Presidenza Italiana del Consiglio dell’Unione Europea
International Conference
Heritage Commons: Towards a participative
heritage governance in the third millennium
Venaria Reale, Torino, 23-24 Settembre 2014
SESSION 2: Community identity as an engine for well-being and prosperity
VENEZIA: A SUSTAINABILE OR UNSUSTAINABLE BEAUTY?
Mara Manente
Director, Ciset-Ca’ Foscari
VENEZIA: A SUSTAINABILE OR UNSUSTAINABLE BEAUTY?
A BIG “ATTRACTION”
- Historical Centre: About 2.5 mln total arrivals (+1.9%) and 6.2 mln total nights
(+2.9%) in 2013
- International Tourists: 2,2 mln arrivals and 5,5 mln nights (88% of the total)
- Residents in the Historical Centre: 58.700
- turists/residents ratio: about 42 overnighting tourists
2800000
2600000
2400000
2200000
2000000
1800000
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
Source: Comune di Venezia
2012
2009
2006
2003
2000
1997
1994
1991
1988
1985
1982
1979
1976
1973
1970
1967
1964
1961
1958
1955
1952
0
1949
Venezia Historical
Centre:
tourist arrivals trend
…. and the bed places ……
Venezia HC: Total bedplaces trend
30000
28000
26000
24000
22000
20000
18000
16000
14000 12582
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1995
26273
59,5%
40,5%
2011
61,0%
39,0%
2010
61,9%
38,1%
2005
72,4%
2000
14470
2000
1995
20%
40%
Alberghi
Alberghieri
2010
2011
2012
Extralberghieri
17,3%
87,5%
0%
2005
Venezia HC: bedplaces
composition
(% values). 1995-2012
27,6%
82,7%
27763
19670
Totali
2012
26600
12,5%
60%
Extralb.
80%
100%
Fonte: Elaborazioni CISET su dati Comune di Venezia
VENEZIA - TOTAL VISITORS:
the numbers are higher than official statistics
About 20 mln visitors per year (358 visitors/residents ratio)
of which:
Excursionists (70%)
Cruisers
False
excursionists
Other excursionists
Tourists (30%)
C
r
u
i
s
e
r
s
TOTAL GROSS REVENUE :
1,5-2 bln euros
Other tourists
DIFFERENT TYPOLOGIES OF VISITORS
Very high weight of same-day visitors in comparison to tourists (about 70:30)
FALSE EXCURSIONISTS –
- visitors who choose to stay outside the
Historical Centre even though Venezia is
their main travel destination
VENICE RELEVANT TOURIST
REGION
the area where false excursionists
stay, outside the historical centre
OTHER EXCURSIONISTS • true excursionists – visitors coming from and going back to
their place of residence in the same day
• indirect excursionists - visitors coming from and going
back to the place where they are spending their holidays
during the same day
• in-transit excursionists – visitors making a stop during their
travel from home to another destination or during a travel
itinerary
EXCURSIONISTS bring the destination more costs and less benefits
than traditional tourist as the main share of their budget
(accommodation) is non-existent or benefits other areas
• COSTS MOSTLY TO
THE DESTINATION
• BENEFITS MOSTLY
OUTSIDE IT
VENEZIA AND ITS RELEVANT TOURIST REGION
MOBILITY AXES
45 MINUTES
45 MINUTES
NOVENTA
45 MINUTES
Terraglio
SCORZE’
Piave
JESOLO
Mirano area
MESTRE
STRA’
Coastal axis
Riviera
Coastal axis
Terme euganee
MONSELICE
45 MINUTES
SOTTOMARINA
45 MINUTES
Source: CISET
VENEZIA VS VENETO REGION
Have you ever heard of the Veneto Region before?
No 89,6%
Have you ever visited this region?
No, 85,1%
BUT
Have you visited Venice before? Yes, 83,6%
Which sights would you like to visit/have you visited in Venice?
•St Mark’s: yes 80,6%
•Doge’s Palace: yes 76,1%
•Peggy Guggenheim Collection: yes 41,8%
•Scuola di San Rocco: yes 38,8%
•Arsenal: yes 31,3%
•Ca’ Rezzonico: yes 23,9%
THE COSTS/BENEFITS BALANCE
MASS TOURISM
•
•
NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
pollution of the environment, due to ships,
congestion, etc.
crowding out of other urban functions, and
a more complex “second level” crowding
out, when activities related to cultural,
high-quality visits are replaced with others
selling cheap, mass flow oriented goods
increase in the prices of any kind of good,
affecting residents’ welfare
congestion, worsened by seasonality
parking problems
contests on the use of spaces for different
purposes
Clash between residents and visitors
•
Visitors pay for the “support services“
provided by commercial activities
The costs for the provision of the primary
attractions lie mainly on the residents
The fiscal mechanism cannot completely
bridge the gap
!!!! The problem of costs/benefits
balance can be further
complicated by the visitors
composition
(tourists/excursionists ratio)
VENEZIA PROFILE
• Venezia is a complex destination, with strong relationships with the mainland
and the surrounding tourist region
• Excursionist flows in the historical centre are a strong component of total
tourist demand, with a higher weight than in other national and European art cities
(e.g. Rome, Paris)
• There is a high percentage of first time visitors vs. repeaters. Of those who
return for different reasons (special events, etc.) only 12% stay in the historical
centre; 37% choose an accommodation in the mainland and 31% in the relevant
tourist region (Source:CISET)
• The crowding out of other urban economic functions and of activities related
to high-quality visits is still evident, in spite of recent evolution of cultural supply
(new attractions and events)
• According to the current competitive environment, the sustainability and
competitiveness of the destination stay in its capacity to attract new market
segments, to increase the significance of core attractions and make tourism a
component of a complex project of urban development
The risks
The Product
 Vagueness of the
atmosphere
 Very traditional elements
and poor innovation
 High risk of standardising
and banalising
Markets
 High % of visitors at their
first experience (70% vs
50% in other art cities)
 Low differentiation in
motivations (against high
differentiation by origin
market with increasing role
of extra-Europe)
 Request for a standardised
product
High turnover of the clientele
High dependence from poor differentiated markets
Can we analize the competitive profile of Venezia?
more than 90 variables
Summary index
Role of International tourism demand
Variety of socio-demographic
segments
Calculation
foreign arrivals / total arrivals (hard data)
Weighted mean of scores given to the weight (number and
intensity) of each socio-demographic segments on both
domestic and international markets (surveys+experts)
Variety of tourist activities/experiences Weighted mean of scores given to the weight (number and
intensity) of each specific activity/experience performed by
offered to tourists
both domestic and international tourists (surveys+experts)
Significance of core resources and
attractors
Competitiveness of accommodation
supply
Relative cost of the city for tourists
Simple mean of scores given to the significance (variety and
resonance) of different kinds of resources/attractors
(surveys+experts)
Simple mean of scores given to the capacity of
accommodation supply to satisfy each expenditure profile
(surveys+experts)
Score obtained by comparing the scores given by experts
to the perceived cost of the city for tourists and for residents
Presence of the city
Simple mean derived from the scores to the role the city had
in the last 30 years in different fields(e.g. culture, style, etc.)
Pulse of the city
Simple mean derived from the scores given to vivacity of
city life both at daytime and at night
Simple mean of the scores given to the role each city is
expected to have in different fields (culture, lifestyle, etc.)
and to the economic and educational opportunities it
offers/will offer
Potential of the city
 economic role
 political role
urban environment
and services
(transports, traffic
jam...)
 tourists’ profiles and
experience
 core resources and
attractors
accommodation
 prices (tourist
prices, cost of living)
 branding (presence,
pulse, attributes)
 Internet accessibility
An “icon” city
GENERAL
BRAND INDICES
•Tourism plays a driver role::
mono-culture
•The city is the attraction: just a
few sites are recognized, but
the potential of the resources is
not completely exploited
•Reduced differentiation of
tourism demand by motivation
•No peculiar development or
change to lead them out of their
side-line role in the next 20
years
• Powerful tourist brands, strongly attracting international demand,
• Presence in other sectors (politics, economics, culture, fashion, etc. )
considered not so significant in the last 30 years
• Urban life perceived as ‘static’ and not exciting (pulse)*
* The two super-index have been conceived to be assimilable to Anholt City Brand Index
order to compare resuls
in
PRIORITIES (1)
According to the current competitive environment, the sustainability and
competitiveness of the destination stay in its capacity to attract new
market segments, to increase the significance of core attractions
and make tourism a component of a complex project of urban
development
 Reinforce and differentiate the economic base (avoid
tourism as mono-colture)
 Increase the ratio of repeaters
 Differentiate motivations
 Qualify demand and its behaviour in order to avoid
standardisation/banalisation
…… priorities (2)
 re-qualify the “destination offer” within the context of the
“Città Metropolitana”
 diversification of the offer :
-following the “experience approach” to cultural
products,
- through the rediscover of the multi-faceted
connections with the lagoon and the “terraferma” along
the exiting mobility axes in order to avoid the “Gran
Canal view” approach
Many Thanks!
Mara Manente
CISET - Università Ca’ Foscari
email:
mara.manente03@unive.it
ciset@unive.it
URL: http//:www.unive.it/ciset
@ilCISET
@ manente03