Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Tourism for
Local Economic Development
“What, Who and How? Enhancing
Economic Benefits of Archaeological
World Heritage Sites”
Brent Lane
University of North Carolina
Kenan-Flagler Business School
The Carolina Center for Competitive Economies (C3E)
Kenan Institute for Private Enterprise
Brent Lane



Direct UNC Center for Competitive Economies, an
economic strategy research center focused on
growth capital markets, local growth engines, and
SMEs (esp. rural)
Former venture capital investor and entrepreneurial
developer
Active as sponsor, director and researcher in
heritage economic s and ventures
Premise




World Heritage program focused on preservation,
but the listing is commonly expected to also yield
economic benefits through increased tourism
Tourism can challenge heritage conservation without
significant local economic benefit
Record of local economic benefits especially uneven
in rural locations and developing countries
Absence of clear local economic benefits may deter
the listing of additional WHS in less developed areas
ICAHM/WHS



International Scientific Committee on Archaeological
Heritage Management (ICAHM) advises UNESCO
World Heritage Sites (WHS) are cultural or natural
heritage locations designated or “listed” by UNESCO
to encourage their protection and preservation.
Currently 890 World Heritage Sites around the world,
a majority of which are cultural sites that encompass
archaeological heritage resources.
UNC/ICAHM Research
Action:
 Research to better measure and enhance local
economic benefits of archaeological World Heritage
Sites (WHS)
Outcome:
 Deployment of sustainable tourism and development
practices that enhance the cultural, heritage and
economic goals of archaeological WHS in targeted
developing countries
Research to Date
Nov. 2008: UNC initial research phase begun
Nov. 2008 - now: research literature assessment
Jan. – Aug. 2009: on-site consultations in Japan,
China, Morocco, New Zealand, Bolivia, UK



pre/post WHS listing economic activity data
WHS expectations and outcome perceptions
Strategies and investment to capitalize on WHS
Current – distillation of initial findings and completion of
study design
Initial Sites








Fuerte de Samaipata, Bolivia
Mount Wuyi, China
Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara, Japan
Sacred Sites in the Kii Mountain Range, Japan
Archaeological Site of Volubilis, Morocco
Site de Chellah, Morocco
Waitangi Treaty Grounds historic, New Zealand
Hadrian’s/Antonine’s Walls, UK
Today’s Agenda




What’s known and what’s not about the economic
benefit of WH listing
Examples of best practices with a focus on
sustainable tourism practices that emphasize host
community benefits
Describe plans for expanding the research
Elicit suggestions for additional exemplars and
prospective locations
Prior WHS Economic
Assessment Results



Expectations of economic benefit remain strong but
ill-defined
Anecdotal evidence highly suggestive and politically
persuasive
Numerous positive qualitative outcomes
experienced
Prior WHS Economic
Assessment Results



Macro scale research show modest tourism
specialization growth effect
 An increase of one standard deviation in tourism
activity would lead to an annualized additional
growth of about 0.5 %/year (IMF’09)
Some EIAs show evidence of inconsistent marginal
effect (1-5%) that may not off-set costs
Most assessments are rendered inconclusive by
data problems
UNESCO and World Heritage Sites
The limits of soft cultural power
Sep 10th 2009
The Economist
Prior WHS Economic
Assessment Results
Conventional Economic Impact Assessment (EIAs)
limited by the nature of World Heritage Sites
 Revealed preference Before-After-Control Impact
(BACI) assessment s designed to measure marginal
tourism variation
 Limited geographic scale and inadequate data from
studied WH sites
 WH uniqueness means lack of appropriate controls
World Heritage Effect?
World Heritage Effect?
EIAs offer Limited
Operational Value






Macroeconomic results do not yield info critical to
local decision-makers and community
Extent of local benefit not usefully calculated
Means of benefit accrual not described
Tourism market segmentation not characterized
Data granularity insufficient for entrepreneurial
development planning
Tourism gains don’t equal economic benefit
Stonehenge




1 million visitors /year
Average stay 20-30
minutes
About 50% of paid visitors
never go beyond the
visitor center/car park
Exemplar of “High
Impact/Low Benefit”
Questions?
Operational Info Needs






What does the WH “brand” mean to which tourists?
What forms of tourism most compatible with heritage
conservation?
Which tourism segments could provide highest local
benefit in most sustainable manner?
What offerings most desired by optimal segments?
What gaps/opportunities do sites need to address?
How can economic progress be monitored?
Industry Cluster Analysis for WHS
Cluster are trading networks of local and nonlocal business and employees



Establishment level analysis reveals beneficiary
demographics - employment , wages , ownership
Captures pervasiveness of local economic benefits
and extent of indigenous population participation
Delineates areas of unrealized economic potential by
segmenting “monolithic tourism industry construct
Heritage Tourism Cluster
Archaeo-Tourism Cluster
Sites in less developed areas suffer from anemic
heritage tourism industry cluster




Thin cluster – unavailable goods/services
Nonexistent or low value heritage offerings
Non local ownership = profit exportation
Overemphasis on high impact/low benefit segments
Filling Cluster Gaps




Cluster analysis reveal gaps in the local tourism
economy that represent business opportunities
unoccupied tourism product niches or niches
primarily served by non-local providers
"targets of opportunity“ for entrepreneurial
development programs
Toolkit: business skills, market info, microfinance,
business incubators, etc.
Economic Terracing


External spending
Imports
Questions?
Best Practices create
Goal Convergence
Communicate Culture and preserve Heritage
while maximizing local Economic benefits
Conflict, Coincidence, Convergence
Best Promises/Practices
Host community based sustainable tourism
enterprises





Unify cultural, heritage and economic goals
Strengthen cluster density to capture benefits
Draw on archaeological research for authenticity
value-addition
Promising and proven examples of success
Constitute a portfolio for application WH sites in
developing economies
Archaeology’s Value
Proposition
Archaeological R&D enhances authenticity in
portfolio of heritage tourism offerings
Conventional
 Academic papers
 Museums
Archaeo-tourism
 Reconstructions
 Guide services
 Media content
 Performance
 Hospitality/cuisine
 Artisan crafts/replicas
Artisan Crafts/Replica
Production
Common tourism complaint is lack of local
crafts and souvenirs




Archaeology research adds significant value
Local crafts enhance visitor experience and cultural
awareness
Artisan training recaptures host culture heritage
Business skills, financing needs have limited several
pilot projects
Belize Slate Carvings




Community development effort
trained artisans in slate
carvings
Incorporated local Mayan
archaeological research
Validated Mayan selfidentification
Multi-generational impact
Replicas Discourage Looting
Archaeology : “Forging Ahead:
How I stopped worrying and love eBay”



Rather than rewarding artifact looting, eBay has
created more lucrative market for replicas/fakes
Market is rewarding authenticity of replicas and
creating business opportunities in host communities
Higher quality replicas create economic disincentives
that have dampened the artifact black-market
“Lost Colony” Outdoor
Drama






Started in 1937, is oldest US heritage performance
Performed at site of first English New World colony
Archaeological excavations inform performance
Effective heritage education, tourism attraction and
high value employment
Direct employment of 250
Over 3 million attendees to date
Cluster Enhancement
Hadrian’s Wall WHS






Remains of Roman fortification 73 mile long located
in rural northern England
Integration of archaeological sites at numerous
locations with variety of offerings
Branded transportation serving site wide tourists
Coordinated local lodging promotion
Local artisan products program
Hiking/cycling trail and Pilgrimage
Archaeo-Tourism
Specialized segment with low impact/high
benefit potential



Motivated by heritage experience immersion from
tours to home stays to volunteering
Market premium reward for authenticity of offerings
Smaller market than mass tourism but with better
Impact/Benefit profile
Amateur Excavators





Tourists who PAY to assist archaeologists in
excavations
Valuable low impact/high benefit segment
Long-term visitors with big local economic footprint
Informal inter-cultural ambassadors
Limited data suggests demographic diversity across
a global market
Vindolanda Trust




Active archaeological site in
Hadrian’s Wall WHS
over 3000 excavation volunteers
since 1970
Typical two week stay at local
lodging
Expansion to 500 excavators
annually
Next Research Phase
1) Heritage Tourism segmentation, trend forecasts,
and Impact/Benefit valuation
2) Stated and revealed WH Brand analysis by tourism
segment, market, and media
3) Senior and Junior WHS Cluster analysis, BACI and
base level assessments (15 sites)
4) Best practice case studies and codification
5) Archaeology financing program design
WHS Research Sites
Senior: mature sites with established clusters and
learning curve experiences
Junior: Recent or tentative listing with ambiguous
market definition
Criteria
 Developing economy and/or rural locations
 Primary, secondary and tertiary tourism statistics
 Archaeological heritage
 Appropriate control sites from WH Tentative List
 Build on existing development agency relationships
Questions/Suggestions?
Brent Lane
Director
UNC Center for Competitive Economies
University of North Carolina
Kenan Flagler Business School
Campus Box 3440
Chapel Hill NC 27540
919-962-8871
brent_lane@unc.edu