20 021Examensarbete 30 hpJuni 2020Natural and Cultural Heritage in Tourism on Gotland Heritage Tourism Characteristics and the Relation of Natural and Cultural Heritage Mareike Kerstin Schaub

Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet UTH-enheten Besöksadress: Ångströmlaboratoriet Lägerhyddsvägen 1 Hus 4, Plan 0 Postadress: Box 536 751 21 Uppsala Telefon: 018 – 471 30 03 Telefax: 018 – 471 30 00 Hemsida: http://www.teknat.uu.se/student

AbstractNatural and Cultural Heritage in Tourism on GotlandMareike Kerstin SchaubThis thesis researches into the heritage tourism characteristics on Gotland. Manydestinations see a great potential to develop new tourism products around theirheritage and thus meet a rising demand for enriching and unique visitor experiences.The Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea has a long history as a tourismdestination and is rich in heritage resources of diverse origin. A qualitative approach istaken to study which traits characterise heritage related tourism to Gotland, andwhich potentials and challenges are seen by major stakeholders in the tourism andheritage development. One protruding result is the strong connection betweennatural and cultural elements at the heritage sites as well as in tourism demand. Alsothe tourism strategy for Gotland strives for a further development of nature andculture as thematic tourism areas. Hence, a closer look is taken into the relation ofthese two heritage elements. With help of the concept and methodology ofheritagescapes two heritage sites have been analysed in a case study approach. Theresult shows that the integration of natural and cultural heritage to create cohesiveand immersive visitor experiences at one site is challenging. However, taking bothheritage elements into account can create synergies and they enhance how therespective other heritage element is experienced. This can broaden which visitorgroups are attracted and in which season. Furthermore, the heritagescape approachgives practical management implications for the sites.

20 021Examinator: Ulrika Persson-FischierÄmnesgranskare: Carina JohanssonHandledare: Consuelo Griggio

iii

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

iv

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

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.

2

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,

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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:

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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.

11

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

12

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.

13

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

14

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.

15

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,

16

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

17

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

18

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.”

19

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).

20

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

21

(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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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”,

27

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).

28

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

29

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.

30

“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.”

31

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

32

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

33

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.

34

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.

35

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

36

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.

37

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

38

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.

39

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

40

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

41

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

42

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).

43

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

44

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

45

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).

46

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

47

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?

48

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

49

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

50

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

51

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

52

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.

53

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

54

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

55

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

56

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

57

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

58

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

59

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

60

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

61

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

62

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

63

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.

64

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

65

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

66

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

67

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

68

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

69

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

70

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

71

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

72

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.

73

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.

74

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

75

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

76

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

77

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

78

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.

79

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,

80

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.

81

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.

82

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

83

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

84

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

85

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.

86

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

87

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.

v

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.

vi

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.

In International Journal of Heritage Studies 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.

vii

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 interpreta tion

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.

viii

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

ix

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.

x

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.

xi

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.

xii

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.

xiii

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.

xiv

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.

xv

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.

xvi

(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.

xvii

(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.

xviii

(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.

xix

(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.

xx

(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.

xxi

(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.

xxii

(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.

xxiii

(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:

xxiv

(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.

xxv

(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.