European Cities: Cultural Capital or Cultural Capitals

4 downloads 7 Views 174KB Size Report
tourism growth is being driven by a growing supply of cultural attractions as well as increasing numbers of ... squeeze more of their cultural consumption into their holidays. The ATLAS ..... their predominantly middle class background. It is also ...

From Cultural Tourism to Creative Tourism: European Perspectives

Greg Richards Department of Leisure Studies Tilburg University The Netherlands

Richards, G. (2002) From Cultural Tourism to Creative Tourism: European Perspectives. Tourism 50 (3), 225-234.

Abstract

Cultural tourism is seen as a major growth market in Europe, although empirical evidence is still relatively sparse. An analysis is presented of the ATLAS survey data for 2002 as well as research conducted at the Rotterdam Cultural Capital Event in 2001. These data indicate that cultural tourism growth is being driven by a growing supply of cultural attractions as well as increasing numbers of tourists. Market growth is accompanied by market fragmentation and greater competition. This makes it increasingly hard for new destinations to attract tourists, but also offers new market opportunities. One such opportunity, the development of creative tourism, is discussed.

Introduction

European nations, regions and cities are increasingly involved in a competitive struggle to attract both production and consumption functions in order to mitigate the effects of economic restructuring and globalisation. As we enter the ‘experience economy’ (Pine and Gilmore, 1999), both urban and rural environments are becoming increasingly important as locations in which experiences are created and performed for mass consumption. Culture becomes the essential raw material of the experience economy, of which cultural tourism is an increasingly important element.

This paper examines the effect that these changes are having on European cultural tourism, particularly in terms of urban policies of experience production (Schulze 1992). The production of experiences is now a vital role for a wide range of European regions and cities caught up in a competitive struggle for inward investment and employment. The extent to which these policies are successful depends to a large extent on pre-existing economic, social and cultural conditions, in spite of the apparently footloose nature of experience production. In particular, success is

dependent on the reaction of the consumer, and this requires a better understanding of the needs and demands of the cultural tourist.

In particular, this paper argues that recent changes in the nature of cultural tourism demand have made it increasingly difficult to develop standard cultural tourism products for standard cultural tourists. Not only are consumers becoming increasingly critical of the traditional forms of culture, but growing competition is making it more difficult to succeed by developing undifferentiated cultural products. As the supply of cultural attractions has grown in response to the identification of cultural tourism as an important market, so the presence of attractions is in itself not enough to guarantee a flow of tourists. Consideration is therefore given to new opportunities for destinations to respond to the changing needs of the market by developing not just their cultural resources but also their creative capital.

This research presented here is based on the Cultural Tourism Research Programme of the Association for Tourism and Leisure Education (ATLAS). This programme has been investigating the consumption and production of cultural tourism since 1991. The major thrust of the research centres on surveys of visitors to cultural attractions, conducted by means of a standard questionnaire. The questionnaire is designed to elicit information on the profile, motivation, activities and experience of the visitors. The research has to date been conducted in four periods (1992, 1997, 1999/2000 and 2001/2002) which have yielded a total of almost 30,000 surveys spread over more than 100 cultural sites in 20 countries. Most of the data collection has been concentrated at high cultural sites (museums, monuments) in Europe, but in recent years more data has been gathered from popular cultural attractions and from countries outside Europe (e.g. Australia and Hong Kong). Data presented here include the results of the last completed round of ATLAS surveys from 2001/2002. More details of the ATLAS research programme and the methodologies employed can be found in recent publications (e.g. Richards 2001;2002).

Drivers of Cultural Tourism Demand

The increasing interest of policy makers and commercial operators across Europe in cultural tourism has stemmed in large part from the belief that cultural tourism is a major growth area of tourism demand. In spite of the claims by the World Tourism Organisation and others that cultural tourism is growing rapidly (Alzua et al. 1998), evidence collected by ATLAS on attendance at cultural attractions in Europe indicates that cultural tourism is growing no faster than other areas of tourism demand (Richards 2001).

The assumption of a rapid growth in demand seems to stem from observations of tourist behaviour and a number of macro trends that point towards growing cultural consumption. What

seems to be happening in terms of cultural tourism consumption, first of all, is that demand is becoming increasingly concentrated spatially and in temporal terms. An increasing proportion of cultural tourists visit the major cultural destinations in Europe, and ‘mega’ cultural events attract ever larger numbers of visitors. This results in an interesting optical illusion of growth, whereby the ‘must-see’ sites such as the Guggenheim and the Louvre attract more visitors, while the average number of visitors to other museums is falling (Richards 2001). This effect can partly be traced to the increase in ‘casual’ cultural visitors, who take in cultural sites as part of their total holiday experience, in contrast to those ‘specific’ cultural visitors who travel especially to consume culture. As De Haan (1997) has shown in the Netherlands, the fact that more people are travelling on holiday inevitably leads to more visits to cultural attractions, but it doesn’t mean that people are becoming more interested in culture. The form of cultural consumption also seems to be changing, as increasingly time-pressed consumers have to squeeze more of their cultural consumption into their holidays. The ATLAS surveys conducted in 1997 indicated that the cultural visits made by cultural tourists during their holidays represented 40% of their total cultural visits during the year (Richards 2001). Particularly in northern Europe, the holiday is taking over the function of the weekend, which is now more likely to be spent in IKEA than in a museum. The basic implication of these trends is that there is no ‘natural’ market for cultural attractions. The increase in popularity of cultural tourism is not so much thanks to a growth in the interest in culture but due to the fact that there are more tourists, many of whom find their way either intentionally or unintentionally to cultural attractions.

From Cultural Development to City Marketing

The supply of cultural attractions and events has therefore played a significant role in the growth of cultural tourism. Richards (2001) argues that cultural tourism in Europe has been largely supply led, rather than demand driven. The supply of cultural attractions and events in the modern experience economy has been particularly rich in urban areas.

One of the reasons for the growing supply of cultural attractions has been the shift in the role of culture in urban and regional policy. Bianchini’s (1999) analysis of European cultural policy shows a change in emphasis from the post war ‘age of reconstruction’ aimed at expanding the traditional ‘high culture’ infrastructure and widening access to culture, through the ‘age of participation’ (1970s and early 1980s), marked by stimulation of ‘grassroots’ popular culture. In the current ‘age of city marketing’ (mid 1980s to present) concern shifted away from the socio-political concerns of

the 1970s towards economic development and urban regeneration policies. Attention shifted back to city centres, which became backdrops for the project of attractive urban images and essential weapons in the competition for economic growth. Bianchini (1999) argues that the impact of these policies on wealth and employment creation was relatively small. ‘The main contribution of cultural policies to urban regeneration was probably in the construction of urban images able to attract visitors’. This type of cultural policy orientation was most prevalent among ‘declining industrial cities’ which needed to replace lost manufacturing employment.

As a result of these changes, European cities have arguably become what David Harvey (1989) categorised as ‘festival marketplaces’ geared to the production of cultural and leisure experiences for residents and visitors alike. Tourists have become a particularly important part of this system, because they make a direct contribution to the local economy. Events have also become an important means of attracting tourists and providing the product innovation that is essential in competitive tourism markets. The essential question posed by these developments is – why should particular productive or consumptive functions gravitate to particular cities? And perhaps even more importantly, what can cities do to improve their position in the field of the modern experience industry? Many cities have sought answers to these questions in the development of tourism in general, and cultural tourism in particular. However, few policy makers have bothered to analyse or monitor the demand for cultural tourism. This was one of the major reasons for developing the ATLAS cultural tourism research over the past decade.

Cultural Tourists in Europe

The cultural visitors interviewed for the ATLAS Cultural Tourism Research Programme at 69 cultural attractions in 2001/2002 were mainly tourists. About 28% of respondents live or work in the location of the cultural attraction they were visiting. Just under 40% of the visitors were foreign tourists and 32% were domestic tourists. In spite of the importance of tourists in the total visitor stream, by no means all the tourists defined themselves as ‘cultural tourists’. About 22% of the tourists indicated that they were taking a cultural holiday, but slightly larger proportions termed their holiday a ‘city break’ (25%) or ‘touring holiday’ (25%).

When asked about their specific reasons for visiting the cultural attraction, two thirds of visitors stated that ‘experiencing the atmosphere’ of the attraction was an important motive for visitation. This is an indication that ‘postmodern’ styles of leisure consumption are increasingly important in cultural tourism. It seems that cultural tourism is becoming an experiential product, in which the visit is judged in terms of all attributes of the attraction, and not just its cultural value. The

postmodern mixture of different elements of experience in the same visit was also evident, as most visitors were likely to agree that they were there to ‘learn new things’ (59%) or to relax (53%). In fact, about a third of visitors agreed with both of these motivational statements, indicating that for a significant proportion of visitors cultural attractions now have an ‘edutainment’ function.

In terms of the attractions visited, museums and monuments continue to dominate the cultural tourism market. Museums were visited by over 40% of the tourists interviewed, and art galleries by a quarter of respondents, but performing arts venues (18%) and festivals (15%) were least likely to be visited by tourists. This is not surprising, given the language barriers involved for tourists in attending many of the performing arts, and the difficulties of obtaining information and tickets for performances. However, festivals in particular have been visited by growing numbers of ATLAS respondents over the years.

One reason for this growth is that cultural events and festivals are increasingly receiving attention from commercial operators. A large number of tour operators now offer culture and arts packages to major European cities which include tickets for performances. It is also noticeable that the proportion of cultural tourists arranging their travel through a tour operator (18%) in 2002 was higher than a decade ago. This still means however that the vast majority of visitors organise their travel themselves. The role of Internet as a means of gathering information about cultural destinations is also an important trend. In 2002 Internet was used to gather information by 22% of tourists, compared with 18% in 2000. Although still far behind personal recommendation (45%), Internet is now on a par with guide books, and is likely to become even more important in future.

An important aspect of the research was an analysis of when people made the decision to visit the cultural attraction. About 55% of tourists said that they had made the decision before leaving home. In Leiper’s (1990) terms, the attraction functioned as a ‘generating marker’ for their trip . Over 15% had decided during their travels (‘transit marker’) and 30% had decided once they arrived at the destination (‘contiguous marker’) (Richards 2002). This indicates the importance for cultural attractions of attracting the attention of the tourists before they arrive in the destination. Because it is unlikely that individual cultural attractions will have the resources necessary to market themselves abroad, there is an important role for collaborative destination marketing in developing cultural tourism.

In terms of cultural tourism the ATLAS research has sought to identify factors that influence the selection of cities as cultural destinations for tourists (Richards 1996;2001). Our research has indicated a clear hierarchy of cultural destinations in Europe, with historic ‘cultural capitals’ such

as Paris, London and Rome in pole position, followed by a chasing group of ‘wannabee cities’ (Short 1996) such as Amsterdam and Barcelona. This ranking can be largely explained in terms of the cultural attractions available in each city, with the number and importance of cultural attractions being closely correlated with popularity. The role of ‘high culture’ in determining this hierarchy is underlined by the attitudes of the ‘new cultural producers’ (Richards, Goedhart and Herrijgers 2001) who tend to influence the development of cultural tourism destinations. The indications are that the production and consumption system for European cities is a ‘taste conduit’ dominated a preference for traditional types of cultural consumption. The relatively durable nature of this pattern is underlined by the experience of non-traditional tourist destinations in their attempts to develop tourism through the European Cultural Capital Event.

The European Cultural Capital Event

The Cultural Capital event was originally conceived as a purely cultural affair. The event was designed to support European unification by emphasising both the commonality and diversity of European cultural heritage (Richards 2000). Not surprisingly, in view of the fact that the original proposal came from Greece, Athens became the first Cultural Capital in 1985. Since then, the event has rotated around the member states of the EU, and different host countries have now been chosen until the year 2018. The original aims of the event were basically twofold: first to make the culture of the cities accessible to a European audience, and second to create a picture of European culture as a whole. However, as the event has developed, it has been used in different ways by the cities, either to support, extend or challenge the original Cultural Capital concept. There has been a general trend away from purely cultural towards more explicit economic motives. The turning point arguably came with the designation of Glasgow in 1990, and has since been used by other ‘declining cities’ such as Antwerp and Rotterdam as a source of economic development. Although the Association of European Cities of Culture 2000 (AECC) argued that: ‘the event is for the local population and it is in principle not meant for tourists’ (quoted in Schoemaker 1999, p.49), there is little doubt that visitor numbers have become an important criteria for judging the success of the event. In Rotterdam in 2001, for example, two of the main aims of the event were to ‘Help to improve the international cultural image of Rotterdam’ and to ‘generate long term economic benefits, for example by stimulating tourism’ (Richards and Hitters 2002). In Rotterdam a total of 2.3 million visitors was seen as a reasonable result for a non-traditional cultural tourism destination. Antwerp was arguably even more successful in 1993, as the number of visitors more than doubled. A recent review of 18 previous cultural capitals indicated that the average increase

in tourists during the year itself was about 10-15%, but the number of tourists rapidly returned to normal or even below previous levels in subsequent years (Wiesenhofer and Schwarz 2002).

One of the basic problems of evaluating the ‘success’ of the cultural capital events is the fact that very little evaluation has taken place. Those studies that have been published tend to be promotional documents rather than independent assessments. Relatively few events, such as Glasgow, Antwerp and Bologna, have bothered to commission extensive independent research in the past. Monitoring of the effects of the cultural capital event has often been blocked by a combination of public authority reluctance to assess the effects of investment and a cultural sector unwilling to judge its performance in anything other than artistic terms. But this attitude is changing slowly as more pressure is placed on policy-makers to justify expenditure on culture, and cultural institutions are in turn pressured to account for their activities not just in cultural terms, but also in social and economic terms.

The pressure for accountability is now also being felt by the host cities of the cultural capital event. Because investment in the event usually means that resources are diverted away from other activities, politicians are increasingly under pressure to show that the event produces not just cultural, but also social. economic and image benefits for the host city. This is the reason why ATLAS undertook a major study of cultural capitals Rotterdam and Porto in 2001 (Richards and Hitters 2002, Richards and Fernandes, 2002). Using the ATLAS surveys as a basis for the data collection, visitors to the cultural capital events were interviewed in the two cities. A total of over 2100 respondents were interviewed in Rotterdam and almost 700 in Porto. Additional questions were posed about the motivations of visitors for being in the cities, their image of the cities and their experience of the events and the programme. The surveys allow comparisons to be made between the two cities, and with the general ATLAS survey, allowing the cultural tourism effects of the event to be measured in a European context.

The basic objective of the ATLAS Cultural Capital research is to analyse the effect of the events in terms of the aims set by the organisers, for example in terms of the image of the city, the cultural participation of residents and visitors and the economy of the host city. The initial indications from the visitor research in Rotterdam are that the event as a whole has done little to create significant new streams of cultural tourists. About half of the 2000 visitors interviewed came from outside the city, mainly from other parts of the Netherlands.

Although almost a quarter of foreign tourists interviewed in Rotterdam had not visited the city before, the profile of visitors was predominantly that of regular cultural consumers, rather than the ‘new’ groups the event was trying to reach, such as young people and ethnic minorities. Although almost half of the population of Rotterdam is of ‘foreign’ origin, only about 17% of the visitors from

the Netherlands could be so classified. Almost 70% of the visitors had a higher education and almost three quarters had a managerial or professional occupation. The €17.4 million additional expenditure generated by the event was also significantly less than the cost of staging the event (Richards and Hitters, 2002). In general, the visitor surveys seem to suggest that the Rotterdam event did generate significant tourism, but did not attract as many ‘new’ cultural consumers as had been hoped. There was a measurable improvement in the image of the city as a cultural destination, however. The question is whether this effect is likely to be long-lasting.

Looking at the evidence from previous cultural capitals, the success of the cultural capital event over the longer term seems to have been mixed at best. An assessment of the cultural effects of the Glasgow and Antwerp events by Schul (1998) indicated a strong division of opinion among those in the cultural sectors of the two cities. In Glasgow, for example, 1990 had the effect of increasing sponsorship income during the year itself, but has not been translated into structural improvements in commercial funding. At the same time, however, the market for incidental sponsorship of events has improved as a result of 1990. Although 1990 delivered more tourists and an improved profile of Glasgow as a tourist destination, the fact that cultural facilities in Glasgow were used to host external celebrities rather than developing their own programming has also limited the benefits of the event. In Antwerp, the Cultural Capital event actually had a negative effect on sponsorship. Although more incidental sponsors were found in 1993, structural sponsorship declined after the event. In both cities the cultural infrastructure improved as a result of investments related to the event, but there was no improvement in structural cultural funding from the public sector. Schul (1998) concludes that the most important determinant of success in cultural terms is whether culture acts as a goal or a medium in such event-led strategies.

Looking at the evidence of the Cultural Capital event in Europe it seems that cultural event-driven development strategies are only likely to be successful if employed over the long term and if they are embedded in a wider programme of tourism and cultural development. One of the major problems that all the cities face is the growing competition from other cities trying to attract the cultural tourism audience with events and new cultural attractions.

Cultural Capital or Creative Capital?

There is some evidence to suggest that cultural tourism may be beginning to suffer from its own success, particularly in the major urban destinations, such as Venice (Russo 2002). Not only do growing numbers of cultural visitors place a strain on the infrastructure of such locations, but there is a growing array of new destinations and attractions trying to cash in on this ‘success’, increasing the competitive pressure facing individual destinations (Richards 2001a). Although much cultural tourism development has been predicated on the power of culture to draw tourists

to new destinations, the impact of cultural tourism on regional development has generally also been questionable. The experience of cities like Glasgow indicates that cultural tourism-based strategies can only succeed if they are seen as long term projects, not as short term boosterism. As the competition between cities increases, those cities bidding to host major events or open major new attractions will have to think far more seriously about the costs and benefits involved. Given the time and effort that has to be invested in bidding for and staging mega-events such as the European Cultural Capital, it may seem more attractive to invest in cultural ‘bricks’ rather than cultural ‘kicks’. New museums such as the Guggenheim in Bilbao and the Tate Modern in London have been held up as successful examples of cultural tourism development. However, the cost of such developments is huge, and with over 60 cities queuing up to build a new Guggenheim (Richards 2001b) the competitive advantage they offer may be short-lived. No wonder that many regions, particularly those in peripheral locations or rural settings, are looking for alternative means to develop their cultural assets and attract new tourist streams.

Towards Creative Tourism?

One of the effects of the rapid growth in cultural tourism in recent decades has been a diversification of cultural tourism demand and the appearance of many ‘new’ forms of tourism within the general cultural tourism field. As Hughes (2000) points out, a range of tourism types can be identified within cultural tourism, including arts tourism, heritage tourism and historical tourism. This development points to a simultaneous broadening of the concept of culture and a greater specialisation of interests in the cultural field. People who once travelled in search of the ‘culture’ of a destination may now be looking for a particular type of artwork or music or architecture. In the future it may be increasingly difficult to speak about ‘the cultural tourist’ for the simple reason that different types of cultural tourists have little in common with each other except their predominantly middle class background. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that people labelled as ‘cultural tourists’ in many studies do not see themselves as such. Only about a fifth of the respondents in the ATLAS research saw their activities as ‘cultural tourism’, for example. Most have more specific reasons for travel than a general notion of culture.

The fragmentation of cultural tourism presents a challenge to regions trying to develop their cultural resources for tourism. For most regions it is no longer sufficient to assert ownership of a unique culture. Every culture is unique – so why should tourists visit yours? There is an increasing need to understand the motivations of cultural tourists in order to develop products which actually meet the needs and wants of visitors rather than just the needs of local suppliers. The good news is that the fragmentation of demand also presents new opportunities, even for

regions that have in the past been ignored by mainstream cultural tourism. One of these opportunities has been identified by Richards and Raymond (2000) as ‘creative tourism’.

Just as Pine and Gilmore (1998) have argued that the provision of experiences for people to consume will be replaced by ‘transformations’ that have an impact on the people undergoing them, so cultural tourism, which is largely based on the passive visual consumption of material culture will be supplemented by ‘creative tourism’, which can be defined as:

Tourism which offers visitors the opportunity to develop their creative potential through active participation in courses and learning experiences which are characteristic of the holiday destination where they are undertaken (Richards and Raymond 2000:18).

Creative tourism can include a wide range of activities including music, drama, art, gastronomy, sport, languages and spiritual activities. These types of activities have a number of advantages over traditional cultural tourism:

1) Creativity can potentially create value more easily because of its scarcity. Creativity is an attribute supposedly possessed by relatively few people, whereas thanks to the broadening concept of ‘culture’, cultural products are ubiquitous. In the cultural tourism market cultural attractions of themselves no longer function as a means of distinction – every city has museums and monuments. The multiplication of cultural cities in Europe has meant that a new source of distinction had to be found in the ‘creative city’ (Landry 2000).

2) Creative tourism can be faster to develop than many other forms of tourism. Destinations can innovate new products relatively rapidly, giving them a competitive advantage over other locations.

3) Creativity is a process, and creative resources are therefore more sustainable. Whereas physical cultural resources, such as museums and monuments, may wear out over time and become degraded, creative resources are arguably infinitely renewable. This rapid growth of cultural and arts festivals in Europe in recent years underlines this fact.

4) Creativity is mobile. Where cultural consumption is dependent on a concentration of cultural resources, creativity can become extremely mobile – arts performances and artworks can today be produced virtually anywhere, without the need for dedicated infrastructure.

5) Creative tourism may be cheaper to establish than cultural tourism. It is based on the transfer of local skills and experiences to the tourist, something which needs to take place in an

appropriate environment but does not need the same level of custom-built infrastructure as most cultural tourism. Museums and visitor centres are not necessary therefore – though they could be used for creative tourism if they have already been built: cookery courses, for example, may well be most rewarding for the creative tourist if offered in the chef’s own kitchen.

The effects of this ‘creative turn’ may be surprising. Although major urban areas have as expected been at the forefront of the development of the creative industries, creative tourism has also become a major factor in tourism development in peripheral areas. Whereas the periphery arguably suffered in the shift from natural to created assets (and the resulting dependency on ‘real cultural capital’) it could be argued that peripheral regions have an advantage as far as creative assets are concerned, precisely because of their lack of real cultural capital. This effect can be amply demonstrated in the case of the peripheral regions of Europe. In the rural fringe of Europe, in countries such as Ireland and Scotland, the lack of ‘real cultural capital’ has forced people into being more innovative in the development of new cultural tourism products than in many other more well-endowed regions. In Ireland, the twin goals of supporting traditional culture and developing the economy have been achieved in many areas through the creation of summer schools focussing on Celtic culture. In the village of Gleanne Cholme Cille in the Irish-speaking (Gaeltacht) area of Donegal there has been community-led development of cultural tourism since the 1960s, through construction of a museum and a ‘village’ of traditional houses (Stocks 2000). Built and run by local people, by 1994 the project was attracting some 700 summer course participants were generating almost 5000 bednights in the area. In Scotland the Gaelic Arts Agency became interested in the Irish model, and launched the Ceolas programme in South Uist in the Western Isles as a pilot project. The Ceolas project revolves around a weeklong programme of masterclasses, house-cielidhs, concerts and lectures that was launched in 1996. Since then the event has grown in popularity and scale, attracting 100 course participants, mainly from outside the Highlands and Islands region (Kay and Watt 2000). The level of satisfaction and also of repeat visitation is high, indicating that this form of creative tourism can be very successful in generating interest in traditional culture and in supporting the local community. Increased direct visitor spending over the period 1996-98 was over £50,000, with more than 4000 bednights being generated every year. These impacts may seem small compared to the tourism generated by major European cities, but the spending of visitors to such community events represents a major injection to the rural economy.

Such developments indicate that although European cultural tourism has in the past been dominated by the concentration of ‘real cultural capital’ in major cities, future developments may be increasingly influenced by the ability of regions to mobilise their creative capital as a base for tourism. Some destinations are already recognising this in the development of policy. In New Zealand, for example, Jim Anderton, Minister for Economic, Industry and Regional Development has underlined the growing importance of the ‘creative tourism industry’ for the country (New Zealand Government 2001). In an increasingly competitive cultural marketplace, the ability to develop innovative products to attract visitors will be crucial. Creative tourism can help destinations to overcome the current product-led focus of cultural tourism. Creative tourism can also be used to develop the distinctive narratives that are so essential in the postmodern marketplace.

Conclusion

Cultural tourism is often cited as a major growth market in worldwide tourism, often without substantive supporting evidence. The indications from the ATLAS Cultural Tourism Research Project are that cultural tourism is growing, although not as fast as some may claim. The growth of cultural tourism is also due mainly to increasing numbers of well educated consumers, rather than a growing interest in culture per se. The fact that culture alone is not enough to generate cultural tourism is an important lesson for many destinations that in the past have opened cultural attractions or staged cultural events and simply waited for the tourists to appear. As the supply of cultural attractions begins to outstrip the supply of cultural tourists more attention will need to be paid to the needs and wants of the tourists themselves.

It seems that these needs and wants are becoming more diverse and specialised. Many people are no longer content just to look at cultural artifacts, but they also want to experience local culture, to learn something about the places they are visiting, and the living cultures they contain. Many cultural tourists are also becoming more reflexive about their cultural tourism consumption and want to develop their stock of cultural capital in specific directions. By engaging in ‘creative tourism’ for example, tourists can take away permanent ‘mental souvenirs’ of their holiday which will also help them in their everyday lives. In catering for these new cultural tourists, destinations themselves will also need to be more creative, opening up new opportunities for tourists to actively develop their cultural skills and knowledge.

References Alzua, A., O’Leary, J.T. and Morrison, A.M. (1998) Cultural and heritage tourism: identifying niches for international travelers. Journal of Tourism Studies 9(2), 2-13.

Bianchini, F. (1999) The relationship between cultural resources and urban tourism policies: issues from European debates. In Dodd, D. and van Hemel, A. (eds) Planning Cultural Tourism in Europe: a presentation of theories and cases. Boekman Foundation, Amsterdam, 78-90. De Haan, J. (1997) Het Gedeelde Erfgoed. SCP, Rijswijk. Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity. Blackwell, Oxford. Hughes, H. (2000) Arts, Entertainment and Tourism. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. Kay, A. and Watt, G. (2000) The Role of the Arts in Regeneration. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, Research Findings no. 96. Landry, C. (2000) The Creative City: a toolkit for urban innovators. London : Earthscan. New Zealand Government (2001) Where will we be in ten years? Regional Development - a springboard for growth. http://www.executive.govt.nz/minister/anderton/regional/opinion_article_051101.htm (accessed June 2002). Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999) The Experience Economy. Harvard University Press: Harvard. Richards, G. (1996 ed.) Cultural Tourism in Europe, CAB International, Wallingford. Richards, G. (2000) The European cultural capital event: strategic weapon in the cultural arms race? Cultural Policy 6(2), 159-181. Richards, G. (2001a) Cultural Attractions and European Tourism, CAB International, Wallingford. Richards, G. (2001b) Cultural tourists or a culture of tourism? Developments in the European cultural tourism market. In Butcher, J. (ed) innovations in Cultural Tourism, ATLAS, Tilburg. ISBN 90-75775-07-5, pp. 1-9. Richards, G. (2002) Attraction Systems: Exploring Cultural Visitor Behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, volume 29. Richards, G. and Fernandes, C. (2002) Porto Cultural Capital 2001: Visitor research. Tilburg: ATLAS. Richards, G., Goedhart, S. and Herrijgers, C. (2001) The cultural attraction distribution system. In Richards, G. (ed.) Cultural Attractions and European Tourism, CAB International, Wallingford: 71-89. Richards, G. and Hitters, E. (2002) Rotterdam Cultural Capital 2001: Visitor research. Tilburg: ATLAS. Russo, A.P. (2002) The ''vicious circle'' of tourism development in heritage cities. Annals of tourism research, 29 (1), 165-182. Schoemaker, H. (1999) Fatale stedendrang. Elsevier, 27th February, 48-49. Schul, L. (1998) De winst van een jaar Europese culturele hoofdstad. Boekmancahier, 38, 343353. Schulze, G. 1992 Die Erlebnisgesellschaft: kultursoziologie der gegenwart. Campus:Frankfurt. Short, J.R. (1996) The Urban Order: an introduction to cities, culture, and power. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Stocks, J. (2000) Cultural tourism and the community in rural Ireland. In Richards, G. and Hall, D.R. (eds) Tourism and Sustainable Community Development. Routledge, London, pp. 231241. Wiesenhofer, M. and Schwarz, M. (2002) European cities of culture: implications on tourism. In Wöber, K.W. (ed.) City Tourism 2002. Vienna: Springer, pp. 315-322.