|
Cultural Policies and Tourism Development
Yu
et al.
(2003) noted that preventing negative tourism impacts was a major challenge for China to
maintain its international tourism appeal. As early as in the 1950s, China began to establish the protection system of
cultural heritage. Neither domestic nor international tourism was barely existent at that time. “Tourism” was used as
a political tool to present overseas the country’s “fruit” under the governing of the Chinese Communist Party. The
2007 Annual International CHRIE Conference & Exposition
529
routes and places of visit were designated and the guests were received with all-round efforts from the government.
Heritage was not promoted. During the 24 years from 1954 to1978, China International Travel Service played host
to only 125,000 visitors (Richter, 1989).
In Cultural Revolution years from 1966 to 1976, cultural heritage was under great damage. The political
regime overthrew the Chinese cultural heritage in its revolutionary endeavor and labeled the precious historical
objects as “Four Olds”, the remains of feudal and capitalist orthodox, which needed to be demolished.
In 1978, the first national conference on tourism was held to formulate guidelines and organizational
structures for tourism development (Gao and Zhang, 1982). Tourism was justified in cultural terms by the
contribution it could make to national unity. With the acceptance of the need to modernize the country using all
resources available, the late Chairman Deng Xiaoping called for rehabilitating China’s culture as a valuable resource
to revitalize the economy by making tourism an acceptable form of development.
Tourism has become an agent in the country’s attempts to find ways to bridge the differences in the
objectives of modernization and national cultural identity. However, the decision to embrace the tourism industry
was reached with great caution because the government recognized that international tourism was a major vehicle
for modernization which inevitably promoted the penetration of Western culture and values. Cultural policy thus
came to the fore in this tourism context, a valuable new industry and a potentially large generator of foreign
exchange earnings. Under the cultural policy, tourism was to be developed around Chinese culture and tradition to
mitigate the impact of Western culture, values and industrialization which might pollute China’s heritage.
In recent years, great efforts have been made by the Chinese government in combining cultural heritage and
tourism. In 1992 China National Tourism Administration selected 249 sites which combined China’s natural and
cultural heritage to develop and promote as “national scenic routes”. They have distinctive themes such as the Great
Wall Route, the Cooking Kingdom Route, the Study Route, and the Yangtze River Route. Dunhuang, once an
important trading town on the Silk Road, was one of several hundred sites designated as “historical cultural cities”.
In 1991, the Huangshan Scenic Area was granted World Heritage Site listing based on its outstanding environmental
and cultural resources.
However, problems arise when the formal text of laws contradict with their local applications in the
development of historical and cultural attractions. In some areas there exists an “implementation gap” between the
rhetoric of policy and the reality. Provinces, regions, and counties have been swift to draw up lists of cultural
attractions and heritage sites, but a break has occurred between intent and result. The devolution of responsibility to
implement the Heritage Conservation Act to the different levels of local government and the fact that “The costs of
conservation and management of the nation’s heritage treasures are to be included in national and local budgets”
(Article 6 of the Act) have resulted in patchy efforts at local levels, especially where local finances are not great.
Authenticity was sacrificed for economic interests at staging and manipulating festivals and cultural attractions.
To achieve the integrity and authenticity of culture, tourism policy needs to involve the key stakeholders at
various levels and to incorporate their respective interests. According to Hughes (1995), rather than being naturally
given, authenticity in tourism is held to have been produced by a variety of stakeholders, such as government,
institutions, entrepreneurs, marketing agents, tour guides, and the like.
METHODOLOGY
This paper aims to investigate and propose coordination among public, private and community sectors for
cultural authenticity in tourism development in China, and place it against a general model of stakeholder alliance
that drives the development. Beijing Hutong tourism development was selected for this study because Hutong serves
as a model of heritage conservation for Chinese cultural attractions (Sit, 1995) and because its heritage is under
heavy pressure from modern development (Wang, 2003).
Case study method is deemed as appropriate for this study since it examines a contemporary phenomenon
within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in
which multiple sources of evidence are used (Yin, 1984). Tools to collect data in this case study include personal
interviews, documents review, reports and observation. Semi-structured personal interviews were conducted with
tourism developers in Beijing in 2006. Two interviewees were selected as they best represented Hutong tourism
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
