Marine 'Heritagisation': Practices at the Waterfront Area of Marsaxlokk, South-East of Malta

Marine ‘heritagisation’: Practices at the waterfront area of Marsaxlokk, south-east of Malta. .

(Article format)

Jordi Vegas Macias Registration number: 851215860040 28 August 2019

MSc Thesis Environmental Policy Group Supervisor: Dr Machiel Lamers Second reader: Dr Hilde Toonen

Marine ‘heritagisation’: Practices at the waterfront area of Marsaxlokk, south-east of Malta.

Abstract: Traditional fishing villages are popular places for tourists and visitors looking for authentic portraits of which fishermen, fresh fish and seascapes are involved. This is seen by the tourism sector as an opportunity to promote marine and coastal destinations, offering a range of experiences that are linked to the fishing traditions of marine heritage. Tourism has a big influence in ‘heritagisation’ processes in which local heritage related to fishing communities can be re-adapted of for societal good. It can also influence the transformation of traditional practices and take them into a commodification process. Considering the benefits and risks, it is important to look closely at cases where fisheries and tourism play a role in local development and explore the state and use of marine heritage. For this study, the fishing village of Marsaxlokk in the south-east of Malta was selected. The case is part of the EU project PERICLES Heritage which aims to understand, preserve and use maritime heritage for societal good. A practice theory approach is applied to identify activities related to fisheries and tourism in the waterfront area of Marsaxlokk. By mapping these practices, the study attempts to find the potential opportunities and threats in relation to marine heritage and to give perspective on heritagisation processes. Moreover, this research aims to develop a better understanding of the benefits of applying practice theory for tourism and heritage studies in coastal areas. The application of practice theory allows mapping and understanding characteristic elements of activities in marine heritage as well as an alternative to understand heritagisation processes.

Key words: “Marine Heritage”, “Tourism development”, “Heritage Tourism”, “Heritagisation”, “Social practices”, and “Malta”.

1. Introduction

The activities in traditional waterfront areas such as fishing practices, boat maintenance or eating fish have a connection to tangible and intangible heritage. It is part of fishermen’s daily life and it is considered an important component of cultural heritage (Vallega, 2003). For centuries, fishermen have been nourishing these activities with meaning and values and it is considered to be important and of high-value for communities. Moreover, there is a general interest in conserving marine heritage and fishing communities as they can benefit socially and economically from their own heritage (Van Ginkel, 2001; Accott and Urquhart, 2014; Khazkzad & Griffith, 2016). Here, marine heritage as part of the local identity becomes ‘a resource but also a component for professional opportunities’ (Bessière, 2013). This study focuses on the socio-cultural expressions within marine heritage that are used in tourism to create a differentiation of fishing villages as a “must visit” destination.

Having the opportunity to promote destinations and develop commercial activities, tourism makes use of the heritage of fishing villages (Halewood & Hannam, 2001; Kim & Ellis, 2015). When heritage is used to display or exhibit traditional activities for tourism purposes, a ‘heritagisation’ process might take place. It happens when heritage is transformed or re-adapted, together with their values and meanings to become tourism attractions and promote local development.

Tourism has the potential to “strengthen identities and regenerate local heritage”, in which local products, festivals, culinary and job-related skills find in tourism an opportunity for their preservation (Everett & Aitchison, 2008). Alternative opportunities are possible to gain additional income through innovation and diversification, e.g. by creating synergies between traditional sectors and tourism (Henderson, 2009).)Other economic returns of tourism are possible. For example, governments see it as a tool in rural development which can help to stimulate economies in danger of decline (Boyne et al., 2003), protecting existing jobs and creating employment. The transformation of cultural heritage into commodities for development purposes are evident (Berg 2017) and local culture becomes a global phenomenon (Halewood & Hannam, 2001). On the other hand, tourism development might also add pressure on coastal areas (Vallega, 2003) with a potential gentrification process and threats related to the loss of identity (Khakzad & Griffith, 2016). Considering how heritage can be managed through tourism, this study considers the heritagisation process in two different scenarios. On one side, heritage can be rejuvenated for common good and promote sustainable development. On the other side, heritage can be commodified for personal interests with undesirable consequences.

1.2 Marine heritage and tourism development in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk

Located in the south-east of Malta, the fishing village of Marsaxlokk is the selected case for this study. It is one of the sixty-eight local units of Malta (see Figure 4) with a population of approximately 3,500 (National Statistics Office_ Malta, 2018). The first fishermen settled in Marsaxlokk permanently in the mid 19th century and the fishery community started to grow ("Marsaxlokk Local Council | The Village", n.d.). Traditional daily practices relating to fishing and fishing boat handicraft have passed across the generations through teaching and training from fathers to sons. The activity of different fishing methods, mending the fishing net and the performing luzzu boats’ maintenance in the waterfront can be seen in local people’s common daily lives and it is part of their cultural heritage (see figure 4). The local community has commonly recognized fishing culture as the most important heritages in Marsaxlokk (Markwick, 1999). However, the traditional fishing culture is facing great concerns of commodification of heritage (Yeh, 2018).

Figure 1: Marxaslokk area in the south-east of Malta (right) and the waterfront (left). (Source: Wiki / own source)

After 2000s, Marsaxlokk experienced an important influx of tourists by international tourists from cruises and mass tourism because of the promotion campaign from the tourism authority to brand Marsaxlokk as the only fishing village left in Malta (Losco, 2015). As tourism in Malta was expanding, the village has been in a constant transformation. Since the development in the north has reached its limit in recent years, the less developed areas in the south show great potentials and opportunities and thus attract more people to move in. In addition, some people who seek less crowded places to live also want to move from the urban areas in the north to the south. Commercial businesses in the waterfront such as restaurants and hawkers have appeared and more tourists have come to enjoy the picturesque view of harbor with colorful luzzu and have a fresh caught lunch at the waterfront. Moreover, some of the fishermen turned from the full-time fishermen to part-time fishermen and started to take tourists on to the traditional luzzu boats for a boat trip. Tourism has created many new employments in Marsaxlokk (Markwick, 1999). The growth of new residents gradually changes the composition of the community in Marsaxlokk and also brings new practices

All the activities in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk have a close relation with the local marine heritage that is now influenced by the tourism development. In this process of transformation and re-adaptation, heritagisation of different practices might take place where meanings and values are changing. It is then important to see which direction heritagisation is taking for each of the practices. This study looks at heritagisation’ processes in marine heritage at the waterfront of Marsaxlokk. As a phenomenon, heritagisation can influence the rejuvenation or commodification of practices in the waterfront area. I attempt to find out more about the elements of these practices and analyse their dynamics. At the same time, this study could serve as a start to build-up the concept of heritagisation as a practice (HAP) and identify a bundles practice (Lamers and Van der Duim, 2016).

For the case of the waterfront of Marsaxlokk, where fisheries and tourism play a major role as economic, social, cultural and environmental drivers for local development, it is important to see how fishermen and tourists daily practices related to marine heritage are performed. This study does not provide an ultimate solution for heritage management but rather seeks to understand the heritagisation process of practices related to marine heritage and tourism.

1.3 Reasons for the study

It is important to see how tourism, as a development process, is now looking for new places and influencing the local fishing traditions and the fishermen’s everyday life. Considering the value of marine heritage for the fishing community of Marsaxlokk, heritagisation is an influential process for the preservation and re-adaptation of traditional fishing activities where tourism plays a major role. All these fish and tourism related activities consist of practices. Therefore, the use of social practice theory for this study aims to understand the dynamics and elements of heritagisation in marine heritage.

Several studies have been done in relation to the same case study to understand how small scale fishermen in Malta are supported and guided in order to continue their economic activity (Said, 2017); to develop policies and plans in coastal and land management in Marsaxlokk Bay (Spiteri, 2011); to study community involvement and participation in cultural heritage in Marsaxlokk (Yeh, 2018) or the role of the waterfront from an urban, social and environmental perspective (Hussain et al., 2015; Carta, 2016). However, no studies have been conducted in terms of analyzing the daily practices at the waterfront area of Marsaxlokk and their relation to marine heritage and tourism. Here, I focus on the heritagisation processes that might take place in the case through their daily practices in order to understand this process. I use social practice theory with the aim to develop a frame to better understand heritagisation processes with concepts from practice theorists.

1.4 Objective

The main objective of this paper is to better understand heritagisation processes in coastal and marine areas, with a focus on tourism development in the waterfront area of Marsaxlokk, by applying social practice theory for studying and analysing heritagisation processes in marine heritage.

1.5 Research questions

How does heritagisation processes within tourism development influence marine heritage?

1.6 Structure

After introducing the case and the aim of the study, this paper is structured as follows:

Chapter 2, through the use of a literature review, introduces the concept of heritagisation as a process of heritage transformation and illustrates through different cases and studies a variety of elements that are involved in these processes. It develops on the different ways a heritagisation process might influence heritage for rejuvenation or commodification purposes. Secondly, it gives a brief context of the tourism development in the case of the waterfront of Marsaxlokk where heritagisation might take place.

Chapter 3 explains the conceptual framework which introduces theory and concepts related to social practice theory. It builds-up from the theory of Shover, Pantzar and Watson (2012) where practices are composed of materials, meanings and competencies. It develops on the composition of bundle practices as a set of practices where different elements of practices can be interlinked.

Chapter 4 presents the methodology, with an introduction to the case study, followed by the qualitative methodological process and design. The different methods employed during the data collection are explained, followed by the data analysis approach.

Chapter 5 outlines the analysis of the results by combining field observations, visual materials together with informal conversations with actors involved in the selected practices in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk. Results are divided according to each of the practices, providing an insight within the elements of the practice and then zooming out of the practice.

Chapter 6 discusses the heritagisation processes and compares the results with other studies. The benefits and limitations of using social practice theory are highlighted and some recommendations are provided. Chapter 7 presents the final conclusions of the study.

2. Literature review

2.1 Heritagisation processes

In heritage tourism studies, the main themes of study are museums, landscapes, artifacts and activities that concentrate on representing different aspects of the past (Halewood & Hannam, 2001). Heritage is linked to the social memory of the community. A set of memories recognized by a given group, social memory as a common heritage, preserves the cultural and social identity of a given community, through more or less ritualised situations (Bessière, 2013). These ritualised situations can be considered daily practices where material heritage, meanings and skills are composed and transformed by the community.

Heritagisation is “the process by which objects and places are transformed from functional ‘things’ into objects of display and exhibition (Harrison, 2013). Walsh (1992) describe ‘heritage’ as a process where objects, places and practices are transformed with new values attached to them. Objects and places are collected, listed and given new functions through adaptive re-use (Harrison, 2013).Harrison further argued, drawing on actor-network theory (ANT) and assemblage theory, that heritage can be considered as an ‘assemblage’ consisting of “a series of objects, places or practices that are gathered together in a museum or on a list, register or catalogue of some form” (Harrison 2013, pp33). Although definitions for heritagisation are clear, it often remains at the conceptual level. Little is known about the actual action and dynamics that happens within the heritagisation process. For this reason, and considering that heritage consists of practices, I use social practice theory to understand to look at heritagisation not only as a process but also as a connection of practices.

The past decades have seen an increase in what is considered to be cultural heritage (e.g. Walsh 1992, Harrison 2013). Harrison (2013) described this period as a ’heritage boom’ and an ’abundance’ of heritage, concluding that even though “…the traces and memories of many different pasts pile up”, “we rarely consider processes by which heritage objects, places and practices might be removed from these lists, deaccessioned from museums and galleries, or allowed to fall into ruin” (Harrison 2013, pp166). He also noted that once objects, places and/or practices are transformed and converting into ‘heritage’, rarely they are reverted or transformed into something else. However, new values and interpretations of heritage might be needed and/or appearing when heritagisation takes place. This allows ‘heritage’ to be rejuvenated and/or used in different ways, influencing and changing the values, meanings and in some cases the performance that can be linked to professions or traditional activities.

Considering Walsh (1992) and Harrison (2013) definitions of heritagisation, I identify concepts of one of the main debates in tourism studies. As explained before in this paper, tourism as a phenomena can be seen as the consumer of a series of local rites (practices) that are taking place in a community’s everyday life and a driver to re- adapt (rejuvenate) or commodify local assets such as marine heritage.

Important factors determining heritagisation as rejuvenation or commodification process can be seen in the level of integration of the actors that have a stake in cultural heritage. Bessière (2013) explores three scenarios for integration where heritage can be absent, emerging or established with across primary sectors in connection with tourism. Some studies consider inclusion as a key factor in heritagisation where more stakeholders should be included in the process or receive more support (Corsale & Iorio, 2014; Daugstad & Fageraas, 2018). In terms of supporting, Daugstand & Fagerass (2018) highlighted the differences between primary sectors, in which agriculture has historically received more attention than fisheries in managing and exploiting heritage for societal good.

Another component to consider when talking about a heritagisation process has to do with the meaning. Meanings are linked to different objectives and purposes. Heritagisation can help in raising awareness of the value and importance of heritage. Other studies show how heritagisation transforms heritage meaning for diplomacy or politic purposes (Isnart 2012; Huand & Lee, 2019). In terms of heritage meaning per se, it can also be re-conceptualized without being linked to identity, historic or authentic meanings. With the excuse of rejuvenation, heritagisation processes can also lead to a scenario where the connection to the past meaning and value is lost (Swensen, 2012; Dymitrow 2013).

Several studies link heritagisation processes with promotion. However, it is on each particular case to determine how this process performs. Social construction of cultural heritage and interpretation systems for tourism have lead cultural heritage through a promotion process where meaning and attached values have changed to rebrand or reposition destinations (Chapman & Light, 2011). As well as for representation (reconfirm) a place identity - keeping a place rural or a place as a fishing village on purpose (Chigbu, 2013). Within this process, it can be alterations, museumification or touristification of heritage (Saidi, 2012).

All in all, inclusion, meaning and promotion are interlinked factors and concepts that appear in heritagisation processes. These drivers influence the values, uses and meanings of heritage and open up the possibilities where a heritagisation might be directed towards sustainable choices and societal good; or it can lead to a commodification process where private interests prevail. It is the transformation process and the possible outcome where opportunities and risks can be found with regard to heritage preservation and sustainable development. What I attempt to understand is how heritagisation, motivated by tourism development, uses and influences marine heritage through the different practices that take place at the waterfront of Marsaxlokk.

3. Conceptual Framework

In this article I use social practice theory as a lense to analyse heritagisation processes at the waterfront of Marsaxlokk. Social practice helps to understand novelty and persistence of traditional activities and how do societies change (Shover, Pantzar and Watson, 2012). For this case, it provides a lense to understand and analyze activities related to fisheries and tourism in a specific time and place. Although I avoid the power/interest grid, practices and their performance can be different, socially unequal and the study of social practices involves the power in the making (Nicolini, 2009). Moreover, social practice it analyzes heritagisation processes without taking into consideration any hierarchical level, adopting a neutral position, by looking at the mere practice that is involved while avoiding individualistic perspectives.

There are different definitions and theories of practice available for this occasion. For example, Giddens (1984) explains that agency and structure are a duality that comes together in the theory of practices. Someone’s daily activities (practices) are a reflection of social structures. Other scholars practices as a primary unit of analysis, being composed of meanings and norms through social relations (Taylor 1971). Other theories suggest that a practice is ‘a temporary and spatially dispersed nexus of doings and sayings’ (Schatzki, 1996, pp89) or ‘a routinized type of behaviour (Reckwitz, 2002, pp249). Reckwitz adds that a practice is a block of pattern that includes bodily actions, mental actions, their “things” (materials) and a know-how, capturing practices within cultural theory.

Looking at these definitions above, it seems that practices are accompanied by a certain structure (relations, social patterns, and norms), materials and agency that are important when shaping behaviors and cultures. For this study, I built up the framework by taking the theory from Shove, Pantzar and Watson (2012). Concretely, I used the three elements (figure 2) that can be found within a practice: materials (things, technologies, tangible physical entities, and the stuff of which objects are made); meanings (in which we include symbolic meanings, ideas and aspirations); and competencies (which encompasses skill, know-how and technique). Once the three elements are well linked, it is possible to talk about a practice. This theory aligns well with the concept of marine heritage and allows putting the elements in blocks of units. Here, the materials element of the practice can be linked to the tangible cultural heritage such as fishing crafts and the meanings and competencies are aligned with the intangible cultural heritage such as the identity or know-how.

Figure 2. Elements composing a social practice (Shove, Pantzar and Watson, 2012)

The elements of a practice can be shared between different sets of practices (figure 3) (Shover, Pantzar and Watson, 2012). Fisheries and tourism are initially composed of practices with different elements. However, some practices related to marine heritage where both set of practices might interact, common elements of practices might be shared or act as connecting element (Lamers & Van der Duim, 2016). Practices whose elements are shared in two different set of practices activities might influence each other.

Figure 3: Elements (M: materials; Me: meanings; C: competencies) between different sets of practices (Shove, Pantzar and Watson, 2012)

In addition, for the conceptual framework I introduce policies and regulations as elements of the practices involved in the study. It enables an analysis of how external factors are influencing the different practices. Considering that most of the practice theorists consider a structural element out of the practice itself, I analyze how policies and regulations might be influencing practices within and between fisheries and tourism. Merging all the elements of this section together, the final conceptual framework is seen in figure 4:

Figure 4. Conceptual Framework (own source)

Drawing from Nicolini (2009), the final strategy is to zoom in and zoom out on each of the selected practices for the study (see chapter 5). By switching theoretical lenses and re-positioning the perspective, it is possible the get aspects of the practice that are fore grounded as well as others are bracketed. Hence, the aim of the study is not only to understand heritagisation process within the practices but also to analyse what other external factors influence the direction of the heritagisation process.

4. Methodological approach

This paper is focused on the case of the waterfront area of Marsaxlokk, Malta. It is a case selected within the EU project PERICLES Heritage which aims to understand, preserve and use Maritime Cultural Heritage for societal good.

Nowadays, the place is known for its tourism since it is the only village in Malta that keeps the characteristics of a traditional fishing village ("Marsaxlokk Local Council | The Village", n.d.). The tourists visit here to enjoy the beaches, rocky cliffs, fresh seafood from the local restaurants, the fishermen lifestyle, the charming luzzu and the traditional Sunday market. Most of the main easy-access attractions are located in the waterfront area of the village (see figure 5). All these attractions are composed by a series of rituals and practices that take place every day in the waterfront and are fundamental for the image of the fishing village as a tourist destination. Moreover, as a result of the tourism influence, fishermen and locals have also developed other tourism and commercially related activities at the waterfront. Selling souvenirs, handcrafts or traditional food, together with the boat tours that fishermen and their relatives organized, are some of the new ways in which the local community puts fish on the table.

Figure 5: Tourist map of the waterfront of Marsaxlokk (Source: maltavaciones.com)

The empirical material for this paper is drawn from a combination of ethnographic research methods. Primary data was taken from a fieldwork trip during May and June in 2019, where observations, visual data and informal conversations were collected in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk. These methods are a good way to collect data when using practice theory in tourism (de Souza Bispo, 2016). Practice theory is a good match for studying a social phenomenon. In this specific case, observations are especially important as little was known about practices within heritagisation prior to the research. In this situation, the researcher “establishes and sustains a many-sided and relatively long-term relationship with a human association in its natural setting for the purpose of developing a scientific understanding of that association” (Lofland & Lofland, 1995, in Boeije, 2010:59). Visual data is related to the recording, analysis and communication of social life through photographs, film and video (Harper, 2007, in Boeije, 2010:65). In this case, visual data was generated for the research and by the researcher. In anthropology, it has been used to capture cultural phenomena and illustrate cultural events and in sociology, to show work, social class, social problems and so on (Harper,2007 in Boeije 2010:65).

For this research, visual data (photos) is combined with observations and together, they composed the main data source. Secondary sources were also used through desk research, extracting data from literature reviews, policy and development plans reports related to fisheries and tourism. Practices as the object of the study were selected ad hoc and in place, to look for relevance for this particular case. Data collected during fieldwork was written down as field notes while using the elements of a practice as a reference. By observing and capturing the elements of each of the practices, it was possible to identify and describe the meanings, materials and competence of fisheries- related activities where tourism had an influence. Data was also gathered through informal conversations and notes were written down after interacting with practitioners in the waterfront. The aim of the conversations was to know more about the meanings and provide context. All the data was analyzed by following a qualitative method through the conceptual framework. Elements of practices that were shared between set of practices were placed in the middle. Desk research provided information to zoom out of the practice to identify external factors of heritagisation processes.

5. Results Practices at the waterfront of Marsaxlokk

In order to carry out this study, four practices (figure 6) were selected out of a long list to illustrate the heritagisation processes in the waterfront area of Marsaxlokk. These practices are coded as mending fishing nets, boating, maintaining vessels and eating fish. The selection is connected to the main activities that support the image of Marsaxlokk as the last traditional fishing village with colorful luzzu and availability of fresh seafood.

Figure 6: Practices between fisheries and tourism in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk (own source)

Moreover, it is important to specify that practices selected for this case are part of bundles practices (Lamers and Van der Duim, 2016). This implies that each of the analyzed practices is already a nexus of practices with two or more practices involved. For example, when talking about the practice of maintaining vessels, I consider this practice as a nexus of practices that includes painting vessels or fixing vessels.

The next paragraphs show and develop each of the practices. I start by zooming into the practice to provide more detailed information. It is followed with a zoom out of the practice where policies, regulations and external context are considered to understand how the practices might be also influenced and be part of a heritagisation process.

Mending fishing nets

The first practice is mending fishing nets. With the arrival of the good weather in spring, fishermen start working more. It allows them to go fishing everyday and this implies that all the fishing equipment has to be ready. Nets are traditionally the main fishing methods and one of the oldest practices to catch fish. It is a relevant practice that attracts visitors due to its authenticity and performance in a traditional setting such as the waterfront. Along the waterfront, it is common to find fishermen working in groups, mending different types of nets such as the Parit (Trammel net) and the Tartarun (Seine net). It is a group work as you normally see all the members of the vessel working together, including the captains. Some different fishing crews are easy to recognize. The composition of the crews is mixed in nationalities, being Maltese and Indonesian predominant and with the presence of women.

It is possible to find these groups in very specific areas along the waterfront, where they have a space to work next to the boats. Normally there are two areas – one at the main square of the waterfront and the other in a dock in the middle area of the waterfront – where the same crews mend nets every day.

Mending the nets is usually done during noon or early afternoon, once fishermen have rested a bit and before going back to sea in the evening. In these areas, you see how fishermen are taking nets out of the boats and pile them, using a plastic cover to wrap the nets as a way to manipulate them, sometimes together with a trolley. Once they have the nets in the land, they take all the nets one by one, and start cleaning them. Sometimes fishermen pull the nets directly from the boats to land, so they do not have to work double amount.

They check each inch to see where the algae is so it can be removed. While checking the nets, sometimes the floats attached to the nets are removed by crushing them with a wooden hammer. It is a way to facilitate the net mending but also to re-adapt the nets according to the damage it has after the fishing journey. Once nets are cleaned and floats that are not necessary removed, it is time for sewing the nets. In this occasion, you can see fishermen sitting on the ground, holding the nets with both hands and feet, using the big toe to hold the net tight and making sure the fixing process does no miss any part. A small device with new string is used to fix the holes and to reconnect all the missing parts of the net that are disconnected.

It is interesting to see that mending holes or cleaning out the algae from the sea is a manual task that requires patience, skill and understanding of the composition of the nets. For the fishermen, this is the main fishing method and they rely on the state of the nets in order to make a living. It is obvious to think that the importance and meaning of the fishing nets is related to their livelihood. Besides, it is also possible to see that the time when fishermen are cleaning or amending nets is also used to socialize with neighbors that are approaching them to talk about life while having a coffee or a cigarette.

Figure 7: A fishermen (left) is placing the nets on pieces of plastic to move them easily while another fishermen (right) is sitting on the main square and amending the holes. (Photo: own source)

In addition to the fishermen mending nets, occasionally individual fishermen are sitting in the waterfront and working on the long fishing lines. The work consists on changing the fishing lines called Konz tal-Qiegħ (Set long lines) or Rixa (Trolling lines) from an old container to a new one. The containers are made of plastic or wood and normally they have hooks nailed around the border of the containers. It is a way to check the fishing lines and ensure that hooks are not missing and the line is in good condition to work again. Like mending fishing nets, it seems a more relaxing task for fishermen which also allow them to socialize in the waterfront area. Even more, some fishermen are multitasking. While shifting the fishing long line, they are selling tickets for boat tours at the same time, sitting in front of the restaurants and trying to “catch” a tourist.

Figure 8: A fisherman is shifting the long line from an old to a new blue container while selling boat tours. (Photo: own source)

The fact that a fisherman is carrying out two separate practices– one for fisheries and another for tourism - at the same time is something to think about. It is true that tourism development is tangible in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk and the interaction between tourists and fishermen is becoming a norm. As part of this routine, a novel practice was witnessed. A fisherman was posing and pretending to fix the fishing net just to be the perfect portrait souvenir for a group of tourists - in exchange of some money.

The fisherman was not mending any fishing net but just holding it up and looking at the cameras. This transformation within the practice has to be highlighted as an example of how tourism influences the local community (see figure 9).

Figure 9: A fishermen is modeling for some tourists with the hope to get a tip

The practice of mending fishing equipment has a strong connection to marine heritage. It is possible to see that crafts (such as the mending nets device, the hooks, containers, fishing lines, trolleys or hammers) together with the know-how and skills are composing some fishing arts that are part of the everyday life of local fishermen. The lifestyle behind it can be connected to family and local traditions that portray a cultural landscape closely attached to identity and living-heritage. What differs between fisheries and tourism a priori is the meaning. While mending fishing nets is part of the livelihood and fishermen’s lifestyle, for the tourism sector it is considered an attraction, a way to market and position Marsaxlokk as an authentic fishing village with real fishermen (see figure 10).

Figure 10: Practice elements of mending fishing nets

Zooming out of this practice (figure 11), there are at least two external factors influencing this practice. On one hand, the new behavior that was found where a fisherman was posing for tourists could open the possibility that fishermen see tourism development and the constant interaction with tourists as an opportunity to develop new practices and earn some money. This could influence the meaning, not directly shifting it to tourism (still could be a livelihood) but pushing in it towards a more tourism oriented practice/attraction as a livelihood. On the other hand, the mending of fishing nets is influenced by the port regulations1that decide where these activities can be performed, influencing in a way where the living-heritage is placed. Moreover, the Marsaxlokk Regeneration Project2 is a new policy development which involves the launch of works related with the upgrading and enhancement of the areas known as the “Closed Area” and “Fisherman’s Wharf”. The idea is that Marsaxlokk should become more attractive and sustainable with reduced air pollution as a result of the dismantling of the

1 As port regulations I refer to the following subsidiary legislations in Malta: 499.23 Commercial vessels regulations ; 499.52 Small ships regulations; Port Regulations; 499.35 Port security regulations; 552.27 Maritime spatial planning regulations. Retrieved on 24 July 2019 from http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/ 2Retrived on 24 July 2019 from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/2019-european-semester-national-reform- programme-malta-annex-3_en.pdf 10

Delimara chimney, and hence present a better touristic package. This of course affects and will have a greater effect on the location and performance of many practices in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk in the future.

Figure 11: Mending fishing nets as a performed activity for tourist could indicate some changes of meanings. On the other hand, the location of mending fishing nets as tourism attraction is determined by port regulations.

Taking an overview of this practice, it is evident that mending fishing nets attracts a lot of tourists as a sign of authentic lifestyle in the village of Marsaxlokk, where tourism is clearly benefiting of it, while the fishermen just do their job. In a way, their image is ‘heritagisatised’ (or commodified) for promotion and to keep the fishing identity. However, it is up to the fisheries sector to determine where these portraits are located within the waterfront and the surrounding harbor and port. On the other hand, new behaviors within the practice allowed me to think that tourism is already pulling this practice into a heritagisation process to make it more accessible and commercial for visitors. It could also be seen as an opportunity for some fishermen to rejuvenate this practice into a new economic source, if policy-makers and heritage/tourism managers would collaborate closely with fishermen.

Boating

When talking about boating, I refer to the boat tours that recently have emerged and found their place in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk as one of the new tourism activities. This involves a nexus of practices where boating and knowledge of the spots are essential, but where hospitality practices such as selling boat tour tickets, marketing or communicating with tourists also play a key role.

With the idea of diversifying the economy and developing new initiatives, fishermen and their relatives started the new experience of boating with traditional luzzu five years ago. The local boat tour operators made it clear to me when they gave me the reasons for doing it: boating is less labor intense, less complicated, economically more stable than fishing and the revenue is good (only fuel and yearly insurance as main expenses).

In Malta, the uses and categories of the vessels differ. Recreational fishing for tourism purposes in professional fishermen vessels is not allowed in Malta and activities for authentic experiences for tourists are very limited. For this particular activity, part time professional fishing vessels or recreational fishing vessels (MFB or MFC3) are allowed to offer services as water taxis or take tourists around the bay.

Along the waterfront it is possible to find up to 5 different groups of organized workers offering the boat tours. I am referring to them as workers as they act as freelance without any official company or cooperative structure behind. This could exemplify the early development stage of this activity which is still not linked to official organizations such as Malta Tourism. Within the companies that are in the waterfront, it is possible to identity at least three types

3 Since 2004, Maltese vessels are categorized as MFA for full time professional fishing, MFB for part time professional fishing or MFC for recreational fishing. MFD is for work boats in auxiliary for fishing purposes.

11 of organizational compositions: the individual entrepreneur, a group of old fishermen and the fishermen with relatives and friends working together.

What they have in common is that they offer the same kind of trips to the most known spots such as Saint Peter’s Pool, a natural cove and a must visit spot, as well as trips around the bay or the nearest beaches. Another characteristic is the price, all starting from 5€ for a single trip with the possibility to upgrade the experience according to the visitor. In general, boat tour operators believe that the trips are cheap for what you get. Boat tours are worth the money but they are not guided tours. Interaction between boatmen and users is limited

It is important to remark that the three different types of groups differ a lot with regards to the aspects of competencies and materials. The lack of common cooperation amongst themselves and the lack of connection with official tourism bodies can be some of the reasons for these differences. As an example, the use of promotional materials to attract tourists can make a difference, together with the skills and competencies of presenting and selling the tours. Some of the boat tour sellers are highly proactive and have developed more professional materials, at the same time while having developed a better image and presence at the waterfront. On the other side, individual entrepreneurs or the family business group can gather more capacities and skills to develop an online image, use social media or speak better English.

Drawing from a close observation with the boat tour family business group, I guess what makes them successful and “fish” more tourists than the others. It was partly in their proactive attitude of yelling constantly promotional sentences such as “Boat trips to St. Peter’s Pool or Nice Boat trips”, while the groups of fishermen or the individual entrepreneur were more reserved.

Another difference was the fact of using a catalogue of images to sell the spots and the flexibility and negotiation skills to offer different tours and a pick-up service at a specific time. It was clear to me that they wanted to offer a good service and make a difference from the others. Even during the Sunday market, when the entire waterfront is crowded and noisy, they used a microphone to make sure that they are heard and people still stop to check what they offer.

Having good competencies in offering boat tours can be seen as a good way forward and an example for good practices. However, this is not exempt of envy and competition. In some occasions, bad reviews on social media are even published on purpose to damage each other’s image.

Figure 12: A group of tourists in a traditional (transformed) Maltese vessel. (Photo: own source)

Figure 13: A group of boatmen ready to sell tours. (Photo: own source)

Boating is a new activity in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk and still in development. It is initiated as way to support the local economy but also to provide new creative uses of the traditional Maltese vessels. For this reasons, it is possible to think that the material heritage aspect of the boat could be highlighted in this practice as key element. At the same time it is the important to remark the different competencies that are needed in order to carry out this practice when performing boating and promotional skills.

If we take this to the conceptual model, the boat, the promotional materials and the meanings related to a new economic activity as livelihood are two strong elements of the practice that bring together fisheries and tourism (figure 14). However, differences amongst practitioners and skills regarding the promotion and marketing, linked to hospitality practices in boating, could lead to an scenario where fisheries and tourism are still distant in the boating practice.

Figure 14: Practice elements of boating

Zooming out of the practice of boating, there are also other factors that have to be considered. Transforming a traditional Maltese vessel into a tourism boat is not yet regulated. Considering the benefits of the practice for the carriers, it could be normal to expect that more traditional boats will become boat tours with traditional features. In addition, the Boat Restoration Scheme4 which aims to support fisheries in restoring the traditional vessels could end up being a support for boat transformation in the tourism sector. What happens is that the policy doesn’t differ from the final usage of the boat and it only takes into account the registration of the boat. Hence, the economic support might end up encouraging not only fishermen but also tourism entrepreneurs or enthusiastic people to use the scheme for different purposes.

Another important aspect is the lack of governance within this novel practice. There is no organization and this mesmerizes the opportunities to receive training and support from tourism bodies with more expertise. This situation could lead to a scenario where development and diversification opportunities are self-made with little guidance, where practitioners with more skills and organisation will take a big advantage from the rest.

Looking at figure 15, what could happen then is that these external factors might influence the material element of the practice in favor of tourism, placing the traditional boat into a commodity that serves to a new purpose and sector. Moreover, fishermen with fewer skills could stop practicing boating, if their skills are not enough to get by. This would provoke a broken link in the fisheries competencies and become a practice purely dominated by tourism.

4 This scheme shall help in the cultural preservation of the local fishing fleet and is aimed at the professional categories (MFA/MFB) which vessel type is either a: Firilla, Frejgatina, Kajjik and Luzzu, shall be considered as being eligible. Registered wooden fishing vessels which year of construction dates prior to 2007 (base year also included). Retrieved on 23 July 2019 from: https://www.gov.mt/en/Government/DOI/Government%20Gazette/Government%20Notices/Pages/2018/12/GovNotices3112 .aspx 13

Figure 15: Elements dynamics of boating practices

Taking back what the boating practice did to the marine heritage, one can think already that the dynamics of the materials are slightly moving towards a practice that commodifies the heritage for tourism purposes, whereas the rejuvenation or diversification of the practice is becoming less evident for fishermen. This requires special attention in addressing this practice. More governance and communication is needed to develop an umbrella with regulations and structure to provide sustainable development and preservation of the heritage within an inclusive approach.

Maintaining vessels

The traditional Maltese vessel luzzu also composed by other versions such as the Frejgatina, the Firillaor the Kajjikare the traditional fishing vessels. They are not only important as part of the small-scale fishing in Malta but they also hold a big identity and a cultural importance. It is the cornerstone of the fishing heritage in Malta and its most characteristic icon.

The practice of maintaining the traditional Maltese vessel - fixing and painting - is not easy and less people are getting involved. It is considered a skilled practice that requires knowledge and patience.

Along the waterfront of Marsaxlokk it is easy to find fishermen painting their boats or doing some work like replacing old wooden parts, fixing engines or removing part of the structure to be repaired or adapted. It is normally done at the two ends of the waterfront, where the harbor and the port are located. Fishermen work on their boats, while in the water, fixing engines or other pieces of the vessels. It is common to see fishermen replacing pieces of the wood just out of the water where they can work as carpenters for a little while.

There is no specific technique or device to paint or fix the boats, as long as the outcome is the one that is desired for the final user. From different electric tools, using a flame torch to burn the old paint (next to a fan, making sure no one is overheated) to just sanding the wood to apply a new coat, the final outcome always ends with the bright colors that characterize the traditional Maltese Vessels. It normally takes up to 3 weeks for mid-sized vessel to be ready. These colors are associated with the different natural elements and they are a way to differ the Maltese fleet from others while fishing far from home. It is possible to notice that the sequence of the colors normally follow a pattern, indicating that there is a traditional way to paint the luzzu.

Apart from fishermen, I spotted other relevant people performing these practices for different reasons and meanings. Local citizens were also painting or replacing some of the wooden parts of the boats for different purposes. During an informal conversation with a retired man who used to work in the yachts, I found out something relevant that I could have not expected before. While he was painting his luzzu, he explained that he was painting the boat for the pleasure of it. He spends every year on average 100€ for this paint and work and he mentioned that he could claim this money to the government through a subsidy which is part of the Boat Restoration Scheme that was recently launched. However he did not want the money because the amount was not that much and he was doing it to be entertained and for passion. Once it is ready, the luzzu goes into the water and stays there for six months and becomes an attrezzo of the place. In some occasions, he uses the luzzu around the harbor but not necessarily every year.

Another type of actor is involved in this practice which is not directly linked to fisheries or professional fishing. Some local citizens, traditionally part of fishing families have started a boat tour company using traditional Maltese vessels to attract tourist and offer a new experience around the bay. These local citizens are transforming old traditional Maltese vessels and restoring or adapting them for tourism uses. Of course, this implies fixing old pieces or adapting the structure to make tourists comfortable as well as ensuring that the colors of the boat are bright and good-looking.

Mondays are normally a good day to spend time to fix or prepare boats for the high season or the weekends. Sanding pieces of wood, adding an extra coat of paint or finishing details are part of the tasks that involve this practice for tourism reasons. In some occasions, the boat tour company is organized with fishermen who are working on some old boats to put them back to the water for non-fishing activities.

Figure 16: Fishermen replacing old wooden parts of a luzzu. (Photo: own source)

Figure 17: A skipper from a boat tour company painting his boat before touring again. (Photo: own source)

Stepping out from the actual practice and looking for instance at the figures 16 & 17, it is with no doubt that traditions and cultural knowledge in fishing are still alive. With the colorful luzzu, the waterfront of Marsaxlokk is filled with an authentic living-heritage that it is used by the Maltese Tourism Authority as one of the attractions to invite national and international visitors to come. While the competencies and materials might be the same (see figure 18) using similar techniques and the Maltese vessels for having a functional and colorful vessel outcome, the meanings within the practice might be different. Although the main purpose is to make a living, the boats are been repaired for fishing and tourism purposes which affects the materiality of the boat, being adapted for one sector or another. Moreover, this activity represents a tourism attraction and another evidence of living-heritage along the waterfront.

Figure 18: Practice elements of working on the vessels

Zooming out the practice (see figure 19), it is important to acknowledge its importance in providing the picturesque feature of Marsaxlokk where tourism is taking good use. It helps to promote the area as a traditional fishing village with authentic living-heritage but at national level, it turns to a must visit for any visitor coming to Malta and included in all tours and guides. Looking at the policy level, the Boat Restoration Scheme has a direct influence in this practice. As mentioned in the boating practice, this scheme aims to support fisheries in restoring the traditional Maltese vessels for fishing purposes but what happens again is that boats classified as MFB (part time professionals) can restore the boats and give a new use for tourism purposes. That means that often the practice of fixing and painting the boat could not mean that the restoration is for fishing purposes but to transform the boat into a boat tour. As it happened with the practice of mending fishing nets, the location of vessels is also determined by policies and regulations directly related to the port as well as the Marsaxlokk regeneration project which influence again the location of this practice.

Figure 19: Influential factors of working on the vessels. Spatial planning influence the location of this practice related to marine heritage while restoration policies and tourism influence some elements to move towards a more tourism oriented practice.

In this practice it is interesting to see the variety of skills and materials that are used in order to paint and fix the boat. Arts accompanied with crafts that provide a picture of fishermen working in the waterfront which becomes very attractive for tourists. The Maltese vessels as the outcome of the practice are the star with their colors and characteristic features. Apart from this clear heritage attraction, it is important to remark that the practice of working on vessels with the support of the boat restoration scheme could be initially taken as a way to become more resilient through rejuvenation or adaptation, but given the lack of control to transform vessels into tourism boat tours, if it possible to think that the skills and know-how for repairing boats are now serving tourism more than before. This is an example of a practice where heritage is rejuvenated and meanings and values are changing. However, as mentioned in the boating practice, the final purposes and the management of the luzzu as heritage will determine if this heritagisation is more or less commodified.

Eating fish

Eating fish as a practice for this study uses heritage and sustainability concepts that are involved in the consumption of fish when eating or dining in restaurants as a reference. It is related to culinary heritage, to the recipes that are linked to the Maltese gastronomy but also to the local and seasonal fish species. Marsaxlokk is well-known for the colorful luzzu, but one of the main reasons people also visit the village is because of the possibility of having a good taste of the sea. The idea to have fresh fish in a fishing village has become an attraction, a must do that visitors should not miss out on.

The waterfront of Marsaxlokk is indeed an ideal place to contemplate the seascape or the fishermen at work while eating fresh fish (Figure 19). In some occasions, fish is delivered by the local fishermen themselves in the morning. When in season, restaurants offer different fish species such as swordfish, tuna, sea bream or the lampuka (dolphin fish). Seafood and shellfish is also present where king prawns, octopus, mussels or calamari are highly demanded. Sometimes the fish is not specified and offered as “catch of the day”.

Figure 20: Restaurants’ terraces in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk

At first sight, it could seem that the offer is wide and generous in terms of providing variety of fish dishes and the experience of having fresh fish at the waterfront can be easily achieved. However, taking a closer look at what eating fish represents in terms of heritage, the impression seems to be another one. Using the reference tool developed by the Maltese NGO Fish4tomorrow the Quick Fish Guide5 allowed me to see that not all the fish that is eaten in the restaurants was provided by local sources or is in season. Just to mention some examples, in some restaurants the Lampuka was offered in May (Figure 21) while its season starts at the end of August. This already shows that some restaurants want to provide a poor version of the local food, being in most of the cases frozen and hence, not fresh as it is expected to be from a place like Marsaxlokk. Another example is with the consumption of king prawns, oysters or salmon which are imported from other countries in order to satisfy the demand.

Besides the fish products, most of the restaurants have a very limited offer in what it comes to traditional recipes, being only a few of them the ones with at least some dishes related to Malta. In many occasions, the offer seems to be same in all restaurants and dishes related to other cuisines such as the Italian or western standards such as classic pizzas, burgers or Greek salads are constantly offered (Figure 21).

Figure 21: Some of the fish offers in the waterfront

5 The aim of the guide is to provide information on various fish which are consumed locally in order to be able to rate them based on environmental sustainability. Retrived on 24 July 2019 from http://fish4tomorrow.com/quickfish-guide 17

This is influenced by the tourism demand but also shows that local restaurants’ interests in trying to highlight the diversity of local fish and recipes that are around the coast of Malta is low.

Taking this practice to the fisheries side, it is true that some of the fish that is consumed in place comes from the fishermen themselves, but the amount is not even comparable to the actual fish that is landed in the auction. The new landing area in the locality of Marsa might have an influence in the products that are served in the restaurants as less fish stays in place. Apart from the fish value chain, what it is important is that the knowledge and meaning of fish as a staple holds a meaning behind than just food. Many of the fishermen and relatives still cook fish in many different ways and consume species when they are available and to celebrate special occasions and festivities.

Taking all these factors into the frame for practices (figure 22), a way to place the eating fish practice might be a situation where competencies and meanings differ in the essence of eating more or less recipes and the fact that for fisheries is a staple and for tourism is another experience. However, the material aspect, some of the fish species can still be the interlinked between both sector, when seasonal fish is offered or local recipes prepared.

Figure 22: Practice elements of eating fish

Several factors might influence the current state of the practice. Zooming out, fishing policies indeed have a role in determining the quantity and the seasonality of species but also the import of fish from other countries influence what ends up on the table. Apart from these commercial aspects, the lack of governance and strategy to implement fish in a more gastronomic way in restaurants together with the under controlled development of business in the Waterfront, allowed the fish offer to become standard and non-related to the place itself. A simple fact could be that salmon from Scandinavian countries is highly consumed in Marsaxlokk and still an authentic experience for visitors.

Without a control and lacking synergies, one of the dynamics that might happen is that fisheries and tourism might be more separated from each other (figure 23), becoming just partners in crime when some of the fish that is consumed is common. These pressures are asking for more collaboration and strategies to implement more local knowledge in the hospitality sector and look for strategies where culinary heritage linked to the local gastronomy can be enhanced.

Figure 23: External factors of the eating fish as a practice might influence in separating both sectors.

An analysis of this practice shows that using fish has been a way to attract tourists to Marsaxlokk as part of the experiences in place. The consumption of fish in restaurants has become the driver of a commodification of a fishing culture where less local fish and recipes are consumed. The material aspect of eating fish in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk, the fish itself, has sustained and linked both set of practices for long time. Still some of the offer stands for a traditional cuisine but the general offers goes around selling any kind of fish or food, leading to a standardization of the food offer. This standardization could be one of the symptoms of mass tourism or rapid tourism growth that has happened in Marsaxlokk. It could lead to a scenario where the last element, the material gets completely disconnected. In order to avoid this and include even the other elements together, more local fish and recipes should be consumed.

6. Discussion

Before taking the discussion down to the actual case, here I want to remark the benefits and possibilities of using a practice theory to understand dynamics that occur in heritagisation processes and look into the elements that characterize practices.

The well aligned conceptualization of the elements of heritage – tangible and intangible, with the elements of a practice – materials, meanings and competencies (Shove, Pantzar and Watson, 2012), indicates that the framework is suitable and functional and serves the cause. Marine heritage is filled with practices and by analyzing them with this lens, it is possible to scan aspects of tangible but especially intangible heritage that sometimes are hard to define. Moreover, practice theory adds the competencies in the analysis, which allows seeing the relevance of the practitioners in regards of the practice. This performance is related to not only fisheries but also within tourism as part of the experiences in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk. Apart from the social practice theory frame, the possibility to use elements of a practice to look at how two set of practices like fisheries and tourism are connected and/or influenced by the other, helps to spot dynamics but also to see where opportunities and challenges in development, policy and governance between the two sectors are located. For these reasons, social practice theory adds value in describing and analysing the elements that influence the heritagisation process and adds a more practical level that helps to understand and visualize what factors and components influence the process.

In the case of the waterfront area of Marsaxlokk, it was possible to see within practices a heritagisation related process. Taking the definition from Walsh (1992) and Harrison (2013b), where objects, places and practices of cultural heritage change value, materials and meanings of the practices in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk are already changing. The traditional luzzu vessel might be one of the cultural assets that probably have more to offer, given its relevance to display and represent the uniqueness of the fishing village. Together with the luzzu, the traditional fishing lifestyle, the concept of eating fresh fish and the seascape contribute in assembling assets or list them (Harrison,2013) to promote Marsaxlokk as a “must visit” destination. In a way, reaffirming the image of places due to its identity (Chigby,2013) like the case of Marsaxlokk as a fishing village can be considered as a whole heritagisation process of the place that benefits tourism authorities in Malta to exhibit and promote Marsaxlokk as the last traditional fishing village in the country. Practices with marine heritage elements are clearly on display and novel practices aim to capitalize on the local assets to exhibit them, mainly for economic purposes. As examples, the value of mending fishing net can be seen in the case as a way to perform a traditional activity for tourism entertainment or the traditional luzzu has become more accessible than ever, where tourists can interact and even go for a boat tour. These facts can already demonstrate changes in practices and values. However, not all the practices purely represent traditional values or features of the local identity as for instance eating fish has become more a concept to attract tourists rather than a real representation of the culinary heritage of Marsaxlokk. Eating fresh fish has become more and idea that not always is represented and more restaurants have standard food offer to ensure the satisfaction of the international bellies.

In all the heritagisation processes, it is important to highlight the role of tourism development in rejuvenating activities with cultural feature for economic purposes. On one hand, boating has become a bottom-up initiative in place with the idea to open new economic opportunities and uses of the small-scale fleet. However, the lack of cooperation with tourism has become a threat. There is a disconnection between fishermen and tour operators within an activity that encompasses both, and for this practice hospitality skills are a key factor. The lack of capacity building for fishermen or the lack of synergies between fisheries and tourism might be seen as one of the reasons why some actors practice better boating than others. Looking at Bessière (2013), the integration of the practice might be in an emerging stage where rural systems are present and the network is not yet defined. Measures are needed for full integration of both sectors. Otherwise it might affect the primary intention of rejuvenating the fishery sector and therefore, could affect the practice by taking it to the tourism “territory” with less cultural value and discouraging fishermen from the practice. This supports Daugstad & Fageraas (2018) that historically fishermen have not had enough support and same opportunities as farmers in protecting their cultural heritage and developing more activities related to tourism.

On the other side, some cases within boating have shown that rejuvenating of fishermen and support to the local economy is possible. Here, factors are mainly due the strong network within particular cases where fishermen and relatives with hospitality where combined. Hence, competencies are key for integration of both sectors when using cultural heritage for sustainable economic development.

Although maintaining the vessels has become one of the main images of the traditional lifestyle in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk, almost like an open-air museum display, it is interesting to see that values and meanings of the practice are different. In relation to the boating activity, the luzzu boats are in a clear heritagisation process where boats are not for fishing anymore but to take tourists around the bay or even decorate the waterfront. This can be read in different ways. Following Saidi (2012), the boats can be either part of a museum but also their meaning and physical material can be modified into something new that takes the luzzu into a tourisitfication process. Some boats are now adapted to ensure that boating is possible and pleasant for tourists.

For each of the practices, the heritagisation process might occur in different ways. Elements within the practice are influenced differently by different external factors. Meanings play a big role in how the heritagisation takes place, as the reasons behind behold different reasons for value and meaning transformation. While at the practice level, the reality of the practice pushes the elements to a set of practices related to tourism, for economic and more personal benefits of taking advantage of the local heritage assets; the policies and ideas behind try to provide a more balance scenario for sustainable management of marine heritage. However, marine heritage is not yet fully considered as an element for local development and tourism takes good advantage in using it for their own sector benefits. A good example is the Boat Restoration Scheme. This policy aims to support the material element of traditional vessels for fishing but it has influenced it in a way that the material element is transformed and practiced for tourism purposes. Moreover, the meaning of maintaining vessels has been influenced in the same way and more fishermen and entrepreneurs take the opportunity of the policy to transform vessels for tourism related activities.

One last aspect is to look at heritagisation as a practice (HAP). Considering at all the elements that have been cited and remarked in relation to the uses and transformation of heritage, different connecting practices (Lamers and Van der Duim, 2016) seem to be intertwined. The management and policies to include and support stakeholders in the heritagisation process, as well as the development and strategic campaigns to promote the image of Marsaxlokk, behold practices that can be considered as key factors that influence the practices studied for the case.

Although this paper shows relevant aspects of heritagisation processes of marine heritage with examples of practices in a state of transformation and adaptation, this does not exclude a few limitations for the study. First, this is a case study based in Marsaxlokk and the results are linked to a specific location and time. Hence, it can be challenging to obtain similar results for another case when applying the same method as practices can be in constant transformation. However, exploring more cases could contribute to understand the possibilities and barriers of using practice theory for heritage studies. Apart from the uniqueness of the case, I am aware of the length of the fieldwork carried out for the study which might seem not enough for full ethnographic study. Continued tracking in the coming years is yet to be done to monitor the heritagisation of practices at the waterfront of Marsaxlokk with the aim to develop indicators. Last but not least, I want to remark again that this study was not aiming to fully understand each of the practices but to provide more knowledge in heritagisation processes of marine heritage.

7. Conclusions

For this particular study, the main objective was to provide more understanding of heritagisation processes where tourism development influences activities related to marine heritage. It also aimed to show that practice theory is useful when analyzing dynamics in heritage studies. Especially given that activities linked to marine heritage in the waterfront of Marsaxlokk are made out of practices with materials (tangible) elements, and meanings and competencies (intangible) elements.

The different practices present some similarities and differences within a heritagisation process. The material element of the practices remains as the connecting element for all the practices i.e. boats, fishing nets, fishermen, and fish, and bring together fisheries and tourism. Without the tangible heritage - material element, the practice would hardly exist. It is essential for any set of practices to have a material element that connects them. However, in the case of eating fish, tourism might influence in disconnecting the material element as more fish is imported and not related to the local cuisine.

The majority of the elements within practices are in transformation process and this study has demonstrated how materials, meanings and competencies at the same time are in a heritagisation process. The value of marine

20 heritage is changing, influenced by tourism development. The use of the boats as an attraction and to exhibit the village elsewhere as a living museum or the new meanings towards mending fishing nets are some examples. In most of the cases, rapid growth of tourism might influence the heritagisation process to commodify heritage for commercial and personal interests.

From a broad perspective – or zooming out -, heritagisation processes might be influenced by policies or external factors that do not belong necessarily to tourism. The Boat Restoration Scheme is a good example on how heritagisation can also be influenced by other policies in the fisheries sector. Moreover, the concept of Marsaxlokk as a last fishing village in Malta might be a social construct within tourism and hence, meaning of the place remains as a way to keep the authenticity and representation for pure promotion purposes.

This study has shown how practice theory can be applied as a way to study and understand dynamics and processes of heritagisation. The waterfront area of Marsaxlokk is in a transformation process where tourism activity is becoming more present and influencing the traditional fishery sector. Still, the marine heritage character is visible and re-adapted to a new social structure with the presence of more visitors.

Following on this research paper, another way forward to continue could be to fully analyze heritagisation as a practice. This could provide more understanding of the set of practices that are involved within this concept. Further research could be also considered in including more practices and cases to develop a practice theory based model for heritage studies. In consideration to this model, it could also be possible to develop more knowledge not only about elements between set of practices but also to find out connecting practices.

References

Acott, T. G., & Urquhart, J. (2014). Sense of place and socio-cultural values in fishing communities along the English Channel. In Social issues in sustainable fisheries management(pp. 257-277). Springer, Dordrecht.

Berg, S. K. (2017). Cultural heritage as a resource for property development. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 8(4), 304-322.

Bessière, J. (2013). heritagisation, a challenge for tourism promotion and regional development: An example of food heritage. Journal of HeritageTourism, 8(4), 275-291.

Boyne, S., Hall, D. & Williams, F. (2003), “Policy, support and promotion for food related tourism initiatives: a marketing approach to regional development”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 14 Nos 3/4, pp. 131-54.

Carta, M. (2016). The Waterfront Theorem: An Integrated and Creative Planning Approach. In The Fluid City Paradigm (pp. 19-29). Springer, Cham.

Chapman, A., & Light, D. (2011). The heritagisationof the British seaside resort: the rise of the ‘old penny arcade’. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 6(3), 209-226.

Chigbu, U. E. (2013). Rurality as a choice: Towards ruralising rural areas in sub-Saharan African countries. Development Southern Africa, 30(6), 812-825.

Corsale, A., & Iorio, M. (2014). Transylvanian Saxon culture as heritage: insights from Viscri, Romania. Geoforum, 52, 22-31.

Daugstad, K., & Fageraas, K. (2018). 12 World heritage and cultural sustainability. Cultural Sustainability and the Nature-Culture Interface: Livelihoods, Policies, and Methodologies, 3. de Souza Bispo, M. (2016). Tourism as practice. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 170-179.

Dymitrow, M. (2013). Degraded towns in Poland as cultural heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 19(7), 613-631.

Everett, S. & Aitchison, C. (2008). ‘The role of food tourism in sustaining regional identity: A case study of Cornwall, South West England’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2), pp. 150–167.

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Halewood, C., & Hannam, K. (2001). Viking heritage tourism: Authenticity and commodification. Annals of tourism research, 28(3), 565-580.

Harrison, R. (2013). Heritage: critical approaches, Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon ; New York.

Henderson, J. C. (2009) ‘Food Tourism Reviewed’, British Food Journal, 111(4), pp. 317–326.

Huang, S. M., & Lee, H. K. (2019). Difficult heritage diplomacy? Re-articulating places of pain and shame as world heritage in northeast Asia. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 25(2), 143-159.

Hussain et al. (2015). The role of urban form at historical waterfront: case of Marsaxlokk waterfront. Advances in Environmental Biology, 9(24), 142-147.

Isnart, C. (2012). The mayor, the ancestors and the chapel: clientelism, emotion and heritagisation in southern France. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 18(5), 479-494.

Khakzad, S., & Griffith, D. (2016). The role of fishing material culture in communities’ sense of place as an added- value in management of coastal areas. Journal of Marine and Island Cultures, 5(2), 95-117.

Kim, S., & Ellis, A. (2015). Noodle production and consumption: From agriculture to food tourism in Japan. Tourism Geographies, 17(1), 151-167.

Lamers, M., & Van der Duim, R. (2016). Connecting practices: Conservation tourism partnerships in Kenya. In Practice Theory and Research (pp. 195-217). Routledge.

Losco, J. (2015). The Mediterranean cruise industry: its impacts on Maltese cruise tourism (Bachelor's thesis, University of Malta).

Markwick, M. (1999). Malta's tourism industry since 1985: Diversification, cultural tourism and sustainability. Scottish Geographical Journal, 115(3), 227-247.

Marsaxlokk Local Council | The Village. Retrieved on 26 July 2019 from http://en.marsaxlokklc.com/village

National Statistics Office_Malta. (2018). Population Statistics (Revisions): 2012-2016. National Statistics Office_Malta. Retrieved on 30 July 2019 from https://nso.gov.mt/en/News_Releases/View_by_Unit/Unit_C5/Population_and_ Migration_Statistics/Documents/2018/News2018_022.pdf

Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization studies, 30(12), 1391-1418.

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist theorizing. Europeanjournal of social theory, 5(2), 243-263.

Said, A. (2017). Are the Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines Sufficient to Halt the Fisheries Decline in Malta?. In The Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines (pp. 213-235). Springer, Cham.

Saidi, H. (2012). Capital cities as open-air museums: a look at Québec City and Tunis. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(1-2), 75-88.

Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge UniversityPress.

Spiteri, B. (2011). Towards sustainable management of land and sea uses within the Marsaxlokk Bay area. Journal of Coastal Research, 242-247.

Swensen, G. (2012). Concealment or spectacularisation: analysing the heritagisation process of old prisons. Defense sites: Heritage and future, 231-242.

Charles, T. (1971). Interpretation and the Sciences of Man. Review of metaphysics, 25(1), 3-51.

Van Ginkel, R. (2001). Inshore fishermen: cultural dimensions of a maritime occupation. In Inshore fisheries management (pp. 177-193). Springer, Dordrecht.

Walsh, K. 1992, Representation of the past: museums and heritage in the post-modern World, Routledge, London.

Vallega, A. (2003). The coastal cultural heritage facing coastal management. Journal of cultural heritage, 4(1), 5- 24.

Yeh, N. (2018). Sustainable heritage management through community engagement by applying a social learning lens in the cases of Marsaxalokk, Malta. (Master’s thesis, Wageningen University and Research).