文化治理下的文化遺產保護與文化旅遊發展：以廈門、金門、泉州為例

Abstract

在上世紀七十年代，聯合國教科文組織意識到全球化進程中無序開發對文化遺產產生了危害，對人類文明產生了不可估量的破壞。教科文組織開始呼籲全球各國展開行動保護文化遺產，推廣以文化遺產保護為驅動的文化治理。兩岸對於文化治理也展開了一系列的行動，從宏觀文化政策，到地方實踐，再到產業發展，相繼做了不少的努力。本研究以大陸的廈門、泉州晉江，以及臺灣的金門作為研究對象，從文化治理對兩岸的影響，到地方如何落實文化遺產保護兼顧城市發展問題，再到地方遵循自身的文化脈絡發展出了不同的文化旅遊內容。逐一討論了廈門、泉州晉江、金門在全球化與地方性對話過程的演進。在本研究看來，當代文化治理疊合了全球化理念與地方性需要。地方回應全球化帶來的同質性問題，積極地對地方文化遺產進行保護，作為地方城市特色的凸顯。而作為當下文化遺產重要出路的文化旅遊，是直接表達地方文化遺產特色的重要途徑，也是吸引外來者通過旅遊體驗加深對地方觀感。在三地的文化遺產保護實踐上，皆擅長對有形文化遺產的保護，對於無形文化遺產採取了不同的保護利用方式。此外，文化遺產保護與社區居民參與應該尋求一個平衡點，避免選入極端。

In the 1970s, UNESCO realized that disorderly development in the process of globalization had harmed cultural heritage and caused immeasurable damage to human civilization. UNESCO began to call on countries around the world to take actions to protect cultural heritage and promote cultural governance driven by cultural heritage protection. The two sides of the strait have also launched a series of actions on cultural governance, from cultural policies to local practices, to industrial development, and have made a lot of efforts one after another.This study takes Xiamen, Jinjiang in Quanzhou, and Kinmen as the research objects, from the impact of cultural governance on both sides of the strait, to how the local government implements cultural heritage protection while taking urban development into account, and then to the local cultural tourism that follows the cultural context. We discussed the evolution of Xiamen, Jinjiang in Quanzhou, and Kinmen in the process of dialogue between globalization and locality.From the perspective of this study, contemporary cultural governance is a combination of globalization concepts and local needs. The locality is responding to the homogeneity problem brought about by globalization, and actively protecting the local cultural heritage as a highlight of the local urban characteristics. As a way out of cultural heritage, cultural tourism is one of the ways to directly express the characteristics of local cultural heritage, attracting outsiders to deepen their perception of the place through tourism experience. In the practice of cultural heritage protection in the three places, they are all good at the protection of tangible cultural heritage and adopt different protection and utilization methods for intangible cultural heritage. In addition, cultural heritage protection and community residents' participation should seek a balance point and avoid extremes.