Download - Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management - Hong Kong

Tourism Management 26 (2005) 539–548

ARTICLE IN PRESS

$Funding for

University’s Gra

*Correspondi

9362.

E-mail addre

0261-5177/$ - see

doi:10.1016/j.tou

Relationship between tourism and cultural heritage management:evidence from Hong Kong$

Bob McKerchera,*, Pamela S. Y. Hoa, Hilary du Crosb

aSchool of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong KongbDepartment of Geography, The University of Hong Kong/School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,

Hong Kong

Received 24 November 2003; accepted 4 February 2004

Abstract

This paper examines the nature of the relationship between tourism and cultural heritage management in the established urban

destination of Hong Kong. In the past, conflict theory has formed the basis of most of the studies of relationships between tourism

and other sectors. However, a conflict paradigm may not be the most appropriate framework. Instead, the authors outline a

continuum reflecting different levels of maturity in the relationship between these two sectors. Seven different possible relationships

are identified, that are influenced by five mitigating conditions.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cultural tourism; Cultural heritage management; Relationships; Conflict

1. Introduction

Tourism and cultural heritage management (CHM)often have an awkward relationship. Traditionally,CHM has been responsible for the provision andconservation of cultural heritage assets, while thebroadly based tourism sector has assumed the productdevelopment and promotion role. Two opposing viewsof the nature of the relationship have been promulgated,that reflect different extremes of the conflict/co-opera-tion dichotomy. On the one hand, a number of peoplehave suggested that tourism and CHM are incompatible(Berry, 1994; Boniface, 1998; Jacobs & Gale, 1994;Jansen-Verbeke, 1998), and that because of thisincompatibility, a conflict relationship is inevitable.The cultural heritage sector argues that cultural valuesare compromised for commercial gain (Urry, 1990;Daniel, 1996; ICOMOS, 1999), while tourism propo-nents feel that tourism values are compromised when amanagement attitude exists that any ‘‘tourismification’’

this project was provided for by a grant from the

nt Committee of the Hong Kong SAR Government.

ng author. Tel.: +852-2766-6553; fax: +852-2362-

ss: [email protected] (B. McKercher).

front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

rman.2004.02.018

has a corrupting influence (Hovinen, 1995; Fyall &Garrod, 1996). The alternative argument is that thesharing of the resource creates partnership opportu-nities, whereby mutually beneficial outcomes can beachieved. Heritage tourism reintroduces people to theircultural roots (Donert & Light, 1996; McCarthy, 1994)and reinvigorates people’s interest in history or culture(Squire, 1996; Tourism Canada, 1991; WTO, nd).Further, culture as a tourist attraction can be a powerfulforce in arguing that a region’s historic, cultural,religious and industrial past should be conserved (seefor example Harrison, 1997; Frew & Shaw, 1995;Brokensha & Gruldberg, 1992; Nolan & Nolan, 1992;Simons, 1996).

Questions can be raised about the validity ofdichotomous relationships that portray the interactionbetween these two sectors as representing either extremeof a conflict/partnership continuum. Are conflict or co-management the only possible scenarios that existbetween these two diverse stakeholders, or canother possible relationships exist? This paper exploresthe dynamics of the relationship between tourism andCHM in the context of the established, urban destina-tion of Hong Kong. It does so from the perspective ofthe asset manager that must cope with the impacts oftourism.

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. McKercher et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 539–548540

2. Conflict and relationships between tourism and other

stakeholders

The nature of the relationship between tourismstakeholders and other stakeholder groups has beenthe subject of academic inquiry for almost 30 years.Budowski’s (1976, 1977) work on the interactionbetween tourism and the natural environment repre-sented the first significant piece of research published.The environment (Coppock, 1982; Mathieson & Wall,1982; Romeril, 1989; Butler, 1991) and outdoor recrea-tion (Hendee, Stankey, & Lucas, 1979; Anderson &Brown, 1984; Jacob & Schreyer, 1980; Jackson & Wong,1982; Marsh, 1986) were the focus of research through-out the 1970s and 1980s. They remain popular topicstoday in response to the development of protected areatourism and recreation, and more recently by theemergence of sustainability and ecotourism. Hostcommunities, and in particular, the social impacts oftourism began to be studied in the 1980s (O’Grady,1981; Gorman, 1988; Madrigal, 1993; Dana, 1999;Abakerli, 2001) as community tourism grew. Morerecently, the focus has shifted to the relationshipbetween tourism and host cultures (Altman, 1989;Altman & Finlayson, 1991) or tourism and CHM(Berry, 1994; Jacobs & Gale, 1994; Boniface, 1998; duCros, 2001; McKercher & du Cros, 2002) in response toconcerns about community stakeholders involvement intourism planning and development.

For the most part, this research has been grounded inconflict theory, goal incompatibility and value clash.Jacob and Schreyer (1980) describe conflict as goalinterference attributed to another’s behavior, with goalsbeing defined as any preferred social, psychological orphysical outcome of a behavior that provides incentivefor that behavior. Thus, conflict can be seen in terms ofincompatibilities between one party’s goals and anotherparty’s behavior. Conflict, or the perception of conflict,is influenced strongly by those people pursuing anactivity and the actions of others who are thought to beinterfering with the pursuit of that activity. Indeed,conflict may exist at two levels: direct, where directactions of others affect one’s enjoyment; and indirect,where a general and more pervasive feeling of dislike oran unwillingness to appreciate other’s views exist(Jackson & Wong, 1982). It is exacerbated when aperception exists that stakeholders must compete for afixed-pie asset base, where the resolution produceswinners and losers (Gramann and Burdge, 1991).Likewise, goal interference does not necessarily implygoal incompatibility. It is suggested that people with thesame goals may still come into conflict over the means ofattaining the goal, or because opportunities to attain thegoal are limited.

Others feel conflict revolves around value clashbetween different groups and/or individuals. Values

are often viewed as being non-negotiable, hindering theresolution of disputes (Korper, Druckman, & Broome,1986). Conflict, as value clash, however, is oftenconfused with a clash of self-interests, when in fact theyare quite different (Korper et al., 1986; Stephenson et al.,1989). Successful conflict resolution involves the separa-tion of values from personal interests. Much of thisbody of literature further argues explicitly or infersstrongly that a causal relationship exists between anincrease in tourism activity and adverse impacts. Inextreme cases, the traditional user will be displacedby newer users with different needs and values(Marsh, 1986). Displacement can occur voluntarily orinvoluntarily.

Conflict, or the potential for conflict is most likely tooccur when the power balance between stakeholdersshifts, empowering one and disempowering the other.Tourism is ideally suited to become a conflict inducer forit often represents a powerful, new stakeholder withdifferent values to existing stakeholders (McKercher,1993). As a consequence, it can out compete existingstakeholders for access to and use of natural or culturalresources. This situation has the potential to occur oftenin cultural tourism (Jamieson, 1995). Kerr (1994), forexample, observes that ‘‘what is good for conservation isnot necessarily good for tourism and what is good fortourism is rarely good for conservation’’.

The examination of conflict is predicated on a numberof assumptions. First, relationships are portrayedtypically as existing along a one-dimensional continuumwith pairs of semantic differential endpoints reflectinghypothetical positive or negative relationships. Con-temporary examples include: power/powerlessness(Abakerli, 2001), conservation/development or exploita-tion (Holder, 2000), economic gain/social, cultural and/or environmental degradation (Markwick, 2000; Gos-sling, 2002) or insider/outsider (Chang, 2000). Earlierresearch used such conceptual boundaries as conflict/coexistence (Budowski, 1976), inclusion/exclusion ordisplacement (Marsh, 1986), compatibility/incompat-ibility of activity styles (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980; Jackson& Wong, 1982), resource compatibility/competition(Anderson & Brown, 1984; Marsh, 1986) or retention/loss of traditional access rights (Pigram, 1984).

Second, these models assume that relationships evolveover time. In theory, the authors posit that theevolutionary path could be bi-directional (positive tonegative or negative to positive). In practice, however,virtually all conclude that movement occurs in onedirection only from an initial positive/benign state toone typified by a negative or conflict relationship. Indoing so, the studies seek to demonstrate that tradi-tional stakeholders are adversely affected as the scaleand intensity of tourism activity increases or as therange of activities changes (see for example Budowski,1976, 1977; O’Grady, 1981). The reason, in part, is that

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. McKercher et al. / Tourism Management 26 (2005) 539–548 541

most studies examine cases where tourism is undergoingrapid expansion, pushing otherwise stable systems intochaos. That change induces impacts in such situations isnot surprising. Such findings, however, are in starkcontrast to the case of tourism in stable, mature tourismdestinations. Here, tourism is commonly cited as playingan important role in the social, cultural and economicfabric of the community (see for example Perdue, Long,& Allen, 1987, 1990; Milman & Pizam, 1988; King,Pizam, & Milman, 1993; Swarbrooke, 1996; Pearson &Dunn, 1999).

Third, these scenarios further imply that the endpoints of the continuum reflect a steady- or near steady-state, with positive or benign relationships existingindefinitely providing that tourism activity remainslow, or enduring adversarial relationships betweentourism and other groups when tourism activity,intensity or volume increases. Intermediate points arefelt to represent temporary, transitional stages.

While conflict theory has its merits, it also has anumber of weaknesses that may limit its effectiveness inthe study of cultural tourism. Conflict theory is mostapplicable in dynamic situations where the nature ofinteractions between stakeholders is changing rapidly.However, potential conflict situations may have beenlong resolved or may not exist in stable environments.Conflict assumes an evolving relationship scenarioinduced by change, but where little or no change occurs,relationships likely settle to some form of steady state.Likewise much of the literature assumes that an influx oftourism numbers automatically induces adverse im-pacts. Again, this assertion may be true in natural ornear natural environments or in remote communitiesthat have witnessed little visitation in the past, but maynot be relevant in urban areas that are recognizedtourism destinations. It may also not be relevant inmany cultural tourism scenarios where increased visita-tion may be seen to be beneficial to stakeholders andmay, therefore, be sought after. Museums, heritagetheme parks and even religious cultural assets that relyon gate fees and/or donations may benefit fromincreased visitation with no adverse impacts. As aconsequence, working within the narrow confines ofconflict theory may not enable researchers to capture thefull subtleties of relationships.

3. The study and method

The study sought to identify the possible relationshipsthat exist between tourism and CHM sector. HongKong was the focus of this study for it has a small butwell-established suite of cultural tourism attractions. Inaddition, the Hong Kong Tourism Board has identifiedcultural tourism as an opportunity and is seeking toexpand the range of assets available for tourism

consumption. The authors were, therefore, able toexplore the full range of relationships at both estab-lished and emerging cultural tourism attractions. Ad-ditionally, tourism is being used by government agenciesto justify the conservation of tangible heritage, but it hasbeen done so without a demonstrated market demandfor these assets by tourists. Likewise, the local Destina-tion Marketing Organization (DMO) has promoted alllisted heritage structures as potential cultural tourismattractions, again without demonstrating market inter-est in visiting these places.

Cultural heritage assets form the building blocks forcultural tourism (McKercher & du Cros, 2002) and theirmanagement is vested under the broadly defined CHMsector. As such, the perspective of the asset managerforms the focus of this study. Heritage is defined as abroad concept that includes tangible assets, such asnatural and cultural environments, encompassing oflandscapes, historic places, sites and built environmentsas well as intangible assets such as collections, past andcontinuing cultural practices knowledge and livingexperiences (ICOMOS, 1999).

A qualitative method was adopted, using in-depthinterviews via a semi-structured, open-ended question-naire. A purposeful sample of 11 curators, custodians orasset managers from the CHM sector in Hong Kongwas selected. Four other respondents limited theirinvolvement to written responses to open-ended ques-tions posted to them. In total, therefore, the sampleincluded 15 senior individuals representing: curators ofall major and most minor publicly funded museums andart galleries; the Antiquities and Monuments Office, thegovernment department responsible for managing listedheritage buildings; the Chinese Temples Committee,which manages 45 temples directly or indirectly; WongTai Sin and the Po Lin Monastery/the Big Buddha,which have transcended their traditional religious rootsto become mainstream tourism attractions in their ownright; and the Chi Lin Nunnery, a recently constructednunnery built in the Tang style that does not want to beinvolved in tourism, yet is promoted by the local DMO.Some of the places identified have a dominant tourismfocus, some cater to both locals and tourists, whileothers cater primarily to the needs of the localcommunity.

Two rounds of interviews were conducted during late2001 and early 2002. The first round was exploratory innature. The authors sought to gather a better under-standing of tourism and CHM issues at assets managedby respondents. These interviews included questionsrelating to background information on the asset(s) inquestion (age, type, ownership, management structure,etc.), presentation of materials (i.e. authenticity, use ofguides, interpretation), the identification of stakeholdersand nature of relationships between them, and tourismuse of the asset (primary/secondary focus, volume,


importance of tourism, market research undertaken,promotion, etc.). The second round of interviewscentered specifically on presentation of the asset andthe relationship between tourism and CHM. This paperfocuses on the latter issue. Interviews lasted typicallyfrom 1 to 2 h. Since many respondents also hadinternational experience, they were also asked to discussthe issue as it pertained to the assets under theircustodianship, as well as offering more general insightsbased on their experiences.

Data analysis adopted a modified grounded theoryapproach. The literature suggested that conflict wouldbe the most appropriate analytical framework. Pre-liminary data analysis was based on this premise, withthe authors producing a ‘work-in progress’ conferencepaper using this framework (see McKercher, Ho, & duCros, 2002). However, further reflection and analysisindicated that the strict adherence to a conflict paradigmcould not explain fully the range of relationshipsdescribed by respondents or the dynamics behind theserelationships. As such, conflict was rejected as a frame-work. The data were then re-analyzed adopting agrounded theory approach, which seeks to let the datatell the story without any pre-conceived notions. Theframework described below emerged from this re-analysis.

4. Discussion of results

Study participants identified seven possible relation-ship scenarios involving tourism and CHM as well as anumber of mitigating factors. The mitigating factors arediscussed first, followed by a detailed description of eachof the relationships.

4.1. Mitigating conditions that influence relationships

Study participants identified five conditions that caninfluence relationships: (1) the independent evolution oftourism and CHM; (2) the politically imposed powerbalance between stakeholders; (3) the diversity ofstakeholders with different levels of knowledge; (4) thediversity of heritage assets under consideration; and (5)the different ways in which assets can be consumed.

4.1.1. Independent nature of tourism and cultural heritage

management

The academic literature suggests that much of theconflict evident between tourism and CHM is triggeredby the forced sharing of the asset even though the twostakeholders have little else in common, hold differentvalue sets and seek to use assets to achieve differentends. Interestingly, while all respondents recognized thattourism and CHM occupy parallel worlds, few saw thisas an issue in Hong Kong. Indeed, the opposite reaction

was expressed. They felt it was beneficial that tourismand CHM largely operate in parallel but independentworlds, where each has a clearly defined role and seeslittle need to interfere in the other’s role. Problems arisewhen one stakeholder transcends the realm of the other.

4.1.2. Politically imposed power balance

Tourism and CHM exist within the context ofgovernment policy and legislation under which heritageis conserved and tourism is developed. The political orlegislative balance between the two, therefore, plays acentral role in the nature of the relationship. Pro-tourism governments may not wish to introduce heritagelegislation or may seek to dilute existing legislation inorder to stimulate tourism. Conversely, strong heritagelegislation may be introduced to shift the power balanceaway from tourism.

4.1.3. Diversity of stakeholders with different levels of

knowledge

Partnerships work best when there are a limitednumber of stakeholders that share similar values.Conflict or the potential for conflict is more likely toemerge when there are many stakeholders that holddiverse values. An assortment of stakeholders exists intourism and cultural heritage, some with a directinvolvement in asset management, and many otherswith an indirect stake. The range of parties includes theCHM community, private sector property owners anddevelopers, tourism boards and local governmenttourism promotion agencies, government heritage agen-cies, traditional owners, users and cultural custodians,local tour operators, the national and internationaltravel trade, tourism media and, last but not least, thetourist. As a result, interaction dynamics can becomplex. Core stakeholders can usually resolve realdisputes among themselves. However, problems mayarise when peripheral stakeholders impose themselveson situations and argue ideological, self-interestedpositions that may be separate from real value-clashissues at hand.

4.1.4. Diversity of heritage assets

The range of possible cultural heritage assets ofinterest to tourism is almost limitless. Each of theseassets has its own specific group of stakeholders and,therefore, has the potential for its own unique relation-ship issues. Tangible heritage exists in many forms andcan range in scale from single buildings to entire citiesand, arguably, countries. Built heritage includes existingstructures, modified facilities and purpose-built attrac-tions. Ownership can be private, public or community-based. Intangible heritage represents the traditions andculture of communities. It too is diverse and can includethe arts, performance, religion, traditional rites andrituals and the day-to-day activities of residents. Some


may be presented for public consumption, while otherelements may be private.

4.1.5. Different types of consumption intensity

Three possible types of consumption were identifiedthat reflect different levels of engagement with the asset.The first type is passive visitation, where tourists mayvisit and observe. An example is photographing historicbuildings or streetscapes. A second type is activeconsumption of activities or experiences strongly asso-ciated with the intangible values of the asset. This typeof consumption can include visits to museums, artgalleries, religious sites, theme parks or the consumptionof live performances. Active consumption of experiencesnot normally associated with the intangible culturalvalues of the asset is the third type identified. Restau-rants and nightclubs located in renovated historicbuildings are typical of assets engendering this type ofbehavior.

4.2. Seven relationships between tourism and cultural

heritage management

Seven relationship styles emerged from this study.They are depicted in Fig. 1 and discussed in detailbelow. Six fit neatly along a continuum, while theseventh is an outlier. The model further recognizes thatparallel relationships can take a number of forms. Studyparticipants identified parallel relationships as the mostcommon style found in Hong Kong, but felt that a rangeof parallel relationships should be identified as subsetsof this style. Each of the relationships has its own unique

Immature Mature

Denial

UnrealisticExpectation

Conflict

ImposedCo-management

Parallel Independent

Parallel Symbiotic

Parallel ExistencePartnership

Cross Purposes •

Fig. 1. Relationships between tourism and CHM.

⇒ Denial ConflictImpos

Co-manag

No Tourism

⇒ Relationship start point Conflict

⇒ Unrealistic Expectation

Conflict

Fig. 2. Start point and evolutionary

characteristics. While conflict theory suggests that mostrelationships begin at the benign/coexistence endpointand move inexorably towards conflict, this scenario wasnot identified in Hong Kong. Instead, they could beginat any point along the continuum and could eitherremain static for long periods of time or evolve rapidlyin either direction as underlying conditions change. Thepotential starting points and evolutionary paths areshown in Fig. 2.

4.2.1. Denial

Denial is most likely to occur in the early stages of thecultural tourism lifecycle. Tourists begin to visit culturalheritage assets or these assets begin to be promoted byDMOs, yet asset managers deny they are in tourism.Increased visitation may begin spontaneously, but ismore likely to be induced by the tourism industry ortravel media. The Chi Lin Nunnery in Hong Kong isone such example. It was constructed less than 10 yearsago as a large Buddhist nunnery complex. However, itsscale and magnificent Tang Dynasty architectural stylesoon drew the attention of the Hong Kong TouristAssociation, now the Hong Kong Tourism Board. Itbegan promoting visitation and, at the time this paperwas written, included it on one of the tours listed on itsweb-site, in spite of the express wishes of staff todiscourage tourism. Yet, the public relations officerfrom the Nunnery told the study team ‘tourism hasnever been considered in our initial master plan, and ourplanning involves no business consideration and ourmanagement team consists of no businessman from thecommercial sector’. She added elsewhere ‘tourism wasnot a consideration from day oneysince we do notwant to serve any commercial purpose’.

Denial is usually a short lived, transitional stage thathas three possible outcomes. In rare cases, the assetmanagers may succeed in stemming the flow of tourismby convincing the travel sector to cease marketingactivities or by introducing access restrictions that make

ed ement

Parallel Existence

⇒ Partnership

⇒ Cross Purposes

⇒ Parallel Existence

Parallel Independent

Parallel Symbiotic

No Change

Parallel Existence

paths of different relationships.


the place less appealing to visitors. If successful, theasset will revert to its original status as a culturalheritage asset of no tourism value. Such outcomes arerare and require prompt management action beforetourism becomes ensconced. Alternatively, a change inmanagement attitude may result in denial evolving fairlyrapidly into some form of parallel existence, withtourism becoming accepted as being a new, legitimateuse of the asset. Conflict, however, is the most likelyoutcome, for as the above case illustrates, the seeds forconflict have already been sewn by asset managers whoregard tourism as an unwanted imposition and thetourism sector that persists in promoting visitation.

4.2.2. Unrealistic expectation

Unrealistic expectation relationships are quite com-mon in cultural tourism and can be generated by eitherthe tourism sector or the asset manager. Either or bothstakeholders may hold unrealistic expectations of themarket appeal of the asset or the benefits tourism willbring. Unrealistic expectations are a product of a well-intentioned, but naive belief that any cultural heritageasset must, by right of its age or local cultural value, be aviable tourism product, when in reality, the asset doesnot possess the attributes required to become a viableattraction. More often than not, the end result is a failedtourism product. Asset managers may see tourism as ameans of achieving conservation goals, generatingrevenue for needed capital improvements or to achievelocal educational goals. Public sector tourism marketingagencies may pursue cultural tourism to broaden itsproduct base in the hope the destination will be able tocapture a share of the growing cultural tourism market.

Examples of failed or under performing culturaltourism attractions abound throughout the world. InHong Kong, most unrealistic expectations seem to begenerated by the tourism industry, rather than the assetmanagers. The Hong Kong Tourism Board, forexample, produces a brochure that promotes visitationto about 90 named heritage buildings located through-out the Territory. Yet, a visitors’ study conducted by theauthors as part of a larger cultural tourism studyrevealed that close to two-thirds of these placesgenerated no visitation from any of the more than1100 cultural tourists surveyed.

Ironically, the CHM sector has a much more realisticassessment of the tourism potential of their assets thanthe tourism industry. The Lei Chung Uk Han Tomb, a2000-year-old tomb discovered 40 years ago duringconstruction activities is a case in point. The tomb andits adjoining small site museum are located in asuburban area some distance from any other tourismattractions. The Lonely Planet (2000) guide for HongKong described it as being somewhat interesting, but along way to go for an anticlimactic peak throughperspex. Asset managers feel much the same, suggesting

in the second round of interviews that ‘the marketappeal of Lei Cheng Uk Han Tomb is so limited that itis impossible make it as a primary attraction’. Yet, it ispromoted heavily by the DMO.

4.2.3. Parallel existence

Parallel relationships occur when each sector assumesa clearly defined role in cultural tourism. Typically, theCHM sector is responsible for the ownership and day-to-day management of the asset, while the tourismindustry assumes a product development and marketingrole. There is little overlap in roles and often littlecommunication between stakeholders. As the curator ofthe Hong Kong Museum of Art reminded the authors ‘Iwant to be very clear that everybody who talks aboutcultural promotion and tourism promotion must beaware of the boundary between the two’. Parallelrelationships are, by far, the most common type ofrelationship evident in Hong Kong and are likelycommon in mature destinations. Respondents felt thatthey reflected a viable, working relationship betweendifferent stakeholder groups having mutually exclusive,though complementary goals. Tourism and CHMacknowledge each other as legitimate users and appreci-ate the role that each plays. Importantly, they have littledesire for a closer relationship and see little need for it.The following comment from the curator of theFlagstaff House and Teaware Museum is typical: ‘Weseldom have direct contact with them [the Hong KongTourism Board], but sometimes we receive individualletters requesting up-to-date information. They will thenpublish our exhibition and programs in their calendar.’

Parallel relationships can take many forms. At oneextreme, the relationship may be exclusive, withvirtually no contact between the two stakeholders. Thistype of relationship was found in large temple complexesthat function as primary attractions. The industry bringsmany busloads of tourists a day for sightseeing andworshipping. Temple management welcomes thesevisitors, for their donations contribute to the temple’songoing social welfare programs. Tourists were seen asbeing no different than the thousands of other peoplewho visit each day. At the other extreme, the relation-ship may symbiotic, with a certain degree of collabora-tion existing between parties in product developmentand marketing. One heritage museum, for example, hasworked closely with the Hong Kong Tourism Board todevelop a Chinese opera performance to enhance theexperience for tourists. More likely, though, therelationship will fall somewhere between these extremes.Tourism marketing agencies and tour operators willseek permission to bring photographers and familiariza-tion tours to the asset and will permit the assetmanagement to vett any promotional copy beingdeveloped. In turn, asset management may makerequests to tour operators to stagger their arrivals or


to limit the number of tours on public holidays when theasset will be extremely busy.

4.2.4. Conflict

The literature is replete with examples of howexcessive and inappropriate tourism use has led to thedestruction of tangible and intangible heritage assetsthat one can believe that this is the most likely outcomeof the tourism/CHM interaction. However, conflictrelationships are rare in Hong Kong, and are also likelyrare in other jurisdictions with a well-establishedcultural tourism sector. Most assets with real tourismpotential have a long history of visitation, while otherswith little tourism appeal receive few visitors. Indeed,study participants identified only one emerging conflictsituation, where tour buses have begun to visit anhistoric temple in an outer community. The touroperator has not sought permission to disgorge itspassengers at the temple, and the temple managers areunhappy that their local place of worship has beentransformed into a commodity.

Study participants felt that conflicts represent atemporary, though admittedly uncomfortable, transi-tional stage in the maturation process between stake-holders. The initial influx of tourists, or large-scaletourism development may upset existing relationships.Over time, though, most conflicts will self-resolve astourism becomes a common, accepted user. Self-resolu-tion does lead to different inter-organizational dy-namics, though.

4.2.5. Imposed co-management

In cases where conflict has become entrenched,however, self-resolution may not be feasible. Instead,third parties will be required to impose artificialsolutions to resolve ongoing disputes. These types ofrelationships have been labeled imposed co-manage-ment. Imposed co-management is most likely to occur insituations where a substantial publicly owned asset or anasset owned by traditional custodians has been subjectedto intense tourism development that threatens itscultural integrity. Tourism operators may be unable tomodify their behavior because change would place theircapital investments at risk. Alternatively, they may beunwilling to change out of concern that they would berelinquishing what they felt were hard won concessionsto enable them to ply their trade. Imposed co-manage-ment is unlikely to emerge naturally. Instead, it is asolution that needs to be brokered and enforced by athird party with sufficient overriding managementauthority to ensure that all parties abide by agreementsreached. No examples of imposed co-management wereidentified in Hong Kong, but respondents did acknowl-edge they were becoming more common elsewhere,in particular where disputes have arisen between

traditional stakeholders and large-scale tourismdevelopment.

4.2.6. Partnership

True partnerships are rare and are most likely tooccur in purpose-built cultural or heritage attractionswhere the prime objective is to provide quality visitorexperience in a culturally sensitive manner. Theseattractions may be privately owned or may be ownedby non-profit community groups. Examples include theChina Folk Culture Village in Shenzhen, China, apurpose-built theme park targeting Chinese and inter-national tourists. The purpose of the park is to exposevisitors to China’s ethnic minorities. The developersconsulted widely with the cultural heritage sector in thedesign of the park. Moreover, performers are indigenousmembers of ethnic minority groups.

The cultural heritage sector usually plays an impor-tant role in the initial design and planning stage and isconsulted regularly in the subsequent operation andmanagement of the facility. Partnerships offer benefitsto tourism as well as to CHM. For tourism, theattraction is both viable and authentic with profitablereturns while for CHM, it offers cultural sensitivity andthe ability to convey accurate and sympathetic messagesabout the culture being presented through the asset.

4.2.7. Cross purposes

A further anomalous type of relationship was alsoidentified that does not sit along the continuum.Identified as a ‘cross purpose’ relationship, it resultsfrom tourism being used to justify the adaptive re-use ofhistoric buildings or heritage precincts, as a means ofconserving them. However, in doing so, the intangibleheritage values of the asset are lost. Thus, tourism is atrue double-edged sword. On the one hand, it activelyassists in the conservation of built heritage. But, on theother hand, the very act of that conservation for tourismresults in the destruction of arguably even more valuableintangible heritage.

Examples include the conversion of old churches,buildings, warehouses, markets and residential districtsinto restaurants and nightclubs. This type of relation-ship was identified only by interviewees from theAntiquities and Monuments Office who were activelyinvolved in conservation of cultural assets. Theylamented this style of action, while at the same timeappreciated that such a trade-off may be the only way toconserve a representative sample of a community’s builtheritage, when they observed ‘historical buildings areput to good use and at the same time generatereasonable profit for the operatorsybut in the way,you just save the hardware of the heritage but thesebuildings have lost their original character’. MurrayHouse represents an extreme case in Hong Kong. Thisformer customs house which was situated in downtown


Hong Kong was demolished block by block andreassembled on reclaimed land on the other side ofHong Kong Island. Today, it has a number ofrestaurants and is seen as an important attraction inthe Stanley tourist node. The building has beenconserved, but its site, setting, meaning and historicvalues have been lost.

5. Discussion and conclusions

This paper posited a range of possible relationshipstyles that could exist between the tourism and CHMsectors in an established urban tourism destination. Assuch, this study differs from others that focus on rapidlyemerging destinations. Seven possible relationships wereidentified, with six fitting neatly along a continuum,while the seventh represents an anomalous relationship.Some of the relationships were stable and were,consequently unlikely to change much over time, whileothers were fluid and could evolve rapidly into eitherproductive or destructive relationships. The relation-ships were influenced by a number of interveningfactors.

Conflict may not be the most appropriate frameworkfor the examination of the interaction between tourismand CHM in destinations like Hong Kong. Instead, amaturity/immaturity taxonomy better reflects the typesof relationship styles that emerged. Immature relation-ships tended to be somewhat dysfunctional. Conflict andimposed co-management scenarios identified, for exam-ple, evolve from the unilateral actions of one partywithout consideration of the other’s legitimate needsthat interfere with the goal achievement of the other.Both denial and unrealistic expectations are a functionof naivet!e on behalf of one or both parties. Maturerelationships, on the other hand, are more functional.Disputes or potential disputes have been long resolvedor both parties have entered into new relationshipsrespecting the legitimacy and role of other the stake-holder.

Partnerships emerged as an interesting issue in thispaper. The accepted dogma is that sustainable culturaltourism is only possible if formal relationships existbetween stakeholders, sometimes even to the extent offormal co-management arrangements. Most ‘how to’manuals espouse the benefits of and necessity forpartnerships (TCA, 1998; NTHP, 1999). Study partici-pants, however, questioned both the merit and practi-cality of such practices. Instead, they felt that tourismand cultural heritage functioned best in parallel, witheach group performing the role it performs best, butwith little interaction between groups. Parallel existenceprovides a number of advantages to the CHM sector byallowing asset managers to maintain their independence,while still benefiting from tourism. In doing so, the

integrity of the management process of the culturalheritage assets can be maintained.

An alternative interpretation, however, is that thepreference for parallel existence may have a negativeconnotation and could ultimately work against the bestinterests of cultural tourism products in the long run.Empire building and empire protection were recognizedby the authors as typical behavior among somerespondents. Our professional experiences in two othercontinents suggest that this may be a common practice.The rejection of the need to work more closely withother stakeholders may have more to do with ‘protect-ing one’s turf’ than, perhaps, looking after the bestinterests of the asset. A policy of independent parallelexistence may stifle creativity and isolate the asset orasset managers from the emerging opportunities. Inaddition, the failure to collaborate more closely maymean that important aspects of an asset’s commodifica-tion, conservation and presentation may fall through thegaps between the perceived responsibilities of eachsector. For example, the tourism sector may conductvisitor satisfaction surveys that identify deficiencies inproduct presentation. Implementing changes to improvethe quality visitor experience is the responsibility of theasset managers. Yet, if the CHM sector is not madeaware of the problem, they cannot rectify it. The authorshave observed this phenomenon in some of the newlydeveloped heritage trails.

Finally, the interpretation of the results of this studymust be placed within the context of Hong Kong whichis a major urban tourism destination that has a numberof well-established, large-scale cultural assets with a longhistory of tourism visitation. Mature relationships werenoted in assets with the longest history of tourism use.Immature relationships occurred in situations wheretourism was being pursued as a management objectivefor the first time or where seemingly spontaneoustourism visitation was beginning to occur. Thus, itwould appear that time and destination life cycle stageexert a significant impact on the relationship betweentourism and cultural heritage. Mature relationships aremost likely to occur in established destinations wherethe various groups have had sufficient time to resolvedifferences or to the reach some mutually acceptableunderstanding. Immature relationships, on the otherhand, are more likely to occur in emerging destinationswhere tourism represents a significant agent of change.

Tourism and CHM are neither natural allies nornatural enemies. The type of relationship that emergesbetween these sectors at an asset specific level dependson the level of maturity, knowledge and good will eachbrings to the relationship. Successful cultural tourism ismost likely to occur when both sets of stakeholders havea realistic appreciation of the tourism value of the asset,the need to conserve its core cultural values, anoverriding acceptance that each stakeholder has a


legitimate interest in the asset and each has a clearlydefined role to play in promoting cultural tourism. Inother words, both sets of stakeholders enter into amature relationship.

References

Abakerli, S. (2001). A critique of development and conservation

policies in environmentally sensitive regions of Brazil. Geoforum,

32(4), 551–565.

Altman, J. (1989). Tourism dilemmas for aboriginal Australians.

Annals of Tourism Research, 16, 456–474.

Altman, J. J., & Finlayson, J. (1991). Aborigines and tourism: An issues

paper prepared for the ecologically sustainable working group on

tourism.

Anderson, D. H., & Brown, P. J. (1984). Displacement process in

recreation. Journal of Leisure Research, 6(1), 61–73.

Berry, S. (1994). Conservation, capacity and cashflows—tourism and

historic building management. In A. V. Seaton (Ed.), Tourism:

State of the art (pp. 712–718). Chichester: Wiley.

Boniface, P. (1998). Tourism culture. Annals of Tourism Research,

25(3), 746–749.

Brokensha, P., & Gruldberg, H. (1992). Cultural tourism in Australia:

A report on cultural tourism. Canberra: AGPS.

Budowski, G. (1976). Tourism and environmental conservation:

Conflict, coexistence or symbiosis? Environmental Conservation, 3,

27–31.

Budowski, G. (1977). Tourism and conservation: Conflict, coexistence

or symbiosis? Parks, 1, 3–6.

Butler, R. W. (1991). Tourism, environment and sustainable develop-

ment. Environmental Conservation, 18(3), 201–209.

Chang, T. C. (2000). Singapore’s little India: A tourist attraction as a

contested landscape. Urban Studies, 37(2), 343–366.

Coppock, J. T. (1982). Tourism and conservation. Tourism Manage-

ment, 3(4), 270–276.

Dana, L. P. (1999). The social cost of tourism. Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(4), 60–63.

Daniel, Y. P. (1996). Tourism dance performances: Authenticity and

creativity. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(4), 780–797.

Donert, K., & Light, D. (1996). Capitalising on location and

heritage: Tourism and economic reorganisation. In Argentiere

La Basse, High French Alps. In L. Harrison, & W. Husbands

(Eds.), Practicing responsible tourism (pp. 193–215). Brisbane:

Wiley.

du Cros, H. (2001). A new model to assist in planning for sustainable

cultural heritage tourism. International Journal of Tourism Re-

search, 3, 165–170.

Frew, E. A., & Shaw, R. N. (1995). Industrial tourism; the experience

and the motivation to visit. In R. Shaw (Ed.), Refereed proceedings

of the national tourism and hospitality conference (pp. 88–105).

CAUTHE/VUT, Melbourne.

Fyall, A., & Garrod, B. (1996). Sustainable heritage tourism:

Achievable goal or elusive ideal? In M. Robinson, N. Evans, &

P. Callaghan (Eds.), Managing cultural resources for tourism

(pp. 50–76). Sunderland, UK: British Education Publishers.

Gorman, A. (1988). Tourism Trojan: Horse or white knight? The role

of social impact analysis. In W. Faulkner, & M. Fagence (Eds.),

Frontiers of Australian tourism (pp. 199–210). Canberra: Bureau of

Tourism Research.

Gossling, S. (2002). Human–environmental relations with tourism.

Annals of Tourism Research, 29(2), 539–556.

Gramman, J. H., & Burdge, R. J. (1991). The effects of recreation

goals on conflict resolution: The case of waterskiers and fishermen.

Journal of Leisure Research, 13(1), 15–27.

Harrison, J. (1997). Museums and touristic expectations. Annals of

Tourism Research, 24(1), 23–40.

Hendee, J. C., Stankey, G. H., & Lucas, R. C. (1979). Wilderness

management, forest service. Washington: US Dept of Agriculture,

Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365.

Holder, A. (2000). Winter tourism and environmental conflict.

International Journal of Tourism Research, 2(4), 247–260.

Hovinen, G. R. (1995). Heritage issues in urban tourism: An

assessment of new trends in Lancaster County. Tourism Manage-

ment, 16(5), 381–388.

ICOMOS. (1999). Cultural tourism charter. Paris: ICOMOS. http://

www.icomos.org (retrieved February 11, 2000).

Jackson, E. L., & Wong, R. A. G. (1982). Perceived conflicts between

urban cross country skiers and snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of

Leisure Research, 14(1), 47–62.

Jacob, G. R., & Schreyer, R. (1980). Conflict in outdoor recreation:

A theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 12(4),

368–380.

Jacobs, J., & Gale, F. (1994). Tourism and the protection of aboriginal

cultural sites. Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission, Special

Publication Series No. 10.

Jamieson, W. (1995). The use of indicators in monitoring: The

economic impact of cultural tourism initiatives. ICOMOS

Canada, 4(3), 5pp. http://www.icomos.org/canada/bulletin/

vol4 no3 jamieson e.html (retrieved June 6, 2000).

Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1998). Tourismification and historical cities.

Annals of Tourism Research, 25(3), 739–741.

Kerr, A. (1994). Strange bedfellows: An uneasy alliance between

cultural conservation and tourism. Canada: ICOMOS, 3(3), http://

www.icomos.org/canada/bulletin/vol3 no3 kerr e.html (retrieved

June 6, 2000).

King, B., Pizam, A., & Milman, A. (1993). Social impacts of tourism:

Host perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research, 20, 650–665.

Korper, S. H., Druckman, D., & Broome, B. J. (1986). Value

difference and conflict resolution. The Journal of Social Psychology,

126(3), 415–417.

Madrigal, R. (1993). A tale of tourism in two cities. Annals of Tourism

Research, 20, 336–353.

Markwick, M. C. (2000). Golf tourism development, stakeholders,

differing discourses and alternative agendas: The case of Malta.

Tourism Management, 21(5), 515–524.

Marsh, J. S. (1986). Wilderness tourism. In Tourism and the

environment, conflict or harmony (pp. 47–58). Edmonton: Canadian

Society of Biologists.

Mathieson, A., & Wall, G. (1982). Tourism economic, physical and

social impacts. London: Longman.

McCarthy, J. (1994). Are sweet dreams made of this? Tourism in Bali

and Eastern Indonesia. Northcote, Vic.: IRIP.

McKercher, B. (1993). Some fundamental truths about tourism:

Understanding tourism’s social and environmental impacts.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1(1), 6–16.

McKercher, B., & du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism: The partner-

ship between tourism and cultural heritage management. Bingham-

ton, NY: Haworth Press.

McKercher, B., Ho, P., & du Cros, H. (2002). The relationship

between tourism and cultural heritage. In K. Chon, V. Heung, &

K. Wong (Eds.), Tourism in Asia: Development, marketing and

sustainability (pp. 386–394). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong

Polytechnic University, SAR.

Milman, A., & Pizam, A. (1988). Social impacts of tourism on central

Florida. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 191–204.

Nolan, M. L., & Nolan, S. (1992). Religious sites as tourism

attractions in Europe. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 68–78.

NTHP (1999). Getting started: How to succeed in heritage tourism.

Washington: National Trust for Heritage Preservation, Washing-

ton, 45pp.

http://www.icomos.org

http://www.icomos.org

http://www.icomos.org/canada/bulletin/vol4_no3_jamieson_e.html





http://www.icomos.org/canada/bulletin/vol3_no3_kerr_e.html






O’Grady, R. (1981). Third world stopover, The tourism debate. Geneva:

World Council of Churches.

Pearson, L., & Dunn, K. (1999). Re-identifying Wollongong:

Dispossession and the local citizenry. In J. Molloy, & J. Davies

(Eds.), Tourism and hospitality: Delighting the senses Part 2

(pp. 67–72). Canberra: BTR.

Perdue, R. R., Long, T., & Allen, L. (1987). Rural resident tourism

perceptions and attitudes. Annals of Tourism Research, 14,

420–429.

Perdue, R. R., Long, T., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support

for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17,

586–599.

Pigram, J. J. (1984). Tourism in the coastal zone: The question of

public access. In O’Rourke (Ed.), Contemporary issues in Australian

tourism (pp. 1–14). Sydney: IAG.

Romeril, M. (1989). Tourism and the environment accord or discord?

Tourism Management, 10(3), 204–208.

Simons, M. S. (1996). Protection of heritage sites—Simons actions. In

G. Prosser (Ed.), Tourism and hospitality research: Australian and

international perspectives (pp. 519–534). Bureau of Tourism

Research, Canberra.

Squire, S. J. (1996). Literary tourism and sustainable tourism:

Promoting ‘Anne of Green Gables’ in Prince Edward Island.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 4(3), 119–134.

Stephenson, M. O., & Pops, G. M. (1989). Conflict resolution methods

and the policy process. Public Administration Review, 49, 463–473.

Swarbrooke, J. (1996). Towards a sustainable future for cultural

tourism: A European perspective. In M. Robinson, N. Evans, & P.

Callaghan (Eds.), Tourism and cultural change (pp. 27–256).

Sunderland, UK: Centre for Travel and Tourism, Business

Education Publishers.

TCA. (1998). Our heritage—it’s our business—TCA action plan.

Sydney: Tourism Council of Australia.

Tourism Canada. (1991). Investigative study on the cultural tourism

sector. Ottawa: Tourism Canada.

Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze. London: SAGE Publications.

WTO. (nd). Social and cultural impacts of tourist movements. Madrid:

World Tourism Organization.

Download - Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management - Hong Kong

Top Related