Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtcc20
commodification Stage of George Town Historic
Waterfront: an assessment
Nurbaidura Salim , Badaruddin Mohamed & Azizan Marzuki
To cite this article: Nurbaidura Salim , Badaruddin Mohamed & Azizan Marzuki (2021)
commodification Stage of George Town Historic Waterfront: an assessment, Journal of Tourism
and Cultural Change, 19:1, 38-58, DOI: 10.1080/14766825.2020.1849243
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2020.1849243
Published online: 24 Nov 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 35
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtcc20
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE
2021, VOL. 19, NO. 1, 38–58
https://doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2020.1849243
commodification Stage of George Town Historic Waterfront:
an assessment
Nurbaidura Salim, Badaruddin Mohamed and Azizan Marzuki
School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
The inscription ‘World Heritage City’ bestowed upon George Town
(Penang) and Melaka has pinned Malaysia on the global tourism
map. Both cities, since their acknowledgement, have been
receiving a burgeoning number of tourists, diversification of
motivation, and commercial landscape mushrooming within these
inner cities. While some may have successfully retained their
original form, many heritage buildings have been readapted to
cater for other commercial demands. Plenty of heritage buildings
have been turned into cafes, museums, and even boutique hotels
to cater to tourist needs. Taking George Town as a case study, this
study adopted the qualitative approach to assessing the stage of
commodification based on the application of Creative Destruction
Model (CDM). Data analyses on tourist arrivals, tourism investment,
and resident attitudes revealed that this destination lies in the
stage of pre-advanced commodification, which refers to a newly
proposed stage of commodification to fit the characteristic of the
study area. Model modification is required to suit the
characteristics of a heritage destination in Malaysia.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 20 April 2020
Accepted 4 November 2020
KEYWORDS
Commodification; tourism
impacts; heritage site;
Malaysia
Introduction
Many scholars have discussed in an in-depth manner pertaining to the implication of
commodification. The impacts of heritage commodification have led to standardisation
in culture and products, reduction in cultural originality, diminished local identity, and
internationalisation of a humble local event. These scenarios have indirectly resulted in
cultural conflicts, social imbalance, and eventually, deterioration of destination attractiveness. Commodification, as defined by Cohen (1988), refers to a process that objects and
activities are evaluated based on their exchange values and categorised as services and
goods in the context of commercial. In precise, within the tourism context, commodification is described as turning something into commercial use for the purpose of levitating
tourism business. Prior studies have highlighted that commodification occurs due to the
escalating demand of tourism activities, stemming from tourists who seek unique and
different cultural experience from their own (Brata, 2014; Bui & Lee, 2015; Lin & Bao,
2015; Su, 2011; Suryanarayan, 2017).
In Malaysia, particularly, the emergence of commodification is witnessed in several
popular destinations, including Langkawi, Melaka, and George Town (Penang). The
CONTACT Badaruddin Mohamed
bada@usm.my
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE
39
United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) inscription of
the World Heritage Status to George Town and Melaka has exerted tremendous
impacts on both tourism arrivals and growth of the economy. Various heritage trails
have been established and promoted since the inscription. Numerous events were held
to attract visitors to the two cities. Due to the rapid transformation of the cities with a
sense of commodification for economic purposes, these heritage sites have undergone
construction at various levels. In George Town, for example, tourism arrivals to the
state increased to 9.10 million in 2019, compared to only five million in 2007 (YZD Planning and Consultant, 2020). The burgeoning numbers of tourists visiting George Town
due to its heritage status have also spurred the economic growth, despite the fact that
the effect from the listing has caused several negative implications.
According to Tan (2019), George Town has been facing critical issues due to tourism
activities, including endangerment and loss of traditional trades with the introduction
of new products that stray from heritage value, change of building use, traffic congestion,
limited accessibility and insufficient signage, as well as lack of disaster risk management
and road safety for tourists. Additionally, the escalating rental property has driven out
many local tenants from the heritage area. A study by Mohamed, Omar and Zainal
Abidin (2015) revealed that 85% of the residents in George Town were forced to move
out as they could not afford the property rent, which increased due to the lifting of the
Rent Control Act in the year 2000. The loose policy on the employment of foreign
workers in the tourism and hospitality sector seems to have worsened this situation.
Some business and hotel owners prefer hiring foreign workers instead of the locals due
to cheaper wage. The impacts of being internationally recognised as a World Heritage
Site reflect international accountability. The outstanding universal value and authenticity
at the time of declaration must be maintained and improved in future. Otherwise, any
threat detected may risk the city to be added into the List of World Heritage Sites in
Danger, thus resulting in exclusion from the heritage listings. This presents a pressing
need to identify the actual situation of commodification in a heritage city.
Several studies have assessed the evolution of heritage destinations by employing the
Creative Destruction Model (CDM) initiated by Mitchell (1998). Since its development in
1998, the CDM has been applied in various ways in Canada (Kinghorn, 2018; Mitchell &
de Waal, 2009; Mitchell & Vanderwerf, 2010), Japan (Su & Chang, 2011), China (Fan,
Wall, & Mitchell, 2009; Liao & Qin, 2013; Lin & Bao, 2015; Qun, Mitchell, & Wall, 2012;
Yang, Xu, & Wall, 2017), and Australia (Mitchell, 2013) to describe the transformative
process of tourist destinations where development has occurred due to the commodification of heritage. Despite the vast adoption of the CDM, most studies are limited to
rural village destinations (Fan, Wall, & Mitchell, 2008; Huang, Wall, & Mitchell, 2007; Mitchell, 2013; Xu, Yan, & Zhu, 2013), industrial heritage site (Yang et al., 2017), and historic
water towns (Chang & Huang, 2005; Huang, 2006; Huang et al., 2007; Qun et al., 2012).
Instead of emphasising only on the destruction of a rural destination (rural idyll), as prescribed by Mitchell (1998), the model has been employed to describe the progression of
changes to urban heritage destinations. As such, this study had adopted the CDM in
describing George Town. An added focus refers to the extent to which stage George
Town falls in the model of commodification. Apart from benefitting the business environment, commodification offers opportunities to develop new products and services to
meet the escalating demands of the tourists for their changing needs. Nevertheless,
40
N. SALIM ET AL.
excessive commodification is bound to affect the authenticity of the local culture and
similarity of tourism products. Despite the numerous indications of commodification witnessed across George Town, no study has determined the stage of commodification in
this heritage destination. In an interview with Murali Ram, the urban regeneration programme director of ThinkCity Penang, revealed that studies pertaining to the level of
commodification in George Town have yet to be conducted despite the emerging indications of commodification in George Town (personal communication, 24 October 2018).
The outcomes presented in this study may be of use by the relevant authorities. The
application of CDM in George Town historic waterfront setting can predict the level of
commodification. The result can aid the government authorities to take early precautionary measures in managing destruction from plaguing George Town, stemming from
excessive tourism development. This study will be a useful and additional insight to
the Penang Tourism Master Plan, soon to be launced by the Penang state government.
At present, the state government has only devised the Penang Structure Plan (RSNPP)
2030 (currently under review), Penang Local Plan (currently under review), Special Area
Plan of George Town, and Penang Transport Master Plan (Penang State Economic Planning Division, 2019). Therefore, this study would serve as a benchmark for the local authority to formulate better tourism policies and further turn George Town into a sustainable
city in the near future. Thus, this study also bridges the gap by identifying the stage of
commodification in George Town based on Mitchell’s Creative Destruction Model.
Literature review
Tourism development models
In order to understand the implications of tourism development to local residents, a
number of models have been proposed. A common understanding of these models is
that the impacts of tourism and levels of tolerance within the host community can
change over time (Butler, 2006; Mitchell, 2013). The changes and the rate of speed at
which they occur are influenced by structural changes across the tourism industry, the
rate of tourism development, as well as the extent to which residents are exposed to
the increasing number of visitors and tourism activities (Wall & Mathieson, 2006).
Butler’s model, based on the idea of the tourism life cycle, has been the most prominent and widely applied to measure the tourism development of a destination. It is
strongly believed that tourism development occurs in six stages over time, whereby
the model predicts that if the capacity of a destination is exceeded, then the visitors’
experience and the residents’ attitude would result along with the declining tourist arrivals (Butler, 2006). Butler’s model, nonetheless, focuses only on the survival of resort destinations and may not suit all destinations. In a similar vein, Piuchan (2018) asserted that
the model only illustrates a single direction that ends in five directions after stagnation. In
reality, opportunities for destinations to shift into other life cycles are indeed vast.
Creative destruction in tourism studies
The notion of creative destruction was initially introduced by Joseph Schumpeter to
describe the behaviour displayed by capitalist economies (Mitchell, 2013). He applied
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE
41
the term to elaborate on the transformation process that usually accompanies radical
innovation. According to Schumpeter (2006), the desire for profit is the driving force
that encourages entrepreneurs to create innovation (e.g. new technologies, new
methods, new products, and markets) that generates profits. While new products
promote growth, they indirectly destroy the existing economic activities, whose viability
depends on old products. Mitchell (1998) later used this concept and built a model of
creative destruction to observe how communities that commodify heritage evolve
across the Western context.
The CDM depicts the transformative process of a particular tourism destination whose
development stems from the commodification of heritage (Fan et al., 2008; Yang et al.,
2017). This model is based on the idea of entrepreneurs investing in the creation and
sale of heritage products, in which the investment later leads to a heritage tourism destination. The increasing number of visitors will adversely affect the original landscape, and
residents’ attitude towards tourism until the destination loses its attractiveness. Based on
an empirical study on rural villages in Canada, Mitchell identified three variables that drive
the process of creative destruction (Fan et al., 2009; Huang et al., 2007; Mitchell & Vanderwerf, 2010). The first one is the investment or motivational drivers, which include the
desire to accumulate profit, the need to promote growth, and the intention to preserve
historical buildings. Investment in commodification can change the landscape of a destination. The drivers, on the other hand, may influence the transformation of these settings,
either singly or in combination, through the actions of stakeholders, such as local government or private organisations.
The number of visitors is one of the three variables that drive the process of creative
destruction. Based on Mitchell’s model, tourists are divided into two groups; heritageseekers and post-modern tourists, to distinguish the two types of consumers of the
same place at different stages of development (Yang et al., 2017).
The third variable refers to the residents’ attitude. The attitude in this context reflects
the contentment of the residents towards tourists and tourism development. As mentioned before, investments result in the conversion of abandoned or occupied buildings
to settings suitable for the sale of local cuisine, handcrafted products or local business to
serve the needs and demands of visitors. Nonetheless, in some urban heritage destinations, such as Paris, the transformation is beyond physical transformation. Freytag
and Bauder (2018) unravelled that touristification or tourist activities may shape and
reshape the urban environment. For instance, tourist activities encourage new business
growth in the surrounding areas. Thus, more hotels and cafes are established to cater
to the escalating needs of tourists. Simultaneously, this leads to a change of profession
among the local community. Those not involved in tourism may begin venturing into
tourism services, such as travel agents, tour guides, and hotel services, upon realising
the lucrative income brought by tourism. As the new transformation unfolds, the influx
of visitors, as perceived by some, becomes a threat to living (Butler, 2006; Kinghorn, 2018).
Originally, the model is composed of five stages that describe from early commodification to post-destruction. Mitchell and de Wall (2009) re-examined the model and
embedded another stage into the model called ‘pre-commodification’. Pre-commodification is the stage where tourism is considered to be inactive. Only a few visitors are
present at this stage, and the attitude towards tourism is mainly positive. Mitchell
(2013) predicted that the transformation would occur in six stages as investments, visitors,
42
N. SALIM ET AL.
and residents’ attitudes would shift over time (see Table 1). The model predicts that
investment levels would escalate with each stage as stakeholders reckon the economic
benefits that commodification of a particular destination could bring. Additional
financial contributions are bound to change the function of the destination, which, in
turn, would attract more tourists to the destination. Over time, tourism activities would
lead to a negative attitude among the local residents. As a result, a destination would
eventually be a place that appeals to tourists seeking serialised and complete commodification (Mitchell & de Waal, 2009).
Early commodification starts with a recognition of potential profits in a historic community. At this stage, investors start seeking for possible investments that may generate
profit and slowly market the local heritage (Huang et al., 2007). Heritage buildings are purchased, restored, and transformed to commercialise local products. Significant local
changes are implemented in this stage (Kinghorn, 2018). Although facades of buildings
are still preserved, their local functions begin to change so as to cater to the tourism
market. Tourists to the area are authentic heritage-seekers travelling in a low number
(Halpern, 2009). The attitude of the residents during the early commodification is favourable since tourism is seen as boosting the economy in the local context.
At the stage of Advanced Commodification, businesses offer new products that meet
the demands of tourists. The community is marketed broadly due to the escalating
number of tourists. Tourists who visit these destinations are still seeking for the authentic
Table 1. Stages of commodification in the Creative Destruction Model.
Stage of
commodification
Pre-commodification
Description
.
.
Early commodification
.
.
.
Advanced
commodification
.
.
.
Early destruction
.
.
.
Advanced destruction
.
.
.
.
.
Post destruction
.
.
.
Inactive
Only a few visitors and largely positive towards tourism
Dominant landscape
Productivist rural
landscape
Limited to the restoration of some local buildings
Tourism is viewed positively
No destruction of the local culture in the eyes of residents
Investment levels slowly grow
Local investors start to market the community to attract tourists
Those involved in tourism benefit greatly
Post-productivist
heritage-scape
Other new businesses may start to stray from the themes and
products of the locals
Residents start to notice negative impacts
Overcrowding, traffic congestion, and crime may occur
Major developments (hotels, cafes, etc.) occurring within the
community
Greater deviation from heritage theme as the scale of investment
increases
An increasing number of tourist arrivals
Residents perceive negative attitude towards tourism
Residents may decide to leave the town due to decreasing sense of
community, declining quality of life, and overall destruction of
what they perceive to be an idyllic setting
Visitors may feel that the community has become inauthentic
Low tourist arrivals as the community are no longer unique
No further investment as investors seek other destinations to invest
Source: (Liao & Qin, 2013; Lin & Bao, 2015; Mitchell, 1998; Qun et al., 2012)
Neo-productivist
leisure-scape
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE
43
experience. Locals involved in the tourism industry positively accept tourism, while others
who do not engage with tourism begin to express their dissatisfaction due to traffic congestion, pollution, and crimes that accompany the growth of a destination (Mitchell & de
Waal, 2009).
As a destination moves into Early Destruction, more investments attract tourists to the
area. While some investments may be in keeping with a local heritage theme, others may
stray from the original theme, such as the establishment of fast-food restaurants, hotels,
and cafes. Subsequently, the number of visitors increases with the arrival of post-tourists.
They are mindful tourists, have accepted the idea of tourism, and seek it out. Meanwhile,
heritage tourists seek authentic experience (Mitchell & de Waal, 2009). The increasing visitors and investment may cause hostility to some residents. Those who observe the
changes, but still highly value the original identity of the local context, would actively
refuse further transformation of the town.
In the fifth stage, or ‘Advanced Destruction’, the residents quit the will to protest further
development. This stage witnesses the escalation of out-migration. Local people would start
to move out of the town, as those who value the original identity have perceived tourism in
an adverse way (Mitchell & de Waal, 2009). Those who benefit from tourism would remain in
the city and live in a fully commodified landscape. At this stage, mass tourists dominate the
community, while investments drift away from the original heritage theme.
As a community passes through the six stages, the level of investment increases so
does the number of visitors and the negative attitude towards tourism. In the final
stage of ‘Post Destruction’, the heritage-scape faces destruction, and it is replaced with
the creation of leisure-scape of mass consumption (Sullivan, 2010). At this stage, development and facilities are provided to meet the needs of tourists. Visitors, on the other hand,
may feel that the community has become inauthentic. This scenario can result in a declining
number of visitors (Mitchell & de Waal, 2009). However, if the community can attract a
different type of tourist group through other development, consumption level will continue
to grow. Huang et al. (2007) asserted that the attitude of the residents may improve at
this stage, as those who feel discontent towards tourism would have sought other places
that have yet to experience the twin forces of creative and destruction.
The CDM has been applied in several western rural villages and towns that experienced
tourism development and heritage commodification, particularly in Canada (Kinghorn,
2018; Mitchell, 1998, 2013; Mitchell & de Waal, 2009; Mitchell & Vanderwerf, 2010).
Although the model was originally developed within the western context, it has been
applied in other settings that share similar characteristics of the study areas in Canada
(Huang et al., 2007).
Yang et al. (2017) applied the CDM in the Nanfeng Kiln District industrial heritage destination. The study revealed that Nanfeng Kiln had experienced a process of commodification and was in the stage of early destruction. As opposed to the original model that
suggests the importance of public interest in every decision making in the tourism
plan, the study findings revealed that the local government held the authority and contributed the early capital for the redevelopment process. The residents’ attitude had little
influence on tourism since they were already relocated by the local government.
A study by Xu et al. (2013) on the commodification of Chinese heritage villages probed
into the correlation between tourism development and heritage villages. Excessive
tourism development promoted by the local government had precipitated the
44
N. SALIM ET AL.
commodification of heritage destinations. They adopted the Creative Destruction Model
to predict the level of commodification across 30 Chinese heritage villages and discovered
that rapid commodification existed in those heritage villages, which fit the second stage
of the model: advanced commodification. Next, Fan et al. (2008) employed the CDM to
investigate the transformation of a historic water town in Luzhi, China. The study unravelled that Luzhi was in the latter stage of advanced commodification and was moving
towards early destruction if no limit was set on the number of tourist arrivals. The
stage of development was identified in prior studies, wherein most of the studied sites
fell in the ‘advanced commodification’ stage, as presented in Table 2.
Methodology
Background of the study area
George Town World Heritage Site is located in the state of Penang, Malaysia and can be
divided into Core Zone (109.38 hectares) and Buffer Zone (150.04 hectares). This study
was conducted within the George Town World Heritage Site with an emphasis on the
waterfront area along Clan Jetties and Weld Quay. There used to be nine clan jetties
until Ong Jetty was demolished due to fire, while Peng Aun Jetty and Koay Jetty, a
unique community of Hui Chinese Muslims were then demolished to allow for development of high-rise buildings in 2006. The residents were later relocated outside of the city
(George Town World Heritage Incorporated, 2016). Six different clans still reside at the
Clan Jetties: Lim, Chew, Tan and Yeoh Jetty are the oldest, while Lee and Mixed
Surname (New) Jetties were built afterwards. Since the Clan Jetties are among the
oldest heritage villages within the heritage site, it is suitable to select these communities
as the study respondents (See Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Research method
The qualitative approach was adopted in this study to explore the process of commodification and the changes in the residents’ attitudes over time due to tourism development.
Table 2. Applications of the Creative Destruction Model.
Previous research
Setting
Stage of development
Vanderwerf (2008)
Rural village
(Creemore, Canada)
Historic water town village (Luzhi, China)
Rural heritage village
(Zhu Jia Jiao, China)
Rural heritage village
(Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada)
Rural village
(Creemore, Ontario, Canada)
Hokkaido, Japan
(Ainu Community)
Chinese heritage villages
Xidi Village, China
Industrial heritage site (Foshan, China)
Traditional villages
(Wuyuan, China)
Advanced commodification
Fan et al. (2008)
Huang et al. (2007)
Sullivan (2010)
Mitchell and Vanderwerf (2010)
Chang, Su, and Chang (2011)
Xu et al. (2013)
Lin and Bao (2015)
Yang et al. (2017)
Zhang, Long, and Zhao (2019)
Advanced commodification
Advanced commodification
Advanced commodification
Advanced commodification
Early destruction
Heritage-scape
Advanced commodification
Early destruction
Staged leisure landscape
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE
45
Figure 1. The boundary of Core and Buffer zone within George Town World Heritage Site. Source from
George Town World Heritage Incorporated (GTWHI) (2016).
Based on Mitchell’s CDM, three variables that drive the process of heritage commodification are investment level, visitor arrivals, and resident attitudes. Hence, data on investment levels and visitor arrivals were obtained from government official websites,
reports, policy documents, as well as newspaper and magazine articles.
Figure 2. Map of Clan Jetties. Source from George Town World Heritage Incorporated (GTWHI) (2016).
46
N. SALIM ET AL.
A range of data collection methods was adopted in this study, including semi-structured interviews, on-site observation, and document analysis. The use of different data
collection methods enabled the researcher to analyse the convergence of data and ascertain the credibility of the data findings (Bowen, 2009). The secondary data used in this
study were gathered from several government documents, such as Special Area Plan of
George Town (2016), Land Use and Population Change Report (2013), and Penang
Tourist Survey Reports (2014-2019). The accumulated data were arranged based on the
stages of the model that was adopted as a means of analysis and a structure of reporting
the outcomes. On-site observations were performed to further understand the condition
of the study site, the selection of government officials, and the potential stakeholders for
interview. The on-site observation was carried out to capture an overview of the present
commodification scenario, the residents’ behaviour, the land use pattern, and the products sold at the study site.
Semi-structured interviews were carried out to comprehend the motivation of different
stakeholders on investment and tourism development at the study area, the impacts of
heritage commodification, and the change in the residents’ attitudes towards tourism
development. The interviews were guided with a set of pre-determined questions to
assist the respondents in responding to the questions. The participants were selected
through the purposive sampling method. The purposive sampling approach enables
the recruitment of respondents equipped with relevant knowledge to provide valuable
information related to the case study (Neuman, 2004). The participants were selected
amongst those who were living in and were familiar with the development of George
Town; before and after its inscription as a World Heritage City. As for the local community
respondents, they were selected among those who had lived in the town for more than 50
years. The interviews were conducted with 16 respondents among local community
associations, government officers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and academicians (See Table 3).
The stakeholders were identified during the observation and later confirmed via phone
call and email prior to the interview sessions. Data collection was conducted between
November 2018 and January 2019. Each interview session lasted for about forty
minutes to an hour to complete. All interviewees agreed to have the interviews recorded.
The interview data were transcribed and analysed based on specific themes, including the
history of George Town, development of heritage tourism, tourism impacts, and residents’
attitudes, based on the variables identified in the CDM.
Results
The creative destruction of George Town waterfront
As one of the leading urban destinations in Malaysia, the George Town World Heritage
Site is an instance that can be applied to explore the past, the present, and the future
trends in tourism, as well as the changes of functional use in urban areas. The study
findings reveal that the process of commodification has indeed taken place in George
Town. It is physically visible that changes have occurred to the heritage buildings and
their function. Concurrently, the locals perceived different attitudes towards tourism
over time. All the respondents agreed that the inscription of George Town as a World
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE
47
Table 3. List of respondents.
Codes
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
Respondents
Female, Local community representative of Malay-Arab Community Acheh Street
Male, 65, Local community representative of Lim Jetty Association
Male, 56, Local community representative of Tan Jetty
Male, 60, Local community representative of Lee Jetty Association
Male, Local community representative of Chew Jetty Association
Male, Local community representative of Chew Jetty Association
Female, 50, shop owner at Chew Jetty
Female, 59, local community at Chew Jetty
Male, 42, local entrepreneur Sea at Folklore, Chew Jetty
Female, 42, local entrepreneur Sea at Folklore, Chew Jetty
Male, 75, local community representative of Khoo Kongsi Association
Female, 56, local historian
Female, 42, General Manager, George Town World Heritage (GTWHI) Incorporated
Male, 47, Urban Regeneration Program Director, ThinkCity Penang.
Female, 35, Heritage planner, Local authority, Penang Island Municipal Council
Male, 37, Town planner, Local authority, Penang Island Municipal Council
Heritage Site has driven the process of transformation and has led to heritage commodification in the study area. The importance and the potential of the tourism industry have
boosted the economy of the town, apart from improving the residents’ quality of life. The
next section describes the development of heritage tourism in the study area based on
the variables embedded in CDM. Between 1970 and 2018, the town had advanced
through three stages, namely (1) Pre-commodification, (2) Early commodification, and (3)
Pre-advanced commodification.
The evolution of tourism: pre-commodification (1960s-2007)
Tourism in George Town can be traced back in the nineteenth century when George
Town was established as a free port after Sir Francis Light had taken over Penang
from the Kedah Sultanate. Since then, Penang has become home to people from
various ethnic and religious backgrounds. The very first ferry service between George
Town and Butterworth started in 1894, which eased people to travel in and out of
George Town.
In the 1960s, tourism came in light when Muslims from the northern part of Malaysia,
Thailand, as well Indonesia, came to George Town to board ships for the pilgrimage to
Mecca (Saudi Arabia). The departures took place at Penang Port, where relatives and
friends bid the pilgrims goodbye for the three-month journey in ships known as ‘kapal
haji’, the only transportation means to bring hajj pilgrims to Mecca. Commercial air
travel to Mecca was only introduced two decades later. According to R1, who was
borne and raised in the area, and R12 (a local historian), George Town and Penang Port
turned busy during the hajj season, with hajj pilgrims and their relatives occupying
hotels and houses along Lebuh Acheh for a week or two prior to embarkation. Businesses
flourished in the inner city during the hajj season with many seasonal traders selling
sarongs, pullicat, religious treatises, and other items. Back in 1950, the Hajj season was
indeed a blessing season for business traders along the Penang Port. The status of
Penang as a free port trade centre at that time made the sellable goods cheaper. Business
traders from Penang Bazaar and Campbell Street sold their goods along with the port and
Padang Kota Lama (Musa, 2015). Locals, on the other hand, took the opportunity to
48
N. SALIM ET AL.
become part-time tourist guides so that they can earn additional pocket money during
the Hajj season. Having described that, tourism activities had already existed at that
time, but were not promoted or lacked awareness among the local people. Besides,
hajj pilgrims did not regard their activities as tourism, but more of religious obligation.
This sentiment is still prevalent among the Muslims in Malaysia today.
The city status bestowed upon George Town on 1 January 1957 has boosted the
growth of the tourism industry in Penang. In the following years, George Town had
remained its free port status, but this did not last as the Malaysian federal government
withdrew its free port status, which led to massive unemployment. About 16.4% of
Penang’s working population became unemployed as the trade volume in the Penang
Port dwindled, which affected the then-thriving service sector in George Town (Teh,
2016). The vibrant entreport fell into stagnation and has lost its character. Countless
efforts were made to revitalise George Town, but most of those plans were failed as
each plan was limited by short-term outlook and disorganised approach (Khor, Benson,
Liew, & James, 2017).
The importance of tourism has been acknowledged in Malaysia’s economic agenda.
In Penang particularly, it was only in the 1970s that tourism, along with the growth
of industrialisation, was viewed as a way to connect the state’s economy with other
parts of the world (Lim & Pan, 2017). The 1970s and 1980s witnessed a rapid
growth of the tourism industry as the island’s international arrivals witnessed a
gradual growth from 39,457 arrivals in 1970–200,927 arrivals in 1980. The growing
tourism industry in George Town highlighted the important role of its heritage
towns as one of the renowned tourist destinations in Malaysia (Ahmad, 1998). This
is evidenced by the escalating number of visitors to the town between 1990 and
1997 (see Table 4):
Heritage tourism was highlighted in the state’s agenda to attract tourists to visit
Penang. Intrinsic historical sites, new tourism resources, and cultural enclaves were rediscovered and transformed into tourist products. Efforts were taken by the state government, several organisations, and the local people had helped in conserving the
heritage legacy of George Town. The establishment of the Penang Heritage Trust in
1986 gestured the local ambitions and seriousness to address heritage-related issues.
The ‘Design Guidelines for Conservation Areas in the Inner City of George Town’,
implemented by the Penang Island City Council (MBPP), highlights the state’s first preservation standards for heritage. Based on the Heritage Management Plan for Historic City
Table 4. Number of visitor arrivals to George Town between 1990
and 1997.
Year
Number of visitor arrivals
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1.86
1.94
2.13
2.38
3.24
3.34
3.44
3.17
Source adapted from Ahmad (1998)
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE
49
George Town (2008), the city was categorised into five main areas based on its historical
and cultural attributes.
Nevertheless, tourist arrivals declined from a peak of 2.3 million visitors in 2000–1.8
million in 2008 (Kharas, Zeufack, & Majeed, 2010). Additionally, dilapidated buildings,
vacant premises, and the dissolution of the Rent Control Act 1966 had caused the local
residents to move out from the inner city. By 2007, the total population in George
Town had declined by 30 per cent since 2000 (ThinkCity, 2013). This scenario had signalled the Malaysian government to apply for the World Heritage status from the
UNESCO to jointly preserve the heritage legacy of both George Town and Melaka.
Since then, the tourism industry in George Town has flourished, and tourist arrivals
have begun to increase on an annual basis.
Early commodification (2008–2015)
Since its inscription, the city has been receiving a high number of tourists from all parts of
the world. Many programmes and tourism activities were organised by the Penang State
Tourism Development and Culture through the Visit Penang Year (VPY) 2010–2012 programme. In the attempt to boost the tourism sector, the state government had allocated
RM 51 million for tourism development projects, such as Penang Hill trams and the landscape garden of Botanical Garden (Yusni, 2012). The state government had made a concerted effort by developing its tourism key development thrust to ensure that the tourist
arrivals to Penang would hit at least 17.4 million within five years (2008-2012). The Penang
Tourism Development Key Thrust comprised of 10 main thrusts, as listed in the following
(See Table 5):
After two years implementing the Penang Tourism Development Key Thrusts, tourist
arrivals to Penang recorded a significant number, which exceeded 12 million visitors
from the year 2008–2009. Tourist arrivals to the state increased to 6.09 million in 2013,
compared to only 5 million in 2007 (Penang State Development Portal, 2019).
Although many tourists who visited George Town were mainly leisure tourists, they
also sought cultural experience and the residents’ attitude at this stage was positive
towards tourism activities. For instance, the heritage status conferred to George Town
had turned the clan jetties into a core heritage zone and an integral tourist attraction.
When asked about the inscription of heritage status, the local residents responded that
the heritage status had saved the settlement from being demolished. A long-time local
resident (R2) stated the following:
Table 5. 10 Penang Tourism Development Key Thrusts.
.
Medical tourism
.
.
Cultural, Heritage and Historical tourism
.
MICE centres (Meeting, Incentive, Convention
and Exhibition)
Ecotourism
.
Education Tourism
.
Culinary centres
.
location of choice for MNCs (Multi-National Companies)
regional headquarters
.
Film festivals, Cultural and Arts Centre
.
Sports tourism
.
Shopping Haven and Industry
Source from Penang State Development Portal (2019).
50
N. SALIM ET AL.
Before the heritage status, these clan jetties were supposed to be demolished to allow for
new development. The heritage status saved our homes from being demolished. However,
there are some rules and regulations that we need to follow to retain the original façade
of the house.
From area forbidden to outside people, the clan jetties today welcome hundreds of visitors to visit traditional wooden houses built on stilts. Businesses are booming in jetties like
Chew jetty, the jetty that was selected to be the model of community based tourism
among the clan jetties. Homestays are opened for tourists to learn about the local
culture and daily life, and to bring direct benefits of tourism to the community. Increasing
demand from the tourists has resulted many dwellers to convert their homes to tourist
related businesses such as cafe, souviner shops and galleries. Despite the fact that the
ownership of the properties can only be transferred with the clan members carrying
same surname, some do extend their homes and rent them out to outsiders to gain
extra income. Eventually, lines of cafes and souviner shops dot the main alleys of the
clan jetties (Figures 3 and 4).
The increased tourist activities do not come without a price. Kaur (2019) reported that
the facade of the village at the main passageway has changed drastically and the elder
folks who used to enjoy peaceful view of the sea, now have to recede to the back of
their houses to find peace, away from the noise from the visitors. This phenomenon
can especially be observed in the pioneer jetty, the Chew Jetty, while others such as
Lee, Lim and Tan Jetties choose not to expose themselves to too much onslaught of
the tourists in order to preserve their cultural sanctity and lifestyle. According to R2, a resident of Lim Jetty, the uncontrolled tourist activities in Chew Jetty have made the communities in other jetties to be more vigilant and concern about the detrimental and
uncontrol impacts of tourism.
The indicators of commodification in George Town were witnessed at this stage. In an
interview with the local residents, more heritage buildings were repurposed into commercial activities, such as hotels and cafes, to fulfil the growing needs and diversifications of
tourists by the year. These had attracted interests from foreign companies especially from
Singapore and Hong Kong, to acquire the multi-color buildings and turn them into homogenous coloured buildings before turning them into tourist-related facilities (Mok, 2016).
Figure 3. (a and b) Most of the stilt houses had been converted into souvenir shops to serve tourism
purpose. Pictures by the authors (23 July 2019).
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE
51
Figure 4. Some house owners even converted their house into a restaurant. Picture by the authors (23
July 2019).
More local tenants had increased the rate of rental property and buildings for foreign
investors. As a result, locals who could no longer afford the rental had decided to
move out of the town in search of better homes. According to state government’s outdated statistics, at least 61 heriatge buildings have been bought by foreigners although
heritage groups claimed that the figures were much higher. A survey conducted by
Penang Geographical Information System (PEGIS) in 2014 revealed that there was an
increase in hotel establishments stemming from tourism activities between 2012 and
2014 (see Tables 6 and 7).
Pre-advanced commodification (2015–2019)
In the year 2017, the state received about 8.74 million tourist arrivals, with 3.47 million
arrivals were domestic tourists. The number of arrivals to Penang marked further increase
with 9.10 million tourists visiting the state in 2019. Nonetheless, these figures only
reflected those spending nights at the hotels and resorts whereas there are about 30%
staying at other forms of accommodations (YZD Planning and Consultant, 2020).
Taking into account visitors staying with relatives or friends, or in other types of accommodations, including homestays, private holiday homes or Airbnb, one can assume that
the visitor arrivals in Penang, inclusive of George Town, is significantly higher than the
official numbers recorded. Within the same year, the tourism industry contributed
almost RM 3.9 million of tourism tax revenue for the state. This marked further increase
Table 6. Number of non-star rating hotels in George Town, 2012 and 2014.
Motel
Category
2012
Non-star rating hotels
5
Source: Lim and Pan (2017)
Guesthouse
Budget
hotel
Hostel
Service
apartment
Not rated
2014
2012
2014
2012
2014
2012
2014
2012
2014
2012
2014
2
7
23
5
2
4
1
8
2
70
88
52
N. SALIM ET AL.
Table 7. Number of star rating hotels in George Town, 2012 and 2014.
Hotel
1-star
Category
No. of star rating hotels
Source: Lim and Pan (2017)
2-star
3-star
4-star
5-star
2012
2014
2012
2014
2012
2014
2012
2014
2012
2014
3
4
3
4
6
14
12
21
7
9
in Penang’s economy, with George Town particularly in attracting foreign investment.
With the increasing number of tourists and tourism revenue, tourism clearly has a significant impact on not only the economic development of the city but also its urban transformation. Put simply, tourist activities in George Town have the potential to shape and
reshape the urban environment.
Based on the interview with a local government officer, the major tourism product in
George Town has been sightseeing, especially
after 2008, more people are acknowledging George Town as a World Heritage Site. A heritage
site is a must-see place, in particular after the mural paintings. The mural paintings have
become so popular, and that really makes a big difference to the tourism industry in
George Town.
Upon recognising the potential of generating lucrative income from the mural painting
sightseeing, more local shop owners and business owners have grabbed the opportunities to turn these paintings into postcards, t-shirts, souvenirs, and merchandise items
to sell to the tourists. Eventually, this has become a trend, and man-made tourist products
have turned popular within the heritage area. Almost all souvenir shops in George Town
tend to sell similar products in the form of bags, postcards, magnets, and even t-shirts. A
long-time resident in Acheh Street (R1) argued that George Town has limited signature
local products that tourists can bring back to their home country. These modern manmade souvenirs have blinded the original traditional local products, such as Malay
songkok, Baba Nyonya beaded shoes, and joystick-making. He added, ‘these are the
local products that should be highlighted and promoted to the eyes of the world … ’
From the interview sessions, all the respondents agreed that George Town had experienced some significant changes in the past decade since its inscription as a World Heritage Site. Some respondents perceived positive attitude towards tourism development,
as given in the following:
One good change is that the city is cleaner … I think the city has become a more attractive
place to live in because there is a diversity of things to do. Not only new parks are developed,
but there are also back lanes that have been improved. There are also cycling culture and new
restaurants, cafes and so on. In that respect, things have been improved.
(R14)
Tourism has increased the household income of the residents …
(R9)
From the socio-economic stance, most of the villagers in the clan jetties have gradually
shifted from being a full-time fisherman to art shop owners, partly influenced by other
shop owners. In 2017, about 30% of the housing units in Chew Jetty, for example, were
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE
53
turned into commercial outlets since the village was gazetted as heritage settlement. Our
recent findings in the year 2019 revealed that the percentage had increased to 54%, as
these businesses provide mainly food and beverages as well as souvenirs. When asked
if the businesses are profitable and could help in increasing their income, some respondents begged to differ. They claimed that opening art shops is not their main source of
income, but rather as a side income to support their daily lives. Some respondents mentioned that they had no choice but to open souviner shops to support their house maintenance. Being an internationally recognised heritage village, they are not allowed to
modify their houses as they wish, and all maintenance costs should be borne by the
owner. R7, a shop owner at Chew Jetty stated ‘ … you see, when there is leaking or
damage to any part of the house, we cannot simply renovate our house without following
the standards set by the heritage office (GTWHI). We need to use wooden material to
retain its originality, and the cost is not cheap … ’ The government also provided some
incentives to help them fix damages, but it usually took a long time for the authority
to act. Most residents preferred repairing the damages at their own cost.
Although not all residents are involved in commercial activities, the impacts of
increased tourism activities are felt by the entire communities. Being the biggest and
the most visited water village, Chew Jetty is more or less becoming the living human
zoo for tourists. Despite each jetty having certain visiting time (from 9.00 am to 9.00
pm daily), some villagers were offended when visitors snapped pictures without their
consent. Some villagers even felt increasing dispute within the community as more
businesses have begun flourishing, thus fierce competition amongst each other. Some
respondents revealed:
Not to mention that tourism does give lucrative income to me, but it is getting more competitive as more people would sell the same products as yours. I used to get many customers,
but now I hardly get to sell my things.
(R5)
Chew Jetty is the only jetty that welcomes and is involves in the tourism business. As for the
other jetties, we are more comfortable with what we have now. We want our jetties to live in
harmony and a quiet environment.
(R2)
We used to live in a peaceful environment, but now, things are quite uncomfortable. Some
tourists do not follow the visiting hour rules. I have started to think what the benefit is of
receiving the heritage listing? Nothing.
(R4)
A study by Salim and Mohamed (2018) revealed that changes in building use and nature
of business activities are among the impacts of tourism commodification that were
observed in the study area. Before George Town was gazetted as a World Heritage Site,
some of the building façades at the heritage area were modified to cater to the development needs. Nonetheless, after the inscription of World Heritage Site, all heritage buildings have been preserved, and any change is restricted under the UNESCO’s
conservation law. Since the settlements in Clan Jetties fall under Building Category 2
and planning for change of use, increase in height, an extension of a building, and
54
N. SALIM ET AL.
construction of new structures or buildings are permitted as long as it complies with the
National Heritage Act and does not change the façade of the buildings. For example,
some residents from the Chew Jetty had taken the initiative to beautify their house
walls with creative designs to attract tourists (see Figure 5).
Discussion and conclusions
Initially, Mitchell’s CDM was developed to describe the evolution of communities whose
development has taken place due to heritage commodification in North America. Using
George Town as a case study, this present study research had identified the applicability
of this model on this heritage city. The analysis revealed that the commodification process
was clearly observed on site. Despite the adverse effects derived from tourism development, the commodification of tourism seemed to offer a new life to both the heritage
culture and its adaptive use. The outcomes retrieved from this study unravelled that
tourism activities at the study area promoted business growth, improved the quality of
life of the community, changed the functional use of heritage buildings, and increased
the source of income for the local residents. They interviewed residents, and local
officials shared varying views pertaining to tourism development. While most of the
respondents supported tourism development in the study area, some did voice out
their concern on the negative impacts on their daily lives. Among others are displacement
of traditional trades, an increase of rental property and price of goods, traffic congestion,
and increasing disputes within the community. These respondents are not against
tourism, but rather hope that tourism development would be developed in a sustainable
way without them losing their sense of heritage. The study findings on the impacts of
tourism are in line with those reported by Zaidan and Kovacs (2017), who emphasised
that loss of local identity, increased traffic congestion, as well as the higher price of
goods and services, are among the adverse impacts of tourism development on urban
heritage destinations.
Figure 5. Wall of attraction for the tourists. Some stopped by to pose and take pictures by the beautifully painted wooden wall. Picture by the authors (23 July 2019).
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE
55
This study found that George Town has undergone a process of creative destruction
from a free trading port to a productivist heritage-scape. In accordance to the Creative
Destruction Model, George Town falls in the stage of early destruction as the residents
have begun facing some tourism issues (traffic congestion, change of building use, disrupted daily routines, increasing dispute within the community, and higher price of
goods). Nevertheless, it is believed that the heritage commodification in George Town
is not at the level of destruction to the extent of affecting the image of George Town
as a World Heritage City. Although there is an increasing number of accommodations
and hotels for the past ten years, more buildings were converted into hotels and cafes,
the average percentage of the converted buildings is around one percent only as compared to the total of heritage buildings within the inner city (2,569 buildings)
(A. M. Chee, personal communication, 8 January 2019). Hence, this study proposes the
inclusion of another stage into the model, which is ‘pre-advanced commodification’. At
this stage, we can observe that:
.
.
.
.
.
an increase of tourist arrivals
investment from both local and foreign companies starts to grow
those involved in tourism benefit greatly
many developments (establishment of hotels, cafes and restaurants) occurring within
the community, but still maintain the heritage theme and local products
the residents are not opposed of tourism development but rather appreciate if tourism
could be managed sustainably to avoid further damage to the heritage site.
It is not the purpose of this study to invalidate the original model but to pinpoint some
key elements that should be weighed in, in order to enhance its relevance to be applied
within the context of Malaysia. Although Mitchell’s model has been vastly applied across
rural heritage (Huang, 2006; Lin & Bao, 2015; Mitchell, 2013) and urban heritage destinations (Su & Chang, 2011; Yang et al., 2017), it is essential to address that the model is
not deterministic within the context of George Town. When compared to the original
model, the state government has a dominant role in the redevelopment process of commodifying the heritage sites for profit. Although every development plan made by the
local authority has taken into account the public interest, the state government still
holds the ultimate power in every decision making. The politics of tourism development
in Penang is rather negotiable, with opinions of local stakeholders and NGOs are heard
but not necessarily adhered to. Issues and public outcry of the residents are channelled
through the selected assemblymen in the Executive Committee (EXCO) meetings. Similarly, Yang et al. (2017) asserted that the state government plays an integral role in the
redevelopment process of commodifying heritage sites for profit. Early capital is usually
provided by the state government or by the federal goverment through its implementation arms, such as the ThinkCity and the Implementation and Coordination Unit (ICU)
of the Prime Minister’s Department. Upon progress, private sectors become major investors, while the local government promotes and preserves the heritage site.
A number of studies on creative destruction had surveyed tourist perceptions of heritage commodification at the visiting destinations. In this study, nonetheless, a survey on
tourist perception was omitted as part of data collection. As such, future study may incorporate tourist perceptions in assessing the stage of commodification to determine if there
56
N. SALIM ET AL.
is any change in the study results. Both George Town and Melaka have conferred the
World Heritage Site status on 7 July 2008. Hence, it is assumed that similar to George
Town, Melaka also must have experienced heritage commodification due to tourism
development. Given the similar characteristics shared between George Town and
Melaka, this model can be tested in the context of Melaka World Heritage Site too. As
such, a comparative study between the two sites may be conducted in the near future
to identify the stage of commodification based on the model.
Additionally, future research may want to place focus on the aspect of commodification in terms of heritage products at the study area, such as songkok making, joystickmaking, and local beaded shoes, in order to identify the types of commodification and
improvements that can be made, so as to ensure the sustainability of the products. It is
also recommended that further research to be expanded into other parts of the innercity,
such as the Little India and the Muslim enclave, focusing on the power relations in heritage commodification among the stakeholders and to also include intangible aspects of
the heritage.
Acknowledgement
The funding for this project was made possible through the research grant obtained from Malaysia’s
Ministry of Higher Education, under the Transdisciplinary Research Grant Scheme 2016 [TRGS grant
no: 203.PPBGN.67611002].
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The funding for this project was made possible through the research grant obtained from Ministry
of Higher Education Malaysia, under the Transdisciplinary Research Grant Scheme 2016 [TRGS grant
no: 203.PPBGN.67611002].
References
Ahmad, A. G. (1998). Urban Tourism in Malaysia: Heritage cities of George Town, Malacca and Kota
Bharu. Paper presented at the 2nd. International Seminar on European Architecture and Town
Planning Outside Europe (Dutch Period), Malacca.
Brata, I. B. (2014). Commodification of Telajakan at Ubud Village, Gianyar, Bali. E-Journal of Cultural
Studies.
Bui, H. T., & Lee, T. J. (2015). Commodification and politicization of heritage: Implications for heritage
tourism at the Imperial Citadel of Thang long, Hanoi (Vietnam). ASEAS – Austrian Journal of SouthEast Asian Studies, 8(2), 187–202. doi:10.14764/10.ASEAS-2015.2-5
Butler, R. (2006). The tourism area life cycle. Clevedon, NY, USA; Buffalo, NY, USA; Toronto, ON,
Canada: Channel View Publications.
Chang, T. C., & Huang, S. (2005). Recreating place, replacing memory: Creative destruction at the
Singapore River. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 46(3), 267–280. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8373.2005.00285.x
Chang, J., Su, W.-Y., & Chang, C.-C. (2011). The creative destruction of Ainu community in Hokkaido,
Japan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5), 505–516. doi:10.1080/10941665.2011.
597576
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE
57
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15,
371–386.
Fan, C., Wall, G., & Mitchell, C. J. A. (2008). Creative destruction and the water town of Luzhi, China.
Tourism Management, 29(4), 648–660. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.008
Fan, C., Wall, G., & Mitchell, C. J. A. (2009). Heritage retail center, creative destruction and water town
of Luzhi, Kunshan, China. In C. Ryan, & H. M. Gu (Eds.), Tourism in China: Destinations, cultures and
communities (pp. 99–123). New York, NY: Routledge.
Freytag, T., & Bauder, M. (2018). Bottom-up touristification and urban transformations in Paris.
Tourism Geographies, 20(3), 443–460. doi:10.1080/14616688.2018.1454504
George Town World Heritage Incorporated. (2016). Special area Plan: George Town World heritage
site. Penang.
Halpern, C. (2009). Creative destruction and participatory tourism planning in rural British Columbia:
The case of Salt Spring Island. (Master), University of Waterloo, Ontario.
Heritage Management Plan for Historic City George Town. (2008). Heritage Management Plan.
George Town.
Huang, Y. B. (2006). Tourism in a Chinese water town: Application of a creative destruction model
(Master). University of Waterloo. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/
304929955?accountid=14645
Huang, H. Y. B., Wall, G., & Mitchell, C. J. A. (2007). Creative destruction Zhu Jia Jiao, China. Annals of
Tourism Research, 34(4), 1033–1055. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2007.06.005
Kaur, B. (2019, July 7). Clan jetties Unesco listing boon or bane? New Straits Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/07/502201/clan-jetties-unesco-listing-boon-or-bane
Kharas, H., Zeufack, A., & Majeed, H. (2010). Cities, people & the economy: A study on positioning
Penang. Kuala Lumpur: Khazanah Nasional Berhad.
Khor, N., Benson, M., Liew, V., & James, A. (2017). Rejunevating The city Together (Kamatchy Sappani
Ed.). George Town: Think City Sdn Bhd.
Kinghorn, W. (2018). The creative destruction of place in an Ontario heritage conservation District
(Doctoral Dissertation). University of Western Ontario, Ontario. Retrieved from https://ir.lib.
uwo.ca/etd/5405
Liao, J., & Qin, S. (2013). Creative destruction and transformation of place-based identity in ancient
town of Zhouzhuang. Acta Geographica Sinica, 68(8), 1131–1142.
Lim, S. S., & Pan, Y. C. (2017, October 24). Heritage tourism in George Town: A complicated and
always controversial issue. Penang Institute Issues.
Lin, M., & Bao, J. (2015). Tourism commodification in China’s historic towns and villages: Re-examining the creative destruction model. Tourism Tribune, 30(4), 12–22.
Mitchell, C. (1998). Entrepeneurialism, commodification and creative destruction: A model of postmodern community development. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(3), 273–286.
Mitchell, C. (2013). Creative destruction or creative enhancement? Understanding the transformation of rural spaces. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 375–387. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.09.005
Mitchell, C., & de Waal, S. B. (2009). Revisiting the model of creative destruction: St. Jacobs, Ontario, a
decade later. Journal of Rural Studies, 25, 156–167.
Mitchell, C., & Vanderwerf, J. (2010). Creative destruction and Trial by Space In a historic Canadian
village. Geographical Review, 100(3), 356–374. doi:10.1111/j.1931-0846.2010.00041.x
Mohamed, B., Omar, S. I., & Zainal Abidin, S. Z. (2015). The Perils of Tourism Growth in a World
Heritage Site: The Case of George Town. In Paper presented at the 5th International Conference
of Jabodetabek Study Forum. Indonesia: Bagor.
Mok, O. (2016, September 26). Stop foreigners from buying heritage buildings, Gerakan tells
Penang. malaymail. Retrieved from https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2016/09/26/
stop-foreigners-from-buying-heritage-buildings-gerakan-tells-penang/1214111
Musa, M. (2015). Memori di George Town. George Town, Penang: George Town World Heritage
Incorporated.
Neuman, W. L. (2004). Basics of social research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston:
Pearson.
58
N. SALIM ET AL.
Penang State Development Portal. (2019). Penang Tourism Development Key Thrust. Retrieved from
https://www.penang.gov.my/index.php/en/apa/apakah-dasar-dasar-kerajaan-negeri
Penang State Economic Planning Division. (2019). Pelan Induk Pengangkutan Negeri Pulau Pinang.
Retrieved from http://pgmasterplan.penang.gov.my/index.php/en/
Piuchan, M. (2018). Plog’s and Butler’s models: A critical review of Psychographic tourist Typology
and the tourist area life cycle. TURIZAM, 22(3), 95–108. doi:10.5937/turizam22-18835
Qun, Q., Mitchell, C., & Wall, G. (2012). Creative destruction in China’s historic towns: Daxu and
Yangshuo, Guangxi. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1-2), 56–66. doi:10.
1016/j.jdmm.2012.07.001
Salim, N., & Mohamed, B. (2018). The physical impacts of tourism development at Melaka historic
waterfront, Malaysia. In M. H. Nguyen, B. Mohamed, A. T. Bang, & T. C. Luong (Eds.),
International tourism development in Vietnam and Malaysia: Issues and directions. Ho Chi Minh
City: Vietnam National University-Ho Chi MinhCity Press.
Schumpeter, J. (2006). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge.
Su, X. (2011). Commodification and the selling of ethnic music to tourists. Geoforum $V, 42(4), 496–
505.
Su, W.-Y., & Chang, C.-C. (2011). The creative destruction of Ainu community in Hokkaido, Japan AU Chang. Janet. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5), 505–516. doi:10.1080/10941665.2011.
597576
Sullivan, C. (2010). The commodification of rural heritage: Creative destruction in Newfoundland and
Labrador (Master of Environmental Studies). University of Waterloo, Ontario.
Suryanarayan, N. (2017). From Yashwant place to Yashka: A case study of commodification of
Russian in India. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(4), 428–442.
doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1115003
Tan, J. (2019). Can Penang lead the Way in sustainable tourism? Penang Monthly, April, 2019, 24–25.
Teh, E. (2016). Where the Sea Meets the City is Where the World Meets Penang. Penang Monthly.
Retrieved from https://penangmonthly.com/article.aspx?pageid=2568&name=where_the_sea_
meets_the_city_is_where_the_world_meets_penang
ThinkCity. (2013). George Town World heritage site: Population and land Use change 2009-2013.
George Town: ThinkCity.
Vanderwerf, J. (2008). Creative Destruction and Rural Tourism Planning: The Case of Creemore, Ontario.
(Master of Environmental Studies Master). Canada: University of Waterloo, Ontario.
Wall, G., & Mathieson, A. (2006). Tourism: Change, Impacts and Opportunities. Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.
Xu, K., Yan, T., & Zhu, X. (2013). Commodification of Chinese heritage villages. Annals of Tourism
Research, 40, 415–419. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2012.08.009
Yang, X., Xu, H., & Wall, G. (2017). Creative destruction: The commodification of industrial heritage in
Nanfeng Kiln District, China. Tourism Geographies, 1–24. doi:10.1080/14616688.2017.1388436
Yusni, A. (2012). Examining quality, perceived value and satisfaction of Penang delicacies in predicting
tourists’ revisit intention (Master). Universiti Teknologi MARA. Retrieved from http://ir.uitm.edu.
my/id/eprint/16127
YZD Planning and Consultant. (2020). Town Hall Presentation on Penang tourism Master Plan.
Penang.
Zaidan, E., & Kovacs, J. F. (2017). Resident attitudes towards tourists and tourism growth: A case
study from the Middle East, Dubai in United Arab Emirates. European Journal of Sustainable
Development, 6(1), 291–307. doi:10.14207/ejsd.2017.v6n1p291
Zhang, J., Long, B., & Zhao, Y. (2019). Creative destruction and Commercialization of traditional villages: Likeng, Wangkou, and Jiangwan in Wuyuan, China. Paper presented at the international
Conference on Manufacturing Technology, Materials and Chemical Engineering, Wuhan, China.