Edition 2013 - Hochschule München

Transcrição

Fakultät für Tourismus der Hochschule München
www.tourismus.hm.edu | ISSN 1866-3044 | 4,80 €, Studenten1,80 €
Tourismus Management Passport
Edition 2013 Nachhaltigkeit
FAKULTÄT FÜR TOURISMUS
Tourismus Management
Passport
Edition 2013 Nachhaltigkeit
Inhalt
Inhalt
Editorial
Prof. Dr. Theo Eberhard, Dekan�� 3
18 Jahre DAV Projekt „Skibergsteigen
umweltfreundlich“ Nachhaltigkeit im Tourismus
NaTourCert – Natur mit allen Sinnen erleben
Nachhaltiger Tourismus – Deutschland ist auf einem guten Weg
Ernst Burgbacher�� 6
…wir brauchen die Natur
Manfred Scheuermann�� 44
Dominik Siegrist und Lea Ketterer Bonnelame�� 45
„Nur glückliche Mitarbeiter haben glückliche Gäste“
Angela Inselkammer�� 46
Melanie Huml�� 6
Dachmarke Allgäu – Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften
und gesundes Leben auf einen Nenner bringen
Wirtschaftsfaktor Tourismus und Nachhaltigkeit
Stefan Egenter�� 47
Katja Hessel�� 8
Der vierte Alpenzustandsbericht: Nachhaltiger Tourismus
Thomas Bausch�� 10
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit durch Modernisierung
Interview mit Harald Gmeiner, Tourismusmanager in Bayrischzell�� 16
Mit Schnee auf Pisten schießen:
Pro & Contra zur Modernisierung des Sudelfelds
Pro: Klaus Stöttner�� 18
Contra: Claudia Stamm�� 19
So geht es auch! – Kostenlos mit Bus
und Bahn im Schwarzwald
Christopher Krull�� 48
Hotel Eggensberger – der Biopionier
Interview mit Andreas Eggensberger�� 49
Der ehrbare Kaufmann: eine Renaissance im neuen
Gewand von Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Alexander Pesch�� 50
Hype um Nachhaltigkeitsstandards im Tourismus
Orientierung durch Qualitätskriterien und Erfolgsfaktoren
Modernisierung bayerischer Skigebiete:
eine nachhaltige Maßnahme?
Stefan Raich�� 54
Thomas Bausch�� 20
Nachhaltigkeit, die sich rechnet: Ein Blick in die Hotellerie
Zurück auf die Schulbank: Touristische Unternehmen
bei Umweltmanagement eher zögerlich
Christine Garbe�� 26
Tourismus dient den Menschen in der Region
Axel Gruner�� 56
Die Umsetzung der UNESCO-Konvention 2003 zum
immateriellen Kulturerbe in Deutschland und deren Defizite
Volker Letzner�� 58
Christian Baumgartner�� 28
…kann Tourismus nachhaltig sein?
Passport Promotion: Tannheimer Tal/Tirol�� 64
Mila Trombitas�� 30
Best-Practice-Beispiele
Die Kuh Hannelore – Menschen mit nachhaltigen
Angeboten begeistern
The National Trust – Ein Beispiel für Nachhaltigkeit
im Natur- und Denkmalschutz
Sybille Wiedenmann�� 32
Christina Tölkes�� 68
„Natur Natur sein lassen“: Nationalparkregion Bayerischer
Wald
Norbert Klassen, Elias Butzmann, Christina Tölkes�� 72
Josef Wanninger�� 33
Mit dem Rad bergab – mit der Natur bergauf
Südtirol Rad: Ein Regio-Fahrradverleih auf Erfolgskurs
Hugo Götsch�� 36
Nordseeinsel Juist – Erste klimafreundliche Insel Deutschlands
Thomas Vodde�� 37
Die Kraft aus den Tiefen der Berge
4
Forschung
Besucherbefragung im Nationalparkt Bayerischer Wald
Studium
Ökotourismus in Georgien: Ein abenteuerliches
Projekt in einem vielfältigen Land
Valesca Meint, Nelly Haberlach, Regina Denk�� 76
Nachhaltigkeit im Praktikum: Ein Erfahrungsbericht Sophia Schelle�� 80
Das Waldlerhaus: Ferien im Baudenkmal Gabriella Squarra�� 38
Steffi Brunner und Martina Thaler�� 81
Ein CO2-Fußabdruck für Hotels? – Umwelt- und
klimafreundlich Reisen in Deutschland
Wie viel Mensch erträgt Natur? Tourismus in Nationalparks –
Spannungsfeld zwischen Besuchererlebnis und Naturschutz
Helge Beißert�� 40
Carmen Reichstein�� 82
Ein gigantischer Markt in Sicht? Heilklimatische
Kurorte Deutschlands ganz oben
Das Marktpotenzial arabischer Touristen in Garmisch-Partenkirchen
nutzen – Fallstudie zur Entwicklung von Handlungsstrategien
Maximilian Hillmeier�� 42
Emel Tarazouyazar, Celine Chang�� 84
Passport Edition Nachhaltigkeit im Tourismus
Gäste unserer Fakultät
Master Forum Tourismus: Steigende Gästezahlen aus China
Potenziale und Zukunft eines neuen Marktes
Stefanie Linsner�� 88
Master Forum Tourismus: Der gläserne Tourist
Datenschutz und Datenverwendung im Tourismus
Tourismus Management
Passport
Lisa Schäfer, Nicole Bischof, Julia Reitebuch�� 89
Alumni
Karrieren – Ehemalige stellen sich vor!
Gerd Hartmann, Markus Pettinger, Markus Bollwein,
Lena Bock, Marc Mörbel�� 90
Die Fakultät
Bayerischer Verdienstorden für Prof. Dr. Fritz Wickenhäuser�� 96
f.a.s.t. e.V. – Die Studierendenvertretung��96
Tradition & Innovation? Feierliche Eröffnung des Studiergartens
Axel Gruner�� 97
ITB 2013 – Zahlen, Daten, Fakten!�� 98
ProfessorInnen der Fakultät für Tourismus�� 100
Nachruf auf Prof. Dr. Erwin Seitz�� 101
Unsere MitarbeiterInnen�� 103
Lehrbeauftragte an unserer Fakultät (eine Auswahl …)�� 104
Internationale GastdozentInnen�� 105
Unsere Absolventen 2013: Herzlichen Glückwunsch!�� 105
Sichtvermerk: Wie bin ich – und wenn ja, warum?�� 106
Ein besonderer Dank für die freundliche Unterstützung des Fachkongresses „Nachhaltiger Tourismus“ am 3.7.2013 gilt dem Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit,
dem Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie, dem
Bayerischen Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Medien, Energie
und Technologie, dem Bayerischen Staatsministerium für Umwelt
und Verbraucherschutz sowie dem Kooperationspartner Deutscher
Tourismusverband.
Auch als App für iPad
im App Store verfügbar.
Available as app
for iPad on the App Store.
Search for „Tourismus Management Passport“
English version
of this article available for iPad.
Herausgeber: ©Prof. Dr. Theo Eberhard, Fakultät für Tourismus, Hochschule München, Schachenmeierstraße 35, D-80636 München Internet: www.tourismus.hm.edu
V.i.S.d.P: Prof. Dr. Theo Eberhard Redaktion: Kerstin Mesch ISSN: 1866-3044 Verlag:
vmm wirtschaftsverlag gmbh & co. kg, Kleine Grottenau 1, 86150 Augsburg, www.
vmm-wirtschaftsverlag.de Media- und Objektleitung: Hans Peter Engel, Tel.: 0821
4405-420, [email protected] Titelbild: Prof. Dr. Theo Eberhard; fotolia.com Bilder: Hochschule München; fotolia.com Bilder Regionenspecial:
Tourismusverband Tannheimer Tal Grafik: Anne Gierlich, Simone Kronau, Birgit Hradetzky Bildbearbeitung: Adnan Badnjevic Druck: Kessler Druck + Medien GmbH & Co.
KG, Bobingen Anzeigen: Derzeit ist die Anzeigenpreisliste 2013 gültig.
Eine Teilauflage ist eine Sonderauflage
des Alpenforschungsinstituts (AFI).
5
Nachhaltigkeit im Tourismus
Sustainable Tourism –
Germany is on the right road
Ernst Burgbacher, German MP
Parliamentary State Secretary to the
Federal Minister of Economics and
Technology and Federal Government
Commissioner for small and medium-sized enterprises and tourism.
Ernst Burgbacher,
German MP
Parliamentary State
Secretary to the
Federal Minister of
Economics and
Technology and
Federal Government Commissioner for small and
medium-sized
enterprises and
tourism.
S
ustainability is one of the central issues of our time. The need to
think of the long-term effects of our
actions on the quality of life of future
generations concerns the tourism industry as well, characterized as it is by
rapid growth.
In the year 2012 for the first time
ever more than one billion people
worldwide went on a tourist trip abroad. This means that the number of
tourists going abroad is now forty
times greater than it was in the 1950s,
and is continuing to grow.
Tourism is also booming in Germany as never before. Last year the
magic number of 400 million overnights for domestic and foreign visitors was exceeded and record results
achieved for the third time in a row.
In view of this development and
the possible impacts of tourism on
climate, use of resources, biodiversity
and the interests of the local population we have to devote great attention
in the tourism industry to the question of sustainability and firmly anchor
it in the industry.
In Germany we are on the right
road in this respect. Both at a national
and international level, the Federal
Government actively champions a
form of tourism which is market-ori-
…we need Nature
Melanie Huml
State Secretary at the Bavarian Department of Environment and Health
W
eg.de! It is probably one of
the most-visited websites this
year. Or if it were to exist ganz weit
weg.de . Climate change seems to be
responsible for the persistent general
weather situation or is, according to
Professor Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, at least an interesting suspect.1
1
Hochwasser eine Folge des Klimawandels?, in:
welt online of 6.6.2013
6
These and other expected impacts of climate change already present very great challenges to the Alps
as a natural landscape. But even more
so to it as a tourist region. For the important point here is timely steering
of investments in the right direction
in order to secure long-term a market
sequence in a globalized and extremely mobile world.
More than two years ago the environment ministers at the Alpine
Convention decided to produce a report on sustainable tourism in the
Alps. This report provides an essential basis of expertise for discussions
on how we can promote sustainable
Melanie Huml,
State Secretary at
the Bavarian
Department of
Environment and
Health
entated, sustainable and socially acceptable. The German tourism economy has now realized the benefits of
sustainable action, and consumers
are becoming increasingly critical
and are increasingly demanding sustainable offerings.
We must, however, not reduce
sustainability to its ecological components. In the medium and longterm, successful tourism products
and services can only be developed in
conjunction with economic and social sustainability. For the consumer
the benefits of sustainable tourism
offerings in the sense of enriching
their holiday must become even
more visible. In the process, positive
experiences and examples of best
practice such as those presented at
the Sustainable Tourism symposium
for the Alpine region play an important role.
tourism in the Alps. The Alpine Convention is an environment policy instrument. For this reason the decision-making is in the hands of the federal departments of the environment.
Reconciling environmental
protection with tourism
Nature doesn t need us, but we need
Nature. This sentence, which are all
familiar with, cannot be applied so
easily to the relationship between nature and tourism. In view of the marketization of all aspects of life nowadays nature can indeed benefit
from forms of touristic use.
But of course the relationship
between tourism and environmental
protection is never completely relaxed. This is the case precisely in the
Alpine region. There we have the classical conflict about use of resources:
justified usage claims by the local population threaten to endanger attractive natural areas with high-quality
biotopes.
Meanwhile critical voices are
being raised with regard to adaptations to climate change. Let us take
for example the use of snow cannons.
Investments in large leisure and health resorts regularly trigger discussions. I would argue for an ideology-free discussion of the issues. One
point is clear: we cannot and do not
want to hermetically seal off the Alps
from all human activity. We do however have to keep to the rules, laws and
standards. And the Alpine Convention is a part of these. But let us ask ourselves whether and how we can better
reconcile environmental protection
with tourism.
Travel analysis 2012: the environment is a decisive criterion for
Alpine holidaymakers!
The 2012 travel analysis provides the
following interesting points of reference:
Yes, they do exist and a lot of
them at that: people who turn their
back on travel destinations like Tenerife and Majorca and instead consciously choose to spend their holidays
in the Bavarian Alps and Alpine
foothills. 61.5% of them give Experiencing nature beautiful landscapes,
‚
Stefan Meider,
Mittenwald
clean air, clean water as their main
motivation for doing this. For 31% of
German travellers (in 2013 even 40%)
a holiday should if possible be ecologically and environmentally friendly
and not waste resources.
And then the special group of sustainability advocates has crystallized:
• They are slightly older, well-educated and rather better-off than those
who reject sustainability.
• They go on considerably more extra
holiday trips.
• At the same time they stay more often in their own country.
The travel analysis clearly allows the
conclusion that the sustainability aspect is a market-relevant one to tourism. Mother Nature is thus not only
an intangible, but also a tangible
good.
Examples of win-win situations
Investments in the protection of nature and the environment are thus
also investments in tourism. The Bavarian Department of the Environment has for example invested in the
infrastructure of national parks and
thus at the same time created magnets to visitors. At any rate the recently opened 7 Haus der Berge in Berchtesgaden or the Nature Information
Centre in Karwendel, whose purpose
it is to communicate nature, are very
popular with tourists.
The Department of the Environment also very consciously promotes
inter-municipality cooperation, in
particular at the interface between
environmental protection and tourism.
The Achendal eco-model or the
Nagelflutkette Nature Park, to date
the only nature park in the Alps, are
examples of this. Moreover, the
so-called 7 area rangers whom we
support with money from the nature
protection fund and the European Social Fund provide useful service to
the environment and tourism alike.
Area rangers convey to visitors an
appreciation of the value and of the
need to preserve natural treasures. In
the area covered by the Alpine Convention alone, six out of a total of 35
do their rounds in Bavaria.
The Bavarian Department of the
Environment together with the German Alpine Association is carrying
out the Environment-friendly Ski
Mountaineering project. Its aim: to
make winter sports as environmentally friendly as possible.
And last but not least, the Minister of the Environment Marcel Huber
last year presented the Alps 2020 ecoplan. It contains tourism-related
measures suggested by the Department of the Environment, such as for
example:
• Environment education in Alpine
Association s huts
• Municipal area management
• Risk prevention or regional energy
concepts involving renewables.
Trend towards health tourism
Not only do environmental protection
and tourism go well together, the health issue presents itself as third member of the group for a sustainable concept for a region such as the Alps. Health tourism is a demographic trend
and is inconceivable without an intact
environment. At the Health Region
Bavaria quality competition already
four out of the total 17 regions awarded prizes by us are in the Alps or the
foothills of the Alps. Passport Edition Nachhaltigkeit im Tourismus
7
Tourism and Sustainability as Economic Factor
Katja Hessel
State Secretary in the Bavarian State
Ministry of Economic Affairs, Infrastructure, Transport and Technology
S
ustainability is without doubt
one of today’s key issues. No other
challenge has so radically changed
awareness in our society in such a
short period of time. It touches on all
areas of politics, even on tourism.
On the one hand the tourism industry is a big economic factor and
growth engine for the Free State and
the livelihood of many people depend on its success:
Tourism annually generates for
example more than 31 billion euros
gross turnover and provides more
than 560,000 people in Bavaria with
an income.
And as the number one tourism
region in Germany, the Free State of
Bavaria is becoming more and more
popular: in 2012, with 31 million arrivals and 84 million overnight stays,
the Bavarian tourism industry broke
new records for the third year in a row.
On the other hand, more than
most other branches of industry, tourism depends on an intact environment. Due to its scenic beauty Bavaria
is a very popular destination for nature lovers.
• More than 60% of our guests visit
Bavaria because of its unique natural landscapes.
• Whether cycling tourism, hiking
tourism or water tourism, experiencing nature is to a large extent the
basis for the success of tourism in
Bavaria.
This wealth of resources is a competitive advantage which we, especially in
the Alpine region of Bavaria, can be
very happy about. At the same time,
however, it obliges us to look after
and conserve natural resources for future generations. Preservation of nature and of regional identity thus has
high priority from a tourism-political
perspective as well.
8
The Alpine Convention – an
instrument for sustainable
development
This applies especially to the ecologically sensitive Alpine region. The Alpine Convention created, more than
20 years ago, an important instrument for sustainable development of
the Alps.
Cooperation between the Alpine
states is important for tourism as
many opportunities can only be taken and challenges met through
cross-border cooperation. The ratification of the Tourism Protocol can be
seen as a milestone as it provided important momentum.
The economic, tourism and environmental policies of the Free State
of Bavaria take into consideration the
aims and provisions of the Tourism
Protocol. The tourism service providers and municipalities in the Bavarian Alpine region, who are responsible
for developing the range of services,
put the Tourism Protocol into
practice through a number of initiatives.
Sustainable model examples in
Bavaria
The practical examples such as “Alpine Pearl Bad Reichenhall” and “Umbrella Brand Allgäu” which were presented at the “Fachkongress Nachhaltiger Tourismus / Symposium on Sustainable Tourism” show that the Alps
are an innovative force for sustainable development in other localities as
well. And they demonstrate the unbroken attractiveness of the Bavarian
Alpine region – to both guests and investors. I am also thinking here of
many other model examples in the
Bavarian Alps, for example:
• The setting up of the “Explorer Hotels” in the Allgäu which have redefined the outdoor hotel in passive
house standard.
• The successful “Genießerland-Region Tegernsee / Tegernsee – A Region
to Enjoy” project and the “Naturkäserei Tegernsee / Natural Cheese
Dairy Tegernsee” which offer our
enthusiastic guests top-quality regional products, as well as our “E-Bike
Regions” which meanwhile cover almost the entire Alpine mountain
range.
All these examples have one common
secret of success: their ecological offering is combined with concrete added value for the visitor. Sustainable
“pleasure tourism” instead of “Spartan abstinence tourism” – that is one
way to combine environment and
tourism in line with demand.
The Fourth Report on the State of
the Alps – a further milestone of
the Alpine Convention
The fourth Report on the State of the
Alps deals for the first time with the
development of sustainable tourism
in the Alpine region. In around 150
pages it
• Offers an extensive analysis of the
tourism situation in the Alps
• Identifies opportunities and challenges
• Gives examples of best practice and
points out measures to further reinforce sustainable development of
tourism in the Alps.
The report is a good example of successful cooperation between tourism
and the environment, as well as between departments. With its many
concrete model examples from all
the Alpine regions it addresses above
all tourism practitioners. Not every
statement in a 150-page report will of
course meet with everyone’s approval. From a tourism policy point of
view, two aspects are however worthy
of special praise: firstly, the State of
the Alps report makes it clear that the
Alpine region is not one homogeneous touristic region, but it extremely diverse. In all, the report identifies seven main types of touristic regions in the Alps, including:
• Ski resorts in the (non-Bavarian)
high Alps
• Alpine cities and villages
• Health destinations and
• All-season destinations.
This short description alone shows
that a “one size fits all” approach is
not a suitable one if sustainable development of tourism is the aim. The
heterogeneity of the tourism regions
demands customized and often destination-specific solutions. This applies to summer tourism as well as to
the further development of winter
tourism. The State can specific the
framework conditions and provide
development funds, the decisive
ideas however must be worked out
locally.
Secondly, the report does not focus on conflicting ecological, economic and social interests but instead
gives equal consideration to all three
dimensions of sustainability in order
to work towards common solutions.
This is the right approach to take. We
do not need a conflict of individual interests but instead a common and
constructive dialogue in order to develop innovative and responsible solutions.
In the Bavarian Alpine region there is a wealth of really good approaches. They are approaches which get
people enthusiastic and which can
unequivocally be recommended as
good examples to follow. One of the
reasons they get people excited is
because they provide answers to all
three basic questions concerning sustainable development:
1. How can a healthy environment, nature and landscape be preserved?
2. How can regional value-added effects be increased and the earnings
power of the tourism sector be ensured in the long term?
3. And how can the culture and identity of the local population be preserved?
Sustainable tourism development
in Bavaria
The focus of the symposium is on
entrepreneurial and municipal
practical examples. It is therefore important to me to highlight how the
State supports the development of
sustainable tourism.
Sustainable tourism plays an important role in the Free State of Bavaria: ecological awareness, cultural responsibility and economic success –
this triad is also top priority for the
tourism policies of the Bavarian state
government.
Examples of this are the Bavarian
Alpine Plan, internationally a model
example of a protective instrument
for the Alpine region and one we also
adhere to in our new Land development programme. The “Umweltpakt
Bayern / Environment Pact for Bavaria” and the “Bayerische Umweltsiegel
für das Gastgewerbe / Bavarian Environment Seal of Quality for the Hotel and Catering Industry” – both of
which are voluntary instruments to
reinforce environmental protection
in commerce – are evidence of this.
The environment seal of quality was
incidentally the first state-awarded
environment seal of quality in the hotel and catering industry and does
excellent work ranging from hotels to
the marquees at the Munich October
Festival.
Another good example is the range of support instruments provided
by the Bavarian regional promotion
authorities aimed at innovation and
improving quality and prioritized in
the barrier-free ecological development plan. Within this framework the
Bavarian Ministry of Economic Affairs has financially supported the
tourism industry since 2008 alone to
the tune of around 150mn euros. This
made possible total investments of
around 940mn euros.
Examples of this are considerable
offers by our Land marketing organization in the nature and culinary art
sectors, as well as the current summer
campaign “Bayern Sommer. Das Original” with its clear focus on our regional strengths.
Further examples of this are projects to develop soft mobility in the
Alpine region, such as for example
the cross-border “AlpInfoNet” project
run by my ministry, which since the
beginning of the year has been working on a supra-regional information
system for the local public transport
system in the Alpine region.
We also have great expectations of
the model region “Electromobility”
Garmisch-Partenkirchen and of a broadly-based pilot project in Allgäu as
part of the “Window on Bavaria/Saxony – Electromobility Unites” initiative.
Katja Hessel,
Staatssekretärin
Bayerisches
Staatsministerium
für Wirtschaft,
Infrastruktur,
Verkehr und
Technologie
We provide a completely different but no less innovative stimulus
with our “artouro” tourism architecture award, which is unique in Germany. This is awarded to particularly
high-quality tourism buildings and
structures in Bavaria, special attention being given to our regional building culture – this too is a contribution to sustainability.
Tourism managers and experts
from the Alpine region and far
beyond are still required to continue
shaping sustainable tourism in their
daily actions, and will remain so. In
this connection Eric Schweitzer,
entrepreneur and President of the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce, once gave a
nice definition of sustainability when
he said: “Sustainability is when you
[always] think of the final result no
matter what you do”.
9
The Fourth Report
on the State of the Alps
Thomas Bausch
T
ogether with the Alpine Convention the seven Alpine states pursue
a policy of protecting and sustainably developing the Alpine space. The
145-page Fourth Report on the State
of the Alps, published in June, examines tourism and in particular the
sustainability aspects of this industry
which is so important to many Alpine
regions. It analysis the current state
and indicates how tourism industry
players in the Alpine space can contribute more to sustainability.
Demarcation of the Alpine space
and sustainable tourism
The mandate of the Alpine Convention is restricted to the territorial area
demarcated by the Convention (Alpine Convention 1991), which basically
matches the geomorphologic borders
of the Alpine mountain range. For the
sake of simplicity, the legally binding
demarcation lines were made to correspond to administrative areas. In
Bavaria this means the Alpine counties which in part actually contain
mountains, in Austria by analogy the
districts, in Italy the provinces or in
France the departments. From a touristic point of view, this demarcation
must be seen as not quite correct. The
interdependency between the Alpine
metropolises such as Munich, Milan,
Lyon or Zurich and the Alpine space
itself is obvious. In their promotional
campaigns aimed at international audiences all these metropolises
emphasis their proximity to the Alps
and the wide range of easily accessible Alpine attractions.
This interdependency is also reflected in the special situation of the
Alpine peripheral regions with regard
to the numbers of day visitors from
the metropolitan areas to recreational areas near them. At many locations tourists as defined by the UNWTO (UNWTO (2010)) intermingle with
day visitors. Since the early days of
tourism this intermingling has sha-
10
ped development at these locations
with their high percentage of second
homes and double traffic loads at the
weekends. As there is no reliable or
comparable data on day visitors for
the Alpine space as a whole, this
group is not dealt with in the report.
This also redirected the focus of attention to the tourism system within
the area demarcated by the Alpine
Convention.
A further demarcation problem
lay in defining what exactly sustainable tourism and thus the object of
examination is. It quickly became obvious that above all processes aimed
at sustainable tourism development
are of primary interest rather than
the defining of a fictitious ideal point.
This thought is reflected in the UNWTO definition (UNWTO 2012), which
emphasizes three aspects. According
to it, sustainable tourism should
• Optimally use environmental resources which are a key element in
tourism development and at the
same time maintain important ecological processes and help to preserve natural heritage and biodiversity.
• Respect the socio-cultural authenticity of the host communities, preserve their existing cultural heritage and their traditional values and
contribute to intercultural understanding and tolerance.
• Ensure profitable, long-term economic activities and generate for all involved equitably distributed socio-cultural benefits. These include
stable jobs and opportunities to
earn an income, social services for
the host communities and a contribution towards fighting poverty.
The report includes further definitions, for example of eco-tourism, but
itself uses the UNWTO definition.
Heterogeneous structures lead to
different policy approaches
In addition, an overview of the legal
framework conditions and the associated different policy approaches in
the seven Alpine states and in the EU
is given. On a European level approaches to sustainable tourism development had in the past failed to materialize because the Member States had
not given a mandate to the Commission. It was not until the Treaty of Lisbon that the Commission received a
soft mandate to submit a tourism
strategy (EC 2010b), which has to be
integrated into the overall EU 2020
strategy (EC2012a). There are therefore at the moment no Alp-specific policy approaches on a European level.
On the level of the signatory states to the Convention on the other
hand there is a wide range of competencies and structures in the tourism
sector. A main reason for this are the
different political structures. Whereas France and Italy are still essentially centralistic states, Austria, Switzerland and Germany are federal republics in which traditionally the
Länder or the Cantons are responsible
for tourism. Moreover, the differences in the economic importance of
tourism in the different states and regions lead to a considerably different
weighting of tourism in economic policy. It is therefore not surprising that
in a district such as Tyrol where the
direct impacts of tourism contribute
around 25% to total value added, this
industry is given special treatment by
the politicians. The aspect of sustainability is reflected in almost all national or regional strategies. Nevertheless, it has to be said that this aspect
is not the primary starting point for
an integrated policy approach. It is
rather the case that tourism policy is
everywhere seen as part of economic
policy. Sustainability is therefore
mostly treated from a market perspective and thus at present from the
perspective of an emerging and increasing demand for natural and environment-friendly touristic offers.
The Alpine space: a very diverse
group of destinations
In connection with the negative impacts of tourism on the Alpine region,
tourism is frequently subconsciously
reduced to the big central Alpine skiing areas with their lifts and snowmaking facilities.
In comparison with coastal regions such as for example the Mediterranean, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea however, the Alpine region offers much more diversity: there are
destinations with mostly winter tourism (ski destinations) or summer
tourism (big lakes) as well as those offering both types. Added to these are
destinations with very high tourism
intensity as well as those with very
low numbers of visitors, usually in
peripheral locations with very natural surroundings. Moreover, there are
a number of locations which due to
excellent cultural heritage sites have
become magnets for visitors from far
beyond the borders of Europe.
Natural health remedies in the
entire Alpine mountain range also
played a major role in the development of a number of locations: ther-
Mountain railways
in Kronplatz,
Pustertal change
the scenic
mountain backdrop
permanently
Thomas Bausch
The principle
elements of the
tourism service
chain
Nyon Région
Tourisme aus
Alpenkonvention(2013), S. 54
mal and mineral springs as well as
brine baths are just as important as
special microclimatic conditions in
combination with a healthy stimulating climate. Finally, the importance
of city tourism for the Alpine region
should not be forgotten. Towns like
Bolzano, Chambéry, Chur, Innsbruck,
Salzburg, Sion or Trento with their
wide range of attractions embedded
in an Alpine environment attract large numbers of visitors usually all year
round and thus make these towns ga-
11
teways to the Alpine region. In addition to this and distributed throughout
the entire Alpine region is the not insignificant percentage of business-related tourism at a number of locations, supported by congress centres
or smaller trade fair locations.
The Report on the State of the
Alps does not deal with every form of
tourism in connection with selected
locations. Instead, an analysis is carried out along the tourism process
chain to see which problem areas
with regard to sustainability can be
identified in Alpine tourism.
The report not only considers the
problem areas, but also gives examples of good practice to show how
these can be solved. An example of
good practice worth copying is the Albergo Diffuso concept. This concept
ensures the preservation of historical
buildings in small Alpine villages by
converting them for tourism purposes and at the same time it creates a
12
Without artificial
snowmaking there
is no guarantee
that mega winter
sport events can be
staged – Example
FIS Alpine World Ski
Championship
Garmisch-Partenkirchen 2011
Thomas Bausch
unique and non-reproducible offer
for the guests.
Another special issue dealt with
in the report is mega-events and their
impacts. Such events are often the
driving force behind extensive development and expansion projects as
the organizers such as FIS and IOC
constantly make greater and greater
demands on the sports facilities. These events have become so economically important to the organizers, particularly through the marketing of
the broadcasting rights, that the natural environment has to be neutralized as far as possible. It is quite common for World Cup events or international championships to be held on
white snow tracks in otherwise snowfree landscapes.
The Report on the State of the
Alps is very careful in what it says
about mega-events.
It points out that the economic
effects for the host communities and
regions are doubtful, the negative impacts on the environment and the destruction of the landscape and nature
on the other hand considerable. Moreover, there is no conclusive evidence that mega-events provide a lasting
stimulus to tourism, although organizers always quote this as an important reason for applying to hold them.
Admittedly, it is also pointed out that
there are few studies on this issue
which have dealt neutrally and substantively with the impacts over time.
The report shows one thing clearly: within the process chain the elements Travel/Mobility, Natural Environment/Sport and Organised Activities/Events cause many big problems which have not yet been solved
for all dimensions of sustainability.
Moreover, these cannot be considered on a merely local or regional level,
as considerable greenhouse gas emissions with a global impact are produced across all links in the process
chain. These intensify climate change, which especially in the Alpine region has significant negative impacts
on tourism.
Typology of the destination types
in the Alpine region
In particular the following aspects
lead to different types of tourism in
the Alps.
• Mountains (M): the height of the
mountains and the thereby linked
typography of an area lead to very
different options for tourism development. The great diversity of Alpine mountain formations offers
countless tourist options especially
in the field of winter sports, hiking
and climbing as well as for all kinds
of activities linked to mountain experiences (M). In contrast to this
many Alpine areas are at the
foothills of the higher mountains
with an open cultural landscape and
a less extreme climate (m). Many lakes and Alpine rivers offer options
for water-based leisure activities.
Larger villages and Alpine cities are
often located in river valleys or
along lakes in the foothills.
• Resources (R): traditionally, local or
regional resources in tourist regions
are used as unique selling points.
These resources can be nature or
part of the tangible/intangible cultural heritage created by the native
population. Very important for tourism are natural resources utilised
as health remedies, which can be
found in a broad variety in the Alps:
mineral and thermal water, fresh air
with specific additives, mineral
rocks but also wild herbs or healthy
local food. Nature itself is a resource
with rare animal or plant species
and also glaciers, waterfalls, springs,
which are only available in a few Alpine places. Finally, cultural heritage is also relevant for tourism, combining tangible (architecture, clothes, tools) and intangible (knowledge of food production, music, local
languages)
elements.
In this context, traditional cultural
landscapes which have resulted
from centuries-old farming
practices also play an important
role. Locations with few resources (r)
try to enter the Alpine tourism mar-
ket through higher investments in
artificial attractors.
• Accessibility (A): good accessibility
(A) to a destination is a comparative
advantage and stimulates tourism
development and investments.
Thus the combination of proximity
to the metropolises around the Alps
and a good transport infrastructure
with motorways, dual carriageways
and railways leads to a combination
of tourism with overnight stays and
day visitors from the population
centres. Alpine cities generally have
good accessibility, some of them
also by air transport and therefore
act as gateways to the surrounding
valleys. All easily accessible tourism
areas tend to have a high share of second homes, which are only used for
a short period of the year (cold bed
effect). Peripheral Alpine regions (r)
mostly develop tourism types with
a higher average length of stay.
• Seasonality (S): strong one-sided
seasonality (S), either winter or
summer, causes additional strain: a
seasonal labour market combined
with short duration of employment
and with a high risk of temporary
unemployment, high infrastructure
capacities to cover seasonal peaks
(overcapacities) and low utilization
of tourism facilities outside the
main season. From a sustainability
perspective, all-season tourism with
no great seasonal fluctuations is advantageous (s). However, even reaching a good balance between winter and summer season is a crucial
step forward.
• Tourism intensity (I): The relative
contribution of tourism to the total
added value of a regional economy
is an indicator of the intensity of the
tourism sector in a region. A high intensity (I), measured by the relation
of overnight stays to the number of
inhabitants, can create dependency
and a one-sided orientation of local
and regional development policy towards tourism. In many Alpine regions and cities tourism is an important but not dominant economic
sector (I).
From the combinations of these factors we can distinguish seven main
types:
• Type 1: Foothill summer destinations
• Type 2: Health destinations
• Type 3: Nature experience oriented
destinations
• Type 4: Alpine cities and villages
• Type 5: All-season inner mountain
destinations
• Type 6: Ski resorts
• Type 7: All-season tourism in the
mountains at the edge of the Alps
SWOT analysis as basis to identify
options for action
The main strengths and weaknesses
of each of these main types are summarized in the Report on the State of
the Alps. In the summaries the focus
was put on the three main fields of
sustainability: economic (in particular the economics of tourism), environmental and social (in particular
the impacts of tourism on areas affecting working conditions) strengths
and weaknesses.
The tourism system is subject to
continuous change due to long-term,
exogenous development drivers. In a
strategy development for the Alpine
space (Gloersen et.al. 2013, p.42) the
following were considered particularly important:
• Climate change
• Shifts in the energy market
• Economic globalization
• Development of the information society and economics of knowledge
• Demographic change
• Increased mobility of goods and
people.
The report examines what mediumand long-term effects result from these drivers. Taking types 6 and 7 as examples, the procedure can be briefly
outlined. At present both types have
as a strength “attractive ski resorts
with high-capacity lifts in the winter
season”. In connection with climate
change however, the conclusions
with regard to their strength differ
for the two types. The report for example points out that high-lying ski
resorts in the central Alpine area
(type 7) can still expect snow certainty for a long time to come and thus
initially potentially benefit from climate change (= opportunity) as lower-lying ski resorts gradually disappear from the market as snow becoPassport Edition Nachhaltigkeit im Tourismus
13
mes less and less of a certainty (=
threat). Although both types have at
present a strength in this area, the
drivers result in the one case in an opportunity and in the other case in a
threat. The methodology chosen corresponds to a modified regional development SWOT analysis (Veser
2013). This identifies challenges on
the basis of opportunities and threats
for the adaptation of Alpine tourism
resulting from the abovementioned
drivers in the sectors environmental
(EN), social and cultural (SC), economic (EC) and for cross-sectoral challenges (CS):
• EN1: Keeping biodiversity and protecting natural resources as the essential backbone of Alpine tourism
• EN2: Reducing the negative impacts
of all kinds of tourism-induced mobility
• EN3: Reducing or even stopping land
consumption caused by new tourism projects
• EN4: Handling the higher natural
hazards risk potential
• SC1: Reducing the social effects of
seasonality
• SC2: Balancing price level and income of local population
• SC3: Understanding “low-barrier
spaces” as a matter of quality of life
• SC4: Keeping cultural heritage as
the core of a unique way of living
• EC1: Further improvement of accessibility and regional mobility by
sustainable transport systems
• EC2: Saving the labour force potential of the tourism sector
• EC3: Securing profitability regarding
disproportionally increasing energy
prices
• CS1: Strengthening the innovation
and management capacity of the Alpine tourism actors for further sustainable development
• CS2: Improving regional welfare by
strengthening cooperation between
tourism and other sectors
• CS3: Making the benefits of sustainable tourism offers more visible to
consumers in source markets.
ders (e.g. promoting farm-based
products, on-farm holidays) (L3)
• Promotion of successful activities in
the field of networking and on-site
implementation of protection activities supported by tourism (L4/L5).
Schloss
Neuschwanstein,
view from the
north-east with
mountain
panorama
Bayerische
Schlösserverwaltung, Anton Brandl
Options to achieve more
sustainability
A report on the state of the Alps
which is to apply to the entire Alpine
area and its very heterogeneous poli-
14
tical systems can in the final analysis
only indicate general options in the
sense of fields of action and instruments which appear suitable for
them. The concrete design of such instruments in the form of measures to
be taken must then always be done on
the respective local or regional level.
A differentiation can be made between hard instruments (legislation)
and soft instruments (e.g. incentive
systems). The Report identifies six
different steps (L1 to L6) of decreasing
hardness (Alpine Convention 2013,
p.125). Finally, the Report indicates a
number of options to meet the challenges. Some examples from the extensive list of options are given below.
Keeping biodiversity and protecting
natural resources as the essential
backbone of Alpine tourism can be
achieved by
• Developing action plans of a destination’s positive contribution (participatory process) to promoting the
exchange of information and project results dealing with climate change adaptation in the Alpine area
(L4/L5).
• Designation of sensitive areas in
spatial planning, where tourism facilities as well as tourism activities
should not be developed (further)
(L2/L3)
• Preservation of the traditional cultural Alpine landscapes by supporting environmentally-friendly agriculture through an enhanced cooperation with tourism stakehol-
To keep the social and cultural framework of tourism balanced, the following important social aspects of sustainable tourism must be taken account of:
• Improvement of the working conditions in the hotel and catering industry through labour regulations
(L1)
• Enforcement of the principle of low
barrier planning in developing
approval procedures of new tourism
related building projects (e.g.
entrance areas, public restrooms,
share of low barrier rooms and restaurant places) (L1/L2)
• Support to all-year-tourism and the
diversification of the touristic offer
(L4)
• Publication and diffusion of planning guidelines on “how to offer low
barrier tourism” combined with a
voluntary network of businesses in
line with these criteria (L4)
• Increased promotion of low-season
holidays (L6).
Keeping a lively cultural heritage as
core of a unique way of living can be
supported by
• Setting up a UNESCO based inventory of tangible and intangible Alpine cultural heritage as a unique feature of Alpine destinations (L2)
• Developing sustainable tourist activities, which capitalize on regional
traditions and local agriculture (L3)
• Promoting participation of the local
population in designing and deciding about tourism development
plans (L5).
Improved accessibility and regional
mobility with a more sustainable
transport system provide a competitive edge for strengthening the economic dimension of sustainable tourism. This can be achieved by
• M aintaining and improving the
connections with long-distance
trains or the European high-speed
railways network well connected to
regional train and bus systems as
well as the final destination including luggage transport (L2/L3)
• Funding “zero emission” local transport systems (e-mobility powered
by renewable energy) (l2/L3)
• S trengthening the collaboration
(service and technology) between
tourism and local transport providers in order to elaborate attractive,
clear, transparent and flexible services and offers at affordable prices
for leisure and tourism transport
(L3/L4)
• Improving the provision of information on the public transport options for travelling to, from and within a destination (L5).
The Report on the State of the Alps
lists other options on pages 125-127.
coming important to consumers, i.e.
that it can in time offer a significant
competitive advantage over other
providers. Thus the focus of further
activities should above all be on reproducing existing knowledge and
experiences by convincing many actors in the tourism industry that this
is the direction to take and by enabling them to make use of the options
indicated in the report for themselves
and their destinations.
Summary and outlook
The Fourth Report on the State of the
Alps analyses the “Tourism in the Alpine Space” system with regard to
sustainability. In the process it takes
into account the diversity of the political systems as well as the heterogeneity of tourism in the Alps. Through
a systematic analysis of the strengths
and weaknesses of the different destination types in the Alps in relation
to the drivers relevant to tourism
long-term, the central challenges facing all aspects of sustainable tourism are identified. A number of adaptation options using instruments
of varying degrees of hardness to
meet these challenges are listed. A
number of good practice examples
facilitate implementation on a local
and regional level.
As required, the report starts by
describing the present state and moves on to a future-orientated adaptation analysis before indicating possible solutions.
Many of the points of criticism
named in the report and the assigned
possible solutions are neither new
nor surprising. On the contrary, the
report makes it clear that a good 20
years after the signing of the Alpine
Convention there is no longer a lack
of knowledge on how to manage tourism in a sustainable way resp. to gradually develop a sustainable form of
tourism. Market studies also show
that sustainability is increasingly be-
SOURCES:
Alpenkonvention(1991): Übereinkommen zum Schutz der Alpen (Alpenkonvention), Rahmenkonvention; http://www.alpconv.org/de/
convention/framework/Documents/Framework_de.pdf
Alpenkonvention (2013): Nachhaltiger Tourismus in den Alpen;
Alpenzustandsbericht der Alpenkonvention; Alpensignale – Sonderserie 4; Innsbruck auch als download unter www.alpconv.org
EC (2010a): Europe 2020 - a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 final, 3.3.2010, Brüssel
EC (2010b): Europe, the world‘s No 1 tourist destination – a new
political framework for tourism in Europe; COM(2010) 352 final,
30.6.2010, Brüssel
Gloersen et. al. (2013): strategy development for the Alpine space – final report; official document published by the Alpine Space Programme (www.alpine-space.eu); Salzburg
UNWTO (2012): United Nations Environment Programme and World
Tourism Organization: Tourism in the Green Economy – Background
Report, UNWTO, Madrid.
UNWTO (2010): International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics 2008, New York 2010
Veser, A. (2012): Regional SWOT analyses for demographic change
issues. Experiences and Tools; in: Bausch, T., Koch, M., Veser, A.: Coping
with Demographic Change in the Alpine Regions. Actions and Strategies for Spatial and Regional Development, Heidelberg, New York
15
It might be worth waiting for after all…!
Adoption of the 2003 UNESCO Convention on Intangible Cultural
Heritage in Germany and its Deficits1
Volker Letzner
1. (Intangible) cultural heritage
and sustainable tourism
Tourism needs culture, but does culture need tourism? The question is
provocative and asymmetrical and
apparently easy to answer. Culture
in its widest sense is without doubt
one of the central input factors in
tourism. People travel to cultural or
natural attractors. That in doing so
they, nolens volens so to speak, need
touristic infrastructure in the form of
airports, hotels, lifts etc. does not in
any way change the central role of the
attractor for leisure tourism, which is
the anchor of the whole industry. The
special and fascinating thing about
the attractor however remains the
fact that as a rule it tends to be a freely accessible good which can be used,
or overused, free of charge or for a
comparatively low admission fee –
this tragedy of the commons is at the
heart of the debate on sustainability
with regard to the attractor. Sure, for
many producible privately-owned
attractors such as a casino, a leisure
park or the like, this problem does
not exist: but filthy beaches, mountains of rubbish, destroyed coral reefs
or restoration pressure on meadows
suffering from the damage caused by
the breathing and footsteps of the visitors are all examples of a (perhaps
non- or inadequate) sustainable attractor policy.2
This general attractor problem is
concentrated above all on the cultural
tourism sector because no matter
whether the tourist makes use of the
culture only incidentally or makes it
the core element of his trip, whether
he experiences tangible or intangible
culture, gains intercultural experience or more or less deliberately goes to
cultural events, culture is always an
input factor which compensates to a
58
greater or less degree and is sometimes exploited to a greater or less
degree. The answer is therefore simple: Yes. Tourism needs cultural heritage in all its diversity as a very important attractor.
Is the reverse question of whether
culture needs tourism or not, or
would maybe even be better off without it, just as easy to answer? It may
be that many people, perhaps in particular the ‘creative artists’, would like
to give a yes answer, but of course it’s
not easy as that. The simplest counterargument is: it is cultural tourism
which leads to payment for culture in
the first place and it can, at least partly, finance it. This logic is frequently
correct and is a central issue in the
‘Culture Competence” module that
the Faculty has been offering for the
past few years. Nevertheless, this logic
is of course of an instrumental-rational nature and therefore perhaps popular in an economic sense, but not
emotionally. Here too of course there
are differences. In the end the Eiffel
Tower does not care in the slightest
how many people visit it, but does the
same apply to the actors in the
Oberammergau Passion Play? Irrespective of the proceeds, one hears
again and again from many creative
artists, musicians etc. that of course
they expect an audience and do not
want to perform before an empty
hall. At this point a summary of and
support for the opinion expressed by
Dr. Roland Bernecker, Secretary General of the DUK (German Commission
for UNESCO) during a lecture given at
the Faculty on 16th October 2012,
which was documented as follows, is
given: “The Secretary-General very
clearly opposed the sometimes heard
‘snobbish” opinions that cultural heritage, irrespective of whether it is
tangible or intangible, would fare best
of all without tourism and tourists. In
his opinion cultural heritage should
and must be accessible to everyone, as
only then will it be able to unite people and fulfil its peacemaking function. He very pointedly added: “If we
want to protect the Sistine Chapel by
preventing everybody from entering
it, we might as well just tear it down
right away.”3
Put briefly: tourism and culture
exist in an asymmetric symbiosis and
the central question in any academic
discussion on cultural tourism is:
How can we look after our cultural heritage in a sustainable way? As the debate centring on the restoration and
reconstruction of cultural attractors
(which will not be considered in detail
here) already shows (take for example
the Frauenkirche in Dresden, the
Stadtschloss in Berlin or restored archaeological buildings), there are no
easy answers to this question. It becomes even more difficult when the issue is intangible cultural heritage,
which is often popularly referred to
as living cultural heritage because
this expression of culture is inextricably linked with the life and actions
of people. This uno acto principle intensifies the already indicated sustainability problems when dealing
with culture and is only briefly mentioned here as the devil and the deep
blue sea in the debate on “Musealization v. Folkorization” of intangible
living traditions. In the first case the
last remaining old lace-making
grandmother would be protected
from extinction behind safety glass
in a museum and in the second case
paid, target-group optimized animation teams perform random authentic dances or plays. The challenges of
developing sustainable cultural tourism with regard to intangible cultural heritage are therefore great, and
they have been getting bigger for
some time as mere sightseeing alone
becomes less and less able to satisfy
the modern, well-educated and
much-travelled tourist from the rich
countries. Travelling must increasingly provide new experiences, authenticity (the buzz word in tourism)
and even have a deeper meaning. These issues, which have to be discussed
in more detail elsewhere, give an increasingly central role to intangible
living culture heritage in tourism research as well.4 It is therefore a very
welcome development that after a delay of ten years the Federal Republic
of Germany has finally adopted the
UNESCO Convention and that it entered into force on 9 July 2013.
2. The 2003 UNESCO Convention
for the Safeguarding of Intangible
Cultural Heritage
The different UNESCO Conventions5
are not easy to keep apart. There is the
famous 1972 Convention concerning
the Protection of the World Cultural
and Natural Heritage which in actual
fact created the marketable UNESCO
World Heritage Sites. In 2005 there
was the Convention on the Protection
and Promotion of the Diversity of
Cultural Expressions and in 2003 the
Convention on Intangible Cultural
Heritage was passed, which is frequently seen as complementary to
tangible world heritage as part of the
1972 Convention. Between these two
conventions however lies not only a
period of 30 years, but also several
differences in content which go
beyond a complementing of “tangible” with “intangible”. These are above
all a different “understanding of
truth” and the different role played
by experts in finding the “truth”. These aspects are explained in more detail below. First of all, the most important aspects of the 2003 Convention should be presented, without
here repeating the entire relevant literature on this issue.6
Article 2 of the 2003 UNESCO
Convention reads:
“The “intangible cultural heritage”
means the practices, representations,
expressions, knowledge, skills – as well
as the instruments, objects, artefacts
and cultural spaces associated herewith – that communities, groups and,
in some cases, individuals recognize as
part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted
The „Kinderzeche“
is an historical child
and regional
festival in
Dinkelsbühl
Volker Letzner
from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and
groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature
and their history, and provides them
with a sense of identity and continuity,
thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the
purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible
with existing international human
rights instruments, as well as with the
requirements of mutual respect
among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development. … [It] is manifested inter alia in
the following domains:
(a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the
intangible cultural heritage;
(b) performing arts;
(c) social practices, rituals and festive
events;
(d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe;
(e) traditional craftsmanship.”
Under Article 12 each State Party
has to draw up an inventory:
“To ensure identification with a
view to safeguarding, each State Party
shall draw up, in a manner geared to
its own situation, one or more inventories of the intangible cultural heritage present in its territory. These inventories shall be regularly updated.”7
For Germany, the task of drawing up
an inventory has only just begun and
will be critically examined in the following pages. The task is therefore to
draw up one (or more) German lists of
intangible cultural heritage which in
line with the quote has an intrinsic
value and which is also entitled to be
submitted for incorporation in UNESCO’s international Representative List
and its selection procedures.
It is not until Article 16 that the
so-called Representative List is defined:
“In order to ensure better visibility
of the intangible cultural heritage and
awareness of its significance, and to
encourage dialogue which respects
cultural diversity, the Committee,
upon the proposal of the State Parties
concerned, shall establish, keep up to
date and publish a Representative List
of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of
Humanity.”
This international list is frequently
understood as a pendent to the list of
59
world heritage sites in the 1972 Convention and for several years has been
annually expanded, with the result
that a considerable number of so-called masterpieces have meanwhile
been collected.
Moreover, it should be mentioned that there is also a list of intangible cultural heritage in need of urgent safeguarding, as well as a register
of good examples in practice. In this
context it should also be mentioned
that both for the German list and for
the Representative List a danger of
whatever nature to, or even a loss of,
the intangible cultural heritage is not
a precondition for inclusion on the
list!
As already indicated, the 1972 and
2003 conventions seem to complement each other more than they actually do. The most important difference is the following: compared to
the 1972 Convention the criteria “outstanding universal value” and “authenticity” are no longer used and
have been replaced by representativeness and handing down and the community of heirs has been expanded to
include “communities and groups”.
Thus in particular civic commitment
and the handing down from generation to generation are central elements of intangible cultural heritage,
which always find themselves in a dialectic “annulment” triad: to annul
(Latin: tollere) in the meaning of to
eliminate, annul (Latin: conservare)
in the meaning of to conserve and annul (Latin: levare) in the meaning of
to elevate.8 Put simply, the 1972 Convention assumes an objective concept of truth which can in the end,
with the help of expert knowledge, be
asserted and postulated. Put rather
more pointedly, the 1972 Convention
finds itself in a platonic tradition of
knowledge which not only recognizes
an objective-true world but also considers it to be recognizable by the
chosen. In contrast to this the understanding of truth in the 2003 Convention can be understood as a subjective
approach which in particular since
Immanuel Kant has manifested itself
in esthetical and knowledge-theoretical trends. It is therefore perfectly
consistent that a concrete value for
intangible cultural heritage is nowhe-
60
re demanded. The representativeness
criterion suffices, which was used so
flexibly that there were even proposals to keep masterpieces on the Representative List for a certain length
of time only and then replace them
by others just as representative, but
by definition no “more valuable”, traditions. A very sensible suggestion
which (as least as far as the author is
aware) unfortunately was not pursued any further. And it is equally consistent that the Convention does not
call on a circle of experts to answer
the question of what constitutes
intangible cultural heritage but leaves it to the people themselves who
are actually living out culture and, as
quoted, defines intangible cultural
heritage as something which “communities, groups and, in some cases,
individuals recognize as part of their
cultural heritage”.
In short: the 1972 Convention relies on an objective, universal concept
of truth which in the final analysis
can be recognized by appointed experts and whose “light” is revealed in
a top-down process to the average
and astonished rest of humanity sitting in their caves. The 2003 Convention relies on a subjective and merely
representative concept of truth resulting from the lives of those who live
out intangible cultural heritage. This
is a bottom-up approach which offers
many agreeable links to governance
and participatory policy ideas which
in many respects are typical of our
present decade.
3. German inventorization process
and its deficits
On 12 December 2012 the Federal Cabinet decided to adopt the 2003 Convention which became national law in
Germany on 9 July 2013. The DUK and
the KMK (Standing Conference of the
Ministers of Education and Cultural
Affairs of the Länder in the Federal
Republic of Germany) fortunately
agreed quickly on an implementation
procedure which this year and next
year may lead to an inventory in accordance with Article 12, in other
words a German inventory of intangible cultural heritage, so that presumably in 2016 at the earliest that cultural heritage from this inventory can
be nominated to the UNESCO which,
following UNESCO practice, might
then be included into the Representative List in accordance with Article 16
(or in the lists under Articles 17 and 18
which will receive no further consideration here). In several regional forums held in June/July, representatives from the DUK and the competent
ministries from the Länder presented
and announced this implementation
procedure to a wider public. The author attended the one held in Augsburg on 15 July 2013 which was intended to act as a multiplier for the topic
for Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg.
The DUK representatives in particular
emphasized that it was a new, open
procedure to which some adjustments could maybe still be made. As
the author is not able to say who is to
thank for substantial parts of the implementation proposal, it remains
open whether the main work was
done by the DUK who themselves say
that they focussed on the procedure
which already exists in Austria and
Switzerland, or if substantial elements are to be attributed to a Länder-specific proportional representation way of thinking by the KMK, or
to ideas by the BKM (Federal Government Commissioner for Cultural Affairs and Media).
The process for recognizing a cultural expression as intangible cultural heritage in Germany, in other
words the German inventory-making
process, will now be briefly outlined
as presented by the DUK on its website:
Step 1: First submission of applications round from 3 May to 30 November 2013: in line with a uniform
catalogue of criteria, bearers of intangible cultural heritage in their respective Bundesland can submit on a
standard application form two proposals each two A4 pages long for inclusion.9 An important criterion here is
that the cultural asset is not intended
to be used for primarily commercial
reasons but that the definition [of
intangible cultural heritage] given in
Article 2 is the focus.
Step 2: After 30 November 2013
each Bundesland will make a preliminary selection and submit a maximum of two proposals to the KMK.
Step 3: The secretariat of the KMK
will draw up a list consisting of 32
Länder-specific and maximum two
multi-Länder nominations and pass
it on to the expert committee for
intangible cultural heritage appointed by the DUK (German Commission
for UNESCO)10, where they will be
evaluated to see if they are suitable
for inclusion in the various lists.
Step 4: The KMK and the BKM finally confirm the selection recommendations of the expert committee.
All inscriptions are then published.
(Steps 5 and 6: Procedure for incorporation into the international
lists).
At the regional forum in Augsburg it was also announced (orally by
the speaker from Baden-Württemberg) that the inscriptions published
in accordance with step 4 are to receive a separate, still to be designed, UNESCO logo which was make the German intangible cultural heritage
more visible. Steps 1 to 4 (or up to 6)
of this procedure are to be repeated
every year so that little by little an increasingly large inventory of German
intangible cultural heritage will result.
As already said, bearing in mind
the ten long years the Federal Republic took before deciding to accede to
the Convention the quickness and
precision of the implementation process described here are worthy of
praise and a value in itself as it means
that years of discussion on how to
draw up the inventory, which would
mean even more delays, can be avoided. Moreover, the willingness of the
representatives at the forums to accept criticism and suggestions and
again and again emphasize that the
procedure is not cast in stone but that
flexible responses going down this
extremely exciting and new path are
by all means possible. This essentially
positive assessment said, some points
about the inventorization process
considered critical by the author will
now be discussed.
First point of criticism: low
number of, and Länder-proportional nominations
The Landshuter
Hochzeit (Landshut
Wedding
Ceremony) is one of
biggest historical
festivals in Europe
Volker Letzner
According to step 3 then, every year
there are to be up to 34 nominations
of intangible cultural heritage. If one
compares this number with the other
nominations for the 1972 World Cultural Heritage list or for the Representative List, it appears to be quite adequate. However, as already explained,
the aim of inventorization is not to
give an award to some somehow “better” expression of intangible cultural
heritage, but to draw up an inventory.
Article 12 says that “each State Party
shall draw up … one or more inventories of the intangible cultural heritage
present in its territory.” Put rather
more pointedly: the author is confident that he himself could find in
every single county in Bavaria 34 expressions of intangible cultural heritage which would satisfy all the criteria. The argument put forward by the
DUK that one should approach the
issue step by step and at the same
time not overwork the 23 experts
(who per nominated heritage element would have to read a daunting
61
two A4 pages) doesn’t quite convince.
That the intention behind this is to
prevent a deluge of nominations,
from every fire brigade party to every
local sausage speciality or even ones
with a racial or national-socialist
background, is of course good. The
point is that this does not (yet) rule
out the latter and the question of
whether or not a particular fire brigade festival constitutes an intangible
cultural heritage is clearly interpreted by the Convention: the answer is
yes, if the people experience their fire
brigade festival as intangible cultural
heritage then that is what it is! This
point leads on the second point of criticism.
The introduction of a Länder proportional representation system in
the form of two possible nominations
per Bundesland does not reflect the
spirit of intangible cultural heritage.
It is precisely lived intangible cultural
heritage that per definition correlates
with the people in its territory and
the fact that the city of Bremen with
a population of only 600,000 is allowed to nominate two forms of cultural expression the same as North-Rhine Westphalia with its 17.5 million
people (and every year at that, meaning that over the years this absurd
ratio perpetuates itself) is so ludicrous that it doesn’t actually need to
be commented on. At this point it will
suffice to state what the author of this
article has been repeatedly saying for
years, in Passport and elsewhere: the
Convention speaks of inventories
which could have been started before
ratification – i.e. the opportunity to
draw up own Länder-specific inventories, for example as part of a Bavarian
pilot project, could have been seized
long ago – in view of the absurd proportional representation system an
opportunity which has now been
thrown away twice.
By and large, Germany s former
ambassador to the UNESCO, Dr
Hans-Heinrich Wrede, was right when
at the Augsburg forum he very clearly
asked for the total number of 34 to be
reconsidered and for considerably
more nominations for the inventories to be allowed. Once again: we are
not talking here about awarding a prize to a cultural heritage but simply
62
about adding it in all its detail to a list.
Independent of the practical/operational question of the rather slow
approach towards achieving the goal
of complete lists, there would also
have been an opportunity to speed
up the dynamic process. In the end
the lasting impression is that those
responsible deliberately implemented a process causing an artificial bottleneck in order to give a very special
status to the two nominations which
may then be accepted next year for
Bavaria and as a result of this small
number generate an odour of UNESCO that was nowhere intended by the
Convention. The DUK representatives
have repeatedly made clear that in
the discussions to date on the 2003
Convention they have been left in the
lurch by the German press. This argument is unfortunately true, with
commentaries in leading German
dailies on reports of nominations of
masterpieces up to now few and far
between, and when they did appear
were very superficial and disparaging
of the basic concept of what intangible heritage is. It may therefore have
well been the intention of the DUK
and the other people responsible, by
artificially restricting the number of
nominations, to inject a competitive
element into the completely unspectacular inventories and in this way
stimulus a positive press. The information that in accordance with step
4 the nominations are to receive their
own UNESCO logo adds weight to this
interpretation. Inventories are
boring: it is competitions and their
beacons that attract attention, beacons in whose light those responsible
also look forward to basking when in
the near future they are given the opportunity to award badges or the like!
This at any rate is how the logic of the
present implementation process appears to outsiders, which is de facto if
not de jure designed as a competition.
Second point of criticism:
a dominance of experts and little
bottom-up
Before any misunderstandings arise:
both the 2003 Convention and the
implementation guidelines passed
for it involve experts at different
points in the entire national and in-
ternational process. This is both correct and sensible as after all, as quoted above from Article 2, it must be
ensured that intangible cultural heritage is compatible both with international human rights and with sustainable development. That experts
are involved in the entire process is
therefore not a point of criticism but
the central role meant for these experts, in particular during the inventorization process in stage 3, certainly
is. It is true that it was repeatedly
emphasized that the nominations
were bottom up and came from the
culture-creating communities and institutions and that the experts can
and must only select from this pool.
Alone the above-criticized bottleneck
function which reduces nominations
to 34 assigns to the experts a role
which can be interpreted as positive
selection (in the sense of an award)
and not as negative selection (in the
sense of preventing nonsense). It was
interesting to note that none of the
speakers at the Augsburg forum,
whether this was a coincidence or not,
quoted the following definition from
Article 2: 62 intangible cultural heritage [is what] communities, groups
and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage.
One cannot help thinking that those
responsible have succumbed to an ingrained German respect for experts
and that the higher-level experts in
the DUK first appoint the lower-level
experts in the expert committee who
then, with a platonic sense of mission, go through and evaluate the nominations made by the common people. The big and courageous step taken by the 2003 Convention towards
a subjective, living and self-defining
understanding of intangible cultural
heritage was simply negated whether
for pragmatic reasons, out of fear (of
the Convention s courage) or for
other reasons remains a matter of
conjecture.
At the Augsburg forum alternatives were suggested here and there
and there would certainly have been
an opportunity for example to make
use of new media and their networking possibilities to create a real bottom-up process in which the inventory could have been drawn up quickly
using a creative approach supported
by the basis (and by all means flanked
by experts). At any rate, Swiss suggestions pointing in this direction were
not integrated into the German
approach. A pity, as there is enough
blind faith in experts in this country
and this would have been a really nice
opportunity to implement a citizen-friendly inventorization process
in, and not contrary to, the spirit of
the 2003 Convention which would
have come much closer to meeting
the latest ideas on governance and
participation. A pity about the missed
opportunities!
4. Intangible cultural heritage in
Bavaria and the possible road
ahead
Despite the criticism expressed, the
intangible cultural heritage ship is
now about to set sail and that is
good, right and sensible. And now two
appeals, one an inward appeal directed at the tourism industry, and one
an outward appeal directed at the culture-creating communities:
1. For those (practical/academic)
responsible in tourism the question
of how the industry should handle
intangible cultural heritage now arises with more intensity. First of all the
discussion on what intangible cultural heritage actually is must be set in
motion and then lead on to wider debates. The beginning of the implementation process described here
shows initial tendencies in this direction and the further activities of the
German Commission for UNESCO,
their forums and planned discussion
meetings are very welcome. After this
orientation phase the industry must
ask itself how and to what extent touristic products and positions can,
should and may in the end result
from intangible cultural heritage. The
question of how to treat these living
and complicated cultural resources
will be central! No solutions can be offered here, but in the first section I already warned against a musealization
or folkorization of these traditions. A
look at Austria and other countries
shows that attempts have been going
on for some time to use innovative
approaches and/or products to position destinations as intangible cultural heritage and also to offer awards
etc. for this. There are certainly lessons to be learned from this. At any
rate, whether intentionally or not, the
procedure criticized above has eliminated one big problem for the tourism industry: there is very quickly
general suspicion of tourism when
the economic, if not evil , appropriation of cultural resources is concerned and the industry is accused of
not being interested in cultural heritage in its own right, but only in the
potential for selling and marketing it.
The bottleneck nomination process
criticized above in combination with
the expected inventory logo now exonerates the tourism industry in a way
that was not expected. When the
DUK, KMK and BMK now go for
awards and strategies to attract and
appeal to the public, then those responsible for tourism locally can no
longer be reproached for doing the
same.
2. Despite the fact that there are
only two Bavarian nominations
which may prove to be successful, an
appeal is made to all people involved
ote: Deadline was 31 July 2013. Facts, explanations etc. made known after this have therefore
N
not been considered.
2
Cf. The overview by Letzner/Munz (2011): Quo vadis, economics of tourism? In: Tourism Management Passport edition 04, pp.10-13
3
Letzner (2103): Cultural tourism the tangible and intangible world cultural heritage of the
UNESCO, in: Tourism Management Passport edition 06, p.60
4
Cf. Cohen/Cohen (2012): Authentication: Hot and Cook, in: Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 39,
No. 3, pp. 1295-1514. Cf. Gonzales (2008): Intangible tourism heritage and identity. In: Tourism
Management 29, pp. 807-810. Cf. Letzner (2013): Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage:
Challenges to the touristic attractor theory as exemplified by the Limes , in: Bezirk Mittelfranken (publ..): Limestagung Welterbe und Tourismus, August 2013.
5
UNESCO (1972) Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage. UNESCO (1999): Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention
concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO (2003): Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO (2005) Convention on the
Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. UNESCO (2012) Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the
Diversity of Cultural Expressions. See all at unesco.de. The quotes here are given in the latest
available authorized translation.
1
in culture to nevertheless accept the
process and not shirk the small effort
required (in the end, two A4 pages by
the end of November). Just to make it
quite clear: someone who doesn t
make the grade today because of the
restriction to two nominations, is not
out of the game. Apart from the objective exceptions (violation of human rights and sustainability), repeated applications are not affected and
someone who doesn t make it today
will make it tomorrow or the day after. Moreover, with a view to overturning the two-nomination limit it
would be a good idea for those involved in culture not to accept in their
own minds this restriction but instead to stand up for their intangible
heritage comprehensively, forcefully
and self-confidently and wish for it to
be included in the inventory.
In this edition of Passport the
whole issue of intangible cultural heritage has been promoted often and
sides taken in favour of ratification
and preparation. Thus despite the deficits this news is good news and confirms that the path requested is the
right one to take and provides more
than enough material for further
work in the wide field of cultural tourism.
Intangible cultural heritage! We
can look forward with pleasure to an
exciting path which will trigger many
surprises, many defeats and above all
many civic cultural discussions on
what culture is and may be.
he first address in the UNESCO itself: www.unesoc.de/immaterielles-kulturerbe.html with
T
two helpful brochures on the topic from 2007 and 2013 and a good list of links; also the international UNESCO website at unesco.co.org/culture/ich/. An overview is also given in: Letzner
(2010): Immaterielles Kulturerbe als Attraktor im Umfeld des existential tourism and Inventarisierungsmöglichkeiten gemäß der UNESCO-2003er-Konvention am Beispiel Bayern. In:
Kagermeier/Steinecke (publ.): Kultur als touristischer Standortfaktor. Potentiale-Nutzung-Management, Padaborner Geographische Studien zu Tourismusforschung und Destinationsmanagement vol.23, Paderborn 2011. pp. 71-85. Cf. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (2004): Intangible
Heritage as Metacultural Production, In: museum international, vol. 56, no. 1-2, pp. 52-65. Also
consulted were Eva-Maria Seng, Paderborn, and Marie-Theres Albert, Cottbus, who offer a lot of
information on their website about their work on aspects of intangible cultural heritage.
7
Older translations used the word inventories instead of directories , a concept which should
still be used here for better differentiation.
8
Letzner (2010), a.a.O, p. 71
9
I.www.unesco.de/5714.html
10
Commission of 23 experts appointed by the DUK board, the composition of which can be
found at www.unesco.de/expertenkomitee_ike.html.
6
63
Forschung
The National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
An example of sustainability in nature conservation and protection
of historic monuments
Christina Tölkes
H
eritage – “whether cultural heritage or world heritage, it is a fragile, non-renewable resource which
needs to be protected in order to preserve its exceptional character for future generations as well. Tangible and
intangible treasures are equally endangered but it is the tangible ones,
in the main buildings or landscapes,
which are the focus of attention”1. Regardless of whether we mean a natural heritage or cultural heritage sites,
as this quote points out all they all
need special protection. In Europe
and in the UK, where cultural and nature tourism currently play and will
continue to play a big role, sustainable protection of these touristic resources is in addition to their educational role of great importance.
The English term heritage
In its convention on the protection of
cultural and natural heritage, UNESCO defines the terms “UNESCO Natural and Cultural Heritage”2. The English term “heritage” follows the UNESCO definition and describes such objects as objects “of special architectural, historical, or natural value that
are preserved for the nation”3. Accordingly, “heritage tourism” used in a
wider sense refers to UNESCO world
heritage sites or, in a narrower sense,
to cultural and natural heritage in general. In the German language there
is no direct equivalent of the term
“heritage”. Instead, a differentiation is
made between nature conservation
and protection of historic monuments, both semantically and with regard to content.4
Close affinity between the British
and their history
In the United Kingdom there is a close affinity between the population
and their cultural heritage: in the
68
year 2011/12 seven out of every ten
adults visited a cultural heritage site.5
In the same year the largest British
heritage organisations, the National
Trust and English Heritage, together
had more than 5 million members.6
At the same time more than 500,000
Britons work as heritage volunteers.7
Among both domestic and foreign
tourists, the “history and tangible heritage” aspects are the main motives
for going on holiday in or to the UK.8
In the year 2011 more than 62 million
visits to heritage sites were registered.9
The players on the British cultural
tourism stage
The Department of Culture, Media
and Sports determines the basic principles of Britain’s cultural policies in
the name of the British government.
The English Heritage’s task is to act internally as legal advisor to the Department and externally to the general
public. Apart from these state institutions, the main player in British cultural tourism is the National Trust
(NT), a non-governmental organisation (NGO).
The importance of the National
Trust results from its classification
under cultural tourism and in the tertiary sector. In England and Wales there are 180,223 registered charities all
with different objectives. Of these
NGOs the NT is the one with the largest membership. As regards the level
of revenue the Trust ranks fourth, and
fifth as regards the number of volunteers who support it.10
In the year 2011 more than 19 million people visited sights owned by
the National Trust and charging admission. It is estimated that the total
number of all visits this year will be
around 73 million. The number of registered members of the National
Trust is currently more than 4 million
and that number is rising.11
The National Trust for places of
historic interest and of natural
beauty in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland
“For ever, for everyone”12 is the motto
of the National Trust and thus its aim
“to conserve the national heritage
and make it accessible to the public”.13
This mission and vision are laid down
in a legal document, the National
Trust Act of 1907. The organisation
was founded in 1895 by the philanthropist Octavia Hill. Today it employs
around 5,000 people, has 67,000 volunteers and 4 million members (with
Scotland, 6 million). This makes the
National Trust the largest charity organisation in the heritage sector. In
keeping with the English definition of
the word “heritage”, the NT owns both
cultural heritage sites and natural heritage sites. These include:
• Historic houses and buildings: more
than 350
• Coast and landscape: more than
1,140 km and 250,000 ha (617,750
acres) the National Trust is the biggest landowner in the UK
• Gardens and parks: more than 133
• A rchaeological sites: more than
73,000
• (Local) art collections.14
Mission and vision “for ever,
for everyone”
The Trust s purpose, succinctly expressed in the motto “for ever, for
everyone” reflects the basic concept
behind sustainability, which is to preserve cultural heritage for future generations. “The National Trust shall
be established for the purpose of promoting the permanent preservation
for the benefit of the nation of lands
and tenements (including buildings)
of beauty or historic interest and as
regards lands for the preservation (so
far as it practicable) of their natural
aspect, features and animal and plant
life (National Trust Act 1907)”15. “An in-
Forschung
costs for the recruiting, administering and training or instructing of
new members (62.9m).23
Social aspect: “Investing in our
people and engaging our supporters”24
:cZfƄ
g][b]žWUbWY
HhVŶ
:ŹX^ZcXm
stitution such as the NT must keep
faith with its past and at the same
time look to the future.”16
The NT fulfils its mission and vision by taking possession of landscapes and monuments, which once in
the possession of the NT can no longer be sold, valorising them and taking over the management and protection of them. In doing this the NT
is well aware that it is acting under
changing ecological, economic and
social conditions: “We look after places through the process of conservation [& ] It is about revealing and sharing the significance of places and ensuring that their special qualities are
protected, enhanced, enjoyed and understood by present and future generations.”17
Sustainable
business strategy
The National Trust
The National
Trust (2012), p.9.
Economic aspect: “Financing our
Future”21
Strategic plan – Triple Bottom Line
approach
“Sustainable management is longterm and in keeping with the triple
bottom line approach focuses on the
three dimensions of economic success (profit), protection of the environment, climate and resources
(planet) and social responsibility
(people).”18 As an NGO the institution
is once again committed to its founding purpose, in which these principles are reflected: “We adopt a triple
bottom line approach integrating
conservation, people and financial
DifghfVhZƄ
objectives to everything we do.”19.
To measure the success of these
three dimensions, the National Trust
uses different measuring and research instruments.20
English version of
this article available
for iPad.
Putting social and ecological aspects
into practice would not be possible
without a sound financial footing. To
achieve this financial footing, the institution has to generate a net profit
of more than 20% every year.22 In the
year 2011/2012 the charity took in
GBP 435.9 million. Most of this is generated through membership fees
(GBP 129.6m), commercial activities
by their own companies and through
catering. The main expenses are the
operating and maintenance costs for
the different properties, amounting
to around GBP 230.9m (only 20% of
all properties are able to cover their
own costs), preservation measures
(67.7m) and membership costs, i.e.
With regard to sustainability in the
business management process,
Macharzina/Wolf and Balderjahn
point out the special role played by
stakeholders. It is important to have
good contact with the individual stakeholders and to design value-adding
activities in line with the social and
ecological needs of the interest
groups.25
In the case of the National Trust
the most important stakeholders,
apart from the visitors and the members, are above all the volunteers and
the salaried employees. In this area
the NT formulates its aims as follows:
“Engaging our supporters means to
provide life enriching and enjoyable
experiences so that everyone feels
like they re a member of the NT, investing in our people: To delegate
more, reduce bureaucracy and make
fast decisions, creating a culture of
continuous improvement.”26
Every year a survey on visitor satisfaction with their visit is carried
out. In 2011/2012, 67% of respondents
said they were “very satisfied” with
their visit to a National Trust Property. In addition, the NT examines the
member recommendation rate as
well as the role that its properties play
in the life and the leisure time of the
local population. The NT intends to
intensify its commitment in this area
with its “going local” campaign, with
satisfaction among its volunteers
being particularly important to it.27
The organisation s principles include the integration of all interest
groups into the heritage protection
process and sustainable access, which
is seen as a benefit to society: “engagement for the benefit of society,
gaining support of the widest range
of people by promoting understanding, enjoyment and participation in
our work.”28 This includes professional training and the development of
skills and experience in all activities
in the heritage value-added chain.29
69
Forschung
Ecological aspect: “Improving
conservation and environmental
performance”30
The social as well as the ecological aspect of business management may
result in the following benefits: “i.e.
creation of a reputation and social legitimisation, improvement in relations with stakeholders, reduction in
social or ecology-related risks.”31
According to the purpose for
which it was established, the NT s original mission is to protect nature and
culture, with the result that particular
weight is given to these objectives:
“To care for our places, bring them to
life and keep them alive sustainably
in line with their significance.”32
The Mission and Vision chapter
already covers the basic aspects of its
definition of sustainable protection
measures. What is new in the strategy
plan is the focus on reducing energy
consumption and on environment
education, especially for children. To
measure success in the area of
landscape and culture protection, the
Conservation Performance Indicator
is used. The individual items in this
measuring instrument are adapted to
suit the respective property type and
they define and prioritise the targets
required with regard to the protection measures. This measuring of success is carried out every year and in
2011/2012 almost all of the properties
met the baseline targets.33
Cultural or natural heritage need special protection, which is what the National Trust champions. The guiding
principles of sustainable management are laid down in its original
mission statement. Its greatest suc-
2
3
4
5
6
7
70
Lugar (2008), p.22
See articles 1-3 at: http://www.unesco.de/
welterbe-konvention.html (accessed on
20.08.2013).
Oxford Dictionary: http://oxforddictionaries.
com/definition/english/heritage (accessed on
20.08.2013).
For simplicity s sake, the English
word heritage is used to translate Denkmalschutz in the German original as it includes
the protection of landscapes as well
Cf. Department for Culture, Media and Sports
(2012), p.6
Cf. The National Trust (2012), p.4 f and English
Heritage (2012) p.22
Cf. http://www.theheritage alliance.org.
uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/
HERITAGE-FACT-SHEET-1.doc (accessed on
Sources:
Balderjahn, Ingo (2013): Nachhaltiges Management und Konsumentenverhalten, München.
Baumgartner, Rupert J. (2010). Nachhaltigkeitsorientierte Unternehmensführung. Modell,
Strategien und Managementinstrumente. München, Mering.
Department for Culture, Media and Sports (Ed.)(2012): Taking Part. URL: https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78581/Taking_Part_2011_12_
Quarter_4_Report.pdf (Accessed on 20.08.2013)
English Heritage (Ed.) (2012): Annual Report 2011/2012. URL: http://www.official-documents.
gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc02/0266/0266.pdf (Accessed on 20.08.2013).
English Heritage (Ed.) (2011): Visitor Attractions Trends in England 2011. Annual Report for Heritage counts, prepared for English Heritage. URL: http://hc.english-heritage.org.uk/content/
pub/2012/VVA_2011_EH_Reportfv.pdf (Accessed on 20.08.2013).
Heritage Lottery Fund (2010): Investing in success. Heritage and the UK tourism economy. URL:
http://www.hlf.org.uk/aboutus/howwework/Documents/HLF_Tourism%20Impact_single.pdf
(Accessed on 20.08.2013).
Luger, Kurt (2008): Welterbe-Tourismus. Ökonomie, Ökologie und Kultur in weltgeschichtlicher
Verantwortung, in: Luger, Kurt; Karlheinz Wöhler (Hg.).: Welterbe und Tourismus. Schützen und
Nützen aus einer Perspektive der Nachhaltigkeit. Innsbruck, Wien, Bozen, pp. 17 43.
Luger, Kurt; Wöhler, Karlheinz (Hg.) (2008): Welterbe und Tourismupp. Schützen und Nützen
aus einer Perspektive der Nachhaltigkeit, Innsbruck, Wien, Bozen.
Conclusion
1
cess factors are its large membership
and the many volunteers who engage
in their free time and in their holidays. Through this integration of the
local population, history and thus
cultural identity become alive. In
times of economic crisis, this philosophical aspect acquires particular
significance and helps to meet the
long-term objective “for ever, and for
everyone.”34
Macharzina, Klaus; Wolf, Joachim: Unternehmensführung. Das internationale Managementwissen, Konzepte, Methoden, Praxis, Wiesbaden, 2010.
The National Trust (Ed.) (2011): Annual Report 2010/2011, Swindon.
The National Trust (Ed.) (2012): Annual Report 2011/2012, Swindon.
The National Trust (Ed.) (1968): The Benson Report on the National Trust: Report by the Council s Advisory Committee on the Trust s constitution, organisation and responsibilities, London.
20.08.2013)
HLF (2010), p.6
9
English Heritage (2011), p.4
10
Cf. The Charity Commission: http://www.
charitycommission.gov.uk/find-charities/
(accessed on 20.08.2013).
11
The National Trust (2012), p.13
12
The Natioanl Trust: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/ (accessed on 20.08.2013).
13
ebda
14
ebda
15
The National Trust, our conservation principles in full: http://nationaltrust.org.uk/
article-1356394365704/ (accessed on
20.08.2013).
16
The National Trust (1968), p. 16
17
8
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20.08.2013).
Balderjahn (2013), p.87. For a definition of
sustainable businesses, see also: Baumgartner (2010), p.48 ff.
Cf. The National Trust (2011), p.34
ebda
Cf. The National Trust (2012), p.40. The net
profit is the amount revenue exceeds expenditure. It includes profit from investments,
but not properties left to the NT or capital
grants, purchases, investments or maintenance measures
Cf. The Natioanl Trust (2012), p.40 ff.
Cf. Macharzina/Wolf (2010), p.9 f. and Balderjahn (2013), p. 82 ff.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Cf. The National Trust (2011), pp.10-14
20.08.2013).
ebda
Balderjahn (2013), p.82
Cf. The National Trust (2011), p.14
Cf. http://www.theheritage alliance.org.
uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/
HERITAGE-FACT-SHEET-1.doc (accessed on
20.08.2013).
Wandern im
Bayerischen Wald
Forschung
tionen und
Mehr Informa
eim:
erhalten Sie b
te
k
e
p
s
ro
P
kostenlose
e.V.
and Ostbayern
Tourismusverb
sburg
04, 93059 Regen
D
k
ar
ep
b
er
ew
9
Im G
, 0941/58539-3
-0
39
85
/5
41
09
er-wald.de
Tel.
www.bayerisch
e,
.d
d
al
-w
er
info@bayerisch
wandern.de
www.goldsteig-
71

Edition 2013 - Hochschule München

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

Health and Wellness Tourism

Tourism in Africa without the ‚Big 5`?

Entertainments 25.02.2012

women occupational empowerment in the omani tourism sector

Beyond tradition (provisional title) Antonio A. Arantes The

Programa preliminar

Course: Innovation in Tourism

E-mail [email protected] Nationality Portuguese - uni

Academic Year: 2015/2016 Course: Resources and Tourism

Virtual Heritage: Simulations and Visualization Tools