基于游客与居民视角的遗产地遗产责任量表开发与检验

Development and Testing of Heritage Responsibility Scale:Based on Perspectives of Tourists and Residents

保护遗产并使之真实完整地传承下去是我们共同的责任。但究竟由谁来承担责任,承担什么责任,尚缺乏深入研究。现有遗产责任研究,一方面割裂了利益相关者之间的联系,仅从单个利益相关者视角进行测量;另一方面注重"为己责任",忽略了列维纳斯责任观中更为重要的"为他责任"。这些不足导致了现有研究难以解决遗产旅游地多元矛盾及遗产地责任不明晰等难题。因而,该研究开创性地在同一个尺度下对比游客和居民两个利益相关者,同时考虑为己责任和为他责任,编制并检验基于游客和居民视角的遗产地遗产责任量表。研究发现,基于游客和居民视角的遗产责任量表分别包含6个维度(29个指标)和4个维度(28个指标),在维度结构上有相似性,且均包含"为他责任"维度,但也存在差异,主要体现在对他人态度和经济支持维度上。该研究为后续遗产责任研究和多利益相关者遗产责任对比分析奠定了测量基础,也为解决遗产旅游地多元矛盾和管理困境提供一定的指引。

Heritage tourism involves complex interactions among multiple stakeholders,and can be conceived as a‘game process’ between responsibility and other competing interests.This game process is explicit in the process of heritage production,transmission and consumption.As a result,conflicts within heritage sites are increasingly intensified and diversified in this process."Heritage responsibility",therefore,is receiving increasing attention from both tourism scholars and practitioners.We frequently received the call that it’s our common responsibility to protect the heritage and make it authentic and complete for future generations.But questions like who exactly should bear the responsibility,and what kind of responsibility to take are still lack of scrutiny.Previous research has two main gaps.On one hand,existing literature measures heritage responsibility based on individual perspective,for example,from the lens of tourism enterprises,tourists,or residents.This bias consequently severs the link among multi-stakeholders.On the other hand,the academia fails to address the responsibility-for-the-other,which is more pivotal than the responsibility-for-the-self in Emmanuel Levinas’ ethic philosophy of responsibility.These two drawbacks restrict heritage research academia to solve problems emerged during heritage management practices,like multi-conflicts and vaguely defined responsibility within heritage sites.To address these two research gaps,this paper takes the responsibility-for-the-self and the responsibility-for-the-other simultaneously into account,seeking insights from Emmanuel Levinas.Besides,this paper includes two stakeholders(i.e.tourists and residents) at the same level to compare their perceived heritage responsibility.The aim of this study is to construct and validate a scale to measure heritage responsibility in World Heritage Sites.In the meantime,it compares the dimensions of heritage responsibility scale among multi-stakeholders,i.e.tourists and residents.This paper consists of six parts.The first part introduces the research background.In the second part,a literature review explores existing definitions and measurement of heritage responsibility.As a conclusion,the research literature predominantly focuses on heritage responsibility from single perspective and the responsibility-for-the-self,showing less concern about the comparison among multistakeholders and the responsibility-for-the-other.The third part comprises the research design.Qualitative interviews were performed,and scripts were analyzed based on grounded method to develop initial items of the scale.After that,expert consultation and member check were sought to improve its external validity and content validity before the formal investigation.The fourth and fifth parts construct and validate a scale to measure heritage responsibility in World Heritage Sites from tourists’ and residents’ perspective respectively.And the results suggest that tourist-based heritage responsibility scale contains 6 dimensions with a total of 29 items,while resident-based heritage responsibility scale contains 4 dimensions with a total of 28 items.Note that the two scales share much in common and all contains the dimension of the responsibility-for-the-other,but still,some differences exist.The final part makes a summary of the results,and explains the reason why residents take heritage awareness as a broader form of attitude towards others is that their heritage awareness are passive behavior called by the authorized heritage discourse,thus certifying the significance of the responsibility-for-the-other.This study paves the way for future research by providing a scale for measurement and comparison among multi-stakeholders,thus having certain theoretical values and providing managerial guidance for heritage management dilemma.