As the term implies, cultural heritage tourism involves visiting places that are significant to the past or

present cultural identity of a particular group of people

Cultural tourism means travel concerned with experiencing cultural environments, including landscapes,
the visual and performing arts, and special (local) lifestyles, values, traditions, events as well as other
ways of creative and inter-cultural exchange processes.

Cultural heritage encompasses what a particular group of people has in common that makes them
different from others

Travelers who are interested in cultural heritage tourism would visit or take part in any of the following:
• Historical attractions, monuments, or landmarks • Museums, art galleries, or theaters • Festivals,
concerts, or performances • Culturally significant neighborhoods or communities

Cultural heritage tourists travel to experience other cultures and learn about the past, but they do so as
tourists and not as specialists

cultural heritage tourists are known to have higher incomes and bring more resources to the
communities they visit than other types of tourists

Studies have shown that cultural heritage tourists are more frequent travelers, are more likely to travel
farther to get the experiences they want, and spend more money than the average tourist.

report issued in 2003 by the Travel Industry Association of America on the characteristics of cultural
heritage tourists also found that for the majority of cultural heritage tourists, a specific historic or
cultural activity or event was a main reason for at least one trip in the past year, and 40% of them added
extra time to their trip because of an historic or cultural activity.

“Partners’ definition of cultural heritage tourism: The coordinated and mutually

supportive application of cultural, heritage and tourist resources for the improvement of the overall
quality of community life.

This definition puts the interests of the community at the center of cultural heritage tourism

Most often, tourism professionals tend to focus on developing tourism resources in ways that enhance
the to

Partners emphasizes the interplay between building community and developing resources to attract
cultural heritage touristsurists’ experience

key takeaway of this approach is that relics of the past can find ways of being relevant today

communities can creatively interpret their heritage assets and thus move beyond the “historic
signboards” written by historians and bespeaking solely historic value. Instead, communities can move
toward contemporary values—those meanings selected by lay citizens who value a given historic place.

effectively highlighting the culture and heritage of a place cultivates attachment to that place, and thus
makes people want to settle in that area and lay their roots down
In its 2010 report, The Knight Soul of the Community, the foundation set out to measure, along with the
Gallup Organization, the levels of “community attachment” that exist in a wide network of cities across
the United States.

According to the report, “Community attachment is an emotional connection to a place that transcends
satisfaction, loyalty, and even passion. A community’s most attached residents have strong pride in it, a
positive outlook on the community’s future, and a sense that it is the perfect place for them. They are
less likely to want to leave than residents without this emotional connection. They feel a bond to their
community that is stronger than just being happy about where they live.”

In evaluating “attachment,” the report surveyed hundreds of residents in 20 communities, asking about
the sorts of resources that make them want to put down roots and build a life. What they found was
that there are consistent elements that almost always led to strong attachment, such as an area’s
physical beauty –its natural setting but also the attractiveness of its architecture and the preservation of
its historic open spaces and buildings.

In a big way, technology is making it ever easier for communities to creatively interpret their heritage
landmarks, and generate interest and enthusiasm from locals and visitors alike. Smart phone apps in
particular allow the grounds and edifices of heritage sites to speak to visitors. They can lead people on
customized walking tours of cultural destinations, and allow endless opportunities for creative
interaction with heritage and culture in any city or town.

In Houston, creative interpretation has thrived with a project called Hear Our Houston, sponsored by the
local public arts organization, Project Row Houses. Hear Our Houston is a public generated audio
walking tour project in which people design their own walking tours and give a definition of what values
they find and what they want others to discover. It encourages participants to explore and document
places that they find meaningful or interesting—places that had importance in the past, or perhaps
which will become important in the future. Listeners are encouraged to record their own walking tours
and add them to the publicly available collection that can be downloaded online at
www.hearourhouston.com

The lesson that Partners draws from the Highline is one of the power of preservation and interpretation.
The reason that the Highline is now a must-see destination is because the city was able to find a creative
way to preserve and enhance a decaying amenity. Instead of searching for old railways and bridges that
look like the ones that have created the Highline in New York City, communities that seek inspiration
from this project would be wise to assess the amenities in their own backyard that make their city or
town unique. These could be railroads, but also any number of amenities including markets, unused
buildings, parks, and many, many others.

In addition to their tangible elements—such as the construction and renovation of new and existing
facilities and the expansion of economic opportunities—community-building projects also have
intangible aspects such as an increase in the sense of trust, respect and togetherness among residents.
These values tend to promote a greater involvement in public life and create a more vibrant community.

Cultural heritage tourism projects can be excellent opportunities for realizing both the tangible and
intangible benefits of community building.
Public recognition of the importance of cultural heritage sites and events is a powerful means for
building community pride

Tourism brings people from other areas into the community. This means that the community has
attractions that others are willing to travel to in order to see.

cultural heritage attractions are by their very nature specific to a community’s past or present
characteristics

To be successful, cultural heritage tourism projects must attract tourists, preserve heritage spaces and
places and engage community residents. Any one of these elements can get out of balance with the
others and prevent a successful outcome.

If the desire to attract tourists becomes the predominant motive, glitzy and kitschy versions of a
community’s heritage can become substituted for the real thing and the lives of residents can be
uprooted by large-scale development projects that do not engage the community. If the desire to
preserve heritage spaces and places becomes too dominant, the resultant attractions may interest a
narrower audience of tourists and do little to benefit community members. And if narrow interests of
community residents are paramount, it may be harder to attract the capital needed to develop the
necessary infrastructure and manage the cultural assets in ways that will attract tourists of all kinds.

All of these groups —tourists, preservationists and community members —have legitimate interests,
and it is easy to imagine different kinds of projects being designed to appeal more to one group than
another.

DIVERGENT APPROACHES TO CULTURAL HERITAGE TOURISM

CONVENTIONAL TOURISM In the prevalent tourism development model, jurisdictions attract

projects by offering incentives such as tax abatements to the developers. The implicit bargain is that
whatever public resources are given to the developers, the jurisdiction (and its residents) will benefit
even more over time from the jobs the project creates, the taxes that are collected and the money that
is spent in the community by tourists. Unfortunately, from a cultural heritage tourism perspective, this
trade-off tends to tilt the incentives toward large-scale projects that are geared to attract the most
tourists possible.

there will be an understandable tendency to design and choose projects that are thought to provide the
greatest economic return.

Large-scale projects may disrupt neighborhoods by taking over land for roads, parking lots and other
forms of infrastructure. Commercial tourism operators may sacrifice some measure of authenticity to
make the tourist experience more accessible.

HISTORIC PReSeRVATION In many respects, the historic preservation model of cultural heritage
development is at the other extreme from the conventional tourism model

Historic preservationists tend to be meticulous about recreating the past as authentically as possible.
Period furniture and artifacts are sought out so visitors can get a sense of how life was lived back in the
day. While this focus on authenticity provides a wealth of information and detail, this very attribute
imposes a greater demand on the attention of the tourist than conventional projects do.
If conventional tourist projects veer toward lowest-common-denominator appeal, preservation-oriented
projects struggle to broaden their attraction beyond their historic niche.

Whether historic preservation projects adopt a museum-like sensibility of authentic presentation or a

tourist-friendly recreation of everyday life, their focus on the past isolates the tourist’s experience from
the ongoing present-day lives of community members.

COMMUNITY BUILDING The community building approach strikes a balance among the interests of
tourists, preservationists and community members.

recognizes that cultural heritage tourism projects need to be developed in ways that will appeal to
tourists. And it understands that the basis for doing so lies in the authentic presentation of the
community’s unique cultural heritage.

the bottom line in this approach is an imperative to involve community members in making basic
decisions about what should be done.

Community building, in relation to the concept of a community’s civic infrastructure, means changing
who decides what to do, how it should be done and who should do it. A community building project can
be as simple as an ad hoc group of neighbors coming together to build tree boxes along the street to
improve the neighborhood’s visual appeal. More significantly, parents and community members could
form a support group for the local school, solicit donations from local businesses for resources and form
volunteer corps of tutors and mentors to improve educational opportunities and outcomes. The key
aspect is the engagement and participation of members of the community to produce a positive change
in some aspect of the common quality of life.

Community building involves community members taking an active role to improve their community
rather than simply sitting back and leaving such matters to someone else

often means that concerned parties must work with the political structure, the business community and
the nonprofit sector because these various agencies, entities and organizations are already engaged,
formally and informally, with many of the common concerns of the community.

To be successful in bringing about the desired change in the community, participants in the process
must find ways to work collaboratively with each other

Acceptance and adherence to core values makes success in both these endeavors more likely. Some of
the most important of these values are inclusiveness, transparency, trust, respect and sustainability.

SUSTAINABILITYOne of the most difficult problems affecting community building initiatives is the issue
of sustainability. Too many processes have started with great enthusiasm and energy and either bogged
down over time without producing much or, if initially successful, been unable to keep the momentum
going after the project ended. Whether a community building project is sustainable depends on what
happens after the funding stops, the project is over and the outside experts have left.

The initial goals of the defined project may have been met, but the question of sustainability concerns
the lasting effects of the changes that were made.

cultural heritage tourism projects touch more directly on issues of identity and community pride, and
these initiatives are likely to include significant public outreach
MORe COMPReHeNSIVe LIST OF CULTURAL HeRITAGe ASSeTS Before
designing a plan for developing and promoting a community’s cultural heritage assets, decision makers
need to know what assets and amenities currently exist. Broad-based public involvement can surface
little-known details about historical occurrences. Families may have old letters or other documents that
add context to familiar events, and oral histories can tell forgotten stories about places and people.

MORe WIDeSPReAD COMMUNITY INVOLVeMeNT AND SUPPORT By design, this

approach involves greater community participation than more conventional planning processes. Some
cultural heritage initiatives may require governmental action such as granting a tax abatement or
allocating public revenue to a project. A broad-based public participation process is more likely to
generate widespread support for making these expenditures.

TRUST, ReSPeCT AND DIGNITY When public deliberation processes are well run and
individuals act in good faith, the sense of trust, respect and dignity can increase among participants even
though serious differences in perspective are not overcome. The consensus judgment reached through
such a process does not mean that everyone is in full agreement. Nevertheless, honest disagreements
honestly discussed can lead people of opposing opinions to better understand and respect each other.

SeLF-CONFIDeNCe AND COMMUNITY PRIDe Taking part in a public dialogue about the
community’s cultural heritage and how best to promote it to tourists can boost self-confidence and the
sense of community pride among participants. Some individuals may find the experience of having
something to contribute and of being taken seriously in a public forum to be a relatively new experience
that may give them more confidence about playing a more active role in their community. Others may
simply have a stronger and deeper sense of pride about where they live as the cultural heritage initiative
gave them a better understanding of their community’s history.

BeTTeR DeCISIONS AND eqUITABLe SHARING OF BeNeFITS With more

participants drawn from more varied walks of life, a community building process changes the “business-
as-usual” approach to making decisions. More information and different perspectives can lead to better
decisions, and the development initiative is more likely to be more broadly conceived for the benefit of
everyone in the community. For example, improvements in infrastructure can be designed to both
appeal to tourists and be of use to residents. Job training programs can be set up and employment
decisions made to benefit community members as well.

APPeAL TO POTeNTIAL OUTSIDe FUNDeRS A proposal for a cultural heritage tourism

initiative that incorporates widespread public participation indicates that the community is organized
and supportive of the effort. These qualities are attractive to outside funders, which is a particularly
important consideration during an economic downturn when funding is scarce.

MORe SUSTAINABLe OUTCOMeS Properly designed and managed, cultural heritage tourism
initiatives can continue to generate income for as long as people travel. Partners considers sustainability
to be the number one objective when implementing such projects. Sustainability is undermined if the
project is simply a one-off tourist attraction project that does not continue to keep pace with the
changing expectations of the tourism industry. This problem is common to most tourist attractions in
general, but there is a specific threat to
the sustainability of cultural heritage tourism attractions as well. When a community’s heritage is the
substance of what is offered to visitors, protecting that heritage is essential. Ensuring that increased
tourism does not destroy the very qualities that attracted tourists in the first place can be a major
challenge in heritage tourism programs.

eCONOMIC BeNeFITS Notwithstanding all of its other benefits, the development of cultural
heritage assets is an economic development strategy. Communities can engage in a variety of projects
to build trust, increase engagement and solve local problems. Cultural heritage tourism is designed to
bring economic resources into the community. No other approach to developing cultural heritage assets
can provide the package of benefits that a community building perspective can. For the reasons outlined
above, a development approach centered on community engagement can identify more cultural assets,
be more attractive to outside funders, produce more sustainable outcomes, and share the benefits
more equitably within the community. Cultural heritage tourism initiatives that are developed through a
public participation process are more likely to be designed and implemented to remain attractive to
tourists without jeopardizing the things that community members prize about their cultural heritage

For developing countries, creating a sustainable tourism model based on culture and heritage can also
lead to sustainable development. In fact, over the last several decades, a chorus of international NGOs
and other institutions have come to greatly appreciate the role that cultural tourism can play in
harnessing the resources needed for economic development.

A key example is UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), which
has always advocated for culture and heritage, but more recently began promoting culture as a primary
tool for sustainable economic development. In a 2011 essay titled “Why Development Needs Culture”,
UNESCO’s Assistant Director for Culture highlighted the progress that countries such as Cambodia,
Ethiopia, and Mozambique have made by showcasing their cultural heritage to a growing number of
tourists.

In a report from the Knight Foundation, as part of their “Soul of the Community” series, researchers
attempted to measure the level of attachment among residents of a number of communities to the
places they call home, and the subsequent affect that such attachment has on the economic strength
and quality of life of those communities where attachment was high and low. What they found was that
attachment matters because it predicts critical quality of life measures such as local GDP growth, public
safety, educational achievement, and community aesthetics including open spaces and public parks.

The Knight Foundation report demonstrates that creating a true sense of place in a community is a sure
way of attracting talented people, developing growth industries and achieving quality of life.

ETHNIC PRESERVATION AND CULTURAL HERITAGE TOURISM

IMPORTANT LeSSONS

MISSION/VISION

HISTORY

STRUCTURe
FUNDING

PROGRAMS

VOLUNTeeRS

PARTNeRSHIPS

eVALUATION

MacCannell (1976:25) refers to ’cultural productions’, a term which refers not only to the process of
culture, but also to the products which result from that process. MacCannell identified tourism as the
ideal arena in which to investigate the nature of such cultural production, and the notion of cultural
tourism perhaps takes this idea to its logical conclusion.

However, the range of cultural products alone is vast, and the term ’cultural tourism’ has been used to
describe the consumption of art, heritage, folklore, and a whole range of other cultural manifestations
by tourists. Such is the range of possible uses of the term, that no single widely accepted definition of
cultural tourism has yet emerged (Richards, 1993).

A review of existing definitions of cultural tourism by Bonink (1992) identified two basic approaches. The
first, the ’sites and monuments’ approach, concentrates on describing the type of attractions visited by
cultural tourists, and is clearly related to a product-based definition of culture. This approach is very
useful for quantitative research on cultural tourism, since it is relatively easy to identify, count and
interview visitors to cultural attractions. On the other hand, it tends to yield a relatively narrow view of
the activities and motivations of cultural tourists, because it restricts the analysis to specific sites. A
typical list of the types of sites or attractions which are considered to attract cultural tourists is provided
by ECTARC (1989).

a) archaeological sites and museums b) architecture (ruins, famous buildings, whole towns) c) art,
sculpture, crafts, galleries, festivals, events d) music and dance (classical, folk, contemporary) e) drama
(theatre, films, dramatists) f) language and literature study, tours, events g) religious festivals,
pilgrimages i) complete (folk or primitive) cultures and sub-cultures.

These features are clearly orientated towards a concept of cultural tourism as ’high culture’, and
towards the consumption of cultural products, rather than involvement in cultural processes. A similar
approach is taken by Munsters in his typology of cultural tourism attractions and events (see Munsters,
Chapter 6 this volume).

The second approach might broadly be termed the conceptual approach. As with tourism in general,
conceptual definitions of cultural tourism attempt to describe the motive and meanings attached to
cultural tourism activity. For example, cultural tourism is defined by McIntosh and Goeldner (1986) as
comprising "all aspects of travel, whereby travellers learn about the history and heritage of others or
about their contemporary ways of life or thought". In other words, cultural tourists learn about the
products and processes of other cultures. On the other hand, Wood (1984) sees "the role of culture as
contextual, where its role is to shape the tourist’s experience of a situation in general, without a
particular focus on the uniqueness of a specific cultural identity", in contrast to ethnic tourism, which
has "a direct focus on people living out a cultural identity whose uniqueness is being marketed for
tourists". In other words, Wood argues that where ethnicity is the product, we are dealing with ethnic
tourism rather than cultural tourism. These types of approaches illustrate that conceptual definitions
can be useful in focusing attention on why and how people engage in cultural tourism, rather than
simply how many cultural tourists there are. Conceptual definitions of cultural tourism are therefore
more clearly process-based.

The problems of integrating the technical and conceptual approaches to cultural tourism

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".

Technical Definition

"All movements of persons to specific cultural attractions, such as heritage sites, artistic and cultural
manifestations, arts and drama outside their normal place of residence".

Both of these definitions are compatible with the Tourism Society definition of tourism, and can be used
to deal with both day tourists and overnight stays. The most important difference between the technical
definition and the conceptual definition is that the latter considers the motivation of tourists as central.
The ATLAS research has supported the contention of the GAETTE (1993) report for the European
Commission, which suggested that a ’learning element’ is the central distinguishing feature of cultural
tourism. As Crompton (1979) has suggested, ’cultural’ motives for tourism include the search for
’novelty’ and ’education’. Although Schouten (1995) doubts that the expressed desire of cultural tourists
has much connection with real ’learning’, research into the motives of self-defined cultural tourists in
the UK, the Netherlands and Spain tends to confirm the importance of learning and novelty-seeking as
motives (Van ’t Riet, 1995). Depth interviews with tourists visiting cultural attractions indicated that
education was an important motive for 42 of the 45 respondents, while 29 indicated that novelty was a
key motive (Table 2.1). The use of the

learning motive as a definition of cultural tourism is also in line with the German concept of
VWXGLHQUHLVHQ (Narhsted, 1993). The learning motive also allows some distinction to be made
between casual visitors to cultural sites, and tourists with specific cultural motives, who might be
considered as the "specific cultural tourists" (Irish Tourist Board, 1988) or "culturally motivated tourists"
(Bywater, 1994).

The Changing Nature of Cultural Tourism

Not only are ’tourism’ and ’culture’ difficult concepts to define, but the meanings attached to these
concepts is constantly changing. At one time, boundaries between concepts such as ’culture’ and
’economics’, between ’high’ and ’low’ culture, and even ’culture’ and ’tourism’

might have seemed relatively easy to draw. It might, for example, have been relatively easy to draw up
an acceptable list of cultural facilities which could be included in the orbit of cultural tourism. Most
people might have agreed, for example, that a visit to the Uffizi Palace in Florence was cultural tourism,
whereas a visit to Blackpool Pleasure Beach was not.

In recent years, however, notions of culture and tourism have undergone significant change, as notions
of such distinctions have begun to blur. The disappearance of traditional divisions between the realms of
production and consumption, and between the cultural and the economic are examples of what
MacCannell (1993) has identified as the collapse of the distinction between means and production.
Former production spaces have now been given over to consumption, as in the case of former coal
mines turned into museums and visitor centres. For MacCannell, therefore, all tourism is a cultural
experience. Urry (1990) takes this argument one step further, by arguing that tourism LV culture. In the
new culture of tourism, specially created consumption areas have been created, which are designed to
aid tourists in their search for authenticity and meaning. Such areas have been labelled ’escape areas’ by
Rojek (1993), who identifies four categories of escape area: ’black spots’, ’heritage attractions’, ’literary
landscapes’ and ’theme parks’, at least the first three of which (and some would argue all of which) have
clear links with cultural tourism.

The growing incorporation of culture into tourism as a basic commodity for tourist consumption, is a
change which has led many authors to suggest that the current growth of cultural tourism is something
’new’, and qualitatively and qualitatively different from the cultural tourism of the Grand Tour. Narhsted
(1993) for example, has suggested that cultural tourism is essentially a postmodern phenomenon, the
origins of which are very recent. In Germany, he argues, the use of the term ’cultural tourism’ can be
dated to reunification in 1990. The idea of cultural tourism as a ’new’ form of tourism is also taken up in
the influential study of arts tourism in the UK by Myerscough (see Gratton and Richards, Chapter 4 this
volume) and has been linked to the growth of the ’new tourism’ by Poon (1993).
As indicated in Chapter 1, however, cultural tourism is far from being a completely new phenomenon.
What has changed is the extent of cultural tourism consumption, and the forms of culture being
consumed by cultural tourists. As Wynne (1992) has suggested, one of the hallmarks of postmodern
consumption is the disintegration of distinctions between ’high’ and ’low’ or ’popular’ culture. As these
distinctions disappear, so the scope of cultural tourism expands to include elements which previously
would not have been considered ’cultural’ (such as popular music, modern design or match museums).
As distinctions between ’culture’ and ’tourism’ or ’everyday life’ also begin to erode, so cultural tourism
can also come to include activities such as simply ’soaking up the atmosphere’ of a destination, or
sampling the local food. In this way, cultural tourism begins to encompass the passive consumption of
culture on holiday, as well as actively seeking ’high’ culture through a visit to a museum or a classical
concert. As the boundaries between ’high’ and ’popular’ culture fade, so the consumption of popular
entertainment, such as the ’end of the pier show’ at Blackpool become part of the cultural tourism
sphere as well (Hughes and Benn, 1994).

A further consequence of the integration of high and low culture is the fact that it is now increasingly
difficult to determine the boundaries of the cultural sphere of social and economic activity. In the past,
high culture was regarded as being synonymous with culture, and this meant that culture could
effectively be kept free of commercialism through public sector funding for high culture. As high and low
culture become less distinct, however, the aesthetic basis for subsidizing certain cultural forms is
eroded, and it becomes increasingly hard for high cultural forms to resist commercialization. The
cultural and economic spheres of society are therefore becoming increasingly hard to separate. The
effect of this is being

seen in the convergence of economic and cultural policy (see Richards, Chapter 5 this volume), the
economic justifications required for cultural development, and the growing convergence of tourism and
culture.

Cultural tourism is therefore changing, both in terms of the way in which tourists consume culture, and
in the way in which culture is presented for tourist consumption. Culture is now becoming an essential
element in tourism policies at all levels, from the European Union down to the individual municipality.
Perhaps what is essentially new about this wave of cultural tourism development, however, is the fact
that culture is now primarily being promoted for economic, rather than cultural ends. An example of
how this change has manifested itself at European level is provided by the following case study of the
development of the European Cultural Capital event.

&8/785( $6 $1
2%-
(&7 2) 7285,60
From a sociological perspective, cultural tourism can be viewed as one aspect of the overall question of
cultural consumption. Cultural consumption has been extensively studied, not only as a part of general
sociological enquiry, but also in specialist fields, such as art sociology and leisure sociology (Bevers,
1993).

Sociological analysis of cultural participation has identified a number of key variables which can to a
large extent explain differences in cultural consumption between individuals. The basic variables
identified include education, income, occupation and age (Bourdieu and Darbel, 1991; Ganzeboom,
1989). The effect of these basic variables on cultural consumption and behaviour are most famously
summarized in Bourdieu’s concept of cultural competence, or ’cultural capital’.

Bourdieu (1984:2) argues that in order to understand or appreciate cultural products, people must
attain the cultural competence, or capital, which allows them to recognize and interpret those products:
"a work of art has meaning and interest only for someone who possesses the cultural competence, that
is, the code, into which it is encoded". Cultural competence, or capital, is generated through upbringing,
education and other forms of socialization. The possession of cultural capital is demonstrated through
consumption, and those forms of consumption in turn act as a form of distinction, which can define both
the individual and membership of a specific social group.

The class struggle, according to Bourdieu, is a battle for control of scarce cultural, economic and social
resources. He argues, for example, that the increase in educational participation in ’the schooling boom’
is the result of intensified competition between social groups for academic qualifications. As more
people obtain a particular academic qualification, however, the value of that qualification is devalued as
it becomes more common. This drives "groups whose reproduction was mainly or exclusively achieved
through education to step up their investments so as to maintain the relative scarcity of their
qualifications and, consequently, their position in the class structure" (p. 133). Because education is one
of the primary vehicles for attaining cultural capital,

"Generally increased schooling has the effect of increasing the mass of cultural capital which, at every
moment, exists in an ’embodied’ state. Since the success of the school’s educative action and the
durability of its effects depend on how much cultural capital has

been directly transmitted by the family, it can be presumed that the efficiency of schoolbased educative
action tends to rise constantly" (p. 133).

Class factions seek to distinguish themselves from each other in all areas of life, including education,
occupation and location, as well as through the consumption of commodities. These commodities
include not only cultural products and activities, such as museum visits, but also tourism experiences.
These different elements of distinction are combined to create a certain culture or milieu, or what
Bourdieu terms ’habitus’, which forms the basis for the reproduction and differentiation of social
classes.

Bourdieu’s analysis was based on empirical data collected in France in the 1960s, including a specific
study of visitors to art museums (Bourdieu and Darbel, 1991). It is not surprising, therefore, that
Bourdieu’s work has often been used to analyse cultural consumption. In recent years, the increasingly
close links between culture and tourism have also lead to a growing interest in Bourdieu’s analysis in the
tourism literature (Munt, 1994; Errington and Gewertz, 1989).

Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital has been tested and extended through a number of subsequent
empirical studies. In the Netherlands, data on cultural consumption from the Central Bureau for
Statistics (CBS) was used by Knulst (1989) to chart the major changes in cultural consumption in the
Dutch population over a 20 year period. Knulst found that visits to museums and monuments had
increased substantially, largely due to improved levels of educational attainment. The audience for the
performing arts, however, had remained far more restricted. Knulst attributed this difference to the
greater amount of cultural capital required for arts participation as opposed to the relatively popularist
displays offered by museums. A series of studies by researchers based at the University of Utrecht
(Ganzeboom, 1989, Verhoeff, 1994) have demonstrated that cultural participation remains largely
restricted to higher income, highly educated groups which also tend to be concentrated in major cities,
close to centres of cultural production.

In the UK, the work of Merriman (1991) has also indicated the predominantly upmarket nature of
museum visiting. His research indicated that museum visitors came predominantly from higher socio-
economic groups, and also have a high level of participation in other cultural activities, such as theatre,
opera, classical concerts and ballet. Merriman also argues that museums effectively separate the
population into two groups: those who have sufficient cultural capital to perceive museums as a leisure
experience, and those who do not.

An important implication of Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital is that people need to accumulate
knowledge about art and culture in order to be able to participate effectively. Lack of cultural capital
therefore becomes a barrier to participation. The most effective means of increasing participation is to
raise general levels of cultural capital through education. The studies of Knulst and Ganzeboom indicate
that increasing levels of participation in higher education are one of the most important causes of
increased cultural participation in the Netherlands. This is a link which is also confirmed by the high level
of cultural tourism participation among students identified in the ATLAS cultural tourism surveys (see
Richards, Chapter 2 this volume). In contrast, direct attempts at broadening cultural participation
through economic subsidies have proved largely ineffective (Bevers, 1993).
Recent studies have developed the concept of cultural capital still further. Harvey (1989) contends that
cultural capital is also an attribute of place. In order to attract investment capital and the spending
power of the middle class, regions now differentiate themselves by emphasizing the aesthetic qualities
of material commodities and services which represent

symbolic capital. Examples of this can be found in the trend toward establishing cultural facilities as part
of an economic development strategy (see Gratton and Richards, Chapter 4 this volume). Extending
Harvey’s argument, Zukin (1991:28) regards culture as "both the property of cultured people and a
general way of life", and that while culture in the former sense is a mark of distinction, as suggested by
Bourdieu, in the latter sense culture constitutes "an inalienable product of place". The cultural products
of place are in effect a physical form of cultural capital (’real cultural capital’), which Zukin contends is
just as important as symbolic forms of cultural capital.

"On the supply side, cultural consumption creates employment for a self-conscious critical infrastructure
(and lower-level service personnel), and is in turn created by its labor. Cultural consumption contributes
to capital accumulation, moreover, by enhancing profits on entrepreneurial investment in production
and distribution. And .... cultural consumption has a positive effect on capital accumulation in real estate
development. Cultural goods and services truly constitute real cultural capital - so long as they are
integrated as commodities in the market-based circulation of capital." (p. 260).

Investment in real cultural capital becomes attractive not just because, as Harvey suggests, it increases
the rate of capital circulation, but also because of

"the inelasticity of demand for certain cultural goods and services that are now deemed essential, at
least by the richest stratum of the population with an increasing share of income" (Zukin, 1991:266).

Investment in cultural capital therefore has a significant impact on the organization of space. The
transformation of downtown areas by gentrification, the creation of ’festival marketplaces’ (Harvey,
1989) or the implanting of theme parks in rural areas is driven by the requirements of capital
accumulation. The arguments advanced by Harvey and Zukin regarding ’real cultural capital’ are
important for the study of cultural tourism. Real cultural capital forms a vital link between explanations
of cultural consumption, as advanced by Bourdieu, and production of the supply of cultural tourism
attractions, as indicated by Harvey. In order to fully understand the conditions under which European
cultural tourism has developed, therefore, we need to analyse the social conditions which determine
the consumption of cultural tourism, and the economic processes which govern its production. In
general, the social aspects of cultural tourism are dealt with in this chapter, and economic aspects in
Chapter 4. A strict division is, however, not only undesirable but also impractical. The following sections
of this chapter examine first the factors influencing cultural consumption, then influences on cultural
production, and an attempt is made to analyse the link between cultural consumption and production in
the context of cultural tourism.

The term site overlaps significantly with destination but tends to center on a particular place bound by
physical or cultural characteristics. Many sites often inhabit a single destination such as the principal
temples of Tikal National Park, or multiple historical buildings in the Historic Center of Vienna.

An attraction is any object, person, place, or concept that draws people either geographically or through
remote electronic means so that they might have an experience. The experience can be recreational,
spiritual, or otherwise. An attraction is an outstanding example (for whatever criteria used) of a resource
which includes all the elements in a particular class. For example the Monarch Butterfly is an attraction
among the 1,000s of Lepidoptera species, the resource class of butterflies and moths, in Mexico.
Thousands and thousands of Mayan burial sites exist in Guatemala, yet only very few actually earn the
distinction of being an attraction.

Ultimately the market — not tourism experts or magazines — decide what is an attraction among its
much wider resource class. If people spend time and money to experience a particular resource, then
that resource is also an attraction.

Traditionally, people divide up attractions between cultural and natural. Cultural should, but does not
always, include historical attractions as well. Public Use Planning effort of the World Heritage Center
uses another categorization, perhaps more refined, consisting of four categories:

Geophysical-landscape-aesthetic. Includes mountains, gorges, big rocks, rock formations, caves, rivers,
water bodies, scenic views, overlooks of forests (when the attraction is merely seeing and not
interacting more directly with the forest), unusual cloud formations, unusual meteorological

conditions (high velocity or unusual wind behavior, light hitting or passing through geological formations
in strange ways), thermal waters, volcanic activity, or even unusual celestial events such as the Northern
Lights, Perseid Meteor Showers, or exceptionally clear night views for star-gazing.

Ecological-biological. Includes any and all organisms, their parts, their behaviors, aggregations, or
associations in communities with other organisms. It also includes ecological events or processes that
include the participation of organisms, such as decomposition, reproduction, predation, migration, and
fossil remains (though one could categorize these as geophysical as well).
Cultural-historical. Includes all human constructions, practices, and remains (archaeological). It includes
all manifestations of human evolution and cultural expression. In some cases, it includes ideas of
particular individuals or events that are interpreted through objects and places like a house or a
person’s possession, like some famous philosopher’s eyeglasses or the house of a military commander.

Recreational. These include all attractions built by humans for the specific purpose of entertainment or
education. This includes theme parks, botanical gardens, sports fields, motion-based attractions (such as
roller coasters), zoos, museums, theatres, shopping malls, etc. In the context of protected areas, this
resource category is normally not considered, since the purpose of protecting sites is to preserve and
exhibit natural and cultural attractions, not artificial human-based attractions like Disney World. This is
not to speak badly of this type of attraction, but since such attractions are normally incompatible with
and compete with protected sites, they sometimes can be left out of protected area attraction
inventories. If they do exist in a site, they can be classified as existing services, designed to support the
experience of the protected resources.

EXPERIENCE

Some people might include the experience as one of the tourist components, but no product can
provide an experience, only an opportunity to have an experience. Mount Everest cannot provide an
experience, no matter what kind. The tour operator does not provide an experience. Only the visitor can
create the experience based on certain factors. While there are many ways to define an experience, Pine
and Gilmore (1999) suggest the following equation, redrawn by Public Use Planning.

Figure 1.1. Anatomy of an Experience. (Adapted from Pine & Gilmore, 1999).

In Figure 1.1, an experience begins as an event where a visitor experiences (activity) an attraction
(resources) within a particular context or situation (high-quality rock climbing equipment with toprated
guides or with tattered ropes and a retired green beret). This event generates a reaction (“I liked it!” “I
hated it!” “I’m really pretty good at rock climbing after all!”) and that reaction burns a memory upon
which the visitor reflects and creates new meaning. Ultimately the person, through this meaning-making
process, both increases his or her understanding of the world and of the self as well. As the visitors’
confidence increases or decreases, as self-image transforms, in effect, they literally recreate themselves,
which of course is where the word “recreation” comes from anyway. As the figure further points out,
interpretive planning and recreation planning influence greatly the event or the opportunity to have an
experience.

TOURISM PRODUCTS

Despite products’ being the central feature of the industry, much confusion washes over the concept.
Products like attractions are often confused with the activity and with services, but a product is more
than these. A useful definition comes from the Honduran Institute of Tourism, slightly modified by the
Public Use Planning effort. Though each industry defines product components according to its own
realities, tourism can be thought of as six components aligned in logical sequence.

Attraction. All tourism products begin with an attraction, without which no further discussion is needed.

Access. An attraction must have access or else no further discussion is needed. Do note, however, that
most often access refers to visitor capacity to arrive. Sometimes access means the opposite. Sometimes
an attraction is attractive because it is difficult to get to, such as wilderness areas and for adventure
activities. Either way, access is essential to the exploitation of the attraction.

Activity. Every visitor experiences an attraction, but how they experience depends on the activity they
select (see “Experience” below). A person can experience Mount Everest vicariously through the
Internet or from the porch of a cushy mountain lodge. They could also experience it by scaling the
mountain to its death-defying icy peak. Thus it is erroneous to say that Mount Everest offers a particular
kind of experience; it may be short-hand for mountaineering, but experience depends on the activity.

Services. To realize an activity requires services. Services are all those functions that a visitor might or
might not be able to do for him or herself but in all cases chooses someone else to do it for them.
Services include actually allowing the activity to take place (such as access granted by a national park),
the security of park guards and wilderness responders, the food, the housing, the transportation, the
communication, the provision of souvenirs, etc. If an activity requires no services (such as using the
backyard of one’s own home), then we are not talking about a tourism product.

Qualified personnel. Service provision, in turn, requires that someone qualified provide that service,
whether a guide, chef, driver, transportation company, national park staff, police, or street juggler. Even
if that someone is an automated robot, it still requires someone (and someone also to service the robot,
of course).

Promotion. Despite the best of tourism product designs, if no one knows the product exists, then all is
for naught. A tourism product must also include promotions, even if that is “only” word-ofmouth.

TRADITIONAL TOURISM VS. SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM AND THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE

So what is sustainable tourism? The UN World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (www.unwto.org) has
defined sustainable tourism as an enterprise that achieves a balance between the environmental,
economic, and socio-cultural aspects of tourism development so as to guarantee long-term benefits to
recipient communities. According to UNWTO, it should: • Make optimal use of environmental
resources, maintaining essential ecosystems and helping conserve biodiversity • Respect socio-cultural
authenticity, conserve built and living cultural heritage, and contribute to cross-cultural understanding
and tolerance • Ensure long-term socio-economic benefits, fairly distributed to all community
stakeholders, including stable employment and income-earning opportunities, social services, and
poverty alleviation

This is commonly called the triple bottom line for sustainable development: environmental, economic,
and cultural returns on investment. Some identify a fourth benefit of well-managed tourism: public
education for both visitors and residents to deepen understanding of cultures and ecosystems, though
this is also a cultural benefit.

A lot depends on the situation in which a destination finds itself. How wealthy or poor is the region?
How well do locals understand and support the characteristics that make their place attractive to
tourists? How vulnerable are those assets? Which type of potential tourist is most appropriate? How
many tourists come, what do they do, and who gets their money?

When an attraction such as a popular national park or renowned cultural monument is involved, impacts
depend a lot on tourist interaction with neighboring towns, called gateway communities. So good
management means thinking about the destination as a whole — not just the protected site, but also its
human, natural, and cultural settings.

TOOLS TO HELP MANAGE DESTINATIONS MORE SUSTAINABLY

First, it makes sense to take stock of the situation.

System of Measuring Excellence for Destinations (SMED). Typically, a destination hires the Montreal-
based Centre of Excellence for Destinations (www.ced.travel), a UNWTO affiliate, to perform two
months of research on the entire tourism and stewardship situation in the locality, including a series of
workshops, interviews, and meetings

The SMED process is fairly new, but some places have already used it. Mexico City has begun using
SMED recommendations. In the congested old downtown area, for instance, “a new bicycle rental
system has given great results both for tourists and locals,” reports SMED expert Dr. César Castaneda.
“People working in the centro histórico are encouraged to go out for lunch and meetings on the bikes
instead of driving.”

Portugal’s Douro Valley, famed for its terraced hillsides of port wine vineyards, used its SMED report to
obtain 30 million euros from the European Union to implement the recommendations, including
creation of a DMO, official adoption of National Geographic’s Geotourism Charter principles, and
development of a network of tourism information booths

Scientific research. Ecosystems are under pressure almost everywhere. Protecting them requires
understanding how they work. At Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, for instance, marine ecology findings
led to the politically difficult but scientifically defendable decision to increase “no take” fishing zones
from 14% to 33%. Elsewhere, National Geographic and others have been funding similar research that
has led to such actions as bans on fishing the Nassau grouper spawning aggregations on the Belize
Barrier Reef.

Monitoring. In China, Yangshuo’s karst landscape and constituent towns are a major Chinese tourist
attraction. To understand sustainability issues, UNWTO has worked with Sun Yatsen University to
monitor some 40 sustainability indicators developed by UNWTO. This “Tourism Observatory” conducts
annual surveys of four key groups: businesses, residents, foreign tourists, and domestic tourists, and
then assesses indicator data. Thus, the exercise includes input from people
often left out of tourism management: visitors and residents. The reports help local leaders identify and
resolve problems.

BUILDING CAPACITY

In impoverished and underdeveloped areas, though, sufficient local businesses may not exist. Such
regions need to build capacity, to develop enough financial and human resources to address problems
and responsibly seize opportunities.

Dr. Donald Hawkins of The George Washington University in Washington, DC, has been involved with
efforts to improve the situation around Petra, Jordan, a popular but challenged destination that rated 60
— the “so-so” range — on the National Geographic stewardship survey in 2006
(http://traveler.nationalgeographic.com/2006/11/destinations-rated/intro-text). Survey panelists then
characterized Petra as a mix of awe-inspiring archaeology and a gateway that is a sprawling mess of
touts and tackiness.

Now Hawkins sees hope for Petra in a strengthened regional commission that embraces not only the
archaeological site but also municipalities and local Bedouin tribes. One problem, says Hawkins, is that
too many day trippers do not stay long enough to help the local economy. International aid programs
help small businesses to address that. To spice up the gateway’s relatively dead evenings, for instance,
he cites a grant that helped the Petra Kitchen restaurant set up an evening workshop in Bedouin cuisine,
with tourists cooking and then eating their newly created meals.

“If you don’t grow the economy around the World Heritage sites,” sums up Hawkins, “you can’t
substantively address the conservation agenda for them or the needs of the local communities for jobs
and education.”

ENGAGING GATEWAY COMMUNITIES

Granada is a gateway community for the Alhambra, and the management changes were successful
largely because local government and businesses participated in the process. Zouain argues, “Managing
the heritage site separately from the community destroys the place more than it helps.”

National Geographic’s Center for Sustainable Destinations

(http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/sustainable/index.html) introduced another technique for
engaging communities: creation of a local “geotourism stewardship council” using participatory mapping
as a catalyst. The geotourism concept emphasizes destination qualities, its definition being “tourism that
sustains or enhances the geographical character of a place — its environment, culture, aesthetics,
heritage, and the well-being of its residents.” For stakeholders, the focus on presenting “our place” can
rally support and encourage cooperation conducive to sustainability.

Geotourism mapping uses regional character to bring together — often for the first time —
representatives from every endemic facet of the destination. Nature, history, culture, agriculture and
cuisine, landscapes and geology, hotels and restaurants all are represented at the same table, along with
tour operators, government agencies, retail suppliers, and civic organizations. All initially oversee the
mapping project. Many of these councils now seek to become permanent.
WHAT WE’VE LEARNED, WHERE WE’RE GOING

Better management, building capacity, not going overboard all contribute to making tourism more
sustainable. Work to date suggests some basic lessons.

Communication counts. Residents need to understand why the historic site or natural landscape they
see every day represents a potentially important economic benefit for them. Managers need to
understand locals’ needs and concerns. Tourists need to learn the significance of what they see, why
and how they can help conserve it. It is best when locals help with this interpretation, as the process
increases their ownership of the story. And finally, the rest of the world needs to understand the value
of the place. No better messengers exist than those enthusiastic home comers with travel stories to tell.

Planning counts. Without planning and public education, the incentive to protect can easily degenerate
into mere exploitation. There is a need to see the whole. Says Pedersen: “You have to look beyond the
site borders for ideas like payback schemes,” whereby local businesses support site conservation.

Management counts. Just letting tourism happen likely leads to trouble, especially when visitation soars.
Dispersing tourists and timing their access can mitigate crowding. Encouraging tourists to stay

overnight instead of making quick day trips can increase local economic benefits. High-quality tourism
rather than high-volume tourism conserves rather than exploits.

Individuals count. Behind institutional reports and government memos hides a key reality: individuals
make huge differences. Success or failure easily depends on a dedicated local person working tirelessly
to inspire others, organize them, and keep the process moving. Dion sees this over and over. “Good
managers working with a bad tool are better than bad managers with a good one.” Sheppard confirms,
“a champion is important in virtually every case.” Yet procedures to identify and mentor this most
essential ingredient are almost always absent.

Communities count. People who live in gateways hold the key to create a “virtuous circle,” whereby
tourism’s contribution to the economy generates incentives to conserve the resources that keep tourists
coming. Pedersen thinks it necessary to have some kind of forum, such as geotourism stewardship
councils. Top-down schemes imposed from the outside don’t work well, if at all. Locals must own part of
the process. At the Great Barrier Reef, community meetings on no take zones kept policy disagreements
from solidifying into polarization. The process included opportunities for fishing interests to state their
positions, no matter how hostile. Results slowly won converts as reserves increased fishing productivity
beyond their borders.

It is clear that industry practitioners are only beginning to understand how best to harness the power of
tourism, how to use it for better, and not worse. Art Pedersen sums it up this way: “There are no success
stories. It’s a process. The more arrows in the quiver, the better.” He pauses. “Nobody’s carrying a full
quiver.”

SUMMARY
A simple policy recipe for ensuring a sustainable form of tourism development can be followed by
remembering six steps: • Promote sustainable development • Create products for specific visitor market
segments • Gain and maintain competitiveness • Enhance visitor experience • Preserve local resources
• Improve residents’ quality of life

By keeping these steps in mind, a destination is on the right track to a better future of sustainable
tourism that will last through many future generations. Either establishing a destination certification
program or enrolling in an existing program will help ensure the planning and implementation stays on
the correct path of sustainability.

Cultural Heritage Tourism

There is no singular, specific definition of either cultural or heritage tourism .Some call it cultural
tourism, some heritage tourism, some cultural & heritage tourism or shortly cultural heritage tourism
(Cultural & Heritage Tourism Alliance, 2002). Culture is a set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual
and emotional features of society or a social group. It encompasses, in addition to art and literature,
lifestyles, ways of living together, values systems, traditions and beliefs (UNESCO, 2001). The World has
some 6000 communities and as many distinct languages. The National Trust’s definition of cultural
heritage tourism is “traveling to experience the places and activities that authentically represent the
stories and people of the past and present. It includes historic, cultural and natural resources." (Cultural
Heritage Tourism, 2005). In 1985, World Tourism Organization (WTO) provided two

definitions of cultural tourism. The narrower definition includes: "movements of persons for essentially
cultural motivations such as study tours, performing arts and cultural tours, travel to festivals and other
cultural events, visits to sites and monuments, travel to study nature, folklore or art, and pilgrimages.'
The wider definition includes: 'all movements of persons, … because they satisfy the human need for
diversity, tending to raise the cultural level of the individual and giving rise to new knowledge,
experience and encounters.' (Canadian Heritage, 2006). Heritage is a broad concept and includes the
natural as well as the cultural environment. It encompasses landscapes, historic places, sites and built
environments, as well as biodiversity, collections, past and continuing cultural practices, knowledge and
living experiences. It records and expresses the long processes of historic development, forming the
essence of diverse national, regional, indigenous and local identities and is an integral part of modern
life. It is a dynamic reference point and positive instrument for growth and change (The Charter Etos,
1999). Cultural tourism market share development strategy focuses on promotion of the unique cultural
aspects of a city or region, in order to draw tourists interested in those particular cultural subjects to the
area. Heritage management, on the other hand is defined as management of regions’ natural, cultural
and built environments. As a strategy, this focus is gaining widespread acceptance nation wide and
internationally among tourism offices and bureau to differentiate their cities, regions and states as
desirable tourist destinations in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Figure 1. The Three Categories of Heritage Attraction NATURAL CULTURAL BUILT

Landforms, Festivals, Historic homes,

rural scenery, arts/crafts, monuments,

flora and fauna traditional practices/ industrial sites

products

Source: Jun, Soo Hyun; Nicholls, Sarah; Vogt, Christine, “Heeding the call for heritage tourism: more
visitors want an "experience" in their vacations--something a historical park can provide”, 9/1/2004,
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-122660738.html.

Developing ICH based tourism projects: Major challenges and management strategies

Understanding the links – When integrating intangible cultural heritage into tourism planning and
development, all relevant stakeholders must be well versed in both concepts, and fully aware of the
links between the two.

Defining tourism products – ICH assets may be developed as cultural tourism products by:

• Creating cultural spaces or purpose-built facilities as venues to showcase ICH; • Combining or bundling
attractions to create a themed set for stronger market appeal; • Developing new tour routes, circuits or
heritage networks; • Using existing circuits or reviving networks, such as pilgrimage routes; and/or •
Using or reviving festivals and events.

Successful marketing requires a sound understanding of the products on offer, the target market and
underlying industry conditions. Defining tourism products helps to identify the types of tourists and
markets that should be targeted, while training in entrepreneurial skills and branding can help
communities effectively communicate heritage values through tourism products.

Identifying stakeholders and establishing participation mechanisms – Key-players connected to

intangible cultural heritage assets must be clearly identified, and their opinions taken into account, to
ensure sustainability. Incorporating feedback from different perspectives into management, product
development, marketing and business strategies is essential.
Maintaining authenticity – The commercialisation of living culture poses challenges, as it may entail the
simplification of heritage for the purposes of transmission. A balance must be struck between
commodifying ICH tourism products to make them commercially viable, while preventing them from
becoming over-commodified. Models of presenting and promoting ICH products which provide the
greatest benefit to host communities, while meeting the needs of tourists, foster tourism development
that safeguards core cultural values.

Creating partnerships – Genuine partnerships are required between all relevant stakeholders,
particularly governments, the private tourism sector, NGOs, and local communities. Communitybased
tourism projects allow for direct communication between communities and the tourism and heritage
sectors while sustainably developing cultural assets as tourism products.

Setting limits of acceptable change (LAC) – To mitigate the tension between tourism development and
control over cultural identity, constant dialogue is imperative between communities and the heritage
and tourism sectors on the “limits of acceptable change”. A proactive approach to the creation of
tourism products should be adopted, in which assets are transformed with the close involvement of
local stakeholders, and whereby local space versus tourist space is negotiated with sensitivity.

Balancing education and entertainment – Showcasing the best of living culture to tourists in an
attractive way involves providing a balance between education and entertainment. Participatory
workshops for visitors in the visual, performing or culinary arts are a useful way of providing profound
cultural experiences in which hosts can directly communicate their core values.

Seeking short-term rather than long-term gain – The value of heritage-based tourism products exceeds
all immediate and particular economic benefits they provide. The use of assets should be culturally
appropriate and sustainable, thus stakeholders must be educated and consulted continuously to ensure
that heritage is not regarded simply as a tool of income-generation. Tourism’s benefits are also more
likely to be enjoyed in the long-term, if, for instance, money is reinvested into community projects and
training programmes.

Ensuring cultural dynamism – Care should be taken to help cultures remain dynamic and endowed with
the knowledge to ensure that their intangible heritage endures. Participation in tourism can be a
powerful catalyst for local cultural reproduction and revitalization, and cultural exchange is an
acknowledged positive effect of communities opening up to tourism.

Need for research and monitoring systems – Assessing the performance and sustainability of ICH
tourism products is necessary for ensuring their responsible management. Monitoring systems can
evaluate whether goals have been reached or thresholds breached. Research also plays a key role in the
successful management, marketing and delivery of quality experiences for travellers, while
simultaneously safeguarding living heritage.