During the last nineteen years, we have facilitated an increase of
publications related to creative tourism. In 2000, we began following a more
structured practice, and after the contribution of a few other authors (e.g., Pearce and Butler, 1993), Raymond and Richards convinced us to pursue the development of a new
segment of tourism, which can be considered an evolution of the massified cultural
one. In addition to the theoretical arguments that continue to be discussed (we
do not have yet a consensual definition), several study cases have been
published, and many institutions worldwide began to organize creative
initiatives with new tourists’ profiles. These new tourists have new
aspirations and can be seen as more responsible travellers with a desire to interact
deeply with the local community at the destination, to co-create, and to feel like
local citizens.
Creativity has become a condition and is helping destinations passing from
massified tourism to a cultural profile and creative solutions. It also became
a survival strategy for many destinations.
Even if medium-sized cities and rural areas can offer a valuable
contribution to the implementation of this tourism segment, urban spaces continue
to be the main focus, and creative tourism industries are
still more active and diverse in these areas. Nevertheless, the events of recent
years led us to believe that something is changing. This can be true for South
Europe, where creative tourism cases have increased greatly, perhaps because
the massified model is running out and inducing new offers. Because the
heritage wealth of these territories is very high, there are opportunities to apply
it in different ways.
The present
issue, the 51th of Portuguese Review of Regional Studies, entitled “Creative Tourism and the Community
Roles,” provides researchers and practitioners with a better
understanding of what creative tourism is and the community roles it brings, structured
in six papers.
This issue begins
with an interesting paper by Álvaro Dias, Mafalda Patuleia,
and
Georg Dutschke, entitled “Shared value creation, creative tourism, and local
community’s development: The role of cooperation as an antecedent.” It focuses on an unclear issue, i.e., how creative
tourism is developed in the context of rural communities with few resources and
without a clear view of the path to follow to generate profit from creativity
associated with local resources and pratices. Five cases were used, collected from
five countries (Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Portugal) through in-depth
interviews with local stakeholders.
The second paper, “Empowering Communities through Capacity Development: The Case of Misfat
Al Abriyeen Project,” by Rogelio Flores and Carlos Costa, highlights a local
project in Al Hamra, Oman. Transforming idle resources into useful, tourism
assets, this paper revealed the significance of community empowerment through
capacity development. As stated by the authors, “(…) this resulted in locals’
improved source of income, deeper understanding, and cultural interactions with
tourists and appreciation of community assets.”
Jorge Ramos, Veronika
Rosová, and Ana Cláudia Campos are the authors of the third paper and focus on “Sunny, windy, muddy, and salty creative tourism experience in a salt pan.” The Algarve
region was the selected location, and the paper refers to generating profit through
traditional elements of the Algarve landscape other than the sun and the sea, like
creative tourism experiences developed in the context
of the traditional activity of salt production.
The main objectives of the research undertaken were to analyse a co-creation approach within the
design of the tourism experience in a salt pan (salt production is an ancient
human activity) and to contribute to the design of experiential proposals
applied to the case of salt production. After
the literature review, which helps the reader understand the main
characteristics of creative tourism, the paper underlines that “Creative
tourism is believed to respond to the 21st century tourists’
aspirations.” In Portugal, we are still identifying the profile of creative tourists, and we can highlight that they expect the experiences they
face to be opportunities not only to learn about local cultures and
territories, but also to become engaged at different levels (e.g., sensorially,
intellectually, and emotionally).
The fourth paper (“The Potential
of Olive Oil for Creative Tourism Experiences in the Northern Region of
Portugal”), by Regina Bezerra and Alexandra Correia, is a good example of how linking
local products, food, gastronomy, and tourism can create a perfect symbiosis. The
case of olive oil tourism presents an opportunity for the development of
various creative activities and unique experiences.
The fifth paper discusses “Creative Tourism
Experiences in Guimarães: a
twofold analysis of visitors’ and suppliers’ perspectives,” written by Carla Melo, Alexandra Correia, Marta Cardoso
and Vítor Marques. Its focus is on urban spaces. It is a study using quantitative
and qualitative methods in order to understand both visitors (by using a
self-administrated questionnaire) and tourism service providers (by using a
semi-structured interview). A cultural destination, classified
as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO, was selected – the municipality of
Guimarães. One of the conclusions is that neither
visitors nor service providers associate Guimarães with creative tourism. This occurred
as the city’s promotion initiatives have been focused mainly on its heritage,
material, and immaterial offerings.
The last paper, entitled “Creative Tourism and Urban Sustainability: The Cases
of Lisbon and Oporto,” discusses the traditionally main cities in Portugal and
was developed by Cláudia Henriques and Maria Cristina Moreira. It analyses the growing
importance of creative tourism in Lisbon and Oporto. The authors assumed that culture and creativity
could be measured through a composite set of indicators. With consideration for
these two cities, a set of composite indicators that can be used to assess
cultural/creative tourism dynamic and policy are discussed. Two main domains were
considered: 1) cities and culture/creativity and 2) tourism and sustainability.
Some differences were
underlined within the two cities. While Lisbon reveals better performance related
to cultural vibrancy, creative economy, and an enabling environment when
considering Cultural and Creative Cities monitoring, Oporto seems to be better
positioned in terms of “Openness, Tolerance, & Trust”, “Graduates in arts
& humanities,” and “Graduates in ICT.”
These case studies confirm the existence of different ways
of approaching creative tourism and the community roles envisaged in different
territories, even if the Portuguese was the one most closely examined. I believe
that, in the next years, these tourism segments and territories (mainly the
rural ones) can continue to contribute to the implementation of more
sustainable development strategies and, this way, follow tourism paths that contradict
massified solutions.
Paula Remoaldo
(Guest Editor; Full Professor of the Department of
Geography of University of Minho)
