The Economic Power of Culture

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture?
The Economic Power of Culture
A Term Paper Presented to

The Political Science Department
Graduate School – College of Liberal Arts
De La Salle University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements in
Culture, Economy, and Politics (DVS591P)
Dr. Eric Vincent C. Batalla
by
Geoffrey Rhoel C. Cruz

11597550
August 20, 2018

I. Introduction
What is Cultural Heritage?
The economic benefits of preserving cultural heritage have been generally established by
numerous studies. The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) defines cultural heritage by referring to the totality of cultural property preserved
and developed through time and passed on to posterity. Thus, a cultural property refers to all
products of human creativity by which a people and a nation reveal their identity. It also includes
traditions or living expressions that are often shared, learned, symbolic, adaptive and integrated,
inherited from ancestors and passed down to the next generation (Balco, 2011; Radzuan and
Ahmad, 2015; UNESCO, 2011).
The World Heritage Convention classified heritage under two categories: first is cultural
heritage which includes monuments, group of buildings or site of historical, aesthetic,
archaeological, scientific, ethnological, and anthropological value; and second is natural heritage
which includes outstanding physical, biological and geographical features of different kinds of
plants and animal species and areas with significant scientific or aesthetic value deemed for
conservation (UNESCO, 1972).
Radzuan and Ahmad (2015) perceived cultural heritage in its broader sense as movable
and immovable assets of artistic, literary, architectural, historical, archaeological, ethnological,
scientific or technological values that embody the essence of a nation. Alternatively, cultural
heritage has been considered as a fundamental aspects underpinning a country’s national identity
and sovereignty. Thus, it can serve as a bridge between different generations with their ancestors
providing a source of social attachment and sense of belongingness (Ghafar Ahmad, 2006;
Henderson, 2012; Chohan and Wai ki; 2005).
Moreover, cultural heritage is also classified either as tangible or intangible. On one
hand, tangible cultural heritage refers to a cultural property with historical, archival,
anthropological, archaeological, artistic and architectural value. On the other hand, intangible
cultural heritage refers to the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge and skills
recognizable within a particular set of cultural or social values that communities recognize as
part of their cultural heritage (R.A. 10066; Radzuan and Ahmad, 2015; UNESCO, 1972).
The UNESCO (1972) further classified tangible cultural heritage into three categories:
(1) underwater, (2) movable, and (3) immovable. Underwater heritage includes shipwrecks and
Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 1

ancient cities and structures presumed to be submerge into water. While movable heritage
includes paintings, sculptures, coins, manuscripts, historical records, and documents. Whereas
Immovable heritage, otherwise considered as built heritage;
“refers to architectural and engineering structures such as, but not limited to,
bridges, government buildings, houses of ancestry, traditional dwellings,
quartels, train stations, lighthouses, small ports, educational, technological and
industrial complexes, and their settings, and landscapes with notable historical
and cultural significance (R.A. 10066).”
Cultural Tourism
Generally, cultural heritage advocates believe that cultural heritage can serve as an
avenue for cultural tourism thus can provide a boost to the economy citing improvements in local
employment and domestic income opportunities to increase in local taxes for the local
government (Bowitz and Ibenholt, 2009). Thus, it can be argued that income can also be
generated from heritage through tourism. Tourism defined as a social, cultural and economic
phenomenon related to the movement of people to places outside their usual place of residence,
pleasure being the usual motivation (Juul, 2015). It has been a sector that was able to transform
cultural values to economic ones as it produces new employment and new wealth in the short
time. Likewise, Henderson (2012) suggested that cultural tourism as a whole contributes to urban
development and provides an avenue for sustainable development by making communities more
attractive destinations for tourism and investments.
Furthermore, the findings of a forum organized by the Asian Institute of Management’s
Dr. Andre L. Tan Center for Tourism in 2004 as well as the generalizations made in a summit
organized by the Heritage Conservation Society (Philippines) in 2013 suggests that preserving
heritage structures and cultural resources can contribute to the market value of real estate
properties thus significantly boosting tourism activities and facilitating economic growth in the
area and correcting the misconception that heritage conservation will cause financial and
opportunity losses to property owners (Flores, 2013). Hiyari (2012) likewise suggested that
heritage conservation leads to employment creation and stimulating commerce and further
pointed that rehabilitation cost less than constructing new ones.
Accordingly, conservation of heritage is not only keeping a resemblance of the backward
past for its historic significance, but also for its potential to increase income-earning
opportunities, city livability, and competitiveness (Ebbe, 2009); hence significantly maintaining

social capital and generating economic produce (Chohan and Wai Ki, 2005). Bryan Balco (2012)
further asserts that:
“Cultural heritage or the historic built environment has a big part to play
"in promoting economic growth" and as such, it can help "boost the local
and national economy and create jobs by attracting tourists and
investments, and providing leisure, recreation, and educational facilities"”
(p. 6).
Alongside the economic benefits are the psychological benefits of heritage conservation.
Consequently, cultural heritage presents the community’s identity and history hence illustrates
the community’s development that forms its pride, honor, and understanding of oneself (Chohan
and Wai Ki, 2005; Hiyari, 2012). The UNESCO (2012) also noted the non-monetized benefits
such as social inclusiveness and rootedness, resilience, innovation, creativity and
entrepreneurship in the use of local resources, skills and knowledge.
In the Philippines, cultural heritage has been one of the core thrusts of tourism giving
birth to the branding “cultural heritage tourism”. Ivan Henares of the Heritage Conservation
Society (Philippines) suggested that heritage structures are good anchors for cultural tourism
because they provide a complete package of attractions to the general public.
According to the 2018 World Travel and Tourism Council report, the travel and tourism
industry as a whole contributed 21% to the country’s gross domestic product by providing a total
of Php 3.35 trillion in 2017. It has generated Php 379.7 billion in visitor exports and has
supported 2.3 million jobs (comprises 5.8% of the employment sector) as well. Particularly,
investments related to travel and tourism amounted to Php 95.1 billion (Remo, 2018).
Commodification of Culture
As such, the concept of destination branding has been introduced in order to highlight the
value proposition of a tourist destination as a unique brand and package it for selling it for
consumption (Alejandria-Gonzalez, 2016). Apparently, tourism alone is not a guarantee of the
preservation and development of the cultural landscape. In fact, the development of tourism in
urban areas can have some negative impacts such that unplanned tourism and unwell managed
visitors’ access can represent a dangerous threat to the integrity and authenticity of heritage.
Such has been considered as the ‘tourisification’ implication or the changes in urban forms and
functions due to the growth of tourism causing threats to the conservation of the values of
cultural heritage (Nocca, 2017).

For the longest time, the tourism sector has been anchored on the linear economy model
of take-make-dispose such that tourism developments have left the local residents alienated and
caused them to move to the peripheral areas otherwise known as the process of gentrification.
Predominantly, tourism developments were focused on tourist attractiveness against life quality
such that benefits are produced in the short time as well as negative impacts in the long term. As
every aspect of culture, whether it involves tangible goods such as clothes or intangible culture
like traditions and customs, had been transformed into a commodity by virtue of tourism
(Hergesell, 2012), its cultural value is also transformed into a commercial value (Shepherd,
2002) and the traditional perspective of heritage as driver of tourism has been altered manifesting
tourism as a heritage-producing machine (Gravari-Barbas, 2018), in which the traditional mode
of production shifts to manufacturing aimed at tourists’ consumption (Meekaew and Srisontisuk,
2012). Thus, rather than being a reclamation of the past, heritage and tourism now function as a
new form of cultural production (a value-added industry) that takes the past as its theme
(Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998) leading to a ‘vanished reality’ or the more involved in tourism do
local residents become, the less genuine do their cultural practices become and hence the less
desirable they are as tourist objects (Bruner, 1995).
As an offshoot, commodification of culture has resulted to the lost of intrinsic cultural
value (Throsby, 2005). Taylor (2001) likewise argued that commodification destroys the local
culture and its authenticity leading to so-called “endangered cultures”. Apparently, such
repackaging has resulted to the demise of the authenticity of the culture to produce a completely
new culture, a commodified culture far distinct from the original culture being presented
(George, 2005).
Nevertheless, Cohen (1988) discussed that authenticity has no objective quality. It is
socially constructed thus negotiable and varies according to the tourists and local community’s
point of view. Such was the foremost concern of the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994) that
was adopted by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Symposia in
Nara, Japan as it emphasizes that there are no fixed criteria to judge value and authenticity of
cultural property, instead it must be evaluated within the cultural context to which it belongs.
As such there is the possibility that culture commodification can be positive resulting to
economic, psychological, social and political empowerment of the community thereby
strengthening their sense of cohesion and integrity (Cole, 2007). While for some, the

commodification of culture may be a dis-empowering experience; for marginal cultures, tourism
has been a political instrument in the construction of their identity (Bianchi, 2003). Such impasse
imposes a double standard effect for commodification of culture (Fiaux, 2010). As Rypkema
(2003) noted, “if you do it for the locals, the tourist will come but if you do it for tourists, only
the tourists will come”. As such, the concept of circular tourism, which is to produce positive
impacts both in the short and in the long time, should be considered. Thus, cultural heritage can
be considered as the glue among the different dimensions of sustainable development (Throsby,
2005).
II. Research Objective and Research Problem
In a third world nation like the Philippines, development has been characterized as the
advancement of traditional forms of practices, hence modernization theory practitioners look on
culture as an obstacle to development, something that hinders change and stops growth and
progress (Willis, 2005; Zerrudo, 2008). They see cultural heritage as something without use or
value and has no return of investment. Chohan and Wai Ki (2005) and Nijkamp (2012) both
emphasized this argument suggesting that in every phase of development, particularly, urban
development does not only affect the structure of the city but it also destroys the traditional
physical composition, the built environment, social and cultural values and collective memory of
habitants. Apparently, cultural heritage is not given significance for national development unless
its relationship with economic activities has been clearly established (Ruoss and Alfarè, 2013).
As such, one way of preserving cultural heritage is by making it economically viable
such that it can generate leverage for the development of a widespread creative economy that
will improve the competitiveness of the urban environment (Van Der Borg and Russo, 2005).
But as cultural value is transformed into economic value, it yields to the dilemma of cultural
commodification thus raising a new question of, is cultural tourism empowering culture or
commodifying culture?
Specifically, this article aims to answer the following research questions:
1. Can culture and tourism actively harm one another?
2. In what ways can commoditization of culture be considered as positive and beneficial?
3. How to find the appropriate balance between the positive and negative perspectives of
commoditization of culture such that all stakeholders can benefit?
4. What is the relationship of culture and politics to economic development?

III. Theoretical Background
The Philippine culture has been molded and shaped by its rich history of colonization. In
the advent of its democracy and development, it has been the duty of the state to serve as the
vanguards of heritage. Nevertheless in the course of the performance of its duty, the state fails to
serve as the lead protector of heritage as it tends to cater to some vested interest. An analysis of
the state of Philippine cultural heritage preservation using state-society relations will reveal the
impasse between stakeholders.
In the Philippines, cultural heritage has been developed in the form of tourism such that it
constitutes an essential tool for economic development since it provides possibility for
employment generation and household income, city center revitalization, heritage tourism,
stimulates enterprise development, rural development, property value improvement and small
business incubation (Baycan and Girard, 2011); thus giving birth to ‘cultural heritage tourism’.
Cultural heritage tourism provides benefits to all stakeholders that includes the state as it
earns from direct and indirect taxes spent for tourism purposes, the private industry as businesses
thrives because of the growing demands imposed by the tourists, the local community as they
manage to preserve their identity by showcasing their local culture and traditions, and the tourists
as they satisfy their curiosity for ‘authentic’ cultural experience.
However, a political vacuum has been developed in the process such that a power
struggle exists between stakeholders with each trying to get the best of what others can offer. As
the state attempts to maintain balance between all stakeholders to prevent “killing the goose that
laid the eggs”, initiatives to promote cultural heritage were initiated. However, an elite-captured
state that is greatly influenced by a capitalist private industry in addition to self-regarding
consumers has limited the state’s action to maintaining profits thus making cultural heritage
preservation a politically driven issue generated for mass consumption. Such resulted to
colonization of culture that further exacerbated the alienation on the part of the local community.
At one side, cultural heritage has become a profit-driven industry making it customer-
oriented resulting to its ‘tourisification’ or cultural commodification. This results to
‘McDonaldization’ or ‘Disneyfication’ of culture, in which set of cultures are being replaced by
a single monoculture, one that transforms everything into a theme park and makes authentic
travel experiences impossible (Sheperd, 2002).
Such follows Levi-Strauss’ (1972) ‘Cultural Erosion Model’ of tourism suggesting that

on one hand while tourism may promote a renewed interest in traditional arts and social practices
among local craftsmen and others, on the other hand tourist purchases are fueled by the desire to
posses a mark, rather than any genuine interest in local cultural traditions or belief leading to the
‘death of authentic primitive culture’ as monetary value is given to rituals and traditions leaving
it valueless for local inhabitants. Such death results to authentic culture being an ‘endangered
culture’ and a ‘vanished reality’.
At the other side, commodification of culture goes beyond the issue of authenticity. The
Scheyvens’ (2003) ‘Cultural Empowerment Model’ of tourism is a framework that provides four
dimensions of empowerment: economic, psychological, social, and political. The economic gains
that are well documented in the various literatures are signs of the first kind of empowerment.
The psychological empowerment comes from self-esteem and pride in cultural traditions. Social
empowerment results from increased community cohesion when its members are brought
together through a tourism initiative. The political empowerment is regarded as a
multidimensional process and outcome that provides a shift in the balance primarily between the
powerful and the powerless, and secondarily between the dominant and the dependent.
State/Private
Industry
Cultural Erosion
Culture
+ Development Local Community Power
Tourism Struggle
Cultural
Tourist/Consumers
Empowerment
IV. Literature Review

Colonial History of Cultural Heritage in the Philippines
The Filipino culture has been characterized as hybrid in nature being a mixture of
elements from different and often incongruous sources such that Filipinos are oriental about
family, Chinese about business, and American about ambitions (Viray, 1968). That is why it is
not impossible that even a Filipino feels alienated with its own culture. The Philippine cultural
heritage can be classified under two categories, intangible and tangible. The former includes oral
and written customs and traditions, practices, representations, expressions, knowledge and skills
recognizable within a particular set of cultural or social values that communities recognize as

part of their cultural heritage; while the latter considers built structures with historical, archival,
anthropological, archaeological, artistic and architectural value (Radzuan and Ahmad, 2015).
Moreover, usual discussions on Philippine cultural heritage are typically presented
through comparison from the indigenous or pre-colonial period, the colonization period, and
post-colonial period. Moreover, the colonization period is further categorized under the Spanish
colonization (1571-1896), American colonization (1896-1942, 1945-1946), and Japanese
colonization (1942-1945).
The Philippine Literary Cultural Heritage
In the beginning, most literatures were reflective of the people’s beliefs and superstitions
as manifested in various legends, folk tales, incantations, and religious poetry. The other literary
forms that have been formally documented include the cradle of song or lullabies, domestic and
occupational songs, folk verses and folk songs, the salawikain or maxims, proverbs, and
epigrams, which have been handed from generation to generation. These can be characterized as
the people’s responses to the forces of the Unknown or a reaction to the nature of their
environment and to the rhythms of life (Viray, 1968). Nevertheless, most of those forms of
literature are no longer available today because of cultural deterioration that transpired during the
Spanish period.
After the Philippines was discovered by the Spaniards in 1521 and sovereignty was
established in 1571, Philippine literatures underwent a paradigm shift providing a certain
religious feelings and romantic mood, which later on included a strain of fatalism. Such
literatures were mostly oral art, consisting not only of epics but also of songs, riddles, stories,
and debates focused on the triumph of good over evil. Since most of the literatures were
condemned as heresy and ordered to be destroyed, Spanish literatures were introduced with focus
on the spread of Christianity and catechism such as the Holy Bible, Doctrina Christiana, prayer
books and the lives of saints and martyrs. Furthermore, majority of the literatures were in
Spanish language to aid Filipinos to gradually disregard anything non-Hispanic. Moreover, the
revolutionary period produced some of the finest in Philippine literary history in the latter years
during the peak of the propaganda movement such as the works of Jose Rizal, Graciano, Lopez
Jaena. Marcelo H. Del Pilar, and other illustrados (Viray, 1968).
The literary composition in the American colonization was greatly influenced by
significant developments in education and culture. When the American rule was formally

established in the country, the introduction of free public instruction with the use of English
language was initiated. This assimilation strategy employed by the Americans provided a
complete turn around for the Filipinos, such that anything Spanish was replaced with English
including books, printed materials, medium of communication and instructions, and lifestyle.
Most literary works took the form of free verse, modern short stories, and critical essays and
some known literary writers of the time include national artists Jose Garcia Villa and Virgilio
Almario. Developments in press production also stimulated the massive production of literary
works in English such as the Philippine Free Press and the Philippine Herald that later on
encouraged development of critical and seditious literary works and school publications such as
the College Folio.
However, literary progress was almost completely halted with the sudden colonization of
the Japanese. With the strict censorship being implemented, almost all newspapers in English
were stopped and freedom of speech and the press were almost absent making Filipinos bitter
and pessimistic. The Japanese language also replaced the English as the medium of
communication, such that writers were encouraged to write in Filipino again and contribute to
vernacular literature until the Americans returned during the liberation war and granting the
Filipinos their independence shortly.
Moreover, such colonial experiences have greatly influenced the Philippine literary
heritage making it very aggressive and ever dynamic, evident even during the post-colonial such
that the fame of Philippine literature lost most of its substantial value in the 21st century. The
expansion provided by technology and development contributed to the loss of Filipino interests
in such cultural treasures, particularly in the urban setting. Although in rural areas some forms of
oral customs and traditions are still being practiced that includes singing of lullabies, domestic
and occupational songs, folk verses and folk songs, sharing of salawikain or maxims, and
proverbs, it is usually the elders seen doing such practice. It may be hard for a millennial to pay
more attention to such practices and behaviors as the trend goes digital and everyone is busy
catching up with the latest fads that gradually consume human interaction and socialization.
Thus, the development of heritage from generation to another has been slowly fading.
In perspective, Viray (1968) suggested that it is tempting to conclude that the historical
plot of the Filipino has been one of colonization, in which the Philippine people have

experienced diverse influences. Further stressing significance of literature as racial heritage
(Viray, 1968: 196):
“Literature is both an act of discovery and an act of disclosure. It seeks to illuminate
for us aspects of human experience, providing us with an apprehension of other
people’s lives and an increasing accumulation of insights into our own behavior,
attitudes, and emotional involvement. No wonder then that Horace felt literature is
dulce et utile, agreeable and profitable.”
The Philippine Built Cultural Heritage
Seemingly, it is not only the literary heritage that is being left out by the society today.
Dissention is more obvious for built cultural heritage. In the Philippines, many heritage sites and
ancestral houses have been demolished, adapted as local warehouses or converted to high-rise
condominiums in the sake of modernization and development, or just left out to deteriorate.
Indigenous structures in the Philippines were manifestations of the basic lifestyle
prevalent in the community such that everything is patterned according to their basic needs to
ensure survivability. Early Filipino settlements were located near river and streams to facilitate
easy access to transportation and other economic resources but the arrival of the Spaniards
provided a complete turn around by organizing settlements into structured community centered
on a plaza surrounded by major Spanish structures like churches, municipio or municipal hall,
schools, and convents for evangelization purposes and easy supervision of their colony. The
Spaniards facilitated the construction of brick-made structures made of mud transforming
primitive structures made from the light materials of dried cogon grass and bamboo called bahay
kubo (Juanico, 2013).
As the American occupation started, the Philippines witnessed a rise in infrastructure and
architecture development with improved engineering paving the way for the use of concrete
reinforcements, hollow blocks, and hardwood showcasing Art Deco architecture. Nevertheless,
such established infrastructure beauty were put into neglect as the Japanese grounded all
architectural production for three-years. However, when much of the structures were heavily
damaged if not totally destroyed by the outrage of the Second World War, not everything were
reconstructed by the Americans particularly churches and minor government structures
contributing to their deterioration and demise.
The post-war structure development paved the way for the construction of commercial
centers and complexes that deconcentrated key structures usually centered at the plaza.

Commercial centers such as Escolta in Manila was developed as economic business districts
rather than a command post of political power. Post colonization era contributed as well to the
reconfiguration of the community landscape. As new demands were imposed by the fast-phased
modern lifestyle, changes in the landscape are really inevitable. Such that today, it is normal to
see high rise structure in the heart of every community, displacing old structures in favor of new
and innovative ones, and reinventing the community. It is now ordinary to see 24 hours
convenience stores, commercial centers that remain open until late nights, freeways at the middle
of residential areas, water reclamation, and other sorts of community reinventions.
The legacy of colonial history of the Philippines has contributed to how communities
perceive life, culture, and society. From the time before the Philippines was discovered by the
Europeans and the way the nation was passed on from one colonizer to another, minimal sense of
heritage conservation was developed. The perception that anything related to the historical past is
a sign of antiquity and underdevelopment has comprised the way present communities perceive
development.
One impact of colonization is “pyschocultural marginality” or the loss of one’s cultural
identity along with social and personal disorganization. Such impact is produced when people
are denied access to their traditional culture, values and norms leading to historical trauma and
cultural alienation (Dalal, 2011).
The cultural diversity produced by the series of colonization involving Spaniards,
Americans, and Japanese created a weak sense of Filipino identity, which resulted to the culture
of neglect for cultural heritage conservation. As Pierre Nora (1989) emphasized, there is the
absence of the will to remember. This identity crisis has contributed to the commodification of
culture that was further enhanced by urbanization. Once culture is treated as a commodity,
financial value is attached to it and losses its authenticity (Taylor, 2001). Hence, cultural heritage
conservation becomes a financial and material concept.
Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Development
In 2015, the United Nations adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as an
offshoot of the Millennium Development Goals. Under the SDGs, goal number 11 provides for
making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. Furthermore, its
specific target goals provides that:
“Target 11.3

By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for
participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and
management in all countries.
Target 11.4
Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural
heritage.”
Moreover, the concept of sustainable development was also elaborated during the Habitat
Process, more recently in the Habitat III held on 17-20 October 2016 in Quito, Ecuador. The
Habitat III, formally known as the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable
Urban Development) represents the global efforts for a shared vision on sustainable future of the
cities. Specifically, the conference recognized economic and social development as a part of
interconnected system of balances citing that progress in one area can produce negative impacts
in another area. The conference produced the New Urban Agenda (NUA) document defining the
global urbanization strategies for the next two decades. Nevertheless, the document is not
binding as it only serves as a guide for the next 20 years for efforts around urbanization (Nocca,
2017: 2-3).
Sustainable Built Heritage Conservation Amidst Urbanization
As societies advance towards urban development, urban decay has been the common
problem for built cultural heritage conservation thus urban conservation faces a huge threat.
Hence, built cultural heritages cannot just be simply set aside but should be well preserved as
national treasures (Balco, 2011; Radzuan and Ahmad, 2015).
Since heritage is non-renewable in nature, Chohan and Wai Ki (2005) considers heritage
conservation at a sustainable level by implying an approach to conservation that preserves the
heritage without imposing insupportable costs and without altering the symmetry between
conservation and change. Veldpaus et al. (2013) supported such argument suggesting a
landscape-based approach that identifies conservation as reducing the adverse impacts of
socioeconomic development by integrating urban development and heritage management.
Apparently, built cultural heritage conservation rests on the different types of value
attached to it. Aside from the usual aesthetic and emotional value attributed to it by cultural
advocates, it also incorporates values seen from an economic perspective such as the culture
capital identified by Throsby (2007) considering both the direct use value and indirect non-use
value of the cultural heritage.

On one hand, the so-called use value pertains to the value assigned to heritage properties
that produces concrete results such as profits and earnings from cultural heritage activities. This
includes heritage structure used for housing that yield higher rents than other buildings by virtue
of its heritage status or the improved value of remote users when they benefit from the view
provided by the heritage property or due to its proximity to the heritage property. On the other
hand, non-use value refers to the indirect use value or the less tangible benefits of cultural
heritage such as the deep affection and appreciation one can get from a certain cultural object or
historical site; or spiritual and social satisfaction which cannot be measured in concrete terms
such as profits, revenues, or number of jobs and businesses it generated (Throsby, 2007).
As such, cultural heritage advocates provided varied approach in heritage conservation
without impinging urban development. One common approach in heritage conservation features
adaptive re-use of historic buildings. The R.A. 10066 and the Singapore Legislative Council
Secretariat (2008) considers adaptive re-use as the utilization of built structures and sites of value
for purposes other than that for which they were originally intended in order to conserve the site
while considering its engineering integrity and design authenticity. Under this approach,
redundant buildings and structures are transformed into commercial spaces or structures with
present value to accommodate new uses while incorporating its former value. Therese
Crisostomo (2003) considers this as a form of gentrification or a more comprehensive approach
in addressing urban issues giving less priority to socio-cultural, economic and environmental
issues. Gentrification became popular during the 1970s, as old families moved towards
renovation or redevelopment of their properties in the old and run-down parts of the city. But
such move caters only to the welfare and demand of higher-income groups at the expense of
cultural heritage conservation (Juanico, 2013).
Another conservation strategy endorsed by the council was the “old-and-new” approach.
Under this approach, new infrastructure developments are allowed to locate between old and
conserved buildings to allow the regeneration of the under-used property or building by allowing
new structures to be built but takes into consideration its relationship to adjacent structures
(Legislative Council Secretariat 2008).
Moreover, Peter Roberts and Hugh Sykes (2000) presented an alternative idea to urban
development in the context of cultural heritage conservation calling it urban regeneration, a
community response to the opportunities and challenges presented by urban degeneration.

However, Meliton Juanico (2013) provided a different perspective calling it re-
urbanization which presents a four-stage cycle within an individual agglomeration starting off
with the first phase called urbanization, suburbanization for the second phase, then followed by
counter-urbanization, lastly dis-urbanization. The transition from one stage to another is an
outcome of the continued migration of people to the center causing an outward movement to the
peripherals. Thus, re-urbanization efforts are geared towards the revitalization of the aging and
decaying parts of the city, particularly cultural heritage sites.
The idea of urban regeneration was further classified Roberts and Sykes (2000) into four
typologies: urban reconstruction, rehabilitation, revitalization, and redevelopment.
Urban Reconstruction
Urban reconstruction is presented as a comprehensive action plan to address the decline
in urban areas with cultural heritage value, which will provide improvements in the economic,
physical, cultural, social and environmental condition of an area. It aims for a holistic adaptation
of the physical fabric, social structures, economic base and environmental condition of the area
through the participation and cooperation of all stakeholders and concerned social actors
(Roberts and Sykes, 2000; Chohan and Wai Ki, 2005). Nevertheless, Tsenkova (2002) added that
urban reconstruction moves beyond simple urban renewal but incorporates social, cultural and
environmental considerations as well. Elnokaly and Elseragy (2013) called such action plan as
sustainable cultural heritage and urban development that aims to bring the social actors together,
weaving the parts of the city into a cohesive whole.
Urban Revitalization
Urban revitalization at one point entails the physical rejuvenation of an area that provides
solutions to urban problems with lasting improvement in the economic, physical, cultural and
environmental condition of the subject area through preservation and conservation of historical
and cultural structures in terms of economic activities (Roberts and Sykes, 2000). Wannasilpa
Peerapun (2012) calls this urban conservation and regeneration, which includes economic,
cultural and social dimension in urban conservation planning thus reflecting an integrative
planning.
Urban Renewal
Urban renewal on one hand aspires to address the deterioration of the revitalized and
reconstructed cultural heritage sites including a portion of the peripheral neighborhood. This is

usually done through retrofitting of the cultural heritage site. Moreover, urban renewal programs
do not encompass a comprehensive strategy formulation. It is usually reactive rather than
proactive, thus only addresses present issues (Roberts and Sykes, 2000).
Urban Redevelopment
Urban redevelopment on the other hand focuses mostly on making an area economically
viable such that improvements are geared towards capital accumulation in order to adapt to the
changing business environment and trends so as not to lead to demolition of the cultural heritage
property (Roberts and Sykes, 2000; Fainstein et al., 1983).
Nevertheless, Eduardo Rojas (2002) suggested that urban heritage conservation would be
more likely if three conditions are met. First, all social actors should be involved so that there
will be wider scope and support for conservation efforts making it sustainable. Second, if the
cultural heritage properties are income-producing or serving a definite social need that enhances
the possibility of being preserved over a long period. Third, if there is a comprehensive approach
to conservation that encompasses both the structure and their environment.
In relation to this, public-private partnership for heritage conservation have been
developed in which the private sector is encouraged to support conservation efforts that can
enhance the attractiveness of the area in exchange of some incentives. Such strategy constitutes a
powerful mechanism for sustainable conservation because it combines what each sector can
offer. The public sector contributes the long-term commitment to the heritage conservation
process, while civil society groups provide the political support required by the public sector to
spend taxpayers’ money on heritage conservation, and real estate investors offer their expertise
and capabilities to take on a broader spectrum of conservation activities based on market
demand, and private philanthropies contribute by providing private resources used for
investments that do not yield direct and tangible return of investment (Rojas, 2002).
V. Discussion
The Economic Power of Cultural Heritage Districts in the Philippines
Despite of the massive colonial influences creating a diversity of culture for the Filipinos,
there are still some communities in the Philippines that managed to maintain their historic past
and provide high value to culture. Vigan’s Mestizo District in Ilocos Sur serves as the country’s
premiere historical district. The Kamestisuhan District of Malolos, Bulacan could likewise rival
the prestige of being a heritage site. Iloilo City has recently started the gradual revitalization of

its old downtown area, while San Fernando, Pampanga has initiated its urban renewal program in
preserving heritage for progress. Likewise, the town of Silay, Bacolod takes pride in conserving
its heritage as the “Paris of the East” as part of the local government’s Heritage Conservation
Project; while Taal, Batangas continues to preserve its heritage legacy through its Heritage
Village. Moreover, Sta. Ana, Manila’s community-based heritage tourism has demonstrated how
community engagement can lead to a sustainable cultural heritage tourism program.
Nevertheless, the case of the Ifugao’s Rice Terraces showcases the detrimental effect of cultural
commodification.
Vigan’s Mestizo District
The heritage district of Vigan, Ilocus Sur is a demonstration of how the commodification
of culture provided a cultural capital resulting to the fusion of sustainable cultural heritage
conservation and economic development. The city ventured on its rich history and culture by
embarking on a cultural heritage conservation and heritage tourism program. Through this, the
city was able to develop from being a 2nd class municipality with annual revenue of Php 27
million or 800,000 dollars and population of 42,067 to a 1st class municipality in 1995 (Medina,
2009).
The city of Vigan first experienced colonial culture domination in 1572 when Capt. Juan
de Salcedo conquered the islands of Ylocos or Ciudad Fernardina de Bigan. The town followed
the standard urban planning patterns implemented by the Spaniards that radiates from a central
park surrounded by a church, government building, and other Spanish structures. It became the
center of political, religious, social and cultural activities in the north. In the aftermath of the
Manila-Acapulco Galleon Trade, the significance of Vigan as center for trade and industry
started to decline as an offshoot of political instability that led to the massive migration of local
businessmen outside of the city. Thus to regain the lost glory, the city of Vigan focused on their
rich historical and cultural heritage potential as a major tool for development with the mission of
“to conserve our heritage and deliver effective services for an improved quality of life”.
In 1995, the local government of Vigan reengineered governance through “the Vigan
Conservation Program as a Tool for Development” that had four objectives (Medina, 2009):
1. To fortify the sense of identity and pride of the community on their
historic city.

2. To institutionalize local protective measures and development plans to
ensure continuity of programs and involvement of stakeholders.
3. To forge local and international linkages.
4. To develop Vigan as a tourist destination where tourism programs
enrich and conserve the people’s core values and traditions, as well as
sustain livelihood and employment for Bigueños (Vigan locals).
The Vigan Conservation Program aims to spearhead economic development through
cultural heritage conservation. The city’s consultant on Heritage Conservation, Eric Zerrudo
(2008), embarked on a four-phase model of cultural heritage-oriented development leading to
sustainable development. It starts with awareness, appreciation, protection, and utilization.
As such, the city started the awareness phase through cultural heritage mapping or the
identification of heritage resources for purposes of conservation and development. To facilitate
cultural awareness, the city government initiated a massive information campaign through
brochures, videos, e-books, newsletters, postal stamps and coloring workbooks highlighting the
city’s traditions, arts, and culture thus enriching cultural heritage appreciation.
To further improve cultural heritage appreciation, tourism and heritage-related economic
activities including cultural and historical tours were also organized. Museum tours, the Ilocos
Culinary Tour, horse-drawn carriage or kalesa rides and Vigan Heritage River Cruise were
among the common tour attractions. Capacity-building seminars and workshops were also
organized which led to the reorganization of existing people’s organization and encouraged the
creation of new ones.
Legislative measures were also undertaken to institutionalize the conservation program.
Such measures include (1) defining the boundaries of the protected historic district; (2) providing
the Vigan Conservation Guidelines that stipulates the guidelines on restoration works on historic
structures including ancestral houses; (3) creating a multi-sectoral Vigan Conservation Council
which monitors conservation and development plans involving the historic district; and (4)
authorizing the annual allotment of one percent of the city’s internal revenue allotment for arts,
culture and tourism (Medina, 2009).
Finally, to make the most of the cultural conservation program, the city government
promoted the use of their rich cultural heritage to address contemporary needs relevant to the
stakeholders in further strengthening their conservation program. Through the cultural heritage

conservation efforts, the city government was able to produce economic value in the form of
heritage-based tourism that generated livelihood and employment. Ancestral houses along the
main historic street of Calle Crisologo and other historical buildings were considered for
adaptive re-use as office space, hotels, shophouses and restaurants without destroying its original
historical and cultural structure. New structures were also built following the old Spanish
architectural design.
Moving forward, the city began to initiate partnerships and collaborations with other
organizations and governments such as the collaboration with the Spanish government in the
formulation of the Vigan master plan and granting of financial and technical assistance to keep
the program sustainable.
In 1999, the City of Vigan was inscribed in the prestigious UNESCO’s World Heritage
List of Sites and Monuments after demonstrating a delicate balance of preservation and
urbanization. In 2000, Vigan was formally classified as a city through Republic Act No. 8988,
which validated the city creation by virtue of the Royal Decree issued by the King of Spain in
1757.
The cultural heritage conservation program of Vigan led to the economic development of
the city from having an annual income of 800,000 dollars in 1995 to 4.2 million dollars in 2009.
Such initiative led to the recognition of UNESCO in 2012 citing the city as an example of best
conservation management of world heritage properties by being the best-preserved example of a
planned Spanish colonial town in Asia:
“Vigan represents a unique fusion of Asian building design and construction
with European colonial architecture and planning”. Furthermore, “Vigan is
an exceptionally intact and well preserved example of a European trading
town in East and East Asia.”
Moreover, through its cultural heritage conservation program as a tool for development,
the city has been recognized as well as a Galing Pook Awardee for the Vigan’s Heritage
Conservation Program as Best Practice on Local Governance, Cleanest and Greenest City in
Northern Luzon, Most Child Friendly Component City of the Philippines, Best Performing Local
Government unit with the least number of constituents below the poverty threshold in the Ilocos
Region. Finally, in 2015, Vigan was officially inscribed among the New7Wonders Cities in the
world.

Such recognitions also provided non-monetized benefits such as boosting the pride and
empowering of the people of Vigan to be guardians of their own cultural heritage that led to the
preparation of the heritage homeowner’s preservation manual and the organization of the Save
Vigan Ancestral Homeowners Association, Incorporated.
Kamestisuhan District of Malolos, Bulacan
The City of Malolos, Bulacan takes pride in its own Kamestisuhan District that centers on
Pariancillo Street. Just like the case of Vigan, Ilocus Sur, the local government of Malolos
banked on their rich history and culture in initiating a cultural heritage tourism program called
“Vamos A Malolos”. The program showcased both tangible and intangible cultural heritages of
Malolos including theatrical plays and cultural presentations.
The historic significance of the district dates back to the declaration of the First Republic
of the Philippines by General Emilio Aguinaldo in 1898. After which, several houses near the
Malolos Church were converted into government offices. One of the fifteen heritage houses
along the district is the Lino and Maria Reyes House that served as the office of Apolinario
Mabini, the chief adviser of President Emilio Aguinaldo. Another house is the Fausto Chiong
House which became the Secretaría de Interior, while the Jose Bautista House famous for its
caryatid posts and French Art Nouveau style was the Secretaría de Fomento (Department of
Public Works) that was converted into a living museum of antique artifacts. Another structure is
the Adriano Family house, locally known as Casa Tribunal de Malolos. It used to be the Second
Municipal Hall of Malolos that was later turned into a carcel (jailhouse). Another known
structure is the site of the Instituto de Mujeres (School for Women) established by twenty young
women who pursued the establishing of a night school amid opposition from the friars.
Some of the properties subscribed to the heritage conservation practice of adaptive reuse
such as the Adriano-Vasquez Mansion that served as the site of the Gobierno Militar de la Plaza
and now serves as the City’s Meralco Office but still retaining its Art Nouveau original design.
Another excellent restoration is the Art Deco structure Dr. Luis Santos House, son of one of the
twenty women of Malolos Doña Alberta Uitangcoy Santos.
Unfortunately, some heritage houses were already demolished such as the Ponciano
Tiongson House, which served as the Commisaria de Guerra that was replaced by an Internet
café.

Apart from the Kamestisuhan district, other heritage strictures that can be found in
Malolos includes the Casa Real that served as the office-residence of the gobernadorcillo during
the Spanish colonization and a capitol during the American era. Today, it serves as the national
shrine and Museum of Political History.
Along with, is the Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church popularly known as the Barasoain
Church, the site of the First Philippine Congress, with its convent once served as the Palacio
Presidenia (official residence and office) of President Aguinaldo.
In 2001, the National Historical Institute declared the historic town center of Malolos a
National Historical Landmark and Heritage Town (Tejero, 2016). At present, there were more
than 20 establishments declared as heritage structures in the area, 15 of which are ancestral
houses. Such pronouncements resulted to improvement of tourism in the area that created
empowerment of the community’s creative culture industry and love for culture.
Iloilo’s Old Downtowns Revitalizations
The local government of Iloilo through its Iloilo City Cultural Heritage Conservation
Council (ICCHCC) likewise takes pride in their version of a heritage conservation framework
focusing in culture capital for development. The framework is a product of a multi-stakeholder
strategic planning workshop aiming to transform the city into a culturally-vibrant community
working for the preservation, development and promotion of its heritage without compromising
urban design and planning (Lujan, 2006). The thrust of the program is to revitalize the old
downtown of the city to attract investments and ensure the effective management of the
preservation efforts.
The city of Iloilo gained prominence during the boom of the sugar industry in the 19 th
century serving as the transport hub for the developing sugar industry in Negros Island. This
incident stirred local economy growth as the city witnessed the influx of banks, social clubs,
warehouses, machine shops, printing presses, retail shops, commercial establishments, and
educational and medical institutions. The economic status of the city is much evident in the
designs of old houses and mansions that resembled a display of unique mix of Asian and
Hispanic architectures. However, the decline of the sugar industry and the impacts of the
Japanese invasion particularly to the city’s central business district (CBD) left the city to decay
suffering from economic stagnation.

In April 2000, the city responded to the calls of cultural and heritage tourism by enacting
the Local Cultural Heritage Conservation Ordinance. The ordinance created the ICCHCC tasked
to monitor and conducts an inventory of cultural heritage and legacy buildings in the city and to
promulgate rules and regulations for the promotion of cultural heritage preservation. The main
focus of the conservation program is the CBD composed of the streets of J.M. Basa, Aldeguer,
Mapa, Guanco, and Iznart; which were declared as Heritage Zones. In addition, certain sites were
declared as Heritage and Tourist Spots including the Jaro Cathedral, Molo Church, CBD, Fort
San Pedro, the Jaro Plaza complex, and the Plaza Libertad Complex (Yu, Oreta, Ibabao and
Hechanova, 2013).
Under the ordinance owners, administrations, lessees or any person in charge in the
heritage zone are prohibited from undertaking any structural modifications without
recommendation from ICCHCC. Furthermore, all businesses within the zone are entitled to
incentives including business tax exemptions as prescribed under the city’s Tourism Code.
Moreover, the council started the gradual phase-out of big billboards and the regulation of
signage that obstructs the aesthetical beauty of the cultural and heritage structures.
Through such framework the local government of Iloilo perceives that by the reviving the
central business district, economic investments can be encouraged to boost the city’s economy
and serve as an impetus of economic advancement.
In May 2015, a national legislation, Republic Act No. 10555, was signed into law
declaring historic areas of Iloilo as Cultural Heritage Tourism Zone. Through such legislation,
the local government of Iloilo, dubbed as the “City of Mansions”, aspires to be the country’s top
cultural heritage destination that will result in improvement in tourism and its accompanying
financial, social, and cultural developments.
San Fernando, Pampanga’s Preserving Heritage for Progress
The local government of San Fernando, Pampanga initiated a similar heritage
conservation campaign, “Preserving Heritage for Progress”, that anchors on urban renewal of
cultural heritage. In 1995, the city lost one of its prime jewels, the Abad Santos house that serve
as the abode of the prominent Abad Santos couple Vicente Abad Santos and Toribia Basco, after
a heavy typhoon caused a lahar overflow that ruined the famed heritage house. The event served
as the tipping point for the community to facilitate initiatives that will conserve its rich history,
heritage, and culture.

Aside from the popularity created by giant lantern production and the Holy Week’s
portrayal of the passion and death Jesus Christ, San Fernando is home to many heritage
structures four of which were declared as Heritage House by the National Historical Institute.
Most of the structures are located along Consunji Street and Capitol Boulevard, which include
the Lazatin House, Dayrit-Cuyugan House, Hizon-Singian House, Henson-Hizon House,
Consunji House, Hizon-Ocampo House, Santos-Hizon House, the Metropolitan Cathedral, San
Fernando Train Station, Death March Marker, Pampanga Capitol and Provincial Jail, and the
PASUDECO (Pampanga Sugar Development Company) Sugar Central. Most of these structures
were constructed in the late Spanish period-early American period, while some were even
appropriated by the Japanese Imperial Army during the Second World War.
The city’s heritage conservation initiatives started in 2004 after the local government
through a city ordinance pronounced the City of San Fernando Heritage District as part of the
“Preserving Heritage for Progress” program. Eventually the program gained recognition as it was
cited as one of the Top 10 Best Practices of the League of Cities of the Philippines and a
Trailblazing Program of the Galing Pook Awards in the same year. Following the success of the
program, the local government has institutionalized incentives for heritage owners in 2006 by
granting zero assessment levels for purposes of real property tax assessments. In the same year,
the city’s conservation program was given the Heritage Tourism Award of the Best Tourism
Practices – Special Award Category by the Association of Tourism Officers of the Philippines
citing:
“in cognizance of the innovative and valuable effort, passion and
commitment of the City Government to ensure the protectin and
promotion of the City’s priceless architectural heritage by restoring
and preserving the same for the benefit of the future generation of
Fernandinos and the Filipino people.”
In 2015, the local government renewed its commitment to heritage conservation through
a new strategic objective anchored on heritage, crafts and cuisine, envisioning it as “City of San
Fernando as Center of Kapampangan Culture, A Preferred Tourism Destination in Asia by 2022”
(Pangilinan, 2015).
In 2017, the vision of the local government starts to unfold as a renowned property
developer announced their plans to construct, the Capital Town, a regional center in the area. The
difference between the proposed business district with other business districts in the country is

that it will pursue urban development alongside cultural heritage conservation. The regional
center will rise at the historic sugar central of the Pampanga Sugar Development Co. (Pasudeco),
which closed operations in 2015. During the public consultations initiated by the property
developer, one of the concerns raised was the preservation of genuine Kapampangan culture.
The series of consultation has resulted into a unique design of the regional district in which the
mall will be built in the shape of the old sugar mill building, with the machinery and the trains
used to transport sugar canes as main fixtures. Aside from that, the entire development is
perceived to be a living museum of Kapampangan culture and history, as shophouses will be
constructed as well as monuments of local heroes. The property is to rise in 5 years time. But
new reports in June 2018 from the Philippine Daily Inquirer cited the demolition of smokestacks
of the old sugar mill by the developer citing stability and safety issues, prompting heritage
advocates to sound the alarm and call for retrofitting the smokestacks as parts of the central
design of the structure.
Nevertheless, the initiative of the local government in partnership with all stakeholders
has resulted to a revival of tourism in the area after being struck with series of events with
enormous economic implications that started with the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and
followed by the pull-out of American facilities that corresponded to lost of jobs and financial
woes. Moreover, such empowerment of cultural pride is being manifested once more as local
communities and heritage advocates voice out their concerns over the potential threats to
heritage of urban development.
Silay, Bacolod’s Incentives for Conservation and Adaptive Reuse
The local government of Silay, Bacolod took bold steps in the preservation of their old
town and conservation of its heritage as the “Paris of the East”. The town gained popularity
during the sugar boom in the 19th century as sugar barons reaped the benefits of the sugar trade
evident by their opulent mansions that formed the culture and aesthetic core of the region.
Henceforth, Silay city continues to ride the waves of adaptive re-use of heritage buildings to
cafés and bars, accommodations and other business ventures to boost heritage tourism in the area
boasting with 29 heritage houses recognized by the National Historical Commission of the
Philippines. Apart from heritage houses, the city takes pride in its heritage sugar facilities such as
antiquated sugar mills, sugar chimneys, and dilapidated trains used in transporting sugar canes
from farms to mills.

Silay City recorded a remarkable success in 2015 in its heritage conservation efforts
when the local government enacted a landmark legislation that provides 100-percent incentive in
taxes for owners of heritage structures who properly maintain and adaptively reuse their
properties. The Heritage Ordinance is an offshoot of a previous ordinance that created the Silay
Heritage District the previous year. Moreover, the Heritage Ordinance identified cultural districts
for tourists and investors thus requiring necessary clearance from the Office of the Building
Official of the City’s Engineering Office for renovations and modifications of existing structures
and constructing of future facilities (Sembrano, 2015).
In 2016, the local government of Bacolod reported an increase of 17 percent in tourist
arrivals accounting for 1.6 million visitors compared to the previous year, and an average of 13.6
percent increase over the last five year in which the town of Silay forms parts the core tourists’
area. On the same year, the Silay City Heritage Conservation Project won second place in the
11th Pearl Awards of the Association of Tourism Officers and the Department of Tourism. At
present, the local government in partnership with the Heritage Conservation Society is proposing
sugar centrals in the area for nomination to the UNESCO’s World Heritage List.
Apparently, the success of Silay City Heritage Conservation Project helps the community
define their history and identity. The efforts and benefits extended by the local government has
motivated the community to protect their local culture and heritage against the threats of
urbanization, which in turn generated economic and socio-cultural empowerment to the
community.
Taal, Batangas’ Heritage Village
The “Heritage Village” of Taal, Batangas showcased a fine example of responsible and
ethical promotion of heritage tourism. The town received its distinction as a “Heritage Village”
in 1987 thru a resolution passed by the National Historical Institute. Hence, Taal is one the most
culturally preserved sites in the country in spite of the growing urbanization in the region
(Aguda, Tamayo and Barlan, 2013).
In 2009, the local government adopted the Heritage Conservation, Preservation and
Restoration Code of the Municipality of Taal, Batangas that prescribes the rules in the
conservation of heritage structures and guidelines to all future construction activities requiring all
designs to conform to 19th century Filipino structures or American colonial styles ancestral
homes. With the support of a community-based Non-Governmental Organization, the Taal

Active Alliance League (TAAL), the community aims to preserve its culturally rich heritage
houses and structures that includes the Marcella Agoncillo Museum, Gregorio Agoncillo
Mansion, Goco House, Don Apacible Museum, Villa Tortuga, Villa Severina, Estacio Ancestral
House, Orosa House, Galleria Taal, Casa Dela Rosa, Villavicencio House, Ylagan-Dela Rosa
House, Casa Ofelia, La Casa de Dimaano, Casa Conchita, Villavicencio Wedding Gift House,
Okada-Barrion Salazar House, Casa Punzalan, Cabrera House, Gen. Ananias Diokno House,
Casa Gahol, Dela Vega House, Taaleñas Antique Shop, and Bazaar de Taal. With a good number
of preserved heritage houses, the town’s heritage village draws inspiration from the success of
Vigan’s Mestizo District.
More than the preserved built-heritage structures, Taal also ensures that the community’s
oral traditions are likewise preserved through the recital of a traditional luwa, a declamation in
the vernacular as prayer or tribute to the saints. Apart from this, every month of April, the town
celebrates the annual EL PASUBAT festival that brings forward the local delicacies of
Empanada, Longganisa, Panutsa, Balisong, Barong tagalog, Tapang Taal, Tawilis, and sinaing
na Tulingan (Castillo, Bansil, Garcia, Castillo and Peyra, 2015). At present, the community
continues to respond to the calls of sustainable heritage tourism in promoting development with
sensitivity to the local community’s values and goals.
Sta. Ana, Manila’s Community-Based Heritage Tourism
Sta. Ana, Manila is one of the first settlements near the Pasig river with numerous
establishments and community structures dating back to Spanish colonial period, American
colonial period, Liberation period and Post War Era buildings classified to be at least 50 years
old. The “Community-Based Heritage Tourism (CBHT) program” of Sta. Ana, Manila is a socio-
economic development strategy in which the community conserves its cultural assets and history
to instill pride of place and develop tourism as a means to alleviate poverty through adaptive
reuse of heritage assets and development of creative economy (De Leon, 2011). It is anchored on
the local community’s realization that despite the demands imposed by development and
modernization, the neighborhood can manage to retain its quiet, old world suburban atmosphere
that was threatened and vanished in most parts of the urban city.
The program was a product of a continuous effort started by a core group of local Sta.
Ana residents together with civil society groups including the Lola Grande Foundation for

Women and Children and Fundación Santiago as they rallied the community to organize and
preserve its heritage by finding a sustainable way to financially benefit from it.
The Fundación Santiago organized series of programs to prepare residents’ participation
in the CBHT program that included lectures and neighborhood tours for local residents to
facilitate cultural learning and appreciation and possible financial reward in participating in the
sustainable care of the community’s shared heritage. As the program moves on, it expanded to
include more homeowners, businesses, transport groups, the parish sector, and the local
government. Ten barangay units with over 60 identified heritage structures became partners in
the program by actively participating in focused-group discussions and lectures and joining an
outbound-learning experience to observe the city of Vigan and experience first-hand how
sustainable heritage conservation generated financial prospects. The CBHT program produced an
inventory of cultural resources that includes heritage houses, religious practices, and cuisines.
The program also generated the support of the local government that led to the enactment of a
city ordinance in 2011 declaring the parts of Sta. Ana, Manila as a histo-cultural heritage/overlay
zone that prohibits the alteration and demolition of any historic site or any area with the declared
zone without a permit from the local government.
The participation of all stakeholders facilitated the organization of the Santa Ana
Heritage Tourism Association that spearheaded the development and conduct of heritage tours in
the area. The association facilitates the training of tour guides that were provided with tour guide
reference kit containing the community inventory and heritage mapping, reference material, and
pertinent articles written about the area to help them become tour guides and heritage warriors.
The usual tour route includes the Nuestra Señora de los Desamparados Church otherwise known
as the Santa Ana Church that dates back to 1725, the turn-of-the-century Filipino-Chinese
Lichauco Heritage House, and a popular supermarket developed by a prominent Filipino-Chinese
tycoon that adopts conservation-conscious design using arches, grill, old lampposts, and tile
roofing instead of the usual prototype utilized by the supermarket chain. Apart from design
innovations, the supermarket also preserved a centuries-old balete tree illustrating how heritage
can blend with development.
The CBHT socially empowered the community making them active stakeholders in the
program. Likewise, it resulted to the economic empowerment of the community that further
enhanced their pride and love for their culture. More than that, it generated political

empowerment on the part of the community as they manage to voice out their concerns in
developing and safeguarding their heritage and culture as agents of development.
Ifugao’s Rice Terraces
In 1995, the UNESCO inscribed five clusters of the Ifugao Rice Terraces to its World
Heritage List, those of Batad and Bangaan (in Banaue,), Nagacadan (in Kiangan), Hungduan,
and Mayoyao citing it as an outstanding example of an evolved living cultural landscape of
unparalleled beauty that can be traced back as far as 2,000 years. According to UNESCO, the
terraces epitomize the absolute blending of the physical, socio-cultural, economic, religious and
political environment serving as a priceless contribution of Philippine ancestors to humanity.
The rice terraces were declared National Treasures by virtue of Presidential Decrees 260
(1973) and 1505 (1978). Moreover, it is also protected as national cultural heritage under
Republic Act No. 10066 (2010). Nevertheless, such institutional parameters failed to prevent the
inclusion of the property in the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2001, just six years after its
inscription. Foremost threats to the world heritage were identified as relentless forces of
modernity and unregulated development as reported by the Agence France-Presse (AFP).
Specifically, threats include soil erosion, deforestation, climate change, unregulated tourism
development, and lack of interest in farming among younger generations.
Despite of the inscription in the infamous UNESCO list in 1995, Banaue remains to be a
fourth-class municipality with lack of stable income compelling younger generations to abandon
the traditional practice of farming in favor of greener pastures offered by the BPO industry, real-
estate and other salary-based careers. Notably, Ifugao children also refuse to go and work in the
terraces because of preoccupation with television and the Internet. This has resulted to
abandonment of almost 600 hectares of agricultural land that needs to be restored.
In addition, the opening of the area to market economy and tourism has considerably
altered the mentalities and traditions of the community. The growth of tourism in the area created
an increasing demand for lumber both from the woodcarving and construction industry resulting
to overexploitation of the forests, leading to lower water regulation and dried terraces. Water
diversion for industry purposes also contributed to irrigation issues (Charette-Castonguay, 2014).
Although initial conservation efforts resorted to the removal of the cultural property to
the endangered’s list in 2012, compelling issues were still needed to be address such as the
looming increase of informal settlers occupying portions of the terraces and the rise in the

numbers of petty-commercial establishments that lure tourists to pick them. According to the
AFP report, “ugly multi-story buildings made of cheap concrete, polluting diesel vehicles, and
ramshackle tin-roofed shanties” diminished the cultural and aesthetic values of traditional Ifugao
villages and houses. Thus, the rapid development of tourism has generated the accompanying ills
and perils of tourist commodification such that commodification of culture has led to cultural
erosion and lost of intrinsic value in favor of economic value.
Recent efforts to a sustainable tourism framework have been sought in partnership with
the private sector. In 2016, the Banaue Rice Terraces Restoration Project was launched aiming to
restore, conserve, and preserve the rice terraces in its diversity in a sustainable manner. With the
root cause of the problem being identified as environmental and socio-economic, public-private
partnership with Universal Harvester Inc. led to the rehabilitation of almost 40 hectares in April
2018. Accordingly, an increase in farming yield coupled with the benefits of sustainable tourism
will motivate the Ifugao farmers to go back to their traditional practice of farming and learn to
love their craft and take pride to their culture once more.
Sustainable Cultural Heritage Tourism Framework
The relentless efforts of heritage districts in the Philippines have established the link
between cultural heritage conservation and economic development. Such development
framework underscores the sector’s contribution to the economy through cultural and creative
industries, sustainable cultural tourism, and cultural infrastructure, thus developing culture as a
means of capital towards developing the economy leading to cultural empowerment (Ruoss and
Alfarè, 2013; Scheyvens, 2003).
However, the case of the Ifugao’s Rice Terraces provides a situation in which cultural
tourism fails to provide sustainable empowerment to the community after making it to the
UNESCO’s World Heritage List and being classified as endangered after six years. After the
initial inscription to the infamous listing, the effects and implications of the sudden development
of tourism in the area has resulted to its immediate depletion thus losing all the gains and leaving
the community to suffer.
The eight cases presented in this study showcase the double standard that cultural
heritage tourism can provide. Predominantly, it has proven that culture through its heritage can
serve as an avenue for community empowerment in aspects of economic, psychological, social,
and political. But unregulated tourism development has also demonstrated the possibility of

flipping the gains to its disadvantage thus making tourism a threat to cultural heritage leading to
its erosion. Instead, what is recommended is a holistic-inclusive tourism plan that incorporates
all interest groups to work together towards sustainable cultural heritage tourism.
The community-based heritage tourism of Sta. Ana, Manila provides an illustration of
how cultural heritage tourism can be inclusive and participatory. By making the community the
primary beneficiaries makes them active shareholders in every initiative. The leadership
manifested by concern civic groups in the area has encouraged the community to participate and
become active custodians of their own cultural heritage. In addition, support from the
government is also necessary for success. The initiatives conducted by the local governments of
Vigan, Ilocos Sur and Taal, Batangas in ensuring that the unexpected implications of tourism
will be manageable placed the community side-by-side with the government in such cultural
heritage initiative. The city ordinances ensured that alterations and innovations involving such
heritages would be properly monitored thus minimizing the trade-off effects of managing built
cultural heritage and sustainability. The tax incentives for built cultural heritage conservation
offered by the local governments of Silay in Bacolod, San Fernando and Angeles in Pampanga,
the city of Iloilo, and the city of Manila, provided the much needed boost in institutionalizing
cultural heritage tourism and its conservation. Furthermore, the practice of adaptive re-use of
cultural heritage properties as a form of conservation has promoted the development of tourism
for conservation.
According to the Culture-Oriented Economic Development framework espoused by Van
Der Borg and Russo (2005), the economic power of culture rests on three assumptions: (1) the
development of the cultural sector serves as the leverage for the development of a widespread
creative production sector; (2) a creative economy improves the competitiveness of the urban
environment; and (3) a culture-oriented urban economy is sustainable if spatial balance, social
permeability, and cultural identity are preserved in the growth process. Joan Henderson (2012)
likewise reiterates that cultural tourism as a whole contributes to urban development and
provides an avenue for sustainable development. As such, if cultural heritage tourism is
facilitated in such sustainable manner, the potential threats of economic trade-offs can be
avoided.

VI. Conclusion
The pursuit of economic development in the character of urbanization and conservation
of the past has been an elusive dream for sometime. The prevalent theme has always been “if it
doesn’t pay it doesn’t stay”, making a common conception that selling the past would seem to be
unlikely considering the demands imposed by the fast-paced modern technology. But studies
have demonstrated the capacity of culture to be an economic driver for development with
cultural heritage tourism as the primary agent. However, more recent studies have demonstrated
that with the development of cultural heritage tourism comes the deterioration of the exact
cultural values that it is supposed to promote and preserve. Such has led to the development of
destination branding and tourisification of culture. Under such premise, culture has become a
commodity acquiring purely economic value and losing its inherent cultural value thus raising
the question: is cultural tourism empowering culture or commodifying culture?
The eight case studies presented showcase both sides of the question, thus it has been the
dilemma of cultural heritage preservation in the Philippines. On one hand, the case studies of
Vigan in Ilocos Sur, Malolos in Bulacan, the city of Iloilo, San Fernando in Pampanga, Silay in
Bacolod, Taal in Batangas, and the district of Sta. Ana in Manila demonstrated the capacity of
cultural tourism to empower culture; on the other hand, the case study of Ifugao’s Rice Terraces
likewise demonstrated the ills and perils of cultural tourism leading to cultural erosion.
Nevertheless, lessons from the eight cases studied have provided a development
framework that supports cultural empowerment while avoiding potentialities of cultural erosion.
The cultural-oriented economic development framework by Van der Borg and Russo (2005)
promotes a sustainable approach to cultural tourism calling for spatial balance, social inclusion,
participatory development, and cultural identity preservation in the growth process as a
manifestation of the economic power of culture. It is really imperative for all stakeholders to be
actively involved and a balance partnership between the government, private sector, civic
groups, and the grassroots community must be developed to make them active custodians of
cultural heritage.
References:
Ahmad, A. Ghafar (2006). “Cultural Heritage of Southeast Asia: Preservation for World
Recognition”. Malaysian Town Plan, Vol. 3(1): 52-62.
Aguda, Lesley, Tamayo, Ma. Rosario and Barlan, Leoncio (2013). Effects of Heritage Tourism

to the Municipality of Taal, Batangas, Philippines. Educational Research International,
Vol. 2 No. 1, August 2013.
Alejandria-Gonzalez, Maria Carinnes (2016), Cultural Tourism Development in the Philippines:
An Analysis of Challenges and Orientations. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality
and Tourism, Vol, 17, 2016. Issue 4, pp. 496-515.
Balco, Bryan (2012). “A Strategic Framework for Mapping Out Employment Opportunities in
the Cultural Heritage Sector”. Presented during the Institute for Labor Studies Forum on
Cultural Heritage: Heritage Employment. It’s More Fun in the Philippines, July 11, 2012,
Ortigas Foundation Library, Pasig City.
Baycan, T. and Girard, L. (2011). Heritage in Socio-Economic Development: Direct and Indirect
Impacts. ICOMOS, Theme 4, Session2, Paris 2011.
Bianchi, R (2003). Place and Power in Tourism Development: Tracing the Complex
Articulations of Community and Locality. PASOS 1:13–32
Bowitz, Einar and Ibenholt, Karin (2009). Economic Impacts of Cultural Heritage – Research
and Perspective. Journal of Cultural Heritage 10 (2009), 1-8.
Bruner, Edward (1995). ‘The Ethnographer/Tourist in Indonesia’, pp. 224-241 in Marie-
Francoise Lanfant, John Allcock, and Edward Bruner (eds) International Tourism:
Identity and Change. London: Sage.
Castillo, Romer, Bansil, Phoebe, Garcia, Mary, Castillo, Rhea and Peyra, Jocelle (2015). Socio-
Cultural Aspects of Heritage Tourism that Attracts Tourists and Travelers to Visit Taal,
Batangas, Philippines. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research,
Volume 20, No. 1, 2015.
Charette-Castonguay, Adam (2014). Assessment of Resilience and Adaptability of Social-
Ecological Systems: A Case Study of the Banaue Rice Terraces. Thesis submitted to the
Institute of Natural Resource Conservation, Faculty of Agricultural and Nutritional
Sciences, Christian-Albrechts University.
Chohan, Arif Yasin and Wai Ki, Pang (2005), “Heritage Conservation a Tool for Sustainable
Urban Regeneration”, 41st ISoCaRP Congress 2005.
Cohen E. (1988). Authenticity and Commoditization in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research
15: 371-386.
Cole, S. (2007). Beyond Authenticity and Commodification. Annals of Tourism Research. 34(4),
943-960.
Dalal, Nassima (2011). The Impact of Colonial Contact on the Cultural Heritage of Native
American Indian People. Diffusion: the UCLan Journal of Undergraduate Research
Volume 4 Issue 2 (December 2011).
Dredge, Dianne (2007). Development, Economy, and Culture: Cultural Heritage Tourism
Planning, Liangzhu, China. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Volume 9, 2004 -
Issue 4: Cultural Tourism Asia Pacific, pp. 405-22.
De Leon, Sunshine (2011). Balancing old and new in Sta. Ana, Manila. Philippine Daily
Inquirer, 22 August 2011. Retrieved from
https://sunshinedeleon.com/2011/08/22/balancing-old-and-new-in-sta-ana-manila/.
Ebbe, Katrinka (2009), “Infrastructure and Heritage Conservation: Opportunities for Urban
Revitalization and Economic Development”, Directions in Urban Development, February
2009.

Elnokaly, A. and Elseragy, A. (2013), “Sustainable Heritage Development: Learning from Urban
Conservation of Heritage Projects in North Western Contexts”, European Journal of
Sustainable Development, Vol. 2: 1 ,p. 31-56.
Evidente, Mark (2014). Regulatory Strategies for Heritage. Retrieved from
http://www.twoecoinc.com/2014/04/regulatory-strategies-for-heritage.html.
Fainstein, Susan and Fainstein, Norman (1983). Restructuring the City: the Political Economy of
Urban Redevelopment. New York: Longman Group United Kingdom.
Fiaux, Nadine (2010). “Culture for Sale!” – Commoditisation in Tourism.
Flores, Wilson Lee (2013). Heritage conservation can boost real estate business and tourism. The
Philippine Star, 11 November 2013. Retrieved from http://www.philstar.com/business-
life/2013/11/11/1254787/ivan-henares-and-tats-manahan-heritage-conservation-can-
boost-real.
Fusco Girard, L. and Nocca, F. From linear to circular tourism. Aestimum 2017, 51–74.
George, E. W. (2005). Commodifying Local Culture for Rural Community Tourism
Development: Theorizing the Commodification Process. Congress on Leisure Research.
Retrieved October 27, 2010 from http://lin.ca/Uploads/cclr11/CCLR11-42.pdf.
Gravari-Barbas, Maria (2018). Tourism as a Heritage Producing Machine. Tourism Management
Perspective Vol. 25, January 2018, pp. 173-176.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara(1998). Destination Culture. Tourisms, Museums, Heritage.
University of California Press.
Henderson, Joan C. (2012). “Conserving Heritage in South East Asia: Cases from Malaysia,
Singapore and the Philippines”. Tourism Recreation Research Vol. 37(1), 2012: 47-55.
Hiyari, Montaser A. (2012). An Integrated Participatory Approach in Managing Built Heritage:
Case Study Al Salt, Jordan. Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Spatial Planning of
Technical University of Dortmund (June 2012).
Hergesell, Anja (2012). Commodification and Culture. How Can Culture be Economically Used
Without Selling Out? A Thesis submitted to Modul University Vienna, June 2012.
Retrieved from https://www.modul.ac.at/uploads/files/Theses/Bachelor/Thesis-2012-
Proeschel-Natascha.pdf.
Juanico, Meliton (2013). “The Philippine Plaza Complex: Reconciling Conservation of
Historical and Heritage Structures and Sites with Demands of Urban Growth”. The
Journal of History Vol. LIX (January-December 2013): 111-139.
Juul, M. Tourism and the European Union—Recent Trends and Policy Developments. European
Parliament, 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_IDA(2015)
568343.
Legislative Council Secretariat (2008). Built Heritage Conservation Policy in Singapore.
Research and Library Services Division.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1972) Tristes Tropiques (trans. John Russell). New York: Antheneum.
Lujan, Nereo (2006). Preserving Iloilo City’s Legacies. The News Today Online Edition. May
24, 2006. Retrieved from
http://www.thenewstoday.info/2006/05/24/preserving.iloilo.citys.legacies.html.
Medina, Eva Marie (2009). “The Vigan City Heritage Conservation Program: A Tool For
Development”. Penang International Conference on Sustainable Cultural Development,
October 8-9, 2009.

Meekaew, Nattapon and Srisontisuk, Somsak (2012). Chiangkhan: Cultural Commodification for
Tourism and its Impact on Local Community. Proceedings from the 4th International
Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences, 21 April 2012, Faculty of Liberal Arts,
Prince of Songkla Univeristy, Thailand.
Nijkamp, P. (2012). “Economic Valuation of Cultural Heritage” in The Economics of
Uniqueness Investing in Historic City Cores and Cultural Heritage Assets for Sustainable
Development, Guido Licciardi and Rana Amirtahmasebi (eds.). Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank.
Nocca, Francesca (2017). The Role of Cultural Heritage in Sustainable Development:
Multidimensional Indicators as Decision-Making Tool. Sustainability (2017), 9, 1882.
Nora, Pierre (1989). Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Mémoire. Representations, No.
26, Special Issue: Memory and Counter-Memory. (Spring, 1989), pp. 7-24. Retrieved
from http://www.timeandspace.lviv.ua/files/session/Nora_105.pdf.
Pangilinan, Ching (2015). Preserving Heritage for Progress. Sunstar Pampanga, November 21,
2015. Retrieved from
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/pampanga/opinion/2015/11/21/pangilinan-preserving-
heritage-progress-442739.
Peerapun, Wannasilpa (2012). “Participatory Planning Approach to Urban Conservation and
Regeneration in Amphawa Community, Thailand.” Asian Journal of Environment –
Behavior Studies, Volume 3, Number 7, January 2012.
Principe, Katrina Kae (2011). The Pasyal Culture: A Case Study of Tourism and Consumerism
Correlates. Philippine Journal of Development Communication Vol. 4, January-
December 2011.
Radzuan, Indera and Ahmad, Yahaya (2015). “Assessing Cultural Heritage Potential: A
Framework to Incorporate Incentives Program into Heritage Management Strategies”. 4th
International Conference on Technology Management, Business and Entrepreneurship,
November 24-25, 2015.
Remo, Amy (2018). Tourism still a bright spot for PH. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 21 April 2018.
Retrieved from http://business.inquirer.net/249613/tourism-still-bright-spot-ph.
Roberts, P. and Sykes, H., (eds.) (2000), Urban Regeneration: A Handbook. London: SAGE
Publications.
Rojas, Eduardo (2002), “Urban Heritage Conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean: A
Task for All Social Actors”, Sustainable Development Department Technical Paper
Series, November 2002.
Ruoss, E. and Alfarè, L. (2013), “Sustainable Tourism as Driving Force for Cultural Heritage
Sites Development. Planning, Managing and Monitoring Cultural Heritage Sitesin South
East Europe”, April 2013.
Rypkema, D. (2003). The Economics of Historic Preservation: A Community Leader’s Guide;
National Trust for Historic Preservation: Washington, DC, USA.
Scheyvens, R. (2003) Tourism for Development: Empowering Communities. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Sembrano, Edgar (2015). Silay in Negros passes landmark heritage ordinance. Philippine Daily
Inquirer, November 23, 2015. Retrieved from http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/214011/silay-in-
negros-passes-landmark-heritage-ordinance/.
Shepherd, Robert (2002). Commodification, Culture and Tourism. Tourist Studies, Sage
Publications.

Taylor, J. P. (2001). Authenticity and Sincerity in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research. 28(1),
7-26.
Tejero, Constantino (2016). Malolos’ Kamestisuhan could rival Vigan’s Mestizo District as
heritage site. Philippine Daily Inquirer, June 6, 2016. Retrieved from
http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/230187/malolos-kamestisuhan-could-rival-vigans-mestizo-
district-as-heritage-site/#ixzz4B9iUaPiG.
Throsby, D. (1995). Culture, economics and sustainability. Journal of Cultural Economics, 19,
pp. 199-206.
Throsby, D. (2005). On the sustainability of cultural capital. (Research paper, Macquarie
University, Sydney, Australia).
Throsby, D. (2010). The economics of cultural policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Tsenkova, Sasha (2002). Urban Regeneration: Learning from the British Experience. University
of Calgary: Faculty of Environmental Design.
UNESCO (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage, Adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session Paris, 16
November 1972.
UNESCO (2011). What is intangible cultural heritage? Kit of the Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO: Norweigan Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
UNESCO (2012). Culture: a driver and an enabler of sustainable development. UN System Task
Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. May 2012.
Villalon, Augusto (2005). ‘World Heritage Inscription and Challenges to the Survival of
Community Life in Philippine Cultural Landscapes’ in The Protected Landscape
Approach Linking Nature, Culture and Community, eds. Jessica Brown, Nora Mitchell
and Michael Beresford. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Van der Borg, Jan and Russo, Paulo (2005). The Impacts of Culture on the Economic
Development of Cities. European Institute for Comparative Urban Research. Erasmus
University Rotterdam. Retrieved from https://www.wien.gv.at/meu/fdb/pdf/intern-
vergleichsstudie-ci-959-ma27.pdf.
Veldpaus, Loes, Roders, Ana and Colenbrander, Bernard J.F. (2013). “Urban Heritage: Putting
the Past into the Future”, The Historic Environment, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 3-18.
Viray, Manuel (1968). “Racial Heritage” in Six Perspectives on the Philippines, ed George
Guthrie, 165-198. Manila: Bookmark.
Willis, K. (2005). Theories and Practices of Development. New York: Routledge.
Yu, Kirk, Oreta, Andres, Ibabao, Rhodella and Hechanova, Noel (2013). Supporting Local
Initiatives in Preserving Heritage Buildings in Iloilo City (Philippines) through Risk
Assessment. International Conference on Cultural Heritage and Disaster Risk Reduction.
SEAMEO SPAFA with support from Japan Foundation. November 2013. Bangkok,
Thailand. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kirk_Kennedy_Yu/publication/267750583_Support
ing_Local_Initiatives_in_Preserving_Heritage_Buildings_In_Iloilo_City_Philippines_thr
ough_Risk_Assessment/links/545928430cf26d5090ad024a/Supporting-Local-Initiatives-

in-Preserving-Heritage-Buildings-In-Iloilo-City-Philippines-through-Risk-
Assessment.pdf?origin=publication_detail.
Zerrudo, Eric B. (2008). The Cultural Mapping Project of the Heritage City of Vigan. Towards
Building a Framework for Heritage Conservation and Sustainable Development. 3rd
International Memory of the World Conference, 19-22 February 2008.


The Economic Power of Culture

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The Economic Power of Culture

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture?

The Economic Power of Culture

A Term Paper Presented to

Geoffrey Rhoel C. Cruz

August 20, 2018

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 1

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 2

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 3

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 4

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 5

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 6

IV. Literature Review

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 7

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 8

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 9

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 10

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 11

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 12

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 13

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 14

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 15

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 16

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 17

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 18

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 19

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 20

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 21

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 22

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 23

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 24

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 25

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 26

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 27

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 28

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 29

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 30

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 31

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 32

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 33

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 34

Cultural Tourism: Empowering Culture or Commodifying Culture? 35

Potrebbero piacerti anche