**7. Heritage stakeholders and socio-cultural value significance**

Stakeholders are those affected and can be influenced by a group's conduct, thereby bearing varied possibilities as a consequence [25, 26]. The varied social perspective of heritage does require adequate understanding considering its diversity; while other concerns of preserving its physical features and ensuring alternative responsive tourism development also need urgent deliberation [27]. Hadjri and Boussaa further argued that the opinion of experts as stakeholders, actors (tenant or owners) of the structures, as well as those who use it either as foreign or local visitors including heritage development partners is critical in determining the suitable heritage management strategy. While the physical and spatial features of heritage are critical, its most significant variable is the social factor that is often a concern with the local stakeholders. Avrami, Mason & Torre [28] stated that the main stakeholders for heritage valuation should include, art historians, conservators, anthropologist, natural scientist as part of broad multidisciplinary team members. Similarly, Mason [29] listed stakeholders to include professionals like architects, planners, curators, tourist and investors. Analysis on tourism and cultural development considers tourist and the community bearers as the key stakeholders [30]. Rojas [31] stated that heritage stakeholders can be considered as social actors and he categorised them into promoters, beneficiaries and financiers. In that instance, he considers the promoters as cultural elites, beneficiaries as local community members and tour operators. Similarly, Rojas considered government and private philanthropists as being financiers. However, in this study, the philanthropist and financiers are considered heritage development partners. Broadly, heritage tourism stakeholders are said to incorporate the host community, facilitators, facility users, design experts and the regulatory agencies as was variously adduced in Oluigbo [32]. Conversely, Smith [2] posited that heritage can be expressed as a form of museum activity involving activity processes and focused on technical experts that can be categorised as institution and government, then communities as well as individuals. The communities according to Smith are made up of the site holders, professionals, researchers, museum and heritage staff. In his argument, Szmelter [33] argued that strategic heritage valuation decisions are dependent on

#### *(In)tangible Heritages: A Critical Review for an Alternative Heritage Discourse (ALHD)… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99601*

various stakeholders amongst which are conservators, curators, scholars of different background in culture and science. Similarly, he reasoned that for conservation to be worthwhile, it must be broadly based and emanates from the due social dialogue.

The critical stakeholders in the case of this chapter contribution are categorised as the local community members (Heritage Bearers), the Experts and the Development Partners. Therefore, apt heritage valuation should serve as an impetus for appropriate and sustainable conservation as perceived by critical stakeholders. Imalwa [34] reaffirmed the stated contention by arguing that the prerequisite for resounding heritage conservation and management is the stakeholders with interest and ownership of the site(s). Sroczynska [35] categorised heritage stakeholders as those that monuments should be protected for as owners/users, tourist, residents within heritage area and those with no social usage. Sroczynska's study considers 95.49% of Polish respondents as a tourist, being the most important user of monuments for economic reason, the second significant group of users were acknowledged as the local community bearers at 61.19%. This finding reinforced the significant place of community bearers in heritage management even in highly commercialised (tourist biased) heritage perceptual environment.

Towards having a broad spectrum of stakeholders to benefit from the heritage broader perspective as against Smith [2] argument on AHD based on the views of experts; the study sort to involve all parties to the wider heritage discourse towards enhancing the prospect of arriving at a perspective of True Heritage Discourse (THD) as ALHD. The stakeholders' perspective indicates how diverse the concept is, as it is viewed differently by the various groups and individuals. For the chapter contribution, however, the stakeholders are categorised into the Heritage Bearers (indigenous communities), the Experts and the Development Partners as shown in **Figure 2**. In the stakeholders' categorisation, it indicated the critical place of the heritage bearers at the base of the pyramid and the supporting role of partners on these heritage features and site. The experts often also referred to as the professionals sit at the peak of the pyramidal jigsaw. Here the professionals' evolution of the perceptual opinion of the pyramid base (Bearers), and the development partners that will provide the raw data and serve as the real custodian of the heritage for current and future generation. Therefore, stakeholders in this study will serve as the major repository of research information considering their interest and possible benefits from the identification, documentation and conservation for tourism valorisation and development of the heritage features within each study area. The variance of the public opinion with that of the professional has often been observed in virtually all fields of endeavour, however effective management of stakeholders in any project can give excellent result as was demonstrated by Charles Birnbaun article on managing change and modern landscape indicated how public opinion prevail over that of the experts' proposition in heritage development options [36].

Equally, Charlottesville Mall in Virginia was designed by Halprin with inclusive community participation in the 1970s, however, due to years of neglect the city council mould remodelling the mall to remove the signature bricks. The proposal was strongly opposed due to public outcry and they ultimately got what they wanted [36]. It is therefore pertinent to have a more holistic strategy where the views of all stakeholders are sort at the inception of projects that ensures community participation in the project planning and its implementation. For this chapter review, therefore, to be contextualised the varied stakeholders' preferences are placed appropriately to ensure the sustainability of the resource base and the continual beneficiation for all key stakeholders within any specific cultural landscape.

**Figure 2.**

*Stakeholders categorisation for integrated alternative heritage discourse (ALHD). Source: Adapted from [2, 27–29, 33, 34].*
