International Journal of Heritage Studies

ISSN: 1352-7258 (Print) 1470-3610 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

The tourism and local development in world

heritage context. The case of the Mayan site of
Palenque, Mexico

Amilcar Vargas

To cite this article: Amilcar Vargas (2018): The tourism and local development in world heritage
context. The case of the Mayan site of Palenque, Mexico, International Journal of Heritage Studies,
DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2018.1428670

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1428670

Published online: 29 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 38

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjhs20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2018.1428670

The tourism and local development in world heritage context. The

case of the Mayan site of Palenque, Mexico
Amilcar Vargas   
Prehistory and Archaeology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article discusses the effects of tourism on local development in the Received 15 August 2017
context of World Heritage sites. The ‘Pre-Hispanic City and National Park of Accepted 13 January 2018
Palenque’ in Mexico will be used as a case study, with especial attention on
KEYWORDS
local Indigenous communities. It analyses the use of ‘World Heritage’ as a World Heritage; local
brand for tourism promotion and expected tourism growth, and the changes development; tourism;
in the role of the Indigenous peoples in archaeology and UNESCO policies. Indigenous Maya; Mexico
Furthermore, it examines the implementation of World Heritage policies
by the Mexican government and the local decision-makers in Palenque.
It presents the touristic elements of the site and how other factors have
impacted tourism flow. The article points out the empowerment processes
of modern Mayan people, the response by the official managers and the
Indigenous reaction to governmental investments in tourism infrastructure.
The article concludes that a shift from the current type management model
to a new, participatory one could contribute to reduce social tension,
fostering local development through tourism and improving communities’
quality of life. The data used for my analysis were collected during fieldwork
in Palenque in 2014 and 2016.

Introduction
Social pressure on heritage conservation
The staggering rise of tourism in the second half of the twentieth century has been seen by many
countries as a chance to improve quality of life of local communities, especially in less-developed
countries (Hampton 2005). Within this global phenomenon, it has been proposed that the inscription
of sites in the World Heritage list has the potential to be a contributing factor to an increase in visitor
numbers, owing to a greater visibility and international prestige (Frey and Steiner 2011). However,
there is no consensus about this and neither is there an agreement of the positive effects of tourism
on local development (Huang, Tsaur, and Yang 2012; Marcotte and Bourdeau 2012; Wang et al. 2015).
Nevertheless, some projects have indeed managed to reduce poverty and inequality creating in this
way better conditions for society through tourism due to a related significant raise in jobs and income
in local families. Such projects are considered good practice for tourism management and local devel-
opment (Landorf 2009; Litka 2013; Masís 2015). This article will contribute to the discussion about

CONTACT Amilcar Vargas amilcarvargas@gmail.com, avargave10@alumnes.ub.edu

© 2018 Amilcar Vargas. Published with license by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. VARGAS

the value of tourism to induce local development, analysing the case in Mexico of the ‘archaeological
monuments zone known as Palenque’ (México 1993) (official local name), inscribed in the UNESCO
World Heritage list as the Pre-Hispanic City and National Park of Palenque (hereinafter ‘Palenque’).
Palenque is a Mayan archaeological site in the north-west of the municipality of the same name in
the Federal State of Chiapas, south-eastern Mexico (Figure 1). It was inscribed on the World Heritage
list in 1987 with a protected area of 1772 ha (UNESCO 1987, para. 9. A). The site is officially managed by
two federal institutions, the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH, Instituto Nacional
de Antropología e Historia) and the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas (CONANP,
Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas). As of 2010 the municipality of Palenque covered
an area of 2897 km2, with 110,918 inhabitants distributed among 694 localities (SEDESOL 2013a).
Fifty-four percentages of them are Indigenous language speakers (CDI 2012), most of them bilingual
with Spanish. The Mayan Indigenous peoples present at Palenque are mainly Chol and Tzeltal, with
a minority presence of the Lacandon people, all of which are members of the Maya linguistic family
(INALI 2009). Official figures from the federal government show that 82% of the population in the
Palenque municipal territory live in poverty, 38% in extreme poverty and 43% in moderate poverty,
while only 3.4% are considered not poor or vulnerable (SEDESOL 2013b). For this study, I have
included two localities that are economically and geographically closely connected to the archaeological
site, but are outside the official boundaries of the protected area. They are located roughly 3 km south
of the public visiting area and accessible by a 10-kilometre dirt road: El Naranjo (788 inhabitants, 97%
Indigenous Chol) and Adolfo López Mateos (258 inhabitants, 98% Indigenous Tzeltal) (CDI 2012).
The underprivileged social conditions, poverty and lack of job opportunities that the statistics high-
light were confirmed during my fieldwork, while also identifying the potential of heritage to create
economic wealth that would benefit local population.
The fieldwork in Palenque at the basis of this study took place during two seasons, August 2014 and
November 2016. My key partner in the fieldwork was Danny Pech, a teacher at the Technical Secondary
School Number 10 in the present-day town of Palenque (Figure 1). Mr. Pech greatly assisted me to
access to informants in a very complex and adverse context (for an analysis of the problems facing

Figure 1. Location of the Palenque World Heritage site and the villages included in the study.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 3

anthropologists/archaeologists see Castañeda 1996). My role as Ph.D. student was also helpful, as they
considered me as more neutral than the official heritage representatives they deal with. In addition,
my earlier knowledge of the Palenque region was useful, as well as my previous work experience as a
former federal employee for the INAH in archaeological management affairs from 2008 to 2009, and as
a collaborator for the Ministry of Social Development in complex Indigenous communities in Oaxaca,
Mexico from 2011 to 2012. The experience gathered during my years in management helped me to
navigate around potential problems in the fieldwork at the basis of this article. Nevertheless, among
the difficulties during this research I would highlight that I found that the access for Indigenous com-
munities was partly hindered by their lack of confidence towards people outside their own group and
the reluctance of some interviewees to be tape-recorded. These difficulties were solved by approaching
local leaders in their requested terms and conditions and participating in local community assemblies
to explain my research aims, answering questions and solving their worries and concerns. Writing
notes replaced tape-recording when necessary.
During fieldwork, once the initial communication problems were overcome, I managed to hold
discussions with a total of 37 individuals comprising the official managers of the Palenque archaeo-
logical and natural site, representatives of the Indigenous localities, tourist guides, local government
authorities, handicraft sellers and local teachers. All of them were informed of the aims of the research,
its outcomes and relevance for the site’s management. For ethical considerations, fieldwork was con-
ducted in a respectful relationship with local people and followed national laws and local traditions
for conducting this research. No conflict of interest was found during the process.

World Heritage tourism and Indigenous peoples in archaeological sites within

UNESCO policies
Tourism and World Heritage branding
‘World Heritage’ has become a highly valued brand among State Parties and tourism professionals
and companies worldwide. The brand is seen as achieving differentiation and a promise of quality
(Ryan and Silvanto 2009). Therefore, it is assumed that they will satisfy public expectations and that
World Heritage State Parties will maintain a commitment to preserving the Outstanding Universal
Value of the sites on the World Heritage list. Otherwise, sites may be included on the World Heritage
In Danger List or be de-listed, as has happened twice already (Zhang et al. 2015). This system has
meant, in practice, that UNESCO has unintentionally contributed to building one of the best known
global brands. While the Convention aims to protect sites through international cooperation rather
than branding sites for tourism promotion, the interest of State Parties more often than not lies in
attaining new inscriptions for tourism purposes (Meskell 2015). This may explain the rejection by
State Parties of having sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the purpose of which primarily
is to raise awareness and funding for their protection (Frey and Steiner 2011).
UNESCO World Heritage, perceived as a tourist brand, generates an expectation of tourism growth
due to its international visibility and prestige. However, studies of the impact of the World Heritage
brand on tourism have not found a direct relationship between the inscription of a site and a signifi-
cant growth in the number of tourists (Poria, Reichel, and Cohen 2011; Huang, Tsaur, and Yang 2012;
Timothy 2014). In some cases, especially at internationally well-known tourist sites, while World
Heritage status does not lead to a significant growth in visitor numbers (Fyall and Rakic 2006), it is
one element to add to many others contributing to marketing strategies (Boyd and Timothy 2006).
It seems that the World Heritage brand is not enough by its own to create tourism growth, especially
when events, such as social uprisings, lack of security or natural disasters, may discourage people from
visiting them. This is the case of the Pre-Hispanic City and National Park of Palenque that, despite
boasting three decades on the list, is dogged by other specific issues that have affected the flow of
tourists. Other studies of the effect of branding on World Heritage sites may be found in Breglia (2006,
2016) for the Mayan site of Chichen-Itza.
4 A. VARGAS

The impact of tourism on local economies is a matter of debate, particularly in relation to its social
effects and environmental sustainability and especially in traditional and Indigenous communities
(Walker 2005; Keitumetse and Nthoi 2009). UNESCO has shown an awareness of these issues and
has encouraged State Parties to develop policies to manage tourism appropriately at a local level even
beginning with the nomination process (Schmutz and Elliott 2016). As mentioned previously, tour-
ism growth is one of the expected effects and one of the current motivations among State Parties for
the inscription of new sites. However, in some cases, local communities, especially traditional and
Indigenous ones, have not been informed as to how to participate in the site management and how
to go about reaping the benefits of the tourism industry. Poverty, unemployment and low income are
common among these populations, even though they themselves and their traditions are part of the
tourist attraction and taken advantage of as a kind of living heritage (Ndoro and Wijesuriya 2014).
The social impact of tourism is, in some cases, considered by researchers to be a threat to the conti-
nuity of traditional living practices, as they are thought to shape local communities in both rural and
urban areas, and in developed and developing countries (Evans 2002; Andereck et al. 2005; Wang et
al. 2015). Last but not least, even though tourism represents a significant revenue for tourist destina-
tions, its consequences on the natural environment have been analysed as not positive for economic
sustainability (Schmutz and Elliott 2016).

Indigenous people and archaeological heritage in UNESCO policies

Archaeology’s relationship with Indigenous peoples has changed radically in the last few decades
in several countries and UNESCO policies reflect these changes. The North American civil rights
movement in the second half of the twentieth century was instigated by oppressed minorities and
included people historically segregated and discriminated against. Indigenous groups were part of this
movement and in several cases they achieved institutional recognition, visibility, political power and
representation, including in heritage fields (Shackel 2004; Smith 2006; Praetzellis 2012; Díaz-Andreu
2013). Nevertheless, this was not a global phenomenon and many developing countries around the
world with large numbers of Indigenous communities only started to follow suit at a later date (de la
Peña 2005). With these changes, the relationship between archaeologists and local Indigenous commu-
nities has developed new procedures and mutual acknowledegment (Smith 2004). This new approach,
which is known as Indigenous archaeology, includes the practice of archaeology both with and for
Indigenous people in a more egalitarian relationship (Nicholas 2008; Watkins 2012). New forms of
archaeological practice include respect for Indigenous people’s understandings and beliefs regarding
human remains, sacred places and heritage interpretation (Atalay 2006; Nicholas and Markey 2015).
UNESCO has reflected this new model for the relationship between Indigenous peoples and cultural
heritage by updating its policies. The first change occurred in 1994, with the inclusion of ‘traditional
protection’ as an acceptable system for the conservation of nominated sites (UNESCO 1994, para. par.
24-ii). In 2000, the World Heritage Committee discussed the creation of the World Heritage Indigenous
Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE) to advise the Committee on Indigenous issues (UNESCO
2000, para. I.13), although this initiative was ultimately rejected in 2001 (Meskell et al. 2013). In 2002
the Committee adopted the Budapest Declaration and encouraged all partners to co-operate and
promote four strategic objectives, known as the ‘Four Cs Strategy’: Credibility, Conservation, Capacity-
building and Communication (UNESCO 2002, Decision 26 COM 9). Five years later, a fifth ‘C’ was
added for Communities, ‘recognizing the critical importance of involving Indigenous, traditional and
local communities in the implementation of the Convention’ (UNESCO 2007, Decision 31 COM 13A
5). Lastly, in 2015 the Committee acknowledged in the Operational Guidelines ‘Indigenous peoples’
as partners in the protection and conservation of World Heritage (UNESCO 2015a, par. 40). Yet,
whereas UNESCO’s policies have changed after a long period of reflection and debate, their actual
implementation by State Parties has shown a different timing, as I will argue for the case of Mexico in
general and in particular of Palenque.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 5

Palenque: tourism, Indigenous people, heritage management and local development

Tourism elements and visitors flow
My fieldwork in 2014 and 2016 identified five elements in the promotion of Palenque as a tourist
destination: archaeological heritage; natural beauty; the exoticism of the Indigenous Mayan culture;
World Heritage inscription; and, since 2015, the recently added ‘Pueblo Mágico’ (Magic Town) brand
(see below). A visit to the villages around Palenque and an analysis of marketing campaigns clearly
indicated that tourist agents profusely disseminate monumental archaeological images in the majority
of their advertising (Figure 2(a)). Mayan iconography was also present in local stores and public spaces.
The natural beauty of the area is usually associated with the image of archaeological sites and objects
and the regional landscape (Figure 2(b)). A third element included in the promotion of Palenque is
the exoticism of Mayan handicraft products and the image of modern Indigenous Mayans wearing
traditional garments (Figure 2(c)) (Ardren 2004). A fourth element is the World Heritage inscrip-
tion, although of all the promotional tools, this is the least visible and least promoted by local tourist
agencies and guides in Palenque (Figure 2(d)). The fifth and most recent component of Palenque as
a tourist destination is its designation as a ‘Pueblo Mágico’ (Magic Town) by the Federal Secretary
of Tourism (SECTUR) (Figure 2(e)). The ‘Pueblo Mágico’ brand was created in 2001 and is given to
localities that ‘throughout time and modernity, have maintained their values and cultural heritage and
manifest them in different expressions through their tangible and intangible heritage’ (México 2014b,
63). These five promotional elements have built up an imagination of the site as a tourist attraction. At
least the first three elements were used by governments of five countries in the region when created
the ‘Mundo Maya’ route in the 1990s (Mexico 1993) for promoting Mayan sites, including Palenque
(Mundo Maya 2018). This article will undertake a deeper analysis of the modern Indigenous Maya’s
role in the context of the management of the archaeological site of Palenque for local development
through tourism.
One of the ways to observe the effect of the policies for tourism promotion of the elements of
Palenque is by tracking the number of visitors and reflecting on the external factors that may have
affected it. In this site, the figures illustrate the impact of the perception of insecurity in Mexico and
Chiapas, with a clear contrast between Mexicans and foreign tourists between 1996 and 2016. The
rates of national and international tourism were equally distributed between 1996 and 2005 at around
50% each (Figures 3 and 4). By 2015, however, domestic tourism had increased to 86% of the total
(740,915 people), with international visitors reaching a 14% of the total (122,650 of them). Based on
this data, it could be argued that the fall in the number of international tourists can be attributed to
reports in the international media of increasing insecurity in Mexico. The reduction in foreigners began
in 2007, just a few months after the Federal Government initiated ‘the war against drug trafficking’
in December 2006, using the armed forces for national security activities (México 2006). Thus, the
continuing decrease in foreigners in the area even before the 2008 economic crisis and ongoing today
may in part be explained by this phenomenon.

Figure 2. The five elements of the tourist promotion of Palenque: (a) Archaeology, (b) Nature, (c) Indigenous culture, (d) World Heritage
inscription and (e) the ‘Pueblo Mágico’ designation.
6 A. VARGAS

Figure 3. Visitors to Palenque Archaeological Site from 1996 to 2016. Source: INAH (2017).

Figure 4. Visitors to Palenque from 1996 to 2016 by nationality in percentages. Source: INAH (2017).

An analysis of the data I gathered during my fieldwork with local tourist guides confirmed the
negative effects of insecurity and the economic crisis. It also corroborated my initial impression regard-
ing the failure to promote UNESCO as a brand and for its heritage conservation values (see analysis
below). Regarding insecurity, the majority of workers in the areas of tourism, security and manage-
ment acknowledged that the news about social and political instability, assaults and the blocking of
the roads leading to Palenque had affected visitor numbers. As one guide expressed, ‘this year [2016],
roadblocks and political instability have reduced tourism drastically’. One site manager, for example,
said that because he was identified as a federal employee by demonstrators, ‘I had to pay 500 pesos in
a blockage and 200 pesos more later on [in the same road]’ (see also D. Ramírez 2016). In 2016, a year
with an increase in political instability in Chiapas, total visitors to Palenque dropped 29% compared
with 2015 (Figure 3). The private tourism sector has been directly affected by a tourism decrease and
the poor reputation of the Palenque region. As seen during the fieldwork, the reduction in the number
of tourists and an increase in competition among tourist guides at Palenque has led to tension between
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 7

the official and unofficial guides, some of whom are under the legal working age. A civil servant in the
municipality of Palenque, for example, told me about child labour ‘It’s really a very serious problem.
More than a tourist problem it is a social problem’. Negative comments in TripAdvisor on this issue are
related to the management of vendors, tourists’ guides and site’s infrastructure and services, however
the general appreciation is positive (TripAdvisor 2018).
Regarding the promotion of UNESCO values, I noticed that neither the official managers nor the
private tourism services were including any content about the Outstanding Universal Value of the site
or its contribution to UNESCO’s aim of peace building, a key aspect of this institution. Comments
from collective interviews regarding the impact of the World Heritage inscription included statements
such as ‘This is not acknowledged by the local community’, ‘There is a lack of information given to
the communities’, ‘People do not know that it [referring to Palenque] is heritage’, ‘There is a lack of
awareness of affiliated institutions’. During the fieldwork I noticed that in general terms local Maya
people don’t know that Palenque is a World Heritage site.

Indigenous people and Mexican policies for heritage management in Palenque

State Parties are those responsible to implement UNESCO policies in their own territories and adapt
them to their national context. To a large extent, it could be said that this is already happening in
Mexico, as the Federal government has taken the few first steps to include the UNESCO procedures
in their own protocols (INAH 2006, para. 6.14 a). Since the 1990s the Mexican government has also
created a specific department in the INAH to draw up management plans for archaeological heritage
sites (Valadez and Huitrón 2011). As a member of the World Heritage Committee for 23 years, from
1984 to 2003 and from 2009 to 2013, and having the highest number of sites inscribed in the list in
Latin American region, Mexico is leading the implementation of the Convention. In this area, the
legislative changes in this country demonstrate that since 1984 Mexico has adapted its legislation to
the new UNESCO policies (México 1984). However, other internal factors have had significant impact
in the enfranchisement of Indigenous people in Mexico, especially in the state of Chiapas, the state
where Palenque is located.
Palenque has seen a process of Indigenous empowerment over the last few decades. This has not
been the result, at least not principally, of the implementation of UNESCO policies, but rather of the
1994 emergence of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) (Nalda 2002). This movement,
begun by oppressed Indigenous groups in the Mexican State of Chiapas, encouraged the Maya people
to claim their social and political rights (Jung 2008, 205). One of their demands was to receive a per-
centage of the profits generated by tourism at sites they considered to have been built by their ances-
tors to foster local development (Nalda 2005; Villafuerte 2006), a common claim among Indigenous
people in Latin American countries as Bolivia (Sammells 2013). Having been partly successful in
their demands (Nalda 2004, 304, 305), this enabled local Indigenous groups to establish themselves
within the visited area of Palenque to sell handicrafts, food, beverages and many more items needed
by the visitors. Since then the INAH, the exclusive official manager for archaeological heritage, has
applied a more tolerant attitude allowing locals to undertake economic activities in the protected area
(R. Rodríguez, pers. comm., 10 November 2016). More recently, this institution has tried to resolve
the problem of informal trade by building a new welcome centre next to the entrance to the National
Park. However, in 2013 in its Second Periodic Report to UNESCO it was stated that this infrastructure
‘can cause social conflicts because no other government agencies [except INAH] are involved’ (INAH
2013, sec. 4.4.8). This situation continued at the time of my fieldwork, albeit under constant tension,
mainly between the sellers and the INAH authorities.
The INAH guidelines maintain that the management of sites must follow the international agree-
ments accepted by Mexico, including, therefore, those of the UNESCO World Heritage. Since 2000
the INAH has issued a series of management plans for the archaeological site of Palenque, although
in them the development of a system of effective participatory processes with local communities is
still largely absent. Additionally, these plans have never been officially published and, therefore, they
8 A. VARGAS

do not have legal-legislative status. This means that the implementation of any new policy largely
depends on the will or abilities of the site managers, with no extra budget to carry it out. Furthermore,
since the management plans are not public documents, outsiders from INAH have restricted access in
consulting them, and have practically no way of taking part in the decision-making for their execution.
In addition to the INAH, the other major agency in Palenque is the CONANP, the official manager
of Palenque’s natural resources. The CONANP was created in 2000, six years after the emergence of the
EZLN. Consequently, in accordance with the new understanding of the socio-political situation, this
new agency did not apply restrictions or impede commercial activities at archaeological sites, and there-
fore neither did it in Palenque. In practice, it is quite the reverse: CONANP currently encourages and
supports alternative tourist routes in the National Park that bypass the main archaeological remains.
These routes consist in a path in the jungle where visitors can see other parts of the National Park and
some unexcavated archaeological remains in addition to the main archaeological attraction, not to
substitute it. Regarding the sites’ planning, CONANP has experience in participatory management
processes, thanks to incorporating, in its rules of procedure, the need for including representatives
from civil society and Indigenous communities as consultants (México 1988; CONANP 2016). Even
though the experience of CONANP in social participation is very solid, tensions have emerged, such
as those related to the modification of the boundaries of the protected area in Palenque National Park
in November 2016, a previous step for the elaboration of the management programme. The solution
of this borderlines issue was recommended to CONANP by the Human Rights National Commission
explicitly advising that they follow international standards (CNDH 2016, para. 58, 228–6th). The
proposal of modification, however, was rejected by the localities involved, due to a perceived lack of
information received. This rejection did not prevent the implementations of the change in the bound-
aries, given that the procedure did not establish that the results of the consultancy process were legally
binding. Thus, the participation of local communities acted a double-edged sword, because it was used
as a method to legitimate decisions previously made instead of being used as an opportunity to share
the power with local people for the protection of sites with mutual benefits.
Stakeholders from the public and private sectors at the municipal level do not participate in the
management of Palenque. Municipal government initiatives for heritage are almost exclusively related
to the tourism promotion of the site, but decision makers do not participate in the management of
the site nor advocate for local Indigenous peoples’ claims on heritage management. Based on data
collected during my fieldwork in El Naranjo and Adolfo López Mateos, the local authorities of both
villages have no direct participation in the management of the site. The same is the case regarding the
many stakeholders coming from the private sector. This situation was acknowledged by the State Party
in the Second Periodic Report mentioned above. In it, Mexico rated the cooperation/relationship of
sites managers with local communities and Indigenous peoples as ‘non-existent’, and as ‘poor’ with
local/municipal authorities and tourism industry (INAH 2013, sec. 4.3.7). The same report mentioned
that local communities resident in or near the World Heritage property ‘have no input into decisions
relating to the management’ (INAH 2013, sec. 4.3.8). Same answer for the case of Indigenous peoples
(INAH 2013, sec. 4.3.9). By contrast, Mexico stated that the impact of the inscription of Palenque
in the World Heritage List was ‘very positive’ in terms of management effectiveness, ‘positive’ in the
quality of life for local and Indigenous peoples and ‘no impact’ in institutional coordination (INAH
2013, sec. 6.1).

Economic development through tourism and the federal investment to achieve it

In the case of Palenque, in economic terms and according to figures from 2010, the tourism indus-
try in Palenque employed only 6.35% of the Economically Active Population (PEA, Población
Económicamente Activa) (SEDESOL 2013a). The most fundamental economic activities in the munic-
ipality are agriculture and livestock farming, which occupy 48% of the PEA. This clearly shows that
tourism activities in Palenque have had no significant effect in the active population, despite that
tourism is widely announced as the motor for local development. This, I would argue, can be seen as
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 9

the result of a lack of comprehensive regional policies to link the tourism industry to local agriculture
production. As regards the services offered to visitors in and around Palenque, the observations made
during my fieldwork in the archaeological site indicate that most businesses are family-run, with an
exclusively local and regional presence, and administered by a minority of the population.
The tourism sector is minor in terms of employment, although there have been outstanding pub-
lic-sector policies and investments in this area. Three infrastructure projects have been announced
in the media as instruments to bolster economic growth based on tourism. The most important, and
the only one to be completed, is the Palenque International Airport, at a cost of 1269 million pesos
(73.1 M USD). It was inaugurated in February 2014 with a capacity of 300,000 passengers annually
(México 2014a), but since opening only two flights a week to and from Mexico City have operated.
After two years, in October 2016, the local news that announced that the only company and only
flight that operated in the airport was about to cancel its regular flights due to the lack of passengers
(Sala 2016). This was immediately denied by the Chiapas government (Diez Noticias 2016). Official
figures show that the number of passengers in the airport has been under the 20,000 annually and are
significantly below the expectative and the installed capacity (SCT 2017b).
The second planned infrastructure was the construction of a highway between Palenque and the
town of San Cristobal de las Casas, 200 km away. This was due to the perceived need to replace the
current road, improve local economy and reduce the travelling time between those two tourist attrac-
tions. However, social mobilisation and public demonstrations against it leaded by affected Indigenous
groups led the government of Chiapas to cancel the original project (Mandujano 2015). The third
project was the construction of an Integrally Planned Centre (CIP, Centro Integralmente Planeado)
close to the archaeological area, similar to those already established at Cancun and Huatulco (Alfonso
et al. 2012; Ramírez 2014). Nevertheless, the CIP project that included luxury hotels, a golf camp
and a thematic park (González 2007) was finally dropped due to a lack of federal funding after the
decrease of international oil prices reduced government revenues. The demonstrations organised by
Indigenous peoples against the CIP also influenced the government in abandoning this idea (Calvo
2008; Warnholtz Locht 2015).
As shown in these three examples, public investment was aimed at making the archaeological site
more competitive in the tourist sector and achieving local development through an increase in visitor
numbers. Yet, as indicated in the previous analysis of visitor figures and the opinions gathered during
my conversations in the field I would argue that social issues at the local and national levels are key
factors for the flow of foreign visitors and more important than a lack of infrastructure. Moreover,
based on the development indicators mentioned in the introduction, 82% of people in Palenque still
live in poverty. Due to the historical lack of real impact of these investments in Indigenous communi-
ties, these communities have not remained passive in the face of planned state tourism development
projects and policies. Factors such as the decrease in oil prices have partly led to the failure of these
initiatives and it is uncertain whether the opposition of the Indigenous population would have been
equally fruitful without these factors.
Local communities’ dissatisfaction with development policies and government investments in infra-
structure is confirmed by the information gathered during the fieldwork, which shows that poverty is
one of the most severe problems in the Palenque area. Poverty has forced communities to improvise
tourism activities and find immediate financial measures to satisfy their most basic needs, including
informal trade and child labour at the archaeological site. UNESCO is well aware of the poverty in
the area, as well as at similar sites in Latin America, as indicated by the analysis made about this in
the Regional Second Periodic Report on UNESCO World Heritage sites (UNESCO 2014). The rep-
resentatives of the 32 State Parties that participated in this report acknowledged that poverty could
be combatted through cultural heritage management and agreed to include poverty reduction in the
objectives of the 2014–2024 Regional Action Plan (UNESCO 2014). After the acknowledgement
by the UN of the role of culture for economic development in the Sustainable Development Goals,
UNESCO added new policies on this regard (UNESCO 2015b). Yet, despite the public acknowledge-
ment of, and the expression of commitment by, the Mexican government in the international arena,
10 A. VARGAS

the local communities in the area around Palenque have not seen an improvement in their social
living conditions. Thus, the government’s justification of big investments in tourism infrastructure as
a way to improve the local quality of life has been constantly denied by local communities, especially
by Indigenous people (Rojas 2014; SIPAZ 2014). As a taxi driver explained to me, ‘this new airport
will close soon, just as the former one located across the street did’. He was referring to what had
happened with a previous international airport which operated in Palenque since 1996 and closed in
2001 (SCT 2017a, 92, 122).

Tourism management for local development at Palenque conclusions and way

forward
This article has analysed the effect of tourism on local development at the archaeological site of
Palenque, a magnificent WHS by any measure. We have started by presenting the policies set up by
UNESCO regarding heritage management, paying particular attention to their changes through time
and the increasing importance of the role given to local and Indigenous communities for sites man-
agement, especially in archaeological properties. It has been pointed out that in Palenque the World
Heritage brand is perceived as having few visible benefits for attracting tourism, and indeed, it does not.
Data collected during fieldwork indicates that other factors may be more influential to this aim, rather
than the WH brand. These elements include the natural beauty of the place, public interest towards
Mayan archaeology, the perceived exoticism of Indigenous people living in the area and the recently
new ‘Pueblo Mágico’ brand. Instead, other local and external factors negatively motivate visitors and
have affected the tourism flow. Among these factors the most important are the conditions of security
and political instability in the Palenque’s region and the global economic crisis. In management of
the site of Palenque, official managers, local authorities, private sector and civil society have not as
yet agreed on a comprehensive participatory model that produces tangible benefits to the quality of
life of local communities, particularly that of Indigenous peoples. Furthermore, public investments
in tourism infrastructure such as the airport and the widening of the local main road to San Cristobal
de las Casas are far from achieving the expected social and economic benefits.
A way forward for local communities would be a long-term strategy that includes collaborative
work among federal, regional and municipal governments, real engagement and participation of local
communities and NGOs and transdisciplinary academic approaches. This model, radically different
to the current one, would be an opportunity to establish a new relationship with Indigenous com-
munities, strengthen local capacities and to foster sustainable tourism. The institutional experience
gathered during the last decades, especially considering the increased awareness of the importance of
the site’s management issues, would be a starting point for the following years. The decision-making
processes should not underestimate the right of Indigenous people and their capacity to collaborate
in the management of the site and other key tasks as planning and evaluation. As shown here, the
governmental investment in tourism infrastructure is not the most important factor to raise tourism
flow, improve communities’ quality of life or to satisfy Indigenous claims. Instead, I have argued that a
participatory model would be more sustainable and efficient for the Palenque site and its surrounding
area while requiring less economic resources than the infrastructure-based one. Shifting the manage-
ment model could decrease social tension while preserving the site in benefit of the local communities
and Indigenous people, as mandated by UNESCO.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the local people of Palenque for their contribution and participation. Special thanks to Research
Professor Margarita Díaz-Andreu (ICREA-University of Barcelona) who gave me important advice, encouragement and
guidance during this research. Professor Xavier Roigé (University of Barcelona), Cristina Sánchez-Carretero (ParticiPat
Project INCIPIT-CSIC) also gave me good guidance. Thanks to Dr César Villalobos Acosta (UNAM-CEA) for his support
and advice during my research stay at UNAM and fieldwork in Mexico. A first paper related to this topic was given at
the SAA conference in April 2017. I wrote a first draft of this article during my stay at the Department of Archaeology
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 11

at Simon Fraser University, and I am grateful to all of those who provided suggestions in the very enriching discussions
we had, especially Professor George Nicholas for his tutoring during my stay.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
This work was supported by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología [grant number CVU 455391].

Notes on contributor
Amilcar Vargas is a PhD candidate at the University of Barcelona with a research on social participation in Archaeological
World Heritage Sites in Mexico. He is interested in social processes related to management, interpretation and public
exhibition of heritage sites, in particular those inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage List. He is also interested in
social participation and social engagement in archaeological places, especially where indigenous and local interests
discuss with heritage institutions and official discourses.

ORCID
Amilcar Vargas   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5669-6460

References
Alfonso, Pastor, María  José, Domingo Gómez  López, and María Pilar Espeso  Molinero. 2012. “Turismo Comunitario
Y Sus Consecuencia Entre Los Lacandones de Chiapas. Organismos Y Sistemas de Apoyo.” [Community Tourism
And Its Consequences Among The Lacandones of Chiapas. Organizations and Support Systems.] In Responsabilidad
Y Turismo [Responsibility and Tourism], edited by Agustín Santana  Talavera, Alberto Jonay Rodríguez  Darias, and
Pablo Díaz  Rodríguez, 23–43. La Laguna (Tenerife): PASOS, RTPC. http://hdl.handle.net/10045/41040.
Andereck, Kathleen L., Karin M. Valentine, Richard C. Knopf, and Christine A. Vogt. 2005. “Residents’ Perceptions
of Community Tourism Impacts.” Annals of Tourism Research 32 (4): 1056–1076. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2005.03.001.
Ardren, Tracy. 2004. “Where Are the Maya in Ancient Maya Archaeological Tourism? Advertising and the Appropriation
of Culture.” In Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the past, edited by Yorke Rowan and Uzi
Baram, 103–113. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Atalay, Sonya. 2006. “Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice.” The American Indian Quarterly 30 (3): 280–310.
Boyd, Stephen W., and Dallen J. Timothy. 2006. “Marketing Issues and World Heritage Sites.” In Managing World Heritage
Sites, edited by Anna Leask and Alan Fyall, 55–68. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-7506-6546-9.50013-7.
Breglia, Lisa. 2006. Monumental Ambivalence: The Politics of Heritage. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Breglia, Lisa. 2016. “The Business of Wonder: Public Meets Private at the World Heritage Site of Chichén Itzá.” In World
Heritage on the Ground: Ethnographic Perspectives, edited by Christoph Brumann and David Berliner, 193–218. New
York: Berghahn Books.
Calvo, Cristina. 2008. “Chiapas se perfila como el nuevo Cancún.” CNN Expansión, July 31. https://goo.gl/m7d1RC.
Castañeda, Quetzil. 1996. In the Museum of Maya Culture. Touring Chichén Itzá. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
CDI. 2012. “Catalogo de Localidades Indigenas 2010.” https://goo.gl/9s14wQ.
CNDH. 2016. “RECOMENDACIÓN General Número 26 Sobre La Falta Y/o Actualización de Programas de Manejo
En Áreas Naturales Protegidas de Carácter Federal Y Su Relación Con El Goce Y Disfrute de Diversos Derechos
Humanos.” Diario Oficial De La Federación, April 25. https://goo.gl/XXkMQE.
CONANP. 2016. “Términos de Referencia Para La Elaboración de Programas de Manejo de Las Áreas Naturales
Protegidas Competencia de La Federación.” https://goo.gl/2nCEgY.
Díaz-Andreu, Margarita. 2013. “Ethics and Archaeological Tourism in Latin America.” International Journal of Historical
Archaeology 17 (2): 225–244. doi:10.1007/s10761-013-0218-1.
Diez Noticias. 2016. “Interjet Continúa Operando Con Normalidad En El Aeropuerto Internacional de Palenque [Video
File].” October 24. https://youtu.be/2xahpYJdYxg.
Evans, Graeme. 2002. “Living in a World Heritage City: Stakeholders in the Dialectic of the Universal and Particular.”
International Journal of Heritage Studies 8 (2): 117–135. doi:10.1080/13527250220143913.
12 A. VARGAS

Frey, Bruno S., and Lasse Steiner. 2011. “World Heritage List: Does It Make Sense?” International Journal of Cultural
Policy 17 (5): 555–573. doi:10.1080/10286632.2010.541906.
Fyall, Alan, and Tijana Rakic. 2006. “The Future Market for World Heritage Sites.” In Managing World Heritage Sites,
edited by Anna Leask and Alan Fyall, 159–175. doi:10.1016/B978-0-7506-6546-9.50022-8.
González, G. Susana. 2007. “Quiere El Gobierno de Chiapas Usar Zona Arqueológica Como Centro Turístico.” La
Jornada. https://goo.gl/A2UzJE.
Hampton, Mark P. 2005. “Heritage, Local Communities and Economic Development.” Annals of Tourism Research 32
(3): 735–759. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2004.10.010.
Huang, Chia-Hui, Jen-Ruey Tsaur, and Chih-Hai Yang. 2012. “Does World Heritage List Really Induce More Tourists?
Evidence from Macau.” Tourism Management 33 (6): 1450–1457. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.01.014.
INAH. 2006. “Lineamientos Para El Manejo Y Operación de Zonas Arqueológicas Con Visita Pública.” http://www.
normateca.inah.gob.mx/?p=389.
INAH. 2013. “2nd. Periodic Report to UNESCO of the Pre-Hispanic City and National Park of Palenque.” (Not Published).
INAH. 2017. “Sistema Institucional. Estadística de Visitantes.” Accessed January 31 2017. http://www.estadisticas.inah.
gob.mx/.
INALI. 2009. Catálogo de Las Lenguas Indígenas Nacionales: Variantes Lingüísticas de México Con Sus Autodenominaciones
Y Referencias Geoestadísticas [Catalog of National Indigenous Languages: Linguistic Variants of Mexico with Their
Self-Denominations and Geostatistical References]. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas.
Jung, Courtney. 2008. The Moral Force of Indigenous Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keitumetse, S., and O. Nthoi. 2009. “Investigating the Impact of World Heritage Site Tourism on the Intangible Heritage
of a Community: Tsodilo Hills World Heritage Site, Botswana.” International Journal of Intangible Heritage 4: 143–150.
Landorf, Christine. 2009. “Managing for Sustainable Tourism: A Review of Six Cultural World Heritage Sites.” Journal
of Sustainable Tourism 17: 53–70. doi:10.1080/09669580802159719.
Litka, Stephanie. 2013. “The Maya of Cobá: Managing Tourism in a Local Ejido.” Annals of Tourism Research 43 (October):
350–369. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2013.07.002.
Mandujano, Isaín. 2015. “Choles Y Tzeltales Bloquean Carreteras En Rechazo a La Autopista San Cristóbal - Palenque.”
Proceso, February 5. https://goo.gl/jFLBZY.
Marcotte, Pascale, and Laurent Bourdeau. 2012. “Is the World Heritage Label Used as a Promotional Argument
for Sustainable Tourism?” Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 2 (1): 80–91.
doi:10.1108/20441261211223289.
Masís, María Elena. 2015. “Festival de Las Esferas Precolombinas: Motor Para El Desarrollo Sostenible En Una
Comunidad Del Cantón de Osa, Costa Rica.” In Second International Conference on Best Practices in World Heritage:
People and Communities, edited by Alicia Castillo, 697–709. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
Meskell, Lynn. 2013. “UNESCO and the Fate of the World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE).”
International Journal of Cultural Property  20: 155–174. doi:10.1017/S0940739113000039.
Meskell, Lynn. 2015. “Transacting UNESCO World Heritage: Gifts and Exchanges on a Global Stage.” Social Anthropology
23 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1111/1469-8676.12100.
Mexico. 1993. “DECRETO de Promulgación Del Convenio Constitutivo de La Organización Mundo Maya Y de La
Enmienda a Dicho Convenio.” Diario Oficial De La Federación, October 25.
México. 1984. “Decreto Por El Que Se Aprueba El Texto de La Convención Para La Protección Del Patrimonio Mundial,
Cultural Y Natural Hecha En París El Día Veintitrés de Noviembre de Mil Novecientos Setenta Y Dos.” Diario Oficial
De La Federación, January 23. https://goo.gl/Rx4ejQ.
México. 1988. Ley Federal Del Equilibrio Ecológico Y Protección Al Ambiente. Diario Oficial de La Federación. Diario
Oficial de la Federación. https://goo.gl/TUws3C.
México. 1993. “Decreto Por El Que Se Declara Zona de Monumentos Arqueológicos El Área Conocida Como Palenque,
Ubicada En El Municipio de Palenque, Chis ., Con El Perímetro Y Características Que Se Señalan . (Segunda
Publicación).” Diario Oficial De La Federación, December 9.
México. 2006. “Anuncio Sobre La Operación Conjunta Michoacán.” Oficina De Prensa Del Gobierno De La República.
https://goo.gl/DBG851.
México. 2014a. “Diversas Intervenciones Durante La Inauguración Del Aeropuerto de Palenque.” Oficina De Prensa Del
Gobierno De La República. https://goo.gl/I7NxPd.
México. 2014b. “ACUERDO Por El Que Se Establecen Los Lineamientos Generales Para La Incorporación Y Permanencia
Al Programa Pueblos Mágicos.” Diario Oficial De La Federación, September 26. https://goo.gl/AoQ3ou.
Mundo Maya. 2018. “Mundo Maya Official Web Site.” Accessed January 8. http://www.mundomaya.travel/arqueologia/
paises
Nalda, Enrique. 2002. “Mexico’s Archaeological Heritage: A Convergence and Confrontation of Interests.” In Illicit
Antiquities: The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology, edited by Neil Brodie and Kathryn Walker Tubb,
205–227. London: Routledge London.
Nalda, Enrique. 2004. “Patrimonio Arqueológico. Problemas Antiguos, Soluciones Nuevas.” In Retos Culturales de México
Frente a La Globalización, edited by Lourdes Arizpe, 301–317. Mexico City: Miguel Ángel Porrua.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 13

Nalda, Enrique. 2005. “La Arqueología Mexicana Y Su Inserción En El Debate Sobre Diversidad E Identidad.” Museum
International 227: 29–38.
Ndoro, Webber,  and Gamini Wijesuriya. 2014.  “Heritage Management and Conservation: From Colonization to
Globalization.” In Global Heritage: A Reader, edited by Lynn Meskell, 131–149. Somerset: Wiley Blackwell.
Nicholas, George P. 2008. “Native Peoples and Archaeology.” In Encyclopedia of Archaeology, Vol. 3, edited by Deborah
M. Pearsall, 1660–1669. Oxford: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-012373962-9.00203-X.
Nicholas, George P, and Nola  Markey. 2015. “Traditional Knowledge, Archaeological Evidence and Other Ways of
Knowing.” In Material Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice,  edited by Robert  Chapman and Alison 
Wylie, 287–307. New York: Routledge.
de la Peña, Guillermo. 2005. “Social and Cultural Policies toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectives from Latin America.”
Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 717–739. doi:10.2307/25064905.
Poria, Yaniv, Arie Reichel, and Raviv Cohen. 2011. “World Heritage Site – Is It an Effective Brand Name?: A Case
Study of a Religious Heritage Site.” Journal of Travel Research 50 (5): 482–495 http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/
abstract/50/5/482.
Praetzellis, Adrian. 2012. “Crm Archaeology: The View from California.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology,
edited by Robin Skeates, Carol McDavid, and John Carman, 1–16. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780199237821.013.0017.
Ramírez, Erick. 2014. “Integran Estudio Para Impulsar CIP de Palenque.” El Economista. https://goo.gl/746Z4A.
Ramírez, Diana. 2016. “Por Bloqueos, 36% Menos Turistas En Zonas Arqueológicas.” Cuarto Poder, August 1. https://
goo.gl/nENx4m.
Rojas, Rosa. 2014. “Anuncian Nuevas Protestas Contra Construcción de Supercarretera San Cristóbal de Las Casas-
Palenque.” La Jornada. https://goo.gl/MxLLbQ.
Ryan, Jason, and Sari Silvanto. 2009. “The World Heritage List: The Making and Management of a Brand.” Place Branding
and Public Diplomacy  5 (4): 290–300. doi:10.1057/pb.2009.21.
Sala, Pedro. 2016. Corta Interjet Vuelo Palenque-México. Tabasco HOY. Editorial Acuario S.A. de C.V. https://goo.gl/
y5nSmO.
Sammells, Clare A. 2013. “Complicating the Local: Defining the Aymara at Tiwanaku, Bolivia.” International Journal of
Historical Archaeology 17 (2): 315–331. doi:10.1007/s10761-013-0223-4.
Schmutz, Vaughn, and A. Michael Elliott. 2016. “Tourism and Sustainability in the Evaluation of World Heritage Sites,
1980–2010.” Sustainability 8 (3): 261. doi:10.3390/su8030261.
SCT. 2017a. “Aviación Mexicana En Cifras.” https://goo.gl/HWLsZX.
SCT. 2017b. “ Statistics by Airport in Mexico.” January 2006–September 2017. https://goo.gl/tCg1NF.
SEDESOL. 2013a. “Datos Generales de Palenque.” Cédulas de Información Municipal. https://goo.gl/tyEvks.
SEDESOL. 2013b. “Economia En Palenque.” Cédulas de Información Municipal. https://goo.gl/Q2p3Kd.
Shackel, Paul A.  2004. “Introduction: Working with Communities: Heritage Development and Applied Archaeology.”
In Places in Mind: Public Archaeology as Applied Anthropology, edited by Paul A. Shackel and Erve J. Chambers,
1–18. New York: Routledge.
SIPAZ. 2014. “Chiapas – Movilizaciones Ante Proyecto de Mega-Carretera San Cristóbal-Palenque – SIPAZ – Servicio
Internacional Para La Paz.” Inform SIPAZ Vol. XIX No 4 – November 2014. https://goo.gl/djRnE1.
Smith, Laurajane. 2004. Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage. London: Routledge.
Smith, Laurajane. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge.
Timothy, Dallen J. 2014. “Contemporary Cultural Heritage and Tourism: Development Issues and Emerging Trends.”
Public Archaeology 13 (1–3): 30–47. doi:10.1179/1465518714Z.00000000052.
TripAdvisor. 2018. “Palenque Ruinas.” Accessed January 8. https://goo.gl/kQ6y49.
UNESCO. 1987. Report of the 11th Session of the World Heritage Committee. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 1994. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2000. Report of the 24th Session of the World Heritage Committee. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2002. Decisions Adopted by the 26th Session of the World Heritage Committee. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2007. Decisions Adopted at the 31st Session of the World Heritage Committee. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2014. “Action Plan for World Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean (2014–2024).” In 38th Session of
the World Heritage Committee. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2015. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2015. “Policy for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the World
Heritage Convention.” In Decisions Adopted by the General Assembly of the States Parties to the World Heritage
Convention at Its 20 Session. Paris: UNESCO.
Valadez, Moisés, and Antonio Huitrón. 2011. “Balance Y Perspectivas de Los Planes de Manejo.” Hereditas 15/16
(Diciembre): 150–159.
Villafuerte, Concepción. 2006. “Zapatistas Take the City of Palenque for the First Time.” The Narco News Bulletin.
https://goo.gl/R4XTAS.
Walker, Cameron. 2005. “Archaeological Tourism: Looking for Answers along Mexico’s Maya Riviera.” NAPA Bulletin
23: 60–76. doi:10.1525/napa.2005.23.1.60.
14 A. VARGAS

Wang, Zhaoguo, Zhaoping Yang, Geoffery Wall, Xu Xiaoliang, Fang Han, Du Xishihui, and Qun Liu. 2015. “Is It Better
for a Tourist Destination to Be a World Heritage Site? Visitors’ Perspectives on the Inscription of Kanas on the World
Heritage List in China.” Journal for Nature Conservation 23 (Feb.): 19–26. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2014.11.001.
Warnholtz Locht, Margarita. 2015. “Palenque Y Agua Azul: El Despojo a Los Pueblos Indígenas.” Animal Político.
https://goo.gl/1yo1Uf.
Watkins, Joe. 2012. “Public Archaeology and Indigenous Archaeology: Intersections and Divergences from a Native
American Perspective.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Archaeology, edited by Robin Skeates, Carol McDavid, and
John Carman, 1–17. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199237821.013.0034.
Zhang, Xiaoling, Ling Zhou, Wu Yuzhe, Martin Skitmore, and Zhiping Deng. 2015. “Resolving the Conflicts of Sustainable
World Heritage Landscapes in Cities: Fully Open or Limited Access for Visitors?” Habitat International 46 (April):
91–100. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.11.004.