problem into the analysis will provide further insights into research questions thathave both theoretical and practical ramifications.

Amitrajeet A. Batabyal Department of Economics, Rochester Institute of Technol-ogy, 92 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623-5604, USA. Email <aabgsh@rit.edu>.

REFERENCES

Batabyal, A. A., & Yoo, S. J. (2010). A probabilistic analysis of guided tours fortourists during the slack season. Tourism Management, 31(4), 482–485.

Fesenmaier, D. R. (1994). Traveler use of visitor information centers: Implicationsfor development in Illinois. Journal of Travel Research, 33(1), 44–50.

Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1997). Tourist information search. Annals of TourismResearch, 24(3), 503–523.

Mistilis, N., & D’ambra, J. (2008). The visitor experience and perception ofinformational quality at the Sydney visitor information center. Journal of Traveland Tourism Marketing, 24(1), 35–46.

Tierney, P. T. (1993). The influence of state traveler information centers on touristlength of stay and expenditures. Journal of Travel Research, 31(3), 28–32.

Tijms, H. C. (2003). A first course in stochastic models. Chichester: Wiley.Tyrell, T. J., & Johnston, R. J. (2003). Assessing expenditure changes related to

welcome center visits. Journal of Travel Research, 42(1), 100–106.Wong, C. U. I., & McKercher, B. (2011). Tourist information center staff as

knowledge brokers: The case of Macau. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2),481–498.

Received date 09 January 2012. Revised date 21 February 2012. Acceptance date 06 March 2012

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2012.03.001

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 1701–1705, 20120160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain

Research notes and reports / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1683–1724 1701

A PRESENT-CENTERED DISSONANTHERITAGE MANAGEMENT MODEL

Deepak ChhabraArizona State University, USA

INTRODUCTION

Recent decades have witnessed a shift towards the need to promote ethical her-itage tourism and sustain positive host-guest contacts. It is therefore crucial to cre-ate sustainable heritage environments where the host communities are includedand their heritage is showcased in an equitable manner. Today, the travelers aremore aware of the role the common people have played in history and everydayaffairs in the past and hence they demand an equitable slice of the localized her-itage experience. In fact, extant literature recognizes that public cultural heritage(defined in this study as shared and of relevance to different stakeholders espe-cially the local population) representations can no longer remain isolated from

1702 Research notes and reports / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1683–1724

the communities within which they rest (Ashworth, 1991; Graham & McDowell,2007; Harvey, 2001; Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996). However, Timothy and Boydnote that, ‘‘till recently, most heritage tourism and heritage in general excludedthe past of the powerless and minorities in society, favouring instead artifacts,places and events of the upper-class elites, such as castles, cathedrals and palaces’’(2003, p. 257). Therefore, confrontation of issues associated with heritage exclu-sion or societal or intentional amnesia (deliberately suppressing certain parts ofhistory or heritage belonging to minority communities) (Hollinshead, 1992; Tim-othy & Boyd, 2003) has become crucial. There is, in fact, an emerging need todayto ‘‘examine the present-centeredness of heritage’’ (Lowenthal 2000, p. 3) andacknowledge that public cultural heritage images need to mirror the views ofthe communities within which they are situated. That said, heritage by nature, isselective. By this token then, there is a need to embrace a diverse approach toconnect heritage with multiple constituencies such as ethnic groups, the main-stream population, local businesses, and the tourists. More specifically, the viewsand useful contributions by an equitable and representative group of local commu-nity members are paramount to build and manage healthy and harmonious localenvironments (Waterton, 2005).

At this point, it is important to pause and reflect on the fact that heritage rela-tionships the public institutions such as museums, archives, public history special-ists, and archaeologists seek to establish with the local communities is ‘‘open todissonance and conflict’’ thereby highlighting pluralism, diversity, and multicul-turism. One of the basic discussions about local community and heritage is to whatextent and in which manner dissonance exists in the manner public heritage andits benefits are viewed by different sections of the community. Undoubtedly, theexistence of multiple ethnic communities is bound to result in dissonant perspec-tives which differ within and with the mainstream population. From a heritage per-spective, two factors explain the dissonance phenomenon: tangible elements ofheritage and psychological perspectives (Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996). Whilethe former offer a tangible sense of past inheritance, the later have a tendencyto facilitate cognitive discordance as diverse perceptions held simultaneously by di-verse constituencies to define heritage experiences and relate to heritage in theirunique preferred manner. It is being increasingly recognized that foundations of ahealthy, socially inclusive, and harmonious society rest on the ability of the publicinstitutions to reconcile dominant cultural heritage perspectives with existingsocio-cultural values of the local community. Such efforts can facilitate a deepsense of place and help to shape the way in which the internal people engage witheach other, view the role of public institutions, and develop a positive attitudetowards external audiences such as the tourists. This notion offers a new perspec-tive to the traditional meaning of conservation by making it valuable based on hostcommunity needs and sense of belonging by defining traits of local culture andheritage which resonate across multiple ethnic communities. By the same token,Harvey (2001) highlights attention towards a historical analysis of heritage prac-tices and suggests a deeper narrative by looking at heritageisation as a process tounfold multiple perspectives of heritage.

DISSONANT HERITAGE STRATEGY PARADIGM

In view of the aforementioned points, this research note proposes a paradigmhighlighting the need to identify cross-ethnic commonalities and unique charac-teristics of each ethic group’s heritage and gathering views on preferred ways inwhich public heritage institutions can engage with the civic community to cultivatesocial inclusion practices and a shared sense of heritage, identity, and belonging.By particularly pursuing a heritage dissonance approach, the paradigm prompts an

Research notes and reports / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1683–1724 1703

inquiry that aims to closely examine myriad narratives and programs of heritageinstitutions and an equitable cross-section of local communities to: (1) identifydominant and broadcasted public perspectives of heritage, both physical and affec-tive; (2) the extent to which they have the ability to embrace diverse heritages andcultivate a shared sense of identity, place and belonging without creating a basis forconflict and trivialization. Furthermore, based on critical discourse analysis, theaim is to facilitate an in depth examination of the content of dominant culturalheritage representations projected by the public institutions in the select commu-nity and their comparison with the local perceptions. The grounded purpose is toprovide a multicultural platform to understand conflicts and suggest protocol andprograms to build and promote a harmonious sense of place and object-centered(true to the original) authentic identity and enhance quality of life.

The proposed conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 provides a platformto integrate various perspectives using a mixed methods approach nested in criticaldiscourse inquiry. It seeks to delve deeper into heritage expressions which define aplace manifested in identity, sense of belonging, and interpretations. Based on thismodel, the following lines of inquiry can be pursued: (a) define and identify publicheritage icons in metropolitan areas; (2) suggest a present-centered dissonant her-itage management model based on: personal heritage attributes of ethnic commu-nities and the mainstream culture; current assimilation/acculturation status, andsocial and cultural values; (3) determine community level of satisfaction; (4) assess-ment of demand value for the dominant heritage icons (built and tangible heri-tage in terms of current, existence, option, and bequest values); (5) developability to harmonize differences with the inclusion of ability constructs such as(Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996): indifferent attitude without threatening each

Figure 1. Proposed Present-centered Dissonant Heritage Management Model

1704 Research notes and reports / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1683–1724

other’s existence, tolerance and acceptance, mutual respect for each other therebyfacilitating participation (that is, share each other’s ceremonies), and coordina-tion; (6) understand current socio-cultural benefits derived from contemporarypublic representations of heritage; (7) suggest inclusive civic engagement strate-gies; and (8) redefine public heritage and suggest programs to enhance socialand cultural benefits to enhance quality of life and healthy communities basedon intergenerational and intragenerational equity, thereby facilitating sustaineduse of heritage and building sustainable communities in terms of equitable repre-sentations.

The model can be tested by drawing participants from different ethnic groupsand the mainstream population of metropolitan cities in the developed countries.Also, heritage expressions used to define metropolitan cities can be drawn fromdominant public institutions such as museums, archives, historic society, andarchaeological organizations. The combined data can thus provide a set of resultsthat allow a consistent appraisal of existing quality of life and understanding andconnection with public heritage. In this manner, the content and socially inclusivepublic involvement initiatives of five key heritage institutions (archives, archaeolog-ical society, museums, and historic society, and the local government agencies) canbe examined using the representative theory framework.

PROPOSED MODEL IMPLICATIONS

Recent studies have called for a strategy to use heritage in a constructive mannerto facilitate a sense of identity and engagement with and within local environments(Ashworth, 1991; Graham & McDowell, 2007; Timothy & Boyd, 2003) albeit mosthave not moved beyond the conceptual stages. Analysis of results and perceptionsusing a critical discourse analysis framework is lacking in this field. The proposedframework is comprehensive and suggests inclusion of a wide spectrum of perspec-tives, factors and elements drawn from a review of existing literature and expertiseof its participants.

From a practical perspective, the overall significance is manifold. Using a set ofbenchmark indicators, an insight will be gained into the absolute value differentethnic communities place on public heritage as well as gain a perspective onhow popular icons are valued in comparison with each other. The critical discourseanalysis (CDA) approach can enable discussions embedded in reality and subjec-tive frames. The CDA supports a combination of multiple approaches such as datatriangulation, to understand facts and perspectives. It purports an in-depth studyof facts related to the past using a critical lens. Additionally, it examines the com-plexities in the context of socio-cultural, economic and political environments.Hence, this approach can help unpack the backstage realities and meaningsthrough the lens of dissonance, multiple realities, prevailing traditions, and valuejudgments. Particularly, because it has proved to be a valuable mechanism in deter-mining truth about authenticity (Melkert & Vos, 2011) and demonstrates potentialto help generate awareness of the pitfalls associated with primary and secondarysources by examining them in the context of the identity of the respondent orthe organization.

Although meanings are open to alterations and re-assessment and the endshared public heritage definition, product or program may not be a zero-sum neu-tral game yet it is claimed that the results and inferences drawn from the proposedmodel will be nested in alternative accounts and perspectives that lie beyond polit-ical allegiances. An important insight can thus be offered into the values held bythe local communities inclusive of marginalized and silent sub-sets. This will alsocater to the need of the contemporary traveling public seeking ethical consump-tion of heritage experiences based on intragenerational equity. Sustainable

Research notes and reports / Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2012) 1683–1724 1705

heritage environments can then be conducive for ethical heritage tourism andpleasant host-guest contacts.

REFERENCES

Ashworth, G. (1991). War and city. London: Routledge.Graham, B., & McDowell, S. (2007). Meaning in the Maze: The Heritage of Long

Kesh. Cultural Geographies, 14(3), 343–368.Harvey, D. (2001). Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning

and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7(4),1–16.

Hollinshead, K. (1992). White gaze, red people- shadow visions: The disindentif-ication of Indians in cultural tourism. Leisure Studies, 11(1), 43–64.

Lowenthal, D. (2000). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Melkert, M., & Vos, K. (2011). A comparison of quantitative and qualitativeapproaches: Complementarities and trade-offs. In G. Richards & W. Munsters(Eds.), Cultural tourism research methods. UK: CABI.

Timothy, D., & Boyd, S. (2003). Heritage tourism. London: Prentice Hall.Tunbridge, J., & Ashworth, G. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The management of the past

as a resource conflict. Chichester: Wiley.Waterton, E. (2005). Whose sense of place? Reconciling archaeological perspec-

tives with community values: Cultural landscapes in England. InternationalJournal of Heritage Studies, 11(4), 309–325.

Received 21 October 2011. Revised 21 February 2012. Accepted 06 March 2012

doi:10.1016/j.annals.2012.03.001

SOFT-INFRASTRUCTURE INTOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN DEVELOPING

COUNTRIES

Brijesh ThapaUniversity of Florida, USA

Tourism is considered to have one of the fastest growth rate in the past two dec-ades among countries with emerging and developing economies as internationalarrivals have risen from 31% in 1990 to 47% in 2010 (UNWTO, 2011). Whilegrowth has been evident, it is vital to maintain and enhance tourism with a sus-tained strategy for further expansion and competitiveness given the potential tostrengthen other economic sectors in rural and urban regions. Generally, the strat-egy has largely been prioritized in the development and improvement of hard infra-structure such as facilities, utilities, transportation networks, etc. which are typicallyrelated to construction initiatives that facilitate tourism activities. Although the vitalrole of built infrastructure projects is acknowledged; however, there is also a majornecessity to build up the soft infrastructure such as human resources development to

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 1705–1710, 20120160-7383/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Printed in Great Britain