Shield House - Sustainable Tourism (US-ICOMOS 2010)

8/8/2019 Shield House - Sustainable Tourism (US-ICOMOS 2010)

1/25

The Jagged Path to Sustainable Tourism in a World Heritage City

Richard Shieldhouse

University of FloridaCenter for World Heritage Research and

StewardshipGainesville, Florida USA

[email protected]

[email protected] 15, 2010

+1(904) 388-0158+1(904) 881-9475 mobile
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/25

Shieldhouse 2

ABSTRACT

Inscription on the UNESCOs World Heritage list has generally been assumed to

stimulate tourism. Previous studies have attempted to confirm this relationship, with mixed

success. This paper uses statistical techniques to determine the effect of World Heritage

inscription on the number of foreign tourists to seven World Heritage cities in Mexico. A case

study of Guanajuato, a Mexican World Heritage City that experienced a 43.2 percent drop in

reported international visitors between 2000 and 2008 (and a 69.8 percent decline between 2000

and 2009), explores some phenomena which may contribute declining numbers of visitors

Results indicate statistically significant increases in tourism attributable to inscription

while controlling for the number of hotel rooms and global trends in international travel.

Digging a little deeper, however, the analysis elucidates other trends which suggest the path

following inscription can at times be described more accurately asjagged rather than linear.

The initial bump in post-inscription visitors may sometimes be a temporary phenomenon,

depending on local management practices and other issues.


3/25

Shieldhouse 3

INTRODUCTION

UNESCOs Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural

Heritage, adopted in 1972, has a number of goals designed principally to encourage the

protection of important sites. Increasing tourism is not one of its goals and, indeed, excessive

visits indeed threaten some World Heritage sites to the point where the number of visits are

controlled through various means, including advance reservations or ticketing. UNESCO has

responded with a World Heritage Tourism Programme, designed to encourage benefit for local

populations with sustainable management practices.1

1

The World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Programme identified seven actions to enhance the ability of World

Heritage Sites to preserve their resources through the use of sustainable tourism: 1) Capacity building at Sites,

notably through development of a sustainable tourism management plan, 2) Training local populations in tourism-related activities, 3) Helping to promote relevant local products, 4) Raising public awareness and building public

pride in communities through conservation outreach campaigns, 5) Using tourism-generated funds supplement

conservation and protections costs, 6) Sharing expertise, and 7) Building an increased understanding of the need

to protect World Heritage, its values, and its policies within the tourism industry. (UNESCOa)


4/25

Shieldhouse 4

Mexico has aggressively pursued World Heritage status for its archaeological and natural

heritage or patrimony, and for numerous historic cities. Including the Historic Center of Mexico

City and Xochimilco, that nation now has ten cities or towns with major districts designated as

World Heritage sites which arguably places it in fourth place after Italy (with twenty-seven),

Spain (with seventeen), and Germany (with eleven). (OWHC) For Mexico, the most recent

addition was the Protective town of San Miguel and the Sanctuary of Jess Nazareno de

Atotonilco. (UNESCOb).

There is sufficient anecdotal evidence of a link between World Heritage Inscription and

increased tourism to World Heritage Cities. Attempts to systematically measure the relationship

between inscription and increased tourism have produced inconclusive results.

This research employs statistical models is to explore the relationship between World

Heritage inscription and foreign tourists to seven World Heritage cities in Mexico. The models

isolate the independent effect of inscription, while controlling for other variables: the relative

strength of the Mexican peso, the number of available hotel rooms in a given World Heritage

City, and the overall trend in international travel.

The goal is to understand the statistical relationship between World Heritage and Tourism

and with this information as background -- attempt to probe deeper to understand other issues,

apart from the three identified exogenous influences, which may have contributed to trends in

international visitors.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1274http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1274http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1274http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1274


5/25

Shieldhouse 5

RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW

The relationship between World Heritage List inscription and tourism has been

extensively discussed, however, the extent of direct impacts of World Heritage inscription has

not been successfully analyzed. (Thapa, 2007)

Alan Fyall and Tijana Rakic (Leask and Fyal, 2006) reviewed this issue and

concluded: One question that is repeatedly asked but fails continually to be answered

fully is the extent to which inscription does actually contribute to higher visitor numbers

at sites previously not on the World Heritage List. ICCROMs Management Guidelines

for World Cultural Heritage Sites notes that increased visitors demanding new facilities

and services are implied by World Heritage designation. (Feilden and Jokilehto, 1998)

Other observers qualify the relationship between the World Heritage designation

and tourism. Francesco Bandarin has noted: In internationally well known sites, such

as the Tower of London, World Heritage status may have little impact on visitor

numbers, but in less established destinations inscription is usually accompanied by an

upsurge in tourism. (Harrison and Hitchcock, 2005, v.) This was echoed in another

analysis (van der Aa, 2005), which concludes that non-centrally located cultural World

Heritage Sites see more visitors after their inscription, whereas many centrally

nominated sites already receive many visitors before their listing. The same work,

however, also suggests accessibility and inclusion in tourist routes and tours drive

visitor numbers.

After a review of ten case studies, Myra Shackley concluded: It is frequently assumed

that any site awarded World Heritage status will immediately receive a marked increase in


6/25

Shieldhouse 6

visitors. However, this is not necessarily the case and visitor numbers depend on a number of

factors including the way in which the site is marketed and issues connected with access.

(Shackley, 1998)

Looking at quantitative approaches, a study by Ralf Buckley of Griffith University in

Queensland, Australia attempted to demonstrate the marginal contribution of World Heritage

listing to tourism by examining time-series data for listed sites and comparable unlisted sites

during simultaneous periods. Buckley identified numerous analytical problems which are useful

for approaching evaluating the impacts of inscription. For example, he noted that World

Heritage actually implies a bundle of attributes which includes heritage value, branding,

marketing, and often increased infrastructure funding. (2004, 72). Buckley concluded that

Most of the World Heritage Areas (WHAs) considered here received several times more

visitors than the control sites, but it is not clear whether the difference is because WHAs are

larger or more accessible, because they are better-known, because they are listed as World

Heritage, or because they contain features of natural or cultural heritage which the others do

not. (2004, 82).

A survey of businesses near two of New Zealands World Heritage sites found less than

half of the respondents (48.4 percent) believed the designation plays a role in attracting visitors.

Another 31.3 percent indicated they did not know whether World Heritage inscription has a role

in attracting tourists. Only 20.3 percent indicated it has no role (Hall and Piggin, 2002, 406).

The authors referenced their work from the previous year which indicated a causal link

between World Heritage listing and increased visitation over and above existing tourism trends

is somewhat tenuous. (2002, 402.)


7/25

Shieldhouse 7

Other research suggests presence of multiple World Heritage Sites is a predictor

of tourism increases. An analysis of 1994-1995 WTO tourist data by country versus the

number of World Heritage Sites in each country in 2000 reveals a .75 correlation

coefficient, suggesting a strong, positive link between the number of sites and the number

of tourists. (Lazzarotti, 2000, 15)

Statistical techniques have often been used to establish relationships between variables

over time, while controlling for other variables. Evidence from published studies, however,

suggests this approach appears to have been little used for analyzing tourist trends. One analysis

used similar econometric techniques to determine the effects of re-designating Great Sand Dunes

National Monument as a National Park (Weiler and Seidl, 2004, 245-262). The analysis

suggested the change in designation resulted in 11,642 additional annual visitors. It

subsequently used input-output models to calculate the economic impact of these visitors.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This analysis used statistical models to examine the relationship between World Heritage

inscription and tourism for seven Mexican World Heritage cities: Oaxaca, Puebla, Guanajuato,

Morelia, Zacatecas, Campeche, and Quertaro in order of inscription (a list of Mexican World

Heritage Cities appears in Figure 1 below). (UNESCOb) Regression models were developed to

indicate the relative importance of World Heritage Inscription as a predictor of foreign visitors,

while controlling for other independent variables: the relative strength of the Mexican peso, the

number of available hotel rooms in a given city, and the number of foreign arrivals to each city.


8/25

Shieldhouse 8

Site

Year

Inscribed1 Historic Center of Mexico City and Xochimilco 1987

2 Historic Center of Oaxaca and Archaeological Site of Monte Alban 1987

3 Historic Center of Puebla 1987

4 Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines 1988

5 Historic Center of Morelia 1991

6 Historic Center of Zacatecas 1993

7 Historic Monuments Zone of Queretaro 1996

8 Historic Monuments Zone of Tlacotalpan 1998

9 Historic Fortified Town of Campeche 1999

10 Protective Town of San Miguel and the Sanctuary of Jesus Nazareno de Atotonilco 2008

Tourism can be influenced by the availability of facilities (available hotel rooms), and by

price, which can be defined by the relative strength of currency in the target country. The ability

of these two independent variables to explain the dependent variable, international visitors at

Mexican World Heritage Cities, is diminished to the extent that global trends in tourism are not

held constant. The model accomplished this by including a variable for global international

tourist arrivals, as reflected by data from the United Nations World Tourism Organization

(WTO).

Figure 1. World Heritage Cities in Mexico by Year Inscribed.

Data for foreign visitors and hotel rooms for 1986-2008 were provided by Mexicos

Secretary of Tourism (Secretaro de Turismo or SECTUR). The dates of inscription are

available from the website of UNESCOs World Heritage Centre (UNESCOb).The relative

value of the Mexican peso can be defined with historical data for the number of pesos per

Special Drawing Right (SDR). SDRs are the unit of account of the International Monetary Fund

and other international agencies and represent a basket of securities. Presently it includes the

euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling and U.S. dollar (International Monetary Fund, 2010).

Three Mexican World Heritage Cities were excluded from this analysis. As San Miguel

de Allende was inscribed in 2008, no data were available with respect to the post-inscription

experience in that city. No data are available for the Historic Monuments Zone of Tlacotalpan

because records have not been kept for that site (SECTUR). Mexico City was excluded from the
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/862http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/862


9/25

Shieldhouse 9

analysis because it is a massive, international city with many business, governmental, and

cultural draws for foreign visitors, including four different World Heritage Sites. In such an

environment, ascribing visitor variation to the 1987 inscription of Historic Centre of Mexico City

would appear to be an intellectual stretch.

The analysis method employed a similar process for each of seven World Heritage cities

under consideration. Data for available hotel rooms, number of foreign tourists, and pesos per

SDR were combined with a categorical or dummy variable denoting the date of inscription (more

precisely, the year in which inscription first had a significant impact on foreign arrivals) -- using

fixed-effect models where the covariance structure is auto-regressive of lag 1. Six models with

significant and directionally logical coefficients were ultimately developed using the Proc Mixed

procedure of SAS.

Intuitively, one might expect World Heritage inscription to have a delayed effect on

tourism. A city should not be inscribed on the list in one year and expect an immediate increase

in foreign visitors. It takes time to increase public awareness, to improve access, and to provide

facilities. Recognizing this, the analysis sought to explore the period of time required for a

significant effect by advancing the year at which the dummy variable was assigned a value of

one, beginning with the year of inscription, until meaningful coefficients could be determined for

the World Heritage inscription dummy variable.

The graph depicted on Figure 2 (below) illustrates the trend in foreign tourist arrivals

between 1986 and 2008 for the seven subject cities.


10/25

Shieldhouse 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

ForeignArrivals

(Thousands)

Guanajuato Quer ta ro Oaxaca

Camp ec he Zac ate cas P ue bla

Morelia

Figure 2. International Arrivals to Select Mexican World Heritage Cities by Year: 1986-

2008. Source: SECTUR, for dates noted.

In aggregate, it appears the general trend was upward from 1986 to 2000, after which all

of the cities had been inscribed. (Campeche was the last of the seven cities to be added to the

World Heritage List, in December 1999.) This generally was a period of global economic

growth, resulting in a 5.4 percent compound annual growth rate in global international tourist

arrivals, according to WTO data. Additionally, political and economic turmoil in the early

1990s resulted in Mexicos 1994 currency reform which devalued the Mexican peso by fifty

percent, (Whitt 1996, 1) and increased the Mexicos appeal as a tourist destination.

The statistical analysis indicates that in six of the seven cities examined, inscription on

the World Heritage list leads to a statistically significant increase in international visitors, with

the mean requiring 5.8 years and the median requiring 6.5 years. The analysis could not discern


11/25

Shieldhouse 11

a statistically significant relationship and international tourism for one of the more recently

inscribed Mexican World Heritage Cities, Campeche. In Campeches case, it was impossible to

find a coefficient for the inscription dummy variable that was both positive and significant at a

five percent confidence interval. Summary results for the seven cities appear below in Figure 3.

Coefficients indicate the independent effect of the four exogenous variables on thousands of

foreign arrivals per year.

Figure 3: Summary results for exploratory analysis.

At first blush, one might assume the inability to obtain a significant result with the

Campeche data may be due to nothing more profound than minimal available data points.

Campeche, significantly, was one of the last cities in this analysis inscribed in the Word Heritage

list -- in 1999 and only eight years of historical data were available post-inscription. Digging a

bit deeper, it appears the lack of a statistical relationship between inscription and international

visitors may equally attribute to an essentially flat trend in visitor levels between 2000 and 2008.

International visitors to that city declined from 70,079 to 69,793 (-0.4 percent) between 2000 and

Coefficients

CityYearInscribed

Year AtWhichDummy= 1 *

Dummy --WorldHeritageDesignation

PesosperSDR

NumberofRooms

WorldTourism

Campeche 1999 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Guanajuato 1988 1995 21.7 -0.4 -5.8 -0.1

Morelia 1991 1999 8.8 0.4 14.2 0.5

Oaxaca 1987 1988 41.2 10.7 3.7 -33.1

Puebla 1987 1995 88.7 -5.6 9.1 25.6

Queretaro 1996 2002 18.8 0.2 30.2 -2.8

Zacatecas 1993 1998 8.9 -0.7 3.3 4.6

* Year at which the dummy variable for World Heritage designation as a value of 1 and

generates a coefficient significant at a 95% confidence interval.


12/25

Shieldhouse 12

2008. (Reported international visitor levels to Campeche fell another 19.6 percent in 2009.)

With visitor levels basically flat during the post-inscription period, one obviously cannot suggest

that Campeches inscription caused them to increase!

Curiously, a fairly recent document (Gravari-Barbas and Jacquot, 2008) offers Campeche

as an example of a World Heritage City that experienced a thirty-nine percent increase in visitors

in the four years post inscription. The apparent disconnect here highlights the danger of looking

at only a narrow window. As the institution of World Heritage approaches middle age, analysts

must turn their focus toward long-term effects and sustainable changes.

SECTUR data indeed indicate that for the period between 2000 and 2008, international

visitors to all seven Mexican World Heritage Cities in this analysis were highly variable.

Figure 4 shows the percentage change in international visitors between 2000 and 2008 for the

seven Mexican World Heritage Cities. In addition, to Campeche, which following its inscription

in December 1999 experienced eight years with virtually no net change in international visitors

(declining 0.4 percent), half of the remaining six cities demonstrated large increases, with

Quertaro, Zacatecas, and Morelia demonstrating increases of 125.4, 65.4, and 25.6 percent,

respectively. Simultaneously, international visitor levels decreased43.2, 19.9, and 19.7 percent,

respectively at Guanajuato, Puebla, and Oaxaca, respectively.


13/25

Shieldhouse 13

Guanajuato, -43.2%

Quertaro, 125.4%

Oaxaca, -19.7%

Campeche, -0.4%

Zacatecas, 65.4%

Puebla, -19.9%

Morelia, 25.6%

-60.0%

-40.0%

-20.0%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

140.0%

PercentageChange

in

InternationalArrivals:

20

00-2008

Figure 4: Trend in International Arrivals for Select Mexican World Heritage Cities:

2000-2008. Source: SECTUR.

Viewed in aggregate, 1986-2008 combined international visitors to these seven Mexican

World Heritage Cities can be broken into two distinct trends: 1) a steady progression upward

from 1986 to 2000, with a strongly positive (+92.3) correlation coefficient between annual

international visitors and the advance of time, and 2) a weaker downward trend between 2001

and 2008, with a weaker (-39.9) correlation coefficient between international visitors and time.

(See Figure 5.)


14/25

Shieldhouse 14

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

InternationalVisitors(000)

Figure 5: Total International Visitors to Select Mexican World Heritage Cities:1986-2008. Source: SECTUR, for dates noted.

It should be noted that the aggregate negative trend between 2000 and 2008 attributes

mightily to a net decline of more than 64,332 international arrivals to Oaxaca and Puebla during

the period, which, vastly overshadows the net increase of 34,024 international visitors to the five

other cities: Campeche, Guanajuato Morelia, Quertaro, and Zacatecas.

This raises two important questions one statistical and one more practical: 1) Was the

previously mentioned statistically significant relationship between inscription on the World

Heritage List and international tourism purely an accident related to the fact that six of the seven

Mexican cities under scrutiny joined the World Heritage List during the late 1980s and early

1990s -- a period of relative prosperity which was generally characterized by large increases in

travel? 2) All of these World Heritage Cities operated in a similar environment with respect to

the relative value of the Mexican peso, perceived insecurity about flying, and the global

economic trends. What was it that caused international visitors to decline in some cities after


15/25

Shieldhouse 15

significant increases in foreign visitors attributable to World Heritage inscription, and increase in

others?

To help answer both questions, the analysis focused on one World Heritage City, the

Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines, that demonstrated a statistically significant

post-inscription increase in international visitors, but subsequently exhibited a precipitous fall in

international visitors from after 2000. Figure 6 highlights the trend in international arrivals to

Guanajuato between 1986 and 2009.

Figure 6: International Arrivals to Guanajuato between 1986 and 2009. Source:

SECTUR, for dates noted.

From 1986 (two years prior to inscription) to 2000, international visitors to Guanajuato

increased at a 7.9 percent compound average growth rate (CAGR). Going forward from 2000,

the trend in international visitors to that city demonstrated a -6.8 percent CAGR between 2000

and 2008. Extending the window but one year, the 2000-2009 the CAGR becomes -12.4

percent, reflecting three major influences: the 2009 outbreak of H1N1, which originated in

27,755

37,926

62,536

35,520

18,953

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

ForeignArrivalsin

Thousands


16/25

Shieldhouse 16

Mexico, the fullest effects of the worldwide recession, which began in 2008, and impact of

increasing levels of drug-related violence.

Ignoring 2009s disaster for Mexican tourism, Guanajuato still experienced a 43.2

percent decline in reported international visitors between 2000 and 2008. Guanajuato remained

on the World Heritage List throughout the period, and public and private efforts worked to both

improve the appearance of the city and promote it to visitors. What happened?

To find out, semi-structured interviews were conducted with an array of current and

former public officials, academics, and preservationists in the city. Interviewees were selected

based on reputational and snowball sampling. Interviews were based on a short series of open-

ended questions. Their duration ranged from thirty-five minutes to four hours.

Results revealed a basket of explanations, many of which surfaced repeatedly:

tourism planning and strategy,

branding and slogans,

political issues,

funding issues,

the Cervantino Festival,

low-quality restaurants, hotels, and shopping (presumably relative to otherdestinations), and

data issues.

TOURISM PLANNING AND STRATEGY

Inconsistent tourism planning and strategies challenge visitor level growth to Guanajuato.

The citys heritage comprises much of its allure for visitors, although culture becomes an

important attraction during festivals. Guanajuatos is typically pleasant warm and dry but it

is located in central Mexico, far from any beach resorts. Built in a narrow ravine, there is little

room for parks, and aggressive logging denuded vast areas of nearby mountain forests, rendering

them unattractive for hiking and camping. No well-known archaeological sites surround the city.


17/25

Shieldhouse 17

Guanajuato, however, figured mightily in Mexicos struggle for independence from Spain 200

years ago, and evidence of a mining history recognized by UNESCO remain abundant, yet the

citys principal asset for visitors heritage at times becomes ignored or treated casually.

One comment from a tourism official epitomizes this: We are rich in heritage and

culture, but as far as recreation we have nothing to offer. We have no theme parks, no parks.

We must remember that, for vacations, it is the children that generate the ideas as to where to go

and who decide where the family goes. They come to Guanajuato, they get their fill of history

and culture, and then they ask, Well, what else? We are missing recreation.2

Unique among Mexican World Heritage Cities, Guanajuatos designated area extends

beyond a central historic zone and includes surrounding mining communities. The December

1987 UNESCO Designation Report acknowledges that the citys growth, the layout of its

streets, including the picturesque subterranean streets, its plazas, and the construction of

hospitals, churches, convents and palaces are all inextricably linked with the industrial history of

the region, which with the decline of the Potosi mines in the 18th

century, became the worlds

leading silver extraction center. (UNESCOc)

Unfortunately, efforts to produce recreational offerings and theme parks may conflict

with preservation goals of UNESCO and others. With the depressed price of silver soon after

2000, nearby mining assets, which included vast tracts of land and historic communities, were

sold by local mining cooperatives. (Ferry, 2005) Investors subsequently redeveloped the 18th-

century Guadalupe Mine (also referred to as the Elephant Mine, because of its multi-story

stone exterior buttresses; see Figure 7) as a nine-hole golf course and club, with initial plans to

build a nine-hole golf course, 100-room hotel, and twenty-one single family houses. Subsequent

2Mario Aguado, (Director General of Tourism, city of Guanajuato, Mexico), in discussion with the author,

January 21, 2010.


18/25

Shieldhouse 18

visits to this facility suggest it has not been particularly successful. During one glorious

weekend in February 2009, a visit revealed the only players were the propertys director and a

golfing buddy. This may reflect a sluggish economy, but it equally may demonstrate public

rejection of a facility that appropriated heritage to badly address the desires of the target market,

golfers from the United States and Canada, as well as the local market.

Figure 7: Guadalupe Mine. Photo by author.

Still, development threatens less-populated parts of the UNESCO-designated area near

Guanajuato, with or without tourists. One observer noted that the UNESCO World Heritage

declaration is symbolicbut the city is growing and growing and growing. Fifty percent of the

area of the declaration of World Heritage is empty. We are worried about this area, this

ecological area -- open space surrounding the historical city.3

3

Manuel Snchez Martnez (Professor of Architecture, University of Guanajuato), in conversation with

author, January 2010.


19/25

Shieldhouse 19

One analysis noted that in Mexico, World Heritage Sites that lie along a tourist route

witness the largest increase in international visitors. (van der Aa, 2005) This realistic

observation has multiple implications for Guanajuato. One hotelier and former alcalde (mayor)

commented on how Guanajuato fails to profit from its proximity to other World Heritage Sites.

He notes that the State of Guanajuato is the only Mexican state with two World Heritage Cities

(Guanajuato and San Miguel de Allende)and they are different. Noting the need to develop

links between Guanajuato and the neighboring World Heritage City, which in recent years has

attracted more affluent visitors, he continues: We need to work with the differences between

San Miguel and Guanajuato and encourage tourism to both cities.

4

Proximity to San Miguel de Allende may be able to provide more visitors, however, but

the short duration of visits limits economic impact on the city. We are so close to the other

cities that tourists come just for the day. It happens the same with Toledo and Madrid. People

from Madrid go in the morning, visit the city, have lunch there, and they go back to Madrid.

5

The situation reflects a phenomenon described by Antonio Paolo Russo, who observes that the

horde of day-trippers is less elastic with respect to quality, and much more sensitive to prices.

Extreme examples of this produce a process of McDonaldization. (Russo, 2002, 170)

BRANDING AND SLOGANS

Create a slogan. That summarizes Guanajuatos tourism strategy according to many of

those interviewed. First we select and image the former one was City of Romance, then

4Arnulfo Vzquez Nieto (former mayor and owner of El Mesn de los Poetas Hotel) in conversation with

author, January 2010.5

Clarisa A. de Abascal (manager of Viajes Georama and former tourism official) in conversation with

author, January 2010.


20/25

Shieldhouse 20

from that you develop the strategy; then you put together the blitz, said a city tourism official.6

City of Lights,

Although Guanajuatos basic allure is culture and history, mummies, and monuments, the citys

tourism promotion model has led to a proliferation of often disconnected and obscure slogans,

including the following:

Cervantino Capital of Mexico, City of Romance,

City of Legends,

Your Experience Becomes History, and

Cradle of Independence.

Local observers indicated sloganeering has become a prominent strategy because mayors

cannot serve for more than one three-year term. Multiple terms are permitted, but not in

succession. Such short terms of office prohibit development and execution of meaningful

tourism plans and strategies. Furthermore, tourism promotion staffs tend to turn over with every

change of administration. Consequently, in lieu of meaningful long-term planning and strategy,

tourism promotion relies heavily on slogans, with questionable results. Multiple slogans blur

the citys brand and confuse potential visitors.

OTHER POLICIES AND ISSUES

Interviewees identified other policies and issue influencing the apparent 43.2 percent

decline in international visitors to Guanajuato between 2000 and 2008. Guanajuatos principal

cultural event is the citys annual Cervantino Festival. The three-week festival of music, dance,

and art began in 1972, and has attracted world-famous talent including such artists and

performers as Robert Mapplethorpe, Rudolph Nureyev, the Vienna Philharmonic, and Ella

Fitzgerald. The international festival attracted increasing numbers of visitors from around the

6Mario Aguado, (Director General of Tourism, city of Guanajuato, Mexico), in discussion with the author,

January 2010.


21/25

Shieldhouse 21

world, however, it also became attractive to a younger Mexican audience craving a party scene.

In 2000 this situation reached an unpleasant climax when vast numbers of drunken young

revelers motivated some to proclaim Guanajuato had become a large cantina. Going forward,

Cervantino was modified to provide more regional emphasis and fewer internationally

recognized performers and artists. Given the Cervantino Festivals drawing power, some

speculate that the festivals reformulation was responsible for the decline in international arrivals

to Guanajuato.

Multiple requests to festival management have produced promises of historic attendance

figures, but no statistics. SECTUR data reveal a 3,737 drop in international arrivals to

Guanajuato between October 2000 and October 2001, which represents a 63.5 percent decline,

but addresses only 14.9 percent of the total annual decline between 2000 and 2001 as reported by

SECTUR. (For comparison, if the decline were spread equally over twelve months, Octobers

share would have been 2,094, or 8.3 percent.) International arrival statistics provided by Grupo

Aeroportuario del Pacifico (GAP), the operator of El Bajio International Airport, which serves

Guanajuato and surrounding areas, indicate a decline of 6,191 passengers from 2000 to 2001.

(This figure reflects a decline in passengers arriving on international flights, and thus includes

Mexicans as well as non-Mexicans.) Even if 100 percent of this decline were attributable to

changes in the Cervantino Festival, the reduction would only account for 24.6 percent of the

25,130 total drop in international visitors arriving in Guanajuato, according to SECTUR data.

There appears to be little correlation between foreign tourist arrivals, as reported by

SECTUR, and international arrivals, as reported by GAP. In part, this can be explained by the

GAP data counting all passengers arriving on international flights of all nationalities. Likewise,

the Bajio Airport serves a number of large cities, including the large industrial city of Leon, with


22/25

Shieldhouse 22

1.3 million inhabitants and the State of Guanajuatos other World Heritage City, San Miguel de

Allende. (INEGI) Such considerations thwart solid conclusions regarding Guanajuato visitors

based on international arrival data for Bajio Airport.

Data distortions loom as a larger and more vexing issue for analyzing post-2000

international visitor flows to Guanajuato. The major problem arises from a two percent tax on

hotels and restaurants that was implemented in 2000. This tax was dedicated to funding tourism

promotion efforts for Guanajuato. The basic quandary was articulated by Desmond J.

OShaughnessy Doyle, a former tourism official with the State of Guanajuato, whose office was

responsible for collecting such data. It was echoed by other former officials.

Of course, if you are going to be paying taxes on the number of rooms that youhave sold then youre going to be careful about how many you are going to report.

The two percent tax is based on the number of rooms occupied, but the questionis: Are you getting the real picture about the number of rooms that are occupied

in a given hotel.7

According to Doyle, state tourism officials traditionally collect hotel arrival and

occupancy data with daily telephone inquiries. The financial incentive to under-report

arrivals was already noted. The method, however, introduces other biases which may

inhibit comparisons among destinations or across time. For example, lodging in some

cities may be dominated by guest houses or bed and breakfasts, which would not be

counted by these daily telephone surveys. Likewise, when cities increase available

lodging by converting single-family houses to guest houses or bed and breakfasts (a

common practice in Mexican World Heritage Cities), that additional capacity and would

be excluded from visitor counts.

7Desmond J. OShaughnessy Doyle (former Guanajuato State Tourism Director), in discussion with author,

January 2010.


23/25

Shieldhouse 23

As Doyle notes, Data can be really, really good in Mexico. They can also be so

distorted and so twisted around.8

That is not to say Mexican tourism data are worthless. Rather, one must constantly

remember that the numbers are an indication, but they may not tell the whole story.

This brings us back to the enduring problem faced by others

who have attempted to identify and quantify the relationship between World Heritage inscription

and tourism, with mixed or little success: the lack of consistent and valid data. In the case of

Mexico, SECTUR provides an abundance of data reaching back to 1986. Without considerable

investigation, which is beyond the purview of this paper, researchers cannot be entirely confident

about what these data mean.

8Ibid.


24/25

Shieldhouse 24

WORKS CITED

Buckley, Ralf (2002), World Heritage Icon Value: Contribution of World Heritage Branding to Nature

Tourism, Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission.

Buckley, Ralf (2004), The Effects of World Heritage Listing on Tourism to Australian National Parks,Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 12, No. 1.

Feilden, Bernard M. and Jokilehto, Jukka (1998),Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage

Sites. Rome: ICCROM.

Ferry, Elizabeth (2005),Not Ours Alone: Patrimony, Value, and Collectivity in Contemporary Mexico.New York: Columbia University Press.

Gravari-Barbas, Maria and Jacquot, Sbastien (2008),Les impacts socio-conomiques de linscription

dun site sur la liste du Patrimoine Mondial. World Heritage Centre, Paris.

Hall, C. Michael and Piggin, Rachel (2002), Tourism Business Knowledge of World Heritage Sites: ANew Zealand Case Study, International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 401-411.

Harrison, David and Hitchcock, M., Editors (2005), The Politics of World Heritage: Negotiating

Tourism and Conservation, Clevedon, UK: Channel View Publications.

INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadstica y Geografa), Nmero de habitantes por municipio.Retrieved June 30, 2010 from website:

http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/monografias/informacion/gto/poblacion/default.aspx?tema=me&e=11

International Monetary Fund (2008), Why was the SDR Created and What is it Used for Today?

Retrieved July 1, 2010 from Website http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htm.

Lazzarotti, Olivier (2000), Patrimoine et tourisme: un couple de la mondialisation. Mappemonde15(1).

Leask, Anna and Fyall, Alan (2006),Managing World Heritage Sites, Burlington, MA: Elsevier.

OWHC (Organization of World Heritage Cities), World Heritage Cities, Retrieved July 10, 2010, from

website: http://www.ovpm.org/index.php?module=ovpm&func=liste&sorte=pays

Russo, Antonio Paolo (2002), The Vicious Circle of Tourism Development in Heritage Cities.Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 29, No. 1.

Shackley, Myra, (1998), Visitor Management Case Studies from World Heritage Sites, Oxford:

Butterworth & Heinemann.
http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/monografias/informacion/gto/poblacion/default.aspx?tema=me&e=11http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/monografias/informacion/gto/poblacion/default.aspx?tema=me&e=11http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htmhttp://www.ovpm.org/index.php?module=ovpm&func=liste&sorte=payshttp://www.ovpm.org/index.php?module=ovpm&func=liste&sorte=payshttp://www.ovpm.org/index.php?module=ovpm&func=liste&sorte=payshttp://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htmhttp://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/monografias/informacion/gto/poblacion/default.aspx?tema=me&e=11http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/monografias/informacion/gto/poblacion/default.aspx?tema=me&e=11


25/25

Shieldhouse 25

Thapa, Brijesh, (2007). Issues and Challenges of World Heritage Sites in Nepal. In: White, R.,Carmen, J., editors. World Heritage: Global challenges and local solutions. Oxford, UK:

Archaeopress.

UNESCOa, World Heritage Mission Statement, 2000. Retrieved July 4, 2010, from Website

http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_infokit_en.pdf.

UNESCOb, World Heritage List. Retrieved June 28, 2010, from Website

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list. +

UNESCOc, Advisory Body Evaluation. Retrieved July 8, 2010, from Website:http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/482.pdf

van der Aa, Bart J.M., Preserving the Heritage of Humanity? Obtaining World Heritage Status and the

Impacts of Listing. PhD dissertation, Groningen University, 2005.

Weiler, Stephan and Seidl, Andrew (2004), Whats in a Name? Extracting Econometric Drivers toAssess the Impact of National Park Designation, Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 44, No. 2.,

pp 245-262.

Whitt, Joseph A., Jr. (1996), The Mexican Peso Crisis, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic

Review, 81,1, 1.
http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_infokit_en.pdfhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/listhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/listhttp://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_infokit_en.pdf

Shield House - Sustainable Tourism (US-ICOMOS 2010)

Documents

Transcript of Shield House - Sustainable Tourism (US-ICOMOS 2010)