中国世界遗产突出的普遍价值及其在保护与管理中的运用
撰文 (美)斯蒂芬-F-麦库尔
翻译 胡一可
摘要：从世界遗产公约和突出的普遍价值观念谈起，探讨了今日多变性的世界对世界遗产地产生的重大影响。在过去的15年，中国的自然和文化遗产旅游业发展越来越快，游客量既对遗产地带来巨大压力，同时也带来遗产保护的机会。在保护遗产的同时，为游客营造高质量的体验机会，是目前世界遗产地管理所面临的挑战之一。控制游客量对遗产地的影响也是另一个挑战。在这些挑战之下，还需要从提高管理者的技术水平的角度来解决问题，通过专业的学习平台为管理人员和学者提供机会去共同面对世界遗产所面临的挑战。
关键词：风景园林；世界遗产；风景区规划；案例研究
Abstract: Starting from the World Heritage Convention and the Outstanding Universal Value, this paper explores the impacts of the changing world to the Outstanding Universal Value of the a World Heritage. Tourism in China, has grown exponentially in the last 15 years. Visitation now represents both a significant stressor on the site and a great opportunity for protection. Creating opportunities for quality visitor experiences in the face of this demand is one of the challenges facing management. Controlling impacts from visitation is another. However, lying beneath these challenges is a need to build the technical capabilities among managers to protect sites and to provide learning opportunities for the managers and scholars to embrace the changes for the protection of world heritage.
Key words: Landscape Architecture; World Heritage; Scenic Spot Area Planning; Case Study
20世纪60年代末，横跨埃及尼罗河的阿斯旺大坝已接近完工。大坝调节了洪水，为经济发展提供农业灌溉及发电用水，同时它也淹没了古埃及寺庙和纪念碑，使人们再无法进入这些文化古迹观看、研究和欣赏。1960年，联合国教科文组织(UNESCO)开展了一次救援行动，将纪念碑移至水库的岸边。
虽然成本高昂，而且有一些纪念碑在水库中被永久性淹没，但救援工作在很大程度上还是成功的。不过，更大的问题依然存在：社会如何认知和保护我们的自然和文化遗产，使它们不被以蒸汽机为标志的工业文明的发展所践踏？
我们的文化和自然遗产要素不仅仅对于当地社区十分重要，对全球社区而言同样重要。作为全球社会的公民，尼罗河沿岸的古迹保护是否让我们变得更为富有？这一点是值得肯定的。那么我们应该用何种机制来保护其他的文化和自然要素？
1 世界遗产公约和突出普遍价值观念
联合国教科文组织在1972年11月的大会上通过了《世界文化和自然遗产保护公约》。该公约指出造成世界各国遗产的变质或消失的根本原因是“有害的贫困”。该公约建立了一套机制，以让全人类认识到具有“突出的普遍价值”的纪念碑、遗址和遗产地的重要性。迄今为止，共有186个国家签署了该公约，并着手保护自然和文化遗产的普遍吸引力。
由21个成员组成的政府间委员会负责判断并裁决哪些地方具有遗产价值，从而形成世界遗产名录。当一处遗产上刻着国家政府（政党）的名称，该国政府就负有了“尽一切所能，对本国的资源进行最大限度的保护”的责任，以保护名录中描述的遗产地的属性和特点。截至2010年8月，名录上共有911处世界遗产，其中中国40处。
只有当世界遗产委员会相信某一提名地对全球社会具有“突出的普遍价值”时 ，它们才会被收入名录。（图01）《实施保护世界文化与自然遗产公约的操作指南》对“突出的普遍价值”的定义如下： “文化和/或自然价值之罕见超越了国家界限，对全人类的现在和未来均具有普遍的重大意义”。仔细思考OUV的内涵，应该是这样的：如果一个被登入名录的遗产被遗弃或破坏，会使我们在文化上变得贫穷。虽然这是主观判断，但假如长城或乐山大佛丢失了，我觉得世界上许多人会为此而感到悲痛。一处遗产的OUV表明了该遗产是多么出色，它或者符合一项，或者符合十几项标准，为履行责任，该国政府应将其作为提名地申报世界遗产。
虽然世界遗产名录给予世界遗产特别的关注，并给与其认可和相应的地位，但保护不仅仅是划定范围，在国际社会发表关于遗产的宣言和声明也很重要。世界遗产地的管理应是积极的参与过程，建立在坚定的遗产哲学观和价值观基础之上，以保护世界遗产的独特价值，同时，还包括理解这些价值所面临的各种力量、压力、甚至威胁，如果管理者具有应用相关技术的能力则可以有效地减缓这些压力（图02）。
2 全球力量的变化对世界遗产地产生重大影响
世界遗产地不是孤立的实体，它同时受到其边界内部和外部力量的影响。遗产地突出的普遍价值使得它们的保护与管理面临巨大的挑战。其OUV不断承受着很多压力。这些压力（图03），不是令管理者耳目一新的微风，而是飓风、大风，使保护和管理之路充满曲折和艰难险阻。像一条真正的步道，如华山那充满挑战的登山之路，一点点侧滑、轻微的注意力转移或一点小的疏忽，都可能导致灾难性的后果。
这些世界遗产地所面临的压力让世界充满活力并不断变化，它们使世界变得复杂，也让世界具有了不确定性。其产生的根本动因和造成的影响在时间和空间上常常是分离的，使我们理解这一复杂的系统（我们可以称之为一个复杂的社会生态系统）变得异常困难。像一条新的登顶高海拔山峰的攀登路线，管理人员必须为此付出艰辛，并需要为必将出现的各种意外情况做好准备。
变革之风被圈入漩涡，相互碰撞，这意味着世界不再是按线性规律发展的，一个变量的微小变化可能导致另一个大的变化。在2010年的上半年，我们见证了各种始料未及的事件发生，而这些事件都产生了重大的影响：①在冰岛这个遥远的国度，火山爆发导致了大量火山灰的出现，超过10万个欧洲航班被取消，带来了数十亿美元的经济损失；②油管的一个小破裂，对海洋表面1 600m以下的水域造成大范围的环境破坏，波及数百公里以外的泻湖和沼泽。它不仅在美国东南部造成了数十亿美元旅游收入的损失外，还引发了美国历史上最大的环境灾难；③ 4月交易中的编程错误导致纽约证券交易所市场瞬间崩溃。
世界遗产地管理遇到的并不仅仅是上述突发事件——在九寨沟风景名胜区，短短的十年间观光人数从3 000人/年上升到300多万人/年，出乎所有人的预料(图04-05)。德国政府决定在德累斯顿易北河谷世界遗产的核心地区建立一个四车道公路桥，造成该遗产地的突出普遍价值严重流失，因此，它被从世界遗产名录中除名，永远背上第二个被除名的世界遗产地的恶名。
上述变化使世界变得复杂，这意味着遗产地的管理与不同尺度的时空以及不同规模的社会组织紧密相关。如果认真地思考自然遗产保护区，如九寨沟，就会发现它们可能有几万、甚至几十万公顷的面积，其中包括河流、森林、草原、动物、鸟类、昆虫、高山、峡谷、悬崖、湖泊和沼泽等诸多要素。该系统包括游客，在某些情况下很有可能包括成千上万、甚至上百万条道路、小径，也许还有游客中心、客房、餐厅或几间浴室，供水设施、行政设施、文物、历史建筑、污水处理设施等等。许多保护区还可能有农民、牧民、制造商和当地居民（图06）。这些要素的相互作用有多种方式，往往是不可预测的。这确实是个复杂的系统，其中任何一项属性的变化都可能给整个系统带来不可预测的巨大影响。
我的朋友和同事——来自南非的查尔斯·布林认为，我们今日面对的系统与过去相比更加复杂，并且是非线性的——这也加速了地缘政治、经济全球化、国际旅游、气候变化之间的相互联系。然而，从过去到现在，我们的许多解决方案混淆了世界遗产地管理者的视听，因为这些解决方案都曾经被社会所接受并有效地解决过问题。但它们有时并不一定有效，有时不容易被接受，又无法应对我们今日所面临的复杂局面。查尔斯指出，我们面临的挑战之一便是：我们未必愿意用有效的方法处理当今所面临的复杂局面——由于复杂性不断增强，我们也必须愿意参与其中，成为其中的一部分，并试图掌控它。
因此，举例来说，过去所使用的简单解决方案，如解决旅客及旅游业发展问题，实施游客承载力控制的策略等，实践证明，在面对更为复杂的系统时并不是行之有效的。因为该系统涉及问题产生的原因及其影响之间的关系，和未知的、非线性的关系。这种解决方案在管理中不能够建立一种弹性，一种能够承受飓风强度的弹性。而且，“解决方案”这个概念可能并不恰当。解决方案意味着答案，只有当我们深入理解了问题，并且了解了系统的运行方式才能够得出答案。该系统面临的挑战是，许多世界遗产地的情况实在太复杂了，而使我们难以进行全面的了解。
3 世界遗产旅游：案例研究
那么，我们如何来保护遗产地属性，构建中国的每处世界遗产地的突出的普遍价值呢？简单地说，这些压力必然导致更多的利益相关方参与决策，同时，问责制也应被引入决策，如果OUV受到威胁，将追究决策者的责任。在很多情况下，决策者可能会为保护和管理提供较好的机会。合理组织旅游和观光也是对保护区进行保护的一种方式，这给我们提供了一个很好的参考。
中国过去十年左右的收入增长拉动了旅游需求的增加，任何人在中国度过的某一年的黄金周都能够见证这一点。国家对于旅游发展的引导，导致旅游需求的增加，不仅包括导游市场的发展，还有学习中心的建立和游览线路的开发，也包括宾馆、饭店、道路、以至机场的发展。这些服务设施和基础设施，如果布局、设计或管理不当，可能会威胁到遗产地的OUV属性。管理的发展和基础设施的建设、特许经营、防止和减轻对世界遗产的影响，需要高水平的专业技术，并与游客和社区联合起来共同进行战略性思考。
管理人员面临的一个特别问题是要为游客提供体验（图07）。体验可以被定义为不同的方式，但它似乎更像是一种社会心理现象，受旅客的期望的影响，也受到同龄人的行为规范和价值观的影响，还包括在游览过程中所接触到的保护区的特征的影响。当游客为度假而寻求一个特定的旅游目的时，游客的体验是他们追求的核心内容，无论是在亚热带海滩游泳，在热带河流进行漂流冒险，还是一个人在北极徒步探险，或者带有个人的挑战情绪去攀登中国的五岳之一都是如此。将焦点锁定在游客体验上能够帮助管理者超越长期强调表面的管理活动，比如远足，较低层次的旅游活动强调行走、摄影、野生动物观赏、野营等。所有这些活动同样可以出现在中国的世界遗产地，但更重要的是，在这些活动中，游客所要寻求的体验包含哪些内容？
在世界遗产方面，管理人员会提出以下问题：游客学到了什么东西吗？游客是否提升了该处遗产地的OUV价值？他们对于文化、历史和自然遗产的保护有了更深的理解了吗？还包括其他方面的体验是否完成，如是否增加了家庭凝聚力？是否增强了体质？是否从快节奏的城市生活压力中逃脱出来？
上述问题会引发另外一些问题：这些经验是针对一些特定的世界遗产得出的（例如，长城的经验用在庐山未必合适）。如何运用这些适宜的经验管理世界遗产地？如何决定什么是适当的？谁可以决定？如何确保管理的经验不会对该地区的自然和文化遗产造成不可接受的影响？如何调和不同发展目标的相互竞争和不同体验之间的冲突？
这些问题具有很强的挑战性，即使对于拥有充足资金和专业管理能力的遗产地而言也是如此。随着中国世界遗产地游客量的增加——其他国家同样如此——有关这些问题的研究变得越来越重要。遗产地的管理者是否已经为迎接未来的挑战和机遇做好了准备？
在较长的时间尺度，突出的普遍价值的保持需要建立一个商业体系，以保护公园，提供优质的旅游服务，或根据当地社区需要让企业领导人、社会活动家、游客和公园管理人员积极参与。在较长时间框架下提供高品质的旅游机会是在全球舞台上提升21世纪旅游业竞争力的根本途径。这些基本面不仅仅对于中国十分重要，对于加拿大、澳大利亚、纳米比亚和其他拥有世界遗产的任何国家都同样重要。
当然，旅游像其他经济开发工具一样，是一把双刃剑——旅游的经济效益、学习功能、政治利益在日益提升的同时也增大了社会成本和环境成本，这些成本尤其对世界遗产地及其周边地区可能是有害的（图08）。如果根据可持续发展理念进行全面细致的管理，社会成本和环境成本可以降到最低。这项工作的重要组成部分必须是慎重地考虑游客体验的类型和质量。研究可以帮助我们获取有关游客需求的信息，从而让管理者决定什么体验的机会是恰当的。旅游企业和经营者在很多情况下可以帮助促成这些体验，社区可以提供更多的旅游目的地和相应的背景环境，更有利于为游客提供良好的体验。而且，这样一个综合的过程将促成更高质量的体验，游客支付费用也会增加，也为保护区提供了更多的支持和机会。
旅游业也提供了巨大的机会，其中包括资金的获取和提高游客对遗产地OUV的普遍关注(图09)。通过精心制定的费用和税金，游客可以直接为保护遗产地OUV贡献所需的资金。通过开发解说教育系统，管理人员可以按照公约的要求有效地向游客展示遗产地的突出普遍价值。增加对OUV的了解可以引起公民对于世界遗产的广泛关注，那么，相应的管理和资金的政治支持就容易得到认可了。
4 那么，我们怎么办？
保护世界遗产地的突出普遍价值在面对全球化挑战和提升游客体验要求的压力下，需要另外一套与过去全世界有关遗产地保护的规划和管理经验完全不同的新体系。在与哥斯达黎加的同事乔恩·科尔共同参与的规划项目中，我们提出了整体的规划过程，以取代以科学为基础、专家引导的规划过程，因为在过去的一段时间里，这种工作方式并不十分令人满意。我们在整体模型中，视规划为一个过程：
①拥有建设管理的技术能力，使规划能够得到实施。行动计划是由取得资质的专业人士执行、监督和监测的。管理人员必须有熟练的技术，并能很好地完成这些任务。观察规划过程要形成一种机制，目前的规划一般由管理人员全权负责，而他们往往没有参与到规划实施的过程中，规划过程的专业化对于目前的常规模式而言，是一个巨大转变。
②构建保护区的公共利益，能够帮助我们更好地理解什么是共同的价值和共同的利益，以及为什么要保护和整合它们。为了保证规划的合法性、可信度和有用性，必须保证具有合作伙伴关系的公众参与规划工作，在工作中可以关注保护区内的各利益相关方的利益，找到共同点，协调各方利益（解决不兼容的问题）。这是一个调查、简化和调节的过程。
③强调有组织的学习，以解决保护区的不确定性和嵌入系统复杂性带来的问题。当今世界具有不确定和复杂的特征，意味着我们不能肯定地预测行为和事件的结果。我们要强调学习，通过对有计划的行动进行监控、与教育机构进行有计划的实验合作，来提高我们认识世界遗产中所存在的复杂系统。如果不学习，各种保护组织将无法有效地预测和应对变化，因为这不断需要有新支持者和新兴的发展联盟参与其中。
④规划管理中应用的知识包括技术和经验两种形式，这两种形式的知识都需要明智的决策。管理者和规划者给规划带来了他们的技术和规划程序的专业知识；科学家们贡献关于生态过程、社会学进程、管理行动、独有或珍贵物种价值的专门知识；公众则要求解决社会上的重要问题，提供更高质量的研究力量，并提供能够决定合适决策的情感、轶事和政治知识。这些知识的形态可以是正统或非正统，用以解决保护区存在的问题。
篇幅所限，笔者未能对整体性规划进行详细的解释。然而，整体性规划的根本原理在于上文提到的动态环境以及传统规划的执行缺失以及保护公园和类似地区的重要价值 (图10)。
正如联合国教科文组织世界遗产中心建议的，我们需要建立学习平台，可持续旅游的倡议是另一种响应。这样的学习平台能够将多所大学和多处世界遗产地的资源整合起来，提供继续教育、研究和咨询服务。这些学习平台将会为管理人员和学者提供机会去共同面对世界遗产所面临的挑战。
世界遗产在中国面临着前所未有的测试和试验，当然，世界遗产突出普遍价值的保护存在着重大的机遇，它可以为当地居民提供积极发展的机会，并让人们有机会同中国历史悠久、形态多样的自然文化遗存进行沟通。中国将如何迎接这些挑战和机遇？
作者简介：
斯蒂芬-F-麦库尔/美国蒙大拿大学林学与保护学院/名誉教授
译者简介：
胡一可/1978年生/男/辽宁人/清华大学工学博士/天津大学建筑学院讲师/研究方向：景观规划设计理论与方法（天津 300072）
It’s the late 1960’s and the Aswan High Dam across the River Nile in Egypt is nearing completion. Built to regulate flooding, provide water for agriculture and generate electricity for economic development, the dam had other consequences as well—it would flood many of the temples and monuments of ancient Egyptian culture making them inaccessible to view, study and appreciate. A rescue effort had been mounted by UNESCO in 1960 to move many of these monuments to the shore of the reservoir.
The rescue effort was largely successful, even if costly, although a number of monuments were permanently submerged in the reservoir. But the larger question remained: How can society give recognition and protection to elements of our natural and cultural heritage so that they do not get trampled under the steam wheeler of development?
These elements of our cultural and natural heritage are important not to just the societies in which they arose, but to the global community as well. Are we richer, as citizens of the global community because of the saved monuments along the River Nile? Of course. But what mechanism can we use to protect other cultural and natural features?
1 The World Heritage Convention and the Concept of Outstanding Universal Value
One answer has been the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, an international agreement adopted by UNESCO at its General Conference in November 1972. The Convention recognizes that the deterioration or disappearance of heritage results in a “harmful impoverishment” to the heritage of all the nations of the world. The Convention establishes a mechanism to give recognition to monuments, sites and areas that have “outstanding universal value” to all of humankind. The universal appeal of protecting natural and cultural heritage is demonstrated by a total 186 countries having ratified the Convention.
Places that are judged by a 21 member intergovernmental committee to hold such value are inscribed on the List of World Heritage. When a site is inscribed, the state’s party becomes obligated to “do all it can to the utmost of its own resources” to protect the attributes and characteristics of the area that lead to its inscription. As of October 2010, 911 sites were inscribed on the list including 40 in China.
Sites are inscribed on the List of World Heritage only if the World Heritage Committee is convinced that they are of “outstanding universal value” or OUV to the global community. The Operational Guidelines used to implement the Convention define Outstanding Universal Value as meaning “cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity”. Think of OUV this way: would you be culturally poorer if a site on the list was lost or destroyed? This is admittedly a personal judgment, but if the Great Wall or the Giant Buddha, for example, was lost, I think many people around the world would grieve that loss of heritage. The OUV of a site is demonstrated by how well a site meets one or more of ten criteria, which is the responsibility of the state party making the nomination to demonstrate.
And while inscription on the World Heritage List gives heritage special attention, recognition and status, protection involves more than drawing lines, making declarations and stating the importance of heritage to all societies of the world. Management to protect the very special values of World Heritage is an active, engaging process, built upon a firm foundation of heritage philosophy and values, understanding the forces that stress or even threaten these values and competently applying the technical processes and competencies useful and effective in mitigating these stresses. (Fig.02)
2 Global Forces of Change Dramatically Impact World Heritage Sites
World Heritage Sites are not isolated entities; the forces affecting them come from both outside and inside their boundaries. The very character of their Outstanding Universal Value makes sites a challenge to manage and protect. The OUV is subject to a number of stresses that continuously and vigorously buffet the site. These stresses, depicted in Fig.03, are not the gentle breezes that managers of sites might find refreshing, but rather hurricane force gales that make traveling the twisted and rocky pathway of protection and management both difficult and tricky. Like a real pathway, such as some of the challenging trails of the Huashan Sacred Mountain, a miscue, a slight diversion of attention, or a bit of carelessness can lead to disastrous consequences.
These winds make the world dynamic and ever-changing, they make the world complex, and they make the world uncertain. Causes and effects are often separated in time and space; making understanding the complex system (we can call it a complex social-ecological system) in which World Heritage sites exist strenuous. Like a grueling climb up a new route to a high elevation mountain peak, managers need to be prepared for the variety of surprises that will surely arise.
The winds of change, as they circle in a vortex and collide with each other, mean that the world is no longer linear, that small changes in one variable may make large changes in another. Witness a variety of events that were not predicted occurring in the first half of 2010 all of which lead to major impacts:
A volcano erupts in the remote country of Iceland—leading to a large ash plume that causes cancellation of over 100,000 airline flights in Europe, and results in billions of dollars of losses in economic activity.
A small rupture in an oil pipe, 1600 meters below the ocean surface causes extensive environmental damage to lagoons and bayous hundreds of kilometers away and again, triggering the largest environmental disaster in U.S history in addition to the loss billions of dollars of tourism revenue in the southeastern U.S.
Errors in programmed trading in April causes a momentary collapse of the New York Stock Exchange market.
World Heritage Site management is not insulated from such surprises—in Jiuzhaigou National Scenic Spot, visitation rose from 3,000 annually to over 3,000,000 in the space of a decade, a feat no one would have predicted. (Fig.04-05) The German government decides to build a four-lane highway bridge in the heart of the Dresden-Elbe Valley World Heritage Site, resulting in a loss of the Outstanding Universal Value of the site, and thus its removal from the List of World Heritage, only the second site to ever be delisted.
These winds of change make the world complex, meaning that site management is connected to a variety of processes at different spatial, temporal and social-organizational scales. Think about a natural heritage protected area, such as Jiuzhaigou, potentially comprising tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of hectares, rivers, forests, grasslands, animals, birds, insects, mountains, valleys, cliffs, lakes and swamps. That system most likely includes visitors, in some cases, hundreds of thousands or even millions, roads, trails, perhaps visitor centers, accommodation, a restaurant, or several, bathrooms, water supplies, administrative facilities, artifacts, historic structures, sewage disposal and so on. Many protected areas may also have farmers, pastoralists, vendors and other people living within them (Fig.06). These components interact in many different ways, most unpredictable. These are indeed complex systems, and changes in any one of these attributes may have enormous, and unpredictable, impacts throughout the system.
My friend and colleague Charles Breen from South Africa has argued that the complexity of the systems we deal with today have grown dramatically, and non-linearly, from what we had to deal with in the past—this accelerating interconnectedness represented by geopolitics, economic globalization, international travel, climate change. However, many of our solutions to the problems perplexing World Heritage Site managers come from the past, solutions that were once both socially acceptable and effective in solving problems. These solutions, while occasionally effective, are neither acceptable nor useful for the complexity we live in today. One of the challenges, Charles has noted, is that we may not be willing to tackle the complexity of today with solutions that are effective—that is as complexity grows, so must our willingness to engage it.
So, for example, the simplistic solutions used in the past to address visitor and tourism development problems, implementing a visitor carrying capacity, plainly stated, are not going to be effective in a much more complex system, where the relationships between causes and effects, largely unknown, are not linearly related. Such solutions do not build resiliency in management, a resiliency needed to withstand the hurricane intensity of change. And, the even the very notion of “solutions” may not be appropriate. Solutions imply answers—but answers only come about if we (1) understand the question and (2) understand the system. The systems confronting World Heritage Sites and the challenges they pose are simply too complex in many cases for a complete understanding.
3 Tourism in World Heritage Sites: A Case Study
So, what has all this to do with protecting the attributes that establish the Outstanding Universal Value contained within each of China’s World Heritage Sites? Simply put, these stresses not only increase the stakes of decisions and the accountability placed on decision-makers they may represent direct threats to the OUV of a site. In many cases, they may lead to outstanding opportunities for protection and management. The case of tourism and visitation to protected areas provides a good example.
The rising incomes observed in China over the last decade or so increase the propensity to travel—as anyone who has been in China during one of its annual Golden Weeks can testify to. Greater propensity to travel leads to increased demands not only for such visitor services as guides, learning centers, and trails, but also development of hotels, restaurants, roads, even airports. Such facilities and infrastructure, if improperly placed, designed or managed, can threaten the attributes giving rise to a site’s OUV. Managing development and infrastructure, concession operations, preventing and mitigating impacts requires high levels of technical expertise, engagement with visitors and communities and strategic thinking.
A particular question confronting managers is the type of visitor experience to be offered. (Fig.07) An experience may be defined in a number of different ways, but it appears most likely to be a social-psychological phenomenon, influenced by expectations visitors carry with them, the norms and values of their peers, and the attributes of the protected areas encountered during a visit. The experience is what visitors are seeking when choosing to vacation at a particular destination, be it swimming on a subtropical beach, an adventurous float down a tropical river, the personal challenge of hiking in the arctic, or the emotions attached to walking the pathways of one of China’s Sacred Mountains. A focus on visitor experiences helps managers get beyond a long emphasized superficial level emphasis on administering activities, such as hiking, walking, photography, wildlife viewing, camping, and so on. All of these activities can occur in World Heritage Sites in China, but more importantly, what is it the experience visitors are seeking when they engage in these activities?
In terms of World Heritage Sites, managers would want to ask the following questions: Has the visitor learned something? Do visitors have enhanced appreciation of the OUV of a site? Do they have a greater understanding of the cultural, historical and natural heritage protected by a site? Other experience dimensions may occur as well: increased family cohesiveness, greater physical fitness, escape from the pressures and stresses of fast paced urban life.
These questions in turn trigger other questions: Which of these experiences is appropriate in a specific World Heritage Site (e.g., an experience appropriate for Great Wall may be inappropriate at Lushan)? How do we manage World Heritage Sites to provide for these appropriate experiences? How do we decide on what is appropriate? Who gets to decide? How do we ensure that managing for experiences does not lead to unacceptable impacts on the area’s natural and cultural heritage? How do we reconcile competing objectives and conflicting experiences?
These questions are challenging, even for the most highly funded and professionally competent sites. As growth in visitation to World Heritage Sites in China occurs—and in other countries as well—these questions and the search for responses will become of greater importance. Are site managers preparing themselves for the future’s challenges and opportunities?
Sustaining Outstanding Universal Value over the time scales necessary to build a business, to protect a park, to make available quality tourist opportunities or to assist a community requires vigorous engagement of business leaders, community activists, visitors and park managers. The ability to provide high quality opportunities over long time frames is fundamental to being competitive in the global arena that characterizes 21st century tourism. These fundamentals are as important to China as they are to Canada, Australia, Namibia or any other country harboring a World Heritage Site.
Of course, tourism, like other economic development tools, is a two-edged sword—with the economic, learning and political benefits of tourism come potentially significant social and environmental costs, and these costs may be particularly deleterious in and near World Heritage Sites. (Fig.08) With careful sensitive management attending to the notion of sustainability, these costs can be minimized. A major component of this effort must be consideration of the type and quality of visitor experiences to be offered. Research can provide the information about what visitors are seeking; managers determine what experience opportunities are appropriate; tour firms and operators help facilitate those experiences in many cases, and communities provide the broader destination and context in which those experiences occur. And, thus an integrated process will lead to higher quality experiences, resulting in greater visitor expenditures and more support for the protected areas that provide these opportunities.
But tourism also provides great opportunities for funding and increased awareness of the site’s OUV for visitors. (Fig.09) By carefully structuring fees and taxes, tourists can directly contribute funding needed to protect that OUV. By developing interpretative programs, managers effectively present the OUV to visitors, as required by the Convention. Increased understanding of the OUV leads to greater appreciation and eventually to a more informed citizenry which will then provide political support for management and funding.
4 So What Do We Do?
Protecting the Outstanding Universal Value represented in a World Heritage Site in the face of the stresses of global trends and accelerating demand for visitor experiences requires a different sort of planning and management than what protected areas the world over have experienced in the last 30 years or so. Working with a Costa Rican colleague, Jon Kohl, we have proposed a process of holistic planning to replace the scientific-based, expert driven planning processes of the past that have not worked so well. In our holistic model, planning is viewed as a process to:
Build managerial technical capabilities, so that plans can be implemented. Plans are composed of actions that require qualified individuals to implement, supervise and monitor. Managers must hold the technical proficiencies and needed to accomplish these tasks. Viewing the planning process as mechanism to build those proficiencies is a dramatic change from the current conventional model where planning is largely contracted out with managers receiving a plan without any involvement in its development.
Construct the public interests in protected areas, to better understand what values and benefits are shared and need to be protected and integrated. For planning to be truly legitimate, credible and useful, it must then involve a variety of publics working in partnership to what their interests or stakes in the protected area are, find common ground and address incompatibilities. This is a process of investigation, facilitation and accommodation.
Emphasize learning by the organization, to address uncertainty and complexity of the systems embedding protected areas. The dynamic, uncertain and complex character of today’s world means that we cannot predict with certainty the outcomes of actions and events. We need to emphasize learning, through monitoring of planned actions, through planned experiments and through working with education institutions to increase our understanding the complex systems within which World Heritage Sites are embedded. Without learning, organizations are unable to effectively anticipate and respond to the changing demands expressed by development of new constituencies and emerging alliances with varying preferences.
Apply technical and experiential forms of knowledge, because both forms of knowledge are required to make informed decisions. Managers and planners bring to a planning situation their technical and procedural expertise. Scientists contribute specialized knowledge about ecological or sociological processes and conditions, the effects of management actions, and the presence of unique or valuable species or values. Members of the public demand that socially important questions be addressed, force higher quality research, and provide emotional, anecdotal, and political knowledge that defines the acceptable decision space. These forms of knowledge, both formal and informal, are all needed to address protected area issues.
Space is limited here, so detailed explanations of holistic planning are not possible. However, the rationale lies in the dynamic context referred to earlier and the failure of conventional planning to be implemented and protect the important values contained within parks and similar areas. (Fig.10)
Establishing learning platforms, as suggested by the UNESCO World Heritage Center Sustainable Tourism Initiative is another response. Such learning platforms would involve collaboration of a consortium of universities and World Heritage sites designed to provide programmatic continuing education, research and advice. These learning platforms would be designed to provide opportunities for managers and academics to jointly pursue the challenges facing World Heritage Sites.
World Heritage Sites in China are confronted with immense tests and trials; as well, enormous opportunities in protecting their Outstanding Universal Value, providing opportunities for economic opportunity for local residents and in communicating the long, diverse and intriguing history of China exist. Will China rise to these challenges and opportunities?
Biography:
Stephen F. MCCOOL is a Professor Emeritus of College of Forestry and Conservation, The University of Montana.
About the Translator:
HU Yi-ke, born in 1978, a native of Liaoning, who holds a doctorate degree in Engineering from Tsinghua University, is a lecturer of the School of Architecture, Tianjing University. He is specialized in the theory and method of landscape planning and design theory. (Tianjin 800072)
《风景园林》2011第1期导读
Leave a Reply