ABSTRACT
There have been tensions as ethnic tourism develops in western China leading to various responses from local people, including resistance. Cornet discussed Dong villagers’ responses to tourism development in Zhaoxing using concepts such as livelihoods, resistance, agency, and ethnicity. This paper aims to reinterpret these responses and extend the scope of discussion through multiple case studies using primary data collected in our fieldwork. This study showed that the issues involving ethnic minority groups mentioned by Cornet commonly appear in Han areas and ethnicity is less significant in local responses to tourism development. In addition, we found that villagers have little voice in tourism development and their rights and interests are often ignored by local government. These findings have important implications for increasing our understanding of the issues arising from ethnic tourism.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 This paper reports on part of a larger study in which Hongkeng is the main case study site. Therefore, the distribution of interviewees in the four sites are not equal, which is a limitation of this research.
2 It is from the introduction to Zhaoxing in Zhaoxing village museum.
3 It is from the introduction to Zhaoxing in Zhaoxing village museum.
4 The 6.27 riot occurred on 27 June 2015. The details of this riot are discussed in Section 5.3.
5 Zhailao are elected villagers’ representatives but are different from the official villagers’ representatives. The term of Zhailao is not fixed and can be 1 year, 2 years, or longer. The official villagers’ representatives are elected every 3 years according to the Organic Law of the Villager’ Committees.