On the morning of August 15, 2026, the Capacity-Building Workshop in the Asia-Pacific Region: Tangible-Intangible Synergies in World Heritage Management officially concluded in Anxi County, Quanzhou City, Fujian Province. Neel Kamal Chapagain, Director of the International Interdisciplinary Heritage Research Center and Professor of Architecture at the University of Kathmandu in Nepal; Li Kuanghan, Executive Director of WHITR-AP Beijing; Du Xiaofan, Professor in the Department of Cultural Relics and Museums at Fudan University and Holder of the UNESCO Chair in Living Heritage and Community Development; Yan Haiming, Senior Researcher at the China Cultural Heritage Research Institute and Deputy Secretary-General of ICOMOS China; and Xie Li, Associate Researcher at ICOMOS China, attended as advisory experts. Prior to the closing ceremony, a presentation of the workshop’s outcomes was held. The presentations were organized into four groups, with each group selecting one heritage site they had visited during the fieldwork. The presentations focused on issues such as a critical assessment of existing synergies, unrealized synergies and potential opportunities, challenges in reestablishing missing synergies, feasible pathways for strengthening synergies, and comprehensive management strategies.
Group 1
Group Members
Elena Gregoria Chin Fern Chai、Chen Shangnan、Wang Yi、Yang Yinying、Erashima Saragih
Report Topic
Quanzhou Tianhou Temple
The first working group used the Quanzhou Tianhou Temple as a case study. This World Heritage site embodies the intangible cultural heritage of the Mazu folk belief, as well as tangible heritage such as traditional Minnan architecture and the Deji Gate ruins, and is jointly managed by the Cultural Heritage Protection Center, the Board of Directors, and a team of volunteers. The report examined the positive interaction between the physical heritage and living folk traditions such as Mazu rituals, Nanyin music, and puppet performances. It also identified shortcomings, including insufficient integration with the Deji Gate Ruins landscape, room for improvement in visitor accessibility, tourist crowds encroaching on ritual spaces, and poor communication between local businesses and management. Finally, the report proposed pathways for optimizing collaborative management, while noting with regret that residents were not interviewed, making it impossible to understand changes in their daily lives or the frequency of their visits before and after the World Heritage inscription.
Expert Comments
The experts unanimously commended the team’s in-depth reflection on anthropological methodology, noting that the Tianhou Temple and the city gate ruins were grouped together solely due to their spatial proximity, and that Quanzhou’s World Heritage nomination process was complex. Li Kuanghan stated that the fieldwork design balanced both World Heritage and non-World Heritage elements, as well as religious and general heritage, and that the continuity of the community warrants attention; Du Xiaofan observed that the Tianhou Temple has become increasingly museum-like due to its World Heritage status, with functions more complex than those of ordinary temples. He emphasized the need to study the unique nature of the relationship between deities and humans in Minnan beliefs, noting that the temple’s status within Quanzhou’s belief system influences community interactions, and its service scope extends beyond the immediate vicinity; thus, an excessive focus on the local context could lead to a skewed perspective. Overall, the multidisciplinary team performed well, though background research still needs to be strengthened.
Li Kuanghan provides feedback.
Group 2
Group Members
Noor Aimran Samsudin, Fahmida Nusrat, Dai Tianchen, Yu Haochen, Zhang Lin
Report Topic
Quanzhou Kaiyuan Temple
The second group focused on the living heritage system of Kaiyuan Temple in Quanzhou. Founded during the Tang Dynasty, the temple is a core site of Quanzhou’s World Heritage site and bears witness to the cultural exchange between the maritime civilizations of the Song and Yuan dynasties. The presentation utilized the “heritage system” framework to analyze the synergistic relationships among spatial ritual systems, traditional crafts, and community participation, identifying three major conservation objectives. It also highlighted issues such as superficial community engagement, gaps in the documentation of folk customs, limited scope of interpretation, and conflicts between living heritage transmission and static conservation, religious activities and tourism development, as well as inter-departmental fragmentation. In response, the report proposes recommendations such as refining the living heritage map, establishing craft workshops, and constructing a comprehensive interpretive system, emphasizing that conservation must balance the physical architecture with the community’s living culture.
Presentation by Group 2
Expert Comments
Experts noted that the 22 heritage sites should be viewed as an organic whole, yet each site often tends to tell an independent story; the master plan has clearly presented the overall narrative positioning of each site through the entrance map and the exhibits at the Quanzhou Maritime Cultural Exchange Museum. Neel Kamal Chapagain affirmed the concept of continuity in living heritage but emphasized that the synergy between tangible and intangible heritage is not a linear process but rather a cyclical one. Du Xiaofan, meanwhile, focused on Kaiyuan Temple as a space of faith with resident monks and the responsibilities it must assume now that it has become a heritage site and public space; he suggested broadening the comparative perspective to include other maritime trading cities. The overall commentary centered on the relationships between the whole and the parts, linearity and cyclicality, and religious spaces and public responsibility, providing a multidimensional framework for reflection on heritage management.
Neel Kamal Chapagain provides comments.
Group 3
Group Members
Bai Jingjing, Xu Haiyun, Yang Xingyue, Zhao Mengwei, Malika Kurbanova
Report Topic
Chishi Village
The third group used the Tieguanyin tea culture system of Chishi Village as a case study. In this village, tangible heritage sites—such as the terraced tea gardens, Jusi Tower, and Bishi Ancestral Hall—are intertwined and coexist with tea cultivation and processing techniques as well as clan-based folk customs, with the tea industry serving as a natural bond. The presentation acknowledged the strengths of industrial support, oral history, professional assistance, and village-level planning, while also addressing shortcomings such as the relocation of Jusi Tower, the decline of tea-processing techniques, a lack of young successors, and missing archival records. To address these issues, the group proposed measures including improving the comprehensive survey, protecting the entire landscape, revitalizing historic buildings, establishing research and study platforms, forming a joint management committee, cultivating young successors, and developing responsible cultural tourism—all aimed at constructing a governance path that balances holistic preservation with sustainable development.
Presentation from Group 3
Expert Comments
In response, Yan Haiming pointed out that conservation plans often struggle to bridge the gap between legal requirements and practical needs, calling for the development of a more reasonable governance system. Li Kuanghan emphasized the coexistence of diverse governance mechanisms in rural areas, noting that villagers can assume multiple roles and represent various interest groups, while also commending the group’s accurate understanding of the synergistic relationship between tangible heritage and intangible cultural heritage. Neel Kamal Chapagain focused on the issue of vacant buildings in Jusi Lou, suggesting revitalization plans from the perspectives of landscape and craftsmanship, while also noting the continued existence of traditions such as sun-drying tea. Du Xiaofan, meanwhile, emphasized the need to understand heritage from the perspective of daily life, noting that villagers do not live for the sake of heritage alone. Given that the cultural heritage protection system is top-down, he argued that attention must be paid to villagers’ perceptions of the heritage’s significance and their agency. Overall, the comments focused on the governance challenges of rural heritage, the relationship between living heritage transmission and everyday life, and the tension between top-down systems and bottom-up community needs, providing profound insights for conservation practices.
Yan Haiming’s comments
Group 4
Group Members
Zuhura Abdallah Mtenguzi、Zhang Yuqing、Lu He、Jiang Pan,
Report Topic
Xiazhou Mazu Temple
The fourth group focused its research on the Xiazhou Mazu Temple, a municipal-level cultural heritage site. The temple consists of both old and new structures and serves as a venue for Mazu worship, wood carving, lion dance, and Nanyin—all elements of intangible cultural heritage. The group’s presentation outlined the foundation for collaboration while identifying shortcomings: the old hall lacks religious functionality, its original environment has been disrupted by elevated highways and modern buildings, and there is insufficient coordination among various departments and community groups. The group faces challenges such as the disuse of the ancient hall, low public recognition, the erosion of the site’s atmosphere by new construction, and noise conflicts; however, the involvement of young people in cultural transmission also presents a significant opportunity. To address these issues, the group proposed strategies including community consultation, revitalizing the old hall as a space for intangible cultural heritage, digital outreach, accessible guided tours, and school curricula, emphasizing that only through collaborative efforts among multiple stakeholders can comprehensive preservation and sustainable transmission be achieved.
Presentation by Group 4
Expert Comments
The experts commended the fieldwork in Xiazhou and Chishi Village for providing insights into non-World Heritage sites, emphasizing that the relationship between old and new, as well as tradition and modernity, hinges on reflection and presentation rather than a simple dichotomy of right and wrong. Neel Kamal Chapagain praised the group’s focus on multi-stakeholder collaboration, noting that documenting heritage is about preservation rather than fixation, and that development should be ongoing—with the potential for new forms to emerge in the future. Du Xiaofan elaborated in depth on how Fujian’s familial culture injects a core driving force into heritage conservation. He argued that the greatest significance of the World Heritage nomination for China’s heritage sector lies in advancing value research, with the core issue being the clarification of the value positioning of regional heritage. The overall commentary focused on the dynamic nature of heritage conservation, community life, and the exploration of values, reflecting on the tension between top-down systems and community needs, and advocating that conservation should not hinder development but rather accompany continuous evolution.
Du Xiaofan’s comments
At the subsequent closing ceremony, Yan Haiming first delivered a review and summary on behalf of ICOMOS China. He noted that this symposium facilitated the exchange of heritage governance experiences across the Asia-Pacific region and provided new insights for heritage conservation. On the theoretical level, participants carefully studied the latest UNESCO and ICOMOS concepts and documents, engaging in extensive discussions from an academic perspective; on the methodological level, they made full use of anthropological and sociological fieldwork, offering a valuable complement to traditional cultural heritage practices; on the practical level, approaches were grounded in social realities, tailored to local contexts, and highly actionable. He expressed gratitude to the organizers and co-organizers for their meticulous preparation of the curriculum and field research, and welcomed everyone’s continued support and participation in ICOMOS China’s activities.
Yan Haiming delivers a review and summary of the workshop
Li Kuanghan, Executive Director of WHITR-AP Beijing, congratulated all participants on successfully completing the workshop curriculum and presentation assignments. She noted that this workshop had built a network of connections across disciplines, nations, and cultures, and expressed her hope that everyone would maintain these valuable ties. She mentioned that at World Heritage sites such as Kaiyuan Temple, Tianhou Temple, and Xiacaopu Iron Smelting Site, participants from different countries were consistently able to find parallels with their own cultural contexts—whether on maps or in the daily lives of local residents—and observed that this was a vivid illustration of the close connection between China and the world. She looked forward to meeting everyone again in the future, wished each participant a fruitful journey home, and expressed hope to see them all on the international stage. Finally, she emphasized that the very act of beginning to reflect is the most valuable starting point.
The workshop concluded successfully after the participating experts presented certificates to the participants. This year’s workshop brought together 19 participants from six countries—Malaysia, Tanzania, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Tajikistan, and China—and featured lectures by senior heritage scholars from China, Singapore, Vietnam, Australia, Nepal, and other nations. Gathering in Anxi, Quanzhou, for a week to discuss and reflect on cutting-edge issues in World Heritage was not merely a transfer of knowledge but also a shift in mindset—encouraging participants to view World Heritage through a critical, reflective, and humanistic lens, and to bring these insights back to their respective academic and professional practices, thereby instilling the confidence and capacity needed to participate in heritage governance on the international stage in the future.
Group Photo
Special Thanks
Fujian Provincial Bureau of Cultural Relics
Anxi County People’s Government
Quanzhou Municipal Bureau of Culture, Radio, Television, and Tourism
Quanzhou Cultural Relics Protection Center
Quanzhou Cultural Heritage Research Institute
School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University
Anxi Teaching and Research Base
UNESCO Regional Office for East Asia
Chishi Village
Xiazhou Mazu Temple
All researchers, local guides, and intangible cultural heritage inheritors who participated in providing commentary and guided tours
