文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)和旅游經(jīng)濟(jì)外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯2019中英文

1、 文化遺產(chǎn)保護(hù)和旅游經(jīng)濟(jì)外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯中英文 2019英文The Economy of Cultural Heritage, Tourism and ConservationPatin Valery1. The economy of cultural heritage, a recent theoretical approachAwareness of the economic role of cultural heritage is relatively recent. Itprincipally stems from the rapid growth of tourism (roughly

2、1 billion internationaltourists worldwide in 2010), which is irrigating this sector intensely. This newapproach entails reviewing the traditional status of cultural heritage, which untilrecentlywaspartlynotsubjecttotheusualrulesofcompetition-based economy. Cultural heritage is now considered as a fo

3、rm ofenterprise and, especially, is solicited to become a key instrument to increase localdevelopment. Beyond direct site revenue (ticketing and ancillary revenue),expenditure on nearby facilities and services provides the most resources. Theseresources encompass indirect expenditure (purchases to c

4、ompanies working directlywith the sites) and induced expenditure (in facilities near the sites, such as restaurants,shops and hotels, on services, and real-estate acquisitions).2. Financing and managing cultural heritage2.1 The new trendsThe relative economic autonomy that cultural heritage recently

5、 acquired, pairedwith broader megatrends (the economic downturn and globalization), has stretched thefinancial constraints that weighed on cultural assets. The institutions - the largest ones,principally - have embarked on a wide variety of initiatives to generate new resources.Engineering and franc

6、hises are two examples. The Louvre Museum, GuggenheimFoundation and Beau Bourg Centre are supporting the creation of new museums thatwill use their names in exchange for substantial compensation. Others, which are notcreating new institutions, are letting outworks of art on long-term leases, either

7、inexisting museums (e.g., leases of works of art from the Louvre Museum to the AtlantaMuseum, USA) or in newly-built museumsThe obvious increase in admission prices, in particular for temporary exhibitions (which sidestep the rule of free admission forpeople under 18 in France) is another clear sign

8、. The larger business areasin cultural sites are also driving this movement. Large-scale works in Europes leadingmuseums (the Louvre, British Museum and Prado) led to noticeable extensions inshop, caf and restaurant areas. Managing derived rights (image) more efficiently viainternational photo banks

9、 (Corbis) has also opened up new revenue streams.Large-scale temporary exhibitions, which often generate net profits besidesencouraging people to visit the permanent collections as well, are now commonplace.We can also see a concurrent and symmetrical trend as regards the financingpractices. French

10、legislation is adjusting itself to promote private-sector financing(laws passed in 2003 and 2008) via patronage and associated management conditions.From this perspective. The use of subsidiary revenue earmarked for cultural heritageis developing, belying the principle that bans allocating tax reven

11、ue such as taxes ononline gambling (poker), based on a model involving levies in several countries, andin the UK in particular (the Lottery Fund). The para-fiscal option that is already beingused to acquire and protect natural areas (Departmental Tax for Sensitive NaturalAreas) does not yet seem to

12、be making significant inroads as regards cultural-heritagebuildings, in spite of a few attempts (proposition to tax luxury hotels). There areefforts to make old monuments more profitable by building hotels and restaurants.The French Centre des Monuments Nationaux is seriously studying this option. T

13、hesacrosanct principle of inalienability is starting to splinter. And, if themarket-economy rule takes over, it will not hold for long in current conditions.In the Anglo-Saxon world, where most sites are free of charge for the visitors, itis the opposite: private-sector management (trustees and foun

14、dations) are clearly themajority and are calling on public-sector institutions to protect their balanceincreasingly often.Naturally, earmarking cultural heritage as a real option to reinforce localdevelopment has kick-started a flurry of efforts to protect and promote the first tosupport the second.

15、 These operations have worked very well in some cases, but failedto deliver the expected results in others. Failures are often due to an overestimation of the expected profits or to projects inappropriate to the local reality.2.2 Conflicts of understandingSince economy has burst into the cultural he

16、ritage field, misunderstandingbetween actors from this sector and economic players has get worse. Their respectiveformations did not generally prepare them for dialoguing. Whereasthe cultural heritage actors understand with difficulty the economic aspect of theiractivity, with its procession of cons

17、traints, the economic players do not stillunderstand all the dimensions of the cultural object (historic, emotional, social,identical, etc.), have difficulty in defining clearly its place as capital, resource, orproduction, and do not know where to classify its preservation, whether in theinvestment

18、s or in the non-productive expenses.For the first ones, the cultural heritage, priceless by definition, should escape thetrivial contingency of the imperatives of profitability and competition. This collectivefeeling has been disseminated everywhere in France. The notion ofcultural exception has may

19、be also intelligently educated it while inviting it toevolve since in fact it makes the cultural heritage actors get into the boxing ring of thecompetitive economy, while stressing its specificity and affirming the necessity ofregulations, a notion we seem today to rediscover everywhere else.For the

20、 second ones, it is urgent to improve the econometric tools and themodelling regarding cultural heritage and the returns expected from enhancement andparticularly tourist one. In spite of recent but real progress, as we shall see, thecontribution of cultural heritage to a certain quality of life for

21、 the usual users of aterritory, to its image and to the feeling of belonging, is still insufficiently taken intoaccount.Finally, all share a real difficulty: reconcile the long term of cultural heritagepreservation, which has to be passed on, thus preserved infinitely, with the short termof its econ

22、omic operation and expected profits.2.3 The risksIn this situation and given recent developments, which have not always beenproperly managed, abuses can sometimes occur. This is at least the case in the light of the traditional and essential roles of cultural heritage, namely conservation, scientifi

23、cresearch, knowledge dissemination and cementing social links. These abuses can takedifferent shapes. Firstly, the quest for financing may lead to questionable schemes.To pay for refurbishing work on the Doges Palace in Venice, for instance, thecity council rented a section of the monument outside w

24、alls and a facade of the Bridgeof Sighs to Coca-Cola, which set up massive promotional billboards on them.Poor visitor-flow management can damage sites and the visitor experience. Alsoin Venice, the city council allowed up to 300 metre long cruise ships to dock inTronchetto port. These ships pour ou

25、t several thousand visitors a day, and there is nowway of channelling them. This city had managed to stem tourist flows by limiting thenumber of new hotels in it, but has moved into a new cycle now that it has agreed toplans to build new capacity (turning the former mill on Guidecca Island into anup

26、market hotel). On specific days, the visitor crowds in certain sites (Versailles, theLouvre) make visiting conditions unacceptable.Seeking short-term profits can also contribute to deteriorating cultural heritage.Renting out works of art for more or less long exhibitions, shooting films inmonuments

27、and renting spaces for events (which is occurring increasingly often) cancause damage to certain objects and places, which restorers do not always have timeto prevent or repair.Local populations may feel dispossessed of their cultural environment.Foreigners buying up real-estate en-masse can lead to

28、 excess. That is the case inMorocco in general and in Marrakech in particular, where national legislation entitlesforeigners to buy freeholds. In that same vein, efforts to protect and promote heritage,in particular in character-filled historical town centres and villages, can lead tospeculation on

29、real-estate and land. In both cases, the local populations are faced withvery fast and destabilizing changes in their economic and cultural environment.One of the risks that have made the most media headlines is the reproduction ofsites and historical monuments. This trend is not new and has to be d

30、istinguished fromthe copying of fragile sites, validated by the scientific community and whichcontributes to their preservation (Lascaux, Egyptian tombs), whereas reproductions are more and more often aimed to create attractions and thereby generate quick profitsin more favorable conditions than in

31、the original sites. The Japanese, for instance,have reproduced part of The Hague (The Netherlands) in Omura Bay, paired with alarge-scale property development and marina, all of which did not turn out to be agreat success. The Syrians created a fake Palmyra at the entrance to Damascus, whichis on th

32、e contrary attracting a large number of visitors - who also flock to therestaurants and cafs around it. It is interesting to note that the international law isreally uncertain in that field, which often leads to excesses. Abusive restoration forimperatives of comfort, modernization, or quick profits

33、, constitutes another importantrisk.Management basically geared to generate short-term profit can also in a waydrain meaning out of sites and works. In a number of well-known sites, literature iswanting or unavailable, there are too many visitors, the area is heavily built-up andcommercial, the stag

34、ing modest and the visitor circuits constraining. The Sphinx ofGiza (Egypt) is one example.2.4. Sustainable management of cultural heritage: methods and techniques2.4.1 Methods of economic assessment of cultural heritageGiven those risks, authorities have set up a number of assessment methods andsys

35、tems to step in.One of the first measures involves evaluating as accurately as possible theeconomic reality of the operations and the resulting proceedsinvolving culturalheritage. This approach spurs concerted protection and promotionstrategies and partnerships. It sharpens professional skills pract

36、ices and partnershipsbetween the cultural and tourism realms (coproducing data and pooling resources).Furthermore, highlighting the economic and social stakes associatedwith cultural heritage is a factor that contributes substantially to the acceptability,appropriation and support for local preserva

37、tion and promotion strategy.In this area, the most traditional assessment methods combine approachesfocusing on land and real-estate value, and on the balance sheet. These approaches arestrictly limited to the site itself and to its financial dimension. It is therefore a fairly restrictive approach.

38、 It considerably undervalues fragile cultural assets that requiredheavy conservation investment, and pays little if any attention to the socialand cultural dimensions.Methods stemming from economic theory nevertheless provide an option toassess cultural assets from a development and investment persp

39、ective. These methodsare used by international backers, for instance. This is in particular the case forContingent Valuation Methods (CVMs), which take into account nonmonetary valuesuch as image of the site or the destination. It involves measuring the theoreticalcontribution that populations are w

40、illing to make (whether or not they use the site, andwhether they live in the city or country or further away) to protect a componentof cultural heritage. Other methods, such as relocation costs, costs versus advantages,hedonic costs and multi-criterion appraisals, are also sometimes used.Lastly, as

41、sessing indirect proceeds from cultural-heritage management mostoften involves the impacts method which gauges the number of jobs, cash flows(wages, taxes) and social impacts (awareness of cultural heritage, the peoplescontribution to safeguarding and promoting cultural assets, the sense of belongin

42、g itnurtures, transmission, citizenship, etc.) generated by what visitors do and what theyspend, in the area near the site (i.e. spanning transport, accommodation, restaurants,shops and services), as well as public and private investment to protect andpromote cultural heritage.2.4.2 Sustainable mana

43、gement techniquesTo preserve cultural heritage, guarantee visitor comfort and spur indirect returns,managers and administrators use the specific techniques that provide the basis of theSite Management Plan recommended by UNESCO (World Heritage Centre).a) Visitor flow managementVisitor flow managemen

44、t contributes to site preservation and management.Several systems are now up and running, including visitor-number forecast analysison new sites. This technique makes it possible to assess a sites attendance over time,using a direct approach by analysing the territorial catchment, using a comparativ

45、eapproach, or combining both. The results are generally reliable. This assessment zeros in on peak days and peak times (visitor-number snapshots) to provide the maximumvisitor numbers. Then it is used to assess daily and hourly visitor numbers during the30, 40 or 50 busiest days of the year (design

46、days). These estimates provide the rawmaterial we need to devise the protection and promotion programme by calibratingfacilities and amenities as effectively as possible. Some of the newly-built museumsprogramming has been made on this basis, as in the Louvre Museum in Lens (France).In existing site

47、s, there are also several techniques to support visitor management:group bookings, individual bookings (increasingly often), tariff schedules, longeropening hours, smaller guided-tour groups, quotas (in very fragile sites such as theVilla Borghese Gallery in Roma) and visit paths to deal with shorts

48、tay visitors (touristgroups) and long-stay visitors (groups with specialist lecturers and enthusiasts)separately. These strategies rely on the assessment of the site capacity (acceptablenumber of visitors depending on the site surface) in exterior as well as interior spaces.Then, a minimum surface p

49、er visitor is calculated. This surface can go down to1,50m2 in very popular exhibitions. Such a technique can be difficult to apply incomplex sites (archaeological/natural ones) but can often provide useful elements ofmanagement.Providing information before visitors reach the site (via the Internet,

50、 smartphoneapplications, visitor guides) also plays a role. Negative marketing (momentarilywithdrawing communication) to contribute to limiting the number of visitors in a siteat the same time is very rarely used. Lastly, networking sites into package deals suchas the Carte Mus es Monuments providin

51、g access to 70 museums and monuments inand around Paris, and sharing literature and road signs, can contribute to easingpressure on the main highlights. A beautiful example of this flow-managementstrategy was used in the Alhambra in Granada (Spain), which combines measures torestrict automobile traf

52、fic and visitor numbers, requires individual and group booking,limits group visit time slots, and associates the citys companies working with tourists(taxis, restaurants and hotels), entitling them to distribute top-priority visit bookings.The site attending which rose to 2,8 million of annual visit

53、s has come down to a littlebit more than 2 millions. In terms of capacity, the average surface per visitor which was 3,44m2 has been turned into 5m2.b) Preventive conservation associated with tourist numbersAction on this front is still modest and mainly experimental. As it has beenalready noted, co

54、pies (Lascaux, Valley of the Kings) can contribute to the preservationof very fragile sites and monuments. Copying gets a lot of media attention but is stillrare since these techniques are difficult, as the different attempts to reproduce theLascaux cave has showed it. Reproduction of furniture or d

55、ecoration occurs moreoften thanks to the two different techniques of copy and casting. When the copy orcatering substitutes to the original in situ, it serves to protect the original value. Whenthis is the original which stays in situ, the copy and catering have a cultural memoryvalue, when the orig

56、inal has lost its representative value or has been destroyed(forinstance, Roman copies of Greek works of art or the catering preserved in the Mus edes Monuments franais, such as the statues of the Reims cathedral or the Romanfresco of Saint-Savin sur Gartempe).Regarding tourism and housing, these tr

57、ends led to successful economicrealizations. New tourist resorts are borrowing local architectural and decorativevocabulary (Le Crouesty in Morbihan and Valmorel in Savoy are two Frenchexamples). It is also the case of rebuilt buildings inspired by traditional buildings, forinstance in Beirut or Tun

58、is (the Hafsia Quarter). This trend combines traditionalcharm with modern-day comfort and convenience. Cultural heritage becomes abackdrop stripped of some of its meaning but serves a profitable economic purpose.This also applies to urban revamps that involve keeping nothing but faades(faadism).The

59、most common intervention consists in mapping out visit circuits in sites, andindeed in cities (Strasbourg) to provide tourists with an overview of the highlightswhile avoiding the more fragile spots by providing visitors with free documentationand informative marking. When this option is unfeasible,

60、 the classical measures suchas closing off areas to visitors, permanent or temporary embedding objects (mosaics,in particular), adding security systems around attractions and indirectly aroundvisitors (barriers, fences), are used. There are also specific measures for site fringes, in particulaars re