Search

In contemporary narratives, rural landscapes and identities, as judged by the inhabitants' sense of belonging, continue to be important points that need to be (re)considered when discussing places as instruments for local development. This paper pushes forward these debates and explores the construction of rural and regional identity in Romania with the help of a case study that focuses on perceptions of rural landscapes as cultural heritage in two rural communities situated on opposite sides of the river Mureș. Based on participant and ethnographic observation and making use of a survey and a qualitative analysis, this paper highlights the most significant features of the local cultural identities and their rural landscape heritage expressed by the two sets of people, which often coincide with the most important characteristics attributed to the regions separated by the river Mureș. The results of this study underline the dividing role of the river in the preservation of rural identity and cultural heritage. They also demonstrate that rural landscapes and the construction of identities along the river have generated both development opportunities and various risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has recently been discussion regarding how heritage rural areas are culturally affected by recent urban-to-rural migration. However, little research has been conducted on the form this process takes in post-communist contexts. Taking a geography approach to some Romanian heritage sites, this study foregrounds narratives based on interviews with local people in two villages in southern Transylvania that were formerly inhabited by different ethnicities. The results point to quite different perceptions of the cultural landscape changes in the two villages. Although both communities consciously seek to preserve and maintain a sense of place that is rooted in history, those who migrate from urban areas to these rural heritage places represent a catalyst for community resilience and development in areas such as acquisition of buildings, development of facilities, modern social services, and seeking new funding for landscape transformation. As NGOs function as a link between government, local people, newcomers to the community, and investors, we contend that more attention could be paid to channelling their funds towards investment in rural heritage. The greatest challenges to heritage are those posed by tourism, while NGOs and small investors are the driving force that helps to preserve and save cultural heritage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]