Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change ISSN: 1476-6825 (Print) 1747-7654 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtcc20 Complexity of Socio-spatial Transformations Through Tourism: A Mediterranean Village, Kaleköy Emine Onaran Incirlioğlu & Gaye Çulcuoglu To cite this article: Emine Onaran Incirlioğlu & Gaye Çulcuoglu (2004) Complexity of Socio-spatial Transformations Through Tourism: A Mediterranean Village, Kaleköy, Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 2:1, 24-45, DOI: 10.1080/14766820408668167 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14766820408668167 Published online: 29 Mar 2010. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 156 Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtcc20 Complexity of Socio-spatial Transformations Through Tourism: A Mediterranean Village, Kaleko¨y Emine Onaran I˙ncirliog˘lu and Gaye C¸ ulcuogˆlu Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture, Bilkent University, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey This article reflects on the complex consequences of tourism development in the iso- lated Mediterranean village of Kaleko¨y. Built on the antique city of Simena of the 4th century BC and having remnants also from Hellenistic, Byzantine and Ottoman periods, Kaleko¨y’s main source of livelihood since the 1980s has been tourism. Mul- tiple changes that take place simultaneously at the local level, in relation to or as a consequence of tourism, are conceptualised as interrelated transformations that may fall under the four major headings of economy, demography, spatial organis- ation and cognition. Defining culture as ‘everything learned’, these transformations amount to a radical change in the local culture, which now includes a culture of tour- ism. Based on ethnographic research, the article aims to demonstrate the complexity of changes in physical, as well as economic and social structures as they pertain to tourism. Keywords: tourism development, spatial organisation, sociocultural change, cognition Introduction ‘Consequences of Tourism Development’ including ‘local responses to tour- ism’, a widely discussed topic in tourism literature inevitably assumes a linear cause–effect relationship where tourism is taken as the cause and a select set of occurrences as its effects. Those occurrences selected are meaningful within certain theories whether the authors explicate them or not. Most critiques of specific social science ‘theories’, however, assert that ‘none of the models or theories discussed or proposed ...measure up to the complexity of social pro- cesses, still less to the scale and speed of the changes in those processes’. Although ‘simplicity is the essence of scientific advance’, as Stirling stated, ‘we are not ready enough to recognise that simplifying also – inevitably – misrepresents’ (Stirling, 1993: 3). So far, the focus in Turkish tourism research has been on predominantly economic and political analyses, adopting relevant ‘macro theories’. Studies of legal and administrative bases of tourism, organisational tools utilised in tourism business, changing policies and priorities in tourism, or national and international efforts in tourism education (Atabay, 1999; Go¨ymen, 2000; Var, 2001) are clearly worthwhile endeavours. Yet, they provide limited infor- mation concerning local experiences and cultural change. Elsewhere, what is usually understood from local responses to tourism has been studied through ‘micro level’ analyses, focusing on the relationship between tourists and their host communities, or the immediate changes produced by tourism. For 1476-6825/04/01 024-22 $20.00/0 # 2004 E.O. I˙ncirliog˘lu & G. C¸ ulcuogˆlu JOURNAL OF TOURISM AND CULTURAL CHANGE Vol. 2, No. 1, 2004 24 Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 25 example, some studies have looked into the ‘negative’ aspects of tourism from the perspective of locals, as did Tsartas in the Greek isles (1992) and Crick in Sri Lanka (1994). Such studies usually conclude that ‘tourists from the indus- trial nations ... leave behind them bewildered people, crippled institutions, and a ravaged environment’ (Dog˘an, 1989: 217). Some have explored the posi- tive impact and ‘progress’ brought about, by tourism, as did Nehl in Tibet (2000). Yet some others have analysed the strategy of ‘boundary maintenance’ by some locals, keeping the local ways distinctly apart from the realm of tour- ism, so that ‘tourism’s negative impacts are effectively nullified’ (Dog˘an, 1989: 222). In addition, studies of the economics of tourism, usually, focus on ‘micro- economic issues’ including supply and demand in tourism, as well as market structures, the industrial organisation of the sector, and pricing and decision making (Grassl, 1999; Sinclair & Stabler, 1997). While such studies are informa- tive about individual decision making processes and personal reactions in the context of tourism, they fall short of explaining larger social and economic transformations in the host communities. In most tourism research, the concept of ‘culture’ is taken in its narrow meaning, highlighting ‘cultural identity’, ‘culture tourism’, ‘cultural heritage’ or ‘value-systems’, and they focus on one specific ‘issue’. For example, focus- ing on the issue of tourism planning, Apostolopoulos et al. suggest that ‘planning decisions should respect the rights and nuances of different value- systems and cultures and reinforce and preserve special identity aspects’ (2001: 10). Culture in an anthropological sense, however, as that ‘complex whole’, involves more, including ‘a style of cultural analyses that concentrates on change, flux, disorientation, recombination and transformation and the relationship between the economic and symbolic economy’ (Meethan, 1998: 228). Our study is an attempt to understand the complexity of tourism-related cul- tural changes in a small Mediterranean village. In Fischer’s formulation of com- plexity, our ‘data are complex by virtue of a wide range of different factors that must be represented’ (1994: 78). Here, we report multiple transformations that have been experienced in the village that may fall under the related yet separate categories of ‘economy’, ‘demography’, ‘spatial organisation’ and ‘cognition’. Fieldwork in Kaleko¨y Kaleko¨y, the antique city of Simena of the 4th century BC, is one of the few inhabited villages in the Kekova Bay, which covers an area of 260 sq km between Antalya and Kas¸ along Turkey’s Mediterranean coast (see Figure 1 and Photo 1). The shoreline throughout the Bay, which is well defined by the Kekova Island and the Sıc¸ak Peninsula, is toothed with many peninsulas and coves. It is documented that human life has existed in the region for 200,000 years and that the region has been inhabited continuously since then. Remnants from Hellenistic, Byzantine and Ottoman periods, including the sar- cophagi of the sunken city, tombs, piers, remnants of the harbour, city walls, and the citadel ruins are among typical elements of the Kekova landscape.1 The environmental, historical and cultural features of the Kekova Bay have led to its national classification as both an archaeological preservation site and a natural conservation area. The decision for conservation was taken in 1976 26 Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change Figure 1 Map of Turkey Photo 1 Kaleko¨y, general view and Kaleko¨y was identified as an archaeological preservation site in 1980. The Authority for the Protection of Special Areas that was established in 1989 identified the Kekova Bay as one of the twelve ‘Special Environmental Protec- tion Areas’, as a result of its specific biodiversity, landform, and ecological conditions. Kaleko¨y was further defined as a ‘Special Planning Area’ because of its location, the architectural and aesthetic qualities of the Complexity of Transformations through Tourism 27 Photo 2 Approach to Kaleko¨y from U¨ c¸ag˘iz buildings, and their relationship with the shoreline (C¸ ulcuog˘lu & I˙ncirliog˘lu, 2000; O¨ zer et al., 1993). Composed of the words ‘kale’ (citadel) and ‘ko¨y’ (village), the name Kaleko¨y literally means ‘the citadel village’. The landform is elevated from the shore- line towards the Medieval Kaleko¨y Citadel (the castle of Simena) at the North, rapidly reaching 550 metres. Located on the southern slope of the hill, the Cita- del controls the harbour and the bay. Throughout the village, ruins of tombs, cisterns and walls from various historic periods are organically integrated into the domestic architecture. Since Kekova Bay is declared as ‘cultural property’ and a ‘preservation site’, each building in Kaleko¨y is officially registered for conservation. Lack of access from land is the village’s most significant feature. Other than by walking through a tiny path to the north of the village, the only way to approach Kaleko¨y is by boat, either from its twin village U¨ c¸ag˘ız across the Bay, or from the district centre, Demre (see Photo 2). Thus, ‘yacht tourism’ is significant in the area. Due to both restricted access and historical preser- vation codes that prohibit new construction, Kaleko¨y has remained a quiet and relatively isolated village, ‘frozen’ in time (I˙ncirliog˘lu & C¸ ulcuog˘lu, 2000). The bulk of the information in this article is the result of ethnographic field- work in Kaleko¨y since 1999. We have paid numerous visits to the village in different seasons, staying at different bed-and-breakfast inns