February 1996 Table Of Contents
The importance of heritage to tourism
By G. J. Ashworth
Chair of Heritage Planning at the School of Spatial Science, Rijksuniversiteit at
Groningen, The Netherlands
Historic resources, whether the conserved built environment of historic architecture
and urban morphology, place associations with historical events and personalities,
and accumulations of historic cultural artifacts, artistic achievements and individuals,
taken together comprise the single most important primary attraction for tourists,
and thus heritage tourism sites and cities are the world’s most important tourism
‘resorts.’
This contention is difficult to demonstrate with a few general statistics because
of the difficulties of definition argued below. However, a sampling of almost any
detailed set of available statistics demonstrates the dimensions of the phenomenon.
A number of European national studies, such as in Britain, France, Belgium, and The
Netherlands, have placed heritage, variously defined, as the main motive for incoming
foreign tourists. Studies of domestic vacations and day trips place historical attractions
among the top three types of destination sought in most European countries.
The size of the foreign and domestic market available for heritage attractions is
indicated by such randomly available statistics as, for example, that more than half
the French population make at least one annual visit to an historic monument; or
the predominance of heritage among the top 50 most visited attractions in England.
The sales of heritage-oriented Michelin and Baedecker guides, memberships in heritage
trusts and museum associations are evidence enough of the mass interest, if not obsession,
in the recreational consumption of heritage.
The overwhelming evidence of this importance should not be allowed to conceal two
caveats:
First, historical resources are used in distinctly different ways by different types
of tourist. They may form the primary motive for a vacation, determining the itinerary,
pattern of behavior and satisfaction, or used as secondary or ancillary resources
within quite differently motivated tourism trips, such as business and convention
visitors, or seashore vacationers. Culture is rapidly consumed. Even the major European
concentrations of aesthetic masterpieces can rarely hold the attention of tourists
for more than a few days or, more usually, a few hours.
Consequently, heritage tourism facilities tend to be highly clustered. [It is unlikely
the majority of tourists will construct an auto-based trip chain of disconnected
sites within a city. The hassle is too great, particularly if one doesn’t know one’s
way around. Further, spending is lost to the larger community through the phenomenon
of “site captivity.”] This occurs both within cities and also on a wider scale between
cities which have formed networks of similar cultural attractions from which the
tourist composes the cultural tourism experience.
Secondly, it is salutary to remember that, numerically, the most important visitors
to historical resources are local residents on repeat visits.
Historical attractions are not only serving these demands for local recreation, but
increasingly are being used to shape a general ambiance of high amenity as an important
factor in attracting new commercial and governmental investment. Competition between
cities [and cities and their suburbs] is increasing, as is the use of culture, and
historicity in particular, as an important element in shaping urban images for use
in this competitive struggle.
This multi-use of the same heritage attractions for different purposes may lead either
to mutual reinforcement or to conflict in the use of the resources. The main task
of urban heritage management will be to achieve mutual reinforcement and mitigate
conflict.