Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
Collins (1979) points out that the distribution of tourist sites and attractions oriented
towards the residence of tourists coupled with the sites of natural or cultural resources
which are modifi ed for tourist consumption makes it diffi cult to balance costs and benefi ts
from rural tourism.
In developing countries, actors' attitudes are defi ned by the positive perception of urban
life and the negative image of rurality, particularly for the young (see Gray, 2009),
contrasting sharply with a recognisable, if indefi nable notion of rurality synonymous with
the 'good life' for the affl uent in the developed world who embrace it: a phenomenon
described as 'rural gentrifi cation' (Phillips, 2004, 2005; Wilson and Tallon,
Chapter 13
in
this volume).
Space and environment are often the interacting factors determining the attractiveness of
rural destinations for tourists, but this can vary with other essential circumstances, such as
accessibility, symbolic divisions of identifi cation (us versus them) in the case of cross-
border regions, the existence of initiatives to exploit the resources and legal and govern-
mental regulations (Gómez-Martín, 2005; Hartmann, 2006; Schaffter
et al.
, 2010).
Lastly, the growing body of research on rural-urban interactions points to the blending of
rural and urban space (Dahms and McComb, 1999; Woods, 2009). This makes 'rural' a
hybrid and networked space where rural and urban identities are most entangled and
rural-urban distinctions most elusive (Cloke, 2006).
Geographers have attempted to understand these paradoxes both by case research (Long
et al.
,
1990; Sheldon and Abenoja, 2001) and in recent years through a focus on macro socio-
economic, political and environmental factors (Munro, 2005; Pelling
et al.
, 2002). This
chapter explains through a review of recent research how geographers are engaged in
understanding and explaining these paradoxes.
Explaining the paradoxes
Arguably, the increased awareness of the interface between rural and urban and the blurring of
boundaries between the two within the context of globalisation, transnationalism and mobility
have underpinned much of rural tourism research since the 1990s (see Dahms and McComb,
1999; Kelley, 1998). The post-90s represent a gradual progression toward a free enterprise
system which restricts the political power of the rural elite and promotes increased involvement
of locals in the decision-making processes (Nepal, 2007). Also, in the current neoliberal era, the
discourse on rural tourism as an 'industry' that allows it to connect with international fl ows of
tourists has gained ascendancy (Clarke, 1999; Roberts and Hall, 2004). In fact, as Cabus and
Vanhaverbeke (2003) point out, the economies of rural and urban areas have become comple-
mentary parts of a larger fi scal entity as there is no longer simply an urban or rural economy.
Árnason
et al
. (2009: 55) describe this as 'modern rurality', characterised by the complete
integration of rural areas within the contemporary economic and social organisation of the
capitalistic world. In fact, in a few cases, such as Jordan and Botswana, the policy of urbanisa-
tion has caused the diminution of agriculture and a growth in enclave tourism (Daher, 1999;
Mbaiwa, 2005). In such cases, when most decisions affecting communities are driven by the
industry in concert with national governments, rural communities become the objects rather
than subjects of development (Ioannides, 1995b; Mitchell and Reid, 2001).
An often-overlooked fact in the debate about economic development via rural tourism is
that the industry is heavily characterised by small, family-centred enterprises that cater to both
tourists and locals, and for many the focus is still primarily on locals and only incidentally
