognition and
recall, international applicability and a consistency with the project’s
theme and position. The name ‘Cultural Avenue’ was selected from
several options. The English and the French (‘Avenue Culturel’)
names are literal translations; in German, however, the name is slightly
different (‘Allee der Kultur’, i.e. Avenue/Boulevard of Culture).
Many alternatives were prepared for the logo and the visual design
of the brochure. Of the various colour schemes an elegant dark red
was selected, while the logo is somehow similar to an Ionic style pillar
with a little arrow on the top (Figure 15.2).
The ideal brochure layout had to meet many functions, i.e. that of
interpretation, information, map and souvenir. After evaluating
many similar brochures from all around the world, a 14-page, single
stapled, landscape layout was designed with a rear foldout map.
The route exists in two forms, in print (as a map/information
leaflet) and on the Internet (www.sugarut.com). Themed signposts
and plaques are to be developed along the way to help visitors iden-
tify stops.
Although themed routes are relatively easy to create, international
experiences show that they quickly disappear without proper

222
 Managing an urban World Heritage Site

Figure 15.2 The Cultural Avenue logo

preparation, planning and management, and most important of all,

sound financial background. Routes with many stops are rarely
managed by private organizations without the financial contribution
of participant sites and institutions: thus, in this respect, the Cultural
Avenue project is an exception.

Current situation of the project

Due to exceptional demand from visitors, the first set of 24 000

brochures ran out in a few months. Taking all requests and recom-
mendations into consideration, a slightly modified design was created
by the Spring of 2005. The following activities are planned for 2005:

• printing 130 000 copies of the redesigned brochure in three

languages
• updating the website
• developing brochure stands to be placed by the entrance of mem-
bers and partner hotels or catering establishments.

The total budget for 2005 is estimated at 28 000 euro. Following nego-
tiations with the National Tourism Office and the Budapest Tourism

223
Managing World Heritage Sites

Office in order to identify possible ways of cooperation, and winning

a tender issued by the Ministry of National Cultural Heritage, about
two thirds of the budget was promised to be available by the end of
February 2005.
From the very beginning, the project has been dependent on state
and municipal support. During the three years of operation, no sound
financial background could be established which is a major risk factor,
and might be attributed to the following reasons:
• several members, especially state owned museums cannot afford
any financial contribution
• commercial businesses that are in fact the main beneficiaries of the
CA development show very limited willingness to become finan-
cially involved, despite the enormous publicity created by the pro-
ject in printed media
• the district governments concerned either do not consider tourism
development a priority or, due to the complex nature of the prod-
uct and their own former experiences in a centralized system, expect
to rely on state involvement and funding
• out of the 49 potential sponsors approached, only a major telecom
company found the project and its target segments appealing
enough to become financially involved by ordering a customized
version of the brochure for their annual conference’s attendees.

Conclusions

In the last few years, World Heritage management in Budapest has

been rather fragmented, mostly spontaneous and often fuelled by civil
initiatives. The area’s metropolitan location offers both advantages
and disadvantages in tourism development: on the one hand, the
city’s established infrastructure provides a higher carrying capacity in
case of increased visitation. On the other hand, the large number of
stakeholders makes it almost impossible to find an effective resource
management approach that is able to satisfy all kinds of interests.
Destination marketing and destination interpretation are highly
interrelated in a metropolitan environment, and the development of
a comprehensive interpretation system is a particularly challenging
task in the Budapest WHS, due to the Site’s complexity in terms of
ownership and management.
The Cultural Avenue project, which at least partially fills the gap
created by the inactivity of officially responsible organizations in WHS
interpretation, may lead to cooperation among the various stakehold-
ers and may result in better coordinated World Heritage management.
However, the success of the initiative depends on a sound financial
background and on the active involvement of all beneficiaries.

224
 Managing an urban World Heritage Site

References

Puczkó, L. and Rátz, T. (2003) Turizmus történelmi városokban.

Tervezés és menedzsment. Budapest: Turisztikai Oktató és
Kutató Kkt.
Puczkó, L. and Rátz, T. (2006) The Cultural Avenue of Budapest. In
Richards, G. (ed.) Cultural Tourism: Global and Local Perspectives.
Binghamton, New York: The Haworth Press.
Rátz, T. and Puczkó, L. (2002) Goethe, Humbert és Odüsszeusz
avagy kulturális utak a turizmusban. Turizmus Bulletin 6 (3), 3–11.
Rátz, T. and Puczkó, L. (2003) A World Heritage Industry? Tourism at
Hungarian World Heritage Sites. In Gravari-Barbas, M. and
Guichard-Anguis, S. (eds) Regards Croisés sur le Patrimoine dans
le Monde à l’Aube du XXIe Siècle. Paris: Presses de l’Université de
Paris-Sorbonne, pp. 467–481.

Questions

1 Identify the major stakeholder groups in the case study and com-
pare their main interests.
2 How could a management plan incorporate all the contradictory
interests in the most effective way?
3 What are the main threats for the further development of the
Cultural Avenue project?

225
 C H A P T E R
16
Tourism development,
empowerment and the
Tibetan minority:
Jiuzhaigou National
Nature Reserve, China
Li, Fung Mei Sarah
 Tourism development, empowerment and the Tibetan minority

Aims

The aims of this case study are to:

• Introduce the development of tourism in the Jiuzhaigou National
Nature Reserve
• Examine the effects of tourism on the Tibetan minority resi-
dents of Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve by utilizing the construct of
empowerment as a framework for assessing how tourism has
changed the economic, social and cultural environments of
such communities.

Introduction

In the far north of Sichuan Province in China lies Jiuzhaigou Nature

Reserve1, a World Heritage Site (WHS) that is renowned not only for
the biodiversity and geology of its mountains and valleys, calcareous
lakes and glaciers, but for its rich cultural heritage based on nine eth-
nic Tibetan villages. Indeed, the very name Jiuzhaigou means ‘Valley
of nine stockaded villages’. Tibetan communities have inhabited the
valleys of Jiuzhaigou for at least five hundred years and the small
communities followed a traditional pastoral way of life isolated from
mainstream Chinese politics and governance because of their inaccess-
ibility and remoteness until 30 years ago. Livestock grazing – yaks,
sheep, goats and horses – and some limited cropping of barley and
vegetables were the major agricultural activities. In 1974 the valley
first came to the attention of the Government when it was ‘discovered’
by state foresters.
The Reserve was opened up for tourism in 1984. As visitation
increased, change gathered momentum and these hitherto very
isolated communities were thrust into modernization and global-
ization to the point where the 1000 residents are now the object of
the tourist gaze (Urry, 2002) of 1.3 million visitors each year. This
case study examines the effects of tourism on the Tibetan minority
residents of Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve by utilizing the construct
of empowerment as a framework for assessing how tourism has
changed the economic, social and cultural environments of these
communities. While Jiuzhaigou’s WHS listing is based on its
biodiversity values, the Tibetan communities constitute a strong
attraction consistent with China’s national policy of actively
supporting ethnic minorities through cultural tourism (Sofield and
Li, 1998a).

227
Managing World Heritage Sites

Jiuzhaigou: geographic location and background

Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve is famous for 114 calcareous lakes sep-

arated by waterfalls which step down from a Y-shaped glacial valley,
surrounded by thickly forested mountain slopes which rise to peaks
in excess of 4000 m. This diverse environment is home to the giant
panda, golden monkey, takin and more than 150 species of birds.
The extraordinary scenic qualities of the area and its biodiversity
resulted in the valley and surrounding mountains being gazetted as
a National Nature Reserve in 1978, the borders of the park enclosing
the nine Tibetan communities (Ze, 1994). The Nature Reserve was
accorded World Heritage Site Listing in 1992. It was granted Global
Biosphere Reserve status in 1997 under UNESCO’s MAB (Man and
Biosphere) Convention on significant sites for wildlife. The total area
of the Reserve is 1320 km2, or 65 000 hectares, of which only 50 km2 of
scenic area are open to the public. Access for tourists is limited to
a sealed road which traverses the 114 lakes and follows them to
the high alpine heads of the two valleys, and to several kilometres
of boardwalk trails that circumnavigate several of the lakes and
waterfalls.
The Reserve is located 400 km north of Chengdu, the capital city of
Sichuan Province, in Nanping County, one of thirteen counties in the
Aba Tibetan and Qiang Ethnic Minority Autonomous Prefecture.
Nanping County has a population of 60 000, the great majority of
whom are Tibetan (Ze, 1994). In the past five years the population
living in proximity to the entrance of the Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve/
national park has expanded from about 1000 to more than 10 000 as
more than one hundred hotels with about 30 000 beds have been con-
structed. The nine stockaded Tibetan villages have a combined total
of about 1000 people living in the park area permanently: 1007 persons
were enumerated in June 2004 (Jiuzhaigou Management, personal
communications).
As a component of the new nature reserve and biosphere status of
the valley and surrounding mountains, in order to meet conserva-
tion and biodiversity objectives the Reserve Management gradually
implemented a ban on all animal husbandry and cropping (there
were small terrace holdings along the river flats and around the mar-
gins of the lakes). The Management saw grazing and farming as
fundamentally inimical to conservation and in breach of the 1994
Chinese legislation for the establishment of nature reserves. The
Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Nature Reserves 1994.
Article 26 states: ‘It is prohibited to carry out such activities as log-
ging, grazing, hunting, fishing, gathering medicinal herbs, reclaim-
ing, burning, mining, stone quarrying and sand dredging, etc.’ (PRC,
1994). By 2002 all but a few ponies and yaks used for local transport
had been removed from inside the park. With no economic rationale

228
 Tourism development, empowerment and the Tibetan minority

for remaining in isolated sites selected originally for their pastoral

and agricultural advantages, three of the nine stockaded villages were
quickly reduced to hamlets with only one or two resident families.
The majority of people moved into the five communities located along
the scenic routes in the park where tourism provides prospects for
employment or other avenues of replacement income, and into one
village located off the tourist route but relatively close to the Reserve’s
administrative headquarters.
In 1997, tourist visitation to the park jumped dramatically with the
completion of the highway from Chengdu to Jiuzhaigou. Previously
it had been less than 170 000 per annum but, in 1998, visitor numbers
rose to 340 000; in 1999 to 630 000; and in 2000 to 830 000. Visitation
reached one million in 2001, and increased to 1.3 million in 2002 before
the sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic reduced
visitation to 1.1 million in 2003. The year 2004 (1.35 million visitors)
was a record year with the opening of a new airfield just 40 km from
the Reserve in September 2003: Boeing 737 and Airbus flights from
Chengdu take 45 minutes to Nanping County, followed by a one
hour drive from the airport to the Nature Reserve, drastically redu-
cing the often dangerous 10–12 hour road journey from Chengdu.
Domestic (Chinese) tourists account for 92–93 per cent of all visit-
ation (Management Office, Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve, personal
communication, 2004).
Before progressing to a discussion of empowerment, a number of
activities need to be considered in the context of economic change
and the effects of tourism on the livelihoods of the Tibetan rural com-
munities inside the park. These are listed in Table 16.1, and while the
list is mainly economic, each change encompassed social and cul-
tural impacts.

Table 16.1 Key tourism development in Jiuzhaigou Valley

Pre 1984 Tibetan communities were subsistence herders living in isolation

from the monetized economy. Cash income was negligible.
Tourism In 1984 Jiuzhaigou was opened up for tourism. Visitation grew
from 60 000 in 1984 to more than 1.35 million in 2004. In 2004
entrance fees generated more than US$20 million.
Home-stays To meet demand for accommodation, home-stays were
encouraged by Management. As visitation exceeded home
availability commercial lodges, often unsympathetic to
traditional architecture, were built inside the villages by
villagers. In 2002 Management banned home-stays because of
pollution, uncontrolled construction in the villages, and social
discord within the communities. Legislation gave each community
member RMB 6000 annually as compensation for lost income.
(Continued)

229
Managing World Heritage Sites

Table 16.1 (Continued)

Transport In March 1999, Management banned all private vehicles from

entering the park (mainly tour buses) and set up a monopoly
‘Green Bus Company’ (using LPG as fuel) owned in a
cooperative by the Tibetan communities. A fleet of 120
buses was purchased. Within four years the number of
buses had expanded to 350, and gross turnover was more than
US$12 million. In mid-year the Prefecture Government took over
control of the bus company in order to disburse its earnings to
impoverished communities outside the Park, and the Jiuzhaigou
communities’ shareholding was reduced to about 20%.
Restaurant/souvenir As part compensation for the loss of the bus company,
complex in 2003 a catering joint venture, with the communities and
the Management as the holding company, was set up to
provide all the catering needs inside the Reserve. A restaurant
complex was constructed with seating for 5000 and each family
from the villages was provided with a souvenir stall inside a
central mall. This combined venture is estimated to provide
the villagers with about two thirds of the income earned from
the bus company.
Other ventures With the ban on home-stays inside the villages some families
invested in small accommodation units outside the Park in the
new tourist township of Jiuzhaigou. Others invested in
establishing cultural troupes, some with their own cultural
centres, outside the Park.
Herding, cultivation In 2001 all herds were removed from inside the Park,
banned and all small terrace cropping banned, as both were considered
inimical to sound environmental management. However, in
2005 Management was actively considering the reintroduction
of a limited number of horses and yaks for tourist rides to a
famous sacred Tibetan mountain within the Park’s boundaries.

Empowerment

Of the many different ways in which the effect of tourism on the

Tibetan ethnic minority of Jiuzhaigou could be examined, the concept
of empowerment has been selected, since much of the tourism litera-
ture argues that without empowerment sustainable tourism develop-
ment by communities is difficult to attain (D’Amore, 1983; Murphy,
1985; Butler, 1993; Sofield, 2003). Empowerment is a major component
of the debate about community development and NGOs in particular
have been strong advocates of the need to involve communities in
meaningful ways in decisions about their futures. Because commu-
nities in many countries are left outside the decision-making process,
policies and decisions are made for them not by them. One result is

230
 Tourism development, empowerment and the Tibetan minority

often an inability by governments, planners and developers to imple-

ment policy and/or to maintain the sustainability of an initiative
because of community non-cooperation or even hostility.
Despite concerns about the need for community involvement in
tourism planning, empowerment in any conceptual detail has often
tended to remain outside considerations of tourism development. It
has been more strongly explored in education literature concerning
empowerment of students in an ‘active learning’ process; indigenous
issues related to discrimination and justice where empowerment
and acceptance of responsibilities is considered one way of breaking
the cycle of recidivism; nursing science where the professional health
worker/patient relationship has been subjected to very detailed
scrutiny in terms of empowering nurses and patients; some aspects
of sociology such as social exchange theory; gender studies; political
science; and management practices.
In discussing empowerment, the relationship between politics and
tourism must also be canvassed because politics, reduced to its fun-
damentals, is about power. Power is about who gets what, where,
when, how and why and the politics of development are also about
who gets what, where, when, how and why (Hall, 1994). The concept
of empowerment applied in the analysis of the Jiuzhaigou ethnic
minority situation is one advanced by Sofield (2003). It is an amal-
gamation of several different emphases, although two key compo-
nents are the role of the state (government) without which legality of
action and behavior may be challenged and sustainability of tourism
developments difficult to achieve, and the decision-making model
that moves beyond consultations to encompass application or imple-
mentation of decisions. Sofield’s concept is derived in part also from
the social exchange theory literature, especially power/dependence
relations (Emerson, 1962, 1972; Blau, 1987; Molm, 1987, 1988; Ap, 1992).
In this context, empowerment of communities, societal groups or
organizations may be considered a strictly social phenomenon and
Sofield’s concept of empowerment may be considered an outcome of
the social processes of social exchange where those processes result
in a change of the power balance between the actors. It is particularly
useful when considering the effect of tourism development on indi-
genous communities and has five main propositions:
i) that the exercise of traditional or legitimate empowerment by
traditionally-oriented communities will of itself be an ineffectual
mechanism for attempting sustainable tourism development;
ii) that such traditional empowerment must be transformed into
legal empowerment if sustainable tourism development is to be
achieved;
iii) that empowerment for such communities will usually require envir-
onmental or institutional change to allow a genuine re-allocation

231
Managing World Heritage Sites

of power to ensure appropriate changes in the asymmetrical

relationship of the community to the wider society;
iv) conversely, empowerment of indigenous communities cannot
be ‘taken’ by the communities concerned drawing only upon their
own traditional resources but will require support and sanction
by the state, if it is to avoid being short-lived; and,
v) that without the element of empowerment tourism development
at the level of community will have difficulty achieving sustain-
ability (Sofield, 2003: 9).

The difference between legitimate and legal power in Sofield’s

framework needs to be explained. According to Weber (1978, cited in
Sofield, 2003), legitimate power is exercised in traditional societies
based on traditional forms of authority, such as a village headman or
a priest. However, unless that traditional (legitimate) form of author-
ity is supported by legislation, in a modern state it may have some
attributes of moral power but it can always be challenged legally and
is unlikely to be sustained in a court of law. Empowerment of ethnic
minority communities, according to Sofield (2003) must have a legal
underpinning if it is to lead to sustainable development.
Each of the five aspects of empowerment can be explored in the
context of Jiuzhaigou.

Shortcomings of traditional or legitimate empowerment

In a centrally controlled economy such as China’s, even in the present

situation of a move towards market forces, the state still maintains a
very strong degree of control if it wishes to exercise that authority.
In the case of the opening up of Jiuzhaigou as a national park, in
order to meet the demand for accommodation the Management
encouraged home-stay initiatives. As demand grew some Tibetan
entrepreneurs established purpose-built accommodation units inside
their village spaces and this expansion was sanctioned by their exist-
ing local traditional structures of authority. It was a classic case of
demand-led supply. However, as numbers of visitors grew at an expo-
nential rate, and as more and more structures were erected, which
were ‘unsympathetic’ to traditional architectural design (visual pollu-
tion), traditional forms of waste disposal (especially human faecal
waste and garbage with high plastics content) proved inadequate and
began to result in pollution of the pristine lakes and waterways. And,
as disputes within the communities over ‘rights’ to tourists arose – all
non-traditional elements which their society was ill-equipped to
handle – an external power intervened to protect the biodiversity and
conservation values of the valley and restore community harmony. That
external power was of course, the Reserve Management established

232
 Tourism development, empowerment and the Tibetan minority

under legislation and with the legal authority to override community

actions and desires that it considered inimical to good management of
the Reserve.
First of all the Reserve Management took control from the com-
munities to reduce internal conflict. It established a central register
for distributing guests to the various accommodation units around
the villages. As pollution and environmental degradation increased,
however, in 2002 it banned all home-stays and accommodation inside
the park, enacting specific legislation for this purpose. Subsequently
it demolished all non-traditional buildings in each village and began
to landscape and beautify the villages according to a ‘tourist bench-
mark’ of what was considered desirable, including providing facil-
ities for adequate parking of tour buses (previously very limited)
utilizing the former terraces that had been used for cropping and
animal husbandry. In other words, the home-stay industry estab-
lished by the local people under exercise of legitimate power but
outside a supporting legal mechanism was unsustainable. Local
ownership of the land and private ownership of the buildings accord-
ing to traditional Tibetan rural community social structures could not
prevail against a legally sanctioned external agency.
In the same way, the traditional pursuits of the communities in
terms of both pastoral activities and animal husbandry, activities
which had sustained them for centuries, were barred and all domes-
ticated animals (other than chickens) were removed from within the
Reserve boundaries by the same external agency exercising its legal
authority. Legislation was enacted which made it illegal to graze ani-
mals within the Park and traditional rights, exercised over centuries
according to Tibetan custom, were erased. In short, the exercise of
traditional or legitimate empowerment by traditionally-oriented
communities was an ineffectual mechanism for sustaining trad-
itional practices; but under a revision of the legislation some horses
and yaks may be permitted inside the Park to provide a new touris-
tic experience – transport to a new destination, a mountain that has
been sacred to Tibetan Buddhists for centuries.

Traditional empowerment must be transformed into

legal empowerment
With reference to the Reserve Management’s intervention in home-
stays inside the park, in the first instance its actions legitimized these
activities. It established a central register and recognized the rights of
each establishment to accommodate visitors. It coordinated each fam-
ily’s participation in this activity, collected the payments from guests
and distributed monies according to the number of bed-nights each
accommodation unit had provided. In other words it transformed

233
Managing World Heritage Sites

‘legitimate empowerment’ into ‘legal empowerment’ (Sofield’s second

proposition).
Subsequently, of course, the Reserve Management banned all
overnight stays inside the park, again acting under specific legisla-
tion, which effectively disempowered the villagers from conducting
hospitality operations in their own communities. However, this legis-
lation did not disempower them completely, but recognized that
they had certain rights and so a compensation factor was incorp-
orated into the legislation. While the level of compensation bore no
relationship to the loss of income in terms of past and future earn-
ings, the compensation figure of RMB 6000 (US$750) per resident per
annum on an indefinite basis is a small fortune compared with the
annual pastoral income prior to advent of tourism. The wealth gen-
erated by home-stay tourism prior to the ban in 2002 was sufficient
for a number of families to establish small guesthouses and hotels
outside the Reserve so their involvement in the accommodation sec-
tor has continued.
The Reserve Management extended additional forms of power to
the Jiuzhaigou Tibetan communities. Traffic conditions had become
chaotic and so the Prefecture legislated to establish a monopoly bus
service for all travel within the Park and awarded that monopoly to
the Tibetan communities. The 1000 members of the Tibetan commu-
nities achieved a per capita gross income of US$11 000 while they
owned the bus company. Poverty was effectively abolished, with the
communities achieving economic independence through the bus com-
pany. In 2002 it was thus possible to state that empowerment had
occurred through changes in the legal environment which allowed a
genuine re-allocation of power, ensuring appropriate changes in the
asymmetrical relationship of the communities to the wider society
(Sofield’s third proposition).
But, by late 2002, the situation had changed again. The Prefecture
Government removed the monopoly rights over bus transport
inside the Reserve from the Tibetan cooperative because it recog-
nized the company’s capacity to contribute to government pro-
grammes across the Prefecture as a whole (the ‘old’ CP policy of
‘everybody eating rice from the same iron pot’). The Tibetan coopera-
tive was disempowered and the associated lucrative income
taken away, although individual community members were given
limited shares in the new company run by the Government. Their
earning capacity from the bus company operations was severely
reduced.
Not surprisingly, this move created very significant dissension and
tension between the communities and the Prefecture Government.
In order to manage the widespread displeasure the Prefecture
Government, through the Reserve Management, decided to establish
a monopoly restaurant complex able to cater to 5000 visitors per day

234
 Tourism development, empowerment and the Tibetan minority

inside the Park, and invited the Tibetan community members to take
up shares. Some 98 per cent of adults took up the offer, and they are
now in a joint venture with the Reserve Management. Once again
they have the capacity to exert some control over their lives and
maintain economic independence – one could say they have been
re-empowered.
In addition to providing a range of restaurant facilities, the 200 sou-
venir outlets installed in the central hall, one for each family, has
largely centralized the existing outlets in the villages. While the restau-
rant complex has almost unanimous support and the socio-psycho-
logical benefits of communitas are welcomed, there is opposition to the
idea of closing down souvenir outlets in the villages, and a number of
vendors also like to sell their wares direct to visitors at different sites
around the Reserve (e.g. at the ‘end-of-the-line’ lookout and bus park
at Long Lake) where there is less competition. There are ‘traditional
costume’ photo opportunities also dotted around the Reserve at des-
ignated places approved by the Management. These forms of small
entrepreneurship are not only tolerated by the governing authorities
but are supported by regulatory mechanisms of the government in
contrast to hawking in many other parks in China; and this support
emphasizes the point that sustainability is more likely to be achieved
when legitimate power is backed up by legal power. However, a cau-
tionary note is merited, for when communities attempt to empower
themselves by direct action unsupported by a legal instrument, it
raises a question over how long such activities will continue.
In this dynamic ‘swings-and-roundabouts’ environment it is appar-
ent that empowerment of and for the Tibetan minority communities
inside Jiuzhaigou is not a definitive concept pursued by the govern-
ment authorities, and that its legal powers take precedence over
legitimate power. Empowerment in its different forms has often been
overtaken by a form of disempowerment before re-empowerment.
Nevertheless, there has been a change in the socio-legal environ-
ment of the communities with the advent of tourism and the gazettal
of the valley as a national nature reserve in which the government
has recognized, legally, the rights of the communities to share in the
economic benefits generated by tourism. While the Government
has removed some traditional rights (e.g. grazing and farming), it
has replaced them with a range of other activities which, in fact, have
provided the communities with far higher incomes than their pre-
vious subsistence. And it is not only communities that have been
empowered to some extent. Individuals have also been empowered
through the range of employment opportunities for which they have
been accorded preference, and through the associated training and
educational opportunities which have accompanied those jobs.
In socio-cultural terms, tourism on balance has empowered the
Tibetan communities in the sense that it has been a contributing factor

235
Managing World Heritage Sites

in reinforcing rather than destroying their cultural identity, even if

some forms of tradition and culture have undergone significant trans-
formation. Aspects of Tibetan culture, such as those relating to religion
and place (holy sites, for example), appear to have been little affected.
However, much more work needs to be carried out before any defini-
tive comment could be made about longer-term effects of tourism on
the value system and cultural mores of the Tibetan communities
inside Jiuzhaigou.

Conclusions
The constant changes in community involvement in a range of
tourism activities in Jiuzhaigou emphasize the necessity of adopting
a longitudinal approach and the benefits of historical methodology
in analysing the situation, rather than the ‘snapshot’ approach based
on a single field trip that is common to much tourism research (Sofield
and Li, 1998b). The Tibetan village home-stay business constitutes a
case in point. A field trip to Jiuzhaigou in early 2000 concluded that
it was an excellent example of empowerment. Another field trip in
mid-2000 concluded that the ‘Green Bus Cooperative’ was also an
excellent example of community empowerment, although the ban on
home-stays was seen as disempowerment (Sofield et al., 2004). But
two years later, the situation changed again and it seemed that the
communities had been disempowered through the take-over of the
monopoly bus service. However, a field trip in 2004 suggested that
the restaurant joint venture could be viewed as an example of
re-empowerment. A ‘snap-shot analysis’ at these three points of time
showed very different pictures of community involvement in tourism
development and a longitudinal perspective is needed to see the
processes at work.
In examining the issue of empowerment and sustainability, par-
ticularly in the context of poverty alleviation, Jiuzhaigou provides
an example of how mass tourism and the economies of scale that
accompany such tourism, can be harnessed. This is in marked
contrast to most of the pro-poor tourism literature which has an
emphasis on small scale community based tourism that has limited
visitation, often advocated as essential in order to protect and con-
serve both the biophysical environment and the socio-cultural envi-
ronment. However, in the case of Jiuzhaigou, it is the very large scale
of visitation that has provided the economic ‘muscle’ to underwrite
the various developments that have not disenfranchised or margin-
alized the Tibetan communities but placed them centre stage. One
may draw the conclusion that ‘touristic space’ has been incorporated
into the social space of the Tibetan ethnic communities of Jiuzhaigou.
The village communities have not been pushed to the periphery and

236
 Tourism development, empowerment and the Tibetan minority

excluded from the monetary and other benefits of tourism to the

park. The sustainability of the village communities inside the park,
both as economic and socio-cultural entities, seems assured, even if
some of the traditions and customs have changed significantly. In the
final analysis, their fundamental identity remains unchallenged:
they are the Tibetans of Jiuzhaigou.

Notes

1 In China, the highest order of protected areas is ‘nature reserve’

which is equivalent to national park status in the Western world;
so in this chapter the terms ‘nature reserve’ and ‘national park’ are
used interchangeably, and Reserve Management/Park Manage-
ment are interchangeable, too.

References

Ap, J. (1992) Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of

Tourism Research, 19, 655–690.
Blau, P. (1987) Microprocess and macrostructure. In Cook, K. (ed.)
Social Exchange Theory. London: Sage Publications, pp. 83–100.
Butler, R.W. (1993) Tourism: an evolutionary perspective. In Nelson,
G.R., Butler, R.W. and Wall, G. (eds) Tourism and Sustainable
Development: Monitoring, Planning, Management. Waterloo: University
of Waterloo Press, pp. 27–43.
D’Amore, L. (1983) Guidelines to planning in harmony with the host
community. In Murphy, P. (ed.) Tourism in Canada: Selected Issues.
Ottawa: Western Geographical Series 21, pp. 135–157.
Emerson, R. (1962) Power-dependence relations. American Sociological
Review, 27 (1), 31–34.
Emerson, R. (1972) Exchange theory. In Berger, J., Zelditch, M. and
Anderson, B. (eds) Sociological Theories in Progress. New York:
Houghton-Mifflin, pp. 32–60.
Hall, C.M. (1994) Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. London:
Bellhaven Press.
Molm, L.D. (1987) Linking power structure and power use. In Cook,
K.S. (ed.) Social Exchange Theory. Newbury Park: Sage Publications,
pp. 101–129.
Molm, L.D. (1988) The structure and use of power: a comparison of
reward and punishment power. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51,
108–122.
Murphy, P. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach. New York: Methuen.
PRC (1994) Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Nature Reserves
1994. Beijing: Information Office.

237
Managing World Heritage Sites

Sofield, T.H.B. (2003) Empowerment for Sustainable Tourism Development.

London: Elsevier Science and Pergamon.
Sofield, T. and Li, F.M.S. (1998a) Tourism development and cultural
policies in China. Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (2), 362–392.
Sofield, T.H.B. and Li, F.M.S. (1998b) Historical methodology and
sustainability: an 800-year-old festival from China. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 6 (4), 267–292.
Sofield, T.H.B., De Lacy, T., Lipman, G. and Daugherty, S. (2004)
Sustainable Tourism – Eliminating Poverty (ST–EP). An Overview.
Brisbane: CRC for Sustainable Tourism.
Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary
Society. London: Sage.
Weber, M. (1946, 1978) The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation.
New York: The Free Press. Reprinted 1978.
Ze, Reh Zhu (1994) China Jiuzhaigou Valley. Beijing: Jiuzhaigou
Administration & China Travel and Tourism Press.

Questions

1 What are the major effects of tourism on the livelihoods of the

Tibetan communities inside the Jiuzhaigou Nature Reserve?
2 Explain the difference between legitimate power and legal power.
3 In your view have the Tibetan communities of Jiuzhaigou been
empowered or disempowered as this WHS has been developed
for mass tourism?

238
 C H A P T E R
17
World Heritage Sites
in the Americas
Dallen J. Timothy and
Stephen W. Boyd
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this case study are to:

• Examine the growth and distribution of World Heritage Sites in
the Americas
• Describe the opportunities for World Heritage Sites in the
Americas
• Describe the challenges facing World Heritage Sites in the
Americas.

Introduction

Many of the world’s most spectacular cultural relics and natural sites
are found in the Americas, and most countries of the region are actively
involved in promoting the cause of UNESCO and the World Heritage
List. Many World Heritage Sites (WHS) in the Americas have gained
international acclaim (e.g. Machu Picchu, Peru; Chitzen Itza, Mexico;
Grand Canyon, USA) and have been a major focus of media images
and national icons utilized in tourism promotional efforts and nation-
building (Barnard, 1993; Kluger, 2003).
This case study aims to examine World Heritage Sites in the Americas
with a focus on opportunities and challenges. For the purposes of this
chapter, the Americas include North, Central and South America, as
well as the islands of the Caribbean.

World Heritage Sites in the Americas

Like most parts of the world, the cultural heritage of the Americas can
be roughly divided into the pre-colonial and colonial/post-colonial
periods. In most of Latin and North America ancient heritage attrac-
tions reflect a pre-colonial phase of growth and development among
various indigenous peoples (Lumsdon and Swift, 2001). This includes
the ancient cities and temple complexes associated with the Aztecs in
central Mexico, the Mayans in southern Mexico and Central America,
as well as remnants of the great Incan empires of South America. There
is an equally vibrant and pervasive built heritage associated with the
colonial period, beginning in the 16th century until today. Most cities of
Latin America are home to Spanish, Portuguese or French colonial forts,
government buildings, missions, churches, plantations/haciendas, and
residences which, together with the ancient structures, have become an
important part of each country’s cultural heritage resources.

240
 World Heritage Sites in the Americas

Table 17.1 Numbers of WHS in the Americas (2005)

Country Cultural Natural Mixed

Argentina 4 4 0
Belize 0 1 0
Bolivia 5 1 0
Brazil 10 7 0
Canada 5 8 0
Chile 3 0 0
Colombia 4 1 0
Costa Rica 3 0 0
Cuba 5 2 0
Dominica 0 1 0
Dominican Rep. 1 0 0
Ecuador 2 2 0
El Salvador 1 0 0
Guatemala 2 0 1
Haiti 1 0 0
Honduras 1 1 0
Mexico 22 2 0
Nicaragua 1 0 0
Panama 2 2 0
Paraguay 1 0 0
Peru 6 2 2
St Kitts & Nevis 1 0 0
St Lucia 0 1 0
Suriname 1 1 0
USA 8 12 0
Uruguay 1 0 0
Venezuela 2 1 0
Total 92 49 3
Source: UNESCO, 2005

Table 17.1 lists the countries of the Americas that have properties
inscribed on the World Heritage List. From the 144 inscribed sites in
the Americas, some interesting patterns can be noted. For example,
there is a notable lack of WHS in the Caribbean region. Only 12 have
been designated UNESCO sites in six different countries. This is a
result of several factors, including a lack of indigenous culture and
archaeological heritage. Few, if any, remnants of indigenous land-
scapes exist today, although there is a strongly cultural landscape
based on Spanish, French, British and Dutch colonialism. Another fac-
tor is the small sizes of the Caribbean states, which limits the phys-
ical extent of cultural and natural resources that might be suitable as

241
Managing World Heritage Sites

World Heritage Sites. Likewise, many of the Caribbean islands are still
European colonies and are therefore powerless to ratify the World
Heritage Convention and nominate properties they might otherwise
consider worthy of designation.
Another interesting pattern is the proliferation of sites in Mexico.
Mexico is very serious about achieving WHS recognition and has
devoted a great deal of effort in recent years to assure that its ancient
and colonial locations are fit for WHS listing. There are on-going
efforts to inscribe additional properties as well. Most of the country’s
efforts focus on pre-Hispanic cities and archaeological areas. Mexico
is a large country and houses a great diversity of cultures and eco-
systems that provide rich opportunities for UNESCO inscription.
All countries of Central and South America, with the exception of
Guyana and French Guiana, have at least one site inscribed on the
List. This is quite remarkable given the political and physical con-
straints that exist in many of these countries (e.g. war and other
forms of political instability). These sites also represent a mix of nat-
ural and cultural areas, while the cultural sites are a blend of pre-
European and colonial built heritage.

Opportunities

Several opportunities can be noted as resulting from the designation

of WHS in the Americas, although owing to space constraints only a
few of the main ones will be discussed here. Perhaps the most notable
is the growth in cross-border cooperation, wherein national govern-
ments work together across political boundaries to plan, conserve, and
operate parks and cultural areas that lie adjacent to, or across, inter-
national boundaries. Cross-border collaborative efforts require each
partner country to loosen its absolute control and work together for the
greater good of the entire cultural area or ecosystem. While there are
some drawbacks to cross-border cooperation (e.g. differing conserva-
tion laws, varying levels of development, and policy dissimilarities),
there are many benefits as well, including the upholding of the prin-
ciples of sustainability (e.g. harmony, balance, and holism), achiev-
ing efficiency in infrastructure development, and saving funds through
joint promotional efforts (Boyd and Timothy, 2001; Timothy, 2001).
Several examples of successful cross-border cooperation in WHS exist
throughout the Americas, including Waterton-Glacier International
Peace Park on the USA–Canada border, Wrangell-St Elias and Glacier
Bay also on the USA–Canada border, Iguazu Falls (Brazil–Argentina),
and La Amistad Reserves and National Park (Costa Rica–Panama)
(Timothy, 2000).
While funding for WHS is extremely limited by UNESCO’s
meagre budget, some sites have been successful in tapping national

242
 World Heritage Sites in the Americas

government and private resources for restoration and conservation,

justifying their needs by using the UNESCO label. This is primarily
the case in Mexico and other Latin American countries, but even in
the USA it happened when the Reagan administration used the WHS
designation of the Statue of Liberty to attract private-sector funding
to pay for its restoration in the 1980s (Williams, 2004). The World
Heritage designation also has a history of being able to bring inter-
ested stakeholders together to plan at local and regional levels and to
bring about site protection and management (Williams, 2004).
WHS designation in the Americas has also resulted in a limited num-
ber of cases where indigenous peoples have been actively involved in
site conservation and designation. The Taos Native Americans in
New Mexico, for example, are heavily involved in operating their
pueblo as a WHS and tourism destination. Others, such as the Mayans
in southern Mexico, have received opportunities to work in the tourism
industry generated by the existence of WHS, although their input into
conservation and interpretation is limited (Evans, 2004). The inscrip-
tion of cultural and natural sites throughout Central and South America
has often resulted in increased employment and tourism-related train-
ing among destination residents and indigenous peoples (McGrath,
2004), although active participation in development decision-making
(i.e. empowerment) is still very limited.

Challenges in the Americas

While many WHS have been developed throughout the Americas,

and though there is considerable potential for listing even more, the
region faces many significant challenges to the success of WHS listing.
Most of these challenges are similar to those in many other developing
parts of the world and will be discussed below. However, even in the
context of the USA, one of the wealthiest and most developed coun-
tries, there are significant complications associated with WHS desig-
nation and management.

Human impacts

Human threats to WHS in the Americas are manifest in a variety of

ways. First, in the developing countries, it is not uncommon for fam-
ilies and, indeed, entire villages to locate within, or adjacent to, natural
and cultural sites of heritage importance. In most cases, this involves
people living within nature preserves, or existing archaeological struc-
tures, or utilizing stones and other artefacts as building materials for
additional homes and shelters. It is estimated that nearly 75000 people
live in Natural World Heritage Sites in the Americas, with some 61849
of these being in the developing countries of the region (Thorsell and

243
Managing World Heritage Sites

Sigaty, 2001). In order to be designated a WHS, such situations are typ-

ically remedied by forcefully displacing people and using other means
to correct the problems created by generations of use of historic arte-
facts. Similar issues face WHS that are integral parts of extant urban
areas, such as the Historic Center of Salvador de Bahia (Brazil), City of
Quito (Ecuador), and the city of Cuzco (Peru) (Barnard, 1993).
Second, and perhaps the most common, is overuse by visitors of
various sorts. Every year, thousands of curious tourists climb on, or in
some other way interact with, the relics of ancient empires throughout
Central and South America, as well as the ruins of Native Americans
and Canadians. A particular group that has raised significant contro-
versy in recent years is spiritual-oriented tourists (e.g. New Agers),
who travel to ancient WHS throughout the Americas to worship at
locations they venerate as important sacred places (Timothy and
Conover, 2006). In most developing countries, including those in the
Americas, there is a serious lack of enforcement of laws, rules and
regulations pertaining to visitor use.
The third human threat in the developing countries of Central and
South America is urbanization. This form of encroachment is prevalent
where cities are experiencing high growth in unofficial settlements on
their peripheries, as well as the development of planned suburbs
and new neighbourhoods where construction is heavy, roads are con-
structed through or near cultural sites, factories are built, producing high
levels of toxic waste, and power lines and energy stations are erected to
service new growth areas. Likewise, in smaller communities, growing
prosperity puts pressure on traditional building styles and many places
are beginning to experience a lack of uniform building codes. Many
WHS in South America have acknowledged these problems in their
management plans, although little is being done to alter the situation.
Encroaching agricultural land use is another problem in many parts
of South America, where recent closures of mines have led to more
people attempting to earn a living from farming (Thorsell and Sigaty,
2001). In several countries, including Brazil, for example, forest clear-
cutting for cattle ranching affects both natural and cultural UNESCO
sites and comes dangerously close to parkland and preserve bound-
aries. The intensification of agriculture has also led to an increase in
the use of fertilizers that drain into nature preserves, upsetting natural
balances in vegetation growth and wildlife. Much of the forest clearing
in Central and South America is of dubious legality, but law enforce-
ment typically turns a blind eye to the problem.

Economic woes
In common with less-developed countries everywhere, perhaps the
most endemic problem in the poorer countries of the Americas is a

244
 World Heritage Sites in the Americas

lack of financial ability to conserve WHS. With the exception of Canada

and the USA, the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean are
economically challenged and have little money to devote to heritage
conservation and management. In most countries, few funds are
available to sustain effective conservation and to offset the effects of
weather, vandalism, and wear and tear. In most of the developing
world, the conservation and interpretation of sites of historic import-
ance is seen as a luxury that cannot be afforded in the face of illiter-
acy, declining health care, and food shortages (Timothy and Boyd,
2003). The colonial heritage of Old Havana (Cuba), for example, which
was listed in 1982, faces many difficulties in withstanding the deteri-
orating effects of human use and climate, particularly in light of a lack
of funds available from the Cuban government (Lumsdon and Swift,
2001; Losego, 2003).

Lack of political will

A lack of political will is perhaps the most vivid problem facing WHS
throughout the Americas, both in developed and developing coun-
tries. The most lucid example of this is a lack of legislation and law
enforcement – a problem endemic throughout the region. However,
one of the best examples of a lack of political will has been the USA.
Since UNESCO’s founding in 1945, the USA has had erratic relations
with the organization. The USA played a vital role in the founding of
UNESCO; Americans were among the first members of the agency’s
governing board, the USA was a founding member, and an American
wrote the preamble to its 1945 constitution. Nonetheless, the USA
withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 as a result of clashes between US
foreign policy and UNESCO goals. In October 2003, however, the coun-
try rejoined the organization under pressure from President Bush
to affirm the USA’s conviction to uphold and promote human rights,
tolerance and worldwide education.

Natural wear and tear

Natural wear and tear is common to all WHS wherever they might
be. However, in the context of the Americas, several serious threats
occur on a regular basis. First among these is the annual occurrence
of hurricanes throughout the Caribbean Basin and along the coast
of Central America. Nearly every year, WHS such as the Barrier
Reef Reserve System (Belize), the Colonial City of Santo Domingo
(Dominican Republic), National History Park-Citadel, Sans Souci
(Haiti), and the Rio Plátano Biosphere Reserve and Copan Maya Site

245
Managing World Heritage Sites

(Honduras) are bombarded by hurricane winds and debris. Some

years this occurs several times. Flooding and landslides are another
major concern, particularly at several sites in South America in areas
where excessive tree felling and other changes to the vegetation have
occurred in massive quantities. There are also a number of WHS in
areas of high seismic and volcanic activity, which severely affect the
sites, including flooding. In some remote locations (e.g. Ninstints
WHS, Canada) weathering plays a significant role in site deteriora-
tion (Shackley, 1998).

The unique USA situation

Connected to the issue of political will, the USA provides an inter-

esting example of a unique set of constraints that are different from
those of the other countries of the region. Throughout the Americas,
having a UNESCO WHS designation is an important achievement,
as it signifies a certain status and brings about international recogni-
tion. It also often justifies budgetary requests for maintenance and
infrastructure development at the national level. Perhaps the only
exception to this general trend is the USA, where UNESCO designa-
tion is generally disregarded and often not well understood by the
public or even by WHS management and personnel.
As Williams (2004: 412) notes, the majority of visitors to US
national parks with WHS designation are completely unaware that
they are visiting a World Heritage Site. Few, if any, of the USA’s WHS
are marked in any way or designated otherwise as UNESCO sites,
and the general public is unaware of the meaning, aims and direct-
ives of the organization. Likewise, there is a dearth of knowledge
among staff members as well. Williams (2004) found that park
rangers at two WHS in the USA were ignorant of the WHS designa-
tion. According to observations by one of the authors of this case
study, while at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1997, it became
painfully obvious that staff were equally unaware. When asked if
there was any kind of monument or marking indicating the WHS
status of the site, the warden’s response was ‘What’s a World Heritage
Site?’ After hearing an explanation, he responded again ‘We’re one of
those?’
The lack of awareness likely comes from a lack of training that
deals specifically with the tenets of the World Heritage Convention.
The US ignorance about UNESCO WHS is reinforced by an anti-UN
sentiment that pervades politics and many NGOs in the USA, as well
as the growth of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, which
was passed by Congress to protect land sovereignty in the USA
and resulted in some hostility toward UNESCO. This institutional

246
 World Heritage Sites in the Americas

ignorance ‘leads to reduced publicity which, in turn, perpetuates

more ignorance’ (Williams, 2004: 415).
Whereas WHS designation is of grave importance to other coun-
tries in the region, including Canada, the USA has not utilized this
status to promote World Heritage the way other countries have done
(Wilkinson, 1996, cited in Williams, 2004), either for public aware-
ness or for tourism purposes. Williams (2004) suggests that this
might be in part a result of the USA’s mistaken fears that the World
Heritage Convention is in some way an infringement on US sover-
eignty and private land rights. There is a common concern that the
United Nations, through UNESCO, will exert an external influence
over US monuments and parks. This lack of understanding and use
of the UNESCO designation as a promotional tool may in fact influ-
ence the growth of tourism at many US properties. In their examin-
ation of World Heritage Sites in OECD countries, Hall and Piggin
(2001) found that the overall effect of Canada’s WHS designations
on tourism was a positive one. In other words, with Canada’s focus
on WHS status in its public awareness campaigns and information
dissemination, WHS designation resulted in additional tourist appeal
for its heritage sites. In the USA, however, relatively few sites have
experienced tourism growth that may be attributed to WHS desig-
nation. Instead, designation has resulted in neutral (and sometimes
negative) overall effects on tourism in the USA. In the case of Mexico,
WHS listing has overall resulted in a neutral or positive effect on
visitation.

Conclusions

It is clear from this brief overview of the Americas that there are
notable patterns throughout the region and different views and
values placed on WHS status. In most of the Americas, with the
exception of the USA, WHS status is an important achievement and
one that all countries aspire to. Because the region is comprised pri-
marily of developing countries, there is a wide range of opportuni-
ties and obstacles in the development and designation of UNESCO
sites. This case study has described only a few of the major ones.
Opportunities created from the designation of WHS include cross-
border cooperation, increased participation by local residents in the
benefits of tourism, and some (limited) funding. There are also a
number of constraints, including human impacts, economic prob-
lems, lack of political will, and natural wear and tear which,
although they exist in most parts of the world, have unique manifes-
tations in the countries of the Caribbean and North, Central and
South America.

247
Managing World Heritage Sites

References

Barnard, C. (1993) Machu Picchu: city in the sky. National Geographic

Traveler, 10 (1), 106–113.
Boyd, S.W. and Timothy, D.J. (2001) Developing partnerships: tools
for interpretation and management of World Heritage Sites.
Tourism Recreation Research, 26 (1), 47–53.
Evans, G. (2004) Mundo Maya: from Cancún to city of culture. World
heritage in post-colonial Mesoamerica. Current Issues in Tourism,
7 (4/5), 315–329.
Hall, C.M. and Piggin, R. (2001) Tourism and World Heritage in
OECD countries. Tourism Recreation Research, 26 (1), 103–105.
Kluger, J. (2003) Spiritual retreat. Time, 24 February, 46–47.
Losego, S.V. (2003) Altstadtsanierung und Tourismus in La Habana:
Vermarktung eines Stücks kulturellen Erbes. Tourismus Journal,
7 (2), 251–269.
Lumsdon, L. and Swift, J. (2001) Tourism in Latin America. London:
Continuum.
McGrath, G. (2004) Including the outsiders: the contribution of
guides to integrated heritage tourism management in Cusco,
Southern Peru. Current Issues in Tourism, 7 (4/5), 426–432.
Shackley, M. (1998) Ninstints (Canada). In Shackley, M. (ed.) Visitor
Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 182–193.
Thorsell, J. and Sigaty, T. (2001) Human use in World Heritage nat-
ural sites: a global inventory. Tourism Recreation Research, 26 (1),
85–101.
Timothy, D.J. (2000) Tourism and international parks. In Butler, R.W.
and Boyd, S.W. (eds) Tourism and National Parks: Issues and
Implications. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 263–282.
Timothy, D.J. (2001) Tourism and Political Boundaries. London:
Routledge.
Timothy, D.J. and Boyd, S.W. (2003) Heritage Tourism. Harlow:
Prentice Hall.
Timothy, D.J. and Conover, P.J. (2006) Nature, religion, self spir-
ituality and New Age tourism. In Timothy, D.J. and Olsen, D.H.
(eds) Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys. London: Routledge,
pp. 139–155.
UNESCO (2005) Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
(whc.unesco.org)
Wilkinson, T. (1996) Global warning – the designation of Yellowstone:
one of the first World Heritage sites. National Parks, 70 (3/4),
34–40.
Williams, K. (2004) The meanings and effectiveness of world heritage
designation in the USA. Current Issues in Tourism, 7 (4/5), 412–416.

248
 World Heritage Sites in the Americas

Questions

1 How is the USA different from other countries in the Americas

when it comes to World Heritage Sites?
2 What are some of the main problems facing WHS in the develop-
ing countries of the Caribbean and Latin America?
3 What types of opportunities are created in the Americas from the
inscription of WHS?

249
 C H A P T E R
18
World Heritage Listing:
the case of Huangshan
(Yellow Mountain),
China
Li, Fung Mei Sarah and
Trevor H.B. Sofield
There is no mountain as beautiful as Mt Huangshan,
No other mountain under heaven do I want to see after
visiting Mt Huangshan
(Xiu Xiake, Ming dynasty geographer, 1586–1641)
 World Heritage Listing: the case of Huangshan (Yellow Mountain), China

Aims

The aims of this case study are to:

• Utilize the Chinese World Heritage Site (WHS) of Huangshan to
scrutinize the (western) paradigms that govern WHS assessments
• Outline a Chinese world view which sees cultural and natural
heritage as a single unitary construct in contrast to the differen-
tiation espoused by a western, positivist, scientific approach to
WHS inscription
• Explore the tension and dissonance generated by this world
view as it affects the management of the Huangshan WHS
• Therefore reflect on the prescriptive authority of western para-
digms that perhaps pays insufficient attention to culturally deter-
mined values of ‘Others’ (Said’s Orientalism versus Westernism).

Introduction

In the south of Anhui Province lies a small mountain range that has
been extolled by Chinese poets, essayists and artists for more than
2000 years. For Chinese, whether they reside in China itself or are part
of the Chinese global Diaspora, its fame is perhaps greater than that of
any other range. This is Huangshan or Yellow Mountain, named after
the mythical/historical Huang-di, Yellow Emperor, who ruled a small
kingdom about 5000 years ago. He is credited with being extremely
wise, and giving the Chinese their distinctive title, the Yellow Race.
According to legend he practised alchemy and produced an elixir for
immortality from a purple fungus growing in Huangshan which he
imbibed before ascending into heaven on a dragon.
More than 20000 poems and 200 essays have been written about
Huangshan over the centuries, many of them incorporated into
Chinese ‘common knowledge’ and known to Chinese all over the
world. Ancient – and new – calligraphy adorns many rocks and cliff
faces (calligraphy is more than ‘writing’: it is a high art form and it is
believed that ‘the inner man’ is revealed in the way one composes cal-
ligraphy). Hundreds of paintings have also been created, and they
capture for Chinese the quintessential mountain landscape – sharp
peaks, deep gorges, swiftly flowing streams and waterfalls and con-
torted pines clinging to precipitous cliffs, with a pagoda or temple
sited in the landscape accordingly to feng shui principles. By the Yuan
Dynasty (1271–1368 AD) 64 temples and many pavilions had been
constructed around the 72 peaks of this 154 km2 area. More were sub-
sequently built, e.g. Fahai Meditation Temple and Wenshu Temple in

251
Managing World Heritage Sites

the 17th century, connected by steps cut into the mountain (PRC,
1989). Although only 20 temples now survive they form a focal point
for many Chinese visitors to Huangshan.
The mountain range, isolated from other ranges by surrounding
plains, encompasses several distinctive ecological niches and is rich
in biodiversity with 1450 native plant species, 28 significant endemic
plants, and 300 vertebrates (PRC, 1989). It is not surprising then, to
find that Huangshan was accorded WHS listing based on its out-
standing natural and scenic qualities as well as its cultural features.
What is perhaps surprising is that in its assessment of the Chinese
Government’s nomination, the IUCN (International Union for the
Conservation of Nature, 1990: 11) declared that Huangshan’s natural
values ‘are predominant over its cultural heritage’; and ICOMOS
(International Council on Monuments and Sites, 1990) originally
deferred its recommendation for cultural heritage listing citing lack
of supporting evidence. The IUCN (1990: 12) also recommended that
the Chinese authorities ‘should be encouraged to reduce the human
influence on the mountain’, a startling comment to these two authors
given that the mountain has for more than 2000 years been a very
rich cultural site and exemplifies the Chinese world view of ‘man
and nature’ as a single unitary construct (this phrase accurately
reflects Mandarin usage and should not be interpreted as unthinking
sexist language on the part of the authors). The division between cul-
tural and natural heritage is a characteristic of a western, positivist,
scientific approach – reinforced by UNESCO’s classification system
for WHS listing – in contrast to a more holistic Chinese world view,
and an examination of this binary classification system constitutes
the focus of this chapter.

The cultural heritage/natural heritage divide

The Chinese world view is both anthropocentric (humans first) and

anthropomorphic (attributing human characteristics to non-human
features, animals, plants, etc). The Chinese word for ‘nature’ –
da-jiran – may be translated literally as ‘everything coming into being’
and expresses the entirety of mountains, rivers, plants, animals,
humans, all bound up in their five elements – metals, wood, water,
fire and earth (Tellenbach and Kimura, 1989). ‘Man is based on earth,
earth is based on heaven, heaven is based on the Way (Tao) and the
Way is based on da-jiran (nature): all modalities of being are organ-
ically connected’ (Tu, 1989: 67). Under Confucian values, scholars
and mandarins were exhorted ‘to seek ultimate wisdom in Nature’
(Overmyer, 1986). Confucian thought and Daoist philosophy encom-
passed the need for man and nature to bring opposing forces into
a symbiotic relationship where ‘harmony’ rather than ‘difference’ or

252
 World Heritage Listing: the case of Huangshan (Yellow Mountain), China

‘opposites’ was dominant (Rawson and Legeza, 1973). This is an

anthropocentric perspective with a sociological definition in which,
because nature is imperfect, man has a responsibility to improve on
nature (Chan, 1969; Elvin, 1973). It is thus distinct from a western
perspective that separates nature and civilization (humans), which
views nature (‘wilderness’) ideally as free from artificiality and
human intervention.
Mountains were particularly venerated and the complementary
force fields of man and nature came together most powerfully in the
Daoist concept of yin-yang. Like a magnet with its different force
fields both are needed for the magnet to function, and man is seen as
indivisible from nature (Ropp, 1992; Spence, 1992). Under the religious
belief system that evolved over centuries, there were nine revered
sites of particular significance – five sacred shan or mountains and
four rivers (Chinese History Museum, 1992). It was a fundamental
responsibility of Chinese emperors to visit these sacred mountains on
a regular basis to propitiate the spirits, gods and ancestors. Failure to
do so could place the entire prosperity and well-being of the empire
at risk. Grand roads were constructed for the emperor to approach
the sacred mountains (the imperial way). Steps, termed ‘staircases to
heaven’, since the emperor was revered as the son of heaven, were
carved into their slopes for his ascent to the summit. Pavilions, tea
houses and inns were erected at regular intervals (Sofield and Li, 2003).
While Huangshan is not one of the sacred mountains, it is revered
and manifests much of the pilgrimage development associated with
China’s five sacred mountains.
In examining how Chinese values about landscape and wilderness
are translated into tourism attractions, the anthropocentric position
encourages and facilitates programmes to alter the physical and bio-
logical environment in order to produce desired ‘improvements’
(Sofield and Li, 1998). These may include landscaped gardens, artifi-
cial lakes and waterfalls, facilities for recreation and tourism, roads
for ease of access, observation towers, and so on. Increasing direct
human use is the objective of management and the character of the
‘wilderness’ will be changed to reflect the desires of humans and con-
temporary standards of ‘comfort in nature’. Styles of recreation and
tourism will be tuned to the convenience of humans, so trails will be
concreted, resorts and restaurants permitted inside reserves, cable cars
approved, and so forth. Huangshan exhibits all of these examples of
‘man improving on nature.’
The biocentric approach that underlies the IUCN’s approach to
WHS assessment, by contrast emphasizes the maintenance or enhance-
ment of natural systems, if necessary at the expense of recreational
and other human uses (Hendee and Stankey, 1973, cited in Hendee
et al., 1990). ‘The goal of the biocentric philosophy is to permit natu-
ral ecological processes to operate as freely as possible, because [in

253
Managing World Heritage Sites

the western system of values] wilderness for society ultimately

depends on the retention of naturalness’ (Hendee et al., 1990: 18, our
qualification in square brackets). It requires controlling the flow of
external, especially human-made, pressures on ecosystems by restrict-
ing excessive recreational or touristic use of the bio-geophysical
resources. The recreational use of wilderness is tolerated with this
position only to the degree that it does not change the energy balance
inordinately. A biocentric philosophy requires recreational users to
take wilderness on its own terms rather than manipulate it to serve
human needs. Like the anthropocentric approach, the biocentric
approach also focuses on human benefits, but the important distinc-
tion between them is that, biocentrically, the benefits are viewed over
a longer term and as being dependent upon retaining the naturalness
of the wilderness ecosystems (Hendee et al., 1990: 19).

Huangshan as an exemplar of the indivisibility of

‘man and nature’
Given the binary natural/cultural heritage approach that is integral
to WHS listing, the Chinese authorities had no alternative but to seek
inscription for Huangshan based on separate assessments of its qual-
ities even if their own world view does not draw the same clear-cut
distinctions between the two. Thus, a major component of the
Chinese submission for WHSL (PRC, 1989) described its geological
attributes and enumerated its flora and fauna, emphasizing the
diversity and endemism of the site and identifying rare or endan-
gered species in conformity with the western scientific paradigm in
order for Huangshan to qualify for inscription under Natural
Criteria (iii) and (iv). Its intrinsic cultural values were detailed sep-
arately under Cultural Criterion (ii).
Despite the forced separation of geological and biological features
from cultural features, aspects of cultural heritage and anthropo-
morphic descriptors were interspersed with the scientific termin-
ology necessary to make the case for the former. For example, in
describing the vegetation of Huangshan and its endemic pine
species, Pinus huangshanensis, the submission by the Chinese author-
ities to IUCN noted that: ‘A number of legendary trees are celebrated
on account of their age, grotesque shape, or precipitously perched
position, and more than 100 bear special names’ (PRC, 1989), such as
‘Two Lovers Embracing’ (two pines with intertwined trunks) and
‘Welcoming Guests Pine’ (so named because its branches open out
like the arms of a host gesturing to visitors to enter his/her house).
Such anthropomorphizing is regarded as inappropriate in western
scientific texts but acceptable in a Chinese context. While the
Huangshan pine is of intrinsic botanical interest to western science,

254
 World Heritage Listing: the case of Huangshan (Yellow Mountain), China

its significance for Chinese visitors to Huangshan lies in cultural

attributes, many of the trees so well known from literary references
over the centuries that they form ‘must-see’ sights. The pine survives
on precipitous cliff faces at high altitudes, its roots often twice the
length of its trunk, buffeted by strong winds and heavy mantles of
snow and ice in winter. It has thus been anthropomorphized as ten-
acious, strong, steadfast, determined, iron-willed, brave, upright – all
human attributes. In this context, one of China’s most famous callig-
raphers, Ouyang Xun, developed a style of calligraphy, subsequently
named after him, that reveals these same characteristics (Ebrey, 2003:
10). Chinese visitors to Huangshan will immediately recognize the
‘strong, steadfast’ Ouyang Xun style of some of the engravings that
may be found all over Huangshan. They will nod approval because
of its appropriateness in such a setting, making the association
between the calligrapher and the pine tree in a fusion of history, psych-
ology, botany and literary art. They ‘see’ a profound cultural element
of Huangshan in a botanical species that is invisible to non-Chinese
(and was obviously invisible to the IUCN 1990 assessment panel).
There is no interpretation of this phenomenon provided for visitors
to Huangshan because the Ouyang Xun style is one of the three main
Tang dynasty styles on which the art of Chinese calligraphy is based
and, in learning how to write the characters of the Chinese language,
all literate Chinese are familiar with it, so it is part of Chinese ‘com-
mon knowledge’. Yet for many western visitors to Huangshan such
detail, full of meaning in a cultural context, would prove of real
interest.
As with the section of the WHS submission on flora, so the section
on geology was also moved by its Chinese authors beyond ‘western’
technicalities to incorporate cultural elements that might seem inappro-
priate in a purely scientific document. Thus, in outlining the geology
of Huangshan and noting the presence of numerous ‘erratics’ (a tech-
nical term for boulders which have weathered differentially and
perch atop mother lodes), the Chinese submission to UNESCO added
that: ‘Many of these grotesquely-shaped rocks are individually named,
such as “Pig-headed monk eating water melon”, such names having
ancient literary, historical or mythical significance’ (PRC, 1989).
Another isolated porphyry column with a pine tree emerging from its
tip – one of the famous geological features of Huangshan – is named
‘A Flower Growing from a Pen Tip in a Dream’. For Chinese visitors
it is a compulsory sight, a pilgrimage to a site associated with one of
China’s most famous poets, Li Bai (701–762 AD), whose personal cal-
ligraphy also adorns other sites around Huangshan. Again, in learn-
ing how to read and write Mandarin, all literate Chinese will be
familiar with several poets’ eulogies to Huangshan. Their poems,
combining descriptions of the natural with social and human emo-
tional responses, are part of a major Chinese literary and artistic

255
Managing World Heritage Sites

movement called ‘shan shui’ culture (literally, mountain water) that was
firmly established between the 8th and 11th centuries and continues
to the present day. By incorporating values that imbue nature/nat-
ural scenery with a range of human social and cultural values, such
as likening mountains to benevolence and waters to wisdom (The
Analects of Confucius, 5th century BC), shan shui philosophy has had a
profound influence on the aesthetics of natural landscapes.
Because the Chinese world view privileges literary and cultural
heritage before the sciences, Chinese tourists to national parks like
Huangshan will interpret their experience through the culture of
shan shui rather than through western paradigms of biological and
geological sciences, or ‘wilderness’ which, in the ideal western con-
struct, has no visible presence of humans. Their appreciation of the
landscape and their motivation for visiting has a somewhat distant
relationship to IUCN precepts. Many Chinese visitors follow routes
established by authoritative figures over the centuries, following a pre-
ordained sequence to certain peaks, temples, pavilions and scenic
sights, counting them off in much the same fashion as dedicated
birdwatchers ticking off sightings from their list of rare and endan-
gered species. Each and every step along the way will have been
eulogized by poems and essays that will be familiar to most Chinese
visitors and often they will recite such texts as they view the differ-
ent sites. They will walk along paved trails, steps carved into the
rock, bridges erected across chasms, with pavilions and kiosks con-
veniently located every half kilometre or so. A common reaction to
Huangshan’s miles of paths and stairs by western tourists is a per-
ception of visual pollution, of a geometric, reinforced-concrete inva-
sion of nature. But, semiotically, the Chinese will understand that
such paths and flights of stairs symbolize hundreds of years of vis-
itation by their emperors to sacred mountains to worship their ances-
tors and gods, and that vertical flights of steps ascending to the
summit signify ‘stairways to heaven’ that once only their emperors
would have been privileged to climb.

Management

Management of Huangshan as a WHS inevitably involves tension

between the conservation ethic espoused by the western scientific
paradigm for protecting natural and cultural heritage, which is embed-
ded in WHS listing, and Chinese anthropocentrically-oriented val-
ues, which see no contradiction between major constructions for the
comfort and convenience of visitors being located inside the bound-
aries of a designated WHS. Under the Anhui Province Plan for the
Places of Scenic and Historic Interest in Huangshan (1987), the reserve is
divided into six tourist zones and five protection zones, and while it

256
 World Heritage Listing: the case of Huangshan (Yellow Mountain), China

proclaims that ‘no construction will be permitted if it will impinge

on the quality of the landscape’, a western perspective and the
Chinese understanding of ‘quality landscape’ differ significantly. For
example, if the ideal shape is a spire, then, in terms of the Daoist
need for humans to improve on nature, constructing a pagoda on the
summit of a rounded hill will enhance its beauty; if the pagoda func-
tions to provide shelter or refreshments for travellers then it will
bring humans and nature into harmony; but a western perspective
might see the intrusion of such a human-made construction domi-
nating the landscape, creating visual pollution and perhaps destroy-
ing its intrinsic naturalness.
The anthropocentric Chinese approach to nature is evident in an
alpine valley adjacent to the North Sea of Clouds, which now has
seven hotels (three, four and five star ratings) and two hostels with a
total of more than 3000 beds to facilitate travellers being able to experi-
ence the dawn rising over the peaks. There are about 70 km of concrete
paths and stairs to facilitate the flow of huge crowds around
Huangshan. There are three cable cars, one of them, at 7 km, the
longest in China. There are two sites with large restaurant complexes
and about 30 refreshment kiosks and souvenir stalls dotted around the
peaks. Two alpine streams have been dammed to provide water for
these facilities. They are all functional elements that enhance the experi-
ence of a visit to Huangshan for Chinese travellers. The Bureau of the
WHC might recommend that management ‘not permit the develop-
ment of new hotels in the vicinity of popular scenic spots’ (1998); but
that recommendation is based on western perceptions of conservation
and visual and environmental degradation and fails to take account
of Chinese cultural values concerning the interaction of humans and
nature. Where tourist facilities create environmental damage and
water pollution through, for example, inadequate sewage treatment
and waste disposal, then concerns are valid. But when assessments of
what constitutes visual pollution or the quality of a landscape are
based on subjective criteria – which are in fact culturally determined
from both sides, whether Western or Chinese – then it is difficult to
argue that one approach is right and the other is wrong. Rather they
are different. And in the context of a site like Huangshan, insistence on
a Western-oriented definition of what is appropriate may in fact be a
denial of the very essence – the Chineseness – of the site.
Until recently there was little signage around the mountain other
than directional signs devoid of interpretation but, in response to
urgings from the Bureau of the WHC that the significance of
Huangshan’s natural heritage be communicated to visitors (e.g. 1998
report from the Kyoto meeting of the Bureau), there are now about
40 metal plaques located at key points around the reserve. However,
as with the original submission seeking WHS listing, much of this
signage amalgamates both Western scientific technicalities and

257
Managing World Heritage Sites

Chinese cultural values. As just one example, the interpretation

plaque at Xihaimen (West Sea Gate) lookout has its first two sentences
utilizing technical terms to describe the geological formations and
processes, with the remainder of the information referencing a range
of Chinese-specific myths, legends and classical tales. The Chinese
characters are followed by this English language translation:
Xihaimen is the most profound and beautiful part of the Huangshan
Scenic Spot [Reserve]. A blaze of multifarious colours of medium-to-
fine-grained porphyritic granite bodies, and densely distributed verti-
cal and horizontal joints add much to the high and steep granite
peaks as well as interesting and odd stones, from which countless
fairy stories and sayings are handed down. The NW–SE-trending
fault zone cuts into granite bodies, thus forming a quiet, deep and
precipitous dreamland in the Xihai (West Sea) Canyon. Stone
scenes gather together before Paiyunting (Clouds Overwhelming
Temple), such as An Immortal Airing His Boots, Wu Song’s Fighting
Tiger, Memorial Archway Stone in the near [foreground], Immortals
Walking on Stilts [a line of ascending pinnacles], Female Immortals
Embroidering, Heaven Dog’s Watching Moon [Rock], King Wen
Pulling a Wagon, etc. in the far [distance].

As with most other signage in Huangshan, the information relies

upon Chinese common knowledge to deliver understanding and
Chinese visitors will automatically draw upon their knowledge of
ancient poets, Confucian and Daoist philosophy and religion, imperial
history, and Chinese classical literature to recognize the significance
and symbolism that is captured in the scenery before them. But this
information requires very lengthy interpretation if it is to be compre-
hensible to non-Chinese visitors. For example, the very name of the
lookout is puzzling: what is this West Sea several hundreds of kilo-
metres inland, high up in a mountain range with no lake in sight? The
answer lies in classical literature when an early visitor to Huangshan
climbed to its highest peaks and looked down on alpine valleys filled
with surging clouds. This scene has been immortalized in numerous
poems about Huangshan’s West (and North) Sea of Clouds.
Other references similarly rely upon Chinese common knowledge
to make sense. ‘Immortals’ in Chinese culture are integral to Daoist
belief. They are not gods in the Western sense of that word, although
they may be worshipped and shrines built for them. Nor are they
angels, although they are celestial beings; they are mischievous, fun-
loving, carousing creatures with superhuman strengths and skills,
constantly playing tricks on each other. They dwell in mountains, and
caves (the Daoist ‘passage-way to Heaven’) are often their abode.
Evidence of the presence of immortals in mountains thus abounds and
Huangshan is no exception as this example demonstrates.
The reference to Emperor Wen also links Immortals to Confucian
philosophy. In the famous Analects, Confucius discussed the meaning

258
 World Heritage Listing: the case of Huangshan (Yellow Mountain), China

of an ancient story in which Wen pulled the cart of an Immortal for 800
steps before stopping, exhausted. As a result the Immortal blessed his
descendents with 800 years of unbroken rule. The reference to Wu
Song fighting a tiger is taken from two of China’s most famous classics,
Outlaws of the Marsh (Shi Nai’an and Luo Guanzhong, circa 1350 AD)
and The Plum in the Golden Vase (anonymous, circa 1618 AD). Every
educated ten-year-old Chinese knows that the character Wu Song per-
sonifies manly strength because he killed an attacking tiger with his
bare hands.
During a field trip to Huangshan in 2004 to prepare a new tourism
master plan for the region it was noticeable that perhaps less than
5 per cent of the Chinese visitors to the mountains actually stopped
to read the newly installed plaques. Questioning revealed that, on the
one hand, they were on a pilgrimage to validate their knowledge of
ancient cultural heritage (Petersen, 1995) and were not interested in
the scientific information (‘We are here on holiday, not to go back to
school’) and, on the other hand, the references to Chinese culture were
superfluous. These observations reinforce the conclusion that, for
Chinese, Huangshan is a cultural landscape before it is a natural land-
scape even if WHS listing favours the biological over the cultural.
They are there to view the beauty of the physical features and forests,
but they ‘gaze’ at them through cultural lenses (Urry, 2002), denying
the validity of the IUCN’s attempt at a scientific imprimatur.
Calligraphy may be considered a signifier of China’s unbroken
4000-year-old civilization for Chinese visitors to Huangshan. It is
common all over the mountains, carved into the living rock, often
recently highlighted in red, yellow or blue paint, and enhances their
appreciation of a site. This is in contrast to a western perception of
‘seeing’ graffiti that degrades the intrinsic values of mountain wilder-
ness and imprints the dominance of homo sapiens over Nature. Most
Western visitors will fail to understand the deep significance of cal-
ligraphy as high art and as a gift from the gods with semi-sacred con-
notations, or the qualities inherent in a particular style of calligraphy,
the historico-cultural significance of the calligrapher and a particular
text, or the fact that the colours themselves have deep symbolism for
their Chinese viewers – red for happiness, blue for longevity, yellow
for prosperity (Sofield and Li, 1998). On occasion, management may
newly inscribe a bare site with calligraphy as a deliberate act to
improve it and Chinese visitors will see this as an appropriate enrich-
ment. In other instances, consistent with the ancient Chinese tradition
of authoritative figures inscribing their thoughts for future gener-
ations, an important person may be invited to display their calligraphy
skills (e.g. Mao Zedong at Huangshan, 1958). ICOMOS may recog-
nize ancient inscriptions as significant because it places a value on
antiquity, but it will frown on Dulux gloss paint being used to high-
light such ancient texts and will want to prevent new additions on

259
Managing World Heritage Sites

grounds of destroying the integrity of the historico-cultural fabric of

a site. But for Chinese a newly engraved inscription may have similar
authenticity as a much older inscription because they ‘see’ the con-
tinuity in an age-old process that should not be museumized accord-
ing to some Western notion of separating out the past from the present.
Authenticity is culturally defined, not a concept that can be scientif-
ically and objectively measured and universally applied. It is one fur-
ther aspect of dissonance in the management of Huangshan that resists
the Western paradigms governing WHS listing.

Conclusions

Huangshan illustrates the limitations of an approach to WHS listing

that is fragmented and divided along western-oriented constructs. It
is suggested that there would be advantages in an increased capacity
for incorporating non-western cultural values in considerations of
WHS management regimes. However, this is difficult: the IUCN’s
experts are enjoined to focus only on natural heritage to the exclu-
sion of other factors, and their scientific training, as per Foucault’s
(1980) treatise on power, dictates that they will privilege their know-
ledge base over other knowledge bases. ICOMOS similarly has west-
ern precepts guiding its assessments. But, without a more open,
more integrated multidisciplinary approach to consideration of the
merits of a place for WHS listing, we are left with a variation of
Said’s (1978) engagement of ‘Orientalism’ versus ‘Westernism’ – the
assumption of an unquestioned ‘western/modern’ authority accom-
panying the ownership of the concept of WHS listing that subordin-
ates Others’ values to its own.

References

Anhui Province (1987) Plan for the Places of Scenic and Historic Interest
in Huangshan. Huangshan: Anhui Province Government Press.
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (1998) Decisions of the
Twenty-second Extraordinary Session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee (Kyoto, 28–29 November 1998) With Regard to the
State of Conservation of Properties Inscribed on the World Heritage List.
Kyoto: World Heritage Centre.
Chan, W. (1969) A Source Book of Chinese Philosophy. New York:
Colombia University Press.
Chinese History Museum (1992) Illustrated History of China’s 5000
Years. Tianjin: Tianjin People’s Arts Publication [in Chinese].

260
 World Heritage Listing: the case of Huangshan (Yellow Mountain), China

Ebrey, P.B. (2003) A Visual Sourcebook of Chinese Civilization. New York:

Washington University: http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv,
(accessed 10 December 2004).
Elvin, M. (1973) The Pattern of the Chinese Past. Stamford: Stamford
University Press.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power-Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings, 1972–1977, edited by Colin Gordon. Brighton: Harvester
Press.
Hendee, J.C. and Stankey, G.H. (1973) Biocentricity in wilderness
management. BioScience, 23 (9), 535–538.
Hendee, J.C., Stankey, G.H. and Lucas, R. (1990) Wilderness
Management, 2nd edn. Golden: North America Press.
ICOMOS (1990) World Heritage Nomination – ICOMOS Summary 547
Mount Huangshan Scenic Beauty and Historic Site (China).
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/547
(accessed 2 February 2005).
IUCN (1990) World Heritage Nomination – IUCN Summary 547
Mount Huangshan Scenic Beauty and Historic Site (China). Summary
prepared by IUCN (April 1990) based on the original nomination
submitted by the People’s Republic of China. http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/advisory_body_evaluation/547 (accessed 2 February
2005).
Overmyer, D.L. (1986) Religions of China: the World as a Living System.
San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Petersen, Y.Y. (1995) The Chinese landscape as a tourist attraction:
image and reality. In Lew, A.A. and Lawrence, Y. (eds) Tourism in
China: Geographical, Political and Economic Perspective. Boulder:
Westview Press, pp. 141–154.
PRC (People’s Republic of China) (1989) Submission to UNESCO for
WHS Listing for Huangshan Scenic Beauty and Historic Interest
Reserve. Huangshan: Huangshan Administrative Committee in
Charge of Sites of Scenic Beauty and Historic Interest.
Rawson, P. and Legeza, L. (1973) Tao: The Chinese Philosophy of Time
and Change. London: Thames and Hudson.
Ropp, P.S. (1992) Heritage of China: Contemporary Perspectives on China.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Said, E. (1978) Orientalism. Western Conceptions of the Orient.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Sofield, T.H.B. and Li, F.M.S. (1998) China: tourism development and
cultural policies. Annals of Tourism Research, 25 (2), 323–353.
Sofield, T.H.B. and Li, F.M.S. (2003) Processes in formulating an eco-
tourism policy for nature reserves in Yunnan Province, China. In
Fennell, D. and Dowling, R. (eds) Ecotourism: Policy and Strategy
Issues. London: CAB International, pp. 141–168.
Spence, J. (1992) Western perceptions of China from the late sixteenth
century to the present. In Ropp, P. (ed) Heritage of China:

261
Managing World Heritage Sites

Contemporary Perspectives on China. Berkeley: University of

California Press, pp. 1–14.
Tellenbach, H. and Bin Kimura (1989) The Japanese concept of
‘Nature’. In Callicott, J.B. and Ames, R.T. (eds) Nature In Asian
Traditions of Thought: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. New York:
State University of New York Press, pp. 153–162.
Tu, W.M. (1989) The continuity of being: Chinese visions of nature. In
Callicott, J.B. and Ames, R.T. (eds) Nature In Asian Traditions of
Thought: Essays in Environmental Philosophy, New York: State
University of New York Press, pp. 67–78.
UNESCO (1990) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage. Report of the World Heritage
Committee, Fourteenth Session, Banff, Alberta, Canada, 7–12 December
1990. CLT-90/CONF.004/13, 12 December 1990.
Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary
Societies. London: Sage Publications.
World Heritage Centre (1990) http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advi-
sory_body_evaluation/547 (accessed 2 February 2005).

Questions

1 What are the key points of a Chinese world view?

2 How does this world view differ from western concepts that are
used to set the parameters of WHS assessments?
3 Utilizing Huangshan as an example, describe the sort of tensions
and dissonance that can arise for management of a WHS for vis-
itation when there is a clash of values between the international
organizations responsible for WHS listing and the host society.

262
 C H A P T E R
19
The Megalithic
Temples of Malta:
towards a
re-evaluation of heritage
Nadia Theuma and Reuben Grima
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

This case study aims to:

• Explore the impacts on local communities when inscribing sites
on the World Heritage List
• Highlight the conflicting views that may exist between heritage
and tourism organizations
• Discuss how WHS may be better managed and interpreted to
accommodate the needs of local communities.

Introduction: the Megalithic Temples of Malta

The Republic of Malta comprises a small archipelago with a total land

area of only 316 km2 located around 90 km south of Sicily. Largely due
to its position in the central Mediterranean and to its fine natural har-
bours, through the ages Malta has been frequented, exploited or cov-
eted by many major players in Mediterranean history. This rich
history is reflected in three inscriptions in the World Heritage List.
The present case study focuses on one of these inscriptions, the
Megalithic Temples of Malta (Figure 19.1). The megalithic temples
consist of a series of sophisticated megalithic buildings, which were
built by the Neolithic inhabitants between 3600 and 2500 BC. These
buildings are remarkably complex and accomplished in their execu-
tion, and have been described as the world’s first stone temples
(Renfrew 1973).

GOZO
GGANTIJA

MALTA

SKORBA
TA’ HAGRAT

TARXIEN

HAGAR QIM
MNAJDRA

Figure 19.1 Map of Megalithic Temples of Malta

264
 The Megalithic Temples of Malta: towards a re-evaluation of heritage

Key themes

An important trend in the management of cultural and natural

resources is the integration between global and local objectives and
values. During the past two decades, this emerging trend has been
witnessed across a wide variety of sectors. The Earth Summit held
in Rio in 1992 recognized the important role of local communities in
the sustainable management of environmental resources. The same
trend may be observed in the Burra Charter (ICOMOS, 1999) and in
the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe, 2000),
which recognize the importance of local communities in the care of
natural and cultural resources. In the domain of conservation of
cultural heritage resources, the Nara Document on Authenticity
(ICOMOS, 1994) has underlined the importance of the local cultural
context in determining appropriate conservation practices, as well as
judgements about cultural value and authenticity.
The value of local systems of traditional knowledge has also been rec-
ognized by UNESCO. In the implementation of the UNESCO World
Heritage Convention, several significant measures have been taken to
ensure that traditional systems of knowledge and stewardship are rec-
ognized and safeguarded. The Operational Guidelines for the imple-
mentation of the Convention have been updated to reflect the
newly-recognized importance of local stewardship (Merode et al., 2004).
A central focus in the trend outlined above is the recognition of
systems of value and knowledge maintained by indigenous peoples
and first nations. A more general focus has been the recognition of
value systems other than western and European ones. In the imple-
mentation of the World Heritage Convention, far-reaching practical
measures have been undertaken to ensure that the World Heritage
List does not remain dominated by sites that were chosen according
to western and European notions of value, in order to become truly
representative of the cultural diversity that exists around the globe.
This case study argues that some of the important principles that
have been learnt over the past two decades may also be useful and
relevant within a western and European scenario. A case study from
a southern European island context will be used to illustrate how, even
in such contexts, divergent perceptions and value systems may result in
very different attitudes towards World Heritage resources. In this par-
ticular case study, this divergence culminated in vandalism that threat-
ened the very fabric of a prehistoric WHS. It is argued that one of the
root causes of this divergence was the failure to share notions about the
value of the WHS with local communities. It is further argued that
this failure led to contestation between traditional local uses and the
needs of a tourist destination. Archaeological interpretations and
narratives as well as carefully thought out management plans have
an important role to play in bridging this divide.

265
Managing World Heritage Sites

Case study

The Megalithic Temples are so colossal in their construction that sev-

eral of them remained conspicuous features of the landscape right
until the present. Successive inhabitants of the Maltese archipelago
have used these monumental sites for different purposes, ranging
from a Bronze Age cremation cemetery to a Phoenician and Roman
sanctuary. In some cases, a large part of their building material was
carried away for other uses, while in other instances temple sites
were completely buried and used as agricultural land. Although we
have practically no written records of what the local inhabitants in
different periods thought about these strange ruins, some popular
legends about their origin have been passed on orally and recorded.
Several place names that have been used to refer to these sites since the
Middle Ages have also been preserved. These legends and toponyms
indicate that, in popular belief, the megalithic buildings were built
by a race of giants that inhabited the world before the biblical deluge.
What is important to note is that until the 18th century, this belief
was also shared by many scholars. It was only in the 19th century
that scientific interpretations began to depart from traditional inter-
pretations, by asserting that the megalithic buildings had been built
by the Phoenicians. In the early 20th century, archaeologists realized
that these buildings had been created by a prehistoric culture much
earlier than the Phoenicians. The accepted date of these buildings
was pushed further back, first with radiocarbon dating, and then again
when radiocarbon dating was recalibrated using dendrochronology.
As a result of the revised dating, by the early 1970s the megalithic
temples were recognized to be among the earliest known structures
of such complexity. Two developments that followed were closely
related. One was a progressive escalation in the promotion of the
megalithic temples as a tourist attraction, as the archipelago enjoyed
its first tourism boom. The other was the inscription of the first of
these temples on the UNESCO World Heritage List, which took
place in 1980, to be followed by the extension of the inscription in
1992 to include five other temple sites. The megalithic temples were
inscribed under criterion (iv) of the Operational Guidelines, in recog-
nition that they are outstanding examples of a type of building
which illustrates a significant stage in human history.
From the 1970s onwards, the newfound reputation of the megalithic
temples as the world’s oldest temples was aggressively promoted by
tourism organizations to attract more and more foreign visitors to the
country. By then, Malta was slowly becoming a mass tourist destina-
tion. As the number of visitors rose, so did the potential for tensions
and confrontations with local communities. In order to receive the
growing influx of visitors, access roads, car parks and facilities had to
be created, while certain traditional land uses came under threat.

266
 The Megalithic Temples of Malta: towards a re-evaluation of heritage

This case study is focused on two of the six inscribed temple sites,
namely Hagar Qim and Mnajdra, which lie within 500 m of each
other, on the southwest coast of Malta. Hagar Qim stands on a ridge
commanding the surrounding countryside. A massively-built pro-
tective enclosure started to be built around this site in 1970, divor-
cing it from the surrounding landscape. However, the wall and the
steel barriers (Figure 19.2) were not completed until 1978, when
access to the site became fully regulated. We suspect that the enclosure
took such a long time to be built because it was highly contentious.

Figure 19.2 Hagar Qim, Malta

267
Managing World Heritage Sites

In 1990, around 40 hectares of land, including the Hagar Qim as

well as the Mnajdra temples, were earmarked by the National Tourist
Office (NTOM) to become an archaeological park and enclosed within
another boundary wall. These measures were undertaken without
any dialogue with communities and individuals who had an interest
in this part of the landscape. The boundary wall cut across old tracks
and rights-of-way, and enclosed a large area that was a favourite spot
for traditional bird-trapping, as well as a popular spot for family out-
ings and picnics. In the space of a few years, the megalithic temples
were alienated even further from local communities. This alienation
is evident in the number of visitors to this site.
Since the site was not as yet enclosed there are no official records
of visitor numbers between 1970 and 1978. However, one of the cus-
todians of the site at the time has stated that the number of visitors to
the area was very small, averaging around 20 visitors a day, who
were mostly foreign. Numbers increased over weekends, when
Maltese people visited the site as part of their Sunday outing or to
picnic in the area (Borg, personal communication). Another use of
the area was traditional bird-trapping, a practice which is well docu-
mented at least since the 17th century, and is probably much older.
The first available records for visitors are for 1978, after the comple-
tion of the boundary wall. Figures show that over 42 000 visitors
came to the site. In 1979, an entry fee was introduced for adults and
so the first records of fee-paying visitors are noted. Children con-
tinued to be allowed free access, while the general public could still
enter free of charge on Sundays. By the early 1990s, free access to the
Maltese public was restricted to one day per month. These measures
progressively transformed the constituency of visitors to the sites.
Figure 19.3 clearly shows that, as paying visitors (mainly foreign
tourists) increased, the proportion of visitors admitted without pay-
ment, which by 1993 accounted only for schoolchildren and pensioners,
continued to decline. We have to point out that the number of tourists
to Malta has increased dramatically from 12 583 visitors in 1959 to over
1.1 million visitors in 2003. A record number of 1.2 million visitors to
Malta was reached in 1994.
The changes in management and admission policies had far-reaching
consequences. Access to the temples, which had always been taken for
granted, was transformed into a commodity that had to be paid for.
The temples were now perceived as outposts of interference by med-
dlesome government officials, whose growing interest in transforming
the temples into tourist attractions not only threatened traditional
leisure uses of the surrounding landscape, but even threatened land
tenure and ownership rights. The perceived threat to the practice of
traditional bird-trapping within the designated park became a symbol
of the nationwide debate on whether bird-trapping would be allowed
at all as the country prepared to join the European Union. A reaction

268
 The Megalithic Temples of Malta: towards a re-evaluation of heritage

140 000
Free
120 000
Paying
100 000

80 000

60 000

40 000

20 000

0
1979 1980 1990 2000 2003
Figure 19.3 Free and paying visitors to Hagar Qim Temples 1979–2003.
Source: Department of Museums Annual Reports, 1979–2000; Heritage Malta
Annual Report, 2003–2004

was inevitable, and it came in a succession of incidents of mounting

gravity. Paradoxically, the highly-publicized international importance
of the megalithic temples put them at greater risk, as it made them
high-profile targets for the expression of protest against the state
(Grima, 1998).
During the early efforts to create an archaeological park around
Hagar Qim and Mnajdra, graffiti messages threatening to blow up
Hagar Qim, were painted onto the boundary wall around Hagar Qim
and onto a walkway. In 1994, graffiti that made uncomplimentary refer-
ences to the government of the day were sprayed over a number of cul-
tural heritage sites across Malta, including one megalithic temple site. In
1996, graffiti were sprayed onto the façade and interior of the Mnajdra
temples, making references to the environmental lobby. None of these
incidents, however, prepared the authorities or the public for the vio-
lence of the vandalism that took place at Mnajdra in 2001. More than
sixty megaliths were toppled out of place in the space of one night. In
the preceding weeks, the Planning Authority had issued a number of
enforcement notices on buildings in the vicinity that did not have the
appropriate permits, and had even dismantled some of these structures.
Although a connection between the enforcement action and the vandal-
ism was never proven, it remains one of the more plausible hypotheses.
Public shock and outrage at the vandalism was immediate and
widespread, both in Malta and abroad. A restoration effort was mobi-
lized, and fortunately it was possible to reverse most of the damage
sustained at Mnajdra. Security measures were also improved, with
more security fences and round-the-clock surveillance. What is less
clear is what circumstances led up to such vandalism, and to what

269
Managing World Heritage Sites

extent these circumstances have changed today. One fundamental root

cause appears to have been that the global value of Hagar Qim and
Mnajdra was perceived to be in conflict with local values and interests.
The more these sites were promoted as world-class tourist attractions
and the more foreigners flocked to visit the monuments, the greater
the threat to traditional uses of the landscape became. Instead of
instilling a focus of local pride, the inclusion of these monuments in
the World Heritage List contributed to a sense of dispossession among
some members of the local community.
The direct control of the monuments by the state was reflected in
the management of the landscape. The forceful expropriation of the
land where they stood and the creation of fences continued to decon-
textualize the sites from their setting in the cultural landscape. A fur-
ther, subtler process of decontextualization also took place in the
narratives that were used to explain the significance of the monu-
ments. Archaeological interpretations tended to give more attention
to the issues that gave the monuments their global importance, such as
their chronology and dating. Until recently, little attention was given
to understanding the relationship between the megalithic buildings
and their landscape setting. As a result, archaeological narratives
distanced the archaeological monuments even further from the
world of the present-day inhabitants of the same landscape.
Meanwhile, while tourism organizations promoted these sites as
Malta’s main attraction, they did not contribute to the protection or
management of the sites. With a global trend of an increase in cul-
turally motivated visitors coupled with marketing that promoted
Malta’s cultural heritage, tourism organizations precipitated con-
flicts regarding the management of cultural assets (Boissevain and
Sammut, 1994; Theuma, 2002). In addition, tourism in Malta for
many years has been driven by mass tourism activity and touring
companies that often measure success by the increase in the numbers
of visitors, rarely consulting with heritage organizations. The fact
that tourism and culture fell under separate ministries did not make
the task of integrating the two any easier.

Recent changes in the management of cultural assets

In recent years there have been some significant changes in the general
management of cultural heritage in Malta. The first notable change was
the tourism sector’s increased interest in the management of cultural
heritage. In 1999, the newly set up Malta Tourism Authority took over
the marketing role of the NTOM but added on the management and
production of cultural activities. Although there is still room for
improvement, tourism organizations have taken up more responsibility
towards the management and protection of Malta’s cultural heritage.

270
 The Megalithic Temples of Malta: towards a re-evaluation of heritage

Another factor is that the vandalism that took place at Mnajdra in

2001 raised public awareness and precipitated the processing
through parliament of a new Cultural Heritage Act (2002), which
had been evolving through a succession of drafts since 1996. The new
law introduced much-needed structural changes. It updated the 1925
Antiquities Protection Act better to reflect present-day needs by mak-
ing provisions for the regulation, conservation and management of
cultural heritage in Malta.
Moreover, in 2004, a reorganization of ministerial portfolios
brought culture and tourism within a single ministry. This change
has presented an opportunity for better synergy between organiza-
tions and better management of resources. The attendant risk is the
retrenchment of the perception of cultural heritage sites as primarily
a resource for tourists and foreigners. If this threat is guarded
against, the integration will help bridge the divide between the
divergent paradigms of heritage and tourism.

Conclusions

The lessons drawn from this case study are clear. It is a short-sighted
management strategy that tries to safeguard the global values of a
WHS at the expense of the values of the local community. The legal,
material, administrative and intellectual enclosure of the megalithic
temples distanced this cultural resource from the local community,
provoking a reaction. So what were the lessons learnt, and how can
one better manage these sites? What is currently being done?
First, more importance is being given to consultation with all
the different interest groups as key players in the development of a
Management Plan for the megalithic temples. Consultation and con-
sensus building have become integral to the development of plans
for the Hagar Qim and Mnajdra Archaeological Park. A second
objective is to bridge the divide between scientific knowledge and
popular knowledge about the megalithic temples (Grima, 2002). The
plans that are being made for the future presentation and interpret-
ation of Hagar Qim and Mnajdra are paying more attention to themes
that give the archaeological remains local relevance. The relationship
of the sites to the local landscape setting and their exploitation of
locally available materials are themes that are intrinsically more
accessible and meaningful to the communities that inhabit the same
landscape today. Third, the prehistoric sites shall be presented as
part of a living cultural landscape, which has witnessed a succession
of different uses. Fourth, a sustained drive has been launched to use
a wider range of media to make heritage more accessible to Maltese
and foreign audiences, including education programmes, TV spots,
interactive media and popular publications.

271
Managing World Heritage Sites

The challenge that has started to be addressed is to optimize the bal-

ance between the experience of visitors and the traditional uses of the
landscape. A better understanding of traditional uses of the lived cul-
tural landscape has the potential to enrich the experience of visitors.
Reciprocally, a better understanding of past uses of the landscape may
help create an environment more favourable to responsible steward-
ship among the present day inhabitants of the same landscape.

References
Boissevain, J. and Sammut, N. (1994) Mdina: Its Residents and Cultural
Tourism. Findings and Recommendations. Report. Med-Campus
Euromed Sustainable Tourism Project, Malta.
Council of Europe (2000) European Landscape Convention. http://
conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm
Grima, R. (1998) Ritual spaces, contested places: the case of the Maltese
Prehistoric Temple Sites. Journal of Mediterranean Studies, 8, 33–45.
Grima, R. (2002) Archaeology as encounter. Archaeological Dialogues,
9, 83–89.
ICOMOS (1994) The Nara Document on Authenticity. http://www.
international.icomos.org/naradoc_eng.htm
ICOMOS (1999) The Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS Charter
for Places of Cultural Significance. http://www.icomos.org/
australia/images/pdf/BURRA_CHARTER.pdf
Merode, E. de, Smeets, R. and Westrik, C. (eds) (2004) Introduction. In
Linking Universal and Local Values: Managing a Sustainable Future for
World Heritage. A Conference Organized by the Netherlands National
Commission for UNESCO, in Collaboration With the Netherlands
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. 22–24 May 2003 (World
Heritage Papers, 13). Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp. 9–15.
Renfrew, C. (1973) Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolution and
Prehistoric Europe. London: Jonathan Cape.
Theuma, N. (2002) Identifying Cultural Tourism in Malta: Marketing
and Management Issues. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of
Strathclyde.

Questions

1 Why do tourism and heritage organizations often have divergent

views of culture and heritage?
2 Discuss ways in which heritage and tourism organizations can
work more closely with local communities to enhance the value of
cultural heritage.
3 Should the global values of WHS take precedence over local values
and considerations?

272
 C H A P T E R
20
The Rainforest Ways:
managing tourism in
the Central Eastern
Rainforest Reserves of
Australia
Jo Mackellar and Ros Derrett
Managing World Heritage Sites

Aims

The aims of this case study are to describe the:

• Strategic approach taken to the development of a touring route
• Process of cooperative planning around World Heritage Sites
• Barriers and facilitators towards the development of a touring
route around World Heritage Sites
• Relationships of stakeholders to the World Heritage Site.

Introduction

The World Heritage listed Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves of

Australia (or CERRA) is an area of approximately 370 000 hectares,
equal to the size of Switzerland. It comprises nearly 50 reserves,
ranging in size from 11 hectares to approximately 100 000 hectares,
which have been grouped into eight ‘blocks of protected areas’. They
are scattered throughout the eastern parts of two states – New South
Wales and South-East Queensland. A key feature of this World
Heritage Site (WHS) is the numerous adjacent land uses, with many
communities living in close proximity to the sites. The potential for
these land uses to impact on the area is high, with the protection
of the assets resting with government resource managers such as
national park managers and other government departments. Current
land tenure for the reserves includes national parks, nature reserves,
flora reserves, State forests and other Crown reserves.
The project described in this case study relates to three ‘blocks of
protected areas’ in the CERRA, which receive high levels of visitation
from domestic and international tourists as well as from the local com-
munities. With visitor demand on the natural resources of the area
increasing over time, a more coordinated approach to visitor manage-
ment has been called for, both by local government authorities and by
tourism and resource managers. The result has been the deliberate and
coordinated development of a touring route with the aim to:
… develop and promote a primary touring route with complemen-
tary experiential loops and trails through Northern Rivers NSW and
South East Queensland that will provide enhanced experiences for
visitors and greater environmental, cultural, social and economic
benefits for the cross border regions (Centre for Regional Tourism
Research, 2001).

The intrinsic values associated with the CERRA, and its World
Heritage status, were fundamental to this project. Responsible and sus-
tainable development that respects the values of regional stakeholders

274
 Managing tourism in the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves of Australia

Figure 20.1 Rainforest reflection. Copyright Northern Rivers Tourism

(reproduced with permission)

and communities underpinned its strategic direction. It was deter-

mined that to be successful, the project had to be market driven, real-
izing and facilitating the needs and wants of visitors and tourists. This
case study describes the strategic approach taken by the WHS stake-
holders to achieve aspirations. It highlights the issues, barriers and
facilitators that occurred throughout the process. The case study is
useful in identifying areas in which this process failed to deliver on
expectations for some, while documenting the implications for others.

The region

The case study region includes three of the eight blocks of protected
areas in the CERRA: Main Range; Focal Peak Group; and the Shield
Volcano Group. These three areas are linked geographically by the
ancient formations of the volcano caldera and scenic rim, as well as

275
Managing World Heritage Sites

being linked by major roads in the region as shown in Figure 20.2.

The region is also noted for its strong indigenous heritage and main-
tains links with several of its traditional landholder groups.
The region has a pleasant climate that allows access all year round.
It is close to service and tourist centres such as the Gold Coast and
Byron Bay, providing attractions for day visitors and longer stays. The
region is one of the most popular tourist destinations in Australia
for national and international tourists with approximately 2 million
visits to the property each year (www.deh.gov.au/heritage). There are
numerous tourist facilities adjacent to CERRA, notably the two lodges
on private land within the boundary of Lamington National Park.

Brisbane

Toowoomba
Ipswich
Boonleigh

Beaudesert Norang Surfers Paradise

QUEENSLAND
Coolangatta/
Warwick Tweed Heads
Kingscliff
Murwillumbah

N EW SOU T H WALES Mullumbimby Brunswick Heads

Kyogle Nimbin
Byron Bay
Bangalow

Lismore
Casino Ballina

Coraki
Tenterfield
Evans Head

Iluka
Maclean Yamba

Copmanhurst

Ulmarra
Grafton
Main roads
World Heritage areas
Wooll
National Parks
Hubs (infrastructure based)
Rainforest Way

Figure 20.2 Map of the region for the Rainforest Way.

Source: Northern Rivers Tourism

Apart from tourist activity, the property also has an extremely high
boundary to area ratio. This means that adjacent land uses have the
potential to impact significantly on the values of the property. The
land uses of adjacent properties include freehold rural grazing, State
forest logging, agricultural and recreational pursuits such as off-road

276
 Managing tourism in the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves of Australia

horse, car and trail-bike riding. Potential damage from these activi-
ties can impact upon the WHS. It is, therefore imperative to have the
community involved in the protection and management of these
adjacent areas for the benefit of the WHS.

Management and administration

The CERRA is administered by principal government agencies in

Queensland and New South Wales in collaboration with the federal
agency, Environment Australia. The management of CERRA is driven
by a set of Strategic Management Objectives as determined by signa-
ture to the WHConvention. According to the Australian Department
of Heritage (Commonwealth Department of Heritage, 2000):
Australia must take measures necessary for the identification, pro-
tection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation of its World
Heritage, and, through these measures, to pass on the outstanding
universal values of these places to future generations. These obli-
gations provide the basis for the following strategic objectives for
the management of CERRA:

• To ensure that the World Heritage values of the property are

clearly identified.
• To ensure that the World Heritage values of CERRA are protected
through appropriate long-term legislative regulatory and institu-
tional arrangements.
• To ensure that the World Heritage values of CERRA are con-
served through both pro-active management and the control of
threatening processes.
• To ensure that degraded areas of CERRA are rehabilitated to a
natural condition.
• To ensure that the World Heritage values of CERRA are presented
in the most appropriate and sustainable way to the community.
• Through achievement of the above objectives, to transmit the out-
standing universal values of CERRA to future generations.

Tourism products

The relevant CERRA area is positioned in the centre of two thriving

tourism regions, being the Northern Rivers of New South Wales
(NSW) and the Gold Coast of South-East Queensland (QLD). The region
includes major regional tourist attractions such as Mount Warning
National Park, Border Ranges National Park, Nightcap National Park
(NSW), Lamington National Park and Springbrook National Park
(QLD). Situated within these parks are numerous walking tracks lead-
ing to waterfalls, crystal clear streams and other panoramic landscapes.

277
Managing World Heritage Sites

The tracks traverse steep ranges covered in rare and endangered

Australian rainforest with highly unique and sensitive flora and fauna.
Their appeal is universal to both the experienced nature traveller and
the casual day visitor. Their significance, however, is sometimes lost
due to the geographical spread of individual sites across the State bor-
ders and through several local government areas. It is more common
for tourist organizations to promote one area of the CERRA, such as
Mount Warning, rather than the whole WHS. Similarly, the two State
resource managers, National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), and
Queensland Parks (QP), promote individual sites or areas as opposed
to the whole CERRA. This has resulted in a history of entrenched frag-
mented and parochial marketing practices. Individual efforts to pro-
mote parts of the CERRA have also contributed to the degradation of
some parts of the WHS where high volumes of visitors are experienced.
Overcrowding in car parks, walking tracks and camping areas has had
some impact on land erosion and species protection.
In response to this, key stakeholders in the region adopted a pro-
active approach to planning for the sustainable development of nature
based tourism and ecotourism activities. The Rainforest Way project
was the first attempt at a regional collaborative approach to planning
for sustainable tourism through the development of a touring route
suitable to the sensitive nature of the northern part of the CERRA.

Stakeholders

The CERRA stakeholders are important to the management and mar-

keting of the region, and to maintaining the culture, landscape and val-
ues of the area. The immediate stakeholders are those that have been
given direct legislated management over the area. These include
Environment Australia, NSW NPWS and QP. Other stakeholders
identified include local governments, state forestry departments,
tourism organizations, industry groups, state government tourism
agencies, economic development groups and university research cen-
tres as well as the communities surrounding the national parks and
reserves. As stated earlier, the high frequency of adjacent land use
means that a large number of stakeholders needed to be included in the
project.

The touring route

The creation of a touring route is not a new concept in Australia, with

a number of successful predecessors including the Great Green Way
in Queensland, the Alpine Way, and the Fossickers Way in NSW and
Kakadu’s Nature Way in the Northern Territory. The concept of a

278
 Managing tourism in the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves of Australia

touring route or ‘way’ is to guide visitors through the most attractive

parts of a region and to direct them to lesser known areas. A review of
tourism research related to touring routes revealed six key elements
constitute the development of a touring route product (Pearce, 1987;
Gunn, 1988; Innskeep, 1994). These include gateways, attraction clus-
ters, nodes, road linkages, sensitive area protection, and information.
‘Gateways’ are major entrances to the region that provide access to
the route as well as information about the attractions and services.
‘Attraction clusters’ are groupings of ‘things to see and do’ that are
attractive to the targeted visitors. They may be themed into loops and
trails to provide a themed experience related to the title of the ‘way’.
‘Nodes’ represent communities that provide services, facilities, prod-
ucts and attractions for visitors. Throughout the region small villages
provide essential services and cultural attractions and a number of
larger centres are ideally located close to rainforests and national parks.
Road linkages are an important consideration in the design of a
route, providing access to attractions, linking nodes and gateways.
Road quality and surfacing, signage, travel distance and travel times
are all important design factors that need to be considered. The region
has a good network of roads connecting the various parts of the region.
It also has a variety of road types from gravel and dirt to dual-lane
highways. These varying conditions provide challenging motoring
for visitors, requiring careful route design.
Protecting sensitive natural environments is the fifth element. This
is particularly important where World Heritage Sites and national
parks form the main attraction for drive tourists. Selective promotion
of some areas may enable greater protection of other important areas.
The final element is access to quality information for visitors. This
is crucial. It allows tourism and resource managers to influence travel-
ling behaviour and determine the level of visitor satisfaction. Visitor
perceptions of satisfaction and safety are important and are often
affected by the information provided. Information should be provided
at visitor generating regions, destination regions and particularly at
gateways and en route.

The strategic approach

In developing a strategic plan for the touring route two issues quickly
emerged as being central to its success – cooperation between the
numerous stakeholders and leadership towards the achievement of
jointly agreed goals and initiatives. Failings in both of these issues
later proved to be the prominent cause of the project’s delayed imple-
mentation. This section describes the strategic approach taken.
The Rainforest Way has its origins in the Nature Based and Eco-
tourism Plan (Manides Roberts, 1994). The document set the direction

279
Managing World Heritage Sites

for local government tourism managers to establish a project initiat-

ing a strategic plan for the design and implementation of a touring
route. The process to develop the plan followed an approach similar
to that of Voyer (1995), using a formal design of missions and objec-
tives, SWOT analysis and strategy development. The SWOT analysis
revealed the existence of numerous research documents describing
touring patterns and tourist markets as well as current tourism and
natural resource management plans. Consequently, the strategic plan
was prepared within the framework of a number of other planning
documents like the National Ecotourism Strategy (Commonwealth
Department of Tourism, 1994) as well as State and regional govern-
ment ecotourism plans.
The strategy provided an action plan for the progression of the next
stages of the project’s development, inviting participation and com-
mitment from all levels of government and from other important
stakeholders such as adjoining local government authorities. The plan
required seed-funding for the initial management and marketing
phases only – later to become a self-funded operation drawing on its
beneficiaries for future marketing and management funds. The key
phases of the project have been outlined as shown in Figure 20.3.

Phase 1
Strategic Plan
Phase 2
Touring route ID
Situation analysis
Phase 3
Communication
Management structure
Project funding
Phase 4
Marketing Plan
Product development assistance
Phase 5
Management &
Marketing
Phase 6
Management &
Monitoring

Figure 20.3 Project phases

The strategic plan provided common objectives and set the path
for further cooperative action towards the development of the Rain-
forest Ways. The common agreement to these objectives by all stake-
holders was a feat in itself. There had been little previous cooperative
planning between tourism and resource managers and virtually no
cooperative activity across State borders. The sign-off on the strategic
plan and the commitment of so many stakeholders was a significant
milestone for the project.

280
 Managing tourism in the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves of Australia

The project objectives were as follows:

• identify potential markets

• identify appropriate high quality products that satisfy visitor needs
• identify appropriate marketing themes that will encourage greater
visitation and extended length of stay
• determine and map an appropriate primary touring route through
the hinterland of Northern Rivers NSW and South-East Queensland
(SEQ)
• determine and map a series of associated loops and trails that
will enhance visitor experiences and provide benefits for regional
operators
• develop and implement a marketing plan that will maximize the
potential of the primary route and the loops and trails
• develop and implement a management committee to oversee the
efficient implementation of the marketing plan and other man-
agement initiatives such as sourcing funding.

Barriers to progress

The development of the Rainforest Way slowed during Phase 4 –

developing marketing and product development plans. In retro-
spect, this is likely to be a result of unresolved issues from Phase 3,
where numerous barriers to progress emerged. The key barriers
related to the management structure, project leadership and the col-
laborative implementation of the plan, as well as to legitimizing the
touring route to its original vision. These barriers are described
further below.

Management structure and leadership

The strategic plan called for the appointment of a project manager to

further the project and funding was sourced from the stakeholders
and from the NSW State government. The Northern Rivers Nature
Tourism Taskforce (NTTF), who had guided the initial stages, handed
over the project management to the regional tourism marketing body
and an independently elected Rainforest Way Executive Committee
(RWEC) managed the implementation of the project. The committee
employed consultants as the project managers and a series of conflicts
emerged. The consultants had previous experience with touring route
development, but were not based in this region. Some stakeholders
saw this as a weakness. They questioned the consultants’ processes,
recommendations, lack of consultation with the local communities and
businesses and lack of understanding of local conditions. Concern was
expressed about deviations from the original brief, with strategies

281
Managing World Heritage Sites

not referred to or included in new planning initiatives. Despite these

barriers, the consultants pushed forward with the development of
marketing and product plans.
A major barrier to progress has been noted in the lack of individual
or political leadership of the project. The consultants continue to facil-
itate the process of marketing and product development, however,
they often receive their direction from several different stakeholders –
not from one leader – be it person or organization. This can create con-
fusion and a lack of cohesion towards previously established goals.
The consultants highlighted a lack of support for the name and
branding Rainforest Way. It was not clear whose views were being
presented. The reduction of the Rainforest Way to a number of smaller
loops and trails became the solution to overcoming signage and
product development issues. However, this met with strong oppos-
ition from several key stakeholders, again citing this as a deviation
from the vision and objectives of Phase 1 of the project.
Final documents submitted by the consultants focused on NSW
with reduced input from Queensland partners. This destabilized stake-
holder relationships and trust diminished and frustration rose while
prolonging the process.

Product design process

The challenging tourism policy environments can create barriers to

success. Legislative road authorities’ policies in both States have
clear rules regarding the type of road that can be named a ‘way’. There
is not a clearly defined start and end point to the Rainforest Way (see
Figure 20.2). In fact, most existing tourism products and services
representing the themes of arts, culture, agriculture, heritage and nature
based recreation are not directly accessed along the route, but by
loops and trails off the Way. This means that road authorities would
not construct signage along the roads legitimizing it as a ‘touring
route’. They expressed reluctance to adopt the title in their promo-
tional or operational budgets or policies.
The collaborative effort to design and implement the touring route
was challenged in the areas of signage for the route. Further tension
points appeared with local buy-in by tourism enterprises as well as
communication and consultation with stakeholders and the wider
community.

Facilitators to progress
While several barriers remain to be overcome, many facilitators have
emerged to provide support for the project. The efforts of some

282
 Managing tourism in the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves of Australia

stakeholders to lobby various government agencies to include the

Rainforest Way into higher level tourism plans has been successful, with
Tourism New South Wales (TNSW) and Tourism Queensland (TQ)
including the route in their five year plans. Support from resource
managers such as Environment Australia, NPWS and QP have
encouraged the development of the Way, including the project in their
own planning documents. Continued commitment from the project’s
initiators maintains the theme and integrity of the whole project as
they monitor its progress.

Implications

The successful implementation of the Rainforest Way will have signif-

icant implications for many stakeholders. Importantly, the function
of directing, educating and assisting visitors in their visit to CERRA
amenities is of high priority. As more visitors are drawn to the natural
beauty, pristine landscapes and ambience of the WHS the implemen-
tation of tourist routes and their respective visitor amenities and serv-
ices become increasingly important to managing the resources. Putting
an effective touring route in place spreads tourism benefits to the wider
regional community.
The protection of WHS within national parks and reserves makes
it essential for resource managers and tourism managers to work
collaboratively. Unplanned tourist development will contribute to
the degradation of resources. Some high visitation areas already
show signs of resource degradation which will continue if joint
management of these areas is not achieved.
The implications for the success of this project go beyond the
success of the Rainforest Way. Successful cooperative activity sets a
precedent for further cooperative projects aimed at resource manage-
ment in this region, but also as a model for other regions in Australia.

Conclusions

The development of the Rainforest Way – the ways to the rainforests

continues. No doubt it will evolve over the next few years. This is
occurring at many levels – from the ground swell of industry sup-
port, from the many small tourism operators in the region who can
see the benefits of the product and collaborative marketing options,
as well as from governments who have invested in the success of the
project and have included the project in their long-term strategies. The
WH Sites are well protected by the management policies of NPWS
and QP. They have active input into the product development process.

283
Managing World Heritage Sites

Cooperation by resource managers with the tourism industries and

local communities has proven to be essential to the protection of the
WHS. It is more essential where the WHS themselves are geograph-
ically spread across a vast land area with various adjacent land uses
and numerous communities living in close proximity to the sites.
The continued development of the Rainforest Way’s marketing
strategy requires resolution of some key issues and the removal of
barriers. Paramount is the resolution of leadership and the legit-
imization of the product in the eyes of the road authorities. Whether
an individual advocate, community champion, or effective organiza-
tional structure is best suited to progress the initiative in the best
interests of stakeholders remains to be seen.

References

Centre for Regional Tourism Research (2001) The Rainforest Way

Strategic Plan. Ballina: NR Nature Tourism Taskforce.
Commonwealth Department of Tourism (1994) National Ecotourism
Strategy. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Commonwealth Department of Heritage (2000) World Heritage
Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves of Australia Strategic Overview for
Management. Canberra: Department of the Environment and
Heritage, Australian Government Publishing Service.
Gunn, C. (1988) Tourism Planning, 2nd edn. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Innskeep, E. (1994) National and Regional Tourism Planning. London:
Routledge.
Manides Roberts (1994) Nature-based and Ecotourism Plan. Ballina:
Northern Rivers Regional Development Board.
Pearce, P. (1987) Tourism Today: A Geographical Analysis. New York:
Longman.
Voyer, J. (1995) Strategy design and planning. In Mintzberg, H.,
Quinn, J.B. and Voyer, J. (eds) The Strategy Process. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.

Questions

1 Who were the key stakeholders in the preparation and implemen-

tation of this WHS touring route?
2 Discuss some barriers to the effective design, management and
marketing of such a product.
3 Suggest policy and planning resource management mechanisms
you have read of that could be applied to such a project.

284
 Conclusions

At the outset, the aim of this text was to combine the issues raised via
academic debate and research, with the more practical and applied
results from individual properties and those involved in their man-
agement. It is hoped that this has been achieved through the eleven
themed chapters in Parts One to Four and the nine case studies fea-
tured in Part Five. With over 800 sites currently inscribed on the
World Heritage List spread widely among States Parties, it was
always going to be impossible for the text to include reference to
every site. However, the text has tried to deliver a representative
overview of the management issues facing the many cultural,
natural and mixed sites inscribed on the WHL with a particular focus
on the need to balance the two predominant activities – conservation
and tourism. Although conservation, preservation and protection
may have historically been the principal drivers for inscription, more
recent trends suggest that the entire process is becoming more polit-
ical, with motivations for nation building, national identity, and an
eagerness to tap into the economic benefits to be derived from
tourism at sites, becoming more prominent. However, the extent to
which WHS status does in fact lead to increasing visitor levels from
tourists remains somewhat vague.
As a number of chapters quite correctly stated, there remains
insufficient evidence to date and a paucity of contemporary research
that explains and explores this issue fully. The diversity of sites and
varying resource levels, their location in developing or developed
countries, expertise of staff and the local political context all con-
tribute to making general findings inappropriate to many sites.
Perhaps the biggest challenges that remain vis-à-vis the manage-
ment of WHS is the need to improve the collection of data and pro-
vision of information upon which ‘informed’ decisions can be made.
This issue was first raised in Chapter 2 where the inadequate moni-
toring and evaluation of visitor numbers was highlighted as a prin-
cipal impediment to researchers wishing to gauge the impact of
WHS status on visitor numbers. The point was made that, even in
Australia, which benefits from a strong research culture and infra-
structure, past data on visitor numbers and origins are generally
poor with only broad trends able to be tracked. With regard to future
research needs, the publication by Pedersen (2002) recommends
that future research should focus on the classification of tourists
Conclusions

according to their motivations, behaviours and desired experiences,

with additional research advocated to determine the real volume
and rate of growth of cultural tourism. There is also the view that
tourists increasingly want ‘real’ experiences with other cultures and
lifestyles with tourists in general seeking more active and educa-
tional holidays and visits to protected areas. Pressure on the tourism
industry to take more responsibility for sustainable development is
therefore substantial, with an overwhelming responsibility to protect
its core asset, the environment.
Tourism aside, although the WHL has achieved significant global
success and the WHS status is perceived to be a highly appreciated
accolade, the future of the WHL is uncertain as discussed in Chapters
10 and 11. Chapter 10 was first to highlight the fact that a dangerous
gap is increasingly evident between the goal and the evolving reality
stemming from the WHL’s implementation, with the national agenda
tending to dominate the wider international domain. Ashworth and
van der Aa rightly stated that while the rhetoric is global, the action is
local, with inscription now a compromise reaction among national
governments to national nominations and interests. In reality, the
spatial imbalance has also grown – particularly in Europe – in that
ratification of the Convention by a number of Central and Eastern
European States Parties from the mid-1990s has led to many European
nations being particularly proactive in seeking new opportunities.
Although gradual change in the balance of the WHL is evident via
implementation of the Global Strategy (1994), worries remain over
the third challenge, the potential negative consequences of its indef-
inite expansion. It is the view of the editors that the most likely
future of the WHL is that it will continue expanding, never to be
‘complete’ and that more sophisticated and rigorous measures to get
sites listed are needed to ensure its credibility and representative-
ness. To conclude this text, attention is drawn back to Chapter 11 and
some of the issues identified as requiring specific attention in the
years to come. These can be summarized as follows:

1 Tourism will acquire greater significance in the process of inscrip-

tion with an even greater need for those managing the process to
maintain the balance between heritage conservation and the devel-
opment of tourism opportunities. The planning for tourism and
management of visitors ought to be a central feature of future
plans, with suitable visitor management techniques proposed that
maintain a suitable balance between guaranteeing accessibility
and preserving authenticity.
2 Those managing WHS need to understand fully what visitor
groups frequent the site, their patterns of behaviour and the
trends in that market that are likely to make visitation to such sites
more or less popular in the years ahead. One also needs to keep

286
 Conclusions

abreast of the varying, and often continuing, expansion of motiv-

ations for visiting sites.
3 For many sites, endorsement by UNESCO represents a significant
means by which differentiation can be achieved. Tourism is a highly
competitive phenomenon locally, regionally, nationally and inter-
nationally, so any means by which individual sites or destinations
are able to seek additional points of differentiation are welcomed
with open arms. Inscription brings with it a mark of externally
recognized quality which is increasingly becoming an integral part
of site or destination marketing campaigns.
4 If expansion of the WHL continues apace, saturation is likely to
occur at some point in the future. Overexposure of the World
Heritage ‘brand’ is likely to dilute the benefits to be derived from
such a quality ‘trademark’ with the source of differentiation achieved
through brand recognition no longer carrying influence in the
market.
5 To date, there are too many instances of misuse and misinterpret-
ation of World Heritage status despite operational guidelines pro-
vided by UNESCO. For consistent use of the ‘brand’ to be
achieved, significant resources need to be made available – an
unlikely event in many parts of the world.
6 There is a real need to manage stakeholders more effectively at
sites and minimize the potential for stakeholder conflict.
7 A number of sites have yet to capture fully the economic benefits
to be derived from tourism. Accepting that tourism is to remain a
central component of World Heritage, more directed efforts are
required in the future for sites to reduce leakages and improve
economic benefits to be derived from tourism and to the local
community.
8 Managing security and gauging the impact of security on travel
patterns is fundamental to all attractions, but particularly WHS,
where they are a magnet for visitors. Sites need to be fully aware
of changing patterns of demography and leisure trends among
their key markets and the principal sources of competition. The
migration to ‘destination’ style attractions is significant in that
those WHS that have around them a critical mass of tourist provi-
sion are likely to be those that succeed in the longer term. Clearly,
the wider destination needs to be considered in its entirety.
9 Not only do many World Heritage Sites require more effective
packaging but more innovative approaches to the development of
World Heritage trails, cross-border initiatives and collaboration
with other destination stakeholders need to be developed to maxi-
mize the benefits to be derived from tourism.

Clearly, more research – and especially the collection, analysis and

reporting of data at the micro ‘Site’ level – is necessary to underpin

287
Conclusions

the above issues and for sound judgements to be made and effective
strategies developed and implemented. With the constant expansion
of the WHL, the need for more research output becomes critical if the
management of World Heritage is to move forward and make the
most of the tourism potential that exists; both now and in the future.

References

Pedersen, A. (2002) Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites: A

Practical Manual for World Heritage Site Managers. Paris: UNESCO.
World Heritage Committee (1994) Expert meeting on the Global
Strategy and thematic studies for a representative World Heritage
List, UNESCO Headquarters, 20–22 June 1994. http://whc.
unesco.org/archive/global94.htm (accessed 14 March 2005).

288
 Index

Accessibility 60–1, 166 Brazil, Historic Centre of Salvador de

American Land Sovereignty Protection Bahia 244
Act 246 Budapest, Hungary 217–18
Americas 239–49 Cultural Avenue 220–4
challenges 243–7 World Heritage management 218–20
opportunities 242–3 Buffer zones 7, 10, 40, 71, 76
see also USA and South American Bunaken Marine National Park, Indonesia
countries 106–8
Angkor Wat, Cambodia 89–90, 105 Burra Charter (1999) 265
Anthropocentrism 252–4, 256
Anthropomorphism 252 Cambodia, Angkor Wat 89–90, 104
ARCHEOGUIDE, Olympia, Greece 137–41 Canada 247
Augmented reality 135 Rocky Mountains National Park 60
Australia Canterbury Cathedral, UK 50, 85
CERRA 274–84 Castle of Teutonic Order, Poland 151–2
Department of the Environment and Cedars of Lebanon see Quadisha Valley,
Heritage 29 Lebanon
Environment Protection and CERRA, Australia 274–84
Biodiversity Conservation China
Regulations 2000 28 Chinese common knowledge 252–3
Gordon-below-Franklin Dam 26 Chinese worldview 252–3, 256–8, 260
Great Barrier Reef 9, 30 Huangshan 251–60
implementation 25 Jiuzhaigou Valley 227–37
Kakadu 27 Lijiang 167, 205–14
legal protection of WH sites 25 Liuzhaigou Valley 227–37
National Parks and Wildlife Mogao caves 87
Conservation Act 1975 26 Museum of Terracotta Warriors 105
National Regulatory Framework 26–30 National Cultural Relics Protection Act,
Uluru 61, 91–2 1982 207
Wild Rivers National Park 26 City of Quito, Ecuador 244
Avatar 135 Collection management databases 130,
Ayer’s Rock see Uluru, Australia 140–1
Colonial City of Santo Domingo,
Barrier Reef Reserve System, Belize 245 Dominican Republic 245
Belgium, ENAME 136 Communities
Belize, Barrier Reef Reserve System 245 host 50, 106–8, 210–11, 265
Biocentrism 253 indigenous 228, 230–1
Botswana, Tsodilo 42 see also Stakeholders
Brand control 171–2 Community participation 38–40, 101, 199,
Brand image 58–9, 117, 163–4, 222–3, 287 208
dilution of 171 layers and levels 47–51
Index

Computers see ICTs Edinburgh, UK 116–21

Conflict Edinburgh World Heritage 120
national-international interests 149–50, Education 128, 130
269 Empowerment 230–2
stakeholders 13 legal 233–6
Conservation 13, 40, 71, 113, 162, 184, 190, shortcomings of 232–3
228 ENAME, Belgium 136
Australia 26–8 England
mission reports 10–11 legal protection of WH sites 24–5
support from tourism for 99–100 see also UK
use of ICTs in 126–7 English Heritage 45–6, 101, 166, 183
Convention Concerning the Protection of Environmental impact 10–11, 200, 232–3
the World’s Cultural and Natural European Landscape Convention (2000)
Heritage 6–7 265
Crime and security 88–91
Cuba, Old Havana 245 Festivals 110–24
Cultural Avenue, Budapest, Hungary Fishbourne Palace, UK 133
220–4 Funding 12, 43, 98, 154–6
Cultural heritage 126–7, 252–4 lack of 245
Cultural impact 211, 232–3, 235–6, 243–4 Future solutions 153–6
Cultural landscape 40, 168, 259
Cultural sensitivity 85, 91–2 Galapagos Islands, Ecuador 104
Cultural space 112–13, 119–20 Giant’s Causeway, Northern Ireland
Cultural tourists see Tourism; Tourists 56–7, 64–7
Cultural typology 49 Global Biosphere Reserve 228
Cultural values 13, 255–6, 265, 274–5 Global icons 165, 172
Cuzco, Peru 244 Global Strategy 11, 14, 149, 160, 168–9,
286
Decontextualization 270 Goals 148
De-designation 156 Grand Canyon National Park, USA 60
De-marketing 59–60 Great Barrier Reef, Australia 9, 30
Designation 8–13, 41, 116, 156, 209, 265–6, Greece, Olympia 137–41
286 Greenwich, UK 48, 112, 113, 116–21
evaluation of effects of 30–1
implications of 12–13, 208–10, 217–18 Hadrian’s Wall, UK 9–10, 24, 50, 52
Destination management 72–4, 219 protection of 24
concept 74–5 Tourism Partnership 52
definition 75–7 Hagar Qim Temples, Malta 167, 267–70
divestment/legacy 79–80 Haiti, National History Park-Citadel, Sans
operation 78–9 Souci 245
production 77–8 Hard law 22
Developing world 41–4 Heritage consumption 163
Dominican Republic, Colonial City of Heritage tourism 57–8, 162–4, 170
Santo Domingo 245 Historic Center of Salvador de Bahia,
Brazil 244
Easter Island 59 Home Study Museum of Diego Rivera
Economic impact 172, 202, 210, 244–5, 287 and Frida Kahlo, Mexico 152
Ecuador Honduras, Rio Plantano Biosphere
City of Quito 244 Reserve and Copan Maya Site 245–6
Galapagos Islands 104 Huangshan, China 251–60

290
 Index

Human threats to WH sites 243–4 International Convention for the

Hungary, Budapest 217–18 Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Avenue 220–4 Cultural Heritage 42
World Heritage management 218–20 International Council on Monuments and
Sites see ICOMOS
ICCROM 10 International Union for the Conservation
ICOMOS 10, 149 of Nature and Natural Resources see
future 16 IUCN
ICOMOS-UK 10, 41, 44 Interpretation 61, 128, 257, 265, 279
The World Heritage List. Filling the Gaps – Cultural Avenue, Budapest 217–19
an Action Plan for the Future 39–40, Huangshan, China 259–60
42, 168–9 Stonehenge 189–90
Iconic status 165, 172 use of ICTs in 134–41
ICTs 125–44 Ironbridge Gorge, UK 48
ARCHEOGUIDE, Olympia 137–41 Italy, Venice 7, 165
augmented reality 135 IUCN 149
avatar 135 designation 252, 259
collection management databases 130, future 16
140–1 IUCN-UK 10
definition 126–9 reports see World Heritage List
eNAME, Belgium 136
mobile multi-media guides 130, 136–7 Jiuzhaigou Valley, China 227–37
ticketing and reservations 130, 131–2
virtual reality 134–5 Kakadu, Australia 27
websites 130, 132–4 Komodo, Indonesia 102
Impact Koutammakou, Togo 43
cultural 211, 232–3, 235–6, 243–4 KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation
economic 172, 202, 210, 244–5, 287 Service, South Africa 102
environmental 10–11, 200, 232–3
of inscription 208–10 La Amistad Reserves and National Park,
visitor 190–1, 200, 229–30, 245, 266 Costa Rica-Panama 242
Implementation 21–2 Lake District, UK 40–1
Independence Hall, Philadelphia, USA 246 Laos, Luang Prabang 102–3
India Law see Legislation
Mountain Railways 7 Lebanon, Quadisha Valley 86
Taj Mahal 58, 85, 88, 89 Legislation 22
Indonesia empowerment 233–6
Bunaken Marine National Park 106–8 enforcement of 24
Komodo 102 hard 22
Information communication technologies implications of Listing 13
see ICTs revenue 106–8
Inscription 7 soft 22
deferral 10 Lijiang, China 167, 205–14
impact of 208–10 List of World Heritage in Danger 10, 12,
motivation for 12 43, 89–90, 156
process 9, 15–16 Liuzhaigou Valley, China 227–37
rationale 161–2, 208–10, 255 Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City, UK
International Centre for the Study of the 72–8
Preservation and Restoration of Local Authority World Heritage
Cultural Property see ICCROM Forum 48

291
Index

Local Effort And Preservation (LEAP) Natural heritage 252–4

programme 208, 209 Natural wear and tear 245–6
Local Strategic Partnerships 101 New Zealand
Luang Prabang, Laos 102–3 Te Wahi Pounamu 62
Tongariro National Park 60
Machupicchu Historical Sanctuary, Peru Northern Ireland, Giant’s Causeway
195–204 56–7, 64–7
Malta 264–5 Norway, fjords 7
Hagar Qim Temples 167, 267–70
Management Old Havana, Cuba 245
Huangshan, China 256–60 Online booking 132
information communications Operational Guidelines 7, 10, 13, 17, 39
technologies 125–44 Orientalism vs Westernism 256–60
issues 11–13, 112–13, 149–50, 256–60,
277, 285–7 Parastatals 101–2
parastatals 101–2 Partnerships 100–2
partnerships 100–2 Peripheral regions 24–5, 60–1, 117
structures 100–2, 199–202, 218–19, 224, Peru
270–1, 277, 281–2 Cuzco 244
Management Plan 10 Machupicchu Historical Sanctuary
Marketing 173 195–204
branding 58–9, 117, 163–4, 170–1, Planning and implementation 21–2
222–3, 287 Poland 151
de-marketing 59–60 Castle of Teutonic Order 151–2
icons 172 Political will, lack of 245
issues 246–7, 283–4, 287 Poverty alleviation 236
management 270 Practices 148–51
mix 61–2, 223–4 Pre-visit information 128–9
re-branding 51–3
strategy 62–7 Quadisha Valley, Lebanon 86
type, scale and market reach 57–8
Market saturation 171 Re-branding 51–3
Megalithic Temples, Malta 264–72 Regulation 22–6
Mexico 151, 242 Representation 14–15, 88, 149–50,
Home Study Museum of Diego Rivera 241–2
and Frida Kahlo 152 Revenue
Mobile multi-media guides 130, 136–7 legislation 106–8
Mogao caves, China 87 Lijiang, China 212
Motivation maximization 104–8, 268
for inscription 12 Stonehenge, UK 191–2
tourists 71–2 Rio Plantano Biosphere Reserve and
Mountain Railways, India 7 Copan Maya Site, Honduras 245–6
Museum of Terracotta Warriors, China 105 Robben Island, South Africa 89
Rocky Mountains National Park,
National decision-making 151–3 Canada 60
National History Park-Citadel, Sans Royal Observatory 134
Souci, Haiti 245
National Maritime Museum 140–1 St Kilda 7
National Trust 41, 101, 185 Silk Road 87
website 132–3 Soft law 22

292
 Index

South Africa CERRA 277–8

KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation conservation 13, 28, 40, 71, 99–100, 113,
Service 102 126–7, 162, 184, 190, 202–3, 228
Robben Island 89 contribution to WH site management
Spain 153 99–109
‘Spirit of Place’ 85–8, 99 destination management 72–4, 219
Spiritual-oriented tourists 244 economic benefits 172
Stakeholders heritage 57–8, 162–4, 170
CERRA 278 links with 102–4
conflict 13 revenues from 104–6
consensus 13 support for conservation 99–100
consultation 24, 40–1 sustainable 231–2
management 171–2, 278, 287 visitation 164–7, 172–3, 183–4, 186–9,
participation 38–40, 47–51, 78–9, 100–4, 192, 198, 209, 211–12, 217–18, 229,
114, 117–18, 235, 280, 283 243, 246–57, 266, 268
priorities 13 Tourism Area Lifecycle 76–7
see also Communities; Partnerships Tourist information centres 115
States Parties 7, 149 Tourists
European 150 characteristics 49
identification and listing of sites motivation and engagement 71–2
8–9, 10 spiritual-oriented 244
involvement 11, 24 see also Visitor
motivations 12, 150 Trails
national decision-making 151–3 Cultural Avenue 220–2
ratification by 7 development 173, 287
responsibilities 28 Rainforest Way 278–83
Statue of Liberty, USA 90 Silk Road 87
Stonehenge, UK 12 touring routes 274, 278–83
stakeholders 44–7 Trans-boundary 9
Stonehenge Project 86 Trans-national 242, 287
Visitor Centre 45 Tsodilo, Botswana 42
visitor management 85–6, 181–94
Strategy 147–8, 279–81 Uguazu Falls, Brazil-Argentina 242
UK
Taj Mahal, India 58, 85, 88, 89 Canterbury Cathedral 50, 85
Tentative Lists 8–11, 14–15, 40 Edinburgh 116–21
Te Wahi Pounamu, New Zealand 62 Fishbourne Palace 133
The Americas 240–7 Greenwich 48, 112, 113, 116–21
Themed routes see Trails Hadrian’s Wall 9–10, 24, 50, 52
Tibet see Jiuzhaigou Valley Ironbridge Gorge 48
Ticketing and reservations 130, 131–2 Lake District 40–1
Togo, Koutammakou 43 Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City
Tongariro National Park, New Zealand 60 72–8
Touring routes see Trails Stonehenge see Stonehenge
Tourism Uluru, Australia 61, 91–2
at World Heritage Sites 13–14, 31, 49, UNESCO 2, 149
57–8, 64–7, 113–21, 127–9, 160–75, Convention concerning the Protection
182–5, 207, 217–18, 259, 275, 277–8, of the World’s Cultural and
286 Natural Heritage 6–7
Budapest, Hungary 217–18 definition 6

293
Index

UNESCO (contd) World Heritage List 11, 148

funding 15 future completion of 16
involvement 199 implementation 21–2
Operational Guidelines 13 implications of listing 12–13, 21
role of 6 representation and balance 14–15
see also Tourism, at World Heritage Sites sustainability of 168–9
Unipolar destination 196 World Heritage Properties Conservation
Urbanization 244 Act 1983 151–2
USA 246, 246–7 World Heritage Sites
American Land Sovereignty Protection advisory Bodies see ICCROM;
Act 246 ICOMOS; IUCN
Grand Canyon National Park 60 buffer zones 7, 10, 40, 71, 76
Independence Hall, Philadelphia 246 crime and security 88–91
Statue of Liberty 90 criteria 7–8, 228, 254
Yellowstone National Park 60 definition 6–8, 7, 11, 148
designation see Designation
Venice, Italy 7, 165 funding 12, 43, 98, 154–5, 245
Virtual reality 134–5 future of 16, 41–3, 153–6, 168–73, 243,
VisitBritain 183 286
Visitor behaviour 170 identification and listing 8–9
Visitor expectations 49 information communication technology
Visitor impact 190–1, 200, 229–30, 245, 266 125–44
Visitor management 83–93 inscription see Inscription
Budapest 218–20 legal protection 24
crime and security 88–91, 287 List of World Heritage in Danger 10,
huangshan 257 43, 89–90, 156
issues 139 Management Plans 10, 28–9, 40, 48,
Lijiang, China 167, 205–14 121, 201
Machupicchu Historical Sanctuary, nomination 148–9
Peru 195–204 number of 16
‘Spirit of Place’ 85–8 Operational Guidelines 7, 10, 13, 39
Stonehenge, UK 45, 85–6, 181–94 political influence 14, 76, 149–50, 245,
Visitor surveys 185–8, 208 282
Visitor type 170 re-branding 51–3
steering groups 117
Waterton-Glaciar International Peace Tentative Lists 8–11, 14–15, 40
Park, USA-Canada 242 tourism activities at 13–14
Websites 130, 132–4 values 24, 27–8, 30, 50–1, 71, 198
Western scientific paradigm 256 visitation at 164–7
Wild Rivers National Park, Australia 26 see also Global Strategy
World Heritage Centre 10 Wrangell-St Elias and Glacier Bay,
World Heritage Committee 7, 10, 25, 39 USA-Canada 242
World Heritage Convention 7, 10, 12, 15,
148 Yellowstone National Park, USA 60
implementation of 22–6
regulatory aspects 22–6

294