Cultural tourism is a good way to promote and, consequently, safeguard the cultural heritage of sites. Film tourism is an increasingly demanded form of cultural tourism more focused on the fictional rather than on the authenticity of sites, depriving them from their true identity. This article is proposing a system of indicators of sustainable development in order to evaluate and guarantee long-term sustainability in those sites identified with traditional cultural heritage and where films have been shot. The Historic Centre of Peñíscola, which was declared a Historic-Artistic Site in 1972 and has become film scenery in numerous occasions, has been chosen to be evaluated. The union of a series of film sceneries obtained from the cinema productions that best match the local heritage, through the latter has resulted in a final cultural landscape where the degree of conciliation between them is high. Therefore, the welfare of the host society is in balance with the tourist demands, which makes the Historic Centre of Peñíscola an accurate study case that can contribute to improve a methodology we aim to extrapolate to other tourist destinations threatened by a new uncontrolled mass of tourist.

This article proposes guidelines for the creative management of productive cultural landscapes. These guidelines are briefly illustrated with reference to a case study: the productive cultural landscape of wine and vineyards in the riverside city of Salto, Uruguay, during the last years of the 19th century. The proposed guidelines follow the order and approaches of the links in the Landscape Value Chain. These steps are applied to the landscape from a triple approach, as memory, image and socio-system. Thus, the identification of traces and narratives of memory, elements of image and poles of opportunity of the socio-system is proposed. Each element is valued, considering its potential for re-signification and its cost. An intervention is also proposed, based on reversibility and humility. And, at all times, a process of dissemination or accountability and socialization or social dialogue is maintained. In conclusion, the recovery of a landscape must be understood as something that implies re-signifying its memory (activating its traces with narratives), the restoration of its image (giving it continuity) and restoring its social system (reactivating the socioeconomic dynamics based on the feeling of belonging), through an adequate social participation and a required subjective, non-positivistic approach to the processes, to achieve our objective: the recovery of the character of a productive cultural landscape to encourage the entrepreneurship of its inhabitants.

No abstract