Roots of Culture, The Tamsui

Photos taken during a walking tour up Taipei's Tamsui

West Port Festival 西港慶安宮

Roots of Culture

2009 Hwacheon Jjoke-Bae Festival International Symposium 2009화천쪽배축제 국제학술대회
Hwa Chun, Gangwon Do: A Conference on the Cultural Geography of Rivers
Presentation by William Cannon Hunter, Ph.D.,
College of Hotel and Tourism, Kyung Hee University,
Seoul, Korea (email: primalamerica@yahoo.com)

Roots of Culture: Taipei’s Tamsui River(淡水河)
(Historical Transformation of Commerce into a Leisure Tourism Network)

Introduction
Every city has its river. Whether for transportation, trade or defense, the river has always been the most important determination of a city’s physical and cultural geography. And so, whether from an academic or from a planning and policy perspective, the understanding of a city’s environmental, social or economic stability can begin from an evaluation of its river. And in these days of globalization, a greater comparative understanding of the relationship between a city and its river can grow by appraising other cases – the similarities and differences – of relative success and failure in the management of cities’ principal resource, the river. In this sense the river Tamsui, Taipei’s major river, is introduced in this paper in terms of its cultural history and current uses.

On a deeper theoretical level, the river is a key feature in the city’s imagined landscape, reflecting its identity as it evolves over time. Local governments are constantly at work altering the river’s functions and features to cohere seamlessly with the real and perceived needs of the community. It can be said that the city’s river evolves roughly in three stages: 1) the preindustrial stage, 2) the industrial stage, and 3) the postindustrial.
In the first stage, a river provides critical support for a population’s needs. Prior to the railroad and its industrial infrastructure, rivers were the only economical means of mass transportation of goods. The civilization of cities grew in relationship to the river, with major trade centers located in proximity to ports along the rivers or manmade canals. The river as the key site of transportation, trade and defense (the marking of social perimeters), not to mention it’s the fact that its currents bring water (the source of life) and wash away waste (the inevitable side effects of a concentrated human population).

With industrialization, the second stage, the river falls into neglect as the need for crude manufacturing quickly produces more pollution than the river can wash away or dilute. Traditional ports and the economic and cultural exchange that goes on around them are abandoned as goods can now delivered by rail or road. Water is consumed from the end of a faucet and waste is disposed of in a drain or a toilet and the reality of the river becomes a notion taken for granted as an abstract notion by the general population.
Finally, with the growing sophistication of a post-industrial society, the city learns from its mistakes, refines its production and reduces its pollution. Attempts are made to re-plant trees, rehabilitate indigenous wildlife and the quality of the river itself. A new interest in environmental sustainability and replacement economies such as leisure and tourism emerge with the decline of industrial-based urban economies.

This 3-stage conception of the river as a creating and created space that changes and evolves with the needs of the city guides this introduction to Taipei’s Tamsui River. In the following sections, the roles of climate change, tourism and sustainability are discussed as catalysts to changes that have happened to rivers in general and to the Tamsui in particular. These roles are the form that the city’s imagination has taken in response to its real and perceived needs as they have arisen in the past two decades or so and some theory to that effect is offered. Finally, some particular facts concerning the Tamsui and its evolution are discussed from a walking tour/visual methods approach.

Climate Change, Tourism and Sustainability
In these post-industrial times, a bundle of concerns – in academics and in governance and policy – have consistently arisen, namely that of climate change, tourism and sustainability. Although these concerns have been around for many decades, it has only been in the last two that they have grown more and more inseparable. The fact of climate change makes sustainability a major concern for researchers and policy makers in every field. But the issue of sustainability has been a hallmark of tourism research in terms of culture and the environment. With increasing reliance on the tertiary economic sectors, namely leisure and tourism, city planners must manage for the river’s health – not only for its own sake but for the sake of tourism’s economic base as well.
Local efforts to re-vitalize rivers into greenways and sustainable natural resources have been, since the early 1990’s aided by international non-governmental organizations and other groups affiliated with the United Nations. One particular group, ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) has been especially active at the local level, connecting local governments and providing environmental initiatives since 1990. It is responsible for the ratification of Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro on June 14, 1992 when 176 governments voted to adopt the program. With a mission is “to build and serve a worldwide movement of local governments to achieve tangible improvements in global sustainability with special focus on environmental conditions through cumulative local actions.” Important campaigns include: CCP, Water Campaign, Biodiversity, ecoBudget, ecoMobility, Energy efficiency and Renewable Energy Campaign. Currently there are 814 cities, towns, and counties that are full members and they represent 68 countries. Another 20 countries have associate members, including 39 organizations and individuals. The ICLEI Korea Office is located in Jeju City, and ICLEI members in Korea include the City of Seoul, City of Suwon and the City of Incheon.

However, ICLEI has not actively developed a plan for campaigns directly related to tourism. This is a concern considering how important sustainable resources are for a tourism destination, and in turn, how important tourism is, economically and socially, for a destination. With 842,000,000 arrivals in 2006 (http://www.world-tourism.org/), the growth of tourism seems unstoppable, despite contagious epidemics, natural disasters, war and terrorism.

It is in this sense that the issues of climate change, tourism and sustainability combine together to form the single most important narrative that determines a city’s imagination and finally, its post-industrial identity. And with every major city, that narrative materializes in changes made to its river. Consider the important place a river takes in every city as the population returns to its waters for leisure and recreation… and as the river returns to its people’s consciousness.

Children in elementary and middle school might be taught the capital cities of the world, but are they aware of each capital’s river? A list of a few of the more familiar major cities in the world, and their rivers are listed in the following table (Table 1), largely adapted from a website for kids:

Table 1: Major Cities in the World and their Rivers:

Major City and its River (Europe & Americas) Major City and its River (Africa and Asia)
London – Thames Cairo – Nile
Vienna & Belgrade & Budapest – Danube Varansi, Calcutta – Ganges
Amsterdam – Amstel Baghdad – Tigris
Paris – Seine Karachi – Indus
Moscow – Moskva Bankok – Chao Phraya
Rome –Tiber Ho Chi Minh City – Saigon
New Orleans – Mississippi Hong Kong – Pearl
Montreal – St Lawrence Shanghai – Huangpu
Sao Paulo – Tiete Tokyo – Sumida
Buenos Aires – Rio de la Plata Seoul – Han
Source: http://mistupid.com/geography/riversworld.htm

The Imagining City
Before moving on to a discussion of Taipei’s Tamsui River, a brief theoretical consideration of the effects of the imagination on the river is offered. In the previous section, it is argued that concerns regarding climate change, tourism and sustainability fill the post-industrial imagination of city planners and policy makers as well as academic researchers. But in this section, what that imagination is – its workings and the results of its workings – is considered. When Benedict Anderson’s (1983) was published, it became an instant classic. It offered a vision (at the end of the Cold War) of nationalism as an ideology as much – or more than – a set of physical, socioeconomic and military boundaries. In a similar sense, the city (and inseparably, its river) is imagined. It provides an identity for its citizens. A New Yorker or a Seoulite is a very different citizen than his or her rural or other-city countrymen. But Benedict’s Imagined Communities follows late on the heels of another classic, Nash’s (1967) Wilderness and the American Mind. In a different but related sense, Nash illustrates how New World beliefs (perceiving the land as wild, romantic, scenic, waiting for exploitation and finally ‘in need of preservation’) evolved over time. The land, like nationalism are sensibilities, imagined entities that change over time almost imperceptibly or radically and suddenly. And what is to be feared is that this collective imagination has real effects on the world, preserving or destroying with perfectly justified intentions.

An example that perfectly illustrates the city’s imagination in relationship with its river is that of Seoul and its Cheonggye Stream. Cheonggye Stream mirrors Seoul’s 3-stage evolution from pre-industrial, to industrial and to post-industrial, and its effects. And the present condition of the stream is the result of the city’s imagination, filled with concerns related to climate change, tourism and sustainability. Consider the example of Cheonggye Stream in Seoul...

The city’s imagination is so powerful that in Seoul, the Cheonggye Stream, was literally killed and buried… and then exhumed and restored – brought to life even though it had already ceased to be. It is now on constant life support, 40,000 tonnes worth a day. But it is necessary, because it serves as a representation of sustainability, a representation of a successful tourism attraction. And because this is what the city needs to imagine, it must come to be. In the post-industrial (or post-modern?) context, the stream’s use-value (swimming, the washing of clothes), long obliterated, has been replaced with a simulacrum good only for its sign value. It represents attractiveness, or wellbeing, or whatever, without actually being such. There has been, in the imagination of the city, a change to where an automatic tendency has emerged to essentialize (mythologize) itself by making its rivers and monuments (through repair, reconstruction or transplantation) into representations of certain experiences by obliterating experience itself. At the Cheonggye, we cannot swim, wash, or drink the water. We have come to expect the representational reification totally devoid of experience. The stream complies with expectations that it must conform to sense of universal order (this is a ‘proper’ or ‘ideal’ urban stream) while being ‘different’ in a coherent manner (this is Cheonggye Stream). Representations are inevitably placed between two distinct and irresolvable realities that are, nevertheless, in total collaboration. They run together out of necessity, but never completely overcome a creeping sense of contrivance (Debord, 1995).

The identity of a city (the cumulative effects of its imaginations) is not necessarily the image individuals perceive, or a mental map, or a sense of place… or attempts at place branding and other marketing campaigns! It is, rather, the meanings projected by a landscape in the cultural context of its inhabitants. In this sense, identity is iconic – a building, cityscape, a river (Pritchard & Morgan, 2001). And in the next section, the Tamsui, icon of Taipei explored, hopefully to reveal that city’s imagination.

Taipei and the Tamsui
The Tamsui River (淡水河) (above Taipei, known as Tahan (大漢溪) is located in northwest Taiwan and flows from south to north through the capital city of Taipei. The source of the river is in the 3529 meter high Pintian Mountain (品田山), located between Hsinchu County (新竹縣) and Taichung County(臺中縣). The river runs 159km from its origin in Pintian Mountain to the sea to the northwest of Taipei (http://wapedia.mobi/en/Pintien_Mountain) where it empties into the sea. Of course, who in Taipei imagines their river in terms of this lofty peak? Instead, today it is imagined as a disconnected and disembodied constellation of problems related to pollution on one hand, and development for tourism, on the other. The Tamsui is renowned for being a filthy river and other cities in Taiwan view it as a benchmark for what not to do. “One look at the putrid Tamsui River in Taipei… once (a) place of beauty, today it is little more than a sewer” (http://www.sinica.edu.tw/tit/scenery/0695_TungshanRiver.html). So Taipei’s Tamsui is an icon of filth first and foremost.





But efforts are being made to reverse that stereotype. By imagining the river in terms of a 3-stage historical evolution and by physically visiting the places of earliest settlement along its banks, another picture emerges, of a river rich in cultural heritage. The roots of Taipei’s culture and cultures more ancient than the city’s can be found that reveal landscapes, townscapes and experiences that speak to Tamsui’s diversity and even beauty. To appreciate the river (or any river) one should know some general facts about Taiwan’s history first, and the River’s, second.
Although today’s Taipei is the cultural and political center of this island country, it was not always so. Most Taiwanese refer to the socio-political history of Taiwan with the saying, “people settled first in Foo, then Lu, then Mongjiang” (一府, 二鹿, 三艋舺). Taiwan Foo, or Tainan was the first major fortified port-city established by the Dutch, although the Spanish built a fort on the Tamsui, where it meets the sea in 1629. Lugang, the second major port where foreign trade established itself was never sustainable for large populations because of geographic constraints. It was finally Taipei (Tainan’s port slowly filled with silt as the sea receded making it useless for larger ships to dock) where a port was established years later. The earlier historical development of Taipei followed the traditional logic of rivers – a source of fresh water for drinking and sanitation, a route for trade and transportation, and the establishment of boundaries for defense. Key early ports along the Tamsui included Tamsui Township (淡水鎮) at the mouth of the river, Dadaocheng Port (大稻呈港口) near Wanhua (Mongjiang), Yingge Township (鶯歌鎮), and Dashi (大溪鎮). It is at these key sites where the three stages of Tamsui’s cultural (and physical) evolution can be witnessed… or guessed at.

During the Japanese Colonial Period and the later regime of Chiang Kai Shek in 1949, an industrial base was established with railway and road networks and the earlier river-based ports were largely abandoned. International shipping was moved to Keelung Harbor and linked by rail to the City. The Tamsui fell into neglect and became a polluted river susceptible to flooding (the original mangrove forests had been clear cut).

Not until democratization in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s did a new consciousness emerge regarding the Tamsui. As with many other cities in Asia, rapid industrialization brought with it many consequences including, perhaps, the most apparent, pollution. This new consciousness was concerned with improving the quality of life for Taipei’s inhabitants. This has led to, in the past two decades, a reduction in the work day and work week, better mass transportation systems, the construction of massive waste treatment facilities, implementation of stricter zoning and controls for the worst polluting factories, the construction of bicycle ways and greenways for local and visiting populations, and a new attention to buildings and natural areas with historical/heritage interest. In addition, improvements of parks and social services have all played a part in making today’s Taipei a better place to live.

Tamsui Township (淡水鎮): Located at the mouth of the Tamsui at the base of Da-tun Mountain, this area has been inhabited for 7,000 years. Evidence of those settlements is displayed at a museum of prehistory, the 13 Trades Museum (十三行博物館) located nearby. In 1641 the Dutch drove the Spanish out of Tamsui before they in turn were driven out by Cheng Cheng-Kung, a Ming loyalist, in 1661. After WWII, Tamsui was reduced to a small fishing port, and fell into obscurity until recently when it has been largely transformed (thanks to a new mass-transit system) into a very popular weekend holiday destination. Old buildings and markets have been revitalized and on a good weekend streets and shops are crowded. The river looks beautiful here, there is a ferry that can take tourists to the other side of the wide river to visit the museum, and the shores are crowded with ice cream shops, restaurants and other amusements. A huge, rambling and somewhat dis-jointed bicycle park (河邊公園) begins in Tamsui and follows the river all the way to Yingge City (鶯歌鎮) upriver.

Dadaocheng Port (大稻呈港口) : This port, although totally forgotten and overlooked by most people was once the center of commerce and culture for Taipei, then known as Mongjiang, and later Wanhua. The port itself disappeared long ago, and the thick mangrove forest that grew on the banks have been clear-cut. This led to massive flooding during rainy seasons which has been counteracted by a huge concrete floodwall that keeps the river totally out of sight from the city. Many historical buildings can still be found in Wanhua, including the Longsan Temple(龍山寺), one of the oldest and most prosperous temples in Taiwan and a must-visit attraction for tourists. Old markets, brothels and the famous snake alley are all within walking distance of the port. The port itself has been developed into the river-long bicycle park, and pleasure boats are anchored there but only sail intermittently due to certain regulations and the job of regularly dredging the silt-filled river bottom.

Yingge Township (鶯歌鎮): Further upriver and outside of Taipei City is Yingge Township. This is a traditional pottery supposedly settled in 1804 by one named Wu An. From 1853 locally available clay has been used to produce pottery including household items such as water vats and ceramic urns. Although pottery is still produced and sold, tourism has become a very important supporting industry, transforming the town into a cultural/heritage attraction. There is a very large pottery museum that showcases the area’s culture. There is nothing remaining of the port where boats that once carried ceramic products downriver to sell. A nearby reservoir (constructed for recreational purposes as well as for flood control) no longer exists. There is a huge waste treatment plant nearby, painted in colorful patterns as if to disguise the nature of its reality.

Dashi Township (大溪鎮): Traditionally this village was the last stop on the river. It was a prosperous town with thriving businesses, trading goods from the mountains inland, especially camphor oil, various herbal medicines and deer skins. Dashi is famous for its three prosperous families named Lee, Lin and Lan. Following a historical course similar to the other ports along the river, this village’s prosperity declined during the rapid industrialization period of post WWII up to the beginnings of democracy in the early 1990’s when the people of Taiwan found themselves imagining a people-friendly society and environment and began the work of restoring these historical villages, and taking a renewed pride in their build heritage. Today the stairs that porters walked, carrying goods up and down from the river’s port to Dashi are still in good repair. The old prosperity of this village (evidenced in the buildings’ elaborate facades) continues today as souvenirs and local snacks are sold to crowds of tourists. (Details of Dashi, and other key stops along the Tamsui, moving upstream from north to south as it changes from
Tamsui to Tahan, are illustrated in detail in the original paper.)

Roots of Culture
These sites of culture along the Tamsui – Tamsui, Wanhua, Yingge and Dashi – tell a story of a traditional river-based commerce that was extinguished by the rapid industrialization of the mid to late 20th century, and a later rehabilitation that occurred with the advent of democracy, beginning in the early 1990’s. It is a story that is, perhaps, common in Asia. Their respective developments are ‘similar’, yet ‘different’ – touting different experiences and different attractions while competing developers strive to disassociate their community from the others along the river. There has not been and probably never will be any efforts spent of developing a leisure tourism network that connects these sites, preferably by a means of transportation on the river itself (a small yacht or ferry or other form of water-taxi) – and that is regrettable. Rather than imagining the heritage of the past, the new post-industrial imagination manipulates representations – of heritage and the management of culture rather than management of the cultural experience. The new revitalizing power of tourism carries a two-edged sword, remaking decrepit and almost forgotten communities but coming dangerously close to sealing an even more terrible fate: imagining an identity of toured community.

Imagining Cities must become imaginative cities in order to begin to think and plan with a historical and holistic vision. Rivers connect communities and they are the most fundamental and reliable systems of transportation, and sources of life and energy. Taipei is stuck in a leisure tourism approach that stresses recreation, heritage and nature/eco-tourism attractions. By doing so, communities become isolated and visitors and even residents lose a consciousness of interconnectivity. Tamsui River is not being revitalized with a comprehensive logic of sustainability in mind that asks questions such as:
• Are we using the existing resources of the river in a publicly beneficial and sustainable way?
• Are we making the most of hydro-power and other sustainable exploitation of the river’s resources?
• Are we connecting communities by offering the public an alternative river-based transportation system?
• Are we providing the right kind of markers at destinations that speak to the interconnectedness of tourism attractions?

In Tamsui the roots of Taipei’s culture still sleep unseen by many, even the users of its natural and cultural resources. A better and more complete thinking is necessary to develop the river into a place that deserves recognition equal to its powerful historical effects on the birth and growth of the city that now surrounds it. Although researchers and organizations produce a constant and endless stream of recommendations regarding sustainable development, its implementation remains spotty as the difficulties of social reality raise many obstacles. Hopefully, the future holds a new imagination that perceives sustainability as a recipe for opportunity, not limitation.

References
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities. London: Verso.
Debord, G. (1995). The society of the spectacle. D. Nicholson-Smith (Trans.). NY: Zone Books.
Nash, R.F. (1967). Wilderness and the American Mind. London: Yale University Press.
Pritchard, A. & Morgan N.J. (2001) Culture identity and tourism representation: Marketing Cymru or Wales? Annals of Tourism Research, 22(2), pp.167-179.

2009 Asia Pacific Creativity Forum on Culture and Tourism

Recently I had the honor of being invited back to Jeju to attend this event. It was a prestigious working roundtable event where a number of high-profile people gathered for three days to discuss new (real) ideas (ideals) for 'perspectives on the challenges and future directions to achieving sustainable tourism through creativity'. Before the event, each person attending was given an extensive questionnaire regarding certain questions related to creativity and sustainability. Here, below, are my responses.

RESPONSES

1-1: Regarding the impacts of creativity on culture and tourism:

Academics and policy makers involved in the tourism industry should not be ashamed to defer to cultural experts concerning cultural creativity. The problem of 'copycats' in the tourism industry is rooted in the often unnecessary urge to 'benchmark' against theoretically similar destinations, even when actual similarities exist only in form and not in content.

Instead, we should look to the observations of Claude Levi-Strauss when he compared the bricoleur to the engineer. In the bricoleur (in reference to the primitive), Levi-Strauss was an ability to construct (in the immediate sense) a system based on what is available locally, rather than (in the sense of the engineer) depending upon an ideal range of materials. In cultural tourism destination development a full assessment of local cultural talent should be implemented before any talk of tourism product is discussed.

Therefore:

• 1) Favor a local assessment of cultural creativity and resources over 'benchmarking',

• 2) Favor a 'bricoleur' approach to tourism product development, using only what is available, and;

• 3) Do not worry about 'copycats' as they can reproduce cultural forms but not content.

The contemporary failure of smaller destinations to promote themselves is based upon their over-dependence on a standardized language of destination image promotion. Creativity in product development as well as in promotion is required to ensure a real paradigm shift takes place.

1-2: Regarding the popularization of creativity in culture and tourism:

There is no need to favor a public oriented culture industry. The perception of a so-called elitist sensibility (in cultural creativity) is based in a general public attitude that fails to recognize the specialized efforts, skills, and knowledge of artists. Artists are the cultural resources of a destination, not the products they manufacture. The greatest risk in cultural commoditization is the cheap souvenir or experience. In Taiwan, tourism guidebooks focus on the introduction of artists and their studios rather than a particular 'type' of local product. With this approach, tourists are able to expect authenticity and quality craftsmanship in the souvenirs or experiences they seek. Therefore, rather than popularizing art, tourism policy makers should be focusing on the:

• 1) protection (with copyrights or patents),

• 2) provision (of space and materials), and

• 3) promotion (through media forms as well as the improvement of physical access by restructuring tour operators' itineraries)

of artists and craftspeople to bring the public into contact with the local culture industry.

Besides, local talent and culture is always there, it is just that many tourism policy makers and developers are looking for development projects that are more 'iconic' or 'massive' because, of course, such projects are more visible and memorable in their scale.

1-3: Regarding the future of creativity, culture and tourism:

By empowering local artists, artisans, craftspeople and people with traditional knowledge with creative spaces, closer community, access to markets and information and by enabling them with "protection, provision and promotion" their creativity will naturally and organically develop into tangible and recognizable forms with their own local flavor. New artists from other places who choose to relocate and reside at a destination should also be welcome to pursue their own work and should be accepted into the community, receiving the same opportunities as local artists. This diversity is very healthy and guarantees a contemporary authenticity to a destination's cultural capital. However, souvenirs and products manufactured abroad (usually for the sake of reducing production costs) should be regulated, properly labeled or outright prohibited. A destination's cultural industry must be based on quality and creativity.

Marketing forms are very important as well, to ensure creative marketing and proper representation of the reality at the destination. The closer destination image promotion comes to the reality at the destination, the better.

Consider destinations such as Thailand or Bali where locally produced products are so culturally iconic and beautiful that a large portion of 'cultural tourists' visiting these places are actually wholesalers or retailers of those products in their home countries.

2-1: Regarding the use of existing cultural assets:

The source of this question or concern is based in the general and fundamental misunderstanding of what cultural tourism is... or at a deeper level, a misconception concerning culture. Chris Jenks' definition of culture is a simple and succinct reply to the general perception of culture as something 'primitive', 'original and pure', or simply 'rustic or traditional' (or even to the opposite perception of culture as the elite forms of the privileged urban class). To paraphrase his thesis, culture is the social process of reproduction. Social forms, traditional knowledge and the like must offer some economic/spiritual benefits to their inheritors. Thus culture is 'reproduced' generationally or adapted to the current shared assumptions about social identity. In this sense, cultural tourism is and ideally, always has been creative tourism. it is the museumification of culture (retirement of cultural forms to venues for display like culture parks) that sucks the real, living authenticity from local culture. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the commercialization of cultural forms. Culture is, by definition, the result of indigenous creativity in adapting to certain natural and economic conditions in the environment.

Therefore, it should be recognized that tangible and intangible cultural assets can be:

• 1) reinterpreted and adapted to contemporary needs and sensibilities,

• 2) augmented or added to by new innovators, indigenous or newcomer, and

• 3) commercialized as long as the highest standards of local manufacture and authentic promotion are maintained.

2-2-1: Regarding the utilization of natural assets in tourism (implementation):

The natural environment is the source of many indigenous cultural forms found at a destination. Originally, climate, geography and the availability of food and materials define the people living in an environment as they must find local solutions to local problems. In this sense, cultural 'purity' is contingent entirely upon physical 'isolation'. Even today, some of the most impressive festivals, events and other cultural forms are best found in remote corners of the earth. Today many places still exist where certain crafts or traditional manufacturing goes on because of the unique qualities of that environment that made that industry viable in the first place. In Taiwan's famous Yinge Pottery Community (Taoyuan County), pottery is still made today as it was hundreds of years ago because of the abundant clay resources and access to water way transportation. What is different today is the additional tourism industry complete with museums, information systems and newer products that suit the tastes of visitors (although the form has changed, those products are still pottery and they are still made by master craftsmen).

What we should be aware of when implementing creative tourism is that the most contrived and least authentic cultural tourism products are those that exist because of planners' total disregard for the realities of the local environment. We must be aware of the destination's environment and its historical effects on the local community. And then we must stay true to that.

2-2-2:Regarding the utilization of natural assets in tourism (climate change):

The environment and its climate has always been changing and the ways in which people react adapt to those changes define culture. Serious changes are occurring these days however, and the scope is unprecedented in modern times. These days UNWTO and other global organizations are recognizing the effects of climate change and the role of tourism as both helpful and harmful. Local action is not enough, and if anything the new paradigm for tourism should be 'local culture', 'global climate'. It is advisable for local governments to consider membership in ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability ) or other environmental organizations to ensure that they are equipped with the proper tools and knowledge in order to do their part in meeting the global crisis.

2-3 Role of the creative class:

The Tourist

The tourist is, of course, selfish and self motivated. However, with the right direction (sensible and tasteful marketing, provision of good information in various forms, the proper design of built environments, proper guidance by tourism operators) from destination stakeholders, the tourist will recognize quality manufacture and artistry and will naturally invest in the destination's cultural creativity. If this turns out to not be the case, then, like New Zealand, (http://www.tourism.govt.nz/strategy/str-update-2003/str-stratupdate-implementation.html) a destination should narrow its focus to strategically target the "Interactive Traveler", in this case a tourist who:

• Consumes a wide range of tourism products and services

• Seeks out new experiences where they can engage and interact with natural, social and cultural environments

• Is keen to share these experiences with others

• Respects the environment, cultural and societal values of others

• Is considered a leader by his/her peers

• Uses technology to enhance their lives

• Values authentic products/experiences.

Tourist Business/industry professionals

In the context of this survey, if local governments were to offer "protection, provision and promotion" for local artists and those with traditional skills, then these tourist businesses would be comprised of a much larger proportion of artists. And with the proper amount of legal and economic support including tax incentives and possibly in many cases the gentrification of stagnant downtowns to provide artist space and access to tourist markets, the artist's own creativity would go a long way to developing a unique sense of place/destination image while strengthening local culture and identity. On another level, tourist businesses which do not conform to a more authentic and local sensibility could be taxed proportionately more. I think that it is important that local heritage sites be something more than just empty buildings toured by visitors -- that in some circumstances, artists are best equipped to give new life to these spaces, enhancing their cultural significance and economic value.

Central Government & Regional and Local Governments

Nations have unique structural relationships between the central and local governments. For example, Korea has a strong central government whereas Taiwan has strong local governments. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. In Korea, funding from a strong central government makes big projects in Jeju like the ICC and the Jongmun Tourism Complex possible. In Taiwan, strong local governments strongly resist the influences and opinions of central government policy makers and thereby save themselves the grief of 'desk reports' and intrusive urban sensibilities that have no currency in the village. Large scale festivals remain true to tradition while gaining widespread notoriety of their own. In other words, there is no simple answer concerning the roles of central or local governments... except that policy makers should recognize that funds should be generously granted to local governments and that the rural ways of doing things require that much of that funding will 'disappear' in 'soft' development such as activities that build community but do not yield 'tangible' results. This is not a bad thing. Sometimes too much infrastructure or 'hard' development is more damaging. Rural tourism development requires money, I think, to build its own infrastructure. And when in doubt, in terms of government intervention, the rule of thumb should always be, "less is more".

Academic Groups

Tourism researchers (academics) these days are at a real disadvantage. The current system in many countries is one that forces tourism researchers to agree with governmental policy makers or to be excluded from their projects or from public funding. In tourism research, development of tourism is favored over community development and market/management research is favored over anthropological approaches. This reduces tourism research to solution-driven and overly functional methodologies that overlook a vast amount of social nuance at a destination or within a market. The tendency to over-value statistical generalizations has led us to a point where the notions of a destination, its image, and the range of possible representations of cultural forms have become lodged in a limited range of rigid categories. We need more case-specific research in tourism addressing cultural/anthropological issues and we need to be vigilant in preventing too many generalizations and too much benchmarking.

NGOs

In their mission statements and vision statements, most NGO's appear to be fulfilling valuable services to destinations and to the tourism industry in general. However, because of certain differences in socio-political status or outlooks their valuable services, experiences and information can be inaccessible to local communities. NGO's and their representatives should work harder to take a pro-active role in the fair and equal dissemination of information to all destinations who need it.

2-4-1: Overcoming barriers to creative development:

1) There is no shortage. There is only a lack of attention given to the value of creative people. Policy makers need to implement systems to ensure that artists and craftspeople and those with traditional knowledge are recognized and their abilities put to use. Creative products and attractions will emerge naturally and organically.

2) There is, invariably, a lack of investment in creativity. The gentrification of old neighborhoods or the transformation of heritage sites into artist guilds or artist studios/storefronts is necessary and government spending should focus on these. The creative sector requires pro-active investments with the trust that creative products will follow.

3) Destination promotion can mitigate the potential lack of market and some measures to encourage or tax operators can help them to change their focus on offering low cost/high profit tours to offering value-added packages. In addition, the market will emerge once a creative base is developed.

4) The cumulative disadvantage of creative locations is that governments are unwilling to invest in something unless there is some level of certainty regarding its feasibility and eventual profitability. However, in the creative sector, this is not always the case. But on the other hand, when one considers the cultural impact of Deep Ellum on the city of Dallas, or the power of local businesses on Westheimer to affect the economy and culture of Houston, there should be no doubt that the careful yet generous support of government can enable a creative location to form, develop and eventually to define a local culture and economy.

2-5: Other issues regarding creativity, culture and tourism:

It seems, in recent years that in tourism planning and development tourism researchers and policy makers have gotten ahead of themselves. Research focusing on descriptive approaches has slowly disappeared from the literature, replaced by strategic and prescriptive articles that focus on the implementation of large products or the development of large projects. It seems that as attention returns to creativity, culture and tourism, our methods should change as well. More case specific and localized research is necessary in order to re-discover culture as it actually is, not as how it should be according to large conceptual models. We should re-invest our faith in local artists and recognize the power of their unique subjective perspectives.

3-1-1: Realizing 'creativity' in culture and tourism:

In terms of industrialization, we should recognize the pragmatics of the system in Taiwan where cottage industry has built a resilient and strong economy. By de-centralizing power, implementing flexible delivery systems, and by human networking, 'creativity' can become a viable resource for tourism.

In terms of politicization, policies should come into effect that recognize the social and economic role of artists and people with traditional knowledge. They should be recognized as cultural opinion leaders and equipped with the proper venues and outlets for the expression of their works as well as their viewpoints. 3-1-2

3-2-1: Global relationships and collaboration:

This year's Asia-Pacific Creativity Forum on Culture and Tourism is an excellent start to address the important issue of culture and creativity. I hope that Jeju continues to host the Forum. Of course more exchange and collaboration is necessary and I would hope that Jeju would focus on more dialogue with Taiwan scholars and artists and more interaction with successful creative culture destinations such as Thailand and Bali and even Nepal would be recommended.

Future agendas for the forum are dependent upon the outcome of this year's forum. Perhaps one suggestion would be to organize next year's forum according to several focused topics and then invite specialists to present case studies specifically related to the topics. I think at this point, the discussion of case-specific scenarios related to creativity and culture in tourism should take priority over the discussion of strategy.

3-3: Final thoughts:

I appreciate this opportunity to participate in the 2009 Asia Pacific Creativity Forum on Culture and Tourism. I hope that this forum will bring the issue of creativity into the spotlight, and help to raise our consciousness of the deeper truths regarding culture as it is manifest in tourism.

It seems that much work is done to unpack the meanings of cultural tourism. And this must be done in order to be better equipped to deal with the issue of "creative tourism". The creative sector is small scale and risky. It will require real energy, sincerity and determination by government officials to see its growth into a tourism sector realized.

I also think that it is time, here in East Asia, to get over some of the stereotypes collectively held concerning the place of culture in tourism. The old forms of cultural tourism -- the culture park or culture village and the festival are not the defining forms of culture that tourists today are (or should be) looking for. Culture is not defined entirely by tradition. Tradition is simply a point of reference. It is time, in tourism, to realize that 'culture' and 'innovation' can be synonymous.