Present-centered dialogue with heritage representations

Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annals of Tourism Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atoures

Present-centered dialogue with heritage representations Deepak Chhabra a,⇑, Shengnan Zhao b,1 a b

School of Community Resources & Development, Arizona State University, United States Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, California State University, Long Beach, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 20 February 2014 Revised 13 July 2015 Accepted 17 September 2015

Coordinating Editor: J. Tribe Keywords: Dialogical model Heritage dissonance Present-centeredness of heritage Local resident perceptions, and connectedness

a b s t r a c t This study aims to examine heritage representations of a metropolitan city in the United States, using a dialogical presentcentered approach. Heritage themes and icons contextualized by the local agencies are identified. Views of a purposeful stratified sample of local residents are sought. Statistically significant differences in perceptions and level of connectedness to heritage expressions and icons are determined between the Whites (the mainstream population), the Hispanics and the Asians. Information is also elicited on preferred themes and images that hold potential to showcase local heritage in an equitable manner to heritage tourists. Traces of heritage dissonance and societal exclusion are identified and proactive dialogical initiatives are suggested that portray meaningful present-centered public heritage representations to promote sustainable heritage tourism. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction It is a recognized fact that demand for heritage tourism has grown exponentially in the last several decades (Graham & McDowell, 2007; Henderson, 2001; Nyaupane, White, & Budruk, 2006; Poria & Ashworth, 2009). Parallel to this demand has emerged the need to engage with heritage resources in a responsible manner to promote equitable representations from different sects of host ⇑ Corresponding author at: School of Community Resources & Development, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central Ave., Ste. 550, Phoenix, AZ 85004-0690, United States. Tel.: +1 602 496 0172. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Chhabra), [email protected] (S. Zhao). 1 Tel.: +1 480 735 9564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.09.004 0160-7383/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

95

communities (Chhabra, 2010; Graham & McDowell, 2007). Extant literature argues that heritage tourism representations can no longer be separated from the heritage of local communities as they play a vital role in fostering a shared sense of identity. Therefore it is crucial to, ‘‘examine the presentcenteredness of heritage or the nature of presentness of heritage” (Lowenthal, 2000, p. 3) so that it can relate to the contemporary era. Akin to this view, it is argued that it is a folly to conceptualize or promote a society’s heritage without reference to the real sense of past as deciphered today (Chhabra, 2012; Cross, 2001) by the visited communities. It is necessary to move beyond ‘‘the universal assumptions so as to accept the contributions of local communities as valid players in a process that has profound effects” on how cultural heritage is viewed by tourists and practiced by locals on common meeting grounds (Waterton, 2005, p. 320). According to Ashworth (1991), past can be purposely structured to build and manage associations with history and heritage and craft a sense of local identity. By this token, there is a need to adopt a multifold approach to tie heritage with diverse constituencies such as ethnic groups, the mainstream population, local businesses, governing agencies such as the local government and destination marketing organizations, and the tourists. More specifically, the views of a representative sect of local residents are paramount to build/manage healthy and harmonious local environments in order to market equitable slices of local heritage (Chhabra, 2012) so that sustainable heritage tourism is promoted. A key objective of sustainable heritage tourism is to engage with heritage in a way that it supports present-day environments in a meaningful manner that promotes intragenerational equity (Loulanski & Loulanski, 2011). It is being increasingly recognized that the ‘‘foundations of a healthy and harmonious society rests on the ability of the public institutions to reconcile dominant heritage perspectives with existing socio-cultural values of the local community” (Chhabra, 2012, p. 1701). In view of the foregoing, several studies underline the need for social inclusion to build a shared sense of belonging and identity (Dark, 1995; Waterton, 2005). This calls for the inclusion of marginalized voices and broadening of the social agenda by extending ‘‘the parameters of heritage management both in theory and practice” (Waterton, 2005, p. 310). Contemporary investigations need to suggest ways in which local cultural heritage is appropriately rooted in equitable community perspectives and this requires a different kind of comprehension of and engagement with the past (Dark, 1995). At this point, it is plausible to acknowledge that the types of heritage relationships public institutions seek with the local communities are often subject to conflict (Chhabra, 2012; Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996). This calls for the need to address dissonant perspectives to seek a common meeting ground to support diversity. One approach is to critically examine dominant heritage images/representations portrayed by government agencies and heritage institutions (often categorized as induced image agents). For instance, it is important to determine how these are viewed by different community sects including the local minority groups and whether traces of dissonance exist. As pointed out by Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996), dissonance management is crucial for the sustainable use of heritage in tourism. An identifiable set of criteria supported by sustainable heritage tourism include promotion of intergenerational and intragenerational equity and maintenance of diversity (Chhabra, 2010; Loulanski & Loulanski, 2011). According to Loulanski and Loulanski, ‘‘sustainable integration of cultural heritage and tourism includes local involvement, balance of authenticity and interpretation and shift towards sustainability-centered tourism management and practice” (2011, p. 845). Therefore, gathering insights into the mindset of the local communities and management of dissonance is important to effectively address issues associated with equity in order to strike a meaningful compromise between commodification and conservation of local heritage so that sustainable heritage tourism may be promoted. As reported by McGehee and Andereck (2004), local residents strongly feel that sustainable marketing of heritage tourism can help to build a sense of cultural identity and improve understanding/image of local culture both in the eyes of the host community and the tourists. Limited number of studies has discussed the ‘present-centered’ nature of heritage from a sustainability perspective using a case study approach to examine how contemporary communities’ relate to and engage with dominant heritage images and narratives. Chhabra (2012) proposes a dissonant heritage strategy paradigm which critically examines present-centeredness of heritage in marketed themes. The paradigm highlights ‘‘the need to identify cross-ethnic commonalities and unique characteristics of each ethnic group’s heritage and gathering views on preferred ways in which public

96

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

heritage institutions can engage with the civic community to cultivate social inclusion practices and a shared sense of heritage, identity and belonging” (Chhabra, 2012, p. 1702). Scrutiny of promoted heritage identities and societal amnesia of multicultural destinations in the context of sustainable heritage tourism are lacking to date. This study aims to fill this lacuna by offering a platform for a broader scale investigation. In doing so, it aims to make a significant contribution both in terms of academic literature associated with sustainable heritage tourism and suggestions for shared heritage strategies to governing bodies and destination marketing organizations. Using a metropolitan city (Phoenix, Arizona) in the United States as a case study, the aim is to identify heritage themes and icons contextualized by the local agencies. Next, the views of a purposeful stratified sample of local residents are sought to gain an insight into how select heritage representations are viewed. Information is also elicited on preferred themes and images that hold potential to facilitate feelings of connectedness and a shared sense of heritage in Phoenix. The State of Arizona in the United States is considered a popular heritage tourism destination (Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, & Vogt, 2005; Nyaupane et al., 2006). Therefore, its capital (Phoenix) offers an ideal setting to examine present-centeredness of dominant heritage representations. Phoenix is the largest city in the State of Arizona (United States) with a population of 4.2 million (U. S. Census Bureau, 2010). Its first settlers were the Hohokams (who belonged to an archaeological culture centered round the Phoenix basin). They were the only culture to solely base their agricultural strategies on canal irrigation; their irrigation system was widely practiced in the Southwest (Luckingham, 1989). Phoenix, today, has become home to an increasingly diverse ethnic population. Its racial makeup consists of: 73.0% Whites (58.7% White Non-Hispanic), 5.0% Blacks, 3.3% Asians, 2.4% American Indians, and 16.2% of other or mixed race (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Because of its growing diverse population, Phoenix also offers a unique place to examine present-centeredness of dominant heritage expressions based on the perceptions of its minority and the mainstream population. Moscovici and Lage (1976) and Capotorti (1977) describe a minority group as the one that is small in size when compared to the mainstream population and possesses distinct non-mainstream ethnic, religious, or linguistic characteristics. Such groups show a sense of solidarity towards preserving their cultural, traditional, religious, or linguistic identities. In summary, answers to the following questions are sought in this study: How is the heritage of Phoenix defined and portrayed to promote heritage tourism? What are the perceptions of minority communities and the mainstream population (the Whites) of these dominant heritage representations? Are there any traces of selective amnesia and dissonance and in what manner can these be addressed to promote sustainable heritage tourism?

Literature review This section first offers an overview of studies which offer insights into the manner in which heritage is often made use of by various political agents and other heritage institutions such as the destination marketing organizations and tourism businesses. What follows next is an account of examples of heritage dissonance reported in documented literature. Finally, a narrative is offered on solutions suggested by authors to reduce dissonance and make heritage more present-centered/ meaningful for sustainable tourism and host populations.

Role of political agents Several studies argue that selective perspectives are promoted to instill preferred feelings of national identity and image. For instance, Harvey (2001) presents an example of the Bonfire Night in England where a particular perspective of heritage is underlined to justify feelings of national identity. Using examples from England’s past, he offers an insight into the manner in which heritage continues to be shaped by prevailing societal ideologies (influenced by power relations and national identities). He calls to attention the need to treat heritage as a cultural process rather than considering it as a physical relic. Cressy offers an interesting description of how ‘‘a deliberately cultivated vision of the past is incorporated into the English calendar, reiterated in sermons, reviewed in almanacs, and

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

97

given physical form by memorials and monuments thereby using it as a tool to promote preferred notions of communal camaraderie” (1994, p. 61). In a similar vein, Philip and Mercer (1999) describe how the Myanmar regime has selected its Buddhist Burmese heritage to strengthen national identity and facilitate international tourism in the region. Henderson (2001) brings to light issues associated with efforts to integrate heritage and national identity in order to present a harmonious picture to the tourism industry and the tourists. Notions of heritage identity and legitimacy of preferred national consciousness have also been discussed in the context of decolonized nations. For instance, by sharing evidence from Hong Kong and Singapore, Henderson further reveals how social, economic and political linkages to national and cultural identities continue to shape heritage and tourism. She further notes that ‘‘progress and modernity are thus undermining traditional ways of life that have survived in Hong Kong and serve to inspire cultural understanding” (Henderson, 2001, p. 233). At this juncture, worthy of mention is the role of the tourism industry in promoting selective and stereotype representations of local heritage. Sources such as tourist guides and signature websites of visited destinations often offer palatable images or heritage. Extant literature confirms that the government agencies and destination marketing organizations act as heritage baiters and are often responsible for image-building heritage expressions of a region or destination (Kantarci, 2007; Watson, 2010). The term ‘heritage baiters’ refers to people who indulge in commodifying historical narratives for the heritage industry (Samuel, 1994). Dissonance in heritage Documented literature further argues that all heritages is selective and creates social exclusion and dissonance. Tunbridge and Ashworth’s (1996) view is that dissonance in heritage as an inherent trait intrinsic to all ‘heritage’ although degree and reasons of dissonance may vary. Several accounts of heritage dissonance are reported in documented literature. For instance, Creighton (2007) focuses on a UNESCO heritage site (a walled heritage city) epitomized by dissonance in the manner its past is disputed in the contemporary era. The author reports that the heritage wall shelters fragmented identities and the meanings conveyed are fluid in that they are ‘‘written and re-written through their treatment and presentation as heritage” (2007, p. 351) to embrace the present environment. Graham and McDowell (2007) discuss heritage potential of the Maze in Northern Ireland (her Majesty’s prison, as a source of conflict in the context of its naming. Republicans and former prisoners prefer it be called Long Kesh while it is officially referred to as the Maze) in the context of an array of interrelated issues. At the macro level, the Maze as a heritage site is used to portray preferred connotations. Beyond the danger of being a victim to all the global manifestations associated with contested heritage, on a positive note, the authors argue that the site resonates with several key political ideologies associated with Northern Ireland, the Belfast agreement, and the negotiation of alternative visions for the society beyond the sectarian divide. The authors conclude that the supporters of the republican movement stand to gain the most from the manner the site is being commodified as a heritage commodity as it ‘‘advocates the preferred perspective of ethnocratic republican ideology” (2007, p. 346). Paasi (1999) argues that main political decrees and their regulatory devices place their factional demands upon past which are subject to identity versus territory negotiations and dissonance. These are drawn from a vast spectrum of cultural characteristics such as ‘‘memorialization, festivals, and language as identity resources in defining, marking, and maintaining these territorial enclaves” (Graham & McDowell, 2007, p. 344). Tunbridge and Ashworth argue that selective amnesia and dissonance cannot be avoided. The authors point out that ‘‘all heritage is someone else’s heritage and therefore logically not someone else’s. . . any creation of heritage from the past disinherits someone else” (Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996, p. 15). This calls for ways to figure out connections between various inheritances and suggest alterations through interactions and engagement rather than obstructing the risk of ‘‘elevating someone’s heritage at the expense of someone else’s” (1996, p.16). Besides political institutions, different tourism entities play a significant role in the dissonance game. Henderson argues that differences between the tourism destinations and political entities ‘‘are often illuminated by contrasts in the substances and style of tourism marketing.” (2008, p. 143).

98

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

Present-centeredness of heritage Recent literature maintains that heritage can be used in a more positive and meaningful manner to promote sustainable heritage tourism. Lowenthal refers to heritage as a ‘‘practice that clarifies pasts so as to infuse them with present purposes” (2000, p. 16). Harvey (2001) highlights the need for a historical analysis of heritage practices and suggests a deeper narrative by looking at heritagization as a process to unfold multiple perspectives of heritage. The author argues that an examination of power and its influence on heritage at a particular point of time is likely to reflect individual agendas of organizations such as the local government and destination marketing organizations. It is often argued that past cannot be epitomized in its original form because its meaning process involves value judgments that prioritize what is deemed to be significant about a time, place or event. For instance, a curatorial selection of ‘key facts’ requires value judgments; so a process of heritage image selection, by promoters of heritage tourism, takes place that results from a complex medley of social, political and economic endeavors and values. Hence examination of heritage to promote sustainable heritage tourism from a present-centered context is imperative. Also, local views of public heritage representations and markers are crucial. Very few studies have taken local perspectives into account. Worthy of note is the study by McDonald (2011) who examined present-centered value placed by people on heritage. His study sought to decipher the degree to which heritage is valued by people. Furthermore, he identifies heritage elements that influence the conferred values. The following were reported: ‘‘people are highly motivated to engage in heritage activities that they find directly relevant to their own specific interests, culture or history. Heritage was defined broadly, encompassing a wide range of objects, places, and experiences. The key criteria in determining whether a particular object was viewed as being worthy of heritage protection were its perceived importance to the nation, personal relevance, irreplaceability and uniqueness” (2011, p. 780). Chhabra (2012) proposes a present-centered dissonant heritage management paradigm and stresses on the need to identify commonalities between various ethnic groups and the mainstream population so that sustainable heritage tourism can happen. According to her, it is crucial to obtain suggestions on ways in which heritage institutions ‘‘can engage with the civic community to cultivate social inclusion practices and a shared sense of heritage, identity and belonging” (2012, p. 1702). By advocating a dissonant heritage perspective, her model calls for an inquiry into dominant narratives and heritage expressions used by heritage institutions, destination marketing organizations (DMOs), and equally representative views by minority populations in a region; the purpose is to identify the extent to which they represent heritage in an equitable manner and promote tourism that builds a sense of shared community identity and enhances quality of life. According to Chhabra, the dissonant heritage management model can be tested by drawing heritage expressions used to define metropolitan cities by tourism organizations (such as the DMOs) and other public institutions such as museums, archives, and the historic society. The views on marketed heritage tourism expressions can then be elicited from a diverse sect of local communities to determine resonance or dissonance. It is argued that if collective memory is harmonious or offers a window to construct common meeting grounds in local environments, it brings with it a grounded sense of reality, promotes intragenerational equity, and boosts a friendly visiting environment (Waterton, 2005). This study aims to seek showcased expressions and icons of local heritage and identify the ones that hold potential to promote sustainable heritage tourism by engaging multicultural host communities in an equitable manner. Moreover, in highlighting both tangible and psychological aspects of perceived dissonance by different sects within the local community, issues associated with intentional amnesia in broadcast heritage are pointed out. Resulting perspectives can foreground social inclusion strategies to help present local heritage to tourists in an equitable manner to promote ethical production of heritage and shared sense of heritage and pride among local communities. For instance, demand for ethnic handicrafts can be enhanced by bringing to the fore heritage attributes of different sects of the local communities. This, in turn, can boost economic benefits and local employment. Therefore, this study addresses an important field of inquiry and is rooted in the present time. It brings to awareness voices of various minority groups to ensure equitable treatment so that their heritage is not marginalized or excluded in marketed heritage expressions.

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

99

Methodology The nature of this research is exploratory. Both content analysis and survey questionnaire techniques are used. Given the importance of both online and mass media marketing in advocating preferred images of a destination, the first purpose of this study was to identify themes used to describe/portray the heritage of Phoenix by induced agents (City of Phoenix (local government) and the Phoenix Convention and Visitors Bureau (a local destination marketing organization) on their websites. Additionally, history/heritage descriptions of Phoenix in a statewide newspaper over a period of six months in 2012 (year of centennial celebrations) were noted. The next important task was to identify a list of icons (based on a review of the following: promotional content of local government and the destination marketing organization websites, marketing blurbs to promote centennial celebrations, and description of heritage of Phoenix in local newspapers) assembled by the induced and autonomous agents and presented as symbolic heritage markers of Phoenix. Categorization base with respect to heritage expressions was drawn based on Etchner and Prasad’s (2003) study. All articles, blurbs, and website content describing Phoenix were read carefully by the authors and two research assistants, sentence by sentence and the references to Phoenix history and heritage were classified. All heritage descriptions were categorized under the thirteen themes presented in Table 1. A list of ten iconic markers was gleaned (see Table 2). Phase two required survey distribution to a purposeful stratified sample of residents located in Phoenix and within its vicinity. The local resident sample was stratified based on different ethnic groups and the mainstream population. A resident was defined as a person who has lived in Phoenix for a minimum of two years. The respondents were intercepted in both public places and through the snowball sampling technique in the case of minority groups (the Chinese and the Hispanics). A selfadministered questionnaire along with a note explained the purpose of research was distributed to the respondents. The purpose of this phase was to gain an insight on how the aforementioned showcased themes are perceived by a purposeful sample of the residents of Phoenix in addition to obtaining personal views on local and personal heritage. A questionnaire with a multiple set of items associated with the description of Phoenix was developed. The questionnaire was first pretested on a total of 33 residents from different ethnic groups and the revised questionnaire was distributed during spring and fall of 2012. Respondents were intercepted in various locations in Phoenix, including the state university campuses and their neighborhoods, restaurants, retail stores, local churches, ethnic supermarkets, Hispanic neighborhoods in East Phoenix and online communities (for instance, Facebook communities of the Arizona Journal of Hispanic Cultural Studies and the Phoenix Historic Heritage Square). Permission was obtained in retail outlets prior to the survey. In Arizona, the Asian population has grown faster than any other minority group (by 43.3% in the past decade) (González, 2011). Another fast-growing minority group is Hispanics or Latinos by nearly 46.3% over the past decade (González, 2011). Given that these two are the fastest growing ethnic groups in Arizona, various techniques were used to gather their views. Snowball sampling method helped with both online and onsite data collection. Originally being adopted to overcome problems of surveying hidden and/or concealed populations, such as drug users, prostitution, pickpockets, and HIV sufferers (Atkinson & Flint, 2001), this unique sampling method uses the social network of identified respondents to refer researchers to other potential contacts (Thompson, 1997). Despite the deficiencies of snowball sampling method, such as a biased selection of subjects, it offers an economical, efficient, and effective option to access marginal social groups. Also, a purposeful stratified sampling of snowball technique enables researchers to locate desired respondents for a representative sample (Atkinson & Flint, 2001). In this paper, snowball sampling is used in the way that Asian and Hispanic/Latino respondents were asked to distribute the survey to their friends. Apart from the snowballing technique, conventional method of onsite survey distribution was also employed in frequently visited areas such as ethnic supermarkets/restaurants, ethnic neighborhoods, and churches. The survey questionnaire inquired about the following areas: perceptions of themes associated with heritage and heritage icons identified from content analysis of websites and promotional material by the local convention and visitor bureau and the local government website, and level of connect-

100

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

Table 1 Local resident perceptions of heritage expressions.

Native American culture Mexican cuisine Mexican heritage Gateway to the Grand Canyon Sporting events Arizona State Fair Heard Museum Guild and Indian Fair market Cowboy culture Festival of arts The Wild West Spanish architecture Hohokam Indians Cross-border heritage

Agree/strongly agree (%)

Disagree/strongly disagree (%)

Average

69.1 68.2 67.9 63.3 60.9 59.1 57.2 53.7 55.1 51.4 48.2 48.2 47.7

23.6 23.6 25.7 23.9 26.3 22.7 19.4 31.8 22.0 33.0 24.1 20.9 24.7

3.65 3.51 3.56 3.64 3.63 3.55 3.53 3.30 3.51 3.31 3.30 3.35 3.37

Table 2 Ethnicity influences on perceptions of icons.a

Native American heritage trail Home of Heard Museum Hopi Kachina dolls Art walks Artists Heritage Square Celebrities such as Sanda O’ Connor & Barry Goldwater Pueblo Grand Museum Musical Symphonies Political scandals/corruption Wrigley Mansion

Overallb

Whitesb

Asiansb

Hispanicsb

F value

Sig.

3.66 3.50 3.28 3.47 3.46 3.29 3.13 3.20 3.21 3.03 3.15

3.65 3.81 3.38 3.49

3.64 3.12 3.19 3.38

3.72 3.43 3.17 3.66

3.59 3.40 3.28 2.89 3.04 3.36

3.04 2.81 3.12 3.32 2.96 2.92

3.09 3.00 3.15 3.66 3.23 3.19

.054 2.704 .499 .723 .205 4.616 3.505 .211 7.033 .477 2.008

.947 .071 .609 .487 .815 .012 .036 .810 .001 .622 .139

n: Whites = 47; Asians = 30; Hispanics = 48. ANOVA-based on Tukey post hoc tests; df = 2. Highlighted values are significant at p < .05. a Rating on 5 point Likert scale with 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree. b Average ranking on the Likert scale.

edness with the icons promoted by the local websites. Two sets of representations were identified: heritage images and heritage icons. One adult per family was requested to fill out the survey. The survey included both closed ended and open ended questions. A five point-Likert scale (ranging from ‘very important’ for them to ‘not important at all’ and ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’) was used to measure respondents’ level of agreement for each item. Differences between the two ethnic groups (the Hispanics and the Asians) and the Whites were examined using ANOVA tests. Table 1 presents descriptive results for identified heritage expressions of all respondents regardless of their ethnicity and race. The survey also included open ended questions such as: What comes to your mind when you think of Phoenix (from a culture/heritage perspective)? Name three historic places/products that come to your mind when you think about the heritage of Phoenix. Do you feel your history/heritage is represented in the history of Phoenix? In which way can your culture/history be represented in the promotional content of Phoenix heritage? Open ended questions allowed the respondents to answer in their own words and facilitated resident engagement. The verbatim was manually coded using the following steps: (1) all responses were read by three coders to familiarize themselves of the vast range of topics mentioned and make note of common emerging themes; (2) a response category was created for the identified themes. For instance, for the question what comes to your mind when you think of Phoenix-most responses could be grouped under themes such as Native American heritage, Mexican heritage, rich natural resources, unique art museums, melting pot, and city of discrimination. Codes for each them were created; (3)

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

101

manually one or multiple themes/codes were applied for every textual response; (4) content validity was confirmed by employing three coders and inter-coder reliability was 94%. Clear coding rules were set ensuring a common understanding of agreement among the coders. Finally, the user profile section elicited information on respondent’s socio-demographic characteristics such as number of years of residence in Phoenix, ethnicity, age, gender, education, and marital status. A total of 265 questionnaires were distributed and the response rate was 49%. Rigor was used to address issues associated with validity and reliability during the different phases of data collection. An obvious limitation of the study was the sample size and lack of insights from the Native American population and African Americans as very few respondents belonged to these minority groups, hence they are put in the miscellaneous category. Another limitation was inability to gather responses from different age groups. A review of documented literature reveals that maximum survey responses on resident attitudes towards tourism usually come from middle to older age groups (Andereck et al., 2005). The younger generation is often overlooked although it is argued that they are the ‘testing grounds’ of future social transitions and development (Wu, 2012). According to the U.S. Census (2010), the median age of Phoenix residents is 32.2 years old. This study gathered most responses on age groups below 30 and between 30-40 years old using a stratified sampling method. In doing so, it is able to offer insights on the views of this dominant age group. A brief description (gleaned from the websites and the newspapers) of the heritage markers follows: The Pueblo Grande Museum and Archeological Park is a National Historic Landmark. It offers a unique opportunity to learn about the prehistoric and historic cultures of Phoenix and Arizona. The Native American Trail showcases prehistoric ruins of the Hohokam culture (referred as the first settlers in Phoenix) and canal systems, and home to an agricultural garden. The Wrigley Mansion is a landmark building constructed in early 1920s by chewing-gum magnate William Wrigley. Being listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1989, the Mansion stands as a monument to a rarely-seen elegance and opulence, and was transformed into a private club for meetings, conventions, and similar functions. A part of Heritage and Science Park, Historic Heritage Square is a crucial piece of the culture landscape in downtown Phoenix. It houses residential structures from the original town site of Phoenix. It is known for hosting special events and festivals. Founded in early 1920s as a small museum in a small Southwestern town, the Heard museum has become an internationally recognized and living museum featuring both artifacts and contemporary art of Native American culture. It claims is not a history museum, rather, it gives voices to a uniquely American people. Art events such as the ‘‘First Fridays” are held on the first Friday of the month in downtown Phoenix. Organized by a non-profit organization named Artlink, they have become signature social events and feature live music. Kachina dolls are carved wooden figurines designed to represent the dancing spirit figures in public ceremonies. The dolls are traditionally given to the Pueblo children to inform them of the various Kachina identities and educate them on the symbolic value of their costumes. They are traditionally carved from cottonwood tree roots and painted/adorned based on their utilitarian purpose. Celebrity politicians are also featured. It can be argued that some political figures are granted the status of heroes or heroines and ‘‘their life stories afford much food for thought and the places where they left footmarks have become special tourist resources and potential attractions” (Tang, Morrison, Lehto, Kline, & Pearce, 2009, p. 285). Review of documented literature shows that great personalities have occasionally featured as icons in heritage attractions.

Findings Socio-demographic characteristics Descriptive analysis of socio-demographic data indicates that approximately 37% of the respondents are White and 23% are Southeast Asians. Approximately 36% are Hispanics and the remaining 4% fall into the misc. category (such as Blacks and Native Americans). The collected sample is predominantly young adults between 30 and 50 years of age (54.5% were below 30 years of age and 25% were between 30 and 40 years of age). Approximately 10.3% were between 40 and 50 years of age. The remaining (10.2%) were 50 years old or above. On marital status, 34.3% are married and 47.5% are sin-

102

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

gle (never married). Approximately 13.8% are living in together with a partner and the remaining are either separated or divorced. With regard to education, 12.8% belong to the ‘High School or less’ category, 35.5% have earned a college degree, 20.5% have a Bachelor’s degree and 31.2% have earned a Masters or a doctoral degree. Majority of the respondents are found to be females (65.7%). Perceptions of public heritage expressions Local resident (across Hispanics, Whites and Southeast Asians) ratings of heritage themes presented in Table 1 reveals that the majority of the respondents agree with the manner the heritage of Phoenix showcases Native American culture followed by Mexican cuisine and heritage and Gateway to the Grand Canyon. Half or close to less than half of the respondents relate Phoenix with the Wild West heritage, Spanish architecture, Hohokam Indian heritage and cross border heritage (influence of Mexican culture on the heritage of Arizona) (Timothy & Saarinen, 2013). Almost 60% agree that the sporting events and Arizona State Fair represent the heritage of Phoenix. Perceptions of heritage icons Approximately 62.6% of the respondents across the Hispanics, Asians and the Whites agree with the icons associated with the Native American heritage trails. In other words, they concur that Native American heritage trails are a symbolic heritage marker of Phoenix. Approximately 50% of the respondents concur with the following icons—home of Heard Museum, Hopi Kachina dolls, art walks followed by artists. Other broadcast icons in heritage tourism promotions, associated with the heritage landmarks of Phoenix, receive a lukewarm response from the majority of the respondents. Less than 50% vote for Heritage Square. Least agreement appears in regard to the Wrigley Mansion followed by iconic markers associated with political scandals and corruption and musical symphonies. Approximately 36% associate Phoenix with celebrity heritage and the Pueblo Grand Museum. Average values for each group are also presented. The standard deviation (SD) of most icons with the exception of Wrigley Mansion (.628), Heritage Square (.774), musical symphonies (.804) and art walks (.804) is approximately 1.00 for the Asian cohort. For the Whites, with the exception of the Home of Heard Museum (1.20), SD is approximately 1.00 for all items. In the case of Hispanics, SD for political scandals/corruption and Native American Heritage Trail is 1.45 and 1.35 respectively. For the remaining icons, SD is approximately 1.00. Sense of connectedness with the heritage tourism icons Close to 50% of the respondents feel connected to the Hopi Kachina dolls followed by Pueblo Grand Museum, Wrigley Mansion and Political scandals/corruption. Least level of connectedness is noted with the Heard Museum (in order of rating), art walks, musical symphonies and artists (see Table 3). It is interesting to note that approximately 61% feel overall connected with Phoenix despite the fact they are not able to personally relate to most of the promoted icons. Average values per group are presented in the table. SD for most items across all three groups is 1.15. For the Asians, SD of the Home of Heard Museum and Pueblo Grand Museum is 2.48 and 1.29 respectively. Other noticeable SD value is 1.28 for Hispanics on the immigration debate. Differences between the Hispanics, Southeast Asians, and the Whites With regard to the heritage themes, Tukey’s post hoc tests show that significant differences exist on two heritage expressions: Spanish architecture (F = 4.718, p value = .011) and the ‘Wild West’ (F = 3.118; p value = .048). The Hispanics are more likely to disagree than the Asians that Spanish architecture represents the heritage of Phoenix. The Whites, on the other hand, disagree with the ‘Wild West’ theme whereas the Hispanics are inclined to be neutral. In regard to perceptions of icons portrayed to represent history and heritage of Phoenix, significant differences are noted on the items (see Table 2) associated with the celebrities, heritage square and musical symphony. Tukey’s post hoc tests indicate that the Whites are more inclined to disagree on Heritage Square and celebrity icons as

103

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109 Table 3 Ethnicity influences on sense of connectedness with the icons.a

Native American heritage trail Home of Heard Museum Hopi Kachina dolls Art walks Artists Heritage Square Celebrities such as Sanda O’ Connor & Barry Goldwater Pueblo Grand Museum Musical Symphonies Political scandals/corruption Wrigley Mansion

Averageb

Whitesb

Asiansb

Hispanicsb

F value

Sig.

2.97 3.14 2.72 3.16 3.06 2.89 2.83 2.66 2.99 2.76 2.66

2.50 3.11 2.28 3.02 2.81 2.74 2.74 2.23 2.57 2.72 2.40

3.40 3.04 3.15 3.31 3.23 3.15 2.88 3.20 3.12 2.73 2.88

3.32 3.43 3.06 3.55 3.53 2.96 3.09 2.91 3.56 3.15 2.91

7.884 1.302 7.985 2.779 5.418 1.358 1.186 7.601 9.727 1.695 3.182

.001 .276 .001 .066 .006 .261 .309 .001 .000 .188 .045

n: Whites = 47; Asians = 30; Hispanics = 48. ANOVA-based on Tukey post hoc tests; df = 2. Highlighted values are significant at p < .05. a Rating on 5 point Likert scale with 1 = very connected and 5 = not all connected. b Average ranking on the Likert scale.

representations of local heritage. Asians agree more than the Whites that the portrayed celebrities/ political icons (Goldwater and Sandra O’Connor) help define the history of Phoenix. Whites and the Hispanics significantly differ on the musical symphonies with the former group inclined to somewhat agree that these events showcase the local culture of Phoenix. No significant differences are noted between the groups on the remaining items. With regard to the sense of connectedness with the identified icons, Table 3 shows significant differences between the Whites and the Asians on the Native American heritage trail and the Hopi Kachina dolls. Similar differences between the Whites and the Asians are noted on the Pueblo Grand Museum. The Whites feel more connected with these Native American heritage representations. Although not at the highest level, Whites significantly feel somewhat connected, than the Hispanics, with the artists and the musical symphonies. The Whites are also more connected with the Wrigley Mansion than the Asians and the Hispanics. That is, they are more inclined to support the Wrigley Mansion as a marker of the contemporary symbol of socialized setting. As borne out in these results, residents differ in their views on some of the expressions and tangible icons that best describe the heritage of Phoenix and promote tourism.

Open-ended views of residents Given that the study is predominantly focused on local views of heritage tourism representations, there was an interest to gather the open ended views of key ethnic groups on how they perceive the heritage of Phoenix. Recurrent themes, mirroring the views, are presented below. With regard to the question on what comes to your mind when you think of Phoenix in general from cultural/heritage perspective, most recurrent Hispanic themes are as follows: Native American culture, Mexican heritage (such as city with Mexican roots, city of growing Hispanic population, and Mexican restaurants), gateway to the Grand Canyon, city with a political agenda (discrimination), unique natural resources (such as the desert and the cactus). This group is not sport oriented and is less moved by the pseudo images (such as the cowboys and the ‘Wild West’) portrayed by the media. Most recurrent responses among the Asians are: gateway to the Grand Canyon, rich Native American (several mention Hohokam, and Navajo heritage) and Mexican heritage (markers such as Spanish language), rich natural resources (cactus, desert, weather), cowboy culture, the Wild West, a generic culture, sport events (some mention sport teams), cross-border heritages, and multicultural environment. Most recurrent themes among the White respondents are: Native American heritage (Hohokam heritage) and some Mexican culture, desert city build by the Native Americans, cowboys and Indians, transformations that have happened over several decades, melting pot (such as integrated Mexican culture), natural resources (hot desert, botanical garden), sporting events, architecture

104

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

(such as adobe buildings and Native American style architecture), gateway to the Grand Canyon, international cuisine, melting pot, and unique museums (such as Phoenix Museum of Art). As noted above, all groups relate to Phoenix as being rich in Native American heritage. However, the Hispanic respondents feel that legal and political policies are not supportive of their community. The Asians and the Whites feel that Phoenix represents Mexican heritage in a fair manner and take pride in the fact that Phoenix serves as the gateway to the Grand Canyon, especially for inbound tourists. For the Whites, Spanish architecture and local museums of art and history also define Phoenix. The Asians associate Phoenix with cowboy culture and the Wild West. It is interesting to note that although the Hispanics and the Asians do not feel Phoenix is a melting pot, most White respondents describe it as a melting of different cultures. Literature offers noteworthy perspectives on the melting pot concept. For instance, Gordon (1961) argues that although the melting pot image implies blending of different cultures, the entire process more or less conforms to ‘AngloAmerican’ guidelines. Ethnic culture is considered foreign and English learning is encouraged among the immigrants (Hirschman, 1983) in the name of ethnic diversity. Melting pot here is more or less referred to as cultural pluralism or assimilation as per Anglo-conformity. Rosaldo (1988) refers to melting pot environments as ‘people without culture.’ According to him, ‘‘degrees of mobility differentiate people ‘with’ and ‘without’ culture. The Great American melting pot has become a resocializing medium, it has produced homogenization and created a new group of ‘people’ without culture” (Rosaldo, 1988, pp. 77–82). This view resonates with some responses from the Hispanic respondents which suggest that Phoenix has fake culture. Both Asians and the Hispanics ask for friendly interactive environments and opportunities to mix with other residents and the Whites. Rosaldo (1988) argues that multicultural environments are better than melting pot environments because they allow distinct cultures to thrive and grow. Several respondents across all Asians and the Whites relate heritage to the natural desert environment and Native American architecture. In regard to the natural environment, Ritchie and Zins (1978) argue that destination attractiveness is often attributed to sports, infrastructure (access routes, parking and traffic management) of the region, accessibility of the region, cultural and social characteristics, and natural and built landscapes and climate. The natural beauty factor includes the flora and fauna and the temperature of the area and in the case of Phoenix, extremely hot summer temperatures influence local ambience and cultural behavior (Cox, 2013). Besides offering aesthetic appeal, vegetation including trees, shrubs and flowers offer a natural fragrance to a city and enhance streetscapes and a strong sense of place (Cross, 2001). Also, all share pride in the Grand Canyon’s proximity and accessibility to Phoenix. Furthermore, the majority of the Hispanics (75%) and only 30% of the Whites feel connected with Phoenix because it is their birthplace; they are raised in the city and their roots are there. The Asians, on the other hand, relate their sense of belonging to the weather, sport teams, transportation developments, local environment and facilities, sport teams, and the type of job they do. Hispanics associate connectedness with family and friends and their place of birth. Most Whites hold nostalgic memories of other states (of birth) or their ancestral place in Europe. Approximately 15% of the Whites have relocated from Europe. Cross (2001) presents six types of bonds people develop with their place of residence: historical and familial, emotional and intangible, moral and ethical, mythical, cognitive, and material. In the context of the study results, it appears that most Hispanics and 30% of the White respondents have developed historical, familial, and cognitive bonds with the city of Phoenix. Historical and familial ties are the result of being born there and having lived for an extended period of time. Cognitive ties refer to preferences and choice based on desired characteristics and lifestyle, Cross argues that the nature of relationships between people and places is transactional and to a large degree, everyone creates their own sense of place. This view supports the personalized versions of Phoenix by the surveyed respondents; what it means to be a Phoenician differs among different people. Reasons for disconnectedness Defining factors, by the Whites, are reported as city’s obsession with past. Discrimination, politics and domination of the White middle class is felt by the Hispanics; this dampens their sense of belong-

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

105

ing. Approximately 30% of the respondents feel disconnected with the manner the city’s heritage is promoted for tourism purpose and the most recurrent reason for this feeling among the Hispanics is associated with the immigration debate (highlights of which include identity checks by police during driving violations) and other political issues. Hispanics feel that the political environment is not tolerant and welcoming towards them. For instance, the immigration bill SB 1070 in Arizona has triggered a nationwide debate and is not received well by the Hispanic cohort. SB 1070 is one of the strictest anti-illegal immigration measures in recent U.S. history (Otero & Cammarota, 2011). This law requires a person to carry an alien registration document at all times and that a person can be arrested without warrant. On grounds of racial profiling, protests and boycotts were held throughout the country which portrayed Arizona in a negative manner; this resulted in cancellation of several events conventions in the State. It was estimated that travel-related boycotts over SB 1070 cost Phoenix up to $90 million in tourism, hotel, and convention business (Berry, 2010). Several Whites of Irish or Scottish descent have more connection with Europe and feel that strong connections with Phoenix will never be possible. With regard to other concerns, the several Whites complain of over-emphasis of the local government on past heritage and neglect of contemporary cultures. The Asians, on the other hand, feel disconnected because they complain of marginal representation of their culture/contributions in local museums and less acceptance by the mainstream population (the Whites). Clear traces of selective amnesia or heritage dissonance are evident in the study results although the Hispanics, the Asians and the Whites differ in their reasons of disagreement and disconnectedness with Phoenix. Most public representations of Phoenix heritage receive a lukewarm support by all groups. According to Ashworth and Tunbridge, ‘‘museums, archives, public history, public monuments and preserved townscapes have been, if anything, guilty of causing heritage dissonance more often and with more serious consequences than any commercial developer, however short-sighted, greedy and banal” (2000, p. 264). The study results show dissonance as a result of commercialization tactics to appropriate heritage for the purpose of serving tourism and this runs the danger of ‘‘selectivity and sanitization, can alienate or even disinherit local communities” (Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996, p. 265). In addition to desire for institutional support for personal heritage events by local communities, need for meaningful connections with key public heritage markers is also highlighted by existing literature (Chhabra, 2012; Harvey, 2001). Strengthening connectedness Next, the respondents were asked the following question: what can strengthen your connectedness and showcase Phoenix to heritage tourists in a sustainable manner? Most recurrent suggestions by the Whites include: more community festivals and events incorporating and showcasing multiple cultures, presence of local businesses, more focus on the contemporary Americans today instead of being fixated on Native Americans. The White respondents suggest international sporting events, and cultural holidays. Other suggestions include public performance and celebration spaces that accommodate all kinds of cultural and artistic events to enable cultural exchange between tourists and locals. Asians ask for showcasing of tangible evidence that city is indeed a melting pot of different cultures, more educational material to communicate knowledge of past history, more ethnic restaurants and bakeries, more volunteer opportunities, interactive environments to mingle, traditional and international festivals, and ethnic churches. Other suggestions include more publicity and promotion of Asian sites of reverence such as the Chinese Church and traditional grocery stores. The Chinese feel that Phoenix history should include Chinese contributions and sponsor Chinese events, food, art and dance. Other Asians, such as the Indians, indicate the need for more museum tours or public tours on local history for local people so that they are informed when they get opportunities to impart cultural information to tourists. The Hispanics ask for a more tolerant attitude from legislators and a friendly political environment. Other icons/sites are suggested although they differ between the three groups. For instance, the Whites suggest political markers (such as the State Fair, State Capitol and Washington Street), Town of Gaudalupe and Rawhide (which offers western heritage experience), natural attractions (such as the Desert Botanical Garden, Papago Park), heritage museums (such as the Phoenix Museum of Art), sites

106

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

of reverence (St. Mary’s Basilca), sport venues (such as the Chase field, Diamond Backs, and the Cardinal stadium) and community and art venues (such as the downtown Civic Space Park). Asians suggest the State Fair, art museums, downtown heritage tours, natural attractions (Icehouse and bird dancing), Native American symbols (dream catchers), and sites of reverence (Asian church) and promotion of Asian cuisine (restaurants). According to them, Phoenix has yet to find an identity that will connect with its main ethnic populations. Most Hispanics associate with the State Fair.

Discussion As stated earlier, of particular importance are public institutions and induced destination agents who often select heritage expressions with an aim to portray a preferred view of a tourism destination (Choi, Lehto, & Morrison, 2007). Extant literature claims that the ‘critical infrastructure’ laid out by these agencies privileges certain groups at the cost of marginalizing others (Harvey, 2001; Timothy & Boyd, 2003). An important purpose of this paper is to identify level of heritage dissonance between portrayed heritage representations and perceptions of key ethnic groups and the mainstream population. Experiential aspects of dominant heritage expressions are examined. In the case of Phoenix, promoted heritage expressions that resonate across a diverse range of local residents are Native American culture, Mexican heritage, multicultural event (the State Fair) and Gateway to the Grand Canyon. Furthermore, heritage communicated through sporting events, Arizona State Fair, and the Heard Museum activities receive a positive nod from Whites and the Asians. Mexican cuisine/heritage is appreciated by the Whites and the Hispanics. Natural attractions are supported mostly by the Whites. Existing literature has confirmed that indigenous culture markers and natural expressions used to promote a destination are perceived positively by local residents regardless of lack of personal connections with them (Poria, Butler, & Airey, 2004; Sable & Kling, 2001). As a case in point, McDonald (2011) examines perceptions of public heritage of an Australian population and reports that regardless of personal connections, the most important elements of public heritage were perceived (in order of importance) to be: natural icons, major waterways, nature reserves, native fauna, and historic architecture. These are deemed to be of value because of their uniqueness and significance in exhibiting local history. In the context of connectedness, worthy of note is the point that the Hispanics have formed historical, familial, and cognitive ties with Phoenix. Important to note is that more knowledge/meaningful connections with the dominant heritage markers are sought by the Asians and the Hispanics. Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) argue that in societies where there are no crucial dependencies on each other and different groups are considered equals, dominance of heritage identity based on one group does not necessarily deprive sense of personal heritage in others. In other words, such scenarios do not create a feeling of dissonance in others. The study results further suggest that efforts to define the heritage of Phoenix in the context of Native American and Mexican expressions and a multicultural event such as the State Fair need to be emphasized in an ongoing manner as these are recognized by various sects of the local community. That said, findings also show that somewhat parallel to these feelings is a desire for inclusiveness of personal heritage by the Whites and the Asians. This view can be evidenced in the words of one respondent who belongs to the mainstream population (the Whites): ‘I too am a Native American’ although the stereotypical image of a local native refers only to a Native American. There is also a need for a supporting multicultural environment that promotes ethnic festivals and places of worship, as pointed out by the Asian cohort. Dissonance is noted across groups but reasons for societal amnesia differ. Mixed views of broadcast public heritage are also reported by McDonald (2011). The author notes that while local populations think the iconic features of public heritage are critical to their identities and need to be preserved and promoted; advocacy of personal heritage is desired as well. In other words, although ‘‘people largely act out of their own interests when it comes to heritage participation but they acknowledge the value in everyone doing so as well; heritage protection is not viewed as a competitive situation; rather the prevailing view is more akin to protecting what is important to me should not conflict with what is important to you. At the same time, it is noted that all community groups will like to be culturally distinct.

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

107

Sponsoring of multicultural events/demonstrations at the Heritage Square Park in Phoenix (as suggested by some respondents) is likely to reflect support for ethnic heritage and reinforce the multicultural image of Phoenix. At the same time, in the case of Hispanics, proactive measures are needed to counter resentment and feelings of exclusion triggered by the political environment. For instance, as the results indicate, the immigration debate shadows evidence of positive support for a multicultural environment. Furthermore, political expressions and nationwide focus on immigration debate shadows the multicultural environment, for instance, the sketched images have resulted in the withdrawal of several conventions from the city resulting in loss of revenue. A more creative expression of such political debates needs to be broadcasted via mass media and online marketing tools to educate visitors and local residents. In summary, representations are somewhat more representing of White perceptions of public heritage although the Whites demonstrate societal amnesia in the overrepresentation of Native American heritage. The Chinese also show dissonance in regard to underrepresentation of their role in building the heritage of Phoenix and their cultural heritage icons. Several studies argue that over-emphasis on past heritage (or dominance of it) belonging to one marginalized sect can disengage present-day diverse populations (Harvey, 2001; Henderson, 2001; Waterton, 2005). This signals the need for strategic efforts to weave in contemporary cultures while at the same time informing various community groups of the distant past heritage. Heritage icons can perform a useful role in establishing a sense of place and identity (Chang, 2005; Tunbridge, 1984). In ‘Arizona State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2009’, it is clearly claimed that heritage preservation cannot be successful unless strong partnerships are built between government agencies, advocacy organizations, and citizens (State Historic Preservation Office, 2009). It is therefore crucial to inform local residents of local heritage resources to facilitate a sense of present-centered shared identity and seek their views in reconfiguring/prioritizing public heritage markers/expressions. Using the dissonant heritage management model as a point of reference, the results of this study unpack backstage realities and meanings through the lens of heritage selectivity, dissonance, and contemporary traditions (Chhabra, 2012). In identifying dominant and broadcast public perspectives of heritage and eliciting views on dominant public heritage representations, this study makes an effort to determine if the public expressions are inclusive of local heritage. The results call for the need to redefine some aspects of public heritage so that a multicultural and inclusive environment can be supported and promoted to tourists. This study is one of the few that moves beyond conceptual stages to gauge public acceptance of dominant heritage representations (Chhabra, 2012; Harvey, 2001). An important insight is offered into the perceptions held by the local communities inclusive of some of the key marginalized sects. This paper brings to light alternative accounts and perspectives that provide potential to depart from political allegiances. It suggests de-centering and reconfiguration of the dominant past to facilitate a sense of public heritage identity (Landzelius, 2003; Store, 1992; Waterton, 2005) to support shared sense of heritage thereby generating a local sense of place and responsible marketing of heritage tourism (Stubbs, 2004). From a sustainability standpoint, management of dissonance is crucial to promote sustainable heritage tourism so that confrontations may be defused before they develop and attention is shifted towards promotion of multicultural environments and intragenerational equity. As pointed out by Tunbridge and Ashworth, ‘‘sustainable development implies the attainment of output equities. Balances are to be struck between social groups. Heritage is a contemporary function, selecting from the past, for transmission to the future” (1996, p. 268). A dialogue is suggested between institutions which define and commercialize public heritage and the local people and inclusive in nature. Because relating public heritage to present-day populations and environments is not an easy task and dissonance cannot be avoided, reconfiguration based on multicultural assemblage can minimize future conflicts and instill a shared sense of heritage. At this juncture, it is to be noted that heritage present-centeredness initiatives also face the dangers of heritagization in that there is a risk associated with shadowing authentic aspects of distant past in an effort to promote a more recent past to resonate with present-day environments. As stated by Poria and Ashworth, ‘‘in heritagization, history is captured as completed, something that belongs to the inhabitants of the present who can choose how to interpret and use it to their advantage. Heritagization uses heritage tourism to legitimize a certain social-political order and ideological framework”

108

D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

(2009, p. 524). Heritagization is more concerned with its meaningfulness in the present era while heritage attractions can also block friendly encounters and ‘legitimize a social reality which divides people into ‘we’ and ‘they’’ (Poria & Ashworth, 2009, p. 522). If efforts are made to bridge ‘us and them’ boundaries, the historic past runs the danger of being compromised. Heritage tourism is about focusing on selected/popular aspects of heritage or promotion of preferred heritage to shape audience opinion of a visited place (Chhabra, 2010; Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996). However, sustainable heritage tourism calls for a careful balance of heritage representations between the distant and recent pasts, and the present. Present centeredness of heritage is a complex phenomenon and is a matter of ongoing negotiations so that it can be supported by local residents and visitors seeking ethical consumption of heritage. Like other studies, this study is also subject to limitations. The sample size is small and not representative of the entire population of Phoenix. Nonetheless, the findings are not without value as they offer useful insights into the mindset of a stratified sample of local residents and can serve as an initial benchmark for future studies to gauge support for public heritage and identify areas of dissonance. This study can be used as a stepping stone to guide a broad scale investigation of local resident views and reconfiguration of public heritage expressions by seeking a meaningful tradeoff between distant and recent pasts and the present.

References Andereck, K., Valentine, K., Knopf, R., & Vogt, C. (2005). Residents’ perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056–1076. Ashworth, G. (1991). War and city. London: Routledge. Ashworth, G. J., & Tunbridge, J. E. (2000). The tourist-historic city. Routledge. Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33, 1–4. Retrieved from . Berry, J. (2010). $90 million at risk in boycott of Arizona. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved from . Capotorti, F. (1977). Study on the rights of persons belonging to ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, UN Document E/CN.4/ Sub.2/384/Add.1-7. Chang, T. (2005). Place, memory, and identity: Imaging ‘New Asia’. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 46(3), 247–253. Chhabra, D. (2010). Sustainable marketing of cultural and heritage tourism. London: Routledge. Chhabra, D. (2012). A present-centered dissonant heritage management model. Annals of Tourism Research, 39, 1701–1725. Choi, S., Lehto, X., & Morrison, A. (2007). Destination image representation on the web: Content analysis of Macau travel related websites. Tourism Management, 28, 118–129. Cox, J. (2013). Importance of streetscapes and servicescapes in tourist shopping villages: A case study of two communities in Arizona (An unpublished thesis). Arizona State University (AZ, USA). Creighton, O. (2007). Contested landscapes: The Walled City as world heritage. World Archaeology, 39(3), 339–354. Cressy, D. (1994). National memory in early modern England. In J. R. Gillis (Ed.), Commemorations: The politics of national identity (pp. 61–73). Princetown: PUP. Cross, J. E. (2001, November). What is ‘‘sense of place”. In Archives of the twelfth headwaters conference (pp. 2–4). Dark, K. (1995). Theoretical archaeology. London: Duckworth. Etchner, C., & Prasad, P. (2003). The context of third world tourism marketing. Annals of Tourism Research, 30, 660–682. González, D. (2011, May 16). Arizona’s Asian population now fastest-growing in state. Retrieved from
D. Chhabra, S. Zhao / Annals of Tourism Research 55 (2015) 94–109

109

Nyaupane, G. P., White, D. D., & Budruk, M. (2006). Motive-based tourist market segmentation: An application to Native American cultural heritage sites in Arizona, USA. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1(2), 81–99. Otero, L., & Cammarota, J. (2011). Notes from the ethnic studies home front: Student protests, texting, and subtexts of oppression. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(5), 639–648. Paasi, A. (1999). The social construction of territorial identities. Geography Research Forum, 18, 5–18. Philip, J., & Mercer, D. (1999). Commodification of Buddhism in contemporary Burma. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 21–59. Poria, Y., & Ashworth, G. (2009). Heritage tourism – Current resource for conflict. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 522–525. Poria, Y., Butler, R., & Airey, D. (2004). Links between tourists, heritage and reasons for visiting heritage sites. Journal of Travel Research, 43(1), 19–28. Ritchie, J. R., & Zins, M. (1978). Culture as determinant of the attractiveness of a tourism region. Annals of Tourism Research, 5(2), 252–267. Rosaldo, R. (1988). Ideology, place, and people without culture. Cultural Anthropology, 3(1), 77–87. Sable, K., & Kling, R. (2001). The double public good: A conceptual framework for ‘shared experience’ values associated with heritage conservation. Journal of Cultural Economics, 25, 77–89. Samuel, R. (1994). Past and present in contemporary culture. London: Verso. State Historic Preservation Office. (2009). Arizona state historic preservation plan update 2009. Available from: [Accessed 20 September 2012]. Store, J. (1992). The ownership of culture: Reconciling Our common and separate heritage. Australia in Oceania, 27(2), 161–167. Stubbs, M. (2004). Heritage-sustainability: Developing a methodology for the sustainable appraisal of the historic environment. Planning, Practice & Research, 19(3), 285–305. Tang, L., Morrison, A., Lehto, X., Kline, S., & Pearce, P. (2009). Effectiveness criteria for icons as tourist attractions: A comparative study between the United States and China. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 26, 284–302. Thompson, S. K. (1997). The validity of self-reported drug use: Improving the accuracy of survey estimates. Retrieved from . Timothy, D., & Boyd, S. (2003). Heritage tourism. London: Prentice Hall. Timothy, D. J., & Saarinen, J. (2013). Cross-border co-operation and tourism in Europe. In C. Costa, E. Panyik, & D. Buhalis (Eds.), Trends in European tourism planning and organisation (pp. 64–74). Bristol, UK: Channel View. Tunbridge, J. (1984). Whose heritage to conserve? Cross-cultural reflections upon political dominance and urban heritage conservation. Canadian Geographer, 28, 171–180. Tunbridge, J., & Ashworth, G. (1996). Dissonant heritage: The management of the past as a resource conflict. Chichester: Wiley. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Arizona 2010 population and housing unit counts, 2010 census of population and housing. Retrieved from . Waterton, E. (2005). Whose sense of place? Reconciling archaeological perspectives with community values: Cultural landscapes in England. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 11(4), 309–325. Watson, S. (2010). Reading the visual: Representation and narrative in the construction of heritage. Material Culture Review, 71. Wu, J. (2012). Theory and applications of partial functional differential equations (Vol. 119). Springer Science & Business Media.