This chapter explains the role of authenticity in creative tourism in rural areas and identifies future research needs. Community-based tourism and creative tourism both use the concept of authenticity extensively, but uncritically. To develop creative tourism in rural areas and prevent commodification, the theoretical assumptions and definitions behind authenticity must be considered. The study analyses how different theories of authenticity are applied in creative and community-based tourism literature and suggests a synthetic theory of authenticity applicable to creative tourism development in rural areas. This theory was explored in the context of five Balinese villages using a microethnographic approach with participant observation and expert as well as tourist interviews. Findings extend the discussion in the literature and provide further evidence that the synthesized definition of authenticity is reasonable for creative tourism in rural areas. This definition of authenticity may develop differently in other cultural contexts. More research is also needed to classify expectations of authenticity among different types of creative tourists. Finally, as tourism influences how authenticity changes over time, future research on the carrying capacity of rural areas is essential for the development of creative tourism in rural areas.
LINK
In the context of public budget cuts and rural areas facing depopulation and aging, local governments increasingly encourage citizen engagement in addressing local livability issues. This paper examines the non-engagement of mid-aged and elderly residents (45+ years old) in civic initiatives that intend to improve the livability of their community. We focus on residents of depopulating rural areas in the North Netherlands. We compare their engagement with the behavior of residents in other, not depopulating, rural areas, and urban areas. Using logistic statistical analyses, we found that the majority of the aging residents did not engage in civic livability initiatives during the past two years, and one-third of this group had no intention to do so in the future. In all areas, the main reasons for non-engagement were that residents had other priorities, felt not capable of engaging, or felt that the responsibility for local livability belonged to the local government. Furthermore, it appeared that non-engagement was predominantly explained by the unwillingness to engage, rather than by specific motivations or lacking abilities.
DOCUMENT