Heritage Tourism in China: Modernity, Identity and Sustainability 9781845415945

Citation preview

Heritage Tourism in China

TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE Series Editors: Professor Mike Robinson, Ironbridge International Institute for Cultural Heritage, University of Birmingham, UK and Dr Alison Phipps, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK Understanding tourism’s relationships with culture(s) and vice versa, is of ever-increasing significance in a globalising world. TCC is a series of books that critically examine the complex and ever-changing relationship between tourism and culture(s). The series focuses on the ways that places, peoples, pasts, and ways of life are increasingly shaped/transformed/created/ packaged for touristic purposes. The series examines the ways tourism utilises/makes and re-makes cultural capital in its various guises (visual and performing arts, crafts, festivals, built heritage, cuisine etc.) and the multifarious political, economic, social and ethical issues that are raised as a consequence. Theoretical explorations, research-informed analyses, and detailed historical reviews from a variety of disciplinary perspectives are invited to consider such relationships. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.channelviewpublications.com, or by writing to Channel View Publications, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE: 49

Heritage Tourism in China Modernity, Identity and Sustainability

Hongliang Yan

CHANNEL VIEW PUBLICATIONS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Yan, Hongliang. Title: Heritage Tourism in China: Modernity, Identity and Sustainability/   Hongliang Yan. Description: Bristol: Channel View Publications, [2017] | Series: Tourism and Cultural Change: 49   Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016041193| ISBN 9781845415938 (hbk : alk. paper) |   ISBN 9781845415952 (epub) | ISBN 9781845415969 (kindle) Subjects:  LCSH: Heritage tourism – China. Classification: LCC G156.5.H47 Y36 2017 | DDC 338.4/79151 – dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016041193 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-84541-593-8 (hbk) Channel View Publications UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA. Website: www.channelviewpublications.com Twitter: Channel_View Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/channelviewpublications Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2017 Hongliang Yan. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by R. J. Footring Ltd, Derby Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Edwards Brothers Malloy, Inc.

Contents

Figures and Tables

vii

Acknowledgementsviii Prefaceix Introduction

1

1

7 7

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building Conceptualising Modernity  Tourism Commodification, Place Marketing and National Identity Building Sustainable Tourism and Sustainable Development Traditional and Contemporary Chinese Philosophies Tourism and Governance Summary

12 21 30 33 40

2

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  Introduction Context of China Heritage Tourism and the Four Heritage Sites  A Conceptual Framework of Heritage Tourism in China Summary 

42 42 43 48 69 80

3

Traditional and Political Philosophies and Heritage Tourism Introduction The Influence of Traditional Philosophies on China’s Society The Influence of Political Philosophy on China and its Heritage Tourism Development Summary

81 81 81

v

93 101

vi Contents

4

5

6

7

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites Introduction Public Administration System and Tourism Planning Cooperation and Tensions Associated with Tourism Decentralisation Functional Transfer in Heritage Tourism Decentralisation versus Recentralisation in Tourism Summary 

103 103 103

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism Introduction Heritage Tourism and National Identity Building Heritage Tourism Commodification and Authenticity Contested Perceptions of Heritage Tourism and Modernity in China Summary

134 134 134 144

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites Introduction Perceptions of Tourism and Sustainable Development in China Balance between Economic Rewards and Sustainability Alternative Paths for China’s Tourism and Sustainable Development Summary

160 160

Conclusions Introduction Theoretical Purpose and Practical Use of the Conceptual Framework  Value of the Empirical Research Conclusion

184 184

105 113 122 131

149 158

161 166 177 181

184 187 194

References 

196

Index

214

Figures and Tables

Figures 2.1 Map of Shandong Province, showing the location of the four heritage sites 2.2 The plate indicating ‘China Patriotic Education Site’ on Confucius’ mansion in Qufu 2.3 Dacheng Hall, Confucius’ temple, Qufu 2.4 The Climbing Stairs at Mount Tai 2.5 The 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War Museum 2.6 The Stone Stele, ‘Liugong Island 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War memorials’ 2.7 The stone stele recording Liugong Island’s status as a National Patriotic Education Demonstration Base 2.8 The Taiqing Taoist Temple at Mount Lao 2.9 The conceptual framework 4.1 China’s administrative division system with reference of China’s Shandong Province and the four heritage sites 6.1 Hotels on Mount Tai 6.2 The cableway station near the South Heaven Gate of Mount Tai Table 4.1 Direct and indirect administration departments of the four heritage sites

vii

49 51 52 56 61 62 64 67 70 104 165 169

108

Acknowledgements

This book is the accumulation of many years of research and work. As with any piece of work, it is never possible to thank all of those who have contributed, supported and encouraged along the way. I owe a debt of thanks to many people for their generous contributions to the writing of this book. Thanks especially to those who have provided personal accounts and material for the writing and revision of the book. My gratitude to respond­ ents from government branches at different levels as well as in the private sector, and academics from different disciplines for sharing knowledge and wisdom with me, whose contributions have been invaluable. I appreciate the support and help from the book series editors and reviewers, especially Professor Mike Robinson, for giving me helpful feedback on earlier drafts and helping me to better structure the book. Special thanks to the ­photographer, Mr Xinsheng Wang, for providing the images of the sites for this book. Finally, without the support of my family, none of this would have been possible. I can never repay their support and constant encouragement, but I hope this goes a small way to making it all worthwhile. Dr Hongliang Yan

viii

Preface

The notion of modernity is widely associated with the idea of progress, development and human advancement. Recently, the notion has been expanded to a much broader idea of environ­mentally and socially sustainable development, with this being seen as a concept necessary to minimise the negative effects of economic development. This book examines the relationships between the planning, development and representation of heritage for tourist consumption and the notions of modernity, identity and sustainable development. These relation­ships are considered in the context of the continuities and changes in Chinese society. In this book, a conceptual framework has been developed to outline the potential relationships and how they may interact with each other in relation to heritage tourism in China. It draws on theory and concepts of Western litera­ture and previous studies of China, and applies these to heritage tourism practice in China in order to gain deeper insights and understandings of the phenomena being studied, including their basis in politics, governance, administration and socio-cultural issues. The issues examined in this study are evaluated through empirical research on four well-known heritage sites in China: Qufu Confucius temple, cemetery and family mansion (World Heritage Site), Mount Tai (World Heritage Site), Taiqing Taoist Temple at Mount Lao, and 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War memorials. The sites embody many key tensions in contemporary China. These four heritage sites were selected for their cultural, natural, historical and political importance, and also because of the differences in the administration of the sites, and the uneven economic development and policy autonomy in the regions where they are located. The application of the conceptual framework to China’s heritage tourism reveals the tensions that exist not only in this sector, but also in contemporary Chinese society more generally. Through the use of a constant comparative approach, comparative, iterative and flexible interpretation of this book demonstrates and explains ix

x Preface

the role of heritage tourism in mediating between modernity and tradition, development and sustainable development, and the local and the global. Stakeholders from different social groups who had interests in heritage tourism development at the four sites sometimes shared certain views on modernity, identity and sustainability, but sometimes they held rather different opinions on these key organising ideas. The stakeholders involved in policy making and planning at the sites held some similar and some differentiated beliefs regarding the representation of heritage for tourist consumption, with this reflecting their varying interests in the past as a resource and in tourism development. With a centralised governance, the planning and management of China’s heritage sites are largely decided by the state and local authorities. This book focuses on the public sector and other influential stakeholders’ views on how heritage sites are planned, interpreted and managed, and it reveals the tensions and even open con­ testation among the stakeholders with interests in development of the sites. The agreement and contestation around heritage tourism alter people’s cognition and behaviour, including their overall notions of modernity, identity and sustainability. The book adds a new approach and new insights into the relationships between heritage tourism and notions of modernity, identity building and sustainable development in China. It demonstrates that the roles of the state, political ideology, institutions, tradition, society and culture, and other external elements have considerable impacts on the presentation of heritage. The approach and findings of this book add to people’s understanding of the debates on tradition and modernity, on the study of heritage tourism, on the negotiated power between stakeholders in tourism planning and policy making, and on the study of Chinese society. The book indicates that the complex relationships between tourism and the notions of modernity, identity and sustainability are rarely stable; rather, they often are mobile and dynamic.

Introduction

Tourism is not only found in almost every culture, but also ‘part of some way of life and its context’ (Nash & Smith, 1991: 22). As a complex phenomenon, tourism has a diversity of meanings and interpretations and is difficult to define (Yan & Morpeth, 2015). Tourism is often conceptualised as a global process of commodification and consumption involving flows of people, capital, images and cultures, and can be described as a ‘system’ (Appadurai, 1990; Clifford, 1997; Frow, 1997; Lanfant, 1995; Mathieson & Wall, 1982). In one of the first attempts to relate tourism to debates on modernity, MacCannell (1976) depicts modern life as a disruption to the stable, often family-based interpersonal relations of the pre-modern period. Modernity is also widely associated with the ideas of ‘progress’ and appropriate change (MacCannell, 1976) and in particular with the notion of a path to development and human advancement. More recently, the notion of modernity has been related to broader ideas on environmentally and socially sustainable development. MacCannell (1992) suggests that tourism is an ideological framing of history, nature and tradition which has the power to reshape culture and nature in relation to its own needs. Part of the social construction of modernity and sustainability concerns the building and rebuilding of people’s senses of identity, both on a national and on a local level (Burns, 1998; Hall, 1999; Light, 2000). Based on a social constructionist view, the notion of modernity largely depends on people’s perceptions, and so is negotiable and socially constructed. The notions of modernity, identity and sustainability are both socially constructed and fundamental organising ideas in society, although people may not fully understand their significance. In a study of tourism and modernity in China, Oakes (1998) suggests that the three concepts – modernity, identity and sustainability – are inter­ linked. He argues that the idea of modernity constitutes a fundamental break with the past, thus creating a distinction between ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’. In particular, he indicates that in China the nation state often 1

2  Heritage Tourism in China

seeks to integrate or absorb the ideas of modernity and sustainability within its favoured concepts of nationalism (Oakes, 1998: 25). Oakes (1998) identifies some important social phenomena and tensions resulting from China’s pursuit of modernity. However, there is limited explanation of the reasons for the formation of those tensions in that study, and indeed there might be challenges to do this purely based on a Western approach. Therefore, the purpose of this book is to evaluate the relationships between heritage tourism and notions of modernity, identity and sustainable development; it examines the practices of planning, development and representation of heritage tourism and the tensions in these relationships in the context of continuities and changes in Chinese society. These tensions are critically evaluated through the study of four well-known heritage sites in China. The tensions are evident in how these heritage sites have been planned, developed and presented for tourist consumption. The tensions relate to issues such as political ideology, traditional religions and philosophies, human–environment relations, people’s senses of identity, and differing notions of tradition and modern. The four heritage sites were chosen as they embody many of the tensions in contemporary China relevant to the study. The book seeks to examine the relationships between heritage tourism and notions of modernity, identity building and sustainable development, and to identify and explore the tensions existing in those relationships and contemporary China’s society. The assessment adopts a constructionist perspective. Because of the characteristics of Chinese governance, heritage tourism planning and management are largely decided by the public sector, though private stakeholders are increasingly playing a more important role nowadays. Therefore, this book examines the issues from the viewpoints of policy makers and other influential stakeholders at local, regional and national levels who had interests in heritage tourism and the four heritage sites selected for this study. The issues are also evaluated through official policy documents, local chronologies, newspaper and promotional material. The study develops and applies a broad conceptual framework to assess the relationships between the planning, development and representation of heritage sites for tourist consumption and the notions of modernity, identity and sustainable development in contemporary China. The conceptual framework also assists with understanding the relations between tradition and modernity, the negotiations between stakeholders, and continuities and changes in Chinese society. The conceptual framework is based on heritage tourism practices in China and the belief that issues can be best understood when examined in relation to both the interconnections between them and to the varied relationships affecting them. Guided by the conceptual framework, the research issues in this book are evaluated through empirical research on four well-known heritage sites in China. The heritage resources at these sites are connected with their rich cultural, natural, historical and political legacies, and these have led

Introduction 3

to them becoming important tourist destinations. The four heritage sites are Qufu World Heritage Site (WHS), with its Confucius temple, mansion and cemetery, Mount Tai WHS, Taiqing Taoist Temple at Mount Lao, and Liugong Island, with its 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War memorials. Qufu WHS embodies the core values of traditional Chinese culture and philosophy: Confucianism. As the most influential philosophy in China, Confucianism has exerted a profound influence on Chinese culture, govern­ ance and society for more than 2000 years. It also has exerted an important influence in East Asia and South East Asia, and had a positive influence on the Enlightenment of 18th-century Europe (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 1994b). Qufu WHS reflects the paramount historical position of Confucianism in Chinese culture, and the interpretation, promotion and development of this site reflect the tensions and conflicts in heritage management and the change of values in contemporary Chinese society. As China’s first heritage site inscribed by UNESCO in 1987, Mount Tai WHS is an outstanding combination of a beautiful natural landscape dominated by the cultural impacts of thousands of years of human inter­ action with the sacred mountain. The natural and cultural ensemble of Mount Tai represents the ancient civilisations of China, particularly in relation to their religions and arts (UNESCO, 1987a). The preservation and development of the site provide a good example of the governance of protected areas and the challenges to sustainability because of the increasing visitation and tourism. As an important heritage site associated with traditional Chinese belief, the Taiqing Taoist Temple at Mount Lao is a famous religious heritage site which has an important role in the history of Taoism, being one of the origins of ‘Quanzhen Taoism’ and the second largest temple for ‘Quanzhen Taoism’ (Laoshan, 2013b). Taoists at Taiqing Temple have made a great contribution not only to Taoist religion but also to ancient Chinese culture. The development and management of this heritage site demonstrate the tensions in heritage governance in terms of the roles and interests of government departments and agencies, and reflect the evolution of governance in contemporary China. Different from the other three heritage sites, which link with the ancient history of China, Liugong Island, with its 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War memorials, has many political meanings for the promotion of national identity building due to its history as the headquarters of the Beiyang Fleet of China’s last feudal dynasty; it is also a site associated with the failure of the Self-Strengthening Movement in China’s modern history. The interpreta­tion and representation of the site reflect a pragmatic selection and use of history for contemporary national identity building. As important heritage sites in China, on the one hand, the four heritage sites are important symbols of ancient and pre-modern Chinese civilisations

4  Heritage Tourism in China

and beliefs; on the other hand, they are greatly affected by alterations in people’s values and beliefs in China over recent decades. These changes in values and beliefs have influenced Chinese people in their sense of history and their responses to socio-cultural modernity and sustainability. They also closely relate to people’s search for the Chinese past, and the connections to their present and future. As in other regions in China, Shandong Province where those sites are located has been profoundly influenced culturally and socially by national-state socialism. Its socio-economic development and growth in tourism have many features that are similar to those found elsewhere in China. Since the book focuses on the tensions and processes of heritage tourism in China, and because all four heritage sites are famous and prominent, the tensions and processes reflected here may often be found elsewhere in China. Their features are sufficiently ‘typical’ in order to suggest some wider generalisations concerning the relationships between tourism planning and development and people’s notions of modernity, identity and sustainable development. The details of the research context are discussed in Chapter 2. The book is premised on the contention that research that abstracts a single issue from its socio-economic, cultural, institutional and political context may lose a full understanding of relevant processes and meanings, and that this can lead to misinterpretation. The book thus explores these relation­ships and tensions through a thorough examination of heritage tourism planning, development and representation in China. While this book uses the four well-known heritage tourist destinations in China as its analytical focus, it is not a work that excludes other considerations. Indeed, the central purpose of the work is to explore and evaluate the relations between tradition and modernity, the negotiations between stakeholders, and continuities and changes in Chinese society. The seven chapters analyse different aspects of heritage tourism and notions of modernity, identity building and sustainable development in China. Chapter 1 identifies previous research in the field and highlights concepts related to modernity, identity and sustainability. It outlines the key areas that further an understanding of the issues. It provides a selective and critical review of published research related to the issues under investigation. It also highlights the potential contestations around heritage tourism and their implications for the social construction of values in China. Chapter 2 discusses the general context of heritage sites, with a particular focus on tourism-related governance, public administration, policies and regulations, and on the socio-economic and cultural background of China, Shandong Province, and the four heritage sites. It identifies specific concepts and interpretations that guided the research. The framework demonstrates the interactions between the three connected sets of issues affecting tourism development at the four heritage sites. These are: firstly, continuities and changes in the notions of modernity, identity building

Introduction 5

and sustainable development, which in turn reflect the broader patterns of continuities and changes in contemporary China; secondly, the influences and sources of differences, negotiations and tensions in the representations of heritage for tourist consumption; and thirdly, the processes and outcomes of the planning and representation of heritage at the four sites. Then the chapter discusses in detail the conceptual framework that is applied and evaluated in this study. Chapter 3 discusses the influence of China’s traditional and political philosophies on contemporary Chinese society. Through the discussion of people’s perceptions on the traditional Chinese philosophies of Con­ fucianism and Taoism and the political philosophy of socialism, the chapter further discusses changes in cultural and heritage policies in China and how those philosophical ideas influence contemporary Chinese society, and notably how this influence has been manifested in China’s heritage tourism. It provides important background information on contemporary Chinese governance, tourism-related public administration and other socio-cultural issues relevant to heritage tourism in China. Chapter 4 first explores the hierarchy of governance in China, and then discusses the decentralisation of tourism planning and policy making, and the role of regulations and laws in the transformation of China’s governance. It provides a critical evaluation of tourism development at the four heritage sites, examined in the context of China’s transitional governance and governance hierarchies. Chapter 5 discusses the representation of modernity through heritage tourism. It explores the perceptions of different groups of stakeholders of features of the heritage sites, with these considered in relation to notions of tradition and modernity. The chapter focuses on two important functions of heritage in China: firstly, the use of heritage for identity building, in particular national identity building; and secondly, the use of heritage for tourism commodification in order to contribute to China’s ongoing modernis­ation. The issues examined in this chapter include the motives of state and local authorities to interpret and represent heritage sites for national identity building, and people’s notions of the concepts of authenticity and tourism commodification in the context of the four heritage sites. Chapter 6 examines human–environment relations and the relationships between tourism and sustainable development in contemporary China. It identifies some of the threats and opportunities that market liberalisation may pose for heritage as tourism products. Firstly, the discussion of heritage tourism practices at the four sites continues the discussion in Chapter 3 on the influence of traditional Chinese values, socialist values and Western capitalist values on human–environment relationships in contemporary China. Secondly, in looking at the varied perceptions of tourism and sustainable development in China, it focuses on issues relating to the heritage tourism practices at the four heritage sites in order to explore the role of tourism

6  Heritage Tourism in China

in sustainable development and how stakeholders negotiate this contested notion and search for alternative paradigms in contemporary China. Finally, Chapter 7 provides an overall conclusion and the wider implications of the book. This concluding chapter presents a synopsis of the research findings, and further examines the potential value of the study for an under­ standing of the contestations between China’s socialism, modernis­ation and tradition, the relationships between the planning, development and representation of heritage for tourist consumption, and alternative perspectives on modernity, identity and sustainable development in contemporary China.

1 Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building

Conceptualising Modernity Modernity is often considered not only as a form of social order but also as a form of conceptualising the world. It is conventionally dated from the Enlightenment (starting in the 17th century) and it is often used as a shorthand term for modern society or industrial civilisation (Giddens & Pierson, 1998). It generally refers to the period since the Renaissance and is therefore often associated with the replacement of traditional society. In a more specific way, the term of ‘modernity’ refers to a new social order that has arisen during the last two or three centuries, a social order that first appeared in the West and then spread to the rest of the world (Wang, 2000). The Oxford Dictionary of Sociology defines modernity as ‘a term used to characterise the stage in the history of social relations, dating roughly from the end of 18th century, which is characterised by the democratic and industrial revolutions’ (Scott & Marshall, 2009). The definition suggests that the features of modernity are different from the social organisation which characterised life in the pre-modern society. In this vein, pre-modern society was often characterised by tradition, collectivism and authority, while modern society is often associated with progress, randomness, liberty and individualism. Modernity represents a profound separation from what has gone before, presenting nothing less than a new horizon for discourse experience, practices and forms of life (O’Regan, 2011). As Giddens and Pierson (1998) suggest, modernity is associated with: a certain set of attitudes towards the world; the idea of the world as open to transformation by human intervention; a complex of economic institutions, especially industrial production and a market economy; a certain range of political institutions, including the nation state and mass democracy. Largely as a result of these characteristics, modernity is more dynamic than any previous type of social 7

8  Heritage Tourism in China

order, because all these dimensions are intertwined with one another. At the heart of the institutional, intellectual, temporal and spatial orders of modernity is what Weber (1978) calls ‘rationalisation’, a process whereby traditional customs give way to contemporary ways of doing things (Wang, 2000). Modernity represents a society or as Giddens (1998: 94) argues ‘more technically, a complex of institutions – which unlike any proceeding culture lives in the future rather than the past’. To social theorists, the notion of modernity is associated with the sweeping changes caused by the emergence of capitalism and industrialisation, such as new ways of organising labour, rationalising production, expanding the bureaucracy and extracting social relations from local contexts. It concerns the building and rebuilding of people’s identity both on a national and on a local level, and it promotes and is associated with the idea of progress and change, in particular the notion of a linear path to socially sustainable development in which the pre-modern is swept aside by the progressive march of modernity. The idea of modernity constitutes a fundamental break with the past, thus creating a distinction between ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’. Both the ‘primitive’ and the ‘traditional’ come to be seen as the antithesis of modernity, as qualities of people and place that are survivals (Oakes, 1998). Modernity is a contingent and dynamic field of destruction and renewal, of power and resistance, of the constant struggle to define the meaning of one’s life in the face of ever new forces which threaten to take that meaning away (Oakes, 1998). It is not an end product or a steady state, so it should be studied from a dynamic perspective. Meethan (2001) suggests that modernisation assumes that development occurs on a linear or evolutionary basis, and that less developed societies can catch up with the developed world, given the right conditions. Oakes (1998) argues that modernity is not a geographically defined ‘thing’ that exists here in one particular society but not there in another. Further, it is not a ‘goal’ to be reached in society through progressive state interventions in the form of various ‘modernisations’. Instead, he argues that modernity is ‘a tense and paradoxical process through which people produce, confront, and negotiate a particular kind of socio-economic change’ (Oakes, 1998: 7). Some developments and changes to society have made scholars and lay people alike question if there is a necessity for a new term to describe social relations, one suggesting that people live in a new era of modernism. Moreover, many authors argue that post-modernity replaced modernity during the last quarter of the 20th century (Harvey, 1990). They consider that people stand at the opening of a new era, to which the social sciences must respond and which is taking people beyond modernity itself (Giddens, 1990). Referring to this transition, the new term ‘post-modernity’ had often been used to describe the emergence of a new type of social system. For example, as one of its key advocates, Lyotard (1979) suggests that postmodernity refers to a shift away from attempts to ground epistemology,

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  9

and from faith in humanly engineered progress. Hence, the condition of post-modernity is distinguished by an evaporating of the ‘grand narrative’ – the overarching ‘story line’ by means of which people are placed in history as beings having a definite past and a predictable future (Giddens, 1990: 2). Nevertheless, there are authors who believe that there has not yet been a fundamental shift in society. The changes in contemporary society indicate only a radical intensification of the characteristics embedded within modernity, with life-altering consequences of these changes reaching all aspects of everyday life (Cohen, 2008). Many scholars contend that people now live in a late or high modernity (Scott & Marshall, 2009). In particular, Giddens (1990: 3) suggests that it is not sufficient merely to invent the new term ‘post-modernity’, as the nature of modernity itself, for certain fairly specific reasons, has been poorly grasped in the social sciences hitherto. Rather than entering a period of post-modernity, people are moving into one in which the consequences of modernity are becoming more radicalised and universalised than before (Giddens, 1990). It is critical to recognise the structural changes suggested by the term ‘post-modernity’. As Wang (2000) suggests, since these so-called post-modern changes have not transcended rationalisation, it might be better to consider post-modernity a new form of the same order, rationalisation. Hence the more classical term ‘modernity’ and the new so-called ‘post-modernity’ can be viewed as two different forms of the modern order. They are ‘two analytical devices used to characterise different phenomena within the same contemporary society’ (Wang, 2000: 15). Therefore, it may be better to treat so-called post-modernity as ‘late modernity’, a term that refers to the forms of social organisation characterising advanced society during the last quarter of the 20th century.

Tourism and modernity The period of modernity has witnessed a rapid change in societies and the globalisation of social life, connecting large-scale societies together in a whole variety of ways, from long-range economic exchanges and international political agreements to global tourism, electronic communications technology and more fluid migration patterns (Giddens, 2009). In all these ways, modernity has become a universal logic organising human life, and cuts across all boundaries of geography and ethnicity, of class and nationality, of religion and ideology (Anderson, 1984). In the period of modernity, people across the world have become more interconnected and inter­dependent than in previous times (Giddens, 2009). The history of tourism in Western modernity, in terms of tourism either as a form of leisure travel or as a specific commodity production system, coincides roughly with the history of modernity (Wang, 2000). As an essential component of modernity, tourism is often viewed as an expression of both ‘love’ and ‘hate’ in response to the existential condition of modernity

10  Heritage Tourism in China

(Wang, 2000). On the one hand, tourism originated from modern people’s reaction against and resistance to the dark side of modernity. In this vein, tourism is considered as an escape from the alienation of modernity (Cohen & Taylor, 1992; Rojek, 1993). However, on the other hand, some scholars have attempted to demonstrate that tourism is in fact a ‘false’ necessity, and that the demand for tourism is the result of manipulation, seduction and control by the tourism production system (Britton, 1991; Watson & Kopachevsky, 1994). Hence, tourism mobility reflects the structural ambivalence of modernity and modernity is enfolded in a paradoxical unity, a unity of disunity: ‘it pours us all into a maelstrom of perpetual disintegration and renewal, of struggle and contradiction, of ambiguity and anguish’ (Anderson, 1984: 97). One of the first attempts to relate tourism to debates on modernity was by MacCannell. He depicts modern life as a disruption to the stable, often family-based interpersonal relations of the pre-modern period. In that context, he argues that tourism is a reaction against the ‘fragmentation, discontinuity and alienation that are such features of modern life’ (­MacCannell, 1976: 11). Similar to MacCannell, Wilson (1994) finds in tourism a behaviour that makes sense only in the broader social context of the experience of modernity. In a modern society, the pre-modern becomes preserved for the satisfaction of the modern, alienated tourist, with tourism itself becoming the search for the authentic, the pre-modern and the primitive. Tourism becomes the contemporary embodiment of the exiled modernist’s search for authenticity (Oakes, 1998). As MacCannell (1989) suggests, tourism appropriates and commodifies the experience of exile. Tourism is part of the process whereby modernity constructs and appropriates a distant non-modern world, and puts it on display in museum-like fashion (Oakes, 1998), thus defining the boundaries of modernity ‘by rendering concrete and immediate that which modernity is not’ (MacCannell, 1989: 9). While these arguments are challenged, they are a powerful influence on how social theory interprets the relations between tourism and modernity. The spread of modernity was an uneven process, which has consequences in terms of both globalisation and development. Tourism, in the initial stages of its global spread, as with many other forms of economic development, may have appeared as a path to modernity, especially to developing countries. Unlike other forms of development, tourism has one obvious attraction to developing countries: it is an industry ‘without chimneys’ and requires relatively low capital investment (Harrison, 1994). In addition, tourism is a means of earning foreign currency and, as such, it counts as an invisible export earner and can be seen as a relatively low-cost means of balancing the national accounts (Archer & Cooper, 1998; Harrison, 1997). Meethan (2001) suggests that this form of development assumes that the building of large tourism developments will act as a catalyst to promote some form of ‘trickle down’ effect, which will then benefit the overall economy. Also, the

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  11

development of modern infrastructure will necessarily benefit the economy as a whole. This approach therefore assumes that the spread of modernity in itself is both desirable and achievable, and that, in turn, traditional values and cultures could be viewed as inimical to progress (Wood, 1993). Development in these terms is therefore viewed as the spread of a system of universal values or, rather, of providing the underdeveloped nations and regions with the means by which the universal goals of economic growth and prosperity can be achieved (Meethan, 2004). Therefore, tourism is often viewed as an ‘agent of change’, as if it is ‘a benevolent external factor that is completely independent of any global, regional or subnational structural process or constraint’ (Borocz, 1996: 16).

Tourism and modernity in China Tourism plays an important role in economic, political and social cultural development processes for many countries and China is no exception (Yan, 2013). China’s tourism industry experienced dramatic growth following Deng Xiaoping’s launch of ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies in the late 1970s. As a country with 1.3 billion people and 9.6 million square ­kilometres, China’s domestic tourism market had already become an important part of China’s tourism industry, with 3.61 billion tourist arrivals in 2014 (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2015). Outbound tourists totalled 107.28 million and inbound tourist arrivals 128.50 million in 2014 (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2015). The rapid growth of the tourism industry is probably a good reflection of the rapid social and economic changes taking place in China nowadays. Processes such as in­ dustrialis­ation and urbanisation, which spanned several decades in Europe and North America, are being completed in just a few short years within very different, non-Western, cultural and societal contexts (Winter, 2009). The eventual arrival of mass tourism in China was dependent upon the Chinese government’s efforts to recast its citizens as modern consumers (Nyiri, 2006). Tourism would form part of the government’s desire to privatise the country’s economy and be an effective mechanism for promoting a statecentred nationalism (Winter, 2009). Oakes (1998) has studied ethnic villages in a less developed province in China’s interior. Based on that study, he argues that modernity should not be seen by the nation state as either a geographically tied concept or a predefined modernisation process. From that study, in China modernity involves dynamic change that is produced by people and which needs to be negotiated as socio-economic development progresses. Oakes contends that, despite his own interpretation of modernity, people in China largely think of modernity as a much more specific objective, an objective that they have not yet reached. This leads him to make an analytical distinction between two meanings of modernity. One he terms ‘false modernity’ – that is,

12  Heritage Tourism in China

modernity in the classical sense of a fundamental break with the past and a particular phase in societal change (Oakes, 1998). This he sees as the sense of modernity that people in China tend to be pursuing, with the industrialised West as their most significant model for that pursuit. The other meaning he terms ‘authentic modernity’, this being a process-oriented approach to modernity – not a stage-based approach – and one where humans are subjectively engaged in an ambivalent and constant struggle to achieve a better and more liberated way of life. In this process there is a struggle over meanings and there is a recognition of the uncertainty and complexity of how to achieve the assumed better way of life (Oakes, 1998). With ‘authentic modernity’, there is a modern subjectivity, whereby local officials and residents tend to recognise the complexity of staging the experiences and of developing the destinations for tourist consumption. Thus, ‘­traditional’ sites cannot be simply seen as ‘primitive’ and unchanging; rather, it is recognised that their presentation and interpretation are debated and negotiated among local parties and between the locals and tourists.

Tourism Commodification, Place Marketing and National Identity Building Tourism is part of the processes of commodification (or commoditisation) and consumption inherent in modern capitalist societies. It can be considered as an extension of the commodification of modern social life (Watson & Kopachevsky, 1994). This involves the objectification of material culture, people and places for the purposes of tourist consumption. Thus it is necessary to examine the concept of tourism commodification and its relationships to place marketing and national identity building.

Tourism commodification Commodification is often understood as the process by which objects and activities come to be evaluated primarily in terms of their exchange value in the context of trade (Best, 1989; Cohen, 1988; Dupré, 1983), in addition to the use value that such commodities might have. The function of tourism is to sell a commodity to a group of consumers (Frow, 1997). People and places largely become objectified for the purposes of the global market in material culture. Therefore, when considering tourism as consumption then the issue of commodification must be a central concern. From this perspective, tourism is part of the processes of commodification and consumption inherent in modern capitalism. It is one aspect of the global process of commodification rather than a separate, self-contained system. The ‘impacts’ of such processes are mediated at a variety of levels

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  13

and spatial scales in terms of culture, identity and locality (Meethan, 2001). From a global perspective, not just the perspective of capitalist societies, commodification is synonymous with all modern societies, since all human societies must produce their own material conditions of existence. However, only under capitalism does commodity production take primacy to the degree where the worker also becomes a commodity; in the post-barter condition of the present day, almost all human products and efforts have been rendered into commodities (Watson & Kopachevsky, 1994). Based on the view of political economics, in the first volume of Capital, Karl Marx indicated that a commodity has two important qualities, or what he termed ‘powers’: ‘the power to satisfy some human or material need (use-value); and the purely symbolic power to command other commodities in exchange (exchange-value)’ (Watson & Kopachevsky, 1994: 646). In his discussion of these two qualities, Marx explained that a commodity is a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour (Marx, 2007). From this viewpoint, a commodity is any good or service produced by human labour and offered as a product for general sale on the market. Hence, the mystery of the commodity derives from its hidden form; and what is hidden is the human labour that determines its value (Watson & Kopachevsky, 1994). Thus tourism experience is among such ‘products’; ‘experiences’ and their delivery become commodities in this context. Other services that exemplify this exchange are those that occur in the truly mysterious social institutions of capitalism which perfect the abstract exchange of major commodities (Watson & Kopachevsky, 1994). Tourism consists of a bundle of services and products which, unlike some other forms of commodity production, are not easily disaggregated (Meethan, 2001). As suggested by Cohen (1988), the term ‘commodification of culture’ has been used to describe a process by which things come to be evaluated primarily in terms of their exchange value, in a context of trade, thereby becoming goods. MacCannell has broadened the concept of ‘commodity’ for modern tourism. According to MacCannell (1976), all tourism attractions are cultural experiences. As culture commodified, the value of such experiences has little to do with Marx’s labour theory of value, but rather is a function of the quantity and quality of experience they promise (Watson & Kopachevsky, 1994). Therefore, beyond Marx’s simple dichotomy between use value and exchange value, MacCannell (1976) introduces the concept of ‘sign value’ as a manufactured signifier embedded in modern commodities. Tourism, hence, as commodity, is best grasped, especially within capitalism, as an expression of the ‘semiotics of capitalist production’ (MacCannell, 1976: 19–23). Similarly, because of the complexity of tourism commodification, Appadurai (1986) considers that in the analysis of tourism commodification, people should be aware of the quasi-chameleonic nature of the commodity, since commodification

14  Heritage Tourism in China

‘lies at the complex intersection of temporal, cultural and social factors’ (1986: 15). In tourism, Meethan (2001) argues, in order to sell cultures and places, complexity is commodified and reduced to a recognisable formula or narrative for the purposes of consumption. Britton (1991) suggests that in tourism there is a need to commodify specific features of particular places so that they become desirable products for the tourism industry. In particular, the cultures of places play a more important role in the promotion of tourist consumption in contemporary capitalist society. Cultures and places tend to be represented through the creation of essential differences which isolate specific characteristics of people and place (Meethan, 2001). The promotion of these essential differences tends to extend to presenting them as normative features. In short, developing and marketing places and cultures require commodified essences. It should not be assumed that such commodified forms are inherently false. Rather, these are forms that emerge or are constructed socially from multiple processes of conflict and negotiation and from both local and external influences. Commodified forms are not the only forms, and they are often integrated within local cultures. They are important means through which cultures and places can change. It can be argued that tourism itself is an ‘extension of the commodification of modern social life’ (Watson & Kopachevsky, 1994: 645). Through tourism commodification and consumption, the creation of identities in tourism can be clearly seen as reflecting the global political economy of tourism, as well as the reproduction and reconstitution of ethnicity and cultural identity (Doorne & Ateljevic, 2005).

Tourism and place marketing For all its global spread, tourism is irreducibly associated with the specificity of places, that is, with the processes by which sights are demarcated and set apart from the mundane (MacCannell, 1976; Urry, 1990), in effect becoming the commodities to be sold in the global market place. Concerns with the natural and built environment, as much as culture in its widest sense, have resulted in both national and global legislation to preserve and conserve ‘authentic’ heritage. This is not only for the purpose of tourism (Herbert, 1995; Swarbrooke, 1995; Zeppel & Hall, 1992), but also for the more politically expedient purpose of creating and sustaining a sense of nation and place through symbolic means (Gillis, 1994; Lowenthal, 1993; Smith, 1991). Tourism creates specific forms of social space. The development of tourism resulted in the creation of tourism destinations, given over, not to the pursuit of work, but to the pursuit of leisure (Meethan, 2001). Tourism destinations were developed as a consequence of modernity, and are linked to the processes of urbanisation and industrialisation, and the creation of both markets and consumption. This split in effect between ‘home’ and

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  15

‘away’ can be seen in theoretical terms as a consequence of the differentiation of modernity, of dividing society into discrete areas of social activity which are mapped out in actual uses of space (Meethan, 2001). The production of tourist space is a general process of commodification mediated at various spatial and institutional levels, from the global and transnational to the national, regional and local. These processes need to be considered as dynamic systems of change and can be viewed as part of a more general process of modernity, of the increasing differentiation of functions in both space and time (Meethan, 2001). In the past few decades, there has been an extensive growth in place marketing around the world. Destinations are promoting themselves, with assertions of competitive advantage (Ward, 1998). The term ‘place marketing’, sometimes termed ‘place promotion’ (Avraham, 2004), has many different definitions in the literature. It can be considered the conscious use of marketing to communicate selective images of specific geographical localities or areas to a target audience (Ashworth & Voogd, 1994). The promotion of place ‘involves the re-evaluation and re-presentation of place to create and market a new image for localities to enhance their competitive position in attracting or retaining resources’ (Short et al., 2000: 318). An important way to restructure the economy is through ‘symbolic’ means, such as a ‘redefinition of [a place’s] image and the creation of new forms of identity’ (Watson, 1991: 59). A new place image may help reflect innovation and a high quality of life, and a concern for the environment is considered to attract both investment and tourists. Marketing practices try to turn places into commodities (or ‘place products’) (Ashworth & Voogd, 1990). However, places are complex packages of tangible goods and services and intangible experiences that are consumed in many different ways (Ward, 1998). Marketing of place is different from the marketing of more traditional products since a place is immobile, multifaceted and nonpriced (Ashworth & Voogd, 1990; Erickson & Roberts, 1997). The multiple social and cultural meanings of places are often selectively appropriated and repackaged to create a more attractive place image in which any problems are played down. Heritage plays an important role in place marketing and the representation of place. It helps ‘reconstruct some common identity in the face of potentially explosive social tensions and conflicts’ (Bianchini & Schwengel, 1991: 227).

Place marketing and identity building Tourism intersects with the formation and revision of various forms of identity (ethnic, cultural, religious, regional and national) as well as with the political agendas. In the past several decades, many tourist destinations have made great efforts to promote a local identity. It becomes a crucial component for destination differentiation. As suggested by Rouse (1995),

16  Heritage Tourism in China

identity connects individuals to society, and individuals who share some common traits thereby have an ‘identity’ as members of a particular group in society. It is a notion that captures the broad range of social relations which contribute to the construction of a ‘sense of place’, a sense which enables people to feel that they ‘belong’ to a place, or that a place ‘belongs’ to them (Kneafsey, 1998). It consists of customary practice and of the beliefs, values, sanctions, rules, motives and satisfactions associated with it (Jensen et al., 2011). Identity is a non-neutral and evolutionary process and its develop­ment is not always smooth, well ordered and without disruption (Aas et al., 2005). Similar to the concept of modernity, the concept of identity is negotiated and renegotiated and socially constructed. Tourism’s use of identity goes far beyond the commercial: it goes to the heart of people because it serves to define their cultural identity and to make this visible, both to themselves and to ‘others’ (Palmer, 1999). Identities are constructed and reconstructed in order to meet tourist desires for particular characteristics such as authenticity and tradition (Urry, 1995). Tourism should be considered a process through which localised identities are continually reconstructed (Oakes, 1993). In this way, tourist destinations should not simply be ‘read’ like literary texts, because what they say relates to the social, cultural and historical values of those who prepare them for interpretation (Duncan & Duncan, 1988). In place marketing, the place has a certain amount of resources (infrastructure, transportation, attractions, accommodation, local community, etc.) and it is only through an interpretation of these resources that a place product and a place image are derived (Madsen, 1992). Commodification of cultural expressions can be interpreted as a means of marking and valuing identity and a step in the finding of the true self through the appropriation of heritage (Xie, 2010). Thus, place marketing can be looked upon as a ‘refreshing’ of local and national identity or as the creation of new forms of identity (Dunn et al., 1995). All place marketing attempts to improve the images and public perceptions of those places. Kotler et al. (1993) define the image of a place as ‘the sum of beliefs, ideals, and impressions people have toward a certain place’. They argue that an image represents a simplification of a large number of associations and pieces of information related to a place, and that it is a cognitive product of the attempt to process large amounts of information (Kotler et al., 1993). In addition to the economic rationale, there has been a social logic to the practice of selling places. Place marketing involves the construction or selective tailoring of particular images of a place, which are enmeshed within the dynamics of the global economy, and which legitimise particular conceptions of what are ‘appropriate’ state policy responses (Sadler, 1993: 175). Within the context of globalisation, local place promotional messages are both a product of global economic forces, which provide an extrinsic stimulant for the growth of tourism, and an articulation of a

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  17

search for local identity (Schollmann et al., 2000). The new rhetoric of ‘the local’ therefore has to be seen as being deeply embedded in the processes of global accumulation (Swyngedouw et al., 1989: 31). The construction of place image through marketing campaigns has often been used as a vehicle of social control, as dominant groups have used visual as well as spatial ­strategies to impose their views and set the terms for membership in society (Broudethoux, 2001). Hence, the issues of ideology, identity and representation have become central to much analysis of the manner in which places have come to be packaged as a product to be sold (Kerns & Philo, 1993). Wood (1984) argues that the relationship between tourism and cultural identity is an ongoing process mediated by the state within the wider context of globalisation. Cano and Mysyk (2004) suggest that there are two roles of the nation state in place marketing: the state may act as the unilateral planner of tourism, often with minimal community consultation; and the state can assume the role of marketer of cultural meanings, in which it attempts to make a statement on national identity by promoting selected aspects of a country’s cultural patrimony. In this way, the state can be further involved by inter­vening in, and even certifying, the authenticity of such practices (Cano & Mysyk, 2004). Where state and community have different goals, Cano and Mysyk (2004) argue that ‘states’ involvement can often turn place marketing into an arena for inter-group competition over how the cultural identity and practices are presented to tourists’. Britton (1982) argues that international tourism is often based on the interactions of foreign and local elites in the pursuit of their own interests and mutual benefits. The process of commodification of tourism products is manipulated by specific, influential groups in society in such a way that the signs and images used to sell a particular destination are inscribed ideologically by such groups. Roche (1992, 1994) and Hall (1994) describe such place marketing activities under the rubric of re-imaging strategies. Indeed, if places do have only one identity – that defined by the authorities – then such ‘legitimising identities’ are necessarily constricting, coercive and ideologically laden (Castells, 1997: 8).

Heritage tourism Heritage tourism is commonly regarded as activity by tourists in a space where historic artefacts are presented (Garrod & Fyall, 2001). It normally refers to the segment of the tourism industry that places special emphasis on heritage and cultural attractions (Christou, 2005). Although the emergence of heritage tourism has spawned a large number of studies (Pritchard & Morgan, 2001), there is still no consensus on what heritage tourism is, on whether it is a separate phenomenon or on how it should best be studied (Balcar & Pearce, 1996). As with tourism more generally,

18  Heritage Tourism in China

there is no consensus when referring to heritage tourism. From its broader meaning, heritage is often associated with ‘inheritance’ (Yale, 1991), that is, something passing down from one generation to another. It can be anything from historic buildings, to art works or beautiful scenery (Yale, 1991). The role of heritage as a carrier of historical value from the past means it is viewed as part of the cultural tradition of society. In contrast, tourism is often considered a form of modern consciousness. The fundamental nature of tourism is dynamic and its interaction with heritage often results in a reinterpretation of heritage (Christou, 2005). Although there has been a significant growth of interest in heritage tourism, there is still a lack of understanding of how visitors define heritage sites and what the visiting of heritage sites means to them (Masberg & Silverman, 1996). In academia, heritage tourism is largely characterised by an expanding range of concepts and definitions. The most popular approach in defining heritage tourism focuses on the past and on nostalgia, which has been adopted by many researchers in heritage tourism. From this point of view, heritage tourism is a form of special tourism that offers opportunities to portray the past in the present. For instance, based on this approach, Sharpley (1993: 132) defines heritage as ‘what people inherited from their past, practically everything associated with a nation’s history, culture, wildlife and landscape’. Nuryanti (1996: 257) suggests that ‘heritage tourism is characterised by two seemingly contradictory phenomena: the unique and the universal’. While each heritage site has its unique attributes, ‘heritage, although the meaning of heritage and significance may be contested, re­interpreted and even recreated, is shared by all’ (Nuryanti, 1996: 257). A second approach to the definition of heritage tourism centres on the technocratic aspects of the concept. For example, by focusing on the product element of heritage tourism, Prentice (1993) argues that essentially, in tourism, the term ‘heritage’ has come to mean not only landscapes, natural history, buildings, artefacts, cultural traditions and the like which are literally or metaphorically passed on from one generation to the other, but those among these things which can be portrayed for promotion as tourism products. Different from those two approaches, Poria et al. (2001) provide a new way in defining heritage tourism, which focuses on the tourists’ motivations rather than on the heritage product. According to this view, as a form of tourism, heritage tourism is based on tourists’ motivations and perceptions rather than on specific site attributes. The main motivation for visiting a site relates to the place’s historical characteristics according to the tourists’ perception of their own heritage (Poria et al., 2001). However, despite the varied focus in defining heritage tourism, heritage resource is a contem­ porary use of the past and can be selected, interpreted and transformed into marketable products for tourists through modern tourism (Ashworth, 1994). In essence, the relationship between heritage and tourism parallels

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  19

the debate that takes place within a society’s culture between tradition and modernity (Nuryanti, 1996).

The role of heritage in place marketing and national identity building Over the past few decades, heritage and tourism have become in­ extricably linked throughout the world (Christou, 2005). The use of heritage and culture to attract tourists is not a new social phenomenon. Tourism is used as an economic justification for heritage preservation and serves to preserve artefacts in many parts of the world. Heritage is presented and re-presented as something of cultural origin which relates to the past and which is in some way given special value or significance as ‘treasure’ or ‘legacy’ (King, 2012). Historical artefacts and their associations have always been one of the tourism industry’s most marketable commodities (Timothy, 1997). Both government and the tourism industry seek financial returns (Hewison, 1987). Heritage is an aspect of place and culture that often features in tourism development initiatives. It is a significant factor in the cultural economy of tourism and it often can serve several purposes at once. Heritage is constructed and appropriated by the state and its agents as an object worthy of political, economic and ‘touristic’ attention (King, 2012). The effects of place marketing are often pervasive, with specific places targeted for consumption. The notion of selling places implies not only trying to affect demand through the presentation of cultural images, but also the manipulation and management of the supply-side into a package which can be ‘sold’ (Hall, 2001). As Hall and Hodges (1997) indicate, those actions have obvious implications not only for how the external consumer sees places, but also for collective and individual identity in places, and for the structures related to selling place. There is a clear linkage between the construction of heritage and cultural economy. Heritage can serve a didactic purpose in educating or fostering a sense of nationhood (Handler, 1988). The increasing commodification of heritage does not diminish this fact, nor does it render heritage inauthentic; rather, it indicates that the production and consumption of heritage are closely tied to the broader issues of politics, the economy and other forms of cultural distinction, and heritage can serve more than one purpose (Henderson, 2002). As suggested by Hitchcock and King (2003), heritage is subject to selection, construction, negotiation and contestation in the context of more general processes of local and national identity formation. National and local authorities are actively pursuing tourism marketing and development initiatives, incorporating the promotion of selected forms of heritage in order to stimulate tourist arrivals, but also employing heritage to define and articulate national and cultural identity. By linking with history, heritage tourism comprises the contemporary use of the past, including its

20  Heritage Tourism in China

interpretation and reinterpretation (Smith, 2003). Heritage is thus shown to have a political and socio-cultural significance in addition to its economic value as a generator of revenues, foreign exchange and employment (Henderson, 2002). It can also be a means of differentiating cultures in terms of both space and time, and, as such, it stresses heterogeneity as opposed to homogeneity. Heritage cannot be considered in isolation from the political and cultural economy, and the processes of commodification implicated in the tourist system (Ashworth, 1994). Therefore, heritage is as much a political as an economic resource, which may act as a marker of identity, a means of defining the individuality and authenticity of places, cultures and people, and, as such, it is a socially constructed means of distinction (Ogden, 1995; Wen & Tisdell, 2001). Studies on national identity have pointed out that in order to produce and commodify a past, the state depends on a specific place. If the nation depends on extending present social relations back through time, this can be done only by defining their geographical extent. The self-contained coherence of a society developing through history depends upon fixing the geographical domain that gives the particular society its limit. A.D. Anderson (1991) has argued that the idea of the nation came about when modern forms of writing enabled the social worlds of individual citizens to expand. It is argued that heritage plays a central role within post-modernist ideas of place and representation. Heritage sites, which represent a nation’s past, are an important element in the construction of national identity (Johnson, 1995). Sites of significance help create a common identity, or ‘imagined community’, among a diverse population. The creation of a shared identity is a common official goal of national authorities. A hegemonic discourse of nationalism may manifest itself in tourism sights, both public and private, and this encourages tourists to embrace their national goals. Heritage sites that embrace this nationalism may be official, government-sponsored constructions (Pretes, 2003). However, what needs to be acknowledged is that, on many occasions, heritage is perceived differently by the national authorities and other stakeholder groups and because of that, stakeholders are often engaged in conflicts over the definition and use of heritage. Thus, power relations that define and contest the specificities of a ‘nation’ and a nation’s past are often negotiated through heritage (Kong & Yeoh, 2003). As suggested by Mitchell (2001), a nation’s past is not just a piece of symbolic equipment, with which to organise political allegiance and demonstrate a distinct identity. As Winter (2007) argues, the use of heritage to achieve certain politico-ideological purposes is often challenged. Views and perceptions of national identity, modernity and progress often compete with commercial and developmental interests, international conservation and scientific agendas, tourist views and the local community’s engagement with the heritage (Winter, 2007). As every recent theorist of nationalism has pointed out, deciding on a common

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  21

past has been critical to the process of making a particular mixture of people into a coherent nation (Keith & Pile, 1993). The idea of the nation presents a way of living the locality of social relations by imagining them to extend back over a continuous period of time, and the political community can then understand its present historically (Mitchell, 2001). Heritage attractions can assist in resolving questions of identity and they play a crucial part in telling the story of a nation or people to a number of audiences. However, the story may be distorted by overt and covert political motives (Cartier, 1996; Peleggi, 1996; Philp & Mercer, 1999). Decisions regarding the conservation and interpretation of heritage, and its presentation as an attraction serving both locals and tourists, are sometimes difficult, selective and intensely political, with opportunities for misrepresentation, manipulation and even manufacture. Graham et al. (2000) describe heritage as cultural and economic capital, vulnerable to exploitation of various types. The government response may be to pursue hegemonic aims (Leong, 1997; Tunbridge, 1984; Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996). In many places around the world, heritage tourism is often chosen as a vehicle to promote a certain political agenda and it frequently supports broader official policies of social integration or exclusion and nation building. The benefits of tourism in providing support for heritage conservation and stimulating civic pride in heritage (Palmer, 1999) have been acknowledged by UNESCO (1999). For those reasons, heritage is often prominent in tourism development, with its significance extending into wider social and political environments. Therefore, the promotion of heritage is not just dictated by economics, as heritage attractions can assist in the exploration, discovery and assertion of national and cultural identities. Identity, and the heritage from which it is derived, is subject to interpretation, and the state may act as a key decision maker in that interpretation, often guided by an essentially hegemonic agenda (Henderson, 2002). Heritage and identity are inextricably linked, forming a close triangular relationship with tourism, and heritage tourism inevitably becomes an issue of politics (Henderson, 2002). The significance of heritage attractions thus can be appreciated fully only when examined within a broader framework that incorporates the political as well as the economic and social dynamics of destinations.

Sustainable Tourism and Sustainable Development Modernity has been related to broader ideas on environmentally and socially sustainable development. Perspectives on sustainable tourism and sustainable development inform some of the core theories behind the present study. The following discussion explores development theory and concepts of sustainability and the role of sustainable tourism within sustain­able development.

22  Heritage Tourism in China

The theory of development and sustainability ‘Development’ has been traditionally defined in terms of Western-style modernisation achieved through economic growth (Redclift, 1987). It focuses on economic growth as a far-reaching, continuous and positively evaluated change in the totality of human experience (Harrison, 1988), which directly reflects shifting notions of modernity. It is a term that is often used to describe both a process through which a society moves from one condition to another, and the goal of that process. It is generally used to describe the dynamics resulting from processes of national economic and social transformation, ‘effectively a synonym for more or less planned social and economic change’ (Hobart, 1993: 1). The development process may result in a society achieving the state or condition of development (Sharpley, 2000). However, recognition of the frequent failure of economic growth policies to solve social and political problems has resulted in the aims of development becoming more broadly redefined (Seers, 1969). Develop­ment does not refer to a single process or set of events, nor does it imply a single, static condition. The concept of development has evolved from a process or condition defined according to strict economic criteria to it being considered a continual, global process of human development guided by the principle of self-reliance (Sharpley, 2000). The goal of the process is the self-actualisation of individuals within a society, embracing at least five dimensions: the economic, social, political, cultural dimensions and the full-life paradigm (Goulet, 1992). Besides those dimensions, Sharpley (2002) argues, there should be an ecological component added, which reflects the emergence of environmental sustainability as a guiding principle of all develop­ment policies. Actually, the concept of sustainable development originated in the convergence of economic development theory and environmentalism (Hardy & Beeton, 2001). The 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (‘the Brundtland report’) defined sustainable develop­ment as a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional changes are made consistent with future as well as present needs (WCED, 1987).

The relationships between tourism, development and sustainability As far back as 1975, Turner and Ash exploded the myth that rapid tourism development would inevitably provide economic and societal benefits for destinations, regions and countries. Although tourism is viewed as a vehicle of development, the prominent negative impacts on a society can provide a seemingly insoluble challenge to the achievement of long-term sustainability (Fayos-Sola, 1996). There is limited literature to link tourism and development theories (Sharpley, 2000). The concepts of tourism and of

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  23

development remain a discordant and unreconciled set of thoughts (Nelson, 1993). However, to appraise tourism’s potential role in sustainable develop­ ment, it cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader developmental context of which it is meant to be a part (Sharpley, 2000). Since the early 1950s, four main schools of development theories or paradigms have evolved: modernisation; dependency theory; neo-classical counter-revolution; and alternative development. Each has emerged as a result of increasing knowledge and understanding of the development process and a consequent rejection of the preceding paradigms (Telfer, 1996; Wall, 1997). As the current end-point of the development paradigm continuum, the ‘alternative development’ paradigm advocates a break from the preceding linear, economic growth-based policies (Redclift, 1987). Alternative development proposes a much broader, resource-based, ‘bottom-up’ approach that embraces human and environmental concerns. It is based upon a grassroots, community focus to development, building on the argument that ‘development does not start with goods; it starts with people and their education, organisation and discipline’ (Schumacher, 1974: 140). There are evident links between alternative development and alternative tourism. Emery (1981) considers ‘alternative futures’ in tourism, while Dernoi (1981) proposes alternative tourism as ‘a new style in North–South relations’. The concept of environmental harmony (Budowski, 1976; Farrell & McLellan, 1987) and self-reliance, fundamental requirements of alternative development, became the focus of research into alternative tourism, the latter manifested in the emerging literature on local community involvement in tourism development (Haywood, 1988; Murphy, 1983, 1985, 1988). However, as Wheeller (2003) has argued, alternative tourism is not the answer to the negative impacts of tourism. It must be treated with caution, indeed scepticism, scrutinised and critically analysed from a realistic, practical perspective.

The conceptual development of sustainable tourism Facing the challenges brought by tourism development in the past several decades, governments, community and other stakeholders in tourism have gradually recognised the challenges brought by tourism development. This recognition was also stimulated by global engagement in recognising the challenge of sustainable development in the form of the Brundtland report (Our Common Future) (WCED, 1987) and United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which set in train initiatives to work toward sustainability. With sustainability becoming an essential element of modern economic and political discourses, in the West there has been growing interest in the idea of combining tourism growth with sustainable development. In the early stage of its development, from a sociological perspective, sustainable

24  Heritage Tourism in China

tourism was considered to be development that is likely to achieve lasting satisfaction of human needs and improvement of the quality of life (Allen, 1980). By placing it in the economic and environmental framework, Turner (1988) suggests that a sustainable society is one that lives within the selfperpetuating limits of its environment. The concerns of sustainable tourism in the West are normally depicted as being not just environmental, but also economic, social, cultural, political and managerial (Bramwell, 1998). For example, Bramwell and Lane (1993: 2) define sustainable tourism as ‘a positive approach intended to reduce the tensions and friction created by the complex interactions between the tourism industry, visitors, the environment and the communities which are host to holidaymakers’. From this definition, the notion of sustainability can have a wide link to almost all kinds and scales of tourism activities and environments (Clarke, 1997a). The concept can be conceived as a means to reduce the tensions in the complex interactions between the tourism industry, tourists, environment and host communities. Tourism is therefore located within the wider perspective of promoting sustainable development, which relates to maintaining the long-term capacity and quality of both natural and human resources (Bramwell & Lane, 1993). The term ‘sustainable tourism’ encompasses a set of principles, policy prescriptions and management methods which chart a path for tourism development such that a destination area’s environmental resource base (including natural, built and cultural features) is protected for future develop­ment (Lane, 1994). However, this approach is criticised as being too parochial, or tourism-centric, and thus too far removed from its parental concepts, resulting in a gap such that the principles and policies of ‘sustain­able’ tourism do not necessarily contribute to those of sustainable development (Hunter, 1995; Wall, 1993; Wheeller, 1993). It is considered that the adoption of sustainable development objectives does not need to be in conflict with the notion of economic growth. However, the concepts of sustainable development and sustainable tourism are essentially contested concepts that are socially constructed according to the values, ideologies and political processes of specific cultures and places, and at particular times (Hunter, 1997). Though the appearance and evolution of the concept of sustainable tourism suggest in a new angle from which to view development and its associated relationships, sustainable tourism has been criticised for its ambiguity, varying interpretations of the concept, and a lack of operationalisation measures (Butler, 1993; Ioannides, 2001). Different stakeholders involved in tourism encompass a complex network of interested groups, which sometimes results in difficulty in reaching a consensus on what sustain­able tourism means and how it can be achieved (McCool et al., 2001). In order for sustainability objectives to be met, the stakeholders must be identified and their subjective needs met. The greater direct participation by

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  25

the public and interest groups gradually becomes a more imperative issue in tourism development, to mitigate the unfettered development programmes of neo-liberal ideologies (Bramwell & Lane, 2000). In this vein, sustainable tourism will not be achieved unless all those affected by tourism are consulted. The call for stakeholders’ involvement in tourism is not only for their role in tourism development but also in the decision-making processes for tourism planning itself (Elliot, 1997). Through the encouragement of collaboration and joint management of the tourism industry, social equity as a vital element of sustainability is attainable (Selin, 1999). This integrated stakeholder approach includes those representing not only the environment and economic development but also local communities and cultures (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Butler, 1998).

The role of tourism in sustainable development The growth of tourism has proved to be a vital and effective vehicle for economic growth and consequent socio-economic development in many countries (Sharpley, 2000). However, Welford et al. (1999) argue that the concept of sustainable tourism has still not been precisely defined and, like its roots in sustainable development, the term is open to wide interpretation. Tourism is likely to become the largest sector of world trade, and this makes it important that tourism contributes to sustainable development, from local to global scales. Because tourism so often relies on high-quality destination environments in terms of natural, built and cultural attributes, it may have more reasons to prompt sustainable development (Hunter, 1997). Although the application of the principles of sustainable development to tourism has been rapid and widespread, implementation of the practice has been slow (Butler, 1998). McKercher (1993) suggests that for tourism to achieve sustainability, the industry must become a proactive leader in shaping the debate on sustainability. Welford et al. (1999) corroborate that the difficulties inherent in controlling tourism in a sustainable manner are indicative of the basic problems incurred in moving toward sustainable develop­ment. It is accepted that sustainable development need not be in conflict with the notion of economic growth; however, balances have to be struck in order to ensure that growth does not make excessive demands on natural resources (Owen et al., 1993). Muller (1994) suggests that the objective of sustainable tourism is to influence the following factors: economic health, subjective well-being of the locals, unspoilt nature and protection of resources, healthy culture, and the optimum satisfaction of guest requirements. The desired situation is balanced tourism development in which no one element predominates over the others. However, the concept of balancing all goals in tourism development is unrealistic, since competing aspects are often traded off and priorities emerge which skew

26  Heritage Tourism in China

the decision making in favour of certain aspects (Hunter, 1997). It suggests that there is still much discussion on sustainable tourism without reference to sustainable development, which means meeting today’s needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do likewise (WCED, 1987). Sustainable tourism, in short, has to satisfy the needs and desires of tourists, the needs and desires of private and public sector tourism industry operators, and the needs and desires of the local host community, while protecting the resource base (natural, built and cultural) for tourism (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Cater, 1993; Cronin, 1990; Forsyth, 1996; Muller, 1994; Unwin, 1996). There is a much debate on the different interpretations of sustainable development. These interpretations can be classified as ranging from very strong (extreme resource preservationist) to very weak (extreme resource exploitative) (Turner et al., 1994). Tourism researchers who look closely at the general concept of sustainable development frequently reject or berate ‘extreme’ interpretations (extreme resource preservationist and extreme resource exploitative) (Hunter, 1997). Based on Turner et al.’s four interpretations of sustainable development ranging from very weak to very strong, Hunter (1997) provides four sustainable tourism approaches which can be labelled as a tourism imperative, product-led, environmentled, and neotenous tourism. In such way, people can consider these in terms of how tourism might contribute to distinctive positions within the sustainable development spectrum, ranging from very weak to very strong interpretations. These approaches give support to the belief that the remit of sustainable tourism should be extended to consider the role of tourism in contributing to sustainable development more generally. As suggested by Hunter (1997), the most appropriate way to conceive of sustainable tourism is not as a narrowly defined concept reliant on a search for balance, but rather as an overarching paradigm within which several different development pathways may be legitimised according to circumstance. Thus, from his point of view, sustainable tourism should be regarded as an adaptive paradigm capable of addressing different situations, and articulating various goals in terms of the utilisation of resources.

Sustainable tourism in developing countries The idea to emerge from the above discussion is that different interpreta­ tions of sustainable tourism are appropriate under different circumstances, from the narrowly defined concept reliant on a search for balance, to the paradigm within which several different development pathways can be justified and applied to particular circumstances. Sustainable tourism should not be regarded as a rigid framework, but rather as an adaptive paradigm which legitimises a variety of approaches according to specific circumstances (Hunter, 1997). Thus, different interpretations of sustainable tourism may

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  27

be appropriate for developed and developing countries. In particular, within the context of developing countries, with the extremely weak interpretation of sustainable development, the distribution of socio-economic and environmental development costs and benefits is largely immaterial (Turner, 1991), and this follows a path determined through traditional free-market principles, to fulfil individual, largely Western, consumer choices. With the extremely strong interpretation of sustainable development, this antieconomic growth position appears to deny the world’s poor the opportunity to meet their basic needs through economic growth. This position might be described as a new form of (eco)facism (Pepper, 1984). However, this prompts the argument that economic growth has not helped the great majority of developing countries (Trainer, 1990). By recognising that the concept of sustainable tourism development is subject to flexibility of interpretation, Munt (1992) suggests that in developing countries an economic imperative might be emphasised, in opposition to other (stronger) interpretations of sustainable tourism based on a ‘quintessentially Western environmentalism’. It is suggested further that such divergence may be indicative of a coming crisis in attempts to create a ‘greenprint’ for tourism in developing countries (Hunter & Green, 1995). A more practical interpretation of sustainable development might lie between the two extremes mentioned above in the context of developing countries. A resource-conservationist, managed-growth world-view could be regarded as the most pragmatic option to manage the environment and tourism development (Turner, 1991). Though this argument is of obvious concern in terms of global sustainable development, it is at national, regional and local levels that attempts to operationalise sustainable tourism tend to appear most immediately relevant, although by no means easy (Wheeller, 1993).

Environmental attitudes and sustainable development in China Human behaviour is in large part a reflection of individual and collective values. Where there is competition between environmental values and economic and consumption values, it seems that environmental values often lose out, in the face of overwhelming pressures (Harris, 2004). In contemporary China, traditional indigenous values (i.e. Confucianism and Taoism), socialist values and globalising Western consumption values are becoming merged together to produce a complex of attitudes towards the human–­environment relationship. In discussing the development of sustain­able tourism in China, it is important to understand Chinese people’s environmental perceptions and attitudes. Environmental issues are largely ingrained in the traditional values, attitudes and beliefs of a given society (Deng et al., 2006; Xu et al., 2005). It is recognised that culture can have strong effects on people’s environmental perceptions and attitudes (Buijs et al., 2009). Studies of the traditional

28  Heritage Tourism in China

Chinese philosophies of Confucianism and Taoism often see them as being instructive for developing more pro-environmental values everywhere (Callicott & Ames, 1989; Ip, 1983; Tao, 2002; Tu, 2001; Yu, 2000). The ancient Chinese Confucian views of ‘unity of Heaven and Humanity’ and Taoist ‘conventional wisdom’ are deeply rooted in Chinese culture. They suggest that ‘people must respect the wilderness, or risk destroying her in well-intentioned efforts to improve upon her’, and that, when exploiting nature, people should try to do so without destroying its regenerative capacity (Walls, 1998: 56). The classical indigenous Confucian and Taoist doctrines traditionally schooled individuals and society to ‘live in a balanced and harmonious way with the natural world’ (Ponting, 1991: 152). Before the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, traditional values were overwhelmed or co-opted by powerful political and economic stakeholders, and they were too weak relative to ‘pressures of poverty, tyranny, and competition for scarce resources’ (Gardner & Stern, 1996: 79). Following the founding of the PRC, the Chinese government largely suppressed the cultural traditions and often ‘sacrificed the environment to development’ (Gardner & Stern, 1996: 49). During Mao Zedong’s period in office (1949–76), Chinese development policies led to widespread pollution and environmental destruction (Kobayashi, 2005; Shapiro, 2001). According to Kobayashi (2005: 88), ‘Mao’s views and policies had little regard for the environment’, and the natural environment was seen as being for the ‘common good that could be [put] to good use’ and ‘something to be conquered’. Subsequently, even as it improved the well-being of many people, the more ‘aggressive, Western-oriented modernisation’ launched by Deng Xiaoping from the late 1970s started a powerful trend towards consumption, energy use and pollution that grew worse with time (Smil, 1996: 182). In contemporary China, people’s attitudes towards the environment are starting to change, though developmental objectives still overwhelm environmental protection. In the early stage of the implementation of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies (from the late 1970s to the late 1980s), the attitude towards environmental protection was probably that if pollution is an unavoidable by-product of the struggle for prosperity, then so be it (Harris, 2004). More specifically, as indicated by Tseng (1999: 380), a widely held view during that period was that it was better to ‘die a slow death by inhaling polluted air than to die a quicker death through starvation’. It is not a surprise that China’s official view during the early stage of the implementation of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies was that ‘getting rich is glorious’ (Harris, 2004). As suggested by Harris (2004), in China, traditional values appear to offer environmentally benign guidance for economic development, but they are largely impotent in the face of the destruction of the environment and the now pervasive values of Westernstyle consumption. In contemporary China, people tend to yearn for more

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  29

luxury consumption, which sometimes leaves a low public awareness of the environment (Qing & Vermeer, 1999). However, this is not to suggest that all Chinese people’s attitudes towards the environment are completely negative. Environmental awareness has been quickly rising in contemporary China. China has developed a considerable understanding of the need for ecological balance (Qin & Zhou, 2015). In particular, people from the areas suffering from heavy pollution, such as the major industrial centres and cities, and young people, especially young members of the social elite, have great awareness of the environmental crisis and actively demand change. According to Ross (1999: 299), the increasing ‘scope, comprehensiveness, and stringency’ of environmental laws in China derive from public complaints about environmental problems. The central and local authorities have undertaken major efforts to educate people about environmental issues (Kristof, 2000). There is growing media coverage of environmental issues, which can be viewed as an important indicator of changing attitudes to the environment. From the authorities’ perspective, such efforts reflect a degree of environmental concern that is unusually strong for a developing country. In China, there are environmental laws and agencies in place. However, indicated by Harris (2004), the laws are often ignored and flouted by officials and industrial stakeholders. With a very centralised governance system in China, environmental policy making has been largely a top-down process (as indeed is the case in other areas of public policy). Traditionally, based on the Confucian doctrines, China has been ruled by man rather than by law, and this tradition still influences and weakens the role of the law and judiciary in contemporary China. There is limited public participation in environmental policy making in China; major environmental policies were formulated and decided upon by authorities with little public consultation (Lo & Leung, 2000; Ross, 1999). Most environmental campaigns and media coverage were organised by the government (Mao, 1997: 248). Environmental laws and regulations were well formulated but there was space for improvement in their implementation and enforcement. The controversial situation is that, as suggested previously, the prevailing values are a consequence of conscious government actions to shape them. While government officials increasingly realise the importance of environmental protection, they have often chosen to prioritise short-term economic growth over the environment. In particular, local economic growth is often the most important indicator in the evaluation of local development. Local authorities are under pressure to achieve fast economic growth. Therefore, regional protectionism is often considered to be an obstacle to policy implementation and law enforcement, and local authorities sometimes have failed to comply with environmental laws and regulations. Tseng (1999) suggests that the Chinese government, using this reasoning, often ignores some of its environmental policies and regulations and does what it thinks is necessary

30  Heritage Tourism in China

for economic advancement. Hence, even where policies and regulations exist to benefit the environment, they can often be skirted around by local government more interested in economic growth (Jahiel, 1998).

Traditional and Contemporary Chinese Philosophies In Chinese history, China’s public philosophy had been strongly influenced by the basic characteristics of public philosophy in the feudal period, from the Warring States period (475–221 BC) to the end of the Qing dynasty (1644–1911) (Ye, 2004). Confucian ethics and family values still dominate at the grassroots level in contemporary China. Many scholars believe that China’s culture is still very conservative and that political institutions and schools of thought have remained largely unchanged from antiquity to modern times (Zhou, 2003).

Confucianism as the dominant philosophy in pre-modern China During the Warring States period, China completed its transition from a slave society to a feudal society. Due to changes in the relations and modes of production, and due to economic development in the feudal period, it was possible for Chinese cultural and ideological fervour to emerge (Zhou, 2003). Classical philosophers during this period, such as Confucius, Mencius, Lao Zi, Zhuang Zi, Mo Zi and Hanfei Zi, were enthusiastically devoted to political and cultural debate. This debate has been described as ‘a hundred flowers in bloom’, where ‘a hundred schools of thought contend’ (Ye, 2004). Following the Warring States period, the centralised Qin dynasty (221–206 BC) set up a social structure and a centralised political system as the first feudal dynasty in China’s history. The following 2000 years witnessed the continuation and improvement of the feudal social structure and political system (Zhou, 2003). After the Qin dynasty, the official adoption of Confucianism as the ‘national doctrine’ in 136 BC by the emperors of the Han dynasty (206 BC – 220 AD) ensured its expansion and dominance over other philosophical schools of thought (Tan, 1971). Through various channels, in particular education, Confucianism continued to develop for more than 2000 years, taking different forms in different times (Zhou, 2003). Confucian philosophy in China’s feudal period (before 1912) can be charac­terised as based on humanism (Zhou, 2003). Unlike in Western humanism, heaven and the family are the two cornerstones of an integrated Chinese humanism, and the theory of the union of heaven and the indi­ vidual is its foundation (Zhou, 2003). It considers that the feudal ruler (or the emperor), at the top of the social hierarchy (the son of heaven), has been given the ‘mandate of heaven’ to govern ‘all under heaven’. The ideals of governing and the relationship between the ruler and the ruled were central

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  31

to Confucian political thought. Zhou (2003) suggests that ­traditional Confucian humanism discouraged individual initiative, but instead taught Chinese people that being obedient and docile preserved collective values, the family’s authority and political authority. Confucianism builds a wellordered society from the ground up rather than the top down, stressing the moral obligations of family life as the basic building block of society (Francis, 1995). Confucian social ethics have been passed on through generations. These teachings were disseminated with the purpose of maintaining harmony and order in society. Confucianism values meritocracy, education and tolerance. It is based on the ‘Five Constant Virtues’: Ren (benevolence), Yi (righteousness), Li (propriety), Zhi (knowledge/wisdom) and Xin (sincerity) (Tang, 1991). Confucianism also promotes the ‘Three Cardinal Guides’: ‘the sovereign guides the ministers, the father guides the son, and the husband guides the wife’ (Yao, 2000). According to Confucius, the regulation of human relations is the basis of social order. The employment of and respect for the ‘Five Constant Virtues’ and ‘Three Cardinal Guides’ constitute a prerequisite for proper governance. The virtuous ruler provides for the overall centrality of the political order within the Confucian system (Zhou, 2003). It was assumed that the political order had supreme jurisdiction over all domains of life and that the ruler had ultimate authority over social, religious and family affairs (Bell, 2000). These principles and regulations were taken as the essence of life and the bonds of society. In this way, Confucianism extended the boundaries of moral codes from individual matters to social and political areas, not only providing the state with an ideological format, but also equipping the authorities with the standards to judge behaviour and thoughts (Yao, 2000). Confucianism’s social utopia is the harmony of the individual, the group and the country. Confucian doctrines are not just a set of historical norms. As a moral and ethical system, Confucianism still has a strong influence on contem­porary Chinese society. Though many scholars avoid using the word ‘ideology’ to describe Confucianism, its doctrine has traditionally functioned as an ideology to serve political life in China (Dardess, 1983). In the feudal past, Confucianism served as a state ideology in response to the changing political needs of its believers (Lieberthal, 1995). The Confucius’ Analects states that ‘to conquer yourself and return to propriety is humanity’; this was the core of Confucian humanism and it reflected the characteristics of his political ambition (Zhou, 2003). Confucianism has been the most influential school of thought in China and it has ‘created the national myth’, ‘actually a cultural myth’ (Starr, 1973: 20). For 2000 years, Confucianism was the ideology favoured by China’s rulers. It helped strengthen the group against the individual and the state against all subordinate organisations or institutions, and legitimised a hierarchical political system (Francis, 1995). The moral code of ethics it provided

32  Heritage Tourism in China

emphasises personal virtues rather than individual rights. Compared with other schools of thought, Confucianism was probably the best means by which the ruling class might maintain its power over the long term. The feudal rulers took an active interest in promoting Confucian ethics, for this purpose. Throughout China’s history, Confucian doctrines have had an important influence on Chinese politics and society.

Taoism as an important indigenous philosophy Taoism is another important indigenous Chinese philosophy. The phil­ osophy of Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi are generally recognised as its basic sources. As an ancient philosophical tradition, Taoism is generally viewed as a phil­ osophy or school of thought which has a significant influence on culture and society across Eastern Asia. Tao (‘the way’) is the central concept of the phil­ osophy of Lao and Zhuang. Tao is the mysterious principle of the universe and the infinite way of the universe, which is without beginning and endless and is characterised as ‘normalcy, naturalness, selflessness, and nothingness’ (Ayers, 1971: 134). In contrast with Confucianism, Lao and Zhuang emphasised the contradiction between human society and the natural world. Taoist philosophy views the natural world as being in a funda­mentally harmonious dynamic balance, since it is made up of relational opposites which are mutually interdependent and hence not in conflict (Jenkins, 1998). One of the main Taoist principles is wu-wei, literally translated as ‘nonaction’. It is regarded as ‘acting without artificiality’ rather than ‘without any action’. In the Taoist view, human beings created civilisation but have lost their morality. In order to avoid evil one must be willing ‘either to flee from civilised society or to destroy it’ (Rubin, 1976). Therefore, Taoism, in a certain way, preaches ‘do-nothing-ism’ and nihilism. It did not please China’s ruling class. However, the philosophical works of Taoism reflect a wide range of perspectives in Chinese culture, especially in relation to ecology. It was manifested in the general population in the forms of ­philosophy, medicine, martial arts (Taiji) and music. Taoist philosophy is often considered to contrast with Western values regarding the human–environment relationship. It emphasises the qualities of non-assertion and downplays the importance of invasive human interventions and suggests human action should be complementary to rather than contrary to nature. Compared with the Western view on the human–­ environment relationship, Taoist philosophy considers the law of nature the most appropriate norm of human behaviour and a balance between extremes, which thereby creates a dynamic stability (Sabelli, 1998).

Contemporary Chinese public philosophy Confucianism persisted for 2000 years in China’s history; however, it was attacked in modern China after the rise of nationalism and the influx

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  33

of Western ideas such as pragmatism, utilitarianism, anarchism, socialism and various foreign religions (Zhou, 2003). In particular, in modern China nationalism has been fused with Marxism, and ‘national liberation’ has been regarded not simply as a political goal but as part of a social revolution (Heywood, 2003). In contemporary China, Marxism–Leninism–Maoism is the officially established ideology of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) following the establishment of the PRC in 1949. In the early years of the PRC, the socialist regime was consciously modelled upon the structure of the Soviet Union and the ideas of Marxism–Leninism became the ruling ideology (Heywood, 2003). Though many Chinese people now feel that Marxism and socialism are no longer a remedy, the CCP still promulgates Marxism and communism for ideological control. Former President Hu Jintao, in his speech at a meeting to celebrate the 90th anniversary of the founding of the CCP, emphasised that Marxism–Leninism–Maoism is the guiding principle of the party (Hu, 2011). With the CCP’s active promotion of Marxism and Maoism, contemporary public philosophy in China is essentially political. The communist ideology serves several functions at the same time in contemporary China. It helps with the CCP’s political campaigns and provides a theoretical foundation to justify the socialist system; it also helps identify the entire cultural system in China and unify Chinese people and the CCP members working for the country. In a nutshell, it stipulates the social goals and values that guide Chinese people and society toward a communist society (Solomon, 1973). In the post-Mao era, there is a hybrid of people’s beliefs, which can be viewed as mixture of several elements. Firstly, the orthodox Marxist doctrine is considered the dominant and sanctioned political philosophy, and has official support and promotion; secondly, traditional Confucianism still has an important influence and is viewed as the foundation of China’s cultural identity; thirdly, contemporary cultural nationalism is regarded as a rallying call for China’s national rejuvenation (Zhou, 2003). Although contemporary Chinese ideology originated from different sources, under a highly centralised governance system, the official ideology is directed from the top to the bottom (Johnson, 1973). The obvious fact is that contem­ porary Chinese public philosophy has deep historical roots and the character of it is largely inherited from, and reflects, a patriarchal tradition.

Tourism and Governance The term ‘governance’ has gained great currency in political science over the past few decades, becoming the established concept to portray the changing character of a state. It influences many aspects of public management and tourism is no exception. Tourism planning and policy making are largely dependent upon the governance of a country.

34  Heritage Tourism in China

The shift from government to governance Governance is considered to be a vaguely defined concept, because of the variety of its definitions. Richards and Smith (2002: 15) define governance as ‘a descriptive label that is used to highlight the changing nature of the policy process in recent decades’. They suggest that governance sensitises people to the ever-increasing variety of terrains and actors involved in the making of public policy. According to Rhodes (1997: 57), governance is ‘a collection of interorganisational networks made up of governmental and societal actors with no sovereign actor able to steer or regulate’. In broad terms, the notion of governance is suggested as a way to conceptualise the many new forms of government embraced in a large number of liberal democratic states (Richards & Smith, 2002). In the past, government has been regarded as the dominant actor in the policy arena, with governing essentially seen as a one-way process, from those governing (government) to those being governed (society) (Kooiman, 2000). Krahmann (2003) makes the following seven general distinctions between government and governance in policy-making arenas. Firstly, the geographical scope of policy making is the most central dimension of governance. Government is commonly associated with the centralisation of political authority within the state, whereas governance tends to be associ­ated with the fragmentation of authority, this often being manifested through decentralisation. Secondly, in relation to functional scope, government is typically linked to administrative systems where several issue areas are directly and centrally coordinated by a unified public agency, such as a ministry. In contrast, governance is often associated with policy-making arrange­ments where different issue areas are regulated by multiple or separate, specialised agencies. Moreover, these agencies are not necessarily public but include independent bodies. The third aspect identified by Krahmann is the distribution of resources. While government is identified with centralised political structures that control most of the resources necessary for the development of public policies, with governance the policy resources often remain dispersed among public and private stake­holders, who therefore have to collaborate with each other in order to address common problems. Fourthly, in addition to material dimensions, how interests are distributed among actors and how differences of interest should be resolved are central elements in differentiating between governance and government. With government, the diverse interests of social, economic and political actors are reconciled within the nation state. Where public and private interests differ, it is presumed that individual preferences should be subordinated to the public interest. In contrast, governance acknowledges that actors’ interests sometimes conflict and these actors are encouraged to pursue their own interests. Fifthly, linked to this perception of interests, government and governance are differentiated by their norms. Three sets of norms are

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  35

linked to government: national sovereignty, command and control, and redistribution. Central to the shift from government to governance seems to be a devaluation of the norm of sovereignty and scepticism regarding political institutions. Sixthly, decision-making processes associated with government are typically hierarchical, whereas governance is characterised by a horizontal dispersion of decision-making authority among numerous public and private stakeholders at different levels, and the decision making usually proceeds through negotiation. The final distinction between government and governance relates to who implements policies and how. The implementation of government policy tends to be centralised, authoritative, and, if necessary, coercive. In governance arrangements, implementation is typically described as decentralised, voluntary and self-enforced.

Governance of tourism As a multifaceted and complex industry, the shift from government to governance in tourism presents a major challenge for all destinations aspiring to have a larger market share, forcing them to reconsider their supporting structures. On the administrative front, national tourism administrations have had to build coordination between ministries into their strategies, in particular for transport, employment, the environment, culture and industry (Göymen, 2000). Cooperation has been necessary between different levels of the state, and between the private sector, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and professional and voluntary organisations. A benefit of this collaboration among stakeholders is that it has the potential to lead to dialogue, negotiation and the building of mutually acceptable proposals on how tourism should be developed (Bramwell & Lane, 2000). Embodied in the concept of governance is cooperation between the new ‘actors’ (players or partners) in tourism and their related sectors, as well as new arrangements and structures, and new forms of participation, communication and accountability (Göymen, 2000). As tourism development is a newly emerging area of local government concern, it is one where the networking, brokering and partnership formation characteristic of the new local governance finds a place (Thomas & Thomas, 1998). Tourism requires a degree of institutional flexibility and cross-institutional cooperation. International experience suggests that the results of experimentation with devolution, participation and partnership arrangements in tourism have often produced mixed results (Göymen, 2000).

Tourism decentralisation The changes in governance discussed above have assisted a trend towards decentralisation. Encouraged by global economic restructuring,

36  Heritage Tourism in China

growing support for neo-liberalism and profound changes in society, public administration has been called upon to make policy processes more efficient and effective, notably by making bureaucracy smaller. There have been calls for greater direct participation by the public and interest groups in the policy arenas, as it is believed that those affected by policies should be involved in their formation (Bramwell & Lane, 2000). Decentralisation has been described as involving ‘a transfer of authority to perform some service to the public from an individual or an agency in central government to some other individual or agency which is “closer” to the public to be served’ (Turner & Hulme, 1997: 152). The concept describes a change from services being provided by national government, to them being provided in more decentralised and fragmentary arrangements involving diverse public, private and voluntary sector organisations. As Turner and Hulme (1997) suggest, decentralisation, ‘when implemented properly’, could offer greater efficiency and effectiveness in a number of different areas. There are several different forms of decentralisation, or transfers of authority from the central state. Each type of authority transfer can be distinguished by its territorial or functional basis. A territorial transfer of authority is where power is passed to a lower level in the territorial hierarchy that is geographically closer to public service providers and clients. A functional transfer involves a move to an agency that is functionally specialised but not based at a geographically lower tier (Yuksel et al., 2005). De­centralised governance has a potential advantage, as it encourages wider and deeper participation, which in turn could lead to greater unity and equity. The first form of decentralisation from central government is ‘devolution’. Devolution is where central government gives added responsibilities to local tiers of government (Yuksel et al., 2005). The term implies that power is devolved from the top to lower tiers of government. Regional government can be responsible for a number of policies that have tradition­ ally been controlled by central government institutions. The second type of decentralisation from the central state is termed ‘deconcentration’. This type of transfer is when authority shifts within the public administrative or semi-independent parastatal structures. This type of transfer could be, for example, from the headquarters of a tourism ministry to its provincial branches; this retains responsibilities for officials appointed by the local state rather than dispersing them to local community representatives (Yuksel et al., 2005). Deconcentrated authorities are the territorial representation of the central state and, as such, they are still accountable to central government and not to the territory that they serve (Hopkins, 2002). Therefore, deconcentration may increase government efficiency rather than promote local democracy. The third type of transfer of authority from central govern­ ment is that of ‘privatisation’, which occurs when the state cedes some authority to a private sector organisation, either at a lower geographical tier

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  37

or at the national scale. A fourth change of authority is ‘delegation’ (Yuksel et al., 2005). This involves delegation from the state to a NGO, which could be an environmental group or a community group. A further type of transfer of authority from the central state is to a ‘partnership’. The transfer can be from a state institution to a partnership involving various organisations, which may or may not be in the public sector. In practice there are often multiple combinations or balances of how authority is decentralised.

Corporatism and clientelism in governance The tendency to privatise and commercialise functions that were once performed by the state has been widespread in Western countries since the late 1970s, and it has affected the nature of national government involvement in tourism. It is suggested that the reasons for this trend are that governments are interested in reducing the dependency of public enterprises on public budgets, in reducing public debt by selling state assets and in raising technical efficiencies (Hall, 1994). As a result of this trend, power relations between civil society and state actors can lead to corporatism, in the form of private agreements or practices brokered between elite actors and the state for mutual rather than societal benefit. It can also lead to clientelism, in the form of patronage relationships between government and selected actors. Both corporatism and clientelism limit the dispersal of influence and power (Bramwell, 2003). There is a general consensus in Western democracies that government should avoid ‘client politics’, in which a few interests seem to have a disproportionate influence on policy areas. Mucciaroni (1991: 474) notes that ‘client politics is typical of policies which diffuse costs and concentrate benefits. An identifiable group benefits from a policy, but the costs are paid by everybody or at least a large part of society.’ In short, both the corporatist and clientelist mentality can mean that government action for the public good is severely undermined (Hall, 2000).

China’s governance Since the launch of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies in the late 1970s in China, the state’s capacity to direct society and the extent to which central government institutions have retained tight control over political power have been significantly challenged. The policy arena has become more diverse, with many more stakeholders involved, and with new pressures such as globalisation altering the environment in which govern­ ment operates. The government has sometimes been obliged to operate in a diverse, fragmented, complex and decentralised environment (Dorey, 2005). The boundaries between the public and private sphere have become less precise, and the government’s command over policy processes has receded (Dorey, 2005). The top-down hierarchal government and decision-making

38  Heritage Tourism in China

process, to a certain extent, have gradually evolved in an era of governance. The concept of governance recognises that there are many centres of power, with a diverse range of actors who affect the policy process, with these actors being located at local, regional, national and supranational levels (Richards & Smith, 2002). At the same time, it must be recognised that governance in China remains highly centralised. In China the National People’s Congress (NPC) is the supreme organ of state power. It possesses exclusive state power, such as legislation, estab­ lishing and organising other state organs at the central level, appointing important national leaders, supervising the work of other state organs and law enforcement (Wang, 1997). Its permanent body is the Standing Committee of the NPC. The State Council, that is, the Central People’s Government of the PRC, is the executive body of the supreme organ of state power (NPC, 2014). The State Council is responsible and accountable to the NPC and its Standing Committee and it is, in effect, the government of China (Saich, 2004). It is able to submit proposals on laws to the NPC or its Standing Committee as well as to formulate administrative measures in accordance with the laws; it is also able to exert leadership over the noncentral levels of administration as well as the ministries and commissions, to draw up and put into effect the national economic plan and state budget, and to oversee public order and safeguard the rights of citizens (Saich, 2004). Under the State Council are ‘the various ministries, commissions, committees, bureaus and ad hoc organisations, the total number of which has varied over time’ (Saich, 2004: 133). People’s congresses and people’s governments are established in provinces, municipalities directly under the central government, counties, cities, municipal districts, townships, nationality townships and towns (NPC, 2014). The non-central government is administered through 23 provinces, five autonomous regions, four municipalities directly under the central government, and two Special Administrative Regions (Hong Kong and Macau). Under the provinces and their equivalents, there is ‘a three-level administrative network of prefectures, counties and cities, and townships and districts’ (Saich, 2004: 156). They are organised in the same way as the centre, with government and party organisations paralleling one another. The people’s government at each level is the administrative organ of the people’s congresses and it is responsible to both the people’s congresses and its standing committees at the same level, and to the organs of state administration at the next level up (Saich, 2004). The administrative powers of the local people’s congresses have been gradually increased since the launch of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, to allow them to formulate and adopt local regulations. The CCP had undertaken a massive process of institutional change following the establishment of the PRC in 1949. It laid down ‘a vast lattice work of Soviet derived political and economic institutions’ (White, 1992:

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  39

4). The ‘Soviet model’ of development was modified and adapted by Mao and his successors to meet China’s needs and conditions. To quickly restore the economy, Mao launched a distinctive model of economic development with the convulsive ‘Great Leap Forward’ in 1958 (Jones & Smith, 2006). Later, China descended into the social, economic and political anarchy of the Cultural Revolution (1966–76). This left ‘an ambivalent legacy of famine, chaos and a pattern of local economic autonomy that contrasted with the more centralised “Soviet model”’ (Jones, 1998: 186). Against this background, in 1978, Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping, launched a series of radical economic reforms, the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies. Deng’s pragmatic view on economic development can be demonstrated by his ‘cat theory’: ‘it matters not whether the cat is black or white; if it catches mice it is a good cat’ (Deng, 1994a). China adopted many similar features of the models of economic governance pursued in North East and South East Asia. Given the size of China and its massive population, it was a programme fraught with risks of economic and political instability and the PRC possessed political and economic institutions created to support an entirely different form of development and governance (Jones, 1998). This new approach combined economic liberalisation with political authoritarian­ism and it unleashed a process of rapid change. Deng Xiaoping brought in a completely different kind of socialist regime, one which gave much freer scope to the entrepreneurial spirit of the Chinese people, and it propounded that China did not need a leftist revolution but modernisation (Deng, 1994a). In the meantime, the CCP opened the country to the outside world, aiming thereby to bring about the kind of technology transfer and modern management that could help industrialise the country and raise living standards. This change produced a period of rapid economic growth and social liberalisation, but also a major expansion of regional and class inequalities (Mackerras, 1998). Within the economic arena, the CCP has disengaged from many areas of direct economic control since the economic reform, and it has increased the market accountability of productive enterprises, but it has retained an internal element of socialist political ideas and institutions (Jones, 1998). Unlike the ‘big bang’ approach adopted in the Soviet Union and the communist states in Eastern Europe, political reform did not accompany economic modernisation. Deng’s intention was to restart economic growth precisely in order that the CCP’s ‘hold on state power might be left intact’ (Case, 1998: 257). The economic and political liberalisations were clearly not equal in the process of economic reform. From the political side, the CCP exercises careful control. Deng and his successors were clear that the CCP should remain in power, and that its basic structure and authority should remain unchanged. In the meantime, the processes of the state must rest on law and order (Mackerras, 1998). This strategy appeared to be a success in economic terms, with the economy averaging 8–9% output growth per

40  Heritage Tourism in China

annum, leading to significant rises in incomes. However, the reforms have been ‘deeply contested by those opposed on ideological grounds, by groups that felt disadvantaged by the reforms, and by those who felt that the reforms had not progressed swiftly enough’ (Saich, 2004: 57).

Tourism administration under China’s reforms From the establishment of the PRC up to the mid-1960s, there was no single state organ responsible for tourism, due to the industry’s small scale. The Bureau for Travel and Tourism (BTT) was set up in 1964 under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Ministry (Zhang, 1995). A basic principle proclaimed by the late Premier Zhou Enlai was that ‘nothing is minor in the handling of foreign affairs, and everything done requires asking for instructions’ (Zhang, 1995: 25). Therefore, all aspects of tourism were tightly controlled by the national government in Mao’s period. There was a rapid growth of tourism after the launch of ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies in the late 1970s. The China National Tourism Administration (CNTA) was set up as China’s principal national tourism organisation under the direct jurisdiction of the State Council in the 1980s (CNTA, n.d.). The agency is responsible for the formulation of rules and regulations governing tourism, conducting major overseas travel promotions, facilitating state-to-state cooperation, and providing tourism information, education and training services (CNTA, n.d.). Similar to other government departments in China, the CNTA has not entirely cast off the traditional ways of administration, but as a new state organ born in the course of reform it has paid more attention to the economic and legal aspects of administration, and to market demands and international practices in business management (Zhang, 1995). Local tourism administrations were set up at provincial and city level as functional departments of local governments to manage and regulate local tourism development and they receive industrial supervision from the CNTA.

Summary This chapter has outlined the key areas of research that further an under­ standing of the issues examined in this book. In the following chapters, they are applied to the relationships between heritage tourism planning and promotion and the notions of modernity, identity building and sustainable development in the context of contemporary China. This book highlights the potential contestations around heritage tourism and their implications for the social construction of values in China. Tourism plays an increasingly important role in China’s socio-economic and cultural development. The fast development of tourism has, though, brought contested views on how

Tourism, Modernity and Identity Building  41

tourism should be developed. To better understand tourism’s interactions with the social construction of modernity, identity and sustainability, the context of the study and a conceptual framework are developed and introduced next; that framework incorporates the theories relating to public policy, politics, tourism, heritage studies, development theory and governance that have been outlined in this chapter.

2 China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development

Introduction This chapter discusses the development of heritage tourism in China and provides a conceptual framework for the assessment of continuities and changes in notions of modernity and sustainability. The chapter starts by introducing the socio-economic, historical and cultural contexts of China, and the development and management of heritage tourism in China. This is followed by an outline of the context of the four important heritage tourism sites in China’s Shandong Province selected for discussion in this book. Attention is directed to features of China’s economy and society that are considered to have affected heritage tourism planning and development. These features include the nation’s economic development, political ideologies, political and governance characteristics, and socio-cultural ­ traits. The chapter also examines specific features of Shandong and the four heritage sites, including their economic and socio-cultural characteristics and the associated public administrative practices. A detailed account of the geography and tourism development at the four selected heritage sites is provided. The discussion of the contextual factors affecting the four heritage sites helps explain the relationships between notions of modernity, identity building, sustainable development and heritage tourism that are examined in subsequent chapters. Based on the micro-scale assessment of aspects of geography, governance and tourism development of Shandong Province and the four heritage sites, the last main section of this chapter sets out a conceptual framework which presents the interactive relationships between three connected sets of issues affecting the development of tourism at the four sites in China. It provides guidance for the assessment of continuities and changes in notions of modernity and sustainability and tensions in the representation of heritage for tourist consumption. 42

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  43

Context of China With a land area of 9.6 million square kilometres and a water area of 4.7 million square kilometres (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2016), China is the largest country in Asia and the third largest country in the world (CNTA, 2013a). It has a population of approximately 1.37 billion (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2016). China has one of the world’s oldest continuous civilis­ations, with states and cultures that date back more than six millennia. Since the CCP came into power and established the PRC in 1949, China has functioned as a single-party state. The CCP is founded mainly on ideology and politics, deriving its ideas and policies from what is depicted as the people’s concentrated will, and it turns that will into state laws and decisions that are passed by the NPC of China through the state’s legal procedures (China Today, 2013). The CCP has maintained a unitary government, characterised by a highly centralised system that granted only limited local autonomy before the late 1970s (Qian, 2007). Yet since Deng’s reforms began in the late 1970s, there has been a growing decentralisation of govern­ ance in China, with the relations between central government, provinces and localities becoming more complex.

Socialist ideology and tourism during the Mao era (1949–76) The interfaces between the politically driven goals of government, the preservation of a nation’s cultural heritage, the values of sustainable development and tourism development are problematic for many countries (Sofield & Li, 1998) and China is no exception. These issues are fundamental to the place of tradition in society and present challenges to the legitimacy of the socialist regime, in particular when the government is modernising China’s economy at a rapid rate (Sofield & Li, 1998). After Mao Zedong assumed political leadership of China in 1949, the communist central state rejected many cultural traditions (Yan & Bramwell, 2008). In particular, under Mao’s ‘Cultural Revolution’ (1966–76), there was massive destruction of China’s rich and varied built heritage and there were sustained attacks on China’s cultural traditions and heritage (Sofield & Li, 1998). Tensions between socialism, traditional culture and modernisation resulted in extremes of policy and upheaval in China for several decades. As a new socialist country, the PRC was confronted from the very beginning with great pressure from inside and outside (Zhang et al., 2005: 87). As Sofield and Li (1998) indicate, after the establishment of the PRC, the Chinese government was confronted with tensions generated by the CCP’s intention to introduce a more egalitarian society through socialism, its desire to modernise rapidly and its need to rebuild China’s sense of national identity.

44  Heritage Tourism in China

China’s socialist regimes during the Mao era largely rejected tourism as an appropriate form of economic development. During this period, tourism primarily served the political purpose of promoting the achievements of socialist China, of expanding China’s political influence and of promoting international understanding and friendship through receiving invited guests and tourists (Han, 1994). Both domestic and international tourism were almost non-existent (Chow, 1988; Hudman & Hawkins, 1989). Tourism activities were held tightly in the hands of the state machinery, and reflected patterns common to other socialist states (Sofield & Li, 1998). Tourism involved only services for incoming overseas Chinese and approved international visitors (Zhang et al., 2005). During the Mao era, tourism was largely a vehicle for propaganda purposes rather than a legitimate form of development (Yan & Bramwell, 2008). The main task of developing tourism described in a report on tourism development prepared by the Foreign Affairs Leading Group of the CCP Central Committee and approved by the that committee in 1964 was to ‘publicise achievement of socialist construction, expand external political influence, promote mutual understanding and friendship between Chinese and people of the world and gain some foreign currency for the state’ (Zhang et al., 2005: 89). As Henderson (2007: 250) contends, ‘the value attached to tourism as a propaganda channel is ­especially high within a communist context where the fundamental in­security of authoritarianism gives rise to a compulsion to trumpet the superiority of the doctrine and the benefits of life in a socialist utopia’. Heritage sites were not promoted for tourist purposes and contact between tourists and locals was strictly regulated (Sofield & Li, 1998). International tourism was regarded as part of China’s diplomatic effort and an instrument of foreign affairs policy (CNTA, 1992).

Heritage tourism development since the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies Deng Xiaoping came into power in 1978. China began to re-evaluate its cultural past and to encourage tourism (Yan & Bramwell, 2008). With the acceptance of the need to modernise using all resources available, Deng launched the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies and China took a ‘great leap back’ from Mao’s iconoclasm (Sofield & Li, 1998). Since authority in China remained highly centralised, cultural and tourism policies were still greatly influenced by national government (Yan & Bramwell, 2008). Deng redefined politics in China and while this change of direction undercut some of the Maoist principles, it was nevertheless essential to reaffirm the primacy of socialism and to justify the legitimacy and right of the CCP to govern the country (Sofield & Li, 1998). Nonetheless, Deng was able to re­habilitate China’s heritage as an important resource, needed for two purposes. Firstly, it could help achieve the task of restoring national unity and reinforce socialist

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  45

ideology after the traumas of the Cultural Revolution. Secondly, tourism, as an acceptable form of development, could revitalise China’s economy (following the Cultural Revolution, China had faced difficult economic conditions and a serious shortage of capital); the importance of tourism as a means for accumulating foreign exchange and attracting inward investment was emphasised by Deng. Both of these objectives could be achieved by combining heritage with tourism. Deng’s attitude to tourism development led to positive changes in tourism policy and started the shift of tourism from a political to an economic instrument (Han, 1994). The tourism industry was rapidly expanded as part of Deng’s ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies. The first national conference on tourism was held in 1978, to formulate guidelines and organisational structures for the industry’s development (Gao & Zhang, 1982). In three different speeches in 1979, Deng emphasised the need for the swift development of tourism (He, 1992). These speeches were of strategic significance for China’s tourism industry at a transitional stage in China’s history. For the first time, tourism was justified politically as an acceptable economic sector; in socialist terms, it would advance economic reforms and the policy of opening up China to the outside world. In this period, the Chinese leaders used tourism to achieve a ‘double harvest’, that is, in both the political and the economic spheres (Han, 1994). More importantly, tourism was justified in cultural terms by the contribution it could make to national unity through the preservation of folklore and heritage sites (Sofield & Li, 1998). The State Law of Cultural Heritage Protection was passed in 1982, by the 25th meeting of the Operations Committee of the NPC of the CCP (NPC, 1982a). The law is comprehensive and the accompanying regulations cover the classification of all heritage objects. It clearly states that it is designed ‘to strengthen the conservation of China’s heritage’ and ‘to carry out nationalism, to promote revolutionary traditions, and to build up socialism and modernisation’ (NPC, 1982a). The State Administration of Cultural Management (SACH) was established and article 3 of the Law stipulates that each province, autonomous region, county and municipal (city) government is charged with the responsibility for setting up its own heritage conservation management organisation. The passing of this law provided for the first time a solid foundation for tourism to embrace heritage in its own development (Sofield & Li, 1998). Images – pictorial, literary and philosophical – of China’s mountains, gorges, rivers, lakes, caves and other features have long been created by past emperors, poets, artists and philosophers, including Confucius himself (Sofield & Li, 1998). Since the late 1970s, the significance of these various landscape features of China has been recognised in the context of tourism. With the support of the central government, local governments now view tourism as an easy and convenient way to quickly generate revenue and increase employment (Xu, 1999). Heritage sites have become favourable

46  Heritage Tourism in China

resources for local governments to increase tourism and great effort has been made by the state and local authorities to repair and restore them for tourist purposes. UNESCO has coordinated much of the international effort. For example, in 1987, the Mount Tai Scenic Area (China’s first WHS) was granted WHS listing based on its outstanding environmental and cultural resources (UNESCO, 1987a). Qufu Confucius temple, mansion and cemetery were inscribed as a UNESCO WHS in 1994 for their outstanding cultural value (UNESCO, 1994a).

China’s heritage tourism administration and the National Scenic Area system Before the launch of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, heritage sites were seldom used for tourism purposes in China. At both state and local levels, there was no administrative system to supervise the preservation and tourism development of heritage sites. Frequent changes and upheavals in administrative departments led a chaotic situation for many heritages sites (Sofield & Li, 1998). However, since the late 1970s, the national government has made great efforts to develop and improve the administrative systems for the management of cultural heritage and for the tourism industry more generally. Heritage conservation and tourism development work in China came under the auspices of various government agencies and now generally follow a top-down administrative structure. Based on the current administrative systems, the management of heritage sites follows a multi-department management structure, involving various governmental departments with overlapping responsibilities (Su & Li, 2011). The Ministry of Construction of China is largely responsible for the management of natural heritage, whereas the SACH takes charge in cultural heritage management issues at the national level. Heritage site management and tourism development are administered separately, being respectively under the Ministry of Construction and SACH, and the CNTA at national level. At the provincial, municipal and county levels, there are corresponding local heritage and tourism departments (branches of local government) that are responsible to their respective higher-level organisations. In general, China’s heritage management follows China’s overall top-down administrative hierarchy. The central government makes the state policies and it directly manages and guides the work of provincial govern­ments. According to the national policies and guidelines, the provincial government makes policies for the sub-regions (i.e. cities) based on the specific local circumstances. The provinces also provide the national government with a reliable organisation to fine-tune policy, which allows more flexibility with implementation. By contrast, local tourism planning normally follows a more bottom-up route, with local proposals getting approval from the higher authorities. In local heritage tourism planning, the

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  47

city-level cultural heritage administrations and tourism administrations are branches of local government. Local governments regulate and coordinate these two branches together with the other branches of local government (e.g. the urban construction committee, religious affairs bureau and environment bureau). However, heritage management and tourism development report to their higher-level corresponding departments (heritage and tourism authorities at the next level). Following this procedure, local heritage and tourism planning and development are reported to their provincial counterparts. Then the provincial authorities will seek final approval from the state authorities. Due to the complex nature of heritage, at different levels, other governmental departments that can be involved include forestry, agriculture, water resources, environmental protection, religion, and ethnic affairs, tourism department (Su & Li, 2011). Which department is involved at any given heritage site largely depends on the site’s specific cultural, natural and social situations (Su & Li, 2011). In addition to the general system for heritage management, since the early 1980s the central government has created ‘National Scenic Areas’, which provide a geographically based system to integrate the preservation, administration and planning for all types of tourism resources in sub-regions (Sofield & Li, 1998). Since many famous heritage sites are located in these National Scenic Areas, they are under the direct management of National Scenic Area administrative authorities. The system has gradually become a general model for most heritage sites located within these areas. The National Scenic Areas are under the management of county/district (or city) government at local level. As branches of local government, the National Scenic Areas administration committees sometimes have a position that is equal to that of other local government departments (such as the tourism administration, cultural heritage administration and religious affairs bureau). These administration committees integrate the responsibilities of daily administration, tourism planning, heritage and natural preservation and almost all other activities (State Council, 2006). Despite direct management from local government, the administration committees liaise and collaboratively work with other departments within local government, such as with the local tourism administration, cultural heritage administration, religious affairs bureau and construction committee. The details of the National Scenic Areas system are discussed in Chapter 6. This pattern of administration is followed at two of the four selected heritage sites in this book: the Mount Tai National Scenic Area (where the Mount Tai WHS is based) and the Liugong Island National Scenic Area (where the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War memorials are based). However, due to a legacy of administrative issues at the local or provincial level, this pattern of administration is not applicable to the other two heritage sites studied in this book. That is, the Qufu WHS (the Confucius temple, mansion and cemetery) is not located in a National Scenic Area, but is under the

48  Heritage Tourism in China

direct management of a county-level WHS administration, and the Taiqing Taoist Temple heritage site is not fully controlled by a local National Scenic Area committee. Instead, the daily operation of Taiqing Taoist Temple is managed by the religious affairs bureau of Qingdao municipal government, with this forming a multi-headed administration.

Heritage Tourism and the Four Heritage Sites With an understanding of heritage and tourism administration in China, this section introduces the context for the four selected heritage sites in China’s Shandong Province. Since the administration of heritage sites is closely associated with, and influenced by, local tourism planning and administration, it is important to understand the context of the cities where the heritage sites are located. The context of the province is introduced first, and this is followed by an explanation of each site in relation to its local history, socio-economic context, and heritage tourism management and development.

Historical geography and tourism development in Shandong With a land area of 156,700 square kilometres and more than 97.89 million people (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2015), Shandong Province is an important coastal province in eastern China (Figure 2.1). The province is 700 kilometres from east to west and 420 kilometres from north to south; it comprises 1.6% of China’s territory and is the 19th largest province in the country (Xinhua Net, 2011). Before entering the Bohai Sea, the Yellow River passes through the west part of the province (Li, 2001). The Grand Canal also passes through Shandong and this section is the key junction of the Grand Canal (Li, 2001). The province’s coastline is 3,000 ­kilometres long and forms the Shandong Peninsula, which is a rocky coastline with cliffs, sandy beaches, bays, and islands (Xinhua Net, 2011). Shandong province is located on the eastern part of the North China Plain and the region has always been one of China’s political, economic and cultural centres (Shandong Provincial Government, 2008). Qi (with its capital at Linzi) and Lu (with its capital at Qufu) in today’s Shandong were two important states of the Western Zhou dynasty (1046–771 BC) (Li, 2001). Lu is noted for being the home of Confucius, the philosopher, thinker, educator and politician who is honoured as a sage, and who was born in Qufu City more than 2500 years ago (Li, 2001). As discussed in Chapter 1, Confucianism is pivotal to Chinese culture and, indeed, it has an important global influence. The two states of Qi and Lu developed as centres of politics, economics and culture, and they exerted a significant influence on China’s history. The name of the province (Shandong) was first

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  49

Figure 2.1  Map of Shandong Province, showing the location of the four heritage sites

used during the Warring States period to refer to the area east of Taihang Mountain. The modern province of Shandong was created by the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) (Xinhua Net, 2006a). During the 19th century, China became increasingly exposed to the Western invasion and, in particular, as a coastal province, Shandong suffered notably (Li, 2001). Following the Western invasion, Qingdao was forced to be leased to Germany in 1897 and Weihai was forced to be leased to Britain in 1898; the rest of Shandong was generally considered to be part of the German sphere of influence (Xinhua Net, 2011). After the Republic of China was founded in 1911, Qingdao reverted to Chinese control in 1922 and Weihai followed in 1930 (Xinhua Net, 2011). After the founding of the PRC in 1949, the province assumed its present administrative status. The province currently has 17 cities, including the provincial capital city of Jinan, as well as 137 counties, county-level cities and urban districts (Shandong Provincial Government, 2008).

Economic and tourism development in Shandong Province Since the launch of China’s ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies Shandong experienced fast economic growth. In recent years the province

50  Heritage Tourism in China

has raced ahead in terms of economic development, becoming one of the affluent provinces of China. It has a significant position in the national economy. The nominal gross domestic product (GDP) for Shandong was 5.94 trillion RMB in 2014 – ranking its economy third in China (Shandong Bureau of Statistics, 2015). However, the province’s economic development is not geographically balanced, with the extreme inland west of Shandong being less developed. In 2014 Shandong received more than 596 million domestic tourists and 4.46 million foreign tourists; the province’s income from tourism in that year reached 587.8 billion RMB (Shandong Bureau of Statistics, 2015). Heritage tourism at the four heritage sites plays an important role in the province’s overall tourism development.

The four heritage sites As briefly introduced in Chapter 1, all four heritage sites studied in this book are popular and major tourist attractions in China. The sites embody many key tensions in contemporary China relevant to the study. The four selected heritage sites are: • Qufu WHS (including the temple, cemetery and family mansion of Confucius, which form a designated UNESCO WHS) in Qufu city; • Mount Tai WHS (which was China’s first WHS), in the city of Tai’an; • The 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War memorials (a symbolic site for the SelfStrengthening Movement) at Liugong Island, in the city of Weihai; • The Taiqing Taoist Temple at Mount Lao (one of the birthplaces of Taoism), in the city of Qingdao. In the sections below, each site is related to its geographical and ­historical context, its cultural and natural importance in Chinese history, the current administrative structure for the site, and the local patterns of economic and tourism development.

Qufu WHS (Confucius’ temple, mansion and cemetery) The geographical and historical context of Qufu City and Qufu WHS The city of Qufu (which is a county-level authority) is in the west of Shandong Province, about 130 kilometres south of the provincial capital of Jinan. It is famous as the hometown of Confucius (551–479 BC), and served as the capital of the State of Lu during the Spring and Autumn period and Warring States period (Xu, 1993). In 2011, the city had a population of about 173,510 and the entire administrative region had about 640,000 inhabitants (China Qufu Net, 2013). Within the city, the WHS of the Confucius temple, mansion and cemetery is a major symbol of traditional Chinese values and philosophy (Xu, 1993). The contribution of Confucius to philosophical and political doctrine in the countries of the East for 2000 years, and in

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  51

Figure 2.2  The plate indicating ‘China Patriotic Education Site’ on Confucius’ mansion in Qufu

Europe and the West in the 18th and 19th centuries, has been one of the most profound factors in the evolution of modern thought and government (UNESCO, 1994b). Confucius is considered to be one of the world’s greatest philosophers. The Qufu complex of monuments has retained its outstanding artistic and historic character due to the devotion of successive Chinese emperors over more than 2000 years and it was listed as a WHS in 1994 (UNESCO, 1994b). In 1997, due to its great cultural value and influence on Chinese history, it was awarded by the CCP Propaganda Department the title of ‘National Patriotic Education Site’ (Figure 2.2), and it was designated for use in the patriotic and traditional cultural education of young people. After the death of Confucius, Qufu became a place of remembrance for his followers, including China’s emperors. In 205 BC, Emperor Gao of the Han dynasty established the Confucius ‘cult ceremony’ (China Culture, 2006). The temple served as the principal place to host the Confucius cult ceremony and to offer sacrifices to the memory of Confucius. This state-sponsored ceremony centred on offering sacrifices in the temple to Confucius’ spirit. It involved the offering of food to his memory and an ‘eight-row dance’ in his honour performed by eight rows of eight dancers (Xu, 1993). Confucius was the only person to be revered in this way by

52  Heritage Tourism in China

Figure 2.3  Dacheng Hall, Confucius’ temple, Qufu

an imperial ruler. Further evidence of the imperial leaders’ homage to him over the feudal period was seen in the 12 emperors who paid their respects to him at Qufu, and the deputies of about 100 emperors who attended 196 Confucian ‘cult ceremonies’ (China Culture, 2006). The imperial court provided funds each year to maintain and extend the site’s buildings and in the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368) it allowed the building of an enclosure wall around the temple, modelled on Beijing’s imperial palace, the Forbidden City (Xu, 1993). The temple (Figure 2.3) is the second largest historical complex of buildings in China; it covers an area of 16,000 square metres and has a total of 460 rooms (Xu, 1993). The temple of Confucius has undergone 15 major renovations, 31 large-scale repairs and numerous small building measures over the years (Xu, 1993). During the feudal period, the Confucius cult ceremony was the most important event for the feudal dynasties (Qufu Tourism Administration, 2010a). The temple is the prototype and model for all the Confucius temples widely distributed across East Asia and South East Asia, particularly in terms of layout and style (UNESCO, 1994b). With the oldest graves dating back to the Zhou dynasty (1046–256 BC), the family cemetery of Confucius is located in the northern part of Qufu. It covers an area of 3.6 square kilometres (Qufu Tourism Administration,

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  53

2010b). Tombs for the descendants of Confucius and steles from different dynasties to commemorate him were added around Confucius’ tomb (UNESCO, 1994b). Since the feudal emperors gave noble titles to the descend­ants of Confucius, many of the tombs show their noble status and the steles in the cemetery make the largest stele forest in China (Xu, 1993). Within this space, more than 100,000 descendants were buried in tombs over a period of about 2000 years (UNESCO, 1994b). Confucius’ family was in control of a large private rural estate. Located to the east of the temple, the Confucius mansion was the official manor of male direct descendants of Confucius (UNESCO, 1994b). Those descendants were responsible for tending the temple and cemetery (Qufu Tourism Administration, 2010c). In particular, they were in charge of conducting elaborate religious ceremonies on occasions such as planting, harvests, honouring the dead and birthdays. The first mansion was built in the Song dynasty (960–1279) and the layout of the mansion is in a traditional Chinese style and reflects the Confucian principle of order and hierarchy (Xu, 1993). The buildings were designed and built with meticulous care according to the ideas of Confucianism regarding the hierarchy of disposition of the various components (UNESCO, 1994b). The Qufu WHS represents a prominent symbol in China of Confucian philosophy and of its associated traditional cultural and spiritual meanings. It is the most prominent site in China associated with Confucianism. Qufu is celebrated as the family home of Confucius. The representation of heritage at this site has reflected the shifting attitudes of the national government and other groups towards Qufu as a heritage site that has been highly influential for Confucian thinking and for traditional cultural values in Chinese society. The way this site has developed clearly manifests the responses to the Chinese traditional philosophy of Confucianism in contemporary China. Since Confucianism has a deep influence on contemporary China’s authoritarian governance and society, it has considerable implications for the shifting ideology which guides the way in which Chinese people conceive of themselves historically and regard socio-cultural modernity and sustainability. Local economy and tourism development at Qufu WHS Historically, Qufu was a small town heavily dependent on its agriculture. To encourage economic development the provincial government introduced a preferential policy for Qufu, enabling the city government to use its annual tax of over 10 million RMB to improve and develop the city, rather than hand the revenue to the provincial government (Qufu Committee for Compiling Annual Statistics, 2005). Despite this, Qufu’s annual output remains relatively low and most of it has to be allocated to cover the city’s daily administrative costs, as well as expenditure on agriculture, education and other items.

54  Heritage Tourism in China

Tourism has made a great contribution to the local economy, and it now represents a pillar industry for the city. Qufu’s tourism resources are mainly related to its historic sites and buildings, and most of these are associated with the WHS. These sites attract tourists from all over the country and abroad. Moreover, Qufu is about 90 kilometres south of the popular site of Mount Tai, and this other WHS brings yet more people to Qufu (Li, 2001). Due to its notable cultural position and indelible influence on Chinese history and identity, the Qufu WHS was listed by the Chinese government as one of the ‘Top 40 Chinese Tourist Spots’ and the ‘Top 100 Chinese Patriotic Education Sites’ (Yan & Bramwell, 2008). Since the 1980s, the annual ‘International Confucius Festival’ has attracted many inter­national tourists from late September to early October and this contributes to Shandong Province being one of the most popular tourist regions in China (Qufu Committee for Compiling Annual Statistics, 2005). The Qufu WHS in the old city was the key vehicle for the city’s tourism development. To encourage that development, the city government started to restore some of the important monuments and architecture in the city in 1985; the majority of the old town of Qufu was thus gradually restored, including the city gates and the corners of the city walls (Xu, 1993). By 2004 the entire city walls, constructed in the Ming dynasty, had been fully restored and all unapproved constructions inside the city wall had been removed in order to restore the ancient appearance of the old city (UNESCO, 2003a). In 2012, Qufu’s tourist arrivals reached 12.95 million, and their expenditure had reached 10.71 billion RMB (China Tourism News, 2013). Qufu was the third among the top 100 county-level regions in China based on its competitive strength in tourism (CNTA, 2013b). The Qufu Cultural Heritage Administration and Tourism Administration were established to directly manage the site in the mid-1980s. They were authorised to represent local government exercising site administration and tourism development over the city’s cultural heritage (Xu, 1993). The Confucius temple, mansion and cemetery were under the direct management of those two local government branches. After the site was listed by UNESCO in 1994, UNESCO has required those two government branches to be responsible for the maintenance of the cultural relics, the management of visitors, sanitation and the outdoor facilities, good order in the outdoor sites, and the operation and management of tourist facilities in the outdoor sites (UNESCO, 2003a). Since 1999 the local authorities of Qufu have reformed the management system for the heritage properties according to the principle of ‘separating institutions from enterprises and separating ownership and operation rights’ (Jiang, 1997). As a result of this reform, a well-known theme park management company, together with five local Qufu companies, gained the right to operate Qufu WHS, and they established a new subsidiary corporation, the China Confucius International Tourism Co. Ltd, to manage the preservation and tourism activity at the WHS. The local

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  55

cultural heritage administration and tourism administration then withdrew from direct involvement, and became responsible only for monitoring and supervision. Regulations for heritage preservation and management were gradually formulated and improved by the local authorities, but in December 1999 the WHS was severely damaged due to the mismanagement of administrative staff (People’s Daily, 2001). According to the media at that time and according to an investigation by the SACH, in a thorough clean-up of the sites the newly formed management company hosed down and used brushes on the wooden structures and steles (People’s Daily, 2001). The theme park management company then withdrew from site administration of the WHS. In 2003 the WHS returned to the direct administration of the Qufu Cultural Heritage Administration, a branch of local government. To coordinate heritage preservation and tourism development at the site, in 2005 a new site management committee, the Qufu Cultural Heritage Administration Committee (a county-level organisation), was established. The new committee has been directly in charge of site management and tourism promotion at Qufu WHS. The activities of the local government, local cultural heritage administration and local tourism administration were then coordinated and managed by a new committee for the preservation and tourism development of Qufu WHS (Jining Tourism Authority, 2005). Uncommonly in China’s heritage administration, the committee is a county-level organisation under the management of Qufu county-level government. To coordinate work between the committee and other local government departments, the deputy mayor of Qufu takes the position of committee director. The directors of the local cultural heritage administration and tourism administration also hold positions as vice-directors of the committee (as additional posts).

Mount Tai WHS The geographical and historical context of Tai’an and Mount Tai WHS The city of Tai’an is in western Shandong Province. The city is located at the southern side of Mount Tai and it borders the capital city of Shandong Province, Jinan to the north, Qufu to the south, the Yellow River to the west and Zibo to the east. In 2014 its population was about 5.58 million (Shandong Bureau of Statistics, 2015). Mount Tai is a mountain of major natural and cultural significance. Its highest peak is the 1545-metre Jade Emperor Peak (Figure 2.4). Due to its natural and cultural value, in 1987 Mount Tai became the first WHS in China (UNESCO, 1987a). Because of its cultural significance in China’s history, it is widely associated with sunrise, birth and renewal. Further, the temples on its slopes have been a destination for pilgrims for 3000 years (UNESCO, 1987a). With its long history and rich cultural connotations, Mount Tai is a famous sacred mountain in China. It was praised by Guo Moruo (1962),

56  Heritage Tourism in China

Figure 2.4  The Climbing Stairs at Mount Tai

a famous Chinese poet and scholar, as ‘a partial miniature of Chinese culture’ (UNESCO, 1987b). Mount Tai was regarded as the sacred ‘central mountain’ because of its advantageous geological position and it was the object of an imperial cult for nearly 2000 years (UNESCO, 2003c). The artistic masterpieces from there were intended to be in perfect harmony with the natural landscape. It has always been a source of inspiration for Chinese artists and scholars and it symbolises ancient Chinese civilisations and beliefs (UNESCO, 1987b). Mount Tai is one of the most beautiful scenic spots in China and was an important cradle of oriental East Asian culture from earliest times (UNESCO, 1987a) – evidence of human activity there dates back 400,000 years. Mount Tai is one of the birthplaces of Chinese civilisation and the name of the neighbouring city of Tai’an is attributed to the saying, ‘If Mount Tai is stable, so is the entire country’ (Li, 2001). Mount Tai has the highest standing among China’s mountains. According to traditional ideas, the orient is the symbol of hope and good luck. Mount Tai lies in the east of China and it is in charge of life. In the Han dynasty Mount Tai

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  57

was known as the East Mountain, with Mounts Hua, Heng (North), Song and Heng (South) being respectively the West, North, Central and South Mountains. Mount Tai was considered ‘the King equal to Heaven’ and the ‘Holy Emperor’ (Li, 2001). Thus, Mount Tai was regarded by the emperors and people as the most important mountain and it became the symbol of China and the spiritual pillar of Chinese people. It has an attractive force captured in the Chinese idiom that ‘Fallen leaves return to the roots’, which means that every soul will return to Mount Tai after death (Li, 2001). Confucianism gradually became the core of Mount Tai’s culture. ­Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism were in perfect harmony in Mount Tai, and the cultural relics of all of thoughts are rich at Mount Tai (UNESCO, 2003b). Religious worship of Mount Tai dates back 3000 years, being practised from the time of the Shang (1600–1046 BC) to the Qing dynasty (UNESCO, 1987a). Over time, this worship evolved into an official imperial rite and Mount Tai became one of the principal places where the emperor would pay homage to heaven (on the summit) and earth (at the foot of the mountain) through the Fengshan sacrifices (an imperial cult ceremony to report the emperor’s achievements to the god). Mount Tai Fengshan originated from the worship of nature but it was changed to imply that ‘the right of emperors is granted by the God’ (Shandong Chronologies Compiling Committee, 1993). China’s first feudal emperor, Qin Shi Huang, held a ceremony on the summit in 219 BC, where he proclaimed the unity of the empire (UNESCO, 1987a). Since then, almost all emperors in each dynasty have kept the tradition of Fengshan sacrifices with a big ceremony. It became an important means to reinforce the rule of past dynasties. Today, Tai’an still holds a solemn performance that imitates the imperial Fengshan activities, with this held at the Dai Temple during the Mount Tai International Mountaineering Festival each September (Tai’an Tourism Administration, 2006). In addition to its pre-eminence as a site of cultural significance, Mount Tai is geologically important. It has diverse flora and fauna, and it is famous for its majestic scenery. Favourable climatic conditions mean that Mount Tai is covered with thick vegetation, luxuriant forest, flourishing flowers and plants (79.9% of its area is covered in forest) (UNESCO, 2003a). The natural scenery of Mount Tai is full of aesthetic, scientific and rich cultural value. Mount Tai’s natural beauty is considered as fitting for the needs of Chinese spiritual life (Shandong Chronologies Compiling Committee, 1993). According to traditional Chinese ideas about mountains, it has a greater value, a richer content and a greater harmony of nature and culture than other mountains (UNESCO, 2003a). Consequently, this site is a culturally important context in which to study the influence of traditional Chinese mythology, religions and politics on contemporary Chinese people. It is notable as a WHS due to both its cultural and its natural importance, yet it is increasingly experiencing adverse environmental pressure. It thus also

58  Heritage Tourism in China

provides a useful context in which to study attitudes to the sustainable development of cultural and natural heritage (UNESCO, 2003c). Local economy and tourism development of Tai’an Traditionally Tai’an city has developed based on the region’s agricultural and mineral wealth. Since the launch of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, the economy of Tai’an has developed rapidly; the city now forms an industrial complex that produces machinery, chemicals, textiles, building materials and coal (Li, 2001). Due to Mount Tai’s cultural significance and beautiful scenery, tourism has become a pillar of the local economy. As in Qufu, the status of tourism has improved rapidly since the early 1980s. In 2014, the city received 366,000 overseas tourists, with receipts of US$225 million (Shandong Bureau of Statistics, 2015), and domestic tourist arrivals reached 52.75 million, with receipts of 48.66 billion RMB (Tai’an Municipal Government, 2015). The local authorities have made great efforts to expand the sightseeing area around Mount Tai and to enrich the tourism attractions and activities. In 2011, the mountain itself was visited by 4.59 million tourists annually, which provided an annual income of 2.8 billion RMB (Qilu Net, 2012). Additionally, the tourist infrastructure and facilities and the service functions of Tai’an have been significantly improved since the 1980s; there is now a good network of transportation, accommodation, restaurants, shops, sightseeing opportunities and entertainment. Tai’an is planned to become a mass tourism destination. The aim is to build a modern and attractively landscaped tourist city, and to enlarge the urban area from 41.2 square kilometres to 65 square kilometres (Li, 2001). Since the late 1990s, the local authorities have emphasised heritage protection, heritage tourism and urban regeneration. The majority of the cultural relics and damaged buildings of cultural significance had been restored by late October 2005 (Tai’an Local Historical Record Office, 2006). At the same time, the local authorities have adopted variable pricing strategies (peak and off-peak) in order to manage the volume of tourists (Li, 2001). Heritage preservation and administration In 1985, Tai’an Cultural Heritage Administration, the Administration Committee of the Mount Tai Scenic Area and Mount Tai Forest Centre were merged into the Mount Tai Scenic Area Administration Committee in order to ensure more centralised and coordinated management (Tai’an Tourism Administration, 2006). It was the first National Scenic Area administrative organisation in China to integrate the administration, heritage preservation, scenic area development and tourism promotion functions. To enforce a centralised legal system for the Mount Tai National Scenic Area, in 2001 the administration was transferred from other local government branches to the committee (Tai’an Local Historical Record Office, 2006). The functions of the internal departments were readjusted at the same

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  59

time. A comprehensive administrative office for the WHS was set up to enhance the management system. At the same time, the provincial and municipal governments provide guidelines and supervision at Mount Tai and they regulate and coordinate relations between the Mount Tai Administration Committee and other local authorities in the surrounding areas. By the end of 2004, as a branch of Tai’an’s municipal government, the Mount Tai National Scenic Area Administration Committee was responsible for the economic development, official administration and social affairs for the whole site, and the more fragmented patterns of management had ended (Tai’an Local Historical Record Office, 2006). Despite it being the first WHS site in China, for a long time there were serious issues with the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage. For example, the construction of illegal buildings, the inappropriate preservation of historical relics and ancient buildings and insufficient vegetation coverage on part of the mountain were considered to be the major threats (UNESCO, 2003b). From the late 1980s to the end of 1990s, the influx of a large volume of tourists caused damage to the site and hampered its management. Without much effective regulation, the promotion and development of mass tourism at Mount Tai led to the destruction of the vegetation and landscape in the mid-1980s (Li, 2001). In the 1990s, a controversial cableway project also caused serious problems, especially with the vegetation and the views of the mountain (Cheng, 2000). These issues seriously damaged the ‘doubled value of the cultural and natural heritage’ of Mount Tai (China World Heritage Office, 2000). As a result of that, the administration of Mount Tai received substantial criticism and warnings from academics and the public and in 2000 from the Ministry of Construction (Ministry of Construction, 2000). Since then, with the support of Tai’an city government and Shandong provincial government, the Mount Tai Administration Committee has started to carry out work for the comprehensive rehabilitation and preservation of the mountain, and measures have been taken to improve the environment, and better organise business operations in order to restore the natural environment. According to the General Tourism Plan made in the late 1990s, ‘buildings inconsistent with the scenery will be pulled down, the number of shops will be reduced, and the distribution and style of shops will be controlled strictly’ (UNESCO, 2003c: 10). The Plan also focused on the restoration and renovation of historical buildings according to the limit of environment (UNESCO, 2003c: 10). In addition, a visual monitoring system for forest fire prevention has been set up in the mountain’s scenic areas, and large-scale repair work on major buildings and reafforestation work at top of the mountain have been completed. Through the implementation of the Plan, local authorities claimed that Mount Tai has succeeded in ‘returning to nature’ and the ‘original scenery was renovated’ (UNESCO, 2003c). However, despite the significant efforts made by the local authorities in environmental preservation, the problems caused by the cableway project

60  Heritage Tourism in China

have not yet been resolved. Local authorities still receive criticism and face pressures from both higher-level authorities and from the local tourism sector. These issues are discussed in the subsequent chapters.

The 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War memorials on Liugong Island The geographical and historical context of Weihai City and Liugong Island Weihai is located on the north-eastern seaboard of Shandong and it is surrounded by sea on three sides. The city covers a total area of 5,797 square kilometres, and it had a population of 2.81 million in 2014 (Weihai Municipal Government, 2015). The harbour at Weihai is ‘protected’ by Liugong (‘Mr Liu’) Island, which was the base for China’s Beiyang Naval Fleet during the Qing dynasty (Weihai Municipal Government, 2013). Liugong Island is located in Weihai Bay and it is just 3.4 kilometres from the city of Weihai, facing the Yellow Sea of China (Weihai Municipal Government, 2015). With a maximum east–west length of 4.08 kilometres and south–north length of 3.15 kilometres, and a coastline of 14.93 kilometres, Liugong Island covers an area of 3.15 square kilometres (Shandong Provincial Government, 2014). It faces the Korean Peninsula and Japan to the east. It is a natural barrier in the Yellow Sea that protects the mainland, and consequently the island has been a key location for military purposes in China’s history (Weihai Municipal Government, 2013). Liugong Island is famous because of its connection with China’s modern history. The Self-Strengthening Movement (1861–94) represented a period of political reform, when attempts were made to modernise institutions and adapt Western military innovations at the end of China’s last feudal dynasty, the Qing dynasty (CNKI, 2006). The movement was triggered by a series of Western military invasions and the defeats of Qing dynasty forces, by concessions to Western countries in various unequal treaties and by the civil uprisings of the mid-19th century. These caused officials to recognise the need to strengthen the country by using modern technology. Chinese scholars and officials had been translating and studying Western knowledge and technology since the 1840s (CNKI, 2006). During the movement, Western science and technology were examined and studied, and Westernstyle factories, shipyards and arsenals were established under a group of modern-thinking officials (Fairbank, 1978). The idea of this movement was to graft Western technology onto Chinese institutions in the hope that the country could be strengthened, economically, industrially and militarily. The most notable action was in the military field, where the largest and strongest navy fleet in Asia, the Beiyang (North Sea) Fleet, was established during the reign of Emperor Guangxu (1871–1908); the fleet was regarded as the main achievement and symbol of the Self-Strengthening Movement (Beiyang Net, 2013). Figure 2.5 shows the China 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  61

Figure 2.5  The 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War Museum

Museum, where the former headquarters of the Beiyang Fleet was based. The inscription was written by the former President Jiang Zemin. The headquarters of the fleet, with a telegraph centre and naval academy, was set up on Liugong Island at that time (Liugong Island Administration Committee, n.d.). This resulted in the construction of many other compatible facilities and an increase in the island’s population. Eight of 15 modern warships bought from the UK and Germany were assigned to the Beiyang Fleet (Liugong Island Administration Committee, n.d.). Liugong Island was heavily fortified, with more than 100 cannons set up around Weihai’s harbour from 1887 onwards (Beiyang Net, 2013). During the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War, the Beiyang Fleet suffered a crushing defeat and Liugong Island was occupied by Japanese forces (Beiyang Net, 2013). That defeat and the complete collapse of the Beiyang Fleet were regarded as a symbol of the failure of the Self-Strengthening Movement and directly hastened the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911. The typical view among both Chinese and Western historians was that the Self-Strengthening Movement failed because China did not make a sufficient break with its past (Institute of Modern History, 2008). From this perspective, it is considered that the Movement did not fully recognise the significance of the Western capitalist developments and the associated political institutions that had fostered the Western advances and innovations (Fairbank, 1978). It is considered that

62  Heritage Tourism in China

Figure 2.6  The Stone Stele with the inscription ‘Liugong Island 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War memorials’

this weakness directly led to defeat in the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War and of the end of the Movement itself (Institute of Modern History, 2008). Liugong Island has an important role in China’s modern history, since it is associated with a select set of monuments and memories passed down from China’s last imperial dynasty, the Qing dynasty, with these being supplemented by its connections with the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War. On the one hand, this heritage site manifests various anti-colonial meanings and it provides the context for a search for Chinese national identity. This has been strongly promoted by the national government, with the site being awarded the titles of National Youth Education Site by China’s Ministry of Education in 1995, and of National Patriotic Education Site by the CCP Central Propaganda Department in 1997 (Qi, 2005). Figure 2.6 shows the stone stele with the inscription ‘Liugong Island 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War memorials’ given by the State Council in 1988. On the other hand, the war relics and memorials of the Beiyang Fleet and of the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War on the island are closely linked with the Chinese road to modernisation and Chinese people’s perceptions of modernity and identity. This is because China’s Beiyang Fleet was the product and symbol of the Self-Strengthening Movement. That Movement continues to have relevance for contemporary China. Liugong Island is a major symbol of the failure of the Movement

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  63

(Beiyang Net, 2013). This failure in the feudal period thus potentially helps legitimise the approach taken today to modernise, which is much more successful. Local economy and tourism development at Weihai Since the late 1970s, a complete industrial system has been established at Weihai, consisting of such industries as machinery, electronics, chemicals, building materials, light industry and textiles (Weihai Municipal Government, 2013). In recent years, the city has experienced rapid economic and social development. People’s living standards have risen markedly and the city is now listed as one of the 50 most economically developed cities in China. In 2014 the GDP of Weihai was RMB 279.03 billion (Weihai Chronology Compiling Office, 2015). The guiding principles behind the urban planning and tourism development in this city are to ‘build a beautiful and ecologically balanced coastal city’ (Weihai Municipal Government, 2013). The local authorities have adopted the principles of Agenda 21 and embarked on a programme to turn the city into a much more attractive tourism destination. Special attention has been paid to architecture and urban design, the burning of less polluting gas, recycling, conservation of water, the ‘greening’ of the city and the relocation of industry out of the urban area (Weihai Municipal Government, 2013). The city was twice recognised as having the ‘Best Practices for Improving the Living Environment’ by the United Nations (UN), and in 2003 the city received the UN-Habitat Scroll of Honour award, which is the highest global honour in the field of improving human settlements (Weihai Municipal Government, 2013). As a coastal tourist city, Weihai has beautiful surroundings, with mountains, sea and many historical remains. Its pleasant weather attracts many tourists and it is well known as a tourist city in China. Since China’s economic reforms, the tourism industry has brought major social and economic benefits and it plays a key role in local economic development and in opening up the city to outside influences. In 2014 Weihai received 447,900 overseas tourists, with receipts of US$242 million; domestic tourist arrivals reached 32.44 million, with receipts of 36.9 billion RMB (Weihai Bureau of Statistics, 2015). Tourism development and administration at Liugong Island As the most prestigious tourist attraction in Weihai, Liugong Island is the major attraction. In 2012, 1.2 million tourists visited the island and the total annual income of the island reached 100 million RMB (Weihai News, 2012). The island presents beautiful natural views due to its wellprotected environment and high-quality natural beaches and forests (it was ratified as a national forestry park in 1985, and 85% of its area is covered in forest) (Liugong Island Administration Committee, 2006). In addition

64  Heritage Tourism in China

to its natural tourism resources, its important position in China’s modern history makes it one of the most famous locations for ‘patriotic education’ in China. There are the remains of the Beiyang Fleet’s headquarters, the residence of Commander Ding, an iron dock and an old fort. Several relics of the Beiyang Fleet and 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War have been converted into museums, such as the China 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War Museum, the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese Sea Warfare Museum and the Monument to Soldiers who sacrificed their lives in the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War. Due to its ­historical importance, Liugong Island was given the titles of National Scenic Area (1988), National Key Cultural Heritage Site (1988), National Youth Education Site (1995), National Patriotic Education Site (1997) and Red Tourism Scenic Area (2010) by different departments of the central government. It was given the title of National Patriotic Education Demonstration Base by the CCP Central Propaganda Department, Ministry of Civil Affairs, Ministry of Personnel and Ministry of Culture in 2004 (Figure 2.7). Almost every key politician in the central government visited the place and left their inscriptions; for example, former President Jiang Zemin wrote the inscription for the China 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War Museum (Weihai Municipal Government, 2013). Liugong Island Scenic Area is under the administration of Liugong Island Administration Committee. As a branch of Weihai municipal government, the Committee adopts the common administrative model of most National

Figure 2.7  The stone stele recording Liugong Island’s status as a National Patriotic Education Demonstration Base

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  65

Scenic Areas in China. Similar to Mount Tai’s Administration Committee, the Liugong Island Administration Committee supervises the economic development, cultural heritage preservation, tourism development, official administration and social affairs for the whole Scenic Area. It has eight separate departments (general office, social affairs, finance, forestry, transportation, planning and construction, legal affairs and cultural heritage preservation) which supervise different aspects of daily management and planning (Liugong Island Administration Committee, 2006). Under the auspices of Shandong provincial construction bureau and Weihai municipal government, the Liugong Island Scenic Area Plan took effect in 2004, and this aims to realise sustainable development on the island. Based on a detailed survey, the Plan focuses on environmental conservation, heritage protection, tourism planning, planning for special tourist spots and facilities, and planning for transportation and infrastructure construction. It was the first systematic tourism development plan for Liugong Island (Liugong Island Administration Committee, 2006). It adopts the principles of sustainable development, reflecting the local authorities’ concerns about environmental issues and long-term economic benefits. At the moment, Liugong Island Administration Committee has an integrated administration which was previously conducted by different stakeholders, and the Committee is responsible for the promotion of tourism as a vehicle for both patriotic education and local environmental protection.

Taiqing Taoism Temple at Qingdao The historical geography of Qingdao City and the Taiqing Taoism Temple Qingdao is located at the southern tip of the Shandong Peninsula. It is characterised by an attractive blend of sea, mountains and a pleasant climate. With numerous capes, sandy beaches and coves along the zigzag coastline, the city has a total coastline of 870 kilometres (Qingdao Municipal Government, 2015). The city has six urban districts and four county-level cities under its jurisdiction, with a total area of 10,654 square kilometres and a population of 9.05 million (Qingdao Municipal Government, 2015). Under the direct influence of the south-eastern monsoon and sea currents and tides, the city features a marine climate of humid air, mild temperatures and clear-cut seasons. As one of the birthplaces of Taoism, Qingdao has a long history, with human settlement dating from 6000 years ago; Qingdao was established in 1891 and by the end of the Qing dynasty it had grown into a prosperous town (Qingdao News, 2013). In 1897 Germany occupied Qingdao by force (on the pretext of the Juye Litigation over religious conflicts between a misbehaved German missionary and local residents of Juye county in western Shandong) (Shandong Local Historical Record Office, 2006). In 1922 China regained control of Qingdao and established a government office for port

66  Heritage Tourism in China

commercial affairs. In 1929 Qingdao was granted the status of a Special City (Shandong Local Historical Record Office, 2006). In 1938 Japanese troops invaded Qingdao, and their occupation lasted until the end of the Second World War, when the Republic of China (1911–49) regained control of the city (Qingdao News, 2013). In 1949 the CCP took control of the city, which put a decisive end to five decades of turbulence and colonial rule. In 1986 Qingdao was authorised to exercise special state plans and it was given a status equivalent to a provincial economic administration (Qingdao News, 2013). The local economy, tourism development and administration of Qingdao and the Taiqing Temple Over the last two decades of economic reform, Qingdao has experienced continuous industrial restructuring, and now its main industries are electronics, telecoms, home appliances, chemical engineering, rubber products, beverages and foods, automobiles, shipbuilding, garments and ornaments (Qingdao News, 2013). The city’s GDP in 2014 was 869.21 billion RMB (Qingdao Bureau of Statistics, 2015). As the most industrialised and affluent city in the province, Qingdao has always played the leading role in the economic development of Shandong Province. Qingdao is famous for its natural scenery, cultural attractions, colonial architecture in a range of national styles, religious culture and colourful festivals and celebrations. The city has made significant progress in develop­ ing tourism since the launch of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, especially during the 1990s. A complete tourism product chain and industrial structure have taken shape, with tourism becoming a new area of growth for the local economy. In 2014, the city received 1.28 million overseas tourists, with receipts of US$822.84 million, and domestic tourist arrivals reached 67.16 million, with receipts of 101.1 billion RMB (Qingdao Bureau of Statistics, 2015). The Qingdao government attaches great importance to the long-term growth of tourism. According to the General Tourism Planning Strategy 2013–20, the goal is to prepare the city to be a popular international tourism destination and tourism will be extended from the coastal area to the inland areas. The city has been repositioned to attract a high-spending market segment and the format of tourism will be gradually transformed from site visiting to leisure tourism (Qingdao Tourism Administration, 2013). Mount Lao is situated on the south-eastern Shandong Peninsula within Qingdao, with its highest peak rising 1133 metres above sea level (Laoshan, 2013a). It is a National Scenic Area 30 kilometres east from downtown Qingdao. Facing the Yellow Sea, it is one of China’s major scenic resorts and it has long held the reputation of being the ‘Mountain on the Sea’ (Laoshan, 2013a). The entire mountain covers 446 square kilometres and it is among the most well-known mountains in China, and the only one on the coast.

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  67

Mount Lao has a coastline of 87.3 kilometres, with 13 bays and 18 islets (Laoshan, 2013a). The area is also known for its natural beauty, unusually shaped rocks, ancient trees and crystal-clear mineral springs. The mineral water is reputed to help to cure chronic diseases, and it is famous as the brewery water for Tsingtao Beer (Laoshan, 2013a). As well as being an area famous for resorts, mountains and coastal scenery, Mount Lao has an important historical position in Taoist religion and philosophy. It is the most famous religious mountain along China’s 18,000 kilometres of coastline, as it is known as one of the birthplaces of Taoism (Laoshan, 2013a). With a combination of mountains, forests, sea, waterfalls and springs, the beautiful landscape of Mount Lao was regarded as the dwelling place of fairies in China’s history (Laoshan, 2013a). Throughout the Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties, numerous Taoist temples and nunneries could be found on Mount Lao (Laoshan, 2013b). In the golden age of Taoism in ancient China, there were eight Taoist temples and 72 nunneries that housed nearly 1000 Taoist priests and nuns at Mount Lao (Laoshan, 2013b). First built in the early Song dynasty, the temple has a history spanning 1000 years, and it features a simple architectural style (Laoshan, 2013b). Today, the Taiqing Taoist Temple (Figure 2.8) is one of the most famous and oldest preserved Taoist establishments. The Temple

Figure 2.8  Taiqing Taoist Temple at Mount Lao

68  Heritage Tourism in China

is surrounded by many scenic spots and it is the centrepiece for the entire National Scenic Area. Taiqing Temple at Mount Lao has an important role in the history of Taoism, being one of the origins of Quanzhen Taoism and the second largest temple for Quanzhen Taoism (Laoshan, 2013b). Many Taoists at Taiqing Temple practise Taiji (a martial art), disseminate Taoist philosophy, play musical instruments and study calligraphy. Almost all Quanzhen Taoist popes once studied or were based at Taiqing Temple, which made it the centre for Taoist philosophy, medicine, martial arts and music. Taoists at Taiqing Temple made a great contribution not only to Taoist religion but also to ancient Chinese culture (Laoshan, 2013b). Today, Taoism is still an important influence on China’s folk culture. In the 1980s both the national and the provincial cultural heritage administrations listed Taiqing Temple as a key heritage site. Today, the temple has 140 rooms and halls, which include the famous Three Gods’ Hall, Three Purities’ Hall and Three Emperors’ Hall (Laoshan, 2013b). The Three Gods’ Hall is the largest and most important, with three parts which house the statues of three Taoist holy men: King of Heaven, King of the Earth and King of the Human Beings. Embedded in a wall in the Temple are religious inscriptions on a tablet which were written by Kublai Khan (the first Emperor of the Yuan dynasty) and the Jinhufuwen (or the Gold Tiger Magic Figures), issued by Genghis Khan (Laoshan, 2013b). The temple receives millions of tourists and Taoist followers, many to offer a sacrifice or to undertake other religious activities. Before the implementation of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies there were few tourism activities at Mount Lao and Taiqing Temple. In 1979 the former President Deng Xiaoping visited Taiqing Temple and he asked the local authorities to restore its historical features and speed up its tourism-related planning (Zhang, 2007). Since then, and with the support of the local authorities, Qingdao’s urban construction bureau has gradually repaired and restored the historical relics destroyed during the wars and the Cultural Revolution. By the 1980s, all 147 halls, and the sculptures, figures, inscriptions and religious facilities, had been fully restored (Qingdao Tourism Administration, 2007). With limited space and considerable pressure from mass tourism, in 2003 the Mount Lao Scenic Area Committee invested 20 million RMB for a two-year project to extend the Taiqing Temple. By the end of 2005, more Taoist facilities had been constructed and the acreage of the Temple had more than doubled (Qingdao Tourism Administration, 2007). The administrative system for the Taiqing Temple is different from that for most Scenic Areas in China, while its tourism planning and other planning work is done by the Mount Lao Scenic Area Administration Committee (a branch of Qingdao’s construction committee, within Qingdao’s municipal government). However, as a Taoist religious site, it is under the direct management of the religious affairs bureau of Qingdao government. Thus, the Scenic Area Administration Committee takes

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  69

responsibility for tourism planning in Taiqing Taoist Temple, but is not involved in its daily operation and administration. This kind of administration has lasted for about two decades, and it has gradually become a concern for the site’s tourism planning and development. This issue is discussed in detail in the subsequent chapters.

A Conceptual Framework of Heritage Tourism in China The development of the conceptual framework There is limited research to link heritage tourism with the three notions of modernity, identity and sustainability, especially in the context of China. The extensive review of the literature and the introduction to the historical geography, socio-economic contexts and current administrative structures for the four selected heritage sites provided important background information for the study of the heritage tourism at those sites. More importantly, they helped identify key issues and themes for the development of a conceptual framework as a clear mind map with which to critically examine the relations between the planning, development and representation of heritage for tourist consumption and the notions of modernity, identity building and sustainable development in the context of contemporary China. Based on both critical realist and constructionist perspectives, the assessment con­ sidered the issues from the viewpoints of policy makers and other influential stakeholders at different levels with interests in the four heritage tourism sites. This framework draws on Western theories discussed in Chapter 1, but it is also derived from work on Chinese society and its socio-cultural, political, governmental and institutional settings. The review of the literature and previous research helped identify key concepts and parameters for the conceptual framework. Fundamentally, this study aims to achieve an improved understanding of the relations between the planning, development and representation of heritage for tourist consumption and the notions of modernity, identity and sustainable development in China. The conceptual framework is shown in Figure 2.9. The framework presents the interactive relationships between three connected sets of issues affecting the development of heritage tourism at the four sites: first, continuities and changes in the notions of modernity, identity building and sustainable development, which in turn reflect the broader patterns of continuities and changes in contemporary China; second, the influences and sources of differences, negotiations and tensions in the representations of heritage for tourist consumption; and third, the processes and outcomes of the planning and representation of heritage at the four heritage sites. Thus, there are various differences and tensions affecting the planning and representation of heritage for tourism at the four sites, and in turn these tensions

70  Heritage Tourism in China Continuities and Changes in Contemporary China Continuities and Changes in Notions of Modernity, Identity Building and Sustainable Development

Tensions in the Representation of Heritage for Tourist Consumption 1. Political Ideology 2. Traditional Religions and Philosophies 3. Regulation and Governance 4. Governance Hierarchies 5. Senses of Identity and Image Building 6. Commodification for Place Marketing and Economic Development 7. Human-Environment Relations 8. Sustainability 9. Notions of Tradition and Modern

Planning and Representation of Heritage at Four Heritage Sites Selection, Interpretation, Targeting

1. Qufu WHS 2. Mount Tai WHS 3. Taiqing Taoist Temple 4. Liugong Island 1894– 95 SinoJapanese War Memorials

Resources Uses (inc. Tourism & Conservation) Users (inc. Tourists)

Figure 2.9  The conceptual framework

reflect people’s notions of modernity and sustainability in contemporary China. These notions have important influences on people’s behaviour. These are all influenced by, and they also affect in a reciprocal manner, the wider continuities and changes in contemporary China. Figure 2.9 shows various broad flows. These connect the planning, development and representation of heritage for tourist consumption and the notions of modernity, identity and sustainable development in contemporary China. Attention is directed to more specific processes within these relationships. For instance, the framework outlines several potential sources of difference, negotiation and contestation around the representation of heritage for tourism. These are related to the specific contexts of the planning and representation of heritage tourism at the four sites and to the continuities and changes in contemporary China. The framework outlines the potential relationships and how they may interact with each other in relation to heritage tourism in China. It is derived in part from the academic literature discussed in Chapter 1, and it was developed as a relatively generalised framework that can be applied to diverse specific issues and can be adapted accordingly. In practice, the framework assisted in the identification of key research issues and the stakeholders involved in heritage tourism development in China. Furthermore, it facilitated the analysis and interpretation of the empirical research, as well as the development of conclusions and implications. Finally, in this book the framework was evaluated through its application to the four heritage sites.

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  71

Specific elements in the conceptual framework Three connected sets of themes are developed in this framework. These three themes represent key considerations for heritage tourism development and for the continuities and changes in contemporary China. Each conceptual theme contains interconnected elements that reflect the key issues and tensions that exist in contemporary Chinese society. The framework identifies each conceptual theme and describes the relationships between them.

Continuities and changes in the notions of modernity and sustainability Just as there have been significant recent changes in the economy, ideologies, society and politics of contemporary China, attitudes towards modernity and sustainability are changing dynamically for many Chinese. The three core notions of modernity, identity and sustainability are socially constructed and are fundamental organising ideas in society, although people may well only partly understand their significance. The academic literature and previous research suggest that part of the social construction of people’s notions of modernity and sustainability concerns the building and rebuilding of people’s senses of identity, both on a national and on a local level. The notion of modernity is widely associated with the idea of ‘progress’ and appropriate change (MacCannell, 1976), in particular the notion of the path to development and human advancement. More recently, development has been related to a broader idea of environmentally and socially sustainable development, with this being seen as necessary to minimise the negative effects resulting from economic development. Oakes (1998) suggests that in China the nation state often seeks to integrate or absorb the ideas of modernity and sustainability within the favoured concepts of nationalism. This can involve promoting an ‘imagined community’ that promotes a unified national identity. However, he argues that indigenous people may be concerned more with building local economic modernisation and local cultural sustainability rather than nation building. He contends that people in China largely think of modernity as a specific objective or goal, an objective that they have not yet reached (Oakes, 1998). This leads him to make an analytical distinction between two meanings of modernity. One he terms ‘false modernity’ – that is, modernity in the classical sense of a fundamental break with the past and a particular phase in societal change which is based on an established sequence and the Western pattern of socio-economic development (Meethan, 2001). This he sees as the sense of modernity that people in China tend to be pursuing, with the industrialised West as their most significant framework for that pursuit. The other meaning he terms ‘authentic modernity’, this being a process-oriented approach to modernity – not a stage-based approach – and one where humans

72  Heritage Tourism in China

are subjectively engaged in an ambivalent and constant struggle to derive a better and more liberated way of life. In this process there is a struggle over meanings and there is a recognition of the un­certainty and complexity of how to achieve the assumed better way of life (Oakes, 1998). In relation to his arguments, it might be still too arbitrary to say whether modernity is ‘false’ or ‘authentic’. It raises the issue as to who decides the ‘authentic’, who decides the ‘false’, and who sets the criteria. From a social constructionist viewpoint, the notions of modernity and authenticity largely depend on people’s dynamic perceptions and they are socially constructed.

Tensions in the representation of heritage for tourist consumption Different stakeholders in society can share certain views on modernity, identity and sustainability, but they can also hold rather different views on these key organising ideas. In reality there are often areas of agreement, disagreement, ambiguity and unresolved tension. Similarly, stakeholders may hold similar and different views on the representation of heritage for tourist consumption. Some differences may reflect their varying interests in the past as a resource and in the development of tourism. There may be tensions and even open contestation among the influential stakeholders who have interests in heritage tourism sites. The agreement and contestation around heritage tourism can alter people’s cognition and behaviour, and can be an influence on their overall notions of modernity, identity and sustainability. The review of the general theoretical literature and literature on contemporary China identified nine broad influences that could lead to tensions in the representations of heritage for tourist consumption. These influences can involve negotiations and consensus as well as tensions. They are examined in turn.

(1) Political ideology Political ideologies are sets of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths and symbols that are often associated with specific social movements, institutions and classes (Mullins, 1972). They provide frameworks that suggest the ways in which society should operate, and they can offer political and cultural blueprints for a certain social order. Political ideologies often tend to be concerned with how power is allocated and with the ends to which that power should be put. They can be constructs of political thought, often defining political parties and their policies. In contemporary China, the dominant political ideology is still communism, which the CCP calls ‘socialism with Chinese characters’ (Deng, 1993: 173). It has perhaps been weakened but since the late 1970s it has remained a dominant force, continuing to be the key ideology for Deng Xiaoping and his successors. The ideology of the CCP is advocated for all members of China’s society, and the party’s interests are made to appear to be the interests of all. The

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  73

representation of heritage as tourism products can reflect the dominance of such ideology, as well as tensions around it, and in turn this can influence the public. At the local level, heritage sites may reflect such tensions, as local govern­ment may not wish to present them in ways that reflect their potential use to promote national political ideologies.

(2) Traditional religions and philosophies Philosophical issues have several characteristics that can be significant for how societies develop. Firstly, philosophy is in large part concerned with those questions to which people have not yet found a satisfactory and system­atic answer, and thus it can represent a key arena for tension between continuity and change in a society. Secondly, philosophies tend to deal with large frameworks of phenomena, rather than with specific individual questions, and thus they can have profound social implications. Thirdly, philosophical questions are often ones that concern people’s own concepts of identity and the relationships between people’s conceptualisations and the world they represent. Therefore, the philosophies that underpin a culture can significantly influence people’s attitudes to and perceptions of society (Searle, 1999). Traditional Chinese philosophy may be thought to function as a religious or a philosophical framework in society, and it remains an important influence on contemporary China. The representation of ­traditional philosophy at heritage sites in China is always problematic. On the one hand, the nation state may worry about ideological challenges to the official ideology or philosophy of communism; but on the other hand, it intends to exploit heritage products in order to secure economic benefits and promote national unity (Yan & Bramwell, 2008).

(3) Regulation and governance Regulation by government and public administration involves control through the use of rules, but this rarely involves prohibition. In economics, it is part of the government’s relationship with markets. Traditionally, governance in China has been strongly centralised at the national level. The emerging trend from government to governance in China presents a major challenge for the management of all tourist destinations, forcing a reconsideration of their co­ordinating and supporting structures. On the administrative front, for a long time the CNTA has had to build co­ordination among ministries into its strategies. Cooperation has become increasingly necessary between different levels of the state, and between the private sector, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and professional and voluntary organisations. In China, privatisation and partnerships have begun to be important organisational arrangements for decentralisation in the tourism industry (Zhang, 1995). A benefit of this collaboration among stakeholders is that it has the potential to lead to dialogue, negotiation and the building of mutually acceptable proposals on how tourism should

74  Heritage Tourism in China

be developed. However, in practice the experience in the heritage tourism sector in China has not been particularly successful, with experimentation with devolution, greater participation and partnership arrangements often having produced mixed results.

(4) Governance hierarchies The sheer size of China and its diversity mean it is difficult to make coherent generalisations about how people across the country regard the newly emerging governance arrangements. Relationships between central government and the provinces and localities have become more complex since the reforms began, but generally there is greater potential for local control of financial resources (Saich, 2004: 57). As a consequence, there is sometimes a greater capacity for creative local leadership than in the past. The increasing provincial control of resources, the decline in moral authority of the central state and China’s previous history of fragmentation all mean that there are differing and sometimes contested views of governance at the local, regional and national levels. Policy makers at the national-state level and at local levels may hold differing views of the forms of modernity that they consider desirable, of the senses of identity that they prefer to promote, of the character of sustainable development that is preferable, and of the appropriate level in the governance hierarchy for policy making in these fields (whether local, regional or national). Similarly, local indigenous people and social elites are also likely to have their own responses to questions related to modernity, identity and sustainability. There are likely to be differences between the various tiers of government on what resources should be a priority in sustainable development and who decides what should be sustained (Saich, 2004). In heritage tourism, policy makers at the national level may be more concerned about how to integrate nationalism in the representation of tourist sites and they may want this to be decided through more formal regulatory arrangements (Yan & Bramwell, 2008). The intention may be to build a sense of national identity that helps maintain societal harmony and sustains existing development priorities. However, the growing de­centralis­ ation may have encouraged the private sector or even local government to focus on short-term economic returns, for example by attracting expenditure in local economies, increasing employment, attracting development capital and promoting economic independence.

(5) Senses of identity In sociology and political science, the notion of ‘identity’ or ‘social identity’ is often associated with how individuals label themselves as members of particular groups, such as nations, social classes, subcultures, ethnicity, gender, employment and so forth (Rouse, 1995). It is in this sense that sociologists and historians often speak of the senses of national identity

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  75

in a particular country or of local identities in a place. Heritage is involved in issues of identity and the meaning of lived experience through its inter­ connections with different experiences of the world. In China, the formation of people’s identity is closely related to and influenced by ­historical, cultural and political aspects of the society, and heritage can be explained and promoted in various ways by different stakeholders. For national stake­ holders, heritage tourism appears to be seen as a vehicle to promote national identity and to enhance national coherence (Yan & Bramwell, 2008). For heritage to support national identity, it might be presented in ways that connect individuals to certain views of society and in ways that stand for a stable community. However, heritage is bound into many alternative ­priorities, including the sense of place, and thus heritage sites are often closely related to the local identities of local people and to tourists preserving or searching for their own place identities. For such reasons, the identity represented by heritage products is contested and constantly negotiated and renegotiated (S. Hall, 1989).

(6) Commodification for place marketing and economic development The use of heritage to attract visitors and promote economic development is not new. Through the process of tourism commodification, heritage resources can be selected and sold to tourists. Tourism is an increasingly common part of the processes of commodification and consumption in modern capitalist societies. For all of its global spread, tourism is irreducibly associated with the specificity of places. The production of tourist space from people’s places is a general process of commodification mediated at various spatial and institutional levels, from the global to the national, regional and local (Meethan, 2001). In contemporary China, the place-marketing and commodification processes are perhaps inevitably problematic. The differing public organisations and stakeholders at various spatial levels, and the private sector stakeholders and local people, are likely to hold different views on the short-term economic benefits of tourism and its long-term benefits for socio-economic development. And, if there are over-exploited resources, inauthentic heritage products and unrestrained mass tourism at China’s heritage sites, then these are unlikely to bring the sought-after ‘trickle down’ (Meethan, 2001) economic benefits or the desired consequences for healthy socio-cultural or sustainable development. Further, the negative impacts of such developments may bring environmental degradation, residential and commercial gentrification, and an unbalanced industrial structure that impairs local economic development in the long term (Chan & Ma, 2004).

(7) Human–environment relations Quality environments, both natural and man-made, are essential for the vitality of the tourism industry. However, tourism’s relationship with the environment is complex. It involves many activities that can have adverse

76  Heritage Tourism in China

environmental impacts, with many of these linked with the construction of general infrastructure and facilities. The negative impacts of tourism develop­ ment can destroy the environmental resources upon which it depends. On the other hand, tourism has the potential to provide benefits for the environment by contributing to environmental protection and conservation. It can be a means to raise awareness of various environmental values and it can serve as a tool to fund the protection of natural and man-made attractions and to increase their economic importance (UNEP, 1999). In contemporary China, a complex mix of traditional values (including Confucianism and Taoism), socialist values and the values of global Western consumerism have merged, and these have been key influences on people’s attitudes towards human–environment relationships. Many environmental values in China are losing ground to the overwhelming pressure to maintain a fast economic growth (Harris, 2004). People in China may prefer to follow more traditional values and to live in harmony with nature, but there are still many challenges. As is the case in most of the developing world, China is increasingly compromising ecological systems in order to make way for the wider and deeper adoption of Western consumerist lifestyles. Heritage tourism products are facing a similar danger (Chan & Ma, 2004). Some of the natural environment upon which many depend is being lost, as are some of the heritage resources. Heritage tourism may be losing its previous functions of promoting more harmonious values in Chinese society.

(8) Sustainability Sustainable development implies ‘meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generations’ (WCED, 1987: 8). The concept has evolved from an initial environmental focus to a wider perspective that concerns almost all aspects of social development and the conservation of diverse societal resources. It is a concept that directly reflects shifting notions of modernity, and it has gained increased acceptance in many countries, although it is open to diverse interpretations. In some interpretations sustainable development implies a criticism of pressures or even the ‘crisis’ bought by capitalism and mass production, and it appears to offer potential solutions to many of the problems of socio-economic and cultural development (Sharpley & Telfer, 2002). The concept reflects attitudes towards modernity, including attitudes towards what is considered appropriate for identity building and reactions to identities that are represented. In China, as elsewhere, sustainability is a contested concept among the public authorities and people in the country’s different regions. Different stakeholders are likely to hold contrasting views on this concept, although there may well be patterns or regularities, perhaps among specific groups. There may be tensions or even contestation around who decides on appropriate notions of sustainability, on what constitutes suitable criteria to assess sustainability, and at what territorial and governmental level the

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  77

relevant policies should be applied. Local government in China’s underdeveloped regions or regions with rich heritage resources may be prepared to sacrifice part of their environmental and associated heritage resources in order to secure rapid economic returns. In contrast, local government in China’s more economically developed regions and central government often have a greater recognition of the benefits of stronger sustainable development policies and they have often found alternative ways to develop their heritage products to those used in underdeveloped regions.

(9) Notions of tradition and modernity ‘Tradition’ is a notion that people may use to secure more lasting memories of the past. In its more general meanings, ‘tradition’ can be defined as customs, beliefs and ideas transmitted or handed down from one generation to the next. It is often depicted as the connection used as people build their contingent monuments to immutability. That means there should be no or little change in their transmission. In the social sciences, tradition is often contrasted with modernity in terms of whole societies. In contrast to the more modern industrial society, sociologists referred tradition to the traditional society in their early research of the concept. It is also considered to be a social construct, often used to contrast the past with the present, and as a form of rationality used to justify certain courses of action. The practice of cultural and heritage tourism in contemporary society demonstrates that tourists are, to varying degrees, seeking enjoyment, culturally motivated, wishing to gather new information and experiences of the past, and seeking to satisfy their needs for diversity and raise their cultural level. As tradition provides a link between the present and the past, it is an aspect of contemporary social and cultural organisation, reproduced in the interest of a dominant class, and because of that, it is often considered to be important in the formation of identity. Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983) indicated that origins or traditions are themselves invented and constructed according to the need of the present. Then, a tradition may be created, promulgated, reinterpreted and adjusted for the interests of different groups in contemporary society. Contemporary cultural practice might be legitimised by appealing to invented traditions because the construction of traditions often involves power and particular social processes. As suggested by Urry (1990), in the process of tourism commodification, people’s understanding of cultural tradition is strongly influenced by the contemporary renegotiation between material and immaterial culture. Cultural identity is manifested in the importance that individuals place on local and national socially oriented organisations, such as local government, education institutions and religious communities (Yeoman et al., 2004). But what is perhaps most intriguing regarding the invention of tradition is not simply that a particular contemporary cultural practice is legitimised by appealing to an invented tradition, but that this tradition is articulated

78  Heritage Tourism in China

and defined according to its loss under the wheels of contemporary change. Tradition therefore becomes an essential component of the ‘bittersweet sensibilities of modernity’ (Williams, 1977). Thus, tourism becomes the contemporary embodiment of the exiled modernist’s search for authenticity; it is part of the process whereby modernity constructs and appropriates a distant non-modern world, and puts it on display in museum-like fashion, thus defining the boundaries of modernity ‘by rendering concrete and immediate that which modernity is not’ (MacCannell, 1989: 9). People in China often believe that ‘modernity’ is a developmental stage that they have not yet reached. In their minds, to reach this goal involves innovation and changes such that their ‘tradition’ is left behind. But from a social constructionist perspective, modernity is not a stable state or an un­attained goal and it does not necessarily involve abandoning tradition; indeed, tradition may gain in importance in some respects. From this perspective, the relationships between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ are viewed as socially constructed and contingent and inter-related. In this way, the view from the present, either looking backwards to a past or forwards to a future, involves ‘heritage’ as the contemporary use of the past. The representation of the past as ‘heritage’ is a bridge that connects the past, present and future. Thus, traditional sites cannot be seen simply as ‘primitive’ and unchanging; rather, it is recognised that their presentation and interpretation to locals and tourists is negotiated among local parties and between the locals and tourists and is a reflection of contemporary society.

Planning and representation of heritage at the four sites The selection of the four heritage tourism sites in China was influenced by their relevance to the issues discussed in this book. The development, planning and interpretation of these sites may well embody competing concepts of modernity and sustainability and tensions in the representation of heritage for tourism. The planning responses are seen as socially constructed. The tensions found at these sites may be found at other heritage tourism sites and at other types of tourist facilities. The four heritage sites are important sites within China, for several and often differing reasons, and the responses to the planning issues at these sites may well reflect wider tensions in Chinese society. These responses are in turn part of the reciprocal influences on that society. As such, the tensions at these sites may be a mirror on wider changes in Chinese society.

Selection, interpretation and targeting Heritage resources are a selection from and a reflection of the events, personalities, and historical, literary and mythological associations of the past. Selection is central and it is performed in part by the vagaries of time and human memory, but it is also influenced by the deliberate choices of those

China’s Tourism and Heritage Tourism Development  79

who have preserved, enhanced, rebuilt and re-created heritage sites. Heritage resources are often constructed and appropriated by the state and its agents as objects worthy of political, economic and ‘touristic’ attention, although only certain items are selected for this purpose and others are ignored or discarded (King, 2012). Hence, resources for heritage tourism are not just a fortuitous endowment; rather, there is usually some deliberate intervention to activate their potential uses for tourism (Ashworth, 1994). The assembly process by which resources are converted into heritage tourism products is one of interpretation and targeting. This is not merely the bringing together of a given set of resources but a means of selecting resources and transforming them into products. Selection, interpretation and targeting involve a series of choices about which product is being produced, and thus which resources are to be used in what ways (Graham et al., 2000). The resulting heritage tourism products have specific meanings which are not synonymous with the prior resources, such as a built environment or an aggregated set of buildings. Instead, they are products defined by, and intended to be consumed by, specified markets. Different products intended for distinct markets can be created from the same sets of environ­ mental resources by varying the assembly process and, more especially, their interpreta­tion (Graham et al., 2000). Although the resources may in part be derived from the landscapes of the historic past, the industry being described here is a modern one, satisfying contemporary demands for contemporary products.

The four heritage sites in China The four sites in China – the Qufu WHS (Confucius temple, family mansion and cemetery), Mount Tai WHS, Taiqing Taoist Temple and Liugong Island (1894–95 Sino-Japanese War memorials) – all reflect aspects of ‘traditional’ Chinese history and culture. Local governments have seen their potential for tourism development and for substantial economic returns for their local economies. Thus, they have actively reconstructed and commodified aspects of these sites as well as promoted new ‘­historical identities’ and new senses of the ‘spirit of the nation’. This has often occurred within policy frameworks set by the national government. Both local and central governments have maintained and rebuilt the legacies of these sites. Often this has reflected a view that they are ‘Educational Sites for National Patriotism’, which thus need to depict a ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ heritage of a heroic and shared past of achievements.

Resources, uses and users The same heritage resources simultaneously can preserve a record of cultural creativity, provide an instrument of political manipulation and present a source of economic enrichment. Societies may even stand or fall

80  Heritage Tourism in China

by the effectiveness of their political use of heritage. At the same time, that material is also the subject of tourism and economic commodification. The agents of these different uses may pursue distinct and potentially conflicting agendas aimed at particular markets. The more altruistic custodians of cultural, artistic and historical creativity may look askance at ideological or commercial exploitation, while the shapers of a national identity may be indifferent to international tourism markets and may lack the entre­ preneur’s business acumen to exploit them (Graham et al., 2000). Nor are the heritage producers necessarily in harmony with each other within any one use category, for all markets are segmented. Underlying the often multiple dissonances of use is the simple reality that those who preserve, manage and interpret heritage are rarely those who put it to use (Graham et al., 2000). Neither do the objectives of these producers or of the users need to be shared. There is in any case no clear-cut user objective, since users tend to have multiple goals and they each have their own individual motives and institutional positions.

Summary This chapter has introduced the historical evolution of heritage management and tourism development in China. It has provided a detailed account of the historical geography, socio-economic contexts and current administrative structures for the four selected heritage sites. This provides important context for the subsequent chapters, in which the key research issues are examined in detail in relation to the four heritage sites. This chapter has provided a conceptual framework for the assessment of continuities and changes in the notions of modernity, identity and sustainability. The conceptual framework presents the interactive relationships between the three connected sets of issues affecting the development of heritage tourism at the four sites in China. Influenced by the discussions in earlier sections, the conceptual framework is applied to this study in various ways. Firstly, it directs the study and assists the identification of significant themes for critical discussion and analysis. With the use of this conceptual framework, broad themes are developed to generate and categorise data to be analysed, interpreted and discussed in the following chapters. In conclusion, the framework is not intended simply to add more information or factors to the study of the relationships between tourism and the notions of modernity, identity and sustainable development. Nor is it intended to find solutions to resolve the tensions. Instead, it critically examines people’s notions on modernity, identity and sustainability through the representation of heritage tourism within the specific context of China.

3 Traditional and Political Philosophies and Heritage Tourism

Introduction This chapter discusses the influence of traditional and more recent political philosophies on contemporary China’s society. Through the discussion of people’s perceptions of traditional Chinese philosophies (Confucianism and Taoism) and political philosophy (socialism), it further discusses changes in the cultural and heritage policies in China and how those philosophical ideas influence contemporary Chinese society, and notably how this influence has been manifested in China’s heritage tourism. The discussion is based on the study of the selected heritage sites, but it tends to be generalised on the evolution of traditional and political philosophies in Chinese society, cultural and heritage policies and related tourism practices in China, rather than focusing on the specific heritage sites. Nonetheless, the issues are discussed in the context of these sites and that discussion is based on the views of various stakeholders involved in heritage tourism planning and management. These philosophies are central to understanding the subsequent discussion of heritage tourism development in China and in particular the development of heritage tourism at the four selected heritage sites.

The Influence of Traditional Philosophies on China’s Society As introduced in Chapter 2, because of its long-established cultural t­ raditions, Chinese society is greatly influenced by its indigenous philoso­ phies, namely Confucianism and Taoism. This section discusses the characteristics of traditional Confucian and Taoist values and the influence 81

82  Heritage Tourism in China

of these values on contemporary Chinese society, with a focus on the country’s heritage tourism. It provides the necessary context in order to understand relations and issues discussed in the subsequent chapters.

Confucianism Confucianism’s importance for contemporary Chinese people and society Confucian philosophy and the traditions that developed from it have had an enormous influence on Chinese culture (Fitzgerald, 1994; Grasso et al., 1997; Wan, 1980). Confucianism is being reinterpreted by contemporary East Asian states in their search for distinctive values that counter the influence of the more unfavourable aspects of Western culture (Tan, 1989; Tu, 1995). The interest in Confucianism is taking place not only in East Asia but also in the West, where scholars are re-evaluating the contributions that Confucianism can make to a variety of debates, particularly on global social and cultural transformations (Dallmayr, 1993; Leung, 1992; Little & Reed, 1989). Although Confucianism is not promoted by the CCP as the official political philosophy, it still has a pervasive influence on Chinese people’s cultural identity. Confucianism is no longer an official philosophy, since the socialist character of the PRC means that ‘Marxism and Leninism and Mao’s thoughts are the CCP government’s official promoted political ideology’ (Mu, 2003). However, it is still considered the dominant philosophy in China. As an important part of Chinese culture, it is often perceived as the symbol of Chinese tradition and culture. This perception is even held by many senior officials in the government. A CCP official from the provincial policy and legislation bureau indicated that people might not consider themselves as Confucianists, but from their daily behaviour and practice the majority of Chinese people are still following the Confucian doctrine and code of conduct, which have endured for more than 2000 years in Chinese society. Confucian doctrines have such a strong influence on Chinese people that they still have similar behavioural traits to those of their distant ancestors. Even among CCP members who hold Marxism as their political belief, many would not reject Confucianism as their moral guide. For example, in the present study, a senior CCP member, the director of the provincial census and plan compilation office, explained how this can be justified. He noted how the ‘Constitution of the CCP’ means that every party member should follow the doctrine of Marxism as their political ideology, but he argued that Confucianism is not a political ideology anymore, so it matters not – ‘­politically’ – that it ‘regulates the social behaviour of Chinese people, no matter whether they are CCP members or not’. In his opinion, Confucian principles are still meaningful and useful in contemporary Chinese society. While Confucianism is not the official political ideology in contemporary China, that deep-rooted philosophy continues to hold a prominent position

Traditional and Political Philosophies and Heritage Tourism  83

as the philosophical belief system of Chinese people, no matter whether they adopt communism as their political belief or not. Chapter 1 described how the five principles of Confucianism – Ren (benevolence), Yi (righteousness), Li (propriety), Zhi (knowledge/wisdom) and Xin (sincerity) – were the basic principles behind the moral beliefs in Chinese society in the past (Tang, 1991). Even today, however, the authorities still value some of those principles as the guideline for social morality, in particular for the project of ‘the socialist building of spiritual civilisation’ (Deng, 1993) accompanying with the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies. In a study interview, a scholar from the China Academy of Social Science suggested, Confucianism is a readily accepted public philosophy or belief for the general public and some of its key principles are still valuable in contemporary society. As Confucian doctrines mainly deal with social relationships, these principles have positive values and can guide people’s behaviour and social relationships. In his view, even in contemporary Chinese society, the principles of ‘the socialist building of spiritual civilisation’ share many commonalities with Confucianism. Though the central government of China did not choose to use the classical Confucian terms Ren, Yi, Li, Zhi and Xin, those terms can be transferred into similar wording in the slogans for propaganda purposes, while keeping the content more or less consistent with the principles of Confucianism. The most notable example is that in 1981, aiming to enhance Chinese people’s moral values, the CCP Central Propaganda Department endorsed a movement of ‘Five Stresses (decorum, manners, hygiene, stress on discipline and stress on morals), Four Points of Beauty (language, mind, behaviour and environment), and Three Aspects of Love (motherland, socialism and the CCP)’ (Yu, 2012), which share similar viewpoints with Confucianism in the promotion of a social morality. At the same time, this department stated that the goal for ‘the socialist building of spiritual civilisation’ was to allow people to perfect themselves with good ‘ideal, morality, discipline, and culture’, which, to an extent, echoes the traditional Chinese philosophy. In Chinese history it was not only the feudal ruling classes that promoted Confucianism in order to regulate social morals: the so-called ‘capitalist government’ of the Nationalist Party regime (1911–49) also promoted this doctrine as the tradition for Chinese society (Hu, 1981). It is perhaps not surprising that in contemporary China the CCP authorities have shared many similarities with the Confucian doctrine in providing guidelines for building social morals. The building of social morals can be achieved in many ways. From the CCP authorities’ point of view, heritage would clearly be a ‘proper’ and ‘suitable’ context for this project. A site manager at Qufu WHS, for example, suggested that the promotion of heritage products at that site has been endowed with many contemporary meanings. The Qufu WHS is a symbol of traditional Chinese values which goes far beyond its archi­tectural value. The promotion of the heritage tourism at Qufu therefore

84  Heritage Tourism in China

facilitates the promotion of the building of socialist social morals which is proposed by the state government. In the Qufu WHS site manager’s view, the intangible values of Confucianism are promoted through the tangible or ‘physical’ heritage. Though times have changed, the basic principles for the building of social morals in contemporary China are still based on ancient Confucian philosophical values and the historical values are not undermined even today. Through tourism, heritage products have been given new meanings under the new ‘socialist’ regime and they have become an appropriate ‘context’ to help the authorities achieve the building of social morals. There are many benefits for the state government in using these principles, both economically and politically. A senior member of a democratic party in China suggested that it might be challenging to receive any positive response from the general public if the government promoted a completely different public philosophy. This philosophy, because it is in­ digen­ous, is easier for Chinese people to recognise and accept than other philosophies. Therefore the doctrine of Confucianism is not outdated, as it has relevance for contemporary Chinese society. Confucianism is often considered to be ‘harmless’ by the state’s authorities if it serves only to guide public social relationships. As Confucian philosophy has developed, it has not become a lofty ideal but has maintained a practical role in the life of Chinese people (Arcodia, 2003). An important advantage of using Confucianism to rebuild social morality in China might be its practical usability in contemporary Chinese society. After the Cultural Revolution and more than three decades of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, social morals have been greatly eroded in many regards (Sofield & Li, 1998). Confucianism is considered to be supportive of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies. It is also considered as the antidote to some of the consequences of the transition to the more capitalist market economy, such as individualism, selfishness and materialism. This growing social crisis and the issues of human relationships have encouraged Chinese people to rebuild a lost morality and to search for a way to adjust human relationships. A Qufu local tour operator who is also a descendant of Mencius (the second most famous Confucian philosopher) argued that rapid economic development had been at the expense of a ‘loss of the proud traditional values’. He further contended that a social order based on Confucian values might be able to provide a solution to the current crisis and help to build a market economy, since Confucianism sought to resolve problems by emphasising the responsibilities of the individual within society. According to Confucianism, the regulation of human relations is the basis of social order. Confucianism’s social utopia is the harmony of the individual, the group and the country. In his view, Confucian values could be used to rebuild a social morality or even to create new kinds of social relationships, seasoned with the ongoing economic transition from a socialist planned economy to a more market-oriented economy.

Traditional and Political Philosophies and Heritage Tourism  85

As the widely accepted moral guideline for Chinese people, Confucian principles are part of the Chinese cultural identity. These principles or guidelines maintain such a strong influence that they can even influence the decisions of China’s authorities, which accept these principles as major components of society’s moral construction project. Another reason why Confucianism is still popular among Chinese people is that Confucian principles are still of practical relevance, especially in a transitional society suffering from a loss of social morals and rising social issues. In many Chinese people’s opinions, they have gradually become the distinctive values that have countered the influence of the more unfavourable aspects of contemporary Western culture (Tan, 1989; Tu, 1995) and they have helped Chinese people get through the socio-economic transition. Thus, it is reasonable to consider that the influence of Confucianism has been so profound that it has ‘characterised Chinese culture’ (Clark, 1987).

Confucianism’s major influence on governance in contemporary China In addition to its remarkable cultural influence, the other notable influence of Confucianism on contemporary Chinese society is its great influence on governance. Confucianism is characterised by its deep involvement in politics, with its ambition of bringing order to society (Yao, 2000). The teachings of Confucius were mainly concerned with the practical expression of moral conduct, proper social relationships and the principles of good governance. Confucius was concerned with political irregularities in his time. In order to bring peace to states and to restore the ways of the ancients, he paid great attention to propriety (Yao, 2000). Confucius had a sustained interest in personal and organisational ethics, the development of virtue, the importance of education, and the social learning and practice of appropriate behaviour that would lead to social harmony (Arcodia, 2003). As the researcher from the China Academy of Social Science suggested, Confucianism has been proposed as the official philosophy for such a long time in China’s history largely due to its political practicality for the ruling class, since Confucianism always guides people to respect the social hierarchy and follow orders given by the feudal emperor or the ruling class. Confucianism promotes a patriarchal principle which places the father at the centre of the family and society. Confucius insisted that a ruler, a subject, a father and a son need to fulfil their duties, otherwise they abuse their titles and violate the names by which they are defined (Yao, 2000). Here the government could be seen as the head of an enlarged family, just as the emperor of a feudal dynasty was taken for granted as the father of the nation. The emperor/father held both secular and divine power necessary to rule a society (Zhou, 2003). From the ruling class’s perspective, in China the family was the basic social unit, which was not limited to the family circle but also extended to public life and political relations. In this context it is not hard to understand why the ruling class would want to embrace

86  Heritage Tourism in China

Confucianism and use the Confucian texts to establish and maintain political control (Ryckmans, 1995). In China’s feudal era, the ruling classes interpreted, elaborated upon and reassessed the Confucian texts, highlighting different aspects of the rich philosophy (Arcodia, 2003). Confucianism received imperial patronage at various times throughout China’s history, by rulers who shared the Confucian vision. Because of that, for the first time in China’s history, in the ‘New Culture Movement’ (Hu, 1981) (a democratic enlightenment movement in the 1910s to 1920s), Confucianism received severe criticism from left-wing scholars, social elites and university students. They claimed that Confucianism had historically helped the feudal ruling classes strengthen their social control. From that perspective, Confucianism was perceived as the biggest obstacle to China’s socio-political transition from a traditional patriarchal feudal society to a modern democratic society. As an activist of that movement, Mao also recognised that Confucianism was the symbol of feudalist values and he severely criticised it (Zhang, 1974), especially in the ‘Cultural Revolution’. As one scholar of Confucianism based at Qufu noted his experience in the Cultural Revolution, during that period anything related to Confucianism was severely attacked, and research on Confucianism, even only for academic purposes, was also strictly forbidden. As he commented, as the symbol of feudalist values anything related to it would be categorised as ‘right wing’ and ‘anti-revolutionary’. Although Mao’s ‘Cultural Revolution’ in the mid-1960s was critical of Confucianism, apparently there was no intention to change the existing patriarchal political system. Through that political movement, Mao further strengthened his political control, but the key legacy of the Cultural Revolution was the partial restoration of bureaucratic and patriarchal politics in the country. As a tourism researcher suggested, ‘it seemed that during the Cultural Revolution the “feudalist” traditions, especially the patriarchal political system, had not been demolished; quite the opposite in fact, whether it was the original intention or not’. After the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping loosened the strict controls in the economic field in the late 1970s, but clearly he preferred to leave the patriarchal political system untouched. Deng judged that ‘stability is the most important thing in China’ (Deng, 1993: 284). Apparently, his political wisdom had many similarities with Confucianism, since Confucian doctrines would encourage people to obey government orders and policies, which would strengthen the unity of the country and enhance the stability of society. More importantly, with the pressure to restore the economy of the country after the 10-year Cultural Revolution, stability was regarded as the most important prerequisite for the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies. As Deng commented, ‘without stability, economic development would be paid only lip service’ (1993: 284). However, a social science researcher in the present study argued that this political slogan encouraged

Traditional and Political Philosophies and Heritage Tourism  87

the public to maintain good social order, and that in fact it requested people to follow government policies unconditionally and it asked people to ‘bear with’ some unsatisfactory social problems. He claimed that if stability becomes the most important thing in China, it would definitely ‘keep and promote the existing patriarchal political system, with the sacrifice of democratic progression for the general public’. An opposing view is less critical of Deng’s statement. An official from the provincial policy and legislation bureau contended that it is ‘not only the CCP’ that would adopt this kind of policy; for with China’s vast land and people, this is an appropriate option for the government. He further suggested that Confucianism had made a historical contribution by promoting China’s unity and stability, though it may risk partially bringing back ‘the tradition of patriarchal politics’. Thus, from his view, the patriarchal tradition was not weakened after Deng launched ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies in the late 1970s; rather, in certain ways it might be further strengthened. The other notable manifestation of this patriarchal tradition is how the speeches of the political leaders have become the most important guideline for the state’s policies. An official from the provincial census and plan compilation office indicated that during the Cultural Revolu­tion, Mao’s statements were assembled into a handbook, known as Mao’s Little Red Book, and they became the guidance for the Chinese people, especially the CCP members in their daily work and lives. This phenomenon is similar to that found in the feudal past. Even under the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, sometimes the political leaders’ speeches still have a strong influence on national policies, even after they have retired and are considered no longer to be at the centre of China’s politics. This is exemplified by Deng Xiaoping’s ‘South travel speech’ in 1992 (three years after his retirement), which he made after a personal trip to South China, and that informal speech soon became the guideline for the CCP authorities to push forward economic reforms over the next six years. As a government official from the provincial policy and legislation bureau suggested, Confucianism left a political tradition whereby the leaders’ sayings became the ‘political decree for a certain period’, which further strengthened the patriarchal system and, in his view, became the ‘biggest obstacle to people building a society which is regulated by law’. This tradition has produced a complex situation where there are few distinctions between law and policy and leaders’ speeches. This kind of patriarchal tradition is clearly evident in contemporary China, where the state leaders’ speeches are often above the law, and where the law has remained a tool of policy rather than an impartial and independent arbiter (Zhou, 2003). In relation to the practices in China’s tourism industry, most of the issues or crises found at tourism sites are due to this ‘tradition’. Based on the four heritage sites, the most notable cases which are discussed in the subsequent chapters are the cableway project at Mount Tai WHS and the ‘water

88  Heritage Tourism in China

washing’ crisis at Qufu WHS, where natural heritage and cultural heritage were physically damaged due to local authorities’ inappropriate planning and management. The details of these two cases are discussed in Chapters 4 and 5. An official from the provincial Heritage Administration complained that the ‘deep-seated root of these issues’ was the character of current Chinese governance, as ‘it was still not fully regulated by law’. Further, he contended that, if tourism planning was to stick to the relevant laws and regulation, rather than political orders from the authorities, these crises would never have happened in the first place. It indicates that contemporary China’s politics are still deeply influenced by Confucian principles. The CCP sets similar principles for Chinese people but uses new phrases (J. Hu, 2005). This helps explain the great influence of Confucianism on contemporary governance, and Confucian values might even be the root of contemporary China’s patriarchal political system. The patriarchal system is the basis of China’s highly centralised political system, which has lasted for more than 2000 years. At this point, the patriarchal system can be considered the key to understanding China’s public philosophy and political system, both past and present. Further discussion of how this influence has been manifested in China’s heritage tourism is presented in Chapter 4.

Taoism As introduced in Chapter 2, Taoism has a history as long as that of Confucianism, but it was not favoured by the feudal ruling classes and never became a dominant political philosophy. It had government legitimisation but lacked official support as a political philosophy through most of China’s history. Some of its components gradually merged into Chinese traditional culture, such as Taoist philosophy, martial arts, the arts and medicine, and Taoism has had a significant influence on Chinese people, especially in the value it places on human–environment relationships. Though Taoism presently has limited influence in the political arena, it is popular among the public. The discussion in this section focuses on its influence on contemporary Chinese society, particularly the influence of Taoist ecological values on Chinese people’s notions of sustainable development, with particular reference to tourism at the heritage sites.

Ecological values and Taoist ideas on human–environment relationships Chapter 1 noted that the traditional Chinese philosophies of Con­ fucianism and Taoism seek the ideal of ‘harmony’. Confucianism is more concerned with harmony among people (mainly dealing with human relation­ships), that is, harmony within the society; Taoism is more concerned with ecological values, or human–environment relationships. The Taoist sutra, ‘Dao De Jing’ (‘Classic of the Virtue of the Tao’), written by Lao Zi, offers a distinctive view of life, very different from the rigid, virtue-based

Traditional and Political Philosophies and Heritage Tourism  89

approach of Confucianism; it evokes a spontaneous simplicity that comes from following nature. In the highly political ‘Dao De Jing’, Lao Zi describes a state ruled by a sage-king who governs by ‘non-action’, where the people live free from strife and desire (Lau, 1963). All things are connected as one in the harmony of Tao, ‘the source of all being and the undivided unity in which all the contradictions and distinctions of existence are ultimately resolved’ (De Bary et al., 1960: 49–50). The analogy and metaphor of the ‘Dao De Jing’ has helped preserve living things by urging compliance with natural forces. Taoist philosophers believe that nature inclines to a condition of harmony and balance, not through being forced and constrained but rather through following its own way – Tao (Shi, 2002). Taoism views nature as a whole body rather than fragmented elements and promotes a holistic view of environmental issues. It emphasises humankind’s symbiotic relationship with natural ecosystems, and the interdependence of mind and nature (Clarke, 1997b). Taoist principles are highly concerned with ecological values and they teach people to maintain a ‘harmonious’ relationship with the natural environment. A manager at the Taiqing Taoist Temple asserted that Taoism follows natural ways and respects the nature. Taoism advocates naturalness, which should envelope, surround and flow through all tangible things. People should recognise and respect the laws of nature and act in accordance with those laws. Its ethical idea is that people should not trample on nature as they please, or do so artificially or coercively, and they should not damage the process of natural development (Zhou, 2006). The major Taoist principle of nature is wu-wei, ‘having no activity’ or ‘no action’. It is regarded as ‘acting without artificiality’ rather ‘without any actions’. Hence, it is often in­terpreted as doing less in order to achieve an end, or not overdoing things. This principle emphasises the importance of acting in accordance with natural forces, or ‘following nature’ (De Bary et al., 1960). From the environmental perspective, it is often considered as action that ‘does not go against the grain of nature’ (Needham, 1956) or action ‘in accordance with nature’ (Ip, 1983). It emphasises the qualities of non-assertion and downplaying the importance of invasive human interventions and suggests that human action should be complementary to nature, rather than contrary to it (Morpeth & Yan, 2015). As Jenkins (2002) indicates, wu-wei implies that both nature and humanity flourish best without undue coercion, and that techniques and power are best applied non-aggressively, heeding intrinsic properties and natural trends. However, these philosophical views have meant that in China Taoism was perceived as politically negative by the feudal ruling classes, because long-term ‘no action’ politics would limit their ambition to enlarge their possessions. The eco-friendly teachings of Taoism would also restrict economic development and this would impair the strength of their feudal states. An official from the provincial religious affairs office commented that these ‘passive’ principles of Taoism determined

90  Heritage Tourism in China

that it ‘could not become a dominant political philosophy’, but ‘would only have some space to survive among the general public as a supplement to Confucianism’. This supplement largely concerned its teachings about the way to deal with human–environment relationships. Its political non-action was closely connected with its belief in ecological ‘harmony’ or ‘following nature’. In relation to that, the Taoist principle of wu-wei ‘is understood as not forceful or directive and excess, extravagance, and arrogance are to be avoided’ (Tucker, 1997). Taoist philosophy is often considered an alternative to the Western view on the values of the human–environment relationship. For example, D.L. Hall (1989), in his work ‘On seeking a change of environment’, argues that the anthropocentric view of nature in Western culture has caused environmental problems. He indicates that Taoism is a philosophy with an alternative perspective on order and nature. It can produce a more satisfactory human–environment relationship (D.L. Hall, 1989). An official from the provincial environmental preservation bureau compared it with Western environmental theory and indicated that Taoism is particularly consonant with the current evolutionary ecological view. Taoist principles promote environmental responsibility and conservation. In particular, it helps promote mutual adjustment among animals, vegetation, the ­atmosphere and the earth. Taoist philosophy suggests there are no sharp boundaries between entities, notably between the self and the world (Callicott, 1994). It considers that a non-anthropocentric environmental ethics could turn out to be a form of enlightened collective human self-interest. Hence, in contrast to the Western view of human–environment relationships, Taoist philosophy considers the law of nature the most appropriate norm of human behaviour and a balance between extremes, which thereby creates a dynamic stability (Sabelli, 1998). Concerning environmental ethics, Callicott (1994) stresses the creative aspect of Taoism, from an environmental standpoint. In his opinion, Taoism is more compatible with the contemporary explanation of the development of natural systems than it is with the traditional Western stance. The Taoist view is characterised as building from the bottom up. It arises from ‘the mutual adjustment of many natural forces and processes, among which conflicts and tensions are resolved and accommodations worked out to achieve a synergistic whole’ (Callicott, 1994: 70). Human beings are not separate from nature, from a Taoist view. Taoist ethical thought grounds its basic proposition on the idea of the harmonious oneness of universe and man (Lau, 1963). In Taoist teachings, through interaction and interdependence, humans and nature can constitute a har­monious and unified system. Nevertheless,, it is possible to have inharmoniousness between humans and nature, even ecological crises, if human becomes insatiable and without a conscience. An official from the provincial Cultural Heritage Administration suggested that it was important to achieve the

Traditional and Political Philosophies and Heritage Tourism  91

goal of social and environmental harmony by taking an appropriate attitude toward nature. If and when people keep heaven, earth and nature safe and sound, they can live in peace for a long time. For this reason, she expressed an appreciation of Taoist ethical values and recommended that the traditional Chinese philosophy be integrated into the practice of heritage conservation. Her view was grounded on a few severe ecological issues that occurred in heritage conservation, which were introduced in Chapter 1. The Taoist ideas of ‘the harmonious oneness of universe and man’ and the suggestion that ‘Tao follows what is natural’ (De Bary et al., 1960: 49) could provide an inspiration for ways of dealing with the discordance between humans and nature, which is a challenge to the current project of ‘building a harmonious socialist society’ (Jiang, 2002). Perhaps due to this context, the attitudes of the Chinese authorities have gradually changed to the promotion of heritage associated with Taoist values, since those values might be useful in contemporary society. Unlike in the Mao era, Taoist values and heritage sites are no longer perceived as negative superstitions or backward ­traditions. A site manager from Mount Tai, which has many Taoist relics (such as temples, ritual sites, etc.), indicated that the ‘positive’ values of Taoism are appreciated and encouraged. In recent years, according to the guidelines from central and provincial governments, the heritage site administration supports the promotion of Taoist environmental values at Taoist sites. The benefit is obvious. As an indigenous philosophy and religion, Taoist values are much easier to understand and are more readily accepted by Chinese people. In particular, as the site manager indicated, many elderly tourists and people who missed educational opportunities consider it to be ‘an easier way’ to promote some ‘basic environmental values’ at heritage sites. Officials from the central state and local government attempt to promote indigenous environmental values by promoting Taoist legacies at heritage sites. In this process, Taoism has been chosen as the appropriate resource and this kind of promotion is selected by officials because only officially perceived ‘positive’ environmental values are chosen in the education of tourists. A key question is why Taoism was in particular viewed as the appropriate resources by the Chinese authorities. A site manager at the Taiqing Taoist Temple at Mount Lao contended that, since Taoist values and their cultural manifestations have gradually merged into the traditional Chinese culture, people prefer to gain knowledge through this channel. While many Chinese people may not be in favour of its religious doctrines and rituals, they do seem to have a high level of acceptance for the ‘products’ of Taoism indicated by the site manager. Therefore, Taoist heritage tourism has often been perceived as an opportunity for the Chinese authorities. Further, he suggested, as indigenous values, Taoist values have the advantage that they can be easily accepted by Chinese tourists. Taoism has some cultural affinity to many Chinese people. Since Taoism and Western environmental theory share some environmentalist ideas, it is particularly favoured by authorities

92  Heritage Tourism in China

as indigenous values, and Taoism is often viewed as a practical vehicle to resist the influence of Western values or is sometimes regarded as an alternative in China’s context. Many Taoist heritage site managers share a similar view that many Chinese people are becoming more active in visiting Taoist sites, though there might be various reasons for that. As a site manager of Mount Tai suggested, since the launch of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, there has been a significant growth in tourist volume at Taoist sites at Mount Tai. In his view, the purpose of visit was generally ‘not just for fun’; rather, many visitors wanted to experience traditional values. The increase in tourist visits to Taoist sites can be viewed as very positive. Visitors can be educated about traditional environmental values, which might facilitate the revival of traditional Chinese culture. Similarly, according to an official from Qingdao’s religious affairs bureau, positive feedback had been received about heritage tourism at Taoist sites. According to their own information, environment and heritage sites are better protected in regions which have Taoist temples or have many Taoists believers. This is recognised as the positive influence of the revival of Taoist values. From a more traditionalist point of view, the revival of Taoist values can have a positive influence on contemporary Chinese society, especially as it can help build a ‘harmonious’ society. As suggested by a senior member from China’s Democratic Promotion Party, with the revival of traditional Chinese values, Chinese people’s view of nature is more clearly defined. He also suggested that an ideal Chinese society would be based on a revival of traditional Chinese philosophy, in which Taoist values could be utilised to adjust human–­ environment relation­ships and Confucianism could be adopted to regulate social morals. However, as Taoism is often presented in its religious format, he stressed that guidance is needed so that the religious values can be accommodated in the developing moral system of socialism. Though traditional philosophies have received much attention since the introduction of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, some people in China are still sceptical about Taoism. In the view of some reformers, Taoist values are old fashioned and obsolete. That was the view of an official from Qingdao Tourism Administration, who suggested that Taoism was more or less passive toward industrialisation and modernis­ation. In his view, the adoption of extreme ecological values would constrain socio-economic development, and so undermine China’s ongoing modernisation project. Similarly, a private sector respondent from Mount Tai contended that Taoist values in contemporary society were limited, as they could only be used for simple initial environmental education. However, the practicality of an ancient philosophy is ‘not a big deal’. From their perspectives, Taoist values are outdated and negative, and may be an obstacle to China’s ongoing modernisation. A provincial environmental official argued that people who had this perception were often deluded about the benefits of rapid economic

Traditional and Political Philosophies and Heritage Tourism  93

development, and that their only concern was that strict environmental policies would slow down local economic development. Perhaps what they were really concerned about was that the adoption of ‘extreme ecological values’ might be a threat to their vested interests, rather than the revival of Taoist philosophy. This kind of perception is also traceable to Mao’s environmental ideas. Mao promoted the idea that ‘people’s subjective motives can become the driving force to change the objective world’, and in his mind it is through Marxist doctrine that man’s determination can conquer nature (Mao, 1956). That view was prevalent during Mao’s period in office and is often regarded as a deviation from the traditional Taoist human affinity with nature and the universe. Although this view gradually changed during the period of ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, this perception still persists among many tourism stakeholders and some of them continue to put it into practice. A provincial environment official suggested it might threaten China’s sustainable development. He commented that to rely on Taoist teachings to achieve sustainable development was ‘a bit easier said than done’ in contemporary China, in particular if the assessment of local government was mainly based on economic indicators.

The Influence of Political Philosophy on China and its Heritage Tourism Development Besides the influence of China’s traditional philosophies on Chinese society and heritage tourism, socialism has served as the official political philosophy since the establishment of the PRC in 1949 and it has profoundly influenced the evolution of China’s governance, cultural policies and, most importantly to this study, China’ heritage tourism management and develop­ment. The discussion in this section mainly explores the influence of the official political ideology of socialism on contemporary Chinese society, economy, governance and cultural policies. While it considers this from a broad perspective, it discusses it in relation more specifically to cultural policy and heritage tourism development, with particular reference to the four heritage sites.

Influence of political philosophy on contemporary China The socialist PRC was established by the CCP in 1949, following the success of China’s communist revolution. The establishment of the new socialist state in China involved a tight relationship between the ruling party and the government it led. Charismatic leaders encouraged mass participation in what the party-dominated state was trying to achieve (Mackerras, 1998). The CCP believes that China is in the early stage of a

94  Heritage Tourism in China

socialist society, and that a successful socialist society will allow the establishment of full communism. For the CCP authorities, ‘the short-term goal is to achieve China’s modernisation, and the longer-term goal is to finally realise communism’ (Deng, 1993: 204; Deng, 1994b: 417). In its very early stages, the CCP claimed that the official political ideology in China is socialism. As a major requirement of a ‘socialist country’, in the first constitution of the PRC the leadership of the working class was confirmed (Shi, 1954), and the position of the CCP was confirmed as the ‘pioneer of the working class’ and as the ruling party of China (CCP, 1956). A researcher from Chinese Academy of Social Science indicated that the first constitution of the PRC stipulated the leadership of the working class and the political position of the CCP. The Chinese people established a socialist constitution and Marxism became the official political ideology. The Constitution of the CCP prescribed that ‘Marxism and Leninism’s doctrines are the officially promoted political ideology’ and this had been written in the first article in the Constitution (CCP, 1956: 1). The early years of the PRC were marked by periods of substantial economic and social progress, and by costly policy ‘mistakes’ (Lutsky, 2002). The CCP authorities laid down ‘a vast lattice work of Soviet derived political and economic institutions’ (White, 1992: 84). The ‘Soviet model’, both politically and economically, was largely replicated but adapted to an extent by Mao Zedong and the CCP to the specific circumstances of China and the needs of the Chinese people. Socio-economic development under Mao began with the Great Leap Forward (1958), before descending into the social, economic and political anarchy of the Cultural Revolution. During the Cultural Revolution, continuous political upheavals dealt grievous setbacks to economic and social development. Concerning those political issues and ‘mistakes’ (Lutsky, 2002), an official from the provincial office for recording history and planning suggested that the series of mistakes before the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies represented a rigid application of Marxism from the Soviet Union or the ‘Soviet model’. In his view, though the political ideology for China is Marxism, it needs to be adapted according to China’s specific situation, or to ‘localise’ it. It was against this background that the post-Maoist reformers, led by Deng Xiaoping, embarked from the late 1970s on a course of socio-economic reform. Deng Xiaoping experienced the economic and political crisis during Mao’s period in office and he considered there were weaknesses in orthodox Marxism and its application through the rigid ‘Soviet model’ (Deng, 1993: 139) in China from the 1950s to the 1970s. The director of the provincial census and plan compilation office suggested that since the introduction of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, the Chinese people had been building socialism in their own way. According to the experience of East European countries and China’s practices in the early years after 1949, the centralised ‘Soviet model’ had been proved not to be an appropriate way

Traditional and Political Philosophies and Heritage Tourism  95

to build socialism in China. Referring to the experience of Western capitalist countries, he also indicated that Deng and his successors had tried to take the more ‘positive’ values of Western capitalism in order to modify and develop classic Marxism. Deng sought to ‘localise’ these better Western capitalist values and approaches, which meant his political ideology shared many similarities with the early Frankfurt school of theorists. An official from the provincial census and plan compilation office criticised the mechanical application of classic Marxism and the rigid ‘Soviet model’ as being a highly centrally planned economic model, without much freedom in the political and economic arenas. From Deng’s philosophical position, he opposed the idea that the doctrines of classical Marxism are always right without considering the historical and cultural background and specific socio-economic conditions in a country or sub-region. However, Deng did not abandon classical Marxism as a whole, but preferred to adapt it to contemporary socio-economic circumstances in China. As a senior CCP member from the provincial People’s Congress suggested, classical Marxism needed continuous development and adaptation when it was applied to different countries and in different historical periods. In her view, the current application of Marxist doctrines in China is not a rigid application as it blends the ideas of Mao and Deng. According to the latest CCP Constitution, approved and published in 2012, the CCP is guided by Marxism–Leninism, Mao’s thoughts and Deng’s theory (CCP, 2012). More importantly, as the respondent indicated, the adaptation and development of classical Marxism can help promote the socio-economic development. As she suggested, since the 1980s the CCP authorities have asserted that opening up to private domestic and foreign capital is necessary to quickly boost the economy of a developing country. This kind of reform has emphasised that socialism does not mean shared poverty and that developing certain areas and industries was necessary to speed up the development of socialist politics and the economy as a whole (Deng, 1993). The socio-­economic reforms from the late 1970s in China differed from classical Marxism. The CCP authorities had properly recognised that a purely state-planned economy would result in political and economic collapse, as happened after the ‘big bang’ in the former Soviet Union and socialist countries in Eastern Europe. To maintain a ‘lively socialist country’ (Deng, 1993: 372), the rigid ‘Soviet model’ was abandoned; thereafter, political and economic reforms were perhaps unavoidable. ‘It matters not whether the cat is black or white’ Deng remarked in the 1980s, ‘if it catches mice, then it is a good cat’ (Deng, 1994a: 323). This means that the ideological fight between capitalism and socialism was no longer the dominant issue in the country, and that the ‘positive values in capitalist society’ (Deng, 1993: 372), in particular the market economy, could be adopted in a socialist society. As indicated by a CCP official from the local Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), Deng’s ‘cat theory’ provided the guideline for the ‘Economic

96  Heritage Tourism in China

Reform and Open Door’ policies. It meant that if the more market-oriented economy is beneficial for China’s socio-economic development then it could and should be adopted. He further suggested that the ‘proved’ experience from Western capitalist economies could be utilised for economic development in socialist countries. According to his explanation, modern ‘socialist’ China has increasingly accepted in part that capitalism is a reliable means of generating wealth. Traditionally, socialists have attempted to construct an alternative to market capitalism, seeing socialism as qualitatively different from capitalism. What socialist models have in common is the belief that the market mechanism can and should be replaced by some form of economic planning and that this kind of planning is often led by the state. As an alternative to the heavily centralised Soviet economic model, attempts were made to reconcile some of the key principles of socialism with the dynamics of a market economy. The director of the provincial census and plan compilation office argued in relation to the system of ownership in a market economy that this kind of socialist market economy is different from a capitalist market economy, since market competition was adopted just for activating people’s enthusiasm and creativity. He further stressed that ‘adopting a market economy did not mean going back to capitalism’. His argument was that the central feature of a socialist market economy was the attempt to balance self-management with market competition. What sets such a system firmly apart from the ‘Soviet model’, however, is that self-managed enterprises operate not according to government administrative orders and planning, but within a market environment shaped by healthy market competition and economic incentives. The attraction of market socialism is that it appears to compensate for many of the most serious defects of central planning (Heywood, 2013). However, this does not mean that a socialist market economy is unplanned and unregulated; indeed, most proposals for a ‘feasible’ form of socialism acknowledge the continuing need for a framework of planning and state macro-control. In distinction from capitalist countries and to maintain the character of a socialist country, many approaches and methods have been adopted in the process of promoting a market economy. The director of the planning and development department of Qingdao municipal government suggested macro-controls and central planning are the two methods adopted in the economic reforms. Macro-control mainly involves using political and economic tools to control the direction of economic development and central planning mainly concerns the short-term and long-term government plans for the country, a region or an industrial sector. As he pointed out, in the reform process the state has withdrawn from the direct management of enterprises and industries, but it has evolved to use ‘macrocontrols’ and ‘central planning’ to adjust economic development and to maintain socialist attributes. Besides these tools, he further explained that if

Traditional and Political Philosophies and Heritage Tourism  97

the state-owned capital and entities are in a dominant position, the lifeline of the country is still in the hands of the public and that could ensure the socialist direction of economic reform. With economic development the CCP authorities implemented two key policies to maintain the ‘right’ socialist direction. Firstly, the state has maintained the primary position of public ownership. During the reforms, the state sector has continued to include the ‘most important industries and other enterprises, such as energy, railways, and the iron and steel industry’ (Jiang, 1997). According to official statistics, for example, in 2009 over 43% of the nation’s assets were state-owned, and these contributed more than 26% of GDP (Zhu, 2010). When coming to the key industries mentioned above, this proportion is even higher. Secondly, the CCP authorities have insisted that the state-planned or administered economy cannot be completely abolished since they are concerned that the ‘liberal/market economy’ could lead to a capitalist economic crisis (Deng, 1994b: 236). The aim of these policies is that the state-administered economy or state capitalism will stabilise the economy and avoid economic crisis (Kellner, 1989). The socio-economic reforms launched by the CCP in the late 1970s affected every aspect of Chinese society and left almost no institution untouched. The reforms led to a liberation from previous practices in terms of tight central control over the economy and society. Some people consider that the political reforms have not been sufficient. As indicated by a scholar from the China Academy of Social Science, economic reforms should always be accompanied by compatible political reforms. There had been some changes and more liberty in the political field, but the ‘focus of this change is still on the economic arena and it is far from enough’. Clearly, in his perception, the depth of the reform has not been sufficient to facili­tate social change. In contrast, many people, including some senior members of the CCP, doubted whether the reforms would change the roots of Marxist ideology, which could further change the socialist direction. One senior CCP member from the provincial People’s Congress asserted that there is no need for excessive concern, however, since the official philosophy is still Marxism and the political system is still a socialist one, and China is and will continue to be a socialist country. He further explained that, though in recent years some guidelines for economic development have been changed and a market economy adopted, in political respects ‘there was little change’. As he suggested, it was not the intention that this new liberation would necessarily lead to significant political reform. What there is, is more or less a combination of the introduction of market forces in the economy with a continuation of tight political controls. Though the state authorities still claim the socialist direction has not been changed, it is difficult for them to provide a thorough explanation of why there has been a rising social crisis in contemporary China – notably a polarisation between rich and poor – since the economic reform. In 1986,

98  Heritage Tourism in China

Deng Xiaoping mentioned to Mike Wallace of CBS News that ‘to get wealthy in a socialist society means prosperity for the entire people, and that common prosperity would not lead to polarisation with the rich pitted against poor’ (Li, 2008). However, this promise seems not to have been kept in contemporary China. As a result, at the CCP’s 16th conference a central concern was how to cope with these problems and how to build a ‘harmonious socialist society’ (Jiang, 2002). As already discussed, the CCP authorities hoped to integrate traditional Chinese philosophical ideas within the state’s policies in order to help achieve a more ‘harmonious socialist society’.

The influence of China’s political ideology on cultural policy and heritage tourism development The political ideology of socialism has had a significant influence on contemporary Chinese society, especially on China’s cultural policies and heritage tourism development. In any country, the state’s political ideology will influence its cultural policies, including policies relating to international tourism and heritage tourism (Hall, 1994: 62), and China is a remarkable case of this.

Socialism and traditional culture before the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies As discussed in Chapter 2, in China there are complex interfaces between tourism development and the politically driven goals of governments, the preservation of the country’s cultural heritage and the protection of the environment. These issues are fundamental to the place of tradition in a society which is rapidly modernising its economy. In 1949, the new socialist government set about ‘modernising’ the country. Although there was no consensus on what specifically constituted a socialist modernisation in China, many agreed that the traditions of the past should be rejected and abandoned. The ambition was to build a socialist culture to replace the traditional culture and philosophy, as they were perceived as symbols of backwardness (Xinhua Net, 2006b). As the symbol of traditional culture, Confucianism was especially perceived to be major obstacle to modernisation, and consequently it was attacked. In particular, in 1958 Mao claimed that ‘only blank paper could draw the latest and most beautiful pictures’ (Mao, 1958), which pushed the traditions of the feudal past into the frontline as the obstacle to communist revolution. Mao launched the Cultural Revolution in 1966. As suggested by a tourism researcher in the study, during this period the systematic destruction of historical heritage became some sort of ‘show’ to cut off the past or the historical link with the China’s feudalist past. To trample down heritage sites was a symbol of revolutionary commitment and could help strengthen

Traditional and Political Philosophies and Heritage Tourism  99

people’s socialist ideals. As he indicated, one of the stated goals of the Cultural Revolution was to bring an end to the ‘Four Olds’: ‘Old Custom, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas’ (Spence, 1999: 575). Mao called for the ‘Four Olds’, which stood for the old cultural traditions, to be swept away at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution. At the outset, the ‘Four Olds’ were severely attacked, especially the continuing influence of traditional culture and philosophies and reverence for past imperial dynasties (the ‘feudal super­stitions’). Yet these were responsible for some of the finest examples of China’s rich architectural heritage, from isolated temples on mountaintops to entire cities and monumental palaces and tombs (Sofield & Li, 1998). It soon led to the destruction of China’s heritage on a massive scale. As a site manager at the Taiqing Taoist Temple recalled, during the Cultural Revolution, Taoist values and even the physical relics were perceived to be symbols of the ‘Four Olds’ and most of the relics in Taiqing Temple were badly damaged. In fact, almost all heritage sites around China were attacked during the 10 years of the Cultural Revolution. According to the chronology of Qufu, during the Cultural Revolution the Qufu Confucius temple, mansion and cemetery were variously damaged (Shi, 1993). For example, the steles established at this site in the Qing dynasty were smashed, and the statue of Confucius was burned. Some 6000 relics were destroyed, 2700 ancient books and 900 ancient paintings were burned, and 1000 steles and inscriptions were pulled down and destroyed (Shi, 1993). The Cultural Revolution launched by Mao therefore saw great destruction of China’s traditional cultural heritage. On the surface, this was merely an unexpected consequence of a political movement, but it was also a tragedy for Chinese heritage and traditional culture. During the Mao era (1949–76), tourism was rejected completely as it was regarded as an in­appropriate form of economic activity. As suggested by an official from the National Tourism Administration, before the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, there was no separate tourism department in central or local government. Tourism-related issues were managed by the Foreign Affairs Office. Tourism essentially involved merely local hospitality to welcome foreign friends and the display of the achievements of the socialist country, rather than a separate economic sector. As he indicated, in Mao’s period tourism was controlled by the state authorities. The limited foreign visitation was sanctioned on the grounds that the successes of communism could be paraded before a select international audience (Sofield & Li, 1998). China’s heritage sites were not commodified and promoted as tourism products during this period. As a provincial heritage administrative official suggested, the aim was mainly to preserve the heritage relics for archaeological and historical research at that time. Heritage was not promoted for tourism during that period because socialist ideology prevented the emergence of tourism in any real sense for about 30 years after Mao’s assumption of power in 1949 (Sofield & Li, 1998). Tourism was regarded only as a propaganda tool.

100  Heritage Tourism in China

Heritage tourism under the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies In 1978, Deng introduced the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies with the acceptance of the need to modernise the country using all resources available. Deng had redefined the political direction from class struggle to economic development. It was essential to reaffirm the primacy of socialism in order to justify the CCP’s legitimacy and right to govern (Sofield & Li, 1998). The authorities’ attitudes to heritage changed in this context. In particular, heritage could be utilised to reinforce and build the national identity and contribute to economic development. Thus, from Deng’s point of view, the combination of heritage with tourism was considered to be appropriate for both ends. A provincial heritage administrative official advised that history should not be simply cut off; rather, cultural tradition can and should serve contemporary society. As he suggested, traditional cultural heritage is now seen to ‘serve’ the socialist purposes and the CCP authorities encourage people to re-evaluate the values of traditional cultural heritage. In this process, guidance from the government and relevant policies are important to maintain the socialist perspective on heritage and traditional culture. He argued this is the right and legitimate direction. As discussed in Chapter 2, tourism was justified politically for the first time as an acceptable economic sector because in socialist terms it would advance economic reforms and the policy of opening China to the outside world. As suggested by an official from the CNTA, the development of the tourism industry could bring various benefits for the socialist country. It could further friendship and mutual understanding between China and people from other countries. Tourism is justified in cultural terms by its contribution to national unity and to building national identity through the preservation and promotion of heritage sites. Besides the role indicated by this state official, tourism and heritage are combined with economic develop­ment. The state authorities, especially the CNTA, perceive that tourism is ‘a vehicle which could help achieve national and local economic development, especially for poor areas with rich tourism resources’ (J. Hu, 2005). Thus, tourism, in particular tourism based on Chinese culture and tradition, is now considered an important sector due to its potential in generating economic rewards. However, an embarrassing fact in the early years of ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies was that many of the resources had been severely damaged during the Cultural Revolution. Therefore, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the focus of heritage tourism development was on the repair and restoration of heritage sites for tourism purposes, in particular some of the famous heritage sites that stand not just for Chinese cultural traditions but also those of neighbouring Asian countries. For instance, Qufu’s Confucius temple, mansion and cemetery, as recorded by their local history (Shi, 1993), have received national and regional funding

Traditional and Political Philosophies and Heritage Tourism  101

since the launch of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies. Local authorities have made great efforts to restore and refurbish the buildings, damaged steles and inscriptions have been repaired, and buildings have been refurbished and reconstructed for tourism purposes. In particular, since the 1990s there has been a massive rebuilding effort to restore the cultural sites that were destroyed or damaged in the Cultural Revolution. Mount Tai, the Liugong Island war memorials and the Taiqing Taoist Temple have all received central government funding and local financial support for their restoration (Li, 2001). With both policy legitimacy and financial support, great effort has been devoted by various stakeholders to make the heritage sites more accessible to tourists. Socialist ideology is still considered to have a strong influence by restricting the interpretation of the past to a Marxist perspective on the evolution of society (Trigger, 1984). Archaeological research has been encouraged to provide evidence for the promotion of national identity and unity. As suggested by an archaeologist from the Shandong Museum, a main part of his job is to look for and evaluate the ‘positive’ values of heritage so as to serve China’s building of socialism. With the new recognition of traditions since the implementation of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, the CCP has gradually loosened its tight political control on Chinese cultural tradition. Heritage tourism in contemporary China is perceived by the CCP authorities as an economic vehicle to speed up national and local development and as a propaganda tool to reinforce socialist values and to legitimise the reign of the CCP. These issues will be discussed in substantially more detail in Chapter 5.

Summary The tensions in China between socialism, modernisation and traditional culture have resulted in considerable political and social change for several decades. This chapter has detailed the traditional Chinese philosophies of Confucianism and Taoism, and in particular their continuous influences on Chinese society and the ways in which the CCP authorities have used them in contemporary China. It has also discussed the political philosophy of Marxism and its development in China and how it can influence cultural policies and heritage tourism. Confucianism has been the dominant and official philosophy in China for 2000 years. It represents the cultural root for Chinese people, and it still has a great influence on contemporary Chinese people’s sense of cultural identity. Confucianism forms the traditional foundation for China’s ­patriarchal political system, with the socialist system arguably a new form of patriarchal system. This is a major influence directly and indirectly on the character of contemporary Chinese governance. The CCP authorities’

102  Heritage Tourism in China

attitudes towards Confucianism have gradually emerged from one of total rejection to one where they intentionally reuse its ‘positive’ components for political purposes to cope with the rising social problems and to build a more ‘harmonious socialist country’. In relation to Taoism, the dis­cussion in this chapter focused on its important cultural influence on Chinese traditions and in particular on its provision of indigenous environmental values for Chinese people. Again, the CCP authorities have utilised these characteristics of Taoism to aid the contemporary modernisation process. The authorities have used these features as a vehicle to provide simple and indigenous education on human–environment relationships and sustainable development. China’s socialist philosophy has been adapted since Deng’s ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies. It has had a significant influence on contemporary China’s economic structure, governance and ongoing modernisation project, as well as on the country’s cultural policies and tourism development. All these traditional and political philosophies have had marked consequences for China’s changing cultural policies and heritage tourism practices, as was indicated at the four heritage sites. This chapter was mainly to provide background information and a general discussion on the influence of traditional and political philosophies on contemporary Chinese society. The discussion has examined these issues from a broad perspective, but with some specific reference to China’s heritage tourism and the four research sites. This discussion provides an important starting point for further ex­plora­tion of China’s modernity, identity building and sustainable development and it links with the detailed discussions in subsequent chapters.

4 Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites

Introduction The discussions in Chapters 2 and 3 showed that, as in other economic sectors, the governance of tourism in China is highly centralised. The national government decides on many policies and provides guidance associ­ated with tourism planning and policy making. Due to the influence of traditional philosophies and political ideology, China’s patriarchal govern­mental system has led to the concentration of authority and decision making within the central state, and its bureaucracy has been often regarded as a major obstacle to more effective governance. This chapter first explores the hierarchy of governance in China. Then it discusses the decentralisation of tourism policy making, and the role of regulations and laws in the transformation of China’s tourism governance. The discussion is based on the heritage tourism practices at the four heritage sites.

Public Administration System and Tourism Planning As discussed in previous chapters, one of the salient features of China’s economic reform has been the decentralisation of administrative and economic authority from the central state to local government at the provincial, city and county (or township/ district) levels (Ma, 2005). This owes much to the former Soviet system of government and the parallel levels of the CCP, with three levels of government below the state: the province, the municipality and the county. With minor changes, this structure has remained the same since the establishment of the PRC in 1949. Viewed spatially, this strategy of nation building represents a downward shift of state power from a single unitary national scale to multiple local scales, giving rise to a power matrix in geographical space (Ma, 2005). 103

104  Heritage Tourism in China Provincial level

Provinces (23 in total, inc. Shandong)

China

Prefectural level

Township/district/county level

Prefectures, inc. Weihai, Tai’an

Township/district/county

Cities, inc. Jining, Qingdao

Township/district/county, inc. Qufu (county-level city of Jining)

Municipalities (4 centrally administered cities, not discussed) Autonomous Regions (5, not discussed) Special Admin­ istrative Regions (2, not

discussed)

Figure 4.1  China’s administrative division system with reference of China’s Shandong Province and the four heritage sites. Adapted from State Council (2005) and Shandong Provincial Government (2015)

Official materials from the state and local authorities were used to evaluate the public administrative structure of the four heritage sites. Figure 4.1 shows the ‘central–local’ governmental structure with specific reference to Shandong Province and the four cities that administer the four heritage sites. A province is an important administrative division in the context of China. Together with the municipalities, autonomous regions (for the minority ethnic areas) and Special Administrative Regions (SARs), the provinces make up the first level (known as the provincial level) of the administrative division of China. The PRC currently administers 23 provinces, with a total of 33 provincial equivalent divisions, and this makes it the most important type of first-level administrative division. Under the provinces and their equivalents, there is a two-level administrative network of cities and counties (or urban districts). As shown in Figure 4.1, the four research sites are under the jurisdiction of four cities (Tai’an, Qingdao, Weihai and Jining) in Shandong Province. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the municipal government is the key level which needs to be identified for tourism policy

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  105

making and planning in China. The three levels of government below the centre – province, city and county (or district) – are essentially organised in the same way as the centre, with the government and the CCP organisations in parallel with one another.

Cooperation and Tensions Associated with Tourism Decentralisation According to Hyden (1983), decentralisation leads to authority shifting away from the central state. This involves two types of transfer: territorial and functional. With territorial transfer, authority passes to a lower level in the territorial hierarchy that is geographically closer to public service providers and clients. In this section, the discussion focuses on the ter­ritorial transfer of authority for the four research sites. All the four heritage sites are under the jurisdiction of local governments, but they all have fairly distinctive managerial characteristics at the local level. The reasons for this relate to their local historical and socio-economic characteristics, which were outlined in Chapter 2. The centralised system of government and the ongoing process of decentralisation mean that these different character­istics produce a complicated situation for heritage management and tourism development. The discussion here focuses on the cooperation between and tensions among various stakeholders involved in the processes of tourism decentralisation.

Tourism decentralisation and the powers of local government In China, heritage sites are categorised as public properties and ownership resides with the state. In practice, the administration of the heritage sites is realised through the government’s administrative system (NPC, 2002). Currently, the management of heritage sites involves not only public management within the local region, but also the inter-departmental and central–local government relationships. As introduced in Chapter 2, the SACH and the CNTA are in charge of cultural heritage administration and tourism development at the national level. They cooperate to provide administrative and professional supervision for individual heritage sites. However, in practice the administrative power lies within local government or its branches, and local government has an important role in the administrative chain. Currently, all four heritage sites are under the jurisdiction of four cities. However, for historical and other socio-economic reasons, the four cities have unequal autonomy within Shandong Province and in China. Figure 4.1 suggests that, in theory, all four cities have an equal position and autonomy

106  Heritage Tourism in China

at the third level of China’s governmental hierarchy. However, this is not the case in practice. Among the four cities, Qingdao has the greatest autonomy in relation to tourism planning, because it is a city specifically designated in the state plan and it is a ‘vice-provincial’ city (Qingdao News, 2013). Qufu city has the lowest degree of autonomy in the governmental hierarchy because it is under the jurisdiction of Jining city, as the latter is a countylevel city. In fact, Jining, Tai’an and Weihai are all ‘new cities’, transferred in the late 1980s from being ‘prefecture-level cities’ (economic centres of a large rural region in the old urban system). The ongoing process of urbanisation since the beginning of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies means that a huge number of counties and ‘prefecture-level cities’ have been redesignated as formal cities, but the director of the provincial census and plan compiling office suggested that their levels of economic and industrial development were far behind those of the industrial cities in the traditional meaning of the term ‘city’. This is clearly reflected in the total economic size of those four cities, provided in Chapter 2. Among the four cities which have jurisdiction of the four heritage sites, Qingdao has the most autonomy in tourism-related planning. As a former industrial centre, it was a city specifically designated in the state plan in the 1980s, along with 15 other cities, which has given Qingdao municipal government the highest level of autonomy in economic planning. Such cities have more economic autonomy in shaping local economic policy and service delivery. Without going through the provincial layer, they accept the guidance of the central government, and their economic planning is reported directly to central government. However, the provincial director of the census and plan compiling office suggested that this privilege was limited to economic issues, and the approval of other plans and the administration are still the responsibility of provincial government. While enjoying economic autonomy, the new framework leaves tourism planning at the local level in an awkward situation. Since tourism planning is categorised as part of economic planning, Qingdao can make its own plan for economic development. Yet the provincial government is still responsible for the professional supervision of cultural heritage. A local tourism official in Qingdao suggested that, though they could get approval quickly for tourism planning from central government, they still needed to follow the administrative orders for industrial supervision from the corresponding provincial functional departments. On the other hand, a provincial tourism official claimed that the provincial tourism administration was also un­ satisfied with the authorities in Qingdao, as their local tourism development plans failed to give enough attention to the overall situation of the province. From his point of view, local tourism planning within a province should be fully coordinated and managed by the provincial tourism-related authorities. Unlike Qingdao, the other three sites needed to follow provincial guidance when formulating their own plans. With the decentralisation

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  107

promoted by central government, these three cities have, though, been gaining more autonomy in tourism planning under the jurisdiction of the provincial govern­ment compared with the past. Local tourism officials all suggested that they were getting more and more autonomy in tourism planning with the growing power of local governments. An official from the tourism planning department of the provincial tourism administration recom­mended that it showed that local government has been gradually becoming the most important node in cultural heritage management and development. In fact, a provincial heritage official suggested that, due to the processes of tourism decentralisation, local governments have not only become the main body in heritage protection and management, but their decisions, measures and actions have had an essential impact on the management of heritage sites. According to an official from the National Tourism Admin­istration, in the pursuit of their own economic interests, local governments have often deviated from their supervising role in heritage management and increasingly have become the main players in the heritage market. This awkward situation, together with rigid ‘economic’ assessment criteria (based on locally achieved GDP) used by local authorities, has often produced an unavoidable situation in heritage management where the local authorities’ interests are potentially detrimental to the public interest. In particular, local government is responsible for local economic development and financial targets, while it represents the state by its ownership and supervision of heritage resources. Because of that, they often tend to neglect their administrative supervisory obligations and are often directly involved in the business operations at heritage sites. A provincial heritage official contended that this could result in a duplication of roles, as ‘both heritage supervisors and beneficiaries’, which undermined their supervisory role for heritage management. This kind is clearly evident at the four heritage sites, as described in the following section.

Cooperation and tensions at local level At the local level, cooperation among the different government departments and with the private sector was greatly influenced by the government hierarchy and the historical characteristics of local government. The major tensions between the different stakeholders are mainly due to the overlapping administration. At all four heritage sites, the overlapping of site administration was the most frequently mentioned issue in the interviews with local stakeholders. Two or more government departments are involved in the management and planning decisions for heritage sites and this often causes difficulties in coordinating their different priorities and interests. This phenomenon must be explained based on an understanding of China’s government system, where heritage site administrative organisations are under the direct management of local government. At the same time, they

108  Heritage Tourism in China

must accept ‘industrial’ supervision from other government departments or branches based at local or higher levels (Song, 2005). As discussed in Chapter 2, all four heritage sites are under the administration of local authorities. According to the interviews with the site managers and tourism planning stakeholders at the four research sites, besides the direct management of local governments, several local government departments are also involved in the tourism planning process at these sites. Table 4.1 shows that, besides the direct management of local government departments, various local government functional departments are involved in planning and management for these heritage sites, such as the local forest bureau, tourism administration, cultural heritage administration, religious affairs bureau and environmental protection bureau. This kind of overlapping management, with administrative powers vested in many different departments for the heritage sites, was a cause of much concern Table 4.1  Direct and indirect administration departments of the four heritage sites Sites

Direct administrative department of local government

Other functional departments with management roles

Qufu WHS

Qufu WHS Administration Committee (branch of Qufu City government)

Local forest bureau, tourism administration, cultural heritage administration, religious affairs bureau, environmental protection bureau, industrial and commercial administration bureau

Mount Tai

Mount Tai Administration Local forest bureau, environmental Committee (branch of Tai’an protection bureau, tourism administration, municipal government) cultural heritage administration, religious affairs bureau, industrial and commercial administration bureau, public land administration

Liugong Island

Liugong Island Administration Committee (department of Weihai municipal government)

Local forest bureau, tourism administration, cultural heritage administration, environmental protection bureau, Weihai transportation bureau, industrial and commercial administration bureau, public land administration

Taiqing Taoist Temple

Qingdao Religious Affairs Bureau (department of Qingdao municipal government)

Local forest bureau, tourism administration, cultural heritage administration, Mount Lao scenic area administration, environmental protection bureau, Mount Lao scenic area committee, industrial and commercial administration bureau, public land administration

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  109

for the site managers. At the four heritage sites, it was widely recognised by the site managers that it is often difficult to reach agreements on tourism planning among the different government departments and branches. Most site managers were unsatisfied with the current administrative system; there were disputes over tourism planning processes between different stake­holders, which often greatly delayed policy making. For example, as indicated by the site manager at Taiqing Taoist Temple, as a religious site its daily administration is the responsibility of the municipal religious affairs bureau, but tourism development and planning are managed by the Mount Lao Scenic Area Committee. Although for some heritage sites there are integrated administrative organisations, overlapping management is still a persistent phenomenon. As indicated by the site manager at Qufu WHS, the integrated Qufu WHS Administration Committee still could not resolve that issue entirely. From his point of view, without a restructuring of the current governance system, it would be difficult to have a fundamental change in heritage management. An official from the CNTA advised that the main reason for this was the separation of the site tourism planning from the industrial supervision and inspection, which often led to conflicts between tourism planning and daily management at the heritage sites. The director of the administrative and planning office from Qingdao municipal government contended that, to deal with this situation at the local level, it was often necessary to have the coordination and involvement of local govern­ment in order to break the impasse among different stakeholders. With the coordination of local municipal government, the different government departments involved in local heritage tourism planning normally could reach an agreement. However, a provincial tourism official argued that this kind of tourism development plan often lacked of continuity and consistency, and reflected the individual involvement of local politicians. For example, according to the site manager at Taiqing Taoist Temple, local tourism administrations are taking a leading role in the process of tourism-related planning, but cooperation with other departments in local government is necessary, since they either control the financial budget or have an influential role in local planning. A tourism official from Qingdao asserted that none of the tourism plans would be completed without the cooperation of other relevant departments and, with the current governance system, these departments clearly have important roles in both tourism planning process and industrial supervision. The overlapping management system results in varying administrative obligations of the government departments and their varying allocations of tourism income from the sites. This phenomenon exists at all four sites, but in particular at the Taiqing Taoist Temple, because it has the most complex administrative system. As explained in Chapter 2, the Taoist Temple is under the direct management of the Qingdao religious affairs bureau; however, because it is located in the Mount Lao National Scenic Area, its planning

110  Heritage Tourism in China

and management are coordinated and funded by that Committee. At the same time, heritage protection is managed by the local cultural heritage administration, and tourism industrial supervision is provided by the municipal tourism administration. None of the officials from these departments were satisfied with the current administration at the site. An official from the Mount Lao National Scenic Area Committee complained that they carried out the planning and provided most of the funding for implementation, yet they could not get much financial reward from site admission. In contrast, an official from the local religious affairs bureau complained in turn that they were not fully involved in the tourism planning process for the Temple and the Scenic Area, even though the site was one of the most important attractions. However, a tourism official from Qingdao tourism administration suggested that, when the heritage administrators and tourism administrators raised the issue of excessive exploitation of heritage tourism at this site, both the religious affairs bureau and the Scenic Area Committee were reluctant to take responsibility for it. This was partly due to ambiguities resulting from the overlapping administration. The example from the Taiqing Taoist Temple was typical, with the other three sites having similar issues. Although Mount Tai, Qufu WHS and Liugong Island had more integrated committees or bureaus as their administrative bodies, this could not fully resolve the disputes among the different functional departments. As indicated by an official from the provincial tourism administration, the integrated Scenic Area administration committee was really only a facade – it lacked substance in reality. A provincial cultural heritage official also commented that, since there had been no fundamental change in the current overlapping heritage administration at the local level, the integrated Scenic Area administration committees or bureaus could only be ‘a fashionable product of local governments’ which could not resolve the issues brought by the current overlapping administrative system for heritage sites. This view was shared by a senior provincial-level tourism official, who stated that the separation of administrative power and professional super­ vision often turned heritage sites into ‘battlefields’ of power and a ‘vacuum’ of responsibility, which could have a negative impact on these sites in the long term.

Multiple roles of the heritage management organisations Besides the overlapping administrative system and the dominant role of local government in heritage management, another noticeable issue for the administration of the four heritage sites was that their management organisations had multiple roles in their daily operations through the delegation of duties from local government. A provincial heritage official indicated that tourism decentralisation meant that many duties had been delegated to the site administration. A resulting problem for the heritage site administrators

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  111

was that they have many roles in their site administration. According to this heritage official, many local government departments could supervise their work in relation to its different aspects, though in most cases the site administrative organisations gradually became the main policy and regulation makers, the heritage management supervisors and the commercial operators for heritage sites. Indeed, he felt that sometimes the integrated site administrations were a little over-powerful in relation to site management. As mentioned in last section, local government is normally in charge of heritage sites, as it has set up the local heritage site administrative organisation. An official from the CNTA argued that, in a strict sense, these local heritage site administrative organisations are categorised as institutions in China’s governmental system. As stated in the Regulations for Institution Registration (State Council, 2004), ‘an institution is an established organisation or foundation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture’. They in fact should be ‘not for profit’ organisations, but in heritage administration these organisations are often involved in commercial activities for local governments. The strong connection with local governments and the application of government functions mean that normally they are categorised and recognised as branches of governments at different levels. The director of the provincial census and plan compilation office indicated that local governments tended not to clearly define the properties and functions of institutions at the local level. Since the current definitions of institutions have created many dilemmas for heritage administration, many academics have called for a much clearer definition of the relevant institutional arrangements. For example, a researcher from the China Academy of Social Science argued that such institutions are the ‘products and legacies’ of the previous centralised government system, before the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, which allowed all levels of government to operate enterprises and to administer public services. To use institutions to manage the heritage sites is not appropriate and is an obsolete management style, and he advised that the institutional system was part of the previous government system which should be replaced in contemporary China. Since the implementation of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, central government has pushed forward the reform of the governmental institutional system/ structure. In particular, since the 15th Congress of the CCP, central government has stated that institutions were to ‘commercialise the public services and separate them from local governments’ (Jiang, 1997), rather than to keep them as government branches. However, this institutional change did not involve cultural heritage management in its first stage of implementation. As indicated by the director of the provincial census and plan compiling office, the commercialisation of the public services involved only power supply, postal services and water supply, and the progress of reform in those services was still incomplete. Though heritage management was

112  Heritage Tourism in China

not formally included in the first stage of the reform, the heritage officials were actually not pleased with such change. A provincial heritage official expressed his concern about this and worried that the commercialisation of heritage management would allow the cultural administrative bodies to chase financial rewards rather than provide a non-profit service for the general public. A tourism academic also indicated that many of the crises caused by mismanagement at heritage sites were actually due to the local commercialisation of heritage sites. In this context, the unclear definition of the rights and responsibilities of the heritage site administrative organisations created many problems for heritage management. A tourism official from the Qingdao tourism administration asserted that it was unfortunate that the operation of most heritage site is largely commercial. In her view, those heritage site administrative organisations are conserving heritage in name only. The ‘not-for-profit’ principle for institutions is not fully followed and what many site administrations did in their daily operations was similar to what commercial enterprises did. In particular, according to article 4 of the National Scenic Area Management Regulation, in the area of heritage sites, most local heritage site administrative organisations can even be the public administrative authority of the local region (State Council, 2006). A provincial heritage official confirmed that Mount Lao and Mount Tai Scenic Area Administration Committees had the responsibilities of the local public administration. Hence, in fact, local heritage site administrations can possess three roles – public authorities for the local region, industrial supervisors and inspectors for heritage preservation, and commercial operators for heritage sites. These multiple roles and the unclear definition of the rights and responsibilities of these agencies mean that sometimes they cannot put themselves in an appropriate place when they deal with managerial issues, especially where they stand to benefit themselves. A few local tourism officials suggested that current arrangement for site management could help formulate more integrated decisions and better coordination. In contrast, a researcher from the China Academy of Social Science argued that, if local heritage site administrative organisations had so many responsibilities and administrative rights, the heritage site administrative organisation would have a dual identity – the player and the referee. This kind of ‘dual identity’ might promote an integrated management system, but it could also make the site administrative organisations ‘too powerful’. Through the use of public administrative powers given by local government, suggested by a provincial heritage official, the heritage site administrative organisations could put themselves in a favourable position without sufficient industrial supervision of heritage site management. The researcher from the China Academy of Social Science further argued that their dual identity as the ‘players’ and the ‘supervisors’ could ‘easily help local heritage site administrative organisations disguise any activities that

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  113

were counter to the regulations and laws for heritage management’. Not only could those activities be disguised, but they could avoid being regulated or sanctioned if inappropriate or illegal activities were reported by the public, since according to the National Scenic Area Management Regulations, the local heritage site administrative organisations are the main bodies to enforce regulations and impose sanctions for illegal activities in National Scenic Areas (State Council, 2006). This is often the main reason why heritage site administrative organisations can escape from administrative sanctions and fail to comply with their legal responsibilities.

Functional Transfer in Heritage Tourism Beside the territorial transfer of authority, another type of decentralisation discussed in this chapter is functional transfer, which is the movement of activities to an agency that is functionally specialised but not based at a geographically lower tier. With functional transfers, authority can be transferred within or between different types of institutions and arrangements, such as from the state to the private sector and within public administrative or parastatal structures (Hyden, 1983).

Transfer of operation rights in heritage tourism In tourism, privatisation and partnership are often common forms of functional transfer. However, as China is a socialist county, the development of functional transfer in tourism, especially privatisation of heritage sites, did not start as smoothly as it had in other sectors. Normally, privatis­ation occurs when a state institution cedes some authority, such as development functions, to a private sector organisation (Yuksel et al., 2005). The development of decentralisation in China has meant that privatisation gradually became a popular approach from the late 1970s in many economic sectors. Especially since the CCP’s 15th Congress, central government has encouraged ‘a wide adoption of non-public ownerships’ (Jiang, 1997) in all industries. A respondent from the development and financial department of the CNTA commented that allowing non-public sector organisations to be involved in tourism development could help promote the market economy and stimulate the reform of state-owned enterprises and state-controlled sectors. In his view, privatisation could bring benefits by enhancing ­efficiency and enlarging the economic returns for industries, in particular for state-owned organisations and agencies. As the director of the provincial census and plan compiling office noted, since the early 1980s, the goal of the economic reform has changed, to incorporate decentralisation of the tight control of the economy. As an official from the planning and statistics department of the CNTA suggested, the socialist market economy allows

114  Heritage Tourism in China

the market to decide the most appropriate mode of economic development in addition to the state planning at different levels. From the state’s point of view, the goal of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies reflected neoliberal, market-oriented views which favoured the ‘rolling back’ of the state and greater private sector involvement, an approach that is sometimes combined with macroeconomic stabilisation. The director of the provincial census and plan compiling office indicated that, according to the official statistics of the province, multi-ownership did not endanger the socialist regime; indeed, rather the opposite – it can help stabilise the state economy in the long term. He also suggested that the rigid single state or public ownership before the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies had greatly limited the effectiveness of the state economy and encouraged inequitable competition. Within the tourism industry, there is often a belief that the private sector should take a leading role because the state has other demands on its capital resources, has limited relevant expertise and commercial ­businesses can be more responsive to tourist demands (Jenkins, 1994). However, privatis­ ation within tourism started rather late in China, despite the authorities at different levels recognising the great benefits of privatisation in other industries. It was only after the CCP’s 15th Congress in the late 1990s that the privatisation of tourist attractions eventually started. Due to the public attributes of tourist resources, and especially of cultural and natural heritage resources, there are concerns and ongoing debates among different groups of stakeholders regarding this issue. The bone of contention is whether tourism resources, including heritage sites, should be controlled and managed only by the public sector and government institutions or whether, instead, they can be privatised in order to be more efficiently managed and secure more financial rewards, as with many other resources in a market economy. The respondents’ views on this can be categorised into two groups. On the one hand, local authorities, and in particular officials from the local tourism authorities, and private stakeholders often strongly advocate privatisation as the format for functional transfer, due to its potential benefits; and through various means they sometimes pushed the local ­authorities to put privatisation into practice. As a provincial heritage official indicated, the private sector stakeholders normally would not disguise their interests and ambition to be involved in heritage management and development in order to chase economic returns, though they always asserted that they would definitely put preservation of those heritage sites as their primary mission. Local tourism administrations often claimed that specialist tourism management companies’ involvement at heritage sites usually suggested that those management companies could bring higher efficiency and greater expertise in tourism management. Local authorities also preferred to involve management companies in heritage management because sometimes they could only afford limited administrative costs and

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  115

responsibilities, and they often targeted an increased revenue from the tourism operation of heritage sites. On the other hand, most heritage administrative officials, academics and local community respondents insisted that tourism resources, especially heritage sites, should be owned by the public sector and under the direct management of local government or its branches. As an official from the provincial heritage administration argued, heritage resources needed to be controlled and managed by the public sector due to their public attributes. Though there are still many unresolved issues under the management of local government, at least the guidelines for local government are to use these resources to provide services for the general public. Although this group of people were concerned with the preservation and managerial issues brought by the bureaucratic government system, at least the local authorities were meant to look after and protect the public attributes of heritage sites. Many academics argued that if heritage sites were controlled by private companies, not only would the public attributes of those sites not be guaranteed, but it would lead to malignant competition, which was unfair for the general public and other market bodies. Because of the public attribute of heritage, in China’s heritage tourism, functional transfer is somewhat different from the traditional meaning of ‘privatisation’, as it often involves only the transfer of operation rights from local authorities to enterprises, rather than transferring the ownership of heritage to the non-public sector. Most heritage sites, especially heritage sites of important historical value, remain in the ownership of local authorities. As explained in Chapter 2, the Qufu WHS is the only site which has transferred the operation rights for the whole site from government to a management company. Since 1999, Qufu city has started to reform the management system of its heritage properties based on the principle of ‘separating institutions from enterprises and separating ownership and operation rights’ (Jiang, 1997). The local tourism administration had several reasons to push the transfer of the operation rights at the Qufu WHS. An official from the Qufu tourism administration explained that from a long-term point of view, the separation of ownership and operation rights is a trend for heritage sites. Firstly, the transfer of operation rights could help release the public sector from site management. Secondly, an enterprising managerial mode allows the management company to bring their expertise to site management. More efficient management and better promotion can generate more economic returns for the heritage sites and will help increase local revenues. To get approval from the higher authorities at the local level, some local tourism officials asserted that the transfer of operation rights is the widely adopted heritage administrative mode in Western mature market economies. It is also in line with the guideline of 15th Congress of the CCP. A provincial tourism official claimed that because it had the full support of the local tourism authorities, the provincial tourism administration agreed

116  Heritage Tourism in China

on this reform at the Qufu WHS. In 1999, a well-known theme park management company together with five local companies in Qufu gained the operation rights for the Qufu WHS, and it has established a new subsidiary corporation, China Confucius International Tourism Co. Ltd, to oversee the heritage preservation and tourism development at this site (People’s Daily, 2001). The local authorities signed a formal contract with the company to transfer the administrative powers over the site’s daily operation, heritage protection and its development, in exchange for a certain proportion of the heritage tourism income. The local cultural heritage administration and tourism administration then withdrew from direct site management and tourism development, but retained powers over industrial supervision and inspection and can offer professional and administrative advice on the site’s operation and management. According to the contract, the new company set up by the theme park management company was responsible for preserving eight heritage sites, including the Qufu WHS. The company would return part of the income from site admission charges to the local ­authorities. A site manager commented that since the local authorities would be responsible only for inspection and supervision of the site operation, it could significantly reduce the workload for the public sector. According to a local tourism official, in the contract there are clear terms stating that the heritage site is still state owned but that the company has all legal rights over its operations and management. At first, the transfer of operation rights at the Qufu WHS was welcomed by the authorities at all levels, and it was seen as a positive ‘trial’ for China’s heritage management and tourism development. However, soon some issues arose and the site’s operations and administration went in directions that were not expected by the local authorities. As a local tourism official explained, though local authorities would not interfere with its operations it gradually became clear that the management company sometimes failed to stick to the guidelines for heritage preservation. As a result of that, in 2001, the Qufu WHS was extensively damaged by staff of the China Confucius International Tourism Co. Ltd. First, in November that year, a van driver of the company cracked a precious stele at the Temple of Confucius erected in the Yuan dynasty, which was covered with valuable calligraphy (People’s Daily, 2001). According to an evaluation by archaeologists, the resulting damage was irreparable. Less than a month later, a thorough ‘clean-up’ (lasting some 10 days) was carried out to celebrate the establishment of the new company. Due to the lack of professional knowledge and techniques in heritage protection, the casual staff who were employed for the ‘clean-up’ hosed down many plaques and walls with water, and they brushed dirt from the surfaces of the ancient structures. These activities resulted in enormous damage at the Qufu WHS. The paintings on the walls have peeled off and the humidity level was raised because of the use of water for cleaning. More than 10 relics in the ancient buildings of Confucius’ mansion and temple

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  117

were damaged to various extents (UNESCO, 2003a). It also caused the closure of some exhibition areas. Astonishingly, during the whole process the local authorities failed to make any formal inspection or interfere, and only a few tenacious journalists reported the incident in their newspapers. Faced with media pressure and questions from the public and from the higher authorities, the Qufu local officials denied that any mistakes had been made by them. They claimed the reports written by the journalists were untrue and they defended themselves by submitting a 15-page official investigation report to defend their activities. It claimed: Our findings indicate that some recent media coverage does not correspond to reality. Many reports exaggerated the mistakes to mislead the public. This incident occurred because the system touches the vested interests of some people and individual groups…. (Qufu Culture Relic Administration, 2000) A more thorough investigation was requested subsequently by the NPC, and it was conducted by the National Administration of Cultural Heritage. It confirmed that serious damage had been done to the Qufu WHS. These incidents had still not been revealed to the public, though in the 2003 periodic report to UNESCO the local authorities acknowledged what had happened. Local authorities claimed that ‘the departments concerned have seriously studied the case to learn a lesson from it’ and ‘the authenticity and integrity of the property has not been changed’ (UNESCO, 2003a). Questions were raised about the appropriateness of granting to a commercial company managerial authority over cultural heritage, including whether it complies with relevant regulations and laws (Donohoe, 2001). Despite this investigation, an official from the provincial tourism administration still continued to claim that the change of the managerial system was only trying out a new managerial model at heritage sites and people should not criticise the model due to its lack of success at Qufu WHS. He also claimed that at least it provided reference for future reform. However, serious questions had been raised by the public, heritage officials and academics about whether this substantial cost really provided a useful reference for future reform, or whether this was merely an excuse for administrative failures. A heritage official from the provincial government suggested in interview that the cause of this issue was the deficient legal system and the bureaucratic tradition in local government because, first, the local authorities neglected their responsibility to inspect and supervise, and then they abused their power by seeking to disguise the problems. The Department Chief of the State Cultural Heritage Administration, Hongkui Jin, who was also involved in the investigation of the Qufu WHS case, said that ‘we are not always against the use of heritage for commercial purposes, but the prerequisite must be the good preservation of the heritage’ (Zhu, 2006). A

118  Heritage Tourism in China

member of the provincial heritage administrative staff indicated that there should be no excuse for such destruction and the problems could only be attributed to the local authorities’ dereliction of duty, since they were, to a certain extent, lured by short-term economic returns. The local officials were keen to commodify the heritage sites as tourist attractions for financial rewards. Further, excessive tourism development and mismanagement exacerbated such problems here and elsewhere. A Confucian scholar at Qufu argued that the local authorities had failed to recognise fully that they lacked such experience and regulations to accompany this kind of transfer of operation rights. On that basis he further argued that the local ­authorities’ operation rights transfer at Qufu WHS was irresponsible, with the pilot project being at the cost of serious damage to the heritage site. It can be argued that without better regulations any agreement is likely to be worthless. The final explanation provided by the local authorities to the public emphasised that this case involved conflicts between different governmental departments at different levels, which led to different views on the progress of operation rights transfer at heritage sites. The local Confucian scholar, however, questioned, even if there was a relevant law, which methods could be adopted to guarantee the enforcement of that law. Because of the heritage destruction at this site, the SACH indignantly gave an administrative order to Qufu’s local authorities to request them to cease the contract with the management company immediately. However, the local authorities still insisted there was no malpractice and a local official insisted that local authorities should keep their contracts with the management company, because otherwise it would ruin the business and the reputation of local authorities. As indicated by a tourism academic from a local university, with strong support and protection from local authorities, it was only after the contract ran out that the main stakeholder, the theme park management company, had finally withdrawn from the operation and administration of Qufu WHS. This heritage site was then once again returned to the direct administration of the Qufu World Heritage Administration Committee, a branch of local government. The transfer of operation rights at this site was finally ended, but the related dilemmas still remained for the local and higher authorities.

Partnership development in heritage tourism Though the transfer of operation rights at Qufu WHS seems unsuccessful, there is still an ongoing debate about privatising heritage sites for tourism development. Those who advocate privatisation have found it has become much more difficult to convince the local authorities and push privatisation forward due to the experience at Qufu WHS. Respondents at the four heritage sites, especially people from the local private sector, suggested that it had been much more difficult, and often almost impossible, to secure

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  119

the administrative powers or heritage site operations rights from the local tourism authorities. The site manager of Mount Lao commented that they already had plans to hand over some operation rights for several historical relics to local private companies, but after the issues raised at Qufu WHS higher-level authorities had tightened up privatisation at heritage sites and it seemed there were fewer opportunities for private companies to be involved in heritage management and operation. Those who objected to heritage privatisation referred to the case of Qufu in order to suspend or terminate local ongoing privatis­ation projects at other sites. However, decentralisation has not ceased because of the perceived failures at the Qufu WHS. Despite the ‘fading of privatisation’, a provincial heritage official still argued that partnership and cooperation between public and private stakeholders, as a ‘favourable’ format, had quickly grown in heritage management. Stakeholders, whether they are from local public sector or the private sector, have tended to adopt a partnership approach in order to involve the private sector in local tourism development. The format of partnerships seems to have been a more acceptable mode to involve the private sector for the state and local authorities since in their opinion, as a provincial tourism official indicated, a partnership involves cooperation between the public sector and private sector, and this kind of cooperation can hand over just part of the administrative duties and power to the private sector, without losing overall control of the heritage sites. Yet, collaboration among different stakeholders requires controls through the use of appropriate contracts and enforcement. One benefit of retaining the involvement of the local authorities is that it gives the public more confidence in the management of these public resources. A tourism researcher advised that at least the local authorities nominally stand for the interests of the public and the state (by default) and even this kind of nominal claim would give the public more confidence. According to the director of the Tourism Quality Supervision Centre of the Qingdao tourism administration, a large proportion of people still favour the state or the local authorities administering such resources and they feel that this can greatly reduce the probability of power abuse at heritage sites. When the private sector was involved in partnership organisations for heritage tourism at the four sites, all accepted professional supervision and management by the local authorities. There are two approaches to private sector involvement in partnerships or in cooperation with the local public sector. The first is through partnership companies being set up for heritage or other tourism resource management and operations. The second – and the one adopted by the partnership organisations at the four research sites – is mainly based on the private sector investing in infrastructure and constructing tourism facilities. There is no direct management of important heritage relics by partnership organisations at the four heritage sites. Most of the historical relics and scenic attractions operated by the private

120  Heritage Tourism in China

stakeholders are either fully artificial (theme parks, such as Liugong Island Tourist Park and Confucianism Six Arts Park) or museums of relatively low historical value (such as Mount Lao Exhibition Hall). Officials from the site administrations suggested that, at the four heritage sites, the partnership organisations normally operated heritage-related sites or facilities that are viewed by the local heritage administration as less historically ‘important’ or ‘sensitive’, since it is much easier to get approval from authorities at higher level. Further, the local officials preferred to use them as trials in order to evaluate the new administrative mode. The director of the Planning and Develop­ment Department of Qingdao tourism administration suggested that the successful experience can be made more widespread to other heritage sites in future. For the private sector, it is a different story. Some of the private stake­ holders viewed the local authorities as just taking advantage of their investment and administrative experience and expertise. A private sector stakeholder involved in tourism development at Liugong Island claimed that the local authorities involved the private sector only to operate artificial sites, sites with ‘non-sensitive’ characters or less important sites. By doing that, the local authorities could greatly ‘alleviate their administrative workload for site operations’, especially for sites which ‘needed a large investment and special expertise to operate such as for cableway projects’, suggested a private stakeholder at Mount Tai. A manager of the Liugong Island Naval Battle Museum indicated that many sites of important ­historical value were still not ‘accessible’ for the private sector. In this context, he suggested that the local authorities were still not confident about allowing the private sector to handle the whole of a valuable historic site, even if it was under the framework of a partnership with the public sector. Thus, it appears that the local authorities have tended to adopt a deconcentration approach, with the transfer of tasks and work to the private sector, but they are reluctant to transfer authority to the private sector. There is a similar situation at Mount Tai, where the private sector is in a relatively weak position in relation to gaining operation rights over the site. The local private sector stakeholders have tended to build partnerships and cooperation with public sector stakeholders as an alternative. A respondent from the private sector at Tai’an indicated that it would be much difficult for them to solely operate a tourism site. Alternatively, they can cooperate or establish a partnership with the local authorities, such as with the administration of a National Scenic Area. As he suggested, cooperation and partnership with the local authorities or other public sector agencies can help the private sector steer clear of the tight controls associated with the privatisation of tourism sites. Some local public sector officials held a more optimistic view of cooperation and partnership at the four heritage sites. As a tourism official at Qufu suggested, cooperation between the public and the private sectors has the potential to create a ‘win–win’ situation in heritage tourism and in site

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  121

management. In their opinion, cooperation between the local authorities or other public sector stakeholders and the private sector could guarantee the industrial supervision and prominence would still be given to the interests of the general public; moreover, the private sector could then get involved in heritage management and operations in order to realise financial rewards. Many site managers held positive views on building partnerships or co­ operation between the public and private sectors. A site manager at Mount Tai stated that they appreciated the expertise and experience brought by private stakeholders to site management. However, the private stake­holders often expressed their dissatisfaction and claimed that they were not the ‘big winners’ in practice from this type of cooperation. A manager of a local partnership company established between the site administration and private sector stakeholders explained that the partnership between the company and the local authorities was not an ideal format for them, and the private sector stakeholders do not always reap what they sow. He also explained that they could accept this arrangement only in order to maintain the company’s normal operations; otherwise, without the support and involvement of the local authorities, it is impossible to set up and operate the business. As discussed in previous sections, local government has considerable advantages in local heritage management and in building partnerships at the local level. The practice at the heritage sites suggests that, compared with privatisation, the establishment of partnerships involving the private sector in tourism site management is generally viewed as a more acceptable mode of operation by local and higher-level authorities and the public. For the private sector and those advocating privatisation, partnerships can help them be at least partially involved in heritage management, and bring clear benefits to them. As a private stakeholder from Liugong Island indicated, they had no alternative but to adopt the partnership format. A tourism researcher suggested that the current situation was just a ‘provisional but difficult time’ before further decentralisation in tourism. In his view, privatisation has its own benefits, which cannot be simply replaced, and he believed that both privatisation and partnership would gradually become the two major formats of decentralisation in China’s tourism industry and that they should be an important part of a mature market-oriented economy. Hence, the perceived failure of the transfer of operation rights at Qufu WHS may have speeded up the development of partnerships and cooperation between the local public and private sectors. Nevertheless, apparently this kind of development was not initiated by the market economy itself and it was not fully the result of the state’s decentralisation policy. It was more or less a compromise between the state, local authorities and the private sector. Sometimes this ‘deviant’ development might not be able to replace the role of privatisation or deepen the decentralisation of tourism; on the contrary, as a provincial tourism official indicated, it would harm or block the natural

122  Heritage Tourism in China

development of the market economy and tourism decentralisation in the long term.

Decentralisation versus Recentralisation in Tourism The re-evaluation of tourism decentralisation As discussed previously, the national government and the local authorities have sought to take advantage of the market initiatives in China’s economic reform. The result has been a shift partly from a planned and command economy to an economy more determined by market forces. In this context, the process of tourism decentralisation has involved both the territorial transfer and the functional transfer of activities. The national government has gradually loosened its tight control over local government since the implementation of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies by breaking away from centralised planning and from central budgetary control of revenues and expenditures. As mentioned in the previous section, the local authorities have involved more non-public sector stakeholders in tourism to fully utilise their investment and managerial expertise. The heritage tourism practices at the four heritage sites demonstrated that decentralisation has not greatly improved the managerial and allocative efficiency, and that the delegation and transfer of functions to lower ­territorial scales and to the private sector have sometimes made market stabilis­ation policies more challenging. As suggested from previous dis­ cussion, various issues emerged at the four heritage sites due to these reforms. Tensions among central, local and non-state stakeholders, regional protectionism, and also differences in regional and departmental interests were evident from the tourism practices at the four heritage sites. Faced with these tensions and differences, the state and provincial governments have started to re-evaluate the current decentralisation policies. An official from the Planning and Statistics Department of the CNTA noted that they were aware of the issues brought by decentralisation in the tourism industry. It is not just caused by decentralisation, but it also exposes the problems that have existed for a long time in the current system of governance. In his view, decentralisation has provided an opportunity for those issues to be exposed to the general public. Yet the root causes of those problems do not rest only with tourism decentralisation. Nevertheless, he argued that people should have an in-depth evaluation before they jump to conclusions regarding its effectiveness. A senior member from China’s Democratic Promotion Party indicated that the policies relating to tourism decentralisation had not been subject to sufficient trial and evaluation before their extensive promotion in China. This is why he felt that issues or crises are sometimes ‘unavoidable’. In this vein, he further argued that the issues in China’s defective governance

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  123

actually ‘added fuel to the flames’, which aggravated the conflicts and to some extent produced the dilemma over tourism decentralisation. A state tourism official contended that what is brought by tourism decentralisation is an unregulated tourism market. This concern was further explained by a tourism researcher from the China Academy of Social Science: if the private sector only ‘shares limited benefits’ from tourism decentralisation, tourists and local residents will get ‘almost nothing from the decentralisation’; but what tourists and local residents can directly feel is ‘a chaotic unregulated market, rising ticket prices at tourism sites, destruction of heritage and the environment’, and other unfavourable things brought by functional transfer and other forms of decentralisation. Since tourism decentralisation has often put these groups of people into a vulnerable position, he argued that under the current governance system, if there is any collusion among different interest groups, there is nowhere for tourists and local residents to make complaints and it is unlikely that any agency will give them any practical support. People from the private sector benefited from tourism decentralisation in various ways. At the same time, as a private stakeholder in Qufu stated, many of them also felt that the local authorities still lacked confidence in their involvement in heritage tourism operations. A private sector stakeholder from Mount Tai stated that the local authorities regularly put them into a vulnerable position in the cooperation between the public and private sectors. Many managers of tourism-related enterprises are unsatisfied with the interference of the local authorities in their daily operations. A tourism researcher commented that if this situation continued, it would dampen the enthusiasm of private sector stakeholders and it was definitely contrary to the building of a socialist market economy. In the process of the ongoing tourism decentralisation, it seems that only local authorities are in a favourable position and they have gradually become the real ‘winners’. According to a provincial heritage official, in pursuit of their own interests, the local authorities often heedlessly or deliber­ately ignore their supervision responsibilities, and they constantly loosen their control of tourism by using the excuse of decentralisation. A tourism academic claimed that it was difficult for local authorities to give up their vested interests. He further advised that the local authorities generally hold the view that decentralisation gives them autonomy, and most importantly it empowers them to do their own planning and gain essential support from the non-public sector. As mentioned in the case of Qufu WHS, to shift blame and pressures from the non-public sectors and the public, they often quoted statements or articles from official policy documents of state government to suit their purposes. A provincial heritage official suggested that a frequently quoted sentence was that ‘issues raised in the development process should and can be resolved in the development process’ (CCP Central Committee, 2006). Expressing a hope that these issues might disappear or be resolved during the process of economic development, this quote might

124  Heritage Tourism in China

demonstrate that the state government was less active in issues arising from economic development and reform. A researcher from the China Academy of Social Science claimed that this statement might allow local authorities to disguise any errors that they had made and claim that all their errors were in fact ‘issues raised in the development process’, which are unavoidable but anyway could be naturally resolved by development itself. Yet in the CCP Central Committee’s report Sixth Plenum of the 16th CCP Congress, the central government stated that ‘development itself constantly exposes problems and is a problem-solving process. Therefore, nobody should use the excuse of avoiding conflicts and problems in order to put pressure on the development of market economy’ (CCP Central Committee, 2006). This suggests that the central state requests local authorities not to ignore the problems related to decentralisation and economic reform; rather, it seems to request them to actively seek solutions to promote development of the market economy. Thus, the local authorities appear either acci­dentally or deliberately to have misinterpreted central government. Yunyao Yu from the National CCP Research Institute commented on this policy in the People’s Daily: for problems which have accumulated over the years, or for historical reasons, a realistic analysis should be carried out and those problems should gradually be resolved. We must resolve issues about which most people are concerned, and for the most direct and real interests … especially for problems concerned with weak or disadvantaged groups, we must also actively resolve the problems affecting a wide range of interests, supporting the reform policies and measures. (Zhang, 2005) It suggests that the issues brought by decentralisation should be resolved by the local authorities where possible, and they should not be left with excuses or be simply disguised. However, a private stakeholder from Qufu claimed that a deep-seated reason why local authorities had less active attitudes to the issues for heritage tourism was that ‘they did not want to loosen their vested interests’, even if those issues resulted from gaps in the current system of tourism administration.

Decentralisation versus recentralisation The issues resulting from decentralisation in recent years meant that there were increasing calls for a reverse action from central government, the general public and some of the private sector stakeholders. Appeals were made to the authorities to transfer powers previously given to local authorities and the non-public sector back to central govern­ment through ‘recentralisation’. There were also calls for a return to a vertical managerial mode to replace the newly powerful local governments.

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  125

As discussed earlier, with tourism decentralisation, many of the tourismrelated administrative organisations have only partly realised that some of the functions had been decentralised which were previously controlled by the state and provincial authorities. As examined in Chapter 2, the local government branches (e.g. local tourism administration, cultural heritage administration, and environmental protection bureau) follow the guidance from both local government and their respective higher-level organisations. They are responsible to their respective higher-level organisations in their own sectors, but as branches of local government their staff appointments, funding and daily operations are often guided and directed by local government. According to a tourism researcher, higher authorities, in particular the central and provincial authorities, can provide industrial supervision for local tourism-related administrative organisations through the vertical government hierarchy. However, since local governments control the staff appointments, funding and daily operations of the local government branches, they can still compel these tourism-related organisations to make unprofessional decisions. The director of Qingdao’s environmental protection bureau suggested that, with tourism-related planning, though they intended to stick to the best practice principles and laws, if their decisions conflicted with the interests of local government, they could get themselves into a difficult position. He also indicated that the local government would put pressure on them by tightening the appropriate funds or even replacing the officials in local government branches. Under these circumstances, therefore, the staff in these branches would rarely contradict local government, and it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that policies formulated by them could sometimes be compromised. A tourism researcher from a university in Jinan advised that issues in heritage tourism were not due to imperfect laws and regulations, but actually were due to local tourismrelated organisations not being able to oppose the will of local government. This was often described as ‘central policies coming up against local counter­ measures’. The provincial director of the census and plan compiling office suggested that this was in fact a kind of regional protectionism. Because of this situation, the state government has sought to take back some powers from local government functional departments in order to maintain their independence in financial funding and staff appointments. In this way, it might be possible to avoid the administrative interference from local government and to enhance and strengthen the authority and the integrity of the industrial supervision (Chen, 2006). This policy actually seeks to re-establish a vertical managerial mode which enables central govern­ment to control the operation of the functional departments of local government, and in these fields local government branches would be more controlled by central and provincial government than by local government. In 1998, central government started to re-initiate a vertical managerial mode in local commercial administration. For all local levels (city and county) the

126  Heritage Tourism in China

commercial administration was put under the direct management of the corresponding provincial functional departments. The director of the National Industrial and Commercial Administration considered that a vertical administrative managerial mode under the provincial level could reduce interference in law enforcement and help local functional departments do their job independently (Chen, 2006). Yu, a senior member of China’s Public Administrative Law Research Institute, suggested the adoption of a vertical managerial mode for local government branches would mean that the state government was tightening its control on local authorities (Chen, 2006). An academic from the China Academy of Social Science, commenting on this recentralisation policy, indicated that the state government, on the one side, weakens the authorities at the local level, and, on the other side, strengthens the controls at the provincial level through this policy. A provincial heritage official argued that this structure of reform embodied two strengths for public administration, especially for heritage tourism planning. Firstly, it effectively prevents administrative interference from local government, which ensures effective policy transmission and implementation. Secondly, it helps achieve effective resource allocation and implementation, since these activities can then be implemented within the scope of a provincial framework. It could also fill in the gaps between regional and departmental interests. In his view, the application of this policy could help avoid much malpractice in heritage management. However, an official from the provincial census and plan compiling office argued that adopting vertical management cannot guarantee a ‘miracle cure’ of all issues in current governance. It has, he suggested, its own potential weaknesses, since not all branches of local government were suitable for vertical management. He further argued that only departments with their own respective departments in the higher authorities could implement such vertical management. And local government branches which are suitable for vertical management still need to deal with the weaknesses of vertical manage­ment itself. A scholar from the China Academy of Social Science advised that there are two issues for the state authorities to consider. Firstly, under the current government structure, vertical management would not fully prevent interference from local government. Although staff appointments, funding and daily operations for the local government branches would not be controlled by the local authorities, local government would still hold control of land use, water and electricity supply. Therefore, even when adopting vertical management, the local government branches still would not contradict local government if there was any disagreement regarding heritage preservation and management. Secondly, vertical management would partially weaken local government. To have a more integrated and coordinated government structure and organisation is the prerequisite for local government conducting public administration. If local government branches are too directly under the jurisdiction of higher authorities, this

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  127

brings incomplete functions for local government, which can greatly reduce the efficiency of local public administration; moreover, since local functional departments are responsible only to higher authorities, this type of arrangement may often lead to the neglect of the local practical situation. Therefore, vertical management is arguably not a perfect solution for the problems that have arisen from tourism decentralisation. Probably only local branches which have national, cross-regional functions could adopt vertical management. The trend of recentralisation in tourism should not be conceived as a continuum of state control or restoration of centralised governance. Rather, as argued by Yeh (2009), the nature of the recentralised state function is redefined by the imperative of market development, making the state fundamentally different from the former counterpart. From a long-term perspective, this mode might not be a fixed and final mode for the ongoing administrative reforms in China. Recentralisation in tourism is perhaps best considered to be a useful, exploratory experiment developed to resolve some of the emerging issues of decentralisation.

The role of law and regulations in tourism decentralisation In the wrestling between the central and local government, adopting ‘vertical management’ is perhaps just an attempt to avoid local govern­ment interference to the operation of local functional departments. However, in practice it may actually tighten the control of local government, which is against the original goal of decentralisation. A tourism official from the provincial tourism administration suggested that the change back to vertical management is, to a certain degree, a compromise under the current governance system, which can be viewed as ‘local protectionism meeting up with central countermeasures’. It is perhaps simply a response from the central government to the problems with decentralisation, and thus it may not entail an end to decentralisation in tourism. The re-articulation of the state function could be seen as an expression of a reactive trend to new governance issues (Yeh, 2009). A practical and powerful tool within the processes of tourism de­ centralisation and recentralisation is law and regulation. As suggested by a senior member from China’s Democratic Promotion Party, state authorities should adopt more practical measures, by establishing laws and regulations to appropriately demarcate authority between central and local government as a long-term solution to the issues raised by decentralisation. In fact, most of the issues and crises related to tourism decentralisation were supposed to be resolved by legislation and administrative regulations. However, this was not the case for the four heritage sites. According to the earlier discussion, the case of ‘water washing at Qufu WHS’ was widely recognised by academics and the general public as serious mismanagement and it has breached the laws and regulations for heritage management. However, a tourism

128  Heritage Tourism in China

researcher from a university at Qufu pointed out that the local authorities were still not taking any legal responsibility and had received no administrative penalty. Because of this the case of Qufu WHS somewhat contradicts the ongoing so-called ‘socialist legal system building’ (Jiang, 1997). An official from the Qingdao policy and legislation bureau suggested that this kind of awkward situation was a result of a combination of ‘imperfect law enforcement’ and the tradition of ‘rule by man’. According to a provincial heritage official, law enforcement is an important guarantee of justice, but arguably it could be the weakest link in the chain of China’s legal system. As discussed previously, law enforcement sometimes largely depended on the will of the local authorities. The official from Qingdao policy and legislation bureau explained how central government reminded the local authorities that ‘there must be laws to go by, the laws must be observed and strictly enforced, and offenders must be prosecuted’ (CCP Central Committee, 1978). This is the guideline for China’s socialist legal system which was agreed by the Third Plenum of the 11th Central Committee of the CCP. However, in practice it often becomes ‘non-­observance and lax implementation of laws, and the allowance of law-breakers not being punished’. A senior member from China’s Democratic Promotion Party suggested that the root of these issues in heritage tourism was that in practice the administrative orders were often given greater priority than the laws and regulations, and local politicians’ often overcame administrative policies and planning. The reason for the weaknesses in law enforcement was rooted in the tradition of ‘rule by man’, which provided local authorities with opportunities to exploit. Since there was no complete administrative law to regulate government behaviour at the local level, local tourism planning and development are highly dependent on the local governors’ will rather than group decision making. A local tourism official from Qingdao tourism administration contended that his organisation could sometimes only hope to have good officials in local government and its branches, due to their influential power in local tourism planning. In the opinion of the director of Qingdao policy and legislation bureau, the weaknesses of this decision-making system are obvious, with the current government system lacking democratic traditions, which often produces awkward local situations. He further suggested that the delivery of good public administration should not rely on wise decisions made by good governmental officials. The conduct of local authorities should be properly regulated. An important prerequisite to achieve a government regulated by law is a clear definition and demarcation of authority between the central and local government. Without that, suggested a researcher from the China Academy of Social Science, the local authorities would often ‘produce disputes over trifles’ in their legal supervision. If activities failed to comply with the laws and regulations governing heritage sites, the local and provincial government branches would then face a situation where ‘they are afraid to supervise,

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  129

reluctant to enforce, and have little knowledge of how to use the law to regulate’ in relation to their administration. Under such circumstances, the central government has made a great effort to maintain the unity of government orders and complete the law making. Besides the adoption of ‘vertical management’ in the governmental system, local legislative power has also gradually been tightened. The Law of Administrative Penalty (NPC, 1996) stipulates that local government can only add supplementary regulations to administrative penalties, and that only central government has the authority to add new articles to the administrative penalties. The director of the provincial census and plan compiling office contended that, in practice, since the establishment of the PRC, all major adjustments in central and local government relations have been made through administrative orders and the state’s public policies. However, he further argued that in relation to ‘building a socialist society governed by law’ (Jiang, 1997) as proposed by the CCP Central Committee, the adjustment of central–local relations should be put under a legal framework, rather than solely relying on political leaders’ administrative orders and policies. From his point of view, the only way to maintain central and local relations in a steady and balanced way was clearly to stipulate the central–local divisions in law and build up those relations in laws and regulations, and this was also the way to ensure a healthy governance for the country. The director of Qingdao policy and legis­lation bureau advised that, though the current Constitution had relevant stipulations on central–local relations, it was too general and thus it lacked operability, supervision and assorted regulations and laws. The current laws and regulations on central–local relations lack detailed stipulations on residual powers and joint authority. It could easily lead to friction between central and local authorities and it might be detrimental to local heritage tourism development. Commenting on the heritage preser­ vation issues at Qufu WHS, a provincial heritage official suggested that, if the local heritage authority in Qufu strictly stuck to the law and fully represented the state heritage authority in order to supervise and report on any issues happening at Qufu WHS, there would not be so many arguments and disagreements between the central and local authorities over heritage management at this site, and the local authorities would not shift the blame to each other. He further argued that in taking a long-term view, it was necessary to stipulate the attributes, status and composition of local government and, most importantly, to mandate the limits of their duties and the procedures for local authorities, since this might help minimise managerial misconduct in heritage tourism. In tourism, the delay in the legal stipulation of central–local relations and of their respective responsibilities and powers has greatly dragged out the process of tourism-related law making. The urgent need for laws to be made to adjust tourism development was stressed by several local tourism-related officials. At provincial level, tourism officials noted that the current progress

130  Heritage Tourism in China

in tourism-related laws and regulations has significantly fallen behind tourism development, which is incompatible with the future development of the market economy. An official from the planning department of Mount Lao district suggested that without systematic laws and regulations for the tourism sector, not only the physical destruction of tourism resources such as heritage sites but other inappropriate activities could not be fully addressed and regulated by law. This was echoed by a tourism official from Qingdao tourism administration, who said that sometimes local officials could establish administrative rules and regulations to regulate the tourism sector only as provisional measures; other than that, there was not much for them to do further. A tourism researcher from the China Academy of Social Science commented that, if this situation continued, much more serious issues may arise in heritage tourism in the future. To resolve this issue, in the Third Plenum of the 16th CCP Committee, members of the CCP Central Committee reached an agreement on this matter. In its report Perfecting the Socialist Market Economic System (CCP, 2003), the Central Committee made a decision which explicitly pointed to the need to ‘reasonably demarcate authority between the central and local authorities in economic and social affairs’ (CCP, 2003). It requested the central government to take a leading role in this reform, and it allowed local government to fully express its view in this process. In this reform, the goal is to gradually clarify authority between central and local government in economic adjustment and regulation, market supervision, social and community administration, and public service administration. Firstly, for national and cross-provincial affairs, the central government will provide unified management to maintain consistency in laws, decrees and the market; secondly, for regional and local affairs, the local authorities will carry out general management, which can improve the efficiency of local public administration; thirdly, for affairs that are co-administered by central and local government, the specific situation in each case must be analysed and responsibilities must be clarified for each specific case. This report provides a state-level policy on the three-level relations which could guide the approach to administration between central and local government. A provincial tourism official commented that these actions would increase the speed of tourism law making, which could clearly improve the efficiency of the local tourism authorities and reduce the number of issues caused by the less effective government system. By perfecting the system of administrative law, the supervision of law enforcement could also be enhanced. A provincial heritage official contended that the actions stated in the report could reduce the chances of corruption and local protectionism, and this could help ‘clear the obstacles’ in the general industrial supervision of heritage sites. The CNTA has concerns about the role of laws and regulations in tourism administration. This was indicated by an official from the CNTA,

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  131

who suggested that the lag in law-making in tourism greatly restricted tourism development in China. She argued that the reason why there were no systematic and integrated laws regulating the tourism industry was that there were still too many weaknesses in the existing legal system and governance. It was pointed out by not only local and state tourism administration officials, but also almost all tourism-related departments and private sector stakeholders. In the 1980s, the CNTA had already started appealing for several tourism-related laws to be passed, but only over 30 years later, at the NPC Second Plenum of the 12th Central Committee, was the Tourism Law passed, in April 2013. From her point of view, the reason for the delay of tourism law making was that it is too difficult for central government to make tourism-related laws and regulations with the current incomplete administrative system and government structure. As suggested by Du, the director of the Legislation Department of the CNTA, the positive role of the 2013 Tourism Law was that it stipulated the main responsibilities of all levels of tourism administration and tourism-related functional departments: promotion, service, supervision and safeguard (CNTA, 2013c). The Tourism Law considers that the role of the government is to nurture a good policy, market and visiting environment for tourism stakeholders. However, though it was a milestone as the first law for tourism in China, most of the terms and articles were written in a general way. In relation to some of the ‘hot’ issues in tourism administration, the role of this law seems limited. Instead of focusing on the demarcation of authority or delegation, the law emphasises the consistency, integration and coordination of tourism administration (CNTA, 2013c). The new law was not a clear response to the current difficulties in establishing an explicit division or responsibilities under the current government structure. The competition between de­ centralisation and recentralisation in China’s governance still represents a key influence on central–local relations, and this issue still needs further exploration. In particular, it is more difficult to clarify the criteria at this stage for co-administered affairs. The director of the provincial census and plan compiling office expressed the hope that ‘the public can pin down their hope for better tourism governance in the near future, as decentralisation and the perfection of the law would not be achieved in one move’.

Summary This chapter has further probed governance in contemporary China, and specifically tourism governance with reference to tourism practices at the four heritage sites. The discussion suggested that central–local relationships have become more complex since the economic reforms began, but generally there is greater actual and potential local control of resources. As a consequence, there is sometimes greater capacity for creative local leadership

132  Heritage Tourism in China

than in the past. The increasing provincial and local control over resources, the decline in the moral authority of the central state and China’s deeprooted traditional philosophy and officially promoted political philosophy all influenced the differing and sometimes contested views on governance at the local, regional and national levels. Policy makers at the state level and at more local levels often had differing interests and held differing views on the appropriate level in the governance hierarchy for policy making in the tourism field. In terms of administration, for a long time the CNTA has built co­ ordination between ministries into their strategies. Cooperation has become increasingly necessary between different levels of the state and the private sector. Privatisation and partnerships have begun to be important organisational arrangements for decentralisation in the country’s tourism sector. A benefit of this collaboration among stakeholders is that it has the potential to lead to dialogue, negotiation and the building of mutually acceptable proposals on how tourism should be developed. However, in practice the experience of privatisation and partnerships in China’s heritage tourism sector has not been particularly successful, and the growing decentralisation has often encouraged the private sector or even local government to focus on short-term economic returns. The experimentation with devolution, greater participation and partnership arrangements has often resulted in considerable dilemmas for the tourist sites. The incoherence in governance and law making has often intensified differences between regional and departmental interests and exacerbated tensions between central, local and non-public stakeholders. All of these issues are clearly evident from the tourism practices at the four heritage sites. To some extent, these phenomena are due to the major influences of the tradition of a strongly authoritarian state, the rigid political ideology of the CCP, and the current defective administrative arrangements and legal system. With the debates on decentralisation and recentralisation becoming increasingly intense, central government has made great effort to resolve these issues, although only modest benefits have been achieved so far. However, in China the recentralisation policies do not suggest a return to the previous centralised system of governance, as they seem actually to represent a search for solutions that will improve the capacity for de­ centralis­ation in the longer term. In the wrestling between the public authorities at different levels and the non-public stakeholders, the law and regulations play a less important role than the administrative orders and local officials’ personal will. Never­ theless, much effort has been put into changing this by the state government. As manifested at the four heritage sites, these tensions have sometimes meant that officials have been ‘afraid to supervise, reluctant to enforce, and have little knowledge of how to use the law to regulate tourism practices’. Inadvertently or deliberately, the local officials have at times been reluctant

Governance, Tourism Development and the Heritage Sites  133

to promote ‘the rule of law’, despite this being agreed by the CCP Central Committee and promoted by the state government. In response, the central government has sought to improve the legal system, and in the meantime law enforcement has been greatly strengthened by central government. The current somewhat defective systems meant that the transformation of governance has clearly not been completed so far at the four tourism heritage sites. These difficulties clearly have had a significant influence on China’s pursuit of modernity.

5 Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism

Introduction This chapter discusses the representations of heritage in contemporary China based on tourism practices at the four heritage sites. It focuses on two major functions of heritage in China: the use of heritage for identity building, in particular national identity building; and the use of heritage for tourism commodification in order to contribute to China’s ongoing modernisation. The issues examined include the motives for state and local authorities to interpret and represent heritage sites for national identity building, and people’s notions of the concepts of authenticity and tourism commodification in the context of the selected four heritage sites. There are also evaluations of the relationships between tourism commodification and China’s modernisation, and notably, people’s contested perceptions of cultural heritage and appropriate ways to pursue modernity in contem­ porary China.

Heritage Tourism and National Identity Building Heritage, tourism and identity are inextricably linked. Heritage is implicated in issues of identity and the meaning of lived experience through its interconnections with people’s different experiences. Heritage carries with it the potential for multiple expressions of meaning and identity. As a carrier of a nation’s history, heritage combines elements of culture, language, political affiliation, race and religion that together form a national identity. Yet, the tourism industry has been criticised for selecting and promoting only certain aspects of the past as if they were ‘a unified phenomenon representative of the nation’ (Walsh, 1990: 178). At times, heritage is deliberately 134

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  135

used to influence the sentiments of national identity. Heritage interpretation and representation in China clearly are not exempt from the processes of identity building, especially national identity building. The discussion in this section focuses on the role of heritage tourism for national identity building in China.

Political interpretation and representation of heritage sites In the post-Mao era, China has faced multiple challenges to its governance and authority, ranging from the loss of its primary icon to rapid modernisation, and from the end of the Cultural Revolution to the social problems that arose from ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies. In response, China has become engaged in a soul-searching form of nationalism which combines elements of both preservation and renewal, but ties in the faith in a glorious past more directly with a vision of a great future (Flath, 2004) and it is clearly represented through China’s heritage tourism. As stated in the first article of the State Law of Cultural Heritage Protection (NPC, 1982a), the explicit role of heritage sites in China is to ‘carry out patriotic and revolutionary education and build up socialist material and spiritual civilisation’. According to their different historical origins and meanings, heritage sites in China are often politically interpreted for the purpose of ‘Patriotic Education’ (China Central Spiritual Civilisation Office, 2006). This interpretation often embodies significant political meanings related to the heritage sites. This purpose for heritage tourism development in China is confirmed by governmental officials at different levels. An official from the CNTA suggested that heritage sites embody China’s history and tradition, and heritage sites are often considered to be the best textbooks for young generations to understand the nation’s history. The delivery of patriotic education through heritage is a top priority for heritage tourism in China, and it started even earlier than the development of mass tourism with the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies. According to an official from China’s Communist Youth League, Qingdao Committee, ‘using heritage to display the national spirit’ is a common approach of local authorities to enhancing Chinese people’s national identity, especially young people. According to most government officials, the political use of heritage sites is taken for granted and it is the predominant goal for heritage tourism in China. A private stakeholder in Qufu suggested that it was not surprising that heritage was used as a political tool by the Chinese authorities to promote national identity. He contended that heritage would be used by authorities in any country for national identity building as it links with a nation’s past. In his opinion, heritage is given this role largely due to its natural attributes, which relate to the integrity of the history and cultural tradition of a country.

136  Heritage Tourism in China

As discussed in Chapter 2, each of the four heritage sites was given the notably political title of a ‘Patriotic Education Site’ based on its ­historical significance. The senior official from China’s Communist Youth League, Qingdao Committee, indicated that the patriotic education programme was promoted by the CCP Central Propaganda Department, an internal division of the CCP Central Committee. As the highest authority to enforce media censorship and control in China, it accredits and gives the title ‘National Patriotic Education Site’ to heritages sites. An official from the provincial cultural heritage administration explained that heritage sites can be awarded this ‘honourable’ title only if they meet ‘certain criteria’. According to the selection criteria of the Central Propaganda Department, heritage sites must ‘have important cultural values or have significant anti-colonial meanings or be important venues in the history of modern communist revolution’ (Qi, 2005) in order to get approval and be listed as a ‘National Patriotic Education Site’. Based on those three criteria, the authorities use the carefully selected heritage sites to present an officially selected and promoted history to the tourists who visit them. According to the interviews with site managers at the four research sites, even for these heritage sites chosen for national identity building, their historical value needs to be carefully selected before they are commodified for tourist purposes. A site manager at Qufu WHS argued that the historical value embodied in heritage and tradition were ‘not all promoted’ for tourist consumption. He used Confucianism as an example, where it was decided that the ‘positive facet of the philosophy’ and ‘its representation’ should be promoted. Further, insofar as Confucianism might be thought to promote a feudalist exploitative order, it ought to be criticised and it should not be promoted to tourists in a socialist country. Thus, the central and local CCP authorities have responsibilities to separate the ‘positive’ from the ‘negative’ values embodied in heritage sites, and only the ‘positive’ ones are likely to be promoted to tourists. This raises the question of who decides the criteria by which some aspects are considered positive but others negative. As Hall (1994, 1997, 2000) argues, politics is in its very essence about power, and heritage by its very nature is a political phenomenon, since history is usually told from the perspectives of people in positions of power. Thus, national identities are always in a state of transition in the midst of multifarious ‘political, cultural and economic struggles over the meanings of the past’ (Hubbard & Lilley, 2000: 223). A tourism academic suggested that in China tourists are not likely to have the opportunity to choose the way in which the heritage sites are represented, as only the central and local authorities have this prerogative. This was confirmed by a heritage official from the provincial government: while tourists’ opinions probably had some influence on the selection, the final decision would be made by the central and local authorities in charge of heritage administration and promotion, since they needed to ensure the ‘right’ political direction for heritage tourism. As discussed in

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  137

Chapter 4, the central government is not only the policy maker, but through the governmental hierarchy it can ensure that its policy will be firmly implemented by its local branches. A provincial tourism official indicated that only heritage sites that were relevant to ‘national unity, social stability and traditional cultural education’ were selected and promoted by China’s authorities, since they had the officially accredited ‘positive’ components which were contrary to the negative values, such as ‘feudalist, super­stitious values’. This echoes the argument of Norkunas (1993) that the ruling class carefully controls the form and content of historical re-creations and tourist landscapes, legitimising itself by projecting its own contemporary sociocultural values upon the past.

Interpretation and representation of the four heritage sites The interpretation and representation of the four research sites generally can be categorised into two types according to their historical value and implications. In the discussion that follows, the interpretation of Liugong Island war memorials is mainly considered in relation to its anti-colonial meanings and its use to promote nationalism through identity building. Interpretations of the other three sites are largely considered in relation to their traditional meanings, and these are used to promote traditional culture and enhance national unity and pride. In this section, the two types of interpretation are discussed separately.

Liugong Island Sino-Japanese War memorials (1894–95) As introduced in Chapter 2, Liugong Island has important political meanings and implications, as it is a heritage site with war memorials. The 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War was the first large-scale Japanese invasion of China, and as a consequence it connects with the Japanese invasion before and during the Second World War. The commemoration of the 1894–95 SinoJapanese War also has significant political meanings for Chinese authorities, who use it internally to promote national identity building and externally to condemn the history of Japanese aggression against China. In contemporary China, the CCP authorities clearly have two main political intentions for the representation of this heritage site. The first is to use this site to remind people of past humiliation. As indicated by the director of Liugong Island National Scenic Area Administration Committee, Liugong Island is the best place for people, especially young people, to learn anti-colonial history, which can greatly inspire their patriotism. Due to its important historical value, Liugong Island was awarded the titles of National Scenic Area in 1988 by China’s Ministry of Construction, National Key Cultural Heritage Site in 1988 by the State Cultural Heritage Administration, National Youth Education Site in 1995 by China’s Communist Youth League Central Committee, National Patriotic Education Site in 1997, and Red Tourism

138  Heritage Tourism in China

Scenic Area in 2010, by the CCP’s Central Propaganda Department. Many key politicians in central government have visited this site and left written statements. Former President and CCP General Secretary Jiang Zemin even wrote the nameplate for the China 1894–1895 Sino-Japanese War Museum (see Figure 2.5), which clearly demonstrates the historical importance of the site. In recent years, Chinese authorities have attributed further significance to Liugong Island as a site of Chinese indignation over Japan’s refusal to take responsibility for its aggression in the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War, and especially in the Second World War (in China this is termed the antiJapanese War, 1931–45). This must be considered in connection with the continuing anti-Japanese sentiments that have repeatedly resurfaced since the re-­establishment of diplomatic relations in the 1970s. The foremost among these issues is the question of war responsibility. Not only China, but also other Asian countries, in particular South Korea, have condemned the war crimes committed by Japan in the past. With a huge amount of evidence, China regularly charges Japan with distorting the circumstances around the war, especially through its high-school textbooks, which ignore such tragedies as the 1937 Nanjing Massacre (Chang, 2001; Flath, 2004). The regular visits by Japanese politicians, and prime ministers in particular, to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine, which honours war criminals, among other Japanese soldiers, has also caused much anger in China and other countries invaded by Japan. Although Japan and China re-established diplomatic relations in 1972, and signed a friendship pact in 1978, relations continue to be tainted by China’s demand for a formal apology and Japan’s reluctance to comply (Flath, 2004). High-level diplomatic visits from Japan to China have tended to be prefaced by a reiteration of the Chinese evaluation of Japanese atrocities and the call for an apology, and they have concluded with a Japanese expression of ‘denial’ of any crime it may have committed in the past (Cheng, 2005). The recent tensions between China and Japan over the sovereignty of Diaoyu Island have evoked memories of the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War and pushed this heritage site to the forefront. In 1895, as a result of the war, the Maguan Treaty was signed. Diaoyu Island was conceded to Imperial Japan together with Taiwan. The Treaty was superseded in 1945 by the Potsdam Declaration and in 1951 by the Treaty of San Francisco after Japan was defeated by the Allies in the Second World War (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC, 2012). In the Treaty of San Francisco, Japan explicitly relinquished control of Taiwan, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to it (China Net, 2012). However, in April 2012 a fresh row emerged after the Japanese government attempted to ‘nationalise’ Diaoyu Island, which immediately angered China, triggering public and diplomatic protests (BBC, 2014). High-level official communication has since been suspended by the Chinese government (Tang, 2014).

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  139

‘Red tourism’ at Liugong Island focuses on the theme of patriotic education and the promotion of the Chinese spirit. The features promoted at this site relate to patriotic education, national defence education and maritime sovereignty (China 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War Museum, 2014). From the Chinese authorities’ point of view, the promotion of this heritage site could help inspire patriotism among Chinese people and it could be a useful media tool for these messages to be passed to the Chinese people without any adverse consequences for international relations. These functions are indeed served by heritage tourism at Liugong Island. The director of the Liugong Island Sino-Japanese War Museum stated that the heritage relics on Liugong Island were a useful media tool for political propaganda over the Japanese denial of war crimes and continuing misbehaviour over the sovereignty of Diaoyu Island. He suggested that no matter how the current Japanese government denied the crimes committed in the wars, the Sino-Japanese War relics and memorials on the island were historical witness to the invasion by the Japanese army in the late 19th century. On 7 September 2015 the Diaoyu Island Sovereignty Museum was opened on Liugong Island. It was built up by China State Oceanic Administration, Weihai Oceanic and Fishing Bureau and Liugong Island Administration Committee to demonstrate the history and China’s sovereignty over Diaoyu Island. This is a new official response to Japan’s distortion of war history and claim to the island. The director of the Propaganda and Education Department of China State Oceanic Administration commented that as 2015 was the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Second World War, it was their hope that more Chinese people could remember the history and familiarise themselves with the historical truth of Diaoyu Island (China News, 2015). It may be an exaggeration to say that Liugong Island functions as a branch of foreign affairs, but because of the nature of Sino-Japanese relations, edifices like this are international in their implications and they must be evaluated in those terms. As indicated by Admiral Yazhou Liu (2014), a professor at the China National Defence University, ‘the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War ended a century ago but the wound of the war has still not healed. It still lies between history and reality. The questioning of that war becomes a ladder for China’s continual progress.’ As he suggested, the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War has become a historical symbol for Chinese people. This might help explain why this site receives so many ‘titles’ from China’s authorities, and why it is considered to be so important. The other important intention behind the promotion of heritage tourism at Liugong Island seems to legitimise the advantage of the socialist system in China and in particular the great achievement of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies since the late 1970s. As described in Chapter 2, the defeat in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95 was perceived as a symbol of the drastic failure of the ‘Self-Strengthening Movement’ led by the Qing dynasty, which can be seen as demonstrating that modernisation

140  Heritage Tourism in China

and national defence cannot be achieved only by adopting Western industrial technology, but also need to be guided by a new socio-political system. A researcher from the China Academy of Social Science asserted, for example, that the war actually concerned competition between China’s feudal system and Japan’s newly adopted capitalist innovations in the 19th century, rather than competition between their navy fleets. His argument was supported by the director of Liugong Island’s Sino-Japanese War Museum, who suggested that China’s defeat in the 1894–95 Sino-­Japanese War was mainly a consequence of political and ideological issues, with the ‘Self-Strengthening Movement’ not being led by a modern socio-political system, such as capitalism or socialism. Though China had mastered some important Western technologies and had owned a modern fleet at that time, without a compatible and advanced political system, those minor industrial and technological innovations were still insufficient to achieve either modernis­ation or a strong national defence. Based on this critique of the unsuccessful Movement as being based on the ‘backward, feudalist Qing dynasty’ (Mao, 1991: 694), it can be suggested that the fast economic development that has happened in recent years under the leadership of the CCP, and the adoption of a socialist political system, could represent the necessary great achievement of an ‘advanced socialist system’ (Jiang, 1997) led by the CCP. Therefore, on the one hand, this heritage site could be seen as a ‘living textbook’ that can help educate Chinese people and as a practical tool in external foreign affairs. On the other hand, it can be depicted as a symbol of how past political movements have failed, and this can be further used to legitimise the contemporary reign of the CCP and the advantages of a socialist system. In these two contexts it is not hard to understand why there is an active promotion of this site by the CCP authorities.

Traditional cultural heritages of Qufu WHS, Mount Tai WHS and Taiqing Temple Liugong Island has many inherent attributes as a war memorial site for China’s national government to choose it to promote national identity building no matter whether it was awarded the titles of National Patriotic Education Site and of Red Tourism Scenic Area by the state authorities. As indicated by The Guidance for Red Tourism Development and Planning 2004–10, published by the CCP Central Committee and the State Council, this type of tourism development is beneficial to education on the revolutionary tradition and the enhancement of patriotism for the Chinese people, in particular young people; it also links with the nurture and practice of core socialist values (China Government Net, 2011). For the other three heritage sites – Qufu WHS, Mount Tai WHS and Taiqing Temple – the interviews with their site managers and the related heritage administration officials indicated that the promotion of those sites focuses on their cultural meanings. The director of the Propaganda and Historical Records

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  141

Department of Tai’an municipal government suggested that, in Chinese culture, the cultural spirits of Mount Tai embody the unity and stability of the country. The implication of this mountain is that it tells all Chinese people that only a united and stable country can create such a splendid culture, and all Chinese people should be proud of their culture and use this great passion to contribute to the country. Similar arguments were provided by the site managers of the Qufu WHS and Taiqing Taoist Temple. They suggested that their sites and the related patriotic education and promotion focused on the ‘cultural and philosophical meanings’ and the ‘historical positions’ of these heritage sites, with the intention to promote domestic tourists’ cultural and national pride. As symbols of Chinese culture and the country, the role of these sites in national identity building is being reinforced through their presentation to the public. As commented by an official from the provincial cultural heritage administration, Qufu WHS, Mount Tai WHS and Taiqing Temple are representations of ‘Chinese cultural essence’. These sites are cultural carriers of traditional philosophies, such as Con­fucianism and Taoism. These sites play an important role in China’s heritage tourism as they ‘display the cultural traditions and symbols of the country’ to Chinese people, and they ‘inspire their patriotism’. As discussed in Chapter 3, as the cultural root of Chinese tradition, the traditional values of Taoism and Confucianism that are embodied at these sites represent Chinese people’s past and their links with the future. This interpretation was expressed by a researcher from the China Academy of Social Science, who contended that heritage sites included some important components that ‘lie deep in the mind of Chinese people and in the cultural spirits of the nation’. They are the cultural assets for contemporary Chinese people to establish and re-establish their identities. According to Taylor (2004: 193), ‘identity is critical to a sense of place – genius loci – for people’. For the three sites that are associated with Chinese traditional culture, the representation of tradition to domestic tourists who visit these sites, expresses the everyday links of people’s pasts with current notions of the significance of cultural landscapes and ideas of the sacred in the everyday. In China’s heritage tourism, the authorities often seek to create or inspire national homogeneity. As a provincial tourism official stated, heritage tourism can foster a feeling of national belonging for domestic tourists. It is a feeling that they are members of the country of China. The convergence of two initially separate processes – state formation and the construction of national identities – is widely regarded as the aim and achievement of nationalism (Tiryakian & Nevitte, 1985). Heritage sites such as Qufu WHS, Mount Tai WHS and Taiqing Taoist Temple embody ancient myths, ­traditional Chinese philosophies and historical figures from the past. Either through the ancient myths associated with Mount Tai, or through the long-established cultural and philosophical symbolism of Qufu WHS and Taiqing Taoist Temple, China’s authorities seem to have sought to create

142  Heritage Tourism in China

an ‘imagined community’ (B. Anderson, 1991) for the public which may enhance Chinese people’s national identity and improve national soli­darity and unity. This created ‘imagined community’ can encourage people to recognise the existence of the nation as a large-scale solidarity to which they want to belong (B. Anderson, 1991). Thus, heritage tourism in China helps provide a fusion of cultural and political unity that can underpin the concept of the nation.

The political interpretation of heritage for national identity building Among the four heritage sites, through China’s cultural traditions, nationalism actively adds to collective identity, and it can do so only by simultaneously giving people political expression. A site manager from Taiqing Taoist Temple at Mount Lao stated that, in their tourist promotion, they needed to display and demonstrate ‘the splendid culture to Chinese people, to promote the traditions, patriotic love of the motherland, and to contribute to a unified and modernised country’. This suggests that the intentions of the authorities are to display ‘splendid’ cult patriotism through strengthening the senses of ‘motherland’ and ‘unity’. Hence, a nation is fundamentally a political community, which is intrinsically linked to political power (Tiryakian & Nevitte, 1985). In China, the notions of ‘motherland’ and ‘country’ are always closely associated with the ruling party. As a senior member of China’s Democratic Promotion Party suggested, there is a need to distinguish between the two different notions of ‘nation’ and ‘ruling party’ in contemporary China, otherwise it may cause confusion for the public. He further argued that maybe sometimes those two terms were mixed up heedlessly or deliberately, since it was beneficial to the ruling party so as to strengthen its reign. Since the establishment of the PRC in 1949, the CCP has been the only party that can legally hold office in China, and the Chinese government accepts the lead of the CCP (NPC, 1982b). In practice, in China there is no clear difference between the government and the party, and perhaps the authorities have sought to ‘mix them up together’. Thus, the interviewee suggested that, in China, heritage tourism clearly facilitates the fostering of people’s nationalism, which, to a certain extent, would help support the current regime. As set out in Chapter 2, since the launch of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies the cultural heritage of Qufu WHS, Mount Tai and Taiqing Taoist Temple have been greatly promoted by both central and local government authorities. At these three sites, since the implementation of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, the cultural relics have been restored and pilgrimages and religious activities have been permitted once again. Apart from the economic rewards that have been brought by tourism at these sites, apparently heritage at these places has served more political

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  143

functions. As discussed in Chapter 3, one of the main political doctrines of Confucianism is that people should be loyal to the feudalist emperors and follow the socio-economic and political hierarchy; and for Taoism, one of its central political claims is that people should avoid political strife and should concentrate on self-cultivation. Both philosophies can therefore, in a way, assist the authorities to maintain control of the state. There has been active promotion of these sites in recent years. This is especially so for the Confucius cult ceremony in Qufu, the Mount Tai Fengshan ceremony and Taoist religious activities. In addition to the economic objectives for the promotion of heritage tourism, there are other potential agendas. An official who is in charge of international affairs at Qufu city government contended that the promotion of Confucianism and the related sites suggested that the government had recognised the value of Confucianism and how it could provide valuable support for the current form of governance. This view was further explained by a Confucian scholar at a local university, who considered there might be other intentions for the promotion. He argued that an undeniable fact was that the Confucian teachings actually served the political function of encouraging people to respect the social and governmental hierarchy. Therefore, the promotion of Confucianism and its related sites and traditions would benefit the ruling party and the authorities. In his view, the promotion by central and local government of the heritage sites associated with traditional philosophies has an important political meaning, which is to promote the cultural influence of those traditional philosophies on Chinese people. Tourists who visit these sites would receive such messages and be influenced by those philosophical values embodied in them. In this way, it seems that Confucianism and Taoism are gradually being turned from acting as obstacles which block China’s continuing revolution to being a vehicle to enhance national identity and help maintain the government’s reign. The two different types of heritage sites selected for this book – the war memorials and those embodying cultural traditions – suggest there are links between national identity building and heritage tourism in China. China’s heritage tourism packages select symbols of identity as common heritage, and these tourism images of nationhood provide individuals with one means by which they can understand who they are and where they have come from (Palmer, 1999). The heritage tourism practices at the four sites suggest how domestic tourists are making connections between themselves and the nation. Smith (1991: 16) argues that heritage attractions are ‘sacred centres’ or objects of spiritual and historical pilgrimage that reveal the uniqueness of a nation’s ‘moral geography’. In China, heritage helps construct and convey a sense of national identity that is imagined to lie at the heart of the nation’s soul (Palmer, 1999). Questions concerning the way such symbols are used are of particular salience for China, for here they are an important means of giving tourists ‘patriotic education’ based on the government’s selections

144  Heritage Tourism in China

and interpretations. Heritage sites are employed to promote tourism at a variety of different destinations, and one aim is to package a national identity for sale to tourists as ‘one of the principal colourings of the tourist vision’ (Horne, 1984: 166). In this way, China’s heritage becomes part of a structure of power, whereby the selection of authoritative and monumental inscriptions of the past creates authority in the present. The construction of a modern monument in Liugong Island, or the reconstitution of ancient monuments at Qufu WHS, Mount Tai WHS and the Taiqing Taoist Temple, ‘does not invalidate past inscriptions as negative examples, but rather it manipulates them so that they become positive tools for the legitimacy’ of the current authority (Flath, 2004). The successful use of heritage tourism depends on channelling representations into specific forms of memory that support the interests of those with authority over the sites. Hence, in China, the glorious past, like the glorious future, is applied to support authority in the present.

Heritage Tourism Commodification and Authenticity Tourism, as with many other forms of economic activity, may appear to be a path to modernity for many developing countries. The discussion in this section focuses on tourism commodification at the four heritage sites and people’s perceptions of their authenticity. It first examines heritage tourism as a form of development at the four heritage sites, and how local government has used heritage for tourism purposes. It then discusses people’s differing perceptions of the authenticity of the heritage representations and commodification.

Tourism commodification and economic development Since 1978 both central and local government in China have become increasingly enthusiastic about tourism as a stimulus to economic growth and modernisation (Wen & Tisdell, 2001). Deng recognised in 1979 that ‘there is a lot to be achieved through tourism’ and that this industry could ‘increase national income’ (CNTA, 2000a, 2000b) and the state agencies subsequently endorsed tourism as ‘a vehicle which could help achieve national and local economic development, especially for poor areas with rich tourism resources’ (Z. Hu, 2005: 52). The new emphasis on tourism for economic development has encouraged the restoration of numerous heritage sites. This was evident in the interviews with the national-level tourism authorities. A respondent from the Development and Financial Department of the CNTA indicated that, as an important industry in China, tourism helped the country realise its modernisation by increasing

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  145

the receipt of foreign currency and raising funds for the environment and heritage preservation. When an official from the Planning and Statistics Department of the CNTA was asked about the role of heritage tourism in economic development, he commented that heritage was an important tourism resource, which should be appropriately developed to improve local people’s living standards and contribute to the country’s modernisation. Officials from the National Tourism Administration suggested that they were attempting to encourage heritage commodification, since it could ‘raise the amount of income’ and ‘bring economic benefits’ for the country and local residents. From their perspective, tourism commodification could help realise local economic development and indirectly contribute to the country’s modernisation. This view was widely shared by the local authorities, especially the aim to promote development in economically less developed regions that have important heritage resources. As stated in Chapter 2, tourism plays an important role in local economic development and modernisation. The cities of Qufu and Tai’an are located in economically less developed regions and lack a strong industrial foundation and necessary investment, and thus heritage tourism based on Confucius and Mount Tai has become a major driving force for local economic development. The director of the propaganda and heritage department for Tai’an city government suggested that local mass tourism had brought job opportunities to local residents and funds for local urban construction. Similarly, Qufu is a county-level city without a strong industrial foundation. An official from the local government’s international affairs office suggested that the local economy was largely relying on tourism and its related sectors. Although, as coastal cities, Weihai and Qingdao have a strong industrial foundation that attracts domestic and foreign investment, tourism in these two cities still plays a critical economic role and it is depicted as one of their ‘pillar industries’ (Shandong Tourism Administration, 2005). A tourism official from Qingdao government suggested that, although tourism is not the only major industry in Qingdao, a well-established tourism industry could enhance the local image, which in turn could increase local revenue and attract more investment. Local authorities at the four sites held similar perceptions to those of the central state authorities. At the four heritage sites, tourism development, especially mass tourism, was a widely accepted and adopted model by the local authorities, since it can greatly ‘hasten the speed of local economic development’ (Shandong Tourism Administration, 2005). Local tourism officials at the four heritage sites indicated that the perceived benefits of tourism could take different forms or be measured in various ways, encompassing foreign currency earnings, employment generation, increased tax revenues and revitalisation through the multiplier effect on related economic sectors, such as light manufacturing or cultural industries at the local level.

146  Heritage Tourism in China

Perceptions of authenticity and commodification Mass tourism based on heritage brings benefits and significant changes to local areas, but it raises questions as to whether the commodification of heritage sites for mass tourism consumption would jeopardise the authenticity of heritage sites. It is therefore important to explore how local authorities presented the authenticity of the heritage site to tourists, when tourism commodification was widely accepted by the state and local authorities. An authentic heritage site may reinforce the associations made with the past which people consider to be of significance. According to Feilden and Jokilehto (1993), authenticity is ascribed to a heritage resource that is materially original or genuine (as it was constructed) and as it has aged and changed in time. People’s perceptions of tourism commodification and authenticity at the four heritage sites were complex. Attracted by economic rewards, government officials tend to quickly restore and commodify more heritage sites for tourism in order to receive more financial rewards. As a provincial tourism official suggested, since the early 1980s the provincial tourism administration had started to restore the historical sites and relics in the province and till early 1990s almost all sites which have significant historical meanings have been restored and opened up to tourists. In his view the main purpose for the restoration of heritage sites was largely to bring in more tourist income for local people. This view was fairly representative of the opinions expressed by the tourism officials who were interviewed. From their point of view, heritage inherently serves tourism commodification. However, officials from heritage protection agencies normally held rather different views. For instance, a provincial heritage official argued that he could not agree with the idea of mass tourism at heritage sites and that he did not support the idea of restoring heritage sites for economic purposes ‘in a rush’, since, at this stage, cultural heritage staff have insufficient technical skills and methods to restore authentic relics well. He further argued that the current approach to heritage restoration actually causes more damage to the heritage sites, which was ‘irresponsible from a long-term view’. A heritage official from the provincial history museum expressed a similar view: he also could not accept the ‘upsurge’ in the restoration of heritage sites, since the ‘overreach’ of tourism commodification was ‘often the biggest obstacle to restoring authentic heritage’. Thus the cultural heritage officials generally held rather different views from the staff from the tourism authorities. They tended to believe that restoration for preservation was often just an excuse for tourism commodification, and that these kinds of irresponsible activities could do more harm than good in terms of heritage preservation and would sometimes only offer inauthentic heritage for tourists. A provincial heritage official argued that some tourism staff ’s claims to restore heritage sites were in fact motivated by the potential economic rewards of heritage

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  147

tourism and the authenticity of the heritage was often heedlessly or even deliberately neglected in this process. According to the State Law of Cultural Heritage Protection (NPC, 2002), the restoration of cultural heritage sites must ‘follow the principle of not changing its original historical appearance’ (article 14). However, this is not always the case in practice. A scholar from the China Academy of Social Science stated that the guidelines for restoring heritage are to restore items to their original appearance and status, but in practice the restoring of many heritage sites had failed that principle. Many heritage sites, such as Mount Tai and Mount Lao, have received severe criticism from tourists for their inauthenticity. In his opinion, the local planners simply intended to restore them as soon as they could for tourism purpose. A tourism academic thought that through this type of restoration local planners would merely want heritage sites to become ‘hens to lay golden eggs’. The guidelines prescribed in the law have clearly not been strictly enforced by the local authorities in practice. At times, tourists visit heritage sites with modern reconstructions or receive rather inauthentic heritage products. Authenticity is not always the primary goal for the local authorities when they restore and commodify heritage. The economic rewards are actually often the underlying motive for people to restore historical sites in ways that ignore the principles set out in the regulations and the law. When discussing the issue of authenticity at heritage sites, there is often much argument about what kinds of heritage sites are authentic. Who sets the criteria, and who determines the authenticity of heritage? In China, the restoration or reconstruction of cultural heritage relics should be authorised and supervised by the national and local cultural heritage administrations (NPC, 2002). This suggests that the official authorised sites should be the legitimate, ‘authentic’ heritage. However, as argued by a provincial cultural heritage official, for many historical reasons, some original and authentic information on cultural heritage sites cannot be found, and therefore the restoration of ‘authorised official’ authentic heritage can be based only on experts’ ‘knowledge and ex­perience’. A provincial tourism official indicated that even archaeologists at the national level could only sometimes make a ‘guess’ about the real appearance of some historical relics. He further commented that since heritage specialists could not describe the authentic relics, it would be ironic to say their version of restoration is perfectly authentic. Thus, it could be argued that an ‘ultimate authenticity’ (Hanson, 1989: 898) for some heritage sites is not achievable, at least for now. To suggest such authenticity to tourists is almost impossible for local and national authorities. Thus, whether something is ‘authentic’ or merely the official ‘authorised’ version will always be negotiable or contested. However, this raises some other questions. If authentic heritage cannot be achieved, then why do these four heritage sites keep receiving large volumes of tourists? Do the tourists visiting those sites pay attention to an

148  Heritage Tourism in China

authentic representation of heritage? According to the local officials from the research sites, in practice, a large number of tourists paid limited attention to the actual authenticity of the heritage at those sites. As a Qufu tourism official noted in relation to their hosting the Confucius cult ceremony as a tourism event every year, although all the music, clothes, utensils and other facilities were replicas based on the historical record, the whole ceremony was inevitably a show for tourists, since they desired to watch it. According to his experience over many years, the feedback from most tourists was generally positive, even as a modern performance. For the Taiqing Taoist Temple, a serious problem for local site managers is the inauthentic relics and heritage, since they have regularly received complaints from academics and journalists. However, a tourism official stated that she knew and understood why this happened at the temple. Though some of the inscriptions (normally with the site’s name on them) are reconstructions, they are still very popular with tourists. Tourists are in favour of taking photos featuring them, since they can share those photos with their friends and relatives. She further indicated that, in contrast, tourists seldom took photos of the ‘real’ relics. This kind of phenomenon can be observed at Liugong Island as well. A site manager contended that the tourists preferred to go to a modern war museum which demonstrated the history of the war through modern technology, rather than go to the old museum (the former Beiyang naval headquarters) which displayed the ‘authentic’ historical relics. The comments of several local officials and site managers suggested that many tourists paid less attention to the absolute authen­ticity of the heritage sites they visited. Compared to authentic ones, sometimes they even preferred the recently created ‘historical’ attractions or modern reconstructions or replicas, and the ‘authentic’ relics at those sites received less attention. The intention of some tourists visiting these sites seems not to have been to search for an absolutely ‘real’ past or ‘authentic’ relics. Some of them may largely prefer to collect evidence that they have been to those sites. This may help explain why many spent much of their visiting time just taking photos at the sites, for instance of the inscriptions with the name of the site, since these photos provided good evidence for them to demonstrate their visiting experience to others. Their recognition of authenticity stays largely at the level of the ‘real’ place, rather than any further exploration of the authenticity of the attractions. The local site managers did not seem especially unhappy with this situation, since the designing and creating of this kind of historical attraction can increase the financial rewards from heritage tourism. A site manager at Mount Tai argued that they built those attractions only in an attempt to meet the demand of the market, as many of the visitor paid little attention to this issue. He further argued that if tourists did not care about authenticity, then why should the site manager or the tourism authorities bother about that? In his view it is an ironic ‘win–win’ situation. Another explanation

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  149

for the popularity of these newly created historical attractions is that there is tourist demand to see ‘staged’ culture. This happens at Qufu and Liugong Island, where the cult ceremony at Qufu’s Confucius temple and the new museum at Liugong Island actually involve a ‘staged authen­ticity’. In the cult ceremonies, local authorities combine both more ‘authentic’ music and ancient traditions with new technology. It raises the question of whether these commercialised performances or shows can be considered ‘authentic’. Since an ‘ultimate’ authenticity is not achievable at the four sites, from the discussion above, the tourists and local authorities seem to have reached a certain kind of consensus. According to the site managers, many tourists prefer to come to these sites to watch the ‘authentic’ performance and many of them really enjoy it. However, the local authorities would like to present the more ‘official’ version of authentic performance to tourists. Yet neither side seems to break through this equilibrium in a search for a more visionary, absolute authenticity. As the site manager at Mount Tai said: ‘why bother?’ What is implied is that authenticity is simply impossible, and thus the quest for authenticity is not realisable in China’s heritage tourism. Consequently, perhaps the validity of a search for ‘authenticity’ should be questioned. Bruner (1991: 241) argues that authenticity implies the ‘existence of a true original, an authentic’ but, from the heritage tourism practices in China, it might be argued that there are few or even no originals, and perhaps only endless reproductions. Further, in China many tourists do not necessarily seek full ‘authenticity’; rather, they appear to be willing to accept a moderately contrived show or reproduction. Therefore, the ‘concept of authenticity may be a red herring that serves to mystify rather than to clarify many issues’ (Bruner, 1991: 241). Similarly, Hanson (1989: 898) asserts that ‘no one bit of behaviour can be said to have ultimate authen­ ticity’, to be the absolute and eternal ‘right way’, of which all the others are representations. In his view, all of the bits of behaviour are models: models of previous bits and models for subsequent ones (Hanson, 1989). Hence, the notion of what is traditional and authentic is constantly being symbolically re-created and contested.

Contested Perceptions of Heritage Tourism and Modernity in China The interpretation and representation of heritage sites in China are a complex process. As discussed earlier, government officials at different levels, stakeholders from different backgrounds and academics all hold rather different and sometimes contested perceptions of heritage tourism. This section first explores these complex perceptions of different groups of people. Then, based on that discussion and through an exploration of

150  Heritage Tourism in China

the representations of heritage tourism, the section further explores how heritage sites link the past and future for Chinese people and how Chinese people search for ways to pursue their own modernity.

Contested perceptions of heritage tourism and modernisation As suggested earlier in this chapter, heritage tourism at the four heritage sites is promoted for various purposes, and it serves several functions for different groups of stakeholders. It seems that national identity building and economic benefits are two major objectives behind the national and local authorities promoting these heritage sites. As discussed in Chapter 2, in China, heritage had a poor – even disreputable – status during the Cultural Revolution, but then became a boom industry in the late 1970s. The current representations of heritage tourism are tightly connected with China’s ongoing modernisation process and with Chinese people’s search for modernity. In this process, the current representations presented at heritage sites have various implications for Chinese people. As suggested by an official from the CNTA, the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies in China were initially based on a critique of the rigid ‘Soviet model’, which was depicted by Deng Xiaoping as a highly centralised planned economy (Deng, 1993: 139). He went on to assert that, as an economic sector, ‘a change of attitude toward tourism and heritage was necessary’. Then he further elaborated that the abandoning of the ‘Soviet model’ did not mean China would abandon Marxism and socialism. The experiences from Western capitalist countries can and should be used as a source of reference. In particular, heritage embodies valuable meanings for contemporary China and can be commodified to serve economic development but should not be viewed as a representation of the backward feudalist tradition. This opinion is premised on the belief that when China abandons the ‘Soviet model’, it can ‘refer to the experience’ of Western countries. In the meantime, the CCP authorities still retain socialist values as the official political ideology, while, in the economic domain, Western capitalist experiences are accepted as having value. Thus, socialist values prevail, even while the capitalist model of developing the national economy is adapted, since that keeps the ‘right socialist direction’ (Jiang, 1997). This stance was similarly expressed by an official from the CNTA who indicated that the promotion of heritage for tourist consumption could help enhance Chinese people’s national identity and speed up the country’s modernisation. From his point of view, China’s modernisation would not be the same as that of either the former Soviet Union or Western capitalist countries. Apparently, state government officials still hold the doctrine that China’s modernisation will be achieved not only economically but also politically, and that this will be different from Western capitalism as it is based on socialist ideology. This reflects Deng Xiaoping’s claim that China ‘will build socialism with

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  151

Chinese character­istics’ (Deng, 1993: 139). Therefore, China’s development model is a unique way to pursue socialist modernisation. In this national project, since the tourism industry is in the economic domain, heritage could be commodified, as it is in Western countries, since it can facilitate the country’s economic development. From the political perspective, however, tourism, and especially heritage tourism, could and should contribute to the official version of national identity building. The local authorities welcome policies that commodify heritage for tourist consumption, since they can benefit from this national project. Some local officials believe that Western-style commodification of heritage sites could greatly speed up local economic development, and for some tourism-dependent regions local modernisation largely depends on whether or not there is a successful tourism industry. A tourism official from Tai’an city stated that the development of heritage for tourism purposes was ‘a right and wise decision’ made by central government since it hastened the city’s modernisation. Heritage tourism has often been integrated into the project for local modernisation and sometimes it plays a vital role. Local economic development is the main goal for local authorities, which differs from the main goals for national government. A tourism official from Qingdao suggested that many tourism stakeholders paid little attention to the political representations of heritage tourism; rather, achieving prosperity for local people was more important. Clearly, many local authorities would prefer to make use of the national policy in order to achieve local economic modernisation, and many of them sometimes gave less attention to the political aspects of this kind of development. It suggested that, since Deng’s ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, China’s political direction has changed to that of economic develop­ ment and rapid modernisation. Heritage tourism has been tightly integrated into this modernisation process. Yet many Chinese people wish to find an alternative development route to orthodox Marxism or Western capitalism. However, it seems that in China people from different backgrounds do not have consistent views on the nature of this modernisation. Government officials, for example, tend to use GDP as the key indicator to measure the level of modernisation in a specific region. The director of the provincial census and plan compiling office indicated that a widely accepted indicator for national and provincial officials to refer to when making policies and plans was GDP. Central government in particular favours the use of GDP to evaluate local officials’ political achievements, and this encourages officials at local and state levels to focus on increasing it. The origin of this evaluation can be traced to the long-term development plan made by Deng. As Deng stated in his long-term development strategy for China (Deng, 1993: 139), the modernisation for China will be realised in three stages, and the goal of the third and final stage (up to 2050) is that ‘GDP should be doubled compared with the 1990s’ and that ‘the people’s living standards should

152  Heritage Tourism in China

reach the same level as Western medium-developed countries (i.e. Germany, the UK and France)’. In the plan there were no other key indicators to measure the level of modernisation and the concept of ‘the people’s living standards’ in the plan remains unclear and abstract. However, other groups of stakeholders disagreed with this approach to modernisation. In interview, a senior member of China’s Democratic Promotion Party criticised the current policy of using GDP as a single standard to evaluate the level of modernisation. He argued that modernisation should be understood using a series of systematic indicators, and that the central government’s use of GDP as the key indicator to evaluate the level of development was a really ‘risky’ trend. According to his view, the concept of modernisation is a relative and dynamic notion, and the process of attaining modernisation should never have a single and specific goal. A similar argument was put forward by a researcher from the China Academy of Social Science, who contended that modernisation is a complicated concept which should include many aspects, not only GDP. He further argued that having a well-developed economy is insufficient, as having a modernised, democratic system and cultural prosperity are also important. These respondents endowed the notion of modernisation with more implications. They argued that modernisation should be a holistic issue that contains other indicators in order to fully evaluate the development level of society. Many of them also argued that the concept of modernisation should not be seen as a static stage which China has not yet reached. Rather, it is a dynamic process and the notion of modernisation should be a relative concept, dialectical in nature.

Tradition and modernity represented through heritage tourism While people hold different views on China’s modernisation, different groups of stakeholders hold contested views on the role of heritage and tradition in contemporary Chinese society. Although many central and local governmental officials emphasise the economic function of heritage tourism, some of them recognise other social values of heritage. As mentioned in Chapter 3, since the implementation of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, the restoration of heritage sites for tourist purposes has been accompanied by a gradual restoration of traditional events and festivals at these sites. However, different groups of stakeholders hold rather different views on this, as seen at the four heritage sites. The boom in heritage visits in China has seen more academics and more Chinese people generally becoming concerned with the preservation of traditional culture. Since the early 1980s, many people have intended to revive the traditional philoso­ phies, such as Con­fucianism and Taoism, in various formats, such as by promoting the classics, publishing public declarations and holding forums convened by celebrities. Following this trend, some scholars are no longer

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  153

satisfied with the emphasis only on tourism at the heritage sites, and they have often taken the lead in restoring Chinese cultural tradition through heritage tourism. At the same time, the growth of tourism at China’s heritage sites based on traditional values reflects the central state beginning to re-evaluate those values. This new assessment has complex roots. The ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies encouraged China’s leaders to start searching for ways to legitimise the incorporation of market forces within socialism and to maintain the CCP’s political dominance (Sofield & Li, 1998). According to an archaeologist from the provincial history museum, the restoration of heritage sites and the boom in heritage tourism represented the state’s rerecognition of traditional values. An academic from the China Academy of Social Science noted that heritage and tradition serve different functions in contemporary society. Whether it serves a political function or not, it is the cultural link for Chinese people to connect the past with their future. He felt that domestic tourists visiting heritage sites are looking for their history, which is ‘a kind of nostalgia’, and the evolution and changing attitudes to heritage tourism in China demonstrate that Chinese people have a new recognition of heritage and traditional culture. At the four heritage sites, and most notably at Qufu WHS, the restoration and promotion of the Confucius cult ceremony have attracted much public attention in recent years. A Confucian scholar from a university in Qufu claimed that, as the root of Chinese tradition, Confucianism would and should be used to rebuild Chinese people’s cultural identity. In his view, restoring the long-established Chinese traditions, such as holding the annual Confucius cult ceremony, would be a good opportunity to revive Confucianism and Chinese cultural tradition. In contrast, the Qufu local authorities’ staff saw promotion of the Confucius cult ceremony as a tourism programme added to the existing heritage tourism. The director of Qufu Tourism Administration suggested that local heritage tourism should not be limited to a rigid model of site visits, as more cultural content needed to be added to the existing products offered to visitors. In particular for Qufu, hosting the Confucius cult ceremony can both further increase tourist volumes and carry forward Chinese cultural tradition. Other stake­holders had different motives for the restoration of ­traditional events, notably the Confucius cult ceremony. Academics and the proponents of Chinese traditional culture, especially the descendants of Confucius, hoped the restoration of the Confucius cult ceremony would re-establish the historical position of Confucianism and revive a Chinese cultural tradition. One Confucian scholar suggested that Confucianism deserves better representation, and people should promote this aspect of Chinese culture to the tourists who visit this place. Another group of people, in particular people from the private sector, preferred to use Confucianism in order to cope with the influence of Western culture and

154  Heritage Tourism in China

sometimes to follow the route of other countries in East and South East Asia with Confucian traditions so as to find an alternative way to pursue China’s modernity. They often actively promote a combination of traditional Confucian philosophical values with certain components of Western capitalism in order to pursue an alternative modernity for China. A tour operator from Qufu suggested that China’s modernity need not be built on Western capitalism or socialism. There should be an alternative way that combines Confucianism with the market economy. From his point of view, an alternative modernity could be based on the traditional Chinese philosophy of Confucianism rather than on the officially promoted ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’ or Western capitalism. In his opinion, a market economy with a social order based on Confucian values would be the ideal society for certain groups of people, especially private sector stakeholders. Apparently, this group of people was greatly influenced by the idea of ‘Confucian capitalism’, and some of the successful practices that have taken place in some East and South East Asian countries. From their perspective, Confucian values in contemporary China can be utilised for rebuilding social morality or even new kinds of social relationships at the same time as there is an ongoing economic transition from a socialist planned economy to a more market-oriented economy. Since the introduction of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, the national leadership has begun to see how a selective revival of traditional Chinese values might help to reduce the tensions in Chinese society (Yan & Bramwell, 2008). This was because in the past these values had underpinned Chinese people’s sense of social responsibility and shared national identity, and thus a limited revival of these values might allow for a smoother transition from a socialist planned economy to a more marketoriented economy, and for a greater acceptance of a distinctive Chinese approach to development that combines socialism with certain capitalist features (Mackerras et al., 1994). The CCP authorities saw the rising tensions between socialist principles and the operation of the market economy, and they were aware that after three decades of economic reform there were social issues endangering the stability of the country. After the 10 years of the Cultural Revolution and more than 30 years of implementation of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies, social morality had been substantially eroded. There was a growing belief that market expansion had encouraged a ‘moral vacuum’ in Chinese society, as seen in trends towards materialism, the pursuit of individual rather than collective advancement, and increasing selfishness. An official from the provincial census and plan compiling office argued that this situation has arisen largely due to the loss of Chinese tradition, ­especially traditional values. Similarly, a private sector stakeholder from Tai’an asserted that rapid economic development had been at the expense of ‘a loss of the proud, traditional morals’. Rising social crises and problems

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  155

in human relationships in China have pushed people to rebuild the lost morality and to search for a proper way to adjust their human relationships in contemporary society. Apparently, this situation has given Chinese ­traditions much more space in which to be revived, especially Con­fucianism, as almost all its principles deal with human relationships and the social order. Confucius contended that a dearth of intellectual activity had undermined society and led to moral degradation (Hu, 1996). Confucius sought to resolve these problems by embarking on a campaign that emphasised the responsibilities of the individual within society. Political leaders, in particular, had the responsibility to demonstrate exemplary behaviour before the community could be expected to show similar attributes. Contemporary society in China shares certain similarities with the Confucius era, and this endows Confucianism with a certain timelessness. Further, the position of the CCP might be strengthened by a modest revival of traditional values because previously those values had encouraged an acceptance of established authority and leadership. An official from the provincial cultural heritage administration contended that cultural heritage was being ‘re-evaluated’ and its meanings reinterpreted for differing purposes by national government since Deng’s reforms in the late 1970s. China’s former President and former CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao (2005) has regularly advocated the need to ‘build a socialist harmonious society’. A Confucian scholar from a university in Qufu suggested that because ‘harmony’ is a key Confucian term to depict the ideal society, Hu’s phrase might imply there are merits in combining some features of Confucianism with socialism. This may help explain why, after Deng’s reforms, the Chinese state has accepted a gradual increase in traditional cultural activities, including encouragement to expand tourism at sites associated with traditional values. This increasing acceptance of Confucianism is evident at Qufu WHS, to which former Prime Minister Li Peng and former President Jiang Zemin paid visits in 1991 and 1992, respectively. Li left a written statement that the site ‘derives from the essence of Confucianism and promotes the magnificence of our Chinese culture’ (Xu, 1993: i). In 1997, due to its great cultural influence in history, Qufu WHS was awarded the title of National Patriotic Education Site by the CCP’s Central Propaganda Department. A provincial heritage official suggested that these actions had further loosened the control of this site and directed people’s perceptions of this heritage site to its history and the contemporary social value of Confucianism rather than to its ‘negative’ aspects. For the traditional annual Confucius cult ceremony at Qufu WHS, which was promoted strongly by local officials, academics, private sector stakeholders and the descendants of Confucius, the central state authorities finally agreed to upgrade the ‘civil cult ceremony’ (as it was known from 1993) to a ‘public cult ceremony’ in 2005. It became ‘public’ as some central government representatives were involved. In that year, the ceremony was attended for the first time by representatives of two important national

156  Heritage Tourism in China

organisations, the CNTA and the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television, and by international organisations that required national authorisation to participate, such as the UNESCO and the International Confucian Committee. This was in addition to the officials of various local and regional government organisations that had been involved for several years, such as representatives of Qufu city government, Jining municipal government, Shandong provincial government and the Shandong provincial tourism administration. Those attending also included representatives of two non-governmental organisations: the Chinese Culture Promotional Organisation and the China Confucius Foundation. A manager at the site claimed that increasing support from higher-level authorities meant that the 2005 ceremony would be on ‘the largest scale yet in the PRC’s history’. For the first time, China’s Central TV station broadcast the event live to the world, and the Qufu organisers used their connections with 30 Confucius temples in other countries to hold simultaneous ceremonies. According to an official from the Qufu Tourism Administration, they sought to make the 2005 ceremony ‘more authentic and traditional than previously was the case’. The ceremony was fully modelled according to historical records, with traditional utensils used for the food offerings and everyone attending wearing traditional Chinese clothes. A descendant of Confucius took the lead role in the ceremony, and the mayor of Qufu was the ‘master of ceremonies’ who read out a ‘cult text’ in front of the temple’s statue of Confucius as part of the ceremony. That text was drafted by a scholar from Qufu Normal University, who explained how it ‘tried to explain a Confucian perspective on human and environmental relationships, traditional culture, the building of social or moral standards, China’s economic revival, and on political science’ (Wenweipo, 2005). The support of the local authorities for the 2005 ceremony was evident in the substantial role now taken by Qufu’s mayor. The text he read drew on many political slogans and phrases used by past national leaders in major speeches, and this openly linked the ceremony and the involvement of this local government leader with the views of China’s national leadership. While the 2005 public ‘cult ceremony’ differed from those held in the feudal period, a Chinese ‘cultural conservative’ academic argued that it was through this ceremony that the CCP authorities declared to the world that they respected Confucius and his philosophy – Confucianism. If the evolution of the Confucius cult ceremony represents a turning point for the change of official attitude, the current President’s interest in Confucianism may take it to the next level. On 26 November 2013, President Xi Jinping paid an official visit to Qufu WHS – six months after he became the President and CCP General Secretary. In his talk with scholars and experts from the Confucius Research Institute in Qufu, he stated that research on Confucius and Confucianism should be based on historical materialism; it should stick to the principle that the past should serve the

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  157

present and in this way Confucianism could play a positive role in the new era (Cui, 2014). On 29 September 2014 President Xi attended the Commemoration Forum for the 2565th anniversary of Confucius’ birth. This was the first time in the PRC’s history that the supreme national leader attended such an event, as previous commemorations had been attended only by a delegate from the Standing Committee of the CCP Central Committee. At that Forum, President Xi stressed that China’s outstanding tradition and culture reflected the world-view, outlook on life, values and aesthetic standards of Chinese people. The core contents of the tradition formed the cultural gene and the unique cultural identity of the Chinese people (China Daily, 2015). President Xi also pointed out that the splendid traditional culture can provide the guidance for people to recognise and transform the world. More importantly, it offers inspiration for politics and governance and provides guidance for moral construction (China Daily, 2015). Compared with former state leaders, Xi emphasised the practicality of the traditional culture in contemporary China. He fully recognised the values of the traditional Chinese culture and philosophies and their use in the moral construction. Similarly, from his point of view the wisdom of traditional Confucianism can be borrowed for contemporary governance. With the increase in economic power, Chinese people have demonstrated a confidence in traditional Chinese culture. Recent changes in attitudes on the part of political leaders have catered for the public passion to revive the cultural tradition. As an essential part of the ‘soft power’ (Nye, 2004) of the country, the revival of traditional culture, such as Confucianism, helps with a better understanding of the historical roots of the Chinese spiritual world and helps build Chinese modernity, or, quoting the popular political phrase used by the CCP, achieve ‘the great re­juvena­tion’ of China (CCP News, 2013). Hence, whether it is former President Hu’s proposal to rebuild a ‘harmonious society’ or Xi’s idea to adapt Confucianism for contemporary society and governance, they all symbolise an official revival of traditional culture. The CCP’s return to Chinese traditional philosophy may not be the political leaders’ personal preference or a kind of expedient measure; rather, it might be due to the development of Chinese society and changes in both the domestic and the international situation. In particular, in the context of economic globalisation, political multi-polarisation and cultural diversity of the world, the culture of a nation sometimes becomes the icon of national rejuvenation. More importantly, it can help the CCP retain political legitimacy after more than 60 years of leading the country. The revival of Confucianism is a complex cultural and political movement that facilitates a redefinition of Chinese culture and identity. As the mainstream traditional Chinese culture, Confucianism has deep historical and cultural roots in China. It makes it the most important resource to help Chinese people pursue modernity, reconstruct society and build the Chinese national identity.

158  Heritage Tourism in China

Summary The discussion in this chapter suggests that within the landscapes of the heritage industry can be found the terrain of modernity itself. Tourism is an important medium through which modernity’s contradictions are ex­ perienced. Heritage is implicated in issues of identity and the meaning of lived experience through its interconnections with differential ex­periences of the world. Heritage carries the potential for multiple expressions of meaning and identity. Thus, heritage, tourism and identity are inextricably linked. In China, as evidenced by the four heritage sites, the formation of people’s identity is closely related to, and influenced by, historical, cultural and political aspects of society, and heritage can be explained and promoted in various ways by different stakeholders. In particular, for government officials heritage tourism appears to have been seen as a vehicle to promote national identity and enhance national coherence. Heritage tourism was chosen to be a vehicle to promote national identity and speed up China’s modernisation. The selection, interpretation and use of heritage sites are a political process in China. For such reasons, the identity represented by heritage products is contested and constantly negotiated and renegotiated. Heritage resources are a selection from and a reflection of the past. According to the views of respondents from different sectors, the processes of selection, representation and targeting of the four heritage sites were driven by the promotion of national identity and economic rewards. The commodification of heritage and of traditions for tourism purposes was deeply implicated in the project of national and local modernisation, and this made the relationships between tourism commodification and the authen­ticity of heritage especially complex and negotiable. The practices found at the four heritage sites suggest that the quest for authenticity is not fully realisable. From the heritage tourism practices at these sites in China, there are few originals, and perhaps only endless reproductions. Based on the evidence from the four sites, it seems that, anyway, tourists do not neces­sarily seek absolute authenticity; rather, they are often willing to accept fairly contrived shows or reproductions. From the heritage tourism practices at the four sites, it appears that many people in China believe that ‘modernity’ is a developmental stage that they have not yet reached. In this context, the state authorities tend to mainly use GDP as the indicator by which to evaluate modernisation or local development. This itself probably encourages people to conceive of Western industrial modernisation as a defined and fixed goal. At the same time, some other people in China believe that there should be alternative ways for the nation to achieve its own modernity, whether that is the officially defined modern ‘socialist’ country, a ‘market economy based on Confucianism’ promoted by some academics and private sector stakeholders, or the widely favoured economically well-developed country. Some people believe that

Representations of Modernity Through Heritage Tourism  159

reaching this goal involves innovation and changes so that their ‘tradition’ is left behind. But other people seem to see modernity not as a stable state or an unattained goal, and some do not necessarily see it as involving abandoning Chinese traditions. Indeed, in some respects tradition may gain in importance. The revival of Chinese traditions navigates the tension between tradition and modernity and, more importantly, it provides further evidence that tradition and modernity are explicitly opposed. From this perspective, the relationships between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ are viewed as socially constructed, contingent and inter-related. In this way, the view from the present, looking either backwards to a past or forwards to a future, involves ‘heritage’ as the contemporary use of the past. The representations of the past as heritage are a bridge that connects the past, present and future. Thus, traditional sites cannot be seen simply as ‘primitive’ and unchanging; rather, it should be recognised that their presentation and interpretation for locals and tourists are negotiated among local and extra-local parties, and between the locals and tourists, and that it is a reflection of contemporary society.

6 Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites

Introduction With rapid economic growth, there have been considerable tensions within China between economic development and the deterioration of the physical and cultural environment. In particular, the influence of traditional values, socialist values and Western capitalist values has produced a complex situation, and the idea of sustainable development has often been revised to that of sustainable economic development due to the pressures of rapid modernisation. As a result, environmental and cultural concerns have often given way to economic calculation in the course of China’s development. As part of this agenda, heritage tourism is often perceived as a vehicle to help the state and locals to achieve modernisation, but this has sometimes further aggravated the destruction of heritage as well as of the local environ­ment. This has been clearly evident in the tourism practices at the four heritage sites. This chapter identifies some of the threats and opportunities that market liberalisation may pose for heritage tourism products, with evidence drawn from the four heritage sites. Firstly, the discussion of heritage tourism practices at the four sites continues the discussion in Chapter 3 on the influence of traditional Chinese values, socialist values and Western capitalist values on human–environment relationships in contemporary China. Secondly, based on the discussion of people’s different perceptions of tourism and sustainable development in China, it looks at the heritage tourism practices at the four heritage sites in order to explore the role of tourism in sustainable development and how different stake­ holders negotiate this contested notion and search for alternative paradigms for China today. Finally, based on this exploration, the chapter argues that sustainable development should not be regarded as a rigid framework for every country and every region, but rather as an adaptable paradigm which legitimises a variety of approaches according to specific circumstances. 160

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites  161

Perceptions of Tourism and Sustainable Development in China Human–environment values in contemporary China As detailed in Chapter 3, in contemporary China, traditional Chinese values (in particular Taoism), socialist values and globalising Western capitalist values are merging to produce Chinese people’s complex atti­tudes to the human–environment relationship. In fact, environmental values are seldom divorced from other values. While people can philosophise and contemplate the wonders and beauty of the natural environment per se, nature almost always suffers when there is conflict between it and other values (Harris, 2004). As indicated in Chapter 3, Confucianism and especially Taoism promote living in harmony with nature. Taoist philosophical traditions often see them as being instructive for developing more pro-environmental values everywhere (Callicot & Ames, 1989). The ancient Chinese philosophical proverb of ‘unity of heaven and humanity’ from Taoism is well known and often quoted by Chinese people. They suggest that ‘people must respect the wilderness (“nature” in its natural state), or risk destroying her in well-intentioned efforts to improve upon her’ and that, when exploiting nature, they should ‘try to do so without destroying its re­generative capacity’ (Walls, 1998: 56). In Chinese Taoist thought, ­traditionally schooled individuals and society live in a balanced and harmoni­ous way with the natural world. A researcher from the China Academy of Social Science suggested that the long-established ancient environmental values did have some important positive influence on Chinese people’s attitudes to the environment. However, facing the pressures of industrialis­ation and economic development, those values apparently have lost their ground in contemporary Chinese society. In particular, after the PRC was established in 1949, the socialist leaders were left with the task of building a modernised country. Even if traditional philosophies led to environmentalist values in the past, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, following the establishment of the PRC in 1949, the Chinese government suppressed traditions and ‘sacrificed the environment to development’ (Gardner & Stern, 1996: 49). Especially during the Mao era, development policies led to widespread industrial pollution and environmental destruction. According to Kobayashi (2005), environmental issues in today’s China are embedded in historical precedents that have shaped Chinese attitudes and activities. Specifically, a senior member of China’s Democratic Promotion Party, who provided advice on environmental policies to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, argued that Mao’s views and policies in the 1950s and into the 1970s showed little concern with the environment, and the natural environment was largely viewed as something that could and should be used for economic development. Mao’s world-view was so powerful that it

162  Heritage Tourism in China

has remained pervasive, often still shaping government policies, and leaving a vestige of low public awareness of the environment (Harris, 2004). Subsequently, the living standards for Chinese people have been greatly improved, but the more ‘aggressive, Western-oriented modernisation’ launched by Deng Xiaoping has started a trend towards Western-style consumption, energy use and pollution that grew worse with time (Smil, 1996: 182). According to the director of the Qingdao environmental protection administration, since the late 1970s, with the drive towards a Western market-oriented economy, most Chinese people seem to have had less concern about degradation of the natural environmental and environmental issues. The macro-goal of the state is still to enhance the national economy, which sometimes has resulted in serious environmental problems. However, he continued by asserting that this situation is starting to change, though economic development still overwhelms environmental protection. A provincial environmental official indicated that a recent study revealed that environmental awareness in China has been growing dramatic­ally, ­especially in areas where the natural environment had deteriorated. He further commented that, in areas suffering from heavy pollution or environmental destruction, local residents have spontaneously demanded changes. Increasingly, members of the NPC and other officials have highlighted environmental problems. Further, he suggested that the changing of environmental regulations and laws or even the adoption of measures at local level were often derived from public complaints about local issues and problems. In his view, more people are being adversely affected by environmental changes and there has been a significant increase in education about the environment. It suggests that an understanding has been developed of the need for environmental improvement and ecological balance. A senior member of the China Democratic Promotion Party, who provided advice on environmental policies to the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, suggested environmental values were changing mainly because the quality of the environment was generally associated with local economic development and people’s well-being, not because of a genuine concern for the protection of nature, but they were important indicators of a trend that might be fostered in the future.

Views on tourism and sustainable development With varying environmental attitudes, there are contested views on the relationships between tourism and sustainable development. Most people in China have a positive view that tourism and sustainable development are not in conflict with each other in general. In particular, with the concepts of ‘ecotourism’, ‘green tourism’ and ‘sustainable tourism’ gaining currency in China, many people have realised that tourism can be a useful vehicle to gain economic rewards and at the same time to promote sustainable

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites  163

development. The interviews with officials from tourism administrations at all levels showed that most of them held a positive view that tourism development and environmental conservation could support each other. In particular, tourism development can enhance people’s environmental awareness and most importantly boost the local economy and bring the necessary funding for environmental preservation. On the other hand, they often felt that a well-conserved natural environment provided the basic and necessary conditions and potential to attract more tourists in the long term. Thus, the industry has a vested interest in protecting the environment – basically the ‘goose that lays the golden eggs’ argument. This kind of perception is in line with China’s national tourism policies, and thus, as a provincial tourism official suggested, almost all national tourism policies clearly state this type of requirement in local tourism planning. In contrast, however, the environmental officials and academics normally held an opposing view on tourism development at the four heritage sites, and in particular on ecotourism and other formats of tourism largely based on the natural environment. From their perspective, tourism is a double-edged sword which does not necessarily always contribute to sustainable development. Many of the officials from environmental administrations believed the ecological degradation and environmental destruction at tourism sites or within the National Scenic Areas were largely due to the development of some so-called environment-friendly tourism products such as ecotourism. A provincial environmental official argued that, in practice, though tourism developers often claimed that, compared with other industries, theoretic­ ally tourism development can reduce resource consumption and produce less pollution and fewer environmental impacts, what they neglected or sometimes attempted to disguise is that the affected sites were also the most environmentally sensitive and ecologically fragile areas. Qufu is a cultural heritage site located within an urban area, but the other three heritage sites studied (Mount Tai WHS, Taiqing Taoist Temple and Liugong Island) are located in National Scenic Areas, which means that the National Scenic Area management regulations must be applied. According to those regulations (State Council, 1985), zoning should be applied according to the necessary ecological protective level, with each scenic area divided into core zones, buffer zones and experimental zones. In those three zones, only the experimental zone allows for limited tourism activities. However, a tourism academic indicated that, by using the name of ‘ecotourism’, local tourism enterprises and sometimes local site admin­ istrations could get the approval for traditional mass tourism products and for tourists to gain access to the buffer zones and even the core zones. It was argued this was because the tour operators promised the activities would be environmentally friendly and could help in the protection of the environment since there were no specific and consistent criteria to evaluate the ecotourism products. A provincial environmental official commented that,

164  Heritage Tourism in China

if it was not disguised by the name of ‘ecotourism’, it was impossible for the so-called ecotourists to access the core zone of National Scenic Areas. Often the benefits of ecotourism can disguise its potential damage to the environment, which could make it a serious threat.

Issues associated with zoning and ecotourism Three of the four research sites (not Qufu WHS) had tourism-related constructions (hotels and other tourist facilities) within the National Scenic Areas which failed to comply with the laws and regulations. In particular, at Mount Tai, many hotels are located in the Scenic Area (Figure 6.1) and some tourism facilities were even constructed in the core zone. Further, on the narrow top of Mount Tai, the local authorities initiated a commercial shopping street – ‘the Street of Heaven’ – in the late 1980s, which includes restaurants, souvenir shops, hotels and other leisure facilities (Shandong Chronologies Compiling Committee, 1993). The shopping street has secured enormous financial rewards from the large volumes of tourist visits. A heritage researcher, Professor Xie, from the World Heritage Research Centre at Peking University, suggested that, if natural and cultural heritage were the ‘stage’, tourist facilities could only be the ‘seats’, but there has been a growing trend for tourism planners to put the ‘seats’ on the masterpiece of our nature and ancestors (China Environmental News, 2000a). A local tourism official indicated that, according to their scientific assessment, the carrying capacity of the mountaintop was a maximum of 10,000 tourists at any one time. However, according to their statistics, in the busiest tourist times at Mount Tai, the tourist volume at the small mountaintop (0.6 square kilometres) of Mount Tai frequently reached 60,000 tourists, six times the saturation level. This high tourist volume put significant ecological pressure on the mountaintop. According to a provincial heritage official, in peak tourist seasons on the mountaintop ‘not even a blade of grass grows’, and the great danger that she worried about was that the fragile ecological environment would be irreversibly damaged. In the periodic report to UNESCO, the Mount Tai Administration Committee also raised concerns about the tourist volume at Mount Tai and asked the state party to take steps to determine the tourism-carrying capacity of this WHS (UNESCO, 2003b). A local tourism scholar argued that the impact of tourism development on the natural and cultural heritage was not always positive and it often largely depended on how local tourism-related administrations manage it, since there were still big gaps between theory, state policy and local tourism practices. For example, a local environmental administrator from Tai’an argued that, while they tried to enforce the zoning planning in National Scenic Areas, they found it challenging to apply it in practice. At the four sites, the local residents may not always strictly follow these regulations and often erect buildings or other tourist facilities which fail to

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites  165

Figure 6.1  Hotels on Mount Tai

comply with regulations on the development of so-called ‘ecotourism’ or ‘agro­tourism’, and these activities sometimes receive tacit recognition from the local public administration. Facing this situation, the local site managers claimed that they had their own difficulties. For example, a site manager from the Mount Lao National Scenic Area, where Taiqing Taoist Temple is located, contended that they lacked the authority of the local public administration and any direct administrative power over Taiqing Taoist Temple as they were the responsibilities of other branches of the local government. Because of that it was often difficult for them to intervene. The only action they could take in dealing with activities prohibited by the regulations and laws was to report them to the higher authorities and seek their advice and intervention. This situation links with the discussion in Chapter 4 on Taiqing Taoist Temple, where the overlapping management system for heritage sites often blocked the zoning division, since it was challenging for local authorities to coordinate their administrative jobs together with gaining departmental benefits. For Mount Tai, the situation is even more complicated, since it is the largest National Scenic Area in the province. According to the regional division, two counties in the Mount Tai National Scenic Area are actually under the jurisdiction of the capital city of Shandong Province – Jinan. Although the Tai’an municipal government transferred the authority for public administration in the Scenic Area to the administration committee, this authority is largely limited to the Tai’an municipal region and this excludes the two counties of Jinan. The Mount Tai administration

166  Heritage Tourism in China

committee found it challenging to enforce all relevant regulations and laws in relation to local residents and enterprises within these two counties as they are Jinan city managerial responsibilities. Any tourism-related activities that may damage the environment in those two counties are difficult to supervise and regulate by the Mount Tai administration committee. As indicated by the manager of Mount Tai administration committee, most of the time they needed the provincial construction bureau to coordinate planning between the governmental branches from those two cities. Thus, it was difficult for the site administration and other local authorities in Tai’an to fully apply relevant tourism regulations and policies, and sometimes the use of zoning divisions to facilitate environmental protection became lip service in practice under the current administrative system, suggested by a local environmental official. Under these circumstances, the problems associated with so-called ‘ecotourism’ are difficult to resolve completely in a short period of time at local level. A provincial tourism official indicated that ecotourism should include programmes to minimise the adverse effects of traditional tourism on the natural environment and, at the same time, it should help enhance the cultural integrity for local people. However, this is not widely evident in tourism practices at the four heritage sites, where many of these benefits were difficult to realise through tourism. At China’s heritage sites the concept of ecotourism is widely misunderstood and sometimes intentionally misinterpreted. In the practice of tourism planning, it is often used as a marketing ploy to promote tourism that is related to the natural environment. In particular, a common phenomenon that can be observed from tourism businesses and even site administrations is that they simply use the name ‘ecotourism’ as a new ‘brand’ for their marketing of traditional mass tourism products. Several local environ­mental officials claimed in their interviews that ecotourism as practised in China sometimes even consisted of unapproved construction projects in a splendid landscape and often damaging the ecosystem. According to the view of a provincial tourism official, ecotourism must sensitise people to the beauty and fragility of nature. Hence, the provincial tourism administration often criticised tourism operators as ‘greenwashing’ some of their businesses, that is, using the labels ‘ecotourism’ and ‘environment-friendly’, while behaving in environmentally irresponsible ways. A senior officer from the CNTA for example, commented that, even before they had launched ‘real’ sustainable tourism, its image had already been ruined by irresponsible local tourism planners and businesses.

Balance between Economic Rewards and Sustainability The discussion in this section focuses on the balance between economic rewards and sustainability based on heritage tourism practices at the four

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites  167

research sites. It discusses relationships between the preservation of natural and cultural heritage and the financial rewards from tourism development, with particular reference to the cableway project at Mount Tai WHS, which has severely damaged the physical environment. Following that, the discussion explores whether so-called ‘sustainable development’ by local government in one small sector or region would help achieve sustainability in a broader context. The discussion is based on a detailed consideration of the impacts of the Mount Tai cableway project and the environmental protection project at Liugong Island.

Heritage preservation and economic rewards While local tourism developers always tend to claim that they can offer various benefits, the practices found at the four heritage sites suggest that the relationships between tourism and sustainable development are complicated. The reciprocal support between tourism and sustainable development sometimes largely exists on a theoretical level only, as suggested in Chapter 4, and for these conflicts, the contemporary China’s governance system often only pours oil on the flames. The conflicts between tourism, natural and cultural heritage protection, and sustainable development are often partly rooted in China’s National Scenic Area system itself. Besides the conflicts between that system and the general regional division system, as already mentioned, sometimes the National Scenic Area system cannot be smoothly managed and coordinated with the heritage protection and preservation-related policies and practices, since the heritage protection funding stipulated by the State Law for Cultural Heritage Management cannot always be guaranteed by the National Scenic Area protection rules. For instance, the State Law of Cultural Heritage Protection stipulates that local governments must include heritage protection funding in their annual local budgets. There should be strict management of this funding and it is strictly forbidden for it to be appropriated for other purposes (NPC, 2002). However, a provincial heritage official suggested that in the National Scenic Areas planning process, the local authorities sometimes are ‘reluctant to provide sufficient funding for heritage protection’ and this funding is ‘often omitted or cut’. He further contended that local government sometimes failed to fully implement this regulation. To many local authorities, sometimes due to their tight budgets, the funding for local heritage preservation and protection planning was not steady. As suggested by an archaeologist and manager from the provincial history museum, local authorities commonly demonstrated this by their ratifying heritage sites and museums as ‘financially self-supporting units’. Then those heritage sites would not necessarily be included in the local fiscal budget. A tourism academic argued that local authorities often used the excuse of insufficient funding for heritage preservation, so they had to

168  Heritage Tourism in China

push heritage sites into the market to become financially self-supporting entities. It seems that this was most common in economically relatively less developed regions, where rapid economic development has often been considered to be the main threat to heritage preservation. These pressures have seemingly forced heritage administrations to find ways to support their own day-to-day operations. The transfer of operation rights (as at Qufu WHS), or developing other profitable tourist facilities (e.g. the Mount Tai cableway), appeared to have been two popular options to gain quick financial returns. According to interviews with the site managers at the four research sites, site admission fees and the income from the profitable tourist facilities often represented more than 90% of all their tourist income. Having heritage sites become financially self-supporting entities or transferring the site operation rights to the private sector were seriously criticised by many academics, since this would change the public attributes of the site administration. Local heritage administrative organisations are responsible to the state, the public and the nation’s culture (NPC, 2002), but if they are cut off from their operational responsibility they are only responsible for their profit and loss. Further, in this way the admission income from the heritage sites may no longer be seen as an effective way to assist in preserving the heritage sites; on the contrary, heritage sites may serve only as a vehicle for local authorities to gain financial rewards. A provincial heritage official asserted that if there is insufficient financial support from local government for the heritage sites, the site administration or private business which secured the operation rights will actively pursue tourism marketing and development initiatives that incorporate selected forms of heritage in order only to stimulate visitor arrivals. Further, issues such as carrying capacity and the protection of historical relics and the environment would not be a priority in planning and management of heritage tourism, and the heritage protection regulations could be ‘conveniently overlooked’.

Mount Tai cableway project There were tensions between environmental protection and tourism development related to the heritage tourism practices at all four sites. The most notable of these, though, was at Mount Tai WHS, where tourism development had clearly led to environmental destruction. In particular, the cableway project had permanently degraded the natural environment and tourism resources and has continuing negative impacts for local tourism development. As briefly mentioned in Chapter 2, to support the daily operations and expand tourist income to assist with local development, in 1980 the Mount Tai cableway project (Figure 6.2) was initiated by the authorities of Tai’an city without a comprehensive environmental assessment and evaluation. It was only after the cableway project planning document was completed

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites  169

Figure 6.2  The cableway station near the South Heaven Gate of Mount Tai

and the cableway facilities were ordered by the local authorities that 14 pro­ fessionals and academics from State Construction Ministry, State Cultural Heritage Administration, China Geography Research Institute and several universities were invited to set up an advisory board to provide advice on the project. According to Zheng, who was a member of the advisory board, the local authorities did not consult with the advisory board on the environmental feasibility of the project, and they simply sought technical advice which they might need in the construction process (China World Heritage Office, 2000). As he recalled, the local authorities were just making a gesture and merely pretended to listen to professional advice from the advisory board (China World Heritage Office, 2000). He expressed his frustration that the advisory board was not given any power to suspend or influence the project during the consultation process (China Environmental News, 2000b). Despite the professionals and academics having strongly opposed the cableway proposal due to the significant risk of environmental damage, the proposal was still approved by Tai’an city government. The members of the advisory board expressed their anger at the decision made by local government, with most of the professionals and researchers immediately withdrawing from the advisory board (Cheng, 2000). Despite the initial

170  Heritage Tourism in China

opposition, the first cableway project was still constructed by the local authorities in 1983 without any thorough environmental feasibility study and evaluation and without approval from the higher authorities, especially from the state Heritage Administration and state Scenic Areas Administration (Shandong Chronologies Compiling Committee, 1993). According to the Regulation on Scenic Areas Administration (State Council, 2006), the formal procedure for such a project is that the proposal must be submitted to the provincial construction committee for approval. Without such approval, local authorities should not have started the construction of the cableway. However, according to an official from the provincial construction committee, there was no such request or application from the local authorities of Tai’an. All senior officials on the provincial construction committee refused to take part in any relevant consultation due to the severe environmental destruction the cableway might cause. However, the construction of the cableway was still launched without the permission and acknowledgement of the provincial authority (China Environmental News, 2000b). Due to the lack of a thorough environmental assessment, construction expertise and relevant environmental protection measures, during the construction of the cableway one of the major peaks and also a famous tourist attraction at Mount Tai, the Yueguan Peak, was blasted to reduce its height by one-third, in order to build a cableway station and other auxiliary facilities (Cheng, 2000). A state tourism official commented that, as a result, the vegetation was greatly damaged along the route of the cableway. The blasted peak and damaged vegetation can be seen by tourists from up to 20 kilometres away, which thus has ruined the original scenic view and image of Mount Tai. A heritage researcher explained that in academic circles the cableway project was ‘widely recognised as the worst case of this type in China’s WHSs’. After the cableway was established, many tourism and environmental academics and professionals still questioned the necessity of building a cableway at Mount Tai WHS. Jisheng Li, the director of the Mount Tai Natural and Cultural Heritage Research Centre, the Chief Editor of the Mount Tai Chronology and one of the main authors of the Mount Tai WHS application, suggested that since the distance from the Temple of Mount Tai at the foot of the mountain to the mountaintop was less than 8.9 ­kilometres, it was perfectly suitable for the majority of tourists to walk to the mountain­top. In his view, the main drawback of the cableway is that by taking it tourists would skip most of the cultural scenic spots which have hundreds of years of history. He argued that the cableway has not only destroyed the natural image of the mountain, but also ruined the traditional Chinese aesthetics of Mount Tai (China World Heritage Office, 2000). It definitely has had a negative impact on Mount Tai’s historical and cultural image for tourists, some of whom think that this kind of site visiting is pointless (Cheng, 2000). It was stated by an official from the provincial

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites  171

tourism administration that, under pressure from professionals, academics and officials from the state Heritage, Environment and Forest Bureaus, the cableway was ordered to be pulled down by the end of its service lifetime (the late 1990s). However, in 2000 the cableway still had not been removed; on the contrary, the site administration had renewed the ageing facilities and extended the cableway, which included extensions of the cableway stations and new parking areas. It was explained by a provincial heritage official that the site administration’s excuse for the cableway’s renewal and extension was that it would be used for forest fire prevention, pest control and emergency rescue. A heritage researcher from the China Academy of Social Science argued that there were hundreds of cableways around the world, and most of them were constructed in ski resorts, but none of them was used for the reasons mentioned by the site administration. He indicated that many professionals and academics had called on the local authorities to remove the cableway and restore the damaged environment, as they could not accept the local authorities using such an absurd excuse to build or extend cableways. The argument from Mount Tai National Scenic Area administration was that, to a certain extent, the cableways at Mount Tai helped protect the environment. Chuanwang Li, the director of Mount Tai National Scenic Area, argued that the construction of the cableway was considered to be an effective measure to alleviate the pressure brought by high tourist volumes (China Environmental News, 2000b). He suggested that during the peak time, tourists would normally wait five to six hours queuing for using the cableway to get onto the mountain. Together with other projects to increase the carrying capacity of the mountaintop, the cableway greatly improved the accessibility of the site, reduced congestion and help quickly disperse the tourists. The intervention of the SACH and the Ministry of Construction and pressure from academics, professionals and the public meant that the depart­ ment responsible for the Mount Tai National Scenic Area – the Ministry of Construction – declared that the cableway project apparently violated the terms set out in three sets of documents: ‘Mount Tai Scenic Area Plan’, ‘Notice of Urban and Rural Planning from the State Council’ and ‘Rules of Scenic Area Construction Administration’ (Ministry of Construction, 2000). In this official reply from the Ministry of Construction, the local authorities were asked to restore the environment which had been destroyed by the cableway and to stop any ongoing extensions; and the local authorities were requested to investigate who was responsible for the unapproved project, which clearly breached relevant regulations. Since the cableway project and its extension were ‘physically accomplished facts’ which could not be removed immediately, the official reply accepted that the cableway could be kept but that it could be categorised only as a provisional project which must be removed in the future (Ministry of Construction, 2000). However, in this official document there was no specific deadline for the removal of

172  Heritage Tourism in China

the cableway. A local tourism researcher commented that this official reply was intended simply to mollify popular indignation. Despite the large-scale environmental destruction at this WHS, the cableway company of Mount Tai has never suspended its business operation and no administrative sanction was imposed. On the contrary, it has been honoured as a top 10 ‘pillar’ (economically important) company of Tai’an city by the local authorities on a continuous basis for almost 20 years (Wang, 2002). In 1998, the cableway company became the Mount Tai Tourism Group, which is one of four companies that have authorisation to operate state-owned property. The general manager was awarded various honours from both the local and provincial tourism administrations for his ‘excellent’ business operations and economic contribution of the company to the local economy (Wang, 2002). A state heritage official stated that, from the beginning, the cableway had received strong support from the local authorities. The reason for the local authorities providing this ‘political umbrella’ was probably that the cableway was an important economic generator for Tai’an city. A local official from the historical records department argued that if the local authorities suspended the operation of this company, it would be equivalent to cutting off their own ‘financial artery’ since the tax revenue from the company constitutes a large proportion of local revenues, and the local GDP would drop dramatically. It might not be fair to put all the blame on the site administrations and local authorities for the issues raised from tourism and preservation at heritage sites, such as Mount Tai and Qufu (detailed in Chapter 5), since it was challenging for them to balance heritage preservation and the pressures for local economic development. Most of the heritage-related laws and regulations focus on heritage protection, while in heritage administrations the function of ‘business operations’ at heritage sites has often been neglected or only vaguely stated. In fact, most problems at heritage sites arose for this reason. To develop tourism at heritage sites, the heritage-related laws and regulations should also focus on the business operations of heritage sites for tourism purposes, rather than only on the protection of the natural and cultural heritage. Otherwise, when heritage sites enter the tourism market as business entities there will be no relevant laws and regulations to govern them, which will have only unfavourable consequences for heritage preservation. In this vein, it can be further argued that when heritage sites become tourist attractions this should not result in insufficient financial and policy support; otherwise, their non-profit features might not be maintained. The CNTA made great efforts to regulate the market. For example, in 2007 and 2015 the CNTA and the National Development and Reform Commission issued two official documents to request local authorities to regulate the admission fees at tourist attractions (CNTA, 2015). This was aimed at regulating the market and encouraging the development of tourism-related sectors such as crafts and creative industries, to reduce the pressure of using

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites  173

site admission as the main financial generator at tourist attractions. For most of China’s heritage sites, the income from site admission, local transportation and catering services form a large proportion of the total income generated from tourism. Tourist shopping ranks only third in this respect. Since the professional and specialised tourist services are still underdeveloped, income from such sources forms only a small proportion in the overall financial returns. This then unavoidably creates a situation where the local site managers rely on the income from site admissions and other tourism-related facilities. Because of this somewhat abnormal income structure for the tourism sector, the site administrative bodies cannot strictly adhere to the rule of being ‘non-profit organisations’ and they often cannot help but make financial returns a priority, even the top priority, in their daily operations.

Debate on regional and sector sustainability This section further discusses the balance between economic rewards and sustainability in heritage tourism, focusing on whether local so-called ‘sustainable development’ in a specific sector or in a small region can contribute to sustainability in a larger context. The discussion of this issue considers the negative impacts of the Mount Tai cableway project on local tourist-related sectors and the impacts of the environmental protection project at Liugong Island.

Mount Tai cableway project and local tourism development With such serious environmental destruction from the project, what are the benefits of the cableway? A senior member from the local propaganda and historical records department indicated that the clear purpose of establishing cableways at Mount Tai was to use the WHS to contribute to local economic development and to enlarge the financial returns. It seems that the cableway company brings substantial tax revenue for the local authorities, since the company was recognised as one of the economically important ‘pillar’ companies of Tai’an city (Wang, 2002). However, has the cableway actually helped develop tourism and achieve local sustainable development in the long term? In fact, according to Jisheng Li, the director of the Mount Tai Natural and Cultural Heritage Research Centre, in terms of the financial rewards the cableway project failed to turn out as the local authorities had expected (China World Heritage Office, 2000). The main concern for the cableway has been that it can greatly shorten tourist stays at Mount Tai, including decreasing the proportion of tourists staying overnight. According to a study conducted by a local tourism administration, before the establishment of the cableway, tourists normally spent two to three days visiting all the scenic spots at Mount Tai. However, now most tourists can directly drive to the cableway stations (with newly built car parks) and then take the cableway to the mountaintop. As a result, most tourists can shorten

174  Heritage Tourism in China

their visits to one day and most of them cut down their trips and skip twothirds of the tourist attractions of Mount Tai. A local hotel manager suggested that there have been three tourist peak seasons at Mount Tai. The first is from April to May, the second is the summer, and the third is the National Day holiday period (early October). During these peak seasons, most of the accommodation providers in Tai’an city can maintain a relatively high occupancy rate, but during the off-peak seasons, due to the short stay of the tourists, most of the three- and four-star hotels, small hotels and the youth hostels have experienced challenging times for their business operations. According to the statistics provided by an official from the local historical record department, one-third of the hotels in Tai’an city made an overall profit, one-third could merely sustain their business, but the remaining one-third have been finding it very challenging to sustain their normal operations. Due to the tourists’ short stay, the local restaurants shared similar experiences with the hotel sector, since most tourists could choose to have dinner in nearby cities after their visit to Mount Tai. Among the local tourist-related businesses, the worst-hit sector is the local tourist souvenir shops. Most tourists now have insufficient time to visit local souvenir shops. As a result, local handicrafts often are sold at reduced prices. Since a large proportion of the local residents of Tai’an city work in tourism and tourism-related sectors, they have realised that the current situation is largely a result of the construction of the cableways on Mount Tai. To prevent their continuing loss of profits, many local tourism-related stakeholders have fought against the continuing operation of the cableway at Mount Tai. An official from the local historical records department argued that, although it seemed that the city government had received more tax income from the cableway company, the profit and tax income losses from the other tourism-related business had been actually much bigger than that. Thus, ‘as a whole’ the actual economic reward for the city had not been growing much, he further argued. This argument was supported by a professor from a local university who contended that, except for the cableway company, which has gained more profits, other tourismrelated sectors have seen falling profits compared with when there was no cableway at Mount Tai. The official from the local historical records department complained that the cableway project had boosted one company but harmed the whole sector. He concluded that the local authorities really had a ‘narrow and shallow’ view on the cableway. It had not only left enormous environmental problems, but from a macro and long-term perspective, it had harmed the local tourism sector and failed to contribute to the sustainable development of the local community as a whole.

Environmental protection at Liugong Island Mount Tai has been widely regarded by the general public, UNESCO and even the state authorities as an unsuccessful example in heritage tourism.

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites  175

However, what would the government suggest as a good example of sustainable tourism? The provincial government has continually awarded Liugong Island (home to the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War memorials) the title of Provincial Sustainable Tourism Organisation for its great efforts in tourism development and environmental protection (Weihai Tourism Information Net, 2006). Local site managers were often invited to this tourist site to show them an exemplar of sustainable tourism. The site administration was seen to strictly follow all the relevant state regulations in the protection of the local environment. On top of that, local authorities adopted additional measures to protect the natural environment of this island. According to the site manager, to further protect the local physical environment, the site administration chose not to use the sand and stone on this island for the construction of the museums, scenic spots, infrastructure and other tourist facilities; instead, the site administration made the decision to buy and freight in sand and stone from nearby regions. The site administrative staff proudly explained that this measure was an effective way to protect the local environment, especially the local natural scenery and vegetation, which helped maintain sustainable tourism development for this island. Apparently, when beginning to develop tourism on this small island, the site administration was aware of the fragile eco-system and natural environment. However, a local environmental official suggested that, to provide the sand and stone, the exploitation of stone and sand in nearby regions damaged the ecosystem and scenery of those areas. Thus, an interest­ing debate is emerging: without using local sand and stone, the environmental pressures on Liugong Island might have been alleviated, but it actually encouraged the environmental degradation of other regions. A provincial environmental official commented that, strictly speaking, those nearby regions were not suitable for stone quarries either. From his point of view, the stone quarries established in those regions have already physically damaged their local environment. On the other hand, because of the allure of short-term economic benefits, the local economy has largely relied on the exploitation of raw materials, which created the potential danger of harming the healthy development of other economic sectors. This would not benefit their local sustainable development in the long term. There have been serious concerns about the current pattern of economic growth in these regions, which has drained resources and damaged the environment and will not promote healthy local development in the future. Focusing on Liugong Island itself, a site manager for the island suggested that, because they had bought sand and stone from the nearby regions, local people there gained financial rewards and their local economy was boosted by selling those raw materials. Apparently, the site managers for Liugong Island considered that the approach they adopted was a ‘win–win’ mode for both the island and the nearby regions. A researcher from the China Academy of Social Science Research suggested that another issue for this

176  Heritage Tourism in China

practice was that it was not cost-effective and it might be harmful for the region. If there was only a certain amount of funding for this city, to spend so much money on this island would require a reduction in the investment for other sub-regions, which would hold up the development and conservation of other sites and areas. A local tourism researcher commented that if the site managers of Liugong Island saw the environmental destruction in the nearby regions that was caused by this project, they might not still be pleased with their so-called sustainable development model and claim that they had made a significant contribution to environmental protection. What is clearly left for the environmental administration is whether they need to reconsider the current standards for environmental evaluation and assessment. If they do revise these standards in the future from a more macro perspective, the provincial promotion of the site as a fine example for sustainable tourism will need reconsideration. Concerning these issues, a provincial environmental official claimed that the state Environmental Protection Administration was aware of these concerns, and he believed that in the near future, the assessment of environmental protection would emphasise the wider regional level or national level, rather than just focus on a site or a city-based assessment. He also mentioned that at the provincial level the next stage is to work with other relevant departments in the provincial government and break the regional and sectoral division in order to assess the overall environmental and social aspects of tourist sites and National Scenic Areas. The effort could greatly reduce the disputes and wrangles among different regions and government departments. However, he also indicated that there would still be difficulties in getting different government branches to work together, since under the current governance structure it would be challenging to achieve that objective in a single move. As discussed earlier in the chapter, the site-specific focuses of tourism development are clearly evident in the case of Mount Tai and Liugong Island. At Mount Tai, though the cableway company gained the expected financial returns, it caused severe environmental destruction and greatly harmed the sustainability of other tourism-related sectors. The wider negative environmental and social impacts brought by this project was that it merely promoted local tourism development and helped achieve local sustainable development. Although the site managers of Liugong Island realised the importance of sustainability for the local tourism sector, what they neglected was the long-term development of nearby regions. They put great effort into protecting the local natural environment, but their work has not sought to alleviate the overall environmental pressures in a much wider geographical context. What they did to a certain extent was to pass their environmental pressures onto nearby regions. With such a large amount of investment, the result of their so-called sustainable development mode was ‘going too far, which was as bad as not going far enough’, commented a local tourism scholar. For Liugong Island, the local so-called sustainable tourism

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites  177

is actually partly based on the unsustainability of nearby regions. These two cases indicate that there is a weakly conceived notion of sustainable development, especially when this concept meets with departmental and regional interests.

Alternative Paths for China’s Tourism and Sustainable Development ‘Green GDP’ and sustainable development The practices at the four heritage sites, such as the questionable use of the label of ‘ecotourism’ to develop traditional mass tourism products or the tendency at times to focus on departmental or local sustainable development by ignoring potential problems over the sustainability of other sectors or regions, make little contribution in achieving the sustainability of heritage tourism or China’s long-term sustainable development. It appears that these problems are due in part to local authorities’ mismanagement in their site operations. In particular, some local authorities have made the heritage sites financial self-supporting units. However, the director of the provincial census and plan compiling office argued that a view held by some local officials was that the main reason for these crises at heritage sites was actually the current state’s policies, since the central government tends to use local economic growth as the key indicator to assess local governments’ achievements and local officials’ performance. According to a provincial tourism official, the local officials often argued that people should not fully blame them, since they are under pressure from almost all sides, especially from central government. As discussed in Chapter 3, after China abandoned the rigid ‘Soviet model’ and adopted a market economy in the late 1970s, GDP has gradually become not only the major indicator of national development, but also the most popular indicator for the central government to evaluate local officials’ political achievements. The director of the planning and development department of Qingdao municipal government indicated that the macroeconomic plans made by the state and provincial governments seldom use other indicators to measure local economic development. He believed that local officials who merely chase the growth of GDP figures are largely responsible for the destruction of heritage and environment resources. Though local officials may wish to promote more sustainable development, with such pressures for local economic development, including the central government’s prioritisation of GDP growth, the preservation of the environment and cultural heritage became less important than short-term financial returns. As a result, a provincial tourism official contended, there will be hardly any change until the local authorities are liable for their own

178  Heritage Tourism in China

environmental consequences and until there is a fundamental change in the assessment system. Without that, problems with heritage preservation and environmental issues will continue in the future, and it will be challenging to achieve a more sustainable approach to development. The discussion of the cases of Mount Tai cableway project and the Qufu WHS (Chapter 4) suggests that, since tourism became a key economic sector, the authorities have tended to be more concerned with their departmental profits. The growth of local annual GDP has often been the main starting point to evaluate the economic achievements of local authorities, and local GDP growth has become an important standard to evaluate local officials’ political achievements and performance. An academic from the China Academy of Social Science suggested that it was common for an official who expanded economic growth at huge environmental cost to be promoted to a higher position, as performance was evaluated mainly by GDP growth. That may help explain why many environmentally destructive projects have been approved and shielded from any crackdown by the local environmental protection administration. Apparently, this kind of promotion system has sometimes produced direct conflicts with environ­mental protection and sustainable development, as these are more concerned with long-term socio-economic benefits. The director of the legal affairs department of a provincial environmental protection bureau argued that the reason why private companies and some local authorities neglected environmental protection was mainly that most environmental values and benefits have become externalised indicators, but the current economic statistics system cannot fully and internally assess these externalised indicators within their organisations. Thus, the current assessment system could encourage the local authorities and private sector decision makers to sacrifice natural and cultural resources in exchange for fast local economic growth. A provincial heritage official suggested that the key to resolve this issue is to ensure the ‘non-profit’ attributes of the heritage sites and that the budget for local heritage preservation is guaranteed. He further contended that a two-stage plan had been made by the provincial government and it would be applied to the heritage sites in the near future. According to that plan, the first step is for the provincial government to take back some of the administrative rights for these sites from the local authorities. Then the provincial government will be able to make consistent regulations for heritage protection, rather than leave those powers to the local authorities and let them interpret the regulations. Meanwhile, the provincial government could maintain the supervision rights for local authorities. This kind of recentralisation policy has been discussed in detail in Chapter 4. The second step of the provincial plan, which is also the most critical step, is to introduce a new assessment system for local economic development according to the new ‘green GDP’ system recently established by the state government. It takes into account environmental adjustments in the calculation of GDP.

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites  179

By applying these methods, resource depletion, environmental degradation and protective and restorative environmental initiatives are subtracted from traditional GDP figure (Xinhua News, 2004). The director of provincial census and plan compiling office suggested that the reason why the central government had introduced this new system was to ‘achieve a balanced development of economic, human and environmental priorities’. Many advocates claimed that the ‘green GDP’ system was a more reasonable and balanced standard to evaluate local officials’ performance and, in turn, China’s overall economic achievements (Xinhua News, 2004). The foundation for the ‘green GDP’ system is a well-established property rights regime for resources and environmental assets, which may be gradually developed as China’s market economy matures. Pan Yue, the vice-director of the State Environment Protection Administration, argued that, if the assessment system for local officials included environmental indicators, this could help change China’s current growth models, which ‘drained resources and damaged the environment’, and the key to state, provincial and local sustainable growth was a successful link between environmental, economic and social needs (Xinhua News, 2004). According to a provincial heritage officer, for heritage, especially natural heritage management, the new system could help alleviate the loss of biodiversity in protected areas, and change the current situation of weak management and insufficient funds. More importantly, it could help coordinate the various stakeholders as well as balance their different interests. From his viewpoint, the adoption of the new system is a positive action to protect the vulnerable environment as local officials may become a little more cautious when approving tourism-related projects in the future, because the environmental consequences (and not just the traditional GDP indicator) will affect whether they receive a favourable evaluation. While the new system may have various benefits, there are potential difficulties in using ‘green GDP’ as an assessment standard. A senior member of China’s Democratic Promotion Party, who had conducted environmental research for more than 20 years, suggested that the new assessment system was actually similar to the views on sustainable development among Western economic environmentalists, which gave all issues a common economic evaluation. It could have benefits for environment protection, but it is also problematic, especially for China, as there are many technical issues to be resolved in using this approach, such as which specific indicators should be used, and how much they should influence the final decision. Some other challenges that might emerge in the application of the new system can be identified. The first is that environmental damage often occurs later and therefore cannot be put into the account book in the relevant period. Secondly, it is difficult to price the environment and cultural heritage. Thirdly, as mentioned above, it is difficult to evaluate the externalised indicators within an organisation or a region. In his view, sustainability is not a concept that can be simply and completely evaluated

180  Heritage Tourism in China

economically and statistically. The director of the provincial census and plan compiling office commented that though the system might not be perfect and many potential difficulties needed to be further considered, at least it was a positive sign from the central government that environmental preservation was moving from being scheduled in the planning to having a more practical application.

Adaptive views of sustainable development Some local stakeholders from the four heritage sites had serious reservation about the application of the ‘green GDP’ system, as some of them still perceived the new system to be a limit for them in developing the local economy. A senior tourism official from Qufu argued that the control and management of environmental exploitation and tourism resources, such as heritage relics, should vary according to the local socio-economic situation, and that there should not be a rigid and single approach adopted everywhere. From the tourism practices at the four sites, as discussed above and in Chapter 4, it is clear that in economically well-developed regions where the local authorities are not using tourism as a main economic generator, such as in Qingdao and Weihai, the overwhelming pressure on economic development is much lower. However, for regions with a less developed economy, infrastructure and facilities, such as at Tai’an and Qufu in this study, the local authorities have often placed great hope and expectation on tourism development. Tourism was often perceived as one of the major driving forces for local economic development. According to a provincial environmental official, in these circumstances, at the local level, a consensus is reached by the local authorities where all local tourism-related governmental departments should reduce the barriers for tourism development, or at least they should not place obstacles in its way. A provincial tourism official suggested that where there are rich tourism resources but a more backward economy, and where the local authorities are eager for short-term economic rewards, it is likely that serious conflicts will emerge between environmental protection and economic development. He argued that there was a regular pattern where tourism was chosen as a ‘pillar’ sector for the local economy, and it became challenging to coordinate stakeholders with different interests and to deal with the consequences. Many local residents are dissatisfied with the current scale of local tourism development, since they are reliant on tourism bringing opportunities. It was claimed by a provincial environmental official that they often received complaints from local authorities stating that strict policies were actually ‘preserving local backwardness’. The local authorities also tended to argue that every region needed to undergo the initial stage of development, when environmental destruction, to a certain extent, was unavoidable. They cited the ‘dishonourable’ past ‘experiences’ of Western

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites  181

developed countries and the coastal economically well-developed regions in China, which had all had their period of ‘extensive exploitation’ of their environments and heritage resources. They often felt it was unfair to be blamed by people from developed countries or coastal regions. In their opinions, when the economic threshold was passed, naturally there would be emphasis on local sustainability. An environmental official in Qingdao argued that without economic development, it might be impossible for the economic­ally backward regions to convert from intensive exploitation of local resources to sustainable development in the short term. He further contended that for economically less developed regions, ‘poverty is often the real killer for the environment’. Many academics advocated adding and applying more specific guidelines for different regions. Some felt that the central government should consider loosening the tight controls for some economically less developed regions where the local economy largely relies on tourism and environmental resources. It was suggested by a researcher from the China Academy of Social Science that sustainable tourism or sustainable development should not conflict with economic growth and, if the central government pushes too hard and too soon, it might cause problems or produce exactly the opposite results for local development to those intended. The suggestion is that there should be a process to gradually tighten up the protection policies in each region and different interpretations of sustainable development can be applied according to local circumstances. For central government, he further commented that it is important to alleviate the pressures for economic growth for less development regions, and to provide some policy support for the exploitation of both natural and cultural resources according to specific situations. It was argued by a tourism academic that tourism should assist local socio-economic development and benefit local residents, rather than simply promote so-called ‘sustainability’ and thereby maintain an economic ‘backwardness’ for local people. If the local economy cannot be sustained, sustainable tourism cannot exist, and thus so-called sustainable development is pointless and rootless. From this perspective, the concept of sustainable tourism should be negotiated under different circumstances between the stakeholders, and especially between the central and local authorities. Thus, the concept of sustainable development should not be a narrowly defined concept, but should be an over-arching paradigm within which several different development pathways may be legitimised according to the specific circumstances.

Summary In contemporary China, traditional values (Confucianism and Taoism), socialist values and the values of global Western development have merged

182  Heritage Tourism in China

together, and these have become key influences on people’s attitudes toward human–environment relationships. Environmental values in China have clearly lost strength in the face of several overwhelming pressures. People in China may intend to follow more traditional values and live in harmony with nature, but for many reasons the reality is that it is difficult to achieve. As is the case in most of the developing world, China increasingly com­promises its ecological systems in order to make way for the market economy. However, it seems that the state government is often stuck with the GDP indicator as the most important for national and local economic development, but also the most popular indicator for the central government to evaluate local officials’ performance and political achievements. The Chinese leadership often believes that economic development is the key to raising the quality of people’s living standards and national strength, and heritage tourism should contribute to this process. From the practices at the research sites it seems that the danger of this trend is that some heritage sites are losing the natural environment upon which many depend (e.g. at Mount Tai) and some are losing the heritage resources themselves (e.g. at Qufu WHS). However, if environmental and cultural concerns continue to be disregarded in national development policies, China may face a similar cultural dilemma as other developing countries, where the environment, indigenous culture, traditions and identities are gradually eroded in the name of modernisation and economic development. Heritage tourism may lose its previous functions in promoting more harmonious values in Chinese society. China’s heritage tourism reveals the superficiality of the mainstream notions of development and sustainable development. At present, these notions tend to extol the capitalist model of development, Western culture and the supremacy of economic achievement. Under this reductionist version of development and sustainable development, China’s indigenous culture is threatened, and environmental conservation and human development are commonly considered the means for economic development, rather than the aim of that development. As discussed in this chapter, in China, as elsewhere, sustainability is always a contested notion among the public authorities and people in different regions. Stakeholders from different sectors are likely to hold contrasting views on this concept, although there may well be patterns or regularities, perhaps among specific groups. There are tensions and contestation around who decides on appropriate notions of sustainability, on what constitutes suitable criteria to assess sustainability, and at what territorial and governmental level the relevant policies should be applied. Local governments in economically less developed regions or regions with rich heritage resources are often prepared to sacrifice part of the environmental and associated heritage resources in order to secure rapid economic returns. In contrast, local authorities in more economically developed regions, and also the central government, often have a better recognition of the benefits

Tourism, Sustainable Development and the Four Heritage Sites  183

of stronger sustainable development policies. A notion to emerge from the above arguments is that different interpretations of sustainable tourism are appropriate under different circumstances. This suggests that sustainable development should not be regarded as a rigid framework for every country and every region, but rather as an adaptive paradigm which legitimises a variety of approaches according to specific circumstances. Different interpretations of sustainable development may be appropriate for developed and developing countries or regions. It could also be argued, based on the cases studied here, that sustainable tourism should play a more important role in assisting sustainable development in a regional and even a global context.

7 Conclusions

Introduction This book has critically examined the relationships between the planning, development and representation of heritage for tourist consumption and the notions of modernity, identity and sustainable development in contemporary China. These relationships were considered in relation to the continuities and changes in Chinese society. This concluding chapter evaluates the conceptual framework presented in Chapter 2 in terms of its development, application in the study and links to the empirical findings and implications. Attention is given in this chapter to the value of the framework, including its potential value to assess contestations between China’s socialism, modernisation and tradition, to understand relationships between the planning, development and representation of heritage for tourist consumption, and to understand alternative perspectives on modernity, identity and sustainable development in contemporary China.

Theoretical Purpose and Practical Use of the Conceptual Framework This book first provides a theoretical discussion of the academic literature on tourism and modernity, tourism commodification, place marketing and identity building, tourism and the politics of landscape, heritage in place marketing, tourism and sustainable development, human–environment relations in China, traditional and contemporary Chinese philosophies and political ideology, and tourism and governance in China. This process of evolutionary knowledge development led to the identification and examination of the nine inter-connected themes in the conceptual framework. The 184

Conclusions 185

framework presented in Chapter 2 provides a structure for organising thinking on the issues under investigation, including the specifics of tourism and the notions of modernity, identity building and sustainability, which represented a continuous process of knowledge creation. The application of the conceptual framework to the Chinese context helps explain the tensions between China’s socialism, its ongoing modernisation project and the long-established traditions in Chinese society. Specifically, it helps assess the relationships between the planning, development and representation of heritage sites for tourist consumption and the notions of modernity, identity building and sustainable development in contemporary China.

Continuities and changes in the notions of modernity and sustainability The notion of modernity is widely associated with the idea of progress and the notions of development paths and human advancement. Recent advances in the interpretation and understanding of the concept of develop­ ment have led to a much broader idea of environmentally and socially sustainable development, with this being seen as a necessary concept in order to minimise the negative effects of development when it is framed in purely economic terms. Recent changes in the economy, society and politics of contemporary China have meant that people’s attitudes to the core notions of modernity and sustainability have changed. Part of the social construction of people’s notions of modernity and sustainability relates to the building and rebuilding of people’s senses of identity, on both national and local levels. The notions of modernity, identity and sustainability are socially constructed and are fundamental organising ideas in society, although people may only partly understand their significance. Based on a research on minority ethnic areas in China’s Guizhou Province, Oakes (1998) makes an analytical distinction between two meanings of modernity, which he terms ‘false modernity’ and ‘authentic modernity’. It is argued in this book that it might be too arbitrary to say whether modernity is ‘false’ or ‘authentic’. There is a tension around who decides what is ‘authentic’, who decides what is ‘false’, and who sets the criteria. From a social constructionist perspective, the notions of modernity, identity and sustainability largely depend on people’s dynamic perceptions, which are negotiable and socially constructed. Oakes’ (1998) study identified some important phenomena and social problems in China’s pursuit of modernity. However, there is limited explanation of the reasons for the formation of those tensions in that study, and indeed there might be challenges to do this based on a purely Western approach. Further, his study is based on a peripheral minority ethnic region, which perhaps misses some of the essential elements of mainstream Chinese society. One important issue missed in his study is that the social problems and tensions related to

186  Heritage Tourism in China

China’s modernisation are not best understood as a single social process. It has not taken place in only one region of China and it exists not only in a certain historical period; rather, it is deeply rooted in, and derived from, China’s long history, its contemporary socialist political ideology, and the recent partial incorporation of Western capitalist values. To provide a more comprehensive understanding of the contested notions of modernity, identity and sustainability, and of the tensions in contemporary China, the discussion in this book is based not only on Western theories but also on discussing China’s long established, indigenous philosophies and values. The conceptual framework integrates a much broader set of influences on people’s perceptions of modernity, identity and sustainability, and these are discussed in the context of continuities and changes in contemporary Chinese society.

Tensions in the representation of heritage for tourist consumption Stakeholders from different social groups sometimes shared certain views of modernity, identity and sustainability, but sometimes they held rather different opinions on these key organising ideas. In the practices of heritage tourism policy making and planning, stakeholders held some similar and some differentiated beliefs on the representation of heritage for tourist consumption, with this reflecting their varying interests in the past as a resource and in tourism development. The empirical findings of this book revealed tensions and even open contestation among the stakeholders with interests in heritage tourism sites. The agreement and contestation around heritage tourism altered people’s cognition and behaviour, and it influenced their overall notions of modernity, identity and sustainability. The application of the conceptual framework showed that such tensions in the representation of China’s heritage are widespread in contemporary Chinese society. In this book, heritage tourism was chosen as a ‘mirror’ to reflect continuities and changes in the notions of modernity and sustainability in contemporary China. The nine elements in the conceptual framework were found in practice to be key elements influencing China’s heritage tourism and other aspects of Chinese society. They had a significant influence on the formation of people’s notions of modernity, identity and sustainability in contemporary China.

Planning and representation of heritage The selection of the four heritage tourism sites in Shandong Province was influenced by their relevance to the research themes. The development, planning and interpretation of these sites embodied competing concepts of modernity, identity and sustainability, as well as tensions in the representation of heritage for tourism. Further, the planning responses were socially

Conclusions 187

constructed. The four heritage sites are important tourism sites in China for differing reasons, and the responses to the planning issues at the sites reflected wider tensions in Chinese society, and these responses were in turn part of the reciprocal influences on society. As such, the tensions at these sites mirrored wider changes in Chinese society.

Revisiting the framework In revisiting the conceptual framework (Figure 2.9, p. 70) in order to consider its t­heoretical, methodological and practical contributions, the discussion in this book has explained the more general processes in the framework and the major findings from its application to China’s heritage tourism. It has explored the connections between the planning, development and representation of heritage for tourist consumption and the notions of modernity, identity and sustainable development in contemporary China. Attention was directed to more specific processes within these relationships. For example, the potential sources of difference, negotiation and contestation around the representations of heritage for tourism were discussed. These were related to the specific contexts of the planning and representation of heritage tourism at the four heritage sites and of the continuities and changes in contemporary China. The framework outlined the potential relationships and how they may interact with each other in relation to heritage tourism in China. The application of the conceptual framework in China’s heritage tourism revealed the tensions that exist not only in this sector, but also in contemporary Chinese society generally.

Value of the Empirical Research This book has developed and applied a broad conceptual framework. The approach taken can add to people’s understanding of the debates on tradition and modernity, and on different stakeholders’ roles in tourism planning and policy making. It also adds to people’s understanding of the study of representation of heritage for tourist consumption and Chinese society.

Debates on tradition and modernity Heritage tourism planning has had to contend with the tensions between socialism, modernisation and traditional culture, while providing China’s authorities with an avenue to reconcile at least some of the contradictions. From a Western perspective, ‘tradition’ normally refers to elements of culture which are handed down from one generation to the next. The heritage tourism practices in China suggest that tradition is

188  Heritage Tourism in China

an aspect of contemporary social and cultural organisation, and that at times it may be reproduced in the interests of a dominant class. What is perhaps most intriguing in relation to the ‘invention’ of tradition is not simply that a particular contemporary cultural practice is legitimised by appealing to an invented tradition, but that this tradition is articulated and defined according to its loss under the wheels of contemporary change. In this way, tradition becomes an essential component of the ‘bittersweet sensibilities of modernity’ (Williams, 1977). This book suggests that some people consider that realising China’s modernity must involve innovation and changes so that ‘tradition’ is left behind. However, some people argue that modernity is not a stable state or an unattained goal and that it does not necessarily involve abandoning Chinese tradition, and indeed tradition may gain importance in some respects. From this perspective, the relationships between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ are viewed as socially constructed, contingent and inter-related and tradition in contemporary Chinese society is constantly constructed and deconstructed in its daily reproduction. In this vein, the view from the present, either looking backwards to a past or forwards to a future, involves ‘heritage’ as the contemporary use of the past. The representation of the past as ‘heritage’ is thus seen as a bridge that connects the past, present and future. The past in this context is constantly restructured in the course of making the present. Hence, traditional sites cannot be seen simply as ‘primitive’ and unchanging; rather, their presentation and interpretation to locals and tourists are considered to be negotiated among local parties, between the locals and tourists, and it is a reflection of contemporary society. The discussion on the relationships between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ suggests that China’s ongoing modernisation has been influenced by longestablished traditional values (i.e. Confucianism and Taoism), politically promoted socialism and the recent influx of Western capitalist values. It would be misleading to relate Chinese modernity to only one of them; rather, it seems to reflect a mixture of all three. Many Chinese people believe that ‘modernity’ is a developmental stage that they have not yet reached. Different stakeholders, however, have different perceptions of this. The national government, for example, has tended to promote the rigid GDP indicator as the key standard to evaluate modernisation and local development. Many people conceive of Western modernisation as a defined and desired goal, and one that will be the same in all contexts, but many believe that there should be ways for China to achieve its own ‘alternative’ modernity, whether this is the officially defined modern ‘socialist’ version, the private sectors’ market economy based on Confucianism, or a general dream of an economically well-developed future. Hence, instead of merely imitating Western modernity, many Chinese people perceive that Western modernity can be innovatively adapted in the Chinese context. This suggests that there should always be consideration of people’s alternative

Conclusions 189

understandings of modernity and recognition of alternative paths to that modernity. It also suggests that the development of a global economy does not necessarily entail a universalisation of Western culture, but rather the continuation of diversity through the active reinvention and reincorporation of non-Western civilisational patterns (Hamilton, 1994). Thus, in contemporary China a ‘pure’ Western or a socialist modernity is probably challenging. Alternative paradigms may be more appropriate in different contexts that are distinct from other forms of modernity in the other parts of the world.

Understanding the negotiated power between stakeholders Tourism planning is closely related to power in society and this book has examined the influence of power in social development. The conceptual framework and empirical findings help evaluate the power of different stakeholders, the contestations around power, and the struggles between stakeholders. As explained in this book, the planning of heritage tourism involved complex relationships between the local and central, between different departments in local government, and between the private sector, NGOs and nation state. In heritage planning, different stakeholders interact with others. The application of the conceptual framework indicated that power is sustained by specific patterns of resource distribution and competition. It indicated, further, that power is not ‘possessed’; rather, it is ‘performed’. In a transitional society such as China, which has a long-established cultural tradition, a relatively solid socialist political ideology, a fast-growing economy, centralised governance and an incomplete legal framework, the struggle for power between different stakeholders is often highly complex. The analysis suggested that control over cultural heritage assets triggered a power struggle between stakeholders that went beyond the initial heritage issues. Issues of authority over heritage assets could flow into other political arenas, such as marketisation, decentralisation, indigenous autonomy, law reforms and cultural policies. In China, central and local governments play the most important roles in heritage tourism, and they have considerable authority in relation to heritage interpretation and management. But with ongoing decentralisation, and the involvement of other stakeholders, such as the private sector, government is gradually loosening some of its control over heritage sites. This is part of a wider trend of government gradually retreating from some managerial fields, to cater for marketisation and globalis­ation. Decentralisation and autonomy in China are often driven by individual (regional and sector) economic activities. This new economic base was created as a result of the breakdown of the old hierarchies in the planned or command economy. Its consolidation goes hand in hand with the consolidation of new central or local relationships shaped by market forces.

190  Heritage Tourism in China

The findings suggested that even in a highly centralised country and in a very complex socio-political situation, there is still space for stakeholders to negotiate and sometimes share power within tourism planning. As Long (2001) argues, power emerges from the tensions between stakeholders, and it is mediated and realised in stakeholder-specific practice. The empirical findings presented in this book suggest that stakeholders’ views of each other can constantly change following socio-cultural changes in different historical periods (such as before and after the introduction of China’s ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies). The relationships between the stakeholders also change from time to time. The gradual change in cultural policies in China and the state’s shift from an emphasis on political movement to economic development meant that the positions and roles of different stakeholders changed dramatically. Now opposing stakeholders can work together through varying forms of collaboration in order to achieve national or local modernisation, and previously banned traditions can be revived to satisfy different stakeholders’ socio-political concerns. The interaction of the three forces of socialism, ­traditional culture and modernisation means that power is negotiable, and in many circumstances it is hard to find an absolute ‘left’ or ‘right’ path, as in the early period of the PRC, with many cases of compromises between stakeholders. The continuing progress of modernisation and of socio-cultural change means that the distribution of power is dynamic and changing.

The study of heritage tourism This study provides an explanation of the roles and functions of heritage tourism in China. The findings suggested that in the landscapes of the heritage industry can be found the terrain of modernity itself. They offer testimony to the significance of tourism as a powerful medium through which modernity’s contradictions are experienced. The study revealed how heritage tourism in China plays significant educational (identity-building) and economic roles. The findings of this book suggest that in its educational function, heritage tourism has helped China’s nation building. Heritage tourism and identity building are often inextricably linked. Heritage is implicated in identity and the meaning of lived experience. Heritage tourism carries with it the potential for multiple expressions of meaning and identity. In this study heritage tourism was seen to have added legitimacy to the official interpretations of the country’s past and of national identity. It was also used by the state as a vehicle to advance cultural and environmental sustainability. This book suggests that the meanings attached to a heritage site can depend on national concepts of heritage. Changing the definition of what constitutes heritage was shown to be the subject of power struggles. At Liugong Island and Taiqing Taoist Temple, the government often sought to keep definitions tightly in line with the existing heritage protection

Conclusions 191

legislation and opinions of the nation state. At other sites, however, such as at Qufu WHS and Mount Tai WHS, debates were encouraged in order to ensure that the site inventories, collections and archives reflected public opinion more fully. Thus, the historic relics and cultural events that had high current social value were given prominence. As well as having a role in national identity building, heritage tourism sites have been recognised as important economic assets and as vehicles contributing to the country’s modernisation. The four selected sites all clearly boosted the local economy and sometimes even became the ‘pillar industry’ for local development. There was sometimes tension between the different stakeholders around the relative importance of economic development and of cultural and environmental sustainability. Heritage tourism embraces culture but it must also serve the country’s goals of modernisation and remain true to socialism. This inevitably meant that the development of heritage tourism in China was politicised and contested. The tensions between socialism, modernisation and traditional culture have obliged the state government to balance maintaining the purity of socialist ideology and upholding the legitimacy of the state with the more immediate and pragmatic concerns of developing the economy. Culturally, the state govern­ ment has promoted various resources as national heritage, or a common heritage. However, those values may not always be accepted by tourists, the public and the local community, and sometimes they contradict the aims of local economic plans. The use of the conceptual framework has helped explain heritage tourism’s roles in mediating between modernity and tradition, and the local and the global. From a temporal perspective, tourism often helps unite modernity with tradition. If modernisation weakens the position of tradition in contemporary society (Giddens, 1994), tourism can be a focus for rediscovering the meanings and functions of tradition. If modernisation is characterised by homelessness, placelessness or ‘de-placeness’ (Cohen, 1995), tourism can be a quest for ‘home-ness’ or ‘placeness’, for example through visiting heritage sites. These heritage sites are a symbol of the past, and of tradition, and hence of Chinese people’s cultural roots and identity. Tourism, in short, can be the embodiment of the nostalgia that has persisted in modernity.

An understanding of Chinese society The empirical findings presented in this book from four sites are likely to have wider relevance for other heritage sites in the country and in other developing countries. The book also has value in explaining the continuities and changes in contemporary Chinese society. Through the analysis of heritage tourism it was possible to explain important tensions and contradictions in contemporary Chinese society. In particular, it helped understand the tensions in China between socialism, modernisation and traditional

192  Heritage Tourism in China

culture. China has been shown to be a country in transition, economically, socio-culturally and politically. Since the launch of the ‘Economic Reform and Open Door’ policies there has been a decline in the more rigid application of socialism, and this has enabled Chinese foreign, economic, cultural, environmental and tourism policies to become more flexible. The ‘socialist market economy’ framework, which is more flexible and pragmatic, has helped make these policies possible. The pressures to carry out reforms for the purpose of development have generated tensions, which in turn have encouraged political leaders to reformulate the socialist doctrines to address them. The economic reforms and changes to a more liberal market economy have been accompanied by the promotion of cultural heritage and have helped achieve various wider aims. The more rigid socialist political ideology has gradually become more flexible with what is now depicted by the state as ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’. This new meaning of socialism encompasses socialism as a form of development, and it includes the ideas of decentralisation of decision making, decollectivisation, private ownership, collaboration, a market economy and the democratisation of economic management. This book has examined the contested views on China’s modernity. The nation has been challenged by the rapid development of the market economy, which has triggered rapid socio-cultural change. For example, there are prominent differences between the eastern coastal region and western inland part, the urban and rural societies, and there has been ‘a rapid increase in the wealthy middle class who gradually accepts the increasingly prominent Western capitalism and consumerism’ (Harris, 2004). In contrast, most Chinese people still believe in traditional Chinese values (i.e. Confucianism and Taoism), although these traditions are often mixed up with capitalist values and sometimes their significance is reducing. Associated with this are the contested views on China’s modernity. This book suggests that modernity is often understood as modernisation and in­dustrialis­ation. Chinese people often believe that ‘modernity’ is a develop­ mental stage that they have not yet reached, and they often conceive of Western modernisation as a defined and desired goal, and one that will be the same in all contexts. On the other hand, people believe that there should be alternative ways for China to achieve modernity and sustainability, which is distinct from Western modernity. For some people, reaching this goal involves innovation and change, so that ‘tradition’ is left behind, but others believe that the promotion of modernisation and sustainable development does not necessarily entail abandoning tradition. This book has shown how these continuities and changes have had a significant impact on China’s socio-economic development, cultural policies and governance. This book has examined contemporary China’s governance. Relationships between central government and China’s provinces and localities have become more complex over recent years, and generally there is greater

Conclusions 193

potential for local control of financial and other resources. As a consequence, there is sometimes greater capacity for creative local leadership than in the past. The increasing provincial and local control of resources, the more decentralised governance, China’s deep-rooted traditional philosophy, and the officially strongly promoted political philosophy, have all sometimes produced contested views on governance at local, regional and national levels. For a long time the CNTA has had to promote coordination between ­ministries and departments. Cooperation around tourism has become increasingly necessary between the public and non-public sectors. In China, collaboration among stakeholder groups has been encouraged and important organisational arrangements have been made for tourism-related de­centralisation. This collaboration among stakeholders has the potential to lead to dialogue, negotiation and the building of mutually acceptable proposals on how tourism should develop. However, the experience of China’s heritage tourism shows that collaboration among different stakeholder groups has not always been particularly successful, and the growing decentralisation has sometimes encouraged the private sector or even local government to focus on short-term economic returns. Experimentation with devolution, greater participation and partnership arrangements has often led to considerable dilemmas in local practice. At times, there has been incoherence in the governance transformation and law making that has intensified differences between regional and departmental interests and exacerbated tensions among central, local and non-state stakeholders. Thus, in China the transformation of governance is unlikely to be completed in a short timescale, and this is likely to have a significant long-term influence on Chinese people’s pursuit of modernity and sustainable development. This book has explored changes in China related to the notion of sustain­able development. It has suggested that in contemporary China the mix of traditional Chinese values (including Confucianism and Taoism), socialist values and the modes of Western development have merged, at least in part, and that these have been key influences on people’s attitudes to human–environment relationships. Indeed, environmental values in China are sometimes losing strength in the face of several overwhelming pressures. As is the case in most of the developing world, China is increasingly compromising ecological systems in its adoption of Western development ideas. If environmental and cultural concerns continue to be disregarded in China’s development policies, the country will probably face similar dilemmas as other developing countries where the environment, indigenous culture, traditions and identities are gradually being eroded in the name of modernisation. Heritage tourism in China clearly reveals the superficiality of the mainstream notions of development and sustainable develop­ment, which extol the capitalist framework of development, Western culture and the supremacy of economic achievement. Under a reductionist vision of develop­ment and sustainable development, non-Western culture, for

194  Heritage Tourism in China

example China’s indigenous cultural tradition, has been threatened, and environmental conservation and human development are commonly considered the means for economic development, rather than the aim of development. In China, as elsewhere, sustainability is a contested concept among the public authorities and people in different regions. Indeed, different interpretations of sustainable tourism are probably appropriate under different circumstances. Sustainable development should not be regarded as a rigid framework for every country and every region, but rather as an adaptive paradigm which legitimises a variety of approaches according to specific circumstances. Different interpretations of sustainable development may be appropriate for developed and developing countries or regions. Sustainable tourism should focus on assisting sustainable development in a global context rather than on a region or a sector.

Conclusion This book has critically examined the relationships between the planning, development and representation of heritage for tourist consumption and the notions of modernity, identity and sustainable development in contemporary China. It has critically reviewed key academic research relevant to the study from various academic fields. It has shown that: there is limited research on the relationships between heritage tourism and notions of modernity, identity building and sustainable development in China; the role of state, political ideology, institutional arrangements and tradition have considerable impacts on perceptions of those notions; and the relationships between tourism and the notions of modernity, identity and sustainability are not always steady, but can be dynamic and complex. The conceptual framework developed and applied in this book links issues such as political ideology, traditional religion and philosophies, human–environment relations, governance and governance hierarchies, commodification for place marketing and economic development, senses of identity and identity building and differing notions of tradition and modern. The examination of these issues helped explore the tensions in the relationships between the representation of heritage for tourist consumption and the notions of modernity, identity and sustainable development in contemporary China. The conceptual framework was based on both Western literature and Chinese practice, with the intention that it will have wider applicability for heritage tourism planning and in wider debates on tensions between tradition, modernisation and political ideology. Due to its flexible and interactive nature, the conceptual framework has potential value for other researchers examining heritage tourism in other situations. By applying the framework in the evaluation of heritage tourism practice at the four heritage sites in China, assessment of the views of relevant

Conclusions 195

stakeholders showed that, firstly, indigenous tradition is still a persistent influence on Chinese people’s perceptions of modernity, identity building and sustainable development. Secondly, China still has a centralised public administrative system, although some decentralisation policies have been applied. In relation to this, however, the heritage tourism governance varies from place to place and the results of the study varied accordingly. Thirdly, socialist political ideology has gradually changed with the shifting demands of the times, but it still has a dominant position in China. The official political values still have a significant role in guiding the formation of Chinese people’s national identity and modernity. Fourthly, under global economic pressure, China has focused on economic priorities and modernis­ ation, and this has often weakened policies for sustainable development, with the concept of sustainable development often being simply sustainable economic development. Fifthly, although greatly influenced by Western ideas, Chinese people are seeking alternative ways to pursue modernity and sustainability, and often have their own interpretations of this. The concepts of modernity, identity and sustainability are contested, and they are negotiable and renegotiable in contemporary China.

References

Aas, C., Ladkin, A. and Fletcher, J. (2005) Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research 32 (1), 28–48. Allen, R. (1980) How to Save the World. London: Kogan Page. Anderson, A.D. (1991) National Identity. London: Penguin. Anderson, B. (1991) Imagined Communities (2nd edn). London: Verso. Anderson, P. (1984) Modernity and revolution. New Left Review 144, 96–113. Appadurai, A. (1986) Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value. In A. Appadurai (ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in a Cultural Perspective (pp. 3–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Appadurai, A. (1990) Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. In M. Featherstone (ed.) Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalisation and Modernity. London: Sage. Archer, B. and Cooper, C. (1998) The positive and negative impacts of tourism. In W. Theobald (ed.) Global Tourism: The Next Decade (2nd edn) (pp. 63–81). Oxford: Butter­ worth Heinemann. Arcodia, C.V. (2003) Confucian values and their implications for the tourism industry. In R.W. Braithwaite and R.L. Braithwaite (eds) Riding the Wave of Tourism and Hospitality Research. Proceedings of the Council of Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Education Conference, Coffs Harbour, 5–8 February. Ashworth, G.J. (1994) From history to heritage – from heritage to identity: In search of concepts and models. In G.J. Ashworth and P.J. Larkham (eds) Building a New Heritage: Tourism, Culture and Identity in the New Europe (pp. 13–30). London: Routledge. Ashworth, G.J. and Voogd, H. (1990) Selling the City. London: Belhaven Press. Ashworth, G.J. and Voogd, H. (1994) Marketing and place promotion. In S.V. Ward and J.R. Gold (eds) Place Promotion: The Use of Publicity and Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions (pp. 39–52). Chichester: Wiley. Avraham, E. (2004) Media strategies for improving an unfavourable city image. Cities 21 (6), 471–479. Ayers, W. (1971) Chang Chih-tung and Education Reform in China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Balcar, M. and Pearce, D. (1996) Heritage tourism on the west coast of New Zealand. Tourism Management 17 (3), 203–212. BBC (2014) How uninhabited islands soured China-Japan ties, 10 November, at http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139 (accessed 22 November 2014). Beiyang Net (2013) China Beiyang Naval Fleet, 7 February, at http://beiyang.org/index. php?m=content&c=index&a=lists&catid=20 (accessed 10 April 2014). 196

References 197

Bell, D.A. (2000) East Meets West: Human Rights and Democracy in East Asia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Best, S. (1989) The commodification of reality and the reality of commodification: Jean Baudrillard and post-modernism. Current Perspectives in Social Theory 9, 23–51. Bianchini, F. and Schwengel, H. (1991) Re-imagining the city. In J. Corner and S. Harvey (eds) Enterprise and Heritage: Crosscurrents of National Culture (pp. 212–234). London: Routledge. Borocz, J. (1996) Leisure Migration: A Sociological Study. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Bramwell, B. (1998) Introduction. In B. Bramwell, I. Henry, G. Jackson, A.G. Prat, G. Richards and J. van der Straaten (eds) Sustainable Tourism Management: Principles and Practice (2nd edn) (pp. 1–6). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Bramwell, B. (2003) Maltese response to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 30, 581–605. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (1993) Sustainable tourism: an evolving global approach? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 (1), 1–5. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (2000) Collaboration and partnerships in tourism planning. In B. Bramwell and B. Lane (eds) Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics, Practice and Sustainability (pp. 1–19). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Britton, S. (1982) The political economy of tourism in the third world. Annals of Tourism Research 19 (3), 331–358. Britton, S. (1991) Tourism, capital, and place: Towards a critical geography of tourism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 9, 451–478. Broudethoux, A. (2001) Image marketing, city marketing, and the anesthetization of social inequality in Rio de Janeiro. In N. AlSayyad (ed.) Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage: Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism (pp. 273–297). London: Routledge. Bruner, E.M. (1991) Transformation of self in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18, 238–250. Budowski, G. (1976) Tourism and environmental conservation: Conflict, coexistence or symbiosis? Environmental Conservation 3 (1), 27–31. Buijs A.E., Elands, B.H.M. and Langers, F. (2009) No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landscape and Urban Planning 91, 113–23. Burns, P.M. (1998) Tourism in Russia. Tourism Management 19, 555–565. Butler, R.W. (1993) Tourism – an evolutionary perspective. In J.G. Nelson, R. Butler and G. Wall (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, and Managing (pp. 27–41). University of Waterloo, ON: Heritage Resources Centre. Butler, R. (1998) Sustainable tourism – looking backwards in order to progress? In C.M. Hall and A.A. Lew (eds) Sustainable Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (pp. 25–34). Harlow: Longman. Callicott, J.B. (1994) Earth’s Insights: A Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean to the Australian Outback. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Callicott, J.B. and Ames, R.T. (eds) (1989) Nature in Asian Traditions of Thought: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. New York: State University of New York Press. Cano, L.M. and Mysyk, A. (2004) Cultural tourism, the state, and day of the dead. Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4), 879–898. Cartier, C. (1996) Conserving the built heritage and generating heritage tourism in ­Peninsular Malaysia. Tourism Recreation Research 21 (1), 45–53. Case, W. (1998) Sayonara to the strong state: From government to governance in the Asia-Pacific. In R. Maidment, D. Goldblatt and J. Mitchell (eds) Governance in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 250–274). New York: Routledge. Castells, M. (1997) The Power of Identity. Oxford: Blackwell. Cater, E. (1993) Ecotourism in the third world: Problems for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management 14, 85–90.

198 References

CCP (1956) CCP Constitution, People’s Daily, 27 September (updated 4 March 2002), at http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2002–03/04/content_2391956.htm (accessed 15 March 2006). CCP (2003) Perfecting the Socialist Market Economic System, presented at the Third Plenum of the 16th CCP Conference (updated 21 October 2003), at http://news.xinhuanet. com/newscenter/2003–10/21/content_1135402.htm (accessed 9 March 2006). CCP (2012) CCP Constitution, 18 November, at http://news.xinhuanet. com/18cpcnc/2012–11/18/c_113714762.htm (accessed 12 February 2014). CCP Central Committee (1978) Report of the CCP Third Plenum of the 11th Central Committee, 18 December, at http://cpc.people.com.cn/GB/64162/64168/64563/653 71/4441902.html (accessed 12 May 2013). CCP Central Committee (2006) Some major issues in building a harmonious socialist society. The Sixth Plenum of the 16th CCP Conference, 18 October, at http://news. xinhuanet.com/politics/2006–10/18/content_5218639.htm (accessed 19 October 2006). CCP News (2013) The study of Xi’s speech on the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, 3 December, at http://cpc.people.com.cn/n/2013/1203/c64387–23722539. html (accessed 21 June 2014). Chan, W.Y. and Ma, S.Y. (2004) Heritage preservation and sustainability of China’s develop­ment. Sustainable Development 12, 15–31. Chang, J. (2001) The politics of commemoration. In D. Lary and S. MacKinnon (eds) Scars of War: The Impact of Warfare on Modern China (pp. 136–160). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Chen, Z. (2006) Break the regional protectionism and withdraw of functional departments from local government. Liaowang Journal, at http://news.china.com/zh_cn/ domestic/945/20061114/13742556.html (accessed 2 September 2016). Cheng, R. (2005) Sino-Japanese relationships after the Maguan Treaty, 31 March. http:// news.163.com/05/0331/17/1G6J8V8C00011E7U.html (accessed 19 December 2006). Cheng, X. (2000) New disputes over Mount Tai cableway, 23 October, at http://www. people.com.cn/GB/channel1/13/20001023/282035.html (accessed 5 June 2010). China 1894–95 Sino-Japanese War Museum (2014) Classic red tourism scenic area: Liugong Island, at http://www.jiawuzhanzheng.org/menu/about-us/hongse-lvyou (accessed 17 September 2015). China Central Spiritual Civilisation Office (2006) Patriotic education, at http://www. godpp.gov.cn/sxdd (accessed 2 December 2006). China Culture (2006) Confucius cult ceremony, at http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/ cn_whyc/2006–10/19/content_87165.htm (accessed 5 January 2007). China Daily (2015) China’s young return to traditional roots, 7 October, at http:// usa.chinadaily.com.cn/culture/2015–10/07/content_22122272.htm (accessed 22 December 2015). China Environmental News (2000a) Who makes the decision for Mount Tai cableway? 26 April, at http://www.cenews.com.cn/historynews/200804/t20080419_403284.html (accessed 21 May 2006). China Environmental News (2000b) Mount Tai cableway – can it be challenged? 30 August, at http://www.cenews.com.cn/historynews/200804/t20080422_561931. html (accessed 5 June 2010). China Government Net (2011) Red tourism became an important component in China’s tourism industry, accessed 15 June 2011. http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2011–06/15/ content_1884461.htm. China Net (2012) Nine historical basis of the Diaoyu Islands belonging to China, 12 September, at http://www.china.com.cn/international/txt/2012–09/12/ content_26503136.htm (accessed 15 October 2014). China News (2015) The opening of Diaoyu Island Sovereignty Museum on Liugong

References 199

Island, 7 September 2015, at http://www.chinanews.com/gn/2015/09–07/7510032. shtml (accessed 8 September 2015). China Qufu Net (2013) Qufu CCP Committee and Qufu municipal government, at http://www.qufu.gov.cn/qfgk (accessed 12 November 2013). China Today (2013) Communist Party of China, at http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc (accessed 22 August 2013). China Tourism News (2013) The change of tourism scale in Qufu, 23 January, at http:// www.ctnews.com.cn/zglyb/html/2013–01/23/content_67671.htm?div=0 (accessed 11 August 2014). China World Heritage Office (2000) Taishan Suo dao zhen de han bu dong, China World Heritage, at http://www.cnwh.org/news/news.asp?news=42 (accessed 2 September 2006). Chow, S. (1988) Open policy and tourism between Guangdong and Hong Kong. Annals of Tourism Research 15, 205–218. Christou, E. (2005) Heritage and cultural tourism: A marketing focused approach. In M. Sigala and D. Leslie (eds) International Cultural Tourism: Management, Implications and Cases (pp. 3–15). Oxford: Elsevier. Clark, J. (1987) Change and Continuity in Chinese Educational Theory: A Study of the Persistence of Confucian Educational Ideas in the Thought of Chinese Republican and Maoist educators. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI. Clarke, J. (1997a) A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5 (3), 224–233. Clarke, J. (1997b) Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter between Asian and Western Thought. London: Routledge. Clifford, J. (1997) Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CNKI (2006) Westernisation movement, at http://define.cnki.net/Webforms/WebDefines. aspx?searchword=%E6%B4%8B%E5%8A%A1%E8%BF%90%E5%8A%A8 (accessed 2 February 2007). CNTA (1992) China must speed up tourism development: Deng Xiaoping. Tourism Tribune 76, 1–2. CNTA (2000a) Deng Xiaoping’s Talks on Tourism, 6 January 1979. Beijing: Central Literature Publishing House. CNTA (2000b) Deng Xiaoping’s Talks on Tourism, 17 January 1979. Beijing: Central Literature Publishing House. CNTA (2013a) China in brief, at http://en.cnta.gov.cn/TravelInChina/Forms/TravelIn​ China/Chinainbrief.shtml (accessed 10 August 2014). CNTA, (2013b) Qufu ranks the third among the top 100 county-level regions, 27 August, at http://www.cnta.gov.cn/html/2013–8/2013–8–27–8–57–51286.html (accessed 11 August 2014). CNTA (2013c) Tourism law: An integrated code, 4 June, at http://dj.cnta.gov.cn/ html/2013–1/5932.shtml (accessed 7 May 2014). CNTA (2015) The notice of regulating the admission fees at tourist attractions, 6 Sep­ tember, at http://www.sdpc.gov.cn/gzdt/201509/t20150908_750360.html (accessed 28 September 2015). CNTA (n.d.) CNTA in brief, at http://www.cnta.gov.cn/jgjj/lyjjj (accessed 11 August 2014). Cohen, E. (1988) Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15 (3), 371–386. Cohen, E. (1995) Touristic craft ribbon development in Thailand. Tourism Management, 16 (3), 225–235. Cohen, J.I. (2008) Anthony Giddens. In R. Stones (ed.) Key Sociological Thinkers (2nd edn) (pp. 323–337). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

200 References

Cohen, S. and Taylor, L. (1992) Escape Attempts: The Theory and Practice of Resistance to Everyday Life. London: Routledge. Cronin, L. (1990) A strategy for tourism and sustainable developments. World Leisure and Recreation 32 (3), 12–18. Cui, X. (2014) Why did President Xi emphasised on the revival of traditional Chinese culture? 25 September, at http://cpc.people.com.cn/n/2014/0925/c164113– 25731729.html (accessed 10 October 2014). Dallmayr, F. (1993) Tradition, modernity and Confucianism. Human Studies 16, 203– 211. Dardess, J.W. (1983) Confucianism and Autocracy: Professional Elites in the Founding of the Ming Dynasty. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. De Bary, W., Chan, W.T. and Watson, B. (1960) Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. 1. New York: Columbia University Press. Deng, J., Walker, G.J. and Swinnerton, G. (2006) A comparison of environmental values and attitudes between Chinese in Canada and Anglo-Canadians. Environment and Behaviour 38, 22–47. Deng, X. (1992) South travel speech, at http://www.oklink.net/lszl/dangdai/dxp01.html (accessed 1 December 2005). Deng, X. (1993) Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Vol. 3 (1st edn). Beijing: People’s Publishing House. Deng, X. (1994a) Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Vol. 1 (2nd edn). Beijing: People’s Publishing House. Deng, X. (1994b) Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Vol. 2 (2nd edn). Beijing: People’s Publishing House. Dernoi, L. (1981) Alternative tourism: towards a new style in north–south relations. International Journal of Tourism Management 2 (4), 253–264. Donohoe, M. (2001) Confucius might be lost for words as clean-up fouls up. Irish Times, 7 February. Doorne, S. and Ateljevic, I. (2005) Tourism performance as metaphor: Enacting backpacker travel in the Fiji Islands. In A. Jaworski and A. Pritchard (eds) Discourse, Communication, and Tourism (pp. 173–198). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Dorey, P. (2005) Policy Making in Britain: An Introduction. London: Sage. Duncan, J. and Duncan, N. (1988) (Re)reading the landscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 6, 117–126. Dunn, K.M., McQuirk, P.M. and Winchester, H.P. (1995) Place making: The social construction of Newcastle. Australian Geographical Studies 33, 149–166. Dupré, L. (1983) Marx’s Social Critique of Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Elliot, J. (1997) Tourism: Politics and Public Sector Management. London: Routledge. Emery, F. (1981) Alternative futures in tourism. International Journal of Tourism Management 2 (1), 49–67. Erickson, B. and Roberts, M. (1997) Marketing local identity. Journal of Urban Design 2, 35–60. Fairbank, J.K. (ed.) (1978) The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 10: Late Ch’ing 1800–1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farrell, B. and McLellan, R. (1987) Tourism and physical environment research. Annals of Tourism Research 14 (1), 1–16. Fayos-Sola, E. (1996) Tourism policy: A midsummer night’s dream? Tourism Management 17 (6), 405–412. Feilden, B. and Jokilehto, J. (1993) Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites. Rome: ICCROM. Fitzgerald, J. (1994) Why study Asia? Interaction 22 (30), 12–18. Flath, J. (2004) Setting moon and rising nationalism: Lugou Bridge as monument and memory. International Journal of Heritage Studies 10 (2), 175–192.

References 201

Forsyth, T. (1996) Sustainable Tourism: Moving from Theory to Practice. Godalming: World Wildlife Fund. Francis, F. (1995) Confucianism and democracy. Journal of Democracy 6 (2), 20–33. Frow, J. (1997) Time and Commodity Culture: Essays in Cultural Theory and Postmodernity. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gao, D.C. and Zhang, G. (1982) China’s tourism: Policy and practice. Tourism Management 4 (2), 75–84. Gardner, G.T. and Stern, P.S. (1996) Environmental Problems and Human Behaviour. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Garrod, B. and Fyall, A. (2001) Heritage tourism: A question of definition. Annals of Tourism Research 28 (4), 1049–1052. Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1994) Beyond Left and Right – The Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (2009) Sociology (6th edn). Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. and Pierson, C. (1998) Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gillis, J.R. (ed.) (1994) Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton, MA: Princeton University Press. Goulet, D. (1992) Development: Creator and destroyer of values. World Development 20 (3), 467–475. Göymen, K. (2000) Tourism and governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (4), 1025–1048. Graham, B., Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbrdge, J.E. (2000) A Geography of Heritage. London: Arnold. Grasso, J., Corrin, J. and Kort, M. (1997) Modernisation and Revolution in China. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Guo, M. (1962) Du Sui Yuan Shi Hua Zha Ji. Beijing: Writers Press. Hall, C.M. (1994) Tourism and Politics. Chichester: Wiley. Hall, C.M. (1997) The politics of heritage tourism: Place, power and the representation of values in the urban context. In P. Murphy (ed.) Quality Management in Urban Tourism (pp. 91–101). Chichester: Wiley. Hall, C.M. (2000) Tourism Planning: Policies, Process and Relationships. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Hall, C.M. (2001) Seducing global capital: Reimaging and the creation of seductive space in Melbourne and Sydney. In A. Lew and C. Cartier (eds) Seductions of Place: ­Geographies of Touristed Landscapes (pp. 121–134). New York: Routledge. Hall, C.M. and Hodges, J. (1997) The party’s great, but what about the hangover? The housing and social impacts of mega-events with special reference to the 2000 Sydney Olympics. Festival Management and Event Tourism 4 (1/2), 13–20. Hall, D. (1999) Destination branding, niche marketing and national image projection in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Vacation Marketing 5 (3), 227–237. Hall, D.L. (1989) On seeking a change of environment. In J.B. Callicott and R.T. Ames (eds) Nature in Asian Traditions of Thought: Essays in Environmental Philosophy (pp. 99–112). New York: State University of New York Press. Hall, S. (1989) New ethnicities. In K. Mercer (ed.) Black Film, British Cinema (pp. 27–31). London: Institute of Contemporary Arts. Hamilton, G. (1994) Civilization and the organisation of economy. In N. Smelser and R. Swedberg (eds) The Handbook of Economic Sociology (pp. 183–205). New York and Princeton, NJ: Russell Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press. Han, K.H. (1994) China: Tourism Industry. Beijing: Modern China Press. Handler, R. (1988) Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

202 References

Hanson, A. (1989) The making of the Maori. American Anthropologist 91, 890–902. Hardy, A.L. and Beeton, R.J.S. (2001) Sustainable tourism or maintainable tourism: Managing resources for more than average outcomes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9 (3), 168–192. Harris, P.G. (2004) Getting rich is glorious: Environmental values in the People’s Republic of China. Environmental Values 13, 145–165. Harrison, D. (1988) The Sociology of Modernization and Development. London: Unwin Hyman. Harrison, D. (1994) Tourism, capitalism and development in less developed countries. In L. Sklair (ed.) Capitalism and Development (pp. 232–257). London: Routledge. Harrison, D. (1997) Globalization and tourism: Some themes from Fiji. In M. Oppermann (ed.) Pacific Rim Tourism (pp. 167–183). Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Harvey, D. (1990) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Haywood, M. (1988) Responsible and responsive tourism planning in the community. Tourism Management 9 (2), 105–118. He, G. (1992) To further study Deng Xiaoping’s theory on building socialism with Chinese character [sic], in order to speed up tourism development. Tourism Tribune 7 (6), 3–4. Henderson, J.C. (2002) Heritage attractions and tourism development in Asia: A comparative study of Hong Kong and Singapore. International Journal of Tourism Research 4, 337–344. Henderson, J.C. (2007) Communism, heritage and tourism in East Asia. International Journal of Heritage Studies 13, 240–254. Herbert, D.H. (ed.) (1995) Heritage, Tourism and Society. London: Mansell. Hewison, R. (1987) The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London: Methuen. Heywood, A. (2003) Political Ideologies: An Introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Heywood, A. (2013) Politics (4th edn). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hitchcock, M. and King, V.T. (2003) Discourses with the past: Tourism and heritage in South-East Asia. Indonesia and the Malay World (special issue Tourism and Heritage in South-East Asia) 31 (89), 3–15. Hobart, M. (ed.) (1993) An Anthropological Critique of Development: The Ignorance of Growth. London: Routledge. Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds) (1983) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hopkins, J. (2002) Devolution in Context, Regional, Federal and Devolved Government in the European Union. London: Cavendish Publishing. Horne, D. (1984) The Great Museum: The Re-Presentation of History. London: Pluto. Hu, J. (2005) Speech on building a socialist harmonious society, reports on the central provincial leadership seminar on building a socialist harmonious society, at http:// theory.people.com.cn/GB/40557/42475/3263993.html (accessed 1 September 2007). Hu, J. (2011) President Hu Jintao’s speech on the celebration of the 90th anniversary of the founding of China’s Community Party, at http://www.gov.cn/ldhd/2011–07/01/ content_1897720.htm (accessed 29 May 2013). Hu, S. (1981) From Opium War to May Fourth Movement. Beijing: People’s Press. Hu, X. (1996) A study on Confucius’ philosophy of junzi in the Analects. Unpublished MA Thesis. Berkeley University. Hu, Z. (2005) Hastening red tourism, and promoting patriotic and revolutionary education. Central Propagandizing Department and Central Civilization Department, at http://engine.cqvip.com/content/d/81160x/2004/000/010/sk42_d1_10928791. pdf (accessed 1 September 2007). Hubbard, P.J. and Lilley, K.D. (2000) Selling the past: Heritage-tourism and place identity in Stratford upon Avon. Geography 85, 221–232.

References 203

Hudman, L.E. and Hawkins, D.E. (1989) Tourism in Contemporary Society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hunter, C. (1995) On the need to re-conceptualise sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3, 155–165. Hunter, C. (1997) Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research 24, 850–67. Hunter, C. and Green, H. (1995) Tourism and the Environment: A Sustainable Relationship? Routledge: London. Hyden, G. (1983) No Shortcuts to Progress: African Development Management in Perspective. London: Heinemann. Institute of Modern History (2008) The influence of the Self-Strengthening Movement on China’s social development, China Academy of Social Science, at http://jds.cass. cn/Item/7661.aspx (accessed 12 August 2014). Ioannides, D. (2001) Sustainable development and the shifting attitudes of tourism stakeholders: Toward a dynamic framework. In S.F. McCool and R.N. Moisey (eds) Tourism, Recreation and Sustainability: Linking Culture and The Environment (pp. 55–76). Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Ip, Po-K. (1983) Taoism and the foundation of environmental ethics. Environmental Ethics 5, 335–343. Jahiel, A.R. (1998) The organisation of environmental protection in China. China Quarterly 156, 757–787. Jenkins, C. (1994) Tourism in developing countries: The privatisation issue. In A. Seaton (ed.) Tourism: The State of the Art (pp. 3–9). Chichester: Wiley. Jenkins, T.N. (1998) Economics and the environment: A case of ethical neglect. Ecological Economics 26 (2), 151–163. Jenkins, T.N. (2002) Chinese traditional thought and practice: Lessons for an ecological economics worldview. Ecological Economics 40 (1), 39–52. Jensen, A.L., Arnett, J.J. and McKenzie, J. (2011) Globalization and cultural identity. In S.J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx and V.L. Vignoles (eds) Handbook of Identity Theory and Research (pp. 285–301). New York: Springer. Jiang, Z. (1997) CCP 15th Conference report, at http://news.xinhuanet.com/zhengfu/​ 2004–04/29/content_1447509.htm (accessed 1 August 2006). Jiang, Z. (2002) CCP 16th Conference report, at http://xibu.tjfsu.edu.cn/elearning/ lk/16c.htm (accessed 1 August 2006). Jining Tourism Authority (2005) The close integration of the heritage and tourism governance system at Qufu, at http://www.jita.gov.cn/news/lydtlist.asp?id=4455 (accessed 1 July 2007). Johnson, C. (ed.) (1973) Ideology and Politics in Contemporary China. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Johnson, N. (1995) Cast in stone: Monuments, geography and nationalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13, 51–65. Jones, D.M. (1998) The politics of economic governance. In R. Maidment, D. Goldblatt and J. Mitchell (eds) Governance in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 172–194). London: Routledge. Jones, D.M. and Smith, M.L.R. (2006) ASEAN and East Asian International Relations: Regional Delusion. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Keith, M. and Pile, S. (1993) Place and the Politics of Identity. London: Routledge. Kellner, D. (1989) Critical Theory, Marxism, and Modernity. Cambridge and Baltimore, MD: Polity Press and John Hopkins University Press. Kerns, G. and Philo, C. (1993) Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present. Oxford: Pergamon. King, V.T. (2012) Culture, heritage and tourism in Southeast Asia. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities 20 (1), 5–7. Kneafsey, M. (1998) Tourism and place identity: A case study in rural Ireland. Irish Geography 32 (2), 111–123.

204 References

Kobayashi, Y. (2005) The ‘troubled moderniser’: Three decades of Chinese environmental policy and diplomacy. In P.G. Harris (ed.) Confronting Environmental Change in East and Southeast Asia: Eco-Politics, Foreign Policy, and Sustainable Development (pp. 87–101). London: Earthscan/United Nations University Press. Kong, L. and Yeoh, B.S.A. (2003) The Politics of Landscape in Singapore: Constructions of ‘Nation’. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Kooiman, J. (2000) Levels of governing: Interaction as a central concept. In J. Pierre (ed.) Debating Governance (pp. 142–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kotler, P., Haider, D.H. and Rein, I. (1993) Marketing Places. New York: Free Press. Krahmann, E. (2003) National, regional, and global governance: One phenomenon or many? Global Governance 9, 323–346. Kristof, N.D. (2000) The filthy earth. In N.D. Kristof and S. WuDunn (eds) Thunder from the East: Portraits of a Rising Asia (pp. 291–313). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Lane, B. (1994) Sustainable rural tourism strategies: A tool for development and conservation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2, 102–111. Lanfant, M.F. (1995) Introduction. In M.F. Lanfant, J.B. Allcock and E.M. Brune (eds) International Tourism: Identity and Change (pp. 1–23). London: Sage. Laoshan (2013a) An introduction to Laoshan, at http://www.qdlaoshan.cn/ecology.asp (accessed 7 October 2014) . Laoshan (2013b) Taoism at Mount Lao, at http://www.qdlaoshan.cn/renwen_daojiao. asp (accessed 7 October 2014). Lau, D.C. (1963) Lao Tzu Tao Te Ching. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Leong, L.W.T. (1997) Commodifying ethnicity: State and ethnic tourism in Singapore. In M. Picard and R.E. Wood (eds) Tourism, Ethnicity, and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies (pp. 71–98). Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. Leung, T. (1992) Communication and hermeneutics: A Confucian point of view. Journal of Chinese Philosophy 19 (4), 407–422. Li, G. (2001) A Local History of Shandong Tourism. Jinan: Shandong People’s Press. Li, S. (2008) Analysis of Deng’s thought on common prosperity, at http://theory.people. com.cn/GB/40557/114078/117683/8268066.html (accessed 1 August 2008). Lieberthal, K. (1995) Governing China: From Revolution Through Reform. New York: Norton. Light, D. (2000) Gazing on communism: Heritage tourism and post-communist identities in Germany, Hungary and Romania. Tourism Geographies 2 (2), 157–176. Little, R. and Reed, W. (1989) The Confucian Renaissance. Sydney: Federation Press. Liu, Y. (2014) The defeat of 1894–1895 Sino-Japanese War was the failure of the political system, 8 June, at http://news.ifeng.com/exclusive/lecture/special/liuyazhou (accessed 15 October 2014). Liugong Island Administration Committee (2006) Tourism administration at Liugong Island, at http://www.liugongdao.com.cn/gwjs_show.asp?id=1300 (accessed 15 August 2007). Liugong Island Administration Committee (n.d.) Tourism administration at Liugong Island, at http://lvyou.liugongdao.com.cn/index.php?m=content&c=index&a=show​&c​ at​ id​=​34&id=2546 (accessed 17 August 2008). Lo, C.W.H. and Leung, S.W. (2000) Environmental agency and public opinion in Guangzhou: The limits of a popular approach to environmental governance. China Quarterly 163, 677–704. Long, M. (2001) Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives. London: Routledge. Lowenthal, D. (1993) Landscape as heritage: National scenes and global changes. In J.M. Fladmark (ed.) Heritage: Conservation, Interpretation, Enterprise (pp. 3–15). London: Donhead. Lutsky, J. (2002) China 2002: Building socialism with Chinese characteristics, 29 March, at http://peoplesworld.org/china-2002–building-socialism-with-chinese-characteristics (accessed 23 April 2006).

References 205

Lyotard, J. (1979) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: ­Manchester University Press. Ma, L.J.C. (2005) Urban administrative restructuring, changing scale relations and local economic development in China. Political Geography 24 (4), 477–497. MacCannell, D. (1976) The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Schocken. MacCannell, D. (1989) The Tourist: A New Theory of the Leisure Class (2nd edn). New York: Schocken. MacCannell, D. (1992) Empty Meeting Grounds: The Tourist Papers. London: Routledge. Mackerras, C. (1998) Red star over East Asia: Communist states and communist parties. In R. Maidment, D. Goldblatt and J. Mitchell (eds) Governance in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 30–50). New York: Routledge. Mackerras, C., Taneja, P. and Young, G. (1994) China since 1978: Reform, Modernisation and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. New York: Longman Cheshire. Madsen, H. (1992) Place-marketing in Liverpool: A review. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 16 (4), 633–640. Mao, Y. (1997) China. In M. Janicke and H. Weidner (eds) National Environmental Policies: A Comparative Study of Capacity Building (pp. 237–255). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Mao, Z. (1956) CCP 8th National Congress Opening Speech, People’s Daily, 16 September, at http://big5.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.gov.cn/test/2008–06/03/content_1004248.htm (accessed 5 July 2008). Mao, Z. (1958) Introducing a cooperative. Hongqi Journal 1. Mao, Z. (1991) Mao Zedong’s Selected Works, Vol. 2. Beijing: People’s Publishing House. Marx, K. (2007) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1, Part I, The Process of Capitalist Production. New York: Cosimo (original work published 1867). Masberg, B. and Silverman, L. (1996) Visitor experiences at heritage sites: A phenomenological approach. Journal of Travel Research 34 (4), 20–25. Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. Harlow: Longman. McCool, S.F., Moisey, R.N. and Nickerson, N.P. (2001) What should tourism sustain? The disconnect with industry perceptions of useful indicators. Journal of Travel Research 40 (2), 124–131. McKercher, B. (1993) The unrecognised threat to tourism: Can tourism survive ‘sustainability’? Tourism Management 14, 13l–136. Meethan, K. (2001) Tourism in Global Society: Place, Culture, Consumption. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Meethan, K. (2004) Tourism, development and the political economy. In S. Williams (ed.) Tourism: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences, Vol. 3: Tourism Development and Sustainability (pp. 3–28). London: Routledge. Ministry of Construction (2000) Reply on Mt Tai Cableway Project, Ministry of Construction PRC, No. 247, at http://www.cin.gov.cn/gcwzcfb/200611/t20061101_17832. htm 04/08/2000 (accessed 17 December 2006). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC (2012) The truth about Diaoyu Island, 19 October, at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/diaoyudao/chn/xwdt/t980721.htm (accessed 16 June 2015). Mitchell, T. (2001) Making the nation: The politics of heritage in Egypt. In N. AlSayyad (ed.) Consuming Tradition, Manufacturing Heritage: Global Norms and Urban Forms in the Age of Tourism (pp. 212–239). London: Routledge. Morpeth, N.D. and Yan, H. (2015) Sustainability: From theory to practice. In N.D. Morpeth and H. Yan (eds) Planning for Tourism: Towards a Sustainable Future (pp. 27–46). Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Mu, Z. (2003) The PRC Constitution 1954, at http://www.people.com.cn/GB/14576/28 320/31049/31050/2255644.html (accessed 15 December 2006). Mucciaroni, G. (1991) Unclogging the arteries: Olson’s logic of collective action and the decline of client politics. Policy Studies Journal 19, 474–494. 

206 References

Muller, H. (1994) The thorny path to sustainable tourism development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 2, 131–136. Mullins, W.A. (1972) On the concept of ideology in political science. American Political Science Review 66, 498–510. Munt, I. (1992) A great escape? Town and Country Planning 61 (7/8), 212–214. Murphy, P. (1983) Tourism as a community industry. Tourism Management 4 (3), 180–193. Murphy, P. (1985) Tourism: A Community Approach. London: Routledge. Murphy, P. (1988) Community driven tourism planning. Tourism Management 9 (2), 96–104. Nash, D. and Smith, V.L. (1991) Anthropology and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18 (1), 12–25. National Bureau of Statistics of China (2015) China Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press. National Bureau of Statistics of China (2016) China Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China Statistics Press. Needham, J. (1956) Science and Civilization in China, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nelson, J. (1993) An introduction to tourism and sustainable development with special reference to monitoring. In J. Nelson, R. Butler and G. Wall (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing. Waterloo: University of Waterloo. Norkunas, M. (1993) The Politics of Public Memory: Tourism, History and Ethnicity in Monterey. New York: SUNY Press. NPC (1982a) State Law of Cultural Heritage Protection, at http://www.sach.gov.cn/ tabid/287/InfoID/11352/Default.aspx (accessed 9 August 2006). NPC (1982b) People’s Republic Constitution, at http://news.xinhuanet.com/news​ center/2004–03/15/content_1367387.htm (accessed 9 August 2006). NPC (1996) CCP Law of Administrative Penalty, at http://www.law-lib.com/law/ law_view.asp?id=307 (accessed 9 August 2006). NPC (2002) State Law of Cultural Heritage Protection, at http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/ gongbao/2002–12/03/content_5303238.htm (accessed 5 July 2006). NPC (2014) State structure of the People’s Republic of China, at http://www.npc.gov.cn/ npc/gjjg/node_506.htm (accessed 18 June 2014). Nuryanti, W. (1996) Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (2), 249–260. Nye, J. (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs. Nyiri, P. (2006) Scenic Spots: Chinese Tourism, the State and Cultural Authority. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Oakes, T. (1993) The cultural space of modernity: Ethnic tourism and place identity in China. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 11, 47–66. Oakes, T. (1998) Tourism and Modernity in China. London: Routledge. Ogden, S. (1995) China’s Unresolved Issues: Politics, Development and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. O’Regan, C. (2011) Voegelin and the troubled greatness of Hegel. In L. Trepanier and S.F. McGuire (eds) The Continental Tradition (pp. 44–63). Columbia, MI: Missouri University Press. Owen, R.E., Witt, S.F. and Gammon, S. (1993) Sustainable tourism development in Wales: From theory to practice. Tourism Management 14 (6), 463–474. Palmer, C. (1999) Tourism and the symbols of identity. Tourism Management 20, 313–322. Peleggi, M. (1996) National heritage and global tourism in Thailand. Annals of Tourism Research 23 (2), 423–447. People’s Daily (2001) Who is responsible for water washing ‘Three Kong’, at http://www. people.com.cn/GB/paper53/2695/390002.html (accessed 12 July 2007). Pepper, D. (1984) The Roots of Modern Environmentalism. London: Croom Helm.

References 207

Philp, J. and Mercer, D. (1999) Commodification of Buddhism in contemporary Burma. Annals of Tourism Research 29 (1), 21–59. Ponting, C. (1991) A Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations. New York: St Martin’s Press. Poria, Y., Airey, D. and Butler, R. (2001) Challenging the present approach to heritage tourism: Is tourism to heritage places heritage tourism? Tourism Review 56 (1/2), 51–53. Prentice, K. (1993) Tourism and Heritage Attractions. London: Routledge. Pretes, M. (2003) Tourism and nationalism. Annals of Tourism Research 30 (1), 125–142. Pritchard, A. and Morgan, N.J. (2001) Culture, identity and tourism representation: Marketing Wales or Cymru? Tourism Management 22 (2), 167–179. Qi, J. (2005) Sino-Japanese War Museum national patriotic education site, at http:// www.crt.com.cn/news2007/News/qijun/2006–5/30/00008828.html (accessed 12 December 2007). Qian, F. (2007) China’s Burra Charter: The formation and implementation of the China principles. International Journal of Heritage Studies 13, 255–264. Qilu Net (2012) Tourist arrivals reached a new record at Mount Tai, 19 February, at http://news.iqilu.com/shandong/kejiaoshehui/20120219/1149989.shtml (accessed 15 November 2013). Qin, T. and Zhou, C. (2015) Introduction. In T. Qin (ed.) Research Handbook on Chinese Environmental Law (pp. 1–22). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Qing, D. and Vermeer, E. (1999) Do good work, but do not offend the ‘Old Communists’. In W. Draguhn and R. Ash (eds) China’s Economic Security (pp. 142–162). Richmond: Curzon Press. Qingdao Bureau of Statistics (2015) Qingdao Statistic Year Book. Beijing: China Statistic Press. Qingdao Municipal Government (2015) The context of Qingdao, 11 August, at http:// www.qingdao.gov.cn/n172/n25664338/n26675614/26676266.html (accessed 20 October 2015). Qingdao News (2013) An introduction to Qingdao, at http://www.qingdaonews.com/ content/2012–05/18/content_9240480.htm (accessed 20 August 2013). Qingdao Tourism Administration (2007) The eleventh Five-Year Plan for the Qingdao tourism industry, 6 November, at http://www.sd.xinhuanet.com/wq/2007–11/06/ content_11593213.htm (accessed 9 November 2007). Qingdao Tourism Administration (2013) Qingdao tourism development strategy 2013– 2020, at http://www.qdta.cn:86/zw/jzInfo.asp?modID=28 (accessed 30 January 2014). Qufu Committee for Compiling Annual Statistics (2005) Qufu annual statistics, at http://www.qfta.gov.cn (accessed 9 November 2007). Qufu Culture Relic Administration (2000) Report to the City and Provincial Government Regarding Qufu WHS, No. 79, Qufu Culture Relic Administration. Qufu Tourism Administration (2010a) Confucius temple, 12 April, at http://www.qfta. gov.cn/Photo/10412153.shtml (accessed 15 November 2012). Qufu Tourism Administration (2010b) Confucius cemetery, 12 April, at http://www. qfta.gov.cn/Photo/10412248.shtml (accessed 15 November 2012). Qufu Tourism Administration (2010c) Confucius mansion, 12 April, at http://www.qfta. gov.cn/Photo/10412890.shtml (accessed 15 November 2012). Redclift, M. (1987) Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London: Routledge. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press. Richards, D. and Smith, M.J. (2002) Governance and Public Policy in the UK. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

208 References

Roche, M. (1992) Mega-events and micro-modernisation: On the sociology of the new urban tourism. British Journal of Sociology 43 (4), 563–600. Roche, M. (1994) Mega-events and urban policy. Annals of Tourism Research 21 (1), 1–19. Rojek, C. (1993) Ways of Escape. London: Macmillan. Ross, L. (1999) China and environmental protection. In E. Economy and M. Oksenberg (eds) China Joins the World: Progress and Prospects (pp. 296–325). New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press. Rouse, R. (1995) Questions of identity: Personhood and collectivity in transnational migration to the United States. Critique of Anthropology 15 (4), 351–380. Rubin, V.A. (1976) Individual and State in Ancient China: Essays on Four Chinese Philosophers. New York: Columbia University Press. Ryckmans, P. (1995) An introduction to Confucius. Quadrant 39 (3), 18–24. Sabelli, H. (1998) The union of opposites: From Taoism to process theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 15, 429–441. Sadler, D. (1993) Place-marketing, competitive places and the construction of hegemony in Britain in the 1980s. In G. Kearns and C. Philo (eds) Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present (pp. 175–192). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Saich, T. (2004) Governance and Politics of China. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Schollmann, A., Perkins, H.C. and Moore, K. (2000) Interesting global and local influences in urban place promotion: The case of Christchurch, New Zealand. Environment and Planning A 32 (1), 55–76. Schumacher, E. (1974) Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered. London: Abacus. Scott, J. and Marshall, G. (2009) Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, at http://www.oxford​ reference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199533008.001.0001/acref-9780199533008e-1461?rskey=duXyUW&result=1461 (accessed 16 March 2013). Searle, J.R. (1999) The future of philosophy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences 354 (1392), 2069–2080. Seers, D. (1969) The meaning of development. International Development Review 11 (4), 2–6. Selin, S. (1999) Developing a typology of sustainable tourism partnerships. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7 (3/4), 260–273. Shandong Bureau of Statistics (2015) Shandong Statistical Yearbook. Beijing: China ­Statistics Press. Shandong Chronologies Compiling Committee (1993) Mount Tai Chronology. Beijing: China Book Press. Shandong Local Historical Record Office (2006) Juye litigation, at http://www.infobase. gov.cn/history/lateqing/200708/article_209.html (accessed 10 June 2007). Shandong Provincial Government (2008) Shandong context and history, 7 April, at http:// www.sdqb.gov.cn/hwjy/qlwh/200909/5e2edd38–ab57–4fd8–a32a-af9477246607. htm (accessed 12 June 2011). Shandong Provincial Government (2014) Liugong Island, 12 July, at http://www. shandong.gov.cn/art/2014/7/12/art_1148_18351.html (accessed 6 August 2015). Shandong Provincial Government (2015) Shandong administrative division, at http:// www.shandong.gov.cn/art/2014/5/12/art_184_1.html (accessed 6 August 2015). Shandong Tourism Administration (2005) Shandong Tourism Developing Plan, at http:// www.sdta.gov.cn (accessed 14 August 2006). Shapiro, J. (2001) Mao’s War Against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sharpley, R. (1993) Tourism and Leisure in the Countryside. Huntington: ELM Publications. Sharpley, R. (2000) Tourism and sustainable development: Exploring the theoretical divide. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 8 (1), 1–19. Sharpley, R. (2002) Tourism: A vehicle for development? In R. Sharpley and D. Telfer (eds)

References 209

Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues (1st edn) (pp. 11–34). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Sharpley, R. and Telfer, D. (eds) (2002) Tourism and Development: Concepts and Issues (1st edn). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Shi, C. (1993) Qufu City Chorography. Qufu: Shandong Qufu Chorography Compiling Committee, Qilu Press. Shi, T. (1954) The first PRC Constitution in 1954, at http://www.dxgzs.com/gq53/7.htm (accessed 15 December 2006). Shi, T. (2002) Ecological economics in China: Origins, dilemmas and prospects. Ecological Economics 41 (1), 5–20. Short, J.R., Breitbach, S., Buckman, S. and Essex, J. (2000) From world cities to gateway cities. City 4, 317–340. Smil, V. (1996) Barriers to a sustainable China. In D.C. Pirages (ed.) Building Sustainable Societies: A Blueprint for a Post-Industrial World (pp. 175–187). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Smith, A.D. (1991) National Identity. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Smith, M.K. (2003) Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies. London: Routledge. Sofield, T. and Li, F. (1998) Tourism development and cultural policies in China. Annals of Tourism Research 25 (2), 362–392. Solomon, R.H. (1973) From commitment to giant: The evolving functions of ideology in the revolutionary process. In C. Johnson (ed.) Ideology and Politics in Contemporary China. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. Song, R. (2005) Consideration of the question of ticket for heritage sites, at http://www. china.com.cn/zhuanti2005/txt/2005-06/03/content_5880313.htm (accessed 5 July 2006). Spence, J. (1999) The Search for Modern China (2nd edn). New York: Norton. Starr, J.B. (1973) Ideology and Culture: An Introduction to the Dialectic of Contemporary Chinese Politics. New York: Harper. State Council (1985) Regulation of China Scenic Area Administration, China Ministry of Construction, at http://www.csjs.gov.cn/sys/fjms_detail.aspx?​Tabale​ Name=tmp1&id=10 (accessed 17 December 2005). State Council (2004) Regulations for Institution Registration, Governmental Order No. 411, 27 June, at http://sy.china.cn/cgi-bin/noticeboards/get_notice.cgi?NOTICE_ ID=4626&TEMPLATE=BAB_Content&TEMPLATE_UID=368632 (accessed 3 May 2006). State Council (2005) China administrative division, at http://www.gov.cn/guoqing/2005– 06/15/content_2615217.htm (accessed 15 August 2013). State Council (2006) Regulation of Scenic Area Administration, at http://www.gov.cn/ zwgk/2006–09/29/content_402732.htm (accessed 15 August 2013). Su, M.M. and Li, B. (2011) Resource management at world heritage sites in China. International Conference on Energy and Environment (EI) 3, 406–408. Swarbrooke, J. (1994) The future of the past: Heritage tourism into the 21st century. In A.V. Seaton (ed.) Tourism: The State of the Art (pp. 222–229). Chichester: Wiley. Swyngedouw, E., Albrechts, L., Moulaert, F. and Roberts, P. (eds) (1989) Regional Policy at the Crossroads: European Perspectives. London: Jessica Kingsley. Tai’an Local Historical Record Office (2006) Tai’an tourism, at http://sd.infobase.gov.cn/ sdgd/sd9/ly-hygl.htm (accessed 16 April 2006). Tai’an Municipal Government (2015) Economy and tourism, 30 March, at http://www. taian.gov.cn/zjta/tagk/201509/t20150924_582175.html (accessed 11 July 2015). Tai’an Tourism Administration (2006) Tai’an tourism, at http://www.tata.gov.cn (accessed 18 April 2006). Tan, C. (1971) Chinese Political Thought in the Twentieth Century. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

210 References

Tan, C.H. (1989) Confucianism and nation building in Singapore. International Journal of Social Economics 16 (8), 5–16. Tang, C. (2014) Japan’s ‘nationalisation’ of Diaoyu Island accelerated the deterioration of Sino-Japanese relations, 26 August, at http://world.people.com.cn/n/2014/0826/ c1002–25538798.html (accessed 12 October 2014). Tang, Y. (1991) Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity, and Chinese Culture. Washington, DC: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy. Tao, J. (2002) How Confucian notions of need and reciprocity can enrich contemporary debates about the environment. Paper presented to the Seminar on Reconceiving Environmental Values in a Globalising World, Mansfield College, Oxford, 11–12 July. Taylor, K. (2004) Cultural heritage management: A possible role for charters and principles in Asia. International Journal of Heritage Studies 10 (5), 417–433. Telfer, D. (1996) Development through economic linkages: Tourism and agriculture in Indonesia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario. Thomas, H. and Thomas, R. (1998) The implications for tourism of shifts in British local governance. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research 4, 295–306. Timothy, D. (1997) Tourism and the personal heritage experience. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (3), 751–754. Tiryakian, E. and Nevitte, N. (1985) Nationalism and modernity. In E. Tiryakian and R. Rogowski (eds) New Nationalisms of the Developed West (pp. 57–86). London: Allen and Unwin. Trainer, T. (1990) A Rejection of the Brundtland Report. Dossier 77. Washington, DC: IFAD. Trigger, B.G. (1984) Alternative archaeologies: Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man 19 (3), 355–370. Tseng, E.C.Y. (1999) The environment and the People’s Republic of China. In D.L. Soden and B.S. Steel (eds) Handbook of Global Environmental Policy and Administration (pp. 381–392). Basel: Marcel Dekker. Tu, W. (1995) The mirror of modernity and spiritual resources for the global community. Sophia 34 (1), 79–91. Tu, W. (2001) The ecological turn in new Confucian humanism: Implications for China and the world. Daedalus 130 (4), 243–264. Tucker, M.E. (1997) Ecological themes in Taoism and Confucianism. In M.E. Tucker and J.A. Grim (eds) Worldviews and Ecology (pp. 150–62). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Tunbridge, J.E. (1984) Whose heritage to conserve? Cross-cultural reflections on political dominance and urban heritage conservation. Canadian Geographer 28 (2), 171–191. Tunbridge, J.E. and Ashworth, G.J. (1996) Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict. Chichester: Wiley. Turner, L. and Ash, J. (1975) The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the Pleasure Periphery. London: Constable. Turner, M. and Hulme, D. (1997) Governance, Administration and Development: Making the State Work. London: Macmillan. Turner, R.K. (1988) Sustainable Environmental Management. London: Belhaven. Turner, R.K. (1991) Environment, economics and ethics. In D. Pearce (ed.) Blueprint 2: Greening the World Economy (pp. 209–224). London: Earthscan. Turner, R.K., Pearce, D. and Bateman, I. (1994) Environmental Economics: An Elementary Introduction. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. UNEP (1999) Global Environment Outlook. London: Earthscan. UNESCO (1987a) Mount Taishan, at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/437 (accessed 9 February 2007). UNESCO (1987b) Mount Tai Advisory Body Evaluation, at http://whc.unesco.org/ archive/advisory_body_evaluation/437.pdf (accessed 9 February 2007). UNESCO (1994a) Inscription: The Temple of Confucius, the cemetery of Confucius,

References 211

and the Kong family mansion in Qufu (China), at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/ repcom94.htm#704 (accessed 9 February 2007). UNESCO (1994b) Temple and cemetery of Confucius and the Kong family mansion in Qufu, at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/704 (accessed 9 February 2007). UNESCO (1999) The economics of heritage. Conference/workshop on the Adaptive Reuse of Historic Properties in Asia and the Pacific, 9–17 May, Conference Programme: Penang and Melaka. UNESCO (2003a) World Heritage. A Regular Report on the Implementation of the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Part II (accessed 9 February 2007). UNESCO (2003b) Periodical Report (Cycle 1) Section II Summary, at http://whc.unesco. org/archive/periodicreporting/APA/cycle01/section2/437–summary.pdf (accessed 9 February 2007). UNESCO (2003c) Section II: Periodic Report on the State of Conservation of Mount Taishan, China, at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/periodicreporting/APA/cycle01/section2/​ 437.pdf (accessed 9 February 2007). Unwin, T. (1996) Tourist development in Estonia: Images, sustainability, and integrated rural development. Tourism Management 17, 265–276. Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Urry, J. (1995) Consuming Places. London: Routledge. Wall, G. (1993) International collaboration in the search for sustainable tourism in Bali, Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1, 38–47. Wall, G. (1997) Sustainable tourism – unsustainable development. In S. Wahab and J. Pigram (eds) Tourism, Development and Growth: The Challenge of Sustainability (pp. 33–49). London: Routledge. Walls, J. (1998) Modern communications opportunities for pro-environmental networking in East Asia. In C. Harold (ed.) Traditional and Modern Approaches to the Environment on the Pacific Rim: Tensions and Values (pp. 55–70). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Walsh, K. (1990) The Representation of the Past: Museums and Heritage in the Post-modern World. London: Routledge. Wan, H. (1980) The educational thought of Confucius. Unpublished PhD thesis, Loyola University, Chicago. Wang, C. (1997) Introduction: An emerging legal system. In C. Wang and X. Zhang (eds) Introduction to Chinese Law (pp. 18–22). Hong Kong: Sweet & Maxwell Asia. Wang, N. (2000) Tourism and Modernity: A Sociological Analysis. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Wang, R. (2002) Standing high and showing great foresight. China Ropeway 2 (1), 48–50. Ward, S.V. (1998) Selling Places: The Marketing and Promotion of Towns and Cities 1850–2000. London: Routledge. Watson, G.L. and Kopachevsky, J.P. (1994) Interpretations of tourism as a commodity. Annals of Tourism Research 21 (3), 643–660. Watson, S. (1991) Gilding the smokestacks: The new symbolic representations of de­ industrialised regions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 9 (1), 59–70. WCED (1987) Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weber, M. (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Weihai Bureau of Statistics (2015) 2014 Weihai Economy and Development Report, 12 February, accessed 5 July 2015. http://www.stats-wh.gov.cn/art/2015/2/28/ art_13262_418401.htm Weihai Chronology Compiling Office (2015) Weihai Year Book. Beijing: Fangzhi Publishing. Weihai Municipal Government (2013) China Weihai, 5 February, at http://www.weihai. gov.cn/col/col349/index.html (accessed 3 July 2013).

212 References

Weihai Municipal Government (2015) China Weihai, 20 November, at http://www. weihai.gov.cn/col/col704/index.html (accessed 3 December 2015). Weihai News (2012) Tourist arrival at Liugong Island, 12 January, at http://www.whnews. cn/weihai/node/2012–01/12/content_5192550.htm (accessed 15 April 2013). Weihai Tourism Information Net (2006) Liugong Island is awarded the title of ‘Provincial Sustainable Tourism Organisation’, at http://www.whta.gov.cn/yiyuntra/tra/news/ news_view.asp?newsid=698 (accessed 27 May 2007). Welford, R., Ytterhus, B. and Eligh, J. (1999) Tourism and sustainable development: An analysis of policy and guidelines for managing provision and consumption. Sustainable Development 7 (4), 165–177. Wen, J.J. and Tisdell, C.A. (2001) Tourism and China’s Development: Policies, Regional Economic Growth and Ecotourism. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. Wenweipo (2005) Cultural Meanings of the Confucius Cult Ceremony. Hong Kong: Wenweipo.com Limited. Wheeller, B. (1993) Sustaining the ego. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1, 121–129. Wheeller, B. (2003) Alternative tourism – A deceptive ploy. In C. Cooper (ed.) Classic Reviews in Tourism (pp. 227–234). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. White, G. (1992) Riding the Tiger: The Politics of Economic Reform in Post-Mao China. London: Macmillan. Williams, R. (1977) Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, A. (1994) The view from the road: Recreation and tourism. In S. Norris (ed.) Discovered Country: Tourism and Survival in the American West (pp. 3–20). Albuquerque: Stone Ladder Press. Winter, T. (2007) Post-conflict Heritage, Postcolonial Tourism: Culture, Politics and Development at Angkor. London: Routledge. Winter, T. (2009) The modernities of heritage and tourism: Interpretations of an Asian Future. Journal of Heritage Tourism 4 (2), 105–115. Wood, R. (1984) Ethnic tourism, the state and cultural change in Southeast Asia. Annals of Tourism Research 11, 353–374. Wood, R.E. (1993) Tourism, culture and the sociology of development. In M. Hitchcock, V.T. King and M.J.G. Parnwell (eds) Tourism in South East Asia (pp. 48–70). London: Routledge. Xie, P. (2010) Authenticating Ethnic Tourism. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Xinhua Net (2006a) The history of Shandong, 17 April, at http://www.sd.xinhuanet. com/zfsw/2006–04/17/content_6767859.htm (accessed 16 June 2012). Xinhua Net (2006b) CCP 1st Meeting, at http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003–01/18/ content_695544.htm (accessed 13 March 2006). Xinhua Net (2011) The context of Shandong, 18 May, at http://www.sd.xinhuanet.com/ sdgk (accessed 15 June 2012). Xinhua News (2004) China to evaluate officials by environmental indicators, 20 February, at http://english.people.com.cn/200402/21/eng20040221_135435.shtml (accessed 13 March 2006). Xu, C. (1993) A Local History of Qufu City. Committee for Compiling the Local History of Qufu, Shangdong. Jinan: Qilu Press. Xu, G. (1999) Tourism and Local Economic Development in China: Case Studies of Guilin, Suzhou and Beidaihe. Richmond: Curzon Press. Xu, J., Ma, E.T., Tashi, D., Fu, Y., Lu, Z. and Melick, D. (2005) Integrating sacred knowledge for conservation: Cultures and landscapes in southwest China. Ecology and Society 10 (2), 7 (at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art7). Yale, P. (1991) From Tourist Attractions to Heritage Tourism. London: ELM Publications. Yan, H. and Bramwell, B. (2008) Cultural tourism, ceremony and the state in China. Annals of Tourism Research 35 (4), 967–987. Yan, H. (2013) Green book of China’s tourism 2011: China’s tourism development analysis and forecast. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 11 (1–2), 140–143.

References 213

Yan, H. and Morpeth, N.D. (2015) Approaches to planning and tourism. In N.D. Morpeth and H. Yan (eds) Planning for Tourism: Towards a Sustainable Future (pp. 1–26). Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Yao, X. (2000) An Introduction to Confucianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ye, J. (2004) Lun Zhan Guo Bai jia Zheng Ming Dui Zhuan Zhi Zhu Yi De Fu Hua Zuo Yong Ji Qi Li Shi Ying Xiang. Journal of Hubei Institute of Socialism 4. Yeh, A. (2009) Decoding urban land governance: State reconstruction in contemporary Chinese cities. Urban Studies 46 (3), 559–581. Yeoman, I., Robertson, M., Ali-Knight, J., Drummond, S. and McMahon-Beattie, U. (eds) (2004) Festival and Events Management: An International Arts and Culture Perspective. London: Elsevier. Yu, C. (2000) Chinese religions on population, consumption, and ecology. In H. Coward and D.C. Maguire (eds) Visions of a New Earth: Religious Perspectives on Population, Consumption, and Ecology (pp. 161–174). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Yu, W. (2012) The launch of the Five Stresses, 8 October, at http://dangshi.people.com. cn/n/2012/1008/c85037–19187299–2.html (accessed 10 October 2014). Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B. and Yuksel, A. (2005) Centralised and decentralised tourism governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research 32 (4), 859–886. Zeppel, H. and Hall, C.M. (1992) Arts and heritage tourism. In B. Weiler and C.M. Hall (eds) Special Interest Tourism (pp. 47–68). London: Belhaven Press. Zhang, L. (1974) Penetratively launching the movement of criticising Confucius and Lin. February Journal of Red Flag, at http://www.guxiang.com/lishi/others/youpiao/ jianjie/pilinpikong.htm (accessed 26 July 2005). Zhang, Q. H., Pine, R. and Lam, T. (2005) Tourism and Hotel Development in China: From Political to Economic Success. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Zhang, S. (2007) Deng Xiaoping and Mount Lao, at http://dsyj.qingdao.gov.cn/yanjiudetail-629–261–4 (accessed 7 March 2008). Zhang, Y. (1995) An assessment of China’s tourism resources. In A.A. Lew and L. Yu (eds) Tourism in China: Geographical, Political and Economic Perspectives (pp. 41–62). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Zhang, Y. (2005) Building a harmonious socialist society, solving the problems by using development. People Daily, 25 October, at http://politics.people.com.cn/ GB/30178/4958768.html (accessed 3 March 2007). Zhou, J. (2003) Remaking China’s Public Philosophy for the Twenty-First Century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Zhou, Z. (2006) The significance of Taoist ethical thought in the building of a harmonious society, continuity and change: Perspectives on science and religion, 3–7 June, a programme of the Metanexus Institute, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Zhu, D. (2006) Problems of Qufu heritage reform, Dazhong News Group, Special reports of Zhu, 16 August, at http://www.dzdaily.com.cn/xinwen/dzmj/zhudequan/ tegaozonglan/zhudequanjianjie/jiayuanyongtan/200209/t20020918_330407.htm (accessed 3 March 2007). Zhu, J. (2010) Economic statistics denies the decline of state-owned economy, 2 August, at http://finance.people.com.cn/GB/12310277.html (accessed 15 February 2014).

Index

Chinese Communist Party see Communist Party clientelism see governance client politics see governance commodification 5, 12–14, 20, 75, 134, 144, 184 authenticity 146–9 of culture 13 of tourism, the role of heritage 5, 12 sign value 13 commoditisation see commodification communism 33, 72, 73, 83, 94, 99 Communist Party 33, 38, 39, 43, 44, 62, 64, 66, 72, 82, 83, 87, 88, 93–4, 95, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 111, 113, 114, 115, 132, 136, 137, 140, 142, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157 Central Committee 44, 123, 124, 129, 130, 131, 133, 136, 140, 157 Central Propaganda Department 136, 138, 155 National Research Institute 124 Perfecting the Socialist Market Economic System (report) 130 Communist Youth League, Qingdao Committee 135 competition 96, 114, 115 Confucianism 3, 27, 28, 29, 30–31, 33, 48, 53, 57, 81, 82–5, 98, 101–2, 136, 141, 143, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 161, 181, 188, 192, 193 Analects 31 commonalities with socialism 83 doctrines 29 ethics 30, 31

Academy of Social Science 83, 85, 94, 97, 111, 112, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 140, 141, 147, 152, 153, 161, 171, 175, 178, 181 ‘agrotourism’ 165 authenticity 16, 20 and commodification 5, 134, 144, 146–9 and modernity 10, 72, 78 authentic modernity 12, 71, 185 autonomous regions 38, 45, 104 biodiversity 179 Brundtland report (World Commission on Environment and Development) 22, 23 Buddhism 57 bureaucracy 8, 36, 103 Bureau for Travel and Tourism 40 capitalism and modernisation 150; commodification reconciliation with socialism 96 state 97 Western 5, 61, 95, 96, 150, 151, 160, 161, 186, 188, 192, 193 see also commodification; consumption China National Defence University 139 State Oceanic Administration 139 see also Academy of Social Science; Democratic Promotion Party; National Tourism Administration 214

Index 215

Five Constant Virtues 31 influence on contemporary Chinese governance 85–8 influence on contemporary Chinese society 82–4 influence on the Enlightenment 3 Li (propriety) 31, 83 Nationalist Party regime 83 political thought 31 Ren (benevolence) 31, 83 Six Arts Park 120 Three Cardinal Guides 31 Xin (sincerity) 31, 83 Yi (righteousness) 31, 83 Zhi (knowledge/wisdom) 31, 83 Confucius 30, 45, 48, 51, 85, 145, 153, 155, 156, 157 cemetery 53, 54 cult ceremony 51, 52, 143, 148, 149, 153, 156 descendants 53 Foundation 156 International Festival 54 mansion 51, 53, 54 temple (Dacheng Hall) 52, 53, 54 consumerism 76, 192 consumption 12, 14 corporatism see governance critical realism 69 cultural background 4, 95 cultural identity 14, 16, 17, 19, 33, 77, 82, 85, 101, 153, 157 Cultural Revolution 39, 43, 45, 68, 84, 86, 87, 94, 98–9, 100–1, 135, 150 destruction of/damage to built heritage 43, 99, 100–1 ‘Four Olds’ 98 Culture Promotional Organisation 156 Dacheng Hall see Qufu World Heritage Site decentralisation 36–7, 43, 103–5, 107, 122, 189, 195 deconcentration 36, 120 delegation 37 devolution 36 functional transfer 105, 113–18 partnership 37 privatisation 36–7, 113, 115 territorial transfer 105 versus recentralisation 122–31 deconcentration see decentralisation delegation see decentralisation

Democratic Promotion Party 92, 122 , 127, 142, 152, 161, 162, 179 Deng Xiaoping 39, 43, 44–5, 72, 86, 87, 94, 95, 98, 100, 102, 150, 151, 155, 162 ‘cat theory’ 39, 95 South travel speech 87 developing countries 10, 26–7, 144, 182, 183, 191, 193, 194 development definition of 22 general 10 Great Leap Forward 39 of heritage tourism in China 2, 5 Soviet model 39, 94, 95, 96, 150, 177 developmental theory 21, 22 alternative 23 dependency theory 23 modernisation 23 neo-classical counter-revolution 23 Western capitalist economy ex­ perience 96 devolution see decentralisation Diaoyu Island 138, 139 Sovereignty Museum 139 (eco)fascism 27 economic development 4, 10, 11, 22, 25, 28, 30, 39, 42, 44, 50, 53, 59, 63, 65, 66, 71, 75, 84, 86, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 106, 107, 114, 123–24, 140, 144–45, 150, 151, 154, 160, 161, 162, 168, 172, 173, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195 economic growth 11, 22, 23, 24 25, 27, 29–30 economic liberalisation 39 Economic Reform and Open Door policies 11, 28, 37, 38, 40, 44, 45, 46, 49, 58, 66, 68, 83, 84, 86, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95–6, 98, 99, 100–1, 102, 106, 111, 114, 122, 135, 139, 142, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 190, 192 ‘ecotourism’ 162, 165, 166, 177 Educational Sites for National ­Patriotism 79 Enlightenment (the) 7 environmental awareness 29 environmental laws 29 environmental policy making 29 epistemology 8 ethnicity 14

216 Index

false modernity 11–12, 71, 185 feudalism 3, 30, 31, 32, 52, 53, 57, 60, 63, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 Five Constant Virtues, of Confucianism 31 Forbidden City 52 Foreign Affairs Leading Group report on tourism development 44 foreign exchange 45 ‘Four Olds’ 98 Frankfurt school 95 Genghis Khan 68 globalisation 10, 16, 17, 37, 157, 189 governance 5, 33–5, 37–40, 41, 42, 73–4, 85–8, 93, 101, 102, 109, 122, 123, 127, 129, 131, 132, 133, 135, 143, 157, 167, 176, 184, 192, 193, 194 authoritarian 53 centralised 38, 127, 132, 189 clientelism 37 client politics 37 corporatism 37 decentralised 36, 43 definition of 34 hierarchies 74 tourism 103, 131, 195 government 3, 23, 34–5, 36, 37, 45, 51, 73, 96, 98, 104, 105, 106, 108, 131, 175, 176, 180, 182, 190 centralised system 105, 107, 111, 115, 128, 129, 130 Communist Party 82 Japanese 138, 139 Jinan city 166 local 35, 40, 46, 47, 54, 55, 58, 65, 73, 74, 77, 79, 91, 93, 99, 103, 105–7, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 144, 152, 165, 167, 168, 177, 182, 189, 193 municipal 104, 126 national 11, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29–30, 36, 37, 38, 40, 43, 44, 46, 47, 53, 54, 62, 64, 74, 77, 79, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 106, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 137, 138, 140, 142, 143, 151, 152, 155, 161, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 188, 191, 192 policy 162 provincial 53, 59, 91, 104, 106, 117,

122, 125, 128, 136, 156, 175, 177, 178 Qingdao city 48, 66, 68, 96, 108, 109, 142, 145, 177, 190 Qufu city 53, 54, 108, 115, 143, 145, 156 shift to governance 35 Soviet system 103 Tai’an city 59, 108, 141, 145, 165, 166, 169, 174 unitary 43 vertical hierarchy 125, 137 Weihai city 65, 108, 190 Great Leap Forward 39 ‘green tourism’ 162 gross domestic product 97, 107, 151–2, 158, 172, 182, 188 ‘green GDP’ system 177–180 Qingdao 66 Shandong 50 Weihai 63 Guangxu, Emperor 60 Guidance for Red Tourism Development and Planning 2004–10 (The) 140 Han dynasty 30, 57 Hanfei Zi 30 heritage management 3, 46–7, 80, 105, 107, 109, 110–13, 114, 116, 119, 121, 126, 127, 129, 167, 179 multiple roles 110–13 heritage preservation 19, 55, 58–60, 65, 112, 116, 126, 129, 145, 146, 167–8, 172, 178 heritage sites administration of 108 civic pride in 21 conservation of 21 constructing national identity 20 culture differentiation 20 economic benefits 20 educational role 19 horizontal organisation 35 nationalism 19, 20–1 political significance 20 representations for tourist consumption 2, 72–8 socio-cultural significance 20 vertical organisation 126, 127, 129 heritage tourism and identity building 134–149 conceptual framework 69–70, 80, 182, 184–5, 186, 187, 189, 191, 194

Index 217

definition of 17–19 functional transfer 113–18 partnership development 118–22 politicisation of 21 practices 5–6 historical materialism 156 Hong Kong see Special Administrative Regions Hu Jintao, President 33, 155, 157 human-environment relations 5, 75, 90, 182, 194 human-environment values 161–2 identity interlinking with modernity and sustainability 1 senses of 74–5 social construction of 1 identity building and heritage tourism 134–49 role of heritage 5 see also marketing industrialisation 14 inheritance 18 International Confucian Committee 156 investment, inward 45 Jiang Zemin, President 61, 64, 138, 155 Jinan city 165–6 Kublai Khan 68 Lao Zi 30, 32 ‘Dao De Jing’ 88 legal system 127–31 Law of Administrative Penalty 129 National Scenic Area Management Regulations 112, 113, 163 National Scenic Area protection rules 167 Regulation on Scenic Areas Administration 170 Regulations for Institution Registration 111 State Law for Cultural Heritage Protection 45, 135, 147, 167 Tourism Law 131 Li Peng, Prime Minister 155 Liugong Island 3, 50, 79, 101, 121, 140, 144, 148, 149, 163, 167, 173, 174, 175, 176, 190 Administration Committee 64, 65

administration of 108, 110 Beiyang Fleet headquarters 3, 60 Monument to (Sino-Japanese War) Soldiers 64 National Key Cultural Heritage Site award 64, 137 National Patriotic Education Demonstration Base award 64 National Patriotic Education Site award 62, 64, 137, 140 National Scenic Area 64, 137 National Scenic Area Administration Committee 137 National Youth Education Site award 62, 64, 137 Naval Battle Museum 120 Provincial Sustainable Tourism Organisation award 175 Red Tourism Scenic Area 64, 137–8, 140 Scenic Area Plan 65 Self-Strengthening Movement 3, 60, 62–3, 139, 140 Sino-Japanese Sea Warfare Museum 64 Sino-Japanese War memorials 137–40, 175 Sino-Japanese War Museum 61, 64, 139, 140 Stone Stele 62, 64 Tourist Park 120 United Nations awards 63 Weihai city 60, 63, 104, 106, 145, 180 Liugong Island National Scenic Area 47 Macau see Special Administrative Regions Maguan Treaty 138 Maoism 33, 44 Mao Zedong 43, 44, 86, 87, 91, 93, 94, 95, 98–9, 161 Little Red Book 87 rejection of tourism 99 tourism as propaganda 44 market economy 7, 84, 95, 96, 97, 113, 114, 121, 122, 124, 130, 154, 158, 177, 179, 182, 188, 192 capitalist 95, 96, 121–2 socialist 96, 113, 123 marketing national identity building 15–17, 19–21, 40, 42, 69, 76, 102, 134–44, 150, 151, 184, 190, 191, 194

218 Index

place marketing 15–17, 19, 75, 184, 194 place products 15 role of heritage 15 marketisation 189 market liberalisation: threats and opportunities 5, 160 Marxism 33, 82, 94, 95, 150, 151 Marxism-Leninism 33, 95 Marxism–Leninism–Maoism 33 Marxist doctrine/ideology 93, 97, 101 Marx, Karl 13 mass tourism 11 Mencius 30 Ming dynasty 49, 54 Ministry of Construction 46, 171 Ministry of Education 62 modernisation 5, 6, 8, 11, 22, 23, 28, 39, 43, 45, 62, 71, 92, 94, 98, 101, 102, 134, 150–8, 160, 162, 182, 184, 186, 187, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195 modernity and authenticity 10, 72, 78 authentic 12, 71, 185 changes in 71–2 continuities in 71–2 definition of 7 differentiation of 15 false 11–12, 71, 185 interlinking with identity and sustainability 1 social construction of 1 Western 9, 192 Mount Lao see Taiqing Taoist Temple heritage site Mount Tai National Scenic Area 46, 47, 58, 165, 171 Administration Committee 58, 65, 112, 164, 166 Natural and Cultural Heritage Research Centre 173 Mount Tai World Heritage Site 3, 46, 47, 50, 54, 55–7, 79, 87, 92, 101, 120, 121, 123, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 163, 164, 168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 182, 191 administration of 108, 110 ancient Chinese civilisations 3 cableway project 59–60, 87, 167, 168–74, 176, 178 Climbing Stairs 56 damage to 59 Fengshan ceremony 57, 143

Forest Centre 58 General Tourism Plan 59 hotels 164–5 International Mountaineering Festival 57 Jade Emperor Peak 55 mountain-top shopping street 164 Tai’an city 55, 104, 106, 120, 145, 154, 166, 168–9, 173, 174, 180 Tai’an Cultural Heritage Administration 58 Tai’an Propaganda and Historical Records Department 140–1 Mo Zi 30 Nanjing Massacre 138 National Administration of Cultural Heritage: investigation of damage to Qufu World Heritage Site 117 National Defence University 139 National Development and Reform Commission 172 national identity 15–17, 19–21, 40, 42, 62, 69, 71, 74–5, 76, 80, 100, 101, 102, 134–44, 150, 151, 154, 157, 158, 184, 190, 191, 194, 195 National Industrial and Commercial Administration 126 nationalism 1–2, 33 Nationalist Party regime, and Confucianism 83 national liberation 33 National Patriotic Education Site award see Qufu World Heritage Site National People’s Congress 38, 43, 117, 162 Standing Committee 38 State Council 38, 140 National Scenic Area 47, 113, 163, 164, 167, 176 Administration Committees 47 Management Regulations 112, 113, 163 planning process 167 protection rules 167 system 46–8, 167 National Tourism Administration 40, 46, 105, 107, 109, 111, 113, 122, 130, 131, 132, 135, 144, 145, 150, 156, 166, 172, 193 national unity 100 nation building 21, 71, 103, 190 neo-liberalism 36

Index 219

New Culture Movement 86 non-governmental organisation (NGO) 35, 37, 73, 156, 189 Our Common Future (Brundtland report) 22, 23 partnership see decentralisation patriotic education 51, 54, 62, 64, 65, 135, 136 Peking University, World Heritage Research Centre 164 People’s Political Consultative Conference 161, 162 People’s Republic of China 28, 33, 38, 40, 43, 49, 93, 103, 104, 156, 157 constitution 94 establishment of 28, 33, 38, 40, 43, 49, 93, 103, 129, 142, 161 Perfecting the Socialist Market Economic System (report) 130 place marketing (place promotion) see marketing place products see marketing planning, of heritage tourism in China 2, 78 political authoritarianism 39 political ideology 72–3 post-modernity 8 Potsdam Declaration 138 private sector 35, 36, 73, 74, 75, 92, 107, 113, 114, 115, 119–21, 124, 131, 132, 153, 154, 155, 158, 168, 178, 188, 189 privatisation see decentralisation protectionism 29, 122, 125, 127 public administration 4 Public Administrative Law Research Institute 126 public sector 2, 26, 37, 114–16, 119–121, 123 Qin dynasty 30 Qingdao city 65, 104, 106, 145, 151, 177, 180 environmental protection bureau 125, 162 General Tourism Planning Strategy 66 German occupation 65 Juye Litigation 65 policy and legislation bureau 128, 129 Special City status 66

tourism administration 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 119, 128, 130 Tourism Quality Supervision Centre 119 ‘vice-provincial’ city 106 see also Taiqing Taoist Temple (Mount Lao) heritage site Qing dynasty 30, 57, 60, 61, 62, 65, 99, 140 Qin Shi Huang 57 Quanzhen Taoism see Taoism Qufu city 53–4, 143, 145, 155, 156, 180 Qufu Confucius Research Institute 156 Qufu Normal University 156 Qufu World Heritage Site 3, 46, 47, 50–1, 79, 83, 84, 87, 99, 100, 116, 119, 121, 123, 124, 128, 129, 135, 136, 140, 141, 142, 144, 148, 149, 153, 155, 156, 163, 168, 172, 178, 182, 191 Administration Committee 109 administration of 47, 54–5, 108–10, 115 China Confucius International Tourism Co. Ltd 54, 116 Confucianism 3, 83, 84, 85 Cultural Heritage Administration 54, 55 Cultural Heritage Administration Committee 55 Dacheng Hall 52 damage during Cultural Revolution 99 damage during management company tenure 55, 87–8, 116–17, 127 Jining city 104, 106, 156 Jining Tourism Authority 55 National Patriotic Education Site award 51, 155 Tourism Administration 54, 156 ‘water washing’ damage 55, 87–8, 116–17, 127 rationalisation 8, 9 recentralisation see decentralisation regional protectionism 29 regulation 73–4 Regulation on Scenic Areas Administration 170 Regulations for Institution Registration 111 Renaissance (The) 7

220 Index

representation, of heritage in China 2, 72–8 resource distribution 189 Second World War 137, 138, 139 Self-Strengthening Movement 3, 60, 62–3, 139, 140 Shandong Province 4, 48, 186 historical geography 48 Jinan city 49, 50, 55, 125, 165–6 provincial construction bureau 65 provincial government 59, 156 provincial tourism administration 156 tourism development 48 Western invasions 49 Shang dynasty 57 Sino-Japanese relations 138 Sino-Japanese War 60–2, 137, 139 Sino-Japanese War memorials see Liugong Island Sino-Japanese War Museums 61, 64, 139, 140 social constructionism 69 social crisis, in contemporary China 97 socialism 4, 5, 6, 33, 43, 44, 45, 72, 81, 93–4, 100, 150, 153, 154, 155, 161, 181, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 195 commonalities with Confucianism 83 reconciliation with capitalism 96 socialist values influence on human–environment relationships 5 merging with traditional Chinese and Western values 27 social liberalisation 39 social spaces, created by tourism 14 society 5, 31, 53, 69, 71, 76, 78, 81–5, 88, 92, 93, 97, 98, 101, 102, 152, 154, 157, 161, 182, 184, 185, 186, 191–4 socio-cultural change 190, 192 socio-economic background 4 socio-economic reforms 95, 97 Song dynasty 67 sovereignty 35 Soviet Union 33, 39, 94, 95, 150 Special Administrative Regions 38, 104 Hong Kong 38 Macau 38 stakeholders 2, 24–5

State Administration of Cultural Management 45, 46, 105, 117, 171 State Administration of Radio, Film and Television 155 state capitalism 97 State Law for Cultural Heritage Protection 45, 135, 147, 167 State Oceanic Administration 139 sustainability 1, 71–2, 76–7, 78, 80, 166–7, 173–81, 182, 186, 190, 191, 192, 195 changes in 71–2 continuities in 71–2 interlinking with identity and modernity 1 social construction of 1 sustainable development 21, 24–5, 160, 161, 162–3, 167, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177–81, 182, 183, 184, 192, 193, 194, 195 classification 26 convergence of economic development theory and environmentalism 22 World Commission on Environment and Development report Our Common Future (Brundtland report) 22, 23 sustainable tourism 21, 24–7, 162, 166, 175, 176, 181, 183, 194 definition of 24 environment-led 26 neotenous tourism 26 objectives 25, 26 product-led 26 tourism imperative 26 Taiqing Taoist Temple heritage site 3, 48, 50, 67–8, 79, 89, 91, 99, 101, 140, 141, 142, 144, 148, 163, 165, 190 administration of 108–9 damage done during Cultural Revolution 99 Mount Lao 67, 119, 130, 147 Mount Lao Exhibition Hall 120 Mount Lao Scenic Area Committee 68, 109–10, 112 religious affairs bureau 68, 92 Three Emperors’ Hall 68 Three Gods’ Hall 68 Three Purities’ Hall 68 see also Qingdao city

Index 221

Taoism 3, 27, 28, 32, 57, 65, 67–8, 81, 101–2, 141, 143, 152, 161, 181, 188, 192, 193 ‘Dao De Jing’ 88; influence on contemporary Chinese society 88–93 influence on environmentalism 88–93 ‘non-action’ 89 Quanzhen Taoism 3, 68 Taiji 32, 68 wu-wei 32, 89, 90 Three Cardinal Guides, of Confucianism 31 tourism agent of change 10 as propaganda 44, 99 decentralisation 35–6 definition of 1 economic benefits 10 first national conference on 45 heritage see heritage tourism international 17, 44 product development 78–9 reaction to modern life 10 search for authenticity 10 stakeholder tensions 20, 24, 72, 76, 105, 107, 109 sustainable see sustainable tourism tourism commodification (commoditis­ ation), role of heritage 5, 12 Tourism Law 131 tourist arrivals 11, 19 traditional philosophies see Confucianism; Taoism traditional values 27, 28 traditional culture 43, 88, 98–101, 137, 141, 152, 153, 156, 157, 187, 190, 191 traditional religions and philosophies 73 traditional values see Confucianism; Taoism Treaty of San Francisco 138 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) 23

Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 3, 21, 46, 117, 156, 174 Liugong Island awards 63 urbanisation 14, 106 values competition between 27 influence on human–environment relationships 5 voluntary sector 36 Warring States period 30, 49 ‘water washing’ crisis 87–8 Weihai city see Liugong Island Western environmental ethics 90 Western environmental theory 90 Western Taoism 91 Western capitalist values influence on human–environment relationships 5 influence on Marxism 95 merging with Chinese traditional values and socialist values 27 Western Zhou dynasty 48 World Commission on Environment and Development (‘Brundtland report’) 22, 23 World Heritage Research Centre (Peking University) 164 World War II see Second World War wu-wei see Taoism Xi Jinping, President 156–7 Yasukuni Shrine 138 Yazhou Liu, Admiral 139 Yuan dynasty 52, 68 Zhou dynasty 52 Zhou Enlai, Premier 40 Zhuang Zi 30, 32 zoning 164–6