Archaeological heritage management and tourism development: actions and proposals

Gestión del patrimonio arqueológico y desarrollo del turismo: acciones y propuestas

Abstract

This article presents the state of the art of practices involving Tourism and Archeology, in various parts of the world and in Brazil. It aimed to present successful and not so successful cases of pioneering actions in countries with high archaeological potential such as Portugal, Romania, Turkey, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Chile, Brazil, United States, among others. The methods used were the documentary research and bibliographical research in databases, obtained in digital media, willing to find researches involving the subject of archeological tourism in Europe, America and Brazil. As a result, the factors guiding these actions were identified and a reference model for archaeological heritage management was built so it can be used as an instrument of dissemination, protection, sustainability and integration with the local community.

Keywords:
Tourism and Archaeological Heritage Management; Management Model.

Resumen

Este artículo presenta el estado del arte de las prácticas involucrando Turismo y Arqueología, en diversas partes del mundo y de Brasil. Tuvo como objetivo presentar las acciones pioneras exitosas o no, en los países con alto potencial arqueológico como Portugal, Rumania, Turquía, México, República Dominicana, Chile, Brasil, Estados Unidos, entre otros. El método utilizado fue el documental y la base de investigación bibliográfica de datos, obtenidos en medio digital, donde se tuvieron acceso a las investigaciones que involucran el tema del turismo arqueológico en Europa, América y Brasil. Como resultado se identificaron los factores que guiaron estas acciones y propuesto un modelo de referencia, para la gestión del patrimonio arqueológico, que puede utilizarse del Turismo como un instrumento de divulgación, protección, sostenibilidad e integración con la comunidad local.

Palabras clave:
Turismo y Gestión del patrimonio arqueológico; Modelo de Gestión; Estudios de caso.

Resumo

Este artigo apresenta o estado da arte das práticas envolvendo Turismo e Arqueologia em diversas partes do mundo e do Brasil. Teve como objetivo apresentar ações pioneiras de sucesso (ou não) em países com grande potencial arqueológico, como Portugal, Romênia, Turquia, México, República Dominicana, Chile, Brasil, Estados Unidos, entre outros. O método utilizado foi a pesquisa documental e bibliográfica em base de dados, obtidas em meio digital, tendo-se acesso às pesquisas que envolvem o tema do turismo arqueológico na Europa, na América e no Brasil. Como resultado, foram identificados os fatores que nortearam essas ações e foi proposto um modelo de referência para a gestão do patrimônio arqueológico, podendo-se utilizar o Turismo como instrumento de divulgação, proteção, sustentabilidade e integração com a comunidade local.

Palavras-chave:
Turismo; Gestão do patrimônio arqueológico; Modelo de Gestão.

1 INTRODUCTION

The discussion on the management of archaeological heritage has spread to various parts of the world. In some countries, this movement is gaining strength because of political issues, where conflicting places seek support in international bodies and in their guidelines for protecting cultural heritage. In others, the emphasis is on the economic factor, where tourism is characterized as the driving force of the protection process. Several standards and guidelines have been developed over the years in many countries. The Venice Charter (1964), for example, warns that, despite the occurrence of intergovernmental measures that promote global action, the effective implementation of each State should not be overlooked, as it concerns the preservation and safeguarding of archaeological and cultural heritage.

This article presents the case studies that involve the relationship between tourism and archaeological heritage. Initially, cases from European countries will be presented; later, of other countries of America and, finally, the Brazilian cases.

Several authors have discussed the theme, especially Copeta and Giocomo (2010), who discuss the creation of tourist routes, integrating diverse cultural heritage, among them archaeological sites; Chivu (2013) and Ramíres, Novella and Barreira-Bassols (2010) emphasize the importance of planned tourism as an alternative to protecting local heritage against disorderly development. In the case of participation between the public and the private sector, Shoup, Baraldi and Zan (2010) indicate possibilities for such integration; Villalobos (2014), as well as Sugiura and Nieto (2014), present reflections on the unequal visibility given to archaeological heritage, which, due to lack of legal protection or even the establishment of identity, relegate part of their heritage to abandonment; Griffith and Griffith (2013), Ayala (2015) and Endere and Zulaica (2015) reinforced in their research the importance of the participation of the local population in the process of planning and management of archaeological heritage; Guidon (2007), Veloso and Cavalcanti (2007), Buco (2012) and Chamas and Schimidt (2011) discuss the use of archaeological heritage as a tourist attraction from Brazilian cases. These, among other authors, contributed to the conception of this research.

The relevance of this survey of the state of knowledge had the challenge of mapping through bibliographic research and discussing the main investigations involving Tourism and Archaeological Heritage at different times and places, under different theoretical and methodological approaches. This survey allowed the development of a new postulate presented here as the Management Reference Model for the development of Tourism in archeological sites.

With this survey it was possible to carry out analyzes in conjunction with other bibliographic references, which allowed the promotion and definition of the reference categories of the management model for the development of tourism in archaeological sites, the main objective of this reflection.

2 TOURISM AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IN EUROPE

2.1 Portugal - Troia Peninsula

Tourism and Heritage Management are part of the economic movement of several European countries. As an example, there is the article by Silveira, Kraus, Psuty, & Andrade (2011), which presents a case study on beach reconstruction, with the recomposition of the sand strip in the Tróia Peninsula in Portugal, which resulted in a new modeling of the beach, where one of the recomposed points was next to buildings of the Roman period. The action created a more extensive area, with a damping zone, that allowed the protection of the building, which was in danger of destruction by the action of the sea. One of the works implanted in the place was a marina, whose sediment of the dredging was used in the increase of the beach. As of October 2006, the sediments began to be deposited in four distinct sectors of the region, aiming at the restoration of the beach. In one of these points was the archaeological site of the Roman period.

During the monitoring the movement of the sediment was observed, since the sand strip created in front of the archaeological site functioned as a zone of damping. Twice a year the bathymetric survey was carried out, aiming at monitoring the area of ​​the marina, where dredging was carried out to maintain the beach.

2.2 Italy - South of the Italian peninsula

In Italy, the geographer and monk Guidone described in the year 1119 a medieval route that passed through Apulia and Basilicata, south of the Italian peninsula. He made a trip by trails to visit religious centers, medieval stone churches, archaeological sites and rural landscapes, such as the Abbey of Montescaglioso and the ruins of Grumentum. The revitalization of Guidone's path as well as a tourist route is seen as an opportunity to involve the local community, valuing local identities and traditions (Copeta & Giacomo, 2010, p 111).

According to Copeta and Giacomo (2010, p. 111), the revitalization of the medieval route contributes to the cultural, economic and social development, with the increase of responsible tourism, which can bring benefits to the local heritage and community.

From the descriptions of Guidone, a proposal was presented. A route was established that passed through places with peculiar environmental, scenic and cultural characteristics and values, such as small medieval centers, convents, stone churches, ruins and rural areas, characterizing a territory with many unique elements. The proposed tourist activities involve hiking, trekking, regional trains and cycling tours, representing a unique modality for the region. To visit it, the traveler would have to have time available for the trip. Along the route would organize stops between 10 and 15 km, privileging the historical centers endowed with basic structure to welcome the visitor. When it was not possible to use this strategy, new structures would need to be installed (Copeta & Giacomo, 2010, p 116).

For the development of this route some principles of efficient management were considered. Copeta and Giocomo (2010) highlight actions that should be used in the development of the project, such as the involvement of public and private agencies; encouraging the emergence of new businesses and jobs; qualification of the population and local tour operators, aiming at the improvement in the receptive service; participation in fairs and elaboration of promotional material on local heritage; involvement of tour operator to create networks for sharing best practices and experiences.

The work reinforces the importance of the development of an alternative tourism, focusing on regional development, integrating the population and promoting the revitalization of the local cultural heritage. The proposed tourism activities could be an alternative to the seasonality of regional tourism, and could be developed in different seasons, which would increase other tourist segments in the region.

2.3 Romania - Rosia Montana, in the region of Transylvania

Chivu (2013) presented a case study from the municipality of Rosia Montana, Romania, where there was the prospect of a mining project being implemented, which would jeopardize the regional historical heritage. Given this situation, tourism has come to be seen as a possibility of increasing income for the population and would contribute to the preservation of natural and cultural heritage. In addition to the focus on the preservation of natural and cultural heritage, tourism was intended to be an alternative to the local economy, based on mining.

Rosia Montana was built by virtue of mining. Documents prove that its foundation occurred almost 2,000 years ago, making it the oldest mining settlement in Europe. There are galleries from the Roman, medieval and modern (pre-industrial) periods, presenting testimonies of the different mining cycles of the region.

The Roman galleries were built through a unique technique, in trapezoidal shape. Most Roman galleries are located in Orlea Massif, some of them being open to visitors. They possess a universal value as they relate to the history and culture of the Roman Empire. Other Roman artifacts are represented by the remains of religious or administrative buildings, or funeral relics (sarcophagi, tombstones), and traces of Roman roads which connected the ancient Roșia Montană (Alburnus Maior) to other mining centers in the area. The ancient Mausoleum represents a remarkable attraction, a double circular tomb, the only one of this kind discovered in Romania from the Dacian-Roman period (Chivu, 2013, p. 45).

The architectural elements found in Rosia Montana also have their particularities and reveal signs of history and local economic development. When dealing with architectural heritage, one can see a place with variations in styles, from simpler to more detailed traditional structures, demonstrating certain power.

Chivu (2013) emphasized tourism as an element for economic development. However, it indicates the need for tourism activities to be linked, simultaneously, to promotion, general infrastructure, legislative framework, conservation program and sustainable use of resources.

In the case in focus, there is a constant struggle in the valorization of the local patrimony. One of the first actions in this sense was the restoration of historic buildings by specialists. The materials used obeyed the original construction techniques, using materials such as clay, sand, limestone, stone and wood and avoiding materials such as cement and metal. This was only possible due to the involvement of architectural students and with the help of the local community. The main mining company also restored historic buildings but was contested by experts for not using original elements.

In order to increase the value of local heritage, an annual festival was created, which brings together a series of activities such as seminars, workshops and tours. Over the years, the event has attracted many participants who, due to a lack of traditional accommodation, settle in the properties of local residents, promoting the generation of income and the appreciation of the local culture.

2.4 Turkey - management model of the culture sector

The Turkish government has adopted a management model for the culture sector by outsourcing commercial services, but without losing control of the public administration, which combines the flexibility of private sector contracts and the continuation of administrative management centralized in public power (Shoup, Baraldi, & Zan, 2014).

Despite this model of private participation in the management of cultural heritage, decisions are centralized in the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MoCT). In addition to the Ministry, the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums (GDCHM) and the Directorate of Museums are regional entities that manage museums and ruins, protect the listed sites and conduct and monitor the excavations. They have little autonomy with regard to budgets and working rules. In 2009 there were 102 of these bodies controlling 183 museums and 127 ruins open to the public (Shoup et al., 2014).

Although MoCT's revenue was positive, a strategy to relocate a significant number of employees to other areas of government, coupled with staff misrepresentation (such as lack of knowledge of foreign languages ​​and disqualification of services provided) was a highlight of the study. Service providers had little experience in tourism, coupled with the lack of an effective marketing, promotion and identity strategy that limited the positive results of the initiative (Shoup et al., 2014).

The research of Shoup et al. (2014) had as main objective the analysis of three outsourcing contracts in the culture sector of the Turkish government, executed between the years of 2009 and 2010. The contracts outsourced commercial services in museums and archaeological sites, which constitute the largest collection of income from the Central Direction of Rotating Funds (Döner Sermaye İşletmesi Merkez Müdürlüğü -Dösim), the main body for financing activities related to cultural heritage.

In 2009, a first contract between the Turkish Association of Travel Agents (Türsab) and Dösim was signed. This action, a kind of pilot program, aimed at the modernization of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum (IAM). The IAM / Türsab model was replaced by two more extensive outsourcing contracts: one in 2009, allowing the construction and operation of gift shops and cafes, and another in 2010, which would enable the modernization and operation of turnstiles. Each contract included a package of about 50 museums and ruins.

According to the researchers, these measures were necessary due to the administrative difficulties presented by Dösim. One example is the IAM, which in the middle of 2000 presented problems of poor quality in the service provided to visitors, insufficient facilities and aging of the infrastructure. This situation was aggravated by the lack of autonomy in the budget and the insufficient number of employees. The contract for the IAM Development Project, signed by Türsab in 2009, focused on solving the problems faced by the museum. The contract included the reconstruction of the museum, following international standards, supporting scientific projects, solving problems with human resources, curating and developing collections, improving visitor services, increasing visits, developing cultural tourism, among others.

Also in 2009 the contract was signed with Bilkent Kültür Geliştirme (BKG) with the aim of outsourcing the management of coffee shops in museums and ruins. One in the requirements of the State in this contract was the sale of products of the national artisans.

The last contract analyzed was due to the box office bid. The winning company would, among other advantages, have the responsibility of creating a secure visitor access control system in addition to the museum card. In the first months of operation there was a significant increase of visitors, interpreted by the Dösim not as a real increase, but as a result of the greater control at the entrance. The number of people who visit the site is still growing, certainly due to the marketing campaigns and service improvements offered to the visitors after the changes made in the management of the place. The government demanded that gift shops resell domestically made handicrafts. The products should be related to the local patrimony and the identity of the national cultural heritage.

Starting from a discourse of modernization and greater transparency, the Turkish outsourcing model uncoupled decentralization, expanding managerial capacity within a controlling state. This model of outsourcing without decentralization is quite distinct but, according to the authors, offers some interesting reflections in the debate about the new public management and the transformation of the public sector in different countries (Shoup et al., 2014, 74).

The model shows itself to be a controller, in which the government body responsible for assets can monitor the activity in real time through a modern monitoring system. Shoup et al. (2014, p.74) describe that in this model, the creativity of the approach offered elements to modernize, avoiding interfering in a rather centralizing administrative tradition.

A problem question pointed out by Shoup et al. (2014) was the process of outsourcing that occurred in an upright way. The concession contracts were made by service typology, in blocks, composed of a series of museums and archaeological sites from various regions of the country. This model has little local participation and still generates the service monopoly. Perhaps the result would be different if outsourcing occurred by regions. The services would be more distinct, giving more autonomy to the museum or archaeological site in the places of its occurrence. For Shoup et al. Baraldi and Zan (2014), the model shows a certain efficiency in the management, solving the problems that visitation centers were facing, but they emphasize the negative character of vertical outsourcing.

The case study of the outsourcing of cultural heritage services in Turkey is a good example that public-private partnerships can be an alternative to the planning and management of archaeological tourism. Due to the flexibility of management, the private sector could respond faster to the needs of the activity, avoiding the slowness of the public service.

3 TOURISM AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT IN AMERICA

3.1 Mexico - cultural tourism model

A case study presented by Ramírez, Novella and Barrera-Bassols (2010) focuses on conservation for landscape and geosites on the northern coast of Michoacán. The authors consider the heritage and its conservation a current theme as an important strategy to preserve nature and the vestiges of the past. They point out that there still occurs degradation of archaeological sites caused by looting to the patrimony, fomented by the illegal commerce. In addition, there is deterioration caused by poor use, negligence and fragility of non-renewable good (when used improperly), putting at risk the Mexican cultural heritage. A progressive view of occupation, without adequate attention, aimed only at economic benefit. Ramírez et al., 2010, p.106). In addition, the urbanization of the area is characterized by an increase in the number of visitors, vandalism, the impoverishment of the local population and their distancing from the archaeological heritage.

The conservation of the landscape and the archaeological sites can be achieved with preventive measures and adequacy, integrating the local populations in the management of the patrimony. Thus, measures should be taken to reinforce the bonds of identity that are strengthened, especially when there are direct descendants linked to heritage, as is the case in Michoacán, where archaeological sites are part of the ancestral culture of the present inhabitants of the region (Ramírez et al. ., 2010, p.106). Ramírez et al. (2010, p.106) emphasize that the proposal should provide conceptual and technical resources on how the heritage will be studied and presented to the public.

Another example to be highlighted is the sites of ceramics groups with Capacha culture that left traces of their occupation in a significant area of ​​the Pacific coast, an area belonging to six Mexican states: Sinaloa, Nayarit, Jalisco, Colima, Michoacán and Guerrero. The research was conducted in the municipality of Coahuayana, where archaeological investigations are still incipient, as well as studies related to the physical environment. Ramírez et al. (2010) developed the research in four archaeological sites with dates between 300 and 1,200 AD. which have as a common characteristic the fact that they have been greatly depredated by treasure hunters. Ramírez et al. (2010, page 118) also draw attention to the natural and man-made processes of site destruction, such as earthquakes, hurricanes and river floods.

The research presented the elements of the cultural and natural landscape, addressing the characteristics of the archaeological sites integrated to the physical environment. A key tool in the process was the Geographic Information System (GIS), used as a management platform for the information previously collected, along with field data. With the information integrated in the GIS, the particularities of the elements that compose the landscape were analyzed spatially and integrated information was collected on the composition of the natural and cultural landscape, when the following categories of analysis were produced: a) landscape with great potential for conservation of socio-cultural diversity; b) conservation of the exceptional landscape with an important archaeological site; c) conservation of biodiversity; d) conservation of an important archaeological site (Ramírez et al., 2010, page 116). Finally, Ramírez et al. (2010, p. 118) reinforce that the concept of resource management, widely diffused in environmental and ecological studies, can adjust to the geobiocultural heritage.

Another area studied was Quintana Roo, a very visited tourist region and promoted by the government of Mexico, once occupied by groups of the Mayan culture. There are archaeological sites made up of monumental structures dating from 564 to 1400 years AD. In addition to a significant cultural heritage, the region has a disputed natural heritage, as it is located on the Caribbean coast, whose beach tourism is well developed. In the region, thirteen archaeological sites are open to visitation and the management is carried out by the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) (Villalobos, 2014, page 226).

Still in Mexico, in the Gulf of California is Sonora, a very recurring destination for Americans. The place has a varied range of tourist segments, besides sun and sea, golf courses, ecotourism, sport fishing, among others. In this region are registered approximately 3 thousand archaeological sites, affiliated to different cultures.

Villalobos (2014, 242) evaluates that in Mexico archeology, nationalism and tourism have established reciprocal relations, due to the significant cultural legacy of that country. It was created a mythical pantheon linked to diverse cultures, highlighting those that left a monumental cultural patrimony. However, Villalobos (2014) warns that in Mexico the promotion of tourism establishes an unequal relationship with national patrimony. The study criticizes nationalist policies as it seeks to create a national identity, values certain cultures as representative, and eliminates diversity. The devaluation of sites lacking monumental vestiges puts the small archaeological heritage at risk, according to Sugiura and Nieto (2014), they are not protected legally, condemning them to destruction due to uncontrolled urbanization, mining activities, among others.

As an alternative to the situation, Sugiura and Nieto (2014), based on the case study of Santa Cruz Atizapán, present a proposal for the registration and safeguarding of small-scale archaeological sites, through the creation of a database containing: cartographic, bibliographical, ethnographic, old photographs, aerial imagery, systematic surveys of the area and, where possible, archaeological excavation and systematic sampling in small areas, to answer essential questions about the history of the site. Geophysical methods were also applied, such as magnetic gradient, electrical resistivity and penetration radar, making it possible to image the subsoil.

3.2 Guatemala - Archaeological Parks

In Guatemala, government data indicate the presence of more than 3,000 pre-colonial archaeological sites, which added to the historical sites, increase the number of monuments recognized as patrimony in the country. Chavarría (2012) presents a study demonstrating the link between tourism and culture from the archaeological parks of Guatemala and evaluates that, despite this significant number of archaeological sites, only a few are under the effective supervision of the government:

De la totalidad de sitios registrados hasta el momento, el Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes de Guatemala mantiene vigilancia en al menos 100 sitios arqueológicos de los cuales 29 tienen la categoría de parque por contar con la infraestructura básica para atender al turismo. Arqueológicamente Guatemala se divide en tres grandes zonas: Costa Sur, Tierras Altas y Tierras Bajas (Chavarría, 2012, p. 42).

According to Chavarría (2012), archaeological parks are seen as important vehicles for integration between culture and tourism, forming part of the national identity of that country. From a cultural perspective, these parks are characterized as symbols of a historical past, still latent in Guatemalan societies. In terms of tourism, they attract thousands of people from different parts of the world: "According to data from the Guatemalan Tourism Institute, in 2011 the country received approximately 2 million foreign visitors" (Chavarría, 2012, p.44).

3.3 Dominican Republic - Cueva Borbon and Cueva de las Maravillas

In this country, the archaeological sites of Cueva Borbón and Cueva de las Maravillas, presented by Griffith and Griffith (2012, page 523) stand out. This is an emblematic case, which, thanks to strong mobilization and a controversial tourism development program, has been prevented from being implemented. They are caves with cave paintings and petroglyphs, among other vestiges testimonies of the pre-colonial human occupation. Without a specialist in archaeological heritage, a program for the development of tourism has put the integrity of the sites at risk. Faced with the problems detected, they sought to bypass them through participatory initiatives, working with stakeholders and solutions to conserve and preserve the heritage in the face of disorganized tourism. Initially, the program was executed at the Cueva de las Maravillas, and later at the Cueva Borbon.

The program developed at Cueva de las Maravillas exemplifies a series of practices and interventions that should not be developed under any hypothesis at archeological sites. Interventions carried out by unqualified personnel caused direct and indirect damage to the equity.

The interferences made for the development of the tourist activity in the place threatened the cultural heritage and its biodiversity. Actions carried out in the internal area modified the environment, such as the use of machinery to level the floor and expand the environments. The dust from the work covered the cave paintings and to contain it the team covered them with plastic sheets, exposing the archaeological remains to a nefarious microclimate, since the air was condensed, humidifying the place. Sidewalks and cement ladders were built, an improper lighting system was installed, putting the paintings at risk and favoring the appearance of fungi and algae. Subsequently, a similar development plan was initiated at Cueva Bórbon. However, a movement contrary to the program has taken shape, with flagrant disruption of recorded archaeological remains and the support of international organizations, leading the project to abandonment (Griffith & Griffith, 2012).

Numerous criticisms have been made by specialized agencies. Due to these interferences, the recognition of assets by international organisms ran the risk of being unfeasible. Even with all the protests, the program at Cueva de las Maravillas was not interrupted and the cave was opened for tourist activity (Griffith & Griffith, 2012, 526).

Facing the events, Griffith and Griffith (2012) suggest a proposal to be developed in the Cueva Borbón, emphasizing the involvement of the local population for the tourist development. Therefore, it is necessary to know the interest of the population in the development of tourism in the cave, identifying the initiatives considered important. The focus of interest is to qualify the population for the valorization of the patrimony, with individuals able to divulge its own history, including developing tools for the presentation of elements of identity and memory. In this situation, the performance of specialists in tourism and archeology would play the role of educators. (Griffith & Griffith, 2012, p.530).

The intention of the proposal was to enable the population to develop their own narratives about their heritage, promoting protection, respect for rules and regulations and denunciation of predatory acts. The purpose was to provide independence for the development of the activity, without the continuous action of a specialist (Griffith & Griffith, 2012, page 531).

This case study of Cuevas de la Maravillas and Cueva Borbón in the Dominican Republic has demonstrated that tax actions in the development of tourism without the involvement of local society distances the community even more from archaeological sites. However, these problems can be reversed with quality programs that focus on safeguarding the heritage and the involvement of the local community.

3.4 Ecuador - Archaeological site Agua Blanca

In Ecuador, Endere and Zulaica (2015) present a study on the archaeological site Agua Blanca, located in the National Park of Machalilla, in the homonymous community, in the Canton of Puerto Lopez, in the province of Manabi. Agua Blanca is the park's most popular attraction, with an archaeological site, museum and a lake of sulphurous water with medicinal properties.

The archaeological site consists of several rock structures, traces attributed to the Valdivia, Machalilla, Chorrera, Bahía, Guangala and Manteña cultures. Only part of the site can be visited. In the trails, there is information about the patrimony and in some places with more extensive archaeological structures were installed protective infrastructures. The museum exhibits ceramic, lithic and bone materials, among others, which represent the archaeological context of the place. The pieces that make up the exhibition come from archaeological excavations of that site, as there is also an archeological artifact donated by a resident of the community, who motivated by the initiative of the museum, handed a stone carved bank, which gave birth to the visual identity of the place (Endere & Zulaica, 2015, pp. 262-263).

The Ecuadorian Constitution of 2008 established the rules for Buen Vivir or sumak kawsay. Buen Vivir is understood as "as a platform, a common space where different ontologies can coexist and from where to build the interculturality that aims at generating alternatives to development" (Endere & Zulaica, 2015, p.259).

The research developed by Endere and Zulaica (2015, p.260) analyzed the case of Agua Blanca from the policies and guidelines of the National Plan for Buen Vivir 2013-2017. The Plan is organized in three areas: I - Change of the relation of power to the construction of a popular power; II - Rights, freedom and capacities for the Good Life; II - Economic transformation for the change of the productive matrix (Endere & Zulaica, 2015, p 260).

The purpose of the research was to define the aspects that should be considered in the evaluation of the socio-cultural sustainability of the archaeological site of the Community Center of Tourism of Agua Blanca and to analyze the sustainability of the policies and guidelines of the Buen Vivir 2013-2017 plan (Endere & Zulaica, 2015, 260).

The choice of this site occurred because it was a national reference case, where the native community was engaged in the preservation of the heritage, including justifying its presence in a national park (Endere & Zulaica, 2015, p 260).

Archaeological surveys indicate that the occupation of the site took place between the years of 800 and 1532 AD, during which time Spanish settlers arrived in Ecuadorian territory. The data obtained by the research indicated that the site was densely occupied and that during its apogee there was a hierarchical social organization with strong religious power. This society declined in the 16th century, when it began the Spanish occupation on the spot (Endere & Zulaica, 2015, p.265).

The effective occupation by European settlers began in the nineteenth century. In the year 1979, the National Park was created, changing the way of life of the local population, who lived from the exploitation of the natural resources coming from the area where the park was implanted. With this, the community protested, claiming that it had occupied the place since 1930, and claiming the right to remain in those lands (Endere & Zulaica, 2015, p.265).

From 1978, archaeological research was developed with the involvement of the community, which qualified by the researchers, began to work in archaeological excavations, both in the field and in the laboratory. (Endere & Zulaica, 2015, p.265).

With the improvement of the relationship between the community and park authorities, archaeological research has increased tourist attraction. With the financial support of external institutions, the archaeological-tourist project was consolidated in 1990, when the Agua Blanca Community Local Museum (Endere & Zulaica, 2015, page 267) was opened to the public.

In 2005, aided by data produced with archaeological research, the community was recognized as Pueblo Manta, because of the pre-Hispanic groups that inhabited the region. Archaeological research developed over the years has contributed to reinforce cultural ties and the onsite preservation of archaeological heritage, creating an integration between researchers and community (Endere & Zulaica, 2015, p.268).

Endere and Zulaica (2015, p.279) consider that "the socio-cultural sustainability of heritage sites reflecting the Good Living of the communities and their evaluation through indicators is a useful starting point for reversing critical situations". The involvement of the community in archaeological research and, consequently, identity with heritage was fundamental to the results obtained in the evaluation. Self-management and self-financing is a strong point in Agua Blanca. For the Buen Vivir, it is necessary the flexibility that allows the self-management without compromising the autonomy of the community, but the governmental involvement is important. This indicator did not compromise the valuation and development of tourism due to its self-sufficiency. In this way, the authors believe that the evaluation can contribute to the improvement in the sociocultural sustainability of the site, corroborating with Buen Vivir (Endere & Zulaica, 2015, p.279).

Chile - San Pedro de Atacama

In Chile, archaeological tourism stands out in San Pedro de Atacama to the north. Ayala (2015) presented the archaeological research of contract and its performance in front of the local population. In San Pedro de Atacama’s case, there is an intense mining activity, which has required many works of contract archeology. However, the researchers' relationship with ethnic groups in the region has not always been harmonious. The region is also one of the main tourist destinations in Chile. Archaeological researchers are not involved in the discussions about the socio-environmental impacts of mining and tourism in the region. However, in the face of the progress of these economic activities, the research developed has supported the protection of cultural heritage, even though despite the fact that researchers fail to address political issues (Ayala, 2015, p.162).

The development of mining attracted investments for tourism in the region, including the newly revitalized San Jose de Atacama archeology museum. The archaeological research developed allowed the first Symposium on Archeology of Atacama to be held in 1983, where protection and conservation of the heritage and its relationship with tourism were discussed (Ayala, 2015, p.163).

Ayala (2015, p.164) also reports that the enactment of the Indigenous Law allowed the indigenous peoples of the region to claim questions of their interest that were not previously observed. Initially, animosities erupted between indigenous groups and archaeologists hired by companies. The researchers were criticized for not contributing to the defense of current indigenous groups. Through the claims of Atacamenhas populations, the local community began to be included in tourism development and heritage education projects. With the generation of income motivated by tourism, the gradual return of the indigenous population to their communities of origin was benefited financially by the tourist and archaeological movement. The government agencies began to integrate the Atacamenhos in initiatives and projects involving the archaeological patrimony and the management of the tourism in archaeological sites. Ayala (2015, p.165) states that "in this context, archeology in Atacama has activated its patrimonial side to work with agents of the State and indigenous people in the incorporation of archaeological sites for the tourist market."

With the possibility of protecting archaeological heritage, from the point of view of tourism, archaeologists became more involved in project evaluation and conflict resolution. With the insertion of heritage in tourism and, consequently, its economic valuation, the archaeological sites have come to be seen as a legacy to be preserved. Ayala (2015, p.170) reinforces that indigenous groups in the San Jose de Atacama region "through patrimonialization, question the multicultural state from within and participate in new struggles for the definition, classification and appropriation of their patrimony."

The Chilean case demonstrates the importance of involving the local population in archaeological research and economic valuation through responsible tourism, which can become the safeguard of archaeological sites. The tourism activity has highlighted the local archaeological heritage, benefiting native populations and generating income.

3.5 United States of America - Green Table National Park

In the United States, a case study that stands out is the Green Table National Park, located in Colorado, where several archaeological sites of the ancestors of Pueblo People, native to the region, are registered. Many of these sites are open to visitors, but visitor numbers are falling over time (Walls & Longo, 2005). With the organization of the centennial celebration of the park, the Green Table Museum Association expects to leverage the number of visitors and thereby increase the income of the site. Executive Director Tracy Chavis was expected to change the reality of the Green Table through a marketing plan that would spur people's interest in the park.

The Green Table National Park has an area of ​​approximately 21,000 hectares, with more than 4,400 archaeological sites, of which about 35 can be visited. According to Walls and Longo (2005, p.16), the park is considered a cultural heritage of humanity, being the first park in the United States accredited for the protection of the archaeological patrimony. The visitor, through a guided tour, can visit and visit the archaeological sites, in addition to having contact with a lush natural environment.

Still, the full cultural and environmental potential did not inhibit the decline in visitor numbers, which was not unique to this park in the United States. The authors point out that the Grand Canyon also followed the same trend. Factors such as the dollar rise, the price of fuels and terrorist attacks were nominated as possible causes of this effect. Another factor would have been the fact that the park was hit by the fire, since the fires occurred in profusion in the year 2000. The low number of visits reduced the collection, worsening the financial situation of the park.

4 TOURISM AND MANAGEMENT OF HERITAGE IN BRAZIL

4.1 Nova Olinda, CE - Casa Grande Foundation

In Brazil, we began our digression with the case discussed by Veloso and Calvacante (2007) dealing with the case of the Casa Grande Foundation - Memorial Homem do Kariri, in the city of Nova Olinda, Ceará, where archeological tourism was developed without excluding the local community. The Foundation develops projects to qualify young people and adults in the region through educational actions in cultural management, museology and archeology. The members learn to welcome, and lead visitors interested in getting to know the regional archaeological heritage, which has a museum site archaeological site. There, the visitor has the possibility to know and understand more about the occupation of the place. A home-based hosting system was organized through a cooperative of its own, generating employment and income for the families. The authors point out that the region has great potential for archaeological tourism.

4.2 Saquarema, RJ - Sambaqui da Beirada

In the State of Rio de Janeiro, a project was developed with the support of archaeologists who worked in the city of Saquarema. This is the Archaeological Site Museum of the Sambaqui da Beirada. As a way to bring the population closer to the regional archaeological heritage, the Praça do Sambaqui da Beirada was created, nowadays a place of tourist visitation. The initiative developed by the researchers had the interest of seeking the support of the population for the preservation and protection of the local patrimony.

The museum Sambaqui has an area of 7000 m2 and exposes in site the archaeological remains left by hunter-hunter-gatherer human groups. In the place, visitors can see, among other evidences, vestiges of human burials, constructive aspects of the site and some lithic artifacts. Among the strategies adopted for the development of the activity in the place, the most outstanding are the development of archaeological research, the presentation of the vestiges in situ as a way of presenting the culture to the visitors, the enclosure of the place and the protection of the vestiges evidenced, the exhibition area, heritage education for the local community, the development of a management plan and the implementation of support infrastructure for visitors. These strategies were adopted in order to contribute to the protection of the local archaeological heritage (Veloso & Cavalcanti, 2007, p.161).

4.3 São Raimundo Nonato, PI - Serra da Capivara

A very emblematic case in Brazil is the management of the archaeological heritage in the Serra da Capivara National Park, a conservation unit created after the request to the Federal Government by the Franco-Brazilian scientific cooperation team in 1979. It has an area of 129,140 hectares, where more than 1,000 archaeological sites were registered (700 are rock art). In addition, camps associated with hunter-gatherer groups, ceramist villages, shelter and cave occupations, funerary sites and paleontological sites were mapped (Buco, 2012; Guidon, 2007).

The research team sought, with the proposal to create the park, an alternative to increase the protection of the archaeological sites of the region, constantly threatened by irregular occupations and continuous deforestation. The park intercepts the area of four municipalities: São Raimundo Nonato, João Costa, Brejo do Piauí and Colonel José Dias, all in the State of Piauí.

Archaeological research has been carried out in the region since the 1960s through national and international cooperation. The importance of its archaeological sites allowed the park to be inscribed by UNESCO in the list of World Cultural Patrimony in the year 1991. At the national level, the registration in the book of Archeological, Ethnographic and Landscape as National Heritage was carried out in 1993, by the IPHAN (Buco, 2012, Guido, 2007, Veloso & Cavalcanti, 2007).

The park is managed through a partnership between a government agency, the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), and the Museum of American Man Foundation (FUMDHAM), a civil society organization of public interest. FUMDHAM maintains a partnership with IPHAN for issues related to the conservation and defense of regional archaeological heritage (Guidon, 2007, p.75).

In addition to a conservation unit, Serra da Capivara is fundamentally an archaeological park. The management plan establishes the need to preserve and maintain the ecological balance, with a view to restoring harmonious relations between cultural heritage, the environment and the local population (Buco, 2012, p. According to Guidon (2007: 87), from the beginning it was thought to create a structure that was self-sustaining. Through the assistance of international institutions, studies were carried out to identify viable economic activities for the region. Tourism was pointed out by the technical study as the only possibility of achieving regional development in a broad way, com Bining benefits to local communities and preservation of heritage.

A series of infrastructure works were planned to allow visits to the archaeological sites of the park, including access structures, information and protection elements. The visits are guided by in tracks with different degrees of difficulty. Some sites were adequate, allowing the access of people with difficulty of locomotion. The movement inside the park can be done by car and therefore parking areas have been installed in the course. Some sites are close to the highway, but others are more distant, forcing them to follow open trails in the vegetation. The park has a base of reception and support to the visitor. Buco (2012, p. 100) reinforces that "permanent visitation has shown that the movement of people, guards, visitors and guides, inhibit the entry of malicious persons."

The headquarters of FUMDHAM is located in the municipality of São Raimundo Nonato, and has the Museum of the American Man, the Sérgio Motta Cultural Center, library, laboratories and technical reserve. It brings together information and the collection of archaeological remains found in research developed in almost four decades of research (Buco, 2012, p.95).

In order to extend the conservation of the park's sites, technicians were trained to protect the threatened heritage. Due to environmental risks, a diagnosis was made, defining the actions to be taken and monitoring to avoid recurrence. These risks may be of a natural or anthropic nature. The presence of these professionals is essential for the maintenance of the conservation and re-adapttion of the management against disturbing agents (Buco, 2012).

During the implementation phase of the tourist visitation trails, previous studies of topography, pedology and floristic analysis were carried out in order to establish the best routes. From this, suitable sites and materials were determined for each space. The implementation of the infrastructures was accompanied by archaeologists to avoid possible damage to the archaeological site, (Buco, 2012, p.97).

Assuming the region as a tourist center, it was noticed the need to qualify the population, with emphasis on basic education, considered non-existent in the communities surrounding the park. In the early years there was intense work focused on basic training and qualification of teachers. The work also generated the construction of five schools in the vicinity of the park, which served more than one thousand full-time children. Due to the financial impossibility of FUMDHAM to maintain the program, municipal governments continued, but the qualification process developed for more than a decade was interrupted, resulting in the deactivation of four of the five schools built (Guidon, 2007).

Currently, educational activities are carried out, but the number of people involved has drastically reduced (170 children and 40 adolescents) attending the São Raimundo Nonato Arts Center. The children and adolescents attended participate in activities of art, music, drawing, painting, art in clay and seeds and capoeira. These actions are carried out by the Pró-arte program, which proposes artistic and social integration with the environment, aiming to establish identity with the population (Buco, 2012, p. The program allows the qualification of young people able to work as technicians in the excavations, archaeological investigations, conservation of sites and studies in laboratory. FUMDHAM also assures the formation of the tourism guides that operate in the park (Guidon, 2007).

Veloso and Cavalcante (2007) identified the following management strategies in the park: creation of FUMDHAN; partnerships between FUMDHAM, IPHAN and IBAMA; international partnerships and agreements; development of structures for public visitation, museum, visitor center, among others; security structures; duly marked visitation circuits; accessibility to sites; space for events; local guide service; strategic plans for the medium and long term; conservation and social and economic development programs aimed at the community.

The Serra da Capivara National Park is the result of the persistent action of researchers working in the region, mainly Niède Guidon. The researcher has been working for decades for the preservation of sites and the development of tourism as a way to attract more income. The region still lacks road and transport infrastructures. Thus, without the effective involvement of the public power in regional development, the archaeological heritage does not have the desired visibility, leaving a gap in the process.

4.4 Florianópolis, SC - Campeche Island

In the State of Santa Catarina, Chamas and Schmidt (2011) describe the case study of the development of tourism in Campeche Island, located 1.4 km from Campeche Beach, on the southeast coast of Santa Catarina Island, in Florianópolis. The study presents the management of the Island and how tourism was developed on the spot, as well as how to organize.

In addition to natural heritage, the island presents, integrated with its landscape, a set of archaeological sites. The natural landscape of the island is composed by a vegetation of restinga and pioneer of rocky coast, with the formation of intermittent waterways. With the exception of the beach, which measures approximately 400 meters in length, the rest of the Island is surrounded by a rocky coast of diabase and granite, where there are several petroglyphs and polishers, archaeological vestiges of pre-colonial groups that occupied the place.

About the occupations in the region, the study indicates that the first recorded human groups lived there 3,000 years BC, made up of fishing peoples-hunter-gatherers and builders of sambaquis. Around 910 AD, the groups bearing the Itararé Tradition, belonging to the macro-Jê linguistic trunk, occupied the region. More recently, around 1300 AD, potters of the Tupiguarani tradition arrived in the region near the time of the arrival of the settlers. Among the groups presented, only the last two were counted with the settlers (Chamas, 2008). According to information from the IPHAN's National Registry of Achaeological Sites (CNSA), the evidence left by pre-colonial occupations on the Island are: petroglyphs, rock representations made from rock incisions; lithic work shops, which are areas of artistic production; and a site with shells.

There is a historical site, which according to the IPHAN register is an 18th century whaling frame, located next to the beach, whose ruins can be found on the beach. Flames (2008: 51) describes that these buildings were basically used to store whale oil.

With the decline of the frame, the island became occupied by artisanal fishermen, attracted by the diversity and quantity of fish. Although the fishermen remained for long periods, this occupation was seasonal. There they constructed some buildings, like the fishing ranches, favoring the development of the activity in the place until the middle of century XX. There were also registered areas of food cultivation, commonly used by fishermen who used the site (Chamas, 2008).

At the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, members of the association of the Club of Hunting, Fishing and Shot Couto de Magalhães arrived. During this period there was a dispute over the use and occupation of the island. The outcome was the departure of the fishermen and the permanence of the new group. With this, new structures were built to allow the group to stay on the island, where domestic animals and exotic fauna were also introduced to become hunting objects. An example of this is the quatis (Nasua nasua). Without a natural predator, they multiplied absurdly, causing an ecological imbalance at the site (Chamas, 2008). Couto Magalhães (now known as the Couto de Magalhães Association of Conservation of the Island of Campeche - ACOMPECHE) and Pesqueira Pioneira da Costa S / A have formalized occupation (Chamas, 2008, p 56).

From the 1950s, when the island began to be used for recreation and leisure, a fact intensified from the 1980s, also begins the concern with the set of archaeological sites of the place. With the glimpse of the island as a tourist attraction, the activity occurred without planning and monitoring the impacts in the environment. Aiming at the protection of the island of Campeche, in 2000 the locality was registered with the IPHAN as an archaeological heritage and national natural landscape.

As a result of IPHAN recognition, the same body, in partnership with other public agencies and with the actors involved, began to order the use and occupation of the site through participatory actions, seeking to mediate conflicts and tensions (Chamas & Schmidt, 2011).

The registration as patrimony did not prevent the members of Club Couto Magalhães continue to carry out their activities in the place, since the right of use of the property was not changed. However, restrictive and even preventative rules were created for activities that endangered the environment and archaeological sites. Awareness-raising and professional training actions were carried out among the groups involved to readjust the new reality (Chamas & Schmidt, 2011, p 235).

Chamas and Schimdt (2011) report on the development of tourism activity in the perspective of ecotourism, resulting from seminars and preparatory meetings in order to organize a public-private management system for the establishment of agreements to improve the use of space. Civil society groups linked to the island of Campeche participated in this management, along with the IPHAN (the governmental management representative), the Environmental Police (the inspection body) and the Federal Public Ministry, MPF (which supervises law enforcement).

The trails used in the visits were adequate from existing paths, opened by the old users. Some stretches had to be interrupted to contain erosive processes of the terrain and others received steps and decks, following the topography of the place. Aiming to ensure integrity and reduce impacts to the environment, a load capacity study was conducted to determine the daily limit of people on the island. Chamas & Schmidt (2011) evaluated the area available for visitation, restrictive factors (such as sufficient infrastructure), visitor characteristics and length of stay. This study reached a maximum coefficient of 770 daily visitors (Chamas & Schmidt, 2011).

The regulation of the use and management of the island was established by the IPHAN ordinance nº 621, of November 2009, which guides the monitoring and presents the zoning of the island, determined from the analysis of several factors, providing for the maintenance of buildings and other improvements by the Club. As for monitoring, two lines of action were established: 1) monitoring articulated with the awareness work (in more severe cases, sanctions apply); and 2) organization of information for evaluation of scientific management and production (Chamas & Schmidt, 2011, p.236).

The management of the island presents several positive aspects, such as the development of educational activities and the qualification of monitors for guided visitation to the place, especially in the high season, between November and March.

Annually, a course for the monitors of the Campeche Island is organized, open to the community in general. Part of the students qualified by the course is integrated to the monitors team during the summer season.

The monitors develop functions ranging from the place of shipment of visitors to the island, information for visitors, control of people entry, monitoring, tracking on tracks, among others. The terrestrial track circuits last approximately 1 hour, with different degrees of difficulty. With an extension of up to 800 meters, the tracks can hold groups of up to 16 people, accompanied by two monitors. The attractions of the trails are the cultural and natural elements that make up the landscape. The underwater trails are developed in two points of the island, one to the north and another to the south. Trails developed with up to 12 participants have a ratio of 1 monitor for every 4 visitors. A boat takes the group to the point and waits until the activity ends (Chamas & Schmidt, 2011).

Chamas and Schmidt (2011) emphasize that the monitoring system has been improved. In the beginning, they were based on meetings and seminars held, including by the team of monitors. Gradually, the reports became more informative, with numerical data regarding visitation. Conflicts and tension points were resolved and mitigated. Even before boarding, the visitor receives information about the activities developed and the restrictions established. Every morning the management team makes the assessment and informs the tour agents about the conditions of visit for the day.

As a way to ease the conflict with these actors, it was sought to sensitize them about the island's fragility through seminars (Chamas & Schmidt, 2011, page 238).

The study of cargo capacity of the island was a fundamental point for the preservation of the natural and cultural patrimony. The control and monitoring of tourist activity and other uses is done through records in reports, which subsidize from the determination of the necessary monitors team, even aiding in the application of sanctions for the misuse of the island.

As already mentioned, the planning of the use of the Island of Campeche occurs with the conduct of the federal government and the participation of civil society, a partnership that has guaranteed the safeguard of the patrimony. Chamas and Schimdt (2011: 241) report that there were three key elements: "public awareness, establishment of regulation and monitoring".

Considering the Brazilian scenario, Veloso and Cavalcante (2007) point out that archeological tourism has been gaining ground in recent years. Although little known in Brazil, the country should observe cases of success and be mirrored to stimulate growth. Veloso and Cavalcante (2007) consider that archaeological tourism can be a source for socioeconomic development and cultural citizenship for the receiving communities.

Brazil has great potential for the development of archaeological tourism, considering the quantity and diversity of heritage. The interaction between archaeological he-ritage and tourism must be preceded by a meticulous organization, with concrete actions aimed at safeguarding these fragile and non-renewable assets.

5 MANAGEMENT OF TOURISM AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE

The elaboration of public policies that can guarantee benefits for the greater part of the society is a constant search, either by the State, or by business leaders and organized civil society. According to Oliveira & Pisa (2015, p.1264-65)

Public policies should be understood as those actions that a given government chooses to implement in order to meet a public demand or solve a problem, remembering that this choice suffers strong political influence depending on the interests of the various sectors that may be it beneficiaries.

When these policies reach the participation of the other actors of society, there is the search for a consensus in the definition of the objectives aimed at obtaining beneficial results for all the participants. The stimulus for organized civil society to participate in the process of public management allows the search for development respecting the will of the population (HALL, 2011).

Tourism activity has been an alternative for several places around the world to rethink their economic development and environmental, social and cultural sustainability. Traditionally, the role of tourism has been recognized as an instrument of endogenous development with the potential to generate wealth and employment. One of the essential circumstances is the governance or management of the destination, that is, coordination, collaboration and / or cooperation between the different actors involved in the tourism development process, in order to guarantee the multiplier effect of tourism in the local economy (Pulido Fernandez & Pulido Fernandez, 2017).

The management process of a tourist locality varies according to the regional peculiarities, the participation of its actors at different levels (ZAHRA, 2011), among other relevant aspects. In this sense, the concept of governance has also been gaining strength in the tourism management process. The study of governance has been used as a concept of tourism research since 1993 (WANG & LI, 2013). According to Hall (2011, p.437), "governance is a key concept in politics and public policy and has been used more frequently in tourism."

The need of tourism to compete in a global and increasingly fierce market makes the governance process of this activity seek the competitiveness of the destination, seeking to maximize the changes necessary to reach this stage. According to Seixas & Mas (2010, p.8)

Many of the new types of governance come from the intention and need to accelerate competitiveness in terms of structural transformations and urban economic growth, where the city is considered a collective agent that must seek resources that are scarce (such as economic investments, image, tourists , spectacular architecture) to ensure an advantageous place in the urban market. .

Since tourism is an activity that directly affects not only the local economy but also the livelihood of its population, the governance process must ensure the inclusion of the most varied actors, such as communities, governments and the tourist trade. This will allow greater cohesion in management and, possibly, greater market relevance for the destination (ZAHRA, 2011).

For the use of the archaeological heritage as tourist attraction is of fundamental importance the planning and the management of the activity. Being a fragile environment, the impact generated in the environment should be minimized so as not to jeopardize our own assets.

In the case of archaeological heritage, a series of letters, declarations and norms, among other recommendations coming from discussions in various parts of the world and promoted by entities such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Organization of American States, International Council of Monuments and Sites - ICOMOS, constitute the basis for sustainable management.

In 1962, in Paris, at the UNESCO General Conference, recommendations were made to safeguard the beauty and character of landscapes and sites. The text on safeguard measures states that this should be ensured with the help of the following methods:

• a) General control by the competent authorities;

• b) Insertion of restrictions in urbanization and planning plans at all levels: regional, rural or urban;

• c) Legal protection, "by zones", of the extension landscapes;

• d) Legal protection of isolated sites;

• e) Creation and maintenance of natural reserves and national parks;

• f) Acquisition of sites by public bodies "(Unesco, 1962).

The document emphasizes the importance of patrimonial education, with educational action developed, "inside and outside schools, to awaken and develop public respect for landscapes and sites and to make known the edited norms to guarantee their safeguard" (Unesco, 1962). He also spoke about the importance of preparing the educator, who should be specific, focused on the theme. They also emphasize out-of-school public education. The document is intended to raise awareness among the general public that "it should be the task of the press, private associations for the protection of landscapes and sites or nature protection, bodies responsible for tourism and youth organizations and popular education" (Unesco, 1962).

In May 1964, at the meeting of ICOMOS, the document called the Venice Charter was formulated, defining monuments such as:

Bearers of spiritual message of the past, the monumental works of each people endure in the present as the living testimony of their secular traditions. Humankind, increasingly conscious of the unity of human values, considers them a common patrimony and, in the face of future generations, recognizes that it is jointly responsible for preserving them, imposing on itself the duty to transmit them in the fullness of their authenticity (Icomos, 1964).

The same document, in its Article 14, deals with the preservation of monumental sites and states that "they should be given special care to safeguard their integrity and ensure its sanitation, maintenance and valorization" (Icomos, 1964).

At its meeting in 1967, the OAS presented what was recognized as the Normas de Quito, at a meeting on the conservation and use of monuments and sites of historical and artistic interest. The document highlights the importance of preserving assets and their economic value.

Europe must directly and indirectly safeguard a large part of its cultural heritage, condemned to complete and irremediable destruction, and contemporary sensitization, more visual than literary, has the opportunity to be enriched by contemplating new examples of Western civilization, rescued technically thanks to the powerful tourist stimulus (OAS, 1967).

In 1990, the Lausanne Charter was presented, focusing on the protection and management of archaeological heritage, emphasizing that this monument is a fragile and, above all, nonrenewable resource, emphasizing that "Land occupation plans arising from development projects should therefore be regulated in order to minimize the destruction of such assets as much as possible "(Icomos / Icahm, 1990). According to the letter, the archaeological monument is a good of all and it is the moral obligation of every human being to protect it. In countries, sufficient financial resources should be secured and made available for their protection (Icomos / Icahm, 1990). The disorderly development still poses great threat to the preservation of the archaeological patrimony. It is up to the public power to stimulate development in a planned way so as not to compromise cultural and natural heritage. "The protection of the archaeological heritage constitutes a permanent dynamic process. Therefore, all facilities should be granted to professionals working in this area in order to allow their permanent recycling "(Icomos / Icahm, 1990).

At the 9th ICOMOS General Assembly, on 9 October 1996, the Sofia Declaration was drafted, which stated that the process of developing cultural tourism should ensure the participation of civil society, together with actions of political and administrative authorities, for the preservation and sustainable development of cultural and natural resources (Icomos, 1996).

The tourist activities, on the other hand, can not claim to use the patrimony, ensuring only respect for the meaning and its message. For this enjoyment to be viable and valid, analytical studies and complete inventories will always be necessary, in order to explain the diverse meanings of the patrimony in the contemporary world and to justify the new modalities of use to which they are proposed. And, of course, before tourism activities are overvalued, risking to turn it into a threat to the integrity of cultural heritage substances, the relationship and community that the inherited It should be added that this relation integrates all the historical, spiritual and affective elements that exist at the root of social transformations (Icomos, 1996).

These discussions, built over decades, have contributed to the consolidation of public policies for the safeguarding and enhancement of cultural heritage, including material reminiscences, archaeological sites and tourism.

6 PROCESSES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL TOURISM

In the patrimonial practices presented in the national and foreign case studies, a strong appeal was made for popular participation, public policies, public-private partnerships, patrimonial education, recognition of tourist-archaeological potential, and evaluation and monitoring of archaeological tourist destinations.

The emergence of these dimensions in global cases allows us to indicate safer directions for the management of destinations that have such characteristics. In this way, a proposition emerges from a destination management process that complies with the protection of the assets and, at the same time, allows the development of tourism activity. From the references presented, five dimensions emerged, which will be called: Patrimonial Education; Recognition of the Tourist-Archaeological Potential; Public Policies, Public-Private Partnerships and Programs; Promotion and Disclosure of Tourist-Archaeological Attractions; and Monitoring and Evaluation.

6.1 Patrimonial Education

The development of tourism that involves the archaeological heritage requires the involvement of the population, fomented by educative actions for the valorization of the local patrimony and also its participation in the development of programs for the management of the cultural patrimony. In the case studies presented, whenever the local community was active, the result was a progressive increase of the valorization and identity with the patrimony, that consequently made possible its preservation. With this, the local community has become a spokesman for its cultural legacy.

The communities surrounding the archaeological sites may be important allies in the protection of the archaeological heritage; interaction that Veloso and Cavalcante (2007) and Ayala (2015) highlighted in their research. Ayala (2015) demonstrated in his study that, initially, the community was not involved in the development of activities related to archaeological heritage. There was, she said, a certain antipathy between the researchers and the local population. However, the community begins to be integrated into projects of archeology and tourism management, benefiting directly. As a result, there was a greater involvement with the local patrimony.

An example of this integration of the community was the case presented by Griffith and Griffith (2012), when the local population had an important role in the viability of the activity, being integrated to the management of the patrimony and the development of tourism. The population was qualified, aiming at the valorization of the heritage and strengthening of the identity, making it able to divulge a history of its own, without the need for a continuous action of specialists. The identified problems were solved through participatory initiatives, working with stakeholders, discussing solutions to conserve and preserve the heritage, to reverse the advance of disordered tourism.

In Ecuador, Endere and Zulaica (2015) present a model of development with strong participation of the population in the development of tourist activity and the preservation of heritage. This reality guaranteed the permanence of the population in the place and, also, allowed the return of individuals who left in search of better living conditions. The authors highlight two strengths in the presented model, self-management and self-financing, which allowed the autonomy of the community. (2005), Guidon (2007), Veloso and Cavalcante (2007), Chamas and Schmidt (2011), and Buco (2005). In addition, (2012), Griffith and Griffith (2012), Ayala (2015) and Endere and Zulaica (2015). Patrimonial Education aims to raise awareness for the preservation of cultural heritage and is an action that must be developed in a procedural way, through educational methodologies, which seek to disseminate, value and preserve the local heritage. In addition, actions may be developed seeking the qualification for archaeological tourism.

The participation of the local community is of fundamental importance for the achievement of positive results in the planning process of Archaeological Tourism. In the surveys that presented the form of community participation, there was valorization and preservation, and identification with the local patrimony was effective. An educational work developed in a procedural way will be of fundamental importance to guarantee the protection of the heritage, elaborated for the school community, population in general, tourist trade and governmental organisms.

6.2 Recognition of the Tourist-Archaeological Potential

Villalobos (2014), in his study, evidences the importance of the development of a more equestrian archaeological research, due to the overvaluation given to some typologies of archaeological sites, especially monumental ones. Imposing sites integrated with the ideological discourse of nationalism are easily overvalued, and in the same way they have been and continue to be appropriated by tourism activity, while the diversity of existing sites is often disregarded and non-monumental relegated.

Sugiura and Nieto (2014) point out that archeologists themselves show more interest in monumental sites. Archaeological sites with smaller but representative sizes become vulnerable to the processes of destruction, mainly by urban development. Sugiura and Nieto (2014) analyze the reality of the Mexican archaeological heritage, describing that archaeological sites in the country are often seen as an obstacle to development. This is also a reality in Brazil.

The destruction of small sites may make it impossible to understand human occupation, making gaps in research impossible. As reinforced by Sugiura and Nieto (2014) and Villalobos (2014), the archaeological survey will contribute to the understanding of the chronology of occupation, diversity and quantity of archaeological sites present in the research area and, with this, it is expected that the other sites, not used by tourism, are safeguarded.

Studies such as that of Guidon (2007) and Chamas and Schmidt (2011) have highlighted the determination of cargo capacity as a way to enable the tourist use of archaeological sites and ensure the safeguarding of heritage.

When it comes to the viability of the activity, the tourism conceived from a responsible planning can bring a series of benefits. As Copeta and Giacome (2010) reinforce, economic and socio-cultural development can be made feasible by the activity, with this directly benefiting the patrimony and the local communities.

In Turkey, some measures were taken to ensure the optimization of income generation in the country, with the outsourcing of gift shops. The products, necessarily, should be crafts of national manufacture and that had relation with the patrimony visited. However, the model of cultural heritage management adopted by the Turkish government, as discussed by Shoup et al. (2014), was implemented vertically, being criticized by the authors for the low popular participation and the monopoly of services. Tourism activity involving cultural heritage should be designed with the integrated participation of the local community.

6.3 Public Policies, Public-Private Partnerships and Programs

In view of the development of tourism, the protection of archaeological heritage is paramount. The studies analyzed indicated the importance of the elaboration of public policies to guarantee the safeguard of the patrimony. (2002), Guidon (2007), Chamas and Schmidt (2011), Buco (2012) and Chivu (2013) reveal that the use of the archaeological legacy by tourism activity may value the patrimony, provided that: ; these can count on legislation and documents that guide the use, considering their specificities; and also, initiatives for its valorisation are developed.

The musealization of heritage for visitation is of fundamental importance, both to make it more attractive and to protect it from possible damage. Guidon (2007), Chamas and Schmidt (2011), Buco (2012) and Endere and Zulaica (2015) present in their studies the infrastructures created in order to make possible the visitation of archaeological sites. These are trails, protection structures, information boards, among others. The museum, as well as a space prepared for the visitor, as emphasized by Veloso and Cavalcante (2007), is a means of bringing the local community closer to heritage.

The safeguarding of archaeological sites has been neglected in various parts of the world, and records of plundering are still being observed, being fueled mainly by illegal trade. The misuse of patrimony, misunderstanding of protection, and frailty itself may lead to destruction. Regardless of its use, from a heritage management perspective, a management and conservation plan is necessary, aiming at determining actions that will safeguard archaeological monuments.

Considering the preservation of the originality of the heritage, as Chivu (2013) pointed out, it is important the participation of specialists in conservation processes. Although motivated for the intention of protection, interventions carried out without the participation of specialists can de-characterize the patrimony. Griffith and Griffith (2012) emphasized that interventions without the participation of specificities can be harmful, jeopardizing assets. In the case presented by the authors, it was possible to contain the destruction by means of a plan of management and conservation in keeping with the requirements of the archaeological site. According to Ramírez et al. (2010), the adoption of preventive measures and the appropriateness of the spaces can guarantee the conservation of the patrimony, and these also reinforce that it is essential the integration of the local population in the management process, seeking to promote an approximation with the archaeological assets. Chavarría (2012) and Villalobos (2014), corroborating the idea of Ramírez et al. (2010) emphasize the importance of developing a management plan for archaeological sites. Buco (2012) emphasizes that the management plan establishes the need to preserve and maintain the balance of relations between cultural heritage, the environment and the local population.

The establishment of partnerships between the public and private sectors can contribute to the viability of the activity (Coote, Giacomo, 2010, Chamas, Schmidt, 2011). One of the most compelling studies of public and private partnership initiatives was the case of Turkey. In view of the administrative difficulties encountered and the poor quality of services provided to visitors, new strategies aimed at the participation of private initiative and the modernization of spaces were adopted. Shoup et al. (2014) presented the outsourcing model adopted for commercial services developed in monuments and museums. The model allows the participation of private companies in the management of cultural heritage, but the decisions remain centralized in the public power. In Turkey, outsourcing allowed a greater control in the sale of tickets, contributing to the increase in revenue. Another important factor was the modernization of the management and the monitoring of the sale of tickets in real time.

The maintenance of the activity involving tourism and the archaeological heritage requires the search for different forms of development. With the scarcity of resources to develop proposals, Guidon (2007), Veloso and Cavalcante (2007) and Buco (2012) reveal the importance of raising funds for quality projects. In the case presented by Guidon (2007) and Buco (2012), resources were obtained from different sources, among them international development institutions. At the height of the project, a series of community-oriented actions were offered, which aimed to bring the participants closer together and qualify them to work professionally in the region.

Endere and Zulaica (2015) demonstrate the importance of the development of archaeological research in a continuous way. In the case presented, there was the participation of the local population, since residents were trained for field research and for the laboratory. The involvement of the community with archaeological research provided an improvement in the relationship and, consequently, increased tourist attraction. The consolidation of the archaeological research developed in the place made it possible to strengthen the ties and the preservation of the archaeological sites, culminating in the opening of a local museum. Likewise, Ayala (2015) demonstrated that the strong participation of the local population in the development of archaeological research in Chile made possible the generation of income and, consequently, contributed to the valorization of the patrimony and the local communities.

6.4 Promotion and dissemination of Tourist-Archaeological Attractives

The organization of segment promotion through planning was highlighted by Walls and Longo (2005), Copeta and Giacomo (2010), Chivu (2013) and Shoup et al. (2014). Chivu (2013) emphasizes that, together with other categories, it is necessary to give importance to the promotion of the segment. The number of visitors to monuments and museums in Turkey has grown significantly, according to Shoup et al. (2014), which is a result of marketing campaigns. Similarly, Walls and Longo (2005) emphasize the marketing plan as a strategy to leverage the number of visitors and increase income in areas with archeological tourism attractions. Copeta and Giacomo (2010) highlight the participation in fairs and the elaboration of a promotional material on the patrimony.

6.5 Monitoring and Evaluation

In his research on the Peninsula of Troy, Silveira et al. (2010) describes the actions taken to safeguard the local heritage. The study presented a monitoring of the area. In the research, the results showed the importance of constant monitoring of the site and the monitoring carried out between 2006 and 2007 was presented. The monitoring of the activity is essential for safeguarding the heritage, avoiding that it is exposed to the risks of anthropic destruction, or even suffer natural impacts. Featured by Juárez (2002), Guidon (2007), Ramírez et al. (2010), Chamas and Schmidt (2011), Silveira et al. (2011), Buco (2012), Sugiura and Nieto (2014), monitoring has a responsibility to mediate conflicts, impacts and manage information, aiding decision making.

A summary of the dimensions, their coverage and the references of the cases studied is presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Synthesis of the Dimensions of the Tourist-Archaeological Development Management Process

Dimensions	Coverage	References
Patrimonial Education	School community General Community Tourist trade Government agencies	Walls e Longo (2005); Guidon (2007); Veloso e Cavalcanti (2007); Ramírez et al. (2010); Chamas e Schmidt (2011); Buco (2012); Chavarría (2012); Griffith e Griffith (2012); Ayala (2015); Endere e Zulaica (2015).
Recognition of the Tourist-Archaeological Potential	Archaeological survey Carrrying capacity Perception of community Tourism viability study	Guidon (2007); Veloso e Cavalcanti (2007); Copeta e Giacomo (2010); Chamas e Schmidt (2011); Chavarría, (2012); Griffith e Griffith (2012); Villalobos, (2014); Shoup et al. (2014); Sugiura e Nieto (2014); Ayala (2015); Endere e Zulaica (2015).
Public Policies, Public-Private Partnerships and Programs	Asset registration Legislation Guidance documents Initiatives for valorization Creating routes Musealization Management and conservation Public and private partnerships Fund-raising Archaeological research	Buco (2012); Chivu (2013). Juárez (2002); Veloso e Cavalcanti (2007); Guidon (2007); Ramírez et al. (2010); Copeta e Giacomo (2010); Silveira et al. (2011); Chamas e Schmidt (2011); Buco (2012); Chavarría (2012); Griffith; Griffith (2012); Chivu (2013); Villalobos (2014); Ayala (2015); Endere; Zulaica (2015) ); Shoup et al. (2014)
Promotion and dissemination of Tourist-Archaeological Attractives	Campaigns Disclosure Strategies Marketing plan	Walls e Longo (2005); Copeta; Giacomo (2010); Chivu (2013); Shoup et al. (2014)
Monitoring / Evaluation	Impact management Information management	Juárez (2002); Ramírez et al. (2010); Chamas e Schmidt (2011); Silveira et al. (2011); Buco (2012); Sugiura e Nieto (2014); Chivu (2013); Shoup et al. (2014)

Thus, based on the documentary and bibliographical references and from the case studies presented in this article, a proposal was built that seeks to integrate the principles of tourism management and archaeological heritage.

The bibliographic, documentary and case summaries allowed the recognition of five dimensions (Figure 1). Such dimensions are based on specific situations and local idiosyncrasies, as can be seen in almost all cases presented in this study.

Figure 1
Proposal for Management of Tourism-Archaeological Development

In summary, the Patrimonial Education dimension must be present from the conception of the management process and will be developed in a procedural and continuous way, with actions that aim at valuing equity, interfering in all other processes and adapting to meet new demands. The Recognition of Potential dimension involves studies for the understanding of processes around the archaeological heritage and the identification of the tourist potential of the region. The Public Policies, Program and Partnerships dimension covers the analysis of actions and measures for the valuation and protection of archaeological sites, and the systematization of propositions for the planning of the tourist segment. The organization of the promotion of the activity is approached by the dimension Promotion and Disclosure. The Monitoring / Evaluation dimension will also be present during the process, as its objective is to manage the information, impacts and conflicts that may arise during the course of the Management process.

7 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Tourism is an activity capable of causing profound changes in the territory. When well planned, it can positively impact, adding benefits. However, the anomalous development can be extremely damaging to the different media to which it is inserted. In the case of archaeological tourism, the lack of actions aimed at the planning of the activity could generate irreversible damages to the archaeological sites.

The proposed model consisted of five dimensions created to meet the needs of archaeological tourism management. The intention of this model is the valorization of the archaeological patrimony and the maintenance of the culture of the surrounding communities, often without other economic resources. Given this, the model will guide the development of a proposal that provides greater participation and stimulates the interest of the local population for the archaeological heritage.

The use of this model can be a way for the valorization and conservation of the archaeological heritage, as well as the integration of the local community in the management and the enjoyment of this patrimony. The case studies have shown that many actions have been taken, some have failed, some have failed. Research shows that if there is no integration between public power and society, the effectiveness to safeguard the archaeological heritage may be threatened and, therefore, the patrimony will not be preserved for future generations. Moreover, this model can be extrapolated to other areas, if it has potential equal to or greater than the area investigated. In general, it is expected that the archaeological tourism segment, developed from this model, will contribute to the preservation, valorization and promotion of archaeological heritage.

REFERENCES

• Ayala, P. R. (2015). O multiculturalismo neoliberal e a arqueologia de contrato no norte de Chile. Revista de Arqueologia, 28(2), 155-171.
• Buco, E. (2012). Proteção e conservação de sítios arqueológicos no Parque Nacional da Serra da Capivara. In S. L. Figueiredo, E. Pereira, & M. Bezerra (Orgs.), Turismo e gestão do patrimônio arqueológico (p. 91-100). Belém: Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional - IPHAN.
• Chamas, C. C. (2008). A gestão de um patrimônio arqueológico e paisagístico: Ilha Do Campeche-SC. Dissertação (Mestrado em Geografia), 263 f. Centro de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis - SC.
• Chamas, C. C., & Schmidt, A. (2011). Ecotourism and Heritage Conservation. Journal of Coastal Research, 61(Special), 234-241. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI61-001.1
  » https://doi.org/10.2112/SI61-001.1
• Chavarría, J. C. (2012). Visión, desde los parques arqueológicos de guatemala, del vínculo entre turismo y cultura. Cuaderno del Patrimonio Cultural y Turismo, 19.
• Chivu, C. (2013). The Touristic Capitalization Strategies Of Roșia Montană´s Heritage - Present And Perspectives. Journal of Tourism - Studies and Researche in tourism, (16), 43-51.
• Copeta, C., & Giacomo, E. S. De. (2010). Promotion of Destinations of Excellence : Reevaluation of a Medieval Tourist Route - Guidone ’ s Itinerary ( 1119 a.d.). Tékhne - Polytechnical Studies Review, 8(14), 111-121.
• Endere, M. L., & Zulaica, M. L. (2015). Socio-cultural sustainability and “Buen Vivir” (Good Living) at heritage sites: assessment of the Agua Blanca case, Ecuador. Ambiente & Sociedade, 28(4), 259-284. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422ASOC1317V1842015
  » https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1809-4422ASOC1317V1842015
• Griffith, C. S., & Griffith, L. M. (2012). Partnerships in Archaeotourism: the Future of Cueva Borbon, Dominican Republic. Chungara-Revista De Antropologia Chilena, 44(3), 523-532. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-73562012000300014
  » https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-73562012000300014
• Guidon, N. (2007). Parque Nacional da Serra da Capivara: modelo de preservação do patrimônio arqueológico ameaçado. Revista do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional, 33, 75-93.
• Icomos. Carta de Veneza, de maio de 1964. Carta internacional sobre conservação e restauração de monumentos e sítios (1964). II Congresso internacional de arquitetos e técnicos dos monumentos históricos, ICOMOS - Conselho Internacional dos Monumentos e Sítios, Veneza. Recuperado de http://portal.iphan.gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/Carta de Veneza 1964.pdf
  » http://portal.iphan.gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/Carta de Veneza 1964.pdf
• Icomos. Declaração de Sofia, 09 de outubro de 1996. Defende o pluralismo cultural (1996). XI Assembleia Geral do ICOMOS - Conselho Internacional dos Monumentos e Sítios, Sofia, Bulgária. Recuperado de http://portal.iphan.gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/Declaracao de Sofia 1996.pdf
  » http://portal.iphan.gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/Declaracao de Sofia 1996.pdf
• Icomos/Icahm. Carta de Lausanne, de outubro de 1990. Carta para a proteção e a gestão do patrimônio arqueológico. (1990). IX Assembleia Geral do ICOMOS - Conselho Internacional dos Monumentos e Sítios, ICAHM - Comitê Internacional para a Gestão do Patrimônio Arqueológico, Lausanne, Suiça. Recuperado de http://portal.iphan.gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/Carta de Lausanne 1990.pdf
  » http://portal.iphan.gov.br/uploads/ckfinder/arquivos/Carta de Lausanne 1990.pdf
• Hall, C. Michael. A typology of governance and its implications for tourism policy analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Vol 19, may/june, 2011.
• OEA. Normas de Quito, conservação e utilização de monumentos e sítios de interesse Histórico e Artístico. (1967). Reunião OEA - Organização dos Estados Americanos, de dezembro de 1967, Quito, Equador. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
• Oliveira, Antonio Gonçalves de; Pisa, Beatriz Jackiu. IGovP: índice de avaliação da governança pública - instrumento de planejamento do Estado e de controle social pelo cidadão. Revista de Administração Pública - Rio de janeiro 49 (5): 1263-1290, set/out 2015.
• Pulido-Fernandez, Juan Ignacio; Pulido-Fernandez, María de la Cruz. Proposal for an Indicators System of Tourism Governance at Tourism Destination Level. Springer Science + Business Media. Dordrecht, 2017.
• Ramírez, M. T., Novella, R., & Barrera-Bassols, N. (2010). Reconciliando naturaleza y cultura: una propuesta para la conservación del paisaje y geositios de la costa norte de Michoacán, México. Revista de Geografía Norte Grande, 46, 105-121.
• Seixas, João; Mas, Abel Albert I. Urban Governance in the South of Europe: cultural identities and global dillemmas. Análise Social. N.197. Lisboa, 2010.
• Shoup, D. D., Baraldi, S. B., & Zan, L. (2014). A centralized decentralization: outsourcing in the Turkish cultural heritage sector. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 20(1), 54-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2012.731051
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2012.731051
• Silveira, T. M., Kraus, N. C., Psuty, N. P., & Andrade, F. (2011). Beach Nourishment on Troia Peninsula, Portugal. Journal of Coastal Research, 59(SI), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI59-018.1
  » https://doi.org/10.2112/SI59-018.1
• Sugiura, Y. Y., & Nieto, R. H. (2014). Una reflexión sobre la preservación del patrimonio arqueológico: el caso de los sitios de escala menor en el estado de México. Anales de Antropología, 48(2), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0185-1225(14)70244-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0185-1225(14)70244-9
• Unesco. Recomendação relativa à salvaguarda da beleza e do caráter das paisagens e sítios (1962). Conferência Geral da Organização das Unidas para Educação, a Ciência e a Cultura, 12^a Sessão, de 12 de dezembro de 1962, Paris, França. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
• Veloso, T. P. G., & Cavalcanti, J. E. A. (2007). O turismo em sítios arqueológicos: algumas modalidades de apresentação do patrimônio arqueológico. Revista de Arqueologia, 20, 155-168. Recuperado de http://periodicos.ufpb.br/index.php/ra/article/view/1684
  » http://periodicos.ufpb.br/index.php/ra/article/view/1684
• Villalobos, C. A. (2014). ¿ Por qué en Sonora no hay arqueología ? Nacionalismo y turismo en billetes de banco y folletos de viaje. Región y Sociedade, 26(59), 215-253.
• Walls, S. G., & Longo, N. (2005). Mesa Verde Centenial Celebration. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 5(4), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1300/J172v05n04
  » https://doi.org/10.1300/J172v05n04
• Wang, Jingchuan; LI, Tianyuan. Review on Tourist Destination Governance in Foreign Countries. Tourism Tribune. Vol 28, n6. 2013.
• Zahra, Anne Louise. Rethinking regional Tourism governance: the principle of subsidiarity. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Vol. 19. N. 4-5, May, 2011.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Sep-Dec 2018

History

• Received
  18 Nov 2017
• Accepted
  14 June 2018