|
|
|
| A Study of the Recognition of the Integration of Cultural and Natural Values of World Heritage from the Tourist's Perspective: A Case Study of Guilin Karst |
| Zhang Rouran1,2, Wang Jianing3 |
1.Cambridge Heritage Research Centre, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, UK
2.School of Architecture & Urban Planning, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
3.Department of Archaeology, University of York, UK |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Since the implementation of the “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” in 1972, UNESCO’s World Heritage program has adopted a standardized process, with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) respectively assessing the cultural and natural values of the heritage sites nominated by the signatory nations. When local governments in China apply for World Heritage status, their primary consideration is to select the appropriate “Outstanding Universal Value （OUV）” to ensure a successful nomination. This approach has resulted in some heritage sites’ value being inadequately articulated in the nomination documents, particularly for the natural heritage sites where cultural value is often overlooked, which can be detrimental to the subsequent protection, management, and presentation efforts.In recent years, UNESCO has been actively exploring the integrated cultural and natural value of World Heritage, launching the “Culture-Nature Journey” project in collaboration with ICOMMOS and IUCN. Drawing upon global case studies, the project seeks to uncover diverse stakeholder perspectives on the concept of integrated value, thereby addressing a gap in the existing World Heritage evaluation criteria.This research uses the heritage reflection study as an analytical framework, examining the perspectives of both ancient and modern tourists. Taking Guilin Karst, a World Natural Heritage site, as an example, this study has analyzed the texts of ancient and modern tourist poems and contemporary online travel logs. The findings reveal that tourists are not only the experiencers of Guilin’s landscape culture but also the creators of its value. Their personal experiences and understandings affirm and shape the cultural and natural value of Guilin. In the Chinese cultural context, the natural beauty and cultural value of Guilin’s landscape integrate and complement each other, forming an inseparable unity.The discourse of the tourists provides a fresh perspective to reexamine the cultural and natural value of heritage, showcasing the wisdom of Chinese tourists. The present study offers three key insights. Firstly, the value of a heritage site is not static but it develops over time. Contemporary tourists enrich and deepen the value of Guilin’s heritage through their experiences. They not only understand and agree with the “Outstanding Universal Value” of Guilin Karst, a World Natural Heritage site, but also attribute profound cultural connotations to it. To them, “Guilin” symbolizes “the culture of Guilin’s landscapes” and “Guilin’s landscapes are the finest under heaven”, not merely the “Karst landscape” or “Guilin Karst World Natural Heritage”. The Guilin they perceive is a perfect fusion of natural beauty, history, culture, social and aesthetic value, with the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the World Natural Heritage being only a part of it. Hence, from the perspective of the Chinese tourists, the values of nature and culture are intertwined and inseparable. The cultural values that emerge from Guilin’s natural landscape, which are overlooked during the heritage nomination and assessment processes, exemplify the most significant difference between public and authoritative discourses.Secondly, the ten “Outstanding Universal Value” criteria established by the Operational Guidelines should be re-evaluated in a globally diversified context. For instance, this study believes that the current criteria (vii) for assessing World Natural Heritage, “to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty”, is inadequate as it treats aesthetic value as a pure natural value assessment criterion. Guilin Karst’s inclusion in the World Heritage List fulfills criterion (vii) for natural heritage, but the aesthetic value of Guilin’s landscapes, as viewed by tourists, is a clear manifestation of the blend of traditional Chinese aesthetics and natural landscapes—a cultural attribute rather than purely natural. Therefore, criterion (vii) of the “Outstanding Universal Value” should be redefined to serve as a bridge to assess both natural and cultural values.Thirdly, the value of heritage is not singular; it stems from various global contexts—natural, social, and cultural. However, the “Outstanding Universal Value” of the Convention is built upon Western universal values. This may lead to overlooking the differential attributes of cross-regional heritage during the nomination and management of World Heritage, as the OUV, as a unified assessment criterion, may fail in fully comprehending and incorporating local characteristics and values. In the face of the Western value-dominated criteria and rules for World Cultural Heritage nomination, China faces certain challenges. Firstly, due to differences in Western and local perceptions and cognitions, international experts may understand the functional attributes of the heritage, but struggle to comprehend its deep cultural meanings and ethnic emotional value. Secondly, the spiritual aspect of cultural heritage is harder to grasp than the material cultural layer. Lastly, experts evaluating heritage, influenced by Western culture, may have a limited understanding of the heritage value born from traditional Chinese culture, or even hold biases.Since China became a signatory to the Convention in 1985, up until the beginning of the 21st Century, China has been nominating World Heritage sites based on existing international rules, seeking recognition from IUCN and ICOMOS to successfully list the sites on the World Heritage List. However, with China’s deepening participation in global cultural governance in recent years, and UNESCO’s promotion of diversified heritage values, China has started to incorporate its unique values into World Heritage nomination and management practices, thereby influencing the formulation of UNESCO World Heritage project rules. Through a comparison of ancient and modern tourists’ views, this study finds that Chinese tourists have been able to appreciate the profound cultural and natural value of Guilin’s landscapes while experiencing them since ancient times. The bottom-up observations of tourists have enriched the value of Guilin as a World Heritage site in a more democratic way.
|
|
Received: 26 July 2023
|
|
|
|
1 于佳平、张朝枝： 《遗产与话语研究综述》，《自然与文化遗产研究》2020年第1期，第18-26页。
2 Hall S.， “Whose heritage？ un-settling the heritage， re-imaging the post-nation，” in Littler J. & Naidoo R. （eds.）， The Politics of Heritage： The Legacies of “Race”， London： Routledge， 2005， pp. 21-31.
3 Smith L.， Uses of Heritage， London： Routledge， 2006.
4 UNESCO， “The criteria for selection，” https：//whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/， 2023-06-18.
5 Patiwael P.， Groote P. & Vanclay F.： 《提升遗产影响评估：对ICOMOS指南的分析批评》，王思渝译，《中国文化遗产》2019年第3期，第105-111页。
6 钟士恩、张捷、章锦河等： 《世界遗产“突出的普遍价值”及其游客感知研究》，《中国人口·资源与环境》2016年第10期，第164-170页。
7 燕海鸣： 《遗产研究的社会学路径：共情与体察》，《文博学刊》2021年第3期，第111-118页。
8 Light D.， “Heritage and tourism，” in Waterton E. & Watson S.（eds.）， The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research， London： Palgrave Macmillan， 2015， pp. 144-158.
9 Smith L.， Emotional Heritage： Visitor Engagement at Museums and Heritage Sites， Milton： Taylor and Francis， 2020.
10 Zhang R. & Taylor K.， “Cultural landscape meanings： the case of West Lake， Hangzhou， China，” Landscape Research， Vol. 45， No. 2 （2020）， pp. 164-178.
11 Zhang R. & Brown S.， “Benefit or burden？ the World Heritage listing of Libo Karst， China，” International Journal of Heritage Studies， Vol. 28， No. 5 （2022）， pp. 578-596.
12 Zhang R.， Chinese Heritage Sites and Their Audiences： The Power of the Past， Milton： Routledge， 2020.
13 Zhang R.， Wang J. & Brown S.， “‘The Charm of a Thousand Years’： exploring tourists’ perspectives of the ‘culture-nature value’ of the Humble Administrator’s Garden， Suzhou， China，” Landscape Research， Vol. 46， No. 8 （2021）， pp. 1017-1088.
14 杨陈： 《桂林山水20年“申遗” 冲刺“世界自然遗产”》，2012年10月26日，http：//finance.cnr.cn/gundong/201210/t20121026_511230801.shtml，2023年6月18日。
15 骆展胜： 《桂林市人大 “桂林山水”拟申报世界自然遗产》，2012年11月5日，https：//gx.travel.cntv.cn/20121105/106186.shtml， 2023年7月26日。
16 UNESCO， “South China Karst，” https：//whc.unesco.org/en/list/1248， 2023-06-18.
17 Byrne D.， “Chartering heritage in Asia’s postmodern World，” Conservation Perspectives： The GCI Newsletter， Vol. 19， No. 2 （2004）， pp. 16-19.
18 UNESCO， “The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention，” https：//whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines， 2023-06-18.
19 Australia ICOMOS， “The Burra Charter，” https：//australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/BURRA_CHARTER.pdf， 2020-12-18.
20 IUCN & ICOMOS： 《Mālama Honua——守护我们的地球家园》，https：//www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/malama-honua-cn.pdf， 2020年3月10日。
21 ICOMOS & IUCN， “Yatra aur Tammanah Yatra： our purposeful Journey and Tammanah： our wishful aspirations for our heritage，” https：//www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Working_Groups/SDG/ICOMOS-IUCN_2017_Culture_Nature_Journey-_Yatra_aur_Tammanah.pdf， 2020-03-10.
22 UNESCO， “Fuzhou Declaration，” https：//whc.unesco.org/document/188530， 2023-06-18.
23 Zhu Yujie， Heritage and Romantic Consumption in China， Amsterdam： Amsterdam University Press， 2018.
24 齐晓瑾： 《场所与纪念性——理解一座福建神祠》，《建筑遗产》2019年第1期，第92-98页。
25 李光涵： 《贵州大利侗寨的“保护”——以鼓楼和风雨桥为例》，《建筑学报》2016年第12期，第16-21页。
26 范可： 《在野的全球化：旅行、迁徙、旅游》，《中南民族大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2013年第1期，第37-47页。
27 翦伯赞： 《中国史纲》，北京：北京大学出版社，2006年。
28 李天元： 《旅游学概论》（第7版），天津：南开大学出版社，2014年。
29 雷礼锡： 《体山悟水达天道——论中国古典美学的山水范畴》，《中南民族大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2012年第6期，第123-127页。
30 巫柳兰： 《桂林山水园林意境下的山水诗词研究》，《文化学刊》2020年第12期，第241-243页。
31 骆姚瑶、梅骏翔： 《从意象到意境——山水诗词对桂林山水园林意境营造的启示》，《边疆经济与文化》2020年第3期，第87-89页。
32 张利群： 《论桂林山水审美中的儒家文化蕴涵》，《社会科学家》1997年第2期，第50-56页。
33 徐杰舜： 《桂林山水文化浅议》，《广西民族学院学报（哲学社会科学版）》2001年第6期，第283-285页。
34 宗白华： 《美学散步》，上海：上海人民出版社，1981年。
35 徐复观： 《中国艺术精神》，上海：华东师范大学出版社，2001年。
36 薛晓飞、王睿隆、边谦等： 《中国风景园林哲匠孟兆祯学术思想试析》，《风景园林》2022年第S2期，第43-50页。
37 张朝枝： 《文化与旅游何以融合：基于身份认同的视角》，《南京社会科学》2018年第12期，第162-166页。
38 苏明明： 《遗产保护与旅游发展——社区视角的多案例研究》，北京：中国旅游出版社，2019年。
39 张柔然、杨昕宇、何昉： 《民众话语下的泰山世界遗产地社会价值探析》，《风景园林》2022年第8期，第134-140页。
40 张柔然、刘亦雪： 《以杭州西湖文化景观为例探索利益相关者遗产话语权》，《东南文化》2022年第1期，第23-30页。
41 汪森： 《粤西诗载》卷二十三，见《影印文渊阁四库全书》第1465册，台北：台湾商务印书馆，1986年。
42 蒲积中编： 《岁时杂咏》，上海：上海古籍出版社，1993年。
43 袁枚： 《小仓山房诗集》卷三十，见《续修四库全书》第1432册，上海：上海古籍出版社，2002年。
44 李昉等编： 《太平御览》卷一千，台北：台湾商务印书馆，1968年。
45 袁枚： 《小仓山房文集》卷十四，上海：文明书局，1993年。
46 曹万生、李琴： 《中国“抗战文学”特点之再思考》，《四川师范大学学报（社会科学版）》2007年第2期，第87-93页。
47 熊佛西： 《桂林风景甲天下》，见《山水人物印象记》，北京：海豚出版社，第7-11页。
48 丰子恺： 《桂林的山》，《文化月刊》2009年第 4期，第49-51页。
49 巴金： 《中华散文珍藏本（巴金卷）》，北京：人民文学出版社，2001年。 |
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 54 
