Sustainable Heritage Tourism: Quality not Quantity

Dr. Hyungyu Park rethinks tourism through heritage for the post-COVID 19 era

Introduction

Tourism is a double-edged sword. It demonstrably creates economic growth and benefits for nations, cities and communities, but it also brings negative impacts that have been widely debated in both academic and practical spheres. Tourism-driven damage impacts both environmental and cultural domains. It includes environmental degradation, the overuse of natural resources, overcrowding, the commodification of local culture and heritage, and a loss of authenticity: the packaging of local culture, heritage and tradition into reductive, easily consumable tourist products. The development of mass tourism in coastal destinations in particular has been vulnerable to these negative impacts, and in developing countries, over-dependence on tourism as a tool for major economic development has created particularly destructive outcomes. Many popular mass tourism destinations, places overtly developed to serve tourists from wealthier countries in the West and North, have already reached the saturation point in their development cycle.

The term overtourism was coined around a decade ago to refer to the overdevelopment of tourism in popular destinations. It is estimated that 80% of the world's travellers visit only 10% of the world's tourist destinations, in many places increasing pressure to the point where the location’s carrying capacity is exceeded [1]. Overtourism differs from mass tourism in that its negative impacts have spread to towns and cities, particularly places that are celebrated for their rich and precious cultural heritage. Overtourism importantly involves more than just volume (the number of tourists in a specific destination, or their length of stay): UN Tourism’s 2019 report also identifies the specific nature of tourist activities, the ways they are conducted and the management strategies employed as factors in overtourism [2]. Until the industry was hit by the unprecedented COVID-19 public health emergency, overtourism was the most debated tourism-related topic in the media and among tourism professionals.

Heritage tourism, once known as special interest tourism or niche tourism, has become a mass phenomenon over the last two decades. As noted, towns and cities whose cultural heritage is important loom large amongst over-visited destinations: from Venice to Chiang Mai, sites and communities suffering from overtourism have struggled and at times failed to manage the risks it poses to their heritage, cultural identity and authenticity. The COVID-19 pandemic presented both challenges and opportunities for tourism, but it inflicted the greatest damage on the destinations that were most tourism-dependent, and showed the critical need to rethink tourism development in more sustainable and holistic ways: to mitigate its adverse effects and ensure the long-term viability of popular destinations. Heritage tourism, if carefully planned and managed, has the potential to enhance destinations and secure sustainable, creative and regenerative futures for tourism.

Sustainable tourism development

No single definition of sustainability can fully capture the multiplicity and complexity of  debates around sustainable tourism. The inherent ambiguity and absence of a universal consensus on the definition of sustainable tourism are arguably no bad things; in principle, it should allow the concept to remain flexible and adaptable to different circumstances and contexts. In practice, though, there has been a global tendency for sustainable tourism frameworks and policies initiated in developed countries to be widely applied as “best practice” in tourism destinations where they are neither feasible nor appropriate. It is a manifestation of a more general global spread of top-down, Western-oriented approaches to tourism development, and reversing this is crucial: a ‘one size fits all’ approach to sustainable tourism is no panacea for dealing with the negative impacts of excessive tourism. Every individual destination has its own unique local characteristics and political and economic contexts, and therefore interpretations of sustainability need to be diverse, multidimensional and bespoke. If development plans are not properly, comprehensively contextual, the concept of sustainability risks becoming impractically abstract and elusive.

Heritage tourism: conservation vs development?

Arguably, the concepts of heritage and tourism are inherently contradictory. Heritage foregrounds stability, continuity and the preservation of cultural and historical values, while tourism entails modern development, consumption and change; the balance between maintaining the integrity of heritage and accommodating the demands of tourism exists in a permanently precarious state. However, heritage has become more and more important in contemporary tourism development. In places, the past is presented as a tourist wonderland: it is the key attraction. Counter to this, in many heritage sites, towns and cities it is recognised that overtourism can damage and destroy heritage, and that its loss is irreparable. In consequence, systematic attempts are underway to explore how existing, and increasing, conflicts between heritage conservation and tourism development can be recalibrated to form symbiotic relationships. Key to this difficult task is the development of comprehensive planning and sustainable management practices, and the recognition that  tourism can serve as an opportunity for heritage conservation. Economic gains from tourism  can be reutilised to conserve and protect fragile heritage assets. Further, tourism development can also help raise awareness of the need to develop a community base and public support for heritage conservation.

Various considerations are key to the sustainable development of heritage tourism. The inherent conflicts existing between conservation and development need to be addressed via comprehensive policies and strategic planning tailored to reconcile the needs of conservation and the demands of growth. That in turn requires integrated and informed approaches that recognise and address the protection of both tangible and intangible heritage: tradition resides in community and social practice, not just bricks and mortar. Communities need to be connected with heritage environments, and awareness of the social and cultural as well as economic values of heritage needs to be strengthened. Instead of prioritising economic benefits as a main criterion for successful heritage tourism development, non-economic benefits such as community empowerment, stakeholder participation and social cohesion need to be ‘baked in’ to heritage tourism planning.

To do this, all stakeholders have to be involved, via innovative, integrated and collaborative approaches to the development of policies, practices and partnerships—and it is crucial that the stakeholder participation and community engagement which drives heritage tourism be  genuine rather than tokenistic. All too often, levels of participation remain superficial, because the meaningful involvement of communities can be challenging and difficult to achieve. Ensuring that community engagement truly reflects the interests and contributions of local stakeholders takes sustained effort, complex negotiation and dedicated strategising. To give an example, different stakeholders may have different understandings of sustainable development: policies and plans need to recognise and negotiate this. The process needs to demonstrate how the possibly contrasting interests and priorities of different groups can be contested, negotiated and integrated, achieving grounds for sustainable heritage tourism development that are understood, agreed and “owned” by all parties. 

Heritage as a key driver for sustainable and regenerative future of tourism

During the COVID-19 pandemic, international tourism dropped by as much as 80%, with a nearly 99% fall recorded in Southeast Asia in April, 2020 [3].  Many countries in the region were dependent on tourism for both economy and development, and while the pandemic exposed an unhealthy and excessive dependence on international tourists, a number of studies also showed an increase in domestic tourism through the pandemic period. The shift revealed the positive impacts of increased domestic tourism: in comparison to unrestricted international tourism, it brought visitors with greater cultural awareness and proved more controllable and locally beneficial, particularly in destinations that had suffered from excessive homogeneous development and tourism leakages- situations where money spent by tourists in a specific destination leaks out to other countries.

Countries such as Vietnam, Thailand and India introduced new schemes and incentive programmes focusing on cultural and natural heritage and aimed specifically at boosting domestic tourism [4]. Domestic tourism development can enhance senses of national or cultural identity and spread knowledge of a destination’s history and heritage, and younger generations in particular gain the chance to build closer connections with their own cultural traditions and ways of life—regaining heritage previously marginalised by rapid social and cultural change. In China, an upsurge in younger domestic tourists visiting heritage cities and towns during the pandemic was regarded positively by the Chinese government [5]. Young people tend to be active, creative users of digital and social media, so to attract them heritage tourism needs to upgrade its digital operations and management and its approaches to interpretation. In general, greater use of digital technology is critical: in many heritage sites and cities in developing countries, this provision is still underexplored and underdeveloped—but heritage can serve as a powerful driver of innovation and creativity, helping diversify tourism programmes and enhancing interactive tourism experiences.

Too much focus on the use of heritage sites and objects—tangible heritage—for touristic consumption can jeopardise material heritage’s sustainability. The alternative is to foreground intangible heritage, not only for its conservation (because it is still less recognised, valued and protected than tangible heritage) but also for its development: for both the domestic and the international market, intangible heritage presents a rich seam for the development of diverse and creative heritage tourism products.

The telling of heritage’s diverse stories in ways that incorporate both intangible and tangible heritage can enhance sustainability and reduce the pressure of tourism on popular heritage sites. Particularly in World Heritage locations, there needs to be a critical shift of emphasis away from a kind of fetishised site-specific promotion towards the dissemination of different and much more diverse local heritage themes and stories. The development of new heritage trails and locally-focused themed tours through storytelling is essential to ensure that the benefits of tourism are shared equitably across communities and towns, and small is beautiful: small-scale tours targeting higher-spending individual tourists and specialised groups, both domestic and international, need to be developed and promoted as a more sustainable form of heritage tourism. These types of programmes and activities can encourage tourists to travel during off-peak seasons, thereby mitigating the effects of seasonality, reducing negative impacts and spreading the benefits of tourism within local communities.

It is increasingly acknowledged that heritage contributes to our mental health and wellbeing; it is a critically recognised agent for recovery and resilience. In our post-pandemic era, this quality of heritage demands emphasis. By integrating the healing properties of heritage into everyday contexts we can both broaden its appeal, and establish it as a powerful motif and driver within a new conception of heritage tourism and consumption.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us that we need to reposition our priorities in tourism and heritage, and rethink the meanings of tourism and communities. There is an opportunity in every crisis, and it is our responsibility to make substantive changes and avoid the repetition of past errors. In developing countries, community-led heritage tourism has the potential to reduce dependence on international tourism, with all its built-in unequal power relations and top-down approaches. It is now time to make an informed approach to tourism through the lens of sustainability, and this can only be achieved by the strong will of policymakers and strategic government support. As a main decision-maker, the public sector needs to show more dedication in leading sustainable tourism and heritage development, with a full focus on long-term perspectives and provisions.

New tourism plans must be aligned with urban and national development strategies. To build a more resilient tourism economy, heritage’s potential to contribute to social, environmental and economic sustainability needs to be maximised, with a greater emphasis on value-based rather than volume-based approaches. Collaborations at national and regional levels are key to reviving and renovating the practices of tourism and heritage management. There should be a qualitative change in the way tourism and heritage are consumed, and tourism practices need to become much more socially and culturally sensitive. There should be more reflection on what is possible for tourism and heritage in our cities, and acknowledgement of the need for a shift in emphasis from quantity to quality. We have long discussed sustainability as a key focus for future tourism and heritage development, and now is the time to take concrete action to address this imperative before destructive and unsustainable tourism development returns in full force.

Plaza del Pilar in Zaragoza, Spain

The Ben Youssef Madrasa in Marrakech