Description
The purpose of this paper is to introduce findings of comparative analysis and various
models based on cultural heritage resources to foster regional development
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Regional development models using cultural heritage resources
Tatiana Abankina
Article information:
To cite this document:
Tatiana Abankina, (2013),"Regional development models using cultural heritage resources", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 3 - 10
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301318
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:20 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 3 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 788 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
E. Wanda George, (2010),"Intangible cultural heritage, ownership, copyrights, and tourism", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 376-388http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081541
Nicole Mitsche, Franziska Vogt, Dan Knox, I. Cooper, Patrizia Lombardi, Daniela Ciaffi, (2013),"Intangibles: enhancing access to cities'
cultural heritage through interpretation", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 68-77 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301381
Hiroko Yasuda, (2010),"World heritage and cultural tourism in J apan", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research,
Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 366-375http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081532
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Regional development models using
cultural heritage resources
Tatiana Abankina
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce ?ndings of comparative analysis and various
models based on cultural heritage resources to foster regional development.
Design/methodology/approach – Comparison of operational schemes, market positions and
branding of three successful cultural heritage centers in Germany, Great Britain and Russia
demonstrates a variety of regional development models based on cultural resources and tourism
development, and reveals their advantages and disadvantages.
Findings – The paper evidences the potential of cultural resources and the tourismsector as drivers for
regional development, and helps formulate basic recommendations for the Russian situation requiring
elaboration of adequate ?nancial and social instruments.
Originality/value – The paper provides a complex analysis of different operational models in three
European countries with regard to speci?c national situations and speci?city of heritage operational
management.
Keywords Creative economy, Tourism, Cultural heritage centres, Russia, Germany, United Kingdom,
Regional development, Heritage
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The contemporary world sees a transition towards a new mode of social and economic
development generally de?ned as a post-industrial society. The post-industrial stage
includes a shift from an industrial economy to so-called ‘‘creative economy’’ (Howkins,
2007). More and more people ?nd employment in knowledge-based and service sectors,
generating more and more revenue, rather than in manufacturing sectors. A communication
model of services interchange becomes a model of society. The in?uence of science,
technologies, culture and information increases and causes major changes in social
development. Universities, as well as being informational, scienti?c, cultural and medical
organizations, have become the principal institutions of the new economy as centers of
knowledge concentration, theoretical and applied research. Knowledge-based sectors –
science and technologies, information and education, culture and tourism, public health and
ecology – experience rapid development, creating the modern export potential of
developed countries.
According to John Howkins, intellectual property in America in 2004 was worth between $5
trillion and $6 trillion, which constituted about 45 percent of the country’s GDP and exceeded
the GDP of any other country. According to the International Intellectual Property Alliance
(IIPA), by 2000 America’s creative industries contributed more to the American economy
than almost any other industry – more than chemicals, aerospace, manufacturing,
electronics, industrial machinery and food and drink. McKinsey & Company added a new
twist in 2006 when it calculated that 40 percent of jobs in America required people to express
their talent, and even more signi?cantly, over 70 percent of new jobs did so (Howkins, 2007).
DOI 10.1108/17506181311301318 VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013, pp. 3-10, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 3
Tatiana Abankina is based
at the Higher School of
Economics, National
Research University,
Moscow, Russia.
The author thanks Professor
Elizaveta Ignatieva, Academy
of Continuing Education for
Arts, Culture and Tourism
Professionals, and Dr Elena
Zelentsova, Director of Creative
Industries Agency, for their
comments and remarks on an
earlier draft, which were helpful
in revising this paper. The
author alone is responsible for
all limitations and errors that
may relate to the study and the
paper.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In the post-industrial society it is culture that is becoming a strategic priority for
contemporary developed economies. As in the last decades, it has turned into a powerful
conglomerate of creative industries. According to some British experts, recently, music
industry export earnings in Britain have exceeded the export earnings of the engineering
and automobile industries taken together (Landry, 2000).
A characteristic feature of the post-industrial society is a transition from the real economy to
the so-called ‘‘economy of symbols’’, which has branding as its main product. In the
leisure-time civilization of today, branding plays an important role as a strategic resource
and capital of an organization – especially in the cultural and tourism sectors – which
enables it to get economic pro?ts from non-economic bene?ts, such as symbolic attributes
and advantages, tangible and intangible reputation elements, legends, myths, cultural
traditions, fancies and prejudices, public taste and preferences (Abankina, 2005). Branding
becomes a symbol of the public’s trust in the quality and attractiveness of a cultural offer. It
also guarantees cultural product authenticity. Cultural goods and services are perceived as
symbolic components of a particular lifestyle; they intend to satisfy the so-called ‘‘needs of
higher layers’’ (according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), i.e. self-actualization, esteemand
belonging. Thereby, all these form a stable interest towards cultural heritage and a demand
for cultural services that provide ?nancial in?ow from different sources for cultural sites and
regional and urban development as well.
International practice demonstrates that the development of creative industries contributes
to growing regional investment attractiveness, stimulates innovations and creativity,
encourages higher skilled workers, and increases cities’ competitiveness. A creative
industries development strategy generates new collaborative relationships of organizations
in the knowledge-based sectors. There is a growing trend to establish network organizations
that combine dominating creativity with commercial services, to develop creative clusters
and quarters (Landry, 2000).
Regional development models using cultural heritage resources
An international comparative research focusing on cultural heritage centers’ impact on
regional development enabled mapping and comparing the local cultural heritage
resources, practices and operational schemes of tourist places in Stratford-upon-Avon
(Great Britain), Weimar (Germany) and Yasnaya Polyana (Russia). The research team
included T. Abankina (research leader), S. Averchenkova, V. Dukelsky, V. Gnedovsky and
M. Gnedovsky. The research was commissioned by the Leo Tolstoy Heritage Foundation
with the support of European Commission in the framework of the TACIS-IBPP program.
The three European regions considered in the research are competitive in the tourismmarket
using their core capital – cultural heritage and fame of the great artists and thinkers of the
past. The attraction of all three places is based upon the fact that well-known authors –
Shakespeare, Goethe and Leo Tolstoy – lived there. To manage memorial and heritage sites,
modern cultural institutions emerged. Until recent times, the institutions concentrated their
efforts on preserving and studying heritage. However, in the last two decades Great Britain,
Russia and Germany have undergone dramatic reforms that have led to profound political
and economic changes. These changes have directly affected heritage management.
Cultural institutions became more self-dependent, and at the same time, open to different
collaborations. Their area of responsibility has broadened considerably. They rethink the
guidelines of their operations, which now also include dealing with social problems,
revitalizing a positive social climate and social communications, stimulating creativity, and
contributing to increased investment attractiveness and the competitiveness of the region
(Landry, 2000).
The research uncovers three different operating models:
1. Evolution development model – Based on steady development of tourism potential using
speci?c regional resources: location, cultural heritage and trade. The example is
Stratford-upon-Avon (Great Britain). Interest towards cultural heritage increases private
investments and ?nancial ?ows to the area. There are established special regional
PAGE 4
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
institutions responsible for regional development strategic planning and resource
accumulation. the social structure of the city’s population changes gradually as high real
estate costs and costs of living force low-income social groups out and draw in the
middle-income bracket and rich people, stuck to stable lifestyles and conservative
values. The in?ow of the well-to-do results in the aging of social structure and in a
dominating orientation towards stability, and consequently in lowering the pace of
innovation in the city’s development.
2. Deindustrialization model – Providing a transition from an industrial to a post-industrial
paradigm in regional development, a shift from material manufacturing to the
development of cultural, educational and creative industries. The example is Weimar
(Germany). The area has seen the emergence of a new employment structure, the active
development of the service sector and creative economy sectors, and an increase in
cultural infrastructure investments in the city and its suburbs. The introduction of special
forms of institutional support contributes to fostering regional development. But in its ?rst
stage, deindustrialization causes increase in unemployment rates.
3. Enclave model – Characterized by the presence of a big cultural institution that is
?nanced from the federal public funds, in a rural area. The example is the Leo Tolstoy
Memorial Estate-Museum in Yasnaya Polyana (Russia), which brings a ?ow of visitors to
the territory. The decline of agriculture and high unemployment rates have provoke brain
drain to the big cities. It becomes evident that a gap exists between a ramshackle rural
infrastructure with no ?nancial support and a federal cultural institution. Con?ict damping
requires special social techniques to establish communications and interaction with a
local community.
Detailed descriptions of the models’ development
Evolution development model in Stratford-upon-Avon
For more than 350 years, tourism has been one of the core businesses in Stratford, so
dominant that the warm welcoming of tourists is, literally, built into the city’s genetic code.
Nowadays, Stratford, with a population of 27,000 people, receives about 5.5 million visitors
annually, including one million people regarded as tourists (50 percent of them are
foreigners) who visit local museums and theatres. The remaining part just enjoys walking in
the parks and gardens along the Avon, dining in cafes and restaurants and shopping. They
are mostly people from the nearby big cities making weekend trips to Stratford.
Since its establishment in 1847, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust has been gradually
buying up or holding in trust buildings and sites that once belonged to Shakespeare and his
family. By 1991, the Trust’s museum department owned and cared for ?ve houses linked
directly to the life of Shakespeare as well as for Harvard House, where the founder of Harvard
University was born. The Trust also owns the Shakespeare Centre. It is an exposition and
information center – a gateway to the birthplace of the great playwright and poet. The
Shakespeare Birthplace Trust’s structure includes an educational department, a fund-raising
department, the Shakespeare Centre library and an archive. The Trust’s funding comes from
four major sources:
1. ticket sales;
2. private and corporate donations;
3. revenues from the museum shop; and
4. rental income.
This diversi?ed revenue structure secures the Trust’s sustainability, and the part of its income
that has no direct links with the Shakespeare heritage (rental real estate) guarantees the
Trust’s survival, even if it faces rapidly declining interest in Shakespeare heritage or a
sudden collapse of the tourism business. The distinctive characteristic of the Trust’s
?nancing is that it is not subsidized by public funds and so the Trust can pursue a self-reliant
policy.
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 5
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Apart from the Trust’s museums, there are two more institutions linked to Shakespeare’s
heritage in the city. First there is the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), which has three
bases in Stratford and bases in London and Newcastle upon Tyne, and often goes on tour
both at home and abroad. The Company makes exclusive productions of Shakespeare’s
plays. In 2006, a direct contribution from the RSC to Stratford’s economy accounted for
about £15m (salaries to local employees and purchases in the local market). At the same
time, in contrast to the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, the RSC is dependent on public
funding (50 percent of its total) and, it is the biggest company in the city.
Another institution is the Shakespeare Institute at the University of Birmingham, established
to conduct research and support postgraduate studies of those interested in Shakespeare
research. The Institute is not incorporated directly to the city’s tourism infrastructure,
although it contributes to the enhancement of educational tourism.
The institutions working in the cultural tourism sector are willing to develop collaborative
relationships. The long-term partnership of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and the RSC
deserves special attention. Their joint educational projects make it possible to offer 30-40
graduate classes and ?eld trainings in acting and Shakespearean drama every summer for
students coming from different countries.
The developing tourism sector pushed a dynamic development of the Stratford economy in
the nineteenth century. The growing tourism market created a diversi?ed service sector in
the city that considerably exceeds local demand. Due to the rise of tourism, Stratford
possesses high-capacity infrastructures. Being a ‘‘small market city’’, surrounded by idyllic
pastoral landscapes, it offers the attractions of both a small and a big city. At present,
Stratford may feel proud of its ranking among the top cities in Great Britain for the quality of
life.
Deindustrialization model in Weimar
In 1999, Weimar was declared European Capital of Culture. It coincided with the 250th
anniversary of Goethe’s birth and the 240th of Schiller’s. By that time, the city’s population
was over 65,000. Since the time of Goethe’s arrival in the city in 1775, Weimar has become
11 times bigger. The uniqueness of the city is that it is always the growth of its cultural sector
and not of manufacturing that in?uences the pace of its economic development. However,
Weimar has turned out to be the smallest city in the whole history of the European Capital of
Culture program.
The preparations for the European Capital of Culture events took six years – from 1993 to
1999. Over this period the city renovated its material ‘‘hard’’ infrastructure, as well as its
approaches towards the development of institutional and organizational ‘ ‘soft’ ’
infrastructure. As soon as a city gets the status of European Capital of Culture, it has a
good chance to improve its position on the tourism market provided by the development of
its brand and huge investments in its infrastructure. Major funding for Weimar as Capital of
Culture came from the regional and federal budgets, private donations, the European
Commission and the municipality. The main challenge was to draw up a sensible allocation
program and to make the best use of Capital of Culture status as a springboard in the city’s
development. The development of material infrastructure in the frameworks of the European
Capital of Culture program also included the construction of new tourism infrastructures,
i.e. Congress Center Neue Weimarhalle and the University Center. According to the
developers of the program, the institutions should stimulate the expansion of new areas in
the city – the educational and business tourism sectors. Moreover, the hotel, entertainment
and shopping facilities were renovated.
The outcomes of the European Cultural Program included improvements in the soft
infrastructure. An important thing was the consolidation of three companies dealing with the
city’s marketing and promotion on different markets – the new Congress Center, the Tourist
Information Center, and the Business Development Agency. In 2002, they merged into a
single company, Weimar GmbH.
PAGE 6
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
There is no doubt that the European Capital of Culture program in Weimar had a delayed
impact that became evident in full by 2005-2006. The growth rate of tourism showed stable
?gures of 56 percent compared to 1998. The ef?ciency of hard and soft infrastructures
increased signi?cantly. Weimar made the ?nal step and gave up the industrial development
model. This model, imposed by the authorities during the periods of Nazism and socialism,
failed to take root in the city. However, the abrupt departure from the model provoked grave
structural problems, including a rise in unemployment rates caused by curtailed industrial
production. But the municipality took a formal political decision – culture and tourism should
be the main economic drivers of the city’s development.
Weimar has several institutions operating in the cultural heritage sector – the Foundation of
Weimar Classics, the German National Theatre, Bauhaus University, the Buchenwald
Memorial Foundation, the Weimar Conservatory, the Weimar municipality, Weimar-Jena
Academy, and others. This re?ects richness and diversity of the city’s cultural baggage. The
Foundation of Weimar Classics is a key cultural heritage institution in the area. Its structure
includes 23 museums that attract 81 percent of the total number of visitors to Weimar. A large
number of museums and visitors does not mean the Foundation holds a monopoly on the
market, however. Buchenwald Memorial, as well as Bauhaus, which has its own tourist
attractions, are of great importance for German and world history. Weimar GmBH, playing a
major role in coordinating marketing strategies, redistributing tourism?owand in developing
new products, acts per se as a city development agency, independent from the mayor’s
of?ce.
Enclave model in Yasnaya Polyana
For a long period of time Leo Tolstoy Memorial Museum in Yasnaya Polyana has been
focusing on conservation and preservation of the writer’s estate as a memorial site,
expanding the collections, and renovating its buildings and facilities. A new stage in the
museum history opened up in 1994, when Vladimir I. Tolstoy, a great-great-grandson of the
writer, was appointed the museum’s executive. From that moment on, the museuminitiated a
gradual change in the model of its relationships with both visitors and the local community
and considerably broadened the scope and geography of its operations. The Leo Tolstoy
Memorial Museumof today seeks to restore its role in society and develops its position as an
international center for literature and philosophy discussions, a center for the social
development of the area, and a center for agriculture and forestry. To achieve this, the
museumrecovers and reproduces the activities that were typical for Yasnaya Polyana during
Tolstoy’s lifetime.
The museum’s organizational structure and particular projects fully re?ect its aspirations.
Four museum departments (forestry, memorial garden, environmental protection and
ecology, and landscape design departments) recover and maintain the agricultural and
forestry complex of the estate; they are in charge of a vast territory of 417 hectares, and they
carefully restore ancient working methods, approaches and infrastructures, which were
almost lost during 70 years of the Soviet power. Today, these methods and technologies are
in demand again.
The Department of Museum Pedagogy and the Anthill Brotherhood kindergarten (named
after a children’s game invented by Leo Tolstoy and his brothers) attached to the museum
put into practice the Tolstoy’s pedagogical heritage and try to recover the estate’s role in the
local community development. These units of the museum actively collaborate with
children’s NGOs – the Anthill Brotherhood inter-regional organization and the War and
Peace Historical Reenactment Club. The recently established Educational Department has
started to develop educational tourism in Yasnaya Polyana. The Arts and Crafts Department
designs and produces souvenirs and contributes to the children’s educational programs.
The Yasnaya Polyana Publishing House and the Technological Department of the
museumprovide technical and information support for the museum’s activities,
highlighting the museum’s presence in the public space.
Recently, Yasnaya Polyana Hotel Tourist Complex, located 1.5 km from the principal house,
has made a good start. The complex includes accommodation facilities and conference
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 7
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
facilities for small-scale events, which could be an alternative form of tourism. The Hotel
Tourist Complex, Preshpekt Cafe´ , Yasnaya Polyana Gallery, Arts Salon, a bookstore, and a
souvenir stall are necessary elements constituting tourism infrastructure and providing
services for the museum visitors. After 2005, the museum initiated branches in locations
linked to Tolstoy’s family – Kozlova Zaseka Railway Station, the country estates of
Nikolskoye-Vyazemskoye, Maloye Pirogovo and Pokrovskoye, Krapivna Museum, and
Yasnaya Polyana Scienti?c and Cultural Center in Tula. The branches strengthen the
museum’s in?uence and help create a kind of ‘‘archipelago’’ of Tolstoy heritage tourist sites
in Tula Oblast. Establishing relations with another estate of the Tolstoy family in Samara
Oblast can make it a part of ‘‘Tolstoy archipelago’’ in the near future.
Three regional cultural heritage centers: similarities and differences
The countries in which the three regions are located have very much in common – these are
big and in?uential states with developed economies, all of them are G8 members, and each
has a GNP over $1.5 trillion and a population of 60 to 142 million people. Thus, all three
regions may fully rely on the domestic market as the base for their development. The
differences are that Germany and Great Britain are densely inhabited, and their residents are
three times as rich as those in Russia.
In most European countries, day trips undertaken by tourists fromsurrounding areas and big
cities generate a good half of the revenues of tourism centers. So, the cost of the local and
regional markets matters, as does the proximity of capitals and big cities. Weimar, Stratford
and Yasnaya Polyana are roughly at the same traveling distance from their countries’
capitals, and it takes 2-2.5 hours to get there. However, the population of London and
Moscow is approximately three times that of Berlin’s, with the same level of well-being. On
the other hand, Yasnaya Polyana’s local market within the Tula Oblast area is 1.5 times
smaller than that of Weimar and 2.5 times smaller than that of Stratford, which is located in a
densely populated area. Stratford stands out for its market size ?rst of all due to Birmingham
and Coventry, neighboring big cities that are much bigger than Tula in Russia, and also
larger than Erfurt and Jena in Germany. So, Stratford has certain advantages provided by its
location at the local and regional levels. Also, the social and economic situation in this British
city is considerably better than in Weimar and Yasnaya Poyana. Weimar is experiencing a
high level of unemployment, and Yasnaya Polyana is experiencing rapid aging of the
population and brain drain. Though Stratford is seeing a similar process, it is in its early
stages.
Geographical, social and economic factors put Stratford ahead of the two other regions, but
Weimar is probably leading in terms of cultural heritage density and diversity. Despite its
relatively small size, the city has impressive evidence of having been an important place for
cultural life from the late seventeenth century up to the middle of the twentieth century.
The cultural heritage solidity, including a number of cultural brands, museums, historic and
cultural sites, cultural heritage tourismoperators and educational institutions, makes Weimar
three to ?ve times the size of Stratford and around six times the size of Yasnaya Polyana. The
German cultural heritage center is the only one out of the three that has the Bauhaus
University and Conservatory; in Stratford we see the Shakespeare Institute, a branch of
BirminghamUniversity, but there is not even a branch of an educational institution in Yasnaya
Polyana. Additionally, since 1999, in the frameworks of the European Capital of Culture
program, the city has enjoyed Congress Center Neue Weimarhalle and a modern education
center providing good infrastructure for education, conference, concert and other cultural
activities.
An important feature of Weimar is the absence of a single historic brand, of a personality
dominating its cultural landscape. A dozen outstanding historic ?gures, as well as a series of
important artistic and historic events, shape the city’s image and make it multi-faceted. At
the same time, in Yasnaya Polyana everything revolves around Leo Tolstoy, and William
Shakespeare reigns in Stratford. This means that in Weimar the potential of forming a
PAGE 8
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
territorial brand is much higher than it is in Stratford and Yasnaya Polyana, where historic
personal brands – i.e. Shakespeare and Tolstoy – are very strong.
Conclusions and implications
Tourism has become the main instrument to capitalize on cultural heritage in all three
regions. Only in Weimar it is matched by the musical and design education institutions.
Nevertheless, tourism and the related industries shape the economy of the three areas, as
the majority of jobs and the main bulk of added value are created in the sector.
The regions represent different stages of the development of the tourism industry. In
Stratford, tourismhas been developing for more than 350 years and reached its climax in the
1970s. Presently, the city functions in a stable mode and even has experienced a slight
decline in its tourist attractiveness. In Weimar the history of tourism development is shorter
and does not exceed 150 years, but after the uni?cation of Germany, the industry and the
city itself have been booming. In Yasnaya Polyana, tourism began only after the Second
World War, and major changes occurred in this sector after 1991. Thus, the German and the
Russian regions are in the middle of rapid growth in tourismand its respective industries and
infrastructure.
Yasnaya Polyana, receiving 130,000 visitors per year, looks like a dwarf compared to Weimar
(3.5 million visitors) and Stratford (5.5 million visitors). Among the visitors to Weimar and
Stratford, 14-15 percent of stay overnight in local hotels and B&Bs, 1-1.5 percent of visitors
come to see their friends and relatives, and the remaining 82-84 percent spend just a few
hours there. All three regions work mainly on national tourism markets as they are, in fact,
huge. Of the visitors to Yasnaya Polyana, foreigners account only for 1 percent. In the other
two regions, foreigners make up 13-14 percent of people staying overnight in local hotels.
Half of the visitors to museums in Stratford are foreigners; there is no accurate data on
Weimar, but according to local experts, the share of foreign tourists is not so large.
One of the most important effects of tourism development is that it generates new jobs. It is a
weighty argument for both local people and authorities. Undoubtedly, tourism plays a
considerably greater role in Stratford than in Weimar – 6,884 people have their jobs in
tourism and the related industries, constituting more than a half of the city’s working
population. In Weimar tourism and its related sectors employ 4,300 people, or 21 percent of
the working population (21,000). Thus, the impact of tourism development on local residents
of the German heritage center is 2.5 times less signi?cant compared to the impact on the
residents of Stratford.
If we extrapolate the quantitative assessment of the social impact of tourismdevelopment on
Yasnaya Polyana, it would suggest that with the existing tourist ?ow the interest and
participation of local people in tourism development may not be the main driver for the
development of the local community. At present, the area’s tourismsector has the capacity to
employ no more than 15 percent of the working population.
The research ?ndings show that Stratford, literally, lives on tourism; the spirit of tourism
services has penetrated into every part of its life. In the other two regions tourism does not
play such an important role as yet, though its in?uence is becoming more and more evident.
Both Weimar and Yasnaya Polyana should have their tourist ?ow increased by 2-2.5 times to
reach the impact level of Stratford’s tourism industry on the regional economy pro?le.
Additionally, Yasnaya Polyana has to make more ef?cient use of the existing tourist ?ow.
The research results help formulate recommendations to establish partnerships in different
sectors. In order to trigger tourismand cultural sector development in Russia, contributing to
sustainable regional development, it is necessary to:
B enhance institutional collaborations of business and non-commercial regional and local
players interested in the development of regional cultural infrastructure;
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 9
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
B stimulate entrepreneurial initiatives of the local community, including the formation of
corporate mutual funds to bridge a gap between private individual initiatives and the
development of large-scale cultural and tourism infrastructures; and
B develop and introduce special ?nancial-sharing schemes to accumulate funds for
regional regeneration and to meet the needs of the creative class for cheap long-term
loans.
One of the main challenges for management in Russian rural areas is to slow down the drain
of active people to capital cities and to anchor the creative class in areas that tend towards
tourism development. Accordingly, it is necessary to create institutional and legal conditions
supporting the cooperation and integration of local family SMEs and entrepreneurial
initiatives in the cultural and tourism sectors, including the centralized development of the
marketing and sales infrastructure.
References
Abankina, T. (2005), ‘‘Ekonomika zhelanii v sovremennoi tsivilizatsii dosuga’’, Otechestvennye Zapiski,
Vol. 4 No. 25, pp. 115-23 (in Russian).
Howkins, J. (2007), Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas, Penguin Books, London.
Landry, C. (2000), The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators, Earthscan Publications, London.
Corresponding author
Tatiana Abankina can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 10
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Lenar Safiullin, Nailya Bagautdinova, Nail Safiullin. 2015. Historical and Cultural Heritage and Region's Economic: Case
Study Central and Eastern Russia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 188, 151. [CrossRef]
2. Hong Fan. 2014. Branding a place through its historical and cultural heritage: The branding project of Tofu Village in China.
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 10, 279-287. [CrossRef]
3. Ana Cristina Fachinelli, Francisco Javier Carrillo, Anelise D’Arisbo. 2014. Capital system, creative economy and knowledge
city transformation: Insights from Bento Gonçalves, Brazil. Expert Systems with Applications 41, 5614-5624. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_780611427.pdf
The purpose of this paper is to introduce findings of comparative analysis and various
models based on cultural heritage resources to foster regional development
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Regional development models using cultural heritage resources
Tatiana Abankina
Article information:
To cite this document:
Tatiana Abankina, (2013),"Regional development models using cultural heritage resources", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 3 - 10
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301318
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:20 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 3 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 788 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
E. Wanda George, (2010),"Intangible cultural heritage, ownership, copyrights, and tourism", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 376-388http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081541
Nicole Mitsche, Franziska Vogt, Dan Knox, I. Cooper, Patrizia Lombardi, Daniela Ciaffi, (2013),"Intangibles: enhancing access to cities'
cultural heritage through interpretation", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. 68-77 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181311301381
Hiroko Yasuda, (2010),"World heritage and cultural tourism in J apan", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research,
Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 366-375http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081532
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Regional development models using
cultural heritage resources
Tatiana Abankina
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce ?ndings of comparative analysis and various
models based on cultural heritage resources to foster regional development.
Design/methodology/approach – Comparison of operational schemes, market positions and
branding of three successful cultural heritage centers in Germany, Great Britain and Russia
demonstrates a variety of regional development models based on cultural resources and tourism
development, and reveals their advantages and disadvantages.
Findings – The paper evidences the potential of cultural resources and the tourismsector as drivers for
regional development, and helps formulate basic recommendations for the Russian situation requiring
elaboration of adequate ?nancial and social instruments.
Originality/value – The paper provides a complex analysis of different operational models in three
European countries with regard to speci?c national situations and speci?city of heritage operational
management.
Keywords Creative economy, Tourism, Cultural heritage centres, Russia, Germany, United Kingdom,
Regional development, Heritage
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The contemporary world sees a transition towards a new mode of social and economic
development generally de?ned as a post-industrial society. The post-industrial stage
includes a shift from an industrial economy to so-called ‘‘creative economy’’ (Howkins,
2007). More and more people ?nd employment in knowledge-based and service sectors,
generating more and more revenue, rather than in manufacturing sectors. A communication
model of services interchange becomes a model of society. The in?uence of science,
technologies, culture and information increases and causes major changes in social
development. Universities, as well as being informational, scienti?c, cultural and medical
organizations, have become the principal institutions of the new economy as centers of
knowledge concentration, theoretical and applied research. Knowledge-based sectors –
science and technologies, information and education, culture and tourism, public health and
ecology – experience rapid development, creating the modern export potential of
developed countries.
According to John Howkins, intellectual property in America in 2004 was worth between $5
trillion and $6 trillion, which constituted about 45 percent of the country’s GDP and exceeded
the GDP of any other country. According to the International Intellectual Property Alliance
(IIPA), by 2000 America’s creative industries contributed more to the American economy
than almost any other industry – more than chemicals, aerospace, manufacturing,
electronics, industrial machinery and food and drink. McKinsey & Company added a new
twist in 2006 when it calculated that 40 percent of jobs in America required people to express
their talent, and even more signi?cantly, over 70 percent of new jobs did so (Howkins, 2007).
DOI 10.1108/17506181311301318 VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013, pp. 3-10, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1750-6182
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 3
Tatiana Abankina is based
at the Higher School of
Economics, National
Research University,
Moscow, Russia.
The author thanks Professor
Elizaveta Ignatieva, Academy
of Continuing Education for
Arts, Culture and Tourism
Professionals, and Dr Elena
Zelentsova, Director of Creative
Industries Agency, for their
comments and remarks on an
earlier draft, which were helpful
in revising this paper. The
author alone is responsible for
all limitations and errors that
may relate to the study and the
paper.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
In the post-industrial society it is culture that is becoming a strategic priority for
contemporary developed economies. As in the last decades, it has turned into a powerful
conglomerate of creative industries. According to some British experts, recently, music
industry export earnings in Britain have exceeded the export earnings of the engineering
and automobile industries taken together (Landry, 2000).
A characteristic feature of the post-industrial society is a transition from the real economy to
the so-called ‘‘economy of symbols’’, which has branding as its main product. In the
leisure-time civilization of today, branding plays an important role as a strategic resource
and capital of an organization – especially in the cultural and tourism sectors – which
enables it to get economic pro?ts from non-economic bene?ts, such as symbolic attributes
and advantages, tangible and intangible reputation elements, legends, myths, cultural
traditions, fancies and prejudices, public taste and preferences (Abankina, 2005). Branding
becomes a symbol of the public’s trust in the quality and attractiveness of a cultural offer. It
also guarantees cultural product authenticity. Cultural goods and services are perceived as
symbolic components of a particular lifestyle; they intend to satisfy the so-called ‘‘needs of
higher layers’’ (according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), i.e. self-actualization, esteemand
belonging. Thereby, all these form a stable interest towards cultural heritage and a demand
for cultural services that provide ?nancial in?ow from different sources for cultural sites and
regional and urban development as well.
International practice demonstrates that the development of creative industries contributes
to growing regional investment attractiveness, stimulates innovations and creativity,
encourages higher skilled workers, and increases cities’ competitiveness. A creative
industries development strategy generates new collaborative relationships of organizations
in the knowledge-based sectors. There is a growing trend to establish network organizations
that combine dominating creativity with commercial services, to develop creative clusters
and quarters (Landry, 2000).
Regional development models using cultural heritage resources
An international comparative research focusing on cultural heritage centers’ impact on
regional development enabled mapping and comparing the local cultural heritage
resources, practices and operational schemes of tourist places in Stratford-upon-Avon
(Great Britain), Weimar (Germany) and Yasnaya Polyana (Russia). The research team
included T. Abankina (research leader), S. Averchenkova, V. Dukelsky, V. Gnedovsky and
M. Gnedovsky. The research was commissioned by the Leo Tolstoy Heritage Foundation
with the support of European Commission in the framework of the TACIS-IBPP program.
The three European regions considered in the research are competitive in the tourismmarket
using their core capital – cultural heritage and fame of the great artists and thinkers of the
past. The attraction of all three places is based upon the fact that well-known authors –
Shakespeare, Goethe and Leo Tolstoy – lived there. To manage memorial and heritage sites,
modern cultural institutions emerged. Until recent times, the institutions concentrated their
efforts on preserving and studying heritage. However, in the last two decades Great Britain,
Russia and Germany have undergone dramatic reforms that have led to profound political
and economic changes. These changes have directly affected heritage management.
Cultural institutions became more self-dependent, and at the same time, open to different
collaborations. Their area of responsibility has broadened considerably. They rethink the
guidelines of their operations, which now also include dealing with social problems,
revitalizing a positive social climate and social communications, stimulating creativity, and
contributing to increased investment attractiveness and the competitiveness of the region
(Landry, 2000).
The research uncovers three different operating models:
1. Evolution development model – Based on steady development of tourism potential using
speci?c regional resources: location, cultural heritage and trade. The example is
Stratford-upon-Avon (Great Britain). Interest towards cultural heritage increases private
investments and ?nancial ?ows to the area. There are established special regional
PAGE 4
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
institutions responsible for regional development strategic planning and resource
accumulation. the social structure of the city’s population changes gradually as high real
estate costs and costs of living force low-income social groups out and draw in the
middle-income bracket and rich people, stuck to stable lifestyles and conservative
values. The in?ow of the well-to-do results in the aging of social structure and in a
dominating orientation towards stability, and consequently in lowering the pace of
innovation in the city’s development.
2. Deindustrialization model – Providing a transition from an industrial to a post-industrial
paradigm in regional development, a shift from material manufacturing to the
development of cultural, educational and creative industries. The example is Weimar
(Germany). The area has seen the emergence of a new employment structure, the active
development of the service sector and creative economy sectors, and an increase in
cultural infrastructure investments in the city and its suburbs. The introduction of special
forms of institutional support contributes to fostering regional development. But in its ?rst
stage, deindustrialization causes increase in unemployment rates.
3. Enclave model – Characterized by the presence of a big cultural institution that is
?nanced from the federal public funds, in a rural area. The example is the Leo Tolstoy
Memorial Estate-Museum in Yasnaya Polyana (Russia), which brings a ?ow of visitors to
the territory. The decline of agriculture and high unemployment rates have provoke brain
drain to the big cities. It becomes evident that a gap exists between a ramshackle rural
infrastructure with no ?nancial support and a federal cultural institution. Con?ict damping
requires special social techniques to establish communications and interaction with a
local community.
Detailed descriptions of the models’ development
Evolution development model in Stratford-upon-Avon
For more than 350 years, tourism has been one of the core businesses in Stratford, so
dominant that the warm welcoming of tourists is, literally, built into the city’s genetic code.
Nowadays, Stratford, with a population of 27,000 people, receives about 5.5 million visitors
annually, including one million people regarded as tourists (50 percent of them are
foreigners) who visit local museums and theatres. The remaining part just enjoys walking in
the parks and gardens along the Avon, dining in cafes and restaurants and shopping. They
are mostly people from the nearby big cities making weekend trips to Stratford.
Since its establishment in 1847, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust has been gradually
buying up or holding in trust buildings and sites that once belonged to Shakespeare and his
family. By 1991, the Trust’s museum department owned and cared for ?ve houses linked
directly to the life of Shakespeare as well as for Harvard House, where the founder of Harvard
University was born. The Trust also owns the Shakespeare Centre. It is an exposition and
information center – a gateway to the birthplace of the great playwright and poet. The
Shakespeare Birthplace Trust’s structure includes an educational department, a fund-raising
department, the Shakespeare Centre library and an archive. The Trust’s funding comes from
four major sources:
1. ticket sales;
2. private and corporate donations;
3. revenues from the museum shop; and
4. rental income.
This diversi?ed revenue structure secures the Trust’s sustainability, and the part of its income
that has no direct links with the Shakespeare heritage (rental real estate) guarantees the
Trust’s survival, even if it faces rapidly declining interest in Shakespeare heritage or a
sudden collapse of the tourism business. The distinctive characteristic of the Trust’s
?nancing is that it is not subsidized by public funds and so the Trust can pursue a self-reliant
policy.
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 5
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Apart from the Trust’s museums, there are two more institutions linked to Shakespeare’s
heritage in the city. First there is the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), which has three
bases in Stratford and bases in London and Newcastle upon Tyne, and often goes on tour
both at home and abroad. The Company makes exclusive productions of Shakespeare’s
plays. In 2006, a direct contribution from the RSC to Stratford’s economy accounted for
about £15m (salaries to local employees and purchases in the local market). At the same
time, in contrast to the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, the RSC is dependent on public
funding (50 percent of its total) and, it is the biggest company in the city.
Another institution is the Shakespeare Institute at the University of Birmingham, established
to conduct research and support postgraduate studies of those interested in Shakespeare
research. The Institute is not incorporated directly to the city’s tourism infrastructure,
although it contributes to the enhancement of educational tourism.
The institutions working in the cultural tourism sector are willing to develop collaborative
relationships. The long-term partnership of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust and the RSC
deserves special attention. Their joint educational projects make it possible to offer 30-40
graduate classes and ?eld trainings in acting and Shakespearean drama every summer for
students coming from different countries.
The developing tourism sector pushed a dynamic development of the Stratford economy in
the nineteenth century. The growing tourism market created a diversi?ed service sector in
the city that considerably exceeds local demand. Due to the rise of tourism, Stratford
possesses high-capacity infrastructures. Being a ‘‘small market city’’, surrounded by idyllic
pastoral landscapes, it offers the attractions of both a small and a big city. At present,
Stratford may feel proud of its ranking among the top cities in Great Britain for the quality of
life.
Deindustrialization model in Weimar
In 1999, Weimar was declared European Capital of Culture. It coincided with the 250th
anniversary of Goethe’s birth and the 240th of Schiller’s. By that time, the city’s population
was over 65,000. Since the time of Goethe’s arrival in the city in 1775, Weimar has become
11 times bigger. The uniqueness of the city is that it is always the growth of its cultural sector
and not of manufacturing that in?uences the pace of its economic development. However,
Weimar has turned out to be the smallest city in the whole history of the European Capital of
Culture program.
The preparations for the European Capital of Culture events took six years – from 1993 to
1999. Over this period the city renovated its material ‘‘hard’’ infrastructure, as well as its
approaches towards the development of institutional and organizational ‘ ‘soft’ ’
infrastructure. As soon as a city gets the status of European Capital of Culture, it has a
good chance to improve its position on the tourism market provided by the development of
its brand and huge investments in its infrastructure. Major funding for Weimar as Capital of
Culture came from the regional and federal budgets, private donations, the European
Commission and the municipality. The main challenge was to draw up a sensible allocation
program and to make the best use of Capital of Culture status as a springboard in the city’s
development. The development of material infrastructure in the frameworks of the European
Capital of Culture program also included the construction of new tourism infrastructures,
i.e. Congress Center Neue Weimarhalle and the University Center. According to the
developers of the program, the institutions should stimulate the expansion of new areas in
the city – the educational and business tourism sectors. Moreover, the hotel, entertainment
and shopping facilities were renovated.
The outcomes of the European Cultural Program included improvements in the soft
infrastructure. An important thing was the consolidation of three companies dealing with the
city’s marketing and promotion on different markets – the new Congress Center, the Tourist
Information Center, and the Business Development Agency. In 2002, they merged into a
single company, Weimar GmbH.
PAGE 6
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
There is no doubt that the European Capital of Culture program in Weimar had a delayed
impact that became evident in full by 2005-2006. The growth rate of tourism showed stable
?gures of 56 percent compared to 1998. The ef?ciency of hard and soft infrastructures
increased signi?cantly. Weimar made the ?nal step and gave up the industrial development
model. This model, imposed by the authorities during the periods of Nazism and socialism,
failed to take root in the city. However, the abrupt departure from the model provoked grave
structural problems, including a rise in unemployment rates caused by curtailed industrial
production. But the municipality took a formal political decision – culture and tourism should
be the main economic drivers of the city’s development.
Weimar has several institutions operating in the cultural heritage sector – the Foundation of
Weimar Classics, the German National Theatre, Bauhaus University, the Buchenwald
Memorial Foundation, the Weimar Conservatory, the Weimar municipality, Weimar-Jena
Academy, and others. This re?ects richness and diversity of the city’s cultural baggage. The
Foundation of Weimar Classics is a key cultural heritage institution in the area. Its structure
includes 23 museums that attract 81 percent of the total number of visitors to Weimar. A large
number of museums and visitors does not mean the Foundation holds a monopoly on the
market, however. Buchenwald Memorial, as well as Bauhaus, which has its own tourist
attractions, are of great importance for German and world history. Weimar GmBH, playing a
major role in coordinating marketing strategies, redistributing tourism?owand in developing
new products, acts per se as a city development agency, independent from the mayor’s
of?ce.
Enclave model in Yasnaya Polyana
For a long period of time Leo Tolstoy Memorial Museum in Yasnaya Polyana has been
focusing on conservation and preservation of the writer’s estate as a memorial site,
expanding the collections, and renovating its buildings and facilities. A new stage in the
museum history opened up in 1994, when Vladimir I. Tolstoy, a great-great-grandson of the
writer, was appointed the museum’s executive. From that moment on, the museuminitiated a
gradual change in the model of its relationships with both visitors and the local community
and considerably broadened the scope and geography of its operations. The Leo Tolstoy
Memorial Museumof today seeks to restore its role in society and develops its position as an
international center for literature and philosophy discussions, a center for the social
development of the area, and a center for agriculture and forestry. To achieve this, the
museumrecovers and reproduces the activities that were typical for Yasnaya Polyana during
Tolstoy’s lifetime.
The museum’s organizational structure and particular projects fully re?ect its aspirations.
Four museum departments (forestry, memorial garden, environmental protection and
ecology, and landscape design departments) recover and maintain the agricultural and
forestry complex of the estate; they are in charge of a vast territory of 417 hectares, and they
carefully restore ancient working methods, approaches and infrastructures, which were
almost lost during 70 years of the Soviet power. Today, these methods and technologies are
in demand again.
The Department of Museum Pedagogy and the Anthill Brotherhood kindergarten (named
after a children’s game invented by Leo Tolstoy and his brothers) attached to the museum
put into practice the Tolstoy’s pedagogical heritage and try to recover the estate’s role in the
local community development. These units of the museum actively collaborate with
children’s NGOs – the Anthill Brotherhood inter-regional organization and the War and
Peace Historical Reenactment Club. The recently established Educational Department has
started to develop educational tourism in Yasnaya Polyana. The Arts and Crafts Department
designs and produces souvenirs and contributes to the children’s educational programs.
The Yasnaya Polyana Publishing House and the Technological Department of the
museumprovide technical and information support for the museum’s activities,
highlighting the museum’s presence in the public space.
Recently, Yasnaya Polyana Hotel Tourist Complex, located 1.5 km from the principal house,
has made a good start. The complex includes accommodation facilities and conference
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 7
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
facilities for small-scale events, which could be an alternative form of tourism. The Hotel
Tourist Complex, Preshpekt Cafe´ , Yasnaya Polyana Gallery, Arts Salon, a bookstore, and a
souvenir stall are necessary elements constituting tourism infrastructure and providing
services for the museum visitors. After 2005, the museum initiated branches in locations
linked to Tolstoy’s family – Kozlova Zaseka Railway Station, the country estates of
Nikolskoye-Vyazemskoye, Maloye Pirogovo and Pokrovskoye, Krapivna Museum, and
Yasnaya Polyana Scienti?c and Cultural Center in Tula. The branches strengthen the
museum’s in?uence and help create a kind of ‘‘archipelago’’ of Tolstoy heritage tourist sites
in Tula Oblast. Establishing relations with another estate of the Tolstoy family in Samara
Oblast can make it a part of ‘‘Tolstoy archipelago’’ in the near future.
Three regional cultural heritage centers: similarities and differences
The countries in which the three regions are located have very much in common – these are
big and in?uential states with developed economies, all of them are G8 members, and each
has a GNP over $1.5 trillion and a population of 60 to 142 million people. Thus, all three
regions may fully rely on the domestic market as the base for their development. The
differences are that Germany and Great Britain are densely inhabited, and their residents are
three times as rich as those in Russia.
In most European countries, day trips undertaken by tourists fromsurrounding areas and big
cities generate a good half of the revenues of tourism centers. So, the cost of the local and
regional markets matters, as does the proximity of capitals and big cities. Weimar, Stratford
and Yasnaya Polyana are roughly at the same traveling distance from their countries’
capitals, and it takes 2-2.5 hours to get there. However, the population of London and
Moscow is approximately three times that of Berlin’s, with the same level of well-being. On
the other hand, Yasnaya Polyana’s local market within the Tula Oblast area is 1.5 times
smaller than that of Weimar and 2.5 times smaller than that of Stratford, which is located in a
densely populated area. Stratford stands out for its market size ?rst of all due to Birmingham
and Coventry, neighboring big cities that are much bigger than Tula in Russia, and also
larger than Erfurt and Jena in Germany. So, Stratford has certain advantages provided by its
location at the local and regional levels. Also, the social and economic situation in this British
city is considerably better than in Weimar and Yasnaya Poyana. Weimar is experiencing a
high level of unemployment, and Yasnaya Polyana is experiencing rapid aging of the
population and brain drain. Though Stratford is seeing a similar process, it is in its early
stages.
Geographical, social and economic factors put Stratford ahead of the two other regions, but
Weimar is probably leading in terms of cultural heritage density and diversity. Despite its
relatively small size, the city has impressive evidence of having been an important place for
cultural life from the late seventeenth century up to the middle of the twentieth century.
The cultural heritage solidity, including a number of cultural brands, museums, historic and
cultural sites, cultural heritage tourismoperators and educational institutions, makes Weimar
three to ?ve times the size of Stratford and around six times the size of Yasnaya Polyana. The
German cultural heritage center is the only one out of the three that has the Bauhaus
University and Conservatory; in Stratford we see the Shakespeare Institute, a branch of
BirminghamUniversity, but there is not even a branch of an educational institution in Yasnaya
Polyana. Additionally, since 1999, in the frameworks of the European Capital of Culture
program, the city has enjoyed Congress Center Neue Weimarhalle and a modern education
center providing good infrastructure for education, conference, concert and other cultural
activities.
An important feature of Weimar is the absence of a single historic brand, of a personality
dominating its cultural landscape. A dozen outstanding historic ?gures, as well as a series of
important artistic and historic events, shape the city’s image and make it multi-faceted. At
the same time, in Yasnaya Polyana everything revolves around Leo Tolstoy, and William
Shakespeare reigns in Stratford. This means that in Weimar the potential of forming a
PAGE 8
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
territorial brand is much higher than it is in Stratford and Yasnaya Polyana, where historic
personal brands – i.e. Shakespeare and Tolstoy – are very strong.
Conclusions and implications
Tourism has become the main instrument to capitalize on cultural heritage in all three
regions. Only in Weimar it is matched by the musical and design education institutions.
Nevertheless, tourism and the related industries shape the economy of the three areas, as
the majority of jobs and the main bulk of added value are created in the sector.
The regions represent different stages of the development of the tourism industry. In
Stratford, tourismhas been developing for more than 350 years and reached its climax in the
1970s. Presently, the city functions in a stable mode and even has experienced a slight
decline in its tourist attractiveness. In Weimar the history of tourism development is shorter
and does not exceed 150 years, but after the uni?cation of Germany, the industry and the
city itself have been booming. In Yasnaya Polyana, tourism began only after the Second
World War, and major changes occurred in this sector after 1991. Thus, the German and the
Russian regions are in the middle of rapid growth in tourismand its respective industries and
infrastructure.
Yasnaya Polyana, receiving 130,000 visitors per year, looks like a dwarf compared to Weimar
(3.5 million visitors) and Stratford (5.5 million visitors). Among the visitors to Weimar and
Stratford, 14-15 percent of stay overnight in local hotels and B&Bs, 1-1.5 percent of visitors
come to see their friends and relatives, and the remaining 82-84 percent spend just a few
hours there. All three regions work mainly on national tourism markets as they are, in fact,
huge. Of the visitors to Yasnaya Polyana, foreigners account only for 1 percent. In the other
two regions, foreigners make up 13-14 percent of people staying overnight in local hotels.
Half of the visitors to museums in Stratford are foreigners; there is no accurate data on
Weimar, but according to local experts, the share of foreign tourists is not so large.
One of the most important effects of tourism development is that it generates new jobs. It is a
weighty argument for both local people and authorities. Undoubtedly, tourism plays a
considerably greater role in Stratford than in Weimar – 6,884 people have their jobs in
tourism and the related industries, constituting more than a half of the city’s working
population. In Weimar tourism and its related sectors employ 4,300 people, or 21 percent of
the working population (21,000). Thus, the impact of tourism development on local residents
of the German heritage center is 2.5 times less signi?cant compared to the impact on the
residents of Stratford.
If we extrapolate the quantitative assessment of the social impact of tourismdevelopment on
Yasnaya Polyana, it would suggest that with the existing tourist ?ow the interest and
participation of local people in tourism development may not be the main driver for the
development of the local community. At present, the area’s tourismsector has the capacity to
employ no more than 15 percent of the working population.
The research ?ndings show that Stratford, literally, lives on tourism; the spirit of tourism
services has penetrated into every part of its life. In the other two regions tourism does not
play such an important role as yet, though its in?uence is becoming more and more evident.
Both Weimar and Yasnaya Polyana should have their tourist ?ow increased by 2-2.5 times to
reach the impact level of Stratford’s tourism industry on the regional economy pro?le.
Additionally, Yasnaya Polyana has to make more ef?cient use of the existing tourist ?ow.
The research results help formulate recommendations to establish partnerships in different
sectors. In order to trigger tourismand cultural sector development in Russia, contributing to
sustainable regional development, it is necessary to:
B enhance institutional collaborations of business and non-commercial regional and local
players interested in the development of regional cultural infrastructure;
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
PAGE 9
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
B stimulate entrepreneurial initiatives of the local community, including the formation of
corporate mutual funds to bridge a gap between private individual initiatives and the
development of large-scale cultural and tourism infrastructures; and
B develop and introduce special ?nancial-sharing schemes to accumulate funds for
regional regeneration and to meet the needs of the creative class for cheap long-term
loans.
One of the main challenges for management in Russian rural areas is to slow down the drain
of active people to capital cities and to anchor the creative class in areas that tend towards
tourism development. Accordingly, it is necessary to create institutional and legal conditions
supporting the cooperation and integration of local family SMEs and entrepreneurial
initiatives in the cultural and tourism sectors, including the centralized development of the
marketing and sales infrastructure.
References
Abankina, T. (2005), ‘‘Ekonomika zhelanii v sovremennoi tsivilizatsii dosuga’’, Otechestvennye Zapiski,
Vol. 4 No. 25, pp. 115-23 (in Russian).
Howkins, J. (2007), Creative Economy: How People Make Money from Ideas, Penguin Books, London.
Landry, C. (2000), The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators, Earthscan Publications, London.
Corresponding author
Tatiana Abankina can be contacted at: [email protected]
PAGE 10
j
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY RESEARCH
j
VOL. 7 NO. 1 2013
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Lenar Safiullin, Nailya Bagautdinova, Nail Safiullin. 2015. Historical and Cultural Heritage and Region's Economic: Case
Study Central and Eastern Russia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 188, 151. [CrossRef]
2. Hong Fan. 2014. Branding a place through its historical and cultural heritage: The branding project of Tofu Village in China.
Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 10, 279-287. [CrossRef]
3. Ana Cristina Fachinelli, Francisco Javier Carrillo, Anelise D’Arisbo. 2014. Capital system, creative economy and knowledge
city transformation: Insights from Bento Gonçalves, Brazil. Expert Systems with Applications 41, 5614-5624. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
2
0
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_780611427.pdf