contemporary identity

HristinaTypewritten Text







HristinaTypewritten TextContemporary Identity: A Drive for Successful Cultural Tourism ManagementJelini, Daniela Angelina


Jelini, D. (2012) Contemporary Identity: A Drive for Successful Cultural Tourism Management Cultural Policy and Management Yearbook (KPY) 2011 / Ince, Ayca (ur.). Istanbul : Istanbul Bilgi University Press, 2012. Str. 66-72.


HristinaTypewritten TextCitation:















Contemporary Identity: A Drive for Successful Cultural Tourism

Management Cultural diversity and heritage The concept which is common to many international documents in recent years worldwide is the concept of cultural diversity. Practically all important documents of the European Union, Council of Europe, UNESCO and other international organizations introduce the term of cultural diversity, which appears as an answer to globalization processes. The fear of losing ones own identity in a uniform world results with the safeguarding of ones own identity as well as respect for the identity of Others. The awareness about cultural diversity of peoples is connected with the concept of identity protection as well as protection of differences which exist among cultures. The differences are seen as a richness that we embody, while international policies stress the need for their protection promoting intercultural dialogue, tolerance and human rights protection at the same time. The concept of cultural diversity is not an abstract term: it is about developing and implementing concrete policies of cultural heritage protection. It is obvious in specific sectorial policies (music, film, video production etc.) which treat market regulations as to avoid the domination of one culture only (such as American film for example) and as to offer the same opportunities to all cultures. Cultural heritage is one of the basic elements of a community identity. Safeguarding cultural heritage at the same times means safeguarding the differences which are common to specific communities. Those cultural differences are very often and easily promoted through tourism activities when larger markets are allowed to learn about specific heritage, enjoy in it and gain respect towards Other cultures. Still, there have been experts who think that there is a great danger of introducing cultural heritage to tourism industry. They see their role in heritage protection and not in ensuring public access to cultural heritage. They can quite easily be offered a counter-argument: as to really fulfill the role which has within the society, and as to be preserved for todays and future generations, heritage needs to be presented to the public. The awareness of the importance of cultural heritage and the need of its protection and preservation cannot be developed without visitors! Heritage belongs to society, and as to be able to respect it, the society needs to gain knowledge and education about it. The process of education has its greatest effect if cultural heritage is consumed. Still, this process needs to take into account the sustainability as to preserve heritage for future generations. Sustainable heritage management is a very delicate science, therefore the presentation of cultural heritage to tourists requires careful planning (Jelini 2010). Millar writes that long-term planning of cultural heritage tourism, with integral and continuous conservation policy is needed as to ensure quality visitors experience (Millar 1989). Therefore, it is essential to take into account both the need to preserve cultural heritage as well as visitors experience since successful heritage management also includes the care on visitors satisfaction. As culture is a dynamic concept, a process which is continuously changed, so are heritage and values which it represents subjects of change. Heritage is not a static goods since changes in the society can cause the change of attitude towards heritage. In accordance, sustainable heritage management requires flexible strategies (Jelini 2010). Often, we do not reflect the concept of heritage, we just know that a certain cultural good belongs to the category of heritage. As average tourists, we are driven to certain attractions which are considered heritage. Often, we understand that heritage is an old object or site which is worth seeing because of its endurance through time and its historic qualities depicting a community history. At the same time, rarely we know how old an object or site

must be to be considered a heritage. Different countries have different conventions, some of them claiming that an object is considered a heritage if at least fifty years old; some of them more or less, and some of them not practicing any conventions at all. In touristic sense, how can we classify new architecture, for example? Numerous examples are seen in contemporary architectural buildings which have become landmarks or iconic buildings of the city such as Kunsthaus in Graz, Sydney Opera House, Bilbao Guggenheim Museum or Los Angeles Getty Center. Apart from being architectural attractions of their cities, many of them have become a contemporary cultural heritage of the cities: many of these cities have become recognizable for them and would never be the same without them. As such, they have an enormous power as tourism attractions and should be treated as an expression of contemporary identity of the city. Such an approach is especially welcome in the tourism industry but also for the local population since in most cases for an average visitor/inhabitant, it is much easier to understand and associate with contemporary expressions of the city identity knowing that historic or specific cultural expressions require certain knowledge to be fully understood and enjoyed in. In this sense, we argue that cultural heritage management within the framework of tourism industry should consider its resources in a big picture having flexible edges thus allowing easy shifts from conservative categories and at the same time adapting to specific and flexible management strategies. It is needed not only as to enable better management of cultural resources but also to create an attractive image of the city, to attract the desired visitors, to enhance respect towards cultural heritage, and in the end to enable quality life in the city for the citizens themselves. Such an approach is in line with Council of Europe Convention on Value of Cultural Heritage for Society which presents heritage as a resource for human development, the enhancement of cultural diversity and the promotion of intercultural dialogue, and as part of an economic development model based on the principles of sustainable resource use (Value of Cultural Heritage for Society). In further paragraphs we focus on the research that has been done in the city of Zagreb, capital of Croatia with the aim of gathering more information about possibilities of cultural tourism development in the city. Previous research on tourism and culture in Zagreb Zagreb, despite being a historically and culturally rich city, is often overlooked by tourists eager to visit the Croatian coast. However, it is highly important that tourism in Croatia not be limited to coastal regions, as many other cities in Croatia, including Zagreb, can stand to benefit from the lucrative tourism industry. Therefore, efforts have been taken in recent years to gain knowledge about tourism in Zagreb, in the hopes of developing strategies to promote tourism to the city. Although rich in authentic cultural heritage, Zagreb mostly features ethnographic symbols as its cultural tourism identity which is not truly authentic or associated with this city. At the same time, it is striving to find its own contemporary identity. In tourist sense, Zagreb is Croatia's most visited continental destination. Still, according to a regular TOMAS research by the Institute of Tourism, it cannot be said that Zagreb tourists are predominantly interested in cultural experiences: 24% of them are motivated by new experiences and events, 17% by cultural monuments and 14% of them by entertainment. Although the share of cultural consumption is visible, it is clear that every sixth hotel guest is not interested in visiting museums (TOMAS Zagreb 2008). Comparing it with the situation in some European cities, the differences become even more evident. In Vienna, for example, in 2006 tourists spent around 540 million on culture which is a share of 6.4% of the total tourism consumption. In 2008, the share was even higher (8.8%). Additional 8.2% was spent on entertainment which often includes culture. 75% of tourists come to Vienna for sightseeing and 71% for culture and arts (RTSA 2006).

Although the mentioned research results may seem discouraging, the fact remains that the city of Zagreb has the best conditions of all Croatian cities for the tourism development based on cultural resources: it is extremely rich in heritage resources, it is the center of Croatian cultural/creative industries and it is estimated that some 98% of film, music and advertizing industry is concentrated in the capital. Great numbers of architectural, design and publishing offices/companies also have their seat in Zagreb. The potential of developed cultural/creative industries in tourism is greatly utilized by some world cities: Salzburg is capitalizing on the classical music, Edinburgh on theatre and performing arts, London on the fashion industry, Liverpool on the music industry (namely The Beatles), New Zealand on the film industry (namely on the popularity of The Lord of the Rings), etc. It is superfluous to mention numerous examples of cities which developed tourism industry based on heritage resources. The recent research Zagreb as a cultural product which was commissioned by the City of Zagreb had the aim of detecting those cultural/creative industries which had the greatest potential in profit making as well as those with the potential of creating the city's contemporary identity which could eventually have great effects on tourism development, too. Although the majority of Croatian cultural/creative industries is concentrated in Zagreb, they are not utilized to their full potential. Results of the research show that in the context of both branding as well as profit making, the most relevant cultural/creative industries or those with the greatest development potential are music, film, architecture, theatre, design and dance. Some of them (especially architecture and design) have been internationally recognized with prestigious awards but they lack real industrial or at least manufacture production. Still, despite the existing potential, there is a lack of political understanding as well as professional determination to organize and direct the development of cultural/creative industries. Top-down approach could be adequate as public policy has the required means for systematic development of the sector: from gathering the data as to obtain statistical indicators to public measures which can facilitate the private sector to develop local cultural but also socio-economic capital. In this way, cultural policy should respond to new trends in cultural creativity and would adapt to the new situation in the cultural domain (Jelini; uvela 2010). Targeting resources and using them in the creation of the city's brand should be the aim of such a public policy. In a wider context, this could be an interesting reversal: the notion of creative industries, frequently connected with the commercial side of cultural production, could in this case actually help preserve the authenticity and promote cultural and creative production specific to the location (Tomi-Koludrovi and Petri 2007). This, however, is not enough. Having a distinctive creative product is not an end itself. Firstly, the product needs to be extracted from the environment of the cultural sector and matched with the industry sector. Secondly, the product will not be recognized nationwide or even internationally if not properly marketed. It is not only about developing a tourism or cultural product using a creative capital, it is much more than that. Having culture as the main component of tourism industry already impacts the creativity, and eventually also the competitiveness. To develop a competitive cultural tourism product, it may mean a creation of totally different and new business models which are based on creative production, management, marketing or sales. As to match the results of the mentioned research study, an additional research has been conducted which focused on the tourists cultural preferences. The idea was to match possible contemporary cultural products authentic to Zagreb with the tourists interests. The following chapter presents the results of that research.

A pilot research study of Zagreb tourists cultural preferences The field of cultural tourism is lacking in research that investigates whether or not tourists from certain countries are more likely to be interested in certain aspects of tourism or culture. In 2011, a pilot research was undertaken as to investigate trends in tourism in Zagreb. Along with providing information about cultural tourism in general, the present study seeks to begin to fill that gap and to inform research studies to be done in future years. The primary variables examined participants countries of residence, reasons for visiting Zagreb, associations with Zagreb, touristic interests, cultural interests, and factors affecting their selection of touristic activities. The relationships between these variables were statistically analyzed. Methodology The primary instrument used to gather data for this study was a brief paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of six mixed-type (i.e. multiple-choice with the option of other) questions, one open-ended word association question, and three items regarding demographic information. Mixed-type questions were used to provide a broad variety of selections while avoid inadvertently forcing participants into making selections that were untrue. The questions were designed to investigate the following domains:

the participants levels of familiarity with Zagreb (e.g. first associations, previous visits) whether or not Zagreb was the participants final destination the nature of the participants visits to Zagreb (e.g. business, visiting friends or family, interest in the culture) the participants primary interests (e.g. culture, sports, gastronomy) specific cultural interests (e.g. history, visual arts, architecture) factors that influence the participants selections of activities (e.g. prices, guidebooks). The demographic items asked participants to list their ages, genders, and countries of current residence. The questionnaire was translated from English into Croatian, Italian, German, French, and Spanish by fluent speakers of these languages. Tourists were asked to complete the questionnaires in the languages with which they felt most comfortable. Sample The total number of participants in the research was 136; the distribution between genders was

reasonably equal, as 61 participants were male and 74 were female. Participants were further grouped into categories of age: 32 participants were between 18 and 29 years old, 26 participants were between 30 and 39 years old, 14 participants were between 40 and 49 years old, 18 participants were between 50 and 59 years old, and 45 participants were over the age of 60. Participants were recruited randomly from a field sample, by distributing surveys to tourists that approached the employees of the Tourist Information Centre in Zagreb with questions. Because the distribution of surveys was not explicitly targeted at any particular group of tourists, the participants represent 27 different countries, with the most highly represented countries being the

Netherlands, the USA, Spain, France, and Germany. For the purposes of statistical analysis, participants were grouped in terms of the regions used by the United Nations Statistics Division (i.e., Northern Europe, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Greater Middle East, East Asia, North America, South America and Oceania). The majority of participants came from Western Europe (n=54), followed by North America (n=22), Southern Europe (n=18), Northern Europe (n=10), South America (n=8), Greater Middle East (n=7), Oceania (n=6), and finally, Eastern Europe and East Asia (n=5 for each). The researchers were not made aware of the participants nationalities prior to asking them to complete the survey, so as to ensure that the sample would be randomly selected. Limitations The limitations of the study primarily relate to its small number of participants. Future studies should aim to attract a larger number of participants so as to increase the validity of statistical analyses. The number of individuals from each country represented is highly variable, so not all countries were statistically compared with one another. Although dividing the participants by region helped to mitigate these disparities, the division still resulted in an uneven distribution. This limitation is most likely due to geographical factors, and it is logical that the majority of visitors would be from Europe. As this study was not geared toward any specific geographic region, the sample was bound to be highly variable. However, future studies may attempt to control for such variability by only distributing surveys to tourists from certain regions. The season during which the study was conducted may have posed limitations on the results, as well. Many participants noted that Zagreb was not their primary destination, and several indicated that their reason for visiting was that they were in transit or that Zagreb was on the way. Perhaps a future study conducted during a colder season, in which backpacking or multi-city tours are less popular, would be able to investigate a greater number of tourists for whom Zagreb is a primary destination. An additional limitation may have stemmed from language barriers or misunderstanding of the questions. It was not possible to offer the questionnaire in every language spoken by the participant pool, so many participants completed questionnaires in languages in which they were not fluent. Another source of misunderstanding was the question asking the participants about their first associations with Zagrebmany participants were unclear about the meaning of this question, and although the researchers tried to explain the question to individuals who asked questions, they were only able to do so with participants who spoke certain languages. Furthermore, many participants did not read the directions closely, and either circled too many or not enough options. This limitation was controlled for statistically by analyzing each question separately and treating each selection as an individual participant. Future studies should aim to translate instruments into a wide variety of languages. Most of the mentioned limitations did not have a greater impact on the results of the study some of them being minor and easily overcome. Therefore, the results show some trends and can be indicative. Results To analyze the results of this study, chi square tests were conducted for each of the survey items. The results of these analyses were then compared to address the following domains: familiarity with Zagreb; Zagreb as a transitory destination; participants interest in culture; specific cultural interests; and factors influencing participants selections of activities. Finally, conclusions have been

made on the possible differences between tourists from different countries. Results are shown below according to the mentioned domains.

Familiarity with Zagreb A statistically significant number of participants reported that they were visiting Zagreb for the first time at the time of taking the survey (n = 110, p < .005). Furthermore, approximately one-fourth (n = 33) of the participants either reported having no previous associations with Zagreb, or neglected to provide answers to that item. The high number of first-time visitors, and tourists who know little about Zagreb before visiting, suggests that Zagreb is either not widely recognized as a tourist destination or is not easily accessible. This finding supports the need for an increase in Zagrebs visibility as a tourist destination internationally. Unsurprisingly, the tourists who reported that they were visiting family members or friends were usually not first-time visitors. Future research studies may focus on the portrayal of Zagreb internationally, whether in books, films, television shows, or on travel websites. The efforts taken to market Zagreb as a potential tourist destination, and the effects of these efforts, should be examined in future research.

Zagreb as a transitory destination Zagrebs central location and connection to railroad systems across Europe make it easy for tourists to pass through. A significant number of tourists noted that Zagreb was not their primary destination (n = 96, p < .005), and several participants noted their reasons for visiting as being transit or on the way (n = 12). While such transitory tourism is an important source of revenue in Zagreb, extended-stay tourism should be encouraged, as it is more lucrative.

Participants interest in culture Over half of the tourists that were sampled listed interest in the culture as their reason for visiting Zagreb (n = 81, p < .005), and a significant number reported that their primary touristic interest was culture (n = 90, p < .001). Furthermore, interest in culture was not significantly different across the five countries with the most participants in the research (i.e., France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States), thus suggesting that this interest is not specific to any one of these nations. However, despite the large number of participants who reported being interested in culture, only ten individuals first associations with Zagreb were related to culture (e.g., museums, culture, ties). This discrepancy may suggest that, while individuals are interested in learning about the culture of Zagreb, it has not been represented sufficiently in terms of branding of the city. Future research may investigate participants ideas about the Croatian culture more deeply, or may investigate the ways in which this culture is portrayed on the global scale. Interestingly, the results of this research disprove the results of the previously mentioned TOMAS Zagreb 2008 research which claimed that Zagreb tourists were not predominantly interested in cultural experiences. It can be explained by the following: knowing that in many European cities, cultural tourism is predominantly a niche market or serves as an additional offer to some other types of tourism, the numbers gained from that research (24% of tourists are motivated by new experiences and events, 17% by cultural monuments and 14% of them by entertainment) are not small but represent quite a high interest in activities which, widely spoken include culture.

Specific cultural interests

Participants were asked to select up to three aspects of culture in which they are most interested from a provided list that included the following items: history, music, theater, film, art, ballet, dance, literature, design, and architecture. Participants were also given the option of selecting other, and writing in an unlisted interest. This item asked about participants general interests and was not specific to Zagreb. Although each answer was selected at least once, a significant preference was shown for history (n = 94, p < .005) and architecture (n = 84, p < .005). This finding is perhaps unsurprising, as tourism is often a historically educational experience, and as the architecture of a city is often what attracts visitors to it. It is also logical that tourists that are interested in history and architecture would visit Zagreb, as it is a historically and architecturally rich city; in fact, 29 participants noted that their first association with Zagreb was one related to its history (e.g. Yugoslavia, war, history), and a significant number of participants noted scenery as their primary interest in Zagreb (n = 47, p < .005). The interest in scenery was not significantly different across the five countries with the most participants (i.e., France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States), thus suggesting that interest in scenery is not specific to any one of these countries. The tourism industry in Zagreb can benefit from this finding and should take efforts to enhance the preservation of historical and architectural landmarks in Zagreb, and to market such landmarks as must-see tourist destinations. Some developments have already been made in this direction since a new Architectural Guide of Zagreb in the Period of 1898-2010 has been published recently.

Factors influencing participants selections of activities The final item on the questionnaire asked participants to select what factor is most influential in guiding their selections of touristic activities. Participants were asked to choose between price, appearance in a guidebook, suggestion from a local person, and suggestion from another tourist, or were able to write in another reason. The largest preference was shown for guidebooks (n = 57, p < .005), followed by suggestions from local people (n = 49, p < .05). This result may reflect tourists simultaneous desires to have authentic experiences while visiting cities, and to ensure that they do not neglect to experience a part of the city that is particularly notable. The tourism industry in Zagreb may benefit from understanding that tourists place high importance on the information they read in guidebooks, and may subsequently make efforts to enhance the quality of such guidebooks. Also, the importance of word-of-mouth marketing (suggestions from local people) may direct the Zagreb tourism industry to introduce and enhance educational programs for Zagreb inhabitants as to act as ambassadors of their own city.

Differences between tourists from different countries As to be able to create specific tourism programs for specific markets, the study aimed at detecting specific interests of certain nations or geographical regions. Still, the studys ability to draw conclusions about trends in tourism related to tourists from different countries was hindered by its small number of participants and the wide variety of countries from which the participants hailed. Because the majority of participants were from Western Europe, the statistical analyses conducted were significantly skewed, and suggested, for instance, that Western European participants were more interested in culture than participants from other regions. For example, while it may appear that individuals from the Netherlands, France, and the United States tend to prefer guidebooks as sources of information more frequently than those from other countries (p < .05), but the number of participants from the Netherlands was significantly higher than that of participants from, for example, Asian countries. Therefore, any conclusions that can be drawn from this data are likely to

be imperfect. Future research should recruit a larger sample, or should take efforts to recruit greater numbers of participants from certain countries of interest. Conclusion Generally, the results of the study on Zagreb tourists cultural preferences may be expanded upon in further research to provide insight into the cultural tourism industry in Zagreb. Still, it provides a broad overview of cultural tourism in Zagreb and offers suggestions for future research and elaboration. By gathering information about tourists cultural tourism preferences in Zagreb on a larger sample, the tourism industry can acquire ideas about how to promote Zagreb as a tourist destination on the international scale. Also, results of such a larger research need to be matched with development potentials in contemporary sense which resulted from the study Zagreb as a cultural product. The results of these pilot research studies already lead to conclusions that culture has a great potential as a primary tourism resource for Zagreb, both in historic and contemporary sense. Although at the moment some good practice examples may rise as a single entrepreneur activity, systematic development which would lead to sound economic contribution of culture and to international recognition of Zagreb culture needs an approval and determination on the level of cultural/tourism/economic/educational policy. After having a developed and coordinated policy and strategic documents, concrete measures can be developed as to stimulate the contemporary use and development of cultural heritage of the city with respect of its sustainability.

References:

Jelini, D. A. 2010. Kultura u izlogu: kratki vodi za upravljanje kulturnim dobrima. Zagreb: Meandarmedia. Jelini, D. A.; uvela, A. 2010. Zagreb kao kulturni proizvod (research study). Zagreb: Institute for International Relations. Millar, S. 1989. "Heritage Management for Heritage Tourism". Tourism Management 10, pp. 9-14. Regional Tourism Satellite Account for Vienna (RTSA) (2006). Information provided by the Vienna Tourist Board. TOMAS Zagreb 2008. Zagreb: Institute for Tourism. Retrieved in August 2011 from: http://www.iztzg.hr/UserFiles/Pdf/Tomas/2008-TOMAS-ZAGREB-2008.pdf Tomi-Koludrovi, I. and Petri, M. (2007). New Cultural Tourists in a Southeastern European City: The Case of Split, in The Creative City: Crossing Visions and New Realities in the Region. Collection of papers from the course on Cultural Transition in Southeastern Europe. The Creative City: Crossing Visions and New Realities in the Region, N. vob-oki. Ed. Zagreb: Institute for International Relations (IMO), pp. 125-151 Value of Cultural Heritage for Society. Retrieved in August 2011 from: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/heritage/identities/default_en.asp