Rural Tourism Partnerships and Actor Mobility

Abstract

In this paper, I examine actor mobility within the context of rural tourism partnerships (RTPs). The term 'actor' refers to those who have a stake in tourism planning, promotion and development such as policy makers, businesses, non-profit making sector and community groups. Mobility is embedded in personal and social histories of actors as well as the policy framework that impacts their daily lives and informs their motives for being (dis)associated with RTPs. While exploring how actors' journeys transform rural localities' socio-economic fabric, I find the writings of Lefebvre and de Certeau particularly useful because of their focus on counter-hegemonic practices that shape the 'everyday life'. Given that most rural societies in current times comprise an intricate mix of long-term residents, seasonal-home owners and migrants, each with their distinct set of life stories and value preferences with regard to their place of dwelling, my thrust in this paper on actor mobility is likely to identify new areas of future research on RTPs.

Recognition and Intent-to-Participate of Rural Migrants on Urban and Rural Exchange Business in Namhae County, South Korea

“…In other words, they may have the characteristics of both the consumer and supplier of recreation. Thus, it is necessary to analyze the recognition and attitudes of rural migrants as major human resources for URE business by separating them from long-term residents (Saxena, 2014). (Choi et al, 2014;Han, 2005;Lee et al, 2004;Lee et al, 2019;Kweon and Lee, 2016;Ma et al, 2015;Whang, 2006;Yu et al, 2013 Table 2.…”

“…In order to revitalize URE, it is necessary to enhance the awareness of urban and rural residents, nurture competent leaders in rural areas who can manage URE business, and build a partnership. Given that most rural societies in current times comprise an intricate mix of long-term residents, seasonal-home owners and migrants, and each with their distinct set of life stories and value preferences with regard to their place of dwelling (Saxena, 2014), they need to be understood separately. Amidst the aging in population and the decrease in number of farm households in rural areas of the domestic, the number of rural migrants is increasing every year due to the retirement of baby boomers in line with the economic crisis during the late 2000s, the urban residents' aspiration of rural life, and the government's policies supporting rural migration (Ma et al, 2015).…”

International research on rural tourism in recent 10 years and its implication for China

“…Bitsani 等 [52] 研究了克罗地亚 Istria 村的居民对乡村 旅游的态度， 发现他们担心旅游业的发展会扭曲或 破坏当地文化， 提出社区持续发展需要居民融入管 理并与各方建立合作伙伴关系。Canov [53] 研究发现 意大利酒庄主在积极建构生产者身份的同时受到 各种制度力量的管制， 导致他们对旅游多样化的抵 制。Ghanian 等 [54] 对伊朗库尔德斯坦省 Oraman 县的 研究发现， 居民认为旅游是朝圣， 从朝圣者那里赚 钱是不道德的。Suess 等 [55] 研究了拉斯维加斯外围 乡村地区不同旅游开发类型对居民支付税收意愿 的影响， 发现有较高的旅游经济依附度和社区依附 度的居民对旅游的经济、 社会影响有较好的感知， 使得人们愿意支付更高的税收。Dinis 等 [56] 发现居 民与管理人员的居住地、 业务成功与否、 教育水平 等对居民参与行为至关重要。 2.4.2 对社区居民与其他利益相关者的关系研究 社区参与被很多学者认为是保障乡村旅游持 续发展的关键因素， 但参与方式与效果却呈现出较 为复杂的特征。Wondirad 等 [57] 运用利益相关者理论 和公民参与模型研究了埃塞俄比亚东南部 Dinsho 地区， 发现当地村民只是被虚假、 象征性的参与旅 游开发机会所欺骗， 社区参与旅游开发高度依赖守 门人 (gatekeepers) 的性质和社区经济背景， 在一个 经济薄弱、 存在守门人的社区， 参与更具挑战性。 Yankholmes [58] 对乡村社区中传统酋长的作用进行研 究发现， 政府会减弱酋长的影响力， 但他们会根据 政府行为和外界环境变化出现要么避免参与、 要么 充当社区先锋、 损害其他相关者利益的现象。另 外， 社区参与方法、 寻找与其他利益相关者的合作 路径、 协调合作伙伴关系也是学者研究的任务之 一。Saxena [59] 研究了居民、 企业及与其他利益相关 者的合作关系， 认为流动性嵌入了乡村旅游地行动 者的个人和社会历史中， 影响了他们的日常生活与 合作关系， 列斐伏尔与德塞尔图提出的 "日常生活" 批判性理论在此有用武之地； Pilving 等 [60] 根据生命 周期模型对爱沙尼亚乡村旅游伙伴关系的影响因 素及变迁路径进行了分析， 认为领导能力差、 目标 混乱、 沟通减少、 资金不确定、 体制变化等均会导致 伙伴关系的减弱， 其关系变化可同时遵循正式和非 正式两种不同的生命周期路径。Carson 等 [61]…”