Page 81 - JCAU-7-3

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism Anthropological observation of Lizhuang

the renewal and reconstruction of locality. In response to residents redefined and repurposed colonial heritage,
globalization, concepts such as “relocalization” (Thomas, integrating it into domestic tourism. Ross & Saxena
1998) have been proposed to describe processes of local (2019) investigated the Alentejo region in Portugal and
reconstruction and reinvention. found that even after architectural losses, memories
Modernization and globalization have led to and knowledge of historical monuments persist.
increasingly standardized landscapes, eroding local Their research highlights how tourism stakeholders
distinctiveness and creating a crisis in the significance can creatively transform archaeological heritage into
of place. Places characterized by “placelessness” (Jacobs tourism resources through participatory innovation,
& Appleyard, 1987) have lost not only their functional thereby enhancing market appeal. Dans & González
significance – such as diversity and authenticity – but also (2019), using the Altamira Conservation Plan in Spain
their emotional significance, including people’s attachment as a case study, identified the social value of heritage
to and identification with the place. Relph (1976, p. 90) in sustainable tourism, including its existence, esthetic,
defines placelessness as “places with a weakened sense of economic, and heritage value. Their findings highlight
identity.” the balance between heritage conservation and tourism
development. In another study, Lucchi (2023) examined
The concept of “delocalization” has been explored the regeneration design of archaeological sites to enhance
through studies of material changes in architecture. For the interaction between architectural systems, human
instance, in Mexico (Heyman, 1994), the replacement systems, and natural systems. Through a case study of
of indigenous building materials with standardized the UNESCO-listed site of Castelseprio in Italy, the
foreign materials was perceived as a loss of local culture. study demonstrated the dynamic interactivity between
Placelessness, in this context, refers to both the process heritage, the environment, society, and economic
and the outcome of the destruction and replacement of development.
local products or cultural consciousness by external,
standardized ones, leading to diminished local A review of studies on the local distinctiveness of
distinctiveness. Building on these ideas, anthropologist historical towns in China reveals that as mobility and
Thomas (1988) proposed the concept of relocalization, globalization continue to reshape the essence of place,
arguing that delocalization is often accompanied by the significance of places also evolves. Bai et al. (2017)
simultaneous processes of relocalization. His analysis of proposed a framework for understanding the presentation
rural housing in southeast Madagascar identified two and formation mechanisms of local distinctiveness,
approaches to relocalization: first, the incorporation of emphasizing three dimensions: location, place, and sense
non-indigenous building materials into existing local of place. Their study on the slow-living local distinctiveness
cultural patterns; and second, the construction of rural in Lijiang historical town, Yunnan, China, highlights the
dwellings in external locations to maintain cultural unique characteristics of local distinctiveness within the
significance and relationships. Relocalization, therefore, context of tourism development. In addition, Mou &
refers to the integration of external, standardized products Cheng (2023) identified three main endogenous drivers
or ideas into local contexts in a way that preserves local of spatial production in historical town tourism: power
characteristics and maintains the authenticity of local structure, cultural production, and capital circulation.
culture (Sun, 2017). These elements, they argue, play a crucial role in shaping
local creation and sustaining the distinctiveness of
In recent years, international research on heritage
site tourism has primarily focused on two key areas: the historical towns.
development of tourism at heritage and the behaviors According to Zhu & Liu (2011), the sense of place
and impacts of various stakeholders involved in this comprises two primary dimensions: place attachment
process. Chark (2021) explored the relationship between and place identity. It refers to individuals’ emotional
heritage site tourism and nostalgia in Paris, finding connection with and identification with specific places,
that nostalgic emotions influence individuals’ sense of with its core meaning embedded in the continuous
belonging, thereby shaping their preferences for heritage construction of local social cultures. Zhang & Xu (2023)
tourism. In addition, colonial heritage has become found that tourist experiences in Lijiang historical
an increasingly popular tourist attraction worldwide. town shape place attachment through physical, social,
Jorgensen (2019) examined the perspectives of Indian and natural dimensions. Similarly, Long et al. (2020),
residents in Puducherry, a former French colony, on using samples from Fenghuang historical town, Hunan,
local production and consumption after the city became China, identified place attachment as a key determinant
a heritage tourism destination. The study found that of destination loyalty among tourists. These findings

Volume 7 Issue 3 (2025) 2 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.4876