Energy Tourism: an Emerging Field of Study

File No,: MMC220 Document Reference: MOR-EXT-DOC-023

8JJINXHZXXNTSXXYFYXFSIFZYMTWUWTKNQJXKTWYMNXUZGQNHFYNTSFY MYYUX \\\WJXJFWHMLFYJSJYUZGQNHFYNTS

(QHUJ\WRXULVP$QHPHUJLQJæHOGRIVWXG\

&WYNHQJddNSdd(ZWWJSY.XXZJXNS9TZWNXR{)JHJRGJW )4.

(.9&9.438 7*&)8

FZYMTWXNSHQZINSL

'TMZRNQ+WFSY¥Q .SXYNYZYJTK,JTSNHXTKYMJ(_JHM&HFIJR^TK8HNJSHJX

5:'1.(&9.438ddd(.9&9.438ddd

8**574+.1*

8TRJTKYMJFZYMTWXTKYMNXUZGQNHFYNTSFWJFQXT\TWPNSLTSYMJXJWJQFYJIUWTOJHYX

.385.7&9.43.3YJLWFYJI8UFYNFQ5QFSS.SLQFSIZXJFSIXTNQRFSFLJRJSY7JXJFWHM&H9.43 *:-;NJ\UWTOJHY

*]UQTWNSLXTHNFQXUFYNFQINKKZXNTSTKWJSJ\FGQJJSJWL^UWTOJHYXNSYMJ(_JHM7JUZGQNH QJXXTSXKTWFIFUYN[JLT[JWSFSHJTKJSJWL^YWFSXNYNTS (_JHM8HNJSHJ +TZSIFYNTS3T8;NJ\UWTOJHY

&QQHTSYJSYKTQQT\NSLYMNXUFLJ\FXZUQTFIJIG^'TMZRNQ+WFSY¥QTS/FSZFW^

9MJZXJWMFXWJVZJXYJIJSMFSHJRJSYTKYMJIT\SQTFIJIKNQJ This article was downloaded by: [Czech Academy of Sciences] On: 16 December 2014, At: 22:05 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Current Issues in Tourism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20 Energy tourism: An emerging field of study Bohumil Frantála & Renata Urbánkováb a Department of Environmental Geography, Institute of Geonics ASCR, Drobného 28, Brno 60200, Czech Republic b Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University, Lipová 507/41, Brno 60200, Czech Republic Published online: 13 Dec 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Bohumil Frantál & Renata Urbánková (2014): Energy tourism: An emerging field of study, Current Issues in Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2014.987734 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.987734

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 Current Issues in Tourism, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2014.987734

Energy tourism: An emerging ﬁeld of study ∗ Bohumil Franta´la and Renata Urba´nkova´b

aDepartment of Environmental Geography, Institute of Geonics ASCR, Drobne´ho 28, Brno 60200, Czech Republic; bFaculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University, Lipova´ 507/41, Brno 60200, Czech Republic (Received 18 February 2014; accepted 9 November 2014)

After conceptualizing the interrelationships between energy and tourism, the authors provide a definition of energy tourism as a new niche of industrial tourism, theorize on how it overlaps with other types of special interest tourism, and discuss specifics concerning its forms, locales, and possible societal impacts. Potential directions, along with research questions, for future research in the field of energy tourism are proposed. Then, the results of an explorative pilot study of energy tourism in the Czech Republic are presented to give a first insight into the proposed questions. Questionnaire surveys completed by tourists and operators of three energy tourism attractions – so-called Coal Safaris (guided tours through surface coal mines, observing minescapes and mining machinery in full operation), a nuclear power plant information centre, and Dragon Kite Festivals under wind turbines – have focused on exploring the motivations and perceived benefits of energy tourism for organizations; tourists’ motivations for, and experience from, visiting; and any changes in attitudes towards current energy development dilemmas by visitors afterwards. Keywords: energy tourism; industrial tourism; special interest tourism; energy landscapes; product branding; Czech Republic

1. Introduction In recent years, we have been facing a distinct energy transition, which has had impacts in all spheres of human society, including on industrial networks, infrastructure, social practices, regulations, symbolic meanings, and landscapes (Smil, 2010). Reaping the beneﬁts of renewable resources has become a global ambition for several reasons, ranging from concerns about climate change and energy security to the dangers of the atom (Franta´l, Pasqua-

Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 letti, & Van der Horst, 2014). Nonetheless, renewable energy development has been uneven around the world and still represents but a small part of total generation in most countries. For this reason, governments need to consider other energy options, including fossil fuel extraction, nuclear power, or new technologies such as shale gas fracking (Arau´jo, 2014). All energy sources are characterized by potentially negative impacts manifesting themselves at different spatio-temporal scales, including impacts on tourism. The economic costs of resources and the reliability of their supply are no longer the only criteria shaping public opinions about appropriate energy use and development. Rather, the image of energy sources and perceptions of energy landscapes are now also signiﬁcant factors affecting energy policies and their support among the general public (Leiserowitz

∗Corresponding author. Email:

# 2014 Taylor & Francis 2 B. Franta´l and R. Urba´nkova´

et al., 2013), social acceptance of new energy facilities (Pasqualetti, 2011), and even customer loyalty in liberalized residential energy markets (Hartmann & Ibańez, 2007). Specific forms and materializations of energy have been perceived as being, among other things, clean, dirty, environmentally harmful, uncontrollable, dangerous, friendly, expensive, fascinating, or ghastly (Franta´l, 2014; Lupp, Bastian, Steinhaüßer, & Syrbe, 2014; Truelove, 2012). Accordingly, new public relations and corporate branding strategies have been intro- duced by energy companies and interest groups in order to influence public opinion, including various forms of so-called energy tourism. No accurate definition of ‘energy tourism’ has so far been provided. Simply put, energy tourism can be regarded a type of special interest tourism (Trauer, 2006), more specifically a segment of industrial tourism (Otgaar, 2012). However, as will be demonstrated in this paper, it is characterized by some overlaps and specifics concerning its forms, locales, and possible societal impacts. We suggest that energy tourism could play a more important role than as just a kind of consumer experience-oriented industrial tourism (Mitchell & Orwig, 2002), contributing to higher personal product involvement, brand loyalty, or place branding. More than that, it has the potential to improve people’s ‘energy literacy’ (Van der Horst, 2014), helping them to embrace changes in the way we perceive and consume energy (De Waters & Powers, 2011). This paper has two principal objectives: First, to conceptualize the wider interrelationships between energy and tourism, to provide a definition of energy tourism as a new niche of special interest tourism, and to propose possible directions and questions for research in the energy tourism field; second, to answer some of these proposed questions by providing an explorative pilot study of emerging energy tourism in the Czech Republic. The case study is based on questionnaire surveys conducted both with tourists visiting three energy tourism attractions – a so-called Coal Safari (guided tours through surface coal mines, observing minescapes and mining machinery in full operation), the Dukovany nuclear power plant’s information centre, and a so-called Dragon Kite Festival under wind turbines – and with the operators of the aforementioned tourist attractions. The aim of the paper is neither to give a comprehensive conceptualization of the phenomenon nor to provide exhaustive answers to proposed research questions, but rather to outline perspectives that may open the way to more in-depth research.

2. Conceptualizing the energy–tourism nexus The production, distribution, and consumption of energy determine all the basic functions of our existence, including work and production, housing, education, communication,

Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 transport, and even tourism and recreation (Bru¨cher, 2001). The energy–tourism nexus can be conceptualized from at least three perspectives: First, energy as a driver of tourism. Energy in the form of basic infrastructure, electricity, and the fuels consumed for travelling, heating, cooling, catering, and other services is the basic prerequisite of tourism. The supply and price of energy (especially in the form of travel costs) directly affect the development or stagnation of tourism and related economies (Becken, 2011; Lennox, 2012; Pentelow & Scott, 2010). Tourism, as one of the largest global industries, is a signiﬁcant energy consumer and a contributor to the increase in carbon emissions and climate change (Becken & Simmons, 2002; Becken, Simmons, & Frampton, 2003). Apart from negative global consequences (Go¨ssling, 2002), tourism as an energy consumer causes local environmental impacts, such as deforestation or water deﬁciency, which are critical especially for remote or island communities (Nepal, 2008; Tabatchnaia-Tamirisa, Loke, Leung, & Tucker, 1997). Current Issues in Tourism 3

As a result of environmental regulation, consumer demand, and managerial concerns based on ethics as well as economics, the tourism industry has come under pressure in recent years to become more environmental-friendly (Baker, Davis, & Weaver, 2014; Go¨ssling, Scott, & Hall, 2013). In this sense, tourism has come to the fore in promoting some innovative clean energy solutions, such as applying energy-saving systems in accommodation facilities, implementing solar heating and air-conditioning technologies (Micha- lena & Tripanagnostopoulos, 2010; Naukkarinen, 2009), or using waste from tourist attractions for renewable energy production (Shi et al., 2013). Using renewable energy sources is – together with changing tourist behaviour related to travel and energy use – thought to be a crucial way to approach tourism sustainability. Several studies have reported that the majority of tourists are willing to tolerate additional fees for technologies and services that might help offset the environmental impacts of their activities (Dalton, Locking- ton, & Baldock, 2008; Han, Hsu, & Sheu, 2010; Kelly, Haider, Williams, & Englund, 2007; Kostakis & Sardianou, 2012). However, others have found that despite tourists’ declared positive attitudes towards sustainable tourism, only a few act accordingly by buying responsible products and choosing environmental-friendly transportation (Budeanu, 2007; Dolni- car, Crouch, & Long, 2008). Baker et al. (2014) also suggest that tourists usually behave with greater environmental responsibility at home than they do when staying at a hotel. Exploring tourists’ and operators’ motivations and the barriers to adopting innovative technologies and practices in order to reduce the amount of natural resources and energy consumed (and wastes and pollutants discharged) in the production of tourism services definitely remains one of the major challenges in tourism studies (Becken, 2013). Also precise models and scenario tools to quantify the full carbon footprint associated with specific visitor activities and consumptions need to be developed (Whittlesea & Owen, 2012). Second, energy as a constraint of tourism. Energy facilities working on the extraction and processing of energy resources and on the generation and distribution of electricity (e.g. mines, refineries, pipelines, power plants, and transmission grids) have significantly affected the character and functions of landscapes in many regions. ‘Energy landscapes’ (Pasqualetti, 2012) are often perceived as visually or environmentally polluted, potentially discouraging tourists from visiting them (Ladenburg, Termansen, & Hasler, 2013; Lilley, Firestone, & Kempton, 2010;Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, 2012; Westerberg, Jacobsen, & Lifran, 2013). The impacts of energy facilities on tourism may be of different forms and scales, ranging from the human fear of the atom and the decline of second home recreation in the vicinity of nuclear power plants (Horska´, Mikulı´k, Vaishar, & Zapletalova´, 1996)to sea wave energy converters’ reducing inshore wave heights, important to surfers and

Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 other beachgoers (Stokes, Beaumont, Russell, & Greaves, 2014). However, the visual change in landscapes seems to be a key bone of contention between tourism and energy development. The energy–tourism conflict is a relatively young and unexplored topic; most of the rel- evant research on this theme has appeared in so-called ‘grey’ literature (trade press articles or reports published by research institutes, tourist boards, consulting firms, etc.). The few publications in academic journals that have focused on tourists’ perceptions of different energy landscapes have so far reported inconsistent results. Some suggest that large wind farms (as examples of the most widely spread and visually most significant energy facilities) may affect tourists’ choice of destination and their likelihood of repeat visits, and thus may have a small but significant economic impact on local tourism (Lilley et al., 2010; Riddington, McArthur, Harrison, & Gibson, 2010). On the other hand, Franta´l and Kunc (2011) reported no significant negative impacts from wind turbines on local 4 B. Franta´l and R. Urbańkova´

tourism and further suggested that new energy facilities could in fact represent attractions for a certain segment of tourists. It is probable that tourists’ perception may differ largely with respect to the size, shape, spatial concentration, and distance of energy facilities (Pro¨bstl, Jiricka, & Hindinger, 2011), with respect to local contexts and the ‘value of the land’ in both the physical and social senses (Van der Horst, 2007), and also as concerns the types and socio-demographic characteristics of tourists (Franta´l & Kunc, 2011; Molnar- ova et al., 2012). Third, energy as a tourist attraction. In contrast to the previous point, energy facilities and energy landscapes may also represent attractions for a specific segment of tourists. It has been proved that the perceptions of tourists can significantly differ from those of residents inasmuch as tourists want ‘to gaze on different landscapes and townscapes that are unusual for them’ (Urry, 1990, p. 1). Therefore, objects such as desolate open-pit coalmines, giant cooling towers at nuclear power plants, or rotating wind turbines that residents themselves often find irritating could be experienced as tempting and fascinating by tourists. In this sense, we can speak of energy tourism attractions.

3. Defining energy tourism In general, energy tourism can be regarded a segment of industrial tourism. Industrial tourism includes visits by tourists both to former, retired, or regenerated sites (industrial heritage tourism) and to still operational industrial sites where some facilities have been provided specifically for tourists’ use, even though the core activity of the site is not oriented towards tourism (Frew, 2008; Otgaar, 2012). Similarly, energy tourism involves visits by tourists to former, retired, or regenerated sites, as well as to still operational energy sites where some facilities, services, or activities have been provided specifically for tourists’ use. Energy tourism overlaps with other types of special interest tourism, including besides cultural and heritage tourism also adventure tourism and agricultural tourism (see Figure 1). Boat tours or sightseeing flights to offshore wind parks or climbing on and abseiling from a wind turbine or from a power plant’s cooling tower are examples of energy tourism extending even into adventure tourism (see, e.g. Albrecht, Wagner, Wesselmann, & Korb, 2013; Nabiyeva, 2014). Farm tourism overlaps with energy tourism when some activities on the farm are related to energy production, such as growing energy crops, on-site biogas production, or sheep grazing on grasslands among photovoltaic plants (Konecˇny´, 2013; Mbzibain, Hocking, Tate, & Ali, 2013). An example of cultural or heritage energy tourism could be former coal mining sites (Edwards & Llurde´s, 1996) or alpine

Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 hydropower landscapes (Rodriguez, 2012). Places where atomic disasters happened, which have been conceptualized as dark tourism destinations (e.g. tours to the Chernobyl power plant accident area), can also be considered speciﬁc forms of energy tourism, aka ‘atomic tourism’. The operation of manufacturing plant tours, company museums, and visitor centres has been widely recognized as a strategic tool available to strengthen the bond between consu- mers and brands such as cars, jewellery, or beverages (Mitchell & Orwig, 2002). The development of industrial tourism has been considered an opportunity also for the cities and regions in which industries are located, not only as a source of income and employment but also, more importantly, as a marketing tool (Otgaar, Ven der Berg, Berger, & Xiang Feng, 2008). We suggest that energy tourism could play a more important role than just in contributing to higher levels of brand loyalty or place branding. Energy tourism has the potential to improve people’s energy literacy and to change their energy use behaviour Current Issues in Tourism 5

Figure 1. Interrelationships of energy tourism and other types of special interest tourism (adapted from Frew & Shaw, 1995).

towards more sustainable ‘energy citizenship’ (Devine-Wright, 2007). Energy has been largely ‘invisible’ in the consumption choices made in our daily lives, and ordinary people living outside energy landscapes are rarely aware of the spatial and environmental consequences of the energy they consume (Pasqualetti, 2000). New forms of energy tourism combining environmental education, the presentation of novel technologies, interactive popular science experiments, and various outdoor activities (e.g. climbing, kiting, biking, or camping) have been designed to attract not only the technologically curious tourism segment (i.e. expert energy tourism), but also family oriented or adventure seeking tourists (i.e. experience energy tourism) (cf. Jiricka, Salak, Eder, Arnberger, & Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 Pro¨bstl, 2010; Jiricka & Pro¨bstl, 2011). Many renewable energy development projects (particularly wind or solar parks) have included ab initio plans for their use as ecological education centres, observation towers (e.g. Lichtenegg, Austria; Swaffham, England; or Vancouver, Canada), or nature trails (e.g. Kotka, Finland), with the aim of utilizing not only their energy but also their tourist potential (British Wind Energy Association, 2006; Energy Tourism, 2011). Recently, the world’s first energy tourism travel guidebook was published in Germany (Frey, 2010). Although most of the examples of energy tourism presented are connected with renewable energy innovations, in the following case study, we will demonstrate that even energy companies working with traditional energy sources such as fossil fuels or nuclear power have been following the trend. The use of visitor centres to influence public opinion and shape public policy in favour of the pro-nuclear agenda has already become a usual public 6 B. Franta´l and R. Urbańkova´

relations strategy of the nuclear industry (Tilson, 1993, 1996). Just recently, energy companies have begun offering new event- and experience-oriented tourism products to attract – separately from experts, enthusiasts, or businesses – additional segments of tourists, such as young people, families with children, or seniors. What tourists’ motivations for and experiences from visiting energy sites are is one of the key elements on the energy tourism research agenda. In what personal characteristics and other aspects do energy tourists differ from industrial tourists? How are global discourses concerning energy sustainability and energy security locally reproduced through specific energy tourism products? How are different narratives used by energy tourism operators to present their products and to shape public opinion? The Bataan nuclear power plant (Philippines), which has been never put into operation, is an example of how one energy attraction (the plant) has been used by different interest groups to promote competing energy discourses (Onishi, 2012). While the energy company offers tours in hopes of increasing support for nuclear power, the Greenpeace group also hosts its own tours in hopes of decreasing support for nuclear power. Similarly, organized tours to surface coal mining areas can serve – when using appropriate ‘packaging’ – the interests of both advocates and opponents of coal mining. How effective the different types of energy tourism attractions and activities provided by energy companies are as marketing tools for rebuilding the image of their products and shaping public attitudes to ongoing energy transition trends is another key research question. And last but not least, what is the potential of energy tourism, apart from being a marketing tool, to become a new tourism niche with the potential to contribute to local economic development by indu- cing significant numbers of people to extend their stays and spend more money in concerned areas? Providing an explorative pilot study of emerging energy tourism in the Czech Republic, we attempt to give a first insight into these questions.

4. Exploring energy tourism in the Czech Republic: a pilot case study 4.1. General overview The Czech Republic is a relatively small-scale, landlocked country in Central Europe, which has one of the most developed, industrialized, and prosperous economies of the post-communist states. Most of its area includes neither alpine terrain nor seashore; thus urban and cultural tourism represent a key element of the tourism supply (Vystoupil & Kunc, 2009). The country’s current energy policy is still based predominantly on traditional

Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 sources. Overall electrical production is prevailingly (57%) by thermal power plants fired mostly by domestic coal and by nuclear power plants (33%), with renewable energy sources at a mere 10% (Energostat, 2013). The updated State Energy Conception (till 2040) counts on future increases in energy production from nuclear power and from the further development of renewable energy, especially from biomass, wind, and small- scale solar installations. The development of nuclear power is the subject of a large public controversy concerning economic unprofitability and potential risks, while wind farm projects and biogas plants usually meet with strong opposition from local communities. Other political disputes and public resistance are connected with potentially breaking currently valid territorial limits on coal mining (Franta´l & Nova´kova´, 2014). In this context, energy companies and related interest groups have adopted different marketing strategies, including tourism activities, to improve the image of their products and to influence public opinion. The CEZ Group, the largest energy producing company Current Issues in Tourism 7

in East-Central Europe, has in the last decade opened information centres for tourists at almost 30 different facilities, including coal-fired power plants, hydropower plants, and both of its nuclear power plants. In 2012, overall attendance at their facilities was almost 200,000 visitors (see Table 1). Some of these energy facilities are ranked among the most visited regional attractions, with attendance rates higher than those of most museums, galleries, and castles – this is the case with both of the nuclear power plants and also with the Dlouhe´ Strańeˇ hydropower plant. The Dlouhe´ Strańeˇ pumped-storage hydropower plant, which is the most visited energy attraction, has been voted among the Seven Wonders of the Czech Republic by the readers of the iDnes tourism server (IDNES, 2005), gaining the same number of votes (about a hundred thousand) as Prague’s castle and the Charles Bridge.

4.2. Case study sites The information centre at the Dukovany power plant has been open since 1994, and more than 470,000 visitors have attended since then, with about 30,000 arriving in 2012. Teme- lıń’s information centre (in operation since 1997) is housed in a preserved historical chateau called Vysoky´ Hra´dek, which is located close to the power plant. The centre serves also as a popular place for wedding ceremonies, where newlyweds can be photographed with giant cooling towers in the background as witnesses to their wedding vows (Luka´sˇova´, 2011). A visit to the power plants’ information centres includes a film on the history and construction of power plants, the principles of atomic energy production and radioactive waste disposal, and interactive exhibits with various 3D models and plans of the plants. The information centres are open all year and admittance is free of charge. The Coal Safari tours have been annually among the top 10 most visited energy attractions. They are organized by the Czech Coal company (one of the two largest mining companies, and one lobbying in favour of lifting current territorial limits on mining) in an area of active open-pit mines located close to the district city of Most, Northern Bohemia. The Coal Safari presents three routes of half-day guided tours in off-road trucks, including several stops introducing different types of minescapes, mining technologies, and mining machines in regular operation. A significant part of the tours is presenting examples of post-mining environmental restoration, including the recultivated sites of the Most Hippo- drome (a track for horse races), the Matylda recreational lake (a flooded quarry), vineyards, and forested dumps. Tours are operated seasonally from April to October, four days per

Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 Table 1. The most visited operational energy tourism attractions in the Czech Republic (2012). Energy attraction Visitors Provider Dlouhe´ Strańeˇ – pumped-storage hydropower plant 83,212 CEZ Group Temelıń – nuclear power plant 34,203 CEZ Group Dukovany – nuclear power plant 30,000 CEZ Group Hucˇa´k – small hydropower plant and renewable energy centre 14,384 CEZ Group Dalesˇice – pumped-storage hydropower plant 11,357 CEZ Group Lipno – dam hydropower plant 8505 CEZ Group Vydra – small hydropower plant 7676 CEZ Group Coal Safari – open-pit coal mine guided tour 3800 Czech Coal Ledvice – coal-fired power plant 2762 CEZ Group Open House Day of wind power plants (at 13 different sites) .2500 CzWEA

Sources: CEZ Group, Czech Coal, Czech Wind Energy Association. 8 B. Franta´l and R. Urba´nkova´

week. Online booking is required in advance, as daily capacity is limited to 19 people (truck capacity). From 2013, tours are 150 CZK (approx. E7) per person. Altogether more than 13,000 people have participated in the tours since they began in 2009. The tourism activities related to wind farms (Open House Day and Dragon Kite Festi- vals under wind turbines) have been organized annually since 2006 by the Czech Wind Energy Association (bringing together representatives of investors and developers in the wind energy sector). The Dragon Kite Festivals are an example of outdoor experience- oriented tourism aimed at families with children. They are one day events including guided tours into the engine room of a wind turbine, an introduction to the technology of wind energy, a competition for the best ﬂying kite, and other outdoor game activities for children. Participation in the events is free of charge. In 2012, wind farms at 13 different locations were visited during the Open House Day, by more than 2500 tourists. About 200 people participated at the Dragon Kite Festival organized in 2012.

4.3. Survey method An on-site questionnaire survey with tourists was carried out during several days in the summer and autumn of 2012. The sample included altogether 300 respondents, 100 respondents from each case study area being considered adequate for our research purposes, given the overall visitor numbers at the destinations studied. The daily capacity of the Coal Safari tour is 19 visitors, with tours arranged 4 times a week, so in order to obtain the sample, our survey involved participants in tours during 4 weeks in August and September. The survey at the Dukovany nuclear power plant was conducted during three workdays in the last week of August. The Dragon Kite Festival survey was carried out during one day, 6 October, and it comprised almost all adult visitors to the event. Our survey was aimed at tourists older than 18 years, as it is supposed that people of this age should already have their own views on energy issues; this is also the legal age for participating in decision-making processes about local energy development projects. In this sense, our sample is not fully representative, as it did not involve children and teen- agers under 18, who represented a signiﬁcant proportion of the visitors to the nuclear power plant and wind fest. The questionnaire for tourists included mostly closed questions concerning their mode and time of travel, motivating factors behind their visits to energy attractions, their attitudes towards speciﬁc energy sources, and their personal characteristics. The questionnaire for company representatives was administered by electronic mail and it included open questions concerning the companies’ motivations for providing tourism activities, the

Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 target groups for their activities, their advertising strategies, and perceived beneﬁts. The questionnaires were answered by Ms Martı´nkova´ (the public relations and communication specialist for Czech Coal), Ms Smolova´ (a bureau member of the Czech Wind Energy Association), and Ms Janovska´ (manager of the Dukovany power plant information centre).

4.4. Aims and perceived beneﬁts of energy tourism for organizations The aim of Coal Safari tours is

to open the company’s mines in order for the public to discover the surface mine as a unique and complex technical work ( ...) to present the entire surface mining cycle, beginning with the removal of overburden and ending with reclamation of the landscape. Current Issues in Tourism 9

A special emphasis is put on presenting successful examples of post-mining landscape regeneration for residential and recreational purposes. Presenting coal mining companies as ‘responsible and environmentally aware producers of vital commodities’ was declared as the key objective also by mine site tour operators in other countries (Wheatley, 1989 as cited in Conlin & Jolliffe, 2010, p. 74). The Coal Safari project is aimed at the general public above the age of 12 (because of safety norms). The Coal Safari has been promoted as a ‘tour back to the Tertiary Epoch, observing modern dinosaurs’ (mining machines) on the company’s website, Facebook proﬁle, and other media. During the last three years, the interest of tourists has exceeded the capacity of tours by 30%. The mission of the Dukovany nuclear power plant’s information centre is ‘to acquaint the public with the technology of nuclear energy generation and related matters, such as nuclear safety and security, or radioactive waste disposal’. The programmes are aimed at the wider public without age or geographical limitation. Promotion of the centre is done especially through the company’s website and the press; special expositions and lectures are promoted via radio and TV spots. Visits to the power station are often connected with a visit to the nearby Dalesˇice dam lake, which is the water source for the nuclear power plant. The aim of tourism activities related to wind farms (Open House days and Dragon Kite Festivals) is to ‘introduce people to the technology of energy production by wind turbines, to discuss the importance of renewable energy in the context of global changes, and to contribute to higher public acceptance of new wind energy projects’. The presentation of factual information and the opportunity for personal contact with wind turbines should help people ‘to dismantle some myths connected with wind energy and to change their attitudes’. The activities are targeted especially at young people and families with children living in regions where wind farms are located and where new wind energy projects are planned. The Czech Coal company assumes that a majority of tourists have a positive impression from their Coal Safari tour (according to the e-form on the company’s website where visitors can express their feelings about the tour). Generally positive emotions prevail, too, in the guestbook of the nuclear power station’s information centre. According to a survey conducted by the Cˇ EZ company in the past, visitors’ attitudes towards nuclear power became more positive, thanks to their excursion to the visitor centre and the information presented there. The Czech Wind Energy Association also expects that the experiences people get from their excursions and the activities related to wind farms are mostly positive.

4.5. Tourist proﬁles and motivating factors Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 Compared to the general population, people with university educations are over-represented among energy tourists (with regard to our survey sample). While Coal Safari tours and the nuclear power station are visited especially by non-experts (i.e. their education or pro- fession are unrelated to energy), almost one half of those visiting the Festival under the wind turbines have had some relation with the energy sector. We can see from Table 2 that the Dragon Kite Festivals and the Coal Safari are attractions which are visited purpose- fully and that they are the main, indeed mostly the only, attraction visited during one day trips. Half the tourists visiting the nuclear power plant spent multiple nights at the location but the energy attraction itself was not the main objective of their stay in the region, instead one of a group of destinations visited. More than half the visitors to the power plant came in organized groups. This is in accordance with the information provided by the information centre operator that the majority of their visitors come in coach excursions organized by 10 B. Franta´l and R. Urba´nkova´

Table 2. Basic characteristics and travel patterns of energy tourists. Proportion (%) Coal Nuclear Wind Characteristics of subjects Safari plant farm Gender Males 53 58 78 Females 47 42 22 Age ,30 13 46 45 30–59 51 50 52 60+ 36 4 3 Education Basic or secondary without GCE 14 20 9 Secondary with GCE 44 50 39 Tertiary 42 30 52 Expert/non-expert Employed in energy sector 4 0 6 Educated in energy ﬁeld 16 4 37 No relation to energy 80 96 57 Energy attraction is Main destination of a trip 87 28 71 One of several places to visit 13 72 29 Length of a trip Same-day excursion 84 44 97 1–3 overnights 16 56 3 4 or more overnights 0 0 0 Type of travel Solo 4 0 6 With a partner 31 4 14 With a family 22 4 48 With friends 27 36 3 As an organized group 16 56 29

Note: GCE, general certiﬁcate of education.

schools, universities, firms, or homes for the elderly, for whom an excursion to the nuclear power plant is part of a larger programme for their visit to the region. Typical Coal Safari participants are smaller groups of friends or family members and organized tours of seniors or students. While during the first three seasons of tour operation the vast majority of visitors were (according to information from the operator) people from other regions of the country, during the last two years a significant number of visitors have been people from the Most region. It can be assumed that this has been caused by media- lization of the debate concerning the potential lifting of current mining limits in the region. The biggest group of visitors to the nuclear power plant are those coming from neighbouring Czech regions; about 6% of visitors are tourists from abroad, mostly from neighbouring

Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 countries (Austria, Germany, and Poland). The Dragon Kite Festivals are visited predominantly by young and middle-aged people, typically fathers with children or complete nuclear families, mostly composed of people living in the local region. The survey proved that the main motivating factor behind visits to energy attractions is an interest in a speciﬁc technology of energy production or in energy in general (see Table 3). In the case of the Coal Safari, an interest in surface mining technologies and machinery on the one hand, and in the issues of mining-induced environmental degradation, and landscape regeneration on the other hand, have been reported as the main motivating factors. The main interests of visitors to the nuclear power plant were in the basic principles of atomic energy generation and in security issues. According to the company’s representative, questions concerning possibilities for future employment in the nuclear power plant are very common among young visitors (the power plant is among the biggest employers in the region and offers much higher than average wages). Participants at the Dragon Kite Current Issues in Tourism 11

Table 3. Energy tourism motivation factors. Proportion (%) Coal Nuclear Wind Motivation factors Safari Plant farm Spending time out of usual places 47 40 29 Energy (in general) 16 32 37 Mining technology and machinery 64 – – Nuclear power technology/security – 20 – Wind power technology – – 63 Environmental and landscape impacts 47 32 17 Post-mining recultivation 30 – – Nuclear waste disposal – 20 – Noisiness of turbines – – 15 Other reason (curiosity, to spend time with children, 13 20 17 recommendation of friends, company excursion, etc.)

Festival were interested mostly in specific aspects of wind turbine operation, including the economics of wind energy generation (the cost of electricity from wind, returns on invest- ment in production) and the technical parameters of turbines (noise and infrasound). Besides an interest in energy-related issues, an interest in spending time away from more usual tourist places was also a significant factor reported for visiting energy attractions. To find out whether visitors to energy attractions visit similar destinations in other regions was a partial objective of our study. More than two-thirds of those surveyed (70%) responded that they had visited other energy tourism attractions in the past, including hydropower plants, nuclear power stations, and/or museums of mining. This means that the majority of energy tourists do not prefer one specific energy branch but will visit various types of these industrial attractions. According to our survey, only 15% of tourists for whom energy attractions are the main motivating factor and primary destination for a trip spent one or more nights in the location. We can hypothesize that most energy attractions are located at places that do not offer a wider range of attractions to motivate tourists to spend more nights, and thereby generate a bigger economic profit for local entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, since many energy attractions are located in regions with generally low tourism potential (Navra´til et al., 2013), it is important to attract some people on at least one day excursions, which are often their first visits to the regions in question. Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014

4.6. Tourists’ experiences and change of attitudes Our survey showed about one-third of respondents reporting a positive change in attitude towards the specific energy sources after their visit (see Table 4). The most significant change of attitudes was reported among visitors to the nuclear power station (two-thirds positively revised their attitudes towards nuclear energy). As concerns the Coal Safari and the Festival at the wind farm, in these cases about one quarter of tourists positively revised their attitudes on the energies concerned. Only two people reported more negative attitudes after visiting the wind farm. Non-expert people and women were more likely to change their attitudes in a positive direction; however, there appeared to be no significant differences according to age or education. It can be assumed that participation in excursions presenting authentic experiences contributes to breaking down some prejudices and risk 12 B. Franta´l and R. Urbańkova´

Table 4. The effect of visits on the change of attitudes towards respected type of energy. After-visit change of attitude Energy attraction To more positive (%) No change (%) To more negative (%) Coal Safari 24 76 0 Nuclear plant 68 32 0 Wind farm 27 71 2 Total 36 63 1

perceptions related to energy production and positively shifting attitudes towards energy sources. In this sense, energy tourism activities may represent an effective branding tool for changing negative or problematic images of energy sources and increasing their social acceptance. However, our more or less general results about the positive shift of attitudes need to be verified by further research using more specifically formulated questions and – if possible – using both pre- and post-visit measuring of attitudes. As another aspect, we explored respondents’ attitudes towards two hot topics in the current energy policy debate, the potential lifting of the current territorial limits on coal mining and the future development of nuclear energy. While about 40% of visitors to the nuclear power station and 35% of those to the wind farm reported strong disagreement with the expansion of mining, the figure was only about 20% among the visitors to the Coal Safari. Similarly, while 17% of visitors to the Coal Safari and 15% of those to the wind farm would prefer to stop using nuclear energy immediately, seeing it as too dangerous and expensive, there was no one with this attitude recorded among the visitors to the nuclear power station. These differences are partially explained by different structures of survey samples according to age and education. Even if the factors of age (in the case of coal mining) and education (in the case of nuclear power) proved to be more significant for respondents’ attitudes (the significant measures of correlation were Pearson’s r ¼ 0.35 in the case of age, and r ¼ 0.37 in the case of education) than visiting an energy attraction (r ¼ 0.21), the differences in attitudes appeared even within age and education categories. While such findings do not prove causality between a visit to an energy attraction and a subsequently more positive attitude towards energy sources (hypothetically, people with more positive attitudes to specific energy sources are more likely to travel to see their pre- ferred energy generation ‘live’), we can at least argue that visits to energy attractions still help to improve previous perceptions. This question also deserves further, more in-depth

Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 research.

5. Discussion and conclusion The paper contributes to current knowledge and tourism theory by providing a new perspec- tive on the energy and tourism nexus. Energy was conceptualized and investigated not only as a driver and/or a constraint of tourism, but also as a tourist attraction in its own right. Emerging forms of energy tourism, which has been deﬁned as visits to former, retired, or regenerated sites and to still operational energy sites where some facilities, services, or activities have been provided speciﬁcally for the tourists’ use, cannot be regarded as just a segment of industrial tourism, since it overlaps with several other types of special interest tourism, including cultural and heritage tourism, adventure tourism, or agricultural tourism. Industrial tourism has been widely recognized as a strategic tool available to rebrand the Current Issues in Tourism 13

image and strengthen the competitive potential of regions, as well as to contribute to higher levels of personal product involvement and loyalty to brands (Otgaar, 2012). Energy tourism, apart from being a corporate, product, or place branding tool, should be considered also for its wider societal and environmental conditionalities and potential impacts. New tourism consumption patterns – the effect of which was the boom of special interest tourism – have been reflecting the increasing diversity of interests of the late-modern leisure society (Douglas, Douglas, & Derret, 2001). Special interest tourism, it is suggested, particularly reflects new social values, such as the increased importance of outdoor activities, awareness of ecological problems, educational advances, aesthetic judgement, and improvement of self and society (WTO, 1985, cited in Hall & Weiler, 1992). In this respect, energy tourism on its supply side meets most aspects of the definition: it provides outdoor activities in unusual and visually outstanding energy landscapes, increases the general public’s energy literacy by raising awareness about the environmental cost of the energy we all use (by witnessing the real impacts of energy production on landscapes), and it motivates people to think about and make appropriate energy-related choices to tackle current energy challenges. It is more difficult to answer whether energy tourism has a potential to become a new powerful niche of special interest tourism as concerns the demand side. According to Hall and Weiler (1992, p. 5), special interest tourism occurs when ‘the tourists’ motivation and decision-making are primarily determined by a particular special interest with a focus either on activities and/or destinations and settings’. Lately, Smith, Macleod, and Robertson (2010, p. 161) defined special interest tourism as ‘travelling with the primary motivation of practising or enjoying a special interest’. Interpreting the findings of our case study with regard to these definitions and considering the typology of special interest tourists proposed by Brotherton and Himmetog˘lu (1997), energy tourism can be regarded rather an expression of ‘mixed interest tourism’ (see Trauer, 2006, p. 187). While visiting energy attractions is the primary reason in the decision-making process about destinations to go for some segment of tourists (called enthusiasts, experts or fanatics in terminology used by Brotherton and Himmetog˘lu (1997)), it is just secondary or subsidiary interest for other tourists (novices or dabblers) who decide about the destination to go and then look for various activities that can be realized there (cf. Trauer, 2006). Some modern energy facilities in the Czech Republic are ranked among the most visited regional attractions, with attendance rates higher than those of most regional museums, galleries, and castles. Case studies from other countries (Frew & Shaw, 1995; Oglethorpe, 1987; Varlow, 1990) show that people take tours in industrial companies for a variety of reasons, including educational purposes, curiosity about how something is made (to inves-

Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 tigate), or simply to do something different. Similar factors also work for energy tourism attractions being surveyed in this case study. One thing that energy tourism certainly has in its favour is the ‘novelty factor’ (Bello & Etzel, 1985), as it can attract people who want to spend time ‘away from the usual places’, to see and to do ‘something different’. Unlike industrial heritage sites representing ‘landscapes of nostalgia’ (Halewood & Hannam, 2001), new energy tourism sites represent authentic contemporaneity, or even the landscapes of a possible future, as we can assume further spatial diffusion of wind turbines, solar panels, and other renewable energy facilities is to come. Nuclear power plants with giant cooling towers can be regarded as kinds of modern cathedrals (Hecht, 1997), presenting tourists with not only a technical education but also with an extraordinary visual experience; this could be one of the reasons why people organize wedding ceremonies with a nuclear plant as a backdrop, as in the case of Temelı´n power plant in the Czech Republic (Luka´sˇova´, 2011). A different extraordinary visual experience is presented via 14 B. Franta´l and R. Urba´nkova´

the outdoor Coal Safari tours, which take visitors through abysmal open-pit coalmines. Some wind turbines also serve as modern look-out towers and ‘wind turbine bagging’ (hikers seeking to visit every wind farm in a country) has become a fascinating activity for some tourists (British Wind Energy Association, 2006; Franta´l & Kunc, 2011). Even though modern energy attractions draw considerable numbers of tourists, according to our survey it seems that they are still not able to generate a bigger contribution to local economies by motivating tourists to extend their stay and spend more money in the region. The outdoor forms of energy tourism related to coal mining or renewable energy facilities, which combine technical and environmental education with sport activities, were more successful in attracting young people and families with children. For example, in addition to its technical exposition, the Czech Dlouhe´ Strańeˇ pumped-storage hydropower plant also offers outdoor activities (tourists can go to the upper reservoir by cableway and then go back down to the parking place on rented bikes or inline skates). In Iceland, several special- ized tours offer tourists a mixture of nature and spa tourism with energy and environmental education (a visit to a geothermal power plant and greenhouse cultivation centre) (Richter, 2013). It seems such sorts of tour packages, where visits to energy sites are ‘mixed’ with other tourism activities, could have a bigger development potential. According to previous surveys with industrial companies (Frew & Shaw, 1995; Otgaar, 2012; Peumans, 2006), the most important reasons for firms to offer tours for tourists are (1) to improve their image (especially for industries trying to counter negative publicity) and get closer to customers, understanding better what they want and gaining a stronger brand loyalty, (2) to help attract new employees and improve the working morale of current employees, and (3) to generate extra income (via ticket sales, gift shop merchandis- ing, restaurants, etc.). As concerns the presented energy tourism case studies, the first motivating factor – to improve public perception and acceptance of specific energy products – has been considered dominant, while the others hold negligible importance according to the representatives of the energy companies. Our survey shows that energy tourism activities can effectively work as a marketing and public relations tool in this way, since they positively shape public attitudes. However, verifying and measuring the effect of visiting specific energy tourism attractions on the change of tourists’ attitudes towards current energy dilemmas need further, more in-depth, and comparative research. Cooperation between energy companies and regional and local bodies seems to be a critical point in the more effective exploitation of energy tourism potential. Analysing the constraints of industrial tourism development, Otgaar (2012) emphasized that the interests of public and private actors are often fundamentally different (or even in conflict), concerning the number, composition, and spread of the visitor flow. Nevertheless, both public

Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 and private actors have an interest in good relations between industries and the communities in which they are located and are aware that industrial tourism – as well as energy tourism – can be an effective tool for branding the region. Energy tourism packages have already been successfully marketed in developing strong local or regional brands, accelerating local tourism and sustainable economic development in, for example, the districts of Gu¨ssing and Murau in Austria (Keglovits, 2011; Spa¨th & Rohracher, 2010) or in the municipality of Hosteˇtı´n, in the Czech Republic (Veronica, 2010), where the presentation of community renewable energy projects is combined with exhibitions, festivals, and markets offering the products of local farmers and craftsmen. Promotion of these exist- ing best practices may be the ﬁrst step in the process of embracing modern energy facilities such as wind turbines or biogas plants not as a problem but as an asset in contemporary place competition. Current Issues in Tourism 15

As the issues of climate change mitigation, future energy sustainability, and energy security grow in importance, so too will people’s interest in energy-related issues probably increase. In this sense, there is a wide-open ﬁeld for developing energy tourism – and for further social science research into the ﬁeld as well.

Acknowledgements We thank three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on a draft manuscript, and Evan McElravy for providing English proof-reading.

Disclosure statement No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding The paper was elaborated in the scope of the project ‘Energy landscapes: innovation, development and internationalization of research’ [ESFOP CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0025], and ‘the Institute of Geonics’ long term institutional support [RVO: 68145535].

References Albrecht, Ch., Wagner, A., Wesselmann, K., & Korb, M. (2013). The impact of offshore wind energy on tourism: Good practices and perspectives for the South Baltic Region. Retrieved from http:// www.offshore-stiftung.com/60005/Uploaded/Offshore_Stiftung|2013_04SBO_SOW_tourism_st udy_final_web.pdf Arau´jo, K. (2014). The emerging field of energy transitions: Progress, challenges, and opportunities. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 112–121. Baker, M. A., Davis, E. A., & Weaver, P. A. (2014). Eco-friendly attitudes, barriers to participation, and differences in behavior at green hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(1), 89–99. Becken, S. (2011). A critical review of tourism and oil. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 359–379. Becken, S. (2013). Operators’ perceptions of energy use and actual saving opportunities for tourism accommodation. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 18(1–2), 72–91. Becken, S., & Simmons, D. G. (2002). Understanding energy consumption patterns of tourist attractions and activities in New Zealand. Tourism Management, 23(4), 343–354. Becken, S., Simmons, D. G., & Frampton, C. (2003). Energy use associated with different travel choices. Tourism Management, 24(3), 267–277. Bello, A. J., & Etzel, M. J. (1985). The role of novelty in the pleasure travel experience. Journal of Travel Research, 24(1), 20–26. British Wind Energy Association. (2006). The impact of wind farms on the tourism industry in the UK. Retrieved from http://www.bwea.com/pdf/tourism.pdf Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 Brotherton, B., & Himmetog˘lu, B. (1997). Beyond destinations – special interest tourism. Anatolia, 8(3), 11–30. Bru¨cher, W. (2001). Geography of energy. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International ency- clopedia of the social & behavioral science (pp. 4520–4523). Detroit, MI: Gale-Cengage. Budeanu, A. (2007). Sustainable tourist behaviour-a discussion of opportunities for change. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(5), 499–508. Conlin, M. V., & Jolliffe, L. (Eds.). (2010). Mining heritage and tourism: A global synthesis. New York, NY: Routledge. Dalton, G. J., Lockington, D. A., & Baldock, T. E. (2008). A survey of tourist attitudes to renewable energy supply in Australian hotel accommodation. Renewable Energy, 33, 2174–2185. Devine-Wright, P. (2007). Energy citizenship: Psychological aspects of evolution in sustainable energy technologies. In J. Murphy (Ed.), Governing technology for sustainability (pp. 63–89). London: Earthscan. De Waters, J. E., & Powers, S. E. (2011). Energy literacy of secondary students in New York State (USA): A measure of knowledge, affect, and behavior. Energy Policy, 39, 1699–1710. 16 B. Franta´l and R. Urbańkova´

Dolnicar, S., Crouch, G. I., & Long, P. (2008). Environment-friendly tourists: What do we really know about them? Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2), 197–210. Douglas, N., Douglas, N., & Derret, R. (Eds.). (2001). Special interest tourism. Melbourne: Wiley. Edwards, J. A. & Llurde´s, J. C. (1996). Mines and quarries: Industrial heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 341–363. Energostat. (2013). Energetics of the Czech Republic: Basic data. Retrieved from http://energostat.cz/ elektrina.html Energy Tourism. (2011, July). Energy Tourism – Powerful tourism niche, or blind alley? Presentation from the Conference, Vienna. Retrieved from http://www.energy-tourism.com/en/ veranstaltungen/do/detail/id/1.html Franta´l, B. (2014). Have local government and public expectations of wind energy project benefits been met? Implications for repowering schemes. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. doi:10.1080/1523908x.2014.936583. Franta´l, B. & Kunc, J. (2011). Wind turbines in tourism landscapes: Czech Experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(2), 499–519. Franta´l, B., & Nova´kova´, E. (2014). A curse of coal? Exploring unintended regional consequences of coal energy in the Czech Republic. Moravian Geographical Report, 22(2), 55–65. Franta´l, B., Pasqualetti, M., & Van der Horst, D. (2014). New trends and challenges for energy geo- graphies: Introduction to the special issue. Moravian Geographical Reports, 22(2), 2–6. Frew, E. A. (2008). Industrial tourism theory and implemented strategies. In A. Woodside (Ed.), Advances in culture, tourism and hospitality research, issue 2: Industrial tourism theory and implemented strategies (pp. 27–42). Bingley: Emerald. Frew, E. A., & Shaw, R. N. (1995, February). Industrial tourism: The experience and the motivation to visit. In R. N. Shaw (Ed.), CAUTHE 1995: Proceedings of the national tourism and hospitality conference (pp. 88–104). Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research. Retrieved from http://search. informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn¼619442738712611;res¼IELBUS Frey, M. (2010). Deutschland – Erneuerbare Energien entdecken. Baedeker Allianz Reisefu¨hrer. Berlin: Mairdumont Verlag. Go¨ssling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change, 12(4), 283–302. Go¨ssling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2013). Challenges of tourism in a low carbon economy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(6), 525–538. Halewood, C., & Hannam, K. (2001). Viking heritage tourism: Authenticity and commodification. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 565–580. Hall, M., & Weiler, B. (1992). Introduction. What’s special about special interest tourims? In B. Weiler & C. M. Hall (Eds.), Special interest tourism (pp. 1–14). London: Bellhaven Press. Han, H.-S., Hsu, L.-T., & Sheu, C.-W. (2010). Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tourism Management, 31(3), 325–334. Hartmann, P., & Ibańez, V. (2007). Managing customer loyalty in liberalized residential energy markets: The impact of energy branding. Energy Policy, 35(4), 2661–2672. Hecht, G. (1997). Peasants, engineers, and atomic cathedrals: Narrating modernization in postwar pro- vincial France. French Historical Studies, 20(3), 381–418. Horska´, H., Mikulı´k, O., Vaishar, A., & Zapletalova´, J. (1996). Perception of the Dukovany Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 nuclear power plant (Czech Republic) by local population. Moravian Geographical Reports, 4(2), 19–35. IDNES. (2005). Cˇ tena´rˇi iDNES zvolili sedm divu˚ Cˇ eska. Retrieved from http://zpravy.idnes.cz/ ctenari-idnes-zvolili-sedm-divu-ceska-dwx-/domaci.aspx?c=A050826_131632_domaci_ton Jiricka, A., & Pro¨bstl, U. (2011, July). Energy tourism – Powerful new niche? Proceedings of the energy tourism conference, Vienna. Retrieved from http://www.energy-tourism.com/en/ veranstaltungen/do/detail/id/1.html Jiricka, A., Salak, B., Eder, R., Arnberger, A., & Pro¨bstl, U. (2010). Energetic tourism: Exploring the experience quality of renewable energies as a new sustainable tourism market. In C. A. Brebbia & F. D. Pineda (Eds.), WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment (Vol. 139, Issue 4, pp. 55–68). Southampton: WIT Press. Keglovits, Ch. (2011). The Gu¨ssing model and the role of eco energy tourism. Proceedings of the energy tourism conference, Vienna, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.energy-tourism.com/en/ veranstaltungen/do/detail/id/1.html Current Issues in Tourism 17

Kelly, J., Haider, W., Williams, P. W., & Englund, K. (2007). Stated preferences of tourists for eco- efficient destination planning options. Tourism Management, 28(2), 377–390. Konecˇny´, O. (2013). Geographical perspectives on Agritourism in The Czech Republic. Moravian Geographical Reports, 22(1), 15–23. Kostakis, I., & Sardianou, E. (2012). Which factors affect the willingness of tourists to pay for renewable energy? Renewable Energy, 38(1), 169–172. Ladenburg, J., Termansen, M., & Hasler, B. (2013). Assessing acceptability of two onshore wind power development schemes: A test of viewshed effects and the cumulative effects of wind turbines. Energy, 54, 45–54. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., Marlon, J., & Howe, P. (2013). Public support for climate and energy policies in April 2013. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Lennox, J. (2012). Impacts of high oil prices on tourism in New Zealand. Tourism Economics, 18(4), 781–800. Lilley, M. B., Firestone, J., & Kempton, W. (2010). The effect of wind power installations on coastal tourism. Energies, 3(1), 1–22. Luka´sˇova´, V. (2011). Cooling towers for a witness: Weddings by a nuclear power plant Temelin, Czech Republic. Retrieved from http://veronikalukasova.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/cooling- towers-for-a-witness-weddings-by-a-nuclear-power-plant-temelin-czech-republic/ Lupp, G., Bastian, O., Steinhaüßer, R., & Syrbe, R. -U. (2014). Perceptions of energy crop production by lay people and farmers, using the ecosystem services approach. Moravian Geographical Reports, 22(2), 15–25. Mbzibain, A., Hocking, T. J., Tate, G., & Ali, S. (2013). Renewable enterprises on UK farms: Assessing levels of uptake, motivations and constraints to widespread adoption. Biomass and Bioenergy, 49, 28–37. Michalena, E., & Tripanagnostopoulos, Y. (2010). Contribution of the solar energy in the sustainable tourism development of the Mediterranean islands. Renewable Energy, 35(3), 667–673. Mitchell, M. A., & Orwig, R. A. (2002). Consumer experience tourism and brand bonding. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 11(1), 30–42. Molnarova, K., Sklenicka, P., Stiborek, J., Svobodova, K., Salek, M., & Brabec, E. (2012). Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics. Applied Energy, 92, 269–278. Nabiyeva, K. (2014). Renewables as tourist attractions? Only in Germany. Climate News. Retrieved June 17, from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/renewable-energy-as-tourist-attractions-in- germany-17558 Naukkarinen, P. (2009). Solar air conditioning and its role in alleviating the energy crisis of the Mediterranean hotels. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 28(1–3), 93–100. Navra´til, J., Pıćha, K., Martina´t, S., Knotek, J., Kucˇera, T., Balounova´, Z., ... Rajchard, J. (2013). A model for the identification of areas favourable for the development of tourism: A case study of the Sˇumava Mts. and South Bohemia tourist regions (Czech Republic). Moravian Geographical Reports, 21(1), 25–40. Nepal, S. K. (2008). Tourism-induced rural energy consumption in the Annapurna region of Nepal. Tourism Management, 29(1), 89–100. Oglethorpe, M. K. (1987). Tourism and industrial Scotland. Tourism Management, 8(3), 268–271. Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 Onishi, N. (2012). A nuclear plant, and a dream, fizzles. The New York Times, p. A11. Retrieved February 14, 2012, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/world/asia/bataan-nuclear-plant- never-opened-now-a-tourism-site.html?pagewanted¼all&_r¼0 Otgaar, A. (2012). Towards a common agenda for the development of industrial tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 4, 86–91. Otgaar, A., Ven der Berg, L., Berger, Ch., & Xiang Feng, R. (2008). Industrial Tourism: Opportunities for city and enterprise. Rotterdam: Erasmus University. Pasqualetti, M. (2000). Morality, space, and the power of wind-energy landscapes. Geographical Review, 90, 381–394. Pasqualetti, M. (2011). Social barriers to renewable energy landscapes. Geographical Review, 101(2), 201–223. Pasqualetti, M. (2012). Reading the changing energy landscape. In S. Stremke & A. Van Den Dobbelsteen (Eds.), Sustainable energy landscapes: Designing, planning, and development (pp. 11–44). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 18 B. Franta´l and R. Urbańkova´

Pentelow, L. & Scott, D. (2010). The Implications of climate change mitigation policy and oil price volatility for tourism arrivals to the Caribbean. Journal of Tourism Hospitality and Planning Development, 7(3), 301–315. Peumans, D. (2006). Economisch-geografische analyse van het Industrieel Toerisme in Limburg. Hasselt: Universiteit Hasselt. Pro¨bstl, U., Jiricka, A., & Hindinger, F. (2011). Renewable energy in winter sports destinations – desired, ignored or rejected? In A. Borsdorf, J. Sto¨tter and E. Veuillet (Eds.), Managing alpine future II: Inspire and drive sustainable mountain regions (pp. 309–318). Wien: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press. Richter, L. X. (2013). Geothermal plants among top tourist attractions in Iceland. Think Geoenergy. Retrieved December 4, 2013, from http://thinkgeoenergy.com/archives/16128 Riddington, G., McArthur, D., Harrison, T., & Gibson, H. (2010). Assessing the economic impact of wind farms on tourism in Scotland: GIS, surveys and policy outcomes. International Journal of Tourism Research, 12(3), 237–252. Rodriguez, J. F. (2012). Hydropower landscapes and tourism development in the Pyrenees. From natural resource to cultural heritage. Journal of Alpine Research Revue de geógraphie alpine, 100(2), 2–15. Sæþo´rsdo´ttir, A. D. (2012). Tourism and power plant development: An attempt to solve land use con- flicts. Tourism Planning & Development, 9(4), 339–353. Shi, Y., Du, Y., Yang, G., Tang, Y., Fan, L., Zhang, J., & Chang, J. (2013). The use of green waste from tourist attractions for renewable energy production: The potential and policy implications. Energy Policy, 62, 410–418. Smil, V. (2010). Energy transitions: History, requirements, prospects. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Smith, M., Macleod, N., & Robertson, M. H. (2010). Special interest tourism. In M. Smith, N. MacLeod and M. H. Robertson (Eds.), SAGE key concepts, key concepts in tourist studies (pp. 161–166). London: Sage. Spa¨th, P., & Rohracher, H. (2010). ‘Energy regions’: The transformative power of regional discourses on socio-technical futures. Research Policy, 39(4), 449–458. Stokes, C., Beaumont, E., Russell, P., & Greaves, D. (2014). Anticipated coastal impacts: What water- users think of marine renewables and why. Ocean & Coastal Management, 99, 63–71. Tabatchnaia-Tamirisa, N., Loke, M. K., Leung, P., & Tucker, K. A. (1997). Energy and tourism in Hawaii. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 390–401. Tilson, D. J. (1993). The shaping of ‘eco-nuclear’ publicity: The use of visitors centres in public relations. Media, Culture and Society, 15(3), 419–435. Tilson, D. J. (1996). Promoting a ‘greener’ image of nuclear power in the U.S. and Britain. Public Relations Review, 22(1), 63–79. Trauer, B. (2006). Conceptualizing special interest tourism-frameworks for analysis. Tourism Management, 27(2), 183–200. Truelove, H. B. (2012). Energy source perceptions and policy support: Image associations, emotional evaluations, and cognitive beliefs. Energy Policy, 45, 478–489. Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Van der Horst, D. (2007). NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy, 35, 2705–2714. Van der Horst, D. (2014). Landscapes of lost energy: Counterfactual geographical imaginary for a Downloaded by [Czech Academy of Sciences] at 22:05 16 December 2014 more sustainable society. Moravian Geographical Reports, 22(2), 66–72. Varlow, S. (1990). Oiling the wheels of industry. Horizons, 1, 8–12. Veronica. (2010). Hostetin will be visited by Prince Charles. Press Release. Retrieved from http:// www.veronica.cz/spolecne/tiskove_zpravy/207_press_release_prince_charles.pdf Vystoupil, J., & Kunc, J. (2009). Tourism in the Czech Republic: In form of presentation of Atlas of tourism of the Czech Republic. In W. Wilk (Ed.), Global changes: Their regional and local aspects (pp. 210–222). Warsaw: University of Warsaw. Westerberg, V., Jacobsen, J. B., & Lifran, R. (2013). The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French Mediterranean. Tourism Management, 34, 172–183. Wheatley, A. (1989). Mine site tours – a worthwhile public role. Mining Review, December, 25–26. Whittlesea, E. R., & Owen, A. (2012). Towards a low carbon future – the development and application of REAP Tourism, a destination footprint and scenario tool. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(6), 845–865.

View publication stats