Vernacular architecture was identified as an important attraction for heritage tourism in Jordan several years ago. This created a trend for preserving many rural historical cores, especially when the village also enjoys spectacular scenes.  In such projects, claims for sustainable development were made as the villages suffered many problems that needed to be addressed. The purpose of this study is to investigate how vernacular architecture in Jordan has been managed for development purposes through investments in heritage tourism.  By adopting a critical approach, this study examines the general status of preservation of vernacular architecture as means for development and focuses on the village of Attaibeh, south Jordan, as a case study.

Attaibeh was the first village to adopt the approach of heritage tourism for development. It faced, and still faces, many development challenges. While the project is considered successful by some groups, the paper explores the impact the project had on the village and argues that the project failed to achieve its announced goals due to improper management that neglected the needs of the village, principles of sustainable development, and the dynamic nature of preservation. The general deficiency of preservation laws and regulations in Jordan played a supportive role for the negative outcome.

The vernacular heritage of Jordan

Scattered on the mountains of Jordan are numerous villages that represent several stages of the development of architecture in the region. They represent the architecture and construction methods that were developed over thousands of years, through trial and error, in a manner that suits the environment and the society (Khammash, 1986). Each village adapted to several cultural and environmental changes throughout the centuries, with many villages located near or on historical sites (Khammash, 1986; Knauf, 1986). Such a rich history created high potentials for tourism, and tourism investments. Villages like Mkais, Khirbet al Nawafleh, and Attaibeh where mainly developed due to their location near or on historical sites that provided impressive vernacular architectural settlements (Daher, 1999).

The development of vernacular architecture in Jordan took place mainly in the 19^th century. During that time, a decline of the agricultural products coming from the Balkans lead the Ottoman government to take some measures in order to encourage agricultural production in the Levant. This led to significant agricultural prosperity and many new villages appeared during this period (Shami, 1987).

There are three main regions of local architecture: the Jordan valley, which uses sun-dried mud brick for construction, the desert, which has the Bedouin traditions of the tent; and the mountains, which represents the prevailing type of vernacular architecture using field stones as the main building material.

The villages’ architecture reflect the social traditions and the socio-economic environments that where prevailing. Their economy was based on agriculture and pastoralism, and the raising of live stock (Khammash, 1986). The material used for construction was usually stone, mud, wood, and reeds (Mahadine,1997). 

Unfortunately, the traditional settlements have become mostly abandoned (fig 1), as the villagers built new concrete modern houses around the old settlement which constitutes the core for the contemporary villages in Jordan. The old settlements are usually called khirbeh, meaning ‘the ruin’, reflecting their status. Old vernacular settlements are threatened by destruction, since they represent a way of life that no longer exists. The locals moved to cities seeking better income, or replaced agriculture as an occupation by other occupations that are provide better sources of income (Mahadine,1997). The old settlements were deserted in search of a modern house with modern services that is appropriate for a modern life. Only a limited number of the old settlements are still inhabited, and usually by senior individuals, while some of the houses have been turned in to storage barns (Khammash, 1986).

Preservation in Jordan

Jordan suffers the absence of heritage management tools and mechanisms. And in spite of the ratification of several international conventions and charters on this issue, Jordan’s existing laws do not protect or even identify as important any heritage dating to post 1700 AD. This has resulted in the neglect and destruction of many valuable buildings and sites. There is yet no definition of what cultural heritage is, nor is there any identification of certain cultural resources as historic landscapes or cultural paths. Both urban and rural architectural heritage faces threats of development and growth that are leading to its destruction (Daher, 1996; Mbaydeen, 1997; Haobsh, 2001).

Also, recent architectural heritage is marginalized in preference for major historical archaeological sites such as Petra and Jerash. The government and foreign agencies are the main players in the process of the protection and preservation of this heritage with no guidelines on how that should be done. In addition to that, current laws depend only on expropriation as a tool for the protection of historic sites, which has proven to be insufficient.  Furthermore, there are no incentives for individuals who preserve architectural heritage and there is no system of monitoring and evaluation of such activities (Daher, 1996; Najjar,1997).

The damage that heritage sites suffer from is augmented by the lack of guidelines for interventions or preservation attempts. The preservation of many architectural heritage buildings and sites has taken place by either private investors or NGOs. And the lack of guidelines has lead to many difficulties relating to loss of integrity, damage of historic character and authenticity, the commodifying of heritage, and the gentrification of the locals ( Daher, 1996, Daher, 1999; Haobsh, 2001).

The past ten years have witnessed the establishment of sections for architectural heritage management in different ministries, but they have no clear relationships.  Also, their intersecting areas of interest complicate their work. The Ministry of Tourism, the Department of Antiquities, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Rural and Municipal Affairs, and the Public Institute for the Protection of the Environment all play roles that are not clearly defined (Najjar, 1997; Haobsh, 2001).

A main component of the problem is the lack of a body that manages architectural heritage as a whole (Haobsh, 2001). This lead to a state of disorder, which became more complicated when the private sector started to play a major role in the process through investments in heritage tourism.

The preservation of vernacular heritage

Vernacular heritage is not protected by the Antiquities Law as it dates to post 1700[1]. Yet, as other heritage sites may be within urban centers, vernacular heritage is more fragile due to the special challenges facing rural settlements. In Jordan, as in other developing countries, rural areas are generally neglected in development efforts in favor of the major cities, which creates more problems that are special to that context. The villagers endure low income or unemployment in addition to limited services relative to urban centers. This is one of the major forces driving the inhabitants of the rural settlements for migration in to near-by cities (Suleiman, 2001; Lea & Chaudri, 1983). Under such circumstances, bad preservation work complicates problems for the locals even more.

The establishment of the Architectural Heritage Section in the Ministry of Rural and Municipal Affairs was the first step taken by the government towards identifying the value of such built heritage. Founded in 1996, the section immediately started working on the survey and documentation of the vernacular and urban heritage in the areas outside the capital Amman.  This section has managed to document, in collaboration with the local municipalities,  many buildings in several villages and towns, yet a lot of work still has to take place in the fields of documentation, regulations for heritage management, protection and management of the sites, in addition to the creation of incentives for owners to conserve such properties. The lack of public awareness is another obstacle that needs to be addressed (Haobsh, 2001).

Jordan does not yet have a national register of built heritage, nor is there any clear evaluation system for that. The only value that is assigned now for the vernacular heritage is based on its exploitation for investments, and the economic role it can play as a tourism attraction. This has happened due to the fact that the first preservation projects were lead by private investors seeking capital. The success of such preservation projects in creating profit has framed the value for vernacular heritage in the minds of the people as such ( Daher, 1996, Daher, 1999).

The Ministry of Rural and Municipal Affairs proposed new regulations regarding traditional rural settlements, which were built in the period between 1700-1950 and are identified as representative of traditional architecture in Jordan. The purpose is to prevent any further demolition or change in such buildings without prior permission (Suleiman, 2001) . Yet it seems that amid all the efforts going on for the protection of the tangible non-protected heritage, little is being done to protect the interests of the local communities or the intangible associations attached to the heritage that is preserved[2].

The Village of Attaibeh

Overlooking beautiful valleys in the south of Jordan and close to the historical city of Petra, Attaibeh came about at the beginning of the twentieth century when some families settled in that part of the mountains. The historical core of the village grew as clusters of small masses. The houses have cube proportions and are built from stone masonry. Some were built around a small court and others stepped down the slope fitting the natural contour of the land.  A steep slope extends to the south and west of the historical core, overlooking the valley and providing spectacular views. The village developed in the last fifty years up the slope. The new houses are around the north eastern sides of the old village, constructed from concrete and sporadically dispersed (Suleiman, 2001,66).

Development needs

Villages in developing courtiers suffer many problems. The focus on industrialization as a source of income in the 1950s and 1960s led to further the division between the rich and poor, rural and urban (Lea & Chaudri, 1983).  Also, changes in global economy lead to a decrease in the role of agriculture in rural areas, thus creating a challenge for rural revitalization starting in the 1980s (Augustyn, 1998). Jordan is similar to developing nations in that respect, and Attaibeh demonstrates a situation common to other villages.

The demographic characteristics of Attaibeh indicate the problems facing the community. The inhabitants of the village were estimated to be 4341 in 1999, with an annual increase of 3%. The average size for the family is large (about 7 individuals), which is common in the southern villages of Jordan. In addition to that, 45% of the population is under 15 years old (Suleiman, 2000). The large family size should be considered with the high percentage of people under 15 years of age which indicates the economic burden on families.

Similarly, the age group range 15-64 is about 50% of the population of the village (Suleiman, 2000), meaning that half of the inhabitants are in the working age. As most males in that age leave the village to nearby cities, most of the inhabitants of the village in that age range are females and who rarely work (Suleiman, 2001). Such a population movement is negative as it removes people from the resource base they are used to, and makes the ones left behind dependent and without immediate support.

Most of the vital services are provided in the village, but with limited capacities. Education is provided up to high school, yet Illiteracy among individuals older then 15 is high: 22% for males, and 67% for females (Department of Statistics, 1994). This is a very large number indicating unequal opportunities for females taking in to account that limited education limits the income that a person can get as well.

Health services are provided by the Ministry of Health, utilities infrastructure was introduced in most Jordanian villages in the late sixties and early seventies. The water service covers 97% of the population, but the sewage service covers only 1% as the majority use septic tanks. (Department of Statistics, 1994; Suleiman, 2001). The infrastructure in the village is another aspect in need of development.

Economic resources in the village are minimal. The limited job availability in the village has increased the people’s dependency on the outside of the village as most of its income comes from its males working in the cities. The village had its agricultural land at the bottom of the cliff near the valley made in to terraces to help irrigate it as it rests on a slope. Yet gradually, this source has lost its importance as people turned to other sources of income, since agriculture no longer provided sufficient earnings and required a capital to mange the crops. Cattle are another source of income, but also are decreasing in importance as its economic benefits are no longer worth the efforts invested in it.  Most family-heads work in low paid army or public service jobs, which are limited in Attaibeh (Suleiman, 2000).

Within the last ten years, small industries were introduced to the village as part of the heritage preservation project discussed bellow, which include arts and crafts that represent local culture. This economic sector is one of the smallest regarding income generating in the village due to the limited access to tourists and the seasonality of the tourism activity. Taking in to account that commerce provides income for 2% only of the population (Suleiman, 2001), the migration out of the village becomes understandable. This situation manifested itself in the built environment in the modern village, which suffers deterioration as the economy of the villagers is limited (Suleiman, 2001). On the other hand, the traditional core of the village has been upgraded due to the preservation project there.

The Preservation of the historic core of the village:

Until the 1990s, Attaibeh did not have any tourism activities. The first encounter with tourism was when a project for the preservation of the old core of the village was suggested by a private investor, who managed to convince the local owners and municipality that the village would benefit from such an investment (Daher, 2000; Suleiman, 2000).

Jordan witnessed a boom in the construction of hotels and resorts during the last decade of the 20^th century.  Within that context, the project was introduced as a pioneering attempt to reuse a deserted core of a Jordanian village. It was initiated as a project that would promote a positive relationship between the investor and the local community (Fakhoury, 1997). The local village council welcomed the opportunity for a project that would provide new jobs and bring income to the village that was in a state of severe economic depression. The idea, however, was opposed by the senior locals, explaining that they used to live in those buildings, and can’t accept their transformation in to a hotel due to the special associations of the houses (Suleiman, 2001). But the village counsel approved and the project was finished in the late 1990s ( Daher, 2000).

The locals of Attaibeh where the first among Jordanian villagers to accept the concept of a resort/hotel in their old homes. Their acceptance was based on hope of economic regeneration of the village. The project was successful and has attracted many tourists, to the benefit of the investor. The economic benefits of this investment have lead other investors to copy the concept to other villages such as Mkeis, Khirbet al Nawafleh, and Khirbet el Dji in hope of similar economic benefits ( Daher, 2000b).

The historical core, referred to as the Khirbeh is composed of several houses built from field stones and lime mortar around a village courtyard connected to a few winding streets. The resort used these buildings to house 106 first class accommodations. It also has supporting facilities such as restaurants, a bakery, a bar, a reception hall, a market for traditional handicrafts, a fitness center, and administration quarters, comprising a total built up area of about 12,000 meter square. The original buildings had to be changed, interior partitions introduced or removed. New sanitary facilities were introduced within the household, and new built-in elements and furniture was used in order to enhance the vernacular character of the spaces (Fakhoury, 1997).

The outer spaces within the historic core where up-graded by the stone-tiling of the outer streets within the khirbeh. In addition to that, lighting fixtures were added; traditional stone hedges were restored, as well as the planting of plants that represents the village’s habitat and environment (Fakhoury, 1997). The project emphasized the experience of walking through the village spaces, it presented the narrow streets and small squares, the arches, stone hedges, and rough finishes of walls. The preservation project announced itself as a project sensitive to the local culture and encouraging to local participation, receiving an international award for new tourism in 1997.[3]

As a fulfillment of the promise that the preservation project would aid the local community, the construction stage witnessed the hiring of some of the locals as unskilled labor. But once the project was constructed, it was not as promising as anticipated. The khirbeh was rented for 20,000 JD (about 28000$) per year, which, when divided by 360 leases, makes about 78 $ per lease (Fakhoury, 1997). At the same time, the promise of many job opportunities for the locals ended up as a few low-paid jobs (Daher, 1999; Suleiman, 2001).

Clark (2001) points out that cultural heritage sites are unlike other sites in that there management should take into account their cultural value. “The fundamental  purpose of cultura  heritage management should be to preserve the values ascribed to a site” (Clark, 2001, 5). But in Attaibeh, the value ascribed to the site by the locals has shifted as they have no interaction with the resort at all. The locals would sometimes visit a relative working in the resort, and it is allowed for them to spend some time at the resort outside the tourism season. The resort became a place only for a special group of people, and the historical core of the village has changed its meaning, as many of the locals now consider it a place for the rich elite (Suleiman,  2001).

The rehabilitation of the khirbeh did not affect the rest of the village positively as was intended which left the locals with feelings of disappointment. Also, the resort has high stone walls with wired bars on the top, preventing any visual and physical connection between the locals and the old village (Suleiman, 2001). This increased the feelings of alienation and had negative impacts on the relationship of the locals to the Khirbeh. The planning and management of the preservation project limited tourist activities to the resort itself. Rarely, tourists would walk to the retail shops closest to the resort in the evening, and seldom, some might even walk through the streets of the village, which is in a state of deterioration (Suleiman, 2001).

Tourism was hoped to improve the socio-economic state by providing jobs for the young thus encouraging them to stay, therefore reducing migration levels. It was also hoped that the project would revitalize the economy due to the tourists’ interaction with the village’s market. Neither happened. The project provided only 6 low-paid jobs for the villagers. In addition to this, tourists don’t visit the local market as there is a small market in the hotel, and the walk to the village market is not interesting and far. Therefore, the idea of reviving local economy did not work either (Suleiman, 2001; Daher, 2000).

The use of the resources in a way that would limit the gains of the locals, and hinder the next generation’s ability to benefit is commonly known as lack of sustainability. The lack of a sustainable approach to cultural tourism in Attaibeh has been discussed by Daher (2000 & 2000b). He pointed out how the main resource of the village, which is it cultural heritage, has been mismanaged in a way that used up that resource without the benefit of the community. It changed the meaning of the resources, gentrified the locals, and turned local heritage to a commodity. In addition to that, the development project in Attaibeh introduced a new social class in the village which has hegemony over the most important resource.

With the locals separated from it, the rehabilitation project uses the historical core for generating income for the investor while the villagers watch what is happening with dismay (Suleiman, 2001). The development problems in the village are still there, in addition to the village’s alienation from its heritage (Suleiman, 2001).

The ICOMOS Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage identifies the vernacular Architecture as: ”the traditional and natural way by which communities house themselves. It is a continuous process including necessary changes and continuous adaptation as a response to social and environmental constraints” (ICOMOS, 2000). This identification of vernacular architecture encapsulates its dynamic nature, which is an essential concept in its preservation. Vernacular architecture develops with the people, and changes with their change. also, cultural tourism entails having the visitor experience the”culture”  of some group in some way ( du Cros, 2001).

The preservation of rural heritage is expected to take into account the changes that take place in the community if it is going to provide a genuine experience for tourists. Preservation of cultural heritage and its presentation for tourism should incorporate the dynamic nature of living cultures and account for changes in local culture and way of life. Attaibeh project presented aspects from the local culture that no longer exists as a commodity. This has further disrupted the relationship of the locals to the historic core, as their heritage has become a commodity, and the life style presented is not real. The preservation of cultural heritage should be viewed as a dynamic process that incorporate the continuous changes of local associations, traditions, and meanings and should represent the life and associations of the people (ICOMOS,1982, 2000; Daher, 1999). 

The project had other drawbacks which this paper is not intended to discuss. The work on the historical core did not adhere to any guidelines on preservation ( Daher, 1999; Daher, 2000; 2000b; Sulieman, 2001). A positive of the preservation work was that it maintained the architectural character of the historical core, but the additions and the originals are mixed together without any effort to distinguish them. This compromised in the integrity and authenticity of the historical core.

A development chance lost

Among the concerns that need to be addressed for achieving sustainable tourism are issues of social equity, local control, social and cultural impacts, integrity, and authenticity (Clarke, 1997). These issues are portrayed in the case of Attaibeh as mentioned above. Also, Henry & Jackson (1996) provide an argument that tourism sustainability is not only about culture and ecology, but it should also incorporate policies that are managerially, politically, economically sustainable practices. Thus tourism policy should help the economy of the local community to sustain itself. Sustainability of tourism and development need self reliance and development of human resources.  In the light of this, Attaibeh portrays itself as a case reflecting different problems of sustainability. The village development needs, mentioned above, show how the village is in need of a development project that addresses the several problems and needs of the village; the preservation project could have been a chance for addressing some of them as tourism is expected to play an important role in the sustainable development of local communities (Butler, 1998). And while many sustainability issues exist in the preservation of the heritage of Attaibeh, this paper will focus on the aspects related to the use of the project for local rural development.

-     The role of the private investor

The case of Attaibeh illustrates the situation were cultural heritage was preserved in favor of the immediate profits for the investor. The management of heritage resources for tourism requires funding, which is not always available for local communities. Also, locals rarely have the knowledge or experience to manage such resources on their own. In the case of Attaibeh, the historical core was abandoned and neglected, without any realization of its value until the investor suggested the project. Thus, private investors have become an important part of the process of preservation in Jordan. As non-renewable resources, proper planning of such investments in cultural heritage is imperative for future generations. Finding the best way for the sustainable management of such places is an objective in planning (de Cros, 2001; Silberg, 1995) the focus on short term commercial benefits, as in this case, and the disregard to the long-term goals of sustainability usually leads to damage of heritage places (de Cros, 2001).

Maintaining an objective look at the project, the investor can not be expected to play the role of the public sector or the municipality in revitalizing the village. Yet, what this paper is suggesting is a constructive partnership between the locals and the investor in which the preservation project could have been managed as part of a development program for the village. A program that would take in to account the development challenges facing the locals and uses the income generated by the project for bettering their lives. 

Research on heritage tourism contends that it should be used to support development programs for the local community (Augustyn, 1998; du Cros, 2001; Inskeep, 1991; Mowforth & Munt, 1998). Such programs can lead to the development of human resources and identification of new income opportunities. The development of the village would also have benefits to the tourism sector, as the local environment will be upgraded, education level improved, thus providing better background for new initiatives for tourism and better tourist services. This would both encourage the improvement of tourism and the development of the local community.

While international Charters have called for benefiting local communities from the preservation of their heritage ( ICOMOS, 1999; ICOMOS, 2000; WTTC, 2002), there are no clear guidelines, especially on the local level, on how to achieve that. Such a goal can not be achieved based on recommendations only; incentives have to be presented to private investors in order to encourage them to adopt sustainable measures that would encourage local participation. In the case of Attaibeh, the investor raised the banner of sustainability and local participation (Fackoury, 1997), but how such a goal is to be achieved was the problem. 

An important factor for the success of a preservation project would be the legislations and guidelines available. The insufficient rules and regulations for historic resources and cultural resources are among the main drawbacks of the preservation movement in Jordan now.  Attaibeh project, as other projects, did not follow any guidelines ( Daher, 1999). Projects using historic buildings are carried out according to the will of owners, investors, or architects; with severe effects on the integrity of the buildings. The existence of cultural resources management laws would help identify the roles and rights of different stakeholders: owners, investors, consultants, and the public. Cultural resources management laws and regulation are needed to provide a basis for environmental and cultural impact assessments and monitoring in order to achieve sustainable heritage tourism (Augustyn, 1998; Inskeep, 1991). Not only are guidelines for preservation needed, but also establishing national guidelines for tourism is important to regulate tourism development. Such guidelines exist in many countries and help as a base for structuring tourism projects in the countryside to establish sustainability. There are two approaches to government involvement: specific guidelines would be in countries were the governments are more involved and were the national government take more active role in the planning and supervising of tourism activity. When the government is less involved, they provide general guidelines and policies (Augustyn, 1998).

Most preservation work in rural areas has been conducted through private investors (Daher, 200b), therefore regulations covering their relationship with the locals are needed to identify the rights of each. It is difficult to control private investments; thus, it is better to provide incentives for the investors to conduct sustainable tourism projects that adhere to recommendations for preservation and development. So far, the implementation of sustainability has been limited to theoretical talk.  An important consideration is that the resources used are property of the local community, which could provide a gateway for adopting participatory approaches in the development of such projects.

Rural development needs

In developing countries, rural areas compare poorly to urban areas in terms of social services, health, income, and physical infrastructure (Lea & Chaudri, 1983). Research indicates that there is a need for emphasis on rural development as two thirds of population of developing countries live in rural areas with high growth rate in addition to problems of unemployment, social inequity, and poverty ( Lea & Chaudri, 1983). Preservation projects within rural settings provide a chance to address that.

Rural development aims at improving the economic and social life targeting the rural poor; it extends the benefits of development to the poorest in the rural areas and enhances employment opportunity, increases production, utilizes the available resources of land, labor, and capital. Poverty has come to include not only those who suffer low income and lower level services, but also those who have no voice or power (Bigman, 2002). Thus, development should include improving quality of life, participation in the decision-making, and empowerment of locals. The strategies of “redistribution with growth” and “growth with justice” are the focus of development that should include social equity, decision-making opportunity, and redistribution of additional income. A successful strategy is a development that is “self-sustaining” involving self reliance by participation in the decision making, which encourages balanced development of rural community (Lea & Chaudri, 1983). The development needs of Attaibeh, including its demographics characteristics, indicate a need for such programs. The management of the heritage preservation project could have taken in to account such principles, which are inline with international charters and recommendations. The focus on local participation and empowerment is a vital part of such projects will be addressed below, but also, it is important to plan how the income from the project can help the local community.

Experience in rural areas has shown that development should be geared to encouraging small scale farming which reduces migration and decreases poverty (FAO, 1997). Small scale farming has been the main source of income for Attaibeh in the past, but is now declining due to lack of support (Suleiman, 2001). It is important that potentials of local communities be identified so that they are targeted for development. One of the goals of sustainability is to identify diverse sources of income for local communities and not have them dependent on one source only (World Bank 2003).

 On the other hand, research has shown that tourism in rural areas can lead to the neglect of agriculture if it proves to provide better income for individuals. Avoiding such an impact has been suggested by limiting the number of tourists and avoiding large-scale tourism (Mowforth & Munt, 1998). As programs for supporting local agriculture in rural areas are needed, funds for such programs can be attained by utilizing available resources, including cultural resources. Under this approach, tourism benefits the locals indirectly, through its support for development programs targeting agriculture (fig 2).

Heritage tourism can help the local community in several ways: direct employment, sales of products, ownership of businesses, joint ventures with outside investors, or by being part of a consultation body that oversees the management of local cultural heritage ( World Bank, 1999). In Attaibeh, the locals have limited access to tourists, thus limiting their benefits. The project could provide jobs in the preserved section of the village, it could provide jobs in supportive services, or by providing a portion of the earnings to the community as a whole, to support special development programs for education, services, infrastructure, or agriculture.

Local participation

Sustainable development has been identified as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Bank,1999). Agenda 21 identified several principles for sustainability that call for social equity, maintaining resources, community development, and participation (WTTC, 2002). Such principles have been adapted in to tourism as sustainable tourism calls for maintaining the resources of the community from degradation, decision-making that incorporates the locals, long and short term economic considerations, among other principles. The attitudes, feelings, and needs of the local community should be addressed. The economic objectives of a project should be integrated with the environmental and social needs through input from the local community (Wright, 1998, 86-87). The main source of drawbacks in the preservation project of Attaibeh was that it approached participation as a goal not as a process. The investor met with the locals at the begging of the project then developed the project on his own. The participation process should have continued in all stages of the development of the project with the locals as partners in decision making, especially as they still own the historic core. Decisions on where crafts market is to be, whether tourists are allowed to the modern village, or what relationship the locals have to their khirbeh should have been discussed. Research have shown that participatory projects in preservation can lead to better results, for preservation and locals as well (Grimwade & Carter, 2000). Furthermore, rural development and heritage tourism can not be sustainable without the participation of locals in order to improve their quality of life, economic, social, and overall development (FAO, 1997; Verbole, 2000; World Bank, 2003).

Pretty (1995) classified several levels of local participation based on the level of involvement of the local community in the decision-making. It reflects the power the locals have over their resources. Yet, more participation does not mean better results. As much as it is important to have the locals involved, a full control of the project when the locals do not have sufficient knowledge to manage it will not be constructive (Mowforth & Munt, 1998; World Bank, 1999). Supporting the local community with knowledge can be achieved in two ways. First, outside support for decision making can be provided from academia, a consultant body, or the government. This would provide locals with support to make better decisions about how their heritage can be managed. Once that has been achieved and the project is underway, the income generated by heritage tourism can target, among other things, local capacity building through educational programs, thus enabling the locals to manage their own heritage themselves and provide initiatives that would further develop heritage tourism (fig 2).

 Attaibeh is a demonstration of the problem of lack of knowledge, since the locals met with the investor at the beginning of the project and thought that the project would revive the village, but they did not contemplate on the details of how it would do that. The initial meetings with the investor could have been used more effectively. One possible solution would be the creation of a local body that would monitor, evaluate, organize, and manage the project and its income for the community in coordination with all the locals and the investor.

Extent of Contact:

As discussed above, it is important to open the preserved part of the village to the local community, which will bring life back to the khirbeh and prevent the alienation that is taking place between the locals and their heritage. It would also present tourists with a real experience of a living Jordanian village, which is the essence of what cultural tourism is about (ICOMOS, 1999).

The preservation of the khirbeh changed the way the old settlement was used as well as the way it is understood. The relationship between the locals and the old settlement has been cut off, with a small number of people working in it, and a fewer number visiting them from time to time. Such spaces that were built by their grandfathers has no more the old associations that used to be attached to them. Most of the locals have come to consider the khirbeh, and the traditional houses within it, as something related to the elite, since only they can afford to rehabilitate it in to a livable condition or to use the resort (Suleiman, 2001).

On the other hand, the direct contact between the locals and tourists can have many drawbacks if not managed (Hall & Lew, 1998; Inskeep, 1991). Limiting the encounter between tourists and locals could help in avoiding the negative socio-economic impacts of tourism ( de Kadt, 1976; Clarke, 1997), thus, achieving a critical balance between the number of tourists in the village and the benefits to the villagers is to be sought. The total separation of locals and tourism has shown to be of no benefit for the local community. Another possible approach can have tourism activities still isolated, provided that the locals receive a share of the profits to go to a specific fund for development. This approach has the drawback of alienating the community from their heritage and depriving the tourist from a genuine cultural experience in a village. A third approach would be to have the modern village and the historic core open to everybody so that tourists can go to the village market, and locals go to their khirbeh. This approach requires investment in the up-grading of tourist services, roads, and beatification of the modern village, but can have drawbacks on the impact tourism would have on the local community. Either way, such approaches should be evaluated to see how feasible each can be, taking into account that decisions should be made with all stakeholders involved.

According to Lea & Chaudri (1983), successful rural development projects have the following in common: 1) An outsider bringing new ideas to the rural area that creates change. The outsider can be an individual or an organization, but is accepted and stays within the community. Usually the financial support and initial idea are from the outside or from wealthy classes. 2) The participation of the local leaders when they realize that the proposal will not threaten them. 3) The beneficiaries of the project are involved and participate in the project which is of benefit to them. 4) Successful projects usually create a local rural institution that involves the pubic in the project and decision-making.

It can be helpful to view the ongoing preservation projects in many Jordanian villages within this framework (fig 2); they would provide chances for development if several steps are made:

·        Identifying the investor as a partner for the locals in the projects, the terms of agreement between investors and locals should be developed to both provide the investor a fair chance for profit, but also identifying a fair portion of the profit for the community as a whole, which should be used for rural development programs. Using a process that allows locals and investors develop constructive partnerships, and share the benefits of tourism, a suggested model for that is fig (2).

·        The duty of the local municipality to develop, with help from governments or academics, the development program needed by the village. Such programs would identify development needs of the community, and how it would best use such an investment opportunity. The focus would be on utilizing such resources for making the locals less vulnerable to poverty.

·        The project should be conducted with coordination with locals in the several stages of its development, through local community meetings that involves all residents. It is important that the different options be discussed, and that locals realize the ramifications of certain choices. The role of consultants and academics is important in this regard.

·        Many of the problems facing heritage tourism are due to the insufficiency of the existing cultural heritage laws and guidelines. The government needs to develop guidelines for preservation practice that would help limit loss of integrity and identify appropriate ways for treating different types of cultural heritage. Guidelines are also needed to identify what is needed to achieve the goal of sustainable tourism.

·        It is important to have incentives for private investors for adopting sustainable approaches in their investments in cultural tourism.

·        The empowerment of local communities when making decision on their cultural heritage is important. Many local communities lack the knowledge needed to negotiate with investors, thus a supportive role is needed from the government, academia, or professionals to provide them with consultation in order to achieve sustainable approaches to tourism.

·        Diversifying the sources of income for local communities should be a goal for any sustainable tourism project, with focus on agriculture as an important resource for rural areas.

·        Using the tourist profits to develop the community’s human resources and support local programs for development.

·        Avoiding the drawbacks of large tourism by focusing on small tourism and managing interaction between locals and tourists.

fig (2): Model for a sustainable process of investment in rural cultural heritage.

References:

Augustyn, M. (1998). National Strategies for Rural Tourism Development and Sustainability: The Polish Experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 6(3), 191-209.

Butler, R. (1998). Sustainable Tourism: looking backwards in order to progress? In: C. Michael Hall & Alan A. Lew (Eds). Sustainable Tourism, a geographical perspective. U.K : Longman.

Clark, K (2001). Preserving what matters, Value led planning for cultural heritage sites . Conservation 16 (3), 5-12.

 Clarke, J. (1997). A Framework of approaches to sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5 (3), 224-233.

Daher, R. (1996). Conservation in Jordan: A comprehensive methodology for historical and cultural resources. Journal of Architectural Conservation , November, 65-81.

Daher, R. (1999). Gentrification and the politics of power, capital, and culture in an emerging Jordanian heritage industry. Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review (X) II, 33-45.

Daher, R. (2000).  Dismantling a community’s heritage: heritage, tourism: conflict, inequality, and a search for social justice in the age of globalization. In:Mike Robinson, Nigel Evans, Philip Long, Richard Sharpley, John Swarbrooke (Eds). Reflections on  international tourism: tourism and heritage relationships: global, national, and local perspectives. Newcastle:  University of Northumbria at Newcastle and Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield.

Daher, R. (2000b).Heritage conservation in Jordan: The myth of equitable and sustainable development. In: Irene Maffi & Rami Daher. Patrimony and Heritage Conservation In Jordan. Amman: Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches sur le Moyen-Orient Contemporain.

Department of Statistics. (1994). The General Census of Population and Households. Amman, Jordan.

du Cros, H. (2001). A new model to assist in planning for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research (3), 165-170.

de Kadt, E. (1976). Tourism, Passport to development. World Bank and Unesco. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fakhoury, L. (1997, September). Architectural patrimony and cultural tourism, A cultural interface between past and present. The First Conference on the Conservation of Architectural Heritage of Jordan, Amman.

Food and agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (1997, April).Rural Development International Workshop, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Grimwade, G . & Carter, B. (2000). Managing Small Heritage Sites with Interpretation and community Involvement. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 6. (1) , 33-48.

Haobsh, M. (2001, February). The effect of the Jordanian Laws and the International Charters ratified by Jordan on the management of the architectural heritage. Paper presented to the first workshop on the cultural resources management, Irbid, Jordan.

Henry, P. &. Jackson, G.A.M.(1996). Sustainability of Management Processes and Tourism Products and Contexts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism (4) 1, 17-28.

ICOMOS. (1982). Declaration of Tlaxcala. The third inter-American symposium on the conservation of the building Heritage “ the Revitalization of small Settlements”; held in Trinidad, Tlaxcala, 25-28 October 1982. Available: http://www.icomos.org/docs/tlaxcala.html acessed on 4/14/2002 accessed on 2/20/2002.

ICOMOS, 1999: International Cultural Tourism Charter, Managing Tourism at Places of Heritage Significance. 8^th Draft, for adoption by ICOMOS at the 12^th General Assembly, Mexico, October 1999 [On-line]. Available: http://www.icomos.org/tourism/charter.html accessed on 2/20/2002

ICOMOS,2000: Charter on the built vernacular heritage, (ratified by the ICOMOS 12th General Assembly , held in Mexico, from 17-24 October 2000)[On-line]. from : http://www.international.icomos.org/VERNAC-ENG.htm accessed on 9/20/2001

Inskeep, E. 1991. Tourism Planning, an integrated and sustainable planning approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Khammash, A. (1986). Notes on village architecture in Jordan, Lafayette : University Art Museum,University of Southern Louisiana.

Knauf, E.A (1986):  A Brief History of Settlement in Jordan.In: Ammar Khammash. Notes on Village Architecture in Jordan, Lafayette: University Art Museum. University of Southern Louisiana.

Lea, D. & D.P. Chaudri. 1983. Rural Development and the State.  David Lea & D.P. Chaudry (Eds). London: Methuen & Co.

Mahadine,K. (1997, September): The conservation of the architectural heritage in Wadi Musa. The First Conference on the Conservation of Architectural Heritage of Jordan, Amman.

Mbaydeen, S. (1997, September). Al Qawaneen watturath [Laws and heritage]. The First Conference on the Conservation of Architectural Heritage of Jordan, Amman.

Mowforth M. & Ian Munt. 1998. Tourism and sustainability, New Tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge.

Najjar,M (1997, September).Cultural Resources Management in Jordan. The First Conference on the Conservation of Architectural Heritage of Jordan, Amman.

Pretty, J. (1995). The many interpretations of participation. In Focus 16.4-5.

Silberg, T. (1995). Cultural Tourism and Business Opportunities for Museums and Heritage places. Tourism Management 16 (5): 361-365

Shami,S (1987): “Umm Qeis : A Northern Jordanian Village in Context”; in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan III, Amman: Department of Antiquity.

Suleiman, S. (2001) : Transformed Environmental Values of tourism on traditional Villages: Two case studies, Wadi Musa and Al-Taibeh, thesis submitted for the  Masters of Architecture, the University of Jordan.(Arabic).

Wight, P. 1998. Tools for Sustainability Analysis in Planning and Managing Tourism and recreation in the Destination. In: Sustainable Tourism, a geographical perspective. C. Michael Hall & Alan A. Lew (Eds). U.K : Longman.

World Bank. (1999, April): Sustainable Development. A summery report of the cultural site management workshop held by the world Bank Institute and the World Bank Culture and development anchor. Washington DC.

World Bank. (2003). World Development Report 2003 [On-line]. Available: http://econ.worldbank.org/wdr/wdr2003/text-17926/ accessed on 3/3/2003.

World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC). 2002.  AGENDA 21 for the Travel & Tourism Industry Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development. Available: http://www.wttc.org/promote/agenda21.htm accessed on 3/1/2003.