Introduction
Sustainable tourism in its many forms might be thought of as a highly appropriate land use to be integrated into the rural landscape of Europe, and indeed, in some respects this is true. In a number of situations, however, what might pass for sustainable tourism can be seen to be incompatible in varying degrees with the modern forms of rural land use that now pervade Europe (Sharpley 2001). Tourism in rural areas goes under a variety of names, rural tourism, agritourism and farm tourism, for example, and has changed significantly over recent decades (Butler 1998), as have views of the āappropriateā form and function of rural areas (Halfacree 1997). Legislation and policies have resulted in different priorities and economic values for land and land use in rural areas, some of which have been beneficial to tourism, and some of which have tended to be contrary to the goals of sustainable tourism (Cloke 1999).
The chapter explores the patterns and roles of tourism, both sustainable and conventional forms of the activity, in the dynamic landscape of rural Europe and its competing land uses. Much tourist activity takes place out of doors and traditionally there has been an argument for an important relationship between environmental quality and tourist satisfaction. It would be reasonable, therefore, to assume that tourism in rural areas, in Europe, as elsewhere in the world, would be an activity that was welcomed and encouraged by those making a living in rural areas and by tourists themselves (ETC 2001). Such is not always the case, and it would be unwise to assume that tourists and rural residents automatically have a positive relationship, or that tourism and other economic activities in rural areas are always compatible. Similarly, it would be incorrect to imagine that tourism in rural areas of Europe can be generalized as to nature and extent across the continent. Tourism, in sustainable or unsustainable form, is often seen as a disturbance and an unwelcome intrusion into rural areas, and its success or failure depends greatly on the form of tourism being practised and the nature of the rural area in which it is taking place (Briedenhann 2007). Compounding this situation is the fact that both tourism and the rural areas of Europe have undergone massive and numerous changes in the past half century (Halfacree 2006; Hall et al. 2003), and to some degree the casual observer of tourism in rural areas often has a perception that is decades behind the current reality (Bunce 2003; Cloke 2003). This chapter introduces some of the major issues and changes that face tourism in rural areas in Europe and speculates briefly on implications for future patterns and possible areas of potential conflict.
Key issues
There are a number of issues and concerns that are common throughout Europe in the context of tourism in rural areas (Anastasiadou 2008). In most cases, there is little difference between sustainable and non-sustainable tourism in terms of the nature of the relationship with agriculture and other rural pursuits (Butler and Hall 1998). First among these is the issue of definitions.
Definitions
At the root of any discussion on sustainable tourism in rural areas are the definitions of sustainable tourism and rural area (Bell 2006). Since the introduction of the term āsustainable developmentā into common usage (WCED 1987) and its application to tourism, there has been considerable discussion, uncertainty and confusion over what is meant by āsustainable tourismā. It is unresolved whether it means a form of tourism that is sustainable (viable) or a form of tourism that is symbiotically related to all other forms of human activity and the environment in which it is practised (Butler 1993). This chapter is not the place to attempt to resolve this discussion, if it is capable of being resolved at all, but suffice it to say that in this context sustainable tourism is taken to mean tourism that operates and is operated in line with the principles of sustainable development (which include inter and intra generational equity, a long-term view, operating within limits and with a triple bottom line in terms of priorities). āRural areaā is similarly difficult to define without disagreement, in part because of its traditional links in many peopleās perceptions with agriculture, and in part because if it is taken as the opposite of urban, there remains the problem of āsuburbanā areas and wilderness areas. In this chapter, rural areas are taken to be those parts of Europe beyond urban areas but which are settled, i.e. they have a human presence on a permanent basis. They may or may not be under agricultural production (Clemmons 2004). The human presence is important, as it is this which distinguishes these areas from wilderness and which also at least partly explains why conflicts and disagreements arise when tourism takes place in these areas (Hallikainen 2001).
One further issue related to definitions exists. There is often an inappropriate perception that rural areas are inland, a view that tends to be reinforced by image and advertisement, as pictures of rural areas rarely show coastal locations (HƤyrynen 2004). As noted below, coastal rural areas are highly popular tourist destinations, probably more so than inland rural locations, and thus any focus on tourism in rural areas should include tourism to coastal destinations also, not just valleys, mountains and market towns in the interior of Europe. As well, while rural areas are attractive to tourists, it must be remembered most tourists are by definition international visitors (see the United Nations World Tourism Organisation 2008 definition; (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO 2008) and that in most European countries they visit urban centres in far larger numbers than they visit rural destinations. The great European cities such as London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, are the key destinations for tourists when they travel abroad, along with resorts such as Benidorm, Palma, Blackpool, Malaga, and Nice. Much leisure visitation to the rural areas of Europe is by domestic ātouristsā or recreationists (Butler et al. 1998a) rather than their foreign counterparts. As most people spend only a few weeks away on holiday, frequently only one or two weeks, the level of visitation to rural areas is necessarily limited. The fact that visitors can access most sites in large urban centres or large resorts on foot or by public transport but need a car to access most rural areas, particularly those that are ādeeplyā rural, means that foreign visitors using public transport (rail, air, ship) would need to hire a car to visit rural areas, which can be a deterrent or at least a financial constraint. Thus if strict definitions are held to, numbers of visitors engaged in sustainable tourism to rural areas would be small compared to all tourism visitors to rural areas and tiny when measured against all tourists across Europe. A somewhat less circumscribed scenario will be used in the discussions below.
In summary, it can be argued that when considering sustainable tourism in rural areas we should be considering those forms of tourism that are compatible with other rural activities and the rural environment in its many forms, from the northern tundra to the Mediterranean semi-desert landscape (Sharpley 2004). The forms of tourism that can be regarded as sustainable should also be of such a form and at such a scale that they do not negatively affect the environments (economic, physical and social) in which they are practised to such a degree that they cause irreparable and undesirable change (Butler 1993).
The NorthāSouth divide
It was noted above that there is great diversity in the environment of Europe and this is mirrored by activities and attitudes of tourists in rural areas in Europe (Roberts and Hall 2001). Many of the differences in behaviour of sustainable or other tourists across Europe can be related to differences in climate, in physical geography and in culture. That may appear a rather reactionary deterministic viewpoint and so some specific examples may be necessary to justify such a view. The great variation in climate between northern Europe (Scandinavia, the UK, Ireland) and Mediterranean/Adriatic Europe (Greece, Italy, Malta, Cyprus, the Balkans) has meant that much of the tourism practised in rural and coastal areas in the south is āsunā tourism, what is often termed āmass tourismā (Butler and Stiakaki 2001; Farsari et al. 2007). Such tourism, often quite unfairly, is regarded as unsustainable, undesirable and unsupportive in its destinations, although rarely by those making a living from tourism in such areas.
Tourism in southern Europe is primarily based on the marine coastline and climate, and to a lesser degree cultural and historical heritage, and popularized greatly by northern Europeans (UNEP et al. 2000), and in recent years also by locals in increasing numbers as the southern countries have benefitted from the economic regional development policies of the European Union (Clemmons 2004; Fleischer and Felenstein 2000). Tourism in Northern Europe, on the other hand, has relatively few sun-seeking elements, and much more emphasis is put upon active pursuits such as hiking, and nature observation, with the appeal lying in the landscape, and the cultural and natural heritage of the region (Hallikainen 1998). Those engaging in tourism in northern Europe tend also to be more active, more āgreenā, more affluent, and more educated on average than those heading to the southern beaches (Lehtinen 2006). The much desired āupmarket sustainable touristā (Ioannides and Holcomb 2003) compared to the āgolden hordesā in these comments are highly generalized in order to support the argument, and there are certainly tourists who visit southern Europe and avoid beach resorts, but relatively few of them visit or stay in rural areas, most concentrating on the cultural and historic centres such as Florence, or Athens (Ioannides et al. 2001). Some certainly find their way to the vineyards of the Rhone, the monasteries of Greece, the Trudos Mountains in Cyprus and coastal villages in Istria, but they are small in number in both relative and absolute terms.
In northern Europe, much of the rural visitation is to cultural and historic sites, or to impressive natural landscapes, including places such as the national parks in the United Kingdom or in the Tatra of central Europe, coastal settlements and the high plateau in Scandinavia, and of course the Alpine valleys in Germany, Austria and Switzerland in particular. In the offshore islands of Europe, this NorthāSouth divide is equally, if not more evident than on the mainland. The southern islands of the Mediterranean (the Balearics, Malta, Cyprus), the Canaries (Bianchi 2004), the Azores and to a lesser extent Madeira, all rely heavily on āmass tourismā, and efforts to develop sustainable tourism, for example, in Calvia in Mallorca, have generally had limited success at best (Dodds 2007; Ioannides et al. 2001). Tourism to northern and western isles such as the Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland, the Faroes, Iceland and the Lofotens is almost all related to the natural and cultural heritage of those locations, with fewer family groups with children and more elderly couples represented in the tourist market (Butler 2006).
Second homes
A feature of tourism in rural areas for many years has been the presence of second homes (also known as holiday homes, cottages, weekend retreats, and country estates). Seco...
