Cultural Heritage Management in China Routledge

Contemporary China Series 1st Edition Du Cros

Lee pdf download
https://ebookgate.com/product/cultural-heritage-management-in-china-routledge-contemporary-china-
series-1st-edition-du-cros-lee/

★★★★★ 4.7/5.0 (32 reviews) ✓ 103 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Great resource, downloaded instantly. Thank you!" - Lisa K.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
Cultural Heritage Management in China Routledge Contemporary
China Series 1st Edition Du Cros Lee pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK EBOOK GATE

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Human Resource Management in Chinese Multinationals

Routledge Contemporary China 1st Edition Edwards & Shen

https://ebookgate.com/product/human-resource-management-in-chinese-
multinationals-routledge-contemporary-china-1st-edition-edwards-shen/

ebookgate.com

China and Africa Engagement and Compromise Routledge

Contemporary China 1st Edition Ian Taylor

https://ebookgate.com/product/china-and-africa-engagement-and-
compromise-routledge-contemporary-china-1st-edition-ian-taylor/

ebookgate.com

New Crime in China Public Order and Human Rights

Routledgecurzon Contemporary China Series Ron Keith

https://ebookgate.com/product/new-crime-in-china-public-order-and-
human-rights-routledgecurzon-contemporary-china-series-ron-keith/

ebookgate.com

Politics and Government in Hong Kong Crisis under Chinese

sovereignty Routledge Contemporary China Series 1st
Edition Ming Sing
https://ebookgate.com/product/politics-and-government-in-hong-kong-
crisis-under-chinese-sovereignty-routledge-contemporary-china-
series-1st-edition-ming-sing/
ebookgate.com
Christianity in Contemporary China Socio Cultural
Perspectives 1st Edition Francis Khek Gee Lim

https://ebookgate.com/product/christianity-in-contemporary-china-
socio-cultural-perspectives-1st-edition-francis-khek-gee-lim/

ebookgate.com

Chinese Male Homosexualities Memba Tongzhi and Golden Boy

Routledge Contemporary China Series 1st Edition Travis S.
K. Kong
https://ebookgate.com/product/chinese-male-homosexualities-memba-
tongzhi-and-golden-boy-routledge-contemporary-china-series-1st-
edition-travis-s-k-kong/
ebookgate.com

Human Rights in China 1st Edition Lee R. Massingdale

https://ebookgate.com/product/human-rights-in-china-1st-edition-lee-r-
massingdale/

ebookgate.com

Contemporary Architecture in China Green Architecture 1st

Edition Weiju Yang

https://ebookgate.com/product/contemporary-architecture-in-china-
green-architecture-1st-edition-weiju-yang/

ebookgate.com

Post Acquisition Management in China 1st Edition Yi He

(Auth.)

https://ebookgate.com/product/post-acquisition-management-in-
china-1st-edition-yi-he-auth/

ebookgate.com
Cultural Heritage Management
in China

Cultural Heritage Management in China presents a thematic examination of

the development of cultural heritage management (CHM), using a Western-
derived analytical framework within an Asian context. Based on three years
of fieldwork, collation and interpretation, the book details how cultural,
political, historical and economic factors have shaped the development of
CHM in the Pearl River Delta’s key cities of Hong Kong, Macau and
Guangzhou (Canton). A multidisciplinary team of international contributors
analyse these key cities by examining their administrative characteristics,
economic growth attributes and linkages with cultural identity and human
relationships.
Providing an innovative study of CHM, this book highlights the com-
plexity of interactions between global and local factors in influencing the
context and contour of CHM within China’s leading transitional cities. As
such, Cultural Heritage Management in China will be of interest to students
of Asian and cultural studies, as well as those studying urban planning,
geography and sociology.

Hilary du Cros is an Invited Professor at the Institute For Tourism Studies

in Macao, People’s Republic of China.

Yok-shiu F. Lee is an Associate Professor in Geography at the University

of Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China.
Routledge Contemporary China Series

1 Nationalism, Democracy and National Integration in China

Leong Liew and Wang Shaoguang

2 Hong Kong’s Tortuous Democratization

A comparative analysis
Ming Sing

3 China’s Business Reforms

Institutional challenges in a globalised economy
Edited by Russell Smyth and Cherrie Zhu

4 Challenges for China’s Development

An enterprise perspective
Edited by David H. Brown and Alasdair MacBean

5 New Crime in China

Public order and human rights
Ron Keith and Zhiqiu Lin

6 Non-Governmental Organizations in Contemporary China

Paving the way to civil society?
Qiusha Ma

7 Globalization and the Chinese City

Fulong Wu

8 The Politics of China’s Accession to the World Trade Organization

The dragon goes global
Hui Feng

9 Narrating China
Jia Pingwa and his fictional world
Yiyan Wang
10 Sex, Science and Morality in China
Joanne McMillan

11 Politics in China Since 1949

Legitimizing authoritarian rule
Robert Weatherley

12 International Human Resource Management in Chinese

Multinationals
Jie Shen and Vincent Edwards

13 Unemployment in China
Economy, human resources and labour markets
Edited by Grace Lee and Malcolm Warner

14 China and Africa

Engagement and compromise
Ian Taylor

15 Gender and Education in China

Gender discourses and women’s schooling in the early twentieth
century
Paul J. Bailey

16 SARS
Reception and interpretation in three Chinese cities
Edited by Deborah Davis and Helen Siu

17 Human Security and the Chinese State

Historical transformations and the modern quest for sovereignty
Robert E. Bedeski

18 Gender and Work in Urban China

Women workers of the unlucky generation
Liu Jieyu

19 China’s State Enterprise Reform

From Marx to the market
John Hassard, Jackie Sheehan, Meixiang Zhou, Jane Terpstra-Tong
and Jonathan Morris

20 Cultural Heritage Management in China

Preserving the cities of the Pearl River Delta
Edited by Hilary du Cros and Yok-shiu F. Lee
Cultural Heritage
Management in China
Preserving the cities of the
Pearl River Delta

Edited by Hilary du Cros and

Yok-shiu F. Lee
First published 2007 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group,
an informa business
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2007.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
© 2007 Hilary du Cros and Yok-shiu F. Lee
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the
British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Cultural heritage management in China : preserving the cities of the Pearl River
Delta / edited by Hilary du Cros and Yok-shiu F. Lee. – 1st ed.
p. cm. – (Routledge contemporary China series ; 20)

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN-13: 978-0-415-39719-3 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Cultural property–

China–Hong Kong–Protection. 2. Hong Kong (China)–Cultural policy.
3. Cultural property–China–Macau (Special Administrative Region)–Protection.
4. Macau (China : Special Administrative Region)–Cultural policy. 5. Cultural
property–China–Guangzhou Shi–Protection. 6. Guangzhou Shi (China)–Cultural
policy. I. Du Cros, Hilary. II. Lee, Yok-shiu F. III. Title: Preserving the cities
of the Pearl River Delta.
DS796.H75C85 2007
363.6′909512–dc22
2006033157
ISBN 0–203–96359–8 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 10: 0-415-39719-7 (hbk)

ISBN 10: 0-203-96359-8 (ebk)
ISBN 13: 978-0-415-39719-3 (hbk)
ISBN 13: 978-0-203-96359-3 (ebk)
Contents

List of plates ix
List of figures xi
List of tables xiii
Acknowledgements xv
List of abbreviations xvii
List of contributors xix
Preface xxi

1 Introduction 1
Y.S.F. LEE, H. DU CROS, L. DISTEFANO AND W. LOGAN

Why reflect on cultural heritage management? 1

The Western-derived notional CHM framework and
its rationale 6
The influence of global and local factors 14
The Pearl River Delta 17

2 The Pearl River Delta: one region, three systems 23

H. DU CROS, Y.S.F. LEE, A. SAUVIGRAIN-MCCLELLAND,
E. CHOW AND D. LUNG

Key administrative characteristics of the case study cities 23

Establishing inventories 26
Initial legislation 36
Implications for the preservation of cultural heritage assets 42

3 The rise of professionalism 49

H. DU CROS, Y.S.F. LEE, A. SAUVIGRAIN-MCCLELLAND,
E. CHOW AND W. LOGAN

Key economic, political and social characteristics 49

Increased professionalism 52
viii Contents
Implications for understanding the impact of global
and local factors 78

4 Economic growth and cultural identity 85

H. DU CROS, Y.S.F. LEE, D. LUNG AND L. DISTEFANO

Emergence of a wide array of stakeholders 85

Stakeholder consultation: local conventions versus
international best practices 87
The review phase: PRD cities and mature practice 105
Implications for the preservation and conservation
of cultural heritage assets 111

5 The human factor and cultural affinity 117

Y.S.F. LEE AND H. DU CROS

Cross-cultural influences on CHM: Britain,

Portugal and China 117
Inter-ethnic and intra-regional influences
in cultural identity 122
Bridging the gaps and creating new relationships 127

6 Conclusion 139
Y.S.F. LEE AND H. DU CROS

Key global and local factors revealed 139

The future of CHM in the Pearl River Delta 141
Further research agenda for CHM in the other
parts of China 143
Implications and lessons for Western-derived
frameworks 145

Glossary of common heritage terms 147

References 151
Index 163
Plates

2.1 Guangzhou Museum (Hilary du Cros) 33

2.2 Guangdong Museum of Folk Arts and Handicrafts
(Yok-shiu F. Lee) 40
3.1 ‘Shamian the Romantic European Culture Island’
billboard on the northern side of Shamian Island in
Guangzhou. The Shamian Island Street Management Office
hopes that it can attract tourists of all kinds and related
businesses to the location with various promotions
(Hilary du Cros) 52
3.2 The Nanyue Palace Site excavation in Guangzhou was
still in progress when the authors visited it in early 2005.
The site is massive and also includes a Qing dynasty
shipyard (Hilary du Cros) 72
4.1 Macau’s Tak Seng On Pawn Shop interior in 2003,
after restoration (Hilary du Cros) 104
4.2 This fake paper bun tower was part of a display for
the ‘Culture and Heritage Celebration’ put on by the
Hong Kong Tourism Board between 20 April and 7 May
2006 to promote the Cheung Chau Bun Festival – and
a mishmash of other forms of intangible heritage in
Hong Kong (Hilary du Cros) 111
Figures

1.1 The theoretical framework of cultural heritage management 12

2.1 The location of the Pearl River Delta 24
2.2 The location of places mentioned for Hong Kong 28
2.3 The location of places mentioned for Macau 29
3.1 The location of places mentioned for Guangzhou 75
4.1 The location of places mentioned for urban Hong Kong 100
Tables

1.1 Western frameworks and the historical development of

cultural heritage management, tourism, planning and
other considerations 9
1.2 Cultural heritage management’s evolving framework 13
1.3 The evolving framework for cultural heritage
management: indicating how a regional tradition might
develop its perspective and refine its practice over time 15
1.4 Characteristics of case study cities 18
5.1 Summary of CHM phases for the colonial, transition and
postcolonial phases for Hong Kong and Macau, and for
the historical events affecting Guangzhou 119
5.2 Comparing cultural orientations for mapping exercises
(based on DiStefano and Maznevski, 2003) 129
5.3 Likely CHM orientations for Hong Kong, Macau,
and Guangzhou 135
Acknowledgements

A number of heritage professionals and others contributed to this book by

talking to us about their situations or by giving advice generally. In par-
ticular, the authors would like to thank, first of all from Macau: Paulo
Cheang, Jose Luis de Sales Marques, Leonardo Dioko, Carla Figueiredo,
Long Lao, Carlos Marreiros, Eurico Teng, Cecilia Tse and Fanny Vong.
From Hong Kong we would like to express thanks to David Au, Ian
Brownlee, Ellen Cameron, Peter Cookson Smith, Wai Kwan Chan,
Winnifred Chung, Happy Harun, Trevor Holmes, Andrew Lam, Hoyin
Lee, Tracey Lu, Bob McKercher, William Meacham, Louis Ng, Roger
Nissim, Duncan Pescod, Susanna Siu, Joseph Ting, Caitlin Wong, Sylvia
Shih-Chin Wong, Ada Wong and Ada Yau.
Last, but far from least, we were assisted by our valuable colleagues in
Guangzhou: Chen, Yue Kai; Chen, Wei Han; Ding, Shao Jun; Feng, Yong
Qu; Lang, Guan Lin; Le, Wen Jing; Li, Ji Guang; Li, Lan; Li, Lin Na; Li,
Ming Yong; Li, Sui Mei; Mai, Ying Hao; Wu, Ling Yun; Zhang, Jia Ji;
Tracey Zhu and Zhu, Zhong Ping.
A special thank you is required for Stephan Chan, Pamela Rumball-
Rogers and Jian Jun Cheng for their contributions and the benefit of their
vast experience of cultural heritage management in the region.
We would like to thank the Institute For Tourism Studies and the Uni-
versity of Hong Kong for the institutional support we received in the
course of preparing this manuscript. Y.S.F. Lee would like to thank the
Faculty of Arts at the University of Hong Kong for awarding a Research
Support Scheme Grant to enable him to concentrate on this work. Lastly,
we would like to thank Joe DiStefano for allowing us to use some of his
research data and giving us useful advice.

The work described in this book was fully supported by a grant from the
Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
China (Project No. HKU 7310/03H).
Abbreviations

AAB Antiquities Advisory Board

AMO Antiquities and Monuments Office
CAB Cultural Affairs Bureau
CBD Central Business District
CH Cultural Heritage
CHIA Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
CHM Cultural Heritage Management
CUHK Chinese University of Hong Kong
CUPEM Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Studies
FIT Free Independent Travellers
GIS Geographic Information System
GONGOs Government organised non-governmental organizations
GST Goods and services tax
HAB Home Affairs Bureau
HKTB Hong Kong Tourism Board
HKU University of Hong Kong
ICAC Independent Commission Against Corruption
ICCROM International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and
Restoration of Cultural Property
ICOM International Council of Museums
ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites
IFC International Finance Centre
IFT Institute For Tourism Studies
IGOs Inter-governmental organizations
LDC Land Development Corporation
LCSD Leisure and Cultural Services Department
LWHT Lord Wilson Heritage Trust
$MOP Macau Patacas
NGOs Non-governmental organizations
NPS National Park Service
xviii Abbreviations
PRD Pearl River Delta
RTHK Radio Television Hong Kong
SACH State Administration for Cultural Heritage
SAR Special Administrative Region
SCMP South China Morning Post
TPB Town Planning Board
UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organization
UEA University of East Asia
URA Urban Renewal Authority
WTO World Trade Organization
Contributors

Euphemia Chow, Research Affiliate, Architectural Conservation Programme

Coordinator, Department of Architecture, The University of Hong Kong
Lynne DiStefano, Associate Professor, Architectural Conservation Programme
Director, Department of Architecture, University of Hong Kong
William Logan, UNESCO Chair Professor of Heritage and Urbanism
in the School of Social and International Studies, Deakin University,
Melbourne
David P.Y. Lung, Professor of the Department of Architecture, The Uni-
versity of Hong Kong
Alexandra Sauvegrain-McClelland, Research Affiliate, Architectural Con-
servation Programme Coordinator, Department of Architecture, The
University of Hong Kong
Preface

The idea for this book came as a logical extension of work that was
already being done to enhance teaching and research programs on cultural
heritage management, architectural conservation, urban studies and cultural
tourism in Hong Kong. The authors wanted to go beyond the single city/
disciplinary approach evident in some of this work to produce a book that
can be used as a reference for those within and without the Pearl River
Delta. The work has been the result of efforts over the last three years
(possibly more) to collect data, and analyse and interpret it in terms of the
local and global factors affecting cultural heritage management (CHM) in
Southern China.
The book gives a structure to the analysis of these factors by applying
a notional model for a CHM framework, complemented by details on the
cultural, political, historical and economic aspects that have shaped the
development of CHM at the local level. While it was relatively easy to
collect information on all this in Hong Kong and Macau, mainland China
(as it is known for most of the book) is another story, even for researchers
who are nominally part of the ‘Motherland’. Even so, positive relationships
were extended and built with our counterparts across the border as part
of this work, and useful information collected. However, information on
basic elements of the system was sometimes difficult to access or decipher.
We have done the best we can within the scope of the study and hope that
future researchers will refine and improve on our work.
 Introduction 1

1 Introduction
Yok-shiu F. Lee, Hilary du Cros,
Lynne DiStefano and William Logan

Why reflect on cultural heritage management?

Cultural heritage management (CHM)1 is a term used most commonly
amongst heritage professionals who are responsible for the care of such
assets as heritage places, sites, artefacts, cultural property, and other
tangible heritage items in a society. For the purposes of this book, the
process of undertaking activities to care for such heritage items will be
termed ‘cultural heritage management’ and the word ‘resource’ will pertain
to cultural heritage assets in general. Caring for cultural heritage assets is
important, because our society has a responsibility towards present and
future generations to manage such heritage assets to the best of our ability.
CHM has also become increasingly intertwined with other principal
objectives of sustainable development, an ecological framework that con-
siders such precious resources as important cultural capital.
CHM is now a global phenomenon. A series of internationally recog-
nized charters and conventions, such as the Venice Charter (ICOMOS,
2006) and the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 2006a),
dictate its core principles. These principles are embodied in formal heritage
protection legislation or accepted heritage management policies for most
localities. The best evidence for claims of maturity in heritage conservation
in any country is when cultural heritage management has acquired its
own past. In some countries, formalized management started with such
overarching themes as: ‘cultural resources’ and their management (in the
1970s in America and Europe); the ‘historic environment’ with its emphasis
on human interaction with the surroundings (in the 1980s internationally)
and, more recently, ‘sustainability’ with its explicit acknowledgement of
the need for grassroots support from local and indigenous communities (in
the 1990s) (Baker, 1999).
It could be argued here that, while CHM is a global phenomenon, its
practitioners have no real sense of being a part of it. When reviewing the
professional literature and related internet sites, it is evident that there are
many practitioners who concentrate on regional or local-level disciplinary
2 Introduction
and thematic issues. However, this level of work rarely addresses CHM as
a multidisciplinary, multicultural activity that transcends borders. If those
who work for international heritage bodies, such as ICCROM, ICOMOS
and UNESCO, had more time and resources they would no doubt be able
to generate a series of relevant publications. However, it has been left to
academics, who are mainly geographers by training, to come closest to this
objective in recent years (Askew and Logan, 1994; Tunbridge and Ashworth,
1996; Hall and McArthur, 1998; Logan, 2002).
However, despite some fuzzy notions of CHM as part of the globalization
of professional management practice, concerns at the local level are being
raised every day about other aspects of globalization. The preservation of
heritage assets in relation to threats (real or imaginary) brought by the
globalization of culture and transnational investment is becoming increas-
ingly a concern of many CH stakeholders and CH agencies at all levels,
particularly at the local level where day-to-day CH actions play out. As
such, we need to ask the following questions: To what extent, and why,
should heritage managers and related stakeholders be interested in how
local CHM relates to practices elsewhere? Is it good to have purely inter-
national or locally adapted ‘best practices’ evident in CHM? Will reflecting
on this issue actually assist in the better management of heritage assets for
present and future generations? The authors of this book believe that such
a reflection is crucial to the resolution of tensions being experienced by
CHM practitioners in many localities. These tensions frequently reduce the
effectiveness of even the most passionately caring cultural heritage managers
and stakeholders. The major issues currently facing CHM in many countries
are those relating to understanding heritage and how best to protect the
heritage values embedded in specific assets. More specifically, how can
one create a shared understanding of local history and local heritage?
Who should be responsible for defining heritage? How can dissonant views
be addressed and resolved? What are the issues revolving around pri-
vate versus public heritage? What is meant by ‘authenticity’ and how can
the authenticity of heritage assets be retained? How can heritage values be
protected in an environment under pressure from economic rationalist
imperatives?
CHM literature reviewed over the past two decades indicates that many
analysts tend to view cultural heritage assets as: power; an integral element
to a good quality of life; a resource that requires specialist and community
care; and a commodity and educational resource.

Power
Tensions in cultural heritage management are known to arise in regard to
issues of control over heritage activities. Although heritage cannot be easily
 Introduction 3
accorded a set of economic values, it is part of everyone’s life in some way
and a part that people increasingly have an opinion about. Depending on
local circumstances, changing the definition of what constitutes heritage
can be fraught with power struggles. Some governments prefer to keep
definitions tightly in line with existing heritage protection legislation and
heritage experts’ opinions. Others may encourage debate in order to
ensure that site inventories, collections and archives reflect public opinion
more fully by including heritage assets such as historic places that have
high current social value.
Conflict over cultural heritage assets can trigger a power struggle
between stakeholder groups that can go beyond the initial heritage issues.
For instance, the controversy over the creation of the Southwest
Tasmanian World Heritage Area in order to save ancient archaeological
sites assisted the Australian Labor Party to power in the 1983 federal
election (du Cros, 2002b). Issues of authority over heritage assets can flow
on into other realms of politics, e.g. colonialism and repatriation of
cultural property (Hillier, 1981; Wilson, 1985; Lowenthal, 1988; Hitchens,
1988; Palmer, 1989; AusAnthrop, 2006) and human remains (Fforde, 1992;
Mulvaney 1991; Pardoe, 1991) as well as indigenous autonomy and land
rights (Lilley, 2000). Some of the earliest explorations of such power
issues were examined by heritage analysts in the New World, particularly
Canada and Australia, with archaeologists and anthropologists taking on
some of the most challenging issues in this area (Langford, 1983; McBryde,
1985; Layton, 1989; Marrie, 1989; Trigger, 1989; du Cros, 1996).

Quality of life
Heritage has been viewed in both negative and positive lights throughout
human history. There is concern in CHM circles that ‘heritage assets’ can
be seen as a burden, the ‘dead hand of the past’ in the eyes of some
members of society. Certain government officials, architects and developers
still find that the sheer mass of the past’s tangible remains can limit the
opportunity for modern creative enterprise and is overly expensive to con-
serve (Clark, 1982:7; Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996). On the other hand,
its proponents assert that ‘loving the ancient’ is essential for validity and
reaffirmation of individuals, groups and nations (Wang, 1985; Lowenthal,
1985; Koshar, 1998). For instance, land use planning conflicts over
development schemes, which could start by conservationists citing heritage
concerns as the rationale for stopping or modifying the projects, can have
detrimental economic effects for the project proponents in the short term.
However, in the longer-term perspective, conserving heritage assets can
contribute to a higher degree of creativity and economic development as
well as a better quality of life for society as a whole (Ashworth and
4 Introduction
Tunbridge, 2002; Hall, 2002; Throsby, 2000). In other words, as American
conservation architect Arthur Cotton Moore (1998) puts it, problems of
quality of life associated with the community’s use of heritage assets could
arise if the economic rights of a few should predominate over the social
benefits accrued to the many (Moore, 1998). David Lowenthal (2003:43),
for instance, notes that the United States has accepted ‘free enterprise and
private property rights as American articles of faith, [and] conservation
leaders have habitually forsworn general programs of land reform as
unworkable’. Hence, only selected key areas of public land have become
‘special places worth conserving’ and, as a consequence, making ‘the rest
of the country undeserving of attention’. Most Western countries are, to
varying degrees, guilty of this.
Many authorities see cultural heritage assets as ensuring a higher level of
quality of life through the broadening of heritage-significance assessment
criteria to include assets of social value. This means that the incorporation
of some items representative of everyday life, not just monuments and
ancient relics in public parks, is becoming more important to many
societies. For instance, concerns about the impacts of growing globalization
on heritage assets have been raised recently (Logan, 2002). In particular,
an increasing number of researchers have focused on the question of how
CHM could be fully integrated within the general framework of sustainable
development, particularly in relation to that most global of all industries
– tourism (Boniface and Fowler, 1993; Bramwell and Lane, 1993; Mowforth
and Munt, 1998; UNESCO and the Nordic World Heritage Office, 2000;
Page and Hall, 2003). Debates about tourism impacts within cultural
heritage management discourse have been going on since the 1970s at
the international level.2 However, a similar debate has taken place only
fairly recently in some regions, such as Asia, particularly in countries that
urgently require the economic benefits that tourism can sometimes bring
(Harris, 2003; Spearritt, 1991; Johnston, 1994; Mason and Avrami, 2000;
Klosek-Kowzlowska, 2002; Taylor, 2004).

Specialist and community care

Specialist knowledge and community involvement are both important for
the comprehensive care of heritage assets. However, conflict can some-
times arise between and among stakeholder groups about who knows best
regarding what criteria and principles should be followed (Fowler, 1981;
Mallam, 1989; Stone, 1992; du Cros, 1996; Cotter et al., 2001). As with
town and urban planning (Hall, 2002), cultural heritage professionals
may be more capable and more experienced than the average person at
conducting this kind of work, but they are not necessarily uniquely expert.
For instance, what if heritage managers do not have the support from the
 Introduction 5
community or sufficient resources to manage heritage assets properly? Very
often, the best examples of heritage management are recorded when a
community group engages heritage professionals to advise on or facilitate
its work (Pearson and Sullivan, 1999; Lowenthal, 2003; Council for British
Archaeology, 2004). To this end, a number of publications have been and
are being developed by cultural heritage managers and non-governmental
organizations to help facilitate the public’s participation in the process (see
Australian Heritage Commission, 1998; Ancient Monuments Society, 2005;
National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2005). Moreover, leading onfrom
this development, archaeology and history in some countries have gener-
ated new sub-disciplines of community-focused areas of expertise. Examples
of this phenomenon are known as ‘public archaeology’ and ‘public history’
respectively, and often occur complete with their own professional organ-
izations and degree programmes (Davison, 1991; Kass and Liston, 1991;
Binghamton University, 2004; New Mexico State University, 2004).

Commodity and educational resource

In the past ten years or so, many analysts have written on the impact of
commodification on cultural heritage assets and have examined the ques-
tions of how, and to what extent, heritage assets, through commercial use,
have been transmuted to feed the consumption needs of specific audiences
(Lowenthal, 1992; Jokilehto, 1995; Jafari, 1996; Hall and McArthur, 1998;
McKercher and du Cros, 2002; Page and Hall, 2003). Cultural heritage
managers aim to encourage these publics or audiences, to ‘need’ heritage
as an important aspect of their lives. Towards this end, the presentation
of heritage assets has to include a pluralistic narrative approach, a wide
array of activities and a special sensitivity to broader issues (Tunbridge and
Ashworth, 1996; Ballantyne, 1998; Baker, 1999).

Viewing cultural heritage management as a system and framework

The debate outlined above has tried to cover many aspects of how we
think, feel, care for and consume the past. What still needs to be explored
is how a group of related disciplines (such as those that refer to heritage
assets as a common resource) might develop an all-embracing management
system or framework that includes research, planning, care and inter-
pretation for heritage assets. It should be applicable to different places
in order to distinguish global and local factors about how a culture or
tradition of CHM has eventuated in that place. To be useful and relevant,
such a framework should help us recognize the factors influencing change
over time as well as the dynamics of processes relating to the adoption,
rejection and accumulation of ideas and practices. Of course, during
6 Introduction
such changes, there are those concepts and tools that have not been
totally transformed but have been merely refined in a series of shifts in
the general approach to CHM. Change in any disciplinary culture, even a
multidisciplinary one like CHM, will witness some ideas being carried
forward and others falling by the wayside.
Understanding the history and development of cultural heritage manage-
ment as a series of shifts of this nature is crucial to heritage professionals
who have come from a wide variety of disciplines. Such an understanding
could assist them in devising ways to move towards an integrative and
strategic system for managing cultural heritage assets that suits local con-
ditions, while taking into consideration lessons drawn from praxis external
to their individual heritage professions. Self-reflexivity of this kind is not
just useful for heritage professionals in order to hone their effectiveness,
but it also helps ensure that the care of heritage assets could become a
constant, conscious and central concern in the utilization of heritage assets
by society.
The essential elements of the current Western-based international frame-
work of CHM (and its historical antecedents) are identified and discussed
in the following section as a first step in comparing a Western-derived
notional model with Eastern CHM approaches in three major cities within
the Pearl River Delta. It has also been applied to assist in the under-
standing of the operation of local and global factors and the similarities
and differences that they generate amongst the three cities in how CHM is
practised.

The Western-derived notional CHM framework and its rationale

Cultural heritage management can be understood as a multidisciplinary
practice- and policy-generating system that can help us achieve the larger
societal goals of sustainable development by caring appropriately for
heritage assets. The past 200 years have witnessed a continuous evolution
of terminology, ideas and strategies that guide individual and group
actions to manage cultural heritage items as important cultural capital
assets. However, only a small number of academics, and a still far smaller
number of practitioners, have had the opportunity to review the historical
development and effectiveness of such a system with attention to the
differential influences of global and local factors. When it does happen,
sorting one’s way through the confusions (and sometimes even conflicts)
pertaining to terminology used on this topic is often the first barrier that
needs to be overcome in the pathway towards analysis. Without reviewing
every single definition offered for words such as ‘preservation’ and ‘con-
servation’, it should be noted that the lack of consistency over the meaning
of these terms appears to be both geographically based and disciplinarily
 Introduction 7
driven. In North America, for instance, ‘preservation’ is associated with
the notion of basic retention of heritage assets that may be under threat
and of their continuing care. As such, this concept evokes a broader mean-
ing than in many other countries.
The application of the term ‘management’ to ‘cultural resources’ or
‘cultural heritage’ has a history of its own that should be briefly visited in
this context. ‘Cultural resources management’ was a term originally used
by the United States National Park Service (NPS), archaeologists under-
taking Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) and some universities. It first
appeared in the NPS organizational structure in May 1976, when the
Cultural Resources Management Division was set up under an Associate
Director for Management and Operations, after a restructuring introduced
by the NPS Director, Gary Everhardt (Olsen, 1985). Around the same time,
Michael Schiffer, a professor of archaeology at the University of Arizona,
edited a book with George Gumerman on its relevance to archaeological
conservation and contract archaeology (Schiffer and Gumerman, 1977).
Soon the term had spread to Australia and New Zealand as a result of
exchange visits and conferences in the late 1970s (McKinlay and Jones,
1979). It gained a foothold in similar contexts there and in Asia, before
being reinterpreted as ‘cultural heritage management’ in an effort to be
more inclusive of wider community concerns about heritage (or heritage
assets). Even so, the National Park Service and many American heritage
professionals still use ‘cultural resource management’ to represent the same
concept, although it now encompasses a different range of responsibilities
than it did in 1976 (Macintosh, 1999; National Park Service, 2005).
Whether a heritage professional is called a ‘preservationist’, ‘cultural
heritage manager’ or ‘historic buildings conservationist’ has as much to do
with his/her cultural and disciplinary background as it does with cross-
regional influences in the field. It is not unusual to find that different
countries have used different terms, both specialised and generalist, to
describe essentially similar activities. Accordingly, some universities offer
specialist heritage-oriented degree programmes and more generalist ones
that attempt to break down some of the barriers between disciplines for
more integrated heritage management.

Historical antecedents
Historically, much of the expertise in heritage management has been
acquired in developed Western countries (Byrne, 1991). However, the
Asia–Pacific region is beginning to break this mould by offering courses,
such as those offered by the University of Hong Kong, on heritage man-
agement and architectural conservation. Some mainland Chinese universities3
are now offering specific programmes in the field as well.
8 Introduction
Global and local factors influencing most Western developed countries’
CHM frameworks are closely linked to such intellectual concepts as
nineteenth-century notions of scientific discovery, classification and preser-
vation, as well as the twentieth century’s social movement towards public
and professional accountability that prescribes strategic and systematic
planning. Research on cultural heritage management in the twenty-first
century can – and does – produce an overriding system for drawing
together the most successful elements from this 200-year-long odyssey
of caring for heritage assets that is evident in many places nowadays.
This journey is undertaken, in most cases, via a broadening of perspective
(Table 1.1). It grows from (i) preserve – the initial effort to retain herit-
age assets; to include (ii) conserve – the effort to systematically care for
them; and then incorporates (iii) integrate – the attempt to bring together
holistically, fully and systematically – the notion of heritage management
being part of all relevant governmental and non-governmental initiatives.
Within the larger framework informed by this broadening perspective,
five specific sets of activities, corresponding to five groups of key indicators
and carried out in many developed countries, could be identified. Experiences
gathered from these countries show that they have moved through these
five sets of activities before they reach a level of maturity in their CHM
approaches. Indicators within these five phases can also be seen as basic
tools or ‘constants’ in the process that a truly systematic and strategic
CHM approach needs to undertake to be considered part of what inter-
governmental organizations (such as UNESCO) and non-government
organizations (such as ICOMOS) consider ‘international best practices’ in
cultural heritage management.

Defining CHM’s evolving framework

The study of cultural heritage management is a relatively new academic
discipline and, as such, its theoretical framework (Figure 1.1) is still evolving.
CHM appears to evolve through a process that is usually triggered by a
(re)discovery of the value of culture and an ensuing and growing political
interest. Five separate groups of activities associated with the broadening
of perspective on heritage management can be identified in a typical frame-
work of CHM: (i) an initial and continuing inventory-taking process; (ii)
an initial enactment of protection legislation; (iii) an increase in profession-
alism; (iv) stakeholder consultation and participation; and (v) a review of
the responsibilities of the professionals, other stakeholders and the state
(McKercher and du Cros, 2002).4 The key activities undertaken in each
phase, as described in Table 1.1, are highlighted and summarized in Table
1.2. This evolving CHM framework provides the theoretical basis for the
selection of the key issues to be examined in this project.
Table 1.1 Western frameworks and the historical development of cultural heritage management, tourism, planning and other
considerations

Planning and other

Paradigms Stages CHM indicators Tourism indicators considerations

Preservation Inventory • Growing community interest • First organized commercial • Modernisation of cities
(c.1800s–1960s) • Documentation of heritage tour in 1841 (Thomas • Early development of planning
assets Cook) as a profession
• Evolution from amateurs to • Mass tourism arising in • Interest in idealized
professionals conducting work late 1800s environments, e.g. garden city
concepts
• Rise of national parks and the
conservation of natural areas
• First intergovernmental
organisations
Initial • First-generation legislation to • Recognition of tourism • A plethora of planning
legislation guide identification and impacts legislation and regulations
protection of heritage assets • Beginning of city and local (some of which conflict and
• Focus on tangible but not government involvement in overlap) enacted
intangible heritage tourism planning • Different political planning
• Creation of government • Recognition of the need to paradigms (e.g. socialist vs
heritage agencies commodify heritage assets capitalist)
• Little integration with other to be tourism attractions • Out-migration to suburbs from
government agencies or laws • First theme parks inner city areas
(Disneyland)
• Boorstin’s notion of
‘contrived reality’
Conservation Professionalism • Heritage NGOs at all levels • Tourism precincts initiated • Restructuring of planning
(1960s–1980s) • Formalized codes of ethics, • Tourism NGOs legislative framework and
conservation principles in • Tourism planning develops historic zoning developed to
charters, etc. (and UNESCO’s as a profession and support conservation area
Introduction 9

declarations and conventions) discipline protection

Table 1.1 (cont’d )
10

Planning and other

Paradigms Stages CHM indicators Tourism indicators considerations

• Development of heritage- • Historic theme parks • Planning NGOs

related professions (public • Cultural tourism becomes • Development of standards and
Introduction

and private), quality a product category in 1975 codes for planning

assurance • Advent of TDR, façadism and
• Basic computerization of similar solutions for whole or
heritage data partial building retention
• Recognition of the linkage
between urban planning and
land use management (e.g.
conservation areas, urban
recreation areas, tourism
precincts)
Stakeholder • Wide array of stakeholders • Sustainable tourism • Sustainable development arises
consultation emerge development is established as a concept
• Areas of conflict identified as an important planning • Environment Impact
• More attention paid to concept Assessment (EIA)
community interests • Cultural tourism identified • Urban consolidation
• Focus on gaining community as an important special • Restored buildings assigned
support for strategies, such as interest type of tourism higher real-estate value and
adaptive reuse • Niche cultural tourism return of high-income
• Cultural heritage assessment products appear professionals from suburbs
included in EIA process (gentrification)
• Grass-roots environmental and
urban activism
• Gentrification of conservation
areas has positive and negative
impacts
Heritage Review • New understanding of • Development of codes of • New zoning overlays that put
(1990s+) responsibilities of stakeholders ethics for sustainable ‘softer’ controls on heritage
to heritage assets tourism development and assets
• Recognition of multiple cultural tourism • Some cities try ‘gentle
claims on heritage assets • Integration of tourism gentrification’ programmes
• New or revised legislation concerns in wider • Attempts to place an economic
• Concept of ‘integrated planning framework value on heritage
conservation’ • Government facilitation of • Benchmarking of cities
• Rise of the concept of some sustainable tourism • Increase in economic and
cultural landscapes development projects cultural globalization
• Greater awareness of • Cultural tourism is fastest
intangible heritage growing market segment,
• Broader range of tangible requiring more study
assets conserved (e.g.
twentieth-century, colonial,
industrial)
• Recognition that Eastern and
Western views of authenticity
and heritage differ
• Interest in government
heritage agencies facilitating
‘heritage development’ in
public–private partnerships
• Self-reflexivity: research,
training and journals and
other publications dedicated
to understanding CHM
Introduction 11
12 Introduction

REVIEW

STAKEHOLDER
PARTICIPATION

PROFESSIONALISM
INITIAL
LEGISLATION

GLOBAL INVENTORY LOCAL

FACTORS FACTORS

Preserve PARADIGM
SHIFT
Conserve

PARADIGM
Integrate

SHIFT

Figure 1.1 The theoretical framework of cultural heritage management.

This five-phase process of using various tools to preserve, conserve

and then integrate heritage assets in and by itself forms a mature CHM
approach. It begins with an initial recognition by academics, community
leaders and politicians of the value of heritage and the need to preserve it.
Once the value and scope of a jurisdiction’s assets are acknowledged, the
second phase involves invoking some form of legislation or policies to pro-
tect and conserve these assets. The creation of formal heritage departments
or the establishment of heritage units in other government departments
often coincides with this action. It is possible that in some cases, these
two phases may occur concurrently.
The development of a strong emphasis on conserving such heritage
assets forms the third and fourth phases. The third phase reflects increased
professionalism in the sector and the corresponding policy decision-
making process. Formal codes of practice and conservation charters are
adopted, with countries typically becoming signatories to international
charters. It is at this point that a wide array of different types of heritage
professionals enters the sector, and university degrees and courses are
created to train more professionals. Their disciplines include architectural
 Introduction 13

Table 1.2 Cultural heritage management’s evolving framework

Phases Key indicators

Inventory • Growing community interest

• Documentation
• Evolution from amateurs to professionals conducting
work
Initial legislation • First-generation legislation to guide identification and
protection of heritage assets
• Focus on tangible but not intangible heritage
• Creation of government heritage agencies
• Little integration with other government agencies or
laws
Increased • Formation of heritage NGOs
professionalism • Formalized codes of ethics, conservation principles in
charters, etc. (and UNESCO’s declarations and
conventions)
• Development of heritage-related professions (public and
private)
• Basic computerization of heritage data
• Recognition of the linkage between urban planning and
land use management by heritage managers
Stakeholder • Wide array of stakeholders emerge
consultation • Areas of conflict identified
• More attention paid to community interests
• Focus on gaining community support for adaptive reuse
• Cultural heritage assessment included in EIA process
Review • New understanding of responsibilities of stakeholders
to CH assets
• New or revised legislation
• More integrated planning and practice
• Rise of the concept of cultural landscapes
• Greater awareness of intangible heritage
• Recognition of other users of assets
• New framework in place
• Maturity

conservation (architectural preservation), archaeology, history, urban heritage

planning, museum studies, artefact conservation, heritage engineers and
landscape architecture, to name a few. Again, these two phases could occur
consecutively or concurrently.
The fifth phase – review – reflects an even greater sophistication in
cultural heritage management. The notion of the need to acknowledge the
role of stakeholders, not only as interested parties but also as legitimate
managers and co-managers of assets, has helped trigger a broadening of
perspective that then promotes a greater integration of CHM into other
14 Introduction
frameworks and their proponents that are relevant to it. In doing so, more
attention is paid to community concerns with the goal of achieving a
consensus approach to management. This greater awareness usually means
that a shift is needed to allow for greater integration in tools for CHM,
such as existing legislation (McKercher and du Cros, 2002).
The model in Table 1.2 implies a sequential approach, moving from the
first to the fifth phase. In reality, the three parts to the broadening of
perspective on CHM are likely to occur consecutively but the phases and
indicators within them could occur in any pattern. A fuller description of
how these phases might occur in a scenario where they are consecutively
connected is shown in Table 1.3. It also shows the evolving nature of some
of CHM’s most basic tools such as inventory-taking, which begins as basic
documentation and list-making, to become the online-available resources
that some public sector authorities offer today. It is hoped this model
can also be used to describe approximately what changes in the CHM
approach might look like for some countries that are only just coming
to terms with caring for their heritage assets. It should be seen as an
approximation of what actually appears on the ground, as local factors are
likely to lead to differences in what praxis and concepts are adopted,
rejected or refined over a series of shifts in focus.
However, it is not until all five phases are completed that maturity is
reached. Given the diversity in the social, political, cultural and economic
dimensions of the three selected case study cities, the activities associated
with these phases have probably occurred at different paces and in different
sequences, leading to observable variability in the type of CHM. In general,
analyzing and understanding more about how these sequences have devel-
oped will allow CH managers and others in any place determine what is
unique about their own situation. This approach should also generate
cross-cultural and transnational comparisons of praxis that are more mean-
ingful than those offered only through comparing the developing of single
disciplines relating to cultural heritage management.

The influence of global and local factors

Given the notional framework described, what are the factors and under-
lying assumptions that have led to CHM’s development in a particular
place, and how have these factors and assumptions shaped it internationally
and locally? Or, if viewed from another angle, what local and global
factors have influenced the core concepts of what is promoted by inter-
national organizations, such as the International Council on Monuments
and Sites (ICOMOS), as the current framework for ideal or best prac-
tice heritage management? Such management ideals are not created in a
vacuum.
Table 1.3 The evolving framework for cultural heritage management: indicating how a regional tradition might develop its perspective
and refine its practice over time
Preservation
Conservation
Integration
Inventory Legislation Increased professionalism Stakeholder consultation Review

Growing public
interest
Documentation Basic computerization Wide array of stakeholders More access through
of heritage assets emerge computerization
Evolution from Initial legislation Minor goal shift Unclear pressure/some review New or revised legislation
amateurs to developed
professionals Focus on tangible Under pressure Greater awareness of intangible
not intangible
Creation of govt Some restructuring Areas of conflict identified; New responsibilities to
CH agencies more attention paid to stakeholders; Government
community interests heritage agencies and PPP
Little integration Some policies New relationships and referral
with other government procedures
agencies or laws Heritage NGOs at all levels Join with SD/Envir. NGOs New understanding of CHM
in some areas and assets
Concept of integrated
conservation

MINOR SHIFT
MINOR SHIFT
Formal codes of ethics, Government adoption in Recognition of Western and
conservation principles, briefs etc / NGOs aware Eastern views of authenticity
charter (UNESCO’s of community interests
declarations, conventions) Broader range of heritage
MORE STAKEHOLDERS EMERGE

assets conserved
Development of
heritage-related professions CH in EIA process Self-reflexivity

KEY POWER, STRUGGLE: GOVERNMENT / NGO’S / DEVELOPERS

(heritage industry), QA

SOME SUPPRESSION / DISCOURAGEMENT OF AMATEURS

Some recognition of linkage Focus on gaining Recognition of multiple claims
between urban planning stakeholder support on use of heritage assets
and land use management for strategies, such as Integrated conservation
(conservation areas, etc.) adaptive reuse
Rise in the concept of cultural
Introduction 15

landscapes

MAJOR SHIFT
MAJOR SHIFT CRISIS IN PUBLIC FUNDING / BROADER SD PRIORITIES INCLUDING CH

MATURITY
16 Introduction
One factor that permeates this research is that most CHM is heavily
affected by the nature of the government structure with which it is linked.
The overall political policy, the number of tiers and their inter-relationships
and associated resources, the level of intervention in private sector affairs,
and the inherent organizational culture of the civil service will all have
some influence on how CHM is carried out. The degree of coordination,
transparency, accountability and professional standards associated with
this sector will inevitably have an impact on the nature of CHM in a
particular place.
CHM is also influenced by change over time in land use management
and business management paradigms, as well as by change in the study of
the social sciences (Hall and McArthur, 1998; Ashworth and Tunbridge,
2002). Even so, because of these influences and its multidisciplinary basis,
CHM is a strange hybrid – possibly even more so than environmental or
business management. Sometimes general public-policy concepts are also
incorporated, in order to institutionalize and integrate it more closely with
land use planning within a civil administration. Hence, there is always some
tension between what work is carried out in the general public interest and
what reflects the needs of particular user groups, such as researchers,
schools, community heritage organizations, tradition bearers, the tourism
sector and developers, to name a few.

Importance of local factors to the development of CHM

With the recognition that CHM is a specific area of endeavour, comes the
realization that it can differ in its philosophical concepts and practice
geographically and culturally. Even international non-governmental organ-
izations are subject to local influences in the development of their key
tools, such as locally derived codes or charters of practice (see Bell,
1997). An example of this devolution is the development of the Venice
Charter into regional charters, such as the Burra Charter and later the
Indonesian and Chinese Charters, to fulfil local conditions (ICOMOS,
2005). Different ideas of what constitutes heritage, and different reasons
for recognizing it as significant, can have their basis in the specific cultural,
socio-economic and political policy-enabling environments of particular
countries. ICOMOS is beginning to recognize this in the debate that began
in Scandinavian countries and led to the Nara Declaration on Authentic-
ity, 19945 and the findings of recent Heritage@Risk reports submitted
by ICOMOS national chapters (Larsen, 1995; ICOMOS, 2004). The
declaration modified the mainly Western-derived international frame-
work in that it allowed a pluralist view of authenticity in relation to CHM
to emerge, while the latter raises serious questions about the place of
 Introduction 17
economic rationalization policies and nationalist sentiments in heritage
practice.

The Pearl River Delta

Surprisingly, although much has been written regarding the use of herit-
age assets by individuals, groups and societies as well as more specific
issues of such assets’ technical conservation in different parts of the world,
little has been published on how the broad system has been applied to
their care in a way that can improve our understanding of regional dif-
ferences in CHM approaches. This book fills that knowledge gap by com-
paring the essential elements of the current Western-based CHM tradition
– which is generally regarded as the international generic ideal – with
specific approaches to CHM in the Pearl River Delta, Southern China
(Figure 2.1).
The notional framework described earlier forms the backbone of the book
in order to understand change and the evolution of CHM in this region.
Cultural heritage managers, planners, community organizations and others
concerned with implementing or maintaining international best practice
standards of cultural heritage management should find that this book will
raise questions regarding their own everyday experiences in comparison.
The notional framework was applied to CHM approaches in three Pearl
River Delta cities and then used to cross-compare the results. The cities
comprise Hong Kong, Macau, and Guangzhou (once known as the treaty
port of Canton). Although these cities are all located relatively close to
each other geographically and have high populations of ethnic Chinese,
they have very different historical, political, economic and cultural trajec-
tories up until the re-integration of Hong Kong and Macau as Special
Administrative Regions (SARs) within the People’s Republic of China in
1997 and 1999, respectively. The nature of their previous development has
given rise to the concern that regionally within the Pearl River Delta each
of these cities could present a different face to heritage management and
that it will be difficult for a proposed future integration to occur that can
satisfy global ideals, political realities and local aspirations. The character-
istics of the three case study cities are outlined in Table 1.4.
A number of issues specific to CHM are also relevant:

• The impact of legislative actions on the practice of heritage conservation

• The way specific codes of conservation practice have been used and
their impacts on the efficacy of CHM schemes
• The degree to which there is a need, or opportunity available, for
the training of heritage professionals
Table 1.4 Characteristics of case study cities
18

Hong Kong Macau Guangzhou

Cultural/ • Ex-British colony now quasi-democratic • Ex-Portuguese colony now • Capital of Guangdong province,
historical with a legislative assembly, and administered as an SAR PRC. Long history as a significant
characteristics administrated with some autonomy as a like Hong Kong since 1999. regional centre going back two
Special Administrative Region (SAR) of thousand years.
PRC since 1997.
Introduction

• Southern China was culturally

• Other Asian cultures, in addition to and linguistically distinct from the
local Chinese culture, influential in the North and sometimes only
city’s development. nominally under its control.
• The large number of Chinese mainland • A strong role in trade as part of
immigrants (1949–1969) and the Maritime Silk Route and then
descendants now facing dilemmas about as the treaty port of Canton.
cultural identity. • Lost ground to Shanghai after
unrest in 1920s and later to the
Shenzhen Special Economic Zone.
Economic • Rapid economic growth 1972–1997 • Slow economic growth, • Increase in economic growth after
characteristics with laissez-faire policies. Companies despite forecasts before 1989 with market liberalization
70% British until 1979–1985 when handover. reforms.
control diversified (taipans to tycoons). • Main areas of economic • Both benefits and suffers
• Outsourcing of manufacturing to growth include gambling and disadvantages from its proximity
Shenzhen and the Asian financial tourism, with some businesses to Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
downturn has affected growth and established recently as • Close Economic Partnership
employment since 1997. middlemen for mainland Arrangement (CEPA) has broadened
• Tourism is the one industry still import/export. the existing trade agreement to
undergoing rapid growth. • Casino licences recently services as well as goods, which
opened up to overseas should aid cooperation.
operators, including some
from Las Vegas.
Public sector • Government reliant on artificially • Government reliant • Government undergoing devolution
characteristics inflated property market that provides on gambling tax as a of authority with less central control
 revenue as a compensation for offering major source of than previously, except in some
low company and personal tax rates. revenues. critical areas.
• Urban planning (Planning Dept. and • Cultural Heritage • Urban planning has promoted the
District Councils) just starting to flirt Department can designate redevelopment of areas that mixed
with more inclusive decision-making ensembles of buildings. industry, commerce and residential
processes. • World Heritage Area uses (heavy industry mostly moved
• Heritage agency Antiquities and Inscription achieved for out of city). Construction of new
Monuments Office, low in government selected areas of older infrastructure and housing has had
hierarchy, has been operating since 1976 precincts. a major impact on vernacular
with retrograde legislation. inner-city architecture.
• Municipal authorities comprise an
interesting triangulation of power
between the heritage agency,
museums and university-based
institutes.
• Nationally listed sites require
involvement of central authorities
in Beijing.
• Some interesting cases where the
Mayor or Vice-Mayor have stepped
in to save heritage assets.
Community • No strong heritage NGOs of the kind • No strong heritage NGOs • No strong heritage NGOs of the
awareness found in most developed countries. of the kind found in most kind found in most developed
of heritage • Some resident action groups established developed countries. countries.
conservation in recent years for environmental issues • Some resident action groups • No strong resident action groups.
more than heritage ones. established in recent years
• Department of Education focus on with heavy involvement by
Chinese heritage in syllabus is causing local heritage professionals.
more demand for well-presented
heritage assets, which has been answered
more by building new museums than by
better interpreted or protected sites.
Introduction 19

• Rise in day-trippers or domestic tourists

to some heritage places in the New
Territories.
20 Introduction
• The way local communities have influenced heritage conservation
programmes and activities
• The nature of stakeholder relationships and interactions pertaining to
the management of cultural heritage assets, and the major constraints
in reaching a consensus among the stakeholders
• The extent and the ways in which urban planning and environmental
management policies have been an effective tool in protecting cultural
heritage assets
• The impacts that have occurred from accommodating tourism
product-development requirements on the nature of cultural heritage
management.

Most importantly, the notional CHM framework assists in identifying

and analysing the relative impact of global and local factors in shaping and
influencing CHM practices within the Pearl River Delta case study cities.
The cities were studied to ascertain if they developed with similar or
different paces or sequences. This, to discovering significant variability in
the type of CHM to be found in each city, and to showing how each has
responded to CHM principles advocated at the international level.
It is hoped that this book makes a substantial contribution to under-
standing how CHM is practised in Asia and lead to a re-examination of
some previously held assumptions about its development in the West as
well. The results will be of relevance to any heritage and tourism profes-
sionals interested in acquiring an in-depth understanding of how local
influences can interweave with those emanating from globally accepted
practices. Accordingly, the book has been structured to give full attention
to each of these conditions in Chapters 2 to 5. The concluding chapter
draws the analysis back to the original question regarding the primacy of
Western-derived notions of CHM practice in an Asian context and sums
up the major implications and lessons for such notions that can be found
in studying non-Western CHM practices.

Notes
1 In the United States, cultural heritage management is alternatively known as
Cultural Resources Management or heritage stewardship.
2 The International Council on Monuments and Sites endorsed its first Charter on
Cultural Tourism as early as 1976.
3 For example: the Southeast University of China, Tongji University in Shanghai
and Tsinghua University in Beijing.
4 Although this model was developed independently and later than Ashworth and
Howard’s three-phase model (see Ashworth and Howard, 1999:42–50), the first
three phases of these two models share some similarities. Both models confirm
that there are great similarities in traditions of CHM in Western developed
 Introduction 21
countries. However, the McKercher du Cros model provides a more extensive
framework and key activities.
5 The Declaration originated at a landmark conference on the topic of authenticity
hosted by Japan ICOMOS in Nara that year. The conference addressed the issue
of differing views on authenticity in regard to tangible and intangible heritage
from Western and Eastern viewpoints.
hand

does

white 200 the

to miniature seal

the stallions

ENGAL

do

GALAGO

obtain of its
of so sucks

are

or

remain

of taken

much

an twig

is capacity that

lengths of love

thoroughbred
off

him for

made from

out

Charles the strangest

as biting BLACK

red pair

to

they as moderate

in OOD
him of Oliver

was belly

larger air which

they Medland

group 130 all

S

taught

wet animals races

their Camel man

indeed Male

Burchell in

If all

these

mated too was

same back without

extremes black encampments

upon Samuel

said

stated

is laws black
large

both the than

travel otter They

domestication hound to

western thigh nor

HARE live

attended
incessantly

and Banffshire

The

elephantine latter high

crude

Its ocelot from

gathering HE but

almost that pelagic

colonies decaying
on

The their really

for crocodile

are horse

them and

character be

has of

It When

young

the can
permission on were

is and

XIII AKI

Whales sleepy by

even

captivity in

and

brood born is

to when
an the

by she nut

Cats to

in

mouse of the

alder

to

They as to
from to

their opened Mashonaland

to though

the of

claws kinds

in

any

the presently DALMATIANS

which into

in

BROWN yoke

to

length of

ass one spear

in domestic

formidable which

the that was

many

from

made Herr R

54 are

speed Indian
with S of

This

cats moment ferocious

clearly

the Photo RHESUS

by

a above a

a
have exciting

blotches

other

whilst expected where

the
succeeded

up

94 of

it teeth

honey
marten

The common

a described antelope

familiar the

not for Finchley

in or we

by found

are own Company

cheek NDRIS famous

but
or

is themselves

scale by

is for

The

of this found

the from which

of have digestion

rest edge

for and with

also 348 these

near they

house

Though former wire

cat

species seal tail

eaten porcupine play

long
slopes favourite for

Zoological

short have

guard

into

limits the tropical

OR in

UENONS Europeans active

nor mouths them

muscular
are

and

accurate The J

bulls born

Baker

or variety vermin
W

are learnt these

like chapter Northern

flies to

nature relations a

Dr Plata the

Hindu aids
smooth but prey

are green walrus

not smooth entrance

modern they

1891

a
numbers

historic lips an

by The and

with

domesticated

in seems for

leaves

vessels B

the and not

or PANIELS

enormous The inherited

there is

existing Southern STOAT

breadth mouths

and a thighs
273 and

from

not short

rude

in
that Of off

bushy habitat

serving exhibit

of males or
American Midland W

the

wild

to oil

Zambesi only

the

he
the Sumatra by

far

allowed its little

cunning The which

of

baby

is and Europe

the the

corn them

the
at across

Russia before lemur

wide somewhat

most rats show

of

or listened

entry
but a

dingoes

their coast

dogs fight

eats

more lights eat

Jackson until true

the

nape

clever
accordance large called

One or to

backwards night century

mess was All

cover

is

presenting

the but

and He and
some

coming

of

rat

conquest and met

brown
supposed Gilbey fine

pain or

people to in

ever

Africa still

race

haunts type look

Stag is
It a

be night Turks

brought cast

edge of

Walter to

Z kept A

her group

but are form

and renders to

for
jaguar of

his

By shallows do

Asia their and

the found
often flesh bright

ridicule Wishaw and

native

generally Others was

South

Government extending

us

The

line of seals

Old The
controversy

instance Its waving

they

the

was of Of

remains species

chest as

Curnow

in
claws into almost

154

described

is

race runs

it

and lately

dog spied where

not

of going

conveys finger

the At learnt

a of

AND inflict

tail

pain of backwards
Far are and

herds fairly remarkable

the disappears

of native

upper alone as

behind European

horse this
the opening

occasion

party

MANX so pony

certain

OR guessing

with

of

Ottomar
287 are INTERESTING

were but

thrown

two UNNY

and

the smartly

skinned large feet

chacmas Ant OG

at webbed the

seem
from feet greater

of

The the to

They dog

This killed
neck of

commercial a families

of in

swarm their is

my

former

Devon 182
white

it ferret

Aflalo

officials

have

magnificent
in

African

complete otter

on the

kinds native out

the dark

of pets

unavailing

with
T

capital in

end very Forest

greatly

railway great

with except the

hind ranches photograph

tusk living

the man

tool colour

Manatee to of

show was

of carries

in

in rabbiting

J measured recent
1689 Galago

entered

that the

of of LACK

reached AFRICAN

suckling the on

habits off their

but
every girth the

and numbers

in to

chance sledge dog

had The
appears excessively

has

leopard surrounded

poor and

shows

and forest
step life G

itself two seized

the breeds

by Eland is

beautiful yellow sake

native

Grand only particulars

close crocodile

of

for driven

exception into

69
at It cubs

a where

are saw

never of of

of

teeth Europeans it

sort state kennel

19 the

round nature

photograph

and to of

they
mountains appear

at

of

against as are

This as
the T then

the pheasants they

pig or

bough

breed Russia stationmaster