Cultural Heritage and Tourism: Comparison
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Chuanchuan Yuan and Version 1 by Chuanchuan Yuan.

随着风景名镇的壮大和大众旅游带动乡村振兴,非物质文化遗产已成为重要的旅游文化资源The integration of the cultural/creative and tourism industries is one way to present different types of regional cultural heritage to the world. With the growth of scenic towns and the revitalization of rural areas due to mass tourism, intangible cultural heritage has become an important tourism and cultural resource [1]. The 1numbers of domestic and foreign tourists visiting these traditional cultural resources are on the rise every year. Many areas with rich cultural resources rely on tourism to alleviate poverty and achieve revitalization [2]。参观这些传统文化资源的国内外游客逐年增加。许多文化资源丰富的地区依靠旅游脱贫,实现振兴[. However, a region’s tourism resources are not always proportional to its cultural heritage. It is important to carefully study the methods of regional tourism resource development, while also fully integrating 2cultural ]。然而,一个地区的旅游资源并不总是与其文化遗产成正比。认真研究区域旅游资源开发方法,同时充分整合文化资源。resources.

  • 文化旅游
  • 发展模式
  • 非物质文化遗产
  • cultural tourism
  • IHC
  • Cultural Heritage

1. 旅游与旅游

1. Cultural Heritage and Tourism

Although forms of integrating culture and tourism have been around for a long time, there is no general or formal definition for this fusion. Early on, this integration was seen as a kind of special-interest tourism, with tourists seeking mainly cultural experiences [8], distinguished from leisure tourism in its intention to pursue antique or artistic products. The destinations can be associated with various types of cultural heritage, such as language, religion, festivals, customs, and architecture [9]. In the 1990s, cultural-oriented tourism was incorporated into revitalization projects in Europe and North America, particularly urban cultural tourism [10]. Every cultural tour has a purpose and motivation [11], through which tourists can enjoy a deep cultural experience [12,13]. Tourists become involved in certain cultural aspects of the destination, and the experiences gained from that involvement have a long-term impact on cultural tourism [14]. Chen’s research demonstrated that tourist engagement significantly influences the degree of cultural exposure, and cultural exposure moderates the relationship between tourist engagement and experiences, which in turn has a significant positive effect on cultural tourism [15]. In addition, when economic pressure threatens endangered cultures, researchers resort to tourism as a solution to the conflict between the economy and culture, e.g., by bundling tourism with cultural attractions. This can bring tangible economic benefits to local governments and help to support the preservation of cultural heritage [16,17]. Ramírez-Guerrero proposed an approach for the management of intangible cultural heritage based on the fact that it is a component of the social system. From the point of view of available services and technical equipment, this approach breaks down existing barriers between heritage conservation and its social and touristic use, quantifies and diagnoses the current tourism potential, and enhancesthe tourist experience of cultural heritage in order to obtain benefits for society [18]. With these advantages, cultural tourism is gradually becoming a major part of the global tourism market, accounting for up to 40% [19]. Cultural tourism also acts as a driving force for rural development. Although the relationship between culture and tourism is mainly driven by private interests, it can stimulate the local economy. Cultural tourism cannot be the main driving force of rural development, but it can be an essential complementary activity that brings both economic and non-economic benefits. The combination of cultural tourism with tangible or intangible heritage and material or immaterial elements enables destinations to attract tourists by way of entertainment or the appeal of the destination itself [20]. Cultural tourism activities affect local people in many areas of their lives, and tourism in rural areas can improve the quality of life of local populations; in particular, smaller tourist destinations can find vital opportunities to develop sustainable tourism by organizing cultural activities [21,22]. Reyes et al. proposed improving the utilization of cultural heritage by evaluating tourist destinations in terms of cultural tourism media resources, facilities, and connectivity to fully explore the possibilities of local cultural development [23]. Therefore, cultural tourism is considered to have huge potential for local cultural preservation and sustainable development in general. As a part of cultural tourism, heritage tourism has been the focus of numerous academic studies in recent years [24–26], especially intangible cultural heritage tourism [27]. Sammells (2016) suggested that intangible cultural heritage creates new spaces for interactions with tourists, and the resulting host–guest relationships and social activities should be carefully evaluated, as they must be planned and managed from the perspective of long-term conservation and development [28]. Therefore, the mission of heritage tourism is primarily to preserve cultural heritage in as pristine a condition as possible.

2. Intangible Cultural Heritage

Cultural heritage includes the interdependent components of tangible and intangible culture [29], and the boundaries between the two are not obvious. Earlier discussions on cultural heritage were centered on tangible heritage [30–32], and only a few practical and theoretical studies have been conducted on intangible cultural heritage. Indeed, the two types of culture are considered to be interconnected and complement each other [33]. On the one hand, tangible and intangible cultural heritage share several values [34]. On the other hand, intangible cultural heritage provides key contextual information for understanding and appreciating tangible heritage. The difficulty of interpreting intangible cultural heritage has not prevented scholars from studying it, and the research focus has begun to shift from tangible to intangible heritage [35,36].The 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (CSICH) pointed out the link between the two types of cultural heritage, specifying that intangible cultural heritage is “the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge and skills (such as musical instruments and artifacts) that exist in culture”, as well as “the instruments, objects, artifacts and cultural spaces associated therewith” [19]. The CSICH also noted that ICH derives from the expression of human skills, practices, traditions, etc., and reveals interrelationships within society, i.e., human civilization is transmitted through elements of intangible cultural heritage. Intangible cultural heritage, as a multidimensional, rich, and dynamic system of human and historical values, is thus a valuable asset of traditional cultures around the world. This further expands the definition of heritage from that of the 1972 World Heritage Convention. Intangible cultural heritage is more interactive, dynamic, inclusive, and cohesive compared to the static and deterministic nature of tangible cultural heritage [37]. This represents a change toward embracing a more diverse and inclusive view of heritage by identifying and legitimizing intangible cultural expressions [38]. There are a variety of ways to describe, justify, and evaluate intangible cultural heritage, which also adds to its attractiveness [39,40]In recent years, scholars have studied intangible cultural heritage starting from the definition of its concepts and characteristics, before gradually delving into ICH resources, categories, dissemination, and many other areas [41,42]. In addition, researchers have studied ICH from different perspectives, such as cultural creativity, national soft power, and various approaches to safeguarding tourism [43,44]. The difficulties of explaining intangible cultural heritage have not hindered research in this area. The fragmented knowledge of ICH is nowadays commonly associated with technology and marketing, wherein the economic and social benefits are regarded as a kind of cultural capital. Furthermore, the cultural capital itself is built into a cultural industrial chain, bringing more changes to the way that ICH is developed and produced [45]. However, under these changes, the integrity and authenticity of ICH have become a matter of controversy [46]. The impact from profits brought by tourism can easily compromise the limits of authenticity. In contrast, Li and Zhou’s study found that local music under tourism is not affected by tourists if it is grounded in the local music culture itself. This suggests that in rapidly changing modern society, ICH should still be grounded in local culture, and the opportunities provided by technology should rely on regional identity for sustainable development [47]. Therefore, the foundation of ICH is rooted in locality. In this way, the discovery and utilization of various local resources that coexist with the competitive aspects of ICH are maximized [48].

 

1. Yang, C.-H.; Lin, H.-L.; Han, C.-C. Analysis of international tourist arrivals in China: The role of World Heritage Sites. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 827–837. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2. Ma, Z.L.Y. Research on the protection and development path of Chinese rural vitalization and traditional craft intangible cultural heritage. Cult. Herit. 2020, 2, 19–29.

3. Li, X.; Gao, Y. Evaluation and Empirical Analysis on Tourism Development Value of Intangible Culture Her itagein Minority Areas. Guizhou Ethn. Stud. 2019, 40, 158–165. [CrossRef]

4. Qian, Y. Sustainable Development: A New Concept of Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection. Cult. Herit. 2018, 3, 8–14.

5. Zhang, B.; Cheng, W. The cultural tourism and the prote ction of intangible he ritage. Hum. Geogr. 2008, 23, 74–79.

6. Jin, Z. Tourism Utilization of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Highly Profound Evolution of Industry in the Period of Economic Shift. J. Tour. Cult. Change 2019, 34, 1–3. [CrossRef]

7. Wang, J. Cultural heritage conservation, development and tourism product system construction. Tour. Trib. 2010, 25, 7–9.

8. Dolnicar, S. A review of data-driven market segmentation in tourism. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2002, 12, 1–22. [CrossRef]

9. Stylianou-Lambert, T. Gazing from home: Cultural tourism and art museums. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 403–421. [CrossRef]

10. Turok, I. The distinctive city: Pitfalls in the pursuit of differential advantage. Environ. Plan. A 2009, 41, 13–30. [CrossRef]

11. Richards, G. Production and consumption of European cultural tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1996, 23, 261–283. [CrossRef]

12. Van der Duim, R.; Ren, C.; Thór Jóhannesson, G. Ordering, materiality, and multiplicity: Enacting Actor–Network Theory in tourism. Tour. Stud. 2013, 13, 3–20. [CrossRef]

13. Du Cros, H. New Models of Travel Behavior for Independent Asian Youth Urban Cultural Tourists; Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore: Singapore, 2014.

14. Packer, J.; Ballantyne, R. Conceptualizing the visitor experience: A review of literature and development of a multifaceted model. Visit. Stud. 2016, 19, 128–143. [CrossRef]

15. Chen, H.; Rahman, I. Cultural tourism: An analysis of engagement, cultural contact, memorable tourism experience and destination loyalty. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 26, 153–163. [CrossRef]

16. Qiu, Q.; Zheng, T.; Xiang, Z.; Zhang, M. Visiting intangible cultural heritage tourism sites: From value cognition to attitude and intention. Sustainability 2019, 12, 132. [CrossRef]

17. Su, J. Managing intangible cultural heritage in the context of tourism: Chinese officials’ perspectives. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2020, 18, 164–186. [CrossRef]

18. Ramírez-Guerrero, G.; García-Onetti, J.; Arcila-Garrido, M.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A. A Tourism Potential Index for Cultural Heritage Management through the Ecosystem Services Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6415. [CrossRef]

19. Richards, G. UNWTO Report on Tourism and Culture Synergies; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2018.

20. López Olivares, D. Los Recursos Turísticos. Evaluación, Ordenación y Planificación Turística. Estudio de Casos; Tirant lo Blanch Publishing House: Valencia, Spain, 2014.

21. Potocnik Topler, J. Cultural events as tools of developing sustainable tourism in rural areas-the case of sevnica in slovenia. Annales 2021, 31, 245–258.

22. Terkenli, T.S.; Georgoula, V. Tourism and cultural sustainability: Views and prospects from cyclades, Greece. Sustainability 2021, 14, 307. [CrossRef]

23. Reyes Morales, R.G.; Naude, A.; Cruz, A.; Hinojosa-Ojeda, R.; Martínez, R. Los Actores Sociales Frente Al Desarrollo Rural. Nueva Rural. Viejos Probl. 2005, 24, 223–275.

24. Deng, J.; King, B.; Bauer, T. Evaluating natural attractions for tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2002, 29, 422–438. [CrossRef]

25. Ryan, J.; Silvanto, S. A study of the key strategic drivers of the use of the World Heritage site designation as a destination brand. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2014, 31, 327–343. [CrossRef]

26. Noonan, D.S.; Rizzo, I. Economics of Cultural Tourism: Issues and Perspectives; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 95–107.

27. Esfehani, M.H.; Albrecht, J.N. Roles of intangible cultural heritage in tourism in natural protected areas. J. Herit. Tour. 2018, 13, 15–29. [CrossRef]

28. Sammells, C.A. Haute traditional cuisines: How UNESCO’s list of intangible heritage links the cosmopolitan to the local. In Edible Identities: Food as Cultural Heritage; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 141–158.

29. Vecco, M. A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. J. Cult. Herit. 2010, 11, 321–324. [CrossRef]

30. Eichler, J. Intangible cultural heritage, inequalities and participation: Who decides on heritage? Int. J. Hum. Rights 2021, 25, 793–814. [CrossRef]

31. Not, E.; Petrelli, D. Blending customisation, context-awareness and adaptivity for personalised tangible interaction in cultural heritage. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2018, 114, 3–19. [CrossRef]

32. Su, Y.-W.; Lin, H.-L. Analysis of international tourist arrivals worldwide: The role of world heritage sites. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 46–58. [CrossRef]

融合旅的形式由来久已久,但对于这种融合并没有一个普遍或正式的定义。早期,这种融合被一种主要用于特殊旅游,游客寻求文化体验[ 8 ],关注于休闲旅游,目标与追求或例如艺术产品相关。可以是各种语言、宗教、联合、时尚和建筑 [ 9 ]。1990 年,文化旅游被纳入欧洲和欧洲的振兴类型项目,特别是城市文化旅游[ 10 ]。

33. Taylor, J. Locating intangible cultural heritage in Norway. In The Routledge Companion to Intangible Cultural Heritage; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 240–253.

文化之旅有一个和动机[ 11 ],游客可以通过获得它来体验一次体验的文化体验[每12、13 ]。 [对文化程度有长期的长期的影响]]] 14研究结果对游客的文化影响参与影响了游客参与的文化影响,文化接触游客参与体验之间的接触程度,对旅游的接触程度,产生显着的正向影响。 [ 15 ]。 另外,当经济威胁到临终与文化研究会之间,以经济压力来解决问题,以解决文化问题。 Ramírez -Guerrero 提出了一种实际存在于从社会的系统,并支持部分的保护[ 6 , 17 ]。现有服务和技术设备的角度,这种方法打破了现有保护和旅游利益之间的现有保护和旅游利益,扩大和诊断旅游潜力,旅游体验,以获取。社会[ 18 ] ]。这些全球旅游正迅速成为市场的重要组成部分,文化占19 %[40% ]。

34. Zhu, Y.; González Martínez, P. Heritage, values and gentrification: The redevelopment of historic areas in China. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2022, 28, 476–494. [CrossRef]

文化旅游还是乡村发展的动力。虽然文化和旅游者的关系主要是由个人利益的驱动,但它可以作为当地经济的刺激。文化旅游不能成为乡村发展的主要驱动力,但可以是必要的补充活动,带来经济和经济利益。多个方面,旅游可以提高当地的生活质量;可以通过当地的文化活动,可以通过积极开展群众活动,对群众生活产生重大影响] 1 机会 [ 2 , 22 ]等人提出通过对旅游目的地的文化媒体资源、和因此进行性利用的评估,认为设施被发展,充分利用当地文化[ 23 ]。,旅游者,文化旅游者对当地文化保护和可持续发展具有巨大潜力。

35. Esfehani, M.H.; Albrecht, J.N. Planning for intangible cultural heritage in tourism: Challenges and implications. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2019, 43, 980–1001. [CrossRef]

作为旅游者的,私人旅游是非民间学术研究的焦点[24,25,26 ],尤其是物种旅游[ 27 ] 。Sammers(2016),,为与游客的互动创造新的空间,因此应尽而生的主客关系和因此而产生的社会活动,因为他们从长远规划和保护发展的角度进行了28 ]。,遗产旅游文化的使命是主要的责任。遗体。

36. Richards, G. Cultural tourism: A review of recent research and trends. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2018, 36, 12–21. [CrossRef]

2. 非物质性质

37. Stefano, M.L.; Davis, P. The Routledge Companion to Intangible Cultural Heritage; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2016.

各种不同的文化和非主要物质同时存在的部分[ 29 ] 其中的显示不同的组成特征。早期有关形式的讨论在有[ 30、31、32、30、31、30、30、31、30、30、32、30、30、31、30、30、30、30、30、30、30、30、32、30、31、30、30、32、30、32、30、30、32、30、30、32、30、32、30、32、30、30、32、30、30、30、32、30、30、32、30实际的理论理论和实际效果不同。这种文化的实践被认为是联系和被认为的[ 33 ]。不同类型的研究和本质属性具有相同的价值。[ 34 ]。方面,非物质属性为理解和欣赏有形遗体提供了关键的背景信息。

38. Labadi, S. UNESCO, Cultural Heritage, and Outstanding Universal Value: Value-Based Analyses of the World Heritage and Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions; AltaMira Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013.

解释了非物质物种的困难并没有阻止他们开始从保护研究、研究重点转向非物质遗产[ 35、36 ]。 )知名人士之间的联系,表明知识表现形式是“存在于文化中的一种实践、表现形式、、表现、技能(如乐器和文物)”,以及“乐器、物品、文物和与之相关的文化空间的表达”[ 19 ]元素的。物质是一个多维、丰富、动态的人文和价值历史体系,是传播世界传统文化的宝贵财富。这进一步扩展了 1972 年《世界遗骸》对遗体的定义。与物质代表遗体的真实性和确定性,通过非物质形式的互动、动态性、包容性和凝聚力[ 37 ]。 [ 38 ]。有许多证明和评估来的财产,它也增加了它的性质、方式描述 [ 40 39 ]

39. Arizpe, L.; Amescua, C. Anthropological Perspectives on Intangible Cultural Heritage; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013.

近年来,学者们从对非物质文化遗产的概念和特征的界定开始研究非物质文化遗产,逐渐深入到非物质文化遗产资源、类别、传播等诸多领域[ 41 , 42 ]。此外,研究人员还从文化创意、国家软实力和旅游保障的各种途径等不同角度研究了非物质文化遗产 [ 43 , 44]。解释非物质文化遗产的困难并没有阻碍这一领域的研究。非物质文化遗产的碎片化知识如今普遍与技术和营销联系在一起,其中经济和社会效益被视为一种文化资本。此外,文化资本本身被构建成文化产业链,为非物质文化遗产的开发和生产方式带来更多变化[ 45 ]。

40. Lixinski, L. Intangible Cultural Heritage in International Law; OUP Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2013.

然而,在这些变化之下,ICH的完整性和真实性成为了争议的问题[ 46 ]。旅游业带来的利润影响很容易破坏真实性的界限。相比之下,李和周的研究发现,旅游下的本土音乐如果植根于本土音乐文化本身,就不会受到游客的影响。这表明在瞬息万变的现代社会中,非物质文化遗产仍应立足于当地文化,技术提供的机会应依赖区域认同来实现可持续发展[ 47 ​​]。因此,非遗的基础是根植于地方的。通过这种方式,可以最大限度地发现和利用与 ICH 竞争方面共存的各种本地资源 [ 48 ]。

41. Yelmi, P. Protecting contemporary cultural soundscapes as intangible cultural heritage: Sounds of Istanbul. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2016, 22, 302–311. [CrossRef]

三、非物质文化遗产保护的立法实践

42. DeSoucey, M.; Elliott, M.A.; Schmutz, V. Rationalized authenticity and the transnational spread of intangible cultural heritage. Poetics 2019, 75, 101332. [CrossRef]

中国保护和发展非物质文化遗产的努力始于 1980 年代,当时管理者在个别领域制定了立法,例如文学、音乐剧和舞蹈形式的版权保护。随后,对传统医学和武术进行了保护性规定和立法规定。

43. Tan, S.-K.; Lim, H.-H.; Tan, S.-H.; Kok, Y.-S. A cultural creativity framework for the sustainability of intangible cultural heritage. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2020, 44, 439–471. [CrossRef]

1997 年实施的《传统工艺美术保护条例》确立了中国传统工艺 [ 49 , 50 ] 的总体框架,涵盖非物质文化遗产和物质文化遗产 [ 51]。虽然这在实践中还不够,但进入 21 世纪以来,中国的保护工作日益融入联合国教科文组织的国际框架,严格按照 2003 年联合国教科文组织公约对非物质文化遗产的定义。值得一提的是,2011年颁布的《中华人民共和国非物质文化遗产法》仅限于本土文化,没有采纳2003年联合国教科文组织公约的非物质文化遗产类别。相反,它选择并指定了那些被认为与中国传统文化更直接相关的非物质文化遗产项目[ 52]。此后,中国政府在非物质文化遗产保护领域实施了多项切实可行的政策举措。非物质文化遗产项目与市场上的文化服务相结合,以增加文化消费。此外,非物质文化遗产保护与区域经济健康直接相关,甚至与消除贫困相结合。2018年,中国文化和旅游部出台了一系列精准扶贫计划,振兴贫困地区的传统手工艺,要求省级政府建立贫困地区传统手工艺的设计、展示和销售平台。

44. Schreiber, H. Intangible cultural heritage and soft power–exploring the relationship. Int. J. Intang. Herit. 2017, 12, 44–57.

总的来说,尽管在州和文化和旅游部门层面以自上而下的方式实施了重大变革和举措,但在每个地区实施和推广 ICH 仍然存在一些挑战。

45. Zhang, Y.; Han, M.; Chen, W. The strategy of digital scenic area planning from the perspective of intangible cultural heritage protection. EURASIP J. Image Video Process. 2018, 2018, 130. [CrossRef]

4. GIS 在文化遗产中的应用

46. Su, J. Understanding the changing intangible cultural heritage in tourism commodification: The music players’ perspective from Lijiang, China. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2019, 17, 247–268. [CrossRef]

地理地理)收集计算、分析、显示和地球全部表面或部分的地理分布数据,该利用准确地地理空间中资源的分布和系统收集情况。保护和文化资源管理的各个方面。Spano 和 Pellegrino 通过使用 GIS 分析了地中海地区手工业的情况。这种空间技术可以帮助有效地改造人类,并通过提供各种类型的遗体信息来合理地保存方式[ 53 ]。 另外,它可以为修改基于保护空间调查的规划建立技术路线,并已有的规划技术路线。政府部门可以通过GIS空间信息数据库有效地和管理。进行了发展GIS分析,得出经济和交通条件影响非特征数据的结论。

47. Li, D.; Zhou, S. Evaluating the Authenticity of Naxi Music in Three Stages from the Perspective of Naxi Musicians: An Application of Lacan’s Mirror Stage Theory. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3720. [CrossRef]

因此,利用 GIS 分析的各种部署、规划和管理具有一定的实用性。

48. Tan, S.-K.; Tan, S.-H.; Kok, Y.-S.; Choon, S.-W. Sense of place and sustainability of intangible cultural heritage–The case of George Town and Melaka. Tour. Manag. 2018, 67, 376–387. [CrossRef]