Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Commodification Stage of George Town Historic Waterfront An Assessment
Commodification Stage of George Town Historic Waterfront An Assessment
To cite this article: Nurbaidura Salim , Badaruddin Mohamed & Azizan Marzuki (2020):
commodification Stage of George Town Historic Waterfront: an assessment, Journal of Tourism
and Cultural Change, DOI: 10.1080/14766825.2020.1849243
Introduction
Many scholars have discussed in an in-depth manner pertaining to the implication of
commodification. The impacts of heritage commodification have led to standardisation
in culture and products, reduction in cultural originality, diminished local identity, and
internationalisation of a humble local event. These scenarios have indirectly resulted in
cultural conflicts, social imbalance, and eventually, deterioration of destination attractive-
ness. Commodification, as defined by Cohen (1988), refers to a process that objects and
activities are evaluated based on their exchange values and categorised as services and
goods in the context of commercial. In precise, within the tourism context, commodifica-
tion is described as turning something into commercial use for the purpose of levitating
tourism business. Prior studies have highlighted that commodification occurs due to the
escalating demand of tourism activities, stemming from tourists who seek unique and
different cultural experience from their own (Brata, 2014; Bui & Lee, 2015; Lin & Bao,
2015; Su, 2011; Suryanarayan, 2017).
In Malaysia, particularly, the emergence of commodification is witnessed in several
popular destinations, including Langkawi, Melaka, and George Town (Penang). The
excessive commodification is bound to affect the authenticity of the local culture and
similarity of tourism products. Despite the numerous indications of commodification wit-
nessed across George Town, no study has determined the stage of commodification in
this heritage destination. In an interview with Murali Ram, the urban regeneration pro-
gramme director of ThinkCity Penang, revealed that studies pertaining to the level of
commodification in George Town have yet to be conducted despite the emerging indi-
cations of commodification in George Town (personal communication, 24 October 2018).
The outcomes presented in this study may be of use by the relevant authorities. The
application of CDM in George Town historic waterfront setting can predict the level of
commodification. The result can aid the government authorities to take early precaution-
ary measures in managing destruction from plaguing George Town, stemming from
excessive tourism development. This study will be a useful and additional insight to
the Penang Tourism Master Plan, soon to be launced by the Penang state government.
At present, the state government has only devised the Penang Structure Plan (RSNPP)
2030 (currently under review), Penang Local Plan (currently under review), Special Area
Plan of George Town, and Penang Transport Master Plan (Penang State Economic Plan-
ning Division, 2019). Therefore, this study would serve as a benchmark for the local auth-
ority to formulate better tourism policies and further turn George Town into a sustainable
city in the near future. Thus, this study also bridges the gap by identifying the stage of
commodification in George Town based on Mitchell’s Creative Destruction Model.
Literature review
Tourism development models
In order to understand the implications of tourism development to local residents, a
number of models have been proposed. A common understanding of these models is
that the impacts of tourism and levels of tolerance within the host community can
change over time (Butler, 2006; Mitchell, 2013). The changes and the rate of speed at
which they occur are influenced by structural changes across the tourism industry, the
rate of tourism development, as well as the extent to which residents are exposed to
the increasing number of visitors and tourism activities (Wall & Mathieson, 2006).
Butler’s model, based on the idea of the tourism life cycle, has been the most promi-
nent and widely applied to measure the tourism development of a destination. It is
strongly believed that tourism development occurs in six stages over time, whereby
the model predicts that if the capacity of a destination is exceeded, then the visitors’
experience and the residents’ attitude would result along with the declining tourist arri-
vals (Butler, 2006). Butler’s model, nonetheless, focuses only on the survival of resort des-
tinations and may not suit all destinations. In a similar vein, Piuchan (2018) asserted that
the model only illustrates a single direction that ends in five directions after stagnation. In
reality, opportunities for destinations to shift into other life cycles are indeed vast.
the term to elaborate on the transformation process that usually accompanies radical
innovation. According to Schumpeter (2006), the desire for profit is the driving force
that encourages entrepreneurs to create innovation (e.g. new technologies, new
methods, new products, and markets) that generates profits. While new products
promote growth, they indirectly destroy the existing economic activities, whose viability
depends on old products. Mitchell (1998) later used this concept and built a model of
creative destruction to observe how communities that commodify heritage evolve
across the Western context.
The CDM depicts the transformative process of a particular tourism destination whose
development stems from the commodification of heritage (Fan et al., 2008; Yang et al.,
2017). This model is based on the idea of entrepreneurs investing in the creation and
sale of heritage products, in which the investment later leads to a heritage tourism desti-
nation. The increasing number of visitors will adversely affect the original landscape, and
residents’ attitude towards tourism until the destination loses its attractiveness. Based on
an empirical study on rural villages in Canada, Mitchell identified three variables that drive
the process of creative destruction (Fan et al., 2009; Huang et al., 2007; Mitchell & Vander-
werf, 2010). The first one is the investment or motivational drivers, which include the
desire to accumulate profit, the need to promote growth, and the intention to preserve
historical buildings. Investment in commodification can change the landscape of a desti-
nation. The drivers, on the other hand, may influence the transformation of these settings,
either singly or in combination, through the actions of stakeholders, such as local govern-
ment or private organisations.
The number of visitors is one of the three variables that drive the process of creative
destruction. Based on Mitchell’s model, tourists are divided into two groups; heritage-
seekers and post-modern tourists, to distinguish the two types of consumers of the
same place at different stages of development (Yang et al., 2017).
The third variable refers to the residents’ attitude. The attitude in this context reflects
the contentment of the residents towards tourists and tourism development. As men-
tioned before, investments result in the conversion of abandoned or occupied buildings
to settings suitable for the sale of local cuisine, handcrafted products or local business to
serve the needs and demands of visitors. Nonetheless, in some urban heritage desti-
nations, such as Paris, the transformation is beyond physical transformation. Freytag
and Bauder (2018) unravelled that touristification or tourist activities may shape and
reshape the urban environment. For instance, tourist activities encourage new business
growth in the surrounding areas. Thus, more hotels and cafes are established to cater
to the escalating needs of tourists. Simultaneously, this leads to a change of profession
among the local community. Those not involved in tourism may begin venturing into
tourism services, such as travel agents, tour guides, and hotel services, upon realising
the lucrative income brought by tourism. As the new transformation unfolds, the influx
of visitors, as perceived by some, becomes a threat to living (Butler, 2006; Kinghorn, 2018).
Originally, the model is composed of five stages that describe from early commodifica-
tion to post-destruction. Mitchell and de Wall (2009) re-examined the model and
embedded another stage into the model called ‘pre-commodification’. Pre-commodifica-
tion is the stage where tourism is considered to be inactive. Only a few visitors are
present at this stage, and the attitude towards tourism is mainly positive. Mitchell
(2013) predicted that the transformation would occur in six stages as investments, visitors,
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 5
and residents’ attitudes would shift over time (see Table 1). The model predicts that
investment levels would escalate with each stage as stakeholders reckon the economic
benefits that commodification of a particular destination could bring. Additional
financial contributions are bound to change the function of the destination, which, in
turn, would attract more tourists to the destination. Over time, tourism activities would
lead to a negative attitude among the local residents. As a result, a destination would
eventually be a place that appeals to tourists seeking serialised and complete commodifi-
cation (Mitchell & de Waal, 2009).
Early commodification starts with a recognition of potential profits in a historic commu-
nity. At this stage, investors start seeking for possible investments that may generate
profit and slowly market the local heritage (Huang et al., 2007). Heritage buildings are pur-
chased, restored, and transformed to commercialise local products. Significant local
changes are implemented in this stage (Kinghorn, 2018). Although facades of buildings
are still preserved, their local functions begin to change so as to cater to the tourism
market. Tourists to the area are authentic heritage-seekers travelling in a low number
(Halpern, 2009). The attitude of the residents during the early commodification is favour-
able since tourism is seen as boosting the economy in the local context.
At the stage of Advanced Commodification, businesses offer new products that meet
the demands of tourists. The community is marketed broadly due to the escalating
number of tourists. Tourists who visit these destinations are still seeking for the authentic
Early destruction . Other new businesses may start to stray from the themes and
products of the locals
. Residents start to notice negative impacts
. Overcrowding, traffic congestion, and crime may occur
Advanced destruction . Major developments (hotels, cafes, etc.) occurring within the
community
. Greater deviation from heritage theme as the scale of investment
increases
. An increasing number of tourist arrivals
. Residents perceive negative attitude towards tourism
. Residents may decide to leave the town due to decreasing sense of
community, declining quality of life, and overall destruction of
what they perceive to be an idyllic setting
Post destruction . Visitors may feel that the community has become inauthentic Neo-productivist
. Low tourist arrivals as the community are no longer unique leisure-scape
. No further investment as investors seek other destinations to invest
Source: (Liao & Qin, 2013; Lin & Bao, 2015; Mitchell, 1998; Qun et al., 2012)
6 N. SALIM ET AL.
experience. Locals involved in the tourism industry positively accept tourism, while others
who do not engage with tourism begin to express their dissatisfaction due to traffic con-
gestion, pollution, and crimes that accompany the growth of a destination (Mitchell & de
Waal, 2009).
As a destination moves into Early Destruction, more investments attract tourists to the
area. While some investments may be in keeping with a local heritage theme, others may
stray from the original theme, such as the establishment of fast-food restaurants, hotels,
and cafes. Subsequently, the number of visitors increases with the arrival of post-tourists.
They are mindful tourists, have accepted the idea of tourism, and seek it out. Meanwhile,
heritage tourists seek authentic experience (Mitchell & de Waal, 2009). The increasing visi-
tors and investment may cause hostility to some residents. Those who observe the
changes, but still highly value the original identity of the local context, would actively
refuse further transformation of the town.
In the fifth stage, or ‘Advanced Destruction’, the residents quit the will to protest further
development. This stage witnesses the escalation of out-migration. Local people would start
to move out of the town, as those who value the original identity have perceived tourism in
an adverse way (Mitchell & de Waal, 2009). Those who benefit from tourism would remain in
the city and live in a fully commodified landscape. At this stage, mass tourists dominate the
community, while investments drift away from the original heritage theme.
As a community passes through the six stages, the level of investment increases so
does the number of visitors and the negative attitude towards tourism. In the final
stage of ‘Post Destruction’, the heritage-scape faces destruction, and it is replaced with
the creation of leisure-scape of mass consumption (Sullivan, 2010). At this stage, develop-
ment and facilities are provided to meet the needs of tourists. Visitors, on the other hand,
may feel that the community has become inauthentic. This scenario can result in a declining
number of visitors (Mitchell & de Waal, 2009). However, if the community can attract a
different type of tourist group through other development, consumption level will continue
to grow. Huang et al. (2007) asserted that the attitude of the residents may improve at
this stage, as those who feel discontent towards tourism would have sought other places
that have yet to experience the twin forces of creative and destruction.
The CDM has been applied in several western rural villages and towns that experienced
tourism development and heritage commodification, particularly in Canada (Kinghorn,
2018; Mitchell, 1998, 2013; Mitchell & de Waal, 2009; Mitchell & Vanderwerf, 2010).
Although the model was originally developed within the western context, it has been
applied in other settings that share similar characteristics of the study areas in Canada
(Huang et al., 2007).
Yang et al. (2017) applied the CDM in the Nanfeng Kiln District industrial heritage des-
tination. The study revealed that Nanfeng Kiln had experienced a process of commodifi-
cation and was in the stage of early destruction. As opposed to the original model that
suggests the importance of public interest in every decision making in the tourism
plan, the study findings revealed that the local government held the authority and con-
tributed the early capital for the redevelopment process. The residents’ attitude had little
influence on tourism since they were already relocated by the local government.
A study by Xu et al. (2013) on the commodification of Chinese heritage villages probed
into the correlation between tourism development and heritage villages. Excessive
tourism development promoted by the local government had precipitated the
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 7
Methodology
Background of the study area
George Town World Heritage Site is located in the state of Penang, Malaysia and can be
divided into Core Zone (109.38 hectares) and Buffer Zone (150.04 hectares). This study
was conducted within the George Town World Heritage Site with an emphasis on the
waterfront area along Clan Jetties and Weld Quay. There used to be nine clan jetties
until Ong Jetty was demolished due to fire, while Peng Aun Jetty and Koay Jetty, a
unique community of Hui Chinese Muslims were then demolished to allow for develop-
ment of high-rise buildings in 2006. The residents were later relocated outside of the city
(George Town World Heritage Incorporated, 2016). Six different clans still reside at the
Clan Jetties: Lim, Chew, Tan and Yeoh Jetty are the oldest, while Lee and Mixed
Surname (New) Jetties were built afterwards. Since the Clan Jetties are among the
oldest heritage villages within the heritage site, it is suitable to select these communities
as the study respondents (See Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Research method
The qualitative approach was adopted in this study to explore the process of commodifi-
cation and the changes in the residents’ attitudes over time due to tourism development.
Figure 1. The boundary of Core and Buffer zone within George Town World Heritage Site. Source from
George Town World Heritage Incorporated (GTWHI) (2016).
Based on Mitchell’s CDM, three variables that drive the process of heritage commodifica-
tion are investment level, visitor arrivals, and resident attitudes. Hence, data on invest-
ment levels and visitor arrivals were obtained from government official websites,
reports, policy documents, as well as newspaper and magazine articles.
Figure 2. Map of Clan Jetties. Source from George Town World Heritage Incorporated (GTWHI) (2016).
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 9
A range of data collection methods was adopted in this study, including semi-struc-
tured interviews, on-site observation, and document analysis. The use of different data
collection methods enabled the researcher to analyse the convergence of data and ascer-
tain the credibility of the data findings (Bowen, 2009). The secondary data used in this
study were gathered from several government documents, such as Special Area Plan of
George Town (2016), Land Use and Population Change Report (2013), and Penang
Tourist Survey Reports (2014-2019). The accumulated data were arranged based on the
stages of the model that was adopted as a means of analysis and a structure of reporting
the outcomes. On-site observations were performed to further understand the condition
of the study site, the selection of government officials, and the potential stakeholders for
interview. The on-site observation was carried out to capture an overview of the present
commodification scenario, the residents’ behaviour, the land use pattern, and the pro-
ducts sold at the study site.
Semi-structured interviews were carried out to comprehend the motivation of different
stakeholders on investment and tourism development at the study area, the impacts of
heritage commodification, and the change in the residents’ attitudes towards tourism
development. The interviews were guided with a set of pre-determined questions to
assist the respondents in responding to the questions. The participants were selected
through the purposive sampling method. The purposive sampling approach enables
the recruitment of respondents equipped with relevant knowledge to provide valuable
information related to the case study (Neuman, 2004). The participants were selected
amongst those who were living in and were familiar with the development of George
Town; before and after its inscription as a World Heritage City. As for the local community
respondents, they were selected among those who had lived in the town for more than 50
years. The interviews were conducted with 16 respondents among local community
associations, government officers, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and academi-
cians (See Table 3).
The stakeholders were identified during the observation and later confirmed via phone
call and email prior to the interview sessions. Data collection was conducted between
November 2018 and January 2019. Each interview session lasted for about forty
minutes to an hour to complete. All interviewees agreed to have the interviews recorded.
The interview data were transcribed and analysed based on specific themes, including the
history of George Town, development of heritage tourism, tourism impacts, and residents’
attitudes, based on the variables identified in the CDM.
Results
The creative destruction of George Town waterfront
As one of the leading urban destinations in Malaysia, the George Town World Heritage
Site is an instance that can be applied to explore the past, the present, and the future
trends in tourism, as well as the changes of functional use in urban areas. The study
findings reveal that the process of commodification has indeed taken place in George
Town. It is physically visible that changes have occurred to the heritage buildings and
their function. Concurrently, the locals perceived different attitudes towards tourism
over time. All the respondents agreed that the inscription of George Town as a World
10 N. SALIM ET AL.
Heritage Site has driven the process of transformation and has led to heritage commodifi-
cation in the study area. The importance and the potential of the tourism industry have
boosted the economy of the town, apart from improving the residents’ quality of life. The
next section describes the development of heritage tourism in the study area based on
the variables embedded in CDM. Between 1970 and 2018, the town had advanced
through three stages, namely (1) Pre-commodification, (2) Early commodification, and (3)
Pre-advanced commodification.
become part-time tourist guides so that they can earn additional pocket money during
the Hajj season. Having described that, tourism activities had already existed at that
time, but were not promoted or lacked awareness among the local people. Besides,
hajj pilgrims did not regard their activities as tourism, but more of religious obligation.
This sentiment is still prevalent among the Muslims in Malaysia today.
The city status bestowed upon George Town on 1 January 1957 has boosted the
growth of the tourism industry in Penang. In the following years, George Town had
remained its free port status, but this did not last as the Malaysian federal government
withdrew its free port status, which led to massive unemployment. About 16.4% of
Penang’s working population became unemployed as the trade volume in the Penang
Port dwindled, which affected the then-thriving service sector in George Town (Teh,
2016). The vibrant entreport fell into stagnation and has lost its character. Countless
efforts were made to revitalise George Town, but most of those plans were failed as
each plan was limited by short-term outlook and disorganised approach (Khor, Benson,
Liew, & James, 2017).
The importance of tourism has been acknowledged in Malaysia’s economic agenda.
In Penang particularly, it was only in the 1970s that tourism, along with the growth
of industrialisation, was viewed as a way to connect the state’s economy with other
parts of the world (Lim & Pan, 2017). The 1970s and 1980s witnessed a rapid
growth of the tourism industry as the island’s international arrivals witnessed a
gradual growth from 39,457 arrivals in 1970–200,927 arrivals in 1980. The growing
tourism industry in George Town highlighted the important role of its heritage
towns as one of the renowned tourist destinations in Malaysia (Ahmad, 1998). This
is evidenced by the escalating number of visitors to the town between 1990 and
1997 (see Table 4):
Heritage tourism was highlighted in the state’s agenda to attract tourists to visit
Penang. Intrinsic historical sites, new tourism resources, and cultural enclaves were redis-
covered and transformed into tourist products. Efforts were taken by the state govern-
ment, several organisations, and the local people had helped in conserving the
heritage legacy of George Town. The establishment of the Penang Heritage Trust in
1986 gestured the local ambitions and seriousness to address heritage-related issues.
The ‘Design Guidelines for Conservation Areas in the Inner City of George Town’,
implemented by the Penang Island City Council (MBPP), highlights the state’s first preser-
vation standards for heritage. Based on the Heritage Management Plan for Historic City
George Town (2008), the city was categorised into five main areas based on its historical
and cultural attributes.
Nevertheless, tourist arrivals declined from a peak of 2.3 million visitors in 2000–1.8
million in 2008 (Kharas, Zeufack, & Majeed, 2010). Additionally, dilapidated buildings,
vacant premises, and the dissolution of the Rent Control Act 1966 had caused the local
residents to move out from the inner city. By 2007, the total population in George
Town had declined by 30 per cent since 2000 (ThinkCity, 2013). This scenario had sig-
nalled the Malaysian government to apply for the World Heritage status from the
UNESCO to jointly preserve the heritage legacy of both George Town and Melaka.
Since then, the tourism industry in George Town has flourished, and tourist arrivals
have begun to increase on an annual basis.
. location of choice for MNCs (Multi-National Companies) . Film festivals, Cultural and Arts Centre
regional headquarters
Before the heritage status, these clan jetties were supposed to be demolished to allow for
new development. The heritage status saved our homes from being demolished. However,
there are some rules and regulations that we need to follow to retain the original façade
of the house.
From area forbidden to outside people, the clan jetties today welcome hundreds of visi-
tors to visit traditional wooden houses built on stilts. Businesses are booming in jetties like
Chew jetty, the jetty that was selected to be the model of community based tourism
among the clan jetties. Homestays are opened for tourists to learn about the local
culture and daily life, and to bring direct benefits of tourism to the community. Increasing
demand from the tourists has resulted many dwellers to convert their homes to tourist
related businesses such as cafe, souviner shops and galleries. Despite the fact that the
ownership of the properties can only be transferred with the clan members carrying
same surname, some do extend their homes and rent them out to outsiders to gain
extra income. Eventually, lines of cafes and souviner shops dot the main alleys of the
clan jetties (Figures 3 and 4).
The increased tourist activities do not come without a price. Kaur (2019) reported that
the facade of the village at the main passageway has changed drastically and the elder
folks who used to enjoy peaceful view of the sea, now have to recede to the back of
their houses to find peace, away from the noise from the visitors. This phenomenon
can especially be observed in the pioneer jetty, the Chew Jetty, while others such as
Lee, Lim and Tan Jetties choose not to expose themselves to too much onslaught of
the tourists in order to preserve their cultural sanctity and lifestyle. According to R2, a resi-
dent of Lim Jetty, the uncontrolled tourist activities in Chew Jetty have made the commu-
nities in other jetties to be more vigilant and concern about the detrimental and
uncontrol impacts of tourism.
The indicators of commodification in George Town were witnessed at this stage. In an
interview with the local residents, more heritage buildings were repurposed into commer-
cial activities, such as hotels and cafes, to fulfil the growing needs and diversifications of
tourists by the year. These had attracted interests from foreign companies especially from
Singapore and Hong Kong, to acquire the multi-color buildings and turn them into hom-
ogenous coloured buildings before turning them into tourist-related facilities (Mok, 2016).
Figure 3. (a and b) Most of the stilt houses had been converted into souvenir shops to serve tourism
purpose. Pictures by the authors (23 July 2019).
14 N. SALIM ET AL.
Figure 4. Some house owners even converted their house into a restaurant. Picture by the authors (23
July 2019).
More local tenants had increased the rate of rental property and buildings for foreign
investors. As a result, locals who could no longer afford the rental had decided to
move out of the town in search of better homes. According to state government’s out-
dated statistics, at least 61 heriatge buildings have been bought by foreigners although
heritage groups claimed that the figures were much higher. A survey conducted by
Penang Geographical Information System (PEGIS) in 2014 revealed that there was an
increase in hotel establishments stemming from tourism activities between 2012 and
2014 (see Tables 6 and 7).
Table 6. Number of non-star rating hotels in George Town, 2012 and 2014.
Budget Service
Motel Guesthouse Hostel hotel apartment Not rated
Category 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014
Non-star rating hotels 5 2 7 23 5 2 4 1 8 2 70 88
Source: Lim and Pan (2017)
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 15
Table 7. Number of star rating hotels in George Town, 2012 and 2014.
Hotel
1-star 2-star 3-star 4-star 5-star
Category 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014
No. of star rating hotels 3 4 3 4 6 14 12 21 7 9
Source: Lim and Pan (2017)
Upon recognising the potential of generating lucrative income from the mural painting
sightseeing, more local shop owners and business owners have grabbed the opportu-
nities to turn these paintings into postcards, t-shirts, souvenirs, and merchandise items
to sell to the tourists. Eventually, this has become a trend, and man-made tourist products
have turned popular within the heritage area. Almost all souvenir shops in George Town
tend to sell similar products in the form of bags, postcards, magnets, and even t-shirts. A
long-time resident in Acheh Street (R1) argued that George Town has limited signature
local products that tourists can bring back to their home country. These modern man-
made souvenirs have blinded the original traditional local products, such as Malay
songkok, Baba Nyonya beaded shoes, and joystick-making. He added, ‘these are the
local products that should be highlighted and promoted to the eyes of the world … ’
From the interview sessions, all the respondents agreed that George Town had experi-
enced some significant changes in the past decade since its inscription as a World Heri-
tage Site. Some respondents perceived positive attitude towards tourism development,
as given in the following:
One good change is that the city is cleaner … I think the city has become a more attractive
place to live in because there is a diversity of things to do. Not only new parks are developed,
but there are also back lanes that have been improved. There are also cycling culture and new
restaurants, cafes and so on. In that respect, things have been improved.
(R14)
(R9)
From the socio-economic stance, most of the villagers in the clan jetties have gradually
shifted from being a full-time fisherman to art shop owners, partly influenced by other
shop owners. In 2017, about 30% of the housing units in Chew Jetty, for example, were
16 N. SALIM ET AL.
turned into commercial outlets since the village was gazetted as heritage settlement. Our
recent findings in the year 2019 revealed that the percentage had increased to 54%, as
these businesses provide mainly food and beverages as well as souvenirs. When asked
if the businesses are profitable and could help in increasing their income, some respon-
dents begged to differ. They claimed that opening art shops is not their main source of
income, but rather as a side income to support their daily lives. Some respondents men-
tioned that they had no choice but to open souviner shops to support their house main-
tenance. Being an internationally recognised heritage village, they are not allowed to
modify their houses as they wish, and all maintenance costs should be borne by the
owner. R7, a shop owner at Chew Jetty stated ‘ … you see, when there is leaking or
damage to any part of the house, we cannot simply renovate our house without following
the standards set by the heritage office (GTWHI). We need to use wooden material to
retain its originality, and the cost is not cheap … ’ The government also provided some
incentives to help them fix damages, but it usually took a long time for the authority
to act. Most residents preferred repairing the damages at their own cost.
Although not all residents are involved in commercial activities, the impacts of
increased tourism activities are felt by the entire communities. Being the biggest and
the most visited water village, Chew Jetty is more or less becoming the living human
zoo for tourists. Despite each jetty having certain visiting time (from 9.00 am to 9.00
pm daily), some villagers were offended when visitors snapped pictures without their
consent. Some villagers even felt increasing dispute within the community as more
businesses have begun flourishing, thus fierce competition amongst each other. Some
respondents revealed:
Not to mention that tourism does give lucrative income to me, but it is getting more com-
petitive as more people would sell the same products as yours. I used to get many customers,
but now I hardly get to sell my things.
(R5)
Chew Jetty is the only jetty that welcomes and is involves in the tourism business. As for the
other jetties, we are more comfortable with what we have now. We want our jetties to live in
harmony and a quiet environment.
(R2)
We used to live in a peaceful environment, but now, things are quite uncomfortable. Some
tourists do not follow the visiting hour rules. I have started to think what the benefit is of
receiving the heritage listing? Nothing.
(R4)
A study by Salim and Mohamed (2018) revealed that changes in building use and nature
of business activities are among the impacts of tourism commodification that were
observed in the study area. Before George Town was gazetted as a World Heritage Site,
some of the building façades at the heritage area were modified to cater to the develop-
ment needs. Nonetheless, after the inscription of World Heritage Site, all heritage build-
ings have been preserved, and any change is restricted under the UNESCO’s
conservation law. Since the settlements in Clan Jetties fall under Building Category 2
and planning for change of use, increase in height, an extension of a building, and
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 17
construction of new structures or buildings are permitted as long as it complies with the
National Heritage Act and does not change the façade of the buildings. For example,
some residents from the Chew Jetty had taken the initiative to beautify their house
walls with creative designs to attract tourists (see Figure 5).
Figure 5. Wall of attraction for the tourists. Some stopped by to pose and take pictures by the beauti-
fully painted wooden wall. Picture by the authors (23 July 2019).
18 N. SALIM ET AL.
This study found that George Town has undergone a process of creative destruction
from a free trading port to a productivist heritage-scape. In accordance to the Creative
Destruction Model, George Town falls in the stage of early destruction as the residents
have begun facing some tourism issues (traffic congestion, change of building use, dis-
rupted daily routines, increasing dispute within the community, and higher price of
goods). Nevertheless, it is believed that the heritage commodification in George Town
is not at the level of destruction to the extent of affecting the image of George Town
as a World Heritage City. Although there is an increasing number of accommodations
and hotels for the past ten years, more buildings were converted into hotels and cafes,
the average percentage of the converted buildings is around one percent only as com-
pared to the total of heritage buildings within the inner city (2,569 buildings)
(A. M. Chee, personal communication, 8 January 2019). Hence, this study proposes the
inclusion of another stage into the model, which is ‘pre-advanced commodification’. At
this stage, we can observe that:
It is not the purpose of this study to invalidate the original model but to pinpoint some
key elements that should be weighed in, in order to enhance its relevance to be applied
within the context of Malaysia. Although Mitchell’s model has been vastly applied across
rural heritage (Huang, 2006; Lin & Bao, 2015; Mitchell, 2013) and urban heritage desti-
nations (Su & Chang, 2011; Yang et al., 2017), it is essential to address that the model is
not deterministic within the context of George Town. When compared to the original
model, the state government has a dominant role in the redevelopment process of com-
modifying the heritage sites for profit. Although every development plan made by the
local authority has taken into account the public interest, the state government still
holds the ultimate power in every decision making. The politics of tourism development
in Penang is rather negotiable, with opinions of local stakeholders and NGOs are heard
but not necessarily adhered to. Issues and public outcry of the residents are channelled
through the selected assemblymen in the Executive Committee (EXCO) meetings. Simi-
larly, Yang et al. (2017) asserted that the state government plays an integral role in the
redevelopment process of commodifying heritage sites for profit. Early capital is usually
provided by the state government or by the federal goverment through its implemen-
tation arms, such as the ThinkCity and the Implementation and Coordination Unit (ICU)
of the Prime Minister’s Department. Upon progress, private sectors become major inves-
tors, while the local government promotes and preserves the heritage site.
A number of studies on creative destruction had surveyed tourist perceptions of heri-
tage commodification at the visiting destinations. In this study, nonetheless, a survey on
tourist perception was omitted as part of data collection. As such, future study may incor-
porate tourist perceptions in assessing the stage of commodification to determine if there
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 19
is any change in the study results. Both George Town and Melaka have conferred the
World Heritage Site status on 7 July 2008. Hence, it is assumed that similar to George
Town, Melaka also must have experienced heritage commodification due to tourism
development. Given the similar characteristics shared between George Town and
Melaka, this model can be tested in the context of Melaka World Heritage Site too. As
such, a comparative study between the two sites may be conducted in the near future
to identify the stage of commodification based on the model.
Additionally, future research may want to place focus on the aspect of commodifica-
tion in terms of heritage products at the study area, such as songkok making, joystick-
making, and local beaded shoes, in order to identify the types of commodification and
improvements that can be made, so as to ensure the sustainability of the products. It is
also recommended that further research to be expanded into other parts of the innercity,
such as the Little India and the Muslim enclave, focusing on the power relations in heri-
tage commodification among the stakeholders and to also include intangible aspects of
the heritage.
Acknowledgement
The funding for this project was made possible through the research grant obtained from Malaysia’s
Ministry of Higher Education, under the Transdisciplinary Research Grant Scheme 2016 [TRGS grant
no: 203.PPBGN.67611002].
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The funding for this project was made possible through the research grant obtained from Ministry
of Higher Education Malaysia, under the Transdisciplinary Research Grant Scheme 2016 [TRGS grant
no: 203.PPBGN.67611002].
References
Ahmad, A. G. (1998). Urban Tourism in Malaysia: Heritage cities of George Town, Malacca and Kota
Bharu. Paper presented at the 2nd. International Seminar on European Architecture and Town
Planning Outside Europe (Dutch Period), Malacca.
Brata, I. B. (2014). Commodification of Telajakan at Ubud Village, Gianyar, Bali. E-Journal of Cultural
Studies.
Bui, H. T., & Lee, T. J. (2015). Commodification and politicization of heritage: Implications for heritage
tourism at the Imperial Citadel of Thang long, Hanoi (Vietnam). ASEAS – Austrian Journal of South-
East Asian Studies, 8(2), 187–202. doi:10.14764/10.ASEAS-2015.2-5
Butler, R. (2006). The tourism area life cycle. Clevedon, NY, USA; Buffalo, NY, USA; Toronto, ON,
Canada: Channel View Publications.
Chang, T. C., & Huang, S. (2005). Recreating place, replacing memory: Creative destruction at the
Singapore River. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 46(3), 267–280. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8373.2005.00285.x
Chang, J., Su, W.-Y., & Chang, C.-C. (2011). The creative destruction of Ainu community in Hokkaido,
Japan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5), 505–516. doi:10.1080/10941665.2011.
597576
20 N. SALIM ET AL.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 15,
371–386.
Fan, C., Wall, G., & Mitchell, C. J. A. (2008). Creative destruction and the water town of Luzhi, China.
Tourism Management, 29(4), 648–660. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.07.008
Fan, C., Wall, G., & Mitchell, C. J. A. (2009). Heritage retail center, creative destruction and water town
of Luzhi, Kunshan, China. In C. Ryan, & H. M. Gu (Eds.), Tourism in China: Destinations, cultures and
communities (pp. 99–123). New York, NY: Routledge.
Freytag, T., & Bauder, M. (2018). Bottom-up touristification and urban transformations in Paris.
Tourism Geographies, 20(3), 443–460. doi:10.1080/14616688.2018.1454504
George Town World Heritage Incorporated. (2016). Special area Plan: George Town World heritage
site. Penang.
Halpern, C. (2009). Creative destruction and participatory tourism planning in rural British Columbia:
The case of Salt Spring Island. (Master), University of Waterloo, Ontario.
Heritage Management Plan for Historic City George Town. (2008). Heritage Management Plan.
George Town.
Huang, Y. B. (2006). Tourism in a Chinese water town: Application of a creative destruction model
(Master). University of Waterloo. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/
304929955?accountid=14645
Huang, H. Y. B., Wall, G., & Mitchell, C. J. A. (2007). Creative destruction Zhu Jia Jiao, China. Annals of
Tourism Research, 34(4), 1033–1055. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2007.06.005
Kaur, B. (2019, July 7). Clan jetties Unesco listing boon or bane? New Straits Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2019/07/502201/clan-jetties-unesco-listing-boon-or-bane
Kharas, H., Zeufack, A., & Majeed, H. (2010). Cities, people & the economy: A study on positioning
Penang. Kuala Lumpur: Khazanah Nasional Berhad.
Khor, N., Benson, M., Liew, V., & James, A. (2017). Rejunevating The city Together (Kamatchy Sappani
Ed.). George Town: Think City Sdn Bhd.
Kinghorn, W. (2018). The creative destruction of place in an Ontario heritage conservation District
(Doctoral Dissertation). University of Western Ontario, Ontario. Retrieved from https://ir.lib.
uwo.ca/etd/5405
Liao, J., & Qin, S. (2013). Creative destruction and transformation of place-based identity in ancient
town of Zhouzhuang. Acta Geographica Sinica, 68(8), 1131–1142.
Lim, S. S., & Pan, Y. C. (2017, October 24). Heritage tourism in George Town: A complicated and
always controversial issue. Penang Institute Issues.
Lin, M., & Bao, J. (2015). Tourism commodification in China’s historic towns and villages: Re-examin-
ing the creative destruction model. Tourism Tribune, 30(4), 12–22.
Mitchell, C. (1998). Entrepeneurialism, commodification and creative destruction: A model of post-
modern community development. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(3), 273–286.
Mitchell, C. (2013). Creative destruction or creative enhancement? Understanding the transform-
ation of rural spaces. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 375–387. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.09.005
Mitchell, C., & de Waal, S. B. (2009). Revisiting the model of creative destruction: St. Jacobs, Ontario, a
decade later. Journal of Rural Studies, 25, 156–167.
Mitchell, C., & Vanderwerf, J. (2010). Creative destruction and Trial by Space In a historic Canadian
village. Geographical Review, 100(3), 356–374. doi:10.1111/j.1931-0846.2010.00041.x
Mohamed, B., Omar, S. I., & Zainal Abidin, S. Z. (2015). The Perils of Tourism Growth in a World
Heritage Site: The Case of George Town. In Paper presented at the 5th International Conference
of Jabodetabek Study Forum. Indonesia: Bagor.
Mok, O. (2016, September 26). Stop foreigners from buying heritage buildings, Gerakan tells
Penang. malaymail. Retrieved from https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2016/09/26/
stop-foreigners-from-buying-heritage-buildings-gerakan-tells-penang/1214111
Musa, M. (2015). Memori di George Town. George Town, Penang: George Town World Heritage
Incorporated.
Neuman, W. L. (2004). Basics of social research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston:
Pearson.
JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE 21
Penang State Development Portal. (2019). Penang Tourism Development Key Thrust. Retrieved from
https://www.penang.gov.my/index.php/en/apa/apakah-dasar-dasar-kerajaan-negeri
Penang State Economic Planning Division. (2019). Pelan Induk Pengangkutan Negeri Pulau Pinang.
Retrieved from http://pgmasterplan.penang.gov.my/index.php/en/
Piuchan, M. (2018). Plog’s and Butler’s models: A critical review of Psychographic tourist Typology
and the tourist area life cycle. TURIZAM, 22(3), 95–108. doi:10.5937/turizam22-18835
Qun, Q., Mitchell, C., & Wall, G. (2012). Creative destruction in China’s historic towns: Daxu and
Yangshuo, Guangxi. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1-2), 56–66. doi:10.
1016/j.jdmm.2012.07.001
Salim, N., & Mohamed, B. (2018). The physical impacts of tourism development at Melaka historic
waterfront, Malaysia. In M. H. Nguyen, B. Mohamed, A. T. Bang, & T. C. Luong (Eds.),
International tourism development in Vietnam and Malaysia: Issues and directions. Ho Chi Minh
City: Vietnam National University-Ho Chi MinhCity Press.
Schumpeter, J. (2006). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge.
Su, X. (2011). Commodification and the selling of ethnic music to tourists. Geoforum $V, 42(4), 496–
505.
Su, W.-Y., & Chang, C.-C. (2011). The creative destruction of Ainu community in Hokkaido, Japan AU -
Chang. Janet. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5), 505–516. doi:10.1080/10941665.2011.
597576
Sullivan, C. (2010). The commodification of rural heritage: Creative destruction in Newfoundland and
Labrador (Master of Environmental Studies). University of Waterloo, Ontario.
Suryanarayan, N. (2017). From Yashwant place to Yashka: A case study of commodification of
Russian in India. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(4), 428–442.
doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1115003
Tan, J. (2019). Can Penang lead the Way in sustainable tourism? Penang Monthly, April, 2019, 24–25.
Teh, E. (2016). Where the Sea Meets the City is Where the World Meets Penang. Penang Monthly.
Retrieved from https://penangmonthly.com/article.aspx?pageid=2568&name=where_the_sea_
meets_the_city_is_where_the_world_meets_penang
ThinkCity. (2013). George Town World heritage site: Population and land Use change 2009-2013.
George Town: ThinkCity.
Vanderwerf, J. (2008). Creative Destruction and Rural Tourism Planning: The Case of Creemore, Ontario.
(Master of Environmental Studies Master). Canada: University of Waterloo, Ontario.
Wall, G., & Mathieson, A. (2006). Tourism: Change, Impacts and Opportunities. Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.
Xu, K., Yan, T., & Zhu, X. (2013). Commodification of Chinese heritage villages. Annals of Tourism
Research, 40, 415–419. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2012.08.009
Yang, X., Xu, H., & Wall, G. (2017). Creative destruction: The commodification of industrial heritage in
Nanfeng Kiln District, China. Tourism Geographies, 1–24. doi:10.1080/14616688.2017.1388436
Yusni, A. (2012). Examining quality, perceived value and satisfaction of Penang delicacies in predicting
tourists’ revisit intention (Master). Universiti Teknologi MARA. Retrieved from http://ir.uitm.edu.
my/id/eprint/16127
YZD Planning and Consultant. (2020). Town Hall Presentation on Penang tourism Master Plan.
Penang.
Zaidan, E., & Kovacs, J. F. (2017). Resident attitudes towards tourists and tourism growth: A case
study from the Middle East, Dubai in United Arab Emirates. European Journal of Sustainable
Development, 6(1), 291–307. doi:10.14207/ejsd.2017.v6n1p291
Zhang, J., Long, B., & Zhao, Y. (2019). Creative destruction and Commercialization of traditional vil-
lages: Likeng, Wangkou, and Jiangwan in Wuyuan, China. Paper presented at the international
Conference on Manufacturing Technology, Materials and Chemical Engineering, Wuhan, China.