IZVORNI ZNANSTVENÏ RAD ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER

UDC/UDK 338.48-6:7/8>(497.5 Split)

JEL classification: L83

Davorka Mikulic

MARKETINSKA VALORIZACUA SPLITA KAO DESTINACIJEKULTURNOG TURIZMA

MARKETING VALORIZATION OF THE CITY OF SPLITAS CULTURAL TOURISM DESTINATION

SA¿ETAK: U radu se analizira strateäki pristup upravljanju marketingom turistißke destinacije,polazeci od modela ñinkcioniranja destinacije kao sustava te destinacije kao integralnog turistifkogproizvoda. Koncentracija kulturnih resiirsa povecava vrijednost iikupnog turistickog proizvoda pa semnoge destinacije okrecu prema kulturi kao sredstvu diterenciranja od konkurencije. Vrijednostkulturne djelatnosti u svrhu poticanja drustvenog i gospodarskog razvoja prepoznata je u raZvojnimstrategijama mnogih destinacija. Poseban naglasak stavljen je na kulturu kao sredstvo poveéanjakonkurentnosti urbanih podnicja odnosno diferenciranja od konkurencije kroz kreativne oblikekultumog turizma. Kultumi tiirizam jedan je od razvojnih prioriteta i grada Splita, a njegov dugorocanuspjeh ovisit ¿e o razvoju partnerstva i suradnje kultumog Í turistickog sektora. Ogranicenja kojadanas koCe razvoj kultumog turizma rezultat su sporog gospodarskog razvoja grada i nejasne vizijerazvoja turizma. Na temclju rezultata provedenog primamog istraáivanja, u radu se predlazu glavnestrateske smjernice razvoja kultumog turizma u Splitu i akcije koje treba poduzeti u svrhu boljegpovezivanja kulture i turizma sektora, razvoja i promocije proizvoda te dostupnosti informacija iplasmana kulturnih turistiCkih proizvoda.

K L J U C N E RIJEÓ1: marketing turisticke destinacije, kultura, valorizacija. kultumi turizam. Split

SUMMARY: This paper presents an analysis of the strategic approach to tourist destinationmarketing management, its starting point being the model in which destination functions as a systemand in which destination is an integrated tourist product. The concentration of cultural resourcesincreases the value of the entire tourist product, so many destinations focus on culture as theirdistinctive feature against competition. The value of culture industry in enhancing the social andeconomic development has been recognised in development strategies of many destinations. Specialemphasis is being put on culture as a means of increasing competitiveness of urban areas, i.e. ofdifferentiation against competition through creative forms of cultural tourism. Cultural tourism is highon the priorities list in the development of the City of Split and its success in the long run will dependon the partnership and co-operation between the cultural and tourist sectors. The obstacles nowstanding in the way of development of cultural tourism result from a slow economic development ofthe town and a fuzzy vision of tourism development. Based on the results of primary research, mainStrategie guidelines of cultural tourism development in Split are being proposed, as well as actions tobe taken for the purpose of making firmer connections between the cultural and tourism, developmentand promotion of products and availability of information and placing of cultur tourist products on themarket.

KEYWORDS: tourism destination marketing, culture, valorisation, cultural tourism. Split

Mr. sc. Davorka Mikiilié, predavaé, Ekonomski fakullel Split. Matice hrvatske 31,21 000 Split,e-mail: d;ivorka.mikulic(i efst.hr

96 Acta turislica, Vol 21 (2009), No 1. pp M22

l.UVOD

Destinacija je jedan od najslozenijih su-stava za upravljanje i poslovanje, uslijedkompleksnosti medusobnih odnosa velikogbroja dionika ukijuöenih u razvoj turisti¿kihproizvoda (Buhalis, 2000:98). Stupanj or-ganiziranosti elemenata turistickog sustavamoze se povecati formiranjem tzv. mreznihpartnerstva. Taj je pojam proizaâao iz neStoSireg pojma "kooperativna strategija" kojioznacava nastojanje organizacije da reali-zira svoje ciljeve kroz razne oblike suradnje,kooperacije s drugim organ izacijama um-jesto konkurencije. Takva mreza trebala biobuhvatiti sve Subjekte na danoj razini - go-spodarske organizacije u turizmu, drus-tvene, kultume, obrazovne organizacije i in-stitucije te organe vlasti (DulCic, Petric,2001:120).

1, INTRODUCTION

Destination is one of the most complexsystems to manage and run, due to complexityof mutual relationships among the participantsinvolved in the development of tourism prod-ucts (Buhalis, 2000: 98). The degree of or-ganisation of tourism system elements may beincreased by forming the so called networkpartnerships. This term has grown from a bitwider notion of "co-operative strategy", de-noting the efforts of an organisation to realiseits goals through various forms of collabora-tion, co-operation with other organisations in-stead of competition. Such a network is sup-posed to include all subjects of a given level -business organisations In tourism, social, cul-tural, educational organisations and institu-tions and government offices (Dulöic, Petric,2001: 120).

2, S P E C I F I C N O S T IUPRAVLJANJAMARKETINGOM T U R I S T I C K EDESTINACIJE

Kompleksnost i meduzavisnost interes-nih grupa rezultirala je stvaranjem lokalnihsaveza i u turistiôkom marketingu (Palmer iBejou, 1995; Selin i Myers, 1998; premaSoteriades i Avgeli, 2007). Ti su oblici koo-perativnog marketinga posebno uôinkovitina destinacijskoj razini zbog razlicitih po-duzeca koja djeluju u odredenoj destinaciji igeografske disperziranosti emitivnih trzista.Javno-privatno partnerstvo i kooperacijaizmedu lokalnih ponudaca kljucni su u po-nudi kvalitetnih destinacijskih proizvoda(Buhalis, 2000:113). Ovo je posebno vaznoza mala i srednja turisticka poduzeca kojadominiraju u ponudi, ali koja nemaju do-voljno menadzerskih i marketinSkih znanjakao i financijskih sredstava za pristup cilj-nim trzistima. Ubrzano mijenjanje poslov-nog okruzenja, uglavnom zbog napredova-nja informacijske i komunikacijske tehnolo-

2. SPECIFIC FEATURES OFMANAGEMENT OF TOURISMDESTINATION MARKETING

TTie complexity and interdependence ofinterest groups has resulted in establishing oflocal alliances also in tourism marketing(Palmer and Bejou, 1995; Selin and Myers,1998; according to Soteriades and Avgeli,2007). Those forms of co-operative marketingare particularly effective at destination level,because of various companies being activewithin the particular destination and the geo-graphically dispersed emission markets. Pub-lic private partnerships and co-operationamong local providers are crucial for the offerof quality destination products (Buhalis,2000:113). This is particularly important forsmall and medium tourism companies thatdominate the offer, but don't have sufficientmanagerial or marketing know-how, and alsono financial means to approach target markets.Fast changes in business environment, mostlydue to advancements of information andcommunication technology, force them to in-

Davofka Miktili¿: Maricetlnäka valorizacija splila kao destinacije kulturnog tiiHzma 97

gije, zahtijeva od njih da uvode nove pos-lovne metode, razvijaju nove mreze i savezei da budu kreativni u marketingu. Koopera-tivni B2B portali (business to business)mogu se uspjeáno natjecati sa svim tradicio-nalnim oblicima suradnje i dosegnuti kon-kurentsku prednost preko marketinga odre-denih trzisnih nisa, e-trgovine i razmjene in-formacija (WTO, 2001; Soteriades i Avgeli,2007:352). •

Koristeéi prednosti nove tehnologije iintemeta, destinacije mogu osnaziti svojupoziciju na trziàtu i smanjiti ovisnost o pos-rednicima pri distribuciji proizvoda. Desti-nacijska marketinska organizacja trebautvrditi primjerene naÖine segmentiranja tr-ziáta i sagledati turisticke proizvode kaoportfolio koji periodiöno treba kritiôki istra-ziti i procijeniti. Konkurentska sposobnostdestinacije i nacin na koji se destinacija di-ferencira od konkurencije odredit ce nacinna koji je kupci percipiraju. Buduéi da jeinterakcija turista i domacina vaznakomponenta turistiôkog dozivljaja trebakontinuirano pratiti i reakcije domacinaprema tiiristima. Osim toga treba voditiraôiina o i tome da razvoj infrastrukture imaimplikacije na segmente turista koji ce bitiprivuôeni u to podrucje. Kljuöno nácelo uformuiiranju marketinSke strategije je isti-canje potrebe unaprjedenja proizvoda i nji-hove diverzifikacije.

U cilju efikasnog uvodenja strateskogpristupa marketingu, nuzno je razviti prikla-dan marketinski informacijski sustav te pla-nirati resurse za realizaciju strategije. Mar-ketinäka bi strategija trebala biti direktnoizvedena iz razvojne strategije i trebala bisadrzavati planiranje pozitivnog imidza de-stinacije (Soteriades i Avgeli. 2007: 351).Turisticki marketing ne bi trebalo shvacatiiskljuÔivo kao sredstvo za privlaCenje veéegbroja posjetiteija u regiju, kao §to je to slu-ôaj u vecini destinacija. Umjesto toga, turis-tiCki marketing treba djelovati kao mehani-zam koji ce omoguciti postizanje regional-nih razvojnih ciljeva (Buhalis, 2000: 99).

troduce new business methods, develop newnetworks and alliances and to be creative intheir marketing activities. The co-operativeB2B portals are able to compete successfullywith any of the traditional forms of collabora-tion and reach competitive advantages throughmarketing of certain market niches, e-com-merce and exchange of information (WTO,2001 ; Soteriades and Avgeli, 2007: 352).

Using the advantages of new technologiesand the Internet, destinations are able to rein-force their position on the market and to re-duce their dependency on mediators in thedistribution of products. A destination mar-keting organisation has to establish adequateways of market segmentation and to viewtourism products as a portfolio to be criticallyresearched and evaluated from time to time.The competitiveness of a destination and theway in which that particular destination is dis-tinguished from the competition will deter-mine the way in which customers perceive it.Since interaction between tourists and theirhosts is an important component of tourist ex-perience, the reactions of hosts towards tour-ists also have to be monitored on a continuousbasis. Besides, it should be noted that the de-velopment of infrastructure has implicationson tourist segments that will be attracted to acertain area. Key principle in forming a mar-keting strategy is to point out that productshave to be continuously improved and diversi-fied.

For the purpose of efficient introduction ofstrategic approach to marketing, it is necessaryto develop an appropriate marketing informa-tion system and to plan resources for the reali-sation of strategy. The marketing strategyshould be directly deduced from developmentstrategy and should contain planning of apositive destination image (Soteriades andAvgeli, 2007: 351). The marketing in tourismshould not be understood merely as means ofattracting large numbers of tourists into the re-gion, which is the case with most of the destina-tions. Instead, tourist marketing should functionas a tool that will enable achievement of re-gional development goals (Buhalis, 2000:99).

98 Acta turistica. Vol 21 (2009), No I. pp 1-122

3, MARKETINàKI PRISTUPVALORIZACIJI KULTUREKAO RESURSA

Mnoga urbana podrucja okrecu se premakulturi kao sredstvu diferenciranja od kon-kurencije. "Kulturna politika i plan razvojagrada mogu biti dobra prilika za poveziva-nje i uskiadivanje vizija kultumog i poslov-nog sektora s potrebama drustvene zajed-nice. u kreiranju novog imidza grada, cineciga atraktivnim svojim stanovnicima, a ondai za investiranje i turizam" (Dragicevic Se-Sic, 2006:50).

Kultura igra kijucnu ulogu i u razvojuturizma, a kulturne atrakcije postaju vaznosredstvo priviaôenja ne samo posjetiteljanego i investicija u urbanim podmcjima,Takve strategije postaju sve rasprostranje-nije pa se diskutira o efikasnosti kulturnihrazvojnih strategija u stimuliranju ekono-mije i kultumog zivota urbanih podrucja(Richards, 2001:11). Prema Lawu (2002)nekoliko faktora potice gradove prema raz-voju turizma: opadanje proizvodnih aktiv-nosti, percepcija turizma kao rastuce indus-trije i ocekivanja da ce turisticki razvoj re-zultirati regeneracijom i revitalizacijom ur-banih sredista. Gradovi koji odluce da jerazvoj kultumog turizma isplativa opcijaturistickog razvoja, trebaju zadovoljitiodredene preduvjete. Tomijenovic(2006:126) smatra da su "najbolje rezultateod razvoja kultumog turizma poIuCili onigradovi 5iji su celnici imali viziju i zelju dainvestiraju ili privuku investitore u velikeinfrastmktume projekte u kulturi, i koji suimali profesionalni kultumi sektor, kritiônumasu lokalnih stanovnika koji redovitoposjecuju kulturne manifestacije i dobroorganiziranu turisticku industriju".

Isti autor predlaze nekoliko opcija prili-kom razvoja kultumog turizma. Jedna odpopularnih, osobito u urbanim centrima. Jestizgradnja novih kulturnih atrakcija, bilo dasu motivirane urbanom obnovom ili zeljomda se postigne prepoznatljivost izgradnjom

3. MARKETING APPROACH TOVALORISATION OF CULTUREAS A RESOURCE

Many urban areas focus on culture as theirdistinctive feature against competition. "Cul-tural policy and development plan for the citymay be a good opportunity to connect andalign the visions of the cultural and businesssectors with the requirements of the commu-nity, in creating the new town image, makingit attractive to its inhabitants and then also forinvestments and tourism " (Dragicevic Sesic,2006: 50).

Culture plays a key role also in the devel-opment of tourism and cultural attractions be-come a major tool for attracting not only visi-tors, but also investments in urban areas. Suchstrategies ait becoming widely accepted, sothat topics such as efficiency of cultural de-velopment strategies in stimulating the econ-omy and cultural life of urban areas are beingdiscussed (Richards, 2001:11). According toLaw (2002), there are several elements thatmake towns shirt their development in direc-tion of tourism: decline of manufacturing ac-tivities, perception of tourism as a growing in-dustry and expectations that tourism develop-ment will lead to regeneration and revitalisa-tion of urban centres. The cities deciding thatthe development of cultural tourism is a feasi-ble option for tourism development have tomeet certain prerequisites. Tomijenovic (2006:126) maintains that "the best results from thedevelopment of cultural tourism wereachieved in those towns whose leaders had avision and the desire to invest or to attract in-vestors into large infrastructure projects inculture, towns that had professionals in theculture sector and a critical mass of localpopulation regularly visiting cultural events,and a well organised tourist industry".

The same author proposes several optionsin the development of cultural tourism. One ofthe popular ones, especially in urban centres,is building of new cultural attractions, whethermotivated by urban regeneration or by the de-sire to build recognizable identity by erecting

Davorka Mikitlié: Maiicetinäka valorízacija splita kao deslinacije kullumog turizma 99

arhitektonski monumentalnih kulturnihcentara. Dmga opcija su kulturna dogadanjakoja u kratkom roku mogu dati destinacijiprepoznatljivost i koja pridonose imidzudestinacije (Getz, 2005; prema Tomljeno-vió, 2006). Treca opcija je stvaranje temats-kih cjelina, npr. kultumih öetvrti. Grupiranjekulturno-turistickih atrakcija, smatra autor,nacin je postizanja boljih promotivnih uöi-naka, osobito imajuci na umu ograniCenapromotivna sredstva kultumih institucija.

Umjetnost i kultura sve ôeSée se najav-Ijuju kao pokretaci ekonomskog razvoja, pase raspravija i o kreativnim gradovima, kre-ativnim klasterima, kreativnim ekonomi-jama (Tepper, 2002; prema Tomic-Kolud-rovic, Petric, 2005:13). Koncept "kreativnihgradova" je dinamican koncept, usmjeren nakreativnost, drustveni razvoj i kulturu, kaoosnovne indikatore uzbudljivog i zivopisnoggrada, odrzivog za buduce generacije{Varbanova, 2006:9). Kreativnost gradaneminovno je povezana s pogodnostima Írazvojem kulturne ponude za posjetitelje.Grupa eksperata iz Council of Europe usvom dokumentu (Landry. 1999) o hrvats-koj kultumoj politici, upozorava da kulturaigra kljucnu ulogu u razvoju turizma te dakreativne aktivnosti koncentrirane u glav-nim urbanim podrucjima mogu djelovatikao katalizatori ne samo za ekonomske ak-tivnosti, nego i na revitalizaciju kulturnogzivota grada.

4, METODOLOGIJA

Cilj ovog istrazivanja bio je utvrditi zna-íenje kulturnih resursa za razvoj turizma ugradu Spiitu te postoji li odgovarajuca vezaizmedu nositeija kulturne i turisticke po-nude. U skiadu s tim, postavljene su slje-dece hipoteze:

H| Uloga marketinga it valorizaciji kultur-nih resursa Splita kao urbane turistickedestinacije nije dovoljno zastupljena.zbog cega Split ne zauzima odgovara-Jucu konkurentsku poziciju na hrvats-

cultural centres of monumental architecture.The other option is cultural events that are ca-pable of making a destination recognisableand that contribute to its image (Getz, 2005;according to Tomljenovic, 2006). The thirdoption is to create thematic entities, for in-stance culture districts. Grouping of culturalattractions, maintains the author, is a way ofachieving better promotional effects, espe-cially bearing in mind the limited means thatcultural institutions have at disposal for pro-motional purposes.

Art and culture have increasingly beenmentioned as drivers of economic develop-ment, so that discussions are being led aboutcreative towns, creative clusters, creativeeconomies (Tepper, 2002; according toTomic-Koludrovic, Petric, 2005:13). Theconcept of "creative towns" is a dynamic con-cept, focused on creativity, social life andculture as key indicators of an exciting andflamboyant town, sustainable for future gen-erations (Varbanova, 2006:9). The creativityof a town is inevitably linked with the advan-tages and development of cultural offer forvisitors. A group of experts from the Councilof Europe (Landry, 1999), in their documenton Croatian cultural policy, have warnedabout the culture as key element in the devel-opment of tourism and about creative activi-ties concentrated in main urban areas that mayftinction as catalysts not only for economicactivities, but also for the revitalisation of theentire culture life of a city.

4. METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this research was to de-termine the significance of cultural re-sources for the development of tourism inthe City of Split and whether there an ade-quate link existed between the carriers ofcultiu-al and tourism oilers. Accordingly, thefollowing hypotheses have been made:HI The role of marketing in the valorisation

of cultural resources of the City of Splitas an urban tourism destination has notbeen sufficiently afjirmed, for which

100 Acta turistica. Vol 21 (2009). No I, pp 1-122

kom i europskom trzistu kulturnog turi-zma-^

H2 Nepostojanje partnerstva izmedu kultur-nog i turistickog sektora onemogucujeadekvatno koristenje raspoloiivih poten-cijala kulturnih resursa grada Splita;

H3 Kulturni turizam jedan je odnajznacajnijih oblika u twistickoj po-nudi grada Splita i njegovtm se raz-vojem omogucuju koristi turistickom ikulturnom sektoru, ali i cjehkiipnojdrustvenoj zajednici na podrucju desti-nacije.

U svrhu dokazivatija ili odbacivanja hi-poteza provedeno je primarno istrazivanjekoje, s obzirom na ciljeve rada itna karakterizvidajnog istrazivanja. Glavni cilj prvogdijela istrazivanja je dobivanje kvalitativnihinformacija o turistiCkoj potraznji kojemogu ocrtati profil turista koji posjecujuSplit u Ijetnim mjesecima. Istrazivanje jeprovedeno u srpnju, kolovozu i rujnu 2007.godine. Osnovni instrument prikupljanjapodataka bio je standardizirani anketni upit-nik tiskan na sest jezika. U prikupljanju po-dataka koristena je metoda samopopunjava-nja ankete. U istrazivanju je koristen prigo-dan uzorak. Uzorkom su bili obuhvaceniposjetitelji uzeg gradskog srediàta te Gale-rije Mestrovic u Splitu. Anketirano je uku-pno 317 posjetitelja. Prikupljeni podaci ob-radeni su upotrebom programskih paketaMicrosoft Excel i SPSS. Upitnik se sastojaood 18 pitanja koja su svrstana u tri skupine:sociodemografski profil turista, osnovnaobiljezja putovanja, osnovna obiljezja bo-ravka u destinaciji. Drugi dio istrazivanjaproveden je s predstavnicima turistickog ikulturnog sektora, turistiôke zajednice gradate lokalne i regionalne uprave, s ciljemutvrdivanja stavova o vrijednosti kulturnihresursa i moguónosti njihove valorizacije uturizmu.

Istrazivanje je provedeno metodom ispi-tivanja, oblik komuniciranja s ispitanicimaje bilo osobno ispitivanje, a podatci su pri-

reason Split does not occupy an appro-priate competitive position on the Croa-tian and European cultural tourismmarkets;

HT Non-existing partnership between thecultural and tourism sectors preventsadequate utilisation of available poten-tials of cultural resources of the City ofSplit;

H3 Cultural tourism is one of the most im-portant forms within the tourism ojfer ofthe City of Split, its development open-ing opportunities for both the tourismand culture sectors, but also for the en-tire community in the destination area.

For the piupose of proving or rejecting thehypotheses, primary research has been con-ducted which, considering the goals of thiswork, may be characterised as exploring re-search. The main goal of the first part of re-search is to obtain quality information abouttourism demand that may provide the profileof tourists visiting Split during summermonths. The research was done in July, Au-gust and September 2007. The basic instru-ment for gathering information was a standardquestionnaire, printed in six languages. Ques-tionnaire sheets were filled out by respon-dents. The sample used for research was occa-sional, covering the visitors of the inner citycentre and the Mestrovic Gallery in Split. Intotal, 317 visitors participated in the poll. Thedata collected were processed by applicationof Microsoft Excel and SPSS programmepackages. The questionnaire contained 18questions sorted in three groups: socio-demo-graphic profile of the tourists, main character-istics of the trip, main characteristics of theirstay at the destination. The second part of theresearch was done with the representatives ofthe tourism and cultural sectors, of the CityTourist Board, and local and regional govern-ment, with the purpose to find out their opin-ions on the value of cultural resources and thepossibilities of their valorisation in tourism.

The research was done by interviewmethod, the form of communication with the

Davorka Mikiilic: Marketinäkü valori2acîja sputa kao destinacije kultiimog turizma 101

kupljeni anketnim upitnikom koji su ispita-nici mogli popuniti u nazocnosti anketara.Uzorkom je obuhvaceno 12 ispitanika: 3predstavnika turisti6kog sektora, 4 preds-tavnika kulturnog sektora, 4 predstavnikalokalne i regionalne uprave te I predstavnikturisticke zajednice. Istrazivanje je prove-deno u rujnu i listopadu 2007. godine.Upitnik se sastojao od 12 pitanja, od cega11 zatvorenog i 1 pitanje otvorenog tipa. Utri pitanja ispitanici su mogli odabrati jedanod ponudenih odgovora. Za utvrdivanjestavova ispitanika sastavljeno je 8 pitanjazatvorenog tipa s ponudenim odgovorimakod kojih je koristena Likertova skalasudova s pet stupnjeva intenziteta. Ujednom otvorenom pitanju ispitanici su mo-gli dati svoje videnje pozeljnih prioriteta iakcija u svezi s razvojem kulturnog turizmau gradu. Prikupljeni podaci obradeni suupotrebom programskih paketa MicrosoftExcel i SPSS.

Kao osnovna ogranicenja ovog istrazi-vanja moguce je navesti prigodan uzorak ineuravnotezenu struktiyu uzorka u drugomdijelu istrazivanja gdje nije bilo moguceobuhvatiti predstavnike svih kulturnih in-stitucija. Zbog toga, u rezultatima ne trebatraziti pouzdanost u statistièkoni smislu, aliih se moze smatrati u velikoj mjeri indika-tivnima te mogu posluziti kao osnovica zadiskusiju i daljnja istrazivanja u ovom seg-mentu turizma.

respondents was personal interview and thedata were collected in a questionnaire that therespondents were able to fill out in presence ofpoll takers. The sample included 12 respon-dents: 3 representatives of the tourism sector,4 representatives of the cultural sector, 4representatives of the local and regional gov-ernment and 1 representative of the CityTourist Board. The research was done in Sep-tember and October 2007. The questionnaireconsisted of 12 questions, 11 closed-type onesand 1 open-type question. For 3 questions, therespondents were able to select one of the of-fered answers. For the purpose of establishingthe opinion of the respondents, there were 8closed-type questions, using the Likert opinionscale with 5-level items. In the one open ques-tions the respondents were able to give theirviewpoint of desirable priorities and actionsrelated to the development of cultural tourismin the city. The data collected were processedby application of Microsoft Excel and SPSSprogramme packages.

As shortcomings of this research, onecould indicate the occasional sample and anunbalanced stnicture of the sample in the sec-ond part of research, in which it was not pos-sible to include the representatives of all cul-tural institutions. Therefore, the results shouldnot be considered as reliable in the statisticalsense, but rather indicative to the extent thatthey can serve as a basis for discussion andfurther investigation in this tourism segment.

5. REZULTATI

5.1. Analiza rezultata stavovaposjetitelja Splita

Obradom prve skupine pitanja utvrdenasu osnovna obiljezja anketiranih posjetitelja- zemlja stalnog boravka, spol, dob i stupanjobrazovanja. Sadrzaj istrazivanja koncipiranje tako da se u jednom dijelu moze uspore-diti s podacima istrazivanja TOMAS - Ljeto2004 (Marusic i dr., 2005) i TOMAS - Ljeto

5. RESULTS

5.1. Analysis of results of standpointsexpressed by guests visiting Split

In processing of the I*" group of questions,some main characteristics of respondentscould be established - native country, gender,age and education level. The content of re-search is structured so that its concept is partlycomparable to the data obtained in another re-search, namely that of TOMAS - Summer2004 (Marusic et al., 2005) and TOMAS -

102 Acta turistica, Vo! 21 (2009). No 1, pp I -122

2007 (Marusic i dr., 2008), Instituta za turi-zam iz Zagreba.

Rezultati istraiivanja pokazuju da jenajveci broj anketiranih posjetiteija iz Italije(18,9%) i Francuske (17,0%), a evidentiranje i visok udio posjetiteija iz Spanjolske(9,8%) i Njemacke (8,8%) te Amerike(8,5%). Udio anketiranih posjetiteija iz Hr-vatske iznosi samo (4,7%). Medu ispitani-cima osobe zenskog spola cinile su 53.8%uzorka, a muska populacija 46,2%. Najvecibroj anketiranih posjetiteija je u dobnojskupini od 26 do 45 godina (53,9%). Viseod polovine posjetiteija ima fakultetsko ob-razovanje (52,4%), jedna cetvrtina poslije-diplomski studij (25,7%), a nesto manjevisu skolu (18,3%). Vrlo je mali udio anke-tiranih posjetiteija sa zavrsenom samo sred-njom i osnovnom skolom (3,5%). Iako pos-ljednji podatak ima neoCekivano nisku vri-jednost, mozda i nerealnu vrijednost, potvr-duje neke zakljuàke istrazivanja TOMAS -Ljeto 2004 (Maruáic i dr., 2005:19), premakojima se mijenja obrazovna struktura pos-jetiteija Hrvatske, smanjuje se udio posjeti-teija s osnovnoskolskim i srednjoskolskimobrazovanjem. a povecava udio onih sa zav-râenom visom ákolom ili fakultetom. Bu-duci da Tiu-isticka zajednica grada ne vodisliône statisticke evidencije, podaci se mogujedino usporediti s nalazima spomenutogistrazivanja TOMAS, uz napomenu da ce serezultati ovog istrazivanja usporedivati s re-zultatima utvrdenini za Splitsko-dalmatin-sku ¿upaniju. Zastupijenost srednje dobneskupine (60%) i fakultetski obrazovanih go-stiju (33%) je iznad prosjeka za svih sedamprimorskih zupanija. Utvrdeno je da sesmanjuje udio mladih gostiju, s 29% u2004. na 20% u 2007. godini (Marusic i dr.,2008:118). Na osnovi toga moze se zaklju-öiti da se obrazovni profil turista Splita ipakdonekle razlikuje od prosjeénog posjetiteijaSplitsko-dalmatinske zupanije. U odnosu naposjetitelje Hrvatske, najznacajnija razlikaje u viáoj obrazovnoj razini posjetiteijaSplita.

Summer 2007 (Maruäic et al, 2008) done byZagreb Institute of Tourism.

Research results show that most of therespondents were from Italy (18.9%) andFrance (17.0%). However, there was a highshare of visitors from Spain (9.8%) andGermany (8.8%) and also America (8.5%).The share of respondents from Croatia wasonly (4.7%). Among the respondents, 53.8%of the sample were female and 46.2% weremale. Most of the respondents were in the agegroup from 26 to 45 (53.9%). More than halfof the visitors had university degree (52.4%),one fourth of them post-graduate degree(25.7%) and a bit less college degree (18.3%).A very small number of respondents had onlyhigh-school or elementary school education(3.5%). Although this last ilgure is surpris-ingly low, maybe a bit unrealistic, too, it stillconfirms some of the conclusions arising fromthe research TOMAS _ Summer 2004(Maruáic et al., 2005: 19), according to whichthe structure of education level of the touristsvisiting Croatia has been changing, i.e. theshare of individuals with elementary and high-school education has dropped, whereas theshare of those with college and universitydegree is on the rise. Since the City TouristBoard has no similar statistical records, thedata can only be compared with the findingsof the above-mentioned research TOMAS,with the remark that the results of this researchwill be compared with the results establishedfor Split-Dalmatia County. The percentage ofmiddle age group (60%) and visitors with uni-versity degree (33%) is above the average inall seven of the coastal counties. It has alsobeen established that the share of youngervisitors has dropped, from 29% in 2004 to20% in 2007 (Maruâic et al., 2008:118). Thisleads to the conclusion that the educationalprofile of tourists visiting Split is still differentthan the average visitor to Split-DalmatiaCounty. Compared with the rest of Croatianvisitors, the most significant difference is inthe education level of visitors to Split.

In the second part of the questionnaire, Ihecharacteristics of the trip were analyzed: way

Davorka Mikulií: Maricelinäka valorizacija splita kao destinacije kultumog tiirizma 103

U drugom dijelu upitnika analizirana suobiljezja putovanja: naöin organizacije pu-tovanja. izvori informacija koristeni pri pla-niranju putovanja, vrsta putovanja te plani-rano vrijeme boravka u Splitu.

Vecina ispitanika ne koristi usluge turis-tickih agencija pri organiziranju putovanja(85.8%). Pritom se kao izvor informaeijanajoeáce koristi internet (47.4%), znatnomanJi broj oslanja se na prepomke rodbine iprijatelja (14,1%) i iskustva prijasnjeg bo-ravka (13.1%). Samo 29 ispitanika (9.3%)navelo Je da koristi prepomke turistickeagencije. To se moze objasniti velikim bro-jem posjetitelja iz Italije i Francuske. a to suizrazito individualna trzista. Osim toga velikJe udio i posjetitelja mlade i srednje dobikoji i inace pokazuju sklonost individualnojorganizaciji putovanja. Znatno nakon nave-denih izvora slijede broáure, ogiasi i plakati(5,8%). Ostalim izvorima informacija(clanci u novinama ili casopisima, TV, film)ispitanici se sluze vrlo rijetko.

Prema podacima istrazivanja TOMAS -LJeto 2007 (Maruáic i dr., 2008:120) gostiSplitsko-dalmatinske áupanije, u prikupija-nju informacija oslanjaju se najcesce naprepomke prijateija i rodaka (38%) i Inter-net (34%). dok Je za 27% gostiju izvor in-formacija prijasnji boravak. U odnosu na2004. godinu povecao se udio gostiju kojikoriste Internet (34% u odnosu na 24%). a uisto se vrijeme smanjio broj onih koji seoslanjanjaju na medije i prepomke turistickeagencije. Ispitanici u Splitu najceáce boraveu okvim giavnog godisnjeg odmora(84,08%), Sto Je i ocekivano s obzirom navrijeme provodenja ankete. Sa znatno ma-njim udjelom zastupijeni su anketirani pos-jetitelji na kmznom putovanju (5,73%), kra-ccm odmom do 4 daña (4,14%) te naposlovnom putovanju samo 1,27%. Nave-deni podaci podudaraju se s nalazima istra-zivanja TOMAS - LJeto 2004 i TOMAS -Ljeto 2007.

Vecina ispitanika u gradu boravi 2-3daña (44,90%), jedan dan cak 35,67%, 4 do

of organisation, sources of information usedduring trip planning, type of trip and plannedstay in Split.

Most of the respondents do not use theservices of travel agencies when organisingtrips (85.8%). The source of information mostoften used is the Intemet (47.4%), much lowernumbers rely on the recommendations of rela-tives and friends (14.1%) and the experienceof former visits (13.1%). Only 29 respondents(9.3%) indicated to have used the recommen-dations of a travel agency. This might be ex-plained by large numbers of visitors from Italyand France and these two are extremely indi-vidual markets. Besides, there is a largeportion of visitors of young and middle agewho tend to organise their trips individuallyanyway. Far behind the above-mentionedsources, there are brochures, ads and posters(5.8%). Other sources of information (articlesin newspapers or magazines, TV, film) arevery rarely mentioned by the respondents.

According to the information arising fromthe research TOMAS - Summer 2007 (Ma-rusic et al.. 2008:120). in gathering informa-tion, the guests of the Split-Dalmatia Countymostly rely on the recommendations of theirñ-iends and relatives (38%) and tlie Intemet(34%). whereas for 27% of guests tbe sourceof information was previous their stay in thecity. Compared to 2004, the share of guestsusing the Internet has grown (34% comparedto 24%). whereas at the same time the numberof those relying on the media and recommen-dations of travel agencies has been reduced. Inmost cases, the respondents stay in Splitduring their main annual vacations (84.08%),which is expected considering the time of yearwhen the survey was done. There were muchless respondents on tour (5.73%), or havingbrief vacations of less than 4 days (4.14%) andon business trips (only 1.27%). Given data co-incide with the findings of the researchTOMAS - Summer 2004 and TOMAS -Summer 2007.

Most of the respondents spend 2-3 days inthe city (44.90%), one day as much as35.67%. 14.33% spend 4 to 7 days and only5.10% of the respondents stay longer than 7

104 Acta turistica. Vol 21 (2009), No 1, pp 1-122

7 daña 14,33%. a duije od 7 dana samo5,10% ispitanika. Iako je Split na turistic-kom trziStu joS uvijek pozicioniran kaotranzitni centar' i odredistejednodnevnih iz-leta, ohrabruje velik broj ispitanika koji ugradu borave 2-3 dana, sto koincidira i s ve-cim ulaganjima lokainih vlasti u razvoj turi-stidke infrastrukture.

U cilju odredivanja interesa za kultumimsadrzajima, u trecem dijelu anketnog upít-nika analizirani su motivi dolaska u Split,stavovi ispitanika o pojedinim obiljezjimadestinacije i kultumim atrakcijama kojenamjeravaju posjetiti za vrijeme boravka uSpiitu.

Ispitanicima je bilo ponudeno 14 razli-ôitih motiva dolaska, od kojih su mogli iza-brati najvise tri. lako je vecina ispitanikanavela kao jedan od motiva upoznavanjekulturno-povijesnih znamenitosti (65,30%),to ne znaci primarni motiv dolaska. Slijedenova iskustva i dozivljaji (47.32%) te odmori rekreacija (46,37%). Manje su zastupljenigastronomija (20,82%), zabava (19,87%),posjet rodbini i prijateljima (7,89%) te kui-turna dogadanja (7,26%). Preostali motiviimaju zastupljenost manju od 5%.

Rezultati istrazivanja TOMAS ~ Ljeto2004 za Splitsko-dalmatinsku zupaniju (Ma-niêié i dr., 2005:90) pokazuju da su va¿nijimotivi pasivni odmor i opustanje, zabava,upoznavanje prirodnih ljepota i nova iskus-tva i dozivljaji. Dolazak zbog upoznavanjakulturnih znamenitosti i dogadanja navodisamo 7,1% ispitanika. Istrazivanje TOMAS- Ljeto 2007 (Marusic i dr, 2008:119) po-kazuje da su u porastu dolasci motiviraninovim iskustvima i dozivljajima, a u paduoni motivirani zabavom. Upoznavanje kul-tumih znamenitosti i dogadanja kao motivdolaska navodi samo 6,3% posjetiteija lii-panije. U Hrvatskoj, prema ispitivanju iz2004. godine, svega 6,0% turista navodi po-

days. In spite of the fact that Split is still po-sitioned as a transit centre' on the tourismmarket and also a i-day trips destination,what's encouraging is the large number ofrespondents staying in town for 2-3 days,which coincides with major investments oflocal authorities into the development oftourism infrastructure.

For the purpose of defining interests forculttaral contents, the motivation for visit toSplit is being analysed in the third part of thequestionnaire, and also the standpoints of re-spondents about certain characteristics of thedestination and cultural attractions they in-tended to visit during their stay in Split.

The respondents were offered 14 differentreasons of visit, among which they couldchoose three at the most. Although most of therespondents indicated learning about the cul-tural and historical heritage and artefacts asone of the reasons (65.30%), it does not meanthat this was the primary motive of their visit.What follows are new experiences and ad-venture (47.32%) and leisure and recreation(46.37%). Less prominent were gastronomy(20.82%), entertainment (19.87%), visits tofamily and friends (7.89%) and cultural events(7.26%). Other reasons of visit are representedby less than 5%.

The results of research TOMAS - Sum-mer 2004 for the Split-Dalmatia County (Ma-rusié et al., 2005:90) show that more impor-tant motives are passive rest and relaxation,entertainment, visiting sights of nature, newexperiences and adventure. Visiting for thepurpose of learning about cultural heritage andartefacts and cultural events was indicated byonly 7.1% of respondents. The researchTOMAS - Summer 2007 (MaruSic et al.,2008:119) shows that visits motivated bygaining new experience and adventure are onthe rise, whereas visits motivated by enter-tainment show a falling trend. Learning aboutcultural heritage and monuments and

Podaci Turisticke zajednice grada za 2006. godinu pokazuju da je Split jo5 uvijek izrazito tranzitna destinacija(prosjek boravkn turista samo 1,9 datia).The datu of the City Tourist Board for 2006 show that Split is still predominantly a transit destinaiion (averagetourist's stay being only 1.9 days).

Davorka Mikulió: Maritetinäka valorizacija splita kao destinacije kultumog turizma 105

sjete kultumim atrakcijama kao jedan odmotiva dolaska (9,8% u 2007. godini}, aligotovo polovina sudjeluje u nekim kultur-nim aktivnostima. Zato se moze zakljuôitidaje puno veci udio posjetitelja koji ne pla-niraju posjetiti kulturne atrakcije, ali to cineako su pravovremeno informirani tijekomsvog boravka. To mogu potvrditi i rezuitatiistrazivanja navedeni u Strategiji razvojakulturnog turizma (Tomljenovic i dr.,2003:8), prema kojima je u 2001. godini54% inozemnih gostiju posjetilo kulturneznamenitosti, 29% muzeje i izlozbe, 25%koncerte te 18% kazalista i priredbe.

Buduci da se unutar segmenta kulturnogturizma uocava heterogenost turistiôke pot-raznje, pri izradi navedene Strategije vodilose raóuna da se turisti razlikuju po ulozikoju kultura ima u njihovoj motivaciji, pajeprimijenjena slijedeca tipologija (Tomljeno-vic i dr., 2003:6): turisti motivirani kultu-rom (5-15% turista), turisti inspirirani kultu-rom (oko 30% turista) i turisti privuôenikulturom (oko 20% turista). Stoga je potre-bno imati na umu da je udio onih za koje sukulturne aktivnosti glavni motiv putovanjarelativno malen.

Analizirajuci kako naCin organiziranjaputovanja utjece na odabir motiva dolaska,utvrdeno je da vecina ispitanika, bez obzirana motive, individualno organizira putova-nje. Od onih koji su naveli motive upozna-vanje kulturno povijesne bastine, nova isku-stva i dozivljaji te kulturna dogadanja, ve-cina ne koristi usluge posrednika u organi-zaeiji putovanja.

Podaci u Tablici 1 pokazuju da kulturnisadrzaji ipak nisu glavni (primami) motivdolaska u Split. Od ukupnog broja ispita-nika, 124 (39,12%) je navelo kulturu kaoglavni motiv.

cultural events are indicated by only 6.3%of the visitors to the County as being theirreason of visit. According to survey from2004, only 6.0% of tourists in Croatiaindicated visiting cultural attractions as oneof the motives of their visit (9.8% in 2007),but almost half of them participate in somekind of cultural activities. Therefore it maybe concluded that a much larger number ofvisitors do not originally plan to visitcultural attractions, but they still do it if theyare timely informed about them during theirstay. This statement is confirmed by the re-sults of research indicated in the Strategy ofdevelopment of cultural tourism (Tomljeno-vic et al., 2003:8), according to which in2001 54% of guests from abroad visitedcultural sights, 29% went to museums andexhibitions, 25% went to concerts and 18%went to theatre and other events.

Since within the segment of culturaltourism it is evident that the tourism de-mand is heterogeneous, when the mentionedStrategy was being made it was taken intoaccount that the tourists were diiïerent fromthe standpoint of importance that culturehad in their motivation, so that the follow-ing typology was applied (Tomljenovic elal.; 2003:06): tourists motivated by culture(5-15% of tourists), tourists inspired byculture (about 30% of tourists) and touristsattracted by culture (about 20% of tourists).It is therefore necessary to bear in mind thatthe share of those for whom cultural activi-ties are the main reason of travel is rela-tively small.

By analysing how the way of travel or-ganisation impacts the choice of motive forvisit, it has been established that most of therespondents, regardless of their motives, infact individually organises their trips. Fromamong those who indicated ¡earning aboutcultural and historical heritage, new ex-periences and adventure, and culture events,the majority doesn't use the services of me-diators in organisation of trips.

106 Acta turistica, Vol 21 (2009), No I, pp 1-122

Tablica J. Kulturni motivi prema dobi posjetitelja Splita

Table 1 Cultural motives by visitors ' age

Kultura - glavnimotiv dolaska

Culture - mainreason of visit

Da / YesNe/A'oUkupno / Totat

Dobdo 25 26-35 36^5 46-55 56 i vi§e

Ageup to 25

142943

26-35 36-45414182

46-55266389

56 and over303969

132134

Ckupno

Total

124193317

Izvor: Rezultati provedenog ptitnarnog istrazivanja

Source: Results of primary research

Medu njima najveci je udio ispitanika udobnoj skupini do 35 godina (44,36%), dokje ista dobna skupina u odnosu na ukupanbroj ispitanika koji nisu kultuni naveli kaoglavni motiv dolaska zastupljena s manjimpostotkom (36,27%). Ovaj podatak u skladuje s trendovima na svjetskom trzistu kultur-nog turizma gdje se uoèava sve veci Ínteresmlade populacije za kultumim sadrzajimaza vrijeme putovanja.

Da bi se utvrdila moguca statistiéka zna-Ôajnost veze izmedu dobi ispitanika i kul-ture kao glavnog motiva dolaska u Split,proveden je Hi-kvadrat test. Rezultat testa jepokazao da postoji zavisnost ovih dviju va-rijabli i to na razini empirijske signiflkan-tnosti testa od 5,9%.

U analizi ocjene obiljezja destinacije. is-pitanicima je bilo pomideno 14 obiljezja. Odnjih se zahtijevalo da ocijene svako poje-dino obiljezje na skali od 1 do 5, pri íemu jeI - lose, a 5 - izvrsno.

The data in Table 1 show that culturalcontent is still not the main (primary) motivefor visit to Split. Out of the total number of re-spondents, 124 (39.12%) indicated culture asbeing their main motive.

Most of them belong to the respondent agegroup of up to 35 years (44.36%), whereas thesame age group compared to the total numberof respondents who haven't indicated cultureas their main motive of visit has reached alower percentage (36.27%). This informationis compliant with the trends on the world mar-ket of cultural tourism, in which an ever grow-ing interest of younger population for culturalcontent during their travels has been noted.

In order to establish possible statisticalsignificance of the link between the age of therespondents and culture as Ihe main reason formaking a visit to Split, the chi-square test hasbeen done. Test results show that there is in-terdependence between the two variables, be-ing 5.9% at the level of empirical significanceof the test.

In the analysis of assessment of the fea-tures of destinations, the respondents were of-fered 14 features. They were requested tomark each feature on a scale froin 1 to 5, 1standing for bad and 5 standing for excellent.

D:ivori<3 Mikiilií: Marketinäka valorizacija splita kao destinacije kultumog tiirizma 107

Tablica 2, Stavovi posjetiteija o pojedinim obilje^ima destinacije

Obiljeijc destinaeije

Protiictna dostupnost destinacije

Kvaliteta lokalnog prijcvozaKvaliteta usluRa smjestajaRaznolikost í kvaliteta usostiteljske ponudePonuda dodatnih turistiékih sadrèajaEkoloska ocuvanost dcstinacijeDogat.1aii¡a. festivaliKulturno-povijesne atiaktivnosti destinacijeOsobna sijiumosi ii destinacijiKv;iliteta i dostupnost informadja o destinaeijiKvaliteta oznacavatija znamenitostiAsortiman i kvaliteta suveniraLJLibaznüst i susretljivost lokalnog stanovnistvaVriicdnost za novac ukupnog boravka

ProsjeJinaocjena

3.983.873,953.853,833,983.904.27

4.233,973,863,714,204,19

NajCeScaocjena

44444444444445

Izvor: Rezultati provedenog primarnog istrazivanja

Table 2 Visitors ' opinions on partieular destination characteristics

Destination characteristic

Accessibility of destination place (traffic communication)

Quality of local public transportationQuality of accommodationDiversity and quality of catering servicesAdditional tourist offerWell-preserved environmentEvents, festivalsCultural and historical attractions

Personal safetyQuality and availability of information on destination placeQuality signage of sightseeing locationsSelection and quality of souvenirsKindness and hospitabiiity of local peopleValue for money of the entire stay

Averagemark3.983.873,953.853.833.983.904.27

4.233.973.863.714,204,19

Most fre-quent mark

44444444444445

Source: Results of primary research

Rezultati pokazuju da ispitanici najveóeznaôenje pridaju kulturno-povijesnim atrak-tivnostima destinacije, osobnoj sigurnosti udestinaciji te ijubaznosti i susretljivosti lo-kalnog stanovnistva. Nesto nize prosjecneocjene dali su sljedecim obiljezjima: pro-

Results show that the respondents attachmost importance to the cultural and histori-cal attractions of the destination, personalsafety at destination and kindness and hos-pitability of local people. A bit lower markswere attached to the following characteris-

108 A c t a t u r í s t i c a . V o l 2 ! ( 2 0 0 9 ) . N o l , p p I - I 2 2

metna dostupnost destinacije. ekoloska ocu-vanost destinacije, kvaliteta i dostupnostinformacija o destinaciji i kvaliteta uslugasmjestaja. Ostala obiljezja destinacije ocije-njena su prosjecnim ocjenama nizim od3,87.

Istrazivanje TOMAS - LJeto 2004 (Ma-rusic i dr.. 2005:96), pokazalo Je da su gostiu SpIitsko-dalmatinskoJ zupaniji najmanjezadovoljni kvalitetom lokalnog prijevoza iraznolikoscu kulturnih manifestacija. a za-tim kvalitetom oznaéavanja znamenitosti.Sliöne rezultate pokazalo Je istrazivanjeTOMAS-Ljefo 2007.

Kako bi se utvrdilo utjecu ti neka socio-demografska obiljezja ispitanika na stavoveo pojedinim obiljezjima destinacije prove-den je F test pomocu analize varijanee(ANOVA) na temelju koJeg Je zakljuôenoda na stavove o vaznosti kulturno-povijes-nih atraktivnosti destinacije te dogadanja ifestivala. utjeôu slijedeca obiljezja ispita-nika: stupanj obrazovanja, karakter njiho-vog putovanja Xç percepcija Splita kao turi-stickog odredista.

Gotovo svi anketirani posjetitelji poka-zaii su interés za Diokiecijanovu palacu istam gradsku Jezgm (97,79%), neSto vise odpolovine anketiranih iskazalo Je namjeruposjetiti Galeriju Mestrovic (53.94%), a po-djednak interés pokazali su za MuzeJ gradaSplita (32,18%) i kulturno povijesne spo-menike u neposrednoj blizini grada. Ostaleatrakcije navedene u istrazivanju nisu pobu-dile veci interés posjetitelja. Rezultate an-kete potvrduju i sluèbeni podaci Turistiôkezajednice grada Splita za razdoblje I-VIIImjeseca 2007, godine. Iskazani interés zasudjelovanjem na kulturnim dogadanjima Jeznatno manJi, ato se moze objasniti i potre-bom za ranijim informacijama o odrzavanjuistih. rezervaciji ulaznica i u mnogim slu-èajevima jezidnim barijerama. Najveci inte-rés ispitanika pobudile su izlozbe (29.02%),a podjednak interés festival Splitsko IJeto(13,88%) i tradicijska dogadanja (13.25%).Mladi posjetitelji pokazali su veci interés za

tics: accessibility of destination place (traf-ftc communications), well-presei-ved envi-ronment, quality and availability of infor-mation on destination place, quality of ac-commodation services. Other destinationcharacteristics were graded with less than3.87 on the average.

The research TOMAS - Summer 2004(MamSic et al.. 2005:96) has shown that theguests in the Split-Dalmatia County were theleast satisfied with the quality of local trans-portation means and the diversity of of culturalevents, after that the quality of signage ofsights. Similar results were obtained in the re-search TOMAS - Summer 2007.

In order to establish whether some socialand demographic features of the respondentsinfluenced their standpoints on particular des-tination characteristics, an F-test was done bymeans of analysis of variance (ANOVA).Based on the test, it has been concluded thatthe standpoints on the importance of culturaland historical attractiveness of a destination,events and festivals, are influenced by thefollowing characteristics of respondents: levelof education, character of their trip and per-ception qf Split as a toitrist destination

Almost all the respondents showed interestin the Diocletian Palace and the old downtownof Split (97.79%), a bit more than one half ofthe respondents intended to visit the MeStrovcGallery (53.94%) and they also showed thesame interest in paying a visit to the Split Mu-nicipal Museum (32.18%) and the cultural andhistorical monuments in immediate vicinity ofthe town. Other attractions listed in the surveydid not arouse any particular interest of visi-tors. The results of the survey are confírmedby the ofRcial data of the City Tourist Boardfor the period from January till Atigust 2007.The interest shown in cultural events was sig-nificantly lower, which may be explained withthe need for earlier information about theschedule of events, tickets booking and, inmany cases, language barriers. The highestinterest was aroused by exhibitions (29.02%),and the same interest was shown in the Split

Davorka Miktilié: Marketinäka valorizacija splita kao destinacije kulturnog turizma 109

festival Spiitsko ljeto, posjetitelji srednjedobi za iziozbe, a stariji posjetitelji za tradi-cijska dogadanja.

Istrazivanje o manjkavostima kulturneponude u gradu pokazalo je da vise od 50%ispitanika smatra prometnu dostupnost turi-stiôkih atrakcija glavnim nedostatkom turis-tiíke ponude. Nesto manji broj (43,53%)nezadovoljan je putokazima i drugim obli-cima oznacavanja, a oko trecine ispitanikanavodi nedostatak informacija o kulturnojponudi i ponudu suvenira jednom od glav-nih manjkavosti. Unatoc navedenimmanjkavostima kulturne ponude. vecinaispitanika (43,7%) ocjenjuje Split kao centarkultiïrnog turizma (grafikon 1).

Summer Festival (13.88%) and traditionalevents (13.25%). Younger visitors showedmore interest in the Split Summer Festival, themiddle-aged visitors in the exhibitions andsenior visitors in traditional events.

The survey on shortcomings of the town'scultural offer shows that over 50% of the re-spondents think that poor accessibility oftourist attractions is the main shortcoming inthe tourism offer. A bit smaller number(43.53%) of respondents are dissatisfied withthe guideposts and other forms of signage andabout one third of respondents indicates thelack of information on cultural offer and offerof souvenirs as one of the main shortcomings.In spite of the listed shortcomings in thecultural ofier, most of the respondents (43.7%)graded Split as the centre of cultural tourism(graph 1). I

Grafikon 1. Rezultati ocjene identiteta Splita kao turistickog odredista (posjetitelji Grada)

Graph I Identity assessment results of Split as a tourist destination (town visitors)

Cenlar nautickog Centat kullurnogtunzma turizma

Tranzitni grad Grad slacionarnog Nije prepoznalijiv kaolurizma Ijiisliáko odrediíle

Naul'cal touñstncentre

Cultural lounsmcentre

Stationarytourism centre

Not perceived as atourist destination

Izvor: Rezultati provedenog primarnog istrazivanja

Source: Results of primary research

lio Acta hiristicii. Vol 21 (2009), No I, pp 1 -122

Istrazivanje je pokazalo da vecina turistakoji Split smatraju centrom kulturnog turi-zma, (41,8%), kvalitetu sadrzaja programafestivala i manifestacija ocjenjuje kaoglavnu manjkavost kulturne ponude. Njih39,6% najvecom manjkavoscu drzi otezanumogucnost rezervacije uiaznica putem in-terneta. 39,2% radno vrijeme muzeja i gale-rija, 38,3% nepravodobnu informiranost oprogramu festivala i manifestacija, a 37,7%nedostatak interpretacije kulturno-povijes-nih spomenika.

Research has shown that most of thetourists considering Split to be a culturaltourism centre (41.8%) regarded the content offestival programme and events as the mainshortcoming of the cultural oifer. 39.6% ofthem considered the difficult ticket bookingover the Internet as the worst shortcoming,39.2% the working hours of museums andgalleries. 38.3% untimely information aboutthe programme of festivals and other events,and 37.7% lack of interpretation of culturaland historical monuments.

5.2. Analiza rezultata istraiivanjastavova predstavnika ponude

U nastavku su prezentirani i stavovi no-sitelja ponude o identitetu Splita kao turis-tickog odredista.

5.2. Analysis of research resultsabout the opinions of supplyrepresentatives

Below are the standpoints of suppliersabout the identity of the City of Split as atourism destination.

Graßkon 2, Rezultati ocjene identiteta Splita kao turistickog odredista(nositelji turisticke ponude) ,

Graph 2 Identity assessment results of Split as a tourism destination (tourism suppliers)

70,00%

60,00%

50.00%

40,00%

30.00%

20.00%

10,00%

0.00%

Centsr nauUCkog Centar kultumog Tranzitnl grsd Grad stack>namo9 Nqa prepoznatljiv kaolunzma lurrma turizma lunslióko Mrediáie

Nautical totinsmcentra

Cultural tounsmcentre

Transit fowrt Stationary Not perceived as a

tourism cenfre tounst Mstination

Izvor: Rezultati provedenog pritnarnog istrazivanjaSource: Results of primary research

Davorka Mikulic: MarketinSka valorízacíja splita kao destinacije kultumog turizma l U

Iz grafikona 2 vidljivo je da vecina ispi-tanika ocjenjuje Split kao odrediste kultur-nog turizma, jednako kao i anketirani turisti.Istovremeno. i jedni i drugi u visokom pos-totku ocjenjuju Split i tranzitnim gradom,Nositeiji ponude stroziji su u ocjeni da Splitnije prepoznatljiv kao turisticko odrediste,

Analiza ocjene znacenja pojedinih re-sursa za razvoj turizma u gradu od stranerelevantnih nositelja kulturne i turistickeponude Grada pokazuje da najvecu prosje-Ônu ocjenu ima kulturno-povijesna bastina.Unutar te skupine resursa najvece znacenjepridaju Dioklecijanovoj palaci i starojgradskoj jezgri te muzejima i galerijama.Visoku prosjecnu ocjenu imaju tradicijskadogadanja, Dioklecijanova noc te ulicna do-gadanja. Neáto nizu ocjenu ima opera i kon-certi klasiöne glazbe koji, prema misljenjukulturnih djelatnika, nisu primarni motivdolaska u Split. Vecina ispitanika smatra daSplit jos uvijek nije konkurentan u tom se-gmentu ponude. Kao najcesci raziog losijeocjene dramskih izvedbi navodi se jezicnabarijera. Najlosije je ocijenjen festival no-vog filma i videa. Mozda ovaj podatak upu-cuje na to da jos uvijek nije prepoznato zna-éenje tih dogadanja s obzirom na iznesenisociodemografski profil posjetitelja Splita.

Rezultati analize ucinaka razvoja kultur-nog turizma pokazuju da se kao najvaznijaprednost za turizam percipira porastkvalitete turistickog proizvoda koja je oci-jenjena prosjeônom ocjenom 4,83. Nakontoga slijede prednosti u unapredenju imidiadestinacije, produzenju turisticke sezone teprivlacenju turista bolje platezne tnoci.Prema stavovima ispitanika, razvoj kultur-nog turizma nema veliko znacenje za razvojkreativnih industrija^. Medutim, Tomic-Ko-ludrovié i Petrié (2006:146) smatraju da ra-

Froni graph 2 it is visible that most of therespondents have appraised Split as the cul-tural tourism resort, the same as polledtourists. At the same time, both of them gradeSplit to a high percentage as being also atransit town. The subjects bearing the offer areharsher in their assessment of Split as notbeing distinguishable as a tourism destination.

The analysis of assessment of importanceof certain resources for the development oftourism in the city by relevant carriers of thecultural and tourism offer of the city, showsthat the highest average mark is scored by thecultural and historical heritage. Within thatgroup of resources, the highest importance isattached to the Diocletian's Palace and the olddowntown, to museums and galleries. Tradi-tional events have high average marks, Dio-cletian's Night and street events. Opera andclassical music concerts are graded a bitlower, and in the opinion of cultural workersdo not represent the primary motive of visit tothe City of Split. Most of the respondentsmaintain that Split is not yet competitive inthat segment of offer. The most frequently in-dicated reason of poorly graded drama per-formances is the language bairier. The newfilm and video festival got the worst marks.Maybe this information points at the fact thatthe significance of those events has not yetbeen recognised, considering the above men-tioned sociodemographic profile of visitors toSplit.

The results arising from the analysis of ef-fects of cultural tourism development showthat the increase of touristti product quality,graded with the average mark of 4.83 is per-ceived as the most important advantage fortourism. It is followed by the advantages inthe itnprovement of destination's image,extended tourism season and attracting of

Prema britanskoj klasifikaciji (DCMS) podniíje "kreativnih industrija" obuhvaóa slijedeíe seíctore: ogtaSavanjc,arhilektuni. triiálc umjetnina i antikviteta. iimjeiniíke obrle, dizajn. modiij dizajn, film i video, kompjutorskeigre, glazbu, izvedbcne timjetnosti, izdavaStvo, software i kompjutorske usluge, televiziju i radio.

According to British classification (DCMS), the area of "creative ¡ndusirics" comprises the following sectors:advertising, architecture, arts and antiquities market, artistic crafts, design, fashion design, film and video, com-puter games, music, performing arts, ptiblishing, software and computer services, TV and radio.

112 Acta turistica. Vol 21 f2009). No 1. pp I -122

zvojne mogucnosti povezane s tiirizmompostoje prakticno u svakom podrucju raz-voja kreativnih industrija, bez dovodenja uopasnost kulturnog karaktera grada. GradSplit, istiCu autori, moie biti dobar primjerkulturno vodene regeneracije, dijelom te-meljene na kreativnim industrijama. pri¿emu turizam moze imati znacajnu ulogii,Nadalje, u istrazivanju su kao najvaznijipozitivni ucinci koje od razvoja iailturnogturizma moze imati kulturni sektor. ocije-njeni poticaj valorizaciji i zastiti kulturnebastitie te novi izvori prihoda, i to prosjeC-nom ocjenom 4,83.

Da bi se usporedile koristi razvoja kul-tumog turizma, izraôunate su prosjeíne oc-jene svih navedenih obiljeèja, AritmetiíSkasredina za turisticki sektor iznosi 4,47; a zakulturni sektor 4,70. Sva obiljezja su ocije-njena prosjeínom ocjenom iznad 4. Kako bise utvrdilo jesu li prosjecne ocjene i statis-tifki znacajno vece od 4, proveden Je t-test,a rezultati su potvrdili da podjednake koristiod razvoja kultumog turizma imaju Í kul-tumi i turisticki sektor. Konacno, razvojkulturnog turizma i za stanovnike Splitamoze imati koristi, a obiljezja razvitaksvijesti o vrijednosti kulturnih turistickihresursa i razvitak kulturnih komponentikvalitete zivota imaju prosjecnu ocjenuiznad 4,50.

Analizom ocjena nepoíeljnih uöinakarazvoja kulturnog turizma utvrdeno je da suprosjecne ocjene za svaki segment nize uodnosu na prethodno pitanje, ato upucuje nazakijucak da ispitanici ovaj oblik turizma nepercipiraju kao opasnost za odrzivost desti-nacije. Obiljeija koja su imala vécu prosje-cnu ocjenu u odnosu na ostala (3,92) su op-terecenost kapaciteta destinacije velikimbrojem dnevnih posjelitelja (izletnika i pul-nika s cntisera) i devastacija kulturno-po-vijesnih spomenika. To upucuje na odgo-vorno pristiipanje koriátenju resursa grada,posebno kada je rijeó o preopterecenoj pro-metnoj j komunalnoj infrastrukturi. Sviispitanici smatraju da kulturni turizam treba

upscale tourists. According to respondents'standpoints, the development of cultural tour-ism does not play an important role in the de-velopment of creative industries^. However.Tomic-Koludrovic and Petric (2006: 146)maintain that opportunities for developmentconnected with tourism are given practicallyin any area of creative industries development,without imposing any threat to the culturalcharacter of the city. The City of Split, as theypoint out. may serve as a good example of re-generation guided by culture, partly based oncreative industries, where tourism may play asignificant role. Furthermore, the impetus forvalorisation and protection of ctdturalheritage and new income sources, graded withthe average mark of 4.83, were appraised asthe most important effects that the culturalsector may have from the development of cul-tural tourism.

In order to compare the benefits of devel-opment of cultural tourism, the average marksof a!l the above-mentioned features have beencalculated. The arithmetic mean for the touri-sm sector amounts to 4.47 and for the culturalsector it is 4.70. All the features were gradedwith average mark above 4. In order to estab-lish if the average marks are also statisticallysignificantly higher that 4. a t-test was doneand the results have confirmed equal benefitsfrom the development of cultural tourism forboth the cultural and tourist sectors. Andfinally, the development of cultural tourismmay prove to be beneficial also for theinhabitants of Split and the characteristicsraising the awareness of the value qfcidturaltourist resources and development of cultxtralcomponents of the quality oflifehavç the av-erage mark over 4.50.

The analysis of scores of undesirable ef-fects of the cultural tourism development hasshown that the average marks for each seg-ment are lower compared to the previousquestion, which leads to the conclusion thatrespondents do not perceive this form of tour-ism as a threat to sustainability of destination.The characteristics having higher averagemark in comparison to others (3.92) were

Davorita Mikiilic; M;irketinäka valorizacija splila kao destinacije kiiltumog turizma 113

biti jedan od razvojnih prioriteta gradaSplita. ali da se kulturna dobra ne va-loriziraju dovoljno kroz turizam. Analizarazloga nedovoljne valorizacije prikazana jeu tablici 3.

congestion of destination by large numbers ofdaily visitors (exctirsionisfs and Cfttiser pas-sengers) and devastation of cttltural and his-torical montiments. This draws attention to re-sponsible approach to usage of cultural re-sources of the city, especially when it comesto the overloaded trafile and publie utilities in-frasti'ucture.

Tablica 3. Razlozi nedovoljne valorizacije kulturnih resursa u turizmu

Razlozi nedovoljne valorizacijekulturnih resursa u turizmuKullumc i turisticke institiicijc te iipravljacke institucijezaduiene za razvoj turizma u gradu nisu medusobno po-vezone u kreiranju kultumih turistickih proizvodaNerazvijena je svijest o ucincima koje i jedni i drugimogu poluciti od razvoja kultumog tiirizmaNedostatak marketinSkih znanja

Joà uvijek postoji nepovezanost i fragmentiranost unutarjednog i drugog sektoraOrganizacija na lokalnoj razini koja bi davala smjernicerazvoja proizvoda te ih potieala i usmjeravala progra-mima struéne, tehniíke i financijske podrske

Prosjeínaocjena4.67

4.33

4,58

4,42

4.67

Prosjeínoodstupanje

0.65

0,65

0.90

0.79

0.49

NajíeSéaocjena

5

4

5

5

5

Pitanje je sastavljeno po uzoru na slifino isiraiivanje za potrebe izrade Stralcgije razvoja kultumog turizma

Izvor: Rezultati provedenog primarnog istrazivanja

Table 3 Reasons of insufficient valorisation of cultural resources in tourism

Reasons of insuTficient valorisation of culturalresources in tourism

Cultural and tourism institutions and management organi-sation in charge of tourism development in the city are notinterconnected in creating cultural tourism products.Insufi'icient awareness of the effects that both can obtainfrom the development of cultural tourism.Lack of marketing knowledge.

Still missing links and fragmentation existing within bothsectors.Organisation at the loeal level, that would provideguidelines for the development of products, and en-courage and direct them through programmes of expert.technical and financial support.

Averagemark

4.67

4.33

4.58

4.42

4,67

Averageaberration

0.65

0.65

0.90

0.79

0.49

Mostfrequent

mark5

4

5

5

5

Question drawn up according to similar research done for the requirements of Strategy of Development of Cul-tural Tourism

Source: Results of primary research

114 Acta turística. Vol 21 (2009), No I, pp 1 -122

Najvazniji razlozi su nedovoijna medu-sobna povezanost kulturnih. turistickih i up-ravljackih institucija u kreiranju turistickihproizvoda te nedostatak organizacije na lo-kalnoj razini., koja bi davala smjernice raz-voja proizvoda. NajceSca ocjena ovih obi-ljezja je 5, a prosjecna ocjena 4.,67. lako susva obiljezja ocjenjena prosjecnom ocjenomiznad 4, proveden je t-test kojim je potvr-deno da su prosjecne ocjene i statistiíkiznacajno razliíite od 4. Ovi rezultati potvr-duju i hipotezu H2, o nepostojanju partner-stva izmedu kulturnog i turistickog sektora uGradu.

Nakon toga analizirani su stavovi ispita-nika 0 vaznosti problema s kojima se suoCa-vaju djelatnici u kulturi. NajÈe§ce ocjenesvih obiljezja su 5, a prosjeCne ocjene iznad4. Kao najvazniji problem ocjenjuje se toSto zakonodavstvo trenutno ne stimulirakulturne institucije na boljc poslovne rezul-tate (4,75), i nedostatak znanja iz kulturnogmenadzmenta, ukljucujuci marketing (4,58).Neäto aiiu prosjecnu ocjenu (4,50) imajuobiljezja slab "inter" 1 "intra" sektorskiprotok informacija i rijetke inicijative ipartnerstva unutar sektora.

U Strategiji razvoja kulturnog turizma(Tomljenovic i dr., 2003:15) navodi se dakulturne institucije, kao i kulturna dogada-nja i manifestacije, izrazavaju pozitivan stavprema turizmu i vecinom zele povecati brojturista koji ih posjecuju, ali ipak, 31%predstavnika kulturnih instilucija smatra dajc privlaöenje turista prevclik napor u od-nosu na oôekivanu korist, a 40% smatra daim nije potrebno dodatno obrazovanje izpodmcja turizma i marketinga. U razgovorus anketiranim predstavnicima kulturnogsektora Splita^ stjece se dojam da je prob-lem prepoznat, ali i da su to jos uvijek indi-vidualne inicijative na podnicju grada. Nijedan predstavnik ne smatra suradnju s turi-

Al! the respondents think that the culturaltourism should be one of the priorities ¡n thedevelopment of the City of Split, but also thatcultural assets are not sufficiently evaluatedthrough tourism. Ana analysis of reasons ofinsufficient valorisation is shown in table 3.

The most important reasons are insuffi-cient mutual linkage between the cultural,tourism and managerial institutions in thecreation of tourism products and lack of or-ganisation at the local level, that would pro-vide guidelines for further product develop-ment. The highest mark for these characteris-tics is 5 and the average mark is 4.67. Al-though all the characteristics have been gradedwith the average mark above 4, t-test has beenmade, confirming that the average marks arealso statistically significantly different from 4.These results confinn the hypotheses H2,about the non-existing partnership betweenthe cultural and tourist sectors in the city

After that, the attitudes of respondentsabout the importance of problems faced bycultural workers were analysed. The most fre-quent marks for all the characteristics are 5and the average marks are above 4. Assessedto be the most important problem, the legalframework presently does not stimulate cul-tural institutions to achieve better business re-sults (4.75) and then there is also lack ofknowledge from cultural management, in-cluding marketing (4.58). Somewhat loweraverage mark (4.50) is given to the character-istics of poor "inter" and "intra" sector flow ofinformation and those rare initiatives and part-ners within the sector.

In the Strategy of Development of CulturalTourism (Tomljenovic et al.. 2003:15) it Is in-dicated that cultural institutions, as well ascultural events, express a positive attitude to-wards tourism and in most cases wish to in-crease the number of tourists visiting them.Still. 31% of representatives of cultural insti-tutions maintain that attracting tourists implies

Ravnateiji dvaju muzeja, poslovni ravtiatelj HNK i ílanica gnidskoj' ureda za kulturu.

Two museum managers, business manager of the Croatian National Theatre and member of lhe City Culture Of-fice.

Davoriíii Mikulic: Markctinäka valorizacija splita kao destinacije kultumog tiirizma 115

stickom zajednicom zadovoljavajucom.Ipak, za bilo kakav zakljucak trebalo bi pro-vesti opseznije istrazivanje u kulturnim in-stitucijamau gradu.

U dijelu istraáivanja koje se odnosilo naocjenu pojedinih elemenata marketinâkogmiksa u kulturnom turizmu, prosjeína oc-jena obiljezja navedenih za kulturni turis-ticki proizvod iznosi 2,57. Drugi elementmarketinákog miksa, cijena, vrednovan jekroz odnos dobivene vrijednosti za novacukupnog doáivljaja. Najce§ca ocjena ispita-nika je 3, a prosjecna ocjena 3,25. U analizistavova anketiranih posjetitelja Splita o po-jedinim obilje¿jima destinacije, uocava seviSa ocjena ispitanika za isto obiljezje, aliukupnog turistickog proizvoda grada (4,19).To upucuje na zakljuôak da kulturni turis-tiíki proizvod unutar ukupne turisticke po-nude jos uvijek nema ocekivanu kvalitetu.

Rezultati ocjene pojedinih obiljezjapromocije kulturnog turistickog proizvodapokazuju daje najlosije ocijenjena kvalitetai dostupnost aktualnih informacija o kuitur-nim sadrzajima u destinaciji, i to najcescomocjenom 2. a prosjeínom ocjenom 2,83. Uusporedbi s ocjenom obiljezja kvaliteta i do-stupnost informacija o destinaciji, od straneanketiranih posjetitelja (3,97), opet se uo-cava nezadovoljstvo ovim segmcntom pro-mocije. Posebno treba izdvojiti nepravodo-bnu informiranost o programu festivala imanifestacija te nedostatak putokaza i dru-gih oblika oznaSavanja. Interesantno je dasu prosjecne ocjene ovih obiljezja od stranepredstavnika ponude (2,92) losije u odnosuna prosjecne ocjene anketiranih posjetitelja(3,86). Razlog je mozda i u tome sto su an-ketirani predstavnici turistiCkog sektora na-glasili da pravovremeno ne mogu uvijekimati potrebne informacije o kulturnoj po-nudi, dok su predstavnici kulturnog sektorakao najznacajniji problem naveli financijskasredstva za znacajnije promotivne aktivnostii njihovu usmjerenost, prije svega, nalokaino trziste. Iako se u Strategiji razvojakulturnog turizma (Tomljenovic i dr., 2003;

too much effort compared to expected bene-fits, and 40% maintain that they don't needany additional training in the area of tourismand marketing. During interviews with thepolled representatives of the cultural sector inSplit^, one gets the impression that the prob-lem has been recognised, but also that theseare still individual initiatives throughout thecity area. None of the representatives find theirco-operation with the Tourist Board satisfac-tory. However, to be able to draw conclu-sions, more extensive research should be con-dticted in cultural institutions of the city.

In the part of research related to the as-sessment of particular elements of the mar-keting mix in the cultural toitrism. the averagemark of the characteristics indicated for thecultural tourism product is 2.57. The secondelement of the marketing mix, namely theprice, has been evaluated through the ratiobetween the value received for money of theentire experience. The most often mark givenby respondents is 3 and the average mark is3.25. In the analysis of opinions of the polledvisitors to Split about particular characteristicsof the destination, one notices the higher markgiven by respondents for the same character-istic, but of the same tourism product of thecity (4.19). This leads to the conclusion thatcultural tourism product within the total touri-sm offer still doesn't possess expected quality.

The results of assessment of particularcharacteristics of promotion of cultural touristproduct show that quality and availability ofcurrent information on cultural content at des-tination, has been assessed as the worst, withthe most frequent mark being 2 and the aver-age mark being 2.83. When comparing thiswith the assessment of the characteristic í/wu/-ity and availability of information about thedestination, by the polled respondents (3.97),the dissatisfaction with this promotion seg-ment again becomes obvious. The untimelyinfonnation about the programme of festivalsand other events and the lack of guidepostsand other forms of signage should be singledout. It is interesting that the average marks ofthese characteristics given by the representa-tives of supply (2.92) are worse than the aver-

116 Acta turistica, Vol 21 (2009), No I. pp 1 -122

15) navodi da tiskane promotivne materijaleposjeduje veéina (82%) institucija u Hrvats-koj, CD-ROM kao promotivni materijal imatek 16% institucija, a internet stranice punomanji udio. Tesko je u ovakvom tipu istra-zivanja dati podatke za Split, ati stjeôe sedojam da u promidzbenim materijalima ne-dostaju "dinamiÈni" sadrzaji i aktualne in-formacije. Rjeáenje bi mogli traèiti u zajed-niôkim promotivnim akcijama. kako bi uznize troskove postigli vécu ucinkovitost.

Anketirani predstavnici ponude najlosi-jom su ocijenili distribuciju kulturnog turi-stickog proizvoda i to prosjecnom ocjenom2,44. Mogucnost rezervacije ulaznica putemInterneta tek se uvodi u poslovanjc nekihkulturnih institucija i trenutno ne zadovo-ljava zahtjeve trziSta, a i anketirani posjeti-tciji naveli su to obiljezje kao manjkavostkulturne ponude u Splitu. Suradnja s turis-tickim agencijama ocijenjena je prosjeínomocjenom 2,42. Anketirani menadzeri turis-tiôkih agencija ocijenili su nezadovoljavaju-com suradnju s kulturnim ustanovama i tud-stiôkom zajednicom. Ipak, u dogovoru sravnateljima muzeja radno vrijeme muzejasu mogli prilagoditi vccim grupama.

Proveden je t-test da se utvrdi jesu liprosjecne ocjene elemenata marketinákogmiksa i statistiíki razlicite od 3. Zakljucakse donosi na temeiju empirijske razine sig-nifikantnosti, a t-tcst se provodi kao dvo-smjcrni test. Rezultati su pokazali empirij-sku razinu signifikantnosti manju od 5% zaproizvod i distribuciju, sto znaci da su kodtih elemenata marketinskog miksa prosjecneocjene i statisticki znacajno razliéite od 3.

U posljednjem dijelu istrazivanja anali-zirani su stavovi ispitanika o akcijama kojetreba poduzeti u svrhu boljeg povezivanjakultumog i turistiökog sektora, a kao najva-znije ocijenjene su: koristetye suvremenihinformacijskih tehnologija (prosjecna ocjena4,92) tc promoviranje kulturnog turizmakao jedtwg od prioritetnih opredjeljetya tu-ristickog razvoja grada Splita (4,83). Poti-canje inter-sektorske suradnje te umrezava-

age mari<s given by the polled visitors (3.86).The reason for this may lay in the fact that thepolled representatives from the tourism sectorhave emphasised that they could not alwayshave required information about the culturaloffer on time, whereas the representative ofthe cultural sector indicated financial meansfor any significant promotional activities asthe most important problem, and their focusprimarily on the local market. Although in theStrategy of Development of Cultural Tourism(Tomljenovic et al.; 2003:15) it is indicatedthat the printed promotional materials are pos-sessed by most (82%) of the institutions inCroatia, CD-ROM as promotional material ispossessed by only 16% of the institutions andinternet pages by even less. In this type of re-search it is difficult to provide data for Split,but one gets the impression that promotionalmaterials lack "dynamic" content and updatedinformation. The solution might be to havejoint promotional activities. In order to achievebetter efficiency along with lower costs.

The polled representatives of offer as-sessed as the worst the distribution of the ad-tural touristn product, and with the averagemark of 2.44. The possibility of booking tick-ets over the Internet is only being introducedinto the business of some cultural institutionspresently it does not meet the requirements ofthe market. The polled respondents indicatedthis characteristic as one of" the shortcomingsof cultural offer in Split. Co-operation wiUitravel agencies has been graded with the aver-age mark of 2.42. The polled managers oftravel agencies have assessed the co-operationwith the cultural institutions and the TouristBoard as not being satisfactory. Still, inagreement with the museum managers, theworking hours of museums could be adjustedto larger groups of visitors.

A t-test was done to check if averagemarks of the marketing mix elements are alsostatistically different from 3. The conclusion isbeing passed based on the empirical signifi-cance level and the t-test is being conducted asa 2-way test. Results have shown empiricalsignificance level lower that 5% for the prod-uct and distribution, meaning that the average

Daviwka Mikiilié: MarketinSka valorízacija splita kao destinacije kultumog turizma 117

nja kulturnog i turistickog sektora odnosnonova intenta organizacija na konceptu kla-stera ocijenjeni su istom prosjeônom ocje-nom kao i zajednicka promocija i .sustav di-stribitcije (4,75). Rezultati stavova ispita-nika o akcijama koje treba poduzeti u svrhuboljeg povezivanja kulturnog i turistickogsektora potvrduju prvi dio hipoteze H3 kojikaze daje kulturni turizam jedan od nq/zna-cajnijih oblika u turisfickoj ponitdi Grada.Navedena hipoteza potvrdena je i nalazimaistrazivanja stavova nositelja ponude o kori-snitn uc incitna kulturnog tttriztna gdje jepotvrdeno da od razvoja kulturnog turizmavisestruke koristi imaju turistiCki i kulturnisektor kao i cjelokupna dmstvena zajednica.Stoga se hipoteza H3 prihvaca u cijelosti.Analiza rezultata cjelokupnog istrazivanjadirektno je povezana s hipotezom H\,o ne-dovotjnoj zastupljenosti tnarketinga u valo-rizaciji kulturnih resursa Splita kao urbaneturisticke destinacije i ocito ¡e da se onamoze prihvatiti u cijelosti.

6. RASPRAVA I ZAKLJUÍAK

Iz ranije iznesenih rezultata mogu se sa-zeti najvaznije strateske smjemice razvojakulturnog turizma u gradu Splitu:

• Kreiranje pozitivnog okruzenja na regio-naliioj i lokalnoj razini koje ce, u skiadus:i Strategijom razvoja kulturnog turizmaRepiiblike Hrvatske (Tomljenovic i dr.,200?) podrzavati inicijative razvojaK Jiitirnih turistickih proizvoda kroz um-ic/avaiije i partnerstvo kulturnog i luris-;ickog sektora.

• DruStveno odgovoran i koordiniran mar-keting u kultiirnom turizmu:

o Razvoj novih proizvoda kultumogturizma. pri cemu ce se koristiti zna-nje i vjestine djelatnika u kulturi, po-sebno u turistickoj interpretaciji iprezentaciji;

prices for these elements of marketing mix arealso statistically significantly different from 3.

In the last part of research, the standpointsof respondents were analysed with regard toactions that need to be taken to establish abetter linkage between the cultural andtourism sectors. The following have beenassessed as being the most important ones:usage of modern infortnation technologies(average mark 4.92) and promoting culturaltourism as one of priority choices of thetourism development of the City qfSplit{4.^3).Encouraging of inter-sectoral co-operationand networking of the ciiltitral and tottristsectors, i.e. new internal organisation basedon the concept of clusters have been assessedwith the same average mark as jointpromotion and distribution systetn (4.75). Theresults of respondents' opinions about theactions to be taken for the purpose ofestablishing better linkage between thecultural and tourism sectors confirm the firstpart of H3 hypothesis, saying that atlturaltotirism is one ofthe most important forms inthe tourism offer of the city. The mentionedhypothesis has been confirmed also by thefindings of opinion research of offer carriersabout the beneficial effects qfcitltural tottrisni,where it has been confirmed that multiplebenefits arise from the development of culturaltourism, both for the tourism and cultural sec-tors and for the entire community. Therefore,hypothesis H3 is entirely accepted. The analy-sis of results of the entire research is directlylinked with the hypothesis HI, abottt the in-sttfftcient presence of tnarketing in the valori-sation qf cultural resources ofthe City ofSplttav urban tottri.sm destination, and it is obviousthat it can be entirely accepted.

II

6. DISCUSSION ANDCONCLUSION

From the previously presented results it ispossible to summarize the most importantstrategic guidelines of development of culturaltourism in the City of Split:

118 Acta turística. Vol 2 ! (2009) . N o l . p p 1-122

o Podici standarde znanja turistickihdjelatnika potrebnih za razvoj i pro-mociju novih proizvoda;

o Razviti iníormacijski sustav na razinidestinacije koji ce unaprijediti dostu-pnost informacija i plasman kultur-nih turistickih proizvoda,

S ciljem stvaranja potrebnih preduvjetaza razvoj kulturnug turizma, vazno je uspo-staviti kvalitetan sustav medusektorske su-radnje na nacionalnoj, regionalnoj i lokalnojrazini. U konteksm prethodno navedenog,aktivnosti u gradu Splitu trebale bi bitiusmjerene preraa sljedecetn:

• Organiziranje foruma i radioniea natemu kulturnog turizma za sve dionike udestinaeiji.

• Svaki pojedini nositelj strategije razvojatrebao bi biti zadiizen za provedbu ianalizu aktivnosti koje su u djelokrugunjegove odgovornosti.

• Kulturna politika na razini grada trebalabi biti uskladena s gospodarskom politi-kom, a naíini financiranja razvoja kul-turnih turistickih proizvoda jasno defini-rani. To mogu biti razni oblici javnepotpore ili strateski sporazumi izmedujavnog i privatnog sektora. U tu je svrhupotrebno osnovati fondove za razvojkulturnih turistickih proizvoda.

• Na lokalnoj razini potrebno je osnovati istruône timove koji ce pruáati savjeto-davnu i tehniíku pomoc pri osmiêljava-nju kultumih turistiókih proizvoda: timza upravijanje urbanim okolisem, tim zaupravijanje kulturno-povijesnim naslije-dem, tim za upravijanje turistickim at-rakeijama u skladu s njihovim nosivimkapacitetima i tim za marketing i pro-moeiju destinacije.

• Iako zakon ne definirá destinacijskemarketinske organizacije. suvremenitrendovi potraínje nalaáu promisljanje onovim nacinima upravljanja destinaci-jom te modalitetima organizacije iste.

• Creating a positive environment at the re-gional and local levels, which in compli-ance with the Strategy of Development ofCultural Tourism in the Republic of Croa-tia {Tomijenovic et al., 2003) will supportthe initiatives of development of culturaltourism products, through networking andpartnership of the cultural and tourism sec-tors.

• Socially responsible and coordinated mar-keting in the cultural tourism:

o Development of new products of cul-tural tourism, using the knowledge andskills of cultural workers, especially inthe tourism interpretation and presenta-tion;

o Raising the standards of knowledge oftourist workers required for the devel-opment and promotion of new prod-ucts;

o Development of information system atthe level of destination that will en-hance the availability of informationand placement of cultural tourismproducts on the market.

With the purpose of creating required pre-requisites for tbe developtnent of adtitraltourism, it is important to establish a qualitysystem of intersectorial co-operation on thenational, regional and local levels. In the con-text of previously mentioned, the activities inthe City of Split should be focused on the fol-lowing:

• Organising forums and workshops dealingwith the topics of cultural tourism, for allthe subjects involved at the destination.

• Each single stakeholder should be incharge of implementation and analysis ofactivities within the scope of its responsi-bilities.

• Cultural policy at the city level should bealigned with the economic policy and theways of financing the development ofcultural tourism products clearly defined.These can be various forms of public sup-

Davorka Mikulic: Marketinäka valorizacija splita kao destinacije kultumog turizma 119

• Lokalnim vlastima treba dati odgovor-nost da kreiraju kulturne strategije pove-zane s programima ekonomskog razvojai razvoja obrazovanja. Umjetnost i kul-tura vazni su dijelovi obrazovnog prog-rama za turisticke djelatnike. Evidentanje nedostatak interdisciplinamih znanjakod turistickih djelatnika te nedostatakmarketinskih znanja kod djelatnika ukulturi. Zato treba poticati uvodenje od-govarajucih programa na cijeloj vertikaliobrazovnog sustava, ali i u okviru prog-rama cjelozivotnog obrazovanja na cemuinzistira i Europska unija.

Razvoj proizvoda i sustavna promocijatemeij su razvoja kultumog turizma. Da bise to moglo realizirati u podrucju razvojaproizvoda potrebno je:

• Izvrsiti inventarizaciju svih kultumih re-sursa i utvrditi kriterije za njihovo uklju-íivanje u turistiôke proizvode grada.

• Definirati pristup upravljanju staromgradskom jezgrom i Diokiecijanovompalacom, kao najvaznijim gradskim re-sursom.

• Iskoristiti zakonske mogucnosti naplatetzv. spomenicke rente te njenog koriste-nja u oôuvanju i valorizaciji kulturnihresursa.

• Uvesti instrumente prikupljanja sreds-tava na dragovoljnoj osnovi (engl. visi-tor payback).

• Poticati sustav donatorstva radifmanciranja kulturnih projekata.

• Kreirati zajednièke kultume itinerere iprograme lokalnog i regionalnog karak-tera.

• Grupirati resurse i formirati proizvode.

U podruôju promotivnih aktivnosti nu-zno je:

• Uvodenje interaktivnih medija u staticnemuzejske postave (holografske projek-cije na temu postava, internetske igrice,

port or strategic agreements between thepublic and private sectors. For this pur-pose it is necessary to establish funds fordevelopment of cultural tourism products.

• At the local level it will be necessary to es-tablish expert teams to provide counsellingand technical support in working out cul-tural tourism products: urban environmentmanagement team, cultural and historicheritage management team, team to man-age tourism attractions in compliance withtheir capacities and destination marketingand promotion team.

• Although destination marketing organisa-tions are not regulated by any law, moderntrends in demand suggest considering newways of destination management and themodalities of its organisation.

• Local authorities should be put in chargeof creating cultural strategies connectedwith programmes of economic growth andeducation development. Art and cultureconstitute an important part of the educa-tional programme for tourist workers.There is obvious lack of interdisciplinaryknowledge in tourist workers and also lackof marketing knowledge in culture work-ers. Therefore, the introduction of ade-quate programmes along the entire educa-tional system axis should be encouraged,but also within the scope of life-long learn-ing programme, insisted upon by theEuropean Union.

Product development and systematic pro-motion make a basis for the development ofcultural tourism. To achieve that, the follow-ing has to be introduced In the area of productdevelopment:

• Take inventory of all the cultural resourcesand define the criteria for their inclusioninto city town products.

• Define the approach to management of theold downtown and the Diocletian's Palace,as the city's most important resources.

120 Acta turistica. Vol 21 (20Ü9), No I, pp I • 122

interaktivne displej ploce koje ce biti po-stavljene u muzejima, ali i na vaznimpunktovima u gradu).

• Osmisliti suvenire koji ce evocirati razli-cita razdoblja povijesti i kulture gradaSplita (npr, u Etnografskom muzeju su-veniri u tradicionalnim nosnjama grada;u Muzeju grada suveniri koji ce evociratisrednjovjekovno razdoblje itd.),

Razvoj informacijskog sustava na razinidestinacije unaprijedit ce dostupnost infor-macija i plasman kulturnih turistickih proi-zvoda. Turisticka zajednica treba poduzetis'jedece akcije:

• Formirati baze podataka o proizvodimadestinacije. klijentima te poslovnom ok-ruzenju kao Í "software" za upravljanjepodacima;

• Omoguciti informacijsko umrezavanjeunutar cijelog sustava radi kooperacijena lokalnoj razini;

• Unaprijediti rezervacijski siistav unutardestinacije;

• Formirati "online" klubove, natjecanja ikvizove u svrhu jacanja svijesti medukorisnicima kao i u svrhu promocije de-stinacije:

• Ost\ariti suradnju sa specijalizir;inim tii-roperatorima 7a segiMent kulturnog turi-zma.

Smjernice razvoja kulturnog turizmatrebalo bi jasno prenositi svim dionicimaukljucenim LI turizam. Konacno, destinacij-ska marketinska organizacija mora razvitisustav pracenja kvalitete turistickog proiz-voda. Prema unaprijed odredenim kriteri-jima. svake je godine potrebno provoditievaluaciju, a pokazateiji trebaju jasno uka-zati na trzisnu poziciju Splita u usporedbi skonkurencijom.

Oiekujuci prijam Hrvatske u Europskuuniju. grad Split bi trebao razmisljati o kap-didaturi za Europsku prijestolnicu kulture ibiti spreman da iz predpristupnih i kasnijih

• Use legal possibilities of charging the so-called monument annuity and its utilisa-tion for the conservation and valorisationof cultural resources.

• Introduce instruments to collect fiindingon voluntary basis (visitor payback).

• Encourage donation system for the pur-pose of funding cultural projects.

• Create joint cultural itineraries and pro-grammes of local and regional character.

• Group resources and form products.

In the area of promotional activities it isnecessary to:

• Introduce interactive media into static mu-seum display (holographic projections ofartefacts on display, internet games. Inter-active screens to be placed in museums,but also on most frequented points aroundthe city).

• Think of souvenirs that will call up variousperiods of history and culture of the Cityof Split (for instance: souvenirs with tradi-tional national costumes of the city offeredat the Etnographic Museum; souvenirs thatwill call up medieval period offered at theMunicipal Museum of the City of Splitand the like).

Development of information system atdestination level will cnhiincc the a^ailahiliiyof ¡nformalion and placement oJ cuilitraltourism products on the market. The TouristBoard should take following actions:

• Establish database about destination'sproducts, clients and business environ-ment, as welt the "software" to managethose data;

• Enable IT networking throughout the en-tire system for the purpose of co-operationon the local level;

• Improve destination's booking system;

• Establish "online" clubs, competitions andquiz shows for the purpose of raising the

Davorka Mikulic: Marketinäka valorizacija spüta kao destiniicije kultumog lurizma 121

strukturnih fondova, zatrazi i dobije sred-stva za financiranje projekata koji povezujuturizam i kuíturu.

awareness among users and for promo-tional purposes;

• Establish collaboration with specialisedtour operators for the cultural tourist seg-ment.

The guidelines for the development ofcultural tourism should be clearly passed on toall the subjects in tourism. Finally, destinationmarketing organisation has to develop asystem of quality control for the tourismproduct. According to the predefined criteria,evaluation has to be done every year and theindicators should clearly point at the marketposition of Split compared to the competition.

Expecting the accession of Croatia to theEuropean Union, the City of Split should con-sider to apply for the European Capital ofCulture and to be ready to apply for and to getfunding from the pre-accession assistance in-stniments and later on from stRictural instru-ments, for funding of projects connectingtourism and culture.

LITERATURA - REFERENCES

1. Baywater, M. (1993). The Market ofCultural Tourism in Europe, Traveland Tourism Analyst, 6, 30-46

2. Buhalis. D. (2000;. Marketing theCompetitive Destination of the Fu-ture, Tourism Management. 21. 97-116

3. Dulcic, A., Pelric, L. (2001), Uprav-Ijanje razvojem turizma. Mate d.o.o..Zagreb

4. Dragieevic Sesié, M., (2006): Cultuteas a Resource of City Development.U Svob-Dokic, N. (Ed.) CulturalTransitions in Southeastern Europe.The Creative City: Crossing Visionand New Realities in the Region:collection of papers from the course,Diibrovnik. 2006.. Institute for Inter-national Relations, Zagreb, 39-53

5. Getz. D, (2005), Events Management andEvents Tourism, New York: CognizantCommunication, prema Tomljenovic. R.(2006), Kultumi turizam, u Corak..Mikacic, V. (Ed.) Ht^atski turizam, plavo,bijelo, zeleno, institut za turizam, Zagreb,119-147 ;

f). Landry, C. (1999), Frotn Barriers toBridges: Re-imagining CiOiitiun CuitunilPotic}. Report of a European Panel ofExaminers, Strasbourg: Council forCultural Co-operation, Council of Europe

7. Law, CM. (2002), Urban Tourism: TheVisitor Ecotiomy and the Growth of LargeCities. London, Continuum.

8. Marusic, Z.. Corak, S., Hendija, Z.,Ivandic, N. (2005), Stavovi i potrisnjaturista u Hrvatskoj - TOMAS ¡jeto 2004.,Institut za turizam, Zagreb

122 Acta turistica. Vol 21 (2009), No 1, pp 1-122

9. Maniâic, Z.. Corak, S., Hendija, Z.,Ivandic, N. (2008), Stavovi i potristijaturista u Hrvatskoj - TOMAS ljeto2007., Institut za turizam, Zagreb

10. Richards, G. (2001), Cultural Attrac-tions and European Tourism, CABIPublishing, UK

1 I.Richards, G., (2002), Od kitlttirnogdo kreativnog turizma: Europske per-spective, Turizam, 50 (3), pg.229-236

12. Soteriades, M.D., Avgeli, V.A.(2007), Protnocija turistickih desti-nacija: strateski pristup tnarketingu,Turizam,, 55(3), pg. 351.

13. Tepper, S.J. (2002), "Creative Assetsand the Changing Econotny", TheJournal of Arts Management, Lawand Society, 32 (2), pg.l59., premaTomic-Koludrovic, I., Petric, M.(2005), Creative Industries In Transi-tion: Towards a Creative Economy? uâvob-Dokic, N. (ed.) The EmergingCreative Industries in SoutheasternEurope, Zagreb, Institut za meduna-rodne odnose, pg.l3.

14. Tomic-Koludrovic, I., Petric, M.(2005), Creative Industries In Tran-sition: Towards a Creative Econotny?V Svob-Dokic, N. (ed.) The Emer-ging Creative Industries in Southeas-tern Europe, Zagreb, Institut za me-dunarodne odnose

15. Tomic-Koludrovie,I., Petric, M. (2006),New Cultural Tourists in a SoutheasternEuropean City: The Case of Split. U Svob-Dokic, N. (Ed.) Cultural Transitions inSoutheastern Europe. The Creative City:Crossing Visions and New Realities in theRegion: collection of papers from thecourse, Dubrovnik, 2006. Institut zamedunarodne odnose, Zagreb

16. Tomljenovic, R., Marusic, Z., Weber, S.,Hendija, Z:, Boranic, S. (2003). Strategijarazvoja kulturnog turizma: Od turizma ikulture do kulturnog turizma, Institut zaturizam, Zagreb

17. Tomljenovic, R. (2006), Kulturni turizam, uCorak., MikaCió, V. (Ed.) Hrvatski turizam,plavo, bijelo, zeleno, Institut za turizam,Zagreb, 119-147

18. Varbanova, L. (2006), Our Creative CitiesOnline, U Svob-Dokic. N. (Ed.) CulturalTransitions in Southeastern Europe. TheCreative City: Crossing Visions and NewRealities in the Region: collection of papersfrom the course, Dubrovnik, 2006. Institutza medunarodne odnose, Zagreb

19. World Tourism Organisation (2001), E-business jor tourism: practical guidelinesfor destinations and businesses, Madrid,WTO, Business Council

Primljeno: 24.2.2009. /Submitted: 24 February 2009

Prihvaceno: 27.3.20009. /Accepted: 27March 2009