authenticity in heritage tourism

• Open access
• Published: 29 June 2023

Research on global cultural heritage tourism based on bibliometric analysis

• Sunbowen Zhang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3859-8592 1 ,
• Jingxuan Liang 2 ,
• Xinwei Su   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0218-5910 3 , 4 ,
• Youcheng Chen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9323-7386 1 &

Heritage Science volume  11 , Article number:  139 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

4490 Accesses

4 Citations

Metrics details

Cultural heritage is the sum of material wealth and spiritual wealth left by a nation in the past. Because of its precious and fragile characteristics, cultural heritage protection and tourism development have received extensive global academic attention. However, application visualization software is still underused, and studies are needed that provide a comprehensive overview of cultural heritage tourism and prospects for future research. Therefore, this research employs the bibliometric method with CiteSpace 5.8. R2 software to visualize and analyze 805 literature items retrieved from the SSCI database between 2002 and 2022. Results show, first, scholars from China, Spain, Italy have published the most articles, and Italian scholars have had the most influence. Second, Hong Kong Polytech University, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Jinan University have had significant influence on cultural heritage tourism research. Third, Annals of Tourism Research is the most cited journal in the field. Influenced by politics, culture, and technology, sustainable development and consumer behavior have become key topics in this field over the past 21 years. Fourth, tourist satisfaction, rural development, cultural heritage management are the key research frontiers. Fifth, in future, cultural heritage tourism should pay more attention to micro-level research, using quantitative methods to integrate museums, technology, and cultural heritage into consumer research. The results offer a deeper understanding of the development and evolution of the global cultural heritage tourism field from 2002 to 2022. At the same time, our findings have provided a new perspective and direction for future research on global cultural heritage tourism among scholars.

Introduction

Cultural heritage is shared wealth with outstanding universal value, the precious wealth left by human ancestors to future generations, and a non-renewable precious resource [ 1 ]. The year 2022 marks the 50th anniversary of the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, which UNESCO adopted in 1972 to protect, utilize, and inherit cultural heritage under the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, and to make positive contributions to the protection and restoration of the common heritage of all mankind. Cultural heritage is of two types: tangible and intangible. As of February 2022, there are 897 cultural heritage sites in 167 countries on five continents. As countries around the world pay more and more attention to cultural heritage, cultural heritage protection in connection with tourism development has become a new area of concern for scholars all over the world. The year 2002 saw the publication of the first study in the field of cultural heritage tourism [ 2 ]. At this point, a review of the research on cultural heritage tourism published over the past 21 years will help us to understand and grasp the overall trends in global cultural heritage tourism development.

Cultural heritage embodies the wisdom and crystallization of human development, carrying the genes and bloodline of human civilization, which need to be protected, displayed, and disseminated for their cultural value. From a fundamental perspective, cultural heritage tourism is a form of tourism that transforms historic and cultural assets into commodities in order to attract tourists [ 3 ]. Since 1970, European and American countries have continuously innovated cultural heritage tourism activity models, promoting it as a popular mode of tourism, while also driving research into cultural heritage tourism [ 4 , 5 ]. As one of the most vital topics in cultural heritage research, cultural heritage tourism has gradually diversified from the perspective of studying visitors and local residents of heritage sites [ 6 , 7 ]. Moreover, from a research methods standpoint, qualitative and quantitative methodologies coexist [ 8 , 9 ] and have progressed towards incorporating mixed research methods as a new trend [ 10 ]. In addition, cultural heritage tourism practice mainly includes two aspects: dynamic protection of cultural heritage [ 11 ] and tourism development [ 12 ]. Although current research provides useful guidance for informing cultural heritage tourism development and preservation, there is still a lack of an overall review of current cultural heritage tourism related research. Nevertheless, scholars have suggested that analyzing and reviewing existing literature can provide insights into the hotspots and trends within a research field. This not only serves as a reference for related studies [ 13 ], but also provides guidance for practical applications [ 14 ]. It can be seen that conducting a comprehensive review of cultural heritage tourism is of great importance.

With the growing number of studies and expanding research areas in cultural heritage tourism, existing literature reviews on this topic face difficulties in objectively and comprehensively reflecting the trends and shifts in research focus. Therefore, this study used the CiteSpace 5.8.R2 visual analysis software. It can be used to visualize knowledge structure, research hotspots, and the evolution of research topics, thereby helping researchers to obtain an overview of a field, find its classic literature, explore its research frontiers, and explain the evolution of its trends [ 15 ]. Through comparing with similar studies by other scholars, we found that most of the research on this topic focuses on the following questions [ 13 , 16 , 17 ].: (1) which literature has been groundbreaking and landmark, (2) which literature has played a key role in the advancement of the field, (3) which themes are dominant in the entire research area, and (4) what is the knowledge base of the field and how has the forefront of research evolved. Therefore, to better address these four key areas of literature review, this study obtained data on the literature related to cultural heritage tourism from 2002 to 2022 from the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) database. The data was then subjected to visual analysis using CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software, which enabled the objective review of a field's knowledge structure, research status, and trends by drawing knowledge maps. This study is committed to achieving the following four research objectives in order to address the aforementioned issues: (1) to establish the number of representative publications on cultural heritage tourism; (2) to explain the distribution and co-citation of authors and research institutions; (3) to identify current research hotspots in the field of cultural heritage tourism and trace their evolution from 2002 to 2022; and (4) to determine the frontiers and trends of cultural heritage tourism research. The results reveal future research prospects for cultural heritage tourism and will provide a reference for the construction of a theoretical system in the field of cultural heritage tourism [ 18 ].

Current state of research

Cultural heritage tourism relies on the unique historical architecture, religious beliefs, traditional cuisine and other cultural characteristics of the destination to attract tourists for sightseeing and experience. It has become one of the fastest-growing and most ideal forms of modern tourism. Meanwhile, cultural heritage tourism has gradually become an interdisciplinary field of psychology, economics, management, etc. [ 19 , 20 , 21 ], demonstrating a good academic ecology of mutual integration and development. Current research in cultural heritage tourism mainly revolves around research perspectives, methods, and cultural heritage preservation and tourism development.

Cultural heritage tourism research perspectives

From the perspective of researching cultural heritage tourism, it can generally be divided into two views: that of tourists and that of residents of the heritage sites. On one hand, tourists are the participants of tourism activities and have always been a focus of research in academia. As DallenJ explained the four forms of heritage experience and proposed personalized heritage tourism for tourists with great potential in future [ 22 ]. Meanwhile, Yaniv et al. challenged the notion that heritage tourism is only represented by visitors to heritage sites, pointing out the necessity to pay attention to the perception of tourists and conduct studies on their behavior [ 6 ]. On the other hand, the positive actions of residents living in heritage areas contribute to the sustainable development of cultural heritage tourism [ 7 ]. The perception of tourists impact on residents plays an important mediating role in shaping community attachment, environmental attitudes, and supporting economic benefits from tourism development [ 23 ].

Research methods of cultural heritage tourism

From the perspective of research methods in cultural heritage tourism, the measurement methods and models used vary depending on the researcher's perspective. Existing literature on cultural heritage tourism-related research methods can generally be divided into quantitative research methods, qualitative research methods, and mixed research methods. Firstly, quantitative research methods play an important role in current cultural heritage tourism-related research. Existing studies have used research methods such as SEM [ 24 , 25 ], cluster analysis [ 26 ], experimental method [ 27 ], meta-analysis, etc. to conduct a large amount of research on cultural heritage tourism. Secondly, with the interdisciplinary integration, qualitative research methods have also been introduced into the field of cultural heritage tourism research. Qualitative research methods such as textual analysis [ 9 ], case study [ 28 , 29 ], grounded theory analysis [ 8 ], QCA research method [ 30 ], etc. have conducted in-depth analysis of the field of cultural heritage tourism. In addition, to promote further in-depth research on cultural heritage tourism, mixed research methods have gradually become a hot topic of concern for scholars. For example, Rasoolimanesh et al. adopted a mixed research method combining PLS-SEM and fsQCA to conduct in-depth analysis of cultural heritage tourism driving behavior intention [ 10 ].

Research on cultural heritage protection and tourism development

With the attention paid to cultural heritage, its economic value, cultural value and social value have been widely paid attention to, which also makes cultural heritage protection and tourism development research become the current research focus. On the one hand, live protection of cultural heritage. Antonio et al. took Venice, a water city in Italy, as the research object and, relying on the vicious cycle model of tourism development, pointed out that with the development of tourist destinations, emerging groups keen on hiking have a great impact on the weakening of the city's attraction [ 31 ]. However, van et al. took World heritage cities as research objects and pointed out that when costs exceed benefits, tourism development is no longer sustainable, so it is necessary to intervene [ 32 ]. In addition, Christina et al. proposed five levels of heritage protection and development through the analysis of stakeholders [ 11 ]. On the other hand, cultural heritage tourism development. By studying tourism development cases of cultural heritage, Esteban et al. pointed out the influence of community role on tourism development and concluded the mutual influence between community identity and tourism [ 12 ]. At the same time, Arwel and Joan et al. discussed the tourism potential of the mining area, proposed that it should be included in the category of heritage tourism, and actively participated in the development of industrial heritage tourism sites [ 33 ]. Antonio et al. pointed out through empirical analysis that the basis for effective development of tourist destinations is whether tourism products can hit the softest places in tourists' hearts and whether they have internal accessibility [ 34 ].

Materials and methods

This section explains the selection of the research tools, analysis of the data sources, and main research methods used in this study.

Selection of research tools

This study used the CiteSpace 5.8.R2 visual analysis software developed by the team of Professor Chen Chaomei of Drexel University. The software, which was developed by drawing on scientometrics and knowledge visualization, is capable of processing large amounts of scientific literature data objectively [ 35 , 36 , 37 ]. To date, CiteSpace has been used by users in more than 100 countries and regions around the world, and has published more than 28,000 related academic papers. Researchers can use the CiteSpace software to perform co-citation analysis, co-occurrence analysis, cluster analysis, and keywords burst analysis for scientific research purposes [ 37 ]. In addition, it can be used to visualize knowledge structure, research hotspots, and the evolution of research topics, thereby helping researchers to obtain an overview of a field, find its classic literature, explore its research frontiers, and explain the evolution of its trends [ 37 ].

Analysis of data sources

Table 1 summarizes the data collection procedure for this study. The data were retrieved from the Web of Science SSCI on January 26, 2022. They cover all the relevant literature on cultural heritage tourism from January 1, 2002, to January 26, 2022. There were two main reasons for selecting the literature in SSCI as the data source: (1) SSCI’s authority as the most authoritative database in the field of global social sciences, and (2) SSCI’s extensiveness, with more than 3,200 papers from authoritative academic journals of in 56 disciplines in the field of social sciences. The year 2002 was chosen as the starting point for this study because the first academic paper in the field of global cultural heritage tourism was published in SSCI in that year.

The retrieval criteria for this study were based on subject-word retrieval, with topic = “Cultural Heritage” + “Tourism”, and a total of 825 related items of literature were obtained. A total of 20 book reviews, conference proceedings, and editorial materials were excluded from the data, yielding a set of 805 papers as the research object (Additional file 1 and 2 ). To ensure the accuracy of the data, the titles and abstracts of all the articles were reviewed individually to confirm that the data met the requirements of the study. The article data were stored in plain text format (full records and cited references) for subsequent data analysis.

Main research methods

The bibliometric method was used to conduct scientific research cooperation analysis on the literature. This took the form of analysis of cooperation between publishing authors, publishing institutions, and countries (regions); co-citation analysis, including citation analysis of documents, authors, and journals; and cluster analysis of the literature and keywords.

Collaborative analysis focuses on how researchers work together to produce new scientific knowledge [ 38 ]. A bibliometric approach analyzes joint research in a research field in terms of collaborative networks among authors, institutions, and countries.

Co-citation analysis [ 39 ] involves comparing lists of citations in the SSCI and counting the entries to determine the co-citation frequency of two scientific papers. This generates a network of co-cited papers for specific scientific disciplines. Clusters of co-cited papers provide new ideas for the professional structure of research science and new methods for index and SDI configuration file creation.

Co-occurrence analysis quantifies information in various information carriers, and is generally used to reveal the hidden meaning of the co-occurrence of keywords and topics. Keyword co-occurrence analysis can clarify the structure of scientific knowledge and is an effective way to identify research hotspots and discover researchtrends [ 17 ].

Cluster analysis depends on clustering, the process of dividing a set of objects into groups. Each element in a cluster has a high degree of similarity, whereas the degree of difference between different clusters is high [ 35 ]. Professor Chen has pointed out that in CiteSpace, the cluster labels are all from the document where the citation is located, and the extraction is performed by extracting the title or abstract or keyword in the cited document [ 40 ].

This section considers three topics: (1) publishing volume analysis, to better understand the number of published articles; (2) collaboration analysis, to identify relationships among authors, academic institutions, and countries; and (3) co-citation analysis, to determine which scholars and academic journals are most influential.

Publishing volume analysis

To gain a preliminary understanding of the overall development trend in cultural heritage tourism from 2002 to 2022, we searched SSCI for cultural heritage tourism publications in the past 21 years. The search results are shown in Fig.  1 . The literature on global cultural heritage tourism shows that over the period the number of publications followed an upward trend with slight fluctuations. In 2002, only one article on cultural heritage tourism was published; it took the form of an empirical study of the willingness to protect and develop cultural heritage sites in western Kenya, with an exploration of how to develop and plan cultural heritage tourism [ 41 ]. Subsequent international cultural heritage tourism research can be divided into three phases. The first phase, from 2002 to 2007, is one of slow growth. Although the number of published papers was relatively low, with four papers or fewer each year, the overall trend was on the rise. Reflecting the fact that global cultural heritage tourism research was still in its infancy at this stage, only scholars in a small number of countries with substantial cultural heritage carried out research. The second stage, from 2008 to 2016, was one of stable growth. The number of articles published continued to increase, indicating that researchers around the world were beginning to realize the importance of developing cultural heritage tourism for economic growth and cultural protection, and beginning to get involved in cultural heritage tourism research. The third stage, from 2014 to 2022, was one of rapid growth, with 173 research papers published in 2021 alone. This indicates that cultural heritage tourism is receiving the attention of global researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds and different perspectives.

Annual distribution of cultural heritage tourism research publications from 2002 to 2022

Cooperation analysis

Authors and author collaboration.

The number of papers published by an author in a research field reflects that author’s core position in the field. The co-occurrence of the co-authors of a paper reflects the strength of their cooperation in the research field. By selecting the node type column of the CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software, the time period 2002–2022, and the “go” cluster, we obtained a map of collaborations between authors. Taking into account the overall publication volume of cultural heritage tourism, according to Price’s law, the core authors in the field of cultural heritage tourism should have at least the number of publications. The calculation formula is as follows:

where N1 is the minimum number of papers that the core author should publish, and Nmax is the number of papers published by the author with the most papers in this research field [ 42 ]. According to the search, the author with the largest number of papers in the field of cultural heritage tourism is Zhang Mu, with a total of seven papers (N1 = 0.749*(7)1/2 = 1.982), and the number of publications by the core authors in cultural heritage tourism is two or more. A total of 51 authors published two or more papers, yielding 122 papers and accounting for 16.05% of the papers published in the field of cultural heritage tourism. Comparison with the core author group, which should account for 50% of the total published papers in the research field, indicates that there is still a big gap. Thus, the results show that global cultural heritage tourism research has begun to take shape but that a stable core author group has not yet formed.

The most authors have conducted academic research independently and have weak cooperative relationships. Nevertheless, small cooperative groups can be identified. For example, Zhang Mu has cooperated with Rob Law on a number of articles (including “Using Content Analysis to Probe the Cognitive Image of Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism: An Exploration of Chinese Social Media”; “From Religious Belief to Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism: A Case Study of Mazu Belief”; “Resident-Tourist Value Co-Creation in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism Context: The Role of Residents’ Perception of Tourism Development and Emotional Solidarity”; and “Sustainability of Heritage Tourism: A Structural Perspective from Cultural Identity and Consumption Intention”), which indicates a relatively close partnership [ 42 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. The relationship between authors in such cases is usually a teacher–student relationship, but may also be a relationship of belonging to the same institution.

The greater the betweenness centrality of a node in the network, the greater the role it plays in communication among other nodes [ 47 ]. In Table 2 , the centrality of each author in the field of cultural heritage tourism is 0. This confirms that the cooperation between authors in the field of cultural heritage tourism is low and needs to be strengthened [ 48 ].

Issuing organizations

A comprehensive grasp of which institutions are involved in cultural heritage tourism research helps to clarify the general situation of cultural heritage tourism research and international cooperation between institutions. Therefore, this study carried out an institution-based search in CiteSpace 5.8.R2. Taking the institution as the network node, 369 nodes were generated, representing 369 core research institutions in the field of cultural heritage tourism research. These core research institutions feature in many core collaborative networks (Table 3 ).

From 2002 to 2022, the research field of cultural heritage tourism involved 369 major researchinstitutions. Of these institutions, 11 published five or more papers, accounting for 10.68%of the total number of papers published. Hong Kong Polytech University published the largestnumber of papers (1.86% of the total), followed by University of Cordoba, the Chinese Acadmy of Sciences, Kyung Hee University, and University of Extremadura. Three institutions, Hon Kong Polytech University, Jinan University, and Australian National University, had the strongest centrality (0.01), indicating that they have a strong influence in the field of cultural heritage tourism research. Sun Yat Sen University and Griffith University have also published many papers.

Countries and regions

To understand the cooperation between countries and the influence of countries in the field of cultural heritage tourism, this study used the country option through the node type of CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software to obtain the national cooperation map from 2002 to 2022. Using the social network analysis function of CiteSpace software, we explored the social network relationships of different countries and regions, which directly reflects the cooperation between them, and on that basis we identified differences in their degree of influence [ 49 ].

The cluster map reflects structural features, highlighting key nodes and important connections. Each node in the network diagram represents a country (or region), and the connecting line represents the cooperation between two countries; the thicker the line, the closer the cooperation. The size of the annual ring indicates the number of publications; the larger the annual ring, the more publications. The graph generated 84 nodes and 264 connecting lines, indicating that from 2002 to 2022 the authors who published literature related to cultural heritage tourism came from 84 countries. The network density cooperation of different countries on cultural heritage tourism is 0.0757. China is the country that has published the most research papers in the field of cultural heritage (125), accounting for 16.45% of the total number of documents, more than any other country. Spain, Italy, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia follow, accounting for 12.50%, 11.84%, 10.00%, 8.68%, and 7.11%, respectively. Centrality refers to the importance of a node in a network (Table 4 ); the higher the correlation between each node, the higher its centrality and the more important the node is in the field. The centrality values for Italy and the United States are 0.34 and 0.26, respectively, indicating that Italy and the United States have had more cooperation with other countries in the field of cultural heritage tourism. Although China had a higher number of papers, its centrality was lower (0.07), which suggests that its cooperation with other countries in cultural heritage tourism research has been relatively weak.

Co-citation analysis

To understand author and journal status systematically, we selected the “cited author” and “cited journal” options in the node type column of CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software and set the time to 2002–2022. We thus obtained the network graphs of cited authors and academic journals summarized in Tables 5 and 6 . Through analysis of journal co-citations, a knowledge base of a research field can be obtained.

The three most cited authors are UNESCO (cited 129 times), E. Cohen (cited 90 times),andRICHARDS G(cited 87 times). The most cited journal is Annals of Tourism Research, with 441 citations and impact factors for 2018, 2019, and 2020 of 5.493, 5.908, and 9.011, respectively. Tourism Management, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Sustainability, and Journal of Travel Research follow, with 433, 202, 191, and 169 citations, respectively. The specific rankings of different influential authors and journals are given in Tables 5 and 6 .

Keyword co-occurrence analysis

As Professor Chen has pointed out, analyzing keywords is the most suitable means to identify the evolution of this research field and related research hotspots and fronts [ 35 ]. In the following analysis, keywords are analyzed using CiteSpace 5.8.R2 to generate keyword co-occurrence maps, time zone maps, and cluster maps.

Co-occurrence analysis of high-frequency keywords can reveal research hotspots in the field of cultural heritage tourism [ 50 ]. Figure  2 gives the keyword co-occurrence map of cultural heritage tourism research keywords from 2002 to 2022, obtained by merging overlapping keywords while removing search terms. The five most frequent keywords with high centrality are authenticity (frequency = 90, centrality = 0.15), attitude (frequency = 28, centrality = 0.13), conservation (frequency = 57, centrality = 0.08), identity (frequency = 36, centrality = 0.08), and China (frequency = 46, centrality = 0.05). By applying criteria based on frequency and betweenness centrality [ 51 ], five research hotspots were extracted: authenticity, attitude, identity, conservation, and China. The following subsections consider these five hotspots in relation to articles by key scholars around the world.

Co-occurrence map of keywords in cultural heritage tourism research

Authenticity

Authenticity is recognized by a wide range of research scholars as a universal value that drives people to leave familiar regions and travel to far-flung places [ 52 ]. Authenticity research is essential for tourism in general and for heritage tourism in particular [ 53 , 54 ]. The premise of protection is the maintenance of the authenticity of cultural heritage, which means avoiding overemphasis on economic value [ 55 ]. At present, the research hotspots of authenticity in the field of cultural heritage tourism focus on the following two aspects: what authenticity is [ 56 , 57 , 58 ], that is, the basic concept of authenticity, and what effect the authenticity of cultural heritage has on cultural heritage tourism [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ] that is, whether authenticity can promote cultural heritage tourism. Authenticity is a concept that does not appear in UNESCO’s intangible cultural heritage (ICH) discourse, but is emphasized in the official Chinese ICH discourse [ 63 ]. Since authenticity is a complex concept, it has different manifestations [ 64 ], and the inability of heritage managers to adopt a holistic approach to shaping the meaning of authenticity has resulted in inadequate definitions of the concept [ 56 ]. In recent years, some scholars have tried to establish an inclusive and comprehensive concept of authenticity, focusing on the perspective of tourists and on the materiality and immateriality of cultural heritage [ 65 , 66 ]. Other scholars have considered authenticity in terms of subjectivity and objectivity. For example, Junjie Su proposed through empirical research that heritage practitioners describe the ability to create substantial object-related value through subjective authenticity. This approach illustrates how subjective authenticity can overcome the inappropriateness of materialism or objective authenticity [ 57 ]. In terms of the impact of authenticity on heritage tourism, most scholars focus on the psychological perception or behavior of consumers, such as satisfaction, engagement [ 59 ], and perceived value [ 62 ]. In exploring the relationship between authenticity and consumer psychology or behavioral intention, the empirical results show that authenticity has a significant impact on consumers’ psychological perceptions.

Attitude is the psychological perceptions of consumers under the combined action of various internal and external factors such as tourism product quality or the tourism environment, and is an important predictor of behavior. In the field of cultural heritage attitude, the focus of research has been on the effect of individual characteristics on cultural heritage tourism and how to enhance consumer tourism attitudes. Kastenholz et al. identified three categories of outcomes with multiple behavioral attitudes that affect sustainability: in their study, one group showed a greater focus on the environment and cultural heritage, a second group showed the most sustainable behaviors overall, while a third group reported less sustainable behaviors globally [ 67 ]. Some scholars have carried out research from the perspective of residents of cultural heritage tourism destinations, for example by adopting a normative framework of values and beliefs to measure the intentions of Carthaginians to support sustainable cultural heritage tourism [ 68 , 69 ]. In addition, scholars conducting empirical research on the internal and external factors that affect consumers’ tourism attitudes have concluded that perception control, tourism experience, and cultural tourism participation can strengthen tourists’ attitudes to cultural heritage tourism [ 25 ]. Attitude is an important issue for both tourists and residents of heritage sites. The question of how to enhance the attitude of tourists in cultural heritage sites while also strengthening the attachment of the residents to the cultural heritage of their hometown is fundamental to the ongoing protection of cultural heritage [ 70 ].

Conservation

Since the formulation and adoption of the World Heritage Convention in 1972, the protection of cultural heritage has attracted worldwide attention. Cultural heritage conservation can determine the cultural connotation of tourism to a certain extent, and it constitutes the internal demand for the development of in-depth tourism. Given the special role of fragile and non-renewable cultural heritage in modern tourism, there are particular issues facing the protection of cultural heritage [ 71 ]. Since cultural heritage is the vehicle for a deep integration of culture and tourism [ 70 ], it should be afforded special protection.

Current research hotspots can be divided into two categories, the first of which focuses on macro-level cultural heritage protection planning and measures. Snowball and Courtney have argued that protecting cultural heritage is a challenge for developing countries, more and more of which are linking small sites of mainly local significance into a heritage route and selling them as a package. However, this may actually have non-market value in protecting cultural capital, which will not only fail to generate economic value in the short term but may also endanger the sustainability of cultural heritage protection [ 72 ]. In this connection, scholars have taken the Saida Cultural Heritage and Urban Development (CHUD) project in Lebanon as a case study for analyzing the role of the tourism pathway approach in achieving sustainable urban development in historic areas [ 73 ]. The focus of the second category is the construction of cultural heritage evaluation indicators. Against the background of sustainable development, some scholars have drawn on culture-led regeneration projects to propose an evaluation index system capable of assessing the multidimensional benefits of cultural landscape conservation or appreciation, with a focus on the relationship between the tourism sector and climate change [ 74 ]. Other scholars have assessed cultural heritage risks. For example, in view of the risks to cultural and natural heritage, a landscape risk assessment (LRA) model and landscape decision support system (LDSS) have been developed through the MedScapes-ENPI project [ 75 ].

Identity is a research hotspot in the field of cultural heritage because identity can enhance the cultural confidence of heritage residents in cultural heritage, maintain cultural heritage, and promote local social and economic development while enhancing people’s national pride [ 51 ]. This hotspot emphasizes that in the development of cultural heritage tourism, tourists and local residents reach a common cognitive basis for cultural heritage through cultural identity, which guides tourists to consume and promotes national brand building [ 76 ]. For example, to encourage the continuous development of cultural heritage tourism [ 46 ] and to facilitate the formation of identity, Carnegie suggests reenacting cultural historical events [ 77 ]. In recounting the past and present of cultural heritage, it is helpful for the cultural heritage industry and tourists to understand the issues of authenticity and identity in the production and consumption of postmodern cultural heritage attractions [ 77 ]. In addition, Tian found that shaping the identity of tourists to Celadon Town, a classic scenic spot of ICH in Zhejiang Province, China, improved tourist satisfaction and loyalty to the destination [ 78 ].

Since China signed the World Heritage Convention in 1985, its contribution to world heritage has developed rapidly. As of July 25, 2021, the total number of world heritage sites in China had increased to 56, and the number of natural heritage sites had increased to 14. In terms of natural heritage sites, China ranks first in the world, making it a veritable center of heritage. As a result, the types of cultural heritage tourism found in China are diverse [ 79 ], providing research objects for cultural heritage research in different fields. The focus of studies on China has been to seek innovative means of developing high-quality cultural heritage tourism and of leading the development of global cultural heritage tourism [ 80 ]. Wang noted that tourism heritage has been destroyed during urban reconstruction in China [ 81 ], creating an urgent need to identify key stakeholders capable of meeting the responsibility to protect [ 81 ]. However, Yan and Bramwell argued that each country is in a unique position to determine how its cultural heritage should be used for tourism. It follows that, in response to the increasingly tense and unstable relationship between the traditional cultural activities of tourist sites and Chinese society, the Chinese government should streamline administration and delegate power in order to protect the cultural heritage [ 82 ].

Keyword time zone analysis

The time zone map generated by CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software shows the evolution of research hotspots over time. As shown in Fig.  3 , this study divides the evolutionary process of cultural heritage tourism research into three stages, each of which is discussed in conjunction with representative articles and key events of the time.

Time zone perspective of cultural heritage tourism research, 2002 to 2022

First stage (2002–2007)

Cultural Heritage Protection. As Fig.  3 shows, the high-frequency keywords related to the first stage include cultural heritage tourism, sustainable, conflict, authenticity, and China. This indicates that the most obvious features of cultural heritage tourism in this period are cultural heritage protection and sustainable development, an outcome that is jointly determined by a number of factors. First, in 1992, the World Heritage Headquarters was established in Paris to be responsible for the coordination of world heritage-related activities, ensuring the implementation of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and taking urgent action on threatened heritage. Then, on October 17, 2003, the 32nd General Conference of UNESCO adopted the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. In the wake of these developments, more and more researchers began to pay attention to the field of cultural heritage [ 51 ], and this marked a new stage in the protection of human cultural heritage. In 2002, the 16th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (16th NCCPC), adopted continuous enhancement of the capacity for sustainable development as part of the overall goal of building a moderately prosperous society in China. Since 2006, the Chinese government has designated the second Saturday of every June as Cultural Heritage Day. In this context, Chinese academia has finally reached a consensus on cultural heritage and sustainable development. Cultural heritage and the natural environment on which it depends are the concentrated carriers of the cultural essence of all ethnic groups in the world, the precious wealth left to people by human ancestors, and a non-renewable precious resource. The development and utilization of cultural heritage by human beings should proceed under the premise of maintaining the authenticity and integrity of that heritage. In order not to damage the ecological balance and sustainable development capacity of the natural system, we must adhere to the path of sustainable development of cultural heritage [ 83 ].

Second stage (2008–2013)

Comprehensive Development of Cultural Heritage. As Fig.  3 shows, the related high-frequency keywords in the second stage include management, ecosystem, policy, landscape, community archaeology, agriculture, climate change, and tourism development. This indicates that the comprehensive development of cultural heritage and tourism industry emerged during the second stage. The present study offers two possible explanations for this emergence. On the one hand, with the development of social economy, environmental problems are becoming more serious, the tide of global warming is surging, and environmental problems are prominent on a global scale. In order to address environmental problems and promote the harmonious coexistence of man and nature, researchers began to explore green development models and paid more and more attention to cultural heritage, especially the economic, social, and ecological value and unity of cultural heritage in agriculture [ 84 ]. At the same time, there were attempts to link ecological structure and function with cultural values and interests through cultural ecosystem services, thereby facilitating communication between scientists and stakeholders [ 85 ]. On the other hand, steps were being taken to use archaeological knowledge to improve people’s attitudes to cultural heritage, to mobilize relevant individuals and groups to protect and preserve the cultural heritage of all mankind, and to understand the value of the past in order to avoid the tragic loss caused by the destruction of cultural heritage resources. As a result, more and more researchers became involved in community archaeology research [ 85 , 86 ] As a new practice of archaeology and a new way of managing cultural heritage, the concept remained original, unbalanced, and pluralistic [ 87 ].

Third stage (2014–Present)

Consumer Behavior in Cultural Heritage Tourism. Figure  3 shows that the high-frequency keywords related to the third stage include behavior, perception value, customer satisfaction, motivation, consumption, place attachment, involvement, and consumer-based model. This reflects the fact that consumer behavior has become the most popular research in the field of cultural heritage tourism, followed by customer satisfaction [ 88 ], perception value [ 89 , 90 ], place attachment [ 91 ], consumer perceived trust [ 92 ], and other psychological perspectives. It is precisely because of the interdisciplinary integration of psychology and management that widespread use has been made of consumer behavior as a perspective on business and tourism research, and that it has also become an important factor in the field of cultural heritage tourism research.

Keyword cluster analysis

Using CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software, the keywords were clustered and divided into topics. Through the CiteSpace clustering function, using keywords to extract information and using the logarithm likelihood ratio statistic (LLR) as the calculation method, 13 valid clustering labels were obtained (Silhouette > 0.5). After removing clusters with the same words as subject headings and a small number of articles, the first five clusters were selected for analysis. The results, which are shown in Fig.  4 and Table 7 , include #0 Tourist satisfaction, #2 Rural development, #3 Cultural heritage management, #5 Stakeholders, and #8 China. The size of each cluster is determined by the number of articles it contains. To better interpret the clustering results, data have been selected at random as examples for each cluster.

Keyword clustering map in cultural heritage tourism research. Note: Q = 0.4552 (> 0.3) indicates that the cluster map is significant. The value of Silhouette = 0.722 (> 0.7) reflects that the results are credible

#0 Tourist satisfaction. As shown in Fig.  4 and Table 7 , tourism satisfaction has attracted the attention of scholars since 2016. Research on tourism satisfaction has focused on the application of empirical analysis methods. For example, in order to explore whether tourism commercialization can have a positive impact on tourists’ perceptions of authenticity and satisfaction in the context of cultural heritage tourism, Zhang et al. used partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to conduct empirical analysis on 618 valid questionnaires collected to explore the relationship between variables [ 93 ]. To clarify the links between local community participation (LCP), authenticity, access to local products, destination image, tourist satisfaction and tourist loyalty, Jebbouri et al. conducted a survey of 406 respondents who visited Kaiping City, Guangdong Province, China, and tested their hypotheses empirically tested using moment structural analysis [ 94 ].

#2 Rural development. Research on rural development has focused on protection practices in relation to agricultural cultural heritage [ 95 ]. Some scholars have conducted case studies on the impact of cultural heritage on rural development. For example, Egusquiza et al. summarized the results of an analysis of data collected in 20 case studies to develop a multilevel database of best practices for extension in rural areas with common characteristics [ 96 ]. Meanwhile, Sardaro et al. conducted a case study on a collaborative approach to conservation of the most representative historic rural building types in Apulia, southern Italy, to identify successful conservation and management strategies [ 97 ]. Rautio investigated ethnic minority villages in Southwest China that have recently experienced a dramatic increase in cultural heritage. He argued that with the development of China’s new rural development policy and tourism, villages are being transformed into heritage sites that can protect the beauty of the countryside and the nation [ 98 ].

#3 Cultural heritage management. As Fig.  4 and Table 7 show, the theme of cultural heritage management has attracted the attention of scholars since 2016, and has become an important focus of academic research. Some scholars have concluded that a hybrid approach that unifies the fields of heritage management and sustainable tourism can realize the social value of heritage and sustainable tourism [ 99 ]. However, issues of low quality and vaguely defined management of cultural heritage sites persist. In this connection, Carbone et al. explored cultural heritage managers’ perceptions of quality and used a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to identify four types of cultural heritage managers: reactive, silent, pragmatic, and enthusiastic [ 100 ].

#5 Stakeholders. As Fig.  4 and Table 7 show, the topic of stakeholders has attracted the attention of scholars since 2015. Research on stakeholders has focused on the relationship between people and cultural heritage. For example,Manyane drew on stakeholder theory and sustainability thinking to argue that rethinking the increasingly complex nature of borders and cultural heritage can enrich the supply of eco-culture based on a better understanding of cross-border rural tourism opportunities [ 101 ]. Ji et al. focused on the Grand Canal, which was designated as a World Heritage Site in 2014, applying stakeholder theory to explore how residents and non-residents may have different perceptions of the value and meaning of cultural heritage [ 102 ].

#8 China. As Fig.  4 and Table 7 show, China has become an important research object of cultural heritage tourism research. This is in line with the results of the keyword co-occurrence analysis, and reflects China’s vast and rich historical and cultural heritage [ 103 ]. In recent years, with the improvement of China’s comprehensive strength, the Chinese government has paid more attention to the ongoing protection, development, and utilization of cultural heritage. Cultural heritage protection sites have been established, providing a wide range of research objects for researchers in the field. At the same time, with the rapid development of China’s economy, now the second-largest in the world, the per capita income of Chinese residents has increased significantly, providing more potential customer groups for cultural heritage tourism [ 104 ]. With this rapid development of tourism resources and the tourism economy, the contradiction between economic growth and cultural heritage has become increasingly prominent [ 81 ]. Accordingly, exploring how to maintain China’s economic growth while protecting its cultural heritage is the mainstream of current research.

Trends in cultural heritage tourism research

In CiteSpace, emerging words are keywords that increase rapidly in a given period of time. Research fronts are concepts and research directions that are constantly emerging and that represent frontier issues in the research field. Therefore, in the present study, mutation analysis of cultural heritage tourism keywords is an important indicator of the research frontier of a topic. In general, emerging keywords represent dynamic new directions in cultural heritage tourism research. In order to capture objectively the latest research frontier characteristics of cultural heritage tourism, we used the CiteSpace 5.8.R2 software settings for “keyword” to “node types”. The resulting knowledge map of keyword mutation rates identifies mutated words that began to appear from 2002 to 2022, generating a total of six knowledge maps of cultural heritage tourism keyword sequences. As Fig.  5 shows, these are cultural tourism, tourism development, heritage, museum, technology, and satisfaction.

Top 6 emerging keywords in cultural heritage tourism research, 2002 to 2020

In the field of cultural heritage tourism research, cultural tourism, heritage tourism, and tourism development have long been a focus. Understanding how to promote the experience of local culture in cultural heritage tourism is an important prerequisite for ensuring the long-term healthy development of cultural heritage tourism. In this connection, Chang et al. considered the natural tourist attractions, unique cultural performances, and diverse heritage goods that diverse indigenous communities offer. They applied a model of creative destruction to explore the impact of these developments on the Ainu community in Hokkaido, Japan [ 105 ].

The keywords of cultural heritage tourism changed abruptly in 2016. Museum, technology, and satisfaction became the latest keywords in cultural heritage tourism research. These keywords characterize the cutting-edge research of cultural heritage tourism, which indicates that scholars have been focusing on the impact of museum tourism, technology tourism, and consumer satisfaction on cultural heritage tourism. It also shows that with advances in science and technology, virtual reality technology has received more attention in the field of cultural heritage tourism [ 106 , 107 , 108 ]. Meanwhile, Dominguez-Quintero confirmed the direct and indirect effects of variable authenticity on satisfaction in its dual perspectives (objective and existential authenticity) in the context of cultural heritage tourism [ 61 ]. The present findings also shed light on the mediating role of quality of experience on authenticity and satisfaction.

Discussion and conclusion

In this study, the visual analysis software CiteSpace 5.8.R2 was used to carry out bibliometric analysis. Analysis of 805 papers on cultural heritage tourism research in the Web of Science SSCI from 2002 to 2022 yielded a visual network analysis graph that includes the distribution of published articles, the co-analysis of published authors, publishing institutions and countries, the co-citation analysis of published authors and published journals, keyword co-occurrence analysis, keyword time zone map analysis, keyword clustering graph analysis, and keyword emergence analysis. The conclusions can be grouped into four main themes.

First, in terms of the number of published papers, and according to the changes over time and in the number of publications, international cultural heritage tourism research from 2002 to 2022 falls into three stages: a slow growth stage (2002–2007), a stable growth stage (2008–2016), and a rapid growth stage (2017–2022). The overall trend is upward. This trend also indirectly proves the reliability of Zhang and Xu et al. 's views that cultural heritage tourism, as a typical practice of cultural and tourism integration, has attracted wide attention in recent years [ 109 , 110 ].

Second, in terms of cooperation analysis, there are several main researchers in cultural heritage tourism research; Zhang Mu [ 43 ], Timothy J Lee [ 111 ], LI XI [ 112 ], Jose Alvarez-Garcia [ 113 ], and Rob Law [ 7 ] have played an important role in research on international cultural heritage tourism, although no core network has yet formed. At the level of issuing institutions, a network of research institutions on cultural heritage tourism can be identified. These include Hong Kong Polytech University, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Jinan University, Sun Yat Sen University, and City University Macau, although no core research network has yet been formed. At the national level, research on cultural heritage tourism has attracted the attention of scholars from all over the world. China, Spain, Italy, the United States, and the United Kingdom have played an important role in the development of cultural heritage tourism research. Although Chinese scholars have published the largest number of papers in the world, their centrality is low. The centrality of Italian scholars, who have published the third-largest number of papers, ranks first in the world. This finding shows indirectly that Chinese scholars in the field of cultural heritage tourism should strengthen their international cooperation and improve their international influence [ 30 ].

Third, in terms of co-citation analysis, since 2002, papers of UNESCO have been cited 129 times, and papers by E Cohen have been cited 90 times. Annals of Tourism Research is the most cited journal, with 441 citations and impact factors of 5.493, 5.908, and 9.011 for the years 2018–2020, respectively. Tourism Management, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Sustainability, and Journal of Travel Research follow, with 433, 202, 191, and 169 citations respectively. The Research results indirectly indicate that the authors such as UNESCO and journals such as Annals of Tourism Research have made important contributions to the study of rich cultural heritage tourism.

Fourth, in terms of research hotspots, as with most research hotspots, the evolution of cultural heritage tourism research is mainly influenced by politics, culture, ecology and technology. However, this study argues that the question of how to achieve sustainable development has been the central concern of cultural heritage tourism in the past, which can be attributed to the non-renewable nature of cultural heritage. Furthermore, this research result further supports the notion that achieving sustainable development goals is an essential task in tourism studies [ 114 ]. It requires striking a balance between the economic, environmental, and social needs of all stakeholders involved [ 115 ]. In addition, the consumer behavior of cultural heritage tourism is an issue that needs to be further explored in the context of interdisciplinary integration [ 116 ]. Whether it is possible for heritage residents [ 24 ] or tourists [ 117 ] to accept the development and utilization of cultural heritage, and whether they can preserve local culture through cultural heritage tourism experience is an area that needs further in-depth research. A finding that is perhaps surprising is that tourist satisfaction is at the forefront of cultural heritage tourism research [ 92 ]. One explanation is that with improvements in living standards, demand for cultural heritage tourism has gradually increased, which requires corresponding improvements in the provision of quality services within cultural heritage tourism. This echoes the conclusions of Atsbha et al. that heritage tourism should provide a reasonable level of visitor satisfaction and must ensure that it provides them with an important experience [ 53 ]. At the same time, this study finds that rural development [ 95 ], cultural heritage management [ 100 ], and stakeholders [ 102 ] are receiving more and more attention from scholars in the field of cultural heritage tourism. In particular, the countryside has a large amount of cultural heritage [ 118 ]. One focus of current research is how to realize the rational distribution of stakeholders’ resources through effective management methods that take into account the economic, social, cultural, and ecological value of cultural heritage to rural development [ 97 ]. China has more than 5,000 years of history and world-renowned cultural heritage [ 119 ]. How to combine China's economic development with cultural heritage protection is also the mainstream issue of current research [ 87 ]. Another research trend concerns museum tourism and science and technology tourism as new forms of cultural heritage tourism, which indicates that cultural heritage tourism has transformed from traditional tourism to in-depth tourism. At present, with the rapid progress of science and technology, the rise of virtual tourism will open new ideas for cultural heritage tourism [ 120 ]. How to improve tourist satisfaction in cultural heritage tourism is an important new trend in global cultural heritage tourism research; this study suggests that promoting museum tourism and technology tourism can give tourists a better tourism experience, thereby improving consumer satisfaction.

This study provides cultural heritage tourism researchers with a quantitative, bibliometric review of the cultural heritage tourism literature. The results offer a deeper understanding of the development and evolution of the global cultural heritage tourism field from 2002 to 2022. The conclusions are basically consistent with those of other scholars in this field. However, the novelty of this study is threefold: the finding that China is a research object with great research potential and research value; the identification of the deep integration of cultural heritage tourism and technology, as well as cultural heritage tourism and museums, as the main trend in the development of cultural heritage tourism development; and the clarification that consumer behavior will remain the focus of research in the field of cultural heritage tourism for a long time to come. This raises the question of how to enhance the identity and perceived value of heritage residents and tourists by improving the authenticity and sustainability of cultural heritage tourism. The answers lie in providing consumers with satisfying travel experiences, thereby guiding heritage tourism toward a balance of consumption and the protection of the heritage and heritage residents.

This is the first English-language study to analyze cultural heritage tourism systematically and comprehensively using the SSCI database and bibliometric analysis methods. The results provide insights into cultural heritage tourism, giving researchers valuable information and new perspectives on potential collaborators, hotspots, and future research directions. In addition, by emphasizing the importance of cultural heritage tourism as an issue of concern around the world, it provides a more comprehensive perspective from which scholars from all over the world can conduct research into cultural heritage tourism. Its findings can be used as a reference on an international scale, especially in developing countries with rich cultural heritage resources and large populations.

However, this study has some limitations that should be noted. Because the data are taken from the SSCI database, the results apply only to humanities and social sciences research and cannot be generalized to other disciplines, especially science, engineering, and ecology. Different disciplines have their own databases, and it is therefore recommended that further research be conducted to compare and analyze results across disciplines.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

UNESCO. UNESCO convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Int Leg Mater. 1972;11(6):1358–66.

Article   Google Scholar  

Russo AP. The “vicious circle” of tourism development in heritage cities. Ann Tourism Res. 2002;29(1):28–48.

Lee S, Phau I, Hughes M, Li YF, Quintal V. Heritage tourism in Singapore Chinatown: a perceived value approach to authenticity and satisfaction. J Travel Tour Mark. 2016;33(7):981–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2015.1075459 .

Ji F, Wang F, Wu B. How does virtual tourism involvement impact the social education effect of cultural heritage? J Destin Mark Manage. 2023;28:100779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2023.100779 .

Edwards JR. The UK heritage coasts: an assessment of the ecological impacts of tourism. Ann Tourism Res. 1987;14(1):71–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(87)90048-X .

Poria Y, Butler R, Airey D. The core of heritage tourism. Ann Tourism Res. 2003;30(1):238–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00064-6 .

Lan TN, Zheng ZY, Tian D, Zhang R, Law R, Zhang M. Resident-tourist value co-creation in the intangible cultural heritage tourism context: the role of residents’ perception of tourism development and emotional solidarity. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(3):1369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031369 .

Gu YQ. Evaluation of agricultural cultural heritage tourism resources based on grounded theory on example of ancient Torreya grandis in Kuaiji mountain. J Environ Prot Ecol. 2018;19(3):1193–9.

Google Scholar  

Gonzalez-Rodriguez MR, Diaz-Fernandez MC, Pino-Mejias MA. The impact of virtual reality technology on tourists’ experience: a textual data analysis. Soft Comput. 2020;24(18):13879–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-04883-y .

Rasoolimanesh SM, Seyfi S, Rather RA, Hall CM. Investigating the mediating role of visitor satisfaction in the relationship between memorable tourism experiences and behavioral intentions in heritage tourism context. Tour Rev. 2022;77(2):687–709. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-02-2021-0086 .

Aas C, Ladkin A, Fletcher J. Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Ann Tourism Res. 2005;32(1):28–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.04.005 .

Ruiz Ballesteros E, Hernández RM. Identity and community—reflections on the development of mining heritage tourism in Southern Spain. Tour Manage. 2007;28(3):677–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.03.001 .

Yang C, Liu T. Social media data in urban design and landscape research: a comprehensive literature review. Land. 2022;11(10):1796. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101796 .

Guo Y, Xu Z, Cai M, Gong W, Shen C. Epilepsy with suicide: a bibliometrics study and visualization analysis via citespace. Front Neurol. 2022;12:823474. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2021.823474 .

Chen C. CiteSpace: a practical guide for mapping scientific literature. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers; 2016.

Guan H, Huang T, Guo X. Knowledge mapping of tourist experience research: based on citespace analysis. SAGE Open. 2023;13(2):21582440231166844.

Su X, Li X, Kang Y. A bibliometric analysis of research on intangible cultural heritage using citespace. SAGE Open. 2019;9(2):2158244019840119. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019840119 .

Yang S, Zhang L, Wang L. Key factors of sustainable development of organization: bibliometric analysis of organizational citizenship behavior. Sustainability. 2023;15(10):8261. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108261 .

Zhang CX, Yang ZP. Coordinated development of cultural heritage protection and tourism development—take xinjiang as an example. Agro Food Industry Hi Tech. 2017;28(1):2851–4.

Dai TC, Zheng X, Yan J. Contradictory or aligned? The nexus between authenticity in heritage conservation and heritage tourism, and its impact on satisfaction. Habitat Int. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102307 .

Su R, Bramwell B, Whalley PA. Cultural political economy and urban heritage tourism. Ann Tourism Res. 2018;68:30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.11.004 .

Timothy DJ. Tourism and the personal heritage experience. Ann Tourism Res. 1997;24(3):751–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00006-6 .

Gannon M, Rasoolimanesh SM, Taheri B. Assessing the mediating role of residents’ perceptions toward tourism development. J Travel Res. 2021;60(1):149–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287519890926 .

Tian D, Wang QY, Law R, Zhang M. Influence of cultural identity on tourists’ authenticity perception, tourist satisfaction, and traveler loyalty. Sustainability-Basel. 2020;12(16):6344. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166344 .

Jaafar M, Noor SM, Rasoolimanesh SM. Perception of young local residents toward sustainable conservation programmes: a case study of the lenggong world cultural heritage site. Tour Manage. 2015;48:154–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.018 .

Errichiello L, Micera R, Atzeni M, Del Chiappa G. Exploring the implications of wearable virtual reality technology for museum visitors’ experience: a cluster analysis. Int J Tour Res. 2019;21(5):590–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2283 .

Ferretti V, Gandino E. Co-designing the solution space for rural regeneration in a new World Heritage site: a choice experiments approach. Eur J Oper Res. 2018;268(3):1077–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.10.003 .

Szromek AR, Herman K, Naramski M. Sustainable development of industrial heritage tourism—a case study of the industrial monuments route in Poland. Tour Manage. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104252 .

Arnaboldi M, Spiller N. Actor-network theory and stakeholder collaboration: the case of cultural districts. Tour Manage. 2011;32(3):641–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.016 .

Olya HG, Shahmirzdi EK, Alipour H. Pro-tourism and anti-tourism community groups at a world heritage site in Turkey. Curr Issues Tour. 2019;22(7):763–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1329281 .

Gonzalez J, Alonso DO. Sustainable development goals in the Andalusian olive oil cooperative sector: heritage, innovation, gender perspective and sustainability. New Medit. 2022;21(2):31–42. https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2202c .

Russo AP. The “vicious circle” of tourism development in heritage cities. Ann Tourism Res. 2002;29(1):165–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00029-9 .

van der Borg J, Costa P, Gotti G. Tourism in European heritage cities. Ann Tourism Res. 1996;23(2):306–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00065-8 .

Edwards JA, Coit JCL. Mines and quarries: industrial heritage tourism. Ann Tourism Res. 1996;23(2):341–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(95)00067-4 .

Russo AP, van der Borg J. Planning considerations for cultural tourism: a case study of four European cities. Tour Manage. 2002;23(6):631–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00027-4 .

Chen C. Mapping scientific frontiers: the quest for knowledge visualization. J Doc. 2003;59(3):364.

Chen CM. CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2006;57(3):359–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317 .

Li X, Li H. A visual analysis of research on information security risk by using citespace. Ieee Access. 2018;6:63243–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2873696 .

Katz JS, Martin BR. What is research collaboration? Res Policy. 1997;26(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1 .

Henry S. Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inform Sci. 1973;24(4):265–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406 .

Ondimu KI. Cultural tourism in Kenya. Ann Tourism Res. 2002;29(4):1036–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00024-5 .

Price DJ, Monaghan JJ. An energy-conserving formalism for adaptive gravitational force softening in SPH and N-body codes. Mon Not R Astron Soc. 2006;374(4):1347–58.

Qiu QH, Zhang M. Using content analysis to probe the cognitive image of intangible cultural heritage tourism: an exploration of Chinese social media. Isprs Int J Geo-Inf. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10040240 .

Yao D, Zhang K, Wang L, Law R, Zhang M. From religious belief to intangible cultural heritage tourism: a case study of Mazu belief. Sustainability-Basel. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104229 .

Yang J, Luo JM, Lai I. Construction of leisure consumer loyalty from cultural identity-a case of Cantonese opera. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(4):1980. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041980 .

Zhang GG, Chen XY, Law R, Zhang M. Sustainability of heritage tourism: a structural perspective from cultural identity and consumption intention. Sustainability-Basel. 2020;12(21):9199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219199 .

Song HQ, Chen PW, Zhang YX, Chen YC. Study progress of important agricultural heritage systems (IAHS): a literature analysis. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(19):10859. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910859 .

Freeman LC. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw. 1978;3(1):215–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7 .

Chen C, Dubin R, Kim MC. Emerging trends and new developments in regenerative medicine: a scientometric update (2000–2014). Expert Opin Biol Th. 2014;14(9):1295.

Adabre MA, Chan A, Darko A. A scientometric analysis of the housing affordability literature. J Hous Built Environ. 2021;36(4):1501–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09825-0 .

Dang Q, Luo ZM, Ouyang CH, Wang L, Xie M. Intangible cultural heritage in china: a visual analysis of research hotspots, frontiers, and trends using citespace. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(17):9865. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179865 .

Kolar T, Zabkar V. A consumer-based model of authenticity: an oxymoron or the foundation of cultural heritage marketing? Tour Manage. 2010;31(5):652–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.07.010 .

Apostolakis A. The convergence process in heritage tourism. Ann Tour Res. 2003;30(4):795–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00057-4 .

Yeoman I, Brass D, Mcmahon-Beattie U. Current issue in tourism: the authentic tourist. Tour Manage. 2007;28(4):1128–38.

Song J. Cultural production and productive safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Cult Herit. 2012;1:5–157.

Farrelly F, Kock F, Josiassen A. Cultural heritage authenticity: a producer view. Ann Tourism Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102770 .

Su JJ. Conceptualising the subjective authenticity of intangible cultural heritage. Int J Herit Stud. 2018;24(9):919–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1428662 .

Zhang Y, Lee TJ. Alienation and authenticity in intangible cultural heritage tourism production. Int J Tour Res. 2022;24(1):18–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2478 .

Shen SY, Guo JY, Wu YY. Investigating the structural relationships among authenticity, loyalty, involvement, and attitude toward world cultural heritage sites: an empirical study of Nanjing Xiaoling tomb. China Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2014;19(1):103–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2012.734522 .

Su JJ. A difficult integration of authenticity and intangible cultural heritage? The case of Yunnan, China. China Perspect. 2021;3:29–39.

Dominguez-Quintero AM, Gonzalez-Rodriguez MR, Paddison B. The mediating role of experience quality on authenticity and satisfaction in the context of cultural-heritage tourism. Curr Issues Tour. 2020;23(2):248–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1502261 .

Su X, Li X, Chen W, Zeng T. Subjective vitality, authenticity experience, and intangible cultural heritage tourism: an empirical study of the puppet show. J Travel Tour Mark. 2020;37(2):258–71.

Naqvi M, Jiang YS, Naqvi MH, Miao M, Liang CY, Mehmood S. The effect of cultural heritage tourism on tourist word of mouth: the case of Lok Versa Festival, Pakistan. Sustainability-Basel. 2018;10(7):2391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072391 .

Theodossopoulos D. Laying claim to authenticity: five anthropological dilemmas. Anthropol Quart. 2013;86(2):337–60. https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.2013.0032 .

Jones S, Yarrow T. Crafting authenticity: an ethnography of conservation practice. J Mat Cult. 2013;18(1):3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183512474383 .

Jones S, Jeffrey S, Maxwell M, Hale A, Jones C. 3D heritage visualisation and the negotiation of authenticity: the ACCORD project. Int J Herit Stud. 2018;24(4):333–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2017.1378905 .

Kastenholz E, Eusebio C, Carneiro MJ. Segmenting the rural tourist market by sustainable travel behaviour: insights from village visitors in Portugal. J Destin Mark Manage. 2018;10:132–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2018.09.001 .

Jeon MM, Kang M, Desmarais E. Residents’ perceived quality of life in a cultural-heritage tourism destination. Appl Res Qual Life. 2016;11(1):105–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-014-9357-8 .

Shen SY, Schuttemeyer A, Braun B. Visitors’ intention to visit world cultural heritage sites: an empirical study of Suzhou, China. J Travel Tour Mark. 2009;26(7):722–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548400903284610 .

Li XY. Advantages and Countermeasures of the Development of China's Food Tourism Industry. In X Chu (Ed.) proceedings of the 2017 4th international conference on education, management and computing technology (ICEMCT 2017). 4th International Conference on Education, Management and Computing Technology (ICEMCT). 2017; 101: pp. 1118–1122.

Guisande AM. Urban impact of cultural tourism. In R Amoeda, S Lira, C Pinheiro (Eds.), Heritage 2010: heritage and sustainable development, VOLS 1 AND 2. 2nd International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development. 2010; 1061–1069.

Snowball JD, Courtney S. Cultural heritage routes in South Africa: effective tools for heritage conservation and local economic development? Dev So Afr. 2010;27(4):563–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2010.508589 .

Al-Hagla KS. Sustainable urban development in historical areas using the tourist trail approach: a case study of the cultural heritage and urban development (CHUD) project in Saida, Lebanon. Cities. 2010;27(4):234–48.

Nocca F. The role of cultural heritage in sustainable development: multidimensional indicators as decision-making tool. Sustainability-Basel. 2017;9(10):1882. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101882 .

Trovato MG, Ali D, Nicolas J, El Halabi A, Meouche S. Landscape risk assessment model and decision support system for the protection of the natural and cultural heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean area. Land. 2017;6(4):76. https://doi.org/10.3390/land6040076 .

Nobre H, Sousa A. Cultural heritage and nation branding—multi stakeholder perspectives from Portugal. J Tour Cult Change. 2022;20(5):699–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2021.2025383 .

Carnegie E, Mccabe S. Re-enactment events and tourism: meaning, authenticity and identity. Curr Issues Tour. 2008;11(4):349–68. https://doi.org/10.2167/cit0323.0 .

Tian D, Wang Q, Law R, Zhang M. Influence of cultural identity on tourists’ authenticity perception, tourist satisfaction, and traveler loyalty. Sustainability-Basel. 2020;12(16):6344.

Zhang J, Tang WY, Shi CY, Liu ZH, Wang X. Chinese calligraphy and tourism: from cultural heritage to landscape symbol and media of the tourism industry. Curr Issues Tour. 2008;11(6):529–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500802475836 .

Crang M. Travelling ethics: valuing harmony, habitat and heritage while consuming people and places. Geoforum. 2015;67:194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.06.010 .

Wang RL, Liu G, Zhou JY, Wang JH. Identifying the critical stakeholders for the sustainable development of architectural heritage of tourism: from the perspective of China. Sustainability-Basel. 2019;11(6):1671. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061671 .

Yan H, Bramwell B. Cultural tourism, ceremony and the state in China. Ann Tourism Res. 2008;35(4):969–89.

Giliberto F, Labadi S. Harnessing cultural heritage for sustainable development: an analysis of three internationally funded projects in MENA Countries. Int J Herit Stud. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2021.1950026 .

Daugstad K, Rønningen K, et al. Agriculture as an upholder of cultural heritage? Conceptualizations and value judgements—A Norwegian perspective in international context. J Rural Stud. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.06.002 .

Chirikure S, Pwiti G. Community involvement in archaeology and cultural heritage management—an assessment from case studies in southern Africa and elsewhere. Curr Anthropol. 2008;49(3):467–85. https://doi.org/10.1086/588496 .

Mcgill D. The public’s archaeology: utilizing ethnographic methods to link public education with accountability in archaeological practice. J World Archaeol Congr. 2010;6(3):468–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-010-9151-7 .

Gheyle W, Dossche R, Bourgeois J, Stichelbaut B, Van Eetvelde V. Integrating archaeology and landscape analysis for the cultural heritage management of a world war I Militarised landscape: the German field defences in Antwerp. Landsc Res. 2014;39(5):502–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.754854 .

Chung N, Lee H, Kim JY, Koo C. The role of augmented reality for experience-influenced environments: the case of cultural heritage tourism in Korea. J Travel Res. 2018;57(5):627–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517708255 .

Verma A, Rajendran G. The effect of historical nostalgia on tourists’ destination loyalty intention: an empirical study of the world cultural heritage site—Mahabalipuram, India. Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2017;22(9):977–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2017.1357639 .

Dieck M, Jung TH. Value of augmented reality at cultural heritage sites: a stakeholder approach. J Destin Mark Manage. 2017;6(2):110–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.03.002 .

Buonincontri P, Marasco A, Ramkissoon H. Visitors’ experience, place attachment and sustainable behaviour at cultural heritage sites: a conceptual framework. Sustainability-Basel. 2017;9(7):1112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9071112 .

Taheri B, Gannon MJ, Kesgin M. Visitors’ perceived trust in sincere, authentic, and memorable heritage experiences. Serv Ind J. 2020;40(9–10):705–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2019.1642877 .

Zhang TH, Yin P, Peng YX. Effect of commercialization on tourists’ perceived authenticity and satisfaction in the cultural heritage tourism context: case study of Langzhong Ancient city. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(12):6847. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126847 .

Jebbouri A, Zhang HQ, Wang L, Bouchiba N. Exploring the relationship of image formation on tourist satisfaction and loyalty: evidence from China. Front Psychol. 2021;12:748534. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.748534 .

de Luca C, Lopez-Murcia J, Conticelli E, Santangelo A, Perello M, Tondelli S. Participatory process for regenerating rural areas through heritage-led plans: the RURITAGE community-based methodology. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(9):5212. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095212 .

Egusquiza A, Zubiaga M, Gandini A, de Luca C, Tondelli S. Systemic innovation areas for heritage-led rural regeneration: a multilevel repository of best practices. Sustainability-Basel. 2021;13(9):5069. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095069 .

Sardaro R, La Sala P, De Pascale G, Faccilongo N. The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy. Land Use Policy. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lusepol.2021.105662 .

Rautio S. Material compromises in the planning of a ‘traditional village’ in Southwest China. Soc Anal. 2021;65(3):67–87. https://doi.org/10.3167/sa.2021.6503OF2 .

Dans EP, Gonzalez PA. Sustainable tourism and social value at World Heritage Sites: towards a conservation plan for Altamira, Spain. Ann Tourism Res. 2019;74:68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.10.011 .

Carbone F, Oosterbeek L, Costa C, Ferreira AM. Extending and adapting the concept of quality management for museums and cultural heritage attractions: a comparative study of southern European cultural heritage managers’ perceptions. Tour Manag Perspect. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100698 .

Manyane RM. Rethinking trans-boundary tourism resources at the Botswana-North West Province border. S Afr Geogr J. 2017;99(2):134–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2016.1208579 .

Ji SY, Choi Y, Lee CK, Mjelde JW. Comparing willingness-to-pay between residents and non-residents using a contingent valuation method: case of the Grand Canal in China. Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2018;23(1):79–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2017.1399919 .

Liu X, Zhu WS. Sustainability approaches to Chinese landscape architecture. Interdiscipl Sci Rev. 2021;46(4):689–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2021.1897748 .

To WM, Lee P. China’s maritime economic development: a review, the future trend, and sustainability implications. Sustainability-Basel. 2018;10(12):4844. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124844 .

Chang J, Su WY, Chang CC. The Creative Destruction of Ainu Community in Hokkaido, Japan. Asia Pac J Tour Res. 2011;16(5):505–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2011.597576 .

Trunfio M, Campana S. A visitors’ experience model for mixed reality in the museum. Curr Issues Tour. 2020;23(9):1053–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1586847 .

Vu HQ, Luo JM, Ye B, Li G, Law R. Evaluating museum visitor experiences based on user-generated travel photos. J Travel Tour Mark. 2018;35(4):493–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2017.1363684 .

Serravalle F, Ferraris A, Vrontis D, Thrassou A, Christofi M. Augmented reality in the tourism industry: a multi-stakeholder analysis of museums. Tour Manag Perspect. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.07.002 .

Zhang HS, Cheng ZF, Chen X. How destination social responsibility affects tourist citizenship behavior at cultural heritage sites? Mediating roles of destination reputation and destination identification. Sustainability-Basel. 2022;14(11):6772. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116772 .

Xu YF, Zhang HL, Tian Y, Xia XY, Chen X, Yang Y, et al. When technology meets heritage: a moderated mediation of immersive technology on the constraint-satisfaction relationship. Curr Issues Tour. 2022;25(4):632–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1895728 .

Kim EG, Chhabra D, Timothy DJ. Towards a creative MICE tourism destination branding model: integrating heritage tourism in New Orleans, USA. Sustainability-Basel. 2022;14(24):16411. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416411 .

Zhang T, Wen HJ, Li X. A tourist-based model of authenticity of heritage sporting events: the case of Naadam. Sustainability-Basel. 2019;11(1):108. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010108 .

Maldonado-Erazo CP, Alvarez-Garcia J, Rio-Rama M, Duran-Sanchez A. Scientific mapping on the impact of climate change on cultural and natural heritage: a systematic scientometric analysis. Land. 2021;10(1):76. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010076 .

Zhu XY, Chiou SC. A study on the sustainable development of historic district landscapes based on place attachment among tourists: a case study of Taiping old street, Taiwan. Sustainability-Basel. 2022;14(18):11755. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811755 .

Rasoolimanesh SM, Ramakrishna S, Hall CM, Esfandiar K, Seyfi S. A systematic scoping review of sustainable tourism indicators in relation to the sustainable development goals. J Sustain Tour. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1775621 .

de Rojas C, Camarero C. Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context: evidence from an interpretation center. Tour Manage. 2008;29(3):525–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.06.004 .

Asmelash AG, Kumar S. The structural relationship between tourist satisfaction and sustainable heritage tourism development in Tigrai, Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01335 .

Topole M, Pipan P, Gasperic P, Gersic M, Kumer P. Culinary events in the Slovenian countryside: visitors’ motives, satisfaction, and views on sustainability. Acta Geogr Slov. 2021;61(1):107–25. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.7617 .

Yang CH, Lin HL, Han CC. Analysis of international tourist arrivals in China: the role of World Heritage Sites. Tour Manage. 2010;31(6):827–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.08.008 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Marasco A, Buonincontri P, van Niekerk M, Orlowski M, Okumus F. Exploring the role of next-generation virtual technologies in destination marketing. J Destin Mark Manage. 2018;9:138–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.12.002 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Ministry of agriculture and rural affairs of the people’s republic of China and Department of Finance of Fujian Province for their financial support. We gratefully thank the Heritage Science journal and the journal Academic Editor, for their helpful input and feedback on the content of this manuscript.

This research was funded by the project of “construction of modern agricultural and industrial park for Anxi County in Fujian Province, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, China (KMD18003A)”, Fujian Provincial Department of Finance entrusted project (KLE21002A): Research on the development path of strong towns with agricultural characteristic industries under the background of rural revitalization.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Digital Economy, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, East Second Ring Road, Anxi County, Quanzhou, 362400, China

Sunbowen Zhang, Youcheng Chen & Qi Wei

College of Humanities & Social Development, Nanjing Agricultural University, Weigang Road, Xuanwu District, Nanjing, 210095, China

Jingxuan Liang

International College, Krirk University, No.3 soi Ramintra 1,Ramintra Road, Bangkok, 10220, Thailand

School of Tourism, Liming Vocational University, No. 298, Tonggang West Street, Fengze District, 362000, Quanzhou, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, SBWZ and JXL; methodology, SBWZ; software, SBWZ; validation, SBWZ, JXL and YCC; formal analysis, SBWZ, XWS and YCC; investigation, SBWZ; resources, JXL; data curation, JXL; writing—original draft preparation, JXL; writing—review and editing, SBWZ and XWS; visualization, QW; supervision, SBWZ; project administration, JXL; funding acquisition, XWS and YCC. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xinwei Su or Youcheng Chen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors approved the final manuscr and the submiss to this journal.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., additional file 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhang, S., Liang, J., Su, X. et al. Research on global cultural heritage tourism based on bibliometric analysis. Herit Sci 11 , 139 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-00981-w

Download citation

Received : 11 April 2023

Accepted : 17 June 2023

Published : 29 June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-023-00981-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Cultural heritage tourism
• Research hotspots
• Research fronts
• Research trends

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

Heritage Tourism

The late Alan Gordon was professor of history at the University of Guelph. He authored three books: Making Public Pasts: The Contested Terrain of Montreal’s Public Memories, 1891–1930, The Hero and the Historians: Historiography and the Uses of Jacques Cartier and Time Travel: Tourism and the Rise of the Living History Museum in Mid-Twentieth Century Canada.

• Published: 18 August 2022
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Heritage tourism is a form of cultural tourism in which people travel to experience places, artifacts, or activities that are believed to be authentic representations of people and stories from the past. It couples heritage, a way of imagining the past in terms that suit the values of the present, with travel to locations associated with enshrined heritage values. Heritage tourism sites are normally divided into two often overlapping categories: natural sites and sites related to human culture and history. By exploring the construction of heritage tourism destinations in historical context, we can better understand how and through what attributes places become designated as sites of heritage and what it means to have an authentic heritage experience. These questions are explored through heritage landscapes, national parks, battlefield tourism, architectural tourism, and the concept of world heritage.

Heritage is one of the most difficult, complex, and expansive words in the English language because there is no simple or unanimously accepted understanding of what heritage encompasses. 1 We can pair heritage with a vast range of adjectives, such as cultural, historical, physical, architectural, or natural. What unites these different uses of the term is their reference to the past, in some way or another, while linking it to present-day needs. Heritage, then, is a reimagining of the past in terms that suit the values of the present. It cannot exist independently of human attempts to make the past usable because it is the product of human interpretation of not only the past, but of who belongs to particular historical narratives. At its base, heritage is about identity, and the inclusion and exclusion of peoples, stories, places, and activities in those identities. The use of the word “heritage” in this context is a postwar phenomenon. Heritage and heritage tourism, although not described in these terms, has a history as long as the history of modern tourism. Indeed, a present-minded use of the past is as old as civilization itself, and naturally embedded itself in the development of modern tourism. 2 The exploration of that history, examining the origins and development of heritage tourism, helps unpack some of the controversies and dissonance it produces.

Heritage in Tourism

Heritage tourism sites are normally divided into two categories: natural sites and sites of human, historical, or cultural heritage. the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) separates its list of world heritage sites in this manner. Sites of natural heritage are understood to be places where natural phenomena such as wildlife, flora, geological features, or ecosystems, are generally deemed to be of exceptional beauty or significance. Cultural heritage sites, which represent over three quarters of UNESCO-recognized sites, are places where human activity has left a lasting and substantial physical impact that reveals important features of a culture or cultures. Despite the apparent simplicity of this division, it is not always easy to categorize individual sites. UNESCO thus allows for a category of “mixed” heritage sites. But official recognition is not necessary to mark a place as a heritage destination and, moreover, some authors point to versions of heritage tourism that are not tightly place-specific, such as festivals of traditional performances or foodways. 3

The central questions at the heart of heritage tourism ask what it is that designates something as “heritage” and whether tourists have an “authentic” heritage experience there. At its simplest, heritage tourism is a form of cultural tourism in which people travel to experience places, artifacts, or activities that are authentic representations of people and stories from the past. Yet this definition encompasses two, often competing, motivations. Heritage tourism is both a cultural phenomenon through which people attempt to connect with the past, their ancestors, and their identity, and it is an industry designed to profit from it. Another question surrounds the source of the “heritage” in heritage tourism. Many scholars have argued that heritage does not live in the destinations or attractions people seek. Heritage is not innate to the destination, but is rather based on the tourist’s motivations and expectations. Thus, heritage tourism is a form of tourism in which the main motivation for visiting a site is based on the traveler’s perceptions of its heritage characteristics. Following the logic of this view, the authenticity of the heritage experience depends on the traveler rather than the destination or the activity. Heritage features, as well as the sense of authenticity they impart, are democratized in what might be called a consumer-based model of authenticity. 4 This is a model that allows for virtually anything or any place to be a heritage destination. Although such an approach to understanding heritage tourism may well serve present-day studies, measuring motivations is more complicated for historical subjects. Long-departed travelers are not readily surveyed about their expectations; motivations have to be teased out of historical records. In a contrasting view, John Tunbridge and Gregory Ashworth argue that heritage attractions are created through marketing: they are invented to be heritage attractions and sold to a traveling public as such. Yet, heritage attractions, in this understanding, are still deemed authentic when they satisfy consumer expectations about heritage. 5 This insight also implies that heritage tourism destinations might be deceptions, and certainly there are examples of the fabrication of heritage sites. However, if motivations and expectations are arbiters of heritage, then even invented heritage can become authentic through its acceptance by a public. While not ignoring the motivations and expectations of travelers, for historians, any understanding of heritage tourism must include the process by which sites become designated as a places of heritage. It must encompass the economic aspects of tourism development, tourism’s role in constructing narratives of national or group identity, and the cultural phenomenon of seeking authentic representations of those identities, regardless of their origins. Such a practice might include traveling to sites connected to diasporas, places of historical significance, sites of religious pilgrimages, and landscapes of scenic beauty or cultural importance.

Scholarly interest in heritage, at least in the English-speaking world, dates from the 1980s reaction to the emergence of new right-wing political movements that used the past as a tool to legitimize political positions. Authors such as David Lowenthal, Robert Hewison, and Patrick Wright bemoaned the recourse to “heritage” as evidence of a failing society that was backward-looking, fearful, and resentful of modern diversity. 6 Heritage, they proclaimed, was elitist and innately conservative, imposed on the people from above in ways that distanced them from an authentic historical consciousness. Although Raphael Samuel fired back that the critique of heritage was itself elitist and almost snobbish, this line continued in the 1990s. Works by John Gillis, Tony Bennett, and Eric Hobsbawm, among others, concurred that heritage was little more than simplified history used as a weapon of social and political control.

At about the same time, historians also began to take tourism seriously as a subject of inquiry, and they quickly connected leisure travel to perceived evils in the heritage industry. Historians such as John K. Walton in the United Kingdom and John Jakle in the United States began investigating patterns of tourism’s history in their respective countries. Although not explicitly concerned with heritage tourism, works such as Jakle’s The Tourist explored the infrastructure and experience of leisure travel in America, including the different types of attractions people sought. 7 In Sacred Places , John Sears argued that tourism helped define America in the nineteenth century through its landscape and natural wonders. Natural tourist attractions, such as Yosemite and Yellowstone parks became sacred places for a young nation without unifying religious and national shrines. 8 Among North America’s first heritage destinations was Niagara Falls, which drew Americans, Europeans, Britons, and Canadians to marvel at its beauty and power. Tourist services quickly developed there to accommodate travelers and, as Patricia Jasen and others note, Niagara became a North American heritage destination at the birth of the continent’s tourism trade. 9

As the European and North American travel business set about establishing scenic landscapes as sites worthy of the expense and difficulty of travel to them, they rarely used a rhetoric of heritage. Sites were depicted as places to embrace “the sublime,” a feeling arising when the emotional experience overwhelms the power of reason to articulate it. Yet as modern tourism developed, promoters required more varied attractions to induce travelers to visit specific destinations. North America’s first tourist circuits, well established by the 1820s, took travelers up the Hudson River valley from New York to the spas of Saratoga Springs, then utilizing the Erie Canal even before its completion, west to Niagara Falls. Tourist guidebooks were replete with vivid depictions of the natural wonders to be witnessed, and very quickly Niagara became heavily commercialized. As America expanded beyond the Midwest in the second half of the nineteenth century, text and image combined to produce a sense that these beautiful landscapes were a common inheritance of the (white and middle-class) American people. Commissioned expeditions, such as the Powell Expedition of 1869–1872, produced best-selling travel narratives revealing the American landscape to enthralled readers in the eastern cities (see Butler , this volume). John Wesley Powell’s description of his voyage along the Colorado River combined over 450 pages of written description with 80 prints, mostly portraying spectacular natural features. American westward exploration, then, construed the continent’s natural wonders as its heritage.

In America, heritage landscapes often obscured human activity and imagined the continent as nature untouched. But natural heritage also played a role in early heritage tourism in Britain and Europe. Many scholars have investigated the connection between national character and the depiction of topographical features, arguing that people often implant their communities with ideas of landscape and associate geographical features with their identities. In this way, landscape helps embed a connection between places and particular local and ethnic identities. 10 Idealized landscapes become markers of national identity (see Noack , this volume). For instance, in the Romantic era, the English Lake District and the mountains of the Scottish Highlands became iconic national representations of English, Scottish, or British nationalities. David Lowenthal has commented on the nostalgia inherent in “landscape-as-heritage.” The archetypical English landscape, a patchwork of fields divided by hedgerows and sprinkled with villages, was a relatively recent construction when the pre-Raphaelite painters reconfigured it as the romantic allure of a medieval England. It spoke to the stability and order inherent in English character. 11

Travel literature combined with landscape art to develop heritage landscapes and promote them as tourist attractions. Following the 1707 Act of Union, English tourists became fascinated with Scotland, and in particular the Scottish Highlands. Tourist guidebooks portrayed the Highlands as a harsh, bleak environment spectacular for its beauty as well as the quaintness of its people and their customs (see Schaff , this volume). Over the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, tourist texts cemented the image of Highland culture and heritage. Scholars have criticized this process as a “Tartanization” or “Balmoralization” of the country by which its landscape and culture was reduced to a few stereotypes appealing to foreign visitors. Nevertheless, guidebook texts described the bens, lochs, and glens with detail, helping create and reinforce a mental picture of a quintessential Highland landscape. 12 The massacre of members of the Clan MacDonald at Glencoe, killed on a winter night in 1692 for insufficient loyalty to the monarchy, added romance. Forgotten for over a century, the event was recalled in the mid-nineteenth century by the historian Thomas Babington Macaulay, and quickly became a tragic tale associated with the scenic valley. At the same time the Highlands were being re-coded from a dangerous to a sublime landscape, its inhabitants became romanticized as an untainted, simple, premodern culture. The natural beauty of the landscape at Glencoe and its relative ease of access, being close to Loch Lomond and Glasgow, made it an attraction with a ready-made tragic tale. Highlands travel guides began to include Glencoe in their itineraries, combining a site of natural beauty with a haunting human past. Both natural and cultural heritage, then, are not inherent, but represent choices made by people about what and how to value the land and the past. On France’s Celtic fringe, a similar process unfolded. When modern tourism developed in Brittany in the mid-nineteenth century, guidebooks such as Joanne’s defined the terms of an authentic Breton experience. Joanne’s 1867 guide coupled the region’s characteristic rugged coastlines with the supposedly backward people, their costumes, habitudes, beliefs, and superstitions, who inhabited it. 13 Travel guides were thus the first contributors in the construction of heritage destinations. They began to highlight the history, real and imagined, of destinations to promote their distinctions. And, with increasing interest in the sites of national heritage, people organized to catalog, preserve, and promote heritage destinations.

Organizing Heritage Tourism

Among the world’s first bodies dedicated to preserving heritage was the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), organized in England in 1877. Emerging as a result of particular debates about architectural practices, this society opposed a then-popular trend of altering buildings to produce imaginary historical forms. This approach, which was most famously connected to Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc’s French restorations, involved removing or replacing existing architectural features, something renounced by the SPAB. The society’s manifesto declared that old structures should be repaired so that their entire history would be protected as part of cultural heritage. The first heritage preservation legislation, England’s Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882, provided for the protection initially of 68 prehistoric sites and appointed an inspector of ancient monuments. 14 By 1895, movements to conserve historic structures and landscapes had combined with the founding of the National Trust, officially known as the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, as a charitable agency. Much of the Trust’s early effort protected landscapes: of twenty-nine properties listed in 1907, seventeen were acreages of land and other open spaces. 15 Over the twentieth century, however, the Trust grew more and more concerned with protecting country houses and gardens, which now constitute the majority of its listed properties.

British efforts were duplicated in Europe. The Dutch Society for the Preservation of Natural Landmarks was established in 1904; France passed legislation to protect natural monuments in 1906. And in Sweden, the Society for the Protection of Nature was established in 1909, to name only a few examples. Nature was often connected to the spirit of “the folk,” an idea that encompassed a notion of an original ethnic core to the nation. Various European nationalisms of the period embraced the idea of an “authentic” national folk, with each folk considered unique due to its connection with a specific geography. Folklore and the celebration of folk culture offered Europeans links to imagined national heritages in a rapidly modernizing world, as modern, middle-class Europeans turned their attention to the romanticized primitive life of so-called simple peasants and linked notions of natural and human heritage. Through the concept of the folk, natural and human heritage combined to buttress emerging expressions of nationalism. 16

Sweden provides an instructive example. As early as the seventeenth century, Swedish antiquarians were intrigued by medieval rune stones, burial mounds, and cairns strewn across the country, but also saw these connected to natural features. Investigations of these relics of past Nordic culture involved a sense of the landscape in which they were found. This interest accelerated as folk studies grew in popularity, in part connected to nationalist political ambitions of Swedes during the growing tensions within the Kingdom of Sweden and Norway, which divided in 1905. Sweden’s preservation law required research into the country’s natural resources to create an inventory of places. Of particular interest were features considered to be “nature in its original state.” The intent was to preserve for future generations at least one example of Sweden’s primordial landscape features: primeval forests, swamps, peat bogs, and boulders. But interest was also drawn to natural landmarks associated with historical or mythical events from Sweden’s past. Stones or trees related to tales from the Nordic sagas, for example, combined natural with cultural heritage. 17

Although early efforts to protect heritage sites were not intended to support tourism, the industry quickly benefited. Alongside expanding tours to the Scottish Highlands and English Lake District, European landscapes became associated with leisure travel. As Tait Kellar argues for one example, the context of the landscape is crucial in understanding the role of tourism in the German Alps. 18 Guidebooks of the nineteenth and early twentieth century did not use the term “heritage,” but they described its tenets to audiences employing a different vocabulary. Baedeker’s travel guides, such as The Eastern Alps , guided bourgeois travelers through the hiking trails and vistas of the mountains and foothills, offering enticing descriptions of the pleasures to be found in the German landscape. Beyond the land, The Eastern Alps directed visitors to excursions that revealed features of natural history, human history, and local German cultures. 19

Across the Atlantic people also cherished escapes to the countryside for leisure and recreation and, as economic and population growth increasingly seemed to threaten the idyllic tranquility of scenic places, many banded together to advocate for their conservation. Yet, ironically, by putting in place systems to mark and preserve America’s natural heritage, conservationists popularized protected sites as tourist destinations. By the second half of the nineteenth century, the conservation movement encouraged the US government to set aside massive areas of American land as parks. For example, Europeans first encountered the scenic beauty of California’s Yosemite Valley at midcentury. With increasing settler populations following the California Gold Rush, tourists began arriving in ever larger numbers and promoters began building accommodations and roads to encourage them. Even during the Civil War, the US government recognized the potential for commercial overdevelopment and the desire of many to preserve America’s most scenic places. 20 In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Yosemite Grant, designating acres of the valley protected wilderness. This set a precedent for the later creation of America’s first national park. In 1871, the Hayden Geological Survey recommended the preservation of nearly 3,500 square miles of land in the Rocky Mountains, in the territories of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Ferdinand V. Hayden was concerned that the pristine mountain region might soon be as overrun with tourists as Niagara Falls had by then become. 21 The following year, Congress established Yellowstone National Park, the world’s first designated “heritage” site. Yet, from the beginning, Yellowstone and subsequent parks were assumed to be tourist attractions. By 1879, tourists to Yellowstone had established over 200 miles of trails that led them to the park’s most famous attractions. Although thought of as nature preserves, parks were often furnished with railway access, and amenities and accommodations appeared, often prior to official designation. National parks were immediately popular tourist attractions. Even before it had established a centralized bureaucracy to care for them, the United States government had established nine national parks and nearly two dozen national monuments. Canada lagged, but established Rocky Mountain National Park (now Banff) in 1885 to balance interests of resource extraction and conservation. (The world’s second national park was Australia’s Royal National Park, established by the colony of New South Wales in 1879.) By the outbreak of the Great War, Canada and the United States had established fifteen national parks, all but one west of the Mississippi River.

Establishing parks was one component of building a heritage tourism infrastructure. Another was the creation of a national bureaucracy to organize it. The Canadian example reveals how heritage and tourism drove the creation of a national parks service. Much of the mythology surrounding Canada’s national parks emphasized the role of nature preservationists, yet the founder of the parks system, J. B. Harkin, was deeply interested in building a parks network for tourists. 22 Indeed, from early in the twentieth century, Canada’s parks system operated on the principle that parks should be “playgrounds, vacation destinations, and roadside attractions that might simultaneously preserve the fading scenic beauty and wildlife populations” of a modernizing nation. 23 Although Canada had established four national parks in the Rocky Mountains in the 1880s, the administration of those parks was haphazard and decentralized. It was not until the approaching third centennial of the founding of Quebec City (now a UNESCO World Heritage Site) that the Canadian government began thinking actively about administering its national heritage. In 1908, Canada hosted an international tourist festival on the Plains of Abraham, the celebrated open land where French and British armies had fought the decisive battle for supremacy in North America in 1759. The event so popularized the fabled battlefield that the government was compelled to create a National Battlefield Commission to safeguard it. This inspired the creation of the Dominion Parks Branch three years later to manage Canada’s natural heritage parks, the world’s first national parks service. By 1919 the system expanded to include human history—or at least European settler history—through the creation of national historic parks. These parks were even more explicitly designed to attract tourists, automobile tourists in particular. In 1916, five years after Canada, the United States established the National Parks Service with similar objectives.

As in Europe, nationalism played a significant role in developing heritage tourism destinations in America. The first national parks were inspired by the series of American surveying expeditions intended to secure knowledge of the landscape for political control. Stephen Pyne connects the American “discovery” of the Grand Canyon, for example, to notions of manifest destiny following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) that ended the Mexican-American War and ceded over 500,000 square miles of what is today the western United States. Popularized by the report of John Wesley Powell (1875) , the canyon began attracting tourists in the 1880s, although Congress failed to establish it as a national park. 24 Tourism was central to developing the Grand Canyon as a national heritage destination. Originally seen by Spanish explorers as an obstacle, and as a sacred place by the Navajo, Hopi, Hualapai, and Havasupai peoples, the canyon came to mark American exceptionalism. Piece by piece, sections of the canyon were set aside as reserves and finally declared a national park in 1919. By then, the park had been serviced by a railway (since 1901) and offered tourists a luxury hotel on the canyon’s south rim.

Archaeology also entered into the construction of American heritage. Almost as soon as it was annexed to the United States, the American southwest revealed to American surveyors a host of archaeological remains. For residents of the southwest, the discovery of these ancient ruins of unknown age pointed to the nobility of a lost predecessor civilization. By deliberately construing the ruins as being of an unknown age, Anglo-American settlers were able to draw distinctions between the ancients and contemporary Native Americans in ways that validated their own occupation of the territory. The ruins also had commercial potential. In Colorado, President Theodore Roosevelt established Mesa Verde National Park in 1906 to protect and capitalize on the abandoned cliff dwellings located there. These ruins had been rediscovered in the 1880s when ranchers learned of them from the local Ute people. By the turn of the century, the ruins had attracted so many treasure seekers that they needed protection. This was the first national park in America designated to protect a site of archaeological significance and linked natural and human heritage in the national parks system. 25

If, as many argue, heritage is not innate, how is it made? Part of the answer to this question can be found in the business of tourism. Commercial exploitation of heritage tourism emerged alongside heritage tourism, but was particularly active in the postwar years. Given their association with tourism, it is not surprising that railways and associated businesses played a prominent role in promoting heritage destinations. Before World War II, the most active heritage tourism promoter was likely the Fred Harvey Company, which successfully marketed, and to a great degree created, much of the heritage of the American southwest. The Fred Harvey Company originated with the opening of a pair of cafés along the Kansas Pacific Railway in 1876. After a stuttering beginning, Harvey’s chain of railway eateries grew in size. Before dining cars became regular features of passenger trains, meals on long-distance trips were provided by outside business such as Harvey’s at regular stops. With the backing of the Santa Fe Railroad, the company also developed attractions based on the Southwest region’s unique architectural and cultural features. The image capitalized on the artistic traditions of Native Americans and early Spanish traditions to create, in particular, the Adobe architectural style now associated with Santa Fe and New Mexico. 26 These designs were also incorporated into tourist facilities on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, including the El Tovar hotel and the Hopi House souvenir and concession complex, designed to resemble a Hopi pueblo.

Relying on existing and manufactured heritage sites, North American railways popularized attractions as heritage sites. The Northern Pacific Railroad financed a number of hotels in Yellowstone Park, including the Old Faithful Inn in 1904. In 1910, the Great Northern Railroad launched its “See America First” campaign to attract visitors (and new investments) to its routes to the west’s national parks. In Canada, the Dominion Atlantic Railway rebuilt Grand Pré, a Nova Scotia Acadian settlement to evoke the home of the likely fictional character Evangeline from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s 1848 poem by the same name. In the poem, Evangeline was deported from Acadia in 1755 and separated from her betrothed. By the 1920s, the railway was transporting tourists to Grand Pré, christened “Land of Evangeline,” where reproductions stood in for sites mentioned in the poem. 27 However, following World War I, heritage tourism in North America became increasingly dependent on automobile travel and the Dominion Atlantic eventually sold its interest to the Canadian government.

Conflict as Cultural Heritage

Tourism to sites of military history initially involved side trips from more popular, usually natural, attractions. Thomas Chambers notes that the sites of battles of the Seven Years’ War, Revolutionary War, and War of 1812 became tourist attractions as side trips from more established itineraries, such as the northern or fashionable tours. War of 1812 battlefields, many of them in the Niagara theater of the war, were conveniently close to the natural wonders people already came to see. By visiting the places where so many had sacrificed for their country, tourists began attaching new meaning to the sites. Ease of access was essential. Chambers contrasts sites in southern states with those in the north. In the south, the fields of important American Revolution victories at Cowpens and King’s Mountain were too remote to permit easy tourist access and long remained undeveloped. 28 In a contrary example, the Plains of Abraham, the scene of General Wolfe’s dramatic victory over France that led to the Conquest of Canada, was at first a curiosity. The visit to Quebec, a main destination on the northern tour, was originally based on its role as a major port and the attraction of the scenic beauty of the city on the cliffs, compared favorably to Cintra in Portugal. 29 Ease of access helped promoters convert an empty field near the city into the “hallowed Plains.”

Access to battlefields increased at almost the exact moment that one of the nineteenth century’s most devastating wars, the American Civil War, broke out. Railway travel was essential to both the success of the Union Army in reconquering the rebelling Confederacy, and in developing tourism to the sites of the slaughter. Railway travel made sites accessible for urban travelers and new technologies, such as photography and the telegraph, sped news of victories and defeats quickly around the nation. Gettysburg, the scene of a crucial Union victory in July 1863, became a tourist attraction only a few days later. Few would call the farmland of southeastern Pennsylvania sublime, but dramatic human history had unfolded there. The battle inspired the building of a national memorial on the site only four months later, the Soldiers’ National Cemetery. At the inauguration of the cemetery Abraham Lincoln delivered his “Gettysburg Address,” calling on the nation to long remember and cherish the “hallowed ground” where history had been made.

Gettysburg sparked a frenzy of marking sites of Civil War battles and events. Battle sites became important backdrops for political efforts at reunion and reconciliation after the war and attracted hundreds and later thousands of tourists for commemorative events and celebrations. Ten thousand saw President Rutherford Hayes speak at Gettysburg in 1878 and, for the 50th anniversary of Gettysburg, some 55,000 veterans returned to Pennsylvania in July 1913. What had once been a site of bloody, brutal combat had been transformed into a destination where tourists gathered to embrace their shared heritage, north and south. As the years progressed, more attractions were added as tourists began to see their heritage on the battlefield. 30

The conflict that most clearly created tourist attractions out of places of suffering was the World War I. Soon after the war ended, its sites of slaughter also became tourist attractions. As with the Civil War in America, World War I tourists were local people and relatives of the soldiers who had perished on the field of battle. By one estimate 60,000 tourists visited the battlefields of the Western Front by the summer of 1919, the same year that Michelin began publishing guidebooks to them. Numbers grew in the decades following the war. Over 140,000 tourists took in the sites of the war in 1931, which grew to 160,000 for 1939. Organizations such as the Workers’ Travel Association hoped that tourism to battle sites would promote peace, but the travel business also benefited. Travel agencies jumped at the chance to offer tours and publishers produced travel guides to the battlefields. At least thirty English guidebooks were published by 1921. 31

This interest in a conflict that killed, often in brutal fashion, so many might seem a ghoulish form of heritage tourism. Yet Peter Slade argues that people do not visit battlefields for the love for death and gore. They attend these sites out of a sense of pilgrimage to sites sacred to their national heritage. Organized pilgrimages reveal this sense of belonging most clearly. The American Legion organized a pilgrimage of 15,000 veterans in 1927 to commemorate the decade anniversary of America’s entry to the war. The following year 11,000 Britons, including 3,000 women, made a pilgrimage of their own. Canada’s first official pilgrimage involved 8,000 pilgrims (veterans and their families) to attend the inauguration of the Vimy Ridge Memorial, marking a site held by many as a place sacred to Canadian identity. Australians and New Zealanders marched to Gallipoli in Turkey for similar reasons. 32 As with the sites of the Western Front, Gallipoli and pilgrimages to it generated travel accounts and publishers assembled guidebooks to help travelers navigate its attractions and accommodations. In these episodes, tourism was used to construct national heritage. In the interwar years, tourist activity popularized the notion that sites of national heritage existed on the battlefields of foreign lands, where “our” nation’s history was forged. National heritage tourism, then, became transnational.

Since the end of World War II, battlefield tourism has become an important projection of heritage tourism. Commercial tour operators organize thousands of tours of European World War I and World War II battlefields for Americans and Canadians, as for other nationalities. The phenomenon seems particularly pronounced among North Americans. The motivation behind modern battlefield tourism reveals its connection to heritage tourism. If heritage is an appeal to the past that helps establish a sense of identity and belonging, the feelings of national pride and remorse for sacrifice of the fallen at these sites helps define them as sacred to a particular vision of a national past. The sanctity of the battle site makes the act of consuming it as a tourist attraction an act of communion with heritage.

Built Heritage and Tourism

During the upheaval of the Civil War, some Americans began to recognize historic houses as elements of their heritage worthy of preservation. These houses were initially not seen as tourist attractions, but as markers of national values. Their heritage value preceded their value as tourist attractions. The first major preservation initiative launched in 1853 to save George Washington’s tomb and home from spoliation. Behind overt sectional divisions of north and south was an implied vesting of republican purity among the patrician families that could trace their ancestors to the revolutionary age and who could restore American culture to its proper deferential state. The success of preserving Mount Vernon led to a proliferation of similar house museums. By the 1930s, the American museum association even produced a guide for how to establish new examples and promote them as sites of heritage for tourist interest. Historic houses provided tangible, physical evidence of heritage. Like scenic landscapes attached to the stories of history, buildings connected locations to significant events and people of the past. Architectural heritage came to be closely associated with tourism. Architectural monuments are easily identified, easy to promote, and, as physical structures, easily reproduced in souvenir ephemera. Although the recognition of architectural monuments as tourist draws could be said to have originated with the Grand Tour, or at least with the publication of John Ruskin’s “Seven Lamps of Architecture” (1849), which singled out the monuments of Venice for veneration, twentieth century mobility facilitated a greater desire to travel to see historic structures. Indeed, mobility, especially automobility, prompted the desire to preserve or even reinvent the structural heritage of the past.

A driving factor behind the growth of tourism to sites associated with these structural relics was a feeling that the past—and especially the social values of the past—was being lost. For example, Colonial Williamsburg developed in reaction to the pace of urban and social change brought about by automobile travel in the 1920s. Williamsburg was once a community of colonial era architecture, but had become just another highway town before John D. Rockefeller lent his considerable wealth to its preservation and reconstruction. 33 Rockefeller had already donated a million dollars for the restoration of French chateaux at Versailles, Fontainebleu, and Rheims. 34 At Williamsburg, his approach was to remove structures from the post-Colonial period to create a townscape from the late eighteenth century. By selecting a cut-off year of 1790, Rockefeller and his experts attempted to freeze Williamsburg in a particular vision of the past. The heritage envisioned was not that of ordinary Americans, but that of colonial elites. Conceived to be a tourist attraction, Colonial Williamsburg offered a tourist-friendly lesson in American heritage. Rockefeller, and a host of consultants convinced the (white) people of Williamsburg to reimagine their heritage and their past. America’s heritage values were translated to the concepts of self-government and individual liberty elaborated by the great patriots, Washington, Madison, Henry, and Jefferson. The town commemorated the planter elites that had dominated American society until the Jacksonian era, and presented them as progenitors of timeless ideals and values. They represented the “very cradle of that Americanism of which Rockefeller and the corporate elite were the inheritors and custodians.” 35

Rockefeller’s Williamsburg was not the only American heritage tourist reconstruction. Canada also underwent reconstruction projects for specifically heritage tourism purposes, such as the construction of “Champlain’s Habitation” at Port Royal, Nova Scotia or the attempt to draw tourists to Invermere, British Columbia with a replica fur trade fort. 36 Following World War I and accelerating after World War II, the number and nature of places deemed heritage attractions grew. Across North America, all levels of governments and private corporations built replica heritage sites with varying degrees of “authenticity.” Although these sites often made use of existing buildings and landscapes, they also manufactured an imaginary environment of the past. The motivation behind these sites was almost always diversification of the local economy through increased tourism. Canada’s Fortress of Louisbourg National Historic Site is perhaps the most obvious example. It is a reconstructed section of the French colonial town, conquered and destroyed in 1758, built on the archaeological remains of the original. Constructed by the government of Canada as a means to diversify the failing resource economy of its Atlantic provinces, the tourist attraction was also designated a component of Canada’s national heritage. The US government also increased its interest in the protection of heritage destinations, greatly expanding the list of national historic landmarks, sites, parks, and monuments. As postwar governments became more concerned with managing their economies, tourism quickly came to be seen as a key economic sector. The language of national heritage helped build public support for state intervention in natural and historic artifacts and sites that could be presented as sacred national places.

In Europe, many historic sites were devastated by bombardment during World War II. Aside from pressing humanitarian issues, heritage concerns also had to be addressed. In France, the war had destroyed nearly half a million buildings, principally in the northern cities, many of which were of clear heritage value. The French government established a commission to undertake the reconstruction of historic buildings and monuments and, in some cases, entire towns. Saint-Malo, in Brittany, had been completely destroyed, but the old walled town was rebuilt to its seventeenth century appearance. Already a seaside resort, the town added a heritage site destination. In the 1920s and 1930s, European fascist states had also employed heritage tourism. In Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany, workers’ leisure time was to be organized to prevent ordinary Italians and Germans from falling into unproductive leisure activities. Given the attachment to racialized views of purity and identity, organized tourism was encouraged to allow people to bond with their national heritage. Hiking in the Black Forest or the alpine Allgau might help connect Germans to the landscape and reconnect them to the traditional costumes and folkways of rural Germany. As Kristin Semmens argues, most studies of the Nazi misappropriation of the past ignore the displays of history aimed toward tourists at Germany’s heritage sites. Many museums and historic sites twisted their interpretations to fit the Nazi present. 37 In ways that foreshadowed the 1980s British left’s critique of heritage, fascist regimes made use of heritage tourism to control society. After the war, a vigorous program of denazification was undertaken to remove public relics of the Nazi regime and in formerly occupied territories, as was a program of reconstruction. In the communist east, blaming the Nazis for the destruction of German heritage was an ideological gift. It allowed the communist regime to establish itself as the true custodian of German identity and heritage. 38 In the capitalist west, tourism revived quickly. By early 1947, thirteen new tourist associations were active in the Allied occupation zone. Tourism rhetoric in the postwar years attempted to distance German heritage from the Nazi regime to reintroduce foreign travelers to the “real Germany.” Despite this objective, Alon Confino notes that traces of the Nazi past can be located in postwar tourist promotions that highlighted Nazi-era infrastructure. 39

Postwar Heritage Tourism

As tourism became a more global industry, thanks in no small part to the advent of affordable air travel in the postwar era, heritage tourism became transnational. Ethnic heritage tourism became more important, and diaspora or roots tourism, which brought second- and third-generation migrants back to the original home of their ancestors, accelerated. Commodifying ethnic heritage has been one of the most distinctive developments in twenty-first century tourism. Ethnic heritage tourism can involve migrants, their children, or grandchildren returning to their “home” countries as visitors. In this form of tourism, the “heritage” component is thus expressed in the motivations and self-identifications of the traveler. It involves a sense of belonging that is rooted in the symbolic meanings of collective memories, shared stories, and the sense of place embodied in the physical locations of the original homeland. Paul Basu has extensively studied the phenomenon of “roots tourism” among the descendants of Scottish Highlanders. He suggests that in their trips to Scotland to conduct genealogical research, explore sites connected to their ancestors, or sites connected to Scottish identity, they construct a sense of their heritage as expatriate Scots. 40 Similar “return” movements can be found in the migrant-descended communities of many settler colonial nations. For second-generation Chinese Americans visiting China, their search for authentic experiences mirrored those of other tourists. Yet, travel to their parents’ homeland strengthened their sense of family history and attachment to Chinese cultures. 41 On the other hand, Shaul Kellner examines the growing trend of cultivating roots tourism through state-sponsored homeland tours. In Tours that Bind , Kellner explores the State of Israel and American Jewish organizations’ efforts to forge a sense of Israeli heritage among young American Jews. However, Kellner cautions, individual experiences and human agency limit the hosts’ abilities to control the experience and thus control the sense of heritage. 42

Leisure tourism also played a role in developing heritage sites, as travelers to sunshine destinations began looking for more interesting side trips. Repeating the battlefield tourism of a century before, by the 1970s access to historic and prehistoric sites made it possible to add side trips to beach vacations. Perhaps the best example of this was the development of tourism to sites of Mayan heritage by the Mexican government in the 1970s. The most famous heritage sites, at least for Westerners, were the Mayan sites of Yucatan. First promoted as destinations by the American travel writer John Lloyd Stephens in the 1840s, their relative inaccessibility (as well as local political instabilities) made them unlikely tourist attractions before the twentieth century. By 1923, the Yucatan government had opened a highway to the site of the Chichén Itzá ruins, and local promoters began promotions in the 1940s. It was not until after the Mexican government nationalized all archaeological ruins in the 1970s that organized tours from Mexican beach resorts began to feature trips to the ruins themselves. 43

Mexico’s interest in the preservation and promotion of its archaeological relics coincided with one of the most important developments in heritage tourism in the postwar years: the emergence of the idea of world heritage. The idea was formalized in 1972 with the creation of UNESCO’s designation of World Heritage Sites. The number of sites has grown from the twelve first designated in 1978 to well over 1,000 in 167 different countries. In truth, the movement toward recognizing world heritage began with the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, which did not limit its activities to preserving only England’s architectural heritage. Out of its advocacy, European architects and preservationists drafted a series of accords, such as the Athens Charter of 1931, and the later Venice Charter of 1964, both of which emerged from a growing sense of cultural internationalism. These agreements set guidelines for the preservation and restoration of buildings and monuments. What UNESCO added was the criterion of Outstanding Universal Value for the designation of a place as world heritage. It took until 1980 to work out the first iteration of Outstanding Universal Value and the notion has never been universally accepted, although UNESCO member countries adhere to it officially. Once a site has been named to the list, member countries are expected to protect it from deterioration, although this does not always happen. As of 2018, 54 World Heritage Sites are considered endangered. This growth mirrored the massive expansion of tourism as a business and cultural phenomenon in the late twentieth century. As tourism became an increasingly important economic sector in de-colonizing states of Asia and Latin America, governments became more concerned with its promotion by seeking out World Heritage designation.

Ironically, World Heritage designation itself has been criticized as an endangerment of heritage sites. Designation increases the tourist appeal of delicate natural environments and historic places, which can lead to problems with maintenance. Designation also affects the lives of people living within the heritage destination. Luang Prabang, in Laos, is an interesting example. Designated in 1995 as one of the best-preserved traditional towns in Southeast Asia, it represents an architectural fusion of Lao temples and French colonial villas. UNESCO guidelines halted further development of the town, except as it served the tourist market. Within the designated heritage zone, buildings cannot be demolished or constructed, but those along the main street have been converted to guest houses, souvenir shops, and restaurants to accommodate the growing tourist economy. Critics claim this reorients the community in non-traditional ways, as locals move out of center in order to rent to foreign tourists. 44 While heritage tourism provided jobs and more stable incomes, it also encouraged urban sprawl and vehicle traffic as local inhabitants yielded their town to the influx of foreign, mostly Western, visitors.

Heritage tourism may hasten the pace of change by making destinations into attractions worth visiting. To accommodate the anticipated influx of global tourists, Luang Prabang airport was renovated and its runway extended to handle larger jets in between 2008 and 2013. The influx of tourists at Machu Picchu in Peru has repeatedly led the Peruvian government to attempt to control access to the site, yet dependent on tourism’s economic contribution, such restrictions are difficult. The temple at Borobudur in Indonesia undergoes near continuous maintenance work to repair the wear and tear caused by thousands of tourists walking its steps every day. Indeed, the preserved ruins are said to be under greater threat than when they were discovered in the early nineteenth century, overgrown by the jungle.

Another colonial aspect of world heritage designation stems from the narratives of the sites themselves. Many critics accuse UNESCO of a Eurocentric conception of Outstanding Universal Value and world heritage. 45 Cultural heritage destinations in non-Western countries are often associated with sites made famous by the projects of European imperialism. The fables of discovering ancient ruins, for instance, prioritize the romance of discovery. Many of the most famous non-Western sites were “discovered” by imperial agents in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Angkor Wat in Cambodia was introduced to the world by the French explorer Henri Muhot in 1860. Machu Picchu, the Mayan sites of Yucatan, and the ancestral Anasazi sites of the American southwest were excavated, in some cases purchased, and their narratives constructed by American and European adventurers. The cultural relics of these ancient places were looted and assembled in Western museums, the stories of adventure and discovery published for Western audiences, and eventually a travel infrastructure was established to bring mostly Western tourists to the destinations. Western tourism thus forms another kind of imperialism, as the heritage of a destination is determined to suit the expectations and motivations of the visitors. This tends to obscure other features of local history, leaving those features of heritage not suitable to the tourist trade less valuable.

Made or Experienced?

Heritage is both made and experienced. Critics of heritage tourism rightly point to the ways in which heritage promotions can manipulate the past to defend specific ideological or commercial values. Yet, at the same time, heritage experiences are honestly felt and fundamental in the shaping of modern national or cultural identities. Thus, the questions of what constitutes “heritage” in a tourist attraction and whether or not the experience is “authentic” are fundamentally connected and contradictory. Neither heritage nor authenticity can be separated from both the process of their construction and the motivations and expectations of visitors. This makes heritage tourism a slippery subject for study. It involves numerous contradictions and complications. Indeed, contradiction and dissonance are at the heart of any notion of heritage tourism; what might be heritage for some is merely leisure and consumption for others. The dissonance comes from this dichotomy: the consumer exploitation of a destination that is held by many to have sacred properties. Yet, as this chapter suggests, the construction of those sacred properties is at times dependent on the consumer culture of the tourism industry.

Further Reading

Ashworth, Gregory J. , and John E. Tunbridge . The Tourist-Historic City: Retrospect and Prospect of Managing the Heritage City . London: Routledge, 2001 .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Basu, Paul.   Highland Homecomings: Genealogy and Heritage Tourism in the Scottish Diaspora . London: Routledge, 2006 .

Dearborn, Lynne M. , and John C. Stallmeyer . Inconvenient Heritage: Erasure and Global Tourism in Luang Prabang . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2010 .

Hall, Melanie , ed. Towards World Heritage: International Origins of the Preservation Movement, 1880–1930 . Farnham: Ashgate, 2011 .

Hewison, Robert.   The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline . London: Methuen, 1987 .

Harrison, Rodney.   Heritage: Critical Approaches . New York: Routledge, 2013 .

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara.   Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998 .

Lowenthal, David.   The Past Is a Foreign Country: Revisited . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015 .

Miles, Stephen.   The Western Front: Landscape, Tourism and Heritage . Barnsley: Pen and Sword, 2017 .

Macdonald, Sharon.   Memorylands: Heritage and Identity in Europe Today . London: Routledge, 2013 .

Park, Hyung Yu.   Heritage Tourism . London: Routledge, 2014 .

Shaffer, Marguerite S.   See America First: Tourism and National Identity, 1880–1940 . Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 2001 .

Schama, Simon.   Landscape and Memory . New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1995 .

Sears, John F.   Sacred Places: American Tourist Attractions in the Nineteenth Century . Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998 .

Timothy, Dallen J.   Cultural Heritage and Tourism: An Introduction . Bristol: Channel View, 2011 .

Winter, Tim.   Post-Conflict Heritage, Postcolonial Tourism: Culture, Politics and Development at Angkor . London: Routledge, 2007 .

1   Peter J. Larkham , “Heritage As Planned and conserved,” in Heritage, Tourism and Society , ed. David T. Herbert (London: Mansell, 1995), 85 ; Peter Johnson and Barry Thomas , “Heritage As Business,” in Heritage, Tourism and Society , ed. David T. Herbert (London: Mansell, 1995), 170 ; David Lowenthal , The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 94.

2   David C. Harvey , “The History of Heritage,” in Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity , eds. Brian Graham and Peter Howard (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008), 22.

3   Deepak Chhabra , Robert Healy , and Erin Sills , “Staged Authenticity and Heritage Tourism,” Annals of Tourism Research 30, no. 3 (2003): 702–719.

4   Tomaz Kolar and Vesna Zabkar , “A Consumer-Based Model of Authenticity: An Oxymoron or the Foundation of Cultural Heritage Marketing?” Tourism Management 31, no. 5 (2010): 652–664.

5   John Tunbridge and Gregory Ashworth , Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict (Chichester: J. Wiley, 1996), 10–13.

6 See Lowenthal, The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History ; Robert Hewison , The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline (London: Methuen London, 1987) ; Patrick Wright , On Living in an Old Country: The National Past in Contemporary Britain (London: Verso, 1985).

7   John A. Jakle , The Tourist: Travel in Twentieth-Century North America (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1985).

8   John F. Sears , Sacred Places: American Tourist Attractions in the Nineteenth Century (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1998).

9   Patricia Jasen , Wild Things: Nature, Culture, and Tourism in Ontario, 1790–1914 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995).

10   Simon Schama , Landscape and Memory (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1995), 6–19 ; Pamela J. Stewart and Andrew Strathan (eds.), Landscape, Memory and History: Anthropological Perspectives (London and Sterling: Pluto, 2003), 2–3.

11   David Lowenthal , “European and English Landscapes as National Symbols,” in Geography and National Identity , ed. David Hoosen (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 21–24 ; and David Lowenthal , “Landscape as Heritage,” in Heritage: Conservation, Interpretation and Enterprise , eds. J. D. Fladmark (London: Routledge, 1993), 10–11.

12   Katherine Grenier , Tourism and Identity in Scotland, 1770–1914: Creating Caledonia (London: Routledge, 2005), 5–11.

13   Patrick Young , Enacting Brittany: Tourism and Culture in Provincial France, 1871–1939 (Farnham; Burlington: Ashgate, 2012).

14   Christopher Chippindale , “The Making of the First Ancient Monuments Act, 1882, and Its Administration Under General Pitt-Rivers,” Journal of the British Archaeological Association 86 (1983): 1–55 ; Tim Murray , “The History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Archaeology: The Case of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act (1882),” in Histories of Archaeology: A Reader in the History of Archaeology , eds. Tim Murray and Christopher Evans (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 145–176.

  National Trust Act, 1907 . 7 Edward 7, Ch cxxxvi, first schedule.

Other countries developed similar programs, especially after World War II: Australia, 1947; United States, 1949; Japan, 1964; and Italy, 1975.

17   Bosse Sundin , “Nature as Heritage: The Swedish Case,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 11, no. 1 (2005): 9–20.

18   Tait Keller , Apostles of the Alps: Mountaineering and Nation Building in Germany and Austria, 1860–1939 (Chapel Hill, NC: UNC Press Books, 2015).

19 See Karl Baedeker , The Eastern Alps, Including the Bavarian Highlands, The Tyrol, Salzkammergut, Styria, and Carinthia (Leipsic: K. Baedeker, 1879).

20   Eric Zuelow , A History of Modern Tourism (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 108–109.

21   M. D. Merrill (ed.), Yellowstone and the Great West: Journals, Letters, and Images from the 1871 Hayden Expedition (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2003), 210–211.

22   Alan Gordon , Making Public Pasts: The Contested Terrain of Montreal’s Public Memories (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001).

23   John Sandlos , “Nature’s Playgrounds: The Parks Branch and Tourism Promotion in the National Parks, 1911–1929,” in A Century of Parks Canada, 1911–2011 , ed. Claire Elizabeth Campbell (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 2011).

24   Stephen Pyne , How the Canyon Became Grand (New York: Viking, 1998), 25–26, 55–60 ; J. W. Powell , The Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Canyons (New York: Dover Press, 1875).

25   Linda Rancourt , “Cultural Celebration,” National Parks 80, no. 1 (2006): 4.

26   Charles Wilson , The Myth of Santa Fe: Creating a Modern Regional Tradition (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1997).

27   Ian McKay and Robin Bates , In the Province of History: The Making of the Public Past in Twentieth-Century Nova Scotia (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010), 71–129.

28   Thomas A. Chambers , Memories of War Visiting Battlegrounds and Bonefields in the Early American Republic (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 2012).

29 See Alan Gordon, “Where Famous Heroes Fell: Tourism, History, and Liberalism in old Quebec,” 58–81 and J. I. Little , “In Search of the Plains of Abraham: British, American, and Canadian Views of a Symbolic Landscape, 1793–1913,” in Remembering 1759: The Conquest of Canada in Historical Memory , eds. Phillip Buckner and John G. Reid (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011), 82–109.

30   John S. Patterson , “A Patriotic Landscape: Gettysburg, 1863–1913,” Prospects 7 (1982): 315–333.

31   David Lloyd , Battlefield Tourism: Pilgrimage and the Commemoration of the Great War in Britain, Australia and Canada, 1919–1939 (Oxford and New York: Berg, 1998), 100–111.

  Lloyd, Battlefield Tourism , 98–100.

33   George Humphrey Yetter , Williamsburg Before and After: The Rebirth of Virginia’s Colonial Capital (Colonial Williamsburg, 1988), 49–52 ; Stephen Conn , Museums and American intellectual life, 1876–1926 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 155.

34   Raymond B. Fosdick , John D. Rockefeller Jr.: A Portrait (New York: Harper, 1956), 356–357.

35   Michael Wallace , “Visiting the Past: History Museums in the United States,” in A Living History Reader , ed. Jay Anderson (Nashville: American Association of State and Local History, 1991), 190.

36   Alan Gordon , Time Travel: Tourism and the Rise of the Living History Museum in Mid-Twentieth-Century Canada (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2016), 65–70 ; Ben Bradley , “The David Thompson Memorial Fort: An Early Outpost of Historically Themed Tourism in Western Canada,” Histoire sociale/Social History 49, no. 99 (2016): 409–429.

37   Kristen Semmens , Seeing Hitler’s Germany: Tourism in the Third Reich (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).

38   Gregory Ashworth and Peter Larkham , “A Heritage for Europe: The Need, the Task, the Contribution,” in Building a New Heritage , ed. Gregory Ashworth and Peter Larkham (London: Routledge, 1994), 127–129.

39   Alon Confino , “Traveling as a Culture of Remembrance: Traces of National Socialism in West Germany, 1945–1960,” History & Memory 12, no. 2 (2000): 92–121.

40 See, for example, Paul Basu , Highland Homecomings: Genealogy and Heritage Tourism in the Scottish Diaspora (London: Routledge, 2007).

41   Huang, Wei-Jue , Gregory Ramshaw , and William C. Norman . “Homecoming or Tourism? Diaspora Tourism Experience of Second-Generation Immigrants,” Tourism Geographies 18, no. 1 (2016): 59–79.

42   Shaul Kelner , Tours That Bind: Diaspora, Pilgrimage, and Israeli Birthright Tourism (New York: New York University Press, 2010).

43   Dina Berger , The Development of Mexico’s Tourism Industry: Pyramids by Day, Martinis by Night (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006).

44 See, for example, Dawn Starin , “Letter From Luang Prabang: World Heritage Designation, Blessing or Curse?” Critical Asian Studies 40, no. 4 (December 2008): 639–652.

45   Tim Winter , “Heritage Studies and the Privileging of Theory,” International Journal of Heritage Studies 20, no. 5 (2014): 556–572.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Southern African Perspectives on Sustainable Tourism Management pp 139–152 Cite as

Changing Environment and the Political Ecology of Authenticity in Heritage Tourism: A Case of the Ovahimba and the Ju/’Hoansi-San Living Museums in Namibia

• Isobel Green 7 , 8 &
• Jarkko Saarinen 8 , 9  
• First Online: 01 June 2022

527 Accesses

Part of the book series: Geographies of Tourism and Global Change ((GTGC))

Living museums are an exhibitionary museological format, which relies on a demonstration of everyday practices and is characterised by live interpretation. They are often established for stimulating socio-economic development in peripheral areas that offer limited livelihood options for rural communities. For tourists, living museums aim to offer a tactile experience of local culture and history while creating both narrative and physical spaces for visitors to insert themselves within the cultural production of heritage. However, while being spaces produced for touristic experiences, an important dimension of living museums and heritage tourism, in general, is the idea of authenticity. This chapter discusses how the heritage elements are produced and displayed by utilising the examples of Ovahimba and the Ju/’Hoansi-San living museums in Namibia. Furthermore, the chapter analyses how the displayed heritage tourism and its produced authenticity have been affected by environmental changes at the case study sites. The chapter utilises a political ecology perspective to understand the intertwined nature of local culture, ways of living and the environment.

Download chapter PDF

10.1 Introduction

Namibia is the driest country in southern Africa. The country has been facing recurrent drought since 2013, characterised by below-average or no rainfall at all and soaring temperatures. The year 2019 was reported as the driest in 90 years of recorded history. Due to this situation, the government of Namibia has declared three times a state of emergency between 2013 and 2019 (Keja-Kaereho & Tjizu, 2019 ). Droughts have been highly problematic, especially in the rural parts of the country, which are highly dependent on livelihoods based on the direct use of natural resources and the conditions of ecosystem services (Bollig, 2016 ).

Many ethnic groups have traditionally adapted to the changing environmental conditions, but because of the intensified droughts, they face increasing challenges to practice their traditional livelihoods (see Keja-Kaereho & Tjizu, 2019 ; Saarinen, 2016 ). Recently, a key alternative livelihood option for rural communities in Namibia has been the evolving tourism industry, which is increasingly used as a tool for local development and economic diversification in the country (Kalvelage et al., 2020 ). As a result, tourism has been introduced to local communities (Lapeyre, 2010 , 2011a ; Novelli & Gebhardt, 2007 ), and the government has a proactive approach with regards to policies to integrate communities in tourism development and related societal modernisation process (Kavita & Saarinen, 2015 ; Lapeyre, 2011b ).

One specific tool for integrating local communities into tourism, especially ethnic minorities living in remote areas, has been the establishment of so-called living museums in Namibia. Living museums are an exhibitionary museological format, which relies on the stimulation of everyday practices and is characterised by live interpretation and performances (Naumova, 2015 ). They have their antecedents in the open-air museums in northern Europe and North America (see Corsane, 2004 ). Living museums offer a tactile experience of culture and history while creating both narrative and physical space for visitors to interact with the cultural production of heritage. Thus, compared to many other forms of museums that deal with physical objects, these living museums are more concerned with safeguarding everyday intangible cultural heritage. This everyday heritage refers to the social practices of a culture and, thus, not necessarily material objects characterising a specific culture and ethnic group.

According to Naumova ( 2015 ) living museums are often referred to as heritage museums. However, a heritage museum can be considered as a more generic form that encompasses any kind of museum that is dedicated to the preservation of a local past significant to the surrounding community and culture. Thus, a living museum is a specific form of museology consisting of heritage with spaces that look as though they are inhabited (Naumova, 2015 ). Gordon ( 2016 ) has defined a living museum as a cultural institution that teach historical lessons by recreating past environments that explicitly use interpreters to demonstrate past ways of life. This may lead to a danger that living museums are considered as unchanged portraits of “an idealised past” (Romo, 2010 , p. 10). However, Walter ( 2020 ) has further argued that living museums could also be tourism-related community-based projects designed, run, and staffed by community hosts. They could also be interactive and changing community-based exhibitions controlled by the community. While living museums are produced and designed spaces for touristic experiences, the idea of authenticity forms a crucial dimension for them (Williams, 2013 ). In this respect, living museums represent how people have lived and continue to live with their environment.

In addition to living museums, there are some other forms of heritage tourism sites based on a local community dimension in southern Africa. Cultural villages, for example, are heritage tourism attractions manifesting regional policy programs aiming to use local culture both in economic growth and community empowerment (van Veuren, 2001 ). Compared to living museums, cultural villages are an older form of heritage tourism attractions in the region. The majority of cultural villages in southern Africa, especially in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Swaziland, were established in the 1990’s (Saarinen, 2007 ) with a strong emphasis “on the potential of cultural tourism to contribute towards the goals of sustainable rural development” (van Veuren, 2004 , p. 139). They are purposefully built attractions that do not necessarily aim to demonstrate an authentic, i.e. real and living local village, but a staged place for cultural performances, information sharing and learning.

According to Chhabra et al. ( 2003 , p. 702) “much of today’s heritage tourism product depends on the staging or re-creation of ethnic or cultural traditions”. This may problematise the connections between authenticity and living museums as heritage tourism attractions (Lenao & Saarinen, 2015 ; Timothy, 2014 ). This paper discusses how the heritage elements are produced and displayed at living museums by utilising an example of the Ovahimba and the Ju/’Hoansi-San living museums in Namibia. Both ethnic groups are visibly used in Namibian tourism marketing and form a core attraction for international tourists (Saarinen & Niskala, 2009 ). Furthermore, the chapter analyses how the displayed heritage tourism and its authenticity have been affected by environmental changes at the case study sites. The chapter utilises a political ecology perspective to understand the intertwined nature of local culture, ways of living and the environment (Bryant & Bailey, 1997 ). According to Robbins ( 2012 ) the political ecology lens can be used to understand the decisions that local communities make about the natural environment. Specifically, political ecology is used in this paper to discuss how environmental change has impacted the ways communities’ position and depict themselves and work with tourism. This paper gives an overview of the ideas and connections of heritage tourism and authenticity, followed by the case study examples and a concluding section. The results are based on fieldwork undertaken at the Ovahimba and Ju/’Hoansi-San Living Museums between 2017 and 2019, utilising an observation approach in the local communities at the living museums. The description of the study sites is based on the fieldwork notes and observations.

10.2 Heritage, Tourism, and Authenticity

10.2.1 heritage tourism.

Heritage tourism concerns the motivation to experience traditions, customs and artefacts representative of past and present time at a tourist destination (Park et al., 2019 ). Though there are different views on what constitutes heritage, a common aspect is that it is something that is traditionally associated with what is inherited, valued, wanted and handed from one generation to the next (Herbert, 1995 ; Hoyau, 1988 ; Walsh, 1992 ). Graham ( 2002 ) states that heritage is the contemporary use of the past, including its interpretations and its representations. As stated by Park ( 2013 ), heritage is neither fixed nor unchanging but socially produced, conditioned, and constantly negotiated.

Heritage can be both tangible and intangible. In contrast to tangible material traces of past, intangible heritage refers to the practices, representations, expressions, and the knowledge and skills that communities, groups and in some cases individuals, recognise as part of their cultural heritage. According to the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2003 ), the intangible cultural heritage (ICH) can be defined as traditional and contemporary living at the same time, mainly recreated orally, and the skills often shared and performed by communities. However, the distinction between tangible and intangible heritage is not always distinctive. The interpretation of heritage can involve both tangible and intangible heritage elements by using the original objects, skills and enacting the practices to communicate information of the respective culture to the tourist.

Tourism has been a vital tool for utilising heritage resources commercially (Timothy, 2014 ). Many tangible heritage sites have become popular tourist attractions (Lak et al., 2020 ; Smith, 2016 ), while intangible heritage has been more challenging to commercialise in tourism. Heritage tourism can be defined as visitation to a historical area consisting of activities that provide a historical experience with educational value based around consumer motivation (Carter & Horneman, 2001 ; Goh, 2010 ; Prentice, 1993 ; Zeppel & Hall, 1992 ). There are two schools of thought in heritage tourism research, either emphasising the role of heritage resources or the role of tourist experiences. On the one hand, Fyall and Garrod ( 1998 ), for example, define heritage tourism as an economic activity that makes use of socio-cultural assets to attract visitors. This refers to the place-based idea of heritage tourism.

On the other hand, Poria et al. ( 2001 , p. 1047) see heritage tourism as an activity based on visitors’ motivations and perceptions rather than on specific places and site attributes (see Brida et al., 2012 ; Li et al., 2016 ). Similarly, Zeppel and Hall ( 1992 ) highlight the role of tourist motivation as a search for experiences based on nostalgia. These latter views are more focused on the motivational or customer-driven basis of heritage tourism.

Heritage tourism can involve both dimensions, i.e. consumption of experiences and creating site-specific facilities, products, and resources. There is also a need to develop tourism services and infrastructure beyond the site scale in the form of roads and transportation, for example (Brooks, 2011 ). From a geographical perspective, heritage tourism is based on the heritage values of a place or region and is inherently place-specific and stems from the unique character of the place (Tuan, 1974 ). Thus, the identity of the place is marketed with integration to the tourism products that enable tourists to experience and appreciate the place and its attributed. In tourism, a key element for this process of ‘appreciation’ is heritage interpretation, which Tilden ( 1977 , p. 8) has defined as an “educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of original objects, by firsthand experience and by illustrative media rather than simply to communicate factual media” (Smith, 2016 ; Uzzell, 1989 ). Schouten ( 1995 ) has further argued that visitors at heritage sites are looking for experiences rather than the hard facts of historical reality. This may problematise the connection between heritage tourism products and experiences and their authenticity.

10.2.2 Authenticity in Tourism

Authenticity is one of the most challenging concepts and ideas in tourism studies (Cohen, 1988 ; MacCannell, 1976 ), and there is no clear consensus regarding the definition of the term (Li et al., 2016 ). Originally, the term authenticity was mainly linked to museums and their artefacts (Trilling, 1972 ). In tourism, the term usually refers to a wider set of issues and processes that are beyond the objective criteria of museums (Wang, 1999 ). Provocatively stated, there may be nothing real or authentic in tourism (Boorstin, 1964 ) as a large share of the products and performances in tourism are what Brown ( 1996 , p. 33) calls “genuine fakes”. Obviously, this depends on what we mean by authenticity and whether we consider that authentic forms of culture and traditions can change.

In this respect, Wang ( 1999 ) has approached the authenticity in tourist experiences as three different types: objective, constructive and existential authenticity. According to him, objective authenticity is based on modernism and interprets authenticity as the objective character of sites and traditions. It refers to the museum-linked usage of authenticity with an absolute and objective criterion used to measure authenticity. Constructive authenticity is based on constructivism. It argues that authenticity is a result of social constructs based on worldviews, beliefs, knowledge, perceptions, etc., that are value-based, transforming and influenced by power relations (Cheong & Miller, 2000 ; Saarinen, 1999 ; Urry, 1990 ). Constructed authenticity is often based on stereotyped images and expectations onto toured objects (Wang, 1999 ), which MacCannell ( 1973 ) has called staged authenticity. Finally, existential authenticity refers to highly subjective views towards tourist sites and performances (Williams, 2013 ). As noted by Wang ( 1999 , p. 359): “existential authenticity can often have nothing to do with the issue of whether toured objects are real.”

Previous research has shown that the elements linked to authenticity may change over time (Blapp & Mitas, 2019 ; Saarinen, 2007 ). Cultures are dynamic (Burns, 2001 ), and they have always been in contact with and influenced by other cultures and places. Thus, a general modernisation process of societies, environmental change, globalisation, and tourism development, for example, all create potential changes in our everyday living and traditions (Azarya, 2004 ). Growing heritage tourism can have significant influences on how the everyday life of locals is structured, performed, evolves and adapts to other changes (Qu et al., 2019 ). On the one hand, it can help to preserve cultural elements as they have ‘always been’, which is implicitly the idea and objective of living museums. On the other hand, it can accelerate changes and modernisation as a high number of tourists visiting heritage sites may change local ways of life (Blapp & Mitas, 2019 ). Therefore, instead of focusing on a fixed idea of authenticity in tourism, some scholars have suggested moving beyond authenticity discourse in tourism studies and focusing on “the local way of life” (Blapp & Mitas, 2019 , p. 36) that is changeable and includes the elements of the past, the present and potential futures (Saarinen, 2007 ).

10.3 The Ovahimbas and the Ju/’Hoansi San

The Ovahimba live in the north-western part of Namibia, in the Kunene region, and southwestern Angola (Bollig & Heinemann, 2002 ; Saarinen, 2012 , 2013 ). Traditionally, the Ovahimba have been pastoral nomads whose main livelihoods are based on cattle and goats and seasonal small-scale subsistence crop farming. Women tend to perform labour-intensive work next to villages, such as carrying water, building homes, and milking cows. Ovahimba men handle the livestock, political tasks, and legal trials in traditional law-making. Their houses are relatively simple, cone-shaped structures of saplings, bound together with palm leaves, mud and cow dung that offer shade and coolness in a dry and warm environment. The women rub their bodies with otjize , a red mixture of butterfat and ochre, believed to protect their skins against the sun. The red mixture is said to symbolise earth’s rich red colour and the blood that symbolises life. The Ovahimba still adorn themselves with traditional jewellery according to traditional customs. Both men and women wear large numbers of necklaces and arm bracelets made from ostrich eggshell beads, grass, cloth, and copper (Shilongo, 2020 ).

The Ju/’Hoansi San have been researched by anthropologists for over 50 years (Barnard, 2007 ; Biesele, 1986 ; Gordon & Douglas, 2000 ; Lee, 1986 ; Marshall, 1976 ) and are probably among the most studied and best documented indigenous peoples in Africa. Currently, around 30,000 to 33,000 San live in Namibia. Traditionally, the San people have lived a hunting and gathering economic lifestyle and are nomadic, i.e. highly mobile, and they relocate themselves in response to their seasonal subsistence needs. As a result, their nomadic movements have been driven by environmental conditions, and they have been dependent on wild plants for their day-to-day dietary needs. The Ju/’Hoansi belong to the San (formerly known as the Bushmen), a collective name for the 14 Khoesan-speaking groups whose languages are characterised by its clicking sounds. The Ju/’Hoansi are the second biggest San group in Namibia situated around the area of Tsumkwe.

Due to intensified droughts in Namibia, many local communities have had to look to other means to diversify their traditional livelihood as the natural environment could no longer meet the needs of their nomadic lifestyles (Saarinen, 2016 ). The community’s livestock has been diminishing ever since and has reached a point where they can no longer keep large herds of livestock. The wild fruits are not as abundant as before, which has affected the traditional lifestyles of many Ovahimba and San communities. With this dwindling of natural resources and reduced capacity for dependence on the ecosystem, these two case study communities, jointly with the Living Culture Foundation ( 2020 ), have set up the Living Museums to aid community members to supplement their subsistence farming. As a result, communities have transformed by moving away from living solely based on their natural resources.

10.4 Case Study Sites and Research Materials

The Ovahimba Living Museum and the Ju/’Hoansi-San Living Museum are designed as places where tourists can interactively experience the traditional culture of the Ovahimba and the San. These living museums act as ‘traditional schools for guests’ but also for the younger generations of the communities. At the same time, the museums are income-generating institutions for the communities (Living Culture Foundation, 2020 ). The museums offer performances, other activities and dedicated guides who interpret and explain the various activities that take place at the sites.

Over the years, the Ovahimba communities have been exposed to both tourists and the practices of the tourism industry in the region (Saarinen, 2012 , 2016 ). The Kunene region, where the Ovahimba mainly are, has several conservancies (e.g. Marienfluss, Orupenbe, Sanitatas, Okondjombo, Puros and Kunene River), and this has resulted in the increase in tourism activities in the region (Shilongo, 2020 ), including the Ovahimba Living Museum where 71 visitors in 2016 and 512 in 2017 visited the Ovahimba Living Museum. (Living Culture Foundation, 2020 ). The museum, established in 2016, is strategically located between Opuwo, the administrative capital of Kunene Region, and the Epupa Falls, one of the key tourist attractions in northwest Namibia. There is an entrance fee of between N$ 120 and N$ 4000 per person, depending on the program visitors select. The Museum area consists of a large traditional homestead in which the Ovahimbas introduce interested guests to their daily routines and encourage them to participate in various activities. Some of the performed traditions are the production of food, craftsmanship (forging, pottery, wood carving, leather tanning), the building of clay huts, and singing and dancing (Living Culture Foundation, 2020 ).

The Ju/’Hoansi-San Living Museum, referred to as /Xao-o Ju/’Hoansi-Ga (i.e. the life of the Ju/’Hoansi), is situated in Grashoek, a small village, about halfway between Grootfontein and Tsumkwe, north of the C44 road. Like the Ovahimba Living Museum, the Ju/’Hoansi-San Living Museum is an open-air museum where the community demonstrates their lifestyle and interacts with tourists by showcasing their various daily activities. Originally initiated by the Namibian tour guide Werner Pfeifer and the teacher GhauNaici from Grashoek (Living Culture Foundation, 2020 ) it has been operated by the community since July 2004. Its annual visitor numbers fluctuate, but in 2017 there were 2899 visitors in the Museum (Living Culture Foundation, 2020 ).

Many San groups still practice the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. The museum aims to provide visitors with insights into the life of the San by presenting an old but slowly disappearing culture in their reconstructed ‘nomad-village’. The activities at the constructed Ju/’Hoansi-San Living Museum include gathering food from the bush and collecting various plant species to make traditional medicines. They also use ostrich shells to make the various traditional crafts and prepare animal skins to make their clothing and leather bags that they sell at the museum site. Almost all offered programs are interactive. Visitors try to shoot arrows, experience the unique Ju/’Hoansi rope skipping or try to sing an original song. By doing all this, the museum aims to set a high value on presenting the hunter-gatherer culture as authentically as possible. The Living Museum of the Ju/’Hoansi-San makes use guides to translate for visitors from the native San Language to English during their visit to the museum.

This research is grounded on a qualitative approach with an observation method based on interactions with the local community members at the Living Museums. The fieldwork took place at the Ovahimba and Ju/’Hoansi-San Living Museums from 2017 till 2019. There were approximately 20 local community members at both research sites. Various data collection methods were utilised but the fieldwork materials used in this chapter are solely based on unstructured observations (Bell & Bryman, 2011 ). The fieldwork observations included interactions between local community members and visitors at the Living Museums. The analysis is based on a general narrative and ethnographically informed approach where the focus is exploring the life of the local community members and how the performed heritage elements may have changed due to droughts in the study areas.

10.5 Heritage Tourism and Authenticity in the Ovahimba and the Ju/’Hoansi-San Living Museums

10.5.1 visiting living museums.

The daily routine of the local communities, as observed at the Ovahimba Living Museum and the Ju/’Hoansi San Living Museum, are the main activities promoted for potential visitors. These activities include making traditional crafts and ornaments, gathering plants for making traditional medicine and making traditional weapons such as bow and arrows, above the normal duties of cleaning the homestead and preparing meals.

In addition, especially in the Ovahimba Living Museum, the observed activities included women doing each other’s or their own hair and making the traditional perfume that they wear. They also made clothes from animal skin. The Ovahimba’s key routine activity is keeping the place clean, where they show the visitors their cultural performances and rituals. The Ovahimba ladies also prepare traditional medicines from plants they collect nearby for visitors to observe.

Traditionally, the Ovahimba have relied on their livestock and gardening maze and/or vegetables. During the observation period, however, there was very little livestock around, and women were no longer working in the fields. During harsh times like the persistent drought at the site, livestock needs to be constantly located in new areas with better grazing and water. Thus, environmental conditions directly affect their livelihood resources and how they can demonstrate their traditions and way of life to visitors. Due to the drought, the local community members mainly performed activities that were not directly related to the natural environment but instead showed visitors craft making and explaining about the Ovahimba rituals, for example.

During the observations and discussions, the local communities indicated that once tourists come to the Living Museum, the local communities give the tourists a program of activities that they can participate in to choose from. This applied to both Living Museums. Then the hosts would prepare activities that the tourists would like to engage in. Once the tourists decide which activities they want, the local community would recreate this event or ritual for them. This ‘order model’ for cultural rituals performed created a constructed authenticity. As the local people had no capacity to practice their everyday routines with livestock and garden due to the drought, the living museum ideal turned towards a cultural village concept with purely performed and staged authenticity.

In the Ju/’Hoansi San Living Museum, the daily activities undertaken by the local community included collecting various plant species to make traditional medicines and collecting different berries and plants for food. They make use of animal skins in preparing their clothing and leather bags. The bags are sold at the Living Museum in a designated place for souvenirs, normally a few meters outside the area where the community members would reenact their cultural activities. Locals also use ostrich shells to make various traditional crafts that they also sell to visitors or wear themselves when the next visitors come to the Living Museum.

Based on the observations at the Ju/’Hoansi Living Museum, a similarly constructed authenticity was performed but in a slightly differently staged site. When entering the place, a visitor needs to go to the information meeting point where the locals wait for them. Based on the visitors’ preferences of activities, the locals select who will accompany the visitor(s) to the Living Museum, which is about 0.5 km from the meeting point. This contrasts with the Ovahimba Living Museum, where the locals live and perform the activities on site. This separation of living elsewhere and performing the activities at the Ju/’Hoansi resembles a typical staged cultural village.

10.5.2 Drought and Performed Authenticity of Heritage Tourism

During the persistent drought of 2017–2019, the Namibian government declared a state of emergency. Due to the drought, many communities had to adapt their way of life, including the communities around the Ovahimba and the Ju/’Hoansi San Living Museums. In 2017, before the intensified drought in the Ovahimba Living Museum, the men and herd boys worked with the livestock, and women did gardening and ploughing in the fields. This was done whether tourists were there or not. In 2019, the men no longer tended livestock, and women did not work in the fields. The drought had influenced the traditional way of life. Thus, due to environmental change, they adapted and altered their behaviour. This has impacted the nature of authenticity, as the living museum ideal with normal everyday living and routines has transformed towards forms typical for cultural villages in which staged performances take place and life is a tourism centric in general.

While the Ju/’Hoansi San Living Museum has been more staged designed, as people do not actually live at the site, tourists visit and performances take place, also there the drought period and related environmental changes have had impacted the way of life of the local community. The local community has not been able to showcase some of the traditional activities, such as taking visitors to show various plant species as they do not exist in the surroundings due to droughts. This environmental change, however, has provided an opportunity for the local communities to strengthen their commercial heritage tourism activities, although in a staged manner. In many respects, these cultural heritage interactions are no longer being done to preserve their culture but to supplement the daily life of locals influenced by negative environmental changes. Therefore, heritage tourism and related guiding have become a ‘job’ and potential career path for the local community members in which practices their children and younger generations are actively engaged.

10.6 Conclusions

Drought and tourism development have brought change to local ways of living in Namibia and the case study sites. The findings here indicate that local communities have transformed their lifestyles towards a more ‘modern’ way of life that involves the active production and consumption of heritage tourism experiences within a monetary economy. The communities have become more tourism-dependent as they can no longer live a traditional way of life that has been traditionally based on natural resources alone. They have learnt to supplement their lifestyle by engaging in tourism activities. What kind of identity issues this change may cause in future, however, is unknown. As the children are intensively socialised into heritage tourism and related experiences, the political ecology of droughts and changed authenticity may transform the community identities more dramatically in future than the environmental change alone would do. As noted by Robbins ( 2012 , p. 23), environmental change and conditions can “lead to new kinds of people” with opportunities and constraints.

In respect to a heritage tourism experience, this involves potentially problematic issues. If visiting tourists expect objectively authentic experiences from the Living Museums based on nostalgia, as it is ideally indicated in the place promotion, it may have become an unrealistic target and basis for marketing in future. The Living Museums are increasingly providing staged, i.e. constructed and performed authenticity, which is the typical form of authenticity in the production circles of the tourism industry in general (Williams, 2013 ). As a result, the Living Museums have become cultural villages designed to satisfy the cultural and heritage consumption needs of the visitors and be a key source of income and employment for the locals. Still, these sites can also be interpreted as representing the current ‘real local of a way of life’ under the changing environment and societies in the Global South (Walter, 2020 ). They are not static but dynamic. In this respect, the Living Museums may still work for the local cultures to preserve their traditions while transforming and adapting to the ‘new normal’. Positively, this can be considered as being resilient.

Droughts have affected the natural environment and the traditional way of life in the case study areas. The communities have diversified to supplement their traditional lifestyles with tourism practices and use tourism for community development based on their own needs with performed authenticity. From a community perspective, this is neither positive nor negative change, per se. All cultures are dynamic and cannot remain stagnant. Thus, these communities must adapt to the changing environment and their surrounding society. At the same time, however, we need to believe, trust and support that the Ovahimba and the Ju/’Hoansi San communities in Namibia can use tourism in a considerate manner to provide socio-economic benefits, empowerment and protect the cultures in the ways they prefer. By doing so, the tourism industry could better serve the current calls for sustainable development.

Azarya, V. (2004). Globalisation and international tourism in developing countries: Marginality as a commercial commodity. Current Sociology, 52 (6), 949–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392104046617

Article   Google Scholar  

Barnard, A. (2007). Anthropology and the bushman . Berg Publishers.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bell, E., & Bryman, A. (2011). Research methodology: Business and management contexts . Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar  

Biesele, M. (1986). How hunter-gatherers’ stories make sense: Semantics and adaption. Cultural Anthropology, 1 (2), 157–170.

Blapp, M., & Mitas, O. (2019). The role of authenticity in rural creative tourism. In N. Duxbury & G. Richards (Eds.), A research agenda for creative tourism (pp. 28–41). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bollig, M. (2016). Towards an arid Eden? Boundary-making, governance and benefit sharing and the political ecology of the new commons of Kunene region, Northern Namibia. International Journal of the Commons, 10 (2), 771–799. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.702

Bollig, M., & Heinemann, H. (2002). Nomadic savages, ochre people and heroic herders: Visual presentation of the Himba of Namibia’s Kaokoland. Visual Anthropology, 15 , 267–312.

Boorstin, D. (1964). The image: A guide to pseudo-events in America . Vintage Book.

Brida, J., Disegna, M., & Scuderi, R. (2012). The visitor’s perception of authenticity at the museums: Archaeology versus modern art. Current Issues in Tourism, 17 (6), 518–538.

Brooks, G. (2011). Heritage as a driver for development . ICOMOS. Available at: http://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/1207/1/III-1-Article1_Brooks.pdf

Brown, D. (1996). Genuine Fakes. In Selwyn, T. (Eds.), The Tourist Image, Chichester (pp. 33–47). John Wiley and Sons.

Bryant, R., & Bailey, S. (1997). Third world political ecology . Routledge.

Burns, P. (2001). Brief encounters: Culture, tourism, and the local-global nexus. In S. Wahab & C. Cooper (Eds.), Tourism in the age of globalisation (pp. 290–305). Routledge.

Carter, R., & Horneman, L. (2001). Does a market for heritage tourism exist? Journal of the Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology, 25 , 61–68.

Cheong, S.-M., & Miller, M. L. (2000). Power and tourism: A Foucauldian observation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (2), 371–390.

Chhabra, D., Healy, R., & Sills, E. (2003). Staged authenticity and heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (3), 702–719.

Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditisation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15 (3), 371–386.

Fyall, A., & Garrod, B. (1998). Heritage tourism: At what price? Managing Leisure, 3 (4), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/136067198375996

Goh, E. (2010). Understanding the heritage tourist market segment. International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, 1 (3), 257–270.

Gordon, A. (2016). Time travel: Tourism and the rise of the living history museum in mid-twentieth century . University of British Columbia Press.

Gordon, R., & Douglas, S. (2000). The bushmen myth: The making of a Namibian underclass . Westview Press.

Corsane, G. (Ed.). (2004). Heritage, museums and galleries . Routledge.

Graham, B. (2002). Heritage as knowledge: Capital or culture? Urban Studies, 39 (5–6), 1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980220128426

Herbert, G. (1995). The critical heritage . Routledge.

Hoyau, P. (1988). Heritage and the conserver society: The French case. In R. Lumley (Ed.), The museum time-machine (pp. 27–35). Comedia/Routledge.

Kalvelage, L., Revilla Diez, J. R., & Bollig, M. (2020). How much remains? Local value capture from tourism in Zambezi, Namibia. Tourism Geographies . https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1786154

Kavita, E & Saarinen, J. (2015). Tourism and rural community development in Namibia: Policy issues review. Fennia, 193 (3), 1–10.

Keja-Kaereho, C., & Tjizu, B. (2019). Climate change and global warming in Namibia: Environmental disasters vs human life and the economy. Management and Economics Research Journal, 5 (1), 1–11.

Lak, A., Gheitasi, M., & Timothy, D. J. (2020). Urban regeneration through heritage tourism: Cultural policies and strategic management. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 18 (4), 386–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2019.1668002

Lapeyre, R. (2010). Community-based tourism as a sustainable solution to maximise impacts locally? The Tsiseb conservancy case, Namibia. Development Southern Africa, 27 , 757–772.

Lapeyre, R. (2011a). The Grootberg lodge partnership in Namibia: Towards poverty alleviation and empowerment for long-term sustainability? Current Issues in Tourism, 14 , 221–234.

Lapeyre, R. (2011b). Governance structures and the distribution of tourism income in Namibia communal lands: A new institutional framework. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 102 , 302–315.

Lee, R. (1986). The gods must be crazy, but the state has a plan: Government policies towards the San in Namibia. Canadian Journal of African Studies, 20 (1), 91–98.

Lenao, M., & Saarinen, J. (2015). Integrated rural tourism as a tool for community tourism development: Exploring culture and heritage projects in the North East District of Botswana. South African Geographical Journal, 97 (2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2015.1028985

Li, X., Shen, H., & Wen, H. (2016). A study on tourists perceived authenticity towards experience quality and behaviour intention of cultural heritage in Macao. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 8 (4), 117–123.

Living Culture Foundation. (2020, August 1). Traditional cultures in Namibia. Retrieved from: https://www.lcfn.info/

MacCannell, D. (1973) Staged Authenticity: Arrangement of Social Space in Tourist Settings. American Journal of Sociology, 79 (3).

MacCannell, D. (1976). The tourist . Schocken Books.

Marshall, L. (1976). The Kung of Nyae Nyae . Harvard University Press.

Naumova, A. (2015). Touching the past: Investigating lived experiences of heritage in living history museums. The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum, 7 (3–4), 1–9.

Novelli, M., & Gebhardt, K. (2007). Community based tourism in Namibia: ‘Reality Show’ or ‘Window Dressing’? Current Issues in Tourism, 10 , 443–479.

Park, H. (2013). Heritage tourism . Routledge.

Park, E., Choi, B., & Lee, T. (2019). The role and dimensions of authenticity in heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 74 (2), 99–109.

Poria, Y., Airey, D., & Butler, R. (2001). Challenging the present approach to heritage tourism: Is tourism to heritage places heritage tourism? Tourism Review, 56 (1–2), 51–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb058358

Qu, C., Timothy, D. J., & Zhang, C. (2019). Does tourism erode or prosper culture? Evidence from the Tibetan ethnic area of Sichuan Province, China. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 17 (4), 526–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2019.1600867

Prentice, R. (1993). Tourism and heritage attractions . Routledge.

Robbins, P. (2012). Political ecology: A critical introduction . Wiley-Blackwell.

Romo, A. A. (2010). Brazil's living museum: Race, reform, and tradition in Bahia . North Carolina Press.

Saarinen, J. (1999). Representations of indigeneity: Sami culture in the discourses of tourism. In P. M. Sant & J. N. Brown (Eds.), Indigeneity: Constructions and re/presentations . Nova Science Publishers.

Saarinen, J. (2007). Cultural tourism, local communities and representations of authenticity: The case of Lesedi and Swazi cultural villages in Southern Africa. In B. Wishitemi, A. Spenceley, & H. Wels (Eds.), Culture and community: Tourism studies in eastern and southern Africa (pp. 140–154). Rozenberg.

Saarinen, J. (2012). Tourism development and local communities: The direct benefits of tourism to OvaHimba communities in the Kaokoland, North-West Namibia. Tourism Review International, 15 , 149–157.

Saarinen, J. (2013). Ethnic tourism in Kaokoland, northwest Namibia. In G. Visser & S. Ferreira (Eds.), Tourism and crisis (pp. 180–194). Routledge.

Saarinen, J. (2016). Political ecologies and economies of tourism development in Kaokoland, North-West Namibia. In M. Mostafanezhad, A. Carr, & R. Norum (Eds.), Political ecology of tourism: Communities, power and the environment (pp. 213–230). Routledge.

Saarinen, J., & Niskala, M. (2009). Local culture and regional development: The role of OvaHimba in Namibian tourism. In P. Hottola (Ed.), Tourism strategies and local responses in southern Africa (pp. 61–72). CABI Publishing.

Schouten, F. (1995). Improving visitor care in heritage attractions. Tourism Management, 16 (4), 259–261.

Shilongo, A. (2020). Tourism and commoditisation of traditional cultures among the Himba people of Namibia. Editon Consortium Journal of Arts, Humanities, and Social Studies, 2 (1), 187–197.

Smith, M. (2016). Issues in cultural tourism studies . Routledge.

Tilden, J. (1977). Interpreting our heritage: Principles and practices for visitors in parks, museums, and historic places . North Carolina Press.

Timothy, D. (2014). Contemporary cultural heritage and tourism: Development issues and emerging trends. Journal of Public Archaeology, 13 (1–3), 30–47.

Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity . Butterworth-Heinemann.

Tuan, Y. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes and values . Columbia University Press.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage . UNESCO.

Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies . Sage.

Uzzell, D. (1989). Introduction: The visitor experience. In D. Uzzel (Ed.), Heritage interpretation (pp. 1–15). Belhaven.

van Veuren, E. J. (2001). Transforming cultural villages in the spatial development initiatives of South Africa. South African Geographical Journal, 83 (2), 137–148.

van Veuren, E. J. (2004). Cultural village tourism in South Africa: Capitalising on indigenous culture. In C. M. Rogerson & G. Visser (Eds.), Tourism and development issues in contemporary South Africa . Africa Institute of South Africa.

Walsh, K. (1992). The representation of the past: Museums and heritage in the postmodern world . Routledge.

Walter, P. (2020). Community-based ecotourism projects as living museums. Journal of Ecotourism, 19 (3), 233–247.

Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (2), 349–370.

Williams, P. (2013). Performing interpretation. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 13 (2), 115–126.

Zeppel, H., & Hall, C. (1992). Arts and heritage tourism. In B. Weiler & C. Hall (Eds.), Special interest tourism (pp. 47–68). Belhaven Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Tourism and Hospitality, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek, Namibia

Isobel Green

University of Johannesburg, School of Tourism and Hospitality, Johannesburg, South Africa

Isobel Green & Jarkko Saarinen

School of Tourism and Hospitality, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Jarkko Saarinen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isobel Green .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Geography Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

Department Historical and Heritage Studies, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

Berendien Lubbe

Department of Environmental Science, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana

Naomi N. Moswete

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Green, I., Saarinen, J. (2022). Changing Environment and the Political Ecology of Authenticity in Heritage Tourism: A Case of the Ovahimba and the Ju/’Hoansi-San Living Museums in Namibia. In: Saarinen, J., Lubbe, B., Moswete, N.N. (eds) Southern African Perspectives on Sustainable Tourism Management. Geographies of Tourism and Global Change. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99435-8_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99435-8_10

Published : 01 June 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-99434-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-99435-8

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Authenticity: From heritage to tourism

Authenticity as a concept has been studied since a long time. Despite this, and the historic preservation movement that arose in Europe in the early nineteenth century, authenticity was not a keyword and its study only began to be systematic in social sciences, from the second half of the XXth century (Starn, 2002). After that, the concept has raised and continues to raise many questions about its interpretation. Authenticity continues to justify reflection not only with regard to the heritage preservation, but also in the tourism context (Cohen, 1988; MacCannell, 1973). Authenticity is a matter of choice, a motivation that takes tourists to leave their familiar surroundings and look for unique spaces. Some tourists seek for authentic experiences, while others gravitate in artificial experiences (Cohen, 1988). In fact, the pursuit for authenticity has become a central theme in the tourism literature (Belhassen, Caton & Stewart, 2008). The authenticity is a central motivation in tourism experience. The attraction of tourists to places of social, historical or cultural significance is comparable to the desire of pilgrims to visit holy places (MacCannell, 1973). The authenticity as dynamic and multifaceted concept has sparked many debates about its meaning and utility, so it occupies a central position in tourism studies (Rickly-Boyd, 2012). Many researchers have deconstructed theoretically and empirically the notion of authenticity in heritage environments due to its crucial importance, namely for heritage tourism (Yeoman, Brass, Mcmahon-Beatie, 2007). Over the years the concept has been studied from different perspectives such as object, place, experience - these thoughts are translated into several theories sometimes conflicting. Indeed, research in this area gives us a perspective of the present discussion and development discourse about the authenticity concept (Reisinger & Steiner, 2006; Wang, 1999). In this context, this paper main goal is to make a literature review on the concept of authenticity and its relationship with tourism. Specifically, we intend to present the historical evolution of the term linked to the Heritage classification, namely the contributions of ICOMOS, secondly we present the concept of authenticity in tourism studies. Discussion centres on this review literature implications to theory and future research.

Related Papers

Ilinka Terziyska

Journal of Heritage Management

Neel Kamal Chapagain

Moving beyond the objectives of conservation, today’s heritage profession aims for heritage management. The management approach reminds professionals and host communities to consider sustainability of heritage in economic, environmental and socio-cultural frameworks. Integration of tourism within heritage management frameworks can provide economic incentives for managing heritage sites and activities, whereas well managed and interpreted heritage resources can be popular destinations for tourism. However, there might be other unwanted and unforeseen consequences of these practices. While providing an economic support for heritage management, the economic attraction may entice exploitation of heritage resources, including over-use, theft and vandalism. Over-marketing of heritage resources may trigger promotion of cheap mimicries of heritage manifestations and values. Such consequences and discussion often revolve around the notion of authenticity—one of the much-talked about and widely used terminologies in both heritage management and tourism. The notion of authenticity may have different meanings for different contexts, resulting in a mismatch of perceptions of what and how to be conserved, preserved, managed and presented. This article explores some of the complications associated with the notion of authenticity in heritage management and tourism, and suggests a contextual approach to authenticity.

Kjell Olsen

Melahat Kucukarslan Emiroglu

Laura Mayer

The concept of authenticity and its connection to the original, genuine or real has long been debated within a range of fields. One of the largest fields of debate has emerged within tourism literature, due to commentators arguing that tourists are continually on a quest for authenticity. In recent times, this notion has been challenged due to the rising popularity of tourists visiting attractions that may be deemed ‘inauthentic’ by researchers such as Disney World. These notions have also extended to cultural and heritage fields, through the use of ‘inauthentic’ objects such as replicas, reproductions and copies displayed alongside originals objects in destinations such as museums and heritage sites. In discussing the emergence of three different approaches to authenticity within tourism literature, this paper is separated into multiple sections, in order to provide a summary of the debates that continue to plague the sector. This paper is separated into four distinct sessions. The first section provides an overview of the concept of authenticity within tourism and traces its origins to MacCannell, who introduced the subject in the early 1970s. The second section attempts to distinguish the differences between objects that may be deemed inauthentic, such as replicas, copies, forgeries and fakes, and argues that it is the intention of duplicated items that characterizes them as either inherently negative or positive. The third section covers the three main approaches to authenticity, objectivism, postmodern and constructivist, and argues that the third approach allows for copied or replicated items to be deemed as authentic. While the fourth and final section, attempts to illustrate how the popularity of the constructivist approach to authenticity is navigated by museum audiences through recent research undertaken by the Deutsches Museum.

Moving beyond the objectives of conservation, today’s heritage profession aims for heritage management. The management approach reminds professionals and host communities to consider sustainability of heritage in economic, environmental and socio-cultural frameworks. Integration of tourism within heritage management frameworks can provide economic incentives for managing heritage sites and activities, whereas well managed and interpreted heritage resources can be popular destinations for tourism. However, there might be other unwanted and unforeseen consequences of these practices. While providing an economic support for heritage management, the economic attraction may entice exploitation of heritage resources, including over-use, theft and vandalism. Over-marketing of heritage resources may trigger promotion of cheap mimicries of heritage manifestations and values. Such consequences and discussion often revolve around the notion of authenticity—one of the much-talked about and wide...

cleopatra mlalazi

Odete Paiva

There is a clear ‘cult of authenticity’, at least in modern Western society. So, there is a need to analyze the tourist perception of authenticity, bearing in mind the destination, its attractions, motivations, cultural distance, and contact with other tourists (Kohler, 2009). Our study seeks to investigate the relationship among cultural values, image, sense of place, perception of authenticity and behavior intentions at World Heritage Historic Centers. From a theoretical perspective, to our knowledge, no study exists with a focus on the impact of cultural values, image and sense of place on authenticity and intentions behavior in tourists. The intention of this study is to help close this gap. A survey was applied to collect data from tourists visiting two World Heritage Historic Centers – Guimarães in Portugal and Cordoba in Spain. Data was analyzed in order to establish a structural equation model (SEM). Discussion centers on the implications of model to theory and managerial de...

Dahlia El-Manstrly

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Authenticity in tourism- A simple explanation

Disclaimer: Some posts on Tourism Teacher may contain affiliate links. If you appreciate this content, you can show your support by making a purchase through these links or by buying me a coffee . Thank you for your support!

Authenticity in tourism. It’s a heated debate at times.

Do tourists search for an authentic experience whilst on holiday? Or is leisure time all that they want? Does it matter if what the tourist thinks is ‘authentic’, actually isn’t? Is it ethical to mislead the tourist ? Does authenticity come at the expense of the host?

There’s more to the discussion on authenticity in tourism than meets the eye.

In this post, I will explain the meaning of authenticity and why it is important in the tourism industry. I will also briefly explain some of the key authenticity theory and philosophical debates in relation to authenticity in tourism.

The meaning of authenticity

The tourist search for authenticity, staged authenticity, authenticity in tourism: what’s the deal, further reading.

According to the dictionary, authenticity is;

  “Not false of copied: Genuine and original, as opposed to being a fake or reproduction”                      

Defining authenticity, however, is not such a straight forward task and it is one that has been debated for many years.

In essence, authenticity is all about being ‘real’ or ‘true’. But what is or isn’t ‘real’ or ‘true’? It’s quite easy to say that an item such as a designer bag is a real or a fake- it’s black and white- it was either made by the real designer, or it wasn’t.

Identifying authenticity of culture , however, is far less straight forward. In fact, some would argue that it is actually possible to determine authenticity in culture!

Lets take the example of an Indian child…. What does an ‘authentic’ Indian child look like? Poor? Thin? Surrounded by litter?

There is a difference between ‘authentic’ and stereotypical… yet, we seem to use the two almost interchangeably much of the time!

In actual fact, it is very difficult to determine what an ‘authentic’ Indian child looks like, just as it is difficult to identify any form of authenticity in culture. Yet, we try and we do.

According to Justin Francis at Responsible Travel , authenticity is less about a dictionary definition and more about a feeling. He believes that when you personally feel that something is authentic, then it is authentic.

Whatever the answer is, if there even is one, it is clear that there is a lot of ambiguity surrounding the term authenticity. So what role does this play in the tourism industry?

Theorists such as MacCannel (1973) and Cohen (1972) state that tourism is a modern quest for authenticity.

MacCannel(1976) suggests that Western tourists are looking for a sense of authenticity lacking in their home life; abroad, hosts provide this by creating authentic seeming presentations of their own culture.

In effect, he is suggesting that tourists travel to experience something new that they don’t have at home. They may want to learn Salsa in Spain, drink Champagne in France or watch a traditional child dance show in Cambodia, for example. Heck, they may just want something as simple as a clean beach and some warm weather that is ‘authentically’ Spanish (or which ever destination they choose).

In contradiction to this, Boorstin (1964) differs by suggesting that modern tourists do not seek authenticity. Instead they seek only entertainment.

He suggests that the tourists don’t care if the Salsa lessons are, in actual fact, a modified version of dance developed for the tourists. The tourists don’t mind if the Champagne wasn’t made from grapes grown in France. And people don’t care if the kids actually practice this dance in their everyday life outside of the tourism industry. That Spanish beach ? If the sand was imported from the USA they couldn’t care less.

Boorstin believes that tourists are easily satisfied by an inauthentic tourism experience. Tourists are not in search of authenticity at all. They are in search only of entertainment and enjoyment.

So we have identified that tourists may be in search of authenticity in tourism. We have also determined that they may not be. (I don’t have the answer here, only both sides of the argument)

But what about staged authenticity?

Staged authenticity in tourism is when what appears to be ‘authentic’, is actually inauthentic. Think Scotsman wearing a kilt, Chicken Tikka Masala at an Indian restaurant, Maasai Mara tribe carrying swords. These are all examples of staged authenticity. (didn’t know Chicken Tikka Masala wasn’t actually an Indian dish? Read more like this in my post- 10 foods you eat that are not ‘real’ | Authenticity in food )

Tourists are often exploited by the hosts through the staging of authenticity and in many instances the tourists are unable to recognise that these events are fake.

In fact, Turner (1994) argues that ‘the very existence of tourism rules out the possibility of authentic cultural experience’. In other words, if tourism takes place then what ever it is that the tourist is going to see is no longer ‘authentic’ BECAUSE the tourists are there!

The question remains, does it matter that the tourists are fooled by staged authenticity?

I’ll never forget the time that I went on the Jungle Book tour in Goa. We stayed in a rural area of India , learned about how the locals lived, visited a waterfall, did yoga, saw elephants etc. In the evening there was a ‘traditional’ Indian buffet with a variety of rices, curries and breads…. and chips! When I sarcastically asked one of the staff members if chips were authentic in the Goan jungle he was shocked by my question- clearly most tourists do not realise/ think about this!

But does it matter that the tourist was told that they were eating an authentic Indian buffet when in reality it wasn’t? The food was less spicy than the locals would have it, there were chips, ice cream and gin and tonic for after! Definitely not authentic in my eyes… BUT the tourists were happy, so what’s the problem?

Take a look at this post for more examples of staged authenticity .

The Western world believe that a tourist destination is no longer authentic when their cultural values and traditions change. But is this not natural? Is culture suppose to stay the same or it suppose to evolve throughout each generation? 

What actually is authenticity? Does it mean old fashioned? Unchanged? Can be it be defined in a textbook?

Does the tourist actually want authenticity? Perhaps they want some authenticity and some less authentic experiences? Perhaps they couldn’t care less?

Perhaps you came to this blog post expecting some answers about authenticity. But now you are leaving it with even more questions. It certainly is a thought-provoking topic and it is one that I have always found very interesting.

What are your views on it all? I’d love to hear your thoughts?

• Cultural Tourism – A textbook illustrating how heritage and tourism goals can be integrated in a management and marketing framework to produce sustainable cultural tourism. 
• Deconstructing Travel: Cultural Perspectives on Tourism – This book provides an easily understood framework of the relationship between travel and culture in our rapidly changing postmodern, postcolonial world.
• Re-Investing Authenticity: Tourism, Place and Emotions – This ground-breaking book re-thinks and re-invests in the notion of authenticity as a surplus of experiential meaning and feeling that derives from what we do at/in places.
• The Business of Tourism Management – an introduction to key aspects of tourism, and to the practice of managing a tourism business. 
• Managing Sustainable Tourism – tackles the tough issues of tourism such as negative environmental impact and cultural degradation, and provides answers that don’t sacrifice positive economic growth.
• Tourism Management: An Introduction – An introductory text that gives its reader a strong understanding of the dimensions of tourism, the industries of which it is comprised, the issues that affect its success, and the management of its impact on destination economies, environments and communities.
• Responsible Tourism: Using tourism for sustainable development – A textbook about the globally vital necessity of realising sustainable tourism.

Liked this article? Click to share!