Introduction—Jalan Nao

Abstract

I still recall my first visit to the Po Rome temple during the Katé festival 32 years ago. As a child, my grandfather, who was well-versed in history, folk stories, and oral traditions, often regaled me and my friends with tales of the Cham people, their kings, and temples. I remember seeing the temple on top of the hill from our village and feeling its sacredness, a sentiment shared by my parents and community. Although I was too young to fully appreciate it, my family did not take me to the temple for spiritual worship during any ceremonies or festivals.

A culture survives when it has enough confidence in its past and enough say in its future to maintain its spirit and essence through all changes it will inevitably undergo. —Wade Davis, “The Way finders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World”.

Jalan Nao: A Personal Journey—Reflecting on My Experience with My Cham Community and Temples

I still recall my first visit to the Po Rome temple during the Katé festival 32 years ago. As a child, my grandfather, who was well-versed in history, folk stories, and oral traditions, often regaled me and my friends with tales of the Cham people, their kings, and temples. I remember seeing the temple on top of the hill from our village and feeling its sacredness, a sentiment shared by my parents and community. Although I was too young to fully appreciate it, my family did not take me to the temple for spiritual worship during any ceremonies or festivals.

In junior high school, I and some friends decided to attend the Katé festival at the Po Rome temple. I was filled with excitement and eagerness and couldn't sleep the night before. I wondered about the Cham people, the Champā kingdom, and how the Cham temples were built (my grandfather had said that the construction of Cham temples was still a mystery). In the early morning, some friends suggested that we walk instead of cycling, as it was supposed to be “near.” But my understanding of the term “near” was as immature as I was at the time. In my later years, I came to realize that people always say that the temples are “near” us, referring to the gods who watch over us from the hills. The two-hour walk was tiring, but the temple was, and always will be, “near.” Upon arrival, we were exhausted and dehydrated, but people from nearby villages offered us water before we visited the sacred space. The temple was magnificent, and my awe and inspiration overcame any sense of fatigue. I saw Ahier priests and members of the Cham community preparing offerings for worship, and it was the first time I had witnessed the Katé festival at a Cham temple.

I walked around the temple and came across some collapsed remains close to the main tower. I touched the bricks and felt the ancients, with my grandfather's words and the stories of our ancestors present. I could sense the talent and ingenuity of generations that made these monuments possible. I watched as other people prayed for the safety and prosperity of their families and community. Despite my young age, it was a deeply moving experience that helped me understand the significance of the Po Rome temple as a living sacred site. I felt the heartbeat of heritage and the rhythm of the collective Cham communities visiting the temple for prayer and worship.

After the festival, we visited a Cham village about a kilometer away to see my uncle, who had married a woman from the village and, following our matriarchal traditions, had relocated there with his wife's family. I sat with my family and friends and realized that I had learned so much more about Cham culture that day. The temple brought the Cham people together, and I felt the presence of my ancestors in my senses. This experience inspired me to pursue my current path as a researcher of Cham culture and an advocate for my community and traditions.

I became one of the first students in a new generation of anthropologists in Vietnam, where ethnology had been the dominant field of study until the early 2000s. I studied in Ho Chi Minh City for my undergraduate degree and worked at the Cham Cultural Research Center in Ninh Thuan Province, combining my education with the inspiration of my grandfather's life. During my time at the Cham Center, I visited many Cham villages and traditional ceremonies throughout Vietnam and learned about the diversity and interconnectedness of Cham culture with everyday life. These experiences reinforced the importance of our temples as symbols of our people, connecting all Cham communities despite the loss of our civilization.

The survival of the Cham people after the fall of the Champā kingdom is a poignant tale of perseverance and determination. During a recent visit to Binh Thuan Province, I had the privilege of learning about the struggles and sacrifices of our ancestors as they sought to preserve their rich cultural heritage.

One particularly moving account came in the form of an Ariya, an ancient Cham poem, that tells the story of the Cham people being hunted down and killed by Vietnamese Minh Mang’s King forces. Many were forced to flee their homes and take refuge in the wilderness, living in hiding during the day and using the light of the moon and the white sand along the coast to guide their way. Despite the dangers and difficulties they faced, the Cham people never gave up their traditions. Even as they journeyed to safety, they made sure to pass down their script, the Cham Akhar Thrah, by writing letters in the sand. Each night, before departing, they would erase the markings to avoid detection by their enemies.

This is a story of resilience, of a people who refused to let their heritage be erased by adversity. It is a reminder of the strength and courage of the Cham ancestors, and the importance of preserving our cultural heritage for future generations.

The Cham people have a rich and storied history, passed down through generations in the form of folk tales, hymns, and songs. One such story is the tale of how Cham history and traditions were transformed into sacred hymns, which today remain an integral part of Cham religious ceremonies and rituals.

When I visited Binh Thuan, I had the opportunity to witness the power of these hymns firsthand, as I listened to the haunting melodies of the Kadhar and Maduen singing the anthems of the Champā kings. Through the music, the Cham people have ensured that their history and traditions are not lost to time. This connection to their heritage is felt deeply by the Cham community, who view their cultural heritage as sacred and protected. Encroachments on this sacredness, such as violations of the temple, are met with deep sadness and a physical manifestation of grief. It is this unbreakable bond to their heritage that drives the Cham people to preserve their traditions and culture, no matter what challenges they may face. This devotion to their heritage is what has kept the Cham community strong and vibrant for generations, and it is what will continue to keep it alive for generations to come.

My experience at the Po Dam temple was a turning point for me in my work to preserve Cham cultural heritage. Despite the fact that the temple was under the care of conservationists, the exclusion of the Cham community from the preservation efforts left me feeling frustrated and heartbroken. The Cham priests with whom I was traveling were equally upset, as they had not received any information or consultation from the heritage authorities about the conservation works being carried out at the temple. This experience highlighted a larger issue in the conservation of cultural heritage, particularly when it comes to sites that hold spiritual significance for marginalized communities. The Po Dam temple, like many other Champā temples in Vietnam, holds deep spiritual significance for the Cham people, who have been the custodians of these sites for generations. The exclusion of the Cham community from the conservation process raises questions about who the cultural heritage belongs to and who has the right to preserve and protect it.

I was concerned about the potential for the conservationists to make changes to the temple that would be inconsistent with Cham cultural heritage and spirituality. The Cham community's anger and frustration at being excluded from the preservation process were completely understandable. They felt that their heritage was being taken away from them, and they were left with no say in how it was being preserved.

In my work, I strive to ensure that ethnic communities like the Cham are included in the conservation and preservation of their cultural heritage. It is essential to involve these communities in the decision-making process and to ensure that their perspectives and cultural values are taken into account in any conservation efforts. Only through collaboration between the community, conservationists, and heritage authorities can we ensure that cultural heritage sites are preserved in a manner that is respectful and consistent with the cultural heritage and spirituality of the community. Such “approaches” have been used at the other Champā temples in Central Vietnam, as well as in Binh Thuan and Ninh Thuan provinces where the Cham communities still practice their spirituality. I felt that the conservationists looked upon us as a threat to their conservation efforts. The Cham priests were surprised about the conservation works at Po Dam temple, as they had not received any information from the heritage authorities. The priests told the archaeologists that we Cham needed to know what the “conservationists” were doing and why the Cham were excluded from the preservation of a temple they have been looking after for many generations. What would happen if the conservationists changed something and reconstructed the temple incorrectly and inappropriately to the Cham temple? Whose cultural heritage does the site belong to? The Cham custodians who follow a long tradition of caring for the temple through many generations were annoyed by the behavior of these “conservationists” and disapproved of these kinds of conservation approaches.

As a researcher, I have come to understand that the preservation of cultural heritage is a complex process that involves not just the physical conservation of sites, but also the preservation of cultural traditions, rituals, and values that are associated with these sites. The exclusion of the Cham community from the conservation efforts at Po Dam temple highlights the larger issues surrounding the marginalization of Indigenous communities in the field of heritage management. These communities often possess valuable knowledge about their ancestral heritage and cultural practices, and their involvement in the conservation process can greatly enhance the authenticity and effectiveness of conservation efforts.

Through my work, I strive to promote the idea of community-led conservation, where the voices and perspectives of Indigenous communities are valued and integrated into the decision-making process. This approach can ensure that the heritage sites are conserved in a manner that is consistent with the cultural values and traditions of the community, and that the community remains connected to its ancestral heritage. It is my hope that by highlighting the experiences of the Cham community, I can contribute to the wider discourse on heritage conservation and help promote more inclusive and equitable practices in the field. By working together, we can create a world where the living heritage of all cultures is respected and valued, and where Indigenous communities have a prominent role in the preservation of their ancestral heritage.

Exploring the Evolution of Issues in Living Heritage Conservation and Tourism Development: A Gateway

For more than a decade, the concept of living heritage has been acknowledged as a central component in the definition of heritage. Smith (2006) defines heritage as a process of engagement, communication, and making meaning in the present and for the future, based on shared experiences and memories with one's community. This definition recognizes the interconnection between objects, places, and practices in the past and present across socio-cultural landscapes.

Smith (2006) argues that heritage cannot be defined solely by objects or “things”. Instead, heritage is constructed through various cultural and social activities, which give value and meaning to the “things”. Only after this value and meaning have been assigned, do the “things” become heritage. Similarly, Harrington (2004) views heritage as not just about the past, but as a connection between the present and a distant time and/or place, with intangible components at its core. UNESCO (2003) also recognizes the significance of intangible cultural heritage in maintaining cultural diversity.

The importance of living heritage lies not only in its manifestation but also in its ability to pass knowledge and skills through generations. Scholars such as Bauer et al., (2017) emphasize that intangible cultural heritage represents the traditions, customs, practices, and knowledge recognized by communities, while the term “living heritage” conveys the connection between these intangible cultures, monuments, and sacred sites that have been continuously used for rituals and social interaction (Bauer et al., 2017, p. 96).

International organizations have recognized the importance of considering the full range of spiritual and social values embodied in heritage places since at least the 1990s. The Nara Document on Authenticity (ICOMOS, 1994) highlights the importance of respecting all values, both tangible and intangible, that shape a heritage place. The World Heritage Committee (ICOMOS, 1995) adopted three categories of cultural landscapes to list on the World Heritage List, including “clearly defined landscapes designed and created intentionally by humanity,” “organically evolved landscapes,” and “associative cultural landscapes,” where natural landscapes are invested largely or entirely with intangible cultural values.

The associative cultural landscape is defined to include “the powerful religious, artistic, or cultural associations of natural elements rather than only material cultural features” (WHC, 2019). This category recognizes the significance of intangible dimensions of places and the heritage of local communities and Indigenous people (Brown et al., 2005; Buggey, 1999; Rössler, 2005). This shift in heritage management approaches from a focus on tangible aspects to one that includes intangible dimensions (UNESCO, 2013) highlights the importance of the intangible heritage values embedded in the cultural landscapes and physical geographies to which Indigenous peoples give meaning (Buggey, 1999).

The research highlights the need for intangible aspects of heritage to occupy more prominent spaces in legislative language and ruling. Although it is possible to bring intangible values under Criterion VI, they remain apart from this legislation and need to be more prominently recognized. In 1987, the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park in Central Australia received recognition as a World Heritage site for its outstanding natural heritage values. However, in 1994, its status was expanded to encompass both its natural and cultural values, reflecting the close connections between nature and humanity in the area. This cultural landscape holds a wealth of religious, artistic, and cultural meanings, shaped by the interactions between local communities and the natural environment, as well as by Indigenous ownership, knowledge, and traditional land management practices. The World Heritage Convention acknowledges both cultural and natural forms of heritage, but the protection of living heritage was not explicitly addressed until the adoption of the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (CSICH). The CSICH recognizes the need to preserve cultural heritage that is not tied to a specific place, including oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, knowledge about nature and the universe, and traditional craftsmanship. This intangible cultural heritage is constantly passed down and reinterpreted by communities and groups, and it provides a sense of identity and continuity while also promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity (UNESCO, 2003).

Living heritage is deeply rooted in the cultural traditions and beliefs of Indigenous and local communities. The 2003 Convention emphasizes the importance of these communities in the protection and management of intangible cultural heritage, and it supports cultural practitioners, who are the masters of local traditions, as the primary stewards of these practices. Indigenous leaders working to maintain their traditions are helped to develop a sense of socio-cultural identity, which depends on the sustained interaction between local people and the natural environment (Harrington, 2004, p. 56).

The recognition of the importance of the cultural dimensions of heritage sites is increasingly gaining attention. In 2005, the IUCN and UNESCO conference emphasized that the preservation of sacred sites, cultural landscapes, and traditional agricultural systems cannot be achieved without considering the cultures that have shaped and continue to shape them. Indigenous people, as custodians of sacred sites and holders of traditional knowledge, play a critical role in maintaining both biological and cultural diversity. In the same year, ICCROM defined heritage sites as living spaces where the community is engaged with the place and its significance. Cultural heritage management should not only focus on preserving the material elements of a site, but also consider the local community's values and social issues (ICCROM, 2005).

Kong (2008) conducted a study on the social impacts of conservation and tourism development in two traditional living communities in China and Japan. The results showed that conservation efforts have often been focused on physical elements of heritage sites and ignore their effects on the social well-being of local communities (Kong, 2008). Top-down and expert-based conservation approaches have largely neglected the perspectives of these communities, resulting in a lack of understanding of local cosmologies and cultural perspectives related to heritage preservation. This has led to economic instability and degradation of daily life among local communities (Kong, 2008). Hence, the conservation and management of living heritage sites should be inclusive of local perspectives and enriched by the communities who live and make meaning with such locations (Kong, 2008).

Southeast Asia was the first region where ICCROM launched its Heritage Site Programme in 2003. This program focused on conserving the living dimensions of cultural heritage and involved several countries in the region. The core aim of the program was to establish strong connections between local communities and heritage sites, and it has been successful in highlighting the essential role of the “living” aspects of heritage conservation. Local communities have been involved in the conservation process across Southeast Asia through this program, and critical issues and features of conservation have been explored (Tunprawat, 2009; Wijesuriya, 2008). The program has also presented the living heritage approach as the most practical and efficient solution to the challenges faced in heritage conservation (Tunprawat, 2009).

The undervaluation and marginalization of living heritage, particularly Indigenous living heritage, is a widespread issue in the field of cultural heritage management. Despite its significant social, cultural, and economic values, living heritage is often ignored or even demonized in both local and international systems of heritage management (Bwasiri, 2009; Byrne, 2012, 2014; Karlström, 2005; Kwanda, 2010; Miura, 2005). On the other hand, community involvement is considered to be an essential aspect of the preservation of living heritage (Renault & Collange, 2008; Smith, 2012; UNESCO, 2003).

Efforts like the Heritage Site Programme launched by ICCROM in Southeast Asia in 2003 have emphasized the importance of involving local communities in the conservation process and have proven to be effective in highlighting the critical significance of the “living” dimensions of heritage conservation (Tunprawat, 2009; Wijesuriya, 2008). By understanding the features of living heritage, it is possible to foster mutual respect for social, cultural, and human rights and promote the appreciation of cultural diversity (Huong, 2015; Lenzerini, 2011; Logan, 2012; Wijesuriya, 2008; Wijesuriya et al., 2006).

The recognition of the importance of intangible cultural heritage and the role it plays in national development and historical preservation in Vietnam has led to various initiatives aimed at safeguarding and promoting this type of heritage. One of the key initiatives has been the establishment of the National Intangible Cultural Heritage Centre (NICHC) in 2007. The NICHC is responsible for conducting research and collecting data on intangible cultural heritage, as well as organizing activities to promote and preserve this heritage. The Centre has also collaborated with various local and international organizations to raise awareness about the importance of intangible cultural heritage and to develop strategies for its preservation.

Another important initiative has been the establishment of the National List of Intangible Cultural Heritage, which aims to document and recognize the significant contributions made by Vietnam's intangible cultural heritage to the country's rich cultural heritage. The List is updated regularly and contains a wide range of intangible cultural heritage items, such as traditional music, dance, oral traditions, and craftsmanship, among others.

In sum, the recognition of the importance of intangible cultural heritage and the role it plays in national development and historical preservation in Vietnam has led to various initiatives aimed at safeguarding and promoting this type of heritage. These initiatives have contributed to the recognition and preservation of the unique cultural heritage of Vietnam and will continue to play an important role in ensuring the survival of these traditions and cultural practices for future generations.

As specified by the Law on Cultural Heritage in Vietnam, all policies aimed at preserving cultural heritage must have a positive impact on the nation's economic and social development (Lask & Herold, 2004). However, the Law does not address the issue of cultural tourism and the strategies necessary to mitigate its negative impact on cultural heritage sites or provide guidelines for sustainable use and maintenance of heritage for future generations (Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, 1996, as cited in Lask & Herold, 2004). To address this, numerous projects have been initiated under the National Target Program to study, document, and collect Vietnamese cultural heritage (Binh, 2001; Van, 2001). In 2009, the 2001 Law was revised to effectively manage intangible cultural heritage in accordance with international standards and practices, and its definition was updated to match the 2003 UNESCO Convention. In this Law, intangible cultural heritage is considered a cultural practice carried on by individuals, groups, or communities known as “cultural carriers” (Salemink, 2012). Thus, the protection and preservation of cultural heritage should be primarily focused on these “cultural carriers” (Salemink, 2012).

In the Vietnamese Law on Cultural Heritage, the term “community” is not explicitly mentioned in the definition of intangible cultural heritage (Giang, 2015). Additionally, this law fails to acknowledge the rights of individuals and communities to participate in discussions and decisions concerning the cultural heritage that they own or preserve (Giang, 2015). Nevertheless, as heritage experts suggest, this type of legislation should not diminish the role of bearers or holders of intangible cultural heritage, as they are the rightful owners of that heritage (Hong, 2015, p. 617).

To effectively identify and classify living heritage that can be protected and maintained by local communities, several criteria need to be considered. These criteria include:

• 1. The heritage is an integral part of the local community's cultural fabric and daily life;

• 2. The cultural practices and functions of the heritage are passed down from generation to generation within the local community;

• 3. The local community plays a role in defining the heritage and it forms part of their ethnic identity;

• 4. The heritage reflects the cultural diversity and mutual respect between different communities and groups (Hong, 2015, p. 617).

In the field of tourism, sustainable development has been a widely discussed topic since the 1990s as a way to mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive outcomes from tourism activities on society, cultural heritage, and the environment (Bramwell & Lane, 1993, 2012; Buckley, 2012; Sharpley, 2000). Cultural heritage has been recognized as a significant source of economic growth in Vietnam, leading to increased interest from the state in preserving and promoting these resources (Thien, 2017). The concept of sustainable development has been explored from a range of perspectives, including economics, the environment, and local communities (Dat & Huu, 2015; Logan, 1998; Tran & Walter, 2014; Truong et al., 2014). Despite this focus on sustainability, scholars have noted a common issue with a lack of community involvement in the strategic planning process for sustainable development and heritage management (Gilbert et al., 1998; Jansen-Verbeke & Go, 1995; Logan, 1998, 2015; Haley & Haley, 1998). Heritage management experts in Vietnam argue that sustainable development is only achievable when there is a balance of rights and interests among stakeholders, including the local community, who should benefit from the economic and cultural value of their cultural heritage (Larsen, 2015; Logan, 2015). However, in practice, local communities are often not given the opportunity to participate in heritage management activities due to restrictions in heritage management legislation or the traditional customs of their community (Larsen, 2017).

Despite the recognition of the cultural heritage as a potential source of economic development in Vietnam, the impact of conservation policies and regulations on the local communities has been a matter of concern. The concept of “community” is often mentioned in heritage management, but the actual voices and participation of the community are often neglected in the planning and conservation process (Larsen, 2018). Indigenous groups, in particular, are frequently unaware of their rights, and their traditional livelihoods, beliefs, and customs are often disrupted by conservation measures.

Furthermore, government documents and plans for local heritage rarely consider the role of community participation in heritage management. This is exemplified by the forced displacement of local communities from protected heritage areas, where their livelihoods and practices, passed down through generations, were deemed a threat to the heritage values of the sites (Dung, 2015). This lack of consideration for community perspectives highlights the need for more inclusive and participatory approaches in heritage management, which take into account the needs and rights of local communities and their relationship with their cultural heritage.

It is crucial for the government to recognize the relationship between cultural heritage and the communities that practice and preserve it. The absence of community participation in the decision-making process has led to the marginalization of local people and the disregard for their cultural practices, livelihoods, and beliefs (Giang, 2015). The failure to incorporate community perspectives in heritage management has resulted in the loss of important cultural traditions and livelihoods, which is against the principles of sustainable heritage development (Larsen, 2018). Therefore, it is imperative for the government to revise its cultural heritage laws and policies to ensure that the community is adequately represented and has a voice in decisions concerning their cultural heritage. The legislation must be revised to reflect the rights and interests of the communities and to ensure their active participation in the heritage management process. It is essential to establish a legal framework that upholds these rights and creates a balance between heritage conservation and the rights of local communities (Logan, 2015). The implementation of these policies can lead to the sustainable preservation and promotion of cultural heritage, which will benefit not only the communities but also the country as a whole.

These challenges highlight the need for a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to heritage conservation in Vietnam that considers the perspectives, needs, and rights of local communities. The involvement of communities in the decision-making process and the allocation of benefits from heritage tourism should be prioritized in order to ensure that heritage conservation not only protects cultural assets, but also contributes to sustainable development and the well-being of local communities. To achieve this, there is a need for a shift in the current approach to heritage conservation, from a top-down, state-centered approach to a participatory and community-led approach that recognizes the rights of local communities to their cultural heritage and the resources that it provides. The government and other stakeholders should work together to create a policy and legal framework that recognizes and protects the rights of local communities and ensures their participation in decision-making processes related to heritage conservation. This can be achieved through consultations with local communities, the development of participatory planning processes, and the establishment of clear mechanisms for the distribution of benefits from heritage tourism.

The community's participation in cultural practices associated with heritage sites in Vietnam has been facing a number of challenges, as evidenced by multiple studies (Giang, 2015; Kong, 2008; Larsen, 2015, 2017; Logan, 2015; Spenceley et al., 2017). Despite the recognition of human rights to livelihood in legal documents relating to heritage sites, there is a lack of protection for human rights to participate in planning and decision-making or to have access to justice and development (Larsen, 2017). The Cultural Heritage Law does not sufficiently link heritage to human beings, which exacerbates these issues.

Furthermore, scholars have pointed out that the economic benefits generated from tourism are not equitably shared with cultural owners of heritage, leading to unequal community rights related to their heritage (Hoa, 2005; Kong, 2008; Lask & Herold, 2004; Le, 2015; Logan, 2015; Spenceley et al., 2017; Tran & Walter, 2014). The authorities may claim that they are providing benefits for local communities, but the ways in which those benefits are shared are often unclear and not based on specific objectives or mechanisms for implementation. The Heritage Management Board has not established clear management mechanisms to ensure community representation in decision-making, and many cases in Vietnam, such as the Phong Nha World Heritage Site, have shown that the majority of the income generated from tourism is used for staff salaries and contributions to the federal and provincial budget, with only a small portion being invested in local communities (Larsen, 2015, 2017).

The literature highlights that ignoring community participation and economic benefits in the conservation of cultural heritage can lead to the loss of cultural rights, livelihoods, and traditional habitats for local communities (Logan, 2015). There is a lack of understanding among heritage practitioners and government officials in Vietnam about different definitions and conceptualizations of heritage conservation, which has resulted in a uniform strategy being applied to preserve and manage diverse heritage sites with absolute authority in the hands of the state officials (Phuong, 2006). This approach marginalizes and excludes local communities and in some cases denies them access to their own heritage sites, causing negative impacts on their cultural heritage (Huong, 2015). Thus, it can be argued that such heartless approaches to heritage management, which aim to protect Indigenous culture or heritage, often do so at the exclusion or detriment of the very communities they purport to serve.

In Ninh Thuan Province, economic development is a priority in legislative planning, often taking precedence over cultural preservation initiatives. The province's tourism industry plays a significant role in its economic development, with Cham cultural heritage serving as a major tourist attraction (Anh, 2012; Dop et al., 2014; Phan An, 2015; Sakaya, 2003; Thuy, 2012). Local authorities aim to preserve and promote Cham cultural heritage to attract more tourists, which has brought some economic benefits to the Cham community through Cham handicraft villages (Tuyen, 2014). However, the focus on increasing the number of tourists to the province (from 2.1 million in 2015 to 3.5 million by 2030) fails to take into consideration the well-being of the local communities who contribute to sustainable development (Quynh Trang, 2013). This development also risks negatively impacting the Cham Indigenous community, potentially leading to cultural changes and commercialization, without appropriate policies in place to mitigate these impacts (Hoa, 2005).

As the Cham community holds its Indigenous heritage and cultural values close to its temples and villages, local cultural heritage management in the region is viewed as a form of “living culture” (Sakaya, 2001). Given this context in Vietnam, my central research question seeks to examine how heritage management recognizes the values of living heritage for cultural sites. (1) How does heritage management balance the conservation and tourism development of the living sacred sites, such as the Po Klaong Girai temple, in Vietnam with the preservation of authenticity and cultural pride of the Cham community, and (2) how can heritage management better recognize and address the values of living heritage as perceived by the Cham community in the context of cultural heritage preservation in Southeast Asia?

Understanding Living Heritage: The Interplay Between Community, Culture, and Place

Heritage is often referred to as “living” when it is closely tied to the cultural practices of a community and is passed down from generation to generation. Living heritage is centered around the community who created it and is a crucial aspect of cultural preservation (Weise, 2013). This type of heritage helps foster a sense of belonging and often plays a vital role in the social, cultural, and economic lives of community members (Wijesuriya et al., 2006).

However, when traditions are imposed from outside, they can stand in opposition to this locally sourced type of heritage (Weise, 2013). This highlights the importance of considering community input in the conservation of living heritage sites, as they are the ones who understand the meaning behind these traditions (Renault & Collange, 2008) and play a significant role in determining their future (Miura, 2005; Wijesuriya et al., 2006).

The concept of “living heritage” has emerged, stating that “Heritage is all about culture and has been created by people, and it has been created for people” (Sarah & Wijesuriya, 2014). This encompasses all expressions resulting from the interaction between people and nature, including both tangible and intangible elements. These expressions have evolved and been reinterpreted over time, reflecting changes in society, and communities continue to benefit from them (Wijesuriya et al., 2006).

Heritage management that is centered around the community is known as the “living heritage” approach. This approach recognizes that heritage belongs to the members of society whose values are reflected in its definition and that the most effective means of caring for heritage are through their active involvement (ICCROM, 2003 cited from: Stovel et al., 2003). The concept of continuity is key in characterizing the connection between living heritage sites and traditional communities (Tunprawat, 2009).

Poulios (2014a) categorizes different types of associations between heritage sites and communities, including those between a site and a local, dwelling, or evolving community, or a site that has a special connection with a community. All of these associations have their strengths, but communities often play a role in heritage management under the control of heritage authorities (Poulios, 2014a).

To address this issue, Poulios (2014b) has proposed a set of criteria for identifying and managing living heritage, including: the continuity of the heritage site's original function, the continuity of the community's connection with the site, the continuity of the site's expressions, and the continuity of community care for the site through management systems and traditional knowledge. This framework views heritage as an integral part of the current community's life (Poulios, 2014b; Sarah & Wijesuriya, 2014; Wijesuriya, 2007).

The continuity between the past and the present is a critical aspect of cultural traditions (Poulios, 2014b; Tunprawat, 2009; Wijesuriya, 2007). Living heritage is deeply rooted in the past but also embraces change, adapting continuously to contemporary conditions. Andrews and Buggey (2008) assert that heritage may be created in the past, but its meaning is produced and given in the present. Maintaining heritage is an ongoing process that involves embracing change to respond to contemporary political, economic, historical, and social environments (Poulios, 2014b; Tunprawat, 2009; Wijesuriya, 2007). However, neglecting local participation and continuity in the management of cultural heritage can negatively impact its significance to local communities and result in disastrous consequences (Weise, 2013; Wijesuriya, 2014). Positive change must be recognized as a natural process, but it must unfold according to local culture and as defined by local communities (Ayoubi, 2015).

Unfortunately, traditional cultural heritage management often overlooks the significance of living heritage, such as local beliefs, social practices, and traditional ways of life among local communities (Byrne, 2012; Karlström, 2005, 2013; Miura, 2005). For example, in the case of Maori heritage, Whiting (2005, p. 180) points out that “technical conservation knowledge is not enough to deal with the complexities of recognizing and maintaining the cultural and spiritual values of a site or place.” Byrne (2014, pp. 2–3) refers to “counter-heritage” as a more democratic heritage practice, one that respects the existence of other ways of relating to old things. Heritage conservation should consider objects as dynamic, embedded in social practices rather than as static physical materials related to the conservation project (Byrne, 2004).

In recent years, the focus of heritage research has shifted from the preservation and interpretation of material-based heritage to the role of living heritage (Bwasiri, 2008; Miura, 2005; Pearson & Gorman, 2010; Pearson & Sullivan, 1995). This shift in perspective recognizes the importance of understanding and managing heritage sites and objects that are connected to core communities, who play a crucial role in the preservation of living heritage (Poulios, 2014b).

Traditionally, conservation efforts as outlined in foundational texts such as the Venice Charter have ignored the role of core communities, with heritage professionals taking a dominant role in heritage conservation. However, there has been a growing recognition of the significance of the core community as a key stakeholder in heritage conservation, with a shift towards giving the core community more agency in the decision-making process (Kong, 2008; Poulios, 2014b; Wijesuriya, 2014). This approach can be seen in recent developments in Australia's Burra Charter and the Asian-focused Hoi An Protocols. In this view, heritage professionals serve a supportive and advisory role, assisting the core community in their conservation efforts (Figure 9).

Fig. 1.1

Core community and heritage site: An intrinsic connection in living heritage (Poulios, 2014b, p. 130)

As illustrated in Fig. 1.1 of Poulios (2014b), the close connection between a heritage site and the core community, who maintains its values and continuity, is crucial to the preservation of living heritage. Scholars emphasize the importance of respecting and prioritizing the culture, values, and feelings of the core community, who are the traditional owners of their cultural heritage (Kong, 2008; Poulios, 2014b; Wijesuriya, 2014).

Living heritage engages the core community in the long-term conservation of the heritage site, with a focus on connecting heritage and community through managing continuity and change in use patterns, livelihood, and mutual well-being (Wijesuriya, 2014, p. 33). This approach, which places the community at the center of heritage conservation, creates a framework for sustainability (Ayoubi, 2015; Poulios, 2014b; Sarah & Wijesuriya, 2014; Wijesuriya et al., 2006).

Arkarapotiwong (2015) recognizes the importance of considering both the emphasis of conservation experts on man-made heritage and the demands of local communities for the development of their living heritage space in achieving equality in managing living heritage sites. The author advocates for a collaborative network between the private sector and local communities and suggests that power should be balanced among all stakeholders to ensure sustainable management. However, this perspective overlooks the distinction between the core community, who are the traditional owners and stewards of their cultural heritage, and other local communities who may reside near the heritage sites. In the author's research, the Cham people are identified as the core community, while other stakeholders, such as the Kinh community living near the temple, the Raglai community ritually tied to certain heritage sites, heritage practitioners, and business sectors, also play a role in the management and conservation of the heritage sites.

The Basis Behind: Rationale

In this study, the Po Klaong Girai temple in Vietnam serves as a case to explore the Cham community's perspectives on heritage management and to develop modifications for the effective management of their cultural heritage. The research takes into account the diverse approaches to heritage assessment within the Cham community, particularly their emphasis on intangible heritage, which encompasses traditions and living expressions passed down from ancestors to descendants, and living heritage, which encompasses cultural expressions and practices that provide meaning and continuity to social life across generations of individuals, social groups, and communities (UNESCO, 2003).

In Southeast Asia, heritage conservation responsibilities have typically been assumed by government authorities and heritage professionals, who may not accurately reflect the views of ethnic minority communities. This has led to a disconnection between heritage sites and minority communities, and has resulted in poor outcomes for heritage preservation (Arkarapotiwong, 2015; Byrne, 1991, 2012; Karlström, 2005; Lewis & Rose, 2013; Alexopoulos, 2013; Ayoubi, 2015; Kong, 2008; Poulios, 2014a; Tunprawat, 2009). The lack of community participation in conservation regimes has been identified as a key factor reducing the effectiveness of these efforts (Balen & Vandesande, 2015; Waterton, 2015), and more inclusive approaches to heritage management are necessary (Poulios, 2014a). The case study of Po Klaong Girai temple will challenge this lack of recognition and explore the values of living heritage for cultural sites within the Cham community.

The study will focus on the significance of festivals, temple usage, and the role of the temple in Cham lives, as central to the creation and maintenance of cultural heritage for the Cham community. The heritage assessment of the Cham community will be considered, and the emphasis placed on intangible heritage, which includes traditions and living expressions passed down from ancestors to descendants, and living heritage, which encompasses cultural expressions and practices that form a body of knowledge and provide continuity, dynamism, and meaning to generations of people as individuals, social groups, and communities (UNESCO, 2003). This research will contribute to the development of more inclusive approaches to heritage management and promote a better understanding of the role of living heritage in preserving cultural identity and promoting sustainable tourism practices.

Cham cultural heritage plays a crucial role in both the cultural diversity and economic development of Vietnam. The coastal plains of Central Vietnam are home to several Cham heritage sites that serve as popular tourist destinations, generating substantial income for the surrounding provinces. One such example is the My Son sanctuary, which was declared a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage site in 1999 (UNESCO, 1999). It is widely known as one of the most sacred places of the Cham civilization and has had a positive impact on the country's economy, especially for the ethnic Kinh majority.

However, while these heritage sites are an important source of revenue, they are often viewed by outsiders as “dead monuments” that are disconnected from the contemporary Cham community. In reality, many of these sites are still actively used for spiritual purposes and are considered living heritage sites by the Cham people. This raises the question of how to properly protect, preserve, and promote these living heritage sites, both for the Cham community and as a form of conservation.

The aim of this research is to examine the various heritage sites and conservation strategies to highlight the significance of living heritage. The study will also seek to identify what is appropriate for the Cham community, ensuring that the cultural and spiritual values of these sites are properly recognized and respected.

The Cham people have a rich cultural heritage that significantly contributes to the diversity and economic growth of Vietnam. Despite the recognition of their traditions and practices by the government in 2012, their role in the management and preservation of their sacred sites remains marginal. The increasing influx of tourists, who visit the sites for both religious and recreational purposes, has generated substantial benefits for a small portion of the Cham community who are involved in the tourism industry. However, the Cham Ahier priests and the wider Cham community have not yet reaped the benefits of their heritage in the tourism development process.

My research aims to examine the social and cultural concerns of the Cham custodians and community members in relation to heritage conservation, and to identify ways in which their participation in the protection and management of their ancestral sites can be effectively promoted. The study will also delve into the policies that govern Cham heritage management and uncover the problems that arise from the lack of insider knowledge among government authorities, who are responsible for managing the living heritage sites. This lack of knowledge could potentially lead to the commodification of Cham heritage sites, rather than the preservation and respect of their traditional and religious significance.

Tourism is seen as a major factor in Vietnam's progress towards becoming a developed nation (Saltiel, 2014). Within this framework, the cultural heritage of ethnic minorities plays a crucial role in tourism and its preservation is therefore vital (Lask & Herold, 2004; Salemink, 2013; Saltiel, 2014; Truong, 2016). The province of Ninh Thuan is relying heavily on tourism as a means of driving economic growth, and local authorities are promoting Cham temples as popular tourist destinations while claiming to preserve them. However, the manner in which tourism has been used to exploit these sacred places disregards local perspectives, creating challenges for preserving their authenticity and sacredness among local communities. The book delves into the role of living heritage and community participation in conservation and tourism development at living heritage sites in Vietnam.

Additionally, this research also aims to identify the ways in which the government can better support and collaborate with the Cham community in preserving their ancestral heritage sites. The study highlights the importance of considering the cultural, social, and religious values attached to living heritage sites, and the role of the community in their preservation and management. By taking into account the needs and perspectives of the Cham community, the research aims to promote a more equitable and sustainable approach to heritage management and tourism development in Vietnam. The findings of this research can serve as a valuable resource for policymakers, heritage professionals, and communities looking to engage in heritage preservation and cultural tourism initiatives.

Additionally, the following objectives are also a part of this study:

• 1. To understand the relationships between the Cham community and the government in terms of the conservation and management of their ancestral heritage sites.

• 2. To evaluate the policies and regulations related to the preservation and promotion of Cham cultural heritage and determine their effectiveness.

• 3. To identify best practices for community-based cultural heritage preservation and tourism development.

• 4. To provide recommendations for the preservation of the authenticity and sacredness of the Cham cultural heritage sites in the face of tourism and commercial exploitation.

By addressing these objectives, this research will contribute to the existing knowledge on the relationship between cultural heritage, tourism development, and community-based preservation, and provide valuable insights for the preservation and promotion of Cham cultural heritage in Vietnam and similar contexts.

To ensure that the focus of this research is clear, some limitations have been established. These include:

• 5. This study specifically concentrates on the views and perspectives of the Cham community and heritage authorities involved in the management of Po Klaong Girai temple, without considering other stakeholders such as private companies, the local Kinh community, and tourists.

• 6. This research is not solely centered on the agreement or disagreement among members of the Cham community, but primarily delves into the underlying meanings and perceptions surrounding the management of cultural heritage.

• 7. The collaboration between the Cham and government authorities in managing Cham cultural heritage will not be extensively discussed, as these issues will be touched upon in the findings of each theme in the study.

The Role of the Researcher

As a researcher, it is important to understand the role that one plays in the community being studied and to consider how interactions with participants may have affected that role. This requires an active participation and self-examination to determine the necessary triangulation (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 2002; Stake, 1995). To achieve a complete understanding of a culture, it is important to have both insider (emic) and outsider (etic) perspectives. The emic perspective involves subjective investigation from the native's point of view and allows for an understanding of a culture as the people of that culture understand it (Malinowski, 1992). On the other hand, the etic perspective uses an objective, external viewpoint to generate theories and analyze culture through theoretical applications (Haskell et al., 1992; Sinha, 2004). However, the etic perspective alone may not grasp the nuances and richness of a culture, and it is important to consider both perspectives in order to gain a holistic view of the study (Morris et al., 1999).

In conducting field research, it is essential for the researcher to have both insider and outsider perspectives in order to gain a holistic understanding of the culture being studied (Morris et al., 1999). As an anthropologist, one must be involved in active participation and self-reflection to understand how their role in the community may have been impacted by interactions with participants and to determine the type of triangulation needed (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 2002; Stake, 1995).

In this study, the author's role as a researcher is both as an insider and as an outsider. As a former researcher at the Cham Cultural Research Center and a member of the Cham community, the author has a deep understanding of Cham culture and history, which gives them an insider's perspective. This long-standing relationship with the Cham community and experience working in the cultural heritage sector also allows the author to have a strong rapport with Cham priests, intellectuals, and community members. However, since the author left the Cham Cultural Research Center and started their Ph.D. studies, they recognize that they have become somewhat of an outsider in terms of their familiarity with recent developments in the cultural heritage sector. Nevertheless, the author's extensive experience as a researcher for the Cham Cultural Research Center and their commitment to the well-being and development of Cham traditions and Indigenous heritage provide them with some advantages in approaching Cham people and asking them to share their thoughts on issues of culture.

The author's ability to emotionally detach themselves from their culture and provide an objective, outsider's perspective also allows them to explore trans-historical generalizations and compare cultures (Morris et al., 1999). This combination of insider and outsider perspectives is necessary for gaining a comprehensive understanding of Cham culture.

Overall, the author's unique combination of insider and outsider perspectives, along with their extensive experience and strong relationships within the Cham community, make them well positioned to conduct field research on Cham culture and heritage.

My post-graduate education has been primarily in Western academic institutions in the United States and Australia, and as a result, my research draws on the standard Western methodological traditions of interviews, group discussions, and observations (Menzies, 2004). However, I am mindful of the need to incorporate Indigenous and decolonizing perspectives in my research design (Smith, 1999). Smith (1999) argues that research on Indigenous people has historically perpetuated imposed Western paradigms, which often neglect the needs and perspectives of the local communities being studied. To address this issue, I aim to establish a collaborative research relationship that prioritizes the needs and perspectives of the Cham community being studied and considers the practical outcomes of the research (Menzies, 2004). This will be achieved through incorporating an Indigenous methodological perspective and through proposing practical recommendations for heritage practitioners, researchers, and the Cham communities to consider when cultural programs are implemented at Cham heritage sites. The ultimate goal of this research is to benefit the Cham community and the local authorities through providing actionable policy recommendations that can be used to protect and preserve Cham cultural heritage.

This study represents a pioneering effort in the field of cultural heritage management among the Cham people in Vietnam. To the best of our knowledge, there has been a lack of research that has specifically focused on the direct engagement of stakeholders in issues related to Cham heritage management. This presented some unique challenges as it was the first time that heritage authorities were asked to openly discuss and share their experiences and challenges in managing Cham cultural heritage. Additionally, many of the participants were not familiar with being interviewed and were especially cautious when speaking to a researcher, particularly when it came to sensitive topics related to government employees involved in Cham heritage management. Despite these difficulties, I was gratified to receive positive feedback from my informants and valuable insights on my research questions from various members of the Cham community.

As noted by Menzies (2004), the research relationship should meet the needs of both the researcher and the researched community, and aim to bring about practical benefits for the latter. The same author also highlights the importance of being accountable to the community in order to establish a trustworthy and collaborative relationship. In the case of this study, which focuses on cultural heritage management among the Cham people in Vietnam, the challenge of gaining access to sensitive cultural information can be compounded by the fact that Cham people are an ethnic minority who have historically faced challenges in expressing their views freely.

To overcome these challenges, I leveraged my personal connections and professional experience. As a former researcher at the Cham Cultural Research Center and a current supporter of the Council of Cham Brahman Dignitaries, I have built a rapport with many Cham priests and intellectuals. These relationships allowed me to approach members of the Cham community and gain their trust, which in turn facilitated access to their deeply held and personal thoughts on cultural issues. The importance of trust-building in research is emphasized by Smith (1999), who notes that research with Indigenous communities must take into account the history of imposed Western paradigms and prioritize the benefits that the community will realize from the research.

This approach to research aligns with the Indigenous methodology perspective, where the researcher and the community are seen as equal partners in the research process. It is crucial for the researcher to develop a relationship of trust with the community and to approach the research in a respectful and ethical manner. This not only leads to more meaningful and accurate results, but it also helps to promote the self-determination and empowerment of the Indigenous community being studied (Smith, 1999). As Porsanger (2004) highlights, conducting research in a way that is seen as respectful, ethical, correct, sympathetic, useful, and beneficial to Indigenous peoples is vital. This is especially important in my research, where I am studying the cultural heritage management of the Cham people in Vietnam. By taking this approach, I hope to gain a deeper understanding of the issues and challenges faced by the Cham community and to provide practical recommendations for heritage practitioners, researchers, and the Cham community to consider when implementing cultural programs at Cham heritage sites.

The task of obtaining interviews from the local authorities in Ninh Thuan proved to be a significant challenge for me, especially when I revealed the nature of my research on the conservation of Cham heritage sites in the province. Despite my previous experience as a cultural specialist in this field, which had allowed me to build strong relationships with heritage officers, many of their responses during the interviews seemed to avoid the most pressing and relevant issues. Only a handful of these individuals sought my advice on how to resolve current problems in cultural heritage management and how to improve the management of Cham cultural heritage. These officials often shied away from open and honest discussions to address issues and find solutions, and tended to evade any mention of individual responsibility. However, when I approached members of the Cham Monument Management Unit (re-established in 2017), some heritage officers declined to participate in interviews due to concerns about misrepresenting sensitive information that their agency may not allow them to disclose. In an effort to alleviate these concerns, I attempted to emphasize to these officials that the aim of my research was to uncover current challenges and find ways to improve the management of Cham heritage sites, rather than causing conflicts among stakeholders. In response, the Unit referred me to a representative who was responsible for public relations and could best answer my research questions.

When I engaged with the Cham Cultural Research Center, I discovered that the researchers there had a wealth of knowledge and insights that could significantly enhance the management of Cham cultural heritage and foster cooperation among relevant parties. Despite the fact that these researchers possess extensive expertise in Cham culture, the Provincial Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism seems to be disinterested in seeking their consultation when developing projects related to Cham cultural heritage in Ninh Thuan. By disregarding the expertise of these specialists, the heritage management and heritage departments risk repeated mistakes and negative outcomes in their conservation efforts, as they lack a complete understanding of Cham culture. This neglect of Cham experts not only represents a missed opportunity, but it also goes against the objective of the Cham Cultural Research Center to serve as a consultative resource for local authorities on Cham cultural policies in Ninh Thuan. Despite multiple attempts to arrange meetings with heritage authorities at higher levels, such as the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, I encountered difficulties in scheduling appointments with them. Nevertheless, I was fortunate enough to have productive and informative discussions with some members of the Council of National Cultural Heritage.

Organizing the Content: Navigating Through the Book’s Framework

This book is divided into ten chapters, each serving a specific purpose in presenting the research.

Chapter 1: Introduction—Jalan nao: In this chapter, the structure and purpose of the book are outlined. The problem statement, research questions, rationale, research design, and narrative of the research are explained. The chapter concludes with a reflection on the use of observant participation and the importance of considering both etic and emic perspectives in the case study.

Chapter 2: The Cham Civilization and Its People—An Overview of Bhum Cham: This chapter provides a comprehensive view of the research field, focusing on ethnic minorities in Vietnam and the Cham people specifically. It covers their environment, geography, history, cultural heritage, and the background of cultural heritage management in Vietnam. The chapter highlights the importance of the Cham traditional management system and the changes that have taken place to demonstrate the community's involvement in preserving their cultural heritage.

Chapter 3: Cham Culture and Traditions: Understanding Their Worldview Through Custodianship and Philosophy: This chapter explores the religion, beliefs, traditional philosophies, and taboos of the Cham people and how they relate to the dissatisfaction with tourism development at their sacred spaces. The chapter provides insights into how religion, tradition, and philosophy are closely linked and preserved by the Cham community, particularly under the guidance of religious dignitaries.

Chapter 4: The Conservation of Cham Cultural Heritage in Vietnam: This chapter reviews and assesses heritage conservation in Vietnam through different periods and policies, with a focus on heritage conservation for ethnic minorities. The chapter also explores the conservation approaches of Cham cultural heritage in Vietnam, particularly in Ninh Thuan Province, and highlights the efforts of state authorities and conservationists to preserve it.

Chapter 5: Living Heritage in The Everyday: Roles of Po Klaong Girai Temple in The Cham Community: This chapter examines the role of Cham temples in the contemporary life of Cham people. The chapter demonstrates that the Po Klaong Girai temple plays a crucial role in the community for spiritual practice and cultural identification. Inappropriate conservation and development efforts that do not align with Cham cultural traditions will likely be rejected by the Cham community, which seeks to preserve the temple's significance for religion, ritual practice, heritage, history, and cultural identity.

Chapter 6: Examining Overlooked Living Traditions: An Analysis of the Conservation of Sacred Places in the Cham Culture of Vietnam: This chapter examines the heritage conservation of Cham living heritage sites and the perceptions of the Cham community in Vietnam. It demonstrates that heritage conservation has focused primarily on tangible forms of heritage and has not considered the local cultural meanings related to the Cham temples. The chapter also highlights the negative effects of a new pathway, which was constructed to facilitate access for visitors but is perceived as an offense to the Cham worldview and spiritual practice.

Chapter 7: Balancing Authenticity and Tourism Development: The Challenge of Incense at Cham Temples: This chapter explores the perception of authenticity in the Cham community, focusing on the issue of joss-stick incense as an external imposition. The chapter asks how Cham community members perceive and respond to assertions of authenticity and what can be learned from these perceptions. The chapter also highlights the importance of understanding the broader history of threats to both living and tangible forms of Cham cultural heritage in Vietnam.

Chapter 8: Staging Culture, Selling Authenticity: The Commodification of the Cham Community's Traditions: This chapter examines the relationship between the Cham community's perception of the commodification of their sacred spaces and culture and the practices of Vietnamese heritage authorities. The chapter highlights the criticism from the Cham community regarding tourism development that deviates from their expectations and creates misunderstandings about their cultural traditions. It also explores the negative impact of such misunderstandings on youth community members’ knowledge of Cham culture and visitors’ understanding.

Chapter 9: Navigating the Balance Between Revenue Generation and Conservation at a Cham Living Sacred Heritage Site: Priestly Views and Challenges: This chapter explores the perspectives of Cham community members on economic benefits and revenue sharing from cultural tourism at sacred living heritage sites. It highlights the economic pressure on Cham Ahier priests and the tension between the community and government over these issues.

Chapter Conclusion: Towards a Sustainable Future: Navigating the Cham Living Heritage in Tourism's Landscape: The focus is on summarizing the main findings of the research and discussing their implications and impact. The chapter provides an overview of how the study contributes to the field and discusses the potential impact of the policy recommendations made. The author also acknowledges any limitations of the study, including any gaps in data, research design, or methodology that may have impacted the results. Additionally, the chapter outlines potential areas for future research to continue exploring the intricate relationship between the Cham community, their cultural heritage, and the development of tourism in Vietnam. Overall, this chapter serves as a conclusion and reflection on the study's insights, highlighting the significance of the Cham cultural heritage and the importance of preserving it for future generations.