World Heritage Sites


Tourism, Local Communities and Conservation Activities

Takamitsu Jimura

Liverpool John Moores University, UK

CABI is a trading name of CAB International

CABI CABINosworthy Way 745 Atlantic AvenueWallingford 8th FloorOxfordshire OX10 8DE Boston, MA 02111UK USA

Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 Tel: +1 (617)682-9015Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508 E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]: www.cabi.org

© Takamitsu Jimura 2019. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Jimura, Takamitsu, author.Title: World Heritage sites : tourism, local communities and conservation

activities / Takamitsu Jimura, Liverpool John Moores University, UK.Description: Boston, Massachusetts : CAB International, [2018] | Includes

bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2018037000| ISBN 9781786392688 (Hardback) | ISBN

9781786392671 (ePDF) | ISBN 9781786392695 (ePub)Subjects: LCSH: World Heritage areas--Management. | Heritage tourism. |

Cultural property--Conservation and restoration.Classification: LCC G140.5 .J56 2018 | DDC 338.4/791--dc23 LC record

available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018037000

ISBN-13: 9781786392688 (Hardback)9781786392695 (ePub)9781786392671 (ePDF)

Commissioning Editor: Alex LainsburyEditorial Assistant: Tabitha Lucy JayProduction Editor: Ali Thompson

Typeset by SPi, Pondicherry, IndiaPrinted and bound in the UK by Severn, Gloucester

http://www.cabi.org

https://lccn.loc.gov/2018037000

v

Acknowledgements ix

Preface xi

Abbreviations and Acronyms xiii

List of Figures xv

List of Tables xvii

List of Case Studies xix

1 World Heritage Sites – An Introduction 11. Aim and Scope of the Book 12. Organizations Related to World Heritage Sites 23. The Historical Background of World Heritage Sites 44. The World Heritage Convention and Mission of World Heritage Sites 65. Designation of World Heritage Sites 76. Concepts of Heritage and World Heritage Sites 97. Eastern and Western Perspectives 118. Structure of the Book 15

2 Heritage Management and Conservation Activities at World Heritage Sites 201. Introduction 202. Postmodernism, Globalization and WHSs 223. Reality of Heritage Management and Conservation Activities at WHSs 24Case Study: Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range (WHS Kii) – Cultural WHS in Japan, Listed in 2004 284. Conclusion 29

3 Tourism Development at World Heritage Sites 341. Tourism Development 342. Tourism Development at World Heritage Sites 40

Contents

vi Contents

Case Study: Old Town of Lijiang (WHS Lijiang) – Cultural WHS in China, Listed in 1997 443. Conclusion 44

4 Tourism Marketing at World Heritage Sites 491. Tourism and Destination Marketing 492. World Heritage Sites: Tourism and Destination Marketing 56Case Study: Promoting, Discouraging or Banning Tourism at WHSs 603. Conclusion 60

5 Local Communities in and around World Heritage Sites 651. Local Communities and Local People 652. Local People’s Views towards Changes 683. Introduction to Four Kinds of Changes in Local Communities 714. Psychological Impacts of World Heritage Status and Tourism after

WHS Designation (Attitudinal Changes) 72Case Study: The UK’s Industrial WHSs and Local Communities 755. Conclusion 76

6 The Economic Impacts of World Heritage Site Designation on Local Communities 811. The Economic Impacts of Tourism 812. The Economic Impacts of WH Status and Tourism at WHSs 853. Economic Changes in and around World Heritage Sites and

Local People’s Views 86Case Study: Economic Impacts of Tourism on Natural WHSs in Africa 924. Conclusion 92

7 The Sociocultural Impacts of World Heritage Site Designation on Local Communities 961. The Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism 962. The Sociocultural Impacts of WH Status and Tourism at WHSs 1003. The Sociocultural Changes in and around World Heritage Sites and

Local People’s Views 103Case Study: Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama – Cultural WHS in Japan, Listed in 1995 1084. Conclusion 109

8 The Environmental Impacts of World Heritage Site Designation on Local Communities 1141. The Environmental Impacts of Tourism 1142. The Environmental Impacts of WH Status and Tourism at WHSs 1193. Environmental Changes in and around World Heritage Sites

and Local People’s Views 122Case Study: Natural WHSs in the USA and Japan 1254. Conclusion 126

Contents vii

9 Contemporary Developments in and around World Heritage Sites and Their Implications 1311. Introduction 1312. Contemporary Developments in World Heritage Sites 1323. Contemporary Developments around World Heritage Sites 1374. Conclusion 142

10 Reflection (Summary) 1471. World Heritage Sites 1472. Eastern and Western Viewpoints 1503. World Heritage Sites: Heritage Management and Conservation Activities 1524. World Heritage Sites: Tourism 1535. World Heritage Sites: Local Communities 1546. Changes in Local Communities and Views towards Changes 1557. Contemporary Developments in and around World Heritage Sites 1578. Suggested Academic Models 158

Index 161

ix

Acknowledgements

First of all, I am really grateful to CABI and its books team, especially my commissioning editor Ms Alex Lainsbury, for giving me an opportunity to write a book about the themes that I have been researching for more than 16 years, and for offering me helpful guidance throughout my book writing process. The support from Ms Tabitha Jay and Mrs Ali Thompson has also been essential for me to complete this book.

A number of people and organizations have supported my academic journey to date. Regarding my research as an MSc and PhD student, I am grateful to my supervisors, tutors and peers at the University of Greenwich and Nottingham Trent University. I could develop my interest in and knowl-edge of the World Heritage Sites, tourism, local communities and conservation activities through studying with them. I would also like to thank my colleagues at York St John University and Liverpool John Moores University for their understanding of my research and the inspiration they have giv-en me. A special ‘thank you’ goes to Liverpool John Moores University for their support for this book project. In addition, I have learned a lot from heritage and/or tourism researchers with whom I have worked on research projects. I have also been inspired by academics and practitioners, especially those with whom I shared or exchanged opinions at various heritage and/or tourism conferences, and at seminars and workshops organized by UNESCO or ICOMOS.

Fortunately, I have built a wide circle of friends in my home country, Japan, my second home country, the UK, and various countries in different regions of the world. They are my invaluable assets, expanding my horizons.

I would like to deeply thank my parents, brothers and parents-in-law for their support from Japan. Finally, I would like to profoundly thank my wife, Akemi Jimura. I could not have completed this book project without her understanding, patience and encouragement.

xi

Preface

Since my childhood in Japan, I have always enjoyed visiting heritage sites such as Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples with my family and friends. Travelling has also been my passion. I still remember my school trips to Kyoto, Tokyo, Nagano and South Kyushu, which are full of cultural and natural heritage. My interests in heritage in foreign countries and travelling overseas stem from television programmes such as Kaoru Kanetaka’s The World around Us, See the World by Train and The World Heritage, and world history and English-language classes in my high school. My first overseas trip was to the USA with my university friends. I was amazed by magnificent views of the Grand Canyon and Golden Gate Bridge. Moreover, I enjoyed walking around cities and seeing townscapes that were totally different from Japanese ones. Talking with local people was a very enjoyable experience, although my English skills were insufficient at that time. The more I travelled, the more I became interested in how cultural and natural heritage in a destination had been conserved. To date, I have been to almost 860 cities in around 60 countries as a tourist or researcher. I have also visited a num-ber of cultural, natural and mixed World Heritage Sites (hereafter WHSs). My travelling experience; encounter with people, especially local people; and engagement with heritage, particularly WHSs, have inspired me, enriched my life, expanded my horizons and given me many friends with diverse cultural backgrounds.

This book is a culmination of my main research over more than 16 years since I moved to the UK as an MSc student in 2002. Needless to say, the book would not exist without the contribution to knowledge in relevant study fields made by forerunners and current researchers sharing similar in-terests with me. I have learned a lot from their studies, and really appreciate their works. In my view, the book is characterized by the following three features:

• It is a single-author work, which is rare for books in this subject area.

• It is written in English by a Japanese researcher who has been based in the UK for a long time. Therefore it reflects the viewpoints of the East as well as those of the West in its contents, aiming to realize an appropriate balance between the two.

• This is the first book to focus specifically on the relationships between WHSs and key relevant themes (tourism development, tourism marketing, heritage management, conservation activi-ties and local communities). The book also covers contemporary developments in and around the concept of WHSs.

My book is aimed not only at scholars in heritage studies, tourism, cultural studies, area/region-al studies, anthropology, sociology, development studies, environmental studies and business

xii Preface

studies, but also professionals who are involved in cultural and/or natural heritage management and conservation, as well as those who engage in tourism management and community matters. Ultimately, however, I do hope that it will inspire a wider audience’s interest in and awareness of the themes discussed, especially among young people.

Takamitsu JimuraLiverpool John Moores University, UK

xiii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANA All Nippon AirwaysBR Biosphere ReserveDMO destination marketing organization/destination management organizationGDP gross domestic productGGN Global Geoparks NetworkHUL Historic Urban LandscapeIAC International Advisory CommitteeICC International Co-ordinating CouncilICCROM International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and

Restoration of Cultural PropertyICH Intangible Cultural HeritageICOMOS International Council on Monuments and SitesICT information and communications technologyIUCN International Union for the Conservation of NatureLDC less-developed countriesLWHD List of World Heritage in DangerMNC multinational corporationMoW Memory of the WorldNGO non-governmental organizationNPS National Park ServiceOECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentOUV Outstanding Universal ValuePACT World Heritage Partnerships for Conservation InitiativePESTLE Political, Economic, Social (Sociocultural), Technological,

Legal and EnvironmentalPPP public–private partnershipSME small or medium-sized enterpriseSNS social networking siteSOC State of Conservation Information SystemTAC Taishan Administrative CommitteeTCLF Cultural Landscape FoundationTIC tourist information centreTBL triple bottom line

xiv Abbreviations and Acronyms

UGG UNESCO Global GeoparkUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUNWTO World Tourism OrganizationVM Vienna MemorandumWH World HeritageWHC UNESCO World Heritage CentreWHF World Heritage FundWHL World Heritage ListWHS World Heritage SiteWNBR World Network of Biosphere ReserveWNNR Wolong National Nature ReserveWOM word-of-mouthWTTC World Travel and Tourism CouncilWWF World Wide Fund for Nature

xv

List of Figures

1.1 Steps for designation of World Heritage Sites 82.1 Daimon-zaka in WHS Kii 283.1 Key stakeholders in tourism as an integrated system 354.1 Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) 534.2 Cologne Cathedral 544.3 Costiera Amalfitana 554.4 Official tourism website of Hiroshima City 605.1 Tourist Signs in WHS Saltaire 755.2 WH status, tourism and local people’s views towards changes in their minds 776.1 Three different types of economic impacts of tourism 826.2 WH status, tourism and local people’s views towards economic changes 937.1 Gassho-style houses in Ogimachi 1087.2 WH status, tourism and local people’s views towards sociocultural changes 1108.1 WH status, tourism and local people’s views towards environmental changes 126

10.1 World Heritage Sites: tourism, local communities and conservation activities 159

xvii

List of Tables

1.1 Criteria for selection of World Heritage Sites 54.1 Classification of tourist sites 529.1 Criteria for the World Heritage in Danger (cultural properties) 1339.2 Criteria for the World Heritage in Danger (natural properties) 1339.3 Cultural Landscapes: main categories and sub-categories 135

xix

List of Case Studies

Case Study: Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range (WHS Kii) – Cultural WHS in Japan, Listed in 2004 (see Chapter 2) 28Case Study: Old Town of Lijiang (WHS Lijiang) – Cultural WHS in China, Listed in 1997 (see Chapter 3) 44Case Study: Promoting, Discouraging or Banning Tourism at WHSs (see Chapter 4) 60Case Study: The UK’s Industrial WHSs and Local Communities (see Chapter 5) 75Case Study: Economic Impacts of Tourism on Natural WHSs in Africa (see Chapter 6) 92Case Study: Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama – Cultural WHS in Japan, Listed in 1995 (see Chapter 7) 108Case Study: Natural WHSs in the USA and Japan (see Chapter 8) 125

© T. Jimura 2019. World Heritage Sites (T. Jimura) 1

Historic Centre of Oporto, Luiz I Bridge and Monastery of Serra do Pilar, Portugal.

1

World Heritage Sites – An Introduction

1 Aim and Scope of the Book

This book brings together opportunities and challenges associated with the designation of World Heritage Sites (hereafter WHSs). From among diverse themes surrounding WHSs, the book focuses on three key themes: tourism; local communities; and heritage management and

conservation activities. The impact of WHS list-ing can be either positive or negative for tourism, local communities, and heritage management and conservation activities. The book explores such opportunities and challenges.

Firstly, proper heritage management and conservation activities are vital for WHSs before and after inscription. If they are not managed

2 Chapter 1

and conserved appropriately they will be added to the List of World Heritage in Danger (LWHD). At worst, they may lose their World Heritage (WH) status. Therefore, it is significant to exam-ine how WHSs are managed and conserved. Sec-ondly, WH status works as a strong brand in tourism marketing. Tourism in many WHSs has developed further after designation; however, these WHSs do not always manage their tourism in a sustainable manner; so investigating how tourism has been developed and marketed at WHSs is also essential. Thirdly, many WHSs are located in or around local communities, and, in some cases, local people even live within WHSs. Therefore, the relationship between WHSs and local communities is also crucial. The impacts of WHS listing and tourism on local communities after listing are also examined. In relation to this, local people’s views towards the changes that occur in their communities after WHS in-scription are also investigated. Finally, contem-porary developments in and around the concept of WHSs are explored.

2 Organizations Related to World Heritage Sites

2.1 UNESCO World Heritage Centre

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was founded in 1945. Its mission is ‘to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information’ (UNESCO, 2016). UNESCO extended its responsibilities for WHSs to contain both preservation and stimulation of culture (Graham et al., 2000). UNESCO aspires to pro-mote the concept of politically neutral universal heritage through WHSs and against the self- interest of various host countries whose concerns are mainly with national priorities (Kozymka, 2014). It is a great endeavour for UNESCO to de-fine and conserve WHSs by listing the sites whose Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) should be protected for all people, and ensuring their pres-ervation through close cooperation among States Parties (see Section 2.3) (Hitchcock, 2002). Con-sequently, UNESCO is enhancing the idea that

these WHSs comprise a common heritage that should be fostered as unique testimonies to an enduring past (Hitchcock, 2002). Thus UNESCO has been working to conserve sites with OUV for future generations through the WH initiative.

The UNESCO World Heritage Centre (WHC) was established in 1992 (WHC, 2016a). WHC is the focal point and coordinator within UNESCO for all matters related to WHSs and ensures everyday management of the World Heritage Convention (see Section 4) through the follow-ing activities:

• organizing the annual sessions of the World Heritage Committee (see Section 2.2) and its bureau;

• providing advice to the States Parties in the preparation of site nominations;

• organizing international assistance from the World Heritage Fund (WHF) upon re-quest; and

• coordinating the reporting on the condition of sites and the emergency action undertak-en when a site is threatened (WHC, 2016a).

Other responsibilities of the WHC include:

• organizing technical seminars and work-shops;

• updating the World Heritage List (WHL) and database;

• developing teaching materials to raise awareness among young people of the need for heritage preservation; and

• keeping the public informed of WH issues (WHC, 2016a).

2.2 World Heritage Committee

The World Heritage Committee was established within UNESCO (WHC, 2016b) and consists of representatives from 21 of the States Parties to the WH Convention elected by their General As-sembly (WHC, 2016c). According to the Con-vention, a Committee member’s term of office is for six years; however, most States Parties select voluntarily to be members of the WH Committee for four years, to give other States Parties an op-portunity to be on the Committee (WHC, 2016c). The bureau of the WH Committee con-sists of seven States Parties elected annually by the WH Committee, coordinates the work of the

World Heritage Sites – An Introduction 3

Committee and fixes the dates, hours and order of business of meetings (WHC, 2016c). The WH Committee meets once a year and the tasks for the Committee include:

• to be responsible for the implementation of the WH Convention;

• to define the use of the WHF and allocate fi-nancial assistance upon requests from States Parties;

• to make a final decision on whether or not a nominated property is inscribed on the WHL;

• to examine reports on the state of conser-vation of WHSs and ask States Parties to take action when WHSs are not managed in a proper manner; and

• to make a decision on the inscription or dele-tion of WHSs on the LWHD (see Chapter 9) (WHC, 2016c).

Historically, several key issues have been discussed by the WH Committee. In 1994, for instance, a report to the Committee highlighted that listed cultural WHSs were biased in favour of Europe, historic towns, religious buildings and Christianity, and against prehistory, the 20th century, vernacular artefacts and living traditional cultures (Graham et al., 2000). To re-dress these problems, the Committee requested more advanced countries to slow down their rate of nomination (Kammeier, 2003).

2.3 States Parties

States Parties are countries that adhere to the WH Convention and there are 193 States Parties as of January 2017 (WHC, 2017). When a State Party nominates a property, it gives details of how the property is protected and provides a management plan for its maintenance (WHC, 2017). States Parties also must protect WH val-ues of the properties designated and are encour-aged to report periodically on their condition (WHC, 2017). Concerning the conservation and management of WHSs, the national govern-ment of a State Party is obliged to obey the re-quirements of the WH Convention; however, regional and local governments may also have some responsibilities for their WHSs. If a WHS faces any threat, its State Party can apply for the designation of the WHS on the LWHD and the

application is considered by the WH Committee. Hoelscher (2011) advocates that globalization has accentuated competition among States Par-ties for the recognition of their WHSs. This incli-nation is noted by Jimura (2015) who states that many States Parties are still competing for the acquisition of WH status. Simultaneously, how-ever, Jimura (2015) argues that such a fierce contest is not limited among States Parties and is also observed within a State Party that has a long Tentative List of candidate sites.

2.4 Advisory bodies

There are three formal advisory bodies to the WH Committee and they are named in the WH Convention to advise the Committee in its delib-erations. The International Council on Monu-ments and Sites (ICOMOS) was founded in 1965 and its work is based on the principles in the 1964 International Charter on the Conserva-tion and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (Venice Charter) (ICOMOS, 2016a). ICOMOS is an international non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to conservation of the world’s monuments and sites (ICOMOS, 2016b). ICOMOS works for the conservation and protection of cultural heritage places and is dedicated to pro-moting the application of theory, methodology and scientific techniques to the conservation of architectural and archaeological heritage (ICO-MOS, 2016a). Concerning the nominated sites with cultural elements, ICOMOS is an advisory body to the WH Committee (ICOMOS, 2016c) and provides the Committee with evaluations of cultural and mixed properties proposed for in-scription on the WHL (WHC, 2016d).

The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) was set up in 1956 (ICCROM, 2018). ICCROM is a specialized scientific inter-governmental organization working in the field of conservation and restoration of cultural her-itage, and its structure consists of three main programmes: architectural conservation, collec-tions and museums, and science and technology (Jokilehto, 1991). In relation to WHSs, ICCROM provides expert advice on how to conserve cultural and mixed WHSs, as well as training in restoration techniques (WHC, 2016d).

4 Chapter 1

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is an international NGO creat-ed in 1948 (WHC, 2016d). Since then, IUCN has evolved into the world’s largest and most diverse environmental network and is the global au-thority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it (IUCN, 2016). Regarding WHSs, IUCN provides the WH Committee with technical evaluations of natu-ral heritage properties and, through its world-wide network of specialists, reports on the state of conservation of natural and mixed WHSs (WHC, 2016d).

3 The Historical Background of World Heritage Sites

‘The idea of creating an international move-ment for protecting heritage emerged after World War I’ (WHC, 2016e), and this movement is confirmed by the adoption of the Athens Char-ter in 1931 and the Venice Charter in 1964. In 1972, UNESCO brought the concept of WH into official existence through the adoption of the WH Convention. Heritage experts from Europe and North America played important roles in drafting and completing the WH Convention (Isar, 2011; Winter, 2013), and the WHL has given an outline and an impetus to the concept of ‘global heritage’, which did not exist prior to 1972 (Graham et al., 2000). To be included on the WHL, sites must have OUV and meet at least one of ten selection criteria. There are three types of WHSs: cultural, natural and mixed her-itage. Until the end of 2004, WHSs were selected on the basis of six cultural and four natural cri-teria (WHC, 2016f). With the adoption of the revised Operational Guidelines for the Implementa-tion of the WH Convention (hereafter Operational Guidelines), currently there is one set of ten crite-ria: criteria i–vi are cultural criteria and criteria vii–x are natural criteria (WHC, 2016f) (see Table 1.1). Of three types of WHSs, mixed heritage meets both cultural and natural criteria (Leask, 2006). There are 1073 WHSs, 832 cultural, 206 natural and 35 mixed, in 167 States Parties as of May 2018 (WHC, 2018). Each WHS is sur-rounded by a ‘buffer zone’, which is significant for WHS conservation (WHC, 2008). Through-out the history of implementation of the WH

Convention, protection of the ‘surroundings’ has been considered a key component of the conservation strategy for WHSs (WHC, 2008). The boundaries of WHSs are drawn to contain only the area that has OUV (Jimura, 2007). The boundaries are also operational; therefore the boundaries and buffer zones, which define and encircle the sites, afford additional protec-tion and diminish inappropriate local develop-ments that might encroach on or compromise the aesthetic or historic value of the site (Smith, 2002).

Since 1972, there have been strategic shifts in the approach to WHS designation. Conse-quently, representation of the WHL has been improved. For instance, the WH Committee dis-cussed how to determine and protect the values of new concepts of heritage differing among various cultures and heritage types (Inaba, 1998, cited in Jimura, 2007). Since 1992, significant interactions between people and the natural en-vironment have been recognized as ‘Cultural Landscapes’ (WHC, 2016f), which is a major ex-ample of the expanded range of WHSs (Inaba, 1998, cited in Jimura 2007). The key to this ad-dition is cultural diversity and its aim is better consideration of non-material and indigenous cultures (Inaba, 1998, cited in Jimura, 2007). As of November 2016, 88 properties, 79 cultural and 9 mixed WHSs, are on the WHL as Cultural Landscapes (WHC, 2016g).

In 1994, moreover, the WH Committee launched the Global Strategy for a Representa-tive, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List (hereafter Global Strategy), aiming to ensure that the WHL reflects the world’s cultural and natural diversity of OUV (WHC, 2016h). The WH Committee was concerned about an imbal-ance both in the types of existing WHSs and in the geographical regions of the world that were represented (WHC, 2016h). At that time, almost 75% of (304) WHSs were cultural sites and the number of natural and mixed sites was rather limited – 90 and 16, respectively (WHC, 2016h). At that point, furthermore, the vast majority of WHSs were located in developed countries, par-ticularly in Europe (WHC, 2016h). Precisely speaking, the WHL, at that time, represented European culture well, especially examples of Christian heritage, whilst non- European culture was under-represented ( Inaba, 1998, cited in Jimura, 2007). Since then, the WH Committee


and other key stakeholders have been working to correct the over- representation of Europe-an and northern American heritage, which resulted from the domination of experts and officials from those regions in the definition and early implementation of the WH mechanisms (Hoelscher, 2011). These issues are well associ-ated with the scheme and background of the WH Convention and imply that western and Christian views of heritage are reflected well on the WH Convention. Furthermore, there was inadequate representation of heritage that was expressed in living tradition and vernacular heritage (Inaba, 1998, cited in Jimura, 2007). Simultaneously, the focus of heritage has been moved from a purely architectural cultural one, expressing humanity, to a more anthropological, multi- functional and universal one (Smith, 2002). By adopting the Global Strategy, the WH Committee attempted to expand the defini-tion of WH to better reflect the full spectrum of the world’s cultural and natural treasures

and to provide a comprehensive framework and operational methodology for the implemen-tation of the WH Convention (WHC, 2016h). Regarding the Global Strategy, various works have been done, and there are also ongoing efforts to improve the issues stated above. WHC (2016h) summarizes the achievements so far as follows:

• The number of countries that have signed the WH Convention in the course of the last ten years has risen from 139 to 178.

• The number of States Parties who have submitted tentative lists (see Section 5 for details) complying with the format estab-lished by the WH Committee has grown from 33 to 132.

• New categories for WHSs have been pro-moted, such as the categories of Cultural Landscapes itineraries, industrial heritage, deserts and coastal-marine and small- island sites.

Table 1.1. Criteria for selection of World Heritage Sites. (From: WHC, 2016f)

(i) to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; Cultural criterion(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;

Cultural criterion

(iii) to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization that is living or which has disappeared;

Cultural criterion

(iv) to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape that illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;

Cultural criterion

(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;

Cultural criterion

(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.);

Cultural criterion

(vii) to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;

Natural criterion

(viii) to be outstanding examples representing major stages of the earth’s history, including the record of life, significant ongoing geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;

Natural criterion

(ix) to be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;

Natural criterion

(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.

Natural criterion

6 Chapter 1

4 The World Heritage Convention and Mission of World Heritage Sites

UNESCO fosters identification, protection and preservation of cultural and natural heritage considered to be of outstanding value to human-ity, and it is embodied in the WH Convention (WHC, 2016i). The WH Convention became ef-fective in 1975, and the WH Committee is re-sponsible for its implementation (WHC, 2016c). Meskell (2013) states that the most important feature of the WH Convention is the integration of the concepts of nature conservation and pres-ervation of cultural properties in a single treaty. Concerning the practical operation of the WH Convention, the Operational Guidelines were developed in 1977, and have been revised con-tinuously by the WH Committee to reflect new concepts, knowledge or experiences (WHC, 2016j).

The WH Convention contains 38 Articles. Of these, the articles closely associated with any of the three key themes of this book are shown here. Ar-ticles 1 and 2 are about cultural and natural WHSs. According to Article 1, ‘cultural heritage’ includes the following three categories (WHC, 2016b):

• ‘Monuments’: Architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of OUV from the point of view of history, art or science.

• ‘Groups of buildings’: Groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of OUV from the point of view of history, art or science.

• ‘Sites’: Works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas includ-ing archaeological sites which are of OUV from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view.

According to Article 2, ‘natural heritage’ contains the following three categories (WHC, 2016b):

• ‘Natural features’ consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of OUV from the aes-thetic or scientific point of view.

• ‘Geological and physiographical forma-tions’ and precisely delineated areas which

constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of OUV from the point of view of science or conservation.

• ‘Natural sites’ or precisely delineated natu-ral areas of OUV from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty.

Whichever the category cultural or natural heritage falls in, its WH status can motivate visi-tors to come, see and experience it (Bryce et al., 2015), although the status does not always work as such (Poria et al., 2011). Hence, WHSs need to be managed and conserved properly; even tourism has been advanced further since WHS listing. All WHSs are also more or less asso-ciated with their ‘local communities’. Of all WHSs, cultural WHSs, which fall in ‘groups of build-ings’, would have the closest link with local com-munities, as such WHSs are usually also places where local people live (Jimura, 2007, 2011). As for ‘tourism’, therefore, the areas within a WHS dedicated to visitors must be planned carefully, and visitors to the WHS should not interfere with local people’s daily lives or their bonds with the WHS (ICOMOS International Committee on Cul-tural Tourism, 1999).

Article 5, particularly 5.1, is well related to ‘local communities’ and ‘conservation activities’ (WHC, 2016b):

To ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory, each State Party to this Convention shall endeavour, in so far as possible, and as appropriate for each country:1. To adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes.

This denotes that States Parties are expect-ed not only to protect and rehabilitate their WHSs but also to give their WHSs a role in the life of local communities to which they belong (WHC, 2016e). Concerning tourism, ‘tourist’ is the only term related to tourism that appears only once in the WH Convention (Article 11.4). Article 11.4 is chiefly about threats to WHSs and the LWHD. Here, ‘tourist development projects’ are listed as a possible risk to WHSs. Article 27.1 requires States Parties to enhance appreciation of and respect for WHSs by local


and global communities through all suitable means, and in particular by educational and information programmes (WHC, 2016b). This also signifies the importance of local communi-ties for WHSs.

According to the WHC (2016i), UNESCO’s WH mission is to:

• Encourage countries to sign the WH Con-vention and to ensure the protection of their natural and cultural heritage;

• Encourage States Parties to the Convention to nominate sites within their national ter-ritory for inclusion on the WHL;

• Encourage States Parties to establish man-agement plans and set up reporting systems on the state of conservation of their WHSs;

• Help States Parties safeguard WH proper-ties by providing technical assistance and professional training;

• Provide emergency assistance for WHSs in immediate danger;

• Support States Parties’ public awareness- building activities for WH conservation;

• Encourage participation of the local popu-lation in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage; and

• Encourage international cooperation in the conservation of our world’s cultural and natural heritage.

This mission also endorses the significance of ‘local communities’ and ‘conservation activi-ties’ for WHSs. As stated in Article 11.4, ‘tourist development projects’ are seen as a potential dan-ger to WHSs. Simultaneously, however, the WHC also recognizes the benefits of tourism for WHSs as evidenced in the WHC (2016e) as follows:

Finally, the inscription of a site on the World Heritage List brings an increase in public awareness of the site and of its outstanding values, thus also increasing the tourist activities at the site. When these are well planned for and organized respecting sustainable tourism principles, they can bring important funds to the site and to the local economy.

5 Designation of World Heritage Sites

Only States Parties can submit nomination pro-posals for properties on their territory to be

considered for inclusion in the WHL (WHC, 2016k). The process of WHS designation is rela-tively complicated; however, its main part is sub-mission of a nomination file about a particular site (Shackley, 1998a; Leask, 2006). The sub-mitted file is examined by ICOMOS and/or IUCN, depending on the criteria the nominated site is expected to satisfy. These advisory bodies make comments on the content of the nomination file, and it is then considered by the WH Committee, which decides whether the nominated site de-serves WH status. The detailed process for WHS designation is explained in Fig. 1.1.

Once a site is inscribed as a WHS, it is regu-larly inspected by UNESCO, and the site may lose its WH status if the management criteria are not satisfied (Shackley, 1998a). WHSs may also lose their WH status if a WHS does not meet its designation criteria due to lack of re-quired conservation measures, over-restoration or natural disasters (Shackley, 1998a). For ex-ample, Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany was list-ed as a cultural WHS in 2004; however, it lost its WH status in 2009 because of the construc-tion of the Waldschlösschen Bridge in the cen-tre of its cultural landscape (WHC, 2009). However, such a withdrawal is rare, and the number of WHSs has been increasing every year. Consequently, the number of WHSs as of May 2018 is 1073, although there were only 12 WHSs in 1978, the first year WHS inscrip-tion was made. WHS listing means that a desig-nated site is awarded the same status with existing WHSs, and this signifies that a newly inscribed WHS becomes a competitor to other WHSs in terms of tourism (Evans, 2002). Hence, competition among WHSs for excur-sionists and tourists has been increasingly in-tense every year.

Usually, there is some difference in the de-gree of aspirations for WHS designation be-tween a national government, local government and local people. The case of Rapa Nui National Park (cultural WHS in Chile) (Shackley, 1997) is a good example. In this case, WHS designa-tion encountered opposition from some local people, including the mayor, because it would restrict development by banning construction works that would change its environment. On the other hand, other groups welcomed the designation for the same reason and intended to continue existing management practices

8 Chapter 1

Step 1: Tentative List

A State Party must make an ‘inventory’ of its important natural and cultural heritage sites located within its boundaries. This inventory is known as the Tentative List.

•

• The Tentative List provides a forecast of the properties a State Party may decide to submit forinscription in the next five to ten years. The list may be updated at any time.

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

The WH Committee cannot consider a nomination for inscription on the WHL unless theproperty has already been included on the State Party’s Tentative List.

Step 2: The Nomination File

A State Party can plan when to present a nomination file by preparing a Tentative List andselecting sites from the list.The WH Centre offers advice and support to the State Party in preparing the file, which needsto be as comprehensive as possible, ensuring the necessary documentation and maps areincluded.The nomination file is submitted to the WH Centre for review and to check it is complete. If thefile is complete, the WH Centre sends it to the appropriate advisory bodies for evaluation.

Step 3: The Advisory Bodies

A nominated property is independently evaluated by two advisory bodies mandated by the WHConvention: ICOMOS and IUCN, which, respectively, provide the WH Committee withevaluations of the cultural and natural sites nominated.The third advisory body is ICCROM, an intergovernmental organization which provides theCommittee with expert advice on conservation of cultural sites, as well as on training activities.

Step 4a: The World Heritage Committee

Once a site has been nominated andevaluated by the advisory bodies, it is upto the WH Committee to make the finaldecision on its inscription.Once a year, the Committee meets todecide which sites should be inscribed onthe WHL. It can also defer its decision andrequest further information on the sitesfrom the relevant States Parties.

Step 4b: The Criteria for Selection

To be included on the WHL, sites must be ofoutstanding universal value and meet at leastone out of ten selection criteria.These criteria are explained in theOperational Guidelines for theImplementation of the WH Convention,which, besides the text of the Convention, isthe main working tool on WH.The criteria are regularly revised by theCommittee to reflect the evolution of the WHconcept itself.

Fig. 1.1. Steps for designation of World Heritage Sites. (From: Leask, 2006; WHC, 2016k)

restricting settlement to the Hanga Roa area outside the park and to minimize visitor facil-ities within the park itself. In the case of His-toric Villages of Shirakawa- go and Gokayama

(cultural WHS in Japan), the national govern-ment was much keener to acquire WH status than were the local government and people; whilst in the case of Saltaire (cultural WHS in


the UK), all types of key stakeholders, including local communities, were eager for WHS listing (Jimura, 2007).

6 Concepts of Heritage and World Heritage Sites

The concept of WHS has achieved exceptional success (Winter, 2013) and has been widely accepted. Graham et al. (2000) admit that the WHS concept is particularly suitable for the rec-ognition of themes that are regarded as signifi-cant to humanity as a whole, but also warn that this concept often brings discord in ideology and scale. The issues associated with imbalances in WHSs were formally raised in 1994, and since then have been improved through various meas-ures (see Section 3). Nevertheless, this problem has not been totally solved (e.g. Meskell et al., 2015) and some geographical and numeric im-balance in the WHL still remains. As Smith (2002) suggests, questions might be raised about indefi-nite expansion of the WHL and depreciation of meaning and significance of WH status in the near future. Stated differently, ever- increasing numbers of WHSs might make WHSs common-place and people might not find them special any more.

‘Heritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today, and what we pass on to future generations. Our cultural and natural heritage are both irreplaceable sources of life and inspira-tion’ (WHC, 2016i). How is this concept of herit-age similar to or different from those used in the real world and academia? Regarding the con-cepts of heritage by the real-world organiza-tions, ICOMOS (2002, cited in Historic England, n.d.) states that heritage includes both cultural and natural ones; is associated with the past and history, used in the current context, and should be conserved for the future; and is irre-placeable assets. According to the University of Massachusetts Amherst Centre for Heritage and Society (n.d.), heritage is both tangible and in-tangible; is the full range of our traditions, mon-uments, objects and culture inherited from the past; contains contemporary activities, meanings, and behaviours that we draw from them; and is elements of who we are and how we identify our-selves. In academia, for example, Lowenthal (1998) defines heritage as the contemporary use

of the past and argues that the use of heritage is not only for economic purposes but also has cul-tural aims. Throsby (1997) notes that heritage includes various forms of cultural capital which exemplifies the social, historical or cultural value of the community.

Although the aforementioned concepts of heritage are examples from relevant institutions or academic literature, there are similarities and differences between these concepts and those adopted by WHC (2016i). What heritage means in the context of WHSs includes both cultural and natural heritage. Heritage is inherited from the past, is used in the current context and needs to be passed on to future generations, and these points also apply to WHSs. Heritage contains both tangible and intangible properties. Con-cerning this point, WHSs are ‘tangible’ objects, buildings, resources, places or spaces which peo-ple can visit, see and experience. However, intan-gible elements are also considered in the designation process of WHSs as evidenced by the selection criteria (see Table 1.1). Hence, it can be stated that WHSs have both tangible and intan-gible elements of heritage.

As implied by the University of Massachu-setts Amherst Centre for Heritage and Society (n.d.) and Throsby (1997), ‘identity’ is also an es-sential element required to be regarded as herit-age. In the 20th century, ‘identity’ was one of the most central concepts in the fields of psychology and sociology, and can be categorized into person-al identity and (social) collective identity (Straub, 2002). Identity is developed at a personal, local, regional or national level through people’s en-gagement with their roots, life and background. In this sense, heritage is originally a very personal thing (personal heritage), but can be something whose ‘value’ can be shared at a local, regional or national level (collective heritage) through the de-velopment of its relationship with certain local communities, people in a region or citizens of a nation. Through this process, people would give a certain ‘value’ to the thing that enables them to have a sense of identity. Consequently, such a thing can be local, regional or national heritage.

Regarding WHSs, Jimura (2015, 2016a) examines the relationship between WHS inscrip-tion and local identities and claims that WH sta-tus could play a significant role in shaping or enhancing local identity under certain circum-stances. Furthermore, WH status can also en-hance national identity (Shackley, 1998b). In

10 Chapter 1

the case of WHSs, however, the properties must have OUV to be designated as WHSs, and the ‘value is mainly defined as relating to the materi-al being of the Site with emphasis upon issues such as integrity and authenticity’ (Gravari-Barbas et al., 2015, p. 6). In fact, WHC (2016i) notes that what makes the concept of WH exceptional is its ‘universal’ application and WHSs belong to all peoples in the world, irrespective of the terri-tory on which WHSs are located. However, Win-ter (2013) claims that there have been growing concerns about the validity of universalist ap-proaches towards heritage and the semantics of ‘universal value’, and this issue is also raised by other researchers (e.g. Ashworth and van der Aa, 2002; Rakic and Chambers, 2008). As ar-gued above, ‘identity’ is one of the vital elements of heritage and can be developed at a personal, local, regional or national level. Thus, heritage can be given a value in each of these contexts. If so, can heritage have ‘universal’ value? Is there heritage that has the same value and is equally important for every person in the world? For in-stance, is the value of City of Bath (cultural WHS in the UK) as heritage equally important for British people who have lived in Bath throughout their life and foreigners who have never been to the UK? This example implies that OUV might not be convincing enough with re-gard to the ‘universal’ application of the WHS concept. Such criticisms against the ‘universal’ aspect of WHSs are also related to issues in the ownership and stewardship of WHSs (e.g. Boyd and Timothy, 2001; Oviedo and Puschkarsky, 2012) (see Chapter 2). Concerning the owner-ship, the legal ownership of a property on the WHL belongs to each State Party, whilst its moral ownership belongs to all humankind on the globe. This dual ownership can provoke issues in spirit of place/heritage; historical links between local communities and heritage; the meaning heritage has in a local, regional or national con-text; the position heritage holds in a local com-munity, region or nation; and decision-making in, responsibilities for and stewardship of herit-age management and conservation activities. Regarding the management and stewardship of WHSs, Article 4 of the WH Convention states that each State Party is responsible for all of the key duties related to their WHSs, including conser-vation and presentation, but can seek any inter-national assistance if necessary (WHC, 2016b).

This denotes that WH status does not guarantee automatic financial support for the manage-ment and conservation of WHSs (Jimura, 2016b), although States Parties and regional/local stakeholders are expected to make efforts to retain the WH status their properties have.

As for the ‘value’ part of OUV, Paragraph 78 of the Operational Guidelines states: ’To be deemed of Outstanding Universal Value, a prop-erty must also meet the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity and must have an adequate protection and management system to ensure its safeguarding’ (WHC, 2016j). Hence, ‘authen-ticity’ and ‘integrity’ are two key terms when the ‘value’ of nominated properties is evaluated. According to the Operational Guidelines, proper-ties nominated as cultural or mixed WHSs must meet the conditions of ‘authenticity’ and those nominated for any type of WHS shall sat-isfy the conditions of ‘integrity’. Paragraphs 79–86 are about ‘authenticity’ and Paragraphs 87–95 are on ‘ integrity’. Paragraph 79 states ‘Properties nominated under criteria (i) to (vi) must meet the conditions of authenticity. Annex 4, which includes the Nara Document on Authenticity provides a practical basis for examining the authenticity of such properties. Moreover, Paragraph 82 enumerates attrib-utes on which nominated properties meet the condition of authenticity, and they are:

• Form and design;

• Materials and substance;

• Use and function;

• Traditions, techniques and management systems;

• Location and setting;

• Language, and other forms of intangible heritage;

• Spirit and feeling; and,

• Other internal and external factors.

From the list of attributes, it is confirmed that both tangible and intangible elements are consid-ered when the authenticity of the property nomi-nated for cultural or mixed WHSs is assessed.

According to Paragraph 88, ‘Integrity is a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its attrib-utes. Examining the conditions of integrity therefore requires assessing the extent to which the property:


a) includes all elements necessary to express its OUV;b) is of adequate size to ensure the com-plete representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance;c) suffers from adverse effects of develop-ment and/or neglect.

This should be presented in a statement of integrity. Therefore, the completeness is required for properties nominated for any type of WHS. The significance of ‘authenticity’ and/or ‘integri-ty’ that can evidence the OUV of nominated prop-erties has been examined in relevant study fields (e.g. Pendlebury et al., 2009; Araoz, 2011). Like concepts of heritage, the concepts of authenticity in the WHS context are somewhat different from those in the relevant academic fields. In tourism studies, authenticity has evoked many debates with different views towards it (e.g. Wang, 1999), but there is still no consensus about what it ac-tually means among scholars (e.g. Reisinger and Steiner, 2006). The contested aspects of WH and its relevant concepts are also raised by academics (e.g. Rakic and Chambers, 2008).

7 Eastern and Western Perspectives

7.1 Introduction

Western perspectives, particularly Europe and North America, were well reflected in the WH Convention, the properties on the WHL and the Operational Guidelines in the 1970s and 1980s. This situation has been improved since 1992 through diverse measures led by the WH Com-mittee and involvement of, and voices from, various key stakeholders of WHSs. Sections 1–6 identify key facts and main theories asso-ciated with WHSs such as heritage, identity, value, authenticity, integrity, conservation, local communities and tourism. Making the most of my background, a Japanese tourism/heritage researcher who has been based in the UK, I intend to provide readers with eastern perspectives, comparing them with western perspectives. To this end, this section discusses eastern and western viewpoints of the matters relevant to WHSs, mainly referring to Japan as

an example of eastern standpoints and the UK as an example of western standpoints.

7.2 Societies and communities

Generally, Asian societies tend to be more work- orientated than western societies, especially European societies. This tendency applies to coun-tries such as Japan (Froese, 2013) and China (Tang, 1993). Although recently this trend has been changing in Japan and other developed Asian countries, this is still true when working hours in the east (especially South Korea and Japan) are compared with those in the west (es-pecially France and Germany). The collective nature of eastern societies, cultures and behav-iours, especially those in east Asia, are pointed out by researchers (e.g. Davies and Ikeno, 2002), and the presence of Confucianism and Confucian ethics cannot be overlooked as the backdrop to collectivism in east Asian countries (Wong and Ahuvia, 1998; Zhang et al., 2005). However, the rise of individualism could be confirmed in Japan (Miyanaga, 1993) since around the 1980s, in South Korea (Cha, 1994) since around the 1990s and in China (Cao, 2009) since around the 2000s, particularly among young people living in urban areas. This trend can be related to the de-cline of a sense of community or weakened ties among local people in these countries. In Japan, the tendency can be observed in both urban and rural areas and may negatively affect sustainable tourism development and heritage conservation activities at WHSs (Jimura, 2007, 2011).

7.3 Culture and religion

As discussed above, the influence of Confucian-ism should not be underestimated in the socie-ties in and cultures of east Asia. Confucianism can be regarded as a religion; however, it is recog-nized by people in these countries more as social ethics or philosophy than religion. Buddhism is seen as the most dominant religion in this region of the world, although many people follow Islam, Christianity or Hinduism. In Japan, Buddhism and Shintoism are the two main religions. Shin-toism represents a unique Japanese view of dei-ties that might make followers of other religions

12 Chapter 1

confused or upset. Followers of Shintoism believe that everything in the universe has its own deity (kami). For example, a Japanese person visits a Shinto shrine and prays to the deity of moun-tains (yama-no-kami) for his/her safety before he/she climbs a mountain. The same person goes to another Shinto shrine and prays to the deity of studies (gakumon-no-kami) before his/her ex-amination. This way of thinking is represented as ‘myriad deities’ (yaoyorozu-no-kami) (Sakurai, 2014). However, such principles of Shintoism might be difficult to understand and can be seen as a lack of devotion to a certain religion for fol-lowers of a monotheistic religion.

The most significant characteristic of Japan would be ‘the way it finds, in a way we [the British] do not, the confidence to absorb cultur-al revolution…Nothing in Japan stands still for a moment’ (Spencer, 1991, p. 17). This view grasps key characteristics of Japanese culture. In fact, Japan has a long-established tradition of adopting elements of ‘foreign’ culture (Davies and Ikeno, 2002), mainly from China and Korea since ancient times, European countries since the 16th century and the USA after World War II, and has been adapting these elements to fit Japanese society. Jimura (2007) argues that the ability of Japanese society and culture, which can incorporate foreign cultures without caus-ing serious conflicts, is associated with an ideol-ogy of Buddhism: all things are in flux and nothing is permanent (shogyo-mujo). On the other hand, this characteristic can also be un-derstood negatively: compared with most Euro-peans, Japanese people have a low sense of cultural self-confidence (Graburn, 1995).

7.4 Heritage and authenticity

The Japanese attitude towards authenticity is loose compared with the UK’s (Ashworth and Tunbridge, 2000). However, their view is beside the point (Jimura, 2007). The point lies in the differences in attitudes towards authenticity of heritage between the two countries. Japanese people are more likely to focus on the spirit of heritage rather than its original features, while British people tend to consider that conserving the original features of heritage is of primary importance (Jimura, 2007). Stated differently, Japanese people generally put more importance

on ‘intangible’ elements of heritage compared with British people in terms of authenticity of heritage. Overall, Japanese people are less con-cerned about changes in the original features of heritage, whilst British people consider that ‘tan-gible’ elements are vital for authenticity of herit-age and attempt to avoid changes in the original tangible features (Jimura, 2007).

Ashworth and Tunbridge (2000) also assert that Japanese loose attitudes towards authenticity of heritage might account for the Japanese pas-sion for replica construction such as the new 17th-century Dutch town in Nagasaki (Huis Ten Bosch). Once again, however, this phenomenon does not mean the Japanese are relaxed in atti-tude towards authenticity. Most Japanese visitors acknowledge that Huis Ten Bosch is a ‘fake’ Dutch town and just want to enjoy something different from their daily life (Jimura, 2007), as Urry (2002) argues. The ‘value’ for these visitors is whether what they see or experience could give them a sense of the extraordinary rather than whether what they see or experience is authentic. The nature of Huis Ten Bosch as a tangible object or visitor attraction is totally different from the nature of objects or attractions whose authentic-ity and integrity are indispensable for the mean-ing of their existence (e.g. cultural WHSs). Huis Ten Bosch recognizes itself as a theme park (Huis Ten Bosch, n.d.) and is a purpose-built attraction. Hence, the value of this type of visitor attraction should not be measured by its authenticity. What Japanese visitors expect from Huis Ten Bosch is not authenticity itself, although they would still expect a certain level of integrity as a ‘Dutchish’ townscape that could create a feel of ‘staged au-thenticity’ (McCannell, 1973). A similar but prob-ably more controversial example is found in China. It is ‘Hallstatt in China’, opened in 2012. Hallstatt is part of a cultural WHS, ‘Hallstatt-Dachstein Salzkammergut Cultural Landscape’, in Austria (WHC, 2018). An exact replica of Hallstatt was created as a high-end housing development. The presence of ‘fake’ Hallstatt caused negative feel-ings among local communities of Hallstatt, but, ironically, works well in terms of tourism marketing of Hallstatt (Wittek, 2015). Yearning for western culture would be a main reason why such ‘fake’ versions of western architecture were developed in Japan and China, whilst such fake versions can be understood by westerners as relaxed attitudes towards authenticity or lack of


respect for originality. In 2016, Chinese officials were blamed for the repairs to The Great Wall (cultural WHS), which left part of the ancient structure smoothed and resembling a concrete path (BBC News, 2016). This conservation activi-ty was also criticized as an eastern example of le-nient stances towards authenticity or lack of admiration for originality.

7.5 Conservation: culture and nature

Regarding culture, there was a comparatively early acceptance of the role of public interests, both as principal patron and arbiter for culture and the arts, and in taking prime responsibility for the design of the built environment (Ash-worth and Tunbridge, 2000). This seems to have been noticeable in the west, especially in Italy, France and the UK. In the west, particularly in the UK, using original materials as much as pos-sible in conservation work appears to be essen-tial to retain authenticity of heritage. This approach to authenticity would be somewhat different in the east, typically Japan. There would be two main reasons for the difference between the east and the west. First, as evidenced by an ideology of Buddhism, shogyo-mujo (Section 7.3), alterations in the physical elements of her-itage are taken less seriously in the east com-pared to the west, particularly Europe, in terms of authenticity of heritage. Second, most histor-ic buildings in Europe and North America are made of stone or brick, whilst those in the east, especially the Far East, are made of wood. In Ja-pan, the rate of new house construction is high and it is partly due to the Japanese ‘scrap and build’ culture where houses have historically been replaced on average every 26 years, al-though their expected durability is now rising (Barlow et al., 2003). In general, moreover, the countries in the east are more likely to be hit by natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis and typhoons than those in the west. In fact, Ashworth and Tunbridge (2000) argue that due to the combinations of frequent earthquakes, highly flammable building materials and aerial bombings, many historic buildings in Japan have been destroyed. Overall, historic buildings in the east would be more difficult to conserve without losing their original materials or fea-tures than those in the west. Consequently,

many Japanese historic buildings have been completely rebuilt or moved. Such fragility would also be a main contributing factor that makes the Japanese view of authenticity differ-ent from the European one.

For the west, such as Australia (Lines, 1991) and Germany (Blackbourn, 2011), tradi-tionally, nature is seen as what people must con-quer or control. White argues that this view of nature is associated with the dominant religion in the west, Christianity, and claims that ‘the implications of Christianity for the conquest of nature would emerge more easily in the Western atmosphere’ (1967, p. 1206). Curtin (2005) also notes that, conventionally, there have been rela-tively limited interactions between people in the west and nature surrounding them. On the other hand, Japanese people are traditionally seen as nature- loving people, living in ‘harmony’ with na-ture (Oyadomari, 1989). Interestingly, however, conservationism emerged in the west in the late 19th century. The conservation movement is evi-denced, for instance, by the establishment of the world’s first national park, Yellowstone National Park (USA), in 1872; and the foundation of the National Trust (UK) in 1895. In Japan, the con-cept of nature conservation was imported from the west and the conservation movement devel-oped among the intellectual community and was encouraged by the elite during the Meiji period (1868–1911) (Oyadomari, 1989). In fact, such a movement had not actually occurred in Japanese society until the early 1970s, mainly because it was associated with the anti-pollution movement (Oyadomari, 1989).

In summary, it can be stated that Japanese views towards, and their relationships with, na-ture are different from the west’s, while their ap-proach to nature conservation is based on the western one, and the nature conservation move-ment seems to be less mature in Japan.

7.6 Cities and planning

Compared to the west, the number of WHSs designated or recognized as ‘historic centres’ is rather limited in the east. Such relatively rare examples include Historic Centre of Bukhara (Uzbekistan) and Historic Centre of Macao (China), although the latter is a former Portu-guese colony. In the case of mid-size or large cities

14 Chapter 1

in Japan, the only remaining historic zones tend to be random patches of urban fabric near the centre or in the areas surrounding the city (e.g. Kyoto) (Inaba, 1998, cited in Jimura, 2007). Hence, architects and city planners cannot focus on the conservation of historic zones and must deal with the conservation of these zones on a larger scale (i.e. urban planning level) (Inaba, 1998, cited in Jimura, 2007). In Japan, further-more, it is also challenging to establish a consen-sus on the appearance of buildings’ exteriors for the aesthetic quality of the built environment, as the rights of individuals are quite strong. This is-sue can be associated with limited awareness of the significance of the appearance of buildings’ exteriors and their impact on the built environ-ment. Under this circumstance, only the strict ap-plication of regulations and the distribution of monetary compensation can work to control the quality of design of individual development (Ina-ba, 1998, cited in Jimura, 2007). In the west, on the other hand, the boundaries of municipalities may be effectively limited to built-up areas and may even exclude some suburban extensions and their peripheral areas (Smailes, 1966). Hence, it seems to be natural that the concept of ‘historic centres’ was initially developed from the experi-ence of European cities. This can be explained partially by the dominant role played by Europe-an countries over the past 500 years in global culture, economics and politics, which has re-sulted in history and culture resource-rich cities being regarded as heritage by globally wide-spread populations (Ashworth and Tunbridge, 2000). These European countries have also de-veloped public urban planning systems earlier than the rest of the world and this process has contributed to the conservation and develop-ment of ‘historic centres’.

According to Graham et al. (2000), most of the built heritage in Europe with medieval origins owes its current appearance to 19th-century tastes in restoration. This might be due to standardized conservation techniques used across the world. Regarding heritage, however, there is also a clear degree of local variation in heritage selection and management, which relies mainly on local initiatives and local implementa-tion of national legislation (Graham et al., 2000). Orbasli (2000) asserts that the impetus behind a strong conservation movement in Europe has been the people who set a high valuation on

older quarters as places to live. This would be dif-ferent from the views of the east, especially those of Japanese people. Overall, Japanese peo-ple prefer new houses to old ones as their place to live ( Barlow et al., 2003); although Shimahara (2009) claims that the newness of the interior, bathroom and kitchen, rather than that of the building tends to be their main concern. Such at-titudes are related to their preferences in lifestyle. On the whole, convenience is much more impor-tant for Japanese people than a historic atmos-phere ( Jimura, 2007).

7.7 Visitors and tourism

Throughout this book, ‘visitors’ are used as a term that includes all types of people who visit ‘places’. Visitors are divided into two sub-categories: excursionists (day trippers) and tourists. The main difference between these two is whether they stay overnight at places.

Graburn (1995) states that Japanese people usually only travel in groups and visit famous ‘culturally approved’ attractions. Basically, this is still true, as they tend to act as groups, espe-cially same-gender groups, rather than as indi-viduals or couples, which is more common in the west (Jimura, 2007). This nature also applies to Chinese and Korean visitors (Meng, 2010) and would also be related to collectivism in these countries. In their societies, especially in Japanese society, harmony and cooperation are regarded as sensible attitudes, preferable to showing individual-ity, and being the same to others gives Japanese people peace of mind, although part of them would not feel like it any more. Many Japanese people, particularly the young, have been getting more innovative about tourism. Travelling alone (Jimura, 2007) or to relatively unknown destina-tions in foreign countries is not special for them anymore. Moreover, many Japanese day trippers and tourists no longer stick to visiting well-known sites: they prefer to visit something special, not to all people but to themselves (Jimura, 2007). Hence, there seems to have been a gradual shift from collectivism to individualism in Japanese vis-itors’ behaviour. This trend can also be detected among Korean and Chinese visitors.

As an industry, tourism is significant for less-developed countries (hereafter LDCs) as well as for developed countries, mainly for its


economic benefits. In many developed countries in the west, their main industries have shifted from traditional manufacturing industries to service industries, and tourism is a substantial part of it (e.g. Spain, France and Italy). Tourism also tends to be seen by LDCs as a suitable indus-try to gain foreign exchange. In Japan, tourism is particularly important for rural areas. Many Jap-anese rural areas have been suffering a disas-trous rural out-migration and governments have been keen to develop tourism to replace the de-clining industries such as forestry and farming with tourism (Graburn, 1995). However, at-tracting visitors to rural areas is not easy, be-cause numerous rural areas are using tourism to revitalize their towns or villages. The move-ments or activities for revitalization of cities, towns and villages, utilizing cultural and natu-ral heritage unique to each place are called ‘ muraokoshi’ in Japan (Moon, 2002), and it is associated with tourism. In the west, cultural and natural heritage also plays important roles in tourism, revitalization of local communities

and redevelopment of cities (e.g. Liverpool, UK; and, Lisbon, Portugal).

8 Structure of the Book

This opening chapter is followed by chapters on WHSs and each of the three key themes of this book, namely ‘heritage management and conser-vation activities’ (Chapter 2), ‘tourism’ (Chapters 3 and 4) and ‘local communities’ (Chapter 5). Chapters 6–8 are devoted to the impacts of WHS designation and tourism on local communities by type of impact. Three main areas of tourism impact are discussed: economic (Chapter 6), sociocultural (Chapter 7) and environmental ( Chapter 8). Chapter 9 discusses contemporary developments in and around WHSs and their im-plications. The final chapter, Chapter 10, sum-marizes key points in Chapters 1–9 and suggests a conceptual model which illustrates the main relationships between WHSs, WH status, conser-vation activities, tourism and local communities.

References

Araoz, G.F. (2011) Preserving heritage places under a new paradigm. Journal of Cultural Heritage Man-agement and Sustainable Development 1(1), 55–60.

Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. (2000) The Tourist-Historic City: Retrospect and Prospect of Manag-ing the Heritage City. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Ashworth, G.J. and van der Aa, B.J. (2002) Bamyan: Whose heritage was it and what should we do about it? Current Issues in Tourism 5(5), 447–457.

Barlow, J., Childerhouse, P., Gann, D., Hong-Minh, S., Naim, M. and Ozaki, R. (2003) Choice and delivery in housebuilding: lessons from Japan for UK housebuilders. Building Research & Information 31(2), 134–145.

BBC News (2016) Chinese officials criticised over ‘ugly’ Great Wall repairs. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-37442276 (accessed 12 December 2016).

Blackbourn, D. (2011) The Conquest of Nature: Water, Landscape, and the Making of Modern Germany. Random House, New York.

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.

Bryce, D., Curran, R., O’Gorman, K. and Taheri, B. (2015) Visitors’ engagement and authenticity: Japanese heritage consumption. Tourism Management 46, 571–581.

Cao, J.X. (2009) The analysis of tendency of transition from collectivism to individualism in China. Cross-Cultural Communication 5(4), 42.

Cha, J.H. (1994) Aspects of individualism and collectivism in Korea. In: Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kâgitçibasi, Ç., Choi, S.-C. and Yoon, G. (eds) Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 157–174.

Curtin, S. (2005) Nature, wild animals and tourism: an experiential view. Journal of Ecotourism 4(1), 1–15.

Davies, R.J. and Ikeno, O. (eds) (2002) The Japanese Mind: Understanding Contemporary Japanese Culture. Tuttle Publishing, Clarendon, Vermont.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-37442276

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-37442276

16 Chapter 1

Evans, G. (2002) Living in a World Heritage City: stakeholders in the dialectic of the universal and particular. International Journal of Heritage Studies 8(2), 117–135.

Froese, F.J. (2013) Work values of the next generation of business leaders in Shanghai, Tokyo, and Seoul. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 30(1), 297–315.

Graburn, N. (1995) The past in the present in Japan: nostalgia and neo-traditionalism in contemporary Japanese domestic tourism. In: Butler, R.W. and Pearce, D. (eds) Change in Tourism: People, Places, Processes. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 47–70.

Graham, B., Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. (2000) A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy. Hodder Arnold, London.

Gravari-Barbas, M., Bourdeau, L. and Robinson, M. (2015) World heritage and tourism: from opposition to co-production. In: Bourdeau, L., Gravari-Barbas, M. and Robinson, M. (eds) World Heritage, Tourism and Identity: Inscription and Co-production. Ashgate, Farnham, UK, pp. 1–24.

Historic England. (n.d.) Heritage definitions. Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/hpr- definitions/#h (accessed 26 November 2016).

Hitchcock, M. (2002) Zanzibar Stone Town joins the imagined community of World Heritage Sites. Interna-tional Journal of Heritage Studies 8(2), 153–166.

Hoelscher, M. (2011) Indicator suites for heritage, memory, identity. In: Anheier, H. and Isar, Y.R. (eds) Heritage, Memory & Identity. Sage, London, pp. 287–407.

Huis Ten Bosch. (n.d.) Introduction. Available at: http://english.huistenbosch.co.jp/about/?mode=about& Type=1 (accessed 11 December 2016).

ICCROM (2018) History. Available at: https://www.iccrom.org/about/overview/history (accessed 24 August 2018).ICOMOS (2016a) Introducing ICOMOS. Available at: http://www.icomos.org/en/about-icomos/mission-

and-vision/mission-and-vision (accessed 27 November 2016).ICOMOS (2016b) Home. Available at: http://www.icomos.org/en/ (accessed 27 November 2016).ICOMOS (2016c) The role of ICOMOS in the World Heritage Convention. Available at: http://www.icomos.

org/en/what-we-do/image-what-we-do/268-he-role-of-icomos-in-the-world-heritage-convention? showall= (accessed 27 November 2016).

ICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism (1999) Tourism at World Heritage Sites: The Site Manager’s Handbook, 2nd edn. WTO, Madrid.

Isar, Y.R. (2011) UNESCO and heritage: global doctrine, global practice. In: Anheier, H. and Isar, Y.R. (eds) Heritage, Memory & Identity. Sage, London, pp. 39–52.

IUCN (2016) About. Available at: https://www.iucn.org/about (accessed 27 November 2016).Jimura, T. (2007) The impact of World Heritage Site designation on local communities – a comparative

study of Ogimachi (Japan) and Saltaire (UK). Doctoral thesis, Nottingham Trent University.Jimura, T. (2011) The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities – a case study of

Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management 32(2), 288–296.Jimura, T. (2015) The relationship between world heritage designation and local identity. In: Bourdeau, L.,

Gravari-Barbas, M. and Robinson, M. (eds) World Heritage, Tourism and Identity: Inscription and Co-production. Ashgate, Farnham, pp. 81–91.

Jimura, T. (2016a) Re-examination of the relationship between World Heritage Site designation and local identity. In: Amoeda, R., Lira, S. and Pinheiro, C. (eds) Heritage 2016: Heritage and Sustainable Development. Green Lines Institute, Lisbon, 12–15 July 2016.

Jimura, T. (2016b) World heritage site management: a case study of sacred sites and pilgrimage routes in the Kii mountain range, Japan. Journal of Heritage Tourism 11(4), 382–394.

Jokilehto, J. (1991) ICCROM and its activities. In: Burman, P., Fawcett, J., Feilden, B. and Lord Kennet (eds) Conference Proceedings: Managing World Heritage Sites in Britain. York, 6–7 November. ICOMOS, London, pp. 93–98.

Kammeier, H.D. (2003) Global concerns – local responsibilities – global and local benefits: the growing business of world heritage. ISoCaRP Congress, Cairo.

Kozymka, I. (2014) Theoretical perspectives. In: Kozymka, I. The Diplomacy of Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 9–27.

Leask, A. (2006) World Heritage Site designation. In: Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (eds) Managing World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 5–19.

Lines, W.J. (1991) Taming the Great South Land: A History of the Conquest of Nature in Australia. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Lowenthal, D. (1998) The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/hpr-definitions/#h

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/hpr-definitions/#h

http://english.huistenbosch.co.jp/about/?mode=about&Type=1

http://english.huistenbosch.co.jp/about/?mode=about&Type=1

https://www.iccrom.org/about/overview/history

http://www.icomos.org/en/about-icomos/mission-and-vision/mission-and-vision

http://www.icomos.org/en/about-icomos/mission-and-vision/mission-and-vision

http://www.icomos.org/en/

http://www.icomos.org/en/what-we-do/image-what-we-do/268-he-role-of-icomos-in-the-world-heritage-convention?showall



https://www.iucn.org/about


McCannell, D. (1973) Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal of Sociology 79(3), 589–603.

Meng, F. (2010) Individualism/collectivism and group travel behavior: a cross-cultural perspective. Interna-tional Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 4(4), 340–351.

Meskell, L. (2013) UNESCO’s world heritage convention at 40. Current Anthropology 54(4), 483–494.Meskell, L., Liuzza, C., Bertacchini, E. and Saccone, D. (2015) Multilateralism and UNESCO World Heritage:

decision-making, States Parties and political processes. International Journal of Heritage Studies 21(5), 423–440.

Miyanaga, K. (1993) The Creative Edge: Emerging Individualism in Japan. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Moon, O. (2002) The countryside reinvented for urban tourists: rural transformation in the Japanese muraokoshi movement. In: Hendry, J. and Raveri, M. (eds) Japan at Play: The Ludic and Logic of Power. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 228–244.

Orbasli, A. (2000) Tourists in Historic Towns. E. & F.N. Spon, London.Oviedo, G. and Puschkarsky, T. (2012) World heritage and rights-based approaches to nature conservation.

International Journal of Heritage Studies 18(3), 285–296.Oyadomari, M. (1989) The rise and fall of the nature conservation movement in Japan in relation to some

cultural values. Environmental Management 13(1), 23–33.Pendlebury, J., Short, M. and While, A. (2009) Urban world heritage sites and the problem of authenticity.

Cities 26(6), 349–358.Poria, Y., Reichel, A. and Cohen, R. (2011) World Heritage Site – Is it an effective brand name? A case study

of a religious heritage site. Journal of Travel Research 50(5), 482–495.Rakic, T. and Chambers, D. (2008) World heritage: exploring the tension between the national and the

‘universal’. Journal of Heritage Tourism 2(3), 145–155.Reisinger, Y. and Steiner, C.J. (2006) Reconceptualizing object authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research 33(1),

65–86.Sakurai, T. (2014) Communicating about communicating with kami (deities): an ethnographic study of

Washinomiya Saibara Kagura. Journal of Communication & Religion 37(3), 83–99.Shackley, M. (1997) Cultural tourism and world heritage designation on Easter Island. In: Stevenson, C.M.,

Lee, G. and Morin, F.J. (eds) Conference Proceedings: Easter Island in Pacific Context, South Seas Symposium, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 5–10 August. The Easter Island Foundation, Los Osos, California, pp. 388–392.

Shackley, M. (1998a) Introduction – World Cultural Heritage sites. In: Shackley, M. (ed.) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 1–9.

Shackley, M. (1998b) Conclusions – visitor management at cultural World Heritage Sites. In: Shackley, M. (ed) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 194–205.

Shimahara, M. (2009) Kizon-jutaku-ryutsu no Honto no Sogai-genin to Kasseika-saku (The obstructive fac-tors for used home market and ways to vitalise the market) (in Japanese). Toshijutaku-gaku 64, 29–34.

Smailes, A.E. (1966) The Geography of Towns, 5th edn. Hutchinson University Library, London.Smith, M. (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.Spencer, P. (1991) I see our future – and it’s Japan. The Mail on Sunday, 26 May.Straub, J. (2002) Personal and collective identity: a conceptual analysis. In: Friese, H. and Assmann, A.

(eds) Identities: Time, Difference, and Boundaries, pp. 56–76.Tang, T.L.P. (1993) The meaning of money: extension and exploration of the money ethic scale in a sample

of university students in Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior 14(1), 93–99.Throsby, D. (1997) Seven questions in the economics of cultural heritage. In: Hutter, M. and Rizzo, I. (eds)

Economic Perspectives on Cultural Heritage. Macmillan, London, pp. 13–30.UNESCO (2016) About us. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/about-us/ (accessed 26

November 2016).University of Massachusetts Amherst Centre for Heritage and Society (n.d.) What is Heritage? Available

at: https://www.umass.edu/chs/about/whatisheritage.html (accessed 24 August 2018).Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze, 2nd edn. Sage, London.Wang, N. (1999) Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research 26(2), 349–370.WHC (2008) World Heritage Papers 25 – World Heritage and Buffer Zones. Available at: whc.unesco.org/

document/101967 (accessed 6 December 2016).

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/about-us/

https://www.umass.edu/chs/about/whatisheritage.html

whc.unesco.org

18 Chapter 1

WHC (2009) Dresden is deleted from UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/522 (accessed 4 December 2016).

WHC (2016a) World Heritage Centre. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-centre/ ( accessed 27 November 2016).

WHC (2016b) Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ (accessed 27 November 2016).

WHC (2016c) The World Heritage Committee. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/committee/ (accessed 27 November 2016).

WHC (2016d) Advisory bodies. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/advisorybodies/ (accessed 27 November 2016).

WHC (2016e) The World Heritage Convention. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/ ( accessed 29 November 2016).

WHC (2016f) The criteria for selection. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/ (accessed 29 November 2016).

WHC (2016g) Cultural landscapes. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/ (accessed 29 November 2016).

WHC (2016h) Global strategy. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/ (accessed 29 November 2016).

WHC (2016i) World Heritage. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/ (accessed 29 November 2016).WHC (2016j) The operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Availa-

ble at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ (accessed 29 November 2016).WHC (2016k) World Heritage List nominations. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/nominations/ ( accessed

4 December 2016).WHC (2017) States Parties ratification status. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ ( accessed

27 May 2017).WHC (2018) World Heritage List. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ (accessed 17 May 2018).White, L. (1967) The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science 155(3767), 1203–1207.Winter, T. (2013) Culture of interpretation. In: Staiff, R., Bushell, R. and Watson, S. (eds) Heritage and Tourism:

Place, Encounter, Engagement. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 172–186.Wittek, M. (2015) Hallstatt made in China – an Austrian village cloned. Master’s thesis, University of Leiden.Wong, N.Y. and Ahuvia, A.C. (1998) Personal taste and family face: luxury consumption in Confucian and

western societies. Psychology & Marketing 15(5), 423–441.Zhang, Y.B., Lin, M.C., Nonaka, A. and Beom, K. (2005) Harmony, hierarchy and conservatism: a cross-

cultural comparison of Confucian values in China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Communication Research Reports 22(2), 107–115.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/522


http://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-centre/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/committee/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/advisorybodies/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/nominations/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/

19

Piazza del Duomo, Pisa, Italy.

1 Introduction

1.1 Heritage management and World Heritage Sites

It could be stated that the heritage industry has started growing since the 1970s or 1980s in de-veloped countries, and then in less-developed countries (LDCs). However, this phenomenon is associated chiefly with ‘cultural heritage’. The movement for the protection of nature can be traced back to the late 19th century in the USA, evidenced by the establishment of Yellowstone National Park, the world’s first national park, in 1872 (National Park Service, n.d.). Diverse in-ternational organizations for nature conserva-tion were established in the 20th century, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1948, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in 1961 and the United Na-tions Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972. Nevertheless, ‘nature’ does not appear to have been understood or managed as ‘heritage’ until 1972 when the World Heritage Convention was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO (UNESCO World Heritage Centre (WHC), 2017a). In academia, the growth of the heritage indus-try is critically discussed by Hewison (1987) through the case of the UK. The heritage indus-try needs to consider numerous factors in the management of heritage they own and/or are in charge. The idea of heritage management emerged

in response to the special needs of the heritage industry (Miller, 1989). Heritage management deals with the use of the past for contemporary purposes in a desirable way (Ashworth and Tun-bridge, 2000), and the contemporary purposes would include conservation activities for heritage for the future, use of heritage for tourism purposes and the meaning of heritage for local communi-ties. Heritage management involves various issues and World Heritage Sites (hereafter WHSs) are no exception. Due to the ‘universal’ nature of WHSs, these issues can be even more complicated for WHSs (see Section 6 in Chapter 1). Graham et al. (2000) claim that ‘who manages the heritage’ is a crucial matter in heritage management; however, there is no collective view on who should manage heritage. This is because there is a significant de-gree of local variation in the field of heritage man-agement, which depends largely on local initiatives and local implementation of national legislation (Graham et al., 2000). Concerning WHSs, the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the WH Convention work as a principle for day-to-day management of WHSs (WHC, 2017b). The impor-tance of the Operational Guidelines for the man-agement of cultural, natural and mixed WHSs is indicated by scholars and practitioners worldwide (e.g. Buckley, 2004; Jokilehto, 2006; Labadi, 2007). The Guidelines have also been revised con-tinuously, aiming to reflect new concepts, knowl-edge and experiences (Fowler, 2002; WHC, 2017b) (see also Sections 3, 4, 6 and 7.1 in Chapter 1).

2

Heritage Management and Conservation Activities at World Heritage Sites

20 © T. Jimura 2019. World Heritage Sites (T. Jimura)

Heritage Management and Conservation Activities at World Heritage Sites 21

1.2 Conservation activities and World Heritage Sites

Conservation can be defined as careful planning and management of limited and selected re-sources. It is a conscious process to keep control and restrict changes to the minimum – to ensure the survival of cultural and natural heritage over a long time (Fethi, 1993, cited in Orbasli, 2000). Thus, conservation is a vital component of heritage management (Miller, 1989). The signifi-cance of conservation of cultural and natural her-itage is emphasized by international organizations (Pickard, 2001) such as UNESCO, the Interna-tional Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Proper-ty (ICCROM) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Heritage conser-vation is also encouraged by numerous govern-mental agencies or charities such as English Heritage and the National Trust (UK), the State Administration of Cultural Heritage (China) and the Department for Conservation (New Zealand). The concept of sustainability is key for conserva-tion of cultural and natural heritage and the triple bottom line (TBL) of sustainability (economic, so-ciocultural and environmental) needs to be con-sidered in conservation policies and activities.

With regard to cultural heritage, Hall and Page (1999) understand heritage conservation as a reaction to the rate of physical and social change within a community and also consider that, generally, people have little call for nostal-gia when they feel that they are in control of their own destiny. Lowenthal (1975, 1985) sug-gests that the strength of heritage conservation organizations in developed countries is perhaps a reflection of the desire to maintain a sense of continuity with the past. In relation to tourism, heritage conservation can lead to a significant economic return to destinations thanks to the desire of many visitors who want to see or expe-rience what they perceive as authenticity (Hall and McArthur, 1996). According to Orbasli (2000), urban conservation has physical, spa-tial and social dimensions. The physical dimen-sion is closely related with building conservation, especially the appearance of buildings, and it contains projects involving historic buildings, groups of buildings and street furniture. The

spatial dimension is the urban planner’s view of the city as a whole, including the relationship between spaces and their use, circulation and traffic, and the internal and external space rela-tionship. The social dimension concerns the user, the local community and the urban popu-lation. Of these three dimensions, the social di-mension is the most difficult to define, but is arguably the most important in terms of urban conservation (Orbasli, 2000). To implement an urban conservation programme, a place must present a meaning to its users and occupants and financial resources need to be secured. Con-cerning cultural WHSs, conserving both tangi-ble and intangible heritage associated with human beings is essential. It contains, for exam-ple, masterpieces of human creative genius; ar-chitecture; town planning; cultural traditions; landscapes; traditional human settlements; and cultural heritage related to events, ideas, beliefs and artistic and literary works of outstanding universal importance (WHC, 2017c).

Regarding natural heritage, the value of na-ture in its own right, rather than its meaning and usefulness for human beings, must be reflected in conservation policies and activities. This means that ‘strong sustainability’ rather than ‘weak sus-tainability’ (OECD 2005a, 2005b) must be adopt-ed in conservation of natural heritage. There are three main approaches to human beings, human technologies and environment surrounding hu-man beings; namely ecocentric (nature-centred), technocentric (technology- centred) and anthro-pocentric (human-centred) (Byrch et al., 2007). To realize conservation of natural heritage in a sustainable manner, an ecocentric approach should be employed as a basis of conservation policies and activities and the approach should be supported by a technocentric approach. With regard to natural WHSs, conserving a variety of natural resources on the earth is vital, and such resources include places with natural beauty; exceptional examples representing the major stages of earth’s history or significant ongoing ecological and biological processes; and natural habitats significant for biological diversity (WHC, 2017c).

The reporting and monitoring system es-tablished by the World Heritage Centre plays an essential role in conservation activities for WHSs (WHC, 2017d). Site managers for WHSs and

22 Chapter 2

local authorities must continuously work towards managing, monitoring and preserving their WHSs, following the reporting and monitoring system (WHC, 2017d). There are two types of sub- system for reporting and monitoring purpos-es under the reporting and monitoring system: the State of Conservation Information System (SOC) and Periodic Reporting (WHC, 2017d). SOC is explained by the WHC (2017d) as follows:

• SOC requires that States Parties must pre-pare reports about the state of conservation and various protection measures adopted at their WHSs.

• These reports allow the WH Committee to assess the conditions at the WHSs and, eventually, to decide whether or not adopt-ing specific measures is necessary to resolve recurrent problems.

• Such measures include the inscription of a WHS on the List of WH in Danger (LWHD).

The WHC (2017e) emphasizes the mean-ing of SOC, stating that,‘The significant number of reports prepared by the UNESCO Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee represents an exceptional documen-tation on numerous conservation issues. It is one of the most comprehensive monitoring sys-tems of any international conventions.’ In addi-tion to SOC reports, every six years States Parties are requested to submit to the WH Committee a ‘Periodic Report’ about the application of the WH Convention, including the state of conser-vation of their WHSs (WHC, 2017f). Updated information about the WHSs should also be con-tained in the Periodic Report to record possible changes in the state of conservation of the WHSs (WHC, 2017d).

Within the framework of the revision of the questionnaire of the periodic reporting exercise (Section II) in 2008, the WH Committee adopted a standard list of factors that can affect the OUV of WHSs (WHC, 2017g). The list was created following a two-year consultation process with experts in natural and cultural heritage and con-sists of a series of 14 primary factors, including a number of secondary factors (WHC, 2017g). These 14 primary factors are:

1. Buildings and development; 2. Transportation infrastructure;

3. Utilities or service infrastructure; 4. Pollution; 5. Biological resource use/modification; 6. Physical resource extraction; 7. Local conditions affecting physical fabric; 8. Social/cultural uses of heritage; 9. Other human activities; 10. Climate change and severe weather events; 11. Sudden ecological or geological events; 12. Invasive/alien spices or hyper-abundant species; 13. Management and institutional factors; and 14. Other factor(s).

(WHC, 2017g)

Full information about primary and secondary factors can be found at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/factors/

Another system adopted for the conserva-tion of WHSs is ‘Reactive Monitoring’, which aspires to ensure that all possible measures are taken to prevent the deletion of any property from the World Heritage List (WHL) (WHC, 2017h). Reactive Monitoring is the reporting by the WHC, other sectors of UNESCO and the advi-sory bodies to the WH Committee on the state of conservation of specific WHSs that are under threat (WHC, 2017b, 2017h). Hence, the Reac-tive Monitoring system is integral to the proce-dures for the inclusion of properties in the LWHD and for the removal of properties from the WHL.

2 Postmodernism, Globalization and WHSs

‘Postmodernism’ and ‘globalization’ are essen-tial phenomena when heritage management and conservation activities are examined in the current context due to their impacts on these important themes for WHSs. Postmodernism is, ‘A late 20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism, which represents a departure from modernism and is characterized by the self-conscious use of earlier styles and conventions, a mixing of different artistic styles and media, and a general distrust of theories’ (English Oxford Living Dictionaries, 2017). It should also be noted that the idea of postmod-ernism (and modernism) originates in the west

http://whc.unesco.org/en/factors/



and has been developed in western society based on the western value system. The traits of postmodernism can also be demonstrated via its comparison with modernism. The differ-ence between the former and the latter can also be understood as the contrast between ‘ relativeness’ and ‘absoluteness’, ‘complexity’ and ‘simplicity’, ‘chaos’ and ‘order (control)’, or ‘world’ and ‘west’.

Sociologists such as Lash (1990) and Urry (2002) regard ‘de-differentiation’ as a key term for postmodernism and social anthropologists such as Selwyn (1996) assert that the dissolu-tion of boundaries is the primal characteristic of postmodernism. Selwyn (1996) and Urry (2002) argue that these dissolved boundaries are not only between high and low cultures but also between different cultural forms, including tourism, art and architecture. In his study on the heritage industry in the UK, Hewison (1987, p. 132), a cultural historian, gives a rather neg-ative view of postmodernism and describes it as ‘modernism with the optimism taken out’. He advocates that there is a positive relationship between nostalgia for the British industrial past and the growth of postmodernism. As a social scientist with expertise in urban studies and glo-balization, Hall (2001) argues that the incorpo-ration of past landscape into the present urban scene suits postmodern changes in architecture and urban design in an international context. In other words, this incorporation can satisfy the postmodern yearning for eclecticism, the vernac-ular, regional distinctiveness and decoration through historical quotation (Hall, 2001). This means that heritage has proved a valuable com-modity of great appeal to consumers of urban space in the 1980s and 1990s, either through a famous past or prestigious historical architecture (Hall, 2001). This phenomenon can also be con-firmed in the 21st century, for example in China (e.g. Su, 2015), Japan (e.g. McMorran, 2008), Lebanon (Al-hagla, 2010), the USA (e.g. Inwood, 2010) and Norway (Nyseth and Sognnæs, 2013). The views of postmodernism demonstrated above are associated mainly with cultural herit-age. Concerning relationships between post-modernism and nature or natural heritage, the attitudes of conservationists towards postmod-ernism would be useful to consider in relation to natural heritage. Conservationists such as

Attwell and Cotterill (2000) criticize postmod-ernism in relation to African conservation sci-ence and argue that the postmodernist approach has damaged the efforts to avoid the crises that face African biota and ecosystems and the relevant socio-economies. As confirmed by the above argument, postmodernism is a phenome-non that is examined in multiple disciplines, and all of these subjects are more or less associated with certain aspects of the management and conservation of WHSs. Hence, knowledge on these subjects would be beneficial for the com-prehensive understanding of WHSs’ manage-ment and conservation, especially those for cultural WHSs.

As discussed in Section 6 in Chapter 1, her-itage is originally a very personal thing (per-sonal heritage) but can be something whose ‘value’ can be shared at a local, regional or na-tional level (collective heritage) through the development of its bond with particular local communities, people in a certain region or citi-zens of a specific country. On the other hand, Graham et al. (2000) note that heritage is re-garded as a local phenomenon; however, it cannot be isolated from other places’ heritage, because the more local communities have in-sisted on their independence from national schemes the more directly these communities have been influenced by international impacts. This signifies that, ironically, a higher degree of independence of local communities from the control of national governments would lead to a higher level of exposure of local communities to the phenomena at a global level such as globalization, westernization, standardization, McDonaldization and internationalization. It is questionable that local communities could still conserve their heritage as it has been in their way without having a kind of ‘protection’ of-fered by their nation that can work as a ‘buffer’ against international impacts.

Ashworth and Tunbridge (2000) argue that the globalization of economy and society has affected both the practice of urban conser-vation and international tourism. According to Burns, globalization is explained as follows: ‘A complex idea that encompasses both politi-cal economy and cultural ideologies’ (1999, p. 132), and ‘globalisation means national borders become increasingly irrelevant, but at

24 Chapter 2

the same time a paradox arises demonstrated by simultaneous rise in nationalism and neo- fascism’ (1999, p. 133). Due to its nature, consequently, globalization brings the same techniques, development programmes, mate-rials and styles that are replicated all over the world and reduce local distinctiveness (Ash-worth and Tunbridge, 2000). Durie (2010) also claims that globalization is a real threat to local distinctiveness. Traditions unique to local communities and heritage valuable to them can be negatively affected by globaliza-tion. For instance, many indigenous commu-nities in countries in the Asia-Pacific region have struggled to revitalize their own lan-guage, culture and native leadership (Durie, 2010). On the other hand, Tomlinson (1999) claims that globalization does not necessari-ly lead to such homogenization or creation of ‘global’ culture, and the essence of glo-balization lies in the highly developed network of interconnections and interdependencies that causes an international ‘flow’ of almost everything across the borders. Concerning heritage conservation, however, Ashworth and Tunbridge (2000) state that conservation is in danger of standardizing cities whose con-served areas increasingly all look alike and serve similar functions and purposes. Ash-worth and Tunbridge (2000) also assert that this danger of standardization should be ac-cepted, but it is possible to avoid such a danger. If they are right, what should be done for con-servation of WHSs? As discussed in Chapter 1, WHSs must possess OUV. Needless to say, how-ever, each WHS is unique in terms of its ‘value’, which includes history, characteristics, au-thenticity, integrity, geographical location and relationships with local communities. WHSs must follow the Operational Guidelines for her-itage management, and the Reporting and Monitoring scheme in their conservation ac-tivities. These two principles apply to all WHSs in the world without exception. Simultane-ously, however, ‘local’ know-how, approaches and techniques unique to each WHS should still be respected and applied to the manage-ment and conservation of WHSs as much as possible within the framework of the Opera-tional Guidelines and the Reporting and Moni-toring system.

3 Reality of Heritage Management and Conservation Activities at WHSs

3.1 Overview

In Chapter 1, the ideas of WHSs were discussed (Sections 3 and 4), but the critique of the con-cept of WHSs is also demonstrated (Section 6). In this section, on the other hand, the issues in the reality of WHSs’ management and conser-vation activities are explored.

3.2 Philosophy and approach

Scott (2002) has an insight into the nature of WH philosophy and claims that, after all, it is operated at an abstract level that is little associ-ated with the real world. As raised in Section 6 in Chapter 1, there has been rising apprehen-sion of the legitimacy of universalist attitudes towards heritage and the semantics of universal value (Winter, 2013). What kinds of approach-es or measures have been or can be taken in the real world to tackle such criticisms? For in-stance, traditional top-down approaches of her-itage management have been gradually replaced with more democratic bottom-up approaches, which ponder the views of various stakeholders or different values so as to reflect multiple per-spectives and a plurality of voices on heritage management on a daily basis (Winter, 2013), although some element of top-down approach cannot be avoided, as there must be a local, re-gional or national authority at a heritage site (Chirikure and Pwiti, 2008). In the context of tourism, therefore, heritage managers need to incorporate and balance the views of stakehold-ers on the host (supply) side of tourism, includ-ing local people, local businesses, governments, non-governmental organizations etc., and those on the guest (demand) side of tourism such as tourists (Winter, 2013). As a result, the opin-ions and interests of central government or outside experts are countered by the voices and views of local communities with everyday perspectives (Winter, 2013). It is surely an insightful point, and heritage management should be practised in such a manner, although it is not always guaranteed, especially in LDCs


(e.g. Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape, South Africa, studied by Chirikure et al., 2010) and de-veloped countries (e.g. Willandra Lakes Region, Australia, researched by Sullivan, 2004). Smith (2006) explores issues related to heritage dis-course and representation when heritage is ‘used’ through the framework of ‘authorized heritage discourse’. An authorized heritage dis-course defines who the appropriate representa-tives for the past are (Smith, 2006; Winter, 2013). In relation to the above arguments, whose views, understanding and interpretation of the heritage should be reflected and present-ed are a key theme as they can form part of the OUV of a WHS.

3.3 Duties and responsibilities

WHS designation and WH status could bring a range of benefits and costs to various stakehold-ers in or around WHSs (e.g. Shackley, 1998a; Leask and Fyall, 2006; Jimura, 2007, 2011, 2016a, 2016b; du Cros, 2008; Timothy, 2011; Bourdeau et al., 2015). Pocock (1997) also states that WH status can lead not only to per-ceived benefits but also to various responsibili-ties, including the duty of conservation and a management programme that is subject to mon-itoring. The Operational Guidelines and Reporting and Monitoring system were established and have been continuously revised to support States Parties and WHS managers to fulfil their duties and to assume their responsibilities for the man-agement and conservation of WHSs. Once a property is inscribed as a WHS, it is regularly monitored and its designation can be withdrawn if the management criteria are not satisfied. Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany is a rare exam-ple of a site whose WH status was removed. In this case, the development of major transport infrastructure in the designated area was the main reason. It is unfortunate; however, it is also understandable, as sometimes such a develop-ment needs to be more of a priority than retain-ing WH status, to realize various benefits that are vital to the future of local communities and businesses.

Having WH status does not mean the direct intervention of UNESCO or its advisory bodies

in the management of the inscribed sites or the imposition of a single regulatory organization and/or framework to monitor such responsibil-ities (Bianchi and Boniface, 2002). Conse-quently, as Jimura (2003) argues in his study on Maritime Greenwich, a cultural WHS in the UK, WHSs do not tend to have a single organiza-tion responsible for reconciling different aspira-tions of stakeholders and the management of the whole designated site. This is especially no-ticeable in cultural WHSs listed as ‘groups of buildings’ as there are diverse people and organ-izations within the area designated as a WHS. Evans (2002) suggests that in such a situation, initially the local authority should work as a neutral chair and initiator that promotes local people’s involvement and participation in the ar-guments and decision-making process on their WHS. Unfortunately, however, the more varied backgrounds the local communities have the more difficult such a holistic management is (Graham et al., 2000). The issues related to local communities are not limited to cultural WHSs and can also be found at natural WHSs. For ex-ample, Maikhuri et al. (2001) point out that there is a conflict between conservation policies and local people who have been excluded from the core zone of Nanda Devi and Valley of Flow-ers National Parks, a natural WHS in India.

To perform duties and to take responsibili-ties required for the management and conserva-tion of WHSs, adequate financial resources are also essential. Unfortunately, however, many States Parties do not have adequate funds to tackle such challenges and also lack both human resources and technical know-how (Hoelscher, 2011). States Parties may request financial support from the World Heritage Fund (WHF), which annually provides US$3–4 million to support conservation activities (WHC, 2017i, 2017j). The WH Committee decides to allocate the funds based on the urgency of requests, and priority is given to the most threatened WHSs (WHC, 2017i, 2017j). In the early 2000s, Ash-worth and van der Aa (2002) raised concerns over the amount of financial resources available for conservation of WHSs in the light of the ev-er-increasing number of WHSs. According to Meskell (2014), on the other hand, the WHF has reached its peak thanks to the almost universal membership of the WH Convention. However,

26 Chapter 2

there are still several issues in the WHF. One such problem is that in reality only the poorest States Parties can acquire financial aid via the WHF and it would be unlikely for rich States Parties to obtain such financial support as the resources of the WHF are obviously limited (Brumann, 2014).

3.4 Management, conservation and tourism

Needless to say, each WHS is unique. However, there is a series of common problems in tour-ism, management and conservation (Shackley, 1998b; Jimura 2007, 2011, 2016b). Hence, it is crucial for each WHS to have a detailed and well-considered management plan that shows, typically, its policy to visitors, entry charges, local tourism business development, potential damage to the heritage resource, congestion, reduction of visitors at peak times and dealing with specific types of visitors (Shackley, 1998c). Unfortunately, however, having a comprehen-sive management plan in addition to a conser-vation plan does not always ensure suitable management and sufficient conservation of WHSs ( Jimura, 2007). At the daily management level, a WHS must be well maintained with suffi-cient care. WHS managers should take meas-ures to minimize wear and tear, supply excellent interpretations for visitors, provide adequate fa-cilities for visitors such as catering, guides and toilets, and the site should be litter- free (Shackley, 1998c). The increasing number of visitors to WHSs requires more effective and sustainable tourism management (Pedersen, 2002). In ad-dition to the Operational Guidelines and Report-ing and Monitoring system, diverse documents have also been developed by the WHC, advisory bodies, practitioners, experts and/or academics to support the management and conservation of WHSs. For instance, Hockings et al. (2008) developed a document based on their experi-ence in the management and conservation of nine natural WHSs located in different regions of the world, aiming to enhance the heritage toolkit, which is useful to assess management effectiveness of natural WHSs. Regarding the supports for cultural WHSs, for example, WHC

et al. (2013) published a resource manual on managing cultural WHSs, which can be used as an instrument for self- guided learning or train-ing workshops.

As tourism shares a central position at most cultural, natural and mixed WHSs, balancing visitation and conservation is always key for the appropriate management of WHSs (Bianchi and Boniface, 2002; Leask, 2006; Wang et al., 2015; Su et al., 2016). Simultaneously, however, iden-tifying such a balance is quite challenging, be-cause conserving heritage for future generations and displaying heritage to the public for their education or enjoyment are, in principle, contra-dictory (ICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism, 1999; Orbasli, 2000). This means that achieving such an ideal balance in practice would be even more demanding in the daily management of WHSs, although Shackley (2006) notes that there is room for optimism as new visions and technologies keep emerging that could support this difficult task. For in-stance, the aforementioned continuous efforts made by the WH Committee and other key stake-holders (see Section 3 in Chapter 1), and more democratic bottom-up approaches noted by Winter (2013) can be seen as good examples of such new visions. Concerning new technolo-gies, for example, applying a thin single layer of a water-resistant coating can protect historic buildings and monuments constructed of lime-stone (e.g. Cathédrale Notre- Dame de Reims, a cultural WHS in France) from pollution (Science Daily, 2012). To complete the above-stated hard task, WHS managers are also expected to work closely with specialists in the various relevant fields such as conservation, transportation, ur-ban planning, community development, tourism and local communities (Winter, 2013). The WHC is also fully aware of difficulties WHS managers would face and states that ‘sustainable planning and management of tourism is one of the most pressing challenges concerning the future of the World Heritage Convention today and is the focus of their UNESCO World Heritage and Sus-tainable Tourism Programme’ (WHC, 2017k). They developed the UNESCO World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Toolkit, and this is a ‘how to’ guide that focuses on best-practice approach-es to sustainable economic development through tourism at WHSs (WHC, 2017k).


In addition to balancing heritage conserva-tion and tourism, WHS managers may also suffer a dilemma about the need to balance the wishes of local people and the demands of visitors. As these two groups are likely to have differing views towards the WHS and its management, WHS managers must anticipate a possible con-flict of values and behaviours between local people and visitors (ICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism, 1999) and need to identify a way to reconcile such different aspirations.

3.5 Eastern and western perspectives

People in the east have relationships with the architectural remains and decayed buildings as icons of their past, which are different from those in the west (Isar, 2011). Isar (2011) also sug-gests that intangible assets from the past such as the embodied knowledge and skills identical to, or at least very close to, the ones used for the cre-ation of the cultural heritage are essential for the proper restoration of cultural heritage. Com-pared to the east, the significance of such intan-gibles in terms of continuity between a present and a past has been relegated in the scale of eco-nomic and social transformation in the west (Isar, 2011). Consequently, a past has become ‘a foreign country’, which has already been ‘lost’ (Lowenthal, 1985).

Ise Jingu (Ise Grand Shrine) in Japan is an emblematic example that reflects an eastern approach to heritage and significance of intan-gibles in heritage conservation (Isar, 2011). Ise Jingu has been regarded as a prime candidate for a cultural WHS in Japan from the viewpoint of Japanese people (Yoshida, 2004). However, it has not been inscribed. The shrine will also not be listed even in the future unless the con-cept of WHSs and the selection criteria for WHSs change dramatically. In principle, the main buildings of Ise Jingu have been rebuilt in the same form every 20 years for over 1300 years. It is called ‘shikinen sengu’ in Japanese (Ise Jingu, n.d.) and the latest one was con-ducted in 2013. The technique inherited from the past has been applied, whilst new lumber is

used. Hence, the current main buildings are actually ‘new’ and can be seen as ‘inauthentic’ in terms of the general view of WHSs (Yoshida, 2004). As discussed above, however, the tech-nical knowledge, the procedure of rebuilding and the practice itself have been passed down (Yoshida, 2004) for more than 1300 years. Therefore, such intangible aspects of tangible heritage should be valued and need to be con-served for future generations even if Ise Jingu cannot be listed as a cultural WHS under the current selection criteria. Isar (2011) empha-sizes that intangible elements of heritage such as knowledge and skills embodied in people are more significant than the tangible products of those knowledge and skills for heritage in the eastern context. Such a heavy emphasis on in-tangible elements of heritage can also be con-firmed in India, and it is evidenced in the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage Charter (Isar, 2011). The meaning of ‘shikinen sengu’ might be difficult to under-stand in the western context. Moreover, such a practice of Japanese ‘scrap and build’ culture might seem to be unsustainable or a waste of valuable natural resources for some people. According to Ise Jingu (n.d.), however, the meaning of shikinen sengu is to hold such a ‘never-changing’ ritual at ‘always-fresh’ main buildings of the shrine. The purity and holi-ness required for prime religious sites such as Ise Jingu can be secured through shikinen sengu.

As Yoshida (2004) and Isar (2011) show, shikinen sengu of Ise Jingu is an intriguing example, which implies that there would be a difference in people’s attitudes towards authen-ticity of (cultural) heritage, as well as those to-wards the meaning of intangible elements of heritage, between the west and the east and be-tween a universal context, such as WHSs, and a national context, such as Japan or India. In rela-tion to these points, Isar (2011) and Weerasinghe (2011) emphasize the importance of the Nara Document on Authenticity, which was adopted in 1994. Article 11 of the document states that ‘All judgements about values attributed to cultural properties as well as the credibility of related information sources may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture’ (WHC, 2007).

28 Chapter 2

Case Study: Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range (WHS Kii) – Cultural WHS in Japan, Listed in 2004

WHS Kii extends over Wakayama, Nara and Mie prefectures and comprises Shinto shrines, Buddhist temples and pilgrimage routes. Conservation works for shrines and temples require special knowledge and skills, whilst those for pilgrimage routes can be conducted by ordinary people. This is because the routes consist mostly of soil and stones and their upkeep does not entail particular know-how and techniques compared to shrines and temples. Of course, some technical guidance is offered to partic-ipants prior to conservation activities.

Conservation works on the pilgrimage routes in WHS Kii have flourished after WHS inscription thanks to WH status. The Wakayama World Heritage Centre, Wakayama prefecture, and local

Fig. 2.1. Daimon-zaka in WHS Kii (Photo: the author)

Continued


4 Conclusion

Heritage has been ‘constructed’ worldwide in the context that is unique to each situation and has been developed through its association with the past, and its links with certain local commu-nities, regions and/or countries. Heritage is one of the essential components of our current society; however, there are opportunities and challenges for heritage management and its conservation activities, especially in the postmodern era. The influence of globalization on heritage manage-ment and conservation cannot be ignored.

Regarding WHSs, it can be stated that WH is now an established concept among ordinary people, such as visitors and local people, as well as relevant practitioners, experts and academics. The philosophy and mission of WHSs are em-bodied in the WH Convention, and this has been playing an essential role for WHSs, each of which has its own OUV. The idea of OUV is key for WHSs, although this notion can be criticized mainly due to a gap between its universal appli-cation and the above-discussed fundamental nature of heritage. In the reality of WHS man-agement and conservation activities, the Opera-tional Guidelines and Reporting and Monitoring work as integral frameworks, and they have been revised continuously to reflect new ideas, emerging issues and a variety of voices in order to keep functioning as a comprehensive founda-tion for the management and conservation of WHSs. The WH Convention, the Operational Guide-lines and the Reporting and Monitoring system

are a key principle and framework that applies to all WHSs. Even if heritage is designated as a WHS, the meaning of each heritage in the con-text of its cultural and natural background, and associations with people at local, regional and/or national level, must be respected to conserve authenticity and integrity and to secure the di-versity of heritage around the world. To this end, accumulated know-how and techniques that are inherited from the past and peculiar to each WHS should also be fully utilized and practised in the management and conservation of WHSs.

WHSs themselves are tangible; however, both tangible and intangible elements are reflected in the selection criteria for WHSs and considered in the decision-making process. UNESCO is well aware of the significance of intangible heritage (UNESCO, 2017). The aforementioned know-how and techniques for heritage management and conservation activities are more or less unique to each heritage. This knowledge and these meth-ods are intangible elements of heritage; they can keep the heritage ‘alive’, giving it a certain mean-ing in local, regional and national contexts even before it is designated as a WHS. Overall, the sig-nificance of intangible elements for the manage-ment and conservation of tangible heritage seems to be more recognized in the east than in the west. As the case of Ise Jingu (non-WHS in Japan) indi-cates, however, the value of such intangible ele-ments of tangible heritage does not appear to be respected enough and should be considered more in the selection criteria and decision-making pro-cess, especially for cultural WHSs.

governments such as Tabane city, started the ‘michi-bushin’ programme in 2007 for regular maintenance of pilgrimage routes stretching around 300 km. ‘Michi-bushin’ means footpath maintenance, and the programme offers valuable and rare opportunities to ordinary people to be involved in WHS conservation. Hence, the ‘michi-bushin’ programme can be seen as an outstanding example of WHS management and conservation activities that involve a wide range of people, such as local people, people interested in the WHS, organizations and enterprises.

Any individuals or companies can participate in the ‘michi-bushin’ programme as volunteers or as part of companies’ corporate social responsibility activities. Individuals can be involved in the programme, for instance, by joining the ‘michi-bushin’ walk or a sightseeing tour containing ‘michi-bushin’ in it. Enter-prises that have taken part in the programme include Suntory, Kiyo Bank and Nankai Electric Railway, which have close ties with the area listed as WHS Kii and/or sympathy with the intent of the programme. Daimon-zaka is a gateway to several key attractions in WHS Kii, including shrines, temples and water-falls, and is often designated as a meeting-place for the ‘michi-bushin’ walk and guided tours.

(From: Jimura, 2016b)

Case Study. Continued.

30 Chapter 2

States Parties and WHS managers are ex-pected to complete their duties and take their responsibilities for WHS management and con-servation activities at macro and micro levels to preserve the WH status that their properties have. Having a single organization in charge of heritage management and conservation would be ideal to reconcile different aspirations of vari-ous stakeholders in and around a WHS. It would

be particularly important for a WHS inscribed as a specific area, as diverse stakeholders, including local communities, are based in or around such a WHS. As tourism shares an integral position at most WHSs, balancing conservation and visits and settling the needs of local communities and those of visitors are demanding but necessary tasks in the management and conservation of WHSs.

References

Al-hagla, K.S. (2010) Sustainable urban development in historical areas using the tourist trail approach: a case study of the Cultural Heritage and Urban Development (CHUD) project in Saida, Lebanon. Cities 27(4), 234–248.

Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. (2000) The Tourist-Historic City: Retrospect and Prospect of Manag-ing the Heritage City. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.


Attwell, C.A.M. and Cotterill, F.P.D. (2000) Postmodernism and African conservation science. Biodiversity & Conservation 9(5), 559–577.

Bianchi, R. and Boniface, P. (2002) Editorial: the politics of World Heritage. International Journal of Herit-age Studies 8(2), 79–80.

Bourdeau, L., Gravari-Barbas, M. and Robinson, M. (eds) (2015) World Heritage, Tourism and Identity: Inscription and Co-production. Ashgate, Farnham, UK.

Brumann, C. (2014) Shifting tides of world-making in the UNESCO World Heritage Convention: cosmopol-itanisms colliding. Ethnic and Racial Studies 37(12), 2176–2192.

Buckley, R. (2004) The effects of World Heritage listing on tourism to Australian national parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 12(1), 70–84.

Burns, P. M. (1999) An Introduction to Tourism and Anthropology. Routledge, London.Byrch, C., Kearins, K., Milne, M. and Morgan, R. (2007) Sustainable ‘what’? A cognitive approach to

understanding sustainable development. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management 4(1), 26–52.

Chirikure, S. and Pwiti, G. (2008) Community involvement in archaeology and cultural heritage management. Current Anthropology 49(3), 467–485.

Chirikure, S., Manyanga, M., Ndoro, W. and Pwiti, G. (2010) Unfulfilled promises? Heritage management and community participation at some of Africa’s cultural heritage sites. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16(1–2), 30–44.

du Cros, H. (2008). Too much of a good thing? Visitor congestion management issues for popular World Heritage tourist attractions. Journal of Heritage Tourism 2(3), 225–238.

Durie, M. (2010) Global transitions: implications for a regional social work agenda. Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work 1(2), 1–9.

English Oxford Living Dictionaries. (2017) Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ postmodernism (accessed 5 January 2017).


Fowler, P. (2002) World heritage cultural landscapes, 1992–2002: a review and prospect. Cultural Landscapes: The Challenges of Conservation 16.

Graham, B., Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. (2000) A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy. Hodder Arnold, London.

Hall, C.M. and McArthur, S. (eds) (1996) Heritage Management in Australia and New Zealand: The Human Dimension. Oxford University Press, Sydney, Australia.

Hall, C.M. and Page, S.J. (1999) The Geography of Tourism and Recreation: Environment, Place and Space. Routledge, London.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/postmodernism

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/postmodernism


Hall, T. (2001) Urban Geography, 2nd edn. Routledge, London.Hewison, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. Methuen, London.Hockings, M., James, R., Stolton, S., Dudley, N. and Mathur, V. (2008) Enhancing our heritage toolkit:

assessing management effectiveness of natural world heritage sites. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/23/ (accessed 16 January 2017).

Hoelscher, M. (2011) Indicator suites for heritage, memory, identity. In: Anheier, H. and Isar, Y.R. (eds) Heritage, Memory & Identity. Sage, London, pp. 287–407.


Inwood, J.F. (2010) Sweet Auburn: constructing Atlanta’s Auburn Avenue as a heritage tourist destination. Urban Geography 31(5), 573–594.

Isar, Y.R. (2011) UNESCO and heritage: global doctrine, global practice. In: Anheier, H. and Isar, Y.R. (eds) Heritage, Memory & Identity. Sage, London, pp. 39–52.

Ise Jingu (n.d.) Shikinen Sengu (in Japanese). Available at: http://www.isejingu.or.jp/sengu/ (accessed 12 January 2017).

Jimura, T. (2003) Visitor management – as a professional responsibility of the various site managers ( Maritime Greenwich – Cultural World Heritage Site). Master’s thesis, University of Greenwich, London.

Jimura, T. (2007) The impact of World Heritage Site designation on local communities – a comparative study of Ogimachi (Japan) and Saltaire (UK). Doctoral thesis, Nottingham Trent University, UK.

Jimura, T. (2011) The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities: a case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management 32(2), 288–296.

Jimura, T. (2016a) Re-examination of the relationship between World Heritage Site designation and local identity. In: Amoeda, R., Lira, S. and Pinheiro, C. (eds) Heritage 2016: Heritage and Sustainable Development. Green Lines Institute, Lisbon, 12–15 July, pp. 283–290.


Jokilehto, J. (2006) World heritage: defining the outstanding universal value. City & Time 2(2), 1–10.Labadi, S. (2007) Representations of the nation and cultural diversity in discourses on world heritage.

Journal of Social Archaeology 7, 147–170.Lash, S. (1990) Sociology of Postmodernism. Routledge, London.Leask, A. (2006) World Heritage Site designation. In: Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (eds) Managing World Herit-

age Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. 5–19.Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (eds) (2006) Managing World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.Lowenthal, D. (1975) Past time, present place: landscape and memory. The Geographical Review 65, 1–36.Lowenthal, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Rao, K.S. and Saxena, K.G. (2001) Conservation policy–people conflicts: a case

study from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (a world heritage site), India. Forest Policy and Economics 2(3), 355–365.

McMorran, C. (2008) Understanding the ‘heritage’ in heritage tourism: ideological tool or economic tool for a Japanese hot springs resort? Tourism Geographies 10(3), 334–354.

Meskell, L. (2014) States of conservation: protection, politics, and pacting within UNESCO’s World Herit-age Committee. Anthropological Quarterly 87(1), 217–243.

Miller, S. (1989) Heritage management for heritage tourism. Tourism Management 10(1), 9–14.National Park Service (n.d.) Yellowstone: park history. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/history-

culture/park-history.htm (accessed 17 January 2017).Nyseth, T. and Sognnæs, J. (2013) Preservation of old towns in Norway: heritage discourses, community

processes and the new cultural economy. Cities 31, 69–75.OECD (2005a) Strong sustainability. Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6577

( accessed 4 January 2017).OECD (2005b) Weak sustainability. Available at: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6611

( accessed 4 January 2017).Orbasli, A. (2000) Tourists in Historic Towns. E. & F.N. Spon, London.Pedersen, A. (2002) Managing tourism at World Heritage Sites: a practical manual for World Heritage Site

managers. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-113-2.pdf (accessed 9 December 2016).

Pickard, R. (2001) Introduction. In: Pickard, R. (ed.) Management of Historic Centres. Spon Press, London, pp. 1–7.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/23/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/23/

http://www.isejingu.or.jp/sengu/

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/park-history.htm

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/historyculture/park-history.htm

http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6577

http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6611

http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-113-2.pdf

32 Chapter 2

Pocock, D. (1997) Some reflections on world heritage. Area 29, 260–268.Science Daily (2012) New way to protect historic limestone buildings. Available at: https://www.sciencedaily.

com/releases/2012/12/121204145922.htm (accessed 9 December 2016).Scott, J. (2002) World Heritage as a model for citizenship: the case of Cyprus. International Journal of

Heritage Studies 8(2), 99–115.Selwyn, T. (1996) Introduction. In: Selwyn, T. (ed.) The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism.

John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 1–32.Shackley, M. (ed.) (1998a) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-

Heinemann, Oxford, UK.Shackley, M. (1998b) Conclusions – visitor management at cultural World Heritage Sites. In: Shackley, M.

(ed.) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. 194–205.

Shackley, M. (1998c) Introduction – World Cultural Heritage Sites. In: Shackley, M. (ed.) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. 1–9.

Shackley, M. (2006) Visitor management at World Heritage Sites. In: Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (eds) Managing World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. 83–93.

Smith, L. (2006) Uses of Heritage. Routledge, London.Su, M.M., Wall, G. and Xu, K. (2016) Heritage tourism and livelihood sustainability of a resettled rural com-

munity: Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site, China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24(5), 735–757.Su, X. (2015) Urban entrepreneurialism and the commodification of heritage in China. Urban Studies

52(15), 2874–2889.Sullivan, S. (2004) Local involvement and traditional practices in the world heritage system. Linking

Universal and Local Values, 49. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= 10.1.1.476.8460&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=50 (accessed 7 January 2017).

Timothy, D.J. (2011) Cultural Heritage and Tourism: An Introduction. Channel View Publications, Clevedon, UK.

Tomlinson, J. (1999) Globalization and Culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.UNESCO (2017) Intangible heritage. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/ (accessed 20 January

2017).Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze, 2nd edn. Sage, London.Wang, Z., Yang, Z., Wall, G., Xu, X., Han, F., Du, X. and Liu, Q. (2015) Is it better for a tourist destination to

be a World Heritage Site? Visitors’ perspectives on the inscription of Kanas on the World Heritage List in China. Journal for Nature Conservation 23, 19–26.

Weerasinghe, J. (2011) Living sacred heritage and ‘authenticity’ in south Asia. In: Anheier, H. and Isar, Y.R. (eds) Heritage, Memory & Identity. Sage, London, pp. 139–147.

WHC (2007) The Nara Document on Authenticity. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/document/9379 ( accessed 15 January 2017).

WHC (2017a) The World Heritage Convention. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/ ( accessed 16 January 2017).

WHC (2017b) The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Avail-able at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ (accessed 4 January 2017).

WHC (2017c) The criteria for selection. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/ (accessed 4 January 2017).

WHC (2017d) Reporting and monitoring. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/118/ (accessed 2 January 2017).

WHC (2017e) State of Conservation information system (SOC). Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/ (accessed 15 January 2017).

WHC (2017f) Periodic reporting. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/periodicreporting/ (accessed 15 January 2017).

WHC (2017g) List of factors affecting the properties. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/factors/ ( accessed 15 January 2017).

WHC (2017h) Reactive monitoring process. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/reactive-monitoring/ ( accessed 15 January 2017).

WHC (2017i) World Heritage Fund. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-fund/ (accessed 8 January 2017).

WHC (2017j) Funding. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/funding/ (accessed 8 January 2017).

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121204145922.htm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121204145922.htm

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.476.8460&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=50

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.476.8460&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=50

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/

http://whc.unesco.org/document/9379




http://whc.unesco.org/en/118/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/periodicreporting/


http://whc.unesco.org/en/reactive-monitoring/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-fund/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/funding/


WHC (2017k) UNESCO Sustainable Tourism Toolkit. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/sustainabletour-ismtoolkit/ (accessed 16 January 2017).

WHC, ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN (2013) Managing cultural world heritage. Available at: https://whc. unesco.org/en/managing-cultural-world-heritage/ (accessed 7 July 2018).

Winter, T. (2013) Culture of interpretation. In: Staiff, R., Bushell, R. and Watson, S. (eds) Heritage and Tourism: Place, Encounter, Engagement. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 172–186.

Yoshida, K. (2004) The museum and the intangible cultural heritage. Museum International 56 (1–2), 108–112.

http://whc.unesco.org/sustainabletourismtoolkit/

http://whc.unesco.org/sustainabletourismtoolkit/

https://whc.unesco.org/en/managing-cultural-world-heritage/

https://whc.unesco.org/en/managing-cultural-world-heritage/


Conwy Castle: part of the Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

3

Tourism Development at World Heritage Sites

1 Tourism Development

1.1 Introduction

To establish a definition of tourism that can sat-isfy all stakeholders seems to be almost impossi-ble, mainly due to its multi-disciplinary nature and the range of sectors and activities involved.

However, the following definition and context is one of the most widely accepted among tourism researchers:

Definition:

• ‘Tourism is defined as the activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and

Tourism Development at World Heritage Sites 35

other purposes not related to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place visited.’

Context:

• ‘The use of this broad concept makes it pos-sible to identify tourism between countries as well as tourism within a country. “Tour-ism” refers to all activities of visitors, in-cluding both “tourists (overnight visitors)” and “same-day visitors.” ’(Eurostat et al., 2001 cited in OECD, 2002)

This book adopts this definition and context of tourism. As Ritchie and Adair (2004) argue, many scholars regard tourism as an integrated system that encompasses diverse components and stakeholders. They include tourists, same-day visitors, visitor attractions, accommodation, food and drink, government, transport, destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and intermedi-aries (see Fig. 3.1).

The nature of tourism as a tool for develop-ment at local, regional or national level has been examined for around 40 years by different re-searchers (e.g. De Kadt, 1979; Lane, 1994). Tra-ditionally, and particularly in the early years, such tourism studies tended to look at tourist des-tinations in rural or remote areas and/or those in less-developed countries (LDCs), particularly in Africa or Asia. The notion of sustainable develop-ment became noticeable at an international level in the 1980s and its key principle was to realize the triple bottom line (TBL) (economic, sociocultural

and environmental) of sustainability as goals of the development process. Nowadays, the TBL ap-proach can be seen as the core principle of sus-tainable development. This trend in the theories of development can also be confirmed in theories and practices in tourism development. In this section, therefore, tourism development is exam-ined by each pillar of the TBL.

1.2 Economic aspect of the triple bottom line of sustainability

and tourism development

In terms of the TBL of sustainability, both develop-ment through tourism and tourism development need to consider all three aspects. Traditionally, however, the primary focus of existing tourism studies has tended to be the examination of tourism as a means of economic development (poverty alle-viation) (Fleischer and Felsenstein, 2000; Gursoy and Rutherford, 2004; Hall, 2007; Stolarick et al., 2011). Concerning the economic aspect of the TBL and the role of tourism as an instrument for economic development, for instance, tourism can diversify local industries and businesses (Jimura, 2007, 2011) and can increase employment op-portunities for local people (Jimura, 2011), if de-veloped in a proper manner. Diversification of local industries and businesses through tourism is im-portant for almost all destinations in the world. This is crucial, particularly for the destinations

Visitors(guests):

• Tourists(overnightvisitors)and same-day visitors

-

• Inter-nationalanddomesticvisitors

Intermediaries:

• Touroperators

• Travel agents

Tourist destination (hosts):

• Local communities• Public sector (national,

regional or localgovernment)

• Destination marketingorganizations (DMOs)

• Accommodation sector• Catering sector• Visitor attraction sector• Retail sector• Local transport• Local tour operators

Transport to/fromthe destination

Fig. 3.1. Key stakeholders in tourism as an integrated system. (From: the author)

36 Chapter 3

where the traditional industries that local commu-nities depended on have been declining (Jimura, 2011). Such destinations are likely to be those located in rural regions in developed countries, LDCs or remote islands, and their traditional in-dustries would typically be primary sector, such as agriculture, or secondary sector, such as manufacturing. Hence, these destinations need to develop alternative means to supplement their traditional industries (e.g. MacDonald and Jolliffe, 2003; Jimura, 2011), and tourism de-velopment can contribute to this. Tourism can also increase employment opportunities for local people, especially in the tertiary (service) sector in the fields of accommodation, catering, trans-port, retail, attractions and entertainment. This is echoed by many researchers (e.g. Law, 2002; Jackson, 2008; Mbaiwa, 2011). Diversification of local industries and businesses, and increase in employment opportunities will also lead to an increase in household income and local govern-ment tax revenue.

However, tourism development is not a panacea for economic development. First of all, if a destination relies too heavily on tourism it may face economic difficulties, as tourism is often seen as a ‘fragile’ or ‘unstable’ industry (e.g. Li-burd and Edwards, 2010; Wang and Xu, 2011). This is because the demand for tourism can be easily affected by external factors (e.g. economic downturn and pandemic diseases) that are out of the control of the tourist destination. Moreo-ver, tourism-related jobs are usually regarded as undesirable due to relatively low wages, low- level skills and high seasonality (e.g. Getz and Nilsson, 2004; Tamborini, 2007), although such char-acteristics do not apply to every destination ( Jimura, 2011). Moreover, the multiplier effect needs to be maximized within a tourist destina-tion and leakage from the destination must be minimized to enable tourism to make a great contribution to the local economy. However, this is often challenging, particularly for destinations in LDCs and/or remote islands, chiefly due to the presence of multinational corporations (MNCs) and the necessity to import goods and services from other countries to meet tourists’ demands. The relationships between developed western countries, where the headquarters of many MNCs are located, and LDCs are also highlighted in various studies on tourism development, and the relationships are also associated with

theories of development such as modernization and dependency theories. For instance, Nash (1989) regards the association between developed western countries and LDCs where tourism de-velopment occurs as a new form of imperialism. Britton (1982) also investigates tourism develop-ment in LDCs in the south Pacific and describes their relationships with the west as a new coloni-alism, as MNCs dominate tourism development in these countries. The economic impact of World Heritage Site (hereafter WHS) designation and tourism is examined in detail in Chapter 6.

1.3 Sociocultural aspect of the triple bottom line of sustainability and tourism

development

In relation to the sociocultural aspect of the TBL, ‘people’ have been given more focus since the 1970s in the research on tourism development. For example, Smith’s (1989) work, Hosts and Guests, looks at tourism from an anthropological angle, and social and cultural matters in local communities are explored. The book examines the sociocultural repercussion of tourism on tourist destinations in terms of the relationships and interactions between hosts and guests in tourism. In this sense, tourism can work as a cat-alyst for sociocultural changes in local communi-ties on the host side of tourism because of its ability to encourage interactions between these two parties. Regarding the sociocultural dimen-sion of the TBL and tourism development, there have been positive and negative opinions among researchers in tourism studies, anthropology, sociology and cultural studies. Overall, and tradi-tionally, however, it could be stated that negative views towards tourism development have been more dominant than positive ones. There are numerous sociocultural subjects that can be more or less affected by tourism development in a positive or negative manner. Jimura (2007), for instance, makes a list of typical and significant sociocultural matters that are closely connect-ed to tourism development. His list includes:

• Social pathology – this can be seen as nega-tive changes caused by tourism development. In general, the more tourism has developed, the more serious these issues can become (e.g. vandalism, litter, crimes, prostitution,


drugs, alcohol, begging, unlicensed street vendors and guides, degradation of morality and social dislocation).

• Living costs and property values – the pric-es of daily products and monthly rent of a property may increase due to higher de-mands triggered by tourism and it can neg-atively influence local people’s lives. Proper-ty prices would also increase. This may be advantageous for local people who already possess houses or apartments but it would be challenging for those who plan to pur-chase a property.

• Traffic-related problems – as tourism devel-ops and an increasing number of visitors come to a destination, the number of cars getting into the destination would also in-crease. This would cause or worsen traffic congestion in and around the destination, especially morning and evening and during peak seasons. More traffic also implies pos-sible noise pollution and lack of parking space, which can cause disruption for local communities.

• Overcrowding and privacy – tourism brings many ‘strangers’ to a tourist destination. As most tourist destinations are people’s places of residence, some local people may feel that this is not their place any more. It could also lead to invasion of privacy.

• Population – tourism may increase the popu-lation of local communities or reduce the pace of depopulation, thanks to the popularity of the destination and availability of jobs.

• Quality of living and living standards can be improved or made worse depending on how tourism develops.

• Social polarization – unequal distribution of economic benefits from tourism can in-crease the wealth gap in a destination.

• Sense of community – tourism can en-hance or weaken bonds among local people and community cohesion.

• Ways of life – local people’s traditional way of life may need to be altered to meet tour-ists’ demands.

• Authenticity of local culture – tangible and intangible local culture can be damaged by commodification, commercialization and the emergence of ‘staged authenticity’.

• Enhancing or degrading local culture – in some cases tourism can revitalize local

culture such as local crafts and festivals, but in other cases it can degrade local culture. The latter is also associated with issues in authenticity of local culture.

• Cultural atmosphere of a destination – a cultural atmosphere unique to each desti-nation consists of tangible elements (e.g. townscape and architectural style). Tour-ism development can influence it positively or negatively.

• Conservation of built environment – tourism can raise local people’s awareness of con-servation of cultural heritage (e.g. historic buildings) and financial resources obtained through tourism can be reinvested for this purpose. Cultural heritage can be damaged by excessive numbers, or irresponsible be-haviour, of tourists.

• Interaction between local people and visi-tors – tourism can lead to mutual under-standing of local residents and visitors, and in some cases it may lead to demonstration effects, cultural drift and acculturation in local communities.

• Destination recognition and image – tourism development can make tourist destinations more visible, domestically and internation-ally, and improve their image. It would depend mostly on tourism marketing (see Chapter 4).

Needless to say, the list above is not exhaus-tive. At least, however, it could be confirmed that sociocultural issues triggered by tourism devel-opment contain a range of themes that are asso-ciated with ‘people’. In light of the sociocultural dimension of the TBL, it is sure that social prac-tices and culture unique to each destination must be respected and conserved for the future. The sociocultural impact of WHS listings and tourism is examined in detail in Chapter 7.

1.4 Environmental aspect of the triple bottom line of sustainability and tourism

development

With regard to the environmental aspect of the TBL, concerns about environmental conserva-tion became more prominent as a movement and collective approach after World War II.

38 Chapter 3

In theories of development, generally, it can be evidenced by the emergence of alternative development theory in the 1970s. In relation to tourism development, specifically, this trend be-came noticeable in the 1980s and 1990s. In the tourism study field, for instance, the first volume of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism was pub-lished in 1993. Like economic and sociocultural aspects of the TBL and tourism development, there have also been positive and negative views of the environmental aspect of the TBL and tourism development among researchers in relevant disciplines such as tourism studies, envi-ronmental studies, development studies and busi-ness management. On the whole, however, it can be affirmed that negative views towards tourism development have been much more predominant than positive ones. There are a number of envi-ronmental matters that are more or less affected by tourism development in a good or bad sense. Basically, ‘environment’ means ‘natural’ environ-ment in the context of the TBL of sustainability. However, this section covers natural environ-ment as well as built (man-made) environment to achieve a comprehensive understanding of envi-ronment, which is closely associated with tour-ism development, WHSs and local communities.

A wide range of changes can occur in the natural environment because of tourism develop-ment. According to Jimura (2007), these changes would include:

• Pollution – this is one of the most common environmental issues caused or worsened by tourism development. It includes air, water and soil pollution.

• Degradation – this is also a common envi-ronmental problem. Degradation of fertile soil, forests, wetlands and wildlife has been confirmed in different tourist destinations in the world. This is often caused by large-sized development of tourism facilities such as ho-tels, theme parks and resort complexes.

• Water resources – overuse of water resources can be confirmed, for example, at golf cours-es and water resorts.

• Flora and fauna – all of the above-mentioned problems and tourist behaviour can nega-tively affect the population and diversity of plants and wildlife.

Hall and Page (1999), however, criticize that the alterations caused by tourism development

in natural environment are likely to be exaggerated, because it is very difficult to distin-guish the changes caused by tourism develop-ment from those brought about by other forms of development, or other factors, such as over- population, poor agricultural practice or poor resource management, which can also affect the natural environment negatively.

Jimura (2007) categorizes the artificial en-vironment (infrastructures) into three catego-ries, by the people the infrastructure originally and mainly intended to serve. These three cate-gories are:

• Basic infrastructures for local communities. They are essential for local people’s daily life (e.g. public utilities, including water, sewage, electricity, gas, fire protection and telecom-munication). In most tourist destinations, however, these basic infrastructures were originally built to meet the demand of the local community (Law, 2002). Hence, if competition between local people and tour-ists for such limited infrastructure cannot be managed well, it can seriously damage local people and their community (Puppim de Oliveira, 2003).

• Infrastructures for local people and visitors. These infrastructures are equally important for both local communities and visitors (e.g. transport, such as airports, ports, roads, mo-torways and railways; and attractions, such as museums, galleries and sports facilities). Tourism cannot be developed to national or international level without sufficient devel-opment of this type of infrastructure. Trans-port infrastructure could give local people more convenience and mobility in their daily lives, and attractions could offer local people opportunities for recreation, education and entertainment.

• Infrastructure for visitors. This kind of in-frastructure is necessary, mainly to satis-fy what tourists and day trippers need (e.g. accommodation and car parking facilities).

Overall, the natural environment is more likely to be damaged rather than enhanced by tourism development. Simultaneously, however, it is also true that tourism can raise local peo-ple’s and visitors’ awareness of conservation of the natural environment. Furthermore, the


income earned through tourism activities can be reinvested for nature conservation. A variety of built environment, specifically infrastructure, serves day trippers and tourists as well as local communities. In light of the environmental as-pect of the TBL, however, the needs of local peo-ple should be prioritized considering the impact of the man-made environment on the natural environment. The environmental impact of WHS inscription and tourism is examined in detail in Chapter 8.

1.5 Tourism development: then and now

In relation to tourism thought, approaches and practice, Page and Connell (2009) suggest that in the 1950s and 1960s tourism thought was dominated by economic growth theory. The dominant academic perspective was economics, and the economic benefits of tourism were often highlighted by national governments of LDCs, and resort-type development was encouraged by planners and governments. In the 1970s, how-ever, criticism of tourism developments that fo-cuses mainly on economic development emerged and new ideas for more people-centred and envi-ronment-centred development appeared, which led to movements seeking alternative or sustain-able tourism in the 1980s (Page and Connell, 2009). Such a series of trends in tourism devel-opment between the 1950s and 1980s seems to accord intimately with that in general develop-ment theories. On the whole it could be conclud-ed that tourism development stems from the idea of utilizing tourism as a tool for economic devel-opment. The economic impacts of tourism are still crucial for tourist destinations and are still a primary reason why many stakeholders in tour-ist destinations, especially local governments, DMOs, local businesses and local people engag-ing in tourism-related jobs, want to develop tourism. However, the magnitude of the two other aspects of the TBL has also been recog-nized in academia and the real world in the past 30 years.

Considering all three pillars of the TBL of sustainability, balancing these would be a foun-dation for sustainable development. It could also be stated that the concept of ‘sustainable tourism’ allows us to explore sustainable development in

the context of tourism. According to UNWTO (n.d.), sustainable tourism can be defined as ‘tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communi-ties’. Thus, theoretically sustainable tourism looks to be a ‘panacea’ for various issues in tourism development and an ideal approach to tourism development in a sustainable manner. Unfortunately, however, concerning sustaina-ble tourism, there has been a colossal gap be-tween theory and practice. In fact, putting sustainable tourism into practice would hold many challenges in developed countries such as the UK (Berry and Ladkin, 1997) as well as in LDCs such as Turkey (Tosun, 2001). There is a variety of reasons why the implementation of sustainable tourism tends to face diverse chal-lenges that are often beyond the control of a tourist destination and its local communities. Such reasons include a divergence between pri-orities given by a national government policy and implementation of sustainable tourism at local level; the structure and power relationship in the current international tourism system; vagueness of the concept of sustainability itself; and difficulty in understanding the concept of sustainability for ordinary people such as tour-ists and tourism workers. Like sustainable tour-ism, responsible tourism is also a movement in tourism rather than a (niche) type of tourism. Sustainable tourism and responsible tourism share the same goals; however, these two are dif-ferent concepts (Sustainable Tourism Alliance, 2013). The most significant feature of responsi-ble tourism is that every stakeholder involved in tourism, including tourists and excursionists, must accept and take responsibility for the impacts they cause, and they are expected to take action on it (Sustainable Tourism Alliance, 2013). However, it is true that the concept of responsible tourism has also been criticized. For instance, Liu (2003) argues that responsible tourism cannot be relied on as the way forward for a sustainable and growing tourism industry in the world. Nevertheless, responsible tourism would still have a certain value as it could pro-vide all stakeholders in tourism, especially ordi-nary people, with a key word, ‘responsibility’, which is relatively easy for them to understand in the context of their tourism-related activities.

40 Chapter 3

In light of the points discussed above, the author suggests ‘balancing’ and ‘responsibility’ as key terms for tourism development in a sus-tainable manner. ‘Responsibility’ in the context of tourism is clearly explained above; ‘balancing’ is elucidated in detail below. To realize tourism development in a sustainable manner, an ideal balance needs to be explored, identified and maintained within each of the following themes:

• economic, sociocultural and environmental dimensions of the TBL of sustainability;

• the needs of the current generation and the possible needs of future generations to sus-tain a certain quality of life;

• the natural resources required for human life, flora and fauna;

• the needs of stakeholders on the host side of tourism, such as local communities, and the needs of stakeholders on the guest side of tourism, such as visitors;

• tourism policy directions at international, national, regional and local levels; and

• the influence and dominance of MNCs and local small or medium-sized enterprises (hereafter SMEs) in tourism businesses.

The next section considers tourism develop-ment specifically on WHSs, demonstrating the issues unique to, or noticeable at, WHSs.

2 Tourism Development at World Heritage Sites

2.1 Introduction

This section explores tourism development at WHSs in terms of the host and guest sides of tourism. The number of sites listed as WHSs has been increasing and the World Heritage List has been expanding every year. This trend has not changed since the first 12 sites were inscribed as WHSs in 1978 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre (hereafter WHC), 2002). Since then, both devel-oped countries and LDCs have competed for the acquisition of World Heritage (hereafter WH) status, and this movement seems to have been growing (Smith, 2002). Such fierce competition between States Parties to win WH status still continues (Jimura, 2015, 2016a). Furthermore, Jimura (2015, 2016a) argues that such compe-tition occurs not only among States Parties but

also within a State Party, especially within the country that has long Tentative Lists of candi-date sites (Jimura, 2015). Therefore, it could be said that the interests of each candidate site as well as States Parties in obtaining WH status are still high, and their aspiration to utilize the status for various purposes is still strong (Jimura, 2015), although Smith (2002) sees WH sta-tus as a double-edged sword that may bring negative implications as well as positive ones. As noted in Section 4 in Chapter 1, ‘tourist’ is the only word associated with ‘tourism’ that ap-pears only once in the WH Convention (Article 11.4). This weak presence of ‘tourism’ in the WH Convention is also raised by Gravari-Barbas et al. (2015). Nevertheless, the magnitude of tourism for WHSs has been increasingly ac-knowledged by UNESCO, ICOMOS, academics and practitioners in recent years ( Jimura, 2016b). This is evidenced by the development of the UNESCO World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Toolkit, as argued in Section 3.4 in Chapter 2, although UNESCO’s main concern seems not to be tourism in general but sustaina-ble tourism more specifically, and the Toolkit is expected to act as a ‘how to’ guide to realizing best-practice approaches for sustainable eco-nomic development of WHSs through tourism. The close relationship between WHSs and tour-ism is also confirmed by Gravari-Barbas et al. (2015) who argue that the relationship be-tween these two phenomena is long-lasting, al-though the relationship has been complex. Gravari-Barbas et al. (2015) also assert that consideration of tourism as an active variable in both production and consumption of WHSs has shifted from being implicit to being ever more explicit in both practice and theory. In this sense, it could be stated that the impor-tance of the role tourism plays in relation to WHSs has been increasingly clearer in recent years. As shown in Section 3.4 in Chapter 2, the relationship between conservation of cul-tural and natural heritage (including WHSs) and tourism development is contradictory. In light of the magnitude of tourism for WHSs, however, WHSs and tourism have to coexist and the relationship between these two must seek out mutual benefits. As implied by Gravari-Barbas et al. (2015), both production and consumption of WHSs are essential when they are examined in the context of tourism.


Hence, this section explores tourism develop-ment at WHSs from both the host (production and supply) and guest (consumption and de-mand) sides of tourism.

2.2 Tourism development at World Heritage Sites: host side of tourism

As debated in Section 5 in Chapter1, the nomi-nation file for WHS listing is prepared and sub-mitted by each State Party to advisory bodies. However, who and/or which organization(s) play a key role in the preparation stage of the nomination file and in the movement towards the nomination would be different depending on State Party and nominated site. As Section 5 in Chapter 1 shows, the movement for obtaining WH status can be led mainly by national gov-ernment, local government or local communi-ties. If the movement is chiefly led by the national government, this can be seen as a top-down approach to WHS designation. If the movement is primarily led by local communi-ties, this can be regarded as a bottom-up ap-proach. On the whole, a national government is more likely to take the initiative in the move-ment in the east and LDCs, whilst a local govern-ment and/or local community tends to have the initiative in this movement in the west. In the case of the former, the local government is not always fully aware of the possible implications of WHS inscription for local communities. Con-sequently, local communities in the former are more likely to suffer from such implications due to rapid and extensive tourism development and/or tightened conservation policy and regu-lations after WHS designation (Jimura, 2007) than those in the latter.

Needless to say, ‘tourism’ is a very broad con-cept in academia. On one hand, tourism contains approaches or movements such as sustainable tourism and responsible tourism. On the other hand, the term also includes various ‘types’ of ‘niche’ tourism which focus on a certain aspect of tourism resources and activities available at a tourist destination. This includes ‘new’ types of tourism such as cultural and heritage tourism, dark tourism and adventure tourism. In some cases, however, which type(s) of tourism a WHS should pursue and/or what types of excursion-ists and tourists should be targeted after WHS

listing are not fully considered by the host side of tourism before the site gains WH status (Jimura, 2011). Consequently, such a WHS may lose the future direction in its tourism development (Jimura, 2011). Managing tourism is always challenging for destinations, particularly WHSs. This is because, often, tourism will be developed further after the destination itself or the cultural and/or natural heritage the destination owns is listed as a WHS. Furthermore, such a destination needs to ensure that their WHS is and will be con-served in a good condition to avoid losing WH status, even if tourism is developed further and the visitor numbers increase. As a practical guide for the day-to-day tourism management at WHSs, for instance, Pedersen’s (2002) Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites is useful. The manual offers guidelines for a range of key issues relevant to tourism at WHSs, including tourism impacts, in-volvement of stakeholders, policy planning and objective setting, strategies for solving issues, and promotion of the site.

In academia, a number of researchers look at tourism development and management issues at WHSs located in different regions of the world. Shackley (1998) can be deemed a pioneer in the research on tourism development and manage-ment at WHSs and focuses on visitor manage-ment at cultural and natural WHSs in various countries, including Uzbekistan, Poland, UK, Australia, Ethiopia, Egypt and Canada. According to Shackley (1998), willingness of visitors to pay and willingness of authorities involved both to develop and enforce regulations and manage-ment plans would be key for the future of tourism at cultural and natural WHSs in terms of visitor management and visitor experiences, regardless of the countries in which the WHSs are located. Leask and Fyall (2006) have a broader scope compared to Shackley (1998). They examine a range of issues relevant to management of WHSs, including participation of stakeholders (guests and hosts) in WHS management, market-ing, visitor management, economic contribution of tourism to WHSs, application of information and communication technology (ICT) to WHS management, and strategy and policy matters, although they seem to focus more on managing the guest side of tourism (visitors) rather than the host side of tourism (local communities). The approach taken by Harrison and Hitchcock (2005) is different from Shackley (1998) or

42 Chapter 3

Leask and Fyall (2006). They address the politics of WHSs and explore ‘contested’ relationships between tourism at WHSs and conservation of WHSs. More recently, Bourdeau et al. (2015) also investigate interrelationships between WHSs and tourism, aspiring co-existence of WHSs and tourism and multi-beneficial relations between these two.

In the real world, on the other hand, how are tourism development and/or management and WHSs interrelated and integrated in prac-tice? There are some variations with regard to their relations. First, a tourism management and/or development plan can be part of overall WHS management and/or conservation (e.g. Stonehenge, UK). Second, these two types of plans might be developed separately, and the level of their integration is not always enough (e.g. City of Bath, UK). Third, typically, WHSs in the east and LDCs are likely to have their own conserva-tion plan, but they often do not have their tour-ism development and/or management plan, at least as of WHS listing (e.g. Machu Picchu, Peru). Fourth, at some WHSs, a tourism devel-opment and/or management plan has been de-veloped based on a WHS conservation plan (e.g. Shiretoko, Japan). In relation to tourism devel-opment at WHSs, on the whole, a WHS conser-vation plan tends to come first, followed by a tourism development and/or management plan. Ideally, however, these two types of plans should be developed and established together consider-ing the views of stakeholders in heritage conser-vation and both host and guest sides of tourism prior to the site’s nomination process for a WHS.

According to existing studies, the host side of tourism at WHSs would have the following key issues associated with tourism development to consider, utilize or tackle:

• Funding and financial support – as stated in Section 2.1 in Chapter 1 and Section 3.3 in Chapter 2, States Parties might be able to acquire financial support through the World Heritage Fund (hereafter WHF) for conservation activities of WHSs. However, WH status does not assure any automatic funding from any public or private bodies (Jimura, 2007, 2016b). A lack of funding for conservation would also affect tourism development and management issues,

especially visitor management (Hall and Piggin, 2001; Kim et al., 2007; Li et al., 2008). As WHC (2017) suggests, tourism development triggered by WH status can bring financial resources to a WHS and local economy, if tourism development is planned well in advance and tourism is con-ducted in a sustainable manner.

• Overcrowding – UNESCO intends to make WHSs available to the general public as much as possible; however, it is obvious that the natural and built environments of WHSs, especially those that are fragile and/or not managed well, can be severely dam-aged by excessive visits (Smith, 2002). Overcrowding can be seen as one of the main challenges in visitor management at WHSs and can spoil the experience of visi-tors to WHSs (Hall and Piggin, 2001; Smith, 2002; du Cros, 2008; Li et al., 2008).

• Nuisance and the invasion of privacy – if tourism development at a WHS does not consider the presence of local communities sufficiently, visitors to the WHS can be re-garded as a nuisance by local communities whose quiet and/or traditional way of life may be disturbed (ICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism, 1999), and this can result in an invasion of privacy (Jimura, 2007, 2011).

• Local culture – concerning the interrela-tionships among WH status, tourism devel-opment and local culture, the situation appears to be different with WHSs and var-ious researchers have differing views. For instance, tourism development triggered by WH status can enhance or revitalize local culture such as local crafts (Airey and Shackley, 1998) or can degrade or commer-cialize it (Bianchi and Boniface, 2002).

• Site image and recognition as a tourist des-tination – the power of WH status as an internationally established brand and its influence on tourism development is well recognized by both the host and guest sides of tourism (Jimura, 2011, 2016b). This theme is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.

• Pace and scale of tourism development – due to possible considerable impacts of WH status on tourism development, the pace of tourism development can be too rapid and


its scale too extensive after WHS inscription for local inhabitants to cope with (Jimura, 2007, 2011). This can apply to both soft and hard aspects of local communities at WHSs. Regarding the soft aspect, stake-holders on the host side of tourism at WHSs would struggle to catch up with such dras-tic changes after WHS listing in terms of know-how, experience and vision for the future (Jimura, 2007, 2011). Concerning the hard aspect, infrastructures (e.g. motor-ways) and facilities (e.g. parking spaces) vital for tourism cannot meet the demands from visitors and local tourism businesses when they have increased significantly in a short period of time.

• The split between the WHS and its sur-rounding areas – in general, many tourist destinations have ‘tourist honeypots’. In other words, the areas and attractions vis-itors explore tend to be limited to certain places and it is unlikely that visitors would be equally distributed across all areas in a destination. This phenomenon would ap-ply especially to relatively small destina-tions where most of the visitors are day trippers. In many cases, moreover, the properties or sites listed as WHSs are likely to be recognized by visitors as ‘must see’ attractions even before they are designat-ed as WHSs. Within a tourist destination, therefore, there would be gaps in the de-gree of tourism development, number of tourists and excursionists, support from and priority given by local government and local business activities between the area having a WHS and its surrounding area. Furthermore, such gaps can be even larger due to tourism development after WHS listing (Jimura, 2007, 2011), and this issue can also be seen as social polari-zation (see Section 1.3).

2.3 Tourism development at World Heritage Sites: guest

side of tourism

As argued in Section 2.1, WH status could have large impacts on tourism development at WHSs in terms of the host side of tourism. This also

applies to the guest side of tourism such as tour-ists and day trippers. The connection between tourism marketing and WH status is fully explored in Chapter 4; hence, this section presents a few key issues associated with the guest side of tour-ism in tourism development at WHSs, as follows:

• Site image and recognition as a tourist desti-nation – WH status can work for domestic and international visitors as an established brand they can rely on. Having WH status means that the site obtained endorsement from international authorities such as UNESCO, ICOMOS and IUCN with regard to its OUV. The effectiveness of WH status as a tourism brand would be different depending on personal factors of visitors. As Jimura (2011) demon-strates through his study on Shirakawa-go in Japan, part of the cultural WHS, ‘Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama’, WH status seems to be more influential in the decision-making process of domestic (Japanese) visitors compared with international visitors, although the number of both types of visitors increased for more than ten years after its WHS designation in 1995. WH status also works as a marker for authenticity and integ-rity of the sites. As discussed in Section 6 in Chapter 1, authenticity is essential for sites to be inscribed as cultural or mixed WHSs, whilst integrity is vital for sites to be desig-nated as cultural, natural or mixed WHSs. Authenticity can still be seen as one of the main motivations of visitors who travel to a certain destination, although ‘staged au-thenticity’ (McCannell, 1973) is ubiquitous in tourist destinations all over the world and current (postmodern) tourists are ready to accept such ‘staged authenticity’ at least to some extent (Urry, 2002). Moreover, visitors’ attitudes towards authenticity would be different depending on their cultural back-grounds and/or nationality as implied in Sec-tion 3.5 in Chapter 2, referring to a case of Ise Jingu, Japan.

• The number of visitors before and after WHS inscription – there are many studies that explore the relationship between WH status and number of visitors; however, no consensus seems to have been achieved so far. In a sense, it is natural, as WHSs in the

44 Chapter 3

world are so diverse and each WHS is unique with regard to its nature, character-istics, location and accessibility, history as a tourist destination or visitor attraction, de-gree of tourism development before WHS listing, and so on. Nevertheless, the point made by Asakura (2008) and Frey and Steiner (2011) would be insightful to inves-tigate this relationship. They explore factors behind the difference in changes in the visi-tor numbers among WHSs. Frey and Steiner (2011) suggest that no significant increase after WHS listing can be observed at the sites that were established tourist destina-tions even before WHS inscription, while a noteworthy increase since WHS designa-tion can be confirmed at less-established tourist destinations before WHS listing. This view matches well the assertion by Asakura (2008) who states that Japanese WHSs that were not famous among visitors before WHS inscription are more likely to see a massive increase in visitor numbers after WHS designation. The views of Asakura (2008) and Frey and Steiner (2011) are also backed up by Bandarin (2006), who was Director of the WHC from 2000 to 2010.

3 Conclusion

The concept of sustainable development became prominent at a global level in the 1980s and its key principle is to realize the TBL of sustainabili-ty as objectives of the development process. Overall, the aforementioned historical trends in the theories of development also apply to those in theories and practices in tourism develop-ment. As suggested in Section 1.5, ‘responsibili-ty’ and ‘balancing’ can be regarded as key terms for sustainable tourism development. In relation to ‘responsibility’, all stakeholders involved in tourism, including both hosts and guests, must accept and take responsibility for the impacts they cause and are expected to take action as necessary. To fulfil tourism development in a sustainable manner, a perfect equilibrium needs to be explored, found out and maintained be-tween each of the following themes:


• needs of the current generation and possi-ble needs of future generations in order to sustain a certain quality of life for both;

• natural resources required for the life of hu-man beings, flora and fauna;

Case Study: Old Town of Lijiang (WHS Lijiang) – Cultural WHS in China, Listed in 1997

The largest ethnic group of China is the Han people, but China has various ethnic minority groups. Nakhi people are one of such groups, and the city of Lijiang, including WHS Lijiang, is one of their habitats. Nakhi people’s social and cultural characteristics are represented by, for example, their arts, dress and music. Moreover, the wooden dwellings built by Nakhi people are the main components of WHS Lijiang.

A range of changes, often drastic, have been occurring in the city, with WHS Lijiang and Nakhi people living there since WHS designation in 1997. Most importantly, comparing before (1995) and after (2014) WHS listing, visitor arrivals increased from 540,000 to 17 million and tourism revenue rose from RMB 326,000 to RMB 23.8 billion. These figures imply that both local Nakhi people and outsiders such as Han people have realized the great economic benefits of tourism after WHS inscription, al-though there have also been negative impacts of tourism development, for instance, an increase in property prices and rents. Some local Nakhi people in the WHS could not cope with such an increase and moved to suburban areas, while others let or sold their properties to outsiders, including Han peo-ple. Consequently, outflow of local Nakhi people and inflow of outsiders are confirmed in WHS Lijiang.

Nowadays, moreover, most of local homestay guesthouses are not owned or managed by local Nakhi people. Businesses essential for local people’s lives, such as markets, have been replaced by those chiefly for visitors. The degree of commercialization of tourism products has been advanced, and commodification of local culture has also been observed. Overall, tourism development in WHS Lijiang after WHS inscription appears to be too excessive.

(From: Xu and Ye, 2016; Zhang et al., 2017)


• needs of stakeholders on the host side of tourism such as local communities and needs of stakeholders on the guest side of tourism such as tourists;


• powers of MNCs and local SMEs in tourism businesses.

Both positive and negative implications of tourism development can be examined by each pillar of the TBL of sustainability. Concerning the economic aspect, for example, local businesses can be diversified and employment opportunities for local people can be increased thanks to tour-ism development. Due to the relatively fragile and unstable nature of tourism-related jobs, however, over-reliance on tourism can be a danger for the host side of tourism, and local communities, businesses and government need to make efforts to maximize multiplier effects of tourism ex-penditures and realize a fair distribution of eco-nomic benefits from tourism within a tourist destination. Regarding the sociocultural aspect, multiple opportunities and threats can occur in a tourist destination largely through interactions among people. Typically, they happen via com-munications between hosts and guests, but can also happen through interactions among hosts. Tourism development can deteriorate social pa-thology such as vandalism and litter, whilst local culture can be enhanced or degraded by tourism development. Authenticity of local culture can be revalued by local communities through being ‘discovered’ by outsiders such as visitors, whilst tourism development may lead to commoditiza-tion or commercialization of local culture. Social practices and culture unique to each destina-tion must be valued and conserved for the future in terms of the sociocultural dimension of the TBL. Concerning the environmental as-pect of the TBL, generally, tourism development can affect our natural environment negatively. Simultaneously, however, tourism development can evoke hosts’ and guests’ awareness of nature conservation. Moreover, economic benefits ob-tained through tourism can be reinvested for conservation purposes.

The phenomena caused or advanced by tourism development can be observed at WHSs as well as general tourist destinations. Generally

speaking, these incidents are likely to be more ob-vious at WHSs compared with other tourist desti-nations. There would also be some issues unique to WHSs due to the nature and characteristics of WHSs. In relation to the host side of tourism, first, all WHSs must have their heritage conservation plan and it is actually an essential component in their nomination file for WHS listing; however, they should also have their own tourism develop-ment and/or management plan. These two types of plans are expected to work together for the sus-tainable development of WHSs using tourism. Overall, however, a tourism development and/or management plan tends to be overlooked, under-estimated or less developed compared to a con-servation plan. Second, WHSs must be aware that WH status does not guarantee any automatic funding for conservation activities. Indeed, the WHF is available but the budget is limited, and WHSs that are located in LDCs and/or face a seri-ous danger would be prioritized. Therefore, WHSs should make the most of tourism development as an opportunity that can bring economic benefits that can be used for WHS conservation. Third, the pace of tourism development can be faster and the scale of tourism development can be more ex-tensive at the sites designated as WHSs after WHS listing than at other tourist destinations. Hence, careful consideration of balancing between herit-age conservation and tourism development is crucial for WHSs. Prior to WHS inscription, moreover, nominated sites should carefully exam-ine the type(s) of tourism and visitors they want to develop and attract, respectively, after WHS in-scription to maintain their WH status in the fu-ture and realize sustainable tourism development at WHSs. Fourth, WH designation may split local communities into (i) the area listed as or having a WHS and (ii) another area. Alternatively, it can widen the gap between these two areas. This is be-cause, a WHS may stand out among local com-munities and much more attention may be paid to the WHS by businesses and visitors, and much higher priority may be given to the WHS by or-ganizations related to tourism, heritage conserva-tion and local government.

Concerning the guest side of tourism, most researchers agree that WH status is a solid tour-ism brand that both domestic and overseas visitors can rely on, although the degree of effectiveness of the status would be different

46 Chapter 3

according to the intrinsic factors each visitor has. Second, it should be noted that, generally, tourist destinations tend to receive a larger number of visitors after WHS designation, but this does not apply to all WHSs. The degree of reputation as a tourist destination probably can explain the difference in increases in visitor

numbers after WHS listing among various WHSs. Stated differently, tourist destinations that were not famous among visitors before WHS inscription are more likely to see a large increase in visitor numbers after WHS designa-tion, compared to those that were already well-known before listing.

References

Airey, D. and Shackley, M. (1998) Bukhara (Uzbekistan): a former oasis town on the Silk Road. In: Shackley, M. (ed.) Visitor Management: Case studies from World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp.10–25.

Asakura, S. (2008) Impacts of registration for World Heritage in Japan. Proceedings of the 23rd JITR Annual Conference, pp. 329–332.

Bandarin, F. (2006) Foreword. In: Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (eds) Managing World Heritage Sites. Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. v–vi.

Berry, S. and Ladkin, A. (1997) Sustainable tourism: a regional perspective. Tourism Management 18(7), 433–440.

Bianchi, R. and Boniface, P. (2002) Editorial: the politics of World Heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies 8(2), 79–80.

Bourdeau, L., Gravari-Barbas, M. and Robinson, M. (eds) (2015) World Heritage, Tourism and Identity: Inscription and Co-production. Ashgate, Farnham, UK.

Britton, S.G. (1982) The political economy of tourism in the Third World. Annals of Tourism Research 9(3), 331–358.

De Kadt, E. (ed.) (1979) Tourism – passport to development? Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.du Cros, H. (2008) Too much of a good thing? Visitor congestion management issues for popular world

heritage tourist attractions. Journal of Heritage Tourism 2(3), 225–238.Fleischer, A. and Felsenstein, D. (2000) Support for rural tourism: Does it make a difference? Annals of

Tourism Research 27(4), 1007–1024.Frey, B.S. and Steiner, L. (2011) World Heritage List: Does it make sense? International Journal of Cultural

Policy 17(5), 555–573.Getz, D. and Nilsson, P.A. (2004) Responses of family businesses to extreme seasonality in demand: the

case of Bornholm, Denmark. Tourism Management 25(1), 17–30.Gravari-Barbas, M., Bourdeau, L. and Robinson, M. (2015) World heritage and tourism: from opposition to

co-production. In: Bourdeau, L., Gravari-Barbas, M. and Robinson, M. (eds) World Heritage, Tourism and Identity: Inscription and Co-production. Ashgate, Farnham, UK, pp. 1–24.

Gursoy, D. and Rutherford, D.G. (2004) Host attitudes toward tourism: an improved structural model. An-nals of Tourism Research 31(3), 495–516.

Hall, C.M. (2007) Pro-poor tourism: Do tourism exchanges benefit primarily the countries of the South? Current Issues in Tourism 10(2–3), 111–118.


Hall, C.M. and Piggin, R. (2001) Tourism and World Heritage in OECD countries. Tourism Recreation Research 26(1), 103–105.

Harrison, D. and Hitchcock, M. (eds) (2005) The Politics of World Heritage: Negotiating Tourism and Con-servation. Channel View Publications, Clevedon, UK.


Jackson, L.A. (2008) Residents’ perceptions of the impacts of special event tourism. Journal of Place Man-agement and Development 1(3), 240–255.

Jimura, T. (2007) The impact of World Heritage Site designation on local communities – a comparative study of Ogimachi (Japan) and Saltaire (UK). Doctoral thesis, Nottingham Trent University.



Jimura, T. (2015) The relationship between world heritage designation and local identity. In: Bourdeau, L., Gravari-Barbas, M. and Robinson, M. (eds) World Heritage, Tourism and Identity: Inscription and Co-production. Ashgate, Farnham, UK, pp. 81–91.

Jimura, T. (2016a) Re-examination of the relationship between World Heritage Site designation and local identity. In: Amoeda, R., Lira, S. and Pinheiro, C. (eds) Heritage 2016: Heritage and Sustainable Development. Green Lines Institute, Lisbon, 12–15 July, pp. 283–290.


Kim, S.S., Wong, K.K. and Cho, M. (2007) Assessing the economic value of a world heritage site and willingness-to-pay determinants: a case of Changdeok Palace. Tourism Management 28(1), 317–322.

Lane, B. (1994) Sustainable rural tourism strategies: a tool for development and conservation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2(1–2), 102–111.

Law, C.M. (2002) Urban Tourism: The Visitor Economy and the Growth of Large Cities, 2nd edn. Continuum, London.

Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (eds) (2006) Managing World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.Li, M., Wu, B. and Cai, L. (2008) Tourism development of World Heritage Sites in China: a geographic

perspective. Tourism Management 29(2), 308–319.Liburd, J.J. and Edwards, D. (eds) (2010) Understanding the Sustainable Development of Tourism. Good-

fellow, Oxford, UK.Liu, Z. (2003) Sustainable tourism development: a critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11(6), 459–475.MacDonald, R. and Jolliffe, L. (2003) Cultural rural tourism: evidence from Canada. Annals of Tourism

Research 30(2), 307–322.Mbaiwa, J.E. (2011) Changes on traditional livelihood activities and lifestyles caused by tourism development

in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tourism Management 32(5), 1050–1060.McCannell, D. (1973) Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Journal

of Sociology 79(3) 589–603.Nash, D. (1989) Tourism as a form of imperialism. In: Smith, V. (ed.) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology

of Tourism, 2nd edn. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.OECD (2002) Tourism. Available at: https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2725 (accessed 5

February 2017).Page, S. and Connell, J. (2009) Tourism a Modern Synthesis, 3rd edn. Cengage Learning EMEA, Andover, UK.Pedersen, A. (2002) Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites: A Practical Manual for World Heritage

Site Managers. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-113-2.pdf ( accessed 9 December 2016).

Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. (2003) Governmental responses to tourism development: three Brazilian case studies. Tourism Management 24(1), 97–110.

Ritchie, B.W. and Adair, D. (2004) Sport tourism: an introduction and overview. Sport Tourism: Interrela-tionships, Impacts and Issues 15(6), 1–29.

Shackley, M. (ed.) (1998) Visitor Management: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites. Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford, UK.

Smith, M. (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, V.L. (1989) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, 2nd edn. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Stolarick, K.M., Denstedt, M., Donald, B. and Spencer, G.M. (2011) Creativity, tourism and economic development in a rural context: the case of Prince Edward County. Journal of Rural and Community Development 5(1).

Sustainable Tourism Alliance (2013) Harold Goodwin and Justin Francis: responsible and sustainable tourism are not the same concept. Available at: http://www.sustainabletourismalliance.net/httpblog-responsible-travel-comresponsible-and-sustainable-tourism-are-not-the-same-thing/ (accessed 12 February 2017).

Tamborini, C.R. (2007) Work, wages and gender in export-oriented cities: global assembly versus interna-tional tourism in Mexico. Bulletin of Latin American Research 26(1), 24–49.

Tosun, C. (2001) Challenges of sustainable tourism development in the developing world: the case of Turkey. Tourism Management 22(3), 289–303.

https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2725


http://www.sustainabletourismalliance.net/httpblog-responsibletravel-comresponsible-and-sustainable-tourism-are-not-the-same-thing/

http://www.sustainabletourismalliance.net/httpblog-responsibletravel-comresponsible-and-sustainable-tourism-are-not-the-same-thing/

48 Chapter 3

UNWTO (n.d.) Sustainable development of tourism: definition. Available at: http://sdt.unwto.org/content/about-us-5 (accessed 5 February 2017).

Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze, 2nd edn. Sage, London.Wang, C. and Xu, H. (2011) Government intervention in investment by Chinese listed companies that have

diversified into tourism. Tourism Management 32(6), 1371–1380.WHC (2002) The World Heritage Convention: 30 years old and going strong. Available at: http://whc.

unesco.org/archive/websites/venice2002/edito.htm (accessed 16 February 2017).WHC (2017) The World Heritage Convention. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/

(accessed 21 February 2017).Xu, H. and Ye, T. (2016) Tourist experience in Lijiang: the capital of Yanyu. Journal of China Tourism Research

12(1), 108–125.Zhang, J., Xu, H.G. and Xing, W. (2017) The host–guest interactions in ethnic tourism, Lijiang, China. Current

Issues in Tourism 20(7), 724–739.

http://sdt.unwto.org/content/about-us-5

http://sdt.unwto.org/content/about-us-5

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/websites/venice2002/edito.htm

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/websites/venice2002/edito.htm



Historic Centre of Brugge, Belgium.

4

Tourism Marketing at World Heritage Sites

1 Tourism and Destination Marketing

1.1 Marketing for tourism

The tourism industry consists of a range of businesses, organizations and facilities that are intended to meet specific needs and wants of

tourists (Leiper, 1979). Figure 3.1, in Chapter 3, indicates key stakeholders in tourism, and major sectors of the tourism industry are found in the ‘Tourist destination (hosts)’ part of the figure. All of them are more or less engaged in market-ing activities for tourism, consciously or subcon-sciously. Of these, marketing activities for tourism are particularly important for accommodation,

50 Chapter 4

catering, visitor attraction, the retail sector, transport, and tour operators at a local level, whilst marketing activities for a destination are a key part of its destination marketing organiza-tion (DMO). In the business world, products can be divided into goods and services. In the tourism industry, products are services. Key characteris-tics of services as products are intangibility, insep-arability, variability and perishability. Moreover, the satisfaction of consumers who purchase ser-vices is obtained not via ownership but via ac-tions, performances or experiences. In tourism businesses, people who receive services include passengers, guests, customers and visitors. For a tourist destination, consumers are visitors who include day trippers and tourists. At a tourist destination, what visitors have is, ultimately, ‘ experience’, which is affected by each service and the combination of services they consume. Hence it is vital for tourism marketing to under-stand the nature of services. Due to the key characteristics of services, it is not possible for consumers to ‘foretaste’ services they receive at a tourist destination. Stated differently, what con-sumers of tourism products can do beforehand is rather limited. This signifies that tourism market-ers must influence consumers’ decision-making processes with relatively restricted measures, and consumers also must make a decision based on limited information. Such information contains image and/or text content. It is also important for tourism marketers to consider which consumers and visitors they target. The target consumers for tourism businesses need to fit their vision and culture, and must match the type(s) of tourism the destination aims to develop. In light of these points, image and text content in tourism mar-keting should be developed.

Regarding image content, photographs have always played an essential role in tourism mar-keting. The mid-19th century is the time when two modern phenomena, photography and mass tourism, emerged in our society (Lo et al., 2011). It is widely accepted that photography was invented by Louis Daguerre in 1839 (Garlick, 2002). In 1841, Thomas Cook launched his in-ternational travel company with a successful one-day rail trip from Leicester to Loughborough on 5 July. This historic event is seen as the begin-ning of mass tourism and it is a typical example of ‘modern’ tourism. Markwell (1997) notes that these two modern phenomena are linked.

Groves and Timothy (2001) also suggest that photography is an essential element of the tour-ism phenomenon. Photography and tourism have become widespread, first among western coun-tries, followed by developed countries in the east and then among less-developed countries (LDCs). Both photography and tourism may be viewed as critical factors in a modern society. Of the five senses human beings have, visual sense is seen as the prime sense for the majority and is closely connected with photography. Photographs inspire people to visit a particular place (Jenkins, 2003). The visual also plays a key role in the concept of the tourist gaze suggested by Urry (1990). What tourists gaze upon and their expe-rience with the object gazed upon (sight) is in-tangible; however, it can be transformed into something tangible by being captured with a photograph (Lo et al., 2011). In this sense, pho-tographs exist between sights and visitors; they support the process in which the sights become tangible and personal for visitors and allow them to have the ownership of what they gaze upon and their individual experience with the sights. Photographs taken by visitors also work as proof of their visit to a certain place. Further-more, such photographs play a significant role when visitors’ memories of a destination are de-veloped into their own stories or narratives (Lo et al., 2011) and shared with family and friends later. Considering the nature of photographs, it can be stated that photographs can work with word-of-mouth (WOM) in tourism marketing effectively.

Historically, image contents of products have been diffused to prospective and existing consum-ers mainly through traditional media such as tel-evision, radio or newspapers, and paper- based marketing materials such as brochures and leaf-lets. This applies to tourism marketing as evi-denced, for instance, by brochures for package holidays. The other key element in tourism mar-keting is WOM. Traditionally, WOM has been spread only within personal networks. However, the emergence and development of the internet dramatically changed the role and impact of both image and text content in tourism market-ing. In tourism studies, research about online marketing emerged in the early 2000s, and many studies have investigated online marketing in the tourism industry (Doolin et al., 2002). The impact of the internet on tourism marketing still

Tourism Marketing at World Heritage Sites 51

continues to grow steadily worldwide (Jimura, 2011). Nowadays, myriad images, including photographs uploaded by both tourism business-es and visitors, are available on the internet.

Concerning the supply side of tourism ser-vices, today, most tourism businesses and tourist destinations have their own websites. These offi-cial websites consist of both image and text con-tent designed to deliver useful information about the business or destination, attract target con-sumers and encourage purchases or visits (B2C domain). Regarding the demand side of tourism services, numerous photographs or videos taken or recorded by consumers or visitors are availa-ble on the internet via online blogs, social net-working sites (SNSs) such as Facebook and Ins-tagram, and video-sharing websites, typically YouTube. People living in any region of the world can read or watch them if they have ac-cess to the internet (C2C domain). On the inter-net, WOM is also visualized by the demand side of tourism services (consumers or visitors) and becomes tangible text information, e-WOM. Like image contents, such e-WOM is available and accessible for people through online blogs, SNSs, websites of e-travel agents (e.g. Booking.com) and travel websites (e.g. TripAdvisor). The e-WOM available, for example on TripAdvisor or Booking.com, may influence the decision- making process of the readers (C2C domain). Such e-WOM can also be read by the supply side of tourism services (C2B domain), and in some cases they may respond to e-WOM (B2C domain), especially negative e-WOM, to demonstrate their sincere attitudes towards their customers and to protect their reputation and brand image. Section 1 ex-amines the themes in tourism marketing gener-ally whilst Section 2 narrows its focus down to destination marketing that is related more closely to World Heritage Sites (hereafter WHSs).

1.2 Destination marketing

Different terms are used to describe ‘places’ visi-tors explore. Typical examples of such terms are ‘attractions’, ‘sites’ and ‘destinations’. Of these, ‘attractions’ are likely to be combined with ‘ visitor’ in tourism studies. A visitor attraction can be defined as ‘a permanent resource, either natural or human-made, which is developed and managed for the primary purpose of attracting

visitors’ (Hu and Wall, 2005, p. 619). For in-stance, natural visitor attractions include Victo-ria Falls (Zimbabwe and Zambia) and the Great Barrier Reef (Australia), whilst artificial visitor attractions include the Palace of Versailles (France) and Lotte World (South Korea). Regarding ‘sites’, Laws (1995) argues that every tourist ‘site’ has a unique mixture of characteristics decided by its geographical location, culture and history. Table 4.1 shows the classification of tourist ‘sites’ suggested by Laws (1995) with examples from each category.

Regarding a ‘destination’, geographical and political elements are important, and it tends to be combined with ‘tourist’ in tourism studies. For example, Buhalis (2000, p. 98) defines a tourist destination as a ‘geographical region which is understood by its visitors as a unique entity, with a political and legislative framework for tourism marketing and planning’, whilst Pike (2008, p. 24) defines it as a ‘geographical space in which a cluster of tourism resources exist, rather than a political boundary’. In the context of this defini-tion, a ‘cluster’ means ‘an accumulation of tourist resources and attractions, infrastructures, equip-ment, service providers, other support sectors and administrative organisms whose integrated and coordinated activities provide customers with the experience they expected from the destination they chose to visit’ (Rubies, 2001, p. 39). Accord-ing to Pike (2008), there are three types of desti-nation cluster as follows (examples are provided by Pike (2008) and the author):

1. Section of political boundary – e.g. the French Quarter, New Orleans (USA); Museumsquartier, Vienna (Austria); Josefov, Prague (Czech). 2. A political boundary – e.g. Cusco (Peru), Kaunas (Lithuania), Marrakesh (Morocco), Dubai (UAE), Auckland (New Zealand), Shanghai (China), Goa (India). 3. Extending over political boundaries – e.g. European Alps (Austria, Slovenia, Italy, Germany, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and France); Lake District National Park (Allerdale, Copeland, Eden and South Lakeland districts in England); Yoshino- Kumano National Park (Mie, Nara and Wakayama prefectures in Japan).

Considering the magnitude of ‘cluster’ for the concept of ‘destinations’, of four types of ‘sites’ suggested by Laws (1995), purpose-built resorts should not be treated as ‘destinations’, although

52 Chapter 4

the other three types of ‘sites’ (capital cities, de-veloped traditional centres and touring centres) can be seen as ‘destinations’.

As can be seen from the arguments on ‘at-tractions’, ‘sites’ and ‘destinations’ with regard to tourism, there is a certain degree of overlap with these terms. Considering these points, the author suggests his classification of WHSs. Types and categories of WHSs established by UNESCO can be found in Section 4 in Chap-ter 1. In the author’s view, however, WHSs can be divided into three groups in terms of tourism:

• ‘objects’ which people come to see;

• ‘attractions’ where people come to enter; or

• ‘destinations’ where people come to explore, and often local communities exist in and/or around them.

Which group a WHS falls into is decided chiefly by its size and relationship with tourism. For instance, first, Madara Rider (cultural WHS in Bulgaria) and Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) (cultural WHS in Japan) (see Fig. 4.1) can be seen as ‘objects’. Second, Imperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing Dynasties in Beijing

and Shenyang (cultural WHS in China) and Cologne Cathedral (cultural WHS in Germany) (see Fig. 4.2) can be regarded as ‘attractions’. Third, Okavango Delta (natural WHS in Bot-swana) and Costiera Amalfitana (cultural WHS in Italy) (Fig. 4.3) can be viewed as ‘destina-tions’. Of these three groups, the marketing ac-tivities of WHSs in the ‘objects’ and ‘attractions’ categories would be led by WHSs or the country, city or town they belong to. In the case of WHSs in the ‘destinations’ category, the marketing ac-tivity is done mainly by the DMO they belong to geographically.

Marketing for WHSs is discussed in Section 2. Prior to this, marketing for tourist destinations in general is discussed, as ‘destinations’ can be WHSs or may contain WHSs as ‘attractions’ and/or ‘objects’. Hence, it is important to explore how ‘des-tinations’ are marketed to domestic and interna-tional visitors before WHS marketing is discussed.

Once, the types of tourism visitors could enjoy at ‘destinations’ were limited, and the number of established tourist destinations was also restricted. At that time, visitors tended to enjoy traditional leisure activities at limited destinations as follows:

Table 4.1. Classification of tourist sites. (From: Laws, 1995; examples are modified and added by the author)

Name Characteristics Examples

Capital cities Major cities that attract visitors for tourism business, family, cultural and administrative reasons

Athens, London, Paris, Madrid, Tokyo, Beijing, BangkokTourists tend to cluster in particular zones where

archaeological, shopping, cultural or entertainment facilities prevail

Developed traditional centres

Long-established village preserved as the focus for tourism developments

Kusadasi (Turkey), Bali (Indonesia), Acapulco (Mexico)Hotels, bars and other tourist facilities surround the

core zone, either located in a planned pattern or built speculatively

Tourist structures now dominate the areaTouring centres A town that has a high concentration of secondary

tourist facilities, and good transport links both to the countries of the tourists and to the surrounding natural/cultural attractions

Salzburg (Austria), York (UK), Cape Town (South Africa)

Purpose-built resorts

All infrastructure and amenities are clearly focused on the business of catering to tourists’ needs

Walt Disney World Resort (USA), Universal Studios Singapore, Alton Towers Resort (UK)

Buildings constructed in the same era, and although their architectural style is highly controlled it may be different from that of the surrounding area

The resort provides all facilities needed by its guests during their stay


• seaside – Brighton (UK) and Heiligendamm (Germany)

• spas – Budapest (Hungary) and Sofia ( Bulgaria)

• skiing – Chamonix (France) and St-Moritz (Switzerland)

• festivals – Venice (Italy) and Kyoto (Japan).

These traditional tourism products and destinations are associated with mass tourism and a low level of market segmentation.

Nowadays, a variety of ‘new’ and ‘niche’ types of tourism has been developed and many new tourist destinations have been emerging as follows:

• literature tourism – Bronte sisters (Haworth, UK) and Ernest Hemingway (Key West, USA);

• movie or drama tourism – The Lord of the Rings trilogy (New Zealand) and Winter Sonata (Chuncheon, South Korea);

• adventure tourism – rafting (Cairns, Australia) and caving (El Soplao, Spain);

• dark tourism – Nazi concentration camps (Auschwitz and Birkenau, Poland), and

National September 11 Memorial and Mu-seum (New York, USA);

• food tourism – Pintxo (San Sebastián, Spain) and pizza (Naples, Italy);

• wine tourism – Bordeaux wine (Bordeaux, France) and port wine (Douro/Porto, Portugal);

• heritage tourism – cultural WHS (Historic District of Old Québec, Canada), natural WHS (Lut Desert, Iran), and mixed WHS (Laponian Area, Sweden).

As discussed in Section 1.1, both image and text content are significant for tourism market-ing. This point is echoed by Francesconia (2011) who claims that visual aids, including photo-graphs, together with text information, play a crucial role in the formation of ‘designation im-age’. Destination image is commonly perceived as a key aspect in successful destination market-ing because tourism products are services. The destination image also has a significant impact on both the supply and demand sides of tourism. In other words, tourism marketing is concerned

Fig. 4.1. Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome). (Photo: the author)

54 Chapter 4

with the selling of ‘dreams’ since consumers’ ex-pectations of intangible tourism services can be realized only after their visit to a destination. Therefore the images held by visitors play a criti-cal role in their decision-making. Furthermore, there has been ever-increasing competition among tourist destinations. This is evidenced by the trends in the tourism market noted by Orbasli (2000). The rise of heritage tourism has been conspicuous, and previously unfamiliar places have been appearing in the heritage tourism mar-ket (Orbasli, 2000). In addition, former industrial

cities (e.g. Bradford, UK) have used their indus-trial heritage for economic purposes, including tourism. Also eastern European countries have become more accessible thanks to their mem-bership of the European Union. Hence, having a competitive destination image is vital for a desti-nation to be successful in tourism.

There is a variety of definitions of destina-tion images. In the early studies on this theme, Reynolds (1965) argues that a destination im-age is the mental construct that is developed by a potential tourist on the basis of a few selected

Fig. 4.2. Cologne Cathedral. (Photo: the author)


impressions among the flood of total impres-sions. This selective filtering process is a form of perceptual defence (Reynolds, 1965); whilst Crompton (1979) defines a destination image as the sum of all those emotional and aesthetic qualities such as experiences, beliefs, ideas, rec-ollections and impressions that a person has of a destination. Compared to these, Parenteau’s (1995, cited in Gallarza et al., 2002) view of a destination image is rather negative: a favoura-ble or unfavourable prejudice that the audience and distributors have of the product or destina-tion. Since tourism services compete mainly via image (except repeat visitors), it is imperative that marketers understand that ‘perception is reality’. The brand image of a destination can be different from the brand identity intended by the DMOs (Pike, 2008), and it is difficult for market-ers to control it. It is also very challenging to es-tablish a comprehensive conceptualization of destination image, although many researchers have developed various concepts, models or frameworks to evaluate and analyse destination

images. For instance, Gunn (1988) suggests that destination images are formed in two phases. In the first phase, ‘organic images’ are developed through a person’s everyday assimilation of in-formation. This process includes a range of me-dia such as school geography readings, mass media and actual visits. In the second phase, ‘in-duced images’ are formed through the influence of tourism promotions directed by marketers. This process usually occurs when a person starts collecting information for his/her visit. Gunn (1988) claims that destination marketers should focus on improving ‘induced images’ since they can do little to change organic images.

Each tourist destination must gain an advantage over their competitors, especially be-tween similar destinations. In this sense, differen-tiation and uniqueness are crucial. There are several destinations that have similar character-istics and tourism resources. For example, the im-ages of Buddhist temples in China, South Korea and Japan would be difficult for westerners to differentiate, particularly if they have never been

Fig. 4.3. Costiera Amalfitana. (Photo: the author)

56 Chapter 4

to any of these countries. The same would apply to eastern people seeing the pictures of cathedrals in France, Italy and Germany. In light of the above, every effort should be made to make the destina-tion special and unique to attract first-time and repeat visitors. In reality, however, it is very de-manding, particularly with limited budgets and time. To overcome the challenges of differentia-tion and competition, destination ‘positioning’ is useful. Through this process, the destination could identify the market that the destination competes within, their position in that market, their main competitors and their target markets.

As shown in Section 1.1, nowadays most tourist destinations have their own websites to attract their target visitors and encourage their first or repeat visits. In many cases, these web-sites are owned and managed by DMOs. Such websites also work for first-time visitors as gate-ways to destinations. As argued above, currently many people want to visit places that have links to literature, movie or dramas. In recent years, an increasing number of tourist destinations have been promoted to visitors intentionally or unintentionally through their link to the above- stated mass media. Such mass media can be very powerful pull factors to induce people to visit the destination featured in the media (Jimura, 2010). In such a case, images delivered to con-sumers via these media can be understood as organic images as suggested by Gunn (1988). As discussed above, it is almost impossible for tour-ist destinations to control people’s organic imag-es, but they could still affect people’s induced images through their marketing activities. Sec-tion 2 examines tourism marketing and destina-tion marketing at WHSs.

2 World Heritage Sites: Tourism and Destination Marketing

2.1 World Heritage status as a brand

Holding World Heritage (hereafter WH) status can enhance recognition and image (Smith, 2002; Jimura, 2007a, 2016) of the site. Accord-ing to Anholt (1998), having a WHS can greatly enhance the images of countries that have not been well-known to foreigners. Both recognition and image are significant elements of tourism

and destination marketing. Tourism marketing for WHSs or destinations having a WHS has been increasingly important as the international tourism market has become progressively com-petitive and the number of WHSs has also been steadily increasing every year. The power of WH status as a brand is one of the key themes that has been examined well in marketing, heritage and/or tourism studies (Hall and Piggin, 2003; Li et al., 2008; Ryan and Silvanto, 2009, 2011; Timothy, 2011). Most tourist destinations in-scribed as WHSs or those having a WHS appear to manipulate their WH status for their destination marketing in an affirmative manner (Timothy, 2011; Cassel and Pashkevich, 2014).

WHSs are inscribed by an international authority, UNESCO, and its nomination process is supported by advisory bodies consisting of international specialized agencies such as ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM. Hence it could be stated that WH status is awarded through the accreditations by these relevant international authorities and this status can act as a clear marker of authenticity and quality assurance (Bianchi, 2002; Smith, 2002; Poria et al., 2013; Jimura, 2016). Thus, this validation of authen-ticity and quality can be regarded as an effective brand in terms of tourism and destination mar-keting (Bryce et al., 2015), although competi-tion among WHSs has also been getting fiercer due to the ever- increasing number of WHSs. Ryan and Silvanto (2011) conclude that WH status as a brand is especially valuable for LDCs that are likely to have limited established brands for tourism and destination marketing com-pared with developed countries. Needless to say, however, WH status can also be a useful mar-keting tool for developed countries. For instance, Buckley (2004) refers to the effectiveness of WH status as a global brand, which can posi-tively influence the marketing for nature-based tourism in Australia. Ryan and Silvanto (2009) also note that WH status is seen as a widely re-spected brand by both host and guest sides of tourism.

Section 2.2 examines the tourism and desti-nation marketing for WHSs from the standpoint of the host side of tourism, referring to stake-holders and organizations involved in such mar-keting activities. On the other hand, Section 2.3 investigates it in relation to the guest side of tour-ism, focusing on visitors’ responses to WHSs.


2.2 Stakeholders and organizations in marketing for World Heritage Sites

To utilize WH status as an effective brand for des-tination marketing, all of the key stakeholders in the host side of tourism need to work together and should have a clear vision for the future of a WHS or a destination owning a WHS. Having such a vision requires setting out some desired future state and clarifying future objectives they intend to achieve (Evans, 2015). As criticisms against Doxey’s (1975) Irritation Index model and Butler’s (1980) Tourism Area Life Cycle model demonstrate, local communities in tourist destinations are not homogeneous in terms of their interests and aspirations, and every desti-nation is unique regarding their profile as a tour-ist destination. Therefore, it would be challenging for most WHSs or tourist destinations contain-ing a WHS to establish and adopt the aforemen-tioned holistic approach towards their tourism and destination marketing and to form a clear vision for their future as WHSs and tourist destinations.

As discussed in Section 3.3 in Chapter 2, WHS designation does not include any direct in-terference from UNESCO or its advisory bodies in the management of the WHS (Bianchi and Bon-iface, 2002). WHS listing also does not contain the imposition of a single governing body and/ or structure to monitor management duties ( Bianchi and Boniface, 2002). As Jimura (2003) notes, however, absence of a single organization in charge of the management of an entire WHS can be a risk for WHS management for various reasons, including heterogeneity of aspirations and priorities that each key stakeholder related to the WHS would have. If there is no single or-ganization responsible for the management of a WHS as a whole, the local government should play a leading role (Evans, 2002) (see Section 3.3 in Chapter 2). Although it would be difficult to identify examples of the single organization that deals with all the matters related to WHS management exclusively, there are some differ-ent types of successful approaches towards holistic WHS management. As Evans (2002) suggests, regional and/or local government is involved in such approaches. First, some WHSs have a WH officer who tends to belong to a rele-vant regional or local government (e.g. Great Barrier Reef, Australia; and Saltaire, UK).

Second, some WHSs have a WH bureau/council that is likely to be funded by regional and/or lo-cal government (e.g. Iwami Ginzan World Herit-age Centre for Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and its Cultural Landscape, Japan; and Wakayama World Heritage Centre for Sacred Sites and Pil-grimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range, Japan). Third, local people in WHSs may form community groups for the conservation of their WHSs (e.g. Saltaire Village Society for Saltaire, UK; and Society for Conservation of Natural En-vironment of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-go, Japan), and in some cases, representatives from local government may join the groups (e.g. Founda-tion for Conservation of Gassho-style houses in Ainokura for Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama, Japan).

There is also no compulsion by internation-al authorities on tourism and destination mar-keting of WHSs. There are some international tourism organizations doing a range of activities for tourism such as the UN World Tourism Or-ganization and the World Travel and Tourism Council. However, they do not force any guide-lines or frameworks with regard to tourism and destination marketing for WHSs. Hence, each WHS and destination holding a WHS needs to develop tourism and destination marketing strategies and put them into practice, aiming to attract target market segments and to foster a type of tourism that can coexist with its WH status. DMOs play a central role in tourism and destination marketing. Traditionally, the roles DMOs are expected to play have been performed by national, regional and/or local governments rather than private businesses, who would focus more on their own benefits rather than the ben-efits for destinations as a whole. Recently, howev-er, DMOs have been evolving into public– private partnerships (PPPs) (Pike, 2005). Usually, PPPs are partly funded by regional or local govern-ment; whilst their daily activities tend to be led by private businesses focusing on marketing ac-tivities. As Gretzel et al. (2006) observe, howev-er, DMOs have been increasingly referred to as ‘destination marketing and management organ-izations’. Wang and Krakover (2008) examine the Elkhart County Convention and Visitors Bu-reau, the DMO for the Elkhart County, Indiana, USA, and discuss its nature as a major destina-tion marketing organization that represents the local community and the convener of most

58 Chapter 4

collaborative marketing campaigns. They regard the DMO as a destination marketing organiza-tion but also state that it represents the local community. According to Morgan et al. (2011), moreover, the abbreviation DMO can signify not only ‘destination marketing organization’ but also ‘destination management organization’. Consid-ering the historical flow of the above arguments, nowadays DMOs are expected to play a leading role in destination management as well as in destination marketing. This signifies that DMOs should deal with the needs of local communities as well as those of visitors and tourism business-es. In the case of the destinations listed as WHSs, many local DMOs refer to their WH status on their marketing materials such as their official tourism websites (e.g. ‘Historic District of Old Québec’ (WHS) and ‘Quebec City Tourism’ (DMO): http://www.quebecregion.com/en/). In the case of WHSs as part of tourist destinations, both the WHS itself and the destination may use their WH status on their marketing media, including their official website (e.g. ‘Chuson-ji Temple’ (WHS): http://www.chusonji.or.jp/en/ and ‘Hiraizumi Tourism Association’ (DMO): http:// hiraizumi.or.jp/en/index.html).

According to Jimura (2007a, 2011, 2016), properties nominated for WHSs should consider the types of tourism they aim to develop and the target market segments they intend to attract prior to WHS designation. If these points are not considered, WHSs may not be able to control their tourism development and may face serious challenges in balancing tourism development and conservation of WHSs.

2.3 Visitors’ responses to World Heritage status

As discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, both tour-ist destinations inscribed as WHSs and those owning a WHS seem to use their WH status ac-tively to attract visitors. This trend tends to be more obvious among tourist destinations that were not recognized well by visitors, did not have images appealing to them and were not estab-lished enough as tourist destinations prior to WHS listing. WH status is used by the demand side of tourism as well as the supply side. In fact, visitors can be attracted by WH status (Carter

et al., 2000) and also rely on the status whilst they are selecting their destinations (Yan and Morrison, 2007; Ryan and Silvanto, 2009). Po-ria et al. (2011) also argue that WH status can encourage repeat visits to a WHS. However, WH status would not be equally influential to the decision-making process of all visitors. This is because even if visitors have a high level of awareness of or interest in heritage, it does not guarantee that they also have a good level of awareness of or interest in WH status and WHSs (Poria et al., 2011; Dewar et al., 2012). Further-more, Hall and Piggin (2002) claim that the im-pact of WHS listing is sometimes emphasized excessively.

Regarding the correlation between WH sta-tus and visitor numbers, many studies have been conducted. As discussed in Section 2.3 in Chapter 3, however, no consensus has been es-tablished among researchers. In short, the im-pact of WHS listing or WH status on the number of people visiting WHSs is different by site. For instance, a study conducted in Israel by Poria et al. (2013) suggests that WH status does not seem to affect tourist demand in a positive or negative manner. Hall and Piggin (2003) conclude that WH status does not assure an increase in visitor numbers, and this is echoed by Landorf (2009). Such a limited impact is also reported by Cellini (2011) and Huang et al. (2012). Buckley (2004) asserts that WHS designation or WH status should be treated as one of the reasons for an increase in the visitor numbers at Australian national parks listed as WHSs, but it causes a substantial increase in proportions of interna-tional visitors to these WHSs.

Some researchers explore factors behind the changes in the number of visitors among dif-ferent WHSs. Bandarin (2006) and Frey and Steiner (2011) suggest that no significant in-crease can be confirmed at the sites that were already established tourist destinations even be-fore WHS inscription, while a noteworthy in-crease can be observed at less established tourist destinations before WHS listing. Their views also match the assertion by Asakura (2008), based on his study about WHSs in Japan. WHSs that had a relatively small number of visitors and were not famous enough among visitors prior to WHS designation are more likely to see a dra-matic increase in visitor numbers and to have a

http://www.quebecregion.com/en/

http://www.chusonji.or.jp/en/

http://hiraizumi.or.jp/en/index.html

http://hiraizumi.or.jp/en/index.html


higher increase rate after WHS listing than those that had large visitor numbers and were well known to visitors even before WHS inscription. The examples of the former include Historic Vil-lages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama (cultural) (Jimura, 2007a, 2011; Asakura, 2008), Shi-rakami-Sanchi (natural) (Asakura, 2008) and Yakushima (natural) (Asakura, 2008). All of them are relatively difficult to access due to their remote and/or mountainous locations. On the other hand, the examples of the latter encom-pass Himeji-jo (cultural) and Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) (cultural) (Asakura, 2008), which are relatively easy to access by public transport. However, Cuccia (2012) cau-tions that even if such an increase is confirmed after WHS listing it might be temporary. Moreo-ver, the number of visitors can even decrease after WHS designation, especially after a certain period has elapsed since inscription. Of WHSs in Japan, for example, Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area (cultural) is the WHS that had a temporary increase in visitor numbers for only a few years after WHS inscription and then ex-perienced a decrease (Jimura, 2007b).

As Woodside and Jacobs’s (1985) research on the benefits experienced from travelling to Hawaii by Canadian, American and Japanese visitors shows, major benefits obtained from the visit to the same destination can be different ac-cording to their home country. Concerning the visits to WHSs, visiting and experiencing visitor attractions or tourist destinations with WH sta-tus can be seen as one of the main reasons for the visits. This seems to be more or less common to visitors coming from different regions of the world. Some studies investigate the number of visitors to WHSs by home country. For instance, Jimura (2007a, 2011) investigates Ogimachi, which is part of ‘Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama’, and asserts that the number of both domestic and overseas visitors to the WHS has increased after obtaining WH status, espe-cially the former. Graburn (1995) and Moon (2002) argue that, conventionally, Japanese vis-itors are likely to travel in groups and visit fa-mous places with an established brand. On the other hand, Shepherd et al. (2012) investigate Mount Wutai (cultural WHS in China) and con-clude that there have been no clear changes in the profile of visitors after WHS inscription, and

the majority is still domestic visitors with reli-gious purposes. The findings of these studies imply that visitors’ responses to WH status would be different even within those from the same region of the world such as the east. WHSs can also be marketed as suitable destinations for young people’s educational trips (Jimura, 2012), although most WHSs do not appear to focus par-ticularly on marketing activities for educational visits. For example, Old City of Salamanca (cul-tural WHS) in Spain was a destination for an ed-ucational trip made by a sixth-form college in the UK. Some WHSs in Japan are also established destinations for educational trips (Jimura, 2012). These WHSs include Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara, Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto and Hiroshima Peace Memorial. All of them are cultural WHSs and the majority of educational tourists are Japanese students.

As argued in Section 3.4 in Chapter 2, WHS managers need to seek and realize a good bal-ance between the needs of local communities and those of visitors. As their concerns and pri-orities are often different, WHS managers must identify ways to reconcile differing aspirations and interests of these two parties. However, this task would be increasingly demanding if the WHSs became too popular among visitors and they needed to look after a large number of visitors with various interests and backgrounds. Moreover, the presence of numerous visitors and their inappropriate behaviour can damage the quality of cultural and natural WHSs. To tackle this issue, ‘de-marketing’ is a marketing tool sug-gested by researchers (e.g. Gilmore et al., 2007; Hassan and Rahman, 2015). De-marketing is defined by Kotler and Levy (1971, p. 76) as ‘that aspect of marketing that deals with discouraging customers in general or a certain class of cus-tomers in particular on either a temporary or permanent basis’. Hence, de-marketing in the tourism context aims to discourage visitors in general or a certain type of visitor in particular, temporarily or permanently, to visit tourist destinations, including WHSs. For example, de- marketing can be conducted by reducing promo-tional costs or activities, increasing admission fees for attractions listed as WHSs, and/or intro-ducing tourist taxes at hotels located in and around WHSs. One of the features of this book is to examine three main themes relevant to WHSs

60 Chapter 4

from the eastern and western perspectives. Con-cerning marketing, however, there do not seem to be clear differences in visitors’ responses to WHSs between the east and the west.

3 Conclusion

In principle, tourism products are services. Com-pared to goods, services are characterized by

their intangibility, inseparability, variability and perishability. Furthermore, benefits of services are created not through ownership but through actions, performances or experiences. Due to these characteristics of services, images and WOM are very influential in tourism and desti-nation marketing. In the era of the internet, the impact of images and WOM on visitors’ decision- making processes has become more important due to the nature of the internet, such as timeli-ness and interactivity, especially in B2C, C2C and

Case Study: Promoting, Discouraging or Banning Tourism at WHSs

Of tourist destinations in Japan, the level of visibility of Hiroshima is lower than that of the megalopolis Tokyo and the ancient capital Kyoto. Hiroshima city has cultural WHSs in and around the city: Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) and Itsukushima Shinto Shrine. Hence, Hiroshima City promotes tourism in and around the city by emphasizing these two WHSs on their official tourism website: https://www.hiroshima-navi.or.jp/en/worldheritage/. On the other hand, de-marketing or banning of tourism is required for other WHSs. Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru) is a mixed WHS inscribed in 1983. The WHS encompasses ruins of the Inca Empire and alpine flora and fauna. Its popularity has been increasing and new regulations for entrance and ticketing were introduced in July 2017. Under the current regulations, opening hours are divided into morning and afternoon sessions and the maximum number of visitors per day is also limited.

Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (Australia) was inscribed as a natural WHS in 1987, but its classifi-cation was revised to a mixed WHS in 1994, valuing its magnitude in Aboriginal culture. Uluru, the world’s second-largest monolith, is a national icon and many visitors climb it. However, Aboriginal peo-ple regard it as a sacred site and have been asking visitors to stop climbing it. This plea was accepted in 2017, and the ban on climbing Uluru will be officially introduced in October 2019.

(BBC News, 2017; The Telegraph, 2017; Hiroshima City, n.d.)

Fig. 4.4. Official tourism website of Hiroshima City. (From: Hiroshima City, n.d.)

https://www.hiroshima-navi.or.jp/en/worldheritage/



C2B domains. Nowadays, most tourism- related businesses, visitor attractions and tourist destinations have their official websites. Moreo-ver, there are also travel websites, SNSs and vid-eo-sharing websites. Images can be uploaded by either the supply or demand side of tourism on these media. Furthermore, WOM is visualized as e-WOM and, in theory, it can be read by people across the globe and can influence their decision- making process at least to some extent.

The author categorizes WHSs into three types in terms of tourism, considering the size of WHSs and their associations with tourism: ‘ob-jects’ that people come to see; ‘attractions’ that people come to enter; or ‘destinations’, which peo-ple come to explore and often which local people inhabit. Of these, the marketing activities of WHSs in the ‘objects’ and ‘attractions’ categories would be led by WHSs and/or by the country, city or town to which they belong. In the case of WHSs categorized as ‘destinations’, marketing activities would be done chiefly by the DMO they belong to, geographically. Overall, having WH status is advantageous with regard to tourism and destination marketing since it can enhance the recognition of the site and improve its image. WH status is regarded as a valuable brand by both the supply and demand sides of tourism. In fact, many destinations with WH status seem to utilize their WH status for marketing purposes. For visitors, the fact that WH status is awarded by an international authority, UNESCO, acts as the endorsement for authenticity and quality; and this leads to a strong position for the WH status in tourism and destination marketing. Due to the ever-growing number of WHSs, how-ever, the competition among WHSs has become more intense year-on-year.

A holistic approach as a destination having a WHS is required to be successful in tourism and destination marketing, and to realize its vi-sion. To this end, what types of tourism they should promote and what kinds of visitors they aim to attract should be considered and agreed by all the key stakeholders of a WHS prior to in-scription. However, it is demanding, mainly due to the various aspirations and interests each stakeholder has. Hence, WHS managers are expected to reconcile these issues. DMOs are expected to work as destination management organizations as well as destination marketing organizations. This means that DMOs need to

ponder the views of a range of key stakeholders of tourism including local communities, local government, local tourism-related businesses and visitors. Furthermore, each WHS is unique in terms of its geographical location, size, histo-ry, characteristics, authenticity, integrity and OUV (see Chapter 1). This implies that a best equi-librium between tourism at a WHS and conserva-tion of the WHS will be different for each WHS. Hence, tourism and destination marketing strate-gies and activities for a WHS should be developed with consideration for the types of tourism the WHS plans to develop and the kinds of visitors the WHS intends to welcome, with regard to the best balance between tourism and conservation.

WH status cannot attract all types of visitors but can work as a magnet for certain types of visitors including heritage visitors and those who want to see or experience the integrity and authen-ticity of heritage. Concerning the relationships between WH status and visitor numbers, no agree-ment has been reached among researchers. Over-all, however, it could be stated that WHSs whose size is relatively small and which were not famous enough among visitors prior to WHS listing, and which are relatively difficult to access, tend to see a clearer increase in visitor numbers than WHSs whose size is relatively large, and which were al-ready famous before WHS designation and which are comparatively easy to access. This tendency also applies to the rate of annual visitor growth. It should also be noted that some WHSs experience an increase for a few years after WHS listing and then see a decrease in the number of visitors. Over-all, visitors’ responses to WH status do not appear to be affected by their home country.

It could be suggested that WHSs can be suit-able destinations for young people’s educational trips, which can enhance their understanding of their country’s culture or nature or can expose them to foreign culture or nature. If WHSs be-come too popular among visitors after WHS listing, de-marketing is a marketing tool WHSs can adopt to achieve a better balance between WHS conservation and tourism.

Lastly, one of the main characteristics of this book is to explore three key themes related to WHSs from the standpoints of the east and the west. Regarding tourism and destination mar-keting for WHSs, however, the author cannot identify any apparent differences between WHSs in the east and those in the west.

62 Chapter 4

References

Anholt, S. (1998) Nation-brands of the twenty-first century. Journal of Brand Management 5(6), 395–406.Asakura, S. (2008) Impacts of registration for World Heritage in Japan. Proceedings of the 23rd JITR

Annual Conference, 329–332.Bandarin, F. (2006) Foreword. In: Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (eds) Managing World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-

Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. v–vi.BBC News (2017) Australia to ban climbing on Uluru from 2019. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

world-australia-41827203 (accessed 6 May 2018).Bianchi, R.V. (2002) The contested landscape of World Heritage on a tourist island: the case of Garajonay

National Park, La Gomera. International Journal of Heritage Studies 8(2), 81–97.Bianchi, R.V. and Boniface, P. (2002) Editorial: the politics of World Heritage. International Journal of Heritage

Studies 8(2), 79–80.Bryce, D., Curran, R., O’Gorman, K. and Taheri, B. (2015) Visitors’ engagement and authenticity: Japanese

heritage consumption. Tourism Management 46, 571–581.Buckley, R. (2004) The effects of World Heritage listing on tourism to Australian national parks. Journal of

Sustainable Tourism 12(1), 70–84.Buhalis, D. (2000) Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management 21, 95–116.Butler, R.W. (1980) The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of

resources. Canadian Geographer 24(1), 5–12.Carter, L., Joliffe, L. and Baum, T. (2000) Tourism and World Heritage Sites: the Newfoundland experience.

In: Proceedings of the Tourism 2000: Time for Celebration? Conference, Centre for Travel and Tourism, Sheffield, UK.

Cassel, S.H. and Pashkevich, A. (2014) World Heritage and tourism innovation: institutional frameworks and local adaptation. European Planning Studies 22(8), 1625–1640.

Cellini, R. (2011) Is UNESCO recognition effective in fostering tourism? A comment on Yang, Lin and Han. Tourism Management 32(2), 452–454.

Crompton, J. (1979) An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the influence of geographical location upon that image. Journal of Travel Research 17(1), 18–23.

Cuccia, T. (2012) Is it worth being inscribed in the World Heritage List? A case study of ‘The Baroque Cities in Val Di Noto’ (Sicily), 26 March. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=2027892 (accessed 10 July 2018).

Dewar, K., du Cros, H. and Li, W. (2012) The search for World Heritage brand awareness beyond the iconic heritage: a case study of the Historic Centre of Macao. Journal of Heritage Tourism 7(4), 323–339.

Doolin, B., Burgess, L. and Cooper, J. (2002) Evaluating the use of the web for tourism marketing: a case study from New Zealand. Tourism Management 23(5), 557–561.

Doxey, G.V. (1975) A causation theory of visitor–resident irritants: methodology and research inferences. In: Travel and Tourism Research Association Sixth Annual Conference Proceedings. San Diego, California, September, pp. 195–198.


Evans, N. (2015) Strategic Management for Tourism, Hospitality and Events, 2nd edn. Butterworth Heine-mann, Oxford, UK.

Francesconia, S. (2011) Images and writing in tourist brochures. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 9(4), 341–356.

Frey, B.S. and Steiner, L. (2011) World Heritage List: Does it make sense? International Journal of Cultural Policy 17(5), 555–573.

Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G. and Garcıa, H.C. (2002) Destination image: towards a conceptual framework. Annals of Tourism Research 29(1), 56–78.

Garlick, S. (2002) Revealing the unseen: tourism, art and photography. Cultural Studies 16(2), 289–305.Gilmore, A., Carson, D. and Ascenção, M. (2007) Sustainable tourism marketing at a World Heritage Site.

Journal of Strategic Marketing 15(2–3), 253–264.Graburn, N. (1995) The past in the present in Japan: nostalgia and neo-traditionalism in contemporary

Japanese domestic tourism. In: Butler, R.W. and Pearce, D. (eds) Change in Tourism: People, Places, Processes. Routledge, London, pp. 47–70.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-41827203

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-41827203

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027892

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2027892


Gretzel, U., Fesenmaier, D.R., Formica, S. and O’Leary, J.T. (2006) Searching for the future: challenges faced by destination marketing organizations. Journal of Travel Research 45(2), 116–126.

Groves, D.L. and Timothy, D.J. (2001) Photographic techniques and the measurement of impact and importance attributes on trip design: a case study. Society and Leisure 24(1), 311–317.

Gunn, C. (1988) Vacationscapes: Designing Tourist Regions. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.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(5), 401–411.Hall, C.M. and Piggin, R. (2003) World Heritage Sites: managing the brand. In: Fyall, B., Garrod, B. and Leask, A.

(eds) Managing Visitor Attractions: New Directions. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. 203–219.Hassan, A. and Rahman, M. (2015) World Heritage Site as a label in branding a place. Journal of Cultural

Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 5(3), 210–223.Hiroshima City (n.d.) Explore Hiroshima: World Heritage Sites. Available at: https://www.hiroshima-navi.

or.jp/en/worldheritage/ (accessed 6 May 2018).Hu, W. and Wall, G. (2005) Environmental management, environmental image and the competitive tourist

attraction. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(6), 617–635.Huang, C.-H., Tsaur, J.-R. and Yang, C.-H. (2012) Does world heritage list really induce more tourists?

Evidence from Macau. Tourism Management 33(6), 1450–1457.Jenkins, O. (2003) Photography and travel brochures: the circle of representation. Tourism Geographies

5(3), 305–328.Jimura, T. (2003) Visitor management – as a professional responsibility of the various site managers

(Maritime Greenwich – Cultural World Heritage Site). Master’s thesis, University of Greenwich, London.

Jimura, T. (2007a) The impact of World Heritage Site designation on local communities – a comparative study of Ogimachi (Japan) and Saltaire (UK). Doctoral thesis, Nottingham Trent University, UK.

Jimura, T. (2007b) How cultural heritage is consumed by tourists – a case study of Horyu-ji temple. In: Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, a conference paper for the 2007 International Tourism Biennial – Tourism, Lessons from the Past, Directions for the Future, Canakkale, Turkey, 30 April–4 May.

Jimura, T. (2010) Japanese tourists’ motivation for visiting cultural and heritage sites in the UK. In: Amoeda, R., Lira, S. and Pinheiro, C. (eds) Heritage 2010: Heritage and Sustainable Development. Green Lines Institute, Lisbon, pp. 959–968.

Jimura, T. (2011) The websites of Japanese ryokan and eWOM: their impacts on guests’ expectation and experience. International Journal of Asian Tourism Management 2(2) 120–133.

Jimura, T. (2012) The relationship between World Heritage Sites and school trips in Japan. In: Amoeda, R., Lira, S. and Pinheiro, C. (eds) Heritage 2012: Heritage and Sustainable Development. Green Lines Institute, Lisbon, 19–22 June, pp. 1611–1620.

Jimura, T. (2016) World heritage site management: a case study of sacred sites and pilgrimage routes in the Kii mountain range, Japan. Journal of Heritage Tourism 11(4), 382–394.

Kotler, P. and Levy, S.J. (1971) Demarketing? Yes, demarketing! Harvard Business Review 12(1), 74–80.Landorf, C. (2009) Managing for sustainable tourism: a review of six cultural World Heritage Sites. Journal

of Sustainable Tourism 17(1), 53–70.Laws, E. (1995) Tourist Destination Management: Issues, Analysis and Policies. Routledge, London.Leiper, N. (1979) The framework of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 16, 390–407.Li, M., Wu, B. and Cai, L. (2008) Tourism development of World Heritage Sites in China: a geographic

perspective. Tourism Management 29(2), 308–319.Lo, I.S., McKercher, B., Lo, A., Cheung, C. and Law, R. (2011) Tourism and online photography. Tourism

Management 32(4), 725–731.Markwell, K.W. (1997) Dimensions of photography in a nature-based tour. Annals of Tourism Research

24(1), 131–155.Moon, O. (2002) The countryside reinvented for urban tourists: rural transformation in the Japanese muraokoshi

movement. In: Hendry, J. and Raveri, M. (eds) Japan at Play: The Ludic and Logic of Power. Routledge, London, pp. 228–244.

Morgan, N., Pritchard, A. and Pride, R. (eds) (2011) Destination Brands: Managing Place Reputation, 3rd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.

Orbasli, A. (2000) Tourists in Historic Towns. E. & F.N. Spon, London.Pike, S. (2005) Tourism destination branding complexity. Journal of Product and Brand Management 14(4),

258–259.



64 Chapter 4

Pike, S. (2008) Destination Marketing: An Integrated Marketing Communication Approach. Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford, UK.

Poria, Y., Reichel, A. and Cohen, R. (2011) World Heritage Site – Is it an effective brand name? A case study of a religious heritage site. Journal of Travel Research 50(5), 482–495.

Poria, Y., Reichel, A. and Cohen, R. (2013) Tourists’ perceptions of World Heritage Site and its designation. Tourism Management 35, 272–274.

Reynolds, W.H. (1965) The role of the consumer in image building. California Management Review 7, 69–76.Rubies, E.B. (2001) Improving public–private sector cooperation in tourism: a new paradigm for destinations.

Tourism Review 56(3/4), 38–41.Ryan, J. and Silvanto, S. (2009) The World Heritage List: the making and management of a brand. Place

Branding and Public Diplomacy 5(4), 290–300.Ryan, J. and Silvanto, S. (2011) A brand for all the nations: the development of the World Heritage brand in

emerging markets. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 29(3), 305–318.Shepherd, R., Yu, L. and Huimin, G. (2012) Tourism, heritage, and sacred space: Wutai Shan, China. Journal

of Heritage Tourism 7(2), 145–161.Smith, M. (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.The Telegraph (2017) Will new limits on visiting Machu Picchu save Peru’s most famous Inca citadel?

Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/south-america/peru/articles/machu-picchu- new-rules-for-access/ (accessed 6 May 2018).

Timothy, D.J. (2011) Cultural Heritage and Tourism: An Introduction. Channel View Publications, Clevedon, UK.Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze. Sage, London.Wang, Y. and Krakover, S. (2008) Destination marketing: competition, cooperation or coopetition? Interna-

tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20(2), 126–141.Woodside, A.G. and Jacobs, L.W. (1985) Step two in benefit segmentation: learning the benefits realized

by major travel markets. Journal of Travel Research 24(1), 7–13.Yan, C. and Morrison, A.M. (2007) The influence of visitors’ awareness of World Heritage listings: a case study

of Huangshan, Xidi and Hongcun in southern Anhui, China. Journal of Heritage Tourism 2(3), 184–195.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/south-america/peru/articles/machu-picchu-new-rules-for-access/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/south-america/peru/articles/machu-picchu-new-rules-for-access/


The Trulli of Alberobello, Italy

5

Local Communities in and around World Heritage Sites

1 Local Communities and Local People

1.1 Concepts of local communities and local people

The term ‘local community’ is another key theme for this book. This chapter examines local

communities in terms of tourism and conservation activities, referring to examples from World Herit-age Sites (hereafter WHSs). First, the concept of local people is explored. According to English dictionaries, those having a continuous residency in a specific area for a certain period are seen as ‘local people’. This understanding appears to be

66 Chapter 5

similar in other languages. Nowadays, many people work in a place apart from where they live. Therefore, whether people are ‘local’ or not should be judged not on where they work but on where they live. Regarding the length of time, people who temporarily stay in a place should not be treated as local people as their ties with the place are limited. To be viewed as local resi-dents, people must keep living in a place contin-uously for a certain period and the place must be their usual environment.

Second, the concept of ‘community’ is exam-ined. Pacione (2009, p. 375) asserts that ‘Com-munity is one of those terms the meaning of which everyone knows, but few can define.’ Hillery (1955, cited in Pacione, 2009) found almost 100 definitions of ‘community’ in the academic literature published by 1953, and most of these definitions agree on the following three points:

• Community involves groups of people who live in a geographically distinct area.

• Community refers to the quality of rela-tionships within the groups, with members tied together by common characteristics such as culture, values and attitudes.

• Community refers to a group of people engaged in social interaction, such as neighbouring.

Based on these points, Pacione (2009, p. 376) suggests an operational definition of community as ‘a group of people who share a geographic area and are bound together by com-mon culture, values, race or social class’.

Overall, the aforementioned elements of the concept of community seem to be common to those suggested in other fields. For instance, Urry (1995) examines the concept in terms of sociology and suggests four types of meaning:

1. community as belonging to a certain topo-graphical location; 2. community as a thing that defines a specific social system; 3. community as a sense of togetherness; and 4. community as an ideology.

In this book, communities are examined in relation to WHSs, tourism and conservation activities; therefore, the first, second and third types are important. According to MacQueen

et al. (2001, p. 1929), ‘A common definition of community emerged as a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives, and engage in joint action in geographical locations or set-tings.’ This definition was investigated as part of their public health research. From the viewpoint of urban geography, Knox and Pinch (2010, p. 193) state that ‘Communities exist where a degree of social coherence develops on the basis of interdependence, which in turn produces a uniformity of custom, taste and modes of thought and speech.’ Knox and Pinch (2010) also argue that communities are usual worlds for people and their daily life occurs there, and communi-ties can be locality-based, school-based or media- based. All of the above approaches to community are based on western perspectives; however, such concepts of community seem to be similar to those in the east.

Considering the increasing diversity of peo-ple living in the same geographical location, as well as the above arguments regarding the concepts of ‘local people’ and ‘community’, ‘local community’, in the context of this book, is defined as: ‘a group of people who may have a certain degree of differences in their charac-teristics, interests or aspirations at an individual level, but who share a geographic area and a sense of place as their place to live, and are con-nected to each other through daily social interactions’.

1.2 Community development and tourism

Section 1.2 examines how local communities develop, using tourism as a community develop-ment tool. The ideas of ‘tourism development’ and ‘tourism development at WHSs’ are inves-tigated in Chapter 3. However, tourism devel-opment and community development using tourism are different. According to Din (1997), the development for local communities means the process of realizing community’s full potential, and the potential is defined according to the goals that members of the community share and aspire to achieve. This signifies that a people-centred or community-based approach is crucial for the concept of community development. Chapter 3 also demonstrates the magnitude of the triple

Local Communities in and around World Heritage Sites 67

bottom line (TBL) – economic, sociocultural and environmental – for sustainable development. Community development also includes different aspects, including these three aspects (Din, 1997). In business studies, PESTLE analysis is recognized as a framework for analysing the ex-ternal environment that can influence an organ-ization. This can apply to a tourist destination as well as a tourism organization or business. PES-TLE is an acronym for Political, Economic, Social (sociocultural), Technological, Legal and Environ-mental. As implied by the TBL of sustainability and PESTLE analysis, ‘economic’, ‘sociocultural’ and ‘environmental’ are regarded as three key areas of impact for local communities. The changes in local communities and local people’s views to-wards these changes in each of these areas is discussed in Chapters 6 (economic), 7 (sociocul-tural) and 8 (environmental), focusing on World Heritage (hereafter WH) status and tourism since WHS designation. Prior to this, Section 4 examines the impacts of WHS designation and tourism after WHS listing on local people’s minds, called ‘attitudinal changes’ in this book.

Local communities can develop through tourism, utilizing their resources. These resourc-es include cultural and natural assets and tangi-ble and intangible heritage. These resources are already there and are not newly created for tourism purposes, apart from a few exceptions such as theme parks. There are many different types of tourism including traditional and new types (see Section 1.2 in Chapter 4). It would be somewhat different by type of tourism and/or community; however, tourism does not require extensive economic or capital investment (e.g. Rabazauskaite , 2015), except for large-scale in-frastructure such as airports. Hence, many coun-tries, especially less-developed countries, see tourism as a way to generate foreign exchange. WHSs can utilize their WH status as a powerful brand for tourism marketing purposes (see Sec-tion 2.1 in Chapter 4). WHSs can also work for community development through tourism, mak-ing the most of their WH status. At WHSs, how-ever, community development must be planned carefully and realized in a sustainable way, con-sidering economic, sociocultural, environmen-tal and attitudinal impacts of WH status and tourism after WHS designation.

In many places, tourism can work as a com-munity development tool. Tourism is an important

means for community development, especially for local communities situated in a rural or isolat-ed area (Garrod et al., 2006). For some areas, tourism is the only industry they can foster for their economic development (e.g. Levett and McNally, 2003). On the other hand, tourism can also become an alternative, new and main indus-try for places where traditional industries have been declining (Jimura, 2011). Thus it can be stated that a potential of tourism as a community development instrument has been recognized well in many places. Tourism has been under-stood as an essential development tool by local communities in urban areas as well as those in rural, remote or isolated areas. In Japan, for in-stance, community development or revitalization is known as a ‘muraokoshi’ movement (Moon, 2002). Numerous cities, towns and villages, par-ticularly those in rural areas, have suffered from decaying social conditions such as depopulation and an ageing society (Jimura, 2011). Many of them adopt tourism as a tool for ‘muraokoshi’, utilizing their cultural and natural resources (Moon, 2002). However, local communities’ atti-tudes towards tourism can be negative over time if the pace of tourism development is too fast and the scale too vast (Jimura, 2007, 2011).

In light of the above arguments, local peo-ple’s positive attitudes towards tourism develop-ment is essential for community development through tourism. As Kuvan and Akan (2005) state, the importance of local communities’ sup-port for successful tourism development is acknowledged by many researchers. It is also supported by tourism research in more recent years (e.g. Nunkoo and Gursoy, 2012; Stylidis et al., 2014). Many studies on local communities’ backing for tourism development investigate this topic in terms of the cost-benefit perspective (e.g. Lee, 2013). As Vargas-Sánchez et al. (2011) summarize, the social exchange theory is often used as a theoretical basis of such studies. These studies apply this theory to tourism contexts (e.g. Rasoolimanesh et al., 2015) to explore local people’s support for tourism development. For example, it can be considered from the social ex-change theory’s perspective that local commu-nities would assist tourism development if they thought that personal benefit from tourism out-weighed personal costs due to tourism (Wang and Pfister, 2008). Even if local people initially have high expectations of tourism, their support

68 Chapter 5

may decrease over time (Johnson et al., 1994). A range of concerns, interests, aspirations and is-sues must be discussed if the interrelation be-tween local communities and tourism is explored exhaustively, but all of them cannot be covered in this book. Hence, this book addresses only eco-nomic, sociocultural, environmental and attitu-dinal impacts of WHS listing and tourism after WHS designation on local communities, focusing on local people’s views towards them. Consider-ing what local people really want is necessary, not only to obtain their support for tourism but also to keep them in the local community (Jaafar et al., 2016).

2 Local People’s Views towards Changes

2.1 Local people and their views

There is a range of issues associated with local communities, which is one of the key stakeholders for WHSs, tourism and heritage conservation ac-tivities. Of these, local people’s views towards tourism are particularly significant for tourism development (e.g. Stylidis et al., 2014) and WHSs (Jimura, 2007, 2011). Stated differently, local communities’ attitudes towards tourism are cru-cial in identification, measurement and analysis of the changes caused by tourism (e.g. Vareiro et al., 2013). Understanding local communities’ views is essential as they tend to have limited op-portunities to express their opinions in the deci-sion-making process (e.g. Tosun, 2006). Andereck and Vogt (2000) assert that this importance stems from the fact that it is local people who ultimately decide which changes triggered by tourism are ac-ceptable to them. Tourism impacts can be seen by local people as positive or negative (e.g. Andriotis and Vaughan, 2003; Jimura, 2007, 2011, 2016a). Also, local communities are heterogene-ous in terms of their attitudes towards tourism, aspirations, interests and other personal factors (Mason, 2015).

At tourist destinations, the views of local people towards various changes caused by tour-ism are more important for tourism develop-ment than the changes that have been triggered by tourism, and this also applies to WHSs. This is because ‘true satisfaction for local people

would depend more on their views of the changes rather than on the actual changes’ (Jimura, 2011, p. 288). Moreover, local inhabitants’ views of the changes inspire them to act, or not, in a certain manner (Andriotis and Vaughan, 2003). It is also true that, usually, local people’s views cannot be directly confirmed and can be implied only when their views are collected (Lepp, 2008) via surveys or consultations. Nev-ertheless, many tourist destinations do not seem to regularly monitor local people’s views of the changes in and around their communities, which have been affected by tourism (Law, 2002). This tendency also applies to most WHSs or tourist destinations owning a WHS. Usually, discussions between local communities and local governments are more likely to happen before WHS inscription rather than after. Overall, inter-actions between local communities and national government (State Party) seem to be relatively limited both before and after WHS designation, although the State Party would need local knowl-edge and include it in the nomination file. For the aforementioned reasons, it is essential for key stakeholders in a tourist destination and WHS to share their views, concerns and interests for the better future of a destination as a place to live, as a tourist destination and as a WHS (Jimura, 2007, 2011, 2016a). Such regular communica-tion should happen between local government and local people. Furthermore, local experts in tourism, heritage management and conservation, and/or community issues, should also be involved in such interactions. Thus, the changes caused or escalated by tourism and/or WHS listing can be considered from different perspectives. The value of such a multilateral approach is acknowl-edged by Jansen-Verbeke (1995) and Jimura (2007, 2011, 2016a).

Jimura (2011, p. 282) argues that ‘there is a lack of research on the views of local commu-nities in or around the WHS. Furthermore, these studies have tended to focus more on the actual and tangible changes in local communities since WHS designation rather than on the local com-munities’ views of the changes.’ This is echoed by other researchers (e.g. Vareiro et al., 2013; Su and Wall, 2014) and still seems to apply to current tourism and heritage studies. The follow-ing section discusses factors influencing local communities’ and people’s views towards tourism/ visitors or changes caused by tourism.


2.2 Extrinsic and intrinsic factors

The factors affecting people’s attitudes towards tourism or changes initiated or facilitated by tour-ism can be divided into two categories – extrinsic and intrinsic factors (Jimura, 2007). Bramwell (2003) argues that the responses of local com-munities to tourism are best understood when they are investigated in relation to various rela-tionships influencing them. This section summa-rizes key extrinsic and intrinsic factors affecting local communities and people’s views towards tourism, and changes caused or advanced by tourism after WHS listing or WH status.

2.2.1 Extrinsic factors

In this book, ‘extrinsic factors’ denote the causes that are outside of each local resident but which exist within local communities. The following elements are key extrinsic factors that can influ-ence local communities’ views of tourism and the changes caused or accelerated by WH status and/or tourism after WHS inscription.

• History of tourism. Local communities within an established tourism destination would not have major issues in accommo-dating tourism impacts compared to those within a relatively new tourist destination (Horn and Simmons, 2002). Concerning WHSs, Jimura (2015, 2016b) asserts that the impact of WH status on tourism and lo-cal communities is likely to be more exten-sive for WHSs with limited presence as a tourist destination before WHS listing than for those with established recognition as a tourist destination.

• Level and/or scale of tourism develop-ment. Sharpley and Sharpley (1997) as-sert that, generally, an increase in the scale and level of tourism development often leads to greater antagonism towards tour-ism among local communities. This is sup-ported by Goggin and Long (2009) who examine the relations between hotel and/or casino developments, and local communi-ties’ responses. Concerning WHSs, the speed and size of tourism development after WHS inscription may be too speedy and too large for local communities to cope with (Jimura, 2007, 2011).

• Diversity in local communities. People living in a great diversity of communities seem to be positively disposed towards tour-ism (Andereck and Vogt, 2000). This im-plies that WHSs consisting of or located in multicultural communities could manage the changes caused by WH status better than those consisting of or situated in rela-tively homogeneous communities.

• Cultural differences between local communities and visitors. In principle, larger cultural differences between hosts and guests are more likely to lead to misun-derstanding and friction between two parties (Reisinger and Turner, 1998). Concerning WHSs, enhanced publicity of a site thanks to WH status may bring more international tourists and day trippers to the site, and this might increase cultural differences between hosts and guests.

• Seasonal patterns of tourism activi-ties. If tourism activities do not occur throughout a year, local communities’ views towards tourism might not be posi-tive as it cannot provide them with a stable source of income and constant employ-ment opportunities year-round. Although it is applied to many tourist destinations, including WHSs, there are a certain num-ber of WHSs whose tourism is less seasonal compared with before WHS designation, thanks to a strong brand of WH status in the tourism market and a series of events throughout a year, particularly during off-seasons (e.g. The Magic of Christmas event in Historic Fortified City of Carcas-sonne (cultural WHS in France)).

2.2.2 Intrinsic factors

In this book, ‘intrinsic factors’ mean factors that are inside each local resident. According to Draper et al. (2011, p. 64): ‘Over the past 40 years, researchers have examined local residents’ at-titudes toward tourism based on demographic (e.g. age, gender, education), socioeconomic (e.g. income, ethnicity, length of residency and economic dependency) and spatial (e.g. physical distance between residents and tourists) varia-bles.’ The following elements are the main in-trinsic factors that can affect local people’s attitudes towards tourism and the changes

70 Chapter 5

caused or promoted by WH status or tourism since WHS designation.

• Place to live. According to Pearce (1994), city centre residents see tourism less fa-vourably than those living further away. On the contrary, Akis et al. (1996) claim that local people living in higher tourist density areas with more exposure to visitors tend to be more positive towards tourism. Regarding WHSs, Jimura (2007, 2011) suggests that local people who live in or around a Japanese cultural WHS are more likely to have privacy issues than those who live far from the WHS as most visitors do not recognize the boundaries between public and private premises. However, this tendency cannot be confirmed among local residents living in or around a cultural WHS in the UK (Jimura, 2007).

• Length of residence. Brougham and Butler (1981) proclaim that local people who have lived longer in a community are more positive about some types of visitors than those who have lived there for a shorter period of time. Regarding WHSs, there has not been a study that reports significant positive or negative re-lationships between the length of residence of local people and their attitudes towards a WHS or tourism at the WHS.

• Age. Ritchie (1988) concludes that older residents are less positive about tourism. However, regarding WHSs, older residents may see the changes in natural environ-ment after WHS listing more positively than younger residents (Jimura, 2007), al-though it cannot be proved that this applies to all WHSs.

• Gender. Some studies suggest that there is no significant relationship between local people’s gender and their perceptions of tourism (e.g. Petrzelka et al., 2005), whilst others note that gender can be seen as an element that affects people’s attitudes to-wards tourism (e.g. Huh and Vogt, 2008). For example, males would be more involved in tourism than females (Andereck and McGehee, 2008). Concerning studies on tourism and WHSs, no studies have demon-strated clear relationships between local residents’ gender and their thoughts on a WHS or tourism at the WHS.

• Economic dependency on tourism. Lo-cal people or those whose family members are economically dependent upon tourism have more positive attitudes towards tour-ism than do other residents (e.g. Wang and Pfister, 2008). In a few exceptional cases, local people who are economically depend-ent upon tourism may report more negative impacts than other local people (King et al., 1993). In the case of surveys with local communities near a casino development in South Korea, the respondents’ support level was directly influenced by the benefits they received from tourism (Lee and Back, 2003). The positive relationship between the level of local people’s economic depend-ency on tourism and their support for tour-ism is also confirmed at WHSs, although this might not apply to all WHSs.

• Knowledge of tourism. Greater knowledge of tourism is associated with more positive perceptions of tourism (e.g. Olya and Gavilyan, 2016), whilst other researchers argue that great knowledge of tourism or tourism de-velopment means that such local people would be more aware of both the benefits and costs of tourism (e.g. Látková and Vogt, 2012). This seems to apply to some WHSs, for example George Town, which is part of Malaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (cultural WHS in Malaysia) (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2017).

• Level of education. Some studies suggest that there is no significant relationship between residents’ educational level and their perceptions of tourism (e.g. Wang and Pfister, 2008), or the strength of the rela-tionship is rather weak (Chand, 2013). Other studies claim that local people’s education-al level is related to their perceptions of tourism (Andriotis and Vaughan, 2003). For instance, Snyman (2014) notes that local people with a higher educational level tend to demonstrate a greater support for tourism. Nunkoo and Ramkissoon (2010) examine Port Louis, which contains Aap-ravasi Ghat (cultural WHS), and examined local people’s attitudes towards urban tourism in Mauritius. According to their study, the educational level of local residents does not influence their attitudes towards tourism.


• Birth place. Residents who were born in a tourist destination are more positive about tourism than newcomers (Davis et al., 1988). On the contrary, Xie et al.’s (2014) study presents that native residents are more concerned about possible negative impacts of tourism, such as loss of local traditions and norms and environmental degradation than are non-native residents. The destina-tion Xie et al. (2014) looked at is Huangshan, China, which has Mount Huangshan (mixed WHS). Therefore, natives may be more wor-ried about the negative impacts of tourism on their cultural and natural resources than non-natives, as natives would have a certain level of attachment to these resources.

2.2.3 Summary

Numerous studies examine the relationship be-tween extrinsic and/or intrinsic factors and local people’s views of tourism and changes caused or facilitated by tourism at tourist destinations, in-cluding WHSs. There are few consistent findings on the relations between these factors and peo-ple’s attitudes (Draper et al., 2011). At least, however, it could be stated that most researchers agree that the higher the degree of economic de-pendency on tourism the more supportive are people’s views of tourism and alterations insti-gated by WH status or tourism after WHS listing.

3 Introduction to Four Kinds of Changes in Local Communities

This book explores the influences of WHS in-scription on local communities by each area of the TBL from the standpoint of local communi-ties, concentrating on WH status and tourism after WHS designation. Moreover, Section 4 in-vestigates the impacts of WHS listing on local people’s minds (attitudinal changes). Before in-vestigating attitudinal changes, these four types of changes are outlined. More importantly, the reasons why this book discusses these four kinds of changes are explained.

Overall trends in tourism studies exploring tourism impacts, changes caused and communi-ties’ views towards these changes have been changing since the mid- or late 1970s. Histori-cally, however, initial tourism studies focused

chiefly on economic changes instigated by tour-ism and local communities’ perceptions of them. In fact, in the early 1980s, Mathieson and Wall (1982, pp. 3–4) argued that ‘until recently, atten-tion has concentrated on more obvious economic impacts with comparatively little consideration being given to the environmental and social con-sequences of tourism’. Since then, the changes triggered by tourism in two other areas of the TBL (sociocultural and environmental), and local people’s views towards them, have been increas-ingly examined from a standpoint of relevant dis-ciplines. In the author’s view, the timing of this shift is synchronized with the timing of changes in the mainstream in various subjects relevant to tourism, particularly development studies. This trend in tourism studies as a whole can also be confirmed in those on a specific type of tourism such as cultural and heritage tourism (Jansen- Verbeke, 1995) and urban tourism (Law, 2002). Many destinations of these types of tourism would also be WHSs or would include a WHS within the destination (e.g. Historic Centre of Lima (cultural WHS in Peru)).

The magnitude of the studies examining so-ciocultural and environmental changes as well as economic changes triggered or advanced by tourism, and local residents’ perceptions, have been raised gradually and steadily since the mid-1980s (Long and Hecock, 1984; Hunter and Green, 1995; Law, 2002; Jimura, 2011). As Jansen-Verbeke (1995) asserts, the changes in-stigated or boosted by tourism should be moni-tored though surveys on a regular basis. That is because residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts would change over time (Sharma and Gursoy, 2015). If excessive focus is given to the economic benefits of tourism it can lead to seri-ous sociocultural and/or environmental damage for local communities. The significance of inves-tigating a variety of changes produced by tour-ism impacts is also noted by researchers (e.g. Page, 2015). By exploring the aforementioned four types of changes from the viewpoint of local communities in and around WHSs, this book in-tends to achieve complete understanding of the impacts of WHS designation and tourism on local communities after WHS inscription, cover-ing local people’s views towards these changes. The next section focuses on the psychological im-pacts of WH status and tourism after WHS listing on local people’s minds (attitudinal changes).

72 Chapter 5

4 Psychological Impacts of World Heritage Status and Tourism after WHS

Designation (Attitudinal Changes)

4.1 Introduction

The climax of this chapter is the investigation of the changes in local people’s minds caused by WH status and tourism after WHS inscription (attitudinal changes). Attitudinal changes occur in each resident’s mind and are very personal. Compared to local people’s views towards economic, sociocultural and environmental changes, attitudinal changes are more difficult to understand and tend to be more overlooked. Nevertheless, understanding attitudinal changes of local inhabitants caused by WH status or tour-ism after WHS listing is vital in terms of their support for tourism development and conserva-tion activities at WHSs. Given previous studies on tourism and WHSs, the following alterations can be regarded as noteworthy changes in the minds of local residents who live in or around WHSs or in a tourist destination having a WHS.

4.2 Attitudes towards tourists and excursionists

Local communities’ views of tourism or the changes instigated by tourism can be affected by extrinsic or intrinsic factors (see Section 2.2). This implies that overall attitudes of local communi-ties towards visitors can be different by WHS due to extrinsic factors, and each resident would have his/her own views towards visitors to a WHS because of intrinsic factors. Furthermore, local people’s views towards excursionists and tourists can be positive or negative, and this also applies to WHSs. Local people’s hospitable attitudes can make visitors feel secure and comfortable; howev-er, their attitudes towards visitors can be hostile or defensive if their communities are flooded with numerous ‘outsiders’ (Yu and Goulden, 2006).

According to Jimura’s (2007) surveys with local people in and around Saltaire (cultural WHS in the UK) and Ogimachi, part of Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama (cultural WHS in Japan), more than 50% of the respondents at each WHS stated their attitudes towards visitors had not changed after WHS listing, although at both WHSs the proportion of the respondents

who thought that their views had become positive was much larger than those who deemed that their views had become negative. In and around WHS Saltaire, the following associations between local people’s demographics and their attitudes towards visitors are confirmed:

• The nearer to the WHS local people’s place of residence is, the more positive their atti-tudes towards visitors have become since WHS designation.

• The more recently local people began to live in or around the WHS, the more positive their attitudes towards visitors have be-come since WHS designation.

• The younger local people are, the more pos-itive their attitudes towards visitors have become since WHS designation.

• The attitudes of local people who are working (not only in tourism-related jobs) towards visi-tors have become more positive than those who have not worked since WHS designation.

On the contrary, none of these associations is confirmed among local inhabitants in and around WHS Ogimachi (Jimura, 2007). Su and Wall (2014) investigate the Mutianyu village, which is located adjacent to the Mutianyu part of The Great Wall (cultural WHS in China), and examine villagers’ perceptions of WH status and tourism impacts. Overall, the residents’ views of WH status, tourism and visitors appear to be positive. For instance, 96% of the respondents agree with the statement, ‘World Heritage desig-nation helps tourism development at site’ (Sue and Wall, 2014). As a whole, the respondents do not think that visitors produce crowding at the site, and almost 90% view that WH designation helps to create a friendly atmosphere in their communities (Su and Wall, 2014).

4.3 Interest in heritage conservation

As tourism can work as an impetus for awakening interest and attracting support, it is valuable for the conservation of the urban environment (Orbasli, 2000). Local inhabitants living in or around a her-itage site play a pivotal role in conservation activi-ties for their environment, which makes their site unique (Urry, 2002). That is because the properties of local residents as well as certain historic build-ings and townscapes in the urban environment are unique to each site (Jimura, 2007). Therefore,


the owners and tenants of such properties must fully recognize their responsibilities for the main-tenance of the properties (Evans, 2002). Jutla’s (2000) resident and visitor surveys in Shimla, In-dia, confirm that there is a strong sense of nos-talgia among both local people and visitors to preserve the past by conserving the city’s British heritage. Local inhabitants may also want to re-construct their local heritage for future genera-tions rather than for themselves, as Morgan (2002) suggests. Morgan (2002) also claims that there is a positive association between the length of local inhabitants’ residence and the level of their interest in heritage conservation.

As stated in Section 4 in Chapter 1, ‘to en-courage participation of the local population in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage’ is part of the WH mission of UNESCO (UNESCO World Heritage Centre (hereafter WHC), 2017). To this end, it is central for States Parties, local governments and agencies related to herit-age conservation to increase the level of local peo-ple’s interest in conservation activities. In fact, Orbasli (2000) asserts that WHS inscription can increase the level of local inhabitants’ interest in their town. Su and Wall (2014) also state that WH listing has improved most local people’s awareness of cultural heritage, including the WHSs belonging to their communities. Overall, local residents have become more interested in conservation of their heritage after WHS listing, and this inclina-tion is confirmed in local communities in and around one WHS in the UK and two WHSs in Japan (Jimura, 2007, 2011, 2015, 2016a). Ac-cording to Jimura’s (2007) resident surveys in and around WHS Ogimachi and WHS Saltaire, the following relationships between local inhabit-ants’ demographics and their interest in conser-vation of their heritage are proved:

• The nearer to the WHS the local people’s place of residence is, the higher the local people’s interest in conservation has be-come since WHS listing (WHS Saltaire).

• The nearer to the WHS the local residents’ place of work is, the higher the local residents’ interest in conservation has become since WHS listing (WHS Ogimachi).

• Local habitants who do not work show the least positive changes in the level of their interest in conservation since WHS inscrip-tion compared with those who work (WHS Ogimachi).

4.4 Attachment to place of residence

According to Ennen (2000), local residents’ at-tachment to a place is associated with the time they have lived there. It is assumed that local people who have lived in a city for a longer time would have a stronger tie with the city than newcomers (Ennen, 2000). In relation to this, the results of a resident survey in Cape Coast and Elmina, Ghana, by Sirakaya et al. (2002) show that 54.6% of the respondents think that they have a better appreciation of their own culture thanks to tourism.

About WHSs, the majority of local inhabit-ants seem to enjoy working and living in their home town near the Mutianyu part of The Great Wall more since it was awarded WH status in 1987 (Su and Wall, 2014). According to Jimura (2007, 2011, 2016a), overall, local people have stronger attachment to their heritage and their habitation area after WHS listing compared to before WHS designation, although this change is not so evident at the three WHSs he examines. According to Jimura’s (2007) resident surveys, however, the following relationships are still con-firmed between local inhabitants’ demographics and the level of their attachment to their place of residence:

• The nearer to the WHS local people’s place of residence is, the higher the level of local people’s attachment to their place of resi-dence has become since WHS inscription (WHS Ogimachi and WHS Saltaire).

• The nearer to the WHS local residents’ place of work is, the higher the level of attachment to their place of residence has become since WHS designation (WHS Ogimachi).

• Interestingly, local inhabitants who are en-gaged in jobs other than tourism demonstrate the most positive changes in the strength of their attachment to their place of residence since WHS inscription (WHS Saltaire).

• Local people who do not work indicate the least positive changes in the strength of their attachment to their place of residence after WHS listing (WHS Ogimachi).

4.5 Pride in place of residence

Self-awareness is a source of local people’s pride (Boissevain, 1996). One of the most outstanding

74 Chapter 5

features of tourism is that it can enhance the level of local residents’ pride in their culture, heritage and place (Puppim de Oliveira, 2003). Grimwade and Carter (2000) assert that rais-ing local people’s sense of pride in their local heritage and working out how to present the heritage is as significant as conservation activi-ties. In relation to this, ICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism (1999) sug-gests that institutional education programmes should be introduced for local residents and such programmes can imbue them with a thoughtful sense of pride in their local tradi-tions. These programmes could also allow local inhabitants to make careful choices that can avoid or minimize negative changes triggered by tourism. Ideally, local residents recognize them-selves not just as people on the host side of tour-ism but as community representatives (ICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism, 1999). There are many existing studies sifting tourism and local inhabitants’ pride. First, the results of the resident survey in Acadia, Cana-da, by MacDonald and Jolliffe (2003) reveal that indigenous people start to have pride in their ancestry and wish to preserve their Acadian culture for future generations thanks to tour-ism. Second, Balinese culture expressed by local communities has strengthened the Balinese sense of cultural identity and pride (Cukier, 1996). Third, many Londoners deem that the large numbers of visitors in London gives them a sense of pride in the city (Pearce, 1982). The level of local people’s pride can also be enhanced by factors other than tourism such as local monuments and events that are popular among tourists and excursionists (Morgan, 2002).

With regard to WHSs, historic urban zones listed as WHSs (e.g. Historic Centre of Shakhrisy-abz (Uzbekistan) and Historic Centre of Córdoba (Spain)) will become a lure for local inhabitants living in or around the site (ICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism, 1999). Eventu-ally, WH status can boost the level of local peo-ple’s pride in their heritage, culture and place of residence (Evans, 2002; Jimura, 2007, 2011, 2016a). According to a resident survey in His-toric District of Old Québec (cultural WHS in Canada) conducted by Evans (2002), 44% of the respondents express that living in a city listed as a WHS makes them ‘proud’, although 24% ex-press indifference. Pride is also a key word in Ryan et al.’s (2011) study, which surveys Kaiping

Diaolou and Villages (cultural WHS in China), and the study concludes that living in the WHS denotes ‘pride’ for local inhabitants. Long’s (2012) research on Ha Long Bay (WHS Ha Long Bay) (natural WHS in Vietnam) also confirms that the level of local people’s pride has increased thanks to tourism at the WHS. An increase in the level of local people’s pride in their heritage, culture and place of residence can also be con-firmed at two WHSs in Japan (Jimura, 2007, 2011, 2016a) and a WHS in the UK (Jimura, 2007). Such a change can also be affirmed among most of the local inhabitants residing near the Mutianyu section of The Great Wall thanks to its WH status (Su and Wall, 2014). Ac-cording to Jimura’s (2007) resident surveys, the following relationships are verified between local people’s demographics and the level of their pride in their place of residence:

• The nearer to the WHS the local inhabit-ants’ place of residence is, the higher the level of local residents’ pride in their place of residence has become since WHS inscription (WHS Ogimachi and WHS Saltaire).

• The younger local people are, the higher the level of their pride in their place of resi-dence has become since WHS listing (WHS Ogimachi and WHS Saltaire).

• The nearer to the WHS the local residents’ place of work is, the higher the level of their pride in their place of residence has become since WHS designation (WHS Ogimachi).

• Local people who do not work display the least positive changes in the level of their pride in their place of residence since WHS inscription (WHS Ogimachi).

• Local inhabitants who are engaged in jobs other than tourism demonstrate the most positive change in the level of their pride in their place of residence (WHS Saltaire).

4.6 Local identity

The association between national, regional or local identity and heritage creation or representa-tion has been one of the core research areas in tourism, cultural and heritage studies in the past 30 years (e.g. Hewison, 1987; Lowenthal, 1998; Waterton and Watson, 2010), although these studies do not focus specifically on WHSs


and their implication in the creation or enhance-ment of identity, particularly at a local level (Jimura, 2015). Regarding WHSs, Long (2012) reports that tourism at WHSs has made some contribution to the preservation of the cultural identity of local residents in WHS Ha Long Bay. Jimura (2015) also asserts that WH status has enhanced local identity among people living in or around Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range (cultural WHS in Japan) since its WHS listing in 2004. Moreover, Jimura (2015, 2016b) reviews the studies on WHSs and those about local identity and suggest a series of requirements that WHS listing needs to satisfy to make a critical contribution to building or boost-ing local identity. The following three requisites are suggested for WHS inscription to make a great contribution to shaping or enhancing lo-cal identity (Jimura, 2016b: 288):

1. The site was relatively unknown among visi-tors before WHS designation, but its recognition

has been clearly enhanced and the site has ex-perienced a distinct increase in visitor numbers after WHS inscription. 2. The site did not play a meaningful role in a local community before WHS listing, but WH status has influenced this condition in a positive manner, specifically at local level, and the local community’s awareness of the value of the site has been enhanced thanks to WH status. 3. A WHS needs to be inscribed as a certain area with clear boundaries where local people live. If the site is not designated as above, it must enable its local people to foster a sense of belong-ing through the listed asset or property located in the WHS.

Overall, WH status can make at least some contribution to forming or heightening local identity; however, WH status will not be able to make a great contribution to shaping or enhanc-ing local identity if the above-stated require-ments are not met.

Case Study: The UK’s Industrial WHSs and Local Communities

The UK’s industrial towns have conserved their industrial heritage through inscribing it as a cultural WHS, transforming it from a place of production to a place of consumption and working with local communities.

Fig. 5.1. Tourist Signs in WHS Saltaire. (Photo: the author)

Continued

76 Chapter 5

In England, for example, Saltaire is a former industrial village for workers in textile mills, built in the early Victorian period. A local community group, the Saltaire Village Society, looked for WH status and worked hard for WHS listing with other key stakeholders such as the City of Bradford Metropolitan Council, and Saltaire was designated as a cultural WHS in 2001. The Society and its members have also been involved in conservation of the WHS since inscription. For instance, the Society is a member of the Saltaire Project Team, which is one of the management agencies for the WHS whose remit in-cludes working towards implementation of the management plan for Saltaire. After WHS listing, the Saltaire Village Society also became stronger.

In Wales, Blaenavon Industrial Landscape is a well-conserved industrial site that produced iron and coal in the 19th century. Key elements of the site contain workers’ houses, quarries and a coalmine that is now open to the public as Big Pit National Coal Museum. The site also retains close bonds with local communities. For example, Blaenavon Workmen’s Hall still provides local communities with various leisure and entertainment opportunities such as concerts. The hall is also home to several groups and societies and hosts meetings and conferences. Local volunteers form the Blaenavon’s World Heritage Committee. The committee organizes the World Heritage Day festival annually, and other fundraising activities throughout the year. Local government also supports the festival; for instance, Blaenavon Town Council decided to donate £10,000 to the festival in June 2018.

(Sources: Jimura, 2007; Walker, 2011; South Wales Argus, 2018; Visit Blaenavon, 2018)

Case Study: Continued.

5 Conclusion

It can be stated that local communities and local people are two of the essential stakeholders in tourism at WHSs and in WHS conservation, and play crucial roles in these activities. Different lo-cal communities have various characteristics owing to a range of extrinsic factors. Each local community is heterogeneous, because it consists of local residents whose interests, aspirations and attitudes towards tourism and a WHS are different. As many researchers note, the support of local communities is critical for tourism devel-opment and WHS conservation. To this end, local communities should be given enough oppor-tunities to make their voices heard and to be involved in important decision-making processes for tourism development and WHS conserva-tion. In relation to this, local governments and other key stakeholders in tourism and WHS con-servation (e.g. destination marketing/manage-ment organization and conservation body) must work closely with local communities. Usually, economic benefits tend to be emphasized when tourism is developed. However, if WHSs or tour-ist destinations having a WHS focus mainly on the economic benefits of tourism, it can cause negative sociocultural and/or environmental problems in local communities. Local residents should also be active players in tourism business-es through working in the industry or supporting

tourism and WHS conservation in various ways. A variety of possible advantages and disadvan-tages of tourism development and/or WH status need to be recognized by local communities. To this end, community-based and ‘glocal’ approaches should be taken in tourism and WHS conserva-tion in local communities. Stated differently, how tourism and a WHS can make a significant contri-bution to local communities must be discussed among key stakeholders in tourism and the WHS. Without this, local governments and tour-ism businesses will not be able to acquire the sup-port of local communities.

WH status and tourism can affect local peo-ple in a variety of ways after WHS designation. This applies to people living in and around WHSs all over the world; however, no clear contrast be-tween western and eastern residents is confirmed. In this chapter, five different changes are dis-cussed as salient examples of such attitudinal changes, namely: (i) attitudes towards visitors; (ii) interest in heritage conservation; (iii) attachment to place of residence; (iv) pride in place of resi-dence; and (v) local identity. Overall, WH status can bring positive changes in these five aspects in local people’s minds. Of these, pride in place of res-idence can be seen as the firmest change occurring in local people’s minds after WHS inscription. The author suggests a model that illustrates the key interrelationships between WH status, tourism, and local residents’ views towards the principal


changes in their minds (Fig. 5.2). However, it should be noted that, overall, local inhabitants who have closer links with a WHS in terms of their demographics are more likely to experience such positive changes in their minds than other

inhabitants. Local communities and local gov-ernments need to pay attention to this difference as it can lead to a split within local communities in cities, towns and villages (i.e. WHS or not) (see Section 2.1 in Chapter 7 for details).

References

Akis, S., Peristianis, N. and Warner, J. (1996) Residents’ attitudes to tourism development: the case of Cyprus. Tourism Management 17(7), 481–494.

Andereck, K.L. and McGehee, N.G. (2008) The attitudes of community residents towards tourism. In: McCool, S.F. and Moisey, R.N. (eds) Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability: Linking Culture and the Environment, 2nd edn. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 236–259.

Andereck, K.L. and Vogt, C.A. (2000) The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options. Journal of Travel Research 39, 27–36.

Andriotis, K. and Vaughan, R.D. (2003) Urban residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: the case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research 42, 172–185.

Boissevain, J. (1996) Ritual, tourism and cultural commoditization in Malta: culture by the pound? In: Selwyn, T. (ed.) The Tourist Image: Myths and Myth Making in Tourism. John Wiley and Sons, Chiches-ter, UK, pp. 105–120.

Bramwell, B. (2003) Maltese responses to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 30(3), 581–605.Brougham, J.E. and Butler, R.W. (1981) A segmentation analysis of resident attitudes to the social impact

of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 8, 569–590.Chand, M. (2013) Residents’ perceived benefits of heritage and support for tourism development in Prag-

pur, India. Turizam: znanstveno-strucni casopis 61(4), 379–394.Cukier, J. (1996) Tourism employment in Bali: trends and implications. In: Butler, H. and Hinch, T. (eds)

Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. International Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 49–75.Davis, D., Allen, J. and Cosenza, R.M. (1988) Segmenting local residents by their attitudes, interests, and

opinions toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research 27(2), 2–8.

Impacts

WH Status

Changes in Tourism and Visitors

Extrinsic Factors

Impacts

Views towardsChanges inTourism andVisitors

ImpactsViews towardsChanges inTourism andVisitors

Intrinsic Factors

Changes in Interest in Heritage ConservationChanges in Attachment to Place of ResidenceChanges in Pride in Place of Residence

Changes inPeople’s Minds(themselves)

Changes in Local IdentityLocal Community

Each Local Resident

Fig. 5.2. WH status,tourism and local people’s views towards changes in their minds. (From: the author)

78 Chapter 5

Din, K.H. (1997) Tourism development: still in search of a more equitable mode of local involvement. In: Cooper, C. and Wanhill, S. (eds) Tourism Development: Environmental and Community Issues. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 153–162.

Draper, J., Woosnam, K.M. and Norman, W.C. (2011) Tourism use history: exploring a new framework for understanding residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Journal of Travel Research 50(1), 64–77.

Ennen, E. (2000) The meaning of heritage according to connoisseurs, rejecters and take-it-or-leavers in historic city centres: two Dutch cities experienced. International Journal of Heritage Studies 6(4), 331–349.


Garrod, B., Wornell, R. and Youell, R. (2006) Re-conceptualising rural resources as countryside capital: the case of rural tourism. Journal of Rural Studies 22(1), 117–128.

Goggin, P. and Long, E. (2009) The co-construction of a local public environmental discourse: letters to the editor, Bermuda’s Royal Gazette, and the Southlands hotel development controversy. Community Literacy Journal 4(1), 5–29.

Grimwade, G. and Carter, B. (2000) Managing small heritage sites with interpretation and community involvement. International Journal of Heritage Studies 6(1), 33–48.

Hewison, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. Methuen, London.Horn, C. and Simmons, D. (2002) Community adaptation to tourism: comparisons between Rotorua and

Kaikoura, New Zealand. Tourism Management 23(2), 133–143.Huh, C. and Vogt, C.A. (2008) Changes in residents’ attitudes toward tourism over time: a cohort analytical

approach. Journal of Travel Research 46(4), 446–455.Hunter, C. and Green, H. (1995) Tourism and the Environment: A Sustainable Relationship? Routledge,

London.ICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism (1999) Tourism at World Heritage Sites: The Site

Manager’s Handbook. 2nd edn. WTO, Madrid.Jaafar, M., Rasoolimanesh, S.M. and Md Noor, S. (2016) An investigation of the effects of an awareness

campaign on young residents’ perceptions: a case study of the Lenggong World Heritage Site. Tour-ism Planning & Development 13(2), 127–139.

Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1995) Involving people – Bruges. In: ICOMOS UK Cultural Tourism Committee (ed.) Conference Proceedings: ICOMOS UK Conference: Historic Cities and Sustainable Tourism – The Protection and Promotion of the World's Heritage, Bath, 4–6 October. ICOMOS, London, pp. 19–37.


Jimura, T. (2011) The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities – a case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management 32(2), 288–296.

Jimura, T. (2015) The relationship between World Heritage designation and local identity. In: Bourdeau, L., Gravari-Barbas, M. and Robinson, M. (eds) World Heritage, Tourism and Identity: Inscription and Co-production. Ashgate, Farnham, UK, pp. 81–91.

Jimura, T. (2016a) World heritage site management: a case study of sacred sites and pilgrimage routes in the Kii mountain range, Japan. Journal of Heritage Tourism 11(4), 382–394.

Jimura, T. (2016b) Re-examination of the relationship between World Heritage Site designation and local identity. In: Amoeda, R., Lira, S. and Pinheiro, C. (eds) Heritage 2016: Heritage and Sustainable Development. Green Lines Institute, Lisbon, 12–15 July, pp. 283–290.

Johnson, J.D., Snepenger, D.J. and Akis, S. (1994) Residents’ perceptions of tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research 21(3), 629–642.

Jutla, R.S. (2000) Visual image of the city: tourists’ versus residents’ perception of Simla, a hill station in northern India. Tourism Geographies 2(4), 404–420.

King, B., Pizam, A. and Milman, A. (1993) Social impacts of tourism: host perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research 20(4), 650–665.

Knox, P. and Pinch, S. (2010) Urban Social Geography: An Introduction, 6th edn. Pearson Education, Harlow, UK.

Kuvan, Y. and Akan, P. (2005) Residents’ attitudes toward general and forest-related impacts of tourism: the case of Belek, Antalya. Tourism Management 26(5), 691–706.

Látková, P. and Vogt, C. (2012) Residents’ attitudes toward existing and future tourism development in rural communities. Journal of Travel Research 51(1), 50–67.


Law, C.M. (2002) Urban Tourism: The Visitor Economy and the Growth of Large Cities, 2nd edn. Continuum, London.

Lee, C.-K. and Back, K.-J. (2003) Pre- and Post-casino impact of residents’ perception. Annals of Tourism Research 30(4), 868–885.

Lee, T.H. (2013) Influence analysis of community resident support for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management 34, 37–46.

Lepp, A. (2008) Attitudes towards initial tourism development in a community with no prior tourism experi-ence: the case of Bigodi, Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(1), 5–22.

Levett, R. and McNally, R. (2003) A Strategic Environmental Assessment of Fiji’s Tourism Development Plan. WWF and Asian Development Bank, Suva.

Long, J. and Hecock, R. (eds) (1984) Leisure, Tourism and Social Change. Dunfermline College of Phys-ical Education, Dunfermline, UK.

Long, P.H. (2012) Tourism impacts and support for tourism development in Ha Long Bay, Vietnam: an examination of residents’ perceptions. Asian Social Science 8(8), 28–39.

Lowenthal, D. (1998) The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, UK.

MacDonald, R. and Jolliffe, L. (2003) Cultural rural tourism: evidence from Canada. Annals of Tourism Research 30(2), 307–322.

MacQueen, K.M., McLellan, E., Metzger, D.S., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R.P., Scotti, R., Blanchard, L. and Trotter, R.T. (2001) What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health 91(12), 1929–1938.

Mason, P. (2015) Tourism Impacts, Planning and Management. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. Longman, Harlow, UK.Moon, O. (2002) The countryside reinvented for urban tourists: rural transformation in the Japanese mura-

okoshi movement. In: Hendry, J. and Raveri, M. (eds) Japan at Play: The Ludic and Logic of Power. Routledge, London, pp. 228–244.

Morgan, D.J. (2002) A new pier for new Brighton: resurrecting a community symbol. Tourism Geographies 4(4), 426–439.

Nunkoo, R. and Gursoy, D. (2012) Residents’ support for tourism: an identity perspective. Annals of Tourism Research 39(1), 243–268.

Nunkoo, R. and Ramkissoon, H. (2010) Small island urban tourism: a residents’ perspective. Current Issues in Tourism 13(1), 37–60.

Olya, H.G. and Gavilyan, Y. (2016) Configurational models to predict residents’ support for tourism devel-opment. Journal of Travel Research 56(7), 893–912.

Orbasli, A. (2000) Tourists in Historic Towns. E. & F.N. Spon, London.Pacione, M. (2009) Urban Geography: A Global Perspective, 3rd edn. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.Page, S. (2015) Tourism Management, 5th edn. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.Pearce, P. (1982) The Social Psychology of Tourist Behaviour. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.Pearce, P. (1994) Tourism-resident impacts: examples, explanations and emerging solutions. In: Theobald,

W. (ed.) Global Tourism: The Next Decade. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. 103–123.Petrzelka, P., Krannich, R.S., Brehm, J. and Trentelman, C.K. (2005) Rural tourism and gendered nuances.

Annals of Tourism Research 32(4), 1121–1137.Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. (2003) Governmental responses to tourism development: three Brazilian case

studies. Tourism Management 24(1), 97–110.Rabazauskaite, V. (2015) Revitalisation of public spaces in the context of creative tourism. Creativity Studies

8(2), 124–133.Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Jaafar, M., Kock, N. and Ramayah, T. (2015) A revised framework of social ex-

change theory to investigate the factors influencing residents’ perceptions. Tourism Management Perspectives 16, 335–345.

Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Jaafar, M. and Barghi, R. (2017) Effects of motivation, knowledge and perceived power on residents’ perceptions: application of Weber’s theory in World Heritage Site destinations. International Journal of Tourism Research 19(1), 68–79.

Reisinger, Y. and Turner, L. (1998) Cultural differences between Mandarin-speaking tourists and Australi-an hosts and their impact on cross-cultural tourist–host interaction. Journal of Business Research 42(2), 175–187.

Ritchie, J.R.B. (1988) Consensus policy formulation in tourism: measuring resident views via survey research. Tourism Management 9, 199–212.

80 Chapter 5

Ryan, C., Chaozhi, Z. and Zeng, D. (2011) The impacts of tourism at a UNESCO heritage site in China – a need for a meta-narrative? The case of the Kaiping Diaolou. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19(6), 747–765.

Sharma, B. and Gursoy, D. (2015) An examination of changes in residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts over time: the impact of residents’ socio-demographic characteristics. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 20(12), 1332–1352.

Sharpley, R. and Sharpley, J. (1997) Rural Tourism: An Introduction. International Thomson Business Press, London.

Sirakaya, E., Teye, V. and Sonmez, S. (2002) Understanding residents’ support for tourism development in the central region of Ghana. Journal of Travel Research 41, 57–67.

Snyman, S. (2014) Assessment of the main factors impacting community members’ attitudes towards tourism and protected areas in six southern African countries. Koedoe 56(2), 1–12.

Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J. and Szivas, E.M. (2014) Residents’ support for tourism development: the role of residents’ place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tourism Management 45, 260–274.

South Wales Argus (2018) Blaenavon Town Council agrees to aid heritage day festival with £10K offer. Available at: http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/gwentnews/15892018.Blaenavon_Town_Council_agrees_to_aid:heritage_day_festival_with___10k_offer/ (accessed 7 May 2018).

Su, M.M. and Wall, G. (2014) Community participation in tourism at a world heritage site: Mutianyu Great Wall, Beijing, China. International Journal of Tourism Research 16(2), 146–156.

Tosun, C. (2006) Expected nature of community participation in tourism development. Tourism Management 27(3), 493–504.

Urry, J. (1995) Consuming Places. Routledge, London.Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze. 2nd edn. Sage, London.Vareiro, L.M.D.C., Remoaldo, P.C. and Cadima Ribeiro, J.A. (2013) Residents’ perceptions of tourism

impacts in Guimarães (Portugal): a cluster analysis. Current Issues in Tourism 16(6), 535–551.Vargas-Sánchez, A., Porras-Bueno, N. and de los Ángeles Plaza-Mejía, M. (2011) Explaining residents’

attitudes to tourism: Is a universal model possible? Annals of Tourism Research 38(2), 460–480.Visit Blaenavon (2018) Blaenavon Workmen’s Hall. Available at: http://www.visitblaenavon.co.uk/en/

VisitBlaenavon/ThingsToDo/BlaenavonWorkmensHall.aspx (accessed 7 May 2018).Walker, D. (2011) Towards a beneficial World Heritage: community involvement in the Blaenavon Industri-

al andscape. Museum International 63(1–2), 25–33.Wang, Y. and Pfister, R.E. (2008) Residents’ attitudes toward tourism and perceived personal benefits in

a rural community. Journal of Travel Research 47(1), 84–93.Waterton, E. and Watson, S. (eds) (2010) Culture, Heritage and Representation: Perspectives on Visuality

and the Past. Ashgate, Farnham, UK.WHC (2017) World heritage. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/ (accessed 4 June 2017).Xie, H.J., Bao, J. and Kerstetter, D.L. (2014) Examining the effects of tourism impacts on satisfaction

with tourism between native and non-native residents. International Journal of Tourism Research 16(3), 241–249.

Yu, L. and Goulden, M. (2006) A comparative analysis of international tourists’ satisfaction in Mongolia. Tourism Management 27(6), 1331–1342.

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/gwentnews/15892018.Blaenavon_Town_Council_agrees_to_aid:heritage_day_festival_with___10k_offer/

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/gwentnews/15892018.Blaenavon_Town_Council_agrees_to_aid:heritage_day_festival_with___10k_offer/

http://www.visitblaenavon.co.uk/en/VisitBlaenavon/ThingsToDo/BlaenavonWorkmensHall.aspx

http://www.visitblaenavon.co.uk/en/VisitBlaenavon/ThingsToDo/BlaenavonWorkmensHall.aspx



Historic District of Old Québec, Canada

6

The Economic Impacts of World Heritage Site Designation on Local Communities

1 The Economic Impacts of Tourism

1.1 Introduction

The economic aspect of the triple bottom line of sustainability and tourism development is dis-cussed in Section 1.2 in Chapter 3. This section discusses the economic impacts of tourism on local communities and economic changes in lo-cal communities caused by tourism. Page (2015,

p. 383) states: ‘The economic measurement of tourism has a long history in many countries.’ This history can be traced back to the 1930s (Page, 2015), and possible economic benefits have been a key justification for tourism develop-ment (Page and Connell, 2014). The World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) summariz-es the scope to which the terms used to evaluate and analyse, ‘tourism industry’ and ‘tourism economy’, can be defined (Page and Connell,

82 Chapter 6

2014). ‘Tourism industry’ describes the direct impacts of travel demand associated with tour-ism services, including transport, accommoda-tion, catering, attractions and entertainment (Page and Connell, 2014) and they can be seen as the direct economic impacts of tourism. How-ever, direct economic impacts cover only a small part of the economic impacts of tourism since ‘tourism economy’ signifies much wider impacts of flow-through of travel and tourism demand across the economy of a country, region or city, and encompasses ‘tourism industry’ as well as businesses that support and work with the in-dustry (Page and Connell, 2014). Such busi-nesses include utilities (e.g. water), retailers (e.g. supermarkets) and security (e.g. nightclub secu-rity services) and are regarded as the indirect economic impacts of tourism. Furthermore, the spending by employees of the tourism industry is understood as the induced economic impacts of tourism. These three types of economic im-pacts of tourism are summarized in Fig. 6.1, and Sections 1.2–1.7 argue major economic impacts of tourism at a national, regional or local level.

1.2 Tourism balance of payments

The balance of payments account for a country is a record of transactions during a period of time between residents of that country and other

countries (Page and Connell, 2014). In tourism, it includes all receipts and expenditure. The tourism balance of payments is calculated on the basis of the International Monetary Fund recom-mendations (Switzerland Federal Statistical Office, 2016). The following terms explain the tourism balance of payments, employing Japan as an example:

• Receipts – measures the value of services and goods purchased by overseas tourists during their stay in Japan.

• Expenditure – measures the value of servic-es and goods purchased by Japanese people while they stay abroad.

The tourism balance of payments for Japan is improved if overseas tourists spend more dur-ing their stay in Japan and Japanese tourists spend less while they stay in other countries. In 2014, Japan’s tourism balance of payments turned positive for the first time in 55 years (Nikkei Asian Review, 2015) thanks to the recent inbound tourism boom.

1.3 National, local and household income

Gross domestic product (GDP) counts all of the outputs generated within a country. GDP con-sists of both goods and services produced for sale

DIRECT EconomicImpacts of Tourism

Services:TransportAccommodationCatering, attractions andentertainmentSources of spending:Residents, businessesand governments

INDUCED EconomicImpacts of Tourism

Daily goodsDaily servicesRent/mortgageClothingHobbiesFood and drink

TOTAL Economic Impacts of Tourism• On GDP• On income• On employment

INDIRECT EconomicImpacts of Tourism

Tourism investmentspendingGovernments’ collectivetourism spendingImpacts of purchasesfrom suppliers

Fig. 6.1. Three different types of economic impacts of tourism. (From: Page and Connell, 2014; Page, 2015)

The Economic Impacts of World Heritage Site Designation on Local Communities 83

in the market and also some non-market pro-duction (e.g. educational services) provided by the national government (Callen, 2012). Tour-ism tends to make a greater contribution to countries that are remote islands or relatively small or less-developed countries (LDCs). For in-stance, in 2016, 40.9% of total GDP for the Mal-dives was derived from tourism (WTTC, 2017).

Tourism can also bring income to local gov-ernments and local people. Local governments’ income through tourism is affected by diverse factors such as appeal as a tourist destination, length of visitors’ stay, amount of money visi-tors spend for products offered by local providers and tourism tax, if applicable. While the majority of local people obtain economic benefits indi-rectly, it tends to be difficult for them to feel that tourism is financially beneficial for them. An ex-ceptional case is local inhabitants who own and/or run tourism businesses, and can gain eco-nomic benefits directly from tourism. However, it should be remembered that an increase in local government’s income from tourism does not al-ways lead to an increase in local people’s income from tourism. Shackley (1994, 1996) investi-gates tourism in the Himalayan kingdom of Lo, and concludes that the Nepalese authorities gained economic benefit from tourism by ap-proving a gradual increase in the limit of visitor numbers; however, the authorities could not generate any income for local people.

1.4 Variety of local businesses, dependency on tourism and

opportunity costs

If tourism is developed appropriately, new busi-nesses could be attracted to a tourist destination (Jimura, 2007a, 2011), although this is not always true, as the case of Brugge, Belgium, studied by Jansen-Verbeke (1995), corroborates. Tourism can also attract domestic and/or foreign investment (Mishra et al., 2011). An increase in the number of businesses can contribute to di-versifying and strengthening the local economy (Sharpley, 2002). Consequently, the structure and balance of economic activities at a local level can be improved thanks to tourism (Page and Hall, 2003).

All of the above are positive economic im-pacts of tourism. However, it must be remarked

that heavy dependence on a single industry is risky for a country, region or city, especially in the long run (Jimura, 2007a). This signifies that a tourist destination may face economic difficulties if it relies heavily on tourism and fails to diversify main industries for the local economy (Page and Connell, 2014). For example, Sharpley (2001) examines tourism in Cyprus and argues that the country relies on tourism and has used tourism as a means of its economic and social develop-ment. However, such reliance on tourism can be problematic for the destination because tourism development often reflects a polarization of de-velopment between tourism ‘honeypots’ and pe-ripheral areas (Jimura, 2007a). Ultimately, island destinations such as Cyprus can become even more dependent on tourism and a limited num-ber of tourism businesses (Sharpley, 2001).

Opportunity costs should also be counted in relation to tourism and its economic impacts, and are related to the time, effort and financial resources spent for developing tourism at the expense of other activities or areas of invest-ment (Page and Connell, 2014). This implies that if local governments invest in tourism de-velopment, then this amount of money cannot be used for other purposes. This may result in sacrificing the needs of local communities or other industries that require investment in oth-er areas (Page and Connell, 2014). Additionally, if local governments invest too much in tourism development, it can be a financial burden for them and local communities and may damage the balance of the local economy (Jimura, 2007a).

1.5 Employment

The ability of tourism to generate employment opportunities is another justification govern-ments use to develop tourism. The destinations where traditional industries have been declin-ing would be particularly eager to develop tour-ism to create new employment opportunities for local people (Jimura, 2007a, 2011). Tourism can trigger the inflow of people to a tourist des-tination (Lane, 2009) and the concentration of people can attract various businesses, which can lead to new employment for local inhabitants (ICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism, 1999). This positive change is not

84 Chapter 6

limited to within the tourism industry and can also be observed in industries relevant to tourism (e.g. Snyman and Spenceley, 2012). Further-more, tourism can also protect existing employ-ment opportunities in the tourism and relevant industries (Sharpley and Sharpley, 1997) and can provide young people and/or women in tra-ditional societies with employment opportuni-ties (Jimura, 2007a).

On the other hand, there are a few draw-backs. The most fundamental downside is that it is difficult to measure the actual impact of tour-ism on employment opportunities, and positive impacts of tourism on employment are some-times overestimated (Jimura, 2007a). Probably, the number and types of jobs tourism has gener-ated would be the most significant data to assess tourism impacts; however, even these jobs are likely to be scattered across different sectors both within and outside the tourism industry; hence they cannot be easily identified (Law, 1993). Regarding this challenge, categorizing types of employment from the viewpoint of its relation to tourism would be useful. According to Page and Connell (2014, p. 283):

[T]here are three different kinds of employ-ment which can be generated by tourism:

• Direct employment – jobs created as a result of visitor expenditure and directly support-ing tourism activity (e.g. hotels);

• Indirect employment – jobs created within the tourism supply sector but not as a direct result of tourism activity; and

• Induced employment – jobs created as a re-sult of tourism expenditure as local residents spend money earned from tourism.

The second downside is that the tourist destinations where tourism is a key industry tend to have a high level of unemployment. It is confirmed, for instance, in Italy (Massidda and Etzo, 2012). Third, tourism-related jobs are of-ten described as undesirable jobs due to the fol-lowing characteristics: low-paid; low-skilled; part-time and/or seasonal; low status; high rate of turnover; gendered – over-dependent on fe-male labour; and for young people. However, some of these negative characteristics can be overcome through various measures. For exam-ple, running an event or festival during off- seasons (e.g. Jorvik Viking Festival in February, York, UK) or promoting business tourism that is

inclined to be less seasonal compared with lei-sure tourism can improve the issues in season-ality. Furthermore, tourism-related jobs are seen positively by local people in some destina-tions (e.g. Jimura, 2007a). This view is more likely to be confirmed among local communities whose traditional industries are in decline, which are in remote rural areas or which are situated in a LDC.

1.6 Inflation and increase in the cost of living

Tourism can cause inflation and increase the cost of living for local residents (e.g. Andereck and Nyaupane, 2011). This issue can affect the price of property, daily goods and services, all of which are important for local people’s daily lives. The main cause of this phenomenon is that the level of demand for these products can increase because of the influx of people and businesses from outside local communities (Page and Hall, 2003). It may be beneficial for local people who sell their properties (Page and Connell, 2014); however, it makes life challeng-ing for the majority of local people. A very high demand for property is observed in popular tourist destinations (e.g. San Francisco and Shanghai), although tourism is not the only reason for inflation and increase in the cost of living. Under such circumstances, the availabil-ity of properties may be limited, and local in-habitants may need to compete with newcomers to obtain properties. This issue is also confirmed in various studies adopting resident surveys (e.g. Long, 2012).

1.7 Leakage and tourism multiplier

Leakages of tourist expenditure from the national, regional or local economy can happen in tourist destinations. Small, remote and less- developed tourist destinations are more likely to suffer from leakage than large, well-developed destinations. This is because the latter would have industries and businesses that can supply products required to satisfy visitors’ needs within destinations, while the former often need to purchase these products from other cities or regions, or even


import them from other countries. Multinational corporations (MNCs) are a prime example of for-eign investor and external ownership of tour-ism-related businesses such as accommodation. According to Page and Connell (2014), leakages can occur through:

• repatriation of profits generated from for-eign capital investment (e.g. part of econom-ic benefits gained locally through tourism activities goes to a country where the head-quarters of a large company is located);

• vertical integration of tourism businesses (e.g. large MNCs control local tourism busi-nesses);

• not sourcing products locally (e.g. limited economic benefits and employment oppor-tunities, especially senior positions, for local people);

• payments for holidays made in a tourist- generating country (e.g. Japanese holiday makers pay the fee for a package tour to a foreign country that is organized and sold by a Japanese tour operator); and

• ownership of transport (e.g. national airlines).

To make tourism economically beneficial for local communities, regions or countries, the amount and proportion of economic benefit from tourism must be maximized and kept cir-culated within them for as long as possible. To this end, the concept of the tourism multiplier is crucial. Concerning income, the tourism multiplier means how much income is generat-ed by a certain amount of visitor spending. There are three types of spending (Lejárraga and Walkenhorst, 2010):

• direct spending – money spent by visitors for tourism services (e.g. accommodation, food and drink, attractions);

• indirect or generated spending – money spent by tourism businesses for products to support their businesses (e.g. local restaurants pur-chase vegetables from local farmers); and

• induced or additional spending – local resi-dents who earn income directly or indirect-ly from direct spending (visitor expenditure) spend this money locally for the products required for their daily lives.

In short, it is significant for tourist destinations to minimize leakages and maximize multiplier

effects to develop tourism in an economically sus-tainable manner.

2 The Economic Impacts of WH Status and Tourism at WHSs

2.1 Access to funding

World Heritage (hereafter WH) status has an es-tablished value in terms of the authenticity and integrity of heritage (see Section 6 in Chapter 1) and is a strong brand in tourism marketing (see Section 2.1 in Chapter 4). In reality, however, many WHSs suffer from a lack of funding, re-sources and expertise, although part of the aim of the WH Convention is to encourage interna-tional cooperation and exchange of knowledge, expertise and funds (Leask and Fyall, 2006). WH status does not secure automatic funding from any public or private organizations (Jimura, 2007a, 2016) at an international, national, re-gional or local level. One of the main benefits for WHSs and their States Parties is access to the World Heritage Fund (WHF). This scheme for heritage conservation is one of the positive eco-nomic impacts of WH status. The WHF was es-tablished in 1972 under Article 15 of the WH Convention (UNESCO World Heritage Centre (WHC), 2017a). The WHF is financed mainly by obligatory contributions from States Parties.

States Parties can request financial aid from the WHF whose annual budget is around US$3–4 million (WHC, 2017a, 2017b). However, the WH Committee allocates the funds, consider-ing the urgency of requests, and the most threat-ened WHSs are prioritized (WHC, 2017a, 2017b). Therefore it is unlikely that affluent States Parties would gain financial support from the WHF. That is to say, the WHSs in the poorest States Parties are inclined to have more serious issues in con-servation than those in developed States Parties (Brumann, 2014). The main cause of this issue is a limited annual budget for the WHF (Brumann, 2014). In the early 2000s, the issue of a lack of financial resources for WHS conservation was raised (e.g. Ashworth and van der Aa, 2002) as the number of WHSs had been increasing every year; although, more recently, Meskell (2014) states that the WHF has reached its peak because of a gradual increase in the number of States Parties. To deal with this problem, UNESCO has

86 Chapter 6

been implementing various measures. For ex-ample, it established the World Heritage Part-nerships for Conservation Initiative (PACT) in 2002, and considers that leading corporations and organizations in the world should be suita-ble as partners for WHS conservation (WHC, 2017c). PACT has helped raise awareness, mobi-lize funds and implement activities through cre-ative and innovative partnerships (WHC, 2017c). Besides, at its 40th session in 2016, the WH Committee decided to start a consultation pro-cess over an annual fee for WHSs on a voluntary basis by asking the Secretariat to send out a sur-vey to States Parties and their local administra-tions in charge of WHS management to gain feedback on the question of paying an annual fee to the WHF, depending on their financial au-tonomy and capacity to pay, and to report back to the WH Committee (WHC, 2017a).

2.2 Financial support from governments and private organizations

WHSs may be able to gain funding for conserva-tion from their national, regional and/or local government. In the cases of two natural WHSs in Thailand, Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex and Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wild-life Sanctuaries, the majority of the financial budget for conservation comes from state coffers (Bangkok Post, 2011). Sacred Sites and Pilgrim-age Routes in the Kii Mountain Range (WHS Kii) is a cultural WHS in Japan consisting of Shinto shrines, Buddhist temples and pilgrimage routes. Jimura (2016) states that there is no funding from public or private sources for conservation of shrines and temples for being part of the WHS. In Japan, an exceptional case of when properties listed as WHSs could get financial support from governments is when they are hit by natural dis-asters. When Kumano Nachi Taisha, part of WHS Kii, was hit by Typhoon Talas in 2011, the Japa-nese government covered the entire repair cost of the property (Jimura, 2016). On the other hand, the owners of listed historic houses in the Ogimachi district (WHS Ogimachi), which is part of Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokay-ama (cultural WHS in Japan), can acquire finan-cial support from government to conserve their historic houses (Jimura, 2007a, 2016). Jimura (2016) suggests that such an inconsistency in

the levels of financial support from public bodies stems chiefly from the difference in the nature of listed properties, between those in WHS Ogi-machi (private houses that need to be main-tained by their owners) and those in WHS Kii (great Shinto shrines or Buddhist temples that could receive donations from spiritual followers or other visitors). Donations and increased ad-mission fees are common measures adopted by cultural and natural WHSs to raise money for their conservation activities (e.g. Himeji-jo, cul-tural WHS in Japan).

Concerning natural WHSs in Thailand, WH status helps to draw attention from foreign conservation groups, which provide forest con-servation projects with financial support (Bang-kok Post, 2011). As such, there are WHSs whose conservation activities have been supported financially by a foreign and/or private organiza-tion or charity. For instance, the Prince Claus Fund is based in Amsterdam and supported by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Dutch Postcode Lottery (Prince Claus Fund, 2017). The Fund fiscally assists the restoration works of the Patan Palace Complex, which is part of Kathmandu Valley (cultural WHS in Nepal) (Prince Claus Fund, 2015). Sophia Uni-versity, Japan, has been supporting the conser-vation activities for Angkor (cultural WHS in Cambodia) since 1996, focusing on the develop-ment of human resources required for its conser-vation activities (Sophia University, 2016). Their activities have been financially supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan and a private company, the All Nippon Airways (ANA) group. Supporting such conservation activities for valu-able heritage also acts as the ANA group’s corpo-rate social responsibility activities and is useful to enhance the image of the company.

3 Economic Changes in and around World Heritage Sites and Local

People’s Views

3.1 Diversity and strength of local economy

3.1.1 Changes

Section 1.4 discusses the variety of local busi-nesses, dependency on tourism and opportunity


costs. Section 3.1.1 considers these points more specifically for WHSs. WH status may make a good contribution to an increase in visitor numbers, although this does not apply to all WHSs (see Chapters 3 and 4). If the visitor numbers to WHSs increase after WHS inscrip-tion, existing businesses related to tourism can flourish and new businesses whose main target is visitors can also be attracted to WHSs or tour-ist destinations possessing a WHS. This could also lead to an increase in the amount of invest-ment from public and private organizations. Even if an increase in visitor numbers is not ob-vious currently, WHSs or tourist destinations holding a WHS may still reap such economic benefits in the future. Consequently, the struc-ture and balance of local economic activities can be enhanced. It is vital for tourist destina-tions, including WHSs, to diversify and strengthen local industries and businesses to maintain or enhance their economic sustaina-bility. It is particularly crucial for the destina-tions where their traditional industries have been declining. Such destinations are often sit-uated in rural areas or remote islands, and their long-established industries would be in the pri-mary or secondary sectors (see Section 1.2 in Chapter 3). Under such a circumstance, these destinations desperately need to foster alterna-tive industries that can make them financially sustainable (MacDonald and Jolliffe, 2003). Tourism can contribute to the above mission, utilizing the established value of WH status as a brand that visitors can trust.

However, if tourist destinations fail to di-versify and strengthen local industries, or de-velop the local economy only through tourism, negative issues may arise. A typical example of such problems is the economic overdependence on tourism (e.g. Ardahaey, 2011). Generally, tourism is seen as an unstable in-dustry since it can be easily affected by exter-nal factors (e.g. exchange rates) that are out of the control of WHSs or destinations with a WHS. Over-reliance on tourism would be an issue for WHSs or destinations owning a WHS, which have seen a large increase in visitor numbers after WHS listing and do not have main industries other than tourism. In some WHSs, however, an increase in visitor num-bers might be temporary (Cuccia, 2012) (see Section 2.3 in Chapter 4).

3.1.2 Local people’s views

Local inhabitants’ views towards the changes in the diversity of local businesses and the strength of the local economy at WHSs since WHS listing have been examined by researchers. As a whole, their views are positive, but there are some ex-ceptions. For instance, overall, local residents living in the islands in Ha Long Bay (WHS Ha Long Bay) (natural WHS in Vietnam) agree with the statements, ‘Tourism is one of the most important industries supporting the local econo-my’ and ‘Tourism creates new business opportu-nities for local residents’ (Long, 2012). Vareiro et al. (2013) explore local people’s perceptions of tourism at Historic Centre of Guimarães (WHS Guimarães) (cultural WHS in Portugal) and re-port that nearly 80% of local people involved in the survey deem that tourism helps to supply new services for local residents. Su and Wall (2014) examine the Mutianyu village (WHS Mutianyu) located adjacent to the Mutianyu part of The Great Wall (cultural WHS in China), and explore villagers’ perceptions of the impact of WH status and tourism through a resident survey. Their survey shows that 100% of the respondents agree with the statement ‘Tourism development improved local economic devel-opment’ (Su and Wall, 2014). Jimura (2007a) conducted resident surveys at WHS Ogimachi in Japan and WHS Saltaire in the UK and asked local residents to indicate their views to-wards how the variety of local businesses had changed since WHS inscription. In and around WHS Ogimachi, 50% of the respondents think that local businesses have more or much more variety after WHS listing, and only 2% think they have less variety. According to the inter-views with local experts in heritage, tourism and/or community matters, most businesses newly developed since WHS inscription are ser-vices. Some of them are businesses mainly for visitors (e.g. hot-spring hotel), while others are for both local inhabitants and visitors (e.g. con-venience store). The views of local experts sug-gest that a shift in the main industries from primary and secondary industries to service in-dustries has occurred (Jimura, 2007a, 2011). In and around WHS Saltaire, whilst 54.7% of the respondents deem that the variety of local busi-nesses has not changed since WHS listing, 34% feel that they have much more variety or more variety. In the case of WHS Saltaire, most local

88 Chapter 6

businesses that increased after WHS listing are mainly for visitors (e.g. souvenir shops). One of the local specialists reveals that a local bookshop closed and this business was associated more with local residents’ daily life than visitors’ needs.

In summary, it could be stated that WH sta-tus and tourism after WHS listing can diversify the variety of local businesses for visitors and local people; however, the businesses chiefly for visitors are likely to be developed much more than those that are mainly for local people. The importance of tourism as a local industry has been enhanced in WHS Mutianyu, WHS Ogi-machi and WHS Saltaire after listing. Of these, the importance of tourism seems to be highest for WHS Ogimachi, while it does not appear to be salient for WHS Saltaire.

3.2 Employment opportunities

3.2.1 Changes

Section 1.5 examines the relationships between tourism and employment opportunities. Section 3.2.1 investigates these points more specifically for WHSs. Tourism can create employment op-portunities for local inhabitants, and WH status can also do so by working with tourism. Howev-er, this may signify a shift in the main industries of WHSs or tourist destinations having a WHS (Jimura, 2007a, 2011) where employment op-portunities in traditional industries (e.g. agricul-ture) have been decreasing. Some local residents who once worked in such traditional industries may need to change their jobs and start working in tourism industries, whilst others may change their jobs willingly as they believe that tourism- related jobs are more ideal than their former jobs. It should also be noted that outsiders may start running tourism-related businesses in WHSs after WHS listing. They may create additional employment opportunities on site, but they do not always employ local people. This can hap-pen, particularly in the case of a WHS situated in a small destination or rural area. That is be-cause it is often difficult for the businesses owned and run by outsiders to find local people they want to employ.

In academic research, traditionally and dominantly, tourism-related jobs have been dis-cussed as rather undesirable jobs, noting their nature to be seasonal, part-time, low-paid and

low-skilled, and relying heavily on female labour. Overall, these characteristics still seem to apply to tourism-related jobs in and around WHSs. In a different sense, however, tourism-related jobs at WHSs can encourage women’s participation in society, especially in non-western countries. The characteristics of tourism-related jobs, such as part-time or seasonal, can be seen as negative. From another perspective, however, such charac-teristics could give workers flexibility regarding time and working hours. This would allow women who cannot work full-time to contribute to their society by working part-time, for instance at res-taurants in and around WHSs. Thanks to their cultural and religious backgrounds, working is seen as a virtue by Muslim countries (Zou, 2015). This belief is shared by Islamic and Con-fucian countries. For example, this view is com-mon among Japanese people (Japan Business, 2017), especially among elderly people. The aforementioned characteristics of tourism- related jobs also fit elderly people. For instance, many old people work as tourist guides for Bud-dhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area (cultural WHS). WH status can also encourage young people to return to their home town. In and around WHS Ogimachi, many young people moved to a big city, and most of them did not re-turn to their home town (Shirakawa-mura) be-fore WHS listing due to a lack of employment opportunities and lack of recognition of the vil-lage’s ‘value’ (Jimura, 2007a, 2011). The num-ber of young people returning to the village has increased after WHS designation as the village could give more employment opportunities to them, and they could also acknowledge the ‘value’ of their village thanks to WH status (Jimura, 2007a, 2011). Hence, it is understandable that this trend is more noticeable in the WHS than in its surrounding areas (Jimura, 2007a, 2011).

The most serious issue with seasonality would be a large difference in visitor numbers between high and low seasons. Some WHSs and destinations having a WHS have been tackling this issue by adopting diverse measures. For instance, Ogimachi, Ainokura and Suganuma villages included in Historic Villages of Shirakawa- go and Gokayama (cultural WHS in Japan) host lighting-up events, originally in winter only and now throughout the year, thanks to its populari-ty among visitors. Their WH status enhances the recognition of the villages and events and is ef-fective in attracting more visitors, especially in


winter. Some destinations having a WHS (e.g. Budapest, including the Banks of the Danube, the Buda Castle Quarter and Andrássy Avenue (cultural WHS in Hungary)) have been promot-ing business tourism, since it can be less season-al than leisure tourism (Christie et al., 2013).


Local residents’ opinions about employment op-portunities at WHSs since WHS designation are also examined by scholars. According to Su and Wall’s (2014) resident survey at WHS Mu-tianyu, 74% of the respondents agreed with the statement ‘Tourism development provided more local job opportunity.’ The research conducted by Okech (2010) examines Lamu Old Town (WHS Lamu) (cultural WHS in Kenya) and Stone Town of Zanzibar (WHS Zanzibar) (cultur-al WHS in Tanzania) and indicates that local people believe that tourism and WH status has made a good contribution to an increase in em-ployment opportunities. Similar findings are reported by Long (2012) in his study on WHS Ha Long Bay and by Vareiro et al. (2013) in their research on WHS Guimarães. According to Jimura (2007a), in and around WHS Ogimachi, 49.7% of local inhabitants involved in his survey deemed that employment opportunities had not changed since WHS inscription, although 44.7% believed that they had increased, and 0.7% thought that they had increased consider-ably. On the contrary, the views of local special-ists in heritage, tourism and/or community matters obtained through interviews demon-strate more positive results. They believe that employment opportunities for local inhabitants have increased after WHS listing in and around the WHS; and accommodation, restaurants, cafés and souvenir shops have created job oppor-tunities for local people. Two out of seven inter-viewees state that housewives in and around the WHS started working in souvenir shops, restau-rants or cafés. This can support women’s ad-vancement in the workforce through tourism at WHSs (see Section 3.2.1). In and around WHS Saltaire, 54.7% of the respondents felt that there had been no changes in employment opportuni-ties since WHS designation, although 32.7% said that they had increased and 1.3% viewed that they had increased much. Like WHS Ogi-machi, the experts’ views of the changes in em-ployment opportunities are more positive than

those of local inhabitants. According to them, overall job opportunities appear to have in-creased across the tourism sector after WH list-ing, especially in retail businesses.

In summary, it could be declared that WH status and tourism since WHS listing can in-crease employment opportunities for local in-habitants in and around WHSs. However, a certain proportion of local residents may feel that they have not changed or the increase is not evident. Most newly created job opportunities appear to be in tourism-related businesses. In the case of WHS Ogimachi in Japan, women’s social advancement in the workforce seems to have been enhanced through tourism with WH status. Furthermore, WH status and tourism could give opportunities for elderly people to work at their own pace in non-western countries such as Muslim and Confucian countries where working is seen as a virtue.

3.3 Income

3.3.1 Changes

The positive changes in the diversity and strength of local businesses and employment opportuni-ties for local communities can lead to an increase in income at household, local, regional and na-tional levels. Section 1.3 debates the relation-ships between tourism and national, local and household income; and Section 1.7 considers those between tourism and leakage and multipli-er effects. Section 3.3.1 discusses the topics relat-ed to income more specifically at WHSs.

Tourism can increase the level of income of households in or around WHSs whose family members own, run or are engaged in tourism- related businesses. This could result in an increase in income at a local, regional or national level. Nowadays, many countries introduce taxation that charges on consumers’ spending on various products. This type of tax is called consumption tax (Japan), value added tax (UK) or sales tax (USA). Therefore, extra excursionists and tourists in a destination lead to more income for local, regional or national governments through taxa-tion. In recent years, a growing number of coun-tries or cities have also introduced the tourist tax. This tax is called city, hotel, lodging, room or over-night-stay tax, depending on the destination. It seems to have become increasingly common for

90 Chapter 6

(too) popular destinations that already have a large number of visitors. In the case of Italy, how much tourist tax is applied differs by city and hotel (e.g. five-star hotels charge more than four-star hotels), and many cities set the maxi-mum number of nights the tourist tax is charged (e.g. seven nights). For example, as of 2016, Ve-rona, which is listed as City of Verona (cultural WHS), charges a hotel guest of a five-star hotel 3€ per person per night (ExpertoItaly, 2015). In Japan, only Tokyo and Osaka charge the accom-modation tax as of 2017, although it was an-nounced in 2017 that Kyoto, which has a number of properties included in Historic Mon-uments of Ancient Kyoto (cultural WHS), had started considering the introduction of a tourist tax in 2018 (Nikkei.com, 2017). Tokyo has the National Museum of Western Art, which is part of The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier, an Outstanding Contribution to the Modern Move-ment (cultural WHS). As of 2017, the hotels in Tokyo charge 100 Japanese yen if the accommo-dation fee is between 10,000 and 14,999 Japa-nese yen per person per night, and 200 Japanese yen if the fee is 15,000 Japanese yen or higher per person per night (Tokyo Metropolitan Gov-ernment Bureau of Taxation, n.d.). The accom-modation sector in tourist destinations that adopt tourist tax is likely to have negative views on it since the tax may discourage tourists to stay overnight. National, regional or local gov-ernments may justify the introduction of the tourist tax by emphasizing that the income gained through the tourist tax can be used to improve facilities for visitors and local commu-nities, and to protect local environments from negative tourism impacts.

Although tourism at WHSs may receive a substantial amount of income through visitors’ spending, it is important to consider how much of the spending stays in WHSs or tourist destina-tions having a WHS and how long it keeps circu-lating within the area. For instance, Aapravasi Ghat (cultural WHS in Mauritius) is a complex of buildings that was used to accept migrants from India. The WHS is located in Port Louis. There are a number of accommodation facilities owned or run by international hotel chains along the beaches near Port Louis and across the east, west, north and south coasts of Mauritius (e.g. Shangri-La). They are luxury hotel brands whose main target is high-end guests. According

to Lejárraga and Walkenhorst (2010), this type of hotel guest tends to prefer branded goods (e.g. wines) to local goods. However, such branded goods cannot be supplied by local producers and the hotels must import them from other countries to satisfy the needs of these guests. In this case, the level of leakages of visitor spending from the national economy would be high, and WH status and tourism cannot make enough economic con-tribution to remote island destinations like Mau-ritius. This issue is commonly found in the WHSs or destinations with a WHS in the east and LDCs such as Historic Areas of Istanbul (cultural WHS in Turkey).


Local inhabitants’ attitudes towards the chang-es in the income at WHSs after WHS inscription have been investigated by researchers. The aforementioned Su and Wall’s (2014) survey demonstrates that 87% of the respondents agreed with the statement, ‘Tourism develop-ment increased local income.’ According to Ji-mura (2007a), in and around WHS Ogimachi, it is local people who are engaged in tourism-re-lated jobs who deem that their income has in-creased most after WHS listing, although 58% of the residents who joined the survey think their income has not changed since WHS desig-nation. Three out of seven local experts in her-itage, tourism and/or community matters who were interviewed also indicated that there had been an increase in the income among local residents who are engaged in tourism-related jobs, whilst two indicated that there had been an increase across the village, including WHS Ogimachi. On the contrary, the responses of lo-cal people and specialists in and around WHS Saltaire are not so positive; 80.7% of local peo-ple who were involved in the survey viewed that their income had not changed after WHS in-scription. The differences of opinions among the residents of these two WHSs seem to centre around the level of economic significance of tourism and WH status for the local economy. Xiang and Wall (2015) conducted a resident survey with local people in Taiqian, which used to be located near the bottom of the route up to Mount Taishan (mixed WHS in China). Accord-ing to their research, the Taishan Administra-tive Committee (TAC) relocated more than half


of the villagers, and all the villagers experienced disruption to their livelihoods. This damage was compensated for by giving the villagers the right to provide visitor services along the route up the mountain (Xiang and Wall, 2015). In fact, 58% of the respondents are engaged in tourism- related jobs such as restaurants, but only 29% are satisfied with their income from tourism (Xiang and Wall, 2015). In the villag-ers’ views, this problem stems from the situation that the TAC does not pay satisfactory wages or provide facilities with local communities and vis-itors, although the management disagrees with this (Xiang and Wall, 2015). Okech (2010)’s study on WHS Lamu and WHS Zanzibar does not precisely examine income; however, local people think that tourism and WH status has contributed to local residents’ standard of living. This positive change is also reported by Long (2012) in his study on WHS Ha Long Bay.

In summary, overall tourism can increase the levels of income at household, local, regional and national levels, and WH status seems to con-tribute positively to this. Even at WHSs or desti-nations with a WHS, however, only local residents who are engaged in tourism-related businesses could gain direct economic benefits from tour-ism. It would be hard for other local inhabitants to obtain direct economic benefits, including in-come, although indirect benefits can be brought to them via less residence tax, larger investments in local infrastructure and better public services. It is also vital for WHSs and tourist destinations possessing a WHS how much visitors’ spending remains in local residents’ hands and in the local economy. Hence it is crucial for WHSs and these destinations to be economically ‘self-sufficient’ to maximize the income obtained through tour-ism. Under some circumstances, the income from tourism that local people in and around a WHS could receive can be affected by public agencies, and in such a case, what local inhabit-ants could do to increase their income appears to be rather limited.

3.4 Cost of living

3.4.1 Changes

Section 1.6 argues the associations between tour-ism and an increase in living costs. Section 3.4.1

examines this point more specifically on WHSs. It is suggested by researchers that tourism can increase local people’s cost of living (e.g. Choi and Murray, 2010). In principle, the higher the demands become, the higher the prices of prod-ucts become. Both tourism development and WH status can enhance the popularity of the sites, and it can lead to higher cost of living for local people living in or around WHSs. Recently, anti-tourism movements have become conspicu-ous at tourist destinations, mainly in the west, and these destinations include WHSs and desti-nations holding a WHS. Typical examples of such movements are anti-tourism marches held in 2017 in Venice (Venice and its Lagoon (cul-tural WHS)) and Barcelona, which boasts two cultural WHSs (Works of Antoni Gaudí and Palau de la Música Catalana and Hospital de Sant Pau, Barcelona). Some local people living in such popular tourist destinations with WH status must be fed up with the inflow of visitors and suffer negative tourism impacts, including an increase in the cost of living.


Local people’s views towards the changes in the cost of living at WHSs after WHS designation have been studied by researchers. Sue and Wall’s (2014) survey examines this theme at WHS Mutianyu, and 61% of the respondents agree with the statement, ‘Tourism development leads to the increase of local prices’; whilst 22% disagree with it. This result fits the finding from the sur-vey at WHS Ha Long Bay (Long, 2012): overall, local inhabitants agree with the statement, ‘The prices of many goods and services in Ha Long Bay have increased because of tourism.’ Vareiro et al.’s (2013) research on WHS Guimarães shows that almost 50% of local people involved in their survey think that tourism has increased prices of local products; whilst Jimura’s (2007a) resident survey in and around WHS Ogimachi reveals that 85.3% of the respondents feel that the cost of living has not changed since WHS designation. In WHS Saltaire, 52% of the re-spondents think that the cost of living has in-creased after WHS listing, although 47.3% think that it has not. From these studies, it could be stated that an increase in the cost of living does not always occur in and around WHSs. The author assumes that the differences in local

92 Chapter 6

communities’ views towards the changes in the cost of living among three WHSs in China, Ja-pan and the UK stem mainly from the dissimilar-ities in the historical inflation rates between these three countries. In the past 20 years, over-all, the inflation rates of China and the UK have been much higher than those of Japan.

In summary, it could be stated that like many tourist destinations, WHSs may also ex-perience an increase in the cost of living. In the case of WHSs examined in Section 3.4, howev-er, an increase in the cost of living does not seem to be common to all of these WHSs and does not appear to be obvious. Hence, the im-pact of tourism after WHS listing and WH sta-tus on the increase in the cost of living seems to be limited.

4 Conclusion

The economic impacts of WHS listing should be examined at international, national, regional, local and individual levels to achieve comprehen-sive understanding. Furthermore, such impacts should be discussed along with the economic impacts of tourism, because most WHSs are pop-ular tourist destinations or visitor attractions.

There is no automatic funding for being a WHS. Theoretically, every WHS can seek financial support from the WHF. However, the WH Com-mittee assigns the funds in accordance with necessity and the most endangered WHSs are prioritized.

Tourism can diversify local businesses and/or strengthen the local economy, and this effect can be advanced by having WH status. Tourism can be a new main industry for an area where its traditional main industries have been declin-ing. Regarding this, the impact of WHS inscrip-tion can be immense if the destinations are obscure among visitors before WHS designa-tion, relatively small and/or situated in a remote area. WH status and tourism can also increase employment opportunities for local residents, including women and elderly people. The nega-tive characteristics of tourism-related jobs, such as part-time or seasonal, tend to be criticized; however, these characteristics could fit the life-style and working hours these people may prefer. Additionally, WH status may encourage young people to return to their home town as employ-ment opportunities can be increased thanks to WH status.

There is also a downside in the economic im-pact of WHS designation in relation to tourism.

Case Study: Economic Impacts of Tourism on Natural WHSs in Africa

Kilimanjaro National Park is a natural WHS located in Tanzania. Mount Kilimanjaro is a key attraction factor of the WHS. Tourism activities at the national park, such as trekking and hiking, generate around US$50 million revenue annually. The WHS’s revenue through tourism supports local people’s life finan-cially, as many work as guides, cooks or porters. Moreover, a considerable amount of the tourism revenue is spent to improve the living standards of local people residing near the mountain. In fact, local people in this area enjoy the highest school enrolment rate and adult literacy rate in Tanzania. This means that, in and around the WHS, the amount of leakage of tourism revenue is relatively low and tourism at the WHS makes a fair contribution to poverty alleviation in local communities.

On the contrary, the situation of Okavango Delta, natural WHS in Botswana, seems to be less ideal. The WHS is home to more than 100,000 people; however, they have been suffering from limited employment opportunities, poor harvests and low incomes. The national government has been keen to develop tourism, and nowadays it is the country’s second-largest industry. However, tourism at the WHS is seen as enclave tourism; hence, benefits of tourism for local communities are limited. For in-stance, most tourists arrive at the Maun airport and come directly to accommodation facilities in the Delta by air or road. They do not spend much money in the villages of the Delta. Moreover, most tour-ism services and facilities are owned by foreign companies, and this signifies that the amount of leak-age of tourism revenue is relatively high. In addition, tourism creates more employment opportunities for local people; however, these jobs tend to be low-skilled and low-paid, including maids and drivers. Generally, managerial posts with better salaries are occupied by foreign workers from the west or South Africa.

(Sources: Mbaiwa, 2003; World Bank, 2013)


Tourism development after WHS listing can be too fast and/or too vast for local communities and a WHS to cope with. Furthermore, local government and organizations related to tour-ism must develop services and facilities to meet visitors’ needs and to accommodate an in-creased number of visitors. Consequently, the local economy may rely greatly on tourism, and the services and facilities they develop can become an economic burden. Tourism can be affected by external factors beyond the control of WHSs or tourist destinations owning a WHS. This implies that tourism-related businesses at WHSs can be negatively influenced by global or national economic downturns, changes in for-eign exchange rates, terrorism or natural disas-ters. The influx of outsiders facilitated by WHS inscription may result in limited positive impacts on employment opportunities for local commu-nities and on government and household in-come. Moreover, if many local businesses are owned and managed by outsiders, it could lead to leakages of tourism income. Local communi-ties at WHSs might struggle with an increase in the cost of living, although the impact of WH status and tourism after WHS listing on this matter seems to be limited.

Local people’s views of various economic changes in and around WHSs are discussed through several studies in Section 3. Overall, local communities deem that WH status and tourism since WHS listing have created new busi-nesses and changed existing ones; however, such businesses are mainly for the needs of visitors

rather than local residents. Local inhabitants tend to feel that employment opportunities in and around WHSs have not changed or have somewhat increased, especially in tourism- related businesses, whilst local specialists such as the tourism department of local government are likely to have a more positive outlook. WH status and tourism after WHS designation could also give women and elderly people more job oppor-tunities that suit their needs. WH status also has an ability to encourage young people’s home-coming, since the status could lead to more job opportunities and allow them to realize the val-ue of their home town. Hence it is natural that this inclination is more salient in the WHS than its surrounding areas. In and around WHSs, lo-cal people who are engaged in tourism-related businesses can obtain economic benefits of tour-ism through an increase in their income, al-though other people do not seem to recognize the financial advantages they receive thanks to WH status and/or tourism after WHS designa-tion. Said differently, indirect economic benefits such as public investment in local facilities would be difficult for local people to acknowl-edge. This trend seems to be common to most WHSs and tourist destinations, and there would not be distinctive differences in this inclination between the east and the west.

The author proposes a model that eluci-dates the important interrelationships among WH status, tourism, and local people’s views to-wards economic changes in local communities (Fig. 6.2).

WH Status

Tourism

Extrinsic Factors

Impacts

Impacts

Views towardsEconomic Changes

Intrinsic Factors

Economic Changes in Local Community

Impacts

Local Community

Each Local Resident

Views towardsEconomic Changes

Fig. 6.2. WH status, tourism and local people’s views towards economic changes. (From: the author)

94 Chapter 6

References

Andereck, K.L. and Nyaupane, G.P. (2011) Exploring the nature of tourism and quality of life perceptions among residents. Journal of Travel Research 50(3), 248–260.

Ardahaey, F.T. (2011) Economic impacts of tourism industry. International Journal of Business and Management 6(8), 206.


Bangkok Post (2011) Other Thai WHC sites safe: listings only removed if character and value lost. Available at: https://www.pressreader.com/thailand/bangkok-post/20110628/284253821919465 (accessed 11 August 2017).

Brumann, C. (2014) Shifting tides of world-making in the UNESCO World Heritage Convention: cosmopol-itanisms colliding. Ethnic and Racial Studies 37(12), 2176–2192.

Callen, T. (2012) Gross domestic product: an economy’s all. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/gdp.htm (accessed 11 June 2017).

Choi, H.C. and Murray, I. (2010) Resident attitudes toward sustainable community tourism. Journal of Sus-tainable Tourism 18(4), 575–594.

Christie, I., Fernandes, E., Messerli, H. and Twining-Ward, L. (2013) Tourism in Africa: Harnessing Tourism for Growth and Improved Livelihoods. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Cuccia, T. (2012) Is it worth being inscribed in the World Heritage List? A case study of ‘The Baroque Cities in Val Di Noto’ (Sicily). 23 March. Elsevier e-library SSRN.

ExpertoItaly (2015) Italy tourist tax 2016. Available at: https://www.expertoitaly.com/expertoitaly-blog/the-inside-track/italy-tourist-tax-2016.html (accessed 20 August 2017).

ICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Tourism (1999) Tourism at World Heritage Sites: The Site Manager’s Handbook. 2nd edn. WTO, Madrid.

Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1995) Involving people – Bruges. In: ICOMOS UK Cultural Tourism Committee (ed.) Proceedings of Historic Cities and Sustainable Tourism – The Protection and Promotion of the World’s Heritage, Bath, 4–6 October. ICOMOS UK, London, pp. 19–37.

Japan Business (2017) Business culture in Japan. Available at: http://doing-business-in-japan.info/2017/02/08/business-culture-in-japan/ (accessed 18 August 2017).

Jimura, T. (2007a) The impact of World Heritage Site designation on local communities – a comparative study of Ogimachi (Japan) and Saltaire (UK). Doctoral thesis, Nottingham Trent University, UK.

Jimura, T. (2007b) How cultural heritage is consumed by tourists – a case study of Horyu-ji temple. In: Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University (ed.) Conference paper for the 2007 International Tourism Bien-nial – Tourism, Lessons from the Past, Directions for the Future, Canakkale, Turkey, 30 April– 4 May 2007.



Lane, B. (2009) Rural tourism: an overview. In: Jamal, T. and Robinson, M. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Tourism Studies. Sage, London, pp. 354–370.

Law, C.M. (1993) Urban Tourism: Attracting Visitors to Large Cities. Mansell, London.Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (eds) (2006) Managing World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK.Lejárraga, I. and Walkenhorst, P. (2010) On linkages and leakages: measuring the secondary effects of

tourism. Applied Economics Letters 17(5), 417–421.Long, P.H. (2012) Tourism impacts and support for tourism development in Ha Long Bay, Vietnam: an ex-

amination of residents’ perceptions. Asian Social Science 8(8), 28–39.MacDonald, R. and Jolliffe, L. (2003) Cultural rural tourism: evidence from Canada. Annals of Tourism Re-

search 30(2), 307–322.Massidda, C. and Etzo, I. (2012) The determinants of Italian domestic tourism: a panel data analysis. Tourism

Management 33(3), 603–610.Mbaiwa, J.E. (2003) The socio-economic and environmental impacts of tourism development on the

Okavango Delta, north-western Botswana. Journal of Arid Environments 54(2), 447–467.Meskell, L. (2014) States of conservation: protection, politics, and pacting within UNESCO’s World Heritage

Committee. Anthropological Quarterly 87(1), 217–243.

https://www.pressreader.com/thailand/bangkok-post/20110628/284253821919465

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/gdp.htm

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/gdp.htm

https://www.expertoitaly.com/expertoitaly-blog/the-inside-track/italy-tourist-tax-2016.html

https://www.expertoitaly.com/expertoitaly-blog/the-inside-track/italy-tourist-tax-2016.html

http://doing-business-in-japan.info/2017/02/08/business-culture-in-japan/

http://doing-business-in-japan.info/2017/02/08/business-culture-in-japan/


Mishra, P.K., Rout, H.B. and Mohapatra, S.S. (2011) Causality between tourism and economic growth: empirical evidence from India. European Journal of Social Sciences 18(4), 518–527.

Nikkei Asian Review (2015) Japan’s travel balance turns positive 1st time in 55 years. Available at: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Economy/Japan-s-travel-balance-turns-positive-1st-time-in-55-years (accessed 22 August 2017).

Nikkei.com (2017) Kyoto-shi Shukuhaku-zei Donyu e - Mimpaku mo Taisho ni: Yushikishai-toshin (Kyoto starts thinking about the introduction of the tourist tax, including room rental services) (in Japanese). Available at: http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXLASFB07H3A_X00C17A8MM0000/ (accessed 21 August 2017).

Okech, R.N. (2010) Socio-cultural impacts of tourism on World Heritage sites: communities’ perspective of Lamu (Kenya) and Zanzibar Islands. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 15(3), 339–351.

Page, S. (2015) Tourism Management, 5th edn. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.Page, S. and Connell, J. (2014) Tourism: A Modern Synthesis, 4th edn. Cengage Learning, Andover, UK.Page, S. and Hall, C. (2003) Managing Urban Tourism. Prentice-Hall, Harlow, UK.Prince Claus Fund (2015) 2015 Prince Claus Fund annual report. Available at: https://issuu.com/

princeclausfund/docs/2015_prince_claus_fund_annual_repor (accessed 14 July 2018).Prince Claus Fund (2017) About. Available at: https://princeclausfund.org/ (accessed 14 July 2018).Shackley, M. (1994) The Land of Lo, Nepal/Tibet: the first eight months of tourism. Tourism Management

15(1), 17–26.Shackley, M. (1996) Too much room at the inn? Annals of Tourism Research 23(2), 449–462.Sharpley, R. (2001) Tourism in Cyprus: challenges and opportunities. Tourism Geographies 3(1), 64–86.Sharpley, R. (2002) Rural tourism and the challenge of tourism diversification: the case of Cyprus. Tourism

Management 23(3), 233–244.Sharpley, R. and Sharpley, J. (1997) Rural Tourism: An Introduction. International Thomson Business Press,

London.Snyman, S. and Spenceley, A. (2012) Key sustainable tourism mechanisms for poverty reduction and local

socioeconomic development in Africa. Africa Insight 42(2), 76–93.Sophia University (2016) Hongaku no Angkor Wat iseki Hozon-shufuku Katsudo wo the All Nippon Airways

gurupu ga Shien (The All Nippon Airways group supports conservation activities of Angkor Wat by Sophia University, Japan) (in Japanese). Available at: http://www.sophia.ac.jp/jpn/info/news/2016/9/globalnews_2012/20190901_angkorwat (accessed 11 August 2017).


Switzerland Federal Statistical Office (2016) Tourism balance of payments. Available at: https://www. bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/tourism/monetary-aspects/tourism-balance-payments.html (accessed 27 August 2018).

Tokyo Metropolitan Government Bureau of Taxation (n.d.) Accommodation tax. Available at: http://www.tax.metro.tokyo.jp/kazei/shuk.html (accessed 12 November 2017).

Vareiro, L.M.D.C., Remoaldo, P.C. and Cadima Ribeiro, J.A. (2013) Residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts in Guimarães (Portugal): a cluster analysis. Current Issues in Tourism 16(6), 535–551.

WHC (2017a) World Heritage Fund. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-fund/ (accessed 24 July 2017). http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/10/03/mount-kilimanjaro-tourism-africa- tanzania (accessed 8 May 2018).

WHC (2017b) Funding. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/funding/ (accessed 24 July 2017).WHC (2017c) Partnerships: World Heritage partnerships for conservation. Available at: http://whc.unesco.

org/en/partnerships/ (accessed 24 July 2017).World Bank (2013) Tourism in Africa: hiking Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. Available at: http://www.

worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/10/03/mount-kilimanjaro-tourism-africa-tanzania (accessed 31 August 2018).

WTTC (2017) Travel and tourism global economic impact & issues 2017. Available at: https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/2017-documents/global-economic-impact-and- issues-2017.pdf (accessed 11 June 2017).

Xiang, Y. and Wall, G. (2015) Implications of World Heritage designation for local residents: a case study from Taishan and Taiqian, China. In: Bourdeau, L., Gravari-Barbas, M. and Robinson, M. (eds) World Heritage, Tourism and Identity: Inscription and Co-production. Ashgate, Farnham, UK, pp. 31–68.

Zou, L. (2015) China’s Rise: Development-oriented Finance and Sustainable Development. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Economy/Japan-s-travel-balance-turns-positive-1st-time-in-55-years



http://www.nikkei.com/article/DGXLASFB07H3A_X00C17A8MM0000/

https://issuu.com/princeclausfund/docs/2015_prince_claus_fund_annual_repor

https://issuu.com/princeclausfund/docs/2015_prince_claus_fund_annual_repor

https://princeclausfund.org/

http://www.sophia.ac.jp/jpn/info/news/2016/9/globalnews_2012/20190901_angkorwat

http://www.sophia.ac.jp/jpn/info/news/2016/9/globalnews_2012/20190901_angkorwat

https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/tourism/monetary-aspects/tourism-balance-payments.html

https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home/statistics/tourism/monetary-aspects/tourism-balance-payments.html

http://www.tax.metro.tokyo.jp/kazei/shuk.html

http://www.tax.metro.tokyo.jp/kazei/shuk.html

http://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-fund/

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/10/03/mount-kilimanjaro-tourism-africa-tanzania


http://whc.unesco.org/en/funding/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/partnerships/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/partnerships/



https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic-impact-research/2017-documents/global-economic-impact-and-issues-2017.pdf




Medina of Fez, Morocco

7

The Sociocultural Impacts of World Heritage Site Designation on Local Communities

1 Sociocultural Impacts of Tourism

1.1 Introduction

The sociocultural aspect of the triple bottom line of sustainability and tourism development is

discussed in Section 1.3 of Chapter 3. Section 1 explores the sociocultural impacts of tourism on local communities and sociocultural changes in local communities instigated by tourism. Social impacts of tourism include changes in individual and collective value systems, behaviour patterns,

The Sociocultural Impacts of World Heritage Site Designation on Local Communities 97

community structures, lifestyle and quality of life (Hall, 1995). In local people’s everyday lives, changes may occur in traffic, shopping, privacy and overcrowding. ‘Culture’ is difficult to define since it encompasses numerous complex ideas (Cohen, 2009) and is used in many different contexts (Nash, 1996). For example, Nash (1996), an anthropologist, claims that culture signifies actions of human beings, whilst Giddens (1989), a sociologist, states that culture consists of people’s way of life. The term ‘way of life’ is also referred to by Griffin (2002) and he argues that culture represents the way of life, benefits and values of a certain group of people. There are also more informative definitions of culture. According to Yosso (2005, p. 75), ‘culture refers to behaviors and values that are learned, shared, and exhibited by a group of people. Culture is also evidenced in material and nonmaterial pro-ductions of a people.’ This definition is in the context of her study on race and education. As stated by Zald (1996), a sociologist, and van Gorp (2007), whose areas of expertise involve media studies, culture refers to an organized series of beliefs, codes, myths, stereotypes, val-ues, norms and frames that are shared in the collective memory of a group or society. As seen from the above, social and cultural matters are intimately connected. Therefore this book adopts the term ‘sociocultural’ impacts of tourism. Sections 1.2–1.10 explain the primary sociocul-tural impacts of tourism.

1.2 Quality of life and social pathology

Local inhabitants’ quality of life can be affected by tourism (e.g. Kim et al., 2013). For instance, local facilities and services (e.g. bus services) can be improved thanks to tourism. However, exces-sive visitor numbers can exhaust these facilities and services. Tourism may also aggravate social pathology such as crime and vandalism.

1.3 Overcrowding, privacy and traffic-related problems

Tourism can instigate overcrowding, making lo-cal inhabitants feel threatened. The presence of

numerous strangers may lead to the invasion of local residents’ privacy (Jimura, 2007, 2011). An influx of visitors may also trigger diverse traffic-related problems, typically congestion (e.g. Jurowski and Gursoy, 2004). Noise pollu-tion and parking problems are also sociocultural issues that can be worsened by tourism (e.g. Zhong et al., 2011). A park-and-ride system is one of the best ways to mitigate traffic conges-tion (Healy et al., 2016), and it is adopted by many tourist destinations (e.g. France, Czech Republic and Japan).

1.4 Population, social polarization and solidarity

among local people

Tourism may provoke local population growth (Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2010). For instance, tourism has been the most important factor in the population growth of the Galapagos Islands (natural World Heritage Site (WHS) in Ecuador) (Galapagos Conservancy, n.d.). Even if tourism does not contribute to local population growth, it may still reduce the pace of depopulation. This is especially sig-nificant for rural areas that experience the relocation of young people who may recog-nize the attractiveness of their home town and decide to stay put or return after mi-grating (Grimwade and Carter, 2000). Fur-thermore, the appeal as a tourist destination can lure outsiders thanks to increased oppor-tunities in tourism-related businesses. The aforementioned factors may result in chang-es in the social structure of local communities, including social polarization. Social polariza-tion signifies an increase in unequal distribu-tion of wealth (Sheng and Tsui, 2010) and can be caused or advanced by tourism. It demonstrates that tourism can be financially beneficial only for a section of local residents who tend to be engaged in tourism- related businesses. This issue is well recognized by lo-cal communities (Ahmed, 2015). Tourism can also enhance (Ballesteros and Ramírez, 2007) or weaken (Orbasli, 2000) the solidarity among local inhabitants, the sense of community (Wise et al., 2017) or the ‘feel’ and ‘spirit’ of a community (Jimura, 2007). According to Yolal et al. (2009),

98 Chapter 7

events or festivals are very effective in strength-ening the cohesion of a local community.

1.5 Local culture

The impact of tourism on local culture can be positive or negative, although Liu and Jenkins (1996) claim that tourism tends to be harm-ful to local culture. On the positive side, tour-ism can enhance local culture such as crafts and traditions (Jimura, 2007, 2011, 2016). Moreover, tourism may revitalize declining local culture (Dahles, 2013). On the negative side, Kasim (2011) asserts that tourism can degrade local culture, which visitors want to experience.

The sociocultural impact of tourism on Balinese culture has been studied well. The de-mands of visitors are crucial to sustain local cul-ture. In Bali, economic benefits are generated through turning Balinese culture into tourism resources, and this movement encourages the conservation of Balinese cultural heritage (Williams, 1998). Consequently, tourism pro-vides Balinese people with political and social empowerment (Williams, 1998). In a similar vein, Yamashita (1996) suggests that Balinese culture has been recreated through locals’ inter-actions with visitors, anthropologists and local artists. Moreover, Picard (1995) notes that some Balinese people deem tourism to have supported the conservation of their cultural heritage, while others criticize it for destroying their culture and converting it to commodities. According to Picard (2008), tourism has neither ‘polluted’ Balinese culture nor caused its ‘renaissance’. However, the focus on ‘cultural’ tourism makes Balinese people feel that their culture has some-thing precious and perishable and they recog-nize it as an asset to be exploited and conserved (Picard, 2008).

Positive changes in local culture triggered by tourism are also reported in different destina-tions. For instance, a resident survey conducted by Andriotis and Vaughan (2003) in Crete demonstrates that 85% of the respondents deem tourism to have encouraged a variety of cultural activities. On the contrary, negative changes in local culture caused by tourism are also con-firmed in diverse sites. For example, Gossling (2001) investigates Kiwengwa, Tanzania, and

concludes that tourism has advanced the aban-donment of traditional resource-use strategies.

1.6 Authenticity

The sociocultural impacts of tourism on local culture are closely associated with issues of ‘au-thenticity’, which is an indispensable element for cultural WHSs. Changes in local culture, such as more variety in local crafts, can be un-derstood as enhancement/revitalization or com-modification/commercialization of local culture. In this book, commodification by tourism signi-fies the process by which things that were not originally intended to be sold to visitors are turned into commodities, whilst commerciali-zation by tourism means the process by which things that were meant to be sold to visitors have been further developed as commodities to meet visitors’ needs and discover their potential demands.

Barong dance performances can be consid-ered intangible culture of Bali. Barker et al. (2006) have inspected them and reckon that the performances have been tailored to match visi-tors’ needs by newly developing solo dances and shortening the length of performances. These examples can be seen as enhancement of local culture allowing more people to enjoy it; whilst they can also be regarded as degradation of local culture since such variations did not exist in the original Barong dance performances. On the other hand, historic buildings listed by English Heritage can be viewed as the tangible culture of the UK. The UK is the country with a long histo-ry of heritage conservation as evidenced by the foundation of the National Trust in 1895 ( National Trust, n.d.).

Moreover, there is a difference in attitude towards authenticity of heritage between the west and the east. The difference between the UK and Japan represents such differences (see Section 7.4 in Chapter 1). Generally, western countries such as the UK tend to stick more to conserving the original physical features of cultural heritage, particularly exterior, than do eastern countries such as Japan. Simultaneously, however, many historic buildings are open to the public as visitor attractions in the west and the east. To this end, these buildings must satisfy the needs of diverse visitors, although the buildings


also need to maintain their authenticity. For in-stance, a historic house should install a wheel-chair ramp at the entrance for disabled visitors. However, this means a physical change in the original features of the house. This alteration might be deemed as damaging the authenticity of the house, if the originality of physical ele-ments is regarded as an indispensable factor required for authenticity.

1.7 Visible atmosphere

Regarding local culture and its authenticity, vis-ible atmosphere should also be considered. Stat-ed differently, how townscapes/landscapes are conserved is crucial for visitors as well as local inhabitants, because they represent the visible atmosphere of a destination. It is associated well with the concept of ‘integrity’, which is also a key element for WHSs. Visible atmosphere can also provide a destination with a visual identity, offer an unforgettable experience to visitors and develop a sense of civic pride in local people ( Jutla, 2000). Gunn (1994) emphasizes that the visual aspect of urban destinations is indispen-sable to realize successful economic develop-ment and tourism strategies. In fact, the visible atmosphere of a tourist destination can create visitors’ images towards the destination (Jutla, 2000).

The points discussed above imply that tour-ism can influence the character of a destination positively or negatively. Tourism can enhance (Boukas et al., 2013) or damage (Orbasli, 2000) landscapes and the architectural standards of a tourist destination. Yang et al. (2013) also note that visitors would destroy the architectural and cultural originality of the site and the authentic-ity of tourist destinations. Page (1995) recites a range of factors that can damage the visible atmosphere:

• land lost through development;

• expansion of the built area;

• effects of new architectural styles;

• alterations of the urban fabric from pedes-trianization and traffic management schemes to accommodate visitors; and

• changes in the built environment leading to contrasts in the quality of the urban areas used by visitors and local residents.

Tourism may also promote the construc-tion of non-integrated tourism complexes, which do not match their surrounding environments (Vehbi and Doratli, 2010). This is called ‘visual pollution’.

1.8 Conservation

Management and conservation activities for heritage are discussed in Chapter 2, focusing on WHSs. Section 1.8 discusses this topic in the context of the sociocultural impacts of tourism. As Sections 1.5–1.7 reveal, the presence of local culture that has ‘authenticity’ and is unique to each site is integral for local communities and tourism. ‘Integrity’ is also vital for cultural and natural heritage, including WHSs, especially for extensive WHSs, which are likely to display complexity of components. Conservation ac-tivities for cultural heritage chiefly consist of two different types of activities: restoration and preservation of historic sites and buildings, and reuse of redundant or abandoned buildings (Page, 1995). On the other hand, those for nat-ural heritage include limiting the visitor num-bers and their activities, and cleaning-up activities.

Regarding conservation, tourism may play two opposite roles. On one hand, tourism can support the conservation activities of cultural and natural heritage (e.g. Buckley, 2012) by re-investing income from tourism in these activities or raising people’s awareness of conservation. According to Orbasli (2000), tourism may pro-mote the reuse of historic buildings via:

• ensuring the restoration of historic buildings;

• providing a living function for the historic buildings;

• decreasing the number of unused properties;

• avoiding the environmental impacts of the same function located in new buildings; and

• creating environments that help historic cities retain their quality to keep them at-tractive for local people and visitors.

In some cases, renovation of historic build-ings comes first and it is followed by tourism de-velopment. For example, four historic houses in Sasayama, Japan, were renovated and turned into accommodation facilities or restaurants, and three historic houses in Maruyama, also in Japan,

100 Chapter 7

were converted to accommodation facilities (Cab-inet Secretariat Japan, n.d.). As of August 2017, these activities appear to make a fair contribution to the revitalization of these rural areas, although their effectiveness in the long run cannot be con-firmed at this stage. By contrast, tourism may also lead to challenges in heritage conservation such as degradation of the built environment and damage to plants.

1.9 Recognition and image

Tourism and destination marketing are vital to enhance the image and recognition of a tourist destination (see Chapter 4). To attract visitors, first, a site must be recognized by people as a tourist destination. Once the site is acknowl-edged as a tourist destination, it is significant for the site to understand how it is perceived. Tour-ism can change the image of destinations, but is not always effective. Bradford (UK) is famous for its industrial past and a large number of mi-grants from Asia. Avraham and Ketter (2008) state that Bradford has an image as a melting-pot for Asian immigrants. The City of Bradford Met-ropolitan District Council aims to attract leisure visitors by emphasizing its Asian assets and ob-taining funding from private and public sectors (Hope and Klemm, 2001). However, this strate-gy has not dramatically improved the attractive-ness of the city as a tourist destination (Hope and Klemm, 2001). Hall and Rath (2007) also claim that the image of Bradford remains unfa-vourable, although some improvements were made to the infrastructure.

1.10 Communications and cultural exchanges between local residents

and visitors

Tourism can facilitate interactions between local inhabitants and visitors (Dyer et al., 2003), and it could lead to mutual understanding of their cultures (Scott, 2012). For example, MacDonald and Jolliffe’s (2003) resident survey in Acadia, Canada, demonstrates that indigenous Acadian people are happy to share their culture with visi-tors through a variety of offerings with Acadian culture. Medina (2003) investigates tourism and ethnic identities in Belize and reports that a Mayan local guide became more interested in

Mayan culture through working for visitors and took classes to study more about the culture.

2 The Sociocultural Impacts of WH Status and Tourism

at WHSs

2.1 Split between the WHS and its surrounding communities

Overall, local residents who have closer personal links with a WHS in terms of their demographics are inclined to experience more positive changes in their minds than other residents since WHS inscription (see Section 4 in Chapter 5). Said dif-ferently, the strength of their connections with the WHS seems to be influenced by intrinsic factors such as their jobs (see Section 2.2.2 in Chapter 5). Both local government and commu-nities should be aware of it since it may lead to a split between a WHS and its surrounding areas. Ultimately, such a psychological breach can re-sult in the loss of uniformity as a village, town or city as a whole.

Jimura (2007, 2011) investigates Ogi-machi district (WHS Ogimachi) in Shirakawa- mura, Japan, which is part of a cultural WHS, Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokay-ama. His questionnaire survey with local inhab-itants in and around the WHS, and interviews with local experts in tourism, community and/or heritage matters, reveal that the ‘feel’ and ‘spirit’ of local communities has deteriorated since WHS listing. Jimura (2007, 2011) understands this issue as social polarization and notes that it stems from diverse differences in benefits, local government’s treatment, and public attention between WHS Ogimachi and its surrounding ar-eas. These dissimilarities appear to have been caused by rapid and extensive tourism develop-ment since WHS designation. The WHS has experienced a large increase in visitor numbers after WHS listing and economic benefits were boosted by this increase, whilst its surrounding areas have not gained such rewards (Jimura, 2007, 2011). The differences seem to have been increased by the fact that most visitors to Shi-rakawa-mura are excursionists who explore only WHS Ogimachi and do not visit its sur-rounding areas (Hanyu et al., 2002). WHS Ogi-machi has also enjoyed an increase in local


population since WHS inscription, while its sur-rounding areas have not seen such an increase (Jimura, 2011).

Overall, local people living outside the WHS seem to have mixed feelings towards the WHS and people living there. Some people living out-side the WHS would envy the WHS and the peo-ple living there, and cannot understand why only the area inscribed as a WHS receives pref-erential treatment from the local government and greater attention from the public (Jimura, 2011). Simultaneously, however, they realize that they can still enjoy their peaceful way of life as they live outside the WHS (Jimura, 2011). It is normal that the areas surrounding a WHS are designated a ‘buffer zone’. Being a buffer zone signifies that local communities in the zone would still have a certain level of restrictions such as limited development of new infrastruc-ture. Nevertheless, the advantages local com-munities outside the WHS could obtain from WH status appear to be much more limited than those in the WHS. In a sense, it is not surprising that a certain psychological gap within a munic-ipality may arise as a result of WHS inscription. However, if WH status leads to a total split be-tween a WHS and its surrounding areas, this does not suit the following parts of the UNESCO WH mission:

• Support States Parties’ public awareness- building activities for WH conservation; and

• Encourage participation of the local popu-lation in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage (UNESCO World Herit-age Centre (WHC), 2017a).

2.2 Conservation after World Heritage Site inscription

The level of heritage conservation should be enhanced after WHS listing to maintain the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of a WHS. In many WHSs, the level of conservation seems to have been boosted or at a similar level after WHS designation. For instance, Jimura’s (2016) research on Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range (WHS Kii) (cultural WHS in Japan) presents a good example of en-hanced WHS conservation after WHS inscrip-tion. Unfortunately, however, this is not always the case (see Section 3.4). As of May 2018, 54 WHSs are on the List of World Heritage in Danger

(LWHD) (WHC, 2018). The reasons for the list-ing are different by WHS; however, in the author’s view they can be classified into five categories:

1. lack of funding for conservation due to the financial condition of the State Party; 2. damages made by wars or conflicts; 3. changes in natural environment; 4. development of new infrastructure or houses for the local economy and the community’s daily life; and 5. decision of national, regional or local gov-ernment of the State Party to relax conservation regulations.

For example, Liverpool – Maritime Mercan-tile City (WHS Liverpool) (cultural WHS in the UK) was listed as a WHS in 2004, but was added to the LWHD in 2012 mainly due to a proposed development of Liverpool Waters (Gaillard and Rodwell, 2015). Losing WH status is rare. As at August 2017, two WHSs have lost their WH status: Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (once natural WHS in Oman) and Dresden Elbe Valley (once cultural WHS in Germany). The aforementioned 3. and 5. are seen as the main reasons for de- listing of Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in 2007 (WHC, 2007), and 4. and 5. are regarded as the key causes of removal of Dresden Elbe Valley in 2009 (WHC, 2009). The LWHD is examined in detail in Chapter 9.

The other issue on WHS conservation is that local inhabitants’ level of interest in the conser-vation of their WHS has increased (see Section 4.3 in Chapter 5), whilst the actual level of WHS conservation has decreased since WHS listing, as Jimura (2007, 2011) indicates in his study on WHS Ogimachi. At large, local communities do not seem to understand the meaning of WH sta-tus well. Most local inhabitants appear to com-prehend that WH status is significant and they should conserve something valuable in their vil-lage, but they do not seem to understand what they should or should not do for its conservation and which properties the WHS encompasses. In the case of WHS Ogimachi, the area inscribed as a WHS in 1995 is the same as the area designat-ed as a Preservation District for Groups of Histor-ic Buildings by the Japanese government in 1976. A community conservation group was estab-lished in 1971; however, its main purpose was understood by local people as the conservation of their historic houses (gassho-style houses) rather than the surroundings of the houses

102 Chapter 7

(e.g. rice fields). Therefore local residents are still inclined to focus much more on the conser-vation of gassho-style houses than on their sur-rounding environment, even after WHS designation (Jimura, 2011). Consequently, the level of conservation has decreased after WHS listing, as evidenced by an increase in the num-ber of fallow fields and conversion of empty lands or fallow fields to visitor parking spaces without obtaining permission from the local conservation group (Jimura, 2007, 2011). These actions were driven by the economic ben-efits of tourism. The aforementioned matters would apply to WHSs in different regions of the world and their local communities.

Concerning WHS Ogimachi, in addition, the characteristics of Japanese ways of thinking could also invite a decrease in the level of WHS conservation, although they may not apply to WHSs in other countries, especially those in the west. Such characteristics include:

• Japanese people’s attitudes towards chang-es in physical elements of heritage tend to be more relaxed than western people’s;

• regarding the authenticity of cultural herit-age, Japanese people are likely to value the spirit of a place more than western people; and

• living in a WHS can be seen as a privilege or something to be proud of by western people. This also applies to Japanese people. However, comfort and convenience in daily life can be much more prioritized by Japa-nese people ( Jimura, 2011).

In the areas inscribed as Preservation Dis-tricts for Groups of Historic Buildings, like WHS Ogimachi, the Japanese government has been en-couraging ‘shukei’ (Saitsu, 2006). Shukei intends to enhance the level of overall visible atmosphere of the districts by changing the exterior of new or modern buildings into a traditional style to make them fit their surrounding environment (Saitsu, 2006). Through shukei, the level of conservation has been improved in WHS Ogimachi.

2.3 Conflicts of interests, aspirations and concerns

As can be understood through the sites on the LWHD and those that lost their WH status, WHSs may have conflicts of interest, aspiration and

concern of different stakeholders. In the case of Dresden Elbe Valley, the WHS was designated in 2004 as an 18th- and 19th-century Cultural Landscape. In 2005, however, Dresden City pro-posed a construction of the Waldschloesschen Bridge across the River Elbe to improve traffic congestion within the city (Deutsche Welle, 2009). The proposal for the bridge became the centre of a dispute. Conservationists cautioned that if the bridge was built it would damage the cultural landscape, whilst urban planners retorted that the city must reduce the level of traffic congestion (Deutsche Welle, 2009). Local communities also had mixed views towards the proposal. The bridge can improve traffic congestion in the inner-city area; hence it is good for local people’s daily lives. However, it caused the removal of WH status, which may invite a decrease in the number of visi-tors to the city and harm the reputation of Dresden and Germany. This dispute does not have one an-swer satisfying all stakeholders. In such a case, the final decision should be made based on what the site prioritizes. As of August 2017, WHS Liverpool is in a similar situation to Dresden Elbe Valley, although the site has not forfeited its WH status. According to The Guardian (2017a), WHS Liver-pool could lose its WH status unless regeneration plans for its historic waterfront are reconsidered. This issue was discussed at the WH Committee’s annual meeting in July 2017, and its outcome was:

It is recommended that the Committee expresses its deep concern that the projects already approved as well as those approved in outline have actual and potential highly adverse and irreversible impacts on the OUV of the property. Therefore, it is also recommended that the Committee retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger but consider its deletion from the World Heritage List at its 42nd session in 2018, if the State Party does not reverse course and stop the granting of planning permissions.

(WHC, 2017b, p. 45)

This statement can be seen as a final cau-tion from UNESCO.

There is the other type of conflict among WHS stakeholders. WHS Kii is a cultural WHS in Japan. Different types of properties such as Shinto shrines, Buddhist temples and pilgrimage routes are encompassed in the WHS. A number of sign-posts, which merely indicate directions and names of points of interest, were installed in the moun-tainous area of WHS Kii by the Agency of Cultural


Affairs, Japan (Jimura, 2016). Indeed, they are useful for heritage management and visitors. The signposts, however, triggered unexpected conflict between interested parties. Religious practitioners of Shugendo based in WHS Kii are not pleased with the signposts as they impede ascetic practices of Shugendo (Jimura, 2016). In Shugendo, a master has disciples, and the disciples must memorize mountain passes by making mountain pilgrimages to become mas-ters (Jimura, 2016). Hence the signposts under-mine the ‘disciples-becoming-masters’ concept of Shugendo as the presence of signposts demo-tivates disciples from memorizing the mountain passes. It is a big challenge for the Japanese government and other stakeholders to reconcile the needs of different parties.

3 The Sociocultural Changes in and around World Heritage Sites

and Local People’s Views

3.1 Social pathology

3.1.1 Changes

Section 1.2 outlines the correlation between tourism and social pathology, whilst this sec-tion examines this issue more specifically for WHSs. Vandalism can be confirmed at WHSs (e.g. Miura, 2005); however, vandalism of her-itage is not always done by visitors; it can also be caused by local inhabitants, inadvertently (Jimura, 2016) or on purpose (Chalcraft, 2016). According to Jimura (2016), a community forestry cooperative cut down trees in a forest owned by a Shinto shrine without knowing that the forest is part of a Japanese WHS. Chal-craft (2016) examines cultural WHSs (rock art sites) located in three States Parties in Europe, north Africa and east Africa. In these cases, de-struction and vandalism are seen as iconoclasm and backlashes against the intrinsically coloni-al nature of the WH scheme (Brumann and Berliner, 2016; Chalcraft, 2016). The reactions are developed further by the antipathies towards UNESCO and its advisory bodies as, overall, local residents believe that WH status has ad-vanced their exclusion from the sites in terms of physical access, available activities and eco-nomic benefits (Brumann and Berliner, 2016; Chalcraft, 2016).

The amount of crime and litter may in-crease (Turker, 2013; Vareiro and Mendes, 2015) in tourist destinations and WHSs, because of tourism that has been developed further by WH status. However, Pederson (2002) notes that such cause-and-effect relationships can be diffi-cult to identify. For instance, litter may not be dropped by visitors but by local residents. This is true, and it is impossible and inappropriate to monitor every action local residents or visitors take. However, it would be still meaningful to in-spect these matters regularly to understand how the sites have changed since WHS listing, even if the actual cause-and-effect relationship cannot be fully understood.


Across different WHSs, local residents’ views of the changes in the level of vandalism, crime and litter since WHS listing do not seem to indicate a clear consensus. For example, the study on Histor-ic Centre of Guimarães (WHS Guimarães) (cultur-al WHS in Portugal) by Vareiro et al. (2013) demonstrates that more than 45% of local people who joined their survey disagree with the nega-tive view of the impact of tourism on the local crime rate, while less than 20% agree with it. Vareiro and Mendes (2015) also conducted resi-dent surveys at two cultural WHSs in Portugal, Central Zone of the Town of Angra do Heroismo in the Azores (WHS Angra) and Historic Centre of Évora (WHS Évora). Their findings show that the percentage of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with ‘increase in vandalism’ and ‘increase in crime’ are less than 20% at WHS Angra and WHS Évora, and those respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with ‘increase in litter’ are less than 30% at both WHSs. Okech (2010) investi-gates residents’ perceptions of tourism and WH status at Lamu Old Town (WHS Lamu) (cultural WHS in Kenya) and Stone Town of Zanzibar (WHS Zanzibar) (cultural WHS in Tanzania). Ac-cording to this study, tourism and WH status ap-pear to have improved the problems of crime, and have also contributed to the mitigation of prosti-tution, littering and vandalism at WHS Lamu and WHS Zanzibar. Overall, local people living in the islands in Ha Long Bay (WHS Ha Long Bay) (nat-ural WHS in Vietnam) consider that tourism has some negative impacts on social pathology (Long, 2012). Turker (2013) conducted resident surveys in 2006 and 2011 at City of Safranbolu (WHS

104 Chapter 7

Safranbolu) (cultural WHS in Turkey designated in 1994). The surveys indicate that local resi-dents’ views of the relation between tourism development and crime changed between 2006 and 2011; people have become much less criti-cal of tourism development regarding number of crimes, although the reasons for this change are not specified. Su and Wall (2014) research the Mutianyu village located next to the Mutianyu part of The Great Wall (WHS Mutianyu) (cultural WHS in China), and explore local inhabitants’ perceptions of the impact of WH status and tourism through a resident survey. Their survey reveals that villagers’ views of the beauty of the environment in the local community are mixed. On the other hand, Jimura’s (2007) surveys with local communities of WHS Ogimachi (cultural WHS in Japan) and WHS Saltaire (cultural WHS in the UK) disclose that, overall, local residents at both WHSs have negative views concerning the changes in the level of vandalism, crime and litter.

3.2 Congestion and privacy

3.2.1 Changes

Section 1.3 deals with the relation between tour-ism and the issues in congestion and local peo-ple’s lives. WH status as a reputable tourism brand can increase visitor numbers, but it can cause overcrowding in and around WHSs. Over-crowding may deteriorate visitors’ experiences at WHSs (du Cros, 2008). Overcrowding in tourist destinations, particularly at tourist honeypots like WHSs, may also cause the exclusion of local people because they may feel that the site is not a place for them any longer. Overcrowding can also trigger the invasion of local people’s privacy, and it can be serious at WHSs, especially at those where local residents live (e.g. ‘groups of build-ings’ or ‘Cultural Landscapes’). In such WHSs, local people’s houses and visitor facilities often coexist in the same area (e.g. Historic Centre (Old Town) of Tallinn (cultural WHS in Estonia)), and visitors may recognize the whole area as an open-air museum and forget that they are ex-ploring local people’s place of residence. Moreo-ver, it would be difficult for visitors to distinguish private spaces from those they could enter.

Traffic congestion in and around WHSs is also reported as a major sociocultural issue. For

instance, traffic congestion has become worse in and around WHS Ogimachi since inscription (Sankei News, 2013). It is also a major concern for the areas in and around Cinque Terre, part of Portovenere, Cinque Terre, and the Islands (Palmaria, Tino and Tinetto) (WHS Cinque Terre) (cultural WHS in Italy) (Mitchell et al., 2009) and around Stonehenge as part of Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (WHS Stonehenge) (cultural WHS in the UK) (The Guardian, 2017b). As these cases signify, traffic congestion can be a serious concern for different types of cultural WHSs. To improve traffic congestion, it is better to adopt measures that do not require physical alter-ation of WHSs and their surroundings (e.g. park-and-ride system and congestion charge). If these approaches do not work, even WHSs must con-sider changes in the physical environment. In the case of WHS Stonehenge, planners assert that the development of a dual carriageway under the WHS will be able to ease traffic congestion, whilst campaigners claim that it will have a devastat-ing impact on the WHS (The Guardian, 2017b). The assertion of the campaigners is worth con-sidering as the instalment of Waldschloesschen Bridge was a main reason why Dresden Elbe Val-ley lost its WH status. Furthermore, traffic con-gestion is seen as problematic when States Parties consider the properties to be included in their Tentative List.


Local residents’ views towards the changes in their privacy since WHS listing are different by WHS, depending on various factors. According to the resident surveys at WHS Angra and WHS Évora by Vareiro and Mendes (2015), only 2.6% of the respondents at WHS Angra and 11.9% of those at WHS Évora agreed with the statement ‘in-vasion of local residents’ privacy’. This difference may be associated with the location of the WHSs: the former is located in a remote island, while the latter is situated in the City of Évora. Jimura’s (2007) resident survey at WHS Saltaire indicates a similar result to WHS Évora: 12.7% of the re-spondents think that their privacy has been more undermined since WHS listing. As a whole, how-ever, this does not seem to be a serious concern for local people in and around WHS Saltaire and this view is supported by local experts in the com-munity, heritage and/or tourism affairs (Jimura,


2007). On the contrary, Jimura’s (2007, 2011) resident survey with local inhabitants in and around WHS Ogimachi indicates that 31.3% of the respondents think that their privacy has been more undermined by visitors since WHS inscrip-tion, and all of them live in the WHS. This view is endorsed by the aforementioned local specialists, and the structure of houses and sites and visitors’ attitudes are two key factors for privacy invasion. First, WHS Ogimachi is located in a mountainous area with much snow in winter. Thus, local in-habitants cannot install a hedge around their houses, and the houses are open on all sides. Therefore, it would be challenging for visitors to distinguish private premises from public spaces (Jimura, 2007, 2011). Second, most visitors to the WHS do not understand the meaning of the WHS well, and believe that they can enter wher-ever they want (Jimura, 2007, 2011). The first factor would apply to a relatively limited number of WHSs in the world, whilst the second factor can be a cause of the invasion of local residents’ privacy at many WHSs.

Overall, there does not seem to be a consen-sus of local people’s views of the changes in traf-fic congestion and other traffic-related problems at WHSs since designation. For instance, traffic jams and traffic-related problems in and around WHS Ogimachi and WHS Saltaire have become worse in the view of both local people and spe-cialists (Jimura, 2007). On the other hand, these problems have not become worse in the view of local people in WHS Angra and WHS Évora ( Vareiro and Mendes, 2015) or those in WHS Mutianyu (Su and Wall, 2014). Vareiro et al.’s (2013) study on WHS Guimarães also presents that more than 80% of local inhabitants in-volved in their survey do not believe that tourism generates excessive noise in the WHS. According to Okech’s (2010) study on WHS Lamu and WHS Zanzibar, overall, local residents think that tourism and WH status have made congestion and noise pollution better.

3.3 ‘Feel’ and ‘spirit’

3.3.1 Changes

The influence of tourism on solidarity among local residents is discussed in Section 1.4. With regard to local communities, heritage can be

used in a positive or negative manner. Concern-ing WHSs, however, benefits from WH status have to accrue to local communities (Galla, 2012). For example, heritage can give a sense of community to local people (Logan and Smith, 2009). Heritage can also be a base of identity at individual, local, regional and national levels, and remind people where they come from, who they are and where they belong. In this sense, the ‘feel’ and ‘spirit’ of a local community can be af-fected by the relationship between heritage and a sense of place. Heritage cannot be WHSs if their States Parties and local communities do not put an exceptional value on it. That is because they are the stakeholders involved in the development of a Tentative List of each State Party, and the preparation of its nomination documents. WH status can enhance solidarity and cohesion among people at different levels, especially at a national level (e.g. Graham, 2002). In reality, however, WH status and tourism development since WHS designation may weaken cohesion of local communities (Nzama, 2008), make their ‘feel’ and ‘spirit’ feeble (Jimura, 2007, 2011) or deface community spirit (Reeves and Long, 2011), as, for example, some local people move out from the WHS to avoid the negative impacts of tour-ism advanced by WH status.


The views of local people towards the changes in the feel and spirit of local communities since WHS designation also appear to be different by WHS. In the case of WHS Mutianyu, 87% of vil-lagers who joined a resident survey agreed with the statement, ‘[WH status and tourism] help build friendly community atmosphere’ (Su and Wall, 2014). The other two groups that were in-volved in the survey, small business operators and site employees, also demonstrated a high level of agreement (81% and 80%, respective-ly). What this statement signifies might be some-what different from positive changes in feel and spirit of a local community, cohesion or solidari-ty among local people or a sense of community. However, it could be suggested that a friendly community atmosphere will not be created with-out good feel and spirit. Therefore, the findings from Su and Wall (2014) are useful in consider-ing this matter, and their survey results present positive changes since WHS listing. According

106 Chapter 7

to Vareiro and Mendes’s (2015) resident surveys at WHS Angra and WHS Évora, a mere 5.1% of the respondents agreed with the statement, ‘tourism has increased social conflicts’, in WHS Angra; and in WHS Évora, this percentage was higher, but still 25.7%. These results denote that WHS designation and tourism do not negatively affect the bonds between local inhabitants.

According to Jimura’s (2007, 2011) resi-dent survey in and around WHS Ogimachi, 47.3% of participants think that the feel and spir-it of local communities has weakened since WHS listing, while another 47.3% say that it has not changed. The views of local specialists in commu-nity, tourism and/or heritage issues indicate that, overall, it has weakened after WHS designation (Jimura, 2007, 2011). Shirakawa- mura, where WHS Ogimachi belongs, has conserved a certain degree of community spirit thanks to ‘kumi’ and ‘yui’. ‘Kumi’ is a self- governing community unit among local people, and ‘yui’ is a traditional sys-tem for mutual support used for conservation of their historic houses (Jimura, 2007, 2011). Both are invaluable for their OUV and WH status. The split between the WHS and its surrounding areas is discussed in Section 2.1. Considering the above situation, it could be said that the disjuncture be-tween local people engaged in tourism businesses and those who are not is confirmed in the WHS. The rise of materialism and less respect for local culture and social rules seem to have been en-hanced by WH status and tourism development after WHS inscription (Jimura, 2007, 2011). In and around WHS Saltaire, 63.3% of the survey participants deemed that feel and spirit of local communities has not changed since WHS listing (Jimura, 2007). However, the percentage of the respondents who believed that it had strength-ened (24%) is twice that of the respondents who think that it has weakened (12%) (Jimura, 2007). Local experts suggest that a local festival and presence of community groups have been playing a vital role in reinforcing feel and spirit of local communities since WHS listing.

3.4 Level of conservation

3.4.1 Changes

WHS management and conservation is the key theme for Chapter 2, and the positive and nega-tive impacts of tourism on conservation are

discussed in Section 1.8. The level of conserva-tion of natural and cultural heritage should be enhanced after WHS designation to sustain its OUV, following the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the WH Convention. In reality, the conservation status of most WHSs appears to have been enhanced or at least remained similar to the level before WHS inscription. Unfortunately, two sites forfeited their WH status and 54 WHSs are on the LWHD as of August 2017 (WHC, 2018). The main reasons for losing WH status or being added to the LWHD include deterioration through age, changes in surrounding environ-ment, damages done by war and development of new infrastructure. Thus far, tourism has not been a main cause of losing WH status or being listed on the LWHD. UNESCO and its advisory bod-ies are significant for WHS conservation in terms of their direction, recommendations and funding (Rakic, 2007). However, the WH Convention does not signify their direct intervention in day-to-day conservation activities and management of WHSs (Hitchcock, 2005). Various parties are involved in WHS conservation. Of these, the stakeholders who can watch a WHS daily are local people, local government and conservation bodies at local lev-el. Hence they are seen as flagship stakeholders in WHS conservation.


As a whole, local people’s opinions on the changes in the level of heritage conservation since WHS inscription are different according to WHS. As shown by Su and Wall (2014), most stakeholders in the local community of WHS Mutianyu believe that WH status and tourism have been supporting the conservation of Great Wall. The study on WHS Guimarães by Vareiro et al. (2013) also indicates very positive respons-es from local people as more than 85% of the survey participants deem that tourism supports the conservation and restoration of historic buildings. The investigation on WHS Lamu and WHS Zanzibar by Okech (2010) also reveals that, overall, local inhabitants think that tour-ism and WH status have contributed to the con-servation of old buildings. On the other hand, local residents’ perceptions of changes in the level of heritage conservation are different be-tween WHS Angra and WHS Évora (Vareiro and Mendes, 2015). In their study, the question about restoration of local buildings in the WHS


can be interpreted as referring to the level of con-servation. In WHS Angra, 66.7% of respondents think that tourism has a positive impact on the restoration of local buildings, while only 35.8% in WHS Évora deem so (Vareiro and Mendes, 2015). In and around WHS Ogimachi, 44.6% of the resident survey participants believe that the level of conservation of the townscape, includ-ing the WHS, has decreased, and only 12.6% view that it has increased (Jimura, 2007, 2011). Of diverse components of the WHS, only historic houses have been prioritized in conservation ac-tivities. Consequently, other components have been damaged. Local experts in community, her-itage and/or tourism affairs believe that the number of fallow fields has increased, empty lands and fallow fields have been converted to visitor parking spaces and historic houses have been rebuilt or extended to suit current use since WHS inscription (Jimura, 2007). In and around WHS Saltaire, only 2% of the resident survey re-spondents feel that the level of conservation of the townscape including the WHS has decreased, and 32% consider that it has increased, although 66% believe it has not changed (Jimura, 2007). Local specialists consider that several buildings and streets, including the components of the WHS, have been renovated since WHS listing ( Jimura, 2007). Regarding a natural WHS, over-all, local residents in WHS Ha Long Bay some-what agree with the statement ‘Tourism facilities built in and around Ha Long Bay are not in har-mony with the natural environment and tradi-tional architecture’ (Long, 2012).

3.5 Interactions between local people and visitors

3.5.1 Changes

Section 1.10 illustrates that communication be-tween local people and visitors can be enhanced through tourism. This process may include a cer-tain level of cultural exchange between hosts and guests. The impacts of tourism and WH status on this change are confirmed much more clearly compared to those on other kinds of changes due to the nature of tourism activities. For example, Suzaku is a non-profit organization whose mem-bers offer guided tours to domestic and foreign visitors without fees for guiding ( Suzaku, n.d.). Suzaku covers the entire area of the City of Nara,

including the properties listed as Historic Monu-ments of Ancient Nara (cultural WHS in Japan) (Suzaku, n.d.). The key motivations of these members seem to be their attachment to Nara and enjoying interaction with visitors.

Needless to say, most local people have a certain level of hospitality by nature. At some stage, however, the hospitality of local people may have started to shift towards a sense of ‘business’. For instance, in WHS Ogimachi, many local people started tourism-related busi-nesses such as souvenir shops, cafés and visitor parking spaces after WHS listing (Saitsu, 2006). Such a phenomenon can also be con-firmed at The Trulli of Alberobello (cultural WHS in Italy) as some ‘trulli’ (historic houses unique to the Puglia region) have been con-verted to accommodation facilities or souvenir shops. These WHSs are criticized by some visi-tors as the sites look too ‘touristy’, although running such businesses can increase opportu-nities for interaction between local residents and visitors. In such cases, local people’s dwell-ings are often turned into business venues such as accommodation facilities or souvenir shops, and this may negatively affect the appearance of historic buildings. As tourism has advanced with WH status, more local people start realiz-ing the business potential of their houses and that such tourism-related enterprise might give them additional and prompt economic benefits. In the process of such business development, local inhabitants may alter how they treat visi-tors. Stated differently, the essence of their wel-come can change from pure hospitality to business opportunity. Through the research on Old Town of Lijiang (cultural WHS in China), Zhang et al. (2017) examine host–guest inter-actions, focusing on role-shifting of a local Na-khi resident who runs a homestay business. As tourism has advanced, the person has changed his role from a host to a businessman; however, this shift has resulted in discouraging visitors to approach his house (Zhang et al., 2017). Subsequently, his role has changed back to a host to achieve better economic benefits from tourism (Zhang et al., 2017).


Unlike the views discussed in Sections 3.1–3.4, overall, local inhabitants’ views towards the changes in interactions and cultural exchanges

108 Chapter 7

between hosts and guests since WHS designa-tion seem to be similar across different WHSs and rather positive. Of the studies that explore this topic, probably the research on WHS Gui-marães by Vareiro et al. (2013) demonstrates the most positive responses from local residents: more than 90% of the survey participants think that tourism at the WHS promotes contacts with different cultures. Nicholas et al. (2009) exam-ine Pitons Management Area (natural WHS in Saint Lucia), focusing on local people’s perspec-tive of the WHS through a questionnaire survey with residents. The survey discloses that local inhabitants support cultural exchanges between local residents and visitors (Nicholas et al., 2009). According to Long (2012), local people

in WHS Ha Long Bay think that tourism has led to greater cultural exchanges between the two parties. In and around WHS Ogimachi and WHS Saltaire, more than 30% of local inhabitants involved in the questionnaire surveys believe that the quality of cultural exchanges and interac-tions between visitors and local people has be-come better since WHS designation (Jimura, 2007). At both WHSs, furthermore, almost no-body deemed that the quality has become worse ( Jimura, 2007). Local specialists in heritage, com-munity and/or tourism subjects at both WHSs also view that local communities enjoy better quality of cultural exchanges and interactions as the WHSs have welcomed more overseas visi-tors since WHS inscription (Jimura, 2007).

Case Study: Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama – Cultural WHS in Japan, Listed in 1995

The WHS comprises three villages, Ogimachi (Shirakawa-go) in Gifu prefecture, and Ainokura and Suganuma (Gokayama) in Toyama prefecture. These villages are located along the Sho River in mountainous areas with much snow in winter. Historically, access to these villages has been limited

Fig. 7.1. Gassho-style houses in Ogimachi. (Photo: the author)

Continued


4 Conclusion

Sociocultural impacts of WHS inscription must be investigated in the context of sociocultural back-grounds of the places where WHSs are situated. Like economic impacts of WHS listing, its socio-cultural impact should be examined with those of tourism, because the majority of WHSs are popu-lar tourist destinations or visitor attractions.

Section 2 discusses the issues peculiar to WHSs. Of these, a split between a WHS and its surrounding areas is quite important since, ulti-mately, it can destroy the unity of local commu-nities. Due to the nature of the issue, it is likely to occur in and around cultural WHSs, which are inscribed as particular areas where local resi-dents reside. As of 2017, however, there is a lack of research that assesses local communities in a WHS and its neighbouring areas. Even if a site is inscribed as a WHS, it would be difficult to imple-ment the WH Convention and complete the WH mission if there is an emotional gap between lo-cal communities in and around the WHS. To re-gain unity, local people living in a WHS need to consider the meaning of WH status for the wider community as well as the WHS. By doing so, a WHS will be able to contribute to the further

success of the whole municipality that the WHS belongs to, a place of residence, tourist destina-tion and a home for the WHS.

The concern about heritage conservation after WHS listing is another key agenda. It is almost impossible for human beings to control the changes in natural and built environments, especially those in the former (e.g. the rise of sea level). Consequently, the integrity (and authen-ticity, if a cultural or mixed WHS) of a WHS may decline and its OUV may also deteriorate in the future. It might be an eastern or Japanese way of thinking; however, in the author’s view, even WHSs cannot be eternal in an ever-changing world. Arabian Oryx Sanctuary and Dresden Elbe Valley lost their WH status, and 54 WHSs are on the LWHD as of August 2017. Indeed, this is lamentable. Simultaneously, however, it is understandable that losing WH status or being added to the LWHD can happen for various rea-sons such as changes in local communities’ pri-orities. Section 2.3 investigates the conflicts of interests, concerns and aspirations among vari-ous WHS stakeholders. This matter can also be a cause for forfeiting WH status or being listed on the LWHD when something vital for local com-munities is prioritized over WH status.

and they have been isolated from the outside world. This factor helps the villages to conserve their historic gassho-style houses where many villagers still live. Not only the houses but also their surround-ings are valued in terms of OUV and integrity of WH. Such surroundings encompass road and canal systems, and traditional land use such as rice fields and forests. In addition, the spiritual element of these villages is also valued. ‘Yui’ is a traditional custom of mutual help among villagers and is essential for re-thatching of gassho-style houses.

WH status and tourism advanced by WHS designation have contributed to sociocultural changes in these villages, and it is prominent in Ogimachi. Concerning Ogimachi, as discussed above, a certain emotional split is confirmed between the WHS and its surrounding areas. The level of WHS conserva-tion, especially the surrounding environment, was deteriorating after WHS designation as some people prioritized economic benefits of tourism over WHS conservation. Recently, however, WHS conservation has been enhanced thanks to ‘shukei’ projects. ‘Yui’ represents feel and spirit of a local community. It declined after WHS inscription; however, the local community group for conservation has kept promoting the significance of ‘yui’ among villagers through various measures such as their newsletters. Deteriora-tion of ‘yui’ is also confirmed in Gokayama, and this negatively affects re-thatching of gassho-style houses, and the number of gassho-style houses has also decreased. In Gokayama, a cooperation sys-tem between local government, local communities and universities located outside the villages can be seen as a possible solution. This scheme invites university students to the villages and allows them to experience and support the work that is essential for conservation of the sociocultural element of local communities.

(Sources: Jimura, 2007, 2011; Kunori and Tabiraki, 2013)

Case Study: Continued.

110 Chapter 7

Section 3 focuses on distinctive sociocultur-al changes, which are confirmed at WHSs due to WH status and/or tourism since WHS listing, and local people’s views towards these changes. Overall, it would be difficult to distinguish the sociocultural impacts of WH status from those of tourism. That is mainly because these two are often indivisibly united with each other and work together for local communities in and around WHSs in a positive and/or negative way. Of the sociocultural changes reviewed in Section 3, changes in interactions and cultural exchanges between local people and visitors are the ones that WH status and tourism foster in a positive manner regardless of the east and the west; and

in many cases this trend is endorsed by local residents. Unfortunately, the ties among lo-cal people can be weakened by tourism and WH status. As the site becomes popular as a tourist destination thanks to WH status, more local people may start prioritizing their benefits, especially economic ones. This phe-nomenon stems from the rise of materialism and lack of respect for local culture and so-cial rules.

At the end of this chapter, the author offers a model that explains the significant interrela-tionships among WH status, tourism and local residents’ views towards sociocultural changes in local communities (see Fig. 7.2).

References

Ahmed, B.M.A. (2015) Social and cultural impacts of tourism growth in coastal environments and the potential for sustainability: case study of Egypt and USA. International Journal of Arts and Humanities 1(2), 32–48.

Andriotis, K. and Vaughan, R.D. (2003) Urban residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: the case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research 42, 172–185.

Avraham, E. and Ketter, E. (2008) Will we be safe there? Analysing strategies for altering unsafe place images. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4(3), 196–204.

Ballesteros, E.R. and Ramírez, M.H. (2007) Identity and community – reflections on the development of mining heritage tourism in southern Spain. Tourism Management 28(3), 677–687.

Barker, T., Putra, D. and Wiranatha, A. (2006) Authenticity and commodification of Balinese dance perfor-mances. In: Smith, M. and Robinson, M. (eds) Cultural Tourism in a Changing World: Politics, Partic-ipation and (Re)presentation. Channel View Publications, Clevedon, UK, pp. 215–224.

Boukas, N., Ziakas, V. and Boustras, G. (2013) Olympic legacy and cultural tourism: exploring the facets of Athens’ Olympic heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies 19(2), 203–228.

Brumann, C. and Berliner, D. (2016) Introduction: UNESCO World Heritage – grounded? In: Brumann, C. and Berliner, D. (eds) World Heritage on the Ground: Ethnographic Perspectives. Berghahn, New York, pp. 1–36.

WH Status

Tourism

Extrinsic factors

Impacts

Views towardsSocioculturalChanges

Impacts

Views towardsSociocultural Changes

Intrinsic factors

Sociocultural Changes in Local Community

Impacts

Local community

Each local residentFig. 7.2. WH status, tourism and local people’s views towards sociocultural changes. (From: the author)


Buckley, R. (2012) Sustainable tourism: research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research 39(2), 528–546.Cabinet Secretariat Japan. (n.d.) Rekishi-teki Shigen wo Katsuyo shita Kanko Machi-zukuri (Revitalzsation

of local communities through tourism, making use of their historic properties) (in Japanese). Available at: http://kominkasupport.jp/ (accessed 28 August 2017).

Chalcraft, J. (2016). Decolonizing the site: the problems and pragmatics of World Heritage in Italy, Libya and Tanzania. In: Brumann, C. and Berliner, D. (eds) World Heritage on the Ground: Ethnographic Perspectives. Berghahn, New York, pp. 219–247.

Cohen, A.B. (2009) Many forms of culture. American Psychologist 64(3), 194–204.Dahles, H. (2013) Tourism, Heritage and National Culture in Java: Dilemmas of a Local Community. Routledge,

London.Deutsche Welle (2009) Dresden loses UNESCO world heritage status. Available at: http://www.dw.com/

en/dresden-loses-unesco-world-heritage-status/a-4415238 (accessed 30 August 2017).du Cros, H. (2008) Too much of a good thing? Visitor congestion management issues for popular world

heritage tourist attractions. Journal of Heritage Tourism 2(3), 225–238.Dyer, P., Aberdeen, L. and Schuler, S. (2003) Tourism impacts on an Australian indigenous community: a

Djabugay case study. Tourism Management 24(1), 83–95.Gaillard, B. and Rodwell, D. (2015) A failure of process? Comprehending the issues fostering heritage

conflict in Dresden Elbe Valley and Liverpool – maritime mercantile city World Heritage Sites. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 6(1), 16–40.

Galapagos Conservancy. (n.d.) Tourism and population growth. Available at: https://www.galapagos.org/conservation/conservation/conservationchallenges/tourism-growth/ (accessed 26 August 2017).

Galla, A. (2012) Introduction. In: Galla, A. (ed.) World Heritage Benefits Beyond Borders. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1–6.

Giddens, A. (1989) Sociology. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.Gossling, S. (2001) Tourism, economic transition and ecosystem degradation: interacting processes in a

Tanzanian coastal community. Tourism Geographies 3(4), 430–453.Graham, B. (2002) Heritage as knowledge: capital or culture? Urban Studies 39(5–6), 1003–1017.Griffin, T. (2002) An optimistic perspective on tourism’s sustainability. In: Harris, R., Griffin, T. and

Williams, P. (eds) Sustainable Tourism: A Global Perspective. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. 24–32.

Grimwade, G. and Carter, B. (2000) Managing small heritage sites with interpretation and community involvement. International Journal of Heritage Studies 6(1), 33–48.

The Guardian (2017a) ‘Final warning’: Liverpool's UNESCO status at risk over docks scheme. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/01/final-warning-liverpools-unesco-status-at-risk-over-docks-scheme (accessed 30 August 2017).

The Guardian (2017b) The Stonehenge tunnel: ‘A monstrous act of desecration is brewing’. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/25/stonehenge-tunnel-desecration-prehistoric-traffic- jams (accessed 3 September 2017).

Gunn, C.A. (1994) Tourism Planning: Basics, Concepts, Cases. 3rd edn. Taylor & Francis, London.Hall, C.M. (1995) Introduction to Tourism in Australia. 2nd edn. Longman Australia, Melbourne, Australia.Hall, C.M. and Rath, J. (2007) Tourism, migration and place advantage in the global cultural economy. In:

Rath, J. (ed.) Tourism, Ethnic Diversity and the City. Routledge, London, pp. 1–24.Hanyu, F., Kuroda, N. and Takahashi, M. (2002) A study on tourist behavior and the landscape as a tourist

attraction in the historic village of Sirakawa. Landscape Kenkyu 65(5), 785–788.Healy, N., van Riper, C.J. and Boyd, S.W. (2016) Low versus high intensity approaches to interpretive

tourism planning: the case of the Cliffs of Moher, Ireland. Tourism Management 52, 574–583.Hitchcock, M. (2005) Afterword. In: Harrison, D. and Hitchcock, M. (eds) The Politics of World Heritage:

Negotiating Tourism and Conservation. Channel View Publications, Clevedon, UK, pp. 181–186.Hope, C.A. and Klemm, M.S. (2001) Tourism in difficult areas revisited: the case of Bradford. Tourism

Management 22(6), 629–635.Jimura, T. (2007) The impact of World Heritage Site designation on local communities – a comparative

study of Ogimachi (Japan) and Saltaire (UK). Doctoral thesis, Nottingham Trent University, UK.Jimura, T. (2011) The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities – a case study of

Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management 32(2), 288–296.Jimura, T. (2016) World heritage site management: a case study of sacred sites and pilgrimage routes in the

Kii mountain range, Japan. Journal of Heritage Tourism 11(4), 382–394.Jurowski, C. and Gursoy, D. (2004) Distance effects on residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Annals of

Tourism Research 31(2), 296–312.

http://kominkasupport.jp/

http://www.dw.com/en/dresden-loses-unesco-world-heritage-status/a-4415238


https://www.galapagos.org/conservation/conservation/conservationchallenges/tourism-growth/


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/01/final-warning-liverpools-unesco-status-at-risk-over-docks-scheme

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/01/final-warning-liverpools-unesco-status-at-risk-over-docks-scheme

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/25/stonehenge-tunnel-desecration-prehistoric-traffic-jams


112 Chapter 7

Jutla, R.S. (2000) Visual image of the city: tourists’ versus residents’ perception of Simla, a hill station in northern India. Tourism Geographies 2(4), 404–420.

Kasim, A. (2011) Balancing tourism and religious experience: understanding devotees’ perspectives on Thaipusam in Batu Caves, Selangor, Malaysia. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 20(3–4), 441–456.

Kim, K., Uysal, M. and Sirgy, M.J. (2013) How does tourism in a community impact the quality of life of community residents? Tourism Management 36, 527–540.

Kunori, N. and Tabiraki, K. (2013) Proposal for new tourism through the sustainability of traditional partner-ship. Case study: regional revitalization in World Heritage Site Gokayama, Toyama. Proceedings of the 28th JITR Annual Conference, pp. 305–308.

Liu, Z. and Jenkins, C.L. (1996) Country size and tourism development: a cross-nation analysis. In: Briguglio, L., Archer, B., Jafari, J. and Wall, G. (eds) Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States: Issues and Policies. Pinter, London, pp. 90–117.

Logan, W.S. and Smith, L. (2009) Series general co-editors’ foreword. In: Smith, L. and Akagawa, N. (eds) Intangible Heritage. Routledge, London, pp. xii– xiii.


MacDonald, R. and Jolliffe, L. (2003) Cultural rural tourism: evidence from Canada. Annals of Tourism Research 30(2), 307–322.

Matarrita-Cascante, D., Brennan, M.A. and Luloff, A.E. (2010) Community agency and sustainable tourism development: the case of La Fortuna, Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18(6), 735–756.

Medina, L.K. (2003) Commoditizing culture: tourism and Maya identity. Annals of Tourism Research 30(2), 353–368.

Mitchell, N., Rössler, M. and Tricaud, P.-M. (eds) (2009) World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A Hand-book for Conservation and Management. UNESCO, Paris.

Miura, K. (2005) Conservation of a ‘living heritage site’: a contradiction in terms? A case study of Angkor World Heritage Site. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 7(1), 3–18.

Nash, D. (1996) Anthropology of Tourism. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.National Trust (n.d.) About the National Trust. Available at: https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/about-

the-national-trust (accessed 27 August 2017).Nicholas, L.N., Thapa, B. and Ko, Y.J. (2009) Residents’ perspectives of a World Heritage Site: the Pitons

Management Area, St Lucia. Annals of Tourism Research 36(3), 390–412.Nzama, A.T. (2008) Socio-cultural impacts of tourism on the rural areas within the World Heritage Sites –

the case of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage 1(1), 1–8.Okech, R.N. (2010) Socio-cultural impacts of tourism on World Heritage Sites: communities’ perspective of

Lamu (Kenya) and Zanzibar Islands. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 15(3), 339–351.Orbasli, A. (2000) Tourists in Historic Towns. E. & F.N. Spon, London.Page, S. (1995) Urban Tourism. Routledge, London.Pedersen, A. (2002) Managing tourism at World Heritage Sites: a practical manual for World Heritage Site

managers. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-113-2.pdf (accessed 3 September 2017).

Picard, M. (1995) Cultural heritage and tourist capital: cultural tourism in Bali. In: Lanfant, M.-F., Allock, J.B. and Bruner, E.M. (eds) International Tourism: Identity and Change. Sage, London, pp. 44–66.

Picard, M. (2008) Balinese identity as tourist attraction: from ‘cultural tourism’ (pariwisata budaya) to ‘Bali erect’ (ajeg Bali). Tourist Studies 8(2), 155–173.

Rakic, T. (2007) World heritage: issues and debates. Turizam: znanstveno-strucni casopis 55(2), 209–219.Reeves, K. and Long, C. (2011) Unbearable pressures on paradise? Tourism and heritage management

in luang prabang, a world heritage site. Critical Asian Studies 43(1), 3–22.Saitsu, Y. (2006) Conservation of world heritage and residents’ lifestyles: a case study of Shirakawago.

Journal of Environmental Sociology 12, 23–40.Sankei News (2013) Shirakawa-go wa Kotsu-jutai, Ogasawara wa Jumoku-arashi…Fu-no-isan Kuitome

(Traffic congestion in Shirakawa-go and illegal logging in Ogasawara Islands: how to avoid negative impacts of WH status) (in Japanese). Available at: http://www.sankei.com/life/news/130622/lif1306220007-n1.html (accessed 3 September 2017).

Scott, J. (2012) Tourism, civil society and peace in Cyprus. Annals of Tourism Research 39(4), 2114–2132.Sheng, L. and Tsui, Y. (2010) Foreign investment in tourism: the case of Macao as a small tourism economy.

Tourism Geographies 12(2), 173–191.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/about-the-national-trust

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/about-the-national-trust


http://www.sankei.com/life/news/130622/lif1306220007-n1.html




Suzaku. (n.d.) Nara Kanko Volunteer no Kai Suzaku towa (Suzaku – About Us) (in Japanese). Available at: http://www.e-suzaku.net/?page_id=36 (accessed 7 September 2017).

Turker, N. (2013) Host community perceptions of tourism impacts: a case study on the World Heritage City of Safranbolu, Turkey. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala 43, 115–141.

van Gorp, B. (2007) The constructionist approach to framing: bringing culture back in. Journal of Commu-nication 57(1), 60–78.

Vareiro, L. and Mendes, R. (2015) Residents’ perspectives on tourism impacts of Portuguese World Herit-age historic centers: Angra do Heroísmo and Évora. Tourism & Management Studies 11(1), 44–51.

Vareiro, L.M.D.C., Remoaldo, P.C. and Cadima Ribeiro, J.A. (2013) Residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts in Guimarães (Portugal): a cluster analysis. Current Issues in Tourism 16(6), 535–551.

Vehbi, B.O. and Doratli, N. (2010) Assessing the impact of tourism on the physical environment of a small coastal town: Girne, northern Cyprus. European Planning Studies 18(9), 1485–1505.

WHC (2007) Oman’s Arabian Oryx Sanctuary: first site ever to be deleted from UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/362 (accessed 29 August 2017).

WHC (2009) Dresden is deleted from UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/522/ (accessed 29 August 2017).

WHC (2017a) World Heritage. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/ (accessed 29 August 2017).WHC (2017b) World Heritage Committee: 41st session in Krakow, Poland, 2–12 July 2017. Available at:

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2017/whc17-41com-7A-en.pdf (accessed 30 August 2017).WHC (2018) List of World Heritage in danger. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/ (accessed

17 May 2018).Williams, S. (1998) Tourism Geography. Routledge, London.Wise, N., Mulec, I. and Armenski, T. (2017) Towards a new local tourism economy: understanding sense

of community, social impacts and potential enterprise opportunities in Podgrade Bac, Vojvodina, Serbia. Local Economy 32(7), 656–677.

Yamashita, S. (ed.) (1996) Kanko Jinrui-gaku (Tourism Anthropology) (in Japanese). Shin-yo-sha, Tokyo.Yang, J., Ryan, C. and Zhang, L. (2013) Ethnic minority tourism in China–Han perspectives of Tuva figures

in a landscape. Tourism Management 36, 45–56.Yolal, M., Çetinel, F. and Uysal, M. (2009) An examination of festival motivation and perceived benefits

relationship: Eskisehir International Festival. Journal of Convention and Event Tourism 10(4), 276–291.Yosso, T.J. (2005) Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural

wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education 8(1), 69–91.Zald, M.N. (1996) Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. In: McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D. and Zald, M.N.

(eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Struc-tures, and Cultural Framing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 262–274.

Zhang, J., Xu, H.G. and Xing, W. (2017) The host–guest interactions in ethnic tourism, Lijiang, China. Cur-rent Issues in Tourism 20(7), 724–739.

Zhong, L., Deng, J., Song, Z. and Ding, P. (2011) Research on environmental impacts of tourism in China: progress and prospect. Journal of Environmental Management 92(11), 2972–2983.

http://www.e-suzaku.net/?page_id=36


http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/522/



http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2017/whc17-41com-7A-en.pdf

http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/


Geirangerfjord: part of West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord, Norway

8

The Environmental Impacts of World Heritage Site Designation on Local Communities

1 The Environmental Impacts of Tourism

1.1 Introduction

The environmental dimension of the triple bottom line of sustainability and tourism development

is argued in Section 1.4 in Chapter 3. Section 1 investigates environmental impacts of tourism on local communities, and environmental changes in local communities originated by tourism. The environment surrounding local communities is categorized into two types, natural and built en-vironments. Furthermore, the built environment

The Environmental Impacts of World Heritage Site Designation on Local Communities 115

can be subdivided into three clusters, basic infra-structure primarily for local communities (e.g. gas), infrastructures for local people and visitors (e.g. galleries) and those chiefly for visitors (e.g. hostels). Tourist destinations must protect and enhance the built and natural environments to re-alize tourism in a sustainable way (Torres-Delgado and Saarinen, 2014) and to provide local people with a good quality of life. Considering the focus of existing studies, generally, the natural environ-ment has attracted more attention than the built environment, and the impact of tourism on the environment can be either positive or negative for local communities (e.g. Holden, 2016). Overall, however, the environmental impacts of tourism on local communities tend to be understood negative-ly. Sections 1.2 and 1.3 illustrate the main environ-mental impacts of tourism by type of environment.

1.2 Natural environment

As stated earlier, tourism can invite advantageous or disadvantageous changes in the natural envi-ronment. For example, it can nurture the conser-vation of the natural environment and can trigger the destruction of habitat (Puppim de Oliveira, 2003); although, in general, the latter is observed more commonly. However, negative tourism im-pacts on the natural environment are often over-stated as they are difficult to distinguish from other factors such as over-population and excessive use of natural resources (Hall and Page, 1999).

1.2.1 Positive impacts of tourism on the natural environment

Generally, it is difficult to identify positive envi-ronmental changes caused directly by tourism. That is because, in principle, the relationship between tourism and nature conservation is conflicting and contrary (e.g. Muñoz, 2015). Therefore it is more common and realistic to take actions that can minimize the negative impacts of tourism rather than to find and implement ways that enable tourism to be beneficial for the natural environment. Nevertheless, there are still a few examples of direct positive environmental impacts of tourism, such as enhancement of conservation activities for the local natural environment. This enhancement stems from the ‘awareness’ of governments, communities and

businesses, especially at a local level. Nowadays most of these tourism stakeholders recognize that visitors come to a destination to see and experience the natural environment unique to each site. Hence, the destination must conserve the local natural environment to remain a popular tourist destination.

Next, indirect positive tourism impacts are argued. First, an increase in income thanks to tourism can lead to the reinvestment of part of such finance in nature conservation (e.g. Segerstedt and Grote, 2015). Langholz (1996) examines private nature reserves in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. The study found that private nature reserves can be a profitable busi-ness, and 78% of profitable private nature re-serves reinvest more than 60% of their profits in the reserves (Langholz, 1996). A good example is also found in Asia: Lama (2000) investigates community-based tourism in Nepal, focusing on its implications for conservation and empower-ment of women. This research reveals that local women play fundamental roles in communi-ty-based tourism, and tourism revenue is rein-vested for various purposes, including planting of flowers and cleaning up a village and trail (Lama, 2000). Second, tourism can work as a catalyst for raising local residents’ awareness of conservation of the natural environment as con-firmed in Uganda (Emerton, 1999) and Ecuador (Torre, 2012). Theoretically, an increase in the level of people’s awareness of conservation should lead to an increased level of conservation; al-though this relation does not apply to all tourist destinations (see Section 2.2 in Chapter 7). The importance of tourists’ awareness of nature con-servation is also raised by existing studies (e.g. Foxlee, 2006). Lorenzo et al. (2011) imply that ‘involvement’ is the key for raising people’s awareness, in their study on the conservation ac-tivities for Mediterranean red coral. Their study tells that the involvement of both local people and recreational scuba divers in the monitoring of, and data collection for, the conservation leads to an increase in the level of their awareness of nature conservation (Lorenzo et al., 2011).

1.2.2 Negative impacts of tourism on the natural environment

Concerning the negative impacts of tourism on the natural environment, diverse issues have

116 Chapter 8

been raised. To facilitate understanding of the environmental impact of tourism, Page and Connell (2014) suggest breaking ‘tourism’ into three components: (i) travel; (ii) tourism destina-tion development; and (iii) tourism associated activities. This section adopts these categories to explore the negative impacts of tourism on the natural environment. First, ‘travel’ is an essential element of tourism, and there are also various modes of travel. Of these, air travel would be the most influential to the natural environment at a global level. The negative impact of greenhouse gases emitted from aircraft on the climate are studied well (e.g. Gardner and Stern, 2008). To mitigate the negative environmental impact of air travel, assorted measures are utilized. For ex-ample, since 2011, one of the most eco-friendly aircrafts, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, has been adopted by many airlines, including Air India, LOT Polish Airlines and Aeroméxico. Moreover, some airlines (e.g. Scandinavian Airlines) en-courage their passengers to offset their carbon emission through giving them an opportunity to pay extra when they purchase tickets.

Second, ‘tourism destination development’ is discussed in the context of negative impacts of tourism on the natural environment. The main types of environmental impacts of tourism re-lated to tourism destination development en-compass inappropriate development, loss of habitat, extinction of species, pollution and loss of spirit (Page and Connell, 2014). Concerning inappropriate development, an extensive devel-opment of resort complexes with high density can instigate serious negative environmental impacts on flora and fauna. Cancun (Mexico) has been developed chiefly as a seaside resort since the 1970s, and its tourism development has been examined well (e.g. Castellanos, 2010). Local people refer to Cancun as ‘Gringolandia’, which reflects the circus-like spectacle of the overbuilt resort (Torres and Momsen, 2005). Parts of the coral reef have died due to sewage from tourist facilities, and it was taken over by algae, which feed on sewage residues (ABC News, 2008).

Loss of habitat and extinction of species should be examined together, because they are closely associated. For instance, the impact of trampling on vegetation should not be over-looked (Zhong et al., 2011). The seriousness of this problem depends on the nature of the site,

visitor numbers, opening times and actions tak-en by visitors. Trekking tourism is a very popular tourism product for Nepal, and it is investigated by researchers (e.g. Nepal, 2008). Trekking tour-ists spend much more money than other types of tourists; however, trekking tourism is a painful business for local communities and their natural environment. Deforestation is one of the major issues in the local natural environment where trekking tourism occurs (e.g. Nyaupane and Thapa, 2006). Deforestation in Nepal is under-taken to develop accommodation facilities and provide tourists with hot water and heating. Moreover, there might be a cause-and-effect relationship between deforestation in Nepal and increased flooding in northern India and Bangladesh (e.g. Hofer and Messerli, 2006). Regarding trekking tourism in Nepal, littering, especially plastic water bottles, by trekkers is also a key environmental issue (Holden and Sparrow-hawk, 2002). A lot of litter is landfilled locally and this can trigger soil pollution.

The aforementioned loss of, or damage to, habitat would lead to the extinction of, or de-crease in, species, particularly those unique to each place. The natural environment vital for species’ existence can be negatively affected by tourism development and/or visitor behaviour. Shiretoko National Park in Japan was listed as a natural World Heritage Site (hereafter WHS) in 2005. In recent years, an increasing number of brown bears have been observed in residen-tial areas. This has encouraged more visitors to feed the bears or take pictures of them. Visitor behaviour is a disruption to the bears and a danger to visitors themselves. Page and Connell (2014) recite examples of species being endan-gered at least partly because of tourism, includ-ing the golden toad in the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve (Costa Rica) and the logger sea turtle in the National Marine Park of Zakyn-thos (Greece). It is also believed that the Pinta Island tortoise became extinct in 2012 when the last known example, Lonesome George, died. Tourism has been the most significant fac-tor for population growth in the Galapagos Islands (WHS Galapagos) (natural WHS in Ec-uador) (Galapagos Conservancy, n.d.a). How-ever, species unique to the WHS have been negatively affected by population growth and other factors such as rapid tourism development and the huge popularity of the species among


visitors. Diverse measures are adopted to mini-mize the negative environmental impacts of tourism. For example, visitors entering the islands must pay US$100 entrance fee and US$20 for a transit control card. The area visi-tors can explore is limited and they must walk on wooden footpaths. Furthermore, the quarantine and inspection system adopted by the islands is quite strict. Nevertheless, the number of visitors to the islands is still high and had reached 140,000 by the mid-2000s (Galapagos Conserv-ancy, n.d.a).

Pollution is another negative impact of tourism on the natural environment associated with tourism destination development. Pollu-tion includes contamination of the natural en-vironment such as air, water, soil, noise and visual pollution. Of these, noise pollution is ar-gued in Section 1.3 in Chapter 7 as a traffic- related problem. The impact of tourism on air pollution is pointed out by researchers (e.g. D’Hauteserre, 2001), although the impact of local people’s activities on air pollution would be greater than the impact of visitors (Saenz- de-Miera and Rosselló, 2014). Soil pollution is an-other key issue for the natural environment (Zhong et al., 2011) and is caused by, for exam-ple, landfill, as the case of trekking tourism in Nepal shows. The main issue in tourism relating to water is the amount of fresh water used by visitors and tourism businesses. For instance, golf tourism is popular in many countries, in-cluding Spain, South Africa, the USA, India and Japan. Golf resorts are often situated near pro-tected areas, and this factor may exacerbate their impact on the natural environment. Golf courses require an enormous amount of water (Kasim et al., 2014) to maintain the courses, and this can lead to shortages in surrounding areas. As the case of Cancun shows, construc-tion of hotels, recreation and other facilities can cause sewage pollution. Wastewater pollutes seas, lakes and rivers surrounding visitor facili-ties. In fact, sewage can trigger serious damage to coral reefs, as the Cancun case indicates. Sewage can also harm sea, lake or river crea-tures, and it can be a threat to humans and ani-mals. Visual pollution can be understood as both an environmental and sociocultural issue. The issues are, for instance, visible atmosphere (Section 1.7 in Chapter 7), wear and tear, over-crowding and traffic congestion. All of them

can damage the attractiveness of cultural and natural environments, which create the ‘atmos-phere’ of a tourist destination. If such atmos-phere deteriorates, a tourist destination loses its integrity and appeal, and subsequently it may experience a decline in popularity.

Regarding ‘tourism associated activities’, Page and Connell (2014) show a few types of tourism that involve activities damaging to the natural environment. For instance, golf, ski or alpine tourism can be seen as damaging activi-ties because they often require extensive devel-opments such as lodges. Cruise tourism also can have environmental impacts such as sewage and litter. Passengers on cruise ships are nu-merous and visit tourist destinations near ports. Due to the short length of their stay, they tend to spend a small amount of money on the site and explore only tourist ‘honeypots’. This be-haviour pattern may result in excessive envi-ronmental impact with small economic returns and exclusion of local residents from the city/town centres.

1.3 Built environment: infrastructure

Of diverse components included in the built en-vironment, those seen as cultural heritage (e.g. historic buildings and townscapes) are explored in Chapter 7. Therefore, Section 1.3 focuses chiefly on infrastructure. The types of infra-structure are divided into three by the degree of their relationship with local communities and visitors.

1.3.1 Basic infrastructure for local communities

Most tourist destinations are also local peoples’ places of residence. Hence, their life must come first and the necessity to sustain their life must be secured. Such basic infrastructure for local residents includes water, electricity and gas. Lo-cal people cannot survive without proper supply of this essential infrastructure. Such infrastruc-ture is also important for excursionists and tour-ists, and tourism may advance the development of this type of infrastructure (Tribe, 2011). However, it must be remembered that, originally, these basic services were provided to satisfy the needs of local communities, and tourism

118 Chapter 8

does not always guarantee further development of such infrastructure. If tourism develops with-out extra investment in such basic infrastruc-ture, there is competition between local residents and visitors for limited facilities and services. This problem occurs in developed countries as well as in less-developed countries (LDCs). For example, Kaw City in Oklahoma (USA) confronts water shortages due to tourism activities during weekends (Atta-Asiamah, 2010). This issue can be more serious in LDCs since many destinations in LDCs do not have enough basic infrastructure even for the local inhabitants.

1.3.2 Infrastructure for local communities and visitors

Tourism development also requires infrastructure for local communities and visitors, including transport infrastructure and services, attrac-tions, restaurants and cafés. Transport is essential for tourism. Moreover, transport infrastructure and services affect the attractiveness of a tourist destination (Khadaroo and Seetanah, 2008). Therefore, transport development must consid-er the requirements for internal and external linkages to allow visitors to access a destina-tion. Transport modes and infrastructure en-compass:

• air (international and domestic airports);

• rail (international and domestic rail net-works, and tram networks);

• sea (international and domestic seaports); and

• road (coach and bus stations, and taxi ranks).

Parking spaces are also required to accom-modate privately owned and rented cars used by local residents and visitors, although many tourist destinations encourage visitors to come by public transport to realize tourism in a sus-tainable manner. For instance, Tyntesfield (a Vic-torian Gothic revival house, UK) managed by the National Trust, offers a 20%-off voucher for their restaurant, café and shop to visitors who come by bicycle, on foot or by public transport (National Trust, n.d.). Moreover, an increasing number of tourist destinations have started in-troducing a park-and-ride system. Such transport infrastructure and services enable visitors to

move around and give local people more options for public transport (Puppim de Oliveira, 2003). However, local residents may suffer from insuffi-cient transport infrastructure and services if the number of visitors who use local transport in-creases considerably. For instance, local resi-dents of Kyoto, Japan, have been struggling with a lack of space on fixed-route buses as the number of international visitors has greatly in-creased in recent years, and some bring suitcas-es on the buses (Kyoto Shimbun, 2017). As of October 2017, Kyoto Municipal Transportation Bureau has not been able to mitigate or solve this problem.

Visitor attractions are also key components that can influence the appeal of a tourist desti-nation. Improvement of existing attractions and development of new attractions are beneficial for both local inhabitants and visitors, because they can provide them with opportunities for en-tertainment, leisure and education. Visitor at-tractions are are main interests of visitors but tend to be overlooked by local people. However, they should develop and maintain close ties with local people as visitor attractions should be ac-knowledged as part of local communities. To this end, York Residents Open Weekend, adopted by the City of York (UK), is noteworthy. York resi-dents can enjoy the visitor attractions involved in the scheme free of charge over the weekend. The infrastructure and services associated with food and drink are another key magnet for visi-tors. Like attractions, they can also make local residents’ lives more enjoyable. In fact, a wide variety of restaurants, cafés and bars in different price ranges can attract visitors to a tourist desti-nation domestically and internationally (Konec-nik, 2004).

1.3.3 Infrastructure mainly for visitors

It is unlikely that tourism can be advanced with-out developing or enhancing the infrastructure for visitors. Considering previous studies, the in-frastructure chiefly for visitors is:

• accommodation (e.g. hotels, bed & break-fast etc.); and

• tourist (visitor) information centres (TICs).

This type of infrastructure can increase the lure of a tourist destination, make the destination


more approachable and enhance the level of visi-tor satisfaction. Generally, the areas visitors ex-plore are relatively limited, and this is particularly true for excursionists. Even so, tourist destinations must have this type of infrastructure, typically in a city centre or near an airport, port, railway station or main attraction. Regarding accommodation, having diverse types of accommodation at differ-ent price levels can boost the appeal of a tourist destination (Lee et al., 2014). Concerning TICs, Is-pas et al. (2014) examine the roles of the TIC for Brasov (Romania), comparing them with those of TICs in Riga (Latvia), Girona (Spain) and Manhat-tan (USA). They believe that the TIC is crucial in promoting Brasov County, and suggest three rec-ommendations for the enhancement of the TIC: (i) staff development; (ii) creating a database of tour-ists who have used the TIC; and (iii) developing an assessment tool for visitor satisfaction and their needs (Ispas et al., 2014).

However, the development of new infra-structure for tourism can cause serious impacts on the natural environment. It can be an irre-versible damage when a huge development such as a hotel complex is built. Of the three types of built environment discussed in Section 1.3, the development or enhancement of infrastructure principally for visitors needs especially careful consideration of its possible implications, because local inhabitants do not usually use this type of infrastructure.

2 The Environmental Impacts of WH Status and Tourism at WHSs

2.1 Introduction

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is the advisory body on nature to the World Heritage (hereafter WH) Committee. IUCN supports WHSs in various ways. For exam-ple, they published a document named World Heritage Advice Note: Environmental Assessment. The document provides States Parties and other stakeholders with guidance on integrating natu-ral WHSs within environmental assessments (IUCN, 2013). UNESCO World Heritage Centre (hereafter WHC) (2017a) also assists States Par-ties by explaining a series of 14 primary factors, each including a number of secondary factors,

which affect the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of WHSs. These 14 primary factors are:

1 Buildings and development; 2 Transportation infrastructure; 3 Utilities or service infrastructure; 4 Pollution; 5 Biological resource use/modification; 6 Physical resource extraction; 7 Local conditions affecting physical fabric; 8 Social/cultural uses of heritage; 9 Other human activities; 10 Climate change and severe weather events; 11 Sudden ecological or geological events; 12 Invasive/alien species or hyper-abundant species; 13 Management and institutional factors; and 14 Other factor(s)

(WHC, 2017a)

According to The Guardian (2014), invasive species, tourism, poaching, dams and logging are regarded as the most pressing threats for nat-ural WHSs, but climate change may eclipse all of these. This is echoed by the IUCN World Heritage Outlook (IUCN, 2014). Of the six threats listed by The Guardian (2014), invasive species and cli-mate change are viewed by the WHC (2017a) as primary factors affecting the OUV of WHSs. Of the remaining threats, tourism is included with-in two primary factors: ‘Buildings and develop-ment’ and ‘Social/cultural uses of heritage’ as a secondary factor. Poaching is contained within the primary factor, ‘Other human activities’, as a secondary factor. Dams are embraced within the primary factor, ‘Utilities or service infrastruc-ture’, as a secondary factor; and logging is in-cluded in the primary factor, ‘Biological resource use/modification’, as a secondary factor. Of the six threats to natural WHSs raised by The Guard-ian (2014), tourism is covered in Section 1 and logging is covered as deforestation in Section 1.2.2. Therefore, Sections 2.2–2.5 examine the other four threats.

2.2 Invasive species

Invasive species are a major environmental threat to natural WHSs and can damage their OUV. WHS Galapagos is a good example, which

120 Chapter 8

demonstrates the issues with invasive species. Animals and plants introduced to WHS Galapa-gos are the single greatest danger to the ecosys-tems of the WHS (Galapagos Conservancy, n.d.b). Since the ‘discovery’ of the Galapagos in 1535, people have brought different alien spe-cies, including livestock (e.g. goats), pets (e.g. cats) and ornamental and food plants (e.g. fruits) to the islands intentionally (Galapagos Conservancy, n.d.b). At an early stage, probably, people were not concerned much about the im-pact of alien animals and plants on the natural environment of the Galapagos. On the contrary, other alien species such as rodents, insects and weedy plants have been conveyed there uninten-tionally (Galapagos Conservancy, n.d.b) via trans-national movements of people, including tourism and importing of products. Various measures have been implemented for the eradication of these species, considering the consequences of such removal (e.g. Glen et al., 2013). The signifi-cance of such a consideration is remarked upon by Bergstrom et al. (2009) through their study on Macquarie Island (WHS Macquarie) (natural WHS in Australia). The management interven-tion for eradication of a mesopredator has unin-tentionally advanced landscape-wide changes on WHS Macquarie, although the eradication was positioned within an integrated pest man-agement framework (Bergstrom et al., 2009).

2.3 Poaching

Poaching has been a major environmental con-cern for many years in sundry places, including natural WHSs (Pedersen, 2002). This illegal ac-tion is particularly noticeable in Africa and Asia, and may detract the OUV of WHSs located in these regions. In Africa, the ‘big five’ animals (Af-rican elephant, rhinoceros, African lion, Cape buf-falo and African leopard) are key attractions in safari tourism. The big five are also sought-after by game hunters because of the difficulty of the hunt and their appeal as trophies. Trophy hunting is an activity enjoyed mainly by western hunters. His-torically, the meaning of safari has been chang-ing. Originally, it signified game hunting, which is a ‘legal’ activity for tourists, although it is often controversial in terms of ethics. Nowadays, safari often indicates observing and taking photographs

of wildlife. In Asia, Asian elephant, rhinoceros and tiger are key targets of poachers. Safari tour-ism in Asia has been getting increasingly popular in recent years, though Africa is still the primary destination. It could be said that the main differ-ence between game hunting and poaching is legal or illegal. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (2017), there are two major causes of poaching and illegal wildlife trade:

1. Crime driven by demand:Rhino horn, elephant ivory and tiger products continue to command high prices among con-sumers, especially in Asia. In Vietnam, the re-cent myth that rhino horn can cure cancer has led to massive poaching in South Africa and pushed the price of rhino horn to rival gold; and 2. Gaps in protection:Corruption, toothless laws, weak judicial systems and light sentences allow criminal networks to keep plundering wildlife with little regard to con-sequences. These factors make illegal wildlife trade a low risk business with high returns. The poachers – often poor locals – are usually the only ones caught, leaving the real masterminds and their network safe and operational with the ability to strike again.

These causes listed by WWF (2017) are deep-rooted issues, and WH status and a range of guidance and support by UNESCO cannot always mitigate these issues. In reality, poaching is re-ported at several natural WHSs. Komodo Nation-al Park (natural WHS in Indonesia) is famous for giant lizards (Komodo dragons) unique to the WHS. Poaching of Komodo dragons is conducted by local people living in the WHS and is one of the major threats to the WHS (Hawkins, 2004). On the other hand, Davis et al. (2004) report fish poaching at Great Barrier Reef (natural WHS in Australia), and identify that increased surveil-lance effort is useful to prevent fish poaching.

2.4 Dams

Dams are one of the essential infrastructures for energy utilities. They are megastructures and cost a lot to build; hence, they tend to be major na-tional projects. They can also instigate multi-fold impacts on the natural and cultural environ-ments of relevant areas and people residing there.


For instance, dams can affect water quality, down-stream distributions and sediments of a river (Luo et al., 2012) and biodiversity of aquatic animals and plants (Bredenhand and Samways, 2009). Dam construction may also change the land use of affected areas and the life of local residents.

To cite an example, construction of the Three Gorges Dam (China) caused displacement and resettlement of local people who had lived in the planned areas (Heggelund, 2017). The con-struction work started in 1993 and the dam was completed in 2009. However, there are some-what different views towards the implications of displacement and relocation, and this dissimilar-ity seems to stem from the timing of research (i.e. before or after completion of the dam construction). On one hand, Jackson and Sleigh (2000) argue that, overall, resettled people are not compensated fairly and are affected nega-tively by the relocation. On the other hand, Wang et al. (2013) assert that relocated people are compensated enough in terms of material wealth; whilst their new life and work are not supported well, as most of them are unemployed and very few training programmes are offered. Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas (natural WHS in China) was designated in 2003. Of the three rivers inscribed as the WHS, the Sal-ween River runs through China, Myanmar and Thailand. The construction of an enormous dam was planned in the Chinese part of the river in the early 2000s; however, it became part of the WHS in 2003. Subsequently, the dam con-struction was withdrawn. By that time, however, many local residents who had lived in the planned area had already relocated to other places. These people will not be able to regain their original life, even though the construction plan was rescinded by the national government. In the case of Tasmania Wilderness (natural WHS in Australia), the WHS nomination of the site was suggested by the state government of Tasmania to stop the building of a massive dam (Sullivan, 2004).

2.5 Climate change

The interrelationships between tourism, green-house gas emissions and climate change are argued in Section 1.2.2. Section 2.5 examines

climate change, considering its association with WHSs because climate change is seen as the most serious threat to natural WHSs (The Guard-ian, 2014; IUCN, 2014). UNESCO has been well aware of the impacts of climate change on WHSs since the early 2000s. A group of concerned organizations and individuals shed light on the impacts of climate change on WHSs at the WH Committee in 2005 (WHC, 2017b). Since then, UNESCO has been developing tools and guid-ance that help WHSs to respond to the impacts of climate change. Climate change contains di-verse environmental issues and multiple issues can affect WHSs simultaneously. According to the WHC (2017a), ‘Climate change and severe weather events’ is one of 14 primary factors influencing the OUV of WHSs, and secondary factors under this primary factor include:

• storms;

• flooding;

• drought;

• desertification;

• changes to oceanic waters;

• temperature change; and

• other climate change impacts.

Bosello et al. (2012) claim that the rising sea level is often viewed as one of the biggest threats; in fact, it negatively affects cultural WHSs (e.g. Venice and its Lagoon (cultural WHS in Italy) (Carbognin et al., 2010)) as well as nat-ural WHSs (e.g. Wadden Sea (natural WHS in Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands) (New Scientist, 2015)). The Sundarbans is a region consisting of mangrove islands, and encompass-es two natural WHSs, The Sundarbans (natural WHS in Bangladesh) and Sundarbans National Park (natural WHS in India). Colette (2007) as-serts that the combination of rises in sea level and other impacts of climate change could invite depletion of around 75% of the Sundarbans’ mangrove by the end of the 21st century. Perry (2011) identifies 16 natural WHSs that are most at risk, using a global model he devises. These 16 natural WHSs involve varied kinds of properties such as islands, coastal properties and moun-tainous properties (Perry, 2011). In summary, it could be stated that climate change can influ-ence diverse natural WHSs, especially those in small, remote islands. Furthermore, cultural WHSs may also struggle with the impact of climate change, typically rises in sea level.

122 Chapter 8

3 Environmental Changes in and around World Heritage Sites and

Local People’s Views

3.1 Natural environment at WHSs

3.1.1 Changes

Section 1.2 argues the interrelationships be-tween tourism and the natural environment, while Section 2 focuses on major threats to the natural environment of WHSs. WHC (2017a) enumerates 14 primary factors that affect the OUV of WHSs. Of these, several are also indicated by The Guardian (2014) and IUCN (2014) as key dangers for WHSs. Concerning the three pri-mary factors (‘Other human activities’, ‘Climate change and severe weather events’ and ‘Sudden ecological or geological events’), civil conflicts or wars, and natural disasters should also be re-marked upon as perils for WHSs due to the level of their impact on the natural environment.

Unfortunately, negative impacts of human activities on the natural environment associat-ed with WHSs are not limited to the issues above (e.g. poaching and inappropriate development). For example, political instability is a major issue for the natural environment of WHSs, particu-larly those located in Africa. As of October 2017, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has five natural WHSs. Unfortunately, however, they are on the List of World Heritage in Danger (hereafter LWHD), chiefly owing to political in-stability, territorial conflicts, weak financial foot-ings of national governments, refugee influx, deforestation and illegal digging. Since 2000, UNESCO has been taking action in the Congo Basin to improve the conservation and manage-ment of natural WHSs in the area (WHC, 2017c). Natural WHSs in developed countries may also be disadvantaged by environmental issues that can influence their OUV. For instance, Everglades National Park (WHS Everglades) (natural WHS in the USA) was added to the LWHD in 1993 mainly because of the impact of Hurricane Andrew, which struck the Bahamas and Florida in 1992. In 2007, WHS Everglades was delisted from the LWHD; however, the WHS was included in the LWHD again in 2010. This time, the listing was caused chiefly due to inva-sive species, water pollution and recreational

activities of visitors such as use of motorboats. In the future, WHS Everglades may suffer from hurricanes again, and possible rises of sea level may lead to the loss of mangrove and sawgrass (National Geographic Japan, 2012).

The arguments above signify that the natu-ral environment of WHSs can be or has been affected negatively by many factors, though such environment must be preserved through proper conservation activities. There are a few examples that can attest that WH status can di-rectly cause positive changes in the local natu-ral environment. Jimura’s (2016) research about Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range (WHS Kii) (cultural WHS in Japan) displays that the natural environment of WHS Kii has been enhanced because of WH status. Regional and local governments associ-ated with the WHS could successfully develop the michi- bushin (footpath maintenance) pro-gramme thanks to WH status, and any individ-ual or enterprise can join it as a volunteer or part of the enterprise’s corporate social respon-sibility activities (Jimura, 2016). In fact, it plays a vital role in the conservation of pilgrimage routes of WHS Kii. Moreover, WH status en-courages local people to do anything beneficial for the natural environment of WHS Kii (e.g. planting flowers) (Jimura, 2016).


Across WHSs in various States Parties, overall, local people’s views towards the changes in local natural environment since WHS listing appear to be rather negative. Jimura (2007) conducted a comparative study of Saltaire (WHS Saltaire) (cultural WHS in the UK) and Ogimachi district, which is part of Historic Villages of Shirakawa- go and Gokayama (WHS Ogimachi) (cultural WHS in Japan). In the case of WHS Saltaire, 70% of local inhabitants involved in the ques-tionnaire survey thought that the local natural environment had not changed since WHS list-ing, while local experts in tourism, heritage and/or community matters listed both positive and negative changes. Overall, however, neither WHS listing nor tourism was seen as a main cause of such changes. In the case of WHS Ogimachi, 40% of local people involved in the survey deemed that the local natural environment had


deteriorated since WHS designation, although almost 60% believed that it had not changed. Lo-cal specialists’ opinions are more negative. Three out of seven experts implied an indirect negative impact of WHS listing on the local natural envi-ronment. WHS inscription has advanced tour-ism development, and it has triggered the decline in air quality in and around WHS Ogimachi.

Su and Wall (2014) explore the Mutianyu village, which is situated next to the Mutianyu part of The Great Wall (WHS Mutianyu) (cultural WHS in China), and study local inhabitants’ thoughts on the effects of WH status and tourism through a resident survey. It disclosed that local people’s views of the impacts of tourism devel-opment on the surrounding environment are mixed, but positive overall. Vareiro and Mendes (2015) conducted resident surveys at two cultur-al WHSs in Portugal, Central Zone of the Town of Angra do Heroismo in the Azores (WHS Angra) and Historic Centre of Évora (WHS Évora). Local residents demonstrated contrasting views towards tourism impact on ‘conservation of natural re-sources’. In WHS Angra, 62.8% of local people who took part in the survey thought that tour-ism reinforces the conservation of local natural resources, whilst in WHS Evora, only 38.5% thought so. The study on Ha Long Bay (WHS Ha Long Bay) (natural WHS in Vietnam) by Long (2012) exhibits neither positive nor negative views of local residents towards tourism impacts on the local natural environment. According to Turker’s (2013) longitudinal resident surveys about the City of Safranbolu (WHS Safranbolu) (cultural WHS in Turkey, listed in 1994), local inhabitants’ attitudes towards tourism impacts on the local natural environment had become much more negative in 2011 compared to 2006.

3.2 Built environment at WHSs: Infrastructure for local people

and visitors

Considering the degree of implications between infrastructure and tourism and WH status, in-frastructure mainly for local communities is not examined in Section 3. Section 3.2 discusses in-frastructure for both local people and visitors, and Section 3.3 looks at infrastructure primarily for visitors.

3.2.1 Changes

The importance of infrastructure for both local people and visitors is explored in Section 1.3.2. Developing new infrastructures used by both par-ties often requires major changes in townscape or landscape and may incur huge investment. WHS designation can increase visitor numbers (see Chapter 4), and local communities would expect better traffic environment after WHS listing. Thus, WH status and tourism development may lead to the development of new traffic infrastruc-ture and services, and enhancement of existing ones. On the other hand, it must be noted that ‘Transportation infrastructure’ is one of the 14 primary factors that may influence the OUV of WHSs (WHC, 2017a) (Section 2.1). Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany lost its WH status due to construction of a bridge (Deutsche Welle, 2009). Dresden Elbe Valley was categorized as a ‘Cultur-al Landscape’, and local stakeholders recognized that the creation of the bridge could cause the removal of WH status, because UNESCO was concerned about this construction plan. Simul-taneously, however, mitigation of heavy traffic congestion was a tense problem for the city, and building a new bridge prevailed over retaining WH status. In the case of Stonehenge, part of Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (cultural WHS in the UK), planners claim that the construction of a dual carriageway under the WHS will improve traffic congestion, while campaigners are against the plan, insisting the road will have a destructive impact on the WHS (The Guardian, 2017) (see Section 3.2.1 in Chapter 7).

The advancement in waterfronts is a key development for WHSs or tourist destinations having a WHS such as Amsterdam (Nether-lands) and Havana (Cuba). Besides, waterfronts and ports are also a main feature of properties on the Tentative List of States Parties (e.g. Rade de Marseille in France). Therefore, the progress of such developments must be checked regular-ly, and its impacts on natural and built environ-ments must be monitored to retain WH status or to be inscribed as a WHS. Airports would be the most important traffic infrastructure for in-ternational tourism. However, the impacts of expansion or construction of such extra-large structures can be immense for the surrounding environment of WHSs. Moreover, the location

124 Chapter 8

of an airport needs to be considered for the OUV of WHSs. For instance, there is an airport near Town of Luang Prabang (cultural WHS in Lao People’s Democratic Republic), but it is suggested that the airport should be relocated to realize better conservation of the WHS (Winter, 2010).


Throughout different WHSs, local inhabitants’ views of the changes in transport infrastructure since WHS inscription appear to be positive. This is because WH status may influence such infra-structure positively in an indirect way: WH sta-tus can develop tourism further, and tourism development may lead to positive changes in traf-fic infrastructure at a regional or local level. On the other hand, direct impacts of WH status on these infrastructures seem to be very limited, or difficult to confirm through local people’s views.

In the case of WHS Ogimachi, overall, lo-cal people’s views towards the changes in traffic infrastructure in and around the WHS since WHS designation are very positive, and this is well echoed by local experts in heritage, tour-ism and/or community issues (Jimura, 2007). For example, a motorway interchange was opened near the WHS although this develop-ment did not occur because of WHS inscription. Such developments can exacerbate negative en-vironmental impact on local natural environ-ment such as deforestation and air pollution. Overall, however, local people would feel that development of traffic infrastructure would bring convenience rather than environmental damage to their daily lives. The view confirmed in and around WHS Ogimachi is corroborated by Su and Wall (2014). Three different groups in local communities of WHS Mutianyu deem that tourism at the WHS improves local public facilities. Okech’s (2010) studies on local peo-ple’s perceptions towards tourism and WH sta-tus at Lamu Old Town (cultural WHS in Kenya) and Stone Town of Zanzibar (cultural WHS in Tanzania) also display very positive responses from local inhabitants regarding tourism’s con-tribution to regional and/or local infrastruc-ture. Intriguingly, on the other hand, in the case of WHS Saltaire, both local residents and experts see there have been negative changes rather than positive changes in local and regional traffic

infrastructure (Jimura, 2007). That is because the main roads in and around the WHS cannot accommodate increased traffic, although it was triggered by neither tourism development nor WHS listing.

Regarding other kinds of infrastructure for visitors and local residents, Vareiro et al.’s (2013) research on Historic Centre of Gui-marães (cultural WHS in Portugal) reveals that, overall, local people believe that amenities in the WHS have been improved thanks to tourism. Long (2012) also reports such an effect in his study with local residents living in the islands in Ha Long Bay (WHS Ha Long Bay) (natural WHS in Vietnam). Overall, they view that tourism has improved the quality of local tourism infra-structure, including roads and transportation systems (Long, 2012).

3.3 Built environment at WHSs: infrastructure mainly for visitors

3.3.1 Changes

WHSs or tourist destinations having a WHS may contain diverse accommodation facilities for tourists (see Section 1.3.3). Their impacts on the natural environment can be immense as in the case of development of large hotel complexes, golf courses or ski resorts. A considerable amount of investment is required for such developments, and domestic and foreign investors may support them financially. However, this type of develop-ment can cause severe damage to the local nat-ural environment, including water pollution, excessive use of clear water and soil pollution. It must be remembered that ‘major visitor accom-modation and associated infrastructure’ are one of the secondary factors under the umbrella of the primary factor ‘Building and development’, which can disturb the OUV of WHSs (WHC, 2017a) (see Section 2.1).

The impact of accommodation develop-ment can affect WHSs in different ways. For example, George Town is part of Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (cultural WHS in Malaysia). The WHS contains an important sea-facing orientation waterfront; however, it has been off-limits to the public owing to development of a private hotel, marina and buildings where visual and physical


access is prevented (Shamsuddin et al., 2012). Within Old and New Towns of Edinburgh (cultur-al WHS in the UK), there are several development plans ongoing, and they can distress the OUV of the WHS. For instance, one of the plans intends to convert a historic building to a luxury hotel (The Herald, 2017). Another plan aims to regenerate a neglected site by building a hotel, restaurant, bar and retail space; however, campaigners are pro-testing against this plan (The Guardian, 2016). Another example is found in Historic Centre of Vienna (cultural WHS in Austria): the WHS was added to the LWHD in 2017 because of high-rise projects in the middle of the WHS (WHC, 2017d).


In local people’s views, overall, positive or neg-ative changes in the built environment chiefly for visitors are not caused by WH status but triggered by tourism that has been advanced by the status. Long’s (2012) study on WHS Ha Long Bay shows that local residents view that tourism has enhanced the quality of tourism

infrastructure, including guesthouses. The study also asks them to what extent they agree or disa-gree with the following statements:

• Tourism facilities built in and around Ha Long Bay are not in harmony with the natural environment and traditional architecture.

• The construction of hotels and guesthouses in the area has destroyed the natural beauty of the coastline.

(Long, 2012, p. 35)

Overall, they agree with these statements; however, this inclination is not so evident. Ac-cording to Jimura’s (2007) study on WHS Ogi-machi, most local people and specialists regard the number of accommodation facilities has de-creased since WHS listing, and it has, although visitor numbers have increased after WHS inscrip-tion. Concerning in and around WHS Saltaire, while both local inhabitants and experts feel that the number of accommodation facilities has in-creased, although official statistics are not avail-able (Jimura, 2007).

Case Study: Natural WHSs in the USA and Japan

The USA has a long history of nature conservation since the late 19th century and comprehensive schemes to conserve and utilize their national parks. Fourteen out of 60 national parks in the USA are WHSs: Mesa Verde is a cultural WHS and the other 13 parks are 12 natural WHSs (Wrangell-St. Elias and Glacier Bay are part of the same WHS). All of them were designated more than 20 years ago (1978–1995). This signifies that nature conservation systems of the USA are well-established and thorough enough to maintain the OUV of these WHSs. Regrettably, however, WHS Everglades is on the LWHD, and the current listing is partly because of human activities. The impact of WHS inscription on visitor numbers is not clear; however, it attracts around 1 million visitors annually. Therefore, a large number of visitors and their activities may have affected the WHS negatively, together with natural threats.

Japan’s national parks have a shorter history than those of the USA. Their history started in 1934 when three national parks were designated. Three out of 28 national parks in Japan are natural WHSs (Ogasawara Islands, Shiretoko and Yakushima); and part of WHS Shirakami-Sanchi also belongs to a quasi-national park. Of these, Shirakami-Sanchi has policy issues. The WHS extends over Aomori and Akita prefectures and is managed by three different national agencies and two prefectural govern-ments. This makes WHS management and conservation complicated. For example, policies towards visitor entry are different by prefecture: Aomori’s policy is much less strict than Akita’s, as the former believes that conservation and utilization of the WHS and national park are equally important.

On the other hand, Yakushima has struggled more with visitor matters. Most visitors explore only limited areas and this accelerates deterioration of flora and fauna in these areas. How to control visitor inflow has been a major issue, and there are mainly two approaches: limiting visitor numbers or charg-ing entrance fees. At the moment, the latter seems to be more widely accepted by local communities, because its negative impacts on tourism would be rather limited and the money raised through entrance fees can be reinvested for nature conservation at the WHS.

(Sources: National Park Service, 2015; Shikura, 2017; WHC, 2017e; Aomori Prefecture, n.d.)

126 Chapter 8

4 Conclusion

Compared to economic and sociocultural im-pacts of WHS listing on local communities, its environmental impact, particularly direct im-pact, seems to be limited. That is because envi-ronmental changes in local communities tend to be caused or enhanced by tourism activities that are advanced by WH status. Hence it is particu-larly crucial to examine environmental impacts of WHS listing and tourism together. The west has a longer history of nature conservation than the east. However, there are no prominent differences in environmental issues with WHSs and local people’s views of the issues between the east and the west.

This chapter has looked at both natural and built environments of tourist destinations and WHSs. Of various types of built environment, the chapter focuses on infrastructure that can be categorized into three sub-groups, depending on the people they serve: basic infrastructure for lo-cal residents’ lives, infrastructure for both local people and visitors; and infrastructure mainly for visitors. Section 1 discusses both advantageous and disadvantageous impacts of tourism on nat-ural and built environments. Overall, tourism is more likely to produce negative changes rather than positive ones for the natural environment, while tourism can cause positive rather than negative changes in the built environment, in-cluding infrastructure. However, local communi-ties may face a difficulty with basic infrastructure

vital for daily life, if the demand for such infra-structure rises due to tourism, whilst the supply does not increase enough to meet the increased demand.

Section 2 switches to issues more peculiar to WHSs. The impact of WH status and tourism is argued, focusing on the factors that can ( negatively) affect the natural environment at WHSs. WHC (2017a) recites 14 primary factors influencing the OUV of WHSs. Of these, climate change included in the primary factor, ‘Climate change and severe weather events’, is regarded as the most worrying threat to WHS conserva-tion, and human actions would be one of the major causes of this problem. Natural changes such as earthquakes and tsunamis can influence all types of WHSs; however, human actions would be associated with most of the aforemen-tioned 14 primary factors.

Section 3 explores environmental changes in the natural and built environments of WHSs caused by WH status and/or tourism since WHS inscription. Furthermore, local communities’ views towards these changes are examined. Re-garding the natural environment, the changes directly caused by WH status seem to be limited, but these changes are viewed as positive ones. Concerning the changes in the built environ-ment (infrastructure), in local inhabitants’ views, WH status tends to work indirectly for them. In other words, WH status can advance tour-ism at WHSs or destinations with a WHS, and advanced tourism can invite positive rather than

WH Status

Tourism

Extrinsic factors

Impacts

Views towardsEnvironmentalChanges

Impacts

Intrinsic factors

Environmental Changes in Local Community

Impacts

Local community

Each local resident

Views towardsEnvironmentalChanges

Fig. 8.1. WH status, tourism and local people’s views towards environmental changes. (From: the author)


negative changes in infrastructure in and around WHSs or destinations encompassing a WHS. The impacts of WH status and those of tourism since WHS listing on the changes in infrastruc-ture are sometimes obscure for local residents.

At the end of this chapter, the author pre-sents a model that describes the significant inter-relationships between WH status, tourism and local inhabitants’ views towards environmental changes in local communities (see Fig. 8.1).

References

ABC News (2008) Tourists, sewerage slowly killing Cancun’s coral. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/ 2008-09-30/tourists-sewerage-slowly-killing-cancuns-coral/526190 (accessed 15 September 2017).

Aomori Prefecture. (n.d.) Shirakami-Sanchi no Kankyo-hozen no Genjo to Kadai (Conservation of Shirakami- Sanchi: Current situation and problems) (in Japanese). Available at: http://www.jichiro.gr.jp/jichiken_kako/report/rep_yamagata28/jichiken_hokoku/shoku01/shoku01.htm (accessed 10 May 2018).

Atta-Asiamah, E. (2010) Estimation of the cost of building a water treatment plant and related facilities for Kaw City, Oklahoma. Master’s thesis, Oklahoma State University.

Bergstrom, D.M., Lucieer, A., Kiefer, K., Wasley, J., Belbin, L., Pedersen, T.K. and Chown, S.L. (2009) Indi-rect effects of invasive species removal devastate World Heritage Island. Journal of Applied Ecology 46(1), 73–81.

Bosello, F., Nicholls, R.J., Richards, J., Roson, R. and Tol, R.S. (2012) Economic impacts of climate change in Europe: sea-level rise. Climatic Change 112(1), 63–81.

Bredenhand, E. and Samways, M.J. (2009) Impact of a dam on benthic macroinvertebrates in a small river in a biodiversity hotspot: Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Journal of Insect Conservation 13(3), 297–307.

Carbognin, L., Teatini, P., Tomasin, A. and Tosi, L. (2010) Global change and relative sea level rise at Venice: What impact in terms of flooding. Climate Dynamics 35(6), 1039–1047.

Castellanos, M.B. (2010) Cancun and the Campo: indigenous migration and tourism development in the Yucatan Peninsula. Holiday in Mexico: Critical Reflections on Tourism and Tourist Encounters, 241–264.

Colette, A. (2007) Case Studies on Climate Change and World Heritage. UNESCO, Paris.Davis, K.L.F., Russ, G.R., Williamson, D.H. and Evans, R.D. (2004) Surveillance and poaching on inshore

reefs of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Coastal Management 32(4), 373–387.Deutsche Welle (2009) Dresden loses UNESCO world heritage status. Available at: http://www.dw.com/

en/dresden-loses-unesco-world-heritage-status/a-4415238 (accessed 30 August 2017).D’Hauteserre, A.-M. (2001) Representations of rurality: Is Foxwoods Casino Resort threatening the quality

of life in southeastern Connecticut? Tourism Geographies 3(4), 405–429.Emerton, L. (1999) Balancing the Opportunity Costs of Wildlife Conservation for Communities around Lake

Mburo National Park, Uganda. IIED, London.Foxlee, J. (2006) Key principles and directions for tourism in protected areas: a review of existing charters,

guidelines and declarations. In: Bushell, R. and Eagles, P. (eds) Tourism and Protected Areas: Ben-efits beyond Boundaries. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 44–70.

Galapagos Conservancy (n.d.a) Tourism and population growth. Available at: https://www.galapagos.org/conservation/conservation/conservationchallenges/tourism-growth/ (accessed 26 August 2017).

Galapagos Conservancy. (n.d.b) Invasive species. Available at: https://www.galapagos.org/conservation/ conservation/conservationchallenges/invasive-species/ (accessed 20 September 2017).

Gardner, G.T. and Stern, P.C. (2008) The short list: the most effective actions US households can take to curb climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 50(5), 12–25.

Glen, A.S., Atkinson, R., Campbell, K.J., Hagen, E., Holmes, N.D. et al. (2013) Eradicating multiple inva-sive species on inhabited islands: the next big step in island restoration? Biological Invasions 15(12), 2589–2603.

The Guardian (2014) More than a third of natural world heritage sites face ‘significant threats’. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/13/more-than-a-third-of-natural-world-heritage-sites-face-significant-threats (accessed 20 September 2017).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-09-30/tourists-sewerage-slowly-killing-cancuns-coral/526190

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-09-30/tourists-sewerage-slowly-killing-cancuns-coral/526190

http://www.jichiro.gr.jp/jichiken_kako/report/rep_yamagata28/jichiken_hokoku/shoku01/shoku01.htm

http://www.jichiro.gr.jp/jichiken_kako/report/rep_yamagata28/jichiken_hokoku/shoku01/shoku01.htm





https://www.galapagos.org/conservation/conservation/conservationchallenges/invasive-species/

https://www.galapagos.org/conservation/conservation/conservationchallenges/invasive-species/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/13/more-than-a-third-of-natural-world-heritage-sites-face-significant-threats


128 Chapter 8

The Guardian (2016) Edinburgh’s age of endarkenment: development is ‘ripping heart from city’. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/08/edinburgh-endarkenment-public-land-luxury- hotel-india-buildings (access 2 October 2017).

The Guardian (2017) The Stonehenge tunnel: ‘a monstrous act of desecration is brewing’. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/25/stonehenge-tunnel-desecration-prehistoric- traffic-jams (accessed 3 September 2017).


Hawkins, D.E. (2004) Sustainable tourism competitiveness clusters: application to World Heritage sites network development in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 9(3), 293–307.

Heggelund, G. (2017) Environment and Resettlement Politics in China: The Three Gorges Project. Rout-ledge, London.

The Herald (2017) Heritage guardians move to protect Edinburgh’s World Heritage Site. Available at: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15181234.Heritage_guardians_move_to_protect_Edinburgh___s_World_Heritage_Site/ (accessed 2 October 2017).

Hofer, T. and Messerli, B. (2006) Floods in Bangladesh: History, Dynamics and Rethinking the Role of the Himalayas. United Nations University Press, Tokyo.

Holden, A. (2016) Environment and Tourism. Routledge, London.Holden, A. and Sparrowhawk, J. (2002) Understanding the motivations of ecotourists: the case of trekkers

in Annapurna, Nepal. International Journal of Tourism Research 4(6), 435–446.Ispas, A., Rada, D. and Sava, A. (2014) The role of information centres in promoting tourist destinations

case study: tourist information centre Brasov. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov. Eco-nomic Sciences 7(56) (1), 123–130.

IUCN (2013) World Heritage advice note: environmental assessment. Available at: https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_advice_note_environmental_assessment_18_11_13_iucn_template.pdf (accessed 20 September 2017).

IUCN (2014) World heritage outlook. Available at: http://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ (accessed 21 September 2017).

Jackson, S. and Sleigh, A. (2000) Resettlement for China’s Three Gorges Dam: socioeconomic impact and institutional tensions. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 33, 223–241.



Kasim, A., Gursoy, D., Okumus, F. and Wong, A. (2014) The importance of water management in hotels: a framework for sustainability through innovation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 22(7), 1090–1107.

Khadaroo, J. and Seetanah, B. (2008) The role of transport infrastructure in international tourism develop-ment: a gravity model approach. Tourism Management 29(5), 831–840.

Konecnik, M. (2004) Evaluating Slovenia’s image as a tourism destination: a self-analysis process towards building a destination brand. The Journal of Brand Management 11(4), 307–316.

Kyoto Shimbun (2017) Carry bag ni Rosen-bus Konwaku, Kyoto, Kanko-kyaku Mochikomi Konzatsu (Kyoto – Fixed route buses cannot cope with the visitors who bring a suitcase to a bus) (in Japanese). Available at: http://www.kyoto-np.co.jp/politics/article/20170729000135 (accessed 18 September 2017).

Lama, W.B. (2000) Community-based tourism for conservation and women’s development. In: Godde, P.M., Price, M.F. and Zimmermann, F.M. (eds) Tourism and Development in Mountain Regions. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 221–238.

Langholz, J. (1996) Economics, objectives, and success of private nature reserves in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Conservation Biology 10(1), 271–280.

Lee, C.F., Chen, P.T. and Huang, H.I. (2014) Attributes of destination attractiveness in Taiwanese bicycle tourism: the perspective of active experienced bicycle tourists. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 15(3), 275–297.


Lorenzo, B., Ilaria, V., Sergio, R., Stefano, S. and Giovanni, S. (2011) Involvement of recreational scuba divers in emblematic species monitoring: the case of Mediterranean red coral (Corallium rubrum). Journal for Nature Conservation 19(5), 312–318.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/08/edinburgh-endarkenment-public-land-luxury-hotel-india-buildings

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/08/edinburgh-endarkenment-public-land-luxury-hotel-india-buildings



http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15181234.Heritage_guardians_move_to_protect_Edinburgh___s_World_Heritage_Site/



https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_advice_note_environmental_assessment_18_11_13_iucn_template.pdf

https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_advice_note_environmental_assessment_18_11_13_iucn_template.pdf

http://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/

http://www.kyoto-np.co.jp/politics/article/20170729000135


Luo, X.X., Yang, S.L. and Zhang, J. (2012) The impact of the Three Gorges Dam on the downstream distribution and texture of sediments along the middle and lower Yangtze River (Changjiang) and its estuary, and subsequent sediment dispersal in the East China Sea. Geomorphology 179, 126–140.

Muñoz, B. (2015) The contradiction of tourism on the conservation and development in Galápagos, Ecuador. Estudios y Perspectivas en Turismo 24(2), 399–413.

National Geographic Japan (2012) Everglades – Sonzoku Kiki no Kanko-chi (Everglades – a tourist desti-nation facing a crisis) (in Japanese). Available at: http://natgeo.nikkeibp.co.jp/nng/article/news/14/6312/ (accessed 24 September 2017).

National Park Service (2015) Everglades park statistics. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/news/parkstatistics.htm (accessed 10 May 2018).

National Trust (n.d.) Tyntesfield: getting here sustainably. Available at: https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/ tyntesfield/features/getting-here-sustainably (accessed 19 September 2017).

Nepal, S.K. (2008) Tourism-induced rural energy consumption in the Annapurna region of Nepal. Tourism Management 29(1), 89–100.

New Scientist (2015) Climate change hits one in six world heritage nature sites. Available at: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730294.100-climate-change-hits-one-in-six-world-heritage-nature-sites/ (accessed 21 September 2017).

Nyaupane, G.P. and Thapa, B. (2006) Perceptions of environmental impacts of tourism: a case study at ACAP, Nepal. The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 13(1), 51–61.

Okech, R.N. (2010) Socio-cultural impacts of tourism on World Heritage sites: communities’ perspective of Lamu (Kenya) and Zanzibar Islands. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 15(3), 339–351.

Page, S. and Connell, J. (2014) Tourism: A Modern Synthesis, 4th edn. Cengage Learning, Andover, UK.Pedersen, A. (2002) Managing tourism at World Heritage Sites: a practical manual for World Heritage Site

managers. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-113-2.pdf (accessed 21 September 2017).

Perry, J. (2011) World Heritage hot spots: a global model identifies the 16 natural heritage properties on the World Heritage List most at risk from climate change. International Journal of Heritage Stud-ies 17(5), 426–441.

Puppim de Oliveira, J.A. (2003) Governmental responses to tourism development: three Brazilian case studies. Tourism Management 24(1), 97–110.

Saenz-de-Miera, O. and Rosselló, J. (2014) Modeling tourism impacts on air pollution: the case study of PM 10 in Mallorca. Tourism Management 40, 273–281.

Segerstedt, A. and Grote, U. (2015) Protected area certificates: gaining ground for better ecosystem pro-tection? Environmental Management 55(6), 1418–1432.

Shamsuddin, S., Sulaiman, A.B. and Amat, R.C. (2012) Urban landscape factors that influenced the character of George Town, Penang UNESCO World Heritage Site. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 50, 238–253.

Shikura, S. (2017) Effect of inbound visitor’s charge to over-use issue of Yakushima Island – Yakushima’s environmental value and mountaineering charge. Bulletin of National Institute of Technology, Maizuru College 52, 23–27.


Sullivan, S. (2004) Local involvement and traditional practices in the World Heritage system. In: UNESCO World Heritage Centre (ed.) Linking Universal and Local Values: Managing a Sustainable Future for World Heritage. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, pp. 49–55.

Torre, S. (2012) Conservation of neotropical primates: Ecuador – a case study. International Zoo Yearbook 46(1), 25–35.

Torres, R.M. and Momsen, J.D. (2005) Gringolandia: the construction of a new tourist space in Mexico. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95(2), 314–335.

Torres-Delgado, A. and Saarinen, J. (2014) Using indicators to assess sustainable tourism development: a review. Tourism Geographies 16(1), 31–47.

Tribe, J. (2011) The Economics of Leisure and Tourism, 4th edn. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.Turker, N. (2013) Host community perceptions of tourism impacts: a case study on the World Heritage city

of Safranbolu, Turkey. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala 43, 115–141.Vareiro, L. and Mendes, R. (2015) Residents’ perspectives on tourism impacts of Portuguese World Herit-

age historic centers: Angra do Heroísmo and Évora. Tourism & Management Studies 11(1), 44–51.Vareiro, L.M.D.C., Remoaldo, P.C. and Cadima Ribeiro, J.A. (2013) Residents’ perceptions of tourism

impacts in Guimarães (Portugal): a cluster analysis. Current Issues in Tourism 16(6), 535–551.

http://natgeo.nikkeibp.co.jp/nng/article/news/14/6312/

https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/news/parkstatistics.htm

https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/news/parkstatistics.htm

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/tyntesfield/features/getting-here-sustainably

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/tyntesfield/features/getting-here-sustainably

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730294.100-climate-change-hits-one-in-six-world-heritage-nature-sites/




130 Chapter 8

Wang, P., Wolf, S.A., Lassoie, J.P. and Dong, S. (2013) Compensation policy for displacement caused by dam construction in China: an institutional analysis. Geoforum 48, 1–9.

WHC (2017a) List of factors affecting the properties. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/factors/ (accessed 20 September 2017).

WHC (2017b) Climate change. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/climatechange/ (accessed 21 September 2017).

WHC (2017c) Natural World Heritage in the Congo Basin. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/conservation- congo-basin/ (accessed 24 September 2017).

WHC (2017d) Historic centre of Vienna inscribed on List of World Heritage in Danger. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1684/ (accessed 2 October 2017).

WHC (2017e) United States of America. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/us (accessed 13 December 2017).

Winter, T. (2010) Heritage tourism: the dawn of a new era? In: Labadi, S. and Long, C. (eds) Heritage and Globalisation. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 117–129.

WWF (2017) Illegal wildlife trade. Available at: https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/illegal-wildlife-trade ( accessed 21 September 2017).

Zhong, L., Deng, J., Song, Z. and Ding, P. (2011) Research on environmental impacts of tourism in China: progress and prospect. Journal of Environmental Management 92(11), 2972–2983.


http://whc.unesco.org/en/climatechange/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/conservation-congo-basin/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/conservation-congo-basin/



https://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/us

https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/illegal-wildlife-trade


Yakushima, Japan

9

Contemporary Developments in and around World Heritage Sites

and Their Implications

1 Introduction

A discussion of World Heritage Sites (hereafter WHSs) involves diverse matters both within and around their conceptual framework. Hence it is also important to discuss these topics to achieve a more comprehensive and exhaustive under-standing of WHSs. Contemporary developments

within the concept of WHSs are discussed in Section 2. These developments include the List of World Heritage in Danger (hereafter LWHD), the notion of ‘Cultural Landscape’ and the con-cept of ‘Historic Urban Landscape’ (HUL). Next, contemporary developments around the notion of WHSs are examined in Section 3; they can be further categorized into culture- focused and

132 Chapter 9

nature-focused concepts. The culture- focused ideas comprise ‘Intangible Cultural Heritage’ (ICH) and ‘Memory of the World’ (MoW), since these two, and World Heritage (WH), are three fundamental initiatives for international cul-tural heritage conservation of UNESCO. The nature-focused notions contain ‘UNESCO Global Geoparks’ (UGGs) and ‘Biosphere Reserves’ (BRs), which are main schemes for global natural herit-age conservation of UNESCO together with WH.

2 Contemporary Developments in World Heritage Sites

2.1 The List of World Heritage in Danger

The LWHD was invented to inform the interna-tional community of conditions that threaten the very characteristics for which a property was in-scribed on the WH list (WHL) and to promote ac-tions for correction (UNESCO World Heritage Centre (WHC), 2017a). According to WHC (2017b), Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor (WHS Kotor) (cultural WHS in Monte-negro) was the first WHS to be added to the LWHD in 1979. It was due to serious damage on the WHS caused by the 1979 earthquake (WHC, 2017c). Fortunately, however, WHS Kotor was delisted in 2003, mainly thanks to UNES-CO’s help (WHC, 2017c), and such support em-braces financial assistance via the World Heritage Fund. Under the WH Convention, a WHS – as defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention – can be inscribed on the LWHD by the WH Committee when they confirm that the condition of the WHS corresponds to at least one of the criteria in either of the two cases described in Tables 9.1 and 9.2, by type of WHS (paragraphs 179–180 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the WH Convention) (WHC, 2017a).

These criteria are essential for the WH Committee when they decide whether a WHS should be included in the LWHD. In addition to these criteria, the Committee employs a stand-ard list of factors affecting the Outstanding Uni-versal Value (hereafter OUV) of WHSs (WHC, 2017d) (see Section 2.1 in Chapter 8). WHC (2017d) aids conservation activities of States Par-ties by describing a series of 14 primary factors, each containing several secondary factors, which influence the OUV of WHSs. These 14 primary factors are:

1 Buildings and development;2 Transportation infrastructure;3 Utilities or service infrastructure;4 Pollution;5 Biological resource use/modification;6 Physical resource extraction;7 Local conditions affecting physical fabric;8 Social/cultural uses of heritage;9 Other human activities; 10 Climate change and severe weather events; 11 Sudden ecological or geological events; 12 Invasive/alien species or hyper-abundant species; 13 Management and institutional factors; and 14 Other factor(s).

(WHC, 2017d)

The full details of secondary factors are found at http://whc.unesco.org/en/factors/. Thus, States Parties and each WHS must identify if the WHS confronts or will encounter the issues listed in Tables 9.1 and 9.2 and the primary and sec-ondary factors, to retain its OUV and WH status.

As of October 2017, there are 54 WHSs on the LWHD in accordance with Article 11 (4) of the WH Convention (WHC, 2017e). People may assume that the WHSs on the LWHD tend to be located in less-developed countries (LDCs), which may not have enough financial resourc-es for WHS conservation, countries that have continually suffered from natural disasters or those that have war or conflict zones. It is true to some extent; however, these 54 WHSs on the LWHD are spread across 33 States Parties (WHC, 2017e) including developed countries such as Austria, the UK and the USA. Historic Centre of Vienna (WHS Vienna) (cultural WHS in Austria) was added to the LWHD in 2017 chiefly due to high-rise development in the cen-tre of the WHS (WHC, 2017f). The project aims to construct a tower containing various facilities such as a hotel and conference venue (WHC, 2017f) (see Section 3.3.1 in Chapter 8). Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (WHS Liverpool) (cul-tural WHS in the UK) was included in the LWHD in 2012 primarily because of a proposed develop-ment of Liverpool Waters (Gaillard and Rodwell, 2015) (see Sections 2.2 and 2.3 in Chapter 7). Everglades National Park (WHS Everglades) (natural WHS in the USA) was added to the LWHD in 1993 chiefly owing to the impact of Hurricane Andrew. More than ten years was needed for WHS Everglades and the USA to have


Contemporary Developments in and around World Heritage Sites and Their Implications 133

the WHS delisted from the LWHD in 2007. How-ever, WHS Everglades was included in the LWHD again in 2010 for different reasons such as inva-sive species and water pollution (see Section 3.1.1 in Chapter 8).

Regarding WHS Vienna and WHS Liverpool, both are cultural WHSs in an urban location, and were added to the LWHD because of human-related

activities, including extensive development plans for local communities, economy and/or businesses. Such a massive development is also a central rea-son why Dresden Elbe Valley (once cultural WHS in Germany) lost its WH status in 2009 (WHC, 2009). However, it is true that construction of a new bridge across the River Elbe can improve traffic congestion and make local people’s lives better.

Table 9.1. Criteria for the World Heritage in Danger (cultural properties). (From: WHC, 2017a)

Ascertained danger Potential danger

The property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger, such as:

The property is faced with threats that could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics. Such threats are, for example:

1 Serious deterioration of materials Modification of juridical status of the property diminishing the degree of its protection

2 Serious deterioration of structure and/or ornamental features

Lack of conservation policy

3 Serious deterioration of architectural or town-planning coherence

Threatening effects of regional planning projects

4 Serious deterioration of urban or rural space, or the natural environment

Threatening effects of town planning

5 Significant loss of historical authenticity Outbreak or threat of armed conflict6 Important loss of cultural significance Threatening impacts of climatic, geological or other

environmental factors

Table 9.2. Criteria for the World Heritage in Danger (natural properties). (From: WHC, 2017a)

Ascertained danger Potential danger

The property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger, such as:

The property is faced with major threats that could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics. Such threats are, for example:

1 A serious decline in the population of the endangered species or the other species of Outstanding Universal Value for which the property was legally established to protect, either by natural factors such as disease or by human-made factors such as poaching

A modification of the legal protective status of the area

2 Severe deterioration of the natural beauty or scientific value of the property, as by human settlement, construction of reservoirs that flood important parts of the property, industrial and agricultural development including use of pesticides and fertilizers, major public works, mining, pollution, logging, firewood collection, etc.

Planned resettlement or development projects within the property or so situated that the impacts threaten the property

3 Human encroachment on boundaries or in upstream areas that threaten the integrity of the property

Outbreak or threat of armed conflict

4 The management plan or management system is lacking or inadequate, or not fully implemented

5Threatening impacts of climatic, geological

or other environmental factors

134 Chapter 9

Concerning WHS Everglades, while the issues related to the listing in 1993 are nature- orientated, those associated with the listing in 2010 are more human-orientated. Human ac-tions and changes in natural environment are also major reasons why Arabian Oryx Sanctu-ary (once natural WHS in Oman) was deleted from the WHL in 2007 (see Section 2.2 in Chap-ter 7). The population of oryxes decreased be-cause of habitat degradation and poaching, and the national government decided to reduce the size of the protected area by 90% (WHC, 2007a). As of October 2017, Dresden Elbe Valley and Arabian Oryx Sanctuary are the only sites that lost their WH status. As there are 1073 WHSs, as of October 2017 (WHC, 2017g), people may view that losing WH status is very exceptional. Overall, however, the number of WHSs on the LWHD has been increasing since 1979. Moreo-ver, most of the issues these WHSs have are diffi-cult to solve, and often beyond the control of each WHS or even its State Party. Therefore, the issues affecting the WHSs on the LWHD should be tackled at a global level, and such activities should also be supported by organizations and individuals who are not directly associated with them. To this end, the WHC (2017e) asks private individuals, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or other groups to report to the WH Com-mittee any existing threats WHSs are facing. If such an alert is justified and the issue is serious, the WH Committee may consider including the reported WHS on the LWHD (WHC, 2017e).

2.2 Cultural Landscapes

Around 20 years ago, Phillips (1998) already noted that there had been growing interest in cultural landscapes in nature conservation. In fact, ‘cultural landscapes’ is not a concept that is used exclusively by UNESCO. For example, The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF) is an American non-profit organization established in 1998 (TCLF, 2017a). TCLF (2017b) explains that ‘cultural landscapes are landscapes that have been affected, influenced, or shaped by hu-man involvement’. The National Park Service (NPS) is an agency of the American government that has been entrusted with the care of nation-al parks in the USA since 1916 (NPS, 2017a).

NPS (2017b) defines a cultural landscape as ‘a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cul-tural or aesthetic values’. From these defini-tions, it can be stated that the testimony of human involvement in and influence on land-scapes is necessary to be regarded as cultural landscapes. In academia, this element is also acknowledged as an essential component for cultural landscapes (e.g. Taylor and Lennon, 2011). In other words, the notion of cultural landscapes has been developed to serve as a ‘bridge’ between cultural and natural heritage, as Taylor and Lennon (2011) imply. That is be-cause every dimension of nature is impacted by human agency and every aspect of culture is af-fected by nature (Lowenthal, 2005). Lowenthal (2005) also states that, traditionally, natural and cultural heritage have been dealt with quite dif-ferently; however, management of both types of heritage shares many common features.

In the context of WHSs, the WH Committee acknowledges that cultural landscapes repre-sent the ‘combined works of nature and of man’ designated in Article 1 of the WH Convention (WHC, 2017h). Thus, the evidence of human participation in and effect on landscapes is vital to be seen as cultural landscapes also in the con-text of WHSs. Stated differently, the exceptional interaction between humankind and their natural environment is a focus of the concept of cultural landscapes in terms of WHSs (Rössler, 2006). In fact, WHC (2017h) declares that ‘the term “cultural landscape” embraces a diversity of man-ifestations of the interaction between human-kind and its natural environment’. The history of WHSs is traced back to 1972 when the WH Convention was signed, but the idea of cultural landscapes was not officially recognized at that time. In 1992, the WH Convention became the first international legal mechanism to aim to protect cultural landscapes, and the WH Com-mittee employed guidelines regarding the inclu-sion of cultural landscapes in the WHL (WHC, 2017h). According to WHC (2008), ‘Cultural Landscapes’ fall into three main categories, and the information about the main categories and sub-categories is found in Table 9.3.

As of October 2017, 102 WHSs with four transboundary WHSs are inscribed as Cultural


Landscapes (WHC, 2017h), and 61 States Par-ties hold at least one WHS listed as a Cultural Landscape. The distribution of WHSs listed as Cultural Landscapes by region of the world seems to be relatively well-balanced. Moreover, distinctive differences in the categories and char-acteristics of Cultural Landscapes between the west and the east cannot be confirmed. Of 102 WHSs designated as Cultural Landscapes, 93 are cultural WHSs and nine are mixed WHSs. Sirisrisak and Akagawa (2007) note that the gap in the number of WHSs inscribed as Cultural Land-scapes among different regions of the world has been one of the major issues since the concept was adopted in the WH Convention. Most WHSs

inscribed as Cultural Landscapes are located in Europe and North America. This is insightful, but their view seems to be based on the informa-tion at that time. Many more properties from previously-overlooked regions or countries have been added to the WHL as Cultural Landscapes since 2007 and this imbalance appears to have been improved, as signified above. As for Asia, four WHSs in China were inscribed as Cultural Landscapes between 2007 and 2017. Prior to 2006, China had only one WHS listed as a Cul-tural Landscape. Regarding Africa, Sacred Mijik-enda Kaya Forests (cultural WHS in Kenya) was inscribed as a Cultural Landscape in 2008, and Ennedi Massif: Natural and Cultural Landscape

Table 9.3. Cultural Landscapes: main categories and sub-categories. (From: WHC, 2008 and modified by the author)

Main categories Sub-categories

1 Landscape designed and created intentionally by man

Description This is the type of cultural landscape that is the most easily identifiable. It embraces garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons, which are often (but not always) associated with religious or other monumental buildings and ensembles.

2 Organically evolved landscape 2.1 Relict (or fossil) landscapeDescription This results from an initial social, economic,

administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes reflect that process of evolution in their form and component features.

Description Cultural landscape in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form.

2.2 Continuing landscapeDescription Cultural landscape that retains an

active social role in contemporary society, closely associated with the traditional way of life and in which the evolutionary process is still in progress. At the same time it exhibits significant material evi-dence of its evolution over time.

3 Associative cultural landscapeDescription The inscription of such landscapes on

the World Heritage List is justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent.

136 Chapter 9

(mixed WHS in Chad) was listed in 2016. Con-cerning South America, two cultural WHSs in Brazil were listed as Cultural Landscapes in 2012 and 2016. With regard to the Middle East, two cultural WHSs in Iran were inscribed as Cultural Landscapes in 2011 and 2015, one cultural WHS in Palestine was designated as a Cultural Land-scape in 2014 and one cultural WHS in Syria was inscribed as a Cultural Landscape in 2011.

Unfortunately, however, three WHSs in-scribed as Cultural Landscapes are on the LWHD as of October 2017: Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (cultural WHS in Afghanistan) – added in 2003; Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines – Cultural Landscape of Southern Jerusalem, Battir (cultural WHS in Palestine) – added in 2014; and Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (cultural WHS in Syria) – added in 2013. The factors influencing these WHSs stem mainly from human activities such as civil unrest. Dresden Elbe Valley, one of the two sites that lost WH status, had also been listed as a Cultural Landscape.

2.3 Historic Urban Landscapes

Because of its implications with the concepts of WHSs and Cultural Landscape, the HUL is also an essential notion in terms of heritage manage-ment and conservation in the current urban context. The idea of HUL is strongly associated with urban landscapes that encompass a WHS(s) (e.g. London, UK) as well as WHSs as a whole (e.g. Paris, Banks of the Seine, France). According to WHC (2005, p. 2):

[T]he HUL, building on the 1976 ‘UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas’, refers to ensembles of any group of buildings, structures and open spaces, in their natural and ecological context, including archaeological and palaeontological sites, constituting human settlements in an urban environment over a relevant period of time, the cohesion and value of which are recognized from the archaeological, architectural, prehistoric, historic, scientific, aesthetic, socio-cultural or ecological point of view. This landscape has shaped modern society and has great value for our understanding of how we live today.

A growing awareness of and interest in HULs became apparent in the early 2000s. During its

27th session in 2003, the WH Committee called for the organization of a symposium to deliber-ate the way to properly regulate the needs for modernization of historic urban environments, while simultaneously preserving the values em-bedded in inherited townscapes, in particular of cities inscribed on the WHL (van Oers, 2007; WHC, 2007b). In response, the WHC in coopera-tion with the International Council on Monu-ments and Sites and the City of Vienna organized the WH and Contemporary Architecture – Managing the HUL conference in Vienna in May 2005 (van Oers, 2007; WHC, 2007b). At the conference, a first outline of principles and guide-lines regarding HULs, the ‘Vienna Memorandum’ (VM), was adopted, which promoted an inte-grated approach to contemporary architecture, urban development and integrity of the land-scape inherited (van Oers, 2007; WHC, 2007b). VM forms the basis of the Declaration on the Conservation of HUL adopted by the 15th Gener-al Assembly of States Parties to the WH Conven-tion, in October 2005. Then, the WHC began to review existing standard-setting documents, es-pecially the UNESCO Recommendation concern-ing the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas (WHC, 2007b). To judge whether there was a need for an update that encompassed the concept of HUL, the WHC organized a one-day expert planning meeting in September 2006 (WHC, 2007b). The key evaluations that emerged from the meeting include important issues that have greatly altered the discipline and practice of urban heritage conservation, among which are:

• The importance of landscape, as a stratifica-tion of previous and current urban dynam-ics, with an interplay between the natural and built environment (previously handled by ‘zoning’);

• The role of contemporary architecture (previously ‘contextualization of new build-ings’); and

• The economics and changing role of cities, with an emphasis on the non-local process-es such as tourism and urban development, with outside actors of change.

(WHC, 2007b, p. 2)

For the aforementioned historical develop-ment of the notion of HUL, HUL should be inter-preted as both a theoretical term that means an innovative approach to understand continuing


human and sociocultural phenomena, and a practical term that signifies ensembles of ‘groups of buildings’, which is one of the categories for cultural WHSs (see Section 4 in Chapter 1). Ac-cording to Article 1 of the WH Convention, ‘groups of buildings’ denotes groups of separate or connected buildings, which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of OUV from the viewpoint of history, art or science (WHC, 2017i). As of 2006, in fact, van Oers (2006) argues that HULs have been treated under the category of ‘groups of buildings’ in relation to WHSs. However, the man-agement of HULs may face various challenges characterized by extremely dynamic and cyclic processes instead of an unchanging physical basis (van Oers, 2006), mainly due to the ever- changing nature of urban scenes and human activities. To this end, HULs would require a new vision and paradigm for their management and conservation (van Oers, 2006). Stated differently, the concept of HUL intends to properly recognize the quality and characteristics of the landscapes (Jokilehto, 2014), which cannot be fully under-stood only by the notion of ‘groups of buildings’.

The author joined Forum UNESCO – Uni-versity and Heritage: 12th International Semi-nar held in Hanoi, Vietnam, in April 2009. The subtitle of this seminar was Historic Urban Landscapes: A New Concept? New Category of World Heritage Sites? As the subtitle implies, at that time, how to treat HULs regarding heritage management and conservation did not seem to have been fully established. Further boards and conferences on HULs were organized after 2008 and a preliminary report on the draft Recom-mendation on HULs was completed in 2010 (WHC, 2017j). Consequently, the new Recom-mendation on HULs was adopted in November 2011 by UNESCO’s General Conference. The UNESCO General Conference recommended that States Parties take suitable steps to:

• adapt this new instrument to their specific contexts;

• disseminate it widely across their national territories;

• facilitate implementation through formula-tion and adoption of supporting policies; and

• monitor its impact on the conservation and management of historic cities.

(WHC, 2017j)

Moreover, a brochure named New Life for Historic Cities: The HUL Approach Explained was published in 2013. The brochure clarifies the ap-proach as follows:

1. Undertake a full assessment of the city’s nat-ural, cultural and human resources; 2. Use participatory planning and stakeholder consultations to decide on conservation aims and actions; 3. Assess the vulnerability of urban heritage to socio-economic pressures and impacts of climate change; 4. Integrate urban heritage values and their vulnerability status into a wider framework of city development; 5. Prioritise policies and actions for conservation and development, including good stewardship; 6. Establish the appropriate (public–private) part-nerships and local management frameworks; and 7. Develop mechanisms for the coordination of the various activities between different actors.

(WHC, 2013)

3 Contemporary Developments around World Heritage Sites

3.1 Culture-focused concepts

3.1.1 Intangible Cultural Heritage

Intangible elements such as cultural traditions that nominated properties testify are valued when the WH Committee decides whether the properties are worth WH status (see Section 6 in Chapter 1). However, WHSs themselves are tangible proper-ties that people can see, touch and visit. The con-cept of ‘intangible heritage’ is not unique to the contexts of UNESCO and WHSs. The studies on intangible heritage became apparent in academia, particularly in heritage and cultural studies, an-thropology, tourism studies and museology since the 1980s (e.g. Mead, 1983; Galla, 1999). However, many more studies on intangible heritage have been published since 2003 (e.g. Kirshenblatt- Gimblett, 2004; Smith and Akagawa, 2008).

The year 2003 is also when the Convention for the Safeguarding of ICH (hereafter ICH Convention) was passed by the UNESCO Gener-al Conference (UNESCO, 2016). According to Article 1 of the ICH Convention, its purposes are:

138 Chapter 9

a) To safeguard the ICH; b) To ensure respect for the ICH of the commu-nities, groups and individuals concerned; c) To raise awareness at the local, national and international levels of the importance of the ICH, and of ensuring mutual appreciation there-of; and, d) To provide for international cooperation and assistance (UNESCO, 2016).

WHSs and the WHL have tackled various is-sues since its establishment in 1972. For instance, to better value important interactions between people and the natural environment, a new cate-gory for WHSs, ‘Cultural Landscapes’, was intro-duced in 1992 (WHC, 2017h) (see Section 2.2). Moreover, to better reflect the cultural and natu-ral diversity of OUV, the WH Committee com-menced the ‘Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List’ (Global Strategy) (WHC, 2017k). Global Strategy aimed to improve the balance in the types of WHSs and the geographical regions that had been west-ern-centred (see Section 3 in Chapter 1). Further-more, WHSs have also been criticized as they are dominated by ‘tangible’ heritage, which is likely to be magnificent and/or beautiful (e.g. Yoshida, 2004). The ICH Convention can also be effective to better acknowledge non- western heritage practices and manifestations such as indigenous culture rooted in Asian, African and South Amer-ican countries (Smith and Akagawa, 2008).

According to Article 2 of the ICH Conven-tion, ICH denotes:

the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.

(UNESCO, 2016)

This means that ICH comprises diverse types of cultural heritage that cannot be covered by the concept of WHSs. Concerning the defini-tion, Article 2 of the ICH Convention recites typ-ical realms of ICT:

a) Oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the ICH; b) Performing arts; c) Social practices, rituals and festive events; d) Knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; and, e) Traditional craftsmanship,

(UNESCO, 2016)

UNESCO began to inscribe ‘elements’ of ICH in 2008 and 429 ICH are on the Lists of ICH and the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices as of October 2017 (UNESCO, n.d.a). Concern-ing ICH in Africa, Argungu International Fish-ing and Cultural Festival (Nigeria) represents social practices, rituals and festive events. The sociocultural importance of this event is con-firmed by a resident survey. For example, around 45% of respondents feel that the festival seasons have been a great source of relief from tension and almost 70% have settled permanently in Ar-gungu due to fishing, water and regularity of the festival (Asogwa et al., 2012). Regarding ICH in South America, Capoeira Circle (Brazil) signifies performing arts. Capoeira is a distinctive Afro- Brazilian cultural practice – simultaneously a fight and dance – that can be interpreted as a tra-dition, sport and art form (UNESCO, n.d.b). As for ICH in Asia, Traditional Craftsmanship of the Mongol Ger and Its Associated Customs denotes traditional craftsmanship. The Mongol ger is a convenient, clean and practical house (Minzhig-dorj and Erdenebaatar, 1993) that fits a nomadic way of Mongolian life. The ger is made through a traditional endeavour that contains the labour of household or a group: local men engrave woods and local men and women work for painting, sew-ing and stitching, and felt-making (UNESCO, n.d.c).

3.1.2 Memory of the World

The other noteworthy contemporary develop-ment outside the idea of WHSs is MoW. The MoW programme was launched by UNESCO in 1992 (UNESCO, n.d.d) and can be understood as ‘docu-mentary heritage’. The programme is designed as a new approach to preserve documentary heritage, democratize access to such heritage


and raise people’s awareness of its importance for preservation (Abid, 1997). For UNESCO, the main motivation for MoW comes from an in-creasing recognition of unsafe state of preserva-tion of, and access to, documentary heritage all over the world (UNESCO, n.d.d). Economic and sociocultural problems such as acute lack of re-sources and wars have negatively affected the preservation of documentary heritage for centu-ries (UNESCO, n.d.d). The vision of MoW is that: ‘the world’s documentary heritage belongs to all, should be fully preserved and protected for all and, with due recognition of cultural mores and practicalities, should be permanently accessi-ble to all without hindrance’ (UNESCO, n.d.d). Furthermore, the mission of MoW is:

• To facilitate preservation, by the most ap-propriate techniques, of the world’s docu-mentary heritage.

• To assist universal access to documentary heritage.

• To increase awareness worldwide of the existence and significance of documentary heritage.

(UNESCO, n.d.d)

The MoW Register catalogues documenta-ry heritage recommended by the International Advisory Committee (IAC) and endorsed by the Director-General of UNESCO, as corresponding to the selection criteria concerning world signif-icance and OUV (UNESCO, n.d.e). IAC is the highest body responsible for advising UNESCO about the planning and implementation of the MoW programme (UNESCO, n.d.f). IAC consists of 14 members who are selected for their au-thority in the field of the safeguarding of docu-mentary heritage, and are appointed by the Director- General (UNESCO, n.d.f).

UNESCO has made efforts to conserve differ-ent types of cultural heritage all over the world for half a century. To this end, the concepts of WHSs, ICH and MoW have been developed, and relevant programmes have been launched. In other words, these three are expected to work as pillars of the commemoration of cultural herit-age (Heaney, 2016). In the author’s view, how-ever, WHSs, ICH and MoW are different in terms of the degrees of their maturity as schemes. Of these three initiatives for the conservation of cultural heritage, MoW seems to be the most immature. This view is echoed by Harvey (2007) who claims that the MoW programme is imper-

fect and some people even suggest that the pro-gramme is seriously flawed. For instance, the recognition of documentary heritage’s signifi-cance through the MoW programme and in-scription to the MoW Register do not always lead to the provision of security for the conservation of documentary heritage, and the programme is not international and is Eurocentric in nature (Harvey, 2007), though the latter seems to have been improved in recent years.

Next, the MoW programme and Register do not seem to be completely independent from polit-ical matters. Concerning UNESCO and the MoW programme, Harvey (2007) contends that the programme is operated under UNESCO, which can be seen as an intensely politicized organi-zation. UNESCO intends to promote the idea of politically neutral universal heritage (see Section 2.1 in Chapter 1). Ironically, however, UNESCO has been criticized as a politicized organization since the 1970s, particularly since the 1980s, principally by the USA (e.g. Nafziger, 1975; Bennis, 1997; Harvey, 2007). A historical relation-ship between UNESCO and the USA may imply the politicized nature of UNESCO. The USA with-drew from UNESCO in 1984, referring to its ineffec-tive management, policies contrary to the values of the USA and a highly politicized nature, but rejoined in 2002. In 2017, however, the USA announced its second withdrawal in 2018. Ac-cording to U.S. Department of State (2017),

On October 12, 2017, the Department of State notified UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova of the U.S. decision to withdraw from the organization and to seek to establish a permanent observer mission to UNESCO. This decision was not taken lightly, and reflects U.S. concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO.

Israel also announced its departure from UNESCO in 2018 (The Guardian, 2017). Through-out the history of UNESCO, the financial con-tribution of the USA has been the largest one (around 20–25%) followed by Japan (around 10%). Hence, losing the American financial con-tribution will negatively affect the operation of UNESCO.

In recent years, Japan has also been con-cerned about the politicized nature of UNESCO. Concerning MoW, Documents of Nanjing Mas-sacre was submitted by China in 2014 and was recommended for inclusion in the MoW Register

140 Chapter 9

in 2015 (UNESCO, n.d.g). Japan urges the trans-parency and fairness of the screening and regis-tration process of MoW (Japan Times, 2017). Historical Awareness Research Committee (2017) claims that the IAC blindly accepted the conclu-sion made by the Register Sub-committee, and MoW must not be used as a political item. Re-garding this, Japan temporarily suspended the payment of its 2016 financial contribution to UNESCO, although it paid in December 2016, aiming to advance the improvement in the selec-tion and inscription process of MoW (Sankei News, 2016). Concerning the documents associ-ated with Japan, moreover, Voice of Comfort Women was jointly submitted by eight NGOs of different countries, including South Korea, Chi-na and Japan, in 2016, to be added to MoW (His-torical Awareness Research Committee, 2017). In October 2017, however, IAC shelved the deci-sion on the registration of Voice of Comfort Women (Hankyoreh, 2017). The Emirati chair of IAC asked for steps to be taken so that the eight NGOs would be encouraged to discuss their application with related countries (Hankyoreh, 2017). The views of the eight NGOs and those of the Japanese government and conservative civil groups are in sharp conflict with each other in terms of how comfort women should be under-stood (Sankei News, 2017).

The other issue in MoW is that it has not attained status as a UNESCO Convention as of October 2017. The principle for implementation of the concept of WHSs is the WH Convention, and for the idea of ICH the ICH Convention; while MoW does not have an associated UNES-CO Convention (Heaney, 2016). Having a status as UNESCO Convention could attract greater support, and human and financial resources (Harvey, 2007). The MoW programme would need at least several years to work effectively as one of the three key schemes for cultural herit-age conservation adopted by UNESCO.

3.2 Nature-focused concepts

3.2.1 UNESCO Global Geoparks

Geoparks are different from famous scenic spots. For instance, European geoparks not only promote the protection of their geological herit-age but also utilize it in a sustainable manner

( McKeever and Zouros, 2005). Through such advancement and usage, geoparks intend to en-hance the economic well-being of people who live there (McKeever and Zouros, 2005). Thanks to UNESCO’s endorsement of the concept of geoparks, this concept is spreading across differ-ent regions of the world, and can be recognized as a global concept (McKeever and Zouros, 2005), and geoparks in diverse countries have been studied in various fields (Azman et al., 2010; Moufti and Németh, 2013). The endorsement by UNESCO is embodied as UGGs. According to UN-ESCO (2017a), ‘UNESCO Global Geoparks are single, unified geographical areas where sites and landscapes of international geological sig-nificance are managed with a holistic concept of protection, education and sustainable develop-ment.’ UNESCO started to work with geoparks in 2001. In 2004, 17 European and eight Chinese geoparks met to establish the Global Geoparks Network (hereafter GGN) where geological herit-age schemes at a national level contribute to and benefit from their membership of a global net-work of exchange and cooperation (UNESCO, 2017a). In this sense, both western and eastern views of and approaches to geoparks were con-sidered at the initial stage of GGN. There are four fundamental features to a UGG, ‘geological herit-age of international value’, ‘management’, ‘visi-bility’ and ‘networking’, and these features are an unconditional prerequisite for areas to be list-ed as UGGs (UNESCO, 2017b).

Like WHSs, there is the Operational Guide-lines for UGGs, and the criteria for areas to be UGGs are included in them (UNESCO, 2017b). As of October 2017, there are 127 UGGs in 35 countries (UNESCO, 2017a, 2017c). There are also ten top focus areas of UGGs:

1 Natural resources;2 Geological hazards;3 Climate change;4 Education;5 Science;6 Culture;7 Women;8 Sustainable development;9 Local and indigenous knowledge; and 10 Geoconservation.

(UNESCO, 2017d)

These ten top focus areas have been studied in academia since 2004. For instance, Azman et al.


(2010) investigate Langkawi UNESCO Global Geopark (UGG Langkawi) in Malaysia through interviews with key village informants and local people, and conclude that public education pro-grammes are needed to utilize Langkawi’s status as a UGG. Local residents’ awareness of UGG Langkawi should be raised through education to ensure community engagement within the de-velopment of the UGG and to generate local com-munity’s actions for stewardship (Azman et al., 2010). Regarding education, Henriques et al. (2012) examine Arouca UNESCO Global Geopark (UGG Arouca) in Portugal as an educational resource for young students. The visit to UGG Arouca can enhance students’ understanding of geodiversity and the geological value of a geopark and can promote geoconservation (Henriques et al., 2012). Burlando et al. (2011) investigate Beigua UNESCO Global Geopark (UGG Beigua) in Italy and assert that the UGG plays an essential role in encouraging sustainable development at local and regional levels. This can be achieved, because UGG Beigua could provide its stakehold-ers with plentiful services by connecting land-scape, cultural heritage and sports facilities with distinctive geological and geomorphological char-acteristics (Burlando et al., 2011).

On the other hand, Farsani et al. (2011) fo-cus on the role geoparks play in improving the economy of local inhabitants by analysing the strategies adopted by diverse geoparks. Their research displays that geoparks can create op-portunities for local economic development through geotourism, and it would be especially beneficial for local communities in rural areas.

The significance of geotourism for econom-ic development of local communities is also not-ed by Halim et al. (2011) in their research on UGG Langkawi. The empowerment of local resi-dents and their involvement in the development and planning process are crucial for economic development through geotourism, and a bottom- up approach is required for such development (Halim et al., 2011). The magnitude of a bottom- up approach in heritage management is noted in Section 3 in Chapter 2, and its significance in the UGG initiative is emphasized by UNESCO (2017a). Farsani et al. (2011) also assert that bonds be-tween local people’s lives and geoparks appear to be limited compared to those between local inhabitants and natural, national or regional parks. Their assertion endorses the significance

of local residents’ awareness of geoparks and their involvement in the activities associated with geoparks suggested by Azman et al. (2010).

3.2.2 Biosphere Reserves

BRs is one of the terms adopted by UNESCO con-cerning its strategies for the conservation of nat-ural environment in the world. Generally, the term ‘nature reserves’ is used in academia and practice to signify the places whose natural envi-ronments are protected at a national level. For instance, Wolong National Nature Reserve (WNNR) in China is a famous example of a na-tional nature reserve. Like many other national nature reserves, WNNR is also a BR. Together with WHSs and UGGs, BRs form three main pil-lars of the UNESCO’s initiatives for conservation of natural heritage. UNESCO (2017e) defines BRs as ‘areas comprising terrestrial, marine and coastal ecosystems’, and BRs encourage solu-tions that reconcile conservation of biodiversity with their sustainable use. BRs are nominated by national governments, and designated by the In-ternational Co-ordinating Council (ICC) of the Man and Biosphere Programme, following Arti-cle 5 of the 1995 Statutory Framework of the World Network of BRs (UNESCO, 2017e, 2017f). The Director-General of UNESCO informs the nominating country of the decision of ICC (UN-ESCO, 2017f). National governments regard BR designation as a crucial approach to improve conservation of the natural environment and ecosystem as indicated by the case of Tonlé Sap Biosphere Reserve in Cambodia (Bonheur and Lane, 2002).

As of November 2017, there are 669 BRs in 120 countries, including 20 transboundary BRs:

• 75 in 28 countries in Africa;

• 31 in 11 countries in the Arab states;

• 147 in 24 countries in Asia and the Pacific;

• 287 in 36 countries in Europe and North America;

• 129 in 21 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

(UNESCO, 2017e)

This information shows that BRs are rela-tively evenly distributed across different regions of the world. As UGGs shape the GGN, BRs also form the World Network of Biosphere Re-serves (WNBR), which encourages collaboration

142 Chapter 9

between developed countries and LDCs, and among LDCs, and signifies a unique way to en-hance international cooperation by sharing and exchanging knowledge and experiences, building capacity and promoting best prac-tices (UNESCO, 2017g). BRs consist of three interconnected areas that intend to serve three complementary and mutually reinforcing functions:

• The core area(s): it comprises a strictly protected ecosystem that contributes to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic variation.

• The buffer zone: it surrounds or adjoins the core area(s), and is used for activities com-patible with sound ecological practices that can reinforce scientific research, monitoring, training and education.

• The transition area: it is the part of the BR where the greatest activity is allowed, fos-tering economic and human development that is socioculturally and ecologically sustainable.

(UNESCO, 2017e)

The studies looking at BRs emerged in the 1980s, and such early studies (e.g. Batisse, 1982) enhanced people’s awareness of the con-cept of BRs. The amount of research on BRs seems to have increased since the early 1990s, especially after 2000. The topics investigated are diverse, but some of them match key themes of this book (i.e. heritage management and conser-vation activities, tourism and local communi-ties). For instance, conflicts between the needs of local communities and conservation of protect-ed areas is one of the common issues in LDCs (Maikhuri et al., 2000). Maikhuri et al. (2000) examine this issue in two villages near to and another two far from the core area of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve in India. In this case, the conflicts occur in various ways, including the impact of local wildlife on crop planting. BRs also have a close relationship with tourism due to their natural resources, which can attract visitors. Jiuzhaigou Valley Biosphere Reserve in China is one of such BRs. Li et al. (2005) ex-plore the impact of tourism and hiking trails on the BR and conclude that artificial mainte-nance, including wooden and flagstone trails, could effectively protect vegetation roots from exposure. This finding is beneficial for the

future trail design and visitor management at BRs (Li et al., 2005) and other protected areas, including natural WHSs and UGGs.

4 Conclusion

This chapter examines contemporary develop-ments in and around WHSs. Concerning those in the concept of WHSs, three essential devel-opments, the LWHD, Cultural Landscapes and HULs are discussed. Of these, the LWHD was de-veloped and has been updated constantly to in-fluence the alarming conditions of WHSs, which can seriously damage their OUVs and can lead to deprivation of their WH status, and to promote a series of corrective actions. On the other hand, the concepts of Cultural Landscapes and HULs were employed to make the concept of WHSs and the profile of the WHL as comprehensive as possible. It can be achieved by valuing excellent interactions between humans and the natural environment, and utilization of historic urban environments in the context of dynamic and ever- changing people’s lifestyles in contempo-rary society.

Contemporary developments around the concept of WHSs are categorized into culture- focused and nature-focused concepts. Regard-ing the former, WHSs, ICH and MoW can be understood as three major initiatives taken by UNESCO for conservation of cultural heritage at an international level, and can supplement each other to ensure conservation of diverse types of cultural heritage in different regions of the world. Regarding WHSs, intangible elements of nominated properties such as cultural traditions are assessed when they are considered for desig-nation as WHSs. In principle, WHSs are tangible properties that people can visit; although what human beings have developed throughout their history contains both tangible and intangible cultures. Thus, both kinds of cultural heritage must be conserved and passed on to future gen-erations. To this end, the idea of ICH is really important. According to UNESCO (2016), the concept of ICH contains: Oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the ICH; performing arts; social practices, rit-uals and festive events; knowledge and practic-es concerning nature and the universe; and


traditional craftsmanship. On the other hand, the concept of MoW focuses on conservation of ‘documentary heritage’. The MoW programme and register aim to facilitate preservation of the world’s documentary heritage; to support uni-versal access to documentary heritage; and to raise awareness worldwide of the presence and significance of documentary heritage (UNESCO, n.d.d). Compared to WHSs and ICH, however, MoW has not been developed enough as a key scheme for cultural heritage conservation as of 2017. Overall, two culture- focused contempo-rary developments around WHSs, IHC and MoW, appear to have been working relatively well with WHSs for conservation of varied cul-tural heritage in the world. Regarding IHC and MoW, there does not seem to be an apparent im-balance in various aspects such as the number of heritage and documents designated and be-tween the west, the east and other regions of the world, although there is room for further im-provement in these three schemes, particularly MoW, to solve or at least mitigate ongoing issues and to respond to future dangers caused by hu-man activities and/or natural disasters.

Concerning nature-focused concepts, WHSs, UGGs and BRs can be regarded as three main schemes adopted by UNESCO for conservation of natural heritage at a global level, and they supplement each other to certify conservation of diverse natural heritage in different regions of the world. The concept of UGGs sheds light on ‘geological’ heritage that is not covered in

other UNESCO schemes for natural heritage conservation. Creation of GGN is notable since this network could give opportunities to partici-pants from different countries to exchange and share their national schemes for conservation of geological heritage and enhance mutual sup-port and cooperation. On the other hand, BRs focus on conservation of biosphere where life on earth exists. Due to the complex nature and ex-tensive size of such areas, cooperation across national borders and a holistic approach at an international level are particularly significant for conservation of BRs. To this end, BRs all over the world also form a global network, WNBR, which promotes cooperation among different countries and demonstrates an approach to en-hance international collaboration via sharing and exchanging knowledge and experiences, building capacity and encouraging best practices (UNESCO, 2017g). Overall, two nature-focused contemporary developments around WHSs, UGGs and BRs, seem to have been working well with WHSs for conservation of wide-ranging natural heritage in the world. Concerning UGGs and BRs, there does not seem to be an obvious imbalance in various dimensions, including the number and distribution of areas listed, be-tween the west, the east and other regions of the world, although these schemes and WHSs would need to be reviewed regularly and enhanced fur-ther to respond to hazardous human and natu-ral threats that are ongoing or can occur in the future.

References

Abid, A. (1997) Memory of the World: preserving our documentary heritage. Museum International 49(1), 40–45.

Asogwa, B.C., Umeh, J.C. and Okwoche, V.A. (2012) The sociological and cultural significance of the Argungu International Fishing and Cultural Festival in Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2(11), 243–249.

Azman, N., Halim, S.A., Liu, O.P., Saidin, S. and Komoo, I. (2010) Public education in heritage conserva-tion for geopark community. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 7, 504–511.

Batisse, M. (1982) The biosphere reserve: a tool for environmental conservation and management. Envi-ronmental Conservation 9(2), 101–111.

Bennis, P. (1997) The United Nations and Palestine: partition and its aftermath. Arab Studies Quarterly 19(3), 47–76.

Bonheur, N. and Lane, B.D. (2002) Natural resources management for human security in Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve. Environmental Science & Policy 5(1), 33–41.

Burlando, M., Firpo, M., Queirolo, C., Rovere, A. and Vacchi, M. (2011) From geoheritage to sustainable development: strategies and perspectives in the Beigua Geopark (Italy). Geoheritage 3(2), 63–72.

144 Chapter 9

Farsani, N.T., Coelho, C. and Costa, C. (2011) Geotourism and geoparks as novel strategies for socio-economic development in rural areas. International Journal of Tourism Research 13(1), 68–81.

Gaillard, B. and Rodwell, D. (2015) A failure of process? Comprehending the issues fostering heritage conflict in Dresden Elbe Valley and Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Sites. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 6(1), 16–40.

Galla, A. (1999) Transformation in South Africa: a legacy challenged. Museum International 51(2), 38–43.The Guardian (2017) Unesco: Israel joins US in quitting UN heritage agency over ‘anti-Israel bias’. Avail-

able at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/12/us-withdraw-unesco-december-united-nations (accessed 7 November 2017).

Halim, S.A., Komoo, I., Salleh, H. and Omar, M. (2011) The geopark as a potential tool for alleviating com-munity marginality. Shima 5(1), 94–113.

Hankyoreh (2017) UNESCO’s International Advisory Committee delays review of comfort women docu-ments. Available at: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/815479.html (accessed 29 October 2017).

Harvey, D.R. (2007) UNESCO’s Memory of the World programme. Library Trends 56(1), 259–274.Heaney, M. (2016) The UNESCO Memory of the World programme. Alexandria: The Journal of National

and International Library and Information Issues 26(1) 46–55.Henriques, M.H., Tomaz, C. and Sá, A.A. (2012) The Arouca Geopark (Portugal) as an educational

resource: a case study. Episodes 35(4), 481–488.Historical Awareness Research Committee (2017) Statement of scholars of Japan opposed to the joint

registration of the ‘Voices of the “comfort women” of the Japanese military with UNESCO’s “Memory of the World” ’. Available at: http://harc.tokyo/en/?p=135 (accessed 29 October 2017).

Japan Times (2017) UNESCO may weigh opposing views on Memory of the World submissions in light of Japan’s ire. Available at: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/20/national/unesco-may-weigh- opposing-views-heritage-register-drawing-flak-japan/#.WfWcBY-0O01 (accessed 29 October 2017).

Jokilehto, J. (2014) Evolution of the normative framework. In: Bandarin, F. and van Oers, R. (eds) Recon-necting the City: The Historic Urban Landscape Approach and the Future of Urban Heritage. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, pp. 205–220.

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2004) Intangible heritage as metacultural production. Museum International 56 (1–2), 52–65.

Li, W., Ge, X. and Liu, C. (2005) Hiking trails and tourism impact assessment in protected area: Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve, China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 108(1–3), 279–293.

Lowenthal, D. (2005) Natural and cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies 11(1), 81–92.Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Rao, K.S., Chandrasekhar, K., Gavali, R. and Saxena, K.G. (2000) Analysis

and resolution of protected area–people conflicts in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environ-mental Conservation 27(1), 43–53.

McKeever, P.J. and Zouros, N. (2005) Geoparks: celebrating earth heritage, sustaining local communities. Episodes 28(4), 274–278.

Mead, S.M. (1983) Indigenous models of museums in Oceania. Museum International 35(2), 98–101.Minzhigdorj, B. and Erdenebaatar, B. (1993) Why Mongolians say sheep herders are lucky. Nomadic

Peoples 33, 47–49.Moufti, M.R. and Németh, K. (2013) The intra-continental Al Madinah Volcanic Field, western Saudi Ara-

bia: a proposal to establish Harrat Al Madinah as the first volcanic geopark in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Geoheritage 5(3), 185–206.

Nafziger, J.A. (1975) UNESCO-centered management of international conflict over cultural property. Hast-ings LJ 27, 1051–1068.

NPS (2017a) About us. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/index.htm (accessed 20 October 2017).NPS (2017b) Understand cultural landscapes. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/culturalland-

scapes/understand-cl.htm (accessed 20 October 2017).Phillips, A. (1998) The nature of cultural landscapes – a nature conservation perspective. Landscape

Research 23(1), 21–38.Rössler, M. (2006) World heritage cultural landscapes: a UNESCO flagship programme 1992–2006. Land-

scape Research 31(4), 333–353.Sankei News (2016) Nihon ga UNESCO Buntankin 38-okuen wo Shiharai (Japan paid 2016 financial con-

tribution to UNESCO) (in Japanese). Available at: http://www.sankei.com/politics/news/161222/plt1612220010-n1.html (accessed 29 October 2017).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/12/us-withdraw-unesco-december-united-nations

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/815479.html

http://harc.tokyo/en/?p=135

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/20/national/unesco-may-weigh-opposing-views-heritage-register-drawing-flak-japan/#.WfWcBY-0O01

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/20/national/unesco-may-weigh-opposing-views-heritage-register-drawing-flak-japan/#.WfWcBY-0O01

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/index.htm

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/culturallandscapes/understand-cl.htm

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/culturallandscapes/understand-cl.htm

http://www.sankei.com/politics/news/161222/plt1612220010-n1.html

http://www.sankei.com/politics/news/161222/plt1612220010-n1.html


Sankei News (2017) 8-kakoku no Ianfu-shiryo wa Toroku-handan Miokuri (Register of ‘Voice of Comfort Women’ has been suspended) (in Japanese). Available at: http://www.sankei.com/life/news/171031/lif1710310002-n1.html (accessed 18 November 2017).

Sirisrisak, T. and Akagawa, N. (2007) Cultural landscape in the world heritage list: understanding on the gap and categorization. City & Time 2(3), 11–20.

Smith, L. and Akagawa, N. (eds) (2008) Intangible Heritage. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.Taylor, K. and Lennon, J. (2011) Cultural landscapes: a bridge between culture and nature? International

Journal of Heritage Studies 17(6), 537–554.TCLF (2017a) About TCLF. Available at: https://tclf.org/about-tclf (accessed 20 October 2017).TCLF (2017b) About cultural landscapes. Available at: https://tclf.org/places/about-cultural-landscapes

( accessed 20 October 2017).UNESCO (2016) Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage: 2016 edition. Avail-

able at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images//0013/001325/132540e.pdf (accessed 24 October 2017).UNESCO (2017a) UNESCO Global geoparks. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural- sciences/

environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/ (accessed 31 October 2017).UNESCO (2017b) Fundamental features of a UNESCO global geopark. Available at: http://www.unesco.

org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/fundamental- features/ (accessed 31 October 2017).

UNESCO (2017c) List of UNESCO global geoparks. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural- sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/list-of-unesco-global-geoparks/ (accessed 31 October 2017).

UNESCO (2017d) Top 10 focus areas of UNESCO global geoparks. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/top-10-focus-areas/ (accessed 31 October 2017).

UNESCO (2017e) Biosphere reserves – learning sites for sustainable development. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/ ( accessed 3 November 2017).

UNESCO (2017f) Designation of biosphere reserves. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/designation-process/ (accessed 3 November 2017).

UNESCO (2017g) Main characteristics of biosphere reserves. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/main-characteristics/ ( accessed 7 November 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.a) Browse the lists of intangible cultural heritage and the register of good safeguarding practices. Available at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists (accessed 24 October 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.b) Capoeira circle. Available at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/capoeira-circle-00892 ( accessed 24 October 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.c) Traditional craftsmanship of the Mongol Ger and its associated customs. Available at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/traditional-craftsmanship-of-the-mongol-ger-and-its-associated- customs-00872 (accessed 24 October 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.d) Memory of the World. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/programme/mow (accessed 29 October 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.e) Memory of the World register. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication- and-information/memory-of-the-world/register/ (accessed 29 October 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.f) Memory of the World: International Advisory Committee (IAC). Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/memory-of-the-world/about-the-programme/ international-advisory-committee-iac/ (accessed 29 October 2017).

UNESCO (n.d.g) Memory of the World: documents of Nanjing Massacre. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/memory-of-the-world/register/full-list-of-registered- heritage/registered-heritage-page-2/documents-of-nanjing-massacre/ (accessed 29 October 2017).

U.S. Department of State (2017) The United States withdraws from UNESCO. Available at: https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/10/274748.htm (accessed 29 October 2017).

van Oers, R. (2006) Preventing the goose with the golden eggs from catching bird flu –UNESCO’s efforts in safeguarding the historic urban landscape. Available at: https://isocarp.org/app/uploads/2015/02/Istanbul-2006-_TXT_Ron-van-Oers.pdf (accessed 21 October 2017).

van Oers, R. (2007) Towards new international guidelines for the conservation of historic urban landscapes (HULs). City & Time 3(3), 43–51.



https://tclf.org/about-tclf

https://tclf.org/places/about-cultural-landscapes

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images//0013/001325/132540e.pdf

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/fundamental-features/



http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/list-of-unesco-global-geoparks/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/list-of-unesco-global-geoparks/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/top-10-focus-areas/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/earth-sciences/unesco-global-geoparks/top-10-focus-areas/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/designation-process/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/designation-process/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/main-characteristics/


https://ich.unesco.org/en/lists

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/capoeira-circle-00892

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/traditional-craftsmanship-of-the-mongol-ger-and-its-associated-customs-00872

https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/traditional-craftsmanship-of-the-mongol-ger-and-its-associated-customs-00872

https://en.unesco.org/programme/mow

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/memory-of-the-world/register/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/memory-of-the-world/register/

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/memory-of-the-world/about-the-programme/international-advisory-committee-iac/



http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/memory-of-the-world/register/full-list-of-registered-heritage/registered-heritage-page-2/documents-of-nanjing-massacre/



https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/10/274748.htm

https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/10/274748.htm

https://isocarp.org/app/uploads/2015/02/Istanbul-2006-_TXT_Ron-van-Oers.pdf

https://isocarp.org/app/uploads/2015/02/Istanbul-2006-_TXT_Ron-van-Oers.pdf

146 Chapter 9

WHC (2005) 15th General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (WHC-05/15.GA/INF.7). Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/ archive/2005/whc05-15ga-inf7e.pdf (accessed 21 October 2017).

WHC (2007a) Oman’s Arabian Oryx Sanctuary: first site ever to be deleted from UNESCO’s World Herit-age List. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/362/ (accessed 17 October 2017).

WHC (2007b) 16th Session of the General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (WHC-07/16.GA/11). Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2007/wh07-16ga-11e.pdf (accessed 21 October 2017).

WHC (2008) Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention: Annex 3. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf#annex3 (accessed 11 May 2018).

WHC (2009) Dresden is deleted from UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/522/ (accessed 17 October 2017).

WHC (2013) New life for historic cities: the historic urban landscape approach explained. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/news/documents/news-1026-1.pdf (accessed 15 October 2017).

WHC (2017a) World Heritage in danger. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/158/ (accessed 17 October 2017).

WHC (2017b) World Heritage List statistics. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/stat/#s7 (accessed 17 October 2017).

WHC (2017c) Natural and culturo-historical region of Kotor. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/125 (accessed 17 October 2017).

WHC (2017d) List of factors affecting the properties. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/factors/ ( accessed 17 October 2017).

WHC (2017e) List of World Heritage in danger. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/ (accessed 17 October 2017).

WHC (2017f) Historic centre of Vienna inscribed on List of World Heritage in Danger. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1684/ (accessed 17 October 2017).

WHC (2017g) World Heritage List. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ (accessed 17 October 2017).WHC (2017h) Cultural landscapes. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/ (accessed 17

October 2017).WHC (2017i) Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Available at:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ (accessed 21 October 2017).WHC (2017j) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Available

at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/hul/ (accessed 21 October 2017).WHC (2017k) Global strategy. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/ (accessed 24 October

2017).Yoshida, K. (2004) The museum and the intangible cultural heritage. Museum International 56(1–2), 108–112.

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2005/whc05-15ga-inf7e.pdf

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2005/whc05-15ga-inf7e.pdf


http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2007/wh07-16ga-11e.pdf

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2007/wh07-16ga-11e.pdf

https://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf#annex3



http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/news/documents/news-1026-1.pdf

http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/news/documents/news-1026-1.pdf

http://whc.unesco.org/en/158/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/stat/#s7

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/125


http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/



http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/


http://whc.unesco.org/en/hul/

http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/


Alhambra: part of Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzín, Granada, Spain

10

Reflection (Summary)

1 World Heritage Sites

1.1 Key agencies

The concept of World Heritage Sites (WHSs) is one of the core initiatives adopted by UNESCO for conservation of cultural and natural heritage at an international level. There are key agencies

associated with WHSs. The UNESCO World Her-itage Centre (WHC) was founded in 1992, and it works as the principal point and coordinator within UNESCO for all concerns on WHSs, and serves the daily management of the World Herit-age Convention (WH Convention) (WHC, 2017a). The countries that ratified the WH Convention are called States Parties. The World Heritage

148 Chapter 10

(WH) Committee is an intergovernmental com-mittee that aims to protect cultural and natural heritage holding Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) (WHC, 2017b). The WH Committee is sup-ported by official advisory bodies: the Internation-al Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the International Centre for the Study of the Pres-ervation and Restoration of Cultural Property ( ICCROM) and the International Union for Con-servation of Nature (IUCN) (WHC, 2017c).

1.2 Historical backdrops and essential information

In 1972, UNESCO brought the concept of WH into formal presence (WHC, 2017d). Sites must have OUV and satisfy at least one of ten selec-tion criteria (i)–(x) to be inscribed as WHSs, but the Committee deem that the criterion (vi) should be used with other criteria (WHC, 2017e). WHSs are enclosed by buffer zones that are important for WHS protection (WHC, 2017f). Various efforts have been made since 1972 to better reflect diversity of heritage all over the world in a fairer manner and to enhance WHS conservation further. Such endeavours include the introduction of the concept of Cul-tural Landscapes, and launch of the Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List.

1.3 World Heritage Convention and mission of World Heritage Sites

The WH Convention was approved by the Gen-eral Conference of UNESCO in 1972 (WHC, 2017g). The most significant characteristic of the Convention is that it links together in a single document the concepts of conservation of cultur-al and natural heritage (WHC, 2017h). Cameron and Rössler (2016) deem that it is a very success-ful international treaty that affects heritage conservation activities in States Parties. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the WH Convention (Operational Guidelines) were developed in 1977 for the practical operation of the Convention, and have been revised continu-ously by the WH Committee to reflect new con-cepts, knowledge and experiences (WHC, 2017i).

The WH Convention consists of 38 articles (WHC, 2017b), and several articles are closely as-sociated with key themes of this book (‘tourism’, ‘local communities’ and ‘heritage management and conservation activities’). Articles 1 and 2 de-fine the categories for cultural or natural heritage, and Article 5 refers to ‘local communities’ and ‘conservation activities’. Article 27.1 encourages States Parties to boost appreciation of WHSs by local and global communities through suitable methods, especially through educational and information programmes. Regarding ‘tourism’, ‘tourist’ is the only expression relevant to tourism that appears in the WH Convention (Article 11.4). Article 11.4 is chiefly about threats to WHSs and the List of World Heritage in Danger (LWHD), and ‘tourist development projects’ are mentioned as a possible threat to WHSs. Simultaneously, however, the WHC acknowledges the advantages of tour-ism for WHSs (see Section 4 in Chapter 1), and the magnitude of tourism for WHSs appears to have been progressively acknowledged by academics and practitioners recently (see Section 2.1 in Chapter 3). By utilizing the WH Convention, Operational Guidelines and all relevant initiatives, UNESCO aims to achieve the following WH mission:

• Encourage countries to sign the WH Con-vention and to ensure the protection of their natural and cultural heritage;

• Encourage States Parties to the Convention to nominate sites within their national ter-ritory for inclusion on the WH List (hereaf-ter WHL);

• Encourage States Parties to establish man-agement plans and set up reporting systems on the state of conservation of their WHSs;

• Help States Parties safeguard WH proper-ties by providing technical assistance and professional training;

• Provide emergency assistance for WHSs in immediate danger;

• Support States Parties’ public awareness- building activities for WH conservation;

• Encourage participation of the local popu-lation in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage; and

• Encourage international cooperation in the conservation of our world’s cultural and natural heritage.

(WHC, 2017g)

Reflection (Summary) 149

1.4 Inscription of World Heritage Sites

The process of WHS listing is somewhat compli-cated; however, the submission of a nomination file is a main task to be considered for WHSs (Shackley, 1998; Leask, 2006). Only States Par-ties can submit a nomination file (WHC, 2017j). Nomination files are examined by advisory bod-ies, and then are considered by the WH Commit-tee. Once the sites are designated as WHSs, UNESCO monitors their management and con-servation (Shackley, 1998) to see if their OUV has not been damaged. If WHSs have serious management or conservation issues, they might be added to the LWHD. If their OUV is irreversi-bly damaged, WHSs may lose their WH status. Before a State Party submits a nomination file it should have enough opportunity to obtain local knowledge on the site’s management and con-servation and to garner the views of local com-munities and local government. Otherwise, the nomination process can be a highly top-down approach, and this may not reflect local commu-nities’ and local governments’ thoughts on WHS designation. It is crucial since the level of eager-ness to gain WH status can vary between local communities and government, and even within local communities.

1.5 Concept of World Heritage Sites and Outstanding Universal Value

‘Heritage’ has a variety of definitions. In the context of WHSs, heritage contains both cul-tural and natural heritage. It could be stated that WHSs are inherited from the past, are uti-lized in the current context and must be passed on to future generations. Heritage can also be either tangible or intangible. Regarding this, WHSs are tangible objects, complexes, resourc-es, places or spaces that people can see, visit and experience. However, intangible aspects are also valued in the inscription process of WHSs as evidenced by the selection criteria. There-fore, WHSs possess both tangible and intangible heritage elements. Heritage is also linked to ‘identity’ at personal, local, regional and/or na-tional levels and is evaluated in each of these contexts. On the other hand, what UNESCO

requires if heritage is to be designated as WHS status is OUV. WHC (2017g) states that what makes the concept of WH unique is its ‘univer-sal’ application, and theoretically, WHSs belong to everybody, irrespective of the territory where they are situated. Indeed, this is an innovative approach for heritage conservation. However, such a universal application is criticized by re-searchers (e.g. Winter 2013). Their main con-cern can be interpreted as an enquiry: Could WHSs be appreciated equally by all human be-ings, although, inherently, heritage is related to identity at personal, local, regional and/or national levels and is valued by an individual, local community, region and/or country? This would indicate that the legal ownership of WHSs still belongs to States Parties, whilst their moral ownership belongs to all humankind. This dual ownership can lead to issues in spirit of place/heritage; historical connections between local communities and heritage; the status of heritage in a local, regional or nation-al context; the significance of heritage for local communities, regions or a nation; and decision- making in, responsibility for and stewardship of heritage management and conservation activities.

Concerning the ‘value’ component of OUV, ‘integrity’ is a standard when the ‘value’ of prop-erties nominated for any type of WHSs is ap-praised, and ‘authenticity’ is a benchmark when the ‘value’ of those nominated for cultural and mixed WHSs is assessed. ‘Integrity’ is a degree of the entirety and completeness of cultural, natu-ral and/or mixed heritage and its elements (WHC, 2017i). Hence, investigation of the conditions of integrity necessitates evaluating the extent to which the property:

a) includes all elements necessary to express its OUV;

b) is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance;

c) suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect.

This should be presented in a statement of integrity.

(WHC, 2017i).

150 Chapter 10

Regarding ‘authenticity’, WHC (2017i) states that, depending on the type of cultural and mixed heritage and their cultural back-ground, nominated properties can be under-stood to satisfy the condition of authenticity if their cultural values are expressed in a straight-forward and convincing manner through fol-lowing attributes:

• form and design;

• materials and substance;

• use and function;

• traditions, techniques and management systems;

• location and setting;

• language, and other forms of intangible heritage;

• spirit and feeling; and

• other internal and external factors.(WHC, 2017i)

Like concepts of heritage, there are diverse ideas of authenticity between academia and the ‘real world’, and there is no consensus about what authenticity means. Thus the concept of authenticity in the context of WHSs could also be somewhat different from these definitions. Hence it is advisable for UNESCO to review the concept of authenticity referring to current key arguments on this concept in academia and in the real world when they update the Operational Guidelines.

2 Eastern and Western Viewpoints

2.1 Introduction

Western viewpoints, particularly Europe and North America, were reflected well in the WH Convention, the properties on the WHL and the Operational Guidelines in the 1970s and 1980s (see Section 3 in Chapter 1). This situation has improved since 1992 through various measures taken by the WH Committee and consideration of various WHS stakeholders’ opinions. Howev-er, there is still room for improvement. To this end, this section summarizes Section 7 in Chap-ter 1 to demonstrate eastern and western stand-points of the subjects relevant to WHSs, chiefly referring to Japan and the UK.

2.2 Societies and communities

Asian societies such as Japan tend to be more work-orientated than western countries such as the UK. Collectivism and Confucian ethics in Asian societies seem to affect the behaviour of Asian people. Overall, however, this propensity has been gradually changing, especially in de-veloped Asian countries. It also appears to have affected social issues such as deterioration of sense of community or weakened bonds among local people. For instance, the tendency could be observed in Japan and may negatively affect sus-tainable tourism development and heritage con-servation activities at WHSs (Jimura, 2007, 2011).

2.3 Culture and religion

Main religions are different between the west and east. In some Asian countries, the aforementioned Confucian ethics and dominant religions such as Buddhism influence culture and society. In Japan, Buddhism and Shintoism are the dominant reli-gions. However, the principle of Shintoism may be difficult to understand or accept for followers of monotheistic religions since everything in the universe has its own deity (kami) in Shintoism. This principle is represented as ‘myriad deities’ (yaoyorozu-no-kami) (Sakurai, 2014). However, adherents to other religions might view that it is a lack of devotion to the Deity. Concerning culture, Japan has an established tradition of adopting ele-ments of foreign culture (Davies and Ikeno, 2002), mainly from China and Korea since ancient times, Europe since the 16th century and the USA after World War II; and has been modifying such ele-ments to fit Japanese society. The capability of Japanese society and culture to assimilate different cultures without causing serious conflicts is linked to a philosophy of Japanese Buddhism: everything is in flux and nothing is permanent (shogyo- mujo). However, this uniqueness can also be seen negatively, as Graburn (1995) claims that Japa-nese people have a lower sense of cultural self- confidence than most Europeans.

2.4 Heritage and authenticity

‘Authenticity’ is important when the value of properties nominated for cultural and mixed


WHSs is evaluated (see Section 1.5). Concern-ing authenticity and heritage, the attitudes to-wards them may differ between the west and the east (e.g. the UK and Japan). The former is likely to consider that conserving tangible ele-ments of heritage is essential to retain authen-ticity of heritage, whilst the later tends to value intangible aspects of heritage more, such as spirit of place (Jimura, 2007). Ashworth and Tunbridge (2000) assert that the Japanese lax stance towards authenticity of heritage might be a reason for Japanese passion for replica construction. Indeed, many replicas of west-ern buildings and townscapes have been creat-ed in Japan. The majority of them are used as visitor attractions, typically theme parks. Such occurrences can also be witnessed in other eastern countries such as China. However, it should not be concluded that eastern attitudes towards authenticity are looser than western ones. For instance, normally, Japanese visitors know that such western buildings and town-scapes are replicas, and they simply want to enjoy something different from their everyday lives (Jimura, 2007) or feel the western atmos-phere. They also relish visiting genuine west-ern buildings in Japan, most of which were originally built as foreigners’ dwellings more than a century ago and are open to the public as historic visitor attractions (Jimura, 2017). These points imply that Japanese people ac-knowledge the differences in authenticity be-tween these two types of western architecture, and enjoy both with different motivations and interests. Longing for western culture and her-itage would be a chief reason why replicas of western architecture were constructed in the east; however, westerners may view that these replicas represent loose approaches of the east towards authenticity of heritage and a lack of respect for originality.

2.5 Conservation: culture and nature

As for conservation of cultural and natural her-itage, there are some variances between the west and the east. Regarding conservation of cultural heritage, the attitudes towards authenticity of heritage would vary between the west and the east, as discussed earlier. Concerning Japanese attitudes, moreover, they seem to be influenced

by an ideology of Japanese religions and ways to cognize the world. In Japan, traditionally, con-serving intangible elements of cultural heritage has been more prioritized than conserving tan-gible elements. The differences in building mate-rials between the west and the east can also be deemed a cause of such differences. In the west, most buildings are made of stones or bricks, while in the east, many are made of wood, espe-cially historic ones that are often seen as cultural heritage. Generally, conserving the latter with original materials is more demanding than con-serving the former with original fabrics. Fur-thermore, countries in the east are more likely to be hit by severe natural disasters such as earth-quakes and tsunamis. Therefore, historic build-ings in the east would be more difficult to be conserved without losing their original fabric than those in the west.

Concerning conservation of natural herit-age, dissimilarities between the west and the east can also be found. In the west, convention-ally, people have seen nature as a threat, and this view partly stems from Christianity (White, 1967). Curtin (2005) argues that, traditionally, interactions between people and the nature surrounding them have been rather limited. On the other hand, conventionally, Japanese people have lived in harmony with nature (Oyadomari, 1989). Intriguingly, however, conservation-ism and the modern conservation movement emerged in the west in the late 19th century. Japan imported the concept of nature conserva-tion from the west. In Japan, the conservation movement was developed by social elites during the Meiji period; however, it had not grown un-til the early 1970s (Oyadomari, 1989). Overall, the conservation movement in Japan appears to be still less mature than the west. The immature status of the movement for nature conservation can also be observed or even more prominent in other eastern countries and less-developed countries (LDCs) as they might have to prior-itize economic development rather than nature conservation.

2.6 Cities and planning

The number of WHSs recognized as ‘historic centres’ in the east is smaller than in the west. In Japan, it is difficult to detect the areas that can

152 Chapter 10

be regarded as ‘historic centres’ since historic buildings and zones tend to be scattered all over a city (e.g. Kyoto). Therefore, their conservation activities must be planned and conducted as part of vast urban planning systems (Inaba, 1998, cited in Jimura, 2007). In Japan, further-more, it is hard to reach a consensus about appearance of buildings’ exterior for aesthetic quality of built environment as individuals’ rights are strong (Inaba, 1998, cited in Jimura, 2007). In the west, the borders between cities may be efficiently limited to an urbanized area and may even eliminate suburban and peripher-al areas (Smailes, 1966). Thus it is natural that the concept of ‘historic centre’ stems from the west, especially Europe. European countries also established public urban planning schemes prior to other regions of the world, and these systems have supported the development and conser-vation of historic centres. Orbasli (2000) states that people who value older quarters as resi-dences have been the stimulus behind robust conservation movements in Europe. This incli-nation would be dissimilar to the tendency in the east. Overall, newness and convenience are more important for Japanese people than histor-ic atmosphere when they select a place to live (Shimahara, 2009).

2.7 Tourism

Traditionally, there are some differences in the nature of excursionists and tourists between the east and the west. The collective nature of eastern visitors is noted by Graburn (1995) and Meng (2010). This tendency is different from western visitors who tend to travel more as indi-viduals or couples (Jimura, 2007). However, Jimura (2007) argues that there has been a steady shift from collectivism to individualism in Japanese people’s travel behaviour, and this change could also be observed among Korean and Chinese people. Concerning tourism as an industry, its potential economic benefits are highly valued by both LDCs and developed countries regardless of the west or the east. Cul-tural and natural heritage is essential for tour-ism, particularly for tourism in rural areas where their traditional main industries have

been deteriorating, and this is also common to the west and the east.

3 World Heritage Sites: Heritage Management and Conservation

Activities

Nowadays, WH is an established concept among both ordinary people such as visitors and local inhabitants, and experts such as practitioners and academics. What WHSs means to achieve is represented in the WH Convention, and it works as a foundation of WHSs. The concept of OUV is key to WHSs, and they may lose WH status if their OUV is seriously compromised. However, the ‘universal’ part of OUV can be challenged due to the fundamental nature of heritage. In WHS management and conservation activities, in practice, the Operational Guidelines act as an essential instruction, and have been updated re-currently to echo latest ideas, emergent matters and different voices to keep working as a current and inclusive basis for WHS management and conservation activities. The WH Convention, Operational Guidelines, and Reporting and Moni-toring system are the bases of the management of and conservation activities for WHSs. Even if heritage is listed as WHSs, its meaning and value in local, regional and/or national contexts still must be respected to preserve its authenticity and integrity and to ensure diversity of heritage around the globe. Towards this end, cumulative knowledge and technique carried on from an-cestors and unique to each WHS should be pre-served and practised in WHS management and conservation activities.

Both tangible and intangible elements are contained in the selection criteria for WHSs. The aforementioned expertise and methods are more or less unique to each heritage. Such know-how and techniques for heritage management and conservation have significance at local, regional and/or national levels even prior to WHS listing, and can contribute to keeping heritage ‘vibrant’ even after WHS designation with the WH Con-vention, Operational Guidelines and Reporting and Monitoring system. As a whole, intangible ele-ments for the management and conservation of tangible heritage appear to be more appreciated


in the east than in the west. Theoretical and prac-tical issues in WHSs have been improved con-stantly since 1972. However, it might be better to value the meaning of intangible aspects of tangi-ble heritage more in the selection criteria and de-cision-making process for WHSs, particularly cultural WHSs, as the case of Ise Jingu indicates (see Section 3.5 in Chapter 2).

Diverse stakeholders are involved in WHS management and conservation activities at macro (e.g. States Parties) and micro (e.g. WHS managers) levels. All WHS stakeholders must take their responsibilities to retain WH status and OUV. Furthermore, it would be ideal for a WHS to have a single organization responsible for the WHS as a whole to take a holistic ap-proach towards its management and conserva-tion activities (Jimura, 2003). It is particularly useful for a WHS listed as a certain area where different types of stakeholders are based. It would also be effective to reconcile various aspirations of diverse stakeholders in and around the WHS. Nowadays; tourism plays a significant role, espe-cially financial contributions, for most WHSs, but it can also damage WHSs. That is why seek-ing and practising a best balance between con-servation and tourism, and settling demands of local communities and those of visitors, are im-perative for WHS management and conserva-tion in a sustainable manner.

4 World Heritage Sites: Tourism

4.1 World Heritage Sites: tourism development

Throughout the history of development theories, their emphasis has changed from economic de-velopment to more people-centred development. The magnitude of heterogeneity of societies and cultures in the world must be recognized enough to conserve social and cultural diversity. This view is supported by the principle of sustainable development. The concept of sustainable devel-opment became noticeable internationally in the 1980s, and its core principle is to achieve the tri-ple bottom line (TBL) (economic, sociocultural and environmental) of sustainability. Overall, the above-mentioned shift in development theories

applies to tourism development; and ‘responsibil-ity’ and ‘balancing’ are keys for sustainable tour-ism development. Concerning responsibility, every stakeholder in tourism must take responsi-bility for the implications of their behaviour and are expected to take action about it. To fulfil sustainable tourism development, a best balance has to be considered, identified and upheld be-tween each of the following:


• needs of the current generation and possi-ble needs of future generations in order to sustain a certain quality of life for both;

• natural resources required for the life of hu-man beings, flora and fauna;

• needs of stakeholders on the host side of tourism such as local communities, and needs of stakeholders on the guest side of tourism such as tourists;


• powers of multinational corporations and local small or medium-sized enterprises in tourism businesses (see Section 1.5 in Chapter 3).

Positive and negative implications of tour-ism development can be explored by the eco-nomic, sociocultural or environmental pillar of the TBL. These implications are also observed at WHSs and tourist destinations having a WHS and can be more apparent than usual tourist destinations. There are issues in tourism devel-opment that are unique or remarkable to WHSs. Concerning the host side of tourism, WHSs must equip their heritage conservation plan included in their nomination file. Moreover, WHSs should also possess their tourism development and/or management plan, although such a plan tends to be neglected. These two types of plans should work together for sustainable development of WHSs. WHSs are expected to utilize tourism de-velopment to increase economic benefits so that part of such benefits can be spent for WHS con-servation. At WHSs, however, the pace of tour-ism development can be excessively rapid and its scale can be overly extensive after WHS listing. Therefore, balancing heritage conservation and tourism development is vital for WHSs. Local

154 Chapter 10

government must remember that tourism devel-opment in and around their WHS is a significant agenda; however, it must be planned and con-ducted within an overall development and plan-ning framework for the municipality. Regarding the guest side of tourism, WH status can sup-port tourism development as both domestic and overseas visitors may consider it when they choose places to visit, although the status does not motivate all types of visitors. Overall, WHSs or tourist destinations with a WHS which were not famous among visitors before WHS listing tend to experience a larger increase in visitor numbers after WHS designation than those that were already well recognized by visitors even be-fore inscription. The aforementioned matters associated with the host and guest sides of tour-ism are closely linked to tourism marketing for WHSs.

4.2 World Heritage Sites: tourism marketing

The author classifies WHSs into three types in terms of tourism: ‘Objects’ that people come to see (e.g. ‘Madara Rider’); ‘attractions’ that visi-tors come to enter (e.g. ‘Rila Monastery’); or ‘destinations’ that people come to explore and around which local communities often exist (e.g. ‘City of Potosí’). Of these, marketing activities for ‘objects’ and ‘attractions’ would be directed by WHSs, and/or part of those conducted by a na-tion or municipality they belong to. Concerning ‘destinations’, their marketing activities would be managed mainly by their destination market-ing organizations (DMOs) where WHSs are situ-ated. Overall, WH status is beneficial for tourism and destination marketing as the status is seen as a sought-after brand by both supply and demand sides of tourism. Actually, the majority of desti-nations with a WHS appear to make the most of WH status for marketing purposes. WH status can also be viewed by visitors as authorization for genuineness and excellence by UNESCO; however, the number of WHSs has been increas-ing year by year. Hence, the rivalry among WHSs has become tougher and the appeal of WH status to visitors might have been declining.

WHSs are obliged to the WH Convention and Operational Guidelines, and aim to maintain their OUV and WH status. To this end, the types of tourism and kinds of visitors a WHS intends to

encourage and attract should be considered thor-oughly and agreed among main stakeholders be-fore WHS inscription, although it is challenging due to various interests and aspirations of these stakeholders. Considering this, nowadays DMOs are expected to play as destination ‘management’ organizations as well as destination ‘marketing’ organizations. Furthermore, the best balance be-tween conservation, types of tourism and main target segments can vary by WHS. These differ-ences need to be reflected in tourism marketing strategies and activities for each WHS.

WH status is not a panacea in tourism mar-keting but can draw certain types of visitors such as heritage tourists. Regarding the rela-tions between WH status and visitor numbers, WHSs whose sizes are rather small, which were not renowned among visitors prior to WHS list-ing and which are relatively difficult to access, are inclined to experience a more drastic in-crease in visitor numbers and rate than other WHSs. It should also be noted that some WHSs see such an increase only for a few years after WHS designation. If WHSs become excessively popular among visitors after WHS listing, de-marketing is a marketing instrument WHSs can employ to attain a better balance between WHS conservation and tourism.

5 World Heritage Sites: Local Communities

Local communities and local people are one of the vital stakeholders for WHS conservation and tourism at WHSs and play essential roles in these activities. Various local communities have different characteristics owing to a range of ex-trinsic factors. Each local community is hetero-geneous because they consist of local residents whose interests, aspirations and attitudes to-wards a WHS and tourism are different. The sup-port of local communities is critical for WHS conservation and tourism development. To this end, local communities and local inhabitants should be given enough opportunities to make their voices heard and to be involved in crucial decision-making processes in WHS conserva-tion and tourism development. With regard to this, local governments and key agencies related to WHS conservation and tourism (e.g. local conservation body and DMO) need to work closely with local communities and community


groups. The main interest of the private sector, such as tourism businesses, is to gain economic benefit. As a member of a tourist destination that is or has a WHS, however, they should also take their responsibility for WHS conservation and tourism through their business. To make the most of the benefits from their businesses for local communities, multiplier effects should be maximized and leakages should be minimized. Local residents are also expected to be active players through working in the tourism industry or supporting tourism and WHS conservation in various ways. Direct and indirect, and visible and invisible, advantages from WH status and tourism development should be acknowledged by local communities. To this end, a community- based and ‘glocal’ approach should be adopted in WHS conservation and tourism at a local level. In other words, how a WHS and tourism can contribute to a local community must be deliberated among main stakeholders in a WHS and tourism, and it is essential to obtain local communities’ support.

WH status and tourism can produce diverse changes in local people’s minds after WHS desig-nation. There are some differences in these mat-ters among WHSs in different regions of the world; however, there do not seem to be clear distinctions between the west and the east. In Chapter 5, five changes are examined as salient examples of such attitudinal changes: (i) atti-tudes towards visitors; (ii) interest in heritage conservation; (iii) attachment to place of resi-dence; (iv) pride in place of residence; and (v) lo-cal identity. Overall, WH status can cause positive changes in these five aspects. Of these, (iv) pride in place of residence can be understood as the most solid change occurring in local people’s minds after WHS inscription. In addition, local people who have closer links with a WHS in terms of their demographics are more likely to experience such positive changes in their minds than other inhabitants.

6 Changes in Local Communities and Views towards Changes

6.1 Introduction

In addition to the changes in local people’s minds after WHS listing (Chapter 5), this book

has explored economic, sociocultural and envi-ronmental changes in local communities be-cause of WH status and/or tourism development after WHS designation, and local people’s views towards such changes (Chapters 6, 7 and 8). It is important to consider all of these impacts of WH status with those of tourism advanced since WHS designation as WH status and tourism of-ten affect local communities together, and nowa-days, most WHSs are popular tourist destinations or visitor attractions.

6.2 Economic changes

Economic impacts of WHS listing should be ex-amined at macro and micro levels to fully under-stand these impacts. WHSs could obtain financial support for their conservation from organiza-tions at different levels or systems (e.g. World Heritage Fund). However, there is no automatic funding for being a WHS. Tourism can diversify local businesses and/or strengthen the local economy, and this advantage can be encouraged by WH status. Tourism can be a new main in-dustry for a municipality where their traditional key industries have been declining. The impact of WHS inscription can be enormous if the desti-nations are not famous among visitors before WHS designation, are relatively small and are located in remote areas. WH status and tourism can also enlarge employment opportunities for local residents, including females and elderly peo-ple. Some characteristics of tourism-related jobs, such as seasonal or part-time, are often criti-cized; however, these traits may suit certain resi-dents. Additionally, WH status can encourage young people to return to their home town as employment opportunities may increase and the value their home town has is acknowledged by them thanks to WH status and/or tourism devel-oped by WH status. However, there are also downsides. As discussed earlier, tourism develop-ment after WHS inscription can be too fast and/or too vast for local communities. In this case, local people may change their occupations, and begin to work in tourism businesses. Besides, local gov-ernment and tourism associations must expand services and facilities to satisfy visitors’ demands and to accommodate an increased number of vis-itors. Consequently, the local economy may rely significantly on tourism, and the services and facilities developed for tourism can be financial

156 Chapter 10

burdens for local communities. As tourism is of-ten affected by external factors, tourism- related businesses at WHSs can be influenced negatively, for instance, by economic (e.g. economic down-turns), sociocultural (e.g. terrorism) and environ-mental (e.g. natural disasters) factors. Moreover, the inflow of strangers encouraged by WH status may limit positive changes in employment oppor-tunities for local people, government revenue and household income. Furthermore, if tourism busi-nesses are owned and run by outsiders who are not based in WHSs or destinations having a WHS, it could increase leakages of tourism in-come from the local economy. Local communities at WHSs might also struggle with an increase in the cost of living, although the impact of WH sta-tus and/or tourism advanced after WHS designa-tion on this issue appears to be limited.

Local communities deem that WH status and tourism since WHS listing have diversified local businesses, particularly tourism business-es. The downside is that tourism businesses serve the needs of visitors rather than those of local people. In local people’s views, further-more, local businesses tend to be more diversi-fied only at WHSs where their core industries were not tourism before WHS designation. Lo-cal inhabitants are likely to feel that employ-ment opportunities in and around WHSs have not changed or increased, especially in tourism businesses, whilst local specialists such as the tourism department of the local government tend to have a more positive view. Overall, finan-cial benefits of tourism and/or WH status do not seem to be recognized by local people who are not engaged in tourism businesses. Stated differ-ently, indirect economic benefits for the whole local community (e.g. improvements in local fa-cilities) would be difficult for them to recognize. This issue seems to be more or less common to most WHSs and tourist destinations in the world, and there would not be obvious dissimi-larities in this tendency between those in the east and the west.

6.3 Sociocultural changes

Sociocultural impacts of WHS listing must be examined in the context of sociocultural back-grounds of the places where WHSs are situated. There are sociocultural issues unique to or

prominent in WHSs (see Section 2 in Chapter 7). Among them, a split between a WHS and its neighbouring areas is peculiarly noteworthy as eventually it can abolish the unity of local communities. Because of the nature of this is-sue, it can occur in and around cultural WHSs that are designated as specific areas where local people reside. Even if a site is listed as a WHS it would be hard to apply the WH Convention in practice and to achieve the WH mission, if such an emotional gap exists between local communi-ties in and around a WHS. To regain the accord, local residents living in a WHS should compre-hend the meaning of WH status for the wider community as well as the WHS itself. Through this, a WHS can support the further success of the whole municipality as a tourist destination, as a place to live and as a stronghold of the WHS. The apprehensions about heritage conservation after WHS listing are another key issue. In prin-ciple, everything in the world keeps changing, and the author believes that this axiom also ap-plies to WHSs and their settings. In this sense, it is natural that priorities for key stakeholders at a local level such as local communities also con-tinue changing as time passes. This means that the importance of WH status in a local context may decline in the future. Furthermore, the con-dition of heritage and its settings would also keep altering even after WHS listing. It would be almost impossible for humankind to control the changes in natural and built environments, par-ticularly the former. Thus, the integrity (and au-thenticity) of a WHS may decline and its OUV may also deteriorate in the future. It might be only an eastern or Japanese approach; however, in the author’s opinion, even WHSs cannot last for ever in a constantly changing world. Indeed, losing WH status or inclusion in the LWHD is re-grettable, but can be understandable and should be accepted, if it is caused by the aforementioned factors and/or based on a consensus of all key stakeholders, particularly those at a local level. By contrast, something ordinary for our generation (e.g. current architectural styles) might be valued as heritage by future generations and listed as WHSs in the future. This is the same as what our generation has been doing about things inherited from the past that were not valued as heritage by the people in the past (e.g. industrial sites).

As a whole, it would be rather challenging to differentiate sociocultural changes initiated or encouraged by WH status from those caused


or promoted by tourism advanced by WH status. This is primarily because these two are frequent-ly united and work together for local communi-ties in and around WHSs positively or negatively. Of diverse distinctive sociocultural changes that are confirmed at WHSs, the changes in interac-tions and cultural exchanges between local peo-ple and visitors can be seen as the most positive and common ones. It is deplorable that in some cases ties among local people can be weakened by WH status and/or tourism. As a site becomes more popular as a tourist destination because of WH status, an increasing number of local people may begin to pursue their personal (economic) advantages rather than the collective well-being of the local community. This is associated with the growth of materialism and lack of respect for local culture and social customs.

6.4 Environmental changes

Relative to economic and sociocultural impacts of WHS designation on local communities, its environmental impacts on the communities, particularly direct impacts, appear to be rather limited. That is because environmental changes in local communities are likely to be initiated or enhanced by tourism activities that are ad-vanced by WH status. As a whole, tourism tends to cause negative changes in the natural envi-ronment, while it can instigate positive changes in the built environment such as infrastructures. WHC (2017k) lists 14 primary factors that af-fect the OUV of WHSs:

1. Buildings and development;2. Transportation infrastructure;3. Utilities or service infrastructure;4. Pollution;5. Biological resource use/modification;6. Physical resource extraction;7. Local conditions affecting physical fabric;8. Social/cultural uses of heritage;9. Other human activities; 10. Climate change and severe weather events; 11. Sudden ecological or geological events; 12. Invasive/alien species or hyper-abundant species; 13. Management and institutional factors; and 14. Other factor(s).

Tourism is included in two primary factors, ‘Buildings and development’ and ‘Social/cultural

uses of heritage’, as a secondary factor. Of these primary factors, ‘Climate change and severe weather events’ is seen as the most intimidating threat to WHS conservation (The Guardian, 2014; IUCN, 2014), and human actions can be seen as one of the main causes of climate change. Obvi-ously, natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes may damage WHSs and their OUV, but it is almost impossible for humankind to pre-vent them. However, human actions are deeply associated with the majority of the aforemen-tioned primary factors and can negatively influ-ence the OUV of WHSs in a direct or indirect way. Simultaneously, however, it is also true that there are numerous measures human beings can take for the conservation of the natural en-vironment surrounding WHSs.

The changes in the natural environment that have been directly caused by WH status seem to be very limited, but these changes ap-pear to be positive ones from local communities’ viewpoints. Concerning the changes in built environment (infrastructures), generally, it is challenging to identify whether they are imme-diately triggered by WH status. In many cases, however, WH status does not appear to directly cause such changes. Stated differently, WH sta-tus can encourage tourism development at WHSs or destinations holding a WHS, and then advanced tourism might provoke positive rather than negative changes in local infrastructures. Usually, local people do not seem to feel that the changes in infrastructure are caused directly by WH status. In addition, even indirect impacts of WH status or direct impacts of tourism advanced by the status on the changes in local infrastruc-ture are not always confirmed by local people.

7 Contemporary Developments in and around World Heritage Sites

There are three fundamental contemporary de-velopments in the concept of WHSs, namely the LWHD, the idea of ‘Cultural Landscapes’ and the notion of ‘Historic Urban Landscapes’ (hereafter HULs). The LWHD aims to warn about the worrying conditions of WHSs and encourage a series of corrective actions, while the concepts of Cultural Landscapes and HULs intend to make the concept of WHSs and the shape of the WHL as complete as possible. Thanks to these notions,

158 Chapter 10

the evidence of outstanding communications between humans and the natural environment can be valued properly, and the use of historic urban environments in people’s lifestyles can be valued.

Contemporary developments around the concept of WHSs are divided into culture- focused and nature-focused concepts. Along with WHSs, Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) and Memory of the World (MoW) are key schemes adopted by UNESCO for conservation of cultural herit-age at a global level and complement each other to guarantee conservation of a variety of cultur-al heritage in different countries. The idea of ICH is imperative for the conservation of intan-gible heritage as well as intangible components of tangible heritage. According to UNESCO (2016), the concept of ICH consists of:

a) Oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the ICH;b) Performing arts;c) Social practices, rituals and festive events;d) Knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; ande) Traditional craftsmanship.

The emphasis of the concept of MoW is the upkeep of ‘documentary heritage’. Relative to WHSs and ICH, MoW is immature as a main ini-tiative for cultural heritage conversation. Overall, IHC and MoW do not seem to have an obvious disparity between the west, the east and other regions of the world. However, there are still areas for enhancement in both conceptual and practical aspects of the three initiatives, especial-ly MoW, for conservation of cultural heritage in the future.

Together with WHSs, UNESCO Global Geoparks (UGGs) and Biosphere Reserves (BRs) are core systems implemented by UNESCO for conservation of natural heritage at an interna-tional level, and work mutually to ensure con-servation of various natural heritage in diverse regions of the world. The concept of UGGs pays attention to ‘geological’ heritage that is not em-bedded enough in other UNESCO plans for natu-ral heritage conservation. Furthermore, creation of a Global Geoparks Network is notable as it could encourage interactions among partici-pants from various countries and their mutual cooperation at a global level. On the other hand,

the focus of BRs is conservation of the biosphere. Collaboration among nations and a holistic strategy at an international level are necessary for BR conservation because of the massive extent and composite nature of BRs. To this end, BRs in the world also establish the World Net-work of Biosphere Reserves that stimulates sup-port across national borders and international partnership through exchanging knowledge and experience, building capacity and promoting best practices (UNESCO, 2017). Overall, UGGs and BRs do not seem to show a clear imbalance in various facets between the west, the east and other regions of the world; though these schemes and WHSs would need to be reconsidered from time to time and improved further to tackle the dangers that can arise.

8 Suggested Academic Models

The author proposes models that explain the main interrelationships:

• between WH status, tourism and local resi-dents’ views towards principal changes in local people’s minds (Fig. 5.2 in Chapter 5);

• between WH status, tourism and local in-habitants’ views towards economic changes in local communities (Fig. 6.2 in Chapter 6);

• between WH status, tourism and local people’s views towards sociocultural changes in local communities (Fig. 7.2 in Chapter 7); and

• between WH status, tourism and local residents’ views towards environmental changes in local communities (Fig. 8.1 in Chapter 8).

In Figures 6.2, 7.2 and 8.1, the colour shades of the arrows between ‘WH Status’ and ‘Changes in Local Community’ signify the strength of a cause-and-effect relationship be-tween these two: the arrow in Figure 7.2 shows the strongest relationship and the one in Figure 8.1 displays the weakest.

In light of these four frameworks and key outcomes in previous chapters, the author sug-gests a model that summarizes the key interre-lationships between WHSs, WH status, tourism, local communities and conservation activities as the foremost deliverables of this book (see Fig. 10.1).


References

Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. (2000) The Tourist-Historic City: Retrospect and Prospect of Manag-ing the Heritage City. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.

Cameron, C. and Rössler, M. (2016) Many Voices, One Vision: The Early Years of the World Heritage Convention. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

Curtin, S. (2005) Nature, wild animals and tourism: an experiential view. Journal of Ecotourism 4(1), 1–15.Davies, R.J. and Ikeno, O. (eds) (2002) The Japanese Mind: Understanding Contemporary Japanese

Culture. Tuttle Publishing, Rutland, Vermont.Graburn, N. (1995) The past in the present in Japan: nostalgia and neo-traditionalism in contemporary

Japanese domestic tourism. In: Butler, R.W. and Pearce, D. (eds) Change in Tourism: People, Places, Processes. Routledge, Abingdon, UK, pp. 47–70.

The Guardian (2014) More than a third of natural world heritage sites face ‘significant threats’. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/13/more-than-a-third-of-natural-world-heritage-sites-face-significant-threats (accessed 19 December 2017).

IUCN (2014) World Heritage outlook. Available at: http://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ (accessed 19 December 2017).

Jimura, T. (2003) Visitor management – as a professional responsibility of the various site managers (Mar-itime Greenwich – Cultural World Heritage Site). Master’s thesis, University of Greenwich, London.


Jimura, T. (2011) The impact of world heritage site designation on local communities – a case study of Ogimachi, Shirakawa-mura, Japan. Tourism Management 32(2), 288–296.

Jimura, T. (2017) Architecture and tourism: creation and re-creation of Europe in Japan. Paper present-ed at Architecture and Tourism: Fictions, Simulacra, Virtualities conference, Paris, 4–7 July. Book of abstracts, pp. 65–66.

Leask, A. (2006) World Heritage Site designation. In: Leask, A. and Fyall, A. (eds) Managing World Herit-age Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. 5–19.

Meng, F. (2010) Individualism/collectivism and group travel behavior: a cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 4(4), 340–351.

Orbasli, A. (2000) Tourists in Historic Towns. E. & F.N. Spon, London.Oyadomari, M. (1989) The rise and fall of the nature conservation movement in Japan in relation to some

cultural values. Environmental Management 13(1), 23–33.


OutstandingUniversal Value Integrity & Authenticity Selection Criteria

World Heritage Status

Impacts

Impacts

\Impacts

Changes inLocal

Communities

Interactions

Changes inTourism

Changes inConservation

Activities

Fig. 10.1. World Heritage Sites: tourism, local communities and conservation activities. (From: the author)



http://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/

160 Chapter 10

Sakurai, T. (2014) Communicating about communicating with kami (deities): an ethnographic study of Washinomiya Saibara Kagura. Journal of Communication & Religion 37(3), 83–99.

Shackley, M. (1998) Introduction – World Cultural Heritage Sites. In: Shackley, M. (ed.) Visitor Manage-ment: Case Studies from World Heritage Sites. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, UK, pp. 1–9.

Shimahara, M. (2009) Kizon-jutaku-ryutsu no Honto no Sogai-genin to Kasseika-saku (The obstructive factors for used home market and ways to vitalise the market) (in Japanese). Toshijutaku-gaku 64, 29–34.

Smailes, A.E. (1966) The Geography of Towns, 5th edn. Hutchinson University Library, London.UNESCO (2016) Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage: 2016 edition. Avail-

able at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images//0013/001325/132540e.pdf (accessed 24 October 2017).UNESCO (2017) Main characteristics of biosphere reserves. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/

natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/main-characteristics/ (accessed 7 November 2017).

WHC (2017a) World Heritage Centre. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-centre/ ( accessed 10 December 2017).

WHC (2017b) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ (accessed 10 December 2017).

WHC (2017c) Advisory bodies. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/advisorybodies/ (accessed 10 December 2017).

WHC (2017d) The World Heritage Convention. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/ ( accessed 10 December 2017).

WHC (2017e) The criteria for selection. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/ (accessed 10 December 2017).

WHC (2017f) World Heritage Papers 25 – World heritage and buffer zones. Available at: http://whc.unesco. org/documents/publi_wh_papers_25.pdf (accessed 19 July 2018).

WHC (2017g) World Heritage. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/ (accessed 11 December 2017).

WHC (2017h) The World Heritage Convention. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention (accessed 11 December 2017).

WHC (2017i) The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ (accessed 11 December 2017).

WHC (2017j) World Heritage List nominations. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/nominations/ ( accessed 11 December 2017).

WHC (2017k) List of factors affecting the properties. Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/factors/ ( accessed 19 December 2017).

White, L. (1967) The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science 155(3767), 1203–1207.Winter, T. (2013) Culture of interpretation. In: Staiff, R., Bushell, R. and Watson, S. (eds) Heritage and Tourism:

Place, Encounter, Engagement. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 172–186.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images//0013/001325/132540e.pdf



http://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-centre/


http://whc.unesco.org/en/advisorybodies/



http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_25.pdf

http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_25.pdf


http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention


http://whc.unesco.org/en/nominations/


Index

academic models 158–159Acadia (Canada) 74access to funding 85–86accommodation

development 124fees 90

adventure tourism 53advisory bodies 3–4Africa

economic impact of tourism 92natural environment 122poaching 120sub-Saharan 115

African conservation science 23age 70anti-tourism movements 91Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman) 101, 109, 134artificial environment, categories 38Asia 115

poaching 120attachment to place of residence 73attitudinal changes 72attractions 52Australia

National Parks 58Uluru-Kata Tjuta 60

Austria, Hallstatt-Dachstein Salzkammergut Cultural Landscape 12

authenticity 43, 150–151attributes of 150British people 12conservation 151

fake version 12–13Hallstat in China 12heritage 12–13Huis Ten Bosch 12Japan 151Japanese attitude towards 12

balancing 40, 44Balinese culture 74Barcelona 91basic infrastructure, local communities 117–118biosphere reserves 141–142birth place 71Boeing 787 Dreamliner 116bottom-up approach 24boundaries 4brand 55, 56branded goods 90brochures 50brown bears 116Buddhism 11, 150

monuments in the Horyu-ji Area 59, 88shogyo-mujo 13temples 55–56

and pilgrimage routes 28, 86, 102buffer zones 4building materials, difference between

East and West 151buildings

exteriors, appearance of 14groups of 6, 25, 137

161

Note: Page numbers in bold type refer to figuresPage numbers in italic type refer to tables

162 Index

built environmentcities and planning 152conservation of 37infrastructure 117–119, 123–124and natural environment 115

business 93services 87

business tourism 89

Canada, Acadia 74Cancun (Mexico) 116, 117Cape Coast (Ghana) 73Chile, Rapa Nui National Park 7China

dams 121Three Gorges 121

Great Wall 13Hallstatt in 12Huangshan 71Lijiang Old Town 44Mutianyu 73, 87, 89, 91, 123, 124Taiqian 90

Christianity 13cities

Barcelona 91Bath 10Cancun 116, 117Cologne Cathedral 54Edinburgh 125Hiroshima 53, 60Liverpool 101, 102, 132, 133Osaka 90and planning 13–14, 151–152Tokyo 90Venice 91Verona 90York 118

civil conflicts, and natural environment 122climate change 119, 121–122

Sundarbans 121collectivism 14, 150Cologne Cathedral 54communities and societies 11, 150

see also local communitiescommunity

concept 66development 66–68

Confucian countries, employment opportunities 88Confucianism 11, 150conservation

activitieslocal communities 159management 152, 153

authenticity 151of built environment 37culture 13

European movement 14heritage 24, 45interest in 72Japan 151local awareness of 115nature 45plans 42United Kingdom 13visitation 26

conservation science, African 23conservationists 23construction 13contemporary development 131–132

main concepts 158–159cost of living 93Costiera Amalfitana (Italy) 55cultural atmosphere 37cultural differences 69cultural heritage, categories 6cultural landscapes 4, 134, 135, 136culture

conservation 13local 37, 42and nature 13and religion 11–12, 150scrap and build 27

culture-focused concepts 137–138

Daimon-zaka (WHS Kii) 28dams 120–121

China 121Three Gorges Dam 121

danger list see List of World Heritage in Danger (LWHD)

dark tourism 53de-differentiation 23de-marketing 59, 61deforestation 116degradation 38Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), natural

environment 122designation 4, 7–9, 8destination

cluster 51–52cultural atmosphere 37development 116image 53, 54management 61marketing 50–52, 61positioning 55recognition, image 37tourist 43, 115

destination marketing organisation (DMO) 50, 57development

accommodation 124community 66–68

Index 163

contemporary 131–132, 158–159destination 116economic 39sustainable 35, 44tourism 39–40, 40–41, 42transport 118triple bottom line (TBL) 36–37

differentiation, uniqueness 55dissolved boundaries 23diversification, local industries and business 35documents, responsibilities and duties 26drama tourism 53Dresden Elbe Valley (Germany) 7, 25, 101, 104, 123,

133, 134, 136duties, and responsibilities 25–26

e-WOM 51Eastern European countries 54eastern perspectives 11–15

on Ise Jingu (Japan) 27and western perspectives 27–28

ecocentric approach, to natural heritage 21economic burden 93economic changes 155–156

local people’s views 86–88economic dependency 70economic development 39economic growth theory 39economic impacts 82–83, 82Edinburgh (Scotland) 125education levels 70educational trips 58, 61elderly people 93Elkhart County Convention and

Visitors’ Bureau 57Elmina (Ghana) 73employment

local people’s views 89opportunities 88, 92, 93

endangered species 116environmental aspect 45environmental changes

OUV primary factors 157sociocultural changes 71

environmental impactsdestination development 116tourism 114–115

Europe, conservation movement 14European countries 14Everglades (Florida) 122, 125, 132–134experience 50extrinsic factors 69

fake version 12–13fees, accommodation 90

festivals 53financial support 86

and funding 42flora and fauna 38food tourism 53fresh water 117funding 45, 92

access to 85–86and financial support 42

Galapagos, discovery of 120gender 70geographical and physiographical formations 6Germany, Dresden Elbe Valley 7, 25, 101, 104, 123,

133, 134, 136Ghana, Cape Coast and Elmina 73global brand 56global heritage 4global strategy 5Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and

Credible World Heritage List 4globalisation 23

States Parties 3Gokayama (Japan) 8, 43, 57, 59, 72, 86, 88, 100,

108–109, 122golf tourism 117goods 90government, local 68Great Wall of China 13greenhouse gases 116groups of buildings 6, 25, 137Guimarães (Portugal) 87, 89, 91, 103, 105, 106,

108, 124

Ha Long Bay (Vietnam) 74, 87, 91, 125habitat degradation 134Hallstatt in China 12Hallstatt-Dachstein Salzkammergut Cultural

Landscape (Austria) 12heritage 5, 14, 23, 29

authenticity 12–13concepts of 9–11conservation 24

plan 45discourse 25global 4industrial 54industry

heritage management 20Operational Guidelines 20

intangible 29management 20

heritage industry 20Yellowstone National Park 20

skills, intangible elements 27

164 Index

heritage tourism 53rise of 54

Hiroshima City (Japan) 60, 60Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Japan) 53historic centres, concept of 14Historic Urban Landscapes (HULs) 136–137history of tourism 69holistic approach 61holistic management 57Horyu-ji Area Buddhist Monuments (Japan) 59, 88house construction, new, Japan 13Huangshan (China) 71human conditions 134

identity 9local 74

image 60content 50destination 53, 54

recognition 37induced 55organic 55site 42, 43

income 89individualism 11, 14induced images 55industrial heritage 54industries

heritage 20traditional 88

infrastructurebuilt environment 117–119, 123–124for local communities

basic 117–118and visitors 118–119

transport 38, 118, 123inscription 149intangible heritage 27, 29 integrity 10interactions, people and nature 151interest in conservation 72International Centre for the Study of the Preservation

and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) 3, 8, 21, 56, 148,

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) 3, 8, 9, 21, 40, 42, 56, 74, 148

international tourism organisation 57International Union for Conservation of Nature

(IUCN) 4, 7, 8, 20, 43, 119, 122internet 50–51intrinsic factors 69–71invasion of privacy, nuisance 42invasive species 119–120investment 87Ise Jingu (Japan) 27Islamic countries, employment opportunities 88

ItalyCostiera Amalfitana 55Venice 91Verona 90

Japan 11, 12, 58, 59, 73, 86, 89, 90–91, 122, 124authenticity 151Buddhist Monuments

Horyu-ji Area 59, 88temples and pilgrimage routes 55, 86

conservation 151Gokayama 8, 43, 57, 59, 72, 86, 88, 100,

108–109, 122Hiroshima City 60, 60Hiroshima Peace Memorial 53Ise Jingu 27Kyoto 90muraokoshi 15natural WHSs 125new house construction 13Osaka 90shikinen sengu 27Shirakawa-go 8

Ogimachi 59, 73, 89, 90–91, 108, 109, 122, 124

Tokyo 90Japanese people, nature 151jobs, tourism-related 36

Kenya, Lamu Old Town 89key stakeholders, tourism 35Kii Mountain Range 28–29, 57, 75, 86, 101,

102–103, 122Daimon-zaka 28

Kotor (Montenegro), Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of 132

Kyoto (Japan) 90

Lamu Old Town (Kenya) 89landscapes 134

cultural 4, 134, 135, 136leisure activities, traditional 52–53length of residence 70less-developed countries (LDCs) 14, 36, 56, 118Lijiang Town (China) 44List of World Heritage in Danger (LWHD) 2, 3, 22,

101, 102, 106, 109, 122, 136, 148as contemporary development 131, 132–134,

133, 142Everglades 125, 122

literature tourism 53Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (UK) 101, 102,

132, 133living costs, and property values 37

Index 165

living standards, and quality of living 37local communities 23, 59, 93, 154–155

basic infrastructure 117–118change in views 155conservation activities 159diversity 69local people 65split 45tourism 66United Kingdom 75and visitors, infrastructure 118–119

local culture 42authenticity of 37enhancing 37

local goods 90local government 68local identity 74local industries and business, diversification 35local people

local communities 65views of 68–69, 77, 93, 110, 126

employment 89Ha Long Bay 87Mutianyu village 87natural environment 122–123tourism 87–88

visitors 37demand 27

Londoners 74

Macquarie Island 120management 57, 148

conservation activities 152destination 61heritage 20holistic 57plan, responsibilities and duties 26site 149stewardship 10tourism 41, 42

managers 30marketing

destination 50–52, 57, 61organisations, stakeholders 57tourism 49

mass media 55Mauritius, Port Louis 71, 90memory of the world 138–140Mexico, Cancun 116, 117michi-bushin programme 29modern tourism 50monitoring

reactive 22and reporting 29

Montenegro, Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor 132

monuments 6, 59, 88Mount Wutai 59movie tourism 53multinational corporations (MNCs) 36, 85muraokoshi 15Mutianyu (China) 73, 87, 89, 91, 123

resident surveys 124

national parks 13, 58, 60Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor

(Montenegro) 132natural environment 38

Africa 122and built environment 115changes in 122civil conflicts 122Democratic Republic of the Congo 122impact of tourism 115, 115–116local people’s views 122–123

natural features 6natural heritage 21

categories of 6ecocentric approach 21sustainable 21World Heritage Centre 21

natural sites 6nature

and culture 13Japanese people 151

nature conservation 45nature reserves, private 115nature-focused concepts 140–141Nepal 116new technologies 26nuisance 42

Ogimachi (Japan) 59, 73, 89, 91, 122, 124gassho-style houses 108, 109local people’s views 90–91

Oman, Arabian Oryx Sanctuary 101, 109, 134Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the WH

Convention 4, 6, 10, 20, 29organic images 55Osaka (Japan) 90Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) 10, 22, 29, 119,

120, 149, 157overcrowding 37, 42

pace and scale, tourism development 42park-and-ride systems 118parking spaces 118Partnerships for Conservation Initiative (PACT) 86people and nature, interactions 151Periodic Reporting 22

166 Index

photography 50pilgrimage routes see Kii Mountain Range place of residence (to live) 70

attachment to 73planning

and cities 13–14, 151–152sustainable 26

plansconservation 42 heritage conservation plan 45

poaching 119, 120, 134pollution 38, 117population 37Port Louis (Mauritius) 71, 90Portugal, Guimarães 87, 89, 91, 103, 105, 106,

108, 124postmodernism 22pride in place of residence 73–74privacy

invasion of 42overcrowding 37

private nature reserves 115properties 10

values 37psychological impacts, of World Heritage status

72–76

quality of living 37

Rapa Nui National Park (Chile) 7reactive monitoring 22religion, and culture 11–12, 150reporting and monitoring 29residence

length of 70pride in place of 73–74

resident surveys 123responsibility 39

balancing 44 and duties 25–26

responsible tourism 39rural areas 1

Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range 28–29, 28, 57, 75, 86, 101, 102–103, 122

Saltaire (UK) 8, 73, 87, 122local people’s views 90–91tourist signs 75

Scotland, Edinburgh 125scrap and build culture 27seaside 53seasonality 69, 88

selection, criteria for 5sense of community 37services 50, 60

business 87sewage 117shikinen sengu 27Shintoism 11Shirakawa-go (Japan) 8

Ogimachi 59, 73, 89, 90–91, 122, 124shogyo-mujo 13sites

cultural heritage 6in danger list see List of World Heritage in

Danger (LWHD) image 42, 43management 149

skiing 53social dimension 21social pathology 36social polarisation 37societies and communities 11, 150sociocultural aspect 45sociocultural changes 71, 110, 156–157South Korea 71Spain, Barcelona 91spas 53split local communities 45staged authenticity 43stakeholders 61

key 35marketing organisations 57tourism 35, 115

State of Conservation Information System (SOC) 22States Parties 3, 6, 30, 122, 123, 132, 135

competition 40globalisation 3natural heritage 6World Heritage Committee 2

Stone Town of Zanzibar 89strategy, global 4, 5sub-Saharan Africa 115Sundarbans, climate change 121sustainability, triple bottom line (TBL) 35, 36–37, 45sustainable development 35, 44sustainable planning 26sustainable tourism 39, 150

Taiqian (China) 90taxation 89, 90technical knowledge 27temples 55–56

and pilgrimage routes 28, 86, 102Thailand 86Three Gorges Dam (China) 121Tokyo (Japan) 90

Index 167

top-down approach 24tourism 6, 15, 24, 26, 152

attitudes towards 69components of 116definition 34development 39–40, 40–41, 42

pace and scale 42projects 7tool 35

environmental impacts 114–115groups 52guest perspective 43–44guest side 45hosting 41knowledge 70local attitudes to 68local communities 66local people’s views 87–88management 26, 41, 42marketing 49, 154multiplier 85new and niche types 53overdependence 87services 51stakeholders 35, 115theory development 153

tourism-related employment opportunities 88

tourism-related jobs 36tourist attraction, definition of 51tourist destination 115

site image 43tourist gaze 50tourist-related activities 117tourist signs, Saltaire 75tourist sites, classification 52tourist tax 90tourists and excursionists 72traditional industries 88traditional leisure activities 52–53traffic 117traffic-related problems 37transport

development 118infrastructure 38, 118, 123

trekking 116triple bottom line (TBL) 35, 36–37, 45Tyntesfield (UK) 118

Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (Australia) 60undesirable jobs 88UNESCO 2, 14, 61, 142, 147

World Heritage Centre 2uniqueness 55United Kingdom (UK)

Bath 10conservation 13Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City 101, 102,

132, 133local communities 75Saltaire 8, 73, 75, 87, 90–91, 122Tyntesfield 118York 118

United States of America (USA)Everglades 122, 125, 132–134 natural WHSs 125Yellowstone National Park 20

universalist attitudes 24University of Massachusetts Amherst Centre for

Heritage and Society, Concepts of Heritage 9UNWTO 39

value 8, 24Venice (Italy) 91Verona (Italy) 90Vietnam, Ha Long Bay 74, 87, 91, 125visitation, conservation 26visitors 14

attraction 51, 118demand 27infrastructure 38local people 37numbers 87

Wales 76wastewater 117water

fresh 117resources 38

waterfronts 123ways of life 37websites 51, 55, 61western perspectives 11

and eastern perspectives 27–28western viewpoints 150wine tourism 53WOM (word-of-mouth) 50, 51women participants 88workforce, women’s advancement of 89World Heritage Centre, natural heritage 21World Heritage Committee 2–3, 86, 147–148, 149World Heritage Convention 4

Mission of World Heritage Sites 6–7Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of

the WH Convention 4, 6, 10, 20, 29World Heritage in Danger

criteria for 133see also List of World Heritage in Danger

(LWHD)

168 Index

World Heritage statusattachment to the place of residence 73interest in conservation 72local identity 74pride in place of residence 73–74psychological impacts 72–76tourists and excursionists 72

World Heritage mission 7

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 120

Yellowstone National Park (USA) 20young people 88, 93

Zanzibar, Stone Town of 89

World Heritage Sites

Documents

Transcript of World Heritage Sites