Management of World Heritage Sites from the Perspective of Administrative Division Adjustment: A Case Study of Lushan, Jiangxi Province

Yongwei KANG1,2, Zhihua LIANG

1. School of Historical Culture and Tourism, Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang 330022, China; 2. Key Laboratory of Watershed Ecology and Geographical Environment Monitoring, NASG, Nanchang 330209, China

Abstract The protection and management of world heritage has always been a hot topic in academic circles. In recent years, the number of linear heritage has increased significantly, which brings a new challenge to the monitoring and management of heritage sites. From the perspective of administrative division adjustment, and taking Lushan of Jiangxi Province as an example, it may be a feasible attempt to manage linear heritage and similar heritage sites with multiple points of distribution.

Key words Lushan City, Administrative division, Management of world heritage site

1 Introduction

ReplyoftheStateCouncilonAgreeingtotheAdjustmentofSomeAdministrativeDivisionsofJiujiangCitybyJiangxiProvince(Guo Han[2016]No.58) approved Jiangxi Province to set up Lushan City, taking administrative regions of original Xingzi County and Lushan District of Jiujiang City as the new Lushan City. This adjustment is a new adjustment of Jiujiang City and related areas of Lushan since 1980[1], and it is the response of the Lushan Administration to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee’s repeated management warnings. Besides, this adjustment resolves the problem of "one mountain and multiple governance" caused by the separation of administrative divisions, unlocks the shackles of the division of administrative management political regions, wins space for the global tourism development of Lushan, and it will bring a new opportunity for scientific management of Lushan. This also gives new implications to the management of world heritage sites.

2 Management of world heritage sites

2.1 World heritageWorld heritage refers to the properties inscribed on the World Heritage List by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). World heritage is prescribed to be that which possesses "outstanding universal value". According to form and nature, world heritage can be divided into cultural heritage, natural heritage, mixed cultural and natural heritage, memory heritage, intangible cultural heritage, and cultural landscape. World heritage in a broad sense also includes world important agricultural heritage, heritage irrigation structures, world wetland heritage and other heritage forms. In this paper, the world heritage refers to the four categories of world heritage: cultural heritage, natural heritage, mixed cultural and natural heritage, and cultural landscape. By November 15, 2019, the total number of world heritage sites in the world has reached 1 121, of which 869 are cultural heritage, 213 are natural heritage, and 39 belong to mixed natural and cultural heritages (Fig.1, the yellow denotes cultural heritage, and the green denotes natural heritage, "green + yellow" represent mixed natural and cultural heritage, and red denotes an endangered heritage site), of which 55 are in China (37 are cultural heritages (including 1 transnational cultural heritage), 14 are natural heritage, and 4 are mixed cultural and natural heritage sites).

In recent years, there appeared the form of modern and linear heritage, which realizes a breakthrough in the application time of the heritage, and a transnational or cross-regional declaration in space. In 2017, there were 34 global linear heritage sites (including transnational heritage sites), 18 cultural heritages, 14 natural heritages, 2 mixed heritages, involving 59 countries; China had 2 sites, namely the Grand Canal and Silk Roads: the Routes Network of Chang’an-Tianshan Corridor (Table 1). The successful bundled application for similar world heritage projects is also not few. If connecting these scattered points into lines, they can be taken as linear heritage (Table 2).

Fig.1 Map of world heritage sites (Source: UNESCO Website)

Table 1 Overview of world linear heritage (part)

Note: the number of transnational heritage sites increased to 39 in August, 2019.

Table 2 Part of transnational heritage sites in China (2017)

Note: not including heritage sites declared by several regions in the same province.

2.2 Management of world heritage sitesIn terms of the subjects of world heritage management, there are mainly UNESCO, state parties, the Assembly of States Parties, the World Heritage Committee, the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, the World Heritage Center,etc. Beside of these, there are some consulting and cooperating agencies and the corresponding management agencies of each state party. Together they form the management building of the world heritage sites.

For every country, it is different. In Italy, heritage sites were formerly managed by the Ministry of Education. From 1975, they were managed by the Ministry of Culture and Environmental Assets. Now, they are now managed by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities. In Spain, heritage sites are managed by the Ministry of Culture, under which there was established a "Historical Heritage Committee" to comprehensively monitor, consult and plan heritage management work, and establish a World Urban Heritage Award, to encourage individuals or groups to participate in the protection of world heritage. In Canada, the Parks Canada Agency and the Canadian Heritage are established to manage domestic world heritage sites, and some are administered by respective provinces or municipalities. In the United States, heritage areas are managed by state governments, non-profit organizations, or private companies. In Australia, the Department of Environment and Heritage is responsible for management of the country’s world heritage. In France, the Ministry of Culture and the Environment is responsible for the protection of the country’s world heritage[2]. The protection of French cultural heritage has set an example for the world. In the United Kingdom, the Department of National Heritage (Minister of Cabinet) is responsible for the management of the country’s heritage. In South Korea, the management of heritage is the general responsibility of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, coordinated by the Ministry of Culture and Finance, and the municipal, provincial and local governments and the Cultural Finance Committee are responsible for specific divisions of labor[3]. In China, cultural heritage is basically managed by the Ministry of Culture and the State Administration of Cultural Heritage. Natural heritage and mixed natural and cultural heritage are managed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, the Ministry of Land and Resources, the State Environmental Protection Administration, the State Forestry Administration and other departments in the form of scenic spots. Specific to the heritage site, there are management committees at all levels and management units docking with the state. The tangible and intangible heritages shall be declared separately by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Culture. Contributing to the aesthetic, historical, artistic, scientific, and anthropological values of world heritage, tourism development and utilization are inevitable, so the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of China participates in the management of the whole process.

From the above introductions, it can be seen that the management agencies set up in different countries are basically similar, and they all manage the heritage sites according to their national conditions. At present, the number of transnational or linear heritage has risen sharply, thus it has become very urgent to establish relevant departments in China or coordinate and cooperate with international management. This is a new hot spot that the academic community should pay attention to.

3 New issues in the management of world heritage sites

In terms of the research of world heritage management, the use and protection have always been the research theme. The value of the heritage needs to be displayed, the truth, goodness and beauty of people need to be cultivated, the uniqueness of the heritage needs to be continuously protected. How to find a balance between protection and utilization is a problem that is often considered in management. Research themes are often associated with the social background and academic focus of the time. Since 2000, articles on the protection and utilization of world heritage sites have been presented in large numbers, and the research themes have focused on the protection of three types of heritage[4-9], typical case management studies[10], and reference cases[11]. The use of display in protection has received increasing attention[12].

The linear heritage form is a new direction for heritage powers to declare their heritage, and it is a major breakthrough to the Cairns Decision (In 2000, the World Heritage Committee in Cairns, Australia made a decision that has a significant impact on the declaration of World Heritage. The "Cairns Decision" limited the number of new nominations to be examined each year by the Committee. Furthermore, the number of nominations to be submitted by each State Party was limited to one, except for those States Parties that had no properties on the World Heritage List who would have the opportunity to propose two or three nominations). In addition to the same type of bundling and the expansion of existing heritage projects in the process of applying for heritage protection, new situations have emerged in the management of heritage sites, and it is urgent to explore new management methods. According to the 38th, 39th, and 40th World Heritage Convention, the application of linear and transnational heritage has become a trend, and the crisis management of heritage sites needs to be paid attention to, especially those that have been damaged by the influence of extreme organizations or war. Judging from the content of the conferences, the number of world endangered heritage is also increasing, indicating the serious consequences of human excessive use and mismanagement. These problems can be attributed to the management level. The role of administrative divisions is indispensable. If it is indeed difficult to protect heritage sites in a certain region, we can provide humanitarian assistance across regions or directly manage them by entrusting until they get out of the endangered state. After all, world heritage once destroyed, it will be difficult to restore them.

At the 38th session of the World Heritage Committee at the Qatar National Convention Centre in 2014, the Grand Canal and the Silk Road were successfully listed into the world heritage, and the research theme of world heritage management began to change. Scholars have shifted the theme of world heritage site management to linear heritage management across regions. In terms of the research of trans-regional world heritage management, there are mainly Liang Mingzhu’s research on the trans-regional bundled world heritage management mechanism[13], Ma Yaofeng’s China Silk Road world heritage tourism development strategy[14]. Wang Jimei summarized the linear cultural heritage both at home and abroad, mainly focusing on the identification and analysis of the concept of cultural heritage, starting from several stages of the study of European linear cultural heritage, American corridor heritage, and Chinese cultural heritage[15]. It can be found that there are few articles about the management of world heritage sites from administrative divisions, and the perspective of administrative divisions is also a new topic to be explored for the management of linear heritage or trans-regional bundled heritage.

At present, the management of linear cultural heritage, point-type mountain-type heritage, same-type off-site bundled heritage and extended heritage is confronted with some common dilemmas: coordination of administrative divisions. For example, "one mountain and multiple governance" often leads to the excessive development of tourism in heritage sites, results in confusion in the management of various zonings; the management of linear heritages requires coordination across regions or even across borders; for similar or different-site bundled or expanded heritage, the heritage has become scattered points, the management level of each point is uneven, and administrative division generally becomes an obstacle to cooperation and win-win.

Facts have proved that places without management department are easy to form heritage sites. However, after the formation of the heritage, there will be chaos of several management departments. Therefore, it is necessary to straighten out the context of heritage management from the source. In terms of the management of heritage sites, a good vertical management system has been established, ranging from the international level to the village level, but there is a lack of coordinated management at the same level across regions, and there is an over-management phenomenon of vertical management at lower levels. If we come up with management methods from the perspective of administrative divisions, we may achieve more results with less effort.

4 Management of world heritage site from the perspective of administrative division

Administrative division management system varies greatly from country to country, and it is a regional control method that adjusts rapidly over time. The formation of world heritage sites is often formed many years ago and is not subject to administrative restrictions. The current administrative division management system is becoming more and more perfect, the principle of territorial management of heritage sites is inevitable, and the premise of its management cannot be achieved without division adjustment or coordination. From the perspective of administrative divisions, we can proceed from the following aspects.

In the first place, for transnational linear heritage, it is necessary to establish a supranational coordination regional coordination organization. Since it is a transnational heritage, it shows that these countries have a tradition of friendly exchanges in history. At present, the regaining of the memory of friendship brings new opportunities to the actual exchange of the countries involved in the heritage. Of course, there are exceptions. For example, the dispute over the Preah Vihear Temple, a heritage site between Thailand and Cambodia, has now been mediated; however, such examples are few. The approval of a transnational linear world heritage site is also an advocacy that every one should be responsible for management of world heritage. At the operational level of division management, apart from the level communication and communication at the national level, the provincial level can form a friendly province, and the city level can form a friendly city. The bond between them is the cooperation for declaration of world heritage site. This bond can also be extended to other aspects of cultural exchanges and cooperation, and achieve common prosperity of cultural undertakings.

In the second place, for world heritage sites with increased trans-regional bundled applications or later expansion, coordination between regions is also necessary. As the saying goes, homogeneity is the enemy, and as a world heritage site of the same type, there must be no vicious competition in the narrow sense. The original intention of the declaration was joint bundling or later expansion. The later collaboration is also very important. It cannot be isolated and be independent. Of course, due to the different environments of the same type of heritage sites, regional differences may occur in management, but a common goal requires the emergence of a trans-regional management coordination organization that respects local characteristics of each region and respects the common heritage of the same kind, so as to form a cooperative management model that neither engages in vicious competition nor falls behind.

In the third place, for mountain-type world heritage sites, a single administrative division may be effective or better. In general sense, mountain-type heritage sites are often concentrated areas of multi-level administrative divisions, such as the Alps and the Himalayas. They involve many countries and require multiple management. China is the world’s second largest heritage site, and there are also many such heritage sites, such as Lushan (Mount Lu), Wuyi Mountains. All of these face the problem of one mountain with several governances. In 2019, Lushan was approved to become a city, which sets a good start for breaking the management problem, and it is worth for management reference of other mountain type heritage sites. This is a breakthrough in the management of heritage sites, and the adjustment of administrative divisions is indispensable.

In summary, the management of world heritage sites involves the coordination of points, lines, and regions. The adjustment of administrative divisions can temporarily resolve this multi-level management problem, and the cost is low and the effect is evident. From the practice of the past 3 years, the management efficiency of the world heritage site Lushan National Park has been greatly improved than before. Heritage sites belong to all mankind, but the effective management of heritage sites should be attributed to independent and complete local administrative regions.