Natural and Cultural Heritage in Tourism on Gotland Heritage Tourism Characteristics and the Relation of Natural and Cultural Heritage

Home , Gammelgarn, Gotland County, Grogarnsberget, Gutasaga, Natural heritage, Rauk

20 021 Examensarbete 30 hp Juni 2020

Mareike Kerstin Schaub Abstract Natural and Cultural Heritage in Tourism on Gotland

Mareike Kerstin Schaub

Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet UTH-enheten This thesis researches into the heritage tourism characteristics on Gotland. Many destinations see a great potential to develop new tourism products around their Besöksadress: heritage and thus meet a rising demand for enriching and unique visitor experiences. Ångströmlaboratoriet Lägerhyddsvägen 1 The Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea has a long history as a tourism Hus 4, Plan 0 destination and is rich in heritage resources of diverse origin. A qualitative approach is taken to study which traits characterise heritage related tourism to Gotland, and Postadress: which potentials and challenges are seen by major stakeholders in the tourism and Box 536 751 21 Uppsala heritage development. One protruding result is the strong connection between natural and cultural elements at the heritage sites as well as in tourism demand. Also Telefon: the tourism strategy for Gotland strives for a further development of nature and 018 – 471 30 03 culture as thematic tourism areas. Hence, a closer look is taken into the relation of

Telefax: these two heritage elements. With help of the concept and methodology of 018 – 471 30 00 heritagescapes two heritage sites have been analysed in a case study approach. The result shows that the integration of natural and cultural heritage to create cohesive Hemsida: and immersive visitor experiences at one site is challenging. However, taking both http://www.teknat.uu.se/student heritage elements into account can create synergies and they enhance how the respective other heritage element is experienced. This can broaden which visitor groups are attracted and in which season. Furthermore, the heritagescape approach gives practical management implications for the sites.

Handledare: Consuelo Griggio Ämnesgranskare: Carina Johansson Examinator: Ulrika Persson-Fischier 20 021 Table of Content

1 Introduction ...... 1

1.1. Statement of Interest ...... 1

1.2. Statement of Purpose ...... 2

1.3. Concepts and Delimitations ...... 3

1.4. Methodology and Material ...... 8

1.5. Outline of the Thesis ...... 11

2 Heritage Tourism on Gotland ...... 13

2.1. Tourism on Gotland ...... 13

2.2. Heritage Tourism Fundaments ...... 14

2.3. Focus Areas in a Gotlandic Context ...... 24

2.4. Discussion transitioning towards Nature Culture ...... 35

3 Heritagescapes ...... 39

3.1. Theory: Nature and Culture – Landscapes in Tourism and Heritage ...... 39

3.2. Data Description and Analytical Framework ...... 46

3.3. Two Heritagescapes on Gotland ...... 49

3.4. Analysis of Case Studies ...... 67

4 Conclusion ...... 76

4.1. Summary of Major Findings ...... 76

4.2. Discussion of Findings ...... 80

4.3. Limitations of the Study ...... 84

4.4. Suggestions for Future Research ...... 86

4.5. Reflection ...... 86

Publication bibliography ...... v

Appendices ...... xv

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Geographic location of Gotland ...... 13 Figure 2: Map over Norrbys culture reserve ...... 50 Figure 3: Map of Torsburgen nature reserve ...... 58 Figure 4: Information sign about the hill fort at Torsburgen ...... 63

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Statement of Interest As the final project for the specialisation in heritage politics in Sustainable Destination Development in the first year of my master studies, my class and I focused on the idea to develop a Gutasaga trail. A heritage trail that would connect natural and cultural sites mentioned in the creation story of Gotland. It was probably that project which really sparked my interest in all the diverse, minor, and less-known heritage places found all over the island.

The summer after I cycled a few days on the island – a wonderful way to explore and stop at every place catching my attention – and travelled with my family enjoying the nature and history. Astonished by all the places to explore, I began to think about that this really could be an insightful area to investigate for my master thesis: What is the natural heritage of the island? To which time periods dates the cultural heritage? Whose stories are being told? Who is taking care of all the places – and how? Who is visiting them? How can heritage contribute to a more sustainable tourism development on the island? All and more of these questions came up, really: What is heritage tourism on Gotland?

However, a major focus of my work remained unclear; I was thinking about going more into the possibilities and challenges of heritage trails but due to the covid-19 outbreak some interviews in this direction could not be conducted. Moreover, I started to analyse the interviews I had. The perspective of these major stakeholders in heritage and tourism development on Gotland pointed towards another focus: Heritage and heritage tourism is both – nature and culture – and I realised that it was this combination which made me so fascinated – and probably not only me. Besides the interest from the Gutasaga project and my travels on Gotland, I could reflect on an internship experience where I took part in developing a cycling route. In that project, it got pretty clear that it is quite challenging but vital to bring nature and culture together in the tourism experience.

Another important impulse for my work was a guest lecture by Katherine Burlingame about “dead landscapes – and how to make them live”. She focused on the analysis of heritage sites as landscapes – which seemed like a well-fitting approach to me. I could connect experiences of natural and cultural heritage through my own observations in times where tourism stands still and tourism actors cannot answer students’ interview requests anymore.

1.2. Statement of Purpose Almost always without failing, when scholars write of heritage tourism, they are referring to cultural heritage. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that heritage can be both cultural (of human origin) or natural, as both elements are inheritances from the past that are used for the present as tourism or recreational resources (Timothy 2011, p. 475). Heritage tourism, as tourism in general, has seen a global, long-term and on-going growth (Light 2015, pp. 146–148). Besides an increase in leisure time and better economic possibilities for many to travel in general, heritage tourism is profiting from other trends. There is a shift in visitor motivations and interests towards more enriching and unique experiences instead of the standard sun and beach holidays (Apostolakis 2003, p. 796). Thus, the supply side changed as well. More destinations wish to use heritage in their product portfolio creating unique images (Opačić 2019, p. 183) and heritage managers try to seek economic benefits and share their vision with the public (Timothy 2011, p. 275). Gotland is no exception (Region Gotland 2019b).

However, to realise the potential and make use of an ongoing demand, careful planning and management is needed to valorise heritage sites in a sustainable manner (e.g. Grimwade and Carter 2000; Millar 1989; Opačić 2019; Timothy 2011). Approaches to this are as manifold as the challenges which is why I decided to first attempt to understand fundamental structures, possibilities and challenges of heritage tourism on Gotland before researching deeper in what seems to be a relevant and insightful subarea.

The first aim of my thesis is therefore to get insight into local heritage tourism traits. This insight can, in return, foster an understanding of sustainability related development challenges and potentials. Thus, I look closer at how major representatives of the tourism and heritage tourism sector on Gotland characterise heritage tourism from a strategic and development perspective. What sites, stories, actors and tourists are involved and what challenges and possibilities of heritage tourism on the island they perceive; and how this can be explained by and validated with the heritage tourism literature. My first research question is thus:

1. What characterises heritage tourism on Gotland from the perspective of major stakeholders in heritage and tourism development?

One of the emerging characteristics has been the clear connection of natural and cultural elements as attraction factor to Gotland. This stands in contrast with the above stated challenge in research to bridge natural and cultural heritage, as stated by Timothy (2011,

2 p. 475). Even though I enjoyed the environment at many heritage sites, I did not start to think about the meaning of the natural landscape and heritage before writing this thesis. This changed while analysing the interviews and setting them into connection with the guest lecture given by Katherine Burlingame. Reflecting on this and former experiences my second research question for this paper developed:

2. How do natural and cultural heritage relate in heritage sites on Gotland? Burlingame (forthcoming) referred to the concept of heritagescapes. It was developed by Garden (2004) to view and analyse heritage sites within their landscape setting. It enables the assessments of individual components of sites as “universal features that make heritage sites ‘work’” (Garden 2004, abstract). My second aim is hence to combine Garden and Burlingame’s work to seek insight into the special relation and role of natural and cultural elements at heritage sites by conceptualising them as heritagescapes. This can then provide inspiration for their management and development I would like to highlight conclusively.

1.3. Concepts and Delimitations

What is heritage tourism? Heritage tourism can, simply spoken, be defined "as visits to spaces which are classified, authorized, and authenticated as heritage" (Poria and Ashworth 2009, p. 523) or less focused on the authentication process “as people visiting heritage places or viewing historical resources.” A general definition of heritage is then “what we inherit from the past and use in the present day” encompassing natural and cultural heritage, tangible and intangible elements (e.g. Timothy 2011, p. 3). This is reflecting the descriptive approach in heritage tourism studies focussing on what makes up the supply-side. The other one is the experiential approach discussing the demand-side, i.e. tourists’ motivation to travel by and perception of heritage attributes (Apostolakis 2003, p. 799; Park 2013, p. 3). Visiting heritage sites can be only one part of a tourist’s itinerary, while heritage sites can also be visited out of other motivations and with a different focus than on the heritage attributes (e.g. Light 2015, p. 144; Poria et al. 2006, p. 52; Timothy 2018, p. 178). Millar even goes beyond this and argues that almost all tourism activities could be classified as heritage tourism as they take place in natural and cultural settings (1989, p. 14). Poria et al. therefore state that the presence of tourists at heritage sites is not sufficient to classify as heritage tourism. Rather lies the “relationship between the space and the individual […] at the core of this phenomenon” (2003, pp. 239–240). They therefore further divide between tourists with a motivation to learn 3 and involve in an educational way with heritage sites – historic tourism – and heritage tourism which only includes tourists perceiving a sight in relation to their own heritage (Poria et al. 2006, p. 53). Yet, from a management perspective, it is important to take all visitors, their needs, expectations and impacts into account (Garrod and Fyall 2001, p. 1050).

This discussion reflects difficulties to define what heritage is, from which perspective it should be defined and that diverse visitor motivations can play a role. Moreover, it connects to the challenge of distinguishing heritage tourism in regard to other forms of tourism. Historical tourism is one related term. More often, the relation between heritage and cultural tourism is discussed. As stated prefatory, heritage tourism is often treated as equivalent to cultural heritage tourism, leaving out natural heritage (Timothy 2011, p. 475). This being said, the overlap of cultural tourism and heritage tourism seems natural. Heritage tourism could be also seen as a subtype of cultural tourism, which in return further includes living and everyday culture (Richards 2018, pp. 13–14). However, the timespan when something is considered cultural heritage decreases and tends more and more to include also recent and contemporary culture (Bendix 2008, p. 270). Hence, the line between cultural heritage and contemporary culture sometimes blurs and the types of tourism merge (Timothy 2011, p. 5). Poria and Ashworth differentiate according to the underlying social processes: they see the heritagization process, i.e. a purposefully designed past, as the core of heritage tourism, whereas at the core of cultural tourism are conservation and preservation, to save and protect an objective past (2009, p. 523).

Delimitations when researching heritage tourism. There are more differentiated discourses about the definition of heritage and heritage tourism. However, I want to stay on an empirical level, exploring how stakeholders on Gotland perceive the phenomenon, rather than taking a theoretical approach which might risk to loss its practical value (see for discussion Garrod and Fyall 2001). Consequently, while visitor motivations are part of the analysis, by and large, the descriptive approach to heritage tourism is adapted as it better captures management questions. Furthermore, there is no clear division between culture and heritage tourism but rather a focus on heritage sites and the history presented on Gotland. More detailed characteristics and issues are then discussed relating to emerging themes out of the analysis of heritage tourism on Gotland.

For the study of characteristics of heritage tourism on Gotland I have based my research on interviews with a small number of experts involved in both, tourism and heritage tourism

4 development. I thereby paid less attention to the management of individual sites or questions of general heritage management. This has given me the opportunity to capture a broad understanding of heritage tourism in regard to the general tourism setting on Gotland. Furthermore, instead of having a literature review ready and setting the analysis against the review, I decided to directly connect emerging themes out of the interviews to relevant literature. This has enabled me to stay focused on the specific characteristics of heritage tourism mentioned in the Gotlandic context instead of discussing scholarly arguments.

What is a heritagescape? The concept and methodology of heritagescapes was developed by Mary Catherine E. Garden

(2004) in her doctoral thesis. She explains and illustrates them more comprehensively‐ in two following publications (Garden 2006, 2010). Garden describes a heritage site as “a complex social spaces constructed by the interaction and perception of individuals who visit the site” (2006, p. 396), “key to locating ourselves [as visitors] in time and space” (Garden 2010, p. 271). As such, they are distinctive geographical spaces in the wider landscape as well as cultural constructs (Garden 2006, p. 409). Framing a heritage site as a landscape – the heritagescape – enables to take in tangible elements of the geographic places, as well as intangible, experimental qualities (Garden 2010, p. 271).

The study of heritage sites is important because they are a fundamental element to define heritage tourism in the descriptive approach; however, research often focuses on the visitors themselves, not the site’s unique qualities which then might be overlooked (Burlingame 2019, p. 16). Other shortcoming of previous studies include the focus on defining and comparing heritage sites in distinctive categories, using lists of fixed attribute, and looking at them from the outside (Garden 2006, pp. 397, 406), as well as only considering certain issues, not the overarching characteristics of heritage sites themselves, and assume that similar sites operate similarly (Garden 2010, pp. 271, 278). Moreover, research results often stay theoretical and are not implemented on a practical level, methodologies cannot be applied by heritage site managers to improve and develop (Burlingame 2019, pp. 8–9; Garden 2006, p. 408).

Garden argues that in order to function as heritage sites they need to create a sense of past and thereby a place of the past. How strong, however, this sense of place and past is depends on the sites characteristics. By framing them as landscapes one can focus on the how and why tangible elements are used to create this experience and “what qualities affect the heritage site as a coherent and convincing entity” (Garden 2006, p. 408). Therefore, the heritagescape is a 5 concept and a methodology. As the former, “it is a means of describing and thinking about those specific landscapes that make up a heritage site. It is distinct from but at the same time an integral part of the larger landscape in which it is located” (Garden 2006, p. 398), i.e. heritagescapes look at heritage sites as a landscapes and locate them within their environment (Garden 2006, p. 407).

As a methodology it analyses how and why a site creates a convincing sense of the place and thereby of the past, and provides a common language to discuss and compare sites (Garden 2006, pp. 408–409). Instead of using a set list of criteria for the analysis, Garden developed three guiding principles to identify the (tangible) elements at a heritage site creating the particular place and sense of past. These are boundaries, cohesion, and visibility. While all three are always present in a heritagescape and interrelate, they might operate differently and create a different resonance between each other. The guiding principles are applied to tangible features to identify which elements create the demarcation of the landscape valued for and defined by its heritage (boundaries), which elements hold the site together and connect individual components (cohesion), as well as which elements contribute through their physical and cultural presence to the sense of place (visibility) (Garden 2006, pp. 397–399).

It offers a structured way of assessing a site’s qualities, and is therefore replicable and transparent. Instead of looking at whether or not a site fulfils certain criteria, this overcomes the problems of previous studies as it captures the diversity and complex nature of heritage sites, and therefore their individual “personality” without being hazy about differences. Therefore, it is at the same time flexible enough to understand, compare, and discuss different types of sites within the same analysis as individual criteria components can change but the guiding principles themselves remain (Garden 2006, pp. 397–399). While her doctoral thesis was focused on the application of heritagescapes to open-air museums showing that beside their common label they can function quite differently, Garden (2010) later also discussed a range of seemingly very different sites, from battle field places without much physical remains to indoor museums. Overall, she wants to bridge the understanding of what the characterising qualities of heritage sites are (Garden 2010, p. 271), and how the tangible and intangible of their landscape enable the visitor to “step back” in time in a recognisable, vivid experience (Garden 2010, p. 288).

However, Garden’s focus remains on the tangible elements in the application of the guiding principles to the landscape recording physical features (Garden 2010, p. 277; see for critique: 6

Burlingame 2019, p. 7, forthcoming, p. 71; Pungas-Kohv 2015, p. 22). Consequently, Burlingame, who uses Garden’s concept of heritagescape for her own study of how landscapes and heritage are experienced by tourists, develops her own methodological approach. In that, she adds a more experiential, multisensory dimension (Burlingame 2019, p. 7). Instead of using Garden’s three guiding principles she looks at the locale, story, and presence of the landscape as themes in what she calls the TRIOLE model. Thereby, she combines the established elements of heritage assessment and management out of a material and symbolic perspective with the often overlooked emotional and affective dimension that contributes to a feeling of presence in the landscape. As Gardens methodology the TRIOLE model is meant as a guide, easily adaptable (Burlingame forthcoming, pp. 72–73). It does not provide a concrete set of research criteria but each theme of the model encompasses a variety of information collected through different research approaches (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 123). Novel to her research approach is also that she includes collaborative research, i.e. communicates and discusses research steps and outcomes with those responsible from management perspective, in addition to embodied and participatory observations. By doing so new management strategies can be developed as part of the research process, and therefore bridge the gap between theoretical approaches and practical needs to implement research outcomes and engage site managers (Burlingame 2019, p. 10).

Delimitations researching the relation of nature and culture in heritagescapes. For the purpose of researching the relation of natural and cultural heritage I focused on the level of heritage sites. By using two case studies – one designated as a nature, the other as a culture reserve – I want to contrast and compare these formally different kinds of heritage sites. The conceptual framework is based on Garden’s heritagescape approach (2004; 2006, 2010), complemented by Burlingame’s TRIOLE model (2019, forthcoming). Though, my research aim is to get a sense of the role of natural and cultural (heritage) elements contributing to the interaction and perception of visitors with and of heritage sites. I do not want to primarily evaluate how strong heritage sites’ heritagescapes are, i.e. how well they create a sense of past. However, conceptualising them as landscapes and within their larger environment helps to look at more features than the declared heritage objects, and it is possible to identify natural and cultural components that together create the particular sense of place and past. Furthermore, I can compare seemingly similar and different sites. However, I am using Burlingame’s TRIOLE model instead of Gardens guiding principles to include the material, symbolic and affective dimensions. Nonetheless, while she focuses on how 7 landscapes are experienced from a phenomenological perspective, I use her themes to see how nature and culture relate in different heritagescapes, and thereby making use of the subjective nature of the TRIOLE model allowing a different research outcome depending on the purpose (Burlingame forthcoming, pp. 127–128), and illuminate different themes and elements of the landscape (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 223).

There are other relating concepts to this analysis which I have not used as they are based on a more distinctive perspective of what a heritage site is or take a different perspective on them. For one, the UNESCO cultural landscape describes the “outstanding value of the interaction between people and their environment” in three distinct categories (Rössler 2006, p. 334). Di Giovine (2008) introduced the term heritage-scape, and is thereby also using a –space perspective. However, he focuses more on socio-spatial processes and the community working with UNESCO heritage sites rather than the connection of individual heritage sites and landscapes (Di Giovine 2018, pp. 6–9). Furthermore, for the case studies it is important to point out that with natural heritage I do not mean pristine, untouched nature but elements people frequently associate with nature such as plants and animals, and natural areas – forests, fields, beaches. With cultural heritage I focus mainly on built heritage as well as stories about people of the past (Lowenthal 2005, pp. 81–82).

1.4. Methodology and Material I started my thesis writing process with the general topic and interest in heritage tourism on Gotland. But as research goes, the focus shifted (actually several times) during the process. As I wanted to research deeper into an area of local relevance I started with my first, more general aim and “investigated” the field of heritage tourism on Gotland before developing my second research question. I thereby followed Booth et al.’s steps to specify a “pertinent” research problem going from the topic of interest to the question and then decide on data collection needs and methods (2016, pp. 29–30).

To research the characteristics of heritage tourism on Gotland. To study the characteristics of heritage tourism on Gotland I decided to conduct semi- structured interviews with experts in the tourism and heritage development on Gotland. I used a purposive sampling and identified major stakeholders in the heritage and tourism development based on my knowledge about the tourism structures on Gotland. Furthermore, my supervisor suggested me another interviewee. I decided to assure the anonymity of the

8 interviewees in order for them to feel more comfortable to express concerns and criticism they might have in regard to other stakeholders involved and they work with closely.

Overall, I conducted four interviews with five participants as one interview was with two people. Two of the interviewees work with the management and development of heritage tourism attractions more specifically (interviewee 1 and 2), and another two within the public tourism development more generally (interviewee 3 and 4). The fifth interviewee works within tourism information services to include the tourists’ perspective as well and validate the previous data. I indicate quotes with this numbering hen it seems to be of relevance to know the interviewees professional background. More information about each interviewee can be found in the appendix. The shortest time interviewees have been involved in tourism on the island was six years, the longest for 30 years. The interviews took between 40 and 65 minutes, took place at the interviewees’ respective work places, and were recorded and later transcribed with their consent. The main questions I asked in each interview related to the interviewees’ professional background, and what they consider heritage tourism is. I then covered which sites and actors are involved, tourists’ characteristics, as well as challenges and potentials of heritage tourism, also in regard to a sustainable development. The interviews were conducted in English but in one case the interviewee preferred to answer in Swedish. The understanding went well, but it was more difficult to keep the exact wording for transcribing and later translating to quote in the thesis.

Before the interviews I read a variety of heritage, tourism development, and heritage tourism related literature. This has given me the necessary theoretical understanding of characteristics and research issues. I then could engage actively with the primary and secondary data to describe and validate heritage tourism characteristics on Gotland and find suitable themes emerging from my interviews (Booth et al. 2016, p. 88). The relevant concepts and argumentations from literature will be introduced part-by-part together with the characteristic traits of heritage tourism on Gotland I identified. I begin a general analysis and general understanding (chapter 2.2), followed by more specific considerations (chapter 2.3) (Booth et al. 2016, p. 181).

To research heritagescapes. While also other researches use Garden’s concept of heritagescapes, it is Garden and Burlingame who shaped my research design. As the two, I use comparative case studies. A case study design offers the opportunity to apply “multiple methods in order to understand 9 complex relationships and interactions” (Beeton 2004, p. 54), and for tourism attractions more specifically to develop better management at individual sites (Leask 2010, p. 163). Garden provided a number of examples how her approach also works for all kinds of heritage sites, also the “awkward” ones (Garden 2006, p. 402), i.e. sites which do not fit neatly into any category like museums nor are they pure landscapes, and that they can be compared coherently. I could therefore select my case studies very freely. The only condition Garden sets is the heritage should have widely been recognised as such before (Garden 2006, p. 395).

I based my selection on the one hand on previous knowledge from difference grounds I can use as supporting data and on the other hand based on the sites characteristic and potentials to compare. My first case study is Norrbys museum’s farm, and at the same time a culture reserve. The main reason for Norrbys was the fact that one of my interviewees talked about it in more depth. Furthermore, Norrbys is representing a rural landscape. My second case study Torsburgen, a hill fort and nature reserve. I visited Torsburgen already for the Gutasaga project and several times afterwards for different occasions. Besides being a nature reserve, Torsburgen is representing an archaeological site with prehistoric remnants. Both sites have lately been taken under the protection by the Hague convention (Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län 11/11/2019).

Due to the limited scope of this research, and the restrictions for personal meetings during the covid-19 outbreak, I could not apply a collaborative approach, i.e. an ongoing communication with the people and sites/side management studied (Lassiter 2005), was not possible. Likewise, there were no other visitors at the sites. I therefore took some friends with me who were informed about the research purpose. While I explain the themes and information collected each in regard to further theoretical considerations in chapter 3.2, I here describe the overarching data collection process.

To get an overview of the sites I started by studying secondary resources like marketing material online and offline. I did not find any brochure on either site so I limited offline material to guidebooks. Online sources included Gotlands museums website, other touristic information platforms for Gotland, and social media platforms. I took into account the general presentation, different story told, reviews, and pictures primary from a tourist perspective (material one seeks as a tourist). In the case of Norrbys the descriptions from the interview in are another important source, in the case of Torsburgen discussions from class.

The main material comes from site visits and thereby especially embodied research, i.e. my own perceptions and descriptions based on impressions of site visit(s) (Burlingame 2019, p. 8). I could thereby also include experiences from previous visits in other seasons. Moreover, I could include observations of my friends and asked some people who I knew had visited the places before to recall their memories in order to touch upon visitors’ behaviours and perceptions (Burlingame 2019, p. 8). Both approaches included walking the site, taking photographs (exemplified in the appendices), looking at how others walk and interact, paying attention to what they say about their perception of the place and the infrastructure, as well as also asking why they do or think so (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 129).

All material was transcribed in regard to the TRIOLE themes, and the different sources enabled data triangulation (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 125). Burlingame describes that data saturation for individual sites can be reached quite quickly as the impressions do not become much more after the first encounters (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 127). However, to the scope of the research and the circumstances I remained a lot on my perceptions as “being a tourist” myself and I expect that with further visits and especially by incorporating more embodied and collaborative approaches the data could be enhanced.

1.5. Outline of the Thesis As I developed two research questions and has developed as a consequence out of the first, “diving” deeper into a specific area of heritage tourism I decided to keep the two parts somewhat apart:

Chapter 2 focuses on answering the first research question – what characterises heritage tourism on Gotland. First, I give an overview of the current tourism situation on Gotland before I present the data and results from my interviews in relation to heritage tourism literature. This is divided into two sections – the first presents the general structure of heritage tourism, the second highlights focus areas discussed across interviews. The final section of chapter 2 motivates the focus on the interrelation of natural and cultural heritage to follow.

Chapter 3 consequently centres around this second research question on the interrelation of natural and cultural heritage. I first take a theoretical approach into why natural and cultural heritage seems to be divided in heritage and heritage tourism literature. Furthermore, I argue why it is important to bridge this divide and how this can be done taking a landscape and

11 heritagescape approach. I then present my analysis framework based on previous research, and present and analyse my case studies of heritage sites on Gotland using this framework.

The final chapter of this summarises the outcomes in regard to the two research questions. This is followed by a discussion of the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research as well as a reflection of my own learning process and outcome. The appendices summarise visual impressions in form of photographs taken at the case study sites.

2 HERITAGE TOURISM ON GOTLAND

2.1. Tourism on Gotland

“A different land, almost abroad, a ‘limestone Hawaii’, ‘Sweden’s Mallorca’, boast the ads in the tourist brochures.” (Ronström 2008, p. 3) Gotland is Sweden’s and the Baltic Sea’s largest island, located around 100km east of the Swedish mainland. Almost 60.000 people live permanently one the island. 25.000 of them in the town of Visby (SCB 2019a), which has been declared UNESCO World Heritage in 1995 (Ronström 2008, p. 1). From 2016 onwards, Gotland has received more than one million guest nights annually, with the largest share of overnight guests coming from Sweden (88%). International guests come from a variety of countries, above all from Germany (29% of non- Swedish visitors), and other Scandinavian countries (SCB 2019c). Approximately 80% of visitors travel to Gotland by ferry, 20% by flight (Region Gotland 2017, p. 25). Seasonality is high with 35% of guest nights acquired in July, 15% in June, 21% in August (SCB 2019b).

Figure 1: Geographic location of Gotland; (Speckhahn and Isgren 2019, p. 134).

“For many, the reason to travel to Gotland is – precisely Gotland” (Region Gotland 2019a, p. 2). This is said in regard to the Swedish tourists who generally have a higher knowledge of

13 what Gotland has to offer. Many are return visitors, traveling to their summerhouses, searching for quietness but also to enjoy the beach, the local culture. The season is slowly extending into the late summer and early autumn for weekend travels, event and special interest tourism. International tourists have a less clear image of what traveling to Gotland “feels like”. More distinctive marketing and clear offers are important to attract these target groups (Region Gotland 2019a, p. 2).

Region Gotland, responsible for strategic tourism development from the regional public sector perspective, brought forward a new tourism strategy in May 2019 in collaboration with Gotlands förenade besöksnäring (GFB), the regional tourism business association (Region Gotland 2019b, p. 3). Tourism is seen as one of the two most important industry areas for the future development of the island, the other being food industry. The strategy’s aim is to “clarify the strategic direction, […]how the strategy can be […] implemented”, as well as motivate relevant stakeholders (Region Gotland 2019b, p. 4) in order to make Gotland “Northern Europe’s most sustainable and attractive tourism destination 2027” (Region Gotland 2019b, p. 8). Part of the strategy is to develop thematic tourism in the areas of outdoor tourism, culinary tourism, as well as nature and culture tourism (Region Gotland 2019b, p. 9). The natural environment is characterised by geological features such as cliffs, rauk (stack) fields, and beaches. Together with the mild climate, a diversity of flora and fauna can be found. A great variety marks also the culture and cultural heritage offer which gives Gotland the byname “culture island/island of culture” (Region Gotland 2019a, pp. 6–8). However, the medieval theme is dominating (Ronström 2008, p. 4). Besides the variety, close proximity and small scale are characteristic for cultural heritage sites, events as well as contemporary art (Region Gotland 2019a, p. 8).

2.2. Heritage Tourism Fundaments Based on the general definition of heritage tourism above I analyse the interviewees’ views on what heritage tourism on Gotland is in regard to the general tourism product and image of the island and from both perspectives – the descriptive and experimental approach, i.e. what sites and attractions are considered to be part of heritage tourism and who is considered to be a heritage tourist. I then move on to give an overview of stakeholders considered when talking about heritage tourism on Gotland, namely professional actors from the public and private sector, non-professional actors as local heritage associations, as well as the host community.

Heritage Tourism as an integral part of the tourism mix. “We’re talking heritage in a broad sense, not only World Heritage but heritage in general!?” That was one reaction by an interviewee when asked about heritage tourism on Gotland. I did not give any definition of heritage tourism before or during the interviews as to not stir the interviewees in any direction. This way, I could get their unbiased perspective on what they consider heritage tourism on Gotland is. All interviewees quickly referred to the diversity of sites and importance of the mix of nature and culture found on the island: “[Visitors come] to look at the culture and history, and second about the same the nature”; “[Gotland] is a very special place […] in respect to nature and to [the] cultural history”. Heritage was perceived in its broad sense as encompassing the built heritage and historic places, lived culture as well as the nature. This is also reflected by the conception in the tourism strategy for Gotland.

Generally, heritage attractions are a pull factor to a destination (Kempiak et al. 2017, p. 376). Their distinguishing characteristics can create strategic advantages for a destination’s attractiveness (Opačić 2019, p. 184; Iorio and Wall 2011, p. 13). Yet, while “the heritage sector represents a highly significant component of tourism” (Garrod and Fyall 2000, p. 683), it is often not followed up in differentiation to other tourism patterns (Timothy 2011, p. 21) because of the difficulties to draw the line between different visitor motivations, their relation to the heritage site, and other forms of tourism as described above.

“So you have the mix and special for Gotland, I think, it’s you have so many of those small places and then together is our, the magical island.” Heritage tourism on Gotland is seen as an integral part of the tourism mix of the island rather than a separate branch of the industry. Heritage elements have an important meaning to Gotland’s universal image as the “magical island”, a place different to the rest of Sweden. Moreover, in all interviews it was mentioned that the main motivation to come to Gotland is the variety and combination of offers, reflecting the overlap of forms of tourism. They come to discover the island and in that combine culture and history with bathing holidays and other leisure activities, food, events and partying, described in more detail further below.

“The cultural history and that is very visible in the heritage you can see today is part of why they want to go here. So it’s a big part of the trademark for Gotland.”

The diversity of heritage sites and themes. A fundamental distinction talking about heritage in the tourism industry is made between cultural, natural, and built heritage (Light 2015, p. 144; Millar 1989, p. 9; Poria et al. 2003, 15 p. 239). More detailed classifications are for example based on the attraction type (e.g. museums, archaeological, industrial, religious sites), as well as time period or cultural practise represented, e.g. intangible or tangible, living or built (Timothy 2011, pp. 48–49), but they are manifold typologies and sub typologies (Poria et al. 2006, p. 54).

Several of the mentioned distinctions where made to characterise Gotland’s offer. It encompasses natural heritage like the protected beaches, fields of stacks (raukar), cliffs, and smaller islands; cultural landscapes (kulturmiljöer) like the typical Gotlandic meadow (änge) found in most perishes, old harbours and fishing villages, and the endemic Gotlandic horse (ross); and historical places as in built heritage and prehistoric remnants. Furthermore there is younger, more intangible cultural heritage as well such as art, film and music (Pippi Longstocking, Bergman and smaklösa). At the same time, they cover and present a variety of historic periods and biographies – pre-historic archaeological sites and remnants; the Vikings; the Hanse period, pirate times, medieval churches and other medieval sites; farm live from the 17th to 20th century; fishing and maritime history; the limestone industry and the closely connected workers movement; technological innovation also including trains; military sites; and people moving to and from Gotland (svenskbevoner, Albatross museum). Some of these themes are more popular and widespread developed. For example, the medieval theme is dominating due to the strong physical visibility and the Medieval Week – the largest heritage event attracting thousands of visitors and participant’s annually since 30 years. Others like the Viking and pirate times are less presented as information and visibility is lacking:

“You can’t see so much of the Viking age but we have a lot […], then we have the pirate era […] but we don’t speak so much about them because we don’t have so much information about that time. Then it was a pirate’s nest, and you don’t have so much archives and papers from that.” Another categorisation can be made according to the significance of and personal attachment to the site, as well as level of demand: Timothy (1997) distinguishes between international, national, local and personal sites. Because of the outstanding role of UNESCO World Heritage Attractions (WHA) and their significant impact on visitor’s motivation, experience, and evaluation, Kempiak et al. divide simply between WHA and other (national and local) sites (2017, p. 376). Relating to this, there is a controversy about what and whose heritage is displayed. An underrepresentation of mundane heritage and the ordinary people in contrast to an overrepresentation of sites with outstanding values has been recognised in practice (Grimwade and Carter 2000, p. 35; Park 2013, p. 2), as well as in the literature (Iorio and

Wall 2011, p. 2; Timothy 2018, p. 179). Branding such as UNESCO World Heritage has been used to stage these places (Timothy 2018, p. 179). At the same time, there is an increasing interest in local and regional identities (Opačić 2019, p. 183), as visitors demand more balanced presentations (Timothy 2018, p. 179), and can more easily relate to and identify themselves with common heritage than with places of the upper class and mighty buildings. Considering those small sites, most destinations are very rich in possible heritage attractions (Grimwade and Carter 2000, p. 35). Making them accessible for tourism helps to further distribute tourism and balance impacts (Opačić 2019, p. 184).

Relating to the scale and whose heritage is represented, Visby as a UNESCO World Heritage Site was set against the countless smaller sites located all over the island. Representing mighty heritage, Visby is perceived as dominating the general heritage image with its ring wall, church ruins and picturesque streets. Furthermore, Gotlands Museum is located in the town’s centre; visited by most tourists, one interviewee described it as the place where “they realise what Gotland is all about, the history”. Contrary, in the countryside’s heritage sites, the stories of the ordinary and local people are at the foreground. Rich in old houses, small museums, and churches dating back to the medieval it is attracting visitors as “you don’t just have the most mighty things there […] the artefacts are more folk items.” Additionally, the interconnection between nature and culture becomes visible – in the traditional meadows, the fishing villages in small bays but also when visiting prehistoric remains, located in nature reserves or Viking harbours which may seem like pure nature now.

Who is a heritage tourist? Besides the search for novelty, learning represents an important visitor motivation for heritage tourists. However, the interest in how deep the learning experience should be and methods of learning vary (Richards 2018, p. 14). Furthermore, visitors perception of heritage sites and general motivation by heritage attributes differ. Only a small part is greatly motivated by heritage attributes (Silberberg 1995, p. 362) and perceives the heritage site as such (Poria et al. 2003, p. 248). For others, a combination of heritage and non-heritage factors motivates and shapes the visit (Silberberg 1995, p. 363; Poria et al. 2003, p. 248). Others again visit the heritage site just by coincident (Silberberg 1995, p. 363), and might not be aware of heritage attributes at all (Poria et al. 2003, p. 248). Consequently, they experience the same heritage site in a deeper or shallower way (McKercher and Du Cros 2012, p. 144). Just as for other tourism segmentations, demographic, psychographic and geographic characteristics play an

17 important role as well to better understand heritage tourists’ travel behaviour and experience but also where they get their information from (Timothy 2011, pp. 27–30).

While there has been an agreement in the interviews – and visitor surveys – that guests value the opportunity to choose and pick heritage attractions as part of the general holiday, opinions about the weight of heritage in this mix differ. Those interviewees working with tourism in general neglect the importance of “pure” heritage tourists as a visitor group on its own:

Interviewee 4: “I wouldn’t say we have that many heritage tourists.” Interviewee 3: “Like just coming here for only that, no.” This stand in contrast with those working in the heritage sector discussing special interest groups, even though they are less common, and, moreover, stating heritage was overall the most important visitor motivation.

Interviewee 2: “[Heritage tourism] is very important for Gotland, often, what the tourists say, it's the most important visitor motivation.” Later: “You always have those bucket list persons […]. [Most of the people] are just picking things here and there I think. But some of them are nerds.” When looking at the different target groups, it has been identified that visitor motivation and interests in heritage differ between the origin of visitors (Swedish and non-Swedish travellers), the time and length of stay, the place of stay, as well as their age group and whom they are travelling with.

Swedish visitors as the primary target group are attracted by the image of travelling “abroad” to the “magical island”. “The sun, the beaches, nature” are main visiting reasons: “Swedes know about Gotland […], in more than 90, 95% of the cases you will be told that they want to go to Gotland but they really can’t say why”. On the other side, international tourists are perceived as being more attracted by the heritage, especially Germans, but also Dutch, Norwegian and British visitors. For them, sun and bathing are less of a pull factor and they are therefore important target groups before and after the summer season when it is less crowded. They are usually more prepared and have gathered information about heritage sights to visit beforehand or are looking for this information once in the destination.

“International tourists […] are more interested, and know and read a lot about the cultural heritage.” “For them going to the sea and going summer bathing isn’t that important, so, of course […] they`re more interested in doing other things.” “Germans […] have probably more of a knowledge of what’s here and maybe that’s also because they’re going to different countries […] You try to get more information before you go whereas when you’re in Sweden it’s just going to a part of Sweden really.” 18

Visitors coming to the island for the first time and/or for a couple of days only, especially cruise tourists, are attracted by Visby and its status as UNESCO World Heritage. Time constraints made them spend most or all time within the town. Moreover, non-heritage factors such as events could be the reason for the first time visit, but heritage then plays an important role in encouraging a return visit, especially when older and when in company of their family combining heritage and bathing. Return visits, a longer stay, possibly in the countryside, and using a car seems to favour the visit of a variety of heritage attractions. This is characteristic also for people with summer house on Gotland and those coming for events like the Medieval Week. Nevertheless, special interest heritage tourists specifically could also be identified. They, as well, often already have a higher knowledge before the trip.

The importance of stakeholder integration. Heritage tourism “comprises a diverse range of actors from the public, private and voluntary sectors […] from the local to the supra-national” (Light 2015, p. 144). That is not different on Gotland. However, voluntary associations have a crucial role and differ from other stakeholders, which is why they will be discussed separately after public and private actors. Furthermore, the local community is crucial to tourism development generally and in the heritage experience (Firth 2011, p. 48; Garrod et al. 2012, p. 1159). Integrating a larger scope of stakeholder, especially on a local level, enhances the substance and variety of heritage and therefore both the visitor experience and the residents’ perception creating curiosity, awareness, and pride (Millar 1989, p. 12). In addition, stakeholder integration is crucial for sustainable development of heritage tourism as a diverse range of actors is involved in different factors necessary to integrate heritage and tourism objectives sustainably. These factors range from individual site management to supranational initiatives, local involvement and education to the rethinking of planning priorities, as well as market and product diversification, with many more (Loulanski and Loulanski 2011).

Public and private as professional stakeholders. A central responsibility for the integration of stakeholders lies at the public site and local governments. They govern the strategic development, give legislative support and aim for clear responsibilities, within its institutions and with other actors outside. Furthermore, they provide education, finances and technological support (Loulanski and Loulanski 2011, pp. 849–851).

On Gotland the regional council (Region Gotland) employs two tourism strategists to coordinate the tourism development, especially in regard to the new tourism strategy. Furthermore, they employ a World Heritage coordinator, and a cultural heritage advisor in half-time who is seated at Gotlands Museum, coordinating and supporting non-professional stakeholders all over the island to make cultural heritage attractions accessible for tourism and lift the quality of the experience.

Issues concerning the economic viability of heritage tourism attractions will be discussed in the next section. However, in general it can be said, that heritage management is turning towards tourism to enhance inter alia its financial situation in order to be able to sustain reservation and conservation efforts (Apostolakis 2003, p. 796). On the other hand, heritage attributes can be stressed to create valuable, competitive tourism products (Opačić 2019, p. 184; Iorio and Wall 2011, p. 13). Nevertheless, the majority of heritage attractions and management approaches are not considered to be part of the private economy (Garrod and Fyall 2000, p. 684; Gunn and Var 2002, p. 12).

Gotlands Museum has been mentioned as the only business-oriented year-round and professionalised heritage tourism attraction. It is operating an art and a historical museum, and opens up the town’s ruins for tourists. As it is covering most historic period and themes it plays a crucial role in presenting Gotlandic heritage. In addition, it is operating Bungemuseet, an open-air folk museum in the north of Gotland, and owns three smaller farm museums in the southwest of the island. There are some other professional actors who use parts of the heritage like the Medieval Week, event bureaus, and a medieval restaurant. The vast majority of local museums however are operated by voluntary organisations, described below.

Furthermore, administrative institutions authorising and taking care of heritage on a subordinate-legislative level are crucial stakeholders (Timothy 2011, p. 170 following). “To preserve the historically interesting” has a long history in Sweden as a public mandate. Different authorities are therefore involved (Kvarnström and Syssner 2013, pp. 70–71). Here, the County Administrative Board (Länsstyrelsen, hereafter just the County) has been named by all interviewees. It is responsible for assigning nature and cultural protection areas, allocating money for conservation, and they set up information boards at points of interest. Furthermore, they publish information material like brochures and books in collaboration with other actors like the Gotlands museum. Other connections are to the National Heritage Board

(Riksantikvarieämbetet), e.g. to ensure the safety for visitors to ruins, and the National Property Board (Statens fastighetsverket), which owns part of the built heritage sites.

Lastly, the educational sector supports the sustainable development of heritage tourism. On the one hand, they give the theoretical and methodological knowledge-base (Loulanski and Loulanski 2011, p. 848). On the other hand, education programs for and with the local community should be organised to raise awareness (Rakitovac and Urošević 2017, p. 206): Here, the local university campus (Campus Gotland, part of Uppsala University), has been mentioned bringing forward a lot of important aspects. The examples given were the research into cruise tourism within the sustainable visit program, projects in heritage preservation with students of the building antiquarian program, as well as collaborations between different local actors and students of the sustainable destination development master program. Furthermore, Region Gotland has hired one of the students to do a sustainability assessment for the tourism sector. Not mentioned by the interviewees but offering a variety of courses in local history, archaeology and sustainability on upper-secondary level is Gotlands Folkhögskola (Folk High School: https://gotlandsfolkhogskola.se/). Otherwise, a lack of programs for undergraduate schools to enhance the interest and awareness of the island’s heritage has been described.

Local heritage associations as the main actor. Gunn and Var recognised that non-profit organisations have become increasingly important in the general tourism planning as they started to development heritage attractions (2002, p. 12). By adding tourism infrastructure to their properties they try to raise awareness and funds for their efforts of protecting both, natural and culture areas. The destination development, on the other hand, can profit from their talent and knowledge, as well as enhanced integration of social elements in the planning on all levels (Gunn and Var 2002, pp. 12–13). A study by Iorio and Wall showed that over a short period a small local museum could enhance local tourism and community development: visitor numbers, spending and residents’ awareness of local heritage increased. As the museum was based on local knowledge and build up with local resources, a community-centred approach and well-fitting integration of the museum into both, the tourism sector and local dynamics, succeeded (Iorio and Wall 2011, pp. 12–13).

In Sweden, one of these actors group with increased recognition are the local heritage associations found all over the country. The local heritage movement began in Sweden as in other Nordic countries and Germany in the end of the 19th century. It was the reaction of dramatic social upheaval with the new millennium and a return to one’s own roots and the 21 local (Eskilsson 2008, p. 10). The local heritage associations’ work and presentation of the local and mundane history attracts people as they can easily relate to and feel connected to the heritage. Furthermore, it often reinforces the image of Sweden tourists from abroad might have as a country rooted in traditions. However, one should consider that not all local heritage associations actually want to interact with tourism (Eskilsson 2013).

According to one interviewee, there are 60 to 70 small museums to be found on Gotland, which are either operated by one of the more than 70 local heritage associations (hembygdsföreningar) or by other non-profit organisations. They have been recognised by all interviewees as fundamental elements of the tourism experience.

Interviewee 1: “It is them who really work with cultural heritage in the countryside. […] They are the ones who actually work a lot with making the Gotlandic cultural heritage available.” Besides the museum, these organisations are involved in taking care of smaller sites like traditional meadows and built heritage, keeping them open and providing information. Activities to take care of these are partly turned into community events – also attracting tourists and temporary residents staying in their summer houses.

The interviewees said that many associations want to actively be a part of heritage tourism but not all. This was partly related to the size of the association with smaller organisations being more focused on their own parish and buildings, working with the heritage for their own interest and do not want to engage with tourists. Furthermore, the idealistic nature limits the resources and opportunities: “It is people who work ideally, who do not get paid. So then you also have a normal life and you have to cope with it, too.” Others, especially if the association has more members, are very eager to welcome people and show their heritage, tell their story. They are proud of their heritage and want to share it with visitors. Therefore, it does not only shape their identity but also creates an important meeting place for tourists with locals. They build upon the local heritage, stories and competences found within their members. Besides being very knowledgeable in this regard, their work is still considered as nonprofessional and especially a sustainable economic foundation challenging.

Generally speaking, a balance needs to be found between management responsibilities and needs. If management is taken out of the hands of the local community, the sense of ownership and identity and therefore acceptance can get lost. Yet, some professionalism needs to be retained to take certain critical conservation aspects into account to and avoid

22 harm to the heritage by inadequately skilled volunteers (Grimwade and Carter 2000, p. 44). Therefore, education in terms of adequate heritage management, sustainability, and tourism knowledge plays also here a crucial role (Eskilsson 2013, pp. 119–120; Loulanski and Loulanski 2011, p. 849). Important supporting institutions are the umbrella organisation for all local heritage associations on Gotland (Gotlands Hembygdsförbund), working with them on all general questions, Region Gotland’s cultural heritage advisor, who is focusing more on the tourism context and with all small scale organisations, and several smaller networks under their supervision. These organisational structures help to enhance contact within associations, as well as with external parties, and educational offer. Challenges mentioned concerned how to attract and integrate younger members, and the enhancement of the tourism knowledge, e.g. creating better experiences through interpretation and new technologies, marketing, and how income could be generated from tourism, discussed in the next section.

The local community as hosts and ambassadors. Several studies recognise host communities as “at the heart of the tourist experience” (Firth 2011, p. 48). This was very clearly articulated in the interviews as well, with the local community being perceived as a vital part of them general tourism experience:

“But the physic[al] things without [the Gotlandic] people is nothing.” Interviewees described the locals as the “hosts” and “ambassadors”: Visitors come to “meet the real Gotland”, and to meet the people might be “maybe more important than Visby itself”. Tourists and locals meet in specific tourism settings like hotels and restaurants but often also outside, at places of local importance, in the countryside. Residents are therefore contributing in an essential way to the cultural experience and feeling of the place, for example through the local heritage associations, why it is considered very important to keep these intact.

However, the local attitude towards tourism greatly depends on their perception of tourism impacts (Firth 2011, p. 48; Garrod et al. 2012, p. 1160). In order to create a welcoming environment for tourists, the host community quality of life – including economic, socio- cultural, and environmental dimensions – needs to improve with the tourism development (Firth 2011, p. 48). Pressures caused by tourism which need to be balance with positive effects are discussed below but have been recognised as vital so that everyone receiving tourists is satisfied with and enjoys it, and in return is a good host.

Furthermore, local interest in heritage is crucial to the acceptance of preservation and conservation measures as well as to give a meaning to the heritage sites. However, local 23 interest might be low e.g. due to over-familiarity, or because the heritage concerns former or minority societies (Grimwade and Carter 2000, pp. 38–39). Telling the heritage stories not only to tourists but also the residents fosters awareness, pride, and pro-active development (Millar 1989, p. 12). In the context of Gotland, this was described as being “own blind”. Residents might not always be aware of the heritage found in the destination, or its importance, and take it for granted particularly in regard to the World Heritage. People often have not visited certain places in the countryside or have not heard the stories connected with them even though they have lived on the island for decades. However, it is considered important that the local community gets this knowledge and becomes aware. Tourism is seen as to foster this development and strengthen the local identity so that residents become ambassadors. Education, especially for younger generations, can also contribute to make them interested and proud. Local associations involved in tourism are seen as a contributing to community values such as intergenerational understanding, dynamic exchanges of knowledge and competences as well as local democracy processes energising the community – they can not only affect their own parish but Gotland and Sweden in a wider sense. Moreover, social benefits due to the positive branding of Gotland in relation to tourism and heritage are seen: “we're all very aware of this site of Gotland so, I think, we're all very proud of living here.”

2.3. Focus Areas in a Gotlandic Context Based on the above mentioned variety in heritage sites, visitor motivations and stakeholders a number of challenges and potentials of heritage tourism on Gotland where discussed by the interviewees. As heritage tourism is considered an important thematic area in the tourism strategy for the tourism development on Gotland, I consider it vital to look closer at these perspectives and to link the interviewees’ perceptions. Furthermore, these topics inspired me to look further into the relation of nature and culture as I will discuss in the following section. Therefore, I want to use this part to introduce the reader to the key problems. However, the sequence of these areas in the upcoming discussion does not reflect any qualitative assessment about their importance. It was rather chosen to create a coherent discussion considering that many areas are interlinked with each other. Drawing on the description of the stakeholder above, I start with introducing pressures on the local community created by (heritage) tourism and the expressed need for more economic orientation of heritage managers. This links to challenges within the marketing, on-site information, and transportation before discussing

24 events as and the new tourism strategy as development opportunities and to combat collaboration, seasonality, and sustainability issues.

Pressures of (heritage) tourism on the local community. There are two main problems which were mentioned by the interviewees in regard to pressures for the community from (heritage) tourism: crowding and abrasion (wear and tear). Timothy describes both of them as common impacts with crowding often taking place in historic city centres impacting both the residents and the visitors experience creating frustration and stress (Timothy 2011, pp. 151–152). Wear and tear on the other hand is the most common physic impact going inevitably hand in hand with visitations to heritage sites, another being pollution and littering seen at both, heritage sites and historic settings more generally (Timothy 2011, 158, 161).

“Some get a lot of money from tourists and some almost pay for it.” Also for Gotland, crowding was mainly connected to events and the inner city of Visby, wear and tear related to the countryside and heritage tourism sites more specifically. Both are seen as having the potential to upset local residents, overload them and make them tired and consequently averse to tourism.

Crowding is not yet seen as a pressing issue but the interviewees are aware that one should monitor the development. Particularly because of an expected growth in cruise tourism to Visby planning ahead is needed. So far, the cruise tourists experience Visby residents as “very friendly and helpful”. To avoid “people pollution” and connected issues like littering, queuing and supply shortages an active spreading of the cruise tourists to more sights than the medieval town is needed. Similarly, events lead to garbage issues and more important noise pollution requiring a close connection with the effected people as well as between public institutions to handle specific issues like drug consumption and to balance different interests.

“I found my perfect spot and I don’t want any tourist to look at it.” "This is my summer house, […], this is my place, you [tourists] shouldn't be here." Mentioned in a lesser extend was the issue of summer house residents rejecting the valorisation of heritage sites close to their houses to attract passing tourists. Summer house residents are looking for quiet around their place but they would stay the same time there then when most tourists would come. Therefore, interest conflicts occur which are not directly related to crowding as in a high number of people overall but an influx of people around. Gunn and Var connected this rejection of tourism development in close proximity to one 25 owns place to the “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) syndrome and stress the importance of inclusive policies, mutual understanding, and collaboration (Gunn and Var 2002, p. 106).

Abrasion (wear and tear) has been mentioned in connection to land owners who pay for keeping small roads intact which they use for farming but are at the same time access roads to tourism sites as well as in regard to visited to churches. Local communities are eager to show their heritage – the church – but with making it accessible costs for cleaning, garbage disposal and providing toilets increase. Both are caused not by individual tourists but when a high number of traffic accurse. So again, a balance of tourism numbers and their spreading needs to be found. Furthermore, there is a wish for financial compensation in some form to redirect income from tourism towards those people paying for the indirect costs of it.

Economic viability and creation of new products. Besides general tendencies of the heritage sector to turn to tourism for financial support, often there is still a resentment of managers, especially of small sites, to accept that they are part of the tourism business. Many of the voluntary and idealistic organisations want to show their heritage, make it accessible and open for everyone and avoid commodification (Eskilsson 2013, p. 122; Garrod and Fyall 2000, pp. 684–685). Local pride and environmental appreciation should have a higher priority than economic gains (Grimwade and Carter 2000, p. 36). Nevertheless, to adapt a “user’s pay” principle is advised as visitors cause wear and tear and admission should represent the true value of the heritage site and its maintenance costs (Garrod and Fyall 2000, p. 684). To make heritage sites accessible and attract tourists often causes high costs which could be seen as indirect payments to create visitation. Being dependent on subsidies and donations has been seen critically as it develops dependency on the financiers and their agendas (Poria and Ashworth 2009, p. 523). So heritage attractions might be in a dilemma of their idealistic idea and the financial needs to conserve the place and survive themselves (Eskilsson 2013, pp. 122–123; Millar 1989, pp. 12–13).

“It’s harder to get people to pay to go to ängen or to fiskeläget.” This conflict is seen on Gotland: core to the local heritage associations is that their work is idealistic in nature, voluntary, without expecting being paid for their engagement. To develop products and create an income from tourism possesses a challenge. The small organisations often do not have the means to develop as a business, e.g. because they do not have a continuous offer but organise events unregularly, nor do they “see the connection between taking an entrance fee and [it] means you can have some money to develop your product”,

26 e.g. being able to engage someone to present their heritage or do marketing. They want everyone to be welcome and able to participate. However, to show the value of their work, being able to sustain themselves and to become a part of the overall tourism, more business orientation is necessary, according to the interviewees. “We need more actors who can do their share and also earn some money from tourism.” Either they need to corporate with other businesses to package their product or become a company themselves. This way, an economic living for the organisation can be secured and it contributes to the overall spending of tourist on the island. Bungemuseet for example is operated professionally by Gotlands museum but owned by an association who get paid for the use and takes care of necessary maintenance work. Another challenge the associations face is how to attract new, especially younger people. Through entrepreneurship could be one way giving young people “that have the knowledge and need the money, [the opportunity] to sustain their economical living”.

Economic aspects also play a crucial role in developing more events and in prolonging the season, discussed below. Furthermore, there is a need for enhanced packaging and partnership in promotion as they help to lessen financial dependence on public and charitable funding (Silberberg 1995, p. 365):

(Lack of) General marketing and promotion of heritage tourism. Heritage managers need to understand how important their product is for the destination’s tourism offer (Silberberg 1995, p. 364). From the destination’s perspective, heritage is often used to promote the place and create a unique image. The marketing builds either entirely on the heritage resources or heritage plays a secondary role besides other forms of tourism, e.g. nature-based or sports tourism (Timothy 2011, pp. 276–278). To enhance the promotion of heritage tourism, partnership and packaging is considered crucial. Packaging different kinds of heritage and non-heritage products widens up which target groups are attracted (Silberberg 1995, p. 364). Furthermore, individual attractions put effort into marketing themselves out of several reasons. Besides increasing the visitation numbers and therefore revenues, e.g. from entrance fees, the marketing is motivated by the need to build up public awareness and create positive attitudes towards the heritage site in order to strengthen acceptance and support for conservation measures and justify public funding support. However, the same financial constraints are also limiting marketing opportunities and the measures need to be evaluated carefully (Timothy 2011, pp. 279–280).

As described above, heritage mangers are diverse on Gotland and come from the public, private and voluntary sector. The tourism marketing is described as a “complex situation” as it is divided and practised individually by public and private actors, while the services from the public site has been stagnant from in the last years. Most critical seen is the role of Region Gotland operating the tourist office and official tourism website but not actively promoting tourism to Gotland. This, in turn, is said to be mainly done by private actors like the ferry company Destination Gotland. No major marketing or packaging activities in regard to heritage tourism in the last years were mentioned besides the introductory notion of the importance of heritage tourism, both nature and culture, to the tourism mix and destination image. However, from 2018 to 2020 there has been a project by the Agricultural Society (Hushållningssällskapet Gotland) and supported by EU funds to enhance the packaging of tourism events and experiences on the Gotlandic countryside in general (Rural Tourism Gotland 2018). As a result, a booking platform has been established: http://goticket.se/. “It starts to grow a little bit here and a little bit there.”

Destination Gotland is perceived to have more resources and a high interest in more year- round tourism traffic and therefore more marketing activities, e.g. a new campaign is coming up presenting different aspects of the island interesting to tourists, inter alia cultural history. Furthermore, the company is packaging different kind of experiences but in the interviews it remained unclear how heritage organisations are involved in this. Nevertheless, Destination Gotland is offering them free marketing possibilities on their website “kulturens ö” (the island of culture), and marketing on board their ferries in form of brochures and digital representation is important. Besides Destination Gotland’s websites gotland.net by Gotland media is a strong platform. Furthermore, gute.info was mentioned and the website of a local newspaper (Hela Gotland) for their event platform.

From the tourists’ perspectives, these actors could complement each other but also lead to confusion. Collaboration between the actors seems lacking as “everyone is doing their thing”. This could be one of the reasons why an interviewee said it is actually difficult to be seen. “During the summer, it’s so much that happens so you nearly disappear in all the marketing.” A lack of visibility besides all these platforms is actually threatening, in particular for small heritage organisations. Small museums would need to cooperate and market themselves together in order to attract more people. In general, a potential to use culture and history more

28 for the marketing is recognised as it could create the necessary interest in the communication to get (potential) visitor attention.

Characteristics of on-site information and interpretation. Presentation and interpretation of heritage sites has early on been recognised as a vital factor in its management for a sustainable tourism development to balance tourism and conservation interests (Grimwade and Carter 2000; Millar 1989; Moscardo 1996). Interpretation should explain a site’s significance and meaning, it can help to direct the visitors focus on under- recognised parts and away from over-used areas (Grimwade and Carter 2000, pp. 43–44), and create awareness of conservation needs (Millar 1989, p. 9). Furthermore, interpretation is vital to ensure the quality of the visitor experience (Moscardo 1996). However, there is a need to create clear responsibilities and secure competences (Grimwade and Carter 2000, p. 44).

“There [is] information to be found but it's depending on you as a tourist to find the information.” In regard to the information offer on site, the interviewees showed awareness that it is crucial to convey knowledge about the place and in turn enhances the visitors’ experience. Good stories and information was said to make people appreciate and remember a place in a better way. “If the tourists know about the place the experience is bigger and they are more happy about it.” However, a need for more and better information was mentioned and there is disarray about who is responsible to provide on-side information on an overarching level, i.e. who is to take care of the countless smaller sights like prehistoric remnants. The County has been mentioned by all interviewees but with varying degree of certainty about their actual accountability and how they decide on places to be signed.

“If you go to a nature reserve there's usually information […] and I think also most of the prehistoric remnants and all that. I think there is. I mean [t] can probably get better as well, I mean it's probably something that can be developed. Länsstyrelsen, they usually have quite big sort of information about what to do, what you're not supposed to do and also about the nature reserve. [For other sites] I think it should be, or is it […] maybe the museum is more responsible for those things, not sure.” The board is said to work closely with Gotlands museum in order to compile and publishing information in different materials and forms. Yet, a development into more commercial and visible products is missing. It seems to depend on the tourists to actually find the information.

“We have relied in very many cases on Länsstyrelsen. […] I don't really know if they have the responsibility but […] they've been putting up the signs and have had money to search for information and to develop different kinds of folders and leaflets and books” Interpretation should be conservation-oriented but at the same time enhance accessibility and understanding from a tourism perspective, neither reinforce a “tourism mono-culture” nor the museumization of heritage places (Loulanski and Loulanski 2011, p. 845). That is why conflicts between tourism needs and conservation can arise and priorities need to be ordered (Millar 1989, p. 11). While not discussed in any depth, this conflict could be seen aside other discussions. While well conserved heritage site possess unique characters which attracts tourist through there authentic environment and involves them in the history, local heritage associations sometimes tend be stuck in “the old heritage idea”. Also with the World Heritage conflicts can arise between the preservation and the development in order to make it accessible to tourism. All stakeholders’ interests need to be balanced.

In general, the presentation needs to be educating and entertaining at the same time, and can be done via various media (Millar 1989, p. 14). As heritage depends on the story told about it, there are trends towards creating narrative and subjective experiences (Park 2013, p. 2). Personal stories, myths and legends are important elements to create immersive environments (Kempiak et al. 2017, p. 384). In addition, there is a growing interest in new technology enhancing the visitor experience and learning (Timothy 2018, p. 179).

Storytelling was mentioned as one tool to improve the way information is mediated. This should not only include marketing materials and information boards but a larger concept needs to be applied in order to create a unique environment. If people come to a place like a small museum or old farm yard they should “come in and experience an environment where they know that someone has lived there” and efforts should be made to “make the place come alive for visitors in different ways”. This could be through telling the stories of people connected to the place, dress-ups, the food and goods in the café and shop, exhibitions and guided tours. With the help and knowledge of a guide more aspects of the place can be made visible, e.g. in areas where historic remnants are enclosed by nature. Moreover, digital tools, like VR experiences and audio apps could help to enhance the on-site experience and give in- depth information and necessary explanations. There was common interest among local associations in education and the implementation of an app designed by another heritage federation; however, that app is not in use anymore. In addition, concerns were mentioned that these tools “should not take the focus away from the environment one wants to show.” 30

Moreover, not everyone is using technological devices so that all information still needs to be available and sites kept accessible in an analogue way to not exclude any visitor groups.

Transportation as a hinder. Prideaux (2002) has based his argumentation for heritage visitor attractions in rural areas on the problematic that in order to visit places in remote locations often high investments both in time and travel fares are necessary. Furthermore, supporting tourism infrastructure might not be available in close proximity. Yet, these impediments could be overcome using heritage attractions as pull factors encouraging travels to the destination.

During the interviews, transportation has been considered in two regards reflecting the constraints of investment and reaching necessary infrastructure: one, as a barrier to travel to Gotland, and second, as an issue while staying on the island. The need to take a ferry or flight makes it not only more expansive but also more inconvenient to come to Gotland compared to other Swedish regions which are all accessible by car. Furthermore, there is a need to have a car on Gotland in order to be able to take oneself around effortlessly outside Visby. Visitors are already asking how to get around without a car and more potential to encouraging visitors to give up on coming by car or renting one is seen to enhance the sustainability of travels. However, this is currently, even in summer with intensified public transportation by bus, not viable as a convenient alternative as the bus system is conceived for commuter travel mainly to and from Visby. To get to heritage sites, often an additional walk or renting a bike is necessary. Nevertheless, there are already promotion activities by the tourist office in place and ideas about new products packaging transportation and heritage developing.

The Medieval Week as best-practise and other events. Interviewee 4:“I would say [the Medieval Week] has matured and it's a very good example of how heritage tourism could develop.” The Medieval Week on Gotland is one of the biggest events during summer, and certainly the biggest heritage event, taking place in Visby annually for more than 30 years. Born out of the idea to connect Swedes again to their local heritage during the 1980's (Medeltidsveckan på Gotland AB n.d.b), the medieval week has become a “paradise for all who like jousting, markets, church concerts, street theatre, fire shows, storytelling, walks, lectures and more” with more than 500 events in one week, attracting 40’000 visitors (Medeltidsveckan på Gotland AB n.d.a). Interviewees described that the Week has seen different phases of development to become the event it is now attracting history enthusiasts, families as well as

31 more casually interested and could therefore serve in some regards as a best practise example. There have been collaborations implemented to include the countryside into the event with special attractions at smaller museums, as well as projects to work with sustainability more generally, social aspects to make everyone feel safe and garbage pickups. Another initiative was aimed to attracted more younger people, e.g. through more affordable accommodation on a festival camp ground.

Many other heritage related events are rather small, organised by local associations, and mainly during summer. They are one the one hand connecting locals, tourists and people living at their summer houses. On the other hand, they are facing the issue of visibility, mentioned above, due to the higher number of happenings during main season. Another challenge is the economic aspect and how organisers themselves can earn money from the event. This has even for the Medieval Week, which was introduced more than 30 years ago and continued to grow ever since, been challenging. Nevertheless, interviewees saw a great potential for more events related to other historical periods to strengthen tourism outside the main season and to attract visitors to the countryside:

Interviewee 2“We could have a week for each and every [historic period] like the 18 hundred century. […] You have a lot of people who like that period and are making garbs and dresses from that period. And we have a lot from that time in Visby but also out in the countryside.” Not only during the time of the event but even in between events more tourists might be attracted to come and organisations could open up earlier or close later during the year. Though, ideas for new events should come from different actors and experts on the theme. Furthermore, other companies need to support the event initially and in the long term as growth is slow in the beginning – and that’s crucially, I think, that when you’re starting new events that others must support them.” Collaborations between hotels, transportation and the public site are vital to provide the necessary infrastructure in order to take care of the guests.

Future development – tourism strategy: collaboration, seasonality, sustainability. As mentioned introductory, Region Gotland has brought forward a new tourism with the vision to make Gotland “Northern Europe’s most sustainable and attractive tourism destination 2027” (Region Gotland 2019b, p. 8). The implementation takes place on project basis focusing on the three different thematic tourism areas of which nature and culture tourism includes heritage. Yet, the three areas can complement each other and experiences in the respective projects are exchanged. Furthermore, the thematic tourism is developed in

32 consultation with other focus areas of the strategy such as the delineation of sub-destinations. Here, thematic tourism such as a focus on heritage elements could serve as a distinguishing feature for a smaller geographic area on Gotland. There has already been a project on northern Gotland where a potential for heritage tourism was identified but at the same time there is a need for a local information centre as well as better transportation opportunities to improve accessibility and attractiveness of heritage sites in the north. The nature and culture tourism project was just about to start when conducting the interviews and as the Region wants to enhance stakeholder involvement, a horizontal perspective is applied. This means that a variety of actors are approached to take part in the project and the Region does not impose any ideas on them but development potentials are thought to come up from within the actors.

The horizontal perspective is strongly connected to mentioned issues of collaboration between stakeholders on Gotland in a wider tourism setting. Generally, a longing for better collaboration is perceived within the tourism industry. For heritage tourism specifically, challenges concern the fragmentation and number of small actors.

Interviewee 4: “It has always been easier to work with the hotels, and restaurants, and travel companies” Collaboration is said to work better between commercial actors – (bigger) hotels, restaurants, the transportation industry, and travel operators – while small actors are not well included and only contacted sporadically. Those relationships in place are often of administrative nature, e.g. heritage sites and the County are meeting but mainly to discuss immediate funding needs. “They have their dialog meetings but they are not for real, as I see it now.” However, the nature and culture tourism project aims to lift up small and idealistic organisation. Collaboration could be better “in small meetings, that they have more trust in each other” and can furthermore grow from talking about current concerns to actual development and future issues, as well as sustainability.

Other restrictions to better collaboration result out of the high pressure during the main season – actors do not feel able to implement and follow up on common projects during that time – and a lack of resources. Nevertheless, there are positive examples of collaboration found in a heritage tourism context such as the Medieval Week and the cultural heritage advisor connecting Region Gotland with local organisations and creating new networks. Events are perceived to have more potential to implement collaborative structures, also in regard to commonly work against seasonality.

The seasonality results mainly out of the high share of Swedish tourists many of whom are families. Traditionally it is the “summer on Gotland” attracting people and due to the holiday structure in Sweden, the largest share of travels take place in only a few weeks during summer Beyond those six to eight weeks visitor groups are seen as limited to pensioners only in the Swedish market which are two few. Therefore, tourists from abroad are perceived as an opportunity to be attracted in the shoulder seasons, i.e. during spring but particularly also for the autumn. As mentioned above, international tourists are less interested in coming to Gotland for a bathing holiday but show higher awareness of the historic and cultural characteristics and are looking for less crowded experiences. Heritage tourism is perceived as playing an important role here. Nevertheless, the surrounding infrastructure needs to be provided and in order to take better care of the tourist already coming outside main season and to attract more. There is a need for new experiences suitable year around. Heritage can be developed and packaged together with other areas like food tourism. Nature and culture together should be made more accessible, e.g. through specific marketing material and signed routes. Better information offers such as digital solutions and brochures at heritage sites help to keep them experience-able even though they are not staffed, and as mentioned, events are seen as a remedy.

While collaboration and seasonality pose more general sustainability challenges, no major challenges where seen in regards to heritage tourism specifically. Many areas were discussed integral to other topics above such social sustainability in terms of pressure for residents because of tourism activities and social benefits through a strengthened local identity and community involvement, and economic sustainability. De facto, when asked about what benefits heritage tourism brings a monetary view was adapted first by some interviews stating that “most of the money is within transportation and hotels” and it is challenging to change this structure. Other interviewees focused more on culture and heritage, seeing them as complementary to social, environmental and economic sustainability and connecting these three areas, strengthening each of them. Increased considerate tourism and strengthened local identity can contribute to environmental awareness and but also improved local economics like tax flows and income creation as a second aim generating a spiral to then supporting the culture and heritage sector again.

Interviewee 1:“I think cultural heritage is just a concept that is quite sustainable. You show something that you do not change. We do not build new things, but we work with what we have.” On an applied level, cultural heritage attractions are perceived to be intrinsically sustainable as existing resources are used to create attractive environments. No additional resources are used and at the same time the visitors are offered unique experiences. This concept can be added on by expending the heritage concept to additional offers at the heritage site like food and souvenirs linking it on the one hand to the thematic area but on the other hand also using local resources and adapting sustainability principles like ecolabels and fair production.

2.4. Discussion transitioning towards Nature Culture As can be seen from the preceding discussion, characteristic traits of the heritage tourism on Gotland are quite manifold and spreading into general issues of tourism development, community involvement, stakeholder collaboration, and different dimensions of sustainability. However, even though I tried to ask very open questions, not introducing any theoretical concepts in the interviews, or taking up statements made by previous respondents, they discussed the above thematic areas in quite similar ways. The most striking element for me was the similar introductory and emphasised statements of the importance of natural and cultural heritage together in the general tourism offer of the island. Only few conflicting views could be identified; the most distinctive one being the different weight put on heritage as visitors’ motivation – whether there are “pure” heritage tourists as special interest tourists and what role heritage plays for visitors’ perceptions, recommendations and reasons to return. The following statement summarises both aspects:

“We don't use [the potential of heritage] as much as we should, because the tourist organisations don't see it so much. But then when you see at what tourists say about Gotland it's culture, it's history, it's nature. […] the main reason [to come to Gotland] is the culture and the nature and often the mix.” Different views of the importance of heritage tourism and the perceived insufficient weight of heritage in the island’s tourism potential should, of course, be seen in relation to interviewees’ positions and professional backgrounds and might (partially) be explained by these. Nonetheless, some of the emerging discussions demonstrate this discord further: One the one hand, there is a lack of coherent marketing of the heritage potentials during the last years and unclear responsibilities for on-site management. One the other hand, there is a high rate of return visitors for the Medieval Week, the recognised potentials to attract more international

35 tourists by focusing on heritage tourism, and the omnipresence of heritage in tourism activities on the island affecting arguably all tourists’ experience.

However, a development can be seen, not least because of the positioning of nature and culture as one of the focus areas for thematic tourism in the current tourism strategy. Hence, a lot of work is going on or about to start like the respective project in nature and culture, or to enhance the profile of sub-destinations. They will focus on many of the above mentioned challenges such as enhancing collaboration, reduce seasonality, and the development of new products. Having said that, there appears to be a predominantly economic motivation behind the tourism development and strategy on Gotland1 also reflected in interview statements: projects aim to create new ideas, frame heritage as sellable offers, information should be “productualised”.

I can see a concern here regarding discussions of commercialisation of heritage and the idealistic values of many actors. While the strategy and projects are based on a horizontal approach and it was made clear that ideas and their realisation should come from the roots, at the same time a lack of research and knowledge on what the strength and weaknesses of the current offers are and what tourists value were mentioned. While there is a supporting report for the tourism strategy shortly introducing the assets and attributes (tillgångar och egenskaper) of the local natural as well as cultural offers (Underlag till regional besöksnäringsstrategi för Gotland – Region Gotland 2019a, pp. 6–8), no visitor surveys were conducted the last years and a cohesive array of heritage sites seems lacking.

I argue that it would be beneficial to evaluate beforehand which weight heritage already plays in visitors’ motivation and their image of Gotland to build upon. Furthermore, the existing offers should be evaluated to identify intrinsic values and potential as well as how sites (and heritage managers) can learn from each other. Therefore, I decided to focus in my case study analysis to look into how nature and culture relate in a tourism setting, more specifically at heritage sites. As many of the challenges and potential mentioned in the analysis above can be linked to the nature culture theme, I will summarise the most important aspects in this regard:

History, built heritage and meeting the local people are central elements of the cultural heritage tourism which is combined by most tourists with other leisure activities, experiencing

1 This might be a very strong statement without further explanation, yet, I decided not to go into much more detail. I based the statement partly on remarks made by interviewees (see above on different initial reactions to sustainability dimensions) and partly on the way the tourism strategy is constructed and formulated. 36 the local cuisine, events, and enjoying the natural environment. The natural realities of Gotland in terms of natural diversity and climate – one of the sunniest places in Sweden (Region Gotland 2017, p. 5) – can reinforce the importance of sun and bathing tourism for the island. Still, the weight of nature in the tourism mix was very present as well when discussing heritage motivated tourism, and heritage sites more specifically. From the number and diversity of protected reserves, to cultural landscapes – traditional meadows, fishing villages, abundant limestone quarries – and prehistoric remnants hidden in nature, they all show a close linkage of natural and cultural heritage.

Within the cultural heritage, the medieval theme has a protruding position with the Medieval Week as an event of international relevance and annually returning visitors and Visby as UNESCO World Heritage site attracting first time visitors, often dominating the marketing material and image. On the other hand, the natural beauty, particularly the rauk beaches get lifted. However, specific heritage related marketing activities are lacking. A stronger emphasis on the combination of nature and culture could be placed in both, promotional material and in interpretation on site. Responsibility to declare nature reserves could clearly be assigned to the County while their role to care for the numerous smaller heritage sites remained unclear. Various actors like local museums and heritage associations often need external support to develop valuable material appealing to tourists.

However, developing and packaging nature and culture together can lead to more diversified products appealing to broad target groups and different visitor motivations. In addition, higher quality offers and better accessibility – both physically (transportation, path, trails, signage) and cognitive (information, stories) – could help to overcome traveling constraints. The spreading of tourists to less popular sites due to their natural and cultural appeal can also help to reduce crowding, e.g. also linked to cruise tourism. Though, pressures on the community need to be taken into account, especially problems of wear and tear – who is paying for the maintenance of general infrastructure – and disturbance of residents.

There are already some small event organised by local associations attracting second-home owners and other tourists combining nature with cultural traditions, like celebrations in the traditional meadows, which are seen as potential new products. Prolonging the season with other events could help to keep businesses open; still, accessible attractions are needed in complementation. Finally, sustainability communication and a sustainable use of heritage

37 sites can be enforced through a combined use and interpretation of natural and cultural resources at heritage sites building upon the perception of heritage as intrinsically sustainable.

To further validate these points made, I will explore them in the context of two heritage attraction case studies. Through the focus of drawing connections between nature and culture and how they function together, I hope to contribute to the knowledge about the current heritage offer as well as its sustainable development in a more integral way.

3 HERITAGESCAPES

3.1. Theory: Nature and Culture – Landscapes in Tourism and Heritage The presence of an attractive natural environment together with rich cultural heritage is seen as a favourable precondition for tourism development in rural areas (Svensson 2009, p. 546). In addition, many regions want to draw on a rising demand for more authentic tourism and therefore use their natural and cultural capital as potentials for economic and socio-cultural change (Jansen-Verbeke 2008, p. 133). However, often there is a divide when talking about heritage tourism solely focusing on cultural elements and excluding the natural assets. Moreover, tourism activities themselves are categorised as either nature und culture based. However, in reality this separation cannot hold true as all cultural sites are in some way moulded by the environment, and all natural sites are influenced by cultural activities (Timothy 2011, pp. 475–476). He comments on the lack of intersection on natural and cultural experiences in the tourism environment as following:

“There is a tendency […] to conceive of a heritage experience simply as visiting a built or living cultural attraction, clearly distinguishable from its natural surrounds. Likewise, nature-based experiences are typically seen […] as taking place in the outdoors, usually in the wilderness, devoid of any cultural features to distract from nature.” (Timothy 2011, p. 476)

The divide between nature and culture. To understand why there is such a dichotomy within tourism, I first want to look at why nature and culture at large are perceived differently. Lowenthal (2005) argues that even though natural elements have been profoundly reshaped by human interaction the natural environment is still often perceived as pristine and untouched, superior to human alteration and therefore quite distinct from cultural heritage. There are common characteristics in the emergence of concepts for the protection of natural and cultural assets: both are non- renewable and limited in supply, threatened by the same forces of human development and innovation, have therefore similar needs and are protected for similar arguments by similar sponsors. However, fundamental differences can explain the divide between approaches to conceptualise and protect nature and culture:

With cultural heritage Lowenthal focuses on man-made works, antiquities, human relicts (2005, p. 82). Those, so Lowenthal, are mainly protected for their aesthetic values, but also to save resources and energy and to generate tourism revenues (2005, p. 87). Influences by other cultures seem to nourish their perceived value. The emphasis lies on the individual assets

39 which can be ascribed a capitalistic value and moved from its place of origin, but cannot be replaced or interchanged with each other but. Yet, conservation aims to extend their lifetime indefinitely. Most people identify more easily with cultural assets than with nature which is why culture can often evoke local support. Human interaction is common and requisite (Lowenthal 2005, pp. 86–90).

Lowenthal then argues that nature, on the contrast, is perceived as essentially other to us, something of the past and the present equally (2005, p. 86). It is in many cases dependent on the support of voices from the outside. Natural elements cannot be moved and need to be protected on site. The focus hereby is on natural elements as groups, species and eco-systems not individual plants or animals. The death and replacement of individual components is therefore normal. However, influences from the outside are perceived as damaging as nature should be pure, even foreign plants and animals are seen as a threating change rather than enrichment. The protection of natural assets seeks economic and environmental benefits through the function of nature as life-supporting system. While human intervention is ubiquitous, often unavoidable and necessary, as we depend on the use of natural resources, it is still perceived as a wrong and tried to be hidden (Lowenthal 2005, pp. 86–90).

In researching the key functions of heritage sites, Pungas-Kohv (2015) looks at how natural, cultural, tangible, and intangible heritage are sustained and maintained. She identifies a divide between the protective function of maintenance which limits the use of heritage elements to only “looking at”, while substance enhances the possibilities to keep heritage alive through actively engaging with. In between lay many tourism experiences of consuming heritage, “jumping into” it for a certain period of time. While natural heritage can function as long as the ecological form is protected, this emphasises a maintenance approach and a focus on nature conservation whereby an active consumption is seen as threatening. On the other hand, cultural and intangible heritage seems to profit to a large extent from the use and sustenance. Consequently, natural heritage is often looked at and learned about from a distance while cultural heritage and intangible knowledge is learned about through engagement and can therefore provide a more affective and engaging visitor experience (Pungas-Kohv 2015).

On the other hand, natural and cultural heritage are indivisible. When studying the history of humanity, fields of nature and culture merge (Lowenthal 2005, p. 85). Indeed, the protection of built heritage components without taking into account their spatial and visible context could lead to a loss of information and meaning (Mosler 2009, p. 26). Conservational attempts 40 for both, natural and cultural heritage, often arose simultaneously and in complementation, e.g. in the realm of industrialisation, (Lowenthal 2005, p. 84). Overall, there is an intrinsic dependence of nature and culture heritage on each other: as tangible cultural heritage could only emerge through the change of natural resources (Lowenthal 2005, p. 90) and bounded areas for nature protection are the outcome of cultural processes (Timothy 2011, p. 476).

The bond between the two also gets very clear in a tourism context: as stated by Timothy tourism activities are often assigned to one category – nature-based or culture-oriented (2011, pp. 475–476), while these travel motivations in fact merge (Lowenthal 2005, p. 82). Partly, tourists focus on either natural or cultural heritage, stressing the divide, but increasingly, they are looking for more encompassing experiences (Pungas-Kohv 2015, p. 29). Natural and cultural resources appeal very much in the same way as “refuges from the everyday world” (Lowenthal 2005, p. 82). This is enforced by the change in visitor expectations towards more authentic and experience-oriented products (Jansen-Verbeke 2008, p. 133; Timothy 2018, p. 179), and the rise in demand for more ordinary heritage experiences. Consequently, especially rural landscapes are being increasingly romanticised (Jansen-Verbeke 2008, p. 127), as they combine ordinary heritage, living culture, natural appeal, with the feeling of escaping the chaotic urban lives (Timothy 2011, pp. 356–357).

Landscapes approaches in tourism and heritage sites. Having said this, I want to look more into the concept of landscapes in tourism and at individual heritage sites. Contemporary tourism has often reduced a landscape to its appeal as scenery, as a setting and resource for tourism activities (Jansen-Verbeke 2008, p. 126). However, in a more integrative perspective, landscapes form the link of nature and culture. It can conceptualise the land-use of an area and concerned with the ecological protection but also to understand human-environment interactions shaping the landscape. Therefore, a multi- disciplinary approach can be applied to landscape studies, including ecological and social sciences and seeking for enhanced human and environmental well-being (Gobster and Xiang 2012, p. 220). This perspective allows exploring how human interaction has formed our surrounding (Woodward and Oswald 2017, p. 128).

Tourism can be one of the driving force behind these changes in the environment and landscape use (Jansen-Verbeke 2008). In seek for the revalorisation of rural areas through tourism landscapes are, partly irreversible, reshaped for and through tourism activities (Jansen-Verbeke 2008, pp. 126–128). Thereby, cultural capitals are developed for tourism 41 activities against the backdrop of the “the beauty and harmony of [the] scenic landscapes”, which can lead in addition to the economic benefits to improved management of natural resources and increased awareness of both, natural and cultural resources within the community (Jansen-Verbeke 2008, p. 133), creating an area where culture and its natural environment bring each other into being (Jansen-Verbeke 2008, p. 126).

Also from a heritage management perspective, the landscape approach has been applied to heritage sites. Most prominently has been the focus of the cultural landscape concept within the UNESCO World Heritage framework during the 1990s to address the structural gap between natural and cultural heritage categories (Rössler 2006, pp. 333–334). Within the UNESCO framework cultural landscapes get protected as sites presenting the “outstanding value of the interaction between people and their environment” in three distinct categories (Rössler 2006, p. 334). This made people aware that heritage sites should always been seen within their ecological system and against the backdrop of their cultural linkages which was an “evolution in protected area thinking and heritage conservation as a whole” (Rössler 2006, p. 340). It influenced not only World Heritage but heritage concepts on many other levels and caused a shift on the one hand from the protection of “natural sites and national parks without people to designated natural heritage sites in a landscape context” and on the other hand recognising links of people and communities to their landscapes (Rössler 2006, p. 334).

However, as I do not want to look at heritage sites specifically classified as cultural landscapes but the crossover of nature and culture at heritage sites in general I draw from Garden’s (2004) more encompassing approach of heritagescapes applicable to all heritage sites. Using her concept of “describing and thinking about those specific landscapes that make up a heritage site” has a variety of beneficial contributions looking upon natural and cultural elements in a heritage site context.

To begin with, it open ups to a variety of disciplines to be considered in researching and managing these spaces. It extends on the idea of heritage sites as specific places also looking at underlying cultural structures and ideas from natural as well as cultural landscape studies (Garden 2006, p. 409) and landscape archaeology (Garden 2010, p. 271). Thereby can planning objectives be improved taking more perspectives and interests into account (Mosler 2009, p. 29).

The qualities of heritagescapes to create a sense of place and past. Furthermore, in the effort of persuading (potential) visitors of their significance, heritage attractions need to live up to subjective perceptions. In order to differentiate themselves, they need to create a unique image and evoke emotions in which environmental stimuli within and outside the heritage site play a vital role (Bonn et al. 2016, p. 346). The research of heritagescapes can accompany both aspects while giving attention to the qualities of a heritage site to create a sense of place and past and how visitors are enabled to step back in time through the entire landscape:

One, Garden argues “all heritage sites are landscapes”, and with that she is able to draw the attention towards the importance of the setting of the heritage site in the larger environment (2010, p. 271). Other studies have been focusing on either visitor perceptions or material components solely, failing to acknowledge the multiple functions of heritage sites and the role of the landscape shaping these. Considering heritage sites as heritagescapes bridges this divide (Garden 2010, p. 272). The landscape approach, however, underlines that a heritage site is “more than the sum of its physical components” and not “restricted to the physical limits of the place” (Garden 2006, p. 398). This gives attention to the fact that as part of a wider landscape one should also consider the view one has of the surrounding environment as it is a part of the general visitor perception (Firth 2011, p. 54; Garden 2006, p. 399). While a convenient location and scenery affect the visitor experience positively, a “sterile” environment without personality affects the atmosphere negatively and has an unappealing effect, so do pollution and distracting objects in the view (Firth 2011, pp. 54–56).

Second, the analysis of the elements at the heritage sites goes beyond the designated heritage object but also takes ordinary and omnipresent components into account which are often part of the necessary (tourism) infrastructure, e.g. fences, carparks, toilets, as they are vital to the sites functionality as a heritage attraction (Garden 2010, p. 277). While they are necessary for an improved visitor experience (Firth 2011, p. 56) by offering more diversity, encouraging exploration but also supporting conservation motivations and protecting sites (Mosler 2009, p. 28), it is often difficult to integrate them into the visitors’ experience of the “landscape of ‘the past’” (Garden 2010, p. 277).

The qualities of heritagescapes to create affective experiences. By applying Burlingame’s TRIOLE model (forthcoming) one can explore the material, symbolic and affective dimensions of the heritagescape instead of remaining on primarily

43 visible and tangible components. It therewith offers an opportunity to explore the many layers of a landscape and its qualities in creating an emotive experience, but also possible weaknesses (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 240). There are three aspects I want to highlight way this is important: Firstly, site managers should be aware of visitors’ different motivations coming to a site (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 62). Seemingly standardized experiences of heritage sites could discourage certain visitor groups from ever visiting for the first time as they do not feel the heritage sites would meet their interests (Burlingame 2019, p. 6). On the other hand, built up expectations from online and other marketing material are then tested at the heritage site and could create a mismatch with visitor motivations (Burlingame 2019, p. 15), as people visiting a site perceive, interact and experience with a site differently, depending on what their prior knowledge is (Garden 2006, p. 396).

Secondly, there has been a shift in consumption of heritage and landscapes from a visual to performative and bodily experience (Pungas-Kohv 2015, p. 30). Tourists increasingly want to “get off the beaten track” and pursue own interests, experience different emotions (Burlingame 2019, p. 17). It is the involvement of multiple senses that create the feeling of present in the heritage site (Burlingame 2019, p. 6). This can be seen in the diverse activities visitors to heritage sites actually exercise besides the informational aspect: from sitting in the sun, drinking tea socialising with friend to using the built heritage as a backdrop for improvised plays and own explorations for new paths and hidden areas (Light 2015, p. 151). Therefore, it is important to consider all the different elements in the landscape involving people actively (Burlingame 2019, p. 6), as well as how the different activities produce different levels of feeling presence in the heritage site – reading a brochure might give a sense of place, taking a walk through the landscapes enhances this, picking berries really involves the visitor with all senses (Pungas-Kohv 2015, p. 22). Also Burlingame has describes this needs for hands-on experience and a desire to exploring more areas (Burlingame 2019, p. 16). Describing own sensory experiences in cultural landscapes, the vital role of natural elements is uncovered (Burlingame 2019, pp. 12–13).

However, there are different needs of different visitors one should keep in mind to ensure each’s emotional encounter (Burlingame 2019, p. 6). For one, there might be practical barriers like a need to be able to walk (a lot) (Burlingame 2019, p. 16), or where and how people can access information, e.g. because of language barriers (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 150). Moreover, visitors need to have lived experience and multisensory interpretation in order to

44 get a sense of the meaning of the heritage, while expert knowledge and a lack of story hinder the understanding (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 110). Therefore, visitors should be guided how to engage with the site and different senses, e.g. through signs, interpretation material, and staff (guided tours, enactments) (Burlingame 2019, p. 15).

Thirdly, Burlingame pays attention to the possibility of heritagescapes to create "a sense of respect, stewardship and belonging" through sensory and emotional experiences (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 76). Based on Moscardo’s (1996) model of mindful visitors she describes the possibility and need to make visitors aware of underlying long-term damages caused by tourism or meanings which tourist might not see or understand. However, if they can connect to the landscape and people they might be more likely to feel protective towards the host area which could create actual benefits on a larger scale (Burlingame forthcoming, pp. 62–64). An important role in this has the interpretation on site (Moscardo 1996; cited in Burlingame forthcoming, pp. 65–66).

I want to mention three other studies using Garden’s heritagescape concept as they influenced my research: Pungas-Kohv (2015), like mentioned above, focuses on key functions of heritage management and identifies the divide between learning about and maintaining natural heritage from a distance while cultural and intangible heritage are experienced multisensory and learned from through sustenance (Pungas-Kohv 2015, p. 73). Mosler (2009) remains like Garden on the visual analysis in order to argue for better protection of the landscape surrounding archaeological heritage sites. She concludes that “visual attractiveness and recreation play a distinct role in shaping cultural landscapes” (Mosler 2009, p. 43). The multidimensionality of natural and cultural resources gives the landscape “distinctiveness, meaning, and quality” which is why these components should play an important role in landscape planning and incorporating conservation in a larger context (Mosler 2009, p. 44). However, the landscape does not need to be untouched, supporting infrastructure is enhancing visitor experiences and accounts for sustainable conservation (Mosler 2009, p. 28). Woodward and Oswald (2017) even argue that interpretation in heritagescapes is crucial for both to enhance visitor experience and management objectives. They look at an industrial heritage in a national park, concluding that interpretation adds value to the cultural experience as well as “protecting and promoting engagement with the natural heritage” (Woodward and Oswald 2017, p. 141).

With the next chapter I want to outline how these different studies and approaches influence my research, and how I used them to look at and analyse how natural and cultural elements relate in heritage site on Gotland.

3.2. Data Description and Analytical Framework To not remain on the visual aspects of the heritagescape concepts I am using Burlingame’s TRIOLE model as guiding principle and to organise the data collection. I can connect practical management questions with the emotional visitor experience of the landscape (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 6). Furthermore, physical attributes of the place (mainly described under locale), can be connected with the site as a cultural construct (linking mainly to story and presence). Overall, I include considerations of seasonality in all themes, as there can be different uses at different times of the year (Pungas-Kohv 2015, p. 19).

While I have described the data collection process by researching secondary resources and site visits with primary embodied, but also participatory methods above, I now want to describe what information I looked for and how to use it to fill the three themes with content. The focus is always with on the natural and cultural elements and how they related in the heritagescape shaping an affective visitor experience, a sense of place and past. As case studies tend to become complex because of the richness in possible information to be gathered (Beeton 2004, p. 64) I developed some guiding questions for each theme. They are based on the theoretical background and analysis of the interviews given above. It is important for me to emphasise that these are just guiding questions and I am not aiming to answer them definitely, or for all case studies. I first describe each theme and relate it to other concepts relevant for my research before listing the guiding questions.

Locale – which natural and cultural elements make up the heritagescape? The theme of local takes predominantly material elements into account. It observes the physical environment such as location, topographical features and natural environment, historically built and added features within the site itself and its panorama. Moreover, one can look at different paths, marked and shaped by tourists’ movements aside (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 130). An important influence to the sense of place has whether there are natural or human induced boundaries of the site or if the visitor has to decide themselves where the site begins/ends (Pungas-Kohv 2015, p. 19), which is why I look into how Garden analysed demarcations defining the site in a geographical way, including entrance areas, fences, maps and signs, but also the perceived boundaries (Garden 2010, p. 275). But I also 46 want to explore how the geographical dimension and heritage elements within the site are linked through material components, such as walking trails and sign posts, and which view one has from the larger environment in which the site is located (Garden 2006, p. 399). As an issue mentioned in the interviews, I also look at how one can reach the site (transportation), as well as how the site is accessible for people with different physical abilities and which supporting (tourism) infrastructure is supplied.

 Where is the site? What is close to it?  What makes up the boundaries, for the natural and cultural site?  How is the heritage formally protected, by whom? What are the rules for protection?  What are the natural and cultural heritage elements?  Physical accessibility regarding transportation and different visitors’ needs to and in the site.  What are the different paths to natural and cultural heritage? How are they signed? Are there unexplored paths or areas?  What kind of other touristic/supporting infrastructure is there?  What is outside the natural and cultural heritage site; is there a view?  What are the temporal boundaries of the place, i.e. seasonal differences?

Story – what is told about the natural and cultural heritage? The story covers “how the history of the site has been interpreted and how it is then presented to visitors” (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 150) and covers therefore the symbolic dimension. Again I pay attention to Garden’s guiding principle and especially the cohesion to identify which stories serve as linking elements (Garden 2006, p. 399) between nature and culture. Therefore I look at online and offline sources tourists would search for and also paid special attention to visual material, i.e. pictures published as marketing material but also by visitors. Moreover, I take different visitor needs into account, e.g. language requirements, and where and when stores are told.

 What is being said about the nature, the culture? o online: own website, social media, touristic website, review platforms o offline: guidebooks, flyer o on site: focus of interpretation material  What pictures are being used by the site management, other information sources, posted by visitors online?  Who is telling which story?  When are the stories told (pre-visit, entrance, inside)? Is there a seasonal dependency?  Is something left out, hidden (off /on site)?  How is the story linking different heritage aspects and objects?  Is there a specific group of visitors targeted with the story?  Cognitive accessibility considering location, amount, quality of interpretation material, also if it is available in different languages, for different needs? 47

 What is the focus on? Has there been a change/shift?

Presence – is it nature or culture or the combination that affects people? “[The] study of presence recognizes the unique way in which people interact with and are affected by the spaces and objects around them” (Burlingame 2019, p. 4). It reflects the affective dimension of heritagescapes which is often overlooked when examining landscapes (Burlingame 2019, p. 3). Consequently, I want to know whether it is nature, culture or the combination that affects people at the heritage sites. More, if visitor expectations are met, as one outcome of Burlingame’s research is that the marketing and resulting expectations of the heritage site influence the feeling of presence (Burlingame 2019, p. 15). Furthermore, it is the multisensory activities, active involvement, that create the sense of past (Burlingame 2019, p. 6). However, tourists often need guiding to really engage with their different senses and the site beyond the obvious components (e.g. heritage objects and main paths) (Burlingame 2019, pp. 15–16). As I could not observe visitors nor engage more with site managers, I look into what kind of activities are emphasised (before the visit and on site) as they give a good indication of whether there is a focus on nature or culture or whether they are complementing each other in in engaging different senses. Stemming from Garden, I paid attention to infrastructure elements and the way they interfere or enhance the sense of place and past (Garden 2006, p. 399) and whether they are pointing towards either nature or culture.

 What kind of activities are emphasised? At what time?  Where do different paths lead to, with what feeling?  Is the infrastructure supporting or distracting?  Are there interactive offers with staff/multi-media?  Are there any offers focusing on education?  What senses are involved? Which senses dominate the atmosphere, what senses focus interpretation material on?  Is a sense of belonging/stewardship/mindfulness created towards, nature, culture, both?  Which expectations are built up about the nature and the culture? Are they met?  Is there an attempt to convey intangible heritage?

Analysis. To structure the analysis of the case studies as heritagescape, I make again use of Garden and Burlingame. On the one hand, different heritagescapes can be compared with each other. I therefore want to return to the question how natural and cultural elements let the visitor “step” back into the past – can the heritage site create emotional uniqueness through its landscape setting and how are nature and culture integrated with the infrastructure. Moreover, I want to know how nature and culture interfere or create synergies in creating an affective visitor 48 experience, i.e. do they meet visitors’ expectations and can they support different visitor motivations, activities and needs. What role does accessibility (physical and cognitive) have, and are there seasonal differences?

Furthermore, the principles in the heritagescape methodology can be comparable across case studies. Therefore, I will set the locale, story, and presence of the two case studies against each other to explore the role of nature and culture and their relationship in each, i.e. explore whether one is more in the foreground and/or how they support each other. This includes also an analysis of the perception of nature and culture and how we learn about each.

Finally, I analyse the relation of nature and culture related to the above mentioned divide. I look into Lowenthal’s (2005) discussion about the treatment and perception of the both as well as their role in a tourism context.

3.3. Two Heritagescapes on Gotland

Norrbys culture reserve.

Locale. Norrbys culture reserve is Gotland’s first and only culture reserve established in 2002. This was preceded by death of the last owner of the farm in 1995 who bequeath the farm and land to the association “Gotlands fornvänner” (Gotlands Museum n.d.a), an idealistic, non-profit organisation who initiated Gotlands museum and aims to “gather and disseminate knowledge about the county's natural and cultural heritage and works to defend, care for, use and make it accessible to everyone” (Gotlands Museum n.d.c). The about 30 hectares big areal is still owned by them and the farmstead has been turned into a museums farm (museigård) managed by Gotlands museum (Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län n.d.a). The culture reserve has been declared by Gotland’s County Administrative Board after the buildings were designated as historic monuments in 2001 (Gotlands Museum n.d.a). “The aim is to preserve and demonstrate farming from the 1930s-1950s, a period where an equilibrium still existed between what the soil gave and what it received [and] to revive the memory of this type of farm, and breathe life into and epoch from just a few generations back” (on the County’s information sign on site). The outstanding cultural value is given by the intact farm environment preserved in time from the mid-20th century. This also includes the natural environment characterised by hundreds of years of farming, with a high biodiversity in different ecosystems, e.g. forests, meadows, and the mill pond. A prehistoric remnant has

49 been marked on the maps as well but no further information is given. A museum farmer helps to sustain this environment (Gotlands Media AB 4/22/2019). Furthermore, the County has set some restrictions within the reserves border, e.g. not to camp, make fire, park and drive motor vehicles outside designated areas, or damage live or dead plants, damage, kill, or collect animals (Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län n.d.a).

Norrbys is located approximately 25km south of Visby in the parish of Väte. A brown traffic sign indicating its touristic value marks the turn where one leaves the main road connecting Visby and the village of Hemse and drives for about 1km on a minor road until the entrance of the museums farm becomes visible. The carpark is located to the right of the entrance after following the road a few more meters. There are several bike stands and it is also possible to get there by bus. The bus stop is located just at the turn from the main to the minor road, consequently one would walk for about a kilometre on that road passing a couple of small neighbouring farms. However, the bus leaves Visby only in the afternoon, the return trip/trip from the south only leaves in the morning (twice a day during summer time, three times off- season, Monday to Friday only) (Wesley 2020). Following the road another couple of hundred meters to the end one would reach Bäcks nature reserve bordering Norrbys. However, on site there is no information about the connection or road signs indicating the way.

Figure 2: Map over Norrbys culture reserve; (Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län n.d.a).

The entrance to the reserve and museum from the road is marked by the County’s information board about the reserve, complemented by the seasonal opening times and contact information to Gotlands museum. The old gate is open and one walks through an old approach with ash 50 trees to both sides for some meters, passing the chicken house before standing in the courtyard. There one finds again the same information board than at the entrance. The approach is part of the 18th century road leading through the farmstead. The farm itself consists out of several buildings. Coming from the entrance after the approach, there are the former chicken, sheep and cow house, as well as smithy and carpenter’s workshop on the right hand site. The first building to the left in the courtyard is the old granary which is now the café, shop and also hosts an exhibition about the history of the farm. Behind the granary lies the main farmhouse which’s interior has been preserved from the 1940s, followed by the former brewery and farmer’s hand’s cottage, outdoor lavatory, and pigsty. Furthermore, one can find Gotland’s oldest water mill located at the pond behind the animal houses. The farm environment is intact and preserved from the mid-20th century and even the mill is used once a year by the local heritage association to produce flour which is then sold in the museum shop. The Swedish National Bee Keeper’s Association has installed a display window about bee keeping and the produced honey is sold as well.

There is a walking path in place leading around the mill pond and through the larger culture reserve. This nature and culture trail has been installed in 2015 after a three years project by Gotlands museum and the County. It aims to make the nature and culture at Norrbys more accessible. The project included the clearance of the path from vegetation and placement of information signs. The trail is marked by small wooden discs on trees (or fences) and sometimes directions are supported by small arrows (paper in plastic cover). Around the pond it was easy to follow, as the path was either well-trodden or free cut from grass. In other parts with more forest and smaller paths to the sides, we sometimes got a bit lost and ended up between bushes before finding the trail again. Other ways seemed to be linked to farming activities leading into fields, or a smaller walking path disappearing after a while. The connecting trails to the neighbouring nature reserved found on other maps (Hejdstöm 2018, p. 51) are not indicated on site. As the path is mainly leading through forest and meadow areas, it is not suitable to explore with prams, wheelchairs or any major walking disabilities. There are some wooden planks across wet areas, however, after more rain, the path might be very muddy in greater parts. Interpretation material and information given will be discussed under the next theme “story”.

On the walk, there are small markers indicating the border of the nature reserve. There are several viewpoints focusing on the farm, e.g. across the pond onto the farm’s houses or from

51 approaches towards the courtyard, or leading the view onto the fields when leaving on the 18th century road. The garden around the farmhouse and fields are still in use. Furthermore, the area merges into its rural surrounding with other farms, fields and forests around.

Overall, the museum tries to make the areal accessible year-round and for different target groups. To explore on your own and during museum opening times there is a special focus on families with different farm related activities described below. There is a wheelchair adjusted toilet at the café and on the farmstead one can move around in a wheelchair (and prams). However, neither the trail nor the main house is accessible for these. There is one bench close to the mill with a view on to the pond, mill and farmstead but no other benches or picnic tables as the café was closed. More pit toilets can be found at the carpark.

The museum, including café and shop, opens only during the high season weeks of the Swedish summer holidays, which would be from the 22nd of June to the 6th of August in 2020. There is no information yet, if and how these opening times could be affected by the covid-19 outbreak and consequential restrictions, such as the closure of Gotlands museum’s main museum. Entrance fee to the museum is 60 SEK for adults. However, as described, the areal is open for visitors to take themselves around year-round with help of the nature trail and even some of the buildings are open to explore (brewery and farmer’s hand’s cottage, outdoor lavatory, pigsty, smithy) or can be looked into through a window. Guided tours can be booked through Gotlands museum year-round as well.

Story What is told about Norrbys has a clear focus on the preserved mid-20th century farm atmosphere and as a family museum. The tourist information describes it as follows on the Swedish site "Experience a unique 1940s environment! Pigs, chickens, rabbits and lambs. Garden café" (Turistbyrån Gotland n.d.b); and on the English: "Norrbys Museigård is a farm museum that shows how life was lived on a farm during the 1940s" (Turistbyrån Gotland n.d.c). Marketing material emphasises on Norrbys as a place to travel back in time, to explore a not-so-long ago history, and to forget about current days stress. This is enhanced by pictures of the farmstead with dressed-up staff and images of the interior of the farmhouse. There is a clear focus on families as target groups in both texts – “experience how your grandparents or their parents might have lived” (Hejdstöm 2018, p. 50) – and pictures – often depicting children playing.

On site, the County’s general information board is very present as it found next to the entrance gate and again in the courtyard. Both signs are considerably new and in good shape. Information is in Swedish and English next to each other under the maps. It highlights the purpose as a culture reserve to preserve the historical elements and way of farming, as well as to make the environment open for experience. It furthermore describes the development of the farm through history, with a special focus on the last owners in the mid-20th century, three siblings thanks to whom the environment got shaped and preserved like it is today. It then mentions the buildings and about half a sentence about most of them regarding their history. The museum exhibition in the granary above the café was closed but is supposed to describe “in text and illustrations, with help of archive documents and old photographs, […] the history of the farm. It is about life at Norrbys and the people who have lived here.”

The beehive window display, the only interpretation material not given by the County or Gotlands museum, talks about the history and meaning of bee farming, different kinds of bees, and how beekeeping/farming works. There are five A4 sized signs with pictures and text in Swedish on the display, and one each with a translation into English and German.

Surprisingly for me was that there was no interpretation material on the different farm buildings as they seemed to be the clear focus of the culture reserve (historic memorials) and interpretation of the museum. Thus, there was one exception: The farmer’s hand’s cottage was one of the open buildings. It has a timeline naming the people working on the farm in the entrance, in the room there was a bed, clothes, and some other inventory to display but especially for children to play with – and an A4 paper describing the farmer’s helper’s live during the 19th century, as well as their general role in society and family living. The information is only given in Swedish. It describes the helpers’ job not as a lower position but something many did before becoming farmers themselves on an own farm: “A large proportion of the population worked as farmer’s helpers during some part of their lives. Many came from peasant families and would eventually become farmers or wives to peasants.” That also the farmer’s helpers’ story was displayed was not so clear to me from off-site sources but many of the kids activities are actually connected to this as key to historic farming live.

Most important for the story told on site, especially when visiting out of season, is arguably the nature and culture trail. It explains the natural environment from a farming perspective but gives also information about the biodiversity (different animals and plants found especially around the pond) but also environmental threats like the Chalara Dieback of ashes. Cultural 53 elements include traditional farming methods, and the historic use of water power on Gotland and the water mill at Norrbys. There should be an information brochure available at the information board in the courtyard, however, the box was empty on both my site visits and the path is not described online, e.g. in a brochure to download, neither depicted in any maps on site. Furthermore, the museum’s website points out to the possibility to use an app but from the interview I had it became clear that the app is not in use anymore and no information on site can be found. The information signs on the trail are out of metal and most are in a very good shape. The texts are in Swedish and English next to each other, and some show pictures supporting their message. However, the font size is quite small and text can be difficult to understand for non-native English or Swedish speakers as the vocabulary or sentence structure can be quite complex: “There was once a distinct dividing line between infields, which compromised valuable enclosed pastures, meadows and fields, and the more inferior outlying land – forestland – where most grazing livestock had to make the most of what was on offer during the summer”(information sign “Silviculture” on the nature and culture trail). Overall, all on-site material is very fact based. All the interpretation material on site tries to explain the links between the nature and culture of farming whereby engaging storytelling about the museum and reserve found in many marketing material/websites is missing. The only personal reference frequently made was towards of Edvin, one of the last owners: “He was keenly interested in forestry and trees. He planted quite a number of exotic trees, mainly conifers, which can be found scattered in the forest.” or when describing who built what “[…] records in 1793. The present mill was, however, built as late as 1921 by the last owners, the Johansson family. It replaced an older building […]” (information signs on the trail).

Visiting while the museum is closed therefore mainly gives static information about the natural environment of the farm. While the focus during the season seems to be more on telling the story of farming people with an interesting mix of the last siblings living there – about whom there is not much more information than the names and personal interests during the off-season – and the farmer’s helpers.

Some information linked to natural heritage found online was not included in on-site information. For one, there was a story that the gold fish population in the mill pond became too large. To prevent spreading of gold fishes into close by water systems the pond needed to be drained for a couple of years. Furthermore, the Gotlandic apple clone archive is supposed

54 to be located at Norrbys since 2014 aiming to preserve different kinds of Gotlandic apples. Maybe, more information could be found when the museum is open.

Presence As said before, families are a main target group. Activities like dress-ups as farmer’s helpers and getting a suitable name, doing the laundry, watching insects, and interacting with the animals who life at the farm during the season reflect their interests. Events like baking days are complementing the offer (Turistbyrån Gotland n.d.a).

“Those who work in the summer wear clothes inspired by the 40s. And we have sandwiches and cakes that we know people ate in the 1940s and you can still eat it but there are no cupcakes and no feta cheese and no mozzarella, but it's sandwiches with ordinary liver paste, cheese and sausage and which you ate the” (from one of the interviews). Overall, the clear aim is to take visitors back to the 1940s which according to some online reviews seem to succeed: "An amazing experience, when the farm looks just like when the three unmarried siblings lived there and used it. […] make you believe that the siblings are just out and getting something in the kitchen.” (TripAdvisor LLC 2016). Other reviews describe the café and animals, and visitors are satisfied with their stay.

Other than visiting the museum and café, one is of course encouraged to walk the nature and cultural trail and thereby explore the area on one’s own. The museum’s website mentions an education program with Uppsala University with courses in "wooden buildings” and “the restoration process" (träbyggnader, restaureringsprocessen) looking at natural materials from the forest but also indoor restauration (Gotlands Museum n.d.b). I did not see anything about other educational visits. The general guided tours during the season last about 45min and take the visitor inside the main house, explaining the culture reserve and the life of the people living there last.

My own experience started with getting out of the car at the carpark hearing cows mooing and children screaming – the neighbouring farm was realising the cows and calves from the stable for the season outside, a big family event. The information boards besides the entry gave an introduction of what to expect, the gate standing invitingly open. So even though we were the only people there it did not feel like we were intruding anyone’s property. The approach of the old road towards the houses was taking us into the special environment. We quickly decided to do the trail first, however, a little disappointed by the missing brochure. We started our walk from the animal’s house and around the pond. There was a small sign marking it as the start, so we opened the gate between the animal houses onto a meadow where the sheep 55 greeted us friendly. Wooden poles were indicating points of interest and in some cases a belonging information board. A little confused why the first information sign was number 15 but generally without doubt following the path, we enjoyed the sun and an idyllic walk around the pond and through the forest. Right at the sign about different birds living at the water a goose came out of the bank grass with her young ones swimming out onto the pond. We started to really pay attention to different plants and the way they grow, discussing these.

Passing the water mill we came back to the courtyard and found sign post number 1, number 2 was visible leading us out of the courtyard again towards the fields and the other side of the culture reserve. As we had never seen as map of the trail and therefore did not have any idea where we were “supposed” to go, the mixed numbering of sign posts we passed by seemed confusing. The sense of exploring turned slightly into frustration for me after getting lost a couple of times between trees and bushes. I wanted to follow the information about what to see but not all number poles had a belonging sign – probably something more was explained in the brochure we did not get. The lack of orientation and what elements to focus on made us feel like the trail was just prolonged without any other purpose than walking the environment.

The information signs we found were often not very engaging because of the high focus on facts and lack of storytelling. Therefore, I often just skimmed them in the first place (when not paying attention for research). Sometimes it felt like we have already walked past an area which was then explained in more detail on the next sign, enhancing the sense of not taking the right path, and information given seemed quite similar for a few areas as they did not really engage with the environment. The actually very simple, “pure” descriptions of species (picture, name, characteristics) sometimes got more attention than signs explaining more. For one, it might have been because of the amount of text, for the other I sometimes could neither understand the Swedish nor English version. Looking at mentioned trees, the geese appearing outside the grass behind the sign or talking about which insects are more annoying was then more engaging. On the other hand, a picture could support the interest to explore a little more to find the spot from which it was taken, e.g. to see the small quarry where the picture made clear that it was actually still there and visible even though not spectacular.

Another positive example was the sign about the approach and the disease threating the ashes: “You are now standing in the remains of the old approach to the farmhouse on the former main country road to Visby”, gave me a real sense of place, something majestic and of the importance of this old path and trees to both sides leading out of the courtyard. It made me 56 look closer into their meaning as winter fodder and as a former entrance area as described by the sign. And even though the text about that disease affecting the trees was quite complex it gave me the feeling of need for protection as the consequences could be seen on trees falling apart right to my side. Later, we passed some bark trees in the forest clearly damaged by the bark beetle. However, it did not evoke the same feeling.

Back at the farm, I started to look into the buildings through the windows as there was a lack of interpretation material but I wanted to know what they were about. Especially the café looked like it could open any minute – and host guests from the 1940s. Initially, when coming to the smithy without a visible look on it, a friend did not “dare to open" but eventually tried – and we could step in. Later we got more "courageous", and it was fun to test and try which buildings could be opened and explore what we would find inside, taking things into our hands even what clearly was supposed to be for children’s activities. The farmer’s hand’s cottage with the clothes, name tags, and equipment for playing fishing, cooking, and wool washing would most probably even outside the season invite children to stay and play with. Through guided activities during the season, intangible cultural heritage could be convey, e.g. traditional techniques. Afterwards, the beehive display by the Swedish beekeepers association caught my attention even though it did not have any bees in there.

Finally, what I as a student from abroad find unusual for a Swedish visitor attraction is the lack of benches and picnic tables. There was no place where we could have the bun we brought with us so we ended up sitting on a tree trunk on the carpark looking at the modern farm opposites the culture reserve with the pond in our back, only behind some trees. However, the general experience was positive and enjoyable: “so calmly, I am rarely out” – maybe the closed museum did not take us right back to the 1940s but certainly out of our thesis stress and town life.

Torsburgen

Locale. Torsburgen nature reserve was established in 1994 and extends to a size of 160 hectares. Most of it is an extensive inland cliff which was once used as a hill fort. The nature reserve was established after an extensive forest fire in 1992 which destroyed large parts of the forest covering the area but gave way to a diverse range of species nourishing from the scorched ground (Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län n.d.b). The cliffs and plateau surface was formed more than 10’000 years ago by the Baltic Sea (Jutehammar et al. 2017, p. 116). The plateau, 1km in 57 diameter, is nowadays 71m above sea level. The characteristic drops in the west, north and east are between 10 and 25m high. There are several caves in the northwest slope (Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län n.d.b). This barrier of the cliff severed as a natural defence when the area was used as a refuge or fortress during late Iron Age and Viking times. In the south, the fortress is demarcated by a rampart – 2km long, up to 7m high and at the base between 10- 25m wide. It is one of the Nordic largest hill forts (Enderborg n.d.). However, the nature reserve has been established because of the high biodiversity resulting out of forest fires and because of the diverse soil types ranging from rock and pebble areas, thin layers of soil, and forest to a mire with a thick layer of peat. Several endangered, endemic plants can be found here. As a nature reserve, damaging the ground, rock, trees, camping, picking or digging plants, collecting insects, spiders, shells, or snails, as well as driving off-road is prohibited. There are no restrictions in access to the area at different times of the year (Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län n.d.b).

Figure 3: Map of Torsburgen nature reserve; (Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län n.d.b). Torsburgen is located in the southeast of Gotland, approximately 45km from Visby (Östergarnslandet). From the road leading towards Katthammarsvik the turn is marked with a white sign indicating a nature reserve leading onto a gravel road for the next 3km. On the way one passes Hajdeby, a small farm and tourist accommodation with a cultural trail focusing on Iron Age remnants. To the southeast Torsburgen is bordering the nature reserve of

Herrgårdsklint which also was a hill fort once and accommodates prehistoric remnants. At the turn onto the gravel road there is a bus stop. The bus connecting Visby with this side of the island runs four to five times daily year-round, only the weekends are less frequented outside summer season (Wesley 2020). However, this information is not given on any of the information platforms.

There are two different carparks, one in the north were the cliff is and one at the south directly at the rampart. At each carpark there are pit toilets, but they are quite old. It is still taken care of them as one finds paper and hand sanitiser during the summer months but they are not “inviting” which made us rather go into the forest. The signs about the nature reserve include the restrictions and a map of the area indicating walking paths and sights such as the castle, the rampart, the Linné and Berglädu caves, as well as Torsburgen’s mire. These and other signs are discussed in their content under Story.

Already, from the road towards the southern carpark the wall is clearly visible as high stacked stones, a quite impressive view. When walking on the inside however, the wall is overgrown and looks more like a long hill. There are paths on the inside, and outside of the wall as well as on top. The northern carpark is a couple of meters away from the cliff. Walking up, one passes an erected stone plate, which could be mistaken for a picture stone considering the connection of the place to Viking times. However, the stone which shows some signs of an engraving of a name must be much younger than that – no information about it can be found. Up at the plateau there is a view tower – a slim, probably 20m high metal construction which was used for military purposes before (Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län 2019, p. 2). The ladder is very steep so it is a climb up and not suitable for people afraid of heights or when it is slippery due to rain. From the view tower one can see over the surrounding area and the sea, the land is characterised by forest and church towers, in the far distance one can also see the island’s limestone factory. However, the parapet at the platform is very robust and high so that people under 1.7m body height have difficulties to see anything.

The north-eastern part of the cliff has several caves. Berglädu is the deepest one going in 16m. Yet, more prominent is the Linné cave (named after the Swedish biologist) as it is made accessible by a metal ladder going down from the cliff. It is easy to walk for most people, and then one can walk a few meters into the cave. More attracting is, however, the look from below up through the rocks. Between the Linné cave and where the rampart starts in the south there is a viewpoint with bench onto a close by mire. After, towards the south, the cliff gets 59 lower and the rampart begins. At first it might not even be recognisable as such as it is overgrown even with trees. However, when it gets higher there soon is another entrance to the area where it is possible to get a first look from “outside”. Later the plant cover becomes less and the rampart higher with some paths leading up onto it.

The centre and western half has been shaped by forest fires and later storms with fallen trees and still signs of scorched ground but blends in into the landscape as forest and more plain areas change. There is no designated path leading to the mire of the nature reserve. In the north-western corner there are the remains of the castle – a few meters of stacked stones, roughly a meter high as a wall demarcating a small area from the rest of the plateau. At the cliff there is another viewpoint over Östergarnslandet, especially the neighbouring nature reserves, with a bench. Again, the impression of the built remains depends on the site from which one approaches the area. From the south, the small wall is clearly visibly and the path leads through an “entrance” in the wall to the viewpoint. From the north one walks along the cliff and recognises the bench first, the wall only when turning around.

Overall, a visit to the site got described with the following words: "Fascinating prehistoric settlement with good trails and nice views of the surrounding landscape" (Lindeborg 2018). The paths on the plateau are “nice tracks, easy to walk” as a friend commented – the limestone ground with a thin layer of soil keeps them dry and non-slippery. However, besides from the carpark in the south it would not be possible to access the area with any walking assistance or pram because of the steepness of the cliff. There, the entrance is at level with the parking area offering an easier access to the area. However, this difference in carparks is not indicated anywhere. The main path indicated on the map and marked at important waypoints is going around the plateau and has some connecting trails. Though, often it is not leading directly along the rampart but through the forest. Furthermore, through the crossing paths large segments lead through the forest fire areas. There are a number of more or less trodden other paths, especially along the rampart.

The old metal or plastic markers where the writing has been faded away discussed online have been replaced by new wooden signs. They are marking the entrances to the hill fort (either through the wall or up the cliff, locally called luke), sights like the Linné cave and the castle, or crossings of paths, and the directions towards the next entrance and close by sights. Otherwise, the paths leading over the plateau and indicated in the map are not marked but well-trodden. However, even for Swedish friends the use of the word luke was confusing and 60 not clear it meant an entrance to the area, as all entrances also have names, which seem rather random (e.g. Tjängvide luke is the entrance at the northern carpark, Ardre luke the southern). Furthermore, even though the plateau is relatively round in shape and clearly demarcated by the cliff or rampart sometimes it is difficult to orient oneself – to know on which part of the reserve one is and how long it takes to get to other areas, what the most direct way would be or where other paths going off here and there lead to. This resulted one time in a disappointed “we failed” exclamation when friends who set out for a walk to the castle during a climbing trip could not find it.

Story. There are three major information signs at both carparks: the County’s information boards about the nature reserve in general as well as hill forts on Gotland and in Östergarnslandet, and an information sign describing the visit of Carl von Linné in 1741 put up by the County, Gotlands museum and EU funds. They all seem quite old and are in parts difficult to read as they are bleached from the sun and damaged by water coming under the protection. All signs are in Swedish and English. Though, the English translation is sometimes on the back of the information board so that one would stand in the bushes, or set aside so that it might be overlooked; one friend was commenting “I don’t understand anything” and thereby not seeing the English version.

On and off site, explanations about Torsburgen cover mainly two perspectives – the geological formation which then leads to the use as hill fort with the cliff and rampart as protection, and the forest fire and biodiversity. There seems to be higher focus on natural elements than the cultural heritage. This is also reflected by the pictures showing cliffs, wall, fire area or special plants and animals. The castle area is nearly left out of all descriptions or pictures as there have not been done any major excavations and therefore knowledge is scarce. But also the forest fire leading to Torsburgen’s protection is only shortly mentioned with its immediate consequences and directions to the area, not more used, e.g. for educational purposes.

The biodiversity is often described in consequence of the 1992 fire destroying most of the conifer forest but giving way to otherwise seldom plants, insects and fungi. However, they often only get mentioned as existing but not further explained. Furthermore, there is a mire in the southern part of the reserve where a floating mat has begun to grow. On site, the County’s information board about the nature reserve is the main source of information also showing

61 pictures of five of the mentioned plants: ragwort, scorpion senna, the Gotlandic pasqueflower, royal mint, and red forest lily. At a minor entrance to the reserve in the west there is a sign about the rikkärr or källmyr, a rich fen which is a special type of mire, located just outside the reserve. The sign, put up by the County and the project to protect endangered species (Åtgärdsprogram för hotade arter), is only in Swedish and quite new (first or second year it has been there maybe). It explains how this type of mire forms, what species it can hosts and the measurements taken by the board to restore this mire bordering Torsburgen nature reserve.

What is said about the cultural heritage at Torsburgen is mainly linked to its function as a hill fort in general. The general information about the nature reserve on site does not mention any historic uses. However, there is another sign by the County as well explaining about hill forts on Gotland in general and in Östergarnslandet more specifically, namely Torsburgen, Herrgårdsklint and Grogarnsberget. There have been only limited excavations at Torsburgen but the rampart is best researched. The hill fort has probably served defence purposes and part of a larger fire signal system with other hill forts in the surrounding. Torsburgen could also have served as a refuge for the population of Gotland, however, no traces of buildings inside have been found. It was mentioned in the Gutasaga – the creation story of Gotland, written down first in the 13th century – as the place where one third of the Gotlandic population tried to flee as they were banned from the island due to overpopulation.

This description reflect most texts about the historic use of Torsburgen and which is why it got listed with other Viking sites on a thematic oriented subpages of the tourist information. There, it is described as the "best prehistoric fortification in the Nordic region" (Turistbyrån Gotland n.d.e). Another “praising” can be found on guteinfo.com – a Swedish marketing portal for Gotland, with a strong focus on history: “The giant of giants among ancient fortresses in Sweden, perhaps intended for the entire population of Gotland” (Enderborg n.d.). The site explains about the nature reserve, caves, and names the castle but the rampart was the most worth seeing. There is also a short discourse about the name Torsburgen – which might be connected to the Nordic god Thor (Tor in Swedish) and the possibility that it was “his” fortress (Enderborg n.d.). The connection is also made by an additional sign found at the southern carpark I want to mention in more detail:

The sign is not with the other directly at the carpark but behind the entrance in the rampart on a separate board. Friends just went past. When I asked them why, they answered: “I saw it but why is it not with all the other ones? I already looked at four signs why should I look at 62 that!?” The board looks very new, maybe it is only the first year it has been there and bears “The Blue Shield” emblem indicating the protection of Torsburgen under the Hague Convention. Bothe sites of the board are accessible but only the “backside” coming from the carpark has a sign on it published by the County. Even that side does not have much content. The text is only in Swedish and very small in font size. The timeline indicates the Iron Age (500BC to 1050AC), as well as the beginnings of the 20th and 21th century. The first three illustrations display people in the fort lightening the signal fire. The fourth illustrations shows a view on several fortresses with fires from above and then wraps to an illustration of a modern battlefield, probably referring to the 2nd World War. The text explains in a very simple language the use of Torsburgen has a hill fort and that it still helps to protect Gotland as “the military has radio towers and defence structures left here”. However, it does not explain more what this should mean and the presence of military on or close to Torsburgen has not been mentioned anywhere else, besides that the view tower was once an air reconnaissance tower.

Figure 4: Information sign about the hill fort at Torsburgen, Gotland County Administrative Board, on site. The last paragraph is then referring to the Nordic god Thor who was supposed to life in a chasm in the cliff and died at the foot of the hill: “Where, we do not know. Do you?” Overall, the story described here tries to be somewhat more involving and easy to grasp with short, simple text, rhetoric questions and supporting illustrations, however, it left us being more confused. 63

As can be seen, most explanations online, in guide books and on information signs on site are very much fact based. The most vivid one is the sing belonging to a Linné trail following his journey on Gotland in 1741 and repeating his words. It was initiated in 2007 by the County and Gotlands museum, supported by EU funds. The relating website Linnégotland2007.se however cannot be accessed anymore. He described the cliffs of Torsburgen as “so steep that no creature except a man could climb it” and refers to the rampart in the south: “If this were a fortress […] I cannot see how it could be captured”, and comments about the biodiversity: “Even if 20 botanists had claimed that this shrub grew wild in Sweden, I would not have believed them, had I not seen it myself.”

Finally, on one of the information boards there is a translation of what seems to be an older version of the County’s sign about the nature reserve in German. Other than the signs found now, it informs more about the geological history and formation of the area, a part of the history otherwise left out. Moreover, it explains the view from the castle area onto the neighbouring reserve of Herrgårdsklint and the mire there, as well not mentioned anywhere else and an information I thought was missing when standing there with a great view.

Presence. The praising as the Nordics largest hill fort or even “the giant of giants among ancient fortresses” (Enderborg n.d.) is opposed by the large natural area in which the remnants of the rampart and the castle recede under vegetation if not paid attention towards. Visitor opinions about the hill fort are divided but highlight the role of the nature: "Anyone who suspects a fortress and looks for its remains is wrong, but impressive in landscape and good to walk" (Blauermel 2019). "Fascinating prehistoric settlement with good trails and nice views of the surrounding landscape" (Lindeborg 2018). Therefore, the Swedish description of Torsburgen by the tourist office summarises the experience and main activities quite well: “You can walk along the paths that pass through the reserve and enjoy the beautiful view from the cliff edge” (Turistbyrån Gotland n.d.d).

I experienced Torsburgen in general and the climb onto the view tower quite differently in different seasons and depending on how much knowledge I had about the place. The first time I visited Torsburgen was in January 2019. It was a cold day, with permanent slight snow and rain fall. Coming up from the northern carpark onto the plateau the view tower stood isolated in the mist, with its slim metal construct somewhat alien to the surrounding and as from a different time. Then, I did not know it actually was a remnant from military activities. No

64 more explanations were given and as it was not closed off we made our way up the steep, slippery stairs. The platform felt save but the parapet is so high I can hardly look over it. Furthermore the mist was thick and the view ended in the close by forest. My brother and I went to see the remnants but where quite disenchanted by the remains of the castle where the signed path took us – we missed that the rampart in the south was the main attraction. He summarised the trip simply with the words “tower and grey weather, not such much left of the castle” when I asked him for his experience.

I return to Torsburgen a couple of months later on a sunny day for some rock climbing. Then the tower was inviting us to go up and get a sense of the surrounding. The air was clear, the land lay wide, and the sea glinted in the sun. A feeling of awe and curiosity came up. We were exploring the island from above, a different perspective on the usual flat Gotland were the only view most often is out onto the sea. From the tower one could see far inland as well as onto the sea. We got a sense of how great the look must have been also from the cliffs when the forest was less during the use as a hill fort and what a great strategic position it was. But again, there was a misunderstanding when we wanted to set out for a walk due to the similar descriptions of the entire plateau as a hill fort or castle demarcated by the natural cliff and the rampart in the south and the area in the northeast called the castle (slottet, in this sense a special Gotlandic use of the word for a fortification2). The castle area itself is easy to recognise when coming from the south seeing the remnants of the wall but less from the north. Overall, the bench and sign as well as the view off the cliff are more prominent than the remnants. This is also due to a lack of information given on-site. While the view leads onto the neighbouring reserve of Herrgårdsklint and an impressive mire, this is not mentioned anywhere either and I did not recognise the connection (and beauty) the first two visits.

As said before, the main paths are indicated on a map and signed at crossings. Several more, smaller trails in and around the plateau can be found as well. However, this can lead to confusion and a feeling of missing a place and frustrated returns as described above. Expectations about being lead to clear signs of prehistoric buildings might be created and then disappointed as the remnants partly merge with the environment. The most outstanding views of the wall from the road to the southern carpark or trails leading along the rampart for longer distances are not included in the signed path. Similarly the mire in the reserve is excluded from many visits as it is hardly accessible.

2 Jutehammar et al. 2017, p. 303 65

The last time I went to Torsburgen for this research was to just take some more pictures. However, it was that visit when I really got immersed and attached to the nature. The sound of the birds, the smell of early summer, the warmth of the sun – a feeling of summer holidays filled me. On the other hand, it was the strangeness and diversity of nature which now seemed so much more visible and affective after I have engaged so much with the site in my thesis. The scorched remains of trees damaged during fires nearly 30 years ago, in a strange contrast to the colours of early summer and new life of the forest coming back. Sometimes I could even find trees which actually survived and came back to life. Walking through these areas which were hit most severe by the fires, a passing visitor commented “this looks like after a war”. Yet, I was also on the search for the best view of the rampart, the other cave (Berglädu) and crossed the more thick forest in the southern part. Even though I was quite hungry I wondered if I could find the Torsburgen mire. It felt like something closed off, not included in the standard visit as there is no clear path to it. But because of the mires around and the emphasis on the biodiversity of those ecosystems my curiosity was worked up. Overall, I enjoyed exploring the parts off the beaten track, wanted to “see it all”, know more about the nature, and capture everything with my camera to take home the memories.

Online, one finds many pictures of families having a picnic and there are several picnic tables available. We often just sat down on the ground at any sunny spot or up at the view tower where the parapet protects from the wind. So climbing the view tower certainly is another popular activity. However, having a fire or barbeque is not allowed. Furthermore, people come to Torsburgen for rock climbing, bird watching, horse riding and because of an interest for the plants and insects. Schools can go for educational trips with the staff from the County administrations to learn about the nature and culture, i.e. the cliff, hill fort, and fire area, but also about the Swedish right of common (allemansrätten) (Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län 11/22/2018). However, there are no guided tours or other packaged products/excursions leading to Torsburgen.

While spending time at Torsburgen for rock climbing, I could see different groups of people engaged in different activities. Children love to play in the caves, elderly people walk the less steep parts and many people come to walk with the dog. Rock climbers value the area for the solid cliffs otherwise rare on Gotland. However, while exploring for new routes, the protection as a natural reserve recedes and traces of the use of the area below the cliffs beyond

66 walking tracks can be seen, e.g. cut bushes and moved small tree trunks. Certainly, there sometimes is a lack of considerations of the damages done to the natural environment.

This was somewhat different with the cultural heritage. When we were walking along and up on the rampart, one friend was voicing her concerns towards the fragility of the monument when we passed an area where stones had fallen off: “Should we go on walking on here!? I don’t want to cause another collapse.” There appeared to be a feeling of stewardship and protection. But when later talking about the walk to others it also became clear that the rampart is quite difficult to grasp in its historic meaning and function: “It was a nice walk. And there is a wall. It looks quite natural from the inside but from the out you see it’s plied up.” The location of information signs might contribute to this, as the rampart is quite difficult to recognise in the beginning when coming from other parts of the plateau along the edge (as opposed to the clear view at the southern carpark). It also does not get explained at the closest entrance of the reserve where some other signs can be found. Likewise, we had passed the Linné cave just before and took a quick look but did not really engage further as there was no information available.

There are preliminary plans to develop a hiking trail connecting Torsburgen with the two neighbouring nature reserves in the south Herrgårdsklint and Russvätar. Such a trail would be about 10km long and “run through spectacular natural and cultural landscapes” as there are more remnants at Herrgårdsklint (Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län 2019, p. 37). However, to date there is no information on site that the two other reserves are in proximity. Likewise, the cultural trail at the farm on the road to and from Torsburgen is not included anywhere even though it is covering prehistoric remnants from the late Iron Age as well.

3.4. Analysis of Case Studies

Analysing the heritagescapes.

Norrbys culture reserve. Norrbys aim as described by the County is “to preserve and demonstrate farming from the 1930s-1950s, […] and breathe life into and epoch from just a few generations back” (on-site information board). The main target group is presumably families. Online visitor reviews attest the success of this approach and describe satisfying visitor experiences – “Good café, animals and play. Wonderful for the whole family” (Martin 2019). Furthermore, the experience has been described as “instructive” underlining the educational message of the 67 site. Information is often times available in Swedish and English. Norrbys seems to meet the visitors expectations created by its marketing and creates a sense of place and past by offering an affective experience. But what is the role of nature and culture in this? And where are challenges?

Norrbys culture reserve is an intact farm environment. The visitors experience this in different ways through the landscape setting. For one, the paths leading into the area using the old approach and the nature and culture trail guiding visitors around are giving different idyllic views of the farmstead itself. Secondly, the museum farm and the farm land around seem to merge – often, there are no obvious fences or markers of the border where the culture reserve ends and other farms begin, fields are in use, and neighbouring farms support the perception of a still active farming environment. The farm from the 1940s does not seem foreign or alien to the place but is integrated through natural and cultural elements in the views given.

Furthermore, supporting infrastructure is widely integrated in the experience of the natural and cultural heritage. The nature and culture trail is marked by small wooden plates and wooden sign posts, otherwise through keeping the paths clear from vegetation. While this can sometimes lead to confusion, overall it is a harmonic design, encouraging for exploration, and could be supported by the provisioning of a map. While the interpretation material is often fact based and makes less use of storytelling, it sometimes succeeds to encourage exploration or a sense of presence and stewardship towards nature. The café and toilets have been integrated into the old granary. Other toilets at the carpark merge into the environment as well. The café has furthermore been integrated into the concept of creating a mid-20th century environment with a charming interior and themed offer of food. From the look through the window it seemed to have stopped in time and could open up any minute some decades back. Only the farmhouse with the farmer’s helper’s house and brewery appear somewhat closed off by its surrounding fence, a picture also often used for marketing purposes. It might support the boundary between the general culture reserve open for everyone and the part of the museum restricted to paid access during the season. While the museum is closed, however, it could be a constraint to go closer and explore the smaller buildings.

Exploring the reserve outside the season has a higher focus on exploring the nature, i.e. walk through the areal, enjoy the views, and unexpected encounters with sheep, geese and smaller animals. Also the information available focuses on the natural elements, while the functioning as a farm does not really become clear as there is only a short description at the entrance of 68 where which house is. The history is less told in one story but fragmented by mainly explaining the farm environment. Other in the summer season when there are more activities going on daily, for children and families as well as people who want to come for a coffee, and/or find out more about the farm live in the exhibition, museum, and on guided tours. By that, Norrbys can attract different target groups, from more history oriented people to the occasional visitor who wants to enjoy a stroll around in the environment – different natural and cultural factors enhance their sojourn. Furthermore, the more active farmstead during opening times offers more possibilities for people with disabilities to take part in.

Overall, the natural environment supports the atmosphere through the tranquillity of the walk, views on to and from the farm, as well as surrounding sounds, smells, and animals of the neighbouring farms. Likewise, the culture is supporting the understanding of the nature, and encourages walking around, exploring, and learning. However, there is a seasonal difference of focus and how nature and culture are experienced. While accessible year-round, the experience of nature remains largely on walking around, looking at, and the visitors own efforts to involve other senses as interpretation material focuses to convey facts. The cultural history on the other hand can be “touched” and experienced through all senses when the museum is open. Otherwise, the experience is more limited and dependent on one’s own curiosity to try and explore the farm buildings.

Torsburgen nature reserve. There is a torn focus of Torsburgen as a nature reserve on the one hand protecting biodiversity, and as a prehistoric remnant on the other hand. While the natural value becomes easily visible no matter where one starts the exploration of the reserve, the cultural significance is more hidden – literally under plant-covered remnants and in worn-out or puzzling information signs. Torsburgen offers a protected area for different outdoor activities, and clear natural boundaries, paths and views create a sense of place but not such much of the past and affective experiences. This results in mixed visitor reactions. There are several reasons for this found when looking at the natural and cultural heritage. Overall, there is a lack of cohesion.

From the “outside”, the road, one mainly sees forest. There is no clear view of the cliff or ramparts from afar. Once “inside” and on the plateau, the view is directed very much to the outside – from different viewpoints along the cliff and not least the view tower. The views contribute to the sense of place – one sees the outside, mainly forest and some modern 69 elements in contrast to the “untouched” and protected reserve. However, due to the high palate of the view tower it is difficult to really grasp the surrounding and access in general is limited to those a little more adventurous due to the physical structure. On the other hand, with some imagination and information about the use as a hill fort, one can think beyond the physical place and back into the Viking times when the view off the cliff was vital to peer for potential dangers. The view of the rampart from the southern carpark can be quite impressive as it opens up when driving onto the carpark but that requires that one goes to this and not the northern carpark which is actually a bit closer to the street. Otherwise, when seen from inside, the rampart first appears as an overgrown hill and does not offer views of its structure unless one walks on the outside or on top.

The infrastructure at Torsburgen is rather limited. There are some pit toilets but we preferred to not use them, which somehow made the remoteness clear for us and appreciate nature. Furthermore, there are some benches at view spots inviting to rest a little. The area is quite large and one can go for long walks. The markers for the trails fit into the environment and give room to explore. But sometimes there is a lack of them and signed names, e.g. Tjängvide luke, slottet, can be confusing for people not familiar with the area and language used. Overall, there are not many activities to engage and invite a casual visitor to linger. Contributing to this is also the placement and design of interpretational signs which are only found at entrances to the area but not at the actual sights, e.g. the Linné cave or the castle. The information board with the illustration about the hill fort, linked to the Hague convention tries to be more engaging and convey cultural information in a simpler way. However, again the placement seems unfavourable and the message unclear. A highlight of the stay therefore appears to be the view tower, gazing at the landscape outside.

Torsburgen is accessible year-round but as a pure outside place there is a high dependency on favourable weather for all activities. Paths up or down the cliff might be slippery and therefore more difficult to walk, likewise the ladder of the view tower. There is no real marketing of the place or any offers to purchase connecting either to natural experiences or the culture. Therefore, there is also no specific target group addressed. People rather use the place for different activities independent of each other, mainly related to the nature. Anyone interested in just taking a walk or with more special interests in either the nature or culture can find information on it. Most of it is in both Swedish and English but sometimes the translation is missing or placed inconveniently and disappears in the number of signs. For people with

70 walking disabilities, or when taking children in a pram, the northern carpark is less suitable due to the steep walk up. However, there is no clear communication of this difference. Therefore, the natural environment can be a hinder while the cultural elements – the rampart – would be accessible from a different location.

Overall, the natural and cultural heritage at Torsburgen appears divided. While it is for many experienced through the same activity – walking – natural elements seem more engaging and getting the visitors attention – looking for seldom plants, bird watching and not least the view of the surrounding landscape and the mire. Furthermore, the information is kept apart as signs focus either on the nature reserve and biodiversity or the use as a hill fort with exception of the rather small and faded sign about Linné’s visit. There are many elements presented but too fragmented also in terms of where the information is given and where one can see and experience the described. For now, about both nature and culture is talked about and therefore often learned from a distance. Though, the hill fort could be used as an interlinking element using natural and man-made defence structures. The half overgrown rampart hosts several of the mentioned plants, the experience of the castle area and view tower could be more involving if more information about the place and surrounding was provided. The story and view could enhance each other.

Analysing the themes.

Locale – formal protection, management, boundaries, infrastructure. Formally, the locale of the places seems clearly related to the cultural heritage – Norrbys – and natural heritage – Torsburgen. However, both places are protected under the Hague convention for their outstanding cultural value. The restrictions of use as a culture or nature reserve on the other hand focus solely on natural protection, e.g. not damaging tress or collecting plants and insects. Furthermore, the buildings at Norrbys are protected as historic monuments but information about that and conservation/preservation efforts on site are completely missing (at least outside museum opening times).

From a management perspective, Norrbys as a culture reserve and museum has a clear focus and agenda. All information platforms can redirect the interested visitor to Gotlands museum’s website and a clear message of the farm environment is communicated. While it is protected as a culture reserve, the natural elements of the farm environment have a high value. There are mainly seasonal differences in how nature and culture are presented, but both elements have their stage and are by and large connected to each other. The cultural heritage 71 is set into context with the natural environment, the natural heritage related to traditional farm activities. Torsburgen on the other hand appears to struggle to include the cultural elements in the protection framework of the nature reserve. It has developed over time due to the forest fire enhancing the biodiversity giving the motive to declare it a nature reserve – and happens to have cultural components. There seems to be no clear concept of how the natural and cultural heritage can be integrated, information given is divided and focuses on either or. Therefore, also information platforms communicate different perceptions of what the place is.

At both places, the boundaries of the reserves are characterised by natural and cultural elements, merging with the environment. At Torsburgen it is the round shape and delimitations by the cliffs and rampart enhanced by the paths leading through the nature and along the edges. Similarly at Norrbys, the nature and culture trail let the visitor discover the area but the reserve’s and neighbouring farm’s boundaries do not come into focus. This stresses also the importance of the landscape around and what is outside the designated cultural or natural heritage area. Especially views outside enhance the natural setting at both places, but at Norrbys it is also enhancing the cultural aspect of farming. Furthermore, there the view onto the site from paths leading into the farmstead or from across the pond have a supporting character. Secondly, the paths have an important role as they link the different natural and cultural elements. Yet, it became clear that they should be clearly signed and presented on a map to enhance visitors’ orientation and avoid feelings or even frustration of getting lost, or missing a place. Thirdly, entrance areas seem to have an effect of how the site is experienced and perceived especially on the first approach. Norrbys creates an immersive effect and coherent cultural impression by walking through on the old road with approach into the farmstead enhanced by clear signage of the area and the invitingly open gate even during off-season. At Torsburgen the various entrance areas and carparks give quite different impressions of the site with the sharp cliffs to climb in the north reaching the view tower and forest area or having impressive views of the rampart when approaching the southern carpark.

Other infrastructure affects the experience of natural and cultural heritage as well through the creation of atmosphere or giving the possibility for more activities and a prolonged stay. The café at Norrbys is well integrated into the old building and atmosphere, while the view tower at Torsburgen has a rather strange appearance and is the relict of previous military use – another historic period not talked about. However, also more basic elements such as toilet and benches, picnic tables should be considered in order to enhance the sojourn.

However, at both sites, there are opportunities to include neighbouring reserves and offers. At Norrbys, one does not get any information about the village and parish of Väte close by, its history, and whether there are any other things to see or do; at least when the museum is closed. Furthermore, online, the proximity and thematic connection to Bäcks nature reserve as another landscape shaped by farming is emphasised (Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län n.d.a). On site, this connection is not made. At Torsburgen, there would be the culture trail on a close by farm, also an accommodation, and the neighbouring reserves of Herrgårdsklint and Russvätar. They could be linked thematically and through hikes.

Story – focus of story, left out elements, storytelling, sustainability. Both sites have multiple stories to tell, and struggle with that. At Torsburgen stories about the natural and cultural heritage are seldom linked. Online, descriptions of the hill fort and especially the rampart can be quite detailed. On site, the presentation of the nature is more at the foreground. Some cultural parts are overlooked or left out such as the meaning of the castle area, the military history, or the odd erected stone close to the northern carpark. While newer signs are about both, nature and culture, there is no common concept behind them, they exclude non-Swedish speaking visitors, and the message seems in parts unclear.

At Norrbys, overall, nature and culture are connected through the farming history. However, there are differences of the focus within the museum – displaying the history of the farm and its owners – and the nature and culture trail – focusing on natural traces of farming in the landscape. This leads to seasonal differences which story is more prominent. Though, through the trail the presentation of natural heritage gets lifted, overall, the cultural background is still in the foreground. However, also here some elements are left out. For example, one cannot find anything about the apple clone archive on site, or the remnants marked on the map.

Yet, while some cultural elements appear to be excluded in the story at both reserves, I want to mention that with natural elements an exclusion is more difficult to actually recognise as they do not stand out of the landscape so much. At both heritage sites, stories remain quite fact based. Efforts to convey information more multimedia, in easier language and/or using storytelling are limited and off less success. Moreover, sustainability related ideas do not get lifted in any greater extend. At Torsburgen there could be a stronger connection made to biodiversity and the mires, at Norrbys to traditional farming techniques as described in the reserves aim.

Another challenge appears to be where to actually place information signs. At Torsburgen this has been especially clear with different viewpoints where more explanations seem to be missing to understand the view and natural environment but also about cultural elements which could complement each other, e.g. at the view tower and castle area. Overall, information can only be found at the entrance areas which leads to a missing connection between what is seen and experienced and what could be read about it. Through the nature and culture trail at Norrbys this issue is affecting the visitor experience less but for some natural elements e.g. when walking through field and forest areas, information signs referred back to an area just passed. This challenged the involvement and orientation while walking as information was missing, as well as understanding the interpretation given in hindsight.

Presence – awe and atmosphere, target groups, stewardship. At both places, a feeling of awe is created through views onto the site and from the site into the environment. The views, integrating natural and cultural elements, are therefore important to create a sense of place and presence. Furthermore, the natural environment creates different atmospheres – quiet and tranquil on spring weekends or a misty winter day. Exploring through walking is emphasised to experience the natural and cultural heritage. However, at Norrbys there are more activities to experience the culture and more senses are actively engaged also through the sounds and smells from the environment. Moreover, there are guided tours of the farm and mainly children can experience old farm work and house hold techniques, but even for others the interior of workshops to touch and the presence of animals give multisensory impressions. The offer caters to different target groups even though there are seasonal differences. Nature and culture can be discover and learnt from closer up. At Torsburgen different activities are either making use of the natural environment, e.g. rock climbing, horse riding, or engaging with it, for example bird watching. However, this is more connected to niche groups and not the casual visitor. The culture is left out of those alternatives. Consequently, the involvement of different target groups is more limited and there often is a greater distance between most visitors and both natural and cultural heritage.

From visitor observations, culture often seems more relatable and a reason or aim to go to explore. This was especially clear at Torsburgen where we either went to the castle or the rampart and one the way experienced the nature. Though, also at Norrbys the historic use of the natural environment is taken as the departing point for the trail. Furthermore, I recognised a feeling of stewardship more relating to cultural elements – should we open the museum

74 buildings or walk on the rampart – while nature did not seem to evoke the same feelings, e.g. when trying to find a way through the forest or the traces of climbing. Even at Norrbys, when the old and sick ashes evoked a feeling for protection it was through the cultural meaning as part of the approach. Later, we passed some barks affected by bark beetles, but the feeling was not the same.

Different perceptions and experience of nature and culture. In the two case studies, several of the above mentioned characteristic differences in how nature and culture are treated, perceived and consequently which experience they create can are exemplified. Torsburgen has a focus on the rich biodiversity resulting from natural processes as the forest fires and being left untouched thereafter. It is protected for its ecological importance for rare species and unique habitats. Hence, the diversity of plants and ecological niches such as the fire area but also the mire and thicker forest are at the core. The cultural elements and importance recede in the nature reserve. Human interference should be avoided, only for the restoration of the rikkärr/källmyr it is described as valuable to further enhance nature’s ability to regulate itself. Especially the fire area is a place of past and present equally with a lack of information about the historic development of the reserve.

Norrbys on the other hand is protected for its value as an intact farmstead from the mid-20th century, thus rather for aesthetic reasons as well as tourism revenues in addition to the potential to preserve the past meaning of this specific place. Furthermore, from the perspective of one interviewee, using it as a visitor attraction means to develop already available assets into attractions rather than building new, saving resources. To transmit the past meaning, interaction with the heritage such as in children activities and guided tours/enactments is emphasised. Even with the natural elements, the cultural meaning is in the foreground. The use by the farmers and individual objects are stressed such as the use of different fields, the trees of the old approach as well as the mill pond and the foreign trees planted around it. Human interaction is wanted and needed to take care of the place. It furthermore contributed to the diversity and value of the place, e.g. the special forest around the pond or the development of different kinds of apples. Negative consequences such as the threat of the spreading of the gold fishes from the pond have been largely left out.

However, the cultural meaning would get lost at both sites if taken out of their natural context, i.e. to understand Torsburgen as a hill fort the cliff and the views from there are as crucial as the fields for the and natural resources to the farm buildings of Norrbys. Moreover, both

75 places incorporate and stage also the other elements. Nature and culture contributed to the protection as reserves which recognise their outstanding value and special restrictions apply to protect the heritage. For visitors they create a sense of place and a refuge from everyday life through the tranquillity of the natural environment and the (more or less emphasised) link to the past. Nevertheless, there seems to be a great difference in the key function of the places and how Pungas-Kohv’s (2015) describes how nature and culture are sustained or maintained. At Norrbys, the immediate cultural elements are made accessible to tourists for interaction. It attracts different target groups with interactive and affective learning experiences such as children activities, the museum and guided tours, as well as the themed café and shop. The culture can be touched and one “jumps into” an experience of the past. On the other hand, the experience of nature is at both places mainly limited to walking through and “looking at” due to the environmental protection need and maintenance approach.

4 CONCLUSION

4.1. Summary of Major Findings

Major findings in regard to aim and research questions.

Characteristics of heritage tourism on Gotland. In the first part of this thesis I explored what sites, stories, actors and tourists are involved in heritage tourism on Gotland and what experts in the heritage related and general tourism develop perceive as challenges and possibilities of heritage tourism on the island. For validation, I relate the emerging themes to the heritage tourism literature. Several issues discussed in the literature where reflected in the interviewees descriptions such as how heritage tourism can be defined related to other tourism products, which sites, tourists, and stakeholders are involved. Furthermore there were more specific questions and potentials discussed. How they related to each other and especially to the importance of natural and cultural heritage was discussed in chapter 2.3; here I want to summarise “what characterises heritage tourism on Gotland from an expert’s perspective”.

Fundamental characteristics:  Both, natural and cultural heritage are important attraction factors for Gotland, and integral parts of the image of the “magical island” and tourism industry. This is also

reflected by the tourism strategy focusing on the thematic development of nature and culture tourism.  Heritage sites are very diverse ranging from prehistoric times to contemporary art, the UNESCO World Heritage site of Visby to countless remnants, museums, churches, fishing villages, meadows, beaches and other nature reserves in the countryside. Many of these show a close relation between nature and culture. However, a lack of information and/or visibility hinders the development of certain heritage themes (e.g. Viking times, pirate era)  Often, visiting heritage sites is combined with other activities at the same place and on the same holiday. Visitors’ primary motivation can be of other origin but the positively influenced by heritage elements. However, there are also people coming especially for certain heritage factors. Heritage elements can enhance the visitor experience, aim to return, and could attract more (international) visitors outside the main season.  There is a high diversity of stakeholders involved: The public site is involved in strategic tourism development, heritage management, and educational programs. Some private businesses use (cultural) heritage in their products, the strongest actor being Gotlands museum.  However, a very active non-profit, voluntary sector takes care of a “lions share” of the heritage sites – especially in the countryside by local heritage associations and small museums. Furthermore, they create meeting places for the local community and visitors.  As hosts and ambassadors, the local community is an important part in the tourism product, experience, and system. In return, tourism enhances the awareness of local identity and can help to overcome the local “blindness” to see heritage values.

Focus areas:  Regarding the community, issues like crowding – mainly linking to Visby, NIMBY- attitudes towards tourism development, and wear and tear – often linked to countryside attractions – need to be taken into account. A balance between tourism benefits and costs for individuals and local associations needs to be found.  Heritage attractions might be in a dilemma of their idealistic idea and the financial needs to conserve the place and survive themselves. A “user’s pay” principle is rarely

adapted and there is a lack of visible products creating measurable benefits for the community.  There has been a lack of strategic marketing of nature and culture, especially in relation to each other, in recent years. The “complex situation” of marketing platforms is threatening the visibility of individual offers and collaboration is lacking. To date, the medieval theme and UNESCO World heritage status as well as an image of a nature destination (e.g. rauks and beaches) are lifted.  Overall, clear responsibilities and a strategy for making especially cultural heritage accessible are missing; for natural heritage this could be more clearly assigned to the County Administrative Board. On site, storytelling, multimedia interpretation and overarching concepts to create immersive experiences are considered for development.  Transportation represents a challenge in two regards – the effort and investment to travel to the island as well as a lack of accessibility of most heritage attractions and supporting tourism infrastructure without an own car.  Medieval Week is seen as best practise and inspiration to create an affective product and taking different challenges (crowding, involvement of countryside, pollution management, reaching different target groups) into account. More events could connect locals and tourists, as well as help to overcome seasonality by broad collaborations between businesses.  New tourism strategy focuses on nature and culture as thematic tourism areas to be developed. In applying a horizontal strategy collaboration with diverse and numerous actors should be enhanced and a dialog and ideas be embedded at the ground level.  Furthermore, packaging of heritage experiences with other tourism products, the better integration and accessibility of natural and cultural heritage as well as events are seen as potentials for development and to face the high seasonality.  Sustainability perspective on heritage tourism encompasses social aspects and economic opportunities, as well as the considerate use of existing heritage resources as attractions.  So, overall, heritage tourism and heritage related events could combat general tourism challenges like seasonality, spreading of tourists, economic effects, enhanced collaboration.

Nature culture relation at heritage sites. In the second part, I investigated the role of natural and cultural elements in different heritage tourism attractions as both have been described as vital to Gotland’s tourism offer. Furthermore, tourists themselves are searching for more integrated offers, unique experience, nature and culture as a refuge. Using a heritagescape approach, I could focus on “how natural and cultural heritage relate in heritage sites on Gotland” and their qualities to create a sense of place and past, as well as affective visitor experiences.

I used two ordinary heritage sites as case studies – the culture reserve of Norrbys and Torsburgen nature reserve. Even though both are formally protected by the same agency, the County Administrative Board, there are great differences in their management and how nature and culture are made accessible. Norrbys, which is also a museum, has a clear aim and focus, by and large integrating natural and cultural heritage. It thereby creates a stronger sense of place and past. On the contrary, information about and the experience of nature and culture at Torsburgen is divided, and culture elements recede in the nature. Nature creates atmosphere and a sense of place but even here, the history is largely left out. While at Torsburgen the “untouched” nature, created by forest fires enhancing the natural biodiversity, is in the foreground, Norrbys displays nature in a cultural context, shaped by direct interaction through farming activities.

Nevertheless, the comparison gives insights describing the relation of nature and culture at these two heritage sites. Firstly, it does not appear to be easy to integrate nature and culture. Especially interpretation material focused on either or. Also the placement of information signs can have a great influence and seems more challenging in nature areas and when describing natural elements. In addition, there can be a divide in activities to experience and learn about natural and cultural heritage whereas nature is often presented from a distance while the interaction with cultural elements is more encouraged. While it is natural that sites have different focus areas, and necessary to create distinction, a divide such as at Torsburgen seems to challenge a cohesive visitor experience. On the other hand, taking the natural environment into account when planning for cultural experiences or vice versa creates synergies:

Cultural heritage can be explored through the nature. Natural sensations such as views into the landscape, sounds from animals, and the surrounding forest are enhancing the experience while taking a walk and thereby learn about or look at cultural remnants. On the other hand,

79 cultural elements can enhance how the nature is discovered. It can support the understanding and give a motive to explore, e.g. be the reason to take a walk. While information given on both sites was quite fact based, storytelling appeared to be easier relating to culture and people rather than the nature itself, e.g. using Linné’s words, the illustrations and comic about Torsburgen, the stories about the siblings and farmer’s helpers at Norrbys. Moreover, cultural elements often seem more relatable and involving, creating curiosity and a sense of stewardship.

Overall, the combination of natural and cultural heritage can cater to different target groups and visitor motivations. People can “choose and pick” what they are more interested in, which activities they like to take part in and how deep they want to get involved in and learn about each. The example of Norrbys shows that different products can be developed at same site through the combination of natural and cultural elements – walking the trail, farming activities for children – or the focus on one of them – just visiting the museum, study plants and animals in the reserve. Furthermore, they can create attraction in different seasons. When the museum there is closed, the nature has a higher presence in the visitor experience. At Torsburgen, it might be reverse – even when the northern paths and view tower are too slippery to be used, the rampart is still easily visitable. Yet, the nature changes year-round and creates quite a different atmosphere comparing my visit in the January mist and sunny spring and summer weekends.

4.2. Discussion of Findings Connecting the both research questions some of the mentioned focus areas become more exemplified. Furthermore, they give implications for my research aims. Firstly, to foster and understanding of sustainability related development challenges and potentials, it appears to be crucial to place the management of individual heritage sites and heritage-related visitor experience in the bigger picture of heritage tourism on Gotland. Already today nature and culture can cater to different target groups at the same place, affect the visitor experiences jointly and create synergies in these, and affecting visitor experiences such as a visit to Norrbys exist. However, different challenges exist when looking at how these places are integrated into the tourism mix and could contribute to a sustainable development of the destination which I discuss in this section and which gives inspiration for their management as has been the aim from the second research question.

A clear statement from the interviews was the importance of nature and culture in both the tourism supply, i.e. attraction and image, as well as in visitor motivations and behaviour to combine offers. By analysing the relation and role of both elements in heritage sites, this importance got further emphasised. The case studies have shown that even if declared a nature or culture reserve, the other element cannot be excluded from the experience. Exploring Torsburgen when out for a rock climbing day, enjoying the atmosphere of a walk through Norrbys culture reserve, but the intertwined tourism offer becomes visible at many other places as well: having a look at a museum while buying fish in a fishing village; passing picture stones and ship settings, Gotland’s oldest tree, and resting in the shadow of a church at the road while cycling Gotland; discovering a Viking harbour while fishing between rauks; or taking a swim in an abundant quarry. Gotland seems to confirm assumptions about rural agricultural landscapes being rich in interesting landmarks and minor attractions (Jansen- Verbeke 2008, p. 142). Nevertheless, other than events, natural and cultural heritage sites are not discussed when talking about development potential besides the agreement on the importance as attraction factors.

Norrbys and Torsburgen are examples of how natural and cultural sites are managed differently and the challenges resulting from that. As a nature reserve, Torsburgen is managed by the County Administrative Board. No other organisation seemed to be involved to any greater extent. For example interpretational signs are all placed at least in cooperation with the County. However, the focus of this agency is not on the tourism and other visitors’ needs. The large area with different entrances and predominantly natural elements possesses a challenge of where to give what information. A change and update in information and signs for the path can be seen taking online and on-site information into account. Yet, there seems to be a lack of concept and no clear marketing or focus on any target group(s). Norrbys culture reserve and museum on the other hand is taken care of by a cooperation of the County and Gotlands museum. An affective experience of the past is created, also with a focus on making the site accessible outside opening hours. From the interview it became clear, that it is the museum which is responsible for making the site accessible for visitors and the quality of the experience. The collaboration with the County is thereby limited to two annual meetings mainly discussing financial and administrative questions; and while the County and museum work together in many other cases, the exchange relating to Norrbys seems to be isolated to the management of this one site and does not have any consequences beyond.

Moreover, both sites exemplify the challenges of transportation and accessibility in that sense. They are located outside the urban area of Visby and would be mainly visited on day trips by car from there or other parts of the island. There are no designed cycle paths leading to or passing either site. The bus service to Norrbys while described on the museum’s website is so limited that a visit from Visby in a day is not actually feasible. The situation is better for Torsburgen, especially during the summer, but includes a hike even before walking in the large area of the site. Yet, neither direction by bus nor the differences in the carparks is mentioned on any information platforms.This leads to challenges of marketing and communication. The inclusion of the sites in strategic marketing for the destination as a whole could be enhanced. As described above, tourists are searching for natural and cultural experiences as refuges. Non-monumental landscapes such as Viking places (Burlingame 2019, p. 17) and places connected to the far past as well as agricultural landscapes preserving the history and a romanticised rural way of life are seen as having high potential for this (Jansen-Verbeke 2008, p. 137) . Norrbys could therefore be staged more with its qualities to create an experience of the past for the entire family, while Torsburgen has already been included in a list of Viking related sites. However, the whole historic period, especially how to really make the places and their history visible and perceptible, has been described as underdeveloped in Gotland’s tourism offer.

This way, tourism flows could be spread more around the island as well if an integration of the visitor experience into the larger area and close-by offers happens, i.e. the packaging of different visitor experience as connecting neighbouring reserves and heritage sites as well as with non-heritage products could be enhanced. This could furthermore improve the economic opportunities from tourism development for locals. Yet, it also means that questions of wear and tear and negative impacts of tourism to the sites on the neighbouring residents need to be taken into account, e.g. increased traffic on the small roads leading to Norrbys and Torsburgen.

Through the analysis of the sites themselves, the importance of entrance areas, interpretation, and signed trails are stressed. While at Norrbys the entrance and the nature and culture trail influence the visit positively, it seems to be more difficult to be direct visitors in the large, non-monumental landscape of Torsburgen. This has also been described by Burlingame who often sees a time constraint in experiencing these landscapes and explains a need for clear signage and interpretational offers, e.g. guided tours, to help the “untrained” tourist to explore

82 the site. On the other hand, these places offer great opportunities to meet visitors’ demand for discover off the beaten track following individual interests (Burlingame 2019, pp. 15–17). Offering more diverse experiences of different parts of the site creates “new” places to visit within the site enhancing visitor engagement and satisfaction as well as the understanding might prologue the stay (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 130).

Regarding the information given on-site, Woodward and Oswald (2017) highlight the importance of a clear process to plan interpretation in landscapes where nature and culture are strongly connected. This includes considerations of for whom, why, what is interpreted, which parts of the sites are available and accessible, where, how, when interpretation should be given, how much can be invested and how the use of the interpretation material given can be followed up. (Woodward and Oswald 2017, p. 135) Such an approach might be especially important for Torsburgen were a concept to the site seems completely missing. Besides interpretation, new products and events could be developed to create more experiences. Especially in landscapes of natural heritage, guided tours can have a positive effect on the maintenance of natural functions but at the same time facilitating the learning process and therefore the consumption, also boundaries between natural and cultural heritage can be overcome (Pungas-Kohv 2015, p. 30).

At Torsburgen there are no real offers in form of events, purchasable products, or trails with a clear message. Most visits seem to have recreational motivations such as walking in the reserve, having a picnic and spending time with family. The natural or cultural heritage is in most cases only in focus when a specific personal interest is already present such as for rare plants. However, the County offers educational trips for school classes. As just said above, future development should have a more clear focus on the strategic planning of interpretational material. Guided tours could for example focus on either the nature or culture and connect Torsburgen with similar heritage in the neighbouring reserve or connect nature and culture, e.g. describing the relation of people to nature during Viking times.

Current offers at Norrbys include guided tours of the museum, the signed trail, children activities and the café- Improvements should include that a map and brochure of the nature and culture trail is available online, maybe via QR code on-site, and published on a static information board. Location of information signs and descriptions of natural elements on the trail can be more immediately linked to the environment which would enhance how the nature is explored and different senses become involved. New products and events could include 83 more guided tours through the culture reserve as well as the neighbouring nature reserve. Different senses could be used to explore nature and culture for example through picking berries and searching for special animals. This could also be linked to the Swedish right of the common (allemansrätten) and offer educational opportunities also for schools.

It should also be taken into account that the attachment to the site and feelings of stewardship can be used to transmit messages for a more sustainable visit (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 63). Norrbys already has the aim to revive the memory of farming in a time “where an equilibrium still existed between what the soil gave and what it received” (County’s information board on-site). However, this does not really get translated into the visitor experience. Torsburgen could focus more on its different ecosystems, past and current treats. Both sites make impacts of change visible and could for example serve as examples of areas in an environmental balance.

Finally, the question of the involvement of local residents and associations can be taken into account when looking with a different perspective into the case studies. On the one hand, local perceptions of the heritage, nature and culture, and meaning of different heritage sites should be taken into account for development. Svensson (2009) shows that within the local community the perception of and connections towards nature can vary greatly. This has influences on how nature is then made accessible and used for tourism purposes (Svensson 2009, p. 545). In addition, she describes that cultural heritage other than nature is often used as a meeting place for the community (Svensson 2009, p. 550). On the other hand, local associations can greatly contribute to the management of the sites, to host tourists, hence, shaping the visitor experience. Unfortunately, neither of the chosen sites for this study have obvious connections to local connections. Nevertheless, the importance of the view stresses the meaning to evaluate tourism and other land-use plans, and, as just mentioned, close-by offers as well as the needs of and impacts on residents should be taken into account.

4.3. Limitations of the Study While I could gain insights into the heritage tourism characteristics on Gotland, as well as the relation of nature and culture at two heritage sites, it is important to consider the limitations of the study. Firstly, I have based my analysis of heritage tourism traits mainly on the interviews with five actors involved in heritage and tourism development on Gotland. I triangulate and complement the emerging themes as much as possible within the interviews, the literature I could find as well as my previous knowledge of studying and traveling on Gotland for almost 84 two years now. None of the results were very much surprising and I have been satisfied with the quality and depth of my interviews. However, it is generally difficult to determine with which sample size theoretical saturation could be achieved (Guest et al. 2006, p. 60). Assuring the anonymity of the interviewees seemed to have had the wanted effect, as some criticism of other actors was expressed.

Secondly, I based my research on the relation of nature and culture on two case studies, which is a very small number. Furthermore, the external validity and generalizability of case studies generally is limited (Bell et al. 2018, p. 65). Moreover, I have chosen my cases purposefully and based on previous knowledge and perceptions. Both sites are formally protected in quite distinctive categories as a culture and a nature reserve. However, they each encompass both elements as recognised heritage. Therefore, I could analyse them clearly as landscapes where nature and culture bring each other into being (Jansen-Verbeke 2008, p. 126). What if I had looked at sites with a more distinct focus us only one of the elements? Moreover, even though data saturation for sites could be reached quite quickly (Burlingame forthcoming, p. 127) I realised at my latest visit to Torsburgen, when I only wanted to take some more pictures, that a lot new impression and ideas came up. I would therefore consider more site visits and even additional research approaches such as more observational and then collaborative methods as very valuable.

Thirdly, I did neither survey visitors’ behaviour and experience nor heritage managers’ perceptions for either research question. While tourists themselves and responsible persons for single sites could not give much insight into the overall characteristics of heritage tourism, data could be validated by their responses. Furthermore, the experiential approach to defining heritage tourism would have been paid more attention towards. For the case studies, it was mainly time constraints and due to external circumstance by the covid-19 outbreak that I limited the research to secondary sources and my own perceptions. However, by asking friends to follow with I tried to “get a hint” of the observation of other visitors. Furthermore, I had management insights for Norrbys from one of the interviews.

Overall, I might remain on a quite descriptive level giving insights in the situation on Gotland and these two specific case studies. What I did is to relate theoretical insights to the present case and validate data with each other. Insights and research methodology might be inspiration to tourism and heritage managers on the island as well as to researchers and practitioners elsewhere as a diversity of challenges and opportunities are described. 85

4.4. Suggestions for Future Research On the one hand, heritage tourism on Gotland offers many possibilities for further research. It contributes greatly to the image of Gotland and the overall tourism offer as well as local development strengthening local identities and the opportunities in the countryside. So far, visitor’s perceptions and motivations have not been studied. It should be, for example, be evaluated which weight heritage already plays in visitors’ motivation and their image of Gotland. In addition, each of the focus area illustrates a discourse considerate by main stakeholders – and there are probably more characteristics to consider in more detail for example the inclusion of and impacts on local communities which could also be taken more into account when assessing the case studies. Furthermore, through the tourism strategy and the upcoming related projects, a lot of change is anticipated. Which direction will this take? And what are the consequences of the global pandemic? Can Gotland use its diverse offer to create a sustainable trend in the future development?

On the other hand, the application of heritagescapes and the focus on the relation of nature and culture can be further explored. Heritagescapes as a concept and methodology offer the opportunity to analyse sites in great detail and can encompass different focus areas. Furthermore, they make this analysis suitable for comparison among very different sites. This study could be complemented by taking more and diverse sites into the comparison and test the conclusions I made as well as search for more emerging themes regarding the link or conflict of nature and culture. On important topic could be the meaning and right positioning of information signs – where they have the greatest affect and how they can influence the emotional experience of the site. Another question is how many development, interpretation material and signs paths, is actually necessary. How can visitors be encouraged exploring nature and culture themselves and what is needed so that they see more aspects of the heritage site? Moreover, more aspects affecting the qualities of heritagescapes can be explored. Again, relating to the limitations of this study, more observational and collaborative studies with visitors and site managers can be applied.

4.5. Reflection Undertaking this research has been – while quite challenging for myself to find and keep the right focus – an enjoyable process. I started with a general interest in heritage tourism on Gotland because there seemed to something fascinating, unique about it. So many small and diverse heritage sites, so much history behind them, and challenges to make them all 86 accessible, provide the information necessary. Nevertheless, I had a feeling of “I want to see them all”. Now I know a little bit more why: it is not only visible cultural heritage and stories about the people, neither the “pure nature” at nature reserves but the combination creating atmosphere and understanding. To venture out and look at heritage sites through within their environment, paying attention at all those little elements linking to each other – short applying the heritagescape has been a benefiting learning experience.

Nonetheless, it was not easy to get here. Nearly five months is a long time to get lost in the work process. While in the beginning, I struggled to define a more narrow research aim, then the covid-19 outbreak affected everyone and everything, I came to the heritagescape concept and methodology. Even though it was an existing concept and methodology, and I could make great use of the guiding themes to collect, structure and analyse my data, I had to develop the focus myself. As I wanted to explore the specifics of how nature and culture relate I had to ask different questions than the previous research. I had some previous experiences and perceptions of both and other sites which helped me to find ideas for and a structure in the questions to ask. However, it was still challenging to keep the scope and focus of this thesis at balance as nature and culture are literally everywhere. The heritagescape approach was therefore also useful to keep track and structure all those small details, how to break the information down and connect it again.

Moreover, I learned how important it is to take the larger environment and underlying factors and processes into account when analysing heritage sites and set the heritage into a wider context of its landscape. There was no need to categorise heritage elements or the sites as either natural or cultural but rather to be open for the combination and synergies of both has been important. It showed me how questions of the formal protection, site management, transportation and other accessibility, e.g. the languages used, connect to each other and are affecting for example the visitor flow. Overall, the practical implications from the site visits and evaluations with help of this concept and methodology are most valuable to me and hopefully inspiration for others.

PUBLICATION BIBLIOGRAPHY Apostolakis, Alexandros (2003): The convergence process in heritage tourism. In Annals of Tourism Research 30 (4), pp. 795–812. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(03)00057-4.

Beeton, Sue (2004): The case study in tourism research. A multi-method case study approach. In Peter M. Burns, Catherine A. Palmer, Brent W. Ritchie (Eds.): Tourism research methods. Integrating theory with practice. Cambridge, MA: CABI Pub, pp. 53– 67.

Bell, Emma; Bryman, Alan; Harley, Bill (2018): Business research methods: Oxford University Press.

Bendix, Regina (2008): Heritage between economy and politics. An assessment from the perspective of cultural anthropology. In Laurajane Smith, Natsuko Akagawa (Eds.): Intangible Heritage: Routledge, pp. 267–283.

Blauermel, Ralf (2019): Torsburgen. Google Maps. Available online at https://goo.gl/maps/6zf3vNJ2bNGv4stJ6, checked on 5/20/2020.

Bonn, Mark A.; Joseph-Mathews, Sacha M.; Dai, Mo; Hayes, Steve; Cave, Jenny (2016): Heritage/Cultural Attraction Atmospherics. Creating the right environment for the heritage/cultural visitor. In Journal of Travel Research 45 (3), pp. 345–354. DOI: 10.1177/0047287506295947.

Booth, Wayne C.; Colomb, Gregory G.; Williams, Joseph M.; Bizup, Joseph; FitzGerald, William T. (2016): The craft of research. Fourth edition. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press (Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing).

Burlingame, Katherine (forthcoming): Dead landscapes. And how to make them live. Doctoral dissertation. Lund University, Lund. Faculty of Social Sciences.

Burlingame, Katherine (2019): Presence in affective heritagescapes. Connecting theory to practice. In Tourism Geographies (11), pp. 1–21. DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2019.1696882.

Di Giovine, Michael A. (2008): The heritage-scape. UNESCO, world heritage, and tourism: Lexington Books.

Di Giovine, Michael A. (2018): The heritage-scape. Origins, theoretical interventions, and critical reception of a model for understanding UNESCO’s World Heritage Program. In viatourism (13). DOI: 10.4000/viatourism.2017. v

Enderborg, Bernt (n.d.): Torsburgen. þors borg, Tors borg. Buffert 4. Romakloster. Available online at https://www.guteinfo.com/?id=1773, updated on 5/23/2020.000Z, checked on 5/23/2020.

Eskilsson, Anna (2008): På plats i historien. Studier av hembygsföreningar på 2000-talet. Linköping University Electronic Press.

Eskilsson, Anna (2013): Hembygdsrörelsen. Ideella principer möter kommersiella utmaningar. In Josefina Syssner, Lars Kvarnström (Eds.): Det turistiska fältet och dess aktörer. 1. uppl. Lund: Studentlitteratur, pp. 113–125.

Firth, Tracey Martine (2011): Tourism as a means to industrial heritage conservation. Achilles heel or saving grace? In Journal of Heritage Tourism 6 (1), pp. 45–62. DOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2010.536233.

Garden, Mary-Catherine E. (2004): The heritagescape. Exploring the phenomenon of the heritage site. University of Cambridge; Department of Archaeology; Magdalene College.

Garden, Mary Catherine E. (2006): The heritagescape. Looking at landscapes of the past. International Journal of Heritage Studies In ‐ 12 (5), pp. 394–411. DOI: 10.1080/13527250600821621.

Garden, Mary Catherine E. (2010): The heritagescape. Looking at heritage sites. In Marie Louise Stig Sørensen (Ed.): Heritage studies. Methods and approaches. repr. London: ‐ Routledge, pp. 270–291.

Garrod, Brian; Fyall, Alan (2000): Managing heritage tourism. In Annals of Tourism Research 27 (3), pp. 682–708. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00094-8.

Garrod, Brian; Fyall, Alan (2001): Heritage tourism. A question of definition. In Annals of Tourism Research 28 (4), pp. 1049–1052. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(00)00068-2.

Garrod, Brian; Fyall, Alan; Leask, Anna; Reid, Elaine (2012): Engaging residents as stakeholders of the visitor attraction. In Tourism Management 33 (5), pp. 1159–1173. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.11.014.

Gobster, Paul H.; Xiang, Wei-Ning (2012): What do we mean by “landscape”? In Landscape and Urban Planning 106 (3), pp. 219–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.004.

Gotlands Media AB (4/22/2019): Han ska ta hand om Norrbys museigård. Visby. Available online at https://www.gotland.net/sv/se-gora/arkiv/han-ska-ta-hand-om- norrbys-museigard, checked on 5/23/2020.

Gotlands Museum (n.d.a): Mer om Norrbys. Visby. Available online at https://www.gotlandsmuseum.se/norrbys/mer-om-norrbys/, updated on 5/23/2020.000Z, checked on 5/23/2020.

Gotlands Museum (n.d.b): Restaurering. Visby. Available online at https://www.gotlandsmuseum.se/norrbys/restaurering/, checked on 5/23/2020.

Gotlands Museum (n.d.c): Stadgar. Fornvännerna. Visby. Available online at https://www.gotlandsmuseum.se/stadgar/, checked on 5/23/2020.

Grimwade, Gordon; Carter, Bill (2000): Managing small heritage sites with interpretation and community involvement. In International Journal of Heritage Studies 6 (1), pp. 33– 48. DOI: 10.1080/135272500363724.

Guest, Greg; Bunce, Arwen; Johnson, Laura (2006): How Many Interviews Are Enough? In Field Methods 18 (1), pp. 59–82. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X05279903.

Gunn, C. A.; Var, T. (2002): Tourism planning. Basics, concepts, cases: Routledge. Available online at https://books.google.se/books?id=6S6e44VhObMC.

Hejdstöm, Aron (Ed.) (2018): Utflyktsguide. 45 besöksmål i Gotlands natur. Digital utgåva. 3rd ed. Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län. Visby. Available online at https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/download/18.2e0f9f621636c844027d1ee/1527507567535/L st%20Gotland_Utflyktsguide_Digital%20ver%2020180328.pdf, checked on 5/23/2020.

Iorio, Monica; Wall, Geoffrey (2011): Local museums as catalysts for development. Mamoiada, Sardinia, Italy. In Journal of Heritage Tourism 6 (1), pp. 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/1743873X.2010.515311.

Jansen-Verbeke, Myriam (2008): Cultural landscapes and tourism dynamics. Explorative case studies. In Antonio Paolo Russo, Gerda K. Priestley, Myriam Jansen-Verbeke (Eds.): Cultural resources for tourism. Patterns, processes and policies. New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 125–144.

Jutehammar, Anna; Eliason, Sara; Ideström, Lena (2017): Upptäck Gotland. 101 platser du inte vill missa. Visby: Fornsalens förlag.

vii

Kempiak, Joanna; Hollywood, Lynsey; Bolan, Peter; McMahon-Beattie, Una (2017): The heritage tourist. An understanding of the visitor experience at heritage attractions. In International Journal of Heritage Studies 23 (4), pp. 375–392. DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2016.1277776.

Kvarnström, Lars; Syssner, Josefina (2013): Staten och det touristiska fältets förutsättningar. In Josefina Syssner, Lars Kvarnström (Eds.): Det turistiska fältet och dess aktörer. 1. uppl. Lund: Studentlitteratur, pp. 61–77.

Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län (n.d.a): Norrbys i Väte. Visby. Available online at https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/gotland/besoksmal/kulturmiljoer/norrbys-i-vate.html, checked on 5/23/2020.

Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län (n.d.b): Torsburgen. Visby. Available online at https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/gotland/besoksmal/naturreservat/torsburgen.html, checked on 5/23/2020.

Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län (11/22/2018): Följ med vår friluftssamordnare till Torsburgen. Visby. Vejlens, Mattias. Available online at https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/gotland/om-oss/nyheter-och-press/nyheter---gotland/2018- 11-22-folj-med-var-friluftssamordnare-till-torsburgen.html, checked on 5/24/2020.

Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län (2019): Utvidgning av naturreservatet Russvätar, Arder och Gammelgarn socknar, Gotlands kooun, smat nya föreskrifter och skötselplan för reservatet. Bilaga 2 - Skötselplan för naturreservatet Russvätar. Visby. Available online at https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/download/18.26f506e0167c605d56934016/1550567109320/ Russv%C3%A4tar.pdf, checked on 5/20/2020.

Länsstyrelsen Gotlands Län (11/11/2019): Kulturegendom får stärkt skydd vid väpnad konflikt. Visby. Available online at https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/gotland/om-oss/nyheter- och-press/nyheter---gotland/2019-11-11-kulturegendom-far-starkt-skydd-vid-vapnad- konflikt.html, checked on 5/20/2020.

Lassiter, Luke E. (2005): The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing). Available online at

viii http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&A N=212657.

Leask, Anna (2010): Progress in visitor attraction research. Towards more effective management. In Tourism Management 31 (2), pp. 155–166. DOI: 10.1016/j.tourman.2009.09.004.

Light, Duncan (2015): Heritage and tourism. In Emma Waterton, Steve Watson (Eds.): The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 144–158. Available online at http://ezproxy.its.uu.se/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/macc/h eritage_and_tourism/0, checked on 2/27/2020.

Lindeborg, Gabriel (2018): Torsburgen. Google Maps. Available online at https://goo.gl/maps/vxRBaVudcJ4YgPep7, checked on 5/20/2020.

Loulanski, Tolina; Loulanski, Vesselin (2011): The sustainable integration of cultural heritage and tourism. A meta-study. In Journal of Sustainable Tourism 19 (7), pp. 837– 862. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2011.553286.

Lowenthal, David (2005): Natural and cultural heritage. In International Journal of Heritage Studies 11 (1), pp. 81–92. DOI: 10.1080/13527250500037088.

Martin, [no last name] (2019): Norrbys museigård Väte. Google Maps. Available online at https://goo.gl/maps/WJhZYSKet2rEeAVz5, checked on 5/20/2020.

McKercher, Bob; Du Cros, Hillary (2012): Cultural tourism. The partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management. 2nd. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Available online at http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1039336.

Medeltidsveckan på Gotland AB (n.d.a): Medieval Week on Gotland. Visby. Available online at https://www.medeltidsveckan.se/en/, checked on 5/21/2020.

Medeltidsveckan på Gotland AB (n.d.b): Om Medeltidsveckan. Visby. Available online at https://www.medeltidsveckan.se/en/om-medeltidsveckan, checked on 5/21/2020.

Millar, Sue (1989): Heritage management for heritage tourism. In Tourism Management 10 (1), pp. 9–14. DOI: 10.1016/0261-5177(89)90030-7.

Moscardo, Gianna (1996): Mindful visitors. In Annals of Tourism Research 23 (2), pp. 376–397. DOI: 10.1016/0160-7383(95)00068-2. ix

Mosler, Saruhan (2009): Presenting past landscapes. An approach to visual landscape integrity as a tool for archeological heritage management. In Int J Cult Prop 16 (1), pp. 25–48. DOI: 10.1017/S0940739109090055.

Opačić, Vuk Tvrtko (2019): Tourism valorisation of cultural heritage. In Mladen Obad Šćitaroci, Bojana Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci, Ana Mrđa (Eds.): Cultural urban heritage. Development, learning and landscape strategies. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 181–196.

Park, Hyung Yu (2013): Heritage tourism. London: Routledge.

Poria, Yaniv; Ashworth, Gregory (2009): Heritage tourism. Current resource for conflict. In Annals of Tourism Research 36, pp. 522–525, checked on 2/10/2020.

Poria, Yaniv; Butler, Richard; Airey, David (2003): The core of heritage tourism. In Annals of Tourism Research 30 (1), pp. 238–254. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(02)00064-6.

Poria, Yaniv; Butler, Richard; Airey, David (2006): Tourist perceptions of heritage exhibits. A comparative study from Israel. In Journal of Heritage Tourism 1 (1), pp. 51– 72. DOI: 10.1080/17438730608668465.

Prideaux, Bruce (2002): Building visitor attractions in peripheral areas? Can uniqueness overcome isolation to produce viability? In Int. J. Tourism Res. 4 (5), pp. 379–389. DOI: 10.1002/jtr.387.

Pungas-Kohv, Piret (2015): Between maintaining and sustaining heritage in landscape. The examples of Estonian mires and village swings.

Rakitovac, Kristina Afrić; Urošević, Nataša (2017): Valorisation of cultural heritage in sustainable tourism. In MNG 12 (3), pp. 199–215. DOI: 10.26493/1854-4231.12.199-215.

Region Gotland (Ed.) (2017): Gotland i siffror. 2017. Region Gotland. Visby. Available online at https://www.gotland.se/64224, checked on 4/23/2020.

Region Gotland (2019a): Underlag till regional besöksnäringsstrategi för Gotland. Nuläge för turism till Gotland och besöksnäringen på Gotland. With assistance of tillväxt verket. Visby. Available online at https://www.gotland.se/102750, checked on 11/3/2019.

Region Gotland (2019b): Regional besöksnäringsstrategi för Gotland. Fastställd av regionfullmäktige 2019-02-25. With assistance of tillväxt verket. Visby. Available online at https://www.gotland.se/102749, checked on 11/3/2019.

Richards, Greg (2018): Cultural tourism. A review of recent research and trends. In Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 36, pp. 12–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.03.005.

Ronström, Owe (2008): A different land. Heritage production in the island of Gotland. In Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Culture 2 (2), pp. 1–18.

Rössler, Mechtild (2006): World Heritage cultural landscapes. A UNESCO flagship programme 1992 – 2006. In Landscape Research 31 (4), pp. 333–353. DOI: 10.1080/01426390601004210.

Rural Tourism Gotland (2018): Projekt. Rural Tourism Gotland. Roma. Available online at https://ruraltourismgotland.wordpress.com/projekt/, checked on 5/21/2020.

SCB (2019a): Folkmängd per distrikt, landskap, landsdel eller riket efter kön. År 2015 - 2019-Statistikdatabasen. Stockholm, Örebro. Available online at http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__BE__BE0101__BE0101A/F olkmangdDistrikt/table/tableViewLayout1/?rxid=f5790986-ce9d-4cdc-9658- fbc9c700b7ef, updated on 4/22/2020, checked on 4/22/2020.

SCB (2019b): Gästnätter efter anläggningstyp och region. Preliminär statistik. Månad 2008M01 - 2020M02-Statistikdatabasen. Stockholm, Örebro. Available online at http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__NV__NV1701__NV1701B/ NV1701T10M/, updated on 4/6/2020, checked on 4/22/2020.

SCB (2019c): Gästnätter för samtliga hotell, stugbyar, vandrarhem, campingar, förmedlade privata stugor och lägenheter efter region och hemland. År 2008 - 2019. Stockholm, Örebro. Available online at http://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/sv/ssd/START__NV__NV1701__NV1701A/ NV1701T910Ar/table/tableViewLayout1/, updated on 4/6/2020, checked on 4/22/2020.

Silberberg, Ted (1995): Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and heritage sites. In Tourism Management 16 (5), pp. 361–365. DOI: 10.1016/0261- 5177(95)00039-Q.

Speckhahn, Sophia; Isgren, Ellinor (2019): The irresistible solution. Rationale and risks of extending water limits through desalination in the case of Gotland, Sweden. In Journal of Political Ecology 26, p. 128. DOI: 10.2458/v26i1.22984.

Svensson, Eva (2009): Consuming Nature–Producing Heritage. Aspects on conservation, economical growth and community participation in a forested, sparsely populated area in Sweden. In International Journal of Heritage Studies 15 (6), pp. 540–559. DOI: 10.1080/13527250903210837.

Timothy, Dallen J. (1997): Tourism and the personal heritage experience. In Annals of Tourism Research 24 (3), pp. 751–754. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00006-6.

Timothy, Dallen J. (2011): Cultural heritage and tourism. An introduction. Bristol: Channel View Publ (Aspects of tourism texts, 4).

Timothy, Dallen J. (2018): Making sense of heritage tourism. Research trends in a maturing field of study. In Tourism Management Perspectives 25, pp. 177–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmp.2017.11.018.

TripAdvisor LLC (2016): Museigården Norrbys i Väte socken. - Omdömen - Gotlands Museum - Tripadvisor. Available online at https://www.tripadvisor.se/ShowUserReviews-g202560-d2664521-r397415556- Gotlands_Museum-Visby_Gotland.html, updated on 7/26/2016, checked on 5/23/2020.

Turistbyrån Gotland (n.d.a): Bullbak på Norrbys Museigård - Gotland. Visby. Available online at https://gotland.com/produkter/1240439/, checked on 5/23/2020.

Turistbyrån Gotland (n.d.b): Norrbys Museigård. Visby. Available online at https://gotland.com/produkter/184822/, checked on 5/23/2020.

Turistbyrån Gotland (n.d.c): Norrbys Museigård. Visby. Available online at https://gotland.com/en/products/184822/, checked on 5/23/2020.

Turistbyrån Gotland (n.d.d): Torsburgen. Visby. Available online at https://gotland.com/produkter/185076/, checked on 5/24/2020.

Turistbyrån Gotland (n.d.e): Vikings! Visby. Available online at https://gotland.com/en/visit/articles-guides/vikings/, checked on 5/24/2020.

Wesley, Stefan (Ed.) (2020): Busstidtabeller per linje. Region Gotland. Available online at https://www.gotland.se/85667, updated on 5/19/2020, checked on 5/23/2020.

Woodward, Simon; Oswald, Sarah (2017): Interpreting Cultural Landscapes in the North York Moors. In Glenn Hooper (Ed.): Heritage and Tourism in Britain and Ireland. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 127–143. xii

Unpublished sources

Interviews Interviewee 1 Gender: female. Professional background: 9 years in tourism on Gotland, now within management and development of heritage tourism attractions Date of interview: 20th of February 2020. Length of interview: 50 minutes. Interview conducted and archived by author.

Interviewee 2 Gender: female. Professional background: 22 years in tourism on Gotland, now within management and development of heritage tourism attractions Date of interview: 21st of February 2020. Length of interview: 65 minutes. Interview conducted and archived by author.

Interviewees 3 and 4 Gender: female and male. Professional background: 6 and 30 years in tourism on Gotland, now within public tourism development. Date of interview: 3rd of March 2020. Length of interview: 60 minutes. Interview conducted and archived by author.

Interviewee 5 Gender: female. Professional background: “many, many years”, now within tourism information services. Date of interview: 27th of March 2020. Length of interview: 40 minutes. Interview conducted and archived by author.

xiii

Site visits Norrbys culture reserve Date of visit: 9th of May 2020. Duration of research related visit: 2 hours. Weather: sunny, about 12°C. Research activities: walking the designated trail and areal, taking pictures, exploring areas a little of the path, trying for open buildings of the museum, having a coffee break Previous visits: once (August 2019) for about 10 minutes walking into the courtyard and skimming the general information board.

Torsburgen nature reserve Date of visit: 19th of April, 3rd of May 2020. Duration of research related visit: about 40 minutes / 1 hour. Weather: sunny, about 8°C / 14°C. Research activities: in April walk to the castle and through the forest fire area (north-eastern area), climbing up on the view tower, in May walk on southern (-eastern) half (mostly along the wall). Previous visits: several, first time in January 2019 walking to the castle and through the forest fire area, later for rock climbing, and with family but only up to the view tower. Some more impressions were added after another visit in the end of May to take additional pictures.

xiv

APPENDICES Appendix 1 - Photographs taken at Norrbys culture reserve.

(a) The entrance to Norrbys culture reserve and the museum from the road. The gate stands invitingly open leading onto the old approach which was part of the road to Visby in the 18th century. Before the gate there is an information board about the reserve and museum.

(b) The approach leads into the courtyard. There, one finds again the information board about the reserve and museum. The red building is the former granary, nowadays the café. On the upper floor there is an exhibition room. Behind the granary lies the farmhouse. xv

(c) The start of the nature and culture trail leads onto a meadow. We got greeted by the grazing sheep. The trail is continuously marked by the small wooden sign, in most parts cut free from vegetation and well-trodden.

(d) The sign about the Silviculture is on example of the interpretation materal on the trail that has a lot of text and no supportive illustratons. Font size, vocabulary, and sentence strucutres make it difficult to understand.

xvi

(e) One of the views onto the farmstead from across the pond; this picture is taken from the mill where there is a bench inviting to rest and stay for a while, taking in the live around the pond.

(f) The old approach and 18th century road leading out of the farmstead as part of the nature and culture trail and leading the view into the landscape. The trees are visibly affected by Chalara Dieback. The approach’s meaning as part of the country road, source for winter fodder, and the disease affecting the ashes are described on an information sign at the end of the approach.

xvii

(g) (h) (g) The small wooden sign and number posts are the most visible and consecutive elements to mark the nature and culture trail. Sometimes arrows on white paper support the orientation and indicate directions. The small blue sign is marking the reserve’s boundary. However, elements and boundaries are merging. (h) The smithy, the first building we tried to open as no lock was visible. However, a feeling of insecurity whether we were allowed or not to open it and step in was present.

(i) View into the café through one of the windows. The café aims to create an atmosphere of the 1940s including the food offered. It seems as if the café could open any minute, even though visited outside the season, and could welcome guests as if it was still the mid-20th century.

xviii

(j) The farmer’s helpers’ room provides many elements to touch and try on. It gives a lively experience of the sparse interior and luxury of the time. The small entrance hall to this part of the building is decorated by a timeline mentioning the different workers.

Appendix 2 – Photographs taken at Torsburgen nature reserve.

(a) The first time I visited Torsburgen was in January 2019. It was a snowy and misty day. The view tower stood isolated and foreign to the surrounding and as from a different time. The view was not great as in terms of how far one could see but it remained a strong memory in my head.

xix

(b) The castle area on the same day in January. We were slightly disappointed because we expected more remnants of “the castle” as we misunderstood some of the explanations about the hill fort per se and this area. The view ended in the trees. Most prominent on site are the marker for the path and the bench.

(c) The County’s general information board about Torsburgen nature reserve found at all entrances to the reserve. They are affected by natural staining but overall readable. The information gives is only in Swedish and about the natural heritage, as well as restrictions applying to the reserve.

(d) English translations are often found aside the main information board –in a worse shape as the covers are broken and water comes in – or on backsides of information boards – inconvenient to see and read because of vegetation.

(e) The southern carpark is located directly at the rampart. There are several signs directly at the entrance about the nature reserve and hill forts. Furthermore, there is the sign about Linné’s visit in 1741 closer to the toilet and road. When walking into the area, there is another, more illustrative sign about Torsburgen as a hill fort. However, the focus walking through the entrance falls upon the markers for the trail, not the sign board to the left hidden behind the rampart from that direction.

xxi

(f) There are two pit toilets at both carparks; one is marked as wheelchair accessible. The toilets are quite old, and even though relatively clean not very inviting. The ramp for the wheelchair accessible one is partly broken. Paper and hand sanitizer have been provided during summer months.

(g) The rampart from the “inside” and outside”. The high stacked stones are quite visible from the outside at most parts, also from the road towards the southern carpark. From the inside it is largely overgrown and not everywhere so distinctively visible as a “long hill” but more behind trees and merging with parts where the cliff was high enough has a natural defence.

xxii

(h) The Linné cave is made easily accessible by the metal ladder coming down from the cliff. It is only a couple of meters deep and in the end not high enough to stand up. However, the view up is a popular look and picture motif:

xxiii

(i) The area of the large forest fire which enhanced the biodiversity at Torsburgen and lead to its protection as a nature reserve. Especially in the centre of the reserve and plateau the traces of the fire and later storms causing damaged trees to fall are very visible. In other parts scorched and new trees merge creating a special atmosphere of old and new, dead and live.

(j) The wooden markers indicating the main paths towards sights and other entrances to the nature reserve. They are in good shape and easy to understand. Furthermore, they are indicating viewpoints, the view tower, and distances. The paths themselves are not signed but well-trodden. However, there are several additional paths leading through and around the reserve which can create disorientation.

xxiv

(k) An erected stone plate close to the northern carpark – one of the elements that is not explained. Friends mistook it at first sight for a picture stone from Viking times. However, it must be much younger. There might have been a name-engraving once.

xxv