Qiong Wu
Word Count: 1979 / PIN: 10463
Subtopic 2: Bliss or Misery? ďź? Contemplating the Engagement of Cultural Forms and Economic Progress Opportunities and Needs: Engagement of Cultural and Economic Value in Cultural Heritage Tourism
Qiong Wu
Introduction Until recently, economists have been reluctant to rely on culture as a possible determinant of economic phenomena . Part of the reason of this reluctance is the ambiguousness of the notion of culture which is so broad that it is rather difficult to design testable hypothesis. In the case of cultural heritage, although it has been capitalized and incorporated into the regional economic progress since the past century, there are still fierce debates on the relationship between cultural heritage conservation and economic development and a refined methodology for the strategies of heritage management is desperately required. Of all the economic appropriations of cultural heritage, tourism is one of the most noticeable forms. In reality tourism is a major economic force, the second largest industry in the world . Indigenous culture and heritage are major tourist attractions and brought a large amount of income for the industry. For example, the income generated from the sale of Aboriginal arts and crafts is AUD$200 million per annum, with half derived from tourist sales. It seems like a winwin situation for both heritage preservation and economic progress; however, the harsh reality is that, cultural heritage and tourism are not always benefiting from each other, and decision must be made by the investors, the government and other participants to achieve optimized results. To solve the strategic problems, economic analysis typically focuses on the value of changes at the margin, for example, one or more alternatives are compared with a baseline scenario. However, the development of techniques capable of valuing intangible values, especially those associated with intangible cultural assets is still in its infancy. How, for example, does one trade-off market development opportunities with values that are central cultural image and identity? For issues like these existing methods need further testing and alternative ones need to be explored. Definition: Heritage as cultural capital According to the Oxford English Dictionary, heritage originated from old French word heriter (inherit), referring to 1) property that is or may be inherited; an inheritance. 2) valued things such as historic buildings that have been passed down from previous generations. 3) things of historic or cultural value that are worthy of preservation. The forms of heritage varies a lot while a basic distinction is drawn by UNESCO between tangible (e.g. walled cities, cathedrals, palaces) and intangible forms (e.g. folklore, music, dance, rituals). To bridge the conceptual gaps between cultural and economic value in heritage, David Throsby 1
Qiong Wu
and Brian Graham redefine heritage as a form of capital. Similar to the production process of other capitals(physical capital, human capital and natural capital), heritage items such as a painting or a historic building both required investment of physical and human resources in their original manufacture and construction and both give rise to a flow of services over time that may enter the final consumption of individuals directly (e.g. when people view the painting in a museum or visit the historic building), or that may contribute to the production of further goods and services (e.g. when the painting inspires the creation of new artworks or when the historic building is used as a commercial office space). And the distinction of heritage as a cultural capital is that it embodies both economic and cultural value, and its cultural value can exist independently. Economic and cultural value of heritage In order to help decision making in the investment of heritage projects, the economic and cultural value of heritage need to be assessed. In regard to the economic value of heritage, according to Throsby, it could be divided into use and non-use value. Use value refers to the direct valuation of the asset’s services by those who consume those services while non-use value refers to the value placed upon a range of non-rival and non-excludable public. To further explain the “use value”, Zeppel identifies four values including commodity values (portable cultural product, e.g. art, craft, souvenirs, music, dance), amenity values (associated with tourism and recreation, e.g. entree fees), marketing values (associated with the tourist promotion of the heritage, e.g. music used in the advertisement for the tourism promotion) and cyber values (refers to reproducing and selling cultural products via the Internet). As for the cultural value of heritage, there has been a basic agreement that it includes six components: aesthetic value: beauty, harmony spiritual value: understanding, enlightenment, insight social value: connection with others, a sense of identity historical value: connection with the past symbolic value: objects or sites as repositories or conveyors of meaning authenticity value: integrity, uniqueness The engagement of economic and cultural value of heritage in tourism Although it seems that the economic and cultural value of heritage as a cultural capital could be separately defined, there is a close relationship between them. Consider first the asset value of an item of tangible heritage such as a building of historical significance. The asset may have economic value that derives simply from its physical existence as a building irrespective of its cultural worth. But the economic value of the asset is likely to be augmented significantly due to its cultural value. So, for example, individuals may be willing to pay for the embodied cultural content of this asset by offering a price higher than that which they would offer for the physical entity alone. In use value, measured as the entrance fee, commodity sale, marketing, etc. would be expected to be greater the higher the cultural value people place on the experience of visiting it, other things being equal. Its non-use values would be similarly related to the building’s perceived cultural worth as well. Thus the overall economic value of the flow of 2
Global Initiatives Symposium in Taiwan 2009
services provided by the asset would be expected to be closely correlated with its cultural valuation. However, this impact of cultural value to economic value is not always being positive and sometimes it is rather complicated, especially for the cases of intangible heritage. The reasons are listed as follows: a) The difficulties to evaluate and compare the cultural values of the intangible heritage. Unlike most tangible heritage (such as historical buildings or paintings) that has got its own appraisal methodologies, most intangible heritage (such as folklores and music) does not have general rules of appreciation. Furthermore, as much of the cultural value of intangible heritage are only meaningful in the local/regional context (e.g. the sense of identity attached to some local music), the potential of attracting wide tourism interests is thus limited. b) The impositions in the process of intangible heritage tourism. Compared to tangible heritage such as historical buildings, the engagement with the tourists and culture in intangible heritage is not as that direct. What people have seen and experienced are performances chosen and adapted according to the intention of the tourism, therefore the level of how people enjoy and accept it would depend more on the marketing techniques than on the actual cultural value of the heritage itself. c) Even when an intangible heritage has been widely acknowledged of its high cultural value, it does not necessarily entail large economic profit in tourism. A representative case is Kunqu. In May 2001, UNESCO for the first time awarded the title of "Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity" to 19 outstanding cultural forms of expression from different regions of the world. Kunqu Opera, a school of traditional Chinese opera, was among them. It is the only Chinese art form listed, and is now a facet of the common cultural heritage of humankind. However, high cultural value does not result in high box office income. In recent years, following the rapid and dramatic change in concepts and lifestyles of the Chinese people, the survival of Kunqu has faced an enormous challenge. Likewise, the impact of economic value on cultural value is also complicated. On one hand, some tourist activities may contribute to the preservation of cultural values. For example, the income from the entry fees could be used to the maintenance of the historical buildings, which may otherwise deteriorate over time; the tourism activities such as visiting wine production, quilt making factory and other disappearing crafts did help to preserve those cultural heritage. Besides, the promotion by tourism could also be helpful for cultural education which may in return benefit cultural heritage. On the other hand, although over-exploitation could bring short-term profit, it may result in the damage of cultural heritage and hinder the development of tourism in the long run. One concept that is often been discussed in the research of heritage tourism is sustainability. To define sustainability in its application to cultural capital, Throsby suggests six principles or criteria: material and nonmaterial wellbeing; intergenerational equity; intragenerational equity; maintenance of diversity; precautionary principle; and maintenance of cultural systems and recognition of interdependence. Although progress has been made in identifying it in theoretical terms; the challenge now is to make it operational. 3
Bliss or Misery? Contemplating the Engagement of Cultural Forms and Economic Progress
Qiong Wu
If heritage is regarded as a resource, sustainability in this context has two basic conditions. First, the rate of use of renewable heritage resources must not exceed their rates of generation. Secondly, the rates of use of non-renewable physical heritage resources should not exceed the rate at which sustainable renewable substitutes are developed (for example, the substitution of irreplaceable sites or artefact with replicas). One possible move is toward virtual consumption of heritage, which can apply to both tangible and intangible forms. Conclusion: opportunities and needs In the essay, the concept of heritage has been redefined as cultural capital that yields both cultural and economic values so the discussion of cultural heritage will not be restricted in historical and archaeological field. By identifying both cultural and economic values of heritage as in the context of tourism, it can serve as theoretical background of assessment for investment decisions. However, attention should be drawn that the assessment of cultural value, especially for intangible heritage, is never been easy and the inter-relationship among cultural and economic values of heritage can be extremely complicated. Getting back to the question that was addressed in the introduction: how does one advise people about choices among strategies that trade off cultural gains for economic gains if those two values do not always benefiting each other? And what instrument choices are available to heritage managers, how effective are they and how can interaction among them be managed to maximum advantage? To answer those questions, firstly we need to understand the complexity of tourism. Tourism producers operate in both public and private sectors. While private-sector firms concerned mostly with their own profit margins, control of tourism by the public organizations is crucial. Fundamental to the success of heritage tourism planning is an appreciation of the nature of tourism and the varying viewpoints involved, including that of entrepreneurs, government, residents and tourists, as well as voices of NGOs and academics. On this basis, another keen requirement is to establish an approachable evaluation methodology. Some academic effort has been made by introducing the cost-benefit analysis used in ecological economics, but it is not well suited to the analysis of the consequences and merits of changing cultural values. In particular, there is need for people to develop models that enable development of models of cultural sustainability. From the above, it can be seen that the emerging suite of economic research issues associated with the protection, management and development of heritage are challenging. Moreover, in a society where resources are scarce, it is important to deliver these services in an efficient manner. The greatest intellectual challenge is to find ways to evaluate trade offs among cultural and natural values. Underlying all of these research opportunities is the search for information on the likely returns to increased investment in the world’s heritage. As heritage becomes scarcer and populations increase, significant increases in values can be expected.
4
Global Initiatives Symposium in Taiwan 2009
Reference Butler, R. W. (2000, 4 July ). The Loss of Regional Heritage and the Development of Regional Heritage Tourism in Western Countries: a Reoccurring Paradox? Paper presented at the Heritage Economics: Challenges for Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, Canberra: Australian National University. Common, M. (2000, 4 July ). The Role of Economics in Natural Heritage Decision Making. Paper presented at the Heritage Economics: Challenges for Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, Canberra: Australian National University. Graham, B. (2002). Heritage as Knowledge: Capital or Culture? Urban Studies, 39(5-6), 1003-1017. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2006). Does Culture Affect Economic Outcomes? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 23-48. O'Hare, D. (2000, 4 July). Articulating the Heritage Tourism Resource in Coastal Towns: a Case Study of Noosa. Paper presented at the Heritage Economics: Challenges for Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, Canberra: Australian National University. Soanes, C. (2005). Compact Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Throsby, D. (2000, 4 July ). Conceptualising Heritage as Cultural Capital. Paper presented at the Heritage Economics: Challenges for Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, Canberra: Australian National University. Zeppel, H. (2000, 4 July ). Indigenous Heritage Tourism and its Economic Value in Austrilia. Paper presented at the Heritage Economics: Challenges for Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, Canberra: Australian National University.
5
Bliss or Misery? Contemplating the Engagement of Cultural Forms and Economic Progress
Qiong Wu
Global Initiatives Symposium in Taiwan 2009