Managing Heritage and Cultural Tourism Resources

Critical Essays, Volume One

Dallen J. Timothy

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9780754627043
• eBook ISBN: 9781351920537
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Hospitality, Travel & Tourism Industry
• Index: Business

This three volume reference series provides an authoritative and comprehensive set of volumes collecting together the most influential articles and papers on tourism, heritage and culture. The papers have been selected and introduced by Dallen Timothy, one of the leading international scholars in tourism research. The first volume 'Managing Heritage and Cultural Tourism Resources' deals primarily with issues of conservation, interpretation, impacts of tourism and the management of those impacts. Sold individually and as a set, this series will prove an essential reference work for scholars and students in geography, tourism and heritage studies, cultural studies and beyond.

[1]

STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

Christina Aas

Merkantilt Institutt, Norway

Adele Ladkin

John Fletcher

Bournemouth University, UK

Abstract: This article examines a collaborative approach to the relationship between heritage management and tourism development in Luang Prabang, Laos. The purpose is to exam- ine stakeholder collaboration and management roles as well as the interdependence of the heritage conservation and tourism development. The research examines a UNESCO/Norwe- gian government project, aiming to promote collaboration between heritage conservation and tourism through stakeholder involvement. Five aspects are explored: channels of communication between the heritage and the tourism groups, generating income for heritage conservation and management, involving the local community in decisionmaking, involving the local community in tourism activities, and an assessment of the extent and success of stakeholder collaboration.

Keywords: stakeholder; collaboration; heritage management; Laos;

Résumé: Collaboration des parties intéressées et gestion du patrimoine. Cet article examine une approche collaborative envers la relation entre la gestion du patrimoine et le dével- oppement du tourisme à Luang Prabang, au Laos. Le but est d’examiner la collaboration des parties intéressées et les rôles de sa gestion ainsi que l’interdépendance entre la preservation du patrimoine et le développement du tourisme. La recherche examine un projet de l’UNESCO et du gouvernement norvégien visant à promouvoir la collaboration entre la pré- servation du patrimoine et le tourisme a travers la participation des parties intéressées. Cinq aspects sont explorés: les voies de communication entre les groupes représentant le patrim- oine et le tourisme, la génération de revenus pour la préservation du patrimoine et sa gestion, la participation de la communauté locale dans la prise de decisions, la participation de la communauté locale aux activités du tourisme et une évaluation de l’étendue et du succès de la collaboration des parties intèressèes.

Mots-clés: collaboration des parties inté; ressées; gestion du patrimoine; Laos;

Christina Aas is Senior Lecturer in Tourism at Merkantilt Institutt (P.O. Box 5875, Majorstua, 0308 Oslo, Norway. Email <[email protected]>.Adele Ladkin and John Fletcher are Professors of Tourism at the Bournemouth University International Center for Tourism and Hospitality Research. Each has extensive experience in a variety of tourism projects, with a current research interest in ways of implementing sustainable development through stakeholder collaboration.

INTRODUCTION

Heritage tourism is an expanding market that assumes the values of a desirable product and thus whose importance for tourism development cannot be ignored (Prentice 1993a; Prentice 1993b). While this alternative provides economic opportunities for many culture-rich destinations, it may also represent a threat in terms of the potential degradation of a heritage and thus depriving a community of such resources and the benefits of tourism. The relationship between heritage and tourism is frequently characterized by contradictions and conflicts whereby conservationists perceive heritage tourism as compromising conservation goals for profit (Nuryanti 1996). In order to minimize these threats, there is a need for dialoge, cooperation, and collaboration among the various stakeholders involved. If a common ground between the different interested parties can be found, then heritage tourism can be developed in a way that preserves the resources of the local community and is beneficial to all.

Set against this background, the research here represents a critical assessment of a UNESCO/Norwegian government-sponsored pilot project at the World Heritage Site of Luang Prabang, Laos, that aimed to synthesize heritage conservation and tourism development through stakeholder collaboration. The project officially ended in December 2001. With the intention of enhancing collaboration between those with tourism interests and those involved in heritage conservation, UNESCO RACAP (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Regional Advisor for Culture in Asia and the Pacific), and the Norwegian government joined forces to launch a three-year project in December 1998 called “Cultural Heritage Management and Tourism: Models for Cooperation among Stakeholders”.

The project was designed to implement models for the preservation of heritage and the development of tourism as a local resource. The implementation was intended to form mutually beneficial alliances that were both economically profitable and socially acceptable to local inhabitants and all other parties, a philosophy well in line with the objectives of Agenda 21 (WTTC 1996). Nine pilot sites were involved in the project in Asia and the Pacific, and this research explores one of these sites.

The rationale for undertaking this research is that it presents a unique case study where two current themes relating to tourism development can be explored. The first theme is that collaboration and stakeholder involvement in the development process are increasingly being used in developing countries (Reed 1999; Timothy 1999) and Luang Prabang provides an opportunity to explore this issue in a country currently in the early stages of development. The second theme is the relationship between heritage management and the growth of tourism. The importance of preserving cultural heritage through tourism is receiving increasing attention (Garrod and Fyall 2000) and has been discussed in relation to sustainable tourism (Cope 1995; Johnson and Thomas 1995; Van der Borg, Costa and Gotti, 1996). In this respect, Luang Prabang presents an area where the symbiosis of these two elements is being sought, and lessons can be learned from these experiences that may be of value for future collaborative efforts.

Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine two kinds of theoretical ideals, stakeholder collaboration and managing heritage tourism development in relation to a study where these issues lie at the heart of the tourism development approach. In doing so, the paper presents the theoretical underpinning of the research in terms of the role of stakeholder involvement in development, an examination of the interdependence between heritage and tourism, and the role that stakeholders can play in developing this relationship. Research findings are presented in order to determine whether or not the project’s objectives were met in terms of establishing channels of communication among the various stakeholders in the conservation sector, generating income for them and management, involving the local community in decisionmaking concerning tourism development and heritage conservation issues, involving the local community in tourism activities and the extent of stakeholder collaboration. These findings indicate the scope and extent of collaboration in the project.

COLLABORATION IN HERITAGE MANAGEMENT AND TOURISM

The fragmented nature of the tourism industry creates a recognized need for coordination and collaboration in planning (Hall 2000; Hall 1994; Roberts and Simpson 1999) and many different stakeholders have interests in the tourism planning process (Ladkin and Bertramini 2002). Cooperation and collaboration are major issues in the planning arena. They have been linked to the idea of sustainable tourism development (Bramwell and Lane 1999; Hall 2000; Selin 1999; Timothy 1999), and, in the context of community-based tourism, to integration and participation (Mitchell and Reid 2001; Tosun 2000). Critical to the implementation of the collaborative planning approach is the identification and legitimization of all potential stakeholders, including those who are involved in the planning process (Roberts and Simpson 1999). In destinations experiencing emerging tourism development where interests are not collectively organized, the identification of stakeholders is a complicated task (Reed 1997).

The basic objective is to involve all those affected by the proposed tourism development within the planning process (Jamal and Getz 1995; Mowforth and Munt 1998; Wahab and Pigram 1997). Indeed, bringing various interests together is the first stage in establishing an effective collaborative process (Timothy 1998). While there are many definitions of stakeholders and collaboration, it may be looked upon as

a process of joint decisionmaking among autonomous, key stakeholders of an inter-organizational, community tourism domain to resolve planning problems of the domain and/or manage issues related to the planning and development of the domain. (Jamal and Getz 1995:188).

A further complication is the extent to which the stakeholders involved can represent the local community. Part of this problem lies in the definition of the term “community”, which is elusive and vague (Abercrombie, Hill and Turner, 1988). A community can be defined most usefully for tourism in terms of a geographical area, or a group of people with shared origins or interests. If the geographical definition is used, then the community can be defined as citizens within a given locality. If the common interest approach is taken, the business sector is often used to represent the local community, with bias towards economic factors.

Despite these difficulties, the advantages of reaching a consensus within the tourism development process are many. Such a practice tends to avoid the cost of resolving conflicts in the long term (Yuksel, Bramwell and Yuksel, 1999) and mutual participation can provide cost effective solutions by pooling resources (Bramwell and Lane 1999; Bramwell and Sharman 1999; Healey 1997). A further advantage is that stakeholder collaboration adheres to the concept of democracy and Agenda 21 and thus legitimizes activity (WTTC 1996). Politically the collaboration process is more equitable than the conventional approach, as the views of stakeholders are as legitimate as those of an expert (Bramwell and Lane 1999; Bramwell and Sharman 1999; Hall 2000; Hall 1999). Furthermore, it makes use of local knowledge to make sure that decisions are well-informed and appropriate (Yuksel et al. 1999). This adds value by building on the store of knowledge, insights, and capabilities of stakeholders (Bramwell and Lane 1999; Gray 1989; Healey 1997) and gives a voice to those who are most affected by tourism.

A stakeholder has been defined as a person who has the right and capacity to participate in the process; thus, anyone who is impacted upon by the action of others has a right to be involved (Gray 1989). In this context, a stakeholder in the tourism industry is deemed to be anyone who is impacted on by development positively or negatively, and as a result it reduces potential conflict between the tourists and host community by involving the latter in shaping the way in which tourism develops (Swarbrooke 1999; Bramwell and Lane 1999). An additional argument for collaboration is that it engages all interested parties in the decisionmaking process by allowing them to take responsibility, enhance their self-reliance, and their own awareness of the issues—all of which enables them to enjoy a greater degree of consensus and shared ownership (Medeiros de Araujo and Bramwell 1999).

Set against the positive factors, there are a number of negative aspects and challenges to the development of collaboration. These include the added cost to planning and development (Marien and Pizam 1997; Swarbrooke 1999), the identification of legitimate stakeholders (Bramwell and Sharman 1999; Reed 1999; Tosun 2000), and the capacity of the stakeholders to participate (Medeiros de Araujo and Bramwell 1999; Reed 1997; Simmons 1994). Expectations may be raised beyond what can realistically be delivered (Gray 1989), and the power often sits with an established local elite and/or those most “vocal”; the silent majority and any local minorities may often be superseded (Hall 1999; Tosun 2000; Tosun 1998; Taylor 1995).

Addressing power imbalances is well documented by a number of authors (Bramwell and Sharman 1999; Brohman 1996; Jamal and Getz 1995; Marien and Pizam 1997; Rocha 1997; Stolton and Dudley 1999; Tosun 2000). In addition, not all interested parties may have the required capability to be involved (Reed 1997) which is a particularly significant problem in less developed countries where expertise might not be available (Brohman 1996). Furthermore, a major criticism of stakeholder involvement is that collaboration theory rests upon the assumption that simply by involving all of the interested parties, that power imbalances can be overcome. This ignores the fundamental constraint of the distribution of power and resource flows (Healey 1998; Reed 1997; Yuksel et al. 1999).

Furthermore, it is important to understand how collaboration works in different cultural and political contexts (Stolton and Dudley 1999). Tosun (2000) found that, in the context of developing countries, there are operational, structural, and cultural limits to community participation. Although not all of these barriers may be present in a destination at any one time, they can be significant difficulties in the implementation of a collaborative approach (Ladkin and Bertramini 2002).

The commitment to implementing a collective planning approach is reflected in the development of techniques that measure the extent of collaboration. Butler (1999), Bramwell and Sharman (1999), Jamal and Getz (1995), Mandell (1999) and Timothy (1998) all successfully conceptualized the different stages. While a detailed examination of these measurements is beyond the scope of this paper and has been discussed elsewhere (Ladkin and Bertramini 2002), essentially each involves a measure to analyze the stages of involvement and network structures that can be used to measure the extent of collaboration. In the wider arena beyond tourism, the fundamental work of Arnstein (1969) provides a “ladder of citizen participation” in which levels of participation are arranged in a ladder pattern with each rung corresponding to the extent of a citizen’s power in determining a plan or program. In Arnstein’s model, citizen participation is a categorical term for citizen power, and it is the redistribution of authority that enables those citizens who have been previously excluded from political and economic processes to be included in the future (Arnstein 1969). More recently, Rocha (1997) explores empowerment using the ladder analogy—to clarify the conflicting information on empowerment theory, assisting practitioners and communities to clarify and realize their own goals relating to empowerment. A ladder of community participation specifically for underdeveloped countries has been put forward by Guaraldo Choguill (1996), based on the degree of the external institutional involvement in terms of facili...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• 1 [1]
• 2 [2]
• 3 [3]
• 4 [4]
• 5 [5]
• 6 [6]
• 7 [7]
• 8 [8]
• 9 [9]
• 10 [10]
• 11 [11] Heritage tourism: at what price?
• 12 [12]
• 13 [13]
• 14 [14]
• 15 [15]
• 16 [16]
• 17 [17]
• 18 [18]
• 19 [19]
• 20 [20]
• 21 [21]
• 22 Mindful Visitors
• 23 [23]
• 24 [24]
• 25 [25]
• 26 [26]
• 27 [27]
• 28 [28]
• 29 [29]
• 30 [30]
• 31 [31]
• Name Index