Comprehensive Assessment of Sustainable Tourism-oriented Revitalization in a Historic District: A Case Study of Qianmen Area, Beijing, China

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764X.2019.05.013

Abstract

Abstract:

Tourism-oriented revitalization of historic districts has been identified as a form of sustainability which is believed to contribute to both conservation and development. Comprehensive assessments of the effects of such tourism-oriented revitalizations in historic districts are thus a great challenge, and are needed to support sustainable development and management efforts. In this study criteria and indicators were identified by using the AHP method with experts scoring four aspects on two levels. We assess a case in China using this system and outputs indicated infrastructure and environment performed best, while the score for residents’ living condition and participation was the lowest. Finally, we offer some suggestions to improve the relatively poor status in order to assist historic districts in achieving sustained revitalization.

Key words: comprehensive assessment, sustainable tourism-oriented revitalization, historic district, China

ZHU He, WANG Jingru, ZHANG Xiyue. Comprehensive Assessment of Sustainable Tourism-oriented Revitalization in a Historic District: A Case Study of Qianmen Area, Beijing, China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2019, 10(5): 559-568.

Figures/Tables 6

References 53

[1]	Aas C, Ladkin A, Fletcher J . 2005. Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1):28-48.
[2]	Al-Kheder S, Haddad N, Fakhoury L , et al. 2009. A GIS analysis of the impact of modern practices and polices on the urban heritage of Irbid, Jordan. Cities, 26(2):81-92.
[3]	Alleyne D, Boxill I . 2003. The impact of crime on tourist arrivals in Jamaica. International Journal of Tourism Research, 5(5):381-391.
[4]	Andriotis K, Vaughan R D . 2003. Urban residents' attitudes toward tourism development: the case of Crete. Journal of Travel Research, 42(2):172-185.
[5]	Ashworth G J, Tunbridge J E . 2000. The tourist-historic city. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18(1):156.
[6]	Banskota K, Sharma B . 1998. Mountain tourism for local community development in Nepal. A case study of Syaphrubesi, Langtang National Park. Discussion Paper Series - Mountain Enterprises and Infrastructure, ICIMOD.
[7]	Benton P, Scott P, Hawkins D , et al. 1992. Design standards and guidelines for the city of dover historic district zone. Pattern Recognition Letters, 33(4-5):741-756.
[8]	Buckley R . 2012. Sustainable tourism: Research and reality. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2):528-546.
[9]	Carter B, Grimwade G . 1997. Balancing use and preservation in cultural heritage management. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 3(1):45-53.
[10]	Coleman S, Crang M . 2002. Tourism: Between place and performance. Contemporary Sociology, 32(6):723.
[11]	Ferreira P, Araújo M, O’Kelly M E J . 2010. The integration of social concerns into electricity power planning: A combined Delphi and AHP approach. In: Rebennack et al. (eds.), Handbook of Power Systems I, Energy Systems, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-02493-1_15.
[12]	Garcia D A, Cumo F, Sforzini V , et al. 2015. Eco friendly service buildings and facilities for sustainable tourism and environmental awareness in protected areas. Wit Transactions on Ecology & the Environment, 161:131-138.
[13]	Glaeser E L, Kolko J, Saiz A . 2001. Consumer city. Journal of Economic Geography, 1(1):27-50.
[14]	Hall D, Kirkpatrick I, Mitchell M , et al. 2005. Rural tourism and sustainable business. Channel View Publications: UK, Frankfurt Lodge.
[15]	He S, Wu F . 2010. Property-led redevelopment in post-reform China: A case study of Xintiandi Redevelopment Project in Shanghai. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(1):1-23.
[16]	Healy R G . 1994. The “common pool” problem in tourism landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3):596-611.
[17]	Hu C, Cong G . 2016. Creating an ecological historic district: Rethinking a Chinese challenge through the case of Oakland District, Pittsburgh. Procedia Engineering, 145:1572-1579.
[18]	Idajati H . 2014. Cultural and tourism planning as tool for city revitalization: The case study of Kalimas River, Surabaya-indonesia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 135(135):136-141.
[19]	Kim M, Thapa B, Kim J . 2017. Community reactions to tourism development: how does governmental fairness work? Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, (5). DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2017.1354815.
[20]	Kocabaş A . 2006. Urban conservation in Istanbul: Evaluation and re-conceptualisation. Habitat International, 30(1):107-126.
[21]	Kong D . 1992. The destruction of ancient ecological environment and the movement of civilization center in China. Chinese Geographical Science, 2(4):382-388.
[22]	Kou H, Zhou J, Chen J , et al. 2018. Conservation for sustainable development: The sustainability evaluation of the Xijie Historic District, Dujiangyan City, China. Sustainability, 10:4645.
[23]	Kovacs J F, Galvin K J, Shipley R . 2015. Assessing the success of Heritage Conservation Districts: Insights from Ontario, Canada. Cities, 45:123-132.
[24]	Lu L, Chi C G, Liu Y . 2015. Authenticity, involvement, and image: Evaluating tourist experiences at historic districts. Tourism Management, 50:85-96.
[25]	Mah A. 2012. Industrial Ruination, Community and Place: Landscapes and Legacies of Urban Decline. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
[26]	Mathieson A, Wall G . 1982. Tourism, economic, physical and social impacts. Geographical Review, 73(4):466.
[27]	Mayor M F . 1973. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Museum International, 25(1-2):452-458.
[28]	Mckercher B, Ho P S Y, Cros H D . 2005. Relationship between tourism and cultural heritage management: Evidence from Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 26(4):539-548.
[29]	Mensah J V, Arthur S N A . 2006. Urban management and heritage tourism for sustainable development. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 17(3):299-312.
[30]	Millar S . 1989. Heritage management for heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 10(1):9-14.
[31]	Moscardo G. . 2000. Cultural and heritage tourism: The great debates. In: Faulkner B, Moscardo G, Laws E. (eds.) Tourism in the 21st Century: Lessons From Experience. Continuum, London, England:3-17.
[32]	Naoi T, Airey D, Iijima S , et al. 2006. Visitors’ evaluation of an historical district: Repertory grid analysis and laddering analysis with photographs. Tourism Management, 27(3):420-436.
[33]	Naoi T, Airey D, Iijima S , et al. 2007. Towards a theory of visitors’ evaluation of historical districts as tourism destinations: Frameworks and methods. Journal of Business Research, 60(4):396-400.
[34]	Naoi T, Yamada T, Iijima S , et al. 2011. Applying the caption evaluation method to studies of visitors’ evaluation of historical districts. Tourism Management, 32(5):1061-1074.
[35]	Nasser N . 2003. Planning for Urban Heritage Places: Reconciling Conservation, Tourism, and Sustainable Development. Journal of Planning Literature, 17(4):467-479.
[36]	Parasuraman A . 1985. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4):41-50.
[37]	Prentice R . 1993. Tourism and Heritage Attractions. London: New York: Routledge.
[38]	Rees W, Wackernagel M . 2008. Urban Ecological Footprints: Why Cities Cannot be Sustainable—and Why They are a Key to Sustainability, New York, USA: Springer.
[39]	Ruan Y, Meng S . 2001. Research on the protection and planning of historic districts in China. Urban Planning, 25(10):25-32. (in Chinese)
[40]	Saaty T L . 1994. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(6):19-43.
[41]	Shin H B . 2010. Urban conservation and revalorisation of dilapidated historic quarters: The case of Nanluoguxiang in Beijing. Cities, 27(27):S43-S54.
[42]	Smith L . 2014. Uses of Heritage. London; New York: Routledge.
[43]	Steinberg F . 1996. Conservation and rehabilitation of urban heritage in developing countries. Habitat International, 20(3):463-475.
[44]	Swarbrooke J . 1999. Sustainable tourism management. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(2):523-525.
[45]	Sykes O, Ludwig C . 2015. Defining and managing the historic urban landscape: Reflections on the english experience and some stories from Liverpool. European Spatial Research & Policy, 22(2):9-35.
[46]	Tao Z, Zhou Y, Liu G . 2017. Comparison of critical success paths for historic district renovation and redevelopment projects in China. Habitat International, 67:54-68.
[47]	Thomas C . 1989. A knowledge that would not be power: Adorno, Nostalgia, and the historicity of the Musical Subject. New German Critique, 104(48):155-175.
[48]	Tiesdell S, Heath T, Oc T. 1996. Revitalizing Historic Urban Quarters. Princeton: Architectural Press.
[49]	Wedow S, Maccannell D . 2013. The tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. Contemporary Sociology, 6(2):200.
[50]	Wood L . 1994. The conservation and management of historic urban space. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 1(2):111-125.
[51]	Yung E H K, Chan E H W, Xu Y . 2014. Sustainable development and the rehabilitation of a historic urban district: Social sustainability in the case of Tianzifang in Shanghai. Sustainable Development, 22(2):95-112.
[52]	Zagroba M . 2017. Modern methods of measuring and modelling architectural objects in the process of their valorisation. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 245(5):052083. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/245/5/052083.
[53]	Zhu Q . 2007. Historic district conservation in China: Assessment and prospects. Traditional Dwellings & Settlements Review, 19(1):59-76.

Comparison with indicator i and j	Quantized value
Equally important	1
Slightly important	3
Significantly important	5
Strongly important	7
Extremely important	9
The intermediate value of two neighboring judgements	2, 4, 6, 8

Comparison with indicator i and j	Quantized value
Equally important	1
Slightly important	3
Significantly important	5
Strongly important	7
Extremely important	9
The intermediate value of two neighboring judgements	2, 4, 6, 8

First level	Weight	Second level	Weight	Score
First level	Weight	Second level	Weight	1	2	3	4	5
Infrastructures & Environment	0.2176	Environmental quality	0.0210	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Service facilities condition	0.0786	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Transport convenience	0.0473	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Infrastructure quality	0.0197	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Regional fame	0.0511	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
Industry & Economy	0.2689	Per capita GDP	0.0159	If it equal or above the whole urban average scored 5, else calculated for the proportion^a.
		Tertiary industry	0.0167	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Visitor capacity	0.0400	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Tourist satisfaction	0.1246	Scores from tourists’ satisfaction survey
		Degree of commercial agglomeration	0.0580	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Abundance of business types	0.0137	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
Heritage protection	0.3049	Repair-rate of ancient buildings and relics	0.0605	The proportion of repaired ancient architectures multiply 5 ^b
		Landscape-architecture coordination	0.0231	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Degree of heritage utilization	0.0569	visitors’ available heritages ratio multiply 5
		Heritage management quality	0.0901	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Protection of native culture	0.0743	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
Residents’ living condition and participation	0.2086	Population density	0.0187	If greater than or equal to urban average, score is 5; if less, a proportion is calculated
		Per capita living space	0.0585	If greater than or equal to urban average, score is 5; if less, a proportion is calculated ^a
		Per capita green area	0.0939	If greater than or equal to urban average, score is 5; if less, a proportion is calculated^a
		Community residents’ participation	0.0374	Scores from residents’ participation survey

First level	Weight	Second level	Weight	Score
First level	Weight	Second level	Weight	1	2	3	4	5
Infrastructures & Environment	0.2176	Environmental quality	0.0210	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Service facilities condition	0.0786	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Transport convenience	0.0473	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Infrastructure quality	0.0197	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Regional fame	0.0511	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
Industry & Economy	0.2689	Per capita GDP	0.0159	If it equal or above the whole urban average scored 5, else calculated for the proportion^a.
		Tertiary industry	0.0167	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Visitor capacity	0.0400	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Tourist satisfaction	0.1246	Scores from tourists’ satisfaction survey
		Degree of commercial agglomeration	0.0580	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Abundance of business types	0.0137	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
Heritage protection	0.3049	Repair-rate of ancient buildings and relics	0.0605	The proportion of repaired ancient architectures multiply 5 ^b
		Landscape-architecture coordination	0.0231	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Degree of heritage utilization	0.0569	visitors’ available heritages ratio multiply 5
		Heritage management quality	0.0901	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
		Protection of native culture	0.0743	Bad	Low	General	Good	Prefect
Residents’ living condition and participation	0.2086	Population density	0.0187	If greater than or equal to urban average, score is 5; if less, a proportion is calculated
		Per capita living space	0.0585	If greater than or equal to urban average, score is 5; if less, a proportion is calculated ^a
		Per capita green area	0.0939	If greater than or equal to urban average, score is 5; if less, a proportion is calculated^a
		Community residents’ participation	0.0374	Scores from residents’ participation survey

First level (score)	Second level	Score
Infrustracture & Environment (4.56)	Environmental quality	4.30
	Service facilities condition	4.33
	Transport convenience	4.78
	Infrastructure quality	4.43
	Regional fame	4.85
Industry & Economy (4.29)	Per capita GDP	5.00
	Tertiary industry	5.00
	Visitor capacity	5.00
	Tourist satisfaction	3.66
	Degree of commercial agglomeration	4.72
	Abundance of business types	4.46
Heritage protection (3.82)	Repair-rate of ancient buildings and relics	3.00
	Landscape-architecture coordination	4.20
	Degree of heritage utilization	4.00
	Heritage management quality	3.87
	Protection of native culture	4.17
Residents’ living condition and participation (2.16)	Population density	0.29
	Per capita living space	4.37
	Per capita green area	1.61
	Community residents’ participation	1.00