Thank you for your feedback on my article. There are a few things I would like to correct. First of all, I do not present Zhejiang as a model. It is China’s central government that frames the province as a model. That is precisely what I am critically examining, as can be read in the article. I also wrote that the success of Zhejiang's revitalisation efforts indeed cannot be taken as representative of the entire country.
If you read the article carefully you will see that I indeed opt for light-impact measures, opposed to (mass) tourism. Walking is the lightest form that exists.
Moreover, I do not walk alone but together with local stakeholders. By listening to local perspectives you will find out what is really going on. That is not possible from behind a computer at a distance from a city or even abroad.
Other shortcomings you mention are outside the scope of this article. That does not mean that I do not look at them in our research, on the contrary.
I invite you to walk with me sometime when you are in China. By the way, I enjoy reading most of your other blogs.
Thanks for your response, Harry. To clarify, any critique wasn’t directed at you personally but at how state-owned media outlets like Sixth Tone often frame rural revitalisation narratives. While you note that Zhejiang’s portrayal as a “model” comes from the central government, I feel the article could have done more to unpack how such framing overshadows the vast disparities and challenges in less-developed regions of China.
As for walking as a method, I’m not dismissing it, but I think it risks reducing complex rural realities to surface-level encounters. Local engagement is vital, of course, but structural issues like land rights, governance, and labour migration are harder to grasp without addressing the broader political and economic context—something I felt was missing in the article and other similar articles in state-owned media.
On tourism, I recognise that you advocate for light-impact approaches, but even these can lead to unintended consequences, such as commercialisation or displacement. My critique here stems from broader concerns about tourism-driven development in rural China, rather than your specific argument.
Ultimately, my critique is rooted in a broader scepticism of how rural China is often depicted in state-owned media—where complex issues are oversimplified or framed too optimistically. I take on board your comments but remain cautious of narratives that don’t fully address the systemic challenges underpinning rural revitalisation.
Thank you for your feedback on my article. There are a few things I would like to correct. First of all, I do not present Zhejiang as a model. It is China’s central government that frames the province as a model. That is precisely what I am critically examining, as can be read in the article. I also wrote that the success of Zhejiang's revitalisation efforts indeed cannot be taken as representative of the entire country.
If you read the article carefully you will see that I indeed opt for light-impact measures, opposed to (mass) tourism. Walking is the lightest form that exists.
Moreover, I do not walk alone but together with local stakeholders. By listening to local perspectives you will find out what is really going on. That is not possible from behind a computer at a distance from a city or even abroad.
Other shortcomings you mention are outside the scope of this article. That does not mean that I do not look at them in our research, on the contrary.
I invite you to walk with me sometime when you are in China. By the way, I enjoy reading most of your other blogs.
Thanks for your response, Harry. To clarify, any critique wasn’t directed at you personally but at how state-owned media outlets like Sixth Tone often frame rural revitalisation narratives. While you note that Zhejiang’s portrayal as a “model” comes from the central government, I feel the article could have done more to unpack how such framing overshadows the vast disparities and challenges in less-developed regions of China.
As for walking as a method, I’m not dismissing it, but I think it risks reducing complex rural realities to surface-level encounters. Local engagement is vital, of course, but structural issues like land rights, governance, and labour migration are harder to grasp without addressing the broader political and economic context—something I felt was missing in the article and other similar articles in state-owned media.
On tourism, I recognise that you advocate for light-impact approaches, but even these can lead to unintended consequences, such as commercialisation or displacement. My critique here stems from broader concerns about tourism-driven development in rural China, rather than your specific argument.
Ultimately, my critique is rooted in a broader scepticism of how rural China is often depicted in state-owned media—where complex issues are oversimplified or framed too optimistically. I take on board your comments but remain cautious of narratives that don’t fully address the systemic challenges underpinning rural revitalisation.