Though culture and heritage organizations are regularly called upon to become engaged with tourism, a great many heritage organizations haven’t really established what they hope to gain from this business. Exploring the role culture and heritage play in the tourism economy, and how these sectors benefit from the industry, is precisely why the Federal Provincial/Territorial Culture/Heritage and Tourism Initiative (FPTTI) came into being, explains co‑chair Donna Dul.
Dul, who is also Manitoba’s director of the Historic Resources Branch, finds this to be easier said than done: “Is this a win/win collaboration? If it is, how do we develop it further, and if it isn’t, what can we do to create more support and understanding from tourism colleagues about the special issues the arts and heritage sectors face as tourism partners?" She points out that – almost a decade ago – a need for closer collaboration between tourism and the culture sectors was identified. There was a realization that many of the attractions developed across the country— whether they are museums, heritage sites or festivals—contribute to tourism. In many cases, ministers responsible for culture were also ministers of tourism, and yet, Dul says, "it seemed both those portfolios were operating in their own parallel (but isolated) worlds.”
When Dul and her colleagues started to look at more collaborative models, there emerged a set of principles grounded in respecting local processes. “We found, for example, that many of the guidebooks developed by the tourism industry aren’t quite the right fit for the culture and heritage context, and that more emphasis on working with local groups and training initiatives was likely to lead to successful collaborations.”
Dul soon realized many provinces have developed materials they make available to heritage and art organizations, but these focus more on how to market successfully: “Often,” she notes, “it is not the marketing angle that arts organizations need. What they need is to have a very clear sense of objectives that are, indeed, their objectives, and an understanding of the support tourism can provide them in achieving these. Sometime we find our tourism colleagues too focused on marketing, when they might spend a little more time discovering what culture and heritage organizations are about – finding out about their networks, their needs and clarifying who plays what role. There is a basic developmental process needed.”
Dul then moves to the area of economic analysis and outlines a concern with the return on investment for the contribution arts and heritage organizations make. “The tendency is to look at visitation statistics and assume that when visitation goes up, things are wonderful. But many arts facilities (and particularly heritage sites) are concerned about the wear and tear of increased visitation. How much is participating in tourism creating new demands on fragile resources? Are culture and heritage organizations getting support or new dollars to maintain the infrastructure they have?
These are delicate questions from an arts and heritage perspective that haven’t really been well articulated until the work conducted by the FPTTI, notes Dul. “It is easy to talk about a partnership – and we know what tourism gets out of it. But what do we in the arts and heritage sector get out of it? The simple answer we get from our tourism colleagues is ‘you know, if you get more people, that is a good thing. You can charge them an entrance fee.’ But that is usually a minimal amount which doesn’t cover the full cost of maintaining and operating heritage sites and parks, with all the kinds of conservation and interpretive programs that exist.”
The FPTTI stakeholders know this is an issue that cannot be solved simply by pressing for more funding directly from the tourism sector. Dul feels that now there is a growing recognition of the role culture and heritage play in tourism across Canada. “There is potential for much positive exchange, even if there are many small museums and heritage sites which are struggling to stay open and to maintain an adequate level of service. At that level, we still haven’t seen significant change, but when we look at the people who are involved in the policy end of things, there is increasingly a perception that the arts and heritage sectors need more support in order to be able to become full partners in tourism.
"I have seen that Canada is falling behind internationally in attracting new visitors because of the lack of cultural product. How do you develop cultural products with no new strategies on where to invest? How do we do this in such a way that we are selecting the best, most authentic, unique products?”
The quest for common ground is on‑going, but it appears there is a new, more open, dialogue.
Dul, who is also Manitoba’s director of the Historic Resources Branch, finds this to be easier said than done: “Is this a win/win collaboration? If it is, how do we develop it further, and if it isn’t, what can we do to create more support and understanding from tourism colleagues about the special issues the arts and heritage sectors face as tourism partners?" She points out that – almost a decade ago – a need for closer collaboration between tourism and the culture sectors was identified. There was a realization that many of the attractions developed across the country— whether they are museums, heritage sites or festivals—contribute to tourism. In many cases, ministers responsible for culture were also ministers of tourism, and yet, Dul says, "it seemed both those portfolios were operating in their own parallel (but isolated) worlds.”
When Dul and her colleagues started to look at more collaborative models, there emerged a set of principles grounded in respecting local processes. “We found, for example, that many of the guidebooks developed by the tourism industry aren’t quite the right fit for the culture and heritage context, and that more emphasis on working with local groups and training initiatives was likely to lead to successful collaborations.”
Dul soon realized many provinces have developed materials they make available to heritage and art organizations, but these focus more on how to market successfully: “Often,” she notes, “it is not the marketing angle that arts organizations need. What they need is to have a very clear sense of objectives that are, indeed, their objectives, and an understanding of the support tourism can provide them in achieving these. Sometime we find our tourism colleagues too focused on marketing, when they might spend a little more time discovering what culture and heritage organizations are about – finding out about their networks, their needs and clarifying who plays what role. There is a basic developmental process needed.”
Dul then moves to the area of economic analysis and outlines a concern with the return on investment for the contribution arts and heritage organizations make. “The tendency is to look at visitation statistics and assume that when visitation goes up, things are wonderful. But many arts facilities (and particularly heritage sites) are concerned about the wear and tear of increased visitation. How much is participating in tourism creating new demands on fragile resources? Are culture and heritage organizations getting support or new dollars to maintain the infrastructure they have?
These are delicate questions from an arts and heritage perspective that haven’t really been well articulated until the work conducted by the FPTTI, notes Dul. “It is easy to talk about a partnership – and we know what tourism gets out of it. But what do we in the arts and heritage sector get out of it? The simple answer we get from our tourism colleagues is ‘you know, if you get more people, that is a good thing. You can charge them an entrance fee.’ But that is usually a minimal amount which doesn’t cover the full cost of maintaining and operating heritage sites and parks, with all the kinds of conservation and interpretive programs that exist.”
The FPTTI stakeholders know this is an issue that cannot be solved simply by pressing for more funding directly from the tourism sector. Dul feels that now there is a growing recognition of the role culture and heritage play in tourism across Canada. “There is potential for much positive exchange, even if there are many small museums and heritage sites which are struggling to stay open and to maintain an adequate level of service. At that level, we still haven’t seen significant change, but when we look at the people who are involved in the policy end of things, there is increasingly a perception that the arts and heritage sectors need more support in order to be able to become full partners in tourism.
"I have seen that Canada is falling behind internationally in attracting new visitors because of the lack of cultural product. How do you develop cultural products with no new strategies on where to invest? How do we do this in such a way that we are selecting the best, most authentic, unique products?”
The quest for common ground is on‑going, but it appears there is a new, more open, dialogue.
Comments