This document discusses the study of cultural landscapes in the 21st century context. It addresses the complexity of interpreting "cultural landscape" as the concept has been explored by multiple disciplines. Each landscape has unique morphology, history and habitat. While case studies have value, there is a lack of deeper conceptualization and comparative analysis. A resetting of the research agenda is needed to develop more holistic theories and frameworks. The document also reflects on the growing interest in preserving traditional landscapes and the challenges involved, including politically determined views of what is considered "traditional." It questions how traditional agricultural landscapes can survive globalization forces and addresses the need to understand landscape changes in the wider social and economic context.
Descrição original:
Reflections on the Myth of Tourism Preserving “Traditional” Agricultural Landscapes
This document discusses the study of cultural landscapes in the 21st century context. It addresses the complexity of interpreting "cultural landscape" as the concept has been explored by multiple disciplines. Each landscape has unique morphology, history and habitat. While case studies have value, there is a lack of deeper conceptualization and comparative analysis. A resetting of the research agenda is needed to develop more holistic theories and frameworks. The document also reflects on the growing interest in preserving traditional landscapes and the challenges involved, including politically determined views of what is considered "traditional." It questions how traditional agricultural landscapes can survive globalization forces and addresses the need to understand landscape changes in the wider social and economic context.
This document discusses the study of cultural landscapes in the 21st century context. It addresses the complexity of interpreting "cultural landscape" as the concept has been explored by multiple disciplines. Each landscape has unique morphology, history and habitat. While case studies have value, there is a lack of deeper conceptualization and comparative analysis. A resetting of the research agenda is needed to develop more holistic theories and frameworks. The document also reflects on the growing interest in preserving traditional landscapes and the challenges involved, including politically determined views of what is considered "traditional." It questions how traditional agricultural landscapes can survive globalization forces and addresses the need to understand landscape changes in the wider social and economic context.
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.