gestiondelpatrimoniocultural unmsm

7/28/2019 gestiondelpatrimoniocultural UNMSM

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gestiondelpatrimoniocultural-unmsm 1/7

Theme 3

Session 1

542

NEW STRATEGIES FOR CULTURAL TOURISM PLANNING:

Quality and creativity as tools for development

Celia Martínez Yáñez

Postdoctoral Researcher of the Spanish Ministry of Science and

Innovation Postdoctoral Researcher Mobility Subprogram, [email protected]

Abstract . The overexploitaon of many cultural properes, and, at the same me, the lack of use and fast degradaonof certain others, points out a signicant imbalance in the cultural tourism market. Based on internaonal tourism stas-cal data and specic case studies, this paper will analyze in depth the causes of this imbalance and their impact on heritageprotecon. Our aim is to help migate this situaon by proposing new strategies for cultural tourism planning to enhancethe sustainability of this acvity. The following issues will be addressed:

● The need to analyze not the quanty, but the quality of heritage tourism and the mechanisms of its distribuon and

markeng.● The study of the movaons and characteriscs of heritage tourism consumpon, going beyond the numbers

to examine how they can contribute to a greater number of properes to benet from the posive eects of thisacvity.

● The development of strategies that help to resolve the pressures of mass tourism in heritage by means of:● The strict respect of the carrying capacity and management of visitor ows ● And the promoon of the creavity in the management of cultural desnaons, integrang tourism and heritage in

their cultural life and promong intangible values that add quality to the tourist and cultural experience.

Our goal is to demonstrate how the overall analysis of these issues may improve the integraon between developmentand conservaon of heritage, not only to meet the challenges of emerging trends in cultural tourism, but mainly to keepheritage alive, diversify its uses and enhance its ability to improve the quality of life of the contemporary society.

1. Introducon

Heritage is increasingly being seen as a resource notonly for cultural promoon, but also for social andeconomic sustainable development and well-being of populaons, especially through its use as one of themain aracons of cultural tourism market.The increasing numbers of internaonal tourismarrivals, (WTO, 2001; UNWTO, 2008; WTTC, 2008)and the money visitors spend on admission fees,

souvenirs, transport, food and accommodaoncontributes billions every year to the global economyand employs millions of people directly and indirectly(Timothy and Boyd 2003; 2006), so the eorts of both the public and private sector to aract tourismto cultural properes, and their impact in heritagemanagement and meaning, should not be surprising.However, the opmisc data of internaonal tourismmust not lead to errors: Although visitors denitelycontribute to heritage maintenance, the growth of cultural tourism has also changed the pattern of heritage enjoyment -turning it into consumption-

and has favoured its economic dimension, oen indetriment of its ability to full the intangible needs of

beauty, harmony and culture that are only sasedwhen cultural properes are visited under appropriatecondions.Nong this general framework, a common goal of cultural heritage protecon and tourism managementthat deserves wider disseminaon is the needto promote diverse and sustainable mul-use of cultural properes by means of the strict respect of

the carrying capacity and control of visitor ows andthe promoon of creavity in cultural desnaons’management.The current status of the meeng of these principleswill be discussed in this paper, basing in recentscienc literature and through the analysis of heritage tourism management, specially focusing onthe progress made in the Alhambra and Generalife WorldHeritage Site.

2. Quality instead of quanty

The last two centuries have witnessed an increasein the homogenizaon of tourist sites around the



Session 1

543

N e w s

t r a t e g i e s f o r c u l t u r a l t o u r i s m p

l a n n i n g :

q u a l i t y a n d c r e a t i v i t y a s t o o l s f o r d e v e l o p m e n t

Theme 3

world. Everything, from historic monuments to exocdesnaons, has been redesigned and packaged formass consumpon and, as a result, there has beena reconceptualizaon of heritage sites’ history and

meaning: some have been preserved and enhancedwhile others le to decay. This suggests that tourismis an activity with historical, social and culturalconsequences much broader than those usuallyemphasized, that affects our understanding andpercepon in a way not only very intense, given the ageof this acvity, but also scarcely controlled (Lasanskyand McLaren, 2006).

According to Valery Pan (2005: 5), today 70% of visitors to European heritage landmarks are naonalor internaonal tourists. This fact provides us with

an accurate sign of the enormous weight of tourismin management and decision making regardingheritage demand. Given most visitors’ focus onmajor monuments, it also means than when we dealwith the exponenal growth of cultural tourism weshould rather refer to mass cultural tourism, whichis undoubtedly the segment of this market that hasexperienced an unprecedented development in recentdecades, as opposed to the more culturally movatedand personal heritage tourism.

Therefore, it must be emphasized that cultural tourismgradually gives way to the tourist culture within which,in relaon to cultural heritage, there are acvies andpracces such as media coverage, group visits led bytour operators, the obsession with photographingplaces, buying souvenirs, etc. Noting this fact isimportant since visits to cultural heritage do not alwaysrespond to conscious or culturally movated acts andbecause the increasing number of visits to heritagedoes not always mean that the benets provided byheritage massive use are higher or that the quality of the experience has improved as compared to othermoments in the history of tourism.

In fact, to weigh the real posive impacts that thedevelopment of cultural tourism brings to society,the total number of annual visitors is an importantquantitative factor but rarely provides qualitativeinformation: Although economic benefits can beimportant in those monuments that charge an entry,there are other sites (although they are becominga minority), such as historic cities, great religiousmonuments or landscapes in which the entrance isfree, and where such benets do not depend on thenumber of tourists but rather on the characteriscs of their stay and behaviour as consumers of products and

services only secondarily related to heritage. As hasbeen stressed since at least the late sevenes (Kadt,

1979), the income aributable to the tourist use of heritage depends mainly on the induced spendingvisitors do in the local and territorial context of cultural properes, so a greater number of visitors

does not always results in an immediate increase inthe resources devoted to heritage protecon andenhancement.

Summing up, if in the eighties and nineties thegrowing numbers of heritage tourists and theoptimistic economic consideration of culture andheritage promised great development chances andclear benets, we have now reached a turning point,consisng on the need to analyze not the quanty butthe quality of heritage tourism and the mechanisms of its distribuon and markeng. And this because is sll

quite evident that its growth is spectacular in relaonto world famous and naonally known heritage assetsand more modest beyond usual tourist circuits (AA.VV.,2007, Villafranca and Chamorro, 2007a, Salazar, 2010).

This may be provoked by two possible reasons: ormarketing policies are not the best to fit currentheritage needs, or it is very dicult, if not impossible,to change old tourism trends that determine thatmost of the tourists consider vising the same culturalheritage landmarks. This situaon, stalled for decades,points out a significant imbalance in the tourismmarket that have negave eects on both crowdedand under-ulized cultural properes, stressing theneed to analyze the movaons and characteriscsof heritage tourism consumpon, going beyond thenumbers to examine how they can contribute to agreater number of properes to benet from thepotenal posive eects of this acvity.

3. The imbalance of heritage market and the charac-

teriscs of tourist heritage consumpon

Heritage tourism is a key niche of the global touristacvity, not only because of the potenal of heritageto naturally stress local parcularies in an increasinglyglobalized world, but also because of its ability toattract different visitors and provide with diversecultural experiences.

Culture and tourism markets and public and privateinvestors are well aware of the commercial opportuniesthat this entails and experts in selling foreign assetsreworked as unique and familiar products. In fact,according to Salazar (2010: 133), tourism marketerscapitalise on the following assumpon: “If all placeson earth and their inhabitants have a culture, and if this culture is necessarily unique to a specic place and

people, then its transformaon into heritage cultural



Session 1

544

N e w s


l a n n i n g :


Theme 3

assets should produce an exclusive product reecngand promong a disncve place or group identy”.

Despite the emergence of this trend to enhance heritage

as the most visible resource of local disncveness,heritage tourism imbalance is usually related to thetourist previous ideas of cultural heritage and culturaltourism destinations and to the characteristics of heritage consumpon behaviour by tourist industryand individuals.

As Ashworth (2007: 36) has stressed, most of heritagetourist consumpon is highly selecve and tend tofocus on unique, dramac, spectacular and universallyrecognizable assets. Due to this simplicaon, heritageproperties converted into tourist products are so

quickly consumed that even the most famous cieswith heritages and cultural acvies well establishedand known in leisure internaonal markets, only get toretain visitors for two or three days. Although stays canbe extended by the enhancement of new heritages, theestablishment of networks linking heritage properesand oering new cultural experiences and events,there is a saturaon level of tourists, both in terms of their ability to spend and remain in one place, which,according to Ashworth, is also quickly reached.

As a result, one of the largest perceived gaps in this eldis that many heritage resources do not meet its socialand economic potenal due to the tradional favoringof those properties whose exoticism, resistanceand unique character can aract a large audiencein a highly compeve market. This provokes theunavailability to fulll the interests of many heritagepotenal users and reinforces the imbalance betweenthe current supply of heritage and the potentialdemand which is actually sased. This inconsistencyis found as well in the fact that along with mass culturaltourism, also tourists with more specic and atomizedcultural interests increase (albeit at a slower rate), and,consequently, the heritage tourism market segments.

Although this should imply that the range of heritagesoered found a demand in some of the diverse culturaltourism niches, they oen fail in this sense, since theseaudiences are much smaller and can not maintain bythemselves the whole economy of a parcular place.

4. Possible soluons to improve tourism eects on

cultural heritage

To improve the impact of cultural tourism is rst ne-cessary to restore the immaterial values of heritage,regardless of its economic eects. Only when these

values are completely assumed by all actors concerned

in heritage and tourism promoon will be possible tocorrect inconsistencies, such as that the notoriety of some properes brings to ignore others who may beequally valuable to society, but do not generate imme-

diate economic benets. In fact, those benets couldbe important if cultural properes were regarded notas miracle (and improbable) soluons to development,but as invaluable and unique resources, able to im-prove the quality of live of local people and thereforeto aract new investments and sustainable culturaland economic acvies in the long-term (Gravari-Bar-bas and Jacquot, 2008).

The lack of a complete consciousness about heritagevalues and the persistence of gaps in heritage useand enjoyment also stress the need of a networkingbetween heritage managers, public authories and

tourist operators able to harmonize the enhancementand protecon of the full diversity of heritage valuesand assets with the enrichment of visitors experienceand the improvement of the welfare of local people.

To design strategies with this aim is very importantto internalize that one of the most posive aspectsof the tourist use of heritage is that the acvaon of their resources, by their very non renewable nature,demands a responsible use as an indispensablecondion for this acvity to persist over me. Andthat the presence of heritage throughout all territories,

including those areas or regions that nd dicules togenerate or maintain their development, characterizeheritage as an asset that, at least potenally, canbecome a smulus for the diversicaon of economy.In this sense, one the most posive eects of heritagetourism, that should also be promoted, is its abilityto foster the conservaon of hitherto underulizedproperties (such as industrial, contemporary,vernacular and rural heritage), and the territorialdimension with which tourism entails heritage. Thisdimension helps reviving its values in space and meand encourages the creation of routes, networksand creave management models pursuing prolongthe stay of visitors, restrain over loading of someproperes, promote the enjoyment of certain othersand improve the distribuon of its economic and socialbenets.

The usefulness of such a broad and shared approachhas been proven, amongst many other internaonalstascal data, in the internaonal cultural tourismsurveys organized by ATLAS since 2004, which showhow disseminaon of heritage values and posiveeconomic effects of tourist use of heritage aresignicantly higher in cultural sites that have promoted

several heritage resources, aracons and events than



Session 1

545

N e w s


l a n n i n g :


Theme 3

in those that tend to concentrate on one or few of them.According to the World Tourism Organizaon (OMT, 2001),the success of desnaons that have encouraged a variety

of approaches to heritage points out that heritage tourismgradually gives way to tourism combining heritage, cultureand creavity, being the laer a key factor given its muchmore uid and changeable dimension.This organization also notes that immaterial aspects of culture and heritage are becoming increasingly importantto dierenate heritage desnaons and aract tourism, asconsumers and visitors increasingly value intangible elementssuch as the spirit and lifestyle of a place. The emergence of these tendencies stresses the usefulness of promotingintangible values that add quality to the tourist and culturalexperience and fostering the extraordinary potential of

heritage within the economy of experience, in which productscompeon depends on their ability to raise new feelings andemoons (Marnez, 2011).

Among the various models for the promotion of heritage that meet these characteriscs, stand outall those acvies which, taking it as a backdrop andinspiraon engine, provide with a link between tradionand contemporary creaon, oering new dimensionsto heritage enjoyment and cultural industries based inheritage values, including the reinvenon of tradions,such as gastronomy, the creaon of events, culturaland music fesvals in heritage properes, as well asthe use of media and design, which are indispensableto rework the city's internaonal image and aract andretain specialized and individual tourists.

5. Towards a management based on carrying capacity

and quality of experience

Besides the promoon of the previously menonedstrategies, to improve the impacts of the tourist use of heritage is very important to assume that managementof visitor ows can not be determined by the potenaldemand, but must be based on:

● Full respect of the carrying capacity; ● Conservation priorities imposed by thoseresponsible for the protecon and management of cultural properes;● The need to maintain the quality of visitorexperience.

These issues were discussed in depth in a seminar heldat the Alhambra (Granada, Spain) in February 2006,which discussed the dierent approaches to tourismimpacts of some properes inscribed on the WorldHeritage List. Among them, the Great Wall of China, where

the main challenge was the control and monitoring of visitors

ows through a management plan, which had lacked so fardespite being one of the most visited heritage sites in theworld; Pompeii, that receives more than 10.000 visitors dailyand had launched a virtual tour of areas that are not accessible

for conservaon reasons; or Stonehenge, that had carriedout a project to replace the highway that crossed the site,given its negave impact on its conservaon condions andenvironment. (Villafranca and Chamorro, 2007a).The final result of this Seminar was the draftingof a Declaration that included some interestingand innovative proposals, such as the need fornominaons to the World Heritage List and alreadyinscribed properties to periodically report on thenumber of visitors, their growth forecast and howthis will be faced from management. In our opinionthis requirement should be mandatory, given the

exponenal mulplicaon of the number of visitorscaused by nominaons and the many heritage siteswhich are not prepared to counter and avoid theirpossible negave impacts, turning the World Heritagestatement, which theoretically should ensure theinternaonal shared protecon of properes, in athreat to the outstanding universal values that led totheir nominaon.

Despite the large theoretical consensus on theimportance of these indicators, unfortunately we haveto emphasize that there is a persistent conict betweenheritage managers and private tourism stakeholderson whether or not to use them, which has meant thatonly specic cases, such as those menoned above anda few others, including the cies of Oxford, Bruges,Venice, Carcassonne, Luxembourg, the gardens andpalaces of Versailles and Berlin-Brandenburg, and theAlhambra and Generalife have implemented strategiesfor the management of visitor ows based on the strictrespect of carrying capacity.

Finally, the Declaration also stressed the need torecover the emoons and knowledge that should beprovided by the meeng between man and heritage

and suggested the following strategies to improve thequality of experience and the relaonship betweencultural properes and tourism impacts:

● Establish stronger management structuresappropriate to the specicies of each property andable to encompass the macro and micro scale. ● Focus on heritage contents of interpretaon, whileallowing individual visitors live their own "unguided”experience.● Deepen the global percepon of the monument andits cultural and landscape environment. ● Cooperate with all stakeholders involved in theenhancement of heritage and tourism, offering



Session 1

546

N e w s


l a n n i n g :


Theme 3

alternaves to facilitate both management and visitsthrough various types of ckets, public transport,heritage networks, etc. ● Control heritage’s image through its legal protecon

and foster its economic sensible use as a new resourcethat must reverse in conservaon.

6. The Alhambra and Generalife management

approach

The Alhambra and Generalife World Heritage Site,which is the most visited cultural property in Spain,offers a very remarkable example of the positiveeects of creave, diverse and sustainable approachesto heritage, which have been able to restrain the overloading of the monument and the pressures of masstourism.

The key to success has been based on theestablishment of measures designed to balance visitoraccess rights with the maintenance and preservaonof the Alhambra, on the development of a modernprotecon concept, that go beyond the historical-arsc area of the site to encompass the preservaonand enhancement of its surroundings and landscapingdimension, and on a new and dynamic view of therelations between the Alhambra and the City of Granada, that has expanded the present tourist oerand interpretaons of the monument.

Especially outstanding among these iniaves, are thestudies that have established the carrying capacity of the monument as the main guideline for the currentmanagement of visitor ows. Most of these measureswere adopted as early as 1993, within the Special Planof Protecon and Interior Reform of the Alhambra andAlijares (AA. VV., 1999), and were prompted by theever-increasing number of visitors and the desire tominimize their negave impact on the site and on thequality of the experience, closely linked to the sensoryand aesthec percepon of the monument, which hadprogressively deteriorated due to overcrowding. ThisPlan served to regulate access by seng specic meslots, oering the possibility of reserving ckets inadvance, limited the number of people allowed at thesame me in Nasrid palaces (the most fragile area of the palane city), while extending both vising hoursand the type of entries, and has also expanded culturalacvies and visitor studies. These measures haveprovided several benets to both the tourist industryand the monument conservaon: They put an end tothe seasonal nature of the visits, allowed prior planningof the visits to the Alhambra, provided the convenienceof regulated access, personalized aenon in a number

of languages, improved the distribuon of various

types of visitor and increased the economic impactof the monument on the whole of the city of Granada(Villafranca and Chamorro, 2007b).

Similarly, the fostering of the scenic dimension of the palane city has led to the formulaon of a newintegral model of strategic planning, culminang inthe Alhambra Master Plan for 2007-2015, which isstructured through four strategic lines: preservaon-conservaon, sustainability, cultural landscape anddigital society. They include key strategies to fosterprotection and sustainable management of theAlhambra’s landscape resources, acvies relatedto the control of the commercial exploitaon of itsimage, the use of certain spaces for holding events andaudiovisual producons, etc., which have enriched the

appreciaon of the values of both the Alhambra andother monuments of the City of Granada (Villafrancaand Salmerón, 2010). Among these activities, thecreaon of several themac ineraries that do notfocus in the visit to the Nasrid Palaces, the Alcazabaand the Generalife, but in areas generally closed tothe public in the Monumental Complex and otherselected places in Granada city, must be stressed. Thisprogramme comprises ve dierent tours starng inthe Alhambra, from where it goes down to the historicpart of Granada city passing through the Albaicínquarter:

● The Alhambra and Charles V: The Emperor ’s dream.● Women in the Moorish and Renaissance: Privatespaces and spaces of interrelaon.● The Chrisan City: A new polic, social and religiousorder.● The conquest of water: The landscape of water inMoorish and Chrisan Spain.● The palaal city and its area route.

The implementaon of these and other innovaveacvies have been able to diversify the use of themonument and to ensure the comprehension and

disseminaon of its rich and diverse heritage values,while promong its sustainable development. Besides,they have successfully reoriented visitor’s ows andextended overnights in Granada, also revitalizing manyoutstanding cultural properes that were neglectedup to now as a result of the huge aracveness of the Nasrid Monument and the lack of an eecvecollaboration between the Alhambra Council andpublic administraons to promote the city’s heritageresources as a whole.



Session 1

547

N e w s


l a n n i n g :


Theme 3

Conclusions

Although the Alhambra case is highly representaveof a posive and harmonized management of heritage

and tourism when a cultural property is able to supporttourist demand itself, we have to be conscious thatmost of historic sites and towns are rarely protablesustainable development resources in themselves, butrather ancillary contribuons of tourism desnaonswhose success depends on an eecve coordinaonwith other urban tourism or cultural acvies.The promoon of creavity and intangible values thatadd quality to the tourist and cultural experience andthe integraon of tourism in the cultural life of theplace - treang tourists as cizens, and not as mereheritage consumers - are even more important in thesecases than in well established tourist desnaons.

But they are not enough.Fragment and specialize tourist supply, not tryingto attract a large number of visitors, but to whatmarketers call the "target audience" of each placeis also essenal. The key issue is draw from heritagethose values that rooted it in its social and culturalcontext, avoiding at all costs it’s distort to try to adaptit to the expectaons or the dominant stereotypes.

Besides, managers and stakeholders must bear inmind that heritage demand is strongly influencedby the tastes and fashions prevalent in a society in

constant transformaon, and therefore, the successof an iniave that has managed to aract a certainniche of cultural tourism will not even be enough to

ensure sustainable and durable development basedon heritage: The needs of a rapidly changing demandmust constantly be met, trends correctly ancipatedand heritage resources dierenated if success is to

be maintained in the context of a cultural and touristmarket which is not only fragmented but in connuousux (Ashworth, 2007).

These are not easy tasks and perhaps they shouldremind us that although heritage is important fortourism, this does not necessarily have to be equal tothe inverse: as we have address in the Alhambra casestudy, there are many possible uses of heritage able toenhance its values, both for tourists and local society,without making it dependent on the market ows orpung it into situaons that may threaten its integrity

and authencity.

For all the above mentioned reasons, it is finallynecessary to stress how encourage creativity incultural property management is not only important tomobilize a greater number of people around heritageand met emerging trends in cultural tourism market,but mainly to keep heritage alive, diversify its usesand deepen the analysis of interactions betweenconservaon and development that can help us todene more accurately, but also to encourage andexpand, the role that heritage has, or might have, inthe evoluon of contemporary society.

References

ASHWORTH, G.J. 2007. “Heritage in fragments: a fragmented instrument for fragmented policies” In CulturalHeritage in the 21st Century. Opportunies and Challenges, ed. MURZYN, Monica A and PURCHLA, Jacek: 29-41. Krakow, Internaonal Cultural Centre, pp. 29-41.

AA.VV. 1999. Estudio Previo para la revisión del Plan Especial de la Alhambra y Alijares. Granada: Patronato dela Alhambra y Generalife.

AA.VV. 2007. Impact of Mass Tourism on Historic Villages: Idenfying Key Indicators of Tourism Impact.ICOMOS Asia-Pacic Regional Meeng & ICOMOS Internaonal Tourism Commiee Workshop, June 2006.Seoul/Andong: ICOMOS Korea.

CHAMORRO MARTÍNEZ, V. E. 2006. La Alambra: el lugar y el visitante. Granada: Patronato de la Alhambra yGeneralife.

GRAVARI-BARBAS M., JACQUOT S. 2008. Esmaon de l’Impact de l’inscripon des sites du PatrimoineMondial, sous la direcon de Rémy Prudhomme. Paris: Centre du Patrimoine Mondial de l’UNESCO.

KADT, E. (ed.) 1979. Tourisme: passeport pour le développement? Paris: Banque Mondiale et UNESCO.



Session 1

548

N e w s


l a n n i n g :


Theme 3

LASANSKY, D. M. and MCLAREN, B. (eds.). 2006. Arquitectura y Turismo. Percepción, representación y lugar.Barcelona: Gustavo Gili.

MARTÍNEZ YÁÑEZ, C. 2011. El patrimonio cultural: tendencias y proyecciones sociales y económicas. Madrid:EAE.

SALAZAR, N.B. 2010. “The globalisaon of heritage through tourism: balancing standardisaon anddierenaon” In Heritage and Globalizaon, ed. LABALDI, S. and LONG, C.: 130-146. New York: Routledge.

TIMOTHY, DJ. and BOYD, S.W. 2003. Heritage Tourism. Harlow: Prence Hall.

TIMOTHY, DJ. and BOYD, S.W. 2006. “Heritage tourism in the 21st century: Valued tradions and newperspecves’. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 1: 1-16.

UNWTO (2008). Tourism Highlights 2008. Madrid: United Naons World Tourism Organizaon.

VILLAFRANCA JIMÉNEZ, M. y CHAMORRO MARTÍNEZ, V.E. 2007a. Acogida de visitantes en monumentos ysios del Patrimonio Mundial. Granada: Patronato de la Alhambra y Generalife y Tf. Editores.

VILLAFRANCA JIMÉNEZ, M. y CHAMORRO MARTÍNEZ, V.E. 2007b. Estudio del impacto económico del conjuntomonumental de la Alhambra y Generalife en la ciudad de Granada. Granada: Comares, 2008.

VILLAFRANCA JIMÉNEZ, M. y SALMERÓN ESCOBAR, P. (eds) 2010. Plan Director de la Alambra y el Generalife.Granada: Patronato de la Alhambra y el Generalife.

WTO (2001). Tourism 2020 Vision. Madrid: World Tourism Organizaon.

WTTC (2008). Progress and Priories 2008/2009. London: World Travel and Tourism Council.

gestiondelpatrimoniocultural unmsm

Documents