Bridging the gap:
The relationship between heritage preservation and tourist consumption
Thèse de Doctorat, Université Libre de Bruxelles, IGEAT
Octobre 2004
Anya Diekmann
Supervisor:
Claire Billen
Jean-Michel Decroly
Introduction ...8
Chapter I: Overview and presentation ...18
1 Introduction ...18
2 Burgeoning of the heritage literature ...20
2.1 THE FOREFATHERS OF TOURISM AND HERITAGE 'SCIENCE' ... 21
2.2 SOME CONFERENCES… ... 23
3 But what is heritage after all? ...26
3.1 WHY DOES A BUILDING OR A MONUMENT BECOME ‘HERITAGE’? ... 27
3.1.1 The 'look' of the visitor ... 28
3.1.2 'Outstanding values'... 29
3.1.3 Heritage as witness ... 29
3.1.4 Site 'significance' ... 30
3.1.5 Heritage creation ... 30
3.1.6 Fashion 'heritage' ... 30
3.2 HERITAGE LISTING LEADS TO CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION… AND ‘VALORISATION’ ... 31
3.3 NATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN ATTITUDES TOWARDS HERITAGE SITES ... 32
4 What sort of tourism? ...34
4.1 HERITAGE TOURISM ... 35
5 How is heritage related to tourism? ...37
5.1 HISTORICAL APPROACH ... 37
5.2 THE PRESENT SITUATION ... 39
Chapter II: The Components of the relationship ...41
1 Introduction...41
2 The heritage function ...43
2.1 THE ROLE FUNCTION ... 44
2.2 THE USE FUNCTION ... 47
3 Physical impact assessment ...50
3.1 DIRECT DEGRADATIONS ... 55
3.1.1 Involuntary degradations ... 55
3.1.2 Voluntary degradations ... 59
3.2 INDIRECT DEGRADATIONS... 60
3.2.1 Microclimate ... 60
3.3 EXTERNAL PHYSICAL IMPACTS ... 65
3.3.1 Direct external physical impacts – construction of visitor facilities ... 65
3.3.2 Indirect external physical impacts – landplaning of the surroundings ... 65
3.4 PHYSICAL IMPACTS DUE TO EVENTS ... 67
3.5 IMPACT FOR VISITORS ... 67
4 Presentation and interpretation – tools for raising awareness of visitors ...68
4.1 INTERRELATION BETWEEN PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION ... 69
4.2 QUALITY ... 71
4.3 PRESENTATION ... 72
4.3.1 Presentation tools ... 73
4.4 STANDARDISATION ... 74
4.5 INTERPRETATION ... 77
4.6 AUTHENTICITY: ... 79
5 Protection ...83
5.1 DIRECT PHYSICAL PROTECTION ... 83
5.2 ON-SITE PROTECTION THROUGH PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION ... 86
5.3 VISITOR FLOW MANAGEMENT ... 87
5.3.1 Reservation systems ... 88
5.3.2 Opening hours ... 89
5.3.3 Pricing ... 89
5.3.4 Reception area ... 90
5.3.5 Alternative itineraries ... 90
5.4 EXISTING MODELS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HERITAGE - TOURISM RELATIONSHIP ... 91
5.4.2 Limits of acceptable Change - LAC ... 93
5.4.3 Le ‘Visitor Impact Assessment’ VIA ... 93
5.4.4 Visitor impact model VIM ... 94
5.5 ADDITIONAL PROTECTION TOOLS –STAFF TRAINING ... 94
6 Some examples… ...95
6.1 CASE STUDY:ALHAMBRA,GRANADA SPAIN (WORLD HERITAGE SITE) ... 95
6.2 CASE STUDY:CASTLE OF ROQUETAILLADE,GIRONDE,FRANCE ... 96
6.3 CASE STUDY:SCROVEGNI CHAPEL,PADOUA,ITALY (WORLD HERITAGE SITE) ... 97
6.4 CASE STUDY:SCHLOSS LINDERHOF,ANDECK,BAVARIA,GERMANY ... 98
6.5 CASE STUDY: SCHLOSS SCHÖNBRUNN,WIEN,AUSTRIA (WORLD HERITAGE SITE) ... 99
6.6 CASE STUDY: IGHTHAM MOTE,SEVENOAKS,KENT,UNITED KINGDOM ... 100
6.7 CASE STUDY:CASTLE DE GAASBEEK,BELGIUM ... 101
7 Conclusion ...103
Chapter III: International treaties ...105
1 Introduction...105
2 Organisations and institutions ...107
2.1 INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS ... 107
2.1.1 UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisations)... 107
2.1.2 ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) ... 109
2.1.3 WTO (World Tourism Organisation) ... 109
2.2 EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS ... 110
2.2.1 European Union ... 110
2.2.2 Council of Europe ... 112
3 Charters, Conventions and Declarations: the heritage – tourism relationship ... 113
3.1 DATE OF PUBLICATION ... 115
3.1.1 Charters:... 117
3.1.2 Conventions: ... 124
3.1.3 Declarations: ... 128
4 Recommendations and Resolutions ...129
4.1 UNESCO RECOMMENDATIONS ... 131
4.2 EUROPEAN RESOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 136
5 Analysis ...142
5.1 THE AUTHORS OF THE TREATIES ... 142
5.2 THE TERMINOLOGY ... 144
5.2.1 Mise en valeur ... 144
5.2.2 Sustainable development ... 146
5.3 EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP COMPONENTS IN THE TREATIES ... 146
5.3.1 Function ... 146
5.3.2 Impacts ... 147
5.3.3 Presentation and interpretation ... 148
5.3.4 Protection ... 148
6 The use and application of the Charters ...149
7 Conclusion ...150
Chapter IV: Tourism Industry, Heritage Administration and
the Heritage Site ...152
1 Introduction...152
2 The Tourism Industry ...155
2.1 DEMAND MANAGEMENT ... 156
2.2 DESTINATION MANAGEMENT ... 159
2.3 SITE MANAGEMENT ... 161
2.3.1 The role of the public sector for the tourism industry... 163
2.4 INFORMATION AND INTEREST FLOWS WITHIN THE TOURISM SYSTEM ... 164
3 The heritage administration ...166
3.1 PRIVATE SITES AND TOURISM ... 167
3.2 PUBLIC SITES AND TOURISM... 169
3.2.1 France ... 170
3.2.2 The United Kingdom ... 171
3.2.3 Belgium ... 174
4 The four components between tourism industry and heritage administration ...175
4.1 INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT ... 176
5 Conclusion ...177
Chapter V: Field Actors ...179
1 Introduction...179
2 The decisional side ...180
2.1 METHODOLOGY ... 180
2.1.1 Why the first postal survey? ... 181
2.1.2 Why the choice of a survey based on the Delphi Technique ? ... 181
2.1.3 What type of heritage sites has been selected? ... 183
2.1.4 How have the respondents been chosen? ... 184
3 Postal survey ...185
3.1 RESPONSES: ... 185
3.2 SITE MANAGEMENT: ... 186
3.3 MAIN OUTCOME ... 187
4 Survey based on the Delphi Technique...188
4.1 PANEL COMPOSITION ... 188
4.2 PROCEEDING ... 190
5 Study results ...191
5.1 THEORETICAL APPROACH ... 191
5.1.1 Relationship perception ... 191
5.1.2 Advantages and disadvantages of public opening ... 195
5.1.3 Disadvantages: ... 198
5.2 PRACTICAL APPROACHES ... 204
5.2.1 Physical Impact Assessment ... 204
5.2.2 Protection possibilities ... 206
5.3 PANELLISTS'QUALIFICATION ... 209
6 Analysis of participants' approach to the heritage – tourism relationship ... 211
6.1 FUNCTION ... 211
6.2 PHYSICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ... 212
6.3 PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION... 212
6.3.1 Valorisation ... 213
6.3.2 Authenticity ... 214
6.4 PROTECTION ... 216
7 Conclusion ...219
Chapter VI: The visitor of built heritage sites ...222
1 Introduction...222
2 Who are the visitors ...223
2.1 TRAVEL MODE ... 229
2.1.1 Groups ... 229
2.1.2 Individual travellers ... 230
2.2 GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN OF THE VISITORS ... 231
2.2.1 Local visitors ... 231
2.2.2 Day-trippers and Tourists ... 231
3 Visitors’ relationship with the built heritage ...233
3.1 VISITOR SURVEY ... 234
3.1.1 Respondent profile ... 235
3.2 STUDY RESULTS ... 236
3.2.1 Motivations for the visit ... 237
3.2.2 The function of a heritage site according to the visitors ... 239
3.2.3 Visitor's expectations ... 240
3.2.4 Does the visitor resent standardisation in heritage sites? ... 244
4 Preserving the heritage through visitors ...245
4.1 VISITORS' AWARENESS OF THEIR PHYSICAL IMPACT ... 245
4.2 VISITOR'S SUGGESTION FOR BETTER PROTECTION OF HERITAGE SITES OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ... 246
5 Conclusions ...248
Summary of the research results ...250
Final Conclusions and Perspectives ...257
General conclusions ... 257
Perspectives or what could be done on a practical basis to implement the theoretical outcomes of the study and to draw conclusions for the future in Belgium?... 261
References ...266
Introduction
In 1963, the Caves of Lascaux closed down for visitors. This decision of the public authorities was the consequence of the increasing destruction of the prehistoric paintings through visitor breathing. The opening of the caves to numerous visitors, after thousands of years of closure, caused in a short period a change of the atmosphere. Colours and paintings faded. The artificial light favoured the growth of vegetation on the walls, mosses, lichens and ferus. Continuing the visits would have meant complete destruction of the Lascaux heritage in the long term.
Ten years after the closure of the Caves, the French government decided to build a facsimile of the original caves. This facsimile reproduces the two major rooms with the most important paintings and attempts to represent similar climatical conditions as in the original caves. The paintings have been realised following the prehistoric methods. The new cave Lascaux II opened to the public in 1983. Nowadays the permitted number of yearly visitors to the original caves is severely limited. Only researchers and invited people are allowed to enter the original caves of Lascaux. A similar situation can be found in the Altamira Caves in Spain, where in 2000 a facsimile opened in order to protect the original heritage site meeting the same problems as Lascaux.
The two examples show the extreme consequences of unlimited and somehow mindless use of heritage sites for tourism. The aim of this thesis is however not to undermine or limit tourism but, on the contrary, deliver evidence that well planned and prepared use of heritage sites can enhance and foster safeguarding of these sites. To achieve this goal a number of elements have to be analysed and taken into account.
These two examples raise indeed several questions about the relationship between tourist consumption and heritage preservation, about the right to visit heritage sites and about the right of heritage sites to be safeguarded. These rights are not as obvious in the minds of the people in charge of heritage sites or tourism as they may appear. There is a big gap between different actors and ideologies.
This well-known and underlying gap awoke my curiosity. Throughout my personal career as archaeologist and later in tourism research, I was confronted with the omnipresent difficulties between the two sides and especially the lack of concern for physical impact issues on heritage sites due to tourism. Degradation and erosion of heritage sites is an only rarely discussed feature in tourism literature. Degradation is certainly not only a question of tourism. There is decay due to the passage of time, increasing pollution through steadily growing economical and industrial activities, which have accelerated degradation of all our environment, not only heritage sites. This type of degradation is largely discussed by academics. Yet the proportion between the two of them is difficult to guess. What seems to be logical is that with growing visitor numbers the visitor impact will be worse and pass the ‘natural decay’ which is in most of the time constant. Therefore 'for those committed to preservation as overriding priority, heritage tourism is a threat. Greater access has meant greater pressure of visitor numbers, and the demands of an interested, visiting public have to be reconciled with the custodial responsibilities of those who
administer a heritage site (Herbert 1995). Furthermore, when physical impacts are discussed they concern mainly environmental issues. Physical impacts on heritage sites are a very abstract issue. While speaking of impacts due to tourism, generally people consider three big groups of impacts: economic, environmental and social (Jafari 2000).
Physical impact, although it seems to be the clearest one, is left aside. The whole protection-sustainability discussion concerns basically only the environment.
The irreversible damage brought to the Lascaux Caves in the sixties did not affect the general opinion. If it is true that due to their physiological characteristics they were more endangered than other heritage sites, they still symbolise the extreme risks of heritage sites through their public access. Sites like the pyramids of Egypt or the Acropolis of Athens or Pompeii have been, until recently (and are still) victims of wear and tear and uncontrolled exploitation. Their chance of surviving increased with the listing as World Heritage Sites. Management plans were devised and nowadays most of these sites are taken care of in order to preserve them for the next generations. But what about all those sites that have not been listed?
The majority of heritage sites are not listed as World Heritage Sites. These 'normal sites' are endangered by physical impact due to tourism through mismanagement. Site
managers often point out visitor numbers as responsible for degradation and the biased link to mass tourism is quickly made. Mass tourism is considered to be the worst thing (see chapter IV) and is generally associated with most of the sites. Yet, by analysing the
relevant statistic though, it can be observed that very few sites actually suffer from overcrowding (Shaw and Williams 1994). On the contrary, numerous heritage sites long for more visitors. As for Belgium, only the historic city of Bruges has to deal with
overcrowding. For the rest, the latter, although often mentioned, is not a major concern.
The aim of the site managers is precisely to increase visitor numbers. It seems rather difficult to criticise, on the one hand, the lack of authenticity by re-creating the past and, on the other hand, to sustain such a policy. Generally, the same people criticising tourism are doing exactly what they dislike so much.
This contradiction is a core element of the difficult relationship between cultural heritage management and tourist consumption. People themselves are not aware of their own behaviour. Often people that criticise tourists for their behaviour, outfit etc. act, dress and behave similarly to those they actually criticise (ICOMOS 2002), (MacCannell 1989).
There is to a certain extent interdependency between heritage management and tourist consumption. Heritage places, leisure and tourism are interrelated, though not necessary interdependent. Heritage places have autonomous roles as places of formal education, research and conservation, for example, and these roles need not to be related to either leisure or tourism (Herbert 1995). This statement may be valid, however, I shall argue for the interdependency of tourism and heritage preservation. Tourist consumption – at least in some cases – delivers the financial support for heritage preservation. Additionally, I will argue that many heritage sites ‘obtain’ their ‘right’ to be safeguarded precisely through the attention and interest of the visitors. As a consequence, cultural heritage managers need visitors for the very purpose of preserving. My thesis will deliver evidence that integration of both aspects is necessary in order for visitors’ responsibility and awareness of the heritage site to be fostered and preservation to be guaranteed as a result. Furthermore, other actors such as site managers and owners as well as politicians are challenged for that their responsibility and awareness needs to be raised.
Yet this interdependency is only rarely applied in the practical field approach.
The separation between the two can be seen throughout all domains. Separation occurs on a political and organisational level as well as within major heritage sites themselves.
Heritage and tourism experts do not speak the same language as can be shown when reviewing literature, international treaties and politics.
A major problem in reviewing the literature is the existence of two completely different sets of literatures and the dearth of publications linking the two spheres successfully. The
relationship between heritage protection and site management is often found to be closely influenced by the qualifications of the authors, which means in most cases a one-
dimensional view either from the tourism or the heritage perspective. Generally spoken, one could say that tourism literature very often underlines the use-value of heritage, and the heritage literature the non-use value. Finding the right balance between the two subjects is difficult because there is still so little research available which combines the two domains. Only isolated attempts have been made (Prentice 1993; Patin 1997) to link the two aspects. If there is a great effort on the tourism side to recognise the non-use value of heritage, for the heritage side, tourism still does not fit into the general heritage conception. Especially in French literature tourism has faced a difficult task of being accepted or even appreciated (Choay 1992; Bouché 1998).
In particular the notion of sustainable tourism is applicable in this context. Field actors often try to integrate a “striking-a-balance” solution when dealing with heritage protection and tourism, reflecting their awareness of the need for sustainable tourism. Although the concept of sustainable tourism can be considered as a paradoxical one (Wall 1997), it is still one that offers a possible approach to improve our understanding of the link between tourism and heritage.
It is surprising however, how the notion of sustainability is frequently applied to natural heritage (McIntry 1993), yet is rarely mentioned in connection with built heritage sites(Van der Borg, Costa et al. 1996, p. 308) . Only some authors in the literature consider
sustainability as necessary for built heritage sites as it is for natural sites heritage (Lloyd and Mullany 1994)] (Fyall and Garrod 1996; Bramwell 1999). Often, only the visitors’
approach is focussed upon when the difficult relationship between World Heritage Sites and tourism is analysed (Davies and Prentice 1995), (Moscardo 1996), (Shackeley 1998).
Much information is available on who consumes the heritage product (Ashworth and Larkham 1994) rather than who is responsible for it. The managers or owners’ individual involvement is hardly considered in the literature. The numerous books use the top-down approach. In literature there is a significant gap between the predominantly theoretical approaches to the study of the relationship between tourism and culture on the one hand, and the more practical empirical studies of attraction visitors on the other. This points to the need for more integration or theory and practice (Richards 2001, p.32).
In international treaties, such as charters, conventions and declarations the division is equally very apparent. Documents concerning conservation and protection edited from heritage organisations almost never refer to a possible tourism function of a site. If the term public access is mentioned, it is often reflecting a more abstract notion. For instance, degradations never include any which could occur due to tourism. It is simply an issue that
is not taken into account (Diekmann 2002). The only documents referring indirectly to tourism are those concerning archaeological sites (Conseil de l'Europe 1998).
Of the few existing documents on tourism the majority are concerned with natural heritage and therefore link sustainability to an environmental context. The 1999 revised version of the Charter of Cultural Tourism (ICOMOS 1999), includes new articles referring to host communities but contains none really concerned with built heritage.
In politics, the situation is highly comparable in the majority of European countries.
Heritage and Tourism are structured within separate departments. While Tourism is predominantly found in Economics Departments, Heritage is often structured within Culture Departments or is even integrated within Sports Departments, as is the case in some countries. As a result managers and owners have to deal with different political decisions and incoherent and/or non-existent grant schemes. Moreover, in federal countries such as Belgium, Switzerland and Germany the situation is even more complicated because Tourism and Heritage are not necessarily found on the same political decision-making level, which means one domain can depend on federal government while the other depends on regional government.
With such a clear separation at all levels, owners and managers find themselves in a non- transparent situation.
In order to avoid this, how could field actors manage those two aspects? Where could they find guidelines respecting both issues?
Another important point concerns the reasons for preserving a site. The reasons may be so different and multiple. For instance, the financial context for preservation purposes and tourist infrastructure is not the same for private owners, public managers or curators.
Implications, financially or privately, can be of much bigger importance within private ownership. While curators manage a heritage site for cultural or beneficial reasons, private owners often have their historical, individual and emotional backgrounds playing a major role for maintaining and preserving the site. At the same time, managers are expected to have an adequate qualification for managing a heritage site whereas owners are not necessarily. Therefore, one should be attentive to the implications, which might be different according to the function of a site.
The cultural heritage sector argues that cultural values are compromised for commercial gain (ICOMOS-UK 1990; Urry 1990) while tourism proponents feel that tourism values are compromised when a management attitude exists that any 'tourismification' has a
corrupting influence Fyall and Garrod 1996). On one hand Newby argues that 'tourism
should be of particular concern to conservationists, though this is not always apparent.
Conservation's concern with sustaining building quality and maintaining the visual environment has frequently led to disregard for the process that shape both of these characteristics. Of all processes at work, analysis of tourism impacts should feature highly on the conservation agenda' (Newby 1994). On the other hand, Hewison (Hewison
1987)and Ashworth (Ashworth and Larkham 1994)criticise the creation of heritage and the following heritage industry, providing a faked and improved past (Lowenthal 1985).
Extreme heritage protectionist would like to see heritage sites close down and express constant fear of loss of authenticity of heritage sites. The function of heritage sites in modern society is at stake. Tourism as use function has to be debated.
As a matter of fact, I am convinced that people should have a right to visit heritage sites.
Such a right derives directly from the creation and listing of heritage as will be outlined in the first chapter. Heritage is something that has been created and belongs to the people in form of national identity or community or even family identity. World Heritage Sites may have even universal values and foster some 'global identity', or as discussed in this thesis be the simple focus of esthetical pleasure and valuable for its leisure aspects. It is not diminishing the cultural values of a site in recognising other less deep considered values.
Heritage is however - most of the time - by definition fragile and needs protection. The latter cannot necessarily be guaranteed with public access and even lead to destruction of the listed building. Therefore, the aim of preserving heritage for the future generations must be taken into account and alternative solutions must be found. In the case of the caves, the facsimile was the only solution available, if the public was to continue to visit the sites. Yet, there is the problem of authenticity. Even though, one may appreciate the artistic work of reproduction, the emotion may not be the same for everyone for the difference of knowing that the admired paintings are only 30 years old and not 16000.
On the other side, the Parthenon as we see it today has nothing to do with what the Greeks saw 2500 years ago, when it still was paint. Albeit, it is not sure that the public would appreciate a reconstitution. They probably would feel betrayed for their authenticity feelings.
The whole debate may be resumed to one point: Feelings and emotions: the relationship between heritage and tourism is so complex because of the multiple approaches of the components of this relationship. Individual understanding plays a bigger role in this context than in other relationships. There is no scientific evidence for one or the other viewpoint. Researchers must rely on small case studies for their hypothesis. It is finally the
very individual experience that leads people to believe either in reconstruction, preservation or even letting a site fall apart.
Furthermore the story of the gap between tourist consumption and heritage preservation is written by multiple prejudices of one actor group towards all others.
The primary idea for this thesis consisted in an in-depth analysis of heritage site degradation as a consequence to tourist consumption.
A first postal survey (chapter V) with Belgian managers and owners of stately homes and castles brought evidence that there is no basis yet to work on. This is simply due to the fact, that there is no degradation evaluation in Belgium at all and the primary necessary field determination lies more in the hands of exact science researchers. The survey yielded however another major problem: the relationship between heritage site protection and tourist consumption. Along with my personal experience, this evidence led to the present thesis.
Hoping for degradation evaluation and appropriate management can only be possible if the difficulties between the different actors are resolved. All features of this relationship have to be tackled including the overall presence of prejudices and the persistence of false ideas as to what other actor groups might expect and do.
The aim of this thesis is, therefore, to examine the links between heritage preservation and tourist consumption from every possible angle. A major characteristic of this work is its multidisciplinary approach by putting together elements that are generally not treated as a whole. Many of them are only under consideration for the debated issues, glossing over some authors and leaving others completely out. Yet, this thesis does not wish to examine all elements involved in detail which could – due to the large variety of broached topics - give rise to several researches. Moreover a too punctilious analysis would withdraw attention from the fundamental issue which is the relationship itself. The present research is focussed on the diagnosis and identification of the multiple links between the two sides and highlighting their pertinence within the relationship.
In order to do so, the thesis attempts to encompass the general heard opinion by suggesting a model which takes into account the multiple features of the relationship.
Herbert speaks of the 'common grounds'(Herbert 1995, p. 209). According to him 'It is important therefore, that we establish some common ground in terms of the relationship
between heritage and tourism, rather than concerning ourselves merely with opinions about that relationship.
The model establishes these common grounds (designated as components of the
relationship in the present thesis). They have to be considered from a global point of view integrating practical aspects by according a privileged role to the actors.
The four components have been determined as a consequence of the empirical analysis of the social representation of field actors on the debated issue, on the one hand, and the conceptual approach, on the other hand. All of them play a major role for the opening of a heritage site to the public. A clear definition and the respect of the sequence of the
components reconcile preconceived opinions in management approaches and leads to a sustainable relationship between heritage preservation and tourist consumption.
The components are:
- the function of the heritage - the physical impact assessment - the presentation and interpretation - the protection
All components integrate different aspects that are substantial for the relationship. The function, for instance, has to be understood under its two aspects: The role function and the use function. For a use function tourism (the only one under consideration in this thesis) the role function needs to be pre-established in order for the inherent values of the site not to be destroyed. The physical impact assessment is a condition for both parties for the opening to the public and needs to be yielded in management debates. Presentation and Interpretation have to be distinguished and represent a useful, but not enough used, tool for heritage preservation and tourist consumption by creating emotional and esthetical links with the site. The protection is the final step and aims not only to protect the site physically, but to foster visitors experience through appropriated visitor management as well.
Some components demand more of a conceptual approach than others. In particular the function and the presentation as well as the interpretation need a definition, as there is a rather large difference in the understanding and subjective appreciation of these
components. On the other hand the components on physical impact and protection allow – at least partially – scientific objective approach based on surveys and monitoring.
In order to restrain the field of heritage sites, I concentrate on built heritage sites with a particular emphasis on stately homes and furnished castles.
The thesis is divided into six chapters. The first three chapters cover the theoretical approach through literature, components and contents of international treaties, while the last three chapters concentrate on the field approach.
The first chapter exposes an overview of the existing heritage and tourism literature. It addresses the most important publications and conferences that have been held within the last twenty years on the debated issue. Furthermore it attempts to provide definitions and explanations of what may be understood by heritage and by the so-called heritage tourism. The diverging attitudes of different nations towards their heritage sites are summarised.
The second chapter constitutes the core section of the thesis as it presents the components of the relationship. The sequence and interaction of the components is stressed and their different levels of comprehension are addressed. Some examples document the integration or non-integration of the components in heritage site management.
In the third chapter, the study examines equally the approach of the relationship within international treaties. Based on pre-established keywords all relevant documents promulgated by international or European organisations or institutions are analysed.
Furthermore, their usefulness for field actors is addressed.
The fourth chapter examines the role and interaction of the tourism industry and the heritage administration. The influence and relevance of both sides is stressed as well as their potential role for heritage preservation and tourist consumption.
The following chapter proposes a qualitative survey based on the Delphi technique held with actors implicated in the supplier side of the heritage – tourism relationship. The social representation of the different actor groups is highlighted and their understanding of the four components examined.
The last chapter concentrates on the visitor as central actor of the tourism process. The results of a visitor survey show evidence regarding visitors’ motivations, expectations and apprehension of their physical impacts on heritage sites.
In adopting this structure I am aware that certain issues have been glossed over whereas others have been left out altogether.
