10.

1177/0885412203251149
ARTICLE for Urban Heritage Places
Planning
Journal of Planning Literature

Planning for Urban

Heritage Places: Reconciling
Conservation, Tourism, and
Sustainable Development

Noha Nasser
A conflict between the preservation of the character of existing historic towns and change has formed the central argument for conservation. More recently, heritage has superseded conservation, where marketing of heritage as a product
according to the demands of the consumer, mainly tourists,
has resulted in the commercialisation of heritage over conservation values. Today, the symbiosis of both tourism and heritage places has become a major objective in the management
and planning of historic areas. This article examines the current conflicts among the ideas of conservation, heritage, and
tourism and argues for a sustainable approach to the management and planning of heritage places based on a community
and culture-led agenda.

Keywords: culture; heritage; conservation; tourism; sustainability

Globalising forces inherent in the shift from produc-

tion to consumption are influencing changes in the built

environment and in their local cultures. This is most
acute in places of heritage value where the local culture
with its built heritage is being transformed into a product for tourist consumption. The global scale of tourism
and its accrued uniformity are increasingly evident,
particularly the proliferation of standardised hotel

architecture, restaurant chains, and street furniture.

Similarly, local cultures are losing their local identities
as global cultural industries dominate (Oncu and
Weyland 1997). With the emergence of a greater number
of destinations competing for unique tourist experiences, traditional historic places are undergoing a
redefinition and reinterpretation of their cultural heritage in order to be competitive and attractive. By doing
this, however, heritage places are responding to the
commercial forces of consumer demand, and in many
cases conservation and cultural values are being compromised. This article provides a critical analysis of ecological, economic, and social equity implications of conservation and heritage. It presents the idea of
sustainability as an overarching framework for managing tourism in heritage places based on the balance
between sociocultural needs, economic gain, and the
protection of the heritage resource.
Within the context of planning in historic environments, a dichotomy exists between preserving the past
for its intrinsic value and the need for development in
NOHA NASSER received her Ph.D. in 2001 on sustainable urban
design and regeneration of a historic part of Cairo from the University of Central England (UCE). She is currently a lecturer in architecture and urban design at UCE undertaking further research on
the relationship between culture and urban design.
Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 17, No. 4 (May 2003).
DOI: 10.1177/0885412203251149
Copyright 2003 by Sage Publications

468

Journal of Planning Literature

response to changing societal values. This conflict

arises from the new sense of historicity and a romantic
nostalgia for the past, which according to Lowenthal
(1985), stems from a psychological need to know the
past as a reference point, although how we know the
past varies from personal experience through fallible
memory to learned history. Lowenthal shows clearly
that we want old things to seem old, with antiquity
valued and validated by decay and the patina of age.
Hewison (1987) describes this continued fascination
with the past as a symptom of national decline and a
loss of confidence in the future. Concepts such as symbolism, whereby certain attributes of past landscapes
are imbued with a symbolic significance for the present
landscape and its inhabitants, are part of this nostalgia.
Within the sustainability discourse, Campbell (1996)
believes that the romanticised past offers little to planning. He states that our modern path to sustainability
lies forward, not behind us (p. 302). In his view, taking
a historical perspective is not instructive; solutions to
the problems of preindustrial society are not transferable to those created by modern industrial and
postindustrial society (Campbell 1996). Although this
is true at a general theoretical level, planning for
sustainability in heritage places is significantly different because of their inextricable link to the past as a continuum. Heritage places represent layers of evolving
traditional forms of architecture and city building
that have together created a sense of place. Urban
planners recognise the link to the past and its influence
on the sense of place as an important dimension of sustainable places, strengthening local identity, contributing to investment, and retaining communities (Beatley
and Manning 1997). Any sustainable future for historic
contexts, therefore, must be intrinsically linked to its
past, not just in the continuity of the built heritage
and urban spaces but also in the living culture that
created, and is still shaping, the distinct townscape, or
genius loci, that characterises heritage places.
This article highlights the various concepts associated with heritage places that should be considered in
any sustainable planning for these areas. The first concept discusses building preservation and conservation
in which the primary concern is protecting the built and
cultural heritage. The second concept revolves around
the exploitative nature of heritage tourism in which
commercial gain has created an imbalance in conservation and cultural values. The third and final concept is
that of sustainable tourism that argues for an alternative tourism that will contribute to both conservation
and development objectives, as well as safeguard social
equity and cultural values.

FROM BUILDING PRESERVATION TO

URBAN CONSERVATION

A brief introduction to the historical roots of conservation will highlight many of the continuing debates of
modern conservation approaches, especially issues of
selectivity and authenticity. Jokilehtos (1999) thorough
overview of the history and theory of architectural conservation includes the origins of the interest in conservation within the European context where it began. The
first half of the eighteenth century paid increasing
attention to cultural diversity and national identity
through the development of the Grand Tour. These
were visits to countries such as Italy, Greece, and the
Levant to collect and study works of art, mainly oriented toward classical studies that soon became an
established feature in the education of an English gentleman. Travellers also founded special societies, and
the members came to play an important role in preservation based on an increasing awareness of the universal value of important works of art and historic monuments stressing the beginning of a more general feeling
of responsibility for their care. Therefore, the first
approach toward conservation was that of repair and
restoration, influenced by a small and wealthy intellectual lite.
Changing fashions influenced approaches to the
conservation and restoration of historic objects and
places. Classicism at the end of the eighteenth century
encouraged the idea of mimesis (the imitation of models or objects in order to reach the closest possible
resemblance), which was challenged in the age of
Romanticism. This new approach of stylish restoration was founded on respect for the original style not
any more for purely aesthetic reasons but due to the
buildings significance as a representation of achievements in the nations history (Jokilehto 1999). Restoration of a historic building came to be seen as a scientific
activity that aimed at stylistic unity as an illustration of
an ideal.
The conception of stylistic restoration during the age
of Romanticism raised issues of authentic restoration
and style selectivity that faced increasing criticism in
the second half of the nineteenth century and saw the
rise of an antirestoration movement and modern conservation. Two schools of thought developed on the
principles of restoration, as Jokilehto (1999) explains:
the first wanted to preserve the remains even if mutilated; the second group preferred to go ahead with a
careful restoration (p. 149).
The new method of restoration, according to Violletle-Duc (1987), consisted in principle that every building
should be restored in its own style, not only as regards

Planning for Urban Heritage Places

appearance but also structure. Restoration had come to
mean reinstating the building in a condition of completeness that might never have existed at any given
time. This also meant the replacement, and in some
cases storage, of the original, historical material that
was lost to the building itself. An example of the manifestation of this principle can be seen in England, where
stylistic restoration of churches and cathedrals was
most prominent. National monuments, such as
churches, represented a living tradition that was the
restorers responsibility to maintain and take care of in
order to guarantee its functioning as part of society. The
restorers came to be termed the Ecclesiologists whose
objective was to restore churches back to their former
glory, in their best and purest style. Considering that the
buildings had been modified in various periods, preference was given to restoring all to one style rather than
preserving each part in its own form (Jokilehto 1999).
The antirestoration movement, instigated by John
Ruskin in the midnineteenth century, was directed at
the fashion of stylistic restoration, criticising restoration
architects for the destruction of the historical authenticity of the buildings and fighting for their protection,
conservation, and maintenance. Ruskin argued that
authenticity meant a retained building should be
restored to its original state and use where possible and
that its age gave it historical value and interest. William
Morris, founder of the Society for the Protection of
Ancient Buildings (SPAB), reflects the beginning of the
modern approach to conservation that quickly spread
internationally. The SPAB manifesto addressed a number of issues on authenticity and originality in the evaluation of historic buildings.
Among these were that: protection was now not limited
to specific styles any more, but based on a critical evaluation of the existing building stock; and, that ancient monuments represented certain historic periods only so far as
their authentic material was undisturbed and preserved
in situ; any attempt to restore or copy would only result
in the loss of authenticity and the creation of a fake.
(Jokilehto 1999, 185)

This new concept was termed the buildings historicity,

which identified that each period and each culture, with
its peculiar conditions and requirements, defined the
artistic values of the period.
Since the 1960s, shifts in the approach toward conservation widened the object of attention to ensembles and
areas, as opposed to the previous approach, focusing on
buildings or their remnants as monuments. The presence of an overall architectural quality or historical
association would define an area, often denoting a sig-

469

nificant historical and social relationship to the rest of

the town. The major changes and different pressures on
historic towns in the last half of the twentieth century,
reflected by a wealthier society and a transportation
revolution, was increasingly in need of both architectural and socioeconomic protection.
Therefore, urban conservation has three interrelated
objectives; physical, spatial, and social (Orbasli 2000).
Physically, it is linked to building preservation and the
type of new development to ensure that a towns past,
its present, and its future combine to create a recognisable unit, so that its growth can be seen and felt to be
continuous (Worskett 1969). This involves seeking to
improve old environments and bring them into modern
use by adapting the townscape, but as Larkham (1996)
suggests, this is hard to achieve without wasting some
of the investment of previous societies. Spatially, it is
viewing the townscape as a holistic entity, with its relationships between spaces and their use, as well as circulation and traffic. The third objective, and most
neglected, is social, which concerns the users, local
community, and the urban population. Orbasli (2000)
argues that although the social dimension is the most
difficult to define, it is the most important, as continuity
in conservation can be achieved only through the continuation of urban life.
The literature on urban conservation reflects the gap
in integrating the social dimension. Factors of selection,
restriction and expansion, efficient use, and viability
are rather more product focused, concerned with the
physical attributes and their commercial potential, and
not with the users, residents, property owners, and
those who depend on the area for their livelihoods.
Nevertheless, these factors merit discussion since they
provide a guiding framework on how historical qualities and individual identities can be retained without
unnecessarily inhibiting a reasonable degree of essential growth and modernisation.
Selection
The spirit of place or genius loci has introduced
concepts of unity and diversity that have influenced the
selection of conservation-worthy areas and even planning policies; all urban landscapes contain elements of
both variables. Some are highly uniform where diversity may be confined to minor details and embellishments. Other areas are highly diversefor example, in
architectural styles and materialsbut may retain
some uniformity in, for example, plot widths and story
heights (Larkham 1996). Conzens (1966) morphogenetic approach to townscape management follows
the belief that new buildings introduced into areas pro-

470

Journal of Planning Literature

tected for their architectural or historical significance

should respect the character of the existing built form.
In his book, The Character of Towns, Worskett (1969)
advocates that the townscape be used as a guide to the
design and siting of new development, so the
townscape becomes the link between preservation and
change. He argues that although individual buildings
contribute to the overall quality and character of a
town, they cannot be considered the only constituent
part of that character, nor necessarily the most important part. Visually, most towns derive their identity and
personality from the way in which individual buildings, both good and not so good, together create a general atmosphere and build up a recognisable local
townscape.
To evaluate a towns genius loci, selectivity is necessary to grade aspects of a towns identity in order of priority for conservation. However, the selection process is
influenced by differences in interpretation of values;
just like any other phenomena, it is subject to change
and even fashion. Larkham (1996) assesses the tensions
that abound in discussions between heritage, conservation, and urban form:
There are clear conflicts of ideology in the design and
production of the built environment. Some of these conflicts may be due to changing professional approaches
and philosophies over time, such as moves from urban
renewal to rehabilitation and conservation. Conflicts also
arise in the move in architectural fashions, with styles
governed by the preference of leaders in architectural
taste. (P. 18)

Until very recently, social attitudes depicted in the case

of conservation were those of the ruling class, the lite
intellectual force. These lite claimed to represent public opinion, but were small in proportion to the general
population, and tended to focus their attention on
major monuments and areas of high land values. However, rising academic pressure has forced local amenity
groups to consider vernacular heritage as worthy of
conservation as the heritage of the social lite
(Ashworth 1990).
Changes in preferred styles have had significant consequences for the urban cores being conserved. Extensive developments are often given faades that attempt
to give the appearance of comprising more than one
building of traditional plot widths. Larkham (1990)
describes, in the case of Britain, the approach of
faadism: rebuilding in forms suitable for modern
functions behind a restored and retained faade. Such
techniques retain the visual appearance of historic
areas, although they may obliterate much of the historical and architectural significance of individual build-

ings and lead to the loss of the townscape grain

through plot amalgamation (Larkham 1990). Nevertheless, Hubbard (1993) has examined the reactions of residents toward this approach and has found that they do
not perceive this as a problem but consider external
appearance as more important than authenticity or
originality. This rekindles the authenticity debate: the
need to identify a buildings architecture as an accurate
revelation of the past as a fixed truth. In a key contribution to the literature, Ashworth and Tunbridges The
Tourist-Historic City (1990) argues that authenticity as it
is defined needs to be replaced by a more flexible concept. Their argument revolves around the idea that the
existing stock of old buildings are a result of survival
over time, dependent on such factors as building type,
materials, districts and towns, natural catastrophes,
and socioeconomic pressures. Hence, a range of fundamental biases exist that distort authenticity of conservation as an accurate revelation of the past, before it has
begun. In their words,
If authenticity is the accurate reflection of the past
through its architecture, then skilful reconstruction may
be more authentic than scattered remnant relics. Most old
urban structures are the result of much adaptive reuse.
Restoration therefore faces the problem of choosing
which past from many should be restored. (Ashworth
and Tunbridge 1990, 24)

Restriction and Expansion

Legislation has been used to embody the outcomes
of the selection process, putting conservation area allocations in place and creating building listings. The process of identification, delimiting, and designation differs from country to country. Nevertheless, the siting of
the conservation area in relation to other areas of the
town will have established the areas physical and
social importance. Worskett (1969) defines the term conservation area as follows:
It must be taken to mean an area in which preservation
will be a principal planning aim but in which some
change, although small in scale, must nevertheless take
place. The listing of buildings is also determined by their
special historical or architectural interest. Listing adds an
administrative layer of protection to a building, so that
change is controlled. (P. 48)

However, there are critics who question the amount

of protection that conservation area designation or the
listing of a building offer. Bourne (1967) highlighted the
idea that it is the age of the building stock, coupled with
changes in function and economic influence through
time, that leads to change in the urban landscape. Struc-

Planning for Urban Heritage Places

tural and functional obsolescence are depicted as a natural process of decline that lowers the effectiveness of
the building. However, with periodic maintenance or
adaptation, the structure will be able to continue to perform acceptably. Major rebuilding considerably
extends the life span of the building, whereas the
absence of either process leads to neglect, decay, and
demolition. The legal implications of the designation of
listed buildings, or conservation areas, suggest that
these buildings and areas are, to a considerable extent,
isolated from the usual cycle of demolition and rebuilding. Restoration leads to the preservation of the building, or area, in the form of rebuilding. Functional obsolescence is overcome by seeking appropriate alternative
uses for older buildings. In this manner, conservation
prolongs the life spans of building beyond that which is
usual. This affects historic town centres through the
principle of restriction and expansion. The restrictions
that conservation areas and listed buildings may have
on new development, due to greater demands for space
or inappropriate uses, will require the expansion of new
sites for development in other areas of the town. Such a
scenario holds the danger that development will seek
peripheral areas, shifting with it the urban core and central business district (Worskett 1969).
Efficient Use and Economic Viability
Another aspect of prolonging the life span of conserved buildings is that of adaptive reuse. To be effective, theorists argue that conservation must be based on
efficient use and economic viability. These two qualities
are interdependent; the economic viability of a building
depends on the use to which it can be put. For a building
to function efficiently, it must not only be convenient to
use but also capable of use at reasonable cost. Fundamental direct and indirect economic forces are at work.
The former makes apparent that adaptive reuse of
buildings is more economic not only in general terms
(e.g., the conservation of energy represented by the
built environment) but absolutely (i.e., relative costs of
old and new built space). Rehabilitating, instead of
demolishing sound but decayed structures, generally
offers a more economically and socially less disruptive
means of renewing cities (Fitch 1982). The conservation
ideal is for the original building use to persist, but it is
more likely that use will change over time. The more
robust the building type, the less impact that changing
land uses will have on the fabric. Nevertheless, the
other side to the argument is that whatever the environment, a building will remain empty unless there is a
demand for a structure of that type. Efficient use of a
building requires either a ready-made demand or a new
demand that should be created for it (Worskett 1969).

471

THE SHIFT TO THE HERITAGE APPROACH

Heritage is the most modern phase of conservation.

It is the concept that provides the link between the
preservation of the past for its intrinsic value, and as a
resource for the modern community as a commercial
activity (Ashworth and Tunbridge 1990, 24). In some
cases, this approach has been referred to as exploitation where there is an apparent shift to a market orientation that focuses upon the relics of history as a
product, selected according to criteria of consumer
demand and managed through the intervention in the
market (Ashworth and Larkham 1994, 16). On the
other hand, preservation and conservation have no
such direct implication and focus on the artefact or area
itself. This distinction has consequences in the
approaches to historic city management.
Ashworth (1992) argues that heritage is the product
of a commodification process in which selection is
central: heritage conservation is creation and not preservation of what already exists. The nature of the final
product (as heritage) is not determined by the resources
endowment, nor can it reflect any supposedly accurate
factual record of the past. Schouten (1995) adds that heritage is a product and, as a product, it is subject to difference in validation and interpretation as the historical
process itself. Heritage changes over time in the way it
is presented and also in the ways in which the public
reacts to its presentation. Hence, there is a tendency to
change the past to suit changing requirements; relics
can be adapted, added to, copied, and interpreted, all of
which idealise the past.
Since heritage cannot logically exist without a consumer, then, in effect, the consumer defines heritage.
Then, the perceived problem of authenticity is largely
irrelevant in heritage planning, because the consumer
authenticates the resource. Wilsmore (1994) discusses
the credibility and importance of authenticity in
heritage:
Philosophically, it is possible to consider whether it is
wrong to replace the old with the new in order to deceive
the eye. Thus, in projects which are open to public view, it
may be argued that the intention is to allow the public to
see the grandeur of the original design. Therefore, it may
be possible to return to a finish which, to the uninformed
eye, appears original. This then begs the question
whether something is allowed to be recreated for the
tourist who is too unfamiliar to be critical. But should
appreciation be just scholarly activity or for those that are
otherwise informed? (P. 25)

One answer may be that the uninformed viewer should

be educated to be able to perceive what is fake and what

472

Journal of Planning Literature

is not, otherwise the truth lies hidden and the viewer is

corrupted. Moreover, there is a counterargument that if
change is not shown to be change, by alteration in sympathetic but modern design or honest repair, then the
ability to distinguish change over time will be arrested.
Lowenthal (1985) supports the latter, that in interpreting or presenting the past, there are constant distortions
that distance the reality from that which is seen by modern visitors. Lowenthal feels that this problem is compounded by the naivety of audiences who do not have
the cultural capital to understand heritage.
Another faction believes that heritage is being less
distorted than recreated. Hewison (1987) invokes the
idea of an identical copy for which no original ever
existed. He provides this analogy of the museum experience: the ultimate logic of the new type of museum is
the museum that has no collection, the Heritage Centre,
where the original purpose of having a museum (i.e., to
preserve and interpret, in a scholarly way, a significant
number of objects) has been almost entirely displaced
by the desire to give the visitor some kind of more or
less pleasurable experience. As a result, the distinction
between museums, heritage sites, and theme parks is
becoming more blurred. As museums move toward
greater variety in forms of presentation and interpretation, theme parks are showing greater awareness of
authenticity (Herbert 1995). These phenomena are
referred to as museumification and disneyfication
(Larkham 1995). One example of museumification,
Colonial Williamsburg in the United States, shows how
conservation has largely ignored the depth and dynamism of a living urban environment in favour of the
re-creation of a sterile and superficial setting of a past
lifestyle (Tramposch 1994). This represents a new type
of cultural heritage museum based on the reenactment
of history aided by the assembly of authentic materials
to create scenes appropriate to a period and animated
by waxworks or people dressed up in period costumes.
Similarly, disneyfication is the creation of an area
based on an abstracted, fictional history made to look
and feel authentic, first seen in Disneyland in California
with the re-creation of the American Main Street of the
nineteenth century. But this trend has spread to urban
areas, such as the case of St. Nicholas quarter in east
Berlin, in which buildings and urban spaces have been
replicated in authentic-looking medieval styles for
which there is no historical origin in order to provide a
pleasurable tourist experience (Newby 1994). These
trends have proved popular, however, calling into
question whether tourism-led development is undermining many of the precepts that conservation is based
on, particularly an overemphasis on the physical, external aspects of heritage and conservation, at the expense
of an in-depth understanding of urban culture.

THE TOURISM-HERITAGE RELATIONSHIP

Although increasing wealth and leisure time have

led to increased tourism, which has been the impetus
for heritage planning, the relationship between planning, heritage, and tourism is one of paradox (Urry
1990). As with any economic activity, tourism makes
use of resources and produces an environmental impact
that amounts to exploitation if the quantity and quality
of those resources are degraded. Newby (1994) identifies a complex relationship between heritage and tourism in which culture evolves from being a shared entity,
to being exploited, and in extreme cases created. When
culture is shared, tourism and heritage coexist so that
tourism revenues can be used to sustain and conserve
environments of heritage value. However, when culture is exploited or created, there is an explicit domination of commercial values over conservation values as
tourism becomes central to the local economy. In this
instance, the cultural heritage becomes a consumer
product susceptible to a selection process restricted by
the choice, fashion, and taste of international organisations involved in the marketing of the heritage product,
and the consumers.
Selectivity in tourism generates cultural and economic problems, of which the latter has the greatest
impact on the conservation of the built heritage. Commercial pressures exerted through the tourism industry
may lead to public investment in conservation being
directed disproportionately to support the tourism
economy. This leads not only to area bias in conservation but a style or time bias as well.
Moreover, tourism activities result in land use selectivity. Tourist activities and the growing number of
tourists induce spatial transformation processes.
Changes in the morphology of the place, in the physical
structures, in the functional patterns, and in the use of
public space all contribute to this transformation process. Jansen-Verbeke (1997) reveals that different tourist
activities have a physical impact on artefacts in the
urban environment. Tourists visiting historical cities
are attracted by the spatial concentration of historic
buildings as a setting for sight-seeing and the range of
opportunities for cultural activities such as visiting
museums. The number of attractions and the actual dispersion of interesting artefacts in the historic city
explain to a large extent the way in which the tourist
activity is evolving in time and space, causing
overcrowdedness, traffic congestion, shortage of parking, biased range in retail trades, rising prices, and
intrusion in the private domain, ultimately leading to
conservation bias (Jansen-Verbeke 1997).
Tourists may be strongly attracted to the conserved
relics of the past, but tourists also require modern sup-

Planning for Urban Heritage Places

port facilities. Those functions that support the tourist
activity may provide a use and justification for parts of
the historic city, but simultaneously they attract lesswelcome land use demands, such as hotels and infrastructure needed to cope with the high demands of
tourists (Ashworth and Tunbridge 1990). The progressive domination of tourist service functions leads to
functional conversion, particularly from retail to food
service provisions, and the expansion of the tourist area
into surrounding craft and residential areas. A uniformity in retail and service provision such as the introduction of fast-food outlets, modern car park facilities,
street furniture, and standardised hotel architecture
often represents a significant distortion of what is
required to serve the local population. In fact, tourism
brings with it the erosion of differences between heritage places, even though it markets what passes for
individuality (Newby 1994).
Moreover, a particular form of tourism referred to as
enclave tourism occurs where the type and location
of facilities are not oriented toward the local community (Healy 1992). Money generated from these
enclaves generally has little effect on the local economy
or even the host country, especially if foreign interests
own them. Heritage shopping is one example of a district created specifically to serve the needs of recreation
and particularly the needs of the tourists. Although
from a conservation perspective the historic buildings
are being reused, two problems arise. First, more attention is paid to the conservation of those areas of the historic city that are intensively used by tourism, resulting
in land use selectivity. Second, this leads to upward
inflationary pressure on local economies. Prices of land
and property, as well as the goods that are being sold,
are neither affordable nor responsive to local needs.
This export orientation ultimately leads to higher
rent prices, distorting the character of the area and creating an outsider zone in the heart of the historic city.
Moreover, if land is sold as freehold to the developers, it
means loss of sovereignty for the locals, translated into
loss of control in decision making, as well as loss of
benefits.
Similarly, both economic pressures and time bias
govern building selectivity. As previously observed in
urban conservation approaches toward the reuse of
individual buildings, the best alternative is generally to
have a function whose values are sympathetic to building form. However, the preeminence of economic forces
generated by tourism means that frequently commercial activities, often with a leisure or tourist dimension,
conflict with form (Newby 1994). This conflict between
whether conservation is concerned with a building as a
structure or as a shape raises questions on authenticity.
Significant structural changes to historic buildings

473

often indicate that more value is placed on the exterior

to generate revenues from the progressive commercialisation of tourist activities, rather than valuing the building as an integral whole.
The selection process in conservation also depends
on the age and rarity of buildings. The buildings differences, its ambience, and its imageability support its
conservation value and are also the basis for its attraction to tourists. Many towns have evolved through
many periods and hence offer a variety of architectural
styles dating up to the modern age. These towns are
now faced with the problem of favouring certain periods above others. As a result, less favoured areas fall
into economic decay and fabric deterioration, whereas
other areas receive priority funding (Newby 1994).
Ashworth (1994) attributes selectivity to the marketing
of heritage places as products driven by the requirements of the consumer: They [heritage places] are
assemblages of many diverse elements: thus the same
resources can be used in the production of a wide array
of place products serving an equally wide variety of
consumer markets (p. 23). Thus, depending on the
changing tastes of consumer demand, buildings from
diverse periods will experience unevenly distributed
conservation efforts.
More recently, urban theorists have drawn attention
to the ways in which tourism conflicts with the living
culture. Where culture is made to serve tourism and is
simultaneously transformed into a market-oriented
commodity, a revalued or sanitised history results
(Larkham 1995). According to Herbert (1995), locals are
in danger of becoming part of the spectacle of tourism, gazed upon by outsiders who know little or nothing about their culture or society. Some of the social and
cultural problems that arise stem from the different cultural norms and assumptions perceived by both the
tourists and locals on such issues as child labour, the
role of women, religion, alcohol, and so on that may be
shocking or offensive to either side. The greatest conflict between host and visitor occurs in the different cultural uses of urban space. Private space, such as those
associated with residential areas, as well as religious
space are the most sensitive to tourist intervention
(Orbasli 2000). Thus, the development of heritage
places and the increase of tourist numbers may bring
with them an invasion of privacy. Tourism, which has
been heralded as a means of cross-cultural understanding, can also be the cause of cultural confrontation, augmented by the lack of cultural awareness on the visitors behalf. In addition, this cultural confrontation can
be unintentionally exacerbated by displays of wealth
and consumerism that may be disruptive to locals.
Tourism also induces changes in local lifestyles and cultures. Imported ideas on heritage induced by clich

474

Journal of Planning Literature

images that become symbolic of certain cultures, such

as dragons or belly dancers, promote the vulgarisation
of culture (Dahlan 1990). This can be seen in the performance of cultural acts that become a form of entertainment to the tourist industry, destroying their inherent
meaning (Furze, de Lacy, and Birckhead 1996). Similarly, tourists and their desire for souvenirs and
artefacts create a market for replicas that devalues cultural items. The demand for tourist items can also lead
to a loss of some local crafts in favour of those that cater
to the tourist, such as T-shirts and souvenirs.
Tourism also has economic impacts on local populations of historic cities. The local economy may be disturbed through the introduction of tourist earnings
making some locals richer than others. High inflation
from tourism pushes prices up beyond the reach of the
local community, restricting resources to foreign investors and tourists that could cause resentment among
locals. This results in inevitable economic leakages,
compounded by the international organisational
arrangement of tourism. The majority of tourists originate from the developed countries, and consequently
their tour, travel, and accommodation needs are largely
coordinated by firms based in these countries. As a
result, a large percentage of expenditure is not made at
the destination end. Britton (1982) estimates that the
proportion of a total inclusive tour price that is retained
locally drops to only 22 to 25 percent, if both the airline
and hotel are foreign-owned.
CAN HERITAGE TOURISM BE SUSTAINABLE?

The realisation that mass tourism in many cases is

destructive of culture, the environment, and the built
resources has contributed to the development of alternative forms of tourism. Viewed as a form of alternative
tourism, the concept of sustainable tourism has been
motivated by the growth in environmental awareness
among many people and the recognition among conservationists that tourism is one method of capturing
conservation values for conservation purposes. However, the term sustainability has become a catchphrase,
which, partly because of its imprecision, has attracted
widespread interest from proponents and opponents.
The ambiguity lies in the potential conflict in terms: sustainable implies a state that can be maintained, is ongoing, perhaps even unchanging, whereas tourism implies
the dynamic process of change to suit consumer
demands. On the other hand, the ambiguity also potentially permits flexibility and fine-tuning to meet the
needs of different places and cultures.

From its inception, the concept of sustainability has

revolved around managing current and future development by reconciling the three es: environment, economy, and an equitable society. One of the first definitions was given in 1987 by the Brundtland Report (the
World Commission on Environment and Development) as development which meets the needs of the
future without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (p. 8). This underpins
the basic precept of intergenerational equity that calls
for natural resource conservation and environmental
protection for the good of future generations (Jepson
2001). But equity is not just about the distribution of
resources, services, and opportunities. It also includes
issues of quality of life and community participation in
decision making as advocated by Beatley and Manning
(1997). Jacobs (1991) defines sustainability as the capacity of the environment to accept demands without irreversible or otherwise unacceptable change. In this view,
the ecological concept is one of defining the carrying
capacity of an environment to sustain a certain population, and beyond that level, the species will collapse
(Beatley and Manning 1997). Sisman (1994) suggests a
concept of sustainability entailing a long-term objective
when he argues that sustainability must include a
working partnership that blends good environmental
practice and profitable business for mutual long-term
advantages. Therefore, sustainability acknowledges a
critical natural capital that must be maintained for
future generations. This does not, however, rule out
change. As English Nature (1992) suggests, there are
other conservation elements of lesser value that are
compensatable. That is, they themselves could be
damaged or lost, but they could be replaced by other
elements of equivalent worth to ensure constant environmental assets. From an ecological perspective, the
system is capable of reproducing itself on the long term
through renewal and recycling, as well as creative innovation (Campbell 1996).
Sustainable tourism is rooted in sustainable development, in the sense that if tourism is to contribute to sustainable development, it must be economically viable,
environmentally sensitive, and culturally appropriate.
Two schools of thought have developed views on sustainable tourism. The first argument reflects the functional approach of analysing tourism and its impact on
the tourist destination as a cultural resource, whereas
the second is referred to as the political economy
approach, which takes the view that in order to minimise the worst examples of exploitation, host countries
and populations need to seek public ownership of the
tourist industry and direct marketing of the product

Planning for Urban Heritage Places

(Lea 1988). Wall (1997) supports the first approach and
is skeptical when he argues that
few see tourism as a pollution-free industry which is
environmentally benign, although many would accept
that it is in the long-term interests of the tourist industry
to assure the longevity of the resources on which it
depends. But this is easier said than done, for tourism
exhibits many of the attributes of common property
resources, with most money being spent on transportation, accommodation, and food and beverages, and relatively little being directed to the maintenance of the natural and cultural heritage resources on which tourism
ultimately depends. (P. 46)

Nevertheless, proponents of sustainable tourism

believe that if development is founded on small-scale,
locally owned activities, tourism can fulfil a
nonconsumptive use of resources, which appears to
have the potential to serve both conservation and local
development roles as well (Furze, De Lacy, Birckhead
1996). In this case, the benefits are threefold. First, there
will be less need for financial investment in infrastructure and superstructure facilities compared to conventional mass tourism. Second, locally owned and operated businesses will not have to conform to the
corporate Western identity of multinational tourism
concerns and therefore can have a much higher input of
local products, materials, and labour. Third, the profits
made should accrue locally instead of flowing back to
the state or foreign organisations (Cater 1994).
In support of the functional theory, scholars like
Richard Butler identify the paradox of sustainability
and tourism. Butler (1997) argues that tourist destinations are deliberately changing in anticipation of, or to
reflect changes in, customer preferences brought on by
the competitive nature of tourism. Such a pattern of
induced change runs both counter to and in sympathy
with the principles of sustainable development.
One of those principles is the long-term viewpoint commitment, and the encouragement of the dynamic element
in tourism destinations can be viewed as contrary to that
ideal. On the other hand, keeping a destination attractive
to tourists, and changing its characteristics when deemed
necessary, can be argued to be one of the ways of ensuring
sustainability of tourism in that destination, i.e., continuing to make the destination capable of attracting tourists
over the long term. (Butler 1997, 109)

This conflicts with concepts of conservation that imply

not merely an inheritance from the past but a passing on
of that inheritance intact to future generations. The way

475

destination areas change and frequently obliterate or

change overwhelmingly the inherent features that first
made them attractive to visitors has become known as
the tourist area life cycle (Butler 1997). Ashworth
(1995) believes that the different types of resource valuation the concepts of sustainability and tourism
embrace can be reconciled. By making an analogy to
natural resources that are renewable or nonrenewable,
he highlights the advantage of cultural resources as
possessing the former quality, in the sense that they are
not in a fixed supply. Ashworth (1995) argues that the
conservation movement creates the resources it conserves, in so far as its stimulation of an awareness of historicity endows value to objects or buildings which previously had no such ascribed value (p. 56). Equally,
conflicts about many cultural resources can be resolved
by moving; rearranging; and, even within limits, duplicating them. This is compatible with strategies on
sustainability of natural resources that stress the possibilities offered by recycling and renewal. In terms of
cultural resources, this notion encompasses the recycling of the past and renewal in the sense of repair and
reconstruction that are clearly essential.
Butler (1997) attributes the decline in the tourist destination cycle to the unchecked development of the destination until it exceeds its innate capacity to absorb
tourism and its associated development. After this
point, problems emerge, which if not addressed satisfactorily would result in subsequent visitor decline.
Ashworth (1995) believes that the link between
resource valuation and output equity can be made
through the concept of carrying capacity as a tool for
heritage management. This concept determines the
maximum use of any place without causing negative
effects on resources, the community, economy, culture,
and environment, and the subsequent loss of visitor satisfaction (Wahab 1997). However, even though these
principles appear to be central to sustainability, JansenVerbeke (1997) illustrates the complexity of the multidimensional character of carrying capacity. It is impossible to decide on the limits to the numbers of tourists that
a city can carry in a particular time span. The impact
of tourism is not only deduced from actual numbers of
tourists but to a large extent depends on the combined
impact of tourism-related activities in a particular
urban environment and the physical changes induced
in the built environment.
The concept of carrying capacity has been used as a
form of management for tourist destinations in several
countries. In Britain, Chester City Council has adopted
such an approach in bringing historical issues to the
centre of the decision-making stage. The methodology

476

Journal of Planning Literature

sets out to measure the change in special historic qualities as circumstances alter by the use of easily available
indicators. The sum total of all the special qualities, the
indicators of change, and the possible critical points of
future change make up the capacity framework. Following on from this analysis, the capacity framework is
used to work out several hypothetical scenarios representing a possible future for the town (Arup et al. 1995).
There is danger with this method, in that manageable
physical capacities may not coincide with other optima,
such as the limits of existing societies to absorb the
demands of tourism without provoking negative reactions. There is, in addition, a serious danger that any
general capacity figures used as the basis of overall
management neglects the specific capacity of particular
locations or sites. This is common when considering
secondary supporting tourism services where capacities are controllable rather than the primary heritage
facilities, which are often more difficult to monitor and
control visitor access (Jansen-Verbeke 1997).
The political-economy approach, on the other hand,
dwells on the structural inequalities in world trade,
characterised by severe distortions and imbalances in
the share of income and profits from tourism that
remain inside a peripheral economy. To minimise these
effects, theorists argue that governments would need to
intervene in the market, oversee integration of planning
and implementation, and encourage local involvement.
Cater (1994) uses these criteria to suggest ways to
ensure sustainable tourism. In his view, allowing the
free play of market forces is not conducive to sustainable outcomes when tourism organisations benefit
from increasing visitor numbers at the expense of the
environment. Cater suggests governments should have
greater control of the markets through fiscal measures
on tourism companies, such as forcing them to build in
appropriate cost and price signals, together with incentives for environmental protection, and other measures
such as taxation. The introduction of foreign visitor fees
to heritage places is one method of subsidising heritage
places by the users themselves. The fees levied should
then be channelled back into ensuring sustainable tourism development with a lower charge for locals.
Sustainable tourism activities concerns many government ministries, so it is vital to integrate planning
for sustainable tourism with national development
plans in general and sector targets in particular. It is also
necessary to recognise the mutually dependent interests of the public and private sectors in tourism. It is in
the governments interests to create the conditions and
business environment within which private local business can make a reasonable profit.
Finally, the most vital factor to ensure sustainability
of tourism development is to increase local involve-

ment. There has been a growing consensus among

scholars of the importance of local involvement to
ensure sustainability, as Rees (1989) encapsulates,
Sustainable development is positive socioeconomic
change that does not undermine the ecological and social
systems upon which community and society are dependent. Its successful implementation requires integrated
planning, and social learning processes; its political viability depends on the full support of the people it affects
through their governments, their social institutions, and
their private activities. (P. 13)

There are sound reasons for local involvement other

than the moral obligation to incorporate people in shaping their own destiny. In terms of the conservation of
the cultural resource base, the local populations time
perspective is longer than that of outside entrepreneurs
concerned with early profits. The longer view is also
likely to ensure that traditions and lifestyles are
respected. There are also sound reasons in terms of creating local employment and reviving the local economy. The nature of involvement should take many
forms, not just the provision of schools, hospitals, and
social services financed from tourism but also through
the replacement of alternative economic livelihoods, if
the traditional is being removed from the community
(Cater 1994). Such an involvement extends beyond economic survival, environmental conservation, and
sociocultural integrity, but it allows the community to
appreciate its own resources (Furze, de Lacy, and
Birckhead 1996).
Both approaches to conceptualising tourisms place
in development are, in theory, not in complete opposition to each other. They are both useful in highlighting
the diversity of the subject. The functional approach
emphasises the considerable economic importance of
the industry to all participants and on ways to improve
its efficiency and minimise its adverse effects through
good management and appropriate policy measures.
The political-economy approach sees the need for the
tourism industry to take more financial responsibility
for the long-term maintenance of the heritage resources
on which it depends, by allowing governments and
local communities to hold higher stakes in tourism and
in the management of their historic resources.
CONCLUSIONS

On the whole, there is consensus that sustainability

and planning are both compatible and complementary
(Campbell 1996; Jepson 2001), although there remains a
continued lack of a balanced, holistic approach to guiding development and moving toward sustainability

Planning for Urban Heritage Places

(Berke and Conroy 2000). The focus is primarily on creating more liveable built environments rather than integrating a more holistic view of community development. The absence of a social and cultural perspective is
also evident in the conservation and heritage planning
literature, in which the physical product forms the principal focus. This has raised philosophical problems of
selectivity, authenticity, interpretation, and re-creation
of the cultural heritage that have defined and redefined
the meaning and significance of the cultural resource.
More practical problems stem from the dichotomous
relationship between preservation for posterity and
change and development necessary for keeping heritage places alive and attractive.
This article has examined the potential relationships
between tourism, conservation, and planning within
the sustainability discourse. Four objectives have been
identified: (1) the need for long-term planning, (2) the
need to protect the cultural heritage as a natural
resource that if overexploited will be degraded, (3) the
acceptance of change and development to ensure continuity, and (4) the need to consider equitable access to
heritage resources by the local community and visitors.
Therefore, to plan for an agenda for heritage places
as an integrated part of a holistic view of community
development, two interrelated approaches should be
realised. The first approach is to reunite urban form,
that is, the buildings and urban spaces, with the activities and uses that take place within them. The second
approach is to integrate land use planning with social
ideals (Campbell 1996; Jepson 2001). In heritage places,
this means managing and resolving the dominance of
tourist activities over local needs and aspirations,
reflected in the transformation of land uses and buildings, the disruptive use of public and private space,
changing ownership patterns, and the externalising of
the local economy.
Within this framework, the management of change is
crucial to the long-term survival of heritage places.
Change associated with historic buildings should
involve adaptive reuse and reconstruction in order to
combat both structural and functional obsolescence in
accordance with changing social needs. This process of
renewal and recycling has two objectives. First, it protects a critical capital of cultural assets for future generations, and second, it preserves the genius loci and
sense of place that gives historic areas their individuality. The process of renewal also redefines the concept of
authenticity from one that is focused only on the past to
one that views the present as part of the continuum.
Skilful reconstruction rather than restoration, therefore,
contributes to the added value of the building and
forms part of its evolution (and survival). Compatible
uses also raise the buildings economic viability, pro-

477

moting the efficiency of local economic activities and its

social benefits. The degree of change to the historic fabric is defined by the selection and legal designation of
conservation-worthy buildings. However, this article
has also highlighted that too much legislated protection
can restrict essential growth and modernisation, pushing development to peripheral areas. To a large extent,
this can be controlled by integrating conservation areas
within comprehensive development plans to promote a
strategy for transportation, environment, energy, land
use and design, and public facilities that applies not
only to local areas but to the city scale (Berke and
Conroy 2000).
Change in the way of creative innovation is also
essential to ensure the continued vitality of heritage
places. The replacement of building stock so that new
forms meet changes in social and cultural values, as
well as in materials and technology, is a form of reproduction and revitalisation to provide the cultural assets
for future generations. Conzen (1966) introduced the
concept of historicity in his work on conservation of historical townscapes and their management. He noted
that this quality was not a permanent attribute but may
be lost; the rate of loss increasing geometrically compared with the amount of destruction of traditional
forms and the quality of the associated redevelopment.
Thus, the location, form, and quality of new development are paramount and should be managed under
architectural design guides and controls informed by
an active involvement with, and interpretation of, the
existing context stressing the continuity between time
frames (Tiesdell et al. 1996). The contextual juxtaposition of robust buildings will give an added value to the
built environment, replacing structurally obsolete
buildings with resources capable of sustaining future
activities. The quality of new development also reinforces the sense of place that supports community identity and attachment (Berke and Conroy 2000).
In terms of the sustainability of heritage places, managing tourism can have substantial inherent potential to
underpin sustainable development and conservation.
First, tourism can yield economic development at the
local, regional, and national levels, creating jobs and
bringing in much-needed foreign income. However,
mechanisms for ensuring equitable access to social and
economic resources and their distribution among all
social groups of the local community require careful
management. One area of sustainability that has
received markedly less attention is that of financial
resource mechanisms. Revenues generated from tourism should feed back into the local community through
mechanisms of cross-subsidisation such as revolving
trusts to refurbish and reclaim buildings or enforced
entrance fees to tourist attractions. These revenues

478

Journal of Planning Literature

could operate to improve local incomes, saving and

enhancing whole areas of towns. Second, tourism also
has the potential to create more demand for conserving
buildings including less valued monuments and overlooked traditional environments (Orbasli 2000). Third,
tourism can create uses for redundant buildings, which
if carefully managed, can contribute to preservation.
Fourth, tourism can also increase an appreciation for
the historic environment, contributing to greater local
and cross-cultural understanding.
Tourism, however, does create conflict between visitors and hosts that needs to be resolved in the educational, spatial, and participatory realms. Tourists
should be made aware of the cultural customs of host
communities available through sufficient information
and orientation of the heritage place and its people. By
educating tourists, they can become more accountable
for conservation goals and the way they use the heritage place. This has spatial implications; raising their
awareness of cultural space helps define tourist areas
versus no-go private space. Visitor management should
also include restricting tourist numbers in heritage sites
by dispersing the tourist activity within the town to
relieve pressures (Orbasli 2000). Addressing the communitys needs and aspirations while raising awareness of the value of the cultural resources should also be
an important goal in tourism and conservation activity.
This can be achieved by the reuse and building of new
forms that are an expression of the communitys cultural, social, and economic values. A greater role in
decisions related to tourism management, development, and the reuse of historic buildings is one way of
securing this objective.
In conclusion, tourism can have positive attributes
for conservation and development in heritage places.
For planners, the principal goal is to create a strategy for
minimising the adverse impacts and maximising gains
from tourism. This would have to include the management of the cultural resource and the quality of new
development, the uses and activities the built environment sustains, and the integration of both these factors
with the sociocultural needs of the local community.
REFERENCES
Arup, BDP (Building Design Partnership), and Michael Breheny.
1995. Environmental capacityA methodology for historic cities.
Final report for Chester City Council, Cheshire County Council,
Department of the Environment, and English Heritage.
Ashworth, Gregory J. 1995. Environmental quality and tourism and
the environment. In Sustainable tourism development, H. Coccossis
and P. Nijikamp, eds. Aldershot, UK: Avebury.
. 1994. From history to heritage: From heritage to identity: In
search of concepts and models. In Building a new heritage: Tourism,
culture, and identity, G. J. Ashworth and P. J. Larkham, eds. London:
Routledge.

. 1992. Heritage and tourism: An argument, two problems and

three solutions. In Spatial implications of tourism, C.A.M. Fleischer
van Roojen, ed. Groningen, the Netherlands: Geo Pers.
. 1990. Can places be sold for tourism? In Marketing tourism
places, G. J. Ashworth and B. Goodall, eds. London: Routledge.
Ashworth, Gregory J. and Peter J. Larkham. 1994. A heritage for
Europe: The need, the task, the contribution. In Building a new heritage: Tourism, culture and identity, G. J. Ashworth and P. J. Larkham,
eds. London: Routledge.
Ashworth, Gregory J., and J. E. Tunbridge. 1990. The tourist-historic
city. London: Belhaven.
Beatley, Timothy, and Kristy Manning. 1997. The ecology of place:
Planning for environment, economy and community. Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Berke, Philip R., and Maria M. Conroy. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? An evaluation of 30 comprehensive plans.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 66, 1: 21-33.
Bourne, Larry S. 1967. Private redevelopment of the central city.
Research paper 112. Department of Geography, University of Chicago, Chicago.
Britton, Stephen. 1982. International tourism and multinational corporations in the Pacific: The case of Fiji. In The geography of multinationals, M. Taylor and N. J. Thrift, eds. London: Croom Helm.
Butler, Richard. 1997. Modelling tourism development: Evolution,
growth and change. In Tourism, development and growth, S. Wahab
and J. J. Pigram, eds. London: Routledge.
Campbell, Scott. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban
planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association 62, 3: 296-312.
Cater, Erlet. 1994. Ecotourism in the third worldProblems and prospects for sustainability. In Ecotourism: A sustainable option? E. Cater
and G. Lowman, eds. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Conzen, Michael R. G. 1966. Historical townscapes in Britain: A problem in applied geography. In Northern geographical essays in honour
of G. H. J. Daysh, J. House, ed., 56-78 Newcastle upon Tyne, UK:
Oriel.
Dahlan, H. 1990. In what way can culture serve tourism? Borneo
Review 1: 129-48.
English Nature. 1992. Strategic planning and sustainable development. Consultation paper. David Tyldesley Associates on behalf of
English Nature, Peterborough, UK.
Fitch, James M. 1982. Historic preservation: Curatorial management of the
built world. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Furze, Brian, Terry de Lacy, and Jim Birckhead. 1996. Culture, conservation, and biodiversity. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Healy, Robert. 1992. The role of tourism in sustainable development.
Paper presented at the IVth World Parks Congress on National
Parks and Protected Areas, February 10-21, Caracas, Venezuela.
Herbert, David T. 1995. Heritage places, leisure and tourism. In Heritage, tourism and society, D. T. Herbert, ed. London: Mansell.
Hewison, Robert. 1987. The heritage industry: Britain in a climate of
decline. London: Methuen.
Hubbard, Phil. 1993. The value of conservation: A critical review of
behavioural research. Town Planning Review 64, 4: 359-73.
Jacobs, Michael. 1991. The green economy: Environment, sustainable
development, and the politics of the future. Concord, MA: Pluto.
Jansen-Verbeke, Miriam. 1997. Urban tourism: Managing resources
and visitors. In Tourism, development and Growth, S. Wahab and J. J.
Pigram, eds. London: Routledge.
Jepson, Edward J. 2001. Sustainability and planning: Diverse concepts and close associations. Journal of Planning Literature 15, 4: 499510.
Jokilehto, Jukka. 1999. A history of architectural conservation. Oxford,
UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Planning for Urban Heritage Places

Larkham, Peter J. 1996. Conservation and the city. London: Routledge.
. 1995. Heritage as planned and conserved. In Heritage, tourism
and society, D. T. Herbert, ed. London: Mansell.
. 1990. Conservation and the management of historical townscapes. In The built form of Western cities, T. R. Slater, ed. Leicester,
UK: Leicester University Press.
Lea, John. 1988. Tourism and development in the third world. New York:
Routledge.
Lowenthal, David. 1985. The past is a foreign country. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Newby, Peter T. 1994. TourismSupport or threat to heritage. In
Building a new heritage: Tourism, culture, and identity, G. J. Ashworth
and P. J. Larkham, eds. London: Routledge.
Oncu, Ayse, and Petra Weyland. 1997. Struggles over Lebenstraum and
social identities in globalising cities. In Space, culture and power: New
identities in globalising cities, A. Oncu and P. Weyland, eds. London:
Zed Books.
Orbasli, Aylin. 2000. Tourists in historic towns: Urban conservation and
heritage management. London and New York: E & FN Spon.
Rees, William E. 1989. Defining sustainable development. Center for
Human Settlements research bulletin. Vancouver, Canada: Center
for Human Settlements, University of British Columbia.
Schouten, Frans J. 1995. Heritage as historical reality. In Heritage, tourism and society, D. T. Herbert, ed. London: Mansell.
Sisman, Richard. 1994. Tourism: Environmental relevance in
ecotourism. In EcotourismA sustainable option? E. Cater and G.
Lowman, eds. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

479

Tiesdell, Steven, Taner Oc, and Tim Heath. 1996. Revitalizing historic
urban quarters. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Tramposch, W. J. 1994. Heritage recreated in the USA: Colonial
Williamsburg and other sites. In Cultural tourism, J. M. Fladmark,
ed. London: Donhead.
Urry, John. 1990. The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Viollet-le-Duc, Eugene E. 1987. Viollet-le-Duc 1814-1879Lectures on
architecture, Vols. 1-2, translated by B. Bucknall. New York and London: Constable.
Wahab, Salah. 1997. Sustainable tourism in the developing world. In
Tourism, development and growth, S. Wahab and J. J. Pigram, eds. London: Routledge.
Wall, Geoffrey. 1997. Sustainable tourismUnsustainable development. In Tourism, development and growth, S. Wahab and J. J. Pigram,
eds. London: Routledge.
Wilsmore, Susan. 1994. The ethics of restorationIs it wrong to
restore buildings? Paper presented under the theme Conservation
Philosophy and Practice, November 14-18, at the Institute of
Advanced Architectural Studies, University of York, UK.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our
common future: The report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Worskett, Roy. 1969. The character of townsAn approach to conservation. London: Architectural Press.