The Strategy Used to Preserve and Promote the Cultural Heritage of Both Regions and to Attract Tourists
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SC EMPRI CONSULTING SRL The strategy used to preserve and promote the cultural heritage of both regions and to attract tourists Code CPV 79311100-8 Study development services Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................... 4 1. Experience in the cultural cross-border cooperation ................................ 6 1.1. Regional Brand ................................................................................................................ 6 1.2. Common territorial database .......................................................................................... 6 1.3. Territorial Development Strategy ................................................................................... 7 1.4. Perspective of Understanding the Cultural and Natural Heritage .................................. 8 1.5. Tourism quotation ......................................................................................................... 12 1.6. Obstacles in the development of the cross-border tourism ........................................ 17 2. Short description of the analyzed area ......................................................19 2.1. Dolj county, Romania .................................................................................................... 19 2.2. Vidin Province ................................................................................................................ 26 2.3. Historical Conflicts ......................................................................................................... 32 2.4. Lessons of History .......................................................................................................... 36 3. Architectural styles ......................................................................................38 3.1. Romanian Architecture - Dolj County ........................................................................... 39 3.2. The specific architecture of Dolj County. ...................................................................... 42 Radiography of heritage buildings in Dolj county .................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3. The specific architecture of Vidin province ................................................................... 67 Radiography of heritage buildings in Vidin province .......................................................... 67 4. Development policies for planning and management in the field of culture and tourism ..........................................................................................81 4.1. Community functions .................................................................................................... 83 4.2. Culture and regeneration .............................................................................................. 85 5. Research on codification of urban symbolism ..........................................92 (Creation of a Pilot Model for Research, Conservation, Socialization and Integrated Management of the Common Cultural Heritage and Development of Sustainable Tourism through Modern Information Technologies, Promotion of Cultural Heritage in General) ..........................92 5.1. Material Symbolism (Jakarta and Cape Town) .............................................................. 94 5.2. Discursive Symbolism .................................................................................................... 95 5.3. Iconic Symbolism ........................................................................................................... 96 5.4. Behavioral Symbolism ................................................................................................... 96 5.5. Conclusions: cities and symbols .................................................................................... 97 5.6. Research programs ...................................................................................................... 104 6. Sustainable development of tourism through the use of cultural and historical resources .......................................................................................107 6.1. Sustainable development-tourism-culture relationship ............................................. 110 6.2. Methods of tourism development of the tourism product based on cultural heritage ............................................................................................................................................ 113 6.3. Promoting historic heritage to attract tourists ........................................................... 122 Bibliography ....................................................................................................123 Introduction The design of Romania-Bulgaria cross-border development is achieved in line with the current level of development and future needs. Through the Joint Strategy for Sustainable Territorial Development of the Romania-Bulgaria Cross-Border Area, a cooperation framework has been established for the use and capitalization of territorial capital in order to increase competitiveness and innovation for the entire cross-border region. The turning to account of the common cultural heritage has many finalities, of which we retain the main ones: the first concerns the diversification of economic activities in the countries bordering the Danube, with economically quantifiable financial objectives and standards; the second dimension is restricted to improving cross-border cooperation, good understanding and creating forms of cultural communion between the populations of the two countries. Exploitation of cultural heritage is a component of a complex strategy that involves implementing measures on economic development, social development, poverty reduction and social exclusion, increasing the quality of citizens' lives. At the basis of the second dimension is the need for interknowledge of the citizens, to achieve common projects that meet the needs and aspirations of both populations and to efficiently exploit the common potential. Compared to the great cultures and civilizations of humanity we find that Lower Danube was not always the river that has aggregated the creative energies of the inhabitants, in many cases being a border between cultures and civilizations. If there are very old vestiges concerning the habitation of the banks of the Danube from ancient times, probably communities related of belonging to the same civilization (the first historical remains date from the Paleolithic, such as Schela Cladovei, Lepenski Vir-Vlasac, Vinča), and in antiquity the Thracian tribes inhabited for long periods both the banks of the Danube, this one being an inner river of civilization, becoming in the late antiquity an inner river of Roman culture, a period indicated by many historians as a period of economic development of the entire empire. Starting with the Aurelian retreat (270-275 AD), the Danube became both a territorial and a cultural border. Thus, the historical events created the premises of different evolutions of the populations on the two banks. Initially, the Aurelian withdrawal meant the protection of the empire by the numerous invasions of the migratory tribes, and the Danube was the main natural barrier against them. After the conquest of Bulgaria by the Ottomans, the Danube became for the entire medieval period a natural boundary between the area completely under the rule of Islam and the confluence area between Christianity and Islam. Time travelers have revealed this aspect of the confluence area represented by the Romanian countries where Eastern and Western influences were unfolding; in some cases Romania being called the border between the two worlds, and the cultural boundary long considered to be located to the east of Vienna has been moved from direct experiences on the Danube. This characteristic of the Danube has for many years separated the populations of the two shores. The inhabitants of Latin origins to the north and the Slavic origins to the south of the Danube also brought cultural differences that made cooperation and collaboration between the two peoples difficult. Orthodoxy now appears as the bridge between the two peoples, and membership of the European Union and military alliance within NATO forces an effort to change the historical paradigm: sliding from the exacerbation of differences, often with populist geopolitical purposes, to identify common elements and ways of collaboration. This effort transcends the simple political approach encountered more at the discursive level, assuming an effort to build a common culture on both sides of the Danube, this river requiring association with what unites and not with what separates. Thus, European funding is happily correlated with these needs, which are conditionalities of a functional and efficient European Union. The efforts made to this project raise the view of jointly exploiting the anthropic potential incubated by the existence of the Danube and of transcending the segmental visions in favour of a unitary vision based on European symbols and principles in order to assume a common future. The statistics illustrating the economic and social position of the cross-border region are low in relation to the European regions, and along the Danube on both shores we find some of the poorest regions across the European Union. From this point of view we find that the development of cooperation relations is necessary to compensate for the consequences of a history that is hostile