the costs. They provide different strategies for that (cp. Rogall, 2002:58f ), all of which lead to a monetarisation of negative social and ecological effects and incentives for environmentally sustainable actions. For example in the case of road freight “the taxation amounts to about 15% of the costs they impose”(Whitelegg 1993:131; figures from Teufel 1989) – already including the costs of land use and road maintenance. In 1990, the total external costs for freight transport (per tonne-km) summed up to 5.01 pfennigs (former German currency; 1 pfennig would be around 0,005€) for road transport, rail 1.15p and inland waterways 0.35p (p. 133, citing Planco, 1990). If all those now external costs were to be internalized in our future scenario, it would be a big step towards a larger share for inland waterway transport. Given that adequate exhaust filtering is introduced and the quality of ship fuel is improved, also a more sustainable approach is likely to be met. Of course this considers only the modal split, while many other important factors, as e.g. the total volume of transport, would have to be recognized here. A very holistic and sophisticated approach can be found in Banister e.a. (2000); also Whitelegg (1993) discusses a more complete set of factors. Still, we think waterway transport has a potential to become both more important for transportation and more sustainable in environmental terms. It is the mode of transport which would need the smallest changes to meet the urges of a more sustainable society. At the same time, we do not expect the prices for waterway transport to rise in the same ratio as e.g. the prices for road traffic – once a cost-by-cause principle is achieved – as only a small part of the real costs of waterway transport has not been internalized up to now (air and water pollution, land use and noise pollution of ports). We think, in combination with efficient multi-modal traffic nodes, waterway transport is likely to become an important mode of transport in a sustainable future. References: Banister, D., D. Stead, P. Steen, J. Åkerman, K. Dreborg, P. Nijkamp & R.
Schleicher-Tappeser (2000): European Transport Policy and Sustainable Mobility. London & New York. Button, K., & Nijkamp, P. (1997): Social change and sustainable transport. In: Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp. 215-218. European Parliament and Council (2005): Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 amending Directive 1999/32/EC as regards the sulphur content of marine fuels. – online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:20 05:191:0059:0069:EN:PDF (last viewed 2009-05-05) EUROSTAT(2008): Modal split in the inland transport of the EU (=Statistics in focus 35/2008). – online: http:// bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/ download.action?fileName=KSSF08035 ENC_002.pdf&eubphfUid=568567&cata logNbr=KS-SF-08-035-EN-C (last viewed 2009-05-05) Feitelson, E. & E. Verhoef (2001, eds.): Transport and environment: in search of sustainable solutions. Planco (1990): Externe Kosten des Verkehrs. Schiene, Straße, Binnenschiffahrt. Gutachten im Auftrag der Deutschen Bundesbahn. Rieken, P. (2008): Emissionen der Binnenschifffahrt: Aktueller Stand und Perspektiven. In: 100 Jahre DWG. Rogall, H. (2002): Neue Umweltökonomie – Ökologische Ökonomie (=Lehrtexte: Umweltökonomie). Opladen. Teufel, D. (1989): Gesellschaftliche Kosten des Straßen-Güterverkehrs: Kostendeckungsgrad im Jahr 1987 und Vorschläge zur Realisierung des Verursacherprinzips (=Bericht Nr. 14). Umweltund Prognoseinstitut, Heidelberg. Whitelegg, J. (1993): Transport for a sustainable future. London & New York. Zachcial, M. (2008): Prognose der Seeverkehrsmärkte. In: 100 Jahre DWG.
Environmentally Sustainable Transport. – online: http://ideas.repec.org/p/dgr/ vuarem/1993-69.html (last viewed 200905-05)
Dark topic brings brightness to the future of tourism by Maiboroda Nataliia Volodymyrivna Specialization in International Tourism, Kyiv National Taras Shevchenko University, Faculty of Geography. EGEA Kyiv It was a great surprise when I found a very unusual topic of Geography among the long workshop list of the Annual Congress 2009 (Heeg, The Netherlands): “Final Places: Geographies of death”. It looks like our science is developing a totally new and innovative field, which deals with the cultural and spatial aspects of the places of death (necropolis). Normally people associate the word “necropolis”only with a cemetery covered with darkness and an inanimate atmosphere. And for sure the mention of traveling there would sound too crazy and unreasonable to be accepted by some minds. But let me ask you if you have ever visited the Egyptian pyramids, Taj Mahal (India), the Pantheon in Paris or Rome, la Basilica di Santa Croce (Florence), the Basilica of Saint Peter (Vatican), the Kremlin Wall (Moscow), the Westminster Abbey (London), Chernobyl (Ukraine), Auschwitz (Poland), the cemetery Skogskyrkogården (Sweden) or the Merry Cemetery in Romania? All these famous places are considered to be necropolises (from Greek. ‘nekros’ – dead, ‘polis’ – a city) – a «city of dead people», a generalization for graves, cemeteries, mausoleums, brotherly graves and other types of burial places [3]. Nowadays, much attention has been paid to necropolises as mysterious, unique displays of organization of the space, inevitable and eternal residence of many temporal inhabitants of Earth, as to the specific components of the architecture and history related to them. This point of view is reflected in advertising-information production (tourist booklets, city guides, TV programs etc.), in positive dynamics of tourist visits, in the permanent growth of the amount of scientific and popular science studies and articles, [2, 3] and the visits of world leaders and other VIPs.
Further Reading: Åkerman, J. & M. Höjer (2005): How much transport can the climate stand? – Sweden on a sustainable path in 2050. In: Energy Policy 34, pp. 1944-1957. Litman, T. & D. Burwell (2006): Issues in sustainable transportation. In: International Journal of Global Environmental Issues Volume 6, Number 4, pp. 331-347. Nijkamp, P. (1993): Roads Towards
The European Geographer - 5 - January 2010
The European Geographer - 5 - January 2010
World and European experience testifies that necropolises were and still are a popular destinations in tourist routes (it is confirmed by statistics about visits to the world, European and national cemeteries – Père Lachaise, Montmartre Cemetery, Les Invalides, Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois, Green-Wood Cemetery, Great Pyramids of Giza, Luxor, Taj-Mahal, Arlington cemetery, Highgate Cemetery, Novodevichy Cemetery etc.). Necropolises indicate the objective analytic base of the history of a certain territory, nation and period. The burial rituals and remains of ancestors, which have a spatial component, often underlie the geographically marked phenomena of any kind of culture. It is evident in the territorial distribution of burial places, which is the base for developing a new scientific field – the geography of necropolises. Necropolises show an authentic historical constituent (the older the object, the greater its chronological weight), a biosocial and architectural value which is related to the period of origin and its dominating traditions and norms [1]. Necropolises could become a great prospect for tourism. In international scientific literature the phenomenon of travelers visiting necropolises is characterized by the term «Dark tourism» or «Grief tourism» [5]. Professor D. Lennon (from the University of Glasgow), coauthor of «Dark Tourism – The attraction of death and disaster (Continuum)» says that this term is used in the curriculum of tourism specialization at the University of Glasgow, to represent the growing demand on tourist attractions, such as Ground Zero and other places associated with death, genocide, terrorism and suffering. [6]. Some of the most notorious destinations for dark tourism are the Nazi extermination camp at Auschwitz in Poland, the Chernobyl site
in Ukraine, Bran Castle or Poienari Castle in Romania [7]. There are a lot of definitions of “dark tourism”, such as – disaster tourism, recreational grief, grief tourism, black and cemetery tourism. Here, the reason for traveling must be considered. A tourist who travels to New York City to visit Ground Zero is a grief tourist, but a tourist who travels to see some Broadway shows and climb the Empire State Building who also happens to visit Ground Zero is a regular tourist, as has been mentioned by James Trotta [8]. On an article published by Catherine Soanes on askoxford.com (Oxford University Press) the case is made to differentiate “dark”, “disaster”and “grief”tourism: • Dark Tourism would then be referred to as “traveling to areas associated with death and disaster”such as former concentration camps, battlefields, and even to contemporary sites of mass destruction such as Ground Zero in New York City. • Disaster tourism would be “traveling to places affected by natural disasters”, such as hurricanes, tsunamis or earthquakes, sites devastated by natural catastrophes like the South-East Asian tsunami or Hurricane Katrina. • Grief Tourism relates to “places associated with grief”, like the village of Soham in Cambridgeshire after the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. The definitions above are too narrow to describe how dark tourism is used, that is why on my research, the term “dark tourism”refers to each and everyone of the examples above. So, a person who visits either cemeteries, crypts, concentration camps, battlefields, places affected by natural disasters or basilicas, churches and temples (generally defined in this article as “necropolis”) to