The Altamira controversy: Assessing the economic impact of a world heritage site for planning and tourism management

G Model CULHER-3273; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS Journal of Cultural Heritage xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Available online at

ScienceDirect www.sciencedirect.com

Original article

The Altamira controversy: Assessing the economic impact of a world heritage site for planning and tourism management Eva Parga Dans a,b,∗ , Pablo Alonso González c a

Group of Territorial Studies (GET), Sociology Faculty, University of A Coru˜ na, Campus de Elvi˜ na, 15071 A Coru˜ na, Spain CICS.NOVA, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, avenue de Berna, 26-C, 1069-061 Lisbon, Portugal Instituto de Productos Naturales y Agrobiología (IPNA-CSIC), Avda. Astrofísico Francisco Sánchez, 3, 38206 San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife–Islas Canarias, Spain b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 10 April 2017 Accepted 13 September 2017 Available online xxx Keywords: Altamira world heritage site Cultural heritage Social value Input-output analysis

a b s t r a c t This paper is the first report of a large research project for the preventive conservation and tourism management of the Altamira World Heritage site that was conducted from 2012 to 2014 and focused on a key feature of the project estimating the potential economic impacts of reopening the Altamira cave to the public. The study analyzed the direct and indirect economic impacts of visitors to Altamira on the regional economy of Cantabria, a Spanish Autonomous Community. Using an input-output method (IO), we estimated the values accrued to the region. This study provides the scientific foundation for the development of an effective tourism management program for the Altamira Complex, analyzing the impact of its access regime and offering policy recommendations on the broader regional economic impact of Altamira. © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This paper is the first delivery of a large research project entitled Programa de Investigación para la Conservación Preventiva y Régimen de Acceso a la Cueva de Altamira, 2012–2014 (Research Program for the Preventive Conservation of and Access Regime for the Altamira Cave, 2012–2014, or PROALT)1 conducted by the Government of Spain’s State Secretariat for Culture and Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (MECD). The project’s overall objective is to estimate the impact of human presence upon the conservation of Altamira Cave, a paleolithic-era cave that was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1985. The cave has been closed and reopened in various occasions during the last four decades, and it was again closed temporary to the public in 2012 out of concern for the impact visitors were having on the prehistoric paintings in the cave. This project therefore seeks to determine whether the effective conservation of Altamira is compatible with the implementation of a

∗ Corresponding author at: Corresponding author. Group of Territorial Studies ˜ Campus de Elvina, ˜ 15071, A Coruna, ˜ (GET), Sociology Faculty, University of A Coruna, Spain. E-mail addresses: [email protected] ( E. Parga Dans), [email protected] (P. Alonso González). 1 PROALT: Programa de Investigación para la Conservación Preventiva y Régimen de Acceso a la Cueva de Altamira, 2012-2014. Project website: http://ipce. mcu.es/portada/destacado68.html.

tourism management plan and visitor regime if these are articulated through a preventive conservation plan. This paper focuses on an essential part of that project, namely, estimating the potential economic benefits of reopening the cave by studying the direct and indirect economic impact of visitors on the regional economy of the Autonomous Community of Cantabria, where the Altamira Cave is located (see Fig. 1). The so-called “Altamira Complex” (AC) is a set of heritage assets and institutions that comprise the National Museum and Altamira Research Center, the original Cave and the Neocueva (Neo-cave), a precise, scientifically accurate three-dimensional reproduction of the original cave [1] (see Fig. 2). As a result of our investigation (2012 to 2014), a phase of experimental visits to the Cave was initiated under a controlled access regime in which a group of five random visitors were allowed entry per week under strict clothing and lighting protocols to facilitate the study (see Fig. 3). The information gathered in this investigation is intended to facilitate the development of policy guidelines and generate recommendations for mitigating and/or resolving the controversy that has surrounded Altamira and confronted its stakeholders for years. Here, as in most heritage projects, the range of stakeholders spans the local community of Santillana del Mar, scientists, curators, politicians and tourism operators as well as all classes of visitors [2]. The Altamira Cave has become famous worldwide when it was fortuitously discovered in 1868 and the controversy about its authenticity ensued. That history was brought to the big screen in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.09.007 1296-2074/© 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González, The Altamira controversy: Assessing the economic impact of a world heritage site for planning and tourism management, Journal of Cultural Heritage (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.09.007

G Model CULHER-3273; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González / Journal of Cultural Heritage xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

2

Fig. 1. Location of the Altamira Cave in the autonomous community of Cantabria, Spain. The authors.

Hugh Hudson’s latest film (2016), starring Spanish actor Antonio Banderas, which told how the Cave’s discovery and its authenticity were called a sham by researchers and scholars for decades. It was not until 1902, that a French study confirmed that the paintings were indeed of prehistoric origin. That conclusion positioned Altamira as a unique archaeological, historical and cultural material testimony of the Upper Paleolithic Era. Since then, Altamira has become an icon for those seeking to understand the origins of humanity and art through paintings and engravings dating back 15,000 years. Not surprisingly, Altamira also became a major tourist destination. In the 1970s, Altamira attracted more than 150,000 visitors per year, 2 especially because of the excellent quality and condition of its paintings. Indeed, Altamira is now considered a masterpiece of human artistic expression that is nicknamed the “Sistine Chapel of European Rock Art” owing to the paintings’ large format, use of shapes and three-dimensional effects [3]. After Altamira was officially recognized by the scientific community, the number of visitors grew steadily, until it became necessary to restrict access to the cave and implement a conservation program. The cave was temporarily closed for the first time in 1977, after scientists warned about the deterioration of the paintings due to the body heat and expelled breath of visitors, which had raised CO2 levels inside the cave (see Table 1). The cave reopened in 1982 with a quota that limited access to 11,300 visitors each year, resulting in a waiting list up to three years long. The cave was again temporary closed to the public in 2002 because of the appearance of green mold on the paintings, similar to that found in the prehistoric Lascaux Cave, in France. This damage was attributed to body heat, artificial lighting and humidity fluctuations in the cave due to the presence of visitors. In 2001, the Museum and “Neo-cave” opened, allowing visitors an alternative form of access. Nowadays, even with the original cave closed to the public, the

2 http://museodealtamira.mcu.es/Informacion Institucional/cifras.html, tics from the Museum of Altamira.

Statis-

Table 1 Chronology of main events in the history of Altamira. Year

Event

1868 1902

Discovery of Altamira Acknowledgement of the authenticity of the cave after the publication of Émile Cartaihac’s La grotte d’Altamira. Mea culpa d’un sceptique in the journal L’Antropologie [54] Cave opened to the public Cave declared a Spanish National Monument Altamira reaches 174,000 visitors per year First temporary closure of the cave for conservation purposes Creation of the National Museum and Research Center of Altamira, as a scientific and administrative institution responsible for managing and conserving the site Controlled reopening of the cave, with 11,300 visitors/year Altamira Cave declared a World Heritage Site New headquarters of the National Museum and Research Center of Altamira and the Neo-cave opens Second temporary closure of the cave Agreement with CSIC (Spanish National Research Council) to investigate the state of conservation of the cave and define an accessibility protocol CSIC studies advise maintaining the closure of the cave PROALT launched Cave reopens under a strict regime of controlled experimental visits

1917 1924 1973 1977 1979

1982 1985 2001 2002 2007

2010 2012 2014 The authors.

Altamira Complex manages to attract an average of 250,000 visitors a year, making it one of the most-visited Spanish museums and a key driver of regional development through tourism (see Fig. 4). Despite these measures, the debate about the impact of human presence on the paintings’ conservation was never resolved, with different scientific and non-scientific stakeholders taking different positions on whether or not to reopen the original cave. This controversy led the Spanish Government to launch PROALT in 2012 to lay the scientific foundations for a program that would ensure the adequate conservation of the cave and define a visitor access regime that guaranteed the preservation

Please cite this article in press as: E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González, The Altamira controversy: Assessing the economic impact of a world heritage site for planning and tourism management, Journal of Cultural Heritage (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.09.007

G Model CULHER-3273; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González / Journal of Cultural Heritage xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

3

Fig. 2. Top, left: The Neo-cave. Above-right. Original paintings. Bottom: The National Museum and Altamira Research Center. The authors.

of this unique heritage feature. The project includes a team of 48 professionals from various academic institutions and public agencies specializing in heritage conservation and comprises five subprojects:

• • • • •

environmental monitoring; biodeterioration control; preservation of the support and polychromatics; accessibility; study of the social value of this heritage site, within which this economic impact study is framed.

The final subproject was incorporated because of a belief that the social sciences should play a key role in heritage valorization and management optimization processes, and also to provide policy recommendations regarding Altamira’s broader social impact. This paper is organized as follows. It first presents our theoretical standpoint based on cultural economics and heritage studies, and then describes the methodology employed using IO analysis. The presentation of results underpins our final sections on policy implications and conclusions.

2. Research aim As part of the investigation carried out by the PROALT project, the main aim was to conduct an economic impact study to ensure adequate tourism management and the effective conservation of the Altamira World Heritage site. This resulted in a series of strategic measures aimed at preserving what Greffe [4] defines as a balance of heritage “ecosystems”, based on two key factors/the “objective” state of conservation of heritage features; and the “subjective” appreciation different actors have of those heritage features and their willingness to preserve and pay for heritage services and experiences. However, the research has generally used categories of analysis for general heritage issues that are too broad [5,6], focused on public institutions and return on investment [7,8], on the “subjective” side of visitor perspectives [9], or on the “objective” side of conservation (microbiological, ecological, physiological or geological studies) after the Lascaux caves preservation polemics, and beyond [10,11]. To address the shortcomings of these limited approaches, the PROALT project adopted a multidimensional, interdisciplinary approach using the concept of the cultural heritage value chain [12] as an integrative framework for investigating and managing heritage sites. The overarching aim was to understand:

Please cite this article in press as: E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González, The Altamira controversy: Assessing the economic impact of a world heritage site for planning and tourism management, Journal of Cultural Heritage (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.09.007

G Model CULHER-3273; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González / Journal of Cultural Heritage xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

4

Fig. 3. Experimental visits to the original Altamira Cave. The authors.

Fig. 4. Number of visitors to museums managed by the Spanish Ministry of Culture in 2007. The authors, based on data from the report: conociendo a nuestros visitantes. Estudio de públicos en museos del Ministerio de Cultura [52].

• • • •

the conservation of the cave from a scientific standpoint; the social value of Altamira as a heritage site; the visitor experience on-site at the Altamira Complex; the economic impacts of Altamira, which are the focus of this paper.

3. Theory Owing to increasing public interest, heritage is no longer just the concern of state agendas promoting national identity, culture and citizenship; it is now perceived as a stimulant for economic activity and driver of economic development [13]. Aside from cultural capital [14], tourism is generally seen as the main economic impetus of heritage economics [7]. However, tourism development can be controversial, as it is often regarded as detrimental to the environment and unfavorable for sustainability. There is also skepticism about the economic benefits of heritage tourism, mainly regarding the (low) quality and (short) duration of employment [15] and the ability of tourism to help close the gap between more marginal rural regions such as Cantabria and Spain’s more developed urban areas. Moreover, sites like Altamira also suffer from the massive influx of

tourists. For these reasons, there is a need to assess the pros and cons of exhibiting the site for tourists, comparing the demand for an authentic visitor experience with the overall impact on local, regional and national economies. Thus, the economic evaluation of heritage has become a central issue both in heritage economics broadly and for the PROALT project in particular. The problem, however, is that the historic and cultural aspects of heritage can only be imperfectly accounted for in standard economic analyses [16]. The field of cultural economics has viewed heritage as a form of cultural capital: a common stock of wealth accumulated over time and giving rise to new services that generate income [17,18]. Further positive effects of heritage-related investments and activities such as museums and archaeological sites include the long-term stability of local economies and communities in the provision of tourism services and the potential for the development of secondary services and economies at the regional level [6]. These factors may have a positive impact in economic, social, and ecological terms, but they require a consensus-based approach and the effective deployment of heritage resources [19]. Museums are among the most representative of heritage institutions, especially when associated with a heritage site, such as the Altamira World

Please cite this article in press as: E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González, The Altamira controversy: Assessing the economic impact of a world heritage site for planning and tourism management, Journal of Cultural Heritage (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.09.007

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

CULHER-3273; No. of Pages 10

E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González / Journal of Cultural Heritage xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Heritage Site. Museums are not only perform different activities; they also centralize knowledge and culture, and serve as host areas for visitors, representing ideal sites for analyzing economic performance [20]. Altamira is a good case study on the emerging need museums have been facing in recent decades to undergo major transformations due to changing patterns in the governance of public institutions, scientific and visitor demands, increasing competition and shifts in museum management. This situation has led museums and heritage sites to analyze and justify their economic impacts, and museum economics has become a thriving field that addresses many aspects, including visitor experiences, economic impacts and pricing policies [21–23]. Economic impact studies have approached the value of heritage from two main perspectives. The first involves estimating the different types of heritage, including museums, archaeological sites and historic city centers all goods that cannot be assigned a market price as they are not commodities traded like other goods. A second approach attempts to quantify the positive impacts of heritage investment on local and regional economies in terms of revenues, jobs and services. Such analysis involves exploring ancillary features and spillovers from heritage investment at various scales [24]. The second is the focus of this investigation, and responds to the demands of policy-makers, entrepreneurs and cultural civil servants and academics to estimate the potential economic effects of their decisions on heritage sites at other scales and dimensions. Because many intra-institutional assessments of the economic impact of heritage can be exaggerated [6], the study implemented by PROALT adopted a multidisciplinary approach that also included analyses of the value of conservation and visitor experiences, as well as the social value of the cave, in addition to the strictly economic analysis presented here. PROALT is therefore of obvious interest for estimating the economic value of heritage conservation and will be crucial for policy-making for Altamira, as it will document the social and economic benefits that justify the enormous economic cost of preserving the cave as well as the social costs of keeping it open.

4. Methodology 4.1. Research setting and data analysis Using an input-output method (IO), we aim to estimate the economic impact, both direct and indirect, derived from the values accrued to the AC. We aim to show how these benefits might justify further investments in the preservation of the cave, and lay a stronger foundation for formulating more effective management policies for the site. IO models assess the impact of economic activities associated with investments, visitor expenditure, revenues from museums and secondary goods and services consumed by final users, including hotels and restaurants associated with the heritage site at a given point in time [25]. Weaknesses of this model include a general equilibrium approach that assumes linearity in production and consumption, and the existence of unused or underused resources, conveying an idea of stability [26–28]. This weakness is also a strength from a policy-making perspective, as it provides a stable, ideal view of the economic impact by revealing existing sectoral interdependencies among consumption, production and tourism, tracing which inputs are combined to produce outputs, and how this occurs [29]. The IO methodology has been widely employed in tourism studies [30]. More recently, it has begun being used in cultural heritage valuation to show the substantial benefits of heritage for both visitors and non-visitors. Some of these studies have included economic impact analyses for tangible World Heritage Sites such as Grand Pré and Blaenavon [31,32], monuments and artifacts [33],

5

Fig. 5. Formula used for Simple Random Sampling. Calculation of the sample size (n) for finite populations (f < 0.05), taking into account a 95% confidence level (z), the population size (N), maximum population variability (p = q = 0.5), and assuming a 3% sampling error (E). Bryman [53].

Table 2 Sample size and representative periods for visit cycles.

1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase Total

N

%

Period

482 397 188 1067

45.2 37.2 17.6 100

06/08/13–11/08/13 08/10/13–13/10/13 18/02/2014–23/02/2014 12 months/1 year

Compiled by the authors.

national parks and protected areas [30] and museum networks [34,35], and for intangible features and festivities [36]. In Spain, the methodology has also been widely applied to the Alhambra World Heritage Site in Granada [37,38] and to museums and regional museum networks [39,40]. These works build on previous developments in Spain aimed at facilitating the macro-economic study of tourism impact, given that this sector account for 11% of the country’s GPD. In 1992, for example, the government established the TIOT-92 (Input-Output Table for the Spanish Tourism Economy), then in 2005 the Spanish Statistical Office further developed the previous system and created Tourism Satellite Accounts. The methodological innovation and main advantage of this model lies is that it was designed to complement the main national accounts system to allow the impact of tourism on the national economy to be measured. The use of a standardized methodology also allows comparisons with other sectors and territories and the drawing of general conclusions [41]. Specifically, the Cantabrian Institute of Statistics (ICANE) has published the accounting format for the region since 2007 and provided projections up to 2011, which has made it possible to carry out this research. 4.2. Panel data and sampling In order to quantify the aggregate impact of visits to the AC, we designed a data collection strategy based on face-to-face surveys. The Direct Economic Impact (DEI) was estimated, following Stynes [42], in relation to: • • • •

the number of visitors the average length of stay the average expenditure per day the breakdown of expenditures into different categories.

These variables allowed us to estimate the economic impact in the region through the IO method. To obtain a representative sample we considered the number of visitors recorded by the museum during 2013, which amounted to 239,829 individuals. The sample was calculated using a simple random sampling procedure, which assumed that all visitors had the same probability of being selected for the sample (see Fig. 5). In total, 1067 valid surveys were carried out in three waves, taking into account the seasonality of visits (see Table 2), with 45.2% of

Please cite this article in press as: E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González, The Altamira controversy: Assessing the economic impact of a world heritage site for planning and tourism management, Journal of Cultural Heritage (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.09.007

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

CULHER-3273; No. of Pages 10

E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González / Journal of Cultural Heritage xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

6 Table 3 Delphi panel.

Institutions participating in the Delphi Panel

Number of specialists 2

Laboratorio Permanente de Públicos de Museos (Permanent Laboratory of museum audiences, Ministry of Culture) Board of directors of the Altamira complex

2

Institute of heritage sciences (Incipit-CSIC)

4

Research centers affiliated with PROALT

2

Private companies specializing in heritage and culture research Total

4 14

Compiled by the authors.

the surveys conducted in the high season and the remaining 54.8% in the low season (final quarter of 2013 and first quarter of 2014). 4.3. Survey design and administration The survey was designed with a personal approach involving a structured questionnaire with a list of questions with a range of formalized, standard response options; however, it also included a section for observations that allowed respondents to provide spontaneous, open-ended answers and comments. The questionnaire itself was developed through a Delphi panel (see Table 3) of 14 specialists in order to achieve consensus on the content and structure [43]. Those experts participated in a series of work sessions, first to identify key themes, and then to develop the question format and types of responses. Once a draft questionnaire was agreed upon, the final document was validated via an email discussion among the specialists. The contents of the questionnaire were structured around five thematic blocks: • • • • •

motive and experience of the visit; level of satisfaction; trip information; information on visitor expenditure; visitor’s profile.

The questionnaire was aimed at visitors over 18 years of age and was tested beforehand to ensure it would take no more than ten minutes to complete. Visitors were interviewed personally by professional interviewers after completing their visit to the museum. Before conducting the fieldwork, we held briefing sessions with the interviewers to provide specific information about the project, study its objectives and questionnaires, and resolve potential concerns about the content and/or practical aspects of the survey.

In terms of those surveyed, we established quotas to ensure an adequate proportion of individuals in different age and sex brackets, and avoided interviewing individuals from the same group or family unit in order to suppress distortions in the representativeness of the results. In addition, to encourage the participation of all visitor profiles, the questionnaire was conducted in three languages: Spanish, English and French. Once the procedures were established, we used the first few hours of fieldwork as a test or pilot experience, observing the reactions of the first subsample of respondents, enabling adjustments and corrections, recording incidents and resolving concerns. After this preparation, the surveys were conducted in 2013 and 2014 and amassed a total of 1067 valid cases. These data allowed us to quantify the aggregate impact of visits to the AC and to estimate its economic impact in the region of Cantabria.

5. Results The results of the museum walk survey reveal that the AC attracts a significant number of visitors to Cantabria. In fact, for 30% of the population surveyed, the AC visit was the single most determining factor in their trip, while for the remaining 60% it was a very relevant factor. This trend is corroborated by an analysis of the history of visits to the AC (see Fig. 6). Since the opening of the Neo-cave in 2001, the annual number of visitors has remained above 230,000, surpassing the historical figure of 174,000 visits to the original cave recorded in 1973. According to the INE Hotel Occupation Survey, these figures represent, on average, about 26% of travelers staying in lodging establishments in Cantabria during that same period. As for the monthly distribution of annual total visits, the analysis reveals a high rate of tourism seasonality. The months of August, July and September (in that order) present the greatest influx, concentrating 45% of annual visits over the 2001–2013 period (see Fig. 7). August has highest number of visits, accounting for 19% of total annual visits, while January has the lowest, representing less than 2% of annual visits for the period considered. Average length of stay for visitors to the region was determined by including both tourists and hikers. Taking a conservative approach, the estimation assumed that the average number of days tourists remain in Cantabria coincides with the average length of stay in accommodation. Hikers (visitors not staying overnight) were asked about the length of their stay in Cantabria regardless of whether or not the region was their main destination. According to the survey results, visitors to the AC remained an average of 4.5 days in the region (see Table 4). Visitors’ average per capita expenditure was D 104.5 per day. Accommodation- and food-related costs account for most of the expenditure, representing together more than 63% of the total. In turn, expenses related to leisure, culture and entertainment represent 11% of the expenditure (see Table 5).

Fig. 6. Evolution of visitors to the Altamira Complex. Compiled by authors from data provided by the Museum of Altamira.

Please cite this article in press as: E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González, The Altamira controversy: Assessing the economic impact of a world heritage site for planning and tourism management, Journal of Cultural Heritage (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.09.007

G Model

ARTICLE IN PRESS

CULHER-3273; No. of Pages 10

E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González / Journal of Cultural Heritage xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

7

Fig. 7. Monthly distribution of visits to the Altamira Complex, 2001–2013. Compiled by authors from data provided by the Museum of Altamira.

Table 4 Visitors’ average length of stay in 2013. Visitors

Average overnight stay

Average # days

Tourists

3 .7

3 .7

Hikers

0

0 .8

Total

3 .7

4 .5

Compiled by the authors.

Table 5 Visitors’ average daily expenditure in 2013. Concept

D

(1) Accommodation (2) Meals (3) Transport (4) Shopping (5) Leisure, culture and entertainment Total

34.7 31.4 14.5 12.5 11.4 104.5

Compiled by the authors.

Table 6 Description of survey variables for DEI 2013. Variable

Description

Measurement scale

(1) Number of visitors

239,829 visitors recorded in 2013 4.5 days 104.5 D visitors’ average per capita expenditure

Numerical

(2) Average stay (3) Average expenditure per visitor per day DEI = 1 × 2 × 3

112.779.587 M D (113 MD )a

Numerical Numerical

Numerical

Compiled by the authors. a The estimate of the DEI for AC visitors in the Cantabria region was determined by establishing the average expenditure per day and average individual stay, and multiplying it by the total number of visitors [42].

From these data, we calculated the DEI of visitors to the AC as the average daily expenditure and average individual stay, and multiplying it by the total number of visitors, resulting in almost 113 M·D per year (see Table 6). This figure represents 8.5% of overall tourism GDP for Cantabria, which amounted to 1324 M·D , with 23,262 related jobs, in 2013. In turn, tourism as a whole represented

10.7% of the region’s total GDP, meaning that the AC contributed 0.9% of Cantabria’s overall GDP.3 To estimate the Indirect Economic Impact (IEI), in addition to the total effects derived from the expenditure of visitors to the AC, the study took into account-disaggregated information from productive sectors in Cantabria. Each sector receives the final demand directly and causes indirect effects in other sectors. The amounts provided are estimated at basic prices, that is to say, from the initial flows valued at acquisition prices, we have removed transport and trade margins, as well as certain net taxes on products. The initial figure for total visitor spending of D 112,779,587, obtained from the survey data, becomes a direct impact of D 90,419,537 on the Cantabrian economy once imports are deducted. The sum of the increases in demand for the quantification of IEI computes to 26 M·D , which implies a total economic impact of 1168 M·D for 2013 (see Table 7). The IO model allows us to relate the expenditure of visitors to the AC to different economic impacts in the region and to elaborate an expenditure vector, that is, a multiplier effect or drag effect on the potential opening of the original cave in Altamira, which was computed using Leontief’s model [44]. Based on the model’s general equilibrium assumption, the value of the output of each sector equals the value of the final output caused by visitors’ consumption. If X is the output vector of all industrial sectors and Y is the final demand vector, then the basic IO model is written as X = AX + Y and X = (I-A)-1 Y. The matrix (I - A)-1 is known as the multiplier matrix or the Leontief inverse, and each element of the matrix shows the direct and indirect changes in the output of each sector needed to meet a unit increase in the final demand for the output of each sector. In this case, the multiplier figure is 1.29, which means that every Euro spent by a visitor to the AC generates an additional demand of 29 cents in the region. For the sake of comparison, similar studies have estimated the multiplier effect of the Alhambra Monumental Complex at 1.36 [37]. 6. Discussion and policy implications The AC attracts a significant number of visitors and is a major factor in visitors’ decision to choose Cantabria as a tourist destination. According to the results of this study, visitors to the AC generate expenditures that greatly affect the regional economy regardless of the fact that access to the original cave is restricted. There is there-

3 http://exceltur.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/IMPACTUR-Cantabria-2013Santander-Nov14.pdf.

Please cite this article in press as: E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González, The Altamira controversy: Assessing the economic impact of a world heritage site for planning and tourism management, Journal of Cultural Heritage (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.09.007

G Model CULHER-3273; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González / Journal of Cultural Heritage xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

8

Table 7 Disaggregated direct and indirect impacts of visitors to the Altamira Complex in Cantabria (assessment at basic prices). Concept

DEI

IEI

Total impact

%

Accommodation services Food & beverage services Artistic, recreational, entertainment activities Rental Real estate activities Transport Retail trade Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply Administrative and auxiliary services Repair, other personal services Telecommunications Wholesale trade Advertising and market research; Other professional activities Agriculture, farming, forestry Other industries and services Total

36,349,669 31,891,226 10,609,620 2,868,176 0 899,164 1,451,630 146,237 44,194 394,872 780,481 0 0 750,873 4,233,395 90,419,537

804,571 419,502 1,508,605 710,411 2,826,031 1,569,801 675,077 1,686,994 1,742,000 1,268,517 815,253 1,580,608 1,258,889 496,763 9,057,921 26,420,945

37,154,240 32,310,728 12,118,225 3,578,587 2,826,031 2,468,965 2,126,707 1,833,231 1,786,194 1,663,389 1,595,734 1,580,608 1,258,889 1,247,636 13,291,316 116,840,482

31.80 27.65 10.37 3.06 2.42 2.11 1.82 1.57 1.53 1.42 1.37 1.35 1.08 1.07 11.38 100

Compiled by the authors based on the 2007 Cantabrian Input-Output Framework, its projection for 2011 through the EURO method, and the survey data collected by the authors.

fore no evidence to suggest that re-opening the original cave to the public would in itself amplify the economic effects derived from those visits. The opening of the original cave might increase the direct impact of visitor expenditures on the entry fee collected (D 3 overall fee) and would most surely lead to a substantial increase in aggregated expenditures due to the indirect economic impact per visitor in the region. However, a potential re-opening of the cave would be under strict control in terms of visitor numbers, limiting significantly the impact on expenditures per visitor and hence in aggregated expenditures. In other words, according to our investigation, prohibiting the large-scale entry of visitors to the cave (which would threaten its physical sustainability) would have no relevant effect on visitor figures in the region. In fact, data for the 1982–2002 period, when 11,300 visitors were allowed to enter the original cave yearly, do not show an associated increase in tourism in Cantabria compared to other years studied. According to ICANE data, overnight stays remained below 1 million until 1989, with an annual average growth of 2.5%. In 1998 and 1999, however, overnight stays witnessed a significant quantitative leap to over two million. Moreover, overnight stays have continued to grow since the closure of the original cave, currently amounting to 2.3 million hotel overnight stays [45]. Ultimately, then, the economic impact of the Altamira cave is more likely linked to non-market values of the site and its symbolic capital, that is, the willingness of national and international citizens to pay for the existence, option and bequest values of the site. This point has not been addressed here and should require further future research. In light of these results, the most advisable course of action for the effective management of the AC would be to develop a sustainability plan that guarantees the continuity, endowment and planning of economic, human and technical resources for the AC itself. To this end, the plan should establish a series of strategic and operational objectives in regard to audiences and impacts, revising visitor thresholds to address the issue of seasonality, and increasing overall visitor satisfaction levels [46]. In addition to the direct and indirect economic effects that visitors generate in the region through their spending, visitors have other positive side effects on the economy. These are often not immediate, but rather take place over the longer term through the creation of prestige, brand image, marketing, fame and/or international projection, which could be seen as a form of “cultural capital” associated with the cave generally [47]. The establishment of strategic sustainability plans via initiatives to reduce the high seasonality and consequent saturation of visitors in certain months, could lead to an overall increase in the number of visits, levels of satisfaction and loyalty, with the attendant effects on the economy of Cantabria as a whole.

Along this line, it will be important to develop an adequate communication strategy for the preventive conservation of the cave, both to assuage the confusion and controversy surrounding the issue and to raise awareness about the cave’s fragility and heritage value. This action would also respond to public demands for transparency and clarity, and would strengthen the uniqueness of the AC and reinforce its role in raising public awareness of heritage and its conservation.

7. Conclusion While the general conclusions of this study require caution, the analysis presented in this paper offers preliminary evidence on the effects of a heritage site and museum on the regional tourism economy of Cantabria. Our findings contribute to the literature on heritage and cultural economics [48,49] and on museum and visitor management [9,30]. The lack of previous research of this nature on the Altamira World Heritage Site makes this contribution unique, as no work has to date empirically analyzed the impact of public cultural policy on museum innovation, revenue generation and tourism impact in this site. This study has provided an estimation of the economic benefits that would result from a conservation program to preserve the Altamira cultural heritage site in Cantabria, and the associated policy implications. Our results show that the AC attracts a significant number of visitors and is a major factor in their decision to choose Cantabria as tourism destination. Most importantly for the ongoing scientific and public debate, this study reveals the lack of evidence that the re-opening of the original cave would have a significant economic impact in the region. Only a substantial increase in the number of visitors allowed to the original cave would have a relevant impact, but this would threaten the physical sustainability of the cave. A survey of research on the effects of culture on a regional economy has shown that political debate has been influenced by exaggerated estimates of the economic effects of culture, including cultural heritage. Indeed, many studies have not taken proper account of all effects, often focusing exclusively on the positive effects for the regional economy. Studies have also varied with regard to the concepts and variables used to measure the economic effects of investing in culture. The added scientific complexity in this case and the threat to the cave’s sustainability if it were kept open, has led to harsh public, political and scientific polemics and debates, but it is the aim of this paper to contribute empirical data to this discussion in hopes of preserving Altamira, both as a heritage site and as a tourism resource.

Please cite this article in press as: E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González, The Altamira controversy: Assessing the economic impact of a world heritage site for planning and tourism management, Journal of Cultural Heritage (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.09.007

G Model CULHER-3273; No. of Pages 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González / Journal of Cultural Heritage xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

The main limitation of this study has to do with the overall shortcomings of economic impact studies applied to the cultural field, which were already identified in the seminal work of Seaman [50]. Further accuracy could have been provided by gathering more quantitative data in order to distinguish between the expenditures of visitors to the Altamira Cave coming from within the region of Cantabria and those from outside the region. This would have allowed us to take into account the differences between the transfer effects of visitors to Cantabria and the net regional incomes for the final assessment. Similarly, future research should pay greater attention to the role of Altamira Cave in generating unique economic impacts, differentiating between the expenditures of two visitors’ profiles: those from outside the region who would not have visited Cantabria if it were not for Altamira, and those who would have visited Cantabria in any case, disregarding the existence of Altamira.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Secretary of State of Culture and the Ministry of Education and Culture Sports (MECD) of the Government of Spain; The Institute of Heritage Studies (Incipit-CSIC); the National Museum and Research Centre of Altamira and the Spanish national research project HAR2013-47889-C3-3-P: Poder central y poderes locales entre la antigüedad tardía y la Alta Edad Media, 400900 D.C. El Norte de Hispania y su contexto europeo. The authors thank the visitors that took part in this study and the collaborating institutions: International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), Dirección General de Bellas Artes y Patrimonio Cultural, Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute (IPCE), Subdirección General de Museos Estatales, University of Cantabria (UC), University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Complutense University of Madrid (UCM), University of Alcalá (UAH), Oxford University, ˜ de Meteorología (AEMET), Centro Nacional de Agencia Espanola Investigación sobre la Evolución Humana, (CENIEH) Permanent Laboratory of Public Museums, Edesga and Kultura.

References [1] P.F. Monforte, La cueva de Altamira y su museo: un caso extremo en la relación entre turismo y patrimonio. Paper presented at the El patrimonio arqueológico a debate: su valor cultural y económico: 7 y 8 de mayo de 2007, Huesca, 2009. [2] P. Howard, Heritage: management, interpretation, identity, Continuum, London; New York, 2003. ˜ [3] C. Schabereiter-Gurtner, C. Saiz-Jimenez, G. Pinar, W. Lubitz, S. Rölleke, Altamira cave Paleolithic paintings harbor partly unknown bacterial communities, FEMS Microbiol. Lett 211 (1) (2002) 7–11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2002.tb11195.x. [4] X. Greffe, Is heritage an asset or a liability? J. Cultur. Herit. 5 (3) (2004) 301–309, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2004.05.001. [5] P. Alonso González, A. Macías Vázquez, Between planning and heritage: cultural parks and national heritage areas, Eur. Spat. Res. Policy 21 (2) (2014) 33–46, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/esrp-2015-0003. [6] E. Bowitz, K. Ibenholt, Economic impacts of cultural heritage – Research and perspectives, J. Cultur. Herit. 10 (1) (2009) 1–8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2008.09.002. [7] M.M. Cernea, Cultural heritage and development: a framework for action in the Middle East and North Africa: the World Bank, 2001. [8] J. Tomaney, A. Pike, A. Rodríguez-Pose, Local and regional development in times of crisis, Environ. Plan. A 42 (4) (2010) 771–779, http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a43101. [9] B. Fernandes, A. Pedro, Visitor management and the preservation of rock art: two case studies of open air rock art sites in north eastern Portugal: Coa Valley and Mazouco, Conserv. Manag. Archaeolog. Sites 6 (2) (2004) 95–111, http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/135050304793137892. [10] F. Bastian, C. Alabouvette, Lights and shadows on the conservation of a rock art cave: the case of Lascaux Cave, Int. J. Speleol 38 (1) (2009) 55–60, http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1827-806X.38.1.6. [11] N. Stanley-Price, Conservation and management of prehistoric rock art sites on the world heritage list: a report on the Côa Valley international symposium, 1999, Conserv. Manag. Archaeol. Sites 4 (1) (2000) 47–58.

9

[12] F. Criado-Boado, Hacia un modelo integrado de investigación y gestión del Patrimonio Histórico: la cadena interpretativa como propuesta, P.H. 4 (16) (1996) 73–78. [13] H.Y. Keser, Culture economy for economic development: assesments on cultural heritage in turkey, Eur. Sci. J. 12 (28) (2016) 38–50. [14] D. Rypkema, C. Cheong, R. Mason, Measuring economic impacts of historic preservation, Advisory council on historic preservation, Washington, 2011. [15] A. Caffyn, J. Lutz, Developing the heritage tourism product in multi-ethnic cities, Tourism Manag. 20 (2) (1999) 213–221. [16] C. Ost, A Guide for heritage economics in historic cities, indicators, maps and policies, rapport de recherche, The Getty conservation institute, Los Angeles, 2009. [17] P. Alonso González, From a given to a construct: heritage as a commons, Cultural studies 28 (3) (2014) 359–390, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/09502386.2013.789067. [18] D. Throsby, Determining the value of cultural goods: how much (or how little) does contingent valuation tell us? J. Cultur. Econ. 27 (3–4) (2003) 275–285, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1026353905772. [19] G.J. Ashworth, Heritage, identity and places: for tourists and host communities, in: S. Shalini, D. Timothy, R.K. Dowling (Eds.), Tourism in destination communities, Cambridge, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, 2003, pp. 79–97 [USA: CABI]. [20] E. Vicente, C. Camarero, M.J. Garrido, Insights into innovation in european museums: the impact of cultural policy and museum characteristics, Pub. Manag. Rev. 14 (5) (2012) 649–679, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.642566. [21] B.S. Frey, Cultural economics and museum behaviour, Scott. J. Political Econ. 41 (3) (1994) 325–335, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9485.1994.tb01131.x. [22] P. Johnson, B. Thomas, The economics of museums: a research perspective, J. Cultur. Econ 22 (2–3) (1998) 75–85, http://dx.doi. org/10.1023/A:1007537500352. [23] J.W. O’hagan, National museums: to charge or not to charge? J. Cultur. Econ. 19 (1) (1995) 33–47, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01074431. Tuan, S. Navrud, Capturing the benefits of preser[24] T.H. ving cultural heritage, J. Cultur. Herit. 9 (3) (2008) 326–337, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2008.05.001. [25] C. Tisdell, C. Wilson, World heritage listing of australian natural sites: tourism stimulus and its economic value, Econ. Anal. Policy. 32 (2) (2002) 27–49, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0313-5926(02)50017-5. [26] B.H. Archer, Tourism and island economics: impact analyses, Prog. Tourism Recreation Hospitality. Manag. 1 (1989) 125–134. [27] L. Dwyer, P. Forsyth, R. Spurr, Evaluating tourism’s economic effects: new and old approaches, Tourism Manag. 25 (3) (2004) 307–317, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00131-6. [28] J.E. Fletcher, Input-output analysis and tourism impact studies, Ann. Tourism Res. 16 (4) (1989) 514–529, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(89)90006-6. Crompton, Economic impact studies: instruments for [29] J. shenanigans? J. Travel Res. 45 (1) (2006) 67–82, political http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287506288870. [30] A. C¸ela, S. Lankford, J. Knowles-Lankford, Visitor spending and economic impacts of heritage tourism: a case study of the Silos and smokestacks national heritage area, J. Herit. Tourism 4 (3) (2009) 245–256, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17438730802139269. [31] C. Jones, M. Munday, Blaenavon and United Nations world heritage site status: is conservation of industrial heritage a road to local economic development? Reg. Stud. 35 (6) (2001) 585–590, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343400120065741. [32] B. VanBlarcom, C. Kayahan, A. McLeod, Grand Pré: an economic impact assessment of a UNESCO world heritage designation, Acadia university, Wolfville, NS, 2009. [33] S. Navrud, R.C. Ready, Valuing cultural heritage: applying environmental valuation techniques to historic buildings, monuments and artifacts, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2002. [34] P. Dybedal, Economic impacts from tourism in counties in Northern Norway. Report 640, Institute of transport economics, Oslo, 2003. [35] C.H. Strauss, B.E. Lord, Economic impacts of a heritage tourism J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 8 (4) (2001) 199–204, system, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(00)00023-0. [36] M.J. del Barrio, M. Devesa, L.C. Herrero, Evaluating intangible cultural heritage: the case of cultural festivals, City Cult. Soc. 3 (4) (2012) 235–244, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2012.09.002. [37] M.M. Villafranca, V.E. Chamorro, Estudio de impacto económico del Conjunto Monumental de la Alhambra y Generalife en la Ciudad de Granada, Comares, Granada, 2007. [38] J.M. Viu, J.R. Fernández, J.S. Caralt, The impact of heritage tourism on an urban economy: the case of Granada and the Alhambra, Tourism Econ. 14 (2) (2008) 361–376, http://dx.doi.org/10.5367/000000008784460481. [39] A. Bedate, L.C. Herrero, J.Á. Sanz, Economic valuation of the cultural heritage: application to four case studies in Spain, J. Cultur. Herit. 5 (1) (2004) 101–111, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2003.04.002. [40] M.J. del Barrio, L.C. Herrero, J.Á. Sanz, Measuring the efficiency of heritage institutions: a case study of a regional system of museums in Spain, J. Cultur. Herit. 10 (2) (2009) 258–268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2008.08.012. ˜ [41] J. Prado Mascunano, De las tablas Imput-Output a las Cuentas Satélite de Tur˜ Estudios turísticos 148 (2001) 105–134. ismo en Espana, [42] D.J. Stynes, Approaches to estimating the economic impacts of tourism: some examples, Michigan state university, East Lansing, 1999.

Please cite this article in press as: E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González, The Altamira controversy: Assessing the economic impact of a world heritage site for planning and tourism management, Journal of Cultural Heritage (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.09.007

G Model CULHER-3273; No. of Pages 10 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González / Journal of Cultural Heritage xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

[43] C. Okoli, S.D. Pawlowski, The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications, Info. Manag. 42 (1) (2004) 15–29, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002. [44] H. Briassoulis, Methodological issues: tourism inputoutput analysis, Ann. Tourism Res. 18 (3) (1991) 485–495, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(91)90054-F. [45] ICANE, Encuestra de ocupación hotelera. Resultados zonas turísticas. Cantabria 2014, ICANE, Santander, 2015. [46] C. Martin-Rios, E. Parga-Dans, The Early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese: non-technological innovation in creative industries, Creativ. Innov. Manag. 25 (1) (2016) 6–17. [47] D. Throsby, Cultural capital, J. Cultur. Econ. 23 (1) (1999) 3–12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1007543313370.

[48] H. Bakhshi, D. Throsby, Culture of Innovation: an economic analysis of innovation in arts and cultural organisations, NESTA, London, 2010. [49] J. Potts, S. Cunningham, Four models of the creative industries, Int. J. Cultur. Policy 14 (3) (2008) 233–247, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286630802281780. [50] B.A. Seaman, Arts impact studies: a fashionable excess, in: Economic impact of the arts: a sourcebook, National conference of state legislatures, Washington, Dc, 1990. [52] LPPM, Conociendo a nuestros visitantes. Estudio de públicos en museos del ˜ Madrid, 2010. Ministerio de Cultura, Ministerio de Cultura de Espana, [53] A. Bryman, Social research methods, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015. [54] É. Cartailhac, Les cavernes ornées de dessins. La grotte d’Altamira, Espagne. Mea culpa d’un sceptique, L’anthropologie 13 (1) (1902) 41–68.

Please cite this article in press as: E. Parga Dans, P. Alonso González, The Altamira controversy: Assessing the economic impact of a world heritage site for planning and tourism management, Journal of Cultural Heritage (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2017.09.007