The Political Nature of Cultural Heritage and Tourism

Critical Essays, Volume Three

Dallen J. Timothy, Dallen J. Timothy

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351883962
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Betriebswirtschaft
• Categoria: Gastgewerbe, Reise- & Tourismusbranche

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 third volume 'The Political Nature of Cultural Heritage and Tourism' addresses contemporary issues such as heritage dissonance, the debate on authenticity, conflict, and contested heritage. 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]
THE CONVERGENCE PROCESS
IN HERITAGE TOURISM

Alexandres Apostolakis
University of Portsmouth, UK

Abstract: The theoretical background behind heritage tourism is conventionally categorized in terms of two stages: the demand and supply side approaches. This has resulted in a fragmented and usually conflicting framework. The purpose of this paper is to devise a model, which will substantiate the existence of both a continuum and a lateral relationship between the contrasting theoretical approaches to heritage tourism. The value added proffered here stems from the incorporation of authenticity as a linking device in each of the two approaches, unifying them into a single theoretical paradigm. The role of authenticity as a contemporary marketing tool, on tourism motivation and the image of the attraction is shown to be pivotal. Keywords: marketing, authenticity, definitions, motivation.

Résumé: Le processus de convergence dans le tourisme patrimonial. Le contexte théorique du tourisme patrimonial est normalement divisé en deux catégories : celle de l’offre et celle de la demande. Cette division a produit un cadre fragmenté et souvent contradictoire. L’objet de cet article est de concevoir un modèle qui prouve l’existence d’un continuum et d’une relation latérale entre les différentes approches théoriques au tourisme patrimonial. La valeur ajoutée que l’on offre ici provient de l’incorporation de l’authenticité comme un lien qui unit les deux approches en un seul paradigme théorique. On montre que le rôle de l’authenticité comme outil du marketing contemporain est essentiel pour la motivation du tourisme et l’image de l’attraction. Mots-clés: marketing, authenticité, définitions, motivation.

INTRODUCTION

Heritage tourism is currently experiencing a transformation in its operations. According to Meethan (1998), these changes are part of a shift from Fordist to Post Fordist forms of production (Fayos-Sola 1996; Ioannides and Debbage 1997; Uriely 1997). Such particularities refer primarily to the market operations underpinning today’s society, as these are identified in the form of production and consumption processes. In a tourism context, Fordism encapsulates the mass produced, standardized tourism packages that appealed primarily to the mainstream market of the 1960s and the 1970s, whose motivation did not extend much further from the typical sun, sea, and sand holiday product.

On the other hand, Post-Fordism was the outcome of the rapid technological innovations that occurred in society, out of the need to capture the “increasingly complex and diverse needs of demand” (Fayos-Sola 1996:406). This new paradigm has resulted in profound changes in both the production and consumption patterns underpinning heritage tourism. Urry (1990, 1996) has paid tribute to the emergence of the paradigm and the influence it exerted on heritage. His analysis suggested that this transformation in production (supply) and consumption (demand) patterns has resulted in a convergence between tourism and heritage activities.

The Convergence between Hentage and Tounsm

Referring particularly to the process of convergence between heritage and tourism, the multiplicity of human motives and the subsequent supersegmentation of demand, all evident of the changing patterns of Post-Fordist operations, meant that the typical tourist moved away from the sun and sea holiday type of vacation, towards more sophisticated types of vacations where exclusivity, differentiation, and unique personal experiences are the norms of the day. Apart from the obvious similarities between heritage activity and tourism (Harrison 1997:23; Jolliffee and Smith 2001:162) that certainly played a role in the convergence process, the shift of focus experienced in the tourism industry from product driven to consumer driven, created the need for a unique experience. In order to accommodate this differentiation in human preferences, attention was turned to heritage attractions. The unique and at the same time collective nature of heritage resources meant that such attractions have developed into a “special” niche in the industry.

Nevertheless, Urry (1990) was not the first scholar to point at the convergence of tourism and heritage operations. Hewison (1987, 1989) also elaborated upon this phenomenon from a critical point of view (other scholars to comment on this phenomenon include Foley and McPherson 2000; Jolliffee and Smith 2001; Nuryanti 1996; Prentice 2001; Silberberg 1995; Taylor 2001). In essence, Post-Fordist heritage attractions have managed to combine the power to control knowledge with the power to disseminate it to the tourist (McLean 1995). The convergence process has meant that now heritage tourist manifestations are “an essential ingredient of the consumption growth poles, or cultural capital driven development complexes” (Richards 1996b:262). Therefore, nowadays “heritage is a contemporary commodity purposefully created to satisfy contemporary consumption” (Ashworth and Larkham 1994:16).

“While it is fair to admit that such an argument bears Marxist connotations undermining the need of many attractions to meet the requirements for survival, it is a distinctive feature of the behavior of the majority of heritage officials. Thus, the argument by Ashworth and Larkham fully captures the perceptions of the majority of managers, who perceive their assets as completely differentiated, perfectly distinguishable one from the other, and unaffected by market operations (Kirchberg 1996:241; McLean 1995:603; Schonten 1995:259; Tufts and Milne 1999:620).

In a similar fashion, the convergence process within heritage tourism relates to its parallel between heritage and tourism. According to the above brief examination, tourism and patrimonial activities have been brought together by the capitalistic operations, which characterize the Post-Fordist paradigm. Adopting a Marxist stance, Taylor (2001:13) argues that as capitalism is driven by the greed for money, so is tourism in the case of heritage. Hence, the two have been brought together under the paradigm by the operations of capitalism. The issue that will be analyzed in this paper revolves around the two contrasting approaches in the heritage tourism context, namely supply and demand paradigms. More specifically, this paper will attempt to substantiate the existence of a logical continuum combining the theoretical framework underpinning heritage tourism. Eventually this continuum will use the concept of authenticity as the linking device to combine both the supply and demand side approaches.

Having these objectives in mind, the paper will follow a simple structure. The analysis is divided into three stages: definitions of heritage tourism, tourist motivation and authenticity. Each stage of the analysis will be further divided into two distinct parts, which will describe the contrasting demand and supply frameworks within each stage in the heritage tourism context. Thus, for example, the investigation of tourist motivation will be divided into two paradigms. The same rule will apply for the other two stages as well. By the time the paper has covered the analysis of the theoretical framework behind heritage tourism, a two-chain model will be developed, creating a sequential flow among the three stages that comprise the heritage tourism background.

At this point, two observations must to be made. First, the “heritage tourism” and “heritage attractions” terms are used interchangeably in the text. Second, the presentation and justification for the two-chain model (described below) does not in any way mean to suggest that the definition of those concepts incorporated in the model can be simplified into a two case model. That would be an unfortunate generalization. In any case, such an arcane discussion would bring to mind the medieval debate about how many angels one could fit on the head of a pin. Instead, the purpose of the exercise is to summarize in the best possible way the multiplicity of definitions related to these concepts. These two chains will represent contrasting theorems behind heritage tourism. The contribution of the paper to the existing body of literature will include the transformation of the two-chain model into a lateral relationship model, where demand and supply side approaches converge through the operations of authenticity. The latter concept assumes a pivotal role in the model, incorporating both theoretical approaches through the operations of marketing.

The Establishment of The Proposed Model

Substantial research attention in the area of heritage tourism has been undertaken around the issues of definition (Dahles 1998; Garrod and Fyall 2001; Poria, Butler and Airey 2001; Richards 1996a,b), motivation (Gnoth 1997; Kaufman 1999; Kim and Lee 2002), and authenticity (Moscardo 2001; Prentice 2001; Taylor 2001). All of these researchers have approached the concept of heritage tourism using a classical demand-supply paradigm to delineate the boundaries and the theoretical framework underpinning heritage tourism. Aside from Richards (1996a,b) this work understandably features some limitations with respect to fulfilling precisely their set of objectives. These limitations pertain to two matters.

First, they are not completely successful in establishing a linkage among definitions, tourist motivation, and authenticity. Second, the end result of their endeavors typically neglects (Garrod and Fyall 2001; Poria et al 2001), or often fails to acknowledge the existence of either the demand, or the supply side paradigm (Harrison 1997; Tufts and Milne 1999). Even in the case of Richards a direct linkage between the demand and supply side approaches is made, but with a very narrow focus on the demand aspects (consumption) of heritage tourism. Hence, Richards examines the convergence process of heritage tourism through concentrating on the consumer and the demand side (1996b:21). However, he neglects to administer the various degrees of motivation to account for the involvement of people in heritage consumption in the first place.

Given the recent emergence of heritage tourism as a form of contemporary competitive strategy, and despite curatorial perceptions that often run counter to such thinking (Carnagie and Wolnizer 1996:87; Dieteren 1998:5; Hewison 1987; Lowenthal 1985 and Zan 2001), its role is under policy scrutiny from many different perspectives. Discussion has moved on from how to merely attract a larger volume of individuals to a destination, towards a consideration of penetration ratios (Light and Prentice 1994; Richards 1996b: 13). These studies (along with Dahles 1998; Foley and McPherson 2000; Prentice 2001) have implicitly argued that a situation has now been reached where the supply of heritage attractions far outstrips the current demand. In that way, and despite the fact that the number of heritage tourists has increased, demand for each resource (such as museum or heritage center) has actually declined. These early signs of market saturation suggest that existing heritage resources are competing for a slice of a relatively static pie. Therefore, attention nowadays has been concentrated not on the total number of receipts, but instead on visitation in relation to the broader area under consideration.

For the commercial development of a heritage destination this means that the focus of the destination should be to move many attractions from a stage of “being willing to take tourists to a stage of being able to accept tourists” (Silberberg 1995:62). At the same time, it is necessary to pursue basic research concerning tourists’ initial motivation for undertaking their trip to a particular destination. Such an approach involves the need for a theoretical and empirical reflection of the demand and supply aspects of heritage tourism. First, to establish the nature of the continuum in the defining concepts of heritage tourism activity, support is developed to indicate that the different theoretical approaches can be usefully brought together. Second, reasoning is advanced to explain why, in the face of increased competition among heritage destinations, tourism authorities cannot afford to dismiss either the demand or supply side approach. An attempt is made in the paper to establish a lateral relationship between the two approaches to policy development.

The Component Parts of the Model

According to the bulk of the literature in the area, there are two contrasting approaches regarding the early stage of the theoretical framework. The first definitional researchers (Ashworth and Larkham 1994; Garrod and Fyall 2001; Jamieson 1993; Law 1992; Millar 1989; Nuryanti 1996) can be described as the descriptive group. This group concentrates its efforts on defining the material components of culture and heritage such as attractions, objects of art, artifacts, relics, as well as more intangible forms of culture and heritage such as traditions, languages, and folklore. Another distinctive feature of this group is the recognition given to the difference between primary and secondary elements of heritage tourism activity. “Primary elements are those which attract people...whereas secondary elements enhance these attractions” (Law 1992:601). Hence, following this descriptive definitional group, heritage tourism can be distinguished into primary and secondary attractions.

The second definitional group (Dahles 1998; Moscardo 2001; Poria et al 2001; Prideaux and Kininmont 1999; Richards 1996a,b; Silberberg 1995) is based on experiences derived from the consumption of heritage resources and thus this definitional approach is described as experientially based. Centered on tourists’ patterns regarding decisions to visit a particular destination, scholars belonging to this group focus on the significance of the individual’s experiences, and perceptions of the destination site. Moscardo perceives heritage tourism to be “an experience which is produced by the interaction of the visitor with the resource” (2001:5). Similarly, Poria et al (200...