Historic environment and heritage management projects, resources, commentary and analysis by Professors Ian Baxter (Heriot-Watt University) & David Gill (Kent/UEA)
The visitor numbers for sites in the care of Cadw and where an admission is applied are available. They give an impression of how heritage sites in Wales have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of visitors from 2017 to 2019 ranged from 1.3 million (in 2017) to 1.2 million (in 2018 and 2019). These fell to 197,331 in 2020, and then rose in the following year to 784,772.
The release of the 2022 figures later this year should provide an idea about the recovery of the sector.
Castles built by Edward I in North Wales had represented between 46 and 48 per cent of the total visitor figures for Cadw location between 2017 and 2019. In 2021 they represented 53 per cent. Beaumaris had more visitors in 2021 than it had before the pandemic.
ALVA has released the data for visitor numbers for 2022. The top 10 most visited sites for the National Trust for Scotland attracted 1.9 million visitors: the same ten properties attracted 1.1 million visitors in 2021. This is only slightly down on the numbers for 2019, 2 million (although some visitor figures were not available for St Abbe’s Head for that year).
Data for the top 20 properties in 2022 show a slight increase from 2019.
Note that data prior to 2018 are not available for all the 10 / 20 properties and this has distorted the presentation.
ALVA has released visitor figures for 2022. The Cambridge University Museums, including the Botanic Garden, attracted 1 million visitors against 534,191 in 2021. This is just below the pre-pandemic number of 1.3 million visitors in 2019. The Fitzwilliam Museum exceeded its 2019 number.
ALVA has released the visitor figures for 2022. The top 10 English Heritage sites attracted 2.6 million visitors against 1.6 million for the same 10 sites in 2021. This is down from the 3.4 million visitors who went to the same ten sites in 2019 prior to the pandemic. Stonehenge has seen the largest recovery from 334,087 in 2021 to 977,316 in 2022: this is still down from 1.6 million in 2019. Clifford’s Tower had record number in 2022 well above the pre-pandemic levels.
ALVA has released the visitor figures for 2022. The top 10 most visited Historic Environment Scotland sites attracted 2.7 million visitors: the same 1o locations attracted 830,177 visitors in 2021 (though the actual top 10 attracted 855,626). This is still below pre-pandemic numbers: 4.4 million visitors to the same top ten in 2019. Iona Abbey is down from 2019 (63,884 / 55,256), but there is still a gap for major sites: Edinburgh Castle is down to 1.3 million from 2.2 million in 2019.
The National Trust has recovered best best with 4.3 million visits to its top 10 properties, down slightly from 4.6 million visits to the same 10 properties in 2019. In contrast Historic Royal Palaces attracted just over 1 million visitors in 2021, down from 4.5 million in 2019.
These 51 properties attracted 11.7 million visitors in 2021, compared to 21.8 million in 2019 (7.7 million in 2020).
I have just read a paper by Zhang et al. on the reproduction of consumer spaces as applied to the historic districts of Beijing city centre. It took its cue from theories around the social construction of space for touristic purposes, and further considered the historical development of that space over an extended period. Using some detailed property use analysis, the researchers considered statistically the differing concentrations which developed in the different historic districts of tourism-focused versus resident-focused businesses.
I will freely admit that some of the equations and graphs were beyond me, but the analytical commentary was clearly expressed, and the study showed the importance of looking at the intersection of different capital flows in urban historic districts with the influences of differing types of authority (i.e. control) on development. This in turn affects the agency of residents and behaviour of consumers which in a feedback loop affects the ongoing management and development (and indeed control) of those historic areas.
So what – all very obvious? Maybe, but having recently spent time over in workshops with colleagues thinking about climate vulnerability in Edinburgh’s World Heritage designated area, the paper got me thinking again about how different types of capital (beyond just money) ebbs and flows around the different and distinct historic ‘districts’ of Edinburgh’s WHS and where different types of authority and control are exerted, felt and influenced. Further, it got me wondering how does agency of resident and consumers change across those different districts as a result of those flows of capital, and what are the longer term implications for the city as a result?
Reference: Keer Zhang, Handuo Deng, Fang Wang & Ye Yuan (2021) Reproduction of consumer spaces and historic district touristification in Old Beijing City, Tourism Geographies, DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2021.1934724
The DCMS has just published its Tourism Recovery Plan. There is a lot in it, with stats and analysis comparing the pre- and ‘post’-pandemic situation, underlining that tourism is one of most important industries and also one of the industries which has suffered the most in the pandemic.
The multi-faceted nature of the tourism industry means that there cannot be a single guiding mind in public policy terms – different parts of the industry are regulated from within different public policy areas, and various bits of the tourism policy brief are a devolved matter for the Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. What comes through clearly in the Plan is that a post-pandemic recovery is reliant on good data, sharing of knowledge and greater co-ordination and collaboration across those disparate policy briefs, to enable a good (and green) recovery, rather than just an economic rebound which is looked for seemingly in some of the language of the document.
Sustainability and spreading the beneficial impact of tourism does feature in the report, though the messages and aims here could be more ambitious and inclusive. I recognise this is tricky however – but we need to be balancing that looked-for rebound with growth which is inclusive and provides net positives across a triple bottom line (social, environmental and economic). Communities need to be enhanced by tourism and not blighted – and it would be unfortunate to chase a rebound which leads back to discussions of 2018 and 2019 on over-tourism, environmental degradation, economic inequality and tension between the industry and host communities.
The heritage sector really gets centre billing in the Plan. Through figures presented, commentary and case study, the role of the historic environment (where distinctive built or natural character is a key feature) explicitly and implicitly provides the overarching places, canvas or ‘-scapes’ for what is looked for in Britain as a global and local tourism destination. The heritage sector arguably is positioned in an excellent place as far as the recovery public policy lens goes. The challenge that is going to weigh on us as a sector again is the need to further prioritise, balance competing desires of conservation and development, and keep cool calm conversations at the heart of the shared desire for what a good recovery is for both heritage and tourism together.
The impact of lockdowns due to the pandemic is making itself clear on the visitor figures released by ALVA. Reduced visitor numbers will see a reduction in income from ticket sales as well as through retail outlets. We have yet to see the impact on those who pay annual memberships.
The 44 properties represented in this histogram received over 20 million visitors in 2019; in 2020 it was just over 6 million. The Top 10 properties for HES dropped by nearly 4 million visitors.
One of the last heritage sites I visited in London prior to lockdown was the Tower of London (for the Heritage Alliance conference). ALVA has now released the visitor numbers for three of their properties in London: the Tower, Hampton Court Palace, and Kensington Palace. The combined number of visitors in 2019 was 4.5 million; in 2019 it fell to 730,816.
Heritage Futures 