2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Space does not permit proper recognition to all of those who have made this chapter in
my academic career possible; therefore, I will endeavour to be as brief and substantive
as possible. I am profoundly indebted to my professors and mentors at the University of
Memphis – especially Dr. Daniel Swan, Director of Chucalissa / C.H. Nash
Archaeological Museum and Dr. Leslie Luebbers, Director of the Art Museum of the
University of Memphis. Their confidence and support extended to me, in my time there
and afterwards, is most welcome and sincerely appreciated. I would also like to extend
my gratitude to the professors, tutors, and administration at Sotheby’s Institute of Art-
London for allowing me the opportunity of a lifetime.
However, the bulk of my gratitude and admiration is reserved for you, Dad. Your
influence and gentle, guiding hand have forever been my templates for success. You
have never failed me and have always provided enlightened inspiration when I most
needed it. Thank you for your unwavering belief in my potential and planting those
seeds in me so long ago. This dissertation is for you – a fruit most sweet and long
ripened...one that, hopefully, does not fall far from the tree. Altissima quaeque flumina
minimo sono labi.
3. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED............................................................................................. iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ..........................................................................................................v
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................................15
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................29
CHAPTER 4
WORLD HERITAGE SITES: PROFILES AND MARKETING STRATEGIES ..........................38
CITY OF VALLETTA - REPUBLIC OF MALTA.................................................................40
ANCIENT CITY OF NESSEBAR - REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA...........................................51
CITY OF BATH - UNITED KINGDOM............................................................................61
CHAPTER 5
DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................66
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................75
4. iii
APPENDICES
I CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF ARMED
CONFLICT (THE HAGUE CONVENTION)...........................................................................79
II UNESCO CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL
AND NATURAL HERITAGE.................................................................................................94
III VIENNA MEMORANDUM ON “WORLD HERITAGE AND CONTEMPORARY ARCHITECTURE –
MANAGING THE HISTORIC URBAN LANDSCAPE’.........................................................107
IV UNESCO REPORT ON THE USE OF THE WORLD HERITAGE EMBLEM.........................112
V ICOMOS NOMINATION OF THE CITY OF VALLETTA...................................................119
VI ICOMOS NOMINATION OF THE ANCIENT CITY OF NESSEBAR ..................................121
VII ICOMOS NOMINATION OF THE CITY OF BATH ...........................................................123
VIII SAMPLE OF VISITOR SURVEY FORM ...............................................................................127
IX VISITOR SURVEY RESULTS ..............................................................................................131
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................133
5. iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED
BCE / CE Before the Common Era / Common Era
ICOMOS International Committee on Monuments and Sites
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation
WHC World Heritage Committee
WMF World Monuments Fund
The use of these terms is in keeping with the growing custom of the social sciences and humanities in
expressing historic/prehistoric dates. It is intended to replace the BC/AD (before Christ/anno domini)
nomenclature in the hope of providing a culturally neutral format to identify these dates. The figures,
however, remain the same; e.g. 470 BC = 470 BCE and 2006 AD = 2006 CE.
6. v
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
1. Maerten van Heemskerck, The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (wikimedia.org)
2. Maerten van Heemskerck, The Colossus of Rhodes (wikimedia.org)
3. UNESCO Headquarters Building – Paris, France (Jones/UNESCO)
4. UNESCO Seal designating World Heritage List status (UNESCO Website)
CHAPTER 3 – METHODOLOGY
5. Map of Europe Showing Locations of Selected UNESCO World Heritage Sites
(European Commission)
CHAPTER 4 – WORLD HERITAGE SITES: PROFILES AND MARKETING STRATEGIES
CITY OF VALLETTA - REPUBLIC OF MALTA
6. Valletta, showing the spire of St. Paul’s Anglican Church and the dome of
Our Lady of Mount Carmel
7. Valletta, with the War Museum on the waterfront and the fortifications of Fort
St. Elmo in the background
8. The Auberge de Castille, Valletta, now the Prime Minister’s Residence
9. Entrance to the Grand Harbour and Barriera Wharf, Valletta
10. View Across the Grand Harbour, Valletta
11. Detail of Architectural Iconography, Valletta
8. 1INTRODUCTION
umanity has long practiced the veneration and cataloguing of those things from
its past that are deemed worthy of remembrance and preservation. More often
than not, these collections were paeans to the past, documenting our predecessors
achievements in feats of both artistic and architectural endeavours. The most enduring
legacy of this tendency is the list first compiled by the ancient Greeks around the 2nd
century BCE, with the idea given its nascence in the writings of Herodotus in his
Histories, written in the 5th century BCE. (Pressouyre 2000: 18) Taking the shape one is
familiar with today only in the late Middle Ages, the so-called ‘canonical’ list of the
Seven Wonders of the Ancient World was first established when depicted in engravings
by the Dutch artist/architect Maerten van Heemskerck (1498-1574). (Ashmawy 2004)
The list, in chronological order of construction, is as follows: The Great Pyramid of Giza,
The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, The Statue of Zeus at Olympia, The Temple of
Artemis at Ephesus, The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, The Colossus of Rhodes, and The
Lighthouse at Alexandria. (Illus. 1 & 2)
Given the still persistent view that accords ancient Greece the honour of being
the birthplace of culture, it is not surprising that five of the seven on the list are Greek in
H
9. 2
origin. The remaining two are from ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures, long
vanished and, apart from Biblical narrative and traveller’s stories, largely forgotten well
into the Middle Ages. Only with the coming of the Renaissance to Western Europe did
attention begin to turn to these long-vanished civilisations of the Eastern Mediterranean.
Now widely taught in Western schools in the present day, the canonical list of the Seven
Wonders of the Ancient World serves as a reference point for viewing the collective past
of humanity and its accomplishments through its (mostly) vanished monuments1. The
only site to remain standing into the present day is the Great Pyramid at Giza, near
present day Cairo, Egypt.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
The early years of the 21st century open with many of the vestiges of our historical and
collective heritage destroyed and subsequently lost for future generations. Natural
disasters, neglect, conquest, and the ravages of numerous wars have all taken their toll
on the world’s populations and their respective cultural artefacts. It is from the
collective will of the nascent United Nations in the aftermath of World War II that the
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) was born,
with the lofty goal “to build peace in the minds of men” (UNESCO 2003b: 1). Through
1 It is worth noting that this list has a modern day incarnation. Swiss philanthropist Bernard Weber has
created the ‘New 7 Wonders’ list. He states, “Through film, television, the Internet and books, people shall
be alerted to the destruction of nature and the decay of our man-made heritage. Monuments in jeopardy,
perhaps in a dangerous state of decay, can be saved by publicizing their beauty and highlighting their plight
to the international community.” Whereas the aforementioned canonical list is the opinion of several
distinct individuals over the course of history, the new list is determined via public voting conducted on the
New 7 Wonders website (http://www.new7wonders.com). The results from this vote are to be announced to
the world 07 July 2007.
10. 3
the sharing and dissemination of knowledge by the signatories of the treaty that
established it, UNESCO hoped, in no small way, to prevent conflict on the scale the
world had recently witnessed.
Almost a decade after its formation, the states parties to UNESCO formulated
and adopted a resolution that still resonates today. The 1954 Convention for the Protection
of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague Convention) grew from the
notion that the emergent world order had to have a hand in the prevention of the
widespread destruction and looting of monuments and works of art that had
characterised much of the Second World War. (Appendix I) While not entirely a new
idea – cultural heritage first became a part of international law at the turn of the 20th
century with The 1907 Hague Regulations Concerning the Law and Customs of War on Land –
the Hague Convention served as the template for legislative action to come in latter
years (Blake 2000: 62).
In a dramatic example of how the Hague Convention took a major role in
fulfilling its mission, 1959 saw the world’s attention focus on Egypt in what is still
regarded as one of the 20th century’s most ambitious and successful engineering feats –
the relocation of the monuments at Abu Simbel. At a cost of over $80 million USD, half
of which was donated by some 50 states parties, this project rescued an invaluable part
of the world’s cultural heritage and preserved it for future generations. (UNESCO
2005d: 5) The success of this project and the show of international unity in its execution
11. 4
led UNESCO to draft even further legislation regarding the preservation of cultural
heritage around the world.
The narrow focus of previous attempts at preserving the cultural heritage, by
only serving to protect such things during times of conflict or, as illustrated above, in
times of dire threat, was substantially broadened in 1972 when UNESCO produced The
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage (the World
Heritage Convention). (Appendix II) Its premise maintains that there are certain places
on Earth of exemplary human value that are the common heritage of humankind,
regardless of location. Indeed, its guiding principles are summed up in the thoughts of
two world leaders, separated by over three decades. Firstly, in the time leading up to its
creation:
“It would be fitting...for the nations of the world to agree to the
principle that there are certain areas of such unique worldwide value
that they should be treated as part of the heritage of all mankind and
accorded special recognition...[This agreement] would extend special
international recognition to the areas which qualify and would make
available technical and other assistance where appropriate to assist in
their protection and management.”
President of the United States of America,
Richard Nixon, in a speech advocating the
adoption of the World Heritage Convention,
1971 (quoted in Reap 2006: 234)
12. 5
And, secondly, upon the occasion of welcoming the United States back into UNESCO
after an almost 15-year absence2, one of the late 20th century’s most notable and
influential world leaders proclaimed the following to be the World Heritage Convention
and UNESCO’s greatest strengths in the following:
“[UNESCO was formed]...to uphold peace and understanding
between nations by sharing and disseminating knowledge and
culture...UNESCO serves as the crucible for a global moral
conscience, the place where nations come to seek assistance and
cooperation [and] participate on an equal footing in scientific and
cultural exchanges.”
President of the French Republic, Jacques
Chirac, 2003 (Chirac 2003: 18)
As of the writing of this essay, 178 nations had become signatories to the World Heritage
Convention, making it one of the most successful international agreements ever
promulgated in terms of near-universal acceptance. (Reap 2006: 234) Membership in
UNESCO is not mandatory for becoming a signatory to the World Heritage Convention,
but it is undoubtedly in the best interest of those involved to do so. The cost of
membership is a paltry 1% of the dues one would pay to UNESCO (for members) and
voluntary contributions from all other parties. (Magness-Gardiner 2004: 30)
2 The ramifications of this prolonged absence are still being felt. In addition to seemingly
insurmountable legislative requirements (at both the Federal and State level), the United States
currently only has 18 sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, the majority of which fall under
the ‘Natural Property’ rubric. This is felt by many to be wholly inconsistent with its rich and
diverse sites of cultural heritage that are deserving of protection and recognition. (cf. Magness-
Gardiner 2004 & Reap 2006)
13. 6
This agreement brought about the creation of the World Heritage List, with the
first twelve sites inscribed on it in 1978. Criteria for inclusion have changed little since
these first dozen selections, but UNESCO has narrowed down the requirements through
the years into ten distinct criteria, of which any/all may be used to justify nomination
and potential inclusion. In brief, a site should:
I. Represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;
II. Exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or
within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or
technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;
III. Bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to
a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;
IV. Be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or
technological ensemble or landscape;
V. Be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use,
or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human
interaction with the environment especially;
VI. Be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with
ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding
universal significance;
VII. Contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural
beauty and aesthetic importance;
VIII. Be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s history;
IX. Be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and
biological processes;
X. Contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ
conservation of biological diversity. (UNESCO 2005a: 19-20 and 2005d:
12)
14. 7
This list is not set in stone, with the provision being made for further editing and
refinement of the list as the nature of the list evolves and the needs of the World
Heritage Committee dictate. (Grima 2006) To date, 812 properties are inscribed on the
list – a significant achievement in the almost 30 years since it began.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
This honour is not an end unto itself; rather, it is a means by which states parties to the
convention can draw attention to those sites that merit inclusion. Apart from the
recognition and fraternal feeling that such accolades foster among those concerned,
states parties are obligated to maintain and preserve these sites to a healthy degree of
conservation. Periodic reports of every seven years are required of the condition and
upkeep from site managers, along with long-term objectives in the continued oversight
of projects regarding them. (UNESCO 2005d: 11, Bondin 2006, Grima 2006, and Marcotte
& Bordeau 2006: 10) UNESCO does provide technical assistance in the execution of
these goals and in the production of comprehensive site management plans, if so
requested. It is here that their involvement ends.
Financial support in achieving these demands is not part of the UNESCO mission
or even within its capabilities. Only about $3-4 million USD is made available annually
to assist States Parties to the World Heritage Convention in identifying, maintaining,
and preserving their sites on the list, with an emergency fund to aid in situations of
extreme difficulty and/or need. (Anonymous 2004: 12, UNESCO 2005d: 8 and Andrew
15. 8
Zammit 2006) Costs associated with these sites are high. Listing can and does imply the
need to hire skilled labour and use of rare and expensive materials to preserve the
integrity of the site. (Benhamou 2003: 256)
A site’s presence on the list enables the States Parties to seek and, more often
than not, receive loans from the World Bank to further preservation and maintenance
goals. In fact, the promotion of culture in contributing to certain core development
objectives is a key policy in the World Bank’s continuing effort to spur growth in the
developing world. (Throsby 2001: 70) This lack of funding also encourages sites to seek
other means of funding outside of the United Nations and its associated entities, with
many turning to private charitable foundations such as the World Monuments Fund
(WMF) for support. As public awareness is boosted by World Heritage List status,
tourist activity at the respective sites sees a measurable increase. Indeed, this promise
becomes an assumption made by most, if not all, of those governments attempting to
nominate sites. (Bondin 2006, Hall 2006, and Oliver 2006) The idea of a heritage
common to the whole of humanity actively and increasingly reinforces the world
tourism industry via the global museums and heritage attractions that become
increasingly accessible as time goes on. (Meskell 2002: 569)
With tourism becoming a major source of income for many countries,
competition for travellers’ money has become an ever-growing concern of many
governments. (Jokilehto 1998: 18) A major portion of this tourism income is
16. 9
increasingly derived from what is known as ‘cultural and heritage’ tourism. 3 Defined as
“travel concerned with experiencing the visual and performing arts, heritage buildings,
areas, landscapes, and special lifestyles, values, traditions, and events” (Jamieson 1998:
65), it provides a near-perfect pool of potential visitors. This concept is further refined
by separating cultural tourism from heritage tourism, with the justification that heritage
tourism encapsulates historic buildings and sites and peoples’ expectations of
experiences sought in them. (Christou 2005: 5)
Again, research indicates that this is, on the surface, nothing new. The large
number of well-heeled travellers who made their way through Italy, Greece, Egypt, and
other destinations surrounding the Mediterranean centuries ago can be said to be the
progenitors of this current interest in sites of cultural significance. Propelled by a
curiosity for cultures other than their own, these travellers desired inspiration from
classic landmarks of history and art. It was only in the latter half of the 20th century that
large numbers of travellers were able to follow their example, with visits to Europe’s
heritage attractions doubling in the last 30 years or so. (Bonet 2003: 187) It is the focus of
the traveller that has changed over the years – changing from the more romantic notions
espoused above to a more pragmatic concern to experience something ‘different’ and off
3 At first blush, tourism as a function of a country’s GNP may seem only of dire importance to
countries in the developing world; it is, however, also a major contribution to the financial health
of countries in the developed world as well. One study commissioned by the Association for
Preservation Technology International (APT) announced a figure of $473 billion USD generated
annually by visitors to the United States, with a prediction for increased growth in the future.
(Brink 1998: 59)
17. 10
of the beaten trail that provides an environment rich in “cultural, symbolic, spiritual, or
historic content.” (Ibid.)
A natural response to the increased demand for heritage tourism monies is the
move to differentiate the ‘product(s)’ found in any given destination from that found in
other locations. (Kotler, Haider, & Rein 1994: 15) Some locations have a seemingly
insurmountable head start in this exercise, with public perceptions and expectations of
their respective locales firmly planted in the collective consciousness. An anecdotal
questioning of colleagues regarding this phenomenon produced results predicted by the
more substantial work done in this area. (cf. Anholt 2005a and Kotler & Gertner 2002)
The United States is associated with wide-open spaces and endless scenery. France is
inextricably linked to its high culture, in art, food, and way of life. Italy is invariably
cited as being the destination for romance and ease, with equal footing given to its food
and design heritage (in fashion and automobile manufacture). These perceptions all
help to drive tourists to these destinations and others with similar cachet in awe-
inspiring numbers year after year.
Similarly, the products that are produced by these countries are all tied in with
the consumer’s perceptions of them. In a study produced for the Journal of Brand
Management, place-branding guru Simon Anholt clearly illustrates this relationship.
“A country is famous for producing certain items, and brands in related
product categories profit by association. Italy is famous for pasta and
pizza...France is famous for perfumery...the best whiskey traditionally comes
from Scotland, so stressing the [Italian, French, Scottish heritage] of [these]
brands is almost mandatory.” (Anholt 1998: 396)
18. 11
To wit, a pasta marketed and/or produced in Sweden would not have the same
resonance with the consumer as one that is associated with Italy; neither would a
whiskey with association to Papua New Guinea. It seems that the recently lauded
triumphs of globalism are somewhat tempered by this basic marketing principle.
Tourist expectations of the country as it is ‘branded’ also produce similar
associations, as described earlier. While, as Anholt also points out, countries are not
products, and negotiating the challenges of marketing itself do not lend to the same
formulas as one would use in marketing dishwashing liquid, they can and often do
benefit from brand management – the “cautious and slow-moving husbandry of existing
perceptions.” (Anholt 2002b: 232)
――――――――――――――――――――――――
As the title of this study suggests, it will concentrate on how the ‘brand’ applied to
distinct sites of cultural heritage affects visitor’s perceptions of the sites selected and the
implications of that perception to the amount of tourist traffic generated. A part of the
package that comes with inclusion onto the World Heritage List is the exclusive right to
use the official icon of the World Heritage List (Illus. 4) in promotional materials and on
building facades, historical markers, and other places in which the public may see it
proudly displayed, if at all. It is the contention of this essay that the World Heritage List
icon represents a brand in the truest sense of the word. Best exemplified as it fits the
definition of a brand provided by the American Marketing Association: “[A brand is a]
19. 12
name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the
goods and services of one seller...and to differentiate them from those of the
competition.” (Quoted in Kotler & Gertner 2002: 249, emphasis added)
Following this introduction is a literature review of the works that have
influenced the line of thinking found in this study. Work on place branding is
highlighted, in both textbooks and academic journals. The newly emergent field of
heritage marketing is also given space, as it has direct bearing on how the various
entities in question hope to attract visitors now and for the foreseeable future. Literature
surrounding the study of cultural/heritage tourism is also presented to complete the
review. While not 100% of the vast amount of information relating to these fields can
hope to be included, it is believed that those works selected represent the latest and most
applicable research and opinion currently available.
Chapter 3 outlines the methodology used for this study. With both qualitative
and quantitative methods of analysis applicable to the topic at hand, it becomes
imperative to assign a clear path for the present inquiry.
Chapter 4 provides details surrounding the three sites chosen for inclusion in this
essay. A brief history of the site, up to and including its placement on the World
Heritage List, is provided with examination of key points outlined in the methodology
section.
Chapter 5 is given over to the purely quantitative features of this study. Six key
areas in analysing the impact of the UNESCO designation are emphasised, drawn from
20. 13
surveys conducted at the selected sites over the course of 2006. Visitors’ rationale for
their destination decision, awareness of UNESCO and the World Heritage List, and
brand awareness of the World Heritage List icon are all included.
Finally, Chapter 6 presents what, if any, conclusions may be drawn from the
results of the study. Suggestions for further inquiry are also included as well as
shortcomings to the methods employed within this work.
With additional sites due for inclusion every year, those parties responsible for
their sites’ upkeep and continued survival could do well by analysing the impact the
UNESCO brand may have on their local economies and tourist presence. Does this
supranational icon have the power of more established, but dissimilar brands? Are
people even aware of its existence, and do they care at all? While this study can by no
means offer conclusive answers to these queries, it is believed that some light may be
shed on this avenue of questioning that benefits both students of heritage marketing and
professionals working in the field. Perhaps it will help in a small way to keep these
unique monuments to our collective heritage alive and well for future generations.
21. 14
1. Maerten van Heemskerck, The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (wikimedia.org)
2. Maerten van Heemskerck, The Colossus of Rhodes (wikimedia.org)
22. 15
4. UNESCO Seal designating World
Heritage List status (UNESCO Website)
3. UNESCO Headquarters Building (Jones/UNESCO)
23. 16
se and visitor awareness of the UNESCO World Heritage List icon are the
primary concerns of this study. The rationales for this course of inquiry are
many; however, the most significant is a continued passion and interest in World
Heritage Sites around the globe. Personal travel ranging from the Grand Canyon
National Park in Arizona, Maritime Greenwich in London, and the city of Siracusa in
Sicily has led to an appreciation of the scope and sheer impressiveness of this august list.
The common thread running throughout these and many others was the desire of the
international community to recognise and preserve them for the benefit of those who
will inherit our common legacy. Curiously, it became clear that the emphasis placed on
the World Heritage List designation was given varying degrees of emphasis. For some,
it was paramount. The icon was prominently displayed for all visitors to see, both
onsite and in literature publicising it. Others mentioned it in passing with little to no
placement of the icon anywhere easily viewed by anyone. The rationale behind these
disparities was not made manifestly obvious and further research indicated a virtual
dearth of scholarly research on the subject.
U
2LITERATURE REVIEW
24. 17
As of the writing of this study, only two distinct documents occurred in the
available literature addressing the perceptions of visitors to a UNESCO World Heritage
Site or the use of the unique World Heritage List icon. Only published in the winter of
2006, the International Journal of Arts Management featured an article entitled ‘Tourists’
Knowledge of the UNESCO Designation of World Heritage Sites: the Case of Visitors to
Quebec City’. Authors Pascal Marcotte and Laurent Bourdeau examined a pool of 40
visitors to the listed site of Quebec City, Canada. While their research was based solely
on visitor’s knowledge of the designation proper and the possible influence this had on
their decision to visit, little to no mention is made of the icon itself. However, they state,
“Tourists for whom he cultural aspect is a key factor in the choice of a destination would
thus be more sensitive to a World Heritage Brand.” (Marcotte & Bordeau 2006: 6, emphasis
added) This line of reasoning promoted the direction of this study and all subsequent
research. Their research indicates that the designation is not widely used in Quebec City
because of the lack of knowledge about it, especially among tour operators and tourist
alike. The limited use of the designation is solely intended for a “clearly targeted
clientele, namely cultural tourists.” (Ibid.) Contrasts with their demographic findings
regarding the makeup of the ‘typical’ cultural tourists will be highlighted later in this
study.
UNESCO’s response to the use of their World Heritage icon has been very
limited, with serious discussion regarding its use only occurring in the last few years.
Only upon direct contact with an individual directly responsible for the maintenance of
25. 18
World Heritage Sites, was any significant documentation found. Most telling was the
conference report ‘WHC-05/29.COM/17: Report on the Use of the World Heritage
Emblem’ from the Official Documents from the World Heritage Committee Report, Twenty-
Ninth Session, Durban, South Africa. (Appendix IV) This section of the provisional agenda
for the meeting of the World Heritage Committee in 2005 outlined ongoing concerns and
highlighted the nature of UNESCO’s relationship with its World Heritage Brand. 4
Two distinctly useful snippets of information are readily apparent in this
document. Firstly, in prior directives or opinions regarding its use, icon placement and
authorisation for its use have largely been turned over to the States Parties governing
the sites covered under the request. This is telling. Only through exhaustive study of
each individual body connected with UNESCO in each of the States Parties to the
convention can a fully comprehensive analysis of the icon and its use in relation to
World Heritage Sites be undertaken. This is clearly outside of the scope of this essay,
both in time constraints and practicality. Secondly, the conference report has a
summary of request made directly to UNESCO regarding the use of the icon in various
educational and promotional materials. From the dates 24 August 2004 through 08
February 2005, inclusive, only 13 instances are noted. This is surprising given the sheer
number of sites on the list and the already noted steady increase in the importance of
tourism to the economies of the world.
4 Dr. Reuben Grima, Senior Curator of the Malta World Heritage Sites Unit, was indispensable in his
willingness to share official UNESCO documentation and reports related to this essay. The author is deeply
indebted to him for his kindness and generosity.
26. 19
Given this lack of information directly relating to the topic at hand, attention was
given to three distinct, yet interrelated, currently active fields of research: place
branding, heritage marketing, and cultural tourism. All have some bearing on this essay
and each provided a unique insight into questions posed by it. Each one has an ever-
growing pool of research and opinion found in textbooks and academic journals alike.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
A deep-seated interest in the machinations and processes surrounding the perceived
identity of certain places on tourists’ itineraries was born of living in a city that is a
cultural destination in its own right for millions of visitors per year, albeit one clearly
rooted in the modern world. Memphis, Tennessee is a small, friendly city that occupies
a large place in the consciousness of people all over the world. Its largest draw is its
musical heritage. Beginning with the blues musicians who made their way up the delta
of the Mississippi River to Memphis at the turn of the 20th century to the current
Academy Award™ winning hip-hop of Three Six Mafia, Memphis continues to inspire
music lovers, regardless of their background. No other musician in the world has the
draw of Elvis Presley. The vigil surrounding the anniversary of his death draws
hundreds of thousands of visitors to his home, Graceland, every August. Sun Studio,
where he and other notable early performers such as Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison,
Johnny Cash, and Carl Perkins made their mark, is another major draw for tourists,
along with the recently reborn Stax Records and Studio.
27. 20
At the forefront of the continuing effort to increase Memphis’ profile for visitors,
residents, and business leaders alike is Carol Colletta. Founder and Managing Director
of Smart City Consulting, a nationally recognised firm dedicated to “crafting new stories
for cities...creating new initiatives that change their future, [and] helping cities succeed.”
(Smart City Consulting Website) As a supplement to her consulting work, she is also the
host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show, Smart City. In light of her work and its
success, she was contacted for any potential help or leads that related to the current
discussion. Straight away, she referred to the work of Simon Anholt, director of
Earthspeak, an international consulting firm dedicated to the principles of place
branding, a field of study greatly enriched by his work and the contributions to the
journal Place Branding, of which Mr. Anholt is editor-in-chief and a frequent contributor.
Along with the transcripts from two interviews she conducted with Mr. Anholt in
October 2002 and January 2006, she provided links to his website and a good deal of
friendly encouragement.
Mr. Anholt has produced a copious amount of work referencing place and
destination branding. His brief, but engaging essay ‘The importance of national origin
and the decline of ‘brand America’’ in the journal Market Leader did much to inform the
idea of a worldwide awareness for products and the quest for ‘authenticity’ in both their
presentation and execution. Applying this to the heritage industry is not a large leap.
The idea of false or fake heritage is one that sends shudders down many a person’s back
yet is deserving of further inquiry. While it is true that a growing number of travellers
28. 21
are seeking experiences that are ‘real’ and not overly ‘touristy’, (cf. Bonet 2003) a large
number of tourists do make their way to the World Pavilions at Epcot Center (sic) in
Disney World, Florida on a yearly basis – not all of them American. It can be readily
assumed that the Rose and Crown pub in the English pavilion is the closest that many of
its visitors will ever come to “sittin’ down and ‘avin a pint of bitter and a bag of crisps at
the local.” One wonders what British visitors to this Orlando tourist behemoth think of
this appropriation and marketing of their culture. 5
The Journal of Vacation Marketing published another of Mr. Anholt’s papers in its
July 1999 issue. ‘Travel and tourism companies: Global brands’ explores the challenges
and roadblocks to creating a truly global marketing campaign that effectively
communicates a core message while at the same time allowing for the myriad cultural
differences found in markets around the world. In this paper’s supposition that a well-
concerted effort could be made to appeal for cultural tourists to visit World Heritage List
sites by making them aware of the ‘brand’ inherent therein, his warnings served to
balance this possible act of wishful thinking.
In April of 2002, Mr. Anholt was the guest editor of a special issue of the journal
Brand Management. Focused exclusively on the branding and marketing of places, this
one journal provided the largest overall inspiration and ideas behind the production of
5 That being said, having experienced both the Disneyfied approach to a proper English pub and the
author’s London local, The Beaten Docket, one is amazed at some of the more salient aspects found in the
recreation by the ‘Imagineers’ at Walt Disney World. All of its employees are hired from the United
Kingdom and the selection of drinks is decidedly similar to that found in most London pubs. The only
things missing are the smell of tobacco, the ubiquitous slot machines, and the feisty landlady.
29. 22
this study. In his foreword to this particular issue, Mr. Anholt points out many of the
issues faced in both the research and application of branding as it applies to destinations
of interest. Among his many suggestions for much needed research were calls for a
deeper understanding of supranational branding efforts (i.e. the UNESCO World
Heritage List) and a need for actual case studies that can assist a policymaker in his/her
attempt in promotion – even as he quips that 766 major publications on the topic have
been published since the 1950s. He also emphasised the value of any particular culture
as the “communicator of a country’s true spirit and essence...culture, like geography is
an incontrovertible USP6 – it is the direct reflection of the country’s ‘one-ness.” (Anholt
2002b: 235, emphasis added) While the focus of his work is largely on the branding of
consumer products via the culture of origin, it seems a perfect precursor for the
argument that the UNESCO World Heritage List is a product of global scale that in
largely conforms to the basic tenets of place/destination marketing.
Other submissions to this publication proved rewarding as well. The opening
article by Wally Olins, ‘Branding the Nation – the historical context’, provided much
needed background on the discipline as a whole as well as some ‘sticking points’ of the
practice as whole. In a subsequent article, Philip Kotler and David Gertner discuss the
concept of countries themselves as brands. ‘Country as brand, product, and beyond: A
6 USP = Unique Selling Proposition, considered by some to be among the most important principles of
marketing. As defined by Rosser Reeves, in his seminal work Reality in Advertising (1961), the USP is the
idea that advertising must offer the consumer a logical reason for buying a product that differentiates the
product from its competition.
30. 23
place marketing and brand management perspective’ also proved helpful in bringing
about the potential benefits that branding of cultural goods could have on less
developed markets worldwide. Their commentary on brand equity equally
supplemented and in some cases enhanced certain preconceptions about this powerful
feature of brand management.
The final article from this special issue of Brand Management that was
inspirational to this study’s development and subsequent undertaking was Nigel
Morgan and Rachel Piggott’s ‘New Zealand, 100% Pure. The creation of a powerful
niche destination brand.’ Their example of New Zealand’s success at marketing itself on
the world stage as a destination of note provided the template for application of World
Heritage status to a similar model. While the New Zealand authorities targeted only a
few key markets in their attempt to create a destination of choice, the application of their
methods and rationale has potential to be exploited by others desirous of additional
tourism-generated monies.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
“Heritage providers...just like any commercial business have to appeal to the
motivations and aspirations of their customers and all activities must be
coordinated...with attention to detail...[It] is aspirational, i.e. something that
someone (a consumer) wants, and marketing is the process by which it can
be made available, either at a personal, local, national, or international level.”
(Misiura 2005: 6)
These words open Shashi Misura’s recently published work Heritage Marketing and serve
to inform the reader that the principles so long equated with the marketing of goods and
31. 24
services can be equally applied to heritage attractions with the same expectations and
dilemmas. Groundbreaking in its application, its recent emergence into this field of
study will no doubt become required reading and study for students of heritage
management. Her case study on the recently opened Thermae Bath Spa (2005: 174-176)
was instrumental in informing the section on the City of Bath given lack of primary
source data from that site. Chapter 4 ‘The marketing mix and heritage tourism’
provided demographic analysis and key concepts that assisted greatly in the refinement
and presentation of the exit surveys (Appendix VIII) undertaken at the three cities
presented as case studies in this work.
Ros Derret contributed greatly to Anna Leask and Ian Yeoman’s compilation
Heritage Visitor Attractions: An Operations Management Perspective. His chapter on
Strategy and Policy provided a framework for understanding the needs of heritage
professional in the field, as opposed to the purely academic perspective of other articles
on the subject. His insights into the ever-increasing demands and expectations of
heritage consumers and the marketing strategies most likely to succeed in the heritage
environment were not used directly in this study. However, they did inform the work
undertaken at the chosen sites in terms of what to expect.
Both G.J. Ashworth and J.E. Tunbridge are often cited in a vast number of the
studies used in this essay. Their combined volume The Tourist-Historic City: Retrospect
and Prospect of Managing the Heritage City reflects the growing importance of heritage to
cities and the importance these cities have in the creation and marketing of viable and
32. 25
vibrant heritage products. UNESCO is positively cited on numerous occasions in the
development and success of cities that are richly and deeply historic in nature. Their in-
depth and comprehensive analysis of historic city development and management
provided a much greater appreciation for the challenges faced by the city managers,
especially Valletta, which has the distinction of being a fully functional national capital
whilst maintaining World Heritage status.
The pitfalls of assuming that an international body such as UNESCO can
motivate action to preserve these monuments to the past is underscored in the brief, but
substantive article by Philip Kohl in Rowan & Baram’s Marketing Heritage: Archaeology
and the Consumption of the Past. In ‘Making the Past Profitable in an Age of Globalization
and National Ownership: Contradictions and Considerations’, he makes a strong case
for the inability of international bodies such as UNESCO in preventing the destruction
of designated sites, no matter what uproar is generated. By highlighting the failure of
the international community in preventing the tragic destruction of the Bamiyan
Buddhas in Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2002, he underscores the almost utopian
idealism of agreements such as the World Heritage Convention and the surrounding
collateral it has generated.
Finally, while not specifically geared toward professionals in heritage marketing
per se, Derrick Chong’s Arts Management provides clever insight into the marketing the
arts organisations undertake. Particularly enlightening is the section ‘Limitations of
marketing on audience development.’ (Chong 2002: 94-98) In identifying the inevitable
33. 26
barriers set up when only particular consumers are targeted by arts managers, he
highlights a potential disconnect. What is to be done if, in marketing the heritage of all
humankind to only a select group, those that cannot afford the journey are left out?
――――――――――――――――――――――――
It is in the activities of the aforementioned target group that the works in the final
section of this literature review hope to bring to light. As mentioned before, the cultural
tourist is one of the largest growing audiences on the world tourism radar. It should be
no surprise that a great deal of work is put into trying to understand, and in some
instances foretell, their motivations and reactions to the attempts made by heritage
professionals to attract them to their respective sites of responsibility.
The challenges are not as straightforward as might appear on cursory
examination of the issue. Each heritage site is unique and therefore presents a unique
opportunity to the would-be cultural tourist. As mentioned in the Introduction to this
essay, this is the fundamental drive of that segment of the tourist market. The problems
arise when issues of conservation and sustainable management arise. In the words of a
colleague, how do we avoid “loving these sites to death?”
Lluis Bonet’s article, aptly titled ‘Cultural Tourism’, in Ruth Towse’s A Handbook
of Cultural Economics provides a brilliant overview and synopsis of the industry as it
currently stands. Virtually all aspects, both positive and negative, of this segment are
covered and the overarching focus on the economic ramifications it has on society in no
way detracts from his message. His contribution to the working focus of this paper
34. 27
cannot be underestimated – specifically the assertion that the promotion of cultural
tourism assumes that generic tourist interest will not automatically be piqued – and is
dealt with in some detail at the conclusion.
Likewise, Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblet’s work Destination Culture: Tourism,
Museums, and Heritage assisted greatly in the research conducted for this study. Her
copiously illustrated and thorough examination of the tourism industry and its attempt
to lure tourists via cultural attractions was engaging and informative. Her presentation
of heritage as a value added industry correlates strongly with Dutch economist Arjo
Klamer’s position in ‘Value of culture’, also found in Ruth Towse’s A Handbook of
Cultural Economics. Both were instrumental in justifying to the author the underpinnings
of assigning value to those things deemed worth preserving. As Dr. Klamer states, it “is
not immediately obvious to everyone” (Klamer 2003: 465); the value of a given item or
place is not solely determined by market forces. To apply those principles to such things
removes them from their true context and subjects them to different rules and
expectations of performance. As it applies to this study, these perceptions serve to allow
for the ignorance of most economic models that attempt to make heritage just another
product for consumption by the masses. It is something unique and calls for a unique
method in maintaining its viability and vitality for many years to come.
Perhaps the most informative and complete treatment of cultural tourism as
found in the current available literature is International Cultural Tourism: Management,
Implications, and Cases, edited by Marianna Sigala and David Leslie. Substantive issues
35. 28
in the management of cultural attractions and sites are of paramount importance to the
editors and their contributing authors. The overview chapter for Part One: Heritage and
Cultural Tourism Products, is provided by Evangelos Christou in which he summarises
the primary challenges facing the cultural sector as relates to marketing. His exploration
of the characteristics of visitors to heritage sites and the intangible nature of their
consumption whilst there contributed to the production of the exit surveys used in this
study. He discounts the notion that educational attainment level has virtually nothing
to do with reasons for visiting a site. This underscores the issues raised by Chong’s
book in any future attempts to isolate a particular audience for the marketing of World
Heritage Sites en masse.
36. 29
3METHODOLOGY
n an attempt to assess the impact of UNESCO World Heritage designation on sites
distinguished with this honour, three disparate, yet related, urban sites are included:
the City of Valletta, Malta; the Ancient City of Nessebar, Bulgaria; and the City of Bath,
England (Illus. 5). The choice of urban sites provides a unique and selective perspective
in which to observe what, if any, benefits are derived from World Heritage List
recognition. All are historically important in their own way and exist simultaneously as
modern civic entities. This is in large contrast to those cultural sites installed on the list
that are either site-specific monuments or singular cultural artefacts isolated/removed
from areas of concentrated human habitation and subsequent development.
With the World Heritage List now including numerous cities and sites located in
distinct urban centres or enclaves, narrowing the choices down became a matter of
accessibility and contrast. These particular sites are all on the European continent and
possess a significant visitor presence from the months of May-October. As of the
writing of this study, only Bulgaria remained outside of the European Union (EU), with
full entry scheduled for January 2007. Membership in the EU does not, however,
guarantee equality of access to resources. Each of the cities presented in this study are
I
37. 30
located in countries with varying degrees of economic development.
The three countries represented by the sites chosen for this study are all
democracies with a strong emphasis on free market economic policies. The degree of
control exercised by the respective governments upon these sites is widely varied due
largely to circumstances outside of the scope allowed for in this enquiry. Both Malta
and the United Kingdom have well organised extragovernmental agencies that oversee
some, if not most of the heritage undertakings in their sphere of influence (Heritage
Malta and English Heritage/The National Trust, respectively). Research has not
determined this to be the case in Bulgaria, where heritage sites are provisionally
overseen by a central government agency (The Ministry of Culture); however, de facto
control and administration is largely left up to local municipalities. (Danailov 2006)
The methodology for this study utilises qualitative analysis and quantitative data
obtained from random exit surveys administered on site. Input from various
individuals familiar with the topics presented is included as a more ‘personal’ form of
qualitative information and a distinct, primary source for analysis. These individuals
come from a variety of diverse backgrounds and interests including professors of
archaeology, civic leaders, heritage marketing specialists, a highly qualified, state-
certified tour guide/historian, and various heritage professionals at the local level. All
contributed unique perspective and experience when questioned about UNESCO and its
impact on their respective cities or World Heritage sites in general. Their perceptions of
UNESCO and the World Heritage List complement and often contrast with those of the
38. 31
subsequent survey participants.
For the portion of this study regarding The City of Valletta, Malta, interviews
were conducted with a number of heritage professionals. Dr. Reuben Grima, Senior
Curator of the Malta World Heritage Sites Unit was forthcoming regarding his contact
with UNESCO and his experiences and relationship with it. Dr. Ray Bondin, Assistant
Secretary General, ICOMOS, and Coordinator of the Seven Cities Revitalisation Project
Office, Valletta, Malta generously granted a ten-minute interview during his incredibly
busy schedule. His input regarding the UNESCO designation and its perceived effects
on the communities surrounding or included in the sites was invaluable. Additionally,
his oversight role in the revitalisation of Valletta as well as other urban areas in Malta
allowed for an unparalleled source of information in relation to urban areas of cultural
interest. Two chance encounters with heritage professionals also provided an unusually
candid insight into the workings of a heritage city and a heavily visited World Heritage
Site. Teresa Zammit, a fully licensed tour guide in Valletta and, in fact, the whole of
Malta, assisted in the administration of the surveys and provided further insight on the
World Heritage List designation. Andrew Zammit (no relation to Teresa) allowed
unparalleled access to certain World Heritage Sites outside the realm of this essay and
his comments provided a critical foil to the ‘party line’ promulgated by other
interviewees. Shortly before leaving, the author was allowed access to the mayor of
Valletta, Dr. Ġorġ Borġ Oliver, and has maintained a correspondence with him since.
39. 32
His perspective has been most informative and enlightening in the production of this
study.
Access to professionals and experts in the role of UNESCO in Bulgaria was as
limited as the access to their colleagues in Valletta was forthcoming. The only officials
that have volunteered information and advice are Stephan Danailov, Minister of
Culture, Republic of Bulgaria, and Nikolay Trifonov, Mayor of Nessebar Municipality,
Bulgaria. Through traded e-mails, Mr. Danailov has given some useful information
regarding Bulgaria’s relationship with UNESCO and its numerous World Heritage Sites.
Mr. Trifonov, in a brief telephone interview conducted shortly before the completion of
this essay, expressed his regret at the apparent lack of interest of other attempted
interviewees while providing a brilliant insight into the shortcomings of the World
Heritage List. Bulgaria’s upcoming accession to the European Union in January 2007
played no small part in this difficulty.
Repeated attempts at communication with officials within the Department of
Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS), the department of the British government most
closely associated with UNESCO sites in the United Kingdom, never panned out. In an
attempt to acquire some insight into the relationship found between them, interviews
were conducted with two distinguished individuals who lecture on heritage
management/tourism and public archaeology. Dr. Ian Baxter of Glasgow Caledonian
University is a seasoned heritage lecturer and professional in the realm of heritage
conservation and management. His upbeat assessment of UNESCO and its role in
40. 33
revitalisation of areas attached to sites contrasted markedly with the comments and
opinions expressed by Tim Schadla-Hall, a reader in public archaeology at University
College London. His input and connection to the establishment in Malta was
irreplaceable and contributes greatly to the issues raised in the conclusion of this essay.
Two individuals employed by the Bath and Northeast Somerset council, the local
governing body responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the historic/cultural
aspects within the City of Bath, agreed to be interviewed only on the condition of
anonymity. Their limited knowledge of UNESCO and its impact was balanced by their
insight into the tourist industry on Bath and its impact on the community.
Secondary source material is largely a collection of recent academic studies
relating to two pertinent concepts of interest: place branding and heritage marketing.
Literature pertaining to the field of cultural tourism is also utilised as it relates to the
focus of this study. Place branding is an extension of branding; a well known and
continually studied function of marketing both goods and services to the consumer.
Only just coming into its own in recent years, its major proponent and expositor is
Simon Anholt, founder and director of Earthspeak™, a global marketing firm dedicated
to advising “governments, ministries, civil services and NGOs [Non-governmental
organisations] on the branding aspects of public diplomacy, economic development,
public affairs, cultural relations and trade, tourism and export promotion.”
(Earthspeak™ website) Mr. Anholt is also the editor-in-chief of the recently created
41. 34
academic journal Place Branding, which is used extensively throughout the course of this
study.
Heritage marketing texts and articles were also consulted as a secondary source
of information relating to attempts made by marketing professionals and those in
heritage industries to compete for visitors and the subsequent economic benefits. The
texts that were targeted more to the heritage professional all pointed toward the exit
survey as being an invaluable means by which to gauge visitors’ perceptions and
attitudes regarding their visit. Along with the author’s own personal experience
administering similar surveys whilst working in museums and cultural institutions in
the United States, this presented a decidedly strong case to create and deliver surveys at
the three sites selected. It was decided that a minimum of 30 respondents from each site
should be obtained. The model for this survey is largely based on one created by the
author and colleagues in a previous postgraduate exercise designed to track students’
awareness and opinions of the on-campus art museum and its collections at the
University of Memphis.
The exit surveys were designed to quantitatively determine a number of factors
relating to the focus of this study (Appendix VIII). They were administered either
during visits to these sites during August and October 2006 (The City of Bath and The
City of Valletta, respectively) or through the cooperation and assistance of a colleague
on the ground (The Ancient City of Nessebar). A total of 102 responses were obtained
altogether from the three sites (35 each in Valletta and Nessebar, 32 in Bath) with
42. 35
respondents chosen at random in the desire to achieve as full a picture as possible of the
‘typical’ visitor to the site.
Divided into four sections, the surveys were given randomly to people leaving
the environs of the site in question and took no more than ten minutes to administer to
each respondent7. The results from these surveys were then tabulated and various
conclusions were established given the data. (Appendix IX) Section I focuses solely on
demographic data unique to each respondent. While this data is not used to any large
degree within the scope of this study, it could be applied to future research in the field
and helps to acclimate the respondents to taking the survey, as the answers to the
queries on this section are readily known. Section II deals exclusively with the nature of
each respondent’s visit to the site in question. Duration of stay, rationale for visit,
distance travelled, and primary source of information consulted prior to the visit are
ascertained. Section III focuses on the respondents’ knowledge of UNESCO and the
World Heritage List, both in general and specifically in regards to the city in question.
Finally, Section IV is an identification exercise that asks the participant to select any/all
symbols and logos encountered in their stay. The only one of interest for the purposes
of this study is the World Heritage List logo (Illus. 4); the others, while closely related,
are only included to measure the specific impact of the logo on their memory.
7 For the most part, no assistance was given to respondents in the completion of the surveys in order to
allow them to answer with as little interviewer bias as possible. Assistance was given by the author and his
colleague in matters of language when it was requested or deemed necessary.
43. 36
Each one of these sites is shown in further detail as individual case studies
looking at three overall factors. After a brief history of the site, the presence and
frequency of the UNESCO World Heritage icon itself and the statement of the site’s
inclusion on the World Heritage List, both onsite and in the locale’s
promotional/marketing materials, is examined. Next, the impact – both positive and
otherwise – of the site’s inclusion on the World Heritage List is ascertained, largely
through information gathered from interviews and first-hand observation by the author.
Finally, the applicability of the site’s current strategies to the model(s) established in the
present literature is examined. A more complete analysis of the data gathered from the
abovementioned exit surveys is presented afterwards with accompanying tables
highlighting details of the results.
This examination concludes by summarising the marketing power that the
UNESCO World Heritage ‘brand’ has provided to the chosen cities. Shortcomings and
limitations of the current study are discussed along with potential avenues for further
inquiry and study. What all of this means for the future of these sites and others
included on the World Heritage List is also scrutinised in light of the current cultural
tourism trends and the effort of places of cultural interest to stand apart from their
competitors in the marketplace.
45. 38
4WORLD HERITAGE SITES:
PROFILES AND MARKETING STRATEGIES
his section of the study allows for the more qualitative aspects of analysis to be
applied to the sites under examination. Each one of the World Heritage Cities in
question is treated as a small case study looking at several factors at work because, or in
spite of, the UNESCO designation. It is understood that all of the sites presented are
beautiful and awe-inspiring in their own unique ways. They are places where the past
has been preserved in varying degrees and with decidedly different approaches. All are
wholly or part of daily, modern life for all of their inhabitants and form a unique
backdrop to the ever-increasing vestiges of modern life. The order in which the
following cities are presented is largely arbitrary and reflects only the chronological
order of each site’s respective nomination and subsequent inclusion on the World
Heritage List.
Following a brief history of each site, an overview is given of observed usage of
the World Heritage Site icon and the fact of the designation itself. The immediate area
of each site was examined as was all of the marketing material available for the site –
both electronic and print media were included. Next, a subjective summary of the
impact that World Heritage status has had on each site is presented, based solely on
T
46. 39
interviews with individuals familiar with UNESCO, local governance of the sites, or
both. This supplements first-hand observations and conclusions made by the author
during his visits to the cities. Finally, some conclusions are drawn about each site’s
performance and quality when viewed against some of the models argued for in the
current literature surrounding place branding, heritage marketing, and/or cultural
tourism. The purely quantitative data obtained from the exit surveys does not form part
of this chapter; instead, it forms the basis for the subsequent section where it is dealt
with in full.
47. 40
• CITY OF VALLETTA •
REPUBLIC OF MALTA
trategically located between Africa and Europe, between the Christian West and
the Muslim East, Malta – along with its sister islands of Gozo and Comino – is a
microcosm of Mediterranean history and culture. The world's oldest human structures –
more ancient than the Pyramids at Giza and the megalithic complex of Stonehenge –
have their home on this small island archipelago. This crossroads of the Mediterranean
has been occupied and ruled successively by the Phoenicians, Greeks, Carthaginians,
Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, the Order of the Knights of St. John, Napoleonic France, and
the British Empire. Only gaining full independence in 1964, it remained in the British
Commonwealth for another 10 years, only becoming a republic in 1974. (Borg 2001: 327-
356) While the British presence is the most easily identifiable in present day Malta, each
has left their own unique, indelible marks on the culture and landscape.
Valletta, the capital of the Republic of Malta, has a history stretching back in time
over 2500 years. However, it is inextricably linked to the history of the military and
charitable Order of St John of Jerusalem. Founded in 1566 by decree of the order’s
commander, Jean de la Valette (from whom the city takes its name), it came to be known
S
48. 41
as “a city built by gentlemen for gentlemen.” (Hopley 2001:116) Valletta’s 320
monuments, all within the area of less than one-quarter of a square mile, make it one of
the most concentrated historic areas in the world; its grid of narrow streets houses some
of Europe's finest churches, palaces, and cultural treasures. (Heritage Malta Website)
Valletta and its suburb town of Floriana are perched on the Sciberras peninsula
jutting out into Malta's two deep natural harbours, Grand Harbour and Marsamxett
Harbour. In keeping with its historical past, Valletta is still very much a working,
capital city – a bustling cultural centre and the administrative and commercial heart of
the small island republic. (Teresa Zammit 2006) The bastions of this fortress city rank
among the world's greatest examples of military engineering. They played no small part
in fending off myriad attacks in their 450-year history, with enemies ranging from the
Ottoman Turks in the 16th Century CE to the massive bombardment it suffered at the
hands of the Axis Powers during World War II.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
The vast majority of today’s visitors to Valletta arrive through the main gate of the city,
with many arriving by Malta’s fleet of immaculately maintained buses. Many of these
buses are relics from the Maltese period of British colonial presence and are among the
most photographed and treasured part of the island’s modern heritage and provide an
economical means by which to explore it. Upon first arriving at the main gate, one is
immediately struck by the sheer immensity of the fortification walls and the depth of the
defensive trench directly surrounding these walls. The trench is deep enough to allow
49. 42
for the construction of a 5+ story underground parking garage no more than 200m from
the gate.
Another item almost immediately noticed at the city gates are two prominently
displayed plaques flanking the gate on either side. These are in celebration and
recognition of Valletta’s status as a World Heritage Site. The icon is clearly present on
each plaque and a brief explanation is given as to the reasoning behind the selection,
which quotes the language used by UNESCO in justifying the selection (cf. Chapter 1,
pp. 5-6) and recalls the original ICOMOS document nominating the city for this honour
in 1979.8 (Appendix V) The City of Valletta was permanently inscribed on the World
Heritage List the following year, along with two other sites Maltese treasures, the Hal
Saflieni Hypogeum, and the Ggantija Temple Complex on Gozo.9
A cursory walk into the city on the date visited yielded a surprising amount of
references to UNESCO and Valletta’s status. Three of the ten ubiquitous tourist
information guides placed on racks just inside the city gate made immediate reference to
its listing, with two going into some detail regarding this honour. This was mirrored in
the official Maltese tourism website and numerous private tour companies descriptions
of the city. While not directly related, the city was also playing host to the ‘Malta
8 On personal observation, presence of the icon in some form or another is also to be found at Malta’s
other World Heritage Sites. The icon is placed prominently on a pillar at the entry fence to Ggantija and a
large (approximately 2m) reproduction of the icon graces the outer wall of the state-of-the-art visitor’s centre
at the Hal Saflieni Hypogeum.
9 The inscription listing the Ggantija Temple Complex was changed in 1992 to reflect, and thereby protect,
five of the other ancient megalithic temple sites scattered around the island. The present designation reads
‘The Megalithic Temples of Malta.’ (UNESCO Website)
50. 43
Historic Cities Festival’, a 10-day festival highlighting Malta’s three historically rich
cities, Valletta, Mdina, and Vittoriosa. Licensed Maltese tour guides – readily identified
by their large ID badges around their necks – ushered literally hundreds of tourists
through the city during the six hours spent in the city. One was overheard extolling the
UNESCO World Heritage List status as she walked her group into the gates. It is easily
surmised that this is a common, if not mandatory, practice.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
Remembering a prior trip to Malta as an undergraduate anthropology student, the
author approached one of the tour guides as her group broke for lunch with the hope
that she could point me in the direction of the guide who had made this prior visit so
memorable, Ms. Teresa Zammit. Luckily, she knew her and indicated she was indeed in
the city that day and could be found at the Co-Cathedral of St. John the Baptist
immediately after lunch. After a surprised reunion in front of this baroque masterpiece
of faith and architecture, she agreed to a quick interview over a cup of coffee.
Ms. Zammit’s perceptions of UNESCO were all positive. She cited the incredible
amount of tourism to the islands that has steadily increased in her 20+ years operating as
a licensed tour guide.10 While she could not give exact figures, for her the proof was in
the amount of work she was contracted to do for tour operators, government officials
10 Later research provided a stunning, but not altogether unexpected, fact that corroborates Ms. Zammit’s
observation. One Maltese scholar, writing about the tourist trade in Mdina cited the fact that “[B]y the 1980s
tourism had evolved as the single most important sector of the Maltese economy...Mdina receives over a
million local and foreign visitors annually. Malta’s population is 350,000.” (Sant Cassia 1999: 248, emphasis
added)
51. 44
hosting foreign guests, and an exclusive contract with the University of Malta’s summer
learning programmes. Her most positive praise for UNESCO was in recalling the aid
given to the City of Valletta given in a time of crisis. Again, she was not able to recall
specifics, but she remembered a substantial grant of monies used to fund a much-
needed repair to a structure within the city walls.
This grant was mentioned in a subsequent interview with Dr. Ray Bondin,
Assistant Secretary General, ICOMOS, and Coordinator of the Seven Cities
Revitalisation Project Office. At his office on Republic Street, he also spoke mainly of the
positive benefits found in the UNESCO designation. He was most candid about the
equation that listing = money. To him, it seemed a given that tourists looked for the icon
in their visits to historic sites, assuming they had previous exposure to other sites or
prior knowledge of the World Heritage List. From his unique, privileged viewpoint, Dr.
Bondin also commented on the fight to get sites on the list, which he described as
“bitter”. His only caveat to the whole process was a mention of the tendency of some
sites, which he preferred not to name, to over-exploit their status, thereby putting a
tarnish on the honour that is inherent with selection.
A final interview was scheduled with Dr. Reuben Grima, Senior Curator of the
Malta World Heritage Sites Unit, at his offices in the National Museum of Archaeology.
While not directly tied to the governance of Valletta as a World Heritage Site, he is
responsible for the maintenance and oversight of World Heritage List properties, The
Megalithic Temples of Malta. As he was the only interviewee in Malta to have sustained
52. 45
contact and dealings with UNESCO, Dr. Grima’s insight into its mechanisms and
procedures was eye opening and informative. When queried about the icon and its use
by World Heritage Sites, he recalled the previously mentioned conference report and
provided a photocopy for future reading. (Appendix IV) He earnestly described the
activities of the World Heritage Committee in recent years as a process focusing almost
exclusively on problems of visibility, of which the ‘branding’ of sites was only now
beginning to take priority. The Committee’s activities, as detailed by Dr. Grima, are
explored in-depth at the conclusion of this essay. Largely positive about UNESCO and
his interaction with them, Dr. Grima reiterated the comments of Dr. Bondin regarding
the political infighting and sometimes-volatile nature of site nomination and oversight.
Overall, his perception of UNESCO indicated the joy of working with an organisation
that is steadfastly dedicated to its ideals, tempered with the all-too-common hints at the
troubles found in any bureaucracy.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
Do observations of Valletta compare to the model(s) presented in the current literature
on place branding, heritage marketing, and/or cultural tourism? For the most part,
distinct evidence of all three was found in the activities of those associated with the
marketing of Valletta, and indirectly, their status as a listed site on the World Heritage
List.
The City of Valletta is uniquely positioned as the capital of Malta, and
consequently, its largest population centre. Beyond this, principles of place/destination
53. 46
branding are arbitrary. Visitors to the island, more likely than not, are invariably drawn
to its sites and activities, even if it is not their primary reason for choosing Malta as a
destination. Its combination of historical and cultural attractions provide a focal point
for putting the small nation’s place in world history on centre stage for all who would
come. All public transport begins and ends directly outside of the city gates, making
arrival and departure the easiest of activities and both print and electronic guides make
much mention to its myriad charms and importance.
It is not hard to see aspects of heritage marketing present in virtually all of the
marketing efforts surrounding Valletta. The city equates itself to heritage and only has a
partial rival in Mdina, a much smaller and noticeably quieter inland city some 12km
west of Valletta. It is hard, if not impossible, to find any mention of Valletta that does
not mention its importance to the past and present cultural heritage of Malta. The
earlier assumption made by Shashi Misiura (Chapter 2: 22) is appropriate; visitors to this
imposing but grand citadel on the sea presented with an overwhelming amount of
collateral that inspires them to visit and many, if not all, of the assertions made are
validated by their visit.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblet’s insight that “The past is a foreign country” is no more
true than on the Maltese Archipelego. As the various sites from Malta’s past – both
prehistoric and otherwise – cannot directly support themselves via their simple
existence, they are made economically viable as “exhibits of themselves”. (Kirshenblatt-
54. 47
Gimblet 1998: 150-151) Tourists are their lifeblood and will continue to insure their
continued survival well into the foreseeable future.
55. 48
6. Valletta, showing the spire of St. Paul’s Anglican Church and the dome of the
Carmelite Church (Our Lady of Mount Carmel)
7. Valletta, with the War Museum on the waterfront and the fortifications of
Fort St. Elmo in the background
56. 49
8. The Auberge de Castille,
Valletta, now the Prime
Minister’s Residence
9. Entrance to the Grand Harbour and Barriera Wharf, Valletta
57. 50
10. View Across the Grand Harbour, Valletta
11. Detail of Architectural
Iconography, Valletta
58. 51
• ANCIENT CITY OF NESSEBAR •
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
ituated on a rocky peninsula on the Black Sea, the more than 3,000-year-old site of
Nessebar11 was originally founded as a Thracian settlement (Menebria). At the
beginning of the 6th century BCE, the city became a Greek colony. The city's remains,
which date mostly from the Hellenistic period, include the acropolis, a temple of Apollo,
an agora, and a wall from the ancient Thracian fortifications (Ovcharov 2005: 18-19).
Among other monuments from later in history, the 5th century CE Stara Mitropolia
Basilica and the fortress date from the Middle Ages, when this was one of the most
important Byzantine towns on the west coast of the Black Sea.
It stayed part of the Byzantine Empire until 812 when the proto-Bulgarian
military leader Khan Kroum conquered it, including it in the then named territory of
Bulgaria. During the reign of Ivan Alexander the town went thorough a cultural and
economic boom, and occupied substantial territories beyond the stretch of the peninsula.
11 Research by the author has found multiple transliterations of this ancient city. Among these are Nesebar,
Nesebur, Nessebur, et al. In keeping with the spelling used by ICOMOS in their recommendation for its
inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage List and consultation with a Bulgarian colleague, the spelling of
Nessebar is used exclusively throughout this essay.
S
59. 52
It was around that period when most of the churches of Nessebar, the remains of which
are to be found in the present-day town, were built. In 1366, the knights of Amadeus of
Savoy conquered the town. They then proceeded to ransom the city back to Byzantium
for a large sum of gold. In 1453, shortly after Constantinople fell under Turkish
domination the town was conquered by the Ottoman Empire. Only partially freed from
Ottoman domination in the latter part of the 19th century, Bulgaria chafed for full
independence and self-determination. In 1885, the northern and southern regions of the
country were unified. Formal independence was only achieved in 1908. Occupied by
the Red Army in 1944, Bulgaria became a part of the Warsaw Pact, achieving full
independence once again in 1990, with the overthrow of totalitarian dictator Todor
Zhikov. (2005: 45-48) Bulgaria has recently been accepted into the European Union and
will attain full membership beginning in January 2007.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
Modern day Nessebar is one of the highlights of Bourgas County, one of the most
heavily visited regions of Bulgaria. It lies 37km northeast of Bourgas and is similarly
close to Varna, Bulgaria’s third largest city. Its beach is considered to be one of the finest
along the Black Sea coast due to a large sandy strip of land between the town and the
village of Ravda. The land to the west of Nessebar is largely given over to agriculture
and viticulture, with wines from the region enjoying a large following in Bulgaria and
with wine aficionados throughout Europe. (Old Town of Nessebar website) However,
this abundance of natural beauty does not merit Nessebar’s listing on the World
60. 53
Heritage List. Its large concentration of Christian churches spanning over a millennium
and the subsequent record these leave for humanity are the primary reasons cited by
ICOMOS in its 1982 recommendation to the WHC for its inclusion. (Appendix VI) The
following year saw its official listing with UNESCO and it joined eight other properties
in Bulgaria sharing this honour.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
The author, due to unavoidable events and time constraints, did not conduct a personal
visit to this site. That did not prevent the dissemination of the exit surveys and a
detailed reporting of the relevant issues via a personal associate and his spouse who
were fortunate to spend a holiday in Bourgas and Nessebar in mid-October 2006 and
were glad to be of assistance in the production of this segment of the study.12 They are
both very familiar with the UNESCO World Heritage List and have visited numerous
sites with this designation both at home and abroad. David A. was pleasantly surprised
when I informed him that his beach and hiking holiday would be supplemented by a
visit to another one of these international monuments.
The presence of the World Heritage Site icon was only observed on a single road
sign leading to the small municipality with no mention of it on what appeared to be the
‘official’ welcoming sign to the city. Only upon arriving in the city proper did signage
12 In balancing a respect for their privacy, their insistence that no credit was needed, and the needs of this
essay, they will be referred to as ‘David A’. and ‘Anita M.’ when/if their direct observations are cited.
‘David A.’ is a London-based filmmaker and student of British archaeology and ‘Anita M.’ is a London-
based conceptual artist and arts administrator.
61. 54
appear that indicated World Heritage List inclusion. In their visit to the town of
Nessebar Anita M. commented on the near-certainty that locals and tour guides alike
were aware of the UNESCO designation, with many of the locals appearing to take
immense pride in the recognition from the international community.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
Both commentators remarked on the positive dearth of referencing the UNESCO
designation in the literature they were provided by their tour operator, only becoming
aware of it at the author’s revelation and subsequent internet research. The author’s
own internet research revealed only brief mentions of it on tourist sites and no presence
of the icon anywhere to be found. The official promotion of tourism is also practically
non-extant at the national level, with brief nods to the UNESCO sites under their
oversight. Tourism promotion appears to mostly be the concern of local authorities and
private companies.
A number of these observations were challenged as misconceptions in the two
personal interviews conducted with two key Bulgarian government officials. Only after
much difficulty and persistence were officials contacted who might have some insight
into Bulgaria – more specifically, Nessebar – and their relationship with UNESCO.13
Towards the end of this study, contact was made with Nikolay Trifonov, the mayor of
13 In defense of both parties interviewed, certain pressing responsibilities weighed heavily on each of them.
Mayor Trifonov was still coping with the damage wrought by dramatic flooding that occurred along the
Black Sea coast early in the summer. Minister Danailov, like all of his counterparts in the Bulgarian national
government, are gearing up and applying all of their energies into managing Bulgaria’s transition to full
European Union membership.
62. 55
Nessebar Municipality and Stefan Danailov, Bulgarian Minister of Culture. Both
provided brief, but conflicting viewpoints.
Of the two, Mr. Trifonov was the most helpful in connecting UNESCO with
Nessebar. His comments echoed those of perceptions held by previous interviews in
Malta – namely that it is both a boost to Bulgaria’s international image and a boost in the
quest for tourism dollars. While he admitted not being able to produce the sorts of
income that the nearby beach resorts bring in, he was confident that a certain spillover
effect was inevitable and could only increase as tourism was on the increase. With low-
cost airlines from the UK now routinely flying into nearby Bourgas airport and property
investment in the largely undeveloped region accelerating at a rapid rate, he foresaw
bright days for his heritage city. He was keen to explore further options available to his
city in use of the World Heritage icon and was pleased that study was being undertaken
that might be of benefit.
Minister Danailov was decidedly less enthusiastic about UNESCO, while readily
admitting that his dealings with the international body were only slight, due to the
abovementioned considerations. His biography on the Bulgarian government website
(http://www.government.bg/cgi-bin/e-cms/vis/vis.pl?s=001&p=
0152&n=000002&g=) indicates that the main focus of his administration has been largely
targeted toward intellectual property legislation and educational initiatives. Mr.
Danailov was enthused by the prospect of working more closely with international
bodies such as UNESCO in the future and hinted that EU status would be nothing but
63. 56
beneficial in furthering his country’s ability to share its heritage with a much-wider
audience.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
The Ancient City of Nessebar only loosely has anything resembling the models found in
place/destination branding. It is not large enough to be on the international tourist radar
and suffers from its proximity to a highly visited beach resort area. Observations made
on the ground in the region corroborate this assumption. Most of the visitors were in
the region for a beach holiday, with day trips being largely into Varna and the
surrounding countryside. The tourist literature only hints at Nessebar’s existence and is
more apt to extol its charms and beauty, with the beaches of Bourgas and environs in the
limelight.
Any attempts at finding examples of heritage marketing produce similar results.
Very little emphasis is given to the region’s cultural heritage. Only one internet-
marketed tour, ‘Bulgarian UNESCO Sites’ (http://www.picturesofbulgaria.
com), even approaches direct utilisation of Nessebar’s World Heritage designation to
entice tourists looking for anything apart from a beach holiday in Bulgaria. The majority
of heritage marketing seems focused on the region surrounding Sofia and the treasure
troves of the Thracian tombs found in this ancient land.
For the tourist interested in culture, the Ancient City of Nessebar offers much to
see and experience. Its charming town centre and plethora of Byzantine and Orthodox
churches present a unique glimpse through time at the formation of one of the world’s
64. 57
great faiths. Ancient ruins enforce its historical importance through the ages, with many
predating the arrival of Christianity to the region. It remains to be seen just how
enticing it becomes as Bulgaria continues to emerge onto the world stage on its own
terms from a history largely dominated by outside forces.
65. 58
12. Ruins of the Byzantine Fortress, Nessebar (McKeown)
13. Ruins of the Stara Mitropolia Basillica (McKeown)
66. 59
14. Detail of Ruins, Stara Mitropolia Basillica (McKeown)
15. Church of St. John the Baptist,
10th-11th Century CE (Gérard Janot)
67. 60
16. Church of Christ
Pantocrator, 13th-
14th Century CE
(Gérard Janot)
17. Interior Iconostasis,
Church of Christ
Pantocrator (McKeown)
68. 61
• CITY OF BATH •
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT
BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
he City of Bath was founded by the Romans as a thermal spa in the 3rd-4th century
CE, largely forgotten for nearly 1000 years, only to become an important centre of
the wool industry in the Middle Ages. In the 18th century, under the patronage of King
George III, it developed into an elegant town with neoclassical Palladian buildings,
which blend harmoniously with the Roman baths. Built around three geothermal
springs at a rate of around 1.2 million litres per day, these baths have attracted attention
since prehistoric times. (Bowman 1998: 25) Space does not permit even a detailed
summary of British history up to and including the present day; it suffices to say that as
goes Great Britain, so goes Bath.
Bath is now a bustling large town with all of the modern conveniences associated
with life; chain department stores and high street boutiques ring its town centre and it
bustles with the sound of commerce and traffic. This belies the immense concentration
of cultural and historic sites that reflect its heritage stretching back as far as the era of
Britain’s era of Roman occupation and culminate with the neo-classical Palladian
architecture of the late 18th and early 19th century. These vestiges of the past stretching
T
69. 62
back 1600 years were duly cited as the rationale behind the ICOMOS nomination for the
City of Bath to the World Heritage List in late 1986, entering officially onto the list in
1987. (Appendix VII) Now close to a million visitors annually visit what one observer
has called the “prettiest town in all England.” (Secrest 1984: 122)
――――――――――――――――――――――――
Upon first entering Bath, one is immediately struck with how ‘new’ everything seems.
Traffic congestion and noise pollution, common to cities ten times its size are readily
observed and modern office blocks and residential development surround and permeate
the city and its surrounding environs. It is only when one has journeyed into the heart
of the city and seen its architectural splendour that its beauty and immaculately
preserved state become apparent to the visitor. The Bath Cathedral – a gothic
masterpiece – and more contemporary bathhouses built by Victorian-era entrepreneurs
in their attempt to lure visitors from London, flanks the old Roman baths. The Royal
Crescent and Pulteney Bridge both speak to a time when British royal patronage was
reaching its peak and Bath was awash in a heyday of success.
Nowhere in the city proper was a highly visible sign of UNESCO to be seen. The
icon itself was reduced to being placed on two of the many motorway signs directing the
visitor from London to the ‘Historic Centre of Bath’, with no explanation given of its
meaning. In-depth review of the available literature made ample reference to the listing,
but presence of the icon was limited to the official city tourist website and only two of
the many pamphlets and brochures found on visitor information racks scattered
70. 63
throughout the historic parts of the city. Awareness of Bath’s listing among local
shopkeepers and business people was commonplace but did not extend far beyond this
simple statement of fact. Little to no knowledge of UNESCO’s role or even other
inscribed heritage sites in the United Kingdom was the norm upon further questioning.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
It was only in interviewing two young men employed at or in association with the
Roman Baths did a clearer picture of Bath’s relationship with UNESCO begin to emerge.
The first, a tour group operator for a “large company out of London” frankly informed
the author that it was only mentioned in passing and almost always generated no
response or queries from his tour groups. The majority of his clients were day-trippers
from London and only had a very limited time and a tight itinerary whilst in Bath. He
did casually mention that it seemed to be on par with English Heritage and the National
Trust as far as a governing or certification authority that protected heritage sites, but
could not provide any clear cut details on UNESCO and its mission.
The second interviewee in the City of Bath was an assistant site manager at the
Roman Baths. As such, his knowledge of the heritage environment and business was
well-developed and informative. He pointed out that his site was part of the World
Heritage site as a whole and was absolutely convinced that it did nothing but good for
the City of Bath as a whole, primarily as an economic benefit. He noted that he was
employed directly by the local council and that most, if not all, profits from the site went
into their coffers. Upkeep and preservation duties were also under their jurisdiction – a
71. 64
task they seemed to excel in, as the ruins of the Roman Bath are still in a remarkably
good state of preservation.
Upon returning to London, an interview with Tim Schadla-Hall, a lecturer in
public archaeology at University College London was profound and eye-opening. It
presented the first and only time a highly critical view of UNESCO and the World
Heritage List was put forth. Mr. Schadla-Hall was adamant in his distaste for the entire
concept of ‘heritage’ in general and even more lucid in his discussion of supranational
entities like UNESCO and their work. He discussed two glaring examples to justify his
position. First, UNESCO provides virtually no financial support to those sites it deigns
to list, yet expects them to be maintained and conserved to standards of the highest
caliber. In his estimation, as an ever-increasing number of selected sites are in the
developing world, this does not bode well for the list’s future. He was also adamant
about the ‘cultural elitism’ surrounding such undertakings. Only the privileged classes
largely drawn from the developed world have the luxury time and the disposable
income to sustain the sort of tourist itineraries proposed by the list.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
Bath is definitely a destination of note for the would-be visitor. Anecdotal evidence and
personal experience all indicate its indelible impression as a ‘must see’ when visiting the
United Kingdom. It is perhaps second only to London in perceptions of British urban
attractions and is widely touted in a large variety of outlets. The recent opening of the
Thermae Bath Spa in the spring of 2006 is a further attempt at luring visitors to this
72. 65
heritage city by an ingenious mixing of the old and the new. High end spa treatments
and therapies are offered in a state-of-the-art environment.
At a cost of approximately £26 million GBP, it is one of the most ambitious undertakings
to date in the United Kingdom for a municipality of Bath’s size and is a combination of
new building and restoration. (Misiura 2005: 174-176)
As a destination, Bath is rife with heritage and uses it to full effect in marketing
itself to both tourists and British residents alike. It is the major attractor and provides a
seemingly endless parade of tourists and visitors throughout the year. The deft and far-
sighted Thermae project is but an extension of this marketing effort. Bath’s Victorian
past is not left to stultify, as many of the ‘sociable’ activities of that time are in high
demand and suffer no want for clientele. Arts and literature festivals as well as
afternoon teas and concert orchestras are all part of its programme.
Attracting cultural tourists does not seem to be as important as attracting a wide
variety and a large number of tourists – regardless of their motivation. Bath promises to
deliver a unique experience for all who visit. The ancient Roman baths, the magnificent
cathedral, regal architecture that is at times more British than most of London, high
street shopping, and spa treatments cater to a wide variety of needs and all are in a
culturally rich environment that needs little more to entice them to come.
73. 66
18. The Roman Bath and Surrounding Architecture
19. Detail of Mosaic (Sea Beasts), Bath
76. 69
5DATA ANALYSIS
he following analysis looks at certain key quantitative data gleaned from the exit
surveys given to visitors at the three sites included for study. (Appendix VIII)
Each site utilised identical surveys, with appropriate substitutions made only in matters
of location. A total of 102 surveys from all three sites were produced, with 35 each from
Valletta and Nessebar, and 32 from Bath. All data was collated upon completion of the
survey and is included as an appendix to this report. (Appendix IX) Due to limitations
of space, not all relevant data is subjected to comprehensive analysis with only the most
salient comparisons highlighted and commented upon.
The analysis begins with a look into visitors’ primary reason for visiting each
site. A more substantial portion is dedicated to visitor awareness of both UNESCO and
the World Heritage List. It concludes with a look at respondents’ recall and
identification of the UNESCO World Heritage List icon from a random set of related
symbols that all have ties with either the heritage industry or its governance.
――――――――――――――――――――――――
A number of possible responses were possible in asking the primary reason for visiting a
particular site. Overall, the vast majority of respondents chose ‘historical’, with 38%
T
