This article was downloaded by: [NUS National University of Singapore]

On: 25 March 2015, At: 03:36

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtcc20

Staging the authenticity of intangible

heritage from the production
perspective: the case of craftsmanship
museum cluster in Hangzhou, China
a

Yi Fu , Sangkyun Kim & Tiantian Zhou

a

Department of Cultural Heritage and Museology, Zhejiang

University (Xixi Campus), 148 Tianmushan Road, Hangzhou
310028, People's Republic of China
b

Click for updates

Department of Tourism, School of Humanities and Creative Arts,

Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
Published online: 24 Nov 2014.

To cite this article: Yi Fu, Sangkyun Kim & Tiantian Zhou (2014): Staging the authenticity of
intangible heritage from the production perspective: the case of craftsmanship museum cluster in
Hangzhou, China, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, DOI: 10.1080/14766825.2014.983439
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2014.983439

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14766825.2014.983439

Staging the authenticity of intangible heritage from the production

perspective: the case of craftsmanship museum cluster in Hangzhou,
China
Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Yi Fua*, Sangkyun Kimb and Tiantian Zhoua

a
Department of Cultural Heritage and Museology, Zhejiang University (Xixi Campus), 148
Tianmushan Road, Hangzhou 310028, Peoples Republic of China; bDepartment of Tourism,
School of Humanities and Creative Arts, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001,
Australia

(Received 21 March 2014; accepted 29 October 2014)

This paper examines how the authenticity of intangible craftsmanship heritage is
planned and staged in the cultural museum context. Based on a case study of the
Craftsmanship Museum Cluster in Hangzhou, China, this paper discusses and
analyses how tourism serves as a catalyst at the museums to showcase the
authenticity of craftsmanship heritage and provide tourists authentic experience,
through combing the tangible and intangible forms (e.g. object display, modern
exhibition technology, simulated environment, and living process of craftsmanship
showcase). The local governmental organisations, museum planners, curators, and
crafts masters co-produce the authenticity of craftsmanship heritage through full
negotiation, compromise, and creation. This paper also highlights the changing nature
of intangible heritage and the role of museums in contemporary tourism.
Keywords: intangible heritage; museum; authenticity; production; tourist experiences

Introduction
Tourists quest for authenticity has been extensively examined and discussed by many
scholars in various disciplines, including tourism studies (Bruner, 1994; Cohen, 1988;
Crang, 1996; MacCannell, 1973, 1999; Olsen, 2002; Wang, 1999, 2000). The initial theoretical discussion on authenticity emphasised the objective attributes and the authenticity of
toured or displayed objects in the context of museum collections. Such objective authenticity had a particular focus on the cognitive dimension of the unbiased authentic status
of objects and activities (MacCannell, 1973), because museum collections are usually considered real as opposed to pseudo (MacCannell, 1999).
However, this conventional notion of authenticity has been challenged by tourism
scholars who highlight that not all touristic experiences require an objective authenticity
embodied in the toured artefacts or objects. Accordingly, new approaches have been
added to the concept of authenticity suggesting staged authenticity (MacCannell,
1973), constructive authenticity (Edensor, 2001; Lash & Urry, 1994), and existential
authenticity (Wang, 1999).
Such emphasis on the construction and production of an authentic experience from the
staged and constructive authenticity perspective, and how this is designed and staged for

*Corresponding author. Email: yifu@zju.edu.cn

2014 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Y. Fu et al.

tourists, has been also discussed in the tourism marketing literature (Haahti & Komppula,
2006), and draws on Gilmore and Pines theoretical discourses on value creation, the socalled experience economy (1999). Displayed objects, in this discourse, are considered
to be authentic not because they are inherently so but because of their construction as
such by a variety of tourists or tourism providers in terms of different or similar viewpoints,
perspectives, and/or powers (Uriely, 2005). Likewise, authenticity is not an absolute commodity but a social construct. It is thus presented and experienced through endless negotiations between production and consumption. Indeed, the tourists quest for authenticity
and authentic experiences is constructed and produced by a variety of players such as marketing agents, animators, interpretive guides, tourists themselves, and so on, rather than
being wholly organic or directly experienced (Hughes, 1995).
Along with the above theoretical shift, the museum sector which conventionally and
predominantly displays, disseminates, and conserves collected objects has also transformed
signicantly. According to Conn (2011), the objects in museums have been signicantly
reduced in numbers and gradually replaced by didactic interpretive devices such as
audio-visual, interactive technologies, and so on, particularly in anthropological
museums, history museums, and natural science museums in the USA. This movement
has encouraged tourism providers such as museums to simultaneously play an important
role in staging and constructing the authentic touristic experience. It has also been noted
that the interpretive materials alongside the real displayed objects in the museum
setting not only create enjoyable visiting experiences and satisfaction, but also enhance
tourists learning and understanding of the key messages embedded in the displayed
objects (Milligan & Brayeld, 2004; Tilden & Craig, 2007).
Furthermore, the museum sector has become a more important showcase for safeguarding, presenting, and translating intangible cultural heritage (Bouchenaki, 2003; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998, 2004; Kurin, 2004a, 2004b), as the intangible forms and content of
cultural heritage have recently been paid much attention by both practitioners and academics in the museum sector. In this regard, the above scholars suggest that intangible heritage should not be xed in museums as frozen objects but displayed or presented
differently in an intangible form. In addition, the importance of establishing a close connection with the communities who created and are inheriting it has been highlighted.
The above discussions usually focus on authenticity or inauthenticity of the things
(objects, museums, and heritage) and authentic experiences tourists may obtain. There
has been less focus on stakeholders from the production side (e.g. governments, tourism
agencies, private companies, museum planners, curators, and intangible heritage inheritors)
who construct and stage the authentic experiences of intangible heritage in the museum
setting. Yet these stakeholders play a crucial role in determining and inuencing how authentic the objects are and how tourists feel. Nevertheless, there is relatively little research on
how tourists authentic experiences are staged and constructed by a variety of stakeholders
from the museum production perspective, particularly in the context of intangible heritage.
Consequently, there has been little attempt to understand how the authenticity concepts discussed above have been adopted and applied in the process of planning, designing, and
staging with respect to intangible heritage in both tangible and intangible forms (e.g.
object display, modern exhibition technology, simulated environments, the living process
of craftsmanship showcase, and teachinglearning experiences). This eld of tourism
research in an Asian context also seems to be the scarcest.
Having acknowledged the above gaps, this study attempts to analyse and discuss how
multiple stakeholders from the production side play crucial roles in constructing and staging
authentic experiences of intangible heritage collections in the Chinese context. These

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

stakeholders include museum planners, curators, intangible heritage inheritors, tourism

organisations, and governmental organisations.
This study was carried out in the Craftsmanship Museum Cluster (CMC) in Hangzhou,
China. Hangzhou is located in the economic circle of the Yangzi River Delta in eastern
China. It is an important tourist city in China, with dramatically increasing numbers of tourists every year between 2001 and 2010. Hangzhou received 65.81 million and 85.68 million
tourists in 2010 and 2012, respectively (Hangzhou Tourism Commission, 2013). In 2001,
Hangzhou won the UN-Habitat Scroll of Honour Award from the United Nations Human
Settlements Programmes, because of its outstanding human settlement environment. In
2011, the West Lake area in Hangzhou was nominated as a World Heritage Site. These
awards have helped Hangzhou increase its fame and recognition in the international
tourism market. In Hangzhou, the Municipal Government and the cultural heritage administrations work closely together to develop museums based on the local cultural heritage.
The CMC is such an example.

Evolving museums and the role of intangible heritage in contemporary tourism

Museums are an important tourist attraction (Greenhill, 1992; Prideaux & Kininmont,
1999; Tufts & Milne, 1999), and conventionally attract tourists travelling from all over
the world to see their authentic collections, particularly those from the nineteenth century
and much of the twentieth century (Conn, 2011; Harrison, 1997). Since the late twentieth
century, the museum sector has experienced two distinctive evolutions.
First, the volume and functions of displayed objects in the object- and collection-based
museums have decreased, whereas the numbers of tourists visiting the museums have been
retained (Appleton, 2006; Conn, 2011). One of the reasons behind this evolution may be
that contemporary museums have encountered a shifted focus from the displayed
objects provided by themselves to the subjective negotiation of meaning as a determinant
of the experience (Uriely, 2005, p. 200). Likewise, museums have attempted to offer more
experience-based exhibition spaces to tourists, not only by changing the design from static
(where objects were displayed and viewed only) to interactive (where displayed objects
could be touched or manipulated), but also by gradually replacing the displayed objects
with didactic interpretive devices (Conn, 2011). Tourists are therefore invited to explore,
discover, and experience the museum and its hidden world behind (Prentice, 2001,
p. 8), as demonstrated by numerous examples of museums showing either tangible and/
or intangible heritage as the main subject. A number of early research projects have provided empirical evidence that hands-on exhibitions in museums supported by interactive
technologies enhanced tourists experiences, and their learning and understanding of the
key messages embedded in the displayed objects (Blud, 1990; Koran, Morrison,
Lehman, Koran, & Gandara, 1984; Robertshaw, 2006).
Second, museums have become an important means of presenting, preserving, and protecting intangible heritage, and have thus developed a symbiotic relationship with various
types of intangible heritage, although the nature and characteristics of intangible heritage
determine the difculties involved in doing so. The Convention for the Safeguarding of
the Intangible Cultural Heritage, UNESCO (2003, p. 2) denes intangible heritage as
follows:
The practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills as well as the instruments,
objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith that communities, groups and, in
some cases, individuals recognise as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural

Y. Fu et al.

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and

groups in response to their (immediate) environments, their interaction with nature and their
history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect
for cultural diversity and human creativity.

As such, intangible heritage refers to traditions or living expressions inherited from our
ancestors and passed on to our descendants (UNESCO, 2003). Due to the different nature of
intangible heritage, if it is presented and displayed in the museum setting, it should not
simply be a tangible material object, which can only be a supplementary means, but the
whole system as a living entity (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 2004, p. 53). For example, the
manifestation of intangible heritage in museums may involve craftmasters performing
their traditions, skills, and craftsmanship, where visitors or tourists can experience and
learn them from the process of performance and/or demonstration by the craftmasters (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 2004).
The techniques of displaying and presenting such an intangible heritage that emphasises
the on-going process or a whole living state rather than a xed outcome collide with the
conventional exhibition modes of museums, which focus on displayed objects and collections (Conn, 2011). This is the reason why dealing with intangible heritage in museums is
no easy task and is fraught with methodological difculties (Kurin, 2004a, p. 7). Yet the
above discussions are the evolving characteristics of contemporary museums which also
have an impact on the tourism associated with museum visiting.

The authenticity of intangible heritage in the context of tourism

The concept of authenticity was originally associated with a very museum-linked way of
perceiving toured objects and has been further extended to, developed by, and enriched
in tourism studies and cultural studies (see, e.g. Appleton, 2006; Berger, 1973; Chhabra,
Healy, & Sills, 2003; Gonzlez, 2008; Handler & Saxton, 1988; Harkin, 1995; MacCannell,
1999; Macleod, 2006; Pine & Gilmore, 2007; Wang, 1999). Based on the substantive scholarly discussions on authenticity, Macleod (2006) and Wang (1999) suggested that the
concept of authenticity in the context of tourism raises two separate issues: that of toured
objects and that of the tourist experience (or authentic experience). Wang (1999) linked
the authenticity of museum collections to the authenticity of toured objects, the so-called
objective authenticity, given that museum collections are usually demonstrated as real
according to xed and absolute criteria. However, if authenticity means originals, as
opposed to copies or reproductions of the originals, no reproduction could, by denition,
be authentic (Bruner, 1993; Pine & Gilmore, 2007).
In the context of intangible heritage and tourism, Gonzlez (2008) suggests that tourists
experience three types of authenticity when visiting tourist attractions associated with intangible heritage. They encompass: (1) when they are close to the original spirit; (2) feel their
real selves; and (3) feel existential authenticity activated by tourist activities. Similar to the
staged authenticity (MacCannell, 1973), the original spirit means that tourists can experience and understand the original cultural connotations of the intangible heritage without
visiting the original real situation of the heritage. For example, tourists are able to
obtain the original authentic spirit of Flamenco as a Spanish intangible heritage when
they experience Japanese Flamenco tourism, rather than visiting Spain in order to experience a Flamenco performance (Gonzlez, 2008). Similarly, tourists may enjoy the spirit
of the Scottish Highland Games in the American state of North Carolina rather than visiting
Scotland (Chhabra et al., 2003).

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

The other two types of authentic experience from the visiting of intangible heritage are
to feel real selves and existential authenticity (Gonzlez, 2008, p. 809). The former
emphasises that tourists obtain authentic experiences within a simulated environment and
are satised with the sensual enjoyment experienced (Handler & Saxton, 1988). For
instance, historical museums can provide such experiences by creating an historical
environment through multimedia technologies (Fahy, 1995). The latter emphasises tourists
authentic experiences activated by tourism activities that are very different from their daily
lives. In this regard, Daniel (1996, p. 789) gives an example in which tourists access the
magical world of liminality and gain spiritual and aesthetic nourishment when participating in rumba dancing and interacting with the host.
No matter which type of authentic experience tourists obtain, Chhabra et al. (2003)
articulate that they often have a common motivation for visiting intangible heritage; nostalgia for past. This means that tourists visiting intangible heritage attractions often think
either the past was better or lives outside their space are better (Chhabra et al., 2003,
p. 705). As Lowenthal (1990b, p. 4) states, if the past is a foreign country, nostalgia has
made it a foreign country with the healthiest visitor trade of all. As such, for tourists visiting intangible heritage, symbolising the past helps them relive traditions and old ways of
life in order to escape from contemporary life and daily routines. Heritage festivals
(Chhabra et al., 2003, p. 705), traditional dance performances (Daniel, 1996), and food heritage (Ashton, 2012) are exemplied as intangible heritage attractions. Thus, intangible heritage is a way of meeting contemporary touristic demand. In addition, for the producers of
intangible heritage (e.g. heritage inheritors, public ofcials, museum curators, etc.),
although they originally use it to salvage traditions for future generations (Ashton,
2012), they also use it to meet their different individual current needs. In this context, Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (1998) suggests that the identication, creation, and recreation of heritage reect the multiple purposes of either producers or consumers. A discussion on the
former will be the focus of this paper.

Museums in Hangzhou and the CMC

Hangzhou, a traditional tourist city, is attempting to expand its tourism industry to promote
the local economy, and museums and heritage as cultural products are thus aggressively
promoted as important tourist attractions. This is similar to the case of Prince Edward Island
in Canada (Jolliffe & Smith, 2001). The number of museums in Hangzhou had reached
more than a hundred by the end of 2012, more than most Chinese cities (Hangzhou Municipal Government, 2013). The categories of Hangzhous museums have been expanded and
the museum stakeholders include multiple varieties, from governmental to private organisations (Lu, 2013).
The Hangzhou municipal and district governments provide efcient support for developing the museums to contribute to the citys tourism. The main forms of support include
formulating relevant policies, approving land uses, and providing nancial support. The
national museums in Hangzhou annually receive primary nancial support from various
levels of the government. For example, in 2004 the China Tea Museum and two other
museums received more than three million US$ from the city government to renovate
their existing facilities in order to attract more tourists (The Policy Research Ofce of
the CPC Hangzhou Municipal Committee, 2011). Thanks to governmental support, six
city-level museums were also able to gradually offer free entry to attract more tourists
(Zhang & Yu, 2008, p. 32).

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Y. Fu et al.

In recent years, museum curators, governmental tourism departments, and tourism companies have attempted to establish more direct cooperation between themselves, rather than
the mutually disjointed relations between their services that existed before. Subsequently,
more museums are listed as tourist destinations, and exclusive souvenirs are designed
and promoted for tourists. For example, the West Lake Museum has opened the West
Lake Exhibition Centre and Tourist Service Centre, which hosts more than 1 million tourists
annually (Zhang & Yu, 2008).
The Hangzhou government often works closely with museum administrations to plan
the museums into aspects of city regeneration schemes that create integrated city spaces
consisting of museums, public leisure facilities, and tourist attractions. In this context, it
is expected that museums, public spaces, and tourist destinations are mutually benecial.
The West Lake regeneration project in Hangzhou, for instance, included the (re)establishment and (re)development of museums and small city squares around the lake. Tourists can
experience a humanistic atmosphere and the local public life when appreciating the natural
landscapes of West Lake.
To some extent the CMC as the research site of this study is similar to the case of the
West Lake regeneration project. The CMC is located on the west side of the Grand Canal in
Hangzhou. It consists of ve distinctive intangible heritage museums including (1) the
Knives, Scissors, and Swords Museum, (2) the Umbrella Museum, (3) the Arts and
Crafts Museum, (4) the Fan Museum, and (5) the Workmanship Demonstration Pavilion.
Unlike other museums in Hangzhou that are managed by the Hangzhou Landscapes and
Cultural Relics Bureau, the CMC is administrated by the Municipal Committee for
Canal Integrated Protection (Hangzhou Municipal Committee for Canal Integrated Protection, 2013). This organisation was established to launch two important city projects, which
are the New Canal Regulation Project and the Canal Tourism Project. It aimed to declare the
Grand Canal as a World Heritage Site and promote the canal and its surrounding city
tourism products and activities (The Policy Research Ofce of the CPC Hangzhou Municipal Committee, 2011).
The establishment of the CMC was part of these two projects. Much of the space upon
which the CMC was developed was originally sites where factories dating from the late
nineteenth century had been built beside the canal. Therefore, the establishment of CMC
was also regarded as the safeguarding, re-using, and promoting of Hangzhous industrial
heritage. As mentioned above, the CMC had more objectives and purposes from its inception that related to tourism compared to other museums in Hangzhou which emphasised
education and enrichment.

Research methods
This study adopted an exploratory case study approach as it was deemed appropriate for the
following discussions. According to Yin (2009, p. 18), the case study is a method that
investigates a contemporary phenomenon in-depth and within its real-life context.
Thus, it can lead to in-depth knowledge of the research issue, and allows for the reliability
and credibility of the ndings within the research literature (Woodside, 2010). Furthermore,
an enthusiastic support for the case study approach comes from Yin (2009) who emphasises
that this method is appropriate when a how or why research question is proposed, and
when it focuses on contemporary events. These benets of the case study approach became
the rationale behind the selection of this research method for the current study. It is also
supported by the nature of this study that is investigating a contemporary touristic

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

phenomenon associated with intangible heritage and authenticity in the context of contemporary Chinese museums, in which very little information exists for a wider international
audience.
Within the exploratory case study mode, the study draws upon multiple data collection
methods including interviews, participant observation, direct observation, and document
analyses (produced from previous academic research, newspapers, reports, and policy
documents which were mostly written in Chinese and English). Such a multi-method
approach helps in overcoming one of the main criticisms of a case study whose ndings
may be too specic and contextual to be able to underpin sound generalisations or theorisations (Yin, 2009).
The main part of the primary research data consisted of 9 formal semi-structured interviews and 38 informal conversations. As presented in Table 1, the interview participants
included the representatives of museum planners, curators, museum staff, and governmental staff. During the interviews, participants were encouraged to have open-ended discussions on the planning, promotion, and management of the museums from their own
perspectives. Each interview lasted approximately between 60 and 90 minutes. The 38
informal conversations were mainly with those encountered in the CMC including the
museum staff (craftsmen, curators, and tour guides) and tourists.
To conduct the participant observation, two research assistants temporarily worked for
the CMC for two different periods of time from August to October 2012 and from September to December 2013. Their main task and responsibility were to assist the curators and
staff of the museums to prepare daily duties including exhibition evaluations, updating
museum exhibitions, providing museum guides, museum programme promotions, and
liaising with the intangible heritage inheritors. As insiders at the CMC, the research assistants observed and recorded how the museum administration team, museum planners, and
other stakeholders from relevant governmental organisations cooperated in managing and

Table 1. Details of the semi-structured interviews.

Interview
number
1
23
4
56
7
8
9

Interviewees role
Curator of the Museum Cluster 20082013
Planning Leader of the Museum Cluster and
also Independent Curator of the Obsidian
Display & Design Companya
Assistant Exhibition Curator of the Museum
Cluster
Director of the Exhibition Department of the
Museum Cluster

Pseudonym

Date

Mrs Zhao
Mr Qiang

7 September 2012
24 October and 16
November 2013b

Mr Xu

25 November 2013

Miss Xu

17 December 2013
and 22 January
2014
17 December 2013

Staff of the Social Education Department of Mrs Ying

the Museum Cluster
Staff of the Exhibition Department of the
No direct
Museum Cluster
quotation
Director of the Tourism Department of the Mrs Dai
Hangzhou Municipal Committee for
Canal Integrated Protection

22 January 2014
31 December 2013

a
The Obsidian Display & Design Company is a professional private museum planning company. It provided
planning and exhibition display services to the CMC.
b
Two interviews were conducted with this person because the rst one was interrupted due to personal reasons on
the part of the interviewee.

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Y. Fu et al.

updating the museums and their exhibitions. They also conducted a series of informal conversations mainly with the intangible heritage inheritors, museum staff, and tourists. They
were asked to keep a research diary recording every detail of their daily activities and
observations.
Along with participant observations, the authors also took part in direct observations
in the museums from August to October 2012 and from September to December 2013,
as well as at other times on a casual basis. The direct observations were expected to
provide information of what was planned and staged by the stakeholders of the
museums. Such information was supplementary to the ndings of the interviews. Furthermore, the direct observations provided valuable information about how tourists interacted with the exhibitions and expressed their touristic experiences of them. Notes from
this eldwork were made and photographs were taken for the authors references. After
returning from the eldwork, the photographs were immediately interpreted alongside
the eldwork notes.
A variety of documents were also collected and used in this study. They included administrative documents, museum brochures, tourism brochures, museum planning proposals,
evaluation reports, government reports, photographs, videos, and national and local newspaper articles. Many documents were collected on-site during the participant observations,
direct observations, and interviews.
The study applied three stages to the data analysis. First, after the raw data were transformed into words, including interview transcripts, observation notes, research diaries,
and document summaries and descriptions, the word documents were coded according
to the roles and work tasks of the multiple stakeholders during the process of planning
and developing the CMC. According to these codes, the second step was to identify the
inuences of the stakeholders and their work tasks on the authenticity of the craftsmanship
heritage and museum. Third, all the data from the different sources were crosschecked and
analysed by employing the triangulation approach.

Findings
Revisiting and (re)negotiating the objective authenticity in the intangible heritage
museum
The CMC places a great emphasis on the importance of objective authenticity in creating
and constructing authentic touristic experiences, as described by the participants who
claimed that they spent enormous amounts of time, money, and effort on the collections
of originals from both Hangzhou and other Chinese cities, as well as from overseas. This
nding echoes Wangs (2013) suggestion that Chinese museums still have rich collections
of objects, in contrast to most contemporary Western museums, which are experiencing a
signicant decline in displayed objects. The following comment from Mrs Zhao, a
curator at the CMC, precisely highlights how the stakeholders of the museum cluster
still emphasise the signicant role the authenticity of originals plays in their decisionmaking for the museums collections:
[I]t took more than 18 months for the opening of the Museum Cluster During that time
for the collections of the originals I often followed the curators to visit as many places as we
could. Places like Sichuan and Guangzhou were also on our itinerary. One day, one of the curators drove his car to the minority ethnic areas in the South and West of China and stayed there
for nearly one month to collect objects Finally we collected more than 3000 original objects
for the Knives, Scissors and Swords Museum.

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that during the interpretive group tours, the
museum tour guides also commented on the historical and cultural signicance of the displayed objects, often highlighting the objective authenticity of the displayed objects in the
CMC by using the following expressions and words. They include historically correct
representatives of traditional craftsmanship, symbols of our very national history and
culture, and bearers of historical memory. Similar statements were also found in the brochures produced by the CMC. Such interpretations resonate with the standard of object
selection put forward by Mr Qiang, the Planning Leader of the CMC, that is, objects (in
the museums) must represent the exquisite skills and techniques based on meticulous
and extensive research into historical and archeological evidences.
Despite the emphasis on the objective authenticity of the displayed objects, the museum
planner and curators also commented on how the CMC had to adjust and amend its original
plans and strategies for selecting and collecting the objects due to various practical reasons,
such as time and cost constraints, and the inaccessibility of certain objects. This challenged
the emphasis the CMC placed on the objective authenticity of its collections. It is well
explained by Mr Xu, the Exhibition Curator Assistant who comments:
At that time, we were collecting objects when planning museums because of the time limitation, we had to do the two things together When the planners provided an object list, the
collection team collected objects and then gave them responses about the collection then
they sometimes adjusted the planning.

Such a statement reveals that certain curators desire for objective authenticity was compromised due to the limitation of practical factors (e.g. time). To a great extent, the issue of
time limitation discussed above refers to the deadline set by the city government.1 Indeed,
this inuenced the objective authenticity of displayed collections in the CMC, as the
museum curators had to adjust the object collection strategy and use replacements for
the originals within the time limitation set by the city government. It is interesting to
note that while the Chinese national government has recently reduced its direct inuence
on regional museums, regional (and city) governments rather have actively controlled
the local and regional museums as part of their regional and city (re)development (Wu,
2011). In this regard, the Hangzhou municipal government also promoted and used its
museums including the CMC as a signicant part of city tourism and regeneration.
However, it put more emphasis on the number of newly built museums, number of tourists
rather than issues related to the objective authenticity of the CMCs collections.
Furthermore, the intervention of governments in this case caused conicts of museum
ideology with the museum planning team. According to the historical documents (e.g.
meeting minutes) and the transcripts from the interviews with Mr Qiang, Mrs Ying, and
Mrs Dai, the former attempted to plan the CMC with a national brand for wider recognition from all over the country, whilst the latter preferred to have a local brand to
arouse more resonance and support from the local community and culture. This situation
forced the CMC planning team to make a compromise. The problem was that the shifting
ideology from the local to national brought more difculties to the object collection
process due to the inaccessibility of the objects beyond Hangzhou within the time and
budget limitations. Thus, the numbers of replicas increased, which undoubtedly affected
the objective authenticity of the CMC.
As such, the process of collecting and selecting objects in this context of a Chinese
museum was complex and inevitably full of discussion, negotiation, and adjustment
between the stakeholders. The inaccessibility of certain objects in particular made the

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

10

Y. Fu et al.

collecting process more complicated, and thus inevitably resulted in the negotiation of the
objective authenticity of the collected objects. In this regard, there is no absolute objective
authenticity, because the replacements for the originals are considered to be fake or
pseudo (MacCannell, 1999). But the lines between the real and the fake are systematically
blurred from the tourists perspective, because most tourists in many cases can have no way
of knowing what is real, true, authentic, or genuine (Bruner, 2005). Furthermore, even if all
the displayed objects in the museums were originals, there is no so-called objective authenticity because they were wrenched out of their original texts (Lowenthal, 1990a, p. 17).
Thus, at least in this study, it is suggested that to view authenticity as the original or the
attribute of the original is too simple to capture its complexity (Wang, 1999, p. 353)
with a particular focus on the cognitive dimension of the unbiased authentic status of
objects and activities. This is because of the continuous negotiation and effort amongst
the stakeholders led to an acceptance of both the objective and staged authenticity of the
collected objects for tourism in the context of the CMC.

The role of modern technology in staged authenticity

The CMC was planned to showcase the Chinese intangible craftsmanship heritage which
was distinctive from the ubiquitous, conventional, object-based museums in China. As
the CMC aimed to present a holistic living process of how traditional craftsmanship developed and continued from the past to the present day rather than piles of mere objects, it was
inevitable that simulated environments, dioramas, modern electro-optical and multimedia
technologies, and sound effects would be employed.
In the Fan Museum, there is, for example, a hall simulating the Fan Street of Hangzhou
in the nineteenth century where fan workshops and stores were located. The ground is a
simulation of a nineteenth century stone street which has on both sides wooden houses
decorated as old fan shops. Some elements in that hall are real relics originally dating
back to the nineteenth century. For instance, the stone tablet inscribed with Fan Industry
Chamber Wall Boundary () was erected on Fan Street, Hangzhou, in
1888 and preserved by a local fan workshop when the street was damaged. However,
most are imitations and replicas representing the historical documents (Yan, 2009). Moreover, gure models and dioramas are employed to construct and stage a more authentic
scene that demonstrates how the workers in the past made their arts and crafts. Similarly,
in the Umbrella Museum, there is a hall simulating rain shrouding a waterside village in
the South of China, which is created by a mixture of complex electro-optical technologies
and sound effects. When tourists encounter various colourful umbrellas hanging around the
hall, the museum expects that they may feel that they are walking down a small and narrow
stone lane, listening to the rain.
The benets of such modern exhibition technologies for an enhanced touristic experience have been acknowledged (Pine & Gilmore, 2007). Handler and Saxton (1988, p. 247)
suggest that a museum with audio-visual equipment is a learning laboratory that can attract
people to come close to replicating and hence understanding the subjective experiences of
historic others. Similarly, Yan (2009) comments that the employment of modern exhibition
technologies can provide tourists with a richer sensory enjoyment and lived experience
which will enhance their learning and understanding of the key messages and knowledge
embedded in craftsmanship history, culture and heritage in a more interactive and entertaining way. Such ideas are also supported by the statistics that show that modern exhibition
technologies promote museum visits (Fahy, 1995; Vom & Heath, 2005).

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

11

In this context, many displayed objects and exhibitions are in some way or another close
to MacCannells (1999) pseudo sites and artefacts, because they are purposely produced
and staged for enhanced touristic experiences and are not genuine representations of the
original objects (MacCannell, 1973, 1999). From the objective authenticitys perspective,
such substitutions can create a situation where people are basing their knowledge on
false information as well as developing false expectations of the past, which may lead to
the ruin of authentic touristic experiences in museums. For this reason, the employment
of modern technology in museums is often blamed for destroying the authenticity of
history and making museums work for entertainment, as historians criticised the
Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springeld in America (Pine &
Gilmore, 2007).
However, Miss Xu, the Director of the Exhibition Department of the CMC, suggested
that tourists visiting the CMC were mainly leisure tourists rather than serious learners or
experts intending to test whether objects of art are what they appear to be or are claimed to
be, and therefore worth the price that is asked for them (Trilling, 1972, p. 93). In this
context, Miss Xu commented that leisure tourists visiting the CMC appreciated the
employment of modern technology and simulated environments. To some extent such comments resonate with Gonzlez (2008) and Cohens (1988) idea that different people may
have different perspectives of and needs for authenticity.

Authenticity created by the commercialisation of intangible heritage

Among the ve museums of the CMC, the Workmanship Demonstration Pavilion is often
the most crowded, particularly during the tourist seasons (e.g. the long holidays of May Day
and National Day in China). In this Pavilion, the craftmasters known as the Chinese Intangible Cultural Inheritors were invited to establish workshops and demonstrate the living
processes of making knives, umbrellas, and fans. They taught tourists the traditional craftsmanship by letting them make their own arts and crafts with instruction (e.g. fan painting,
paper cutting, bag painting, pottery making, hand embroidery, and leather carving).
Although the masters craftsmanship was promoted as the authentic traditional craftsmanship by the museum tour guides and in the brochures, it is less straightforward than
was suggested in the discussion earlier in relation to objective and staged authenticity.
Here is the example of the Zhang Xiao Quan Scissors which can be traced back to the
year 1643. At that time, Zhang Xiao Quan Scissors were made manually through three
work sections and 72 rounds of procedures, including 23 rounds of procedures from
material matching to making semi-nished products, 41 rounds from semi-nished products to nished products, and 8 other procedures. In modern times, the entire manual
process is no longer used in the Zhang Xiao Quan Scissor factories; 90% of the procedures
have been replaced by machine mass production. However, in the Workmanship Demonstration Pavilion, the craftmasters only displayed and taught the key steps of the three
manual work sections of making Zhang Xiao Quan Scissors.
As such, it becomes apparent that authenticity can be staged in this way, and to some
extent the mass production of Zhang Xiao Quan Scissors becomes inauthentic and disassociated from its original craftsmanship and meaning, as it is argued that inauthenticity often
stems from [the] commodication processes which give a phenomenon an alienating and
explicit exchange value (Halewood & Hannam, 2001, p. 567). However, both Mrs Ying
and the Zhang Xiao Quan Craftsmanship Inheritor articulated that tourists demands for
a special authentic experience were not gained from experiencing the exact procedures

12

Y. Fu et al.

of the original crafts but mainly from the interactive experience with the craftmasters. In
this regard, Mrs Ying comments:

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Tourists often want to have a try when watching the masters making crafts. Then they pay a
small fee to learn the craftsmanship and buy the crafts they make themselves In such a consumption era, we almost buy everything we need rather than make something by ourselves
Making crafts manually with the masters is a totally different experience. Plus, the tourists are
taught by the craftsmanship masters during this process whose skills have been passed down
through the generations for ages, which is already an authentic experience for the tourists.

Indeed, some tourists perceive that the commercial reproduction of the past sufces as
an authentic product (Halewood & Hannam, 2001). This is why Grnewald (2006, p. 211)
suggests in some cases cultural commodication is some sort of complicity between tourists and tradition-creating natives, which helps tourists to obtain authentic experience.
Such a touristic experience also resonates with Gonzlezs (2008) and Wangs (1999)
idea of the existential state of being. This authenticity cannot be obtained by simply
observing the museum objects and visiting a simulated historical environment, but by
the interaction with the host community and participation in tourism activities (Wang,
1999). Tourists making crafts manually for themselves is a different state from their
daily lives constrained by consumption, which endows them with an authentic experience.
For that reason, museum planners and curators highlight that tourists express a stronger
interest in experiencing the performance of craftsmanship masters living processes of
making crafts, rather than simply gazing at displayed crafts. In this regard, Mr Qiang
comments:
At the stage of museum planning, we visited a sandalwood fan factory in Suzhou. [Maybe]
when I was a boy, I was very boyish and had kind of manly thoughts. I thought sandalwood
fans were ladies toys so I never looked at them (fans). But after watching the whole
process of making sandalwood fans, I even bought a couple of fans. The rst-hand experience
of watching how the saws and other tools were used by the craftsmanship inheritors made me
so emotional The process interests me. I can see their wisdom and traditional culture. Then I
drew out the money and bought some Such an experience is more than impressive. When I
designed the museums afterwards, I hoped tourists would have similar experiences.

The above narrative suggests that watching the complete living processes of making crafts
could give tourists a more authentic experience and hence have a better understanding of
tradition than simply observing and gazing at the objects. Such a museum planning strategy
echoes the fact that contemporary museums attempt to explore new methods of improving
visitors experiences beyond the conventional object-orientation methods (Conn, 2011),
which undoubtedly inuence museum tourism. This strategy is easily linked to the economic reality of the CMC. Although the city government provided the annual nal
support for the CMCs running expenses and staff salaries, it needs to earn extra money
from tourists for temporary exhibitions and education activities, which are believed to be
key to keeping the vitality of the museums. As Mrs Dai from the city government
insists, We work with tourism agencies to bring more tourists to the CMC. We need to
keep the museums receiving enough tourists. Tourists visits and spending in the CMC
is absolutely crucial for its survival and sustainable development. In contemporary
China, museums play a less important role in propagandising socialism and patriotism,
compared to the Mao-era. Rather, commercialisation inuences the governance of
museums (Flath, 2002). As Mrs Dai said above, the government stakeholders of the
CMC emphasised the signicance of commercialisation of the CMC, which consequently

Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

13

affected the notion of authenticity of collected objects and tourists authentic experiences
through learning the craftsmanship and buying souvenirs in the museum.

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Conclusion
Based on the case of the CMC in Hangzhou, China, this study aimed to understand how
craftsmanship heritage was planned and staged in the CMC and discuss how the authenticity of intangible heritage was presented for the sake of tourism from the museum production perspective. It looked into intangible heritage in the context of museums and
insisted that the unique characteristic of intangible heritage, a complete living state,
cannot be presented by only relying on frozen object-based displays, but by multiple
offerings in the museums. It differentiates this study from previous studies which merely
focused on the (in)authenticity of the things (objects, museums, and heritage) (Pine &
Gilmore, 2007; Prideaux & Kininmont, 1999).
The rationale for the research focusing on the production side was based on the lack of
current literature in that area with more focus being on the consumption side (i.e. visitors
and tourists). In addition, the existing literature on the production side was mainly theoretical explorations than empirical research (for instance, Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998;
Prentice, 2001). The current study aimed to ll this gap. Thus, the study empirically examined how the producers of Chinese intangible heritage museums inuenced the presentation
of the authenticity of intangible heritage. The stakeholders in the production side included
museum curators, governmental organisations, private museum planning companies, intangible heritage inheritors, and tourism agencies. The budget and time limits set by the government for the museums, the ideology of museum planning and running, and the inuence
of tourism on museums were the three main factors that caused tension and negotiation
between the stakeholders during the process of producing the authenticity of intangible
heritage.
Indeed, authenticity is an important attribute of cultural tourism, in particular, relating to
museum and heritage. The ndings of this study support this idea that the authenticity of
heritage is constructed and promoted in multiple forms (Prentice, 2001), as it found that
three ways were used to manifest the authenticity of craftsmanship heritage, that is,
objects, modern technology, and inheritors performing and teaching their craftsmanship.
The employment of replicas to replace the originals demonstrated that the absolute objective authenticity of intangible heritage cannot exist in museums. The ideology of enriching
tourists sensory enjoyment by using modern technology led to the creation of staged
authenticity for tourists experiences. Furthermore, the ndings of the study suggest that
the strategy of staging the inheritors performing and teaching their craftsmanship in the
museums through a commercial process provided tourists with existential authenticity.
This nding is also attributed to the change in contemporary museums and its connections
to tourism, as most contemporary museums are unable to be free of social, economic, and
political inuences and no longer advocate absolute objective authenticity. Rather, they
focus on offering visitors an authentic experience to achieve their multiple purposes of education, leisure, and tourism (Conn, 2011; Lowenthal, 1990a; Prentice, 2001).
The study suggests one recommendation for future research in the eld of tourism
studies. It would be benecial if future research were to explore the presentation of the
authenticity of intangible heritage in the context of other museums targeting different
visitor segmentations, as the CMC was mainly targeting leisure tourists rather than heritage tourists or serious learners, which consequently had an impact on the museum planning strategy in relation to the concept of authenticity. As Cohen (1988) and Chhabra et al.

14

Y. Fu et al.

(2003) highlight, different tourists have different perspectives of authenticity, and future
research from this perspective will help to develop a more holistic view of how the
concept of authenticity is applied, (re)negotiated, and (re)presented in the museum context.

Acknowledgements

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

We thank Yanan Miao, Lu Zhang and Ruohan Mao helped to manage research data, and Professor
Rhodri Thomas gave us valuable comments, which improved the paper. We also appreciate that
the staff of the Craftsmanship Museum Cluster in Hangzhou and all interviewees, who supported
our research from 2012 to 2013.

Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Note
1.

Such situations happen quite often in most regional and city public museums in China. When
they are approved by governments, the governments usually set up a deadline for their establishment and a date for their opening. Although sometimes the deadline can be postponed, overall the
schedules are tight, which can be only a couple of months.

References
Appleton, J. (2006). UK museum policy and interpretation: Implications for cultural tourism. In M. K.
Smith & M. Robinson (Eds.), Cultural tourism in changing world: Politics, participation and (re)
presentation (pp. 257270). Clevedon: Channel View.
Ashton, C. (2012). Peking duck as a museum spectacle: Staging local heritage for Olympic tourism.
Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 10(2), 150166.
Berger, P. (1973). Sincerity and authenticity in modern society. Public Interest, 31, 8190.
Blud, L. M. (1990). Sons and daughters: Observations on the way families interact during a museum
visit. Museum Management and Curatorship, 9(3), 257264.
Bouchenaki, M. (2003). The interdependency of the tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Paper
presented at the ICOMOS 14th General Assembly and Scientic Symposium, Harare.
Bruner, E. M. (1993). Introduction: Museums and tourism. Museum Anthropology, 17(3), 66.
Bruner, E. M. (1994). Abraham Lincoln as authentic reproduction: A critique of postmodernism.
American Anthropologist, 96(2), 397415.
Bruner, E. M. (2005). Culture on tour: Ethnographies of travel. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Chhabra, D., Healy, R., & Sills, E. (2003). Staged authenticity and heritage tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 30(3), 702719.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditisation in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3),
371386.
Conn, S. (2011). Do museums still need objects? Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Crang, M. (1996). Magic kingdom or a quixotic quest for authenticity? Annals of Tourism Research,
23(2), 415431.
Daniel, Y. P. (1996). Tourism dance performances: Authenticity and creativity. Annals of Tourism
Research, 23(4), 780797.
Edensor, T. (2001). Performing tourism, staging tourism (re) producing tourist space and practice.
Tourist studies, 1(1), 5981.
Fahy, A. (1995). New technologies for museum communication. In E. Hooper-Greenhill (Ed.),
Museum, media, message (pp. 8296). Abingdon: Psychology Press.
Flath, J. A. (2002). Managing historical capital in Shandong: Museum, monument, and memory in
provincial China. The Public Historian, 24(2), 4159.

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

15

Gilmore, J., & Pine, J. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre and every business a stage.
Paris: Harvard Business School Press.
Gonzlez, V. M. (2008). Intangible heritage tourism and identity. Tourism Management, 29(4), 807
810.
Greenhill, E. H. (1992). Museums and the shaping of knowledge. London: Routledge.
Grnewald, R. (2006). Patax tourism art and cultural authenticity. In M. K. Smith & M. Robinson
(Eds.), Cultural tourism in a changing world: Politics, participation and (Re) presentation (pp.
203214). Clevedon: Channel View.
Haahti, A., & Komppula, R. (2006). Experience design in tourism. In D. Buhalis & C. Costa (Eds.),
Tourism business frontiers: Consumers, products and industry (pp. 101110). Oxford: Elsevier,
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Halewood, C., & Hannam, K. (2001). Viking heritage tourism: Authenticity and commodication.
Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 565580.
Handler, R., & Saxton, W. (1988). Dyssimulation: Reexivity, narrative, and the quest for authenticity
in living history. Cultural Anthropology, 3(3), 242260.
Hangzhou Municipal Committee for Canal Integrated Protection. (2013). [News on world
heritage application]. Retrieved from http://www.grandcanal.com.cn/news.aspx?c_kind=132&c_
kind2=208
Hangzhou Municipal Government. (2013).
[Hangzhou municipal governments suggestions on the acceleration of Hangzhous tourism
development]. Retrieved from http://www.gotohz.gov.cn/zhfg/lyyfzzc/201310/t20131024_
90330.html
Hangzhou Tourism Commission. (2013). [Statistics]. Retrieved from http://www.gotohz.
gov.cn/zwgk/gkml/ghjh/tjsj/
Harkin, M. (1995). Modernist anthropology and tourism of the authentic. Annals of Tourism
Research, 22(3), 650670.
Harrison, J. (1997). Museums and touristic expectations. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(1), 2340.
Hughes, G. (1995). Authenticity in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(4), 781803.
Jolliffe, L., & Smith, R. (2001). Heritage, tourism and museums: The case of the North Atlantic
islands of Skye, Scotland and Prince Edward Island, Canada. International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 7(2), 149172.
Koran, J. J., Morrison, L., Lehman, J. R., Koran, M. L., & Gandara, L. (1984). Attention and curiosity
in museums. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(4), 357363.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1998). Destination culture: Tourism, museums, and heritage. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2004). Intangible heritage as metacultural production. Museum
International, 56(12), 5265.
Kurin, R. (2004a). Museums and intangible heritage: Culture dead or alive? ICOM News, 57(4), 79.
Kurin, R. (2004b). Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage in the 2003 UNESCO convention: A
critical appraisal. Museum International, 56(12), 6677.
Lash, S., & Urry, J. (1994). Economies of signs and space. London: Sage.
Lowenthal, D. (1990a). The past is a foreign country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lowenthal, D. (1990b). Forging the past. In M. Jones, P. T. Craddock, & N. Barker (Eds.), In fake?
The art of deception (pp. 1622). London: British Museum.
Lu, Q. (2013). , [The ten years road to free-entry of Hangzhou
museums]. Retrieved from http://gov-hzrb.hangzhou.com.cn/system/2013/05/18/012439340.
shtml
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings.
American Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589603.
MacCannell, D. (1999). The Tourist: A new theory of the leisure class. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Macleod, N. (2006). Cultural tourism: Aspects of authenticity and commodication. In M. K. Smith &
M. Robinson (Eds.), Cultural tourism in a changing world: Politics, participation and (Re) presentation (pp. 177189). Clevedon: Channel View.
Milligan, M. J., & Brayeld, A. (2004). Museums and childhood negotiating organizational lessons.
Childhood, 11(3), 275301.
Olsen, K. (2002). Authenticity as a concept in tourism research: The social organization of the experience of authenticity. Tourist Studies, 2(2), 159182.

Downloaded by [NUS National University of Singapore] at 03:36 25 March 2015

16

Y. Fu et al.

Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (2007). Museums and authenticity. Museum News-Washington, 86(3),
7693.
Prentice, R. (2001). Experiential cultural tourism: Museums & the marketing of the new romanticism
of evoked authenticity. Museum Management and Curatorship, 19(1), 526.
Prideaux, B. R., & Kininmont, L. J. (1999). Tourism and heritage are not strangers: A study of opportunities for rural heritage museums to maximize tourism visitation. Journal of Travel Research, 37
(3), 299303.
Robertshaw, A. (2006). Live interpretation. In A. Hems & M. Blockley (Eds.), Heritage interpretation
(pp. 4154). Abingdon: Routledge.
The Policy Research Ofce of the CPC Hangzhou Municipal Committee. (2011).
[Investigation report on the development of museum industry in Hangzhou]. (), 12, 4043.
Tilden, F., & Craig, R. B. (2007). Interpreting our heritage. Chapell Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
Trilling, L. (1972). Sincerity and authenticity. London: Oxford University Press.
Tufts, S., & Milne, S. (1999). Museums: A supply-side perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 26
(3), 613631.
UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. Retrieved
from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540e.pdf
Uriely, N. (2005). The tourist experience: Conceptual developments. Annals of Tourism Research, 32
(1), 199216.
Vom, D., & Heath, C. (2005). Accounting for new technology in museum exhibitions. International
Journal of Arts Management, 7(3), 1121.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking authenticity in tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2),
349370.
Wang, N. (2000). Authenticity. Encyclopedia of Tourism, 113(2), 4345.
Wang, Y. (2013). [Comments on do museums still need
objects?]. , 113, 2021.
Wu, H. (2011). Museum and change: Regional museums in the Peoples Republic of China
(Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Bergen, Bergen.
Woodside, A. G. (2010). Case study research: Theory, methods, practice. Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing.
Yan, J. (2009). [The planning proposal for China Fan Museum nal
version]. Unpublished manuscript.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zhang, J., & Yu, Y. (2008). [The study on the
development strategy of the museum industry in Hangzhou city according to the customer-satisfaction]. , 1, 3179.