Tourism and Recreation Research

Tourism and the World of Culture and Heritage

Greg Richards Pre-publicaton version of Richards, G. (2000) Tourism and the World of Culture and Heritage.Tourism Recreation Research, Volume 25, Issue 1, 2000

Abstract Culture and heritage constitute vital resources for tourism development, and tourism in turn makes an important contribution to cultural development. This paper considers the key trends in the cultural and heritage tourism markets, including the development of demand, the elements of culture and heritage included in the tourism product, the role of the cultural producers and the effects of globalisation and localisation. Future directions for the development of cultural and heritage tourism are also considered.

Cultural and heritage tourism constitute important segments of global tourism demand. According to the World Tourism Organisation, 37% of international tourism is culturally motivated, and demand is estimated to be growing at 15% annually (Canadian Tourism Commission, 1997). The growth of cultural and heritage tourism as elements of the ‘new tourism’ (Poon, 1993) has caught the imagination of policy-makers and tourism academics across the world. A vast amount of literature is now appearing in the field, matched only by the output of cultural and heritage tourism policies, plans and products.

1

This article examines the growth of cultural and heritage tourism in recent decades, and evaluates the potential for development of these sectors in the new millenium.

Cultural and Heritage Tourism

The terms ‘cultural tourism’, ‘heritage tourism’ and ‘arts tourism’ are often used almost interchangably without much thought being given to their meaning or definition. In part, this reflects the difficulties involved in defining the concept of ‘culture’, which as Raymond Williams (1983) has pointed out, is one of the most complicated words in the English language. In addition, problems of definition are actually increasing as our notions of ‘culture’ expand through the processes that John Urry (1990) identifies as the ‘culturisation of society’ and the ‘culturisation of tourist practices’. Through such culturisation processes, and the aethetiscisation of everyday life, there is a growing convergence of ‘high’ and ‘popular’ culture, and a widening of the concept of culture itself. One approach to deal with the complexity of the term is to concentrate on usage. The word culture is usually used to refer to a ‘way of life’, or to the products of a particular culture (way of life) or individual (Richards, 1996a). Culture is thus a very broad concept, which generally includes both ‘heritage’ and ‘art’.

2

Cultural tourism is thus considered to cover all forms of culturallymotivated tourism. Richards (1996a:24) proposed the following conceptual definition:

The movement of persons to cultural attractions away from their normal place of residence, with the intention to gather new information and experiences to satisfy their cultural needs.

According to this definition, cultural tourism covers visits to all types of cultural attractions, including discrete attractions such as museums and monuments, cultural performances and other cultural manifestations, including the consumption of the ‘way of life’ of other cultures. Cultural tourism has in recent years seen a shift away from ‘hard’ cultural resources such as built attractions towards ‘soft’ resources such as performances.

Heritage tourism is largely concerned with the cultural legacy of the past, or the ‘hard’ cultural resources usually contained in old buildings, musuems, monuments and landscapes or represented and interpreted in specialised ‘heritage centres’. As Yale (1991) notes, heritage tourism is ‘centred on what we have inherited, which can mean anything from historical buildings to art works, to beautiful scenery’. This broad view of heritage is reflected in the definition adopted by UNESCO (1972) in the World Heritage Convention. The 3

Convention divides heritage into cultural heritage, defined as ‘a monument, group of buildings or site of historical, aesthetic, archaelogical, scientific, ethnological or anthropological value’ and natural heritage, designating ‘outstanding physical, biological and geological features; habitats of threatened plants or animal species and areas of value on scientific or aesthetic grounds or from the point of view of conservation’. This combination of cultural and natural heritage is also reflected in many national inventories. In Canada, for example, of the 1881 heritage attractions listed by the Canadian Tourism Commission, 16% are linked to nature (Canadian Tourism Commission, 1995).

Within these broad views of heritage, different interpretations and emphases are possible.

As Bauer (1996:147) argues, for example, ‘for the

French

the

cultural heritage (patrimoine) covers not just the built heritage, but also includes elements of the natural heritage, individual cultural performers, gastronomy and even the sex tourism attractions of the Moulin-Rouge’. As this view suggests, heritage can cover many elements of living culture as well as the cultural and natural past. In traditional cultures the heritage of the past may in fact be viewed as an element of the living present, as Henrici (1999) points out in her study of tourist art in the Peruvian highlands.

Differences in the concept of heritage are also evident in the way in which heritage tourism has developed in different countries. For example open 4

air museums developed at the turn of the 20th century in Scandinavia in response to the threatened disappearance of traditional rural ways of life and cultural artifacts. Heritage later re-emerged in the UK in the 1970s with the development of heritage centres in both urban and rural settings. Hewison (1987) argues that the development of the ‘heritage industry’ in the UK was a function of the social and economic problems facing the UK at the time, including economic recession, high unemployment and a loss of former imperial power and position in the world. This led to a concentration on industrial heritage and the conservation and preservation of disused industrial buildings for tourism purposes. Many other countries have since jumped on the heritage bandwagon, although often with their own emphasis. In France, for example, the ‘ecomuseum’ emerged as a specific means of interpreting local culture, and in the Netherlands ‘cultural-historical’ tourism emphasised the preservation of entire landscapes, including cityscapes and polders. In other countries, such as Australia and Japan, heritage has become the subject of theme parks, focussing either on local culture or in some cases on foreign culture (e.g. the ‘Holland Village’ theme park near Nagasaki).

Arts tourism is concerned with the performing arts, fine arts and entertainment. Although there is some overlap between arts tourism and heritage tourism, particularly in visits to arts museums, arts tourism is more centred on contemporary forms of culture than heritage tourism. Arts tourism took longer to 5

emerge as a distinct market segment, arguably because of the greater opposition to tourism development in the arts world (Bonink, 1992). Arts tourism is now one of the most dynamic sectors of the cultural tourism market, as arts production becomes more commercialised and dependent on visitor income. Just as the concept of ‘culture’ has expanded in recent years, so the meaning of the ‘arts’ has also grown to encompass more elements of popular culture. As Hughes and Benn (1994) have demonstrated, the consumption of popular entertainment, such as musicals and seaside shows have become part of the arts tourism product. In many traditional cultures, the production of arts and crafts products has become a major source of income, as Cohen (1995) demonstrates in his study of crafts tourism in Thailand.

In this article, cultural tourism is taken to include both heritage tourism and arts tourism.

A Profile of Cultural and Heritage Tourists

Because cultural tourism has only relatively recently been identified as a significant segment of global tourism, studies of cultural tourists and their motivations did not appear in any great numbers before the 1980s. Early isolated studies such as those by Berroll (1981) and Thorburn (1986) indicated that cultural and heritage tourism was predominantly an up-market phenomenon, but 6

few details were known about the structure of the market. The growth of cultural and heritage tourism demand during the 1980s created a pressing need to know more about the market, and led to a burgoening body of research in the early 1990s (e.g. Prentice, 1993; Bywater, 1993). Although these individual studies provided significant insights into the behaviour and profile of cultural tourists, the differing methodologies and definitions adopted made it difficult to compare results or to identify broader trends. A more structured approach to the study of cultural and heritage tourism was adopted by the European Cultural Tourism Project, established by the European Association for Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS) in 1991. This research project, orginally funded by DGXXIII of the European Commission, surveyed over 14,000 cultural visitors at over 70 cultural sites and events in 1992 and 1997, and will be repeated in 1999/2000 (Richards, 1998). These data provide a comprehensive picture of the characteristics and motivations of cultural tourists in Europe.

The ATLAS surveys indicated that tourists accounted for about 60% of the visitor sample, and local residents made up the balance of 40%. Most of the tourists interviewed were domestic tourists (58%). Of the foreign tourists, 11% came from outside Europe, with the overseas visitors being dominated by North Americans and Australasian vistors.

7

Most of the cultural visitors had a high level of education. Over 40% of respondents had had a higher education, and 11% were still studying in further or higher education. The proportion of visitors with a higher education is therefore much greater than the general level in the EU. Cultural tourists were in general even better educated, but this is partly related to the higher average age of the cultural tourists.

A majority of the respondents were either employed (50%) or self employed (11%). Students form an important element of the cultural visitors (11%), as do retired people (11%). Of those currently working, many respondents had a professional occupation, and managers and directors (12%) were also well represented. This indicates that cultural visitors are mainly employed in high status positions, which matches the high education level. The high occupational status also relates to relatively high average incomes. Almost 45% of the 1997 respondents came from households with a gross annual income of 30,000 Euro or more. The average income lay around 22,000 Euro, over 25% higher than the EU average.

The cultural tourist often has a high degree of cultural capital in respect of the sights that they visit, but this does not always mean that cultural tourists are old. Recent increases in higher education participation has produced a large group of younger cultural consumers: up to 40% of the visitors to some 8

attractions in the ATLAS research were under 30 years of age. Cultural tourists were in general older than the local residents interviewed, with 44% of the tourists being aged between 40 and 60 years old.

The cultural and heritage tourist in Europe is first and foremost a skilled consumer, for whom the pursuit of culture is a form of personal development (Richards, 1996b). There is an increasing desire for novelty in contemporary society (de Cauter, 1996), and culture provides an excellent source of novelty, allowing people to discover new cultures and also providing opportunities for people to learn for themselves. The skilled consumer can create their own novelty as a cultural tourist, through painting, languages, crafts, gastronomy and other activities. As qualitative research among cultural tourists in different European countries shows, the search for novelty and the desire to learn are at the top of the agenda for most cultural tourists (van ’t Riet, 1994). One should not interpret the desire for ‘learning’ as we might understand it in the narrow traditional sense of receiving and storing information, but in the more active sense of self-development. Novelty is also combined with nostalgia through heritage tourism: people will also look at the familiar past through new eyes.

The desire for learning is also often accompanied by a desire for authenticity. As MacCannell (1976) has emphasised, cultural and heritage attractions play a crucial role in the tourist’s search for authentic experiences. 9

This search for authenticity has according to Mowforth and Munt (1998) turned into ‘an obsessional quest for the authentification of experience’, so that cultural attractions not only become the goal of much tourism activity, but also a justification for it. The obsessive search for authenticity also leads paradoxically to the creation of even more inauthentic environments (Ritzer, 1999). The search for authenticity is therefore doomed to fail, because as soon as they threaten to penetrate to the ‘backstage regions’ of the host culture, new ‘false backstages’ are created to meet their demand for authentic experiences (Cohen, 1988).

This general picture of the cultural tourist as an up-market, well educated authenticity-seeker matches research on cultural and heritage tourists in other parts of the world (e.g. Singh, 1994; Zuzanek, 1992; Balcar and Pearce, 1996).

The Cultural Producers

Although there has undoubtedly been demand growth in cultural and heritage tourism, there is also evidence to suggest that this demand has been to some extent supply-led (Richards, 1993). In particular, the postmodern growth of nostalgia has signficantly extended the range of time periods considered to belong to the historic heritage. The appropriation of the recent past into ‘history’, as evidenced by the growing interest in artifacts from periods as recent as the 1970s or even the 1980s, has signficantly expanded the material heritage

10

(Richards, 1996c). Buildings considered worthy of preservation now include 20th century factories or even high-rise flats, which a few years ago would have been demolished without qualms. The supply of ‘heritage’, including old buildings and museums which curate our material heritage, has therefore grown signficantly in recent decades.

This is underlined by the growing number of sites listed in the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972). As Table 1 illustrates, the list of world heritage sites grew from 185 sites in 1984 to reach 440 sites by 1994. This rapid expansion of supply is mirrored in all world regions. In Europe, the supply of museums and monuments has outstripped the growth in cultural visits in recent years (Richards, 1996a). In Canada, 40% of all tourist attractions have opened since 1980, the majority of the new attractions being found in the heritage sector Canadian Tourism Commission, 1995). In spite of the global growth in heritage sites, however, the World Heritage List remains markedly Eurocentric. Europe accounted for 41% of all listed cultural sites in 1984, and this had actually increased to 46% by 1994.

(Table 1 about here)

11

The growing supply of cultural and heritage attractions has therefore been at least partly responsible for the growing number of cultural tourists. The cultural tourist now has a dazzling array of old and new attractions to choose from, all vying to provide a ‘unique’ cultural experience for this growing market. The growth in cultural tourism has also led to an increase in the number of people producing cultural products and experiences for cultural tourism consumption. Recent research in developing countries has emphasised the crucial role played by these ‘new cultural intermediaries’ or ‘new producers’ in the creation of cultural tourism products (Richards, 1996c, Goedhart, 1997, Herrijgers, 1998). In the developing world, a similar role is played by the ‘patrons’ and ‘brokers’ who are able to mobilise local resources to meet tourist needs (Dahles, 1997). There has been a noticable growth in the role of cultural producers in the tourism field in recent years as these individuals have sought to capitalise on their high level of cultural capital through developing products for tourism. Unique products can be developed through specialist cultural knowledge or networks, for example by guiding groups on exclusive tours of the depots under the Hermitage in St Petersburg (Richards, 1998). In addition to the development of ‘high’ cultural knowledge, knowledge of popular and traditional culture is also increasingly being used as the basis of cultural tourism products, as Wall (1999) illustrates in the case of indigenous peoples in North America.

12

Tour operators also play an important role in determining which locations will be successful in the competitive struggle for the favours of the cultural tourist. As Herrijgers (1998) has shown in the Dutch market, for example, small specialist tour operators often act as ‘pioneers’, opening up new cultural destinations, which are then taken over by larger, more conventional tour operators.

The importance of stimulating the creative potential of the cultural sector has not gone unnoticed by the policy makers. The European Commission, for example, is now developing policies related to the cultural industries, and in the UK, Culture Minister Chris Smith (1998) has recently written about the importance of the ‘Creative Industries’. The shift from ‘culture’ to ‘creativity’ is significant in policy terms, because it represents not only a broadening of the range of activities considered to be included in ‘cultural production’, but it also marks an important shift in emphasis from the legacy of the past (‘heritage’) towards contemporary cultural production (‘creativity’) (Richards, 1998). A recent study of cultural tourism policies in the cities of Tilburg, Bilbao and Nottingham, for example, has shown that the preservation of industrial heritage, which was strong in the 1980s, has been overtaken by a re-use of historic buildings for contemporary cultural production (Green, 1998).

13

In spite of the rapid development of cultural and heritage tourism attractions in recent years, there are still a number of barriers to the successful exploitation of these markets. The Canadian Tourism Commission (1997) in its report on the potential of cultural heritage tourism identified a number of barriers to development: 1) Mutual lack of knowledge 2) Lack of formal linkages 3) Culture and heritage ambivalence towards tourism 4) Lack of knowledge of economic impact/profit sharing 5) Lack of resources 6) Lack of expertise 7) Distance/access 8) Lack of ready product 9) Minimal marketing 10) Absence of national leadership, strategy and coordination.

A lack of knowledge about the potential for co-operation and the benefits of cultural tourism therefore seem to be the biggest barriers to development. These barriers can also be identified in many other developed countries (Richards, 1996a). These problems may be magnified in developing countries, where lack of resources and planning often stand in the way of cultural and heritage tourism development. As Singh (1994:18) points out in the case of India, although the 14

country abounds in heritage resources, these have ‘carelessly been harnessed for tourism promotion with little or no research base and in many cases without sufficient planning and development policies’.

Globalisation and Localisation

The fact that most developed and developing countries are actively involved in developing their culture and heritage for tourism underlines the globalised nature of this trend. Culture is a means for specific locations to profile themselves in an homogenising global market. The problem with using local culture as a means of distinguishing one location from another in the eyes of tourists, however, is that they do not have the specific local cultural capital required to interpret and understand local culture. Tourists are therefore sold a version of their own culture, which they can understand (Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996). In linking the local and global, easily recognisable ‘brand names’ become important. This is evident in the increasing popularity of the World Heritage designation. As Boniface and Fowler (1993:154) point out ‘global culture may have made communication and creation of global brands possible, but on the other hand, many starve while other pick their convenient way across global platters; on the other, the concept of “world heritage” is promoted by UNESCO while everywhere locals, often for the first time, look at their own particular patrimony, not least in economic hope’. 15

The economic value of global cultural brands is reflected in the recent development of art franchising – most famously in the case of the Guggenheim museum. Following the development of ‘subsidiaries’ of the Guggenheim in the SoHo area of Manhattan and Venice (Italy), the Guggenheim established new museums in Bilbao, Spain and in Berlin, Germany.

The Guggenheim in Bilbao exemplifies a number of the key trends in the cultural tourism market in the developed world. First and foremost it underlines the tendency for culture to be produced for tourist consumption. As Andoni Iturbe, Director of Cultural Projects for the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (the regional authority for the Basque Country) said:

We see the Guggenheim more for the city’s image and a way of attracting tourists to spend money. The Basque Government decided that it needed an international project to raise the city’s profile. We need to attract tourists, not local people. (Quoted in Green, 1998:30)

The developments in Bilbao also illustrate the important role that culture has found in underpinning local identities. In a globalising world the local is reasserting itself. In the case of Bilbao this includes laying claim to Picasso’s 16

Geurnica, currently a major tourist draw in the Spanish capital, Madrid. The futuristic look of the Guggenheim also gives Bilbao an image, which is becoming increasingly important in a postmodern world concerned with appearances, design and aesthetic value. In these respects Bilbao is no different from many other western cities, as the new Getty Museum in Los Angeles, the Diego Rivera ‘Anahuacalli’ Museum in Mexico City and the Modern Art Museum in Stockholm all attest.

In the case of Bilbao, globalised elements of culture, such as the Guggenheim, are used as a strategy for promoting the local, Basque culture. In the past, the local culture was subsumed or overwhelmed by the promotion of national or internationalised culture by the nation state. The current divergent trends towards globalisation and localisation provide a potential platform for the wider dissemination of local culture, providing local cultural intermediaries know how to communicate effectively with the global audience.

Culture and heritage have also become an important means of creating local identities in a globalising world. As Chris Ryan (1999:242) describes in his analysis of Maori involvement in tourism in New Zealand, ‘being Maori’ gives the indigenous people ‘a sense of identity which links the individual to a wider set of relationships with people and place’. Thus the apparent threat that tourism poses to local identities through the commodification of culture can become a 17

force for preserving local identity, as the presence of tourists allows the locals to identify with those elements of their culture which bind them together. This is not without its problems, however, as Caren Kaplan (1996: 160) points out: ‘the local appears as the primary site of resistance to globalization through the construction of temporalized narratives of identity (new histories, rediscovered genealogoies, imagined geographies, etc.) yet that very site prepares the ground for appropriation, nativism and exclusions’.

Current Trends in Cultural and Heritage Tourism

The rapid growth of cultural and heritage tourism in the last few decades has underlined the dynamic and rapidly changing nature of the sector. Some of the major trends which can be identified in the culture and heritage tourism market at present are:

1) Continued but slowing growth in demand, stimulated by higher levels of education and a thirst for knowledge.

2) An explosion of supply of cultural and heritage attractions and events.

3) A blurring of the distinction between ‘high’ and ‘popular’ culture, and between culture and economy, which have been fuelling the growing supply of 18

attractions and events. The original ‘sites and monuments’ focus of many cultural tourism developments is now broadening to include all aspects of culture and heritage, including popular music, gastronomy and even whole landscapes.

4) An extension of the cultural tourism market towards mass tourism through the opening of new popularised cultural and heritage attractions. The visitor with a general interest in culture seems to be growing faster than visitors with a specific cultural motive in terms of the number of attraction visitors.

5) A growing commercialisation of cultural and heritage tourism, through the growth of commercial companies specialising in cultural tourism, and the laissez faire attitudes of many governments.

6) The emergence of a group of ‘new producers’ from the cultural field who have discovered tourism as a means of capitalising their knowledge of culture and heritage to create new forms of employment. This group is beginning to exert increasing influence over the products which are brought onto the market, particularly in major urban centres. Significantly, this group also tends to be a major consumer of heritage, living in heritage areas and frequently visiting heritage attractions (Goedhart, 1997).

19

There have been particularly significant changes since the ‘re-discovery’ of cultural and heritage tourism in the 1970s and 1980s. It is now developing into a broad market with discrete demand segments (heritage, arts tourism) and specialised and professionalised supply. This process of growth and change will undoubtedly continue in the future.

Future Directions

As the new millenium dawns, there are signs of a more future-orientated approach to culture and heritage. The nostalgia for the past, which was largely responsible for the European heritage boom of the 1980s (Hewison, 1987) has been replaced by a more pragmatic vision of the need to utilise the legacy of the past to stimulate contemporary production as well as consumption. This is being marked by an increasing emphasis on the ‘arts’ and ‘creativity’ within cultural policy as a whole, and in cultural tourism in particular. As Boniface (1998:29) has noted, ‘Heritage now seems to be rather “on the back-burner”’.

The ‘creative industries’ do provide a potentially important link between past and present, as evidenced in the creative uses being found for old buildings an other historic spaces. The current emphasis on the creative aspects of culture represent a significant shift away from previous reliance on ‘high’ culture as the object of cultural tourism, and the subsequent mixture of ‘high’ and ‘popular’ 20

culture which marked the emergence of cultural and heritage tourism as signficant market segments. The tendency nowadays is for elements of high, popular and mass culture to be intertwined in ‘experiences’ developed for an increasingly broad audience, reflecting the growing maturity of cultural and heritage tourism (Figure 1).

(Figure 1 about here)

This also provides more scope for interactive involvement and learning on the part of the visitor. The concept of ‘creative tourism’ refers not just to the products consumed by tourists, but to their own involvement in the production of tourism experiences. As Edensor (1998) demonstrates in his detailed study of tourist behaviour at the Taj Mahal, tourists become literally ‘performers’, creating experiences for themselves and their fellow visitors to consume. The emergence of more creatively-oriented forms of cultural tourism is also being stimulated by the desire of the consumer to combine active and learning experiences, and this is likely to become more important in the future. Such developments not only provide more satisfying experiences for the consumer, but may also help to boost audiences for the arts, which have lagged behind the growth in broader areas of cultural consumption in recent years. One of the problems with the development of creative resources for tourism is that they often need more sophisticated interpretation than has been available in the past. 21

The need for interpretation is particularly important where cultural distance is great, as Shackley (1999) emphasises in her study of tourists at Nepalese dance performances. Western tourists with no understanding of these rituals quickly become bored, in spite of the rich visual spectacle provided.

Using cultural resources creatively and letting tourists use their own creativity is important, but there may also be a danger that ‘creativity’ will simply become the next buzz-word in tourism after ‘culture’. More work is need to clarify what creativity actually means. Does it, for example, have more coherence than ‘culture’, and what is the relationship between creativity and culture? The current boosterism surrounding the ‘creative industries’ (Smith, 1998), is reminisent of the development of the ‘cultural industries’ (Wynne, 1992) during recent years.

It may also be signficant that the emphasis is placed on the creative industries, suggesting large-scale rather than individualised production or individual heritage. The process of involvement in culture and heritage is now related more closely to the consumer, rather than the citizen, and the collection of cultural and heritage experiences has become part of the wider consumer culture. Cultural products and even the entire ‘way of life’ or ‘everyday life’ of communities visited by tourists are consumed as commodities (Howie,

22

forthcoming), raising fears that cultural tourism may destroy the very cultures that the tourists travel to see.

It has often been pointed out, however, that local cultures are often far more resilient to the ravages of tourism than might be feared. As MacDonald (1997) demonstates, it is not usually local cultures which are commodified for tourism, but representations of those cultures, leaving the culture of the local community itself (relatively) untouched. Resisting negative change and maximising the benefits of tourism to local cultures can arguably be achieved through community participation.

However, one should also avoid the danger of seeing the ‘community’ as a panacea for the problems of the development of cultural tourism. Even within the local community, the meaning and interpretation of culture and heritage may lead to conflict, as Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) eloqently encapsulated in the concept of ‘dissonant heritage’. Who should decide what is preserved, and which elements of the lived culture or heritage are presented for tourist consumption? Globalisation, localisation and the demise of the nation state as a unifying concept means that disputes about the ownership, location and meaning of the cultural heritage are likely to increase. Edensor (1998) for example, shows how competing colonial, nationalist and religious narratives about the history of the Taj Mahal developed and are still being fougth out in the tourist arena. Such 23

disputes are not necessarily negative, since they can allow different voices to be heard. This is particularly important in the case of indigenous peoples, whose concepts of culture and heritage are very different. Whittaker (1999) for example, points out the problems caused by the mis-recognition of the cultural rights of Aborigines in Australia in the development of tourism. The outcome of such disputes will probably be the creation of even more cultural attractions emphasising different aspects of identity, which in turn may stimulate more cultural tourism consumption.

In spite of the foreseeable growth of cultural and heritage tourism, however, it seems that these segments are likely to become more integrated into tourism in general in the future. As the conclusions of the Forum on Culture and International Tourism, held in Yogjakata, Indonesia in 1995 note (Nuryanti, 1995), most tourists are likely to remain in the ‘conventional’ tourism system, and that cultural and heritage tourism are only likley to be viable if ‘piggybacked’ onto more mainstream forms of tourism development in the future.

24

References Balcar, M.J.O. and Pearce, D.G. (1996) Heritage tourism on the West Coast of New Zealand. Tourism Management, 17, 203-212 Bauer, M. (1996) Cultural tourism in France. In Richards, G. (ed.) Cultural Tourism in Europe. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 147-164. Berroll, E. (1981) Culture and the arts as motives for American travel. Proceedings 12th Annual Travel and Tourism Research and Marketing Conference, Salt Lake City, pp. 199-200. Boniface, P. (1998) Are museums putting heritage under the domination of the tourism industry? Nordisk Museologi, 1, 25-32. Boniface, P. and Fowler, P.J. (1993) Heritage and Tourism in the ‘Global Village’. Routledge, London. Bonink, C. (1992) Cultural Tourism Development and Government Policy. MA Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht. Bywater, M. (1993) The market for cultural tourism in Europe. Travel and Tourism Analyst, 6, 30-46. Canadian Tourism Commission (1995) Survey of Canada's Tourist Attractions. CTC, Ottawa. Canadian Tourism Commission (1997) Fulfilling the Promise: a report on six regional round tables on cultural and heritage tourism. CTC, Ottawa.

25

Cohen, E. (1988) Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 15, 467-486. Cohen, E. (1995) Touristic craft ribbon development in Thailand. Tourism Management 16, 225-235. Dahles, H. (1997, ed.) Tourism, Small Entrepreneurs and Sustainable Development. ATLAS, Tilburg. De Cauter, L. (1995) Archeologie van de Kick. De Balie, Amsterdam. Edensor, T. (1998) Tourists at the Taj: Performance and Meaning at a Symbolic Site. Routledge, London. Goedhart, S. (1997) ‘New Producers’ in Cultuurtoerisme. MA Thesis, Tilburg University. Green, M. (1998) Urban heritage tourism: the global-local dialectic. MA Thesis, Programme in European Leisure Studies, Tilburg University, Tilburg. Henrici, J. (1999) Trading Culture: Tourism and Toruist Art in Pisac, Peru. In M. Robinson and P. Boniface (eds) Tourism and Cultural Conflicts. CABI, Wallingford, pp. 161-180. Herrijgers, C. (1998) De culturele stedenreis: handelsreis of hartstocht? MA Thesis, Tilburg University. Hewison, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London, Methuen. Howie, F. (forthcoming) Establishing the common ground: tourism, ordinary places, grey-areas and environmental quality in Edinburgh, Scotland. In 26

G. Richards and D. Hall (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development. Routledge, London. Hughes, H. L. and Benn, D. (1994) Entertainment: its role in the tourist industry. Paper presented at the Leisure Studies Association annual conference, Glasgow. Kaplan, C. (1996) Questions of Travel. Duke University Press, Durham NC. MacCannell, D. (1976) The Tourist: a New Theory of the Leisure Class. Macmillan. London. MacDonald, S. (1997) A People’s Story: Heritage, Identity and Authenticity. In C. Rojek and J. Urry (eds) Touriing Cultures: Transformations of Travel and Theory. Routledge, London, pp155-175. Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability: new tourism in the third world. Routledge, London. Nuryanti, W. (1995) Tourism and Culture: Global Civilization in Change. Gadjah Mada University Press, Yogjakarta. Prentice, R. (1993) Tourism and Heritage Attractions. Routledge, London. Poon, A. (1993) Tourism, Technology and Competitive Strategies. CAB International, Wallingford. Richards, G. (1993) Cultural tourism in Europe. In Cooper, C.P. and Lockwood, A. (eds) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management, vol 5, 99-115.

27

Richards, G. (1996a) Cultural Tourism in Europe. CAB International, Wallingford. Richards, G. (1996b) Skilled consumption and UK ski holidays. Tourism Management, 17(1), 25-34. Richards, G. (1996c) Production and consumption of European cultural tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 23, 261-283. Richards, G. (1998) Cultured tourists or a culture of tourism? Paper presented at the conference Innovatory Approaches to Culture and Tourism, Crete, October. Riet, S. van ‘t (1995) Back to Basics: an analysis of tourist motivations for visiting cultural attractions. MA thesis, Programme in European Leisure Studies, Tilburg University. Ritzer, G. (1999) Enchanting a Disenchanted World: Revolutionizing the Means of Consumption. Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks. Shackley, M. (1999) Managing the Cultural Impacts of Religious Tourism in the Himalayas, Tibet and Nepal. In M. Robinson and P. Boniface (eds) Tourism and Cultural Conflicts. CABI, Wallingford, pp.95-111. Singh, S. (1994) Cultural Tourism and Heritage Management. Rawat Publishers, Jaipur. Smith, C. (1998) Creative Britain. Faber and Faber, London. Thorburn, A. (1986) Marketing cultural heritage: does it work within Europe? Travel and Tourism Analyst, 6, 39-48. 28

Tunbridge, J. E. and Ashworth, G. J. (1996) Dissonant Heritage : the management of the past as a resource in conflict. Chichester: Wiley. UNESCO (1972) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris. Urry, J. 1990 The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London. Wall, G. (1999) Partnerships involving Indigenous Peoples in the Management of Heritage Sites. In M. Robinson and P. Boniface (eds) Tourism and Cultural Conflicts. CABI, Wallingford, pp. 269-286. Whittaker, E. (1999) Indigenous Tourism: Rclaiming Knowledge, Culture and Intellectual Property in Australia. In M. Robinson and P. Boniface (eds) Tourism and Cultural Conflicts. CABI, Wallingford, pp. 33-46. Williams, R. (1983) Keywords. London, Fontana. Wynne, D. (1992) The Culture Industry. Avebury, Aldershot. Yale, P. (1991) From tourist attractions to heritage tourism. Huntingdon : Elm Zuzanek, J. (1992) Culture-tourism partnership: from rags to riches? In Fleischer-van Rooijen, C.A.M. (ed.) Spatial Implications of Tourism. Geo Pers, Gronigen, 105-118.

29

Form of Tourism

Heritage Tourism

Primary Time Focus Past

Primary Cultural Focus High Culture Folk Culture

Primary Form of Consumption Products

Cultural Tourism

Past and Present

High and Popular Culture

Products and Processes

Creative Tourism

Past, Present and Future

High, Popular and Mass Culture

Experiences

Figure 1: Characteristics of cultural, heritage and creative tourism

30

Table 1: World Heritage Sites, 1994, classified by type and date of designation

Region

Sites designated 1972-84 Sites designated 1985-94 Cultural

Natural

Cultural

Natural

Total

Africa

29

19

15

7

70

Asia

27

2

55

18

102

Australasia

3

2

2

6

13

Europe

57

5

102

7

171

N. America

8

12

4

2

26

S. America

13

8

4

2

26

Total

137

48

207

45

440

31