IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i6p1671-d215507.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying the Critical Stakeholders for the Sustainable Development of Architectural Heritage of Tourism: From the Perspective of China

Author

Listed:
  • Ruiling Wang

    (School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Chongqing University of Science and Technology, Chongqing 401331, China
    Chongqing Key Laboratory of Energy Engineering Mechanics & Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Chongqing 401331, China)

  • Guo Liu

    (School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Anhui University of Technology, Ma’anshan 243002, China)

  • Jingyang Zhou

    (School of Management Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China)

  • Jianhui Wang

    (Beijing Qianding Internet Technology Co. Ltd, Beijing 102300, China)

Abstract

Architectural heritages, especially heritages of tourism, were destroyed in the process of urban reconstruction of China because of lacking protection from stakeholders. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify the critical stakeholders to perform the responsibility of protection. The paper, focusing on architectural heritage of tourism, aims to identify the most important stakeholders for making them realize their critical roles in maintaining architectural heritages. Moreover, this paper also aims to evaluate the enthusiasm of stakeholders. As a result, the stakeholders with high importance and enthusiasm would be the critical stakeholders in maintaining architectural heritages. Thirteen stakeholders were selected through comprehensive literature review and the reality of China. A questionnaire survey was conducted with the qualified respondents in Mainland China. A five-point Likert scale and other statistical methods were used for achieving the results of evaluation. The findings demonstrated local government, central government, real estate development enterprise, expert groups, administration of architectural heritage protection, and construction company of architectural heritage are considered as the critical stakeholders for the sustainable development (SD) of architectural heritage of tourism. Finally, some helpful implications were introduced for improving the efficiency of participation and cooperation among all stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruiling Wang & Guo Liu & Jingyang Zhou & Jianhui Wang, 2019. "Identifying the Critical Stakeholders for the Sustainable Development of Architectural Heritage of Tourism: From the Perspective of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1671-:d:215507
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1671/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1671/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan P. Doh & Terrence R. Guay, 2006. "Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy, and NGO Activism in Europe and the United States: An Institutional‐Stakeholder Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(1), pages 47-73, January.
    2. Niroumand, Hamed & Zain, M.F.M & Jamil, Maslina, 2013. "A guideline for assessing of critical parameters on Earth architecture and Earth buildings as a sustainable architecture in various countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 130-165.
    3. Alazaizeh, Mohammad M. & Hallo, Jeffrey C. & Backman, Sheila J. & Norman, William C. & Vogel, Melissa A., 2016. "Value orientations and heritage tourism management at Petra Archaeological Park, Jordan," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 149-158.
    4. Phillips, Robert & Freeman, R. Edward & Wicks, Andrew C., 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory is Not," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 479-502, October.
    5. Maksić, Milica & Dobričić, Milica & Trkulja, Siniša, 2018. "Institutional limitations in the management of UNESCO cultural heritage in Serbia: The case of Gamzigrad-Romuliana archaeological site," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 195-206.
    6. Pomeroy, Robert & Douvere, Fanny, 2008. "The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 816-822, September.
    7. Dima Jamali, 2008. "A Stakeholder Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Fresh Perspective into Theory and Practice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 213-231, September.
    8. Liudan Jiao & Liyin Shen & Chenyang Shuai & Bei He, 2016. "A Novel Approach for Assessing the Performance of Sustainable Urbanization Based on Structural Equation Modeling: A China Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-16, September.
    9. Gandino, E., 2018. "Co-designing the solution space for rural regeneration in a new World Heritage site: A Choice Experiments approachAuthor-Name: Ferretti, V," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1077-1091.
    10. Andrew L. Friedman & Samantha Miles, 2002. "Developing Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 1-21, January.
    11. Wang, Yi & Bramwell, Bill, 2012. "Heritage protection and tourism development priorities in Hangzhou, China: A political economy and governance perspective," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 988-998.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adam R. Szromek & Mateusz Naramski, 2019. "Measuring Trust in Business Relations between Tourist Facilities on One Thematic Touristic Route," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Mimica R. Milošević & Dušan M. Milošević & Ana D. Stanojević & Dragan M. Stević & Dušan J. Simjanović, 2021. "Fuzzy and Interval AHP Approaches in Sustainable Management for the Architectural Heritage in Smart Cities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29, February.
    3. Qi Mu & Fabrizio Aimar, 2022. "How Are Historical Villages Changed? A Systematic Literature Review on European and Chinese Cultural Heritage Preservation Practices in Rural Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, June.
    4. Yuzong Zhao & Hui Wang & Zhen Guo & Mingli Huang & Yongtao Pan & Yongrui Guo, 2022. "Online Reservation Intention of Tourist Attractions in the COVID-19 Context: An Extended Technology Acceptance Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Di Feng & Shang-chia Chiou & Feng Wang, 2021. "On the Sustainability of Local Cultural Heritage Based on the Landscape Narrative: A Case Study of Historic Site of Qing Yan Yuan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-31, March.
    6. Mateusz Naramski & Adam R. Szromek, 2019. "Configuring a Trust-based Inter-organizational Cooperation Network for Post-industrial Tourist Organizations on a Tourist Route," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Zhenmin Yuan & Guodong Ni & Linxiu Wang & Yaning Qiao & Chengshuang Sun & Na Xu & Wenshun Wang, 2020. "Research on the Barrier Analysis and Strength Measurement of a Prefabricated Building Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-16, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sergiy D. Dmytriyev & R. Edward Freeman & Jacob Hörisch, 2021. "The Relationship between Stakeholder Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility: Differences, Similarities, and Implications for Social Issues in Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(6), pages 1441-1470, September.
    2. Yuan Ding & Thomas Jeanjean & Hervé Stolowy, 2013. "Accounting for Stakeholders or Shareholders? The Case of R&D Reporting," Post-Print hal-01002936, HAL.
    3. Kourula, Arno, 2010. "Corporate engagement with non-governmental organizations in different institutional contexts--A case study of a forest products company," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 395-404, October.
    4. Francesco Perrini & Angeloantonio Russo & Antonio Tencati & Clodia Vurro, 2011. "Deconstructing the Relationship Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 59-76, March.
    5. Hiney, Noel & Efthymiou, Marina & Morgenroth, Edgar, 2023. "Impact of Covid-19 on Irish airport stakeholder relationships," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    6. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    7. Figueira, Sandra & Gauthier, Caroline & Torres de Oliveira, Rui, 2023. "CSR and stakeholder salience in MNE subsidiaries in emerging markets," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(5).
    8. Dorian Aliu & Ayten Akatay & Armando Aliu & Umut Eroglu, 2017. "Public Policy Influences on Academia in the European Union," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(1), pages 21582440176, February.
    9. Nicole Darnall & Irene Henriques & Perry Sadorsky, 2010. "Adopting Proactive Environmental Strategy: The Influence of Stakeholders and Firm Size," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(6), pages 1072-1094, September.
    10. Francisco Javier Forcadell & Antonio Lorena & Elisa Aracil, 2023. "The firm under the spotlight: How stakeholder scrutiny shapes corporate social responsibility and its influence on performance," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 1258-1272, May.
    11. Yakovleva, Natalia & Vazquez-Brust, Diego Alfonso, 2018. "Multinational mining enterprises and artisanal small-scale miners: From confrontation to cooperation," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 52-62.
    12. Lyton Chithambo & Venancio Tauringana & Ishmael Tingbani & Laura Achiro, 2022. "Stakeholder pressure and greenhouses gas voluntary disclosures," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 159-172, January.
    13. Linda O’Riordan & Jenny Fairbrass, 2014. "Managing CSR Stakeholder Engagement: A New Conceptual Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(1), pages 121-145, November.
    14. Seo, Kwanglim & Moon, Joonho & Lee, Seoki, 2015. "Synergy of corporate social responsibility and service quality for airlines: The moderating role of carrier type," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 126-134.
    15. Louis Maximilian Ronalter & Merce Bernardo & Javier Manuel Romaní, 2023. "Quality and environmental management systems as business tools to enhance ESG performance: a cross-regional empirical study," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 9067-9109, September.
    16. Gordon Liu & Teck-Yong Eng & Wai-Wai Ko, 2013. "Strategic Direction of Corporate Community Involvement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 469-487, July.
    17. Andrew Crane & Trish Ruebottom, 2011. "Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(1), pages 77-87, March.
    18. Warat Winit & Sooksan Kantabutra, 2022. "Enhancing the Prospect of Corporate Sustainability via Brand Equity: A Stakeholder Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, April.
    19. Yves Fassin, 2012. "Stakeholder Management, Reciprocity and Stakeholder Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 83-96, August.
    20. Birca Aliona & Grigoroi Lilia & Mihai Olesia, 2024. "Accounting In The Context Of Corporate Governance: Empirical Study Based On Companies Listed On The Bucharest Stock Exchange," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 4, pages 86-100, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1671-:d:215507. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.