UTTERWORTH
I N E M A
N
N
0261-5177(95)00042-9
Tourism Management, Vol. 16, No. 5, pp. 381-388, 1995
Copyright © 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0261-5177/95 $10.00 + 0.00
Heritage issues in urban tourism
An assessment of new trends in Lancaster County
Gary R. Hovinen
Department of Geography, Millersville University, Millersville, PA 17551, USA
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, a popular heritage tourism destination in the northeastern US
Megalopolis, is undergoing new trends that have significant implications for its natural and
cultural heritage. One involves growing direct participation of segments of the Amish
community in tourism. Is the growing complexity of the Amish response towards tourism a sign
of the incipient breakdown of the Amish cultural heritage, and what are the implications for the
future of tourism? A second trend, promotion of major new discount outlet centers, has
contributed to further diversification of the county's tourist base and a partial move away from
focus on the Amish. Has this development affected the county's unique cultural heritage and
produced environmental problems? The premise of the investigation is that a passive response
by the public planning sector to tourist marketing in the private sector may have been
detrimental to Lancaster County's authentic heritage; therefore, a proactive planning approach
seems needed.
Keywords: heritage, authentic, proactive, planning, A m i s h
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, a rapidly urbanizing portion of the northeastern US Megalopolis, was
the focus of a destination life cycle study more than a
decade ago in which it was argued that the area had
reached a 'maturity' stage of tourism with the distinctive Amish community as the principal tourist
attraction in a diversified tourist base. Since the
beginning of the 1980s, the county's maturity stage
has shown evidence of new trends with potentially
significant implications for the area's physical and
cultural heritage. The premise of this investigation is
that a passive response by the public planning sector
to tourist marketing in the private sector may produce negative impacts on the physical and cultural
environment that are detrimental to Lancaster
County's authentic heritage.
To investigate the roles of public sector planning
and private sector marketing and development in
creating an environmental setting for tourism in the
county, a variety of sources was used. Sources
involved interviewing public planners and private
tourism marketing representatives, examining local
and county planning documents, reading local newspaper articles on tourism and heritage issues, undertaking field observations in the main tourist district,
and utilizing selected recent survey statistics.
What constitutes authentic heritage in Lancaster
County is a complicated assessment. Should authenticity be judged solely by specialist experts? To what
extent should the expectations of tourists themselves
or the views of ordinary residents be taken into
account? Cohen has argued that authenticity as a
basis for tourism policy should not be viewed as an
absolute but instead as a negotiable concept based in
part on the expectations of visitors. 1For this study of
Lancaster County, the flexible nature of authenticity
is recognized, but the author will also make some
personal judgments about what is authentic.
Characteristics of tourists
Since tourist type may be important in helping to
define authenticity, what are some of the dominant
tourist characteristics and trends in recent years?
Lancaster County continues to be a popular mass
tourist destination. Since 1981, when more accurate
counting methods began, an estimated 3.5 to 5
million individual and group visitors have come to
the county annually (interview with Harry Flick,
President, Pennsylvania Dutch Convention and Visitors Bureau, 1 August 1994). In summer 1992, 58%
of visitors came from the nearby primary market
381
Heritage issues in urban tourism: G R Hovinen
areas of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and
Maryland, although tourists from distant Europe
and Canada have comprised a rapidly growing market share in recent years. Repeat visitation is an
important phenomenon (59% of total visitors in
1992). 2 Nevertheless, a tourist marketing specialist
in Lancaster County still believes there is good
potential for first-time visitors from the nearby primary market area of Megalopolis given the constant
turnover of population there (interview with Harry
Flick, 11 July 1994). Average visitor group size of
3.7 people in 1992 suggests the dominance of families, and visitors aged under 21 comprise a growing
share of the total (31% in 1992). Finally, visitor
household income statistics for 1992 (60% in excess
of US$40 000) suggest a continuing dominance of
midcentric visitor types with a variety of motivations
for their short (average 1.7 night) stay in Lancaster
County. 2
New trends in tourism
Amish participation in tourism
The first new trend in tourism to be examined
involves the Amish community, a subset of the
Anabaptist religious movement, or 'Plain Sect',
which has maintained its Swiss-German dialect and
other traditional lifestyle elements. They have become the most important element of the county's
unique heritage as well as a major and often unwilling attraction for its tourist industry. During the
initial tourist development boom of the 1960s, a
scholarly specialist on the Amish had expressed
concern about tourism's exploitation of the Amish
community and argued that it had the potential to
destroy their culture. 3 The Amish also complained
about tourism at this early stage, mainly among
t h e m s e l v e s but o c c a s i o n a l l y to n e w s p a p e r
reporters. 4 Thus it seems surprising that many Amish today have become participants in the tourist
industry by producing products for and selling them
to visitors. What are the implications for a conservative culture that has long emphasized the need to
maintain separation from the outside world?
First the growing Amish participation in tourism
should be placed in the context of certain changes
both within and outside the community. Amish have
traditionally preferred agricultural occupations, and
they own an estimated 1800 of the county's 4900
farms. 5 However, the total Lancaster County Amish
population of approximately 19 000 has doubled in
two decades because of high natural increase rates
and resulting large families. Not only is farmland not
available to everyone who might want to farm, but
farmland prices have also risen significantly as the
overall county population has expanded. Therefore,
in the heart of the Amish settlement, located in and
adjacent to the county's principal tourist district, the
combination of high population densities, scarce
382
farmland and commercial opportunity help explain
why more than 60% of the Amish now have nonfarm jobs. 6 For example, in one Amish church
district investigated, from 1963 to 1993 the total
number of adults employed increased from 24 to 44
while non-farm employment rose from 42% to 73%
(author's calculations for the Soudersburg District
from information in StoltzfusV).
Although Amish are moving rapidly into nonfarm occupations, this does not necessarily mean
they favor tourism. Of an estimated approximately
1000 Amish non-farm enterprises in Lancaster
County with an annual sales volume exceeding
$1000, 60% have been started since 1982. One-third
of a sample of enterprises report some sales, services
and products that are tourist related, suggesting that
there are at least 300 Amish-owned businesses that
cater for tourists, s This figure does not include small
informal establishments such as seasonal roadside
produce stands. Nor does it include Amish, especially women, who participate in tourism by working for
non-Amish-owned tourist establishments. Clearly,
Amish are no longer simply bystanders in a tourist
industry operated by outsiders but are increasingly
active participants, Perhaps this participation is
more because of economic necessity than from free
choice. But the effects are visible in the landscape
and enable more tourists to have direct contact with
a part of Lancaster County's heritage at the same
time that Amish maintain some control over the
nature of their interaction with the tourists.
Am&h tour&m and authenticity
Will the growth of Amish tourism continue and
eventually serve to undermine the values of authentic Amish culture? Or is the emergence of Amish
tourism a practical means for Amish to adjust to
economic and demographic realities while retaining
essential values of their religious faith? These are
not easy questions to answer, as the ambivalence of
attitudes within the Amish community might suggest. There is clear evidence of concern among
religious leaders of the community about tourism's
potential to undermine authentic Amish agricultural
heritage. Some very strong comments are made in
the introductory section of the Amish Directory of
the Lancaster County Family. 9 Nevertheless, the
spread of tourist stands selling Amish-made craft
products has not thus far become an overall settlement issue requiring all Amish bishops to meet and
discuss. As one local authority on the Amish has
noted, each bishop has considerable autonomy to
interpret the 'ordnung', or code of conduct, and
some bishops are more liberal than others in allowing change. How far individual Amish might be
permitted to go depends on such factors as the size
of the tourist enterprise, number of employees, how
gaudy it appears, how much advertising and its
location (interview with Donald Kraybill, Eli-
Tourism Management 1995 Volume 16 Number 5
Heritage issues in urban tourism: G R Hovinen
zabethtown College, 18 July 1994). As adherents of
a boundary maintenance approach to the outside
world, the Amish community has often in recent
years moved some cultural boundaries while holding
firm to other old boundaries; flexibility, or the
willingness to negotiate change on non-essential
matters, is one means used by the Amish to ensure
survival (Kraybill~', pp 236-249). Thus with regard to
tourism, individual Amish, motivated by economic
necessity or ambition, are currently testing the
boundaries, and the final resolution and consequences are not yet determined.
In judging the authenticity of Amish-oriented
tourism in Lancaster County, the role of non-Amish
enterpreneurs in portraying the Amish and in creating staged attractions can be considered. Statues of
the Amish prominently displayed outside some local
tourist establishments clearly violate principles of
cultural authenticity. These statues are not accepted
in the Amish religious faith and are therefore offensive. Furthermore, a non-Amish person who works
at a tourist establishment and dresses like an Amishman is clear evidence of lack of authenticity (interview with Maribel Kraybill, Director, Mennonite
Information Center, 13 July 1994). A number of
tourist operators claim authenticity in their advertising brochures and signs, including some who offer
staged attractions involving Amish house tours. As
examples of what Cohen has called 'staged authenticity', these probably meet the expectations of most
tourists who lack the time or the opportunity to have
a more genuine 'backstage' experience, although
scholars and some types of tourists might find them
lacking since they are not occupied by Amish, were
not built or originally owned by Amish, or do not
necessarily portray the Amish as they now live. (See
the discussion of a staged 'Amish house' tour in
Brandt and Gallagher.l(~)
Many opportunities exist today, at stores, markets
and craft stands, to buy authentic Amish-made
products. Recent sample surveys at the Mennonite
Information Center indicate the favorable perception many visitors have of Amish-made products
such as quilts, craft and furniture items, toys and
baked goods. They regard these products as desirable to buy because of their perceived craftsmanship, high quality and uniqueness. Nevertheless,
the survey also revealed that the average visitor has
no idea of the complexity of Amish life, the conflict
of Amish lifestyle problems, and the fact that Amish
products are not always made by a single individual
by hand but that technology and occupational specialization are often involved (Smith et al, ~ pp 7380). Perhaps these visitors would benefit from exposure to the knowledgeable and relatively uncommercialized guides provided by the Mennonite Information Center or from a visit to People's Place in
Intercourse, where Amish lifestyles are portrayed in
greater depth.
Tourism Management 1995 Volume 16 Number 5
From the academic purist perspective, Lancaster
County still offers many opportunities for tourists in
lesser numbers and more discerning tastes to experience authentic Amish heritage. One can arrange a
visit with an Amish family, see windmills and waterwheels, talk with Amish children at a roadside stand,
buy craft items from an Amish woman, visit an
Amish b o o k s t o r e , see t r a d i t i o n a l multiplegeneration farmhouses as well as modern-style Amish houses, and even view Amish-occupied parts of
the county where few tourists intrude and agriculture remains the predominant occupation. The
range of experiences, from the garish and offensive,
through the more or less carefully staged, to the
unstaged and authentic, are part of what comprises
Lancaster County's diversified tourist base. But the
uneasy feeling still exists that much of the Amish
heritage is threatened by forces both from within
and without.
The Lancaster County tourist industry would certainly suffer economically if the Amish community
were to leave the county to escape growing pressures
or if the community were to lose its unique qualities
and become largely indistinguishable from other
county residents. The latter possibility may be less
likely than the former given the strong system of
social controls within the community and the unwillingness to compromise on basic values such as the
use of buggies for most transportation. A local
authority on the Amish has argued that, ironically,
tourism may actually strengthen Amish lifestyles
rather than lead to their breakdown since the growing economic dependence of the Amish on tourism
may force them to maintain their unique lifestyles in
order to attract the tourists necessary for economic
welfare (Kraybill,(~ p 233). In his judgment, however, the Amish should not become too dependent
on tourism, for that might create an artificial and
rather sinister situation if they tried to stay different
simply to please visitors (interview, Donald
Kraybill, 18 July 1994). A different perspective is
provided by the executive director of Lancaster
Farmland Trust, a private farmland preservation
organization that has much contact with Amish
farmers. He points out that many Amish in the more
commercialized tourist areas have recently expressed their concern about whether their culture can be
sustained given the threat of both internal and
external pressures and are wondering if they will
have to leave the county. These concerns are
strongest among elders but are also present among
some farmers in their thirties and forties. They
complain to him about tourist traffic on the streets of
Intercourse and worry about Amish youth spending
time at commercial establishments along the Route
30 tourist strip as well as about the implications of
the growing number of Amish non-farm businesses.
Many Amish also express a concern about the
potential of higher school district and municipal real
383
Heritage issues in urban tourism: G R Hovinen
estate taxes that could force them out of farming in
the next 10-15 years. (Interviews with Alan Mussselman, Executive Director, Lancaster Farmland
Trust, 25 July and 3 August 1994. Musselman adds
that Amish farmers in less commercialized and more
distinctly rural parts of the county express less
concern about being forced to leave.) If large numbers of Amish were to sell their farms and leave the
county, an authentic part of the local agricultural
heritage would be lost.
Factory outlet d e v e l o p m e n t
A second significant new tourist trend during the
1980s and 1990s has been the extensive development
of factory outlet stores in the tourist strip along
Route 30 to the east of Lancaster. Rockvale Square
and Millstream, two large-scale outlet centers with
about 175 stores between them, have emerged in
addition to other stores outside these centers. The
Rockvale Square and Millstream organizations are
members of the Pennsylvania Dutch Convention and
Visitors Bureau and participate actively in its promotional efforts and publications, but both also do
their own promotional advertising using billboards,
brochures, magazines, newspapers, radio and television. Both target geographical markets in nearby
large urban areas of Megalopolis, and two-thirds of
Millstream's customers currently come from outside
the county. Marketing representatives from the two
outlet centers feel that each is unique and that they
complement one another. Millstream is more upscale in its mixture of stores and with its emphasis on
designer fashions; its target customers are households with an income of $40 000 or more and adults
aged 35-50. Marketers of Rockvale Square target
female customers aged 25-54. Although Rockvale's
logo has a horse and buggy and Millstream has a
farmstead motif with buildings and silos, neither
organization currently mentions the area's Amish or
Pennsylvania Dutch heritage in its promotional
advertising (information supplied 22 July 1994 by
Beth A. Fisher, Director of Marketing, Rockvale
Square and 26 July 1994 by Pamela Shipe, Millstream).
Although the factory outlet centers have thus far
been quite successful economically and have contributed to the further diversification of Lancaster
County's tourist base, they have also brought challenges and problems. By attracting large numbers of
shoppers during the summer tourist season, they add
to an already congested traffic situation along the
Route 30 strip (interview, Maribell Kraybill, 13 July
1994). Local government representatives are unhappy about the costs of providing services to Rockvale
Square relative to the low property taxes collected
(interview with Ronald Bailey, Director, Lancaster
County Planning Commission, 6 July 1994). Many of
the stores in the centers are standardized and are
replicated in outlet centers located elsewhere in the
384
eastern USA (interview, Ronald Bailey, 6 July
1994). The author, for example, calculated that the
two principal outlet centers in Williamsburg, Virginia, another cultural and historical tourist destination, have a duplication of 52 stores with the two
principal Lancaster outlet centers. This standardization not only of outlet stores but also of chain motels
and restaurants and other tourist facilities reduces
the unique qualities of a place, and, it could be
argued, detracts from authentic heritage. Perhaps
visitors in the long run will be less inclined to come
to Lancaster County given the saturation of standardized facilities in the region and the intense competition that ensues.
T o u r i s m and the use of historic sites and
themes
One factor that may provide Lancaster County with
a marketing edge in the intense competition among
tourist destinations in the future could be its rich
history and its multitude of historic buildings and
sites. Basing tourism on history is not a new trend
for the county as are the two discussed above but is
instead a significant continuing trend with new elements. Attempts at history-based tourism can also
be assessed with regard to degrees of authenticity.
Recently the National Trust for Historic Preservation approved three areas in Pennsylvania for a
heritage planning initiative, one of which was Lancaster County. The heritage planning initiative will
be funded for three years by the National Trust,
Lancaster County government and the Pennsylvania
Dutch Convention and Visitors Bureau. A committee of selected Lancaster County citizens from a
variety of backgrounds has been appointed by the
Lancaster County Planning Commission to serve as
an advisory body in this heritage initiative. Given
the goals and guidelines of the National Trust, one
would certainly expect this initiative to promote
authenticity in tourism.
Lancaster County, with its rich and colourful
history, already has many examples of historic buildings and museums with a high degree of authenticity
that are open to the public. A few examples include
the Hans Herr house, Mascot Roller Mills, Ephrata
Cloister, Fulton Opera House, Heritage Center
Museum, Landis Valley Museum and the Railroad
Museum of Pennsylvania. Some historic sites and
museums are government-run, whereas others are
maintained privately.
A recently devised plan of private investors to
restore an old hotel that would promote tourism
authenticity involves the Mountain Springs Hotel in
Ephrata, which functioned as a health resort for the
wealthy in the late 1800s. The hotel building was
constructed from 1848-50 at the site of springs and is
included in the National Register of Historic Places;
it will be carefully restored to its original functions
Tourism Management 1995 Volume 16 Number 5
Heritage issues in urban tourism: G R Hovinen
and appointments using a federal government investment tax credit for historic renovation. In addition, there are two other buildings that preceded the
hotel on the site that will be converted to guest
rooms. Plans also call for 60% of the grounds to
have formal and natural gardens that will be visually
identical to botanical gardens of the late 1800s, at
least as far as information allows. The restored hotel
will be available to individual travelers as well as to
business people for conventions and meetings (interview with Ted Babin, project partners for Mountain
Springs Hotel, 3 August 1994).
A quite different attempt to utilize a historic
theme for tourism was the plan of a local entrepreneur during the 1980s to build a 337-foot-long
steamboat motel with 50-foot high smokestacks
along the Route 30 tourist strip. Although the
inventor of the steamboat, Robert Fulton, was born
in southern Lancaster County, and his birthplace has
been carefully restored as a historic site by the state
government, the creative proposal to have a Mississippi River-style steamboat with an artificial moat on
former farmland in the central part of the county
generated considerable controversy. Following are
some of the critical comments made by local newspaper editors in the New Era: 'Route 30 East is
already something of an amusement park. A fake
steamboat would keep appropriate company with a
phony castle . . . The motel would be a major
extension of Route 30 East's absurdly irrelevant
theme. What began with Dutch Wonderland has
caught on with tourists, but it has never made sense
to anyone who tried to relate these attractions to the
rest of Lancaster County: there is no relationship
• . . the steamboat would be fabricated from top to
bottom. It would sit in two feet of water, miles from
a major waterway. It would be named for Robert
Fulton, who had no connection with the eastern end
of the county . . . . The steamboat motel may very
well be one of those watershed projects after which
the character of the area could change radically. We
regularly receive complaints about the tackiness of
that strip from travelers. A steamboat in the middle
of a farmer's field might draw even more negative
remarks. '11 In contrast with the Mountain Springs
hotel renovation plan, this proposed project clearly
violated principles of authenticity. Despite opposition from a number of local residents as well as the
local newspaper, the steamboat motel was completed during the 1980s.
Public planning and heritage preservation
Has public planning played a largely passive or at
best reactive role as tourist development has occurred? Have the private market-place and its tourist
marketing efforts been the dominant factors in
molding the environmental setting for tourism, and
what have been the consequences for heritage pre-
Tourism Management 1995 Volume 16 Number 5
servation? An examination of the Route 30 East
strip where the most intensive tourist development
has occurred would suggest the strong dominance of
the private market-place over the longer run. A local
enterpreneur who operated a popular staged attraction on Route 30 for three decades asserted in a
newspaper interview in 1966, when the tourist development boom was well under way, 'It's a main
artery and there is no zoning - a developer knows he
can do with his land what he pleases'• 12 Although the
availability of cheap land, the advantages of clustering motels and the presence of Amish in adjacent
areas also made the location desirable for development, the absence of zoning during the 1960s was the
main reason, the entrepreneur argued. Elected as a
supervisor to the local government in the 1960s, he
continued to oppose zoning until it was eventually
adopted during the 1970s. By 1966, however, it was
clear to owners of tourist establishments that uncontrolled development had also brought problems such
as lack of public water and sewerage and serious
traffic congestion. 13 So public planners, after their
initial passive role, began to play a reactive role as
challenges created by the private market appeared.
Except for the resulting road improvements and
sewer and water lines, however, the built environment was privately created and as such led to
community and media criticisms of perceived environmental deterioration, excessive commercializat i o n and a r t i f i c i a l i t y (see the d i s c u s s i o n in
Hovinen14).
Although the current director of Lancaster County Planning Commission would agree that the spatial
distribution and landscape characteristics of tourism
have thus far been mainly determined by the private
market, he advocates a proactive role for public
planning in the future. His idea of a quality tourist
environment for Lancaster County in the future is
one that is not overly commercialized and that
provides a unique experience for the visitor, based
on the area's cultural landscape and heritage resources. The most significant negative impacts of
tourism, he feels, have been the garishness of some
commercialization, loss of rural environment, development in inappropriate environments that are
improperly serviced, the tourist traffic, and the
intrusion into the privacy of residents and cultural
groups such as the Amish• Although a proactive
approach to prevent additional problems and to
utilize potential resources is needed, he believes
there should also be a partnership with the private
sector. A recent example is the joint venture for
heritage tourism co-sponsored by the Planning Commission and the Pennsylvania Dutch Convention and
Visitors Bureau• Private marketing efforts can also
contribute to maintaining cultural authenticity in
tourism, the planning director feels, by emphasizing
quality goods and services and by emphasizing experiences of tourists, such as staying in bed and
385
Heritage issues in urban tourism: G R Hovinen
breakfast establishments or farmhouses in the rural
countryside, eating genuine Pennsylvania Dutch
food, or taking buggy rides. Lancaster County, he
emphasizes, is a place where conservative values are
important, but this factor may actually be an advantage now in recognizing the need for sustainable
tourism. The local entrepreneurial era, he believes,
is now largely over; there will be no more staged
Amish houses created as tourist attractions. The real
problem now is the further threat of homogenization
of restaurants, stores and tourist attractions by outside chains and entrepreneurs. It is important for
both environmental and economic reasons, he believes, for the county to maintain its unique qualities
and authentic heritage (interview, Ronald Bailey, 6
July 1994).
Official public planning goals
The recently adopted Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan includes among its list of goals the
preservation of agricultural areas for agricultural
use, providing for growth in appropriate areas, and
preserving and enhancing the community character
that makes Lancaster County a unique, distinctive
and identifiable place.* The accomplishment of
these goals would help to promote sustainable and
authentic tourism. The county plan is intended to
serve as a guide to the preparation of local government comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances,
and four local governments in the county's main
tourist district now have either new plans or zoning
ordinances in progress. But some commitment to the
above county goals is evident even in certain local
plans and zoning ordinances completed while the
current county comprehensive plan was being prepared. The plan of one township located in the heart
of Amish country, for example, calls for protecting
productive farmlands and continuing the area's
dominant agricultural heritage, preventing strip development patterns along major roads, remaining
sensitive to the special land use needs of the
township's plain sect residents, and preserving the
sleepy little town qualities associated with three
villages. ~5 The government of another township
where much of the Route 30 strip development has
taken place recognizes in its current comprehensive
plan that agricultural land represents a major drawing card for tourism in the area and that, while
tourism benefits township residents through jobs
created and tourist dollars spent, it has also
adversely affected the township through overcommercialization, visual pollution and traffic con* Lancaster County PlanningCommission1993/1994 Action Plan
of the Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan March 1994. Au-
thors of this plan note that approximately3000 acres of farmland
per year are now being lost to development and propose urban
growth boundaries as one method of preserving agriculturalland.
386
gestion. The plan advocates protecting and conserving agricultural land and open space, discouraging
strip development by encouraging new commercial
development to locate in unified and concentrated
centers, and encouraging continuation of the area's
tourist industry in ways that benefit the economy
while preserving natural and visual assets and cultural heritage of the area. ~6 A third example, the
zoning ordinance for a township which encompasses
the popular tourist community of Intercourse, is
enacted to support the goals of promoting and
protecting agriculture, avoiding strip development
or scattered commercial development, and providing lodging for tourists in a form compatible with the
predominant nature of the township. Authors of the
ordinance argue that by its location and nature, the
township is not an appropriate candidate for an
urban growth area and that the primary policy of the
township board of supervisors is to preserve the
rural character of the area. Farmland, it is maintained, has cultural value to local citizens and is also
an attraction to tourists. 17 The possibility exists, of
course, that these expressed goals and policies may
turn out to be empty words, but an optimistic
interpretation is that they are the beginnings of a
more proactive approach that could prove beneficial
to the goals of a more authentic and a sustainable
tourism.
Agricultural heritage preservation and the
Amish
Since both rural agricultural environments and the
unique Amish culture are important parts of Lancaster County's heritage, what are the prospects that
the Amish community will participate in public
planning efforts to preserve agricultural lands? The
Amish have always been very suspicious of government, although in recent years they have occasionally been willing to attend and speak out at public
hearings when development proposals are submitted. Amish attitudes regarding farmland preservation are often ambivalent. On the one hand, many
are strongly committed to an agricultural heritage
and are admonished by church leaders to remain
firm. After six Amishmen sold farms for development during a four-year period. Amish bishops in
the early 1990s put a stop to further advertised sales
and counselled caution in future land transactions
(interview, Alan Musselman, 25 July 1994). On the
other hand, dominant Amish values are opposed to
participation in farmland preservation if public funding is involved. Therefore, the private Lancaster
Farmland Trust has been more successful in eliciting
interest in sale or donation of development rights
than the publicly funded Agricultural Preserve
Board (interview with Tom Daniels, Lancaster
County Agricultural Preserve Board, 21 July 1994).
Furthermore, as discussed earlier, many Amish may
Tourism Management 1995 Volume 16 Number 5
Heritage issues in urban tourism: G R Hovinen
wish to preserve options to sell their farmland at full
market value if they decide to leave the county in the
future. The Amish community, therefore, is another
example of the private market at work, and heritage
preservation depends in large part on decisions
within that market.
Conclusion
A major purpose of this article has been to consider
a variety of heritage issues in the context of both new
and continuing trends in Lancaster County tourism.
The county, with its rich cultural heritage, has many
buildings of historic and architectural interest that
have been or will be either renovated or restored,
including examples such as the privately sponsored
Mountain Springs Hotel project or the state
government-maintained Ephrata Cloister and
Robert Fulton Birthplace. The cultural landscape of
the county, with its Amish homestead area to the
east of Lancaster County, includes areas with unique
qualities that are also rich in history. How much of
this cultural heritage should be preserved as private
market forces rapidly transform the landscape of
parts of Lancaster County? Although tourism has
helped to transform the landscape and currently
shows evidence of a new trend of factory outlet
development, the future economic strength of tourism in the county may be in doubt if important parts
of the physical and cultural heritage deteriorate or
even disappear and the county thereby loses unique
qualities that have attracted large numbers of tourists in the past. The tourist industry has the potential
both to cause degradation of the physical and cultural environment and to contribute to heritage preservation that would benefit residents and future
visitors.
The premise that has been considered in this
article is that tourist marketing and development in
the private sector may be detrimental to the county's
authentic heritage if the public planning sector
adopts a passive or at best reactive response. The
many decisions made in the private market, based
on the profit motivations of tourism entrepreneurs,
do not necessarily promote or ensure heritage preservation. Authenticity is a complicated and flexible
concept, and this study has considered the concept
through a variety of empirical examples and human
perceptions rather than by utilizing any precise
measurement techniques. One question for the future is the extent to which different types of tourists,
with their contrasting values and educational levels,
should be allowed to help to define what is authentic
and thereby help to transform the heritage of the
area. Although the evidence presented suggests that
private market activities have sometimes damaged
the country's authentic heritage during periods when
public planning has been essentially passive or at
best reactive, they have in other cases helped to
Tourism Management 1995 Volume 16 Number 5
renovate or preserve that heritage.
The changing role of the Amish community as a
part of the private sector, and the implications of
change for authentic heritage preservation, are especially difficult to evaluate. Not only has a significant
minority of Amish changed from being passive and
unwilling objects of tourism to active direct participants in tourism, but also the Amish community as a
whole, faced with both internal and external pressures, is helping to transform the built cultural landscape of its homestead area. New Amish houses with
modern architectural styles, new manufacturing
buildings and workshops for the growing number of
non-farm Amish employees, and roadside craft and
produce stands with parking areas are appearing at
the same time that traditional waterwheels are rapidly being abandoned. How, then, will scholars define
in the future what is authentic Amish landscape
heritage? Furthermore, what will be the impacts of
the transformation on both resident and tourist
perceptions and interpretations of Amish heritage?
An active public sector role in heritage preservation is important for the long-term interests of
residents, tourist businessmen and women, and visitors alike, It would be foolish, however, to argue
that public planners and government officials have
all the answers as to how best to preserve the
county's unique and authentic heritage. Although a
British-style top-down planning system, with input
of heritage specialists, might make it easier to preserve elements of Lancaster County's heritage, such
a system is politically unacceptable given the county's dominantly conservative value system. Therefore, a publicly directed heritage planning initiative
involving a partnership with the private sector and
encouragement of input from a variety of private
citizens and interest groups is the most practical
approach. The Amish community, with its traditional suspicion of government, must be dealt with in a
sensitive manner. A private organization such as
Lancaster Farmland Trust, with its public goals but
no government subsidies, may have good potential
to work with the Amish community in heritage
preservation efforts. However, without strong direction from the public sector and willingness to engage
in proactive planning with private sector input,
Lancaster County's authentic heritage will continue
to be endangered.
Acknowledgement
The author acknowledges the financial support of
Millersville University in presenting this paper at the
University of Victoria urban tourism conference.
References
~Cohen, E 'Authenticity and commoditization in tourism' Annals
of Tourism Research 1988 15 371-386
387
Heritage issues in urban tourism: G R Hovinen
2Pennsylvania Dutch Convention and Visitors Bureau Statistical
Abstract: Facts and Figures on the Tourism of Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania (April 1994)
3Laneaster New Era 6 October 1966
4Lancaster New Era 23 May 1962
5Lancaster New Era 19 July 1993
6Kraybill, D B The Riddle of Amish Culture Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore (1989) 197
7Stoltzfus, S S 'Our changing Amish Church District' Pennsylvania Folklife 1994 43 124-131
8Smith, S e t al Amish Micro-Enterprises: Models for Rural Development Pennsylvania State College of Agricultural Sciences
(1994)
9Amish Directory of the Lancaster County Family Pequea Pub-
388
lishers, Gordonville, PA. 1989
~Brandt, M and Gallagher, T E 'Tourism and the old order
Amish' Pennsylvania Folklife 1993-94 43 (2) 71-75
t~Lancaster New Era 10 May 1985
~2Lancaster New Era 14 June 1966
13Lancaster New Era 14-15 Junc 1966
HHovinen, G 'Visitor cycles: outlook for tourism in Lancaster
County' Annals of Tourism Research 9 570-573
l~Gehringer-Roth Associates Upper Leacock Township Comprehensive Plan (1988) 99-1(14
t~'Huth Engineers. Inc. Comprehensive Plan. East Lampeter
Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (19871 32-34
17Rcttew Associates Leacock Township Zoning Ordinance Octohcr 1992
Tourism Management 1995 Volume 16 Number 5