Luger / Ripp World Heritage, Place Making and Sustainable Tourism

Towards Integrative Approaches in Heritage Management
1. Auflage 2020
ISBN: 978-3-7065-6120-4
Verlag: Studien Verlag
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Deutsch, Englisch, 396 Seiten

The management of World Heritage Cities and sites is a challenging task. Getting visitor flows and the enormous traffic under control and implementing urban development projects in ways that preserve the integrity and authenticity of cultural heritage requires a high level of expertise, backed by the support of civil society and politics.

This book is the result of the 2018 Conference of the Organization of World Heritage Cities, held by the Regional Secretariat for Northwest Europe and North America in Amsterdam, with the theme "Heritage & Tourism: Local Communities and Visitors – Sharing Responsibilities".

The contributing expert authors – from Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe – draw on a range of disciplines to offer wider perspectives, stimulating dialogue among the spheres of heritage, sustainable tourism, and spatial planning. An updated chapter offers perspectives on sustainable tourism also after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Luger, Kurt

Ripp, Matthias

Fachgebiete

• Sozialwissenschaften Sport | Tourismus | Freizeit Tourismus & Reise Tourismus & Reise: Ökonomie, Ökologie
• Interdisziplinäres Wissenschaften Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft | Kulturwissenschaften Museumskunde, Materielle Kultur, Erinnerungskultur
• Sozialwissenschaften Sport | Tourismus | Freizeit Tourismus & Reise Tourismus & Reise: Allgemeines, Geschichte
• Sozialwissenschaften Sport | Tourismus | Freizeit Tourismus & Reise Tourismus & Reise: Soziologie, Psychologie, Kultur

Leseproben

Peter Dippon
Sharing Heritage: Global Disparities Regarding Accessibility
At a glance
The European Commission announced the European Year of Cultural Heritage under the motto Sharing Heritage (2018). With its World Heritage List, which is popular worldwide, since 1972 UNESCO has accumulated more than 1000 inscriptions of World Heritage Sites. Since then, the international quality label UNESCO World Heritage has experienced a multi-layered revaluation. However, a spatial imbalance in the real access of UNESCO World Heritage Sites is discernible. The primary question first of all is what concrete meaning does sharing have in the context of the accessibility of a world heritage site? Further research questions will contribute to answering this introductory question: • What spatial conditions exist in the global distribution? • Which possibilities of participation in the World Heritage are actually given? • What is the relationship between the number of World Heritage Sites and tourism? The contribution addresses the spatial disparities of the real access to World Heritage with its problem-related questions using secondary statistical data from supranational organizations. The visualization of the numerical distribution of the World Heritage Site by means of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based cartograms reveals the current imbalance of a possible participation. In addition to raising awareness and developing a relationship between World Heritage Sites as tourism drivers, the aim is to provide impulses for decision-makers and a basis for discussion of solution strategies. 1 From shared trust to shared responsibility
The natural, cultural and mixed sites recognised by UNESCO as particularly worthy of protection are designated as World Heritage Sites. These fulfill the central criterion of the 1972 World Heritage Convention (WHC) by demonstrating “outstanding universal value”. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the WHC note that the parameter of “integrity” should be satisfied by all nominated properties (UNESCO 2017), the parameter of “authenticity” mostly be proved by cultural properties. It is precisely the aspect that World Heritage Sites are committed to authentic cultural and natural experiences of integrity that seems to predestine them for the use of a shared travel experience worldwide (Knöbl 2015). The term sharing alone triggers associations and links with the economy of sharing, which is essentially based on cooperation and trust. This economy based on “sharing” is attracting increased scientific attention, especially in tourism research, since tourist services such as accommodation, transport and gastronomy are often in the foreground of mediation services (Linne 2014; Kagermeier, Köller and Stors 2015). The distinction criterion of the economic sharing model is to share exchange or lend goods and services with others. In social and scientific discourse, the term “communal consumption” (Linne 2014, 5; Botsman and Rogers 2011) and “collaborative consumption” (Kagermeier, Köller and Stors 2015, 117) are often used for this purpose. Mutual trust is an indispensable requirement for the internationally operating companies of the Sharing Economy, especially in the accommodation and transport segment (Airbnb 2019; Frevert 2017; Slee 2016). This sharing model expresses hope for more sustainable forms of the economy, a fairer distribution of goods, new international networks, fears of commercialisation of the living environment and the ruin of entire economic sectors (Ströhl and Blaumer 2017; Slee 2016). The postulate of the economic sharing concept is “access not ownership” of things (Scholz 2017, 187; Slee 2016, 11). It can already be seen that the sharing of the economy is more about trust and the sharing of World Heritage is more about shared responsibility. In addition, both concepts have a common desire for more sustainable consumption. In the case of World Heritage Sites, this is to be achieved by promoting “cautious and highly qualified tourism on a scale compatible with historical monuments” (UNESCO World Heritage Sites Germany 2019a). This “soft tourism” under sustainable conditions is provided by the offers of the “economy of access” through the use of brownfield resources and a prudent use of shared space (Slee 2016, 12). The special feature of collective consumption is that it unfolds its effect only through joint participation (Linne 2014). However, this sharing phenomenon is not an innovation of Internet trade, but rather a “basic constant of our human coexistence” (Lehmann and Ebert 2017, 9). The introductory question arises as to the significance of sharing in the context of real access to world heritage. Is the World Heritage listed by UNESCO shareable in principle in this context? In order to operationalize this question, the following leading research questions arise: • What are the actual spatial conditions in the global distribution for participation in the World Heritage? • How can World Heritage be shared? • What is the relationship between the number of World Heritage Sites and tourism? A shared heritage is usually about the common cultural heritage. Sharing gains the importance of active participation. The aim is to clarify whether, given the current distribution of World Heritage sites, spatial access is difficult or possible for active participation. The causes of the worldwide and categorical (cultural) findings of spatial disparities will be identified and ideas for remedies and solutions developed. These questions are of particular relevance to society and cultural policy, as the European Commission has announced the European Year of Cultural Heritage under the motto Sharing Heritage (2018). Numerous projects and initiatives are coordinated in the member states under the leitmotif “Become part and share” (German National Committee on the Protection of Monuments 2019, Die Welt 2018). The aim of this theme year is to make Europe’s cultural heritage visible from now on and to let others participate in it. In the present article Sharing Heritage, cartograms are used to examine the global distribution disparities of World Heritage sites and, building on this, real spatial access to World Heritage sites is discussed as a possible hurdle for immediate sharing. At the centre of a Sharing Heritage is the fact that it is mostly the common cultural heritage that is at stake. Sharing is more likely to gain the meaning of owning something together and of active participation in culture. Awareness-raising is promoted, which connects one with the other, “recognizing their potential for identity, participation and development and also making it usable” (Parzinger 2017, 267). The responsibility for the preservation of the World Heritage should be shared by as many people as possible (Knöbl 2015). In this way, in the context of Sharing Heritage, questions about the global and categorical (cultural) disparities in the global distribution of World Heritage sites are addressed. The visualization of the identified distribution disparities is made recognizable for decision-makers and provides a basis for discussion for the development of suitable solution strategies. 2 From the Protection Convention to Sharing UNESCO World Heritage
The idea of protecting exceptional universal cultural and natural assets worldwide has experienced an enormous surge in popularity and multi-faceted enhancement in recent years. This is also reflected in the dynamic list maintained by the Special Agency of The United Nations: The Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO), which now lists the almost unmanageable number of currently (2019) 1092 World Heritage Sites (UNESCO 2019c). But how does the principle of economic sharing, based on trust, fit in with an understanding of the sharing of common responsibility for cultural and natural assets across States Parties within the framework of a UNESCO Convention? Can the notion of a “Shared UNESCO World Heritage” really be spoken about in this way? How can participation and thus mediation take place? UNESCO itself uses a linguistic style close to the idea of sharing: “What makes the concept of World Heritage exceptional is its universal application. World Heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world, irrespective of the territory on which they are located” (UNESCO 2019a). In addition, UNESCO provides an interactive map on its homepage, which allows virtual sharing as access to the UNESCO World Heritage worldwide (UNESCO 2019e). This sharing, however, is more in a consciously informed about the common global heritage (UNESCO 2019c). However, for active participation in the shared World Heritage, both virtual and real spatial access should be guaranteed worldwide. Albert and Ringbeck (2015) express the wish that humanity’s heritage, must be made accessible to people in such a way that each individual can identify with the world heritage, protect it and use it sustainably. 3 Research Design and Visualization
This contribution is to be classified as secondary research. With his central question of worldwide spatial participation in World Heritage, the article accesses the...

Über Autor(innen)

EDITORS:

KURT LUGER is holder of the UNESCO Chair “Cultural Heritage and Tourism” and professor of Transcultural Communication at the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Salzburg. Recent publications: MediaCultureTourism (2018); Alpine Travels (ed. with Franz Rest, 2017); Tourism and Mobile Leisure (ed. with Roman Egger, 2015); Culture, Tourism and Development in the Himalayas (2014); The Endangered City – Strategies for Humane Building in Salzburg (ed. with Christoph Ferch, 2014); Cultural Heritage and Tourism (ed. with Karlheinz Wöhler, 2010); World Heritage and Tourism (ed. with Karlheinz Wöhler 2008).

MATTHIAS RIPP holds a degree in Historical Geography from Bamberg University. Since 2007 he has been the world heritage coordinator of the “Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof” site. He is active in numerous networks such as Heritage Europe and ICOMOS. He coordinated the EU HerO (Heritage as Opportunity) project and chairs the UNESCO world heritage working group on historic city centres of the German Association of Cities. Since November 2011 he has also been regional coordinator for the North West European and North-American region of the Organisation of Heritage Heritage Cities (OWHC).

EDITORS:
KURT LUGER is holder of the UNESCO Chair "Cultural Heritage and Tourism" and professor of Transcultural Communication at the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Salzburg. Recent publications: MediaCultureTourism (2018); Alpine Travels (ed. with Franz Rest, 2017); Tourism and Mobile Leisure (ed. with Roman Egger, 2015); Culture, Tourism and Development in the Himalayas (2014); The Endangered City – Strategies for Humane Building in Salzburg (ed. with Christoph Ferch, 2014); Cultural Heritage and Tourism (ed. with Karlheinz Wöhler, 2010); World Heritage and Tourism (ed. with Karlheinz Wöhler 2008).

MATTHIAS RIPP holds a degree in Historical Geography from Bamberg University. Since 2007 he has been the world heritage coordinator of the "Old Town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof" site. He is active in numerous networks such as Heritage Europe and ICOMOS. He coordinated the EU HerO (Heritage as Opportunity) project and chairs the UNESCO world heritage working group on historic city centres of the German Association of Cities. Since November 2011 he has also been regional coordinator for the North West European and North-American region of the Organisation of Heritage Heritage Cities (OWHC).