routeing heritage for tourism: making heritage and cultural tourism networks for socio-economic...

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 06 November 2014, At: 06:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

International Journal ofHeritage StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

Routeing Heritage for Tourism:making heritage and culturaltourism networks for socio-economic developmentClaude Moulin & Priscilla BonifacePublished online: 09 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Claude Moulin & Priscilla Boniface (2001) Routeing Heritagefor Tourism: making heritage and cultural tourism networks for socio-economicdevelopment, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7:3, 237-248, DOI:10.1080/13527250120079411

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527250120079411

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13527250120079411

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527250120079411

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ISSN 1352-7258 print; ISSN 1470-3610 online/01/030237-12 � 2001 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/13527250120079411

International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2001, pp. 237± 248

Routeing Heritage for Tourism: makingheritage and cultural tourism networksfor socio-economic development1

Claude Moulin and Priscilla Boniface

Abstract

Heritage routes and itineraries are mechanisms being used towards tourism needs and

objectives. This paper defines these routes, reviews their context, and considers some

examples in Europe. It looks at the ̀ why’ and ̀ how’ of heritage routes being established, and

shows the inputs that tourism causes and needs. The particular dimensions to routes and

what they bring and require are discussed. The associated demand of networks and

networking is discussed and the potential beneficial aspects are described. The especial

capacity of itineraries to bring about cross-boundary dialogue and interaction are

highlighted and the wider potential of this feature for global society is alluded to. The need

is suggested for more research into the use, outcomes and effects of routes.

Key Words: Cultural Routes; Cultural Networks; Tourism; Europe; Heritage

Routes and networks are considered here primarily from their emergence in Europe

during the last few decades of the last century.2 UNESCO has used them for its

wider educational, social and cultural aims. For other, European, organisations they

have acted as mechanisms towards the European ideal. At their inception, therefore,a political agenda was behind the creation of routes and networks when initiated by

European organisations. They can be seen as having been treated by their

introducers, Europe’s main relevant organisations such as the Council of Europe, as

means to building and improving pan-European dialogues. So, routes and networks

frequently have social aims as well as economic goals. The goal for routes and

networks at the European level is that of communication. Through routes and

1. This paper, apart from minor alterations, was presented at the International Council on

Monuments and Sites [ICOMOS] Scientific Symposium, held in conjunction with the 12th General

Assembly, in Mexico in October 1999.

2. In this paper, routes and networks are viewed as they are used in heritage and tourism, and

towards the aims of socio-economic development. The words are used in there usual sense in this

particular context. The route here represents a method of linkage for presenting and promoting

heritage with some shared characteristics. Here, the network serves as a co-operative link between

organisations and individuals involved in the establishment and maintenance of heritage routes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

238 Claude Moulin and Priscilla Boniface

networks the hope and expectation is of participating groups and individuals

developing improved knowledge and understanding among one another.

The discussion will analyse routes and networks and show their characteristics.

The shape and structure of activity that occurs when routes and networks are used

in the heritage and tourism arena will be discussed. Through the use of examples,

the important aspects of the development and management of routes will be

highlighted.

Shapes, Characteristics and Reasons for FormulationThe essence of a route is that it is a selected journey or progression among a seriesof elements. It is a strategy for an objective or series of objectives. The route is a

course of action, not one immediate and isolated activity. Whether a route’s line is

linear, is in the shape of a deviation out from a point and back to another, or is

circular, it has the characteristic of being along a level of horizontality in terms of

type, calibre and level. Each feature of a route has a role. Usually, the elements have

an approximate equality. There is a type of route, however, in which the items at its

beginning or end are centres and particular tourism goals. A mass destination

located at the beginning of a route serves to bring tourists to a district, and so then

a route out from the point can be presented as one that would appeal to visitors. Atourist attraction at the end of a route can bring to attention those places on the

journey that would not have attracted tourists as sole destinations, or in their role as

accepted entry points to an area.

These definitions are both key and distinguishing items about routes that make

them different from other well-used procedures for heritage utilisation and

promotion to tourists. They serve to connect. The idea leads into a link to networks.

The major aspect of a network is that it is a formulation among groups or

individuals possessing a relationship of mutual support and a common objective,

and approximately equal power. So here, too, the dimension of horizontality is the

important feature.A contrast can be drawn with more standard approaches. If heritage is to be

promoted and made more visible, and especially if the motive is to deliver socio-

economic and developmental benefits, then routinely it is organisations that lead

the initiative. Frequently, large organisations set things in motion, such as

UNESCO, the European Union (EU), the Council of Europe (COE), and

national and local government bodies. They act, so they believe, in the public

interest. The macro-scale is what characterises their heritage effort. Their general

work is to decide strategies to achieve objectives and to find vehicles of

implementation to be applied from the top, by a trickle-down effect, and oftenvery bureaucratic process, to arrive eventually at the individual situation of a

heritage site and its surrounding community along with outside visitors. The

difficulty of the process, for the strategy to achieve suitability and acceptance at

the site location, is its very long verticality. An additional aspect that hampers the

right plan being chosen for a particular place is that, in the vertical line of

communication, equal layers of weight, importance and influence are not likely to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Routeing Heritage for Tourism 239

Table 1 Features of routes and networks

They can cross boundaries:

geographical

political

cultural

organisational

operational

They can make connections:

professional

social

thematic and promotional

towards obtaining financial assistance

of advice training, information and ideas

of resource maximisation

between sectors and disciplines

of power, support and solidarity

They can show flatter organisational styles

be represented in the progress down. At the critical bottom point of the vertical

situation, the idea may both not be appropriate to circumstances and will not have

been able to be transmitted upwards because of the difficulties arising from the

complexity, variety and power of intervening layers. Due to the nature of the

heritage initiative, two-way dialogue between the grassroots participants and the

big organisational actor way above may be non-existent or lacking in adequateunderstanding for the achievement of the objectives.

Routes and networks, therefore, provide alternative methodologies, and may be

chosen if appropriate for achieving aims. It has been shown how their style is

essentially that of equality and linearity. They can be seen, therefore, as having vital

assets suitable to immediate needs and as being in tune with society. These features

are outlined in Table 1.

Routes and networks can be delineated as serving a useful role, as mechanisms for

utilising heritage for the direct aims of conservation, cultural preservation and

tourism, and for the additional objective of socio-economic development. Their

capacities as devices are (1) to allow flexibility of modes of use and a degree ofcomplexity of use, and (2) to encourage co-operation and adequate communication

among the necessary range of participants and stakeholders. Though the benefits of

routes and networks can be shown across a range of situations, they can perhaps be

perceived as of the most potential help in those situations where resources are limited.

The process of sharing expertise and experience, and constructing a pool of

information for use can allow any one place or operative to effect a great deal more than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


if it were working alone.3 In rendering more power to those usually unable to obtain it

when working alone, a network ought to provide more strength of voice and control.4

Clearly, routes and networks are using different space, both literally and

metaphorically, from vertical operations and from sites in isolation. By being

alternative ways of handling heritage they have the capacity to bring the

conventionally unreachable within visitors’ and managements’ purview, and toprovide outcomes unobtainable through traditional means.

Routes and networks are not, of course, the same. This is despite the fact that they

are often in harness and that they share certain characteristics. In the context of the

heritage and tourism environment being discussed, routes and networks can be

described this way: routes are the actual itinerary of travel, and networks are the

background mechanisms to produce them as entities. Clearly, they are com-

plementary and share certain characteristics in common. In terms of the objectives

attained, or those hoping to be attained, by them, however, routes and networks

have some key differences along with certain similarities. The uses of routes andnetworks by the various main participants are presented in Table 2.

3. P. Boniface, `Behind the scenes: the tourism periphery to France’s Mediterranean coast’ ,

International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2000, pp. 129± 144.

4. J. Krippendorf, The holiday makers: understanding the impact of leisure and travel, Oxford:

Butterworth-Heinemann, 1989, p. 117.

Table 2 Uses for routes and networks

Routes Networks

Tourists For getting somewhere For wider informational accessFor the journey along the way

Residents To deliver sources of economic,social and cultural benefit to their

door

For social contactFor exchange of information

Presenters and

stakeholders

For reach and presence to be

extended commercially, politically

and in terms of status

For exchange of best practice

knowledge

For efficient and cost-effectiveuse of resources through co-

operation

For extended opportunities forpromotion

Place For gaining tourist attention forrevenue and support of opinion

towards conservation

For widespread dissemination ofinformation about it for its

better care and maintenance

For sharing the load in terms ofbest conservation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Background, Ideal and ImplementationRoutes and networks are not in themselves new concepts. For example, the first SilkRoute was in existence eons (4,000 years) before its touristic and promotional

equivalent in recent times5 and which the COE has also linked with other textile

routes. Similarly, the apogee of the general notion of pilgrimage was (in the

countries of Christendom) during the Middle Ages. The first instigation of this type

of route by the COE was the Santiago de Compostela Pilgrim Way in 1987. This was

through a Council for Cultural Cooperation (CDCC) initiative, one of whose

objectives was to engender a cross-Europe network as a consequence of the route.6

One aspect of the pilgrimage from the past, and that makes it very suitable as the

linking element between early examples of routes and their modern counterparts, isthat the pilgrimage involves shared effort and represents a common ideal. Networks

provide support and allow goals to be achieved, and have a long history Ð essentially

since that time when human beings first realised the efficacy of living together and

in a state of connectedness. So, therefore, journeying along a trail has long been a

natural inclination as well as simple common sense, and living in co-operation

remains a standard utopian dream.

The discussion now turns to how the ideas about routes and networks are being

used today, in terms of heritage conservation and use and societal benefit

specifically, and with tourism in particular. France pioneered the use of routes in the1970s, with r̀oute historique’ becoming a registered mark with the National

Institute of Intellectual Property by the Caisse Nationale de Monuments

Historiques et des Sites (CNMHS). This was to ensure quality and unity. Today,

creators of routes are required to form themselves into an association. The context

of our review here is that from their beginnings in France, and then from around

1987, routes and itineraries have been deployed and seen around the world as

touristic products.

The methodology of cultural itineraries is to put emphasis on diversity. Difference

is essential between the themes and subjects of routes, otherwise as touristic

products their size range and appeal would be limited. While approaches toestablishing routes are likely to differ somewhat around the globe according to

circumstances, the objectives tend towards conformity and ubiquity. The public-

sector organisations’ wishes are those of bringing socio-economic development,

cultural conservation and revivification, exchange and interaction between commu-

nities and groups, and delivering education. Meanwhile, the tourist industry’s needs

are for new attractions and new commercial enterprises.

Some of the most prominent routes are those of the COE. From their instigation,

COE routes were planned in line with CDCC aims for routes to:

5. E. Karpodini-Dimitriadi, `Developing cultural tourism in Greece’, in M. Robinson & P. Boniface

(eds) Tourism and cultural conflicts, Wallingford: CABI, 1999, pp. 121± 122.

6. M. Thomas-Penette, Les ItinÂeraires culturels, Paris: Actes Sud, 1997; Cultural routes: the Santiago de

Compostela pilgrim routes, COE leaflet, Strasbourg: COE.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


d act as mechanisms for networking to serve for the protection and recognition of

European heritage;

d act as engines of social and economic development, together with cultural

development; and

d make cultural tourism a special and widening activity.

The COE, in its 1964 COE Working Group Report, placed emphasis on networking

as a device.7 It is through networks that themes for COE routes are expected to be

chosen. Among the established route networks are those of the Santiago de

Compostela Route, the European Textile Network and the Monastic InfluenceNetwork. According to COE Rules, geographical networks themselves, e.g. the

Hanseatic cities, can serve as the basis of a route.8 Networking and co-operation,

establishing new dialogues and trying new types of interaction are continuing

matters of emphasis to the routes project. The preservation of skills is central in the

relationship of co-operation with the European Foundation for Heritage Skills.

Certain projects extending beyond Europe, such as that for the Silk Route and for

the Baroque Route, have involved close collaboration with UNESCO and its global

remit. And deriving from the Athens `EurotourismÐ Culture and Rurality’

conference in 1994, rigorous dialogue is maintained with the EU. Included in thisis the Majorca conference in 1995, with UNESCO and with the European Agency

for Culture, culminating in a Cultural Tourism Declaration. With participation at

the ̀ Cultural Routes and the World Heritage List’ seminar and the resultant joining

together to prepare a supplementary Article for UNESCO’s World Heritage Rules,

the connection with the domain and concept of World Heritage was firmly

established.

Until 1990, the Convention on World Heritage had not considered the protection

of cultural itineraries as such. In 1992 it became possible to designate linear areas

as significant networks for transportation and communication. In 1993 the first

itinerary to be registered on the World Heritage List was the Santiago deCompostela Route. Following the inclusion of this itinerary on the List, the

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) needed to reflect on

the specificity of this heritage, and to consider management dimensions and what

monitoring processes would be necessary to achieve the required goals.9 A linear

World Heritage Site that has been on the List since 1987 is Hadrian’s Wall in the

UK. In its complexity and extent as a Site, Hadrian’s Wall has also needed to fulfil

the function of a tourist destination, among others. This is to provide additional

income to its resident farming community and to allow the traditional landscape

7. COE, Report: Cultural routes. history of the project (1987± 1996), CC. Cult (96) 8, Strasbourg: COE,

1996.

8. On the Cultural Routes of the Council of Europe, Resolution (98) 4, 17 March, Appendix 1,

Themes, Strasbourg: COE, 1998.

9. Les Itineraires comme Patrimoine Culturel, meeting of experts, Paris: ICOMOS, 1994.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


needed for conservation objectives Ð and, moreover, of the type the visitor

expects Ð to be provided. To co-ordinate the network of activity and variety of

participants along this Site has demanded the provision of a Director and office of

management.10 Particularly noticeable is the strong recognition of the need for

adequate data to achieve management aims. For comparison it is interesting to see

how the requirement for data for operating the COE routes scheme and for

disseminating information about the routes and their processes led in 1997 to the

COE co-operating with the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to establish the Institute

of Cultural Itineraries in Luxembourg.

The themes forming the subject of COE routes are required specifically inNumber I of the Rules (1998) to `permit the development of initiatives and

exemplary and innovative projects in the field of cultural tourism’ (List of eligibility

criteria for themes, item 5). In Number III (List of criteria for networks) networks

are looked at directly and in detail. Among emphases in item 1 is that concepts

should be formulated on the basis of research among participating partners. Item 5

of Number II (List of priority fields of action) has addressed particular necessities

for cultural tourism projects, and with an overt and stated link to sustainable

cultural development. It demands `cooperation between Europe and other

continents’ , which is tantamount to calling for international networking. Animportant requirement as part of this same item is that projects need to:

concern themselves in the field of cultural tourism, with raising public awareness,

drawing decision makers’ attention to the necessity of protecting heritage . . . and seek

to diversify both supply and demand, with a view to fostering the development of

quality tourism with a European dimension.

Networks are required by the COE to have clear and encompassing programmes and

objectives, to have firm plans for funding and operation, to show that legal aspects

have been addressed, to put in place a mechanism of evaluation and to report

biannually to the COE (Number III, items 2 and 3). A notable feature of many of the

COE routes is that themes serve to link rural or less developed areas.

At the 1987 ̀ Culture and Regions’ conference in Florence, the region was seen aspivotal and important to the establishment of networks. One such regional cultural

tourism group, and one that is very large, is the Nordic World Heritage network.

This network was developed by the Central Boards of Antiquities of Finland and

Sweden and includes fifteen World Heritage Sites in Denmark, Finland, Norway

and Sweden. Local representatives, county governments, site managers and owners

participate in this network.

As mentioned above, because of their essential structure and form, routes not

only offer communities the opportunity of direct self-help but also allow each

participating community along a route to benefit from being linked to the

experiences, and the knowledge gained, of other participants. Heritage and tourism

10. C. Young, `Hadrian’s Wall: striking the balance’ , circulated paper, English Heritage, 1996.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


knowledge, and marketing and product-development expertise, are all necessary

inputs to the successful operation of a route. These elements, if not found among

route participants, need to be provided by those large-scale bodies that are

introducing and encouraging the route initiatives overall.

Within the framework of the World Decade of Cultural Development, UNESCO

launched an international project entitled `The Baroque World’. The Decade

concept put emphasis on grassroots support as a basis for protecting the world’s

cultural heritage. The visualisation for `The Baroque World’ was that it should aim

to strengthen the dialogue between the countries of eastern and western Europe,

Latin America and the Caribbean around a baroque heritage as unique as it isvaried. It was an interdisciplinary, intercultural and multi-media project centred

around three main axes: (1) scientific, with research, studies focusing on aspects of

the baroque period, (2) a cultural pedagogical axis aimed at better acquainting the

general public with many actions and the organisation of cultural touristic routes,

and (3) a contemporary axis supporting the continuity and re-creations of the

baroque world.

In Savoy, `Les Chemins du Baroque’ was an itinerary developed by FACIM(Foundation for International Cultural Action in the Mountains) on the initiative of

the General Council of Savoy during the Winter Olympic Games in 1992. Seeingheritage tourism being increasingly favoured by tourists, the Department of Savoy

developed four objectives: (1) to restore and give life to heritage; (2) to offer rural

areas an opportunity for development; (3) to give summer and winter resorts an

alternative to sports and recreation; and (4) to experiment, using baroque art, with

a type of cultural tourism that could later help other types of Savoy heritage.11

Les Chemins du Baroque provides the opportunity to visit sixty churches and

rural chapels, strongly representative of baroque art, within a network that covers

the Maurienne Valley, the Tarentaise, the Beaufortin Massif and the Arly Valley.

Around thirty buildings were restored in 1992 within the Heritage Plan in

partnership with the state, the region, the Department, and local communities. Aninterpretation centre has been developed to introduce the visitor to baroque art.

Over 250 signs with the name ̀ Chemins du Baroque’ have been placed on the route

and each village has a sign carrying the name of each building located in that village.

About twenty guide-interpreters are deployed and they receive very extensive and

specific training to take visitors along the route of the baroque sites. With the

assistance also of around 100 volunteers, more sites can be opened, more often and

during longer periods. As an example, in 1996 they conducted more than 1,000

visits.

The overall quality of the `Chemins’ of Savoy has allowed them to receive theendorsement of the Direction du Patrimoine du Ministere de la Culture. This is

under the title `Villes et Pays d’Art et d’Histoire’ , which is a network of

municipalities and regions that are involved and have agreed to enhance their

11. FACIM, Presentation and Report, Chambery, 1997.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


heritage. In terms of use and attracting visitors, the ̀ Chemins du Baroque’ statistics

reveal an undoubted success in terms of attracting visitors: at the outset in 1992

there were 15,000 visits and by 1993 the number had nearly doubled to 35,000; in

1996 over 60,000 visitors enjoyed the itinerary.

To complete the cultural tourism product, in 1997 FACIM initiated the ̀ Pierres-

fortes de Savoie’ , a network of fifteen forts and fortresses that defended and

controlled the major roads to Italy. This programme enriches the `Chemins du

Baroque’ in allowing tourists and visitors to extend their knowledge of the history

and heritage of Savoy.

A further French example is the `Terre Catalane’ Cultural Network, whose sta-tus is as an association, led by a Director, which acts in linking heritage sites

along the foot of the Pyrenees mountains. The Network has a national, regional,

Departmental, individual locality, media, private-sector and inter-community

association partnership set in place. Increasing tourist numbers is an aim, but so

too is to increase the quality of cultural services and to bring quality training to

hospitality and development staff. External partnerships were pursued to enable

the product to be marketed effectively. Visitor information is available in Catalan,

French, English and German. A special Terre Catalan Historic Route visitor pass

is available. The route has been accepted as an Historic Route by theCNMHS.

Other examples of network activities include the following: Eurotex is an EU

Director General XVI project to help retain the textile heritage by bringing textile

tourism to peripheral areas. In Crete, the Grecotel hotel chain, part of the large and

environmentally conscious German TUI tour operator group, is assisting the

project. Altogether in Crete seven different Textile Routes have been delineated with

the support and promotion of the hoteliers of the city of Rethymnon on Crete’s

northern coast. Greece is among participants in the ̀ Via Mediterranea’ programme,

which is a network of co-operation to develop agrotourism among the participating

Mediterranean countries including Portugal, France and Spain.12 The Silk Routeproject has moved into eastern Europe to Russia, Bulgaria, Romania and

Albania.

Cultural routes along the Baltic Sea are now nine years old and are reinforcing

their coherence in developing a new project that intends to link the Baltic Sea to the

Mediterranean through the Black Sea. The Baltic Sea Tourism Commission, created

in 1995, first comprised four partners that wanted to co-operate in sustainable

tourism. By using the heritage of amber, links can be developed between EU

countries and countries of oriental Europe, and between northern and southern

Europe. Some inventories of sites, monuments, museums, handicrafts and all theactivities within the field of amber have begun. In 1999 the Amber Route was

proposed to the COE.13

12. E. Karpodini-Dimitriadi, op. cit., pp. 123± 124.

13. Tower net, Luxembourg, March 1999.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


As has been described above, ICOMOS has needed to consider its viewpoint and

advice on cultural routes. A point of focus has been provided with the creation of the

special Scientific Committee on Cultural Itineraries. Proposed by Spain and

decided in Tenerife (1998), the new Committee has put forward definitions of the

concept and defined basic principles and cornerstones to attain cultural conserva-

tion and respect, achieve cultural and interdisciplinary exchange, and encourage

acquisition of, and respect for, cultural knowledge.

A particular dimension of routes is that by their nature they lend themselves to

helping to attract visitors to remote or relatively unknown sites. Routes in general

are a helpful mechanism because, as has been explained above, with a majorattraction acting as the `anchor’ of a route, the others linked to it may be visited by

tourists as an outcome of that association. Often, too, as is the overt aim of the COE

routes projects, t̀ired’ and obscure cultural sites of historic and general societal

importance are revived and renewed.14

Conclusions and RecommendationsCultural and heritage routes and networks for tourism reveal a central irony. This is,

that while, as has been shown, routes and networks have a characteristic of

horizontality, their adoption process is often of a traditional top-down variety. Theconcepts for use are formulated and imposed from above, as are the means of

cultural preservation, and social and economic development, and the regeneration

of far-distant sites, places and communities. The added irony, as has been discussed,

is that the chosen recipe is likely to have been reached by networks having first been

put into place at this high level. The strange situation that is likely to emerge is of a

model of essentially cruciform shape, whereby a top-down style is used to impose an

`across’ technique. This raises the question of whether the compositions of routes

and networks and associated initiatives are suitable for consideration, and adoption

of them as useful mechanisms, by local communities,15 for shared goals to emerge

and to be achieved. One of the authors, Moulin, has proposed that the WorldHeritage Sites of the Mediterranean could be linked in a network, with sub-

networking not only achieving quality management of the Sites but also bringing

maximum satisfaction to both visitors and residents.16

Overall, the ideal is clearly of linear intercommunication among participants of

routes to form a network of support. Monitoring and investigation are needed,

however, to determine whether the ideal is being realised and whether the right

elements are appearing at the expected and required level or if shifts and alterations

14. COE, 1996, op. cit.

15. P. Boniface, Managing quality cultural tourism, London and New York: Routledge, 1995.

16. C. Moulin, `Tourisme culturel durable en Mediterranee: proposition de strat Âegies de r Âeseaux de

routes culturelles et historiques du Patrimoine Mondial en MÂediterranee’, in Le Tourisme Culturel,

Minist Áere de la Culture de Tunisie, UNESCO (Actes du Forum International de Hammamet,

October 1997).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


need to occur between what communities do themselves and what it is best and

necessary for outside, `higher’ and larger bodies to instigate and provide.

To gain the optimum from the route idea, more networking is needed between the

tourism industry and the heritage industry. While immense individual initiatives and

sustainable tourism projects have taken place globally within the tourism industry,

only a few have been co-operative at core. Our environment, as we have learned over

the years, is interdependent, and culture is very fragile if not cared for through an

integrated approach. Tourism as an industry is now becoming aware that its cultural

product resource is vulnerable and so players are helping and participating in

initiatives to help conservation efforts. Nonetheless, it is difficult to perceive thatprivate-sector firms and organisations, with their money-making remit, will feel fully

disposed to form networks of sharing and information exchange about cultural

routes when their natural state is to be in competition with each another.

With public-sector organisations such as UNESCO and the COE giving a lead

with routes and itineraries, a new form of cultural and heritage tourism has been

delivered. This is despite the fact that routes, itineraries and networks have long

been part of society’s general activity. The question is whether international, local

and regional objectives can dovetail and work with a common aim. Ascher17 has

pointed out that although large international tourism organisations such as theWorld Tourism Organization (WTO) and the International Office of Social Tourism(BITS) exist, they do not fulfil the objectives of individual regions. Ascher18 has

proposed the use of facilities for operational studies through tourism development

agencies or regional agencies so as to obtain suitable matter for specific research on

socio-cultural issues relating to tourism development.

It has been emphasised that information is crucial to the whole process of routes

and their installation and operation. A criticism could be made of France, one of the

countries whose routes are used here as an example, that most of its historic routes’

creators have failed to undertake preliminary tourist-demand studies Ð though the

Beer Route in Lorraine has conducted partial investigations.19 The point here is tounderline the need for adequate research into tourists’ opinions about routes. An

additional current failing is in the area of monitoring and outcomes. This is since,

again using the example of France, of some eighty historic routes in the country

apparently only ten use any form of attendance monitoring, and fluctuations in it,

of evaluating tourist satisfaction, and of consideration of community impacts or

benefits.

So it would seem that above all, and from an early 21st-century viewpoint, more

data are required. Such data would allow answers to be found for the core and vital

questions of whether routes and networks help to preserve heritage as they areintended to do, and whether they deliver a kind of tourism that is judged as suitable

17. F. Ascher, Tourism: transnational corporations and cultural identities, Paris, 1985.

18. Ibid.

19. J.F. Beau, `Dossier les routes touristiques’ , Decision Tourism, No. 29, April 1998.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14


and acceptable for the context, and that also shows the capacity to generate that

social and economic development for which so many places in the world have a

requirement. The need is to determine the disadvantages and advantages of routes

and networks, and to see how any problems identified can be ameliorated. The core

elements required for heritage routes to be constructed and made useful need to be

identified. Common bars to establishment also need to be determined. An objective

of data gathering ought also to be to highlight particular occurrences and situations

as they can impinge upon and affect the amount of socio-economic development

likely to occur. A further general dimension required is for an indication to beobtained of the likely effects of the introduction of routes and to establish not only

which desired outcomes may occur in a given situation but also to determine any

unwanted or unwelcome outcomes. A fundamental need is to define the types of key

participants and features required of successful networks and to determine the

overall environment that is required. The main effort should be to find whether an

ideal template or suitable model of routes and networks exists for universal use or

whether, in achieving the aims of social and economic development, it is more

effective instead to identify a range of approaches. This discussion has attempted to

show the need for these complex and necessary lines of enquiry to be pursued morevigorously. Table 3 summarises recommended avenues for future research.

Table 3 Routes and networks: future action

The research and identification of:

Tourists’ reactions to routes as tourism products

Impact and outcome (beneficial, and any harmful) of routes and networks, and especially

whether results are of heritage being conserved and socio-economic development being

achieved

Whether balance and fairness are being achieved among network participants

Whether `weaker’ members of networks have adequate support and are permitted enough

`voice’

Whether `top-down’ initiatives for routes and networks filter down to work satisfactorily at

ground level

Whether commercial and competitive imperatives mean that private-sector representatives

and tourism operators do not feel disposed to network

Whether existing formulae and methodologies for establishing routes and networks need any

alteration, towards maximum efficacy

What key components and core elements of success exist for routes and networks and

whether a model of general applicability can be identified

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:28

06

Nov

embe

r 20

14

routeing heritage for tourism: making heritage and cultural tourism networks for socio-economic...

Documents