Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Tourism for Local Economic Development

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. UNC/ICAHMResearch Action: • 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

6. Research to Date Nov. 2008: UNC initial research phase begun Nov. 2008 - now: research literature assessment Jan. – 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. UNESCO and World Heritage Sites The limits of soft cultural power Sep 10th 2009The Economist

12. 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

13. World Heritage Effect?

14. World Heritage Effect?

15. EIAs offer Limited Operational Value • 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

16. 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”

17. Questions?

18. 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?

19. 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

20. Heritage Tourism Cluster

21. 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

22. 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.

23. Economic Terracing • External spending • Imports

24. Questions?

25. Best Practices create Goal Convergence Communicate Culture and preserve Heritage while maximizing local Economic benefits Conflict, Coincidence, Convergence

26. 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

27. Archaeology’s Value PropositionArchaeological 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

28. 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

29. Belize Slate Carvings • Community development effort trained artisans in slate carvings • Incorporated local Mayan archaeological research • Validated Mayan self-identification • Multi-generational impact

30. 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

31. “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

32. Cluster Enhancement 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. Next Research Phase • Heritage Tourism segmentation, trend forecasts, and Impact/Benefit valuation • Stated and revealed WH Brand analysis by tourism segment, market, and media • Senior and Junior WHS Cluster analysis, BACI and base level assessments (15 sites) • Best practice case studies and codification • Archaeology financing program design

37. WHS Research Sites Senior: mature sites with established clusters and learning curve experiences Junior: Recent or tentative listing with ambiguous market definition Criteria • 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

38. Questions/Suggestions? Brent Lane Director UNC Center for Competitive Economies University of North Carolina Kenan Flagler Business School Campus Box 3440 Chapel Hill NC 27540 919-962-8871 brent_lane@unc.edu