Cultural Tourism and Accessibility 175
areas where they are at one with one another.
For instance, a considerable cultural change has occurred within the rural community that accepts, indeed welcomes, the urban visitor into their life – especially when and where the host can gain fi nancially from the social exchange.
In many parts of the world the physical evidence of culture, the built artefacts, need to be accessed in order to obtain maximum benefi t for the visitor. It will also be noted that access needs to be undertaken with a responsible attitude that has sustainability at its heart. Thankfully, acculturalization is not an automatic result of access, although if it is not to occur, access must be managed and monitored carefully by both professionals and community representatives.
Review Questions
1. Consider the challenges surrounding the
© CAB International 2011. Research Themes for Tourism
176 (eds P. Robinson, S. Heitmann and P.U.C. Dieke)
Carol Southall and Peter Robinson
Introduction
Heritage, according to the UN Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2010), is our legacy from the past, what we live with today and what we pass on to future generations. Much of the tourism industry around the world is based upon cultural heritage and many of the most important places are open to the public. As Deacon (2004, p. 317) observed, ‘heritage and tourism appear to be strange bedfellows.’ And yet, there is increasing evidence of their coupling around the globe. Research around Robben Island (Hede, 2007) identifi ed the contested and politicized nature of the management, con- servation and interpretation of heritage sites.
McMorran (2008) observed that ‘The Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, urban- ization, two world wars and recently amplifi ed globalization have all inspired nostalgia for lost or vanishing architecture, ways of life and social values’, which manifests itself as heritage.
English Heritage (2003) explained that this is important because ‘we know that people value the historic environment, derive enormous benefi ts and satisfaction from it, and are concerned when it is neglected’, but also observed that ‘in order to ensure that the historic environment is adequately represented in the allocation of resources we need to be able to quantify the values that it generates’.
What is clear is that, for many tourists, cultural heritage is a signifi cant component of their holiday. This is supported by Evans (2004), who observed that ‘the sun, sea and sand off er alone has, as elsewhere, begun to wane in
Cancun, even with the promotion of sports tourism (e.g. scuba diving), and most tourism packages now include trips to the archaeological zones of the ancient Mayan sites of Chichen Itza, Tulum and Uxmal’. Whatever the reason for this, and in whatever capacity, destinations are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of maximizing their heritage potential, sometimes to the detriment of that heritage.
Defi ning Heritage
Many defi nitions of heritage make reference, either directly or indirectly, to aspects of or the notion of culture, as indeed many defi nitions of culture make reference to heritage. The European Travel Commission (in VisitBritain, 2010) includes heritage sites in its defi nition of cultural attractions.
There are numerous defi nitions of heritage, many of which, as noted, incorporate reference to the concept of culture. It is, however, important to consider the diff erence between heritage and culture (see Chapter 12) in order to be able to focus more clearly on the heritage tourism concept that is fundamental to this chapter. It is proposed that where heritage tourism often refers to visiting places of historical interest and signifi cance such as castles, monuments and museums, cultural tourism involves participation in and experience of those activities, rituals and routines by which a community is defi ned. Cultural tourism, argued Dallen and Boyd (2003), ‘goes beyond the visitation of sites and monuments, to
Heritage Tourism 177
include consuming the way of life of places visited.’ Both cultural tourism and heritage tourism are experiential tourism in that they involve personal involvement and stimulation, whether in the sense of feeling part of a place’s history or being involved in or stimulated by cultural activities such as festivals and performing arts (Hall and Zeppel, 1990, cited in Dallen and Boyd, 2003).
Heritage has been defi ned by Tilden (1996, cited in Goulding, 1998) as ‘an activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships as an art, and revelations based upon information whose aim is not instruction but provocation’.
Schouten (1995) said ‘Heritage is history pro- cessed through mythology, ideology, national- ism, local pride, romantic ideas or just plain marketing, into a commodity’. Both identifi ed the idea of the commodifi cation of history to create a product for tourism consumption.
Furthermore, heritage tourism has been described by Pedersen (2002) as embracing
‘both eco-tourism and cultural tourism, with an emphasis on conservation and cultural heri- tage’, refl ecting the signifi cant debate that has seen the scope of cultural heritage evolve from the monuments, groups of buildings and sites set out in the World Heritage Convention to now include cultural landscapes and intangible heritage.
Clearly there are many diff ering defi nitions of heritage. According to Hardy (1988, cited in Dallen and Boyd, 2003), however, ‘Most researchers accept that heritage is linked to the past, that it represents some sort of inheritance to be passed down to current and future generations, both in terms of cultural traditions and physical artefacts’. Dallen and Boyd (2003) also dis cussed the idea of selective heritage, whereby society ‘fi lters heritage through a value system that undoubtedly changes over time and space, and across society.’ Thus, they argued
‘heritage is not simply the past, but the modern- day use of elements of the past.’
Heritage tourism, then, for the purposes of this chapter, may be simply defi ned as visits to and experiences of places of historical importance and signifi cance. This is a broad defi nition that incorporates the tangible and intangible nature of the heritage product.
Whether tangible or intangible, heritage tour-
ism is an essential component of the tourism concept as it is interwoven into the fabric of the tourism experience and covers a breadth of attractions. These include the following:
• Industrial archaeology (e.g. Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site, UK, and the Big Pit National Coal Museum, Blaenavon, Wales).
• Stately homes (e.g. Chatsworth, UK).
• Art galleries (e.g. The Louvre, France, and Rijksmuseum, The Netherlands).
• Battlefi elds (e.g. The Somme and Agincourt, France, and Bannockburn, Stirling, Scot- land).
• Castles (e.g. Warwick Castle, UK, and Neuschwanstein Castle, Bavaria, Germany).
• Cathedrals (e.g. York Minster, UK, and Cologne Cathedral, Germany).
• Historic waterways (e.g. British canals and the Canal du Midi, France).
• Ancient sites (e.g. Mam Tor Hillfort, UK, and the Acropolis, Greece).
• Prehistoric sites (e.g. Stonehenge, UK, and Lascaux Caves, France).
• Museums (e.g. Natural History Museum, London, UK, and The Prado Museum, Madrid, Spain).
Swarbrooke (2001) explored the notion of heritage ownership, explaining that most heritage sites and attractions fall under public and voluntary sector ownership. This is mainly due to the fact that they share similar motiv- ations for ownership and operation, which include conservation and education as well as visitor management (Swarbrooke, 2001).
Indeed, in part due to the drive towards sustainability, the ownership of heritage sites and attractions is often a contested issue, with many arguing that stakeholder cooperation and collaboration is key to the survival of heritage sites and attractions and that ‘cooperation can create situations where a wider range of tourism attractions are made available to visitors, as well as ensuring higher rates of success for specifi c types of attractions’ (Dallen and Boyd, 2003).
In addition, ‘cooperation, collaboration and partnership (e.g. between private, public and voluntary ownership and between places) have become more prominent [as] partnerships have the potential to promote the principles and practices of sustainable development’ (Dallen
and Boyd, 2003). Many heritage resources overlap both in terms of boundaries and, in some cases, ownership (Boyd and Timothy, 2001, cited in Dallen and Boyd, 2003). In such cases, cooperation is required to maintain an eff ective balance between conservation, the interests of owners and the local community, and the benefi ts of tourism.
The exclusion of local communities from their own heritage is also an issue in con- sideration of heritage ‘ownership’. Wall and Black (2004) discussed the less-than-adequate representation of and respect for local com- munity views in the management and planning of Indonesian heritage sites:
The tendency to adopt top-down, rational, comprehensive plan ning procedures has resulted in the dis enfranchisement of local people whose ancestors have lived with and been the guardians of the sites, sometimes for centuries. This process has tended to … [exclude] people from their own heritage.
(Wall and Black, 2004)
Heritage and Culture
Both heritage and culture are synonymous with the concept of inheritance and the passage of time. Indeed, it is diffi cult to focus on heritage without also acknowledging the culture within which it prevails, and which impacts upon both its presence and its operation; the two are fi rmly interwoven.
According to the Nation Brands Index, developed by Simon Anholt in 2005 to measure the image and reputation of the world’s nations in terms of six key dimensions of national competence (exports, governance, culture, people, tourism and immigration and investment), France, Italy and the UK are in fi rst, second and fourth place respectively with their relatively balanced cultural brands that span cultural heritage, sport and contemporary culture (Anholt-Gfk Roper, 2009). The rich cultural heritage of developing countries such as China and India assures that they rank highly in the cultural heritage aspect of the 2009 index. The cultural aspect of the Nation Brands Index combines perceptions of a country’s heritage as well as contemporary
culture such as music, art and literature and a country’s excellence in sport.
According to VisitBritain (2010), research indicates that almost 60% of people from 20 countries consider history and culture to be strong infl uences on their choice of destination.
Thus it is imperative that any focus on heritage tourism should be underpinned throughout by the recognition of its vital role within the tourism system and the interrelated nature of heritage tourism and other signifi cant com- ponents of the tourism destination region.
Clearly, heritage tourism defi nes much tourist activity across the world, because it encompasses most cultural attractions and defi nes the characteristics of nearly all tourist destinations. It is, therefore, essential that the continued management of these destinations is focused upon long-term planning and designed for a balanced approach to fi nancial, environ- mental and sociocultural sustainability. The heritage sector is most commonly and formally recognized internationally through UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHS). These sites are considered to be of international signifi cance, and include Australia’s Sydney Opera House, Austria’s Schönbrunn Palace, Cambodia’s Angkor and the UK’s Tower of London. It is also synonymous with brands such as The National Trust, which although English in origin enjoys a working relationship with numerous other
‘national trusts’ around the globe.
The heritage sector provides numerous challenges. Sustainability is of paramount importance and a number of debates remain around this issue. Fyall and Garrod (1998) argued that:
Heritage and sustainability share a common theme of inheritance [where] heritage tourism is, as an economic activity, predicated on the use of inherited environmental and socio-cultural assets in order to attract visitors [and] sustainability requires that those assets are carefully managed to ensure that future generations inherit a resource base that is suffi cient to support their needs and wants.
It is, of course, essential that heritage is preserved and managed for the future, but to preserve in aspic and to prevent access is a pointless exercise because why save heritage if not to share it with a wide audience and use it
Heritage Tourism 179
as a tool for education? Conversely though, without eff ective management over-use, over- crowding and poor education will quickly diminish both the physical and educative uses of a site. This is supported by the European Travel Council (2005), which argued that ‘The World Heritage List – developed by UNESCO with the intention of defi ning and conserving world heritage – can have the opposite eff ect due to the growing popularity of the heritage sites on the list.’ It is important to strike a balance between the negative eff ect of too little tourism on cultural heritage, resulting in lack of aware- ness, decay and insuffi cient fi nancial resources for maintenance, and too much tourism, potentially resulting in vandalism and misuse.
Management and Access
The management of and access to heritage sites has increasingly come under scrutiny in recent years. Undoubtedly heritage resources require eff ective management and preservation due to the fact that they are irreplaceable (Dallen and Boyd, 2003). The concepts of management and sustainability are often linked, and it is import- ant to recognize that strategic planning for heritage sites should include recognition of the need for sustainable practice (Dallen and Boyd, 2003). In addition, in the case of heritage site management ‘[s]trategic zoning and phasing should support sustainable tourism to achieve an equitable distribution of wealth and the preservation of … cultural and natural resources’
(Wager, 1995).
‘Questions of ownership, access and management of heritage sites and collections, although increasingly raised by indigenous groups and their vocal leaders, seldom feature in tourism promotion and planning or in strategies for community and local economic development’ (Evans, 2004). Much of this is due to the fact that heritage sites are often funded by Western organizations, mainly from Europe and North America.
World Heritage
According to UNESCO (2010), the organization
‘seek[s] to encourage the identifi cation, protection and preservation of cultural and
natural heritage around the world considered to be of outstanding value to humanity’. UNESCO’s World Heritage Mission is as follows:
• To encourage countries to sign the World Heritage Convention and to ensure the protection of their natural and cultural heritage.
• To encourage States Parties (countries that have adhered to the World Heritage Convention) to the Convention to nominate sites within their national territory for inclusion on the World Heritage List.
• To encourage States Parties to establish management plans and set up reporting systems on the state of conservation of their WHS.
• To help States Parties safeguard World Heritage properties by providing technical assistance and professional training.
• To provide emergency assistance for WHS in immediate danger.
• To support States Parties’ public awareness- building activities for World Heritage conservation.
• To encourage participation of the local population in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage.
• To encourage international cooperation in the conservation of our world’s cultural and natural heritage.
UNESCO is keen for WHS to contribute in a meaningful way to the life of their local communities, while also being preserved and protected for future generations. However, WHS have become so popular as tourist attractions that many scholars now describe World Heritage status as a ‘brand’ while others speak of it as an authenticity stamp for the heritage tourist or a ‘trademark’. If the signifi cance that allowed a site to gain World Heritage status is to be maintained, and WHS are to remain accessible to current and future generations, then managing tourism activity in a sensitive and sustainable is a critical issue.
Current research suggests that many WHS operators are failing to manage their sites (or the consequential economic and social sustain- ability) in a consistent way, with some sites considered to be at risk and others failing to
deliver an eff ective legacy within host com- munities. One condition of inscription on the World Heritage Cultural List is the application of zoning and legislation to manage sites, which, according to Wager (1995) may include
‘site plans; a marketing strategy; a legal framework; regulations; a system of eff ective administration; fi nancing structures; a programme for staff training; and arrangements for public participation’. This is especially true as the simple fact that WHS status is granted has an impact on the importance of the site as
‘must-see’ place for tourists to visit.
Public access can also mean very diff erent things, and may refer to simply being able to see an historic site through to opportunities for education and active involvement in conser- vation. Relationships exist between heritage and volunteering, and the growth of volunteering as part of the serious leisure movement. Access is also defi ned by the nature of the site (discussed in further detail in Chapter 12).
Many research issues revolve around these management challenges. Consider fi rst a ‘do not touch’ sign positioned on an antique chair.
Well-intentioned though it is, it is also an unfriendly sign, a negative message that suits the needs of conservators worried about historic fabrics but that attracts the antipathy of front- facing staff keen to provide a visitor welcome. Of course there are compromises – the provision of extra seating for visitors (although often in marked contrast to a historic interior) or more sensitive touches such as placing a rope across the chair. Other attractions may take the opposite approach and allow visitors to sit on and touch everything within reach, placing items for preservation beyond arms reach with ropes, barriers and covers.
Throughout the heritage sector there is a constant debate between the two management specialisms that exist. On one side are the conservators, keen to preserve everything because restoration is costly and results in no original items. On the other side are the business-facing parts of the business, which recognize the need to welcome visitors, perhaps sometimes to the cost of historic furniture.
There are two other key areas to consider in discussions around management and access.
Case Study 13.1. Ironbridge Gorge.
Ironbridge Gorge in Shropshire is a WHS that tells the story of the Industrial Revolution from what is believed to be the birthplace of the revolution. Despite the fact that this claim has been contested by numerous other destinations, the ‘attraction’, which comprises 10 museums and numerous other sites, also represents breadth of access issues.
The main museum sites are traditional museums (including the Museum of Iron, the Jackfi eld Tile Museum, the Coalport China Museum, the Museum of The Gorge and the Tollhouse) with hand-on exhibits, items in display cases and a range of interpretive techniques. This philosophy changes at Broseley Pipeworks, where visitors are encouraged to experience the site as if the last workers have just left – this site having not been abandoned until the 1950s. In addition the area is littered with industrial heritage, mainly comprising disused and defunct kilns, many in a ruinous state but suffi ciently stabilized that they are safe to explore. Other kilns – the ones where, for example, the iron bridge was cast – are protected in weatherproof buildings with access managed by designated walkways and viewing platforms.
At the Blists Hill Victorian Town in Ironbridge, an entire Victorian town is recreated on a historic iron- and brick-making site, with costumed interpretation, traditional crafts in action, fairground rides and ruins of industrial relics. In contrast to the other museums on the site, visitors are encouraged to touch, feel and experience heritage more closely. Taking this one stage further Enginuity, the newest of the attractions, provides a full range of hands-on activities aimed at children to explain the principles of science and engineering that were fi rst pioneered in the Gorge.
This case study exemplifi es the very different management requirements at each of these sites, despite one overall management committee. This deliberate approach is designed to offer different types of accessibility and experience to visitors, but also means that management is challenging. Curatorial respon sibilities at the Coalport China Museum, home to rare and priceless artefacts, is very different to the care and management needed at a site where everything is a hands-on experiment. The management challenge is not about restoring the past, but managing the equipment to minimize damage and failure that could impact negatively on the visitor experience.