Communications in Humanities Research

- The Open Access Proceedings Series for Conferences


Communications in Humanities Research

Vol. 18, 07 December 2023

Open Access | Article

Environmental Design Evaluation and Renewal of Chinese Archaeological Parks: A Tourist Perspective

Wei Cong 1 , Wu Shangyang 2 , Tang Changming * 3
1 Northeastern University
2 Northeastern University
3 Northeastern University

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Communications in Humanities Research, Vol. 18, 88-101
Published 07 December 2023. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by EWA Publishing
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Citation Wei Cong, Wu Shangyang, Tang Changming. Environmental Design Evaluation and Renewal of Chinese Archaeological Parks: A Tourist Perspective. CHR (2023) Vol. 18: 88-101. DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/18/20231130.

Abstract

The study collected 150 questionnaires from each of the 15 archaeological parks in China, evaluated the environmental design problems that affect tourists’ travel experience from the perspective of tourists, and used the Kruskal-Wallis test and one-way ANOVA to explore the correlation between the three characteristics of archaeological parks and design problems, and finally proposed improvement suggestions. The literature review provided a theoretical basis for establishing the evaluation framework of the environmental design of archaeological parks and summarized the design problems that often occurred in previous archaeological parks. The results showed that tourists were mainly dissatisfied with the interpretation and display system, facility construction, landscape control, traffic organization, etc., and the geographical location and area of archaeological parks had a significant impact on some problems. The study reveals the importance of regular environmental design assessment and update for heritage parks. The study had implications for how archaeological parks formulate long-term plans, environmental design evaluation, renewal designs, and optimize management, which can enhance tourists’ travel willingness.

Keywords

tourist perspective, archaeological park, environmental design evaluation, renewal design

References

1. State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2022) Measures for the Administration of National Archaeological Site Parks,2022. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2022-04/02/content_5683110.html.

2. Pendlebury J, Porfyriou H. (2017) Heritage, urban regeneration and place-making. Journal of Urban Design, 22(4),429-432.

3. AN Lei. (2022) National Archaeological Site Park Development Process Review. National Cultural Heritage Administration. http://www.ncha.gov.cn/art/2022/4/15/art_722_173817.html?eqid=e3dd5f1e0000a0c1000000066433ca97.

4. LU JianSong. (2005) The current situation, problems and policy thoughts of large site protection in China. Journal of Fudan University Social Sciences, 06, 130–136.

5. CHEN TongBin. (2006) The protection of large sites in China under the background of urbanization. Construction Science and Technology, 22, 58–61.

6. Guzmán, Patricia C., Ana Pereira Roders., Bernard J. F. Colenbrander. (2017) Measuring Links between Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Urban Development: An Overview of Global Monitoring Tools. Cities, 60, 192–201.

7. The Sixth Discipline Evaluation Group of the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council. (2013) In Introduction to First-Level Disciplines for Degree Conferral and Talent Cultivation (1305 Design). Higher Education Press:Beijing, China, pp. 416.

8. SONG XiuLan. (2009) An attempt on the protection of large sites in modern bustling urban areas-A brief description of the stormy course of construction of Zhengzhou Shangcheng archaeological site park . In Proceedings of the Forum on Large Site Protection-Liangzhu; State Administration of Cultural Heritage, Ed. Zhejiang Ancient Books Publishing House: Hangzhou, China, pp. 159–167.

9. Poria, Y., Butler., R, Airey, D. (2001) Clarifying heritage tourism.Annals of Tourism Research, 08, 1047–1048. DOI:10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00002-1.

10. Poria, Y., Butler, R., Airey, D. (2003)The core of heritage tourism.Annals of Tourism Research, 30, 238–254. DOI:10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00064-6.

11. YU KongJian, SHI Ying, Wu LiYing. (2003) Introduction of the Award-Winning Scheme of the International Competition for the Yuan Dadu City Wall Site Park (East Section). Chinese Landscape Architecture, 11, 15–17.

12. TAN Xin. (2003) Design of the Yuan Tuocheng Site Park. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 11, 17–19.

13. LIU XiangWei. (2014) Protection and countermeasures of the Imperial Mausoleum Ruins of Xixia Kingdom. Urban Development Studies, 21, 22–24.

14. Fernandes A.P.B. (2004) Visitor Management and the Preservation of Rock Art: Two Case Studies of Open Air Rock Art Sites in North Eastern Portugal: Côa Valley and Mazouco. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 6, 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1179/135050304793137892.

15. Lucchi E. (2023) Regenerative Design of Archaeological Sites: A Pedagogical Approach to Boost Environmental Sustainability and Social Engagement. Sustainability, 15, 3783. DOI:10.3390/su15043783.

16. Capozzi R., Picone A., Visconti F. (2016) Archaeology, architecture and city: The enhancement project of the archaeological park of the baths of Baiae. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, 10(1), 113–125. DOI:10.26687/archnet-ijar.v10i1.849.

17. Roter-Blagojevi ́c, M., Miloševi ́c, G., Radivojevi ́c, A. (2009) A new approach to renewal and presentation of an archaeological site as unique cultural landscape. Spatium, 20, 35–40.

18. LIAN JingSen, LIAO MuYun. (2021) National Archaeological Site Park Planning Based on Landscape Archaeology. American Journal of Civil Engineering, 09(3), 74-83.

19. Tuna, A., Erdogan, E. (2017) Evaluation of Prusias ad Hypium (Konuralp) Ancient City as Archaeological Park. Kastamonu University Journal of Forestry Faculty, 17(2), 256–274.

20. Zhejiang Provincial People’s Government. (2020) Liangzhu Site Protection Plan (2008-2025). Zhejiang Provincial People’s Government:Hangzhou, China, 2013. http://wwj.zj.gov.cn/art/2019/8/22/art_1639072_38263591.html.

21. Beijing Municipal Administration of Cultural Heritage. Zhoukoudian Site Protection Plan (2021-2035). Beijing Municipal Administration of Cultural Heritage: Beijing, China. http://wwj.beijing.gov.cn/bjww/362679/362680/48 5792911/326098004/2023042714451468600.pdf.

22. AN Lei. (2015) National Archaeological Site Park Practical Handbook. Chinese Academy of Cultural Heritage: Beijing, China.

23. SHAN JiXiang. (2009) Make the Large Site as Beautiful as a Park. In Proceedings of the Forum on Large Site Protection-Liangzhu. State Administration of Cultural Heritage, Ed. Zhejiang Ancient Books Publishing House: Hangzhou, China, pp. 3–13.

24. ICOMOS China. (2015) Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China.https://icahm.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/1964-Venice-Charter.pdf.

25. ICOMOS. (1994) Nara Document on Authenticity. https://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf.

26. ICOMOS. (2005) Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas. ICOMOS China. http://www.iicc.org.cn/Publicity.aspx?aid=417.

27. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter), (1964). https://icahm.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/1964-Venice-Charter.pdf.

28. ZHANG GuanXin. (2011) A Preliminary Study on the Protection of Large Sites and the Construction of Archaeological Site Parks - Taking the Protection of Daming Palace Site as an Example. Southeast Culture, 01:,27–31.

29. SUN FengQi. (2003) Excavating Historical and Cultural Heritage and Protecting the Ancient City Wall Style - Combined with the Design of Yongning Ancient City Wall Site Park. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 2003, 02: 12–17.

30. WANG Jun. (2009) Research and Analysis of Tang Da Ming Palace Ruins Park Conceptual Design Modern Urban Research. Modern Urban Research, 24(09), 50–57.

31. Papageorgiou, L. (2000) The Unification of Archaeological Sites of Athens: The Birth of an Archaeological Park? Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 4, 176–184.

32. Repiso, L., Ravegnini, N., Sleive, E.P. (2007) Sustainable Design in Heritage Sites: An Archeological Park in Argentina. Open House International, 32, 83–97.

33. Hunan Provincial Bureau of Cultural Relics. Requirements for the Planning of National Archaeological Site Parks (Trial). http://wwj.hunan.gov.cn/c100322/c100328/201405/t20140514_10481465.html.

34. Richards, G. (2018) Cultural Tourism: A Review of Recent Research and Trends. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 36, 12–21. DOI:10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.10.001.

35. XIE ZhaoWu, ZHENG XiangMin. (2003) Some Theoretical Thoughts about the Study of Heritage Tourism. Journal of Guilin Institute of Tourism, 02, 27–31.

36. UK E.I.U. (1993) The Market for Cultural Tourism in Europe. Travel & Tourism Analyst, 6, 30–46.

37. Willis, K.G. (2009) Assessing Visitor Preferences in the Management of Archaeological and Heritage Attractions: A Case Study of Hadrian’s Roman Wall. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 487–505. DOI:10.1002/jtr.727.

38. McManus, P.M. (2012) Archaeological Parks: What Are They? Archaeology International, 3, 57–59. DOI:10.5334/ai.0317.

39. Balaawi, F.A. (2013) Evaluating Visitor Management at the Archaeological Site of Petra. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, 13, 77–87.

40. HUANG KeJia, HAN JianYe. (2014) The Living Display and Public Participation of Archaeological Sites: A Case Study of the Display and Operation of the Dupe Site Park in Germany. Southeast Culture, 3, 40–45.

41. Ross, D., Saxena, G. ,Correia, F., et al. (2017) Archaeological Tourism: A Creative Approach. Annals of Tourism Research, 67, 37–47.

42. Saipradist, A., Staiff, R. (2008) Crossing the Cultural Divide: Western Visitors and Interpretation at Ayutthaya World Heritage Site, Thailand. Journal of heritage tourism, 2(3), 211–224. DOI:10.2167/jht061.0.

43. AlMasri R., Ababneh A. (2021) Heritage Management: Analytical Study of Tourism Impacts on the Archaeological Site of UmmQais—Jordan. Heritage, 4(3), 2449–2469. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage4030138.

44. Haddad, N., Waheeb, M., Fakhoury, L. (2009) The Baptism Archaeological Site of Bethany Beyond Jordan: Towards an Assessment for a Management Plan. Tourism and Hospitality Planning and Development, 6, 173–190. DOI: 10.1080/14790530903363332.

45. Sayan, S., Karagüzel, O. (2010) Problems of Outdoor Recreation: The Effect of Visitors’ Demographics on the Perceptions of Termessos National Park, Turkey. Environmental Management, 45, 1257–1270. DOI:10.1007/s00267-010-9489-6.

46. Castellanos-Verdugo, M., Oviedo-García, M.Á., Martín-Ruiz, D. (2011) Tourist Assessment of Archaeological Sites: The Case of the Archaeological Complex of Itálica (Seville, Spain).Visitor Studies, 14, 100–112. DOI:10.1080/10645578.2011.557632.

47. Fernandes, A.P.B. (2004) Visitor Management and the Preservation of Rock Art: Two Case Studies of Open Air Rock Art Sites in North Eastern Portugal: Côa Valley and Mazouco. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 6, 95–111. DOI: 10.1179/135050304793137892.

48. Fontes, L.F.O., Alves, M.S.D. (2013) The Terva Valley Archaeological Park/PAVT: Building a Landscape with Archaeology. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Cultural Heritage and New Technologies, Vienna, Austria, 4–6 November, pp. 1–10.

49. Giuffrida, S., Gagliano, F., Giannitrapani, E., Marisca, C., Napoli, G., Trovato, M.R. (2020) Promoting Research and Landscape Experience in the Management of the Archaeological Networks. A Project-Valuation Experiment in Italy. Sustainability, 12, 4022. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104022.

50. Nasser, N. (2003) Planning for urban heritage places: Reconciling conservation, tourism, and sustainable development. Journal of Planning Literature, 17(4), 467-479.

51. CAO Xin, ZHANG Fan, HAN Mei, KANG LiFang. (2008) Investigation and Study of the Conservation and Utilization of Yuanmingyuan Ruins Park. Landscape History, 11, 34–41.

52. Spadolini, M.B. (2020) A Holistic Model. The Tilmen Höyük Archaeological Park Amidst Design, Conservation, Fruition and Communication. In An Integrated Approach for an Archaeological and Environmental Park in South-Eastern Turkey: Tilmen Höyük; Spadolini, M.B., Ed. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, pp. 55–70.

53. Obad Š ́citaroci, M., Bojani ́c Obad Š ́citaroci, B. (2019) Heritage Urbanism. Sustainability, 11, 2669. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092669.

54. Mayer, C.C., Wallace, G.N. (2007) Appropriate Levels of Restoration and Development at Copán Archaeological Park: Setting Attributes Affecting the Visitor Experience. Journal of Ecotourism, 6, 91–110.

55. Blasco López, M.F., Recuero Virto, N., Aldas Manzano, J., García-Madariaga, J. (2019) Archaeological tourism: looking for visitor loyalty drivers. Journal of Heritage Tourism. DOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2019.1602628.

56. Ashworth, G.J, Tunbridge, J.E. (2000) The Tourist-Historic City. Routledge, pp. 155.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Authors who publish this series agree to the following terms:

1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this series.

2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this series.

3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See Open Access Instruction).

Volume Title
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies
ISBN (Print)
978-1-83558-179-7
ISBN (Online)
978-1-83558-180-3
Published Date
07 December 2023
Series
Communications in Humanities Research
ISSN (Print)
2753-7064
ISSN (Online)
2753-7072
DOI
10.54254/2753-7064/18/20231130
Copyright
07 December 2023
Open Access
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Copyright © 2023 EWA Publishing. Unless Otherwise Stated