Heritage tourism and livelihood sustainability of a resettled rural ...

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

ISSN: 0966-9582 (Print) 1747-7646 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20

Heritage tourism and livelihood sustainability of a resettled rural community: Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site, China Ming Ming Su, Geoffrey Wall & Kejian Xu To cite this article: Ming Ming Su, Geoffrey Wall & Kejian Xu (2015): Heritage tourism and livelihood sustainability of a resettled rural community: Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site, China, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1085868 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1085868

Published online: 21 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsus20 Download by: [University of Waterloo]

Date: 24 October 2015, At: 13:30

Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1085868

Heritage tourism and livelihood sustainability of a resettled rural community: Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site, China

Downloaded by [University of Waterloo] at 13:30 24 October 2015

Ming Ming Sua, Geoffrey Wallb and Kejian Xuc* a School of Environment and Natural Resources, Renmin University of China, 59 ZhongGuanCun Dajie, Haidian District, Beijing 100872, China; bDepartment of Geography and Environmental Management, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2 L 3G1, Canada; cSchool of Humanities & Economic Management, China University of Geosciences (Beijing), No. 29, Xueyuan Road, Beijing, China

(Received 25 October 2014; accepted 5 August 2015) Tourism and related development can lead to the displacement and resettlement of communities, disrupting local livelihood systems, socio-political processes and organizations. However, limited attention has been paid to community resettlement in the tourism context. Taking Yinhuwan village at Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site in China as an example, this study examines the results of tourism and resettlement on the livelihoods of this rural community and the extent to which tourism-related livelihood strategies contribute to community livelihood sustainability. A sustainable livelihood framework is adopted to guide the analysis. Face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted with management officials, community leaders and village residents through three field investigations in 2013. It was found that traditional livelihood methods have been largely replaced by tourism, which has become the primary livelihood strategy for the resettled community. Despite current economic benefits, high dependency on tourism-related opportunities as the single livelihood option may diminish the sustainability of local livelihoods. The current resettlement plan highlights short-term economic impacts on the affected community, overlooking their socio-cultural concerns and long-term livelihood sustainability. Possible measures are discussed to diversify livelihood options and mitigate potential challenges for the affected community so as to ensure their long-term benefits and increase future options. Keywords: Heritage tourism; community; resettlement; sustainable livelihood; World Heritage

Introduction Tourism is an agent of change and an important economic development option with the potential to reduce the gap between the poor and the affluent (Wu and Pearce, 2014). However, tourism development often induces both positive and negative changes in destination livelihoods. In particular, the establishment of tourism areas and associated developments sometimes result in the displacement and relocation of communities, disrupting livelihood systems, socio-political processes and organizations (Sirima & Backman, 2013). However, limited study has been accorded to issues of displacement, resettlement and changes in livelihoods in the tourism context. Sustainable livelihood frameworks focus on the interests of communities and recognize the complexity of people’s lives. Being a holistic and people-centered approach to sustainability, sustainable livelihood frameworks have proven to be a useful analytical *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected], [email protected] Ó 2015 Taylor & Francis

2

M.M. Su et al.


tool for the examination of tourism and community relations (Tao & Wall, 2009, 2011). Therefore, a sustainable livelihood framework is adopted in this study to assess critically the relationships between tourism and livelihoods of displaced and resettled rural communities. Taking Mount Sanqingshan National Park (an unusual designation in China), which is a World Heritage Site in Jiangxi Province in China as an example, the effects of conservation- and tourism-induced resettlement on a rural community’s livelihoods are explored. Yinhuwan village, which is part of Shangxikeng village at Mount Sanqingshan, the most affected village, is chosen for examination. Heritage tourism and the community As an important leisure activity and area of scholarly research, heritage tourism has experienced rapid growth internationally as a result of increased education and income, technological improvements, the growing awareness of the world (Timothy & Boyd, 2003), and the increasing tourist interest in sites with cultural and natural significance (Aas, Ladkin, & Fletcher, 2005). The capability of tourism to finance heritage preservation and support the well-being of neighboring communities, if planned and managed properly, is also acknowledged in both developing and developed countries (Nuryanti, 1999; Tunbridge, 2007). With no widely accepted definition (Ung & Vong, 2010), heritage tourism has been subdivided into many overlapping concepts and categories (Poria, Butler, & Airey, 2006), such as cultural heritage, natural heritage, tangible heritage and intangible heritage. The multi-faceted nature of heritage has created conceptual obstacles to understanding what actually constitutes heritage tourism (Ung & Vong, 2010). Some scholars have defined heritage tourism from a visitor-experience perspective as experiences derived from visitors’ interactions with and consumption of heritage resources (Apostolakis, 2003; Christou, 2005; Kaufman & Weaver, 2006). The quality of interpretative experiences, the diversity of heritage resources at the site, the environment surrounding the site and the on-site facilities all contribute to heritage tourism (Christou, 2005; Ung & Vong, 2010). In the study that follows, the focus is on natural heritage as displayed in a protected area but cultural heritage is also important because tourists interact with local residents and the way of life of the latter constitutes part of the resources. Destination communities often play multiple roles in tourism, as service providers, sellers, craftspeople, and even as ethnic attractions (Scheyvens, 2003). Often possessing rich knowledge of the local environment, culture and traditions, they are equipped with the experience and ability to address local meanings and issues (Bramwell & Lane, 1999; Yuksel, Bramwell, & Yuksel, 1999). These are critical elements in ensuring that tourism development is well informed, appropriate (Bramwell & Lane, 1999; Yuksel et al., 1999) and not at odds with local traditions and environments. Tourism development and tourist activities often have considerable impacts on destination communities, which are mostly analyzed from economic, social and environmental dimensions and may be either positive or negative (Wall & Mathieson, 2006). These impacts are particularly pertinent on marginal and indigenous communities (Wall & Mathieson, 2006). Instead of passively receiving impacts, communities and individuals generate a variety of responses, ranging from positive to negative (Doxey, 1975; Uriely, Israeli, & Reichel, 2003). Local residents may perceive tourism as a positive opportunity to enhance their living standard and cultural identity (Perdue, Long, & Allen, 1990; Su



3

& Wall, 2012, 2013). Alternatively, negative resident attitudes and perceptions toward tourism may also arise due to economic, socio-cultural and environmental costs (Perdue et al., 1990; Su & Wall, 2012, 2013). As communities are often heterogeneous, different sections of the community may be involved in tourism in different ways and to varying degrees, and they receive different impacts and a diversity of reactions may be generated (Andriotis & Vaughn, 2003; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Nicholas, Thapa, & Ko, 2009). Despite the significance of their role in tourism, destination communities seldom have genuine control over the nature and direction of local tourism or associated planning and management practices (Scheyvens, 2003). Many scholars call for community participation in heritage planning and management, both in decision-making and benefit-sharing (Aas et al., 2005; Nuryanti, 1996; Peters, 1999; Su & Wall, 2012; Timothy & Boyd, 2003; Timothy & Tosun, 2003) in the hope that, in these ways, the potential negative impacts of tourism may be minimized with enhanced local benefits, and a higher tolerance for tourists and more satisfactory tourism development may be achieved (Aas et al., 2005; Timothy & Boyd, 2003; Timothy & Tosun, 2003). Community resettlement and livelihood change in the tourism context Ensuring positive results for local residents and governments, indigenous people and natural areas are critical elements for the success of tourism development and conservation at national parks and other protected areas (Salazar, 2012; Sirima & Backman, 2013; Zeppel, 2006), including heritage sites. However, balancing conservation and human needs, including multiple and varied goals and objectives, has always been complex and challenging, and the desirability of the greater involvement of stakeholders, including those living in and around heritage places, is increasingly recognized and advocated (Dhakal, Nelson, & Smith, 2011). Although expected to enhance local livelihoods, tourism in many cases leads to the marginalization of destination communities and fails to induce the hoped-for tangible benefits and additional livelihood activities (Nepal, 1997; Sirima & Backman, 2013). In particular, the establishment or expansion of protected areas and associated tourism development sometimes result in the displacement and relocation of communities (Sirima & Backman, 2013) although this situation is changing slowly. While displacement of resident peoples is unlikely to be totally eliminated where the societal benefits of exclusion are deemed to exceed those of affected individuals, it is being more widely acknowledged that this should be kept to a minimum. For example, in the context of national parks, the requirement to remove residents as part of park establishment has become much less common as a new management paradigm has emerged (Phillips, 2003) which, among other things, espouses governance shared by many partners and protected areas run with, for and even by local people, incorporating their local knowledge and accepting traditional rights and uses (Ostrom, 2003; West, Igoe, & Brockington, 2006; Wilkie et al., 2006). However, China has been slow to adopt these new approaches, except in places such as Jiuzhaigou World Heritage Site where international norms have been imposed and some residents still live within the heritage area, albeit with the elimination of traditional resource uses, such as animal husbandry (Li, 2006). In China, displacement of residents still commonly occurs as a result of protected area establishment. Individuals who experience loss or restriction of access to land and other resources commonly experience adverse impacts, especially where communities are displaced and livelihood activities are lost (Cernea, 2006; Sirima & Backman, 2013), disrupting


4

M.M. Su et al.

communities’ socio-political processes and organizations (Sirima & Backman, 2013). For example, Black and Wall (2001) documented the dislocations resulting from displacement of residents by World Heritage designation in Central Java, Indonesia, where removal to residences at some distance from the sites and the imposition of charges to sell souvenirs created barriers to participation in the tourism market by informal sector vendors. Somewhat similarly, Xiang (2009) studied the varying fortunes of four communities required to move following the inscription of Mount Tai, China, as a World Heritage Site. Again, formerly easy access to the tourist market was made much more difficult, although new tourism opportunities were created using different resources in some instances. Wang and Wall (2005, 2007) explored the adjustments necessitated by an indigenous community that was required to move as a result of the construction of a resort and golf course in Hainan, China. A small area of very valuable irrigated land was expropriated but villages were provided with new houses and financial compensation. However, the new houses were not well designed to meet the needs of the farming community and bitter arguments occurred regarding the adequacy and implementation of the financial provisions. These studies show that even when compensation is forthcoming, lifestyles and livelihoods are inevitably disrupted, especially in the short term. Furthermore, when the well-being of the local community is examined at a later point in time, it is easy to overlook the fact that formerly local people have been forced to reside elsewhere, raising questions concerning the nature of “local” and “community”. It is important to understand community displacement and relocation at heritage sites where there are frequently tensions between the preservation of heritage resources and traditional community livelihoods. For example, at Khajuraho in India, as well as at Borobudur and Prambananan in Central Java mentioned above, monuments which were once easily accessible by all have been fenced and made into what are essentially “archeological gardens”, “sanitizing” the sites in the name of conservation but making it more difficult for local people to access and benefit from places that their ancestors have revered for generations. Moreover, a distorted distribution of costs and benefits usually occurs among stakeholders (Brockington, Igoe, & Schmidt-Soltau, 2006) and the least powerful are often the ones who bear most of the costs (Brockington, 2004; Sirima & Backman, 2013). In many cases, residents’ socio-economic status may be degraded due to inadequate and poorly conceived compensation mechanisms (Dhakal et al., 2011; Nepal, 1997). Their means of livelihood, social support system and ways of life may be changed, leading to economic impoverishment, social dislocation, and a variety of psychological and physiological aliments (Krueger, 2009; Sirima & Backman, 2013). Even if positive experiences in terms of income, employment and access to infrastructure are obtained (Dhakal et al., 2011; Dickinson & Webber 2004), participation in decision-making is often not facilitated and this restricts community development potentials. Therefore, resettlement plans should recognize both the conservation needs and the development needs of residents, encompassing economic, environmental, socio-cultural and political perspectives (Nepal, 1997). Measures should be developed to provide proper compensation for any losses (Sirima & Backman, 2013), and to secure the community’s role in planning and management, to empower the community (Nepal, 1997), and to supply sustainable livelihood opportunities to ensure their long-term development (Nepal, 1997; Sirima & Backman, 2013). Even though the former requirement to remove residents from designated natural areas has abated in many jurisdictions, tourism- and conservation-induced community resettlement is not rare at heritage sites, as discussed above. Often disadvantaged residents are expected to benefit from the resulting tourism but it is questionable if they can


5


in the absence of adequate capacity building, especially if they are forced to move far from the tourism resource as occurred at Mount Tai World Heritage Site in China (Xiang, 2009). Thus, tourism-related activities may or may not lead to sustainable outcomes for those whose lives have been disrupted by heritage designation. However, limited study has been devoted to issues concerning displacement, resettlement and livelihood sustainability in tourism contexts.

Sustainable livelihoods in a tourism context Arising from the rural development context, the sustainable livelihood concept and approach have been applied recently to a diversity of research areas including poverty alleviation, resource and environmental management, and tourism studies, including cases in both developed and developing countries (Ellis, 2000; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Scoones, 1998; Tao & Wall, 2009; Wu & Pearce, 2014). A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living by an individual, household or community (Chambers & Conway, 1992, p. 7; Ellis, 2000, p. 19). Assets are usually categorized into natural, physical, economic or financial and social capital, and the access to these assets is mediated by institutions, organizational structure and social relations (Ellis, 2000, p. 19). Niehof (2004, p. 322) argued that “livelihood is a multi-faceted concept, being what people do and what they accomplish by doing it, referring to outcomes as well as activities”. Tao and Wall (2009) argued that “livelihood” is a more tangible concept than “development”, and is easier to observe, describe and quantify. First developed by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), a Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) framework (Figure 1) is composed of five key components: contexts, livelihood resources, transforming structures and processes, livelihood

History

Transforming

Livelihood Resources

Contexts, Conditions & Trends

Processes & Structures

N

1 Agricultural

P

E

Influence

Macro-economic

Access

conditions Terms of trade

H

S

Climate

Processes: P roce c ssses::

Processes: Laws

Agro-ecology

N: Natural capital

Demography

P: Physical capital

Social differences

E: Economic/Financial capital H: Human capital S: Social capital

Livelihood Strategies

Policies Culture Institutions Structures: Organizations Governments Private sector

Sustainable Livelihood Outcome

intensification/

Livelihood:

extensification

Poverty reduction

2 Livelihood

Improved wellbeing,

diversification

capabilities, food

(tourism)

security

3 Migration

Reduced vulnerability Sustainability: Natural resource sustainability Cultural sustainability

Figure 1. Sustainable livelihood framework (derived from DFID [1999], Scoones [1998] and Tao and Wall [2009]).


6

M.M. Su et al.

strategies, and livelihood outcomes. As shown in Figure 1, a diversity of macro conditions and social trends provide the broad context for people’s livelihoods. Livelihood resources are inputs to a livelihood system and are the immediate means needed for generating livelihoods (Niehof, 2004; Scoones, 1998). Transforming organizations and structures influence whether and how a diversity of livelihood resources is accessed and turned into livelihood strategies. Livelihood strategies of an individual, household or a community are then constructed, leading to different outcomes in the form of well-being, income, empowerment, health and vulnerability (Ashley, 2000; Chambers & Conway, 1992; Ellis, 2000). Taking a holistic perspective to people’s lives (Lee, 2008), the SL framework acknowledges the multi-sectoral character of real life. People, particularly in rural communities, often gain their livelihoods through multiple strategies using a variety of resources and capitals (Chambers & Conway, 1992; Scoones, 1998; Tao & Wall, 2009). Bringing together the notions of well-being, security and capability, vulnerability and resilience, and natural resource sustainability (Bhandari & Grant, 2007), the SL framework has proven to be a useful aid in the assessment of the impacts of development initiatives (Lee, 2008). It can be used to analyze the complex livelihoods of a community (Tao & Wall, 2009, 2011) and to identify potential strategies to make livelihoods more productive and sustainable (Helmore & Singh, 2001; Lee, 2008; Scoones, 1998). Being a people-centered concept, the SL approach emphasizes the involvement of people in development (Tao & Wall, 2009) and their freedom, albeit with constraints, of livelihood choices (Wu & Pearce, 2014). The community and its members ideally should have the freedom to choose their livelihood strategies and the lifestyle they feel comfortable with (Wu & Pearce, 2014). Alternative choices should be available if tourism-related livelihood strategies and lifestyles do not match needs and preferences (Tao & Wall, 2011; Wu & Pearce, 2014) The sustainability of a livelihood is assessed by its ability to cope with and recover from stresses or shocks, maintain or enhance capabilities and assets, and provide livelihood opportunities for succeeding generations (Chambers & Conway, 1992; Tao & Wall, 2009). The ability to contribute “net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the short and long term” is also emphasized (Chambers & Conway, 1992, p. 7). Both short-term coping mechanisms and long-term adaptive strategies should be incorporated to enhance the ability of a community or an individual to deal with changing circumstances and maintain their livelihood (Chambers & Conway, 1992; Helmore & Singh, 2001; Tao & Wall, 2009). The development of tourism always induces changes in the existing livelihood system (Tao & Wall, 2009). Although tourism may become a dominant source of income for many communities, it is seldom their only source of sustenance (Tao & Wall, 2009). This is true for many communities at heritage sites, where multiple resources supply them with multiple means of living, which may include farming, gathering, animal husbandry, fishing and other sources of livelihood (Mbaiwa, 2011; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010; Tao & Wall, 2009). In this sense, heritage sites are not different from other tourism places, except that there is likely to be both conservation and tourism development goals, the former implying that restrictions are likely to be placed on resource use. As a result, traditional livelihood strategies and lifestyles of destination communities may experience substantial changes due to changes in assets, access to these assets, and modified social and political structures within the community induced by heritage preservation, tourism and related development (Mbaiwa, 2011; Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2010). Although the addition of tourism can change the composition of livelihood strategies with traditional livelihood methods being fully or partially replaced by tourism (Mbaiwa, 2011; Mbaiwa &


7


Stronza, 2010), Tao and Wall (2009, 2011) argued that tourism should be integrated into the existing mix of livelihood strategies to enrich and diversify rather than displace the means by which people may have been sustained for generations. Moreover, a community should have the right to decide whether to incorporate tourism as one of their livelihood strategies and to what extent associated livelihood changes are acceptable (Tao & Wall, 2009; Wu & Pearce, 2014). In this paper, the SL framework is applied to understand and analyze tourism in a displaced and resettled community at Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site in Jiangxi Province, China. Core research questions include how and to what extent community resettlement and heritage tourism development at Mount Sanqingshan have changed rural livelihoods and whether the changes have enhanced or undermined livelihood sustainability. This leads to a discussion of the context and form that heritage tourism might take in order to contribute to livelihood sustainability in a resettled community.

Research context Mount Sanqingshan National Park and World Heritage Site Mount Sanqingshan National Park, a 22,950-hectare property, is located in Yushan County in the northeast of Jiangxi Province (Figure 2). Sanqing in Chinese means the "Pure Trinity" as Mount Sanqingshan is made up of three main summits: Yujing, Yushui and Yuhua, representing the Taoist trinity. In July 2008, Mount Sanqingshan was designated as a World Heritage Site in the natural heritage category for its exceptional natural scenic qualities, marked by the concentration of fantastically shaped pillars and peaks, many of which resemble human or animal silhouettes (Figure 3). These stone pillars and peaks become tourism attractions and have been interpreted in a variety of stories and tales. Mount Sanqingshan also possesses rich flora and fauna in nine different types of forest. Mount Sanqingshan was evaluated by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee as follows:

Figure 2. Location of Mount Sanqingshan National Park and Shangxikeng village.


8

M.M. Su et al.

Figure 3. A stone pillar resembling a horse head and its interpretation at Mount Sanqingshan (Photography by the second author). Mount Sanqingshan National Park displays a unique array of forested, fantastically shaped granite pillars and peaks concentrated in a relatively small area. The looming, intricate rock formations intermixed with delicate forest cover and combined with ever-shifting weather patterns create a landscape of arresting beauty. (UNESCO WHL, 2014).

Together with its natural qualities, the human landscape of Mount Sanqingshan also has special attributes. A Taoism history of more than 1600 years is represented by its ancient carved stones, temples, palaces and legends. These are incorporated into both the signage and oral interpretations of the site. Mount Sanqingshan is managed by a government agency, Mount Sanqingshan National Park Administrative Committee, which oversees both the national park and the villages within the park boundaries. Tourism at Mount Sanqingshan has been developed since the 1980s, initially at a small scale attracting visitors from nearby provinces. Following World Heritage designation, a rapid increase in tourism was experienced as shown in Figure 4. However, tourist numbers grew more rapidly than the increase in tourism revenue, suggesting a heavy reliance on revenue from entrance fees with the potential of growth in other tourist expenditures not fully realized. The increase in tourism is regarded by UNESCO as the most significant threat to Mount Sanqingshan’s universal values, and careful and sensitive planning of the related infrastructure and access development is called for in the UNESCO WHC advisory body evaluation (UNESCO, 2014: http://whc.unesco.org/en/ list/1292/documents/).

Shangxikeng village and Yinhuwan village Located besides the major entrance, Shangxikeng village is the closest village to the tourist area. It covers an area of 28 square kilometers and has about 240 families with roughly


9

700 600 500 400

No. of Tourists (00,000) Tourism Revenue (million RMB)

300


200 100 0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Figure 4. Tourist numbers and tourism revenues at Mount Sangqingshan from 2005 to 2013 (Data from the Administrative Committee of Mount Sanqingshan).

1300 residents. Shangxikeng village is currently composed of three sub-villages: Yinhuwan, Jinsha and Dawan. Due to the mountainous nature of the area, the village used to be highly dispersed and residents lived close to their agricultural lands. With the establishment of Mount Sanqingshan as a National Park and then a World Heritage Site and the associated conservation activities and tourism development, the village experienced relocation. Much of the agricultural land of the village was taken over for site development. Most residents in dispersed locations were resettled into Yinhuwan village, the newly established village for relocated residents. Land acquisition started in 2005 and the resettlement plan was initiated in 2008. Yinhuwan village, the new village site, now hosts roughly 60% of the total residents of Shangxikeng village. At the time of investigation, roughly 90% of residents involved in the resettlement plan were in the process of relocation or had relocated from dispersed locations to the new Yinhuwan village. Tourism-related activities had become their primary livelihood strategies, replacing most former livelihood methods. Yinhuwan was chosen as the study site because it is the major part of Shangxikeng village and contains the residents who were relocated as a result of heritage conservation and tourism development at Mount Sanqingshan. Drastic changes have occurred at Yinhuwan in recent years, such as the paving of roads, the construction of residential accommodation and the opening of small shops, due to its close relationship with the tourism development of Mount Sanqingshan. Moreover, the relocation and tourism involvement at Yinhuwan is likely representative of many heritage sites in China and elsewhere, where tourism has taken place in association with heritage designation, under the guidance of procedures and regulations of such agencies as UNESCO. Displacement of residents has often occurred in association with heritage protection with a concomitant expectation that they will somehow benefit from tourism. However, the nature of tourism development and the responses of residents are not uniform, leading to a need for detailed case studies, such as that which follows, to understand the context within which tourism development occurs in China (Cornet, 2015).

10

M.M. Su et al.


Methodology A qualitative research approach was adopted in this research. This is suitable for gaining a detailed understanding of individuals and communities in their natural settings (Creswell, 2013). A predominantly qualitative research approach has been widely adopted in livelihood research on tourism and communities (Snider, 2012; Tao & Wall, 2011; Xiang, 2009) where an understanding of organizational structures, policy initiatives and their various outcomes is sought. Data from primary and secondary sources were collected during three field investigations in April and May 2013. The first one involved 4 days in the study area to make initial contacts with the administrative committee of Mount Sanqingshan and the studied community and to collect relevant local documents. Interviews with the management officers were conducted during the first investigation as well. Both the second (12 days) and the third field investigations (5 days) were concentrated in the village to interview residents and the village leader and observe their involvement in tourism. The first and third authors conducted the interviews, and the second author participated in the initial exploratory visit. Face-to-face in-depth interviews were used as the primary data collection method to understand the current livelihood portfolio and livelihood changes that had occurred after the resettlement and heritage tourism development. Interviews were conducted with key management officials of Mount Sanqingshan Administrative Committee, the community leader and village residents (Table 1). The management interview was undertaken to understand the status of tourism planning and development at Mount Sanqingshan, the village resettlement plan, site-level management schemes concerning local livelihoods, and the perspective of site management concerning resettlement and community participation in tourism. Two key officials were interviewed. The community leader was interviewed to reveal the village perspective on the status of resettlement, tourism development and community participation, the livelihood changes induced by village resettlement and tourism development, attitudes towards these changes, issues and concerns at the village level, and aspirations for the future. Resident interviews were conducted at Yinhuwan to understand the socio-economic characteristics of resident Table 1. List of interviewees. No. of interviewees Management interview Key management official at Mount Sanqingshan Administrative Committee Village mayor of Shangxikeng village Community Interviews at Yinhuwan village Family hotel owner Male aged 50s Female aged 50s Female aged 40s Male aged 40s Male aged 30s Female aged 20s Retail store owner Female aged 20s

2 1

2 2 1 1 2 1 1



11

informants, current livelihood portfolios, the position of tourism-related livelihood activities, changes to livelihood activities induced by resettlement and tourism development, attitudes toward tourism and livelihood change, issues and concerns, and aspiration for the future. In order to qualify for interview, residents had to have been involved in tourism for at least one year. Ten residents, purposely including a varied mix of gender and ages, from ten different families were interviewed successfully. Both open and closed questions were used and each interview lasted from 1 to 2 hours. In addition, participatory observation was conducted while researchers stayed at a family hotel at the relocated village during the latter two field investigations. Researchers observed the layout of the relocated village, resident daily life and interactions in the relocated village, ways of resident participation in tourism, resident engagement in other livelihood methods, and the operation of a family hotel. Field notes were taken to document what was observed and experienced. Interviews were first transcribed and reviewed thoroughly. Major themes were then identified and categorized according to the elements of the Sustainable Livelihood Framework. Interview results were then compared across different types of interviewees and crosschecked with the contents of the collected documents (site development plan, world heritage application documents and management documents) and the researchers’ field notes.

Findings Resettlement and livelihoods at Yinhuwan village Prior to relocation, residents of Yinhuwan used a wide range of resources and livelihood strategies to support themselves. Traditional livelihood methods were primarily composed of forestry, farming, animal husbandry and migration. After tourism development and resettlement, tourism-related livelihoods gradually replaced traditional livelihood strategies, primarily in the forms of regular and occasional employment and family businesses, including family hotels, restaurants, retail stores and souvenir outlets (Table 2). According to the Mayor, since 2011, tourism-related activities have become the main livelihood sources in the village, contributing 80% 90% of total household income for most families. Contributions from traditional livelihood methods have decreased significantly. Commercial agriculture and animal husbandry are no longer available due to the loss of agricultural land. Forestry, with limited access only to wild natural products such as wild fruits, mushrooms and bamboo roots, contributes roughly 10% of total household

Table 2. Major types of tourism employment at Yinhuwan village. Type of tourism employment

Nature of employment

Preferred participant

Positions at Administrative Committee Tour guide Onsite souvenir vendor Sedan chair carriers Family hotel owner

Long-term

Young residents

Occasional Occasional Occasional Family-based

In village retail store

Family-based

Young females Middle-aged residents Young and middle-aged males Both males and females, all ages, particularly elder residents No specific preference


12

M.M. Su et al.

income. The percentage of migratory workers among village residents also decreased after resettlement. As noted in the UNESCO WHC advisory body evaluation (UNESCO, 2014), the relocation of residents from environmentally sensitive or hazardous areas at Mount Sanqingshan is recognized by UNESCO. Due to the sensitivities of community relocation in protected areas, it was required by UNESCO that the relocation should be handled in a fair and open manner, that the process should be negotiated and by consent, and not forced, and a fair package of compensation should be provided. Based on these criteria, the relocation process at Mount Sanqingshan was evaluated and approved by UNESCO as indicated in the document referenced above. According to interviews with the Mayor and residents, the resettlement plan was initiated and managed by Mount Sanqingshan Administrative Committee. Acting as the local government, the Administrative Committee also plays a critical role in providing both financial and institutional support to the resettlement project. A key management official of Mount Sanqingshan commented: We also give high priority to the interests of these villages along with conservation and tourism. Community well-being is part of our responsibility and we need to ensure their interests and proper development. Therefore, we provided extra compensation in addition to the national standards. The compensation schemes are made after discussions with the village committee. Also we provide on-site jobs to village residents. Therefore, they have many opportunities to be involved in tourism. And their annual incomes are generally higher than residents in other villages.

The village committee is the key organization for land acquisition and village resettlement implementation, intervening between the Administrative Committee and residents. First, information on procedures and policy were released to each of the affected households by the village committee. Then negotiations on compensation terms and time to move were conducted through the village committee. Those who agreed to relocate first were to enjoy wider choices to select the location of their new houses in the newly established relocated village. According to the Mayor, due to the quick development of tourism and associated opportunities in the last decade, most residents now prefer to be engaged in tourism. Therefore, there has not been much resistance to land acquisition and resettlement provided that compensation is fair. Residents indicated that not much information about the resettlement plan was released before the plan was finalized. Residents were informed of the details through the village committee. All resident interviewees indicated that they were not given the chance to state their needs and requirements regarding resettlement, although there were negotiations on the terms of compensation, particularly the economic dimension. The latter primarily comprise one-time financial compensation at national standards for the requisition of agricultural land, one-time financial compensation for resettlement, support for the construction of new houses, a national annual subsidy for restricted use of forest resources, employment allocation for affected households, and other preferential policies to encourage tourism employment. Support for the construction of new houses was provided by the Administrative Committee in addition to the national resettlement standards. Supports include a construction subsidy at a rate of RMB 65 (roughly 10 USD) per square meter, free design of the house and the layout of the new village, free construction of the foundation of each house, and free exterior decoration. To encourage efficient resettlement, there was also a subsidy at a rate of 100 RMB (roughly 15 USD) per square meter for those who completed their house within five months of the start of the resettlement plan.



13

Figure 5. Yinhuwan village (Photography by the first author).

Designed as three-story semi-detached houses of roughly the same size (Figure 5), the total cost of construction and decoration for one house ranged from 180,000 to 200,000 RMB (roughly USD 30,000 33,000), requiring most or all of a family’s compensations for land acquisition and resettlement. In particular, more money was needed for furniture and equipment (such as TVs) if they intended to start a family hotel business. Therefore, eight of the nine interviewed residents indicated that they borrowed money from relatives for house construction and business startup. Employment positions at the Administrative Committee were allocated to each household as compensation for their loss of traditional livelihoods. Most families had at least one member working at the tourist area as arranged by the Administrative Committee. Such positions are preferred by residents as stable jobs. Besides, residents are also encouraged by the Administrative Committee through preferential policies to engage in other tourism-related jobs, such as tour guides, souvenir vendors and sedan chair carriers. For example, the Mayor stated that most on-site tour guides are from nearby villages and all on-site vendor booths are allocated to residents from affected villages. Moreover, using their new houses, most families at Yinhuwan now run family hotels, which have similar standards of services and facilities. Impacts on rural livelihoods from resettlement and tourism participation The SL framework is used to analyze impacts of the village resettlement and heritage tourism development to the rural livelihoods at Yinhuwan village. Major changes occurred in livelihood resources and transforming processes and structures. New livelihood strategies

14

M.M. Su et al.

N N: Natural capital P: Physical capital

P

E

E: Economic/Financial capital H: Human capital


S: Social capital

H

S

New livelihood resources Traditional livelihood resource

Figure 6. Impacts on livelihood resources from resettlement and heritage tourism.

have been constructed on the basis of the new status of resources, facilitated through new organizations and policies, leading to different livelihood outcomes. Figure 6 diagrams impacts on livelihood resources at Yinhuwan village. All five categories of capital experienced changes due to resettlement, heritage tourism and associated developments, and residents’ engagement in tourism. First, commercial forestry activities are now prohibited due to conservation requirements. Also, residents lost their agricultural land for the development of the tourist area; thus, agriculture is not a feasible activity. Thus, residents’ natural capital has decreased and their access to it has been restricted. From a financial perspective, interviews revealed that household expenses have increased, mainly due to the increased telephone and internet bills some of which result from the operation of tourism facilities, and their need to purchase food following the loss of agricultural land. On the other hand, financial compensation was provided by the government for loss of land and restricted use of forestry resources, and interviewees acknowledged that income from tourism and related activities brought more cash into each household. Human capital refers to the skills, knowledge and health that enable people to pursue livelihood strategies (Chen, Shivakoti, Zhu, & Maddox, 2012). Involvement in heritage tourism requires a different set of skills than those required in the former agricultural and forestry activities. The changes were associated with the development of new capabilities, such as language skills (Mandarin Chinese in addition to the local dialect), marketing skills (online promotions and online sales) and tourism service skills (cooking and tour guiding). Residents were now better connected to the outside world through interactions with tourists and their changed lifestyles. One interviewee commented: Tourists to Mount Sanqingshan come from different parts of China. It is interesting for me to learn about other places through chatting with them… . In the past, those who are strong made the most money. Now it is changed. Those who know the computer and how to sell their family hotel online make the most money. We also need to learn how to communicate with tourists and provide good services so that they may come back again or recommend their friends to visit our place.

Enhancements in physical capital also occurred. Living conditions have been improved substantially. Furnished and decorated at the standard of family hotels, almost



15

all houses are equipped with cable televisions, flush toilets and a solar water heater. Computers and internet access are common, improving communication with the outside world. These changes, introduced to meet the needs of tourists, also bring conveniences to residents. Interviews also revealed that social networks related to tourism have emerged and expanded, increasing the social capital of residents. Residents’ social networks have expanded through their business relations with travel agencies, tour guides and other business suppliers. The Village Committee has initiated a family hotel network in the village, aiming to strengthen the sales and marking activities of all family hotels in the village, enhance service standards and reduce vicious competition. Besides, informal networking activities occur whereby families running hotels communicate and share their experiences in serving tourists. Although there is competition, excess business is passed on, particularly during tourism peak seasons, as the need to retain business in the village is widely recognized. A family hotel owner commented: We refer tourists to another family if we have no room available. Sometimes, we ask other families to help to serve food to our tourists. Of course we are competing with each other, but we are in the same village and they will do the same for us. Otherwise, tourists will go to other places and never come back to our village again.

Moreover, tourism involvement has strengthened families, the basic social unit in the village, by enhancing connections within and between families, and increasing the options for young people to live productive lives in the village. In contrast to the traditional agricultural system, engagement in tourism encourages communications and networking activities among residents to maximize livelihood outcomes. Two older family hotel owners commented that the older generation is usually responsible for the operation of family hotels. Having other employment during the day, the younger generation will assist at other times with online promotions and sales, which have become the major source of bookings in recent years. As a result, those who retain the younger generation in the family home experience better performances in their hotel operations. Heritage tourism has also triggered institutional and structural changes at the local scale, which are critical factors in shaping livelihood strategies. Interviews with the management official and the Mayor revealed that the Administrative Committee is responsible for both heritage tourism and community development within the boundary of the site. Preferential policies have been established by the Administrative Committee to support the construction of new houses, the operation of family hotels and to facilitate employment of resettled residents in tourism. The establishment of Yinhuwan village and its village committee is the direct result of heritage tourism development at Mount Sanqingshan. Supporting and monitoring residents’ engagement in tourism is one of the major responsibilities of the village committee.

Local attitudes toward livelihood change induced by resettlement and tourism participation The elimination of almost all agricultural and forestry activities has meant that it has not been possible for relocated residents to maintain their traditional rural lifestyles. This situation has been reinforced by the structure of their replacement dwellings. As in the case of the relocated Li minority community in Hainan studied by Wang and Wall (2007), the replacement houses are not conducive to agricultural production or animal husbandry,

16

M.M. Su et al.


even on a small scale (Figure 5): they lack yards, are not adjacent to agricultural lands and are arranged differently in a line along the street. Nevertheless, interviews with residents revealed positive attitudes towards their livelihood changes. All informants acknowledged improvements in living conditions, greater employment diversity and enhanced access to the outside world. This was particularly so for young people who are now better educated and were pleased not to be bound to the traditional rural livelihoods. Nine out of ten interviewees indicated that their household income had increased significantly and expressed satisfaction with current tourism-related livelihoods. Although resident attitudes towards resettlement and tourism were largely positive at the time of the investigation due mainly to their increased income from tourism, negative feelings were emerging as a result of the changed lifestyle and the uneven distribution of economic benefits. A retail store owner, a young mother with two children, commented: My husband and I used to work in the city. We came back last year because we heard our fellow villagers were making money serving tourists. It is also good to stay with my children in the village. We opened this small store at the first floor of our house because we think there are too many family hotels in the village. However, our business is not good. Most of our customers are construction workers at the tourist area. Not many tourists come here. We may not be able to pay back the money we borrowed when we opened the store. Our living expenses are high as food prices are high here… . I do not know… . May be next year we will have to give up this store and go to the city to work again… . I do not like the new village. Well, yes, houses are new and clean. But it is too crowded here and I miss our old wooden houses.

In addition, the older people, lacking relevant skills to participate in tourism-related livelihood strategies, were suffering the most from the livelihood changes. A young family hotel operator commented: Young people like me probably prefer the new village. Older people are not used to this lifestyle. They feel they have nothing to do. They used to make themselves busy with agricultural and forestry activities. Now they have no land and have too much time. Some of them have managed to cultivate small pieces of land at corners of the village to grow vegetables or raise a couple of chicken. That’s their way of life. But they may not be able to find such places next year as the construction of the village will be completed. You know, people may get sick when they have nothing to do. I think the village committee should think about measures to get them engaged.

Although tourism has increased incomes so far, concerns were emerging about the sustainability of tourism-related livelihoods. Two families, both early participants in tourism, had experienced seasonal and annual fluctuations in business and expressed concerns about the sustainability of their family hotel business as competition increased. An elderly couple operating a family hotel commented: Tourists peak during May holiday, summer vacation and National Day holiday. Except for these days, most of our rooms are vacant. We get a good income when tourists come but there is no guarantee. This year is not as good as last year, probably because there are more family hotels in the village. Well, the development trend has been good in recent years and Mount Sanqingshan has had more visitors every year. But more houses are being constructed in the village and most of them will run family hotels. Well, what else can we do without our land? I do not know the situation next year. The good thing is both my son and his wife have stable jobs at the Administrative Committee, so we are not only relying on this business… . I think we should be granted a share of the tourism income at the site, because our land has been given to the tourist area.



17

Evaluation of livelihood sustainability The rapid development of tourism at Mount Sanqingshan and associated village resettlement induced drastic changes in community capital, access to these various forms of capital, and related organizational process and structures, causing the collapse of traditional livelihood options represented by agriculture, animal husbandry and forestry. New livelihood strategies were constructed around tourism, resulting in different livelihood outcomes for residents. Resettlement and involvement in heritage tourism caused both negative and positive changes to livelihood sustainability at Yinhuwan. On the one hand, due to the loss of agricultural land and restricted access to forestry resources, the traditional complex of livelihood strategies composed primarily of a mix of agriculture, forestry and animal husbandry was replaced by tourism as a single livelihood option. Reliance on tourism as a single livelihood option, albeit one with a number of different jobs, has restricted the ability to diversify income sources and has potentially increased vulnerability by “putting all the eggs in one basket”. On the other hand, tourism engagement has fostered the development of new capabilities, social networks and connections to the outside world, which has improved livelihood outcomes, at least in the short term, by generating new livelihood strategies and potentially enhancing livelihood sustainability. In terms of the resettlement plan, a disconnection has been identified between lifestyle preferences based on former living conditions and the design of the new village, with a number of negative socio-cultural impacts and further limitations to the potential for livelihood diversification. Additionally, the resettlement plan lacks attention to education and health care facilities at the new village, diminishing long-term well-being unless these issues are addressed. Moreover, the resettlement compensation package is composed primarily of one-time payments which recognize current values but not future resource opportunities. However, preferential employment policies have been introduced. Nevertheless, long-term links between site tourism development and community livelihoods have not been articulated but are necessary to strengthen tourism-community relationships and sustainability. For example, a shareholding system might be established, which would ensure the direct sharing of on-site tourism revenues with residents based on the type and quantity of resources that they relinquished. Yinhuwan residents are now involved intensively in tourism-related livelihood strategies with few other alternatives and focus primarily on a single type of business: family hotels. They need to be encouraged to diversify livelihood opportunities from tourism although their opportunities to do so are constrained by their restricted access to agricultural and forestry resources. For example, the interest of tourists in local specialties has been observed by some residents: Tourists love our food and local specialties. After having dinner at my house, many tourists want to buy our mushrooms and lotus roots. They think what we have are more fresh and tasty than what they can buy in cities. But we do not have much stock. Sometimes, we ask our neighbors whether they have some to sell.

Therefore, establishing characteristic high quality local specialties based on local resources with the brand name of Mount Sanqingshan may be an opportunity which could satisfy some tourists’ needs for souvenirs with a local flavor. The production, packaging and sale of such products could extend tourism’s positive impacts into other related sectors so as to enhance tourism service standards and generate more employment opportunities for local people.

18

M.M. Su et al. Governments; Administrative / Management Body Training, evaluation, funding, policy…

Low Sustainability Tourism as a single livelihood method; - Restricted use/ depletion of resources

Enhance livelihood sustainability Ideas; development initiatives; Operation…


-

-

-

Community; Community organization

High Sustainability Tourism with substantial benefits to community; Livelihood diversification through development of products and services related to tourism and tourist needs Empowerment through tourism engagement and livelihood diversification

Figure 7. A combined approach to enhance livelihood sustainability.

As shown in Figure 7, both top-down and bottom-up approaches could be used in the process. With direct contacts with tourists, communities or community organizations could generate new ideas and propose development initiatives based on their understanding of tourist behavior and needs. The Administrative/management body and governments could encourage and facilitate community initiatives through provision of training, feasibility evaluation, fund raising and policy making. With inputs of both types, a livelihood system relying on tourism could be reconstructed to become a livelihood system with more diverse components, leading to enhanced community resilience and greater adaptability to changes. Due to its inevitable economic, social and cultural impacts to the local community, it is argued that village relocation should be carefully evaluated and, where possible, avoided in tourism development initiatives. When community relocation has to occur, the community’s economic, environmental, social and cultural needs should be incorporated into the relocation plan. Extensive and effective community consultation prior to relocation is critical if their lifestyle and preferences, and needs for housing, education, healthcare and other related amenities are to be understood and incorporated into relocation plans. Such information can be used to guide the site selection and design of the new village, so that they better represent residents’ interests, minimize negative impacts of village relocation on cultural and social traditions, and reduce potential conflicts. Community consultation can occur in a variety of forms according to the local conditions and preferences, but could include community meetings, interviews, open houses, focus groups, on-site observations and many others. Moreover, as illustrated in the study, tourism has different impacts on residents of different age, gender, education level and interpersonal skills. Within-community differences also require attention to ensure that the variety of needs is met and an appropriate sharing of benefits is facilitated.


19


Conclusions Taking Yinhuwan village at Mount Sanqingshan World Heritage Site as an example, this study examined relationships between rural livelihoods, resettlement and heritage tourism development, with a focus on livelihood sustainability. This study contributes to the understanding of tourism and sustainable livelihoods in displaced and resettled communities, which to date have received little attention in the literature. Insights have been generated on ways in which livelihood sustainability can be enhanced in resettled communities at tourism areas. Located besides the major entrance of Mount Sanqingshan tourist area, residents at Yinhuwan experienced relocation and associated drastic livelihood changes. Having lost agricultural land to tourist area development, their traditional livelihoods based on agricultural and forestry were replaced by livelihoods centered on tourism, particularly employment onsite and family hotel businesses encouraged through preferential policies and financial support provided by the Administrative Committee. Resident attitudes towards these livelihood changes were largely positive at the time of research mainly due to the increased income from tourism. However, negative feelings were emerging caused by the changed lifestyle and the uneven distribution of economic benefits. Resettlement and tourism-induced livelihood changes at Yinhuwan have brought economic benefits to residents. However, due to the loss of land and the restricted access to forestry resources, residents have high dependency on tourism and their potential for livelihood diversification is restricted. A high dependence on tourism opportunities as the single livelihood option increases vulnerability in the event of economic recession or political change. Concerns about the sustainability of tourism-related livelihoods are emerging among residents. Therefore, measures should be sought to mitigate potential future challenges and enhance community satisfaction, which will also help sustain the tourism development at Mount Sanqingshan. For example, linkages between tourism and other sectors could be established through the production, packing, branding and selling of signature local products, which could serve both as souvenirs to tourists and products for a wider market. The resettlement plan at Yinhuwan has not benefitted from adequate consideration of community lifestyle preferences, education and health care needs, and the long-term livelihood sustainability of the community. These limitations reflect the lack of effective consultation in the planning and implementation of resettlement. Further mechanisms should be incorporated into the resettlement plan not only to provide compensation for losses, but also to supply diversified livelihood strategies to enhance community well-being while respecting cultural and social traditions. Therefore, due to the long-term socio-cultural costs, it is suggested that community resettlement at heritage sites should be avoided whenever possible. When resettlement is necessary, it would be beneficial for both the management agency and the government to understand the traditions and preferred lifestyle of the community and their specific needs and requirements for housing, education, healthcare and general well-being, so that the resettlement plan can better reflect the interests of the affected communities and respect local culture and traditions. Thorough community consultations at the beginning stage of the resettlement plan are required, which should incorporate the aspirations, social and cultural needs and the long-term development and well-being of the community along with economic concerns. Tourism- or conservation-induced resettlement is not rare at heritage sites in China and they bring significant impacts to the livelihoods of affected communities. Tourism-related


20

M.M. Su et al.

activities are often convenient alternative livelihood methods to resettled residents but they may or may not bring sustainable outcomes for the community. Both the conservation and business needs of the tourist area and the development needs of the community should be recognized and addressed in the plans. In particular, local livelihood needs should be accorded high priority at the beginning of tourism development to ensure that community participation and local capacity building occurs throughout the development process in order to construct a long-term synergistic relationship between local livelihoods and on-site tourism development. The study reveals that tourism involvement does not automatically lead to improved living standards and enhanced livelihood sustainability. High dependence on tourism and the loss of traditional livelihoods may increase long-term risks. Although tourism may seem to be a convenient and effective livelihood option for some resettled communities near tourism destinations, it is important to explore links between tourism and other economic sectors in order to diversify and maximize the opportunities brought by tourism. A combination of bottom-up and top-down approaches (Figure 7) is proposed to enhance community livelihood sustainability through livelihood diversification based on tourists’ needs and the local cultural and natural resources. Future research is needed to further explore possible mechanisms to facilitate this change, particularly in the Chinese context. With a focus on people, the SL framework has been shown to be a suitable and effective framework to guide analysis on the relationships between tourism and the livelihood sustainability of resettled communities at tourist areas. It has been used here in a Chinese context, with its distinctive economic, socio-cultural and political circumstances, and can potentially be used to give a voice to those whose opinions are often not heard in a predominantly top-down decision-making system. It is a viable approach that, by placing tourism in a broader livelihoods context, can be used to enhance the understanding of community tourism interactions and generate practical implications for the establishment of reciprocal community tourism relationships.

Acknowledgements Special thanks to Mount Sanqingshan Management Agency and all the interviewees for their kind help and support, which make this research possible.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding The research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 41201147] to Dr Ming Ming Su.

Notes on contributors Ming Ming Su is an assistant professor at the School of Environment and Natural Resources, Renmin University of China, Beijing. She holds degrees from the University of Waterloo in Canada and Tsinghua University in China. Her research focuses on heritage management, tourism impacts, ecotourism and tourism issues in China.


21

Geoffrey Wall is Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Canada. He holds qualifications from the universities of Leeds, Cambridge and Hull in the UK, and Toronto in Canada. His research focuses on tourism, recreation and the socio-economic implications of climate change. He is involved in several tourism and environmental projects in China. Kejian Xu is an assistant professor at the School of Humanities and Economic Management, China University of Geosciences, Beijing. She holds degrees from the China University of Geosciences and Chengdu University of Technology in China. Her research focuses on geotourism and geoparks management.


References Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 28 48. Andriotis, K., & R. Vaughn (2003). Urban residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: The case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research, 42(2), 172 185. Apostolakis, A. (2003). The convergence process in heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30(4), 795 812. Ashley, C. (2000). The impacts of tourism on rural livelihoods: Namibia’s experience (ODI Working Paper No. 128). London: Overseas Development Institute. Bhandari, B.S., & Grant, M. (2007). Analysis of livelihood security: A case study in the Kali-Khola watershed of Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management, 85(1), 17 26. Black, H., & Wall, G. (2001). Global local interrelationships in UNESCO World Heritage sites. In P. Teo, T.C. Chang, & H.K. Chong (Eds.), Interconnected worlds: Tourism in Southeast Asia (pp. 121 136). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1999). Collaboration and partnerships for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7(3 4), 179 181. Brockington, D. (2004). Community conservation, inequality and injustice: Myths of power in protected area management. Conservation and Society, 2(2), 411 432. Brockington, D., Igoe, J., & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Conservation, human rights, and poverty reduction. Conservation Biology, 20(1), 250 252. Cernea, M.M. (2006). Population displacement inside protected areas: A redefinition of concepts in conservation policies. Policy Matters, 14, 8 26. Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century (IDS Discussion Paper 296). Brighton: IDS. Chen, H.Y., Shivakoti, G., Zhu, T., & Maddox, D. (2012). Livelihood sustainability and community based co-management of forest resources in China: Changes and improvement. Environmental Management, 49, 219 228. Christou, A. (2005). Heritage and cultural tourism: A marketing focus approach. In Sigala & Leslie (Eds.), International cultural tourism: Management, implications and cases (pp. 3 15). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Cornet, C. (2015). Tourism development and resistance in ethnic China. Annals of Tourism Research, 52, 29 43. Creswell, J.W. (2015). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DFID. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets (Section 2.1). London: DFID. Dhakal, N.P., Nelson, K.C., & Smith, J.L.D. (2011). Resident well-being in conservation resettlement: The case of Padampur in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 24(6), 597 615. Dickinson, D., & Webber, M. (2004). Environmental resettlement and development on the steppes of Inner Mongolia (Working Paper Series 19. Environmental Resettlement and Development). Victoria: School of International Development, Melbourne University. Doxey, G. (1975). A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences in the impact of tourism. Sixth annual conference proceedings of the Travel Research Association, San Diego, CA, September, p. 195. Ellis, F.0 (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


22

M.M. Su et al.

Helmore, K., & Singh, N. (2001). Sustainable livelihoods: Building on the wealth of the poor. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Kaufman, T.J., & Weaver, P.A. (2006). Heritage tourism: A question of age. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11(2), 136 145. Krueger, L. (2009). Protected areas and human displacement: Improving the interface policy and practice. Conservation and Society, 7(1), 21 25. Lee, M.H. (2008). Tourism and sustainable livelihoods: The case of Taiwan. Third World Quarterly, 29(5), 961 978. Li, F.M.S. (2006). Tourism development, empowerment and the Tibetan minority: Jiuzhaigou national nature reserve, China. In A. Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.), Managing World Heritage Sites (pp. 226 238). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Mason, P., & Cheyne, J.(2000). Residents’ attitude to proposed tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 391 411. Mbaiwa, J.E. (2011). Changes on traditional livelihood activities and lifestyles caused by tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tourism Management, 32, 1050 1060. Mbaiwa J.E., & Stronza A.L. (2010). The effects of tourism development on rural livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(5), 35 656. Nepal, S.K. (1997). Sustainable tourism, protected areas and livelihood needs of local communities in developing countries. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 4, 123 135. Nicholas, L.N., Thapa, B., & 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. Niehof, A. (2004). The significance of diversification for rural livelihood systems. Food Policy, 29(4), 321 338. Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 249 260. Nuryanti, W. (1999). Introduction: Sustaining heritage through cultural industries. In W. Nuryanti (Ed.), Heritage, tourism, and local communities. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press. Ostrom, E. (2003). How types of goods and property rights jointly affect collective action. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15(3), 239 270. Perdue, R.R., Long P.T., & Allen, L. (1990). Resident support for tourism development. Annals of Tourism Research, 17(4), 586 599. Peters, H. (1999). Making tourism work for heritage preservation: Lijiang, a case study in UNESCO and the nature conservancy, Yunnan. International conference on Anthropology, Chinese Society and Tourism, Kunming. Phillips, A. (2003). Turning ideas on their head: The new paradigm for protected areas. The George Wright Forum, 20(2), 8 32. Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2006). Tourist perceptions of heritage exhibits: A comparative study from Israel. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(1), 51 72. Salazar, N. (2012). Community-based cultural tourism: Issues, threats and opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 9 22. Scheyvens, R. (2003). Local involvement in managing tourism. In S. Singh, D.J. Timothy, & R.K. Dowling (Eds.), Tourism in destination communities (pp. 229 252). Wallingford: CABI. Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Sirima A., & Backman, K.F. (2013). Communities’ displacement from national park and tourism development in the Usangu Plains, Tanzania. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(7 8), 719 735. Snider, R. (2012). Land tenure, ecotourism, and sustainable livelihoods: “Living on the edge” of the Greater Maasai Mara, Kenya (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Su, M.M., & Wall, G. (2012). Global local relationships and governance issues at the Great Wall World Heritage Site, China. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(8), 1067 1086. Su, M.M., & Wall, G. (2013). Community participation in tourism at a World Heritage Site: Mutianyu Great Wall, Beijing, China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 16, 146 156. Tao, T., & Wall, G. (2009). Tourism as a sustainable livelihood strategy. Tourism Management, 30(1), 90 98. Tao, T., & Wall, G. (2011). A livelihood approach to sustainability. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), 137 152. Timothy, D.J., & Boyd, S.W. (2003). Heritage tourism. England: Pearson Education.



23

Timothy, D.J., & Tosun, C. (2003). Appropriate planning for tourism in destination communities: Participation, incremental growth and collaboration. In S. Singh, D.J. Timothy, & R.K. Dowling (Eds.), Tourism in destination communities (pp. 181 204). Wallingford: CABI. Tunbridge, J. (2007). From heritage to tourism: A personal odyssey. In Wall, G. (Ed.), Approaching tourism (pp. 143 154). Waterloo: University of Waterloo. UNESCO (2014). Mount Sanqingshan National Park Advisory Body evaluation. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1292.pdf. UNESCO WHL. (2014). UNESCO World Heritage list: Mount Sanqingshan National Park. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1292. Ung A., & Vong T.N. (2010). Tourist experience of heritage tourism in Macau SAR, China. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 5(2), 157 168. Uriely, U., Israeli, A., & Reichel, A. (2003). Religious Identity and residents’ attitudes toward heritage tourism development: The case of Nazareth. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 27(1), 69 84. Wall, G., & Mathieson, A. (2006). Tourism: Change, impacts and opportunities. Harlow: Pearson. Wang, Y., & Wall, G. (2005). Resorts and residents: Stress and conservatism in a displaced community. Tourism Analysis, 10(1), 37 53. Wang, Y., & Wall, G. (2007). Administrative arrangements and displacement compensation in topdown tourism planning: A case from Hainan Province, China. Tourism Management, 28(1), 70 82. West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 251 277. Wilkie, D.S., Morelli, G.A., Demmer, J., Starkey, M., Telfer, P., & Steil, M. (2006). Parks and people: Assessing the human welfare effects of establishing protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 20(1), 247 249. Wu, M.Y., & Pearce, P.L. (2014). Host tourism aspirations as a point of departure for the sustainable livelihoods approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(3), 440 460. Xiang, Y. (2009). The World Heritage site and the local communities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Waterloo, Waterloo. Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B., & Yuksel, A. (1999). Stakeholder interviews and tourism planning at Pamukkale. Turkey Tourism Management, 20, 351 360. Zeppel, H. (2006). Indigenous ecotourism: Sustainable tourism development and management. Wallingford: CABI.