For this essay I was tasked with choosing two readings from a limited selection and explaining their relevance to the economy of an unspecified Canterbury district, as if I were presenting to the district council.

Variety is the spice of life: Food tourism, brain chains and knowledge transfers

Food tourism: rustic and traditional, or dynamic and multicultural? Having completed the economies and place module in [course name redacted], in this essay I will analyse two readings from the module and their connections to this district’s economy, particularly to the fledgling rural tourism and farmers market scene within the district. The two readings I have selected are Fusté-Forné (2016) and Dun et al. (2018). I have chosen these readings in order to investigate what food tourism would look like if it embraced the concept of brain chains and knowledge transfers. In what follows I will briefly describe the key points from the readings, then explain why they are of relevance to the district and of interest to the economic development unit of the district council, before ending with a summary of my findings.

Fusté-Forné (2016) explores the viability of food tourism, specifically cheesescapes, as a complement to traditional forms of agriculture and tourism. Food tourism is the natural progression for farmers who may be struggling to rely on agriculture alone as an income source, or simply wish to diversify and experiment with their produce (Fusté-Forné, 2016). Fusté-Forné focuses on cheesemakers throughout Canterbury, investigating what he calls the district’s “cheesescape”, taken from a broader term of “foodscapes” (2016, p. 43). Ferrero (2002, p. 213, as cited in Fusté-Forné, 2016, p. 43) describes foodscapes as “an economic source, a social collector and a tool of cohesion”. Foodscapes capture the symbiosis of gastronomy and the land. Throughout his article Fusté-Forné makes this dualism very clear, claiming that a place’s food gives tourists the opportunity to “’taste’ a portion of its landscape” (2016, p. 47). He intertwines the idea of foodscapes as a way of preserving “food heritage” (2016, p. 41), posing globalisation as a “threat” to this heritage (Mak et al., 2012, as cited in Fusté-Forné, 2016, p. 42).

Dun et al. (2018) look at brain chains and knowledge transfers in the context of unskilled migrant workers, arguing that the knowledge which these workers propagate is a valuable asset in their countries of work and origin. A brain chain implies interconnected thinking, a collaborative process that takes place across individuals, groups and borders (Friesen & Collins, 2016, as cited in Dun et al., 2018, p. 278). In the case of migrant workers, brain chains extend between their home and work countries, from the scale of ideas shared between their family and village members right up to the information gathered by farm managers and immigration agents (Friesen & Collins, 2016, as cited in Dun et al., 2018, p. 278).

Knowledge transfers are the exchanges of information which take place within brain chains. In their case study, Dun et al. highlight that unskilled migrant workers can possess knowledge that is just as valuable as that of someone who better represents Western ideals of success (Williams & Baláž, 2008, p. i, cited in Dun et al., 2018, p. 279). In fact, Bathelt and Henn (2014, cited in Dun et al., 2018, p. 279) claim that knowledge transfers are successful “when actors have sufficiently different knowledge bases”, as migrant workers do compared to domestic workers. Participating in knowledge transfers can benefit other actors in the brain chain (by adding value) as well as the knowledge holder themselves (by being valued for their contribution).

I propose that brain chains and knowledge transfers have the potential to enhance the food tourism scene in the district, and thus could be of interest to the economic development unit of the district council. While Dun et al. (2018) look at these two concepts solely in the context of unskilled migrant workers in their home and work environments, I argue that the different knowledges held by people in business-to-business and business-to-customer settings can be of value to the foodscape, and that an understanding of these two concepts will help us to make use of those knowledges. I will also argue against Fusté-Forné’s (2016) emphasis on foodscapes as being purely traditional, fixed and anti-globalisation, instead suggesting that knowledge transfers could be used to truly diversify the district’s foodscape.

Firstly, mapping the brain chains of the district’s foodscape and stimulating knowledge transfers within and between the businesses and organisations involved could help small farms and artisans to grow, network and learn from each other. As foodscapes tend to be populated by family-run ventures—often with an agricultural background and little administration, development or marketing experience—success really can be a case of who you know, not what you know. Apart from connecting food tourism businesses with each other, it would also be beneficial to involve “a broad range of civil society actors” as put by Dun et al. (2018, p. 288). Business mentors, tourism and primary industry leaders, and of course the district council are some possible additions to the brain chain. Upon establishing a directory of all those included, seminars and networking sessions could provide fertile ground for knowledge transfers.¹

Secondly, more attention could be paid to the potential of knowledge transfers between businesses and customers. As far as the customer is concerned, the warmth and degree of personalisation afforded by the small scale of rural tourism is its key appeal (Busby & Rendle, 2000, as cited in Fusté-Forné, 2016, p. 44). With customers generally seeking an experience that is different from their everyday (often urban) lifestyle, this places food tourism businesses in a position to share their knowledge—aspects such as the story behind their produce, potential uses and combinations with other local goods. The authenticity of a foodscape depends on the businesses’ abilities to sell a complete and immersive experience, not just a product (Fusté-Forné, 2016). In return, letting customers into the brain chain can result in word-of-mouth business leads and could even be conducive to alternative business models such as Community Supported Agriculture.²

Finally, striving for diversity and representation in the local foodscape via knowledge transfers could foster a sense of pride and belonging for everyone who calls this district home. Fusté-Forné paints foodscapes as being shaped by heritage and tradition, standing as bastions among the “homogenisation” and “threat” of globalisation (Mak et al., 2012, as cited in Fusté-Forné, 2016, p. 42). I counter that foodscapes ought to evolve with the population that inhabits them. If foodscapes are, as Fusté-Forné claims, inspired by their “natural and cultural landscapes” (2016, p. 41), shouldn’t they move with them instead of in spite of them? For our district, this would involve showcasing not just traditional European staples such as cheeses (as Fusté-Forné focuses on), but also Māori and Pasifika cuisines, and additionally those of our immigrant communities. Dun et al. found that Western-centric views acted as “a knowledge-sharing barrier” (2018, p. 286), yet if all cuisines were to be accepted on the same level so much could be gained from knowledge transfers, seeing as the participating actors are likely to have the “sufficiently different knowledge bases” deemed ideal by Bathelt and Henn (2014, as cited in Dun et al., 2018, p. 279). Knowledge transfers could be as simple as learning a different method of cooking meat or a way to use what would otherwise be considered waste—exchanges between cultures can only serve to enrich foodscapes instead of endanger them. Connecting and celebrating the district’s diverse population would not only increase solidarity within the district, it would also draw the interest of potential tourists (Getz, 1991, Ryan et al., 1998, Berno et al., 2014, as cited in Fusté-Forné, 2016, p. 44). Food trails, festivals and themed markets are just some of the ways through which the various facets of the foodscape could be showcased, engaging both locals and visitors.

If variety is the spice of life, then brain chains and knowledge transfers may be the key to spicing up this district’s food tourism scene by fostering the exchange of ideas between actors with various skills, experiences, connections and cultures. In this essay I have explored the possible role of brain chains and knowledge transfers in foodscapes, arguing that they would serve to invigorate and diversify what could otherwise be at risk of becoming no more than a stale rural stereotype. If we take Ferrero’s aforementioned definition of foodscapes as “an economic source, a social collector and a tool of cohesion” (2002, p. 213, as cited in Fusté-Forné, 2016, p. 43), I believe that brain chains and knowledge transfers can enhance each of these three aspects respectively by aiding growth and reach, connecting businesses and customers, and valuing diverse knowledges. Further investigation could be done into whether these benefits could be harnessed in other sectors within the district, such as the merino industry.

References

Notes

¹ A good example is the Business After 5 events run throughout the country by the New Zealand Chambers of Commerce.

² See White (2020) for more on Community Supported Agriculture.