Bournemouth University, UK M.A. European Tourism Management

(ETM)

Urban Heritage Tourism A Case Study of Dubrovnik

Rolf Pothof

September 2006

I

ABSTRACT In the eighties and nineties heritage tourism has been entitled as a mayor new area in

consumer demand. Heritage tourism was considered as a mayor growth area and a

vital opportunity for planning authorities to develop. It could be employed to promote

local cultures to fulfil the need for new economic activities and as a motive to

regenerate and revitalise urban centres (Richards 1996; Law 1993). Apostolakis

(2002) indicates that the boom of heritage tourism springs from the shift from a

production-driven to a consumption-driven tourism industry which induced a human

demand for differentiation and unique experiences largely to be supplied towns and

cities.

Cities, being important heritage centres, have faced a spectacular increase of visitor

numbers during the last decades making tourism for many cities a significant

economic sector. However the favourable economic impacts that tourism

development may cause to cities and towns, disadvantageous effects of the tourism

industry as congestion, damage of the cultural heritage, and problems caused by its

often seasonal character and sensitivity to macro-economic developments has made

local and national governments aware of the need for integrative tourism planning and

management.

For Dubrovnik, tourism has been a crucial economic sector since the 1930s. After the

aggressions on the city in the beginning of the 1990’s, Dubrovnik’s conventional

industries have disappeared with the consequence that nowadays the city is near to

completely oriented on tourism. This study will investigate the current developments

in Dubrovnik’s tourism industry. It will analyse and assess the effects of tourism

developments on the natural and cultural heritage and on the way of life of the local

population. Moreover, the study will investigate the future perspectives of tourism

development in the city and suggest a number of recommendations which may be

transferable to other heritage cities that face the challenge to sustain the tourism sector

for the future. Research findings are largely collected through personal

communication of the researcher with the people working in the tourism industry of

Dubrovnik.

II

List of contents

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................I

LIST OF CONTENTS................................................................................. II

LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................... VI

DECLARATION............................................................................................VII

Chapter 1: Introduction Introduction to the research topic……………………………………………......1 Research aim and objectives………………………………………………….….2 Methodological approach…………………………………………………………3 Case study of Dubrovnik………………………………………………………….3 Applied methods…………………………………………………………………..3 Structure of dissertation…………………………………………………………..4 Chapter 2: Literature Review Introduction…………………………………………………………………………6 Heritage…………………………………………………………………………..…6 Heritage and history……………………………..…………………………………8 Definition of heritage tourism………………………………..…………………….8 The heritage tourist……………………………………………………………….11 The rise of heritage tourism………………………………………………………11 Heritage and post-modern tourism consumption………………………………12 Urban heritage tourism…………………………………………………………14 Heritage cities………………………………………………………………………15 Global and local forces in the urban environment……………………………...15 Global forces………………………………………………………………………..18 Local forces…………………………………………………………………………19 Tourism in historical cities………………..…………………………………….21 A Typification of the tourist historic city …………………………………………21 The concept of historic-city tourism………………………………………………22 The City tourist product……………………………………………………………24 The users of the tourist-historic city……………………………………………...26 Tourism management of the tourist-historic city……………………….…..27

III

Tourism development and the destination lifecycle ……………………………27 Sustainability………………………………………………………………………..30 Sustainability in urban heritage tourism………………………………………….31 Stakeholder collaboration and partnerships……………………………………..33 Visitor management…………………………………………… ………………….35 Planning policies for urban heritage………………………………………………37 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..39 Chapter 3: Methodology Introduction…………………………………………………………………..……..40 Research………………………………………………………………………..…..40 Methodology and methods…………………………………………………..……41 Aim and objectives………………………………………………………….……..41 Secondary data collection and the literature review……………………….…..43 Sources for secondary data analysis……………………………………………43 Advantages and limitations of secondary data analysis………………………44 Primary data collection……………………………………………………………45 Qualitative research methods…………………………………………………….46 Mixing methods: triangulation ……………………………………………………46 Case studies………………………………………………………………………..47 Interviews…………………………………………………………………………...49 Types of interviews………………………………………………………………...49 Questionnaires……………………………………………………………………..50 The questions………………………………………………………………………51 Observation……………………………………………………………. ………….52 Sampling……………………………………………………………………………54 Limitations……………………………………………………………. …………..55 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….56 Chapter 4: Case Study of Dubrovnik Introduction………………………………….……………………………………..57 Dubrovnik…………………………………………………………………….…….57 The Dubrovnik Summer Festival…………………………………………………58 History Post-war trend……………………………………………………….……58 Recovering of the tourism industry………………………………………………60 Hotel capacity………………………………………………………………………61 Elite tourism…………………………………………………………………...……62 Extension of the season……………………………………………………..……62 Future planning………………………………………………………………...…..62

IV

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….……63 Chapter 5: Main Findings Introduction…………………………………………………………………………64 The importance of tourism for Dubrovnik………………………………………..64 The impacts of tourism…………………………………………………………….65 Cultural identity……………………………………………………………………..69 Atmosphere…………………………………………………………………………70 Job satisfaction……………………………………………………………………..72 Relations between residents and tourists…………………………………….….74 Attitude towards mass tourism…………………………………………………....75 Economic gain and mass tourism………………………………………………...77 Responsibility for tourism development………………………………………….79 Sustainability………………………………………………………………………..80 Stakeholders’ involvement…………………………………….…………………..81 Partnerships…………………………………………………….…………………..82 Competition………………………………………………………….……………...83 Research………………………………………………………………………….…83 Human resources…………………………………………………………………..84 Tourist capacity…………………………………………………………….……….85 Visitor management………………………………………………………………..85 Future tourism development………………………………………………….…...86 Conclusion………………………………………………………………….……….87 Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions………………………………………………………………….……89 Recommendations……………………………………………………………….91 Visitor management………………………………………………….........………92 Diversification………………………………………………………………………92 Service improvement………………………………………………………………93 Extension of the season…………………………………………………………...93 Collaboration……………………………………………………..…………………94 Research…………………………………………………………………….………94 Bibliography……………………………………………………………….95

V

Appendices Appendix A: Examples of questionnaires and interview questions……………101 Appendix B : Interview 1……………………………………..………………….…109 Appendix C : Interview 2……………………………………..………………….…116 Appendix D : Interview 3……………………………………..……………….……123 Appendix E : Interview 4……………………………………..……………….……129 Appendix F : Interview 5……………………………………..……………….……135 List of figures Figure 2.1: The commodification of the past…………………………………..…..10 Figure 2.2: Old and new tourism compared……………………………………….17 Figure 2.3: Some tourisms ………………………………………………………….23 Figure 2.4: Some tourism cities…………………………………………………….24 Figure 2.5: Principal relations in the urban tourism system……………………..25 Figure 2.6: Functional areas in the tourist city………………………………….…26 Figure 2.7: The vicious circle of tourism development………………………..….29 Figure 2.7: Approaches to the past…………………………………….…….…….38 Figure 2.8: The elements of a tourism plan…………………………………….....39 Figure 4.1: Tourists Arrivals to Dubrovnik……………………………………...…60 Figure 4.2: Overnights in Dubrovnik……………………………………………… 61 Figure 4.3: Growth rate of tourist arrivals to Dubrovnik………………………….61 Figure 5.1a: Damaging effects of tourism on the urban environment……........66 Figure 5.1b: Improving effects of tourism on the urban environment………….66 Figure 5.2: The effects of mass tourism on the cultural identity…………….....69 Figure 5.3: The effects of mass tourism on the atmosphere in the city…….....71 Figure 5.4: Job satisfaction of tourism employees………………………………72 Figure 5.5: Relations between locals and tourists……………………………....74 Figure 5.6: The attitude towards mass tourism………………………….………75 Figure 5.7: Economical profit and the burden of tourist………………….……..77 Figure 5.8: Suggestions for future tourism development……………….……..87

VI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I wish to thank those who cooperated in this research study: the people of

Dubrovnik. Without their help this research study could never have been realised.

The citizens of this wonderful town proved to be very obliging and gave the

researcher the opportunity to experience the world of urban heritage tourism trough

the eyes of the ‘experts’.

Furthermore, I am particularly appreciative to the suggestions made by my supervisor

Dr. Jon Edwards who guided me in the right direction. Jon, you not only made this

dissertation for me an interesting and instructive project, you have brightened the

taught part of the ETM-course for which I am sincerely thankful.

VII

DECLARATION

  

I hereby declare that the dissertation submitted is wholly the work of Rolf Pothof.

Any other contributors or sources have either been referenced in the prescribed

manner or are listed in the acknowledgements together with the nature and scope of

their contribution.

Bournemouth, August 2006

1

Chapter 1: Introduction Introduction to the research topic Heritage and Tourism are inextricably connected. However heritage exists

independently from tourism, it is hard to imagine tourism without heritage. During

the past decades, the tourism industry has undergone a tremendous growth and

cultural and heritage tourism are considered, according to the WTO (Richards, 2000),

as very important segments of the total tourism demand, representing 37% of

international tourism. Furthermore, tourism analysts indicate a continuous growth

rate of the demand for these specific types of tourism and heritage is often described

as one of the most relevant and fastest expanding components of tourism (Prentice

1994; Richards 1996a). Boniface and Fowler call tourism ‘the greatest show on earth

(1993, p.11) and state that its principal ingredient is heritage.

Recent worldwide trends seem to justify this growth estimation of tourism and

heritage tourism. Particularly the continuous ageing of the population in developed

countries and the foreseen improvement in the quality of life of potential tourists all

over the world are primary factors contributing to an increase in the demand for

heritage tourism. Recent advances as the European integration process, the creation

of the internal market, the Schengen agreement, and the development of the European

Monetary Union with the introduction of the Euro are considered to contribute to the

development of European heritage tourism by providing competitive advantages to

the area. Competition between heritage cities has risen significantly and new tourism

management strategies have to be developed continuously to secure a sustainable

development. However the concept of sustainability has mostly been applied to the

natural environment, many contemporary writers point out that the concept can and

needs to be applied to the urban heritage environment as well (Ashworth and

Tunbridge 2000).

Many popular heritage cities have showed evidence of unsustainable tourism

development and are facing severe negative impacts caused by an unbalanced and

uncontrolled rise of the tourism industry (van den Berg et al. 1995). More cities

2

become aware that the ‘lassez faire attitude’ can no longer be tolerated and that a

more integrative tourism planning and management is required within the broader

context of the urban forms and functions (Page 2005). This dissertation will discuss

the basic principles of heritage and more specifically, of urban heritage. Furthermore

it will narrow down to evaluate the different management and planning strategies

offered in the prevailing tourism literature. The case study will, as mentioned before,

analyse the current situation in the historic tourist town of Dubrovnik in order to gain

an insight in the management implications that need to be undertaken to sustain the

tourism sector for the future.

Research aim and objectives

The aim of this study is to investigate and evaluate the positive and negative aspects

of contemporary urban heritage tourism development and to identify opportunities for

sustainable management, focussing on the tourist-historic town of Dubrovnik.

The objectives of the dissertation are:

To gain understanding of and provide a theoretical framework for heritage

tourism focused on urban destinations.

To evaluate trends and prevailing issues in the urban tourism industry and to

indicate the role of tourism in historical towns.

To discuss the problems which heritage cities face in their attempts to build a

viable and manageable tourism industry and evaluate the existing

opportunities to place sustainability on a higher level.

To identify the attitudes and motivations from the different stakeholders

involved in the Dubrovnik tourism industry towards tourism development in

their city.

3

To determine the opportunities for Dubrovnik to develop and manage the

tourism sector in a more sustainable way and to elaborate a number of

propositions for sustainable tourism management in the city that may prove

valuable for and transferable to other heritage tourist cities.

Methodological approach

This dissertation has been performed on the basis of primary and secondary data

resources. The secondary data is mainly constituted of information extracted from

tourism journals and books available at the library of Bournemouth University.

Primary data collection has been carried out in February 2006 in Dubrovnik, Croatia.

Case study of Dubrovnik For this dissertation the researcher has made use of a case study enquiry focused on

tourism development and its impacts in Dubrovnik. A case study is the study of an

example of the phenomenon under research using the investigation of a single case to

understand and illustrate the phenomenon under enquiry (Veal 2006). The case study

approach permits and encourages the researcher to deploy a variety of sources, data

types and research methods for the investigation with the main purpose to gain a more

complete understanding of the many issues related to the research topic and to

enhance the validity of the findings (Denscombe 2003; Veal 2006).

Applied methods The different research methods employed for this project are semi-structured and

structured interviews, a questionnaire survey and participant observation. All

research techniques focus on collecting information from people involved in the

Dubrovnik tourism industry, permanently as a resident or employee, or occasionally

as a tourist.

4

Structure of dissertation This dissertation contains 6 chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter provides an introduction to the research study. It describes the aim

and objectives of the study and shortly explains and motivates the research

methodology applied. An outline of the dissertation structure is included.

Chapter 2: Literature review

The literature review discusses and analyses a selection of theories and issues

related to the research topic. A detailed examination of academic publications

concerned with development issues in urban heritage tourism will form the basis

of this chapter.

Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter thoroughly explains and assesses the selected research methods

employed for the research study. Different methodological approaches are

assessed for their effectiveness and applicability in the study and the limitations

that the researcher encountered are indicated.

Chapter 4: Overview of the actual situation

This chapter presents a short overview of the past and current situation of the

tourism industry in Dubrovnik. It will be based upon investigation of secondary

and primary data research and show the relevant aspects of the present conditions

and developments in the heritage tourism industry of Dubrovnik. This chapter

will function as an introduction to the following chapter.

Chapter 5 Main findings and discussions

This chapter presents an analysis and discussion of the primary findings collected

by means of the different primary data collection methods explained in chapter 3.

The main findings will present an overall image of heritage tourism in Dubrovnik,

discussing comparisons and contrasts between the viewpoints and perspectives of

the people that have participated in the study.

5

Chapter 6 Conclusions and recommendations

This last chapter presents summaries and discussions of the findings drawn from

both the secondary and primary research. Recommendations for further research

based on the topic area and this specific dissertation will be included.

6

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction This chapter introduces the concepts of heritage and heritage tourism. It discusses the

rise of the heritage tourism industry and the relations between heritage tourism and

post-modern consumption patterns. Furthermore, tourism in heritage cities will be

discussed with a focus on the global and local forces impacting on the urban heritage

industry. The concept of the tourist-historic city will be discussed and finally a

number of important management related principles as sustainability, stakeholder

collaboration and urban tourism planning are elaborated.

Heritage Heritage is a very broad concept. The Oxford English Dictionary specifies heritage as

‘valued objects and qualities such as historic buildings and cultural traditions that

have been passed down from previous generations’. Many different definitions of the

term heritage are used in literature and the notions of ‘cultural tourism’, ‘heritage

tourism’ and ‘art tourism’ are often interchangeably employed (Richards, 2000). It is

generally agreed that heritage is part of the broader concept of culture which has

proved even more difficult to define than heritage, given that it is an all-encompassing

concept representing everything that relates to the immeasurable variety in ways of

life (Richards, 1996a, Millar 1995). Howard (2003) regards heritage as everything

that people want to save. The author argues that all heritage is pervasive and that it

concerns to everybody. Nuryanti describes heritage as ‘a part of the cultural tradition

of a society’ and ‘carrier of historic values of the past’ (Nuryanti 1996 p 249). Porter

and Salazar describe heritage as ‘a sense of the self in the past’ (2005, p. 362). This

‘self’ relates to the broad spectrum of individual, community, national and global

factors and perceptions, which genealogical, biological or community motivated,

create the link between the present heritage experience and the past. Hitchcock

7

(1996) however notes that heritage is not just the past but that the past provides ‘raw

material’ for heritage which is appraised differently from generation to generation.

Millar puts that heritage ‘is about a sense of belonging and continuity that is different

for each person (1995 p. 120 in Orbasli 2000). Millar states that:

‘Heritage is part of the fabric of people’s lives, consciously or unconsciously accommodating aspirations and providing symbols of continuity, icons of identity and places of pleasure, enjoyment and enlightenment in the fast-changing world of global communications’..... ‘In its raw state heritage is simply the natural, cultural and built environment of an area’ (Millar 2005, p.3).

Miller orders the distinctive generic resources of heritage visitor attractions in an

overall classification model (see table 1.1). The table moves from the macro to the

micro within three main heritage categories: ‘built’ heritage, ‘natural heritage’ and

‘living heritage’.

Generic classification of Heritage visitor Attractions

Table 2.1: Generic classification of Heritage visitor Attractions, adapted from Millar (1995).

Ashworth and Larkham (1994) consider heritage principally as a contemporary

commodity purposefully created to satisfy contemporary consumption. However,

‘Built heritage’ ‘Natural heritage’ ‘Living heritage’

Nation / Region

Area

Site

Cities

Historic towns

Seaside resorts

Conservation areas

Museum

Art galleries

Historic buildings

Historic sites and

monuments

Heritage centres

Heritage theme parks

Transport

Landscape / Sea

National Parks

Heritage coastline

AONBs

Town and country parks

Botanic gardens

Historic gardens

Nature reserves

Countryside centres

Country parks

Forest

People

Traditional food

Festivals

Markets

Public houses / cafes

Craft centres

Farms

8

Millar (1995) claims that although heritage provides great flexibility and opportunities

for commercial exploitation and is malleable enough to support the interpretations and

viewpoints of significant groups at international, national and local levels, it remains a

mysterious thing.

Heritage and history Nuryanti (1996) points out that heritage expresses the past in the present. Urry (2002)

describes heritage as past and dead and associates it with social and spatial disparities,

history on the other hand, as ongoing and per definition more authentic. Heritage, he

states, is phoney history. With a more critic view, Hewison (1987) comments that the

heritage industry proffers ‘a history that stifles’, since it aims to preserve history

against any change. However the great efforts of contemporary society to preserve

and conserve heritage, Orbasli (2000) puts forward that heritage is consumed and

therefore finite.

Hewison (1987, p.9) states that ‘history has become a commodity called heritage’.

History is transformed in commercial products that can be marketed, sold and re-

created. The author comments that ‘we are manufacturing heritage’, ‘a commodity

which nobody seems able to define, but which everybody is eager to sell’. Although

commercialisation of heritage generates enormous income, Gaffar (1996) explains

that it can not be merely considered as a tourist product as heritage represents the

legacy and symbol of our ancestry. With regard to the heritage of the urban

environment, Ashworth and Tunbridge (2000) explain that history has transformed

into heritage, heritage into urban resource. This resource shapes the basis of the

‘history/heritage industry’ which shapes not only the form but also the functioning

and purpose of the ‘commodified city’.

Definition of heritage tourism The National Trust defines cultural heritage tourism as travelling to ‘experience’ the

places, artefacts and activities that authentically represent the stories and people of the

9

past and present. Millar (1995) indicates that the heritage experience is different and

unique for each person. Experience is widely recognised to be the mayor value

outcome of heritage tourism but also, the core of heritage tourism is often explained

as an experimental activity. Uzzel (1989) points out that interpretation of heritage has

traditionally been merely dominated by a resource-based approach (Ashworth and

Larkam 1994; Millar 1989; Nuryanti 1996) concentrating on defining the material and

intangible components of culture and heritage. However, a shift can be noticed

towards integration of tourists’ needs and motivations into the equation (Richards

1996a; 1996b; Moscardo 2001; Poria, Butler and Airey 2000; 2001a; 2003; Silverberg

1995; Millar 1995). Definition of heritage tourism has resulted in multiple distinct

interpretations of the concept and led to miscommunication and dispute in literature

(see Garrod and Fyall 2000). The ingrained debate whether consumption should be

contemplated rather from the supply- or demand side approach has occupied many

analysts in the heritage field.

Poria, Butler and Airey (2000; 2001a; 2003) decry heritage assessment from the

‘inheritance’ perspective founding heritage qualities on the historic properties of the

attraction (Garrod and Fyall 2000). They claim that heritage tourism should be

clarified through the ‘motivation and perceptions’ of consumers in relation to the

specific features of experienced heritage, and to consumers’ percipience of personal

heritage which is likely to be a combination of both a global heritage and a local or

national heritage (Boniface and Fowler 1993). Poria, Butler and Airey (2001a)

therefore define heritage tourism as:

‘A subgroup of tourism in which the main motivation for visiting a site is based on the place’ heritage characteristics according to the tourists’ perception of their own heritage’….‘Historic tourism may be defined as a subgroup of tourism in which the motivation for visiting a place is based on its historic attributes’ (2001a, p.1048).

In line with other authors (Poria et al. 2000; 2001a; 2003 Richards 1996a; Silverberg

1995; Moscardo1996; 2001; Titmothy 1996) Ashworth and Tunbridge (1996) argue

that heritage consumption is demand-driven (the focus should lie on the user, not on

the object) and that the commercial heritage product ensues from a ‘commodification

process’. The authors suggest that the actual mercantile heritage product exists in its

interpretation rather that in its resource (figure 2.1). Different products can be created

10

through different interpretations of same resources. Therefore, heritage recourses can

be nearly unlimitedly exploited and sold, differently interpreted and to different

markets (Ashworth 1996; Millar 1995). Moreover, the values impacting on the

interpretation and commodification process are conditioned by fashion-subjective

trends in consumer demand. Heritage consumers do not buy whatever product is

offered. On the contrary, they are the deciding factors in the heritage production

process (Moscardo1996; 2001; Titmothy 1996; Millar 1995).

Figure 2.1: The commodification of the past (Ashworth, 1997, p.179)

Poria et al. (2000) postulate the importance and effectiveness of a demand-led and

unambiguous definition of heritage tourism for management implications. Garrod

and Fyall (2001) recognise the merit of tourists’ motivation and expectation

perspectives in the definition of heritage tourism, yet, they suggest that in particular

studies, definitions more open towards personal perception of the concept are

desirable. Absence of- or use of more loose definitions are preferred in cases where

strict ones can confound and disillusion research’ participants: ‘in qualitative research

the absence of precise definitions can often be a virtue rather than a vice’ (Garrod and

Fyall 2001, p.1051). Furthermore, the authors comment on a number of weaknesses

of Poria et al’s definitions. They state that the predominantly demand side definitions

loose functionality in practise where ‘often product-driven’ heritage curators do not

emulate full customer satisfaction. Moreover, the demand side definition proposed by

Poria, butler and Airey implies that tourist motivation is based on heritage features. If

so, it suggest that supply actually represent the origin of heritage consumption making

the authors’ efforts to differentiate useless. Furthermore, Garrod and Fyall (2001)

VALUES

ASSEMBLY Interpretation

Packaging HISTORICAL RESOURCES

HISTORICAL AGENCIES

SELECTION

HERITAGE PRODUCTS

TARGETING HERITAGE

INDUSTRIE

11

question the possibility and benefit of dividing tourists’ motivations in those rested on

historic attributes and those underpinned by heritage sites’ characteristics. In practice,

distinction of motivations into these two often overlapping categories may be

problematic: ‘visitor motivations are unlikely to enable the researcher to differentiate

clearly between heritage and historic tourism’ (2001, p.1051). Following these

discussions in literature, it soon becomes evident that heritage tourism should be

considered from both demand and supply side perspectives.

The heritage tourist Poria et al. has classified heritage tourists into three categories, according to the

heritage status of the visited side, visitor’s awareness of this status and relation of the

site with the visitors’ personal heritage. Garrod and Fyall uttered critics since

motioned classification implies that a tourist who visits a place not recognised as

heritage by him or an institution is not a heritage tourist. However, this tourist could

be very well visiting unclassified ‘heritage of someone else’ (Garrod and Fyall 2000,

p. 1050). This position, as the authors state, makes little sense from the management

perspective.

Irrespective of official classification and personal perceived heritage value, all visitors

impact on the heritage (Millar 1995). It is the experience satisfaction level of all

visitors, including those without personal heritage relation and recognition that

matters to attraction managers. Furthermore Garrod and Fyall make clear that the

Buzzword ‘heritage’ is over exploited and illegitimately employed by marketers.

Tourist attraction through spurious heritage marketing would enclose false heritage

tourists into their definition. Garrod and Fyall (1998 in Garrod and Fyall 2001) repeat

that the ‘real danger of concentrating on definitions is that one rarely transcends

rhetoric’ (2001 p.1051). Time to spend on the denotation of a theoretic term might be

more purposively applied when studying its practical implication.

12

The rise of heritage tourism In the eighties and nineties heritage tourism has been entitled as a mayor new area in

consumer demand. Heritage tourism was considered to be a mayor growth area and a

vital opportunity for planning authorities to develop. It could be employed to promote

local cultures and resolve typical mayor tourism problems as unequal seasonal and

geographic dispersion (Richards 1996). Apostolakis (2002) indicates that the boom of

heritage tourism springs from the shift from a production-driven to a consumption-

driven tourism industry which induced a human demand for differentiation and

unique experiences. The growth of the tourism heritage industry with its both

collective and unique nature has been a reactive development on the increasingly

sensitive customer tastes.

Hewison (1987) motivated the rise of the heritage industry by an increased

exploitation of cultural recourses in attempt to compensate for a perceived state of

economic decline. An attempt of no avail the author argues, since an improved or

altered reproduction of the past would undermine all capacity for creative progress.

However Hewison’s critical, rather pessimistic viewpoint expressed in a period of

economic depression in the UK, the rise of heritage tourism is often explained through

a variety of social-economic changes. During the 1990s, academics (Wait 2000; Urry

1990; 2000) have increasingly focused on the changing conditions of the tourism

industry settled within the movements of global social-economic and political change

and the transition from modernism to postmodernism.

Heritage and post-modern tourism consumption Postmodernism is difficult to conceptualise. Urry (1990, p.83) notes: ‘it seems as

though the signifier ‘postmodern’ is free-floating, having few connections with

anything real, no minimum shared meaning of any sort’. Hewison (1987) states that

postmodernism is all that happens to contemporary culture now that the period of

modernism has ended. The author suggests that postmodernism is marked by a deep

societal uncertainty of the present and a ‘broken culture’. ‘Postmodernism is

modernism with the optimism taken out’ and features a ‘rejection of the present’:

13

‘Imaginatively deprived in the present, we turn to images of the past, either in reactionary revivalism, or in a spirit of ironic quotation that emphasises the distance between the source and its recycled imagery, while the micro ship is assembled in binary series, the postmodernist format is the collage, an assembly of fragments without ruling pattern or perspective. Narrative is deliberately broken or disrupted, special relations are subjective to chance and a self-referring consciousness of medium is all’ (Hewison 1987, p.132).

Postmodernism and heritage are bonded in the sense that they subvert an in-depth

understanding of history and interact to produce simulacra of the latter. History is

reselected and rewritten, presenting the past more livelily than the present. Hewison

(1987) argues that although the past is a cultural resource which can serve as an

inspiration for new creation, the transformation of history into heritage and the

obsessive preservation of the latter have blurred a sheer conception of the past and

dulled real creativity.

Many other Authors however, explain the current manifestations of post-modern

tourism consumption as a feature of the more general post-modern consumption

patterns characterised by a highly fragmentised demand and the interweaving of

culture and commerce (Urry 2002; Ashworth and Tunbridge 2002; Richards;

1996a;1996b). Cities increasingly seize cultural consumption as an opportunity to

boost economic regeneration and development of cultural facilities is regarded as an

effective means to attract inward investment (Bianchini 1990 in Richards (1996a)

Furthermore, Ioannides and Debbage (1997) indicate that the technological

transformation of the tourism industry and the emergence of flexible production

strategies have enabled a largely differentiated product offer to satisfy a demand for

increasingly specialised products. However, Ashworth and Tunbridge (2000) argue

that supply of heritage and historic attractions should not be merely interpreted as a

response to post-modern consumer demand but be assessed in the light of broader

social needs. The authors denote that ‘From the medieval pilgrimage, through the

eighteenth-century Grand Tour to the modern marketing of cities as heritage centres,

the historic city has been consciously used as an mayor tourist resource’ (2000, p.72).

However, Urry indicates that as modernism has been characterised as ‘a process of

differentiation’, postmodernism conversely implicates ‘de-differentiation’ (1990, p.

84). The author alleges that postmodernist culture is anti-auratic. He argues that

14

whereas modernist culture was separated from the social, original and unique,

founded on unity and creativity, postmodernism by contrast, is featured by an

amalgam of the aesthetic and the social and ‘an emphasis on pastiche, collage,

allegory and so on’ (1990, p.85). Mordue (2005) remarks that Authenticity and

uniqueness of place is mixed with standardised, global products which appeal to the

cosmopolitan consumer: ‘torn out of time and place to be repackaged for the world

bazaar’ (Robins 1991, p.31 in Mordue 2005, p.182). Given that in the post modernity,

commerce and culture are inextricably interlaced, the distinction between

reproduction and authenticity, fantasy and reality becomes more and more

indeterminate (Urry 1990; 2000; Ioannides and Debbage 1997; Nuryanti 1997).

Post modern tourism has been categorised on the basis of two different tourism forms

labelled by Munt as ‘simulational’ tourism and ‘other’ post-modern tourism (Munt

1994 in Uriely 1997). Simulational tourism as an answer to the de-differentiation

process refers to the consumption of hyperreal experiences, most apparently offered

by theme parks. ‘Other’ post-modern tourism centres on ‘real’, more authentic

experiences (Uriely 1997).

From the tourist-motivational point of view, the rise of heritage tourism has to be

linked with the increasing human desire to re-explore and re-experience elements of

the past (Porter and Salazar (2005). In contrast to the mass tourism of the 1970s,

contemporary tourists search for ‘novelty-experiences’ in traditional cultures and

identities being these meaningful and authentic, artificial pseudo events or recourses

for tourists to create and structure their personal meanings from the experience

(Ashworth and Tunbridge, 2000; Richards, 1996; Nuryanti 1996). Silverberg (1995)

points at a movement away from ‘escapism’ marked by luxury consumption in the

1980s, towards an emphasis on personal enrichment expressed by a growing demand

for historical and cultural experiences. Opposed to the typical sun and sea holiday,

there is a strong movement ‘towards more sophisticated types where exclusivity,

differentiating and unique personal experiences are the norm of the day’ (Apostolakis

2002, p.798). Furthermore, Uriely (1997) indicates that post-modern tourism features

a multiplicity of tourist motivations and a preference for consumption of a variety of

different types of tourist experiences.

15

Urban heritage tourism During the last decades urban tourism has appeared as a relevant and distinctive

research subject reflecting the increasing importance of tourism in cities (Pearce,

2001, Law, 2002). However, Page (1995) argues that the lack of an integrative,

holistic research approach is most evinced in the context of urban tourism. The

author underlines that although the significance of interdisciplinary perspectives has

been advocated by many, a great deal of urban tourism studies have proved to be

unapproachable due to their very specialistic and subjective character. Integrative

urban tourism studies can be complicated matters. Many agree that urban areas are

‘distinctive and ‘complex’ (Ashworth 1990; Pearce 2001; Blank 1994; Page 1995).

Pearce (2001) points at the complexity of urban tourism and the need to untwine the

tourist function from the other urban functions. The author explains that the

complexity is inalienably interwoven with the texture and character of urban tourism

and reason for the specific features that make urban tourism so different from other

forms of tourism. Pearce has set out the following four peculiarities of cities: high

physical densities of structures, people and functions; social and cultural

heterogeneity; an economic multifunctionalism; and a centrality within regional and

interurban networks (2001, p.927).

Heritage cities Cities are often claimed to be the world’s most important tourist destinations (Page

1995; Pearce 2001). Nuryanti states that ‘Build heritage is the heart of cultural

tourism’ (1996, p.249). Boniface and Fowler note that every town is ‘an assemblage

of heritage’ and that some cities are among the greatest heritage sites in the world:

‘The city and town, both as an idea and as a physical agglomeration, is clearly one of the most important legacies of the past to the present – a truism, but of central relevance to modern tourism’ (1993, p60). Ashworth and Tunbridge (1990) explain that, to a certain extend, all urban spaces are

tourism-historic attractive. However, cities are heterogeneously structured and exert

diverse functions and attractions. On the other hand, Orbasli (2000) notes that urban

16

heritage may represent a more concrete and comprehensive value of the past than

displayed in single large and important monuments, it may provide a social

understanding ‘into the life of a previous or foreign era and more often a sense of

identity and of belonging within physical surrounding responding to the human scale’

(2000, p. 29). The author indicates that:

‘Urban heritage is an interpretation of history by a wide range of users’ the core of urban heritage lies not just in the historic features of the build fabric and the morphology of the townscape but as well in the cultural lifestyles of the residential community’ (Orbasli 2000).

Deindustrialisation and economic restructuring have boosted urban heritage tourism

(UHT) in developed and developing nations around the world. Ashworth and

Tunbridge (1990) indicate that to fortify their competitive position, many urban areas

have capitalised on culture and heritage. Urban authorities have come up with

distinct UHT strategies shaped in accordance with the specific local attributes,

picturesque historic-important architecture, social cultural identities and unfavourable

circumstances as for instance negative image and politic or social- economic

instability (Chang et al. 1996). However, the convergence of urban heritage and

tourism often causes problems of contradictive interests between conservationists and

tourism developers (Shackley 1995).

Global and local forces in the urban environment Poon (1994) argues that international tourism has evolved through the combination of

both global and local trends resulting in a form of ‘new tourism’. Standardised mass

tourism prevailing between the 1950s and the 1970s has evolved into a new form of

tourism marked by high flexibility, super segmentation and diagonal integration.

17

`

Figure 2.2: Old and new tourism compared, adapted from Poon (1994)

The impacts of global-local interaction has been a mayor issue in urban research

studies stressing the need to investigate tourism in individual cities in a broader

economical, political and geographical context.

‘Whether the effects of tourism are expressed in terms of the economy, culture and heritage or the environment, understanding the global-local nexus credits local players with more control and enables a better understanding of the forces underpinning change and hence sustainability’ (Teo 2002, p.459).

In a similar vain, Pearce (2001) denotes that to gain a more complete insight of urban

heritage tourism, urban destinations are to be considered within the context of

regional, national and international dimensions.

Chang, Milne and Fallon (1996) point out that analysis of urban heritage tourism

development usually happens either in a ‘top down’ or the ‘bottom up’ perspective.

The ‘top down’ perspective underlines the power of global and external forces, the

‘bottom up’ perspective concentrates on local factors and influences. Literature often

describes the relation between global and local as imbalanced:

‘Metropolitan corporations and market conditions determine the pace and form of tourism development of destinations around the world with local actors playing only peripheral roles

Unfriendly Users limited Stand alone

Keep clothes on Mature Want to be different

Competition through priceEconomics of scale Vertical & horizontal integration

Talk to each other All players are users Many integrated technologies

Competition through innovation Economies of scale and scope Diagonal integration

Labour is key to quality Manage yield Listen to customers

Labour is a cost of productionMaximise capacity Sell what is produced

Regulation Economic growth Uncontrolled growth

DeregulationRestructuring Limits to growth

Get sunburnt Inexperienced Security in numbers

Old Tourism New Tourism

Technology

Management

Technolog

Frame conditions

Production

Consumers

18

in the process’ (Chang et al. 1996, p.285).

Notwithstanding the force of globalisation (identified by Edensor (1998 in Evans

2002) as imperialism empowered through implementation of long lasting bourgeois

philosophies), tourism analysts emphasise the significance of local factors for viable

tourism development and stakeholders’ ability to mediate in global developments

(Law 1993; Boniface and Fowler 1993; Poon 1993; 1994; Butler 1996); Evans,

(2002). Tourism is seen as a transaction process between the exogenous forces of the

world market and international corporations, and the endogenous powers of the local

stakeholders (Teo 2002).

Global forces Law (1993) discerned four main factors that have pushed cities to exploit UHT: a

decrease in manufacturing activities, the need for new economic activities, the fact

that tourism is considered a growth industry and a motive to regenerate and revitalise

urban centres. Law indicates that these factors have led to two distinct types of

tourism-urbanisation: reconstruction of manufacturing areas into tourism districts and

development of complete new resorts.

One of the mayor outcomes of the impacts of globalisation on the tourism-

urbanisation processes is the emergence of more and more homogenised products

(Fainstein and Judd 1999, Pearce 2001; Urry 1990; 2002; Boniface and Fowler 1993).

‘duplication of such features as waterfront zones, festival marketplaces, downtown malls and tourism-historic districts in a diverse array of cities has been highlighted as evidence of a convergence in market demands, global cultural trends and urban planning theories’( Chang et al. 1996, p.258). ‘music and entertainment industries are valued by global sales only, hotel rooms become identical and restaurant chains offer the same fare on the same chairs in London, New Delhi or Istanbul’ (Orbasli 2000, p.4).

In relation to the revitalisation and touristfication of waterfront redevelopments,

Pinder, Hoyle and Hussain (1988 in Chang et al. 1996) assume that it would be safer

to imitate similar projects carried out in others cities rather than to aspire for new,

creative approaches. Conversely, Van den Berg et al. comment that imitation of

successful developments in others cities risks to fall flat. The authors argue that

19

‘originality is a major strength since curiosity is what drives most tourists’ (1995, p.

14). Britton (1991) and Jameson (1984 in Richards 1996) argue that multiplication of

tourism products engenders a ‘waning effect’ where tourism attractions need to be

reproduced on a more rapid rate to comply with a consumer demand for novelty.

However, Russo and van der Borg (2002) put forward that in order to remain

competitive, tourist cities need to build a tourist infrastructure of international

standards which consequently wipes out distinctive and original peculiarities. In

addition, Butler (1996) comments that the increasingly homogenised tourist offer

amplifies the appeal of authentic and unique environments. Indeed, although

resemblance of tourism sites has given many cities a ‘post-modern anywhere feel’, it

is not to state that local identity is disregarded. Orbasli (2000) argues that historic

cities link heritage consumers to an ‘idealised past’ providing dimensions not to be

found in the rapidly globalising market.

Local forces and bottom-up approaches Chang et al. (1996) add that in the present climate of global competition and change,

local-level involvement is an economically viable model for tourism development and

control. Poon, (1989; 1993; 1994) puts forward that as a result of rapid global change

featured by the improvement of transportation and communication networks and the

growth and internationalisation of the service sector, local tourism organisations have

been forced to adapt their management styles. The author indicates that the shift from

mass- towards segmented tourism has stimulated local stakeholders to engage more

actively in the tourism industry. Urry (2002) denotes that global trends have pushed

many countries to specialise in particular types of tourism. Moreover, Boniface and

Fowler (1993) indicate that urban tourist destinations increasingly pursue the

exploitation of local resources to emphasise their unique heritage assets in a scene of

globalisation recognizing the potential of local distinctiveness. Additionally, Judd

and Fainstein (1999) indicate that many cities aspire to accentuate particular local

heritage themes to create their own cultural identity and to differentiate from

competitors, often through the formation of specialised heritage themes. Robertson

20

(1995 in Dredge and Jenkins 2003) defines this tendency with the term ‘glocalisation’

which refers the strengthening of local identity pushed by global forces. Mordue

(2005) states that glocalisation may ensure a quality product from the universal

perspective, however, it forces the staging of original local attractions. Thus, urban

heritage can be employed as a vehicle to emphasise and promote unique local culture

enforcing identity within a globalising setting (Teo 2002; Maitland 2005).

Bottom-up approaches concentrate on local urban structure and morphology of urban

sites with minor consideration of global forces and influences and tend to focus on

either to the role of the users (tourists) or the actors (stakeholders).

Studies centring on the actors in the UHT setting investigate the specific roles of

residents, local entrepreneurs and pressure groups, portraying the power relations

between these different stakeholders. However, in attempt to understand

developments in the UHT sector, investigation of the local alone is not effective. The

integration of both local and global factors and study of the interaction between these

is vital. The local environment should not be opposed to the global since locality

implies a vigorous cultural interaction with the dynamic structures of global politics

and economy (Chang et al. 1996).

21

Tourism in historic cities

A Typification of the tourist historic city ‘The historic city is not the totality of preserved artefacts from the past. It is a contemporarily created phenomenon, like the study of history itself, can be recreated anew by each generation according to the prevailing attitudes towards the past’ (Ashworth and Tunbridge 2000, p.51).

Ashworth and Tunbridge (1990) typify the tourist-historic city in the following ways

a specific kind of urban morphology and activity;

a specific type of city and a city district dedicated to a particular

morphological function;

a history-specific use as tourism resource and an use of tourism as a vehicle to

support the preservation of historic fabric and to legitimise and ensure heed to

the historicity of cities.

Ashworth and Tunbridge point out that the term ‘historic city’ signifies not just that a

town is old or has a history. It refers to an urban property possessed, to varying

degrees, by basically any town or city similarly as such extents as ‘fun city’, ‘work

city’ or ‘cultural city’ and can concern the entire city including both modern and

historic morphology and functions or a distinctive historic district in contrast to more

modern areas (2000, p.42). Furthermore, Pearce (1981 in Pearce 2001) points out that

in cities, tourism occupies just one of the many functions and tourists and residents

need to share or compete for space, service and facilities. Moreover, the author

denotes that cities may host numerous and overlapping tourism functions including

‘gateway, staging post, destination and tourist source’ (2001, p.928).

Ashworth and Tunbridge (1990) indicate that the exploitation of historic towns for

tourism purposes has brought tremendous economical profits. The Authors base the

rapid development and success of tourism in heritage cities on three universally valid

conditions. Firstly, heritage tourism exploits already available resources. Secondly,

during the first stages of the destination lifecycle, the extra costs engendered by

tourism are marginal and thirdly, through tourism-development generated

22

employment demands a much smaller amount of financial investments than other

economic sectors.

However, it should not be assumed that tourism development in tourism-historic cities

always yield steady economic benefits. Hewison (1987) asserts that the heritage

industry consumes an increasing portion of urban recourses. The Author argues that

heritage industry supersedes the ‘real’ productive industry and accrues in an

imbalanced manner in proportion to the general growth of urban economies. In

addition, (Law (1993) argues that only certain destinations benefit from the expansion

of tourism since local site factors as quality of service, transportation, information and

competition are decisive for successful development. Ashworth and Tunbridge

(1990) indicate the importance to distinguish the different tourist-historic cities to

answer the question of how and how much a tourist historic economy should be

encouraged. Factors as the city’s available economic alternatives, the fragility of

existing sustainable economic structures and the competitive location of the city with

regard to the generating markets and complementary tourist resources need to be

appraised (Pearce 2001). In addition, Russo and van der Borg (2002) note that not

every city possesses sufficient cultural recourses to develop a virtual tourism industry

and that the available assets need to be promoted conjointly with other tourist

attractions as events, gastronomy and high quality infrastructure.

The concept of historic-city tourism

Ashworth (1995, in Ashworth and Tunbridge 2000, p.56) argues that the concept of

historic-city tourism is best explained on the basis of a number of ‘overlapping

categories of often vaguely defined tourisms’ with heritage tourism placed at the

central overlap of these tourism categories. The Author discusses four principal

overlapping groups of tourism, eminent in the tourist historic city (figure 2.3): One:

special interest tourism described as holiday pursuit of plausibly chronic specific

interests, boosting a demand for highly diversified products. Two: specific place

tourism, based rather on the uniqueness of the site conveyed through its unique

atmosphere than on the more concrete features of place. This type of tourism centres

on the sense of place, based on a large variety of cultural attributes. Three: urban

23

tourism which encompasses the entire tourist-historic city within its broader urban

environment, and four: cultural tourism which includes many different types of

cultural attractions as for example: music, crafts, language, archaeology, sculpture,

religion and literature.

It is important to note the very tight overlapping between heritage and cultural

tourism, terms that are often equivalently applied in literature (Prentice 1996;

Richards 1996a). In a similar vain, Ashworth and Tunbridge suggest that art can be

considered to be heritage or at least become a heritage resource in future.

Figure 2.3: Some tourisms, adapted from Ashworth and Tunbridge 2002.

Although it may be useful to provide a classification of the prevailing forms of

tourism in historic cities, Ashworth and Tunbridge favour a classification based on

types of historic cities rather than types of tourism or heritage. The authors point at

the difficulty to separate the tourist activity from the urban form and function of cities

and therefore argue to delineate the heritage tourism city as a complex of overlapping

‘tourism cities’ (figure 2.4). Ashworth and Tunbridge comment that although the

large ‘show-case cities’ (often capitals) attract the largest amounts of heritage tourists,

it are the small ‘gem’ cities which only represent a slight proportion of the tourist-

historic cities that are incontestable tourist-historic.

Urban Tourism

Special Interest Tourism

Place Specific Tourism

Art Tourism

Heritage Tourism

24

Figure 2.4: Some tourism cities, adapted from Ashworth and Tunbridge (2000)

The City tourist product Pearce (2001) cites Karski (1990) and Ehrlich and Dreier (1999) who state that the

success of an urban attraction is decided by the quality of the overall urban tourist

product. It is the variety and completeness of available attractions and activities that

draw visitors to a particular city.

Van den berg, Van der Borg and Van der Meer (1995) have structured the deciding

factors of urban destinations’ competitiveness in an analysis of the principal

relationships in the urban tourism system and a model of the general attractiveness of

the destination. The authors distinguish five main components of a city’s tourist

product (figure 2.5). The first relates to the quality of core tourist products which

sustains the primary reason for tourist visitation. The second represents the quality

and completeness of the complementary facilities. The third component portrays the

destinations’ image on the tourist market and de last two factors consider the external

(convenience of reaching and entering the destination) and internal (passableness and

ease of movement within the destination) accessibility of the destination (Van den

berg et al. 1995). The primary and complementary tourist products form the base of

the overall tourist product, yet, the city’s image through the perception of the market,

Tourist- Historic Cities

Historic & Cultural Show -case Cities

Business, Entertainment Sport etc Tourist cities

Festival cities

Art Cities

Heritage Gem Cities

25

as well as the quality of the intern and extern accessibility are decisive factors (system

I). The figure demonstrates the influences that the public and private sectors exert on

the individual elements of the tourist product and thus on the attractiveness of urban

tourism (system II).

Figure 2.5: Principal relations in the urban tourism system, adapted from Van den Berg et al. (1995)

The users of the tourist-historic city Ashworth (1989) associated the user approach with four questions: Who are the

tourists?; what activities do they undertake in the city?; why do they visit the city and

what are their perceptions of they city?

Site specific studies focussing on these questions certainly provide crucial data to the

local urban authorities. However, Richards (1996a) stresses the need to go beyond

the separated case study and execute more methodical and comparable research

studies to generate general legitimate conclusions.

Govern- ment

- Organising

capacity - Strategy

Primary tourist product

External accessibility tourist city

Complemen-tary tourist

product

Internal accessibility

tourist product

Image

Attractivity tourist product

Tourist industry policy

System II System I

26

The multifunctional character of tourist cities as discussed before complicates a

typification of its users. Most tourists visit a city for more than one purpose. Figure

2.6 indicates the demands of users and a category of resource-uses. The figure

demonstrates the relationships between the multifunctional uses (of city residents;

city-region residents; pleasure seekers; conference visitors and employees in the city)

and the multi-resourced urban setting classified, by Burtenshaw (1991) in

‘overlapping cities’: the historic city; the culture city; the night-life city; the shopping

city and the all comprising tourist city.

Figure 2.6: Functional areas in the tourist city, adapted from Burtenshaw et al. 1991.

Users (Resources)

Historic Monuments

Nightclubs and Red-light area

Museums Galleries

O Offices

Shops

Cafes Restaurant

City resident

Theatres Concert halls

City-region resident

Pleasure

Visitor conference

Work

The historic city

The culture city

The shopping city

The night life city

The tourist city

Functional Links

Users (Demand)

27

Tourism management of the tourist-historic city There exists no clear concept for tourism management in historic cities. Every city is

managed in a distinctive way irrespective of equivalence in geo-political and urban

climate (Ashworth and Tunbridge 2000; 1990). Maitland (2005) remarks that

deployment of management strategies in tourist-historic cities has just very recently

been initiated. Van der Borg et al. concluded in 1996 that from the seven heritage

cities under investigation, all in urgent need of tourism regulation, only one had

implemented a strategic tourism policy (Van der Borg et al. 1996).

Russo, Boniface and Shoval (2001) point out that in their attempts to preserve their

heritage from the detrimental effects of tourism, cities prefer to focus less on

straightforward preservation methods of the heritage itself and more on management

and monitoring of the quality of complementary products, service and accessibility.

The prevailing tourism literature puts forward that post-modern urban heritage

tourism management should focus on sustainable development in which the

involvement of many different stakeholders and notably the involvement of the local

population in the decision making process is required. Furthermore, the destination

lifecycle theory initially described Butler in 1980 is applied on the urban heritage

tourism environment to chart potential developments and determine the required

management actions. Sustainability, stakeholders collaboration and the destination

lifecycle in the context of urban heritage tourism will be discussed in the following

sections.

Tourism development and the destination lifecycle

Russo (2001) discusses the cyclic character of tourism at heritage sites and historical

towns. The author points out that literature describes the life cycle model

predominantly with regard to beach resorts and new products and that the model is

less appropriate for application to urban-historic environments. However, the

different stages of the life cycle can be clearly identified and serve as a strategic tool

28

to analyse and assess the different periodical development stages that urban heritage

destinations go through.

Nevertheless, Moore and Whitehall (2005, p.112) denote that one should bear in mind

that ‘there does not exist a common lifecycle relationship, which is applicable to all

source markets’, therefore management practices intended to boost or rejuvenate

visitor growth to a specific destination should act according to the characteristics of

the different tourist segments. Lundtorp and Wanhill (2001) add that when applied to

resorts, the lifecycle model can prove to be unrepresentative in the long run and ‘no

more than a caricature of the real world’. Gale (2005) criticises the simplistic concept

of life cycle models and their exorbitant concentration on destination-specific factors.

The author states that explanations based on such models should integrate cultural

concerns as change in fashion, style and taste.

However, the model has been extensively applied and proved useful to distinguish the

different stages of tourism development. Every stage of the lifecycle is characterized

by a particular spatial dispersion of the costs and benefits produced by tourism.

During the first stage of the lifecycle the benefits of tourism are generally gained in

the area that equally bears the costs. With the enlargement of the tourism destination

area (when hotels are developed outside the core destination for instance) negative

impacts appear when a ‘class of false excursionists’ emerges. False excursionists are

tourists that avoid high prices and the restricted offer of tourist facilities in the main

destination by staying in a nearby community. The replacement of overnight visitors

by excursionist induces a loss of profit for the central tourist location that continues to

take the costs of tourist visitation (Butler 1996; Russo 2001).

The result is a lower disposable budget for maintenance of heritage attractions, public

facilities and marketing which will ultimately cause a deteriorating of the tourist

appeal (Butler 1996). Beside this, the danger exist that tourism becomes an over

represented economic activity, a mono culture emerges with makes the destination

more vulnerable in a period of declining tourist demand (Hewison 1987).

Russo (2002) clarifies that the impacts of the different life cycle stages are most

severe in middle-sized European heritage cities (see figure 2.7) Medium sized cities

29

do not possess enough resources to spread tourism over the city and are not small

enough to develop a self-contained business (Russo 2002). Therefore, growth of

tourism demand will cause a threat for other urban activities (van der Borg et al.

2002).

Figure 2.7: The vicious circle of tourism development in heritage destination, adapted from Russo 2002.

Excessive growth of tourism saturates tourist facilities in the city centre.

Subsequently, auxiliary facilities continue to develop in a more dispersed pattern and

the tourism region (the area that accommodate tourist visiting the central attractions),

enlarges and expands beyond municipal- or even regional or national boundaries in

the case of very popular tourist cities.

As stated before, the share of excursionists becomes more significant. Butler (1996)

puts forward that the type of tourist is equally important as the number, given that that

the visitor profile determines undertaken activities, length of stay, and interaction with

the local population.

Russo (2002, p.169) indicates that these commuting tourists exacerbate the seasonal

character of tourism since ‘daytrips are more sensitive to weather conditions and

special occasions’. Furthermore, one day visitors have less time and desire to

consume the cultural and auxiliary products and tend to concentrate around the most

Expansion of tourist region (increase of divergence between area of cost and area of benefits)

Only central attractions are visited; congestion increases

Poor return of cultural system

Down grading of quality products

High share of ursio-nists, shorter visits

B C

D A

30

famous and central attractions causing congesting that complicates ones more a

qualitative cultural experience. Tourists become less and less aware of the cultural

meaning of attractions and the quality of complementary products. Tourist businesses

in the city centre can permit themselves to offer low quality, standardised goods and

services to increase their market share exacerbating the decay of the overall tourist-

product, often typified as ‘McDonaldisation’.

‘Not only is the capacity of products to match the demand of a certain market segment is compromised, but the whole aesthetic quality of the landscape and the system of cultural values embodied in the city is at stake’ (Russo, p.172).

Sustainability The concept of sustainable development has become a focus point in tourism

literature since the late 1980s. One of the best know definitions of sustainable

development stems from the Brundtland Commission Report of 1987 in which it was

defined as: ‘developments that meet the needs of the present without compromising

the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Swarbrook (1999, p.36)

defined sustainable tourism as ‘tourism which is economically viable but does not

destroy the resources on which the future of tourism will depend, notably the physical

environment and the social fabric of the host community’.

Garrod and Fyall point out that ‘defining sustainable development in the context of

tourism has become something of a cottage industry in the academic literature of late’

(1998, p.199). Indeed, an endless variation of more and less similar definitions of the

concept has been produced. Mckercher (1993) puts forward that the vagueness and

subjectivity of the definition facilitate multiple interpretative use of the term by

involved parties, promoting their own specific interest and benefits, rather aggravating

than solving existing conflicts. Garrod and Fyall (1998) add that definitions of

sustainable tourism development need to be converted in practical and feasible

methodological formulas. Liu denotes that ‘the sustainable tourism debate is patchy,

disjoined and often flawed with false assumptions and arguments (2003, p. 459).

31

However the wide spread critique on the concept, sustainability is viewed by many as

a hope-giving means to take hold of negative impacts caused by tourism and as a

possible guarantee for long term viability of the industry. Therefore, sustainability

has become the key notion and central focus point in many tourism development

strategies.

Wall indicated that sustainability is directly related with changes caused in the local

environment and defined sustainability as ‘acceptable change’ (Wall, 1994, in Van

der Borg et all. 1996). Van de Borg et al. indicate that sustainability becomes

unfeasible ‘when costs exceed the benefits’ (1996, p. 306). Hunter (1997) argues

that sustainable tourism must be concerned with an ‘adaptive paradigm’ adaptable on

the large variety of distinctive situations. In a similar vain Teo (2002) points out that

sustainability is an ongoing exercise of discovery. It is not so much about balancing

the ‘good’ with the ‘bad’, the ‘negative’ against the ‘positive’. Rather, it is about

responsiveness of the tourism system to the multiple inputs that comprise its

constitution. ‘Only then can sustainable tourism take on the broad brush approach it

was meant to have from the beginning’ (Teo 2002, p.471).

Godfrey (1998) points out that sustainable tourism should not merely be regarded as

the crucial goal itself, not as a one and only, separated formula, but rather as an inter-

related function in a broader, continual development process. The author indicates

that with regard to towns and cities in the UK, the most evident support for

sustainable progress originates from communities already engaged in a more

proactive and comprehensive approached experiencing and appreciating the wider

impacts and vantages of the concept.

Sustainability in urban heritage tourism Though little research has been carried out to assess sustainable heritage tourism,

Garrod and Fyall (1999, p.683) estimate the importance of the correlation between

heritage management and sustainability since these two ‘share a common theme’.

The central ideology of both concepts exists in exploitation of heritage for economical

32

profit while protecting and conserving it for next generations. Literature sustains the

conviction that heritage tourism needs a different approach then general tourism.

Heritage need to be preserved in the first place and access to tourists is often regarded

as a second concern, especially when decay and negative tourist impacts matter. Here

the issue rises: For who is the heritage preserved?

Garrod and Fyall analysed heritage managers’ perception towards admission pricing

and heritage conservation funding. The outcomes affirm managers’ reservation

towards the employment of higher admission fees to achieve funding necessary for

maintenance and conservation:

‘while the user pays principle is now widely recognized as an potential vehicle for promoting in the context of other mayor forms of tourism many managers are apparently wary of adopting this principle’ ( 1998, p.206). The authors point out that heritage mangers have difficulties to translate heritage into

commercial values. Managers assess the value of heritage first of all by its social

cultural and educational meaning for present and future societies and are reluctant to

determine or express the worth of heritage by the price of admission fees (Millar

1995, Garrod and Fyall 2000, Shackley 1995). Moreover, heritage mangers support

the belief that heritage property should be accessible for everybody and that elevated

admission pricing disrespects the ideology behind heritage attractions. Admissions

fees should therefore be kept at a minimum (Garrod and Fyall 2001).

However manager’s aversion towards economic consumption of heritage,

representative prices could be of great benefit in the attempt to direct the heritage

sector toward a more sustainable level. Garrods and Fyall’s study indicates that

unlike mayor sustainability philosophies, the heritage sector emphasizes the

importance of conservation and education above contemporary use and prosperity for

the local community (Millar 1995).

Garrod and Fyall (2000) argue that serious problems may arise when visitors are not

charged with sustainable prices. Admission fees under the price of costs generate

higher demand levels which exacerbates exceeding of the carrying capacity.

Moreover, underestimation of the heritage value might lead to underinvestment in

33

conservation. Alternatives to higher admission fees were found in attempts to boost

secondary spending of visitors and in the form of restrictive access. However,

Garrods and fyall question the effectiveness of both alternatives since access-

restrictive measures would contribute less to a higher level of sustainability than

strategic admission pricing. Moreover, investment in complementary facilities such

as restaurants and gift shops would result in a less authentic heritage experience for

the visitor and attract investment that otherwise could have been employed for

conservation and restoration.

Furthermore Garrods and Fyall put forward that a greater variety of stakeholders

should join the decision-making progress to decrease the risk of heritage ‘loosing it

relevance and meaning’. The introduction of new management theories and practices

is required since heritage management is predominantly occupied with its ‘curatorial’

role which does not strictly correspond to the more widely accepted meaning of

sustainable development (Millar 1995; Garrods and Fyall 2000).

Stakeholder collaboration and partnerships Selin (1999) points out that in the current era of increasing competition, ironically,

more tourism stakeholders turn to joint decision making and resource sharing. A

large number of authors (Evans; 2002; Hal 1999; Morais et al. 2005; Aas, et al., 2005;

Bramwell and Lane 1999; Hunter 1999) have highlighted the need for dialogue and

partnership collaboration between conservationists, tourism developers and the local

community, ‘the term partnership has become a mantra for the politicians of most

parties, a formula for public and private sector dialogue’ (Bramwell and Lane 1999,

p.179).

Indeed, stakeholder collaboration through partnerships is an increasingly popular

topic in current tourism research described as a crucial tool to manage tourism

recourses and destinations in a more sustainable way. Bramwell and Lane (1999,

p.179) describe partnerships as ‘regular, cross-sectoral interactions between parties

based on at least some agreed rules or norms, intended to address common issues or to

34

achieve a specific policy goal or goals’. Hall (1999) points out that contemporary

emphasis on collaboration and network concepts is linked with a ‘changing role of the

state in western society’ and the tendency to find ‘market solutions to resource and

production problems (1999, p.274). Furthermore, van der Borg et al. argue that:

‘The numerous components of the tourism product make it necessary to coordinate the decisions and actions taken by all of the entities operating in the sector......’The tourism offer should be the fruit of an comprehensive agreement between all the operators, public and private, of the city’ (1996, p.319). Bramwell and Lane (1999) put forward that stakeholders engage in partnerships are

established to improve efficiency. Moreover, the authors state that partnerships help

to create more fair-minded policies and reduce frictions and conflicts (Nuryanti1996;

Morais et al. 2005; Easterling 2004). Hall and McArthur (1998) agree that a great

deal of conflicts in the heritage tourism sector arise from a lack of interaction.

Conflicts often spring from stakeholders’ inability to manage their unique and non

replicable heritage resources being forced to surrender heritage control to

governments and national and international organisations. Porter and Salazar regard

the lost of control over precious heritage as the very source of conflict. ‘It is when

value is disproportionately high compared to stakeholders’ role in Stewardship that

we find ourselves on the verge of heritage tourism conflicts’ (2005, p.363).

Furthermore, Hall (1999) remarks that partnerships often rely on corporatist forms of

collaboration which may defeat vertical integration and sustainable development.

Selin denotes that ‘tourism partnerships are still underdeveloped due to many

geographical, organisational, and political constraints’ (1999, p.271). Furthermore,

Jamal and Getz (1999) argue that consensus of stakeholder partnerships does not

guarantee the implementation of recommendations and plans of participating parties.

The authors remark that power relations and legitimation act upon decision making

processes and strongly affect decisions and outcomes. Therefore many writers

advocate the fundamental need to implicate the local community in the decision

making process (Aas, et al., 2005; Jamal and Getz 1999).

Hunter (1999) finds it ‘extremely difficult to imagine the formulation and

implementation of any approach to sustainable tourism in the absence of strong local

35

(including regional) authority planning and development control, and without the

involvement of the local communities in the planning process to some degree’

(p.864). Furthermore, Gezici (2006) denotes that without sufficient involvement of

the local residents in the development process the corollary would be detriment the

host community in the first place.

Visitor management Russo and van der Borg (2002) argue that is if sustainable consumption of cultural

heritage is not ensured, investments in urban heritage capital could result in vain. The

authors believe that a lack of proper management of hospitality and visitor flows may

counter tourism development. Parkin, Middleton and Beswick (2000) argue that the

core of heritage business lies in providing visitors a memorable, high quality

experience which is the only guarantee to prolong visitor stays and induce precious

mouth to mouth promotion. Parkin et al. underline the importance of a visitor

management strategy to ensure total visitor care: ‘each element is important and a

lack of caring, weather it be in the signing, car parking, quality of catering, or the

cleanliness of the toilets, can destroy the overall visitor experience’ (2000, p.108).

Parkin et al. indicate that many of the management actions address the hardware of

build fabric rather than the software aspects of management as interpretation and

services. Moscardo (1996, p.372) points out that ‘effective interpretation can play a

central and critical role in sustainable tourism’ and ‘in the effective management of

visitors to build heritage sites’. Interpretation is by many regarded as a powerful

management tool. The author argues that interpretation at build heritage sites should

create mindful visitors which will contribute substantially to a proper conservation

and management of the site. The author argues that mindful visitors apprehend the

consequences of their behaviour, have greater appreciation and comprehension of not

only the visited site but also of the associated region and nation and are therefore

more inclined to lessen negative tourism impacts (Moscardo 1996).

36

Van den Borg et al. (1995) state that few municipalities involve in tourism related

issues. The authors argue that municipalities should focus at visitor management,

monitoring and controlling the flows of tourist to the city and special attention should

be paid to the excursionists. Butler (1996) acknowledges the need for better visitor

management and puts forward that the great difficulty in tourism development is not

to attract tourists but to control them.

Shackley (1995) considers the service operation problem which, as the author argues,

should be a focus point in managing visits to heritage attractions. Visitors buy an

experience which should not be overshadowed by the negative feelings evoked by

such things as long queuing and waiting times, congestion and overcrowding, lack of

personal attendance etc. (Parkin et al. Shackley; 1995; Van der Borg et al 1996).

Visitor management in heritage attractions is complicated by historical, architectural

or financial complexities which hinder an optimal service delivery. Shackley (1995)

underlines the need to control visitor demand according to the attraction’s fixed

capacity and service management should focus on pre-visit issues as parking access

and welcome, interpretation and on the arrivals process, managing queuing and

special ticketing.

37

Planning for urban heritage tourism In order to make heritage tourism in cities a profitable and sustainable business,

providing an optimal visitor experiencing without deteriorating the quality of life of

the local population, integrative forward planning will be a crucial matter (Page 1995;

Ashworth and Tunbridge 2000; Orbasli 2000).

Ashworth and Tunbridge (1990; 2000; Ashworth 1996) distinguish three periodical,

however contemporarily co-existing public-sector planning approaches in historic

cities: preservation-, conservation- and heritage planning (figure 2.7). Although the

terms are often synonymously used in literature, according to Ashworth (1996) each

of these approaches is essentially different, based on distinctive objectives and values.

Preservation planning stems from the late 19th century with the main goal of building

survival. Subsequently, conservation planning has emerged in the 1960s as a result of

the success of the preservation planning and was based on the conservation of entire

districts or historic cities including forms and functions. Heritage planning has been

developed since the 1980s out of the necessity to manage contemporary heritage

consumption (Ashworth 1996).

Figure 2.8: Approaches to the past, adapted from Ashworth (1996)

A decade ago, Richards (1996) pointed out that many tourism policies suppose that

tourists can be served with a ‘generalised cultural or heritage product’ considering

Preservation Conservation Heritage - planning

APPROACHES

DEVELOPMENT OF CONCERN

TIM

E 1850 +

1960 +

1980 +

(Western Europe)

38

that basically every destination could possibly be developed for tourism. However, as

many writers suggest, heritage tourists often deliberately decide which place to visit.

The traditional and better-know heritage destinations still gain an important advantage

over the recent new developed sites because of their ‘accumulated symbolic and

aesthetic value’ (Richards 1996 p., 262). Nevertheless, many cities have become

tourist destinations without much stimulating efforts and Ashworth and Tunbridge

underline that:

‘Much urban tourism planning has been a reaction to a situation over which urban governments felt they had little control, therefore it was only sensible to profit from what could not be prevented’ (1990, p.260).

Pearce (2001) points out that recent established urban tourism policies tend to

conform to two types. One originates from the reaction on emerged problems of

higher visitation levels, the other reflects the increasing positive and active attitude of

urban governments towards tourism development, recognising its potential to

revitalise the urban sector.

Furthermore, tourism planning literature indicates that a lack of forward planning is a

mayor reason for unsustainable tourism development. Orbasli (2000) states that

sustainable development planning for tourism in historic towns is of great importance.

However, the author indicates that:

‘the complexity of the urban decision-making mechanism, the bureaucracy of the planning system and the short term goals of finance continue to hinder forward-looking decisive planning and the active implementation of core objectives’ (Orbasli 2000, p.150). Russo and van der Borg (2002) state that city planners should focus more on the

intangible elements of the tourism product since these intangible elements make a

vital difference to the attractiveness of a destination. Orbasli cites Dower (1974,

p.963) who underlines that tourism planning in historic towns needs to be based on

the capacity of the locality and the interests of the local population. Page (1995)

summarises the elements that should be integrated in the formulation of urban tourism

planning policies (figure 2.9). Page (2005) puts forward that the planning of urban

tourism is intertwined within the wider concept of urban planning. Tourism planning

should be an integrated factor in the overall urban planning policy given that a

39

sustainable, high-quality environment for a city’s population to live in provides the

basis for the development of an attractive and sustainable urban tourism environment.

Figure 2.9: The elements of a tourism plan, adapted from Page (1995)

Conclusion This chapter has introduced the reader to a number of elemental concepts and issues

in the urban heritage tourism literature. It has indicated the importance of heritage

tourism for urban destinations and the implications that urban heritage tourism

development engenders. The next chapter describes the methodology process wielded

for this dissertation.

Natural and socio-

economic environment

Tourist attractions and facilities

Other tourist facilities and

services

Transportation

Other

infrastructure

Institutional

elements

Accommoda-tion

Domestic/international tourism markets

Residents’ use of tourism infrastructure

40

Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction This chapter illustrates the methodology of the dissertation. It presents the aim and

objectives of the research project, discusses the types of data collected, and clarifies

and rationalises the data collection methods used in the study. Furthermore, sampling

techniques and limitations will be evaluated.

Research ‘The practise of research is a messy and untidy business which rarely conforms to the

models set down in methodology textbooks’ (Brannen 2003). Research implies a

discovery of something previously unknown and aims to increase human knowledge.

Carrying out research enables us to understand, interpret or predict phenomena that

are of importance and interest to us (Elias 1986 in Veal 2006; Clough and Nutbrown

2002). ‘Research is a creative process involving the systematic gathering and

interpretation of information, leading to advances in knowledge’ (Finn et al. 2000,

p.63) and ‘different methods can be used to collect data on the same thing’

(Denscombe, 2003, p.132). Many different strategies to carry out research projects

are described in literature and most of these are applied in the tourism field.

Clough and Nutbrown (2002 p.3) indicate that ‘Research is methodology’. The

authors put forward that the entire research process is methodological and that

methodology buttresses the whole of the research. The task of methodology is to

explicate the selected research methods. Methodology demands the researcher to

justify the chosen research decisions throughout the research process. Clough and

Nutbrown (2002, p.29) add that ‘A methodology shows how research questions are

articulated with questions asked in the field’ and that ‘its effect is a claim about

significance’. Methodology forms the basis for the assertions and justifications in the

research study.

41

Methodology and methods Selecting the appropriate research methods is crucial (Veal 2006; Hakim 2006).

Clark et al. (1998) point out that the choice of topic can concurrently determine the

methods to be followed, yet a variety of methods may prove suitable. Bell (2005)

puts that a clear idea of what needs to be discovered, and for which purpose, is vital

for selection of the proper research approaches and indicates that the number and

features of the selected research techniques will be determined by the scope and time

limits of the study. Although the many different methods described in the research

literature may appear to conform to strict rules and fixed techniques, Clough and

Nutbrown (2002) indicate that in practice, most researchers do not experience

methods as indifferent instruments. Often, theoretical methods need to be

scrupulously adapted from ‘other drafters’ cast-offs which whilst providing a general

guidance were not made for this particular job’ (Clough and Nutbrown 2002, p.27).

The authors argue that it is effectively this case-specific character of the research

methods that needs to be clarified through methodology.

42

Aim and objectives

The aim of this study is to investigate and evaluate the positive and negative aspects

of tourism development in contemporary urban heritage tourism and to identify

opportunities for sustainable management, focussing on the tourist-historic town of

Dubrovnik.

The objectives of the dissertation are:

To gain understanding of and provide a theoretical framework for heritage

tourism in urban destinations.

To evaluate trends and prevailing issues in the urban tourism industry and to

indicate the role of tourism in historical towns.

To discuss the problems which heritage cities face in their attempts to build a

viable and manageable tourism industry and evaluate the existing

opportunities to place sustainability on a higher level.

To identify the attitudes and motivations from the different stakeholders

involved in the Dubrovnik tourism industry.

To determine the opportunities for Dubrovnik to develop and manage the

tourism sector in a more sustainable way and to elaborate a number of

propositions for sustainable tourism management in the city that may prove

valuable for and transferable to other heritage tourism cities.

43

The research project has been carried out on the basis both secondary and primary

data collection, to be discussed in the following sections.

Secondary data collection and the literature review

Research literature commonly distinguishes between primary and secondary data

resources, both representing distinctive forms of information and substantiation.

Secondary data collection involves a review of previous research which forms a

significant and in most cases indispensable step in research projects as it serves as a

fundament and a framework for the research questions (Punch 2006; Veal 2006; Bell

2005). Veal (2006) points on the different functions of secondary data which can

vary ‘from being the whole basis of the research to being a vital or incidental point of

comparison’. The author indicates that secondary data are existing data ‘collected for

some other (primary) purpose but which can be used a second time in the current

project’ (Veal 2006, p. 147). In this case, the researcher is the secondary user of

information that has already been examined and structured by someone else. Hart

(1988 in Bell 2005) points out that a researcher will not have a good understanding of

his research topic without the verification of what and how information has already

been produced on it, therefore the collection of secondary information related to the

research topic is likely to be an important first and ongoing stage (Denscombe 2003).

Bell (2005) ads that the researcher needs to demonstrate his study of relevant

literature and his insight in the topic area. Furthermore Veal (2006, p.121) adds that

the literature review is a ‘source of, or stimulant for, ideas, both substantive and

methodological’ and that it is vital ‘in the formulation of research projects’.

However, it should not be assumed that all secondary data is true or valid and a proper

selection of appropriate information is required for the particular research case

(Preece 1994).

Sources for secondary data analysis. Secondary data is mainly extracted from documentary sources. Its analysis, often in

the context of a literature review, is a ‘major method for social research’ (Mason,

1996, p. 104). ‘Documents can be treated as a source of data in their own right’

(Denscombe, 2003 p. 212) and refer to any type of material that provides information

44

on a given phenomenon and that ‘exists independently of the researcher’s actions’

(Corbetta, 2003, p. 306). Within the wide variety of documentary sources that can be

employed for social research, Denscombe (2003) mentions the examples of books,

journals, websites, diaries, newspapers and magazines. Moreover he clarifies that

visual sources such as pictures, artefacts, video recordings and also music and sounds

come under sources of documentary data.

Advantages and limitations of secondary data analysis

One advantage of secondary data analysis as stated by Hakim (1982 in Finn et al.

2002) is that it encourages the researcher to cogitate about theoretical aims and

relevant issues. Moreover, the author values investigation of secondary data

resources for its ‘broader analysis of social conditions and change’ (Finn et al. 2002,

p.57). Veal mentions that secondary data may ground on larger samples than feasible

in the actual primary research and that its analysis may yield specific serendipitous

findings. Furthermore, secondary data resources offer some very practical advantages

given that its collection demands less time and efforts and is therefore much cheaper

than primary data collection. Another mayor practical advantage is that secondary

data collection analysis can generally been done at the moment that suits the

researcher (Veal 2006). However the advantage, Veal indicates that secondary data

may not always prove ideal or appropriate for the current research project since the

information may have been collected for a different purpose and in a different context.

Furthermore the author points at the possible limitations to secondary data analysis

when inaccessibility of raw data impedes re-analysis or manipulation of the data for

current study.

Analysis of secondary data in the form of a literature review has allowed the

researcher to realise and identify the many key issues on the selected research topic.

Moreover, secondary data analysis helped to construct new and better relationships

between the existing body of theory and the researcher’s personal ideas and

viewpoints (Dale et al. 1998 in Finn et al. 2000). The secondary data used for the

composition of a literature review for this dissertation (chapter 2) is largely extracted

from academic journals and books consulted in the library of the Bournemouth

University (UK).

45

Primary data collection Primary research involves the collection of first hand, original data, and should occur

in a structured and methodological manner (Clark et al. 1998; Jennings 2001; Veal

2006). According to Preece (1994) the crux of a primary data sources is its empirical

character and the personal involvement of the researcher through straightforward

experience and observation of the actual and real situation. Primary data collection

can prove expensive and time consuming (Veal 2006). As mentioned, the selection of

employed research methods for data collection should happen in conformance with

the research topic and questions. Primary research methods are generally divided into

qualitative and quantitative techniques to be discussed in following sections.

Denscombe (2003) indicates that, according to the research aims and objectives, the

most apposite research strategy needs to be selected to ensure a collection of

valuable data. Execution of primary research for this dissertation has taken place on

the basis of three distinctive data collection methods; interviews, observation and

questionnaire survey, integrating both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The

researcher decided to make use of different research techniques for a number of

reasons. Firstly, he esteemed the importance of a holistic approach to gain a more

complete insight of tourism development in Dubrovnik. Participant observation was

selected as an appropriate method to experience directly many of the issues that

reflect the past, current and future tourism development in the city. It provided the

researcher the opportunity to analyse the situation with own eyes and interact with a

large number of people, all differently involved in the Dubrovnik tourism industry

and all conveying their personally unique perspectives of tourism development in the

city. Secondly, questionnaires have proved to be a helpful tool to gather standardised

information from a large number of respondents and thirdly, in-dept interviews with a

number of identified key persons with a high involvement in and/or knowledge of the

city’s tourism industry have produced a great amount of specific and rich information.

The fieldwork undertaken for this study has been carried out during a two weeks

sojourn in Dubrovnik in February 2006.

The nature of qualitative research, the concepts of triangulation and the case study,

and the key features of the applied research methods for this academic work will be

discussed in more detail in the following section.

46

Qualitative research methods

‘Qualitative research methods is a complex, changing and contested field – a site of

multiple methodologies and research practises’. Qualitative research is ‘an umbrella

term which encompasses enormous variety’ (Punch 2005, p.134). Veal (2006)

indicates that qualitative research methods generally concern the collection of large

amounts of ‘rich’ information about a limited or small number of cases and are ideal

to examine attitudes, meanings and perceptions of individuals. The most commonly

used qualitative methods in leisure and tourism research include in-depth interviews;

group interviews; participant observation; textual analysis; biographical methods; and

ethnography (Veal 2006). Qualitative methods rely on the involvement of the

researcher during the research process (Flick 2002). Hakim (2006) argues that

‘qualitative research is concerned with individuals’ own accounts of there attitudes,

motivations and behaviour. Therefore, qualitative research methods can be subjective

and observer bias may occur (Bell 2005).

Mixing methods: triangulation

Brannen (2003) points out that the combination of both qualitative and quantitative

research methods is most frequently expressed in the concept of triangulation.

Triangulation is based on the principle of ‘multiple operationism’ which embraces the

idea that deployment of more than one method will enhance the validity of the

research findings (Denscombe 2003). Clark et al. (2002) recognise the force of

triangulation to improve understanding of the research phenomenon which could not

be achieved by use of single methods and Denscombe argues that using multi-

methods ‘allow the researcher to see the thing from different perspectives and to

understand the topic in a more rounded an complete fashion’ (2003, p.132).

However, the author denotes a cost of triangulation since there will almost certainly

exist a need to ‘sacrifice some areas of the investigation which would have been

included using one method in order to free up the resources to a multi-method

approach’. Furthermore, Clark et al. (2002) comment that a wider range of collected

data can induce confusion and disrupt focused research. Moreover, they state that

there exists no logical and rationale assumption that a multi-method approach

enhances validity and the integration of both quantitative and qualitative approaches

47

may complicate the comparability of the findings. Brannen (2003) denotes that when

findings from both approaches do not match, the researcher often tends to regard

qualitative evidence as more trustworthy than quantitative results since the former

entails a closer contact to the research subject and a greater senstitivity to the context

which engenders a greater confidence in the validity of the findings. However,

Brannen (2003) argues that qualitative findings should not simply be justified as more

legitimate but inconsistency between both data forms should be interpreted as a

suggestion for new focus of investigation. For the current study project the author has

decided to combine three distinctive research methods. The principal rationale fir this

decision is that the researcher esteemed qualitative data collection from a number of

key persons, but simultaneously wished to gain an insight of the opinions and

attitudes the larger population, formed by the people of Dubrovnik and the tourists at

the destination.

Case studies As indicated before, for this dissertation the researcher has made use of a case study

enquiry focused on tourism development in Dubrovnik. The case study approach will

be discussed in the following section.

‘A case study involves the study of an example - a case - of the phenomenon being

researched’ using the investigation of a single case to understand and illustrate the

phenomenon under enquiry (Veal 2006, p.108). As triangulation, the case study

approach permits and encourages the researcher to deploy ‘a variety of sources, a

variety of data types and a variety of research methods as part of the investigation’.

Therefore observation, collection of documents, informal interviews and

questionnaires can by effectively combined (Denscombe 2003, p.31; Veal 2006).

Yin (2003 in Veal 2006, p.108) defines a case study as an empirical investigation that

enquires a contemporary phenomenon within its actual, ‘real-life context’, where

‘boundaries between phenomenon and contexts are not clearly evident’. However,

Punch (2005) puts forward that that the researcher needs to determine and indicate the

boundaries of the case as accurate as possible. Yin states that a case study enquiry

involves ‘many more variables of interests than data points’ and that it depends on

48

‘multiple sources of evidence’ structured in a ‘triangulating fashion’ (2003 in Veal

2006, p.108; Punch 2005). Furthermore, Hammersley and Gomm (in Gomm et al.

2000) indicate that in a case study approach quantification of data is not the crucial

issue and qualitative data may be treated as superior. Moreover, the authors point out

that the approach may not focus on theory integration or infer empirical

generalisation. Inaptitude to produce generalisable findings forms a mayor source for

critic on the case study approach. It is often stated that a case study just applies to the

particular situation and that its findings are not legitimate or applicable in a broader

context. Nonetheless, Punch (2005 p. 146) puts that:

‘Clearly every case that can be studied is in some respects unique, but every case is also, in some respects, similar to other cases. The question is whether we want to focus on what is unique about a particular case, or on what is common with other cases’ (Punch 2005) .

Punch (2005) advocates the benefits of an in-depth understanding of the unique and

particular case for knowledge advancement and argues that only an in-depth case

study can lead to understanding of the relevant factors in a new or persistent research

phenomenon. Furthermore, Stake (in Gomm et al. 2000, p.19) points out that case

studies are helpful in the investigation of human affairs ‘because they are down-to-

earth and attention-holding’. The author argues that case studies are often the

preferred research method since the may be epistemologically in concordance with

the researcher’s experience and so, for the researcher, a legitimate basis for

generalisation (Stake in Gomm et al. 2000).

In respect to this study of tourism development in the tourist historic city of

Dubrovnik, the unique character of the case is evident in many aspects, but

simultaneously many issues and problems feature great convergence with those

persistent in other urban and natural tourist destinations. On basis of the case study of

Dubrovnik the researcher will elaborate a number of propositions as a representation

of the ultimate outputs of the research. These propositions can be examined for their

applicability and transferability to other cases and can suggest generalizability by

indication of ideas and suggestions for investigation in further research (Punch 2005).

Within the context of a case study enquiry, the researcher has integrated three

distinctive but complementing research methods: Interviews, questionnaires and

49

participant observation. The different techniques will be appraised in the following

sections.

Interviews An important advantage of the interview is its adaptability (Bell 2005). An adroit

interviewer can elaborate and comment on the interviewee’s ideas and identify

motives, values and feelings which would be impossible in the case of a questionnaire

survey (Clark et al. 1998). Although interviews are often typified as a conversation

between the interviewer and the interviewee, Denscombe (2003) and Silverman (1985

in Denscombe 2003. p. 163) state that interviews involve a set of assumptions and

understandings about the situation which are not normally associated with a casual

conversation. Denscombe points at important issues as obtainment of consent from

the interviewee which should be fully aware of the purpose of the interview and the

manner in which the words of the respondent may be reproduced. Moreover the

author points at the ‘implied agreement’ that the researcher is entitled to control the

procedure and direction of the conversation.

The researcher has tried to pose identical questions following an interview scheme.

However, certain questions have been omitted in particular interviews since they may

have been answered already in the preceding part of the interview; the answer clearly

emerged out of the context or because the particular answer proved unsuitable in the

given context. On the other hand, many additional and distinctive questions have

been posed to elaborate interesting and relevant issues raised during the

conversations.

Types of interviews Three main types of interviews are distinguished: structured interviews; semi-

structured interviews and unstructured interviews. The structural interview features a

strict control over the proceedings of the interview and the questions and answers

involved (Punch 2005). Since all interviewees face identical questions and answers

may be pre-coded, findings of structural interviews are relatively easy to analyse and

suitable for collection of quantitative data as they resemble ‘spoken questionnaires’

(Crabtree and Miller 1992). Semi-structured interviews also involve a list of issues

50

and questions, however, the interviewer will allow greater flexibility in the procedure

and direction of the interview. Answers may be open-ended and the respondent will

have space to speak in a broader and more detailed manner over the issues addressed,

involving his personal points of interest (Veal 2006; Crabtree and Miller 1992).

Unstructured interviews give the interviewee full opportunity to elaborate on his

thoughts. The interviewer only introduces one or several topics and avoids intrusion.

Unstructured interviews are likely to produce valuable and rich data but these may

result in a more complicated and time consuming analysis (Bell 2005; Punch 2005;

Crabtree and Miller 1992).

For the primary, qualitative research of this dissertation the researcher has carried out

a substantial number of semi-structured interviews. The researcher esteemed a

collection of qualitative data which would reflect the close relation of the interviewees

to the research topic. Semi-structured interviews were considered to be an

appropriate tool since these allowed the interviewees to express and clarify personal

attitudes and feelings enabling an in-depth and simultaneously broad discovery of the

many complex issues involved. The personal relationship with the interviewees and

the space for larger answers is likely to provide profound and unexpected information

of great value to the aim of research (Denscombe 2003). However, as Punch (2005)

indicates not everything can be investigated and research issues need to be focused

and limited.

Questionnaires Information obtained by questionnaires differs from data collected through interviews,

observation or documents since questionnaires produce written information which is

directly supplied by people in response to the questions selected by the researcher

(Denscombe 2003). Veal (2006) points at out that the researcher needs to be very

exact about the data requirements from the starting point given that, in contrast to the

use of qualitative techniques, a questionnaire survey implies fixed and irrevocably

questioning. Questionnaire-based surveys generally rely on the respondent’s personal

justification of his answers. Validity of the answers needs to be taken into

consideration since the researcher is unable to esteem accuracy and honesty of the

51

responses. Questionnaires surveys generally involve considerable number of subjects

(respondents) and presentation of findings in numerical terms (Veal 2006).

Some of the advantages of a questionnaire survey are that through quantification,

questionnaires enable the researcher to present complex information in a compendious

and comprehensible manner. Moreover, questionnaires permit the collection of

straightforward information about the frequency of meanings and perceptions of the

population as a whole (Veal 2006; Bell 2005). Furthermore, questionnaires generally

follow manifest research procedures which facilitate verification of the collection

method and interpretation of the findings.

For the purpose of this study, the author has collected data of a total of 76

questionnaires which have been conducted both by means of interviewer- and

respondent completion. The researcher has conducted interviewer-completed

questionnaires to increase responds rates (Several respondent proved more willing to

participate with ‘help’ from the researcher), to collect fuller and more complete

answers and additional information (Interview completion often led to in-depth

discussions concerning the phenomenon under study), and because language barriers

necessitated the assistance of the researcher (Though almost all approached potential

respondents could speak and understand basic English, a substantial number appeared

unable to read and or understand written questions).

The research questions Questionnaires have basically been distributed to two main groups of respondents:

tourist and residents. Although both target groups have been principally addressed

with identical questions, a number of questions has been omitted or altered according

to the characteristics of respondents. The researcher has endeavoured to match the

questionnaire questions as much as possible with those posed in the in-depth

interviews.

The questionnaire used for tourists comprises a total of 18 questions of which 6 are

fact-based and 12 are opinion-based questions. The fact-based questions are simple

questions to identify the social-economic/demographic profile of the respondents and

52

the intensity of the respondents’ relation to the research questions. (length of

stay/residence, first/repeated visit, occupation etc.). The opinion-based questions

basically tend to identify the respondents attitude towards the implications of tourism

development in Dubrovnik. The questionnaire designed for residents consists of a

total of 12 questions of which 2 are fact-based.

The opinion-based questions are constituted of 9 closed and 3 open ended questions.

The closed questions were mainly structures according to semantic differential

method using a numbered scale ranging from 1 to 6. Pairs of contrasting descriptors

(for instance: ‘poor/excellent’; ‘destroys/protects’) have been provided to frame the

answers. The descriptors intend to word the negative/positive attitude of the

respondent towards the particular phenomenon in question. In this sense, number 1

represents the most negative attitude, number 6 the most positive. Furthermore, the

questionnaire includes 2 ‘Likert-scaled’ questions (with a scale limited to 2 response

options: ‘yes’ and ‘no’), equally designed to identify the respondents’ opinion.

The questionnaire questions have been pilot-tested during the initial stage of the

fieldwork in Dubrovnik. Questionnaires have been distributed to a small number of

respondents and filled out in the presence of the researcher to determine possible

complications. Except from the fact that some questions forced certain respondents to

reflect on issues that they had not considered before, no mayor difficulties in

articulation or meaning of the questions have been detected. It should be mentioned

that in the great majority of the questionnaire fill-outs the researcher has remained in

attendance of the respondents to assist in case of difficulties.

Observation Crabtree and Miller identify observation as the ‘most available’ and presumably ‘the

most time intensive and demanding’ of the collection techniques (1992, p.14)

Observation techniques are used on a small scale in tourism research and are mostly

applied in ethnographic studies (Finn et al. 2000). Gordon (1999) distinguishes two

basic types of observation methods: ‘simple observation’ and ‘participant

observation’. Simple observation, also referred to as ‘non participant’ or ‘systematic

observation’, is characterised by the principle that the observer avoids himself

53

‘disturbing the persons in the field by making himself as invisible as possible’

(Merkens, 1989 in Flick, 1998). The research occurs from an external perspective

which, as a result, constrains the interpretation of the obtained information (Bell

2005).

Participant observation on the other hand is described by Finn et al. as a ‘technique of

ethnographic research, best suited to projects which emphasise interpretations of

events between ‘actors’ and the importance attached to language and meanings’

(2000, p. 71). Scandiford and Ap (1998 in Finn, 2000) state that ethnographic

research provides insight into planning issues and community attitudes and can be

very useful to put a planning model into practice. The participant observation

method, which may well be supplemented by interviews, studies of records or

conversations, implies a high or total involvement of the researcher as the research

method examines a given phenomena ‘from the inside as well as the outside’

(Gordon, 1999). It involves the researcher ‘in the daily life of an individual, group or

community and listening, observing, questioning and understanding (or trying to

understand) the life of the individuals concerned’ (Bell 2005, p.186).

For the current study the researcher has conducted unstructured participant

observation. Veal (2006, p.216) indicates that this research technique induces ‘a need

for a creative ‘eye’ which can perceive the significance and potential meaning of what

is being observed’ in relation to the research question. Veal comments that accurate

observation of the happenings in a given leisure or tourism situation can prove to be a

more apposite research method than the use of questionnaires and interviews. The

researcher receives a continuous flow of information which may turn out to be more

valuable and contributing to a holistic explanation of the relationships between the

various facets of the examination than a series of structured surveys which are likely

to only reflect the surface reality (Mason 2002; Punch 2005).

The researcher has observed the daily life of employees/residents and tourist in

Dubrovnik and engaged in manifold meetings and informal talks with a large range of

people all playing a different role in and carrying different perspectives of the

Dubrovnik tourism industry. Although the participant observation has occurred in an

unstructured and possibly ‘little scientific manner’ and has merely been used to back

54

up and complement the findings from interviews and questionnaires, the researcher

highly esteems the particular research method since it has been precisely the

observation of and participation in the tourism-business life of the city that provided

the researcher with the most holistic understanding of the phenomenon under study.

Sampling ‘In very large surveys, like the census, sampling techniques will be employed in order to produce a small sample which is, as far as possible, representative of the population as a whole. Generalisations can be made from the findings. In small studies, we have to do the best we can’ (Bell 2005, p. 145).

Sampling refers to the selection of a proportion of the population for a study (Veal

2006). All research involves sampling since not everyone and everything can be

studied (Punch 2005). Denscombe (2003) puts forward that probability sampling,

which follows statistical laws and suits large scale surveys represents the standard

technique for social research. However, small-scale and qualitative researchers often

encounter difficulties with the principles and procedures of probability sampling and

tend to make use of non-probability sampling techniques. Veal (2006) cites

Henderson (1991) who states that the qualitative researcher ‘is not concerned with

adequate numbers or random selection’ but tries to coordinate ‘a working picture of

the broader social structure from which the observations are drawn’. Non-probability

sampling techniques stem form the viewpoint that the research process is a discovery

‘in which the sample emerges as a sequence of decisions based on the outcome of

earlier stages of research’ (Denscombe 2003, p.25).

In respect to the in-depth interviews undertaken in the current project, the researcher

has made use of snowball-sampling which enabled him to identify new appropriate

interviewees according to other interviewees’ recommendations (Denscombe 2003).

Furthermore, the researcher used non-probability judgmental sampling to select a

heterogeneous sample. Given the broad spectrum of respondents, the researcher

suggested that such sample would enhance the representativeness of the findings

(Finn et al. 2000). However, to a certain agree, the questionnaire survey has been

carried out according to the principle of convenience sampling (sample selection

according to whoever is available) since unfavourable weather circumstances and

55

unwillingness to participate has forced the researcher to address ‘receivable’ tourists

and address to possible participants in in-door locations (Clark et al. 1998).

The population identified for the current study could be broadly defined as ‘all people

involved in tourism in Dubrovnik’. Obviously, in more specific sense, this represents

a much too general definition of the population given that basically anyone who lives,

visits or communicates with Dubrovnik involves in tourism. Therefore, convenience

and judgemental sampling has focussed on people which, as the researcher assumed,

were likely to contribute valuable information to the study. Given that the researcher

attempted to identify the different viewpoints of those involved in tourism in

Dubrovnik, a rather large variety of respondents has been involved in the study. That

is: representatives of tourism planning authorities, managers of tourism businesses,

employees in the tourism sector, tourism students, residents of Dubrovnik and

tourists.

Limitations

The most severe limitation of this research project has been the limited amount of

available time (or money) which hindered study of the numerous variables in greater

detail and in the context of a more representative sample of the population. The

author has experienced the importance to analyse tourism development from a holistic

perspective but equally became aware of the enormously time consuming and

therefore costly character of such research (Veal 2006; Bell 2005; Denscombe 2003).

The three research methods employed have all produced valuable data but with a

limited validity and representativeness given that the restricted samples involved.

Furthermore, the fact that the researcher has conducted the fieldwork during low

season has determined the composition of the sample which may have yield

distinctive findings than a similar study during high season. Also the entire ambiance

and happening in Dubrovnik may be described as contrary to the situation during high

season which may have influenced the findings. Furthermore, the amount of both

primary and secondary data collected in Dubrovnik has been overwhelming, however,

due to word- and time limitations, the researcher has been forced to limit the analysis

56

to a selection of the semi-structured interviews, the questionnaires conducted with

those living and working (or studying) in Dubrovnik and the findings gathered

through participant observation. Ultimately, the researcher has refrained from

inclusion of the questionnaire-data collected from tourists since these too often proved

unable to produce complete and thought-out answers. The researcher considers the

opinions of the tourists as rather unrepresentative given the high number of

unanswered questions and their confirmations of actually ‘having no idea’ about the

issues under investigation. Furthermore, the researcher admits that most of the

questions were rather related to the situation in the city during high season and not to

the situation during the most quiet weeks of the year when there are hardly any

tourists to be found in the city. Moreover, the researcher learned that except form

little complaints about lack of service, tourists generally do not contemplate over

issues as sustainable management or future perspectives of the city’s tourism industry.

It needs to be repeated however that this could have been completely different when

research would have been carried out during the high season period.

Finally, language barriers have been a mayor obstacle which has turned out to be most

persistent in the communication with the tourists. Besides this, English is neither the

first nor the second language of the researcher.

Conclusion This chapter has described the methodological approach of the research study. It has

indicated the aim and objectives of the study and explained the characteristic,

advantages and disadvantages of the different data collection methods applied.

Furthermore, limitations which largely ensued from the lack of time and money have

been indicated. The following chapter will discuss the tourist-historic city of

Dubrovnik and serve as an introduction to chapter 5 in which the main research

findings will be presented.

57

Chapter 4: Case Study of Dubrovnik

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to provide the reader with the minimum of background

information about the city of Dubrovnik, necessary to enable the reader to place the

research findings discussed in the following chapter in the right context. The main

characteristics of Dubrovnik, a brief description of its history, current trends and

developments and the planned development priorities by the government of the city

will come up.

Dubrovnik

Dubrovnik is a historically important town with an enormous tourist appeal. The city

is located in southern Dalmatia on the Croatian coast of the Adriatic Sea. Dubrovnik

is unique and many claim it is more unique than other tourist cities. Locals often refer

to their city as the most beautiful in the world and ‘pearl’ or ‘jewel of the Adriatic are

commonly used synonyms for the city. When the researcher asked the people of

Dubrovnik why their city is so attractive for tourism these often replied that it is the

mixture of natural and urban beauty that appeals to everyone. The rich culture and

history gives the town the special atmosphere which makes tourist return to the

destination (Milovčić 2006). The old town of Dubrovnik is constructed on the rock

formation that juts out in the crystal clear Adriatic Sea. The town is surrounded by

vast walls with fortresses and towers which form the mayor monument and tourist

attraction of the city. The city possesses well preserved Gothic, Renaissance and

Baroque churches, monasteries, palaces and fountains, museums and art collections

but it is definitely de overall beauty and picturesqueness of its entire urban

morphology and landscape in combination with its turbulent history, still very

perceptible in many aspects, its natural scenery and its location half embedded in the

sea that decides the charm of the destination and the very strong attraction of its

heritage.

58

The Dubrovnik Summer Festival

Dubrovnik performs many cultural and artistic and often traditional events and

celebrations. However, the mayor celebration of Dubrovnik’s cultural heritage is

expressed in the traditional Dubrovnik Summer Festival. This largest cultural event

in Croatia is world famous and a very important yearly returning event for the city as

it forms a crucial element for attracting and amusing the tourists in the city. The

Summer Festival lasts for one and a half month during which the entire city is turned

into a performance stage were opera and classical concerts, theatre performances and

many other artistic performances take place in the picturesque setting of the old town.

History

The city of Dubrovnik was originally named Ragusa and has been founded in the 7th

century. Massive city walls which form the most important feature of the city have

been constructed from the first settlements until the 19th century to protect the

residents from invasions from many different empires. Ragusa expanded quickly and

gained influence over the Dalmatian coast. Trading was flourishing and the city

developed into an important and prosperous economic, politic and cultural centre in

the region, especially during the 15th and 16th century when Dubrovnik was a mayor

rival of Venice. However, the fact that the city has been attacked and occupied by

foreign empires, Dubrovnik mostly succeeded to maintain its own sovereignty which

has largely contributed to the creation and protection of its unique cultural heritage

(Bender 2005).

An enormous earthquake destroyed the entire city in 1677. From the Renaissance

architecture has little survived and the city has largely been reconstructed in the

baroque style. In the beginning of the nineteenth century Dubrovnik was annexed by

Napoleon and belonged to Austria for more than a century till 1918. Development of

Dubrovnik’s tourist industry started by the end of the 19th century and the city became

a mayor tourist destination after the Second World War (Letcher 2005) In 1979 the

old town of Dubrovnik was inscribed on the list of world heritage sites of UNESCO.

Dubrovnik was seriously damaged by the aggression on the city by the Yugoslav

Army, Serbs and Montenegrins from December 1991 till June 1992. The shelling

59

caused enormous damage to the roofs, the streets and renaissance sculpture of the

city. The total war damage in Dubrovnik was estimated at $ 2.5 billion. With Help of

UNESCO and funds raised by the World Federation of Travel Agents and other

international organisations large reconstruction projects have been realised during the

1990s. By the end of 1998 the World Heritage Committee has moved Dubrovnik

from its List of Endangered sites and by the year 2006 the city has near to completely

been restored to its former glories (Turistička Zajednica Grada Dubrovnika 2006).

Post-war trend

The period after the aggression on the city has been extremely difficult. Local

factories had ceased to function, tourism business has come to a complete halt and the

image of Dubrovnik as a tourist destination had been ruined. However, already

during the war, the people of Dubrovnik started to register all the damages which

concerned the total infrastructure including more than 5725 private houses and

apartments and most of the hotels that were destroyed by the war and by the 25.000

refugees who have lived in the hotels for 5 years (Milovčić 2006 interview). From

1995, the city’s tourism industry started to recover slowly. In 1998, the strikes over

Kosovo brought another crisis to the city’s recovering tourism industry, however from

the year 2000, the industry has performed very well and the tourist arrivals to the city

have more than doubled in 5 years time (figure 4.1/4.2). However, the total amount

of tourist that entered the city in 2005 does still not reach the 1990 levels and the total

number of overnights is still 35 % less than before the war (Turistička Zajednica

Grada Dubrovnika 2006). Mr. Market, responsible for the department of tourism puts

forward that the economy of Dubrovnik has recovered steadily during the first years

of the millennium (except from the minor depression in the year 2002 due to the

effects of the terrorist attacks of September the 11th). The budget of the Dubrovnik

tourist board grew from 100.000 Kunas in 2002 to 291.000 Kunas in 2006.

60

Tourists in Dubrovnik (2000-2005)

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Tour

ists

tourists

Figure 4.1: Tourists Arrivals to Dubrovnik between 2000 and 2005 (Turistička Zajednica Grada Dubrovnika 2006).

Tourist overnights Dubrovnik (2000-2005)

0200000400000600000800000

100000012000001400000160000018000002000000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Ove

rnig

hts

Overnights

Figure 4.2: Overnights in Dubrovnik between 2000 and 2005 (Turistička Zajednica Grada Dubrovnika 2006).

Recovering of the tourism industry

Tourism in Dubrovnik is booming, or rather ‘exploding’ (see figures 4.1 and 4.2).

Professor Agutsay (2006 interview) points out that the current tourism development is

a ‘volcano’. As many others, Agutsay indicates that visitor numbers are increasing

dramatically and that especially in the United States Dubrovnik’s popularity as a

holiday destination is growing rapidly:

‘There is a lot of hope. The numbers are increasing so dramatically and I mean, it is not just from Amsterdam, you come in 2 hours. No, they come all the way from the United States to see Dubrovnik’ (Agutsay 2006, interview).

61

Growth rate of tourist arrivals and nights (2004-2005)

0

5

10

15

20

25

Arrivals Nights

%

CroatiaDubrovnik countyDubrovnik

Figure 4.3: Growth rate of tourist arrivals and nights 2004-2005 (TZGD 2005)

Mister Market proudly indicates the growth figures of the year 2005 (figure 4.3)

which manifests the enormous tourist potential of the city but also of the Dubrovnik

country which tourism sector is growing rapidly. The growth rate of the tourist

arrivals to the city of Dubrovnik in 2005 has been 14% above the average growth rate

of Croatia. More over, the average length of stay of tourists in Dubrovnik is

exceptionally high: 4.8 nights for international tourists and 3.2 nights for domestic

tourists.

Hotel capacity

However, the enormous demand for Dubrovnik promises a rise in income for the town

and its people, the urban morphology of the old town and the lack of a proper tourist

infrastructure are likely to cause problems. Dubrovnik still copes with a serious lack

of hotel capacity. There are currently 15.000 beds available in the town including

those in the hotels, marinas, private apartments, camping and a hostel. However, this

capacity is far from sufficient (Market 2006, interview). There are still 3.500 beds

still unavailable in the destroyed hotels. The government of Dubrovnik attempts to

force hotel owners to invest as much as possible in capacity enlargement and

encourages privatisations of all hotels and investment in private accommodation.

Furthermore, the city is engaged in many different development projects to upgrade

and adapt its infrastructure in order to receive the increasing amounts of tourists

(Milovčić 2006, interview).

62

Elite tourism

Another important tendency in Dubrovnik concern the rapidly increasing of the city as

a Holiday destination for the rich and famous and the city is currently promoting itself

as a destination suitable to host elite tourists. Dubrovnik is more and more becoming

a traditional destination for the musical elite and the two international film festivals

held in the city every year are attracting increasing numbers of famous and important

people. Tom Cruz, Roman Abramovič, Roger More are just a few among of the

famous and rich people which visited Dubrovnik during the 2005 summer and were

cleverly asked by the Dubrovnik Tourist Board to assist in the tourist promotion of the

city (Bender 2005).

Extension of the season

Given that Croatia and so Dubrovnik is still regarded as a summer holiday destination

the city has to contend with the strong negative effects of seasonal tourism. One of

the most interesting initiatives concerns the introduction and development of a winter

program titled ‘Dubrovnik In Winter’ which offers cultural activities and events for

tourist visiting the city during the winter period. The program is an initiative from the

Dubrovnik Tourist Board, the government of the city and 66 different businesses in

the city. The program offers a Winter Card with many discounts and free entrances

to cultural spectacles to tourists that remain a minimum of two nights in the town

(Skvrce 2006, interview; Bender 2005).

Future planning

Mr. Market, responsible for the Department of Tourism of the Dubrovnik government

and president of the Dubrovnik Tourist Board points out that that there exist 8

priorities with regard to the future infra-structure developments. The most important

priority concerns the reconstruction of the hotels. The second priority will be the

construction and completion of the highway from Dubrovnik to Zagreb which will

yield a very important improvement for the tourism industry in the country since the

road connections are in a very bad condition. Other priorities concern the support for

63

the small entrepreneurs in the city, the construction of parking garages and the

reconstruction of the port which will be a project involving a total amount of $ 500

million. This very large project concerns 3 mayor sections: the cruise liners and

cruise industry, the yachts and nautical tourism, and the local transport, the ferry

liners will be the third part of this development project. Furthermore, shopping

facilities and a conference centre are planned to be constructed. Another important

development concerns the low-cost carriers flying to Dubrovnik. The government

tries to attract more low cost airlines and regards this as an opportunity to expand the

amount of city-break holidays spent in the city both in summer and in winter season.

Mr Market also indicates the importance of supporting the development of the Human

resources. He indicates that Dubrovnik is more and more recognised as a university

city. A new campus is planned to be build and Dubrovnik will be able to

accommodate 5000 students which is a very large number for a small community and

regarded as a very positive development for the tourism industry since most of the

studies will focus or be related to tourism (Market 2006, interview).

Conclusion

This chapter has introduced the reader to the tourist historic town of Dubrovnik. A

brief overview of the destination’s history, current and planned developments have

been provided to familiarise the reader with the case study. This chapter serves as an

introduction to chapter 5 which will present a selection of the main findings of the

research study.

64

Chapter 5: Main Findings

Introduction This chapter will manifest the findings extracted from the questionnaire survey, the

interviews and the observation undertaken in Dubrovnik. As explained in the

methodology chapter, due to time and word limitations the author has not been able to

use all recorded interviews for data analysis and has therefore selected the 5 most

valuable interviews which have been conducted with a total of 8 persons. The

different issues that will be discussed in this chapter are selected to analyse the current

situation of Dubrovnik’s tourism industry and its perspectives for future developments

assessed by people responsible for tourism management and by employees, students

and residents, all directly involved in the tourism industry of the city.

The importance of tourism for Dubrovnik Tourism is of extreme importance to the city of Dubrovnik. Mr. Skvrce, director of

the Dubrovnik Tourist Board states that ‘everything is based and focused on tourism’

and that the industry is ‘very important for the entire picture of the economy of

Dubrovnik’. The researcher has got the impression that tourism is actually too

important for the city since virtually every person the researcher met in Dubrovnik is

working in the tourism industry and many citizens claimed that tourism was the only

source of income available in the city. Professor Agutsay from the American collage

for management and technology affirms that the economic overdependence on the

tourism industry is an issue that needs to be seriously addressed:

‘It is very risky, it is too risky and I even think that here is the moment where the City Council, the Mayor of Dubrovnik, the entire local government has to think about those things. I always asked myself and I never got an answer: ‘What do people in Dubrovnik actually live from, what are the revenues generators? Okay, it is tourism, but what else?’ (Agutsay 2006). Agutsay argues that other types of industries need to be developed in Dubrovnik.

According to Agutsay industrial or agricultural production would not be feasible but

65

‘service related industries that would not serve only this micro location but rather

spreading the knowledge and attracting some other markets, that would be the real

challenge for the city’ (Agutsay 2006).

The impacts of tourism On the questions whether tourism development improves or rather deteriorates the

urban environment of Dubrovnik, the researcher has received many contrasting

answers. Mr. Skvrce points out that the consumption of the old town is very high and

that there exists a huge pressure on the old town. However, he believes that there is

still space for growth. In addition, Professor Agutsay puts forward that Dubrovnik

has not yet reached its carrying capacity and that this capacity can be enlarged

through proper management:

‘There is still room for growth, especially if you manage, if you manage traffic, if you manage infrastructure. There are places available north and south of Dubrovnik that you can actually develop, there are many plans of what actually can be done. But is it is going to be tough? Yeah. But that is management, that is exactly if you sit down and think about the numbers, think about what is the flow, where are the bottlenecks? Than you can actually create better solutions and make the people in the city feel more comfortable’ (Agutsay 2006). When we consider the mayor impacts of the tourism industry from the point of view

of the local population it appears that a minority (37.5%) of the respondents thinks

that tourism damages the urban environment of Dubrovnik (Figure 5.1a).

66

37,5%yes

62,5%no

yesno

Do you think tourism damages the urban environment of Dubrovnik?

Figure 5.1a: Damaging effects of tourism on the urban environment (Source: own elaboration).

However, figure 5.1b indicates that just 1/3 of the respondents believes that tourism

improves the urban environments. Slightly more people perceive rather negative than

positive effects of tourism on urban life. By far the largest group of the respondents

believes that tourism doesn’t damage (62.5%) nor improve (66.7%) the urban

environment.

33,33%yes

66,67%no

yesno

Dou you think tourism improves the urban environment of Dubrovnik?

Figure 5.1b: Improving effects of tourism on the urban environment (Source: own elaboration).

67

Mrs. Menalo, Chief Curator of the archeological museum points out that physical

damage to the monuments caused by tourism is a relatively small issue. However, the

large groups of tourists seriously damage the total tourist and urban environment:

‘they damage the view; they damage the experience you know. It is like in Venice’

(Menalo 2006). Mrs. Bender, Chief Curator of the Rector Palace museum and

member of Friends of Dubrovnik, the organization responsible for the reconstruction

and restoration of the city’ heritage, heavily criticizes the enormous amounts of tourist

passing through the museums:

‘Too many people who pass through the museum. Too much people for our space, for our exhibitions, for our Palace. Can you imagine that in two or three hours through the exhibitions all over the museum pass more than three thousand people. There are too many people, there is too much humidity because they breathe, it is normal they breathe but is brings too much humidity, especially during the summer when the temperature is very high’ (Bender 2006).

Mr. Zustra, Reception manager of hotel Pucić Palace hotel believes that the cultural

heritage exists to be used and should be accessible to everyone. Zustra argues that

tourism brings in sufficient money to for investments and reparation. The researcher

himself has not experienced any form of congestion or over crowding since he visited

Dubrovnik during the quietest period of the year. Nevertheless, irritation problems

caused by oversized visitor numbers and badly controlled visitor flows proved to form

a mayor source of frustration for many citizens. Some residents explained that they

had to develop special skills and techniques to move trough the tourist crowds and

others declared to avoid certain parts of the city to minimize their frustration of

congestion and inability to move forwards. A shopkeeper working in a jewellery shop

at the Stradun, the main tourist street in the old town assured that she would remain in

her shop at moments that the old town was over flown afraid to get stuck between the

tourists.

As far as the life of the local population is concerned, it are clearly those living or

working in the historical centre that suffer mostly from tourism. Occupation of their

living space by foreigners, noise, high prices and congestion are mentioned as

negative consequences of tourism. Mrs. Bender also explains the problems of the

group-sizes since groups contain often 50 people or more. ‘You know, we are

shouting, one guide is shouting here, the other is shouting there, and it is very….the

68

acoustics are very good here, so it is really a circus’ (Menalo 2006). The

overcrowding by mass tourists also negatively affects the individual visitor who pays

a much higher fee than a group tourist but can not move through the museum or hear

the telephone guide because of congestion and noise. Ms Bašić, personal assistant of

the general manager of Hilton Imperial believes that tourism can damage Dubrovnik

when it is too much oriented on mass tourism. Bašić explains that Dubrovnik has a

basic limit of 15.000 people, exceeding this limit would and damage the quality of the

city.

69

Cultural identity Figure 5.2 which indicates the impacts of mass tourism on the cultural identity of

Dubrovnik, shows a rather equal dissension in the opinion of the local population. It

is a fact that the concept of cultural identity is differently explained by every person.

The researcher has engaged in little discussions with several respondents about

precise meaning of the concept concluding that it may concern the entire way of

living of a population. About half of the respondents kept a rather negative viewpoint

towards the effects of mass tourism on the cultural identity of the city.

destroys 2 3 4 5 protects0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

Perc

ent

26,56%

10,94%

18,75%

10,94%

14,06%

18,75%

Do you think mass tourism destroys or protects Dubrovnik's cultural identity?

Figure 5.2: The effects of mass tourism on the cultural identity (Source: own elaboration). Mr. Skvrce believes that tourism does not negatively impact on the cultural heritage

of Dubrovnik given the very strict regulations and the protection by the UNESCO.

Both Mr. Zustra and Mrs. Menalo argue that it is not tourism development that

changes Dubrovnik’s cultural identity but rather the general globalization process.

70

Zustra indicates that the revenues made by tourism are crucial to protect Dubrovnik’s

cultural identity since these financial means enable a proper maintenance of the

cultural heritage. Furthermore, he argues that the dependence on tourism encourages

everybody to care about the tourist resources. On the other hand, Ms Bašić states that

more money should come available for heritage protection: ‘The cultural thing in

Dubrovnik is the most important; it is the most unique thing that Dubrovnik has.

There is no lack of willingness to protect Dubrovnik’s cultural identity but there’s is a

lack of money, we need more money’ (Ms Bašić 2006).

Atmosphere When we consider the atmosphere in Dubrovnik, figure 5.3 Shows that 61% of the

respondents holds a rather positive attitude towards large amounts of tourists in the

city. The author perceived that the more negative attitude towards the many tourists

in the town was shared by the residents in the higher age groups and those living in

the old town. On the other hand, there are a substantial number of citizens who wish

there would be more visitors, especially during the winter period. Wishes to attract

more tourists are merely motivated by a desire to boost the economical profit to and

spread the tourism business more equally over the year.

A negative consequence of the increasing popularity of Dubrovnik as a tourism

destination is the fact that more and more residents sell their homes to foreigners and

move out of the old town. Therefore the houses are only inhabited during certain

periods of the year leaving an ‘empty atmosphere’ during low season. The author

experienced this intensively. He got the impression that the only people still present

in the old town were tourism employees trying to survive the winter period. When the

researcher attended a cultural spectacle organised for the tourists as part of the Winter

Program, it appeared that the majority of the visitors was constituted by elderly

residents who were still living in the old town. Many citizens have expressed their

worries concerning the departure of the residents out of the old town and some people

have assured the researcher that they were shocked to see that the town was

completely empty at moments that used to be animated with people in the recent past.

71

Professor Agutsay however explains that the crowding out of the old town could be

seen as a natural process and a logical development as people simply do not want to

live in discomfort anymore: narrow streets, no sun, no gardens, no space, no parking

space etc. A lady who had recently moved out of the old town and had adapted her

previous home for holiday renting informed the researcher about the discomfort in

many of the old houses and the difficulty to make the places more comfortable,

especially due to the very strict regulations of the UNESCO which allows only minor

alterations on the monumental buildings. However, although professor Agustsay

admits that an inhabited town with children and clothes hanging in the little streets

contributes to a positive, lively atmosphere, he believes that local inhabitancy of the

old town is not crucial for the success of the tourism industry in Dubrovnik.

not at all 2 3 4 5 very much

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

Perc

ent

16,22%

9,46%

13,51%

27,03%

21,62%

12,16%

Do large amounts of tourists contribute to a positive atmosphere in the city?

Figure 5.3: The effects of mass tourism on the atmosphere in the city (Source: own elaboration).

72

Job satisfaction Although figure 5.4 shows a fairly equal dispersion between those who believe that

tourism employees are satisfied with their job and those who believe they are not, it

also appears that only 8.2 % of the respondents thinks that tourism employees in

Dubrovnik are entirely satisfied in their work. The author has learnt great amounts of

complaints about the working conditions in Dubrovnik. These mostly concern the low

wages combined with very long working hours and hardly or never any day off during

the summer season.

unsatisfied 2 3 4 5 satisfied0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

Perc

ent

4,92%

18,03%

22,95%24,59%

21,31%

8,2%

Are tourism employees in Dubrovnik satisfied with their jobs?

Figure 5.4: Job satisfaction of tourism employees (Source: own elaboration).

Mr. Skvrce believes that tourism employees are generally satisfied with their jobs

since they receive higher wages than those working in some other industries in

Dubrovnik. Mr. Zustra on the other hand explains that it is very difficult to keep the

employees satisfied. ‘You have to keep them happy when working which is really

hard, and you can’t do it even with the money anymore’ (Zustra 2006). Ms Bašić

73

believes that people working in tourism are generally not satisfied with there jobs

because of the unequal distribution of the work over the year:

‘We have too many visitors in summer and almost none in winter. So basically the concept in Dubrovnik and the rest of Croatia is that for 6 months you kill yourself and than you do nothing for the remainder of the year which is very bad because people get too frustrated. Because they have no day of they are too tired and when they are too tired my opinion is they cannot deliver the service in the right way’ (Bašić 2006). The correlation between unfavorable working conditions and imperfect service

delivery is evident. The Researcher experienced himself that tourist service in

Dubrovnik needs to be improved. In some cases, the friendliness of catering staff

needs to be provoked and information can be frankly poor as was the case at the main

bus station for example. However, the positive point for this matter is that not only

the tourists perceive a lack of quality service as a negative point of Dubrovnik’s

tourism product, both government and residents regard improvement of the service

levels as an crucial obligation to develop their tourism industry in the right direction.

74

Relations between residents and tourists Figure 5.5 shows that about 2/3 of the respondents are rather positive about the

relations of the local population with the tourists.

Figure 5.5: Relations between locals and tourists (Source: own elaboration). The author perceived that the negative attitude of the local population towards the

tourists is chiefly directed towards the cruise tourists given that these tourists come in

overwhelming large groups. A waiter working in restaurant at the Stradun typified

the cruise tourist’s as ‘less friendly, less interested and more demanding’. But, most

importantly, cruise tourists were negatively perceived since many locals were

convinced that these tourists spend much less money in the town as they eat and sleep

on the ship and do not want to buy the same type of souvenirs in every destination

that they embark as one student wrote on the questionnaire: ‘From my perception,

tourism here is based on cruise ships, but those tourists don’t spend money as normal

tourist do, so we don’t like them’. However, Mr. Zustra relates the problem to the

lack of diversity in Dubrovnik. It is remarkable that most of the restaurants and shops

poor 2 3 4 5 excellent0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

Perc

ent

2,33%

13,95%

18,6%

30,23%

25,58%

9,3%

How is the relation between the local population and the tourists in Dubrovnik?

75

in the old town offer the same type of food and souvenirs. ‘Offer them something

they like and they will spend the money’ (Zustra 2006).

Attitude towards mass tourism Figure 5.6 shows that the attitude of the local population towards mass tourism in

Dubrovnik is not very positive. Less than 3 % of the respondents clearly favours

mass tourism. 50 % of the respondents holds a rather negative attitude. As has been

mentioned before, many locals relate mass tourism directly to the cruise tourists who

are often negatively perceived. Understandably, these types of tourist are especially

blamed for the negative impacts on the cultural heritage since cruise tourists arrive in

massive, often uncontrollable numbers and appear to be the least interesting target

group from the economical point of view.

negative 2 3 4 5 positive0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

Perc

ent

5,71%

11,43%

34,29%

28,57%

17,14%

2,86%

How is the attitude of the local population towards cultural mass tourism in Dubrovnik?

Figure 5.6: The attitude towards mass tourism (Source: own elaboration).

76

The researcher learnt that a great deal of the residents previews the solution in a

stronger focus on different markets, especially on the higher class and elite tourists.

Locals often indicated that the personal relation from the tourist with the local

population is rather good. However, the popularity of a tourist increases as he or she

spends more money at the destination. Dubrovnik is not capable to deal with massive

visitor numbers so the tourist that can afford to spend more is more welcome from the

point of view of the residents as Ms Bašić puts forward:

‘Now we believe the money will come from a more elite tourism. Then we will also not have such things as damaging the cultural heritage. Otherwise we would just have too many visitors, imagine al these thousands of people coming with their cars. Dubrovnik is a small town and we simply wouldn’t have the space to put all these cars and people…so yes, elite tourism it what we should think about’ (Bašić 2006).

77

Economic gain and mass tourism

Figure 5.7 indicates that the great majority of the respondents believes that economic

progress made by tourism developments is more relevant than the burden and

discomfort caused by high numbers of foreign people visiting the city. Some citizens

made clear to the researcher that one has to deal with the negative effects if one

wished to earn some money as a student indicated: ‘You have to give something to

get something’.

not at all 2 3 4 5 definitely0,0%

10,0%

20,0%

30,0%

40,0%

Perc

ent

1,33% 1,33%

13,33%16,0%

37,33%

30,67%

Does economical profit gained by tourism outweigh the burden of the many tourists in the city?

Figure 5.7: Economical profit and the burden of tourist (Source: own elaboration).

In this sense a lot of people feel that they have to give up a part of their privacy and

share their city with the foreigners. Some locals however admit that this has always

been the case and that many locals accept the situation as it is since they have only

experienced a different scene during the war and the first years after it.

78

Ms Bašić does not believe that the people of Dubrovnik actually get wealthier of

tourism development. People earn good money during the summer season but all this

money is spend during the winter period since there is hardly any job available,

leaving little money at the end of the year for savings and investments. It is often

stated that the cruise tourist, who most strongly represent mass tourism with its

negative impacts to the city, brings in a relatively small amount of money.

79

Tourism management The following section will discuss the findings related to a number of management

issues which formed the topics of separated research questions designed to evaluate

the current tourism management in Dubrovnik, again from the perspective of those

involved and working in the industry.

Responsibility for tourism development Officially the government is entitled to plan and manage tourism development.

However, since most of the problems in Dubrovnik persist due to the incapability of

the town to attract sufficient investments for reconstruction and development, it is

understandable that many of the Dubrovnik residents believe that those who bring in

the financial capital represent the real power and decisive factor behind the mayor

developments as Ms Bašić puts it:

‘The tourism strategy depends largely on the investments that can be attracted. There are some positive developments with respect to the government and the mayor of Dubrovnik but they can’t do much’ (Bašić 2006). Though foreign companies and investors are responsible for many larger projects,

these are not able to ‘do whatever they want’ and have to comply with strict

regulations. Mr. Market points out that the urban planning developed by the council

of Dubrovnik is conditioned by very strict rules and regulations. These regulations

need to be followed up by every investor and developer and if not it will not be able to

get any licenses and permissions from the local government. The determination of the

government to control development is well known as many locals pointed the

researcher at examples of investors who had to give up their plans to construct or

open a business in the city because the government would not grant the necessary

licenses. The locals remember very well the cases when entrepreneurs saw their

illegal business blow up by order of the government.

80

Agutsay agrees that regulations are very strict, sometimes too strict and that these

strict regulations push developers to find loopholes which often result in a lot of

trouble and hinder a healthy economic development. Professor Agutsay states that

overdevelopment is not an issue at the moment in Dubrovnik but that there exist an

overdevelopment in similar types of facilities.

In respect to the management of tourist flows to and through the city, it is clear that no

effective regulations have been established yet. Since tourist flows are uncontrolled

and unlimited, travel agencies and cruise operators decide when to bring in the

tourists which results in impressive congestions and deterioration of the tourist

experience. Bender explains that after the war, the cruise ships were very welcome

since they have brought the first tourists back to the city. However, now the cruise

companies occupy a monopoly position: ‘They dictate to us and they come in four or

six hours all of them. Dubrovnik is too small for that’ (Bender 2006).

Sustainability Mr. Skvrce puts forward that the sustainability concept in tourism development plays

a key role. As the following citation shows, convergence between sustainable

development and economical progress is the central, but a most complex and difficult

task:

‘The figures are pretty much interesting, I mean 20 percent increase’ (2004-2005). ‘Of coarse we are pretty much proud of it, of the figures but priority number one for us is sustainability, how to keep the environment protected how to keep the old city itself protected how to keep the cultural heritage protected. So we are not running for the money, for the figures. Of coarse we are running for the money but the priority number one is not the money, the priority number one is to try to work in compliance with the nature, in compliance with the cultural heritage’ (Skvrce 2006).

Mr. Market, responsible for the Department of Tourism of the Dubrovnik government

and president of the tourist board emphasizes the importance of sustainable progress:

‘What we want is sustainable tourism. Tourism for the long period, for the next 20, 30, 50, 100 years. Not like in Spain, just 5, 10 years and finished. And responsible

81

tourism, that is very important, responsibility of what we are doing for the future generations’ (Market 2006).

Indeed, the researcher has learnt that sustainability forms a focus point for many of

the current and planned tourism developments in Dubrovnik. Since nearly the entire

economy of the Dubrovnik region depends on tourism and since everybody is directly

or indirectly involved in the industry people look at the future and search for

opportunities to guarantee their source of income. Shortly, tourism is so crucial for all

habitants that unsustainable development will come across massive resistance of most

of the population. The difficulty however remains to assess which actions will further

or frustrate sustainable development. Many owners of little tourism businesses as

souvenir shops cafés and restaurants would theoretically support sustainable

development. However, often the desire to earn money as soon as possible is the

deciding factor as one tourism student from American College of management and

technology declared: ‘the situation is very poor. People are focused only on short-

term profit and not on keeping their customers satisfied. Basically mass tourism is

developed here’.

Stakeholders’ involvement According to the statements of all interviewees it becomes clear that to a certain

degree, the local community participates in the decision making process. Mrs.

Milovčić explains that the local population actively engages in the round tables,

discussions, panels and presentations. Furthermore there exist many different

environment and ecological groups which make efforts to protect Dubrovnik’s natural

and cultural beauty. Ms Bender is very positive about the relations with the

government as she puts forward that:

‘The opinion is very, very strong here in Dubrovnik. You know we are a very small town. We have four journals and every journal writes the opinions of the people and now our mayor listens to that…sometime there is a politic issue…but she is very, very…our mayor is a tough person but she is very flexible and she wants to hear what the people have to say’ (Bender 2006).

82

Mr. Zustra believes that there are many locals involved in tourism management and

that the government is willing to listen and cooperate with everybody. Ms Bašić

admits that people are informed, but to her point of view people do not have much

influence. She states that everybody is involved but through their own business or

job. According to Bašić, hardly any people would participate in the development of

tourism development strategies. Furthermore, Mrs. Milovčić however argues that the

Government of Dubrovnik is doing its best to involve many different parties in the

development process. Mrs. Menalo explains that the local residents can get involved

in the managements of small scale matters as protection and restoration and the

development of new entrepreneurial activities, more extensive developments are

generally decided by the government and the investors and according to Menalo,

these are larger projects are mostly well supported by the people of Dubrovnik.

Partnerships Dubrovnik is engaged with different partnerships with other tourist cities. Dubrovnik

is a member of European Cities Tourism which has proved to be a very helpful

relation for the Dubrovnik Tourism Board (Skvrce, 2006). Moreover, there exist a

number of official friends of Dubrovnik as for instance Ravenna in Italia, Graz in

Austria, Badenburg in Germany which cooperate in tourism management.

Mrs. Milovčić points out that the people in Dubrovnik learn form tourism

developments in other cities and countries and that partnerships with other cities are

important to become more involved and informed about the strategies but also the

difficulties and problems in other tourist cities. She confirms that in Dubrovnik

everybody is aware of the importance to protect the cultural heritage:

‘In general the protection of the cultural heritage in Dubrovnik on very high level, we want to avoid the Spanish syndrome if you want. And we will try to skip and avoid the Venetian problem, the problems that Venice actually has got, they are congested with people, with the pollution, the sewage doesn’t function you have an awful smell’ (Milovčić 2006). However the benefits of partnerships between governmental organizations in different

tourist cities, Mr. Skvrce puts forward that there is still no partnership between the

public and the private sector which he describes as a regrettable matter. Skvrce

83

blames the hotel organizations for their unwillingness to cooperate with the public

sector:

‘We are still in a procedure, so they don’t have any power. They have to create the image of their hotel and their services, their offer. They should do that on a base and a tradition of tourism development in Dubrovnik. It is a hospitality. The city has its own brand so it is not very hard for them but I think they might be much more involved in that and I don’t know the reason why they are not. I think they are pretty much closed, you know ‘close the door’, they are not very open to the city’ (Skvrce 2006).

Competition None of all residents who have taken part in this research study believe that

competition with other historical tourist cities is an important issue since everybody is

convinced that Dubrovnik is unique, not only in Europe but also in the entire world.

Mr. Skvrce indicates that although Dubrovnik is unique, it is important to observe

what other tourist cities are doing and acknowledges that the city needs to improve its

competitive position, especially with regard to enhancement of the tourist

attractiveness of Dubrovnik during the winter season:

‘We should maintain and even enhance and improve the quality of service , I am talking about the whole year period, because what we are trying to do is to stimulate the winter period, the programs in winter season in Dubrovnik are definitely very and very difficult, but we are pretty much satisfied with the figures during the summer period but what is missing is a winter period so this is the reason why we are pretty much focused on this particular period and we are trying to create special programs for the coming winter which will be focused on getting as many tourist as possible to Dubrovnik in winter’ (Skvrce 2006).

Research Mrs. Milovčić puts forward that the Dubrovnik Tourist board takes part in the general

research projects which are conducted at the headquarters of the Croatian National

Tourist Board. Furthermore there is the Institute For Tourism which is an official

institution trained to do certain research and the university that carries out a variety of

mostly small-scale research projects. One of the examples explained by Mrs.

Milovčić concerns an investigation of the impacts of the cruise liner industry on the

tourism of the Dubrovnik region. This kind of studies are crucial for tourism planning

84

and development as they chart the positive and negative impacts of the separated

tourism activities and will provide a better picture of the overall tourism products and

performances in the city (Milovčić 2006). According to Skvrce, more research should

be carried out to guide and monitor the tourism industry in Dubrovnik. Agutsay does

not believe that that government and developers cooperate enough with researchers

and engages sufficiently in research projects. He indicates that some initiatives are

being made but that tourism research in Dubrovnik lacks an organized and systematic

approach (Agutsay 2006).

Human resources The human resources that are currently available to function in Dubrovnik’s tourist

industry are quantitatively and qualitatively insufficient. A lack of staff at al levels

persists during high season which lasts from May till October. The lack of higher

skilled employees and managers is believed to reduce in the near future since good

investments are made in the city’s education system and more and more students are

coming to Dubrovnik (Agutsay 2006). It will be more complicated to solve the

shortage of low-skilled employees. Professor Agutsay indicates that the understaffed

situation in the Dubrovnik tourism industry persists simply because the wages are too

low. He argues that the government needs to reduce taxes on wages which are

disproportionately high in Croatia. Furthermore he states that the hotels should

provide food and participate in the accommodation costs of their employees ‘because

if that lower level position employee is going to pay for all the costs of living that

they have in Dubrovnik since they are not from Dubrovnik, they will end up working

for free’ (Agutsay 2006). Agustay puts forward that membership of the European

European Union may be a positive factor since free flow of work force may bring

more employees to Croatia and competition will force the owners of the large hotels

to put more efforts to retain and reward their employees.

85

Tourist capacity The lack of hotel capacity as a result of the destructions of the hotels during and after

the war is generally regarded as the biggest problem for the Dubrovnik tourism

industry. The government is putting many efforts to encourage residents to invest in

private accommodation and to get all the destroyed hotels rebuild as soon as possible.

Mr. Zustra acknowledges that there should be invested in expansion of the hotel

capacity but he points out that investments should be focussed on quality

improvement to fulfil the needs of the higher class and elite tourists. Professor

Agutsay points out that ‘Dubrovnik’ is a buzz world these days. He believes that the

tremendous popularity of the destination will be a positive factor in the future but he

is more skeptic towards the present situation since Dubrovnik’s infrastructure may not

yet be ready to receive and serve enormous amounts of tourists.

‘Are we ready to accommodate and serve all the people? Because service is experience and if my experience was traumatic because of the crowd, because of not being able to walk, to even get a bus or to eat, than it will be a nightmare’(Agutsay 2006).

Visitor management The researcher has experienced that many of the negative impacts of the tourism

industry are caused by the lack of an adequate visitor management. Moreover, it is

obvious that basically all attention is focussed on the old town. Most tourists only

visit Dubrovnik to see the old town and have no idea of or interest for other tourist

attractions in the area. According to Mrs. Milovčić the visits to the town need to be

organised in a different manner to avoid congestion and unequal distributions of the

tourist over the town:

‘The travel agencies are supposed to redesign, reorganize the tours and they are just doing it for a few years so they take the visitors from the cruise ships to the vicinities of Dubrovnik for one or two hours, while another part of these tourists visit the old town, they have to come and go in smaller groups and this is actually the only way to preserve the monument’ (Milovčić 2006).

The problems caused by bad visitor management do not only harm the quality of life

of the local population but also the experience of the tourists which will complicate

86

the effort of the town to attract high class and elite tourists as Ms Bender puts

forward:

‘We now want to make elite tourism but that is not possible with so many people because somebody who comes here and pays a lot for accommodation and for food is in fact in a bad position because since there are so many people he can’t find a place at the beach, he can’t enter at the boat to visit the islands because there are too many people, they are all over. He could not enter. You ask me for the bus: at the main entrance of the old town it is a complete mess. Eleven, twelve busses, you could not pass through that mess’ (Bender 2006).

Beside the fact that a better distribution of the visitors over Dubrovnik and the

vicinities of the city and a rise of the entrée fees is required to guarantee a quality

experience for the visitor, professor Agutsay states that expansion of the season could

be a way to accommodate more tourists more comfortably, spreading these tourists

more equally over the year. Ms Bašić underlines the importance of developing

facilities to attract and amuse tourists during the winter period. She indicates that

there exist many different types of tourists and that for tourists who are oriented on

culture it can be more suitable to visit the city during the low season. Agustsay

acknowledges the need for development of innovative and more diverse facilities and

attractions combined with an intensive promotion of the winter season, but on the

other hand he explains the expansion of the season as a partly natural process:

‘What is happening is that the season is moving to April, it is moving to October. If you want to book in may they will tell you: No, you can’t, because it is full, so would you like to come in April, than you say well okay you know. I have spoken to the marketing director of hotel Argentina and he said that it is coming naturally, that the pressure from visitors is actually naturally spreading throughout the year when they realize that they can not get accommodation from May to September’ (Agutsay 2006).

Future tourism development Figure 5.8 presents a survey of the suggestions for future tourism development given

by the local population. Most of the issues behind the suggestions given can

simultaneously been considered as weaknesses of the destination and are often

equally mentioned as the negative outcomes of the tourism sector in Dubrovnik.

It has to be mentioned that all suggestions are interrelated and that an improvement of

one issue is likely to exert positive effects on the others. The figure shows that

87

discouragement of mass tourism combined with an increased focus on the target

groups of the higher class and elite tourists is the major suggestion. Development of a

proper infra structure, combat of the seasonality problem, a higher service level but

also the other given suggestions are directly related to a focus on the more wealthier

tourist and a development of Dubrovnik into a high quality tourist destination.

Dubrovnik is slowly developing into this direction. Since it is currently a very

fashionable destination, increasing numbers of rich and famous people are visiting the

city and the industry naturally anticipates on this process as Ms Bašić puts it:

‘I think it is a natural process whether it is from the government or from the people that are actually doing the tourism. We are all realizing that elite tourism will be the only solution for Dubrovnik. Everybody says: ‘Dubrovnik is like a new Monte Carlo’ (Bašić 2006).

Suggestions for tourism development

02468

101214

Suggestions

Res

pond

ents

Disencourage mass tourism Focus on areas outside DubrovnikDevelopment of nightlife facilities Provide better serviceImprove infra-structure Increase wagesSpread the season Development of high quality facilities.

Figure 5.8: Suggestions for future tourism development (source: own elaboration)

Conclusion This chapter has presented a selection of the main findings largely extracted from the

conducted interviews and completed with the questionnaire and observation findings.

The chapter has manifested that the great majority of the participants has a good

confidence in the future developments of the city’s tourism industry. However, there

88

exist many opportunities to improve the city’s tourist product and its management

which will be necessary to sustain the industry and guarantee Dubrovnik’s heritage as

tourism resource for the future. In the following and last chapter overall conclusions

of the study and recommendations for urban heritage tourism development in

Dubrovnik and possible other tourist cities will be given. Moreover, options for

further research in relation to the research topic are indicated.

89

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions Page (1995) states that cities and towns form the word’s most important tourist

destinations. Dubrovnik is an example of an urban destination that is near to

completely dependent on tourism and for which the tourism industry has boosted the

economic development of the city. However, overdependence on tourism, which is

actually the case in Dubrovnik, is a risky matter which needs to be taken seriously be

the governmental authorities given that tourism is a fragile business which can be

rapidly and heavily jeopardised by unpredicted locally and globally impacting

developments.

Russo (2002) points out that mass tourism development is cities may deteriorate the

quality of the urban environment both for visitors and the local population. The

tourism industry in Dubrovnik depends for an important part on mass tourism and the

negative effects of large visitor numbers in a small geographic area, especially in that

of the old town are obvious. Congestion, overcrowding, declining service levels etc.

are some of the detrimental impacts of mass tourism in Dubrovnik and harm the

visitor experience (Van der Borg et. al 1996). However, since tourism largely

represents all economic activities in the city, governmental management can focus

intensively on improvement of the conditions of the tourist environment and

economic progress from tourism development will not be impeded by frictions

between different and competing industrial sectors.

The researcher has found that tourism can not be blamed for the negative effects on

the cultural identity of Dubrovnik. Tourism actually forms a part of Dubrovnik’s

cultural identity and has brought the economical means to protect the architectural and

cultural heritage of the city. Although international tourists influence the way of life

in the city, the impacts of world-wide trends and developments as the internet and

90

globalisation in general seem to be much more important than those caused by foreign

people in the city. Strengthening of local heritage and cultural identity both as a

reaction on the globalising forces and as a tool to distinguish from competitive tourist

cities is definitely the case in Dubrovnik (Maitland 2005).

Dubrovnik is an increasingly popular tourist destination and visitor numbers are

booming. However, partly because of the damages caused to the tourist infrastructure

of the city during the period of the Balkan Wars, the city is not ready to host and cater

for the rising visitor numbers. This results in an enlargement of the share of

excursionists to the city, aggravating the traffic- and people congestion which

jeopardises the quality of the tourist experience. Distribution of the tourists over the

old town, but even more importantly, over the entire county of Dubrovnik is not well

organised which compounds the negative impacts of tourism for tourists and

residents.

Mayor developments in Dubrovnik as for instance the reconstruction of the large

hotels are mainly decided by foreign investors. However, the city manages to control

the new developments reasonably well since regulations are strict, construction

licences are difficult to obtain and illegal constructions are simply blown up when

discovered by the government. Although the local population is invited by the

government to participate in tourism development, it seems that Dubrovnik’s

residents can merely influence on smaller scale matters as local restoration projects

for example. Due to the enormous damage to the city’s tourist infrastructure caused

by the war, Dubrovnik has become dependent on foreign investments which has

resulted in a loss of power and control over tourism management by the local

population.

Nevertheless, Dubrovnik’s tourism industry has recovered exceptionally well since

the end the 20th century and the majority of the people involved in the tourism

industry proves to be well aware of the importance to proceed future developments in

the most sustainable way. The great challenge will be to give priority to quality

developments which may require greater human and capital investments and patience

91

for economic profits but which will surely prove more beneficial to the destination

and its people than attempts to profit on the short term.

Recommendations The following section presents a number of recommendations that focus on future

tourism development in Dubrovnik and possibilities for further research actions.

Although these recommendations ensue from research findings that are purely related

to the circumstances in Dubrovnik, the researcher presumes that the following

propositions could prove valuable for and transferable to other heritage tourist cities.

Visitor management

A most crucial issue for Dubrovnik is the development of a strategic visitor

management system. Many of the current problems in the city arise due to a lack of

visitor control and these problems are likely to increase dramatically in the very near

future. Research has to be carried out to determine how the visitor flows could most

efficiently be distributed over the different attractions in the city and more attention

should be paid the tourist opportunities of the vicinities of Dubrovnik to release the

enormous pressure on the old town.

To protect and actually enhance the visitor experience, entrée fees for museums and

other heritage attractions as the city walls for instance should be increased as a mayor

measure to limit the amount of visitors. Furthermore, the government should provide

a more stimulating and comprehensive program for the cruise tourists who are

regarded by the people of Dubrovnik as mass tourists that do not contribute

sufficiently to the cities economy. Limitation of visitor numbers appears to be an

unpopular action to take by both government and tourism businesses and attractions

which are still largely focussed on increasing visitor numbers and with that their

economic profit. Nevertheless, if Dubrovnik wish to develop in the direction of a

quality destination and favourite spot for rich and elite tourists, stricter management

92

of visitor numbers and flows needs to initiated immediately before the destination will

land up in the same situation as Venice, providing a low quality cultural heritage

experience to an heavily oversized amount of tourists being of the least favourite

profile type, namely tourists that are the least attractive form the social-economic

perspective.

Diversification However Dubrovnik’s core tourist product consists of an ideal and diverse

combination of natural and cultural heritage, the offer of complementary tourist

facilities and attractions is underdeveloped. Development of more, and particularly

more diverse facilities to amuse the tourist in the city are required. Solutions have to

be found to develop night-life facilities without disturbing the life of the local

population and a greater variety in type of restaurants and shops should be emulated

both to better serve the needs of the increasingly demanding tourists and to enhance

the competitive position of the destination. Moreover, development of

complementary tourist products will provide new economic opportunities and

contribute to the efforts to enlarge the tourism season.

Service improvement An increase of the service levels is required. Although hospitality service in

Dubrovnik has slightly improved since the second half of the 1999s when it was

called ‘the graveyard of hotel service’ (Agutsay, interview appendix III), it is still far

from sufficient. Even though tourism has become a part of Dubrovnik’s culture,

quality service has not. If Dubrovnik truly wishes to become and remain one of the

worlds’s most popular and esteemed tourist destinations as many citizens of the city

believe it will, high quality service adding an extra dimension to the overall tourist

product of the city will be a must. Training of employees should not only be provided

by the large hotel companies but become and integrated factor in the general tourism

planning and development and should concern to all working or otherwise involved in

93

the industry. Since this touches on nearly the entire population of Dubrovnik, a well

set-up, on going campaign of tourist-service promotion in the city would be

recommended.

Extension of the season Although extension of the tourist season may happen partly as a natural process since

the popularity of the destination is skyrocketing and tourist wish to visit the city

anyhow, the researcher believes that much more efforts should be initiated to make

the winter period actually popular with the tourists. Firstly, as the researcher

experienced himself, the winter is a very attractive and possibly even more attractive

period to visit Dubrovnik than the summer, a matter that has been confirmed by a

substantial number of residents and tourists who had, despite the unfavourable

weather conditions (which are not very common for the period of the year) a pleasant

stay in the city. Besides a more active development of tourist facilities and events for

the winter period, the low season should be much more aggressively promoted and

become a serious competitor of the summer period. The researcher has learnt that

Dubrovnik has great potential to develop tourism in the winter period since the

weather conditions are generally very good and since the more tranquil environment

proves convenient for the culturally motivated heritage tourist.

Collaboration In order to guide Dubrovnik’s tourism industry in the right direction, a common

strategic development vision and its deduced planning policies should be

communicated to everyone involved in the industry. A mayor obstacle for integrative

and conjunctive tourism development may be the absence of public-private

partnerships in the city. It appears that the unwillingness of the large hotel companies

to collaborate with the governmental authorities is a mayor impediment, however

greater efforts to improve the relation between both sectors are necessary. The

government of Dubrovnik should investigate the possibilities to perk up the

94

communication with private sector and research should be carried out to determine in

which ways government and businesses could work together more efficiently and

profit mutually from public-private partnerships.

Research A last recommendation to be made concerns the need to enhance research activities

and with a more intense collaboration of governmental organisations, universities and

private businesses in this matter. Research findings into the needs of both future

tourists and the local population of the city are necessary to function as the basic

indicator for the decision-making in tourism development. As integrative forward

planning is a most significant requirement for sustainable development, planning

policies should be based on quality information concerning the many separated

components of the tourism industry. Therefore more extensive investment in tourism

research in Dubrovnik is a must.

95

Bibliography Aas, C., Ladkin, A. and Fletcher, J. (2005) Stakeholder Collaboration and Heritage Management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (1) 28-48.

Apostolakis, A, (2003) The convergence process in heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (4) 255-264.

Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E., (1990) The Tourist-Historic City. Belhaven, London.

Ashworth G.J. and Tunbridge J.E., (2000) The tourist-historic city: Retrospect and prospect of managing the heritage city. Oxford, Pergamon. Ashworth, G.J. and Voogd, H., (1990). Can Places be sold for Tourism? In: Ashworth, G. and Goodall, B., Editors, (1990) Marketing Tourism Places pp. 1-16 Routledge, London. Ashworth, G.J., (1997) Elements of Planning and Managing Heritage Sites. What? Where? How much? Whose? For Whom? Two different paradigms; Two different answers. In: Nuryanti, W., (ed). Tourism and Heritage Management. Yogyakarta: Gadja Mada University Press. Bender. N., (2005) Welcome to Dubrovnik. (Turistička Zajednica Grada Dubrovnika 2005). Bramwell, B. and Lane, B., (1999) Collaboration and Partnerships for Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7 (3) 179-181. Bramwell, B., and Sharman, A., (1999) Collaboration in Local Tourism Policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research, 26 (2) 392–415. Brannen, J., (1992) Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research, Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing limited. Boniface, P., and Fowler, P. J., (1993) Heritage and Tourism: In the Global Village. London, Routledge. Bruce, M., (2001) PREPARe: A model to aid the development of policies for sustainable tourism in historic towns. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3 (1) 21-36. Chang, T.C., Milne, S., Fallon, D. and Pohlmann, C., (1996) Urban Heritage Tourism: The Global–Local Nexus. Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (1) 284–305. Clark, M.A., Riley, M. J., Wilkie, E. and Wood, R.C., (1998) Researching and writing dissertations in hospitality and tourism, London, International

96

Thomson Business Press. Clough, P and Nutbrown, C., (2002) A student’s guide to methodology. London, Sage. Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Gilbert, D., Sheperd, R. and Wanhill, S., (1998) Tourism Principles and Practice. Essex, Pearson Education. Corbetta, P. 2003. Social Research. Theory, Methods and Techniques. London. Sage. Dredge, D. and Jenkings, J., (2003) Destination place identity and regional tourism policy. Tourism Geographies, 5 (4) 383–407. Du Cross, H., (2001) A new model to assist in planning for sustainable cultural heritage tourism. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 3 (2) 165-170. Evans, G., (2000) Planning for urban tourism: a critique of borough development plans and tourism. The International Journal of Tourism Research, 2 (5) 307-326. Flick, U., (2002) An introduction to qualitative research. London, Sage. Finn, M., Elliott-white M. and Walton, M., (2000). Tourism and leisure research methods: Data collection, analysis and interpretation. Harlow, Pearson Education Limited. Fowler, P., (1989) Heritage: A Post-Modernist Perspective. In Heritage Interpretation: The Natural and Built Environment (vol. I), D. Uzzell, (ed)., pp. 57-64, London, Belhaven. Gale, T., (2005) Modernism, Post-Modernism and the Decline of British Seaside Resorts as Long Holiday Destinations: A Case Study of Rhyl, NorthWales. Tourism Geographies, 7 (1) 86–112. Garrod, B. and Fyall, A., (2001) Heritage Tourism: A Question of Definition. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (4) 1049-1052. Garrod, B. and Fyall, A., (2000). Managing Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27 (3) 682 – 708. Gezici, F., (2006) Components of Sustainability: two cases from Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (2) 442-455. Gordon, W., (1999). Goodthinking : a guide to qualitative research. Henley-on-Thames, Admap. Hall, C.M., (1999) Rethinking Collaboration and Partnership: A Public Policy Perspective, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7 (1999), pp. 274–28. Hampton, M. P., (2005) Heritage, local communities and economic development. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (3) 735-759.

97

Harrison, M., (1994) Manual for Heritage Management. London, Pitman. Herbert, D., (2001). Literary Places, Tourism and the Heritage Experience. Annals of Tourism Research 28, pp. 312–333. Hewison, R., (1987) The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London, Methuen. Howard, P., (2003) Heritage, Management, Interpretation, Identity. London, Continuum. Hughes, G., (1995), The Cultural Constraints of Sustainable Tourism. Tourism Management 16, pp. 49–60. Hunter, C., (1997) Sustainable tourism as an adaptive paradigm. Annals of Tourism Research, 24 (4) 850-867. Ioannides, D. and Debbage K., (1997) Post Fordism and Flexibility: The Travel Industry Polyglot. Tourism Management 18 (2) 229-241. Jamal, T. and Getz, Dvw (1995) Collaboration Theory and Community Tourism Planning, Annals of Tourism Research 22 (1995) 186–204. Jamal, T. and Getz, D., (1999) Community Roundtable for Tourism Related Conflicts: The Dialectics of Consensus and Progress Structures, Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7 (1999), pp. 290–313. Law, C., (1992) Urban Tourism and its Contribution to Economic Regeneration. Urban Studies 29 (1992), pp. 599–618.

Law, C. (1993) Urban tourism. CAB International, London (1993).

Laws, E., (1998) Conceptualizing Visitor Satisfaction Management in Heritage Settings: An Explanatory Blueprint Analysis of Leeds Castle, Kent. Tourism Management 19 (1998), pp. 545-554. Letcher, P., (2005) Dubrovnik, The Bradt City Guide. Guilford, The Pequot Press. Light, D., and Prentice, R., (1994) Market Based Product Development in Heritage Tourism. Tourism Management 15 (1994), pp. 27–36. Lundtorp, S. and Wanhill, S., (2001) The Resort Lifecycle Theory: Generating Processes and Estimation. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (4) 947–964. Millar, A., (1989) Heritage Management for Heritage Tourism. Tourism Management, 10 (1) 9–14. Moore, M. and Whitehall, P., (2005) The Tourism Area Lifecycle and Regime Switching Models. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (4) 947–964.

98

Maitland, R., (2005) How can we manage the tourist-historic city? Tourism strategy in Cambridge, UK, 1978–2003. Tourism management, Article in Press.

Morais, D. B., Dorsch, M. J. And Backman S. J., (2005) Building Loyal Relationships Between Customers and Providers: A Focus on Resource Investments. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 18(1) 2 312-323. Mordue, T., (2005) Tourism, Performance and Social Exclusion In ‘Olde York’. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (1) 179-198. Moscardo, G., (1996) Mindful visitors: Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (2) 367-397. Nuryanti, W., (1997) Interpreting Heritage for Tourism: Complexities and Contradictions. In: W. Nuryanti, Editor, Tourism and Heritage Management, Cadjah Mada University Press, Yogjakarta (1997), pp. 114–122. Nuryanti, W., (1996) Heritage and Postmodern Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (2) 45-56. Orbasli, A., (2000) Tourists in historical towns: Urban conservation and heritage management Spon, London. Page, S., 1995. Urban Tourism, Routledge, London. Pearce, D., (1997) The roles of the public sector in conservation and tourism planning. In: Nuryanti, W., (ed.). Tourism and Heritage Management. Yogyakarta: Gadja Mada University Press. Pearce, D. G., (2001) An integrative framework for urban tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (4) 926-946. Poon, A., (1994) The ‘new tourism’ revolution. Tourism Management, 15 (2) 91-92. Porter, B. W. and Salazar, N. B., (2005) Heritage Tourism, Conflict, and the Public Interest: An Introduction. International Journal of Heritage Studies 11 (5) 361–370. Poria, Y., Butler, R. and Airey, D. (2001b) Tourism Sub Groups: Do They Exist? Tourism Today 1 (2) 14–22.

Poria, Y., (2001b) The Show Must Not Go On. Tourism and Hospitality Research, (3) 115-120.

Poria, Y., (2001c) Challenging the Present Approach to Heritage Tourism. Tourism Review, 56 (1) 51–53.

Poria, Y., Butler, R. and Airey, D. (2001a) Clarifying Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 28 (4) 1047-1049

99

Poria, Y., Butler, R. and Airey, D., (2003) The Core of Heritage Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (1) 238–254. Preece, R., (1994) An introduction to academic research and dissertation writing. London, Pinter Publishers. Punch, K., (2005) Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches. London Sage. Richards, G., (2000) Tourism and the World of Culture and Heritage. Tourism Recreation Research, 25 (1) 9-17. Richards, G., (1996b) Cultural Tourism in Europe. Wallingford: CABI. Richards, G., (1996a) Production and Consumption of European Cultural Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (1996), pp. 261–283. Robson, C., (1993) Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers. Oxford, Blackwell. Russo, A.P., (2002) The vicious circle of tourism development in heritage cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1) 167–184. Russo, A. P., and Van der Borg, J., (2002) Planning considerations for cultural tourism: a case study of four European cities. Tourism Management, 23 (6) 631-637. Russo, A. P., Boniface, P. and Shoval, N., (2001) Tourism Management in Heritage Cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (3) 824-842. Selin, S., (1999) Developing a Typology of Sustainable Tourism Partnerships, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 7 (4) 260–273. Sheehan, L. R. and Ritchie, J.R., (2005). Destination Stakeholders Exploring Identity and Salience. Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (3) 711-734. Shackley, M. (ed.), 1995. Visitor Management. Case Studies from World Heritage Sites. Oxford, Butterworth – Heinemann. Teo, P., and Yeoh B., (1995) Remaking Local Heritage for Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 24 pp. 192–213. Timothy D., (1997) Tourism and the Personal Heritage Experience. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (1997), 751–754. Urry, J. (1990) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London, Sage. Urry, J. (2002) The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage, 2nd edn.

100

Uzzell, D., (1998). Interpreting our heritage: a theoretical interpretation. In: Uzzell, D. and Ballantyne, R., (eds.). Contemporary Issues in Heritage and Environmental Interpretation. London, The Stationery Office. Van den Berg, L., van der Borg, J. and van der Meer, J., (1995) Urban Tourism: Performance and Strategies in Eight European Cities, Aldershot, Avebury Van der Borg, J., Costa, P. and Gotti, G., (1996) Tourism in European Heritage Cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 23 (2) 306-321. Veal, A.J., (2006) Research methods for leisure and tourism: a practical guide. 2nd edn. London: Pitman Publishing. Wahab, S., (1997) Balancing culture heritage conservation and sustainable development through tourism. In: Nuryanti, W., (ed.). Tourism and Heritage Management. Yogyakarta: Gadja Mada University Press. Waitt, G., (2000) Consuming Heritage: Perceived Historical Authenticity. Annals of Tourism Research 27 (2) 835–862.

101

Appendix A: Examples of questionnaires and interview questions

102

The following questionnaire is part of a dissertation research project carried out as final assignment of the European Tourism Management master course at Bournemouth University, United Kingdom. The Purpose of study is to investigate tourism management in European heritage cities with an in-depth study focused on the situation in Dubrovnik. Your collaboration is of great value and highly appreciated. All obtained information will be treated confidentially. 1. For how many years have you been living in Dubrovnik?..........................................

2. Are you currently living in the old town?

3. What is your perception of the way tourism is developed and managed in Dubrovnik?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………..………………..

3. Do you perceive any negative impacts caused by expansion of the tourism sector in Dubrovnik? Which? …………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………..………………..

4. Do you think tourism damages the urban environment of Dubrovnik?

5. Do you think tourism improves the urban environment of Dubrovnik?

6. Do the large amounts of tourists during high season contribute to a positive atmosphere in the city?

7. Are people employed in the tourism industry generally satisfied with their Jobs?

Unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 Satisfied

PTO!

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much

103

8. How is the relation between the local population and the tourists in Dubrovnik?

Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Excellent

9. What is the attitude of the local population towards cultural mass tourism in Dubrovnik?

Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Positive

10. Dou you think urban mass tourism destroys or protects Dubrovnik’s cultural identity?

Destroys 1 2 3 4 5 6 protects

11. Does economical profit gained by tourism outweigh the burden of the enormous amount of tourists in the city?

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 Definitely

12. What would you suggest for further tourism development in Dubrovnik? (What should be improved or avoided?) ……………………………………………………………………………………….…

……………...………………………………………………………..…………………

………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Thank you very much for your cooperation!

104

The following questionnaire is part of a dissertation research project carried out as final assignment of the European Tourism Management master course at Bournemouth University, United Kingdom. The Purpose of study is to investigate tourism management in European heritage cities with an in-depth study focused on the situation in Dubrovnik. Your collaboration is of great value and highly appreciated. All obtained information will be treated confidentially. The questionnaire contains a total of 18 questions of which 7 are fact- and 12 opinion-based.

FACT - QUESTIONS:

Nationality………………………………………… Sex: Age………………………………………………... Occupation…………………………………… ….. Length of stay: (in nights) Is this your first time in Dubrovnik?

OPINION - QUESTIONS:

1. Why are you visiting Dubrovnik? …………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………..………………..

2. What is your perception of the way tourism is developed and managed in Dubrovnik? …………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………..………………..

3. Do you perceive any negative impacts caused by expansion of the tourism sector in Dubrovnik? Which? …………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………..………………..

Male female

1 2 3 4 5 6 -8 More than 8

Yes No

105

4. Do you think tourism damages the urban environment of Dubrovnik?

5. Do you think tourism improves the urban environment of Dubrovnik?

6. Do large amounts of tourists contribute to a positive atmosphere in the city?

7. Are people employed in the tourism industry generally satisfied with their Jobs?

Unsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 Satisfied

8. How is the relation between the local population and the tourists in Dubrovnik?

Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Excellent 9. What is the attitude of the local population towards cultural mass tourism in Dubrovnik?

Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Positive

10. Dou you think urban mass tourism destroys or protects Dubrovnik’s cultural identity?

Destroys 1 2 3 4 5 6 protects

11. Does economical profit gained by tourism outweigh the burden of the enormous amount of tourists in the city?

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 Definitely

12. What would you suggest for further tourism development in Dubrovnik? (What should be improved or avoided?) ……………………………………………………………………………………….…

……………...………………………………………………………..…………………

………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………….

Thank you very much for your cooperation!

Yes No

Yes No

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much

106

Who are you?

1. What is you involvement with tourism in Dubrovnik?

2. How important is tourism for Dubrovnik?

Not important 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very important

3. What are Dubrovnik’s top two:

Unique selling points (advantages)?

Opportunities?

4. Could you mention two mayor developments in the Dubrovnik tourism industry

over the past 10 years?

5. Could you mention two examples of developments that have gone wrong/ been difficult?

6. Does tourism damage the urban environment?

Yes / No Two examples related to Dubrovnik:

7. Does tourism improve the conditions of the urban environment? Yes / No Two examples related to Dubrovnik:

8. Does tourism conserve or damage physical heritage attractions in Dubrovnik?

Conserve Yes / No Damage Yes / No

Two examples related to Dubrovnik:

9. Do large amounts of tourist contribute to a positive atmosphere in the city? Yes / No. Why / Why not?

10. Are people employed in the tourism industry generally satisfied with their Jobs?

Yes / No. Why / Why not?

The follow interview is a part of a research project which I am carrying out for the dissertation of the master course EUROPEAN TOURISM MANAGEMENT at Bournemouth University in the United Kingdom. The Purpose of study is the investigation of tourism performances and management in European heritage cities with an in-depth study of the situation in Dubrovnik. Your collaboration is of great value highly appreciated. All obtained information will be obtained confidentially.

107

11. How is the relation between the local population and the tourists?

Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Excellent

12. What is the attitude of the local population towards cultural mass tourism in Dubrovnik?

Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Positive

13. Dou you think urban mass tourism changes, destroys or protects Dubrovnik’s cultural identity?

No at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much

14. Has tourism brought negative / positive impacts to architectural and cultural heritage?

(Which?) Top two:

Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Positive 15. Does economical profit gained by tourism outweigh the burden of the enormous

amount of tourists in the city?

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 Definitely

16. Who is responsible for tourism development in Dubrovnik? (Structure of power?) Who formulates the tourism development strategy?

17. Is multi-stakeholders involvement encouraged and is it functional?

Could you give my one example? Yes / no Example:

18. Is Dubrovnik involved in partnerships with other tourist cities / regions / countries organisations? Yes / no Example:

19. How severe is the competition with other European heritage cities in Europe?

Insignificant 1 2 3 4 5 6 Severe

20. How can Dubrovnik maintain / enhance its competitive position? Two examples:

108

21. What research is undertaken with respect to the different tourism development related issues prevailing in the Dubrovnik tourist sector? Examples:

22. Do tourism planners and developers cooperate with academic and professional

researchers in the tourism field? Yes / No Examples:

23. How important is the Sustainability concept in tourism planning in Dubrovnik?

24. Does the sustainable development concept determine strategic planning and

development or does rapid economical gain undermine responsible development?

25. Are terms as ‘limits of acceptable change and carrying capacity used tourism planning? Yes / no

26. Are developments in other tourist cities studied and used as examples for how tourism development in Dubrovnik should or should not happen? Yes / no Examples:

27. Do tourists pay for heritage maintenance? Does Dubrovnik maintain cost-representative admission prices for access to historical tourist attractions? Yes / No

28. Are there restrictive regulations to avoid overdevelopment? Examples:

29. What should be changed / encouraged in the actual tourism management?

Two examples for change Two examples to encourage

30. What are the 2 mayor developments in the tourism industry of Dubrovnik that

you expect to take place during the next decade?

Thank you very much for your cooperation!

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very important

Pl / Dev: not sust. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pl / Dev: sust

109

Appendix B: Interview 1 Interview 1: Interview with Mr. Market, president of the Dubrovnik Tourist Board, Mrs. Milovčić, responsible of public relations of the Dubrovnik Tourist Board and Mr. Skvrce, Director of the Dubrovnik Tourist Board. Date 13 February 2006. Interviewer: How important is tourism for Dubrovnik? Mr. Skvrce: Well it is one of the main,… it is actually the main industry, main branch of the economy of the Dubrovnik county. Everything is focused and based on tourism and it very important for the entire picture of economy of Dubrovnik. Interviewer: What are Dubrovnik’s top two unique selling points (advantages)? Cultural heritage is the first on and natural beauty is the second, the combination of sea and city. Interviewer: And Opportunities for Dubrovnik? Mr. Skvrce: I will go back to the previous. Interviewer: Could you mention two mayor developments in the Dubrovnik tourism industry that have taken place over the past 10 years? Mrs. Milovčić: Well it was very difficult, postwar period was the most difficult period. You have to understand that there was a 2 billion damage. Most important damage concerned the infrastructure. The streets, the electricity, the water supply and after that the airport and the hotel industry. It was an enormous damage to start the reconstruction, as a new state Croatia had the priority to reconstruct the villages, the houses in the villages, to return the vanished people which were staying in the hotels, to return them home and than to start to rebuild the hotels. These were devastated by the refugees who had stayed there for five years and there were the hotels that have been destroyed by the war. Than there were many pilot programs, that was why we were actually very successful because we already started in1991during the war to register all the damages, to take photos of every damage and than, to do the classification of these damages in six different categories. We are talking about more than 5 thousand houses and apartments and dwellings shelled, so about 25 thousand people who were accommodated in the hotels for 5 years. We started straight away beginning of 1993. By 1997, 27 hotels were put into function. 98 was a very good season. And than in 1999 you had the strikes over Kosovo, tourism collapsed again and than from 2000 it started to rise up, but we were prepared and many others would like to learn from us about how we were able to recover. Mr. Market: It was a very dirty war, it was a real war. A real war and a very dirty war. Here, in the Dubrovnik region the war was started at the first of October 1991. Suddenly, there was no water; no electric, the situation was catastrophic, full catastrophe for the city of Dubrovnik. Dubrovnik was surrounded. Dubrovnik was on only twelve quadrate kilometers. Surrounded by the Serbian and the Montenegrin soldiers. I have to tell you: We had here, three hundred died people. 33.000 refugees in whole this period from the first of October 91 till the end of June 1995. 33000 refugees and these refugees were mostly from the region of Dubrovnik and exactly 336 prisoners, my friends the prisoners in Montenegro and Herzegovina. You know the situation was terrible, the people were very depressive, the first problem for us after the war after august 95. The last person was killed here in Dubrovnik the third of august 1995. The first problem for us was, for tourism, for economic depression, the people were very, very depressed. But, tourism was started in 1995. Dubrovnik was surrounded by the soldiers, but tourism was already starting, just little numbers but was starting. I have to tell you, because of the war we have in Dubrovnik only 8.500 beds available at the moment. There are still 3.500 beds in the destroyed hotels. And this is the biggest problem for tourism in Dubrovnik. But, you can see the result is really excellent, very, very, very good. We are expecting new beds, new hotel-beds and altogether for example in august

110

we have 15000 overnights but this is together with hotel beds private beds marina beds camping beds and hostel, there is one hostel in Dubrovnik, and this capacity of 15000 is not enough. In first position, we are expecting new hotel beds. The other problem for us is that the road connections are very, very bad. We have very good air connection, by plane, we have good connection by ships but our connections by road are, still today, very bad. We are expecting new roads, to Split to Zagreb, to Holland, to England, to everywhere. Interviewer: How does Dubrovnik attract the necessary funding for these developments? Mr. Market: We are expecting capital, investment from Holland from England from Italy we are expectating investment. But the economy in Croatia is growing quickly, you know the budget of the Dubrovnik city board at the end of 2001 was 100 million Kunas, today, the budget is 291 million Kunas. The result is the economy is growing. Mister Skvrce: The key issue is actually the privatization process: how to force the owners of the hotels to invest money in the properties, hotels and buildings they have. I have to tell you that the situation at the moment in Dubrovnik when talking about the investments and the hotels is actually pretty good. Because each and every hotel owner is investing in the properties they have, there are many examples starting from the Barbin Kuk hotels, not to mention Hilton imperial the owners of the Hilton hotel own two other hotels in Dubrovnik and on the islands and they are planning to invest there as well. Then there is the Libertad hotel with a capacity of 420 beds which is owned by Turkish people and which will be in function for the season of 2008. We are forcing the owners as much as possible to invest in their hotels. We are estimating an important increase in the investment during the next couple of years because there are more hotels are being privatized and the investments are pretty much obvious. So in general we have a very good situation and the perspectives are also very good. So we think that within the next couple of years each and every hotel which is not privatized will be privatized and rebuild. Interviewer: Do you think tourism improves the urban conditions in Dubrovnik, in particular those of the old town? There is a huge pressure on the old city because of its beauty of course. So each and every guest that arrives visits the old town, the consumption of the old town is actually very, very high. Interviewer: Is it to much? Mister Skvrce: It is not too much. Mrs. Milovčić: It is not too much but it has to be better organized, the visit to the city, the visit to the attractions which is, the largest attraction is actually the city wall. But the travel agencies are supposed to redesign, reorganize the tours and they are just doing it for a few years so they take the visitors from the cruise ships to the vicinities of Dubrovnik for one or two hours because, while another part of these tourists visits the old town, they have to come and go in smaller groups and this is actually the only way to preserve the monument. And it was hard to determine who had actually to take care of the monuments; the city government is not so rich that it can afford a large budget for monument preservation. At the moment there is the decision that the association of the friends of Dubrovnik will take care of the city walls and they are actually doing the mayor reconstruction of the monuments and the pavements which are mostly affected because there are huge numbers of thousands of people walking down these streets. But we can’t talk about it to be too much because before the war we had much more tourists and today we are only at a 60 percent of the results we had in 1990. Not only the hotels but also the traffic over the Dubrovnik airport is also a 40 percent less. We have to reach the point of 1990 to say we are completely back. But maybe we can’t cope with the cruise ships but we fight with them it is a global business and we are doing the reconstruction of the port. The city of Dubrovnik guarantees to the European bank that to all the debts of the credits will be brought back. So the city of Dubrovnik guarantees for such a large and enormous investment. But in the future it is going to be much better because the

111

ferries will also be situated closer to the bridge, so it will be much easier to cope with the problems of so many visitors to Dubrovnik. Interviewer: The money to maintain the heritage, is the money coming from tourism? Mrs. Milovčić: Yes, but also the ministry of tourism, every year the ministry of tourism, the creation government the have some money in their budget. Interviewer: Is there enough money to maintain heritage? Mrs. Milovčić: It is not always enough, but slowly, you know, because we suffered very much, still there are thing that has to be done. Mr. Market: Rolf, you can see the monuments in Dubrovnik are in a very good condition, the walls the church the museum everything, ok! Interviewer: I agree that are in much better state then I have seen in many other historical tourist towns. Interviewer: Do large amounts of tourists contribute to a positive atmosphere in the city? Mr. Skvrce: Definitely because they create, together with the locals a specific atmosphere. Mrs. Milovčić: of coarse and it improves actually the standard of life, the way of living, we are returning slowly to the way of living we lived before, this is not something new, the new is that we have a new state, we have our own state (Mr. Market: Yes thanks to god). We need more places for the employment for the young people. Mr. Market: That is the main problem, every where in Croatia. Mrs. Milovčić: They have to rebuild the hotels as soon as possible. Interviewer: Do you think people working in tourism are satisfied with their jobs? Mr. Skvrce: I would say in general yes because the wages the get in the hotels are actually higher in comparison with the wages some people get in some other positions and industries that are actually represented in Dubrovnik. Mr. Market: Yes and actually the high schools and universities in Dubrovnik, it is all focused on tourism; they young people are trained to work in tourism. Interviewer: Does tourism negatively impact on the cultural heritage of Dubrovnik? Mr. Skvrce: No, there are very strict regulations about how and where to construct and you don’t see very huge buildings near the old city, because the city is protected by the UNESCO so it would be really stupid to build near the walls of the old town. Interviewer: So all of you agree that new constructions and developments in Dubrovnik are in style and harmony with the architectural environment? Mrs. Milovčić: Yes, and actually the government of Dubrovnik suggest the locals to invest more in small family hotels, not the large ones. Mr. Market: speaks in Croatian, translated by Mr. Skvrce: I don’t know if I am gonna translate very correctly but we are talking about the general urbanistic planning which has been accepted by the council of Dubrovnik which give the directions in which way the city of Dubrovnik should be developed in the future. So there are restrictions, there are rules and regulations which each and

112

very investor needs to follow up, and if not it wont be able to get any licenses and permissions from the local government. Mr. Market: Very hard restrictions. Interviewer: Who is responsible for tourism besides the tourism board and the government? Do the owners of the big hotels have much to say? Mr. Skvrce: No, there is still no partnership between the public and the private. We are still in a procedure, so they don’t have any power. They have to create the image of their hotel and their services, their offer. They should do that on a base and a tradition of tourism development in Dubrovnik. It is a hospitality. The city has its own brand so it is not very hard for them but I think they might be much more involved in that and I don’t know the reason why they are not. I think they are pretty much closed, you know ‘close the door’, they are not very open to the city. They forget sometimes that they should have a program for the wintertime when there are not many tourists. The have to be more open and do more advertising otherwise you have nothing in those hotels so Dubrovnik Tourism Board what we are doing, you know the winter program, is very, very important. Interviewer: Does the local community participate in the decision making process? Mrs. Milovčić: But in a way they participate of coarse, they do round tables, many discussions, many panels, presentations or whatever, you know the environment, many ecological groups, they are all involved in the development. Mr. Market: Public opinion is very important. Mrs. Milovčić: But why I mentioned the hotels, the hotels have to live the whole year round with the city, not only during the season time, that they experience and that they actually enjoy the program that we offer for all the tourists and they benefit. They pay the fee according to their membership to the tourist board, that money is invested in many different programs lets say but that is not only a program that you are creating but also a get together, so you know, it is a process that takes a time. Interviewer: So, altogether the board is doing its best to involve many different parties in the development process? Mrs. Milovčić: Yes, of course. Interviewer: Are there any partnerships with other tourist cities? Mr. Skvrce: Yes there are, we are a member of European cities tourism and of another association of the cities (Bernadia). Interviewer: Are they helpful these memberships? Mr. Skvrce: Definitely. Mr. Market: the official friends of Dubrovnik are: In Italy, Ravenna, Ragusa. Graz in Austria, Badenburg, Germany, now Monaco, they would be in a few months, and Herzenborg, Sweden. These are partnerships of Dubrovnik okay. Interviewer: Do you think competition with other historical tourist cities is an issue in Dubrovnik? Mrs. Milovčić: No, no it is a unique.

113

Mr. Skvrce: It is definitely unique we are pretty much proud of it to live in such a city but it is good of course to see and observe the bench marketing, what the others are doing. Interviewer: Although, Dubrovnik is unique, does the city need to improve its competitive position? Mr. Skvrce: It needs, it should maintain and even enhance and improve the quality of service, I am talking about the whole year period, because what we are trying to do is to stimulate the winter period, the programs in winter season in Dubrovnik is definitely very and very difficult, but we are pretty much satisfied with the figures during the summer period but what is missing is a winter period so this is the reason why we are pretty much focused on this particular period and we are trying to create special programs for the coming winter which will be focused on getting as many tourist as possible to Dubrovnik in winter. Mr. Market: Rolf, there is a special winter tourist program here in Dubrovnik. We of the tourist board are trying very hard to improve this program. Mr. Skvrce: We launched this program this year. The feedbacks so far have actually been more than positive. So we know now what we have to do for the next year in order to bring a much potential clients as possible. Interviewer: Is there any research undertaken to study tourism development in the city or in combination with other heritage cities? Mr. Skvrce: Yes we are part of the general research which is actually conducted at our headquarters of the Croatian National Tourist Board. They perform research on a yearly basis. We have the institute for tourism as well. Those are official institutions which are trained to do certain research for us and the university as well. For example, one of the research projects they have ordered already from the institute of tourism is actually the impact of the cruise liner industry on the tourism of the Dubrovnik region. We are going to get the study, latest by the end of October, so after having these results we will be able to see what the positive and negative results are from these tourists coming from the cruise ships. These kind of studies as very important for us and regarded also to the destination marketing that we do here at the tourist board but in order to get an much better picture of what tourism in Dubrovnik is all about we have to have more researchers like the ones I have just mentioned. And we have also some plans for future researchers which will enable us to get some more information. Interviewer: How important is sustainability for tourism development in Dubrovnik. Mr. Skvrce: Very important. The figures are pretty much interesting, I mean 20 percent increase. Of coarse we are pretty much proud of it, of the figures but priority number one for us is sustainability, how to keep the environment protected how to keep the old city itself protected. How to keep the cultural heritage protected, so we are not running for the money, for the figures, of coarse we are running for the money but the priority number one is not the money, the priority number one is to try to work in compliance with the nature, in compliance with the cultural heritage, of course we have some goals for the future but that does not mean we have to build hotels very fast, so we are coming back to the urban planning which you will be able a little bit later to see. Mrs. Milovčić: Because every year you have a small hotel opened, you know, a hundred beds, than the next year a hundred beds, than the private accommodation is very stimulated, you get stimulation or support by the government, if you would like to rent your house or have an spare apartment in your house then the government will give you the possibility to have a grace period, you know on a credit in a bank. We try to increase the private accommodation sector and it is a substitute to the missing hotel capacities.

114

Mr. Market: Rolf, what we want is sustainable tourism. Tourism for the long period, for the next 20, 30, 50, 100 years. Not like in Spain, just 5, 10 years and, finished. And responsible tourism that is very important, responsibility of what we are doing for the future generations. Interviewer: Are tourism developments of other cities studied to learn of how developments should or should not happen? Mr. Skvrce: The good thing about Dubrovnik and the people here is the fact that they are pretty much aware of the fact that the cultural heritage must be protected and this is, I have to tell you, priority number one. Of course here and there you have examples, you have situations which are not in compliance with the things I have just told you but in general the protection of the cultural heritage in Dubrovnik is on very high level, we want to avoid the Spanish syndrome if you want. Which is very well know world wide which doesn’t have to be necessarily bad but it appears to be very bad which means overbuilding for example. And we will try to skip and avoid the Venetian problem, the problems that Venice actually has got, they are congested, with the pollution, the sewage doesn’t function you have an awful smell. The most important thing is that the people here are aware that without cultural heritage, the Dubrovnik culture and heritage we won’t be having a future let’s say, we have to admit that tourism is actually the only industry that we have. Interviewer: Is there anything that should be changed or encouraged. Mrs. Milovčić: Monitoring, the quality of monitoring could be improved, should be improved. If you think back, ten years ago there was nothing. So to continue to be really a destination, confirmed the best, or least say the most popular destination in Croatia we have to polish that destination, you know, but I think not to change, more to encourage and improve on the quality because if you look back to the eighties concerning the complaints, we don’t have so much complaints now, we don’t even have complaints. In general, we have advices about that something can be done better but most of the tourists are satisfied, they are satisfied also because not everything is commercial. You can feel that the information of a person you get on the street is not sold out, it comes from the heart. We stimulate the information from person to person you know not call centre, call centre is a future. We are investing in young people here in Dubrovnik we have 9 offices during the summertime so that every tourist has a touch you know. Interviewer: Could you indicate your expectations for the future of tourism in Dubrovnik? Mr. Market speaks in Croatian (translation by Mr. Skvrce): There are a couple of priorities for the government which are stimulated by such an increase of tourism in Dubrovnik. There are 7 ore eight priorities: reconstruction of the hotels will be the first one, than the construction of highways and connections with northern Europe, than an improvement of the small entrepreneurs. During the summer there are huge problems of traffic jams so in order to solve this problem the first priority is to build the garages, construction of a new cruise port for the city, for the first phase the investment is 25 million Euros and it will be an ongoing process actually. The total amount of money which will be invested in the cruise bay and the harbour goes up to 500 million dollars during the next couple of years. It is actually divided in three mayor parts, first there are the cruise liners and cruise industry, than the yachts and nautical tourism and the local transport, the ferry liners will be the third part of this development project. Furthermore there are plans for more shopping facilities and a conference centre. Nautical tourism is very important especially for this part of the Adriatic coast and there are plan to construct smaller marinas especially on the islands which surround Dubrovnik. There are three possible locations for the future congress centre selected and now one has to been chosen. And the last is not the last, but the last ( Mr. Market is speaking in English now) We are expecting low-cost carriers. Low cost carriers could help to extend the season over the whole year, stimulation city breaks to Dubrovnik. The last but not least priority is the Human resources. Dubrovnik is becoming an university city because we have over 3000 students here which is a huge number for such an community and there are plan to even increase this number because the plan is the build a new campus which will be able to accommodation round about 5000 students in the very near future so this is also something very

115

important when talking about the strategy of Dubrovnik which is of course very related the development of tourism as well. This university will cover many sectors but they will be directly or indirectly related to tourism. Mr. Market concludes: Thanks to the geographical position, in the history Dubrovnik has always been a politic economic and cultural centre and that is what we are now. Still.

116

Appendix C: Interview 2 Interview 2: Interview with Besim Agutsay, Professor at the American College of management and technology in Dubrovnik. Date 22 February 2006. Interviewer: With regard to tourism planning and regulations, I have got the impression that development regulations in Dubrovnik are quite strict, but on the other hand some people have pointed me at the rapid expansion of the construction of small hotels and apartments in Lapad for example so what is actually the case, is there a situation of overdevelopment or is development kept under control? Professor Agutsay: Well it is rather complex and you may go different ways. In one way it is…not so much of overdevelopment but development of a lot of similar types of facilities, there is no diversity in sense of the content. That is number one. Number two…the regulations are rather strict that is true, in terms of how you build and because of these regulations that are so strict, people are trying to find loopholes. If you apply for a construction permit, because of bureaucracy you will wait for another 2 or three years and you will run out of business basically. So people simply start building, and than the inspection comes and than they go to court and than it goes for another 5, 6 years and this is where the problem is. So, if the local community or whoever issues the permit would reduce the time to some reasonable amount than things would be clearer and eventually better controlled. It is a game; it is a game between those who want to develop and those who issues permits. I know that space is an issue because you don’t have too much space to build on and therefore rules and regulations are very strict, sometimes, for example in restaurant business, ridiculous. I think in general tourism development is under control, some of the rest parts of the country maybe not, but Dubrovnik is under control. Interviewer: Is there any clear tourism development strategy? Professor Agutsay: If you look for a clear written strategy created by governments these is not. No, I mean they haven an idea, they maybe have two, three guidelines, or some two or three coordinated marketing campaigns, they have a general idea where Croatia wants to go. You know, even the main logo they created last year: ‘Croatia, the Mediterranean as it once was’, so you know it is not something that we build and put concrete on the beaches and so, that is not the point so they do have an general idea, they do have 2 or 3 guidelines, but now, whether they have the real strong strategy that is being communicated to everybody…no. Interviewer: In respect to the visitor management are there any attempts being made to control or limit tourist numbers? Professor Agutsay: I don’t think that somebody actually sat down and have thought about the numbers, we all know that is crowded and that the demand is very high for lets say May to September, nobody is actually trying to spread and reduce tourist number is some kind of an organised fashion., what they do sometimes and that happened actually last year is that they increase the prices for the cruise ships to actually port and than to disembark the passengers. And then they threatened: ‘well we are not going to visit Dubrovnik anymore’ and people say ‘well you don’t have to because basically we are overflowed, so come earlier and than you will have better prices’. So basically we are coming back to the idea that it is easy to fill accommodation from may to September because the demand is so strong, but now, what is happening is that the season is moving to April, it is moving to October…if you want to book in may they will tell you: ‘No, you can’t, because it is full, so would you like to come in April?’, than you say well okay you know… Interviewer: If they wish to visit the place anyway….

117

Professor Agutsay: Exactly, the weather is still okay so I may go. So that is essentially what it is. And I have spoken to the sales and marketing director of hotel Argentina and he said that it is coming naturally that the pressure from visitors is actually naturally spreading throughout the year. When they realize that they cannot get accommodation from May to …..to.. Interviewer: If you really want to go you might even go in February when it is raining. Professor Agutsay: Exactly. Interviewer: Very positive actually….. Professor Agutsay: It is, it is but it is not done in some kind of organized uh…… Interviewer: No tourism development remains very much a natural process and very difficult to control……… Professor Agutsay: Exactly. Interviewer: Is education in Dubrovnik playing an important role for tourism development? Professor Agutsay: There are schools; there are vocational schools in Dubrovnik in particular. There are even some university efforts like Dubrovnik University and the American college which originally was planned to be a place for education of hospitality and tourism students. Out of the people graduated here 50 % end up working in hospitably and tourism and 50 %, they go to other services industries jobs, so it is a natural source of future employees for Dubrovnik. The question that you basically have to ask yourself is: Why is there an understaffed situation? Now, the wages are too low. Even, hospitality was never considered as a career, if you want to be a waiter you do it for a few years you do it as a student, it is a part – time job, it is a seasonal job, you help yourself with that money through your studies but it is rarely considered as a long-term career. It is very difficult to imagine a waiter starting at 20 and serving you when the guy is 65, his hands shaking and stuff like that and you are always looking for people that are energetic, so in that sense it has to be tackled from the perspective of the seasonality so how are you going to get the best employees in the lower levels? The upper levels are, I think… there is still a gab in knowledge and skills, but we are moving towards that with schools like ours, we had an dramatic increase in number of students from Dubrovnik here simply because of this high demand for this kind of employees in Dubrovnik, in the Dubrovnik hotels in the Dubrovnik tourist offices and our students from Dubrovnik looking for an job in Dubrovnik they get the job instantly. So that tells there is a need but that there is also actually someone who provides the solutions for this kind of…problems. Education is essential. Interviewer: People generally complain about they wages, they are much too low, especially according to the rising price-levels in Dubrovnik. Many employees earn a month what a higher class tourist spends in a day. Do you think that wages will rise, especially after joining the European Union? Professor Agutsay: My opinion is that wages will rise significantly because if you are looking to fill even your basic needs that would not be enough first of all, and again, the wages in hospitality and the lower level positions, wherever you go you will not earn much. What might be a solution for Dubrovnik…. The low wages are not the problem in itself: it is the benefit maybe that needs to be provided to those people. You have to understand that the paying system in Croatia is a bit different than in the States for example because here people mention their net income, but for the employer is much more, almost double, so actually it is a lot more of cost for the employer. So what the government may do is try to reduce taxes on wages and than use that to increase the net for the employee. Again, talking about the younger population which are doing it just as an part-time job and as something that they would be satisfied with, with the wages that they have, and thirdly with the benefits, because many times people, even our students, they would like to work in one of the Dubrovnik hotels, but, if they say you will earn 6, 7 hundred euros a month which is

118

an excellent pay comparing to the lower level employees, but than you have to pay your own accommodation, you have to pay your own food and than you end up with 200 euros in your pocket at the end of the month. It is a marginal cost for hotels providing either accommodation or food, or food and than participate in a part of the accommodation costs because if that lower level position employee is going to pay for all the costs of living that they have in Dubrovnik since they are not from Dubrovnik, they will end up working for free. And this is something that hotel organisations will have to face. Maybe that when hotels will become more effective and cost efficient they will have more room for increasing the wages. Interviewer: Yes and than we come back again to the seasonality problem. Professor Agutsay: Exactly. Interviewer: Should, beside tourism other industries be developed in Dubrovnik, is total dependence on tourism too risky? Professor Agutsay: It is very risky, it is too risky and I even think that here is the moment where the city council, the mayor of Dubrovnik, the entire local government has to think about those things. I always asked myself and I never got an answer: What do people in Dubrovnik actually live from, what are the revenues generators? Okay, it is tourism, but what else? And I never got an answer, I, .. if I would be a mayor that would definitely be the first question that I would ask myself, is it tourism 60%, 30 % or is it 90%? Interviewer: They say it is 90%! Professor Agutsay: Okay, I doubt that because there is a lot of government…there are schools there are… city agencies, government agencies, police force, so probably there is a lot of government money actually coming in to the place. So, well, let us break down the revenue generators for Dubrovnik and than think whether that is risky or not. If it is too risky, let’s make scenarios of how can we address the issue when tourism goes bad, how are we going to make this place a sustainable place. Production? Not really. Some plants or whatever, that is not feasible. But some service related industries that would not be provided only to this micro location but rather spreading the knowledge and attracting some other markets, that would be the real challenge for the city, for the people responsible for the future and that is, I think it is absolutely likely, it is nice and it would be nice for everybody. But on the other hand… we had war, for 4 years here in Dubrovnik… and… people survived, with no tourism…and then people always tend to use the argument. ‘well, if you survived 4 years of war than we can survive anything’…which doesn’t make sense and is not sustainable. So do you want to go back to that time? No…so please think about it. Interviewer: But tourism will always rise and drop, it is such an extreme sensitive business. Professor Agutsay: Yes, I mean look at Bali and that area there.. it really destroyed them and….but, you see the signs of people moving on.. Interviewer: Tourism recovers actually very quickly… Professor Agutsay: Exactly so…..but I agree, it is risky and absolutely there is somebody who has to create a scenario of ‘what if’? Interviewer: All right, coming back to the tourism development and the management in Dubrovnik, I have got the impression that most people in this town know very well what should be done and what should be avoided, they have definitely learnt form the mistakes other destinations…

119

Professor Agutsay: And that is actually connected with education, all these ideas, even thinking, contemplating about tourism is… if you are uneducated, if you don’t have other sources of what is happening around you will never come up with new innovative things. Interviewer: Right, to focus on another particular issue… crowding out in the old town, people leaving the old town, selling or renting their apartments…. This is generally perceived as a mayor problem and the government is trying to find ways to bring families back to the old town and to keep this place alive. How do you think that the old town could be kept alive? Professor Agutsay: It is really up to some general trend that we see around us. First of all, it is the infrastructure, we are changing, as individuals, as families and am I willing to go and buy bread in those local little shops? I don’t think so. Do I have enough room in that little apartment? Do I have the school were my child will go? So, the times are changing and not necessarily that will be bad. Interviewer: It is perhaps more of a natural process….. Professor Agutsay: Exactly. Interviewer: So the old town of Dubrovnik may become a museum and that would not be such a problem? Professor Agutsay: Exactly, it is my personal perspective.. maybe….there are arguments to keep the city… you know….. with…. Interviewer: Children running around and clothes hanging in the little streets… Professor Agutsay: Yeah, yeah.. it has its soul but.. But it is not crucial, it is not crucial for the success. Interviewer: When will Dubrovnik reach it carrying capacity? Professor Agutsay: There is still room for growth, especially if you manage. If you manage traffic, if you manage infrastructure… there are places available north and south of Dubrovnik that you can actually develop, there are many plans of what actually can be done…but is it is going to be tough…yeah. But that is management… that is exactly, if you sit down and think about the numbers, think about what is the flow, where are the bottlenecks? Than you can actually create better solutions and make the people in the city feel more comfortable. Interviewer: Is the government actually working well on these issues? Professor Agutsay: Oh yeah... I mean…. just imagine, in lets say in three, four, five years from now you will have a highway, freeway coming all the way from Zagreb to here, now there is a traffic isolation of Dubrovnik, the only comfortable way for you to come is by airplane, because the road from split to here is rather twisty and….but in three, four years time from now it will be very accessible which will greatly benefits all different types of investments and developments. Interviewer: The tourist board is making efforts to stimulate excursions to the areas around Dubrovnik and perhaps they should also stimulate the development of concentrations of accommodation in these areas. Professor Agutsay: Absolutely…and there are also so beautiful areas around it and you could make some satellites with Dubrovnik as a focus point and that is also something that could get the pressure of Dubrovnik and but still keep Dubrovnik as a central part of the destination.

120

Interviewer: Tourist arrival numbers are increasing tremendously…a French couple ensured me that Dubrovnik and Croatia have suddenly become extremely popular in France and that just in one year French arrivals are expected to double….now , I wonder if isn’t is going to fast? Professor Agutsay: Dubrovnik is a buzz world these days. Is it going to be a good thing in the future? Yes! Whether it is a good thing currently? I don’t know…because…. Are we ready? Are we ready to accommodate and serve all the people? Because service is experience and if my experience was traumatic because of the crowd, because of not being able to walk, to even get a bus or to eat than… than is will be a nightmare. They will have to receive these enormous amounts of people.. it is doable. It is not something that cannot be done but it is a lot of challenges that the city itself, with regard the infrastructure actually…the city has come up with solutions and help small businesses and hotels and service industries and maybe other industries to grow, it is a huge responsibility. Interviewer: How would the future EU membership of Croatia affect the situation of Dubrovnik? Professor Agutsay: Positively, as much… you know, in hotel business, before, the world it was location, location, location. These days it is not that anymore, it is people, people, people and that is what is say for Croatia entering the European Union: positive, positive, positive. Because, simply because you will try to implement all the positive standards and positive regulations that already exist in the western developed economies and this is something that we are lacking. Maybe we do have laws that are pretty compatible with the western European ones but it is the implementation that we sometimes lack. So, with entering the Union, even the implementation part has to be in place, it will be a market that doesn’t have boundaries. So today it is a rather big issue with the hotel companies that there is the V.A.T. that we have to charge and not charge when we export, when we do not export. That will all be the same, the cost may fall down, the suppliers the tourists, the education, you may study anywhere…you can go to Bournemouth or you can go to Dubrovnik…it is all a huge potential for growth and this is why I don’t understand why there is so much resistance. I think it is lack of vision, basically. Interviewer: Are you not afraid that too many students will move to other countries to study and work as so many Polish or doing on the moment? Professor Agutsay: Yes, but also there will be people coming from, from Portugal to Croatia as well…so it is a natural….it is like…those economies…it is an invisible hand. And actually it will be great because some people here will wake up and say ‘Aha…What am I going to do to actually keep this people here, how am I going to retain them?’ If there is no competition, obviously, you don’t care. Once competition is here and with free flow of workforce this is exactly what is happening. This is the Irish model, they open their borders to everybody, to the Polish to and they grow like never. So in that sense, membership will only be positive, because of the standards, because of the new ways to do business, because of the markets, because of the… it is a totally new. Interviewer: What will be the types of tourist in the future? Professor Agutsay: It is a tough one; it is a very tough question because with high demand obviously the tendency with hotels, with some restaurants will be to raise the prices, to go towards the elite, towards the elite part of business. So they will raise prices and obviously there won’t be too much people that will be able to pay. So again, naturally you are moving toward higher classes, to the people with these yachts and stuff like that. But can you create and base your entire strategy and revenues on that part? No! I mean there will be a mix. Actually you can predict what will happen this summer, what will happen next year, two years maximum. What will happen after year three and on is really something that you play all along, it is like dancing, you take one step, then you see what is happening, you take the next step and you watch again. Of coarse you may have a vision where you may end up dancing but….but in the end it is really taking one step at the time, if for some reason the elite part is loosing ground, than you the would stimulate excursionists and lower classes but it will always be a mix, with maybe two, three years

121

it will be emphasize on one, than you move to another, the infrastructure is always the same, it is maybe 20, 30% of the difference, accommodating one or the other. It are the hotels that are the ones that move towards that or the yachts. You have to recognize what is the infrastructure needed for the elite once you recognize it than you see how does that communicates to others. Does 70% of what we already have, can we overlap that with elite. My opinion is yes. Interviewer: If you had to judge tourism management in Dubrovnik in one word? Professor Agutsay: Well, it is very subjective; I won’t be objective because I am seeing everything through my eyes. On a rate from one to ten…………lets say……..four! Interviewer: That is not very high! Professor Agutsay: That is not high but do not confuse that with the demand, demand is there, if you ask me for the level of service… it is four. I don’t mean to say that as a destination Dubrovnik is four, as an destination Dubrovnik is 9, 10! But the service that the people… because the question was about management: that is still very low. Interviewer: Yes and her education will have to play a key role… Professor Agutsay: Absolutely…….We did some analysis some ten years ago and the human resources were so neglected. For many years, not just for two or three years but for many years that we even called it the graveyard of hotel service. So, as a destination: top destination, the service is still lacking a lot, but I see it as an opportunity, not as something very negative. Interviewer: Yes, but many people that I have been talking to here in Dubrovnik assured me that tourism and working in tourism has become part of their culture as well as providing good service and maintaining very positive relations with the tourists. But service levels really need to raise as Goran Stork from GS Hotels stated in his hotel magazine: he would like to take his staff to Bali to show them what hospitality really means… Professor Agutsay: Maybe that is the syndrome of high demand places, maybe, when you go to Venice service there is not four… it is two because they always fight with you, they want to steal your money when you go for a gondola for 15 minutes, they take you for 10 and make you pay for 20 minutes so the serve there is even worse, so I don’t know, maybe it is the disease of the high demand destination, maybe, I don’t know. Can it be done better, absolutely! Interviewer: I believe that offering this high level service is a big problem because when you have to work for five or six months, very long hours without even one single day of it must be impossible to provide an excellent service. I mean you have to feel it. One has to be satisfied oneself to satisfy the other. Professor Agutsay: Oh yeah, definitely and also the management has to… you know…it is a mindset….so you have to change and to move forward…it is a lot of work. And I see it again as something that is a challenge, an opportunity; there is a lot of reserve. So if we are making this much money with this kind of service, imagine if we improve our management style, our management practice we would be the world champions, as we are in sports. Interviewer: Do you think that government and developers cooperate enough with researchers and research projects? Professor Agutsay: No, very shortly… no there are some initiatives there but more sporadically than rather in an organized, systematic approach. Research is an important way to move on but…as long as there is an application of the research. .not if it goes to just to another…. Interviewer: No it should be used, not like the dissertation I am writing at the moment.

122

Professor Agutsay: Well…who knows…., maybe, maybe…. You have a very, very interesting topic I believe…Dubrovnik has huge opportunities. .It is still preserved and I think that is….that is the top advantage of… Interviewer: If they succeed to manage well Dubrovnik might gain the award for best tourism destination in the world? Professor Agutsay: Oh absolutely…..and there are so many Americans…..I mean there is a lot of hope….the numbers are increasing so dramatically and I mean, it is not just from Amsterdam…. you come in 2 hours, No, they come all the way from the United Stated to see Dubrovnik.

123

Appendix D: Interview 3 Interview 3: The following interview has been conducted with Romana Menalo, chief curator of the archeological museum and head of the guide association of Dubrovnik and Verdrana Bender, chief curator of the Rector Palace museum and member of Friends of Dubrovnik. Date 17 February 2006. Interviewer: How do you perceive the actual tourism developments in Dubrovnik? Mrs. Menalo: It is a little bit too much sometimes…but we have money. On the other hand you have to give something to have something. During the war we had nothing and it was really impossible so we have the money but now it is the question: how do we employ this money? For us, we are making exhibitions, restoring something perhaps, we have about six museums….we have exhibitions in the Rectors Palace. So the money we all own. We make half. Half the ministry of culture, half our selves or sometimes ourselves only. So we have the money to do something that is true. Interviewer: That is very positive, it seems… Mrs. Menalo: Well, but on the other site, for the monuments…I don’t know, it is too much people, but…. Interviewer: Do they damage? Mrs. Menalo: Well they don’t damage, they don’t take a hammer and… you know….. Interviewer: Especially compared to the damages caused by the war….And these walls they are so strong, they seem not to suffer from half a million tourist walking them…. Mrs. Menalo: No, they can not damage, exactly, but .. it depends.. they damage the view…the damage…you know it is like in Venice! Interviewer: Do tourists also damage the quality of life of the locals…. Mrs. Menalo: Our quality of life… I don’t know. I used to live inside the city wall and the people who are living there are not very pleased of coarse, because they have a lot of people all night long talking, music, coffeehouses… Interviewer: Is there some kind of visitor management, that they actually control the flows and the size of the flows of tourist that enter the city? Mrs. Menalo: But you know. Usually they all come at the same time…all right they have three in the morning, three in the afternoon but it is…. It is a lot of people and in the Pillar gate…it is really something you have to see. Mrs. Bender: I may say you something about the museum. Too many people who pass through he museum…too much people for our space, for our exhibitions, for our Palace. Can you imagine that in two or three hours through the exhibitions all over the museum pass more than three thousand people. There are too many people, there is too much humidity because they breathe, it is normal they breathe but is brings too much humidity, especially during the summer when the temperature is very high. We haven’t any air-conditioning and we open all the windows but it isn’t enough and….. Mrs. Menalo: Sun is not good for the furniture of course.

124

Mrs. Bender: Here at the main entrance of the museum we have our staff and the guard there has to tell the guides that in one minute there can only enter 4 groups because there are more than 50 people in one group. And the agencies don’t put enough money to pay more guides to make smaller groups. Mrs. Menalo: We are expensive, the guides, because I am in the guides association and we are trying to do other tours. But that is the problem that the agencies, you know we have other museums, the geographic museum, the maritime museum….so we want to divide the tourists more over the museums….we are trying to do something.. Mrs. Bender: We have to make the limit of four groups because we have also the singular customers who want to enter…. Mrs. Menalo: We have lots of people coming individually and so they cannot visit the town. That is the problem… Mrs. Bender: And individual people pay more than the people from the group, individuals have to pay the double entrance fee. There is too much people and they can not move. And moreover we have a telephone guide, you know this guide talking about the history and, 45 minutes about everything in the museum. The individuals could not hear the text because there are too much people around. Mrs. Menalo: You know, we are shouting, one guide is shouting here, the other is shouting there, and it is very….the acoustics are very good here….so….it is…. really a circus. Mrs. Bender: And than to protect objects of art and exhibits we must put a rope and that is also an problem because you will see upstairs… the first one is one meter from the objects and every time somebody falls and most of them are very old people, you know especially in spring and in autumn, this is a very, very big problem. Only the Rectors Palace had last year four hundred and ninety thousand people who pass through he Rector’s Palace, and this is without all the people from our region because they have free access, over half a million people we have passed this year. Interviewer: And most of these come during the summer months? Mrs. Bender Not only summer, because the tourists start to come in spring with Easter, it is from March until the end of October, November, maybe only during the wintertime the museum is quiet, but, in fact more than eight months we are full. Interviewer: Would it be an option to…I wonder if it would be strange or unfair or but to put up the entrance prices so you can reduce visitor numbers, protect the quality….the quality of the visit and still earn a lot of money? Mrs. Bender: Yes, yes, we think about that. Mrs. Menalo: We should. Mrs. Bender: Yes, because among those groups one part is not very much interested in the museum, so in that case we will put up the prices for the groups, maybe next summer so that there only enter people who really want to sea the museum. Mrs. Menalo: The Franciscan monarchy, they are so full it was impossible. So they had to put up the prices. Now, the other four very little museums, they are small collections in just a small room, that didn’t get any visitors before, do get some now as well. The Dominican was empty but when the Francisco put up the prices, now they also have work.

125

Interviewer: To find a balance…. Mrs. Menalo: Yes we have to find a balance. But we can not build another Rector’s Palace. Mrs. Bender: I think that maybe also the city can do something to…You know that these cruisers arrived after the war when the town was empty…at that time there were just small numbers of tourists who wanted to see Dubrovnik.. The cruisers came the first and for that reason we are very happy because we were isolated, and we have always been used to have visitors in the town. But these cruisers don’t come in the winter, in winter you see a very small amount of people. Mrs. Menalo: But there is also another reason. A lot of people have sold their homes to foreigners. Interviewer: Yes that is also quite a big problem because the government is making efforts the bring families back to the old centre and to encourage people to rent their house instead of selling the property…. But it is a problem when people are moving out of the old town no…. Mrs. Menalo: Yes, and during the republic there were six thousand, than before the war there were tree thousand and a half, now a hear there are a thousand, a thousand, no more. Interviewer: The government though believes there are still three thousand eight hundred people living in the old town…but it will probably be difficult to determine exactly how many people are living…. Mrs. Menalo: Yes but you know about the vote list….so. We don’t have a lot of children in the old town. Before, on Sunday I had a group, three weeks ago on Sunday and nobody was in the main street, I entered the town at ten. So I looked at my watch and I said it is not possible because everybody goes to the mess, to the town, to the church you know, to take a coffee…nobody! 12…noon…nobody in the main street my husband and I could not believe you know, after I had met the group. I couldn’t believe, nobody was here. Yes it was wintertime but before in winter…….. Mrs. Bender: What I wanted to say was that at that time we were very happy that the cruisers came, but now when so many of them come to visit the town… maybe the city can make some arrangements with the agencies of the cruisers…they have a monopoly…all of them. And then now it is the time that we give them our conditions. Interviewer: Exactly! Mrs. Menalo: Dictate them! Mrs.Bender: They dictate to us and they came in four or six hours all of them…Dubrovnik is too small for that! Mrs. Menalo: Also because all the cruisers start at the same day! You know Venice was in the same situation, I don’t know…ten years ago, there are too many people in Venice but it is controlled with the ships. Mrs. Bender: The same thing is in Messina, near Messina, Sicily is Tourmina, a small town…my husband was there for more than one year. He told me in Tourmina, near Tourmina there is a port and there came also a lot of cruisers but during the Sunday, this is the day for the people of Tourmina, they go to the mess, the take there coffee, after that. And nobody can enter the town by ship or by bus, no excursion can come before four o’ clock in the afternoon! Because from the morning till four o’ clock Tourmina is for the people of Tourmina and this is very, very good. Interviewer: Is this a danger for the Dubrovnik’s good reputation? I mean: receiving too many tourists, these massive tourism flows…

126

Mrs. Bender: But it has always been a problem, for example in America, nobody knew from Yugoslavia in that time, they think that it is a Czech Republic, Yugoslavia….something the same. But for Dubrovnik, everybody knows. Mrs. Menalo: I have been guiding now for thirty years and everybody knows about Dubrovnik but about in what country it is…it is not important. A French couple told me ‘thank you, it was very nice in Czechoslovakia’. I was guiding them a week and talking about Yugoslavia, at that time right and I told them: ‘But you are going back home and you know nothing about this town…about this country’. Mrs. Bender: And for example this is also a problem because we now want to make elite tourism but that is not possible with so many people because somebody who comes here and pays a lot for accommodation and for food is in fact in a bad position because since there are so many people he can’t find a place at the beach…he can’t enter at the boat to visit the islands because there are too many people, they are all over….he could not enter….you ask me for the bus……at the main entrance of the old town it is an complete mess. Eleven, twelve busses, you could not pass through that mess. Interviewer: So their arrivals are not structured or controlled? Mrs. Bender: No, no, no, you could not enter…. Mrs. Menalo: There are 20 busses coming and they are waiting…… and they go out and then the next one…the streets are very narrow and all traffic is blocked. Interviewer: So they have to start to limit numbers during the summer? Mrs. Menalo: Yes they have to limit but that is not our problem we can not do anything about that, but the town, the town should do something. Interviewer: I imagine it is exactly these excursionist tourist the cause the main problems though they bring the smallest profit… Mrs. Bender: Yes exactly, especially the people from the ships… Mrs. Menalo: Yes but you cannot stop people from coming, you can not say: ‘you are not to come in Dubrovnik’, because that is not….. Interviewer: It would be terrible publicity… Mrs. Menalo: Of course, everybody wants to see….. Mrs. Bender: The individual tourist spends more than the people from the cruiser because the cruisers they have everything on the cruiser…he maybe pay for some postcard are some…. Mrs. Menalo: Ahh, the cruisers….nothing!..........But is also depends on people….I don’t know. I don’t guide for example your people up there….or Germans I don’t know what they spend. But I know Spanish spend a lot, French, uh, not so much…the Italians,…yes they drink coffee but you know, the cruisers which are coming here, it is not class people, I don’t think so…I don’t do the cruisers, I cannot anymore, that panorama sightseeing…you know. It is rush hour up there. Interviewer: Yes how is it on the walls in august…can you still walk those walls or is it impossible to pass through the crowds? Mrs. Menalo: Well it can get very busy upstairs, especially you know on the smaller paths and than there are the elderly people…the don’t move very fast.

127

Mrs.Bender: In September, last year one lady wone a price because she was the five hundred thousandth visitor of the walls. Interviewer: So what is the government doing with quite big income? Mrs.Bender: Yes for repairing the city wall and the Stradun. Interviewer: Yes, but I can imagine that in a few years they will have much more money… Mrs. Menalo: Yes but there is another town…There is still a lot to repair… Mrs.Bender Yes, now they are repairing the bridges, last year they repair the first bridge, now they are repairing the other… Mrs. Bender…and also the walls of Ston, Mrs. Menalo: Ston, a small town nearby Dubrovnik…16 kilometers. Interviewer: Just a question about the sustainability of the cultural identity and in particular the cultural identity of the people of Dubrovnik…does tourism has an influence…does it change the identity or is it globalisation in general? Mrs. Menalo: Of course the young…but the young all over the world are the same…it is globalism that changes our world… tourism….we are living from tourism….already for over a hundred years. Of coarse it was tourism at those times. It was that kind of tourism that you would like to have now…Elite tourism was at that times. Everybody can travel of course…cruisers are not expensive….they are very cheap…so everybody goes. Interviewer: Another question…stake holder’s involvement in decision making….do the different people involved in tourism here in Dubrovnik participate in decision making, does the government listen to the locals for example. Mrs. Bender: Yes they have to listen to us……but they do mostly…mostly Mrs. Menalo: Mostly?? Well…. Mrs. Bender: The opinion is very, very strong here in Dubrovnik…you know we are a very small town…we have for journals and every journal writes the opinions of the people and now our mayor listen to that…sometimes there is a politic issue…but she is very, very…our mayor is a tough person but she is very flexible and she wants to hear what the people have to say. Interviewer: Well that is very important… Mrs. Menalo: yes but the task of the government is to make the things for the people…not only for the people but also for the tourists that means the parking spaces they should have been made long time before and there was money available but they did not do it…so she tries really to improve the situation. And you should not forget that the war period destructed the entire economy and some very successful non tourist companies and factories that existed before the war stopped their activities because of the war and they have not come back after the war. That is the problem. Now we have only tourism, nothing else. Interviewer: Yes and I think that could also be a problem because if tourism collapses…everything will collapse. Would it not be necessary to stimulate and start other industries or economic activities in Dubrovnik? Mrs. Bender: You have to.

128

Mrs. Menalo: But you have another problem…before the war…young people were living in the surroundings of the town, after the war….when they came back they stayed in our hotels…and than they want to buy the flats and they don’t want to go back….and to work in the field…who wants to work on the earth? Mrs. Bender: And now you have empty villages around Dubrovnik. Empty: nobody, maybe two or three people. Mrs. Menalo: Only some elderly people, they live and work a little bit. Mrs. Menalo: Some young people have the courage to start up new businesses…they people should do that because…we you know we are afraid. The war put us a bit……and we don’t have the energy and strength…but some of them go to Split or Zagreb and they stay there because they don’t know what they could do here…… Interviewer: Yes but than during the summer there is a huge lack of staff here. Mrs. Menalo: Yes because the wages are so low…and young people don’t want to work hard for 3000 Kunas because they are not working 8 or hours as we did for example, they have to work a lot more so they want to be paid. In Dubrovnik, the school for the hotels and the waiters, ect. was the best school in Croatia…but now the young people all want to study and they go to the gymnasium or a technical school, the don’t have the feeling for that anymore you know. Mrs. Bender: But not only that, what had very good staff in Dubrovnik during the war…but during the war these people have all left and now you have a young, inexperienced staff and it is a problem and he, he…Strok should send all his staff to school, there should be more education but the owners of the hotels should do that…the state and the families can not do that of course.

129

Appendix E: Interview 4 Interview 4: This Interview has been undertaking with Aldin Zustra, Reception manager of hotel Pucić Palace hotel. Date 19 February 2006.

Interviewer: Could you give me two examples of developments that have gone wrong/ been difficult? Mr. Zustra: The reconstruction of the destroyed hotels has been the biggest problem. There was not much money available to reconstruct them and it has been difficult to attract the large investments that were needed. The reconstructions has been slow and some big companies like one German company that was doing cruisers and combining cruises with flight, he has moved to Turkey because the hotel could not meet the agreements to offer accommodation to the guests. The lack of capacity is a huge problem during the summer. Interviewer: Does tourism cause any damage to the cultural environment, to the monuments in Dubrovnik? Mr. Zustra: Well, it is there to be used isn’t it, for tourism, tourism brings a lot of money as well and the people can invest that money and use it to repair the city. Interviewer: Do large amounts of tourists contribute to a positive atmosphere in the city? Mr. Zustra: Generally I think yes, I mean for me personally it does, most of the times, but there are many people who get fed up easily with the tourist especially if you life in the old town. Some times it is really crazy, you can’t hardly walk. But it depends… Interviewer: Are people employed in the tourism industry generally satisfied with their Jobs?

Mr. Zustra: Probably they are, most of them work throughout the summer without a day of and that causes really a kind of pressure and everything as well.

Interviewer: There must be a lack of staff no?

Mr. Zustra: There is. Interviewer: I don’t really understand this, the people from the tourist board told me that they want to get the hotels reconstructed as soon as possible to create more jobs for the young people, but actually there is a lack of young people to fill the jobs at the moment and the hotels are having really serious problems here as Goran Strok wrote in his magazine that he had to deal with a lack of staff at al levels. Mr. Zustra: It is, true, definitely. Interviewer: It is actually a big issue and it seems there is not a very good communication between the managers of the big hotels and the governmental organizations. Mr. Zustra: Well they all have their own goals I guess. There is a lack of people, there is. Interviewer: So what will happen to the wages when Croatia joins the EU?

130

Mr. Zustra: Probably the wages will get more equalised, is must be. For example I earn about 700 Euros a month, that is about 4500 Kunas, and average Croatian wage but the girls in the shops the just earn 2000 Kunas, that is very, very low.

Interviewer: What are the impacts of tourism? Does it change the cultural identity of the particular city? Mr. Zustra: I don’t think I could change that much….well I mean it has changed already through the whole globalisation and everything as well, television internet…tourism cant harm so much more can it? Interviewer: So the effect and changes are not caused by tourists that much but more by capitalism and globalisation in general….. Mr. Zustra: Definitely, yeah, yeah but is has been going for 16 years now, what could change in Dubrovnik has already changed and I don’t think it can change that much more…I mean, the culture, the way of living…. Interviewer: But the cultural performances, lets say the artistic performances, is it very international or is it very much related to the local culture? Mr. Zustra: Well. It is quite international, you know, Shakespeare and everything and the concerts, there quite good international artists here…but also local, definitely, there are dances and musicals and Dubrovnik symphonies and the orchestra, so everything is combined to create a mixture that will be interesting for everybody. Interviewer: So the typical Dubrovnik arts and cultures remain at a good level? Mr. Zustra: Yes and it may be even improved because of the money isn’t it? Interviewer: Yes, money is the main requirement to improve the entire tourist product. So what is more important to your point of view: making a lot of money, or ensuring to keep the city sufficiently quiet and comfortable for its residents, to avoid overcrowding, Does economic gain outweigh the burden of receiving so… or too many tourist in a very small place? Mr. Zustra: Well, that is very difficult…maybe it would be better to have less tourists but…we also want to travel, we want to earn money and…it has to be somewhere in the middle. Interviewer: Who is responsible for tourism development…Who actually decides what will happen? Mr. Zustra: Probably the government……and also the capital itself…I don’t know…. Interviewer: The money… Mr. Zustra: Yes, because the city really needs investors so if they decide to develop in Dubrovnik the have big power… Interviewer: Too much power? Mr. Zustra: Yes, but they can’t just do what they want, they can’t ruin the whole coast, they definitely can’t… Interviewer: No, so do you think there is a good balance between the regulations and the investment opportunities?

131

Mr. Zustra: There are always people who can go behind the regulations, it is not so much but you know is should be cut off right in the beginning, not in the middle of the construction…but it shouldn’t happen so much and it doesn’t. Interviewer: Is the environment is well protected? Mr. Zustra: Well, it is quite good protected; you know you can’t build within 50 meters of the sea line and….is quite good controlled. Interviewer: Yes I heard the story about this Italian man who was constructing his hotel without having the write papers and they blow up the whole thing in the middle of it. Mr. Zustra: That is it…but they could have stopped it when he started but not in the season shouldn’t it? And also there where two little caffees, behind the city walls on the rocks, it was really, really nice and they destroyed it as well because they didn’t have the papers for it. But they should not have let them build. Because they have been there for 5 years and then they destroy it. Interviewer: What about stakeholders’ involvement in tourism development, especially the local population, does it participate in the decision-making? Mr. Zustra: Oh yeah, there are many locals involved, in the governmental institutions from the town, there several cultural institutions, there is a lot of protection and restoration… Interviewer: So you think, here in Dubrovnik the government listens to everybody? Mr. Zustra: Yes. Interviewer: How important is sustainability in tourism development? Mr. Zustra: It is important Interviewer: What should be changed in the actual management of tourism? Mr. Zustra: The wages definitely. Interviewer: Anything else? Mr. Zustra: Well, there will be a lot more but it is coming definitely. It is already a lot better than it was. And you see the tourists they are really satisfied as well it is one of the top 3 destinations , Dubrovnik, is it, for this year for the States, in America or something or even for the whole world. Interviewer: Visitor numbers will double soon again, the French tourists are supposed to double this year…. Mr. Zustra: They doubled last year as well. Interviewer: So than there is again this mayor problem of lack of accommodation capacity? Mr. Zustra: Yeah, but you have to invest into quality, you have to have better and better quality that is it. But in a couple of years there will be 8, 9 five stars hotels in Dubrovnik, the Libertas hotel will be reconstructed and Strok wants to turn it is some very luxury five plus star hotel… and It will also be renewed a big hotel, 20 minutes drive, it is a huge hotel as well with I think 2000 beds, there will be an hotel at the hill with the golf course and than there is also a plan for a hotel in the port, because the port will be renewed as well.

132

Interviewer: Yes and there have been a lot of complains about the cruise tourist because they didn’t spend enough and the captain of the cruise ships told his clients not to eat in Dubrovnik since the food could be poisoned. Mr. Zustra: Well yeah, they are saying all kind of stuff like that. Interviewer: But now they seem to start to spend more and eat also in the town… Mr. Zustra: Yes, but you also have these people they come by to see the restaurants the see the menu and they want to have lunch and they have lunch. People say they don’t spend as much money as they should. But you offer them something that they like and they will spend the money. Interviewer: Yes they have to change because it is all just this, even this cruise people they get also tired of buying in every city the same souvenirs just with another city name on it. Mr, Zustra: It is always the same, that is just it. Interviewer: All made in china…. Mr. Zustra: Very likely. Offer them something unique. Interviewer: Yes and also the restaurants, they should open some more diverse and more luxury restaurants…. Mr. Zustra: We actually have 2 really good restaurants in the hotel. Interviewer: Alright but then for a meal you would have to spend about a minimum of four hundred Kunas…. Mr, Zustra: Something like that…well a bottle of wine is 200 and up. Interviewer: So what you earn in a week people here spend for dinner? Mr. Zustra: That is just it, for example when I charge the bill for someone who has been here for 5 days and than it is 40.000 Kunas (about 4000 pound) or something like that. Interviewer: So who owns this hotel? Mr. Zustra: The hotel is owned by one family actually and the use the money to improve and restore the hotel. A lot of money remains in the hotel actually. Mr. Zustra: The town is actually quite rich; most of the people own their own houses and stuff or they rent their apartments… Mr. Zustra: Many people complain about the lack of money they have and that it is difficult to live from these low wages but if you look at the cars the locals drive, there are so many new and expensive cars here. Yes I don’t know if it is everywhere in the world like that but as soon as a new car is on the market people here buy it. Interviewer: But how to do that if you earn just 300 pounds a month? Mr. Zustra: Well but than you have two rooms and you rent them and you live still with your parents so you don’t spend that much…on the other hand there are also quite a lot of poor people for who is already difficult to fulfil their basic need, the pensions are extremely low and food, for example, the supermarkets are really expensive. And domestic produced food is even more expensive…everything is imported

133

Interviewer: The region is so dependent on tourism that there is basically nothing produced in the area… Mr. Zustra: Yes…but many people, when the have their little garden the put some vegetables and fruits and stuff…that is it. Interviewer: What do you thing about the future tourist profile? Will elite tourism represent an increasingly important part of the total tourists? Will elite tourism become really big? Mr. Zustra: It will be…especially when the port and the golf resort will be fixed. And there is this thing with those cheap flights: we don’t have it in Dubrovnik. Interviewer: Do you think it will be good to attract these low-cost carriers? Mr. Zustra: It will be good for us, I mean if you want to travel. Interviewer: Could it be possible that low-cost airlines also bring quite a lot of ‘low-cost tourists’? Mr. Zustra: That is it. But still if you can’t find a room unless you pay the full price so…Even low budget tourist will have to pay fully. And they simply must reserve during the summer period otherwise the wont have a place to stay…That is right, it is impossible to find something during the summer…very frustrating sometimes. Interviewer: The government claims to 60 % of the tourist numbers of what was the case before the war. Mr. Zustra: But money wise it is the same now…because …probably because things has become more expensive. Interviewer: Right but when in, lets say five years, all the hotels will be renewed and the capacity will be twenty…twenty five thousand overnights…will there be a stop somewhere? Mr. Zustra: Yeah, but than the town will become bigger itself but then it will be in the other areas, there are islands as well. Interviewer: There is place enough? Mr. Zustra: There is quite place enough. Interviewer: So still the tourism number could double before it really gets… Mr. Zustra: Well it can be doubled…there is a limit…just a natural limit, it has to be. Interviewer: So what is these limits? Because there will come new hotels, new highways, new ports, etc, so where will be the limit? Is it when the people really start to annoy each other? Mr. Zustra: Probably… the thing just is that you have to prolong the season. But people have to be happy. You have to keep them happy when working which is really hard, and you can’t do it even with the money anymore…at the end of the season you see. People are so tired and they can be annoyed and everything as well, they are just waiting to…..and if you are working without a day of it is quite hard…..and you don’t care about money anymore you know, after two months or three months, you just want to go and have a swim. Mr. Zustra: Even though we are quit lucky here in Pucić Palace, we have no weekends free but usually we get some days of.

134

Interviewer: Yes also the lady of public relations working at the Hilton imperial told me she had enough days of and she had everything and it was very good organised. Mr. Zustra: Yes that is true and that is very good but most of the people don’t, especially in those restaurants and stuff like that. Interviewer: Yes I believe they quickly need to change something here because sustainability also means that employees stay at least reasonably happy with their job, even on the short term, even within three months, I mean I you are not happy it is bad for everything. Mr. Zustra: Definitely…you know it is a small town and what you said about the staff, it always circulates so if the owner or manager of a place is really unfair to his employees…they won’t work for him any more and he can close his business. It is going slowly but it will get there.

135

Appendix F: Interview 5 Interview 5: Interview with Ms Bašić, personal assistant of the general manager of Hilton Imperial. Date: 16 February 2006. Interviewer: Could you give me two examples of developments that have gone wrong or been difficult in rebuilding the tourism industry during the last 10 years? Ms Bašić: Well, what we are missing definitely here are mayor investments. For example, hotel Belverdere is the first thing that now crosses my mind because it used to be a new and very beautiful hotel and but it got destroyed completely during the war and what is left now is basically the walls, and I cannot believe there isn’t somebody interested to put money to rebuild that is place since it could be one of the most beautiful hotels, even in the world. So I don’t know what went wrong, if it is a lack of interest which I cannot believe or that it is something from outside. I believe that in Croatia we have sometimes these bureaucratic problems that we make it too much difficult for people to invest. One example for this is also than when we are a town that plans to be orientated on elite tourism we need to have places where wealthy people can go out and we don’t have these places here in Dubrovnik which is very bad, I know one specific example: When Ivana Tramp wanted to invest money in a nightclub, that was already in progress but something went wrong, it was basically the bureaucracy, our country didn’t it make easy enough to invest for her so basically so just gave up on that one. That is just one example but there have been more cases like this one. In this country we have bureaucratic problems on any aspect, it takes too long and than many people give up and they move on to another place where it is much easier to invest and build. Interviewer: Does tourism damage the urban environment of Dubrovnik? Ms Bašić: The only way how tourism can damage Dubrovnik is if we get too orientated on mass tourism; if we get cheap hotels, cheap rooms and beds, than we will get too many people, Dubrovnik is basically a small town, we have a basic limit of 15.000 people, if we have too many people and cars and you loose a lot of quality of the city. Interviewer: Is this already the case….that there are too many visitors? Ms Bašić: No, and I think this will not be because we are more and more orientated towards elite tourism and we have more and more 5 star hotels just like just like Hilton. Interviewer: Does tourism contribute to conserve the physical heritage of the city? Ms Bašić: Yes, it helps, like just one example are the city walls, because al the money gained with the entrance fee is used to maintain the and improve the conditions of the monument. Interviewer: Do large amounts of tourists contribute to a positive atmosphere in the city? Ms Bašić: Yes, I think we don’t have any problem with the atmosphere in summer but rather with the atmosphere during winter. Interviewer: You wish there were more visitors? Ms Bašić: Yes. Interviewer: Are people employed in the tourism industry generally satisfied with their Jobs?

136

Ms Bašić: Generally I think no because at the moment we have too many visitors in summer and almost none in winter so basically the concept in Dubrovnik and the rest of Croatia is that for 6 months you kill yourself and than you do nothing for the remainder of the year which is very bad because people get to frustrated because they have no day of they are too tired and when they are too tired my opinion is they cannot deliver the service in the right way. I want to point out that this is not the case for the Hilton hotel were the situation is different and people have days of, even during the summer. Interviewer: Dou you think urban mass tourism changes, destroys or protects Dubrovnik’s cultural identity? Ms Bašić: The cultural thing in Dubrovnik is the most important; it is the most unique thing that Dubrovnik has. There is no lack of willingness to protects Dubrovnik’s cultural identity but there’s is a lack of money, we need more money, basically that comes with investment so that makes everything related.

Interviewer: Does economic profit gained by tourism outweigh the burden of the enormous amount of tourists in the city?

Ms Bašić: No, I don’t think so because I don’t think that people get wealthier because of tourism, which is something we are hoping for the future. In Dubrovnik people are trying to rent rooms, opening little restaurants, they are orienting themselves on tourism and they earn quite a lot of money during the summer months but then they have to spend this money during the winter because there is no Job at al. So in the sense, problems with tourism during the summer is not compensated with money because at the end of the year there will be no money left. Interviewer: So do you believe it is necessary to create non-tourist jobs or jobs that can be fulfilled during the winter period? Ms Bašić: I think the most important is to get the investments to create the facilities to attract and amuse the tourist during the winter period. Interviewer: Would it than be possible to attract reasonably large amounts of visitors during the winter months? Ms Bašić: Well I think it is all related with what you offer because there are many kind of tourists, it is not that all tourist in the world are looking for a summer holiday. If you are oriented on cultural holiday, it is much nicer to see this things in the authum, when it is a little bit cooler than during the summer when there are thousands and thousands of people and it is 40 degrees. Interviewer: Who is responsible for tourism development in Dubrovnik? (Structure of power?) Who formulates the tourism development strategy? Ms Bašić: The tourism strategy depends largely on the investments that can be attracted. There are some positive development with respect to the government and the mayor of Dubrovnik but they can’t do much. To develop we need investments to open more 5 star hotels but more important, to open more good restaurants and bars and nightclubs to satisfy the elite tourists, not for teenagers. I am sure that when interest is shown to finance these developments the government will do it’s very best to facilitate these. Interviewer: Is multi-stakeholders involvement encouraged and is it functional? Could you give me one example? Ms Bašić: Yes, people are informed, but is not that they have any influence. We are basically all related here with tourism because or you have a restaurant, or you rent rooms, or you work in a hotel or you work in the restaurant…there is basically no other industry so everybody who lives in

137

Dubrovnik depends on tourism...so everybody is involved but in their own business or job, not in the development of tourism strategies or such things. Interviewer: How severe is the competition with other European heritage cities in Europe? Ms Bašić: I don’t really see any serious competition, we can just cooperate with other cities in ideas, projects and similar things but I think Dubrovnik is unique, not only in Europe but in the Whole world. Interviewer: How important is the sustainability concept in tourism planning in Dubrovnik? Ms Bašić: I believe it is important because it is not allowed to build something that would in any way destroy or damage the image of the town and the historic and heritage….so this is very important and they are definitely taken care of it. Interviewer: What about the working conditions…unsatisfied employees? Would sustainability also concern the satisfaction of the employees? Ms Bašić: I believe that if tourism would spread all over the year, the people would be very happy because here, people have that in their blood, they like to work in tourism but it is very difficult to do it with a smile on your face and to be happy about it when you really, really have to work for six months without a day of and really work too much and than spend all that money that you earned during the summer because you have nothing to do. That creates frustration for the people and until we spread tourism over the year the people cannot be happy with working in tourism. Interviewer: Does the sustainable development concept determine strategic planning and development or does rapid economical gain undermine responsible development? Ms Bašić: I think both are important and one cannot go without the other. It is very important to protect the cultural heritage and the entire industry but on the other hand we need to make profit. I think there has to be a balance between these 2. You need to get a profit without damaging the environment and I think that is what we are trying to do here in Dubrovnik.

Interviewer: What should be changed / encouraged in the actual tourism management? What about the winter program? Ms Bašić: Yeah, that is a very good start in my opinion, but that is something on al very small level. This action is taken from the side of the town and offers something to the tourists that are already here. But what we actually need is facilities that attracts tourist during the winter. For me, one example is the golf. Now it are still plans but when this golf course will be realized it will change the situation in Dubrovnik. There are lots of people which would like to play golf and enjoy the town during the winter months when the weather is still quite nice and sunny. Golf is just one example and more of these kind of all-year attractions should be developed. Ms Bašić: I think that Tourism in Dubrovnik will develop well. It is slowly starting and it is very difficult. We would like it to be happening now but one has to realize that 10 years ago we had a war here so therefore the development is a process that takes time. We al see positive steps but it takes time. This golf is one example, this Hilton hotel is another example, one international chain coming to Dubrovnik and we want more. We are not afraid of competition. So basically I believe that new projects will develop and we need to orient on offering something to the tourists in winter and understand that it is not enough to have a beautiful sea and sun in the sky. You need to offer something to the people in order to make money and that is we all should orient on. We are doing quite well and we just need to continue this process. Interviewer: A process away from mass tourism?

138

Ms Bašić: Definitely, before the war it was like that. People were happy with that and maybe they did not even know about the alternative. And now we believe the money will come from a more elite tourism. Than we will also not have such things as damaging the cultural heritage. Otherwise we would just have too many visitors, Ms Bašić: imagine al these thousands of people coming with their cars. Dubrovnik is a small town and we simply wouldn’t have the space to put all these cars and people…so yes, elite tourism it what we should think about. Interviewer: Since when is tourism development actually focused on the elites? Ms Bašić: I think it is a natural process whether it is from the government or from the people that are actually doing the tourism; we are all realizing that elite tourism will be the only solution for Dubrovnik. Everybody says, Dubrovnik is like a new Monte Carlo.