2014
0
INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE
TOURISM &
SUSTAINABILITY
PROGRAMME & PAPERS
1st Annual Conference
May 8, 2014
Assisi, Umbria, Italy
Presented by: CST Assisi-The Italian Centre for Advanced Studies in Toursm
CIRIAF University of Perugia - Centro Interuniversitario di Ricerca
sull’Inquinamento e sull’Ambiente “Mauro Felli”
1
CONFERENCE BOOK INDEX
Conference Presentation and Acknowledgement
pag_2
Conference Programme
pag_3
Scientific Committee
pag_5
Conference Papers
pag_6
Paul Valva
“Extended stay with extended services: a new model for urban travelers
pag_6
Deepak Eldho Babu - Arshinder Kaur
“Practices for a Sustainable Supplay Chain: a Tourism Prospective”
pag_20
Philip Xie
“Deterriorialization and reterritorrialization: Sustainable industrial heritage tourism
pag_22
Arturo Parolini - Pierluigi Polignano
“Live Your Tour - ENPI CBC Mediterranean Basin Programme”
pag_24
Francesco Maria Olivieri (only in Italian)
“Rural tourism and local development: typical productions of Lazio”
pag_26
Alessio Sidoti (only in Italian)
“La partecipazione locale nella gestione degli impatti del turismo come
Strumento di governance per lo sviluppo del turismo sostenibile”
pag_49
Ivelina Ioveva
“Analysis of Synergistic Effect Benefits as a Crucial Driver of Sustainable
Development”
pag_51
Elisa Ladduca
“Artists Residencies: When Contemporary Art Catalyzes Sustainable
Destination Management”
pag_64
Omero Mariani
“EDEN PRETIOSAE AQUAE - EDEN Network, Runner-Up, Aquatic Tourism, 2010”
pag_65
2
CONFERENCE PRESENTATION
The first Tourism and Sustainability International Conference held in Assisi, Italy on 8th May 2014, aims at providing
a forum for academics and practitioners to come together to share research projects and discuss ideas and
challenges related to sustainability in tourism. The topics analyzed at the Conference have been:





Sustainable destination development and planning
Rural tourism and ecotourism
Sustainable business development
New theoretical perspectives on sustainable tourism
Case studies and best practices in sustainable tourism governance, policy making and management
The interventions of many scholars, PhD and professionals in tourism and sustainability, gave to the Conference
rich insights on the actual situation and future evolution of sustainable tourism. The Conference focused on the
present needs and what perceived as essential to develop a sustainable tourism in the next future.
It became clear the need for greater attention to already existing good practices, to the proper use and reuse of
the building and infrastructure present in many areas but that are not being used, a look for for integration
between art and sustainability, as well as careful academic analysis on the possible solutions applicable to a
sustainable development of tourism.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The first “thank you” goes to all the speakers, who with their interesting researches has given rise to a lively and
scientifically significant Conference.
A sincere “thank you” goes to all the members of the Scientific Committee for their fundamental contribution in
the selection of the papers and for the constant availability during the Conference.
Last but not the least, many thanks to the CIRIAF as a partner of the event and to the CST of Assisi, who conference
partner which provided the stunning location of Palazzo Bernabei in Assisi, an ideal setting for the event.
Assisi, May 8 2014
The Conference Secretariat
International Conference Tourism and Sustainability
3
CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
International Conference Tourism and Sustainability
May 8th 2014 | Assisi |Umbria | Italy
Thursday 8th May 2014
Assisi – Palazzo Bernabei
9.30-10.00
Enrollment – Registration desk opening
Keynote Speakers Opening Session - Welcome by:
10.00-10.30
10.30
Prof. Francesco Asdrubali (CIRIAF- University of Perugia)
Prof. Dallari Fiorella (università di Bologna)
Prof. Maria Stella Minuti (CST- International Centre of Studies on Tourism - Assisi)
STARTING SESSION
Sustainable destination development and planning
10.40-11.00
Elisa Ladduca
“Artists Residencies: When Contemporary Art Catalyzes Sustainable
Destination Management”
11.00-11.20
Alessio Sidoti
“La partecipazione locale nella gestione degli impatti del turismo come
Strumento di governance per lo sviluppo del turismo sostenibile”
11.20-11.40
Renata Piazza
“Sustainable Tourism as an engine for reconstruction.
The case of post-Tsunami Japan”
CHAIR
4
New theoretical perspectives on sustainable tourism
11.40-12.00
Paul Valva
“Extended stay with extended services: a new model for urban travelers”
12.00-12.20
Ivelina Ioveva
“Analysis of Synergistic Effect Benefits as a Crucial Driver of Sustainable
Development”
Rural and ecotourism
12.20-12.40
Francesco Maria Olivieri
“Rural tourism and local development: typical productions of Lazio”
Sustainable business development
12.40-13.00
Deepak Eldho Babu - Arshinder Kaur
“Practices for a Sustainable Supplay Chain: a Tourism Prospective”
13.00-15.00
LUNCH BREAK
Case studies and best practices in sustainable tourism governance,
policy making and management
15.10-15.30
Arturo Parolini - Pierluigi Polignano
“Live Your Tour - ENPI CBC Mediterranean Basin Programme”
15.30-15.50
Philip Xie
“Deterriorialization and retererritorrialization: Sustainable industrial
eritage tourism”
15.50-16.10
Omero Mariani
“Progetto EDEN Network”
16.10-16.30
Andrea Augello
“I Draghi d’Italia”
16.30-17.00
CONFERENCE CONCLUSION
5
SCIENTIFIC COMMITEE
Prof. PhD, Francesco Asdrubali, CIRIAF, University of Perugia
Prof.ssa Fiorella Dallari, University of Bologna
Ass. Prof. PhD, Giacomo Del Chiappa, University of Sassari
Dott.ssa Annagrazia Lauria ENAT (The European Network for
Accessible Tourism) - President
Prof. Maria S. Minuti, CST International Center of Study on
Tourism
6
PAPER PRESENTATION
PAUL VALVA
Shared Living and Sustainability: Emerging Trends in the Tourism Industry
Master’s in Strategic Leadership Towards Sustainability Candidate Blekinge Tekniska Hogskola, Sweden
ABSTRACT
An emerging concept in accommodations in the travel industry called Shared Living is blurring the lines
between hospitality and residential living and is moving the industry towards greater ecological and social
sustainability. Changing trends brought about by the sustainability challenge, climate change, technological
advancements and increasing affluence and cultural awareness are disrupting the tourism industry.
Meeting clients’ needs for Leisure and Relaxation is not enough. Increasingly sustainability-conscious
travelers expect their fundamental needs of Participation, Creation and Identity to be fulfilled as well.
Today’s travelers want to do more than eat, sleep and sightsee – they want to interact with the local
communities they are visiting. But traditional accommodations offer little opportunity for travelers to
engage with fellow travelers or local communities. Emerging trends in accommodations are increasingly
connecting travelers to the people, organizations and projects that are changing lives and transforming
communities. By understanding and adapting to the trends, the tourism industry can both contribute
towards ecological social sustainability and reap the business benefits presented by the sustainability
challenge of our time.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Changing Needs
1.2 Research Questions
II.
METHODS
III.
DISCUSSION
3.1 The Sustainability Challenge
3.2 The Tourism Industry
3.2.1 The tourism industry and the sustainability challenge
3.2.2 Changing trends in society are disrupting the industry
3.2.3 The hospitality industry: traditional role and emerging trends in accommodations
3.2.3.1 Design and amenities of traditional accommodations
3.2.3.2 Extended Stay
3.2.3.3 Emerging and growing trend: rooms in privately owned homes and apartments
3.2.3.4 Next trend in travel: shared living – connecting residents with each other
3.2.3.5 Emerging trend: shared living connecting to the community
3.2.4 Tourism industry connecting to the local community
3.2.5 Escalation of need satisfiers: Leisure, Creation, Participation, and Identity
IV.
CONCLUSION
7
V.
REFERENCES
1. INTRODUCTION
The sustainability challenge worldwide, technological advancements and changing needs and behaviors of
today’s travelers are disrupting the tourism industry. Such changes present both challenges and
opportunities. The industry can both contribute towards ecological and social sustainability and reap the
business benefits of addressing the challenges by understanding and adapting to the emerging trends.
1.1 Changing Needs
Today’s sustainability-conscious and environmentally savvy travelers are looking for much more than just
a place to sleep, relax and sightsee when they arrive to their destinations. They expect a full travel
experience, including meeting and interacting with the local people. The sustainability challenge
worldwide, changing needs of business and leisure travelers, especially the young “Millennial generation”,
the changing Information and Communications (ICT) Technology sector, the Do It Yourself (DIY)
mentality of the market, and the need to find socialization in an increasingly anonymous and impersonal
world are changing the expectations and demands of the tourism consumer. The challenges facing the
tourism industry are to identify, indeed, to anticipate, the changing needs and desires of the marketplace,
and to offer a product that benefits both the consumer and the wider ecological and social needs of society
in general. In short, like all living organisms existing in the biosphere, the tourism industry needs to adapt.
1.2 Research Questions
The research questions this paper will address are:
“How can the tourism industry meet the changing needs of its customers and society given the
sustainability challenge?”
“What is the accommodation’s role in connecting the consumer to the wider community?”
“What is the role of Shared Living in the sustainable tourism industry today?”
2. METHODS
Methodology used in the research of this paper started with a search of the existing literature on the topics
of 1) The Sustainability Challenge worldwide; 2) Tourism and the Sustainability Challenge; 3) Changing
needs of the consumer market, and the ‘Millennial generation’ in particular; 4) Emerging Trends in
Tourism; 5) The role of Accommodations in the Tourism Industry; and 6) Emerging trends in types of
Accommodations available on the market. The relationship between emerging trends in sustainability,
tourism and accommodations was then considered. The trends, relationships, assumptions and conclusions
were then vetted with practitioners in the industry to confirm or refute their validity and practicality.
General conclusions were then made and summarized at the end of this paper.
3. DISCUSSION
1.
The Sustainability Challenge
Rapid population growth and increasing consumption per capita of natural resources have led to serious
sustainability challenges worldwide, including loss of biodiversity and rising toxicity in the biosphere
(Papargyropoulou et al. 2012, 44), and have systematically increased the concentration of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) (such as CO2, methane, tropospheric ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide) in the atmosphere starting
with the beginning of the industrial revolution (Khamseh 2014, 161). According to the recent IPCC Report
8
(2013), these phenomena have critically increased global mean surface temperatures (IPCC Report 2013,
37). The phenomena of resources extraction and use have systematically undermined the environment,
society and the biosphere systems as a whole in four crucial areas: extraction of scarce materials from the
earth’s crust; pollution; physical degradation of ecosystems; and the inability of humans to meet their
needs Barrow et al.
, ; Rob rt et al. 2002, 198).
Climate change is a particularly serious threat to the environment and the sustainability of life on the
planet. “The evidence is overwhelming: levels of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere are rising. Temperatures are going up. Springs are arriving earlier. Ice sheets are melting. Sea
level is rising. The patterns of rainfall and drought are changing. Heat waves are getting worse as is
extreme precipitation. The oceans are acidifying” AAAS
4; 6). “We are at risk of pushing our climate
system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts.…
The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost.” AAAS
4; 4).
The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and the preparation of Agenda 21 by the United Nations brought the
severity of the earth’s deteriorating environmental condition and the sustainability challenge to the
attention of the global audience (Papargyropoulou et al. 2012, 44). These mounting concerns about the
growing sustainability challenges led to a world-wide acceptance of sustainable development as the way
forward (Ochieng et al. 2014, 2; Zuo et al. 2012, 3910).
In order to move forward, a clear understanding of the term ‘sustainable development’ is useful. The
Brundtland Report to the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development
(Brundtland 1987) is a widely accepted definition:
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: i) the concept
of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be
given; and ii) the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the
environment's ability to meet present and future needs.”
Even though this definition of sustainable development has had worldwide acceptance (Wong et al 2013,
2), there is still growing evidence of systematically increasing challenges associated with unsustainable
development (Robert et al 2002, 197). This clearly emphasizes the lack of understanding, strategic actions,
and a framework towards achieving sustainable development (Missimer 2013, 2).
A combination of ecological and social phenomena are threatening the health of the planet and society as a
whole. Climate change, water scarcity, dwindling resources, dependence on fossil fuels for energy
production, and a build up of toxic substances are contaminating the air we breathe, the water we drink and
the food we eat. “The systematic errors of societal design that are driving human’s unsustainable effects
on the socio-ecological system, the serious obstacles to fixing those errors, and the opportunities for
society if those obstacles are overcome, combine to form the sustainability challenge” Robert et al
,
8).
Robert et al (Robert 2010, 39) describe four basic Sustainability Principles (SPs) that society must meet in
order to be sustainable. “In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:
1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust;
2. concentrations of substances produced by society;
3. degradation by physical means;
and in that society,
4.
people are not subject to conditions that systematically undermine their capacity to meet their
needs.” (Italics in the original).
9
Sustainability principle number four was subsequently expanded into five social sustainability principles,
known as the Five Social SPs. In a healthy, sustainable environment, people are not subject to barriers to
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
personal integrity complete ‘integral’ health physically, mentally and emotionally);
influence (being able to participate in shaping social systems one is part of);
competence (opportunity to be good at something and develop to become even better);
impartiality (freedom from discrimination); and
meaning (deriving satisfaction from life) (Missimer 2013, 31). (Italics added).
Missimer’s Social SPs are heavily influenced by the work of Manfred Max-Neef’s Human Development
Model classifying human’s needs into nine fundamental needs: Subsistence, Protection, Affection,
Understanding, Participation, Leisure, Creation, Identity, and Freedom (Max-Neef n.d.). Such needs are
universal for all human beings, but are satisfied differently across time, regions and cultures. Unlike
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Maslow 943), Max-Neef does not postulate a hierarchy, but rather
maintains that all needs can exist simultaneously. The needs can, however, be satisfied separately and
progressively. This is crucial to an understanding of how accommodations in the tourism industry should
be designed.
2.
The Tourism Industry
3.2.1 The tourism industry and the sustainability challenge
Despite a tremendous amount of literature on the subject, there is still not a universally accepted
understanding of the term “sustainable tourism” Butler
7). It is best understood as a collection of
attributes rather than a precise, overriding concept. Rather than attempt to definitively define the term, this
paper will look at a few aspects of sustainability with full understanding that these aspects do not fully
encapsulate what it means to be sustainable. The paper will argue that addressing the attributes described
will contribute towards increased sustainability, as defined above.
Integral health and fundamental human needs are increasingly under pressure by the stresses brought about
by the ecological degradation of the planet, climate change, population growth and rapid urbanization
worldwide. The tourism industry has a large role to play in mitigating the ecological and social problems
besetting the planet.
“Over the past
years, tourism has become one of the most dynamic elements of the global economy.
Tourism accounted for over 9% of global GDP and almost 3% of employment in 2009. International
tourism has grown an average of 4-5% a year over the past decade, outstripping most other major economic
sectors. Even though global tourism was severely hit by the economic crisis, falling 4% in 2009, there was
a strong recovery in 2010, with growth of 6.9% in international tourism arrivals. In the past decade tourism
has continued to develop rapidly, with the rise of budget travel, more holistic, spiritual and creative forms
of tourism and the rise of more individualistic production and consumption, facilitated by the growth of
Information and Communication Technology ICT). … The growth of tourism also produced growing
awareness of its potential negative effects, and sustainability also became a major issue.” Richards
).
“A
report by The Travel Foundation and Forum for the Future found that 75% of consumers want a
more responsible holiday” Sustainable Tourism n.d.). To avoid violating the ecological sustainability
principles, tourism must avoid activities that rely on resources from the Earth’s crust eg, fossil fuels and
rare elements) (Sustainability Principle 1); must avoid contributing to manmade materials that build up in
the environment (eg, landfills and greenhouse gas emissions) (SP 2); and must not contribute to
degradation of the Earth’s habitats eg, rainforest destruction) SP 3). Partnering with airlines, hotel
chains, and suppliers who are eco-certified can help avoid negative impacts on the Earth’s environment.
To be truly sustainable tourism must also protect people’s fundamental rights and needs Social
Sustainability Principles 4-8). “As tourism is dependent on both natural and human assets for the
10
promotion of the tourism product, the environment, people, disease (sic) and establishing and maintaining
global partnerships for development are imperative to achieve and maintain a healthy industry”
(Sustainable Tourism, n.d.).
3.2.2 Changing trends in society are disrupting the industry
Numerous social trends are shaping the needs of today’s travelers. Such trends include:
1. The I want it now mentality
2. The Do it Yourself market
3. The Millennial Generation
4. The blurring lines between family, home and work
5. Collaborative Consumption is increasing
6. Affluence is increasing
7. Social awareness is increasing
8. Self-sufficiency is increasing
9. Job hopping is increasing
10. The need for organized social interaction is increasing as financial resources and technology
increase personal independence
The I want it now mentality is evidenced by the proliferation of ATM machines, fast food, speed dating,
self-serve gas stations, text messaging, movies on demand (iTunes, Netflix), instant processing of photos
and videos and ever-increasing Internet speeds. What used to take minutes, or days, or years, or centuries
now is available in a matter of seconds. And with the technology comes an ever-rising expectation of
bigger, better, faster. Demand becomes insatiable, for expectations can never be fully fulfilled. Instant
gratification has become the norm.
The Do it Yourself (DIY) market has blossomed partly because individuals cannot wait for a part or a
product or a service to become available (I want it now), and partly as a means to reduce cost and increase
quality, but also as a means to fulfill multiple fundamental needs. The term ‘Prosumers’ has arisen to
describe people who produce products and services for their own consumption. They have a need to
become part of the creation process, satisfying the fundamental need of Creation. DIY allows
customization of products – the I want it my way mentality (Whats App, 3-D printing, Youtube), fulfilling
the need of Identity and Creation. DIY facilitates socialization – an I want to stay connected need
(Facebook, instant messaging), satisfying the needs of Participation, Belonging and Understanding. DIY
allows for self-expression – the I want to be recognized need (Facebook, personal blogs), satisfying the
need of Identity. And DIY offers an I created this sense of accomplishment (Makers space, home
improvement kits), satisfying the needs of Creation and Identity. All of which contribute to an overall
sense of well-being, contribution and Freedom. Travelers expect to participate in the planning and booking
of their travel packages.
The Millennial generation (those born between 1980 and 2000) will soon make up a majority of the
working and traveling segment of the population. Thus it is important to understand their demographic
profile. Stereotypes vary widely – from narcissistic, materialistic and pampered to open-minded, liberal
and receptive of new ideas (Main 2013). Verification of such a wide range of traits is problematic at best,
and most likely unverifiable given its subjective nature. What is more verifiable, and especially relevant to
the tourism industry, is that the Millennials are extremely technically savvy, more culturally diverse, more
well-traveled, and more affluent (despite mounting debt) than any previous generation. They appear to be
more naturally optimistic about their futures, having not been subject to war, depression, civil rights
abuses, and political scandals, assassinations and corruption experienced by their predecessors. They have
also been exposed to extensive political, social and cultural events at an early age through television,
movies, online news and social media. It can be argued that the combination of optimism and social
awareness compels this generation to become more engaged in the community, both through their work
and through participatory tourism, such as eco- and creative-tourism. The tourism industry is best served
by catering to their developing needs and interests.
11
The lines between family, home and work are blurring. The advent of home offices, telecommuting, cell
phones, laptop computers, Skype, and expectations that employees will be accessible even during vacation
time has blurred the demarcation between work and leisure time. Technology has driven working hours
and attitudes and the new attitudes have created a new norm of combining work with pleasure. Services
and amenities offered by the tourism industry must adapt as well.
Collaborative Consumption is increasing. “Collaborative consumption describes the rapid explosion in
traditional sharing, bartering, lending, trading, renting, gifting, and swapping redefined through technology
and the latest social media and peer-to-peer online platforms.” It is made possible through advancing
technology (eg, eBay, Swap Tree, ride sharing); easily accessible transport modes (eg, Fed Ex); and trust
and reputation of the system and exchangers (Botsman 2010). It is considered sustainable because by
reusing existing products rather than disposing them in landfills, it reduces the needs for energy and
materials to produce new materials (SP 1); reduces waste sent to landfills (SP 2); avoids destruction of the
Earth’s habitats SP 3); and increasingly satisfies personal and societal changing social needs and desires
(SP 4-8).
Affluence is increasing. Though the gap is widening between the wealthiest and least wealthy segments of
the population, overall wealth of society as a whole is increasing. This is especially true in developing
countries. Travelers have more disposable income to spend on a greater array of services. Businesses will
face tougher competition from emerging and creative competitors.
Social awareness is growing. Television, instant news feeds, and camera-equipped cell phones in virtually
every part of the world spread news and information at near-instantaneous speeds. NGOs, celebrities and
everyday citizens expose social issues ranging worldwide. Awareness of the social issues around the world
is driving travelers towards destinations where they can learn more about and help improve the local
conditions of the people and the land they live on.
Self-sufficiency is increasing. People are much less dependent on skilled craftsmen and their neighbors than
in previous eras. Wealth, transportation, and communication networks allow the freedom and flexibility to
provide for themselves. Home delivery services deliver virtually any product one could imagine right to
your door – including food, alcohol, books, music, furniture, flowers and singing telegrams. Technologyenriched organizational structures facilitate independent living, and the expectations and attitudes that
develop with it. Like the DIY mindset above, travelers are used to doing things for themselves, like
booking travel and exploring off-the- beaten-track destinations.
Job hopping is increasing. Workers today, especially younger workers, are much less likely to work for
the same company their entire career as was characteristic of older generations. “Ninety-one percent of
Millennials expect to stay in a job for less than three years” Meister 2012). With more time between jobs,
travelers have more time to spend away from home.
The need for organized social interaction is increasing as financial resources and technology increase
personal independence. With such increased individual freedom and access comes an increased need to
organize social interaction. Casual and serendipitous meetings are rarer with fewer social interactions.
Groups are forming to proactively bring people together, often formed by mutual interests and
demographics. Online dating services, meet-ups, hiking clubs, bird-watching clubs, book readings, pilates
classes, and religious groups are formed and designed not only to provide entertainment but also to meet
other people with similar interests. Such organizing takes initiative, effort and resources. The tourism
industry can offer packages that proactively connect travelers to each other and to the local community.
All these emerging trends provide an opportunity and guidelines for the tourism industry to recognize and
add value to their clients’ needs, desires and activities.
12
With changing demographics, values and attitudes come changing needs. The tourism industry has
traditionally focused on the Max-Neef fundamental need of Leisure. The satisfier of the need for leisure is
respite – a break from the demands and stresses of daily life and obligations in order to rest and rejuvenate
one’s physical, mental and emotional states. Traditional services to provide respite include affordable,
comfortable and clean accommodations, excellent service and a variety of on-site amenities such as
restaurants, swimming pools, spas, room service, and shuttle service to the surrounding areas. This is what
has been traditionally expected and demanded by the consumer. But changing needs require changing
services, which requires a fuller understanding of the needs of the clientele.
3.2.3 The hospitality industry: traditional role and emerging trends in accommodations
Accommodations have always played a crucial role in the travel industry. Helping clients select just the
right place to stay upon their arrival to their destination is a primary responsibility of the industry.
Changing trends and evolving technology are changing needs, desires and satisfiers of travelers. Travelers
are migrating to different forms of accommodations. This changing nature of the business presents both a
challenge and an opportunity to the tourism industry.
As mentioned above, today’s travelers want fast gratification, participation in the process, are well versed
in technology, well-traveled, increasingly affluent, more socially aware, more self-sufficient, combine
work and play time and seek social interaction to balance their independent life styles. And as workers,
especially younger workers, take longer vacations and move more frequently from job to job, they have
more time to travel, and more opportunity to get off the beaten track and into the surrounding communities
in which they’re traveling. In short, travelers want to participate in the planning of their trips, spend more
time in any one location, and engage with the local community. They also frequently want to travel alone,
but meet people with common interests along the way with whom they can share their experiences.
How are accommodations changing in design and amenities to meet these changing needs? A variety of
concepts, including letting out rooms in private houses and the development of Shared Living, are
emerging to fill the niche of longer, socially engaged and jointly planned excursions.
3.2.3.1 Design and amenities of traditional accommodations
Travelers have many traditional options from which to choose, including resorts, hotels, motels, bed and
breakfasts, youth hostels, and time shares. Though amenities differ depending on type, basic features
include shuttle service, reception, concierge, phone, TV and Internet service, swimming pools, cafes or
restaurants, and room service.
To best assist their clients, travel agents and tour operators must understand their clients’ basic needs and
desires: are they traveling alone, with a friend, or with family? For business or leisure? Do they want an
action-packed adventure or a quiet, relaxing hide-away? Are they on a luxury or low-end budget? Will
they be staying in one place during the duration of their stay, or moving from place to place? These are all
crucial questions the savvy agent or operator must ask the client.
3.2.3.2 Extended Stay
Extended stay hotels offer a medium-to-long-term stay in a hotel setting, with small but fully equipped inunit kitchenettes with refrigerators, stoves, microwave ovens, pots and pans, plates, cups and silverware
and other amenities found in a permanent stay residence. This concept approaches the needs of travelers
looking to stay for longer periods in any one location. But it fails to offer the camaraderie and connections
to other guests or to the local community increasingly demanded in today’s market.
3.2.3.3 Emerging and growing trend: Rooms in privately owned homes and apartments
Couchsurfing: Hosts advertise extra rooms (or couches) available in their private homes, and travelers
book their accommodations directly with the host through an online service. The company now has over
seven million members and operates in 100,000 cities worldwide (Couchsurfing, n.d.).
13
Airbnb: Allows home and apartment owners (hosts) to rent out their homes to individuals who contract
with the host directly through an online service. Airbnb has surpassed InterContinental Hotel Group and
Hilton Worldwide as the world’s largest hotel chain. The company has surpassed 10 million stays, doubled
its listings to 550,000 in 192 countries, and tripled its revenue to $250 million (Carr, 2014).
Each organization indicates that hosts and travelers are becoming increasingly sophisticated about hosting
guests and reserving accommodations. Airbnb, for example, has a full program designed to educate hosts on
the intricacies of the hospitality industry, including how to prepare their accommodations for their guests’
arrival and how to make their units more sustainable (Malik, n.d.).
3.2.3.4 Next trend in travel: Shared Living – Connecting residents with each other
One of the fastest growing segments of the travel industry is shared living. Shared living differs from
traditional extended stay accommodations in that they typically involve living with a group of people, often
strangers, with separate or shared bedrooms and communal dining, recreation, laundry and open space.
The major attraction of such space, in addition to the typically more affordable rents, is the ability to
connect with people with similar values and interests.
Shared living is important for the tourism industry to understand for two reasons: one, it illustrates how
changing design and features of accommodations are meeting the changing needs and desires of the
marketplace; and two, it sheds light on the increasingly blurring distinction between ‘hospitality’ and
‘residential living.’ Though traditionally thought of as long-term residential communities, an increasing
number of travelers live in shared living situations for shorter durations, often only a few weeks or months.
Short-term stays allow the traveler to experience the lifestyle of the community without the commitment a
long-term stay would require.
There are many examples of communities deliberately designed for shared living:
Cohousing: Cohousing developments are perhaps the most deliberate and most well-known type of shared
living. “The first cohousing development was built in 972 outside Copenhagen, Denmark, by 27 families
who wanted a greater sense of community than that offered by suburban subdivisions or apartment
complexes. Frustrated by the available housing options , these families created a new housing type that
refined the concept of neighborhood by combining the autonomy of private dwellings with the advantages
of community living” McCamant and Durrett
, 5). By 2010 more than 700 of these communities
have been built in Denmark. There are now 120 in the United States (McCamant and Durrett 2011, 5).
Though varying in their design, true cohousing communities must contain certain common features:
resident participation in design, chores, maintenance and communal meals; a central common house;
pedestrian, car-free pathways; and some common interests among the residents (McCamant and Durrett
2011, 300).
Coliving: Coliving advocates describe coliving as “A modern urban lifestyle that values openness, sharing
and collaboration” Coliving n.d.). It offers a mix of more permanent space, with a lifelong philosophy of
communal living, with guest rooms for temporary stay.
Condominiums: Condominium Associations are clusters of housing units also built around central,
communal living space such as a golf course, dining facility, garden, swimming pool or tennis courts. But
there is little formal interaction among the residents. The governing regulations are established by the
bylaws and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Cooperatives are similar to condominiums,
but are technically a form of stock ownership rather than real property. In the United States they are
defined by their legal status as set forth and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.
Cooperative living: Several people occupy a single dwelling unit, such as a large house, with each person
or (couple) having a private area, including a bedroom, and often a bath. In addition the common areas of
14
the dwelling usually include a shared kitchen, dining room, and living room plus, at times, recreation or
outdoor space.
Coworking space: A space, typically work-only, for a diverse community of members and collaborators to
share desk space, resources and networking opportunities (Impacthub, n.d.).
Eco-Villages: “An intentional or traditional community using local participatory processes to holistically
integrate ecological, economic, social and cultural dimensions of sustainability in order to regenerate social
and natural environments.” Ecovillage n.d.).
Entrepreneurial coliving: A type of coliving for budding entrepreneurs designed to “facilitate ideation,
collaboration and get stuff done” Krash n.d.). A typical period of stay is 4 to 6 months.
Intentional Communities: Intentional communities are built around certain common ideological principles,
themes or structures, such as politics, religion, agriculture, and spirituality. Personal themes are voluntary
simplicity, interpersonal growth, and self-sufficiency. They often follow an alternative lifestyle. The rules
in intentional housing are more strictly enforced than in cohousing. Intentional communities include
ecovillages, cohousing, residential land trusts, income-sharing communes, student co-ops, spirituals
communities, and other projects where people live together on the basis of explicit common values”
(Intentional Communities n.d.).
International Coliving Network: “Distributed network of coliving spaces for creatives, professionals and
modern nomads as they live and travel around the globe for work and collaboration” Embassynetwork
n.d.). Often on a membership fee basis, members can have access to coliving spaces around the world.
Live-work space: A space designed to house a resident and his or her businesses. Frequently, though not
exclusively, located in converted warehouse space.
Make space: A community operated workspace where people with common interests come together to
make things. Interests include computers, technology, science, digital arts, and electronic arts. Allows
participants to meet, socialize and share ideas, equipment and resources. Make space also includes hack
(or hacker)-space, tech-shops, and fab-labs (Cavalcanti 2013). They typically do not include over-night
stay, but may in some locations.
Social entrepreneurship coliving: A home and social space for likeminded people to live, eat and have fun
together, and for other people to also visit and hang out (Kristine 2013).
Universities: Universities present a particular opportunity for shared living, given their concentration of
faculty, students and staff. Examples of campus living include traditional dormitories and apartments,
fraternities and sororities, student villages, and specialty housing such as the International House in
Berkeley and New York City. An example of a student village is West Village at U.C. Davis in Davis,
California. “UC Davis West Village is a new campus neighborhood located on UC Davis land adjacent to
the core campus. It is designed to enable faculty, staff and students to live near campus, take advantage of
environmentally friendly transportation options, and participate fully in campus life” U.C. Davis n.d.). It
features net-zero energy usage (ie, produces all of its own energy requirement directly onsite), walkable
and bikable pedestrian pathways, cutting edge energy efficiency technology and materials, and advanced
communications technologies enabling residents to control their lighting, heating and appliances remotely
by smart phone applications. Roughly 3,000 residents live in 662 apartments and 332 single-family homes,
strategically located along central ball fields and gardens. It is within minutes of campus by bicycle, the
predominant means of transportation at the University.
15
Warehouses: Older industrial buildings converted into work or live-work space, often used for light
manufacturing purposes that are prohibited in areas of a city zoned for residential or commercial use.
Allows tenants with similar types of businesses to collocate.
What these shared living spaces share in common is a group of residents desiring to live together, share
dreams and ideas, collaborate on work projects, and bond as a ‘family.’ They are traditionally considered
medium to long-term residential space, not travel-related. But their appeal to a significant portion of the
travel market and their inclusion of guest rooms and amenities in their floor plans warrant their being
considered as hospitality destinations.
3.2.3.5 Emerging Trend: Shared living connecting to the community
Advising travelers as to sights to see and events to attend is nothing new in the tourism industry. The tour
industry had been arranging sightseeing excursions and making reservations at theaters and festivals since
its inception. Many tourists choose their destinations specifically to coincide with local celebrations and
festivities. But longer-term travelers, those staying in a location for a month or more, often desire activities
beyond the normal tourist attractions. There is a growing niche in the market that wants connection not
only to fellow travelers, but to the local community itself. Not to the glamorous, stereotypical, often
superficial exterior veneer of the site, but the real, authentic day-to-day internal workings of the community
itself. One can see the Golden Gate Bridge and Taj Mahal and Eiffel Tower in a day. But to get to know
the locals, eat their food, hear their dreams and aspirations – this takes time. And access to their inner
sanctions. This is the growing market, one that the tourism industry is best served to understand and
accommodate.
Urban areas are especially rich in community activities and opportunities for engagement. Projects and
enterprises include:
Food – Slow Food Movement, urban farms, community gardens, Community Food & Justice Coalition
Energy and Water – distributed energy, drought preparedness
Economy – skills and asset building
Environment – construction and protection of natural and public spaces (climate action coalitions, Sierra
Club, Friends of the Earth)
Politics (local and national) – townhall meetings, NGOs and community-based organization meetings
(350.org, political campaigns)
Youth – education; youth activities such as sports, music and theater
Elders – senior centers, arts and crafts fairs
Health Care – clinics, hospitals, vaccination programs in clinics, schools, libraries and businesses
(Médecins Sans Frontières)
Homeless and impoverished – skill building, counseling
Home building – home refurbishment (Habitat for Humanity, Rebuilding Together)
Disaster relief – community rebuilding
Arts & Crafts – constructing art projects within a community
Social Engagement – connecting members to the community (Hub Impact)
Community building movements, such as Transition Towns, Art of Hosting, and Resilient Communities
By connecting their clients to such activities and organizations, travel agents and tour operators can help
meet their clients’ fundamental needs of Creation, Participation and Identity, and the community’s needs
for physical, economic and social development as well. This is what is meant by being “Sustainable.”
This is one way the tourism industry can become more Sustainable.
3.2.4 Tourism Industry connecting to the local community
Traditional events and activities in popular destination areas include museums, iconic buildings and
structures, and festivals in urban areas, and natural scenery in rural and remote areas. The tourism industry
16
assists its clients by notifying them of sights and events of interest and helping book reservations and
tickets as required.
Similarly the tour industry can best serve its clients, while simultaneously contributing to sustainable
development, by connecting its clients to shared living accommodations and projects and organizations in
the local communities.
Numerous shared living accommodations are already established internationally. Shared Living networks
such as Embassy Networks and Startup Abroad offer its members access to living space, professionals with
similar interests, and access to the resources and activities in the local communities around the world.
Partnering with such a network would offer the tourism clientele access to not only to accommodations but
to a network of people and projects as well.
International NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and movements also organize ongoing projects and
activities across multiple geographic regions. The Slow Food Movement, for example, headquartered in
Cuneo, Italy, “is a global, grassroots organization with supporters in 5 countries around the world who
are linking the pleasure of good food with a commitment to their community and the environment”
(Slowfood n.d.). By partnering with the Slow Food Movement, the tourism industry could connect clients
interested in sustainability in the food industry to activities organized by the Slow Food Movement, and
then direct the client to shared living facilities near the organized activities. The client could then live on a
short to medium term basis with other residents in the same shared living space who share their interest in
the food industry. Thus the tour industry will satisfy its clients’ needs of participation, creation and
identity while simultaneously contributing to needed skills, labor and resources in the food industry’s
projects.
Similarly the industry could partner with networks of affiliated but independent organizations, like
Transition Towns. Transition Towns are a network of communities around the world who “seek to build
community resilience in the face of such challenges as peak oil, climate change and the economic crisis”
(Transitionus, n.d.). Individuals interested in sustainable living often travel among communities to learn
about and contribute to different towns across the world. Such networks of communities and participants
offers an opportunity for the tourism industry to contribute to sustainability at a personal and societal level.
There are also opportunities to connect clients to specific projects and organizations around the world.
Local community gardens, climate action groups, home rebuilding programs, political organizations,
ecological programs (like Permaculture and habitat restoration projects) are becoming increasingly popular
and are attracting participants and visitors in increasing numbers.
3.2.5 Escalation of need satisfiers: Leisure, Creation, Participation and Identity
Traditional accommodations – resorts, hotels, etc – satisfy travelers’ need for Leisure. They offer
reduction of stress in the form of relaxation, comfort, and consistency of product and service (so that guests
know what to expect in their accommodations). But traditionally there has been little active participation
by the traveler in the planning process. Indeed, avoiding having to plan the trip has deliberately been part
of the stress reduction process.
But with the emerging trends described above, travelers are now becoming actively engaged in the
planning process. Accessing data and researching options is no longer considered stressful, at least not to
active, technology-savvy travelers. Becoming actively involved in the planning process, and subsequently
in the planning of the events once onsite, acts as a satisfier of the needs of Participation, Creation, and
Identity as well as Leisure. Given Missimer’s five Social Sustainability Principles Identity, Influence,
Competence, Impartiality and Meaning), by including travelers in the planning process, tour operators are
specifically engaging in a form of personal, social sustainability.
17
IV. CONCLUSION
The sustainability challenge is threatening life as we know it on the planet. Climate change, resource
depletion, water shortages, and a host of ecological problems will pose grave challenges into the future.
They also provide a huge opportunity. Millions of people worldwide are gathering together and engaging
in their local communities to prepare for and ultimately solve the sustainability challenge we’re faced with.
There is a large and growing number of sophisticated, dedicated and passionate individuals exploring ways
to get involved in actions to save the planet, both in their own hometowns and in distant communities. The
tourism industry can both serve and benefit by assisting their clientele by helping connect them to the local
communities to which they’re traveling.
As technology and social structures evolve, habits, trends and lifestyles evolve with them. Travelers today
are more sophisticated, more independent and more socially aware than ever before. They have a deep
desire to satisfy their needs of Leisure, Participation, Creation and Identity – needs that can be fulfilled by
living communally and actively engaging in the local community. To be truly sustainable, the tourism
industry must meet their clients’ personal needs and desires and contribute to the society as a whole.
Selecting the appropriate accommodations is an important step in the process.
The tourism industry can best serve its clients and address the sustainability challenge by connecting their
clients to the emerging Shared Living sector of the market, and assisting them in engaging in local,
sustainability-oriented projects. With growing sophistication and independence of the tech-savvy clientele,
this could be a smart business decision as well.
V. REFERENCES
American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2014. What we know.
http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf
(accessed 22 March 2014).
Barrow, Charlotte, Ozcuhadar Tuna and Peterka Stephanie. 2010. Open Source as Leverage towards
Sustainable Housing. Thesis submitted for completion of Master of Strategic Leadership towards
Sustainability, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.
Botsman, Rachel. 2010. Rachel Botsman on Collaborative Consumption.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/06/08/2920140.htm (accessed 3/20/14).
Brundtland, Gro Harlem. 1987. Our common future. http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I (accessed
9 March 2014).
Butler, Richard. 2007. Sustainable tourism: a state-of-the-art review.
Carr, Austin. 2014. The world’s most innovative companies
4.
http://www.fastcompany.com/most-innovative-companies/2014/airbnb (accessed 15 March 2014).
Cavalcanti, Gui. 2013. Is it a hackerspace, makerspace, techshop or fablab? Makezine.
http://makezine.com/2013/05/22/the-difference-between-hackerspaces-makerspaces-techshops-andfablabs/ (accessed 15 March 2014).
Coliving. n.d. Coliving. http://coliving.org (accessed 15 March 2014).
Couchsurfing, n.d. Couchsurfing. www.couchsurfing.org (accessed 15 March 2014).
Ecovillage.org n.d. What is an ecovillage?
http://gen.ecovillage.org/index.php/ecovillages/whatisanecovillage.html (accessed 15 March 2014).
18
Embassynetwork, n.d. http://embassynetwork.com (accessed 15 March 2014).
Ic.org, n.d. http://www.ic.org (accessed 15 March 2014).
Impact Hub. n.d. http://www.impacthub.net (accessed 15 March 2014).
IPCC Report. 2013. Intergovernmental Planning on Climate Change Report: Technical Summary.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf (accessed 16 March 2014).
Khamseh Negar Sheikh Mohammadi. 2014. Global Need for Low Carbon Architecture. Journal of
Sustainable Development; Vol. 7: 161-166.
Krash.io n.d. www.krash.io (accessed 15 March 2014).
Kristine (no last name). 2013. A nest-ing place: co-living for entrepreneurs in Copenhagen.
http://oresundstartups.com/a-nest-ing-place-co-living-for-entrepreneurs-in-copenhagen/ (accessed 15
March 2014).
Main, Douglas 2013. Who are the millennials?
generation-y.html (accessed 13 March 2014).
http://www.livescience.com/38061-millennials-
Malik, Unsah. 2014. Suitcase meets: Chip Conley from airbnb.
http://suitcasemag.com/2014/01/22/catching-up-with-chip-conley-from-airbnb/ (accessed 15 March 2014).
Maslow, A.H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review. Vol. 50(4): 370-396.
Max-Neef, Manfred. n.d. Max-Neef on human needs and human-scale development.
http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/background/maxneef.htm (accessed 13 March 2014).
McCamant, Kathryn and Charles Durrett. 2011. Creating cohousing. Gabriola Island: New Society
Publishers.
Meister, Jeanne. 2012. Job hopping is the new normal for Millennials: three ways to prevent a human
resource
nightmare.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeannemeister/2012/08/14/job-hopping-is-the-newnormal-for-millennials-three-ways-to-prevent-a-human-resource-nightmare/ (accessed 15 March 2014).
Missimer, Merlina. 2013. The Social Dimension of Strategic Sustainable Development. PhD Diss.,
Blekinge Institute of Technology.
Ochieng E. G., Wynn T. S., Zuofa T., Ruan X., Price A. D. F. and Okafor C. 2014. Integration of
Sustainability Principles into Construction Project Delivery. Journal of Architectural Engineering
Technology. Vol. 3: 1-5.
Papargyropoulou. E., Padfielda R., Harrison O., Preece C. 2012. The rise of sustainability services for the
built environment in Malaysia. Sustainable Cities and Society. Vol. 5: 44–51.
Richards,
Greg.
2011.
Tourism
trends:
tourism,
culture
and
cultural
routes.
http://www.academia.edu/1473475/Tourism_trends_Tourism_culture_and_cultural_routes (accessed 13
March 2014).
Robèrt, K.-H., B. Schmidt-Bleek, J. Aloisi de Larderel, G. Basile, J.L., Jansen, R. Kuehr, P. Price Thomas.,
M. Suzuki, P. Hawken, and M. Wackernagel. 2002. Strategic Sustainable Development—selection, design
and synergies of applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Production 10: 197–214.
19
Robert, Karl-Henrik, Goran Broman, David Waldron, Henrik Ny, Sophie Byggeth, David Cook, Lena
Johansson, Jonas Oldmark, George Basile, Hordur Haroldsson, Jamie MacDonald, Brendan Moore,
Tamara Connell, Merlina Missimer. 2010. Strategic leadership towards sustainability. Karlskrona:
Psilanders grafiska.
Slow Food. n.d. Slow food. http://www.slowfood.com/?session=query_session:5881C96B07d0e1E04DwT2F0060D5 (accessed 3/20/14).
Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14616689908721291 (accessed 15 March 2014).
Transitionus. n.d. The transition town movement. http://transitionus.org/transition-town-movement
(accessed 3/20/14).
UC Davis. n.d. Sneak preview of living in a net zero world. http://westvillage.ucdavis.edu
(accessed 16 March 2014).
Wong Johnny K.W., Heng Li, Haoran Wang, Ting Huang, Eric Luo, Vera Li. 2013. Toward low-carbon
construction processes: the visualisation of predicted emission via virtual prototyping technology.
Automation in Construction Vol. 33: 72–78.
20
DEEPAK ELDHO BABU, ARSHINDER KAUR
Practices for a Sustainable Supply Chains: A Tourism Perspective
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India
ABSTRACT
Tourism is one of the industries that have evolved and modernized considerably in the past two decades.
Tourism is world’s fastest growing indicators as well as the major source of foreign exchange earnings and
employment for many countries. TSCM is defined as a set of methods utilized to effectively manage the
operations of the Tourism Supply Chain (TSC) within a specific tourism destination.
This will help to meet the needs of customers from the targeted source market and accomplish the business
objectives of the focal organizations. Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) integrates the
sustainability into the Supply Chain Management (SCM) to facilitate sustainable development and to
create competitive advantage. One way of reporting sustainability is the Triple Bottom Line (TBL).
The demand for sustainable tourism has made the firms to look into the sustainability practices and new
methods to incorporate them into their products. Sustainability can be defined as a wise balance among
economic development, environmental stewardship and social equity (Sikdar, 2003). Many studies have
discussed the role of tour operators in promoting sustainability in tourism (Budeanu, 2005; Tapper and
Font, 2005, but not much studies exist as to how one can apply SCM for integrating social, economic and
environmental practices in supply chain (Zhang et al., 2009). The highly competitive nature of tourism
sector and its closeness towards sustainability requirements forced the organizations in this area to look for
ways to enhance their supply chain skills and become more competitive.
Information technology and commercial formats like eTourism are steps towards that direction.
Organizations are now more concerned about the environmental and social performance of their
associates, the reason being the high demands on strong economic performance. Through this paper, we
put forward few research questions and developed few hypotheses to be addressed in future and a
conceptual model is developed from the literature survey.
The present study tries to look at specific sustainability practices with respect to the, supplier, buyer and
the focal organization leading to sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) in tourism sector from an
environmental and economical perspective. Accordingly the present study was undertaken to fulfil the
following objectives: 1) To identify the critical sustainable practices with respect to the supplier and buyer
2) To identify the critical sustainability practices with in the focal organization 3) To develop a conceptual
model compressed of environmental, economical factors and information and communication practices
which can improve the linkage between tourism supply chain entities.
The study has helped to identify various tourism entities and the need of collaborative initiatives and
monitoring practices required to achieve sustainability. Such efforts may result in the overall improvement
of the sustainability performance of whole tourism supply chain. In cooperating sustainability practices to
different stages of the supply chain may result in overall improvement of performance of supply chain.
21
Key Words
Tourism Industry, Supply Chain, Sustainability Practices, Sustainable supply chain management
REFERENCES
1. Ageron, B., A. Gunasekaran, A. Spalanzani (2012) Sustainable supply management: An empirical
study. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 1-15.
2. Budeanu, A. (2005). Impacts and responsibilities for sustainable tourism: a tour operator’s
perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(2), 89–97.
3. Camisón, C., & Monfort-Mir, V. M. (2012). Measuring innovation in tourism from the
Schumpeterian and the dynamic-capabilities perspectives. Tourism Management, 33(4), 776–789.
4. Carter, C. R., D. S. Rogers (2008) A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving
toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5),
360–387.
5. Dath, T. N. S., C. Rajendran, K.Narashiman (2009) A conceptual framework for Supply Chain
Management with specific reference to a developing economy, International Journal of
Procurement Management, 5(5), 473- 524.
6. Fabbe-Costes, N., Roussat, C., & Colin, J. (2011). Future sustainable supply chains: what should
companies scan? International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 41(3),
228–252.
7. Kernel, P. (2005). Creating and implementing a model for sustainable development in tourism
enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(2), 151–164.
8. Schwartz, K., Tapper, R., & Font, X. (2008). A Sustainable Supply Chain Management Framework
for Tour Operators. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(3), 298.
9. Seuring, S., & M. Miller (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable
supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710.
10. Sigala, M. (2008). A supply chain management approach for investigating the role of tour operators
on sustainable tourism: the case of TUI. Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (15), 1589–1599.
11. Sikdar, S.K. (2003). Sustainable development and sustainability matrices. AIChe journal, 49(7),
1928-1932.
12. Sloan, T. W. (2010). Measuring the sustainability of global supply chains: Current
future directions. Journal of Global Business Management, 6(1), 1–16.
practices and
13. Vachon, S., & R.D. Klassen (2006). Extending green practices across the supply chain: The impact
of upstream and downstream integration. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 26(7), 795–821.
14. Vachon, S., and Z. Mao (2008). Linking supply chain strength to sustainable development: a countrylevel analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1552–1560.
22
PHILIP F. XIE
Deterritorialization and Reterritorialization: Sustainable Industrial Heritage Tourism
School of Human Movement, Sport and Leisure Studies Bowling Green State University
Abstract
As industrial heritage is regarded as a steadily diminishing resource, the milieus of industrial
complexes and their potential reuse for leisure, tourism and entertainment have gained prominence
worldwide, particularly in Europe, where “culture of pleasure” is appreciated and supported at all
walks of life. Industrial heritage is perhaps one of the most effective resources for socioeconomic
development in that have severely affected by deindustrialization and globalization.
Heritage
illustrates how history suffuses the present while industrial sites have gradually transformed into a
new cultural landscape. The consensus is that industrial heritage is an integral part of the culture
and needs to take appropriate measures for sustainable development.
The purpose of this paper is threefold. Firstly, it discusses the concepts of three stages, e.g.,
territorialization, deterritorialization and reterritorialization drawn from postmodernism and
poststructuralism. The proposed cycle entails an epistemological transformation in searching
content and forms of industrial heritage and it went along with making viable heritage sites.
Secondly, it compares the LX factory in Lisbon, Portugal and the Westergasfabriek in Amsterdam,
the Netherlands, encompassed by each stage of the model, in order to construct a progressive
relationship with respect to tourism development. Thirdly, the paper aims to be a basis for a
form of management tool, helping understand and monitor change in the context of European
industrial heritage tourism.
Both LX factory and Westergasfabriek were occupied former factories, la fabrique des lieux, but
been transformed into an island of culture and arts, something useful, beautiful and fun. Both
sites aim to create genuine cultural identities of obsolete spaces and make value-‐added heritage
sites concurrently. Public awareness of industrial heritage is strong and the memory of industrial
interlude deserves to be fostered.
They incorporate a great variety of leisure and entertainment elements ranging from bars,
restaurants, retail spaces to arts studios. Industrial heritage become localized at points where
accessibility is dependent on public transport and a strong association between arts and
entertainment is omnipresent. In addition, industrial heritage has been linked to community
cohesion implying management that values cultural diversity and evolutionary heritage practice. It
makes a significant contribution to sustainable development whose purpose is long term, holistic
and participatory. LX factory and Westergasfabriek show how industrial heritage conservation can
take on a new product-‐led dimension, where a balance of intervention and façade preservations
has created favorable settings for tourism and arts performance.
The comparative study shows that territorialization is the initial phase of land use, as the term
"industrial area" describes a present state of industrial activity.
Deterritorialization reflects the abandonment of the old functionality of the sites. It is an "in‐between" bearing the traces of the past and designating a space that has become cultural
attraction. Relative deterritorialization is always accompanied by reterritorialization. What I argue
23
for the significance of deterritorialization is that industrial sites have gone through a series of
modification, transformation, and expansion that exemplifies industrial heritage has become
increasingly commodified, constructed and contested.
In this context, the meaning of deterritorialization and reterritorialization is spatial manifestations of
contemporary changes under way in the relationship between socioeconomic life and its territorial
moorings, constantly evolving in relation to its period, environment and stakeholders.
24
ARTURO PAROLINI₁, PIERLUIGI POLIGNANO₂
Live Your Tour
₁ONG Ricerca e Cooperazione (Applicant e responsabile del progetto LYT) ₂Made in Puglia
ABSTRACT
The goal of the project is to increase the Sustainable Tourism in some areas of Italy, Spain, Lebanon and
Tunisia, favouring off seasonal flows, the development of that areas and the enhancement of their cultures,
and reducing the non-sustainable pressures of tourism on coastal areas, in order to mitigate the impact on
the environment. Through the identification of possible alternative routes, compared to the more wellknown and exploited for tourist purposes, the project aims to develop a different relationship visitor /
territory that can permit to the tourist to appreciate the characteristics of several places. The intensive
cooperation among the different areas involved in the project, working as a network, will offer different
itineraries as pieces of a whole that, despite its differences, are recognized as part of a Mediterranean
reality.
The project specifically aims also to increase the capacity and know-how of local authorities in terms of
cross-border strategic planning on Sustainable Tourism through training and ongoing support services: a
dense exchanges of ideas and experiences through a cross-border network of Mediterranean countries. The
actions also involve large segments of the civil society through summer camps for young people, design of
games, awareness courses in schools.
In particular:
The project will improve the situation of the target groups at different and several levels. Concerning the
Local Authorities, the project will improve their capability and know how about strategic planning in the
field of sustainable tourism. They will be provided with technical expertises through training courses,
permanent assistance and exchange of experiences through the establishment of a strong Mediterranean
cross-border network. Lebanese and Tunisian LAs will take advantages from the experiences and good
territorial planning practices carried out in Apulia and Andalusia in the tourism field; in particular, they
will improve their capacity to collaborate with the private sector. Italian and Spanish LAs will develop
innovative strategies to increase the territorial cohesion, to safeguard the value of local resources and to
draw a cross-border and integrated development plan for sustainable tourism. In particular, Apulia, the
regional planning tool SAC (Environment and Cultural System) will be enhanced.
The cross-border dimension (particularly the international exchanges) will allow the LA representatives to
join international networks and make their territories experiment different best practices. The Civil Society
Organizations (NGOs, cultural, eco-tourism and professional associations, development agencies) will be
fully recognized as crucial stakeholders in the strategic planning and promotion of their territory; they will
become more active about the preservation and enhancement of cultural and natural heritage at local,
national and cross-border level. Furthermore, they will improve their capability to manage participative
methodologies in order to address and involve their citizens, with special attention on marginal groups,
guaranteeing a community based development.
Young people will increase their awareness about the importance to preserve natural and cultural heritage.
The students (together with their teachers) and the young people of the involved CSOs will embark in a
three year long educational path that will influence their knowledge and behaviours, allowing them to feel
part of one Mediterranean community, especially through the international camps.
25
The increase of sustainable touristic flows will directly improve the situation of the Small and Medium
Enterprises (SMEs) of the tourism sector, as responsible tourism has a direct impact on local economies.
Tour operators, accommodation facilities, artisans, agro-food companies, transport companies, cultural and
entertaining facilities, local industries and many other private actors will become part of a virtuous tourism
system, thanks to the increased accessibility to the target areas and thanks to the enhanced product
diversification.
By redistributing tourism pressure over an extended season and toward different market segments drawn
from local cultural and natural diversity, the project will allow niche enterprises to increase their market
opportunities and the whole sector extending their working period. Moreover, the access will be fostered to
marginal areas, generally left aside from mass tourism incomes. The local SMEs will also gain innovative
marketing tools to increase their competitiveness on national, Mediterranean and international market.
Tour operators and transport companies, in particular, will be offered an alternative way to face the
economic crisis that is affecting the traditional mass tourism. Nevertheless, Live your tour is a project
addressed to tourists. They will experiment an authentic way to travel through an emotional, social, and
participative interaction with the places, their living cultures and the people who live there. They will
benefit from the improved touristic facilities and their better accessibility; they will discover and visit
uncommon and not overcrowded places, especially in inland areas and all-year-around. The citizens of all
Mediterranean Basin will enjoy a more protected heritage, and will more deeply feel they belong to the one
Mediterranean community. In all target areas, sustainable touristic flows due to a better seasonal and
geographic spread of tourism arrivals will bring more balanced economy revenues. Marginalized people of
inland areas will have the opportunity to join the local tourism supply chain, welcome tourists and increase
their economic revenues. Furthermore, they will take advantages from the cultural exchanges coming from
the contacts with tourists.
National and international decision makers of the whole Mediterranean Basin will have different best
practices to refer to and will be able to take part in the cross-border networks created within the project.
Tourism supply chains in Italy, Spain, Tunisia and Lebanon will revitalize their incomes, entering a
virtuous circle of a more sustainable tourism. Concerning the partners, they will be provided with advanced
management tools and methodologies, particularly referring to Project Cycle Management, financial and
technical monitoring procedures, participatory and facilitation methodologies. Particular attention will be
paid to the capacity building of Southern partners: the project will improve and strengthen their
management, financial and technical capacity, through specific training courses and a permanent
assistance.
26
FRANCESCO MARIA OLIVIERI
Rural tourism and local development: typical productions of Lazio
Universitas Mercatorum – Università Telematica delle Camere di Commercio Italiane
Abstract
Lo sviluppo locale dipende dall’integrazione del settore turistico con il resto dell’economia. Il turismo
enogastronomico è turismo culturale in quanto si riferisce alla conoscenza del territorio e alle sue risorse
materiali ed immateriali. L’enogastronomia ha un ruolo centrale, in quanto strumento di comunicazione di
un’esperienza di tradizioni e sapori, per attrarre i viaggiatori. E non solo. Essa genera ricchezza e valore
per il territorio. L’Italia ha un patrimonio rurale unico e non del tutto conosciuto. Il turismo può essere il
veicolo di valorizzazione di questa “giacimento”, che si basa su artigianato, conoscenze e saper fare: il
patrimonio dei prodotti tipici. L’Italia gode di una immagine enogastronomica mondiale che, al tempo
stesso, può rappresentare una leva importante per la crescita del turismo. Il turismo rurale sembra offrire
una ottima occasione di analisi in termini di sviluppo locale: la fruizione di “prodotti turistici” ubicati in
determinati contesti territoriali. Tuttavia, la valorizzazione di un prodotto tipico è un processo complesso
che interessa molteplici fattori, che vanno al di là della dimensione economica del sistema delle imprese. Il
prodotto tipico è radicato nella cultura e nelle tradizioni e, molto spesso, è strettamente collegato ad
ambiente, paesaggio, biodiversità. Il processo di valorizzazione di un prodotto tipico deve dunque essere
osservato da varie angolature: a livello territoriale, la polarizzazione del tessuto imprenditoriale della filiera
agroalimentare con caratteristiche strutturali ed economiche diversificate e gradi differenti di efficienza
produttiva e organizzativa.
Partendo, quindi, dallo studio della filiera agroalimentare e dalla localizzazione delle produzioni tipiche,
l’obiettivo del presente contributo analizzare la relazione fra sviluppo locale, sostenibilità del turismo
rurale e sistema dell’accoglienza nel territorio della regione Lazio: quali sono gli elementi per la creazione
di sistemi locali turistici basati sul legame fra la filiera dell’offerta turistica accommodation e
ristorazione) e la filiera produttiva (produzioni tipiche e tradizionali)? E quali sono le determinanti per
l’individuazione di itinerari enogastronomici? La specificità del turismo italiano si basa tradizionalmente
su aspetti legati alla cultura dell’accoglienza ed al ruolo dell’ospitalità. Da qui discende la valorizzazione
del prodotto culturale nella sua più ampia accezione (arte, storia, natura, mare, montagna, terme): turismo
made in Italy. Il valore aggiunto turistico di determinati contesti territoriali può trarre beneficio dalla
sinergia con la filiera agroalimentare: made in Italy dei prodotti tipici. La relazione fra accommodation e
valorizzazione e tutela del paniere dei prodotti tipici si configura nel territorio che rappresenta la sintesi in
termini di immagine del made in Italy.
La valorizzazione della filiera enogastronomica, il sistema di accoglienza e le specifiche località turistiche
dovrebbero essere alla base della promozione turistica in termini di politiche nazionali e locali: ruolo degli
attori locali e nazionali (pubblici e privati), profilo organizzativo del sistema paese, offerta infrastrutturale
e servizi del territorio e per le imprese che direttamente ed indirettamente sono legate al processo (a monte,
a valle e trasversalmente). In particolare, l’agriturismo rappresenta la forma di offerta ricettiva adatta al
turismo rurale e che garantisce l’esclusività del prodotto tipico. La reciprocità fra filiera agroalimentare e
turismo un fattore strategico del modello di sviluppo per rendere distintiva l’immagine del territorio, la
sua individuazione ed il suo riconoscimento. Il processo di aggregazione di un territorio partendo da queste
caratteristiche uno strumento di competitività dell’economia locale.
27
The local development is based on the integration of the tourism sector with the whole economy. The rural
tourism seems to be a good occasion to analyse the local development: consumption of "tourist products"
located in specific local contexts. Starting from the food and wine supply chain and the localization of
typical productions, the aim of the present work will be analyse the relationship with local development,
rural tourism sustainability and accommodation system, referring to Lazio. Which are the findings to
create tourism local system based on the relationship with touristic and food and wine supply chain? Italian
tourism is based on accommodation system, so the whole consideration of the Italian cultural tourism:
tourism made in Italy. The touristic added value to specific local context takes advantage from the synergy
with food and wine supply chain: made in Italy of typical productions. Agritourism could be better
accommodation typology to rural tourism and to exclusivity of consumption typical productions. The
reciprocity among food and wine supply chain and tourism provides new insights on the key topics related
to tourism development and to the organization of geographical space as well and considering its important
contribution nowadays to the economic competitiveness.
Parole chiave
Turismo rurale, agroalimentare, prodotto tipico, territorio.
Key words
Rural tourism, food and wine, typical productions, territory.
1. Territorio, turismo rurale e agriturismo
Turismo rurale e agriturismo, negli ultimi anni sono stati oggetto di diverse indagini a carattere
multidisciplinare (Arroyo et al., 2013; Nijkamp et al., 2012; Phillip et al., 2010; Celant et al., 2009;
Fleischer et al., 2002; Celant, 2001). Il mondo accademico internazionale rileva un certo grado di
confusione relativo alla coincidenza fra i due termini. L’agriturismo è altresì la forma di ricettività e
ristorazione più caratterizzante del turismo rurale: come avviene in Italia e Francia che, seppur con
soluzioni diverse, hanno costruito impianti strutturati per l’analisi del turismo rurale. Rispetto al caso
italiano l’approccio teorico di tipo bottom-up e trova nella L. 730/1985 il primo riferimento legislativo:
l’agriturismo nasce con la necessità degli imprenditori agricoli toscani di offrire anche ospitalità e
somministrazione di prodotti, oltre all’attività di produzione. È ormai consolidato il riferimento al
paradigma città-campagna, nello studio e nell’analisi in termini di territorializzazione e paesaggio ed
evoluzione dell’attività agricola. Questa impostazione
alla base del presente contributo, partendo
dall’assunto che le modificazioni subite dal settore agricolo in Italia, seppur con le forti differenze su scala
regionale, hanno prodotto l’attuale configurazione del paesaggio ed il relativo assetto territoriale; effetti
che nel caso del turismo rurale hanno favorito la nascita, prima, e lo sviluppo, poi, dell’agriturismo. La
mezzadria, che ha dato un imprinting al paesaggio di buona parte dell’Italia Centrale, ha gettato le basi per
la nascita dell’agriturismo. Tuttavia, anche nel resto del paese e, in particolare, in Alto Adige l’evoluzione
storica del paesaggio agricolo alla base di forme di ricettività di turismo rurale: “l’atroce concetto di
confine secolare”, ossia la tradizione legata all’indivisibilità dei Masi, stato recepito dalla normativa
agricola già preunitaria, creando una condizione necessaria per la nascita dell’agriturismo altoatesino e la
generazione di una fonte di ricchezza duratura e, perciò, sostenibile (Celant, 2001). Il turismo rurale
comporta una diversa considerazione del concetto di ruralità legato alla territorialità; ciò all’opposto della
diffusa concezione di ruralità come sinonimo di arretratezza, anche culturale, e di ritardo, anche
economico. Il turismo rurale è specificità e peculiarità di un territorio, financo il recupero del rapporto fra
regione storico-geografica e regione agricola. Per questo, partendo dalla relazione fra agriturismo e
produzioni tipiche, si vuole: da un lato approfondire gli aspetti del rapporto turismo e agricoltura in termini
28
di caratteristica identitaria del territorio; in secondo luogo, capire se questa relazione possa essere
occasione di crescita e di sviluppo turistico locale.
L’enogastronomia cultura, basata sulla conoscenza del territorio attraverso l’insieme delle sue risorse
tangibili e intangibili. Il cibo ha un ruolo centrale, poiché mezzo di comunicazione privilegiato della
cultura enogastronomica, di tradizioni ed esperienze, che concorrono alla generazione del valore e della
ricchezza del territorio. L’Italia possiede patrimoni agroalimentari unici, non del tutto conosciuti, che sono
dei veri e propri “giacimenti gastronomici” Paolini,
9). Il turismo rurale consiste nella capacità di
valorizzare questa ricchezza, mettendo a reddito il patrimonio delle produzioni tipiche, in termini di
attrazione del turismo nella sua più ampia accezione, specie con riferimento ai flussi turistici internazionali.
Il prodotto tipico può essere considerato un elemento della capacità attrattiva e di caratterizzazione del
territorio.
Poste queste considerazioni, il legame fra settore primario, turismo rurale e agriturismo è alla base della
conservazione dinamica del paesaggio e della tradizione, con le stesse modalità che diversi autori
riferiscono al rapporto fra cultura e passato (Dallen e Boyd, 2007). Sviluppare forme di turismo definite
semplicisticamente “minori” dal punto di vista economico, significa crescita e occupazione. L’Italia gode
di un’eccellente immagine enogastronomica a livello mondiale, un fattore importante e ineludibile per lo
sviluppo del sistema turistico. Analizzarne le relazioni e le dinamiche localizzative è la condizione per
porre in essere politiche e strategie per la valorizzazione di questo patrimonio, diffonderne la conoscenza a
livello internazionale e migliorare le modalità con cui le produzioni tipiche siano un fattore determinante
per il percorso di sviluppo.
La forma di ricettività dell’agriturismo
un modello d’ispirazione molto diffuso in Italia, anche
capillarmente, con diverse soluzioni organizzative. La valorizzazione delle produzioni tipiche passa
necessariamente per una modalità di fruizione dell’offerta territoriale idonea e coerente con il territorio:
l’agriturismo, al tempo stesso struttura di offerta e veicolo di promozione, anche se ciò avviene con la sola
ristorazione, prescindendo dalla ricettività; e, quindi, esso deve essere inquadrato nel sistema globale di
offerta turistica. La specificità del turismo italiano si basa tradizionalmente su aspetti legati alla cultura
dell’accoglienza e al ruolo dell’ospitalità. “Una nuova ospitalità accommodation) sta alla base delle
strategie di attenzione territoriale” Dallari,
6). La relazione fra accommodation e valorizzazione e
tutela del paniere dei prodotti tipici si configura nel territorio che rappresenta la sintesi in termini di
immagine del made in Italy.
Partendo da queste considerazioni, l’obiettivo del presente contributo analizzare il turismo rurale e la
relazione con i prodotti tipici e l'agriturismo. Tale percorso può avere come punto di caduta la
strutturazione di un territorio, che abbia la capacità di superare la semplificazione turismo del cibo e
itinerari verso una considerazione sistemica del territorio, con l’apertura a tutte le altre attrattività, ma che
si basi sul rapporto agricoltura-accoglienza-ristorazione.
2. Agricoltura e produzioni tipiche
Il prodotto tipico agricolo è frutto di un processo storico, collettivo e localizzato di accumulazione di
conoscenze, basato sulla combinazione di risorse territoriali specifiche, fisiche e antropiche. Tale
combinazione genera un legame forte, unico e irriproducibile con il territorio di origine e, al tempo stesso,
ne costituisce un indicatore di diversità. Il rapporto del prodotto agricolo con il territorio è funzione delle
differenti componenti e aspetti della tipicità, che fanno riferimento alla dimensione ambientale e alle
risorse locali, alle tecniche di produzione, condizionamento e trasformazione, agli aspetti locali culturali e
sociali, nonché ai fattori storici che accompagnano le traiettorie evolutive del prodotto stesso. Una
relazione dinamica e non statica e immutabile. Questo perché l’enogastronomia parte della cultura di un
29
territorio: le produzioni tipiche sono uno degli elementi del passato che possono essere selezionati per la
“conservazione dinamica” del territorio e del paesaggio Dallen-Boyd, 2007). Perciò le produzioni tipiche
assumono una nuova forma riguardo all’evoluzione del concetto di terra e di rendita: fattore produttivo per
la competitività turistica, riassumendo aspetti propri di un fattore naturale, ma anche dell’azione antropica,
trasformandosi in prodotto territoriale ed elemento di attrattività a fini turistici. La diversità della ricchezza
enogastronomica dell’Italia rappresentata dall’elenco dei “Prodotti Agroalimentari Tradizionali italiani”
(PAT) presso il Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e comunitarie, i prodotti locali e nostrani che ampliano il
concetto di prodotto tipico, di cui al D.lgs. 173/98: da una parte si identifica la varietà in termini di
ricchezza, di tutto quello che è definito cultura del cibo in stretta relazione con lo sviluppo turistico; in
secondo luogo si fornisce la caratterizzazione enogastronomica della produzione agricola. A sostegno della
tesi già riportata di una coerenza dell’impianto costruito in Italia, “le tipicità regionali sono gli scaffali della
biblioteca dell’enogastronomia italiana” Hausmann,
9). Con il termine “tipico” ci si riferisce
direttamente all’origine di un prodotto di una determinata area, dotata di caratteri peculiari rispetto alla
produzione. Nel loro insieme le produzioni tipiche e le specialità regionali rappresentano un patrimonio
localizzato in modo diversificato su scala regionale; un insieme che genera potenzialmente una capacità
attrattiva superiore alla somma degli stessi prodotti. Il prodotto tipico è un fattore determinante per il
turismo, ampiamente considerato: escursionisti, turisti locali e internazionali; questi ultimi si recano
sempre più in Italia per conoscere le bellezze naturali e artistiche ed enogastronomiche localizzate nel
territorio. Per questo motivo, il sistema delle produzioni tipiche merita una considerazione a livello
funzionale, o meglio complementare, al sistema tradizionale e convenzionale dell’offerta turistica. Nella
teoria classica, la localizzazione agricola dipende dalla rendita e dal prezzo che il coltivatore è disposto a
pagare. Il legame fra rendita e prodotto tipico pone la necessità di un superamento dell’approccio classico
nel momento in cui non ci si riferisce più solamente all’agricoltura, ma anche alla produzione nel suo
complesso e al turismo in particolare. Il concetto di rendita assume una componente non economica.
L’attività che si localizza non solo agricola, ma un’attività a vocazione turistica: ricettiva (agriturismo,
beauty farm, country-house, ma anche B&b) e agro-alimentare propriamente detta. Integrare il turismo in
un territorio agricolo amplia l’offerta turistica in connessione con l’agricoltura. La relazione prodotto
tipico-agriturismo è alla base dell’autenticità di questa integrazione-connessione: una tipicità obiettiva che
ne caratterizza l’identità e che, secondo alcuni autori, può rappresentare un brand in sé Ohe-Kurihara,
2013).
2.1
Il “paniere” delle produzioni tipiche del Lazio
La produzione tipica agricola del Lazio è caratterizzata dalla coesistenza di una pluralità di strumenti di
organizzazione e di integrazione, che la rende un processo complesso con molteplici dimensioni, oltre a
quella strettamente economica più propria del sistema delle imprese. Il prodotto tipico per sua natura è
radicato fortemente nella cultura e nelle tradizioni e, quindi, nel territorio: ambiente, paesaggio,
biodiversità. Come detto, la valorizzazione del prodotto incide su aspetti che sono non esclusivamente
riconducibili al valore d’uso stimato dal prezzo di mercato. Altre e diversificate componenti hanno un
impatto sul processo di produzione anche in termini dimensionali: comunità locale, know-how specifico
della manodopera, istituzioni, consumo locale; ed al tempo stesso concorrono alla creazione del valore
aggiunto della produzione. La capacità sedimentata nel territorio è lo strumento che permette di saldare il
valore d’uso del prodotto con i valori più complessi, anche di remunerazione del prodotto. E’ quello che si
configura come la dimensione collettiva dello sviluppo economico, sociale e ambientale. Strategia che
parte dalla mobilizzazione delle risorse locali e dai produttori in primo luogo, oltre che dagli altri attori del
sistema economico. La valorizzazione del prodotto tipico è, infatti, un processo aperto, che trae origini dal
30
radicamento del prodotto nel territorio e nella tradizione, ma che si proietta verso l’esterno, proprio per
mezzo degli attori locali. Il prodotto tipico permette che i caratteri distintivi di un territorio possano
trasformarsi in fattori competitivi: memoria storica, localizzazione geografica, qualità delle materie prime,
tecniche di produzione; al tempo stesso, essi rappresentano sia l’unicità della qualità prodotta, sia la
specificità e l’unicità stessa del territorio.
Su scala territoriale le ricadute di questi aspetti hanno come principale conseguenza la polarizzazione del
tessuto imprenditoriale agroalimentare del Lazio. L’analisi di studio ha individuato cinquantacinque
Prodotti Tipici nel Lazio, dal “Registro delle Denominazioni di Origine Protetta, Indicazioni Geografiche
Garantite e della Specialità Tradizionali Garantite” e dall’elenco dei “Prodotti Agroalimentari Tradizionali”
attraverso la localizzazione della produzione su scala comunale. Il paniere costruito dei cinquantacinque
prodotti, d’ora in avanti definiti per semplicità “prodotti tipici”, riguarda sia i prodotti certificati e non
certificati, sia le produzioni biologiche e, appunto, le produzioni agroalimentari Tradizionali, definite PAT.
La presenza dei prodotti tipici appare maggiormente diffusa nell’area settentrionale e orientale della
regione Lazio, parte del territorio delle due province di Viterbo e Rieti, dove la quasi totalità dei comuni
rileva almeno una produzione tipica. Mediamente distribuita nell’area centrale della regione, la diffusione
delle produzioni tipiche appare minore nell’area meridionale, e maggiormente localizzata in prossimità
della costa, con l’eccezione di alcuni comuni dell’entroterra, come Cori e le realtà limitrofe, fra cui Artena
e Velletri, in prossimità del confine fra le due province di Roma e Latina. I comuni con maggiore
concentrazione di produzioni sono Monterotondo 4) nell’hinterland di Roma, Cori 6), Acquapendente
(11), Bolsena e Viterbo (10) nella parte settentrionale della regione, e a sud Latina (11).
La distribuzione comunale per tipologia di prodotti mostra un elevato grado di eterogeneità. La
diffusione di alcuni prodotti, come Uva e Vino e Oliva ed Olio Extra Vergine d’Oliva, elevata in buona
parte della regione. Il Vino è prodotto da nord a sud, senza soluzione di continuità, sia nella zona costiera
sia subappenninica. Delle certificazioni riconosciute, maggiormente diffusa è la Denominazione di Origine
Controllata DOC), presente nella quasi totalità della provincia di Viterbo, nell’intorno dell’area di Roma e
nella pianura pontina. Alcune specifiche concentrazioni della produzione vinicola sono presenti:
- nell’entroterra al confine con l’Abruzzo e il Molise;
- nell’entroterra centrale, attorno ai comuni di Olevano Romano e Piglio, con un’ampia diffusione di
vini certificati per tipologia, fra cui spicca uno dei vini Denominazione di Origine Controllata e
Garantita DOCG), il “Cesanese del Piglio”;
- nell’area dei Castelli Romani, anch’essa con un’ampia diffusione tipologica di certificazioni,
caratterizzata da una tradizionale produzione di vini, fra cui il recente DOCG “Cannellino
Romano”;
- nella provincia di Viterbo, in particolare la parte settentrionale, dove spiccano per diffusione di
certificazioni i comuni di Acquapendente e Civitella di Agliano;
- infine nei due comuni di Roma e Latina, per evidenti ragioni dimensionali.
La produzione di Olio nella regione Lazio è caratterizzata dalla presenza di quattro Denominazioni di
Origine Protetta DOP): “Sabina”, “Canino”, “Tuscia” e “Colline Pontine”. In questo caso occorre
precisare la scelta di individuare aree produzioni DOP limitatamente estese. In questo caso la distribuzione
territoriale presenta un grado di concentrazione più elevato: quasi l’intera provincia di Viterbo “Tuscia
DOP” e, nella parte settentrionale “Canino DOP”), l’area della Sabina, al confine fra le due province di
Roma e Rieti, caratterizzate dall’omonima DOP, il territorio della pianura pontina a nord e sud di Latina,
fino ai confini meridionali della regione, “Colline Pontine DOP”. La concentrazione di produzione di Olio
appartenente ai PAT , invece, particolarmente rilevante nell’intorno dei comuni di Olevano Romano e
Piglio e nell’area di Veroli e Arpino, più a sud. Come nel caso del Vino, anche l’Olio mostra una
31
distribuzione molto diffusa nel territorio. Inoltre questi due prodotti mostrano un elevato livello di
compresenza.
Alcune produzioni tipiche mostrano una concentrazione in specifiche aree del territorio della regione, come
il Cece localizzato nel Reatino e presente in 78 comuni; il Cece PAT è concentrato nei soli due comuni di
Acquapendente e Valentano nella Tuscia. Circa un 1/5 dei prodotti tipici sono presenti in un solo comune
ed altrettanti in due o tre comuni. Anche alcuni prodotti che rientrano nella tradizione regionale hanno una
diffusione relativamente bassa: broccoletti, cicoria e zucchina (4 comuni).
Altri prodotti, molto caratteristici del territorio, quali il Pecorino e la Ricotta hanno un grado di diffusione
medio (30 comuni). Il Pecorino romano, caratterizzato da una dimensione sovraregionale (Maremma
Toscana e buona parte della Sardegna), concentra la produzione laziale nel comune di Roma, nella parte
settentrionale della regione (al confine con la Toscana), in alcuni comuni della Sabina. La Ricotta romana,
riconosciuta DOP nel 2005 successivamente al Pecorino (1996), mostra una distribuzione maggiormente
orientata nella parte meridionale Latina, nell’intorno di Cori-Segni, nella Val Comino al confine con il
Molise), oltre che nei comuni di Roma e Viterbo.
Altri prodotti, seppur meno conosciuti per il carattere della tipicità mostrano una discreta diffusione:
- la Cicerchia, presente in 14 comuni con una forte concentrazione nella provincia di Rieti
meridionale e orientale, al confine con l’Abruzzo, e sporadicamente in alcuni altri centri, come
Bomarzo (Viterbo), Cineto Romano e Ciciliano (Roma) e Campodimele (Latina);
- il Carciofo romanesco,
comuni ubicati lungo l’intero litorale della regione;
- la Nocciola, 38 comuni, concentrata nell’area meridionale del Viterbese e in misura minore del
Reatino;
- la Ciliegia, 8 comuni, la cui produzione localizzata nella Bassa Sabina e nell’area dei Castelli
Romani e con minore rilevanza intorno al comune di Latina;
- il Fagiolo, 26 comuni, per la maggior parte nella provincia di Rieti meridionale e orientale, attorno
al comune di Acquapendente e nella Valle del Comino;
- il Kiwi, 24 comuni, nella pianura pontina.
La diffusione di tutti i prodotti tipici rilevati per comune è riportata in Tabella 1. La Figura 1 riporta la
diffusione del totale dei prodotti tipici per classi nei comuni del Lazio.
Tabella 1 Prodotti tipici per comune del Lazio
PRODOTTO TIPICO
COMUNI
PRODOTTO TIPICO
COMUNI
AGLIO ROSSO
3
FUNGO
2
AGRUMI
1
KIWII
24
ALBICOCCHE
1
LATTUGA
3
ARANCIO
6
LENTICCHIA
6
ASPARAGO
3
MELE
1
BROCCOLETTI
4
MELONE
1
CARCIOFO
22
MIELE
9
CARNI BOVINE
6
NOCCIOLA
38
CARNI BUFALINE
5
OLIO EXTRAVERGINE D'OLIVA
157
CARNI EQUINE
1
OLIVA
41
CARNI SELVAGGINE
2
PASTA E CEREALI
0
32
CARNI SUINE
38
PATATA
10
CAROTE
3
PECORINO
30
CASTAGNA
30
PEPERONE
10
CAVOLFIORE
1
PERA
2
CECE
78
PESCE DI LAGO
9
CICERCHIA
14
PINOLO
1
CICORIA
4
POMODORO
6
CILIEGIA
18
RADICCHIO
0
ERBACEE_CD
1
RICOTTA
30
FAGIOLO
26
SEDANO BIANCO
2
FINOCCHIO
3
SPINACIO
1
FORMAGGI BUFALINI
9
TARTUFO
13
FORMAGGI CAPRINI
48
UVA
140
FORMAGGI E LATTE
16
VALERIANA
FORMAGGI OVINI
36
VINO
FORMAGGI VACCINI
11
ZUCCHINA
FRAGOLA
11
1
139
4
Elaborazione propria su varie fonti, 2014
3. Agriturismo e offerta territoriale
L’agriturismo non si configura esclusivamente come una tipologia ricettiva, ma rappresenta una forma di
servizio del territorio per la promozione della cultura agricola e dei suoi prodotti. Gli aspetti legati alla
citata confusione e alla complessità dell’inquadramento dell’offerta agrituristica, sembrano perciò da
riferirsi alla letteratura straniera, diversamente da quanto considerato da alcuni autori (Phillip et al., 2010).
In Italia le caratteristiche dell’agriturismo sono definite in un processo dinamico Hausmann,
9). Inoltre
il caso italiano, seppur con le sue differenze regionali, mostra che l’agriturismo non un fenomeno recente,
a differenza di altra parte della letteratura Arroyo et al.,
; Telfer et al., 996). L’attività agrituristica,
successivamente al primo provvedimento del 1985, trova il suo principale riferimento nella Legge Quadro
n.96 del 2006, traslata con diverse modalità dalle Regioni in strumenti operativi. In essa sono presenti
alcuni punti comuni e vincolanti che costituiscono l’architrave dell’impostazione di questo contributo: in
particolare la doppia accezione del concetto di prevalenza, relativa al fatturato agricolo e all’utilizzazione
dei prodotti offerti, che rende quest’attività, quando turistica, una tipologia specifica e ben differenziata
dalle altre forme di offerta. Inoltre nelle recenti normative a livello statale L.98/
3, cosiddetto “Decreto
del Fare”), stata introdotta la possibilità di somministrare i prodotti della propria attività per tutte le
aziende agricole, seppur senza l’assistenza al tavolo. Tale innovazione va inquadrata in una visione sempre
più sistemica del turismo rurale su scala locale. In questo senso deve essere valutata anche la possibilità
fornita dal recente Regolamento della Regione Lazio in materia di agriturismo, n.6 del 17 marzo 2014; esso
permette diverse soluzioni per l’imprenditore agrituristico che non sia in grado con la propria produzione di
soddisfare la duplice domanda di somministrazione e di vendita del prodotto: per evitare che debba
scegliere la soluzione più remunerativa dal punto di vista economico (somministrazione) a scapito della
33
promozione dei prodotti (attraverso ala vendita), la nuova normativa prevede la possibilità di avvalersi di
prodotto delle aziende prossime, anche non agrituristiche. L’agriturismo perciò sempre più una struttura
di offerta dinamica e diversificata e si configura in diversi modelli, secondo della localizzazione
territoriale: il modello tradizionale nato dalle caratteristiche agricole del territorio, come quello mezzadrile
di sostegno al reddito agricolo che può svolgersi con o senza ristorazione; l’agriturismo del mare,
localizzato in prossimità delle località balneari; l’agriturismo situato in aree protette; infine il modello più
recente, multifunzionale, basato sui principali presupposti della Politica Agricola Comune (Hausmann,
2009).
3.1 La consistenza degli agriturismo nel Lazio
L’analisi degli agriturismo del Lazio condotta rispetto alle tre variabili: strutture, posti letto e dimensione
media. La distribuzione territoriale in termini di strutture e posti letto mostra la medesima tendenza. La
maggiore diffusione di agriturismo è localizzata nella parte settentrionale della regione, nella provincia di
Viterbo, dove si concentrano 13 dei 22 comuni con più di cinque strutture: Acquapendente, Bolsena,
Montalto di Castro, Proceno e il capoluogo Viterbo (classe superiore - almeno 10 strutture); Bagnoregio,
Civitella d'Agliano, Farnese, Ischia di Castro, Lubriano, Montefiascone, Tarquinia e Tuscania nella
seconda classe (da 5 a 9). Nel resto della regione tutti gli altri comuni appartengono alle classi inferiori,
con esclusione di Roma, appartenente alla classe superiore, e pochi altri casi nella seconda classe:
Accumoli, Amatrice, Fara in Sabina e Rieti nel Reatino; Aprilia, Sabaudia e Terracina nell’area litoranea
meridionale. A livello generale appare evidente la scarsa presenza di strutture ricettive nelle zone interne,
in particolare centrali e meridionali. Tale tendenza è confermata dalla distribuzione per posti letto. I
risultati della distribuzione in termini di dimensione media degli agriturismo differiscono parzialmente. I
31 comuni con una dimensione media superiore ai 20 posti letto sono diffusi:
- nella parte settentrionale, fra cui Canino, Farnese ed Ischia di Castro;
- nell’area contigua al sistema lacuale di Bracciano e Martignano (Canale Monterano);
- a nord, fra cui Caprarola e Ronciglione;
- nell’hinterland del comune di Roma, Ardea, Fiumicino, Guidonia Montecelio, Tivoli;
- nell’area dei Castelli Romani, Ariccia, Genzano di Roma e Grottaferrata.
Altri comuni appartenenti alla classe superiore sono localizzati nel Reatino (Petrella Salto, Varco Sabino e
Tarrano). In tutti questi casi, la dimensione media mostra una copertura omogenea del territorio,
caratterizzata dalla presenza di comuni con una rilevanza significativa della variabile attorno ai comuni
appartenenti alla classe superiore. L’eccezione a questa tendenza rappresentata dai comuni di Arpino e
Ceccano nel Frusinate. Infine, seppur non caratterizzata da valori particolarmente elevati, la tutto il litorale
a sud di Roma, da Ardea fino a Terracina, mostra una tendenza di discreta ricettività media lungo.
34
a)strutture
b) posti letto
c) dimensione media
Figura 2 Consistenza degli agriturismo del Lazio
Elaborazione propria su dati Istat, 2013
In totale sono 8 i comuni caratterizzati dall’assenza della forma ricettiva dell’agriturismo 55% del
totale). In termini di composizione, queste strutture pesano per il 7,1% sul totale della forma di ricettività
complementare e per il 5,4% sulla complessiva. In termini di posti letto entrambi due rapporti scendono al
4,7% e al 2,2%, rispettivamente. Il rapporto fra agriturismo e ricettività alberghiera è pari al 23% per le
strutture e al 4% in termini di posti letto. I dati sono riportati nella Tabella 2.
Tabella 2 Confronto offerta ricettiva e agriturismo nel Lazio
STRUTTURE
AGRITURISMO
%
460
POSTI LETTO
%
6433
TOTALE ESERCIZI COMPLEMENTARI
6.504
7,1%
136.688
4,7%
TOTALE ESERCIZI RICETTIVI
8.506
5,4%
298.400
2,2%
ALBERGHI
2.002
23,0%
161.712
4,0%
Elaborazione su dati Istat, 2013
La minore dimensione media delle strutture agrituristiche rispetto alle altre forme della ricettività è
confermata nella Tabella 3, in cui sono riportati i dati rispetto alle medie per comuni. La dimensione media
in termini di posti letto dell’agriturismo 6, ) inferiore a quella dell’offerta extra-alberghiera (16) e del
totale del sistema ricettivo (20,4). Tale differenza è in modo consistente inferiore se confrontata a quella
degli alberghi (24,4). In media nei comuni del Lazio ci sono 1,2 strutture agrituristiche e 17 posti letto
offerti, a fronte di 5,3 alberghi e 427,8 posti in letto. Il Lazio è caratterizzato da una media di 17,2 esercizi
35
ricettivi a cui corrispondono 361,6 posti letto e da una complessiva ricettività media di 22,5 esercizi per
comune 789,4 posti letto). A parte l’evidente preso preponderante della forma alberghiera, il dato va
normalizzato considerando il peso del comune di Roma (5.049 esercizi per oltre 151 mila posti letto).
Tabella 3 Consistenza dell’offerta ricettiva media nei comuni del Lazio
AGRITURISMO
ALBERGHI
TOTALE COMPLEMENTARI
TOTALE RICETTIVO
STRUTTURE
1,2
5,3
17,2
22,5
POSTI LETTO
17
427,8
361,6
789,4
6,2
24,4
16
20,4
DIMENSIONE MEDIA
POSTI LETTO
Elaborazione su dati Istat, 2013
3.2 Aziende agricole ed agriturismo nel Lazio
Nel Lazio si contano oltre 98 mila aziende agricole (98.216) orientate alla soddisfazione della domanda
proveniente dal mercato di Roma e in parte a quella locale, comprese le attività turistiche. Il grado di
innovazione è molto basso e la maggior parte delle imprese sono definite non informatizzate (95.211 97%). Sono state prese in considerazione in questa sezione le aziende agricole e zootecniche da chiunque
condotte, la cui dimensione media in termini di superficie o di consistenza del bestiame allevato siano
uguali o superiori alle soglie minime fissate dall'Istat nel rispetto di quanto stabilito dagli attuali
regolamenti europei. La costruzione della rappresentazione del dato di questa parte di analisi si basa sulla
predisposizione di quattro classi costruite in base alla media e alla mediana della distribuzione percentuale
del rapporto fra agriturismo e aziende agricole. L’analisi del territorio del Lazio, mostra una maggiore
predisposizione all’introduzione dell’attività agrituristica nei territori periferici, localizzati al confine con le
regioni di Toscana, Umbria, Abruzzo e Molise. Fra i 170 comuni dove il valore è significativo, ossia
caratterizzati dalla presenza di un agriturismo, il valore medio della distribuzione percentuale è 1,75%, con
un valore massimo di 16,67%.
36
Figura 3 Rapporto fra agriturismo e aziende agricole nel Lazio
Elaborazione propria su dati Istat, 2013
-
-
I sei comuni in cui si registra il valore più alto del rapporto sono localizzati in specifiche aree:
nella parte settentrionale della provincia di Viterbo, ci sono i due comuni appartenenti alla classe
più alta (Acquapendente e Proceno) e 6 comuni che rilevano un valore superiore alla media e
limitrofi ai primi due (Bagnoregio, Bolsena, Castiglione in Teverina, Farnese, Lubriano, San
Lorenzo Nuovo);
nella punta estrema della provincia di Rieti, il comune di Accumoli (classe più alta) è situato in
prossimità sia di Amatrice, Città Reale e Posta classe superiore alla media) sia di quelli dell’altra
area della medesima provincia rilevante per concentrazione, Ascrea, Castel di Tora, Varco Sabino e
37
Turania; quest’ultimo comune rileva il valore massimo del rapporto 6,7%); nell’intorno di questo
gruppo, sono concentrati altri 5 comuni con valore superiore alla media.
La distribuzione a livello regionale evidenzia la tendenza alla concentrazione di più comuni con valori
significativi e una diffusione dei comuni appartenenti alle due classi inferiori nel resto del territorio, con
eccezione dell’isola di Ventotene, nella provincia di Latina. I risultati sono presentati nella Figura 3.
4.
Relazione territoriale fra agriturismo e produzioni tipiche
La parte conclusiva dell’analisi si concentra sulla dinamica localizzativa delle strutture agrituristiche
rispetto alle produzioni tipiche. Il primo fenomeno rilevato concerne la presenza/assenza di agriturismo nei
comuni, dove esistono o sono rilevanti le produzioni tipiche. La Figura 4 evidenzia come più della metà dei
comuni caratterizzati da almeno una produzione tipica, siano sprovvisti di agriturismo (208 comuni- 55%);
di questi, in 122 comuni (32,2% sul totale) non sono presenti strutture alberghiere e 50 (13,2% sul totale)
sono caratterizzati dall’assenza di qualsiasi forma di ricettività.
Alcuni di questi comuni sono caratterizzati dalla presenza di diversi prodotti tipici (14 comuni con almeno
5 prodotti). La configurazione territoriale è eterogenea. I quattro comuni limitrofi della parte settentrionale
della Tuscia (Gradoli, Latera, Onano e Piansano, di cui il primo con 7 prodotti tipici) sono situati in
un’area fortemente caratterizzata dalla presenza di agriturismo. I comuni dispersi nel Reatino appaiono
prossimi ad altri con rilevante offerta agrituristica, il cui caso più rilevante è Poggio Mirteto nella bassa
Sabina 7 prodotti). Lo stesso accade per i comuni situati all’estrema periferia sudorientale della regione,
nel Frusinate, e per quelli dell’entroterra meridionale della provincia di Latina, come Monte San Biagio (8
prodotti). In questi ultimi due casi la presenza di agriturismo è inferiore e meno diffusa rispetto alla Tuscia
e alla Sabina.
Tendenza opposta si rileva nell’entroterra della provincia di Roma, in cui Artena (9 produzioni tipiche) e
Segni (8), ma anche Carpineto Romano, Montelanico, Gavignano e Gorga, localizzati in un territorio
particolare per conformazione geomorfologica, non sono serviti neppure da strutture agrituristiche
localizzate nei comuni prossimi. Discorso a parte per Monterotondo, nell’immediato hinterland di Roma,
caratterizzato da 24 produzioni tipiche, il valore in assoluto più alto: in questo caso il fattore localizzativo
appare dipendere maggiormente dal posizionamento in prossimità di un mercato di consumo di enormi
dimensioni; nel suo intorno si registra, comunque, una presenza, seppur residuale, di agriturismo.
Di converso, nei 21 comuni con almeno 5 agriturismo, la presenza di prodotti tipici appare significativa: in
nessun comune si rileva l’assenza di queste produzioni. Il valore minimo di questo sottoinsieme della
distribuzione è 3, la media è in linea con la media di tutta la distribuzione 5,7. I due comuni con maggiori
produzioni tipiche, Acquapendente (11) e Bolsena (10) hanno rispettivamente 21 e 19 agriturismi. Gli altri
due comuni con rilevanza di produzioni tipiche sono grandi comuni: il capoluogo di provincia Viterbo (10
produzioni tipiche e 19 agriturismo) e quello di Regione, Roma (11 produzioni tipiche e 23 agriturismo).
38
Figura 4 Comuni senza agriturismo e con prodotti tipici
Elaborazione propria, 2014
L’ultima parte dell’analisi sulla relazione fra agriturismo e produzioni tipiche, condotta attraverso la
costruzione di cinque scenari differenti, caratterizzati dal confronto della localizzazione delle strutture
agrituristiche in rapporto con diversi “sotto-panieri” di prodotti tipici; a prescindere dall’esigenza di
costruire una descrizione rappresentativa dello stato dei prodotti tipici, la scelta di procedere attraverso una
modalità diversificata, è un tentativo di approccio di sintesi legato ai processi territoriali. Nel primo caso,
con un approccio qualitativo sono stati costruiti, attraverso la collaborazione di testimoni privilegiati
(Agenzie del territorio ed associazioni di categorie agricole) tre panieri; nel secondo caso, con un approccio
39
quantitativo, dipendente dalla diffusione delle produzioni per comune, si è proceduto alla definizione di
altri due panieri. La sintesi della Tabella 4 riporta anche la numerosità dei prodotti per paniere.
Tabella 4 Caratteristiche degli scenari
SCENARIO
PRODOTTI
TIPOLOGIA
SCENARIO 1
5
QUALITATIVA
SCENARIO 2
9
QUALITATIVA
SCENARIO 3
10
QUANTITATIVA
SCENARIO 4
13
QUALITATIVA
SCENARIO 5
21
QUANTITATIVA
NOTE
PRODOTTI PRESENTI IN 30 COMUNI
PRODOTTI PRESENTI IN 10 COMUNI
Elaborazione propria, 2014
Il primo scenario (Figura 5) è basato sulla selezione qualitativa di 5 prodotti tipici primariamente rilevanti:
Vino, Olio EVO, Pecorino, Ricotta, Carciofo. I primi due presentano un’elevata diffusione nei comuni del
Lazio, 36,8% e 41,5%. La diffusione degli altri tre è inferiore (7,9% per i primi due e 5,8% per il
Carciofo); sono tuttavia prodotti conosciuti, anche attraverso l’apposizione del termine “romano” o
“romanesco”. Il secondo scenario Figura 6), qualitativo, prende in considerazione 9 produzioni; ai 5 del
primo paniere ne sono aggiunti altri 4: Kiwi, Castagna, Cece e Nocciola; il grado di diffusione nei comuni
di questi è rispettivamente: 7,9%, 20,6%, 6,3% e 10,1%. Il terzo scenario (Figura 7) è simile al secondo sia
dal punto di vista dimensionale (numero di prodotti considerati, 10 contro 9) che per tipologia. Esso è
costruito, però, con una modalità quantitativa, ossia considerando la diffusione delle produzioni tipiche in
almeno 30 comuni. Come è possibile desumere dalla Tabella 5, 7 prodotti del secondo scenario sono i
medesimi di quelli del terzo (Vino, Olio EVO, Pecorino, Ricotta, Castagna, Cece, Nocciola). Carciofo e il
Kiwi sono sostituiti da prodotti legati alle attività dell’allevamento: Carni Suine, Formaggi Caprini e
Formaggi Ovini.
Tabella 5 Confronto prodotti tipici - Scenari 2 e 3
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
VINO
VINO
OLIO EXTRAVERGINE D'OLIVA
OLIO EXTRAVERGINE D'OLIVA
PECORINO
PECORINO
RICOTTA
RICOTTA
CASTAGNA
CASTAGNA
CECE
CECE
NOCCIOLA
NOCCIOLA
CARCIOFO
CARNI SUINE
KIWII
FORMAGGI CAPRINI
FORMAGGI OVINI
Elaborazione propria, 2014
40
Tali considerazioni appaiono essere a sostegno della coerenza fra le metodologie qualitative e quantitative.
Per le premesse fatte, i nuovi prodotti rilevano una maggiore diffusione per comune: 10,1% per le Carni
suine, 12,7% per i Formaggi Caprini e 9,5% per quelli Ovini. Il quarto scenario (Figura 8) considera 13
prodotti: 4 nuovi rispetto al secondo scenario (Ciliegia, Fagiolo, Fragola, Tartufo) che sono diffusi in un
numero minore di comuni e presentano una differenziata riconoscibilità legata alle tradizioni
enogastronomiche laziali e caratterizzata anche dalla presenza nei diversi territori della regione di eventi,
sagre e fiere. La diffusione di questi è 4,8% per la Ciliegia, 6,9% per il Fagiolo, 2,9% per la Fragola, 3,4%
per il Tartufo.
Infine il quinto scenario (Figura 9) contiene un paniere di 21 prodotti diffusi in almeno 10 comuni della
regione; sono introdotti: il Kiwi non presente nella precedente ipotesi quantitativa; Ciliegia, Fagiolo,
Fragola e Tartufo inseriti già nella quarta ipotesi; altri completamente nuovi: Formaggi e Latte, Formaggi
Vaccini, Broccoletti, Cicerchia, Patate e Peperoni. In media la diffusione per comune dell’intero paniere di
questi prodotti è di poco inferiore al 10% (9,8%), come si può desumere dalla Tabella 6.
Tabella 6 Diffusione comunale dei prodotti tipici – Scenario 5
PRODOTTO TIPICO
DIFFUSIONE PER COMUNE
PRODOTTO TIPICO
DIFFUSIONE PER COMUNE
VINO
36,8%
CICERCHIA
3,7%
OLIO EXTRAVERGINE D'OLIVA
41,5%
CILIEGIA
4,8%
FORMAGGI CAPRINI
12,7%
FAGIOLO
6,9%
FORMAGGI E LATTE
4,2%
FRAGOLA
2,9%
FORMAGGI OVINI
9,5%
KIWII
6,3%
FORMAGGI VACCINI
2,9%
NOCCIOLA
10,1%
PECORINO
7,9%
PATATA
2,6%
RICOTTA
7,9%
PEPERONE
2,6%
BROCCOLETTI
1,1%
TARTUFO
3,4%
CASTAGNA
7,9%
CARNI SUINE
10,1%
CECE
20,6%
MEDIA
12,5%
Elaborazione propria, 2014
41
a) Diffusione prodotti tipici
b) Agriturismo e totale dei prodotti tipici
Figura 5 Scenario 1
Elaborazione propria, 2014
a) Diffusione prodotti tipici
Figura 6 Scenario 2
Elaborazione propria, 2014
b) Agriturismo e totale dei prodotti tipici
42
a) Diffusione prodotti tipici
b) Agriturismo e totale dei prodotti tipici
Figura 7 Scenario 3
Elaborazione propria, 2014
a) Diffusione prodotti tipici
Figura 8 Scenario 4
Elaborazione propria, 2014
b) Agriturismo e totale dei prodotti tipici
43
a) Diffusione prodotti tipici
b) Agriturismo e totale dei prodotti tipici
Figura 9 – Scenario 5
Elaborazione propria, 2014
5. Ipotesi di aggregazioni territoriali
La metodologia condotta, stante i diversi scenari individuati, pone l’attenzione sul complesso della
dinamica agriturismo-prodotti tipici. Il grado di correlazione a livello territoriale fra i due fenomeni è
evidente. La rilevazione statistica, circa pari a 0,4, è stata calcolata sia rispetto alle strutture che al numero
di posti letto per comune: uno dei fattori determinanti è la possibilità che gli agriturismo non svolgano la
funzione ricettiva. La configurazione territoriale della localizzazione di agriturismo e produzioni tipiche
sembra individuare specifiche forme di aggregazione. La possibile traccia di analisi per rendere coerente il
discorso fin qui avviato è quella di considerare concentrazioni e localizzazioni produttive, inserendo i
modelli agrituristici estesi alla funzionalità territoriale1. Le ipotesi di aggregazione sono riportate nella
Figura 10.
La prima aggregazione a nord coincide pressoché con la regione storico-geografica della Tuscia, nella
quale possibile rilevare la coesistenza dei due diversi modelli di funzionalità territoriale dell’agriturismo:
il primo localizzato verso il litorale e il secondo nell’entroterra. Nel primo caso, “agriturismo del mare”, la
presenza di produzioni tipiche può assumere la duplice funzione di valore aggiunto del comparto turistico e
sostegno alla produzione agricola. Le produzioni più caratterizzanti sono Vino, Olio Extravergine di oliva,
fra cui il “Canino DOP”, e carciofo. Nel secondo caso, il raggruppamento territoriale rilevato si configura
come agriturismo tradizionale e maturo in possibile fase di passaggio verso il modello multifunzionale. Le
produzioni tipiche sono un fattore localizzativo, tenendo presente anche il ruolo dei due prodotti
maggiormente diffusi: Vino e Olio entrambi i due marchi “Canino Dop” e “Tuscia Dop”); ma anche la
nocciola e, in misura minore, il pecorino. Questo territorio è caratterizzato dalla presenza di differenziate
1
I modelli si riferiscono alla classificazione riportata nel par. 3, Cfr. Hausmann (2009)
44
attrattive turistiche: arte, terme, lago, percorsi religiosi, come Bagnoregio e Bomarzo. E’ anche il territorio
di uno dei quattro itinerari enogastronomici laziali, la Strada del Vino delle Terre Etrusco-romane. Alcuni
comuni (Ischia di Castro e Piansano) possono essere presenti in entrambi i raggruppamenti e sembrano
configurarsi come un elemento di cerniera fra essi. Questa considerazione, aggiunta alla prossimità della
regione Toscana, territorio fecondo per agriturismo e itinerari enogastronomici, induce alla strutturazione
di quello che può essere definito un sistema territoriale laddove è rilevante anche la presenza di altre
tipologie ricettive.
Nella parte centrale e orientale del Lazio, è possibile individuare altre due aggregazioni. La prima,
localizzata nell’estrema periferia del Reatino che si incunea fra Umbria e Abruzzo, l’area del Terminillo,
caratterizzata dalla presenza della produzione di Olio Extra Vergine di oliva e di una gamma di produzione
diversificata, in cui assumono un carattere distintivo alcuni prodotti, fra cui i formaggi e il tartufo. I comuni
in questo caso sono relativamente numerosi, anche a causa della limitata estensione territoriale e delle
caratteristiche geomorfologiche di un territorio caratterizzato dall’altitudine superiore alla media della
regione e rispondono al modello tradizionale di agriturismo. La seconda aggregazione è costituita dalla
Sabina che dal basso Reatino giunge fino all’area di Roma; gli elementi determinanti sono l’aumento della
dimensione media delle strutture agrituristiche e la scarsa diffusione di altre strutture ricettive, insieme con
la rilevanza di aziende che svolgono esclusivamente o principalmente il servizio di ristorazione. Questa
aggregazione, funzionale alla posizione geografica, è caratterizzata da pochi comuni di media ed elevata
estensione, con una produzione tipica orientata su un prodotto ’”Olio Sabina DOP” - valorizzata anche
dall’itinerario enogastronomico della Strada dell’Olio - ed in misura minore sulla produzione della
Ciliegia.
L’anello periurbano di Roma può essere suddiviso in tre sotto-gruppi; in parte funzionali al turismo
culturale-artistico-religioso di Roma; in parte legato direttamente all’attività agricola per il soddisfacimento
del mercato locale e alla domanda di escursionismo della popolazione dell’area metropolitana di Roma, di
turismo locale e internazionale. La prima area, estesa a nord-ovest fra il litorale e il sistema lacuale di
Bracciano e Martignano composta da comuni litoranei e dell’entroterra, dipendenti dalla risorsa marelago e dalla prossimità geografica con il comune di Roma. Una seconda aggregazione è composta
dall’immediata periferia nordorientale del comune di Roma, in cui situato Monterotondo, il comune con
il maggior numero di prodotti tipici in valore assoluto; questa concentrazione è fortemente caratterizzata
dall’assenza della soluzione della continuità urbana e da una forte differenziazione di prodotti. In questo
caso le strutture agrituristiche possono essere considerate in parte tradizionali e in parte multifunzionali.
Infine l’area dei Castelli, caratterizzata dalla produzione di Vino, fra cui il Cannellino DOCG, Carni come
la Porchetta di Ariccia) e Fragole, lungo l’itinerario della “Strada del Vino dei Castelli Romani” e in
prossimità del sistema lacuale omonimo.
Nella parte meridionale della regione è possibile considerare, infine, tre ulteriori concentrazioni territoriali.
La prima, relativamente prossima al comune di Roma, l’estesa area che dalla provincia meridionale di
Roma (comuni di Anzio e Nettuno), lungo il litorale giunge fino a San Felice Circeo, passando per il
comune di Latina; raggruppamento che dal punto di vista funzionale-territoriale può agevolmente essere
riconducibile al modello “agriturismo del mare” e caratterizzata da una discreta gamma di produzioni
tipiche, come il Kiwi di Latina. Lungo il litorale meridionale della regione, l’altra aggregazione costituisce
un sistema territoriale a vocazione balneare con inspessite relazioni con l’entroterra, in particolare per
l’offerta ricettiva agrituristica, intorno ai comuni di Gaeta, Fondi, Sperlonga e Itri. Il modello di
agriturismo del mare in questo caso mostra una forte vivacità legato a specifiche produzioni tipiche, anche
45
di dimensione rilevante come quella del Vino e dei Formaggi bovini. L’ultima aggregazione differente
dalle precedenti e di dimensioni minori: è localizzata nella parte interna e orientale della regione, al confine
con la Regione Molise, nella Val Comino del Frusinate.
Figura 10 Ipotesi di aggregazione territoriale Elaborazione propria, 2014
6.
Considerazioni conclusive
La reciprocità fra filiera agricola dei prodotti tipici e agriturismo è un fattore strategico del modello di
sviluppo turistico al fine di rendere distintiva l’immagine del territorio, la sua individuazione ed il suo
riconoscimento. Il processo di aggregazione di un territorio partendo da queste caratteristiche è un
potenziale strumento di competitività dell’economia locale. In particolare, l’agriturismo sembra
46
rappresentare la forma di fruizione che garantisce l’esclusività e la tipicità del prodotto tipico. La
valorizzazione sinergica di filiera enogastronomica, sistema di accoglienza e specifiche località è alla base
della promozione turistica, partendo dai quattro itinerari enogastronomici, con l’obiettivo della creazione di
un sistema territoriale identitario, fondato sull’agricoltura e caratterizzato dall’integrazione del turismo
nell’economia locale sostegno all’attività agricola, strumenti di promozione, infrastrutture, finanza e
credito). Situazione che appare potenzialmente in atto nel caso della Tuscia ed in modo minore nella
Sabina e nell’area litoranea meridionale.
Un ulteriore spunto di riflessione, quindi, che questo approccio vuole offrire è la maggiore consapevolezza
del carattere funzionale delle strutture agrituristiche ai fini della valorizzazione del potenziale sistemico di
un territorio. In questo senso l’ampliamento delle attività dell’agriturismo verso forme multifunzionali può
essere il presupposto di un’ulteriore crescita in termini moltiplicativi degli impatti del turismo sul territorio.
Si modifica la relazione territorio e filiera produttiva (agroalimentare-turismo), attraverso l’evoluzione
dell’agriturismo: ) estensione, l’agriturismo offre anche la vendita avvalendosi delle aziende limitrofe; 2)
diversificazione, l’agriturismo offre attività turistiche specifiche, altre attività accessorie fattorie
didattiche) ed attività di vendita di prodotti artigianali e di servizi (sportive e wellness).
La valorizzazione del prodotto culturale nella sua più ampia accezione (arte, storia, natura, mare,
montagna, terme) è turismo made in Italy, che significa valore aggiunto turistico e indotto, in conseguenza
della sinergia con la filiera agroalimentare (made in Italy dei prodotti tipici). Esso può rappresentare un
importante fattore di successo nella sfida competitiva: uno sviluppo locale turistico che dipende
dall’integrazione del settore con il resto dell’economia. Per comprendere la relazione fra sviluppo locale,
sostenibilità del turismo rurale e sistema dell’accoglienza in questo percorso di sviluppo locale,
necessario incentrare il sistema territoriale sull’agriturismo in senso globale e sull’interazione fra la ruralità
e la tipicità e le differenti combinazioni fra fattori chiave: l’agriturismo visto non solo come forma di
offerta coerente con un turismo rurale, ma come una visione nuova del prodotto turistico.
Bibliografia
Amin A. (1998), Una prospettiva neo-istituzionalista dello sviluppo locale, in Sviluppo locale, vol.V, n.8.
Arroyo C.G., Carla Barbieri C., Rozier Rich S. (2013), Defining agritourism: A comparative study of
stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina, Tourism Management, n. 37 39 e 47.
Brogna M. (2009), L’aggregazione del territorio per lo sviluppo turistico, in Celant A., Ferri M.A. (a cura
di), L’Italia. Il declino economico e la forza del turismo. Fattori di vulnerabilità e potenziale competitivo
di un settore strategico, Marchesi, Roma.
Butler R.W. (2000), Tourism natural resources and remote areas in APDR Tourism sustainability and
territorial organization, Summer Institute of the European Regional Science Association.
Butler R.W., Pearce D.G. (1999), Contemporary issues in tourism development, Routledge Advance in
Tourism, Londra.
Celant A., Ferri M.A. (2009) a cura di, L’Italia. Il declino economico e la forza del turismo.Fattori di
vulnerabilità e potenziale competitivo di un settore strategico, Marchesi, Roma.
Celant A. a cura di (2001), Sviluppo rurale e agriturismo di qualità nel mezzogiorno, Patron, Bologna.
Celant A. (1999), Gli apporti del turismo e il loro contributo alla formazione degli squilibri territoriali in
Italia, in Colantoni M. (a cura di), Turismo: una tappa per la ricerca, Patron, Bologna.
47
Dallari F. (2007), Distretti turistici tra sviluppo locale e cooperazione interregionale, in Bencardino F.,
Prezioso M., Geografia del turismo, McGraw-Hill, Milano.
Dallari F. (2006), Il turismo per lo sviluppo locale, in Dallari F., Mariotti A. (a cura di), Turismo. Fra lo
sviluppo locale e cooperazione interregionale, Patron, Bologna.
Dallari F. (2005), L'iconografia tra pianificazione paesaggistica e governo del territorio, in Contro il
degrado del paesaggio verso il governo della complessità territoriale, Alinea, Firenze.
Dallari F., Grandi S. (2005), Economia e Geografia del Turismo. L’occasione dei GIS, Patron, Bologna.
Dallari F. (2004), I sistemi locali di offerta turistica e le politiche di sviluppo locale, in GRANTUR,
Turismo e crescita produttiva: fattori locali e competitività del territorio, ROMA, GRANTUR.
Dallari F. (2004), Sviluppo e ricomposizione territoriale: sistemi locali e turismo, in Savelli A., Turismo,
territorio, identità. Ricerche ed esperienze nell’area mediterranea, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Dallen T.J., Boyd Stephen W. (2007), Heritage e turismo (ed. italiana a cura di Bonadei R.), Hoepli,
Milano.
Dredge D., Jenkins J. (2005), Destination place identity and regional tourism policy, Tourism Geographies
5(4).
Fleischer A., Tchetchick A. (2005), Does rural tourism benefit from agriculture?, Tourism Management
26.
Hall C. M., Page S.J. (2002), The geography of tourism and recreation: enviroment, place and space,
Routledge, Londra.
Hausmann C. (2009), L’agriturismo, in Celant A., Ferri M.A. (a cura di), L’Italia. Il declino economico e
la forza del turismo. Fattori di vulnerabilità e potenziale competitivo di un settore strategico, Marchesi,
Roma.
Hausmann C. (2009), Prodotti tipici e qualità del territorio, in Celant A., Ferri M.A. (a cura di), L’Italia.
Il declino economico e la forza del turismo. Fattori di vulnerabilità e potenziale competitivo di un settore
strategico, Marchesi, Roma.
Hausmann C., Di Napoli R., (a cura di) (2001), Lo sviluppo rurale. Turismo rurale e, agriturismo prodotti
agroalimentari, Inea, Quaderno informativo n.4, II edizione aggiornata.
Ioannides D., Debbage K.G. (1998), The Economic Geography of the tourist industry. A supply-side
Analysis, Routledge, Londra-New York.
Lew A., Hall M.C. (a cura di) (1998), Sustainable tourism: a geographical perspective, Logman, New
York.
Lozato-Giotart J.P. (2007), Geografia del turismo: dallo spazio visitato allo spazio consumato (edizione
italiana a cura di Fiorella Dallari), Franco Angeli, Milano.
Mill R.C., Morrison A.M. (1998), The Tourism system: an introductory text 3rd, ed. Kendall and Hunt,
Dubuqe- Iowa.
Ohe Y, Kurihara S. (2014), The Coastal Community Perception on the Socio-Economic Impacts of AgroTourism Activities in Coastal Villages in Malaysia, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research
Paolini D. (2009), Turismo ed enogastronomia, in Celant A., Ferri M.A. (a cura di), L’Italia. Il declino
economico e la forza del turismo. Fattori di vulnerabilità e potenziale competitivo di un settore strategico,
Marchesi, Roma.
Phillip S., Hunter C., Blackstock K. (2010), A typology for defining agritourism, Tourism Management
31, 754–758
48
Pollice F. (2009), Le risorse competitive del territorio, in Celant A., Ferri M.A. (a cura di), L’Italia. Il
declino economico e la forza del turismo. Fattori di vulnerabilità e potenziale competitivo di un settore
strategico, Marchesi, Roma.
Pollice F. (2002), Territori del turismo: una lettura geografica delle politiche del turismo, Franco Angeli.
Milano.
Rocca G. (2000), Turismo, territorio e sviluppo sostenibile: itinerari metodologici e casi studio, Ecig,
Genova.
Salone C. (2005), Politiche territoriali. L’azione collettiva nella dimensione territoriale, Utet, Torino.
Sims R. (2009), Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism experience, Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 17 (3).
Smith M.K. (2003), Issues in cultural tourism studies, Routledge, Londra-New York.
Smith S.L.J.(1989), Tourism analysis. A handbook- 2nd edition, Logman, Edinburgo.
Smith S.L.J. (1988), Defining Tourism: A Supply side View, Annals of Tourism Reserach, n.25.
De Noronha Vaz T., Nijkamp P., Rastoin J.L. (2012), Traditional food production and rural sustainable
development. A European Challenge, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Telfer Wall (1996), Linkage between tourism and food production, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 23,
No. 3, pp. 635-653, 1996
Valentino P. A. (2003), Le trame del territorio: politiche di sviluppo dei sistemi territoriali e distretti
culturali, Sperling & Kupfer, Milano.
Wahab S., Pigram J.J. (a cura di) (1997.), Tourism development and growth, the challenge of
sustainability, Routledge Londra-New York.
Williams S. (1998), Tourism geography, Routledge, Londra-New York.
49
ALESSIO SIDOTI
La partecipazione locale nella gestione degli impatti del turismo come strumento digovernance per lo
sviluppo del turismo sostenibile
Università di Santiago de Compostela e Roma Tor Vergata
Abstract
Il prodotto turistico culturale ha sperimentato negli ultimi anni una crescita costante che attraverso la
promozione del patrimonio culturale ha contribuito a definire l' importanza dell'esperienza emotiva legata
al viaggio, e la sua centralità nella soddisfazione del turista. La comunità locale assume un ruolo strategico
nello sviluppo del turismo, diventando nucleo ed oggetto dell'esperienza turistica. Molti studi hanno
sviluppato modelli per analizzare l'impatto del turismo sulla comunità (Doxey, 1975, Ap, 1992, Choi e
Sirakaya, 2006), concentrandosi inizialmente sugli aspetti economici, risultato di una percezione del
turismo quale industria di servizi legata al raggiungimento del profitto. In seguito, parallelamente alla
consapevolezza dell'eccessivo utilizzo di risorse ambientali e culturali e della necessità dell'industria
turistica di svilupparsi sulla promozione delle stesse (Hall, 2000), si sono sviluppati nuovi filoni di ricerca
legati agli impatti relativi a tali dimensioni. Solo negli ultimi venti anni, con la diffusione del concetto di
sviluppo sostenibile, sono andati diffondendosi approcci alla ricerca turistica capaci di trasformare un
paradigma fondato su presupposti ideologici in azioni operative mirate al raggiungimento degli obiettivi su
cui lo stesso concetto si sviluppa e trova giustificazione (Murphy and Murphy, 2004).
Appare necessario dunque ridisegnare le direzioni degli studi legati alla valutazione degli impatti del
turismo, superando la concezione per cui il beneficio o il costo associato all'impatto sia misurabile
attraverso il livello di percezione del residente e la sua propensione ad offrire supporto allo sviluppo del
turismo. Il sostegno dei residenti allo sviluppo del turismo è infatti positivamente correlato con una
positiva percezione degli impatti del turismo (Vargas Sanchez et al., 2009). La vasta letteratura sugli
impatti ha evidenziato l'eterogeneità delle percezioni di impatti (Gursoy e Rutherford, 2004) e la presenza
di fattori predittivi, definiti intrinseci ed estrinseci (Lankford e Howard, 1994).
Pochi studi hanno esaminato il concetto di partecipazione dei cittadini alla pianificazione del turismo e la
sua influenza nel plasmare la percezione degli impatti del turismo, o meglio nel giudicare ed indirizzare la
gestione dell'impatto stesso (Yon, 1998, Choi e Sirakaya). Adottando l'approccio del tourism community
approach (Murphy, 1985), è necessario esaminare il ruolo che la partecipazione riveste in termini di
percezione e di sostegno allo sviluppo del turismo. In tal senso è necessario considerare il concetto di
partecipazione locale nella pianificazione del turismo nell'ambito delle caratteristiche che definiscono la
destinazione: in primis esaminando la governance, poi individuando le diverse forme di partecipazione ed i
limiti tecnico strutturali ad essa collegati (Tosun, 2006), con l'obiettivo di trasformare gli input della
comunità in azioni effettive di governance.
Appare necessario costruire un modello operativo che ipotizzi l'influenza della variabile partecipazione
sulla formazione della percezione positiva degli impatti, che a sua volta produca il sostegno per lo sviluppo
turistico. In termini più generali è necessario estendere la partecipazione e incoraggiare i residenti a
sostenere la creazione di una città ospitale e coesa, offrendo input ed informazioni destinate agli attori
chiave impegnati nella pianificazione e nella gestione del turismo.
50
BIBLIOGRAFIA
Ap, J., Residents’ perceptions on tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 9
99 ), 665-690.
Choi, H., Sirakaya, E., Measuring residents’ attitude toward sustainable tourism: development of
sustainable tourism attitude scale, Journal of Travel Research, 43 (2005), 380-394.
Doxey, G.V., A causation theory of visitor-resident irritants: Methodology and research inferences, Travel
and Tourism Research Associations Sixth Annual Conference Proceedings, (1975), 195-98.
Deery M., Jago L, Fredline L., Rethinking social impacts of tourism research: A new research agenda,
Tourism Management 33 (2012), 64-73.
Gursoy D., Rutherford D, Host attitudes toward tourism. An improved structural model, Annals of Tourism
Research, 31 (2004), 495-516.
Hall C.M., Tourism planning, Prentice Hall, Singapore, 2000.
Lankford S.V., Howard D.R., Developing a tourism impact scale. Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (1994),
121-39.
Murphy, P.E., Tourism: A Community Approach. London, 1985.
Murphy, P.E., Murphy A., Strategic management for tourism communities, Channel View, 2004.
Tosun C., Expected nature of community participation in tourism development, Tourism Management 27
(2006), 493-504.
Vargas-Sanchez A., Porras-Bueno N., Plaza-Mejıa M., Explaining residents' attitude to tourism. Is a
universal model possible? Annals of Tourism Research, 38 (2011), 460-480.
Yon Y., Determinants of Urban Residents Perceived Tourism Impacts. A Study on the Williamsburg and
Virginia Beach Areas, 1998, Phd dissertation.
51
IVELYNA YOVEVA
Strategic Networks for Sustainable Tourism Development
International University College, Economics and Management Department, Bulgaria
Abstract: This paper proposes an innovative approach towards introduction of an up-to-date sustainable
development philosophy founded on the principles of combination and balance of common and individual
interests on multilateral perspective, i.e. individuals vs. organizations, public groups vs. governmental
authorities, industry vs. macroeconomic development, nation states vs. international regional development
etc. The optimal implementation of such an approach is imminently dependent on an authentic selfawareness of own identity, values, purposes and motivation for positive contribution to the common wellbeing. The author’s arguments are based on the conviction that when more individuals and organizations
harness deeper understanding of the mutual benefits within their operations area and undertake
collaborative efforts to solve common problem their steadfast long-term development may be secured even
in times of social-economic-political-eco-etc. crises and within a dynamically changing environment.
Main purpose of current article is the concentration of the research on looking for and applying the
principles of consistency, exchange of good collaborative practices and consequently strategic and
operational utilization of the synergy effect, systems thinking and the holistic approach. Collaborative
efforts would lead to greater effectiveness and optimization that satisfies individual and common interests
in multiple environmental dimensions. The study aims to analyze the potential of a new network paradigm
for provision of effectively applied strategies within the contemporary sustainable development context.
Some good practices within the area of joint development of sustainable strategic networks in tourism
industry in Bulgaria are presented. A case study of a culinary and hospitality cluster recently established in
the Dobrudzha region is about to demonstrates the strategic network viability and sustainability in a
contemporary agricultural geographic context.
Key words: sustainability, innovations, network effectiveness, systems thinking, synergy, tourism,
culinary arts, hospitality
The environment today
The sustainable development concept places in its center the long-term environmental positive progress
(Brundtland report, 1987). In that period a common saying within the report discussions states the
following: “A communications gap has kept environmental, population, and development assistance
groups apart for too long, preventing us from being aware of our common interest and realizing our
combined power. Fortunately, the gap is closing. We now know that what unites us is vastly more
important than what divides us.” Today contemporary circumstances of many entities are still very far from
their practical sustainable advance which should serve as an indicator that sustainable development concept
is more indispensable than ever.
A core symptom of nowadays society and the overall environment progress is defined by many as being
the intensifying dynamics of people, groups and processes. Numerous researchers (Ziemba,2013;
52
Karvalics,2008; Bell,1973; Toffler,1980; Roztocki,2009; Webster,2002), practitioners and organizations as
European Union, OECD, UN and the World bank see the reason in the statement that current realities are
driven by the so called ‘information society”, communication technologies, post industrialization,
internationalization and globalization processes. In the 8 s Toffler introduces the concept of the “third
wave” civilization where the primary resource is information. ICTs, according to him which are based on
the information superhighways and digital networks, determine the future fundamental changes in the
economy and society. Machlup 96 ) has been already contributed to the idea about “knowledge
economy”, thus emphasized not only the crucial information role but also its appropriation and utilization
in the emerging e-reality. He assumes there are so called “information industries” such as education, law,
media, computer industry, etc. and analyses their impact on socio-economic transformation and
development of the economy, thus linking information with economic growth. Drucker(1966) writes about
a new phenomena within the organization calling it “the knowledge worker” concerning people who use
their brains more than their backs at the workplace. In other words last several decades together with other
concomitant events are influenced more and more by rather intellectual than material based factors. The
knowledge management concept (Frand, Jason; Hixon, Carol, 1999; Nonaka, 1995; Smedley, Jo, 2009;
Wright, Kirby, 2005) although still under researched today is providing strategic and operational tools for
creation, development, sharing and effective utilization of the organizational knowledge and represents a
kind of multidisciplinary managerial approach based on the best information usage. Major prerequisite for
its right application is the personal knowledge management which stands for the individual skills, abilities
and competences for self-management of the personal knowledge which is to be used for common
purposes fulfillment. The last highlights the critical importance of the human individual and his/her unique
potential to generate sustainable organizational value.
During recent years vast prominence was given to the concepts about the “soft” or hidden power
(Stephenson, 2003) which relates to the perceptions about human capital, intellectual capital, social capital,
knowledge capital etc. These researches support the idea that intangible nature of knowledge is much more
valuable than the tangible or material resources and provides unexpected opportunities for sustainable
development in the knowledge economy and information age (Wiederhold, 2013; Khavandkar, 2009;
Maddocks, Beaney, 2002; Magrassi, 2002). Numerous authors and scholars nowadays strive to provide
adequate methodologies for intellectual capital financial valuation and asset formation thus demonstrating
its utmost strategic impact on organizational success.
Therefore the following core features of contemporary reality might be brought forward:
- Intense dynamics of processes;
- Increase of information volume made available by the rapid development of Information and
Communication Technologies(ICT);
- Increasing significance of knowledge as crucial driver of the socio-economic development;
- Increasing significance of human potential to utilize knowledge for the effective achievement of goals,
purposes and values fulfillment;
- Inherent characteristics of nowadays environment are its multidimensional and complex nature.
53
Sustainable development today and beyond
The fundamental definition lies in the report of Brundtland commission under the title “Our common
future” http://www.un-documents.net). This definition states: “Sustainable development is development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs”. Therefore classical sustainable development philosophy is built around the concept of balance
between current and future needs. Technology and social organization are perceived as restraining the
environmental (namely the ecological one) core ability to meet those needs. Current paper provides a
peculiar alternative view on above opinion as it offers effective utilization of contemporary emerging
trends for appropriate implementation of the sustainable development strategies within number of
perspectives like personal level, formal and non-formal organizations, industry, regional and international
development according to the so called ‘network approach’. Most of the sustainable development
definitions so far are built in reference to the idea that sustainable development should reflect long-term
preservation of the ecological environment while a multitude of inherent perspectives with the potential to
be sustainably developed have been overlooked and respectively underestimated. Few authors (Paulauskas,
8) refer to sustainability as „new quality of life” and “culture value” criticizing the limited perceptivity
of sustainability concept as just an ethical issue required by some regional governing bodies(as EU, UN
etc). There are some additional researches which are mostly based on the ecological, economic and social
aspects on macro-level rather than giving much account to the individual human development/on microand meso-level/ and its crucial intermediary role in the implementation of current and future sustainable
development strategies. According to Melamed and Ladd
3) “combining human development and
environmental objectives are firmly on the agenda for a new set of global priorities after
5”. This
statement substantiates the fact that it is just this current moment when human development is started being
placed in the center of sustainable development context. According to the Monrovia communiqué future
sustainable growth vision should be ‘people centered and planet sensitive” UN Development Group,
2013). Future MDG goals encompass in other words not only the ecological preservation but also address
poverty reduction through human development based on active educational reassurance which has
minimal negative impact on resource use. For the pertinent fulfillment of those goals the UN Development
Working group foresees organization and accomplishment of relevant partnerships for knowledge and
resource transfer. The last are to be exercised for the overall, community and individual sustainable
growth.
The dynamically changing environment distinguished by new technologies advance, intense market
competition, social and political instability, global and regional trends etc. further enforces the necessity of
firsthand joint measures for proper new realities adaptation. Therefore it may be said contemporary world
stays in front of two extreme options:
1. The continuous lack of on-time appropriate steps to swiftly changing circumstances leads to activity
extinction.
2. If fundamental structural changes in the overall environment are perceived as opportunities not threats
and appropriate steps towards their utilization are undertaken there’s substantial probability the activity not
only to survive but to flourish and develop on a sustainable basis.
Therefore we may say today we encounter new phenomena of a peculiar culture, where integrating and
facilitating the new attitudes of sustainable development into the traditional culture concedes new
opportunities and places new challenges (Paulauskas, 2008).
Systems thinking and holistic approach towards applied sustainability
54
New environmental realities and sustainable development perceptions impose the application of innovative
and unexplored approaches as current circumstances are complicating and intensifying. Hence there is
necessity of complex solution to the complex global, regional, community and individual problems.
Systems thinking stands for a mindset of variety of habits and practices (http://watersfoundation.org)
within a framework based on the belief that the ingredients or component parts of an entity might be best
understood in the context of relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation.
Systems’ thinking focuses on cyclical rather than linear cause and effect (Bertalanffy, 1976; Hutchins,
1996; Meadows, 2008; Seddon, 2008; Vester, 2007). According to such a perception each object of
analysis and management might be accepted as a system on several levels – personal, community level,
corporate organization, non-profit organization, regional system(tourism industry for example), national
system(the nation state), international system(set of international relations) etc. One demonstration of the
systems thinking approach may be observed on Fig.1 where the individual system operation is presented
through the self-management cycle. The subsystems within the individual systems are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Perceptual system through the five senses which contribute to information accumulation
Cognitive system which processes accumulated information in order appropriate decisions to be made
Decision-making system which organizes plans, sets goals and makes decision for action.
Implementation system which executes and works on the purposes fulfillment.
Fig.1.Self-management cycle of a live organism
Source: Paulauskas, 2008
As the model of the system development is cyclical and therefore ceaseless the qualitative analysis and
appropriate manipulation of systemic objects requires an approach to the whole entity, namely a holistic
approach. According to the Meriam-Webster dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com) holistic relates
to or is concerned with the whole or with the complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment
of, or dissection into parts. Consequently a system to be best understood and organized it is necessary one
to have observation on the entire variety of relations or connections among system’s component which
matters more than the components themselves. This represents a kind of systemic-structural approach
(Bedny, Karwowski, 2007) which gives account simultaneously on the overall entity development and its
components specific role for accomplishment of certain progress. According to the holistic approach
different systems like physical, biological, chemical, technological, social, economic, mental, regional,
linguistic, etc. should be perceived as whole separate entities which interact together in order to form an
overall system -environment which is to be sustainably developed. Indeed the changes in certain system
might affect another one which should stimulate the coordination of concerned systems thinking in order to
avoid the negative development of the overall system-environment.
55
According to Bertalanffy(1971) environmental systems are frequently so complex that their behavior is or
appears to be "new" or "emergent". In other words it cannot be studied and understood from the properties
of the elements alone and it is hard to be predicted on the basis of collected information only. Emergence
(Bunge, 2003; Clayton, 2005; Fromm, 2004; Goldstein, 1999) in complex systems is the phenomena how
new complex systems and/or patterns arise out of the multiplicity of relatively simple interactions which
resembles the living creatures organizational behavior.
“Some longitudinal sociological research enabled to discover the regularity that self-management
structures and efficiency of society is nearing a structure and efficiency of self-management of live
organisms” Paulauskas, 999). According to Gordon(2010) individuals in the ant colony for example
switch tasks in response to changes in the environment and interactions with other ants, i.e. the ant
behavior is not just a fixed response to chemical signals. But the complexity of complex biological systems
is not what makes living systems unique. The behavior of ant colonies arises from dynamical networks of
interaction. The author stands for the idea that the pattern of interaction in complex biological systems is
more important than content. Ant colonies perform many different tasks and are about to change tasks if
there are changes occurring in the environment.
A network approach for sustainable development
Networks are collection of links which are combined and influenced by specific rules (http://ed.ted.com).
One of the most crucial networking rules is the collaboration for creation. Over time the connections in the
network may migrate and relate to other subjects and form a new network structure (http://ed.ted.com).
This provides the idea that networks are to be examined within a time frame, in other words they are
dynamic, lively and has to be perceived as changing not static objects. Although most of contemporary
definitions about networks are related mainly to the network technological dimension the online dictionary
states that a network is: “arrangement of intersecting horizontal and vertical lines” and “a group or system
of interconnected people or things”. Two key network features may be observed in mentioned defections,
namely ties or connections and a holistic nature of the networks. The last provides ground for perceiving
networks as a peculiar kind of systems which allows the systemic thinking to be applied in their advanced
study.
According to the University of Twente
3) “network analysis focuses on the relationships between
people, instead of on characteristics of people themselves”. This statement reiterates again the systems’
thinking philosophy and provides ideas how networks may be analyzed and perceived as complex entities,
or systems at a higher level. The same university
3) declares that: “Network analysis techniques focus
on the communication structure of an organization” where the human factor for the network functioning is
introduced. “Structural features that can be distinguished and analyzed through the use of network analysis
techniques are for example the (formal and informal) communication patterns in an organization or the
identification of groups within an organization (cliques or functional groups). Also communication-related
roles of employees can be determined (e.g., stars, gatekeepers, and isolates). Special attention may be
given to specific aspects of communication patterns: communication channels and media used by
employees, the relationship between information types and the resulting communication networks, and the
amount and possibilities of bottom-up communication. Additional characteristics that could, in principle,
be investigated using network analysis techniques are the communication load as perceived by employees,
the communication styles used, and the effectiveness of the information flows.” (http://www.utwente.nl).
The role of communication within the network is presented as crucial driver for the network development.
On Fig.2 the communication process model diagram demonstrates a circular flow of the information where
56
participants are not just senders or recipients but active communicators who actively exchange messages
on a two way basis and are at the same time sources and receivers of the messages. A new subject within
the network reality emerges, i.e. the communicating actor who appears to be strategic node of the
networking system and who behaves as the leading agent of change in the same network. The active
interactions between his/her self-awareness, personal knowledge management, skills, competences, values
and motivation as well as those interactions related with other network members will lead or not to further
positive and sustainable advance.
Fig.2. A Transactional Model of Communication
Source: Foulger, 2004
A possible approach in achieving sustainability and development places the people of the community
(network) in the center of the communication process. This technique also known as the participatory
approach utilizes interpersonal communication through community media (Government of Italy, UNESCO,
World Bank, IDRC, CTA, 2005). The members of the culture are agents of change in the community and
outside it. Technology role then is secondary as people are the development drivers in their social and
economic contexts which lead to a major restructuring process (Government of Italy, UNESCO, World
Bank, IDRC, CTA, 2005).
Communication for social change, referred to as communication for sustainable social change and
development, involves the use of variety of communication techniques to address inefficient systems,
processes, or modes of production within a specific location that has not incurred major technological
advances. Different mediums and approaches are used to help individuals among the targeted society to
acquire new knowledge and skills. This will allow communities not only to experience change but to guide
it as well (Government of Italy, 2005).
Unfortunately the discrepancy between communication goals and real interaction within the network may
hinder network effectiveness and the emergence of a new benefit within and across the network. Game
theory analysis might be helpful here as it contributes to the understanding of network development
because of its ability to differentiate between cooperative intent and strategic reality. It perceives the
absence of anyone of the following three conditions as indicators of network collaboration absence: (1)
every actor‘s motivation is common knowledge, 2) legally binding agreements exist among members, and
(3) all benefits derived from cooperation are returned to the members in a manner they consider equitable
(Ford, E., Wells, R., Bailey, B., 2004). Therefore the consistency between purpose driven information
exchange and real actions undertaken represent crucial prerequisite for transformation of the
group/organization activities into networked ones and thus providing potential for new system formation.
57
The practice of establishment of partnerships(in tourism industry for example), clustering of activities and
formal structures, the stakeholder approach, authentic identity awareness on a multiple-level basis – for
example as an individual, as participator in one or other organization, provide additional and still underresearched opportunities to benefit from the network attachment and develop towards sustainability.
According to Ramos(2010) inherent in the network organizations of the future is the disappearing of direct
control in its current form. Actually in the network organization appears a kind of mutual control among
network participators. Networks are more flexible than hierarchy and may manipulate it. (Stephenson,
2003, http://www.netform.com/html/stephenson.html)
There is one research (Wan-Yu Chen; Hui-Ying Hsu; Kuei-Kuei Lai, 2008) that concentrates on the
potential of the technological structure of business methods in insurance industry and builds on the holistic
network approach which limits the analysis comprehensiveness and does not provide ideas how to reflect
the real overall environmental complexity.
The network synergy effect
As it was implied the sustainable network effectiveness depends on two major factors:
1. Purpose-driven communication among network participators and across number of networks
2. Appropriate interactions within and among the networks concerned with particular sustainable
development initiative
When those factors are present and operate accordingly, the interaction among participators, systems and
networks is about to generate an effect of higher order, namely a synergy effect. Synergy (Fuller, 1975)
presents an interaction of two or more forces so that the combined effect is greater than the sum of their
individual effects. In the context of organizational behavior (Buchanan & Huczynski, 1997) following the
view that a cohesive group is more than the sum of its parts, synergy is the ability of a group to outperform
even its best individual member. The synergy or synergistic effect are based on the assumption of mutual
learning and influence among network participants (Mekonnen, Dorfman, 2013). Synergy in mentioned
studies is defined as “working together” and is opposed to the so called “learning effect” which embraces
the process of acquisition of skills and information accumulation. The synergy out of applying the holistic
networking approach presents qualitatively new positive outcome (added value) emerging out of the
effective interaction of the systems/network elements. The synergy phenomena may be observed in
numerous natural, technical, organizational etc. systems and is explicitly suitable for analysis of complex
objects.
When/if communication and/or interaction steps are not undertaken appropriately the positive network
synergy effect might absent. Some researchers have suggested that public measures towards joint activities
may simply ‘crowd out’ private resources between community members Cox and Jimenez, 995; Coady,
4; Dercon,
), and that such ‘informal’ social protection measures are collapsing under increasing
stress (Devereux, 2006). Consequently it is necessary all interested in the sustainable development
stakeholders to purposefully and collaboratively organize and act on achievement of the network
synergistic benefets.
There is scarce research on the network synergy effect provided by Nijkamp and Reggiani(1996) with their
paper “Modelling Network Synergy: Static and Dynamic Aspects” and by Xu, Taylor & Pisello
4)
within the construction industry. Currently there is no evidence of research on the network synergistic
58
effect in the sustainable development context which makes the topic relevant for further profound studies
and search for applied implementation.
Culinary Arts and Hospitality Cluster, Dobrudzha, Bulgaria
The cluster (www.culinaryarts.bg, in Bulgarian) is organized with the idea of creation of a specialized
tourist attraction in the sphere of culinary arts and hospitality in the traditionally agricultural region of
Dobrudzha2, Bulgaria. The cluster establishment is in Dobrich town – one of ten biggest Bulgarian cities
and major administrative, economic and educational center of country’s northeast. The place for centuries
has been an inhabited crossroad and today possesses numerous monuments commemorating state
foundation by Proto-Bulgarians led by Khan Asparuch, the Slavonic alphabet creation by the brothers Cyril
and Methodius, the protection of the homeland during the Ottoman invasion on the Balkans by despot
Dobrotitsa. This is the place where Anastas Petrov - the founder of classical ballet school in Bulgaria - was
born. Numerous poets, artists and actors were also born here. Dora Gabe, Yordan Yobkov, Ivaylo Petrov,
Adriana Budevska are some of those renowned people.
It is worth to be noted there is much greater potential for the regional development than just current
traditional image as the land of Southern Dobrudzha is former location of some of most ancient European
societies, known for their settled lifestyle, stable construction and the art of metal and gold sacredness. The
findings of Durankulak lake and Varna necropolis present first Proto-European civilizations which are
stated to be 2000 ahead of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures. The extinction of this culture is
associated with great natural disaster – a universal flood, similar to the one described in the Bible.
Archaeological remains of antiquity (IV-III century BC – II-IV century AD) and the early Middle Ages
(VII-XI centuries AD) have been found on the territory of Dobrich. Old Bulgarian necropolis was found in
the city center, most probably out of the Pechenegs devastating invasion depopulating large parts of the
region. One of the last strongholds before the fall of Bulgarian kingdom under Ottoman rule – the
despotism of Dobrotitsa – was in this region.
Culinary Arts and Hospitality Cluster, Dobrudzha, Bulgaria is established as a non-profit association for
private benefit under the designation of Culinary Arts and Hospitality Association(CAHA). CAHA is
operating under the project BG161PO003-2.4.01 – 0021 – C0001 Sustainable Development of Culinary
Arts and Hospitality Cluster within the Operational Program Development of the Competitiveness of
Bulgarian Economy 2007-2013. Association founders and current cluster members are mainly from NorthEast Bulgaria with experience in the educational, culinary sector and tourism industry. They are:









2
International College Ltd.
International Management Institute Association
International University College
HRC Culinary Academy Bulgaria Ltd.
E-Tours Ltd.
Ecotel Ltd.
Inter Ltd. Accounting House
Rayko Tsonchev Profiled School of Tourism and Entrepreneurship- Dobrich
AKRISTO Ltd.
Dobrudzha is a region on the Balkan Peninsula covering part of the lower Danube plain. To the east it borders the Black Sea, to
north and northwest – the lower reaches of the Danube, to the south – the Valley of Batova River. To the south west Dobrudzha
is gradually passing into Ludogorie region. Dobrudzha is divided into Southern Dobrudzha, which is part of Bulgaria and
Northern Dobrudzha which is in the Romanian territory/et.al/
59
Main cluster mission is to support the creation and supply of unique products of the culinary arts in the
spirit of Bulgarian tradition and world trends. Main cluster aim is to establish and promote Bulgarian
cuisine as unique tourist attraction thus creating strategic prerequisites for development of cultural tourism
in Bulgaria. Next step in CAHA activities is the popularization of Dobrudzha region as sustainable tourist
destination. CAHA achieves their purposes through number of activities as trainings, specific tourist
culinary tours, plans and carries out advertising and marketing promotions, assists in participation of
national and international fairs, carries out studies and analyses of the market and consumer demand, the
competition and quality improvement opportunities. The organization network serves as valuable
coordination agent of numerous enterprises currently on national and in the near future on international
level.
Within and after the project implementation period (26.07.2012-25.07.2014) expected results encompass:







Development of comprehensive tourist product(culture, nature, ethnography,
cuisine) that will enhance regional competitiveness;
Improvement of tourist product quality supplied in Dobrudzha destination;
Modification and diversification of the region’s traditional tourism which will
lead to economic development in terms of new jobs opportunities, increased demand and
positive cash flow;
Accelerated introduction of innovative technologies in the culinary arts field
through experience and know-how transfer with foreign partners;
Introduction of e-marketing and e-trade(through online booking system, etc);
Introduction of company quality standards and certification of tourist activities
etc.
Region and alternative tourism forms promotion through information sessions
etc.
Having in mind the above one could analyses the cluster activities as innovative good practice realized in a
traditional agricultural region where land fertility is evaluated at the most. The culinary arts and cultural
tourism perspectives uniquely tie established tradition with future development. The fact that diverse
organizations from different academic and business spheres participate in the network conceded
opportunities for effective members’ interaction, cluster growth and achievement of sustainable synergistic
network effect.
Following are some recommendations for the future strategic network development in the sustainable
tourism context:
1. Joint efforts for procurement of accessible databases by “the sustainable network” members.
2. For the mutual positive progress continuous collaborative practical efforts should be undertaken so
that balanced individual and mutual benefits are epitomized from the ‘sustainability-dynamism’
relation in network context.
3. The “communicating actor agent” to be perceived as main driver of the sustainable networking
development.
4. Cluster growth could be sustained by the local and national authorities in order to generate not only
economic but social effect as well.
5. Cluster management could undertake the so-called ‘stakeholder approach’ in order synergy to be
sustained and emergence law to be observed.
60
6. Cluster activities to be included in international tour-operators’ and tourist agencies products for
differentiation of Bulgarian tourist image and the opportunity of increased sales of specialized
tourist products.
References:
1.
Arndt, J., 1979, Toward a Concept of Domesticated Markets, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43, No.
4 (Fall), pp. 69-75
2. Ashworth, G.J. and H. Voogd, 1990, Selling the city. Marketing approaches in public sector urban
planning, London: Belhaven Press
3. Barlow, J., Stewart, P., 2006, Branded customer service: The New Competitive Edge, Berett
Koehler Publishers
4. Bedny, G., Karwowski, W., 2007, A Systemic-Structural Theory of Activity: Applications to
Human Performance, CRC press
5. Bell, D., 1973, The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting, Basic
Books, New York
6. Bertalanffy, L., 1976, General System theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. (George
Braziller) ISBN 0-8076-0453-4
7. Bunge, M. A., 2003, Emergence and Convergence: Qualitiative Novelty and the Unity of
Knowledge, Toronto: University of Toronto Press
8. Clayton, Ph., 2005, Mind and Emergence: From Quantum to Consciousness Oxford: OUP, ISBN
978-0-19-927252-5
9. Coady, D., 2004, ‘Designing and Evaluating Social Safety Nets: Theory, Evidence and Policy
Conclusions,’ FCND Discussion Paper, 7 , Washington DC: International Food Policy Research
Institute
10. Cox, D. and Jimenez, E., 1995, ‘Private Transfers and the Effectiveness of Public Income
Redistribution in the Philippines’, in D. van de Walle and K. Nead eds), Public Spending and the
Poor, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press
11. Das, T., 2012, Management Dynamics in Strategic Alliances, IAP Copyright
12. Dercon, S., 2002, ‘Income risk, coping strategies and safety nets’, The World Bank Research
Observer, 17(2): 141-166
13. Devereux, S., Wheeler R., Guenther, B., 2009, Building synergies between social protection and
smallholder agricultural policies, FAC Working Paper No. SP01
14. Devereux, S., 2006, Vulnerable Livelihoods in Somali Region, Ethiopia, IDS Research Report,
57, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies
15. Drucker, P. F., 1967, The effective executive: The definitive guide to getting the right things done,
HarperCollins, New York
16. Ford, E., Wells, R., Bailey, B., 2004, Sustainable Network Advantages: A Game Theoretic
Approach to Community-Based Health Care Coalitions, Health Care Management Review.
Volume 29 (2), pp. 159-169
17. Foulger, D., 2004, Models of the Communication Process, Evolutionary Media, accessed at
http://davis.foulger.info/research/unifiedModelOfCommunication.htm
18. Frand, Jason; Hixon, Carol, 1999, "Personal Knowledge Management: Who, What, Why, When,
Where, How?", Working paper, UCLA Anderson School of Management
19. Fromm, Jo., 2004, The Emergence of Complexity, Kassel University Press, ISBN 3-89958-069-9
20. Fuller, R. B., 975, “Synergetics: Explorations In The Geometry Of Thinking”, in collaboration
with E.J. Applewhite. Introduction and contribution by Arthur L. Loeb. Macmillan Publishing
Company, Inc., New York.
21. Fyall, A., Garrod, B., 2004, Tourism Marketing: A Collaborative Approach, Channel View
Publications, Clevedon, UK
61
22. Goldstein, J., 1999, "Emergence as a Construct: History and Issues", Emergence: Complexity and
Organization 1 (1): 49–72
23. Gordon, D., 2010, Ant Encounters: Interaction Networks and Colony Behavior, Princeton
University Press
24. Government of Italy, UNESCO, World Bank, IDRC, CTA , 2005, Communication for
Development Roundtable Report. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. p. 29.
25. Hall, C.Michael, 2003, Wine, Food and Tourism Marketing, Routledge, p.77
26. Hutchins, C., 1996, Systemic Thinking: Solving Complex Problems CO:PDS ISBN 1-888017-511
27. Kalkstein-Silkes, 2007, C.A., Food and Food Related Festivals in Rural Destination Branding,
ProQuest, p.2
28. Karvalics, L. Z.,
8, “Information society – what is it exactly,”in Information Society. From
theory to political practice, R. Pintér, ed., Network for Teaching Information Society, Budapest
29. Kavaratzis, M., 2008, From City marketing to City Branding. Groningen: Faculty of Spatial
Sciences
30. Khavandkar, J.; Khavandkar , E., 2009, "Intellectual Capital: Managing, Development and
Measurement Models". Iran Ministry of Science, Research and Technology Press
31. Machlup, F. B., 1962, The production and distribution of knowledge in the US economy,
Princeton University Press, New York
32. Maddocks, J. & Beaney, M., 2002, See the invisible and intangible. Knowledge Management,
March, 16-17
33. Magrassi, P., 2002, "A Taxonomy of Intellectual Capital", Research Note COM-17-1985, Gartner
34. Meadows, D., 2008, Thinking in Systems - A primer (Earthscan), ISBN 978-1-84407-726-7
35. Mekonnen, D., Dorfman, J., 2013, Learning and Synergy in Social Networks: Productivity
Impacts of Informal Labor Sharing Arrangements, American Economic Journal
36. Melamed, C., Ladd, P., 2013, How to build sustainable development goals: integrating human
development and environmental sustainability in a new global agenda
37. Nijkamp, P., Reggiani, A., 1996, Modelling Network Synergy: Static and Dynamic Aspects,
Journal of Scientific and Industrial Rsearch, 931-941
38. Nonaka, 1995, The Knowledge Creating Organization
39. Paulauskas1, S., Paulauskas, A., 2008, The Virtualics and Strategic Self-Management as Tools for
Sustainable Development, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Baltic Journal
on Sustainability
40. Paulauskas, S. 1999. The Dialectics of Self-Management. Theory, methodology, models: The
monograph. Klaipëda University press.
41. Palmer, A., Bejou, D., 1995, Tourism Destination Marketing Alliances, Annals of Tourism
Research, 22, p.616-629
42. Ramos, P., 2010, Network Models for Organizations: The Flexible Design of 21st Century
Companies, Palgrave Macmillan
43. Report on the World Summit on the Information Society Stocktaking, International
Telecommunication Union, 2008, available from: http://omec.uab.cat/Documentos/ TIC_
desenvolupament/0136.pdf
44. Roztocki, N., Weistroffer, H. R.,
9, „Information and communications technology in
developing, emerging and transition economies: An assessment of research, ”Proceedings of the
Fifteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco: August 6–9
45. Seddon, J., 2008, Systems Thinking in the Public Sector. (Triarchy Press). ISBN 978-0-95500818-4
46. Selin, S., 1993, Collaborative Alliances: New Interorganizational Forms in Tourism, Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2, 217-227
47. Smedley, Jo, 2009, "Modelling personal knowledge management"
48. Stephenson, K., 2003, The Invisible Power, Exame de Marco, accessed on
http://www.netform.com/html/stephenson.html
62
49. Toffler, A., 1980, The third wave, Bantam Books, New York
50. UN Development Group, 2013, The Global Conversation Begins: Emerging Views for a New
Development Agenda, accessed at: www.worldwewant2015.org
51. Vester, V., 2007, The Art of interconnected Thinking. Ideas and Tools for tackling with
Complexity (MCB) ISBN 3-939314-05-6
52. Wan-Yu Chen ; Hui-Ying Hsu ; Kuei-Kuei Lai, 2008, A holistic network approach to study the
structure of technological network by the block modeling of social network analysis, Management
of Engineering & Technology
53. Wang, Y., Pizam, A., 2011, Destination Marketing and Management: Theories and Applications,
CABI Copyright
54. Webster, F., 2002, Theories of the information society, Routledge, New York
55. Wiederhold, G., 2013, Valuing Intellectual Capital, Multinationals and Taxhavens; Management
for Professionals, Springer Verlag
56. Wright, Kirby, 2005, "Personal knowledge management: supporting individual knowledge worker
performance", Knowledge Management Research and Practice
57. Xu, X., Taylor, J., Pisello, A, 2014, Network synergy effect: Establishing a synergy between
building network and peer network energy conservation effects, Energy and Buildings
58. Ziemba, E., 2013, The Holistic and Systems Approach to the Sustainable Information Society,
Journal of Computer Information Systems, p.106-116
59. http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20Clusters/Communication%20Processes/
Network%20Theory%20and%20analysis_also_within_organizations-1/ - accessed on 13th April
2014
60. http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#II
61. http://watersfoundation.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=materials.main
62. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holistic
63. http://ed.ted.com/lessons/what-facebook-and-the-flu-have-in-common-marc-samet, video
64. www.culinaryarts.bg
63
ELISA LADDUCA
Artists Residencies: When Contemporary Art catalyzes Sustainable Destination Management
Account executive at GTA –Travel
Abstract
Artists’ Residencies are the hospitality formula dedicated to artists’ communities. Boasting a long tradition
that can be dated back to the renowned Parisian Impressionist painters or even to the age of Grand Tour,
these creative places are becoming more and more popular throughout the world, shaping themselves into
an ample spectrum of different organizations.
In this study they are presented as an innovative approach of Destination Management aiming at long term
positive results for the locals, the artist residents and the territory that hosts the initiative.
This work is the outcome of my previous work experiences and studies. In 2010 I had the chance to work
for Civitella Ranieri, American Foundation based in New York City and operating in Umbria. In the
medieval castle of Umbertide (Umbria, Italy) every year groups of composers, writers, musicians, artists,
academic and intellectuals that have passed the selection and awarded a bursary, come to live together, as
temporary residents of the village, and to dedicate themselves to creation.
My second experience took place in France where I lived and worked for six months at CAMAC,
multidisciplinary art center housed in the old monastery of Marnay -sur- Seine, in the region of
Champagne Ardennes. In this tranquil place a multicultural peer community of creative minds gathers far
away from the turmoil of everyday life and gives birth to significant interaction with the local community,
interpreting the genius loci as raw material for their works.
I can personally witness that Artists Residencies are able to trigger revitalizing processes on a territory.
This happens without altering its identity, instead by valorizing its nature and peculiarities. The long term
positive effects are the results of an intervention that makes citizens proactive participants, and not just
passive spectator of all the activities taking place at the center.
Based on these considerations, in this study I would like to introduce Artists Residencies as a best practice
of sustainable Destination Management.
The paper will be articulated as follow:
1) Definition of the Art Scene today
- What is identified as Contemporary Art?
- Who are the main players? Where does it happen?
- What is the relationship between “producers” and “users”?
64
2) Microeconomic analysis of the Art Market
- The Art Market.
- Art as investment: safe haven.
- Public Art: positive and negative externalities.
3) Artists Residencies
- General overview of the hospitality formula: What does differentiate an Artists Residence from a
guest’s house and from a cultural center?
- Varied organizational patterns.
- Artists programs and selection processes.
- Residencies Networks.
- Main Founding Programs.
- Case studies.
4) Sustainability, Destination Management and Art
- What is sustainability?
- What should distinguish Destination Management to be sustainable?
- Is Contemporary Public Art sustainable?
5) Artists Residency an innovative model of sustainable Destination Management
- Short term effects and long term impacts of the initiative on the territory, on locals and on artists
in residence.
- Relational Aesthetic: a bottom- down example of Public Art.
65
OMERO MARIANI
EDEN PRETIOSAE AQUAE EDEN Network, Runner-Up, Aquatic Tourism, 2010
COMUNE DI TERNI - Direzione Sviluppo economico e Aziende Servizi turistici – IAT del Ternano
Governance EDEN Network
Eden network, Aquatic Tourism, is a project of 16 Municipalities of central Italy, who decided to build a
new travel destination, besides regional and local boarders. Inspired by the richness of the waters, the two
main rivers, the river Nera, in Umbria and the river Velino, in Latium and as much as 4 lakes, Piediluco,
Ventina, Lungo and Ripasottile, bordering the waters with the municipalities which have decided to join
forces to build a sustainable tourist destination.
The project started in 2010 on initiative of the Municipality of Terni, project leader, which began a
consultation with the municipalities of the Valnerina Terni, Arrone, Ferentillo, Montefranco and Polino,
then extended, step by step, to those of the Latium such as Colli sul Velino, Morro Reatino, Poggio
Bustone, Rivodutri, Greccio, Castel Sant’Angelo, Contigliano, Cantalice, Cittaducale, Labro, participating
in the EU contest, EDEN 2010, aquatic tourism, presenting a project of a system of water, mountains,
nature and environment, which have on the richness of waters its uniqueness.
This project was national wide awarded with the 2nd best runner up, and belongs now to the European
EDEN Network since 23rd October 2012, when the project leader Terni, subscribed, in Brussels, the
Declaration of Brussels.
The pilot project “European Destination of Excellence” was launched in 2006 by the European
Commission, as a means of initiating Community action in support of European tourism, with the aim to
draw attention to the value, diversity and shared characteristics of European tourist destination and promote
emerging destination where the economic growth objective is pursued in such a way as to ensure the social,
cultura and environmental sustainability of tourism.
On December 2007, the pilot project was transformed by the Budget Authority to a preparatory action,
with the following aims:
1. Enhance visibility of the emerging European tourist destination of excellence especially the lesser
known;
2. Create awareness of Europe’s tourist diversity and quality;
3. Promote all European countries and regions;
4. Help de-congestion, combat seasonality, rebalance the tourist flows towards the non traditional
destination;
5. Award sustainable forms of tourism;
6. Create a platform for the exchange of good practices at European level promote networking
between awarded destinations which could persuade other destinations to adopt sustainable tourism
development model;
66
The European destination, undersigning the Brussels Declaration belong to the EU EDEN Network and
agree to collaborate with each other through the dedicated web-portal launched by the European
Commission, to exchange experiences and good practices, with the support of the European Commission,
through the organization of annual meetings to be held in one of the winning destinations and to provide a
solid outcome of the Network actions and provide a conference conclusions after each of the conferences
held.
Furthermore destinations commit themselves to guarantee a constant exchange of information and
knowledge on tourism development programs and research, and to ensure a constant exchange of
experiences on the participation in the EDEN project. The destinations will promote support actions for
developing areas to create sustainable tourism development and identify the best practice adopted by other
destinations
At a local level the Municipalities have signed on June 2013 an Agreement to establish a Governance for
sustainable tourism policies under the brand of EDEN, nominating a President and a Technical Committee
for its management fixing the main principles of the developing strategies.
A very first action of the Agreement was the signing in May 2014, the Memorandum of Understanding
with the Umbrian Consortium Francesco's Ways, www.umbriafrancescosways.eu to promote tourism and
to encourage the marketing of accommodation facilities along the axis the Franciscan path that runs
through the whole destination Eden, Pretiosae Aquae.
67
1st International Conference on Tuorism and Sustainability
CONTACTS
Institutional Partners
“IT FITS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE TOURISM AND SUSTAINABILITY”
Scientific Partners
www.itfitsumbria.com
[email protected]
Organized by