Abstract:
Anthropogenic tourism resources are an important component of the tourismresource potential of Bulgaria, as well as an important competitive advantage for Bulgarian tourism. These resources have been studied and ranked based on different criteria. At first glance, their division is easy and clear. However, there is no common consensus among Bulgarian researchers on their type differentiation. Often anthropogenic tourist resources are interpreted as synonymous with cultural and historical heritage (and vice versa) and this, although too general and superficial, has some reasons. However, it is necessary to emphasize unequivocally that the two terms are not equivalent. „Anthropogenic resources“ refers to a more general concept that includes both cultural and historical heritage resources and those that have been created today by purpose (artificial) and whose content may contain elements of culture and / or history. In this paper, the authors propose their own classification of anthropogenic tourism resources. The application of typology (division based on qualitative attributes) is not only scientifically important, but it is also important to practice to bring clarity and order to the diversity available. Senses are used as the leading criterion, because perception through the senses, awareness and comprehension of an object (or phenomenon) is the determining one for the relations to with it. According to this criterion, anthropogenic tourist resources are divided into tangible and intangible. The tangible ones are inherited, modern and mixed. Archaeological and ethnographic resources are inherited. Modern sports, entertainment and business resources are created. Religious, architectural, commemorative, cultural-institutional and economic resources can be both inherited and modernly created, therefore they are defined as a mixed type. The proposed classification is consistent not only with the resources tangibility and genesis and their peculiarities, but also with their use by the tourists and the importance of these resources for Bulgaria. The classifications developed so far are not bound to give a strictly fixed meaning to the individual terms. This is of particular importance to the authors of this typology. The definition of individual types is a significant contribution to their validation and, accordingly, to their work (identification, tourist evaluation, market positioning, conservation, development, etc.). Therefore, the proposed new categorization of anthropogenic tourism resources is logically accompanied by the designation of each type. The caveat is that it is not possible to put strict boundaries between the types, because very often each of them has characteristics of more than one group, hence different categories are connected not only by their nature, but also in their origin, as well as places of distribution. Most of the intangible anthropogenic tourism resources are only feasible in the presence of specific facilities. Therefore, the two main groups (tangible and intangible) are also highly interconnected and interdependent. The typology thus presented not only satisfies scientific and educational needs, but is also adequately applicable in public practice.