Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Tourism for Local Economic Development

“What, Who and How? Enhancing Economic Benefits of Archaeological

World Heritage Sites”

Brent LaneUniversity of North Carolina

Kenan-Flagler Business School

The Carolina Center for Competitive Economies (C3E) Kenan Institute for Private Enterprise

Brent Lane

Direct UNC Center for Competitive Economies, an economic strategy research center focused on growth capital markets, local growth engines, and SMEs (esp. rural)

Former venture capital investor and entrepreneurial developer

Active as sponsor, director and researcher in heritage economic s and ventures

Premise

World Heritage program focused on preservation, but the listing is commonly expected to also yield economic benefits through increased tourism

Tourism can challenge heritage conservation without significant local economic benefit

Record of local economic benefits especially uneven in rural locations and developing countries

Absence of clear local economic benefits may deter the listing of additional WHS in less developed areas

ICAHM/WHS

International Scientific Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM) advises UNESCO

World Heritage Sites (WHS) are cultural or natural heritage locations designated or “listed” by UNESCO to encourage their protection and preservation.

Currently 890 World Heritage Sites around the world, a majority of which are cultural sites that encompass archaeological heritage resources.

UNC/ICAHM ResearchAction: Research to better measure and enhance local

economic benefits of archaeological World Heritage Sites (WHS)

Outcome: Deployment of sustainable tourism and development

practices that enhance the cultural, heritage and economic goals of archaeological WHS in targeted developing countries

Research to DateNov. 2008: UNC initial research phase begun Nov. 2008 - now: research literature assessmentJan. – Aug. 2009: on-site consultations in Japan,

China, Morocco, New Zealand, Bolivia, UK pre/post WHS listing economic activity data WHS expectations and outcome perceptions Strategies and investment to capitalize on WHS

Current – distillation of initial findings and completion of study design

Initial Sites Fuerte de Samaipata, Bolivia Mount Wuyi, China Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara, Japan Sacred Sites in the Kii Mountain Range, Japan Archaeological Site of Volubilis, Morocco Site de Chellah, Morocco Waitangi Treaty Grounds historic, New Zealand Hadrian’s/Antonine’s Walls, UK

Today’s Agenda

What’s known and what’s not about the economic benefit of WH listing

Examples of best practices with a focus on sustainable tourism practices that emphasize host community benefits

Describe plans for expanding the research Elicit suggestions for additional exemplars and

prospective locations

Prior WHS Economic Assessment Results

Expectations of economic benefit remain strong but ill-defined

Anecdotal evidence highly suggestive and politically persuasive

Numerous positive qualitative outcomes experienced

Prior WHS Economic Assessment Results

Macro scale research show modest tourism specialization growth effect An increase of one standard deviation in tourism

activity would lead to an annualized additional growth of about 0.5 %/year (IMF’09)

Some EIAs show evidence of inconsistent marginal effect (1-5%) that may not off-set costs

Most assessments are rendered inconclusive by data problems

UNESCO and World Heritage Sites

The limits of soft cultural powerSep 10th 2009The Economist

Prior WHS Economic Assessment Results

Conventional Economic Impact Assessment (EIAs) limited by the nature of World Heritage Sites

Revealed preference Before-After-Control Impact (BACI) assessment s designed to measure marginal tourism variation

Limited geographic scale and inadequate data from studied WH sites

WH uniqueness means lack of appropriate controls

World Heritage Effect?

World Heritage Effect?

Macroeconomic results do not yield info critical to local decision-makers and community

Extent of local benefit not usefully calculated Means of benefit accrual not described Tourism market segmentation not characterized Data granularity insufficient for entrepreneurial

development planning Tourism gains don’t equal economic benefit

EIAs offer Limited Operational Value

Stonehenge

1 million visitors /year Average stay 20-30

minutes About 50% of paid visitors

never go beyond the visitor center/car park

Exemplar of “High Impact/Low Benefit”

Questions?

Operational Info Needs

What does the WH “brand” mean to which tourists? What forms of tourism most compatible with heritage

conservation? Which tourism segments could provide highest local

benefit in most sustainable manner? What offerings most desired by optimal segments? What gaps/opportunities do sites need to address? How can economic progress be monitored?

Industry Cluster Analysis for WHS

Cluster are trading networks of local and non-local business and employees

Establishment level analysis reveals beneficiary demographics - employment , wages , ownership

Captures pervasiveness of local economic benefits and extent of indigenous population participation

Delineates areas of unrealized economic potential by segmenting “monolithic tourism industry construct

Heritage Tourism Cluster

Archaeo-Tourism Cluster

Sites in less developed areas suffer from anemic heritage tourism industry cluster

Thin cluster – unavailable goods/services Nonexistent or low value heritage offerings Non local ownership = profit exportation Overemphasis on high impact/low benefit segments

Filling Cluster Gaps

Cluster analysis reveal gaps in the local tourism economy that represent business opportunities

unoccupied tourism product niches or niches primarily served by non-local providers

"targets of opportunity“ for entrepreneurial development programs

Toolkit: business skills, market info, microfinance, business incubators, etc.

Economic Terracing

External spending Imports

Questions?

Best Practices create Goal Convergence

Communicate Culture and preserve Heritage while maximizing local Economic benefitsConflict, Coincidence, Convergence

Best Promises/Practices

Host community based sustainable tourism enterprises

Unify cultural, heritage and economic goals Strengthen cluster density to capture benefits Draw on archaeological research for authenticity

value-addition Promising and proven examples of success Constitute a portfolio for application WH sites in

developing economies

Archaeology’s Value Proposition

Archaeological R&D enhances authenticity in portfolio of heritage tourism offerings

Conventional Academic papers Museums

Archaeo-tourism Reconstructions Guide services Media content Performance Hospitality/cuisine Artisan crafts/replicas

Artisan Crafts/Replica Production

Common tourism complaint is lack of local crafts and souvenirs

Archaeology research adds significant value Local crafts enhance visitor experience and cultural

awareness Artisan training recaptures host culture heritage Business skills, financing needs have limited several

pilot projects

Belize Slate Carvings

Community development effort trained artisans in slate carvings

Incorporated local Mayan archaeological research

Validated Mayan self-identification

Multi-generational impact

Replicas Discourage Looting

Archaeology : “Forging Ahead: How I stopped worrying and love eBay”

Rather than rewarding artifact looting, eBay has created more lucrative market for replicas/fakes

Market is rewarding authenticity of replicas and creating business opportunities in host communities

Higher quality replicas create economic disincentives that have dampened the artifact black-market

“Lost Colony” Outdoor Drama

Started in 1937, is oldest US heritage performance Performed at site of first English New World colony Archaeological excavations inform performance Effective heritage education, tourism attraction and

high value employment Direct employment of 250 Over 3 million attendees to date

Hadrian’s Wall WHS Remains of Roman fortification 73 mile long located

in rural northern England Integration of archaeological sites at numerous

locations with variety of offerings Branded transportation serving site wide tourists Coordinated local lodging promotion Local artisan products program Hiking/cycling trail and Pilgrimage

Cluster Enhancement

Archaeo-Tourism

Specialized segment with low impact/high benefit potential

Motivated by heritage experience immersion from tours to home stays to volunteering

Market premium reward for authenticity of offerings Smaller market than mass tourism but with better

Impact/Benefit profile

Amateur Excavators

Tourists who PAY to assist archaeologists in excavations

Valuable low impact/high benefit segment Long-term visitors with big local economic footprint Informal inter-cultural ambassadors Limited data suggests demographic diversity across

a global market

Vindolanda Trust

Active archaeological site in Hadrian’s Wall WHS

over 3000 excavation volunteers since 1970

Typical two week stay at local lodging

Expansion to 500 excavators annually

Next Research Phase

1) Heritage Tourism segmentation, trend forecasts, and Impact/Benefit valuation

2) Stated and revealed WH Brand analysis by tourism segment, market, and media

3) Senior and Junior WHS Cluster analysis, BACI and base level assessments (15 sites)

4) Best practice case studies and codification5) Archaeology financing program design

WHS Research Sites

Senior: mature sites with established clusters and learning curve experiencesJunior: Recent or tentative listing with ambiguous market definitionCriteria Developing economy and/or rural locations Primary, secondary and tertiary tourism statistics Archaeological heritage Appropriate control sites from WH Tentative List Build on existing development agency relationships

Questions/Suggestions?

Brent LaneDirectorUNC Center for Competitive EconomiesUniversity of North CarolinaKenan Flagler Business SchoolCampus Box 3440Chapel Hill NC 27540919-962-8871brent_lane@unc.edu