THE CITTASLOW PHILOSOPHY IN
THE CONTEXT OF
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT; THE CASE OF TURKEY
CONTENTS
Abstract
Introduction
1. Sustainable Development and the Tourism Sector
2. The Cittaslow Philosophy in the Context of
Sustainable Tourism Development and Turkey
2.1. Forms of Slowness and the Cittaslow Philosophy
2.2. Cittaslow in the World and Turkey
2.3. Requirements for Cittaslow and Sustainable
Tourism Development
2.4. Challenges for Cittaslow Candidates
3.1. Methodology of the Research
3.2. Results of the Research
Conclusion
References
Appendices
Abstract
This paper studies the Cittaslow (slow city) philosophy in terms of
sustainable tourism development (STD); and in this context research was
undertaken for the case of Turkey. Cittaslow, a movement rooted in STD
philosophy, aims to encourage the development of tranquil cities already known
for their historical, natural, socio-cultural, and touristic features and the
intention is to offer a significant contribution to systematic and rapid
implementation of STD on a global scale. This paper, which makes a particular
study of the practice of STD in Turkey, offers new candidate cities (Uzungöl,
Hasankeyf, Safranbolu, Ürgüp, and İznik) and, thus, endeavours to contribute to
the spread of STD throughout the whole country. In this
study, above-named cities were found to be particularly good candidates for
Cittaslow membership. In addition to these: Tatvan, Midyat, Alanya, and Fethiye
were also found to be potential
Cittaslows even though they fail to meet the population criterion.
Key Words: Cittaslow Philosophy, Tourism,
Environment, Sustainable Development, Sustainable Tourism Development (STD).
JEL Classifications: Q01, L83.
Introduction
Tourism is, to a great extent, a products/services consuming industry in
addition to being a service producing sector. Major inputs drawn on during
touristic activities are historic sites, natural resources, and the
socio-cultural heritage of a place. A significant number of these elements, or
even most of them, are related directly or indirectly to the environment.
Tourism is, therefore, mainly a range of environment-based activities and it
follows that the sustainability of resources used during the execution of
touristic activities is of great importance because of this close relationship.
Clearly, tourism management is incomplete without the inclusion of historical,
environmental, and socio-cultural elements.
Sustainable development can be defined as; ‘sustaining the existence of all
living creatures together in harmony and without any threat to each other’.
This definition can be adapted to ‘sustainable tourism development’ as
‘sustaining the activities of all persons and institutions in harmony with all
other elements such as history, the environment, and socio-cultural values’.
Currently, a number of organisations exist to underpin the continued existence
of historic structures, natural resources, and socio-cultural values and
protect them from further dangers. Cittaslow is among these, and while the
requirements of this philosophy are not executed directly under sustainable
tourism development (STD), it is clear that they are very closely related.
In this paper I research common practices of the Cittaslow philosophy in
the context of STD and propose some Cittaslow candidate cities in Turkey
(Uzungöl, Hasankeyf, Safranbolu, Ürgüp, and İznik). These cities are expected
to have the potential to execute STD at institutional level when transitioning
to Cittaslows. For this purpose, extensive data have been collected and the
Cittaslow capacities of the above-mentioned cities plus several other cities in
Turkey revealed.
To establish the appropriateness of the proposed Cittaslows a comparative
descriptive analysis has been made. This includes some of the current
Cittaslows in Turkey plus several other cities in addition to my proposed
candidate cities. While similar
practices already exist, this paper endeavours to show that it would be
possible to realise STD in a more systematic and speedy way if the number of
slow cities in the world were to be increased.
Material and Method
Cittaslow is a new concept for Turkey and this paper is one of the first of
its kind for the country. For this
reason its focus is on an overall evaluation to determine some potential
candidates in Turkey. Hence, extensive data have been collected and the Cittaslow
capacities of these potential cities in Turkey revealed. Then, a comparative
descriptive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the cities has been
conducted. It should be noted that for accuracy and full coverage of
candidates, data for comparative descriptive analyses were obtained directly
from the mayor and/or governor of each city by e-mail surveys. Following the
analysis, a further survey providing additional information such as length of
roads-pedestrian footpaths, traffic congestion, accommodation facilities, local
markets, and the maintenance of standards of foods and drinks was conducted
with the same city authorities and the results are discussed.
Study
Methods
The main assertion of this paper is that STD would be realised more systematically
and speedily if the Cittaslow philosophy could be spread around the world.
Here, the case of Turkey is studied and for this purpose, in addition to the
current Cittaslows, and with consideration having been given to their regional
equilibrium, five more cities from Turkey (Uzungöl, Hasankeyf, Safranbolu,
Ürgüp, and İznik) have been selected and their candidateships are offered under
four main criteria, namely: historic structures, natural resources,
socio-cultural values, and touristic capacities. Essentially, these criteria
are not very much different from those determined by the Cittaslow Initiative,
being regarded as a compressed version of them. In
this context, and with particular importance being given to these four major
criteria, extensive data on the said five cities plus several other cities in
This paper consists of three sections: The first includes definitions,
concepts, and requirements for STD. In the second section, the Cittaslow
philosophy is studied in line with STD and, in this context, some information
concerning Cittaslow practices in the world and Turkey is offered. In the final
section several Cittaslow candidates from Turkey are proposed, and their
potential capacities with regard to the realisation of STD are assessed through
the extensive data collection and comparative descriptive analyses.
1. Sustainable Development
and the Tourism Sector
Rempel
(2009, 76) states that the notion ‘sustainable
development’, having been the subject of negotiation starting from its first appearance
in print with the publication of ‘Our Common Future’ (also known as the
Bruntland Report, UN, 1987), involves the integration of various impacts. In
this context, he says that the concept of sustainable development, as applied
to tourism, is about an evolving understanding of the complex and dynamic
relationships between various parts of the social-ecological system. Bramwell
and Lane (1993) [quoted in Mycoo (2006, 490)] similarly say that sustainable
tourism is a positive approach aimed at reducing the tensions caused by the
complex interaction of the tourism industry; tourists, the environment, and the
hosts catering for holidaymakers.
Lerner and Haber (2000) [quoted in Ayaş (2007,
64)] list tourism resources, with respect to their chronological order of rise
to prominence, into two main parts. One: Natural Tourism Resources: climate,
land structure and shape, plant cover, natural monuments, hot springs, curative
water, beaches, natural splendour, geological formations, drinkable water
resources, and animal species. Two: Developed Tourism Resources: qualified
labour, information sources, transportation, sewerage and waste water,
electricity, and communication systems, infrastructure and superstructure e.g.
airport, resort, hotel, motel, restaurant, shopping centre, recreational area,
aqua park, and museum. Sustainable tourism requires the preservation of the
first resources and, taking sustainability into consideration, the development of the second. In this context, the
sustainability of natural resources must be paramount during execution of
touristic activities, and developed tourism resources should be compatible with
the sustainability of human, flora, and fauna systems.
In a further version of
tourism resources, Welford and Ytterhus (2004, 412) state that the
product/service packaged and sold by the tourism sector depends on the
availability of clean seas, unspoiled mountains, unpolluted water, clean
streets, well preserved buildings and archaeological sites, and different
cultural traditions. Jiang (2009, 118), on the other hand, includes people in
his approach and says that a sub-system within the environment is formed by the
population in touristic areas. This sub-system is the ecological basis that
supports human development and eliminates general environmental impacts. He
states that this system allocates and consumes the resources and ecological
services of the environment to sustain life and develop society.
For Sezgin and Kalaman (2008, 436), sustainable tourism is a managerial
process essentially related to the environment, and this management must be
tailored to meet the needs of both hosts and holidaymakers for cultural
integrity, ecology, biological diversity, and vital functions. Hawkins (1994) [quoted in Welford and Ytterhus (2004, 415)] also emphasizes
the managerial side of sustainable tourism and makes some concrete proposals
accordingly. In this context, he describes the starting point for environmental
management as the development of programmes for: efficient use of energy; minimization
of waste from facilities by requiring suppliers to reduce packaging,
implementing programmes to reuse products, composting biodegradable wastes, and
recycling of non-avoidable wastes; minimizing water use by installing water
saving technology and reusing water for secondary activities such as watering
gardens; and efficient disposal of waste. All these programmes are directly
related to tourism development as their execution is oriented towards the
sustainability of touristic activities.
In addition to such concrete
proposals, a broader approach to sustainable tourism belongs to the United
Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), a global authority in sustainable
tourism theory and practice. The UNWTO (2013) defines sustainable tourism simply,
as: 'Tourism that takes full account of its current and future environmental,
economic, and socio-cultural impacts, addressing the needs of tourists, the
industry, the environment, and host communities'. In this context UNWTO makes further concrete proposals stating
that sustainable tourism should: make
optimal use of environmental resources, and thus, must maintain essential
ecological processes and help to conserve natural heritage and biodiversity;
respect the socio-cultural authenticity of host communities, conserve their
built and living cultural heritage/traditional values; ensure viable, long-term
economic operations providing socio-economic benefits to all stakeholders in
the context of a fair distribution of stable employment, income-earning opportunities,
social services to host communities; provide means for the wide participation
of all relevant stakeholders as well as strong political leadership to ensure
wide participation and consensus building; maintain a high level of tourist
satisfaction and ensure a meaningful experience for tourists; raise the
awareness of tourists about sustainability issues and promote sustainable
tourism practices amongst them.
2. The Cittaslow Philosophy in the Context of
Sustainable Tourism Development and Turkey
2.1. Forms
of Slowness and the Cittaslow Philosophy
Slowness is the core concept
in the activities/movements ranging from Slow Food to Slow City and Slow
Tourism. Heitmann,
Robinson, and Povey (2011, 114-122) state that by using key elements of
sustainable development, these three concepts can be connected to the
development of sustainable tourism. They state that as a
further development of the Slow Food concept, the Slow City movement, which
builds on the ideas of Slow Food, extends the philosophy to cities and
destinations. Following on the Slow Food and Slow City movements, Slow Tourism
has evolved as an extension of this philosophy to encompass tourism activities.
Petrini (2001)
and Ritzer (1996) [quoted in Dickinson, Lumsdon, and Robbins
(2011, 282)] state that recently Slow Tourism has become associated with the
Slow Food movement, an initiative inspired by an Italian writer, Carlo Petrini
in 1989, as a reaction to the McDonaldisation of food and
Nilsson, Sv¨ard, Widarsson, and Wirell (2007) [quoted in Dickinson, Lumsdon,
and Robbins (2011, 282)] consider this movement as an
approach embraced at destination level through the Cittaslow philosophy. One of
the main aims of Cittaslow is to disperse the philosophy of Slow Food to local
communities and to their administrations and, thus, to provide the
implementation of the concept ‘Ecogastronomy’ in daily life which, in brief,
refers to a nourishment style that is at peace with the environment (Ecogastronomy
Initiative, 2013).
Heitmann, Robinson, and Povey
(2011, 117) say that the Slow Food and Slow City movements encourage a change
of logic and philosophy and a reevaluation of the alterations that modern
society has brought which, in this context, include the technological advances
that have resulted in time-saving and, as a consequence, have also resulted in
a modern society characterised by fast living, by which people are often
over-scheduled, task orientated, and stressed. They state that preservation of
cultural heritages, in addition to encouraging local production of goods with
support for independent businesses, are some of the key issues for a Slow City.
They add that the impact of commercialisation and the development of mass
tourism should be discouraged and, where possible, avoided. Growing concern for the local
environment is demonstrated by the promotion of modes of sustainable tourism
and, building on the ideas of the Slow Movement, the same principles and
philosophy can, therefore, easily be applied to tourism. According to Peters (2006) [quoted in Dickinson, Lumsdon, and Robbins
(2011, 282)] attention should also be paid to the applicability of some factors
to Slow Tourism. In this context he says that the three pillars of the Slow
Movement; doing things at the right speed, changing attitudes towards time and
its usage and, in particular, looking for quality instead of quantity, apply to
Slow Tourism as well.
Lumsdon and McGrath (2011, 265) define ‘Slow Tourism’ as about slowing
down, travelling shorter distances, and enriching the touristic experience both
en route to, and at, the destination. They state that one of the founding
fathers of sustainable tourism, Jost Krippendorf, an advocate of the concept
even before the concept had a name, says, “Switch off the time machine. Take
off the watch. Get rid of time pressure, the deadline, the agenda. Escape from
time”. Their approach to describing the phenomenon may be classified into four
parts: slowness and the value of time, locality and activities at the
destination, mode of transport and touristic experience, and environmental
consciousness. In this context, Honoré (2004) [quoted in Lumsdon and McGrath
(2011, 267)] makes another proposal about the requirement for a society to
embrace the following four principles of Slow Tourism at the destination, namely:
enjoyment of the journey as a part of the holiday, learning about local
cultural particularities, making time to relax, and minimising negative effects
on local residents and the environment.
Nilsson, Sv¨ard, Widarsson,
and Wirell (2007) [quoted in Heitmann, Robinson, and Povey (2011, 121)] state
that the Slow Food and Slow City movements are not directly aimed at tourism
and are, therefore, not about tourism or destination marketing. They can, however, affect
local tourism in two ways: firstly, they can have an impact on destination
development; and secondly, the brand ‘Slow’ can bring a quality reputation with
it. Heitmann, Robinson, and Povey (2011, 121) say that
Slow Tourism and its associates, Slow Food and Slow City, can make use of the
label ‘slow’ to attract quality tourists and quality tourism development.
Tourism development, according to ‘the philosophy of slowness’, brings together
processes, guided by a ‘slow’ ideology, that influence the quality of a
destination’s appearance and environment as well as its public image. In terms
of destination-specific resources, the attractions build mainly on
cultural heritage such as historic buildings, pedestrian-only streets, street
markets, and gastronomy. These elements are taken into consideration in the
philosophy of Cittaslow also.
2.2.
Cittaslow in the World and Turkey
‘Cittaslow’ consisting of an Italian word ‘Citta’ plus the English word
‘slow’, meaning ‘slow city’, is also the name of a movement. As an initiative launched in 1999 by Paolo Saturnini, mayor of Greve in
Chianti in the Toscana Region of Italy, it introduces some standards and action
plans to encourage the constitution of tranquil cities and urges cities to put
them into effect. In this context, Cittaslow, as a movement aimed at encouraging
a different style of city development by improving the quality of life, was
supported by several other mayors in Italy and began its activities with
contributions from the Slow Food Association which states its mission as:
“promoting good, clean, and fair food for all” and expresses its philosophy as,
“We believe that everyone has a fundamental right to the pleasure of good food
and, consequently, the responsibility to protect the heritage of food,
tradition, and culture that make this pleasure possible”.
As a global, member-supported, non-profit Association, founded in 1989 with
advocates in 150 countries around the world, Cittaslow links the pleasures of
good food with a commitment to the local community and the environment. Thus,
Slow Food stands at the crossroads of ecology and gastronomy, ethics, and
pleasure. It opposes the standardization of taste and culture, and the
unrestrained power of the food industry multinationals and industrial
agriculture. The Association has over 100,000 members joined
into 1,500 convivia (local chapters which promote its philosophy) as well as a
network of 2,000 food communities (which practise small-scale and sustainable
production of quality foods). As of the end of July 2013, Turkey had 19
convivia promoting the philosophy of Slow Food (Slow Food Association, 2013).
Cities taking part in the Cittaslow movement endeavour to effectuate the
following main principles: they are mindful of public health and in this context
they care for the procurement of healthy products and food; they encourage the
maintenance of traditional local handicrafts; they improve their city: in this context, by constructing needed squares, theatres, shopping
centres, coffee houses, and restaurants without harming its underlying
structure and atmosphere; they are respectful of traditions which provide a
tranquil life style. Only those communities with fewer than 50,000 residents
may apply to the Association as a candidate for membership. Cittaslow’s
Scientific Committee, which includes experts from different countries, assesses
a city that applies to become a Cittaslow member in accordance with the
determined criteria and accepts it only if it undertakes to meet all these
requirements. In fact, the Cittaslow movement is not only interested in the
concept ‘Slow City’, it also deals with related projects such as climate
change, environmental sustainability, sustainable eco-systems, economic
performance and social development, and sustainable energy (Cittaslow
Association, 2013).
As of the end of July 2013,
out of a total of 27 countries, the number of Cittaslow member cities was 176,
72 of which were in Italy. The first Cittaslow member in Turkey was Seferihisar
of İzmir in western Anatolia which describes itself as ‘The Cittaslow Capital
of Turkey’. The cities in Turkey that have received Cittaslow membership are:
one, Perşembe (Ordu; Central Black Sea Region); two, Taraklı (Sakarya; Marmara
Region); three, Vize (Kırklareli; Marmara Region); four, Gökçeada (Çanakkale;
Marmara Region); five, Seferihisar (İzmir, Aegegan Region); six, Yenipazar
(Aydın; Agean Region); seven, Akyaka (Muğla; Aegean Region); eight, Yalvaç
(Isparta; Western Mediterranean Region); nine, Halfeti (Urfa, Sout-East Anatolia
Region). These cities are marked on the map of Turkey, Figure 1.
Figure 1:
Cittaslows in Turkey (July 2013)
New candidates are currently going through the necessary procedures for
membership. However, as stated earlier, current Cittaslow members are mostly in
the western regions of Turkey and no member or candidate city, with the
exceptions of Perşembe of Ordu in the Central Black Sea Region and Halfeti of
Urfa in the South-East Anatolia Region, is situated in the central or eastern
regions of the country.
2.3.
Requirements for Cittaslow and Sustainable Tourism Development
It has been forecast that the
whole world will become similar as a result of globalisation. The process has
been explained as: ‘local particularities and differences in the world would be
eliminated and the world would become a global village with a single
structure’. Starting in the 1980s, and due mainly to this process, assimilation
in social, cultural, and political aspects has occurred in almost every corner
of the world. This has resulted in a three way view of the problem: there are
those who regard the effects of globalisation as positive and adopt it; those
who regard its effects as negative and oppose it; those who regard
globalisation as both positive and negative. This last view finds benefits from
the advantages of the process while endeavouring to avoid its disadvantages.
The majority of those who would like to initiate the Cittaslow philosophy place
themselves in the second group with the remainder in group three. The web site of the
Municipality of Seferihisar (2013) states that the supporters of Cittaslow do
not want their city to become one of the homogeneous locations and, thus, wish
to continue their existence by preserving a local identity and particularity.
There are 59 requirements determined by the Cittaslow Initiative as of
January 2013 to becoming a Cittaslow member; these are classified under six
major subjects namely the environment, the safeguarding of autochthonous
production, infrastructure, technologies and facilities for urban quality,
hospitality, and awareness of the Cittaslow philosophy. It should be noted that
the requirements are improved by the Cittaslow Initiative gradually. In Table
1, 26 of above-mentioned requirements which are considered directly related to
STD will be quoted under each major pillar.
Table 1: Major Requirements
for Cittaslow Membership in terms of STD
|
Major Subject |
Requirement |
|
I-Environmental Policies |
1.
Verification of the quality of air, water, and soil under the parameters
established by law, 2.
Existing purification facilities for urban or collective sewage, 3.
Preparation of projects that stimulate the collection of urban and
private wastes by decomposing them, 4.
Encouraging the recycling/safe disposal of industrial waste and the
composting of household waste, 5.
Preparation of a municipal plan for saving energy, with particular
reference to the use of alternative sources of energy (renewable resources,
green hydrogen, mini-hydroelectric power plant), 6.
Banning the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) in agriculture, 7.
Establishing systems for controlling and reducing electromagnetic, noise,
and light pollution, 8.
Adoption of environmental management systems (EMAS and ECOLABEL or ISO
9001; ISO 14000, SA 8000 etc.). |
|
II-Safeguarding
Autochthonous Production |
1.
Promoting organic and/or locally planted products, 2.
Determining local products and supporting them for their commercial value
e.g. alloting them spaces in the bazaars, 3.
Preserving and encouraging cultural traditions, 4.
Preparing relevant planning and certification programmes for saving
tradesmen, craftsmen, and working methods/products which are in danger of
dying out. |
|
III-Infrastructural Policies |
1.
Preparation of plans for developing and improving historic centres and/or
works of cultural and historic value, 2.
Making plans for safe transportation and traffic, 3.
Promotion of programmes to facilitate family life and local activities, 4.
Applying programmes for redevelopment and improvement of urban life, 5.
Preparation of plans for the distribution of merchandise and the
construction of commercial centres for natural products. |
|
IV-Technologies and
Facilities for Urban Quality |
1.
Providing wastebins consistent with environmental requirements and
removal of rubbish in accordance with an announced timetable, 2.
Arranging programmes and promotional activities for planting
environmentally suitable plants, preferably local ones, 3.
Making plans to brighten up the urban landscape
e.g. flowers in house, window boxes, and gardens; hanging baskets and green
spaces in public places; and clean, fresh paintwork on buildings. |
|
V-Hospitality |
1.
Carrying out training courses on the provision of tourist information and
quality hospitality, 2.
Using international signs on signboards at historic places, 3.
Arranging the ‘slow’ routes of the city. |
|
VI-Awareness |
1.
Informing people about the aims and procedures of Cittaslow and how to
become such a city, 2.
Preparation of programmes to attract social interest in acquiring the
‘slow’ philosophy, and the application of Cittaslow projects such as
educational gardens, parks, and libraries, 3.
Preparation of training programmes in schools on taste and nutrition in
collaboration with the Slow Food Initiative. |
Sources: Köstem (2013); Heitmann et al. (2011).
As can be seen from Table 1,
almost all requirements are related to STD. It can, therefore, be asserted that
the Cittaslow philosophy contributes directly to STD if implemented correctly.
Heitmann, Robinson, and Povey (2011, 122), when considering all six pillars,
conclude that the combination of these requirements under one philosophy
contributes to the holistic idea of sustainable management and development as
it incorporates key aspects in the planning process which include the
environment, the economy, and the community.
2.4.
Challenges for Cittaslow Candidates
To be named as a Cittaslow
member, the following main policies need to be implemented: specific
environmental requirements should be met; autochthonous production must be
safeguarded; infrastructural policies are to be implemented; high levels of
technology and facilities for high quality urban life need to be established,
and there must be some specific programmes and practices for the hospitality
industry, together with an ongoing awareness of the Cittaslow philosophy. It is
obvious that for a city to be named a Cittaslow, drastic changes may have to be
realised. Moreover,
the sustainability of any changes is of paramount importance. In this context, not only the administrators, but the entire population of
each candidate city is required to make significant contributions to the
receipt of Cittaslow membership since it has a vitally important role in
ensuring the implementation and sustainability of a Cittaslow project.
The Cittaslow philosophy
offers a highly beneficial model for a city willing to be in harmony with
itself and its surrounding area; to be integrated with its traditional values;
to be respectful of nature and its history; to have a strong infrastructure,
institutional connections and collaboration at high-level, plus competitive
power, environmental sustainability, and a unique city structure in addition to
its modernity. Also, from the environmental aspect, as one of the basic factors
of the Cittaslow philosophy, a city is supposed to aim for and start
implementation of STD following receipt of Cittaslow membership. When the
requirements for Cittaslow membership are examined it can be seen that the
model aims essentially at sustainable development inclusive of human beings,
flora, and fauna, and that it becomes more possible for a city wishing to be a
Cittaslow to realise STD if the required infrastructure and superstructure is
already in place.
While receipt of Cittaslow
membership provides many advantages, the road towards it, as mentioned above,
can be a long and tiresome path. There are many challenges in front of
candidate cities which could prevent them from becoming a Cittaslow. Some of
these are as follows: Firstly, financial aspects such as the transaction costs
of establishing purification facilities for urban or collective sewage; systems
for controlling and reducing electromagnetic, noise, and light pollution; and
the need to establish environmental management systems are serious obstacles
for candidate cities: secondly, as human resources are a very important factor
in the success of any activity, potential communities may not have the
necessary trained personnel able to make and carry through plans and projects
that meet the stringent requirements for membership: thirdly, receipt of
membership is only a beginning and continuity of effort is vital as continued
membership is dependent on the sustainability of standards. In this context,
there needs to be stability in almost all activities concerning the
environment, the safeguarding of autochthonous production, infrastructure,
technologies and facilities for urban quality, hospitality, and awareness of
the Cittaslow philosophy.
In addition to general
requirements and the necessary stability for continuation of Cittaslow
membership, a further point has to be taken into account. Considering such unavoidably
high costs and the necessary presence of trained human resources, one might
assert that Cittaslow membership is not very applicable to the cities of
developing countries when compared to those in developed countries. This
assertion might seem to be confirmed when considering the number of Cittaslows
in the world, most of which are located in developed countries. However, it
does not mean that developing countries’ cities are inevitably far from
membership. For instance, some cities in Turkey are already among them. In
fact, considering that they are ‘slower’ (less spoiled) than those in developed
countries in terms of some requirements such as the environment and
autochthonous production, this might be regarded as an advantage when applying
for Cittaslow status. However, to receive it, they must be ready to make the
extra efforts with regard to the remaining requirements such as those related
to infrastructure, technologies and facilities for urban quality, hospitality,
and awareness of the Cittaslow philosophy.
Developed or not, it should be
noted that while the costs necessary to becoming a Cittaslow stem mainly from
the need to resolve problems caused by human behaviour, in fact, all countries
will have to meet the financial and other costs needed to resolve similar
difficulties brought about by earlier efforts to change and ‘modernise’. From
this perspective, it can be seen that the problems for which solutions are
sought are directly related to individual, social, and environmental ones. Cittaslow,
therefore, becomes a means by which these problems are embodied and through
which systematic efforts can be made to find solutions.
Last but not least, I directed some questions to Cittaslow Headquarters for
which I received the following summarized answer from the Secretary General of
the Association:
‘Italy is very much the home of Cittaslow, but a question of interest is
why has not the concept been adopted in many more locations, and what are the
inhibiting factors - and how does this sample of cities overcome the inhibiting
factors?’
“From the beginning in October 1999, we started to promote a ‘quality
project’ and pattern for small or medium size towns. We were not and - today
also - we are not only interested in the fast growth of member numbers, but
seek mainly to improve the quality and to propose comfortable living styles at
local level. Now, we too are increasing in number, but it is a natural
selection: if we were open to all candidates we risk destroying our concept. We
prefer to grow slowly. There are no inhibiting factors: not all towns can
become Cittaslow; but in any case we are working to inspire all towns to become
more Cittaslow.”
It is clear that the Association acts in a strictly compatible manner with
its philosophy with regard to receipt of new members. That is, it acts slowly
and carefully prior to allowing membership. However, as mentioned above, there
are many inhibiting factors to be resolved and elimination of these is required
either during the application process and/or following it.
3. A Comparative Descriptive Analysis for Current and
Potential Cittaslows in Turkey
In this study, a comparative descriptive analysis is made. Thus, in
consideration of the requirements to become a Cittaslow, an indices table has
been prepared by which current potentially suitable and unsuitable cities are
assessed. The purpose of the indexing is: to check the situation of sample of
current Cittaslows in Turkey in order to make comparisons; to reveal the
barriers to Cittaslow membership; and to assess the appropriateness or
unsuitability for candidateship of some selected cities in Turkey.
3.1.
Methodology of the Research
For the analysis, I have defined three groups of cities; A, B, and C. Group
A includes the first Cittaslow, Seferihisar, plus Vize, one of the most recent
as of the end of July 2013. Group B includes five selected candidate cities
from Turkey. As mentioned earlier, all Cittaslow members in Turkey, plus the
new candidates, are located in the west (especially the south-west) of Turkey
and no member or candidate cities are available from the centre and east of the
country apart from Perşembe of Ordu in the Central Black Sea Region and Halfeti
of Urfa in the South-East Anatolia Region. That is to say, there is
disequilibrium between the east, the centre, and the west of Turkey in terms of
the number of Cittaslows. Therefore, considering this disequilibrium, I have
chosen the following Cittaslow candidates from the east, centre, and north-west
of the country in order to reach a balanced composition: one, Eastern Turkey:
a) Uzungöl (Trabzon); b) Hasankeyf (Batman); two, Central Turkey: a) Safranbolu
(Karabük); b) Ürgüp (Nevşehir); three, Western Turkey: İznik (Bursa). These
cities are also marked on the map of Turkey, Figure 2.
Figure 2:
Potential Cittaslow Candidates in Turkey
Considering the requirements
determined by the Cittaslow Initiative (Table 1), the following main criteria
were taken into account when selecting candidate cities: firstly, History; a candidate
city is required to have a certain historic past, in that it has been inhabited
by several civilizations and is, therefore, rich in terms of both physical and
spiritual historic heritage that should be protected: secondly, Natural
Structure; a candidate city is expected to have natural resources and
splendour. In this context, the city is assumed to be rich in terms of the
flora and fauna to be sustained: thirdly, Socio-Cultural Features; a candidate
city is required to have various traditional values and heritage points such as
ethnic features, traditional handicrafts, and local traditional foods/drinks
which are to be maintained:
fourthly, Tourism Structure; a candidate city is expected to have a touristic
capacity which makes it a centre of attraction and which requires the
sustainability of all the above-mentioned factors. In fact, these criteria are
not so different from those determined by the Cittaslow Initiative, and can be
viewed as a compressed version of its requirements.
In addition, it should be
noted that within the, Strategy of Tourism Development Regions, under ‘Tourism
Strategy of Turkey 2023’, nine areas under the title ‘Thematic Regions’, in
which some specified touristic activities will be developed in the medium and
long term, were determined (Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Turkey, 2007).
In this context, three of above five provinces (Batman, Nevşehir, and Bursa)
are also among the nine thematic regions included within this strategy. This
confirms that the selection of the said cities (Group B) is appropriate in this
respect too.
Group C includes some other
cities [a) Tatvan (Bitlis), b) Midyat (Mardin), c) Alanya (Antalya), d) Fethiye
(Muğla)] whose populations exceed the maximum level although they would, otherwise,
have been suitable for membership as regards other features relating to
history, nature, socio-cultural aspects, and tourism. These cities are also
marked on the map of Turkey, Figure 3.
Figure 3:
Cities Unsuited to be Cittaslow Candidates in Turkey
The reason for including the cities in Group A in this statistical analysis
is to use them as a base for the other city groups to make comparisons. The
inclusion of the cities in Group B is to see if they are suitable for Cittaslow
candidateship in terms of the determined requirements of the Cittaslow
Association (Table 1) by making a comparison with the current Cittaslows (Group
A). The inclusion of the cities in Group C is to reveal the barriers before
such cities even though they appear to be appropriate for Cittaslow
candidateship other than with regard to population size. In fact, many other
cities in Turkey could have been chosen as Cittaslow candidates. Due to the
limitations of this study, however, and considering regional development, just a
few have been selected in the east, centre, and north-west of the country.
Following
the determination of the groups of cities, their mayors/governors were
contacted via an e-mail survey and asked to answer 26 questions under six main
subject headings (Table 1). The results were then included in Table 3 in the
Appendix I for indexing. An index score of ‘one’ represents full compatibility
with Cittaslow requirements, while a score of ‘zero’ represents no
compatibility. Considering these scores in the comparative descriptive
analysis, the results of the index constructed by using equal weights for each
question plus a sub-category from Table 1 are presented in Table 2. Index
calculations of subjects are available in Table 4 in the Appendix I also.
The reason for applying equal weight is the dictum, ‘everything else being
equal, simple is the best’. The scores and index calculations concerning this
scenario are available in Tables 3 and 4 respectively (Appendix I). It should
be noted that although alternative scenarios are studied, the robustness analysis shows that after manipulating and weighting each
sub-group and/or each question, the rankings do not change. Moreover, to show the
relationship in an illustrative way, radar graphs are used. Therefore, equal
weights for the sub-categories of Table 2 can also be traced in Figures 4-5-6.
Table 2: Indices for Current, Potential Candidate, and Unsuitable Candidate
Cittaslows in Turkey – Jan 2013
|
Group |
City |
Equal Weights |
|
A |
Seferihisar |
0.87 |
|
Vize |
0.92 |
|
|
B |
Uzungöl |
0.39 |
|
Hasankeyf |
0.44 |
|
|
Safranbolu |
0.67 |
|
|
Ürgüp |
0.76 |
|
|
İznik |
0.39 |
|
|
C |
Tatvan |
0.60 |
|
Midyat |
0.28 |
|
|
Alanya |
0.87 |
|
|
Fethiye |
0.85 |
Figure 4: Radar Graph of Indices for Current Cittaslows in Turkey (Group A)
Figure 5: Radar Graph of Indices for Potential Cittaslow Candidates in
Turkey (Group B)
Figure 6: Radar Graph of Indices for Cities Unsuited to be Cittaslow
Candidates in Turkey (Group C)
3.2. Results
of the Research
In this descriptive analysis,
it is ascertained that rankings for all groups are as expected and are
compatible with the assertion of the paper. Equal weights for Group A show the expected
rankings. As these cities are already Cittaslows they have the highest scores.
However, it can be seen that these cities could not get the full score (100
percent), which means that a candidate city does not, in fact, have to meet the
full requirements at the time of membership acceptance, but endeavours to
complete them in time.
Rankings for Groups B and C are also as expected. The scores for Group C
range from 28 percent for Midyat to 87 percent for Alanya. Neither city can
offer itself as a Cittaslow candidate as they fail to meet the population
criterion of the Cittaslow Initiative. Thus, although Alanya has the highest
score in this group - the same as of the first Cittaslow of Turkey
(Seferihisar), it cannot be a member because of its 104,573 inhabitants as of
2012. Clearly the population criterion hinders the execution of STD on a wider
scale. If there were no such impediment these cities could then be required to
implement the Cittaslow philosophy and, in the medium to long term, neighbouring
cities would also be encouraged to become Cittaslow candidates. It would then
be possible to obtain a collective STD on a global scale.
As for Group B, even if they do not meet the
full Cittaslow requirements they are potential candidates because of their
history, natural assets, socio-cultural features, and touristic capacity. This
also applies to Group C. Last but not least, considering the less than perfect
scores of the current Cittaslows, which mean that they are still in the process
of completing the determined requirements, the cities in Groups B and C could also meet these requirements
following Cittaslow membership as they have such potential. Therefore, for a
city willing to be a Cittaslow, by ignoring the population criterion, other
factors: an established historic background, natural resources, socio-cultural
features, and touristic capacity, could be considered sufficient at the first
stage, following which it could be expected to complete the determined
requirements. Thus, it would be easier to increase the number of Cittaslows and
execute STD systematically and rapidly.
Following the analysis, a further survey was conducted with the
mayors/governors of the said cities in which they were asked to provide some
additional information: e.g. length of roads-pedestrian footpaths, degree of
traffic congestion, accommodation facilities, local markets, and maintenance of
traditional foods/drinks etc. which are available in Table 5 in Appendix II. In
addition to other measures given above, such data indicate the quality of life
in a city and the level of welfare of the residents. They also provide
significant criteria with which to gauge the situation of a sample of current
Cittaslows in Turkey by revealing potential barriers to Cittaslow membership;
and assessing the appropriateness or unsuitability for candidateship of some
selected cities in Turkey.
One of the most significant indicators of quality of life and welfare of
residents in this context, is ‘length of pedestrian footpaths/length of roads’
which are taken to represent the walkable distances of a city. Currently this
stands at 3% for Seferihisar and 33% for Vize, two of the cittaslows of Turkey.
Currently the minimum rate is 10% for İznik and a maximum 85% for Alanya. This
shows that almost all cities (Groups B and C) have higher rates in this
respect. As for traffic congestion; apart from Ürgüp (Group B) and Fethiye
(Group C), all other cities have low levels of traffic congestion. However, Hasankeyf
(Group B) and Tatvan (Group C) also have high levels of traffic congestion
during peak seasons depending upon the number of visitors.
The existence of sufficient and varied accommodation to cater for the needs
of visitors, to touristic destinations, is well understood as an indicator for
assessing the qualities that make for visitable and liveable cities. To this
end the survey sought the availability of hotel beds (star/non-star, boutique
hotels etc.) in the cities. Data from the survey show that almost all the
cities under scrutiny are self-sufficient in terms of accomodation facilities.
‘The total number of hotels/bedspaces’ (i.e. hotels certified by the Ministry
of Culture and Tourism and by the Municipality) in Seferihisar and Vize are
75/6,167 (75 hotels/6,167 bedspaces) and 2/70 respectively. This is more or
less the same for the cities of Groups B and C. For example, starting from the
least, it is 2/39 and 9/320 for Hasankeyf and İznik (Group B) consecutively.
While for Alanya and Fethiye (Group C) they stand at 422/115,966 and
611/44,037. In fact, these data are compatible with the population, size, and
touristic capacity of the cities. While the number of hotels/bedspaces of some
cities (i.e. Hasankeyf and İznik) are relatively near to those of Vize, those
of some other cities (i.e. Ürgüp and Midyat) are relatively close to those of
Seferihisar. Conversely the figures for some cities (i.e. Alanya and Fethiye)
are considerably higher than the those for both Seferihisar and Vize.
With regard to the market structure of the cities other than Seferihisar
and Vize; all but two have ‘markets for specifically local products’ and
‘street markets for local/general products’. The exceptions are Uzungöl in
Group B and Tatvan in Group C, which, while lacking the latter, do have
‘markets for specifically local products’. While Seferihisar alone has four
‘street markets for local/general products’, Vize has only one. Looking at the
details of other cities, one sees that while some cities (i.e. Hasankeyf, Ürgüp,
and İznik) have established only one ‘street market for local/general
products’, the majority of cities are establishing more: two (Midyat), three
(Fethiye), four (Alanya), and five (Safranbolu). These data show that all
potential candidate and unsuitable candidate Cittaslows in Turkey are mindful
of the sustainability of local products and are acting in line with the
Cittaslow philosophy.
Local traditional foods/drinks are prepared in private houses and served in
the restaurants of participating cities. The further details for foods and
drinks in some of the participating cities are as follows: Seferihisar: There
is a special restaurant named ‘Sefertası’ where local foods/drinks are served.
Two permanent producer markets have been established to sell local products.
Agricultural Development Co-operatives deal with special programmes for the
promotion of local products. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism and some
private companies have applied to take part in a project named the ‘Slow
Kitchen of Seferihisar’ set up by the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP). Through this, residents and visitors can take a course on cooking local
foods and preparing local drinks; Vize: two co-operatives promote traditional
foods/drinks; Safranbolu: a patent for ‘Saffron (Crocus Sativus)’ (Safranbolu
is said to have taken its current name from this plant) has been granted;
Ürgüp: traditional foods/drinks are preferred at wedding ceremonies and
funerals also; Fethiye: women accredited to an initiative ‘Fethiye Gönüllüler
Evi (House of Fethiye Volunteers)’ come together every Thursday under the
leadership of the wife of the mayor to cook/prepare traditional foods and
drinks which they then sell. In this way, these are protected by the Initiative
and the profits are used to meet some of the needs of the disabled in Fethiye.
Conclusion
Obsolescence and depreciation of historic heritage, destruction of natural
resources/splendour, and degeneration in socio-cultural values have compelled
individuals, institutions, and societies all over the world to take some
counter measures. In this context initiatives are launched and various
organizations formed. Of such movements, none are independent of sustainable
development and, in this context, of STD. As one of these initiatives,
Cittaslow was conceived as a movement to prevent or slow the negative effects
of the processes of modernisation such as loss of historic heritage, swift
consumption of natural resources and a decrease in renewal capacity, oblivion
and/or neglect of socio-cultural values and, in this context, traditions. When
considering this side of the coin, Cittaslow, meaning ‘slow city’, can be
assessed as a philosophy. This philosophy, aiming, as it does, at constituting
places which are at peace with their history, nature, and socio-cultural
values, is directly related to STD because of such features. In fact, all
cities which adopt and practise this philosophy are simultaneously implementing
STD.
As of the end of July 2013
there were 176 Cittaslows in 27 countries, and their numbers are increasing.
This tendency could be regarded as an indicator of the importance given to
sustainable development and STD. The same trend is also visible in Turkey
where, although the number of Cittaslows was just one by July 2011, this had
increased to nine as of end of July 2013 and there are now several more
candidates. However, the current Cittaslows (Perşembe, Taraklı, Vize, Gökçeada,
Seferihisar, Yenipazar, Akyaka, Yalvaç, and Halfeti) are, apart from Perşembe
and Halfeti, located in the west (especially the south-west) of the country resulting in disequilibrium between
the west, centre, and east of Turkey.
One of the aims of this paper
is to close the gap by suggesting suitable candidates in other regions and,
thus, to a certain extent removing the current regional disequilibrium in terms
of the number of Cittaslows. To realise STD and, as stated, to counter the
numerical regional disequilibrium, I have focused on five potential candidates
from the east, centre, and north-west of the country: Uzungöl, Hasankeyf,
Safranbolu, Ürgüp, and İznik. In this context, the candidate cities could be
expected to effectuate the Cittaslow philosophy and, thus, STD. For this
purpose, the potential capacities of above-mentioned cities are revealed by
establishing the relationship between the requirements of STD and the
terms/conditions of the Cittaslow philosophy.
The Cittaslow Initiative determines the many demands that must be met
before becoming a Cittaslow member; these are classified under the following
six main criteria: environmental policies; the safeguarding of autochthonous
production; infrastructure; technologies and facilities for urban quality;
hospitality; and awareness of the aims, procedures, and programmes of the
Cittaslow Initiative. In this paper, however, studies and assessments under the
following major criteria have been executed for the offered candidate cities
that would be required to effectuate the Cittaslow philosophy and STD: they are
the historical, natural, socio-cultural, and touristic structures of cities.
These four major criteria are not basically different from the determined six
major pillars for Cittaslow membership and can be regarded as a compressed
version of these requirements. In this context, and in consideration of these
criteria, extensive data on the said five cities plus several other cities in
Turkey have been collected and their Cittaslow capacities revealed. The data
show that these cities possess basic Cittaslow requirements and have the
capacity to realise STD through this philosophy. This conclusion concurs,
therefore, with the main assertion of the paper.
In addition to the collection of extensive data and the detailing of the
Cittaslow capacities of the mentioned cities, a comparative descriptive analysis
has also been made, taking into account the requirements determined by the
Cittaslow Initiative and including two current Cittaslows, together with some
cities deemed as unsuitable, their population being in excess of 50,000, thus
automatically eliminating them from membership. The data for the analysis were
obtained directly from the mayor and/or governor of each city by e-mail
surveys. These cities have been grouped as A, B, and C and an index constructed
which presents the results by equal weighting. In this context, the robustness
analysis shows that manipulating and weighting each sub-group and/or each
question, the rankings do not change and thus, current Cittaslows (Group A) get
the highest scores while the remaining cities (Groups B and C) get lower ones.
Moreover, it can be seen that the current Cittaslows do not get the full score
(100 percent), which means that a candidate city does not have to meet all
requirements at the time of receiving membership, but should fulfill them
within a given time.
It should be noted that the
offered candidate Cittaslows (especially those of eastern Turkey) are far from
meeting some of the related requirements, especially those concerned with
financial and human capital. Therefore, a word of caution about the challenges
faced by Cittaslow candidates in Turkey should be mentioned here. The candidate
cities in the centre, but especially those in the east of Turkey, face
financial shortages as regards covering the costs of purification facilities,
systems for controlling pollution, and environmental management systems. They
also lack the necessary qualified human resources to follow required procedures
for Cittaslow membership; an indication of possible problems with membership
stability as implementation of these requirements is dependent upon the
existence of such mechanisms and people.
While the cities selected in
this paper for Cittaslow candidateship lack some of its demands, it is clear
that they would be able to follow the long path towards it if they effectuated
the Cittaslow philosophy. Considering that one of the findings of this
comparative descriptive analysis is that even the current Cittaslows do not
meet all requirements at the time of acceptance, it is clear that the
membership process could begin, and completion of the requirements come later.
Moreover, as population size is also a barrier for many cities to becoming a
Cittaslow, this requirement could perhaps be revised to allow for an increase
in the number of candidates. Thus, as these cities meet the agreed standards,
they could be expected to affect their neighbours’ expectations as well and it
might be possible to realise a collective STD.
Following the initial analysis, a further survey was conducted with the
mayors/governors of the same cities (Groups A, B, and C). They were asked to
provide some additional information about their cities e.g. length of
roads-pedestrian footpaths, traffic congestion, accommodation facilities, local
markets, and maintenance of local traditional foods/drinks etc. Such
information discloses the quality of life of a city and the level of welfare of
its residents, both of which are vital aspects for a Cittaslow. The information
gathered also provides important indications on the situation of sampled
current Cittaslows in Turkey; revealing the barriers to Cittaslow membership;
and assessing the appropriateness or unsuitability for candidateship of some of
the selected cities in Turkey. Results show that, in general, the cities are
compatible with the philosophy of Cittaslow and act accordingly. In fact,
should this model spread to all countries, STD might be realised on a global
scale in a more systematic and speedy fashion.
Finally, as Cittaslow is a new concept and research area for Turkey,
further studies are required. In this context some in-depth analyses of the
Cittaslow philosophy and its implications need to be made. I plan to engage in
case studies and stakeholder interviews in future and intend to visit
Cittaslows in Group A to see if the residents are happy with the current
outcomes, and whether they are fully involved in contributing to the process;
in Group B, the potential Cittaslow cities, I will ask the opinions of
residents regarding membership, to ascertain their level of awareness, and to
discover what they feel they can do towards the process of membership; and for
Group C, possible future Cittaslows, whose populations are above the current
limit, I intend to assess the interest level of inhabitants regarding
membership.
* Assist. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Behzat Ekinci
Economics, FEAS, Mardin Artuklu University.
** “The Cittaslow Philosophy in the Context of Sustainable Tourism
Development; The Case of Turkey”, Tourism Management, 2014, 41, 178-189 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.08.013).
*** The Author is thankful to Ms. Natalia Tari for her kind contribution.
References
Ayaş, Necla (2007). Çevresel Sürdürülebilir Turizm Gelişmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 9 (1), 59-69.
Bramwell, B.
and Lane, B. (1993). Opening editorial of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 1
(1), 1–5.
Cittaslow Association
(2013). Philosophy. Retrieved July 29, 2013, from Cittaslow Association Web
site: http://www.cittaslow.org/section/association/philosophy.
Ecogastronomy Initiative
(2013). What is Ecogastronomy?. Retrieved January 05, 2013, from Ecogastronomy
Initiative Web site: http://ecogastronomy.org/explained.
District Governorship of Seferihisar (2013). Seferihisar. Retrieved January
06, 2013, from District Governorship of Seferihisar Web site: http://www.seferihisar.gov.tr.
Dickinson, Janet E.; Lumsdon, Les M.; Robbins, Derek
(2011). Slow Travel: Issues for Tourism and Climate Change. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19:3,
281-300 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.524704).
Hawkins R.
(1994). Towards Sustainability in the Travel and Tourism Industry. European
Environment, 4: 5.
Heitmann, Sine; Robinson, Peter; and Povey, Ghislaine
(2011). Slow Food, Slow Cities and Slow Tourism. in Peter Robinson, Sine
Heitmann, and Peter Dieke (Eds.), Research
Themes for Tourism (pp. 114-127). London: MPG Books Group (http://tr.scribd.com/doc/88151310/8/Slow-Food-Slow-Cities-and-Slow-Tourism).
Honor´e, C. (2004). In Praise of Slowness: How a
Worldwide Movement is Challenging the Cult of Speed. San Francisco, CA: Harper.
Jiang, Yiyi (2009).
Evaluating eco-sustainability and its spatial variability in tourism areas: a
case study in Lijiang County, China. International
Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 16 (2), 117-126.
Köstem, Bülent (2013).
Cittaslow Requirements. Retrieved January 03, 2013, from Municipality of
Seferihisar Web site: http://www.cittaslowseferihisar.org/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=63.
Lerner, M.;
Haber, S. (2001). Performance Factors of Small Tourism Ventures: The Interface
of Tourism Entrepreneurship and The Environment. Journal of Business
Venturing, 16, 77-100.
Lumsdon, Les M.; McGrath, Peter (2011). Developing a
Conceptual Framework for Slow Travel: A Grounded Theory Approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19:3,
265-279 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2010.519438).
Ministry of Culture and
Tourism of Turkey (Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı) (2007). Türkiye Turizm
Stratejisi 2023. Retrieved January 13, 2013, from Ministry of Culture and
Tourism of Turkey Web site: http://www.sp.gov.tr/documents/Turizm_Strateji_2023.pdf.
Municipality of Seferihisar
(2013). Seferihisar. Retrieved January 06, 2013, from Municipality of
Seferihisar Web site: http://www.cittaslowseferihisar.org/eng.
Municipality of Seferihisar
(2013). What is Cittaslow?. Retrieved January 03, 2013, from Municipality of Seferihisar
Web site: http://www.cittaslowseferihisar.org/eng.
Mycoo, Michelle (2006). Sustainable Tourism Using
Regulations, Market Mechanisms and Green Certification: A Case Study of
Barbados. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
14(5), 489-511 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/jost600.0).
Nilsson, J.H.; Sv¨ard, A.C.; Widarsson, A., &
Wirell, T. (2007, September 27–29). Slow
Destination Marketing in Small Italian Towns. Paper presented at the
16th Nordic Symposium in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Helsingborg.
Peters, P. (2006). Time, Innovation and Mobilities:
Travel in Technological Cultures. London: Taylor & Francis.
Petrini, C. (2001). Slow food: The case for taste. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rempel, Jeffrey Michael (2009). Sustainability in
Coastal Tourism: Pursuing The Causal Nexus, TILTAI, Klaipeda: Klaipedos
Universiteto Leidykla, Lithuania. 3, 75-105 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500409469843).
Ritzer, G. (1996). The
McDonalization of society: An investigation into the changing character of
contemporary society (Rev. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Sezgin, Mete; Kalaman,
Abdullah (2008). Turistik Destinasyon Çerçevesinde Sürdürülebilir Turizm
Yönetimi ve Pazarlaması. Selçuk
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19, 429-437.
Slow Food Association
(2013). About Us. Retrieved July 29, 2013, from Slow Food Association Web site:
http://www.slowfood.com/international/1/about-us.
Şahinkaya, Serdar (2013). Bir Yerel Kalkınma Modeli:
Cittaslow ve Seferihisar Üzerine Degerlendirmeler. Retrieved January 06, 2013,
from Municipality of Seferihisar Web site: http://www.seferihisar.bel.tr.
The United Nations World
Tourism Organization (UNWTO) (2013). Mission. Retrieved January 05, 2013, from
The United Nations World Tourism Organization Web site: http://www.unwto.org/sdt/mission/en/mission.php?op=1.
Welford, Richard; Ytterhus,
Bjarne (2004). Sustainable Development and Tourism Destination Management: A
Case Study of the Lillehammer Region, Norway. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 11, 410-422.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I:
Table 3: Scores for Current, Potential Candidate, and Unsuitable
Candidate Cittaslows in Turkey in terms of Cittaslow Requirements – Jan 2013
|
|
Group A |
Group B |
Group C |
||||||||
|
Major Subject |
Seferihisar |
Vize |
Uzungöl |
Hasankeyf |
Safranbolu |
Ürgüp |
İznik |
Tatvan |
Midyat |
Alanya |
Fethiye |
|
I-Environmental Policies |
|||||||||||
|
I-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
I-2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
I-3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
I-4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
I-5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
I-6 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
I-7 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
I-8 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II-Safeguarding Autochthonous Production |
|||||||||||
|
II-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
II-2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
II-3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
II-4 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
III-Infrastructural Policies |
|||||||||||
|
III-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
III-2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
III-3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
III-4 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
III-5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IV-Technologies and Facilities for Urban
Quality |
|||||||||||
|
IV-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
IV-2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
IV-3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V-Hospitality |
|||||||||||
|
V-1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
V-2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
V-3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VI-Awareness |
|||||||||||
|
VI-1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
VI-2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
VI-3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Table 4: Index Calculation for Current, Potential Candidate, and Unsuitable
Candidate Cittaslows in Turkey in terms of Cittaslow Requirements – Jan 2013
|
|
Group A |
Group B |
Group C |
||||||||
|
Subject |
Seferihisar |
Vize |
Uzungöl |
Hasankeyf |
Safranbolu |
Ürgüp |
İznik |
Tatvan |
Midyat |
Alanya |
Fethiye |
|
I |
0.75 |
0.88 |
0.25 |
0.00 |
0.38 |
0.75 |
0.13 |
0.13 |
0.00 |
0.88 |
0.75 |
|
II |
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.50 |
0.50 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.75 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
|
III |
0.80 |
1.00 |
0.60 |
0.80 |
1.00 |
0.80 |
0.80 |
0.80 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
|
IV |
1.00 |
0.67 |
0.33 |
0.67 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.33 |
0.33 |
0.33 |
1.00 |
0.67 |
|
V |
1.00 |
1.00 |
0.67 |
0.67 |
0.67 |
1.00 |
0.33 |
0.67 |
0.33 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
|
VI |
0.67 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.67 |
0.00 |
0.33 |
0.67 |
|
Equal weights |
0.87 |
0.92 |
0.39 |
0.44 |
0.67 |
0.76 |
0.39 |
0.60 |
0.28 |
0.87 |
0.85 |
APPENDIX II:
Table 5: Additional Information on Current, Potential
Candidate, and Unsuitable Candidate Cittaslows in Turkey – July 2013
|
|
Group A |
Group B |
Group C |
||||||||
|
Subject |
Seferihisar |
Vize |
Uzungöl |
Hasankeyf |
Safranbolu |
Ürgüp |
İznik |
Tatvan |
Midyat |
Alanya |
Fethiye |
|
I- General
Information |
|||||||||||
|
Length of roads (km) |
100 |
60 |
7 |
5 |
120 |
121 |
40 |
150 |
38 |
96 |
100 |
|
Length of pedestrian footpaths (km) |
3 |
20 |
3 |
4 |
40 |
94 |
4 |
85 |
21 |
82 |
20 |
|
Length of pedestrian footpaths/Length of roads (%) |
3 |
33 |
43 |
80 |
33 |
78 |
10 |
57 |
55 |
85 |
20 |
|
Number of vehicles |
9,791 |
1,000 |
280 |
80 |
12,000 |
15,000 |
5,000 |
5,913 |
8,325 |
97,193 |
89,017 |
|
Traffic congestion (yes/no) |
No |
No |
No |
Yes/No |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes/No |
No |
No |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II-Accommodation Facilities (*) |
|||||||||||
|
Number of Hotels Certified by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism Number of bedspaces |
7 2,246 |
2 70 |
3 200 |
--- --- |
22 885 |
11 1,780 |
--- --- |
4 403 |
13 2,296 |
258 82,016 |
79 17,082 |
|
Number of Hotels Certified by the Municipality Number of bedspaces |
68 3,921 |
--- --- |
94 2,300 |
2 39 |
71 900 |
56 3,720 |
9 320 |
9 431 |
24 1,310 |
164 33,950 |
532 26,955 |
|
Total number of hotels
Total number of bedspaces |
75 6,167 |
2 70 |
97 2,500 |
2 39 |
93 1,785 |
67 5,500 |
9 320 |
13 834 |
37 3,606 |
422 115,966 |
611 44,037 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
III-Market Structure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any market for specifically local products? (yes/no) (**) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Number of street markets for local/general products |
4 |
1 |
--- |
1 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
--- |
2 |
4 |
3 |
|
Number of street markets per week for local/general products |
1 |
1 |
--- |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
--- |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IV-Local Foods/Drinks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How are the local traditional foods/drinks maintained? |
Local traditional foods/drinks are prepared in
private houses and served in the restaurants of participating cities. The
further details for the foods/drinks in some participating cities are as
follows: Seferihisar: There is a special restaurant named ‘Sefertası’ where
local foods/drinks are served. Two permanent producer markets have been
established to sell local products. Some co-operatives deal with special
programmes for the promotion of local products. A Project set up by the UNDP
called ‘Slow Kitchen of Seferihisar’ has been prepared; Vize: two
co-operatives promote traditional foods/drinks; Safranbolu: a patent for
‘Saffron (Crocus Sativus)’ has been granted; Ürgüp: traditional foods/drinks
are preferred at wedding ceremonies and funerals also; Fethiye: An initiative
‘Fethiye Gönüllüler Evi (House of Fethiye Volunteers) cooks/prepares
traditional foods/drinks and sells them every Thursday. |
||||||||||
(*) Includes star/non-star and boutique hotels etc.
(**) Includes permanent and/or temporary markets.
APPENDIX
III:
Table 6:
Seferihisar as the First Cittaslow in Turkey
|
Criteria |
Explanation |
|
History |
·
It has a 4,000 year-old
history. ·
Ruling civilizations:
Cretans, Ionians, Etruscans, Lydians, Iranians, Athenians, Spartans,
Pergamons, Macedonians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Seljuks,
Aydınoğuls, Ottomans, and Mongols. |
|
Natural Structure |
·
It has a typical
Mediterranean climate. ·
It has a rich flora
including a typical Mediterranean plant, namely Maki, and forest trees such
as rosebay, red pine, and oak, as well as cultivated plants such as olive and
citrus, ·
There is a specific local
flower namely Kum Zambağı (Sand Lily). ·
It has an indented coastline
at the Aegean Sea for 60 km. However, the city centre is five km. far from
the sea. ·
Fishing is one of the
important economic activities. ·
300 of 365 days are sunny and
the city is rich in thermal energy sources and has strong wind corridors. |
|
Socio- Cultural Features |
·
Major traditional
handicrafts: tile (ceramic) arts, wood painting, string bag weaving, and
production of various hand-made giftwares. ·
Local traditional
foods/drinks: Damla Sakızlı Tatlı, Lok Lok, Çalkalama ve Balıklama, Ekmek
Dolması, Oğlak Dolması, Kuzu Dolması, Seferihisar Nohutlu Mantısı, Enginar
Dolması, Labada Dolması, Yuvalaça Köfte, Peygamber Balıklı Pilav, Çekme
Makarna, Ispanak Balıklama, Armola Peyniri, Mandalina Tatlısı, Samsades
Tatlısı, Cevizli Oklavadan Sıyırma Tatlısı, Tarhana (Kızılhisarlı Çorbası),
Adabeyi Balık Çorbası, and Tatlı Tarhana. ·
There are some specific
local branded varieties of food. Among them are Satsuma Balı (tangerine honey)
and Seferihisar Enginarı (artichokes). |
|
Tourism Capacity |
·
Major historic buildings:
Sığacık Castle, Güdük Minare Mosque, Hıdırlık Mosque, Turabiye Mosque, Ulu
Mosque, Sığacık Bath, Kasım Çelebi Madrasah, Şehitler Fountain, Beyler
Aquaduct, Cumalı Hot Spring, Güneşlikent Tumulus, Teos Ancient City, Lebedos
Ancient City, Karaköse Ruins, and Myonnesos Island. ·
It has a 400 capacity yacht
port. ·
Potential touristic
activities: yachting, cycling, and trekking. ·
Seferihisar is very reliant on
touristic activities which contribute importantly to the economy of the city. ·
75 accomodation facilities
with 6,167 bedspaces are available. |
Sources:
Municipality of Seferihisar (2013); District Governorship of Seferihisar
(2013); Şahinkaya (2013).