This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 A JAGGED PATH: TOURISM, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT IN MEXICAN WORLD HERITAGE CITIES By RICHARD G. SHIELDHOUSE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUI REMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 Richard G. Shieldhouse
3 To Stephanie Shieldhouse for supporting, enabling, and enduring
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My heartfelt thanks go to the unwavering sup port of my supervisory committee, Dr. Christopher Silver, Professor Roy Eugene Graham, and Professor William Tilson from rism, Recreation and Sport Management. Much needed and much Department of Statistics, particularly its Chairman, Dr. George Casella and one of his doctoral student s Nabanita Mukerjhee In the course of this investigation I met many helpful people in Mexico, who liberally shared their knowledge and information Special thanks must extend to Dr. Carlos Alberto Hiriart Pardo of the Universidad Michoacana de San Nicols de Hidalgo Others who were especia lly generous with their time were Mara Concepcin Marquez Sandoval Martha Wario Lpez, Jane Ashley and Ricardo Almanza Carillo with Universidad de Guanajuato. None of this would have been possible without the support of my family, which managed to exten d unflagging support despite many absences much grouchiness, and occasional unexplained illnesses
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 12 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 12 Justification for the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 17 Research Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................... 19 Limitations of the Research ................................ ................................ .................... 23 Significance of the Research ................................ ................................ .................. 24 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 26 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 26 Does World Herita ge Inscription Stimulate More Visits to World Heritage Cities? .. 26 Management and Planning Aspects of Heritage Tourism ................................ ....... 34 Cultural Heritage Tourism and World Heritage Sites in Mexico .............................. 47 3 RESEARCH METHODS ................................ ................................ ......................... 53 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 53 Statistical Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 54 Speci fying the Model & Choosing the Variables ................................ ............... 55 Data Handling ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 68 Case Studies and Mixed Methods ................................ ................................ .... 69 Subject of Study ................................ ................................ ............................... 79 Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines ................................ ............ 82 Historic Center of Morelia ................................ ................................ ................. 86 4 STATISTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ ...................... 103 Does World Heritage Inscription Stimulate More Visits to World Heritage Cities? 103 Campeche ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 105 Guanajuato ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 108 Morelia ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 110 Oaxaca ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 1 11 Puebla ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 112
6 Quer taro ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 113 Zacatecas ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 114 5 MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING ASPECTS OF HERITAGE TOURISM ............ 125 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 125 Guanajuato ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 128 Planning and Strategy ................................ ................................ .................... 129 Branding and Slogans ................................ ................................ .................... 142 Political Issues ................................ ................................ ................................ 146 The Cervantino Festival ................................ ................................ ................. 150 Data Issues ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 153 Morelia ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 155 Planning and Strategy ................................ ................................ .................... 157 Plan Maestro Para el Rescate del Centro Histrico de Morelia ...................... 157 Programa Parcial de Desarrollo Urbano del Centro Histrico de Morelia ....... 159 Plan de Reestructuracin Turstico de la Ciudad de Morelia .......................... 163 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 186 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 186 Study Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 190 Value of the Research ................................ ................................ .......................... 193 Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 194 APPENDIX A INTERNATIONAL ARRIVALS AT SEVEN MEXIC AN WORLD HERITAGE CITIES: 1986 2009. ................................ ................................ .............................. 196 B MEXICAN PESOS PER SDR ................................ ................................ ............... 197 C GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL ARRIVALS (MILLIONS) ................................ ........... 198 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 199 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 216
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 31 Mexican World Heritage cities by year of inscription .......................................... 90 32 2005 population for Mexican World Heritage cities ............................................. 91 33 Foreign arrivals to Guanajuato and Morelia: 20002008 ..................................... 92 41 Summary model results for selected Mexican World Heritage cities ............... 116 42 Summary model results for Campeche ........................................................... 117 43 Summary model results for Guanajuato .......................................................... 118 44 Summary model results for Morelia .................................................................. 119 45 Summary model results for Oaxaca ................................................................ 120 46 Summary model results for Puebla ................................................................... 121 47 Summary model results for Quertaro .............................................................. 122 48 Summary model results for Zacatecas ............................................................. 123
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 General location of Guanajuato and Morelia, Mexico. ................................ ........ 93 3 2 Foreign arrivals to Mexican World Heritage cities: 1986 2008 ........................... 94 3 3 Foreign arrivals to Mexican World Heritage cities, 2000 2003. (Source: SECTUR, for dates noted.) ................................ ................................ ................. 95 3 4 Combined foreign arrivals for select Mexican World Heritage cities: 1986 2008 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 96 3 5 Trend in international arrivals for select Mexican World Heritage cities: 2000 2008 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 97 3 6 Average available rooms for seven Mexican World Heritage cities: 1986 2008 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 98 3 7 Mexican pesos per SDR: 1986 2008 ................................ ................................ .. 99 3 8 International tourist arrivals: 1986 2008 ................................ ........................... 100 3 9 Guanajuato tourist map ................................ ................................ .................... 101 3 10 Morelia tourist map) ................................ ................................ .......................... 102 4 1 Annual foreign arrivals for selected Mexican World Heritage cities: 1986 2008, with scale adjusted for clarity ................................ ................................ .. 124 5 1 International arrivals to Guanajuato between 1986 and 2009 .......................... 169 5 2 International arrivals to Morelia between 1986 and 2009 ................................ 170 5 3 September 15, 2008 violence in Morelia ................................ .......................... 171 5 4 Contrast between traditional pavement and new pavement. ............................ 172 5 5 Guadalupe Mine, outside of Guanajuato, Mexico, July 2007. (Photo by the author.) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 173 5 6 Guadalupe Mine, outside of Guanajuato, Mexico, February 2009 .................... 174 5 7 Proposed development in Mineral de La Luz ................................ ................... 175 5 8 Cultural heritage as backdrop ................................ ................................ ........... 176
9 5 9 Guanajuato and San Miguel de Allende, 1986 2009. ................................ ....... 177 5 10 Impact of removing informal commerce San Francisco ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 178 5 11 San Francisco ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 179 5 12 Colectivos still clog central Morelia. ................................ ................................ .. 180 5 13 concealed. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 181 5 14 ................................ .. 182 5 15 Sample page from Plan de Reestructuraci n Tur stico de la Ciudad de Morelia ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 183 5 16 .................... 184 5 17 r ................................ .... 185 6 1 Comparison of international arrivals to Guanajuato and Morelia: 1986 versus 2007 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 195
10 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy A JAGGED PATH: TOURISM, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT IN MEXICAN WORLD HERITAGE CITIES By Richard G. Shieldhouse August 2011 Chair: Chri stopher Silver Major: Design, Construction and Planning s World Heritage l ( Cameron 2005, 1) of ge Although many of the earliest sites named to the list were famous landmarks that were already major tourist attractions, subsequent additions to the list were less well known, and the presence of thousands of new visitors can threaten centuries old cul tural heritage as well as buildings and neighborhoods There is evidence that World Heritage inscription can trigger an influx of tourists to World Heritage sites, although demonstrating a relationship between inscription on the list and visitors has prov en elusive This dissertation uses statistical evidence from seven Mexican World Heritage cities to demonstrate that joining the World Heritage l ist has a significant independent impact on international tourism at World Heritage cities This effect may tak e from one to eight years to occur, with a mean of 5.8 years and a median of 6.5 years A statistically significant relationship between inscription and international arrivals could not be demonstrated at one of the seven World Heritage cities
11 Although th e seven Mexican World Heritage cities considered here typically experienced increased international vi sitors after joining the l ist, scrutiny of the data revealed wide variation in visitor trends over the long term The investigation examined two case stud ies of Mexican World Heritage cities that joi ned the l ist in the late 1980s and early 1990s The two cities Guanajuato and Morelia revealed distinctly different trends in the years after 2000, with Guanajuato demonstrating a 43.2 % decrease in international visitors between 2000 and 2008 while Morelia experi enced a 25.6 % increase over the same period despite a 2008 Independence Day bombing in that quarter of that year. Thro ugh these two cases, this research explores the reasons why such a variation can occur, with a specific eye toward identifying impacts related to public policy and planning in those two cities.
12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Since its inception in 197 World Heritage list has become a rationale for the l ist, which now includes 911 properties ( UNESCO World Heritage Center d ) but the tourism impacts were quickly recognized. It has evolved to symbolize the best places to visit an alternative to Frommer or or even perhaps a kind of alternative to the alternatives, such as Lonely Planet and the Rough Guides The roots of the World Heritage movement trace to 1959 when the governments of Egypt and Sudan appealed to UNESCO to safeguard the Abu Simbel temples, which were then threatened by flooding attri but able to the planned Aswan High Dam in Egypt. (UNESCO, World Heritage Center c) The World Heritage Movement largely driven by United States initiatives during both Johnson and Nixon administrations, was formally launched with the November 16, 1972, adoption of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural a nd Natural Heritage. The Convention justified UNESCO intervention b ecause protection of the demonstrated need to extend protection to cultural and natural heritage resources in countr The 1972 C State Parties to the Convention support heritage through policies, services, training, research, and finance. Such efforts would also be supported by a World Heritage Fund.
13 which would be published as the World Heritage list. (UNESCO, 2005). It also cal ls for a ding universal value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common of outstanding universal value, a property must also [emphasis theirs] meet the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity and must [emphasis theirs] have an adequate ( UNESCO, Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 200 8 ) Apart from a reference in Article 11 to threats from tourist development p rojects, the 1972 Convention makes no reference to tourism, although it became apparent to observers that there is a relationship between inscription on the World Heritage list and tourism. Indeed, subsequent UNESCO publications acknowledge that inscripti on increasing the tourist activities at the site (UNESCO World Heritage Center c). As World Heritage sites may stimulate tourism, they also depend on tourism Both natural and cultural heritage sites require constant funding streams for preservation, ongoing maintenance, and improvements Consequently, World Heritage sites both natural and cultural are frequently dependent upon the economic benefits derived from
14 the tourists that they attract Such benefits are at the same time offset by an increase in negative externalities of crowding, increased wear on existing infrastructure and need for additional infrastructure, increased needs for preservation, and protection f rom over commercialization A potential result of membership on the World Heritage list is noticeable diminution of the uniqueness and sense of place that had originally defined that cultural asset as special. This points to the often highlighted phenomen on of to urism as both a blessing and a bane for World Heritage c ities Center summarized it as follows: Tourism is, however, a double edged sword, which on one hand confers economic benefits through the sale o f tickets and visitor spending on hotels, restaurants, and other tourism related services, but on the other, places stress on the fabric of destinations and the communities who live in them Venice, my home city, is a case in point since it benefits financ ially from its buoyant tourism industry, but struggles to cope with the attendant conservation problems associated with such a large annual influx of tourists. ( Bandarin 2005, v) As the number of World Heritage sites grew from twelve in 1978 to 911 by Sept ember 2010 ( UNESCO World Heritage Center d ) awareness of problems related to such a profusion appeared to increase. A New York Times article on the perils of World Heritage list expansion, especially within the context of Mexico, suggested that many are wondering ering down ( Kugel 2006) The article highlights Yucatn as providing months bringing more than 5,000 visitors a day, according to Yucatn
15 In brief, the inscription process e ntails four steps: Individual preliminary list from which the Tentative List, and provides a forecast of the properties that a State Party may decide to submit for inscription in the next five to ten years and which may be updated at any time. Nominations for individual World Heritage sites are prepared by the state parties, er in Par is. Submitted nominations are reviewed by one of two advisory bodies: the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) or the World Conservation Union (IUCN), which respectively advise regarding cultural heritage sites and natural heritage sites. Evaluated nominations are submitted to the World Heritage Committee at its annual meeting (UNESCO World Heritage Center ). Anna Leask in summarizing current issues in World Heritage site designation and management, highlighted the politicized nature of t he process by noting: deem appropriate instead it is the central governments within each States Party ( Leask 200 6, 15) Tourism is not incidental to World Heritage sites If anything, it is the lifeblood of these places that are typically endowed simultaneously with enhanced needs for preservation and limited opportunities for conventional development. As a consequ ence, much attention has focused on the relationship between World Heritage and t ourism, and this relationship has been the subject of much discussion and numerous quantitative studies. Such studies usually focus on whether joining the exclusive club of Wo rld Heritage sites results in increased visitors. The results generally have been inconclusive, in many cases because of insufficient data. Examples include works by Ralf Buckley (2004 82 ) and Myra Shackley (2006, 83).
16 W ith thirty one natural and cultural World Heritage sites Mexico is a particularly fertile case for investigati ng these relationships on tourism, especially from the North America The nation supports a large numb er of governmental and academic institutions that study tourism and related functions, such as archaeology Consequently, Mexican thinking and discussion about tourism and World Heritage is extensive and sophisticated Mexico is home to ten World Heritage cities including part of its capital, Mexico City, with only Italy, with sixteen World Heritage cities and Spain, with thirteen having more recognized cities. This contrasts with the United States and Puerto Rico which ha ve twenty one natural and cultu ral World Heritage sites but no t a single World Heritage city Federal regulations stipulate Federal property may be nominated to the World Heritage List unless its owner concurs in writing t o such nomination. There are also provisions requiring statements by owners of private property that appropriate preserva tion measures will be sustained Code of Federal Regulations). World Heritage cities makes it an appropriate place to study the outcomes of urban places when joining the World Heritage list Does World Heritage list inscription 1 correspond with increased tourism in World Heritage cities and how does World Heritage inscription affect the public policy and planning that determines future changes in th ese places? 1 equivalent to joining the World Heritage List.
17 Justificati on for the Study Given the important role of tourism for supporting World Heritage sites and, in particular, World Heritage cities urban planners and managers need to understand and manage the principal impact of inscription namel y : the potential arrival of many visitors Tourism data are needed to plan for facilities necessary to accommodate increased visitors including hotels infrastructure, tourism reception centers, etc. These facilities will require other resources Capital and operating flows will be required to build and maintain new facilities as well as to support preservation efforts for cultural heritage that may be subjected to increased wear or even abuse from more visitor traffic Tourism related businesses will requ ire increased staff and improved training in order to handle increasing visitor volumes and a potential change in the visitor mix The ramifications of World Heritage i nscription are numerous and complex Proper planning, strategy, and management require information about expected tourism impacts T he following core questions will be addressed by this study: Is there a statistical relationship between World Heritage list inscription and increased tourism? What are the dimensions of this increase? What is t he timing of this increase? Going beyond the immediate impacts of inscription, what practices and behaviors determine the success or failure of World Heritage sites at retaining and growing visitor levels? Armed with such information, a new or prospective World Heritage Site would be better equipped to plan for and to manage increased visitor levels, while employing best practices to maximize the quality of the visitor experience, promote thoughtful
18 preservation of its cultural heritage, and assure predict able levels of visitors and concurrent economic benefits. As the World Heritage Movement evolves from a relatively new phenomenon into a mature institution, new information and new perspectives bring new thinking about the process While much of the prevai ling approach to the relationship between tourism and inscription has been conc erned largely with the immediate impacts this research assumes a broader perspective The line of inquiry here expands from simply whether or not there is a relationship betwee n inscription and tourist levels to one that conside rs in visitors It considers the behaviors of government planner s tourism officials, and public managers who d eter mine whether World Heritage cities continue to attract visitors more than a decade after they join the l ist, or whether they stagnate and become as much a burden as an asset. The avail ability of twenty four years worth of Mexican tourist arrival data from the Mexican federal government enables this investigation to go beyond the more immediate effects on inscription and to identify trends that appeared in many cases more than ten years after a city joined the World Heritage list a de Turismo (SECTUR) collects data on hotel rooms, foreign and domestic tourist arrivals, available rooms, and length of stay for a wide range of destinations, including archaeological sites such as Chichn Itz and attractions such as Cancn, a nd day tourists to border cities such as Tijuana and Ciudad Jurez This investigation considered only foreign arrivals to World Heritage cities
19 The Mexican domestic market was excluded for two reasons First, domestic visitors have a wide range of motiv ations for visiting a historic city, including acade mic or vocational training, family events and local festivals Second, SECTUR data reflect domestic and international tourist arrivals at hotels Domestic tourists are perhaps more likely to stay with fr iends or family or make day trips, reducing the accuracy of SECTUR reported hotel arrivals as a means for measuring arrivals of Mexican nationals International visitors to cultural sites are more likely to occupy hotel rooms and are more likely to visit W orld Heritage cities for their cultural attributes. The focus of the World Heritage cities It would also be interesting to understand the effect of inscription on natural or archaeological World Heritage sites or to compare listed and non listed heritage cities While this study may provide limited insights into these other issues, they certainly merit their own distinct research and are not the focus of this investigation. Research Objectives The study employ s a mixed methods approach to understand a) the short term implications for international tourism arrivals of inscription on the World Heritage list and b) the reason why international visitors over the longer term may increase at some World Heritage cities and decrease at others The approach includes a statistical component which developed a series of exploratory models for seven World Heritage cities in Mexico This is followed by a case study examination of two such cities that manifested different tre nds in foreign arrivals in the second decade after inscription T he hypothesis of the component study is that, all things being equal, World Heritage cities demonstrate a significant increase in tourism as a direct and
20 independent result of inscription on the World Heritage list Stated in purely statistical terms the null hypothesis for the quantitative analyses is that World Heritage cities do not reflect increases in international visitors as a result of inscription that are significant at a .05 confid ence interval An exploratory analysis was employed using the Proc Mixed routine of SAS 9.2 2 The methodology involves assembling longitudinal data sets for each World Heritage city drawing upon data dating from 1986, the first year for which SECTUR dat a are available through 2008 As of this writing 2009 data are available ; however, the multiple disasters of the H1N1 influenza outbreak, the post Lehman Brothers financial meltdown, and increasing bloodshed in Mexico related to illegal drugs and drug ca rtels contributed to an anomalous decline in Mexican tourism during 2009 making it difficult to g eneralize. World Heritage list inscription was defined with a categorical or dummy variable with a value initially set to 0 for the period prior to inscripti on and to 1 for years hence In a n exploratory mode, the date for which the value transitioned from 0 to 1 was advanced until a positive coefficient for the variable significant at a .05 confidence interval was achieved Four control variables were specifi ed so that the independent effect of inscription could be isolated These variables were based upon data provided by SECTUR, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) Available hotel rooms in each Wor ld Heritage city were derived from SECTUR data This variable was considered relevant because the 2 SAS and all other SAS Institute Inc. product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of SAS Institute Inc. in the USA and other countries. indicates USA registration.
21 supply of lodging influences both price and convenience of a destination, both critical considerations for travelers The IMF provides data on the strength of various currencies ver sus a basket of currencies, Special Drawing Rights (SDR) A variable defined by the number of Mexican pesos per SDR was included to measure the price of Mexico relative to other destinations As the number of pesos per SDR increases, Mexico becomes relatively cheaper than other countries, and all else remaining equal becomes a more attractive destination A third control variable was the number of global international arrivals, as reported by UNWTO The number of people visiting World Heritage cities may vary because people are traveling more or because they are traveling less. The motivations for increased travel could be increased affluence, better air transport, and lower fares Likewise, fewer people may be visiting World Heritage cities because of economic uncertainty or security concerns Including the UNWTO data as a variable accounts for such variation in a general way Minus these control variable s the calculated World Heritage dummy variable would have be en less precise and l ess valuable, because it might have be en capturing variation attributable to those other factors influencing travel A second hypothesis of the study is that the positive impact of World Heritage Inscription on Mexican World Heritage cities is not immediat e It takes a period of several years for word to spread that the inscribed site is worth visiting Likewise, some World Heritage sites may not be particularly well equipped to handle the amount and type of visitors who may appear after inscription. The ex ploratory nature of the analysis, which involved advancing the year at which the dummy variable transitions from a value of 0 to a value of 1 provided a mechanism for determining how many years were
22 required after inscription for Mexican World Heritage sit es to experience significant increases in international visitors. The case study analysis sought to examine the hypothesis that long term changes in the number of visitors to Mexican World Heritage cities are influenced by public policy The statistical ev idence suggest s that a lthough these cities may initially experience increases in visitors due to inscription, but that their long term success may attribute to the ability of public officials to succeed in the following areas: p romotion ; p lanning ; manageme nt; and a bility to work with various actors involved in the process, including the private sector, citizens, non governmental agencies, etc. The research investigates these factors through Highlands : the Historic Town of Gua najuato and Adjacent Mines and the Historic Cent er of Morelia The se two World Heritage cities were inscribed on the l ist between the late 1980s and early 1990s Both cities are within five hours reach by bus from Mexico City, and both are in proxim ity to other natural, historical, and cultural destinations Guanajuato, for example is less than seventy five minutes from San Miguel de Allende, a recent addition to the World Heritage list and popular with North Americans for its cultural offerings catering t o English speakers, such as art, Spanish language, and cooking schools, and numerous galleries. Guanajuato is also closer to Dolores Hidalgo, known for El Grito and the beginnings of Mexican Independence from Spain 200 years ago Mor n, home to the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve, a natural World Heritage Site, which joined the
23 l ist in 2008 Nearby Ptzcuaro draws tourists annually to its Day of the Dead celebrations in November The Heritage l ist in 2008 Michoacn abound s in traditional villages with tourist appeal, some built near large Pre Columbian structures A 2010 Heritage List is Traditional Mexican Cuisine Ancestral, Ongoing Community Culture, the Michoacn P aradigm Although Mexico has ten World Heritage cities no two have been developed alike Guanajuato and Morelia were selected for the case studies because they experienced different outc omes with respect to long term tourism trends after inscription, despite similarities with respect to the timing of inscription and their location. Limitations of the Research The observations and conclusions resulting from this study must properly be vie wed within the context of numerous limitations Prominently, the study concerned only Mexican World Heritage cities While the results might help one to understand the impact of World Heritage list inscription at World Heritage cities in other countries or at other natural or cultural World Heritage sites they have no unqualified applicability to such situations Further, within the limits of Mexican World Heritage cities the analysis focused on the impact of World Heritage list inscription on internatio nal arrivals and excluded domestic arrivals One need s to related to domestic visitors to World Heritage cities The more general nature of the findings derived from the case study analysis suggests th ey may have more relevance to domestic visitors and other situations.
24 In making inferences from this analysis, one must remember that data evaluated in the exploratory statistical analysis reflect observations from 1986 to 2008 The circumstances and event s related to this period may limit the ability to apply the conclusions to the future World Heritage cities were inscribed on the World Heritage list during a narrow window between 1987 and 1991 Calculated results may be limited by the p aucity of pre inscription data in some cases Additionally, one should not exclude the possibility that the economic and political environment in Mexico, particularly during the 1990s may have colored applicability to o ther situations. As the statistical analysis was exploratory and iterative in nature, it would be incorrect to over generalize from the results Critics might question the validity of this esult Acknowledging this limitation, the analysis indicated that for six of the seven World Heritage cities under scrutiny, inscription was followed by statistically significant increase d levels of international visitors, assuming a .05 confidence interva l Such increases required between one and eight years to materialize, with a mean of 5.8 years after inscription and a median of 6.5 years Significance of the Research Despite these limitations, the research provides valuable insights into the apparentl y elusive relationship between inscription on the World Heritage list and tourism and the behaviors necessary for World Heritage cities to preserve and enhance their tourism base It also provides new insights into the complexity of the relationship betwee n inscription and tourism This research suggests that inscription does invite increased tourism The degree of increase, however, may be a function of many other
25 variables in addition to membership on the World Heritage list Over a long term horizo n the influence of inscription can be affected markedly by public policy and planning at the local level The cities that develop detailed, actionable plans that involve the principal actors in the community in planning and management can expect to sustain high er levels of international visitors and more resources for conservation than those with thinly articulated, inconsistent plans that ignore the needs and communities of different local actors. Furthermore, this research provides the basis for further and r elated research to address related questions which may include the following: What is the relationship between World Heritage list inscription and tourism for other (non urban) cultural sites and for natural sites? Could similar results be found with Worl d Heritage cities in other countries? Were these conclusions from Mexico an anomalous result dictated by the unique circumstances of that country and the time period during which most Mexican World Heritage cities joined the World Heritage list ? The case s tudy contrasting two Mexican World Heritage cities produced one set of conclusions What would more examples and more information tell us about the impact of public policy on international visitor numbers in World Heritage cities ? A lthough inspired by th is analysis, these questions are beyond the scope of this study.
26 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Overview T h e literature review contains three sections The first section deals with the core question : does inscription on the World Heritage list lead to in creases in tourism? The second section concerns management and plannin g aspects of heritage tourism. There are multiple de finitions of heritage available some vague and some quite explicit. Heritage resources and World Heritage cities require planning, but poor concepts of the meaning and implications of heritage can contribute to planning and management of heritage resources that neglects local actors, leading to unfa vorable outcomes. World Heritage cities with solid planning and management plans that cons ider local herita ge tend to be more successful. The third section considers the Mexican experience with tourism in general and heritage tourism, in particular. Does World Heritage Inscription Stimulate More Visits to World Heritage Cities? There is anecdo tal evidence that a distinct subculture of well educated and affluent tourists seek to visit World Heritage sites, as one observer notes, American heritage traveler is older, better educated, and more affluent than other ( Buckley 2004) Arguably, the extent of direct impacts of World Heritage inscription has not been completely analyzed. A review of the literature reveals a general agreement that there is a relationship between inscription and tourism but little empirical evidence of a correlation. A case can be made for more research to help understand the nature and intensity of the relationship between World Heritage i nscription and tourism at World Heritage cities. Further, there also is a need fo r understanding the longer term trends in tourism
27 at World Heritage cities and for identifying influences other than inscription that may influence the preservation of such cities as well as their appeal to visitors. This is especially important in the cas e of Mexico, where tourism and cultural tourism have (Gould and Levin 2010) There is a general ly accepted view that inscription o n the World Heritage list brings increasing amounts of visitors and with them economic growth, but the assumption has not been methodically studied. Brijesh Thapa summarizes the situation confirms the correlation 2010). The assumption that World Heritage Site designation leads to increased publicity and higher visitor levels is a central theme in UNESCO Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites It s authors stat e that t he designation of a site as World Heritage implies changes. Increased numbers of visitors demand new facilities ( Feilden and Jokilehto 1998) Myra Shackley added some nuance to this assumption. Based on a review of ten case studies Shackley concluded that i t is frequently assumed that any site awarded World Heritage status will immediately receive a marked increase in visitors. However, this is not necessarily the case and visitor numbers depend on a number of factors including the way in which the ( Shackley 2006, 83) In other words, World Heritage designation is not enough. She further asserts that lesser known sites attaining World Heritage status ( such as Biertan, Romania) see hardly any
28 increase in visitors, while better known sites (Easter Is land or Rapa Nui for example), are so famous that most people would expect them to already be on the World Heritage list. Consequently, they see no increase in visitors. Shackley and others fail to consider another possibility namely that the World Heri tage designation may contribute to an initial burst of interest, only to be followed by declining visits due to unfulfilled expectations, or poor planning and management. Alan Fyall and Tijana Rakic ( Fyall and Rakic 2 006) review this issue and conclude, extent to which inscription does actually contribute to higher visitor numbers at sites previously not on the World Heritage list The same authors reference an observation by former World Heritage Cent er head Francesco Bandarin known sites, such as the Tower of London, World Heritage status may have little impact on visitor numbers, but in les s established destinations inscription is usually accompanied by an upsurge in ( Harrison and Hitchcock 2005) This was underscored by a 2007 review of visitor surveys undertaken in different sites in the UK, which described World Heritage status as less important for the Tower key motivator Tower of London and Jurassic Coast, World Heritage status appears to have marginal impact on the motivations of visitors ( Pricewat erhouseCoopers LLP 2007) The study
29 conservation levels and the increased publicity provides greater scrutiny in planning applications influencing the scale and quali ty of local development (ibid.). On the other hand, there is evidence of a strong relationship between the number of World Heritage sites in a country and the number of international tourist arrivals. One study found a correlation coefficient of 0.75 betw een the number of sites in January, 2000, and international tourist arrivals during 1994 1995 (The most recent years available at that time) ( Lazzarotti 2000, 12) The author suggests this confirms the belief that tourism and heritage are inextricably linked. While it is difficult to argue that World Heritage sites are not a tourist draw, this correlation could just as likely be evidence that countries with tourism dependent economies, such as France, Italy, Sp ain, and Mexico, are particularly diligent about getting their sites on the World Heritage list. With respect to measuring the relationship between World Heritage inscription and tourism, a study by Ralf Buckley of Griffith University in Queensland, Austra lia attempted to demonstrate the marginal contribution of World Heritage listing to tourism by comparing time series data for listed sites and comparable unlisted site s during simultaneous periods. The comparison between listed and unlisted sites was neces ( Buckley 2004) Such an approach appears to assume a degree of homogeneity among listed places and among unlisted areas. Probing a bit further, one might question that assumption, for, as Myra Shackley noted above, different World Heritage sites exhibit different abilities to attract visitors after inscrip tion on the List. Further, cultural and natural heritage sites that are not on the World Heritage list and lacking the selection
30 criteria and management stipulations of the World Heritage program, would likely see more variation than within World Heritage sites alone. One could argue that analyzing only World Heritage sites before and after inscription avoids the specter of such unexplained factors by virtue of an inherent heterogeneity. These issues highlight the danger of relying solely on statistical ana lysis and the need for qualitative analysis. Buckley identifies numerous analytical problems that are helpful for investigating World Heritage cities in Mexico. For example, he notes that World Heritage actually des heritage value, branding, marketing and m ost of the World Heritage Areas (WHAs) considered here received several times more visitors than the control sites, but it is n ot clear whether the difference is because WHAs are larger or more accessible, because they are better known, because they are listed as World Heritage, or because they contain features of natural or cultural heritage An earlier study by Buckley, ( Buckley 2002) also observed that examining both World Heritage status from the many other larg e scale factors which may influence According to Shackley and Buckley, visitor statistics at heritage sites may not be kept or may be unreliable. Data collection was further complicated, van der Aa observes, because informati on on the effect of heritage on tourists requires further information about motives. The regression approach used with this study addresses that
31 problem by using statistics to control for variables, which effectively represent tourist motives. Van der Aa also examined visitor trends for fifty one World Heritage sites to cent rally located World Heritage sites see larger increases after inscription than do centrally located World Heritage sites. He offers three reasons for these World Heritage sites experiencing abnormal increases in visitors: (1) World Heritage sites may be in cluded in tourist routes, (2) World Heritage status can lead to more intensive promotion, and (3) World Heritage status may promote additional media attention. The author provides some discussion of tourist routes within the context of Mexico and notes tha t i n Mexico the World Heritage sites that lie along a tourist route witness (115). He notes that Puebla, Oaxaca, and Palenque benefited more from the designation, while Morelia, Guanajuato, and Zacatecas onl y received more national visitors owing to their low accessibility. and some of his conclusions appear counterintuitive. Morelia, Guanajuato, and Zacatecas are on a clear path from the cou although the latter city is a bit more remote, at 376 miles from Mexico City None of the three are particularly remote. As we will discuss later, Mexican tourism data demonstrated post inscription increases in foreign visitor arrivals to Mo relia, Guanajuato, and Zacatecas.
32 The influence of World Heritage inscription on tourism promotion and marketing sites. The results found nearly one half of the respondents (48 .4 % ) believed the designation plays a role in attracting visitors. Another 31.3 % indicated they did not know whether World Heritage inscription has a role in attracting tourists. Only 20.3 % indicated it has no role ( Hall and Piggin 2002, 401) The authors referenced their work from the increased visitation over and above existing tourism trends is somewhat tenuou A report prepared for UNESCO ( Prud'homme 2008, 1) reviewed three recent efforts at understanding the effect of World Heritage inscription The first, a comprehensive review of 200 works in the literature by Maria Gravari Barbas a nd Sbastien Jacquot (2008), found a tenuous link between inclusion on the World Heritage list and tourism The authors concluded one cannot reduce the relationship to a single statistic There appeared to be a correlation between the number of World Herit age sites in a country and the number of visitors to a country, although the paper also properly noted that the correlation cannot be confused with causality In note s the shaky analytical foundations of many assertion s regarding the link between joining the World Heritage list and increased tourism guarantees sufficient for seriously valuing the impact of inscription upon visits 1 he noted ( ibid., 6 7) The author further observes that Mexican archaeological sites with the World 1 My translation.
33 Heritage designation receive four times the visitors of those without the designation ; however he cautions that the difference may be due to more intensive promotion A st udy using France as a case employed multiple regression s to understand the independent effect of World Heritage inscription (along with eleven other variables) on twenty different independent variables for various tourist destinations and came up with a di fferent conclus i on The study concluded that the impact of inscription ranges from feeble to nil Indeed, it finds the Michelin three star ratings ( worth a trip ) and two star ratings ( worth a detour ) have more explanatory value than d oes World Heritage inscription (ibid., 8 11). The third study examined seven case studies of heavily visited cultural sites in Turkey both with and without World Heritage status The researchers interviewed an array of people responsible for preserving tho se sites (both archae ological and urban). From sixteen responses, they concluded that World Heritage inscription has little impact. The author recognized the limitations of such a small sample comprised exclusively of preservationists (ibid.,19) The an alyses cited by Prud'homme both used the same overall approach as did Buckley ; that is, comparing World Heritage sites with similar sites that lack inscription on judgmen ts on the socio economic impact of inscription cannot merely look at what really happened but must look at what would have happened in the absence of inscription. By implication, an analysis would be indefensible if it did not account for wider trends eit her by comparison with sites that have not been inscribed or by including variables that would reflect global trends.
34 Management and Planning Aspects of Heritage Tourism Heritage has multiple meanings that have evolved over more than fifty years. With mu ltiple notions of heritage circulating, there is no universal notion of its importance and relevance. In more orthodox usage, heritage, or patrimony, to use a term more akin the French word p atrimoine above statements, that which had previously been considered a family matter, a tribal matter, or even a national matter, became something under the purview of a global body The ev olving definition of heritage has been documented by several authors As David Lowenthal note d dwelt mainly on heredity, probate law, and taxation; it now features antiquities, roots, identity, ( 1996 3 ) A similar evolution was observed and expanded by Ashworth and Tunbridge who observed that heritage formerly had a more simple meaning related to what one inherits from deceased ancestors W ith modern notions taken on wider meanings Heritage can be: a synonym for a specimen from the past ; t his notion began with museums, but evolved to include public works, crafts, and fo lklore ; all material items and works of art ; e ; t sed on selling goods and services with a heritage component.
35 Ash w orth and Tunbridge d ch ooses to inherit an Heritage is far more dependent on the manner in which it is interpreted and this interpretation lends itself to becoming transformed into a prod (Ashworth and Tun bridge 1996, 7) Lowenthal touche s on this difference in The Past is a Foreign Country He noted that history extends and inter prets relics, but, Relics, that is, artifacts of heritage rather than Otherwise they are mute and they are static ( Lowenthal 1985, 238) This latter aspect of heritage has interesting implications for p laces like Mexican World Heritage cities prese Lowenthal argued ibid. 243) The result is a curious situation in which places known for their historical significance paradoxically exist in a state of historical stagnation A place may have historical significance, but those responsible for the management of these locations ibid. 244), are effectively responsible for interpreting their artifact for visitors ; from this can arise myriad problems with historical accuracy, authenticity, and respect for tradition. This was amplified by John Urry, itage history is distorted because of the predominant emphasis on visualization, on presenting visitors with an visualize the patterns of life that would have eme ( Urry 2002 112 )
36 Phaedra C. Pezzullo describes how tourism offers a of everyday life something different or perceive d as different from the daily routine ( Pezzullo 2007 43 ) For most international tourists, World Heritage cities would appear to fit that description and managers of these cities as tourist attractions woul d want to maximize their differentness from modern experience. Dean MacCannell compared t his differentness to the attraction to religious symbolism for primitive peoples building from a line of inquiry developed by mile Durkheim ( MacCannell 1976 2 ) In an earlier work, MacCannell argued that religion was being replaced by something that provides similar levels of gratification The author noted their experiences parall ( MacCannell 1973, 590 591) MacCannell contends that sigh tseeing has replaced religion (ibid., 589) One might also argue however, that religion in many places certainly in the Muslim world and in parts of the former Soviet e mpire has demonstrably strengthened in parallel with increased tourism, Perhaps a more appropriate position would be that tourism effectively competes with religion and satisfies similar innate human urges especially an urge for authe nticity MacCannell compare d the urge for authenticity to the market for artificially colored hams and silicone inflated breasts, which he claims are designed to create a n amplified sense of reality Within the realm of tourism, this drive results in tour ist attractions as stage sets or tourist settings being injected everywhere into real settings. ( ibid., 591 )
37 Erik Cohen ( 2004) argues that there are two basic models of attractions : the n post modern tourism, there exists confusion between history and heritage spawning a kind of contrived heritage attraction that creates its own new reality a part of the Walt Disney World compl ex near Orlando Florida Cohen suggests tourists are being def l Cohen has contrasted his He writes that onstructed concept and its social (as against philosophical) ( 1988, 371 372) who as serted that such places are mirrors to represented, contested, and Simultaneou sl y, however, there is an oper ating myself in the glass at once absolutely real, connected with all the space that surrounds it, and absolutely unreal, since in order to be perceived it has to pass through this virtual ( Foucault 1986, 22 2 4 ) The inescapable reality is that visitors revere World Heritage cities for their otherness Competing notions of heritage are relevan t because how a city views its heritage can impact planning and policies used to manage cultural heritage resources. The challenge for governments, businesses, and other actors involved with their management is balancing a reality dislocated from the norma l with the need for these
38 for outsiders. Likewise, they must recognize the outstanding qualities of places and assure that the valu e of heritage is not quashed by reckless and insensitive development. The advantages related to economies of scale, coupled with expensive new technologies available only to the most financially potent firms and with the more universal cultural expectatio Thomas Friedman [Friedman 2007]) combine to create tourist attractions that are at once are artificial and blend elements of cultural heritage An example of this is Kerzner ntis resorts in the Bahamas and Dubai, both of which feature large archaeologically themed water slides The resort describes its Bahamas water slide as follows: adventurous a 60 ft. almost v ertical drop from the top of the world famous and iconic Mayan Temple, propelling riders at a tremendous speed through a clear acrylic tunnel submerged in a shark ( Atlantis Resorts) ubai resort features a similar slide fashioned as a Middle Eastern ziggurat. On the other extreme are tourist attractions that grow from and directly reflect history and heritage While the se sites may indeed be more authentic than recent quasi heritage pr oducts, such as the previously described Kerzner International developments, visitor motivations can be diverse Research on visitors to Israel heritage to those who are m otivated to visit a site because it is part of their own patrimony Knowledge of these varying expectations can lead to better management practices ( Poria, Butler, and Airey 2003, 238 254) Likewise planning for th e
39 exploitation of heritage resources should be cognizant of the unique attributes of each site and ea ch country Another study noted great care in planning, development, management and marketing, and different ap proaches may be needed in establishing heritage tourism in developed and ( Nuryanti 1996, 249 260) The concept of multiple meanings f or heritage and authenticity seems at odds with objective s of the 1972 World Heritage Convention : conservation, presentation, and transmission to future generations of cultural and ( UNESCO, Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 2005) If it possible to have a notion such as outstanding universal value? to include monuments, groups of buildings o r site s an appropriate point of view ( UNESCO 2005) Despite its lavish use, the only language approaching a definition of the term appears in Article 12 : The fact that a property belonging to the cultural or natural heritage has not been included in either of the two lists mentioned in paragraphs two and four of Article Eleven [ 2 ] shall in no way be construed to mean that it does not have an outstanding universal value for purposes other than those resulting from inclusion in these lists (ibid.) Effectively, Article 12 suggests that everything on the two lists clearly has outstanding universal value by virtue of inclusion on those lists and it opens the door to 2 The two lists referred to in paragraph two and paragraph four refer to the World Heritage List and the list of World Heritage in Danger, respectively.
40 additional inscriptions. Article 12, paragraph 5 indicates that the World Heritage cultural or natural heritage may be included on either of the lists mentioned in ibid. ) It has been argued that o ver thirty eight years, however, UNESCO has responded to a changing landscape and increased knowledge about cultural and natural heritage by effective ( UNES CO, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 2005 6) Recent attempts to document the evolution of outstanding universal value, first by Christina Cameron in 2005, ( Cam eron 2005, 1) and subsequently in a 2008 ICOMOS study compiled by Jukka Jokilehto reveal that the earliest efforts to provide meaningful definitions for outstanding universal value resulted from a meeting of experts prompted by a report from the 1976 UNE SCO meeting in Morges Switzerland, as well as from a series of proposals developed by the International Cent er for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) ( Jokilehto 2008 1 2) Jokilehto explores the were effectively ratified by the subsequent Kazan Meeting on Outstandin g Universal Value This definition reads as follows: Outstanding universal value means cultural/and or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance ibid. )
41 The 2005 Operational Guidelines integrated aspects of the 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity which ractical basis for examining the authenticity of properties proposed for W orld Heritage listing ( Rssler 2008, 47 52) The result is eight paragraphs (supplemented by the Nara Document) that provide a means of s imultaneously creating a universal concept of authenticity, while recognizing cultural variation This is characterized by paragraph 11 in the Nara Document, which reads: All judg ments about values attributed to cultural properties as well as the credibili ty of related information sources may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture. It is thus not possible to base judgments of values and authenticity within fixed criteria On the contrary, the respect due to all cultures requires th at heritage properties must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which they belong. ( UNESCO 2005) no tions that authenticity is negotiable, and recent literature regarding the management of heritage resources advises a sensitivity to multiple viewpoints. With respect to management and planning, it has been suggested that the responses of different markets (such as European versus East Asian) to a cultural site may differ and should (McKercher and Du Cros 2002) The beauty of the World Heritage movement is that it recogniz es, embraces, and encourages regional differences, while simultaneously imposing standards for planning and management, the absence of which can have unfortunate consequences for historic cities. Heritage tourism typically has positive consequences for lo cal economies, but if improperly managed, it can have negative impacts on the conservation of heritage properties. A 2006 article in Newsweek International while threatening the
42 resources upon which tourism is built The author specifically cites the manner in which its 5,000 vis itors per day have turned Chich n Itz ( Nadeau 2006) The pr oblem is exacerbated by top down management, which may fail to understand the particular needs of individual communities For example, the previously described World Heritage nominat ion and review process endures at least eighteen months The amount of mo ney and effort required for this effectively represents a barrier to entry for countries with minimal resources that, justifiably must be dedicated to other contingencies The PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis in the UK that was referenced earlier reviewed existing literature and estimated bidding costs for World Heritage inscription at £400,000 ( PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 2007) which is equivalent to $ 624,840 as of this writing Bart J.M. van der Aa a nd others observe d problems arising from a ba lkanized evaluation process has been criticized as inordinately dictated by its headquarters and the World Heritage Committee, which in the past typically stressed European values ( Scholze 2008 217) International financial organizations frequently bring in w estern consultants and staff for such projects in developing countries Stubbs (2009) notes that organizations such as UNESCO, I COMOS, AND ICCROM have helped to advance global cultural that such organization s enable foreign experts to meet and interchange ideas and that recent agreements and policies re veal more sensitivity to local perspectives. Perhaps more importantly, debt financing through such institutions typically relies on the US
43 dollar as currency The need to repay such debts demands borrower countries enhance foreign exchange earnings One co mmon means of doing so is with large scale international to urism ( Mowforth and Munt 1998) With both visitors and major commercial participants in heritage tourism dominated by developed Western countries, herita ge tourism effectively can be described as a new form of imperialism ( Smith 2003) Another result, described by David Lowenthal is a that stems from global popularity ( Lowenthal 1985) While the patrimony may be diverse, the stor ies are presented with a common faade, using the J oseph Scarpaci notes a state and municipal selling points of buildings, square promenades, and other landmarks, they confront the great paradox that by making their geographic and market niches universally accessible, they may render them Such criticisms are somewhat alarmist, at least as applies to World Heritage c ities. They are not flies in amber, nor are they Disneyland. They must adapt and respond to rs. A balance must be struck between modernity and preservation. The empirical evidence suggests a range of responses to the need for such a tradeoff, implying less homogeneity than some might suggest. There have been situations, however, where careless management and planning have clearly harmed heritage. Two Mexican authors have note d services to satisfy the enormous tourism flows have predominantly been the most predatory with the natural and cultural environment (Vela 2002, 113) (Aceves and
44 Delgado Lamas 2002, 92). The cultural heritage of coastal resorts is seldom mentioned, and the authors observe that in Acapulco and Mazatln heritage was decimated with painful results, as new resorts were developed by the Mexican governme nt to attract the instant success set in motion the implementation by FONATUR of two additional major res ort areas on the Pacific coast, Huatulco and Ixtapa, which, in effect, confirmed the decline 296). f glory as tourist, in a work by Barbara Kastelein (2010, 320). The author notes that the prevailing affecting Acapulco are 80% of Such fa ilures have provoked a call for more collaborative planning process, and there are frequent references in the literature to the importance of including stakeholders in tourism planning for cultural resources. Heather Black and Geoffrey Wall note that the top development incorporates the knowledge, skills, and desires of local people leading to more secure
45 (2001, 122 135 ). Even in top down systems, it is possible to open the door to increase d involvement become more than just a buzzword or hopeful sentiment, it clearly requires the participation of local communities in partnership with the state, its agenc ies, and the (Hampton 2004, 752 753). There are situations where stakeholder considerations become less important. such as with crises r equire executive action. Brijesh Thap threat from intrusive development and then presence on the World Heritage Danger list, suggests that coordination of stakeholders, while helpful, deserves a lower priority in dire situations where governm ent action must take precedence (2007 25 26). In response to the World Heritage list bias toward Western European and North American viewpoints, esentative and Credible World Heritage list 1994 ( UNESCO 2009 ) UNESCO proudly point ed to statistical evidence of the Global nine new countries have ratified the World Heritage Convention, many from small ibid. ) A direct result of a Global Strategy that enc ouraged more diverse nominations has been an effective rede finition of the amorphous notion of Outstanding Un iversal Value to reflect, as noted previously,
46 Still, Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites ( Feilden and Jo kilehto 1998) impose prescriptions for staffing and management intens ity which may be beyond the reach of less affluent places As an example, it listed thirty five different experts and professionals who need to be involved in the management of cultural heritage These practitioners include d ethnologists, hydrologists, landscape architects, and mineralogists A description of different levels of acceptable staffing which might accommodate different levels of available funding would be more useful, given the range of resources available to different countries. Such high expectations for management may have contributed to a situation whereby most World Heritage sites designated prior to 1996 still had no management plans ( Leask 2006, 15) That source also highlights the lack of legislative power associated with designation as affecting the ability to require and implement management plans Further, i n many other cases, management plans, designed to minimize visitor im pact, are not often enforced ( Shackley 2006 83) Studies around the world have identified numerous social and environmental consequences of tourism Various socio cultural and environmental problems associa ted with poorly managed tourism have been identified A range of responses to international tourism, including resistance, retreatism, boundary maintenance, revitalization, and adoption, were identified in one article ( Dogan 1989 221) The author Dogan reviewed an array of problems identified as related to tourism in general which apply equally to tourism to World Heritage cities ( ibid. 218 220): disrupted personal relations linked to increased commerc ialization and materialism increased rates of crime : property crimes and crimes against persons
47 increased crowding and noise contributing to negative attitudes toward tourists as well as deteriorating environmental conditions problems with physical and men tal health increased dependency on foreigners, effectively creating a sense of More particularly and within the context of both heritage tourism and Mexico still other problems were brought to light in a dissertation o n the impact of tourism management practices on cultural tourism destinations ( Hiriart Pardo 2006) : 3 bad attitudes toward local populations, along with consumerism and commercialization changes of u se from traditional sources and erosion of the cultural landscape impact on the infrastructure loss of authenticity The challenge is to minimize these collateral effects while maximizing the array of edge Cultural H eritage T ourism and World Heritage S ites in Mexico one city on the World Heritage list Guanajuato, Mexico and Adjacent Mines, which was inscribed on the World Heritage list in 1998 That investigation theorized that if a statistical relationship between inscription on the World Heritage list and tourism can be proven, models could be provided to planners, managers and economists to better accommodate and manage the effects of a World Heritage list ing, while remaining sensitive to the local community For example, input out models could easily be applied the forecast increases in visitors, as they were with the Great Sand Dunes analysis, 3 My translation.
48 which was cited ab ove ( Weiler and Seidl 2003 257) The results from that analysis tend : t he World Heritage listing of Guanajuato in 1988 failed to produce an i mmediate significant increase it international visitors However; controlling for several variables the number of hotel rooms, the relative value of the Mexican peso, effects of the calamity of September 11, 2001 the analysis revealed a significant increas e in foreign tourists after nine years (based on historical data from 1986 to 2006). Tourism is an important component of the Mexican economy International arrivals in that country rose from two million in 1970 ( Clancy 1999 9) to 17.2 million in 2004 ( United Nations, World Tourism Organization 2005) centrally planned Clancy noted (10) late 60s, the state, through the tourism ministry (SECTUR) and especially through a N ational T ourism D evelopment T rust F und (INFRATUR and later FONATUR), took the lead in planning and implementing a multi Likewise, since World Heritage sites Anthropology and History (INAH), M exican World Heritage cities have been subject to another form of central control tage is one of monopoly power, as federal law confers upon it absolute jurisdiction in relation to ( Robles Garcia and Corbett 2010, 111 112) The work details recent efforts to Another example demonstrated how community museums have successfully avoided INAH control, in large measure b ecause of community participation ( ibid. ) As has been
49 noted previously, proper planning and management of cultural heritage sites is multi disciplinary and crosses boundaries of public, private, and different segments of society Prospects for the future should not ignore such trends, as well as glo balization of hotels and minimized participation by local residents Specifically, with regard to heritage tourism and World Heritage cities in Mexico, there are various tendencies and characteristics that will require intensive management ingenuity. Mexican World Heritage cities have been divided into three different categories ( Cabrales Barajas 2005, 35 36) : large cities with tourism operating within a diverse urban economy (Mexico C ity, Quer taro, and Morelia ) a middle category of cities characterized by a clear specialization in tourism and recovery of their historic centers (Oaxaca, Guanajuato, and Zacatecas) emerging historic centers with only incipient pressures from tourism (Campeche and Tlacoltalpan) Ca br ales Barajas further notes that 73.4 % of foreign visitors to Mexico are from the United States and Canada The forthcoming mass retirements of the 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 represent a vast potential market These changes will re quire a different response from both the public and private sector While Mexican heritage resources, like its natural resources such as petroleum, are essentially inherited, the comparative advantage of the country tend s to be outdated if not transformed into competitive advantages in the global economy ( ibid. ) Echoing remarks no ted previously, Cabrales Barajas suggested economic and political conditions in Mexico require mixed solutions, in particul ar public private partnerships ( ibid. )
50 Other observers have commented on political roots of management problems for Mexican World Heritage cities CONACULTA (the parent organization for INAH) and the federal Secretary of Tourism (SECTUR) have been criticized for their lack of vision, of responsibility and leadership shared with the municipal governments to generate, upgrade, and apply management plans to historic cities, management tools that they were obligated to have when they were inscribed on the World Heritage list World Heritage c ities vast amounts of attention is devoted to developing cultural tourism for its financial benefits while ignoring the more noxious aspects that accompany i t ( Hiriart Pardo 2009, 37) The author n oted a decided similarity in actions in both Morelia and Guanajuato, in particular an improvement of the urban image through restoration of fountains and civil and religious architectural landmarks; cleaning of facades; burying of overhead cables; improve ment of parks, streets, plazas, alleys, and sidewalks; placement of accent lighting on iconic structures; and implementation of equipment, signs, and other appurtenances to enhance the tourism experience He found dentified proposals with academic support, with tools for holistic management that result in the design of indicators for evaluating in an integrated manner the impact that cultural tourism is having above all the development of the local 4 ( ibi d., 45) In some places, visitor levels have reached tipping points where continued unrestricted access will compromise the sustainability of a World Heritage site As noted previously, Chichn Itz ( Nadeau 2006) 4 My translation
51 Visitors no longer can climb to the top of the famous Pyramid of Kukulcan at the Mayan World Heritage site Chichn Itz ( Noble 2008) Simultaneously, managers continue to reveal insensitivity to local communities and the need to preserve the cultural integrity of sites Teotihuacn Mexico's most visited archaeological site, has installed a sound and light show, which has defaced its pyramids and other structures Chichn Itz has also made use of such technology As crowds continue to increase and access becomes more limited, managers may increasingly reach for other, sometimes inappropriate, means of attracting new and repeat visitors. Increased visitation may also push M exico toward a model which has been vicious circle of tou rism Th is phenomenon was described by Antonio Paolo Russo at Erasmus University of Rotterdam ( Russo 2002, 165 182) Heritage cities will respond to congestion by limiting facilities in the central core As facilities are pushed out, mass tourism creeps in Visitors increasingly become day trippers who stay in chain hotels, eat in chain restaurants, and experience only dim sensations of a World Heritage site or other cultural attraction the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve and the Protective town of San Miguel and the Sanctuary of Jess Nazareno de Atotonilco are located in the cou Mexico is cognizant of the synergies available from having concentrations along tourist routes Mexico's most recent addition to the World Heritage list San Miguel de Allende, has a large expatriate population that contributes fi nancially to local cultural heritage institutions It is possible that Mexico may increasingly turn to foreign capital as a resource to preserve cultural heritage The cynic may foresee a trend toward increased
52 promotion of locations with or near large exp atriate populations as cultural heritage or World Heritage sites. Likewise, if San Miguel de Allende is any model for future trends, one can expect increased pressure for high end, large scale real estate development An addition to World Heritage city that cannot be overlooked is the 27 unit Artesana Rosewood community on the eastern edge of its central core Units at this development will range from under $1 mil lion to $3 million ( Atkinson 2008) Its website describes Artesan a Rosewood as intended living, who value the arts, and who crave exciting experiences every day, Artesana offers an array of community activities and exclusive amenities array of indulgent services and treatments With its maturing beach resorts and increased competition from ot her locations in Central America and the Caribbean (including Cuba), one can expect Mexico to continue to expand its heritage tourism offerings. The question remains whether the country will be able to resist the financial allure of a development path whic h may ultimately compromise the integrity of cultural resources and cut off residents from their own heritage.
53 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS Overview A review of relevant literature highlights the widespread belief that inscription in the World Heritage list result s in increased economic activity resulting from tourism At the same time, present literature lacks any rigorous ly derived evidence proof that such a relationship exists This analysis had two goals : (1) t o test, measure, and articulate any relationship be tween inscription and international tourism; and (2) u sing interviews with key stakeholders field observations, and examination of reports, planning documents, and research papers, identify events and behaviors that may influence the trend s in visitation in two specific cases : Guanajuato and Morelia. (A map showing the general location of these two cities appears on Figure 3 1 ) The two cases represent ed two contrasting situations in order to identify issues and behaviors that may contribute to different o utcomes. These results were married in a synthesis of results Such m ixed methods analysis strategies combine quantitative and qualitative techniques into a single study Multiple approaches can be used to verify information that may be generated by one te chnique. Triangulation between different methods and data sources can produce a richer analysis which can also avoid criticism that pertains to reliance on any one particular method This chapter will review existing literature pertaining to the research and describe the methods employed by the two central components of the analysis : a) a statistical analysis and b) an examination of two case studies within the context of information obtained from the statistical analysis As both components are intrinsi cally different they
54 will be discussed independently. This chapter will also provide background information on the subject of the study, Mexico, and the two World Heritage cities investigated as case studies : Guanajuato and Morelia. Statistical Analysis T his analysis used statistical models to explore the relationship between World Heritage inscription and foreign tourists to seven World Heritage cities in Mexico Mo dels isolate d independent effects of these variables, controllin g for other exogenous varia bles: the relative strength of the Mexican peso, the number of available hotel rooms in a given city, and overall trends in international tourism Statistical techniques, such as multiple regression, have often been used to establish relationships between variables over time, while controlling for other variables. However, evidence from published studies suggests this approach appears to have been little used for analyzing tourist trends. One analysis used similar econometric techniques to determine the eff ects of redesignating National Monument s in the United States as National Park s ( Weiler and Seidl 2003, 245) Based on a set of eight National Monuments which were converted to National Parks between 1980 and 2000 t he analysis suggested the change in designation resulted in 11 ,642 additional annual visitors for any given site. It subsequently used input output models to calculate the economic impact of these visitors. Simply stated, with typical statistical analys es, a hypothesis is defined, models are defined and tests are performed to determine the validity of a hypothesis under a given significance level. The power of the test can be increased in two ways: by increasing the number of observations in a sample or by raising the significance level of the test ( Beals 1972) Exploratory analysis can be used in situations where well defined hypotheses or
55 models are unavailable. Writing on the subject of exploratory analysis w ith regression, suggest interpretations that may be put to the test in later studies. This is the problem of exploratory, as opposed to descriptive cause effect research . . ( 1965, 234) It has been argued that when statistics are used to explore data, inferential procedures and hypothesis testing may be inappropriate ( Tabach nick and Fidell 1989) Within this context, it could be argued that the current analysis, whereby an iterative process is used to attempt to understand data interactions, can be described best as exploratory. While the research is governed by a generalize d hypothesis that inscription on the World Heritage list positively affects the number of international visitors to World Heritage cities, there is no clear notion of when that impact will befall any given World Heritage city Does it occur immediately? Ho w many years does it take for a significant impact to occur? How long does the effect last? A probe of such questions might ( Berndt, Morrison, an d Rosenblum 1992, 1) S pecifying the Model & Choosing the Variables The broad goal of the statistical analysis was to understand the effect of inscription on the World Heritage list for tourism in these cities. Multivariate regression models provide a me (Babbie 1998) The influence of each independent variable is weighted by its coefficient, which expresses its independent impact on the dependent variable, all other variables held constant Time series analysis answers the question : what ex tent can I predict the ( Gottman 19 81)
56 ( Wonnacott and Wonnacott 1972) While time series analysis may seem straightforward, it is complicated by the fac t that observations are not independent of one another, potentially resulting in a conditi Wonnacott and Wonnacott observe, thus, with positive autocorrelation, the second (or some later) observations tends to Autocorrelation causes models to provide less information about trends than would otherwise be available. A ( Franses 1998) Mixed models, such as Proc Mixed, available from S AS are capable of isolating the autocorrelation, thus enabling one to generalize with more confidence from the effect of included variables. As a general rule for model specification, one should include as few variables as possible ( Tabachnick and Fidell 1989) Layering on more and more variables may create a better solution, but marginally so, and it is possible to have a situation with a large number of variables relative to sample size. On the other han d, models with small sample sizes can produce coefficients that are not significant, but adding observations makes it easier to detect relationships. Indeed, with very large samples, statistically significant coefficients can be detected even if the coeffi cient is quite small ( Lewis Beck 1980)
57 In the case of the current analysis, with four independent variables and twenty three data points extending only from 1986 to 2008, that is a real danger Tabachnick ( Tabachnik and Fidell 1989) A review of one hundred international tourism d emand models ( Lim 1997, 835) found the number of observations ranged from a low of five to a high of twenty eight, with a median and mean of sixteen. The study notes the difficulty of achieving meaningful regressio n estimates with small samples. Within the context of the current study, the twenty three international travel demand. What exogenous variables are typically used in tr avel demand models? The same paper ( ibid ), after reviewing 100 models, provided the following general specification for the typical model: DT ij =f(Y j ,TC ij ,RP ij ,ER ij ,QF i ) ( 3 1) where DT i j =demand for international travel services by or igin j for destination i ; Y j =income of origin j; TC ij =transportation cost between destination i and origin j ; RP ij =relative prices (i.e., the ratio of prices in destination i and origin j ) ; ER ij =currency exchange rate, measured as units of destination I currency per unit of origin j QF i =qualitative factors in destination i It should be noted that the review found a range of explanatory variables in models, from one to nine, with a mean of 4.27 and a median of four. An obvious characteristic of the
58 typical model, noted above, is specificity regarding origin, destination, or both origin and destination. From a theoretical standpoint, if one can model travel from individual origins to a given destination, one could also model travel from all ori gins to a given destination either by summing the individual results or computing the model using higher level data, and, most likely, achieving a less precise result. The immediate goal of the statistical analysis was to determine the extent to which a c World Heritage list (in this case, an independent variable) influences the number of visits to World Heritage cities ( the dependent variable) The specified model was derived using regression analysis of time series data, a procedu re that can help to identify the independent drivers of a dependent variable, permit assessment of the influence of these drivers, and both explain the past and predict future behavior of variables of interest ( Ostrom 1978) World Heritage inscription cannot be the sole influence on tourist behavior While visitors may be influenced by the status conferred by the World Heritage list their motivations are also driven by numerous other forces The independent va riables used in the models should express an array of obvious drivers of international tourism One leading work on the subject of multivariate statistics notes that of cheaply obtained, easily availabl ( Tabachnick and Fidell 1989) We saw earlier that a review of 100 travel demand models concluded that most specify general travel demand as a function of income, transportation cost, r elative price of a destination, cur rency exchange rates, and qualitative factors at the destination site (Lim 1997, 835) In practice lack of valid data has been a barrier to meaningful analysis of the relationship between World Heritage list inscription and tourism (Buckley 2004
59 71 73 ) While identified relationships arguably could be stronger with more precise data, in the real world one frequently has to either find proxies for data or perform no analysis whatso ever A quote from a former U S Secretary of Defense comes to mind : "You go to war wi th the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later tim e ( Schmitt 2004) Fortunately, Mexico maintains a comprehensive bank of tourist arrival and hotel occupancy data Secretara de Turismo (SECTUR) collects data for seventy eight Mexican tourist destinations, including cities, towns, and archaeological W orld Heritage cities As most Mexican World Heritage cities were inscribed prior to 1992, t he data reaching back to 1986, provide only a handful of data points prior to joining the World Heritage list The first Mexican cities added to the List Oaxaca, Pue bla, and Guanajuato have more limited data on pre i nscription visitors and rooms Available data for international arrivals at Mexican World Heritage Cites are reproduced in Appendix A Since this analysis was initiated, Mexican tourism data for 2009 have become available The combined effects on tourism of economic recession the H1N1 influenza outbreak and perceived dangers from drug related violence suggest resul ts for that year would contribute little to understanding long term trends A SECTUR report containing data from numerous sources, indicates the number of foreign visitors to Mexico arriving by air declined by from 14.2 million to 12.3 million between 2008 and 2009 a 13.6 % decline ( Estados Unidos Me xicanos, Secretario de Turismo [SECTUR] 2010, 1 2 17)
60 SECTUR collects and publishes data reflect ing tourist arrivals for Mexican nationals ( nacionales ), foreigners ( extranjeros ), and total arrivals As data are deriv ed from information collected at hotels, motels, and cabins ( caba as ) during registration, ( Estados Unidos de M xico Secretara de Turismo 2008) figure s for domestic tourists, man y of whom may stay with relatives or friends, would tend to be less than accurate Further, while foreign visitors to cities known largely for their cultural heritage are likely to be visiting as a response to their cultural attractions and heritage dome stic visitors would tend to have a greater array of motives for overnight stays, including family visits, work assignments, sports events, training, and medical care That is not to say that any of these reasons would not apply to foreign tourists Mexico World Heritage cities have expatriate populations of various sizes, and would attract visits from friends and family San Miguel de Allende represents an extreme case of foreign residents occupying a Mexican World Heritage c ity One account notes : Acco rding to Christopher Finkelstein, secretary of the San Miguel City Council, 12,000 ,000 are expatriates, roughly 70% of them from the United States ( Travel and Leisure 2 007) As noted, the lack of post inscription tourism data for that city precludes modeling in that case and the other Mexican World Heritage cities in the sample without doubt all have smaller proportions of foreign residents. Other World Heritage cities may attract foreign visitors to Spanish language schools, and occasionally to relatively i nexpensive medical treatments. S uch visitors however, are unlikely to appear in significant numbers Furthermore, longer term visitors, such as students, tend to se ek less expensive housing at hostels or guest houses.
61 Figure 3 2 graphically portrays the 1986 2008 trend in foreign visitors for the seven cities covered in this investigation The exhibit highlights the disparity between the two most frequented destinati ons Puebla and Oaxaca and the other five World Heritage cities Puebla is a large industrial city only 1 40 kilometers east of Mexico City, which presently includes the only operating Volkswagen assembly plant in North America. The German automobile manuf acturer is opening a new assembly plant in Chattanooga in 2011 Coincidentally, it recently announced construction of a new engine plant to be located in Silao, twenty nin e kilometers (eighteen miles) from Guanajuato midway between Guanajuato and Aeropuer to del Bajo proximity to the capital ( approximately two hours by bus) plus the large number of international business travelers arriving there help drive the large discrepancy between it and most Mexican World Heritage cities Oaxaca also is a large industrial city A highway completed in its share of the y increased from 10% to about one third ( Spider in the web: All roads lead to Mexico City 2006) As a tourist city, Oaxaca is perhaps uniquely positioned as a destination that simultaneously features art, distinct local cooking traditions, a well preserved center dating back to the viceroyalty, and proximity to outstanding Pre Columbian sites ( National Geographic Traveler, 2009) The city of Oaxaca is twinned with the ancient Zapotec capital, a few kilometers to the west ( Noble 2008) to comprise the inscription for the Historic Cent er of Oaxaca and Archaeological
62 Site of Monte Albn Another well known Zapotec site, Mitla, is forty six kilometers (twenty nine miles) from Oaxaca. The seven lines depicted on Figure 3 2 are all vaguely linear, at least until 2000, after which substantially more variation among cities occurs The graph indicates Puebla and Oaxaca experienced far more foreign visitors than the other five cities Between 1995 and 2005 the two cities accounted for over 60% of foreign visitors to the seven World Heritage cities c onsidered here Further, Oaxaca and Puebl a also demonstrated far more variability than wa s demonstrated by the other five cities. (The standard deviation s of foreign arrivals to Oaxaca and Puebla between 1986 and 2008 were 36.7 and 74.1, respectively.) There are multiple e xplanati ons for this Both Oaxaca and Puebla are large industrial citie s Fluctuations in foreign visitor totals reported there may to a large extent rela t e to non tourist economic activity pertaining to manufacturing and commerce, rather than visitors attracted to cultural heritage Additionally, parts of Mexico near Oaxaca have been subject to political turmoil, which may have periodically dampened visitor interest in the region, depending on the level and intensity of bad publicity. The lack of consistency and vari ation in foreign visitor arrivals can be highlighted by a fe w examples, which are depicted i n Figure 3 3. Between 2000 and 2001, t wo cities Gu anajuato and Oaxaca experienced declines in foreign tourist arrivals of 40.2 % and 7.5 % respectively Quer taro experienced a negligible decline (0.5 % ) during that same perio d. Between 2001 and 2002, foreign visitor declines to Guanajuato and Quertaro were reversed, while foreign visitors to Oaxaca declined another 13.9 % In addition to Oaxaca, Zacatecas also experienced a decline in foreign arrivals (8.0 % )
6 3 between 2001 and 2 002 Between 2002 and 2003, all seven cities considered in this investigation experienc ed increased foreign arrivals Referring again to Figure 3 3, note the nearly opposite trends in foreign tourist arrivals at Guanajuato and Morelia Between 2000 and 200 3, foreign arrivals to Guanajuato declined 52.2 % while foreign arrivals to Morelia increased by 51.9 % Figure 3 4 depicts total combined annual arrivals for the seven cities Viewed in aggregate, 1986 2008 combined international visitors to these seven Me xican World Heritage cities can be broken into two distinct trends : 1) a steady progression upward from 1986 to 2000, with a strongly positive (+92.3) correlation coefficient between annual international visitors and the advance of time, and 2) a downward trend b etween 2001 and 2008, with a weak correlation coefficient ( 39.9) between international visitors and time. One explanation for these trends is the impact of terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and subsequent effects on the economy, especially the tourism sector However, the data indicate all Mexican World Heritage cities did not experience declines subsequent to 9/11. The wide range of outcomes between 2000 and 2008 for the seven Mexican World Heritage cities in this analy sis is highlighted in Figure 3 5 which shows the percentage change in international visitors between 2000 and 2008 for the seven Mexican World Heritage cities Apart from Campeche, which following its inscription in December 1999 experienced eight years w ith virtually no net change in international visitors (declining 0.4 % ), half of the remaining six cities demonstrated large increases, with Quertaro, Zacatecas, and Morelia demonstrating increases of 125.4, 65.4, and 25.6 %
64 respectively Simultaneously, i nternational visitor levels decreased 43.2, 19.9, and 19.7 % respectively at Guanajuato, Puebla, and Oaxaca, respectively. T he aggregate negative trend between 2000 and 2008 attributes mightily to a net decline of more than 64,332 international arrivals to Oaxaca and Puebla during the period, which vastly overshadows the net increase of 34,024 international visitors to Campeche, Guanajuato Morelia, Quertaro, and Zacatecas With regression analysis it is possible to specify categorical or dummy variables t hat ( Suits 1957, 548) For this analysis, inscription status th at is, whether or not a city has been inscribed on the World Heritage list was operationalized by transforming it into a dummy variable. Dates Cent er ( UNESCO World Heritage Center b ) The value of this variable was initially set at zero for years prior to inscription and one for the year of inscription and beyond. Three other independent variables captured various other forces drivi ng foreign tourist visits to each World Heritage city Tourists obvious ly avoid destinations without a suitable supply of rooms From a purely logistical standpoint a lack of rooms would restrict visitors to day trippers Beyond that, the law of supply an d demand would suggest that a large supply of rooms relative to demand could lead to reduced rates and a corresponding increased dem and The SECTUR data include figures describing average available rooms per year, and these statistics were used to create a second
65 independent variable which represents available tourist facilit ies Figure 3 6 highlights the average number of rooms per year for seven Mexican World Heritage cities A number of aspects are highlighted by this graph Hotel and motel rooms are no t particularly fungible When new business is stimulated, new capacity has to be financed, designed, and built Likewise, when tourists abandon a destination hotels do not immediately shut down Consequently numbers for available rooms tend s to vary less than those for arriving visitors That is not to say that the hotel industry does not respo nd to market trends Figure 3 6 does suggest there were increases evident after the 1994 devaluat ion induced spike in tourism It also appears to suggest modest shr inkage in the number of available rooms after 2001. Another driver of international tourism is price The literature cites numerous approaches to this variable, including inflation rates, exchange rates, and the cost of transportation The literature note s multicollinearity problems with using both inflation and exchange rates as both figure ( Crouch 1994, 12) Exchange rates alone could provide a reasonabl e measure, however, as the dependent variable here includes all foreign visitors to a given Mexican World Heritage city it would be difficult to establish a blended exchange rate for all countries sending visitors to Mexico. The relative value of the Mexi can peso however, can be easily defined by relying on historical data for the number of pesos per Special Drawing Right (SDR) SDRs are the unit of account of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other international agencies and represent a basket of securities Presently it includes the euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling and US d ollar ( International Monetary Fund 2009) Historical data
66 are available for the entire study period (1986 to 2008) usin Financial Statistics (IFS) database The analysis used values for the last available day during each of these twenty three years to create a third independent variable These data appear graphically on Figure 3 7 and are also repr oduced in Appendix B. US dollar Mexican peso exchange rate to help stabilize its economy prior to 1994 One analysis nomic policy, i.e., as a means to reduce inflation, encourage a disciplined fiscal policy, and ( US General Accounting Office 1996) The same account notes that the failure of this system to properly cope with inflation by devaluing the peso or increasing interest rates, coupled with political Tourism can be influenced by the availability of facilities, as defined by available hotel rooms, and by price, as defined by the relative strength of currency in the target country The ability of these two independent variables to explain the dependent variable, international visitors by Mexican Wo rld Heritage city is diminished to the extent t hat global trends in tourism are not held constant The model accomplished this by including a variable for global international tourist arrivals, as reflected by data from the United Nations World Tourism Or ganization Th is information is highlighted in Figure 3 8 below and is reproduced in Appendix C. The most distinct feature of the graph is the 2001 interruption in the steady linear march of tourism increases during the previous fifteen years (During that fifteen year period the relationship between year and international arrivals is nearly linear, with a
67 correlation coefficient between yea r and arrivals of 0.998.) The subsequent decline and stagnancy until 2004 can be attributed to the attacks on Septembe r 11, 2001, and related impacts on the world economy, on the availability of flights, and on security With Figure 3 4, we witness decidedly different trends for foreign arrivals to Mexico before and after 2001. On a global basis, the effect of 9/11 diff ers After two years of modest growth or stagnancy in international arrivals, international arrivals increased at a generally higher rate than had been seen prior to 2001 Th e two dotted lines on Figure 3 8 highlight different trends before and after 2001 Apparently pent up demand for trips that were deferred during the earlier part of the decade led to steeper annual increases over the period The correlation coefficient of 0.982 (between international arrivals and year) also suggests strongly linear incr eases in foreign tourism for the 2002 2008 period. The differences between trends in global international arrivals and international arrivals to Mexico are likely explained by the fact that foreign visitors to Mexico are predominantly from the United Stat es and Canada mature economies that also witnessed considerable economic stagnation during the first part of this decade Global tourism statistics would also include visitors from Eastern European and Asian countries that experienced aggressive growth du ring the same period. More recent events may have altered the suggested trends WTO notes that international arrivals declined during the second half of 2008 because of problems due ( United Nations, World Tourism Organization 2009)
68 An advantage of s pecifying a variable with United Nations World Tourism Organization (WTO) data for global internation al arrivals is that it simultaneously reflects the impact of 9/11, but also controls for other trends, such as general trends in economic activity. Data Handling The analysis method employed a similar process for each of seven World Heritage cities. Data f or available hotel rooms, pesos per SDR, and international tourist arrivals were combined with the dummy variables denoting the date of inscription and whether or not the year in question is before or after 2001 Intuitively, o ne might expect World Heritag e inscription to have a delayed effect on tourism All things being equal, a city should not be inscribed on the list in one year and expect an immediate increas e in foreign visitors. For all but the most well known World Heritage cities i t takes time to increase public awareness, to improve access, and to provide facilities One method of handling delayed impact of independent variables on dependent variables is to lag the value of a single independent variable In practice, the time lag is generally bui lt into a single independent variable ( Kress and Snyder 1994) For this analysis a slight variation on this method was used pesos p and the This procedure was re Heritage inscription until a p value of less than .05 was found for this variable with Above a p value of .05
69 one could not conclude the probability coefficient of that variable is significant at a 95 % confidence interval With time series analyses, data corresponding to each year exhibited some dependency on data from the previous year T he analysis employed an autoregressive covariance structure lag 1 In the iterative process, the year of interest was advanced until statistically significant and directionally logical coefficients could be estimated So, for example, a model was initially fit to Quertaro 1986 and 1995 and one beginning in 1996, the year of inscription on the World Heritage list (The Historic Monuments Zone of Quertaro was inscribed on the World Heritage list in December 1996.) The result ing p value for the variable in that initial iteration was .36, in excess of the .05 cutoff through 1996 and produced a p value for that variable of .04, suggesting there is a 96 % probability that the coe (A comprehensive discussion of results and findings follows in the next chapter.) The general specification of the models can be summarized as follows: y = a + b1(x1) + b2(x2) + b3 (d1) + b4 (d2) + e (3 2 ) Case Stud ies and Mixed Methods understand the larger phenomenon through close examination of a specific case and therefore focus on the particular. Case s tudies are descriptive, holistic, heuristic, and ( Rossman and Rallis 1998) Because they focus on particular cases, the logic of probabilities, which is more commonly associated with statistical app roaches, cannot analogy allows the application of lessons learned in one case to another population or
70 eir detail, their While some of the rigidity of other experimental and statistical methods is foregone with case studies, they permit the ability to understand more comp lex relationships. Indeed, strict reliance on more data intensive methods may force narrowly limited results. Robert K. Yin describes an array of five research methods: experiments, surveys, archival analyses, histories, and case studies ( Yin 2003) operational links needing to be traced over time, rather than mere frequencies or es, he observ Case studies, on interviews of the pe Experiments involve controlled situations, in the laboratory or the less structured approach of case s tudies would be more appropriate for exploratory situations, where the full ranges of possible drivers for an effect have not been identified boundaries between phenomenon and c studies can provide additional details absent from the strictly defined statistical analysis, they a lso can provide other benefits. Lyn Richards (2005) noted that case studies not only can provide illustrations o f phenomena, but they also can provide a stimulus to
71 integration. That is, they can be a tool for organizing a seemingly diffuse subject into something tangible. (ibid.) n lack of rigor, 2) enormous time requirements, and 3) difficulty in forming valid generalization. The first two criticisms can be addressed by careful procedures and management. With respect to the third criticism, Yin observed (15) that case studies, like experiments are generalizable to theoretical propositions and not to populations and generalize The above discussion raises two important questions one perhaps more statistical and another more practical: 1) Is a statistically significant relationship between inscription on the World Heritage list and international tourism purely an accid ent related to the fact that six of the seven Mexican cities under scrutiny were put on the World Heritage list during the late 1980s and early 1990s, a period of relative prosperity which was generally characterized by large increases in travel and 2) All of these World Heritage cities operated in a similar environment with respect to the relative value of the Mexican peso, perceived insecurity about flying, and the global economic trends. What was it that caused international visitors to decline in some c ities, after significant increases in foreign visitors attributable to World Heritage inscription, and increase in others?
72 To help answer both questions, the analysis focused on two Mexican World Heritage cities that demonstrated opposite trends in forei gn tourist arrivals between 2000 and 2008. In contrast, economic analysis is better suited to questions A mixed method approach involves using of different methods to analyze a specific situation ( Gaber, American Planning Association, and Gaber 2007) Gaber further observed that such strategies can be further disaggre questions and collect a richer and stronger array of evidence than can be accomplished ( Yin 2003) In t he context of an investigation of the relationship between World Heritage inscription and international visitors, a strictly quantitative approach could provide insights into a narrow spectrum of questions, such as the following: Is there a statistical rel ationship between inscription and the number of visitors? How many years did it take for inscription to have a statistically significant impact on the number of visitors? How many visitors came to the World Heritage city because it is on the World Herita ge List?
73 For understanding the extent to which other events, policies, and trends can influence the number of visitors, a different method of inquiry case study becomes appropriate. A statistical approach would be appropriate for evaluating the more obvio us and more universal influences of increased visits with reasonable and available data. To understand less obvious influences, which may be idiosyncratic to a given World Heritage city a case study is indicated. The combination of a quantitative analysis and case study analysis into a mixed methods approach enables a richer and more multi dimensional exploration of the impact of World Heritage inscription than reliance on a single approach. ternational visitors to Guanajuato increased at a 7.9 % compound average growth rate (CAGR) Going forward from 2000, the trend in international visitors to that city demonstrated a 6.8 % CAGR between 2000 and 2008 Extending the window but one year, the 20 00 2009 the CAGR becomes 12.4 % reflecting three major influences: the 2009 outbreak of H1N1, which originated in Mexico ; the fullest effects of the worldwide recession, which began in 2008 ; and impact of increasing f ear of drug related violence 1 Ignorin for Mexican tourism, Guanajuato still experienced a 43.2 % decline in reported international visitors between 2000 and 2008 Center World Heritage list ), witnesse d a more modest 82.6 % increase in international arrivals between its inscription in 1991 and 2000 Beyond 2000, however, the trend was 1 The 2009 murder rate in the State of Guanajuato was 8.2 victims per hundred thousand residents. This 60.0, and 47.2 per hundred thousand, respectively. ( Mxico Evala 2010, 29) The state of Michoac n reported 18.4 hom icides per hundred thousand residents 124.4% higher than Guanajuato.
74 altogether different While Guanajuato saw international visitors drop 43.2 % between 2000 and 2008, Morelia saw a 25.6 % i ncrease during the same period In terms of annualized growth, Morelia saw a 2.9 % compound annual growth rate between 2000 and 2008, in contrast to the 6.8 % CAGR demonstrated by Guanajuato during the same period. Guanajuato and Morelia remained on the Wo rld Heritage list through the entire 2000 2008 period In both cities public and private efforts worked to both improve the appearance of the city and promote it to visitors Both Guanajuato and Morelia, however, witnessed completely different trends in fo reign visitor arrivals during this period A qualitative investigation into differences in planning, public policy, and mana in attracting international visitors Sustaina bility pertains to the ultimate ability of a place to endure While cultural tourism has the potential to threaten the long run integrity of valuable sites, tourists and the cash flows they generate from taxes, museum admissions, etc., are the most promine nt means of support for cultural resources. Whatever the reason, this closer examination of foreign visitor arrival data for Mexican cities highlights different behavior for seven Mexican World Heritage cities during the study period It would be imprecise to statistically model the influence of World Heritage i nscription on foreign a rrivals based on aggregate data, which would conceal differences among the cities. Investigating the seven World Heritage cities on an individual level may help to identify bo th commonalities and differences, which can then permit a focus on other variables which drive trends in visitors.
75 understanding of the magnitude and timing of post inscript ion tourism increases. It is common knowledge that inscription on the World Heritage list effects local communities and there is compelling evidence to suggest that tourism increases as a direct result of inscription, independent of other exogenous variabl es However; the increase in tourism may be accompanied by other direct and indirect economic impacts. Four different types of effects have been identified as resulting from cultural heritage (Csar Herrero Prieto  as cited in Hiriart Pardo 2006) : 2 direct economic effects : J ob generation, added production value, entry fees, and other primary effects of increased visits i nduced economic effects : Increased activity from secondary activities, such as construction, transportation, electrical generatio n, etc. effects on the local economic base and urban planning : Added value of properties as a result of inscription and intensified protection quality of life effects owing to improved housing, facilities, infrastructure, and cultural offerings The case study broadly concerned the first two clas ses of economic impacts identif ied and through interviews and analysis of available data identified other impacts of inscription on the World Heritage list The timing of these impacts was compared with the other data, discussed above, to identify any relationships between them It has been observed that there is a paucity of empirical research on public sector perspectives of World Heritage sites ( Nicholas, Th apa, and Pennington Gray 2009 206) Through interviews with public officials and others involved with preservation and 2 My translation.
76 World Heritage, th is analysis was able to examine and analyze public policy toward investment, promotion, and the related impact on pre servation This particular case study will consider two cases : Guanajuato and Morelia As such, it will attract additional criticism for potential bias With only two cases, critics may argue that the lack of diversification can provide biased results The choice of cases could also be criticized because of the lack of similarity or obvious differences between the two cities World Heritage cities differ in diverse ways It is equally impossible to group cities either as twins or as opposites Both Guanajuato and Morelia are within the central highlands of Mexico Both have cities Both cities have similar air service to other cities in Mexico and to the United States by Aeromexico, US carriers, and Mexican low fare operators Guanajuato and Morelia share general similarities with respect to dates of inscription, status as state capitals, and neither experienced the above average levels of forei gn visitors as at Puebla and Oaxaca The latter two World Heritage cities witnessed ten year average foreign visitor levels that were 306 % and 148 % higher, respectively, than were experienced in the seven World Heritage cities examined here. On the other h and, Guanajuato and Morelia differ in many ways : Size : Morelia is several times larger than Guanajuato Its reported population in 2005 was 684,145 ( Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal [ INAFED ] ) ( Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipa l [ INAFED ] 21) Economy : Physical Aspects : settled by the Spanish Guanajuato was built in a narrow ravine, with a far more linear layout.
77 A n advantage of case study research is the ability to tap into multiple data sources ( Yin 2003) The case study analysis of Guanajuato and Morelia relied on interviews, observation, and printed sources, such as news papers and conference reports, to identify drivers of change in flows of international visitors to those cities which arose after inscrip tion on the World Heritage list as well as to understand other ways World Heritage list inscription influenced those ci ties. One curious statistical difference between the cities merits consideration as a focus of research : International arrival levels to Guanajuato dropped 40.2 % between 2000 and 2001, and continued a general decline during the nine year period In aggreg ate, international arrivals to Guanajuato fell 43.2 % during the period During the same interval, international arrivals to Morelia increased by 91.2 % Both World Heritage cities were subject to the same deleterious effects on tourism of the exploding dot com bubble, the September 11, 2001 attacks and the subsequent insecurity about travel Both cities would presumably become more attractive destinations through the decade as the value of the Mexican peso declined Site visits and semi structured intervie ws were conducted with former and present government officers, preservationists, and other local experts in the field, such as those associated with local universities (Universidad de Guanajuato and La Universidad Michoacana de San Nicols de Hidalgo, in M orelia), and NGOs such as Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad The historical record was reviewed by examining various periodicals from Mexico and elsewhere This included a review of existing research on the impact of inscription on Guanajuato, Morelia and other Mexican World Heritage cities
78 Finally, d irect observation in Guanajuato Morelia and other World Heritage cities such as San Miguel de Allende, Puebla, Zacatecas, and Mexico City, provided insights into the historic context, preservation st atus, and other aspects potentially influenced by inscription The semi structured interviews were built from a framework of general questions: How has inscription affected the city? How does the city benefit from inscription? Are there any negative eff ects and what are they? What do you think about the designation? How has inscription affected tourism : volume, quality, length of stay, spending? What was the city like before inscription and how has it subsequently changed? More specifically, how does one explain the decrease in foreign arrivals between 2000 and 2008 in Guanajuato and the increase in foreign arrivals during that same interval in Morelia? This general framework was augmented by specific questions tailored to the Fo r example, those involved with tourism or travel were asked Public officials were asked to identify public policies with respect to development from the perspective of gove rnment, the private sector, or from public private partnerships. A preliminary list of contacts was developed and later sampling For example, the initial inventory of people interviewed in Guanajuato included the following: Sal vador Flores Fonseca, Councilman and Chairman of the Committee on Heritage Conservation for Guanajuato Jes s Antonio Borja, Director, Casa de la Cultura, Guanajuato Isauro Rionda Arregun, Historian
79 Eduardo Estvez Sandoval Promotion Manager, Mexican Nati onal Association of World Heritage Cities (Asociacin Nacional de Ciudades Mexicanas Patrimonio Mundial) Bertha Hernndez Araujo, Director, Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad Subject of Study Mexico (or, more formally, the United States of Mexico ) has t en World Heritage Cities, including parts of three World Heritage sites within its borders 3 Mexico was a desirable subject for several reasons By far, it has more World Heritage cities than any other country in the Western Hemisphere Its ten World Heritage cities make it number three globally, after Italy, with sixteen, and Spain, with thirteen. For comparison, Canada has two World Heritage cities the Historic District of Old Qubec and Old Town Lunenburg The United Stat es National Park Service oversees the World Heritage program in the United States Th 100% has resulted in a situation whereby the United States has no World Heritage cities In 2008, tourism was Mex foreign exchange after oil exports and remittances by emigrants ( Buchanan 2009) With consistent data for many tourist destinations, including most World Heritage cities Mexico has twenty nine World Heritage sites of which thirteen apply to the cultural resources from the Pre Hispanic period and during the Spanish rule these are mostly archaeological si tes Examples include the Pre Hispanic cities of Chichn Itz Uxmal, and Teotihuacn and the five Franciscan missions of Sierra Gorda in Quer taro 3 The Historic Center of Mexico City and Xochimilco, Luis Barragn House and Studio and Central University City Campus of the Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico (UN AM)
80 Another ten are living cities with extensive histories, buildings, monuments, landscapes, and sites datin g back to the viceroyalty and, in some cases, the Pre Hispanic period Another four are natural sites, including the Islands and Protected Sites of the Gulf of California and the Monarch Butterfly Reserve in Michoac n Two others include buildings from the recent past in Mexico City : Luis Barragn House and Studio and the Central University City Campus of the Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mexico (UNAM) While it would be possible to analyze and compare all types of Mexican World Heritage sites the resul ting lack of homogeneity would confound meaningful conclusions For example, many archaeological sites are remote One might assume the additional time and expense required to reach them, coupled with a less competitive array of hotels and restaurants, wou ld result in a different relationship between inscription and tourism from urban settings While it would be interesting to understand these differences, it is beyond the scope of this particular analysis. Table 3 World Heritage cities three of which were excluded from this analysis As San Miguel de Allende was inscribed in 2008, limited post inscription data are available (As of this writing, the most recent data available from SECTUR by way of Consejo de Promocin Turstica are fro m 2009.) No data were available for the Historic Monuments Zone of Tlacotalpan because tourism data ha ve not been kept for that site Mexico City was excluded from the analysis because of its dominance of the country and 19.2 million people in its metropo litan area ( Secretara de Desarrollo Social, Consejo Nacional de Poblacin, and Instituto Nacional de Estadstica, Geografa e Informtica 2007, 34 35) This massive international city has
81 many at tractions for international visitors, in addition to its history and culture As the largest nation ( Central Intelligence Agency 2010) Mexico City doubtless a ttracts its share of international business travelers. In such an environment, with a vast array of commercial, political and political motivations for travel, a scribing visitor variation to World Heritage status would appear to be an intellectual stretch The next largest Mexican World Heritage city in terms of population, Puebla (or, more accurately, the Puebla Tlaxcala zona metropolitana ), is about one eighth the size of Mexico City, with 2.5 million residents ( ibid. 35 ) The estimated metropolitan and World Heritage cities is shown on Table 3 2. Campeche, Guanajuato, San Miguel de Allende, and little Tlalcotalpan, with 13,845 residents, are not part of a defined zona metropolitana which confounds comparison The median municipal population of the ten Mexican World Heritage cities is 252,000 inhabitants. There are other reasons for excluding Mexico City, apart from its size Notably, the capital includes three different World Heritage sites In addition to Historic Cente r of Mexico City and Xochimilco, inscribed in 1987, Mexico City also includes two more recent additions to the World Heritage list : the Luis Barragn House and Studio inscribed in 2004, and Central University City Campus of the Universidad Nacional Autno ma de Mexico (UNAM) inscribed in 2007 While the two more recent do not attract a fract ion of the tourists visiting it s historic center introducti on compromises a comparison between Mexico City and the other, smaller World Heritage cities measure, be due to addition of the new sites within Mexico City
82 Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines Guanajuato lies within a 470 kilometer (282 mile) belt of Mexican World Heritage cities beginning west of Mexico City at Morelia and extending north to Zacatecas Within this swath are five World Heritage cities Morelia, Que rtaro, San Migu el de Allende, Guanajuato, and Zacatecas half as noted, itself contains three sites As Table 3 2 indicates, Guanajuato is the fourth smallest of the ten cities, with 150,471 inhabitants within its city limi ts in 2005 While it is smaller than most Mexican World Heritage cities median populati on of 252,000 than seven other cities Guanajuato entered the World Heritage list in 1988, which provides more than twenty year s of post inscription information to examine One other important international tourist destination is in the state of Guanajuato. San Miguel de Allende, a historic town which has been and remains popular with visitors and expatriates from the United Stat es and Canada, is ninety seven kilometers (sixty miles) from the city of Guanajuato Dolores Hidalgo, the birthplace of Mexican independence from Spain, is only fifty three kilometers (thirty three miles) north of Guanajuato The latter is of obvious impor tance for Mexican nationals, but appears to merit less interest for most international visitors Green Guide for example, would find no reference to this historically important city ( Watkins 2008, 479) Guanajuato, Mexic o, was first settled by Europeans in the early sixteenth century Santa Fe y Real de Minas de Guanajuato ( Guanajuatocapital.com) development was enhanced by the proliferation of silver exploitation and by the end of
83 the eighteenth century saw its population reach 55,000 ( Daz S nchez 2006) Guanajuato prospered thr ough the nineteenth century and benef ited from the largesse of the thirty five year dictatorship of Porfirio D az in the later days of that century and beginning years of the twentieth century The allure of this city, jammed into a ravine, has enchanted visitors for more than a century A description from 1908 could apply equally today : thoroughfares can hardly be called streets, except in the business part; they are mostly narrow paths, and in a few places it is possible even to reach across and touch the opposite wall These little streets meander aimlessly up the mountains, playing hide and seek with one another and giving at every turn the most exquisite bits for the brush of ( Myers 1908) In addition to its commercial role, Guanajuato is of profound historical importance as the site of the first skirmish in Mexic 1810 when a group of insurgents led by Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, Ignacio Allende, and Juan Aldama laid siege to a contingent of Spanish troops quartered in a former granary, known as the Alhndinga Royal Spanish forces led by Felix Maria Calleja subsequently killed the main proponents on January 16 1811 in Guad a lajar a Nearly ten months later, the heads of the aforementioned leaders (along with that of Mariano Jimenez) were hung on the four corners of the Alhndinga where they remained for ten years ( Rionda Arreguin 1 998) Today Guanajuato is home to the government of the State of Guanajuato and the head campus of its 30,774 student university ( Universidad de Guanajuato) Guanajuato hosts numerous festivals every year Most famous is its autumn Cervantin o Festival
84 which typically consumes the latter part of October The city also hosts an international short film festival every summer. The Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines were inscribed on the World Heritag e list on Dec ember 12, 1988 on the basis of C riteria I, II, IV and VI The the v iceroyal ty of New Spain ( International Council of Monuments and Sites 1988, 39 40) The core of the city is in a ravine which cannot accommodate the usual city plan dictated by Law of the Indies streets, its plazas, and the construction of hospitals, churches, convents and palaces [ which ] are all inextricably linked to the industrial history of the region leading s ibid. ) A tourist map of the city is reproduced i n Figure 3 9. possesses several of the most beautiful examples of Baroque architecture in the New also refers to the technological marvel achieved in constructing Boca del Infierno mine shaft, which is 600 meters deep and 12 meters wide. With respect to Criterion II (values/influences), UNESCO influence in mining towns of northe rn Mexico from the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries Under Criterion IV (typology ), the nomination example of an architectural ensemble that incorporates the industrial and economic
85 The nomination notes the close economic linkage As for Criterion VI (associations), the nomination form simply states that ith world economic history, particularly The city has many other important associations, including the previously mentioned struggle for Mexican independence Guanajuato also was the birthplace and childhood home of muralist Die go Rivera His house now accommodates a museum The museum is expanding to include adjacent buildings. Guanajuato generally receives good press from tourist publications in the United State s National Geographic Traveler rated World Heritage sites in its November/December, 2006 issue and Guanajuato merited a 79 score, which ranked it number four among all World Heritage sites and among a group of eig ht cit i es notch con dition, management, outlook, and local support : a great ( Tourtellot 2006, 114 ) The ratings were derived from a survey of 419 experts in sustainable tourism and destination stewardship who rated 49 of the then 830 World Heritage sites Panelists comments show ed the appeal of a city that is true to its roots without an abundance of concessions to modernity or tourist hordes : Histor ic gem char ming, peaceful, welc of colonial architecture and steep, narrow streets has jumped 11 points s traditional style, c ulturally and historically interesting, lots of events, good museums, n ot t o o many gring os (ibid.).
86 A 200 6 article from the New York Times ( Cohan 2006) likewise betrays an enchantment with Guanajuato As with the National Geographic Traveler article, the Times article pays tribute to the authenticity of experience in Gu anajuato and notes a three year, $55 million initiative begun in 2004 to restore buildings and improve transportation Unlike the Traveler article, which applauds efforts to restore pavement that it characterizes as being in traditional style, the Times no tes successful community opposition to a municipal effort to repave the Plaza de San Fernando in a similar style, thwarting a much loved traditional paving ( Cohan 2006) The reality is that most of the dark gray pavi ng stones within the center of the historic district have been replaced with rose colored stones arrayed in a style more characteristic of Europe an craftsmanship than that of c entral Mexico ( National Geog raphic Traveler) Historic Center of Morelia As Table 3 2 indicates Morelia World Heritage cities with a population of 684, 145 as of 2005 The city lies squarely in the path of a major route between Mexico City and the largest city, Guadalajara ( Cabrales Barajas 2005 35 36) The nearby indigenous lakeside city of Ptzcuaro some fifty nine kilometers (thirty seven miles) from Morelia, intends to join the World Heritage list ( ibid. ), although deck circle for World Heritage candidates ( UNESCO World Heritage Center b ) Morelia also is roughly one hundred miles from the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve The winter home for these beautiful insects was inscr ibed on the World Heritage list in 2008 under Criterion ( UNESCO 2008, 1 2)
87 Unlike the State of Guanajuato, which sits squarely in the M Michoacn extends to the Pacific coast, which is 310 kilometers (193 miles) from Morelia. Morelia was founded in 1545 as the third European settlement in what has n A Spanish royal mandat e dating to 1537 specified establishment of a city named for Valladolid Europeans already living in the vicinity resisted efforts to establish a city in one of two obvious sites, the established settlements of P tzcuaro and Tzintzuntzan T he viceroy compl at the site of a relatively indigenous settlement called Guayangareo ( Aguilera Garibay et al. 1999) The original place name translates f water with minimal risk of flooding ( ibid. ) In 1828 Valladolid was renamed in honor of one its native sons and a leader in t he struggle for Mexican independence, Jos Maria Morelos ( International Council of Monuments and Sites 1990, 13 14) Another Mexican city named Valladolid survives in the southeastern Mexican state of Yucat n. While Guanajuato was built into a narrow ravine, which largely prevented based on small rectangular blocks ( Ros Szalay 1998) A tourist map of Morelia is reproduced i n Figure 3 10. The Historic Center of Morelia was inscribed on the World Heritage list in December 1991, under criteria II, IV, and VI ( UNESCO Convention Concerning the
88 Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1991 ) Under Criterion II, which pertain s uman values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town ( ibid., 1) Morelia is credited ( ANCMPM, 1) bu ilding, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) ( ibid., 1) According the Asociaci n Nacional de C iudades Mexicanas Patrimonio Mu examples o Renaissance 4 ( ANCMPM, 1) regard, Morelia is cite d as the birthplace of important personalities in M notably Morelos ( i bid. ) It should be noted that Guanajuato (unlike Morelia) achieved inscription under the perhaps most exclusive category, Criterion I (to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius) The ICOMOS recommendation obser ved several of the most beautif ul examples of Baroque archite cture in the New World The churches of La C ompania (1745 1765) and above all La Valenciana (1765 1788) are 4 My translation.
89 ( International Council of Monuments and Sites 1988, 39 40) ICOMOS such as a mineshaft that is twelve meters wide and 600 meters deep. Morelia did n ot make it onto the 2006 National Geographic Traveler inventory of thirty seven top World Heritage sites Although Morelia merits inclusion in the World tzcuaro, which is not on the World Heritage list (although some websites indicate it is), merited four stars ( Watkins 2008, 479) Table 3 3 shows foreign annual foreign arrivals to Guanajuato and Morelia between 2000 and 2008. Table 3 3 highlights a curious trend. Between 2000 and 2008, international visitors to Guanajuato declined 43.2 % while international visitors to Morelia increased at 25.6 % The explanations for these divergent trends will be probed in subsequent chapters.
90 Table 3 1. Mexican World Heritage c ities b y y ear of i nscription Year Name 1987 Historic Center of Mexico C ity and Xochimilco 1987 Historic Center of Oaxaca and Archaeological Site of Monte Alb n 1987 Historic Center of Puebla 1988 Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines 1991 Historic Center of Morelia 1993 Historic Center of Zacatecas 1996 Histori c Monuments Zone of Quertaro 1998 Historic Monuments zone of Tlacotalpan 1999 Historic Fortified Town of Campeche 2008 Protective Town of San Miguel and the Sanctuary of Jes s Nazareno de Atotonilco Source: World Heritage Center
91 Table 3 2 2005 p opu lation for Mexican World Heritage c ities Population (000) City Municipal Metropolitan Campeche 238.9 N/A Guanajuato 153.4 N/A Mexico City 8,720.9 19,239.9 Morelia 684.1 735.6 Oaxaca 265.0 543.7 Puebla 1,485.9 2,470.2 Quertaro 734.1 950.8 San Mig uel de Allende 139.3 N/A Tlacotalpan 13.8 N/A Zacatecas 132.0 261.4 Source : INEGI, for dates noted.
92 Table 3 3 Foreign a rrivals to Guanajuato and Morelia : 2000 2008 Year Guanajuato Morelia 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change : 2000 2008 62,536 37,406 41,866 29,878 30,697 36,478 34,858 32,670 35,520 (43.2%) 28,843 29,821 37,364 43,815 52,277 50,248 49,613 51,478 55,143 25.6 % Source : SECTUR, for dates noted.
93 Figure 3 1 General locati on of Guanajuato and Morelia, Mexico ( Source : Universidad Nacional Autnomo de Mxico Instituto de Astronom a ) Guanajuato Morelia
94 Figure 3 2 Foreign a rrivals to Mexican World Heri tage c ities : 1986 2008 (Source : SECTUR for dates noted ) Guanajuato
95 Figure 3 3 Foreign a rrivals to Mexican World Heritage c ities 2000 2003 (Source : SECTUR for dates noted )
96 Figure 3 4 Combined f oreign a rrivals for s elect Mexican World Heritage c ities : 1986 2008 (Source : SECTUR for dates noted )
97 Figure 3 5 Trend in i nternational a rrivals for s elect Mexican World Heritage c ities : 2000 2008 ( Source : SECTUR for dates noted )
98 Figure 3 6 Average a vailable r ooms for seven Me xican World Heritage c ities : 1986 2008 (Source : SECTUR for dates noted ) 12,010 15,562 24,142 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 24,000 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average Available Rooms
99 Figure 3 7 Mexican p esos p er SDR : 1986 2008 (Source : http://www.imfstatistics.org. lp.hscl.ufl.edu/imf/ Last accessed September, 2009 ) 1.1 4.3 11.4 13.9 17.3 20.9 0 5 10 15 20 25 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Mexican Pesos Per SDR
100 Figure 3 8 International t ourist a rrivals : 1986 2008. (Source : http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/highlights/UNWTO_Highlights09_en_LR.pdf Last accessed September, 2009, UN, World Tourism Organizat )
101 Figure 3 9 Guanajuato t ourist m ap ( Source : stico : Guanajuato, Ciudad )
102 Figure 3 10 Morelia t ourist m ap ( Source : Secretara de Turismo del Estado de Michoacn )
103 CHAPTER 4 STATISTICAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Does World Heritage Inscription Stimulate More Visits to World Heritage Cities? The above described procedure produced mixed results The exploratory process which entailed multiple mod el iterations lagging the dummy variable for World Heritage inscription generated significant and positive coefficients for six of the seven Mexican World Heritage cities under consideration These results are highlighted below on Table 4 1 Models were compiled for each of the cities, with multiple iterations for each The dummy variable for World Heritage inscription was initially assigned a value of 1 beginning with the year of inscription and 0 for prior years. With subsequent iterations the sequence was adjusted to reflect one additional 0 value and one less 1 value for this variable for each data set The iterative process was repeated with data through 2005 While data are available for 2006 through 2008, assigning a valu e of 1 to the dummy variable s for three years or fewer would provide little basis for valid generalization From a mechanical standpoint, SAS was unable to specify models for test cases with the World Heritage dummy variable equaling 1 in the extreme out years We will consider the s even cities under scrutiny in alphabetical order Based on available data and the specified models, for six of the seven cities examined, World Heritage inscription had a significant impact on the number of international visitors For four of these cities the lag between inscription and a significant increase in international visitors was five to eight years Oaxaca, which was inscribed in 1987 required only one year to reflect a statistically significant increase in international visitors Available dat a could not generate a model for Campeche that
104 demonstrated a positive coefficient for the World Heritage dummy variable (implying inscription on t he World Heritage list increased the number of international visitors) that was significant at a 95 % confiden ce interval. The coefficient for the dummy variable for World Heritage designation is a measure of the increase in international visitors attributable to World Heritag e inscription Model results manifest a range of values, many of which appear disturbingl y high relative to the total number of international visitors As Table 4 1 indicates, when the World Heritage variable for Oaxaca is assigned a value of 1 in 1988, a coefficient of 41.2 is calculated for that variable This coefficient, significant at a 95 % confidence interval, implies that 41,200 internal visitors arrived in that city as a direct result of its inscription This amount was equal to 33 % of total international visitors to that city in 1988 The other extreme emerged in the Quer taro analysi s, which implied 193.8 % of international visits to that city at least theoretically were stimulated World Heritage list in 1996 The peculiar results with respect to magnitude of impact suggest the models, while statistica lly valid, are poor indicators of the number of visitors resulting from inscription. Further, implied model results considering all four independent variables plus the constant were typically 19.2 % to 82.6 % higher than recorded international arrivals. Summ ary results for each city and each iteration are shown on Tables 4 2 to 4 8 As noted previously, the model was iteratively calculated in an exploratory analysis using the SAS P roc M ixed routine For Tables 4 2 to 4 8 the reference year also represents th e first of subsequent years in which the assumed value of the World Heritage dummy variable equals 1 Referring to Table 4 2, for example, the results for
105 year 2001 reflect an assumption that the categorical variable for World Heritage has a value of 0 dur ing years 1999 and 2000, and a value 1 for the remaining years The remaining data for Mexican pesos per SDR, average available rooms, and world international tourist arrivals remain the same in all years for any given city. Prior to analyzing the output, one could expect a variety of outcomes from both a statistical and practical perspective Data were available for 23 years (1986 to 1988), while World Heritage inscription ranged from 1987 for Oaxaca and Puebla to 1999 for Campeche As a consequence, analy tical scenarios would exist with as little as one year before or after designation In such situations it would be difficult to generalize as to the effect of the World Heritage dummy variable Although this analysis excluded some obvious outliers, there r emains an array of possible explanations for the different outcomes for the seven cities under examination. Campeche Among the seven cities covered in this analysis, Campeche, would all things being equal encounter the most difficulty from a statistical pe rspective Campeche was inscribed on December 2, 1999 ( UNESCO World Heritage Center b ) Consequently, only nine years of post inscription experience is available for analysis With the assumption that an immediate response in terms of international visitors is unlikely and with diminishing post inscription observations at every iteration of the exploratory analysis, there is scant data from which to generalize Model results for the Campeche analysis wer e unsatisfactory from several perspectives, as highlighted on Table 4 2 Most notably, for all years except one, the coefficient for the World Heritage dummy variable was a negative number The calculated model assigned a coefficient of +6.9 to the World H eritage dummy variable
106 when it was assigned a value of 1, beginning in 2000 and remaining so through 2008. Subsequent iterations, where the dummy variable was assigned a value of one beginning in 2001, 2002, etc., all resulted in negative coefficients for that variable The positive coefficient would at first blush appear to imply that World Heritage inscription stimulated an additional 6,900 international visitors in 2000 ; however, the p value for that coefficient (.3400) was not significant at a 95 % confi dence interval and it therefore had to be rejected as not significantly different from zero Other aspects of the Campeche results, as depicted on Table 4 2, were counterintuitive While one would theoretically expect to see a measure of consistency for the World Heritage dummy coefficients as the initial year with a value of 1 is advanced, in the case of Campeche, the coefficients generally become increasingly negative as the model was recomputed 2001 through 2004, with the value of the dummy variable c hanging with each advancing year value bec a me significant at 5% in 2004, but the coefficient value of 64.9 implies that World Heritage inscription was responsible for a decline of 64,900 international visitors during a year when Campe che reported 62,000 foreign arrivals In addition to the paucity of post inscription data points, the Campeche results also could be confounded by a seeming relationship between inscription and global events in the late twentieth century and early twenty first century which had an important impact on tourism : the late 1990s economic boom and subsequent collapse, coupled with the terrorist attack in New York City on September 11, 2001 and its aftereffects Figure 4 1 graphs international tourist arrivals to the seven cities under scrutiny (For clarity, the scale has been adjusted to conceal outlying data for Oaxaca and
107 Puebla and reveal more detail regarding trends for the other cities .) International arrivals to Campeche rose nearly 22% in 2000, the firs t full year after inscription In 200 1, international arrivals increased by another nearly 9.0% I n subsequent years however, visitor levels declined and leveled off, so that there was essentially no change in foreign arrivals between 2000 and 2008 in bot h years there were roughly 70,000 foreign visitors. In light of this pattern, the prevailing pattern of negative coefficients for the World Heritage dummy variable appears logical. One might assume the inability to obtain a significant result with the Camp eche data may be due to nothing more profound than minimal available data points Campeche, significantly, was one of the last cities in this analysis inscribed in the Word Heritage list in 1999 and only eight years of historical data were available post i nscription Digging a bit deeper, it appears the lack of a statistical relationship between inscription and international visitors may equally attribute to an essentially flat trend in visitors between 2000 and 2008. International visitors to that city dec lined from 70,079 to 69,793 ( 0.4 % ) between 2000 and 2008 (Reported international visitor levels to Campeche fell another 19.6 % in 2009 with the H1N1 influenza crisis and a deep economic recession .) With visitor levels flat between 2000 and 2008 a posit ive independent effect of inscription would be possible, yet highly unlikely. Curiously, a fairly recent document (Gravari Barbas and Jacquot, 2008) offers Campeche as an example of a World Heritage city that experienced a 39.0% increase in visitors in the four years post inscription The apparent disconnect highlights the danger of looking at only a narrow window As the institution of World Heritage approaches middle age, more data become available While the immediate impacts of
108 inscription are interesti ng, a nalysts must increasingly turn their focus toward long term impacts on visitor numbers, preservation, and authenticity, among other issues. As noted previously (and highlighted on Figure 3 5) SECTUR data indeed indicate that for the period between 200 0 and 2008, international visitors to all seven Mexican World Heritage cities in this anal ysis were highly variable In contrast to Campeche, which following its inscription in December 1999 experienced eight years with virtually no net change in internati onal visitors (declining 0.4 % ), half of the remaining six cities demonstrated large increases, with Zacatecas, Morelia, and Quertaro showing increases of 65.4, 91.2, an d 125.4 % respectively, between 2000 and 2008 Simultaneously, international visitor le vels decreased 19.7, 24.7, and 43.2 % respectively at Oaxaca, Puebla, and Guanajuato, respectively. Guanajuato Guanajuato was inscribed in 1988, providing more post inscription observations but fewer pre inscription observations, than with Campeche As Tab le 4 3 indicates, a positive coefficient for the World Heritage dummy variable that was also significant was first achieved when a value of 1 was first assigned to that variable in 1995 The p value for this coefficient was .0 1, suggesting the coefficient was significant at a 95 % confidence interval The result suggests World Heritage inscription had a positive effect on international visitors to Guanajuato beginning in 1995 seven years after the city was inscribed on the World Heritage list The coefficie nt value of 21. 7 implied an increase of 21,700 visitors as a direct impact of inscription, while controlling for variation in the relative value of the Mexican peso, available rooms, and worldwide international tourist
109 arrivals The one time increase amoun ted to 57.2 % of total 1995 international arrivals to Guanajuato and nearly equa led to the number of visitors in 1986 Based on available evidence, the World Heritage inscription dummy coefficient was also positive and significant at a .05 confidence inter val when assigned a value of 1 beginning in 1997 nine years after inscription The 15.2 coefficient shown on Table 4 3 suggests 15,200 additional annual tourists visited Guanajuato as a result of inscription, controlling for the value of the Mexican peso, available hotel rooms, and global international tourism trends The 15,200 additional visitors represented 28.6 % of all international arrivals to that city in 1997. The overall fit of the model as measured by the corrected Akaike information criterion (AIC c) improved slightly with the second scenario The value of calculated tourist arrivals for 1986 2008, as implied by the 1995 and 1997 models deviated widely from actual results, with a median difference of 40.2 % when the dummy assumes a value of 1 in 199 5 and +50.9 % for the 1997 version. One the other hand, the inferior fit of the model based on the dummy variable assuming a value of 1 in 1995 can be demonstrated by the vast range of predicted differences from reported international visitors, from 108.7 % to +149.3 % with a standard deviation of 65.5 % With the dummy variable assuming a value of 1 in 1997, the standard deviation of the variation between actual and predicted international visitor arrivals declines from the 65.5 % level manifested in the ear lier case Neither model is a good predictor of tourism levels Based on all the evidence, one could say in the case of Guanajuato that inscription had a significant effect on
110 international visitor levels that took seven to nine years to develop One coul d also say that inscription resulted in a 15 ,000 22,000 increase in international visitors. Morelia Morelia joined the World Heritage list on December 12, 1991 As indicated on Table 4 4, when the World Heritage dummy variable was assigned a value of 1 beg inning in years 1991 and 1992 that is, the World Heritage list coefficients for that exogenous variable were negative the World Herita ge dummy variable were assigned a value of 1 beginning in 1993, altho ugh a p value within a .05 confidence interval was not achieved until 1999 When the variable is assign ed a value of 1 beginning in 1999 and continuing with subsequent iterations through 2005, the coefficient remained positive and significant at .05 (p=.0305). As indicated on Table 4 4, the best fit was achieved when the World Heritage dummy was assumed to achiev e a value of 1 beginning in 2002 The AICc for that model was 10 9 .7 versus 1 2 0.7 which was recorded with the model based on the dummy varia ble equaling 1 beginning in 1999 Calculated annual international visitors to Morelia for 1999 using the 1999 model were on average 29.8 % higher than the total reported by SECTUR The 2002 mode l generated calculated results that averaged 17.1 % higher than total reported visitors for that year Taking guidance from the previous discuss ion for Guanajuato, one might conclude that, based on available data, World Heritage inscription added be tween 8, 800 to 13,300 annual international arrivals to Morelia and this impact took eight to thirteen years to occur.
111 Oaxaca The Historic Center of Oaxaca and Archaeological Site of Monte Albn was inscribed on the World Heritage in December 1987 ( International Monetary Fund 2009; International Council of Monuments and Sites 1986) Oaxaca received 126,713 foreign visitors in 2008 a level of volume that was second to Puebla among the seven cities under examination here More punishing decreases in international visitors to Puebla in 2009, gave Oaxaca most visited status in that year handi crafts, and food, along with it s location ( Noble 2008) is largely responsible for the city recording nearly one foreign visitor for every two municipal residents higher than a ny of the other Mexican World Heritage cities under scrutiny. As indicated on Table 4 5, analysis of the 1986 2008 data implied a nearly immediate impact of World Heritage inscription on foreign visitors for this city Based on all data, World Heritage ins cription was responsible for 41,200 annual foreign visitors to The Historic Center of Oaxaca and Archaeological Site of Monte Albn beginning in 1988. ; however, one cannot reject the po ssibility that spurious data may have resulted in this outcome Data supplied by the Mexican Tourist Board indicate a 42.2 % increase in foreign visitors there between 1986 and 1987 from 7 4,716 to 106,256 The one year 34.4 % drop in foreign visitors reporte d from 1993 to 1994 may be due to a combination of events The trend in international arrivals (as highlighted on Figure 3 2) suggests the 1994 Mexican financial crisis had wide scale impact on foreign tourist arrivals In the case of Oaxaca, the decline m ay have been exacerbated by the Zapatista revolt in neighboring Chiapas,
112 which began in 1994. This drop more than evaporated with a 66.0 % increase in visitors one year later When observations for 1986 and 1994 are dropped from the data set, SAS generates models showing the World Heritage inscription dummy variable becoming significant when assigned a value of 1 in 1991 The AICc for this model is 171.9, which suggests an improved fit over any of the models obtained when 1986 and 1994 data are included Th e model suggests inscription generated a one time increase of 38,400 international visitors to Oaxaca and Monte Albn while controlling for the relative value of the Mexican peso, available rooms, and global tourist arrivals. Without this data manipulatio n it appears World Heritage inscription provided an increase of 41,200 annual visitors beginning in 1988 This represents approximately one third of total international arrivals at Oaxaca in 1988. Puebla Like Oaxaca, Puebla was one of the more obvious cho ices for early World Heritage inscription, joining the list in 1987 As with Oaxaca, there are plentiful data, but they lack some of the extreme swings in the early years seen in the previous example of Oaxaca The massive scale of foreign visitors to Pu ebla 1998 data indicate it had 100,000 international visitors more than Oaxaca, the second largest Mexican World Heritage city and 157,000 more than the next most visited Mexican World Heritage city Campeche highlight some bizarre trends such as s 61.5 % decline in international visitors betwe en 2004 and 2005 ( Figure 3 2.) Because this disturbance occurs in the out years of the analysis, it has minor impact on the validity of model results As indicated on Table 4 6, it took seven years for World Heritage inscription to
113 have a significant impact on international arrivals to Puebla, accounting for an increase of nearly 88,700 annual visitors With 65,513 total internat ional arrivals at Puebla in 1995 the calculated increase from World Heritage insc ription accounts for about 135.4 % of all foreign visitors to Puebla then a level far in excess of the range of 33 68 % indicated at the six other cities under consideration. Among the nineteen iterations of the model run in this part of the exploratory anal ysis, the model assuming a value of 1 for the World Heritage dummy variable in 1995 also produced the best fit, revealing the lowest AICc of the nineteen runs. As previously noted, aspects of Puebla are unique among the seven World Heritage cities examine d here It is a major industrial city with a population of 1.4 million It is 14,900 workers ( Volk s wagen AG ) and by itself would generate considerable international visits from corporation officials and suppliers Further, Puebla is within close proximity to Mexico City, generating far more visits by day trippers. Quer taro Among the seven Mexican World Heritage cities none has witnessed a higher rate of increase for foreign tourist arrivals than Quer taro during the years 2000 to 2008 Foreign arrivals to that city increased by 36,011, or 125.4 % within that interval. Between 1986 and 2008, visitors to Quer taro increased more than five fold from 10,417 to 64,723 The large increases have been attributed to heavy public investment there and in Zacatecas : f you look at Quer taro and Zacatecas you have two cities where the state government has been investing a lot in culture It is two citi es where th e security
114 1 Quer taro benefits form a location only 222 kilometers (138 miles) from Mexico City, which positions it as the second closest World Heritage city to the Mexican capital. As highlighted in Figure 4 1 Quer taro, which entered the World Heritage list in 1997 achieved a 261.0 % increase in international arrivals between 199 7 and 199 8 The surge in visitors resulted in a model that demonstrates a significant (at 2% ) increase in international visitors beginning in 2002 As we have seen previously, the implied increase related to World Heritage Inscription here was radically higher than visitor levels, suggesting the model is less than reliable for measuring visitor increases In this instance, the coefficient implies an 18,800 increase in international arrivals in 2002 as an independent and direct result of inscription SECTUR reported only 9,748 international arrivals to Quer taro in 1997. Zacatecas As with Guanajuato, Zacatecas developed because of silver production I ts location 560 kilometers north of Mexico City places it on the outer fringe of the collection of World Heritage cities to the north and west of the capital, which also includes Morelia, Guanajuato, Quer taro, and San Miguel de Allende. Zacatecas was ins cribed on the World Heritage list in 1993 In 1986, the city was of little interest to foreign visitors, attracting only 4,543 arrivals, according to SECTUR only 43.3 % of the level achieved by the next most attractive among the seven World Heritage cities examined here (Quer taro) None of the seven cities witnessed as 1 Count Philippe de Reiset ( owner, Hotel Villa Montana, Morelia ), in discussion with the author, August 2010.
115 dramatic increases as Zacatecas did between 1986 and 2008, when foreign visitors increase nearly nine fold Following inscription, international visitors to Zacatecas grew modestly, and then took off toward the end of the twentieth century Interviews with tourism officials in other Felipe Calder and narco violence have help ed the city to become a more attractive destination. Model results suggest it took seven years for World Heritage list membership to have a statistically significant and positive impact on foreign tourist arrivals to Zacatecas The model again appears to e xaggerate the impact of World Heritage, suggesting 8,900 people were attracted to the city solely because of its inscription, in 1998 (Table 4 8.) This represented 68.4 % of total foreign arrivals to the city. All four coefficients plus the constant genera ted a forecast of total foreign arrivals that was 235.1 % higher than historical 1998 results, as reported by SECTUR Forecast results trended closer to reported figure s in the out years For example, model results were 97.3 % of reported figure s for 2008
116 Table 4 1 Summary model results for selected Mexican World Heritage c ities City Year i nscribed Year w hen World Heritage variable b ecomes s ignificant Coefficient: dummy variable, World Heritage inscription Coefficient: p esos p er SDR Coefficient: a vg. a vailable r ooms Coefficient: w orld t ourist a rrivals Campeche 1999 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Guanajuato 1988 1995 21.7 0.4 5.8 0.1 Morelia 1991 199 9 8.8 0.4 14.2 0.5 Oaxaca 1987 1988 41.2 10.7 3.7 33.1 Puebla 1987 1995 8 8.7 5.6 9.1 25.6 Quertaro 1996 2002 18.8 0.2 30.2 2.8 Zacatecas 1993 1998 8.9 0.7 3.3 4.6 First year when the World Heritage dummy coefficient is significant at a 95 % confidence interval and has a positive sign, implying that it has a significant and positive effect on internatio nal visitor levels.
117 Table 4 2. Summary model r esults for Campeche Constant World Heritage Pesos p er SDR Avg. avail. r ooms World tourist a rrivals Year Value P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value AICc 1999 59.2 .0150 21.4 .0231 2.0 .0449 106.3 .0176 34.9 <.0001 149.5 2000 51.9 .0110 6.9 .3400 3.0 .0100 84.6 .0017 7.5 .1088 152.9 2001 5.6 .8407 6.0 .5403 0.3 .7708 80.8 .0498 19.8 .0025 152.4 2002 31.4 .3675 14.5 .2820 0.0* .2957 51.9 .2957 19.6 .0013 150.4 2003 61.5 .0998 27.3 .0766 0.1 .9108 14.5 .7792 17.9 .0027 146.8 2004 64.9 .0079 33.3 .0003 0.1 .8953 15.4 .5354 17.2 .0001 139.8 2005 26.6 .2339 21.4 .0052 0.8 .4486 54.9 .0163 16.6 .0004 142.1 0.005
118 Table 4 3. Summary model results for Guanajuato Constant World Heritage Pesos p er SDR Avg. avail. r ooms World t ourist a rrivals Year Value P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value AICc 1988 0.2 .0658 143.9 .0017 0.6 .8898 99.7 .0129 14.1 .3440 196.2 1989 45 .9 .1006 1.7 .7624 1.9 .1124 9.7 .6348 2.0 .6659 152.4 1990 46.4 .1015 2.0 .7083 2.0 .0899 9.2 .6319 2.36 .5578 148.7 1991 49.3 .0864 0.3 .9449 2.1 .0762 13.7 .4273 1.6 .6127 145.8 1992 47.8 .1161 2.9 .6501 1.8 .1798 18.2 .3549 0.4 .9268 147.8 1993 46.6 .1175 6.1 .4295 1.8 .2066 2.8 .8875 4.0 .3413 148.9 1994 48.1 .1109 8.0 .4247 1.3 .4565 5.5 .7286 2.2 .5577 146.9 1995 59.7 .0289 21.7 .0124 0.4 .7286 5.8 .7148 0.1 .9688 143.1 1996 67.6 .0409 12.3 .0887 1.6 .0734 11.2 .5416 3.8 .2830 145.7 1997 81.9 .0194 15.2 .0320 1.8 .7663 17.2 .3527 4.2 .2230 142.7 1998 71.2 .0908 9.1 .2769 2.0 .0527 17.7 .4365 3.0 .4688 147.8 1999 19.6 .6714 2.9 .7475 2.4 .0190 8.3 .7335 4.7 .2743 149.3 2000 69.5 .1568 20.6 .0445 1.9 .0656 48.2 .0677 3.5 .3940 148.9 2001 5.6 .8407 29.2 .5403 0.3 .7708 80.8 .0498 19.8 .0625 152.4 2002 7.7 .7608 20.4 .0030 1.9 .0598 1.9 .9008 0.8 .8290 147.0 2003 6.9 .6378 21.4 .0002 1.4 .0377 13.7 .1635 3.9 .1191 138.1 2004 6.8 .6877 18.6 .0044 0.7 .3835 1 3.9 .1779 5.4 .1241 146.5 2005 21.5 .3639 11.0 .1406 0.9 .3893 10.6 .2792 2.4 .6003 150.6
119 Table 4 4. Summary model results for Morelia Constant World Heritage Pesos p er SDR Avg. avail. r ooms World tourist a rrivals Year Value P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value AICc 1991 41.9 .1135 3.8 .3182 0.2 .7632 15.1 .1801 3.9 .1403 133.3 1992 49.7 .0894 1.9 .6459 0.1 .8744 19.4 .1201 3.3 .2249 133.6 1993 52.6 .0665 0.9 .8505 0.1 .8851 23.4 .0466 1.9 .4370 133.2 1994 51.2 .0723 0.3 .9573 0.1 .9334 22.1 .0563 2.4 .3246 131.5 1995 45.9 .0809 2.0 .7067 0.1 .9885 20.9 .0359 2.3 .2936 130.2 1996 40.1 .1160 2.2 .5650 0.2 .6958 19.4 .0383 1.8 .3302 129.2 1997 29.5 .2155 4.7 .2104 0.3 .5720 17.2 .0445 1.2 .4742 12 6.9 1998 21.0 .3487 6.7 .0793 0.4 .4060 15.4 .0524 0.7 .6612 123.8 1999 15.0 .5036 8.8 .0305 0.4 .3919 14.2 .0669 0.5 .7336 120.7 2000 1.0 .9622 12.4 .0031 0.6 .2036 10.4 .1571 0.1 .9257 117.3 2001 6.7 .6937 12.5 .0011 0.4 .2838 12.8 .0544 0.3 .795 3 113.7 2002 13.5 .3356 13.3 .0003 0.2 .4690 15.4 .0130 0.7 .5715 109.7 2003 31.3 .0624 12.8 .0009 0.1 .8607 22.2 .0040 0.6 .6761 113.3 2004 36.2 .1374 11.8 .0155 0.6 .2830 25.7 .0190 1.2 .6038 123.6 2005 49.5 .1442 6.4 .3061 0.6 .4576 26.9 .0698 0.2 .9524 133.0
120 Table 4 5 Summary model r esults for Oaxaca Constant World Heritage Pesos p er SDR Avg. a vail. r ooms World t ourist a rrivals Year Value P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value AICc 1987 199.1 .0004 46.5 .0567 9.9 .0275 2.6 .9043 28.8 .0559 198.3 1988 214.4 .0002 41.2 .0330 10.7 .0163 3.7 .8664 33.1 .0330 197.3 1989 210.2 .0004 29.2 .1790 10.2 .0276 2.1 .9265 30.4 .0550 198.9 1990 215.4 .0004 30.3 .1344 10.0 .0322 0.6 .9758 29.1 .0627 19 7.8 1991 213.7 .0005 29.2 .1544 9.5 .0461 2.4 .9155 26.8 .1186 196.8 1992 207.1 .0010 25.0 .2610 9.1 .0682 3.1 .8951 24.5 .3516 196.5 1993 179.2 .0045 11.4 .6650 8.4 .1370 11.2 .6586 14.3 .7795 197.3 1994 146.3 .0157 5.8 .8646 8.5 .1913 21.3 .4 092 3.9 .4631 196.2 1995 251.5 .0001 79.4 .0162 1.2 .8130 9.5 .6423 10.3 .0394 193.3 1996 332.8 <.0001 88.7 .0007 6.6 .0095 23.9 .1595 23.2 .0262 189.4 1997 373.3 <.0001 88.0 .0013 9.6 .0095 35.6 .0564 27.4 .0151 192.6 1998 347.8 .0003 65.6 .055 2 10.9 .0095 33.1 .1915 28.3 .0262 198.3 1999 230.4 .0658 143.9 .0017 0.6 .8898 99.7 .0129 14.1 .3440 196.2 2000 85.4 .4296 95.6 .0103 3.3 .4827 57.6 .0629 13.4 .3459 193.9 2001 41.0 .6245 83.3 .0057 4.3 .2668 49.8 .0419 17.3 .1391 191.7 200 2 6.0 .9249 75.1 .0024 7.2 .0360 34.8 .0590 20.5 .0384 190.3 2003 71.6 .2801 50.5 .0330 8.3 .0341 18.0 .3394 20.7 .0761 195.7 2004 117.3 .1260 30.7 .2239 8.5 .0511 7.8 .6927 20.3 .2080 198.4 2005 76.8 .3607 52.2 .1115 7.8 .0941 17.0 .4525 0.4 9830 194.6
121 Table 4 6 Summary model r esults for Puebla Constant World Heritage Pesos p er SDR Avg. avail. r ooms World tourist a rrivals Year Value P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value AICc 1987 49.7 .5333 17.3 .7563 7.9 .2510 70.5 .1750 30.9 .1998 211.1 1988 90.1 .2038 55.1 .0684 2.3 .6588 116.5 .0217 41.3 .1168 208.7 1989 69.7 .3406 43.8 .1164 3.6 .5275 92.2 .0402 32.4 .1560 206.3 1990 86.8 .2250 38.2 .0819 1.0 .8443 73.4 .0168 13.6 .3577 203.3 1991 90.6 .21 72 36.0 .0999 1.2 .7740 50.7 .0280 4.4 .6644 201.1 1992 51.1 .5079 27.9 .2469 3.1 .5648 34.2 .1491 0.3 .9838 200.1 1993 71.7 .3933 39.5 .1754 2.0 .6581 27.7 .2586 17.0 .0692 197.2 1994 53.4 .5339 57.4 .0817 4.2 .2377 21.3 .3867 23.0 .0010 192.7 1 995 3.2 .9727 88.7 .0309 5.6 .0022 9.1 .6954 25.6 <.0001 187.3 1996 164.6 .0071 18.3 .4203 4.0 .0356 53.2 .0004 20.1 .0005 188.9 1997 216.1 .0029 1.2 .9634 4.3 .0717 64.2 .0003 21.2 .0025 190.2 1998 207.9 .0031 2.2 .9320 4.3 .0706 63.3 .0003 20. 5 .0021 186.0 1999 44.0 .7116 29.6 .4236 4.1 .3447 26.6 .3711 3.4 .7646 193.3 2000 147.0 .0711 2.3 .9398 0.7 .8158 49.1 .0135 10.3 .3065 191.2 2001 272.9 .0004 34.8 .2951 3.6 .1968 70.8 .0004 21.8 .0291 192.1 2002 371.1 <.0001 69.7 .0407 6.8 .0 241 87.2 .0002 29.6 .0088 195.0 2003 428.9 <.0001 98.7 .0150 7.9 .0117 96.0 <.0001 31.8 .0068 191.7 2004 476.7 <.0001 139.3 .0010 6.7 .0561 109.0 <.0001 24.0 .0567 190.4 2005 536.2 <.0001 177.2 <.0001 9.1 .0082 100.6 <.0001 36.6 .0028 177.5
122 Table 4 7. Summary model results for Quertaro Constant World Heritage Pesos p er SDR Avg. avail. r ooms World tourist a rrivals Year Value P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value AICc 1996 48.6 .0405 7.3 .3645 1.1 .0387 32.5 .0004 1.9 .2978 143.4 1997 15.5 .5216 18.8 .0432 0.8 .1176 22.6 .0095 0.9 .5492 139.8 1998 25.2 .2539 33.1 .0014 0.2 .6499 10.6 .1407 0.5 .7105 133.9 1999 83.4 .0071 3.4 .7221 1.5 .0959 47.8 <.0001 0.9 .7526 144.9 2000 90.4 .00 15 5.9 .5223 1.6 .0578 49.8 <.0001 1.2 .6699 142.0 2001 41.4 .0486 9.8 .2576 0.4 .6471 36.5 <.0001 1.8 .5589 144.6 2002 18.2 .2609 18.8 .0293 0.2 .7953 30.2 .0002 2.8 .3676 140.1 2003 8.4 .5724 24.8 .0041 0.2 .6773 27.9 .0003 2.7 .3787 139.0 2 004 2.3 .8748 28.6 .0011 0.6 .3680 29.5 <.0001 4.0 .1319 135.2 2005 23.2 .4254 18.1 .1439 0.7 .6183 31.1 .0112 2.9 .6024 155.1
123 Table 4 8 Summary model r esults for Zacatecas Constant World Heritage Pesos p er SDR Avg. a vail. r ooms World t ourist Ar rivals Year Value P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value Coeff. P Value AICc 1993 35.0 .0016 6.9 .0330 0.5 .3179 0.7 .9228 9.4 .0192 119.0 1994 18.9 .0380 7.4 .1126 0.6 .4219 7.6 .3001 2.8 .4274 120.1 1995 21.1 .0403 3.0 .4966 0 .4 .5501 8.5 .3096 5.0 .2413 122.2 1996 10.7 .2566 3.5 .2904 0.9 .0579 8.5 .3000 4.4 .2461 122.5 1997 6.4 .4129 5.8 .0921 0.8 .0525 5.7 .4468 4.5 .1837 120.1 1998 1.9 .7831 8.9 .0166 0.7 .0420 3.3 .6407 4.6 .1382 116.5 1999 <0.1* .9941 10.9 .0056 0.7 .0360 0.7 .9231 5.1 .0837 112.1 2000 1.7 .7781 13.2 .0001 0.7 .0256 1.6 .7516 5.8 .0190 106.1 2001 13.9 .1479 7.0 .0506 1.1 .0194 2.2 .7898 7.6 .0598 118.0 2002 15.2 .1359 4.3 .2138 1.3 .0155 8.6 .2860 6.0 .1491 119.4 2003 12.5 .2309 2.9 .2872 1.2 .0210 12.3 .0962 4.4 .2625 118.2 2004 7.4 .4778 4.0 .3661 0.9 .0309 16.2 .0143 2.1 .5122 116.9 2005 10.0 .3969 2.2 .6785 0.9 .0542 16.7 .0180 2.2 .5420 117.4 0.048
124 Figure 4 1 Annual foreign arriv als for selected Mexican World Heritage c ities : 1986 2008, with s cale adjusted for clarity. (Source : SECTUR, for dates noted.)
125 C HAPTER 5 MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING ASPECTS OF HERITAGE TOURISM Overview Viewed in aggregate, the combined international visitor s to seven Mexican World Heritage cities between 1986 and 2008 can be broken into two distinct trends : 1) a steady progression upward from 1986 to 2000, with a strongly positive (+91.5) correlation coefficient between annual international visitors and the advance of time, and 2) a weaker downward trend between 2001 and 2008, with a 51.8 correlation coefficient between international visitors and time. It should be noted that the aggregate negative trend between 2001 and 2008 attributes mightily to a net d ecline of more than 100,000 international arrivals to Oaxaca and Puebla during the period, which vastly overshadows the net increase of 52,931 international visitors to Campeche, Guanajuato Morelia, Quertaro, and Zacatecas This raises an important quest ion that invites a discussion of public policy, planning, and management behaviors within the various cities During the late 1980s and beyond, a ll Mexican World Heritage Cities operated in a similar environment with respect to the relative value of the Me xican peso, perceived insecurity about flying safety from drug related violence, and global economic trends What was it that caused international visitors to decline in some cities after significant increases in foreign visitors attributable to World Her itage inscri ption, and increase in others? To answer this the analysis focused on two World Heritage cities with two decidedly different outcomes with respect to foreign visitors following 2000 : The Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines and The Historic Center of Morelia. These two
126 cities do not represent polar extremes Nor do they demonstrate any great similarity As noted previously, while both Guanajuato and Morelia are state capitals, the former is a small city with an economy built on touri sm and education, while the latter is several times larger, with a far more diverse economy. As the modeling exercise indicated, Guanajuato demonstrated a statistically significant post inscription incr ease in international visitors, effective in 1995 Th e city, however, exhibited a precipitous fall in international visitors after 2000. Figure 5 1 h ighlights the trend in international arrivals to Guanajuato between 1986 and 2009. From inscription in 1988 to 2000, international visitors t o Guanajuato increa sed at a 7.0 % annual average rate, although as Figure 5 1 indicates, there was substantial year to year variability. Going forward from 2000, however, the trend in international visitors to that city demonstrated a 6.8 % annual decline between 2000 and 20 08 In contrast, Morelia which was placed on the World Heritage list in 1991 saw the number of international visitors generally increase 55.2 % between its inscription and 1999 This is equivalent to an annual growth rate of 5.6 % During the five years f rom 1999 to 2004 a period during which international visits to Guanajuato dropped 50.9 % Morelia saw international visitors increase 81.2 % an average annual increase of 16.4 % Between 2004 and 2007, the trend for international arrivals to Morelia effectiv ely flattened out As Figure 5 2 highlights, the number of visitors to that city in 2008 tumbled 29.6 % from the 51,478 visitors recorded in 2007 The obvious explanation for this ic center during Independence Day celebrations on the night of September 15, 2008 ( Figure 5
127 3.) The grenades killed seven people and injured more than 100 others ( Lacey 2008) Indeed, if one were to assume no forei gn visitors arrived after the violence and apply the remaining proportion to total 2007 international arrivals in Morelia, the subsequent result nearly matches reported visitors in 2008 That is, September 15 was the 25 9th day of the year in 2008 Applying 259/366 or 70.8 % to the 51,478 visitors reported in 2007, the result becomes 36,428 visitors This result is 0.5 % different from the 36,236 reported by SECTUR in 2008. 1 The pile up of unfortunate events in 2009 led to across the board double digit decreas es in international arrivals to the seven World Heritage cities considered here, ranging from a 19.6 % drop in Campeche to a 47.1 % fall in Zacatecas. Between 2008 and 2009, international arrivals fell 46.6 % in Guanajuato and 28.9 % in Morelia The smaller de cline in Morelia reflects a base year in 2008 that already suffered losses from the September 15 violence Had 2008 Morelia arrivals remained consistent with 2007 levels, the 2008 2009 decline in that city would have been 50.0 % The statistics indicate a s ignificant role for World Heritage inscription in driving foreign visitor levels between during the ten or so years after these cities were listed. What happened after that period that caused such remarkably different trends for these cities, specifically, and all seven cities, in general? 1 State Department su ggests US citizens avoid Michoac The state of Michoacn is home to another of Mxico Fourteen federal police were killed in an ambush near Zitacuaro in the southeastern corner of the state. In April 2010, the Secretary for Public Security for Michoacn was shot in a DTO ambush. Security incidents have also occurred in and around Morelia, the state capit al, killed eight people. U.S. citizens should defer unnecessary travel to the area. If travel in Michoacn is unavoidable, U.S. citizens should exercise extreme caution, especially outside major tourist areas
128 A number of sources were consulted to divine what may have led to these different outcomes Newspaper accounts, journal articles, data, and reports were gathered from electronic sources and on site In both Guanajuato and Morelia, s emi structured interviews were conducted with an array of current and former public officials, academics, and preservationists in the city Interviewees were selected based on reputational and snowball sampling The interviews developed from an initial short series of open ended questions Their duration ranged from thirty five minutes to four hours Guanajuato Results revealed a basket of explanations, ma ny of which surfaced repeatedly In the case of Guanajuato, the five issues surfaced as i mportant drive rs behind the statistics The principal topics will be discussed in turn Some identified issues are not uniquely relevant to addressing the issue at hand understanding why Guanajuato tourism increased during the 1990s and early 2000s, only t o fall precipitously For example, the poor quality of Guanajuato hotels and restaurants was mentioned frequently as a challenge to tourism growth, yet it is highly un and restaurants improved dramatically during prior to 2001, only to decline rapidly in subsequent years Further, topics frequently overlap, and at times it is difficult to discuss any in isolation of others For example, in the Mexican milieu it is especially difficult to
129 talk about tourism planning and strate gy without including politics given the large role The issues that surfaced are as follows: planning and strategy ; branding and slogans ; political impacts ; Festival Internacional Cervantino ; and data questions Plan ning and Strategy Inconsistent tourism planning and strategies challenge visitor level growth to Guanajuato culture becomes an important attraction during festivals cli mate is typically pleasant warm and dry but it is located in central Mexico, far from any beach resorts Built in a narrow ravine, there is little room for parks, and aggressive logging denuded vast areas of nearby mountain forests, rendering them unattrac tive for hiking and camping No well known archaeol ogical sites surround the city, although two si tes, Peralta and Plazuelas, have recently been developed by INAH and are open to the public In relation to the city of Guanajuato, the two sites are perhaps thirty minutes beyond Irapuato, which is approximately forty five minutes from the capital Guanajuato figure 200 years ago, and evidence of it s prolific mining history which was recog nized by UN ESCO remain s abundant with large mines remaining active Indeed, mining comp r ises roughly 6.0% ( Cabrejos Moreno 2008) yet the its cultural heritage may at times be ignored or treated casually by its tourism establishment.
130 Very little analysis can be found regarding tourism planning and strategy in Guanajuato, especially within the context of its World Heritage Status In a recent ar ticle, one geographer observes that Guanajuato has struggled with its transition from an economy based on mineral extraction to tourism based economy The result is that pl trying ( Asch 2009, 2) An architect and urbanist who was also interviewed for this research, observes that this transformation from a mining city to a tourist city resulted in a transformation of city, including its ne wer suburbs ( S nchez Mart nez 2009, 89 93) As an example, the author cites the change in pavement and street furniture, noting that public officials claim such improvements offer improved cleanliness an d lay the groundwork for a new tourist market, at the expense of tradition and identity Figure 5 4 illustrates this strategy with a photo taken at the western limit of the repaving operation, near the Plaza de San Fernando (on Figure 3 9 the plaza with t he fountain, directly below Cerro del Cuarto). Another analysis echoed these views, noting that the strategy for consolidating the the detriment of other areas This p erspective, it was argued neglects strategies for protecting built heritage and preserving the center as a living city ( Hiriart Pardo 2009, 37)
131 toric center and development of its tourism industry can be found on the Internet and few were offered during several visits to the city ICOMOS Mexicana prepared an analysis in 2005 that compared ten historic centers with respect to planning and regulati on It found two cities without an assessment plan or program for development of their historic centers : Guanajuato and Zacatecas ( ICOMOS Mexicano 2005) The ICOMOS study noted then that Zacatecas was in the pro cess of realizing such a plan A 2003 document produced by the city of Guanajuato assemble d a vast array of laws and plans pertaining to preservation of cultural heritage in all parts of the city into one 1,433 page document The broader document includes the 1994 Plan Parcial de Desarrollo Urbano, Zona de Monumentos de la Ciudad de Guanajuato It also notes that the Plan Parcial was never inscribed in the Registro P blico de la Propiedad ( City of Guanajuato 2003, 1 2) Plan Parcial was approved by the municipal council, published in the lo cal official journal, but never inscribed in the registry ( Secretar a de Desarrollo Social 2008, 1 ) A their pla nning and strategies In 444 words over five pages the document provides little detail, but nevertheless conveys As strategies it offers the following : bank of ph 2 ( Aguado Malacara 2009, 1 ) For new tourist products the document suggests a master plan for 2 My translat ion.
132 reservoir and adjacent park a sound and light show, an ecological/cultural park with equipment for fairs and shows, and a theme park The document also advocates a range of events to be anchored to each month of the year As examples it suggests international student festivals, a fes tival of wind instruments, sports competitions and exhibitions, events related to Sister Cities, and a puppet festival. The Plan M u nicipal Para el Desarrollo Tur stico de Guanajuato Capital echoes the earlier s lack of cohesive image with respect to tourism year plan for developing tourism to emphasize those aspects To the contrary, the document makes no status, instead advocating a diverse array of events having little or nothing to do with Further, one might question the wisdom of proposing an ecological and cultural park th at also includes facilities for fairs and shows activities which appear to conflict. Likewise including puppet festivals appears either nave or audacious Mexico City recently experienced its eighth Festival Internacional Titeras ( Festival Internacional Titeras, 1) and it would be difficult to imagine a demand for a similar event only a few hundred miles away To its credit, howe as noted, has drawn criticism. Interviews with tourism officials confirm the previous observations For example, one tourism official notes : we have nothing to offer We have no theme parks, no parks We must remember that,
133 for vacations, it is the children that generate the ideas as to where to go and who decide where the family goes They come to Guanajuato, they get their fill of history and are missing recreation. 3 Unique among Mexican World Heritage cities central historic zone and includes surrounding mining communities The December construction of hospitals, churches, convents and palaces are all inextricably linked with the industrial history of the region, which with the decli ne of the Potosi mines in the 18th ( International Council of Monuments and Site s 1988 ) Unfortunately, efforts to produce recreational offer ings and theme parks may conflict with preservation goals of UNESCO and others With the depressed price of silver soon after 2000, nearby mining assets, which included vast tracts of land and historic communities, were sold by local mining cooperatives ( Ferry 2005) Investors subsequently redeveloped the eighteenth century Guadalupe Mine (also referred to as story stone exterior buttresse s see Figure 5 5 ) as a nine hole golf course and club, with initial plans to build a nine hole golf course, 100 room hotel, and twenty one single family houses Subsequent visits to this facility suggest it has not been particularly successful During one glorious weekend in February or and his golfing partner As Figure 5 6 indicates, the facility also appears to have become 3 Mario Aguado Malacara (Guanajuato Director of Municipal Tourism), in discussion with author, January 2010. (Translation by Jane Ashley.)
134 somewhat neglected by that point. The putting greens were no longer green. This may reflect a s luggish economy, but it equally may demonstrate public rejection of a facility that appropriated heritage to badly address the desires of the target market, golfers from the United States and Canada, as well as the local market. Still, development threaten s less populated parts of the UNESCO designated area near Guanajuato, with or without tourists One observer noted that the UNESCO World Fifty percent of the area of the dec laration of World Heritage is empty We are worried about this area, this ecological area 4 An unwisely located ecological park/fairgrounds or 12 tourism plan could th reaten these already endangered areas. Guanajuato has been served by an NGO, Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad, which was organized in 1989, soon after the city joined the World Heritage list The organization has five objectives related to preservatio n of Guanajuato and adjacent mining communities: i dentify cultural heritage in the mining communities of Guanajuato state 5 ; become invol ved with the cultural heritage of these communities furnishings and/or property because of their artistic value and/or r isk of destruction ; influence public policy to create an integrated management plan that will convert these communities into tourist sites and so secure the sustainability of their heritage and their development ; and promote research and dissemination of t ( Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad) 4 Manuel Snchez Martnez (Professor of Architecture, University of Guanajuato), in discussion with author, Jan uary 2010. 5 This includes Pozos, a former mining community near San Miguel de Allende, as well as towns that are closer to the city of Guanajuato
135 The organization from SECTUR, the federal Ministry of Pu blic Education (FOREMOBA), and a municipal organization established to fund investments in cultural heritage (FIDEPACULT) ( Elizarraraz 2009) This amount is equivalent to $313,696 Having largely accomplished historic center, Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad has now turned its attention to the other principal component of the World Heritage s ite formally known as the Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacen t Mines The effort involves eight mining communities within the municipality of Guanajuato : Mineral de La Luz, San Ignacio Valenciana, Mineral de Santana, Santa Rosa de Lima, Monte de San Nicol s, Marfil, and Mineral de Cata It includes four others else where in the state of Guanajuato Plans call for revising a nd publishing an out of print guide book describing various tourist ro utes in and around Guanajuato. Ultimately, a tourist route through these mining communities will help provide for their inhabit ants, many of whom have suffered reduced incomes with reduced mining activity over years . Its director notes to reach our goals That i s why we have developed the educational heritage model for the restoration/education/employment of people. 6 In the case of the mining communities, Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad invests seed money in the community for restoring churches and other h istoric structures as well as publishing thoughtful guides to otherwise seldom visited, but historically relevant places. Once restored, the buildings are expected to attract tourists 6 Bertha L. Hern ndez Araujo (Director of Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad), in discussion with the auth or, January 2010. (Translation by Laura Lavernia.)
136 development model, community members initially w establishing microbusinesses selling crafts, food, and refreshments As the tourist route develops, such enterprises should likewise prosper and develop into more established enterprises. Guanajuato Patrimonio de l a Humanidad believes community involvement is central to success nt to have the community back the project In certain instances, we have thought that this or that church needs restor ation and we h ave not taken the people into account They get upset and interpret what we are doing incorrectly So now when we work, we put up a plaque that explains where the funds are coming from, who we are, and what the project entails It is also important to expl ain the restoration process : what it is, and how it is done. 7 overnment and private enterprise demonstrate d a profound insensitivity to the local community when the Guadalupe Mine was converted into a nine hole golf course and re sort There is clear evidence that such trends continue, even as Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad continues with its community based approach to restoring historic assets in adjacent mining communities During interviews in January 2010, there was oc casional discussion about possible development in Mineral de la Luz, one of the more remote mining communities surrounding Guanajuato Rumors circulated regarding investors from Ciudad Ju rez and lengthy landing strips 7 Enrique E. Arellano Hern ndez (founder of Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad), in discussion with the author, January 2010. (Translation by Laura Lavernia.)
137 A review of local newspapers reveal ed the mystery extended to a public level Newspaper articles from spring 2009 suggested the nature of the future development and its investors would be disclosed in the future The article notes In one month, a group of investors who maintain their anon ymity will announce what comprises the Mineral de La Luz project, in which seventy laborers have been working since a year 8 It further notes architect Alberto Hernndez, in charge of work in an area of five hectares and is completely fenced, d oes not know if it will be a hotel, retirement home, nursing home or hospital, only that it is a great project that will impact the ecological development, water resources, and tourism in the municipalities of Silao and ( Ochoa 2009) Searches of several newspapers revealed no announcement one month hence, although an article appeared more than a year later describing a future with 700 green homes occupying 120 hectares (297 acres) near the community of Mineral de La 9 ( Romero 2010a) The article does not identify the investors behind the project, although the project apparently is named Sierra Bonita. Attempts to interview the architect Hernn dez in early 2010 were met with statements that he knows nothing about the project No website or further references to Sierra Bonita could be retrieved from the Internet A search on Craigslist, however revealed a listing by a broker who was adv ertising land for development in Mineral de La Luz. Mineral de La Luz: An exciting new sustainable living project on 100 acres of gorgeous view property looking directly over the village church and el 8 My translation. 9 My translation.
138 Gigante, the highest peak in Central Guanajuato. The p roject includes a common tree filled green area with springs and a waterfall, an original Pantheon dedicated as a park, soccer and baseball fields donated to the village, and original mine wells with ruins. There are water holes fed by springs on most parc els. Access roads are in, electric and telephone hookups are available; the main access highway is near to all lots. Parcels vary in size from 2,000 to 27,000 M2 and can be sized to fit a buyer s plans. Prices vary from 50 to 120 Pesos per M2 depending on size, views and location. Absolutely beautiful! ( Cragislist ) Email and telephone inquiries to the advertiser provided further information, including lots platted over a Google Earth image Figure 5 7 reproduces one s uch image and highlights the vast extent of the project in relationship to the tiny remnant of the mining community often operates with a set of strategies and objectives that ef fectively conflict with the to involve affected communities patrimony developed over many centuries. 10 The recent dev elopment projects at the Guadalupe Mine and Mineral de La Luz clumsily attempt to merge real heritage into a heritage product and in doing so turn a place with a real history and a real heritage into a kind of hybrid setting, much as was described by Cohe n, Foucault, and others. As noted previously, o ne analysis noted that in Mexico, World Heritage sites ( van d er Aa, Bart Johannes Maria 2005) This realistic observation has multiple implications for Guanajuato One hotelier and former mayor ( alcalde ) commented on how Guanajuato fails to profit from its proximity to other World Heritage sites He notes that the State of 10 The p Not O urs A lon e : Patrimony, Value, and C ollectivity in C ontemporary Mxico by Elizabeth Emma Ferry.
139 Guanajuato is the only Mexican state with two World Heritage cities (Guanajuato and San Miguel de Allende) . between Guanajuato and the neighboring World Heritage city which in recent years has attracted more affluent visitors, he continues : 11 Proximity to San Miguel de Allende may be able to provide more visitors, but the sho rt duration of visits limits economic impact on the city cities that tourists come just for the day It happens the same with Toledo and Madrid People from Madrid go in the morning, visit the city, have lunch there, and they go back 12 experience a high frequency of excursionistas who come and go within the same day ( Cabrales Barajas 2005, 35 36) The situation reflects a phenomenon described by A ntonio Paolo Russo, who observes that the horde of day Extreme examples of this ( Russo 2002, 170) incapable of handling anything larger than a small bus, visits by day tripping tour buses are constrained by access and the need for transfers to sm aller vehicles Large hotels with more expansive parking facilities, such as the Holiday Inn are located on the fringes of Guanajuato Such lodging would likewise be more attractive to visiting 11 Arnulfo V zquez Nieto (former mayor and owner of El Mes n de los Poetas Hotel), in d iscussion with author, January 2010. (Translation by Jane Ashley.) 12 Clarisa A. de Abascal (Manager of Viajes Georama and former tourism official), in discussion with author, January 2010.
140 motorists who may be daunted by the confusing and often subt erranean road network in the core of this city. Data for 2009 provided by SECTUR indicate the average foreign visitor remained in Guanajuato for 2.0 nights, up from 1.8 nights in 2005 The results for the seven World Heritage cities for 2009 are remarkably similar, with foreign visitors to Oaxaca, Puebla, and Quertaro likewise spending 2.0 nights on average The three outliers were Campeche, Morelia, and Zacatecas, with foreign visitors spending and average 1.2, 1.4, and 2.3 nights per visit, respectively With respect the relationship between San Miguel de Allende and Guanajuato, it should be noted that in 2009 visitors to the former remained for an average 2.9 nights per visit One might conclude that North American cities, such as Guanajuato, as was recommended in an August 2010 travel article ( Kandell 2010) Tourist routes are also important on a local level The effort of Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad to restore nearby mining pueblos and create a tourism circuit to explore them creates new synergies with existing and well known tourist attractions and provide s justification for visitors to stay longer in Guanaju ato It has been suggested that projects that solely contribute to the public image, such as lighting and mini n g communities Where we see the impact is when they wi ll be able to include 13 13 Jorge Cabrejos Moreno (Professor at Universidad de Guanajuato), in discussion with author, January 2010. (Translation by Jane Ashley.)
141 2009 2012 Tourism Development P lan lacks an y references to restoration of the mining communities or any aspect of the local population I nstead it focuses on promoting new produ principal monuments, theme parks, and eco parks designed to accommodate fairs and shows ( Aguado Malacara 2009, 1 2) Interestingly, the gover nment plan submitted by the administration of incoming PRI mayor Nicforo Guerrero Reynoso in its broader Plan de Gobierno Municipal de Guanajuato : 2009 2012 goes far beyond the plan The broader document for one, pays lip service to the need to develop sustainable tourism, citing the following as its objective under that category : tourist development and realizing strategies for achieving a globally inte grated product, sustainable and competitive, that increases tourist flows, their stays, and generates ( Ayuntamiento de Guanajuato 2009, 80) It also advocates creating an advisory board com prised of the private sector, citizens, and governmen t, and a tourist zone for the mining pueblos and adjacent mines Local critics take issue with the general focus of tourism development efforts. One This theme connects with that of globa lization The historical center has become a product to sell They are simply using the city as a beautiful backdrop The y sell the city as scenery for events 14 This was confirmed by comments from the former Assistant Secr etary of Tourism Development for the State only selectively in their marketing efforts He noted their principal marketing thrust was 14 Cabrejos Moreno, discussion.
142 toward younger people with more disposab le income. 15 Newer marketing materials (in Brochures showed fit and attractive young visitors, often in romantic situations surrounded by sumptuous food and gorgeous flowers In such p ublications, one occasionally may find historic structures as background settings Figure 5 8 provides an example of such printed material The young couple is depicted frolicki ng before a ruin in one of the S tate ing communities The focus here is on fun; not on understanding the cultural or historical context of these structures. A recent news article indicates tourism officials of various levels participating in community meetings prior to developing a tourist ro ute to the mining pueblos adjacent to Guanajuato The article provides encouraging news that a tourist route through the mining communities is being planned and that local communities are apparently being consulted in the early stages of planning On the o Director of Tourism betrays a weakness toward globalization, which could, in turn, Said Mario Aguado Malacara began this analysis so that in the future these mining co mmunities can be integrated into a global Guanajuato tourism product ( Romero 2010b) B randing and Slogans Create a slogan many of those interviewed st we select and image 15 Salvador Ayala Ortega (Secretary of Economic Development, Guanajuato),in discussion with author, August 2007.
143 a city tourism official. 16 As noted previously, UNESCO and its agents initially ignored tourism issues Subsequent efforts Program focus more on minimizing the adverse effects of tourism on cultural heritage Five of the ( UNESCO, Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 2008, 1 2) refer to r ules for the use of the World Heritage e mblem Anthropologist Michael Di Gio vine argues the emblem essentially is the World Heritage brand ( Di Giovine 2009) Stephen Boyd and Dallen Timothy write that the branding is particularly relevant to World Heritage sites with respect to po sitioning and image The brand stand s for in the minds of its customers and prospects, relative to its competition, with the reputation of the br ( Boyd and Timothy 2006, 56 68) With respect to the World Heritage e mblem, the authors argue that its overemphasis works to endanger visitor recognition of other worthwhile experiences near World Heritage sites The concept of branding a World Heritage Site or World Heritage city may be more complicated than that. Writing about branding as it pertains to architecture, Anna Klingmann suggests that branding for a more permanent product such as architecture ( or World Heritage cities alternative distractions She argues that branding is a way of transforming the sensation er by endowing him or her with a particular identity and by triggering a particular brand ( Klingmann 2007) 16 Aguado Malacara, discussion.
144 tourism managers understand culture and history, mu mmies, and monuments Observation and research suggest tourism promotion model has led to a proliferation of often di sconnected and obscure slogans and campaigns myriad slogans appear t o ignore it, while simultaneously creating a diffuse identity for Guanajuato as a destination Recent slogans include the following: 17 City of Lights ; Cervantino Capital of Mexico ; City of Romance ; City of Legends ; Your Experience Becomes History ; and Crad le of Independence. Local observers including former alcalde Arnulfo Vasquez Nieto, indicated sloganeering has become a prominent strategy because mayors cannot serve for more than one three year term. 18 Multiple terms are permitted, but not in succession Such short terms of office prohibit development and execution of meaningful tourism plans and strategies Furthermore, tourism promotion staffs tend to turn over with every change of administration Consequently, in lieu of meaningful long term planning and strategy, tourism promotion relies heavily on slogans, with questionable results . states have defined images that they promote with descriptive slogans, Michoac n, for example implementing a uniform brand Mario 17 My tran slation. 18 Vasquez Nieto, discussion.
145 good sloga n that will permanently be associated with Guanajuato For example, San currently proposing that we call Guanajuato, because of its rich heritage, rich culture, 19 alcalde elaborating in a piece for the Organization of World Heritage cities suggests that a lack of focus on cultural heritage with World Heritage cities is mistaken the prime element in support of our tourism In this era of constant, rapid, and uniform change in the world, it is import to keep elements that lend identity to our cities, from a living heritage different from others in the world and unique in its contex While most agree Arnulfo Vasquez Nieto argues that disorganized tourism may threaten cities physical deterioration of heritage sites, but also an infring ement of meaning and identi t y ( Nieto) alcalde discusses is exemplified by the chaotic tactic of relying on a changing array of slogans Having bec ome aware that such disorganization, if not harmful, at least has not proven helpful, lurching toward a more consistent strategy, apparently without seriously considering the meaning of their more uniform slogan. 19 Aguado Malacara, discussion.
146 Politic al Issues We have already witnessed how public and private investors have worked sites and landscapes in ways that compromise their cultural heritage Mexico has a relatively long history of public pri vate partnerships for tourism development, and this likewise extends to cultural heritage properties that can be exploited as tourism destinations A recent work on the development of Mexican resorts in Baja California co ntends of the history of tourism in Mexico reveals the collusion between political and economic interests, as well as bloated profit projections, inept planning, social dislocation, and harm to the environment It is an old story, perhaps best captured in the pre sidential regimes of Miguel Alem n Vald s (1946 52) and Luis Echeverr a (1970 76) ( Saragoza 2010, 295 296) The same work notes that in the Vicente Fox era (2000 2006) and more recently the role of the priv ate sector has increased. Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad views itself as a count er w eight to political ineffectiveness . Because we are a fundraising organization, we take all of their perspect ives in mind We see the 20 Another advantage of the NGO approach is the greater ability to use resources from private donors and foundations One source noted that private source s of money avoid the ebbs and flows that come with changing federal, state, and municipal administrations and policies. 21 Such situation was described thus : we 20 Hern ndez Araujo discussion. 21 Cabrejos Moreno, discussion.
147 have is every few ye ars you have a change, you have a political party that take s the 22 An official of Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad stressed that the situation is perhaps not exclusive to Guanajuato, but is rampant across Mexico, given its top down governmental structu re : In other countries there is more of a community Her e it depends so much about personal interests 23 This was reflected in the early part of this decade with what has been termed the elected president in 2000 Governor, there was enormo us interest in the po litician who successfully ejected the ruling PRI after it and its antecedents had been in power for eighty years ( Institutional Revolutionary Party) According to the state of Guanajuat irector of Tourism, in charge at that time, as the pr ospect of a Fox presidency became more imminent, coming down because he was saying that Guanajuato was tierra de la opo r tunidad the land of opportunity People from the New York Times, fro m Washington, and God knows what were coming down to see Fox There were all kinds of people coming and going the whole thing The fact of the matter is there is a Fox Effect The value that Vicente Fox the first real change in Mexican politics in seventy or eighty years his own personality, his own characteristics his stature 22 Snchez Martnez, discussion. 23 Hern ndez Araujo discussion.
148 the United States had to look up to the President of Mexico and not look down at h im Guanajuato was having a boom time 24 It is entirely possible that the increased attention from foreigners, coupled with increased local investment, help visitor levels to spike i n the capital of the state of Guanajuato during the late 1990s As we have seen, the statistics indicate that Guanajuato suffered serious declines in foreign visitors after Fox took the reins as President in 2000 Figure 5 9 compares foreign visitor arriva ls to the two cities in the State of Guanajuato for which series of data are available, Guanajuato and San Miguel de Allende (data are available for Celaya, another city in the state of Guanajuato, since only 2007) The graph indeed shows both cities exper iencing increases during the Fox years As we witnessed in Chapter 3, the seven World Heritage cities under scrutiny here achieved increases during the period Interestingly, after Fox became President in 2000, Guanajuato saw international visitor levels d ecline precipitously, while San Miguel de Allende generally witnessed increased foreign arrivals until 2004 After Fox left office in 2006, both cities experienced remarkable declines in international visitors Maybe that is the real Fox Effect. In 1995, G uanajuato became the seat of the regional Secretariat of the Or g anization of World Heritage C ities which helped the city attract government funding and attention According to one source, this status first World Heritage cities and capital of the state of the same name helped the city achieve $100 million (US) from the State g overnment in 24 discussion with author, January 2010.
149 2006. 25 Many in Guanajuato note that this umbrella organization fled Guanajuato that same year, subsequently leavin g a vacuum in terms of prestige, visibility, and funding mayor of Guanajuato, Eduardo Romero Hicks, ignored the importance of this organization, although he was head of the of Word Heritage Cities (ANCMPM) ( Ochoa and Martin Diego 2008) Rafael Villag mez Mapes, an architect who served two terms as alcalde from 1983 to 1985 and from 2000 to 2003 ( Instituto Nacional para el Federal ismo y el Desarrollo Municipal [ INAFED ] 21) noted that the Organization of World Heritage cities was able to channel resources through the central office for the Americas, then in Guanajuato the hotel rooms 26 He also noted 2003, I think the years that Guanajuato was the head of the World Heritage cities was one of the best times With the departure of the Organization of World Heritage cities Guanajuato developed a strategy of building Sister Cities relationships as a substitute. 27 A newspaper article from August 2010 describes an upcoming three day visit to Sister City Morgantown, WV, foro Guerrero Reynoso and a contingent of six other officials The trip was to be followed by a subsequent four day stop in New ( Ochoa 2010b) An article from appointments with organizations and officials in Morgantown and a meeting with the 25 Cabrejos Moreno, discussion. 26 Rafael Villagomez Mapes (former Mayor of Guanajuato), in discussion with author, January 2010. (Translation by Laura Lavernia.) 27 Cabrejos Moren o, discussion.
150 director of NYC & Comp ( Ochoa 2010a) http://www.nycgo.com/ ) and Google produced no evidence of such a meeting The point here is not to highlight municipal corruption, but to suggest a contrast between a program that regularly brought contingents of foreign officials with its ostensible replacement, which although it may promise to bring delegations from its sixtee n Sister Cities to Guanajuato, also provides the potential for costly junkets to the United States (Morgantown and Ashland, Oregon), Latin America, and Europe. The Cervantino Festival People who were intervie we d identified other policies and issue s influen cing the apparent 43.2 % decline in international visitors to Guanajuato between 2000 and 2008 l (Festival Internaciona l Cervantino or FIC ) The three week festival of music dance, and art began in 1972, although it had a number of antecedents, beginning in 1953 ( Vela 2002, 113) The festival has attracted world famous talent including such artists and performers as Robert Mapplethorpe, Rudo lph Nureyev, the Vienna Philharmonic, and Ella Fitzgerald The international festival attracted increasing numbers of visitors from around the world ; however, it also became attractive to a younger Mexican audience craving a party scene According to many sources, i n 2000 this situation reached an unpleasant climax with vast numbers of drunken young revelers . sense there were a lot of visitors that were n ot planned for A lot of young visitors changed the festival around the year 2000 Guanajuato had then become a large
151 cantina 28 Going forward, was cut and its program modified to provide more regional emphasis and fewer internationally reco gnized performers and artists Further events were split between Guanajuato and a n annually rotating partner city in Mexico and partner countr ies were chosen to provide performers. there entered a different system where the festival became so mewhat privatized The chosen state and chosen country were responsible for providing the events to represent themselves rather than have an organization here that contracted performers directly From this period, the chosen state would pay its own costs For example, China might send five events and three would be of good quality and the other two not so much The There also would be more quantity of local events than of internatio nal ones and so gradually the 29 in international arrivals to Guanajuato Multiple requ ests to festival management have produced promises of historic attendance numbers but no statistics materialized A 2008 newspaper article which festival provides some details ( Milenio November 15, 2008) The twenty fifth anniversary FIC had 924,174 attendees Ten years later, that number had dropped 39.5 % to 559,55 3 Another 31.4 % fall occurred in 2008, leaving FIC with 384,046 attendees The tourism disaster driven by economic meltdown, an in fluenza outbreak that started in Mexico, and increased fear of drug related violence contributed to a 69.8 decline in Cervantino attendance in 2009. 28 Aguado Malacara, discussion. 29 Cabrejos Moreno, discussion.
152 According to SECTUR data, mean foreign tourist arrivals as a percent of total arrivals between 1986 and 20 08 was 9.0 % When that percentage is applied to the 364,620 decline in Cervantino attendance between 1997 and 2007, a net decline of 32,816 foreign attendees is implied This implied decline in attendees at FIC dwarfs the 11,805 decline in annual foreign a rrivals to Guanajuato between 1997 and 2007 Such declines in foreign arrivals to Guanajuato however, are not beyond reason Ignoring the anomaly of 2009, from the peak in 2000 to the nadir in 2003, international arrivals to Guanajuato fell by 32,658 visi tors Interestingly, the foreign share of annual total arrivals to Guanajuato as reported by SECTUR, increased from 6.9 % in 1986 to 13.2% in 2000 This proportion plummeted to 8.0 % in 2001 and remained at around that level between that year and 2008 (Th e mean 2001 2008 share of international visitors was 8.1 % in comparison with 12.5 % during the four preceding years, 1987 2000.) SECTUR data reveal a 3,737 drop in international arrivals to Guanajuato between October 2000 and October 2001, which represents a 63.5 % decline, but addresses only 14.9 % of the total annual decline between 2000 and 2001 as reported b y SECTUR (For comparison, if would have been 2,094, or 8.3 % .) International arriv al statistics provided by Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacifico (GAP), the operator of Aeropuerto del Bajo which serves Guanajuato and surrounding areas, indicate a decline of 6,191 passengers from 2000 to 2001 (This reflects a decline in passengers arrivin g on international flights, and thus includes Mex icans as well as non Mexicans.) Even if 100 % of this decline were attributable to changes in the Cervantino Festival, the reduction would only account for
153 24.6 % of the 25,130 total annual drop in internation al visitors arriving in Guanajuato, according to SECTUR data. There appears to be little correlation between foreign tourist arrivals, as reported by SECTUR, and international arrivals, as reported by GAP In part, this can be explained by the GAP data co unting all passengers arriving on international flights of all nationalities. Likewise, the Aeropuerto del Bajo serves a number of large cities, including the large industrial city of Leon, with 1.3 million inhabitants and the State of World Heritage city San Miguel de Allende (INEGI ). Such considerations thwart solid conclusions regarding Guanajuato visitors based on international arrival data for Aeropuerto del Bajo In summary, while many claim the post 2000 decline of the Cervanti no Festival as the principal cause of a general decline in international visitors to Guanajuato and data format and subsequent decline in attendees, the evidence while com pelling, is not ironclad Data Issues Data distortions loom as a n issue for analyzing post 2000 international visitor flows to Guanajuato The major problem arises from a 2% tax on hotels and restaurants that was implemented in 2000 This tax was dedicate d to funding tourism promotion efforts for Guanajuato Doyle, a former tourism official with the State of Guanajuato, whose office was responsible for collecting such data It was echoed by oth er former officials. The
154 2% tax is based on the number of rooms occupied, but the question is : 30 Subsequent conversation s similar tax was imposed there with, what we have seen, were completely dif ferent results with respect to tourism flows Indeed, a 2004 paper on Mexican tax policy ( Sobarzo 2004) reported twenty two entities (thirty one states plus the Federal District) then h According to Doyle, state tourism officials traditionally collect hotel arrival and occupancy data with daily telephone inquiries The financial incentive to under report arrivals was already noted The method, howev er, introduces other biases that may inhibit comparisons among destinations or across time For example, lodging in some cities may be dominated by guest houses or bed and breakfasts, which would not be counted by these daily telephone surveys Likewise, w hen cities increase available lodging by converting single family houses to guest houses or bed and breakfasts (a common practice in Mexican World Heritage cities ), that additional capacity and would be excluded from visitor counts can be really, really good in Mexico They can also be so others who have attempted to identify and quantify the relationship between World Heritage inscription and tour ism, with mixed or little success : the lack of consistent and valid data In the case of Mexico, SECTUR provides an abundance of data reaching back to 1986 The overall impression from speaking with dozens of hoteliers, 30 Doyle, discussion.
155 government officials, and academics is these numbers are reliable especially for foreign tourists Given their data collection method they may not represent the entire universe of visitors ; however, they provide an adequate basis for the purposes of this research, investigating trends One must constantly remember that the numbers are, at minimum, indication, but they may not tell the whole story. Morelia We have examined statistics for international visitors to Mexican World Heritage cities and discovered these places generally experienced statistically significant increases in international visitors as a direct result of their inscription on the World Heritage list We also observed that nine to twelve years after inscription, the ability of these cities to retain or increase international visitors became highly variable In the case of Guanajuato, further investigation of this case revealed two principal The first was an over reliance a single annual event, the Cervanti no Festival, to draw visitors This event was poorly managed and, under control of the Federal Government, became more diversified With events and activities occurring in other cities, Cervantino was The second major dr and to tourism development Guanajuato was always a major tourist destination in Mexico, but in marketing parlance, the brand became muddled T he Guanajuatenses planning and promotion betrays an inconsistency.
156 In turning our focus to Morelia, we will consider how that city compared with Guanajuato in the above r espects We will investigate why its international visitor levels grew. From a methodological perspective, it been widely documented in numerous sources ( Cabrales Barajas 2005; Hiriart Pardo 2006; Hiriart Pardo 2 009 ; Mercado L pez 2009, etc.) I n the case of Guanajuato, little has been written Most likel y the explanation for this boil s down to transparency issues unwilling to r isk embarrassment to themselves and their superiors by sharing potentially embarrassing information Furthermore, w ith the tentative job security of municipal officials, who endure vast changes every three years with incoming mayoral administr ations, this situation may be compounded When there are bad news stories, as apparently was the case with the Cervantino Festival, information becomes protected and transparency is minimized In contrast, Morelia is well documented as a World Heritage to urism success story Multiple books on the subject ( Foro S obre el Centro Histrico de Morelia, Azevedo Salomao, and Universidad Michoacana Coordinacin de la Investigacin Cientfica 2004; Ramrez Romero 2004) as well as numerous journal articles provide detail and analysis of the subject The obvious research challenge here becomes identifying and isolating the drivers of this success and understanding aspect s of the avior that enabled that outcome On the other hand, one cannot exclude the possibility
157 evolved into the status of preservationists and promoters or evolving from preservationist folklore. Planning and Strategy Three critical planning documents contributed to the success of Morelia s historic center The first was a succinct three step program (in six pages), Plan Maes tro Para el Rescate del Centro Histrico de Morelia which was authored by Dr. Enrique Villica a Palomares, a journalist, planner, attorney, and educator 31 The second was a more detailed planning document, Programa P arcial 32 de Desarrollo Urbano del Centro Histrico de Morelia from November 2001. The third was Plan de Reestructuraci n Tur stico de la Ciudad de Morelia ( Restructuring Plan for Tourism of the City of Morelia ), which was prepared by IDT, the Mexican subsidiary of the Spanish consultancy DIT, and dated October 200 1 Plan Maestro Para el Rescate del Centro Histrico de Morelia The t were as follows: 33 relocate many government functions located in the historic center ; r elocate ; and relocate street vendors (so center ( Villicaa Palomares, 6) 31 Villica a was found executed on April 10, 2010. He had been kidnapped during the previous week, a ransom had been paid by his family, but his corpse was fo und with knife wounds to the neck and collar bone and a crushed skull. A kitchen knife and stone were found beside him ( Daz 2010). 32 plan governing t he city as an entity. 33 My translation.
158 While any of these activities by themselves would be a major undertaking, accomplishing all three reflects a substantial political will and management capability The new Morelia Bus Terminal began operation in October 2001, eliminating 1,250 daily departures from the former General simo Morelos Terminal, in the historic center and freeing up 3.7 acres (1.5 hectares) for other uses The last step of the plan appears to be the most cited benefit of Plan Maestro Para el Rescate del Centro Hist rico de Morelia. After much negotiation and work with vendors and the community, 1,500 street peddlers or ambulantes were relocated on June 5, 2001 The significance of this is hig hlighted by remarks from a Regional Vice President o f the National Steering Committee of ICOMOS Mexicano and Coordinator of the Scientific Committee of ICOMOS Cultural Tourism Mexico I a big, big problem . Ten years after the nomination, the problem was taki ng all the public spaces You could not see public spaces They [ the peddlers ] lived there and in some places you could not walk because the place was full 34 The gravity of this problem and the impact of relocating informal commerce a re illustrated on Figure s 5 10 and 5 11, whi ch depict before and after images of Plaza San The city identified 1,697 itinerant businesses in the historic center, including 180 in Plaza San Francisco Cabrales Barajas citing other sources, including university research and newspaper reports, counted 2,000 and 2,480 commercial units ( 2005 42) The author makes note of carefully articulated planning 34 Carlos Alberto Hiriart Pardo (Professor, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicol s de Hidalgo), in discussion with author, August 2010.
159 proce ss which enabled the July 5, 2001 relocation to occur without violence The effort involved multiple levels. Two markets had been developed to alternative fixed locations for it inerant merchants : rket with 240. To prevent the return of the ambulantes students were recruited to a new organization called Amigos del Rescate del Centro Hist rico T aid, tourism, public security, municipal regulations, and knowledge of traffi c patterns, they patrolled the streets during six months as vigilantes and citizen informants, in exchange for which they received a grant and their university accepted the same as the obligatory social service component (ibid. 46) Additionally, a progra m called Vive el Centro Histrico was implemented to provide regular entertainment, athletic, and cultural events in public spaces that were formerly overrun with street peddlers (ibid., 44 46). Programa Parcial de Desarrollo Urbano del Centro Histrico d e Morelia Com p lementing the Plan Maestro Para el Rescate del Centro Histrico de Morelia was another document which appeared six months later The Programa P arcial de Desarrollo Urbano del Centro Histrico de Morelia Michoacn went beyond the minimal Plan Maestro by performing a diagnostic analysis of the prevailing environment and devising plans that would rapidly address identified deficiencies As was noted previously, a recent document from ICOMOS Mexicano notes that Guanajuato does not have an approve d plan or programa parcial. The general objectives of the Morelia program can be summarized as follows ( Ayuntamiento de Morelia 2001 93 94) : 35 35 My translation.
160 orient citizen participation toward the protection of natural, cultural, and built heritage ; make the conservat ion of heritage buildings in the historic center a paramount interest ; implement support and stimulus for conservation and maintenance of heritage buildings ; discourage change and in use from living space to commercial space so as to preserve the resident ial character of neighborhoods ; prioritize resources in the municipal budges and promote state investment in the care and preservation of public spaces in wooded areas in the historic center ; dedicate stimulus and support to the institutional relationship between local, state, and federal levels to achieve adequate coordination ; stimulate all actions that conserve the customs, traditions, and festivals related to the culture of the historic center ; rearrange informal commerce ; encourage judicial, administra tive, and financial instruments for improving public spaces and the urban image ; induce improvement of living by way of programs that integrate public, private, and social sectors ; promote restructuring of transport lines ; lessen concentration of public of fices to improve function of the road network ; encourage all actions tending to improve the natural, cultural, and built heritage of the historic center ; support rational land use of the historic center, particularly with abandoned and deteriorated buildin gs ; encourage relocation of industrial activities north of the historic center ; stimulate the residential character of neighborhoods with basic services ; and encourage growth of pedestrian activity in the historic center The program provides thirty eight more specific objectives addressing issues such as land use, transportation, public spaces, cultural heritage, and the urban image
161 Interestingly, while the diagnostic portion of the Programa considers tourism among the many aspects considered in the diag nostic analysis, it is not addressed, except perhaps obliquely, in the list of prescriptive objectives The numerous measures designed to improve the ambience of the historic center certainly would make it a more appealing tourist destination Two explanat ions come to mind for this apparent lapse First, Morelia was at a crossroads in 2001, having just witnessed an economic upheaval of sorts connected with an overnight makeover of its historic center Second, tourism was simultaneously covered by the Plan d e Reestructuraci n Tur stico de la Ciudad de Morelia ( Restructuring Plan for Tourism of the City of Morelia ) which was prepared by the Spanish tourism consulting firm DI T Global and its Mexican subsidiary IDT and published in October 2001. In large measur e, the thirty eight prescriptions have been There are, however, some notable exceptions Many objectives concerned a restructuring of the robuses (known as colectivos or combis ) Given prevailing demand levels, t heir small size necessitates frequent service which in turn results in severe congestion and pollution in the historic center The Plan Parcial indicates 1,342 such vehicles were op erating in Morelia in 2001 The diagnostic portion of the Programa Parcial west route through the historic center, had nineteen to twenty routes with microbuses, minibuses, and buses ( Ayuntamiento de Morelia 2001 47) Ten other east west and north south corridors also accommodated more than ten transit routes. The combined effect results in major intersections in the heart of the historic center expe riencing the convergence of as many as thirty nine different routes The Plan Parcial notes also that
162 the lack of fixed and marked bus stops generates a large component of the problem (52). lems identified in 2001 endure to this day Figure 5 12 illustrates typical effects of reliance on frequent small vehicles for public transport Bus stop signs were clea rly visible, however, colectivos also appeared to stop on demand Among the more signif icant issues identified by the Plan Parcial street vendors, trash, signs and billboard, and parking, public transit remains the most intractable Progress has been made with respect to parking The site of the former bus station on the northeast corner of the historic center will provide 740 parking spaces on three levels ( Reyes 2010) Another facility is T he proximity of the new garage has attracted the ire of Critics contend that the initial victories of the Plan Maestro gave way to corporate greed "This soon became the real estate speculation, property values and rents rose. Various businesses were implemented which specifically focused on making the city a major tourist destination," complained one historian ( Alba 2010) Heighte ned sensitivity surrounding the project has provoked attempts to mask the new facility ( Figure 5 13 ) The controversy highlights another problem In its diagnostic portion, the Programa Parcial F i gure s provided demonstrate a total population decline of 12,421 inhabitants in the Zona de Monumentos and adjacent transition area, for a 22.7 % decline or 2.8 % per year The average annual rate of population decline in the Zona was 3.5 % per year An INAH
163 o fficial noted Properties were bought for other businesses and people lose their association A bomb is being made a disequilibrium between people who live here and people who just visit. 36 These businesses include bars, restaurants, stores, and so called hoteles boutiques (boutique hotels), which have proliferated in Morel Figure 5 1 4 provides examples of such conversions in Morelia Some suggest the infusion of bouti que hotels has enabled Morelia to tap into new tourist markets Architect Eugenio Mercado Lpez noted At this moment the highest quality hotels in Morelia are little hotels that have developed in recent years Previously the hotels were more medium and t ourism was mostly Mexican n ationals The program for rescue was more responsible for the change. 37 Curiously, the much lauded instant relocation of street vendors which transformed 95 (up 12.8 % ) between 2000 and 2007, and increased foreign visitors share of total arrivals from 4.0 % to 6.3 % also As ambulantes moved into their new fixed quarters, nearby residential facilities were conver ted to shops to take advantage of increased activity. Plan de Reestructuracin Tur stico de la Ciudad de Morelia Complementing the Plan Parcial was the Plan de Reestructuracin Turstico de la Ciudad de Morelia ( PRT ) from October 2001 The 226 page plan was developed by the Mexican subsidiary (IDT) of t he Spanish Tourism consultancy DIT The firm had been 36 Ricardo Gonz lez Garrido (Director, Centro INAH Michoacn ), in discussion with author, February 2009. 37 Eugenio Mercado Lpez (Architecture faculty, Universidad Michoacan a de San Nicols de Hidalgo), in discussion with author, August 2010.
164 widely recognized for its work in various Spanish cities prior to its engagement in Morelia Its promotional materials identify their tourism strategy a reas as follows : design innovative, market oriented tourism products with high added value, routes and circuits, marketing plans and tourism management systems, as needed ( DIT Global) The PRT included a comprehensi then existin g situation regarding tourism, which was summarized in seventeen points. ( Government of Morelia and IDT Consultants 2001 42 45) The analysis concludes that Morelia possesses substantial architectural, historical, and cultural resources as well as worldwide recognition as a World Heritage Site resulted in diminished valuation of such resources which prevented it from taking full advantage of its potential Visitors were characterized as a medium low cost market Unlike many tourism planning documents associated with Guanajuato, PRT considered the local population and importance of sustainable t ourism Based on the diagnostic analysis, PRT proposed a series of operational objectives to complement an overall objective : that is capable of responding to the necessities and intere st of the local population as ibid. 48) Peppered throughout the broader plan are mentions of the need for economic sustainability and the importance of coordination and negation with public institutions, tourism entrepreneurs, and the public Notably the first specific plan detailed in the document is an awareness program for the resident population ( ibid. 106)
165 Based on the diagnosti c analysis, the PRT developed sixty two specific action plans related to these general areas: 38 a w areness and training for the resident population, public officials, students, and tourists ; e ; q uality of lodging, restaurants, tourist shops, and complementary services such as taxis and handcrafts ; m arketing and po st sales service: communication, events, promotions, signage, tourist office, etc. ; and i mproving coordination and management A complex plan requires coordination among a range of actors and agencies Each action plan included its objective, a descripti on, a list of affected agents, and its priority A sample, concerning lighting the exterior of landmarks in the historic center, appears on Figure 5 15. The second element above, enhancing the value of tourism in Morelia, was the largest component of PRT Its objective was to complement the efforts of Plan Maestro del Rescate and Plan Parcial to ameliorate the deteriorated appearance and condition tourism The plan included f our sub categories : I mproving tourist resources. Restoration of churches and museums and other improvements, such as rationalizing hours of service (ibid., 124) Improving access to destinations. This component includes improving identified deficiencies in the appearance of gateways to the city, parking availability, access to the 38 My translation.
166 disabled, and creation of a welcome center in the former site of the central bus station (ibid., 133) I mproving the urban image. he poor state of pre servation faades of houses and buildings found in most traditional streets of the city, the feeling of dirty streets, poor lighting in many of the busiest areas, lack of urban furniture, lack of maintenance i The plan noted t hat improving the urban image would not only help to preserve historic structures, but it also 142). Many of the efforts under this rubric have already been implemented, such as the renewal of the arcades surrounding the main plaza, restoration of facades, evening illumination of landmarks. Quality Th e diagnostic analysis noted that existing prod ucts were medium to low in quality This component included plans for improving hotels, restaurants, tourist shops, and complementary businesses, such as taxis and crafts The plan takes note of ram, which promoted the the middle and lowest level facilities. slogans details covered by a small component of the PRT The fourth element noted above, marketing and post sales service, articulates seventeen specific actions related to promotion and enhancing the tourist experience, some of which have also been recent plans PRT handbooks for creating a unified visual image and tourist signage for Morelia, filling the
167 calendar activities for holidays, developing a tourist card, and developing a World Heritage tourist route I t is beyond the scope of this work to examine all the details related to PRT The implemented, contrasts sharply with efforts. 39 Clearly some aspects have fallen short As Figures 5 16 and 5 17 illustrate efforts to implement uniform signage in the historic center were thwarted by use of substandard plastic signs that rapidly deteriorated The gateways to the city Morelia i s not without it s problems, but in less than ten years it has radically remade its historic center into an attractive tourist destination, largely as a result of careful planning and plan execution Referring again to Figure 5 2, the changes to Morelia hav e positively affected international visitor arrivals to that city, arguably more so than has inscription on the World Heritage list The PRT stands in marked contrast to the superficial tourism documents from Guanajuato The distinction highlights the adv antages of relying on outside experts DIT creative, comprehensive, and actionable solutions Apparently the success of this model has made an impression The state of Gua na juato hired DIT to develop a promotional 39 The broader successes of Michoac n were highlighted by an OE CD report, The Impact of Culture on Tourism. A chapter on Michoac which intends to give touristic value to the rich historical and architectural heritage, together with the natural env garde in the country and is based on sustainability, because it fosters economic, social, and cultural development for the citiz ens of these towns, while generating the ( Organization for Economic Co Operation and Development 2009,130).
168 website stressing events during the 2010 bicentennial of M movement. 40 T he tasks of preservation and maintenance of the heritage city are more viable when all the agents and actors involved in the m academics, residents, authorities, social groups, NGOs and business can contribute to their sustainable management. 40 See website, http://www.gtoexperience.com/.
169 Figure 5 1 International a rrivals to Guanajuato between 1986 and 2009 ( Source : SECTUR, for dates noted. )
170 Figure 5 2 Internationa l arrivals to Morelia between 1986 and 2009 ( Source : SECTUR, for dates noted. )
171 Figure 5 3 September 15, 2008 violence in Morelia ( Source : Lopez et al. 2008 )
172 Figure 5 4 Contrast between traditiona l pavement and new pavement historic center ( Photo by the author. )
173 Figure 5 5 Guadalupe M ine, outside of Guanajuato, Mexico July 2007 ( Photo by the author. )
174 Figure 5 6 Guadalupe Mine, outside of Guanajuato, Mexico, February 20 09 ( Photo by the author. )
175 Figure 5 7 Proposed d evelopment in Mineral de La Luz ( Source : James Pyle. )
176 Figure 5 8 Cultural heritage as b ackdrop (Source : of Guanajuato, Sub Secretar a de Desarrollo Turismo.)
177 F igure 5 9 . Comparison of foreign visitor arrivals to Guanajuato and S an Miguel de Allende, 1986 2009. (Source : SECTUR, for dates noted.)
178 A B Figure 5 10 Plaza San Francisco A) Before removal of street vendors. B) After removal of street vendors. ( Source : Morelia Secretary of Tourism. )
179 A B Figure 5 11 Plaza San Francisco A) Be fore removal of street vendors. B) After removal of street vendors. ( Source : Morelia Secretary of Tourism. )
180 Figure 5 1 2 Colectivos still clog central Morelia ( Photo by the author. )
181 Figure 5 13 Construction of c ontroversial parking facility in concealed ( Photo by the author. )
182 A B Figure 5 14 . A) Hotel and Suites Galeria. B) Hotel P rtico. ( Photo by the author. )
183 Figure 5 1 5 Sample page from Pl an de Reestructuraci n Tur stico de la Ciudad de Morelia ( Source : City of Morelia Depa rtment of Tourism. )
184 Figure 5 1 6 . ( Photo by the author. )
185 Figure 5 1 7 Some mistakes wer A) New signage in the historic center B) Missing information, revealing cheap plastic base, contrasts with traditional enamel sign ( Photo by the au thor. ) A B
186 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS Overview In the Review of Literature, a frequently assumed that any site awarded World Heritage status will immediately receive a marked increase in visitors. However, this is not necessarily the case and visitor numbers depend on a number of fa ctors including the way in which the site is ( Shackley 2006, 83) This study affirms W orld Heritage inscription leads to significant increases in international visitors, but over an extended period. Sustained visitor levels, however, depend on numerous influences some of which are controllable on the local level, and some of which are not. This investigation points to statistically significant increases in tourism attributable to inscription while controlling for the number of hotel rooms and global trends in international travel. For six out of seven cit i es examined, there was a statistica lly significant change in international arrivals as a direct and independent result of a city being inscribed on World Heritage list In the Mexican examples, this increase required one to eight years to materialize The impact of inscription upo n World Heritage cities, however, is not simply a mechanical process whereby cities go on the list and tourism automatically increases. Interviews and simple observation, however, reveal other trends which suggest initial increases in visitors may sometime s be a temporary phenomenon, depending on public policy, local management practices and other causes that may be less controllable
187 Right afte r inscription, World Heritage Cities may improve their appearance, infrastructure, and tourism facilities, result ing in an eventual increase in foreign visitors. The case st ud ies demonstrated that beyond a narrow horizon, visitor trends are influenced by planning and management That is not to say that planning and management among other factors, have no influence on visitor levels during the first years after inscription One would have to assume variable levels of sophistication in World Heritage cities ranging from tiny Tlacotalpan to gigantic Mexico City Despite suc h variation six out of seven such cities that were examined here demonstrated a significant effect of inscription on international visitors during the first eight World Heritage list Visitor levels vary for many reasons Guan ajuato is a unique and attractive city that has had a long history of attracting visitors and has long had good highway access to Mexico City and Guadala ja As we have seen, despite membership on the World Heritage list More lia until the beginning of the twenty first century was an unattractive destination lacking a long history of tourism, and until recently lacking good highway access while M inscription environment was influenced by political turmoil 1 wing Party of the Democratic Revolution was centered in Michoacn f political blockades and Madero Avenue was blocked for three or four months with demonstrations They put campgrounds there They had political 1 Hiriart Pardo, disc ussion.
188 demonstrations against the new (federal) 2 Viewing the quantitative results t hrough the lens of this history enhances the value of this analysis and broadens its focus, inviting further inquiry into the longer term impacts of municipal behavior, as well as World Heritage list inscription, on visitor levels. The two case studies, ho wever, demonstrate that many things are not the same when comparing one World Heritage city to another As Figure 6 1 highlights, while both cities witnessed net increases in international visitors between 1986 and 2007, the change in Morelia was more than five times larger than that in Guanajuato 274.0 % versus 50.8 % The result is that the relative position of the two cities with respect to international visitors was effectively flipped In 1986, Guanajuato witnessed 57.4 % more international arrivals than Morelia By 2006, Morelia had 57.6 % more international arrivals than Guanajuato. Earlier we pondered what could cau se such a reversal The answer that materialized from the two case studies is as follows Guanajuato at times has suffered from poor plannin g and a lack of consistency in staffing and policies. Morelia developed thoughtful and detailed diagnoses and plans for conservation and tourism and largely adhered to them plans were forged with a level of community involvement that was largel y absent in Guanajuato, where, for example, plans continue to encourage redevelopment of nearby mining communities in ways that threaten their centuries old heritage less participation by affected acto rs is consistent with a political atmosphere which at times suffers from a 2 Hiriart Pardo, discussion.
189 lack transparency Information about Guanajuato d ata and relevant reports were difficult to obtain. Little information is available to the public through the Internet An example of this was provi ded in an interview concerning the participation of various Mexican World Heritage cities in an upcoming UNESCO study attempted to get Guanajuato to participate That they did not Quer taro and Morelia did can be attribut ed to several reasons, which may work one authority on Mexican World Heritage policy something they may not want to 3 In contrast, Morelia and the state of Michoac n appear far more transparent Planning documents are made available online A researcher in Morelia and Michoac n typically leaves a meeting with public officials armed with reports data and lav ishly illustrated books This difference which it deserves to be proud planning Ana Compean Reyes Spndola a hotelier and former Michoac n State former Secretary of Tourism offered this observation about the importance of planning efforts done on the three levels of government and the people from the private sector, otherwise It has to be a plan like that was done the Plan de Reestructuraci n Tur stico de la Ciudad de Morelia 3 Mercado Lpez discussion
190 sector it will be very difficult to achieve the goals of the plan This was a plan that was done for fifteen years. 4 A s Morelia benefited from careful and consistent planning that c onsidered the various players in the community, Guanajuato suffered from the precarious nature of public positions in that city In an atmosphere where public officials ar e recycled every three years, they should be less likely to share information, especially if it may reflect poorly on their performance provided another argument for a long run focus, rather than dwelling on the initial impact of in scription . academic and urbanist i n Guanajuato. 5 Twenty three years of data and many hours of interviews tell the story that sustained visitor levels a re harmed by inadequate and inconsistent planning Such a conclusion would have been more elusive without looking at the big picture. Study Limitations Both the quantitative and qualitative component of the mixed methods employed with this investigation ne ed be viewed with appropriate perspective The observations and conclusions resulting from this research must properly be viewed within the context of numerous limitations, many of which were noted in the introduction Clearly, the results are based on da ta and case studies reflecting the Mexican experience The findings may not translate or apply to other countries, with 4 Ana Compean Reyes Spndol a (Director of Hotel Villa Montana, Morelia and former Michoac n state tourism official), in discussion with the author, August 2010. 5 Snchez Martnez, discussi on.
191 different political or economic environments, or less sophistication regarding tourism and cultural heritage Likewise, as the majorit y of Mexican World Heritage cities found their way onto the World Heritage list in the late 1980s and 1990s, the findings may be colored by particular events during that narrow time frame On a global level, the end of the Cold War, the so called peace div idend, and the technology boom, among other influences, resulted in increased affluence and mobility For the exploratory quantitative analysis some of the variation may have been captured by including the variable for total annual tourist arrivals as rep orted by UNWTO Nevertheless, the only one of the seven Mexican World Heritage cities considered here that was not able to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between inscription on the World Heritage list and international arrivals was Ca mpeche. Because that city joined the World Heritage list at the end on 1999, all available post inscription data for that city emerge from 2000 and beyond a period that was less auspicious for sustained growth in international tourism. It is impossible to generalize from this one example, but the circumstances and the outcome suggest the other six cities may have benefited from a generally more favorable environment for growth in international tourism. The quantitative portion of the mixed methods analysis was exploratory and iterative in nature, and consequently operated outside of the strict limits of statistical orthodoxy From a practical standpoint, e xploratory analysis is a legitimate tool for analysis of situations when one needs to probe for answers It ceases to be legitimate when an analyst is for a desired outcome Such is not the case with this investigation.
192 The statistical analysis relied on data collected by SECTUR through direct contact with hotels. It has been argued that distortio interest in underreporting visitors, which subsequently would result in fewer tax payments to remit to the state. Interviews and analysis largely refuted this allegation The data were not flawless; irregulariti es were observed and noted in prior discussion Still, none of the people interviewed for this research and shown these data argued they were invalid. Echoing an earlier point, one cannot overlook the value of scrutinizing more than twenty two years of dat a By looking at long term trends patterns emerge which would be less apparent if an analyst were to examine only the more immediate effects of inscription Five of the seven Mexican World Heritage cities examined in the statistical analysis were included on the World Heritage list between 1987 and 1991 These cities experienced general growth in foreign visitors during the relative prosperity of the 1990s Quer taro was inscribed in 1996 The outlier in this group, Campeche, was inscribed on th e World Her itage list in 1999 This coastal city experienced m in iscule change in international visitors during the years after inscription ( 0.3 % between 2000 and 2008), and a statistically significant relationship between World Heritage list membership and internati onal visitors could not be determined While the independent variables, available rooms, the value of the peso, and global tourist arrivals, woul d control for those influences, the possibility that other influences during this period may have restricted gr owth in visitors to Campeche cannot be excluded.
193 In contrast, Quer three years after its inscription in 1996, reflecting the robust economic environment during the end of that decade While the independent variables, available rooms, the value of the peso, and global tourist arrivals, would control for those influences, the possibility that other influences during this period may have restricted growth in visitors to Campeche cannot be overl ooked Further, as we have seen in the case studies of Guanajuato and Morelia, local politics, planning, and management issues that cannot be easily quantified and modeled bear much responsibility for apparent deviations from broader trends In Guanajuat 2000 change in its Cervantino Festival arguably contributed greatly Value of the Research As was emphasized in the Review of Literature, there was a widely accepted view that insc ription on the World Heritage list results in increased tourism although little empirical evidence. Based on available data and on the assumed model specification, this investigation was able to identify a significant link between inscription and internat ional visitors for six of seven Mexican World Heritage cities under scrutiny To a modest extent, this research has helped bridge the divide between speculation and data driven results. A second major benefit of this research springs from the generous amou nt of data and the long term view that it allowed Existing research and discussion has typically focused on the immediate impact of inscription on the World Heritage list The broader perspective enabled a discussion of what comes next, of what enables a World Heritage
194 city to sustain visitor levels, which in turn provides more resources for conservation and improvements. Future Research The present analysis provides a basis for future research One cannot exclude the indings were the result of a unique Mexican situation or, as noted previously, the inscription of most Mexican World Heritage cities during the late 1980s and early 1990s Possible future steps would involve redeploying the modeling exercise with data from other countries and other periods The World Heritage List first appeared in 1978, implying that some sites have been included for over thirty years. As the World Heritage movement enters middle age, the research focus must shift its focus the birth and n eo natal periods of sites to a broader understanding that would open the door to understanding the life cycle of World Heritage cities. Within the Mexican context, it will be useful to observe future trends in visitor levels to better understand whether th e observed post inscription increases were a direct result of membership on the World Heritage list or a fluke related to unusual conditions. Likewise, more data will make it possible to determine whether the diverse trends in post 2000 international visit or levels to Mexican World Heritage cities have become more or less tourism strategy was recently engaged by the Government of the State of Guanajuato to develop a strategy for its bicentenni al celebrations DIT Global and its Mexican subsidiary IDT now counts nearly one If this trend continues and structured tourism planning becomes more widespread, what will be the impact on Mexican World Heritage cities i n general and Guanajuato in particular?
195 Figure 6 1 Comparison of international arrivals to Guanajuato and Morelia : 1986 versus 2007 ( Source : SECTUR. )
196 APPENDIX A INTERNATIONAL ARRIVALS AT SEVEN MEXICAN WORLD HERITAGE CITIES: 1986 2009. Source : SECTUR, for dates noted.
197 APPENDIX B MEXICAN PESOS PER SDR Source : IMF, for dates noted. ( http://www.imf.org/external/np/fin/ert/GUI/Pages/ReportOptions.aspx .)
198 APPENDIX C GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL ARRIVALS (MILLIONS) Source: UNWTO for dates noted ( http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/highlights/UNWTO_Highlights09_en_LR.pdf http://unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/indicators/ITA_Americas.pdf http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/highlights/UNWTO_Highlights10_en_LR.pdf .)
199 LIST OF REFERENCES A danger list in danger. The Economist August 26, 2010, http://www.e conomist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1689195 1 (accessed November 10, 2010). Aceves, Salvador, and Ral rico mexicano como recurso turstico Turismo cultural en amrica latina y el carib e ., eds. Encuentro Internacional sobre Turismo Cultural en Amrica Latina y el Caribe, Unesco, 92. Mxico D.F.: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Coordinacin de Patrimonio Cultural y Turismo. Aguado Malacara, M. "Plan Municipal Para El Desar rollo Turstico De Guanajuato Capital: 2009 2012" (Presentation, City of Guanajuato, Guanajuato, Mexico 2009). Aguilera Garibay, Lizbeth, Catherine R. Ettinger, Vicente J. Guijosa, Jean Hurry, Michoacn de Ocampo Secretara Estatal de Turismo, Jos Anton io Romo Careaga, Anna Stumpfhauser, and Marina Tinoco Ibarra. 1999. Tourist Guide To The Architecture of the City of Moreli a. 1st ed. Mexico D.F.: CONACULTA INAH. A ntonio R uiz C aballero La Jornada Michoacn June 19, 2010O, 2010. http://www.lajornada Michoacn .com.mx/2010/06/19/index.php?section=politica&ar ticle=007n1p ol (accessed October 25, 2010). ANCMPM. Morelia. In Asociacin Nacional de Ciudades Mexicanas Patrimonio Mundial [d atabase online]. Mexico City, [cited April 22 2010]. Available from http://www.c iudadesmexicanaspatrimonio.org/ (accessed April 22, 2010). Artesana Rosewood. enefits. [cited February 17 2011]. Available from http://www.artesanasanmiguel.com/residence_owners.html (accessed February 17, 2011). Asch, Claudia. 2009. "All the World's a S tage : Creating Guanajuato, Mexico's Tourism Etudes Carib enne s ( 13 14) (September 17, 2010): 2,3 13. Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J. E. 1996. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict Chichester: J. Wiley. 2000. The Tourist Historic Ci ty : Retrospect and Prospect of Managing the Heritage Cit y Advances in tourism research series. 1st ed. Amsterdam ; New York: Pergamon. 1990. The Tourist Historic Cit y. London ; New York: Belhaven Press.
200 At kinson, Jim. 2008. The N ew Old M exico. New York Times, November 20, 2008, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/greathomesanddestinations/21expat.html?scp =1&sq=rosewood+san+miguel+de+allende&st=nyt (accessed September 15, 2010). A tlantis Resorts. Wate r slides. in Atlantis Resorts [database online]. [cited November 17 2010]. Available from http://www.atlantis.com/thingstodo/waterpark/waterslides.aspx (accessed November 17, 201 0). Avrami, Erica, Randall Mason, and Marta de la Torre. 2000. Values and Heritage Conservation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, ht tp://www.gettymuseum.us/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/valuesrpt.p df#page=36 (accessed August 3, 2010). G uanajuato: 2009 2012. Guanajuato, Mexico, 2009 [cited October 18 2010]. Avail able from http://www.guanajuatocapital.gob.mx/plangob.pdf (accessed October 18, 2010). historico de M orelia, m emoria descriptiva, versin (November 2001): 1 148, http://morelos.morelia.gob.mx/Ccpw/PDFs/PROGRAMA%20PARCIA L%20DE%20 DESARROLLO%20URBANO%20DEL%20CENTRO%20HISTORICO%20D.pdf (accessed September 9, 2010). Babbie, Earl R. 1998. The Practice of Social Researc h. 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co. Bandarin, Francesco. 2005. Forward. In The Politics of World Her itage : Negotiating T ourism and C onservation ., eds. David Harrison, Michael Hitchcock. 1st ed., v. Clevedon ; Buffalo: Channel View Publications. Beals, Ralph E. 1972. Statistics for E conomist s. Rand McNally economics series. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNal ly College Publishing Company. Berndt, Ernst R., Catherine J. Morrison, and Larry S. Rosenblum. 1992. High Tech Ca pit al Formation and Labor Composition in US Manufacturing Industries : An Explorator y Analysi s. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of E conomic Research, 4010, http://www.nber.org/papers/w4010.pdf (accessed November 2, 2009). Local Inter relationships in UNESCO World gy, T. C. Chang, and K. C. Ho. 2001. Interconnected worlds: tourism in Southeast Asia Oxford: Pergamon.
201 Boyd, Stephen W., and Dallen J. Timothy. 2006. Marketing Issues And World Heritage Sites In Managin g World Heritage Sites eds. Anna Leask, Alan F yall, 56 68. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Breglia, Lisa. 2006. Monumental Ambivalence : The Politics of Heritag e. Joe R. And Teresa Lozano Long Series in Latin American and Latino Art and Culture. 1st ed. Austin: University of Texas Press. Breglia, Lisa. 20 09. Hacienda In Cultural tourism in Latin America : The Politics o f Space a nd Imagery ., eds. Michiel Baud, Johanna Louisa Ypeij, 245. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Brown, Denise Fay. 1999. Mayas and Tourists in Maya World Human Organizatio n 58 (3): 295,296 304. Buchanan, Ronald. 2009. Mexico Axes Three Ministries Financial Time s, S ept. 9, 2009. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7fd d4c88 9cd8 11de ab58 00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1 (accessed 9/21/2009). Buckley, Ralf. 2004. The Effects of World Heritage Listing on Tourism to Australian National Parks Journal of Sustainable Touris m 12 (1). 2002. World Heritage Icon Value : Contribution of World Heritage Branding to Nature Tourism Canberra, Australia : Australian Heritage Commission. (Valenciana, Marfil, Santa Rosa, Mineral de la Luz). 2010b [cited O ctober 10, 2010]. Available from http://guanajuato.en.craigslist.com.mx/reb/1999720014.html (accessed October 11, 2010). Butler, Richard W. 1999. Sustainable Tourism: A State Of T he Art Review Tourism Geographie s 1 (1) (1999): 7,8 25. Cabr ales Barajas, Luis Felipe. 2005. The Historic Center of Morelia: A Case of Journal of Latin American Geograph y 4 (2) (2005): 35,36 56, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_latin_american_geography/v004/4.2baraja s.html#fig01 (accessed April 21, 2010). Cabrejos Moreno, Jorge Enrique. "26 Aos De Intervenci n Urbanstica En El Centro Histrico De Guanajuato, Patrimonio Cultural De La Humanidad Por UNESCO" (Presentation, Guanajuato, Mexico 2008).
202 Cameron, Christina. 2005. Evolution of the Application of 'Outstanding Universal Value' for Cultural and Natur al Heritage Paper presented at Special Expert Meeting of the World Heritage Convention : The Concept of Outstanding Universal Value, K azan, Tartarstan, Russian Federation, http://cmsd ata.iucn.org/downloads/kazan_abs_english.pdf (accessed November 23, 2009). Central Intelligence Agency. World Factboo k. in United States of America, Central Intelligence Agency [database online]. Langley, Virginia, 2010 [cited January 5 2010]. Available from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the world factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html?countryName=Mexico&countryCode=mx®io nCode=na&rank=11#mx (accessed January 5, 2010). City of Guanajuato. 2003. Plan maestro para la preservacin del patrimonio cult ural del municipio de Guanajuato Guanajuato, Mexico : City of Guanajuato Clancy, Michael J. 1999. Tourism and Development Annals of Tourism Researc h 26 (1): 1,1 20. Clarke, Jackie. 1997. A Framework of Approaches to Sustainabl Journal of Sustainable Touris m 5 (3): 224,225 233. : : Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 73 : : World Heritage Convention, § 73.13 : : Protection of U.S. World Heritage Properties. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action;jsessionid=v7nlNSRpSJ3BXR SypLt5x5vW9WW954FqDNqZjJ42Lvj4hCLLvz0Y! 1017802011! 1008527556?browsePath=Title+36%2FChapter+I%2FPart+73%2FSection+73.13 &granuleId=CFR 2010 title36 vol1 sec73 13&packageId=CFR 20 10 title36 vol1&collapse=true&fromBrowse=true Cohan, Tony. 2006. The New York Time s, September 24, 2006, 2006. http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/travel/tmagazine/24guanajuato.html?sq=gu anajuato&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print (accessed April 13, 2010). Cohen, Erik. 1988 Authenticity and Commoditization in Tou rism. Annals of Tourism Researc h 15 : 371,372 386. Cohen, Erik. 2004. Contemporary Touri sm : Diversity and chang e. Tourism Social Science Series 1st ed. Boston: Elsevier. Crouch, Geoffrey I. 1994. The Study of International Tourism Demand: A Review of Journal of Travel Researc h 33 (1) (Summer, 1994): 12, http://jtr.sagepub.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/cgi/content/abstract/33/1/12 (a ccessed September 22, 2009).
203 Davidson, John. 2007. San Miguel de Allende Today. Travel and Leisure. March, 2007, http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/mexico magico (accessed September 22, 2009). Mileni o, November 15, 2008, 2008. Di Giovine, Michael A. 2009. The Heritage Scape : UNESCO World Heritage, a nd Touris m. Lanham: Lexington Books. D az, Jos El Sol de Morelia April 11, 2010, http://www.oe m.com.mx/oem/notas/n1591141.htm D az S nchez, Luis Fernando. 2006. Guanajuato: diez ensayos de su historia Guanajuato, Mxico : Direccin Municipal de Cultura. DIT Global. Tourism Strategy. in DIT Global [database online]. Valenciana, Spain, [cited Nove mber 3 2010]. Available from http://www.ditglobal.com/download/presentacion_firma.pdf (accessed November 3, 2010). Dogan, Hasan Zafer. 1989. Forms of A djustment : Sociocultural I mpac ts of To urism Annals of Tourism Researc h 16 : 216,216 236 (accessed November 22, 2009). Elizarraraz, R Corre o, March 29, 2009, 2009. http://www.correo gto.com.mx/notas.asp?id=108873 (accessed October 12, 2010). Estados Unidos de Mxico Secretara de Turismo 2008. Sntesis metolodolgica del programa de monitoreo de la ocupacin en servicios tursticos de hospedaje. Mexico City. 2010. Resultados de la actividad turstica enero diciembre 2009 (cifras preliminares). Mexico City http://datatur.sectur.gob.mx/work/docs/2_resultados_de_/cu a122009.pdf (accessed April 19, 2010). Evans, Graeme. 2004. Mundo Maya: From Cancun to City of Culture. World Heritage sIn Post Current Issues in Touris m 7 (4 5): 315,316 329. Feilden, Bernard M., and Jukka Jokilehto. 1998. Manag ement Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Site s Rome: ICCROM International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property. Ferry, Elizabeth Emma. 2005. Not Ours Alone : Patrimony Value, and Collectivity in Contemporary Mexico New York: Columbia University Press. Festival Internacional Titeras. Festival I nternacional T iteras ciudad de Mxico [cited October 5 2010]. Availabl e from http://titerias.webs.com/
204 Foro Sobre el Cen tro Histrico de Morelia, Eugenia Mara Azevedo Salomao, and Universidad Michoacana Coordinacin de la Investigacin Cientfica. 2004. "El renacimiento de la ciudad" : Segundo foro sobre el centro histrico de Moreli a Morelia, Michoacn: Coordinacin de I nvestigacin Cientfica, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicols de Hid algo Foucault, Michel. 1986. Of Other Spaces Diacritic s 16 (1) (Spring, 1986): 22,23 27 (accessed October 18, 2010). Franses, Philip Hans. 1998. Time Series Models for Business and Economic Forecastin g. Cambridge, UK ; New York, N.Y., USA: Cambridge University Press. Friedman, Thomas L. 2007. The World is Flat : A Brief History of the Twenty First Centur y. New York: Picador/Farrar, Straus and Giroux; Distributed by Holtzbrinck Publi shers. Fyall, Alan, and Tijana Rakic. 2006. The Future Market for World Heritage Sit es. In Managing world heritage sites ., eds. Anna Leask, Alan Fyall. First Edition ed. Burlington, Massachusetts: Butterworth Heinemann. Gaber, John, American Planning A ssociation, and Sharon L. Gaber. 2007. Qualitative Analysis for Planning and Policy : Beyond the Number s Chicago, Ill.: Planners Press, American Planning Association. Gottman, John Mordechai. 1981. Time Series Analysis : A Comprehensive Introduction for Social Scientist s Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Gould, Jens Erik, an d Jonathan J. Levin. 2010. Mexico Economy Climbs 4.3% as Drug Bloomberg Business Week November 9, 2010, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010 05 20/mexico gdp climbs 4 3 as drug war drags on economy update3 .html (accessed November 9, 2010). Government of Morelia, and ID T Consultants. 2001. Plan de reestructuracin turstico de la ciudad de Moreli a Morelia: Guanajuato Patrimonio de la Humanidad. Guanajuato patrimonio de la humanidad. [cited October 5 2010]. Available from http://www.guanajuatopatrimonio.com.mx/ Guanajuatocapital.com. Guanajuato capital. I n Guanajuatocapital.com [database online]. [cited 8/10 Available from http://www.guanajuato capital.com/ingles/Nminera.htm (accessed August 10, 2009). Hall, C. Michael, and Rachel Piggin. 2002. Tourism Business Knowledge of World Heritage Sites: A New Zealand Case Study International Journal of Tourism Researc h 4 : 401.
205 Hall, Colin Michael. 2000. Tourism Planning: Policies Processes and Relationship s. Upper Saddle, NJ.: Prentice Hall. it Annals of Tourism Research 32(3): 735 759. Hambrey Consulting. 2007. Social, Economic and Environmental Benefits of World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves and Geoparks Redgerton, UK : 248 (ROAME No. F0 6nc05), http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs /publications/commissioned_reports/Report%20No248. pdf (accessed October 15, 2010). Harrison, David, and Michael Hitchcock. 2005. The Politics of World Heritage : Negotiating Tourism and Conservatio n. Current Themes in Tou rism. 1st ed. Clevedon; Buffalo: Channel View Publications. Hazen, Helen. 2007. "Of Outstanding Universal Value: The Challenge of Scale in Applying the World Heritage Convention at National Parks in the US. Geoforu m 39 (2008) (May 11, 2007): 252,253 264. Hiriart Pardo, Carlos Alberto. Michoacn y sus impactos en el patrimonio monumental de Morelia y P Doctor en Arquitectura., Universidad Michoacn de San Nicols de Hidalgo. adoja entre la conservaci n patrimonial y la explotaci n tur Conservaci n y usos del patrimonio frente a la globalizaci n. III Encuentro Acad mico Internacional Sobre Restauraci n y VII Foro de Investigaci n en Arquitectura, Salvador Garc a Espinosa, Coordinador. Huntington, Samuel P. 1993. The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs 72 (06/22): p22(28). ICOMOS Mexicano. 2005. Los diez centros histricos hbitat: Seguimiento al cumplimiento de las especificaciones de las autoridades co mpetentes. Mexico City: ICOMOS Mexico, Institutional Revolutionary Party. Breve historia del PRI. in PRI [database online]. Mexico City, [cited October 10 Available from h ttp://www.pri.org.mx/priistastrabajando/pri/historia/Default.aspx (accessed October 12, 2010).
206 Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal (INAFED). Enciclopedia de los municipios de Mxico : Estado de Guanajuato, Guanajuato. In Insti tuto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal (INAFED) [database online]. Mexico City, Mexico, [cited October 14 2010]. Available from http://www. inafed.gob.mx/work/templates/enciclo/guanajuato/municipios/11015a.ht m (accessed October 14, 2010). Enciclopedia de los municipios de Mxico : Estado de Michoa c n Morelia, in Instituto Nacional para el Federalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal (INAFED) [ database online]. Mexico City, Mexico, [cited October 18 2010]. Available from http://www.e local.gob.mx/wb2/ELOCAL/EMM_ Michoacn (accessed October 18, 2010). Inter American Development Ba nk. Initiative Launched to Promote Sustainable Tourism in Mayan Region of Central America. In Inter American Development Bank [database online]. 2003 (accessed August 3, 2010). International Council of Monuments and Sites. 1990. Nomination : Zone of the Hi storical Monuments of Morelia. In t ernational Council of Monuments and Cites, 585, http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/585.pdf (a ccessed April 15, 2010). 1988. World Heritage List Report 482 Paris : International Council on Monuments and Sites, 482. International Council on Monuments and Site s. World Heritage Lis t. 415(December 2, 1986, 1986 ): http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/415.pdf (accessed November 9, 2009). International Monetary Fund. Factsheet : Special Drawing Rights. In International Monetary Fund [database online]. Washington, DC, 2009 [cited 9 /22 2009]. Available from http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htm Jokilehto, Jukka. 2008. What is OUV? Defining the Outstanding Universal Value of Cultural World Heritage Properti es. Monuments and Sites XVI : 1,2 111. Kandell, Jonathan. 2010. Mexico's New York Time s, August 9, 2010, sec Travel. Kastelein, Barbara. 2010. The In Holiday in Me xico : Critical Reflections on Tourism and Tourist En co unters ., eds. Dina Berger, Andrew Grant Wood, 320. Durham NC: Duke University Press. Klingmann, Anna. 2007. Brandscapes : Architecture in the Experience Econom y. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kress, George, and John Snyder. 1994. Forecasting and Market Analysis Techniques : A Practical Approac h. Westport, Conn: Quorum Books.
207 Kugel, Seth. 2006. Preservation : Sure, It's a Good Thi ng, but.. New York Time s, January 15, 2006, 2006, sec Travel. http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/travel/15journeys.html?scp=3&sq=world+heri tage+rapid+growth&st=nyt (accessed September, 20, 2010). Lacey, Marc. 2008. Blasts Kill 7 At Celebration in Mexican Pr esident's Hom etown. New York Time s, September 176, 2008, 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/world/americas/17mexic o.html?_r=1&scp=1& sq=morelia%20bombing%20september%202008&st=cse Mappemond e(57) (First Quarter): 12,12 16. Leask, Anna. 2006. World Heritage Site Designation. In Mana ging World Heritage Sites ., eds. Anna Leask, Alan Fyall. First Edition ed., 15 5 19. Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heinemann. Lewis Beck, Michael S. 1980. Applied Regression: An Introduct io n. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Lim, Christine. 1997. Rev iew Annals of Tourism Researc h 24 (4) (1997): 835,835 849 (accessed October 14, 2009). Lopez, Viridiana, Elly Castillo, Giovanni Fuentes, Astrid Herrera, Emmanuel Cervantes, and Erika Rodriquez. atacan con sa La Voz de Michoac n September 16, 2008, 2008. http://www.vozde Michoacn .com.mx/PDF/A160908.pdf (accessed September 27, 2010). Lowenthal, David. 1996. Possessed b y the Past : The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of Histor y. New York: Free Press. 1985. The P ast is a Foreign Co untr y. New York: Cambridge University Press. MacCannell, Dean. 197 3 Setti 603. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776259 (accessed December 29, 2010). 1976. The Tourist : A New Theory of the Leisu re Cl as s. New York: Schocken Books. Massy, William F. 1965. P rincipal Components Regression in Exploratory Statistical Journal of the American Statistical Associatio n 60 (309) (March, 1965): 234,234 256 (accessed November 2, 2009). McKercher, Bob. 2003. S ustainable Tourism Development Guiding Principles for Planning and Management Paper presented at National Seminar on Sustainable Tourism Development, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
208 McKercher, Bob, and Hilary Du Cros. 2002. Cultural To urism : T he Pa rtnership Between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Managemen t. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press. Mercado L pez, Eugenio. 2009. turismo en la conservaci n del patrimonio edificado de propiedad privada en el centro histrico Patrimonio edificado, turismo y gesti n de poblaciones hist ricas ante el siglo XXI estudios sobre la protecci n, conservaci n, restauraci n y gesti n tur stica del patrimonio urbano, arquitect nico y religioso. Carlos A lberto H iriart Pardo, Coordinador. Mexico Evala. 2009. ndice de Inseguridad Cumana y Violence. http://www.mexicoevalua.org/descargables/d1529 2_Indice de Inseguridad Ciudadana y Violencia.pdf (accessed April 9, 2011). Mow forth Martin, and Ian Munt. 1998. Tourism and Sustainability : New Tourism in the Third Worl d. London ; New York: Rutledge Myers, Cora Bosworth. 1908. A City of Dream s. Mi lwaukee: Gillett and Company. Nadeau, Barbie. 2006. The Newsweek International April 10, 2006, http://www.newsweek.com/id/46082/output/print (accessed Novem ber 11, 2009). Naps Peter J. M. 2002. Masterpieces of Oral and Intangible Culture: Reflections on the UNESCO Current Anthropology 43 (1) (February 2002): 139,140 148 (accessed August 2, 2010). National Geographic Traveler. Historic Places Rated : North Washington, DC, 2010]. Available from http://traveler.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/historic destinations rated/north america text/14 (accessed April 13, 2010). World Heritage Destinations Rated: North America and the Caribbean. World heritage Destinations Rated: North America and the Caribbean. In National Geographic Society [database online]. Washington, DC, [cited De cember, 2009 2009]. Available from http://www.nationalgeographic.com/traveler/features/whsrated0611/whsrated_na.h tml (accessed December 31, 2009). Nicholas, Lorraine, Brines Thana and Lori Pennington Gray. 2009. Public Sector Perspectives and Policy Implications for the Pitons Management Area World International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecolog y 16 (3) (June 1, 2 009): 205,206 216. Nicholas, Lorraine Nadia, Brines Thana and Yong Jae Koi 2009. Perspectives Of A World Heritage Site: The Annals of Tourism Researc h 36 (3) (7): 390 412.
209 Nieto, Arnulfo V. El turismo cul tural como alternativa de la ciudad patrimonial: Caso G uanajuato. in Organization of World Heritage Cities [database online]. [cited October 9 2010]. Available from http://urbo.ovpm.org/index.php?module=pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=4&pid=38 &newlang=spa&newlang=eng&newlang=spaO Noble, John. 2008. Mexic o. 11th ed. Fo otscray, Vic., Australia ; Oakland, CA: Lonely Planet Publications. Nuryanti, Wiendu. 1996. Heritage and Postmodern Tou rism. Annals of Tourism Researc h 23 (2): 249 60. Ochoa, Alfonso. Corre o, April 2, 2009, 2009. http:/ /correo gto.com.mx/notas.asp?id=109334 (accessed October 10, 2010). Nicforo Corre o, August 3, 2010, 2010a. http://correo gto.com.mx/notas.asp?id=175331 (accessed October 19, 2010). Corre o, August 2, 2010, 2010b. http://correo gto.com.mx/notas.asp?id=175183 (accessed October 19, 2010). Ochoa, Alfon Corre o, December 7, 2008, 2008. http://correo gto.com.mx/notas.asp?id=95711 (accessed October 14, 2010). Organization f or Economic Co Operation and Development. 2009. The Impact Of Culture On Tourism Paris: OECD, Ostrom, Charles W. 1978. Time Series Analysis : Regression Technique s. Sage University Papers Series. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences ; 9. Be verly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications. Pezzullo, Phaedra C. 2007. Toxic Tourism : Rhetorics of Pollution, Travel, and Environmental Justic e. Rhetoric Culture, and Social Critique. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Poria, Yaniv, Richard Butler, a nd David Airey. 2003. The Core of Heritage Tourism Annals of Tourism Researc h 30 (1) (1): 238 54. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. 2007. The Costs and Benefits of World Heritage Site Status in the UK London: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Prud'homme, Remy. Les impacts socio conomiques de l'inscription d'un site sur l a liste du patrimoine mondial: Trois etudes. in UNESCO [database online]. Paris, 2008 (accessed September 15, 2010).
210 Ramrez Romero, Esperanza. 2004. Resurgimiento del centro histrico de Morel ia : Un espacio en pugn a. Morelia, Mxico : Patronato Pro R escate del Centro Histrico de Morelia. La Jornada Michoacn February 13, 2010, 2010. http://www.lajornada Michoacn .com.mx/2010/02/13/index.php?section=municipio s&article=008n1mun (accessed October 25, 2010). Richards, Lyn. 2005. Handling qualitative data: a practical guide London: SAGE Publications. Rionda Arreguin, Isauro. 1998. Guanajuato, Places and Pathway s. [Mexico]: Grupo Editorial Proyeccion de Mexico. Ros Szalay, Adalberto. 1998. World Heritage In Me xic o. Mexico D.F.: Fondo Editorial de la Pls tica Mexicana. Robles Garcia, Nelly M., and Jack Corbett. 2010. Heritage Resource Management in In Cultural heritage management : A global perspective ., eds. Phyllis Mauch Messenger, George S. Smith, 111 112 123. Gainesville: University Press of Florid a Periodico A.M ., June 29, 2010, 2010a. http://www.am.com.mx/Nota.aspx?ID=410677 (accessed October 11, 2010). Periodico A.M ., October 11, 2010, 2010b. http://www.am.com.mx/Nota.aspx?ID=404233 (accessed October 11, 2010). Rssler, Mechtild. 2008. Applying Authenticity to APT Bulleti n 39 (2/3): pp. 47 52. Rossman, Gretchen B., and Sharon F. Rallis. 1998. Learning in the field : An Introduction To Qualitative Rese arc h. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Russo, Antonio Paolo. 2002. The Cities Annals of Tourism Researc h 29 (1) (1): 165 82. S nchez Martnez III Encuentro Academico Internacional Sobre Restaura cion Y VII Foro De Investigacion En Arquitectura ., ed. Espinosa Garcia Salvador, 89 89 93. Morelia, Mexico: Universidad Michoacana de San Nicols de Hidalgo, Facultad de Arquitectura, Division de Estudios de Posgrado.
211 Saragoza, Alex M. 2010. Golfing in the Desert: Los Cabos and post PRI Tourism in In Holiday in Mexico : Critical Reflections on Tourism and Tourist Encounters ., eds. Dina Berger, Andrew Grant Wood, 295 296 319. Durham NC: Duke University Press. Scarpaci, Joseph L. 2005. Plazas and Barrios : Heritage Tourism and Globalization in the Latin American Centro Histric o. Society Environment, and Place. 1st ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Schmitt, Eric. 2004. Iraq New York Tim e s, December 8, 2004, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/08/international/middleeast/08cnd rumsfeld.html?_r=1&sq=Iraq Bound%20Troops%20Confront%20Rumsfeld%20Over%20Lack%20of%20Armor %20By%20ERIC%20SCHMITT&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print&position= (accessed December 30, 2009). S cholze, Marko. 2008. Arrested Heritage: The Politics of Inscription in the UNESCO World Heritage List: The Journal of Material Cultur e 13 (2) (July, 2008): 215,215 231 (accessed November 23, 2009). Secretara De Desarrollo Socia l. 2008. Programa de atencin urbana para centros histricos, tradicionales o de ciudad. Mexico City, Mexico: SEDESOL, 312 DGDUS 021 2008, http://dgduweb.sedesol.gob.mx/documentos/282EST 312.pdf (accessed October 6, 2010). Secretara de Desarrollo Social, Consejo Nacional de Poblacin and Instituto Nacional de Estadstica Geografa e Informtica 2007. Delimitacin de las zonas metropolitanas de Mexico 2005. Mexico City Shackley, My ra. 2006. Visitor Management In Managing World Heritage Sites eds. Anna Leask, Alan Fyall. First Edition ed., 83. Burlington, Massachusetts: Butterworth Hinemann. Smith, Melanie K. 2003. I ssues in Cultural Tourism Stu die s. New York: Routledge. Sobarzo, Horacio. 2004. Tax Effort and Tax Potential of State Governments in Mexico: A Representative Tax System. Working paper #315. South Bend, In : University of Notre Dame, http://www.nd.edu/~kellogg/publications/workingpapers/WPS/315.pdf Soubbotina, Tatyana P. 2004. Beyond Economic Growth: An Introduction to Sustainable Developmen t. WBI Learning Resources Seri es. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Spider in the web: All roads lead to M exico C ity. The Economis t. November 16, 2006, http://www.economist.com/node/8132039
212 Steger, Manfred B. 2003. Globalization [Electronic Resource] : A Very Short Introductio n Very Short Introductions; 86. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, Norwood, Mass. Stubbs, John H., and World Monuments Fund. 2009. Time Honored : A Global View of Architectural Conservation : Parameters Theory, & Evolution of an Etho s Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons. Suits, Daniel B. 1957. Use Journal of the American Statistical Associatio n 52 (280) (December, 1957): 548, http://www.jstor.org.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/stable/pdfplus/2281705.pdf (ac cessed September 21, 2009). Swarbrooke, John. 1999. Sustainable Tourism Manageme n t. New York: CABI Pub. Tabachnick, Barbara G., and Linda S. Fidell. 1989. Using Multivariate Stati stic s. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row. Thapa, Brijesh. 2010. Funding Strategies for World Heritage Sites in Least Developed Countries. In Cultural Heritage Management: A Global Perspective., eds. Phyllis Mauch Messenger, George S. Smith. Gainesville Florida: University Press of Florida. 2007. Issues and Challenges of World H eritage S it es. In R. White and J. Carman (Eds.) World Heritage : : Global Challenges and Local Solutions (pp. 23 27). Oxford : Archaeopress. Timothy, Dallen, and Stephen Bo yd. 2006. Heritage Tourism in the 21st Century: Valued Journal of Heritage Touris m 1 (1): 1,1 16. Tourtellot, Jonathan B. 2006. Destination Scorecard: Top to Bottom in World Heritag e. National Geographic Traveler Nove mber/December, 2006. Travel and Leisure March, 2007. Available from http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/mexico magico (accessed February 9, 2011). Tunbridge, J. E., and G. J. Ashworth. 1996. Dissonant Heritage : The Management of the Past As a Resource in Conflic t Chichester; New York: J. Wiley. Urry, John. 2002. The Tourist Gaze London: Sage Publications. US Depar tment of State. 2010. Travel Warning US Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs. Washington. Available from http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_4755.html (accessed December 30, 2010).
213 US General Accounting Office. 1996. Mexico's Financial Crisis : Report to the Chairman, Committee on Banking and Financial Services, House of Representatives UNESCO. Global Strateg y. I n World Heritage Center [database online]. Paris 2009 [cited November 23 2009]. Available from http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/ (accessed November 23, 2009). UNESCO Publishing. 1998 World Culture Repor t Paris: UNESCO Pub. UNESCO, Con vention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. 2005. World Heritage Committee, Twenty Ninth Session Paris : World Heritage Center WHC 05/29.COM/INF.9B. UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage 1991. Fifteenth Session ( Carthage, 9 13 December 19 91) Carthage : UNESCO SC 91/CONF.002/15, http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom91.htm#585 ( accessed April 15, 2010). UNESCO, Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. 2008. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Conventio n http://wh c.unesco.org/archive/opguide08 en.pdf ( accessed October 20, 2010). 2005. Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage conventio n. Paris: World Heritage Center UNESCO, World Heritage Center 2008. Decisions Adopted at the 32n d Session of the World Heritage Committee Paris : World Heritage Center WHC 08/32.COM/234Rev, http://whc.unesco.org/document/100946) (accessed October 18, 2010). 2005. Basic Texts of the 1972 Wor ld Heritage Conventio n 2005 ed. Paris: UNESCO (accessed September 9, 2010). a The Criteria For Selection I n UNESCO, World Heritage Center [database online]. Paris, [cited April 22 2010]. Available from http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria (accessed April 22, 1010). b Tentative List In UNESCO World Heritage Center [Database Onl ine]. a [cited April 22 2010]. Available from http://whc.u nesco.org/en/tentativelists/state=mx (accessed April 22, 2010). c. The World Heritage Convention. I n World Heritage Center [database online]. Paris, [cited January 27 2011]. Available from http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/#Brief History (accessed January 27, 2011).
214 d World Heritage L ist. In UNESCO, World Heritage Center [database online]. Paris, b [cited 10/1 2009]. Available from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list (acces sed October 1, 2009). e World Heritage List Nominations. In UNESCO, World Heritage Center [database online]. Paris, [cited February 1 2011]. Available from http://whc.unesco.org/en/nominations (accessed February 1, 2011). United Nations, World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press, United Nations, World Tourism Organization. Tourism Highlights, 2009 Edition. In United Nations, World Tourism Organization [database online]. 2009 [cited 9/23 2009]. Available from http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/ highlights/UNWTO_Highlights09_en_LR.pdf (accessed September 23, 2009). Tourism Market Trends 2005 Edition An nex. 2005 [cited May 3 2009]. Available from http://unwto.org/facts /eng/pdf/indicators/ITA_Americas.pdf Universidad de Guanajuato. Presencia de la UG en Guanajuato. In Universidad de Guanajuato [database online]. Guanajuato, Mexico, [cited 8/10 2009]. Available from http://www.ugto.mx/sitioug/espanol/presencia/pres_est.asp (accessed August 10, 2009). Universidad Nacional Autnomo de Mexico, Instituto de Astronom a. I n Universidad Nacional Autnomo de Mxico Instituto de Astronom a [database onli ne]. Mexico City, [cited 11/17 2009]. Available from http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/congresos/mfu2/mexico.gif (accessed November 17, 2009). Urry, John. 2002 The Tourist Gaz e. Theory Cult ure & Society (unnumbered). 2nd ed. Londo n ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE. van der Aa, Bart Johannes Maria. 2005. Preserving the Heritage of Humanity? Ph.D., Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Vela, S Turismo cultural en amrica latina y el caribe ., eds. Encuentro Internacional sobre Turismo Cultural en Amrica Latina y el Caribe, UNESCO E 113. Mxico D.F.: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Coordinacin de Patrimonio Cultural y Turismo. Villicaa Palomares, Enrique V. Plan maestro para el rescate del centro histrico de Morelia. [cited September 25 2010]. Available from http://imaginarios.com.mx/redmcs/syp/iv/centros_historicos/mesa3/enrique_villican a_palomares.pdf
215 Volk s wagen, AG. Mobility and Sustainability. In Volkswagen, AG [database online]. [cited 01/08 2010]. Availa ble from http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/en2/unternehmen/ mobility_and_sustainabil ity0/regionen/amerika/Puebla.html (accessed January 8, 2010). Watkins, Gavin R., ed. 2008. Michelin Green Guide Mexico Guatemala Beliz e, ed. Cynthia Clayton Ochterbeck. Third ed. Weiler, Stephan, and Andrew Seidl. 2003. What's in a Name? Extracting Ec onometric drivers to Assess the Impact of National Park Designation". Journal of Regional Scienc e 44 (2) (June, 2004): 245,245 262 (accessed January 5, 2009). Wonnacott, Thomas H., and Ronald J. Wonnacott. 1972. Introductory Statistics for Business And Ec onomic s. New York: Wiley. World Heritage Center Sustainable Tourism Program In World Heritage Center [database online]. Paris, [cited September 14 2010]. Available from http://whc.unesco.org/en/ sustainabletourism (accessed September, 14, 2010). Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and method s. Applied Social Research Methods Series ; v. 5. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
216 BIOGRAPHICAL SKET CH Richard Shieldhouse has been interested in planning and preservation since his teenage years He studied City and Regional Planning at Harvard University, focusing on transportation planning, and later worked in planning and financial positions in the airline and railway industry landmarks, the Haydon Burns Library, was threatened with destruction He became instrumental in a successful ca and Planning, with an eye toward increasing his knowledge of preservation and architecture The College exposed him to a wide range of related topics and ideas, World Heritage list The topic at hand in this dissertation appealed to the author because it offered a marriage of his interest in preservation with his many years of experienc e in applied economics and analysis. Although this research focuses on cities dating to the sixteenth century, Shieldhouse remains intensely interested in preserving Modern architecture He was a founding member of the board of directors of DOCOMOMO US/Fl orida and is now the He received his Ph.D. from the University of Florida in the summer of 2011.