Art tourism and paradigms of island revitalization in Japan

ABSTRACT

Art tourism in rural destinations in Japan has received attention in both media and academia. Two major regional art festivals that are conducted in a regular cycle have triggered this boom in the 21^st century. However, art and cultural tourism have formed an important part of regional revitalization strategies for 30 years. This paper focuses on four island destinations in the Seto Inland Sea that have incorporated art in their branding strategies to examine how shifts in national policies for regional development are reflected in the local context. We examine trends in island research in Japan, paradigm shifts in regional development policies and the role of art tourism in rural revitalization to establish a framework for comparison. Through this framework, we analyze how art tourism is integrated into general development concepts and examine the main actors and the roles of the private sector and residents. We identified two paradigm shifts in the framework of national development plans and laws. Two of our case studies fall into the first phase, where subsidies by the national government form the core of investment for art tourism under the leadership of local mayors but result in different outcomes in terms of success as tourist destinations. On the other hand, two case studies from the latter phase feature a stronger variety of integrated art tourism policies, depending on the engagement of private sector actors and residents. In conclusion, the expansion of art tourism on rural islands reflects a complex interplay of global trends and national development paradigms on the local level.

KEYWORDS:

• Art tourism
• Japan
• island research
• rural destinations
• regional revitalization

Introduction

Art tourism in rural destinations in Japan has received increased attention in both media and academia. While this boom has been triggered by two major large-scale art festivals that are conducted on a regional scale and in a regular cycle in the 21^st century, art and cultural tourism have formed an important part of regional development and revitalization strategies for over 30 years. Since the 1980s, global competition and neoliberalism have accelerated uneven spatial development in industrialized countries, turning rural regions into a periphery and producing a “global countryside” (Lützeler, Manzenreiter, and Polak-Rottmann 2020). This process has been termed peripheralization, comprising economic, social and political factors (Kühn 2015). An opposite process can be observed in the international encouragement of local government and citizen actorship initiated at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit (Sorensen and Carolin 2007). While Japan’s rural areas have been spared some negative aspects like rural poverty due to the state’s emphasis on national development policies in the 20^th century, differences between rural regions and the central metropolitan areas as well as between rural regions themselves are becoming more accentuated (Lützeler, Manzenreiter, and Polak-Rottmann 2020). The question is how regional development paradigms in Japan integrated these global trends, and how the resulting mix of strategies plays out on the local level.

Art tourism features similar tensions between global players, metropolitan-based art organizations, economic interests, site-specific artworks and artists engaged in community activities. We compare four cases of art tourism on small islands, arguably the most peripheral type of rural area in Japan (Funck 2020), to analyze how the interplay of global trends, national development policies and local conditions in regional development has changed from the 1990s to the 2020s. For this purpose, we first examine trends in island research in Japan, paradigm shifts in regional development policies and the role of art tourism in rural revitalization to establish a framework for comparison. Through analysis of policy goals, stakeholders involved and, as far as possible, long-term impacts in the four case study areas, we then aim to diagnose if and to what effect art tourism as a development tool on islands combines factors of national policies, private investment and residents’ initiative. Our results confirmed that Japan’s regional development policies followed global trends through several paradigm shifts, and resulted in an overall increase of dependence and peripheralization for islands in Japan. However, a detailed analysis of the four case studies also identified some factors contributing to stronger local agency and economic diversification.

Island research in Japan

Island studies have only recently evolved as their own, “real and self-respecting” discipline internationally (Baldacchino 2018, xxxiii). In Japan, island research has developed in several phases and has been strongly linked to regional development policies (Qu et al. 2022). Starting with ethnographic studies on individual islands that emphasized the uniqueness of place, the focus shifted to the southern islands after Okinawa was returned to Japan in 1972.

Academic debate in the 1960s focused on the balance between environmental determinism and human influence. The question of whether the universal characteristics of islands as a special type of geographical area were sufficient to call for a specialized field of island geography was in practice negated by the emphasis in most academic publications on special features and a sense of place on individual islands (Miyauchi 2006). However, based on the strong tradition of island studies in Okinawa, Kakazu suggested a separate field of study called Nissology (study of islands) in the 1990s (Kakazu 2018, 2). Currently, several academic societies and research institutes in Japan focus on island research (Qu, McCormick, and Funck 2022, 5).

Major research topics in geographical island studies include agriculture, settlements, population and fisheries, while anthropological research focuses on community structures and cultural traditions. Tourism, on the other hand, has received attention mainly during limited periods based on economic and political developments: first during the resort development boom in Japan’s bubble economy phase in the late 1980s, and second when the government began to promote ecotourism from around 2000 (Miyauchi 2014). However, Miyauchi (2009, 151–153) identified four problems in geographical research on tourism. Firstly, the focus of research is on the development process of tourism, with a lack of analysis of the impacts, especially on the island environment. Secondly, the economic contribution of tourism development is analyzed quantitatively, neglecting the type of employment created and the balance of working opportunities among different parts of the community. Thirdly, most papers focus on only one island, and fourthly, they follow the growth process of tourism, and very rarely the decline phases. While island researchers, especially geographers, have been heavily engaged in planning, development and revitalization policies promoted by all levels of government, research on these policies and their outcomes is scarce (Miyauchi 2006).

Baldacchino (2018), in the preface of the International Handbook on Island Studies, emphasizes the importance of comparative studies to analyze island spaces rather than specific island places. To address the limitations and problems of island research in Japan as outlined above, this paper will compare the development of art tourism as one type of regional development policy across four islands. We will analyze policy goals, stakeholders involved and, as far as possible, long-term impacts within the framework of national regional policies in Japan.

Regional development policies and island revitalization

Graci and Maher (2018) identify long-term planning as one of the challenges for island sustainability. In Japan, regional development has been conducted within the framework of national plans, beginning with the first plan in 1962. The Fourth National Development Plan of 1989–2000, which coincided with the collapse of the so-called “Bubble Economy”, a phase of high economic growth in Japan, shifted investment from government funds to the private sector or to private-public partnerships in line with global trends of neoliberalism (Funck 1999). With the National Spatial Plan in 2008, Japan departed from a strongly centralized planning approach emphasizing infrastructure development across the country. In contrast to the first five “development plans”, the “spatial plans” consist of a national plan and regional plans; the latter are compiled through a process involving regional industries and municipalities. They aim for “a new public” (arata na kō) and the cultivation of a cooperative society (MLITT 2019).

The most recent National Spatial Plan (MLITT 2015) emphasizes a balance of selection and concentration and the building of independent regional societies. They will be required to take advantage of their natural environments, history, cultures, human resources, and industries. Residents and other stakeholders are asked to voluntarily participate in these efforts which will receive some government assistance in areas with severe geographical and natural conditions, like remote islands. However, in the plan, islands are referred to mainly in the context of marine water management and territory control. “Remote islands”, it emphasizes, “play key roles in conserving or utilizing Japan’s territories and exclusive economic zone, marine resources and natural environments. […] People should continue to live on manned remote islands serving as the base for conserving marine interests” (MLITT 2015, 52).

It is interesting to note that local stakeholders’ role in these plans is limited to public comments during the planning process and voluntary participation in community building. In academic discussions on the role of civil society in governance in Japan, arguments that civil society’s actors’ involvement in Japan has significantly increased since the 1990s at least on the local level were met with skepticism due to the continuing power of state actors (Sorensen and Funck 2007, 3). Parallel to the framework of national development plans, laws have been used to direct government planning and investment to certain regions or development themes. The most influential laws have been those that support depopulating areas since 1970.

For islands, the Remote Island Promotion Law 1953 and its periodical renewals and extensions aim to prevent further decrease in island populations and promote permanent residents on the islands (MLITT 2021). When the law was first introduced, remote islands were characterized as “backward” regions due to their imbalance of population and food supply, their reliance on the primary industry sector, and their lack of basic infrastructure like electricity and water supply as well as investment capacities. Support through this law therefore focused on infrastructure development. In a similar vein, other laws like the Port and Harbor Law (1950) emphasized infrastructure as an important tool to support regions perceived as disadvantaged.

Within this framework of national development plans and laws, we can identify two important paradigm shifts. Broadly speaking, regional development through the first three national development plans can be classified as top-down infrastructure development using public subsidies. The first shift in national development plans occurred in the late 1980s when a combination of private investment, deregulation and public funds for supporting infrastructure was introduced during the “Bubble Economy”. It can be labeled a public-private partnership for top-down revitalization projects focusing on tourism and leisure. As an example of this concept, the Law for the Development of Comprehensive Resort Areas (1987), the so-called Resort Law, elevated the development of holiday and leisure facilities to national projects to revive peripheral regions. Islands became a prime target for development plans that combined investment by private industries, mainly from the capital regions, with the deregulation of development restrictions like National Parks. Although most projects were abandoned when the bubble economy burst, this paradigm shift introduced leisure and tourism as a sector of regional development and private industries as important actors (Funck 1999). This period also witnessed the distribution of 100 million yen to each municipality in Japan, the so-called Hometown Revitalization Project (furusato sōsei jigyō), which in many cases led to the development of tourism attractions.

A second paradigm shift can be identified since around 2010. It could be called a concept for top-down revitalization through education, employment and exchange with local initiative. As mentioned above, the concept of National Development plans was changed fundamentally with the shift to “National Spatial Development” in 2008. Also, in a review of changes to laws for depopulated areas from 1970 to the newest edition in 2021, a shift from infrastructure development to “soft” projects like medical care, education or support for new residents was emphasized. However, the process of funding still involves local governments making plans that are approved by the central government, thus keeping a top-down approach that solidifies center-periphery dependencies (Atterton et al. 2022). A similar shift is visible in the support for remote islands, where a fund was introduced in 2013 for efforts to increase employment through the development of strategic industries and reduce maritime transport costs to attract new residents. Promoting the expansion of exchanges through tourism and improving conditions for safe and secure settlement were also included (MLITT 2021).

The shift in policies coincides with the global trends identified in the introduction. It also reflects a different perception of peripheral regions in general and remote islands especially. As Suyama (2003, 9) explained, island diversity, uniqueness of culture and self-sufficiency of their communities could be a chance for independent development. The island lure, although less strong in Japan than in Western societies, has become a – however limited – pull factor of urban-rural migration (Funck 2020). This tendency has been strengthened during the COVID-19 pandemic when the introduction of telework turned peripheral areas into an attractive alternative to densely populated metropolitan areas.

As for the actual situation of islands, compared to an overall national decrease of 0.9% and a decrease in designated depopulated areas of 8.5%, remote islands covered under the Remote Islands Promotion Law experienced a population decrease of 9.3% between 2010 and 2015, continuing a long-term trend. Similarly, the percentage of the senior population older than 65 years is 39%, much higher than the national average of 26.6% in 2015. Interestingly, both population decrease and aging rates are higher in the inner islands, e.g. the Seto Inland Sea area, and in municipalities where the remote island is part of a larger municipality where only a part is designated as a remote island (MLITT 2021, 5–7). The latter proves that administrative independence could form an important factor in the process of island promotion and revitalization. A quantitative analysis of changes in the economic structure of 175 islands from 1995 to 2015 revealed that the dependence of islands on the mainland has actually increased due to a decline of existing industries and a dependence on public investment. As of 2015, very few islands featured an economic structure based on tourism and their number did not increase since 1995, so tourism had not replaced other industries (Miyauchi and Suyama 2022). Considering the unabated population decrease and the growing dependence on the mainland, the integration of global trends in regional development policies has led to a similar outcome of increasing spatial inequalities and peripheralization.

Art tourism as a tool of regional development in Japan

Why should we pay attention to the phenomenon of art tourism on remote islands? To begin with, the issue of depopulation and rural decline poses significant challenges for both developed countries in the Global North and some emerging economies (Qu and Zollet 2023). These rural areas, which have been facing difficulties, have become compelling settings for contemporary art. This trend coincides with the emergence of land art, site-specific art, and socially engaged art, all of which utilize non-urban spaces as platforms for conveying anti-globalization and anti-liberalism concepts (Qu and Funck 2021).

Islands, as distinct entities constantly engaged in resource exchange with the outside world while maintaining a certain degree of independence, possess a unique territoriality. From a cultural perspective, their heterotopia ambiance tends to draw numerous artists (Qu and Funck 2021). In the realm of art island creation and marginal territories for artistic expression, a heterotopia, as defined by Foucault and Miskowiec (1986), signifies a unique space that stands apart from our everyday environments. Heterotopias challenge societal norms and offer contemporary artists an unconventional stage to challenge conventional perceptions of common space. The peripheral islands encourage artists to break free from the ordinary, fostering visually captivating and intellectually engaging spaces for new ideas and experiences, ultimately making the art island a hub of creative expression and contemplation. Simultaneously, many of these islands have historically had limited resources when it comes to developing tourism, as they were not initially established as tourist destinations. This presents a challenge that is not only more daunting than establishing creative clusters in urban areas but also offers cultural tourism opportunities for urban populations and boosts the creative potential of island communities. These elements come together to facilitate a fresh and dynamic link between urban, rural, and even global relationships, facilitated by the realm of island art tourism (Prince, Qu, and Zollet 2021).

The discourse on art tourism can be comprehensively examined through existing literature and grouped into three main categories: visual arts, performance-based arts, and arts festivals (Qu and Cheer 2021). Additionally, the challenge of defining art itself has given rise to various manifestations of art tourism (Franklin 2018; Qu and Cheer 2021). In rural settings, it becomes evident that studying this subject through arts events, arts programs, and arts festivals holds greater practical significance at the community level compared to rigid categorization. In other words, each socially embedded art and tourism endeavor is distinct, and attempting to provide a precise definition for it proves to be unfeasible.

Franklin argues that the design and administration of art tourism experiences are often not controlled by the tourist industry but by art organizations, despite the fact that art tourism research is regarded to fall under cultural tourism’s vast boundaries (Franklin 2018). This limits the academic discussion of art tourism to the elite cultural tourism perspective from which it is often approached. The discussion of cultural tourism in rural areas lags far behind the urban context. In an urban environment, art tourism can provide metropolitan areas with status, cultural identity, tourist money, and economic influence (Franklin 2018). One of the greatest challenges is that art organizers often make strong commitments to host communities, yet they do not set limits to the number of visitors to these communities, which in some cases may make it difficult for locals to bear the burden of tourism (Franklin 2018). The resulting overtourism, which is often discussed in the context of flagship projects or events in the cities, can cause even more serious problems in the countryside.

In contrast to metropolitan inventiveness, rural art tourism provides a more comprehensive view (Qu and Funck 2021). Rural art tourism in non-urban contexts often takes the shape of artistic craftwork, art events, and festival tourism (Mahon and Hyyryläinen 2019; Prince, Meng, and Zollet 2021). The phenomenon of art tourism in the countryside is receiving greater academic attention and has brought about a deeper focus on the cultural and social scope beyond economic values. Recently, particularly in rural Australia, Europe, and Japan, the emphasis of art tourism has shifted from urban community development to rural revitalization (Qu and Cheer 2021; Qu, McCormick, and Funck 2022; Sarale et al. 2020). Some of these studies have focused on creative tourism, artists’ community involvement, festival tourism and event management, rural studies, and so on (Klien 2010; Qu and Funck 2021). In best-case scenarios, creativity, art, and festivals may have a beneficial neighborhood effect that influences regional growth, community resilience, and rural revitalization (Balfour, Fortunato, and Alter 2018; Mahon and Hyyryläinen 2019).

In Japan, rural art tourism and art festivals usually take the form of outdoor community exhibitions resembling galleries, sometimes using abandoned historic buildings as art sites. Significant large-scale art festival tourism, such as Setouchi Triennale and Echigo Tsumari, foster socially responsible characteristics, such as volunteering and a socially engaged goal of community revitalization (Qu, McCormick, and Funck 2022; Tagore-Erwin 2018). The success of large-scale art festivals such as Setouchi Triennale in the Japanese countryside has led to the birth of small-scale, low-cost, and more localized small-scale art events (Qu and Cheer 2021). Rural art tourism has contributed to a diverse tourist framework as well as local micro-business creation (Funck and Chang 2018). Art tourism in rural settings has the potential to revitalize a community via civic involvement and interaction, public-private partnerships, creative entrepreneurship, population retention, and community long-term sustainability, according to the findings of these case studies (Klien 2010; Qu and Funck 2021). The participation of art tourism resulted in first cultural reterritorialization and later artistic upgrading (Prince, Qu, and Zollet 2021). However, negative effects of large-scale art tourism have been observed, such as tourism gentrification, as well as inconsistent community regeneration results (Balfour, Fortunato, and Alter 2018; Qu and Funck 2021). It begs the question, under what conditions can the community participation of art tourism be regarded as a successful revitalization?

Compared to large-scale art projects and festivals, small-scale art development and events get less attention, yet researchers may obtain unique data from comparing the two. Community involvement is a crucial element in promoting art and creative tourist experiences in rural areas with fewer visitors (Qu and Cheer 2021). Small-scale signifies cheaper prices, utilizing limited regional artistic and creative resources, a pro-resident tendency, strengthened regional business relationships and civic networks, and reinterpreted local culture (Qu and Cheer 2021). Therefore, researchers need to gain a more dynamic and comprehensive perspective from different types of rural art tourism cases. Whether they’re grand or intimate celebrations, all of them aim to initiate an external cultural and economic influence, which can be corporate, public-private, or government-led, in order to foster a renewed sense of community that encourages grassroots development, including the emergence of small-scale, community-focused tourism ventures and an influx of residents embracing the local lifestyle (Qu and Zollet 2023).

Building on this short review of regional development policies, island revitalization and art tourism in rural areas, we conduct a comparative, long-term analysis of art tourism development on four islands in the Seto Inland Sea area.

Research questions and methods

This paper aims to position rural art tourism within the framework of regional development and island revitalization in Japan. As was outlined above, regional development policies in Japan have seen paradigm shifts from state-sponsored grand-scale development to private investment and to “soft” projects involving local stakeholders. Focusing on islands, the development of infrastructure has been replaced by policies to revitalize shrinking and aging communities. Art tourism as one tool of development and revitalization has experienced similar changes. Drawing from case studies of art tourism across four islands, we interrogate the following issues:

1. Is art tourism integrated into a more general development concept for the island?

2. Who are the main actors in the development and revitalization processes?

3. Is the private sector involved, and how?

4. What is the role of residents in development and management?

Through this comparison, we will demonstrate how the paradigm shifts in national development policies played out on the ground. We will then discuss the consequences for future tourism development on each island.

Our longitudinal analysis is based on research conducted over two decades, including working as an author for the geographical edition of Setoda’s town history (Setodachō 2003), excursions, fieldwork and tourist surveys (with students and individually) in all four locations and planning an exhibition about Mitarai. Backed up by these research results, most of which have been published, we identified the above issues for analysis through a combination of methods:

1. Analysis of municipal plans and other public documents.

2. Research results from existing literature, especially in the case of Naoshima which has been well-researched from different aspects.

3. Stakeholder interviews and surveys with residents, business owners and tourists conducted by the authors in the context of other research projects that have already been published. Methodological details can be obtained from each of the sources given.

For the research area, we chose islands from one area, the Seto Inland Sea. This excludes some of the problems of island uniqueness, as the four islands have similar natural conditions and access to nearby urban centers. Among the many Seto Inland Sea locations engaged in art tourism, we chose different scales, periods and types of art tourism. Shimokamagari and Setoda were selected due to their early approach to art tourism. Naoshima was selected as the representative island for art tourism in Japan and the starting point of the Setouchi International Art Festival. Lastly, Mitarai was selected as an example of a small-scale bottom-up festival. The main characteristics of the four locations are compared in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of four case study locations.

Location	Administrative structure	Bridge to mainland	Population in 2022	Tourists in 2019
Shimokamagari	Part of Kure City since 2003	Since 2000	1,271	34,000 (Facilities of Ranto foundation)
Setoda	Part of Onomichi City since　2005	Since 1992 (not direct)	7,577	793,648
Naoshima	Independent town	No bridge	3,016	751,309
Mitarai	Part of Kure City since 2003	Since 2008 (not direct)	1,548　（Yutakamachi）	31,008

Sources: Reiwa 4 nendoban kureshi tōkeisho.

Reiwa 2 nendoban kureshi tōkeisho.

Reiwa 4 nendoban tōkei onomichi.

https://www.city.onomichi.hiroshima.jp/soshiki/2/18436.html#2022

Onomichishi sangyōbu kankōka.

https://www.city.onomichi.hiroshima.jp/soshiki/27/33865

Naoshimachō tōkei jōho.

https://www.town.naoshima.lg.jp/government/gaiyo/toukei/jinnkou20191113

Naoshima kankō kyōkai: https://naoshima.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/f9c18291d2526ae3458cfc7a81bc193b.pdf.

Note: Tourist numbers refer to the situation before the COVID-19 pandemic and are added numbers of visitors at different facilities within each location.

Art tourism in the Seto Inland Sea

Although often compared to the Mediterranean, the Seto Inland Sea in Western Japan was not a major tourist destination until the 21^st Century (Funck 2002). Rather, it is characterized by large-scale development of manufacturing industries and metropolitan areas along its coasts. Among the many islands dotting the sea, Miyajima in Hiroshima prefecture with its famous red torii gate standing in the sea attracted 5,184,000 tourists in 2018, 7% of which were international tourists, making it the prime international island tourist destination. On the other hand, beach tourism on some islands close to the Kansai metropolitan area provides recreation for regional residents. In the 21^st century, bicycle tourism hopping along the islands of Shimanami Kaidō and art tourism in the context of the Setouchi International Art Festival have finally attracted international attention to the area.

The four islands chosen for comparison have engaged in tourism development since the 1990s with different concepts. The importance of art and the contents of art tourism vary, but all four have emphasized cultural tourism over beach and recreational attractions. On the other hand, the four examples are embedded in different administrative and geographical contexts. Shimokamagari is both a town and an island. Setoda was an independent town stretching across two islands, Ikuchijima and Kone, until it merged with Onomichi City in 2006; it is situated along the Shimanami Kaidō bridge system connecting Honshu with Shikoku across several islands. Naoshima can only be accessed by ship and is still an independent town covering the main island of Naoshima and some minor islands. Mitarai is a district of Yutakamachi Town on Osakishimojima island, situated along the same Tobishima Kaidō island chain as Shimokamagari; all towns along this chain merged with Kure City during the great amalgamation wave in the early 2000s and are connected by bridges. In this paper, we will use the place names Shimokamagari, Setoda, Naoshima and Mitarai referring to the former towns in the first three cases and the district in the latter.

Shimokamagari

Shimokamagari Island is the first island on the island chain called Tobishima Kaidō, stretching from Hiroshima Prefecture to Ehime Prefecture. It was connected to the mainland by a bridge in 2000; the whole bridge system spanning five islands was completed in 2008. Located along one of the major sea routes through the Seto Inland Sea, it was an important port town during the period when ships relied on sailing. For example, the Korean Diplomatic Delegations visiting the Shogunate in Edo during the Edo Period called at this port 11 times with several hundred people. As an independent municipality, Shimokamagari Town could devise its own development plans until it merged with Kure City in 2003.

Shimokamagari Town started to emphasize culture as a theme for development under the leadership of its last mayor, who governed the town from 1976 until 2003. From 1985 onwards, the local administration acquired a variety of national subsidies to build several museums that formed a kind of cultural infrastructure. These individual projects were finally summarized into one concept in 1991, the “Garden Island Concept” (Ihara 2007).

During the 1990s, the term machizukuri spread rapidly in Japan. It refers to a variety of practices through which citizens engage in place management (Sorensen and Funck 2007). However, it is also frequently applied to development projects promoted by local administrations, like the Garden Island Concept. This concept comprised three elements: machizukuri based on history and culture, especially the history of Korean Diplomatic Delegations; nurturing human resources through art; and creating a landscape characterized by pine trees. The creation of a garden island was to enhance the pride of place in residents. Eight cultural facilities including several museums formed the core of the development project (Shimokamagari machizukuri kyōgikai 2020). The contents of the museums reflect a rather wide perception of culture and art. They include a museum for the Korean Diplomatic Delegations, a lamp museum, a ceramic museum, a museum of Japanese paintings and woodblock prints, a museum of a famous Japanese painter from the early 20^th century, a traditional tea house – and an insect museum. The buildings have been either relocated from other areas of Japan or restored, creating the image of a historic town center.

Facing the merger with Kure City, in 2002 facility management was taken over by an incorporated foundation that was later turned into a public interest foundation called Ranto based on an old name of the island. When a system of designated management by private sector organizations for public facilities called shitei kanri took root across Japan, the Ranto Foundation applied for and received the management rights for the facilities in 2006 (Kōeki zaidan hōjin ranto bunka shinkō zaidan n.d.). Although Kure City chose to select the same organizations that managed public facilities before rather than to hold an open competition, the new system nevertheless brought severe budget limitations (Funck 2008). The management history of the cultural facilities reflects the national policy shift from public management by municipalities to incorporated foundations and then to a – somewhat – competitive management system. In 2019, the cultural facilities received 34,000 visitors.

After the merger, the municipality of Kure City extended from the core industrial city to smaller industrial towns along the coast and several island communities. To promote a locally based response to problems faced in each area, the city introduced a system where each area could develop its own machizukuri plan. In Shimokamagari, existing neighborhood organizations in cooperation with other traditional local organizations and volunteer groups created a regional machizukuri plan based on the Garden Island Concept. Traditional culture, history, art, greening, tourism and exchange among residents became central keywords (Shimokamagari machizukuri kyōgikai 2020).

Ihara (2007) points out that the Garden Island Concept emphasized the role of residents. Even during the process of building the facilities, locals engaged in the relocation of old buildings or the creation of a garden near a beach facility. In 2015, Kure City received the Suntory Prize for Community Cultural Activities for residents’ engagement in the Garden Island project. Volunteer activities like an annual cleaning event covering the whole island, planting and taking care of pine trees, organizing community concerts, guide activities at the museums and an annual event recreating the visit of the Korean Diplomatic Delegation in the Edo period were highly rated (Suntory Prize for Community Cultural Activities 2015). These types of activities can be categorized as responsibilities that are delegated to residents because municipalities lack funds for or interest in conducting them. However, they are not empowering civil society, where civil actors gain a voice in local governance (Sorensen and Funck 2007).

Shimokamagari offers an example for the development of cultural infrastructure based on national subsidies. The cultural facilities were integrated in an overall machizukuri plan that gave residents only a supporting role as volunteers. Nevertheless, the continuity of the managing organization as well as residents’ engagement even after the dissolution of the original independent municipality point to a sense of local responsibility for the facilities created in the phase of top-down infrastructure development using public subsidies.

Setoda (Ikuchi Island)

The town of Setoda is located on the island Ikuchijima. It is linked to the mainland through the bridge system of Shimanami Kaidō, a world-renowned cycling route. In 2005, it merged together with the neighboring islands into the city of Onomichi, a tourist destination popular for its many temples and film locations scattered in its pictorial hillside town district. In 2019, Setoda received 793,648 visitors; of these, only 560,696 were classified as tourists from outside the city.

Before the cycling route was completed, Setoda’s economy was mainly based on shipbuilding and citrus fruit farming. It attracted tourists mainly through Kōsan-ji (Kōsan Temple), a large temple complex with theme park aspects constructed by a wealthy industrial tycoon born on the island. However, faced with the prospect of the bridge connection to the mainland in 1992 and a decrease in visitors to Kōsan-ji, the mayor who governed from 1975 to 1995 developed a long-term strategy for a tourism infrastructure catering to different types and generations of tourists. From the 1980s, developments started with a concert hall and an artificial beach with year-round facilities. To differentiate the island from the other islands along the bridge link, the slogan “a town with a rich culture” was selected, based on the words of the famous Japanese painter Hirayama Ikuo, born in Setoda, who said that Setoda was the point of departure and inspiration for his work (Waki 2000). This new concept of an “Island Resort Rich in Cultural Flavor” was officially incorporated into the general development plan for the town in 1990 (Setodachō kyōiku iinkai 2003).

Based on this concept, the Setoda Biennale started in 1989 as part of the Hiroshima Sea and Island Exhibition and was conducted five times until 1999. Artists were selected by a committee of three art specialists and invited to visit the island. They were free to choose any place they liked best to create an artwork specific to the site. The idea of location-specific artwork was a new concept at the time. During the five Biennale events, 17 artworks were positioned mainly along the coast and in the central district and have since been preserved as part of the Island-Wide Art Museum Project (Setodachō kyōiku iinkai 2003). The artworks themselves turned into inspiration for further creative activities like photo contests or drawings by local school classes (Waki 2000). The project was partly funded by the Hometown Revitalization Project.

As the final part of the Island Resort Rich in Cultural Flavor plan, the Hirayama Ikuo Art Museum focusing on the work of the painter opened in 1997. To provide a deeper understanding of his art, it includes sketches and pre-drawings for his famous works and other materials illustrating his painting techniques and career as a painter.

Private investment followed up on the concept of a cultural island. In 2000, Kōsan-ji opened a new area called The Hill of Hope (Miraishin no oka). A large-scale sculpture park made up entirely of white Italian marble covers the hill behind the temple on a scale of 5000 m². It took 17 years to realize the project conducted by a Japanese artist that even includes a café constructed completely with the white stone (Ihara 2007). However, only the proliferation of Instagram turned the hill into a popular attraction for young visitors.

The concept of an Island Resort Rich in Cultural Flavor clearly aimed for an increase in tourists and effectively used public funds to create a range of attractions for different ages and types of visitors. As such, it was highly evaluated at the time (Setodachō kyōiku iinkai 2003). However, Ihara (2007) points out that because the town administration was leading the initiative, residents were not involved in decisions and implementation.

In a survey of residents from 2000 (Asano and Funck 2001), the Hirayama Ikuo Art Museum was named the second most important tourism resource after Kōsan-ji and the most popular place to introduce to visiting friends and family. On the other hand, tourists ranked the natural landscape and the newly constructed bridges as the most important attractions. While more than half of the residents evaluated the towns’ tourism policies as positive, one-third also pointed out problems and 43% prioritized welfare and education over tourism and other industries as areas for further public investment.

The mix of tourist attractions provided by Setoda town could be considered effective in the long run, as it established the island as a popular spot along the Shimanami Kaidō cycling route and also attracted an international luxury hotel brand to the island in 2020. The hotel, together with a consulting company started on the island by a group of external entrepreneurs, has since engaged in an ongoing process of machizukuri and destination branding in cooperation with the local shopping street. While these new branding efforts include art as a keyword, the aspect of art and culture forms just one element in a diverse destination image.

Similar to the case of Shimokamagari, Setoda’s art projects were conceived in the phase of top-down infrastructure development using public subsidies. However, as a tourist destination incorporated into the Shimanami Kaidō cycling route, art plays only a minor role in the destination image as well as residents’ perception. This could be due to the fact that residents were hardly involved in the design and realization of art projects and that the focus of machizukuri has since shifted to the private sector.

Naoshima

In contrast to Setoda town, Naoshima island is firmly established as the art island in Japan. Art tourism on Naoshima has attracted not only international tourists but also academic attention (Funck 2021; Funck and Chang 2018; McCormick 2022) through a long-term development concept and large-scale private investment. Naoshima’s economy developed beginning in 1917 based on an industrial complex for copper refinery. The industrial base contributed to stable tax income, which was invested in high-grade architecture for public buildings since the 1970s. As in Shimokamagari and Setoda, the mayor acted as the main driving force. In office from 1959–1995, he established close links with the president of a company producing educational material. The company acquired land in the southern part of the island in 1987, and since then development based on the concept of modern art and architecture has been promoted. Starting with a combined hotel and museum complex, the company followed up with the Art House Project using vacant buildings in the historic district of the town, a museum built partly underground housing large-scale artworks from world-renowned artists and two high-grade hotels. Since 2010, the Setouchi International Art Festival has been conducted every three years on Naoshima and surrounding islands through the cooperation of the company, the regional government of Kagawa Prefecture and a Tokyo-based art consultant, bringing close to one million visitors to the area and 751,309 tourists to Naoshima alone in 2019. The establishment of Naoshima as an art tourism destination has created many business chances that led to an influx of a young population, while at the same time offering new chances for residents to start their own business. Whereas the latter often reuse vacant buildings inside the villages, the former spread small-scale tourism facilities across the island. As a result, Naoshima now provides two contrasting tourism spaces: One consists of the clearly bordered luxurious space closely managed by the company and the other of many small businesses offering disorderly but available services in a daily life setting (Funck and Chang 2018).

While it can be argued that in this process an external art industry simply replaced the external manufacturing industry, the company running the art site stresses the strong connection between art and the local community. However, although residents were invited to engage in some steps of the smaller art projects, they were never given authorship of art or the decision power to choose projects (McCormick 2022). Furthermore, many residents connected to the industrial complex complain about noise and safety issues posed by tourists (Prince, Qu, and Zollet 2021).

Although the development as an art tourism site was originally promoted in close cooperation between town administration and the company, the most recent development plan for Naoshima hardly mentions art tourism (Naoshimachō 2021). The chapter on culture focuses on traditional local culture, whereas the chapter on tourism only mentions the importance of close cooperation with the art site. As for numeric goals, the same number of tourists is envisioned for 2024 as in 2019. Art tourism is clearly defined as the task of the company, whereas the town provides basic infrastructure for tourists and residents and manages natural resources. This work division leaves few spaces for residents’ participation in the development process of Naoshima as an art tourism site. However, it doesn’t exclude innovations in art, culture and tourism through small-scale initiatives of old and new residents.

Naoshima can be considered unique as a model of revitalization due to a combination of factors. These include its strong industrial and financial base, a long-term concept by the town administration, a private investor engaged in a slowly expanding development process and attractive natural resources as part of the Seto Inland Sea National Park. Due to its financial strength, Naoshima town had no need to merge with cities on the mainland and can continue its own policies, unlike the other three examples discussed in this paper. On the other hand, the important role played by the town mayor over a long period and the role of external investment are common traits in island development in Japan, as is the lack of decision rights for other local actors. In sum, Naoshima’s art development can be firmly placed within the concept of public-private partnership for top-down revitalization projects focusing on tourism and leisure. However, in contrast to our other examples, the success of art tourism on Naoshima has expanded to the level of international tourism. This could weaken the possibilities for local influence and shift the balance even more from the public to the private sector in the future.

Mitarai

During the Edo period, the village of Mitarai on Osaki Shimojima Island performed a vital role as a seaport. Mitarai was officially designated as an Important Preservation District for Groups of Traditional Buildings (abbreviated as jūdenken in Japanese) in 1994 due to its high historical significance (Qu, Miyagawa Coulton, and Funck 2020). Mitarai is located in Yutakamachi Town on the fourth island along Tobishima Kaidō, the same island chain as Shimokamagari. The bridge link was essential to Mitarai’s potential as a new tourist destination. In 2004, Yutakamachi, including Mitarai, subsequently merged with the city of Kure, together with the other islands along the line. However, external possibilities, such as government investment, had little effect on the socioeconomic depopulation and social collapse of the community. The successive closure of primary and secondary schools and hospitals, as well as the decline in traditional manufacturing, have led to a continuing out-migration of the working population, a process similar to other islands. In 2018, 67.4% of the population was over the age of 65, and 31.1% of the population was over the age of 80 (Qu, Miyagawa Coulton, and Funck 2020). Mitarai lost 25% of its population in 10 years, between 2008 and 2018 (Qu, Miyagawa Coulton, and Funck 2020). The village’s deteriorating infrastructures, notably the fall in transportation services and the disappearance of hospitals and schools led to depopulation on a regional scale. The 1995–2015 national census statistics suggest that the local population has been reduced by almost 50% (Qu, Miyagawa Coulton, and Funck 2020).

The unique aesthetic of the historic town and port attracts artists, painters, potters, musicians, art students, and creative entrepreneurs with commercial and event-planning inclinations to Mitarai (Figure 1). Mitarai has attracted several creative firms, and artistic immigrants and commuters play a significant part as the village’s relational population (kankei jinkō) (Cheer et al. 2022; Qu, Miyagawa Coulton, and Funck 2020). In an interaction where economic rivalry and creative cooperation coexist (Cheer et al. 2022), the artistic collective has been actively involved in business and community social entrepreneurship for a long time, and the Shiosai (Tide) Art Festival in Mitarai is their official output (2017–2022). Shiosai is a week-long community art festival conducted for the first time in 2017 during the Golden Week holiday in Japan. Shiosai is unique in that, via the force of fine art that is inspired by the local islandscape, it encourages visitors from outside the village to rediscover the island’s appeal (Qu and Cheer 2021). Participating artists and volunteers, historical venue utilization, visitor numbers, and collaborations have been steadily expanding at Shiosai (Qu and Cheer 2021). According to information supplied by the Mitarai Tourism Association during fieldwork, Mitarai received a total of 21,983 visitors between April and December of 2019. However, that number dropped to 9,271 following the COVID-19 epidemic for the same period in 2020.

Figure 1. The historic port of Mitarai.

Photo by the Authors.

The annual Shiosai art festival combines a weeklong art market event in October with a weeklong art festival at the start of May. From the perspective of the art market, Shiosai is a combination of an art festival and an art bazaar with a focus on the sale of local craft and artworks. Through the collaboration of artists and event volunteers, it serves the objective of rehabilitating old, dilapidated homes in the old village from the viewpoint of a community-based art event (Qu and Cheer 2021). After repurposing the historic village site to create the gallery, the artists arranged vacant homes for works. This has also inspired a large number of artists to create community-themed artwork, including paintings, music, relationship art, documentary films, and installations. Shiosai is firmly pro-resident, using easy-to-understand regional visual arts like painting, pottery, interactive art classes, and art competitions judged by visitors, with an emphasis on the Seto Inland Sea and regional islandscape. Residents also liked the fact that artists helped to clean out vacant buildings, so they allowed the artists to use them during the event (Qu and Cheer 2021)

Shiosai’s partnerships also encompass university initiatives. For instance, an art professor, his students, and young designers from Hiroshima City University oversee the long-term art project Mitarai Art Farm (MAF). MAF plans to restore and transform an abandoned historical clinic from 1924 into a cultural studio that would serve as an art venue, workshop, and exhibition facility. It provides the opportunity for young artists to exhibit their work. The person in charge of the project stated in interviews that MAF’s fundamental principle is to make artworks employing local culture, history, and architecture. MAF endeavors are not limited to the arts alone. They also seek to revive the region’s declining agriculture and abandoned dwellings. The planned lifestyles will eventually result in the establishment of historical local attractions in new creative ways, as their future purpose is to demonstrate innovation in daily life. They considered that creative people might find interesting projects to work on in rural locations.

Due to the tiny size of the art tourism model, Shiosai’s creative endeavors are subject to several internal and external limitations. Without government financial backing, the growth of art tourism in rural areas may easily be hampered by budgetary restraints (Qu and Cheer 2021). The event has managed to continue to survive despite the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and continues to grow thanks to tiny investments and the spread of resources from creative networks. According to the authors’ on-site observations between 2018 and 2022, Shiosai was closed the year the pandemic began in order to safeguard the elderly in the neighborhood. During this time, however, several artworks were actively created by artists. The event started experimenting on a lesser scale in 2021, and by the spring of 2022, its size had exceeded its 2019 pre-epidemic capacity. In these continuous endeavors toward adaptive resilience and to combine creative growth with community symbiosis, private arts organizations serve as socially useful companies at the same time.

Shiosai differs from previous large-scale art tourism in that it focuses on establishing business relationships and expanding regional creative networks on a depopulating island with limited resources. Despite the lack of direct financial assistance for the entire art festival from the local government, the festival became possible because more than ten historical buildings were provided by the community as art venues. Certainly, this offered the artists a free display venue. Due to the government’s policy of providing only exterior repairs in the preservation districts, the artists were compelled to make the internal renovations on their own. In this manner, the artists took advantage of the cheap cost and discovered a one-of-a-kind location for display and art business. Simultaneously, the community has used the strength of artists and festival volunteers to achieve the long-term preservation of the look of the historical village. In terms of this revitalization mechanism, Shiosai not only attracts visitors through the artistic representation of island art that generates revenue for its local tourism business partners but also engages in an innovative social exchange of resources with the destination community, thereby achieving a long-term symbiotic and mutually beneficial relationship.

The Mitarai example provides us with a glimpse into small-scale, grassroots art tourism perspectives. These smaller arts initiatives are more naturally grown and accessible to a wider range of participants, but they are also more challenging to sustain independently. This challenge arises from the need to address internal community issues while ensuring their own continuity. It’s evident that small-scale art activities, grappling with resource limitations, must cultivate diverse networks spanning within the island, across islands, and even with mainland areas to facilitate resource exchange. This particular case stands in stark contrast to Naoshima, which represents a substantial financial investment.

Conclusions

In this paper, we have compared the art tourism development of four island destinations regarding the following issues:

1. Is art tourism integrated into a more general development concept for the island?

2. Who are the main actors in the development?

3. Is the private sector involved, and how?

4. What is the role of residents in development and management?

On Naoshima, investment in art and architecture formed the cornerstone of the town’s long-term development strategy. In two other destinations studied, Shimokamagari and Setoda, the emphasis on art and culture was part of an overall island development concept and catchphrase. In Mitarai, on the other hand, the main tourism resource consisting of the historic townscape was designated for preservation only in 1994, and in the pre-merger municipality of Yutakamachi, no original development concept was created in the ten years leading up to municipal amalgamation with Kure City. As Mitarai only forms a very small district of Kure City after the merger, actual policy support is restricted to the provision of semi-repairable older homes rather than direct financial support for artistic activities.

In the first three cases, a multi-term mayor is seen as the main actor and driving force behind the concepts. In some cases, the mayors themselves have summarized their efforts in publications or interviews, leading to a consolidation of their legacy (e.g. Waki 2000).

In the case of Naoshima, the continuous involvement of a private investor is crucial, whereas in the other cases, private sector investment is negligible. Finally, in the first three cases, residents play only a minor role as supporters. In Mitarai, on the other hand, the art festival is conducted through the cooperation of visiting, commuting and residing artists as well as residents and visitors.

Compared with the paradigm shifts we identified in Japan’s national development policies, Shimokamagari and Setoda fall into the first phase of top-down infrastructure development using public subsidies, where subsidies by the national government formed the core of investment. However, it required local initiative in the form of a mayor to make these subsidies accessible. In Naoshima, the partnership between town and company began during the bubble economy in the 1980s, following the policies of privatization which coincided with the global trend towards neoliberal policies (Lützeler, Manzenreiter, and Polak-Rottmann 2020). This coincides with the paradigm shift towards public-private partnership for top-down revitalization projects focusing on tourism and leisure. Art tourism in Mitarai is a recent development that cannot rely on public funds or large-scale private investment anymore. It therefore falls into the concept of top-down revitalization through education, employment and exchange with local initiative. The Shiosai art festival illustrates the chances of multiple stakeholder initiatives and cooperation as well as the problems created by a lack of administrative independence and stable financial funds.

Coming back to the concept of peripheralization, we can confirm the multi-scalar structure of regional development processes emphasized by Kühn (2015). The complex interplay of national subsidies, local mayors and regional administration has been further complicated through the process of municipal amalgamation in the early 2000s in Japan, which created a sub-local level with little political power, as could be seen in three of our examples. In the economic dimension, art tourism contributed to a new economic structure in Naoshima and supported tourism as an additional economic pillar besides shipbuilding and agriculture in Setoda. However, tourism could also be interpreted as a new form of dependence on the mainland (Miyauchi and Suyama 2022) – or even beyond, when considering the increase in international tourism on Naoshima. For social factors, the local cooperation in charge of Shimokamagari’s cultural facilities as well as new forms of cooperation between residents, artists and newcomers in Mitarai offer new perspectives for bottom-up regional development.

In conclusion, the expansion of art tourism on rural islands is a complex process involving a multitude of actors and situations. Although art tourism must be incorporated into an island’s overall development plan, the key participants in this process are government agencies, cultural organizations, and private sector businesses. Therefore, the viability of art tourism in such regions is determined by intricate collaborations. The private sector greatly contributes to the expansion of art tourism by investing in infrastructure and promoting the island’s cultural past. Frequently, it also demonstrates the coexistence of social enterprises and art tourist organizations. Nonetheless, it is equally important to ensure that residents have a voice in the development and management of the island, as they will be the ones most directly affected by community changes. However, potential future debates will center on the escalating process of conflict and compromise between new and established social groups. This is especially true for young entrepreneurs and creatives. Overall, the effective growth of art tourism on the island will require a concerted effort by these various actors, each of whom will contribute their own ideas and resources.

This study showed how changes in paradigms in global and national policy concepts of regional development played out in local island revitalization processes in Japan through four important case studies of island art rural tourism in the Seto Inland Sea. However, it is impossible to summarize the rural art tourism model in the same manner as the economic model. Rural environments generate a diversity of cultural manifestations, stakeholders and social resources, etc. This study picked situations that are representative of each paradigm shift, but we advocate additional research to examine the changes and new theoretical insights of art tourism in rural and island environments, especially from the perspective of residents.

Acknowledgments

This research has been partly supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid 20K12400.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Notes on contributors

Carolin Funck

Carolin Funck obtained her Ph.D from the Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg (Germany). She has taught and researched on tourism geography in Japan for over 30 years. She is professor for human geography at Hiroshima University (Japan), Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences. Her research focuses on the development of tourism in Japan and sustainable island tourism.

Meng Qu

Meng Qu obtained his Ph.D from Hiroshima University. He is an Associate Professor & Vice Director at the Hokkaido University Centre for Advanced Tourism Studies. His research draws from a range of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives, especially from the fields of creative/tourism geography, rural and island studies, with a focus on East Asia. Key research topics include socially engaged art festivals, relational aesthetics, creative in-migrants, sustainability, and rural revitalization.