Upload
nese-roman
View
129
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY
School of Applied Disciplines
Department of Tourism Administration
TRM 492.01
Tourism Research Topics
“The Importance of Intangible and Tangible Resources in Choosing a Tourism Destination: Case of İstanbul”
Yasemin Aksoy Günce Malan
Neşe Roman
Moderator: Maria Dolores AlvarezSubmission date: 02.06.200
5
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study is to investigate the importance of intangible and tangible
resources in choosing Istanbul as a tourism destination. Whether we could distinguish tangible
and intangible resources and also to investigate the most important determinant factors in
choosing Istanbul as a tourism destination.
In the highly competitive tourism industry, the importance of tangible and intangible
resources important to determine the marketing strategies of the destination. İstanbul is the
leading city of Turkey and in this study the importance of tangible and intangible resources
are analyzed in the case of İstanbul.
The combination of historical and cultural heritage as well as art life is attracting the
attention of the World. There is a movement from mass tourism to cultural tourism in recent
years and Istanbul's historical background and its geographical position in terms of intangible
and tangible resources carry meaning. According to grouping of the variables from the
analysis, it is not possible to distinguish between tangible and intangible resources. The
tangible can only be understood and interpreted through the intangible.
Tangible and intangible resources are complementary resources and considered as two
sides of a coin (ICOMOS, 2008). While considering the importance of tangible resources, the
intangible ones support cultural identity and desirability of its preservation to recognize
cultural diversity from the perception of tourists (Smith, 2006). Time period, only targeting
5
four European leisure tourists and using nonprobability sampling are the limitations of the
research.
The implications that give us clue on how to promote Istanbul. First five important
factors according to the respondents are Bosporus scene, cuisine, old palaces and fortresses,
historical buildings and architecture in terms of choosing Istanbul as a tourism destination.
From the findings about demographic factors, except the marital status and income level,
there is a significant difference among age groups, nationality, gender, first visit and
educational levels. Lastly, according to the visiting times, there is a tendency to the resources
from the historical buildings and old palaces and fortresses to art.
Keywords: Destination image, European tourists’ choice, Tangible and Intangible resources,
Istanbul.
5
Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………….. 5
Literature Review………………………………………………………………….. 6
Research Question………………………………………………………………… 19
Conceptual Model and Operationalization………………………………………... 20
Research Design and Methodology……………………………………………….. 21
Findings……………………………………………………………………………. 22
Limitation………………………………………………………………………….. 32
Implications, Further Research and Conclusion…………………………………… 33
References…………………………………………………………………………. 35
5
INTRODUCTION
The fascinating history of Istanbul, from its foundation to the present, is a guide for
the curious travelers as well as an evocation of an illustrious past. The city has an impressive
history and one of the myth of Istanbul is in the following paragraph that appeals to the
visitors.
The first historically significant settlement in İstanbul was founded by a Megarian
colonist named Byzas from Greece. According to legend, before coming here, he consulted
the oracle in Delphi to find a new settlement. The answer was ‘opposite the blind’. When
Byzas and his small colony came to the Bosporus in 657 BC, they saw a small colony living
on the Asian shore at Kadıköy (Chalcedon). They saw the superb natural harbor of the Golden
Horn on the European shore and thought ‘those people in Kadıköy (Chalcedon) must be
blind’. They called their new settlement ‘Byzantium’. After the name of Byzantium, the city
name changed in to Constantine, Constantinople, Konstantiniyye, Polis, Stimpol, Estanbul,
Istambol and Istanbul (Maxvell, 2008).
Istanbul is a destination where various cultures and different civilizations meet
throughout the centuries. The combination of historical and cultural heritage as well as art life
is attracting the attention of the World. In the city, you can come across with people who have
different ethnic backgrounds. In the daytime, the Muslim’s azan’s sound mix as with the
Christian’s churches’ bell’s sounds. The historical peninsula and the metropol city life are
intertwined.
Destinations in order to differentiate themselves from their competitors not only use
their tangible resources but also attempt to manage their intangible resources in many very
ways.
5
So, intangible heritage is unique and it belongs to the destinations as a competitive
advantage all over the other cities. Especially, destinations who are mostly serving for Sun-
lust tourism are basically providing tourists with the same type of product so, what they do is
using various selling strategies in order to accomplish differentiation and more sales.
This research will help us understand the cultural heritage of Istanbul with its rich
tangible and intangible resources in choosing Istanbul as a tourism destination. This paper
defines the tourism commons holistically as the collection of all tangible and intangible
resources and argued that they are to the tourist destination.
In sum, the objective of the study is to investigate the importance of intangible
resources and tangible ones in choosing Istanbul as a tourism destination.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Tourism is an activity that indicates travel to and around a destination, with the
purpose of consuming particular features of the destination such as attractions, local culture,
accommodation, and catering, sightseeing, entertainment, specialized and general services
(Inskeep 1991; Pearce 1989). Recent research, determines that destinations’ images that also
encompass intangible resources such as culture, trade, information. The importance of cultural
activities such as international music and film festivals, biennials and international exhibitions
have increased and provide recognition of the destinations’ in the international culture arena
(Kuzgun, Göksel,Özalp, Somer, Alvarez, 2010).
Since tourism industry is composed of intangible products, and there is a time lags
between the purchase of the product and its actual consumption, so that, travelers create a
cognitive image of the destination (Mansfeld and Pizam, 1999). The awareness and the image
of a destination, from the perception of potential visitors, are essential factors that affect
5
destination competitiveness. A favored image of a destination combined with high level of
awareness in an important factor to attract the target market (Crouch and Ritchie, 2003).
To understand about urban tourism, we need to know what the tourists want to
experience in the cities they visit (Ashworth, 1992). The reasons for the visit of a specific
place could be location, function, appearance, and cultural inheritance of the cities. Studying
about urban cities provides us interesting findings about uniqueness of the destinations
(Pearce, 1993).
Studies on tourists’ destination choices made great strides in understanding how
parameters affect the tourist behavior (Lin and Morais, 2008). Cognitive distance, for
example, has a significant effect on tourists’ choices of which destinations they will visit and
what routes they will take (Cadwallader, 1976). Another example might be the cuisine (Uraz,
2007). Depending on the eating habit of the visitor, a destination may have an advantage
among others just because of the proximity between the cultures.
In order to describe a city as a cultural city, it should consist of competitive advantages
among peers. These advantages of the city are divided into two cultural dimensions as
tangible and intangible resources (Uraz, 2007). Intangible ones include local culture (cuisine,
norms, and religion), music and film festivals, and biennials (Uraz, 2007). Tangible resources
encompass accommodation, museums and historical heritage among others (Uraz, 2007).
Potential travelers usually have limited knowledge about the qualifications of
a destination which they have not visited before. For this reason, the image and features of a
place as a travel destination are likely to be critical elements in the destination choice
process, irrespective of whether or not they are real representations of the place has to offer
(Crompton and Um, 1990). Destination choice is very important part of the travel plan and
cities has to create differences to get the first place on visitors’ choice.
5
In tourism marketing, images that have of a destination which is influenced by books,
novels, movies, TV and newspaper reports or word of mouth (Gun, 1988), rather than by
advertising and promotion, these explain us how people perceive a place. This perception is
the first stage in the awareness of a person in destination choice (Sealy and Wickens, 2004).
In 2000, Istanbul has an objective to increase its competitiveness through culture and
also to be a top city for arts and culture. Istanbul will be using its ‘European Capital of
Culture 2010’ as a contributory factor for reanimating the tangible and intangible heritage
which the city has owned for centuries. While experiencing quite different nations and their
own culture, Istanbul accomplishes its ‘City-growth’ through this cultural process. Hence,
Istanbul’s unique; mix culture has become a powerful mean of city branding in the
competition for investors and popular for visitors (Uraz, 2007).
Istanbul, being considered as a historically dominant city, has large distribution of
cultural capital and pictographic buildings (Newman, 2005). Moreover, Newman (2005)
states that such dominant cities are less flexible in terms of changing trends in cultural
development.
“Instead of culture springing from the inner workings of our cities, we see it as a way
to make our cities work...” (Jonathan Glancey, The Guardian, 29 March 2003 cited in Wilks-
Heeg, S. And North, P. 2004). Local culture is the most dominant factor for the destinations.
As Glancey illustrates the current perception of culture today perfectly adopts the new
experiences for local society because it consists of symbolic values. Culture helps community
differentiate themselves from each other as it is unique to one city, even to a single district
(Scott, 2000). Culture, in addition, alters the creative methods through cities or regions
(Kunzmann, 2004). It encourages creative action in city development (Landry, 2000) though
5
mutually sympathizes with the creative class that can also change the culture of a city
(Florida, 2002).
Including Istanbul, all destinations are selling their features that are composed of both
intangible and tangible resources either for wander-lust tourists or sun-lust tourists. Both
intangible and tangible resources rely on each other when it comes to understanding the
meaning and importance of each (ICOMOS, 2008).
Intangible resources and tangible resources are two sides of the same coin, both carry
meaning and helping store in memory humanity’s past. Furthermore, both tangible and
intangible resources rely on each other when it comes to understand meanings and importance
of each individually (ICOMOS, 2008).
For a destination, its image is very significant as affecting its success in tourism and its
potential visitors. The image of Turkey affects the image of Istanbul (Kerimoğlu, 2006). The
political problems, economic conditions and the effect of the religion of Turkey have a
negative effect on the Istanbul’s potential visitors (Kerimoğlu, 2006). Actually, the natural
and cultural values of the city have a more impressive effect on visiting Istanbul than any
other artificial attractions (Kerimoğlu, 2006).
The tourism commons are heterogeneous and variable that are composed of natural
and built tangible and intangible resources (Briassouli, 2002). There is a deep- seated
interdependence between the intangible cultural heritage and the tangible ones. This point was
reinforced as that cultural heritage should speak through the values that people give it and not
the other way round. However, the tangible can only be understood and interpreted through
the intangible (Smith, 2006). While considering the importance of intangible resources, the
intangible ones support cultural identity and desirability of its preservation to recognize
cultural diversity from the perception of tourists (Smith, 2006).
5
Destinations’ intangible resources that have intrinsic productive values that are used to
describe aesthetic, spiritual, and symbolic or other social values people may associate with a
site. For example; place’s genius loci, smellscape and soundscape, legends, films, festivals,
dances, poetry, which has an effect on intangible resources (ICOMOS, 2008)?
UNESCO also defines intangible heritage as being all forms of traditional and cultural
works originating in a given community. These works consist of oral traditions, music, arts
and all kind of special skills that are connected with culture. For many populations, the
intangible the vital heritage is source of the identity that is deeply rooted in history
(Kirshenblatt- Gibmlett, B, 2004).
The basic factor which can be determined as an intangible resource and creates
differentiation among destinations is ‘Place’s genius loci’. The feeling of the place grants its
own identity and its main position that refer to its main characteristics to the place. If we have
a closer look at Istanbul, the city has been welcoming numerous people from different ethnic
roots, natinalities and religions for centuries by showing its multiculturalism (Karlığa, 2009).
In Istanbul, in the beginning of classical Roman religion a genius loci was the protective spirit
of a place and the idea was about, being the Emperor's genius which is the genius loci of the
entirety of the "place" of the Roman empire (Day, 2002).
Between 17th and 19th centuries, the sounds of the cities are completely different than today’s
noises. In 20th century, people try to escape the city sound whereas in the old times sounds of
the city are the main source of information. There are many different sounds in a city. In the
history, people heard the noise of the horse shoes, but now they hear the sound of traffic.
Bells of the old towns transformed into alarm clocks. The sound of swords disappeared, the
bombs sound come into play. (Garriorch, 2003)
5
The soundscape of the İstanbul become a topic for a documentary movie “Crossing the
Bridge: The Sound of İstanbul”. In the movie, the different types of music, music culture and
the relationship between the society, politics, and life explained. (Martinson, & Schulz, 2008)
Another important part of intangible resources is legends of destinations. As popular
belief would have it, the Harem was an intimate area in which women were educated and
groomed for a life outside the harem if they could not bear the sultan any children in Ottoman
Emperor (Goodwin, 2006). In addition, Goodwin makes an important contribution to
“traditional” discussions of the Harem by debunking the myths and stereotypes of Harem life
on the grounds that much of what has been said is just hearsay, gossip, and fantasy. Every
detail of Harem life was governed by tradition, obligation and ceremony. Harem means
private in literature. The women of the Harem had to be foreigners, as Islam forbade
enslaving Muslims. Girls were bought and then would be schooled in Islam and Turkish
culture and language, as well as the arts of make- up, dress, music, reading, writing and
dancing (Lott, 1865).
Another intangible resource of Istanbul is ‘Films and Festivals’. The festival is the
showcase par excellence for the presentation of intangible heritage (UNESCO). One fourth of
all 1000 cinemas in Turkey are located in Istanbul (Kabil, 2009). Film making is one of the
main industries other than festivals that have a strategic importance for the city; due to their
ability to influence image or the synergy that they provide with other touristic activities (Enlil
et al, 2008). There have been many films about Istanbul like, Dracula in Istanbul (1953),
Killing in Istanbul (1967), Istanbul, Keep Your Eyes Open (1989), Spice Girls: Live in
Istanbul (1997), Crossing the Bridge: The Sound of Istanbul (2005), Mission Istanbul (2008),
Istanbul(2011) which are showing its features to the audience from all around the world.
5
Religion has been an integral motive for the travellers and is usually considered as
oldest form of travel (Jackowski and Smith, 1992). Religiously motivated travel has become
widespread and has integrated with the growth of tourism in the modern era (Lloyd, 1998).
Furthermore, venerated places are now being accepted as cultural and historic sites. Mosques,
churches, synagogues and cathedrals are used in tourism literature, as evidenced in the recent
marketing efforts (Olsen and Timothy, 1999). Moreover, spiritually motivated travel could be
considered as an essential identity for Istanbul (Demirci, 2006).
The religious places represent an important phenomenon that involves the tourism
industry. Religion and spirituality are the most common motivations among the travellers
(Timothy and Olsen, 2006). Religious places such as churches, synagogues and mosques take
determinant place among tourists’ attractions and as destination choice (Timothy and Olsen,
2006). Istanbul as a multicultural city has a lot of religious places and it indicates that Istanbul
has a potential to welcome a variety of people all around the world( Demirci, 2006).
Although belly dance is not located as an item on the Islamist government’s website, it
is still a primary tourist attraction for Istanbul and Turkey (Potuoğlu-Cook, 2006). Turkish
belly dance emphasis on real and imagined connections to an Ottoman past within the relation
with Islamist and secular neoliberal projects in post-1980s Istanbul (Potuoğlu-Cook, 2006).
Folklore, namely folk dance, is considered as an intangible cultural heritage (ICH) or a
living heritage, built over the triple integration of the conceptual framework: folk, nation and
tradition. The relationship of folklore with tourism, places it in a
mercantilisation/touristification process, as a reality in accordance to the post-modern, post-
fordist and globalized society we live in (Henriques and João, 2008).
Istanbul has inspired many poets through the centuries (Halman, 1997). “İstanbul,
capital of two great empires, confluence of Asia and Europe, has called forth poetry
throughout her long history, from paupers and sultans, natives and visitors alike. When
5
Mehmet, the Conqueror first wandered through the ruins of the Byzantine palace, it was with
the words of the Persian poet Firdusi on his lips: ‘The spider spins its web in the palace of the
Caesars, An owl hoots in the towers of Afrasiab'. Since then the silhouette of thousand-year-
old domes and tapering minarets, the sunsets reflected nightly in a thousand palace windows
and the bustle of her markets has inspired Sultan Süleyman, W. B. Yeats and Nâzim Hikmet,
amongst others, to salute one of the world's most remarkable cities” (Orga, 2008).
Traditions of the specific destination provide identity to that specific city across all
cultures and are reflected in the diversity of art facts and achievements that compose tourism
activities (Mowforth and Munt, 1998: 109).
According to Joliffe, ‘’The word ‘tea’ has a number of connotations. It can refer to a
plant, a beverage, a meal service, an agricultural product, an export, an industry, an art, a
religion or a dedicated past time.’’ (2003, as cited in Hall, et al, 2003). As Joliffe stated, tea
has a special place in terms of touristic activities. Tea is served as hot, sweet and strong in
tulip shaped glasses that has an important place in the Turkish culture as a kind of oasis for
giving a break to the modern life and all the pressures of daily routine also a way to socialize
with others (Hall, et al, 2003).
Another important resource is Turkish coffee that is served as strong and sweet and
downed with equal gusto generally after meal in order to help to digest the food. Fortune
telling ritual also is coming at the end of coffee; the cup is tipped upside down on the saucer
and allowed to cool, sometimes with a ring on the top or a coin. Once cooled, the shapes in
both the cup and saucer used as a way to read the past and the future with the influence of
horoscopes, the spiritual world also superstition (Bağlı, Öğüt, 2009).
Third example of the most visual example of traditional resource is the evil eye that
consist of blue and white eye motif that also known as the ‘Eye of Medusa’ is a sign of good
luck and a way for protection from the bad spirits. The evil eye bead is very common
5
especially as a souvenir sometimes as pendants, sometimes key chains, stickers or magnets
(Bağlı, Öğüt, 2009).
Architecture shows the visible image of the city and has always played a special role
in tourism. It is an expression of lifestyles and spirit of the epoch and culture (Winkler, 2008).
Istanbul has mixture of architectural structures which is influenced from all civilizations
located before. The city has many architectural structures that are significantly coming from
different civilization. Walls of Constantinople, originally constructed by the emperors,
historical buildings, statues, mosques, columns, churches, synagogues, palaces, castles and
towers and functional constructions which came from ancient Greek, Byzantine, Genoese,
Ottoman, also Turkish republic (Necipoğlu, 2001).
According to Sahin, Safak and Baloglu, Seyhmus, second popular attraction in
İstanbul is Bosporus and third popular activity in İstanbul is taking Bosporus cruise/boat
tours. Bosporus is a result of İstanbul’s unique geographic location between two continents
Europe and Asia. (Sahin, & Baloglu, 2011) It is a 20 km long sea strait connecting Black Sea
and the Marmara Sea. There are hills, valleys around the both sides of the strait. Composition
of unique architecture and natural beauty attracts foreigners as well as locals themselves.
(Baytin, Canbay Turkyilmaz, Kıran, & Tunbis, 2003)
Moreover, Tokaç (2009) indicates that Istanbul is also the host city of Turkish music
culture. Cultural diversity of the city enriched the structure of Turkish Music culture. The
author also highlights that arabesque music in 1980s has developed as a subculture by
reflecting the lifestyle and perceptions of rural immigrants to Istanbul.
Barutcugil (2009) states that Istanbul is also a city with its vein and calligraphy art.
Improvement of vein arts has prospered the city both culturally and historically by
considering the historical root of this art.
5
Istanbul acquires many intangible elements reflecting its rich differentiating culture.
Turkish Cuisine as a local culture is a significant cultural and historical factor because it is
one of the oldest and richest cuisines in the World (Kuzgun, et al, 2010).
Foreign institutions as being one of the intangible resources, in Istanbul also serve as
cultural factors since they are enriching the culture of the city. Tosun, Öztürk and Özpınar
(2009) state that these organizations introduce own culture, art and language while
strengthening the links between two cultures. The availability of libraries is another cultural
element of Istanbul. Libraries are known as community centers since they are centers of
education, culture and socialization (Bayir, 2009).
It is seen that tourism is subject to weather and climate, with sun, sand and sea travel
decisions to a large extent being based on perceptions of warm, sunny environments.
Likewise, winter tourism is built on expectations of snow. Hence, tourism is dependent on
climate variables such as temperature, and humidity (Smith, 1993; de Freitas, 2001).
Accordingly, it is not surprised that climate change will affect travel behavior, both as a result
of altering conditions for holidaymaking at the destination level and climate variables
perceived as less or more comfortable by the tourists. Climate as a component of destination
image, is one of the psychological characteristics of a city helps us measure destination image
(Echtner and Ritchie, 1991).
Another important part of destination resources is tangible resources that are
having actual physical existence. Examples of a destination tangible resources are:
accommodation facilities of the city, Palaces & Fortresses, Towers, Pillars, Monuments,
Bazaars, Libraries, and Museums, Nightclubs, (Getz, 2002), Dining facilities and Well-known
Roads, Handicrafts, Souvenirs, Traditional dress (Ritchie and Crouch, 2003).
5
The first component of the Istanbul’s tangible resources is accommodation facility.
Istanbul is a world-famous tourist attraction center owing to its unique location, nature and
history. The restructuring process of the 1980s focused on the tourist industry as a means of
promoting economic development, and the number of hotels in Istanbul increased
dramatically (Dökmeci, Balta, 1999). The first hotel in Istanbul is Hotel Pera Palace in 1892.
Shortly after, a series of hotels, including Tokatlıyan's hotel and the Bristol hotel, were
opened in Beyoğlu district. As of 2007, Municipality Licensed, there are 561 Hotels, 1 motel,
77 pensions, 1 holiday village and 1 camping place and Ministry Licensed, there are a total of
394 accommodation establishments in Istanbul, which are classified as both qualified and
unqualified. Among them, 339 are hotels (Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and
Tourism General Directorate of Investment and Enterprises, 2005).
Hamams were the public place for Turkish Women that eventually became as the
women’s coffee-house where all the news about town is spoken (Melville, 1925). The
accountants of the Western travellers about hamams give a deeper understanding in Turkish
culture when the outsider attends in some traditional ceremonies in the baths (Yılmazkaya,
2003).
Other components of the tangible assets are Palaces & Fortresses, Towers, Pillars, and
Monuments. The first palace in Istanbul is The Old Palace situated in Beyazit. Later, the
Topkapi Palace was built (the New Palace) in Sarayburnu During the last period of Ottoman
Empire. And then, Kavak Palace in Uskudar was demolished during construction of Selimiye
Military Barracks. Another important palace is Seaside Palace built in Besiktas in the period
of Mahmut II was made demolished by Abdulmecit and replaced by the Dolmabahce Palace
(1818-1856). In addition to palaces, there are 3 Fortresses in Istanbul. Anatolian Fortress: It
was built in the period of Beyazit I to control sea transport of Byzantium (end of l4th
century). Mehmet II had Rumelian Fortress built on the opposite shore and also Yedikule
5
Fortresses in Altinkapi (1457-1458) was shaped like a star. Ottoman treasury was protected
here for a while.
Bazaars are important shopping facility for both touristic and local selling. Auction
rooms and antiquity markets built out of stone against fire constitute the master buildings of
business life of the Ottoman Period in Istanbul. Earliest example of these is the Inner Auction
Room (Old Bazaar) made in the period of Mehmet II. The largest auction building of the
Ottoman Architecture from the standpoint of number of domes is the Sandal Bedesteni (New
Bazaar). Julie Pardue who came to this city in the l9th century states; "The market of Istanbul
is one thousand and one night tale for Europeans. Neither the historical value of the
hippodrome nor the earnest magnificence of Hagia Sophia is as interesting as the shopping
area of this city situated among three seas. Istanbul Market shines like the magic lamp of
Alaaddin."
Museums are one of the most important part of the tangible resources of a destination.
Istanbul has many museums such as Archaeological Museum, is located in Osman Hamdi
Bey Yokusu, Gulhane, Eminonu, was built by the end of 19th century, Haghia Sophia
Museum is located Sultanahmet Meydani, Eminonu was the ancient Byzantine church, built
by Justinian I between 532-537, St. Savior in Chora (Kariye) Museum is located Edirnekapi,
Fatih was Ancient Byzantine church which was first built in the 6th century, and also Painting
& Sculpture Museum is located Dolmabahce Sarayi, Besiktas was opened in 1937 in the
crown prince suites of Dolmabahce Palace by the order of Ataturk. Furthermore, Libraries are
also one of the basic factors that have an effect on visitation to the destination. In the Ottoman
Empire, independent or as a part of Complexes started in the l7th century. The oldest example
is the Köprülü Library (1661).
5
Nightclubs are an important part of the functional image of the destinations is an
important determinant in terms of entertainment part of the travel. Entertainment districts are
characterized by theaters, restaurants, clubs, cafes, pubs, themed clubs (Burtensaw, 1991).
When we come to the Dining facilities of a destinations, William Shakespeare’s
quotation ‘’All the world is a stage, and all the men and women merely players; they have
their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts’’ is a good
application for dining out experience that is one of the tangible resources of a destination. The
players in a dining place consist of managers, staff, and customers that all have different
specific roles in different part of this experience. However, there are many opportunities for
each player to exchange roles within this enduring cycle. For example, when a server leaves
his/her working place and went out for dining, (s) he automatically takes the customer role.
And thanks to this role play, each meal event can enable to meet tourists’ expectations and
provide memorable experiences to influence tourists’ decisions (Gibbs, Ritchie, 2003). In the
case of Istanbul, the dining facilities are providing variety of cuisine alternatives that are
carrying cultural footprint of the Ottoman Empire and other civilizations as well as current
culture. Therefore, Visitors have an opportunity to experience old times cuisine in many
dining facility.
Last but not least, Well-known roads in the destinations have important role as a
tangible resources. Preoccupation with city image has meant increasing attention to creating
touristic places which can attract attention and symbolize the positive attributes or image the
city wishes to convey since touristic places frequently represent not simply the city, but also
the nation (Smith, 2005). In the case of Istanbul, Istiklal square in Taksim and Bagdat square
in Kadıkoy are the famous touristic places in the case of well-known roads in the destination.
5
Shopping becomes a major leisure activity in tourism industry. (Law and Au, 2000) In
today’s world shopping activity is more than satisfying the necessities of daily needs. To
remember the visit of the destination, recreationists and tourist buys clothing, souvenirs,
artworks and handicrafts. So, shopping has a significant impact on tourist experience and
could be a motivating factor for travel. (Timothy and Butler, 1995; Timothy, 2005)
In sum, tourists’ preferences have started to become increasingly sophisticated as they
migrate from mass consumption towards more authentic products and services also personal
experiences for new meaning and self-actualization, so the importance of intangible resources
has been increasing year by year (Cooper & Hall, 2008). The tourist and the local people with
the culture of the destination are dependent on one another. The tourists need for their
authentic experience, the living culture and maintenance and improvement of the destination
both intangible and tangible resources depend on spiritual and economic development of the
local community (Schouten, 2007).
RESEARCH QUESTION
Our review of the literature which is stated above has been found relevant
in order to determine the research question and the conceptual model of
the study. Considering the finding of the literature, two research questions
identified:
“Which resources both tangible and intangible are most important for European tourists in
choosing İstanbul as a tourism destination?”
5
“Is there a relationship between personal factors and the importance given by the tourists to
tangible and intangible resources in choosing Istanbul as a tourism destination?”
CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND OPERATIONALIZATION
Broad Conceptual Model
The importance of tangible and intangible resources in choosing destinations will be analyzed.
The correlation between the personal factors and importance attributed to tangible and
intangible resources will be investigated. The study didn’t focus on the destination choice,
because the choice has been already made by tourists.
Operationalization
In order to measure the importance of tangible and intangible resource affect on
destination, the scale was derived from the literature. The correlation between the personal
factors and tangible and intanbile resources will be analyzed.
5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study will be carried out through a survey aimed at determining the views of the
leisure tourists, who are basically visiting Sultanahmet district, in choosing Istanbul as a
tourism destination, how important were the intangible resources of the city and the tangible
resources of the city for the tourists. Tourist attractions are concentrated in Sultanahmet
Region. The most important places are Topkapı Palace, Hagia Sophia Museum, Sultanahmet
Mosque, the Hippodrome, Grand Bazaar, Basilica Cistern and Musem of Islamic art in the
Sultanahmet Square. Therefore European tourists can easily find in Sultanahmet Square.
(Baloglu, 2011)) European visitors (German, UK, Spanish, and French) are the target of the
research.
The type of the research is descriptive that will be used to reveal summary statistics by
showing responses to all possible questionnaire items from the surveys. In the literature, how
Personal Factors
• Age
• Income
• Gender
• Education
• Marital Status
• Origin
• Place of Residence
5
the leisure tourists perceive the intangible resources and tangible resources are described. The
survey will be applied to the tourists as convenience sampling and in four different languages
which are English, German, French and Spanish in order not to let the tourists have
difficulties from the language of the survey that is only in English. It will be given to tourists
who will be around Sultanahmet area during the last 2 weeks of April. The unit of analysis of
the study is individual. Data is collected through the personally administrated questions. The
time horizon of this research is cross-sectional. Because the data is gathered once, over a
period of time.
Factor analysis will be used. A sample of 200 tourists (50 from each nationality group)
will be surveyed while visiting Istanbul and analyzed by using SPSS 17. The survey
instrument will include quantitative questions to better grasp the visitors’ common and unique
perceptions.
Sampling
The sampling method of the study is quota sampling. Sample of the study consists of
50 individual from each nationality. (UK, Germany, Spain, France)
The sample of 200 tourists surveyed in Sultanahmet area In order to increase the
responses of the questionnaires, we choose the places where people were resting.
FINDINGS
We apply 200 questionnaire and according to responses, our demographic profile of
the sample is stated in the table below.
5
Table 1: Demographic Profile of the Sample
Table 2: Demographic Profile of the Sample
After gathering our demographic profile of the sample, before we start analysis, we
apply reliability test in order to see our responses reliability and we have 71% Cronbach’s
Alpha result that shows that our responses are reliable enough to analyze. We use five-leveled
importance scale.
5
1: Very Important; 2: Important; 3: Neither Important nor Unimportant; 4: Unimportant; 5:
Very Unimportant
According to this scale, means of the answers given to the questions regarding
European tourists’ perceptions were taken. According to respondents, in the case of Istanbul
as a tourism destination, Bosporus scene, Cuisines, Old palaces and fortresses, Historical
buildings and Architecture have the highest scores in their choice. These means, these five
factors were the effective reasons for their visit to Istanbul as a destination.
According to descriptive statistics again, Songs, Soundscape, Language, Libraries and
Traditional dress have the lowest score that indicates, these factors do not have any influence
in the their destination choice in the case of Istanbul.
Table 3: Descriptive Statics of Variables
5
Table 4: Descriptive Statics of Variables
Then we applied ANOVA test in order to see whether there is a significant
relationship between four different nationalities’ destination choice in the case of Istanbul. We
found out that in terms of Atmosphere of the city, Museums, Smellscape, Traditions,
Libraries, Music, Songs, Souvenirs, Handicrafts, Religious places, Architecture, Religion,
Hamams and baths there is a significant difference among French people and other
nationalities. This shows that French people give more importance to these resources in
comparison to other nationalities.
When we look at the variables in terms of different education level there is a significant
difference among the entire group and university graduates, and also again the entire group
and post graduates. These indicate different perceptions about Istanbul.
Old Palaces and Fortress - Post graduate F: 4,221 Sig: 0,00
5
Architecture - Post graduate F: 4,649 – Sig: 0,00
Historical Buildings - Post graduate F: 3,998 – Sig: 0,00
Shopping Facilities - Post graduate F: 3,436 – Sig: 0,01
Traditions - Post graduate F: 3,128 – Sig: 0,01
Dance - Post graduate F: 3,264 – Sig: 0,02
Souvenirs - Post graduate F: 3,345 – Sig: 0,02
Smellscape – University F: 3,401 – Sig: 0,01
Music- University F: 3,163 – Sig: 0,02
We also apply again ANOVA test in order to see whether there is a difference among
different income level respondents and marital status, but as the test indicates there is no
significant difference among the groups. This indicates that neither income level nor marital
status is not a determinant factor in destination choice in the case of Istanbul. Different
income levels and marital status do not make any difference in terms of our variables
importance in the case of Istanbul as tourism destination.
According to different age group of our population, there is a significant difference among
the entire group and over 51, also the entire group and over 65, and again the entire group and
less than 20 age groups. This indicates different needs about Istanbul.
Nightclubs - for over 51, less important factor F: 16,508 – Sig: 0,00
Nightlife - for over 51, less important factor F: 17,23 – Sig: 0,00
5
Museums - 51 and over, the most important F: 5,303 – Sig: 0,00
Films - for over 65, less important factor F: 2,900 – Sig: 0,002
Old Palaces and Fortresses - for under 20 less important factor F: 3,759 Sig: 0,00
Architecture - for under 20 less important factor F: 2,716 – Sig: 0,03.
Our responses also differ according to gender. Females and males has different choices in
terms of Istanbul. After applying T-TEST, we found that there is a significant difference
between males and females.
Dining facilities – Male t: 4,069 – Sig: 0,04
Legends – Female t: 7,227 – Sig: 0,01
Souvenirs – Female t: 8,417 – Sig: 0,00.
According to T-TEST again, between first visit expectation and previous visit, again there
is a significant difference. This indicates that there is a tendency to pay more attention to
intangible resources of the city for next visits.
Festivals- First visit t: 4,147 – Sig: 0,04
Historical buildings – First visit t: 6,203 – Sig: 0,01
Old palaces and fortresses – First visit t: 8,288 – Sig: 0,00
Art – Previous visit t: 4,080 – Sig: 0,02
5
FACTOR ANALYSIS
An exploratory factor analysis was performed to see whether there is a clear
distinguish between tangible and intangible resources.
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0,60
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 2.331,49df 528,00Sig. 0,00
Table 5: KMO and Barlett’ s Test
First, we looked at KMO and Barlett’s test to indicate that our results are adequate
enough to carry out this research and Barlett’s Test states that there is an overall correlation
between the items that allows us to carry out factor analysis.
5
Variables / Commonalities ExtractionAtmosphere of the city 0,604Accommodation 0,714
Cuisine 0,79Dining facilities 0,769
Language 0,447
Smellscape 0,863
Soundscape 0,861Legend 0,603Traditions 0,683
Bazaars 0,665Festivals 0,659Nightlife 0,845Nightclubs 0,811
Films 0,727
Books and poems 0,708
Museums 0,689
Libraries 0,53Art 0,653Music 0,595Songs 0,751Souvenirs 0,735Handicrafts 0,636
Well-known roads 0,579
Religious places 0,679
Historical buildings 0,697
Old palaces and fortress 0,759
Architecture 0,696
5
Religion 0,686Shopping facility 0,375
Dances 0,559Bosporus 0,581
Table 6: Commonality Among Variables
After applying factor analysis, shopping facilities and language were under 0.5 that
means that they have low commonalities when we compare them with the rest of the
variables. So, they were extracted from the variables and the test carried out without these two
variables.
5
Rotated Component Matrix / Varimax Rotation
Variables1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Cronbach's Alpha
Old palaces and fortress
0,816
Historical places 0,731Historical buildings
0,749
Architecture 0,606
Religious places 0,653
Intangible and tangible aspects 0,209
Atmosphere of the city
0,646
Religion 0,617
Libraries 0,482
Bosporus -0,46
Nightlife 0,896
Entertainment 0,894Nightclubs 0,877
Museums 0,734
Cultural activities 0,584
Art 0,731
Traditions 0,491
Festivals 0,431
Cuisine 0,832
Tourism services 0,679Dining facilities 0,831
Accommodation 0,639
Soundscape 0,921Feeling of the city 0,835
Smellscape 0,876
Souvenirs 0,74
Antiques 0,596Hammams and baths
0,64
Handicrafts 0,598
5
Traditional dress 0,697
Traditions 0,456Dances 0,628
Songs 0,791
Literature 0,613Books and Poems
0,567
Music 0,462
Bazaars 0,779 0,47
Legend 0,626
Films 0,825
0,332Well-known roads
0,459
Total 6,399
Table 7 : Factor Analysis for the dimensions of the tangible and intangible variables.The results show that the tangible and intangible resources of the
city can be categorized in eleven dimensions which are Old Palaces and
Fortresses, Historical Buildings and Architecture in a group that is named
as historical places, Religious Places, Atmosphere of the city, Religion,
Libraries and Bosporus in another group that is named as intangible and
tangible resources, Nightlife and Nightclubs in a group that is called
entertainment and so on. From the table, Cronbach’s Alpha rate indicates
that some of the dimensions have low reliability due to the fact that it is
just an explatory factor analysis and that is to say, it is difficult to come up
a single definition. However, most of the dimensions have higher alpha
rate and shows that there is a mix of tangible and intangible resources.
Shortly, it is difficult to separate tangible and intangible resources.
LIMITATIONS
A few limitations of the study should be addressed. First, the time is
the major limitation of the research. We could reach our sample only in the
5
spring season at the end of April. If the time limitation was eliminated, a
larger sample could be aimed. Another limitation is that we only targeted
four European leisure tourists that are German, French, Spanish and
English. We also did nonprobability sampling that is to say we could not
represent our population well. Another major limitation of our research is
that we reached only the tourists who were currently in the Sultanahmet
area. Lastly, the survey was found long by the tourists.
IMPLICATIONS, FURTHER RESEARCHES AND CONCLUSION
After doing various analyses once again it is seen that tangible and
intangible resources are as ICOMOS (2008) states, two sides of the same
coin, both carry meaning and help store in memory of humanity’s past.
Furthermore, both tangible and intangible resources rely on each other
when it comes to understand meanings and importance of each
individually. Moreover,
Smith (2006) states that the tangible can only be understood and
interpreted through the intangible. While considering the importance of
tangible resources, the intangible ones support cultural identity and
desirability of its preservation to recognize cultural diversity from the
perception of tourists. The results of our tests supported these which were
5
written in the literature review and we come up again the same result that
is according to grouping of the variables from the analysis, it is not
possible to distinguish between tangible and intangible resources.
From managerial implications that we get from our findings,
Bosporus scene, cuisine, old palaces and fortresses, historical buildings
and architecture are very important factors in terms of choosing Istanbul
as a tourism destination. These first five important factors give us a clue
on how to promote Istanbul.
When it comes to demographic factors, according to the results,
except the marital status and income level, there is a significant difference
among age groups, nationality, gender, first visit and educational level
and that make sense in the promotional purposes.
Last implication of our findings from previous visit results, shows that
tourists who have visited Istanbul for the first time, want to visit old
palaces and fortresses and historical buildings and festivals. However, if it
is their second or third visit, the t test analysis indicates that they give
more importance to art.
Finally, for further research, a larger sample size which would be
more representative of the population can be used. Besides, this research
may be done including all purposes of the travel not only for the leisure. In
addition to these, the research may be done for more nationalities not
only focusing on four nationalities, for example; we could add Chinese
tourists to our target market because China is a growing market in
Istanbul and their responses could change the implications on how to
promote Istanbul. The research could also cover people who have not
5
come to Istanbul yet, so we can see the difference between these two
groups in terms of their perceptions in choosing Istanbul as a tourism
destination. Lastly, we only did explatory factor analysis and our findings
were not hundred percent reliable. Confirmatory factor analysis may be
used to develop the research and to confirm the dimensions of the scale.
REFERENCES
Ashworth, G., J., (1992), Is there an urban tourism, Tourism Recreation Research.
Vol. No.172. pp. 3-8.
Bağlı, H., Öğüt, Ş., (2009), Towards an Analysis of the Signs of the 'Unknown':
Objects with Rituals in Turkish Culture, Vol.12 No. 3 Pp. 365-382.
Barutcugil, H. (2009) “Ebru Sanati”. In Bilgili, Ahmet E. (Ed.), Istanbul Kültür
Turizm. İstanbul: TC Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı İl Müdürlüğü.
5
Bayir, D. (2009). Istanbul’da Kutuphanelerimiz ve Kutuphaneciligimiz”. In Bilgili,
Ahmet E. (Ed.), Istanbul Kültür Turizm. İstanbul: TC Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı İl
Müdürlüğü.
Baytin, C, Canbay Turkyilmaz, C, Kıran, A, & Tunbis, M. (2003). İstanbul -
Bosphorus as Our Cultural Heritage, the Process of Change Over Time. Proceedings of the
XIX CIPA Symposium. http://cipa.icomos.org/ANTALYA.html
Beyazıt, E. & Tosun, Y. (2006). Evaluating Istanbul in the Process of European
Capital of Culture 2010”. 42nd ISoCaRP Congress 2006
Briassoulis, H.( 2002). Sustainable Tourism and the Question of the Commons.
Annals of Tourism Research,Vol.29. No.4. pp.1065-1085.
Burtensaw, D., Bateman, M., Ashworth, G.J. (1991). The European City, A Western
Perspective. London, Wiley.
Cadwallader, M. (1976). Cognitive distance in intraurban space. In G. T. Moore & R.
G. Golledge( Eds.) Environmental knowing: Theories, research, and methods.Stroudsburg,
PA: Dowden, Hutchhinson & Ross. Pp. 275- 284.
Crompton, J., Um, S. (1990), Attitude Determinants in Tourism Destination Choice,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 17. Pp. 432-448.
Crouch, G., Rithchie, B. (2003), Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism
Perspective, Cabi Publishing 1st Edition.
Day, Christopher. Spirit and Place: Healing Our Environment. London: Architectural
Press, 2002.
Demirci, K. 2006. Istanbulda Inanc Turizmi ve Onemi. Istanbul Kültür Turizm 2008
Değerlendirmesi. Pp. 335-337.
Dökmeci,V,Balta,N.(1999)European Planning Studies, 1469-5944, Vol. 7. No.1. Pp.
99 – 109.
5
Düzgün,D. (2010). Life in İstanbul I Karagöz, The Turkish Shadow Play. Atatürk
Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, Vol. 17 No. 43. Retrived March
29,2011 from
http://e-dergi.atauni.edu.tr/index.php/taed/article/view/2688/2672
Echtner, C. M. and Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991). The meaning and measurement of
destination image. Journal of Travel Studies, Vol. 2. No.2.
Enlil, Z., Dincer, I., Evren, Y. and Seckin, E. (2008), ‘‘Spatial strategies for the
promotion of cultural industries in Istanbul: opportunities and challenges’’, paper presented at
the 5th International Conference on Cultural Policy Research, Yeditepe University, Istanbul,
August.
de Freitas, C. (2001). Theory, Concepts and Methods in Tourism Climate Research.
Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Climate, Tourism and Recreation, Porto
Carras, Neos Marmaras, Halkidiki, Greece. Pp. 3–20.
Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of The Creatice Class. New york: Basic Books.
Garrioch, D. (2003). Sounds of the City: The Soundscape of Early Modern European
Towns. Urban History V.30. Pp. 5-25
Getz, D. (2002), Capacity to Absorb Tourism: Concepts and Implications for Strategic
Planning, Annals of Tourism Research. Vol 10. No. 2. 1983, Pp. 239-263.
Glancey, J. (29 March 2003). Bright Lights, Big City. The Guardian.
Goodwin, G. (2006). The Private World of Ottoman Women. London: Saqi Books.
Gössling, S. and Hall, C. M. (2005). Tourism and Global Environmental Change:
Environmental, Economic, Social and Political Interrelationships. London. Routledge.
Gunn, C., (1988). Vacationscape: Designing Tourist regions, 2nd Edition, NY: Van
Nostrand Rinhold.
5
Guthrie, J., and P. Gale. 1991 Positioning Ski Areas. In New Horizons Conference
Proceedings. Calgary: University of Calgary. Pp. 551–569.
Hall, C. M., Sharples, L., Mitchell R., Macionis, N., Cambourne, B. (2003), Food
Tourism Around the World, Vol. 1.
Halman, T. S. (1997). İstanbul Poems. Retrieved March 29,2011 from
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20343890.html
Henriques, C. João,M. 2008. Folk Dancing, Tourism and Identity. A Relationship in
(de)construction? In: 16th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium:
‘Finding the spirit of place – between the tangible and the intangible’.
ICOMOS, (2008) 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium.
Inskeep, E. 1991 Tourism Planning: An Integrated and Sustainable Development
Approach. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Jackowski, A. And Smith, V. L.(1992). Polish Pilgrim Tourists. Annals of Tourism
Research. Vol.19. pp. 92-106.
Jenkins, O. H.( 1999). Understanding and Measuring Tourist Destination Image.
International Journal of Tourism Research 1. Pp. 1–15.
Joliffe, J., (2003), The lure of Tea, Tourism Around the World, Vol:1.
Kabil, I. (2009), Istanbul ve Sinama, In Bilgili Ahmet E. (Ed.), İstanbul Kültür
Turizm. Istanbul: TC Kultur ve Turizm Bakanlığı Il Müdürlüğü.
Karlığa, B. (2009), Şehirlilik Ruhu ve Medeniyet Şuuru, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı
Yayınları.
Kerimoglu, E., (2004), Urban Tourism: An Analysis of visitors to Istanbul, Istanbul
Technical University, Institute of Science, Istanbul.
5
Kirshenblatt- Gibmlett, B. (2004) Worl Heritage and Cultural Economies: Intangible
Heritage as Metacultural Productin. Vol. 54. No: 1-2.
Kunzmann, K. R. (2004). Culture, Creativity and Special Planning. Abercrombie
Lecture, Liverpool University/ Department of Civic Design.
Kuzgun, et al (2010), Perception Regarding İstanbul as a European Capital of Culture.
Landry, C. (2000). The Creativity City; A Toolkit For Urban Innovators. London:
Comedia/ Earthscan.
Law R, Au N. 2000. Tourism Management. Relationship Modeling in Tourism
Shopping: A Decision Rules Induction. Vol. 21. Pp. 241-249.
Lin,C. H., Morais, D.B. (2008), The Spatial Clustering Effect of Destination
Distribution on Cognitive Distance Estimates and Its Impact on Tourists’ Destination
Choices, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol. 25 Pp. 3-4.
Lott, E.( 1865). Harem life in Egypt and Costantinople. Vol. 1. London.
Mansfeld, Y., Pizam, A. (1999), Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism, The
Haworth Hospitality Press, Vol. 1.
Martinson, S.D., & Schulz, R.A. (2008). Transcultural German Studies. Pp. 239
Maxwell, V. 2008 İstanbul City Guide. Lonely Planet. Pp 19-20.
Melville, L. 1925. Lady Mary Wortkey Montagu: Her Life and Letters (1689-
1762).London: Hutchinson& Co. Paternoster Row.
Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability – New Tourism in the
Third World. London: Routledge.
Necipoğlu, N. (2001). Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and
Everyday Life. Pp. 89.
5
Newmann, P.(2005). Cultural regeneration, tourist and city government. In
Kucukcekmece Municipality Publication (Eds). Istanbul 2004 International Urban
Regeneration Symposium: Workshop of Kucukcekmece District. Istanbul. Pp. 63-69.
Olsen, D.H. and Timothy, D.J. (1999). Tourism 2000: Seliing the Millenium. Tourism
Management. Vol:20. Pp: 389-392.
Orga, A. (2008). İstanbul: Poetry of Place.
Pearce, P., (1982), The Social Psychology of tourist behaviour, Oxford: Pergamon.
Pearce, P., (1993), Fundamentals of tourist motivation, ed. Tourism Research:
Critiques and Challenges, London: Routledge, 113.
Pearce, D. 1989 Tourist Development (2nd Edition). Essex: Longman.
Potuoğlu-Cook, Ö. 2006. Beyond the Glitter: Belly Dance and Neoliberal
Gentrification in Istanbul. Cultural Anthropology. Vol. 21. No 4. pp 633–660.
Sahin, S. & Baloglu, S. (2011). Brand Personality and Destination Image of
İstanbul. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 22, Pp. 69-
88.
Sealy, W., Wickens, E. (2008), Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 24. Pp.
2-3.
Scott, A.J. (2000). The Cultural Economy Of Cities. London: Pion.
Smith, K. (1993) The influence of weather and climate on recreation and tourism.
Weather. Vol. 48. No. 12. Pp. 398–403.
Smith, L.(2006). Uses of Heritage. Edition Published by Taylor and Francis e-
Library.NY.
Stansfield, C., and J. Rickert 1970 The Recreational Business District, Annals of
Tourism Researche, Vol. 20.
5
Timothy DJ. 2005. Shopping Tourism, Retailing and Leisure. Channel View:
Clevedon, UK.
Timothy DJ, Butler RW. 1995. Cross-border shopping: a North American perspective.
Annals of Tourism Research Vol.22. Pp. 16–34.
Timothy, D. And Olsen, D. 2006. Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys. Pp.285-
287
Tokac, M. S. (2009). Istanbul ve Müzik. In Bilgili, Ahmet E. (Ed.), Istanbul Kültür
Turizm. İstanbul: TC Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı İl Müdürlüğü.
Tosun, N. C., Özturk, Z. & Özpınar, C. (2009). Istanbul’daki Yabancı Kültür
Kuruluşları. In Bilgili, Ahmet E. (Ed.). Istanbul Kültür Turizm. İstanbul: TC Kültür ve
Turizm Bakanlığı İl Müdürlüğü.
Uraz, A. (2007).Culture for Regenerating Cities: what can Istanbul learn from the
European Capitals of Culture Glasgow 1990 and Lille 2004? MA Thesis: Erasmus University
of Rotterdam.
http://www.uptake.com/blog/turkey/istanbul-2010-ecoc_8355.html#ixzz1GajrkVQS
http://www.turizm.net/cities/istanbul/museums.html (Access on 27/03/2011)
http://istanbul2010culture.com/category/tourism/ (Access on 27/03/2011)
http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/belge/2-19941/istanbul.html (Access on 27/03/2011)