In a recent post we discussed the decision by the City of Paris to shut its last physical tourist office.
In a reaction to that post, Emanuele Panke from the Crocus Project highlighted the issues facing rural and remote areas in terms of providing tourist information and involving visitors. She notes that:
“If the same principle were applied in rural and remote areas—eliminating physical tourist offices to save money or due to a lack of human resources—the consequences could be even more severe and far-reaching. These regions, often characterized by fragile infrastructures, smaller populations, and limited access to technology, already face significant challenges in attracting visitors. Removing physical tourist offices would exacerbate their isolation, depriving travelers of a vital point of contact for navigating and appreciating these often less-documented locations. Without the ability to engage directly with knowledgeable local staff, visitors lose the opportunity to uncover hidden gems, learn about cultural traditions, and connect with the human stories that make these areas unique.
In rural contexts, personal interaction is often the cornerstone of the visitor experience, fostering a deeper appreciation for the land, its history, and its people. Tourist offices serve not only as practical hubs for information but also as cultural ambassadors, creating bridges between visitors and the local community. Their disappearance would risk reducing the experience to a transactional and impersonal one, mediated solely by algorithms on social media. Furthermore, rural areas could struggle to compete in an increasingly homogenized tourism landscape, where social media platforms favour highly visible urban landmarks and popularized itineraries.
The loss of these physical offices would not only diminish the visitor experience but could also have dire economic consequences. Local businesses, artisans, and producers, who often rely on referrals and visibility generated by tourist offices, might see fewer visitors and less income, ultimately jeopardizing the sustainability of rural economies. In the worst-case scenario, these areas could fade into obscurity, losing their cultural and economic vibrancy as they become disconnected from the broader tourism ecosystem.”
As research for the Crocus Project continues, we are now learning more about how rural and remote areas are dealing with the challenges of visitor interaction with limited human and economic resources.
One of the potential ways forward for these areas is the development of routes that can link different ‘hotspots’ in thinly populated areas. In this way, a crucial mass of visitors can be attracted to locations where services and experiences are available. In her analysis rural tourism experiences in Norway, Tolstad (2014) found that the development of local networks was crucial to supporting engaging visitor experiences and driving innovation. This underlines the importance of a creative ecosystem that brings together different activities and stakeholders in rural areas to provide mutual support and new ideas. It is also important to consider how the network fits together, and how it connects with external actors. In the case of rural tourism development, the clustering of facilities can generate flows of visitors who in turn help to support local businesses. This is important because these businesses also help to support what Jevnaker and Hill (2024) call ‘entrepreneurial placemaking’, in which the business activities and social networks of local craftspeople help to sustain and shape rural and remote places. Without these activities, rural communities would be in danger of further decline. These activities also rely on external relationship, both with tourists who provide a direct economic input, and with other entrepreneurs and artisans, who provide a creative and innovative impulse for business activities.
Merrell, Rowe, Cowie and Gkartzios (2021) refer to ‘Honey Pot hubs’ in rural areas, which can generate the footfall vital to support facilities for visitors and locals. These hubs combine visitor facilities with creative production, with the generation of footfall being particularly important, as this creates synergies whereby attracting visitors supports a critical mass of artists, which becomes a further draw for visitors: “the destination gets more visitors, tenants get more customers, visitors have a more enjoyable visit” (p. 600):
“Tenants use the hub as a shop window, granting them more visibility and additional opportunities to sell their goods and services, as well as several softer benefits around networking, accessing knowledge and forming collaborations” (p. 601).
The Crocus research points out two main strategies being followed by actors in rural and remote areas. One is to concentrate visitors and services in clusters or hotspots, and this follows a similar logical to the development of cultural and creative clusters in cities. This ensures a flow of visitors, attracting attention and generating income. Another option is to develop networks, which focus on the links between widely spread facilities. For example, Finland has long had a tradition of rural network building, and has a national network of crafts producers, for example. The network provides a means of marketing products, but it also helps relatively isolated producers exchange ideas and develop a form of network sociability. The development of clusters that encourage bonding and build social capital, also needs to be supported by network building, that ensures a flow of ideas and resources (Richards, 2025).
In a recent interview with Ferdi Das from the Municipality of Cranendonck in the Netherlands, we discussed the challenges of developing and maintaining rural visitor facilities, and how routes can help. As part of De Groote Heide region, Cranendonck and partner municipalities are developing ‘storied routes’, which provide added experience to the visit through storytelling. Working with Professor Moniek Hover of BUAS, the region has developed stories around the smuggling history and culture of this border region. This helps to engage visitors and provide activities, services and products, including smugglers’ beer and smugglers’ cheese. There is also an ‘Inspiration Point’ at De Achelse Kluis Abbey, which provides interactive stories about the lives of the former inhabitants of the Abbey and the rest of the region:
What was it like to live as a monk in the Achelse Kluis? Which beastly inhabitants live in the cross-border nature park De Groote Heide? And what do the abbey and chip machine manufacturer ASML in Eindhoven have in common? The Inspiration Point De Groote Heide immerses you interactively in the history and future of the area.
Visitors can get an immediate feel of the border because the Achelse Kluis is located partly on Dutch territory and partly on Belgian territory. It also houses the ‘Achel’ brewery. The abbey’s gatehouse has been given a new tourist use, namely a visitor centre. An Inspiration Point where visitors everything get to know about the history and present of the abbey. You will also find inspiration about exploring of the region. After a visit of the Achelse Kluis you are ready to discover the spacious natural area of fields, forests and heathland.
Receptionists wander around and interact with visitors, rather than being stuck behind a desk. The centre was designed by Dutch company Bruns, who have extensive experience in developing interactive exhibitions. The use of technology helps to address the human resourcing issues, but it is used to support rather than entirely replace people.
References
Jevnaker, B. and Hill, I. (2024) Heritage craft entrepreneuring in the wild: the role of entrepreneurial placemaking for rural development. In: Hill, I., Elias, S., Dobson, S. and Jones, P. (eds.) Creative (and cultural) entrepreneurship in the 21st Century. Volume 18B. Chapter 2. Emerald Publishing Ltd.
Merrell, I., Rowe, F., Cowie, P., & Gkartzios, M. (2021). ‘Honey pot’ rural enterprise hubs as micro-clusters: Exploring their role in creativity-led rural development. Local Economy, 36(7-8), 589-605.
Richards, G. (2024) Small Cities: Developing Collaborative Advantage Through Creativity. Linguaggi specialistici e traduzione tecnica, 2024(2), 21-44.
Tolstad, H. K. (2014). Development of rural-tourism experiences through networking: An example from Gudbrandsdalen, Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 68(2), 111-120.
Comments