世界六大世界文化遗产的可持续旅游管理【外文翻译】

外文翻译原文Managing for sustainable tourism:a review of six cultural World Heritage Sites Material Source：Author：Journal of Sustainable Tourism Christine Landorf V ol.17,No.1,January2009,53–70School of Architecture and Built Environment,University of Newcastle,Australia (Received 12 June 2007;final version received 8 February 2008)This paper considers the relationship between heritage tourism and sustainable development,with special reference to World Heritage Sites(WHSs).It notes that while WHS status is not necessarily linked to tourism growth,all WHSs must now develop and implement a management plan to mitigate tourism impacts and sustain site significance.The paper explores the concept of sustainable heritage tourism and identifies two key principles of sustainable practice–a planning process that is long term and holistic,and multiple stakeholder participation in that planning process.Qualitative content analysis is used to determine the extent to which these principles have been integrated into the tourism planning process at six WHSs.The study found that a formal goal-oriented planning process was in evidence at all six sites.However,the process lacked a comprehensive and holistic approach to the wider issues of sustainable development,and genuine engagement with local community stakeholders.Keywords:heritage tourism;heritage; management;stakeholder;collaboration; sustain-able developmentIntroduction：There has been an increasing interest in the impact of tourism on World Heritage Sites(WHSs)over the past 20 years.This is motivated in part by the commonly held view that World Heritage Listing increases visitor numbers.While the reality of this view is still subject to debate(Buckley,2005),an expectation ofsubstantial growth in tourist interest has been noted as a driving factor in recent World Heritage nominations(Jones&Munday,（2001;Rodwell,2002).The pressure that tourism might place on a WHS,irrespective of growth,is compounded by the somewhat contradictory principle at the core of the World Heritage Convention–that is,WHSs should retain a function in current community life while being conserved for transmission to future generations(UNESCO,1972).So,if the significance that allowed a site to gain World Heritage status is to be maintained,and WHSs are to remain accessible to current and future generations,managing tourism activity sustainably should be a critical issue(Garrod&Fyall,2000;Pedersen,2002).This paper tests the validity of the expectation that the management of sustainable tourism at WHSs should,therefore,feature significantly in their site management plans.It reports on a study that analysed the management plans of six UK WHSs to identify their approach to the management of sustainable tourism.Evidence of two key principles was assessed–the use of a long term and holistic approach to tourism planning,and the extent of stakeholder participation in that planning process.The study assumes that sustainable? tourism is a desirable goal,strategic planning is an appropriate framework within which sustainable tourism can occur,and extensive and empowering stakeholder participation in the planning process is essential for tourism to be sustainable over the long term.The next section of the paper provides an examination of how the theoretical foundations of sustainable development might be applied to heritage tourism.This is followed by a discussion of the methodology used in the study and an analysis of the study findings.The planning process and stakeholder participation practices at six WHSs are then discussed, and conclusions are drawn concerning the extent to which they represent an appropriate model for the management of sustainable heritage tourism.Sustainable heritage tourismSustainable development and tourismMost models of sustainable development can be traced back to two key publications,the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development’s Brundtland Commission Report,Our Common Future(WCED,1987),and Agenda21,the international agreement on sustainable development framed at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development(or“Earth Summit”)(Jo hnson,1993).The Brundtland Report defined“sustainable development”as“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.The Report outlined a further four sustainability principles:(1)holistic planning and strategic decision-making;(2)preservation of essential ecological processes;(3)protection of human heritage and biodiversity;and(4)growth that can be sustained over the long term.Though debate continues in regards to its detailed interpretation and practical application(Hunter, 1997;Sharpley,2000),this remains the most widely circulated definition of sustainable development(Basiago,1999).If the Brundtland Report provided a conceptual definition of sustainable development,Agenda 21 proposed a number of tangible strategies for its implementation.Critical to this was the need to balance the economic,environmental and social dimensions of sustainable development over time(Bramwell&Lane,1993).Kahn(cited in Basigo,1999)argued that this could be achieved only by integrating and interlinking each dimension in one dynamic global system.Economic sustainability therefore implied a system of production that satisfied present levels of consumption without compromising social equity and the needs of future generations.Environmental sustainability required resources be harvested no faster than they could be regenerated and wastes be emitted no faster than they could be assimilated by the environment without damaging biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. Social sustainability assumed economic growth constrained by the requirements for equity, empowerment,cultural identity and institutional stability(Basiago,1999). However,the complexity of achieving a balance across the three Agenda 21 dimensions is manifest (Hunter,1997;Mowforth&Munt,1998).Critical decisions need to be made i n relation to what trade-offs are acceptable and to whom,what criteria are to be measured and how can the benefits of sustainable development be shared equitably between rich and poor(Richards&Hall,2000).The Brundtland Report,for example,recognised a need for economic growth in developing nations but did not engage with the necessity to balance this against the unsustainable lifestyles adopted in wealthier,developed nations (Bramwell&Lane,1993;Hunter,1997).Likewise,the sustainability strategies outlined in Agenda 21 have seen limited application because of the complexity of achieving a truly integrated economic,environmental and social system(Basiago,1998).While there is aJournal of Sustainable Tourism 55 lack ofconsensus in relation to how a balance is to be achieved,there is at least growing acceptance that a strategic approach can contribute positively to the sustainable developmentdecision-makingandplanningprocess(Hall,Jenkins,&Kearsley,2000;Sim pson,2001). Originating in the management literature(Mintzberg,1994),strategic planning is described as a means of guiding resource allocation to enhance long term organisational performance(Viljoen&Dann,2000).This implies a formal goal-oriented process driven by consideration of multiple situational influences,critical stakeholder values and attitudes, and the long term impact of decisions.When applied to tourism,this suggests development planning that consistently engages stakeholders in a process guided by a strategic orientation,reflecting local influences and stakeholder needs based on consideration of a circular model of causality.While there are problems associated with the application of the process, which will be considered later,strategic planning embodies many principles consistent with the criteria for sustainability noted earlier(Hall et al.,2000;Simpson,2001).Most models of sustainable development also include stakeholder collaboration,and in particular community empowerment,as a cornerstone of the development process.Academic interest in collaboration theory and stakeholder participation can be traced back to the social reform movements of the 1960s.Critical to the field was Arnstein’s(1969)influential typology of citizen participation developed to better understand power imbalances evident in urban planning initiatives of the time.Arnstein’s typology ranged from involvement that gave an impression of participation through to complete citizen control of the decision-making process.Similar typologies have been developed for sustainable development.Hunter(1997),for example,has described a typology of sustainable development that ranged from strong resource exploitation through to strong resource preservation.While the extreme ends of the spectrum in both cases can be rejected as inequitable for one key group or another,such typologies do centre debate on acceptance of a flexible middle ground that can be adapted to a given context.As Hunter(1997)has noted,the concept of sustainable development is malleable,it should be shaped to fit a range of world views and location-specific factors.Stakeholder collaboration has been advocated as one way of achieving this(Aas,Ladkin,&Fletcher,2005;Jamal&Getz,1995;Selin,1999;Simpson,2001).Indee d,G ray’s(1989,p.11)influential definition of collaboration as“a process of joint decision-making among key stakeholders of a problem domain about the future ofthat domain”has been adapted by many studying inter-organisational relationships in tourism settings,and community participation in decision-making in particular(Aas et al.,2005;Jamal&Getz,1995;Selin,1999).As an idealistic concept,the meaningful engagement of a range of stakeholder groups throughout the decision-making process is widely accepted as pivotal in achieving a collective sense of responsibility for the sustainable development of any resource.A critical assumption is that local stakeholder groups,in particular,have a direct need to reduce the intergenerational impacts of any resource use.There is also an assumption that local stakeholders have a greater understanding of the economic,environmental and social needs and resources of a community,and how these might be integrated into more extensive regional and national systems(Milne&Ateljevic,2001).The highly fragmented nature of the tourism industry further emphasises the need for more formal coordination and broader collaboration in the planning process than is currently the case(Aas et al.,2005;Welford, Ytterhus,&Eligh,1999).However,definin g stakeholder groups and,in particular,the“local community”is exceptionally problematic for most WHSs(Richards&Hall,2000).Are stakeholders based on economic,social,spatial or temporal qualities,and how are they to participate equitably in decision-making?Resolving power imbalances within a community once56 ndorf identified and ensuring collective responsibility for decisions are further complications. For some,the proposition of truly extensive and equitable community participation in any sustainable development process remains an idealistic concept with little chance of effective implementation(Aas et al.,2005;Getz&Jamel,1994).译文世界六大世界文化遗产的可持续旅游管理资料来源：可持续旅游杂志.2009.（1）作者: Christine Landorf这篇文章通过对世界遗产地的专门参考，考虑了遗产旅游业跟可持续发展的关系。