[
    {
        "id": 214790,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1999",
        "page_number": 205,
        "title": "RAS-1999",
        "content_text": "170\n\nplace, with a hearty lack of nostalgic longings for ancestral roots - yet the sentimental or strategic nostalgia of overseas Chinese for their ancestral homes in China has also been well documented and described.1\n\nNostalgia is of course now commodified, fragmented and eclectic, as befits a late capitalist era in which global capital determines shifting allocations of labour. Nostalgia, and pastiche of the past, is almost commonplace, and through what was called the 'post-modern' eclectically mixes emblems of diverse eras of the past to provoke a momentary pang. The irony of Flagstaff House's transformation from a military site to a tea museum, noted by Abbas (1997), is a good example of this post-modern bricolage of meanings and historical ironies typified by Charles Moore's Piazza d'Italia in New Orleans (Harvey 1989), which we can find too in the toothless attendants and bright paints of restored Colonial Williamsburg (Lowenthal 1985), or the imaginary nostalgia of Disneyland disguising the unreality of America itself (Baudrillard 1994). But here I should like to draw attention to the importance of nostalgia as, if you like, a strategic resource for knitting together communities which have become dispersed and fragmented.\n\nWhile nostalgia adopts a temporal form (nostalgia for the past), it essentially implies the sense of belonging to a place (nostalgia for a place), as in its etymological roots. Can there be nostalgia for a taste, a face, an experience of abandon, a vanished emotion or capacity? Of course there can, but these experiences are all associated with a particular locus, a particular time and place (in the past). That place may never have existed, as writers from Lowenthal and Lovell to Mitchell remark, or not have existed for those who pine for it; the remembered, longed-for experience may be purely fictive and imaginative. Then again, it may have been very much a reality the loss of which is regretted; it was a real, living community we mourn the passage of. In any case, through the power of memory and recollection, that experience, that community, that place, can hardly be recollected exactly as it was, so that there is an inevitably imaginative, fictive quality to the faculty or power of nostalgia.\n\nIn one sense, it may not matter very much whether the lost object was, or was not, a reality, since that reality will have been transformed through the nostalgic recollection of it. Yet, in another sense, it does matter that not all nostalgia is necessarily imaginary; that real separations, real partings, may be what are being mourned.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1999.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s178b887x",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 216296,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-2003",
        "page_number": 55,
        "title": "RAS-2003",
        "content_text": "Nevertheless, with limited land and rapidly changing circumstances in Hong Kong, it is important to fully explore the meanings of land development before any developers make and implement plans that insufficiently consider the impacts on societies and other developmental priorities. Here, I aim to rethink the relations between the nature-based land development in terms of its ecological characteristics, potential public demand for outdoor activities, and possible role of indigenous inhabitants and their cultural traditions in ecotourism development. In this paper, I choose three villages in Sai Kung district for the understanding of relevant issues. Yet, why was Sai Kung chosen for further investigation?\n\nFrom the Sai Kung Recreational Plan\n\nWith magnificent views and large areas of less developed land, Sai Kung district is referred to as \"The Garden of Hong Kong.\" In fact, a tourism and recreation development plan of the district was proposed to the government in 1996. Though the proposal was not approved, it is worth studying the ideas suggested and the parties involved in this proposal. Moreover, according to someone who was involved in the proposal planning, the proposal did turn the government's attention towards developing Sai Kung. In the policy objective of 1999, Sai Kung district is designated as one of the two centres for recreation and leisure activities in the coming century. Lantau Island, where the third theme park of Disneyland besides Japan and Paris is to be built, would be the other.\n\nRegarding the local initiative in the mid-1990s, Sai Kung Tourism and Recreation Development Plan was prepared by Sai Kung District Development Foundation (SKDDF). SKDDF was a non-profit organization whose objective was to promote the development of tourism, recreation, and economic development in the region, as stated in their Foundation's brochure. The council members consisted of people from the Sai Kung Rural Committee, Sai Kung District Board, a charitable foundation, a surveying company, and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST). In the preparation of that development plan, a multi-disciplinary team of consultants was formed, also involving academic resources from the Department of Hotel and Tourism Management of Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HKPU).",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2003.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/2v242g390",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 216305,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-2003",
        "page_number": 64,
        "title": "RAS-2003",
        "content_text": "Interaction with local inhabitants is a crucial aspect and an important element in subsequent government land policy both for development and environment conservation. The interests of indigenous people must be respected; moreover, it should also be remembered that one effective way of conserving the environment or cultural landscape is to let the local people protect and care for their own heritage. The success of conservation and development often depends on effective communication and cooperation between these parties. As in the case shown in Tai Long Wan and Pak Lap, the support from the local community within the development is a key element in developing the homeland of those indigenous people, and the sustainability of a development often depends on this factor.\n\nNotes and References\n\nSee A. Arce and N. Long eds., Anthropology, Development and Modernities: Exploring Discourses, Counter-Tendencies and Violence (London: Routledge, 1999); A. Escobar, Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995); and K. Milton, Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role of Anthropology in Environmental Discourse (London and New York: Routledge, 1996).\n\nSee A. Abramson and D. Theodossopoulos eds., Land, Law and Environment: Mythical Land, Legal Boundaries (London: Pluto Press, 2000); and C. Shore and S. Wright eds., Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power (London and New York: Routledge, 1997).\n\n3 See E. Cater and G. Lowman eds., Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1994); L. France ed., The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Tourism (London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 1997); and M. C. Hall and S. McArthur, Integrated Heritage Management (London: The Stationery Office, 1998).\n\n* See Hong Kong Government, Policy Objectives 1999 (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government, 1999).\n\n* After nine months of negotiation between the Hong Kong SAR government and Walt Disney Company, it was confirmed in October 1999 that they would jointly build a Disneyland theme park in Penny Bay in Lantau Island, to be completed",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2003.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/2v242g390",
        "rank": 0
    }
]