Next Article in Journal
From Innovation to Resilience: How Digital Technology Boosts the Risk Resistance Capability of Cities
Previous Article in Journal
Research on Urban Functional Zone Identification and Spatial Interaction Characteristics in Lhasa Based on Ride-Hailing Trajectory Data
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/land15040678
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Novel Framework for Reimagining Agricultural Heritage Tourism: Ancient Irrigation Systems in South Asia

by
Daminda Sumanapala
1,* and
Isabelle D. Wolf
2,3
1
South Asia Research Institute, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
2
Australian Centre for Culture, Environment, Society and Space, School of Geography and Sustainable Communities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
3
Centre for Ecosystem Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2026, 15(4), 678; https://doi.org/10.3390/land15040678
Submission received: 13 February 2026 / Revised: 1 April 2026 / Accepted: 6 April 2026 / Published: 20 April 2026
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) was launched to conserve, sustainably manage, and enhance the viability of the world’s agricultural heritage systems. The Cascade Tank-Village Irrigation system in the Sri Lankan dry zone was recognized as a GIAHS in 2018. Sri Lanka has conserved and used this water system sustainably for more than 2000 years but has not yet capitalised on its potential for tourism. Therefore, this paper identifies innovation opportunities for developing agricultural heritage tourism in the dry zone of Sri Lanka with implications for other agricultural heritage sites worldwide. We adopted an innovation strategy framework to identify areas of innovation to develop for GIAHS-based tourism sites with a focus on product development, processes, management, logistics, and institutional aspects. We conclude by presenting a novel Agricultural Heritage Tourism Development Framework that highlights the critical elements necessary to consider for developing agricultural heritage tourism sites.

1. Introduction

Since ancient times, water has been a critical factor for human settlements. Therefore, most settlements were located near some form of water source. Especially people of the agricultural era designed various systems to collect water from rain and other sources for their daily requirements including for cultivation. As a result, many countries developed highly unique water conservation and collection methods, deeply connected and adapted to their cultural, geographical and environmental conditions. China has been one of the first countries to capitalise on this heritage value by practicing agricultural heritage tourism since 2005 [1]. This potential may be explored elsewhere such as in Sri Lanka, which is largely reliant upon foreign income from tourism being the third-largest industry in the country. Hence, government support for tourism experience development is strong, including for nature and heritage-based tourism products.
Agricultural heritage systems possess significant tourism value due to their combined ecological, cultural, historical, and livelihood functions [1]. Previous studies have shown that these systems offer unique opportunities for experiential tourism through traditional farming practices, cultural landscapes, indigenous knowledge, and locally embedded food systems [2]. The tourism value of agricultural heritage sites is often assessed through their ability to provide authentic visitor experiences while maintaining their environmental and socio-cultural integrity. At the same time, tourism development within agricultural heritage systems requires careful management to ensure that conservation objectives are not compromised [3]. While tourism may generate economic benefits, strengthen heritage awareness, and support rural livelihoods [4], it may also introduce pressures such as commercialization of traditional practices, visitor impacts on fragile landscapes, and changes to local social structures [5]. Therefore, the development of tourism in agricultural heritage contexts requires balanced approaches that integrate conservation, community participation, and sustainable visitor management to ensure that tourism contributes positively to both heritage preservation and local development. In this context, innovation-oriented development frameworks provide a useful approach for identifying how tourism experiences can be developed in a way that strengthens conservation outcomes, supports community participation, and ensures sustainable management of agricultural heritage systems.
The present study evaluates opportunities offered by agricultural heritage-based tourism with a specific focus on the ancient Sri Lankan Cascade Tank-Village system that was recognized as a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) in 2018. Sri Lanka has conserved and utilized this water system sustainably for more than 2500 years. Despite the long historical significance of this system, research linking agricultural heritage conservation with tourism development remains relatively scarce, particularly in the Sri Lankan context. While substantial literature exists on the engineering, hydrological, and historical aspects of the Cascaded Tank-Village system, relatively few studies have examined its potential for agricultural heritage tourism development. Similarly, there is a lack of frameworks to guide the development of tourism opportunities around GIAHS. Existing frameworks relevant to facilitate such opportunities for GIAHS either focus on conservation of agricultural heritage systems [6], general heritage tourism development [7], or general tourism innovation processes [8]. However, no integrated framework currently links agricultural heritage conservation with structured tourism innovation pathways for GIAHS tourism development.
This research first presents an overview of the purpose and objectives of the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) programme before introducing the Sri Lankan Cascaded Tank-Village system, locally known as the ellanga gammana. The study then develops a framework for GIAHS tourism development through a two-step approach based on a systematic literature review. First, we identify key development approaches and innovation pathways and evaluate these adopting Hjalager’s tourism innovation framework [9]. This provides a structured lens to categorise innovation opportunities across product, process, management, logistics, and institutional dimensions. Building on this analysis, the study identifies opportunities for developing and promoting agricultural heritage tourism in Sri Lanka and proposes a new Agricultural Heritage Tourism Development Framework tailored to the characteristics and development needs of GIAHS sites. This new framework integrates the innovation dimensions into a coherent development pathway specifically designed for agricultural heritage tourism contexts.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Heritage Tourism and the Potential and Challenges for GIAHS

Heritage tourism is commonly understood as an umbrella concept encompassing various forms of tourism related to cultural, historical, and environmental resources, including indigenous tourism, cultural tourism, archaeological tourism, and agricultural tourism [10,11]. According to Timothy and Boyd [12], heritage tourism can be defined as the contemporary use of the past for tourism purposes, encompassing both tangible and intangible cultural resources. Similarly, Park [13] notes that heritage includes both physical assets such as landscapes and monuments as well as intangible elements such as traditions, practices, and knowledge systems.
Within this broader context, agricultural heritage tourism represents a specialised form of heritage tourism that focuses on traditional agricultural landscapes, farming practices, and associated cultural traditions [14]. These systems are increasingly recognised not only for their historical value but also for their ecological and socio-cultural significance. This aligns with the concept of green heritage proposed by Persson and Li [15], which emphasises the importance of agricultural landscapes, traditional land-use practices, and rural knowledge systems as part of the broader cultural heritage. Green heritage highlights the role of agricultural environments as living heritage systems that combine biodiversity, cultural identity, and sustainable land management practices.
Building on these perspectives, agricultural heritage tourism can be understood as tourism that is based on the conservation, interpretation, and experience of traditional agricultural systems and landscapes, with the aim of supporting heritage preservation, rural livelihoods, and sustainable development.
After establishing the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1972, heritage tourism rapidly developed across the world, especially in developing countries [16]. The developing countries of the Global South for instance capitalised on their unique agricultural landscapes, agrarian lifestyles, and other cultural landscapes for heritage tourism development such as the rice terraces in the Philippines and China, or the Coffee Cultural Landscapes in Columbia [17]. Consequently, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) introduced the “Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems” (GIAHS) to signify places of important historical and ecological heritage value [18]. So far, since 2005, the FAO has recognised 104 Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems in 29 countries [19]. The conceptual foundations that we mention above [19] underpin the development of tourism based on GIAHS.
The main objective of establishing the GIAHS was to “identify and safeguard Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems and their associated landscapes, agricultural biodiversity, knowledge systems and culture” [19] to raise awareness of these systems and support their conservation for the global, national and local good [20]. GIAHS sites were declared in different regions such as in Central Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, East and North Africa, and Europe. Forty agricultural heritage systems have been identified in Asia and the Pacific countries alone, among them in Bangladesh, India, and, very recently, also in Sri Lanka. Three GIAHS sites are located in South Asia, namely, the Floating Garden Agricultural Practices in Bangladesh, the Koraput Traditional Agriculture and Kuttanad Below Sea Level Farming System in India, and the Cascaded Tank-Village System in the Dry Zone in Sri Lanka.
Capitalising on GIAHS sites from a tourism perspective holds great potential. Tourism development is one strategy globally recognized to conserve and manage heritage [11] such as agricultural heritage sites [21]. The conservation of agricultural heritage systems spurs on regional development that may be ecologically, socially, and culturally sustainable [22,23]. Such benefits were demonstrated in conservation projects like the Xuanghua Grape Garden in Hebei Province, China. The project raised local and public awareness while conserving traditional agricultural practices and enhancing the livelihoods of the host community [24].
Agricultural heritage sites are often located in rural or peripheral regions, where they face a range of geographic and socio-economic challenges [25,26]. Previous studies have identified issues such as rural out-migration driven by limited economic opportunities, declining employment prospects for younger generations, abandonment of agricultural land, and the gradual loss of traditional farming knowledge and cultural practices [27,28,29]. In this context, tourism is frequently considered a potential strategy to support rural development and heritage conservation. However, as part of sustainable tourism principles, tourism development must be carefully managed to minimise negative impacts on heritage systems. For agricultural heritage sites in particular, it is important to assess both the positive and negative impacts of tourism development, especially given the environmental sensitivity and cultural significance of these landscapes. Positive outcomes may include raising awareness of heritage conservation, increasing the economic value of traditional agricultural practices (for example, in the Tibetan Plateau, China), and supporting community livelihoods (e.g., Hetu Town, China) [30,31]. At the same time, the development of agricultural heritage tourism in remote areas requires integrated strategies that address socio-economic challenges while ensuring the protection of heritage values. Challenges may be particularly pronounced in traditional rural settings where heritage systems remain closely linked to local livelihoods and ecological processes [32,33]. Therefore, careful planning and management approaches are required to balance tourism development with conservation and community well-being.
Only a few studies exist however that have assessed and evaluated GIAHSs, including the Rice-Fish Culture System [22] and the Floating Agriculture [34]. Thus, there is a clear need to add GIAHS to the tourism research agenda to better understand how these systems function and how to create meaningful visitor experiences around them while contributing to the economic, social and cultural wellbeing of local communities. Therefore, this paper identifies opportunities for developing agricultural heritage tourism with a particular focus on the ellanga gammana, Sri Lanka. The objective was to identify innovation areas using an existing framework and to present a new conceptual model that highlights the critical elements for developing agricultural heritage tourism.

2.2. The Case Study Context

Ellanga Gammana—Sri Lanka’s Cascaded Tank-Village Water Management System

Sri Lanka is a small island in the Indian Ocean, with a land extent of 65,610 km2. The country encompasses a range of climatic zones, mainly divided into the dry and wet zone. The ancient people of the country collected rainwater into man-made tanks called Wewa. The Wewa system has gained iconic status as it showcases the country’s rich hydraulic civilization at its best [35].
The Wewa system constitutes one of the oldest and most traditional technologies for water conservation, and an extremely efficient indigenous technology for rainwater harvesting. This harvesting method has been practiced for over 2500 years for agriculture, domestic purposes [36], and cattle farming [37]. Eventually, the deposits are used for brick production [38]. A Wewa consists of a man-made reservoir that collects and conserves water and distributes it along a man-made network across the country, especially in the dry zone of Sri Lanka (e.g., in Polonnaruwa and Anuradhapura). The dry zone receives water in the monsoon time between May and September while the rest of the year remains dry. The Wewa system helped village people sustain their lifestyle and be self-sufficient for over 2000 years. Due to the geographical uniqueness of the Wewa system, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has declared Sri Lanka’s Cascaded Tank-Village system in the dry zone as a GIAHS in 2018, locally referred to as the ellanga gammana.
In 1985, a Sri Lankan scientist researched the technology aspect of the Wewa system [39]. Accordingly, the Wewa is driven by a water flow system from one tank to another, called the “Tank cascade System” (Figure 1). This involves recycling and reusing water through a network consisting of small- and large-scale Wewa [40]. Overall, it is a complex man-made socio-ecological system that plays many important roles in delivering services to the environment and communities [41]. Nianthi and Jayakumara [35] explained that there are different types of Wewas fulfilling unique purposes at the micro-level: Forest tanks (preserve the forest ecosystem and provide water to wildlife), Mountain tanks (provide water for Chena cultivation or seasonal agriculture), and Pota wetiye (erosion control tank). However, all these Wewas are fed by the main Wewa (Pahala wewa) of the village [39]. Other small (sub) Wewas are Kulu Wewa, Kayan Wewa, Olagam Wewa Goda Wala, and the Ihala Wewa. These small Wewas provide specific services, such as the provision of water to wildlife and the forest, trapping of sediments, and seasonal cultivation to avoid siltation of the water (Figure 1).
In contrast, the main Wewas mainly provide water for agriculture and domestic purposes while being used for various other services [40]. In addition, the Wewas fulfill important functions in disaster prevention as they minimize the risk of droughts, flash floods, and land degradation and stabilize the groundwater table. More recently, awareness has been raised that this system may play a critical role in community adaptation to climate change [42]. Overall, the Cascaded Tank-Village system in the Sri Lankan dry zone has added great value to achieving the millennium development goals for preserving water in addition to the various other functions listed above [43].
Land 15 00678 g001
Figure 1. Map of a traditional Cascaded Tank-Village system in the dry zone of Sri Lanka showing various connected water tanks [44].
Figure 1. Map of a traditional Cascaded Tank-Village system in the dry zone of Sri Lanka showing various connected water tanks [44].
Land 15 00678 g001
Each Wewa integrates different components that serve a different purpose. The Bisokotuwa for instance acts as the sluice gate, while the Rala panawa uses stones to protect the dam from water waves. The Pita Wana acts as the spillover and the Wew Thaulla as the upper inundation area. These components have been included since 600 BC, as showcased in the rebuilding of the Maduru Oya reservoir project in the Eastern province of Sri Lanka.
Overall, the Sri Lankan Cascaded Tank-Village system has great value for preserving environmental and cultural diversity. As for the environmental diversity, the Wewa is known to interconnect ecosystems around villages and provide a continuous catchment area and wildlife corridors. It offers water for wildlife and village livestock. The Wewa is culturally bound with many traditional indigenous farming activities (e.g., Bethma farming/Madathawalu farming), and cultural and ritual activities that are unique to specific villages [40].

2.3. A Global Perspective on Sustainable Tourism and Agricultural Heritage

In a global context, agricultural heritage tourism has been developing in numerous countries, including in Japan, Korea and China [45]. Japan has undertaken tremendous efforts towards merging local agricultural products with tourism branding to promote the agricultural heritage system in their country [46]. Japan has for instance developed unique local agri-heritage products and various types of related ‘creative’ products (e.g., different types of food and souvenirs) [45]. The Japanese have capitalise on the desire of foreign visitors to experience the unique aspects of Japanese culture, including serene landscapes, temple visits, food tasting and observation of agricultural practices [45,47]. South Korea has expanded this branch of tourism by promoting traditional farming techniques and local farm festivals [48]. This approach has proven effective in drawing visitors to agricultural heritage sites [49].
On the other hand, both socially and ecologically negative impacts from agricultural heritage tourism were also identified [50,51]. Sun and his team reported impacts in China from agricultural heritage tourism activities [30], while Medina [52] highlighted that local history in agricultural heritage tourism sites is at risk due to commodification and impoverishment. A lack of understanding of the cultural and environmental values of agricultural heritage tourism creates negative impacts on heritage and farming communities [53,54,55].
Currently, Sri Lanka is practicing and focusing on sustainable tourism in different areas, such as ecotourism, heritage tourism in general, cultural tourism, and agricultural tourism. As said earlier, in some instances these areas also overlap. However, heritage tourism focused on the Wewa irrigation system and associated cultural and natural landscapes has not yet been developed, even though some sites are geographically well positioned near the existing tourism sites of Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa with their abundance of ancient cities and protected areas.
The Wewa system as a tourism sight protects values that align well with the values for planning tourism activities identified by Su et al. [11], namely, existing, functional, and strategic values. This includes existing ecological value, livelihood value, historical value, and aesthetic value. Functionally, the Wewa system supports water conservation for various purposes and can aid in adapting to climate change. Strategically, it adds value for developing tourism in local areas, thereby supporting communities and helping preserve their ancient agricultural techniques in remote regions. A great opportunity exists to develop tourism centered on the Wewa irrigation system that highlights rural life and the historical aspects of indigenous knowledge and livelihoods, helping to protect wild fauna and flora while supporting local farming activities.

3. Methodology

This study adopted a systematic literature review (SLR) approach to identify, evaluate, and synthesise existing research on water heritage. Systematic literature reviews are widely recognised as a rigorous and transparent method for summarising the state of knowledge within a defined research field through structured search, screening, and analysis procedures [55,56]. Through the systematic approach of using clearly defined inclusion criteria and replicable search strategies, selection bias is reduced.
The review followed four standard phases of systematic reviews including (1) identification, (2) screening, (3) eligibility, and (4) inclusion. During the identification phase, relevant publications were systematically searched across major academic databases, including Scopus and Web of Science, complemented by Google Scholar to ensure broader coverage. Additional sources were identified through targeted searches of university repositories and relevant institutional websites. To further strengthen coverage and minimise the risk of missing relevant studies, backward and forward snowballing techniques were applied to the reference lists of selected publications [57].
To ensure the reliability and academic quality of the included studies, we assessed the quality of the papers during the eligibility stage. As the review included both peer-reviewed and grey literature, additional evaluation criteria were used to ensure the credibility and relevance of all sources. Studies were assessed based on: (1) relevance to water heritage and the study objectives, (2) clarity of research aims and methodology, (3) credibility of the publication source (for example, journals, recognised institutions, or academic publishers, peer-reviewed literature), (4) transparency of data sources or evidence used, and (5) contribution to conceptual or empirical understanding of water heritage.
Grey literature, including institutional reports and university publications, was only included where it provided substantial empirical evidence or policy relevance and originated from reputable organisations. Sources lacking methodological clarity or clear relevance to the research objectives were excluded. This quality control process ensured that the final sample consisted of robust and relevant studies while allowing for the inclusion of important policy and practice-oriented contributions that are often not captured in peer-reviewed literature.
Publications were identified using a combination of keywords related to the study focus, including Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems, agricultural heritage, water harvesting, heritage tourism, heritage conservation, cascaded tank village systems, tank cascade systems, and Sri Lanka. Boolean operators were used to combine keywords where appropriate to broaden and refine the search results. Since the study did not limit the time frame of publication and was not restricted to a particular publication type, it included all available online publications in both English and Sinhala, one of the official languages of Sri Lanka.
The study aims firstly to present tourism innovations supporting agricultural heritage tourism with a focus on GIAHS in Sri Lanka and other countries. We used Hjalager’s [58] classification categories to identify the potential for promoting agricultural heritage tourism. The study framework proposes five categories of innovation [59,60] (A) Product innovation, (B) Process innovation, (C) Management innovation, (D) Logistic innovation, and (E) Institutional innovation. The reviewed studies were carefully analyzed and coded thematically to tease out opportunities for promoting agricultural heritage tourism in Sri Lanka against the five categories of the innovation strategy framework (Table 1).
The innovation framework presented in Table 1 was used as a deductive coding structure to systematically classify findings from the reviewed literature in accordance with Hjalager’s [58] classification categories. The literature thus informed the identification of innovation opportunities, particularly in relation to product development, visitor management, governance structures, and destination branding. The results of this process are presented in Table 2, which shows various innovation pathways in the five categories of innovation proposed by Hjalager [58].
Following this structured analysis, a second analytical step involved synthesising components for a higher-level conceptual model. Through this second interpretive synthesis process, broader relationships between innovation dimensions, tourism development needs, and heritage system characteristics were identified. This resulted in the development of a new Agricultural Heritage Tourism Development Framework (Figure 2), which represents an inductive conceptual contribution derived from the systematic analysis rather than a pre-existing analytical structure.
Although the study primarily relies on secondary data sources, contextual expertise informed the interpretation and thematic coding of the literature. The first author brings regional expertise relevant to agricultural and water heritage systems in Southeast Asia, including familiarity with heritage landscapes and management practices through prior professional and academic engagement. This contextual knowledge supported the interpretation of themes, particularly in relation to local governance structures, heritage practices, and socio-cultural dimensions that may not fully be captured in published literature. Where relevant, insights from familiarity with specific sites and professional discussions with practitioners were used to contextualise findings.

4. Results and Discussion

Overall, most previous studies on agricultural heritage systems focused on heritage tourism, aiming to enhance the well-being of local communities and preserve their agricultural heritage, such as the Nishi-Awa Steep Slope Land Agriculture System (Japan) and the Rice-Fish Culture in Qingtian County, Zhejiang Province (China). They improved the tourism experience, supported conservation efforts, and helped create sustainable livelihoods for local farmers [61]. In 2013, China, in collaboration with Japan and South Korea, established the East Asia Research Association for Agricultural Heritage Systems (ERAHS) [45,61]. This network provided a platform for sharing conservation knowledge and building capacity at GIAHS sites in developing countries. Subsequently, a 2021 conference made a call for encouraging and supporting GIAHS sites in developing countries and to better understand how to capitalise on the potential for tourism driven by different innovation areas (Table 2).
Table 2. Potential innovation areas for Global Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHSs) in Sri Lanka based on a systematic literature review.
Table 2. Potential innovation areas for Global Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHSs) in Sri Lanka based on a systematic literature review.
Innovation CategoryInnovation TypesReferences
AProduct innovations Traditional crop varieties, Traditional farming, Traditional food culture, Traditional festivals, Worship activities, Sightseeing, Water resource utilization technique, local village, Certified traditional food.[11,19,31,45,46,50,53,62,63,64]
BProcess innovationDiversify events, attractions, services and accommodation, Product certification.[65,66,67]
CManagement innovationEstablish information centers about agricultural heritage.
Organize educational sightseeing tours about ancient irrigation systems.
Encourage tourists and hosts to participate in tourism activities based on agricultural heritage.
Train tour guides who are familiar with traditional irrigation and agricultural systems.
Integrate traditional tourism and agricultural heritage tourism in the dry zone to create positive network effects for tourism.
Bilateral and multilateral agreements. 		[11,58]
DLogistics innovation Strategic branding.
Visitor management.		[45,68]
EInstitutional innovationStakeholder participation; Introduce policy schemes; Increase research activities; Strive towards international standards.[32,45,62,63,69]

4.1. Innovation Areas for Global Agricultural Heritage Systems

Firstly, in terms of product innovation, we found that GIAHS sites have developed a diverse range of tourism products based on their unique agricultural and cultural heritage. These include traditional crop varieties, demonstrations of traditional farming practices, local food cultures, cultural festivals and ritual activities, sightseeing opportunities, educational experiences related to water resource management, and visits to local farming communities [47]. This speaks to the great potential of GHIAS to attract different segments of the tourism market based on the diversity of tourism experience offers.
Secondly, process innovation involved various events, such as attractions, service types, accommodations, and product certifications [65]. Kajima and team studied place-based products like sake and tea. In this strategy, the aim is to promote products with certifications from both the municipality and regional certification bodies. Another good example is the creation of a certification system and a brand like achieved for the Warabino terraced fields in Japan [67]. According to Lee and Shin [67], storytelling is a powerful branding tool, especially for traditional products (e.g., Japanese sake—Nara Prefecture, Japan) [70]. It helps build the product’s attractiveness and uniqueness [71,72,73,74].
Thirdly, management innovation plays a critical role in supporting the development of agricultural heritage tourism. Management innovation generally refers to new organisational approaches, governance arrangements, and capacity-building strategies that improve how tourism is planned, coordinated, and delivered. In this context, Farsani et al. [59] and Su et al. [11] recommend establishing information centres in local villages as part of a management innovation strategy. While this may appear to be a conventional measure, it represents an important innovation for remote GIAHS sites in Sri Lanka where structured visitor management systems are largely absent. Furthermore, the development of educational sightseeing programmes is essential to communicate the functionality and heritage value of ancient irrigation systems. This requires the training of tour guides and local stakeholders to deliver educational and interpretive experiences related to traditional irrigation practices and agricultural heritage systems.
Fourthly, logistics innovation plays an important role in improving accessibility, visitor management, and destination positioning within agricultural heritage tourism. Logistics innovation typically refers to improvements in transport systems, visitor flows, marketing channels, and supporting infrastructure that facilitate tourism development. For example, transportation represents a key planning issue that has been addressed innovatively in Noto’s Satoyama (Japan), where environmentally friendly electric transport options have been introduced. Su et al. [11] further note that visitor transport systems can be organised through integrated day-tour packages that include transport, site access, and opportunities to purchase local products, as demonstrated at the Qianduo site. The involvement of municipal policymakers was identified as critical for coordinating such initiatives. In addition, accommodation strategies also form part of logistics innovation. Akira and Evonne [47] describe how farmers’ guesthouses operated by local residents in Japan provide authentic accommodation experiences while supporting rural livelihoods. Branding and certification initiatives, such as regional logos and eco-certification schemes introduced in the Shizuoka GIAHS region, further support destination positioning. Conversely, Su et al. [11] highlight the importance of strategic planning and organisational coordination, particularly during peak visitor periods, to ensure effective visitor management and sustainable tourism development [62,68]
Finally, institutional innovation was emphasized in our selection of literature, including encouraging stakeholder participation, implementing policy schemes, increasing research efforts, and working toward international sustainability standards, as exemplified by Dazhai Village for the Longji Terraces in China [28]. The adoption of a multi-stakeholder involvement mechanism to actively preserve the agricultural heritage landscape and local values was considered essential [28]. From an institutional perspective, a strong, visionary management organization that coordinates these efforts is necessary to address the physical and other impacts of GIAHS sites [69]. For the system’s sustainability, multiple levels of involvement are required to protect the agroecosystem, as Wang et al. [69] found that tourists have a strong interest in the natural environment, including all the natural resources within the system (e.g., fauna and flora) [75,76]. From an institutional innovation perspective, it is also important to consider future challenges affecting agricultural heritage systems, particularly climate change, in order to minimise impacts on traditional agricultural practices, local livelihoods, and social development [69]. In this context, Altieri and Koohafkan [77] emphasise that conservation approaches should not aim to “freeze” landscapes or traditional ways of life but rather recognise the dynamic nature of socio-ecological systems, including ecological change and climate pressures. This highlights the need for adaptive and innovative institutional approaches that support both conservation and sustainable development [64].
While the innovation dimensions applied in this study are based on Hjalager’s [58] established tourism innovation framework, we adapted these categories to the specific characteristics of agricultural heritage systems and the Sri Lankan Cascaded Tank-Village context. The contribution of this study therefore lies not in developing new innovation categories but in adapting and integrating existing innovation areas into the specific context of agricultural heritage tourism development. In particular, the framework was contextualised to reflect the socio-ecological nature of the irrigation system, the importance of traditional knowledge, community-based agricultural practices, and the governance structures associated with GIAHS sites. For example, product innovation was interpreted in relation to heritage-based visitor experiences linked to traditional irrigation practices, while management innovation was considered in relation to local governance arrangements and community participation. Institutional innovation was further adapted to reflect the importance of coordination between heritage conservation bodies, tourism authorities, and local farming communities. Through this contextualisation, the framework moves beyond a generic tourism innovation model and provides a context-sensitive analytical approach for agricultural heritage tourism development. The main novelty of this study therefore lies in the development of the Agricultural Heritage Tourism Development Framework, which integrates these adapted innovation dimensions into a coherent development pathway specifically designed for agricultural heritage tourism contexts, as presented in the following.

4.2. A New Framework for the Development of GIAHS-Based Tourism in Sri Lanka

Most Global Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) sites located in rural areas are characterised by unique traditional cultures and heritage. China has demonstrated how GIAHS sites can be used for promoting heritage tourism in rural communities, such as near the Xuanhua Grape Garden, the Zhejiang Qingtian Rice-fish Culture System, and the Yunnan Yua-Nyang Hani Rice Terraces System [58,59]. Heritage tourism needs to deliver meaningful experiences to participants while conserving heritage and sustaining community livelihoods [11].
Building on our systematic analysis, we have translated the identified innovation opportunities (Table 2) into a broader integrated conceptual model for tourism development (Figure 2). This new Agricultural Heritage Tourism Development Framework demonstrates how different innovation dimensions interact and collectively contribute to the sustainable development of agricultural heritage tourism. This model provides a practical roadmap for policymakers, planners, and site managers by highlighting key elements that should be considered when developing tourism at GIAHS and similar agricultural heritage sites.
Land 15 00678 g002
Figure 2. Agriculture Heritage Tourism Development Framework.
Figure 2. Agriculture Heritage Tourism Development Framework.
Land 15 00678 g002
While Hjalager’s innovation framework [78,79,80] provides a general structure for analysing tourism innovation, it does not address the specific challenges of heritage-based agricultural landscapes, which this study seeks to integrate. Existing heritage tourism planning frameworks, for example, by Timothy [79] provide general guidance for heritage destination management but do not specifically address the integration of agricultural heritage systems and innovation pathways. At the same time, existing GIAHS frameworks primarily focus on conservation, biodiversity protection, and rural livelihoods [81,82], whereas limited attention has been given to structured tourism development pathways within these systems. No integrated framework currently links agricultural heritage conservation with structured tourism innovation pathways. The proposed framework addresses this gap by combining heritage system characteristics with innovation-driven tourism development strategies.
Agricultural heritage sites need to be assessed for the features that make them attractive to visitors. As for the Cascaded Tank-Village irrigation system in the dry zone of Sri Lanka, it clearly has the values needed to attract visitors, encompassing ecological, livelihood, heritage, socio-cultural, and aesthetic aspects. The Sri Lankan dry zone is characterised by a unique livelihood and socio-cultural values that will benefit tourism in the area. The local environment features specific ecological characteristics integrated with the heritage irrigation system and various other attractive site characteristics [83,84].
Moreover, tourism experiences in GIAHS sites need to be activity-oriented, such as offering locally unique products, experiences, and knowledge. For example, the Ifugao Terraces in the Philippines, the Hani Terraces in Southwest China, and the terraces in the Northern Vietnamese highlands have yielded positive outcomes for local tourism. For instance, it may help connect local people and visitors, generate educational and experiential outcomes, and produce financial and social benefits, such as creating non-farming employment opportunities and improving farmers’ conservation awareness on agricultural heritage sites [85,86,87].
Practicing tourism at GIAHS sites, however, also poses challenges for achieving sustainability and conserving traditional and local farming activities [86], while remaining committed to offering tourism activities [87]. Issues include conflicts between farmers about the distribution of tourism benefits [87], and unplanned construction [55]. Inappropriate tourist behaviour may impact the heritage system, and maintaining a balance between financial outcomes and conservation can be challenging [28].
GIAHS-based tourism experiences need to meet sustainability goals, largely focused on the well-being of local people and conserving the heritage system as an outcome of the framework, while minimizing impacts on the local natural, historical, cultural, or social environment. In order to address that concern, six aspects are vital to meet sustainability as per [28], as they apply to agricultural tourism systems: (a) identify all stakeholders, (b) establish effective communication strategies, (c) possess a democratic decision-making mechanism, (d) develop a dynamic benefits distribution system, (e) coordinate teams with foresight and selflessness, and (f) have effective supervision and management. We captured these tools under the planning section.
Heritage-based visitors are typically willing to learn about and conserve the resources at sites, but management and policy systems need to be established to ensure this. As part of that, planning and monitoring need to be integrated into the development strategy of GIAHS-based tourism experiences. A monitoring strategy must address indicators, targets, and the who and how to conduct the monitoring process [45]. The planning should be participatory and involve all stakeholders in the system, including the local community, local governments, and regional- and national-level institutions. Importantly, it needs to involve local private-sector stakeholders.
However, by analyzing previous tourism-based studies in Sri Lanka, we have identified challenges such as environmental, social, and economic issues. Therefore, as a fundamental part of the framework, future planning is essential for attracting visitors, and the tourism system will only be sustainable in the long term if adequate planning measures are put in place. On the other hand, there should be a focus on developing immersive, educational experiences and related products, along with the crucial implementation of a marketing and branding strategy. Given the expertise needed for developing these core components of this type of tourism experience, external assistance from the government and university sectors is likely necessary.
In this study, the identified innovation pathways (product, process, management, logistics, and institutional innovation) function as enabling mechanisms that support the transformation of existing agricultural heritage features into structured tourism activities, sustainability outcomes, and planning processes. In this way, innovation is positioned as the operational bridge linking heritage resources with sustainable tourism development. In other words, innovation pathways actually operate as the mechanism that transform the components integrated in our Agricultural Heritage Tourism Development Framework including the features, activities, outcomes, and the planning.
Our proposed Agricultural Heritage Tourism Development Framework is grounded in the existing characteristics and development needs of the Cascaded Tank-Village system. The case study demonstrates strong existing features, including ecological value, traditional livelihood systems, rich heritage resources, socio-cultural practices, and aesthetic landscape qualities, which provide a strong foundation for tourism development. However, the analysis also highlights gaps, particularly the limited translation of these assets into structured tourism activities such as organised sightseeing, participatory experiences, traditional knowledge interpretation, local food experiences, and heritage-based accommodation. The framework responds to this gap by linking these existing features with potential tourism activities that can generate sustainability outcomes, including socio-cultural conservation, natural resource protection, agricultural landscape preservation, and economic benefits. In addition, the framework emphasises livelihood outcomes such as poverty reduction, community empowerment, and livelihood diversification, which respond to the socio-economic challenges identified in the case area. Finally, the planning dimension addresses governance gaps by highlighting the need for stakeholder participation, regular monitoring, and adaptive management processes to ensure long-term sustainability. In this way, each component of the framework directly responds to identified strengths and development needs of the Cascaded Tank-Village system, demonstrating how existing heritage assets can be systematically translated into sustainable tourism development pathways.

5. Conclusions

Agricultural heritage tourism especially featuring Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) holds great potential for diversifying the tourism offer in a country. GIAHS sites were introduced by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 2002. Later on, they were developed to attract visitors to convey information about the value of heritage, conservation, and support the well-being of local people. In 2018, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) identified the Sri Lankan Cascaded Tank-Village irrigation system (ellanga gammana; or Wewa system) as a GIAHS. This ancient irrigation system in the dry zone of Sri Lanka has gained an international reputation but is still far from offering a strategically developed tourism experience that incorporates the innovative elements that we have highlighted in this study.
Other Asian countries such as Japan, China, and Korea have already capitalised on their heritage sites as tourist attractions and gained financial benefits. After analyzing those sites, the present investigation identified the value of the Sri Lankan ellanga gammana and proposed a framework to develop heritage tourism based on agricultural heritage systems. Sri Lanka is a less developed country, and thus, tourism activities should adhere to the main principles of sustainable tourism: they should facilitate visitor education, enhance the well-being of local communities, and conserve fragile environments and cultural systems for the next generations.
Theoretically, this study contributes to the literature on heritage tourism and tourism innovation in three main ways. First, it extends heritage tourism research by introducing an agricultural heritage tourism perspective, an area that remains underdeveloped despite the global recognition of GIAHS sites. While previous studies have largely focused on conservation and rural development, this study demonstrates how innovation theory can be applied to structure tourism development pathways for agricultural heritage systems. Second, the study advances tourism innovation theory by adapting Hjalager’s innovation framework [15,58] to the specific context of agricultural heritage landscapes. By linking innovation categories with the characteristics of GIAHS sites, the study shows how innovation theory can be operationalised in heritage-based rural tourism contexts. Third, the proposed Agricultural Heritage Tourism Development Framework contributes conceptually by integrating the most important components of an agricultural heritage tourism framework with innovation areas as a foundation that enables the other components. This responds to a gap in existing frameworks, which do not combine all of these elements in a single development model.
The novel framework presented in our research highlights four pillars necessary to develop agricultural heritage tourism (Figure 2). It mainly describes two layers of the process: the first layer involves proposed innovation strategies, identified in previous studies, to support the development of agricultural heritage tourism (Table 2), and the second layer is a proposed framework that serves as a guideline to initiate agricultural heritage tourism in this country, underpinned by innovation. Therefore, this study aims to serve as a tool for managers, policymakers, and stakeholders when they consider developing heritage tourism around Global Agricultural Heritage Systems.
The proposed framework provides practical guidance for several stakeholder groups involved in the development and management of agricultural heritage tourism. For policymakers, the framework highlights the need for integrated planning approaches that combine heritage conservation, tourism development, and rural development strategies. This includes supporting infrastructure development, strengthening governance coordination, and promoting agricultural heritage tourism through national tourism strategies. For heritage managers and site planners, the framework provides guidance on how to translate heritage values into visitor experiences through product development, interpretation programmes, and visitor management strategies. For local communities, the framework highlights opportunities to diversify livelihoods through tourism participation, development of local products, and community-based tourism initiatives while maintaining traditional agricultural practices. For tourism operators, the framework provides direction on how to develop authentic heritage experiences, including educational tours, storytelling approaches, and locally grounded tourism products. More broadly, the framework may also support international GIAHS sites seeking to develop tourism in ways that balance conservation objectives with economic development opportunities.
We exemplified our findings using the GIAHS in Sri Lanka. More empirical studies are needed on agricultural heritage systems, especially in Sri Lanka but also elsewhere. This study provides a foundation for future research on agricultural heritage-based tourism, exploring areas such as tourism marketing, tourism product innovation, tourism economics, and policymaking. Considering that more than 104 agricultural heritage sites have been listed as GIASH in 29 countries, research remains very limited; meanwhile, this study strengthens the literature on agricultural heritage tourism both locally and globally. Future studies can address some of the limitations of this study. First, the study focuses on a single case study, the Sri Lankan Cascaded Tank-Village system. While this allows for in-depth contextual analysis, further research is needed to test the transferability of the framework across other GIAHS sites and agricultural heritage systems. Second, the availability of literature on agricultural heritage tourism remains limited, particularly in the Sri Lankan context. Future research could therefore expand empirical knowledge on visitor experiences, governance structures, and economic impacts of agricultural heritage tourism. Also, considering that the cascaded tank-village irrigation system in Sri Lanka is not yet developed; there is significant potential to focus on developing immersive, educational experiences and related products. Hence, research is needed on the best marketing and branding strategy. Finally, future studies could further operationalise the framework by developing indicators and evaluation tools to support implementation and monitoring of agricultural heritage tourism development. This will ultimately allow the transformation of GIASH sites into sustainable tourism destinations. Our study provides an important first step in structuring agricultural heritage tourism development conceptually and offers a foundation for future empirical testing of the proposed framework.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.S. and I.D.W.; methodology, D.S. and I.D.W.; data collection, D.S.; writing—original draft preparation, D.S.; writing—review and editing, I.D.W.; supervision, I.D.W.; project administration, D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

We thank Shamen Vidanage from the University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka, for permission to reuse the traditional cascading tank system image.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Yotsumoto, Y.; Vafadari, K. Comparing cultural world heritage sites and globally important agricultural heritage systems and their potential for tourism. J. Heri Tour. 2021, 16, 43–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jia, S.; Chi, O.H.; Martinez, S.D.; Lu, L. When “old” meets “new”: Unlocking the future of innovative technology implementation in heritage tourism. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2025, 49, 640–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Qiu, Q.; Zuo, Y.; Zhang, M. Intangible cultural heritage in tourism: Research review and investigation of future agenda. Land 2022, 11, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Arnés García, M.; Yagüe, J.L.; de Nicolás, V.L.; Diaz-Puente, J.M. Characterization of globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS) in Europe. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, Q.; Li, S.; Cheng, Z.; Wu, X.; Long, C. Ethnobotanical Knowledge and Ecological Wisdom in Honghe Hani Rice Terrace System, Southwest China. In Ethnobiology and Development in Asia: The Belt and Road Initiative; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2026; Volume 1, pp. 215–232. [Google Scholar]
  6. Min, Q. Research priorities, problems and countermeasures of Important Agricultural Heritage Systems and their conservation. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2021, 28, 1285–1293. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gutierriz, I.; Ferreira, J.J.; Fernandes, P.O. Digital transformation and the new combinations in tourism: A systematic literature review. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2025, 25, 194–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lu, H.; Qingwen, M. The role of multi-functionality of agriculture in sustainable tourism development in Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) sites in China. J. Resour. Ecol. 2013, 4, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, B.X.; Qiu, Z.M.; Usio, N.; Nakamura, K. Tourism’s impacts on rural livelihood in the sustainability of an aging community in Japan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Timothy, D.J.; Boyd, S.W. Heritage tourism in the 21st century: Valued traditions and new perspectives. J. Herit. Tour. 2006, 1, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Su, M.M.; Dong, Y.; Wall, G.; Sun, Y. A value-based analysis of the tourism use of agricultural heritage systems: Duotian Agrosystem, Jiangsu Province, China. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020, 28, 2136–2155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Timothy, D.J.; Boyd, S.W. Heritage Tourism; Prentice Hall: Harlow, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  13. Park, H.Y. Heritage Tourism; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Su, M.; Sun, Y.; Min, Q.; Jiao, W. A community livelihood approach to agricultural heritage system conservation and tourism development: Xuanhua Grape Garden urban agricultural heritage site, Hebei Province of China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Persson, E.; Li, Y. The Green Heritage. In Det Gröna Kulturarvet; Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet: Uppsala, Sweden, 2018; pp. 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hosseini, K.; Stefaniec, A.; Hosseini, S.P. World Heritage Sites in developing countries: Assessing impacts and handling complexities toward sustainable tourism. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 20, 100616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Winter, C. Safeguarding Agricultural Heritage: The Case of Colombia’s Coffee Cultural Landscape. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Farsani, N.T.; Ghotbabadi, S.S.; Altafi, M. Agricultural heritage as a creative tourism attraction. Asia Pac. J. Tour Res. 2019, 24, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS). 2024. Available online: https://www.fao.org/giahs (accessed on 30 March 2026).
  20. Min, Q. Six types of relations that should be managed in Agricultural Heritage Tourism development. World Heri. 2018, 62, 38. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jiao, W.; Min, Q. Reviewing the progress in the identification, conservation and management of China-Nationally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (China-NIAHS). Sustainability 2017, 9, 1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Koohafkan, P.; Cruz, M.J.D. Conservation and adaptive management of globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS). J. Resour. Ecol. 2011, 2, 22–28. [Google Scholar]
  23. Reyes, S.R.C.; Miyazaki, A.; Yiu, E.; Saito, O. Enhancing sustainability in traditional agriculture: Indicators for monitoring the conservation of globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS) in Japan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sun, Y.H.; Dela Cruz, M.J.; Min, Q.W.; Liu, M.C.; Zhang, L.Y. Conserving agricultural heritage systems through tourism: Exploration of two mountainous communities in China. J. Mt. Sci. 2013, 10, 962–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Liu, Y.; Lu, S.; Chen, Y. Spatio-temporal change of urban-rural equalized development patterns in China and its driving factors. J. Rural Stud. 2013, 32, 320–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fuller, A.M.; Min, Q.; Jio, W.; Bai, Y. Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) of China: The challenge of complexity in research. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2015, 1, 11878980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Reitsma, K.D.; Dunn, B.H.; Mishra, U.; Clay, S.A.; DeSutter, T.; Clay, D.E. Landuse change impact on soil sustainability in a climate and vegetation transition zone. J. Agron. 2015, 107, 2363–2372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhu, G.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y. Multi-Stakeholder Involvement Mechanism in Tourism Management for Maintaining Terraced Landscape in Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (IAHS) Sites: A Case Study of Dazhai Village in Longji Terraces, China. Land 2021, 10, 1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yang, L.; Liu, M.C.; Min, Q.W.; Li, W. Specialization or diversification? The situation and transition of households’ livelihood in Agricultural Heritage Systems. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2018, 16, 455–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sun, Y.; Timothy, D.J.; Wang, Y.; Min, Q.; Su, Y. Reflections on Agricultural Heritage Systems and tourism in China. J. China Tour. Res. 2019, 15, 359–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, Y.Y. Study on the Relationship Between Contemporary Poetry of Hani Ethnic Group and Hani Culture. Master’s Thesis, Yunnan Normal University, Yunnan, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  32. Min, Q.W.; Zhang, Y.X.; Jiao, W.J.; Sun, X.P. Responding to common questions on the conservation of agricultural heritage systems in China. J. Geogr. Sci. 2016, 26, 969–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Qiu, Z.M.; Chen, B.X.; Takemoto, K. Conservation of terraced paddy fields engaged with multiple stakeholders: The case of the Noto GIAHS site in Japan. Paddy Water Environ. 2014, 12, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chowdhury, R.B.; Moore, G.A. Floating agriculture: A potential cleaner production technique for climate changes adapation and sustainable community development in Bangladesh. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 150, 371–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nianthi, K.W.G.R.; Jayakumara, M.A.S. Progress of research on cascade irrigation systems in the dry zones of Sri Lanka. In Water Communit; Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2010; Volume 2, pp. 109–137. [Google Scholar]
  36. Bebermeier, W.; Meister, J.; Withanachchi, C.R.; Middelhaufe, I.; Schütt, B. Tank Cascade Systems as a Sustainable Measure of Watershed Management in South Asia. Water 2017, 9, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Leach, E.R. Village irrigation in the dry zone of Sri Lanka. In Irrigation and Agricultural Development in Asia: Perspectives from the Social Sciences; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 91–126. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dharmasena, P.B. Sedimentation and desiltation of minor tank. In Summaries of Papers Presented at Irrigation Research Management Unit Seminar Series; Irrigation Department, Irrigation Department Head Office: Colombo, Sri Lank, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  39. Bandara, C.M. Catchment ecosystem and village tank cascade in the dry zone of Sri Lanka: A time-tested system of land and water resources management. In Strategies for River Basin Management; Lundqvist, J., Lohm, U., Falkenmark, M., Eds.; Reidel Publishing: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1985; pp. 99–113. [Google Scholar]
  40. Geekiyanage, N.; Pushpakumara, D.K.N.G. Ecology of ancient tank cascade systems on island Sri Lanka. J. Mar. Isl. Cult. 2013, 2, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dharmasena, P.B. Evolution of hydraulic Societies in the ancient Anuradhapura kingdom of Sri Lanka. In Landscapes and Societies; Martini, I.P., Chesworth, W., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 341–352. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kekulandala, B.; Jacobs, B.; Cunningham, R. Management of small irrigation tank cascade systems (STCS) in Sri Lanka: Past, present and future. Clim. Dev. 2021, 13, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Edirisooriya, C. Wevugam Pubuduwa Aims to Transform Dry Zone Water Management and Climate Resilience. 2025. Available online: https://www.sundayobserver.lk/2025/07/20/business/57270/wevugam-pubuduwa-aims-to-transform-dry-zone-water-management-and-climate-resilience/ (accessed on 3 February 2026).
  44. Dissanayake, S.T.; Vidanage, S. Valuing ecosystem services from restoring ancient irrigation systems: An application comparing labor vs. monetary payments for choice experiments. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2023, 52, 422–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yiu, E.; Nagata, A.; Takeuchi, K. Comparative study on conservation of agricultural heritage systems in China, Japan and Korea. J. Resour. Ecol. 2016, 7, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hashimoto, A.; Telfer, D.J.; Telfer, S. Life beyond growth? Rural depopulation becoming the attraction in Na-goro, Japan’s scarecrow village. J. Herit. Tour. 2021, 16, 493–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Akira, N.; Evonne, Y. Ten Years of GIAHS Development in Japan. J. Resour. Ecol. 2021, 12, 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Choo, H.; Jamal, T. Tourism on organic farms in South Korea: A new form of ecotourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2009, 17, 431–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ma, N.; Yang, L.; Min, Q.; Bai, K.; Liu, W. The Significance of Traditional Culture for Agricultural Biodiversity—Experiences from GIAHS. J. Resour. Ecol. 2021, 12, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Maharjan, K.L.; Gonzalvo, C.M.; Aala, W.F., Jr. Leveraging Japanese Sado island farmers’ GIAHS inclusivity by understanding their perceived involvement. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhang, A.; Hou, B.; Ma, N. Community residents’ perceptions of tourism impacts and their participation attitudes at agricultural heritage sites: A case study of Hani Terraces. Hum. Geogr. 2017, 32, 138–144. [Google Scholar]
  52. Medina, L.K. Commoditizing culture: Tourism and Maya identity. Ann. Tour. Res. 2003, 30, 353–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Su, M.M.; Wall, G.; Wang, Y.N.; Jin, M. Livelihood sustainability in a rural tourism destination—Hetu Town, Anhui Province China. Tour. Manag. 2019, 71, 272–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhang, Y.; Li, X. Protecting traditional agricultural landscapes by promoting industrial integration development: Practices form Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (IAHS) sites in China. Land 2022, 11, 1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sumanapala, D.; Timothy, D.J.; Wolf, I.D. An agenda for heritage tourism research in Sri Lanka: Current knowledge and future directions. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2024, 1, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sumanapala, D.; Wolf, I.D. Recreational ecology: A review of research and gap analysis. Environments 2019, 6, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wohlin, C.; Kalinowski, M.; Felizardo, K.R.; Mendes, E. Successful combination of database search and snowballing for identification of primary studies in systematic literature studies. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2022, 147, 106908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hjalager, A.-M. Reparing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tour. Manag. 2002, 23, 465–474. [Google Scholar]
  59. Farsani, N.T.; Zeinali, H.; Moaiednia, M. Food heritage and promoting herbal medicine-based niche tourism in Isfahan, Iran. J. Herit. Tour. 2016, 13, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kajihara, H.; Zhang, S.; You, W.; Min, Q. Concerns and opportunities around cultural heritage in east Asian globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS). Sustainability 2018, 10, 1235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Su, M.; Wang, M.; Sun, Y.; Wang, Y. Tourist perspectives on agricultural heritage interpretation—A case study of the Qingtian Rice-Fish System. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Inagaki, H.; Kusumoto, Y. Assessment of GIAHS in Shizuoka: The traditional tea-grass integrated system. J. Resour. Ecol. 2014, 5, 398–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhang, C.; Liu, M. Challenges and countermeasures for the sustainable development of Nationally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems in China. J. Resour. Ecol. 2014, 5, 390–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Liu, M.; Yang, L.; Bai, Y.; Min, Q. The impacts of farmers’ livelihood endowments on their participation in eco-compensation policies: Globally important agricultural heritage systems case studies from China. Land Use Policy 2018, 77, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kajima, S.; Tanaka, Y.; Uchiyama, Y. Japanese sake and tea as place-based products: A comparison of regional certifications of globally important Agricultural Heritage Systems, geopark, biosphere reserves, and geographical indication at product level certification. J. Ethn. Foods. 2017, 4, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chiang, Y.C.; Weng, P.Y.; Sato, N. The preservation of important rural japanese cultural landscapes: Considering the warabino paddy field as an example. J. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ. 2013, 58, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Lee, Y.S.; Shin, W.J. Marketing tradition-bound products through storytelling: A case study of a Japanese sake brewery. Serv. Bus. 2015, 9, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hayashi, H. Understandings of relationships between agriculture and biodiversity in Kunisaki GIAHS. J. Resour. Ecol. 2014, 5, 395–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, N.; Li, J.; Zhou, Z. Landscape pattern optimization approach to protect rice terrace Agroecosystem: Case of GIAHS site Jiache Valley, Guizhou, southwest China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 129, 107958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Herskovitz, S.; Crystal, M. The essential brand persona: Storytelling and branding. J. Bus. Strategy 2010, 31, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wang, Y.; Huang, S.; Kim, A.K. Towards a framework integrating authenticity and integrity in heritage tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2015, 23, 1468–1481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jiang, H.Y. Conservation of Ifugao Values. Master’s Thesis, University of California, Davis, CA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  73. Su, M.M.; Sun, Y.; Wall, G.; Min, Q. Agricultureal heritage conservation, tourism and community livelihood in the process of urbanization-Xuanhua grape garden, Hebei province, China. Aisa Pac. J. Tour. Res. 2020, 25, 205–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Khater, M. The role of tourism guides in heritage management at archaeological sites: Enhancing conservation and visitor experience. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2026, 51, 268–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sun, Y.; Zhou, H.; Wall, G.; Wei, Y. Cognition of disaster risk in a tourism community: An agricultural heritage system perspective. J. Sustin. Tour. 2017, 25, 536–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hjalager, A.M. Cultural tourism innovation systems—The Roskilde festival. In Festival and Event Management in Nordic Countries; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2014; pp. 104–125. [Google Scholar]
  77. Altieri, M.A.; Koohafkan, P. Globally Important Ingenious Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS): Extent, significance, and implications for development. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop and Steering Committee Meeting for the Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) Project; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2004; pp. 7–9. [Google Scholar]
  78. Hjalager, A.M. The coevolution of tourism and agriculture. Gastron. Tour 2020, 4, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Timothy, D.J. Cultural Heritage and Tourism: An Introduction; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2011; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  80. Jiao, W.; Yang, X.; Min, Q. A review of the progress in globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS) monitoring. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Swarbrroke, J. The future of the past: Heritage tourism in the 21st centuary. In Tourism: The State of the Art; Seaton, A.B., Ed.; Johan Wiley and Sons: Oxford, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  82. Poria, Y.; Airey, D.; Butler, R. Challenging the present approach to heritage tourism: Is tourism to heritage places heritage tourism. Tour Rev. 2021, 56, 51–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhang, Y.; Min, Q.; Li, H.; He, L.; Zhang, C.; Yang, L. A conservation approach of globally important agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS): Improving traditional agricultural patterns and promoting scale-production. Sustainability 2017, 9, 295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gu, H.; Jiao, Y.; Liang, L. Strengthening the socio-ecological resilience of forest-dependent communities: The case of the Hani Rice Terraces in Yunnan, China. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 22, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hoang, T.T.H.; Van Rompaey, A.; Meyfroidt, P.; Govers, G.; Vu, K.C.; Nguyen, A.T.; Hens, L.; Vanacker, V. Impact of tourism development on the local livelihoods and land cover change in the Northern Vietnamese highlands. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 22, 1371–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tian, M.; Min, Q.; Lun, F.; Yuan, Z.; Fuller, A.M.; Yang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, J. Evaluation of tourism water capacity in agricultural heritage sites. Sustainability 2015, 7, 15548–15569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Jiao, W.; Wang, B.; Sun, Y.; Liu, M. Design and application of the annual report of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) monitoring. J. Resour. Ecol. 2021, 12, 498–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Study framework [59,60] to identify innovation opportunities for GIAHS heritage tourism, adapted from [58].
Table 1. Study framework [59,60] to identify innovation opportunities for GIAHS heritage tourism, adapted from [58].
Division of InnovationDescription of Sub-Division
AProduct innovationsConsists of new products or services, development to the stage of commercialization.
BProcess innovationInvolves ways of raising the performance of existing operations with new or improved technology or redesigning of the entire production line.
CManagement innovationInvolves new job profiles, collaborative structures, and authority systems.
DLogistics innovationInvolves Internet marketing development.
EInstitutional innovationDeals with collaborative and regulatory structures in communities in which public and private sectors cooperate with new rules and regulations.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sumanapala, D.; Wolf, I.D. A Novel Framework for Reimagining Agricultural Heritage Tourism: Ancient Irrigation Systems in South Asia. Land 2026, 15, 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/land15040678

AMA Style

Sumanapala D, Wolf ID. A Novel Framework for Reimagining Agricultural Heritage Tourism: Ancient Irrigation Systems in South Asia. Land. 2026; 15(4):678. https://doi.org/10.3390/land15040678

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sumanapala, Daminda, and Isabelle D. Wolf. 2026. "A Novel Framework for Reimagining Agricultural Heritage Tourism: Ancient Irrigation Systems in South Asia" Land 15, no. 4: 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/land15040678

APA Style

Sumanapala, D., & Wolf, I. D. (2026). A Novel Framework for Reimagining Agricultural Heritage Tourism: Ancient Irrigation Systems in South Asia. Land, 15(4), 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/land15040678

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop