The tourist and visitor experience

This section focuses on the role that landscapes and destinations play in cultural tourism. The concept of landscape has been the subject of several books over the past few years (e.g. Ringer 1998; Aitchison et al. 2001; and de Haan and van der Duim 2008). Historically, landscapes were often viewed by tourists with a mixture of awe and wonder, especially mountain landscapes which sometimes inspired fear too. Early Grand Tourists tended to follow the trail of the classics, for example, visiting landscapes described by Virgil, Horace and Cicero, or later the Romantic poets. Aesthetics has always been an important element of landscape-based tourism, with tourists travelling exclusively to visit the world’s most beautiful landscapes and monuments - for example the Seven Wonders of the World or World Heritage sites. In recent years, however, there has been something of a ‘democratization’ of landscape, whereby sites have begun to be valued for their historical or cultural value, rather than their beauty. For example, many industrial landscapes have made their wayonto the World Heritage site list. The philosopher Alain de Botton (2003) described how travellers are drawn to ‘sublime’ landscapes because of the spiritual feelings they engender, making them feel part of an infinite and universal cycle. Some tourists actuallydo visit spiritual landscapes which may or may not be associated with religion (e.g. the Santiago de Compostela pilgrimage), which have cultural connections to ancient civilisations (e.g. Macchu Picchu), or may be the original homeland of First Nations (e.g. Native American Indian or Aboriginal landscapes). Well-being can be enhanced through contact with natural landscapes. Although the appreciation may be based on nostalgia or sentimentalism about rural idylls of the past, visitors’ appreciation can also go way beyond conventional notions of ‘the picturesque’ and romanticised simplifications of nature (Todd 2009). Kaur Kler (2009) uses theories of environmental psychology to explain tourists’ preferences for natural and restorative landscapes. Viewing natural scenes has been proved to improve mental well-being, increase alertness, and reduce stress. Many landscapes have become associated with literary or artistic works or figures (see Robinson and Andersen 2004), such as the poet Wordsworth’s Lake District or the Yorkshire Moors of the Brontës. This has now been extended to include film tourism landscapes, such as ‘Middle Earth’ from The Lord of the Rings in New Zealand or Harry Potter country in the UK. However, many of these landscapes are merely imaginative or socially constructed, therefore the visitor may experience some degree of confusion or disappointment when confronted with the actual landscape which may not bear much resemblance to the perceived or fictionally represented one. Discourses of social and cultural geography have frequently been used to analyse landscapes, often within the framework of theories of space and place. In this section, David Crouch revisits some of the theoretical debates about these concepts and applies them directly to landscapes and destinations. Space is no longer thought to be static but full of energy and flows. Place derives its meaning from the human experiences which take place therein. Landscapes are partly shaped by the agencies which produce and represent them, but also by the visitors who consume them, whose activities and energies affect their character, nature and atmosphere. Landscape can be highly politicised with regards to issues of ownership, usage, appropriation, displacement or exclusion. Landscape has been particularly contentious in the case of cultural landscapes which were home to indigenous peoples and ‘First Nations’. Landscape can also be gendered or sexualised, with many spaces being unwelcoming or unsafe for women or gay communities. Post-colonial landscapes tend to be strewn with reminders of dominant and sometimes oppressive regimes and decisions need to be made about which elements of thelandscapes should be preserved. Joan Henderson touches on this in her analysis of SouthEast Asian cities. She looks at the rapidly growing urban landscapes where decisions about conserving traditional heritage are sometimes at odds with the need or desire to provide modern developments. Landscapes are rapidly evolving, especially in the case of rural landscapes where the forces of globalisation and urbanisation are leading to the transformation of whole regions and communities. Marjan Melkert and Wil Munsters in this section discuss issues relating to the authenticity of landscape, arguing that there are very few landscapes that have not been transformed somehow by human intervention. Myriam Jansen-Verbeke and her co-authors document the development of rural landscapes in detail especially in the context of rural China. They focus in particular on the challenges of managing tourism in areas that are somewhat remote and under-developed. Lóránt Dávid, Bulcsú Remenyik and Béla Zsolt Gergely analyse the potential for niche tourism development in the under-visited and relatively unknown rural landscapes of Transylvania. The management of landscapesand tourism destinations more generally has been transformed in recent years via the phenomenon of ‘destination management’. This approach has been adopted in many countries throughout the world with the establishment of DMOs (or destination management organisations), even though the meaning and nature of the approach varies considerably and the definition of a destination is sometimes unclear. It can be a whole town, a seaside resort, or evena landscape, but destinations vary in terms of scale and structure, therefore management approaches need to be adapted accordingly. Destination management tries to ensure that all interests are met including those of the host community, the tourism industry, the public sectorand the tourists themselves. Impacts must be managed, quality standards should be maintained, and the destination needs to stay competitive. Simon Woodward makes interesting recommendations in this section for destinations which are university towns or which contain university campuses. Overall, it is clear that almost all landscapes and destinations are politically, socially and culturally constructed and represented. Those that are visited are transformed from spaces into places by the energy and activities of their visitors; they are not merely static or passive receptacles. Landscapes are enlivened and transformed by the presenceand experiences of visitors, which can radically change not only their atmosphere but their basic structure and form. As a result, tourism must be carefully managed in these locations, possibly through the relatively new approach that is destination management, which should provide an integrated and sustainable way of supporting cultural dynamism alongside environmentalprotection and social sensitivity. David Crouch revisits debates relating to space and placein the context of tourism. Using the works of spatial and cultural geographers, he traces the development of theories relating to these two concepts, concluding that they are essentially different. It is agreed that space is not fixed and static but fluid and dynamic, full of changing flows and energies. Place is based on people’s experiences of and engagementwith a space, however the process by which places are constructed in tourism is not always well understood. The term landscape also conveys a construct which occurs or ‘erupts’ in a way that is not always pre-scripted or mediated. Perceptions and experiencesof both landscapes and destinations will include matters of culture brought from the visitor’s own lives and backgrounds. The visiting of landscapes and destinations is no longer merely spectatorial. Visitors are instead active and creative in the making of cultural tourism for themselves and others. Marjan Melkert and Wil Munsters discuss the concept of authenticity in the context of landscape with a focus on the material objects themselves rather thanthe visitors’ experience. The notion of authenticity in this context is considered asbeing different from historical ‘reality’ or original artefacts, i.e. some authors have argued that it is impossible for replicas or reconstructions to be authentic. Inthe context of landscape, the original may be the prehistoric landscape before human interference; however, most landscapes now have been transformed agriculturally or culturally.Suchprocesses may be considered to be authentic, thus most landscapes combine what is original and authentic. However, the latter process reflects the period in which the transformation took place, including any interpretation. It is sometimes dificult to identify the ‘authors’ and to understand the multi-layered dynamic of landscape development overtime.Ethically, reconstructions should be identifiable in order to be distinguished from conservation and restoration, and to adhere to a sense of authenticity and coherence, evenif originality in its true sense is an impossibility. Joan Henderson considers landscapes and destinations in South-East Asian cities, especially the tension between conservation and urban development. Heritage tends to be politically contentious and it can be dificult to reconciletheneed for conservation with the desire for modernisation, especially when land is scarce.Old structures may sometimes be used for contemporary developments, but they are notalways financially or practically viable, they may be unsympathetic or exclude or displace local residents.South-East Asian cities have the added complication of colonial legacies, which may now seemdissonant to local people. Slums may also be a common feature of cities which project a verydifferent image to the outside world. The complexity of managing the global and thelocal, thepast and the present, and retaining or creating a sense of place is a constant challengefor urban planners. The value of heritage in this context is a hotly debated issue, especially as international tourists may find it decidedly more appealing than intraregionaltouristswho tend to prefer contemporary developments (e.g. shopping malls, events). Simon Woodward analyses the role of universities and campuses in the development of destinations. This includes not only the built heritage but also the intangible heritage associated withuniversity life and the experiences of the students and staff. The author suggests that manyuniversity destinations might benefit from being considered within the framework of DMOs inorderto enhance their product development, image and identity, and tourist experience. There are also certain conflicts which may need to be resolved between tourists‘and students’needs, such as access to campuses during term time, the freeing up of accommodation during holidays, even the content and presentation of museum collections or programming of art centres. The impacts on the built heritage, host communities and atmosphere of place also need to be considered when developing academic landscapes as tourist destinations.