Developing integrated rural tourism: Actor practices in the English/Welsh border

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 260–271

Contents lists avai

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ j rurstud

Developing integrated rural tourism: Actor practices in the English/Welsh borderq

Gunjan Saxena a,*, Brian Ilbery b

a The Business School, The University of Hull, Scarborough Campus, UKb Countryside and Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire, UK

Keywords:IRTEnglish/Welsh borderSub-regionsCommunityRelational frameworkDramaturgical approach

q This paper is based on a collaborative programmeEU’s Quality of Life and Management of Living Reso2000-01211 – SPRITE). The research was undertakencentres in six countries – Greece, Spain, France, IreRepublic.

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Saxena).

0743-0167/$ – see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2009.12.001

a b s t r a c t

This paper examines community attitudes and distinctive practices that shape local responses to inte-grated rural tourism (IRT) development in the lagging rural region of the English/Welsh border area. Thefocus is on how actors acquire attributes as a result of their relations with others and how these assumedidentities are performed in, by and through these relations. The location of this lagging rural region isparticularly interesting as it is divided by a national boundary which not only impacts on administrative,planning and tourism marketing structures, but also contributes to the construction of fluid place iden-tities (Murdoch and Pratt, 1997 describe ‘fluid space’ as having ‘no fixed points of reference, no privilegedpoints of view, simply a swirling, viscous, partially stable, partially enclosed movement of social entities’(p. 64) that may be described as Welsh, English, or a mixture of both. In order to reflect the variety ofopinions and concerns in the region, responses were drawn from different actor-groups: local businesses,resource controllers, gatekeepers, institutions, community members and visitors. Results indicate that,while most were in favour of a greater integration of tourism with actors’ aspirations, local resources andactivities, there was an element of longing for a deux ex machina to put in place real change in the region.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Integrated rural tourism (IRT) is defined as tourism explicitlylinked to the economic, social, cultural, natural and human structuresof the localities in which it takes place (Saxena et al., 2007). Thisinterdependence is multi-dimensional, intended to promote thedevelopment of tourism on the strength of local resources – histor-ical, cultural, landscape-based – and the interplay between indi-vidual personalities and networks of exchange so that a destination’sspecificities are able to compete globally. A shift towards a moreintegrated and community-led approach is manifest in the EuropeanUnion’s (EU) Agenda 2000 reforms, Rural Regulation 1257/99 and theMid-Term Review (2003) of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).Also, EU structural funds and community initiatives, in particularLEADERþ and pre-accession measures for agriculture and ruraldevelopment (SAPARD), are increasingly providing a base for sup-porting local input in renovation and development, structuraladjustment in the agricultural sector, and protection and

of research funded under theurces programme (QLK5-CT-by universities and researchland, the UK and the Czech

All rights reserved.

conservation of rural heritage (Official Journal of the EuropeanCommunities, 2000; Bryden and Hart, 2004; Lee et al., 2005).

Previous research indicates the growing significance ofprocesses of collaboration and integration in rural resourcemanagement, particularly when considering non-agriculturalemployment growth in peripheral regions (Anderson and O’Dowd,1999; Bramwell and Lane, 2000; Terluin, 2003; Briedenhann andWickens, 2004; Anderson et al., 2005; Tosun, 2006; Ferreyra et al.,2008). The convergence of the host community and tourist activi-ties is mediated chiefly by local resources, which have a dual role toplay: they are the central focus of touristic activities whilst alsobeing a fundamental element in the construction of a community’sidentity (Ballesteros and Ramırez, 2007). This interface is examinedhere in the context of both relational materiality, or how actorpersonas both take their form and acquire their attributes asa result of their relations with tourists and other actors, and per-formativity, or how their roles are performed in, by and throughthose relations (Law, 1999). In particular, the emphasis is on actorsas ‘selves’ and ‘social groups’, considered not just in terms of class,but differing residential zones, networks of interaction, facilitiesand buildings. It is through these that they create and manage theirsocial worlds and attachments to place (the differing local knowl-edges, historical sensibilities, emotional investments), whilstassuming specific roles on the touristic stage (see Philo, 1992, 1993;Halfacree, 1993, 1995; Phillips, 1998a). This ‘practice’ and

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07430167

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

G. Saxena, B. Ilbery / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 260–271 261

‘performance’ centred approach is useful since participationdiscourse has moved beyond merely ‘beneficiary participation’ toinclude interactive and participative conflict resolution processesthat situate residents as ‘makers and shapers’ rather than ‘users andchoosers’ of development initiatives (Bellamy and Johnson, 2000;Cloke et al., 2000; Gaventa, 2002; Cornwall, 2003; Healy, 2003;Selman, 2004; Greathouse-Amador, 2005). This paper aims tohighlight the role of these interactive and participatory processes1

in developing IRT in the lagging rural region of the English/Welshborder area. It is acknowledged that ‘participation’ implies differentdimensions of engagement, ranging from running tourism busi-nesses and actively supporting tourism through to being a (perhapsunwitting) player on the touristic stage.2 In order to understandactor motivations and their mutual interface, discourses from arthistory, culture and media studies are often used (Elam, 1980;Thrift, 2000; Haedicke and Nelhaus, 2001). The focus on laggingrural regions (LRRs) stems from a deepening of the EU’s commit-ment to maintaining viable rural populations and protectingEurope’s rural heritage. LRRs are characterised by arrested agri-cultural activity and environmental, sociological and cultural losseslinked to the abandonment of enterprises. However, communitiestypically display a rich social life and complex networks, high inbonding social capital but low in bridging links to other regions thatwould assist them in the pursuit of greater economic returns(Woodhouse, 2006). The pivotal position of tourism in this contextarises because many of the products and resources of LRRs poten-tially have very strong linkages with tourism; the latter can also beexploited to assist the ‘neglected rural others’ (Philo, 1993, p. 430)and to forge links across socio-cultural, economic, administrativeand political divides.

Following a theoretical discussion on IRT, case study researchexamines communities’ sense of ownership and/or responsibility infacilitating tourism’s ‘fit’ with their livelihoods and other sources ofrevenue in the three chosen sub-regions in the English/Welshborder area (see Fig. 2). The findings highlight how actors stagetheir support or opposition to tourism development by adoptingspecific identities in relation to each other, which are not neces-sarily structured according to pre-existing administrative divisionsin the region. The role of their performances, impacted by the lossof small, homogeneous local networks as a result of the in-migra-tion of people from outside, declining traditional enterprises andlocal services (e.g. schools, village/town shops), in creatinga framework for progressing IRT is discussed. This is significant fortourist destinations are not bound to specific environments or placeimages. Rather, it is the specific performances of actors that makesplaces touristic (Baerenholdt et al., 2004). In the final section,a typology of actor aspirations is drawn to contrast their roles andexpectations from IRT in the region.

2. Understanding IRT: actor practices and performances

The key tenet underpinning IRT is the notion of formal andinformal networks, shaped by both ‘weak’ (low intimacy andinfrequent interaction) and ‘strong’ (characterised by spatial prox-imity and kinship and friend-focused bonds) ties, traditions andpatterns of behaviour that form against the backdrop of the

1 Include both ‘gemeinschaft’ or ‘community’ (close ties developed throughkinship.common habitat and.co-operation and co-ordinated action for socialgood) and ‘gesellschaft’ or ‘society’ (created through ‘‘impersonal ties and relation-ships based on formal exchange and contract’’ (Harper, 1989, pp. 162–163).

2 Reality is a complex, many-layered performance, constituted by actors’ multipleperformance of relationships and their choice of which of these they may wish tobring into being – something which is described by Mol (1999) as ‘ontological poli-tics’ (86).

geography of a place and its socio-economic dynamics (Gran-ovetter, 1973; Saxena et al., 2007; Ilbery and Saxena, 2009). Thisnetwork-centred approach helps to uncover different ways thatpeople are attached to their communities through ties of cooper-ation and conflict, and how they organise ‘‘space and time asa means of heightening receptiveness, stimulating involvement and(not least) undermining authority’’ (Thrift, 2000, p. 235). Thusinherent within social relations and interactions is a set of practicesrather than a set of ‘positions’ or a set of actual people (Murdoch,1995). Such an interpretation is adopted here to help understandhow actors, who are reflexively aware of their identity in thecommunity, ‘play’ along to either withdraw or entrench their socialposition in response to an unwieldy heap of unresolved socio-cultural, ecological and personal problems and infirmities.3 This isin line with Phillips’ (1998b) view that people may employ differentidentities and ways of acting in different social contexts. However,he stops short of alluding to ‘staged performance’ where, accordingto Thrift (2000), ‘‘possibilities are acted out’’ (p. 221), allowingactors to celebrate, get on with life as well as achieve escape, self-discovery and self-assertion in relation to each other.

Here, it is useful to mention Merlau-Ponty’s (1962) work on theexploration of the multi-sensuality and multi-dimensionality oflife-practices constituted through subjective negotiation with thesocio-cultural contexts that actors inhabit. Crouch (2001) goesa step further to argue that actors’ beliefs are not necessarily shapedby their contexts, but rather are discovered by negotiating,breaking, adjusting or reconfiguring contexts such as gender,ethnicity and values through everyday performances (Thrift andDewsbury, 2000). Nevertheless, it is Goffman’s (1969) research thatis most useful in understanding how individuals in social encoun-ters engage in performances (manipulative behaviours) thatconstruct a ‘public self’ to regulate the way others will perceive andbehave towards them. Authors have applied Goffman’s dramatur-gical concepts to study the behaviour of organisations, especiallyservice sector workplaces where workers follow a form of scriptthat governs their behaviour. This includes their forms of speech,their specific embodiments, including their dress and manner, andthe audiences include the workplace management, other workersand the consumers or clients of the service on offer (Futrell, 1999;Rochlin, 1999; Gregson and Rose, 2000).

In order to understand actors’ embodied spatial practices, theirassociations and the ways in which they are generated (see Rout-ledge, 2008), the morphology or calculus of six roles, proposed bythe dramatic theorist Souriau (1950), is adopted. Souriau definesthese as:

l – the lion, around which the whole action is oriented, repre-sents and puts into play the force which generates dramatictension;_ – Mars, or the opponent, who offers an obstacle to the fulfil-ment of desired goals;B, – the sun, or the desired good, may be embodied in an indi-vidual or remain an ideal end;

– the earth, recipient of the goods;

– the scale, or arbitrator of the situation, whose role is toattribute the desired good to either l or _, in dues ex machinafashion (can be the leader of the community or the represen-tative of the good itself); and

– the moon, or the helper, whose function is to reinforce theposition of the other five depending on the dramatic situation.

3 After Urry’s (1990) ‘‘‘post-tourist’.: someone who is reflexively aware of her/his identity as a tourist and ‘plays’ with the tourist experience’’ (p. 93).

Fitting together

LIHI

P+ P -

Fig. 1. Actor interaction.

6 Refer to Kidd and Shaw (2007) for different dimensions of integration (e.g.cross-sector, vertical, horizontal, strategic, operational, disciplinary/stakeholder).

G. Saxena, B. Ilbery / Journal of Rural Studies 26 (2010) 260–271262

This dramatic ‘calculus’ or actantial model supposes the pres-ence within any given narrative of a ‘deep structure’ responsible forgenerating the surface structure of events (Greimas, 1970; Hawkes,1977). According to Ploeg (2003), since a calculus entails the way inwhich an actor evaluates pros and cons, that is, their ‘definition ofthe situation’, it forms the backbone of a particular strategy andrelated decision-making processes. Thus the model can help tounderstand varieties of structural configurations in differentcontexts because, however many individual characters (or acteurs)and whatever the form of their relationships, the underlyingactants remain the same (see Latour, 1993). According to Souriau,actants have a kind of phonemic rather than phonetic role: theyoperate on the level of function rather than content. That is, anactant may embody itself in a particular character (termed anacteur) or it may reside in the function of more than one characterin respect of their common role in the story’s underlying ‘opposi-tional’ structure. Whatmore (1999, p. 28) uses the term ‘actant’ toconvey the idea that ‘agency is a relational effect generated by .interacting components whose activity is constituted in thenetworks of which they form a part’.

Although seemingly rigid, these roles can be assimilated moreflexibly to understand actor practices defined by their intent, theacts that are produced, the modality of action (manner and means),the setting (temporal, spatial and circumstantial) and the purpose(Elam, 1980). Liepens (1999) argues that the diversity of actors’positions, relations and performances is important in understandingtheir role in the creation, adjustment or rejection of ‘community’ (inthe context of this study, ‘tourism’). This is significant if oneconsiders tourism’s marginal position in the lagging rural region ofthe English/Welsh borders as an episode4 which depends for its veryexistence, for its bringing into being, on specific performances ofactors – the lion, the sun, the earth, mars, the scale and the moon – allcritical to its transformation into a tourist destination. The ‘episodes’explored here are those instances where specific performances ofactors have worked to effect processes of change, where they haveoperated in, and across, two or more social fields, aligning theirbehaviour or attitudes with similar ‘others’ through loosely con-nected shared social networks. The relational framework withinwhich these are metaphorically contained is shaped by their indi-vidual personas, common goals and the different scales at whichtheir strategies, programmes and initiatives operate. The resultingmulti-interface ranges from high mutual reciprocity and goodwill tolow, indifferent and even hostile relationships (see Fig. 1).5

4 Healey (2003) defines an episode as a period when a particular effort is beingmade to articulate a strategic response to place development.

5 Hodge and Kress (1988) suggest that closeness on its own carries a contradictionas it can be both positive (love, intimacy) and negative (aggression, hostility); non-closeness signifies a weak actor position, indifference or alienation from both posi-tive and negative [proximate] relationships.

Positive relationships (Pþ) are proactive and defined by clearlyunderstood intent and high actor integration (HI) into communityactivities. Negative relationships (P�) are often unequal, ‘concen-tric’ rather than ‘cross-cutting’ (Simmel, 1955) and characterised bymistrust, indifference, non-participation and low integration (LI).6

According to Buttner (2001), actors’ sense of self and worth isgrounded in their ability to make and maintain connections withothers, while pursuing their own objectives, which could bedivided into their normative values and the outcomes of theinterpretative and formal models they use to evaluate their envi-ronment (Ligtenberg et al., 2001). In this context, ‘fitting-together’(Fig. 1) provides leverage at both individual and collective levels,7

enabling actors’ performance and intent to be made visible inrelation to each other. This is shaped by a sequence of strategiesthat are dependent on, rather than independent of, other actors andtheir personas. For instance, l (e.g. vociferous migrants fromanother area/country such as new farmers and elderly or semi-retired professionals) are able to obtain material resources, infor-mation and effective support through their enterprise andnetworks, but if they are considered ‘outsiders’ in their newcommunities they may experience social isolation (Mailfert, 2007).In contrast, _ (the long-term residents or traditionalists opposed totourism), benefiting from ties and concentrated in one single socialstructure/network (such as the extended family or community),can also use these to bring about l0s low integration (LI) into theirlocal communities.

Gulati and Garguilo (1999) usefully distinguish between posi-tional, structural and the relational nature of actor ties. Presumably,the more centrally positioned an actor (such as l or _) is withina network of relationships (bothþ and -), the more he/she is able toexercise influence, access resources, give and receive advice, andbring about what Ansell (2003, p. 126) calls ‘subcultures’ of supportor opposition to issue(s) or actor(s). Structural traits help tounderstand an actor’s place in a community and his/her proximityto others, determined by both identity-based relationships8

dominated by ‘strong’ ties and intentionally managed ones, rich in‘weak’ ties (Granovetter, 1973). These identity-based associationshave been known to be utilised by tourists (B,) to strengthen orbreak their bonds with a place.9 Thus whilst a tourist destinationprovides B, with shared meanings and understandings, the focus onpositive (Pþ) and negative actor ties (P-) offers ways of opening upstructures and linkages, practices and strategies at to alternativemodes of analysis.

The relational aspect incorporates the communal context (canbe either place or issue oriented) in which actors are situated andfrom where they are able to negotiate dialogue and collaboration,particularly outside the ‘in-group’ (clique). For instance,(community leaders, agencies promoting, developing and/orproviding funding for tourism) are able to establish open andflexible, information-orientated networks with different types ofagencies and business groups across social, geographic and identitylines through a variety of strategies such as engaging, negotiating,influencing, enrolling, mobilising and/or excluding. In some

7 The individual level is determined indirectly by social ties cultivated through anactor’s interest in a single or multiple issues. The collective plane is directly shapedby networks to which an actor belongs.

8 Identity-based associations are typically studied in terms of shared member-ship in a broad social category such as race, religion, nationality or gender andare important to actors as they help them expand their sense of self (Tajfel, 1970).

9 See Clarke and Critcher (1985) who suggest that holiday behaviour is nota leisure activity that renders all participants equal, but is instead associated withall the systematic social inequalities of contemporary society.

Fig. 2. The English/Welsh Border Region.


instances, such as post-socialist East Germany, these links areexplicit because, as Bramwell and Meyer (2007) highlight, localpoliticians are also engaged in tourism-related business activities.Similarly, the invisible actors or (indirectly helping tourism/community initiatives), through their supportive role, are able tobring together entities that are sometimes radically different. Thisis partly because, as March and Wilkinson (2009) highlight in thecase of Australian wine region of the Hunter Valley reveal, actors’own goals are achieved more efficiently through such symbioticrelationships. However, actor ties may alternate between positive(Pþ) and negative (P�) depending on their response to tourism.This could range from aligning the community with the market,economic growth and commercial expansion to placing debatesabout development into specific geographical contexts, so thatdiverse economic, social, and environmental criteria are evaluatedfirst (see Murdoch and Abram, 2002). Thus both Pþ and P� tiesintervene in the socialisation and construction of actor identities,enabling them to create (or solidify) their personas and establishcultural proximity with a specific role as they deem fit. Further,close embeddedness in any one role allows them to assume eithera central or peripheral position in facilitating tourism developmentin the community as well as to guess possible ‘next moves’ andappreciate the unexpected, even paradoxical. The paper nowdescribes the English/Welsh border region and the researchapproaches employed to collect data.

3. Introducing the study region and research methods

The case study focusing on the English/Welsh border arises fromresearch carried out under the European Commission’s funded

SPRITE (Supporting and Promoting Integrated Tourism in Europe’sLagging Rural Regions) project within the ‘Quality of Life andManagement of Living Resources programme’ (QLK5-CT-2000-01211). The project aimed to analyse and develop the potential forIRT in selected lagging rural regions of Europe in six differentcountries: Spain, Greece, France, Ireland, United Kingdom and theCzech Republic. Within the United Kingdom, two areas werechosen for research: the Lake District in Cumbria, which has aninternationally recognised tourism brand and a long history ofcommunities inter-facing with tourists, and the three counties ofHerefordshire, Shropshire and Powys, which neighbour each otheralong the English/Welsh border and represent a less-establishedand less ‘integrated’ tourist destination (Fig. 2).

More than 70% of the region is primarily rural, with a populationdensity of less than 0.90 persons per hectare (Table 1).

Both Herefordshire and Shropshire contain significant westernparts that are designated under EU Directive 75/268/EEC as LessFavoured Areas (LFA) in recognition of the difficulties associatedwith farming in upland localities (Evans, 2009). Similarly, Powys onthe Welsh side of the border has 96% of its region classified as a LessFavoured Area (LFA), with 86% of the county area being ‘severelydisadvantaged’ LFA (Price and Evans, 2009). Issues such as decliningfarm (and allied trade) incomes, decreasing rural employmentopportunities, limited public transport services and poor access toinformation technology and education have impacted upon thesettlement patterns in the three counties that show a bias in favourof market towns.

Using tourism brochures, directories and websites, distinctclusters of tourism activities and resources in the three countieswere mapped and indentified. These clusters were then used as the

Table 1Population density in Herefordshire, Shropshire and Powys.

England Herefordshire Shropshire Wales Powys

Population density(persons per hectare)

3.77 0.80 0.89 1.40 0.24

Source: ONS, 2004.

Table 2Economic activity in the sub-regions. Resident population aged 16 to 74(percentage).

Pembridge/Eardisland

Bishop’sCastle

Knighton BuilthWells

England/Wales

Employed 64.1 63.8 63.2 64.1 60.6Unemployed 2.3 2.8 2.9 3.7 3.4Economically active

full-time students1.8 1.8 1.4 1.7 2.6

Retired 19.0 15.5 16.4 14.8 13.6Economically

inactive students2.6 2.4 3.1 3.7 4.7

Looking afterhome/family

6.2 5.9 6.0 5.2 6.5

Permanentlysick or disabled

4.1 5.8 4.2 4.7 5.5

Other economicallyinactive

2.5 2.1 2.8 3.1

Source: ONS, 2001.


basis for identifying three sub-regions within which to carry outsemi-structured interviews. The first, Pembridge and Eardisland(PE) in North Herefordshire, has a thriving food and drink sector.The second, a cross-border (CB) sub-region encompassing thetowns of Bishop’s Castle and Knighton [part of Knighton (e.g.Kinsley Road) is in Shropshire, England], was chosen in order toexplore the impact of the national border on actors’ attitudes totourism development and collaboration. The third sub-region,Builth Wells and Llewelyn country (BWL), comprises the villages ofCilmeri, Aberdew and the small market town of Builth Wells, all ofwhich are being marketed as ‘The Llewelyn Country’ after PrinceLlewelyn, the last prince of Wales. Although the proportion ofpeople employed in all three sub-regions is high compared toEngland/Wales, they mainly work in low-skilled sectors (e.g.tourism, retail) or farming (Table 2). Those in farming reported highdebts and a huge loss of income in the aftermath of foot and mouth.The sub-regions attract a large number of retired people due to thequality of life and peace and quiet, but are losing the young (agedbetween 16 and 29).

The consultation panels set up in the initial stages of the project,comprising tourism development officers from the three counties,representatives from local NGOs and members of the businesscommunity, greatly helped in the initial identification of respon-dents from within these sub-regions. The data were collectedthrough semi-structured interviews with different respondents,each lasting between 20 and 90 min; these were recorded andtranscribed. In order to reflect the variety of opinions and concernsin the community, responses were drawn from the following sixactor-groups, namely:

tourists (100), excluding residents and including day visitorsand second home owners;gatekeepers (10), including those individuals and agenciesthat market the region and provide information to tourists;businesses (51), from a mix of sectors such as accommodation,hospitality, travel and transport, and retail;agencies (20), mainly from the public sector that promote,plan, regulate and fund tourism;resource controllers (20), mainly from the non-profit sector,but who play an important buffering role in environmental,social, cultural, economic and political issues at destinations(see Saxena and Ilbery, 2008); andresidents (50), both old (longer-term) and new residents(incomers).

These six actor-groups do not ‘map’ directly onto the six types of‘actants’ described in the previous section. Rather, the rhetoricwhich they support, plus their practices, align them with specific‘roles’ that they ‘really’ play in the community. Since the notion ofperformativity (following Butler, 1997; Bennett, 2006) focuses onidentities produced through reiterative acts within systems ofexchange,10 judgment on actors’ personas was derived by making

10 Bryant (1995, p. 257) distinguishes systems of exchange into economic (e.g.capital and produce markets), social (e.g. family and friendship networks), political(e.g. local, regional, provincial and national systems of regulation and influence)and even biophysical (e.g. the ecosystem).

a note of these through participation observation [see Cameron andGibson, 2005 who suggest that participation observation allowsresearchers to note shifts in actors’ entrenched positions as theyadopt new discourses, identities and forms of subjectivity]. In thecontext of this research, the method was used to observe thefrequency of actors’ attendance at meetings/social events anddetermining the reasons (also probed during interviews), thenature of their interaction with other actors, and the manner oftheir speech (observed during interviews and by participating inmeetings of local chambers of commerce, forums for tourism,festival committees, mother and toddler groups and informal pubgatherings). This information was matched against respondents’economic (home/business/land ownership/occupational status)and emotional ties11 (e.g. why certain networks/individuals werepreferred over others) to the sub-regions [gauged also from infor-mation available on the websites of agencies, gatekeepers, busi-nesses, special interest groups (e.g. Medieval Pembridge, Bishop’sCastle Michaelmas Fair, Prince Llewelyn Mural Society), markettowns, annual reports, development and management plans]. Thusthe cross-referencing of information from multiple sources helpedto match actors with their personas, mainly defined by their similarviews on a range of issues such as agricultural decline, level oftourism development in the community, land ownership, secondhome-ownership, outmigration of the young, social housing, in-migration of the elderly and the affluent. Consequently:

l > are typically male, articulate, middle-aged (40–50), in a fewcases locals (e.g. farmers who have diversified into tourism andbusiness owners who directly or indirectly benefit from it) butmostly incomers, retired or semi-retired and extremely supportiveof tourism [e.g. almost all initiatives led by gatekeepers andresource controllers are incomer-led (see Ilbery and Saxena, 2007;Saxena and Ilbery, 2008)].

_ > are mostly locally born, but in all cases opposed to placecommercialisation for tourism. The female _’s (e.g. single elderlywomen, mothers with young children) opposition to tourism istriggered by their mistrust of the tourist as an ‘outsider’ who posesa safety threat. In contrast, male _’s opposition to tourism networksand initiatives led by l stems from their innate mistrust ofnewcomers and the challenge they pose to their position in thecommunity.

11 Emotional mapping is commonly used in business contexts to uncover feelingsand attitudes towards products, on why people prefer one product over the other. Itidentifies key attributes, tangible and intangible, overt and subtle, conscious andsubconscious, that help connect products and people (see Formosa, 2005).

12 Its success is manifest in the increasing online presence of local products andservices through the efficiently run website ‘http://www.builth-wells.co.uk/’.


B, > are tourists to the region (mostly repeat day visitors),largely middle-aged, who feel strong emotional connection withthe region since they have been visiting since childhood. Even thosenew to the region, passing through or on specialist tours – gene-alogy or hobby-based – reported affinity with the quality of life andthe peace and quiet that the region offered.

> is the place or the English/Welsh border which is not onlythe spatial representation of power relations between agenciesacross the border, but is also reflected in the minds of those wholive with and along the border. According to Yndigegn (2006, p. 35),‘‘these mental representations take a life of their own and persisteven after the constitutive conditions of their formation have dis-appeared.’’ Thus those (in many cases locally born and bred) whothink of themselves as ‘border people’ define their personal actionspaces accordingly (e.g. by being actively involved in or supportingcross-border initiatives such as Marches Tours and Talks Group thatoffer guided tours along Offa’s Dyke, the traditional borderbetween England and Wales, built by Offa, King of Mercia in 757–796 AD).

> are actors playing a vital role in local decision-making andinclude representatives from the community and voluntary sectors,gatekeepers, resource controllers, business leaders and other socialpartners, an integral part of the increasingly complex world of ruralgovernance (see Bryant, 1995; Leach and Percy-Smith, 2001; Sax-ena and Ilbery, 2008).

> are those whose efforts remain latent or are constantlypushed aside (such as the unemployed and/or low-skilled resi-dents) because the power and influence associated with differentsets of actors, defined by their interests and values, vary substan-tially within and between the segments of the community.

In addition to qualitative interviews and the informal cata-loguing of community activities through participant observation,two regional seminars were convened during the data collectionand evaluation phases. The explicit purpose of the first regionalseminar (attended by a small group of 15) was to explain the aim ofthe SPRITE project, outline key themes underpinning the datacollection and evaluation strategies and present preliminary find-ings. This small cohort highlighted a number of local initiatives andtourism networks which were further included in the sample.Towards the end of the project, all 251respondents, as well asrepresentatives from the regional Tourist Boards and the RegionalDevelopment Agencies (who presented an overview of tourismdevelopment plans and policies in the three counties) were invitedto the second regional seminar (approximately 50 attended). Theseminar proceedings were recorded and transcribed and furtherhelped in gaining an insight into actors’ dramatis persona in thecommunity (observed from the participation levels from specificactor-groups and the nature of the issues they raised during theplenary session).

Cumulatively, different stages of data collection and dissem-ination, plus constant input from the consultation panel, helpedin understanding the role that tourism is perceived to play inthe local economy and the ways in which this role can beoptimised or reinforced through adopting integrated forms oftourism.

4. Community engagement with IRT – the roles thatpeople play

The discussion in this section focuses on actors’ social roles(following Souriau’s morphology or calculus of six roles) and howthese are utilised to experience, interpret and articulate thevalues and meanings they attach to the sub-regions, as well as theextent to which they want their communities to be shaped bytourism.

4.1. Role of l (the lion)

The actors assuming this persona are ‘star performers’ – enter-prising locals, footloose individuals/traditionalists – who havemoved into the community and, in some cases, set up businesses,galvanised by the environmental/rural ‘pull’ factors and urban‘push’ factors (e.g. crime, congestion). To promote sustainable andintegrated forms of tourism, they have mobilised networksembodying ‘best practice’ with the help of agency funding and localsupport, and redeveloped local resources for community use (seeIlbery and Saxena, 2009). For instance, in Pembridge, they have putin place creative clusters such as the Pembridge Tourism Associa-tion (est. 1999) and Pembridge Amenity Trust (est. 2000) to helppreserve the local heritage – church, village hall, bell tower, moatedsite, black and white houses. In Eardisland, the same set of actorsare co-ordinating the activities of local groups/organisations likethe Parish Council, the Dovecote Trust, the Women’s Institute, theMarketing Consortium, the cricket club and oral history society. Inthe CB sub-region, they are behind initiatives like the resurrectionand subsequent success of the Michaelmas Fair and the day-to-dayrunning of local museums, art galleries, and art and craft incidents(e.g. participatory arts event ‘Take Part’ in Knighton, ‘Flick on Sticks’mobile cinema in Bishop’s Castle).

In BWL, through the medium of community plays, informal self-help networks like Builth Wells District Matters Ltd.12 and regularlyconvened participatory events that have drawn support from local/regional agencies, businesses and residents alike, the l havesuccessfully established an interactive interface among communitymembers. These contrived activities or ‘simulacra’ (Baudrillard,1994) depend on dramatically-framed scenarios fuelled by the role-based performances of locals which are ‘played out’ for the benefitof the tourists who are drawn to them because of their ‘authenticrepresentation’ of a local way of life. Such events have also re-characterised the centre of the community and its essence asa space of ‘culture, art and alternative’ rather than the more familiarspace of communal living. To an extent, this has come about due tothe alleged neglect of the area by agencies responsible forpromoting and marketing the area who, it was believed:

‘‘. consider the job finished when they just print out the leaf-lets. They don’t go out to actually actively market. This is theresult of being a salaried person. They don’t feel obliged to do it.They are not going to get the sack . and nobody is going to holdthem to account’’ (gatekeeper, member of Heart of WalesTourism Association, male, 50s, Builth Wells).

This scepticism towards agencies’ role has led the l to cross-examine the real benefits from the industry:

‘‘. tourists do bring in trade up to a point . the kind of peoplewho will stay here have disposable income and are thoughtfulpeople, but the Tourist Board has tried to focus on day trippers.They are of no use to my business or in fact most of the busi-nesses in Bishop’s Castle. Their disposable income amounts to£1.50 which they spend on a cup of tea . they are mainly in thewrong age-group too, don’t enjoy it here. They would ratherhave gone to a livelier place’’ (antiques shop owner, male, 50s,Bishop’s Castle).

It was surprising to note that this gentleman, who had been inthe area for less than five years, was so accurately able to analysethe shortcomings of the current practices. On probing further, itwas revealed that it was ‘‘like-minded mates keep me in the loop’’,

http://www.builth-wells.co.uk/


confirming Latour’s (1986) specification that relations and associ-ations are powerful, not an individual or an organisation and, in thecontext of this research, the donned persona not the actual person.It is due to his close positive ties (Pþ) with ‘‘like-minded’’ l that heis able to tap into the informal knowledge base unlike female l

who, as Ellis et al. (2004) highlight in their research on Mayanwomen in the US, have far less potential to form weak ties due tothe relatively closed nature of their networks that do not allow therecruitment of new members to any significant degree over time.

13 It is worth noting the gender dichotomy in the responses here.

4.2. Role of _ (Mars)

Despite their endeavours to be at the helm, or at least to beperceived as such, the ‘outsider’ position is never far away for mostl. The _, who are opposed to their activities, believe that theythreaten to disrupt the recursive practices of their day-to-day life:

‘‘. there is always something going on here. So there is a filmsociety, a local amateur drama society, touring theatre groups .a photographic group, a heritage society, an oral history group.There is a male voice choir. There is a ladies choir. There isa Rotary Club. The school, the church play a major part in thecommunity and musical events . There are usual groups likethe brownies, guides, club scouts. These groups are traditionalbut they still thrive . If you are not careful, you can get tooinvolved and get busy every night of the week’’ (female, 60s, bedand breakfast owner, Builth Wells).

The dissatisfaction was acute when l were incomers or regardedas such, as is evident here:

‘‘. it takes time for people to assimilate into the localcommunity. The biggest problem we have is that local peoplewill like to see their heritage, their countryside and houses like italways was. Usually, the first thing that new people who moveinto the parish do is extend their house by half as much. And itdoes take away the character of the countryside . that doesupset the local people because local people can’t get the plan-ning permission to build a house, even a small one becauseplanning regulations are so tight and yet people with an endlesssupply of money seem to be able to do what they like’’ (male,school teacher, 40s, PE).

This ‘more local’ persona of _ (an ageing, shrinking populationof farmers and ‘locals’ who traditionally constituted something akinto an ‘aristocratic’ stratum within the local culture) has madeavailable to them certain embodiments unknown to l, whichinclude among others a perception of tourism’s unsuitability in thearea and its incapacity to empower a community:

‘‘Tourism and Knighton do not seem to me to be two happy bed-fellows at all. It is an area which has until now received strengthfrom its inner community rather than from outsiders coming in’’(female, retired nurse, 60s, Knighton).

And this sense of what community really needs is noticeablydifferent from those who ‘‘want to go and do this, that and theother, change this, change that . pretty up the place and make ittwee’’ (Female, housewife, 50s).

The different ways in which _ understand the community havepushed some into rather introverted (P-) concentric circles thatchallenge even the well-intentioned motives:

‘‘. they ask you to put flower baskets out, which is continental.It isn’t a Welsh thing’’ (Female, 60s, Knighton).

In Pembridge, the divide between the two actor-groups is sopronounced that it extends to ‘‘who goes into which pub’’. However,

the divide is also dictated by differences in income levels and a pub’sproximity to houses which have recently been bought by incomers,resulting in ‘old-timers/farm-hands’ seeking out the other pub.

However, whilst _ may be opposed to some of the attention-seeking approaches l have employed, they are not totally opposedto developing low-key tourism activities, dependent on locally-available community resources and achieved by working closelywith those ‘‘who have been in the trade for a long time, got theirfinger on the pulse and understand the dynamics of the localeconomy’’ (female, 50s, self-catering cottage owner, PE). Thus theirresponse to IRT was that:

‘‘. it should be promoted realistically in terms of what we havegot and not what we haven’t. We should look a bit more at whatcould be exploited in the area and whether there are any sort ofeconomic opportunities for people in the area to provide fortourism. . I am not sure of its role in aiming to stop ruraldepopulation of young people. That is not a very intelligentoption anyway. It is no good to stay put in an area. What isrequired is a constant inflow and outflow of energy’’ (male, 50s,drama teacher, Builth Wells).

In proposing a ‘realistic’ or what Giddens (1984, p. 214) callsa ‘‘‘back region’, hidden from view, though present,’’ perspective, _

are situating tourism in the context of their overall lives and live-lihoods which they believe are:

‘‘. integrated in the sense that there is no ethnic suspicion herebecause there is no ethnic division . if you look at it whether itsees itself as English or Welsh, it perceives itself as neither as it isa border town . people who have lived here all their lives havevery clear identities, as to who they are, but they are veryaccepting’’ (Male, 40s, pub owner, Knighton).

However, such a narrow perspective on integration can poten-tially exclude people through ‘participatory exclusions’, as Agarwal(2001) points out, and bring about low integration (LI) of those whodo not form part of spatially and socially fixed kin and co-ethnicnetworks.

4.3. Role of B, (the sun)

Nevertheless, the tourists B,, or the desired goods, are covetedby both l and _, albeit for entirely different reasons and usingcontrasting methods. Thus l seemed keen on attracting higher-spending, longer-staying visitors by creating ‘‘a grand plan .a wider marketing policy for the Marches area’’ (Male, 50s,teachers’ trainer, PE). In contrast, _ believed that tourism was notabout marketing the whole of the area to the rest of the world,but about enhancing the tourist experience by linking up infor-mation provision, identifying training needs (if any) and tackling‘‘the softer ends of tourism (female, 50s, NGO worker, BuilthWells).’’13

The B, themselves were of the view that ‘‘the fact that it [thearea] is not commercialised makes it appealing’’ (male, 60s, dayvisitor, Knighton). These repeat visitors consciously seek the area toshed their workplace identity and consume the fantasy ‘other’:

‘‘experience of what rural England used to be like . it feels youare still in the 19th century in a way. It feels as if the world haspassed it by’’ (female, 50s, day visitor to PE).

This visitor gave an interview full of references to childhoodmemories when there were ‘‘lots and lots of people in the fields’’and lamented the fact that ‘‘now the farmer just sticks another


attachment on his tractor and does it all on his own’’. Due to theirlong association with the place, this cohort considered their role tobe legitimate participants in any future development and werequick to offer advice:

‘‘. culturally speaking, we don’t hear so much Welsh beingspoken as we used to in the past. It used to be a purely Welshspeaking area . I think any future tourism initiatives shouldbear this in mind while trying to promote this area’’ (male, 60s,day visitor, BWL).

This deeply embedded affinity of repeat visitors is matched bythe sensitivity of first-time visitors who felt that the area was‘‘scenic . historic . more suitable for people who are deliberatelyinterested in that kind of thing and not just having a good time’’(male, 50s, long-staying visitor in Knighton). Overall, B, took pridein using their experiential knowledge to offer suggestions andregister their opposition to the kind of tourism development thatthey disapproved of, namely ‘‘package holidays and tour operators’’(male, 60s, day visitor, Bishop’s Castle). For them, IRT stood fortourism assimilated in local sights, sounds, tactile sensations thatare:

‘‘. organised around ‘specifics’ – things like music festivals,camping, arts and crafts weekends, the walking festival, folkweekend – to get people to come and spend some time and seewhat is here’’ (female, 40s, weekend-stay in Bishop’s Castle).

This is in line with Uriely et al.’s (2002) research on back-packers in Israel who, as post-tourists, like to subjectivelyconstruct their personal experience by taking fragments fromdifferent products provided by the industry and reassemble themas they choose.

4.4. Role of (the earth)

Viewed in this way, IRT offers a platform to the region ( ) torelate to its own history and myths through locally embeddedactivities that are increasingly being assimilated into the touristproduct and, on the strength of these, entrench its position in theindustry. The border itself was perceived as artificial and not a truereflection of the actual character of the community which wasdescribed as:

‘‘. the kind of place where populations have always changed. .These are not rural communities where people always stay thesame. Because they are on the borders, they are used to peoplecoming in and going. They are used to a movement of pop-ulation, which means they accept visitors well. Because they areused to it, and people who move in – the newcomers are inte-grated. The Welsh and the English have moved back and forthacross the border for thousands of years. .when people livehere, they identify very strongly with being here. But quiteoften, they also bring in other backgrounds with them’’ (female,teacher, 40s, Knighton).

However, this resilience is largely prevalent among those whohave been in the area for 30 odd years. The indigenous residents onthe Welsh side of the border emphatically identify themselves as‘Welsh’, even those who have spent time working in England,largely because of the sense of alienation experienced on the ‘otherside’, captured quite powerfully by Williams (1960) in his novelBorder Country:

‘‘You don’t speak to people in London . in fact you don’t speakto people anywhere in England; there is plenty of time for thatsort of thing on the appointed occasions – in an office, ina seminar, at a party’’ (p. 3).

In contrast,

‘‘. the Welsh have got a different social structure . There isless hierarchy, no aristocracy levels like there are in England. Wedo not flaunt our status here; in fact the whole community is indirect face-to-face relationship with you’’ (Male, retired, 60s,Builth Wells).

These deep-rooted divisions are further accentuated in thisrelative backwater [grappling with a significant decline in civicservices (e.g. health, postal, financial, transport, village shops andthe shut-down of local schools that previously helped in-migrantparents to integrate)] when it comes to individuals finding itdifficult to access support beyond their immediate kinshipnetworks. This mistrust of ‘outsiders’ also seems to predeterminethe expected nature of tourist interest in the region for some, as isevident here:

‘‘. who will come here? I was walking down the street theother day and there was this man on his mobile saying ‘Oh! I amin the middle of nowhere at the moment.’ I shouted to him, ‘No!You are in Knighton.’’’ (male, 50s, pub owner, Knighton).

This respondent lamented the absence of area-specificleaflets/brochures in Tourist Information Centres and the browntourist signs in that by its unique position is ideally placedto play the part of a niche tourist product; thus it is very much‘part of the scene’, but there is no real attempt to ‘act thepart’:

‘‘. it is probably the nature of the beast . primarily micro .not even SMEs, just one man/woman bands. That doesn’t lenditself to co-operative working and of course a lot of them arewithin the farming community and farming is not well knownfor co-operative working either. They all work together until theprice is right in the market and then they will go and take theirsheep somewhere else. It is a cultural thing really’’ (male, 40s,Tourism Development Team member, Shropshire CountyCouncil).

Thus:

‘‘. people come here ‘despite the welcome’. There is still thissort of England and Wales. It is a definite national boundary. Thearea still very much trades on its being unknown really’’ (male50s, VisitWales Tourist Board).

Whilst interviewing residents, the reasons behind this ‘despitethe welcome’ became apparent when one of the l, a semi-retired ITprofessional from Birmingham and an enthusiastic volunteer inmany fund-raising activities, pointed to:

‘‘. shortage of enthusiasm, shortage of ‘oomph’ for doing thejob. People are so laid back. That is the mentality of most youngpeople round here. It is a comfortable life here without thehassle and they do not bother . paid too much in grants andnational assistance and here it is sufficient for them to live on.They do not want to terribly stretch themselves too much’’(male, 40s, Bishop’s Castle).

This account, supported by other residents, also confirms Bakerand Brown’s (2008) study in rural Wales which reveals that,despite ‘aspirational’ aspects of culture such as the value of piety,education, family and culture, only a small proportion of youngpeople from rural, isolated communities pursue universitydegrees. Further, Edensor (2000, p. 323), who defined tourism as‘performance’, lists personal characteristics of the actors such astheir age, gender and ethnicity influencing their ability to partic-ipate, negotiate and establish appropriate contexts that touristsconsume.


4.5. Role of (the scale)

While the young might be ‘onlookers’14 in the sub-regions,agencies, community groups, gatekeepers, resource controllers andmore vocal residents have assumed the privileged position of .This is supported by previous research that points out that partic-ipation in tourism by different interest groups varies with differinggroups’ power, objectives and expectations from communityparticipation (Tosun, 2006). Those assuming the role of oftenpressure other stakeholders to adopt and initiate structuraladjustment programmes that are a pre-requisite to obtain loans.For instance, the regeneration partnerships (mainly fundedthrough the EU) in the three counties (Herefordshire Partnership,the Shropshire Partnership, South Shropshire Regeneration Part-nership, the Powys Regeneration Partnership (PRP) and Mid-WalesRegional Partnership) have managed to forge links across sectors.The aim of these initiatives has been to:

‘‘. recruit skilled people to start businesses, provide technical,in some cases, financial assistance to start-up businesses(including tourism entrepreneurs who can neither afford thisexpertise on their own nor obtain it from financially over-extended local authorities), coordinate and sponsor local eventsand offer an overall leadership for tourism and regional devel-opment (Male, 50s, Project Officer, Powys RegenerationPartnership).

In their relations with other actors, persuasion and manipula-tion featured highly in the tactics employed by regionally-basedactors such as the RDAs and the Tourist Boards acting as , some-thing that Few (2002) in his research on actor power highlights.Thus:

‘‘. to get the trust of people, it is also making clear what peoplehave the choice over and what they have got to take as given .have to give people a framework rather than a straight jacket towork within . you need to be clear with people what’s for themto play for and what’s going to be done to them’’ (respondentfrom Advantage West Midlands).

However, such top-down approaches have failed to generatetrust among the locals who feel that:

‘‘. they don’t seem to realise how important a little project onits own is to a small market town, to retain our identity. You getthe same old answer – we don’t have the money. And yet yousee them next spending thousands and thousands of pounds onsome high-falutin building somewhere for themselves’’ (female,business owner, 50s, florist, BWL).

For locally-based , gender played an important part in estab-lishing their legitimacy. For example, women (often members ofsocieties such as the needlework group, mothers and toddlers,church and miscellaneous events’ committees) assuming the role of

were frowned upon as ‘busy bodies,’ whereas the role of male(members of local chambers of commerce, farmers’ committees,tourism forums) was perceived to be central in networking withagencies and putting in bids for endogenous projects. Also, theperception of the usefulness of tourism varied among based ontheir gender. Women focused more on self-reliance and expressedthis in a very personal way, showing in many cases dissatisfactionwith agency intervention to promote tourism:

14 Onlookers, according to Edensor (2000, p. 327), may enact different forms ofperformance at the same site and as a result ‘‘either fail to understand the reso-nance of others’ performance or disparage their competence or the meaningsthey impart’’.

‘‘The trouble is that a lot of them have got no conception of howthese little communities are run’’ (female, 50s, resourcecontroller, PE).

With men, there existed a widely held view that because IRT, asthey understood it, encompassed principles of social equity andjustice, it could perhaps help to address non-tourism issues such asthe lack of facilities for the elderly and the disabled and those withcriminal histories or mental illnesses. Yet, both male and femaleagreed that increasing meaningful local participation in tourismdevelopment would require facilitating access to capital and, inparticular, to micro-loans for small businesses/individuals. Further,gender came across as relatively insignificant while exploring thedifferent roles that played in, for instance, resolving conflicts andorganising local initiatives. In fact, women appeared to put in morework to sustain enthusiasm for local projects, mainly to make up forwhat they perceived to be ‘‘a low density of activities and facilities’’(female, 40s, PE). Yet the domination of in the community meantthat such initiatives, which Lefevbre (1991, p. 384) calls ‘discursiveforms’ or the rituals and gestures to entice tourists, also resulted inalienating some who seemed in favour of:

‘‘. the real leadership that is lacking in this town . somebodywho is bent that way, who is may be an ex-soldier . somebodywho has still got plenty of energy and desire to get up and dosomething and plan . and bring it to fruition. If only we couldget a good leader to rally all different ideas and activities, it[tourism] would take off. It is bound to take off. It is so conve-nient to the Midlands and the rest’’ (male, 60s, semi-retired,Knighton).

These divisions between ‘us’ and ‘them’, between those whobelong and those who do not, also stem from those newcomersaccused of having ‘‘stars in their eyes about the rural way of life andthe countryside’’ (female, 50s, pub owner, Bishop’s Castle) or whatMasuda and Garvin (2008) allude to as gazing upon the countryside –‘primarily with urban eyes’.

4.6. Role of (the moon)

However, the community is not just the passive recipient ofincomers’ enterprise or externally tailored developmental plans,but crucially draws its strength from or ‘invisible players’ such asthe local clergy, voluntary workers helping out at local telecentres,tourist information and visitor centres, special interest clubs andsocieties. These are the ‘‘good, old, border people who think alike..’’ (male, 30s, unemployed, Bishop’s Castle, CB). Due to thesupportive nature of their role, were seen to be operating withinthe community rather than constituting a community on their own,offering ‘‘a certain cohesiveness . people wanting to do things’’(female, 50s, Bed and Breakfast Owner, Builth Wells). In particular,their input in cross-border initiatives like the ‘Marches Tours andTalks’, which provides cross-border guided tours, and ‘Merlin’sMeander’, which extends business and marketing support (seeIlbery and Saxena, 2009), has reinforced notions of a collectiveidentity. This is despite the friction between l and _ and even wheninstitutional collaboration across the border is practically non-existent. Such contact with tourism has also brought an increasedself-consciousness among about their potential to benefit thelocal economy:

‘‘. it is easy for people to feel rosy about the area in summer butit is not so rosy living here . the problem is that you have got farfewer people living here. For a long time, people have looked atthese areas from the point of view of Brussels, London . thenotion that our economic future will be assured by tourism is

Table 3Actor aspirations from IRT.

The perceived benefits from IRT

l _ B,

Display andconsolidate theirposition in thecommunity

Leverage – influenceinitiatives and carve a nichefor themselves inopposition to l

Access to newresources andproducts

Self-mobilisation/avoid dependency

Opportunity to interveneand lead alliancesand intercessionsamong diverse actor-groups

Legitimise their positionand negotiate greater rolein discursive frameworks


quite a façade really. I don’t think tourism should be seen asa sort of way out . what is really missing in the area is two orthree large employers’’ (male, 50s, school teacher, BWL).

Also, analysis of community practices reveals that ‘subalterncategories’ (Spivak, 1999, p. 82), including seasonal workers fromEast European countries but mainly consisting of low-skilled resi-dents, who were referred to (rather disparagingly) as the ‘localcharacter’, fit the role of . The derogatory manner directedtowards such groups consists of a ratification and extension of their‘structural subordination’ (see Butler, 1997, p. 76). These individ-uals, often dependent on community help, engage in odd jobs andbear the burden of so-called ‘helping out’. They usually work ascooks, gardeners or run small errands for families who profit fromtheir labour, paying them less than the national minimum wagerate. This can perhaps be construed as exploitation. Although theseindividuals have not become ‘slaves’ in the classic sense, theirinability to either make decisions or participate meaningfully in thecommunity leaves little room to negotiate empowering identityformations. Largely, this can be attributed to the unwillingness ofthose at the centre to welcome the peripheral ‘others’ into theirfold:

‘‘. people are friendly to your face, but I am not sure if theirfriendliness goes beyond the surface . what you tend to have isthat people who are in certain positions, they tend to hold thereins of what goes on. It is very difficult for them to accept others.’’ (Male, 50s, semi-retired, Builth Wells).

However, such women and men eagerly pursue these liaisonsto the point of volunteering in local initiatives, even when theirservices have not been specifically asked for. Then again, one mustnot overlook the economic benefits, albeit minor, that theseindividuals derive from doing odd jobs in the community. Also,such labour is secured through highly unique, face-to-face ‘socialand personal bonds’ (Saxena, 2006) that act as an anchor, linkingresidents in diverse, place-based, socio-economic activities.A notable aspect of such informal arrangements is that the resi-dents, through self-help and local governance, are increasinglyfilling the gaps in infrastructure services, often sidelined by publicsector agencies.

5. Conclusions

The focus on actors’ dramatis personas has helped in under-standing why only certain actors are proactive when a communityas a whole is impacted by tourism development. It also helps toappreciate why these performances are played out alongside theeveryday enactions of actors’ real-life roles in the community.Although the English/Welsh border region mainly attracts touristswho are seeking a destination that is not regulated in accordancewith the commercial tourism industry, community members –through their disparate performances – are consciously redirectingthe tourist gaze towards the ‘unsullied’ nature of sights and soundsthat the place has to offer:

‘‘You haven’t come to a museum. We are a one great big themepark for real. This is really rural England’’ (male, 60s, bed andbreakfast and tea shop owner, Eardisland).

Thus a single actor may act out a medley of roles, depending onthe tourist interest and the perceived benefits from their visit, andin light of his/her own perception of what is appropriate andstandard. Accordingly, if IRT is viewed as an ongoing work ofcreation, production and negotiation of methods of dialogue andparticipation, it is possible to draw a typology of actor aspirationsfrom its development in the region (Table 3). Thus being seen to besuccessfully involved in initiatives that socially integrate the resi-dents is why l were supportive of IRT. Also, agency inability toengage in participatory initiatives and respond to ‘real’ local needshas led many practical and resourceful l to believe that it is easierto organise touristic rituals and performances by themselves andlocally, rather than getting entangled in the ‘pen-pushing’processes that working with funding bodies requires. However,what was described as ‘do-it-yourself-ism’ places enormous pres-sure on l and . Yet , for, their involvement in tourism is broughtabout by habit and a desire to legitimise their position in thecommunity. Tourism was perceived by _ as a course that canundermine people’s sense of community and their ability tomaintain their own social environment, particularly their leisuretime. The focus on a contextual, role-centred framework usefullyrevealed how l had embarked on a different process of accultura-tion than _. While the input from l has resulted in an increasingpresence of tourism in the communities, the contradictory strate-gies adopted by _ to challenge the position of l appear to exacer-bate conflicts of identity and interest that, because of anincreasingly changing socio-demographic profile in the sub-regions, are becoming less and less tied to geography. Thus, despitea relatively homogeneous population, the actors seemed divided onthe notion of who really belonged and who did not, something thatmany respondents picked up, emphasising that such divisions ranthe danger of ‘‘minimising and not reinforcing the chances forbridging or integration’’ (female, 50s, PE).

The tactics of also give an impression of accentuating divi-sions. For instance, while IRT was viewed as providing an oppor-tunity to intervene and lead cross-border alliances andintercessions, the local authorities’ funding of ad-hoc singleinitiatives tends to encourage groups to compete against each otherfor resources. So far, have failed to define as a viable product forall groups to jointly market, regardless of county boundaries;a move to purposely promote ‘cross-border’ identity has comemainly from the residents and gatekeepers so far. Then again, thishas happened on a relatively low scale, something that almost allrespondents lamented and favoured concerted efforts from bothwithin and without to achieve greater cross-border integration.However, the varied personal histories of respondents, differencesin social roles embodied in their dramatis personas and water-tightadministrative boundaries between England and Wales continue tocontribute to the lack of a shared vision of their community’s futureor its relationship with tourism; not everyone connected to the ideaof IRT agreed on how best to support its growth. In fact, a tourist-


inspired revitalisation of the region was viewed as problematic as itsidelined the real need to provide a ‘‘holistic economy . aware ofnewer groups or less visible operators who have been there fora long time’’ (female, 50s, Mid-Wales Tourism Partnership). Also, itwas pointed out that attempts to artificially integrate the borderthrough B, subvert the ‘‘experience of exploitation’’ at the hands ofthe English that still remains in Wales, which is also relativelyhidden from the tourist gaze. In this context, it is worth mentioningTurner and Ash (1975) who point out that ‘‘a politically awaretourism has shown no signs of materialising: one cannot imaginemodern tour operators [as] . a promoter of equality and as an allyof the oppressed’’ (p. 53).

Having said this, it should be noted that respondents affirmedtourism’s crucial linkages to and dependence on the region’s capitalassets (e.g. natural and built environment) as its fundamentalresource and its ability to regenerate these. Most seemed toappreciate the low-key nature of tourism and were less inclinedto augment its scale, rather viewing IRT as providing an opportunityto self-mobilise local enterprise. The primary emphasis was cate-gorically on retaining community assets for residents’ use andenjoyment. To conclude, it can be said that incorporating anunderstanding of actors’ dramatis personas while developing IRT isalways going to be challenging as typical characteristics associatedwith rural communities such as social stability, integrity and self-reliance are in a flux due to rapidly changing historical-spatialcontexts and the market position of households (see Hoggart,2007). It is by crafting realistic understandings of what constitutesa ‘rural community’ that can, as Hoggart suggests, moveresearchers away from outdated rural and urban dualities andtowards a better understanding of IRT’s role in sustaining a place.Also, drawing upon the place and role-specific understandings andpractices of ‘characters’ described here, the appropriateness ofmanagement prescriptions offered from ‘above’ can be strategicallytested. One key lesson from this analysis is that IRT is to be inter-preted as one among other forms of policy innovation triggered bythe emergence of dynamic rural economies grappling with change.

Whilst this research has uncovered actors’ intent inherent intheir dramatis persona, it is worth noting that the true heroes orvillains are not actors’ persona, but facets of the situations in whichthey are aroused. Galinsky and Moskowtiz’s (2000) findingssuggest that when people assume the perspective of members of an‘outgroup’ (outside the clique to which actors belong), their eval-uations of that outgroup improves. Thus further research is neededinto the impact of switching identities on actor practices andemotions and inter-group prejudice. The research addressed theroles that actors play; for example, the efforts of l that appear littlemore than providing tourists with snippets of local culture that leadthem through the community, but never quite providing a logic toencompass either these ‘acts’ or ‘narratives’. In contrast, _’s fond-ness for an older way of life and opposition to l0s flamboyance is byextension a denial of complexity within which rural societies needto operate. This denial is also evidenced from the way it is perceivedby B, who seek the sub-regions in their quest for the ‘forgotten’,falling into easy essentialisms about local identity that appear nomore than a fabric of their imaginings as the three counties are fastembracing socio-economic change (but this is something that is yetto find a mention in promotional literature as the leaflets/brochuresstill promote the area as ‘how rural England/Wales used to be’).Also, there is a marked absence of promotional literature on theregion as a whole, as a tourist destination. is perceived by most,especially those at the grassroots level, as racially integrated andtherefore ‘borderless’, but ‘policy-driven integration’ (Perkmann,2007, p. 862) aimed at progressing co-operative relationships,exploiting environmental interdependencies or creating cross-border economic space is yet to emerge. This can largely be

attributed to the failure of (agencies such as RDAs, local author-ities, the Tourist Boards) to utilise the new opportunity structurescreated by regionalisation and globalisation to progress the ‘fitting-together’ agenda (see Fig. 1) which ironically has been successfullyand subtly achieved by l and at the local level. Whilst thisresearch acknowledges these difficulties in developing IRT associ-ated with the administrative and spatial divide between Englandand Wales, it has also alluded to psychological/mental dividesapparent in actors’ dramatis personas that both mark out a spacefor individual actors and provide defence and protection for thoseinside, defining what lies within and what is excluded (and howthese in turn determine their attitude towards tourism develop-ment in the region). Thus more research is needed to uncover theseinvisible lines or markers which, in turn, contribute to actors’ low/high integration and their Pþ/P� relationships that determinethe extent of their spatial and emotional ‘fitting-together’ on thetourism platform.

References

Agarwal, B., 2001. Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: ananalysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development 29,1623–1648.

Anderson, A., Jack, R., Dodd, S., 2005. The role of family members in entrepreneurialnetworks: beyond the boundaries of the family firm. Family Business ReviewXVIII, 135–154.

Anderson, J., O’Dowd, L., 1999. Borders, border regions and territoriality: contra-dictory meanings, changing significance. Regional Studies 33, 593–604.

Ansell, C., 2003. Community embeddedness and collaborative governance in theSan Francisco Bay Area Environmental Movement. In: Diani, M., McAdam, D.(Eds.), Social Movements and Networks. Relational Approaches to CollectiveAction. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Baerenholdt, J., Haldrup, M., Larsen, J., Urry, J., 2004. Performing Tourist Places.Ashgate, Aldershot.

Baker, S., Brown, B., 2008. Habitus and homeland: educational aspirations, familylife and culture in autobiographical narratives of educational experience inrural Wales. Sociologia Ruralis 48, 57–72.

Ballesteros, E., Ramırez, M., 2007. Identity and community – reflections on thedevelopment of mining heritage tourism in Southern Spain. Tourism Manage-ment 28, 677–687.

Baudrillard, J., 1994. Simulacra and Simulation, Selected Writings. StanfordUniversity Press, USA.

Bellamy, J., Johnson, A., 2000. Integrated resource management: moving fromrhetoric to practice in Australian agriculture. Environmental Management 25,265–280.

Bennett, K., 2006. Kitchen drama: performances, patriarchy and power dynamics ina Dorset farmhouse kitchen. Gender, Place and Culture 13, 153–160.

Bramwell, B., Lane, B. (Eds.), 2000. Tourism Collaboration and Partnerships: Politics,Practice and Sustainability. Channel View, Clevedon.

Bramwell, B., Meyer, D., 2007. Power and tourism policy relations in transition.Annals of Tourism Research 34, 766–788.

Briedenhann, J., Wickens, E., 2004. Tourism routes as a tool for the economicdevelopment of rural areasdvibrant hope or impossible dream? TourismManagement 25, 71–79.

Bryant, C., 1995. The role of local actors in transforming the urban fringe. Journal ofRural Studies 11, 255–267.

Bryden, J., Hart, K., 2004. A New Approach to Rural Development in Europe:Germany, Greece, Scotland, and Sweden. Edwin Mellen Press, Wales.

Butler, J., 1997. Excitable Speech. A Politics of the Performative. Routledge, London.Buttner, E., 2001. Examining female entrepreneurs’ management style: an appli-

cation of a relational frame. Journal of Business Ethics 29, 253–269.Cameron, J., Gibson, K., 2005. Participatory action research in a poststructuralist

vein. Geoforum 36, 315–331.Clarke, J., Critcher, C., 1985. The Devil Makes Work: Leisure in Capitalist Britain.

Macmillan, London.Cloke, P., Milbourne, P., Widdowfield, R., 2000. Partnerships and policy networks in

rural local governance: homelessness in Taunton. Public Administration 78,111–133.

Cornwall, A., 2003. Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender andparticipatory development. World Development 31, 1325–1342.

Crouch, D., 2001. Spatiality and the feeling of doing. Social and Cultural Geography2, 61–75.

Edensor, T., 2000. Staging tourism: tourists as performers. Annals of TourismResearch 27, 322–344.

Elam, K., 1980. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. Routledge, London.Ellis, M., Wright, R., Parks, V., 2004. Work together, live apart? Geographies of racial

and ethnic segregation at home and at work. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 94, 620–637.


Evans, N., 2009. Adjustment strategies revisited: agricultural change in the WelshMarches. Journal of Rural Studies 25, 217–230.

Ferreyra, C., Loe, R., Kreutzwiser, R., 2008. Imagined communities, contestedwatersheds: challenges to integrated water resources management in agricul-tural areas. Journal of Rural Studies 24, 304–321.

Few, R., 2002. Researching actor power: analyzing mechanisms of interaction innegotiations over space. Area 34, 29–38.

Formosa, D., July 27, 2005. Mapping emotions. Business Week, 12–16.Futrell, R., 1999. Performative governance: impression management, teamwork and

conflict containment in city commission proceedings. Journal of ContemporaryEthnography 27, 494–529.

Galinsky, A., Moskowitz, G., 2000. Perspective taking: decreasing stereotypeexpression, stereotype accessibility and in-group favouritism. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 78, 708–724.

Gaventa, J., 2002. Introduction: exploring citizenship, participation and account-ability. Institute of Development Studies (IDS). Bulletin 33, 1–11.

Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society. Polity Press, Cambridge.Goffman, E., 1969. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Penguin, London.Granovetter, M., 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78,

1160–1180.Greimas, A., 1970. Semantique Structurale. Larousse, Paris.Greathouse-Amador, L., 2005. Tourism: a facilitator of social awareness in an

indigenous Mexican community? Review of Policy Research 22, 709–720.Gregson, N., Rose, G., 2000. Taking butler elsewhere: performativities, spatialities

and subjectivities. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18,433–452.

Gulati, R., Garguilo, M., 1999. Where do interorganizational networks come from?American Journal of Sociology 104, 1439–1493.

Haedicke, S., Nelhaus, T., 2001. Performing Democracy: International Perspectiveson Urban Community-based Performance. The University of Michigan Press,Ann Arbor.

Halfacree, K., 1993. Locality and social representation: space, discourse and alter-native definitions of the rural. Journal of Rural Studies 9, 23–37.

Halfacree, K., 1995. Talking about rurality: social representations of the rural asexpressed by residents of six English parishes. Journal of Rural Studies 11, 1–20.

Harper, S., 1989. The British rural community: an overview of perspectives. Journalof Rural Studies 5, 161–184.

Hawkes, T., 1977. Structuralism and Semiotics. University of California Press,Berkeley.

Healy, S., 2003. Public participation in the performance of nature. In:Szerszynski, B., Heim, W., Waterton, C. (Eds.), Nature Performed: Environment,Culture and Performance. Blackwell, Oxford.

Hodge, R., Kress, G., 1988. Social Semiotics. Polity Press, Cambridge.Hoggart, K., 2007. The diluted working classes of rural England and Wales. Journal

of Rural Studies 23, 305–317.Ilbery, B., Saxena, G., 2007. Exploring tourists and gatekeepers’ attitudes towards

integrated rural tourism in the England–Wales border region. Tourism Geog-raphies 9, 441–468.

Ilbery, B., Saxena, G., 2009. Evaluating ‘best practice’ in integrated rural tourism:case examples from the England/Wales border region. Environment and Plan-ning A 41, 2248–2266.

Kidd, S., Shaw, D., 2007. Integrated water resource management and institutionalintegration: realising the potential of spatial planning in England. TheGeographical Journal 173, 312–329.

Latour, B., 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press, USA.Latour, B., 1986. The powers of association. In: Law, J. (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief:

a New Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge, London.Law, J., 1999. After ANT: topology, naming and complexity. In: Law, J., Hassard, J.

(Eds.), Actor Network Theory and After. Blackwell, Oxford.Leach, R., Percy-Smith, J., 2001. Local Governance in Britain. Palgrave, London.Lee, J., Arnason, A., Nightangle, A., Shucksmith, M., 2005. Networking: social capital

and identities in European rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 45, 269–283.Lefevbre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Blackwell, Oxford.Liepens, R., 1999. New energies for an old idea: reworking approaches to

‘community’ in contemporary rural studies. Journal of Rural Studies 16, 23–35.Ligtenberg, A., Bregt, A., van Lammeren, R., 2001. Multi-actor-based land use

modelling: spatial planning using agents. Landscape and Urban Planning 56,21–33.

Mailfert, K., 2007. New farmers and networks: how beginning farmers build socialconnections in France. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 98,21–31.

March, R., Wilkinson, I., 2009. Conceptual tools for evaluating tourism partnerships.Tourism Management 30, 455–462.

Masuda, J., Garvin, T., 2008. Whose heartland? The politics of place in a rural–urbaninterface. Journal of Rural Studies 24, 112–123.

Merlau-Ponty, M., 1962. The Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge, London.

Mol, A., 1999. Ontological politics. A word and some questions. In: Law, J., Hassard, J.(Eds.), Actor Network Theory and After. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Murdoch, J., 1995. The spatialization of politics: local and national actor spaces inenvironmental conflict. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 20,368–381.

Murdoch, J., Abram, S., 2002. Rationalities of Planning, Development Versus Envi-ronment in Planning for Housing. Ashgate, Aldershot.

Murdoch, J., Pratt, A., 1997. From the power of topography to the topography ofpower. In: Cloke, P., Little, J. (Eds.), Contested Countryside Cultures: Otherness,Marginalisation and Rurality. Routledge, London.

Official Journal of the European Communities, 2000. Guidelines for the CommunityInitiative for Rural Development (Leaderþ). The Directorate-General forAgriculture, European Commission.

ONS, 2004. Population Density. Office for National Statistics, London Office.ONS, 2001. Statistics on Economic Activities. Office for National Statistics, London

Office.Perkmann, M., 2007. Policy entrepreneurship and multilevel governance:

a comparative study of European cross-border regions. Environment andPlanning C 25, 861–879.

Phillips, M., 1998a. The restructuring of social imaginations in rural geography.Journal of Rural Studies 14, 121–153.

Phillips, M., 1998b. Investigations of the British rural middle classes – part 1. Journalof Rural Studies 14, 411–425.

Philo, C., 1992. Neglected rural geographies: a review. Journal of Rural Studies 8,193–207.

Philo, C., 1993. Postmodern rural geography? A reply to Murdoch and Pratt. Journalof Rural Studies 9, 429–436.

Price, L., Evans, N., 2009. From stress to distress: conceptualizing the British familyfarming patriarchal way of life. Journal of Rural Studies 25, 1–11.

Ploeg, V., 2003. The Virtual Farmer: Past, Present and Future of the Dutch Peasantry.Van Gorcum, Assen.

Rochlin, G., 1999. Safe operation as a social construct. Ergonomics 42, 1549–1560.Routledge, P., 2008. Acting in the network: ANT and the politics of generating

associations. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26, 199–217.Saxena, G., 2006. Beyond mistrust and competition. The role of social and personal

bonding processes in sustaining livelihoods of rural tourism businesses: a caseof the Peak District National Park. International Journal of Tourism Research 8,263–277.

Saxena, G., Ilbery, B., 2008. Integrated rural tourism: a border case study. Annals ofTourism Research 35, 233–254.

Saxena, G., Clark, G., Oliver, T., Ilbery, B., 2007. Conceptualising integrated ruraltourism. Tourism Geographies 9, 347–370.

Selman, P., 2004. Community participation in the planning and management ofcultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47,365–395.

Simmel, G., 1955. The Web of Group Affiliations in Conflict and the Web of GroupAffiliations (R. Bendix, Trans.). Free Press, New York.

Souriau, E., 1950. Les Deux Cent Mille Situations Dramatiques. Flammarian, Paris.Spivak, G., 1999. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Van-

ishing Present. Harvard University Press, USA.Tajfel, H., 1970. Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American 223,

96–102.Terluin, I., 2003. Differences in economic development in rural regions of advanced

countries: an overview and critical analysis of theories. Journal of Rural Studies19, 327–344.

Thrift, N., 2000. Afterwords. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18,213–255.

Thrift, N., Dewsbury, J., 2000. Dead geographies: how to make them live. Envi-ronment and Planning D: Society and Space 18, 411–432.

Tosun, C., 2006. Expected nature of community participation in tourism develop-ment. Tourism Management 27, 493–504.

Turner, L., Ash, J., 1975. The Golden Hordes: International Tourism and the PleasurePeriphery. Constable, London.

Uriely, N., Yonay, Y., Simchai, D., 2002. Backpacking experiences: a type and formanalysis. Annals of Tourism Research 29, 267–284.

Urry, J., 1990. The Tourist Gaze. Sage, London.Whatmore, S., 1999. Hybrid geographies: rethinking the human in human geog-

raphy. In: Massey, D., Allen, J., Sarre, P. (Eds.), Human Geography Today. PolityPress, Cambridge.

Williams, R., 1960. Border Country. The Library of Wales, Parthian.Woodhouse, A., 2006. Social capital and economic development in regional

Australia: a case study. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 83–94.Yndigegn, C., 2006. Projections – transmissions between spatial and mental

borders. In: Eigeartaigh, A., Getty, D. (Eds.), Borders and Borderlands inContemporary Culture, vol. 41. Cambridge Scholars Press, Newcastle, pp.2248–2266.

Documents

Developing integrated rural tourism: Actor practices in the English/Welsh border