Махачкала_13-15.03.2014
.pdf2)доступность (возможность посещения туристских объектов без больших финансовых затрат и без траты большого количества времени);
3)возможность самостоятельно визуально ознакомиться с интересующими объектами;
4)возможность просмотра в любое удобное время;
5)возможность знакомиться с экскурсией многоразово и изучать дополнительную предлагаемую информацию;
6)одновременное присутствие в разных географических точках. Наряду с отмеченными достоинствами виртуальной экскурсии
можно выделить и ее недостатки, среди которых:
1)заочность присутствия;
2)отсутствие диалогичности;
3)зависимость от авторов виртуальной экскурсии: человек, осуществляющий виртуальную экскурсию, изучает только те объекты, которые включены авторами;
4)ограниченность впечатлений.
Виртуальная экскурсия имеет свои обязательные условия подготовки и публикации:
1)наличие не менее двух помещений для оказания услуг/продажи товаров (чем больше и разнообразнее оформленных – тем лучше);
2)не менее двух видов оказываемых услуг (чем больше и разнообразнее – тем лучше);
3)умение выделить и объяснить свои преимущества [3]. Несмотря на то что виртуальная экскурсия появилась сравни-
тельно недавно, она привлекает к себе все большее внимание как ту- ристов-практиков, так и теоретических исследователей в сфере туризма. Популярность этой формы обусловлена теми широкими возможностями, которые она предоставляет.
Список литературы
1.http://www.it-.ru/communities.aspx?cat_no=107408&tmpl=com
2.http://louvre.historic.ru/virttour.shtml
3.www.coolreferat.com
101
УДК 658.8
CONTEMPORARY ASPECTS OF DOUBLE CENTER
TOURISM TRAVELS
Dyankov Todor Konstantinov, todordyankov@abv.bg
University of Economics, Varna, Bulgaria
Abstract. In this article the concept of double center tourism travels is relevantly issued from marketing point of view along with the theories of cross border tourism travels. The author suggests that double center tourism dialectically steps on and at the same time modifies the nature of cross border tourism. Dualism in human living formulates people’s inclinations to travel in more than one destination per trip. Dualistic nature of tourist destinations become as much sustainable as the monistic (holistic) nature of these destinations. In this relation double center tourism travels can lead to more social and economic benefits for the market stake holders involved in this business. The article outlines the main features of double center tourism and the relevant implications for its practical implementation.
Key words: cross border tourism, trans border tourism, double center tourism, functional distance, tourist limology, tourist destination.
Introduction. During the last decade the central paradigm of European integration process has become an important characteristic in almost every field of cultural, social and economic activities for all European Union countries as well as for those countries which are still on the way of their joining to the Community. Different resource aspects of the European natural and anthropological legacy form a significant driver for further closer adherence between European states. Tourism industry is not an exception in this direction involving the proliferation of various types of travel activities across countries. Following this in mind there are lots of questions which may provoke the creation and sustainable existence of profitable mutual tourist policies between tourist companies acting on the territories of two or more bordering and even non - bordering countries. In this relation the main objective of this paper is to outline a general concept of double center tourism travels along with its contextual implementation in the business of local and transnational tourist companies.
Discussion. The notion of double center tourism could be based on the theories and empirical researches of cross border tourism activities. There is not a clear difference between cross border and trans border tourism as far as the mutual cooperation between the interacting foreign tourist stakeholders is a fundamental explanation of these categories. Trans border co-
102
operation is a broader understanding, including in its geographical scope more and larger territories (far beyond border lands and regions) of two countries [12]. In this relation for the purpose of this paper we may take into consideration that the spatial categories cross border and trans border territories have a relatively equal meaning.
Cross border theories and empirical researches could be relatively grouped into several scientific directions as: Geographical direction; Governmental (state) direction; Tourist destination direction; Place marketing direction.
Most of these directions combine similar ideas, while the distinctive points between them are due to the particular dominating concept in question which prevails in the relevant theory or research study.
The geographical group of researchers suggests that natural borders seem to be the most important types of borders [10] . They exist in a given area for the longest period of time and are often determined as a basis for further divisions. Natural borders constitute a natural barrier for the environment and for the development of the economy as well. The authors also mention that borders and borderlands are special areas, where one can observe mutually exclusive processes: integration and isolation, cooperation and exclusion. In this relation the elements of natural environment as rivers, mountain ridges, banks of lakes, seas are used to be the basis for defining political borders in the past. The same authors divide the borders of their researched area - Bieszczady mountains into four types: natural borders, cultural borders, political borders and organizational borders. According this identification of borders the authors give primary position of natural borders. There are also pointed out precise definitions about the geographical and social cross border categories as: border, borderland, border strip, border cordon under strict control, border zone, border area (territory), border region [12].
Theories of tourist limology or the “science of tourist boundaries” mainly take a middle (interdisciplinary) position between geographical, political, administrative, cultural, social and psychological aspects. In this relation is created a method for alternative estimation of the distance equivalence of international borders [11]. The author of this method is making use of the research category “functional distance” (an added psychological distance). From tourist point of view it means that crossing any boundary very often creates a possible psychological tension in people’s mind. No matter whether it is only about crossing formal or very strictly controlled boundary there could exist any human discomfort. Another author points out that the boundary itself, not the border sign “Welcome to…….” attracts people or makes them feel uncomfortable [1,2]. This fact was quite evident during the years of the cold war, but according the researches the func-
103
tional distance continues to exist today even between most civilized countries when it is about crossing their borders. State boundaries have become a kind of psychological tourist resource for trans border travel purposes.
Cross border tourism theories stemming from governmental (state) points of view are mainly developed into three different aspects:
-the mutual co-existence of political borders along with non-political borders and the need these borders to be crossed;
-the institutionalization of cross border regions;
-the ongoing integration process within the European Union;
In this relation it is suggested that cross border tourism efforts between countries should be initiated in priority by usage of duly bilateral agreements between governments which must resolve certain cross border problems, as [13]:
-legal and governmental differences that complicate coordination and implementation of cross border activities;
-barriers to communication, movement and information;
-social and cultural differences, including language differences that inhibit the development of trust and a commonsense of community;
-economic disparities that constrain certain stakeholders’ willingness or ability to participate in the process;
The governmental influence (mainly in the planning and cooperation process) is also taken into consideration about the creation of cross border networks where transactions are achieved in a context of reciprocity and in relationships of interdependency [4]. The concept of such activities is adequate in a territory occupied by a frontier population united by cultural and historic ties with potentiality in endogenous development. This leads to the concept of complex interdependence where state objectives have a priority meaning. The way for a successful endogenous development is the establishment of strategic alliances between government and non - government organizations and communication networks based on the preliminary creation of so called learning organizations in both countries [4]. In this relation having in mind that the market is the driver, the state remains the important facilitator for the proper implementation of this driver. For that reason the governmental position is somewhere between the administration process and marketing activities in the cross border territory [4]. This state position is highly related with the notion of institutionalization of regions (explained below) where the tourist region (a kind of destination) is approached as a socially defined entity [4].
Cross border regionalization is another alternative vision for the development of cross border tourism activities. The concept of “Europe of regions” lies in a system of functional and harmonious border regions [9]. This system of border regions serves to connect European Union people
104
and improve the competitiveness of regions on different spatial scales. Cross border tourism regions are regarded as laboratories where the advancement of the European integration process can be measured and evaluated. In the context of European integration a cross border region is conceptualized as a territorial unit that comprises contiguous subnational units from two or more nation - states. The idea for cross border regionalization could be assigned to a unique mixture of geographical, social, state and community theories. Unlike this conceptual amalgam, there is a “new regionalization” notion which is described as a bottom – up regionalism, entailing forms of governance in which the sovereign state is no longer the primary anchor for political regulation [9]. Instead there is a plurality of co-existing networks and partnerships on diverse spatial scales.
Tourist destination theories which explain the cross border tourism activities are mainly examined in relation to the changing role of European internal border regions [9]. In this relation co-operation and commercialization of cross border tourism destinations do not mean, however, that national borders are disappearing from the context of tourism development. Instead, the transformation of a cross border tourist destination is a contested process in which a border is simultaneously withdrawn and authenticated [9]. Whereas the political border signifies the socio - spatial order and the power of nation – states, the non – political border stays between temporal and spatial elements of the human experience [9].
From sheer marketing point of view cross border tourism activities are mainly encompassed by place marketing theories. In this relation some researchers suggest that place marketing should close the gap what an area really is (“identity”), what outsiders think about it (“image”) and how the location wants to be known in the outside world (its brand or “desired” reputation) [6]. In this way of thinking the place marketing must find a balance between identity, image and the desired reputation (its brand). If these elements fit, the brand is the greatest common denominator between the different pillars (e.g. economy, infrastructure, education and culture) and arenas (citizens, entrepreneurs, authorities) making up an area at first an “imagined space” [6]. The main problem is that the area should be marketed in a realistic way towards a specific target segment, so called “place customers”. In other words the selected brand must suit the identity of the locality in question. Then come up the difficulties of how to grasp the identity of an area. As a possible solution it is argued that territories in fact are not “real” in the sense of being visible and tangible; instead they are rather social constructs that are created in political, economic, cultural and administrative practices and discourses [6]. Following this in mind it is suggested that territories emerge, develop and exist through a process of “institutionalization” that is the outcome of simultaneous and interconnected
105
working of four different forces (“shapes”) which can be seen as elements making up the identity of a place (elements that should be reflected in a place brand):
-the territorial shape – the degree to which an area is distinct from other areas in spatial terms; whether the territorial borders of the place in question are clearly defined or recognizable, for example on the map;
-the symbolic shape – the development of area – specific symbols (like the name of the area, its occurrence on maps, flags, typical landmarks, advertising logo (as a symbol) and others; these elements are visible aspects of an area evoking a shared feeling;
-the institutional shape – the area’s institutions that are needed to maintain the territorial and symbolic shape of an area (like formation of administrative bodies, educational centers and development agencies on regional level);
-the shape of socio – cultural identity of a place – it answers the question of how far is the area rooted in the consciousness and social practices of the inhabitants of a territory. In other words: do people have a feeling of place specific belonging?
The more visible these shapes, the more clearly an area can be separated from other places and there are potentially more starting points for the development of a distinctive place brand. The final outcome should be the creation of a cross (trans) border tourist destination as a holistic (integrated) territory. It means that the destination should be marketed as a whole, instead of advertising single tourism places, companies and other stake holders.
The alternative marketing strategy should focus on the dualistic nature of the tourist destination, which is very close to the conception of double center cross border destination as a tourist territory. The reason for implementing double center tourist travels has predominantly a psychological and marketing implication. On average tourist travelers are relatively constrained in time for undertaking longer vacations in more than two countries per trip. At the same time a tourist trip can lose its focus if it is planned for visiting three or more countries. The perceptual dualistic nature of human beings is as much strong as its monistic nature.
We may suggest that double center tourism activities dialectically step on and at the same time modify the theories of cross border tourism activities. In the meantime, there are similarities and certain discrepancies between the categories double center tourism and cross border tourism. The following discussion is intended to outline double center tourism activities in the context of cross border tourism.
Double center tourism activities are not obligatory performed between bordering tourist countries (no matter in or outside the European Union).
106
For example some Bulgarian travel agents provide in their recreational programs double center tourist offers performed by bordering tourist stakeholders, like the product “Bulgaria and Romania” as well as other double center tourist offers, performed by non – bordering tourist providers, like the products: “Slovenia and Bulgaria”, “Croatia and Bulgaria”, “Montenegro and Bulgaria”, “Bulgaria and Israel” etc. It means that some double center tourist destinations (which are not bordering) are more or less imaginary (virtual) “units” in the minds of travelers than the holistic cross border destinations. In this relation we may suggest that the dualistic nature of double center tourist destination is more evident as a characteristic than the relevant unitary feature of a cross border destination.
Cross border tourist areas predominantly stimulate countervailing tourist flows between inhabitants of the bordering countries (like shopping tourism, visiting friends and relatives, religious tourism, etc.). On the contrary, double center tourist areas (destinations) mainly attract foreign visitors from outside the bordering (non – bordering) countries – e.g. travelers from third countries with higher living standard. In other words double center tourism travels may include more than two parties. For that reason it could be suggested that local stakeholders may earn much more from the synergy of double center tourism activities than from cross border tourism.
Double center tourism is not necessarily concerned with strong regionalism forms. In fact, the two centers as geographical categories could be easily changed as combinations of different locations offered to different types of tourist segments. It means that the concept of double center tourism is more marketing based than the sheer institutionalization of regions.
Trans border tourism elements could be included within the products of double center tourism travels so that state boundaries become actively involved as tourist resources and products in such double center organized tours. On the other hand double center tourism travels may diminish or accelerate the perceptual functional distance by consecutively crossing at least two state boundaries.
The dualistic character of double center tourism travels relieves the pressure of losing “identity” and even “sovereignty” in the minds of people who regard themselves as not an equally positioned part in this type of business. Fears of losing identity and sovereignty makes some countries to withdraw themselves from creating holistic (unitary) destinations with other more powerful countries. In this relation double center tourism could stay far away from European integration process.
In double center tourist destinations the key stakeholders are not presented by government or non – government organizations, but the tourist companies act a major role with their business networks. As Philip Kotler
107
mentions from the very beginning, for a successful partnership there must be evident the desired business outcome “I earn, you earn” [7]. It means the existence of a horizontal relationship as a driver for fair profitability for both parties. On second place comes up the important guarantee for high quality standards feasible to both sides. At least every side should identify the unique values of its potential counterpart and determine the existing similarities and discrepancies with its own unique values. In this relation the main challenge that usually stands before both sides of a double center tourist destination is concerned with compatibility and sharing of values. Compatible values may lead to shared values and common values which are premises for the integrity of both sides in a tourist destination. Cultural aspects (like common history, traditions, language, etc.) may serve as a fundament for new common narratives about the image of double center destination. On the other hand the identity of every single center is an important feature for the diverse existence of different nationalities and the spread of new identity narratives within the double center destination.
Conclusion. Double center tourism could become a softer and more versatile form of traveling compared to cross border tourism. During last years of integration processes double center tourism destination is a good alternative to the formation of holistic (unitary) destinations. At the same time double center tourism concept do not contradict the processes of integration and formation of monistic destinations. No matter the geographical location of the two centers, the dualistic characteristics of countries and people can be combined with relevant integrative intersection points. Some of these points should be consensually identified by parties involved in double center tourism business. At the same time countries’ and people’s identities should be respected. The brand name of a double center tourist product could be based on different rationalities (not only the geographical context). A double center tourist travel may start from the first center of the dualistic tourist destination and to finish at the second one or vice versa. Finally once again the private tourist companies should play the main role of a market driver for the creation of double center tourism travels.
References
1.Александрова, А. 2010. Туризм в свете современной лимологии. // Страноведение и регионоведение в решении проблем устойчивого развития в современном мире: материалЫ Международной научной конференции, посвященной 10-летию создания кафедрЫ страноведения и междунродного туризма Санкт – Петербургского государственого университета, с. 3 – 7.
2.Александрова, А. 2010. Туристическая лимология – новое проблемное поле исследований. // Теоретические проблемЫ и фундаментальнЫе задачи страноведения и регионоведения, с. 16 – 20.
108
3.Contreras, T., I. Hernandes. 2007. Cross – border tourism networks, Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico and El Paso, Texas, United States, pp.
1– 15.
4.Development Strategy for Cross-Border Tourism 2015. Southern Finnish Lapland – Southern Kola, Russia. FINNBARENTS Rovaniemi, 2008, pp. 1 – 44.
5.Herk, H., E. Nijssen. 2009. Conjoining international marketing and relationship marketing: exploring customers’ cross – border service relationships. // Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 17, No 1, pp. 91 –
6.Hospers, G. 2006. Borders, bridges and branding: The transformation of the Oresund region into an imagined space. // European Planning Studies, Vol. 14, No. 8, pp. 1015 – 1033.
7.Kotler, Ph., H. Kartajaya., I. Setiawan. 2010. Marketing 3.0. From Products to Customers to Human Spirit. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hobokonen, pp. 327.
8.Michalzczak, W., P. Zarzycki. 2007. Active tourism as a move towards greater cross – border integration. // Border and transborder tourism for European integration, pp. 188 – 195.
9.Prokkola, E. 2007. Cross border regionalization and tourism development at the Swedish – Finish border: “Destination Arctic Circle”. // Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 7, No. 2 , pp. 120 -
10.Skala, M., K. Szpara. 2007. Diversity of borders in the Carpathian Euroregion based on the Bieszczady mountains. // Border and transborder tourism for European integration, pp. 67 – 72.
11.Smith, S. 1984. A method for estimating the distance equivalence of international boundaries. // Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 22, No 3, pp. 37 – 39.
12.Spiriajevas', E. 2010. Borderlands of Lithuania and Kaliningrad region of Russia: Guidelines for comparative geographic approach. // Center for Cross-Border Studies by Regional Policy and Planning Institute, pp.
81– 91.
13.Taczanowska, K. 2004. The potentials for developing cross border tourism between Poland and Slovakia in the Tatara mountains. // Institute of Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning, BOKU – University of natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria, pp. 404 – 407.
14.Worthington, B., P. Sedakat. 2005. Kaliningrad – the last piece in the Baltic Jigsaw. // International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol.7, pp.
123– 134.
109
УДК 379.8
ИНФОРМАЦИОННОЕ ОБЕСПЕЧЕНИЕ АТТРАКЦИЙ СЕЛЬСКОГО ТУРИЗМА
Ермаков Станислав Александрович, ermakov200882@mail.ru
Российский государственный университет
туризма и сервиса, Москва, Россия
Ермаков Александр Станиславович, TKEI2011@yandex.ru
Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса, Москва, Россия
Аннотация. Представлены результаты исследования информационного обеспечения сельского туризма с использованием сведений о селе и его окрестностях, достопримечательностях и услугах. Сбор, классификация и представление различного вида информации об истории и повседневности жизни села в информационном пространстве становится привлекательной для самодеятельного туризма: сельского туризма, велотуризма, автотуризма и пешеходных путешественников. Данный вид информации позволяет оживить интерес к своей малой Родине, дать наполнения ее эмоциональными красками, реальными ощущениями и живым ее восприятием.
Ключевые слова: сельский туризм, история малой Родины, информационные ресурсы, информационное обеспечение, восприятие, ощущения, устойчивое развитие туризма.
Увлечение внешними идеалами, пренебрежительное отношение к культурно-историческим ценностям своей страны и ее природным достояниям, стремление к массовой культуре, виртуализация пространства в глобальной электронной сети, урбанизация и многое другое все больше уводит нас от того, чем наполняется и укрепляется человек, как существо эмоциональное и духовное. Потеря связи человека с тем краем, где он вырос, где получил первые в своей жизни впечатления, где сформировался как человек, где память ощущений и представлений об окружающем мире сформирована как базовая информационная основа его ощущений на всю его жизнь и т.п. также негативно сказывается на психоэмоциональном его развитии. Население мегаполисов и мелких поселений все больше получают разочарование, если в той лавине информации не находят того, что согревает и укрепляет, что наполняет сердце теми исходными ценностями и впечатлениями, которые дороги каждому индивиду.
Установление новых источников и форматов пополнения информационного обеспечения аттракций туризма позволит более ин-
110