22 Madanipour (2007, p. 151) explains „measuring time‟ as “the ability to assign numerical value to what is after all not observable or subject of direct experience. It is a way of conceptualizing a part of nature and bringing it under a form of order, so it can be understood and utilized in new ways ”. Thus, this thesis claims that historic buildings and monuments, representing the built evidences of heritage, work as time-keeping devices as well; exactly as if they are huge clocks that stopped working at certain times in the past, where the time they stopped at marks significant moments in our history that need to be thought of very carefully in our present time. What is so fascinating about culturalheritagesites is that they have the capability, with their built historical evidences, as well as their inherited intangible culturalheritage, to display several past-times instantly in the present time, which gives such places their special sense and spirit, which fulfills for the some that magical fantasy of time traveling.
According to Light and Prentice (1994), “no understanding of modern heritage tourism is complete without a consideration of the people who appropriate – or consume – developed heritage products” (p. 112). As can be seen in the literature presented here, there has been an effort to identify heritage tourists through demographic indicators, but there has been little attention up until this point on those who specifically visit WorldHeritagesites. The demographic presentation made here has attempted to fill this gap through the analysis of the demographics of various visitors from three varied culturalWorldHeritagesites. Based on the results of this research, it was determined that WorldHeritage visitors do have some similarities to the average heritage tourist presented in previous literature (Chandler and Costello, 2002; Huh et. al., 2006: Kerstetter et. al., 2001; Light and Prentice, 1994). This is especially notable in terms of the education levels exhibited by the visitors and which has been previously supported by WorldHeritage specific literature as well as the more general heritage studies (Huh et al., 2006; Kerstetter et al., 2001; Light and Prentice, 1994; Paulau-Saumell et al., 2012; Remoaldo et al., 2014). However, they also diverged from these pre-established types as there were no overarching trends among the visitors at all three sites in relation to age, residence, and income. This would appear to separate the WorldHeritage visitor from the average heritage tourist whose identity is based in part on being middle-class and middle aged and perhaps suggests the need to examine more specific factors related to location, level of integration into tourism networks, and even level of awareness of heritage significance.
Even though along the twentieth century the depopulation within the Pyrenees has been an important trend in this kind of rural environment, people from the region have preserved the tradition as an important manifestation of their intangible culturalheritage. Celebrations of the summer solstice fire festivals in the Pyrenees “result from the symbiosis between nature and culture to promote values such as solidarity, hospitality, intergenerational transmission and strengthening the sense of belonging, identity and continuity of inter Pyrenean communities” (El Periòdic d’Andorra, 2016). Although each fire festival has some unique characteristics in each location, all fire festivals’ communities within the whole Pyrenees share this common celebration. This is particularly of importance in the region of Alta Ribagorça, where up to ten locations celebrate the event. It is a cross-‐regional intangible heritage, when recognised by UNESCO elevated to a Pyrenees landmark, with the subsequent tourism impact. Fire festivals of summer solstice “have become into a hallmark in the towns in the Pyrenees. The intense feelings of belonging to the territory and history of depository Pyrenean communities of these rituals. The fire means in these locations a major dimension, heritage conveyor and life communicator” (Gobierno de Aragón, 2015). “Beyond idiomatic or administrative territory to which they belong, every fire festival communities and all members have a strong sense of belonging to a big fallaire Pyrenean family”. Also, there is a strong bond that has allowed such inter-‐communities undertook a joint project, ended with the UNESCO Heritage Site Declaration, which recognized an ancestral tradition of up to 63 towns in the Catalan and Aragon’s Pyrenees, also Andorra country, and southern France areas.
The main role of education is to develop and disseminate these new ways of understanding and seeing heritage. Because understanding the nature and physiology of heritagesites is of capital importance for the development of adequate conservation and management strategies. How heritage is understood and managed is, of course, very much determined by the socio-‐cultural characteristics of a particular time. The way we understand heritage nowadays is very much different than how it was perceived 40 years ago, when the WorldHeritage Convention came into being. Sites are no longer perceived as static and isolated, but as dynamic, integrated in larger territorial development plans. They are no longer valued only as objects, but as landscapes and expressions of living cultures. The built fabric is no longer the basis of conservation and management processes, but rather the broader context, and places are perceived as outcomes of complex and intertwining natural, cultural and socio-‐ economic forces. Culture and Nature are no longer understood as opposing concepts, but are inseparable in conservation and management planning. Because of these aspects, the general heritage discourse focuses no longer exclusively on conservation and protection, but rather on economic, social and cultural development, and the management of heritagesites can no longer be conducted by conservation experts, but requires a new kind of multidisciplinary knowledge, the participation of local communities and the establishment of partnerships.
Since the 1990s, heritage inscriptions in Asia have begun to reflect the fact that nature and culture are indivisible, thus international debates since 1992 have enlarged their understanding of heritage with the introduction of the concept of cultural landscape (Taylor 2009, 2012; Russell 2012). As mentioned in Chapter 2, the definition of cultural landscape from UNESCO stresses that nominated sites should "represent the ‘combined works of nature and of man’, with three criteria to evaluate the cultural landscape sites (II.A 47 Operational Guidelines 2011). However, as Taylor (2009) observed, the definition of culture landscape has been confused within the Southeast and East Asia context. One of the reasons, as Winter and Daly (2012) point out, is that the English term translates in Asian languages with some semantic ambiguity and confusion. Obviously, the majority of interviewees at West Lake did not make sense of the term cultural landscape. Since the late 2000s, Chinese scholars have extensively discussed and disseminated the discourse of ‘cultural landscape’ (see Zhou et al. 2006; Shan 2009b, 2010b; Han 2010; Wu 2011; Xi and Zhang 2014). Those scholars believe that the concept of cultural landscape has some synergy with the Chinese traditional value of harmony between culture and nature, and provided a useful tool both theoretically and practically to fill the gap between nature and culture in China (Han 2010). Wu (2011) suggested that the Western concept of cultural landscape provides an opportunity for the Chinese government to enlarge China’s stable of WorldHeritagesites. Indeed, in the last six years, the Chinese government has successful nominated three cultural landscape properties on the WorldHeritage list. Ironically, the majority of locals and tourists did not yet understand the meaning of cultural landscape. The final question in this chapter is that ‘do you think it is important that this site is on the WorldHeritage List?’
To summarize, the main reasons of the large differences between China's community tourism and foreign communities are the different development systems, management models as well as different levels of community participation and capabilities. [22-25] Therefore, the main recommendations in terms of policy are as follows: (1) The government’s guiding role should receive its highest power level. To bridge the gap between the communities and achieve balanced development of each region, community participation should be used as the basis, while the passive transfer of power as the way guidance. Currently, the biggest attention should be paid to the “power to” empowerment role, to improve the community's power system and to give a corresponding free development space, thereby ensuring the effectiveness of empowerment. (2) Furthermore, attention should be paid to community participation and community self-development. Western practice shows, that community self-enforcement is an important empowerment-leading factor. Nowadays, comparing with the Western World, the self-enrichment of Chinese communities is on the early development stage and it has obvious imbalance. Consequently, it is necessary to encourage community participation, actively promote the self-development of the community, improve community's ability to participate as well as promote the community self-enhancement. (3) In terms of spatial differentiation, there are significant differences between the marginal, core and transition areas. The imbalance of regional empowerment limits the development of community empowerment. So, it is necessary to implement accurate identification and certain management of community empowerment by applying effective scientific procedures to different regional environments and different
268 A. (2012). Documentation in WorldHeritage Conservation: Towards Managing and Mitigating Change – The Case Studies of Petra and the Silk Roads. Journal of CulturalHeritage Management and Sustainable Development, 2(2), 130–152. Wamsler, C., & Brink, E. (2016). The Urban Domino Effect: A Conceptualization of Cities’ Interconnectedness of Risk. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(2), 80–113.
to participate in a specific activity such as bird-watching, wildlife viewing, photography or archaeological, historical and cultural tours. Also in this category are adventure travel firms offering activities such as back- packing/trekking, white water rafting, kayaking, canoe- ing, rock climbing and sport fishing. Other speciality firms organise field research trips for scientists. These firms attract groups of paying volunteers who sign up to work as field assistants on projects such as archaeological digs and wildlife monitoring programmes. In addition, this market includes organisations and universities with special interest travel programmes. For example, the World-wide Fund for Nature and many museums organise tours for their members. These tours generally help to raise funds for a particular cause or project. These groups generally sub-contract to other tour operators to handle the travel arrangements. Speciality tour operators commonly use host-country ground operators for in-country logistics. These national firms, based in the country in which the tour is operating, provide all services (transportation, hotel accommodations, guides, etc.) from arrival to departure. Some speciality firms in North America and Europe handle ground operations in a foreign country for themselves, but they tend to be exceptions to the rule. Managers should be aware that many speciality companies are small and go in and out of business rapidly.
1984 meeting on a future program concerning the non-physical heritage is specifically important as it introduced an anthropological in contrast to a folkloristic approach. This approach focuses on processes, on social and cultural relations in societies rather than on objects or products. It found full implementation in the 1993 Living Human Treasures program, which aims at protecting knowledge and skills by addressing human beings as tradition-bearers themselves. In its context, the idea of tangible heritage in terms of architecture or place in general was abandoned. In the late 1990s, with the concept of cultural space the idea was reintroduced and the relationship between people and place emphasized. The recognition of processes instead of objects finally reached its climax in the early twenty- first century with the development of the concept of Intangible CulturalHeritage. While the 2003 Convention aims to safeguard intangible heritage expressions as an independent heritage category, its underlying theoretical conception reflects a re-theorization of culturalheritage. The Intangible CulturalHeritage is created and transmitted by human beings and may exist in relation to place. It is grounded in the local context. This understanding has also found its way into the ICOMOS discourse. First traces can be found in the late 1980s with the ideas of sacred sites and the non-built environment as well as the mention of the term intangible; a
As a centre for receiving and disseminating cultural influences, Budapest is an outstanding example of urban development in Central Europe, characterised by periods of devastation and revitalisation. Budapest has retained the separate structural characteristics of the former cities of Pest, Buda and Óbuda. One example of it is the Buda Castle Quarter with its medieval and characteristically Baroque style, which are distinct from the uniquely homogeneous architecture of Pest (with its historicising and art nouveau styles) which is characterised by outstanding public buildings and fitted into the ringed-‐radial city structure. All this is organized into a unity arising from the varied morphological characteristics of the landscape and the Danube, the two banks of which are linked by a number of bridges. The urban architectural ensemble of the Andrássy Avenue (“The Avenue”) and its surroundings (Heroes’ Square, the City Park, historic inner city districts and public buildings) are high-‐quality architectural and artistic realisations of principles of urbanism reflecting tendencies, which became widespread in the second part of the 19th century. The scenic view of the Banks of the Danube as part of the historic urban landscape is a unique example of the harmonious interaction between human society and a natural environment characterised by varied morphological conditions. Gellért Hill with the Citadel and the Buda Hills partly covered with forests, the broad Danube with its islands and Pest’s flat terrain rising with a slight gradient (UNESCO, 2016). Figure 1 shows the map of the Budapest WorldHeritage Site delimitation.
Risk management methods have been studied and used in other disciplines for many years, mainly as reactive measure to disasters. Based on these studies, risk management approaches for museums have been developed, based on assessing and reducing the risk to collections and artifacts as preventive measure. The present proposal for a risk management methodology in Petra is based on this approach for museums, but has been enhanced and adapted for Petra and other heritagesites. The risk assessment part of the methodology was applied and tested in the pilot area based on visual inspection. Mitigation strategies were suggested for each identified risk. As this is a developing field, this methodology has provided a preliminary under- standing of its impact in identifying disturbances and threats. We feel it offers an appropriate platform for evaluating risks on archaeological sites. However it requires further development. This should include testing and monitoring change at different times of the year, testing it in a larger and more comprehensive area, as well as testing it as a whole, in order to identify its practical strengths and limitations. This effort would benefit not only the site managers at the PAP but also other national and international stakeholders concerned with the management of cultural and cultural landscape sites.
Paradoxically, the success of this international initiative is facing a global challenge, made of three main issues. A first issue is that of quality heterogeneity among the WorldHeritageSites (WHS). Quality refers here not to the cultural outstanding value, which is a necessary condition for a site to be enlisted, but to the level of conservation and valorisation. The degree of such heterogeneity is large and almost out of control by UNESCO headquarters. From the political economy perspective, the power of control by UNESCO is soft and the enforcement is very poor. Against the trend of quality degradation of the enlisted sites, UNESCO can use only two instruments: a) the delisting action (applied up to now only to Dresden in Germany and the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in Oman); b) the List of the Sites in Danger (currently 31 properties), which is a general warning. A second issue focuses on the impact of WorldHeritage List (WHL) on local development, especially through strategies of regional valorisation of sites. Does the setting up of the inscription mobilize the local stakeholders for backing and implementing new activities and partnerships ? Does the WHL brand have a positive effect on the tourism industry (Prud’homme, 2008; Arezki et al., 2009)? From the political economy perspective, this issue asks for proposals for new strategies of regional valorisation of sites in order to enhance their value and attract more financial resources for conservation and valorisation.
WorldHeritageSites are places of significant, historic and cultural value throughout the World. They are carefully selected for preservation by the WorldHeritage Committee. The World body which is an inter-governmental organization is responsible for cataloguing and protecting WorldHeritageSites, and operates under the direction of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). WorldHeritageSites represents areas that are particularly ingenious and deserve to be taken into consideration in the search for solutions to today’s challenges (Eborieme, 2008: 22-27). Collectively, the rich diversity of African heritage contributes a unique wealth to WorldHeritage (Adedayo, 2004: 61). The study of these heritagesites makes it possible to better understand today’s world and to better prepare for the future, (Adediran, 2008: 49-58). Communities are therefore encouraged to preserve and valorize this heritage that represents the core of their common identity.
In all of the world heritages in China, the 8 mountain- type worldcultural heritages are elites, because they rep- resent the Chinese cultural spirits and nation’s identity, as well as are the most famous tourist destinations, so the construction of harmonious tourism environment in “8 mountains” is very essential. In view of the very high positive coefficient of the entire perception of harmoni- ous tourism environment to tourists’ loyalty, we can con- clude that harmonious tourism environment construction plays an essential role in enhancing the destination’s competitiveness. Tourists now are satisfied with the na- tural ecosystem, which also most greatly affects the en- tire perception of harmonious tourism environment, thus it is necessary to maintain the harmony in natural eco- system. Tourists’ satisfaction on cultural ecosystem is re- latively high, but the coefficient of cultural ecosystem to entire perception of harmonious tourism environment is relatively small, which indicates the defects exist in cul- tural tourism products and the low attention from tourists. Cultural heritages have very broad and deep cultural con- notation, so it seems crucial for tourism developers to take more actions to diversify cultural tourism products and activities, broaden and deepen their cultural connota- tion, improve tourism demonstration and interpretation, as well as enhance culturalheritage education to tourists. The lowest satisfaction occurs in social relation system, shows the great flaw in the relationships among stake- holders in tourism developing process. Because research also shows the significant effect of social relation system to the perception of tourism environment, so it is very necessary and important to reform the management con- stitution, especially the interest distribution mechanism, protect local residents’ legal rights and profits and en- hance their participation intention in tourism develop- ment, eliminate the conflicts among stakeholders, finally construct a harmonious mechanism among residents, tourists and developers. There are still some drawbacks in this research, for instance, the samples inclined to se- lect more young people, the quantity of questionnaires are not enough to make a comparative analysis among “8 mountains” etc, and some improvements are needed in future study.
According to Jimura (2007), however, a certain proportion of Japanese tourists no longer stick with visiting such famous and culturally approved sites and attractions, and this phenomenon is remarkable amongst young generations. In other words, these people want to visit the sites and attractions that are important for them, even if such sites and attractions are not well-known and do not have cultural significance. For instance, some Japanese people are eager to visit the small towns along the discontinued railway lines (haisen); however, these places are not popular as tourist destinations amongst general Japanese tourists (Jimura 2007). Others try to find a “hid- den gems” for themselves. A typical example of this is the quest for a small hot-spring in a mountainous area which has not been touched or discovered by tourists. For the above- mentioned reasons, it could be said that a gradual shift from collectivism to individualism can be observed in the motivations, behaviours and activities of Japanese tourists (Jimura 2007). In recent years, the whole of world has been experienced globalisation and the development of technologies such as the Internet, and overseas travels have become more and more accessible in every sense. This study tries to explore the latest profile of Japanese people as tourists to for- eign countries, focusing on the UK as their destination (Questions 1, 6 & 8 in the questionnaire). 2.2 British culture and Japanese people
many developing countries hosting UNESCO WorldHeritageSites need to consider. The setting up of a new national committee of ICOMOS to address the use of ‘Big Data’ and ‘Digital Technologies’ in culture and culturalheritage is a further testament of the importance of using digital technologies for the preservation and communication of heritage. These together with the recent Victoria & Albert Museum’s ReACH Initiative (Reproduction of Art and CulturalHeritage), which has reviewed and redrafted Henry Cole’s 1867 charter on the Reproduction of Art with a technical policy focusing on 3D facsimiles may suggest the global trend and technological challenges in this area. The book launch  and ReACH conference at UNESCO, at the Paris headquarters on 22 June 2018 with the accompanying speeches  addressing the member states are providing a way forward for the barriers the ReACH Initiative is trying to address.
WorldHeritageSites destination consists of 33 culturalsites, 10 natural sites and 4 mixed sites of mainly mountains destinations (WorldHeritage Centre, 2014). With the rise of personal incomes and living standards, the outbound tourism market is leaps and bounds. Chinese people are eager to go sightseeing overseas which creates an immense market for some nearby countries. The popular outbound destinations include USA, Russia, France, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Maldives (China National Tourism Administrations, 2014).
The need for performance measurement has been one of the main topics of management sciences in the last years. Generally speaking, performance measurement seems to be necessary when the traditional economic-financial indicators (like earning, ROE, ROI …) give an incomplete set of information about the state of the organisation. This is the traditional case of private corporations and this is the situation which initially permeated the birth of performance measurement systems. But this is not the only case of possible application of the performance management theories. Indeed, they are useful in each case where the economic and financial results are not measurable (or not expressible in a clear and irrefutable way). This is the typical case of not-for- profit organisations and, specifically, of public sector organisations, which are the most common subjects appointed for the management of cultural and natural heritage, in other words the greatest part of WorldHeritagesites.
• India is an active member state on the WorldHeritage from 1977 and has been working in close co-operation with other international agencies like ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property).
impacts their quality of life at individual and community levels (Latkova & Vogt, 2012; Jaafar et al., 2015). Nonetheless, the overpriotirisation of tourism in WHS locations, based on central and local authorities tendency to focus on economic gain (Su & Wall, 2014; Poria et al., 2011), can negatively affect or, in extremis, destroy the environmental and cultural integrity of the respective WHSs (Li et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2010; Jimura, 2011; Caust & Vecco, 2017). This situation is further enhanced by emerging countries’ insufficient management skills and resources for effective site management of their WHSs (Caust & Vecco, 2017; Landorf, 2009).