3. CRITERIA FOR SPATIAL DIFFERENTIATION SPESP

Transcription

1 3. CRITERIA FOR SPATIAL DIFFERENTIATION SPESP from the tourist s point of view. Secondly, at equal levels of tourist pressure, areas with a high relative concentration of assets generate different problems than those where the heritage is more dispersed. Hence, the almost exclusively urban dimension of the problems. Thirdly, tourist use of urban space causes a certain displacement of residential activities. Gauging the extent of this displacement and comparing it with the extent of tourist pressure may give an indication of the fragility of the system. Data collection regarding the measurement of the significance and endangering of the built cultural heritage poses a number of peculiar problems. Differences in the approaches used by the various member countries may lead to questionable results, as indicated by a Europewide inventory of cultural assets made in It was therefore decided to gather data using the road maps and guides that are actually used by tourists, in order to guarantee at least uniform measures of presence and importance. Other data on population and tourism development were taken from the Eurostat Regio Database. The first indicator (the absolute number of registered monuments/cultural sites in a NUTS area) is one measure of the cultural richness of a region. It represents potential attractiveness and is therefore logically related to the significance of the supply of cultural assets. The second indicator (relative number of registered monuments/cultural sites in a NUTS area), reflecting the density of the assets on the territory, may provide useful insights in the spatial organisation of the heritage.(figures 30 and 31). Figure 30. Presence of cultural assets Figure 31. Concentration of cultural assets A third indicator measures tourist pressure on a site (the ratio of tourist stays annually per total number of residents in the NUTS area). This indicator should reflect the demand for use of cultural assets. Given the relevance of tourism as a means of using the heritage, data on overnight tourist stays in the area approximate sufficiently well the actual level of pressure (Figure 32). Figure 32. Use pressure on cultural sites A fourth indicator, the tourist capacity ( Touristicity ) of the heritage site (number of beds in hotels and similar accommodations per total number of dwellings/households in a NUTS area), measures the dependence of the local social fabric on the travel industry. It indicates the capacity of the tourist industry to internalise economic benefits generated by the presence of cultural attractions (Figure 33). Figure 33. Tourist capacity of the heritage site The four maps offer a straightforward view of the European regions with regard to the presence of, potential demand for and effective use by the tourism industry of built cultural heritage. Both in absolute and relative terms, differences in the supply of built heritage among the European regions are considerable. Potential pressure on heritage also varies extensively among regions. The traditional tourism regions clearly emerge from the corresponding map. Particularly interesting are experiments combining indicators, enabling planners to classify the European territory into areas where the use of heritage is sustainable and where it is not. Such an attempt was made by selecting the areas that scored best on the two first indicators and analysing their scores for indicators 3 and 4 (Figure 34). Figure 34. Sustainability of use of cultural heritage The use of heritage is clearly sustainable if the pressure remains low while capacity is above average. Problems arise either where pressure on heritage is extremely high or where the availability of heritage is abundant but the pressure remains below the average. In the first case, stress may compromise the integrity of built heritage; in the second case the potential of cultural assets is not fully utilised. In only a few regions do sustainability problems seem to be particularly acute. This does not, however, exclude the possibility of excessive pressure on specific sites. The proximity of developed regions to cultural regions with a low accommodation capacity may generate an intense flow of excursionists. Planners can use such information to identify the right spatial scale for the management of the regional assets. 85

2 Figure 30. Presence of cultural assets Presence of Cultural Sites very low low average high very high The map represents a new and complete listing of registered heritage cities, cultural sites and monuments from a set of tourist guides one for each country of the TCI (Italian Touring Club) issued in the early eighties, except for Germany (from 1994 because of former GDR). This ensured homogeneity and provided a direct relation to the NUTS 3 coding. All cities, sites and monuments that scored two stars - indicating a very attractive or historically and culturally significant asset - in the TCI guides were included. Weighting was applied in order to evaluate heritage cities differently from individual monuments and other sites. A weighting of 3 was assigned to heritage cities of main importance (such as Bruges, Paris, Venice, Rome, London, Berlin, Munich, Madrid, Barcelona, Athens, etc.). A weighting of 2 was assigned to interesting cities and sites with either close to 10 mentioned monuments or only one monument, but which was of outstanding importance (e.g. Salzburg, Pisa, Perugia, Volterra, Nice, Versailles, Stonehenge, Hadrian s Wall, etc.). No weighting was assigned to other relatively less important sites (individual archaeological sites, such as castles, cathedrals, abbeys, remains, etc.).

3 Figure 31. Concentration of cultural assets Concentration of Cultural Sites very low low average high very high This map was obtained by calculating the ratio between the absolute values of the previous map (Presence of cultural assets) and the corresponding NUTS 3 area. As an indicator of significance, it provides useful insights in the spatial distribution of the European heritage.

4 Figure 32. Use pressure on cultural sites This map is based on NUTS 2 regions, as it was constructed using data on tourism contained in the REGIO database from EUROSTAT. It shows ratios between the number of yearly tourist stays and the total resident population in a NUTS area. It represents the distribution of one of two threat indicators that proved to be feasible to map with the available data and reflect the demand side for the use of cultural assets. The ratios have been calculated from 1997 data on tourism and population data for each country except FR and BE (1995) and NL (1994). Blank areas on the map (UK and regions in SE and FI) result from different version of NUTS code between the database and the GISCO coverage, so that no GIS linkage could be established.

5 Figure 33. Tourist capacity of heritage sites 'Touristicity' of the Heritage Site very low low average high very high No Data The map shows the dependence of the local social fabric on tourism It is derived from the REGIO database on NUTS 2 level and indicates tourist capacity (number of beds in hotels and similar accommodations) per total number of households in a NUTS area. Data were not available for all areas for the same year, nor could figures be calculated for AT, FI, SE or NL because data on accommodations were lacking. Previously reported problems with UK data were encountered here as well. For other countries, the ratio is calculated using 1995 data on tourism / 1994 data on households (the most recent available), except for PT (1996/1994)

6 Figure 34. Sustainability of use of cultural heritage Sustanaibility of use of cultural heritage Sustainable use of cultural heritage Risk of eccessive use of cultural heritage Unexploited potential of cultural heritage No Data The map provides a classification of the European territory by NUTS 3 areas indicating where the use of heritage is sustainable and where it is not. It was produced by combining indicators of concentration, pressure and tourist capacity according to the following logical scheme (logical AND applies to the values in the columns, logical OR applies to multiple occurrences of the same class in the rows): concentration pressure tourist capacity Sustainable use Low Any Any Sustainable use High Low High Risk of excessive use High High Any Unexploited potential High Low Low For each indicator the class High group includes those values belonging to the classes High or Very high, and the class Low the remaining ones. The scores on indicator 2 and 3 were analysed to adapt their values to each NUTS 3 level region. This was done in order keep more localised information around the high ranked areas.