J. Resour. Ecol.

2013 4 (3) 242-249

DOI:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2013.03.007
www.jorae.cn
Sept., 2013 Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.4 No.3
Received: 2013-06-12 Accepted: 2013-08-07
Foundation: Chinese Academy of Sciences Visiting Professorship for Senior International Scientists (Grant No.Y0S00100KD).
* Corresponding author: Myriam JANSEN-VERBEKE. Email: jansen.verbeke@skynet.be.
GIAHS
1 Introduction: the 21st century context
The aim of this paper is to share some critical refections on
the introduction of new concepts in the study and planning
of cultural landscapes, such as dynamic preservation,
valorisation of traditional habitats, tangible and intangible
heritage, cultural and economic resources, community
empowerment, survival of rural ways of life and agricultural
production systems and eventually the ambiguous role of
tourism. The increasing number of studies, books and papers
on heritagescapes is a clear indication of an emerging
fascination of scholars, from a wide range of disciplines, in
the process of creating heritage landscapes (Jansen-Verbeke
et al. 2013), as is the growth of academic courses.
The genesis of cultural landscapes is a core issue in many
geographical studies, examining the interaction of people
and their environment in variable time and space contexts.
The interpretation of cultural landscape became even more
complex since other disciplines have developed an interest
in this territorial concept and its relevance in the cultural
history of mankind (Aplin 2002).
Each landscape is unique with respect of its morphology,
history and habitat and, as a consequence, also in terms of
cultural and economic resources and uses (Jansen-Verbeke
et al. 2008). This diversity provides a rich ground for
research, as the endless mix of natural settings and cultural
characteristics creates a situation where each study can
be seen as discrete at some level. What this diversity has
tended to do, though, is result in the production of a wide
array of descriptive case studies that are devoid of a deeper
conceptualization, comparative and cross disciplinary
analyses. Indeed, the fact that the study of landscape
dynamics can be approached from various disciplinary
angles might even explain the lack of a coherent conceptual
framework development and the inadequacy of studies
designed to understand the impact of universal changes.
As discussed more than a decade ago, in A Geography of
Heritage: Power, Culture and Economy and reconfirmed
Refections on the Myth of Tourism Preserving Traditional
Agricultural Landscapes
Myriam JANSEN-VERBEKE
1
* and Bob McKERCHER
2
1 KU Leuven, Geo-Instituut, Celestijnenlaan, 200E, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;
2 School of Hotel and Tourism Management, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 11 Yuk Choi Rd, Hung Hom, Hong Kong
Abstract: The renewed interest in cultural landscapes is a global phenomenon to be explained in a
multi dimensional way. The process of revalorising traditional habitats, people and their way of living
in a particular environment, is closely linked to the introduction of heritage as a cultural, social and
economic construct. The recognition of cultural landscapes as a new category on the world heritage
list (UNESCO) since the 1990s, emphasises the importance of the human-environment interaction and
the need for understanding the dynamics of landscapes in time and space. Values are changing and new
opportunities emerge for a dynamic preservation of iconic landscapes and traditional communities. A
cross disciplinary understanding of interacting processes is essential to plan and manage sustainable
heritage(land)scapes. Various pilot projects and case studiesworld-widelead to critical reflections
about the sustainability of heritage landscapes and the sovereign role of tourism. The perspective of
Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Sites (GIAHS), supported by economic resources generated
by tourism, requires a research-based approach analysing opportunities and expectations, assessing
strategic policies and top down politics.
Key words: heritage landscapes; territorial cultural resources; community based tourism; tourismifcation;
integrated management model; myths
JANSEN-VERBEKE M, et al.: Refections on the Myth of Tourism Preserving Traditional Agricultural Landscapes
243
in a recent discussion note Only the development of
some core accepted definitions, terminology and at least
a modicum of grounded theory can bridge the widening
gap between academics and practitioners, and prevent the
different academic disciplinary perspectives retreating into
mutually unintelligible solitudes (Tunbridge et al. 2012).
A resetting of the research agenda is needed to include
the development of more cohesive, holistic theories,
models, frameworks, concepts, methods and techniques
(Jansen-Verbeke 2013). Descriptive studies have their
merit, but tend to be atheoretical, meaning little broad
applicability and/or generalizability can be found between
similar cases and across different cases. Some attempts
were made to introduce new concepts linking time and
space in the study of human habitat, but they are limited by
a lack of operational defnitions. Indeed, the trend to study
heritagisation as a process in its multiple dimensions
is marked by babylonic terminology, which hinders
development of a theoretical framework and leads to
fragmented research on landscapes.
Even the simple idea to identify a historical and
traditional landscape is fraught with challenges, especially
when applied to the construct of a world heritage area, for
the characteristics of a cultural landscape became a point
of debate when UNESCO decided to acknowledge this
spatial category for nomination and inclusion on the World
Heritage list in 1992. In the end, a rather generic concept
of a signifcant interaction between people and the natural
environment was recognized as cultural landscapes -
worth protecting without attempting to define what is
significant and how to evaluate the interaction between
people and their environment. The issue is complicated
further by the often overt political nature of designation.
The result is a less than optimal system that is fraught with
questions about what criteria to include or exclude, how to
deal with political agendas and, ultimately how to manage
these places. It is also complicated by the confused role of
tourism that is seen in either idealistic or antagonistic terms.
Landscapes are constantly in transition and hence mirrors
of social and economic evolution. The conceptualization
of heritage refects changes in the social context, important
transformation in power relations and an accentuation of
national, ethnic or other identities (Harvey 2001). Memories
of the past, anchored in present landscapes are being
identified and places, narratives, tangible and intangible
assets are linked in order to create heritage landscapes
(Aplin 2002; Jansen-Verbeke 2009). Yet, much of the effort
seen today seems intended to support the emerging myth
of Use the past as a resource for a better future with a
heavy emphasis on museumification of sites, and almost
a rejection of their living, dynamic nature. What is seen
as traditional and therefore worthy of conservation is
culturally, economically and politically determined. The
driving forces and conditions of induced processes were
questioned by pioneers in the feld of heritage studies and
recently further developed in various fields of application
(Lowenthal 1975; Harvey 1988; Roberts 2012).
How to explain and argue a growing interest in the past,
in preserving traditional landscapes and iconic places in
the world, in re-viewing ardently the options of giving
a meaning today to spaces and places, implementing a
nostalgic trend (Crouch 2013)? Linking past and present
interpretations implies notions of temporality and the
capacity to identify and read traditional landscapes as
a historical product consisting of different layers of
settlement in sequential historical periods (Harvey 2001).
2 Dynamic preservation: strategies and
myths
Powerful globalisation waves are indeed eroding the
diversity of urban and rural habitats. How can traditional
agricultural landscapes then survive the forces of
globalization and the universal pressure to identify new
economic resources? Are traditional landscapes and habitats
destined to disappear or to be structurally mutated by the
dynamics of the 21st century, modernization, development
pressures and the seemingly inevitable rural urban drift
of young people looking for a better life? The ongoing
mutagenesis needs to be understood in a wider context of
social and economic processes, global technical innovations
and above all the spatial impact of demographic trends in
an increasingly mobile society. Mobility flows of people
and thoughts have created a greater uniformity in vision
and expectations regarding quality of life, even about
environmental aesthetics and the valorization of traditional
architecture.
The ongoing visual metamorphosis of urban, but now
increasingly also of rural landscapes and settlements,
evokes images and fears of an irreversible loss of identity,
differentiation and erosion of traditions. Forces of
globalization gradually erase expressions of diversity and
fundamental values such as a sense of place. Mutation
processes increasingly affect rural and agricultural
landscapes and communities, even in remote, traditionally
peripheral regions.
It is very common nowadays to see young people in
rural areas dressed in modern (western) attire while their
grandparents continue to wear traditional, handmade
clothing. Likewise, it is not uncommon to see youth with
the trappings of modernization (internet, i-phones, etc.)
with the resultant change in behaviors brought about by the
homogenization of technologies. While the time-distance
factor between urban and peripheral rural areas still
remains crucial in the persistence of a significant cultural
and economic gap (Guibert and Jean 2011; Brouder 2012),
modernization pressures are closing the gap quickly, so that
the distance is much smaller, and getting smaller by the
year.
The interference of these processes tends to be complex,
multi-dimensional and above all unbalancing: traditional
habits and habitats clash with the modern in an irreversible
way. Yet all actors and factors of the system are subject to
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.4 No.3, 2013
244
structural changes over time, even accelerated changes in
the last decennium. Historical patterns of rural communities
are replaced by new values, ways of life and above all
expectations.
Historical unique agricultural systems and landscapes
developed over eons as the result of a continued transfer
of knowledge between generations, the belief in continuity
of both social and agricultural systems, limited mobility,
the concomitant need to maintain the system, and the
presence of certain non-mechanised farming technologies.
Moreover, there was a social, economic and survival
imperative to maintain a sense of stasis, or as we would
now say, sustainability, for the very survival of communities
depended on it. A vast array of traditions (oral, festive,
religious and social) and accepted gender and generational
roles evolved as a means of both sustaining communities
and ensuring the effective transference of knowledge
over time to maintain that continuity. All of this is at risk
of disappearing in many places within a short time span
of one or two generations, as younger people especially,
enjoy greater mobility, and therefore, life options other
than their ancestors. The result is a very real risk of the loss
of traditional lifestyles that have existed for thousands of
years.
A rich bibliography exists already about the overruling
impact of urbanization, yet more trans-disciplinary studies
are needed to analyze the impact of ongoing mutations in
the physical environment and human habitat, to identify the
vectors of change and the power of different agents (Aplin
2007). This has led to a most arduous worldwide debate
on the urge to select representative samples of historical
landscapes worthy of conservation so that future
generations do not lose touch completely with their past.
Arguments to sustain traditional landscapes and agricultural
production systems tend to emphasise the cohesion between
landscape, men and their livelihood (Min 2009).
Ultimately, though, the questions must be asked
about realistic scenarios of safeguarding traditional
rural settlements with only some remaining vernacular
architecture in an iconic landscape. Clearly, this valuable
regional or local cultural capital needs the support of
reliable economic resources and consistent environmental
policies in order to initiate a dynamic regional development.
Can governmental plans promote biodiversity in rural
territories, guarantee the livelihood for rural communities to
the extent that emigration of the younger generation can be
stopped? What are the arguments and which elements of the
traditional agricultural landscapes and settlements should
be conserved for future generations? Although an integrated
adaptive environmental management model is the key
for future planning, the animated debate on physical and
functional preservation of traditional agricultural landscapes
and communities is often approached in a fragmented way.
The issue of survival in the 21st century has caught the
attention of global organisations, such as UNESCO, FAO,
environmental lobbies, etc. (Koohafkan and de la Cruz
2011). Important awareness campaigns were launched to
develop models for dynamic conservation (Min 2009).
What appears to be a contradiction in terms has initiated
an academic exploration fever to find liveable and
sustainable compromises between preventive conservation
modes for valuable landscapes with global forces of
economic revitalisation. This implies new challenges for a
wide range of environmental oriented disciplines, including
social and economic issues.
3 Heritage assets and territorial capital
The importance of territorial coherence and identitythe
territorial capitalis based on the interdependency and
interaction of cultural elements. The very presence of
accumulated tangible and intangible cultural assets is
indeed a dynamic factor in regional and local development
processes and policies of cultural identity building.
The present challenge is to identify heritage assets that
potentially support or reinforce the territorial capital of rural
communities and open new economic perspectives. In many
cases, regional development in rural areas implies finding
ways to implant tourism in an integrated and adapted way
(Aplin and Batten 2004). Looking at cultural and heritage
resources in the territorial context opens new views on
tourism potentials.
Embedding traces and narratives of the past in the
present landscapes demands an integrated approach in a
trans-disciplinary endeavour. There is no guidebook for
best-ft models of rural tourism development, even less on
integration of heritage assetstangible and intangiblein
the countryside. According to several authors, research on
tourism development in rural settings is fragmented by a
disciplinary spectrum of approaches and, above all isolated
case studies. However the local focus of many explorative
field works is also to be appreciated as a constructive
way to identify territorial heritage assets as seen by the
local communities and to assess community views and
expectations regarding tourism; the local assets and weak
points.
In heritage planning a coordination of interests and
various types of knowledge is seen as desirable. Divergent
views on cultural and economic uses of heritage potentially
generate a conflict of interests, often based on utopic
scenarios of sustainable ecotourism. The very presence
of accumulated tangible and intangible cultural assets
can indeed become a dynamic factor in regional and local
development. Policies of re-building cultural identity, for
instance in post-colonial agricultural communities, are
gradually implemented (Joliffe 2013). Together with a
growing interest in, and respect for ethnic minorities in their
traditional habitat, the expectations of economic benefits
from the process of heritagization tend to increase.
Heritage values of rural landscapes and settlements are
being redefined and promoted by a range of stakeholders:
first of all the local population gradually developing
more awareness about the iconic value of their habitat
JANSEN-VERBEKE M, et al.: Refections on the Myth of Tourism Preserving Traditional Agricultural Landscapes
245
and landscape, their cultural traditions, both tangible and
intangible. The future of agricultural heritage is in hands
of the local farmers community mainly; a situation which
brings forward questions about capacities to safeguard
and manage traditional agricultural heritagescapes in their
territorium.
Much attention is paid to the implication of recognition
and misrecognition of community heritage (Waterton
and Smith 2010). The tension between different groups
regarding views and aspirations has been demonstrated by
many case studies, based on so called in-depth interviews
with representative local residents. The reference in
the interviews to academic concepts such as heritage,
memories, cultural identity, sustainability, commodifcation,
etc. raises mixed and undefined feelings with the
respondents such as pride and nostalgia, recognition and
political correctness, collective community engagement
versus personal ambitions. Waterton and Smith (2010) note
This, inevitably, has serious and far reaching consequences
for community groups seeking to assert alternative
understandings of heritage. Indeed, the net result has seen
the virtual disappearance of dissonance and more nuanced
ways of understanding heritage.
In addition to this revalorization by the community
groups, there are external incentives to eventually
commodify selected heritage assets (traditional food and
clothing, music and dance, arts and crafts, festivities and
rituals, etc.) Regional governments and local enterprises,
officials and business networks all explore eagerly the
potentials of developing alternative economic resources for
a traditional agricultural livelihood. The drive to develop a
territorial cultural capital is both, a bottom up awakening
of rural communities and a top down policy to create better
living conditions in often poor and remote traditional
agricultural regions. This is even part of a global movement
and a continuous challenge to safeguard traditional
agricultural landscapes by managing the resources through
administration, politics and economic policies (Van Assche
and Duineveld 2013).
4 Paradoxes and challenges of community
based tourism
Tourism is often listed as the ultimate option to create
new economic resources for rural areas, a tool for regional
development, a strategic switch from a traditional
dependency on the agricultural sector to a tertiary sector
based livelihood. The new style of earning a living is
appealing to the younger generation in rural settlements
and to some, an appealing alternative for emigration to
metropolitan areas. The artisanal stage of tourism in
many rural regions is, world-wide, characterized by much
trial and error, since management structures are seldom in
place. A key problem to be solved is how local stakeholders
can become shareholders in thisnow largely unknown to
themimport business. Most plans for local development
in rural areas referin a rather simplistic wayto tourism
as the goose that brings the golden eggs.
There are three mayor traps: first of all, the false
expectations about the actual impact of investments in
local tourism on the cultural and economic capital of the
rural community; secondly a lack of expertise to connect
strategically with key actors in the tourism value chain,
where awareness about the comparative advantages
of the site, the richness and the vulnerability of the
territorial heritage assets is a primary condition to enter
the competitive tourism market in a sustainable way and
last but not least, the capacity of stakeholders and decision
makers to anticipate the impact of tourismifcation in their
region or place.
What are the expectations of residents on tourism
improving the quality of their daily life? To what extent
can local initiatives and their marketing advisors define
comparative advantages of the local tourist opportunity
spectrum in an international or domestic highly competitive
market? Many more crucial questions remain unanswered
and require trans-disciplinary research, stepping beyond the
stage of fragmented small-scale field surveys with often-
questionable methods and samples (Salazar 2012). The
challenges of converting traditional agricultural landscapes
into tourism landscapes and eventually tourismscapes,
adequate to meet the expectations of various stakeholders
i n t he net work, requi res i nsi ght i n t he vect ors of
transformation, and with it, the potential for a range of
unexpected consequences on communities (Wu et al. 2011;
Yang 2012).
5 Tourismifcation: facts and myths
Tourism development in rural areasfrom a primary sector
based economy to tertiary activitiesis most challenging,
even against the odds according to some researchers
and above all closely linked or even dependent on the
development in other sectors (Hall 2007; Brouder 2012). To
some, regional development through tourism is seen as an
elusive, almost unrealistic goal in many rural and peripheral
regions (Mller and Jansson 2007). Despite the tenacity
of tourism in rural areas this economic perspective has
been promoted as a preferred strategy to counter of the
rural urban drift, as a social option to revitalise local
communities, and as an experiential justifcation to continue
traditional lifestyles, festivals and traditions.
The desire to retain communities intangible heritage
also carries with it a parallel need to conserve the
tangible heritage associated with rural landscapes, for it
is impossible to separate the intangible from the tangible.
Tangible heritage, in general, and how communities have
had to adopt the morphology of physical landscapes
has in turn dictated the evolution of intangible features
that are associated with rural communities. For instance
hundreds of years of terrace building in the rice fields in
Asia, the location and clustering of villages to minimise
loss of farmland, and even habits related to manipulating
landscapes to conserve water, dispose of human waste, use
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.4 No.3, 2013
246
animal wastes as a source of nutrients and store crops have
all shaped the spatial structure of both residential areas and
farmlands. In turn, both resources available to communities
and pragmatic needs have shaped fashion, dietary habits,
technologies, cooking styles and the like, while the need
to ensure the continuation of these systems has shaped the
social fabric of the community, gender roles and the like: all
things associated with intangible heritage, seasons, climate,
sewing, growing, and harvesting times have further shaped
the social calendar of these communities.
These resources can create an appealing tourist offer,
as people enjoy experiencing the other. Modified
natural landscapes, especially if on a monumental scale,
as often seen in terraced farmland, make for spectacular
images. Rural cultural landscapes remind us of an
earlier time when life was simpler, creating a sense of
nostalgia. Icons of a lost past? Traditional lifestyles and
their associated clothing, habits and behaviours rooted
in ancient patterns and festivities also produce appealing
picturesque opportunities. Local cuisine is attractive, if
for no other reason than it is different, and the tourist has
a new experience. In addition, although rarely mentioned
in tourism literature, the simple way of life and even
expressions of poverty can add to an appealing touristic
image. The scene is appreciated by the outsider
observingbut not fully aware what the living conditions
mean in terms of quality of life. Buildings and houses,
public spaces are often old and physically decaying. Even
this scene can stand for appealing imagery. Yet poverty
is not appealing for poor communities who lack modern
conveniences, global brands and international shops and
restaurants. These reflections highlight one of the main
challenges of converting traditional agricultural landscapes
and communities into tourismscapes.
The process of tourismification implies transformation,
and with it, the potential for a range of unexpected
consequences on communities (McKercher and du Cros
2002). The differences in how local residents and tourists
value, and therefore use heritage assets can become a source
of conflict; local residents value them for their intrinsic
meaning to the community, as a reflection of their own
values, beliefs and everyday activities. Tourists, on the other
hand, value them for their extrinsic meaning as tourism
products to be consumed, with little knowledge or interest
in learning about them at anything more than a superfcial
level.
Tourismification refers to interrelated processes of
change (Jansen-Verbeke 2007). Sometimes tourism results
from a top down policy imposed on rural communities,
because identifed as a preferred economic action, often as
a last resort when no other economic opportunities exist.
Surely agricultural landscapes have the potential to appeal
to tourists, but communities must be given suffcient time
to develop a basic understanding of tourism as a system and
the hospitality codes for visitors.
In the worst scenario cultural landscapes can become
little more than locales for consumption of experiences,
with few or no benefits flowing to communities, but
with communities having to deal with the impacts of
congestion, cultural transformation, waste and the like.
Rural communities need to develop suitable commercial
infrastructure, especially overnight accommodation, in
order to optimise the benefits of tourism. However rural
communities, in peripheral regions in particular, have
limited resources even to beneft in a marginal way from the
emerging opportunities (McKercher and Ho 2006)
6 The way ahead: assessing tourism
potentials
As a way forward, refections on a framework for assessing
tourism potentials and identifying key issues in planning
and managing tourism in heritage sites were proposed
(Jansen-Verbeke and McKercher 2010). Crucial challenges
in managing sites and landscapes can be grouped in three
distinct dimensions (Jansen-Verbeke 2007; Table 1).
The proposed management model includes the hardware
(location, spatial characteristics of the site and robustness,
referring to the tangible heritage mainly), the software from
the perspective of the tourist (appeal and experiencescape)
and, importantly, the orgware or how well the place can be
managed (existence and style of managing organisation,
presence or absence of formal policy, on site management
plans and stakeholder evaluation).
This tentative management framework suggests
analytical tools to assess the strong and weak points of
heritage destinations in a multi-dimensional way. Unique
Table 1 Critical issues in tourism management of heritage sites (Based on Jansen-Verbeke and McKercher 2010).
Management issues Hardware Software Orgware
Conservation vs.
Tourismifcation
Planning of site and destination area:
infrastructure
Commodifcation of heritage
assets
Agents, organisation & policies
Monitoring: Tools &
Methods
Physical impact of visitation on heritage
sites
Visitors time -space use By stakeholders & decision
makers
Sustainable Development Zoning & Clustering of Tourist
Opportunity Spectrum (TOS)
Visitors experiences &
expenditures
Inclusion of local stakeholders
Quality norms
Resource Management Conservation of tangible heritage assets Valorisation of Cultural Capital
(inc. intangible heritage)
Global revalorisation of heritage
sites
Comparative advantages Competitive advantages
JANSEN-VERBEKE M, et al.: Refections on the Myth of Tourism Preserving Traditional Agricultural Landscapes
247
sites have unique potentials and problems. Nevertheless
there is a way to also identify common issues and to
develop a comparative understanding of management issues
(Table 2):
Hardware refers to the location, spatial characteristics
of site and situation, the icons in the heritage landscape,
the robustness of tangible heritage assets, and eventually
the impact of tourism infrastructure and commodifcation
on the morphology and outlook of the site. What are
the challenges and the capacities required to manage
physical mutations?
Software of the tourism destination is a mindset
constructed by images, narratives and eventually
marketing and place branding by tourism agencies
(local and external). Analysing behaviour patterns of
visitors, assessing positive and negative experiences is
a stepping stone in developing efficient management
strategies. What are the comparative advantages of sites
in attracting visitors?
Orgware by far the most important dimension of
competitive destinations, depends on the level and
quality of organisation, the collaboration between local
agents and key organisation in the tourism value chain.
The core mission is developing and implementing local
policies to support the creation of an attractive tourist
opportunity spectrum on a regional scale level. The
power balance between stakeholders and shareholders is
a most critical issue in developing a management model
for sustainable development.
This explorative model was introduced in a debate
on tourism potentials of agricultural heritage sites
(Beijing GIAHS Conference, June 2011). Researchers
and government officers involved in GIAHS (Globally
Important Agricultural Heritage Sites) projects in China
participated in the exercise to identify the weak and strong
points today and to anticipate opportunities and problems
Table 2 A comparative understanding of management issues.
Hardware Software Orgware
Location
Spatial
characteristics
Robustness
Tourist
appeal
Experiencescape Organisation Policy Management Stakeholders
Solitary and
isolated to
integrated
into an urban
landscape
Size of
heritage site
individual
monument to
multi-national
scale
Fragility of
tangible
asset
Place in
attractions
hierarchy
(primary vs.
secondary)
Type of tourist
attracted to
site / type of
experience
sought
Single
overriding
agency vs.
multiple
agencies vs.
no dominant
agency
Pursuit of
heritage site
status for
conservation
or for
tourism
goals?
Presented as
is with little
commodifcation
vs. heavily
commodifed
Single
stakeholder
with a clear
focus vs.
multiple
stakeholders
with mixed
focus
Part of a
contiguous
destination
area or an
isolated area
Internal spatial
structure of
heritage site
(compact or
dispersed,
single or
multiple
nodes)
Risk that
tourism
pressure
may
compromise
cultural
values
Fame prior to
designation
Type and quality
of interpretation
and which
story / stories
to be told
Presentation
Ownership
public,
private or a
mix of public
and private
ownership
Presence or
absence of
effective
national
legislation
Heritage site
management
structure -
public sector,
public / private
partnership or
leased to private
sector
Direct and
pragmatic
vs. indirect
and
ideologically
driven
stakeholders
Access
considerations
(easy vs.
diffcult)
Presence or
absence of
iconic features
Ability to
manage
impacts
Realistic
assessment
of tourism
potential
Theming
and desired
message(s)
Level of
government
management
of heritage
site devolved
to (local of
federal)
Presence
or absence
of formal
conservation
or management
plan and its
effectiveness
Power
balance
between
stakeholders
Proximity to
other heritage
sites
Presence
or absence
of buffer
zone around
heritage site
Possess
necessary
attributes
for success
Tourist
connectivity to
the site
Revenue source
for conservation
(presence /
absence; reliance
on tourism to
provide funding)
Level /
effcacy of
stakeholder
consultation
Connection
with main
tourism
gateways
Focus on edu-
tainment or
education
Perceived role of
tourism (primary
use vs. ancillary
use)
Journal of Resources and Ecology Vol.4 No.3, 2013
248
Acknowledgements
We kindly acknowledge Prof. Dr. MIN Qingwen (IGSNRR, CAS)
for his incentives to study GIAHS in the perspective of heritage
tourism and local development. He offered us the opportunity to
discover some aspects of rural Chinaoff the beaten trackand
exchange ideas on preservation and tourism with officials and
researchers in the feld.
Thanks to the effcient and above all enthusiastic assistance of
Dr. SUN Yehong, our discovery of rural China became an inspiring
and enriching experience.
References
Aplin G. 2002. Heritage: Identification, conservation and management.
Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Aplin G and P Batten. 2004. Open-minded geographers: Their potential
role in integrated adaptive environmental management. Australian
Geographer, 35(3):354-62.
Aplin G. 2007. World heritage cultural landscapes. International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 13(6):427-446.
Brouder P. 2012. Tourism development against the odds: The tenacity of
tourism in rural areas. Tourism Planning & Development, 9(4): 334-337.
Crouch D. 2013. Space and place-making, space, culture and tourism
(Chapter 31). In: Smith M and G Richards (Eds). The Routledge
Handbook of Cultural Tourism. Abingdon, 247-251.
Guibert M, Y Jean (Eds.). 2011. Dynamiques des espaces ruraux dans le
monde. Paris: Armand Collin, 407.
Hall C M. 2007. North-south perspectives on tourism, regional development
and peripheral areas. In: Mller D K, B Jansson (Eds.). Tourism in
Peripheries, From the Far North to the South. Wallingford CABI, 19-37.
Hall M, A Lew. 2009. Understanding and Managing Tourism Impacts.
Routledge.
Harvey J B. 1988. Maps, knowledge and power. In: Cosgrove D, S
Daniels (Eds.). The Iconography of Landscape: Essays in the Symbolic
Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments. Cambridge
University Press.
Harvey D. 2001. Heritage pasts and heritage presents: Temporality, meaning
and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 7(4): 319-338.
Hawkins D, Chang B, K Warnes. 2009. A comparison of the National
Geographic Stewardship Scorecard Ratings by experts and stakeholders
for selected World Heritage destinations. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
17(1):71-90.
Jansen-Verbeke M. 2007. Cultural resources and tourismification of
territories. Acta Turistica Nova, 1: 21-42.
Jansen-Verbeke M, G Priestley, A P Russo (Eds). 2008, Cultural resources
for tourism: Patterns, processes, policies. New York: Nova Science
Publishers.
Jansen-Verbeke M. 2009. The territoriality paradigm in cultural tourism.
Turyzm /Tourism, 19 (1/2):27-33.
Jansen-Verbeke M. 2013, Mutation of cultural landscapes: The unplanned
tourism map of Europe (Chapter 2). In: Costa C, E Panyik, D Buhalis
(Eds). Trends in European Tourism Planning and Organisation. Abingdon:
Channel View Publications.
Jansen-Verbeke M, B McKercher. 2010. The tourism destiny of world
heritage cultural sites. In: Pearce D, R Butler (Eds.). Tourism Research: a
20:20 vision. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers, 13.
Jansen-Verbeke M, Sun Y, Min Q. 2013. Cultural heritage resources of
traditional agricultural landscapes. In: Smith M, G Richards (Eds.). The
Routledge Handbook of Cultural Tourism. Abingdon, 273- 282.
Jolliffe L. (Ed.). 2013. Sugar heritage and tourism in transition. Bristol:
Channel View Publications, 235.
Koohafkan P and M J de la Cruz. 2011. Conservation and adaptive
management of Globally Important Agricultural Systems (GIAHS).
Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2(1):22-28.
in future. The results of the SWOT exercise referring to
different pilot GIAHS sites are most revealing. Clearly
there is no problem at all to list several strong points at
present in terms of hardware and software. The most
provoking answers relate to structural weak points such as
environmental pollution, lack of clearly outlined heritage
conservation policies, defcient tourism facilities, diffculties
to create a local lobby for tourism, limited expertise of
local decision makers and entrepreneurs regarding the
dynamics and requests of the domestic and international
tourism market. The cultural gap between the local farmers
community, low educational level, and the (mainly external)
tourism lobby is frequently mentioned. In general, the
appreciation of tourism as an economic impulse for rural
communities tends to be overstretched.
The exercise of brainstorming along the three dimensions
(Hardware-Software-Orgware) on the current strong and
weak points of the sites and the opportunities and challenges
for future development allows to learn from comparative
assessment. This has an added value to the lessons drawn
from small scale case studies.
7 Research agenda: challenges and policies
Surely there is an increased interest in policy supporting
research, in explorative and comparative studies, thus
bringing the key issues at the level of an international
debate. The challenge is to accumulate knowledge from
studies in variable time and space contexts (Smith and
Richards 2013). Comparative studies can be an incentive
to identify relevant and measurable parameters of tourism
impact. In fact many studies on heritage sites tend to be
descriptive, the results being representative for the case
only. Many tourism impact studies on heritage sites are
strongly context related, tend to get lost in the details of
tracking particular indications of impact, and in addition use
methods and concepts developed in a specifc disciplinary
framework (Hall and Lew 2009; Hawkins et al. 2009).
In this explorative stage of tourism development in a
rural setting, referring to the heritage landscape as a core
element of the tourism attraction spectrum, there is a high
need for integrated planning. The study and planning
of heritage tourism is still struggling with misused or
misunderstood concepts. As frequently mentioned in
the SWOT exercise above (2011) there often is a lack of
experience in rural communities about the dynamics of
tourism and the methods, tools and technologies to monitor
and manage a sustainable development (Sun et al. 2011).
Knowing about the high expectation of many rural region
and community regarding tourism as a new economic
resource complementary to the traditional activities in
agriculture, time has come to critically refect on the myths
and the actual capacities to generate tourism income in a
most competitive market. Most of all serious reflections
on the social impact of tourismifcation of traditional rural
communities and their habitat should have a high priority.
JANSEN-VERBEKE M, et al.: Refections on the Myth of Tourism Preserving Traditional Agricultural Landscapes
249
Lowenthal D. 1975. Past time, present place: Landscape and memory.
Geographical Review, 65 (1): 1-36.
McKercher B, H Du Cros. 2002. Cultural tourism: The partnership between
tourism and cultural heritage management. Binghamton: Haworth Press.
McKercher B, Ho P. 2006. Assessing the tourism potential of smaller
cultural attractions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(5): 473-488.
Min Q (Ed.). 2009. Dynamic conservation and adaptive management of
Chinas GIAHS theories and practices. Beijing: China Environmental
Press, 313.
Mller D K, B Jansson (Eds.). 2007. Tourism in peripheries, from the far
north to the south. Wallingford CABI.
Roberts L (Ed.). 2012. Mapping cultures place, practice, performance. New
York: Palgrave MacMillan, 309.
Salazar N. 2012. Community-based cultural tourism: Issues, threats and
opportunities. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1):9-22.
Smith M, G Richards (Eds.). 2013. The Routledge Handbook of Cultural
Tourism. Abingdon: Routledge Handbooks.
Sun Y, M Jansen-Verbeke, Min Q, Cheng S. 2011. Tourism potential of
agricultural heritage systems. Tourism Geographies, 13(1): 112-128.
Tunbridge J, G Ashworth, B J Graham. 2012. Decennial reflections on
a Geography of Heritage (2000). International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 16:1-8.
Van Assche K, M Duineveld. 2013. The good, the bad and the self-
referential: heritage planning and the productivity of difference.
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(1): 1-15.
Waterton E and L Smith. 2010. The recognition and misrecognition of
community heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 15(1-2):
4-15.
Wu Y, Xu H, W Eaglan. 2011. Tourismdependent development: The
case of Lijiang, Yunnan Province, China. Journal of Policy Research in
Tourism, Leisure and Events, 3(1): 63-86.
Yang L. 2012. Impacts and challenges in agritourism development in
Yunnan, China. Tourism Planning & Development, 9(4):369-381.

Myriam JANSEN-VERBEKE
1
Bob McKERCHER
2

1 Celestijnenlaan, 200E
2 11

90

GIAHS