Sustainable heritage tourism in Visby : A discourse analysis of development plans for the world heritage site

Introduction: This is a two years master's thesis in Museum and Cultural Heritage Studies. The purpose of this thesis was to critically examine discourses of sustainable cultural tourism, and how different sustainability dimensions and ideals can coexist and be applied in practice. The starting point was a case study of the World Heritage Site “The Hanseatic town of Visby”, where the relationship between the conservation and the availability of the world heritage site was investigated. The research questions that were formulated were which actors and agendas that cooperate in the production of sustainable heritage tourism, how global and national guidelines for sustainable cultural tourism correspond to the local development work of the Visby world heritage city, which are the prominent discourses in the documents on sustainable heritage tourism in the world heritage city of Visby and how they are described as well as whether there is opposition between the conservation and the availability of cultural heritage, and what potential solutions to such opposition can look like. Theory: Prior to the study, previous research on sustainability, sustainable heritage tourism and the world heritage site Visby has been studied and used as a springboard for the thesis research questions. The theoretical perspectives that were used in the analysis consisted of theories regarding sustainable tourism, posthumanism, system theory and authorized heritage discourse, AHD. Method: The method chosen for the study was Laclau & Mouffes discourse analysis. This enabled a closer examination of the development plans and documents on sustainable heritage tourism produced by local, national and global actors. This was complemented with short interviews with thirteen stakeholders. Results and analysis: The result and analysis showed that several different actors and agendas are involved in the production of sustainable heritage tourism. However, there are difficulties in letting all actors get their voices heard and being part of the decision-making process, such as the local population, which are often disregarded. In addition, interaction between different actors could get better with more clearly defined areas of responsibility. The result also showed that, in particular, the concepts of sustainability and sustainable develop-ment were used in the documents about the development of the world heritage city of Visby, but the concept of sustainable heritage tourism was rarely used. The Swedish National Heritage Board and the region of Gotland are currently working on developing sustainable tourism strategies. At present, however, there is unclear correspondence between global guidelines and local application, where it is up to the municipalities to interpret and apply Unesco’s guidelines themselves, which may be difficult since the guidelines are quite general and vague. The study also showed that there are three clear discourses in the documents about sustainable heritage tourism. Under the overall discourse of sustainable tourism in Visby there is an ecological discourse, an economic discourse and a social discourse. In all documents, sustainable tourism is described as consisting of three discourses, but there is great freedom of interpretation in the use of the term. The discourses are also prioritized and described differently in different documents. Conclusion: The study's conclusion is that there are both oppositions and solutions. Both documents and interviews show that there are oppositions between ecological, economic and social interests in a place like the world heritage site in Visby. At the same time, there are also various suggestions for how the different dimensions can coexist and the actors were generally optimistic. Basically, it is about finding a balance between conservation and accessibility, taking into account both contemporary and future interests. Suggested solutions are to work further with information and knowledge, improve interaction between different actors, work with conservation-based development, productize heritage, better interaction with the local society, develop creative industries in historical buildings, and include visitors in the conservation work. However, most voices agree that the issue is difficult and complex and requires more knowledge and research