Cultural tourism and
good urban governance
Dr. Krassimira Paskaleva-Shapira
(with Edith Besson)
Karlsruhe Research Center, Germany
paskaleva@itas.fzk.de
PICTURE Final Conference, Session 4
Luxemburg, September 21-23, 2006
Objectives of the presentation
□ To set up the framework and endorse the notion
that good urban governance
□ can enhance sustainable cultural tourism that preserves
local heritage and quality of life of smaller urban
destinations in Europe
□ innovative governance styles and stakeholder
participation in cultural tourism management is necessary
to facilitate the process.
□ To reveal the extent to which European smaller
cities are successful in applying these potential
synergies
Promote the role of cultural tourism as a corner
stone of integrated management and policy in
urban cultural tourism destinations using the
governance approach.
2
Context: ‘European cities treasure
the wealth of the past, future’
 Cities leave marks on our spirit; cultural tourism is an
unsurpassed source of inspiration, life-long
memories & empathy to place and people.
 What makes a memorable city - one that offers
unforgettable enjoyment, fulfillment & inspiration;
makes us aspire to return & take pleasure again.
 Together, urban spaces, qualities & people, locals
and visitors alike, shape our senses & impressions.
 The ‘art’ & responsibility of staging rest on all –
community, authority, residents and tourists.
Mastering the governing of stunning & affluent
cities of heritage and prosperity is a 21st Century
challenge to society.
3
Cities’ 21st century challenges
 The vision is of sustainable, prosperous and
appealing cities governed ‘by all, for all’.
 Governing for sustainable cities is
participatory with residents, steered by their
local government, taking ownership of their
communities and addressing the challenges
of sustainability collectively in a spirit of
cooperation and long-term commitment.
Which requires a shift from a ‘top –down’
to a more dialogue-based approach,
known as ‘governance’.
4
New dimensions of CT: In a growing
competitive market the sector becomes
□ A strategy for
□ building quality services and products and
□ sustainable management of the urban
community
□ A means of attracting responsible and
engaged tourists
□ A way of developing competitive city
destinations.
5
Novel approaches are required to
CT development
□ Planning for destinations and
communities, not just for tourism or
culture
□ Integrated, inclusive management and
□ Effective tourism policies
To maximise the benefits, curb the
flaws: economic, social, environmental.
6
Emerging need: ‘Building & sustaining
competitive CT urban destinations
□ Because of the multi-actor complexity of the cultural
tourism sector, their resource dependency, the publicprivate dimensions and low predictability context of
destination development, a CT destination becomes truly
competitive when it is able to:
□ create & integrate value-added products that sustain its resources &
capacity while maintaining relative market position and
□ develop governance mechanisms that allow, create, sustain, and enhance
opportunities & sustainability of destination development
Competitive destinations is one that combines
the comparative supply able to meet the visitor’s
expectations with a positive contribution to the
development of cities and the well-being of their
residents.
7
Destination competitiveness (DC)
from a governance approach
□ DC is a unique challenge to cities’ CT image,
attractiveness, vibrancy, sustainability
□ Range of actors and stakeholders are concerned: Needed
is a relationship approach
□ Whole host community is affected: Necessary is a strategic
policy-driven framework based on community goals and
appropriate organization, structure, systems, processes
□ Destination’s vision is key to fostering objectives, actions
□ Cities should be responsible for creating opportunities for
innovation & dialogue for developing/enhancing CT
□ Yet, urban CT destinations lack governance structures
for a comprehensive and strategic destination
development
8
Methodology: Qualitative &
quantitative research methods
□
Critical literature review
□
□
□
□
□
Urban governance and management
Sustainable tourism in city context
Strategic planning of urban CT
Innovative governance approaches and styles
Findings of the EU FP6 PICTURE project ‘Urban
Governance of Cultural Tourism Study’
Aimed to identify effective collaborative management
styles to benefit smaller towns in the sustainable
management of CT in view of Good Governance and
Sustainability.
□
□
Feedback from the PICTURE end-user group
PICTURE Resource centre of urban CT best practices
9
Our analytical framework
approach
□ PICTURE 2004 Survey: 112 European cities were surveyed;
41 questionnaires were analyzed for research, policies &
development trends.
□ Results were summarised in 6 categories and action lines:
□
□
□
□
□
□
Strategic development and planning
Sustainable management
Policy development and delivery
Government steering
Stakeholder involvement in decision-making
Partnership strategies and implementation
□ Development trends & the key needs of local authorities
for improving CT management and strategic policymaking were then defined.
10
Research results & applications :
1. General trends & developments
□ Culture is a lead form of urban tourism:
Business tourism 35%
Conference 45%
Cultural tourism 90%



Event tourism 40%
Recreation 63%
Resort tourism 8%
□ National management styles vary:
□ France → Public Tourism Offices; Germany → Private Tourism
Bureaus; UK → Multi-Actor Partnerships
□ In-country governance structures are also diverse in
view of:
□
□
□
□
Local contexts for tourism development
Degrees of inter-relations between stakeholders
Responsibility for policy making and implementation
Flexibility of governance styles
11
2. Strategic development and
planning
Overall:
□ Critical lack of comprehensive/ reliable/ comparable data on
cultural tourism at the city/regional scale
Need for precise information on:
□ Number and profile of tourists
□ Motivation for travel
□ Level of satisfaction
□ Intention to come back
□ Inclusion of day visitors in statistics
Need for dedicated tourism bodies able to
coordinate and manage complex tourist information.
PICTURE best practice references: Aire 198 Tourism network (PoitouCharentes Region, France), Avila Tourism Observatory (Spain).
12
3. Sustainable management
□ Wide organisational differences in CT management priorities:
□ City authorities, heritage organisations → Needs of the community
□ Private tourism bureaus, development agencies → Needs of tourists
This reinforces the need of collaborative approaches
□ Focus of cities’ management measures:
High
Low
Management/protection
Training personnel 39%
of cultural attractions 84%
Support to professionals 26%
Promotion/communication 82% Impact assessment 39%
Visitor care/orientation 71%
Carrying capacity 19%
Behaviour management 14 %
□ Authenticity used by 47% of cities: mostly to define image of the
destination, little for sustainable destination management
PICTURE Best practice references: Eichsfeld Regional Strategy (Germany),
Malaga URBAN Programme (Spain)
13
4. Policy development and
implementation
□ Sustainable development plans that include tourism: 80%
□ Local agenda 21 including tourism: 56%
□ Formal strategy for tourism including sustainability : 70%
Visible commitment towards sustainable
tourism, yet
□ Cultural and tourism objectives are rarely integrated in a single
plan/strategy
□ Issues such as quality of life, economic development and
cultural identity remain scattered in policy statements
PICTURE best practice references: Lucca Strategic Plan (Italy), York
Action Plan (UK), Belfast Cultural Tourism Strategy (Northern Ireland, UK).
14
5. Government steering
□ Local government is by far the main promoter and enabler of good
governance for urban cultural tourism
Importance of government steering stressed by
a majority of cities (84%)
 Leads collaboration
 Ensures openness between stakeholders
 Distributes of CT benefits among the urban community
 Current weaknesses in cities’ steering capacities materialise in:
 Defining and clarifying responsibilities of each CT stakeholders in development
and implementation of cultural tourism plans
 Leading comprehensive impact assessment and monitoring procedures
 Learning from best practices in other European cities
PICTURE best practice references: Beaune Tourism Office and Provins
Municipal Cultural Tourism Strategy (France), Syracuse Integrated Territorial
Project (Italy).
15
6. Stakeholder involvement in
decision-making
□ Expertise in planning and management of CT scattered and fragmented
across the urban actors:
□ Cities authorities: urban planning, cultural policy
□ Private organisations (development agencies, tourism bureaus, consultants):
tourism strategies, monitoring, impact assessment, carrying capacities,
ecological planning…
□ Tourism professionals: market trends, tourism services
□ Cultural heritage organisations: valorisation and management of cultural
attractions
□ Regional and national agencies and research organisations: comprehensive
expertise, monitoring, foresight studies
□ Residents: impact of tourism on quality of life
□ Tourists: attractiveness of cultural tourism products
 Participation of residents and tourists in the integrated management of CT
is low (26%) and usually late in the decision-making process.
 Expertise of public and private research and development agencies
(local, regional/ national) often unaccounted by urban authorities (19%)
PICTURE Best practice references: Tourism monitoring techniques used in
Avila (Spain), Cambridge Tourism forum (UK), the Syracuse local Forum
(Sicily, Italy).
16
7. Partnership strategies and
implementation
Cities recognise the role of partnerships in fostering
cultural tourism objectives and development of
inclusive policy strategies, yet reality differs:
□ Formal partnerships for cultural tourism are yet to materialise in
many cities (50%)
□ Few urban partnerships integrate tourism and cultural
capacities
□ Majority are ‘loose’ relationships (61%)
□ Leadership and responsibilities between partners often unclear
□ As a result - lack of openness between partners (74%)
PICTURE best practice references: ‘First Stop York’ Tourism
Partnership (UK), Fidenza Tourism Board (Italy)
17
Key study conclusions - 1
□ This study reinforces the challenges of
“governance” and “integration” in urban CT
and the radical changes in governing their
implementation requires in cities.
□ Particularly, in increasing government’s role
in strategic planning, impact assessment,
‘best practice’ exchange and over-viewing
sectoral development in context of the
strategic destination’s development.
18
Key study conclusions - 2
□ A destination’s vision, strategic framework, and
stakeholder participation can be seen as both an
improvement and a challenge to traditional forms
of decision-making in many cultural tourism smaller
cities in Europe.
□ Innovative governance styles need to be
established to promote a more integrated
management of the sector which supports diverse
and far-reaching community’s welfare-driven goals.
□ Establishing a strategic policy framework for
collaboration by the local authorities to engage
with the actors is necessary to facilitate the process.
We advanced one such framework, and call for
future discussions.
19
Urban Governance of CT
Framework: A Draft
Local prerequisites
Institutional and political
conditions; Tourism
intensity; Sustainable
community development;
Integrated urban planning;
Governance practice
Governance
implementation
Urban coalition building;
Steering government;
Sustainable partnerships;
Effective stakeholder
cooperation; Collaborative
local society; Strategic
community participation
Policy
enhancement
Stakeholder
participation
Knowledgeable and
engaged actors;
Multi-actor networking;
Strategic policy-making;
Community pride
Culture and
local advantages
Urban Governance
of Cultural Tourism
Effective
collaboration
Sustainable cultural
tourism
Integrated sector
development; Destination
image; Glocalization;
Sustained local heritage
and expression
Organisation
Visionary
leadership
Partner
commitment
External factors
Culture; International
policies and networks;
National institutional forms;
Economic conditions;
Conceptual frameworks
Enabling public sector
Government as enabler
and promoter; Participatory
decision-making;
Innovative public
management; Effective
collaborative framework
Integrated cultural
tourism management
Strategic destination
development; Holistic
planning; Comprehensive
management; Integrated
administrative structure;
Leading government
OUTCOMES AND BENEFITS
Direct material benefits to community
- Heritage enhancement
- Economic wealth
- Income distribution
- Employment creation
- Social prosperity
- Environmental quality
- Urban quality of life
Non-material gains for tourists and residents
- Learning
- Heritage appreciation
- Positive experience
- Tourist satisfaction
- Community values
- Cultural identity
- Local pride
IMPACTS ON THE CITY
Improved social and
physical infrastructure
Sustainable cultural
tourism sector
Local and regional
integration
Strategic destination
development
Urban partnerships
and networks
Innovation and
competitiveness
User
involvement
Enhanced built
heritage
Better quality
of life
Best practice
experience
20
Urban Governance of Cultural Tourism Framework (a)
Governance
implementation
Urban coalition building;
Steering government;
Sustainable partnerships;
Effective stakeholder
cooperation; Collaborative
local society; Strategic
community participation
Effective
collaboration
Stakeholder
participation
Knowledgeable and
engaged actors;
Multi-actor networking;
Strategic policy-making;
Community pride
Local prerequisites
Institutional and political
conditions; Tourism
intensity; Sustainable
community development;
Integrated urban planning;
Governance practice
Policy
enhancement
Culture and
local advantages
Urban Governance
of Cultural Tourism
Partner
commitment
Visionary
leadership
Enabling public sector
Government as enabler
and promoter; Participatory
decision-making;
Innovative public
management; Effective
collaborative framework
External factors
Culture; International
policies and networks;
National institutional forms;
Economic conditions;
Conceptual frameworks
Sustainable cultural
tourism
Integrated sector
development; Destination
image; Glocalization;
Sustained local heritage
and expression
Organisation
Integrated cultural
tourism management
Strategic destination
development; Holistic
planning; Comprehensive
management; Integrated
administrative structure;
Leading government
21
Urban Governance of Cultural Tourism Framework (b)
OUTCOMES AND BENEFITS
Direct material benefits to community
Non-material gains for tourists and residents
-
-
Heritage enhancement
Economic wealth
Income distribution
Employment creation
Social prosperity
Environmental quality
Urban quality of life
Learning
Heritage appreciation
Positive experience
Tourist satisfaction
Community values
Cultural identity
Local pride
IMPACTS ON THE CITY
Improved social and
physical infrastructure
Sustainable cultural
tourism sector
Local and regional
integration
Strategic destination
development
Urban partnerships
and networks
Innovation and
competitiveness
User
involvement
Enhanced built
heritage
Better quality
of life
Best practice
experience
22
Finally, we argue ‘A sustainable
urban CT destination is a four-part
strategy of community choice
 Integrated urban cultural tourism sector
 Inclusive sector management for long-term urban
solutions
 Cohesive policy-making towards urban
sustainability
 Governing by governance - an indispensable
relationship between civil society and local
government for local prosperity and urban
sustainable development.
THANK YOU!
23