1 Introduction

Ever since the concept of authenticity in international heritage charters and conventions was introduced to China in the 1980s, there have been non-stop discussions on its definition and applicability on the national-level legislation and practices. With no equivalent terms in Chinese, nuances in the translation of authenticity into ‘yuanzhenxing’ (originality and truthfulness) and ‘zhenshixing’ (truthfulness) have led to confusion about the relationship between ‘the original state’ and ‘authenticity’ in the enactment of heritage regulations and conservation practices (Zhang 2010; Zhu 2017). Likewise, the ambiguous definitions of ‘the original state’ and ‘authenticity’ in heritage regulations at the state level, including the Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on Protection of Cultural Relics (State Council of PRC 2002) and the Principles of the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China (ICOMOS China 2002), leave loopholes for multiple authenticity narratives in local practices (Qian 2007; Gao and Jones 2020). The literature considers authenticity a constructed notion shaped by the power relations involved in local heritage projects (Xu et al. 1999, 2010; Ruan and Li 2008). Wang (2007) prefers ‘zhenshixing’ because the term, which literally means ‘truthfulness’, does not limit the historic condition of a site to a specific era and hence shows the diachronic value of heritage as defined in international authenticity principles. Conversely, Zhang (2010) favours ‘yuanzhenxing’ because the term indicates the relationship between heritage authenticity and certain time periods. Different views on the translation of ‘authenticity’ also bring about further articulations of various authenticity principles in local practices in China.

In particular, the literature shows that authenticity in heritage practices in China is a construct shaped by the involved power relationships (Xu et al. 2013; Yan 2018; Zhang and Lenzer Jr 2020). Owing to the decentralisation and fragmentation of the heritage administrative system, the SACH regulates only the management of historic sites protected at the national level while other immovable cultural relics are scrutinised by provincial, municipal and prefectural governments according to their relative protection levels (Huo 2016; Zhu and Maags 2020). Therefore, the localisation of national-level authenticity principles in heritage practices is largely affected by local governments in support of their development needs, in which authenticity is often interpreted as physical authenticity frozen in time. Xu et al. (2013) demonstrate that as local bureaus have leeway to establish their regulatory agencies to manage heritage affairs, they tend to develop their own understanding of ‘authenticity’, such as in the reconstruction of a Buddhist monastery for tourism development at the Mount Emei World Heritage Site. However, while existing studies indicate that authenticity, as interpreted in local heritage making, is embedded with a certain amount of subjectivity and governmental agendas, few studies explore the changes in local governments’ authenticity narratives throughout the destructive reconstruction process. The socio-political factors leading to the variations in the interpretation of authenticity should be analysed to further reveal the relationship between the interpretation of authenticity and actual implementations at the local level.

2.3 Heritage fever and destructive reconstruction in urbanised China

After China’s fiscal contract system was established in 1980, local governments became more positive about their local revenue growth and urban developments (He and Wu 2010). Thus, local officials worried that the reconstruction of West Shuidong Street would reduce the Quarter’s physical authenticity because the urban fabric in West Shuidong Street had already been changed significantlyFootnote 8, which could prevent the Quarter from being nominated as an official historic district and hence affect the national FHCC application.

In 2011, the Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban–Rural Development consulted the provincial heritage expert committee on the renewal of Huizhou’s inner-city areas and the national FHCC application. The committee members from provincial institutes and universities urged that the reconstruction work be terminated immediately after they were informed about the details of the Project (Han 2011). They warned that Huizhou would not pass the national FHCC assessment, which opposes reconstructions in provincial historical and cultural districts, and that the practice violated authenticity principles that respect the original state of historic buildings and contributions of different periods to the physical fabric (State Council of PRC 2008). Considering the national FHCC assessment criteria and future inspections from state and provincial authorities, the Shuidong Reconstruction Project was suspended in 2012 as the local government sought opportunities for a successful national FHCC application.

4.3 Phase 2: conservation and tourism (2016–present)

Between 2012 and 2015, Huizhou pursued its application for a national FHCC accreditation. To diminish any negative effects of the reconstruction of West Shuidong Street on its application, the Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban–Rural Development re-demarcated areas around East Shuidong Street as the core protected zone of Shuidong Quarter, while the reconstructed area was delimited as a buffer zone. Meanwhile, the newly established city master plan (2006–2020) listed conservation principles that were localised from the national heritage regulations in a section named ‘Protection of the Historical and Cultural City’, including comprehensive protections for the traditional landscape and spatial layout, authenticity and integrity of the area, and adherence to the original state of heritage sites. The plan also encourages tourism development in the historic districts under effective protection (The People’s Government of Huizhou Municipality 2012). The principles of authenticity from national conservation guidelines were officially introduced into municipal regulations, which restricted the reconstruction of Shuidong Quarter, whereas Huizhou’s sustainable development goal as a tourism city further stimulates the revitalisation of Shuidong Quarter as a recreational centre.

Following its declaration of Shuidong Quarter as a provincial historical and cultural district in 2014, Huizhou succeeded in its national FHCC application in 2015 (Xu and Li 2015). The new status of the Quarter has greatly regulated the interpretation and implementation of national-level authenticity principles in the Shuidong Restoration Project because both state and provincial heritage administrations are now involved in examining the conservation of the Quarter (State Council of PRC 2008). This also means that the management of Shuidong Quarter should strictly abide by the state’s heritage regulations, especially the Regulation on the Protection of Famous Historical and Cultural Cities, Towns and Villages (State Council of PRC 2008) and the Cultural Relics Protection Law (State Council of PRC 2002). In the same year, having obtained legislative power, The People’s Government of Huizhou Municipality (2016) issued the Protection Planning for the Famous Historical and Cultural City of Huizhou, which clarifies the roles of different local administrations in the management of Shuidong Quarter and requires the establishment of a detailed regulatory plan articulating conservation measures for the area. For example, new architectural constructions and the demolition of historic buildings are not allowed in the core protected zone. Thus, to maintain the new status of Shuidong Quarter and Huizhou, with restrictions from multi-level heritage legislation and inspections, local administrations must follow national-level authenticity principles in the Project plan and actual implementation, rather than simply reconstructing the Quarter in the name of authenticity as shown during the first phase.

In 2016, supervised by the Department of Housing and Urban–Rural Development of Guangdong and the Guangdong Bureau of Cultural Relics, the redesign of the Shuidong Reconstruction Project was initiated that only targets the core protected zone covering an area of 7.1 hectares surrounding East Shuidong Street (Fig. 7). In the process of formulating the detailed regulatory plan, the Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban–Rural Development commissioned a planning institute to design conservation and revitalisation measures for East Shuidong Street. After conducting detailed documentation on each building’s façade and interior structure and evaluating their conservation status, the planning institute customised a conservation plan for each house based on its current condition and level of harmony with Shuidong Quarter’s architectural styles. For example, the façades of historic buildings, especially their pediments, windows, screens and cornices that notably manifest Cantonese architectural styles, should be repaired based on the ‘xiujiurujiu’ principle. Modern buildings whose scales are compatible with the historic landscape can be retained by altering their exterior building elements in accordance with the Quarter’s urban fabric (An-Design Architects 2017).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Core protected and buffer zones in Shuidong Quarter. (Source: The People’s Government of Huizhou Municipality)

Full size image

In 2017, the Detailed Regulatory Plan on the Protection of Shuidong Historical and Cultural District was issued by the Municipal Bureau of Housing and Urban–Rural Development. This document adhered to Huizhou’s Protection Planning for the Famous Historical and Cultural City of Huizhou (The People’s Government of Huizhou Municipality 2016) and clearly articulates the requirements for authenticity in the management of Shuidong Quarter, including the special protection of historic buildings protected at the municipal level, appropriate repairs of damaged historic buildings and documentation of historical changes. The commercial and residential use of Shuidong Quarter should be continued, which guarantees the ongoing residency of East Shuidong Street communities (The People’s Government of Huizhou Municipality 2017). The interpretation of authenticity in the Detailed Regulatory Plan corresponds to the evolving definition of authenticity in the 2015 China Principles that respects the continuation of living heritage sites’ original functions and diachronic values (ICOMOS China 2015).

Similar to Phase 1, commercial activities are still the dominant elements in the revitalised Quarter. Now mainly positioned as a remarkable qilou shop** district, Shuidong Quarter will be further developed into three thematic commercial zones, which present its identity as it changed over different periods: i.e., as a commercial port, a hub of Cantonese arcade houses and a hometown for overseas Chinese. Huizhou’s intangible cultural heritage, including bamboo weaving and dragon dance, will be promoted in the form of commodities or performing arts. The Quarter will ultimately be integrated into the inner city’s cultural route to present Huizhou’s history of commercial development and its Cantonese built heritage (The People’s Government of Huizhou Municipality 2017).

Overall, the effectiveness of national-level authenticity principles in the Shuidong Restoration Project was enhanced following the involvement of upper-level heritage legislations and examinations by the superordinate authorities involved in the management of Shuidong Quarter after its ascension into a provincial historical and cultural district. The redesigned plan conforms to the criteria of physical authenticity in national heritage regulations by emphasising the diachronic values of historic buildings, the Quarter’s original functions and the documentation of conservation work. Intangible heritage and community values have also been mentioned in the written documents. Nonetheless, the interpretation of authenticity in the second phase, which still prioritises material-based elements and bureaucratic thinking to commodify the historic quarter into a tourist product, is still far away from the requirements for authenticity from international conservation documents.

5 Discussion

The idea of authenticity as derived from the Western values for cultural fabric and truth is absent from the Chinese traditional culture, which appreciates the aesthetics rather than the scientific qualities of historic landscapes (Derde 2010; Yang et al. 2020). Likewise, the reconstruction of historic architecture was commonly conducted in pre-modern China because of the rapid decay of wooden constructions and the emphasis on spirituality over materiality in the conservation discourse (Zhu and Maags 2020). It is only since the 1980s that China has introduced a material-based concept of authenticity from the international heritage conservation doctrine to keep up with the global trends (Zhu and Maags 2020) where reconstruction began to be linked with the issue of authenticity. In national-level policies, however, the conservation of historic urban landscapes had long yielded to urban and social modernisation until the late 1990s, when the State Council of PRC called for the rescue of cultural relics (Yan 2018). Due to the deep-rooted ‘use first’ principles for historic relics (prioritisation of economic development over preservation) and the city’s craving for an image of advancement and modernisation, the advocacy to preserve authenticity inevitably collides with and is ultimately subjected to the political and economic potential of the heritage site. As shown in the Shuidong Project, authenticity is first used as an excuse for the spatial cleansing of the Quarter through reconstruction and now as a strict criterion leading to the termination of the reconstruction work in order to attain the National FHCC accreditation. However, authenticity is, above all, a tool to serve the shifting priorities of the local government, which reflects the political and market-driven leanings of local heritage conservation practices in China.

This study further argues that the interpretation of authenticity keeps changing because of the shifting local socio-political factors. Variations in the top-down policy transfer, alterations in local development priorities and the involved regulatory powers all contribute to the changes in the articulation of authenticity in the Shuidong Reconstruction Project.

The introduction of authenticity criteria from national conservation guidelines to local regulations experienced at least two levels (i.e., provincial and municipal) of policy transfer. Due to the non-state government’s leeway in policymaking and implementation, the authenticity narratives could continue to transform across administrative levels (Maags 2020). The state-level authenticity principles thus become malleable through the local administrations’ self-interests, which could adjust the authenticity contents to justify heritage reconstructions and fulfil local government agendas (Acharya 2004; Zhu and Maags 2020). In the first phase of the Shuidong Reconstruction Project, the renewal of Shuidong Quarter was not restricted by the national heritage law because it only applies to sites protected at the state level. Thus, the local government successfully borrowed ‘authenticity’ as a scientific term to legitimise its reconstruction of West Shuidong Street.

However, the interpretation and implementation of authenticity are further influenced by the local government’s shifting needs. Alongside the regular changes in leading local officials, the city’s development priorities may change over time. With Huizhou’s main task updated into attaining the national FHCC accreditation, the local administrations must formulate their heritage regulations to comprehensively articulate their authenticity principles in alignment with upper-level standards. In the meantime, to win the reputation as a heritage site and maintain it afterwards, the subjective construction of authenticity in the Shuidong Quarter through reconstruction had to be terminated and followed by the appropriate repair of historic buildings based on their historical conditions.

The regulatory power involved in local heritage projects is also shifting depending on the protection level of the historic district and the improvement of sub-national heritage regulations, which affects the interpretation of authenticity throughout the reconstruction process. As official heritage sites are increasingly regarded as assets for city branding and political achievements, the local governments are dedicated to pursuing heritage authentication by upper-level authorities. Following the ascension of historic districts as heritage sites protected at the national or provincial levels, superordinate administrations intervene in the conservation work to subsequently modify the interpretation of authenticity by local governments towards the districts.

6 Conclusion

The destructive reconstruction of dilapidated historic districts driven by the local governments’ needs for political and economic achievements has been commonly performed in the name of heritage conservation in China for over 20 years. While its official scheme and promotional materials emphasise ‘authenticity’ as a highlight of such reconstructed historic districts, the fake-antique architecture and functional restoration actually deviate from authenticity as defined in the national-level heritage regulations. This study investigates the factors leading to variations in the interpretation of the national-level authenticity principles in the reconstruction of Shuidong historic quarter in Huizhou, Guangdong Province. The subjective construction of authenticity was shown to rationalise the pro-profit reconstruction of unofficial historic districts, where local political agendas could overshadow conservation principles. However, such an interpretation is consistently changing because of the shifting local politics and involved regulatory powers. As shown in the first phase of the Shuidong Project, ‘authenticity’ became a tool for the local government to legitimise the reconstruction of the dilapidated historic area into a commercial complex with a historicist architectural design. In contrast, during the second phase, with the establishment of municipal heritage regulations and the authorisation of Shuidong Quarter as an official heritage site inspected by upper-level administrations, the Project has carefully interpreted the national-level authenticity principles, respecting the diachronic values of historic buildings, intangible cultural heritage and community values. Nonetheless, the over-emphasis on the physical architectural appearance and commodification of regional culture indicates that the national-level authenticity guidelines are adopted not for pure conservation purposes but to serve the local government’s political agendas, which reflects the disconnection between conservation ideologies and bureaucratic realities.

This research study has explored only the mediation across vertical lines of authority on the interpretation of authenticity in reconstruction practices; hence, future studies could examine the dynamics between different horizontal municipal administrations responsible for heritage conservation or the so-called tiao-kuai relationship that combines both the vertical and horizontal organs of government.