Exploring the conceptual boundaries of diaspora and battlefield tourism: Australians' travel to the Gallipoli battlefield, Turkey, as a case study

Historical tourism resources associated with diasporic communities and battlefields would at face value appear to have little in common. On closer inspection, however, diaspora and battlefield tourism share several elements in common. These commonalities are explored in greater detail, with an eye to investigating battlefield tourism sites indelibly linked to the birth of modern nations, where it is argued that there is a particularly blurred boundary between these two forms of tourism that must be recognized. 

The Gallipoli battlefield, Turkey, provides the contextual anchor for this discussion in suggesting that a key reason Australians travel to this foreign place to is to find out what it means to be an Australian. The prominence of this battlefield in the psyche of Australians is borne out of the involvement of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (Anzac) in the First World War campaign that commenced at what is now known as Anzac Cove at Gallipoli on April 25, 1915. This campaign was the first united action of the fledging Australian nation bought together through federation in 1901.

Qualitative data collected from Australians visiting the Gallipoli battlefields in Turkey during 2010 is used to explore whether the experiences of those traveling to battlefields strongly associated with nation building legends and stories resemble those of diasporic tourists in seeking to return to their homeland. Emerging from the analysis, the confines of the blurred boundary between diaspora tourism and battlefield tourism is discussed in detail and an associated research agenda is proposed that aims to further clarify the scope of these concepts in relation to the broad spectrum of heritage tourism resources.

Material culture and contested heritage in tourism

SummaryContestation is a central element of heritage tourism. This chapter examines issues of contestation in relation to material cultural heritage with special attention given to the built environment, and archaeological and architectural sites. The relationship between tourism and material heritage is characterised by contestation in multiple ways and different scales and includes concerns over values, over space, over materials, over meanings, and over ownership. Using examples drawn from emerging economies as well as more developed destinations the chapter emphasizes the need to pursue these issues through a number of analytical lenses that draw upon different conceptual understandings of heritage and tourism and pursue a range of methodological strategies capable of unearthing the complexities of the contested relationship between tourism and material culture.

Constructing the identity of a nation : the tourist gaze at the Museum of Scotland

In an era of global instability and crises of national identity, the role of heritage tourism in creating images of national identity has become an important area for research. This article considers the role of heritage tourism in constructing national identity in the nation of Scotland through the lens of the Museum of Scotland. It describes the findings of qualitative research undertaken with potential and actual target consumers to the Museum of Scotland. Three research questions were addressed: Does the Museum of Scotland construct (1) a vision of a `new' Scotland? (2) a symbol of a `real' Scotland? (3) a collective identity of Scotland? The findings suggest that heritage visitors actively identify through their gaze, constructing multifarious meanings of national identity that are dynamic rather than static.

Using strategic philanthropy to improve heritage tourist sites on the Gallipoli Peninsula, Turkey : community perceptions of changing quality of life and of the sponsoring organization

This paper examines the “Respect for History” project on Turkey's Gallipoli Peninsula sponsored by a Turkish oil company, OPET. The project sought to enhance and protect the cultural and historical experiences of tourists visiting Gallipoli, and to bring direct and indirect benefits to local communities through enhancing tourism-related business opportunities and improving community infrastructure. This research investigates the project's impact on residents’ perceived social and economic wellbeing, using a quality of life framework, and also ascertains residents’ views of the sponsoring firm. The context illustrates key differences between pure philanthropy and strategic philanthropy; the latter defined as doing good by purposefully achieving corporate and civic benefits. The role of strategic philanthropy as a sustainable tourism development tool, and its impact on tourism governance, are considered. Data were collected from 674 residents on the Turkish Gallipoli Peninsula in areas impacted by OPET's investment program. The results, using structural equation modelling (SEM), identify that respondents generally believe that both their economic and social quality of life have improved. This, in turn, has positively influenced respondents’ views of the sponsoring organization. The concept of strategic philanthropy appears valuable as a private sector, non-tourism, sustainable tourism development tool in some circumstances.

Dynamics of cultural heritage development in Sarawak

This paper discusses contestation and legitimization in the heritage process in the Malaysian state of Sarawak. Since 2011 the authors have assisted the Rurum Kelabit Sarawak (RKS) to plan a community museum. The museum is envisaged as an anchor for the preservation and representation of the Kelabit culture. In particular, through consultation and capacity building, the project is seeking to incorporate heritage values into development and cultural tourism plans. The paper considers the roles of historical and contemporary agents in the awakening of heritage consciousness in this community. This process has facilitated questions about priorities including, heritage, tourism, representation and the expression of identity through contemporary design, which this paper will contextualize within the discourse of cultural heritage and development in South East Asia. Apart from the RKS and their range of partners, important agents include the Sarawak Government, with jurisdiction over native customs; the Sarawak Museum Department, an official custodian of cultural heritage; UNESCO, through its promotion of the rights of indigenous people and the integration of culture and development; and the WWF, assisting with the Heart of Borneo conservation project. The authors see this case study of a community museum development process as an opportunity to reflect on the interrelated and contested roles and responsibilities of local, national and trans-national agents in a heritage project that contributes to an understanding of cultural politics and heritage-making.

Asian Cities: Cultural heritage and the interplay between nation building and internationalism

It is over a decade since the volume The Disappearing Asian City (Logan 2002) was published. An edited volume bringing together a number of experts on the region, the book identified the threats facing buildings, archaeological sites and the historic character of cities, as well as the myriad of challenges of raising civic and regulatory awareness about the value of cultural heritage in times of rapid transformation. It was a set of concerns and arguments that remain as pertinent as ever. Those who have lived and worked in different parts of Asia over the past decade on cultural heritage issues, frequently use the terms 'extraordinary' or 'bewildering' to describe the scale and speed of transformation that has taken place. Indeed, for those concerned about maintaining continuities between past and present - whether they be social, spiritual or material - the development of cities, the wholesale movements of communities in and out of urban landscapes, together with the dramatic increase in industries like tourism, has often been disorienting, and in some cases deeply confronting: both professionally and emotionally. And yet, to focus on loss and destruction would miss a whole set of other fascinating, emergent and important trends. As numerous publications in the intervening period have shown, cultural heritage has become a topic of intense interest and debate in the majority of Asian societies, for a host of reasons (Askew 2010; Broudehoux 2004; Pai 2013).

Imagining a new future for cultural landscapes

The 1992 adoption of ‘cultural landscape’ as an additional type of recognition on the World Heritage List was supposed to be a ground-breaking moment for heritage management in Australia and New Zealand, as both countries had pushed for continuing and associative landscapes to change the perceptions and practices of heritage management. Yet fast-forward to 2015, and one might be left wondering what happened? While there is no longer a need to convince people of the value of cultural landscapes for heritage management, the incorporation of cultural landscape ideas into our property-based 'heritage frame' with its preoccupation with land use and development controls appears to have stalled. At the same time, a growing community of heritage studies scholars are critical of heritage practice, and position cultural landscapes as an initiative that the World Heritage system was forced to adopt in order ‘to incorporate a broader range of values around heritage’ (Harrison 2013: 115). This critique of the under-theorised heritage field has had some stimulating effects, but falls short of providing guidance for practitioners. To consider the aspirations and directions for the future for cultural landscapes, this paper suggests that we need to look at heritage theory and practice together, focussing on innovation wherever we find it, and develop further theorisation through our experiences. We suggest that innovation can come from local settings away from more formalised heritage processes, where communities, practitioners, managers and researchers are trying new things as a result of their encounters with cultural landscapes, and where they are learning and ‘knowing-by-doing’.

The queer archive : teaching and learning sexualities in Australia

The article explores the use of the queer archive in teaching sex and sexuality in public schools. A background of the development of the archive in 1978 and its role in education is given. Policies that help guide appropriateness of content, such as Supporting Sexual Diversity in Schools in 2008, is discussed. The teaching approach in using the non-traditional archive-based education are also examined where learning can involve group-based workshops heavy on interative methods.

Corner inlet and Nooramunga habitat mapping project

Deakin University and the University of Tasmania were commissioned by Parks Victoria (PV) to create two updated habitat maps for areas within the Corner Inlet and Nooramunga Marine and Coastal Park and Ramsar area. The team obtained a ground-truth data set using in situ video and still photographs. This dataset was used to develop and assess predictive models of benthic marine habitat distributions incorporating data from both ALOS (Advanced Land Observation Satellite) imagery atmospherically corrected by CSIRO and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) bathymetry. This report describes the results of the mapping effort as well as the methodology used to produce these habitat maps.

Overall accuracies of habitat classifications were good, returning overall accuracies >73 % and kappa values > 0.62 for both study localities. Habitats predicted with highest accuracies included Zosteraceae in Nooramunga (91 %), reef in Corner Inlet (80 %), and bare sediment (no-visible macrobiota/no-visible seagrass classes; both > 76 %). The majority of classification errors were due to the misclassification of areas of sparse seagrass as bare sediment. For the Corner Inlet study locality the no-visible macrobiota (10,698 ha), Posidonia (4,608 ha) and Zosteraceae (4,229 ha) habitat classes covered the most area. In Nooramunga no-visible seagrass (5,538 ha), Zosteraceae (4,060 ha) and wet saltmarsh (1,562 ha) habitat classes were most dominant.

In addition to the commissioned work preliminary change detection analyses were undertaken as part of this project. These analyses indicated shifts in habitat extents in both study localities since the late 1990s/2000. In particular, a post-classification analysis highlighted that there were considerable increases in seagrass habitat (primarily Zosteraceae) throughout the littoral zones and river/creek mouths of both study localities. Further, the numerous channel systems remained stable and were free of seagrass at both times. A substantial net loss of Posidonia in the Corner Inlet locality is likely but requires further investigation due to potential misclassifications between habitats in both the 1998 map (Roob et al. 1998) and the current mapping. While the unsupervised Independent Components Analysis (ICA) change detection technique indicated some changes in habitat extent and distribution, considerable areas of habitat change observed in the post-classification approach are questionable, and may reflect misclassifications rather than real change. A particular example of this is an apparent large decrease in Zosteraceae and increase in Posidonia being related to the classification of Posidonia beds as Zosteraceae in the 1998 mapping. Despite this, we believe that changes indicated by both the ICA and post-classification approaches have a high likelihood of being ‘actual’ change. A pattern of gains and losses of Zosteraceae in the region north of Stockyard channel is an example of this. Further analyses and refinements of approaches in change detection analyses such as would improve confidence in the location and extent of habitat changes over this time period.

This work has been successful in providing new baseline maps using a repeatable method meaning that any future changes in intertidal and shallow water marine habitats may be assessed in a consistent way with quantitative error assessments. In wider use, these maps should also allow improved conservation planning, advance fisheries and catchment management, and progress infrastructure planning to limit impacts on the Inlet environment.