The Management of World Heritage Sites free essay sample

No two world heritage sites are alike but all share common problems such as the need for a delicate balance between visitation and conservation’ (Shackley 2000). Each World Heritage Site should have a management plan that deals with entry charges, potential damage to the heritage resources, congestion, reduction of visitors at peak times and dealing with specific types of visitors. World Heritage Sites act as a magnet for visitors because it is believed that World Heritage listing increases visitor numbers. According to UNESCO (1972) as was stated in the World Heritage Convention, ‘World Heritage Sites should retain and function in current community life while being conserved for transmission to future generations’. However tourism, especially excessive tourism at some of the World Heritage Sites place great deals of physical pressure on the sites and possible emotional pressures on the surrounding communities. It is therefore necessary that if a specific site is given World Heritage status that it is to be maintained and remain accessible to current and future generations. We will write a custom essay sample on The Management of World Heritage Sites or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Consequently managing tourism and tourists within the sites sustainably should be a critical issue (Garrod Fyall, 2000; Pederson, 2002). LITERATURE REVIEW OVERVIEW OF HERITAGE Heritage can be considered what we hold on to from the past, what we possess today and what we may pass on to those who are here after us. The heritage that we possess; both cultural and natural cannot be replaced and are considered a vital link to our past, especially for the future generations. There are many places in the world that possess qualities such as these; the wilds of East Africa’s Serengeti, the Pyramids of Egypt, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and the Baroque cathedrals of Latin America, and these places make up the world’s heritage. World heritage sites are places where persons from any background can make a link to their past, these places do not just belong to the persons who live among them but to anyone that may have an interest in them and that could seemingly be anyone in the world (UNESCO 2009). Heritage attractions can be considered the â€Å"crown jewels† of the world’s natural and cultural heritage (Leask and Fyall 2006). According to UNESCO (2009) â€Å"The World Heritage List includes 890 properties forming part of the cultural and natural heritage which the World Heritage Committee considers as having outstanding universal value. These include 689 cultural, 176 natural and 25 mixed properties in 148 States Parties†. In order to have these World Heritage sites for future use certain missions were put in place by UNESCO (2009) such as; * encourage countries to sign the World Heritage Convention and to ensure the protection of their natural and cultural heritage; * encourage States Parties to establish management plans and set up reporting systems on the state of conservation of their World Heritage sites; * help States Parties safeguard World Heritage properties by providing technical assistance and professional training; * encourage participation of the local population in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage; * encourage international cooperation in the conservation of our worlds cultural and natural heritage. It can be said that many heritage visitor attractions are not commercial businesses but serve a more educational purpose. Due to this fact heritage sites depend heavily on financial or voluntary assistance from the government or Trusts (Leask and Yeoman 1999). Heritage visitor attractions are not all the same and are perceived differently by individuals. For example Leask and Yeoman (1999, 176) confirm that: Heritage visitor attractions range from small, unmanned individual sites to clearly defined small-scale geographical areas that people visit for a limited period of time. The attractions offer ‘an experience’, an intangible product that visitors participate in to varying degrees and add their own values to. THE HERITAGE CUSTOMER The customer no longer sees a visit to an historic house, for example, as a privilege, but rather a right to spend their money however and where ever they choose. Long queues, poor interpretations, lack of parking, difficult access, poor value for money will send the visitor elsewhere, removing both any current financial revenue for the attraction as well as future revenue from repeat business or word-of –mouth advertising. The proper management of visitors has become just as significant in heritage attraction management as the nature of the attraction itself which a manager should not risk ignoring (Leask Yeoman 1999). TYPES OF VISITOR IMPACT AT WORLD HERITAGE SITES AND THE MANAGMENT OF THESE IMPACTS Overcrowding/Carrying Capacity Overcrowding is a problem that occurs at heritage sites and this is where there is not enough room for visitors to have a positive experience at a site due to the comfort restrictions of being too close to one another. Overcrowding also tends to occur in places where lines are backed up, like the entrance to the attraction or by the restrooms (Garrod 2008, 167). However, overcrowding can also occur when tour itineraries are organised badly at sites and coaches bring many tourists at one time to a particular site or areas within the site. An example of this is the Uluru World Heritage Site in Australia (Shackley 2006). Overcrowding also relates to carrying capacity in the sense that carrying capacity ‘is the maximum number of people who can use a site without an acceptable alternation in physical environment and without an unacceptable decline in the quality of experience gained by the visitor’ (Mathieson and Wall, 186). Inskeep (1991, 144) suggests ‘without an unacceptable adverse impact on the society, economy and culture of the tourism area’. Carrying capacity can be used to manage visitors within attractions/ World Heritage Sites that are aiming to be sustainable. Carrying capacity ‘recognizes the need to manage visitor usage and minimize the threat posed to the sustainable use of finite resources’ (Alipour et al n. d. ). Inskeep (1991, 144) states that even though carrying capacity is not always precise and assumptions have to be made the overall concept is reliable and it is useful in creating guidelines for tourism planning and site management. The Uluru has however constructed a new viewing area to solve its overcrowding/carrying capacity problems which accommodates double the number of people that the original site can accommodate. The park’s visitor and tourism manager is of the opinion that the new viewing area will solve the overcrowding problems (ABC News 2009). Long Term Capacity Planning Is the process of increasing capacity, which includes the redesigning of layout, expansion of existing or additional facilities. When planning for additional capacity effects such as parking and road congestion have to be taken into consideration. Stonehenge, which has been a World Heritage Site since 1986, had plans proposed at ? 35-40 million, the proposed development also included the re-routing of main and access roads (Leask and Yeoman, 1999, 157). UNESCO (2009) stated in the Stonehenge Management Plan Summary 2009 that: A three month public consultation on the future of Stonehenge took place between July and October 2008, which sought views on the revised World Heritage Site Management Plan, the proposed closure of the A303 and alternative locations for new visitor facilities This management plan was created after the U. K. government decided to cancel the A303 Stonehenge Road Improvement scheme on the basis of cost concerns and hopes that another solution would be found to relieve traffic congestion around the World Heritage property of Stonehenge (UNESCO 2007). Price Incentives Organizations are reluctant to place price incentives for fear it will drive away customers, however if this is not used it may result in overcrowding which will lead to complaints and negative word of mouth and hence loss of a good reputation. But if the heritage site is unique then the visitor will come anyways (Leask and Yeoman 1999, 160). According to Garrod and Fyall (2000, 685) heritage cannot be given a price because if this is done it just becomes another commercial asset, they also go on to state that if it becomes too expensive for visitors to visit the specific sites then what is the sense of preserving them. Charging admission controls visitor numbers and aids in the conservation of the heritage site. Shackley (2009, 7) states that many of the World Heritage Sites do not charge an entry fee. This is because in the case of urban centre’s it is impossible to collect one and because many curators or site managers find it culturally inappropriate. An example of this is the World Heritage Site of Machu Pichu in Peru which was listed in 1983. Buckley, purports that the site itself generates substantial revenue (estimated at US$6 Million), and the connecting town of Aguas Calientes has also benefited from the additional tourism revenue, resulting in greater economic security and assists against the damaging effects of drought. Site Hardening The value of protected areas is linked to the ability of managers to minimize tourism – related impacts, while accommodating increasing visitation (Farrell Marion, 2002; Marion Farrell, 1998). In order to achieve this there has to be a trade- off of the amount of persons visiting the facility, the type and size of the facility and site-hardening that is required and the condition of the facility ( Cahill, Marion, Lawson, 2008, 233). Site hardening is usually considered when there is an increase in visitors it is done to improve access as well as to protect the items or site from any degradation (Cole, 1990; Leung Marion, 1999). Inskeep (1991, 280), is of the opinion that it is necessary to prohibit access to fragile features within a site so he suggests only being able to view them. He also suggests the control of large amount of visitors to a particular site if certain degradation may be caused. An example of site hardening is the World Heritage Site of the Tower of London which was added to the list in 1988. According to Shackley (1999), a travelator system was installed to stop the back up of visitors at the popular Jewel House where there would be long queues at busy times. The travelator is switched on at busy times and only allows visitors to stay at a particular exhibit for a predetermined space of time. Restrictive Ticketing and Quota Systems This is an approach that may be taken to restrict the number of persons allowed in the attraction at any one time (Inskeep 1991). This includes the restrictions of the time of day, the length of stay, the size of the groups and the number of visitors permitted per day. This is done to prevent overcrowding or the effects from humidity (CO2) which many be damaging to the items within the facility or that facility itself. An example of this is the wall paintings in the Queen Nefertari tomb in Egypt, which is a World Heritage Attraction. Due to the humidity caused by large numbers of visitors spending periods of time within the enclosed tomb, it raises the humidity and causes the paint to flake off of the walls. It is because of this damage that there has been placed a limit of only 150 visitors a day, that are taken into the tomb in small groups with a time limit of 16 minutes (Garrod 2008, 168). Promoting Off-Peak Demand According to Leask and Yeoman (1999), this may include encouraging group visitors, or special events for quiet periods. Special prices for groups who may be potential future visitors or may through word of mouth bring potential future visitors. Stakeholder Participation in World Heritage Sites Sauter and Leisen (1999, p. 13) articulate the need for all stakeholders to be involved in the planning process this includes; groups, individuals – employees, customers, suppliers, governments, and members of the community. Stakeholders can be defined as ‘any group or individual who can affect o r is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives’ (Freeman, cited in d’Agnello and Go 2008, p. 431). Gray’s (1989, 11) definition of collaboration is â€Å" a process of joint decision-making among key stakeholders of a problem domain about the future of that domain† is one that is widely used by many persons in tourism settings and to assist in the decision-making within a community (Aas et al. , 2005; Jamal Getz. 1998: Selen. , 1999). It is assumed that local stakeholder groups are more concerned with bridging the impacts of resource use between generations and it can be said that local stakeholders have a better understanding of the economic, environmental and social needs and resources of a community and how they can be better integrated into the specific region (Milne Ateljevic , 2001). From the literature it can be seen that although stakeholder participation assists in strategic planning and hence sustainable development this theory is still highly contested due to the complications of the extent to which stakeholders become involved (Landorf, 2009, 3). The Visitor/ Tourist Experience The ‘tourist experience’ is defined by Page and Connell (2006, 483) as being, ‘a complex combination of objective, but predominantly subjective factors that shape the tourist’s feelings and attitude towards his or her visit’. Laws (1998) observed that each aspect of the visitor experience is important, this can range from the signage, car parking, quality of catering to the cleanliness of the toilets and if these things are not up to the visitors standards it can destroy the overall visitor experience. Graefe and Vaske (1987) emphasized that visitors respond negatively to overcrowding and can lead to the dissatisfaction or the displacement of the visitor. According to Swarbrooke and Horner (2001), there are two main factors that render it necessary to provide a positive ‘tourist experience’ and that is; tourist satisfaction creates repeat visitors and lowers the cost of locating and encouraging new visitors and secondly, positive word of mouth means less money has to go into the marketing of the attraction. It can be said that managing the tourist experience is vital in order to sustain visitor satisfaction and, inevitably, numbers’. However Page and Connell (2006) are pessimistic in t he notion of researching the tourist experience, stating that there are difficulties in doing so because each tourist has his or her own concept of what a good experience is. For example a visitor might be content with the core product but not with specific service elements. SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW Upon re-examining the literature review, it was realised that it is important and necessary to develop strategic management techniques within World Heritage Sites in order to allow visitors to view the sites, with the ability to preserve and conserve them for future generations. Stakeholders should be involved in the management process of the World Heritage Sites even if it is only through volunteer work, however not all literary sources agree with the involvement of stakeholders. It is important to mitigate the negative impacts to each and every one of the world heritage sites at the same time as creating a positive ‘tourist experience’ for the visitor without compromising the feelings of the local community to the influx of a mass of visitors. It goes without saying that carrying capacity is important to manage visitor usage to protect our natural and historic capital for future generations, and is critical to any management plan. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION In order to carry out the analyses of the pragmatics of managing tourists at World Heritage Sites, specific questions have been raised as to; Why do tourists visit some World Heritage Sites and not others? What is the tourist experience of such sites? How successful are sites in the management of tourists? What roles do local communities play in site management? How can the ‘spirit of the place’ be protected in the sheer volume of tourists? How can some sites maximise the potential of a sustainable tourism for the purposes of poverty alleviation and community cohesion? How effective are communication strategies in bringing stakeholders together? Why Tourists Visit Some Sites and Not Others According to Swarbrooke (2002), it can be said that visitors may visit a pecific attraction or in this case a World Heritage Site because of two specific determinants and that is the target market that the attraction/site targets or the benefits sought meaning the benefits that the vis itor expects from visiting the site. Specific attractions will target markets based on age, sex, stage in the family life cycle, social class, the personality of the visitor and their lifestyles and the time that they visit the attraction. These headings will also be what influence the tourist to visit the particular attraction. For example a person that is married and does not have young children, is in a moderate social class, is educated and is relatively young may visit the tomb of Queen Nefertari in Egypt. Benefits sought on the other hand refer to the customer visiting a site based on status, nostalgia and easy access. An elderly person therefore will visit an attraction such as the Uluru in Australia where a new viewing site has been constructed to alleviate the overcrowding within the site, therefore an elderly person may choose this site based on the ability to learn about the site but also knowing that it is easily accessible and they will not be trampled or congested. The decision-making process of visiting a specific site is also based on if the customer is aware of the attraction, what the attraction offers, the special benefits and general facilities of the attraction and cost filters, example if there is value for money and the travel time to get there (Swarbrooke 2002). The Tourist Experience of Heritage Sites The ‘tourist experience’ as was stated earlier, is defined by Page and Connell (2006, 483) as being, ‘a complex combination of objective, but predominantly subjective factors that shape the tourist’s feelings and attitude towards his or her visit’. As was demonstrated in the literature above the visitor responds to perceived levels of crowding, bad signage and the overall atmosphere as well as all service elements of the specific site but each visitor has a different notion of what a ‘good experience’ is. Therefore it can be said that persons visiting the Tower of London may find the experience to be stimulating because they are interested in visiting more than one site that specific day and respond positively to the travelator system which allows them to stop at each point for only a short period of time, however the visitor who has travelled a great distance and as organised their day to peruse this specific site may respond negatively to being whisked from exhibit to exhibit possibly feeling they have not gotten value for money. The Successful Management of Tourists Within Heritage Sites and the â€Å"Spirit of the Place† In relation to the many examples given within the literature it can be said that the World Heritage Sites that were mentioned have successfully used specific demand and supply management techniques to manage the tourists within the sites. The sites have used measures such as the alleviation of overcrowding, long term capacity planning, price incentives, site hardening and restrictive ticketing and quota systems. These management techniques have assisted in the problems of overcrowding within and around the sites, wear and tear to the sites and the exhibits and artefacts within the site, traffic related problems and impacts on the community. This is due to the fact that in relation to cars and coaches being in the road and in the way of the local communities World Heritage Sites such as the Uluru in Australia and Stonehenge have put in place or are strategically planning alternative parking for the influx of visitors at peak times and also for the attractions that are not only based on foreign visitors but also the local community, the site hardening assists in the ability of all visitors to see the exhibits for the same amount of time without congestion as well as preserving the specific site for the future generations of the local community. By placing these management techniques within the World Heritage Sites, this also protects the ‘spirit of the place’ when there are numerous tourists because it alleviates the situation of overcrowding and hence it will prevent or decelerate getting to the stage of annoyance in Doxey’s Irridex theory where, the saturation point is approaching and residents have misgivings about the tourists between the locals (Mowforth and Munt 2003). Therefore the local community can focus on the earnings of the site, the jobs that the support services create and knowing that through effective site management that all artefacts and heirlooms that belong to the specific place and being effectively managed. Sustainable Tourism, Poverty Alleviation and Community Cohesion The World Heritage Site of Machu Pichu purports ,as was stated above, that the site itself generates substantial revenue (estimated at US$6 Million), and the onnecting town of Aguas Calientes has also benefited from the additional tourism revenue, resulting in greater economic security and assists against the damaging effects of drought. Therefore it can observed that Machu Pichu through the use of price incentives as a visitor management tool has not only alleviated the stresses of overcrowding and damaging environmental impacts such as the humidity of too many persons within a site causing degradation to the physical structures in order to create a sustainable site, has also used this management tool as a way to generate income for the local community and also a connecting town which assists in the alleviation of poverty as well as community cohesion. Bringing Stakeholders Together and the Local Community’s Involvement in Managment Leask and Fyall (2006, 13) affirm that it is difficult to balance tourism activity with the conservation role; this creates tension between all stakeholders that are involved. Each stakeholder is likely to have their own opinions, agendas and priorities which makes coming to an agreement sometimes impossible. Mc Kercher et al (2005) after considerable research states that ‘tourism and cultural heritage management often have an awkward relationship’, he goes on to suggest ‘formal partnerships may not be the best route to success. ’ Successful tourism will only occur where there is a realistic appreciation of the tourism asset and the core cultural values of the site are conserved and each stakeholder is given clearly defined roles. According to Garrod (2008, 175) the local community can enhance their participation by educating visitors and interpreting their culture for visitors this also gives them the authority to decide what to educate visitors about and what to interpret. Therefore it can be noted that stakeholders will not come together unless there are definitive roles established and effective communication is carried out between the stakeholders. Local communities play a role in site management by volunteering at the specific sites as most heritage sites do not generate a large amount of income, they also may be mangers of the specific site having to place the specific management techniques in place to preserve and conserve the sites or they may be a part of the support services and may be able to assist by giving effective and efficient information to visitors on how to treat the specific sites. CHALLENGES, RECCOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The challenges faced by managers of World Heritage Sites is to conserve and preserve the attraction for future generations but this must be done without compromising the existing attraction when these modifications are made in order to successfully manage visitors in or around the attraction. As was reviewed in the literature, it appears as though it is relatively difficult to successfully incorporate the involvement of stakeholders in the planning and management of these specific sites as each manager/curator or person involved has their own agendas and ideas as to what is the correct way to handle the specific issues. However, stakeholders should be involved in the development process so as to allow the local community to voice their opinions and feel as though they have participated in the effective management of the World Heritage Sites within their community, this will also alleviate the feeling of resentment towards the influx of visitors to the specific sites. It is also recommended that there be constant monitoring and evaluation of the site, due to the fact that tourism and tourists are not always constant and the type of tourist to specific sites may change which means that they will be expecting a different visitor experience and the management techniques in place for that site may deter them from entering the specific site, therefore it cannot be assumed that one management technique once it is put in place cannot or should not be changed. In conclusion it can be said that World Heritage Sites are both an asset and a heavy obligation. The management of these sites is challenged by the conflicting demands of conservation, economic development and social equity therefore these issues have to be dealt with delicately to avoid overwhelming the site while still maintaining visitor needs. FUTURE DIRECTIONS World Heritage Sites have managed to implement the most effective strategies in order to manage visitors. It can only be assumed that these forms of visitor management will become more complex as time goes on such as the travelator at the Tower of London. The mangers and stakeholders involved in site management will develop better, more innovative and technical ideas in how to increase site management as well as improving the satisfaction of the ‘tourist experience’.