Abstract
This chapter features two planning proposals that engage the ideological and practical frictions between Chinese mass nature tourism and ecotourism. Employed by China’s southwestern frontier provinces as a development model since the early 2000s, mass nature tourism is driven by an economic ideology that appropriates an “impoverished” region and its population as resources. In recent years, the Chinese model of mass nature tourism has been introduced into northern Laos. These large-scale tourism programs may arguably prove economically viable but unavoidably raise ethical, cultural and environmental questions that call for urgent attention. Focusing on Boten and Luang Prabang, the two featured planning proposals challenge an economic-driven and object-based mass nature tourism model and investigate the possibility of a site-, culture-, and landscape-sensitive ecotourism approach. Both projects begin with an analysis of the spatial and temporal patterns of key landscape systems that are crucial for enabling the establishment of tourism programs and for sustaining local livelihoods and cultural practices that are indispensable assets of authentic cultural landscape experiences. Based on these analyses, both projects identify site-specific tourism development capacities, guiding the scale and speed of development to minimize conflict between local communities and tourism, while maximizing tourism-related ecological and social benefits.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
1 Introduction
Building on the discourses of the “politics of land-use planning” and “frontier resourcification” examined in Chap. 4, this chapter features two strategic planning proposals that engage the ideological and practical frictions between Chinese mass nature tourism and ecotourism.
Mass nature tourism is a model employed by China’s southwestern frontier provinces such as Yunnan since the early 2000s (Zinda, 2014). Conceived and implemented as part of the Chinese central government’s long-term Great Western Development Strategy launched in 2000 that aims to raise economic standards in western China, mass nature tourism is a development tool for some of the most remote frontier regions characterized by “adverse” natural conditions, “underdeveloped” infrastructure and a largely “impoverished” population (State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2000). Mass nature tourism is driven by an economic ideology that appropriates an “impoverished” region and its population as resources for development in the name of poverty alleviation, with tourism zoning carried out based on the suitability of land for natural and cultural commodification.
In recent years, the Chinese model of mass nature tourism has been introduced, in parallel with other types of economic development, into northern Laos, notably within the country’s newly established Special Economic Zones (SEZ) (Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4). For example, Chinese and Lao mainstream media are promoting Boten and Luang Prabang, two of Laos’s major tourist attractions and key stations on the China-Laos Railway, as examples of the “international modern new town with outstanding natural and cultural landscape” (Investvine, 2019; Lao National Television, 2016; Ta Kung Pao, 2019). A ten-fold increase in tourist numbers is projected on completion of the China-Laos Railway.Footnote 1 The new town or SEZ plans of Boten and Luang Prabang both set out a spatial order maximizing the commodification of nature and culture, where tourism and resort zones include existing natural rivers and local ethnic villages as well as newly constructed artificial lakes and cultural demonstration villages (Architectural Design & Research Institute of SCUT, 2016; Planning & Design Center of Haicheng Group, 2018).
These large-scale tourism programs being rapidly implemented in Laos may arguably prove economically viable but unavoidably raise ethical, cultural and environmental questions that call for urgent attention (See, for example, Hall & Ringer, 2000; Travers, 2008; Kyophilavong et al., 2018). The two strategic planning proposals included in this chapter are: Negotiating with ethno-ecology: Landscape management strategies for northern Laos’s ecotourism boom; and Living heritage: Redefining protections for urban expansion in Luang Prabang. Focusing on Boten and Luang Prabang respectively, these two proposals challenge an economic-driven and object-based mass nature tourism model and investigate the possibility of a site-, culture-, and landscape-sensitive ecotourism approach. Both proposals begin with an analysis of the spatial and temporal patterns of key landscape systems such as the watershed, food-shed, waste-shed and viewshed that are crucial for enabling the establishment of tourism programs and for sustaining the local livelihoods and cultural practices that are indispensable assets of authentic cultural landscape experiences. Based on these analyses, both projects identify site-specific tourism development capacities, guiding the scale and speed of development to minimize conflict between local communities and tourism, while maximizing tourism-related ecological and social benefits.
2 Negotiating with Ethno-Ecology: Landscape Management Strategies for Northern Laos’s Ecotourism Boom
Considering the rapid growth of ecotourism in northern Laos and the often-negative impacts of tourism development on indigenous communities, this project deploys ethno-ecology as a tool to negotiate with tourism developers for the protection and territorial integrity of cultural landscapes. Without critical awareness, the tourism planning process often reduces indigenous peoples to primitive caricatures and replaces local culture with homogenized cultural representations (Salazar, 2009). In response to mainstream practices in the region, this project advocates for an understanding of local knowledge via ethno-ecology, advancing alternative metrics of cultural and ecological value and mechanisms for landscape management.
Ethno-ecology is defined as the organizational and cognitive relationships that each local culture has with its non-human environment (Prado & Murrieta, 2015). While ethno-ecology suggests a value system to be protected, it is also an adaptive system capable of determining the capacity of the landscape to accommodate new people and new programs, even including the substantial pressures for mass tourism development in southwestern China and northern Laos. Nuanced and bespoke calculations of local “livelihood-sheds,” such as viewshed and foodshed, are used in this project to understand, illustrate, and advocate for the spatiotemporal patterns of humans in their environment. Two villages in southwestern China and two villages in northern Laos are deployed as testing grounds for exemplifying the diversity of the ethno-ecology in the China-Laos border region and the impacts induced by tourism development (Figs. 5, 6 and 7).
In southwestern China, Mandan village of the Dai people and Qingkou village of the Hani people have confronted tourism development over the past several decades and reveal the processes of exclusion and fragmentation embedded in mainstream tourism planning (See, for example, iSkytree Tourism Planning, 2013; Sina, 2015; Guipu, 2016; Liu & Ye, 2019). Despite focusing on different aspects of ethno-ecology, both cases exhibit the intertwining of local spiritual and agricultural practices in generating the cultural landscape. Tourism planning here has greatly oversimplified each village’s cultural realms and excluded large swaths of their cultural territories because of object-oriented and profit-driven rationales (Figs. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13).
Insights drawn from these two ecotourism villages in southwestern China are then translated to Boten and Nalan villages in northern Laos, both under tourism development pressures from Chinese and Thai capital.Footnote 2 Such translation helps predict potential damages to the integrity of cultural landscapes and helps devise landscape-oriented and culture-driven means of negotiation with investors and tourism planners. In the case of Boten village, now within the rapidly developing Boten Special Economic Zone, its historical salt production system is a renowned local tradition and highlight in the current tourism plan (Planning & Design Center of Haicheng Group, 2018). This village is strategically selected for its potential in calculating and visualizing Boten’s cultural territory and ideal tourism capacity (Figs. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19). In the case of Nalan village, its system of rice and rice wine production is a cultural practice strategically chosen here for the quantification and visualization of a cultural territory closely tied to the practice of shifting cultivation. Nalan partially falls within the Nam Ha National Protected Area, and shifting cultivation is one of the most misunderstood and controversial forms of land use (Figs. 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24) (Ducourtieux et al., 2005).
Indigenous practices and tourism development are not necessarily exclusive to one another. An adaptive landscape that caters to traditional practices and tourism programs can allow visitors to experience authenticity while securing the dignity and strengthening local people to shape and maintain their cultural landscapes.
The design proposal “Negotiating with ethno-ecology: Landscape management strategies for northern Laos’s ecotourism boom” and accompanying illustrations were developed by Yani Zhang Mengting and William Wei Gongqi during the course Studio Laos: Strategic Landscape Planning for the Greater Mekong.
3 Living Heritage: Redefining Protections for Urban Expansion in Luang Prabang
Anticipating the boom in urbanization in Luang Prabang that follows the opening of the China-Laos Railway, this strategic proposal foregrounds the insufficiency of a predominantly architecture-focused cultural heritage protection mechanism instituted by UNESCO and explores the potential for a landscape-oriented framework that defines and protects essential cultural landscapes in the region.
Situated in a valley at the confluence of the Mekong and Nam Khan rivers in north central Laos, Luang Prabang was an ancient royal capital and the current cultural center of the country (Reeves & Long, 2011). As Luang Prabang town experienced increasing social and environmental pressures from the growing influx of tourists since its designation as a UNESCO World Heritage site in 1995, the town and its expansive landscape are currently undergoing unprecedented changes induced by simultaneous rural–urban transformation and regional infrastructure expansion (Figs. 25 and 26). In addition to the expected ten-fold increase in the number of tourists visiting Luang Prabang once the China-Laos Railway begins operation at the end of 2021,Footnote 3 the pace of urbanization and deforestation is accelerating, especially along the railway. Considering the cultural significance of Luang Prabang, the importance of forest resources to local communities and the rapid urbanization of the region, immediate intervention is needed to protect the region’s heritage, secure local livelihoods and curtail or redirect speculative development toward sustainable ends.
This proposal redefines regional landscape values and reflects on the spatial implications of this valuing system. UNESCO appraises Luang Prabang as a heritage site that “reflects the exceptional fusion of Lao traditional architecture and nineteenth and twentieth century European colonial style buildings” (UNESCO, 1995), and its protection measures are spatially reflected in two boundaries defining the core and buffer zone of the inscribed heritage property (Figs. 27 and 28). An exercise combining land use and viewshed analyses in the buffer zone and along the railway helps identify possible extents of vernacular landscapes with cultural and ecological value. These analyses reveal contradictions embedded in the UNESCO-delineated buffer zone. The current defined zone can abruptly exclude new capital-driven construction along with village use of forest resources that have cultural and livelihood significance. Consequently, this zone is not capable, either spatially or in land use management, of regulating land conversion and speculative development of Luang Prabang (Figs. 29 and 30) (UNESCO, 2013). Given that substantial land speculation is occurring and will expand further along the China-Laos Railway, which passes through a dozen local villages heavily dependent on agriculture, this project overlays predicted unregulated areas of urban expansion and viewsheds along the railway to identify strategic spaces for intervention.
The location of new railway stations, existing highways and terrain are key factors in predicting urban expansion areas (Fig. 31). Taking advantage of the mainstream narrative of offering visitors an “authentic experience” of Luang Prabang’s cultural landscape, this proposal identifies areas of urban expansion within the viewshed along the railway that may degrade such experiences, which are regarded as crucial assets in the tourism industry (Figs. 32, 33, 34 and 35). Guided by this spatial framework, four multiscalar landscape strategies, namely reforestation, buffer planting, development regulation and alternative buffer zone demarcation, are proposed to mediate the socioenvironmental impacts of previous development projects, minimize potential spatial conflicts between the local and nonlocal use of resources, and mitigate foreseeable land speculation (Fig. 36). In addition, three landscape typologies are proposed to guide the spacing of new plantings and selection of plant species with cultural and livelihood significance (Figs. 37, 38 and 39).
While UNESCO’s significant contributions to the protection of cultural heritage across the globe are undeniable, in the context of unprecedented socioenvironmental challenges faced by cultural heritage, such as that of Luang Prabang, a landscape framework characterized by a three-dimensional systematic analysis of a cultural territory is necessary, especially one shaped by cultural practices and with a critical definition of cultural landscape heritage that is alive and dynamic.
The design proposal “Living heritage: Redefining protections for urban expansion in Luang Prabang” and accompanying illustrations were developed by Haylie Shum Hiu Lam during the course Studio Laos: Strategic Landscape Planning for the Greater Mekong.
Notes
- 1.
Authors’ conversation in March 2018 with members of Luang Prabang’s network of hospitality management.
- 2.
Author’s conversation in March 2019 with manager of Boten Special Economic Zone Planning Exhibition Center.
- 3.
Authors’ conversation in March 2018 with members of Luang Prabang’s network of hospitality management.
References
Architectural Design & Research Institute of SCUT. (2016). Overall conceptual planning and urban design for the new city of Luang Prabang. South China University of Technology (SCUT).
Ducourtieux, O., Laffort, J. R., & Sacklokham, S. (2005). Land policy and farming practices in Laos. Development and Change,36(3), 499–526.
Guipu. (2016). Rural tourism guide: The most beautiful Hani Folk Village in Qingkou, Yuanyang County. Retrieved March 14, 2020, from https://www.guipuxcly.com/lvyougl/215.html
Hall, C. M., & Ringer, G. (2000). Tourism in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar: From terrorism to tourism. In C. M. Hall, & S. Page (Eds.), Tourism in South and South East Asia: Issues and cases (pp. 178–194). Routledge.
Investvine. (2019). Special economic zone in Laos expects $10 billion in investments. Retrieved February 4, 2021, from https://investvine.com/special-economic-zone-in-laos-expects-10-billion-investments/
iSkytree Tourism Planning. (2013). Tourism planning for the Manling area of Mandan Scenic Area. iSkytree Tourism Planning Co., Ltd.
Kyophilavong, P., Gallup, J. L., Charoenrat, T., & Nozaki, K. (2018). Testing tourism-led growth hypothesis in Laos? Tourism Review,73(2), 242–251.
Lao National Television. (2016). The government approves a Lao company to set up a special economic zone (SEZ) in Luang Prabang province. Retrieved February 4, 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbFCtI-B44k
Liu, R. Q., & Ye, X. (2019). Landscape planning of mountainous villages in Yunnan under the background of “Beautiful Countryside”: A case study on Qingkou Hani Folk Village, Honghe Prefecture. Development of Small Cities & Towns,37(5), 100–108.
Planning and Design Center of Haicheng Group. (2018). Overall planning and urban design for the Boten Special Economic Zone (2018–2030). Yunnan Haicheng Industry Group Co., Ltd.
Prado, H. M., & Murrieta, R. S. S. (2015). Ethnoecology in perspective: The origins, interfaces and current trends of a growing field. Ambiente & Sociedade,18(4), 139–160.
Reeves, K., & Long, C. (2011). Unbearable pressures on paradise? Tourism and heritage management in Luang Prabang, a World Heritage Site. Critical Asian Studies,43(1), 3–22.
Salazar, N. B. (2009). Imaged or imagined? Cultural representations and the “tourismification” of peoples and places. Cahiers d’Études Africaines,49(193–194), 49–71.
Sina. (2015). Detailed tourism planning for the Manling area of Mandan Scenic Area, Xishuangbanna. Retrieved March 10, 2020, from http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_14a36a8e70102vueg.html
State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2000). Circular of the state council concerning several policies on carrying out the development of China’s Vast Western Regions. Retrieved February 1, 2021, from http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2001/content_60854.htm
Ta Kung Pao. (2019). Boten special economic zone attracts investors’ attention. Retrieved February 4, 2021, from http://www.takungpao.com/special/239159/2019/0611/301822.html
Travers, R. (2008). Economic corridors and ecotourism: Whither tourism in Laos? In Asian tourism: Growth and change (pp. 105–116). Elsevier.
UNESCO. (1995). Town of Luang Prabang. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/479/
UNESCO. (2013). Town of Luang Prabang—Maps of the inscribed property—minor boundary modification. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/479/multiple=1&unique_number=1954
Zinda, J. A. (2014). Making National Parks in Yunnan: Shift and struggles within the ecological state. In E. T. Yeh, & C. R. Coggins (Eds.), Mapping Shangrila: Contested landscapes in the Sino-Tibetan borderlands (pp. 105–128). University of Washington Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kelly, A.S., Lu, X. (2021). Chinese Mass Nature Tourism and Ecotourism. In: Critical Landscape Planning during the Belt and Road Initiative. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4067-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4067-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-4066-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-4067-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)