Archaeological Tourism, World Heritage and Social Value: A Comparative Study in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the relationship between archaeological tourism, UNESCO World Heritage designation, and the social value attached to archaeological sites in China. It aims to provide novel insights into such connections by examining the impact of archaeological tourism on the social values that local communities place on archaeological sites that are in the process of becoming World Heritage Sites. In recent decades, the increasing commercialization of archaeological sites for tourism, combined with the growing influence of the World Heritage listing process, has had a significant impact on the lives of communities in close proximity to archaeological sites. One way to comprehend such an effect is to examine changes in the social values assigned to those sites by their local residents. This is due to the ability of tourism development to (re)create and modify such values attributed to archaeological sites by changing their function, capacity, quality, and meaning. The World Heritage listing process, particularly during the pre-nomination period, plays an important role in shaping the tourist transformation of these sites in preparation for World Heritage inscription. Against this backdrop, this article focuses on two archaeological sites that have recently obtained the World Heritage status: the Daming Palace archaeological site and the Huashan rock art area. By applying ethnographic approaches, the article illustrates the complex influence of tourism development and the World Heritage Convention on contemporary Chinese society, in order to encourage further reflection on the existing management and development mechanisms of archaeological sites in China and around the world.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".