Future Management Plan on Attractions

“An overarching vision for the future development of the Parthenon, as a heritage attraction, based on a comprehensive management plan”

Tourism nowadays has the potential and the vision to be one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy in many countries, where tourism study and research are being undertaken in an extended field of interdependent cultural relationships (Hampton 2005). The appeal of heritage and culture is vital to that environment (Heritage Lottery Fund 2010). Heritage tourism is an expanding market which has values of a desirable product that helps the tourism development (Aasa et al. 2005). Culture is argued to be a crucial determinant of the growth of tourism and leisure consumption (Richards 2001). Cultural attractions are an important source of tourist consumption and experience in many levels, from the global highlights of world culture to local cultural identities (Richards 2001). The Council of Europe has started developing cultural tourism as a means of supporting culture and heritage in local, regional and national level (Richards 2001). A significant number of cultural tourism covers not only consumption of cultural products, but it also includes the ‘learning’ function of heritage and arts tourism, which means that cultural tourists become more creative and mindful (Richards 2001).

According to Boyd (2002 cited Bonn et al. 2007) the 37% of all trips of tourists include a visit to a cultural/heritage attraction. This is a critical element, which proves peoples’ inclination to explore traditional and new cultures (Huh and Uysal 2004). Cultural and heritage tourism have become part of the ‘new era’ of tourism demand (Huh and Uysal 2004) and successful attractions are those that are effectively and sustainably managed (Swarbrooke 2002). The management of tourist attractions is not an easy task. It requires long-term strategic planning, collaboration between key tourism stakeholders and cooperation between the local and national tourism bodies.

The above theoretical framework surrounds the aim of this work which is to present, analyse and critically discuss the development of the Parthenon site of Acropolis in Athens and to propose two potential scenarios, which could be achievable by setting specific objectives for future development and growth. These objectives are going to be supported by a management plan. Firstly, I am going to give a general description of Acropolis, as a famous cultural tourist attraction, highlighting the contribution of the Parthenon to the world heritage and its development till now. Secondly, I will present the potential scenarios of future development and the objectives that could put them into practice. Thirdly, a management plan is going to be proposed. Lastly, I am going to conclude by referring to the significant role of cultural attractions and cultural tourism in today’s “experience economy”.

To begin with, Athens is one of the oldest cities in the world that records an active history of 3,400 years. It is one of the main sources of Western civilisation’s development and the birthplace of democracy (Cartledge 2009). The heritage and cultural sites are evident on the city and they are represented by a significant number of ancient monuments and works of art. The most famous of them is the Parthenon, the most attractive and famous monument of the Acropolis site. The monuments of the Acropolis, which combine different orders and styles of Classical art, have influenced art, cultural and heritage tourism for many centuries (Venieri 2007).

The Acropolis became a sacred precinct in the 8th century BC and in 490 BC. Just after the Athenians had defeated the Persians at Marathon, they began building a very large temple, the ‘Pre-Parthenon’ (Venieri 2007). The original function of the Parthenon had two main functions: First of all, to be an architectural masterpiece, dominating the Athenian Acropolis and, secondly, to be used as a shelter for the cult-statue of Athena Parthenos (Burford 1963). From the 6th century AD till 1822, when the Acropolis was handed over to Greeks, all the monuments of the Acropolis suffered from natural causes and human intervention (Venieri 2007). Especially the building of the Parthenon was affected and delayed due to invasions and influences from other peoples that used the temple as a sacred site or shelter.

In 1822 the Parthenon, together with all the monuments of the Acropolis came under the care of the newly founded Greek state (Venieri 2007). Between 1885 and 1890 the site of the Acropolis was excavated under the Greek archaeologist and academic P. Kavvadias who contributed to the large-scale conservation and restoration of the Acropolis (Venieri 2007).

In 1975 the Committee for the Conservation of the Monuments on the Acropolis was founded, following the work of P. Kavvadias, and started implementing a multidimensional project for the qualitative improvement and development of the Acropolis (Venieri 2007). The works of the committee were officially came to an end the 24th of May 2010, when the restoration of the Parthenon achieved the committee’s initial objectives (Koumelis 2010).

Many thousands of tourists travel from around the world to visit the World Heritage Sites of Acropolis and especially the Parthenon. The cost of the ticket is 12 euros and it is part of the Acropolis admission ticket, which is valid for one week (Sacred Destinations 2010). The visitors have also the opportunity to visit the New Acropolis Museum which is located next to the Parthenon. It contains invaluable Greek artefacts in a total area of 25,000 square metres and offers all the amenities expected in an international museum of the 21st century (The Acropolis Museum 2010).
After making a brief reference to the history of the Acropolis and the Parthenon, it is now time to talk about the scenarios regarding the future development of the Parthenon and set the objectives.

Table 1: Future scenarios and proposed objectives for the Parthenon

Scenario A: Making the visitors of the Parthenon more creative and mindful	Scenario B: Making the site of the Parthenon more sustainable and adaptable to change.
Management plan objectives
Welcome, orientation and comfort of the visitors	Heritage management through effective planning
Create thoughtful customers and added-value seekers	Implementation of marketing techniques
Successful interpretation and multi-sensory activities	Participation of local community in heritage site development
Recreation and communication	Develop collaboration of stakeholders and tourism key players of the area

As we can see on the table above, the future development of the Parthenon as a World Heritage Site is based on a vision that is shaped by two main aims: The first one is visitor orientated while the second one is site orientated. The scenarios have equal value, importance and scope and they are interdependent. The reason why they are dependent is based on the fact that a static and non-sustainable site cannot attract new visitors and, on the other hand, passive visitors cannot be active parts of a sustainable site.

• Potential scenario A: Making the visitors of the Parthenon more creative and mindful by creating memorable experiences.

ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES

Welcome, orientation and comfort
Creating and maintaining visitor experiences at heritage sites is not an easy task. When tourists from different parts of the world visit a heritage site, they have different experiences, images and attitudes about it. This happens because their view about the site is affected from their cultural identity and needs. However, there are some basic principles that can be followed in order to make sure that the majority of the visitors will be satisfied from what they have visited. Welcome, orientation and comfort of the visitor are very important issues. The welcome process begins at the main entrance of the site and it ends when the visitor had contact with a member of staff from the site (Weaver 2007). The orientation begins when the visitor is moving away from the greeter and starts exploring the surroundings of the site by deciding, at the same time, what to do first (Weaver 2007). As far as the comfort is concerned, it is found throughout the site. The lighting, the sounds, the surrounding materials and the temperature of the buildings in the site play a basic role in affecting visitors’ psychological mood and willingness to learn more about the site.

Cultural attractions have been recognised as central aspects of the tourism process, because they are very often the reason for someone to visit a particular destination that provides activities and experiences (Richards 2002). According to Gunn (1988 in Richards 2002) ‘’attractions have exercised a magnetic pulling power over people since classical times’’. This magnetism includes not only the changes on tourists’ behaviour and preferences, but also the quality of the design, the development and the operation of the attraction (Richards 2002). The Parthenon has ‘magnetised’ and continues ‘magnetising’ many types of visitors from many countries around the world.

Thoughtful customer, added-value seeker
The visitors who seek for qualitative experiences in heritage attractions are characterised as “thoughtful consumers” or “added-value seekers” (Voase 2008). The elements of welcome, orientation and comfort determine on a high rate the view of such kind of visitors about the site. According to Pine and Gilmore (1999 cited Moscardo and Ballantyne 2008) an experience to a heritage site has to be a memorable event with a range of positive emotional responses from all the participants. This can be achieved by creating opportunities through interpretation for visitors to have a rewarding experience (Moscardo and Ballantyne 2008). Interpretation could play an important role in giving the chance to the visitors to participate in range of activities through mental and physical access to the site (Moscardo and Ballantyne 2008). Taking the Parthenon as a real example, we could suggest the creation of interpretive media around the site (e.g. digital panels) that could provide information about the making, the history and the role of the site.

Successful interpretation and multi-sensory activities
A study by Colbert (2003 in Roja and Camarero 2007) showed that the visiting experience becomes an opportunity for the elaboration of visitors’ understanding and mindfulness if it is accompanied by a range of multi-sensory activities that go beyond the simple inspection of the monuments or exhibits. In order to increase the satisfaction and the total experience of the visitors in heritage sites, a deep understanding of key topics has to be taken into account.

Recreation and communication
Some of these key areas are: study the psychology of the audience, increase visitor motivation and expectations, provide and apply recreational theory, measure consumer behaviour and develop interpretive communications (Verveka 2009). The table below shows how the above objectives could be achieved by following specific techniques in order to make the visitors of the Parthenon more creative and increase their overall satisfaction.

Table 2: Putting the objectives into practice by suggesting techniques (SCENARIO A)

OBJECTIVE	TECHNIQUE
Welcome, orientation and comfort	Well-managed and smiley staff, experienced guides and friendly environment
Thoughtful customer, added-value seeker	Motivate the visitors, make them feel part of the monument, part of the Athenian history; ask their opinion about the site.
Successful interpretation and multi-sensory activities	Digital panels, ‘sound and light’ system: history of the Parthenon under Ancient Greek music and different light colours.
Recreation and communication	Cultural events throughout the year (living history, cultural informants, role acting > e.g. the making of the Parthenon, the everyday life in ancient Athens)

 

• Potential scenario B: Making the site of the Parthenon more sustainable and adaptable to change.

Analysis of the Objectives
After presenting and analysing the objectives for making the visitors of the Parthenon more mindful and experienced, it is now time to refer to site and how it would be more sustainable and more adaptable to future environmental and social changes. The Parthenon is under the care of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, which has cooperation with other public and private organisations in order to ensure its sufficient conservation, restoration, and availability to the visitors. However, even if the Parthenon illuminates the origin of civilisation and democracy worldwide, there is not any long-term management plan or objective strategy that could set the aims of sustainable tourism development. Due to the vulnerable political situation in Greece and the different actions from Ministers from different political parties, the site is a “victim” of short-term projects and actions without strategic planning. In the next section we will make an attempt to set some objectives for the future management of the Parthenon.

Heritage tourism is identified by four main areas of significance: economic, social, political and scientific (Timothy and Boyd 2003). Economic because heritage is preserved by sponsorships, expenditures and user-pays and it also creates opportunities for the local community; social because it is a personal and collective identity with a sense of place that has to be protected by the local community; political because the government and the political community is responsible for reinforcing and providing solutions for the future development of the heritage sites and finally, scientific because academics, tourism professionals, naturalists and archaeologists are some categories of people that have to collaborate and cooperate by creating synergies in order to improve the image of heritage (Timothy and Boyd 2003).

Heritage management through effective planning
The concepts of heritage are always changing and developing according to the social context of national and other identities (Harvey 2001). This means that adaptability and sustainability are crucial elements of a heritage site’s long term survival. Effective planning and marketing can help on this dimension. A good understanding of the product that is sold is a good start. The Parthenon is not just a mixture of ancient stones that all together made some columns. It is an experiential product. It is a monument that has historic, religious, cultural and social value for the Athenian people.

Implementation of marketing techniques
Another element is the market groups that visit the Parthenon. Where they come from? Are there repeated visitors? How long they stay on the site? What really interest and attract them? The answers on these questions can be given only after conducting surveys on the site, by asking the visitors about their experience. In addition, the profile of heritage visitors has to be examined. Information from elements such as: gender, age, education, occupation and status, income and visitor origin could help to analyse in depth the identity of the people that visit the Parthenon. Either we like it or not, we live in a competitive environment. Every town, every country has its own identity and heritage. So, a competition analysis is important in order to find the ways that could make the Parthenon more competitive.

Participation of local community in heritage site development
In my opinion, the approval and the participation of the local community to the management plan in a heritage site is crucial. The local people are in continuous contact with the visitors of the site. They receive comments and ideas about the site and they are an important part the site’s situation and image. The active participation of the local community in the partnerships with the state, the tourist agencies and the tour operators could bring more qualitative ideas and solutions than being a passive ‘host’ community which just simply welcomes the visitors (Hampton 2005).

Develop collaboration of stakeholders and tourism key players of the area
A successful symbiotic relationship between tourism and heritage sites is highly depended on the collaboration of all the stakeholders of the area (Aasa et al. 2005). The concepts of interrelationship and cooperation among various stakeholders are increasingly important when there is a need for future planning. In Athens, there are many public and private organisations that could cooperate for the better future of the Parthenon.

Some key players of the area are: the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Greek National Tourist Organisation, The Association of Greek Tourist Enterprises, tour operators, the Association of Greek Archaeologists, the Company of Preservation and Restoration of Athenian antiquities, The Acropolis Museum. These organisations must work in a collective environment, by organising forums and open discussions about the future management of the Parthenon. The participation of representatives from the local community is important at these events.

Table 3: Putting the objectives into practice by suggesting techniques (SCENARIO B)

OBJECTIVE	TECHNIQUE
Heritage management through effective planning	Understanding of the product and its cultural dimensions
Implementation of marketing solutions	Market group identification, segmentation and targeting of the visitors, competition analysis
Participation of local community in heritage site development	Taking the advice from the ‘first line’ participants of the attraction. Give the chance to the local community to express and share its ideas.
Develop collaboration of stakeholders and tourism key players of the area	Synergies are needed. Organisation of forums, events and collective environment of sharing ideas and solutions.

Taking all the above into account, we can argue that the effective management of visitor attractions plays an important role in the success of a tourism destination and its heritage sites (Leask 2010). The development of heritage attractions is linked closely to tourism destination development and economic regeneration of an area, city or a whole country (Leask 2010). Greece is one of the countries that really need this regeneration and ‘revitalisation’ in order to improve and develop its image as a cultural tourist destination. Heritage attractions like the Parthenon represent irreplaceable resources of the tourism industry, which have to be conserved, protected and well-managed (Millar 1989).

Good heritage management of heritage attractions creates sustainable environments for the tourists, the local community and the key tourist players (Timothy and Boyd 2003). Sustainability and adaptability are key issues of the relationship between heritage and tourism. Tourism is not a static phenomenon and heritage can take many forms on the eyes of different visitors. Sites like the Parthenon mean different things for different people. That’s why its future heritage management has to focus on the “new visitor’s” needs and expectations. Internet has given new chances and it has opened new opportunities for heritage attractions to market themselves (Richards 2001).

The visitor experience at heritage site has to be shaped by multi-sensory activities that can give to the visitors the chance to be creative by contributing in the site development. In my opinion, all the above ideas, plans, techniques and solutions can work and be effective only if they are implemented in a collaborative environment. My country and especially my birthplace, Athens, suffer from lack of collectivism. If the Greek local community and the tourism professionals really want the Parthenon to regain the image it had twenty years ago, they have to follow the way of cooperation and collectivism; because: either we heal as a team, or we die as individuals.

Emmanouil Tsigkakos
Postgraduate Student
MSc. Tourism Management & Marketing
School of Tourism
Bournemouth University
Dorset, UK
 

References:

• Aasa, C., Ladkin, A., and Fletcher, J., 2005. Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32 (1), 28-48.
• Bonn, M. A., Joseph- Mathews, S. M., Dai, M., Hays, S., and Cave, Jenny. 2007. Heritage/Cultural Attraction Atmospherics: Creating the Right Environment for the Heritage/ Cultural Visitor. Journal of Travel Research, 45-60, 346-356.
• Burford, A., 1963. The builders of the Parthenon. Greece and Rome, Second Series, Vol. 10, Supplement: Parthenos and Parthenon, 23-35.
• Cartledge, P., 2009. History of World Civilisation – Greek Civilisation: Polis; Athens [online] Available from: Link. Accessed: 7 May 2010.
• Hampton, M. P., 2005. HERITAGE, LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. International Journal of Tourism Research, 32 (3), 735-759.
• Harvey, D., 2001. Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 7 (4), 319-338.
• Heritage Lottery Fund website, 2010. Investing in Success [online]. Available from: Link. [Accessed 13 May 2010].
• Huh, J., and Uysal, M., 2004. Satisfaction with Cultural/Heritage Sites. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 4 (3), 177-194.
• Koumelis, T., 2010. Ολοκληρώθηκε η αποκατάσταση του Παρθενώνα στα Προπύλαια ( The restoration of the Parthenon in over at the Propylaia). Travel Daily News (Alternative Tourism), news online Available from: Link. [Accessed 2 May 2010].
• Leask, A., 2010. Progress in visitor attraction research: Towards more effective management. Tourism Management, 31 (2), 155-166.
• Millar, S., 1989. Heritage Management for heritage tourism. Tourism Management, 10 (1), 9-14.
• Moscardo, G., and Ballantyne, R., 2008. Interpretation and Attractions. In: Fyall, A., et al. Managing Visitor Attractions, new directions. Second Edition. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
• Richards, G., 2002. Tourism attraction systems: Exploring Cultural Behaviour. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (4), 1048-1064.
• Richards, G., 2001. Cultural attractions and European tourism. Oxon: CABI Publishing.
• Rojas, C. D., and Camarero, C., 2007. Visitors’ experience, mood and satisfaction in a heritage context: Evidence from an interpretation centre. Tourism Management, 29 (3), 525-537.
• Sacred Destinations website. 2010. Acropolis Museum, Athens [online] Available form: Link. [Accessed 4 May 2010].
• Swarbrook, J., 2002. The Development and Management of Visitor Attractions. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• The Acropolis Museum website, 2010. Museum History [online]. Available from: Link. [Accessed 2 May 2010].
• Timothy, D. J., and Boyd, S. W., 2003. Heritage Tourism. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
• Venieri, I., 2007. Acropolis of Athens (History). Available from: Link . [Accessed 9 May 2010].
• Verveka, J. A., ca. 2009. Marketing Basics for Interpretive & Heritage Sites and Attractions – It’s all about the visitors [online] Handout from training courses: Destination Interpretation and Marketing: Secrets of Success Available from: Link . [Accessed 2 May 2010].
• Voase, R., 2008. Rediscovering the Imagination: Meeting the Needs of the ‘New’ Visitor. In: Fyall, A., et al. Managing Visitor Attractions, new directions. Second Edition. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
• Weaver, S., 2007. Creating great visitor experiences. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Further reading:

• Leask, A., and Fyall, A., 2006. Managing world heritage sites. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
• Pearce, P., 1998. Marketing and management trends in tourist attractions. Asia pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 3 (1), 1-8.
• Poria, Y., Reichel, A., and Biran, A., 2006. HERITAGE SITE MANAGEMENT, Motivations and Expectations. Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (1), 162-178.
• Russo, A. P., and Borq, J. V., 2002. Planning considerations for cultural tourism: a case study of four European cities. Tourism Management, 23 (6), 631-637.