Complexity of Socio-Spatial Transformations Through Tourism: a Mediterranean Village, Kaleköy

Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

ISSN: 1476-6825 (Print) 1747-7654 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtcc20

Complexity of Socio-spatial Transformations Through Tourism: A Mediterranean Village, Kaleköy

Emine Onaran Incirlioğlu & Gaye Çulcuoglu

To cite this article: Emine Onaran Incirlioğlu & Gaye Çulcuoglu (2004) Complexity of Socio-spatial Transformations Through Tourism: A Mediterranean Village, Kaleköy, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 2:1, 24-45, DOI: 10.1080/14766820408668167 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14766820408668167

Published online: 29 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 156

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtcc20 Complexity of Socio-spatial Transformations Through Tourism: A Mediterranean Village, Kaleko¨y

Emine Onaran I˙ncirliog˘lu and Gaye C¸ ulcuogˆlu Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, Bilkent University, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey

This article reflects on the complex consequences of tourism development in the isolated Mediterranean village of Kaleko¨y. Built on the antique city of Simena of the 4th century BC and having remnants also from Hellenistic, Byzantine and Ottoman periods, Kaleko¨y’s main source of livelihood since the 1980s has been tourism. Mul- tiple changes that take place simultaneously at the local level, in relation to or as a consequence of tourism, are conceptualised as interrelated transformations that may fall under the four major headings of economy, demography, spatial organisation and cognition. Defining culture as ‘everything learned’, these transformations amount to a radical change in the local culture, which now includes a culture of tourism. Based on ethnographic research, the article aims to demonstrate the complexity of changes in physical, as well as economic and social structures as they pertain to tourism.

Keywords: tourism development, spatial organisation, sociocultural change, cognition

Introduction ‘Consequences of Tourism Development’ including ‘local responses to tourism’, a widely discussed topic in tourism literature inevitably assumes a linear cause–effect relationship where tourism is taken as the cause and a select set of occurrences as its effects. Those occurrences selected are meaningful within certain theories whether the authors explicate them or not. Most critiques of specific social science ‘theories’, however, assert that ‘none of the models or theories discussed or proposed ...measure up to the complexity of social processes, still less to the scale and speed of the changes in those processes’. Although ‘simplicity is the essence of scientific advance’, as Stirling stated, ‘we are not ready enough to recognise that simplifying also – inevitably – misrepresents’ (Stirling, 1993: 3). So far, the focus in Turkish tourism research has been on predominantly economic and political analyses, adopting relevant ‘macro theories’. Studies of legal and administrative bases of tourism, organisational tools utilised in tourism business, changing policies and priorities in tourism, or national and international efforts in tourism education (Atabay, 1999; Go¨ymen, 2000; Var, 2001) are clearly worthwhile endeavours. Yet, they provide limited information concerning local experiences and cultural change. Elsewhere, what is usually understood from local responses to tourism has been studied through ‘micro level’ analyses, focusing on the relationship between tourists and their host communities, or the immediate changes produced by tourism. For

1476-6825/04/01 024-22 $20.00/0 # 2004 E.O. I˙ncirliog˘lu & G. C¸ ulcuogˆlu JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE Vol. 2, No. 1, 2004

24 Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 25 example, some studies have looked into the ‘negative’ aspects of tourism from the perspective of locals, as did Tsartas in the Greek isles (1992) and Crick in Sri Lanka (1994). Such studies usually conclude that ‘tourists from the industrial nations ... leave behind them bewildered people, crippled institutions, and a ravaged environment’ (Dog˘an, 1989: 217). Some have explored the posi- tive impact and ‘progress’ brought about, by tourism, as did Nehl in Tibet (2000). Yet some others have analysed the strategy of ‘boundary maintenance’ by some locals, keeping the local ways distinctly apart from the realm of tourism, so that ‘tourism’s negative impacts are effectively nullified’ (Dog˘an, 1989: 222). In addition, studies of the economics of tourism, usually, focus on ‘micro- economic issues’ including supply and demand in tourism, as well as market structures, the industrial organisation of the sector, and pricing and decision making (Grassl, 1999; Sinclair & Stabler, 1997). While such studies are informa- tive about individual decision making processes and personal reactions in the context of tourism, they fall short of explaining larger social and economic transformations in the host communities. In most tourism research, the concept of ‘culture’ is taken in its narrow meaning, highlighting ‘cultural identity’, ‘culture tourism’, ‘cultural heritage’ or ‘value-systems’, and they focus on one specific ‘issue’. For example, focusing on the issue of tourism planning, Apostolopoulos et al. suggest that ‘planning decisions should respect the rights and nuances of different value- systems and cultures and reinforce and preserve special identity aspects’ (2001: 10). Culture in an anthropological sense, however, as that ‘complex whole’, involves more, including ‘a style of cultural analyses that concentrates on change, flux, disorientation, recombination and transformation and the relationship between the economic and symbolic economy’ (Meethan, 1998: 228). Our study is an attempt to understand the complexity of tourism-related cultural changes in a small Mediterranean village. In Fischer’s formulation of complexity, our ‘data are complex by virtue of a wide range of different factors that must be represented’ (1994: 78). Here, we report multiple transformations that have been experienced in the village that may fall under the related yet separate categories of ‘economy’, ‘demography’, ‘spatial organisation’ and ‘cognition’.

Fieldwork in Kalekoÿ Kalekoÿ, the antique city of Simena of the 4th century BC, is one of the few inhabited villages in the Kekova Bay, which covers an area of 260 sq km between Antalya and Kas¸ along Turkey’s Mediterranean coast (see Figure 1 and Photo 1). The shoreline throughout the Bay, which is well defined by the Kekova Island and the Sıçak Peninsula, is toothed with many peninsulas and coves. It is documented that human life has existed in the region for 200,000 years and that the region has been inhabited continuously since then. Remnants from Hellenistic, Byzantine and Ottoman periods, including the sar- cophagi of the sunken city, tombs, piers, remnants of the harbour, city walls, and the citadel ruins are among typical elements of the Kekova landscape.1 The environmental, historical and cultural features of the Kekova Bay have led to its national classification as both an archaeological preservation site and a natural conservation area. The decision for conservation was taken in 1976 26 Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

Figure 1 Map of Turkey

Photo 1 Kalekoÿ, general view and Kalekoÿ was identified as an archaeological preservation site in 1980. The Authority for the Protection of Special Areas that was established in 1989 identified the Kekova Bay as one of the twelve ‘Special Environmental Protec- tion Areas’, as a result of its specific biodiversity, landform, and ecological conditions. Kalekoÿ was further defined as a ‘Special Planning Area’ because of its location, the architectural and aesthetic qualities of the Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 27

Photo 2 Approach to Kalekoÿ from U¨ çag˘iz buildings, and their relationship with the shoreline (Ç ulcuog˘lu & I˙ncirliog˘lu, 2000; O¨ zer et al., 1993). Composed of the words ‘kale’ (citadel) and ‘koÿ’ (village), the name Kalekoÿ literally means ‘the citadel village’. The landform is elevated from the shoreline towards the Medieval Kalekoÿ Citadel (the castle of Simena) at the North, rapidly reaching 550 metres. Located on the southern slope of the hill, the Cita- del controls the harbour and the bay. Throughout the village, ruins of tombs, cisterns and walls from various historic periods are organically integrated into the domestic architecture. Since Kekova Bay is declared as ‘cultural property’ and a ‘preservation site’, each building in Kalekoÿ is officially registered for conservation. Lack of access from land is the village’s most significant feature. Other than by walking through a tiny path to the north of the village, the only way to approach Kalekoÿ is by boat, either from its twin village U¨ çag˘ız across the Bay, or from the district centre, Demre (see Photo 2). Thus, ‘yacht tourism’ is significant in the area. Due to both restricted access and historical preservation codes that prohibit new construction, Kalekoÿ has remained a quiet and relatively isolated village, ‘frozen’ in time (I˙ncirliog˘lu & Ç ulcuog˘lu, 2000). The bulk of the information in this article is the result of ethnographic fieldwork in Kalekoÿ since 1999. We have paid numerous visits to the village in different seasons, staying at different bed-and-breakfast inns during each visit, conducted informal interviews with both villagers and tourists, and relied on general ‘participant observation’ for inferences. The qualitative research methods and the interpretive and naturalistic approaches we have 28 Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change taken agree with recent reviews that have been increasingly critical of rigid approaches to tourism research whereby quantitative methods are used and narrow-minded positivistic epistemology is prevalent (Harrison, 1999; Riley & Love, 2000; Walle, 1997). In addition to ethnography, interviews were held with local and national level administrators, numerous government authorities, private entrepreneurs, and representatives of non-governmental organisations. Thus, not only were tourism policies developed at the administrative level inquired of, but also grass-roots reactions were explored.

Multiple Simultaneous Transformations After the onset of tourism in Kalekoÿ in the late 1970s, the village and the villagers went through a series of transformations. Changes that are usually classified in the economic domain went hand in hand with changes in social organisation and those that would be considered demographic, that were reflected in the spatial organisation, all of which were coupled with cognitive changes. Utilising one specific model or ‘theory’ that focuses on either one of these domains would have yielded a clear-cut simplified argument. It is, however, hard to ‘see how to conceive of ‘‘process’’ if not as a set, a tangled web, of interacting causes and effects’ (Stirling, 1993: 3). As Mehmet Adam responded to an earlier study of Kalekoÿ (Berksun et al., 1983), ‘if we cannot conceive of the complexity of complex wholes, we must try and change our conceptualisa- tion level, instead of adopting simplistic approaches’ (1983: 27). In line with Stirling’s and Adam’s propositions, we conceptualise the local experiences in Kalekoÿ in terms of interrelated transformations. Two kinds of major changes experienced in Kalekoÿ may be classified as ‘economic transformations’, namely, the transformation of predominant income sources from agriculture to tourism and the transformation of the economic order from subsistence to accumulation. These kinds of economic transformations are usually studied under ‘tourism development’ (Ayres, 2000; Cooper & Wanhil, 1997; Daly & Cobb, 1990; Oppermann & Chon, 1997; Sinclair, 1998) and focus predominantly on economic aspects. However, these economic transformations in Kalekoÿ have coincided with momentous changes in the demographic structure, including the onset of seasonal migration and the emergence of outsiders as homeowners in the village. As in many other Mediterranean settlements, outsiders have taken over local houses and businesses in Kalekoÿ, as a result of tourism-related migration, or ‘littoralisation’ in Europe (Leontidou & Marmaras, 2001; Williams & Hall, 2000a, 2000b, Williams et al., 2000). The village population may now be gener- alised to consist of three subgroups. Permanent residents live in Kalekoÿ year- round; seasonal migrants live in Kalekoÿ in the summer and in a neighbouring town in winter; and incoming outsiders, whether Turkish or foreign, keep a vacation house or have commercial interests in the village. Social and economic conflicts have arisen between newcomers and native residents, as observed in many similar situations (Smith & Krannich, 2000). In conjunction with these changes in Kalekoÿ, the environment has been transformed in a number of ways, at different levels. To begin with, whether natural or built, the environment has been objectified and commodified. At a higher scale, Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 29

Figure 2 Kaleko¨y site plans, 1985 and 2001 the natural environment of the Kekova Bay, and at a lower scale, the village’s spatial organisation, have been affected (see Figure 2, Kaleko¨y Site Plans 1985 and 2001). Illegal constructions, which are by no means restricted to Kekova or to Turkey (Apostolopoulos et al., 2001; Friedland, 1999), are the initial indicators of ‘environmental destruction’. All these transformations at different scales and in different orders have brought with them semantic changes in the corresponding concepts and in the ways villagers make sense of their worlds. When for example, economic activities turned into accumulative processes and the environment became a commodity to attract tourists, the ways within which villagers gave 30 Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

Table 1 Land use Land use=function Number of parcels Main residence 31 Summer=vacation house 20 Bed and breakfast 12 Restaurants, cafe´ and tea gardens 15 Markets and tourist-oriented sales 7 Elementary school and teacher’s lodge 1 Citadel ticket booth 1 Helicopter landing area and guard’s lodge 1 Empty lot (with or without ruins) 33 Total observations in surveyed parcels ¼ 121 Note: The total number of observations is greater than the total number of parcels (101) because the same parcel may include more than one function meaning to and coded them have also changed. This kind of transformation is too important to be omitted from any analysis of cultural change through tourism.

Transformation from agriculture to tourism Prior to the emergence of tourism as a source of income in the late 1970s, most Kalekoÿ residents made a living by fishing or by raising goats and sheep. Other than small-scale horticulture, there was no farming to speak of. In any case, all agricultural production was restricted to household use, rather than market exchange. A minor source of income was charcoal manu- facturing, utilising the trees in the vicinity. While these activities are still practised in Kalekoÿ, with the addition of greenhouse production, tourism has become the predominant economic activity. Following the lead of one young village man who opened a seaside cafe in the early 1970s catering to boaters, most villagers are now making a living through bed and breakfast facilities, restaurants, tea gardens, small shops, and numerous tourist- oriented operations. Fishing is also at the service of the tourism industry. With the increased importance of tourism in the community, Kalekoÿ turned into a place of, primarily, consumption (Beauregard, 1998; Williams & Hall, 2000b). Of the 101 parcels of land that we have surveyed in 1999 and 2000,2 a total of 57 parcels contained tourist-oriented functions, 20 of which were second houses, 34 housed commercial facilities, and two involved tourism-related services (see Table 1). In addition to the recorded cases of the bed-and- breakfast inns, several facilities operate ‘informally’, which is a commonplace practice also in Greece, Southern Spain, Italy, and North African countries (Apostolopoulos et al., 2001). Most villagers regard tourism as an economic opportunity and tourists as economic resources. The benefits of tourism, apparently, weigh more than the costs, since all villagers – men and women, young and old – are involved Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 31 in this industry. Those who benefit most are the owners of bed-and-breakfast inns and restaurants, while those who benefit least are street vendors selling handicrafts and dried herbs.

Transformation from subsistence to accumulation As the development of tourism since the mid-18th century has followed the development of capitalism, tourism by definition pertains to an accumulation-based economy. The logic of subsistence, crudely defined as production for mere survival, would not support either the mentality or the practice of tourism. At least theoretically, the capitalist system is a prerequisite for the mobility of the contemporary tourist, while the host community may well belong to a non-capitalist economic system. In the case of Kaleko¨y however, the transformation of predominant economic activities from agriculture to tourism was evidenced along with a shift in the logic of production from subsistence to accumulation. The change from a subsistence-based economy to an economy that urges accumulation brings along a set of behavioural and attitudinal changes such as risk-taking and entrepreneurial activities that makes sense in a capitalist system. These adaptations include not only making tourism-oriented invest- ments such as opening a tea garden or extending the existing house for commercial purposes, but also developing a pushy and insistent attitude of salesmanship in the process of marketing tourist-oriented goods and services. As all villagers have not had the same opportunities to be involved in tourism and have not been equally successful in accumulation, tourism has caused animosity among them. Depending on their conflicting interests in tourism, they have seen each other as competitors and rivals, sometimes tried to obstruct one another’s income sources, and have even fallen in non-talking terms. These conflicts between owners of bed-and-breakfast inns, partners in business, and even siblings, have made an organisation of common interests and goals very difficult to attain.

Transformation from year-round to summer residency Until the early 1980s, all Kaleko¨y residents lived in the village year-round, mostly in owner-occupied houses. Most of them rarely travelled outside the village unless they had to, women for marrying out (as virilocal post-marital residence is the norm) and men for carrying out military service. In fact, one man reported in 1999 that he had seen asphalt roads for the first time in his

Table 2 Seasonal occupation Type of occupation Number of parcels Year-round 36 Summer 20 Not applicable (public land, ruins, etc.) 41 Unknown 4 Total parcels surveyed ¼ 101. 32 Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change life at the age of 20, while outside the village for military service. The situation has changed since the 80s. Seasonal migration, usually to provide better schooling for children, has been a common pattern among Kalekoÿ residents. Instead of living in Kalekoÿ year-round, families with school-age children keep a winter house in Demre, Antalya, Kas¸, or another nearby town, while spending the economically active summer months in the village. Permanent residents who live in Kalekoÿ year-round are either among the poorest, who cannot afford to move out, or older families with adult children. Lack of roads, difficulty of access to health services and limited primary education have troubled those villagers who could not afford to keep winter residences outside of Kalekoÿ (see Table 2).

Transformation of home-ownership from locals to outsiders By the mid 1980s, outsiders from I˙stanbul and Ankara had begun to dis- cover Kaleko¨y for both summer residences and investment. One of the influential industrialists of Turkey has purchased a number of village houses and parcels of land in the village, partly for investment reasons and partly with philanthropic motives (see Photo 3). A small number of foreign tourists have also purchased houses and settled in the village. Outsiders owned almost 30% of the 101 parcels of land in the village by 1999 (see Table 3). This large- scale transformation in ownership evoked bitter feelings among villagers. The former owners of houses that were sold to outsiders were still tracing the lines of ownership, narrating their memories to researchers and expressing emo- tions of place attachment. Villagers were antagonistic to latecomers even out-

Photo 3 Professionally restored Kaleko¨y houses Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 33

Table 3 Ownership Ownership Number of parcels Local 57 Outsider 29 Mixed 5 Unknown 3 Public property 7 Total parcels surveyed ¼ 101 side the village, especially towards the ones who constructed illegal buildings at the coves and intended to invest in tourism-related facilities. In fact, all, except one, of the private residences in the various coves in Kekova were illegally constructed. Local Kaleko¨y villagers were reproachful about these developments by outsiders, although they themselves were not completely innocent of illegal construction.

Transformation of the natural environment Tourism has transformed the natural environment in at least three ways. First, the recognition of the Kekova area as a Special Environmental Protection Area has brought about the commodification of the environment, so that natural resources are now being treated as capital for attracting tourists.3 Ap- propriating the environment and utilising the ‘natural heritage’ in the simplest possible way, village women and children collect and dry several kinds of herbs that are part of the natural vegetation, such as thymus (oregano), sage, bay leaves, peppermint, and carob. Packed in plastic bags, these dried herbs are sold to tourists. A second impact of tourism on the natural environment has been in the redefinition of the adequacy of natural resources. ‘Traditional’ systems of accumulating rain and surface water by utilising cisterns are no longer adequate since the demand for water has increased by commercialisa- tion and changing patterns of water use. Now the physical environment is no longer able to satisfy this ‘basic human need’. Finally, the increased population density in the area as a result of tourism has led to land and water pollution.4 While in tourist oriented villages the environmental quality on land was exasperated, ‘yacht tourism’ aggravated the quality of water in the Kekova Bay and hurt forests and agricultural production including fishing. Illegal fill- ing of the seashore in Kekova has been an additional problem.

Expansion of illegal and ‘non-authentic’ constructions The Authority for the Protection of Special Areas prohibited in 1990 the construction of any structure, fence, wall, wire mesh, barrier or post, on the shoreline in Kaleko¨y, which is not prescribed by the master plan. In addition, piers, harbours, shipyards, slips, service stations, and even portable structures, such as kiosks, beach cabins and cafes, could only be built with permission, even if they were for public use. A lack of detailed preservation plans has made these requirements quite difficult to satisfy, because local needs were 34 Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

Photo 4 Illegal alterations

not met and the legal allowances were not realistic.5 Only archaeological exca- vations were permitted. Thus villagers struggled, for example, to dig a septic tank or a family member’s grave. The only construction allowed would be for repairing registered buildings, prohibiting even reasonable alterations. As the conflict between the unreasonable preservation codes and the demands of everyday life have not been resolved, the villagers are being pushed to take illegal recourse, and to manipulate and abuse the legal system. All residential alterations since 1984, as well as road works, such as the road in the Sıc¸ak peninsula, have been illegal constructions, in which the traditional architectural system has been overlooked (see Photo 4). For example, while in traditional architecture, an external stairway lead to an elongated balcony that in turn leads to individual indoor spaces, now these individual rooms are con- nected internally for the convenience of tourists’ use. While ‘traditional’ architectural alterations were based on ‘need’ as the household composition changed, now many additions are made for commercial purposes. During these illegal alterations and constructions, they have selectively utilised several ‘traditional’ elements and styles. Meanwhile, numerous styles and elements that have no place in the local ‘authentic’ architecture have also infiltrated the ‘traditional’ tissue (see Photo 5). Given the lack of village unity and cooperation, many villagers would com- plain to the authorities when their fellow villagers were involved in an illegal construction. Complaints have arisen either because villagers had become advocates of preservation and wanted to maintain their village’s historical heritage, or because of spite, especially if they themselves have already reaped Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 35

Photo 5 Unproportional additions to local architecture

Photo 6 Spatial responses to commercial needs the benefits of tourist-oriented investment. As the Vice President of the Anta- lya Museum reported, ‘there is not even one person in the village against whom a complaint has not been filed by the Museum’. 36 Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

Spatial transformations compatible with tourist-oriented functions Since the villagers have relied on tourism as a significant source of fincome, organisation and seasonal use of space, as well as the ways space and architecture are treated in Kalekoÿ, have drastically changed (Ç ulcuog˘lu &I˙ncirliog˘lu, 1999). Commercial use of local architecture and physical alterations for commercial purposes are common spatial responses to tourism (see Photo 6). These alterations, constructions and transformations began in the late 1970s, when a young village man converted his ‘front yard’ by the sea into a small cafe, serving sandwiches and beverages to the few tourists who passed by in boats. A few other villagers followed in his footsteps. Now, the private gardens of many houses and suitable open-spaces in the vicinity of the houses are transformed into tea gardens for tourist attraction. Several families have altered their houses either to accommodate a few bed-and-breakfast guests or to be rented out for tourist-oriented functions such as a carpet shop or a restaurant. By 2000, there were 16 brand new buildings in Kalekoÿ, in addition to the 46 old ones. Only nine of the old buildings, however, were in their original state (see Photo 7). The others were all altered to some degree (see Table 4). These additions and alterations were to such extent by 2000 that the village silhouette was radically transformed since the 1970s. Among the types of alterations made on the village houses, only four were professional renovations, while all the others were self-help adjustments and improvements. In five cases, the roofs were renovated using tile that was in conflict with the ‘traditional’ architecture. Combined with the roofs of some of the new buildings, these tile roofs were mainly responsible for the drastic

Photo 7 An ‘authentic’ Kaleko¨y house Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 37

Table 4 Renovations and modifications Type of alteration Number of cases Professional renovation 4 Minor improvements 17 Addition of rooms 13 Replacing the roof 5 Designing outdoor space 12 Expanding outdoor space 23 changes in the appearance of the village. In almost all houses some degree of minor improvements was performed, while in at least 13 cases, new rooms, including bathrooms and kitchens, were added to the existing house. Some of these rooms were for tourist-oriented commercial purposes, whether these functions were reported or not. In some cases, these annexations were so large that they constituted a new building, or an additional floor. Among the tourist-oriented spatial transformations observed in Kaleko¨y, those concerning outdoor organisation were significantly conspicuous. Even before tourism, the friendly Mediterranean climate always allowed villagers to spend most of their days outdoors, where they could perform many daily activities from food preparation to repairing fishing-nets, even during the short winter months. With the emergence of tourism, many houses were extended into large terraces that were covered usually with either vines or

Photo 8 Separate piers invading the Kaleko¨y seashore 38 Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change straw mats to be used as tea gardens. Paving paths in the village by using natural stone, in order to connect the various units of bed-and-breakfast inns, was another invention for the convenience of tourists. Construction of piers by each seashore function has also become a commonplace intervention to the ‘authentic landscape’. Separate piers were constructed in front of each seashore restaurant and cafe, in most cases by means of invading the public seashore, so that competitive entrepreneurs would share neither the portion of the coast nor the customers with their neighbours (see Photo 8).

Transformation of ‘ordinary’ everyday practices into ‘authentic’ traditions A number of practices in Kalekoÿ that used to be ‘ordinary’ daily routines only 30 years ago have now been changed to be consumed by tourists, turned into ‘authentic traditions’ and referred to as ‘cultural heritage’. These practices, which MacCannell had called ‘staged authenticity’ (1973) and Cohen argued to hold an ‘eminently modern value’ (1988: 373), help to ‘sell’ the village.6 Unlike the current everyday practices, these ‘authentic traditions’ are static, deliberately maintained, and self-consciously experienced. This manner of ‘selling places’ is ‘a conscious and deliberate manipulation of culture in an effort to enhance the appeal and interest of places’ as Philo and Kearns (1993: 3) have argued: This manipulation of culture depends upon promoting traditions, life- styles and arts, that are supposed to be locally rooted, and in this respect the selling of places has what the humanistic geographers might call an ‘authentic’ quality ...but in part too this manipulation can involve using a range of loosely ‘cultural’ motives, events, and exhibitions that have no necessary associations with the places concerned and that might thereby be adjudged ‘inauthentic’. A ‘cultural heritage,’ is presented in the village by deliberately preserving local food, handicrafts and architecture. These elements of ‘cultural heritage,’ which have sometimes been constructed, sometimes altered and sometimes imported from other parts of Turkey, ironically, prove to be synthetic and ‘inauthentic’ (I˙ncirliog˘lu & Ç ulcuog˘lu, 2000). The ‘eating culture’ presented in Kalekoÿ, for example, is common not only in most parts of Turkey but also in many Mediterranean societies. The four restaurants in Kalekoÿ, which provide extensive menus, target the organised mass tourists who participate in daily boat tours. Numerous tea gardens dispersed throughout the village, where go¨zleme (thin sheet of dough, baked on special iron hot plate) and beverages are served, provide an inexpensive alternative. These ‘eating cultures’ are transferred from domestic kitchens for commercial use. Although tourists may consider them to be ‘authentic local traditions’ they are in fact shared within a larger region in Turkey. Similarly, the ‘local’ handicrafts, which consist of crocheted, beaded head scarves and woven beadwork jewellery are local only as far as local labour is concerned, although the domestic and foreign tourists who purchase them as souvenirs may take them to be authentic. Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 39

The transformation of mental models The tourists and villagers do not really interact with each other and the locals use a strategy of ‘boundary maintenance’ by which they live their private lives outside the influence of tourists. Nevertheless, the very existence of tourists in Kalekoÿ and villagers’ changing experiences must have influenced their mental models – their cognition. Whether they are involved with tourists or have just become ‘photographic images’ (Urry, 1990: 140) in their cameras, villagers’ mental processes must somehow have changed. After all, they encounter tourists who have travelled miles away from their homelands, and have the opportunity to observe and produce knowledge about these tourists. This knowledge about an otherwise far-away people, is probably skewed by villagers’ prejudices and judgments, as all knowledge is. Neverthe- less, tourists appearing in their lives have reasonably had an influence in the ways they see, conceptualise, understand and make sense of their world. As stu- dents of ‘global–local flows of power’ illustrate, ‘locals are not always passive when facing economic and social change’ (Cheong & Miller, 2000: 373). If we view power as a ‘complex strategical situation’ which flows ‘in multiple direc- tions’, as Foucault does, rather than a fixed, stable entity, we can see how locals are active agents who construe their own meanings in their experiences of tourism, rather than passive targets who receive others’ impositions. Not all villagers, of course, have been involved with tourists to the same extent. For some, interacting with tourists has been a full-time activity and has meant ‘self realisation’. For others, relating to tourists has been more passive, by means of producing knowledge about them through an ‘inspecting gaze’ (Cheong & Miller, 2000; Urry, 1990), sometimes by getting into conversation with wonder- ing tourists and sometimes by inviting them into their houses for a glass of tea. People encountered by local villagers in Kalekoÿ are not only the transient tourists. Those outsiders, who have settled in the village, permanently or tem- porarily, have probably been an even more influential component in the villagers’ cognitive transformation. For example, a man originally from the Black Sea region who had worked in Germany, had settled in the village after retirement some 20 years ago. ‘The Japanese girl’, as the villagers call her, who had a house built in the valley, behind the hill, visits Kalekoÿ frequently to do her shopping, to eat in a restaurant or to visit a friend, and as such maintains a reasonable contact with the villagers. Another woman from Ankara, who had passed by Kalekoÿ during a boat trip in 1989, decided to settle in the village, purchased two houses and partially converted them into a small bed-and-breakfast facility. Yet another woman, who had left her husband and children in England, settled in Kalekoÿ, where she now worked as a wait- ress in one of the inns and lived with her second husband, a local fisherman. Interacting with local Kalekoÿ residents and introducing them to different ways of living, these people who themselves experienced changes in their lives, values and world views, must have contributed to the villagers’, probably especially village children’s, cognitive transformation. One significant outcome of cognitive transformations in Kalekoÿ is the establishment of the village association, in January 2000, for the conservation of natural and cultural properties and development of tourism in Kekova. This 40 Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change kind of economic and political organisation does require a cognitive transformation, a different way of conceptualising life, from the dispersed, indi- vidualistic, non-committing ‘tradition’ predominant in Kalekoÿ. In fact, only two of the members in the association are locals, one from Kalekoÿ and one from U¨ çag˘ız, and the other nine founding members of this association include several architects and one archaeologist from I˙stanbul universities, and a few well-to-do businessmen who have summer residences in the village. Moreover, many villagers are suspicious of the organisation. However, as the middle level bureaucrats at the Ministry of Culture have suggested, the beginning of this grassroots organisation has at least the potential of raising environmental consciousness among the local population. As the only way to preserve the history and the environment in a realistic and viable way is through local involvement, any cognitive transformation that would alleviate participation in such grassroots organisations is likely to preserve Kalekoÿ’s natural and historical heritages.

In Conclusion: What to do with Complexity? It has been extensively argued in preservation and conservation literature that the attitudes of both the private sector and the local population are no- tably instrumental (Ç ulcuog˘lu & I˙ncirliog˘lu, 2000; Ho, 2000; Levi, 1999). How- ever, institutional ineffectiveness has been largely responsible for the failure of proper preservation in Kalekoÿ. This ineffectiveness manifests itself in four different, although related, ways. First, poor institutional coordination is a significant problem in Kalekoÿ, especially because the goals and objectives of these institutions are mutually exclusive. While the Ministries of Culture and Environment strive for natural and historical preservation, the Ministry of Tourism is interested in increasing income generation in the area from tourism. There is, to be sure, a legal basis for institutional coordination, however, such communication has not so far proved to be productive. The second short- coming is the lack of institutional ‘ownership’ in planning, implementation, and management, partly because the jurisdictions of the three Ministries involved in preservation are not clearly defined. In addition, however, the culture of bureaucracy in Turkey, combined with a lack of political will and lack of commitment does not allow individual officials in central administration to take courageous decisions or to put new decisions into practice. Thus, although the Preservation Council is responsible for making local decisions, it is not authorised to see that the decisions are implemented, and in legal cases concerning preservation misdeeds, the Council decisions are not necessarily recognised. Because illegal buildings are not immediately demolished, in this political-cultural context, new construction cannot be prevented. The centralised structure of the Ministries, and restrictions in local decision-making constitute the third institutional barrier that gives rise to unproductive and inefficient preservation practices. The High Council in Ankara determines the operations and principles of the Preservation Council that meets once or twice a month in Antalya. While the diversity of the members who come to Antalya for these brief meetings from various Turkish universities, represent- ing different disciplines (archaeology, planning, art history and architecture), Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 41 is a beneficial resource for the Council, its top-down organisation does not allow an understanding of the local conditions. Local village residents, who are far better at identifying their problems and suggesting solutions, are not represented in this council, although familiarity with local experiences would have provided flexibility in decision-making and have enabled quick action as needed. Finally, specific laws and regulations are needed for different geographic areas, instead of one single law (No. 2860) at the national level. As Goÿmen has also observed, ‘administrative response [to environmental and sustainability problems] was only at national level with advocation of general rules and principles not necessarily relevant at each local level’ (2000: 1039). Understanding tourism development in a complex cultural context has policy implications. For example, a clear conclusion that is reached through this study is that a preservation plan is absolutely necessary for Kalekoÿ, in order to improve the conditions in existing structures while at the same time con- serving the archaeological and natural heritage. A proper preservation plan, as local authorities agree, needs to be developed in its wider cultural context. Currently the Ministry of Environment does not employ a cultural perspective and the Authority for the Protection of Special Areas operates in a ‘technical’ framework, basing its decisions on physical, ecological, and various engineer- ing studies. Yet, a realistic plan cannot afford to omit the concept of ‘culture’ if it aims to preserve the local environment and life in Kalekoÿ while encouraging tourism at the same time. In the early 80s when Kalekoÿ was just experiencing the beginnings of tourism-related transformations, Turkish architect and educator Mehmet Adam (1983: 27) made a series of predictions and warned policy makers:

No matter how strongly we aim for preservation, demands for change will press on. We shall either give up preservation by responding to these demands or attempt to set barriers in front of these demands by means of certain prohibitions. Because these barriers will not be able to prevent changes in ways of living, their effects will only be on preventing changes in the physical environment. The incompatibility between the environment and the way of life will continue for a while, and at the end, the way of life that has changed and become incompatible with the environment will escape from Kaleko¨y and find, or make, a space for itself. And at the end, if what will remain from Kaleko¨y will be merely physical space that is devoid of its life contents, by trying to preserve it, we shall bring about the destruction of life or its transformation into a most undesirable form.

To be sure, Adam’s predictions materialised to a great extent, although the desirability of new life in Kaleko¨y is open to debate. At least partially, the transformations experienced are undesirable ones and most of them stem from unequal tourism development and consequent inequalities among villagers. One cannot find the quality of life desirable in a village in the 21st century where there is restricted access to education and health services among those who remain in the village year-round. It is undignified for those villagers 42 Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change who work as guards in newcomers’ vacation houses which once belonged to their own families, or for those women and children who try to outrun their fellow villagers to sell their goods to the boat tourists. Maybe this is the emergence of a ‘culture of servitude’ in Faulkenberry and Coggeshall’s terms (2000). Antagonistic relationships among fellow villagers who compete for tourism resources are no more desirable. Yet, unlike Adam’s assumptions, these undesirable consequences have not been at the expense of preserving the physical space; the physical space itself, the village ‘silhouette’ which had been defined as the very object of preservation, is destroyed in the process. Concepts like inequality, indignity, ‘culture of servitude’ and environmental destruction imply ‘morality’ and ‘purposes’. If we go back to Stirling’s argument for complexity, we, as he does, ‘find the complexity incredibly difficult to analyse’. Whether we agree or not with Stirling that ‘achieving ‘‘truth’’ ... is a separate and morally neutral task’ (1993: 15), both understanding and judging the complex consequences of a social process like tourism development begin with a first step of complex ethnographic description.

Acknowledgements Dr. Barıs¸ Eyikan Kılınc¸, whom we have lost in a tragic traffic accident, was a part of this study when it started in 1999, with a focus on the dynamics of tourism in the area in which Kaleko¨y was regarded as a ‘spectacle’ for the gaze of tourists. The research upon which this paper is based is partially supported by a grant awarded by Bilkent University’s Faculty Development Programme.

Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Emine Onaran I˙ncirliog˘lu, Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, Bilkent University, Bilkent, 06800 Ankara, Turkey ([email protected]).

Notes 1. The antique settlements in Lycia (Aks¸it, 1998; Akurgal, 1973) include, respectively from west to east: Andriace, Sura, Buzag˘lı Koyu, Istlada, Tyberissos, Theimussa (U¨ c¸ag˘ız), Simena (Kaleko¨y), Tersane Koyu, Kekova Adası, Geyik Ova, Aperlae and Apollonia. Additional information used in this article about the archaeology and preservation of the region is based on interviews conducted in 2000 with Bu¨ lent Baykal (Directorate for the Preservation of Natural and Cultural Heritage, Ministry of Culture), Sabri Aydal (Vice President of the Antalya Museum, arcaeologist and topographer), and the planners at the Authority for the Protection of Special Areas, Prime Ministry, Ankara. 2. The parcels that are indicated on the Cadastral Map of the village are based on the registration of landed property. 3. In 1990 the Authority for the Protection of Special Areas identified the Kekova Bay as a Special Protection Area in order to provide continuity of its natural and historical features, to protect its ecological, historical and cultural qualities and to make it available for the use of future generations. The local cultural heritage and the architectural style were also to be maintained by establishing a settlement pattern that is harmonious with the environment. The key to this preservation was to maintain ‘the authentic silhouette’. Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 43

4. Lack of policies linking tourism development and environmental protection is not restricted to Turkey. A number of authors have voiced the need to formulate policies where tourism and environmental priorities must be recognised (Ritchie, 1999). A worldwide challenge has been to maintain tourism development, while at the same time benefiting the environment and biodiversity (Vaughan, 2000). This is widely discussed in international literature under eco-tourism, integrated conservation-development, sustainable development or responsible tourism (Cater, 1996; Cooper & Wanhill, 1997; Harrison, 1995; Hawkins, 1996). 5. Architectural surveys in the area indicate that antique remnants have always been utilised in new constructions. ‘Traditional’ architecture has never been ‘authentic’ in the sense that antique architecture was used and changed in response to their inhabitants’ needs. Architecture was never rigidly static, but changeable (O¨ zcan, 1994). Today, however, extensions accompanying users’ need are not permitted. 6. This transformation in Kaleko¨y is by no means unique. Similar shifts have been observed in the Maori meeting house (Sissons, 1998), and sizeable cities in the United States (Philo & Kearns, 1993).

References Adam, M. (1983) KalekoÿÇ alıs¸masınınAnımsattıkları. Mimarlık 3, 26–27. Aks¸it, I˙. (1998) The Land of Light Lycia.I˙stanbul: Aks¸it Ku¨ ltu¨ r Turizm Sanat Ajansı. Akurgal, E. (1973) Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey.I˙stanbul: Has¸et Kitabevi. Apostolopoulos, Y., Loukissas, P. and Leontidou, L. (2001) Tourism, development, and change in the Mediterranean. In Y. Apostolopoulos, P. Loukissas and L. Leontidou (eds) Mediterranean Tourism: Facets of Socioeconomic Development and Cultural Change (pp. 3–13). London: Routledge. Atabay, S. (ed.) (1999) 21. Yu¨zyılda Su¨rdu¨ru¨lebilir Turizm Politikaları.I˙stanbul: YıldızU¨ ni- versitesi Basım-Yayın Merkezi. Ayres, R. (2000) Tourism as a passport to development in small states: Reflections on Cyprus. International Journal of Social Economics 27 (1=2), 114–133. Beauregard, R.A. (1998) Tourism and economic development policy in US urban areas. In D. Ioannides and K.G. Debbage (eds) The Economic Geography of the Tourist Indus- try (pp. 220–234). London: Routledge. Berksun, F. et al. (1983) Kalekoÿ’de bir Ekip Ç alıs¸ması. Mimarlık 1, 12–18. Cater, E. (1996) Ecotourism in the third world–problems and prospects for sustainability. In E. Cater and G. Lowman (eds) Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? (pp. 69–86). New York: Wiley. Cheong, S. and Miller, M.L. (2000) Power and tourism: A Foucauldian observation. Annals of Tourism Research 27, 371–390. Cohen, E. (1988) Authenticity and commoditization in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 15, 371–386. Cooper, C. and Wanhill, S.R.C. (1997) Tourism Development: Environmental and Com- munity Issues. West Sussex: Wiley. Crick, M. (1994) Resplendent Sites, Discordant Voices: Sri Lankans and the International Tourism. Switzerland: Harwood. Ç ulcuog˘lu, G. and I˙ncirliog˘lu, E.O. (1999) Landscape as spectacle: Reconstruction of everyday spaces in Kalekoÿ, Turkey. Unpublished paper presented at the Middle East Studies Association Annual Meetings. Ç ulcuog˘lu, G. and I˙ncirliog˘lu, E.O. (2000) Tu¨ rkiye’de Turizm Politikaları ve Turizm Endu¨ strisi: KalekoÿO¨ rneg˘iU¨ zerine Du¨ s¸u¨ nceler. In Peyzaj Mimarlıg˘ı Kongresi (pp. 163–170). Ankara: Toplu Konut I˙daresi Bas¸kanlıg˘ı. Daly, E.H. and Cobb, J.B. (1990) For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy towards Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future. London: Merlin. Dog˘an, H.Z. (1989) Forms of adjustment: Sociocultural impacts of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 16, 216–236. Faulkenberry, L.V. and Coggeshall, J.M. (2000) A culture of servitude: The impact of tourism and development on South Carolina’scoast.Human Organization 59 (1), 86–95. 44 Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change

Fischer, M.D. (1994) Modelling complexity and change: Social knowledge and social process. In C. M. Hann (ed.) When History Accelerates (pp. 75–94). London: Athlone. Friedland, J. (1999) Build first, ask later: Hotel boom threatens balance in the Yucatan. Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition 234 (36), A1. Goÿmen, K. (2000) Tourism and governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research 27, 1025–1048. Grassl, W. (1999) The economics of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 26, 221–223. Harrison, D. (ed.) (1995) Tourism and Less Developed Countries. New York: Wiley. Harrison, D. (1999) Tourism in developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research 26, 237–239. Hawkins, D.E. (1996) Ecotourism: Opportunities for developing countries. In W.T. Theobald (ed.) Global Tourism (pp. 261–273). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Ho, P. (2000) Preservation versus profit: Recent developments in village tourism in China. In H. AlSayyad (ed.) Tourism, Comodification, and Tradition. Traditional Dwell- ings and Settlements Working Paper Series 138, 27–53. I˙ncirliog˘lu, E.O. and Ç ulcuog˘lu, G. (2000) Kalekoÿ: A Mediterranean village frozen in time for global touristic consumption. In H. AlSayyad (ed.) Tourism, Comodification, and Tradition. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Working Paper Series, 138, 55– 69. Leontidou, L. and Marmaras, E. (2001) Residential tourism and ‘littoralization.’ In Y. Apostolopoulos, P. Loukissas and L. Leontidou (eds) Mediterranean Tourism: Facets of Socioeconomic Development and Cultural Change (pp. 257–267). London: Routledge. Levi, E.A. (1999) Tarihi Ç evre Korumacılıg˘ı ve Turizm. Mimarlık 286, 55–56. MacCannell, D. (1973) Staged authenticity: Arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American Sociological Review 79, 589–603. Meethan, K. (1998) Touring cultures: Transformations of travel and theory. Sociology 32 (1), 228–229. Nehl, G. (2000) Peace, progress, making a better Tibet. Beijing Review 43 (12), 22–25. Oppermann, M. and Chon, K-S. (1997) Tourism in Developing Countries. London: Inter- national Thomson Business Press. O¨ zcan, Z. (1994) Vernacular architecture of Teke Peninsula Littoral. Ankara: Middle East Technical University. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. O¨ zer, A., Sevim, F. and O¨ ztas¸bas¸ı, D. (eds) (1993) Kekova O¨zel Ç evre Koruma Bo¨lgesi.O¨ zel Ç evre Koruma Kurumu Bas¸kanlıg˘ı. Philo, C. and Kearns, G. (1993) Culture, history, capital: A critical introduction to the selling of places. In C. Philo and G. Kearns (eds) Selling Places: The City as Cultural Capital, Past and Present (pp. 1–32). New York: Pergamon Press. Riley, R.W. and Love, L.L. (2000) The state of qualitative tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research 27, 164–187. Ritchie, J.R.B. (1999) Policy formulation at the tourism=environmental interface: Insights and recommendations from the Banff-Bow Valley study. Journal of Travel Research 38 (2), 100–110. Sinclair, M.T. (1998) Tourism and economic development: A survey. Journal of Develop- ment Studies 34 (5), 1–51. Sinclair, M.T. and Stabler, M. (1997) The Economics of Tourism. London: Routledge. Sissons, J. (1998) The traditionalization of the Maori meeting house. Oceania 69 (1), 36–46. Smith, M.D. and Krannich, R.S. (2000) ‘Culture clash’ revisited: Newcomer and longer- term residents’ attitudes toward land use. Rural Sociology 65 (3), 396–421. Stirling, P. (1993) Growth and changes: Speed, scale, complexity. In P. Sirling (ed.) Culture and Economy: Changes in Turkish Villages (pp. 1–16). Huntingdon: Eothen Press. Tsartas, P. (1992) Socioeconomic impacts of tourism on two Greek isles. Annals of Tour- ism Research 19, 516–533. Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Society. London: Sage. Var, T. (2001) The state, the private sector and tourism policies in Turkey. In Y. Apostolopoulos, P. Loukissas and L. Leontidou (eds) Mediterranean Tourism: Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 45

Facets of Socioeconomic Development and Cultural Change (pp. 91–111). London: Routledge. Vaughan, D. (2000) Tourism and biodiversity: A convergence of interests? International Affairs 76 (2), 283–297. Walle, A.H. (1997) Quantitative versus qualitative tourism reserach. Annals of Tourism Research 21, 524–536. Williams, A.M and Hall, C.M. (2000a) Guest editorial: Tourism and migration. Tourism Geographies 2 (1), 2–4. Williams, A.M and Hall, C.M. (2000b) Tourism and migration: New relationships between production and consumption. Tourism Geographies 2 (1), 5–27. Williams, A.M, King, R. Warnes, A. and Patterson, G. (2000) Tourism and international retirement migration: New forms of an old relationship in southern Europe. Tourism Geographies 2 (1), 28–49.