International Journal of Heritage Studies,

Vol. 8, No. 3, 2002, pp. 175199

Defining Heritage Values and

Significance for Improved Resource
Management: an application to
Australian tourism
R.W. Carter and R. Bramley

Abstract
The values and significance of heritage resources are often acknowledged but not integrated
into the management process. This paper presents a framework for explicitly identifying
these resource qualities and applying them to site management. It defines values in terms
of a resources intrinsic (objectively measurable) and extrinsic (largely subjectively
measurable) qualities. The derivative assessment of significance then creates direction for
decision making where conservation takes precedence over resource exploitation and
renewable resource exploitation takes precedence over the exploitation of non-renewable
resources. The framework, developed from a study of World Heritage values of the Great
Sandy Region, Australia, provides a basis for achieving agreement between resource
owners/managers and resource users on the nature of permissible activities using valued
resources.

Key Words: Australia; Heritage; Values; Significance; Resource Assessment;

Tourism Planning

Introduction
Sir Ninian Stephen,1 a past Governor General of Australia, observed that:

the most striking thing about environmental disputes was that, unlike legal systems,
there was no body of principles which could be applied to solve them. The traditional
court system is quite unsuited to the satisfactory resolution of these disputes. . . there is
a great need in the case of environmental disputes for the framing of a general body of
principles which would provide mandatory guidelines for the resolution of disputes.

1. Sir N. Stephen, address to the Public Issue Dispute Resolution conference, Brisbane, 1819
February 1991, in The Australian, 20 February 1991.

ISSN 1352-7258 print; ISSN 1470-3610 online/02/030175-25 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/13527250220000/18895
He suggested:

it was the responsibility of governments to develop a body of principles, that could then
be applied by appropriately composed tribunals as guidelines, case by case. . . . The
tribunal would have to engage in at least two levels of decision-making. The first would
be extensive fact-finding and collection of expert opinion so as to make informed
scientific, sociological or economic assessments. On the second level, it would then
have to evaluate those answers and weigh them against the criteria established by
government.

These sentiments have been reflected in recent (mainly government) initiatives to

assess landscapes and cultural places.2 The techniques largely quantify and
qualitatively describe resources, then use consultation to determine perceived value
and significance. More econometric and ranking approaches have also been applied;3
however, the nexus between values and significance is not explicit and the
implications for resource use remain implied. Further, the consultative process for
defining values and significance inevitably confronts the dilemma of who is
empowered to make judgement on these key issues for heritage place management.
Planning for use of heritage places often evokes concern for appropriateness of
the use irrespective of the degree of management sensitivity applied. The issue is
ultimately one of difference between the values held by different members of a
community. For planners, the need exists to retain objectivity while accepting that
(heritage) planning is a political process,4 and that decision makers will probably

2. R. Mackay, Regional assessment program review: assessment of cultural research methods and analysis,
Golden, Mackay Pty Ltd, Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission, 1996; L.F. McClelland, J.T. Keller,
G.P. Keller & R.Z. Melnick, Guidelines for evaluating and documenting rural historic landscapes,
Washington, DC: National Parks Service, 1994; AHC, Method papers, East Gippsland and Central
Highlands Joint Forest projects, Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) & Victoria
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1994; S. Feary, Assessing the cultural values of
forests, in Archaeology in the north: proceedings of the 1993 Australian Archaeological Association
Conference, Australian National University, Darwin: North Australia Research Unit, 1993, pp.
294318; S. Blair & S. Feary, Regional assessment of cultural heritage: a new approach based on
community and expert partnerships, in Managing a shared heritage: historic environment, Darwin:
Australia ICOMOS, 1995, pp. 1521; R. Purdie & M. Cavanagh, Regional assessment of the
heritage values of forests, in J. Dargavel & S. Feary (eds) Australias ever-changing forests II, Vol. 2,
Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, 1993, pp.
241260; L. Albers, Evaluating historical buildings and gardens, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds)
Planning for our cultural heritage, Aldershot: Avebury, 1995, pp. 161169.

3. P. Nijkamp & K. Bithas, Scenarios for sustainable cultural heritage planning: a case study of
Olympia, in H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp (eds) Planning for our cultural heritage, Aldershot: Avebury,
1995, pp. 123140; D.E. Massimo, Heritage conservation economics: a case study from Italy, in
Coccossis & Nijkamp, op. cit., pp. 171187.

4. C.M. Hall & S. McArthur, The human dimension of heritage management, in C.M Hall & S.
McArthur (eds) Heritage management in Australia and New Zealand: the human dimension, South
Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 221.

176 R. W. Carter and R. Bramley

 1 Resource physical
characteristics
(Objective assessment possible)

2 Resource values
6 Management input (Subjectively determined
and culturally influenced)
Resource use,
level of use,
and
management
5 Resource resistance and 3 Resource significance
resilience to use impacts (Subjectively determined)
(Potentially objectively
determined)
4 Existing or potential uses
and level of use
Figure 1. Components for determining uses, levels of use and management applied to heritage
resources.

respond to their own value system or that of the broader community. Addressing the
values and significance of a place is fundamental to heritage conservation.5 To be
successful it requires an overt and explicit evaluation of values and significance.
Unfortunately, despite the disciplined and integrative methods discussed by
Coccossis & Nijkamp,6 no broadly accepted process for doing this currently
exists.
This paper is founded on the view that, for heritage sites, uses, levels of use and
management of use involves integrated evaluation of:

d the physical characteristics of the heritage resources;

d identification of values and the significance of these resources (or component
parts);
d existing or likely uses and (potential) levels of use;
d resource resistance and resilience to this use; and
d the management resources that can be brought to protecting and presenting the
valued heritage resources (see figure 1).

The paper emphasises the more subjective components and presents an approach
to being more explicit about defining values and significance and integrating these
assessments into managing and presenting heritage places. It also considers the
issue of on-the-ground management that is often characterised by conflict between

5. P. Nijkamp, Quantity and quality: evaluation indicators for our cultural-architectural heritage, in
Coccossis & Nijkamp, op. cit., pp. 1737.

6. H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp, Planning for our cultural heritage, Aldershot: Avebury, 1995.

Defining Heritage Values and Significance for Improved Resource Management 177
resource users and conservators/managers. The approach presented is an attempt to
contribute to what Nijkamp & Bithas called a multidimensional evaluation
methodology.7 The approach can be readily integrated into many of the analytical
methods presented by Coccossis & Nijkamp.8 The approach was developed as part
of the Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation9 submission to the Commission
of Inquiry into the Conservation, Management and Use of Fraser Island and the
Great Sandy Region, Brisbane. Subsequently, it was incorporated in the final
discussion paper of the Inquiry10 and applied to other land-use decision-making
processes.11 Examples of the approach presented in this paper are drawn from these
works.

Defining Values
Given that heritage belongs to someone, how should places be presented and used
by the community for appreciation of values? Ultimately, the appropriate level and
type of use at a heritage place must be determined along with the degree and type
of management necessary.12 These derive from the character and quality of
resources and their perceived values and significance. Heritage resources can be
divided into five categories: geophysical, biological, cultural/historic, aesthetic and
recreational. Communities value such resources, often in culturally determined
ways, and overtly or otherwise ascribe a level of significance to them (see figure 2).
Values are those qualities regarded by a person, group or community as important
and desirable. Values attributed to a resource can be intrinsic13 or extrinsic.
Intrinsic qualities are those that inherently exist in a resource and do not require
modification for the value to be realised. Often, intrinsic values can be assessed
objectively and hence the significance level attributed to them can gain widespread
agreement (see table 1).14 Nevertheless, they are, ultimately, value driven and

7. Nijkamp & Bithas, op. cit. (note 3).

8. Coccossis & Nijkamp, op. cit. (note 6).

9. QTTC, Submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the conservation, management and use of Fraser
Island and the Great Sandy Region, Brisbane: Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (QTTC),
1990.

10. Queensland Government, Final discussion paper. Commission of Inquiry into the conservation,
management and use of Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region, Brisbane: Queensland Government,
1990.

11. Australian Government Printing Service, Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Group final
report tourism, report to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra: AGPS, 1991;
Noosa Shire Council, Development Control Plan for Noosa North Shore, unpublished town planning
report of the Noosa Shire Council, Noosa, 1993; B. Carter, Conservation strategy for the Island of
Tetepare, Solomon Islands, unpublished report to WWF (South Pacific Program), Brisbane, 1997.

12. Hall & McArthur, op. cit. (note 4).

13. Ibid.

178 R. W. Carter and R. Bramley

 Figure 2. Criteria for assessing resource values and significance.

therefore culturally determined, although there appears to be universal consensus

on most criteria.
Extrinsic qualities are those that rely on human perception of the resource and
often require modification or use of the resource for its value to be realised.
Extrinsic values are judged by personal, social and cultural perspectives and are,
therefore, inherently subjective (see table 2). Thus, the significance level attributed
to extrinsic values is always subject to conjecture. Allom,15 in the context of heritage
assessment, argues for expanding the criteria for defining significance beyond the
rigid definitions in the Burra Charter16 to include more poetic concepts such as love
and the spirit of the place (extrinsic qualities). However, heritage assessors tend to
be more comfortable with assessing fabric, giving it emphasis over cultural

14. The example uses criteria often used for natural resource assessment; numerous examples of
historic heritage criteria are given in Coccossis & Nijkamp, op. cit. Indicators are not defined in
detail.

15. R. Allom, Time, love, age, chaos, memory, death, passion and the spirit of the place: a
response to Joan Domiceljs paper: Conflicting cultural values: a challenging resource, in Assessing
social values: communities and experts: a workshop held by Australia ICOMOS, Sydney: ICOMOS, 1996,
pp. 2122.

16. ICOMOS, The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance (the
Burra Charter), Sydney: ICOMOS, 1981.

Defining Heritage Values and Significance for Improved Resource Management 179
 Table 1 Examples of intrinsic natural resource characteristicsa

Criteria Indicators

Resource richness and The number of natural vegetation/habitat types or

diversity taxonomic levels
Rarity Taxonomic distribution and abundance, including the
degree of endemism

Representativeness The proportion of vegetation/habitat types in an area when

compared with the complete biogeographic area

Genetic considerations The presence of endemic taxa and wild forms of

domesticated plants and animals

Indispensability The degree to which the area supports or protects other

systems or represents important habitat for species, such as
those that are migratory

Naturalness or integrity The degree and nature of existing disturbance as well as the
potential for natural and human-assisted restoration of
integrity

Notes:
a
The Australian governments Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act,
1999, in part avoids the issue of values by defining matters of environmental significance
and threatening processes, and then providing guidelines for assessing critical habitat,
significant impact and importance. The criteria listed here reflect these criteria in the
guidelines. See EPBC Act administrative guidelines on significance, July 2000, < http:/
/www.ea.gov.au/epbc/assessapprov/referrals/significanceguide.htm#threatened > , accessed
19 March 2002.

process.17 The same type of observation has been made in respect to management
of resources.18
In the interests of equity and social responsibility, extrinsic resource values that
stem from an indigenous communitys spiritual link to a resource often require, and
are usually given, special consideration.19 Sullivan20 suggests that Western cultural

17. S. Sullivan, Cultural values and cultural imperialism, in Historic environment: Australia ICOMOS
1992 conference, Vol. 10 (23), Sydney: ICOMOS, 1992, pp. 5462.

18. Hall & McArthur, op. cit. (note 4).

19. R.W. Carter & J.D. Davie, (Eco)tourism in the Asia Pacific region, in H. Richins, J. Richardson
and A. Crabtree (eds) Taking the next steps: Ecotourism Association of Australia 1995 conference
proceedings, Alice Springs: Commonwealth Department of Tourism, 1995, pp. 6772.

20. S. Sullivan, op. cit. (note 17).

180 R. W. Carter and R. Bramley

 Table 2 Examples of extrinsic natural and cultural resource characteristics

Criteria Indicators

Cultural traditions History of resource association

Appeal Outstanding natural beauty or artistic qualities
Aesthetic qualities Grandeur, contrast, colour, pattern and texture and
viewability
Scientific interest A history of base-line research
Existing level of Protection given to related resources and the degree to
protection which the resource being considered supplements these
Threats Level of impact and risk of the impact occurring
Sustainability The ability of the resource to be self-sustaining or the level
of management input needed to protect values
Location The resources ability to provide other community benefits
(such as income generation)
Fragility The level of resistance and resilience of the resource to
likely perturbations

heritage management and its techniques of ascribing value are imperialistic.

Customary land is often highly significant for many indigenous cultures. Customary
ownership is recognised, then, for its cultural and sociological value and the sense
of identity it confers.21 This is a highly important extrinsic value in such cases, since
this value helps maintain social cohesion and, often, cultural integrity. If the
protection of social structure is a national or international objective, then the
significance of customary values merits high ranking, despite the specificity of the
value to a small group within a larger community.
There are, however, some extrinsic values of a resource that can be quantified
objectively. These usually relate to use where a commercial value can be given; for
example timber and employment value of a forest or the equivalent tourism value.
Economic assessment methods (e.g. simple costbenefit analysis) are well suited to
evaluating the relative significance of commercial resource values. Of more concern
here are the extrinsic values attributed to a resource for uses that have no direct
market price.

Attributing Significance
Significance is the state or quality of something that is outstanding because it is
especially meaningful. The Australian Heritage Commission has determined that

21. Ibid.

Defining Heritage Values and Significance for Improved Resource Management 181
cultural significance derives from historical, architectural, scientific, social,
technological, aesthetic or other specified values. Hall & McArthur combine these
into economic, socio-cultural, scientific and political dimensions.22 The Queens-
land Heritage Act 1992 defines significance as relating to history, rarity, research
potential, the exemplification of particular classes of places, aesthetics, and creative,
social or cultural association, or association with a significant person. For natural
heritage, classification systems for protected areas, for example, fall along two
axes:

(1) level of significance ascribed to the intrinsic values of the area, which is often
reflected by the level of organisation (government) given responsibility for
resource management; and
(2) level of utilisation/manipulative management appropriate to resource sig-
nificance and protection of the integrity of resource values.

Categories of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) for
protected areas strongly reflect axis 2, while in practice, many nations, in applying
management and legal protection, overlay mechanisms that reflect axis 1. The
naming of an area as a particular class becomes relevant only to the extent of
providing a shorthand indication of the types of values protected and the type of
management regime in place. It does not indicate, necessarily, the level of
significance.
Significance is a much-overworked word and little effort appears to have been
devoted to clarifying the meaning of significant in an application sense. For
example, to be sufficiently significant for listing on the Australian Register of the
National Estate, a place need only be valued by or have a strong or special
association with a particular community or cultural group.23 On this basis, a canoe
tree on Fraser Island, Queensland, Australia, is just as significant as the Great
Barrier Reef. This does not assist decision making with respect to resource use.
Consequently, almost every time the frontiers of tourism expand, whether in the
form of development or tourism activity, the frontier suddenly assumes immense
significance.
To illustrate, some years ago it was reported that there are around 600 000 known
archaeological sites in the UK. Given the relative size of Australia and the duration
of human settlement compared with the UK, a quick calculation suggests that a
dedicated band of archaeologists could find over ten million archaeological sites in
Australia. Deciding which of these are significant and should be preserved presents
a massive task in itself. When habitats of rare or endangered flora and fauna, areas
of outstanding natural beauty and sites of European historical importance are

22. Hall & McArthur, op. cit. (note 4), p. 6.

23. CoA, Australian Heritage Commission Act, 1975, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia (CoA),
1975.

182 R. W. Carter and R. Bramley

considered, it could be argued that the continent is of such significance that it
should be protected and conserved in its entirety. What this facetious scenario
demonstrates is that there is a need to devise better ways of determining what is
significant, why it is significant and to whom. This, in turn should determine the
relative level of significance and the appropriate use response.
Pragmatically, the significance of natural and cultural resources depends on the
number and groups of people who value the area and its resources. On this basis, six
levels of significance are readily recognisable:

d Personal and/or familialof importance to the individual and/or the members of

a family.
d Localof importance to people of one village or local community.
d Regionalof importance to people of more than one village or local community
group.
d Provincialof importance to people extending beyond one city or town.
d Nationalof importance to people of more than one province.
d Internationalof importance to people of more than one nation.

At the higher levels of significance, ratings have received some formal recognition
through agencies such as the IUCN, the World Conservation Union and, in
Australia, the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM). How such
a classificatory system can be applied in resource appraisal is given in table 3 for an
island in the South Pacific.
Such explicitly defined values and ascribed significance can help provide a basis
for community review and consensus agreement, but still do not give guidance for
management. It is this component of decision making that, because it is not made
overt, creates the debate about a resources values and level of significance.
Stakeholders, fearful of the implications of significance determinations, debate each
assessment and the derived significance assessment. Significance needs to be related
to management principles to reduce risk to all stakeholders.

Resource Resistance and Resilience

Resource management policies and practices should relate to the resources level of
significance for specified intrinsic and extrinsic values. Specifically, the interaction
of tourism with resource elements should vary, based on the relative significance of
each valued element of the resource. However, it is insufficient solely to rely on
significance as a basis for directing management.24 Resources have inherent
qualities of resistance and resilience to perturbation. Resistance is the ability of a
resource to withstand change caused by external factors, thereby maintaining its

24. J. Russell, Plantation forestry and the Australian landscape, in J. Dargavel (ed.) Prospects for
Australian forest plantations, Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Resource and
Environmental Studies, 1990, pp. 371376; P.A. Morris, The selection of historic sites and landscapes for
use in recreation and tourism, Manchester: University of Manchester, 1991, p. 609.

Defining Heritage Values and Significance for Improved Resource Management 183
Table 3 Values and significance of natural and cultural resources: the example of Tetepara
Islanda

Characteristic Values Significance

Values based on intrinsic qualities of the resource

The island itself Largest uninhabited island in the tropical South International
Pacific
Largest undeveloped and natural island in International
Solomon Islands and the tropical South Pacific

Geomorphology Rare occurrence of a sedimentary island within National

the volcanic geological province of Solomon
Islands
Unmodified diverse landforms National

Vegetation Large area of intact and naturally sustainable National

hills rainforest on sediments
High biodiversity National
Endemic and endangered species International
Representative sample of a threatened plant National
community

Fauna Endemic species International

Rare and endangered species International
Rare and commercial butterflies International

Marine area Largely unexploited and unpolluted maritime National

area

Archaeology High incidence of intact tambu sites International

High incidence of pre-colonial artefacts International

History Presence of war relics International

Example of early colonial plantation National

Process
Geomorphology Example of earth-forming processes International
Example of island-forming processes National

Biological Example of earths evolutionary processes International

Example of island biogeography principles International
Examples of speciation International

Archaeological Intact example of how the indigenous International

communities lived prior to colonisation

Combinations Hills rainforest on sediments National

Undisturbed terrestrial ecosystems that sustain Provincial
marine resource

184 R. W. Carter and R. Bramley

 Table 3 (Continued)

Characteristic Values Significance

Values based on extrinsic qualities of the resource

The Island itself Cultural identity stemming from customary National

lands of descendants
Cultural identity stemming from spiritual links National
of descendants
Recreational use Provincial

Land resource use Land use for gardens Provincial

Vegetation use Timber use for canoe trees Provincial
Timber use for rosewood supply Provincial
Timber use for commercial logging National
Plant use for subsistence Provincial
Plant use for medicines Provincial

Fauna use Pig hunting for subsistence Provincial

Fauna use for subsistence Provincial
Fauna use for supplementary cash income Provincial

Marine product use Fishing for subsistence Provincial

Fishing for cash income Provincial

Notes:
a
Modified from B. Carter, Conservation strategy for the island of Tetepare, Solomon Islands,
unpublished report to WWF (South Pacific Program), Brisbane, 1997.

existing integrity. Resistance relates to the magnitude and duration of the change-
causing agent and the resources inherent ability to resist the change.
Resilience is the ability of a resource to recover from a change brought about by
external factors and return to and maintain its pre-existing condition. Resilience
relates to the time required and the resources inherent capacity to return to the
previously existing state. These concepts are presented in figure 3.
An evaluation of a resources resistance and resilience to change can afford
flexibility in resource management or at least define the level of management
required. For example, many cultural or historic places are resistant to short-term
tourism impacts; they may be constructed of stone. However, once eroded they
have no resilience, and some of their intrinsic value is lost. This requires a
management decision to limit or control interaction with the valued resource. This
decision is needed as soon as use is contemplated, lest incrementalism prevents
irreversible change being observed. Examples are regulation of numbers to a
heritage place (through fees or absolute limits) and hardening of sites (e.g.
boardwalks).

Defining Heritage Values and Significance for Improved Resource Management 185
 Limit to acceptable
change
Change in Change to
original new state
state
Perturbation
Perturbation Resistance (magnitude and Resistance
duration)
Based on
physical/ecological
character Unchanged

Beyond acceptable Limit to acceptable

change change

Perturbation Resistance Perturbation Resistance

Resilience Resilience

Rate of change Rate of change

to previous to previous
state state

Figure 3. Elements of the resistance and resilience concept.

In contrast, many natural areas are perhaps less resistant but much more resilient.
Here, management can provide assistance for natural processes to restore a
degraded site or simply allow the resource time to recover naturally from use
impacts by withdrawing access.25 The management approach applied usually relates
to the perceived values and significance of particular resources and sites. For
example, camping sites in natural areas are selected because of valued attributes of
the resource for the use of camping. If these attributes are in short supply, the
existing sites will be considered significant for the use. Management can apply
rotation of camping sites to permit natural processes to restore degraded values26 or
apply site-manipulative management techniques, such as fertilising or watering
disturbed areas. In such cases, nature is given a helping hand.

25. B. Carter & G. Grimwade, Balancing use and preservation in cultural heritage management,
International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 3, 1997, pp. 4553.

26. This was proposed for beach camping sites on Fraser Island. QTTC, Submission to the Commission
of Inquiry into the conservation, management and use of Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region,
Brisbane: Queensland Tourist and Travel Corporation (QTTC), 1990.

186 R. W. Carter and R. Bramley

 Resource Resource Resource
dependant enhanced incidental

External looking Internal looking

(Resource focused)
Low resource impact
(Technological/design solutions)
Resource appropriate
High resource appreciation
(Facility focused)
High resource impact
Resource inappropriate
Low resource appreciation

Figure 4. Types of tourism facilities and services.

A formalised mechanism for providing general direction for management is

through statutory planning instruments that identify zones within (and sometimes
external to) a protected place. Such zones require clear identification of the values
to be protected. In addition, the zoning requires the identification of the types and
level of use considered detrimental to sustaining the ascribed values. Ideally, use and
level of use is defined more by limits to acceptable change rather than use per se.
However, the lack of existing knowledge often precludes this approach.

Responding to Values and Significance: the example of tourism

Tourism activities can be dependent on natural and cultural resources; they can be
enhanced by the resource or be totally incidental to the presence of a significant
natural or cultural resource (see figure 4). For natural or cultural resources at the
upper (international) end of the significance continuum, and from an ecologically
sustainable development paradigm, tourism activities should be dependent on, and
where necessary subordinate to, the resource. That is, tourism as a user of the
resource must acknowledge its privileged position and role in the context of other
stakeholders (e.g. the international community). Access, facilities and services
should be responsive to resource characteristics of resistance and resilience, and be
resource focused, low impact and directed towards resource appreciation and
protection (i.e. embrace the principles of the eco-tourism concept). At the lower
(local) end of the significance continuum, the range of activities can be broadened
to include uses that are not necessarily dependent on the resource. These may be
recreation/leisure (rather than resource) focused, possibly high impact, directed
towards community needs and regional infrastructure, and more accessible for a
variety of activities.
Table 4 presents these general principles as criteria for determining the nature of
tourism facilities and services offered with places of different levels of significance.
Other specific criteria may also apply to particular types of resource (e.g. biological
resources). The objective should be to manage each resource element in a way that

Defining Heritage Values and Significance for Improved Resource Management 187
188
Table 4 Hierarchy of criteria for preferred tourism resource interaction

International National Provincial Regional Local

Use Preservation and May include activities May include activities May include activities Compatible activities
appreciation of the directly associated with that supplement (by that do not compete that are part of the
resource are the the resource but do not extension) resource with resource local spectrum of
principal criteria diminish or degrade appreciation appreciation leisure settings
determining use intrinsic qualities

Development Mode and scale Resource focused but Preferably resource Rarely resource focused Rarely resource focused
sufficient only to enable mode and scale focused but may but constrained only by but constrained only by
resource to be sufficient to permit include or be part of a the necessity to the necessity to
appreciated and related recreational state/regional access conserve the resource. conserve the resource.
experienced without activities network. Constrained May service other Serves other access
degradation only by the necessity to access needs needs
conserve the resource

Services Resource-appreciation Primarily resource- Preferably resource- May facilitate other As for Regional, local
focused, but may appreciation focused, appreciation focused, than resource-focused community must
facilitate recreational but may facilitate but may facilitate other activities and contribute benefit primarily, or at
activity that relies on recreational activity that than site-related to regional tourism least their interests are
other values of the site relies on other values of recreational activity or recreational not prejudiced
the site assist strategic infrastructure
management of
resource

R. W. Carter and R. Bramley

 Table 4 (Continued)

International National Provincial Regional Local

Public utilities Resource-appreciation Primarily resource- Directed at resource May include non- Relate to a range of
focused appreciation focused appreciation and other resource-oriented recreational
non-site-related leisure services opportunities and
activities settings within the
region

Access Visual impact absent As for international May be present but May be present but May compete with
for confined resources must not detract from should respect the value value of resource if
and strictly limited for value of resource and of the resource greater community
extensive resources. public perception of it benefit accrues
Minimum necessary for
servicing resource-
focused developments

Defining Heritage Values and Significance for Improved Resource Management

189
realises full resource potential, without prejudicing the integrity of higher order
resource elements (maintaining their intrinsic and extrinsic values).
Implicit here is an underlying philosophy of sustaining heritage resources. That is,
conservation, and indeed preservation, should take precedence over resource
exploitation, and renewable resource exploitation should take precedence over the
exploitation of non-renewable resources. The point at which a resource will be
exploited at the expense of its conservation values will ultimately be determined by
the willingness of the community to pay the price of conserving the resource.27 That
is, the validity of values and significance assessments is ultimately tested by the
communitys willingness to trade off conservation for utility. This will be expressed
either by acquisition or by acceptance of, usually more costly, alternative sources of
supply or substitutes.
The World Heritage Area centred on Fraser Island, Australia, provides examples
of these principles at work.

(1) The termination of mineral-sand mining (through a contributed mechanism of

withdrawal of export licences) exemplifies a non-renewable resource exploita-
tion activity ceding to renewable resource uses.
(2) The ban on logging exemplifies exploitation of a renewable resource ceding to
higher order conservation values of the native forest, as a natural community.
(3) The prohibition of four-wheel-driving on sand dunes represents a lower order
recreational activity (damaging the dunes) ceding to the protection of higher
order geophysical resource values.

This approach to resource use also implies that significance ratings will need
revision from time to time in accordance with changing community values. Though
unimaginable at this time, it is not improbable that world need for the mineral sand
or timber resources of Fraser Island may, in some future time, make these extrinsic,
commodity resource values more significant than Fraser Islands tourism and
intrinsic conservation values.

Applying Resource Qualities to Planning and Management

If it is accepted that the relative significance of resources can contribute to improved
planning, management and conflict resolution,28 then the values set out in table 4
would need development into a consistent and comprehensive set of assessment
criteria. Some effort has been made to achieve this,29 along with summation and

27. See Hall & McArthur, op. cit. (note 4), p. 9.

28. L. Albers, Evaluating historical buildings and gardens, in Coccossis & Nijkamp, op. cit. (note 6),
pp. 161169.

29. R. Purdie & M. Cavanagh, Regional assessment of the heritage values of forests, in J. Dargavel
& S. Feary (eds) Australias ever-changing forests II, Vol. 2, Canberra: Australian National University,
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, 1993, pp. 241260.

190 R. W. Carter and R. Bramley

integrative evaluation methods.30 However, universal acceptance of criteria remains
elusive and a number of crucial questions unresolved:

d Who determines significance?

d How is the process integrated into the planning system?
d Who is responsible for managing (and implicitly) conserving the resource?

In principle, an independent resource assessment body is needed, consisting of a

broadly based panel representing government, community, relevant industry,
scientific and economic perspectives, supported by a small core of technical officers.
Mackay31 argues for all land management agencies being involved in value
assessment and proposes that methodological considerations be given significant
resources and time allocation at the start of the evaluation process. In making this
assertion, emphasis is given to the conservation and scientifically based commercial
values of the resource that, to a large extent, can be objectively assessed. Blair &
Feary32 extend involvement to embrace all stakeholders and include industry,
recreational users, local communities, Aboriginal communities and diverse social
and cultural groups. Here, more non-commercial values are being emphasised,
which usually require more subjective assessment. The relative weighting given to
values assessments lies in the significance assessment.
For the issue of implementation, sequencing of assessment could be on a regional
basis or commence with resources that have already been deemed significant, with
other resources being identified and assessed with the preparation or revision of
statutory plans. The resource assessment process needs to be integrated into
planning instruments that already consider resource qualities, but rarely
explicitly.

The Resource Assessment Process

The assessment process must be more than just a process for ascribing values and
significance to resources and then defining appropriate management criteria. It
must link to conflict-resolution processes. In this sense, it must:

d be timely;
d not prolong the approval process (and should ideally streamline the process
through the adoption of clearly defined criteria);
d be integrated with existing development approval systems;
d be controlled by the resource assessment panel;
d be subject to appeal but ideally to expert arbiters, rather than the judiciary;

30. See, for example, Coccossis & Nijkamp, op. cit. (note 6).

31. Mackay, op. cit. (note 2).

32. Blair & Feary, op. cit. (note 2), pp. 1521.

Defining Heritage Values and Significance for Improved Resource Management 191
 1
Inventory of tourism resources

Social assessment Technical assessment

2a 3a
Identification of resource values Evaluation of resource resistance
to tourism perturbation

2b 3b
Identification of resource Evaluation of resource resilience
significance to tourism perturbation

4
Definition of tourism resources
resistance and resilience to use

5
Definition of appropriate tourism
uses and activities

6
Identification of resource
management requirements and
appropriate management agency

7
Definition of client and operational
management requirements

Figure 5. A process for integrating significance into tourism planning.

d ensure that review body decisions on resource assessments are binding on all
parties; and
d allow for adequate consultation with interested parties.

Figure 5 presents an indicative process for tourism resources. Related processes are
possible for other resource uses, with an integrating process to identify areas of
convergence, and where resource-use conflict does not exist.

Towards Co-operative Protection and Management of Valued

Resources
Having defined an approach to assessment of heritage resources and set out some
broad management principles to be applied (to tourism use of resources), the final
issue is: who should be responsible for managing significant natural and cultural

192 R. W. Carter and R. Bramley

 Highly resistant

On-going Low level

management required management
(maintenance) expected

Low resilience Highly resilient

Initial intensive and Initial intensive

on-going management management required
required (protection)
(protection and
maintenance)

Low resistance

Figure 6. Management needs based on resource resistance and resilience to expected use.

resources and how do they do it? The logical, but simple, conclusion from the above
discussion is to entrust management to an entity that matches the highest value and
level of significance attributed to the resource. Management would be based on the
principles that conservation takes precedence over exploitation of valued and highly
significant resources, and renewable resource exploitation over non-renewable
resource use. The level of resource management would be determined by the
inherent resistance and resilience of the resource to the use and level of use expected
(see figure 6). Specific resource elements would require different treatments to
protect and still realise values from use.
The difficulty is that potential managing agencies usually have a narrow and
specific range of expertise that may be well suited to management of the resource of
highest value and significance, but not useful for protecting and realising values of
significance to other sectors. Specifically, suitable expertise may not exist to manage
the human dimension of the resource utilisation equation where protection of the
resource is of primary concern.
An alternative is to entrust management to the entity that most values and
identifies with the resource, provided it has the capacity to manage for the
sustainable realisation or protection of all values. Again, the proviso is rarely the
case. However, the choice of management entity need not be exclusive, and where
multiple values and multiple uses are involved, co-operative management of
resources and their use is possibly a more desirable approach. This particularly
applies to higher order resources that, for discussion purposes, also have the greatest
tourism value.33 It is here that differences particularly emerge between the green

33. Hall & McArthur, op. cit. (note 4).

Defining Heritage Values and Significance for Improved Resource Management 193
movement, many resource professionals and the tourism industry because of
sectoral paradigms, management expertise and perceived management influence.
The core issue relates to the emphasis given to resource protection, often in the
name of preserving diversity of species or unique cultural heritage places, versus
allowing human interaction. This issue is prominent in the tourist industrys use of
national parks and heritage monuments, but additionally complicated where
indigenous communities have a customary land management role.

The Multiple Responsibilities in Heritage Resource Management

A premise of this discussion is that valued and significant places must be made
available for human use and enjoyment, that is, conserved rather than preserved.34
It is inappropriate to isolate significant places from the community that owns and
values them.35 This contrasts with the view implicit in much of the debate about
tourism and use of heritage resources. Restricting access is a short-term solution
requiring an ongoing commitment of funds for policing a non-appreciative public.
Where emphasis is placed on absolute protection, options for community use and
appreciation of a place are constrained. Inevitably, significant heritage places
become alienated from the communities whose heritage is being conserved.36
The issue is not one of mandate. Even at the highest level of significance, the
World Heritage Convention recognises that management should protect, conserve
and rehabilitate World Heritage Areas as well as present them.37 In addition, the
Convention requires the adoption of a general policy . . . to give the cultural and
natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the
protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programs.38 Implicit in
these responsibilities is that to the greatest extent possible, consistent with its
conservation, a listed area should be accessible to the community. This in turn
acknowledges that World Heritage Areas are tourism resources that have value to
tourism and tourists. Article 27 is explicit on this matter, requiring the
strengthening of the (local and global) communitys appreciation and respect for
natural and cultural heritage. The responsibilities inherent in listing do not mean
that a World Heritage Area need be placed under the restrictive management
covenant of a public-sector agency. Indeed two of the World Heritage properties in
Australia, the Lord Howe Island Group and Willandra Lakes, both of which involve
a variety of land tenure categories, are administered under the states land-use

34. Ibid.

35. Carter & Grimwade, op. cit. (note 25).

36. Ibid.

37. UNESCO, Article (5d), The International Convention for the Protection of the World Culture
and Natural Heritage, in UNESCO 1971 general conference, Paris: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 1972.

38. Ibid., Article (5a).

194 R. W. Carter and R. Bramley

planning legislation. These have not involved special legislation or the establishment
of a special agency, only co-ordinating mechanisms of a non-legislative nature that
provide a hierarchical decision-making framework.
This approach of sharing management responsibility is equally applicable, and
possibly more so, to areas of lesser significance. For example, a report to the Perth
Metropolitan Region Planning Authority39 recommended that, as the Authoritys
role progressed from acquisition to management of regional open space under its
jurisdiction, it should enter into agreements with existing resource management
agencies with appropriate skills, rather than establish its own management
organisation.
Whoever is the principal entity for management of a natural or cultural heritage
resource, they must balance the dual objectives of conserving the resource and
providing an enriching experience for visitors. Clearly enunciating specific resource
values and significance, and identifying the inherent resistance and resilience to a
use type and level of use of these resource features,40 provides direction and
flexibility for management, especially where appreciative use is involved. That is, not
all resource features have the same level of significance, or the same characteristics
of resistance and resilience to demand one form of management practice for their
sustainability and protection of value.41 This view is reflected in the listing process
for World Heritage Sites that requires the definition of specific features or
characteristics (values) that are of world significance. While the Convention is silent
on the management of features and values not meriting listing, it can be inferred
that uniform management is not envisaged. However, it is envisaged that protection
and presentation of listed values will take precedence over others.
Adding to the dual mandate to protect and present specific significant values of
a heritage resource is the inherent obligation to protect and realise other values. It
is here that a dominant single agency approach to management of heritage resources
often fails or at least creates conflict. Conservation agencies are often under-
resourced to fulfil the range of functions inherent in heritage resource management
protection and presentation, usually leaving the questions of who provides the
visitor information and interpretation services and who provides infrastructure to
support appreciative use of heritage resource elements. This, in turn, raises the
contentious user pays issue and the related issue of licensing private-sector
operators to provide value-added services such as interpretive tours. Bramley42

39. R. Bramley, W. Atkinson & D. Everall, Metropolitan Perth land management study for the
Metropolitan Region Planning Authority, Canberra: Studies Bureau, Department of Environment,
Housing and Community Development, 1977.

40. See figures 1 and 6.

41. See table 3.

42. R. Bramley, Ecotourism and recreation management: a tourism industry perspective, in T.

Charters, M. Gabriel & S. Prasser (eds) National Parks-private sectors role, Toowoomba: University of
Southern Queensland Press, 1996, pp. 103107.

Defining Heritage Values and Significance for Improved Resource Management 195
challenged the basis on which government levies user charges on principle, equity
and business sense grounds. He questioned whether charges should:

d cover the total cost of managing a protected area, which is done on behalf of the
community as a whole;
d cover only the cost of establishing and maintaining infrastructure and the
provision of basic information that enables visitors to guide themselves; or
d be confined to value-added services such as interpretive services provided by
park rangers.

The Tourism Council Australia has a firm policy position on this issue, which
requires clear identification of the purpose for which the charge is made, clear
identification of the beneficiary, and assurance that all the funds so raised are
applied to the prescribed purpose and benefit the paying parties.
Even when heritage-area management agencies are clearly insufficiently
resourced to provide value-added services, the provision of such services by the
private sector is often regarded with suspicion. A tourism study of Cape York
Peninsula43 found that . . . tourist services seem at times to be regarded as threats
by the national parks personnel and the conservation movement. . . Conversely, the
tourist industry views negatively governments attitude to the licensing of the private
sector to operate in protected areas. All too often licensing appears to be an exercise
in raising revenue rather than ensuring that the best-credentialed operators (from
both a resource protection and visitor experience standpoint) are awarded licences
to operate. Hence, if protected areas are to be presented to the community (both
resident and visitor) and government funding is insufficient to fulfil this role, then
there needs to be a shift in the attitudes of public-sector agencies and the
conservation movement towards the issues of user pays and licensing, as well as
their attitude towards the motives of the private sector (and vice versa). What is
suggested is that a need exists to move towards what Lindblom44 calls partisan
mutual adjustment, shifting from manipulated to adaptive adjustment. Co-
operation and partnerships are needed to share authority and responsibility, costs
and rewards. A rational determination of the division of responsibility and emphasis
given to overall management direction lies in the values and significance assessment
and the principles that stem from this.

Private-sector Involvement in Significant Heritage Resource Areas

This leads to perhaps the most controversial implication of the approach proposed
in this paper, at least in the Australian contextthe extent of direct private-sector

43. PATA, Task force, Cape York Peninsula tourism issues and opportunities, Sydney: Pacific Asia Travel
Association (PATA), Pacific Region Office, 1992.

44. C.E. Lindblom, The intelligence of democracy: decision making through mutual adjustment, New York:
The Free Press, 1965.

196 R. W. Carter and R. Bramley

 Highly significant heritage
resource values

Potential areas for Potential areas for

public sector provision co-operative provision
of resource of resource
appreciation facilities apprciation facilities
and services and services
Low resistant Highly resistant
and resilient and resilient
resource resource
characteristics characteristics
Potential areas for Potential areas for
co-operative provision private sector direct
of resource involvement in
appreciation support providing resource
facilities appreciation support
facilities

Low significance of heritage

resource values

Figure 7. Principles for co-operative provision of resource appreciation facilities and services.

involvement in heritage areas. If shared and co-operative management is desirable,

based on a hierarchy of responsibilities and influence that stems from an assessment
of relative significance of heritage resource values, and the expertise of stakeholders;
and if flexibility exists because of a resources non-uniform distribution of
significant values and their resistance and resilience characteristics, then private-
sector occupation of, and direct management influence over, parts of the resource
would appear not to be excluded from consideration. Guidance for this involvement
at the site level can be found in the characteristics of the resource and the relative
significance of resource values (see figure 7).
With increased levels of visitation to heritage places, there are increased demands
(and need) for tourist facilities, from essential amenities such as toilets through to
interpretation centres, car-parks and visitor accommodation. With regard to the
latter, in Australia there seems to be a park-management mindset that only camping
is an appropriate form of accommodation in protected areasa position that
prevents the full range of resource values being realised. Yet, as experience on Fraser
Island demonstrates, at peak times, camping poses the greatest site-management
problems.45 Even within protected areas, levels of significance and resource
resistance and resilience vary and, provided the location, scale and servicing of built
accommodation respects these criteria, there seems no reason to preclude such
accommodation. On privately owned land, local-government planning controls,

45. Bramley, op. cit. (note 42).

Defining Heritage Values and Significance for Improved Resource Management 197
overlain by regional conservation plans, can govern development. However, in the
case of publicly owned land, the nature of the tenure may impose additional
constraints.
If, as visitation levels increase, there is a demonstrated demand for the provision
of commercial tourist facilities in heritage areas, there are sound economic reasons
for such facilities to be permitted in appropriate locations (see figure 7), regardless
of land tenure (i.e. application of resource values appraisal and significance
assessment at a site level). If this involves development on public land, and the
government has neither the funds nor the philosophical inclination to provide the
facilities, appropriate commercial arrangements can be entered into with the private
sector in the spirit of co-operative management. In the case of national parks, the
issue of the abuse of private concessions is sufficiently well documented46 to ensure
that past mistakes need not be repeated. Provided such developments are properly
sited and controlled, they need not conflict with the cardinal principal of
permanent preservation, to the greatest possible extent, of their (National Parks)
natural condition.47 Indeed, it has been argued that we will see conservation only
when there is tourism. That is, there must be a vested interest in conserving sites
which have considerable economic benefits as well as benefits for the noble cause of
conservation.48 The acceptance of appropriately sited commercial facilities on
public land has the benefit of producing income streams for government
management agencies in the form of lease payments or levies or the joint funding of
head works and infrastructure. A true partnership approach to resource manage-
ment is more likely to address the tourism industrys reluctance to embrace user
pays principles than a power-based relationship.

Conclusion
There is an urgent need to address some crucial issues relating to natural and
cultural tourism resources (which in turn are critical to the future of tourism). There
is a need:

d for stakeholders in heritage area management to appreciate that heritage areas

have a suite of values with varying levels of significance;
d to develop an improved and more objective approach to defining significance
(this involves the establishment of an appropriate agency to fulfil this task);
d to devise a timely, fair and binding process for the assessment of tourism and
other resource values;

46. E.H. Makowski, Scenic parks and landscape values, Dissertation Abstracts International,
Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 48, 1988, pp. 18601861.

47. Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992, Section 17(1)(a). In Section 17(1)(b) this Act also
makes specific reference to the obligation to present cultural and natural resources.

48. F. Gale & J. Jacobs, Tourism and the national estate: procedures to protect Australias heritage,
in Special Australian Heritage Commission publication, Canberra: Australian Government Printing
Service, 1987.

198 R. W. Carter and R. Bramley

d to establish appropriate management policies and practices to respond to relative
significance;
d for stakeholders in heritage area management to appreciate that different parts of
the heritage resource have different values with different levels of significance and
resistance and resilience characteristics;
d to create or nominate appropriate management agencies to implement manage-
ment policies and, as necessary, delegate operational responsibility based on
management expertise; and
d to recognise that these agencies rely on partnerships: partnerships between the
public and private sectors; partnerships between conservationists, developers,
managers and users.

Guidance in addressing these needs lies in an appreciation that relative significance

of resource values and the heritage resources inherent resistance and resilience to
changes brought by specific uses provides flexibility in management.
Failing this, environmentalists are going to continue to worship their own sacred
cows, developers are going to continue to worship Mammon, and tourists and the
tourism industry (which is frequently saddled with the blame for the developers
excesses) will continue to suffer from second-rate, emotive solutions to environmen-
tal challenges.

Defining Heritage Values and Significance for Improved Resource Management 199