ANZSOG Case Program Standing room only: managing mass tourism in 2016-187.1

… we residents sometimes pity you poor tourists not a little - handed about like a parcel of goods from Venice to Florence, from Florence to Rome, living herded together in pensions or hotels, quite unconscious of anything that is outside Baedeker, their one anxiety to get 'done' and 'through' and go somewhere else. The result is they mix up towns, rivers, palaces in one inextricable whirl. E.M. Forster, A Room with a View (1908) Though the guidebooks and maps had long been replaced by smartphones and TripAdvisor, novelist E.M. Forster would recognise much about tourism in the Florence of 2015. In fact, ‘fast’ or ‘mass’ tourism had only grown in the Tuscan capital, much like the anacondan queues that coiled their way around museums and monuments, constricting the city’s cobblestone streets. Mayor, Dario Nardella, was a daily witness to the phenomenon. He worked within the Palazzo Vecchio, one of Florence’s key attractions. Outside his office, in the Piazza della Signoria, tour guides held flags aloft and recited historical facts to troops of tourists as they shuffled through the Historic Centre. One fact probably not mentioned was that 2014 had been a record breaking year for tourism in Florence, and that 2015 was en route to exceed those figures. The city’s tourist bureau and industry representatives celebrated another great result, but for certain Florentines the congratulatory prosecco tasted rather flat. Community activists and commentators worried that tourism – Florence’s economic lifeblood – was also making the city sclerotic. Untrammelled visitor numbers were unsustainable, they warned, and were causing perhaps irrevocable damage to sensitive historic sites. Many of these tourists only came to snap a selfie in front of the statue of David, grab a gelato and get back on the bus, contributing little to the local economy. Meanwhile, the city centre was becoming increasingly off limits to long term residents, as well as traditional artisan businesses muscled out by high end retail chains.

This case was written by Marinella Padula for Dr Michael Di Francesco, ANZSOG, as a basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. It has been prepared from published materials as a basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. Cases are not necessarily intended as a complete account of the events described. While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure accuracy at the time of publication, subsequent developments may mean that certain details have since changed. This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence, except for logos, trademarks, photographs and other content marked as supplied by third parties. No licence is given in relation to third party material. Version 17052016. Distributed by the Case Program, The Australia and New Zealand School of Government, www.anzsog.edu.au.

On the (well) beaten track Florence’s tourist ‘boom’ dates back to at least the 1700s when upper-class Europeans, Britons in particular, embarked upon The Grand Tour. The major drawcard then, as in 2015, was an unrivalled trove of Renaissance art and architecture – much of it commissioned by Florence’s ruling elite who had amassed vast fortunes through banking and other mercantile activities. The advent of rail in the 19th century brought new markets and package holidays, while more recently, the proliferation of low-cost airlines during the 1990s sent visitor numbers soaring to unprecedented levels. Travel to another country – even just for a weekend – was now within reach of more people than ever. In 1982, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), granted World Heritage status to the city’s centrally located historic quarter. Florence was just one of 50 World Heritage sites in ; the country boasting more than any other single nation. In 2014, UNESCO issued a Statement of Outstanding Universal Value recognising Florence as the wellspring of the Renaissance and its influence on Italy and the rest of Europe. Yet visitors weren’t solely interested in Botticelli and Brunelleschi. They also came in search of the Italian way of life: the cuisine, the fashion, the music and the vivacity that made the country one of the world’s favourite destinations. Florence was the third most visited city in Italy, after Rome and Venice. The Cesifin Foundation (a local economic think-tank) reported that the City of Florence recorded more than 3.5 million visitor arrivals in 2014, totalling close to 8.7 million overnight stays.1 The past decade had seen an overall increase of 30%, despite a dip in numbers during the Global Financial Crisis (Exhibit A). The average length of stay had remained relatively steady at 2.5 days.2 Approximately 75% of visitors to Florence were foreign nationals3; by contrast, they constituted 47% of tourists throughout Italy.4 Other Europeans represented the largest bloc of international travellers; however the US was the largest single source of visitors by quite some margin. Meanwhile, the greatest growth in visitation had come from China, Brazil and Russia, rising between 200%-400% over the last 10 years.5 April to October was the peak tourist period and most official overnight stays occurred in hotels which were particularly concentrated in and around the historic quarter. Room prices in central Florence averaged €85 per person, per night.6 The non-hotel sector had grown considerably over the past decade but so too had demand for 4- and 5-star hotels. In terms of visitor demographics, close to 60% of visitors to Florence were aged 18-347 and approximately 85% were visiting for personal/leisure purposes.8 The city was also a popular destination for art, history and language students, with education attracting almost 10% of visitors. However, the Cesifin report cautioned that it did not encompass all forms of visitation, for example, people renting holiday houses or staying with relatives. Florence’s Chamber of Commerce estimated that ‘unofficial’ travel could account for as many as 9.6 million additional overnight stays in metropolitan Florence during 2013.9 Day-trippers also constituted a sizeable inflow. According to Cesifin, a further 4.6 million excursionists visited Florence in 2014.10 An estimated 1.5 million were

1 Ottonelli, O. and Pavarin, A.’ Caratteri e sostenibilità del turismo nelle città d’arte: il caso di Firenze’ Fondazione CESIFIN Alberto Predieri, February 2016, p.14. 2 ibid, p.18. 3 ibid. 4 ibid, p.79 5 ibid, p.32. 6 Ibid, p.123. 7 ibid, p.51. 8 ibid, pp.52-53. 9 ibid, p.13. 10 ibid, p.50.

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 2 www.anzsog.edu.au

cruise ship passengers who had docked in Rome or Livorno (a Tuscan port) and journeyed to the city for the day.11 After Venice, Florence was the most intensively touristed city in Italy, and becoming more so as international visitors with less time to spare increasingly focused their itineraries on the ‘historic cities’ and popular resorts. Though the City of Florence counted just over 380,000 residents, the historic quarter only had a population of 65,000.12 This meant that tourists often equalled or outnumbered locals, especially along the roughly 1.3km route from the Pitti Palace to the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore (Exhibit B). The journey also took in the Uffizi Gallery, Florence’s top attraction, drawing close to 1.9 million visitors annually.13 Tourism was Florence’s biggest industry, generating billions in revenue and employing more than 13% of the workforce in tourism-related enterprises.14 That said, manufacturing, education and commerce were still important sectors. Florence was well known for luxury and artisan-made goods; design houses Gucci and Ferragamo had headquarters in the city. Tourism was also a major industry in Italy, representing more than 10% of GDP.15 Five regions in Central/Northern Italy (Latium, Lombardy, Veneto, Emilia-Romagna, and ) accounted for 67% of the wealth generated by tourism. By contrast, Southern Italy contributed 18%.16 In terms of tourism policy and governance, the Directorate-General for Tourism, located within Italy’s Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Activities and Tourism (MCHAT), was in charge of setting the nation’s strategic agenda and coordinating national marketing efforts, in consultation with the regions. Regional governments in turn, were responsible for activities including: developing local marketing campaigns, managing European Structural Funds17 and regulating tourism businesses. Large city councils, meanwhile, had their own tourism offices and could devise their own policies and regulations. In 2014, MCHAT set up a Permanent Committee for the Promotion of Tourism in Italy, comprising public and private sector bodies, in order to draft a five-year National Tourism Plan.18 The Prince and the letter Concerns about the impact of tourism on Florence are not new. A 1996 survey of seven European heritage cities, including Florence, found that tourism had caused or aggravated: ‘traffic and parking problems, pollution, crowding out, occasional irritation of the local population and “wear and tear” of heritage.’19 It suggested that ‘the answer to these problems is forsaking the principle of laissez-faire that currently dominates the attitudes of policymakers and entrepreneurs towards tourism development and adopting an explicit tourism management policy that goes much further than promotion alone.’20 Almost 20 years later, Prince Ottaviano de’ Medici di Toscana would argue that things had changed: for the worse. As a direct descendant of the Medici family – Florence’s famed political dynasty – and President of the International Medici Association, he had a special connection to the city. In 1737, Anna Maria Luisa de’ Medici made a ‘pact’ bequeathing the family’s personal property, including

11 http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/15/medici-prince-appeals-for-help-save-florence/ 12 Ottonelli, O. and Pavarin, A.’ Caratteri e sostenibilità del turismo nelle città d’arte: il caso di Firenze’ Fondazione CESIFIN Alberto Predieri, February 2016, p.94. 13 ibid, p.95. 14 ISTAT Industry and Trade Census, Housing and Population Census (2011). 15 http://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic%20impact%20research/countries%202016/italy2016.pdf 16 OECD (2016), “Italy”, in OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/tour-2016-24-en 17 European Union funds disbursed to member states to support social and economic development. 18 ibid. 19 Borg, J. Costa, P. and Gotti, G. ‘Tourism in European Heritage Cities’, Annals of Tourism Research, 1996, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 306-321. 20 ibid.

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 3 www.anzsog.edu.au

artworks, galleries and libraries to the state. Her intention was that ‘these goods remain forever enshrined in the City of Florence’ to adorn the city, to be used by the public and ‘to attract the curiosity of Foreigners’.21 In the Prince’s view, that pact had been broken. Mass tourism had caused serious degradation to buildings and streetscapes; he was particularly concerned about the condition of the Uffizi’s Loggia and the Pitti Palace Courtyard. The Prince charged the Council with failing to stay on top of the damage and ensure it was arrested or repaired. Degradation also took other forms. Drunken revellers and backpackers sleeping out in the historic centre were just some of the visible sore points. Graffitied walls and litter strewn streets were others (Exhibit C). Meanwhile, a tide of chain stores and trashy souvenirs threatened to subsume local businesses. Prince Ottaviano nominated cruise-ship lines, international tour companies and the Civita Group (cultural asset managers and exhibition organisers) as bearing particular responsibility. However, he reserved ultimate culpability for the authorities: The City of Florence and the Italian State have so far done nothing to convince (or compel) tour operators to vary their itineraries throughout the city, with the result that vast areas of the city, once flourishing, are now deserted and their traders are languishing, while at the same time a very small portion of the old town is literally invaded instead. So what are the consequences of this absurd policy of indifference that Italian public institutions have followed for years? Twenty-per cent of the population has left Florence in the period from 1981-2001 while the 'traditional’ Florentine economy is struggling for survival. Hundreds of artisans and traditional activities have already shut down; every day the city is losing more and more of its social and cultural identity. The small area where mass tourism dominates now ‘belongs’ to wealthy chains of national and international stores, which do not usually reinvest their profits in the maintenance of the cultural heritage of Florence.22 Local activist Tiziano Cardosi claimed that central Florence was now so tourist-oriented that residents could barely buy everyday items like bread anymore. In recent times, for example, a city vegetable market had been turned into a US-style food court. ‘The whole historic centre is a pedestrian centre. It is not for citizens, though, just for big groups of tourists and rich [foreign] students,’ said Cardosi. ‘This is a dying town. We are building big hotels only for rich people. We are selling everything.’23 Cardosi referred to more than a dozen developments, proposed or underway around Florence, including the conversion of historic buildings into hotels, spas, carparks and luxury apartments. Plans for new tram and train lines, extra airport capacity and even a subway were also in progress or circulating, the goal being to improve accessibility for locals and tourists. Though the city council was not responsible for every decision, Cardosi didn’t feel that local officials were sufficiently committed to Florence’s cultural or physical preservation. Built into the Arno river basin, the city was vulnerable to flooding, and construction activity also had the potential to damage delicate structures. Concern about Florence’s past and future led Prince Ottaviano to found the Save Florence Association (www.saveflorence.it) to monitor damage, raise restoration funds and lobby for change. Academic and climate change expert Ugo Bardi thought the cause was noble but in some respects futile: … when the historical Florence that tourists see nowadays was built, there were perhaps 100,000 inhabitants in the town. Today so many visitors are a disaster for the structures of the city (and note that they tend to concentrate more and more in the same, restricted, areas). Some people speak of the need of ‘saving Florence’ from this calamity. They are well intentioned, but arrive too late. Florence, intended as a ’normal’ town, doesn’t exist anymore. What exists is a huge theme park surrounded by an expanse of suburbs. And, as in any theme park in the world, the people whom you see walking in the street are not residents; they are either visitors or employees of the park.24

21 Translated from http://www.saveflorence.it/save-florence/motivazioni-dell-invio-allunesco-della-nostra-denuncia/ 22 Translated from http://www.de-medici.com/programma-politico/attivita-culturali-e-sociali/save-florence 23 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/florence-risk-tourists-buildings 24 http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/good-tourist-is-one-more-tourist.html

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 4 www.anzsog.edu.au

‘What surprises me in this story is not the transformation that Florence underwent,’ he wrote in a blogpost, ‘but how the city authorities and the representatives of the tourism industry are totally oblivious to the problems brought by this huge mass of people dumped into the city centre. Not only are they blind to that, but they want more! When the data for 2014 came out, everyone was delighted, actually [thrilled], that the number of tourists in Florence had increased about 3% with respect to the previous year. If there was some regret about that result, it was that it was ‘only’ 3%! The rule seems to be simple: a good tourist is one more tourist.’25 Opponents of mass tourism often pointed to Venice as an example of where this trajectory could lead. Aside from the obvious physical strain was the social impact. Venice’s population had declined markedly over the last few decades. Young Venetians with ambitions outside tourism and hospitality, or hopes of starting a family, frequently had little choice but to leave. Those remaining had to contend with a dearth of suitable housing, high living costs and major inconveniences. Although the unemployment rate in Venice (and similar destinations) tended to be lower than the national average, most tourism jobs tended to be relatively low-skilled, poorly paid and seasonal. For many workers the only option was to live elsewhere and commute, eroding Venice’s sense of community. For Bardi, over-reliance on tourism carried even bigger risks, ‘This great tourist boom is so fragile that it is incredible that nobody realizes it. Some 75% of the people visiting Florence come from abroad... An economic crisis or a major geopolitical instability could easily stop the tourist flow and destroy the economy of a city that, by now, depends on the two billion dollars or so that the tourists bring in every year.’26 Florence, he warned, could also end up becoming a victim of its own success: ‘…how long do you think that the tourists will put up with being crowded, herded, goaded, trapped, pushed, overcharged and mistreated in various ways, before they decide that they can find a less crowded theme park - say - in Anaheim?’.27 Certainly, Florence was one of the most expensive Italian cities to visit. The city also levied some of the highest tourist taxes in the nation, bringing in €26.5 million during 2015.28 Taxes and charges were applied to hotel rooms and tour buses, amongst other things. By law, the proceeds had to be spent on city infrastructure and improvements to tourist services, but the tourism industry was not keen on further imposts when existing charges were already significantly higher than comparable destinations. Research for the European Tourism Association found that in 2011, a standard 7-night itinerary of Italy could attract as much as €100 per person in taxes.29 Despite the high prices, survey results indicated that tourists generally enjoyed their time in the city. Among Florence’s best-rated features were its cultural, historical and gastronomic attractions. However, management of tourist flow was amongst the least positively rated aspects.30 The intensity of tourist activity was off-putting to many visitors, especially those who arrived for extended stays. One study of such tourists found that although they were happy to be around crowds of locals at markets or festivals, they disliked being stuck with large groups of other tourists. Visions of chatting with locals and absorbing the culture didn’t match the reality of fast-food outlets and spending hours in queues. It was an experience they weren’t especially keen to repeat. ‘You don’t have the feeling that anything other than tourism takes place,’ observed one interviewee, ‘That the people here simply go to work or to university, you really don’t see that. I think that’s really awful.’ 31

25 http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/good-tourist-is-one-more-tourist.html 26 http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/good-tourist-is-one-more-tourist.html 27 ibid. 28 http://www.theflorentine.net/news/2015/01/how-florence-is-spending-its-tourist-tax-windfall/ 29 http://www.etoa.org/policy/regulation-and-taxation/tourist-taxes/accommodation-taxes-in-italy 30 Ottonelli, O. and Pavarin, A.’ Caratteri e sostenibilità del turismo nelle città d’arte: il caso di Firenze’ Fondazione CESIFIN Alberto Predieri, February 2016, p.78. 31 Popp, M. ‘Positive and Negative Urban Tourist Crowding’, Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, Vol. 14, Issue 1, 2012, pp.50-72.

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 5 www.anzsog.edu.au

In 2014, Prince Ottaviano decided it was his moral and civic duty to appeal to an external authority – in this case UNESCO – and send a letter outlining his complaints. He held little faith that the city council had the ability or inclination to rein in tourism. Nor did he place much hope in the central Italian government. Loved to pieces It wasn’t the first time Italy had come to UNESCO’s attention for the wrong reasons. During the last decade, the country had been pulled up several times over heritage management. UNESCO criticised Venetian authorities for allowing large cruise ships to dock too close to the lagoon city, while building collapses in Pompeii earned the Italian government a black mark. Plans to put a rubbish dump near the Villa Adriana also became a cause for national and international dismay. The situation inspired sardonic humour amongst many Italians: ‘Did you know that 60 per cent of the world’s cultural heritage is in Italy? And the rest? Well, the rest is safe.’32 UNESCO had no direct power to compel nations to change plans or undertake conservation work. Nor did it provide much in the way of funds, approving just over $US500,000 for projects in 2014.33 However, it could bring a great deal of negative publicity to bear and withdraw World Heritage listings which had significant marketing value. The flipside was that UNESCO had only ever revoked heritage status twice. By contrast, the European Union had more practical assistance to offer, having directed more than €4 billion to heritage support activities between 2007 and 2013.34 That included a pledge of €105 million towards Pompeii’s repair.35 Yet even very large grants were mere stopgaps. The massive inventory of significant historical buildings, artefacts and sites across Italy presented huge challenges for heritage managers. So too did the halving of Italy’s €2 billion culture budget since the Global Financial Crisis, with further cuts forecast.36 Frequent infighting, excessive bureaucracy and/or corruption compounded the situation. At the same time, while tried and true destinations and attractions took the lion’s share of visitation, many culturally rich scenic sites were, by comparison, overlooked. The reasons were manifold but included poor transport links, inadequate marketing and patchy use of digital platforms and technologies. It also didn’t help, argued travel writer and journalist Sylvia Marchetti, that ‘[h]eritage authorities are in love with the Romantic ideal ‘of decadent ruins’: better leave the monument or site as it is, even allow it to rot, rather than recover it and “destroy its original beauty”’.37 ‘Monuments and works of art are not dead, but living things that deserve to be sexed-up once in a while,’ she said. If we don’t have enough space to showcase all of them or the money for their maintenance, why not give them over to other countries to run? Or sell them to rich businessmen? Similar options make state authorities’ hair stand on end: they stress art belongs to the Italian people and should remain in public hands – even if it’s inaccessible and unenjoyable. Yet is it better to have a public ruin or a private, thriving multimedia museum? The Uffizi Galleries’ secret cellars are stacked with 2,500 forgotten masterpieces, which could be leased out to privates. Curators fear the artworks could get damaged if moved. But cobwebs and dust can do no harm, right?38 That attitude was shifting however, with Florence amongst the vanguard.

32 Bevan, R ‘Loved to death’ The Australian Financial Review, 11 July 2014. 33 http://whc.unesco.org/en/intassistance/action=stats 34 http://ec.europa.eu/culture/policy/culture-policies/cultural-heritage_en.htm 35 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-pompeii-idUSKCN0SJ07B20151025 36 Bevan, R ‘Loved to death’ The Australian Financial Review, 11 July 2014’ 37 http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/19/opinions/italy-heritage/index.html 38 http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/19/opinions/italy-heritage/index.html

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 6 www.anzsog.edu.au

Florence for hire As budget cuts started to carve fissures and cracks into national treasures, on top of tourist footfall, some of Italy’s cultural stewards decided to channel new funding streams. In Rome, luxury brands were answering the call. Tod’s was freshening up the Colosseum, Fendi had thrown more than a few coins into Trevi Fountain renovations, and Bulgari bankrolled a Spanish steps renovation. In Assisi, monks desperate to save Giotto’s frescoes switched from prayer to crowdfunding and raised €500,000.39 Italy’s Public Land Agency, in charge of some 46,000 properties around the country, had also initiated a program to lease unused public buildings to private interests and international investors. One of those was Florence’s Villa Tolomei which was converted to a boutique hotel.40 Yet there was no need to commit to a 50-year lease. For the right price, individuals and corporations could hire some of Florence’s landmarks for weddings, parties and launches. In 2013, then Florentine Mayor (and later Italian Prime Minister) closed off the Ponte Vecchio for a Ferrari corporate dinner. While locals and visitors were frustrated, especially about the apparent lack of warning, Renzi claimed the €100,000 fee would be put towards maintaining civic services.41 Nardella (Renzi’s former Deputy) followed his predecessor’s entrepreneurial lead, even letting out his office to a Hollywood film crew. Other events included the 2014 wedding of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West in the Forte di Belvedere, netting a reported €300,000 for the City, not to mention global publicity.42 Nardella also unveiled the ‘Yes in Florence’ website to showcase venues and streamline bookings. His critics believed such initiatives reduced the city to a function centre for billionaires, cheapening Florence and risking historic sites in the process, but Nardella defended the move, insisting that certain sites would never be leased and that safety was paramount. ‘We have come up with a precise price list for some of our most prestigious piazzas,’ Nardella said. ‘In exchange, the city gets the important financial support it badly needs. Maintaining monuments is expensive and it’s tough finding resources just by means of taxation.’43 Damage limitation In May 2015 Kishore Rao, director of UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre, sent a letter and report regarding Florence to Italy’s UNESCO delegate Vincenza Lomonaco which was forwarded to Nardella’s office. Amongst the issues raised were: • ‘Excessive tourist pressure, inadequate visitor management and the absence of a tourism strategy’; • the ‘change of use’ of historic buildings in ways that could compromise their value and integrity; and • the potential impact of current and proposed infrastructure projects on the city. 44 UNESCO requested further information about the Council’s infrastructure projects and suggested sending a delegation of experts to assess the situation in more detail. Though it was sent in May 2015, the existence of the letter was only revealed several months later, after pressure from opposition

39 http://www.politico.eu/article/florence-destination-wedding-piazza-and-palazzos-for-rent-florence-historical-center- heritage-monuments/ 40 http://www.nbcnews.com/business/travel/italy-turns-private-companies-preserve-artistic-heritage-boost-economy- f8C11140133 41 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23171380 42 http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/kim-kardashian-kanye-wests-wedding-italys-belvedere-fort/story?id=23815667 43 http://www.politico.eu/article/florence-destination-wedding-piazza-and-palazzos-for-rent-florence-historical-center- heritage-monuments/ 44 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By3pel23h55TOWd2UDhDR000QXM/view?pref=2&pli=1

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 7 www.anzsog.edu.au

councillors. Both UNESCO and the City of Florence stressed that the letter was simply a routine enquiry but it did give credibility to citizens’ concerns. ‘We are responding to all the points that have been raised,’ Nardella said. ‘We are very sure about the city’s strategy to conserve the cultural heritage. In fact, Florence has some of the best practices and experience of all the UNESCO sites in Italy.’45 ‘Only buildings with a lesser cultural value are for sale because we have a very clear national law…’ he explained. ‘And we oblige private people to restore the historical buildings and keep them in good condition. It is important to support private investment for high-quality projects.’ 46 Prince Ottaviano wasn’t convinced, claiming that ‘the police don’t have any agent—not even one!—who can certify the state of decay of building façades and require owners to make repairs.’47 Nardella also rejected the idea that developing and updating infrastructure was incompatible with preservation: ‘Does London have an underground? Yes. Does Paris? Yes. Does Madrid? Yes. Does Rome? Yes. So why can’t Florence?’ 48 He did however, concede that mass tourism, particularly day-trippers, presented an issue: ‘I agree with these people [activist critics] when they tell me we have too many tourists. But the question is not about how to close the city, but how to change their attitude’.49 The task, as he saw it, was to encourage more visitors to visit outlying areas of Florence (which were also laden with cultural artefacts), and attract ‘quality’ visitors, i.e. those willing to spend time and money in the city, (especially business travellers) while discouraging ‘bad tourists’ who swept through the city. ‘They come from Rome or Livorno in the morning on a tour bus and their guides know where to take them to buy a souvenir,’ he said. ‘Then the food – a Coca-Cola and one panino. No museum visit, just a photo from the square, the bus back and then on to Venice. We don’t want tourists like that.’50 There had been previous attempts to enact such a strategy. For instance, apps, maps and guides had been created to lure visitors off the tourist trail, though without much tangible success. The Council also had plans to locate a new science museum on the city fringes to draw visitors outwards. It was an approach Prince Ottaviano endorsed and he had lent his personal support to a separate crowdfunding project to publicise Florence’s other precincts (Exhibit D), though it had failed to meet its target. However, he also wanted to see the Council undertake further initiatives such as: placing more stringent conditions upon tour companies; repatriating certain works from the Uffizi to the places to they were originally held; and changing the ticketing system and altering pedestrian flow to reduce long queues outside key attractions. Nardella mooted the possibility of doubling the tax on tour buses and restricting alcohol sales after 9pm, but passing such measures was by no means a certainty. Elsewhere in Italy, officials were considering a range of different responses. Landslides at The Cinque Terre – a string of picturesque hillside villages clutching the Ligurian coast – led to a proposed online advance ticketing system limiting visitation to 1.5 million people per annum.51 Devices fitted to inbound roads would shut off access once the quota had been reached. Similar ideas had previously been suggested for Venice. In Rome, there were calls to introduce timed sessions at the Sistine Chapel to thin the cacophonous crowds threatening the precious ceiling and sacrosanct atmosphere. However, Vatican Museums manager Antonio Paolucci batted away such suggestions, noting: ‘The days when only Russian grand dukes and English lords or [American art expert] Bernard Berenson could gain access to the great masterpieces are definitely over. We have entered the era of large-

45 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/florence-risk-tourists-buildings 46 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/florence-risk-tourists-buildings 47 http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/15/medici-prince-appeals-for-help-save-florence/ 48 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/florence-risk-tourists-buildings 49 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/florence-risk-tourists-buildings 50 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/florence-risk-tourists-buildings 51 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/17/italy-to-impose-limits-on-visitors-to-cinque-terre-with-tourist-ticket- system

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 8 www.anzsog.edu.au

scale tourism, and millions want to enjoy our historical culture,’ he said. ‘Limiting numbers is unthinkable’.52 Holding back the ‘hordes’ Academic Gregory Ashworth summed up Nardella’s conundrum: ‘The managers of heritage sites and structures are impaled on the horns of a dilemma, an uncomfortable situation that no doubt increases the vehemence of their reaction,’ he wrote. ‘On the one hand they need the direct financing but also less direct legitimation that tourism numbers provide. Even when largely dependent upon public subsidy, visitor numbers are a powerful argument for more state money. On the other hand ‘the golden horde’ is both feared and despised.’53 Few Florentines disagreed that mass tourism had a shadow side for residents and visitors, while the sunshine of economic benefits, for instance, did not warm everyone evenly. However, it wasn’t easy to answer the question of how much tourism was too much. ‘In reality, the assessment of the benefits and the costs of tourism is difficult because there are several ‘parties’ involved, which perceive benefits and costs in a different manner’.54 Calculating the impact of lost development opportunities due to heritage restrictions, for example, would always be a partially subjective exercise. The authors of the Cesifin report, meanwhile warned against nostalgic pining for a ‘golden age’ of tourism that never existed or had long ended. They instead advised decision makers to be aware that: [a] policy for tourism in Florence must therefore also include an assessment of the ‘costs’ it causes, whilst being aware that not all of these costs are ‘embedded’ in transactions taking place in the tourism market, nor lend themselves to being addressed with the right tax policies … In short: if we want to preserve Florence’s unique tourist offerings, we must ask the question: which constraints are to be established for their use and who pays the cost for their maintenance under sustainable conditions?55 As city elders, leaders and residents debated what to do, the conveyor belt of tourists kept unloading more and more people into a city increasingly ill-equipped to cope. By the end of 2015, Florence had notched up another year of tourist growth, but the question of how to manage it demanded answers sooner rather than later.

52 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/29/sistine-chapel-tourist-row 53 http://www.academia.edu/970320/Do_tourists_destroy_the_heritage_they_have_come_to_experience 54 Borg, J. Costa, P. and Gotti, G. ‘Tourism in European Heritage Cities’, Annals of Tourism Research, 1996, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 306-321. 55 Ottonelli, O. and Pavarin, A.’ Caratteri e sostenibilità del turismo nelle città d’arte: il caso di Firenze’ Fondazione CESIFIN Alberto Predieri, February 2016, p.4.

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 9 www.anzsog.edu.au

Exhibit A: Percentage increase in overnight stays, by origin

NB: Stranieri = international visitors. Source: Ottonelli, O. and Pavarin, A.’ Caratteri e sostenibilità del turismo nelle città d’arte: il caso di Firenze’ Fondazione CESIFIN Alberto Predieri, February 2016, p.16.

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 10 www.anzsog.edu.au

Exhibit B: Florence’s tourist trail

Source: Google Maps https://goo.gl/maps/5tuDX7qh88t

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 11 www.anzsog.edu.au

Exhibit C: Tourist activity and damage in Florence

Source: http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/good-tourist-is-one-more-tourist.html

Source: http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/15/medici-prince-appeals-for-help-save-florence/

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 12 www.anzsog.edu.au

Source: http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/files/2015/04/go-homeDSC09932_lr-e1429042053327.jpg

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3041513/Save-Florence-mass-tourism-New- campaign-bids-reclaim-city-16million-visitors-monitor-damage-cause.html

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 13 www.anzsog.edu.au

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3041513/Save-Florence-mass-tourism-New- campaign-bids-reclaim-city-16million-visitors-monitor-damage-cause.html

C Yousif Al Mulla, 2015, CC licence: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 https://www.flickr.com/photos/almulla-dxb/

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 14 www.anzsog.edu.au

Exhibit D: Crowdfunding project to publicise Florence’s other precincts

Source: https://vimeo.com/124220630

2016-187.1 Version 17052016 15 www.anzsog.edu.au