Overtourism management competencies in Asian urban heritage areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Urban heritage areas are under significant pressure as a result of increasing populations and significant visitor growth. The growth in visitor numbers is of particular concern as this is leading to the phenomenon of overtourism. In Asia, although the issue of overtourism requires immediate attention in order to avoid the loss of tangible and intangible heritage, many of those responsible for managing urban heritage areas lack the skills and competencies to prevent it or mitigate its effects. The purpose of this paper is to present an exploratory competency framework for managing urban heritage areas sustainably, for thereby preventing and/or mitigating overtourism. Design/methodology/approach In developing this framework, the authors examined how the context needs to change in order to implement sustainable urban heritage management, and they identified the particular competencies and associated skills and knowledge that are required of the stakeholders responsible for urban heritage areas to manage, prevent and/or mitigate overtourism. This analysis was based on a series of case studies examining the planning and management of urban heritage areas in Asia. Findings It was found that meeting three key objectives was essential in improving the competencies of stakeholder heritage area planners and developers as it relates to overtourism: integrated team approach, a mindset change on the part of key stakeholders and a common vision guiding the development process. Research limitations/implications It was found that in order for urban heritage managers to sustainably manage the heritage under their responsibility and prevent and/or mitigate overtourism, a fundamental shift in mindset is required on the part of key stakeholders, moving away from a “silo” approach and towards an integrated approach to urban heritage management, in which the team leaders and management teams have an interdisciplinary set of competencies and are supported in the planning and management process by subject/discipline specialists. The authors found that the set of competencies that are required by heritage management teams lie at the intersection of the four key areas of policy and planning intervention in urban heritage areas, which are: community economic development, urban planning and design, urban heritage area planning, and tourism planning and management. The competencies can be categorized under three headings: interdisciplinary perspective, soft management competencies and technical competencies. Originality/value This paper was developed based on the authors’ experience in planning and tourism initiatives throughout Asia and on a long history of urban heritage tourism and planning work around the world. Most of the discussion focusses on how urban destinations can prevent and/or address the issues associated with overtourism by enhancing the competencies of the teams and practitioners who are responsible for managing urban heritage areas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".