heritage tourism: at what price?

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 10 October 2014, At: 06:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Managing LeisurePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmle20

Heritage tourism: at what price?Alan Fyall & Brian GarrodPublished online: 02 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Alan Fyall & Brian Garrod (1998) Heritage tourism: at what price?, ManagingLeisure, 3:4, 213-228, DOI: 10.1080/136067198375996

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136067198375996

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmle20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/136067198375996

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136067198375996

& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Heritage tourism: at what price?Alan Fyall*

Napier University, Edinburgh

Brian GarrodUniversity of the West of England, Bristol

Heritage and sustainability share a common theme of inheritance. Heritage tourism is, as aneconomic activity, predicated on the use of inherited environmental and socio-cultural assets inorder to attract visitors. Sustainability requires that those assets are carefully managed to ensure thatfuture generations inherit a resource base that is suf�cient to support their needs and wants. Thepurpose of this paper is to consider how sustainability principles might best be applied in the contextof heritage tourism, with particular reference to the management of historic properties and gardens.In doing so, the paper considers the �ndings of a postal survey in the UK of owners of historicproperties, heritage consultants, visitor attraction managers and heritage industry representatives.The survey results suggest that while overcrowding, wear and tear, pilfering, graf�ti and traf�cproblems were all signi�cant and widespread causes for concern, the principal dilemma for heritageattractions is how to satisfy visitors’ expectations, and manage their impact, without compromisingthe authenticity of the visitor experience itself. The results also highlight the predominance ofrevenue targeting as the major determinant of admission pricing decisions. Little evidence wasfound to suggest that admission prices are being used either as a device for achieving moresustainable levels of visitor demand or as a means of generating the funds required for themaintenance and conservation of the heritage assets being employed. This �nding is very worryingin view of the very serious impacts that excessive visitor numbers evidently have on many heritageproperties.

INTRODUCTION

The general principles of sustainability havebeen debated at enormous length in recentyears (Pearce et al., 1991; Pearce, 1993;Dobson, 1996). Indeed there is now a growingsuspicion among academics that the prin-ciples of sustainability have been debated sothoroughly that the potential for achievingsigni�cant new insights has already beenexhausted. Academics are now beginning torealize that for the sustainability debate toprogress much further, the focus of attentionmust be shifted away from debating what

sustainability means in principle and to-wards the rather more thorny issue of deter-mining how it might best be achieved inpractice.

The general paucity of studies focusing onthe application of sustainability principles isparticularly evident in the case of heritagetourism. While the issue of sustainability hasfor a long time been recognized as relevant tothe heritage sector (Millar, 1991; EnglishTourist Board, 1991), academic research hastended to concentrate mainly on the culturaland educational aspects of heritage tourism.Few studies have attempted to examine how

*Address for correspondence: Alan Fyall, Napier Business School, Napier University, South Craig, CraighouseCampus, Craighouse Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5LG. Tel. 0131-455-5043. Fax. 0131-455-5046. E-mail:[email protected].

Managing Leisure 3, 213–228 (1998)

1360-6719 © 1998 E & FN Spon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

the concept of sustainability might best beapplied in the practical context of heritagetourism. In view of the observation thattravel and tourism is now widely regarded tobe the world’s largest industry (Bruce, 1997),and that heritage tourism is said to be one ofthe UK tourism industry’s most vigoroussectors (Prentice, 1993), it might be arguedthat this is a serious omission. Sustainabilityin the travel and tourism industry is arguablythe sine qua non of sustainability at themacroeconomic level.

The apparent slowness of the sustain-ability imperative to permeate the practice ofheritage tourism is also particularly vexing inthat heritage and sustainability evidentlyshare a common theme of inheritance.Whereas heritage tourism fundamentally re-lies on the use of inherited economic andsocio-cultural assets in order to attract visi-tors (Millar, 1991), sustainability requires thecareful management of those assets to en-sure that future generations inherit the po-tential to satisfy their own needs and wants.Moreover, the concept of sustainable devel-opment acknowledges that these inheritedassets may either be enhanced or, morelikely, depleted as they are used to generateeconomic well-being for the present genera-tion. This in turn may compromise the abilityof future generations to generate their owneconomic well-being. Sustainability in thecontext of heritage tourism therefore re-quires that each generation passes on to thenext a heritage asset base of at least equiva-lent size and quality as they themselvesinherited from their forebears.

Environmental economists have formal-ized this principle into what has becomeknown as the ‘constant capital rule’ (Pearceet al., 1989). Each generation is charged witha duty to ‘look after’ the one that is to comeby ensuring that they inherit at least thesame capacity to generate economic well-being as the current generation presentlyenjoys. Because this capacity depends in nosmall part on the availability of serviceable

natural, human-made and socio-cultural as-sets, the present generation must protectsuch assets from excessive damage andoveruse, so that future generations mayclaim their rightful inheritance of those as-sets at some later point in time. The majorimplication of the sustainability imperativefor heritage tourism is that if the contem-porary use of heritage assets results in thedepletion or degradation of such resources,then they clearly cannot be passed on tofuture generations. People will become disen-franchised from the past, unable to bene�tfrom their rightful heritage because it haseffectively been appropriated by previousgenerations.

The important question that arises fromthe above is how should today’s heritagetourism activities be managed to ensure thatthey are as sustainable as possible? Oneapproach that is currently gaining somecurrency among academics and policymakers relates to the use of elevated admis-sion prices. While this approach evidentlyposes a number of moral and political dif�-culties, this paper argues that it may wellrepresent the only cogent and workablestrategy for preventing the disenfranchise-ment of future generations from their ownheritage.

With regard to the paper as a whole, theprincipal aims are to: (i) apply the sustain-ability concept to the context of heritagetourism; (ii) consider the key factors in�u-encing admission prices and the manage-ment of visitor impact across a range ofheritage attractions; and (iii) explore thepotential for pricing as a mechanism throughwhich a more sustainable heritage tourismmight be achieved.

In pursuing these aims, the paper con-siders the �ndings of a postal survey ofheritage industry representatives, owners ofhistoric properties, heritage managementconsultants and heritage attraction man-agers.1 Questionnaires were sent to nearlythree hundred individuals in the UK during

214 Fyall and Garrod

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

the summer of 1997. A response rate of 28%was achieved after a telephone reminder.

In analysing the research �ndings, a seriesof cross-tabulations and chi-squared testswere conducted. In some cases the small cellsizes produced a number of cells with anexpected frequency of less than 5. In theseinstances, even though a relationship maystill exist between the variables, it has notbeen possible to draw any robust conclu-sions about the nature of that relationship.With 2 3 2 tables the ‘continuity correction’formula was used as the basis for analysisand interpretation. In addition, where N wasless than 20 in a 2 3 2 table the Fisher exacttest was used, as recommended by Foster(1993).

PRICING AND SUSTAINABILITY

The tension between pricing and sustain-ability in the heritage tourism sector isvividly illustrated by the recent decision bythe UK government not to set in place the�nancial package that many museums andgalleries across the country had hopedwould enable them to remove their entrycharges and return to a ‘free for all’ admis-sions policy. Contrary to widespread mediaspeculation, the spring 1998 Budget releasedonly ‘stop gap’ funding for a select group ofnational museums and galleries to enablethem to continue to offer free admission. TheBudget made no additional funds available tothose national museums and galleries al-ready charging for access; nor was there anyindication to suggest that a policy of ‘freeadmission for all’ could ever return. Nospecial provision was made for provincialmuseums and galleries; nor for those locatedin rural areas. The major implication is toreaf�rm the central importance of self-funding in determining the sustainability, orotherwise, of the museums sector.

Unlike some of the national museums thathoped to bene�t from the spring 1998Budget, many historic properties have a

considerable track record of charging foradmission. Yet in spite of this, historic prop-erties continue to form the mainstay of one ofBritain’s most vibrant economic sectors. Inthe UK, around 40% of the population visit atleast one historic house each year during thepeak holiday period of July to September(Berry, 1994). England alone has over 2000historic buildings that are regularly open tothe public, together attracting something inexcess of 70 million visits per year. Combinedwith estimates of a further 100 million visitsper year to other fee-charging heritage attrac-tions, the heritage sector is undoubtedly avital component of UK tourism (Markwell etal., 1997). Even so, there are a number ofreasons to anticipate more dif�cult timesahead for the heritage sector. Not only doesthe recent Budget decision augur badly forthe museums and galleries sector in partic-ular, but the wider heritage sector is alsofacing the prospect of decreasing govern-ment subsidy, increasing competition bothfrom within and outside of the heritagesector, and a continually increasing demandfor higher standards and more services fromtheir visitors. All of this makes for a muchmore dif�cult trading environment for theheritage tourism sector in the late 1990s.

In sharp contrast to the heightened com-mercial pressures currently being experi-enced in the heritage sector, historicproperties have traditionally tended to adopt‘token’ admission prices, i.e. charges in-tended mainly as a means of covering theadditional costs of opening the property tothe public and to help keep track of visitornumbers. Those properties that have notactually charged for admission have tendedto rely instead on honesty boxes or voluntarydonations as a means of raising revenue fromthe visiting public. As a result, many historicproperties are simply not in a position tocover the full cost of the repair and conserva-tion work that is now required to ensure thelong-term sustainability of their assets. In-deed, for some time experts have recognized

Heritage Tourism: At What Price? 215

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

the existence of a large and growing backlogof urgent conservation work in the heritagesector (English Tourist Board, 1991). Re-cently, English Heritage has published a newregister of 1500 Grade I and II* propertiesconsidered to be ‘at risk’ and in urgent needof repair (Binney, 1998). One of the majorreasons why this ominous backlog hasemerged is that historic properties are liableto physical damage from two distinctsources. First, historic properties are subjectto the decay that all buildings inevitablyexperience with the march of time. Second,this rate of decay is often accelerated be-cause the property is open to the public andtherefore subject to various forms of visitorimpact. Most historic properties are simplynot designed to accommodate hundreds orthousands of visitors each year, having origi-nally been constructed either as familyhomes or working buildings.

Consequently, maintenance and conserva-tion costs have outpaced income generationat many heritage attractions. Reluctant tocharge anything more than token admissionprices, some historic property managershave tried to plug the funding gap by promot-ing their properties more energetically in thehope of increasing their turnover of visitors.In this way the de�cit could be made upeither in additional admission revenues orthrough secondary sources of spending suchas the tea room or gift shop, which dependcritically on visitor numbers. In many cases,however, this response has proven counter-productive, with the volume of visitors risingto exceed the physical carrying capacity ofthe property, resulting in even more damageand accelerated decay.

What is perhaps surprising in this contextis that the heritage sector has long recog-nized a close relationship between pricingand sustainability. For example, many herit-age sites are owned and managed by organiz-ations with trust status. This status carrieswith it certain obligations, including therequirement to allow public access to the site

as well as to conserve the site for the bene�tof posterity. More than a century ago, thefounding members of the National Trustdeclared that the Trust should ‘promote thepermanent preservation for the bene�t of thenation, of lands and tenements of beauty orhistoric interest’ and, in doing so, ‘makecharges (of such moderate amount as may, inthe judgement of the Trust, be necessary forthe due preservation and maintenance of theproperty of the Trust) for admission to anyland or building of the Trust’ (Memorandumof Association, quoted in Cope, 1995). Thisstatement highlights the pivotal role playedby prices in determining the sustainability ofthe heritage assets held by the Trust. Inincorporating this statement into their Mem-orandum of Association, the National Trustclearly acknowledges the role of admissionprices in generating the revenues needed forthe adequate conservation and maintenanceof the assets they hold in trust for the nation.The important question, therefore, is how‘moderate’ can heritage attractions afford tomake their charges, given the role admissioncharges have to ful�l in securing the preser-vation of the heritage assets with which theyare associated.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

The role of admission prices in the manage-ment of heritage attractions becomes all themore signi�cant when it is recognized thatmany heritage sites are experiencing highlevels of stress from an ever growing through-put of visitors. This is borne out in the surveyresults, as shown in Table 1, which show thatamong the respondents almost all reportedsome degree of overcrowding, various formsof wear and tear, pilfering, graf�ti and traf�ccongestion. While these impacts are seriousin themselves, the survey results suggestedthat many heritage attractions also face aneven more intractable problem, which is howto accommodate their visitors, meet theirneeds and manage their impacts, without


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

compromising the fundamental authenticityof the heritage experience itself. As visitornumbers grow, the use of ropes, railings andperspex screens, and the installation oframps, toilet blocks and car parks, all be-come increasingly necessary. Moreover, asvisitor expectations become more demand-ing, heritage attractions come under increas-ing pressure to ‘update’ their interpretation,introducing audio-visual displays, computersand ‘hands-on’ exhibits. The fear is that thismay compromise the authenticity of the verythings that the visitors have come to see.Many academics have raised the concernthat this situation is simply unsustainable.Ashworth (1997) goes further to argue thatheritage tourism inevitably serves to dilutewhat is signi�cant about the past and todistort its authenticity. By selecting elementsof the past and transforming them into a

‘heritage product’ that can easily be con-sumed by the mass market, today’s heritagetourism is gradually disinheriting future gen-erations from their own past.

As can be seen in Table 2, the impact thatis most strongly associated with visitor num-bers is overcrowding. Whether for the wholeof the heritage site or merely part of it, thoseattractions with a greater volume of visitorsare more likely to experience problems ofovercrowding than those attractions withlower visitor numbers. This brings into ques-tion the adequacy of visitor managementprovision at the more heavily visited attrac-tions. A similar story emerges in the case oftraf�c congestion, where those sites attract-ing higher visitor numbers tend to haveinsuf�cient parking capacity to accommo-date the volume of cars and coaches theygenerate. Traf�c congestion and car parking

Table 1 Environmental concerns

Notimportant

(%)

Quiteimportant

(%)

Veryimportant

(%)

Extremelyimportant

(%)

Occasional overcrowding Whole site 22 36 14 19Parts of site 15 14 32 30

Persistent overcrowding Whole site 31 13 17 30Parts of site 30 9 12 36

Wear and tear due to: Trampling 6 22 27 39Handling 26 9 17 35Humidity 18 15 22 32Temperature 21 19 18 27Pilfering 27 13 12 35Graf�ti 32 19 6 26

Occasional traf�c congestion On-site 23 35 22 10In locality 24 36 14 12

Persistent traf�c congestion On-site 37 12 10 24In locality 36 14 14 23

Other traf�c-related problems 3 17 9 8Visitors’ behaviour towardslocals

15 26 33 13

Locals’ behaviour towardsvisitors

14 24 36 15

Visitor managementcompromising authenticity

3 8 37 45

Percentages exclude ‘don’t know’ and ‘no response’ responses.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

are evidently a particular problem for attrac-tions making relatively low admissioncharges. The survey results suggest thatneighbourhoods in close proximity to his-toric houses and gardens charging less than

£3.50 for admission are more likely to experi-ence traf�c-related problems than those nearto sites charging over £3.50 for admission(Tables 2 and 3). Possibly this can be ex-plained by a lack of on-site car parking at the

Table 2 Relationship between visitor numbers and environmental impacts (low admission price band< £3.50)

Environmental impacts Chi-squared DoF Signi�cance

Occasional overcrowding: whole site 8.23 1 0.004*Occasional overcrowding: parts of site 2.24 1 0.134**Persistent overcrowding: whole site 2.24 1 0.134**Persistent overcrowding: parts of site 1.89 1 0.169Wear and tear: trampling 0.44 1 0.508Wear and tear: handling 0.06 1 0.813Wear and tear: pilfering 0.53 1 0.465Occasional traf�c congestion: on-site 0.43 1 0.510Occasional traf�c congestion: in locality 0.00 1 1.000Persistent traf�c congestion: on-site 0.12 1 0.725Persistent traf�c congestion: in locality 0.00 1 1.000Other traf�c related problems 0.17 1 0.676Visitors’ behaviour towards locals 0.19 1 0.666Locals’ behaviour towards visitors 0.57 1 0.450Visitor management compromising authenticity 0.23 1 0.629

* Signi�cant at the 99% level.** Signi�cant at the 85% level.

Table 3 Relationship between visitor numbers and environmental impacts (high admission price band> £3.51)

Environmental impacts Chi-squared DoF Signi�cance

Occasional overcrowding: whole site 0.04 1 0.844Occasional overcrowding: parts of site 0.00 1 1.000Persistent overcrowding: whole site 0.00 1 1.000Persistent overcrowding: parts of site 0.48 1 0.488Wear and tear: trampling 2.23 1 0.128**Wear and tear: handling 0.00 1 1.000Wear and tear: pilfering 0.00 1 1.000Wear and tear: graf�ti 0.10 1 0.750Occasional traf�c congestion: on-site 1.22 1 0.269Occasional traf�c congestion: in locality 0.00 1 1.000Persistent traf�c congestion: on-site 0.11 1 0.735Persistent traf�c congestion: in locality 0.14 1 0.712Other traf�c related problems 0.69 1 0.406Visitors’ behaviour towards locals 2.53 1 0.111**Locals’ behaviour towards visitors 0.68 1 0.409Visitor management compromising authenticity 0.00 1 1.000

** Signi�cant at the 85% level.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

sites with lower admission charges, the re-sulting revenues being insuf�cient to fundthe provision of adequate on-site parking,thereby creating an unsustainable attractionenvironment.

One particularly interesting �nding fromthe survey is the extent to which the varietyof respondents to the questionnaire displaydifferent degrees of concern over the impactof visitors at historic houses and gardens:see Table 4. Property managers and curatorsare more likely to identify visitor impact as acause for concern than general adminis-trators, marketing managers and regional

managers. This highlights the issue of man-agement proximity to the problem. If prop-erty managers and curators tend to spendmore time on-site then perhaps it is notsurprising that they have an increased tend-ency to observe the negative impacts visitorscan have on the site and its locality.

The �ndings presented in Tables 2 and 3also suggest that irrespective of the numberof visitors and the admission prices beingcharged, almost all of the historic houses andgarden attractions contacted in the surveyseem to be experiencing a very similar rangeof negative visitor impacts. The implication is

Table 4 Cross-tabulation: respondent type by expressed degree of concern over visitor impact (very/extremely important)

PropertyManager

ManagingDirector

Curator/House

Manager

Administrator Marketing/RegionalManager

(n = 29) (n = 4) (n = 29) (n = 7) (n = 8)

Occasionalovercrowding

Whole site 11 0 11 3 0Parts of site 23 1 16 2 5

Persistentovercrowding

Whole site 16 4 10 4 1Parts of site 16 3 12 4 1

Wear and tear due to: Trampling 23 1 18 4 5Handling 19 1 11 5 3Humidity 22 2 12 4 1Temperature 17 1 11 4 1Pilfering 18 2 11 4 0Graf�ti 11 1 8 2 1

Occasional traf�ccongestion

On-site 12 1 9 3 0In locality 5 2 11 1 0

Persistent traf�ccongestion

On-site 13 2 7 4 1In locality 13 1 9 4 0

Other traf�c relatedproblems

8 1 9 2 0

Visitors’ behaviourtowards locals

12 3 14 1 5

Locals’ behaviourtowards visitors

15 3 13 2 6

Visitor managementcompromisingauthenticity

27 1 21 6 7


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

that these impacts are probably related tofactors common to the heritage sector as awhole, rather than the speci�c circumstan-ces of individual heritage attractions. If this isthe case, then responses to the sustainabilityimperative are best considered at the sec-toral level, rather than at the level of in-dividual heritage properties.

PRICING FOR SUSTAINABILITY

The foregoing discussion would tend tosuggest that a more ‘commercial’ approachto operating tourism attractions is required.However, it is important to recognize thatcharging the ‘market rate’ for access to aheritage asset will not ensure that a sustain-able balance between contemporary andfuture use is achieved. The reason is that thefree market considers only the market costsand bene�ts associated with the use of aheritage asset; the non-market costs andbene�ts are essentially ignored (Johnson andThomas, 1995; Fyall and Garrod, 1996). Theimplication is that the free market tends toundervalue heritage assets. Three major con-sequences follow: (i) admission prices are settoo low, which usually implies that theheritage assets concerned become overusedand damaged; (ii) �nancial analysis does notascribe to heritage assets their true value, soit is generally more dif�cult to justify spend-ing money on the management measuresrequired to protect those assets from beingdamaged by visitors; and (iii) because theheritage assets employed by the attractionare undervalued there tends to be too littleinvestment in the conservation work re-quired to safeguard them for the bene�t offuture generations. This cannot be said torepresent a sustainable approach to the useof the heritage assets concerned. The corol-lary is that in order to bring about a moresustainable heritage tourism, market pricesshould be modi�ed so that users, i.e. visitors,are confronted with the full costs and bene-�ts associated with the heritage assets that

are being employed. This is sometimes calledthe ‘user pays principle’ and has been dis-cussed in the wider context of tourism by, forexample, Forsyth et al. (1995).

Indeed, there is now a body of opinion that‘getting prices right’ is a crucial preconditionfor sustainable tourism development (see,for example, Smeral, 1996; Sinclair andStabler, 1997). Admission prices based ononly a partial view of the costs and bene�ts ofoperating a tourist attraction are bound tosend misleading signals both to managersand visitors. Clearly this is true of tokenadmission prices (because they are intendedmainly as a means of recovering the addi-tional operating costs of opening the prop-erty to the public) but it is also true of pricesset according to a commercial view of whatthe market will bear (because they do notnecessarily re�ect the non-market costs andbene�ts involved).

While there has been little work done onthe role of prices in promoting sustainabilityin the speci�c context of heritage tourism,several writers have considered the roleof pricing in the sustainable developmentof nature-based tourism. Laarman andGregersen (1996), for example, assert that‘pricing is a potentially powerful tool to movetowards greater ef�ciency, fairness and en-vironmentally sustainable management’.They go on to argue that charging some kindof ‘user fee’ for the use of natural assets canhave a number of bene�cial environmentaleffects.

(i) User fees can be used to raise therevenue required for the effectiveprotection and conservation of thesite. If the use of the site as a touristattraction tends to damage it, then itis only right and proper that thoseresponsible for the damage shouldpay for its prevention or repair.

(ii) User fees can be employed as a toolto manage the overcrowding of thesite at certain times of the day, week


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

or year. Overcrowding can reducethe quality of the visitor experience;it can also add to the risk of damageto the assets being employed. Byraising admission charges during theperiods of heavy demand, and low-ering them during periods of lowdemand, an uneven pattern of de-mand may be smoothed out.

(iii) If user fees are high enough they canbe used to discourage visitors to asite. While this might have the effectof preventing lower-income groupsfrom visiting the attraction, this maybe preferable to closing the sitealtogether.

(iv) Levying user fees may enable theoperator to educate its visitors. Thismay be desirable for the site if it is towin the continued patronage and�nancial support of its visitors. Notonly does the charging of fees gen-erate funds for education pro-grammes, it also provides a point ofcontact between the visitor andoperator at which the informationexchange can take place.

(v) In the same way, levying user feesmay help to educate public author-ities about the importance of thesite. The charging of admission feesusually involves undertaking someform of market research, developinga �nancial plan and collecting in-formation about visitor levels. All ofthis can raise the pro�le of the site asit competes with other sites forpublic funds.

Further arguments in support of levyingsome form of elevated user fee in the speci�ccase of heritage attractions include:

(vi) Additional revenues will help theheritage attraction to improve thequality of their site, its standard ofinterpretation and its ancillary facili-ties. Recent studies (Leask and

Goulding, 1996) suggest that visitorsto historic properties are becomingmore demanding in all three of theserespects. It is widely recognized thatif heritage attractions are to satisfythe requirements of an increasinglydiscriminating visiting public, theywill have to take the quality andservice aspects of their productmuch more seriously.

(vii) Charging brings with it greater publicaccountability on the part of theheritage manager (Thomas, 1998).The observed tendency is for ‘free’heritage attractions to be less re-sponsive to the needs and wishes ofthe visiting public than those charg-ing a fee for admission.

(viii) Many heritage site managers report areduction in damaging and disagree-able visitor behaviour when a chargeis made. While the underlying rea-sons for the difference in behaviourare still unclear, some commentatorshave argued that charging for admis-sions sends visitors a clear signalabout the signi�cance and worth ofthe property or site they are visiting,encouraging them to be more re-spectful of it (Ives, 1998).

(ix) Charges may also be required insupport of applications for fundsfrom the Heritage Lottery Fund. By1996, lottery funding had alreadyprovided some £215m for new build-ing, £52m for refurbishment andequipment, and £28m for acquisi-tions (Selwood, 1998). Lord Roths-child commented that moniesalready awarded to museum projectshave made a real and unparalleledimpact on the sector (Gilling, 1998).

In principle, therefore, charging elevated feesfor the use of an environmental asset canhelp to prevent it from becoming damagedand over-used by the present generation. It


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

can also provide the funds required for themanagement and conservation work that isneeded to ensure that the heritage asset isprotected for the bene�t of future genera-tions. However, it must be recognized thereare a number of arguments against theimplementation of admission charges forheritage attractions. These include:

(i) Studies tend to suggest that thedemand for visits to heritage attrac-tions is generally price inelastic (see,for example, Robinson, 1994). Thereare many possible reasons why thismay be so, including the tendencyfor heritage attractions to chargetoken (or at least highly subsidized)admission charges, coupled with thegeneral bias towards middle class,middle income groups in the visitorpro�le of most heritage attractions(Prentice, 1993). If this is true, thenraising admission prices will havelittle impact on visitor demand andwill not serve to reduce the pressureof visitor numbers on the site, asproponents of charging an elevateduser fee tend to suggest.

(ii) Opponents of charging elevated ad-mission prices often point out thatthe nation’s heritage should not bethe exclusive preserve of the middleclasses and that heritage attractionshave an implicit responsibility to thelower income members of society,who have often been served ratherpoorly by heritage attractions in thepast. Raising admission prices will,however, prevent lower incomegroups from visiting the attractionand serve only to disenfranchise thepublic from their own heritage.

(iii) Allied to this is the more generalobjection that charges should not belevied for access to public land orpublic buildings. Heritage attrac-tions simply do not have the right to

prevent the public from visiting theirheritage assets, and charging any-thing more than a token admissionsfee will inevitably have that effect.

(iv) There is also the view that chargesare morally repugnant because com-mercial decisions often run contraryto the cultural and educational mis-sion of the site. Newby (1994), forexample, argues that the commodi�-cation of heritage often results in thedomination of economic values overcultural values. This, in turn, impartsa bias into the conservation fundingprocess, whereby those assets with acommercial value as heritage tour-ism resources are favoured overthose which do not, and the centralconservation principle of uniformityof concern is effectively aban-doned.

(v) Charges act as a disincentive toimpulse, casual and repeat visits.While the demand for heritage visitsmay be price inelastic in general,most heritage attractions also rely tosome extent on impulse, casual andrepeat visitors, who tend to be muchmore sensitive to admission prices.Charging an elevated admission feemay have a substantial impact on thenumber of visits by these groups.This effect is particularly noticeablewhen previously ‘free’ attractionsbegin levying an admission charge.Robinson (1994), for example, re-ports that the Science Museum inLondon experienced almost a 60%fall in numbers when it began charg-ing for admission in 1989.

(vi) Heritage attraction managers oftenexpress the fear that secondaryspending will decline as a result of elevated admission charges beingintroduced, either because there arefewer visitors coming onto the site orbecause visitors on limited budgets


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

are forced to economize on theirsecondary spending if they arecharged for admission. The samecould be true of voluntary donations.Indeed, non-charging museums fre-quently report higher levels of visi-tor donations than those which makea charge for admission.

(viii) There is also the objection thatcharges reduce spending elsewherein the local economy, either at othernearby tourist attractions or in localshopping areas. If the heritage attrac-tion has relatively low income andemployment multipliers, then thismay have serious implications forthe rest of the local economy.

These arguments amount to a staunch oppo-sition to the concept of using elevated userfees in the context of managing heritageassets. However, there is now a growingrecognition that for many attractions, theidea of raising admission charges is subjectto more resistance from the heritage estab-lishment than from the visiting public. Re-cent research undertaken on behalf of theMuseum and Galleries Commission (MGC)concluded that not only was there littleobjective evidence to support claims ofincreasing or decreasing visitor numbers as aresult of charging for admission to museums,but only 4% of respondents attributed priceas the principal factor in deciding whether tovisit a museum. This suggests that the publicare generally more comfortable with charg-ing for admission to heritage attractions thanthose responsible for managing them ontheir behalf.

According to Rogers (1995) there are manyreasons why tourist attraction managersare generally reticent to raise additionalrevenues by charging increased admissionfees. These include a widespread lack ofexperience in using price as a competitive

variable, a general lack of price-related train-ing among heritage managers, a preoccupa-tion with visitor numbers as a measure ofperformance and a fear of the attractionsbeing labelled as ‘expensive’. These factorsall serve as barriers to the effective use ofprice as a management tool in the heritagesector. Furthermore, the lack of a soundresearch base to inform the pricing debatewill inevitably mean that those responsiblefor setting prices will face considerable dif�-culty in identifying best practice when tryingto assess pricing decisions in an objectivemanner. With reference to the built heritagesector, Markwell et al. (1997) comment thatgaining access to quality information aboutmarket trends, management techniques andcomparative operational data is laden withdif�culty. With there being so few ‘pricesetters’, the majority of the built heritagesector is forced to adopt the current pricestructure and determine their prices accord-ingly. This militates against alternativepricing options such as price-banding,streamlined market pricing, joint entry tick-ets, group discounts, voucher incentiveschemes, educational discounts and manu-facturer-sponsored price promotions, toname but a few, being used to their fullpotential in the search for a ‘sustainable’pricing policy in the heritage sector.

FACTORS UNDERPINNING THE PRICINGDECISION

The foregoing discussion raises the questionof the extent to which historic properties areactually setting their admission prices ac-cording to sustainability principles. In orderto investigate this issue further, the postalquestionnaire asked respondents to describehow their admission charges are determinedand to rate the importance of various con-siderations in setting their current admissionprices.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

The main results are shown in Table 5.What is particularly interesting about theseresults is that in spite of the immenseproblems that large visitor numbers evi-dently cause at many heritage sites, admis-sion prices are not generally being used as avehicle for managing visitor demand. What ismore there is little evidence of any pressureto keep prices low in order to maximize thevolume of admissions; nor indeed do herit-age attraction managers seem to considerthemselves to be under any strong moralobligation to keep their admission charges aslow as possible in order to avoid excludinglower income visitors.

Nevertheless, the survey results dodemonstrate a strong relationship betweenthe level of admission charges and the extentto which the heritage attraction manager is

prepared to charge what the market will bear.Those historic houses and gardens settingadmission prices below the average (ofaround £3.30 per adult) were less prepared tocharge what the market will bear than thosesites charging above average admissionprices. The implication is that token pricingis still proli�c in the heritage sector. However,the survey does provide a clear indicationthat the prevailing philosophy of token pric-ing is slowly giving way to a new era ofcommercial awareness and revenue target-ing. Indeed the statements accorded thehighest importance in this part of the surveywere: (i) ‘Our prices are set so as to achieverevenue targets’; (ii) ‘We try to maximize ourend-of-year revenues’; and (iii) ‘We charge asmuch as we feel the market will bear’.

Table 5 Admission price criteria

Notimportant

(%)

Quiteimportant

(%)

Veryimportant

(%)

Extremelyimportant

(%)

We need to keep our prices in line withthose of our competitors.

14 45 22 12

We charge as much as we feel the marketwill bear.

17 31 33 10

We have to keep our prices as low aspossible in order to maximize our volumeof admissions.

53 32 6 3

We have to keep our prices high in order tomake enough money to fund ourconservation programmes.

18 39 26 12

We have a moral obligation to keep ourprices as low as possible so that no one isexcluded from visiting.

33 37 15 10

We try to set our prices so as to maximizeour end-of-year surplus/pro�ts.

24 28 26 6

We try to maximize our end-of-yearrevenues.

13 30 34 10

Our prices are set in order to achieverevenue targets.

18 24 33 15

We have to keep our prices high in order tokeep visitor numbers down to reasonablelevels.

67 19 4 3

Percentages exclude ‘don’t know’ and ‘no response’ responses.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

The survey results also suggest that thelack of moral obligation to keep price low ismore of an issue for smaller attractions,which are de�ned for the purposes of thisstudy as those with fewer than 20 000 payingvisitors per annum. Arguably, part of theexplanation for this �nding is that main-tenance and operating costs tend to beproportionally higher for smaller propertiesas opposed to larger ones (Berry, 1994). Formany smaller heritage properties, therefore,charging is the only realistic means of re-maining solvent in the context of risingmaintenance costs and visitor expectations.In contrast, those attractions with over20 000 paying visitors are far more likely to

moderate their admission charges in order tomaintain a ‘low price, high volume’ pricingstrategy, irrespective of the potential ‘unsus-tainable’ consequences this might have.

The survey results are indicative of grow-ing levels of commercial awareness through-out the heritage sector: see Table 6. This newcommercial awareness and revenue orienta-tion is illustrated by the increasingly im-portant role played by �nancial andmarketing managers in price setting, as op-posed to operations managers, propertyowners and outside consultants. As Berry(1994) points out, potential �nancial spon-sors of historic buildings now expect to seecash �ow forecasts, revenue targets and

Table 6 Cross-tabulation: respondent type by pricing rationale (very/extremely important)

PropertyManager

ManagingDirector

Curator/House

Manager

Administrator Marketing/RegionalManager

(n = 29) (n = 4) (n = 29) (n = 7) (n = 8)

We need to keep our prices in linewith those of our competitors.

12 1 8 3 1

We charge as much as we feel themarket will bear.

14 2 10 2 7

We have to keep our prices as lowas possible in order to maximizeour volume of admissions.

4 1 5 0 0

We have to keep our prices high inorder to make enough money tofund our conservationprogrammes.

13 0 10 2 1

We have a moral obligation tokeep our prices as low as possibleso that no one is excluded fromvisiting.

6 1 11 1 1

We try to set our prices so as tomaximize our end-of-year surplus/pro�ts.

14 1 5 3 1

We try to maximize our end-of-yearrevenues.

16 1 9 2 6

Our prices are set in order toachieve revenue targets.

18 1 9 3 7

We have to keep our prices high inorder to keep visitor numbersdown to reasonable levels.

1 0 5 0 0


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

other performance benchmarks as a manage-ment norm before committing themselves tolending their support. The increasing role of�nancial and marketing professionals in pricesetting is worthy of further scrutiny since thesurvey results suggest that �nancial andmarketing managers are less likely to pro-pose charging the market rate when actingindividually than when part of a joint-decision panel. In turn, �nancial managersand joint-decision panels are more likely toaim for the maximization of end-of-yearrevenues and achieve revenue targets thanmarketing managers.

Perhaps the most worrying �nding of all isthat whoever is involved in setting prices, atwhatever level, only limited use tends to bemade of visitor surveys, wider market re-search and outside consultants. This con-servative use of management information isparticularly noticeable at those heritage at-tractions where the regional manager playsthe major role in setting prices. The use of a‘top down’ approach, utilizing little mean-ingful market research, tends to suggest thatexploratory approaches to price-setting arestill prevalent in the heritage sector (Pavord,1995). Arguably, this tendency is due to thelack of time, money and expertise availableto those making the decisions and is indica-tive of heritage properties starting to ‘feeltheir way’ in the new charging era. Onthe other hand it might be argued that theregional manager’s in-depth knowledge ofthe heritage market reduces the need foradditional market research in setting admis-sion charges.

While a more ‘commercial’ attitude to-wards pricing might be considered promisingin that it helps to establish the principle ofcharging more than ‘token’ prices for admis-sion to heritage sites, some commentatorsrecognize that the free market does notadequately take account of the many ‘non-market’ costs and bene�ts of heritage tour-

ism. In general, admission prices need to beset above the market level to account fornon-market costs and bene�ts associatedwith the use of heritage as a tourism re-source. Unfortunately, the survey found nosubstantial evidence of this imperative hav-ing been taken on board by heritage man-agers.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Sustainability requires that decision-makingadopt inter-generational and international per-spectives; it incorporates the idea that humandemands upon the environment should notalways be met, and must sometimes be con-strained, in the interests of the environment.(Phillips, 1995)

The above philosophy is perhaps bestdemonstrated by the recent imposition of a£5 admission charge to ward off the ravagesof 900 years of visitors to Westminster Abbey(Bunting, 1998). As one of the �ve top touristattractions in the UK, Westminster Abbey hasintroduced this measure in an attempt toreduce the impact on the fabric of thebuilding of nearly 3 million visitors a year.The dean, the Very Rev. Wesley Carr, de-fended the measures as essential both torestoring the calm of the abbey as a place ofprayer, and as a protection against environ-mental degradation. If the owners of historichouses and gardens are also to adopt a moresustainable approach, then they too need toreconcile the protection and preservation oftheir properties with the need to encouragevisitors and pro�t from their access (Berry,1994). This paper suggests that a reassess-ment of their pricing rationale is a good placeto start. Whatever the outcome, it is likelythat future decisions with regard to price,preservation and access will bring with themcon�icts of a managerial, political and ethicalnature.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

For a multitude of reasons, the heritagesector has not always fully protected theassets in its trust, the current generationhaving to bear the responsibility of inade-quate management and conservation in thepast. The extent to which this can continueacross the sector is open to debate. What iscertain is that the application of sustain-ability principles will involve a reassessmentof the aims and objectives of heritage man-agement.

It is interesting in this context to considerwhat the respondents to the survey con-sidered a ‘successful’ heritage attraction tobe. Typically, respondents suggested somecombination of the following criteria: (i) theattraction must be inexpensive and visitor-friendly; (ii) it must be physically and in-tellectually accessible to as wide as possiblea range of social groups; (iii) it must bemanaged in such a way as to balance theneeds of visitors with the conservationimperative; (iv) it must be able to maintainthe authenticity and integrity of the site;and (v) it must give its visitors value formoney.

It is dif�cult to envisage any of the abovebeing achievable in the long term without aserious reassessment of pricing policy. Withvisitor numbers at historic properties con-tinually rising across the country, surely thetime has come for the heritage sector torecognize the pivotal role of admissioncharges in achieving a sustainable relation-ship between tourism and heritage. Whilelarge visitor numbers can threaten the phys-ical and aesthetic quality of a heritage site,they also bring the potential for earning therevenues necessary for the effective preser-vation of the site. More and better communi-cation is needed to persuade the visitingpublic that they should contribute moretowards the large and rapidly expandingcosts of operating and conserving historichouses and gardens.

NOTES1 This survey forms part of an on-going project

being conducted by the two authors exploringthe relationship between admission prices atheritage attractions and the search for sustain-ability. The survey �ndings were initially pre-sented at a one-day conference at the Universityof the West of England, Bristol entitled HeritageTourism, Pricing and the Environment.

REFERENCES

Ashworth, G. (1997) Struggling to control the past,Tourism in Focus, Tourism Concern, Winter,4–5.

Berry, S. (1994) Conservation, Capacity and Cash-�ows – Tourism and Historic Building Man-agement, in A.V. Seaton (ed.): Tourism: TheState of the Art, Wiley, Chichester.

Binney, M. (1998) Time for heritage to go Dutch.The Times, 19 May, p. 24.

Bunting, M. (1998) Westminster Abbey imposes £5entry fee to ward off ravages of 900 years ofvisitors, The Guardian, 18 March, p. 4.

Bruce, D.M. (1997) Towards a sustainability in-dicator for leisure tourism transport, Inter-disciplinary Strands, 7 (1), 4–8.

Cope, D. (1995) Sustainable development and theTrust, in H. Newby (ed.) The National Trust:The Next Hundred Years, The National Trust,London.

Dobson, A. (1996) Environmental sustainabilities:an analysis and a typology, EnvironmentalPolitics, 5 (3), 401–428.

English Tourist Board (1991) Tourism and theEnvironment: Maintaining the Balance: Re-port of the Heritage Sites Working Group,London, English Tourist Board/Department ofEmployment Group.

Forsyth, P., Dwyer, L. and Clarke, H. (1995) Prob-lems in the use of economic instruments toreduce adverse environmental impacts oftourism, Tourism Economics, 1 (3), 265–282.

Foster, J. (1993) Starting SPSS/PC+ and SPSS forWindows: A Beginner’s Guide to Data Analysis,Sigma Press, Wilmslow.

Fyall, A and Garrod, B. (1996) Sustainable heritagetourism: achievable goal or elusive ideal? inM. Robinson, N. Evans and P. Callaghan (eds):Managing Cultural Resources for the Tourist,Business Education Publishers, Sunderland.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Gilling, J. (1998) Lord Rothschild, Leisure Manage-ment, 18 (2), 10–15.

Ives, J. (1998) Price�ghting, The Leisure Manager,February, 26–28.

Johnson, P. and Thomas, B. (1995) Heritage asbusiness, in D. Herbert (ed.): Heritage, Tour-ism and Society, Mansell, London.

Laarman, J. and Gregersen, H. (1996) Pricingpolicy in nature-based tourism, Tourism Man-agement, 17 (4), 247–254.

Leask, A. and Goulding, P.J. (1996) What price ourheritage? A study of the role and contributionof revenue management in Scotland’s heritagebased visitor attractions, in M. Robinson, N.Evans and P. Callaghan (eds): Managing Cul-tural Resources for the Tourist, Business Educa-tion Publishers, Sunderland.

Markwell, S., Bennett, M. and Ravenscroft, N.(1997) The changing market for heritagetourism: a case study of visits to historichouses in England, International Journal ofHeritage Studies, 3 (2), 95–108.

Millar, S. (1991) Heritage management for heritagetourism, in S. Medlik (ed.): Managing Tourism,Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Newby, P.T. (1994) Tourism: support or threat toheritage? in G.J. Ashworth and P.J. Larkham(eds): Tourism, Culture and Identity in the NewEurope, Routledge, London.

Pavord, A. (1995) Gardens, in H. Newby (ed.): TheNational Trust: The Next Hundred Years, TheNational Trust, London.

Pearce, D. (1993) Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustain-able Development, Earthscan, London.

Pearce, D., Barbier, E. and Markandya, A. (1991)Sustainable Development: Economics andEnvironment in the Third World, Earthscan,London.

Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. (1989)Blueprint for a Green Economy, Earthscan,London.

Phillips, A. (1995) Conservation, in H. Newby (ed.):The National Trust: The Next Hundred Years,The National Trust, London.

Prentice, R. (1993) Heritage: a key sector of the‘new’ tourism, in C. Cooper and A. Lockwood(eds): Progress in Tourism, Recreation andHospitality Management, vol. 5, Belhaven,London.

Robinson, K. (1994) Future for tourist attractions,ETB Insights, March, D29–40.

Rogers, H.A. (1995) Pricing practices in touristattractions, Tourism Management, 16 (3),217–224.

Selwood, S. (1998) Future imperfect, Leisure Man-agement, 18 (2), 16–18.

Sinclair, M.T. and Stabler, M. (1997) The Economicsof Tourism, Routledge, London.

Smeral, E. (1996) Economic policy measures forreducing the environmental impact of tour-ism, Tourism Economics, 2 (2), 173–184.

Thomas, J. (1998) Museums resent tourists, Tour-ism, Summer, Issue 97, p. 19.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:40

10

Oct

ober

201

4

heritage tourism: at what price?

Documents