Tourist Destination Management: Instruments, Products, and Case Studies [1st ed.] 978-3-030-16980-0;978-3-030-16981-7

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xii
Social Media Usage Among Top European DMOs (Ahmet Uşaklı, Burcu Koç, Sevil Sönmez)....Pages 1-14
Neoliberal Collaboration of Tourism Academia and Industry: The Case of Destination Governance (Alper Aslan, Metin Kozak)....Pages 15-26
The Airline–Airport–Destination Authority Relationship: The Case of Greece (Andreas Papatheodorou, Eirini Vlassi, Dominiki Gaki, Lemonia Papadopoulou-Kelidou, Marina Efthymiou, Dimitrios Pappas et al.)....Pages 27-41
The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations (Andrés Artal-Tur, Doaa Salman, Yasser Tawfik)....Pages 43-73
Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty (Andrés Artal-Tur, Noelia Sánchez-Casado)....Pages 75-99
Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations (Angela Tritto, Nicole Chang Shu Fun)....Pages 101-121
Food as a Component in Destination Marketing (Anna Stalmirska, Peter Whalley, Paul Fallon)....Pages 123-141
An Application of the EU Financial Instruments for Rural Tourism Development (Elena Aleksandrova)....Pages 143-157
Travel Bloggers as Influencers: What Compels Them to Blog (Esra Ay, Kübra İpek, Nazım Bircan Özdağ, Ecem Özekici, Maria Dolores Alvarez)....Pages 159-175
Winery Operators’ Perceptions of Factors Affecting Wine Tourism Development (Giacomo Del Chiappa, Maria Alebaki, George Menexes)....Pages 177-191
Collaborative Policy Making and Stakeholder Engagement: A Resident–Based Perspective (Giacomo Del Chiappa, Marcello Atzeni, Martina Gallarza)....Pages 193-207
Non-constant Reputation Effect at Spanish Mediterranean Destinations (Isabel P. Albaladejo, María Isabel González-Martínez)....Pages 209-225
Turnaround Strategies in Destination Marketing Organizations (Jeremy Fairley)....Pages 227-239
Contemporary Urban Destination Marketing: A Comparative Analysis (Kenneth Deptula, Alan Fyall)....Pages 241-255
Competitiveness Factor Analysis of an Operating Tourist Destination (Mariya Stankova, Ivanka Vasenska)....Pages 257-272
A Strategic Approach to Managing Risk and Crisis at Tourist Destinations (Ozen Kirant Yozcu, Gurel Cetin)....Pages 273-287
How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for Practical Impact (Pietro Beritelli, Gabriella Crescini, Stephan Reinhold, Veronika Schanderl)....Pages 289-310
French Golf Tourism and Sustainable Development (Sorina Cernaianu, Claude Sobry)....Pages 311-324

Citation preview

Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management

Nazmi Kozak Metin Kozak Editors

Tourist Destination Management Instruments, Products, and Case Studies

Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management

This book series covers all topics relevant in the tourism, hospitality and event industries. It includes destination management and related aspects of the travel and mobility industries as well as effects from developments in the information and communication technologies. “Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management” embraces books both for professionals and scholars, and explicitly includes undergraduate and advanced texts for students. In this setting the book series reflects the close connection between research, teaching and practice in tourism research and tourism management and the related fields. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15444

Nazmi Kozak • Metin Kozak Editors

Tourist Destination Management Instruments, Products, and Case Studies

Editors Nazmi Kozak Faculty of Tourism Anadolu University Eskişehir, Turkey

Metin Kozak School of Tourism Dokuz Eylül University İzmir, Turkey

ISSN 2510-4993 ISSN 2510-5000 (electronic) Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management ISBN 978-3-030-16980-0 ISBN 978-3-030-16981-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

Over the last few decades, the nature of competitiveness in the tourism industry has gained a new form by shifting from inter-firm competitiveness to inter-destination competitiveness due to the consequences of globalization and the opportunities provided by the speedy development of technology. Such competitiveness has appeared both nationally and internationally. Many destinations have created their own icons and have been introduced as a new product into the international market. Some others are still in the waiting list to be discovered for future visits. The destination supply capacity has been improved in both quality and quantity, and new elements have been added as attractions such as theme parks, buildings, national parks, local cuisine, and so on. These elements have set up the background for destinations to develop their own identities or personalities by differentiating one from another in some respects. Improvement in accessibility has become another domain that brings supply and demand closer to each other by constructing better quality transportation services of infrastructure and superstructure. In doing this, even destinations themselves have become closer to each other; as a result, the marketing perspective has led to the creation of new forms of practices such as collaborative marketing or cross-border destination marketing that has also forced the authorities to update the practices of their traditional managerial policies and strategies. Moreover, the practice of smart tourism has enabled the destinations to be operating in a more systematic and/or synthetic way by remote control set by the highly vibrant technological advances. The mobility of tourism demand has become more intensive and tourists have become more experienced with a more frequent line of service consumption and sharing the experiences with each other in a more dynamic information exchange setting. The innovated technology in general and social media in particular have become the primary factors that facilitate the exchange of personal experiences while still at the facility or the destination. The dynamism of consumers has led to more vacations or travels but with a relatively shorter length of stay. This has created a new type of customer segment who is more demanding and perhaps could be unlikely to be satisfied easily with the efforts of single business settings. As a result, v

vi

Preface

individual businesses have become a part of products that are designed by destinations at the macro level. Hospitality businesses have been taken over by destinations as being the primary motivations of tourists to visit a certain place. So what is the destination and how about its significance in today’s contemporary tourism services? An area is expected to have the following characteristics to be considered as a tourist destination: a variety of natural, social, and cultural resources and services, special events, transportation systems, facilities (accommodation, catering, entertainment, activities), ancillary services (banks, media, hospitals, etc.), host community, a local council, and an active private or public sector (Buhalis 2000; Davidson and Maitland 1997; Kozak and Baloglu 2010). The performance of all these elements directly or indirectly leads to overall performance of destinations in the end. When something is wrong with any of these elements, the outcome would be negative that may make tourists not to come back. The quality of life within the local community would be negatively affected due to a possible decrease in service standards. In the end, local residents, employees, and suppliers would earn less from the tourism industry. Most importantly, all the cultural, economic, and physical resources would be negatively affected if potential consumers withdrew, as there would be less capital for reinvestment. Destinations can be as large as a continent or smaller than a country or country and as small as a country or even a village. Villages, towns, cities, states, and even countries can market themselves as destinations. Kotler et al. (1999a, b) divide the destinations into micro and macro. In some way, the boundary is considered to be a physically existing, or generally accepted, micro-destination, and a location containing more than one destination is a macro-destination. According to this definition, Brugge can be a micro-destination while, as a country, can be a nice example of macro-destinations. In the past, destinations were formed by the red lines of their geographical zones and not very transitional. Today, the form of destinations has become more complex. From customers’ side, one destination can easily be reached via another destination. They can visit more than a destination in a day and can easily make a comparison between the levels of their quality. In marketing terms, a number of destinations can be combined in a single package. In management terms, its authority has become more professional and independent. The World Tourism Organization calls destination management/marketing organizations as the authorities responsible for managing and marketing destinations. Tourism policy and marketing are carried out by such organizations formed by representatives of tourism and tourism-related businesses, tour operators and travel agencies, transportation enterprises, and public administrations. These organizations develop plans and strategies for the marketing of destinations and act actively in planning future planning activities. The roles of destination management in national/ international competitiveness might be to (1) search for which factors determine the competitiveness, (2) understand where the destination’s competitive position is weakest and strongest, and (3) observe trends in international tourism and how this may impact on the local tourism or what sort of lessons can be learnt. It is well known that the practice of quality management aims to satisfy both internal and

Preface

vii

external customers through continuous improvement in the level of service and product quality provided by an organization. The list of existing books encompasses the selection of some references on destination management (e.g., Harrill 2012; Howie 2003; Morrison 2013; Raina 2010; Laws 1995), destination marketing (e.g., Harrill 2012; Heath and Wall 1992; Kozak and Baloglu 2010; Kozak and Kozak 2016; Morgan et al. 2004; Morrison 2013; Pike 2004), and destination competitiveness (e.g., Artal–Tur and Kozak 2017; Crouch and Ritchie 2012; Ritchie and Crouch 2003). Some of these books are already outdated. As a consequence, this book aims to refresh the existing body of literature by introducing contemporary approaches and methods on the current state of destination management and marketing. To make itself distinct and up-to-date in the market, the book introduces key issues such as governance, cooperation, and social media and exemplifies practices in the context of both urban and rural destinations. The consideration of destination management with its instruments and products encompasses the book’s another distinction. It also offers a number of global case studies and up-to-date examples nicely representing a varying list of destinations worldwide. The book also provides the ground for the efficient management and marketing strategies to make destinations distinct from their competitors. Compiled with the introduction of 18 chapters altogether contributed by 46 authors, this book examines the subject of destination management and marketing in detail, through specific case studies in various countries. With such an extensive list, the authors of the papers selected for inclusion in the book are from diverse locations across the world, with 13 countries across four continents being represented: Bulgaria, China, Egypt, France, Greece, Italy, Malaysia, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The chapters accommodate different perspectives to understand the applicable practices of destination management and marketing at either domestic or international level. As the authors from different countries have collaborated to produce a single chapter, the case studies are also more multicultural encompassing both the Western and Asian destinations. Case studies do not only refer to destinations but also consist of several specific types of tourism such as rural, golf, food, wine, and urban. Additional subjects include risk management, sustainability, destination marketing organizations, and destination governance. We believe that, as a reference book, this volume will be a helpful resource, full of rich material that refers to the applications of practices of destination management in the context of worldwide case studies. Such practices are related to the management, marketing, economics, sustainability, planning, and governance of tourist destinations. As a supplementary textbook, the audience of this book may include advanced students of tourism, hospitality, recreation and marketing, and users of libraries in schools that run that tourism, hospitality, recreation, and marketing programs. A careful synthesis of the results of the studies presented is also worthy of consideration for practitioners (such as destination authorities, public and private sector representatives) in order to operate better and to yield more economic and social

viii

Preface

benefits in such a challenging industry where its opportunity cost has also been central to debates over the years. Last but not least, we acknowledge and thank all the authors for their remarkable contributions and for showing the commitment and continuous cooperation that has been of such help in bringing this proposal to fruition. We would also like to thank Springer for giving us a unique opportunity to publish this volume in such a smooth and professional manner. Without their endless patience, positivity, and understanding, we would never have been able to make this happen. Enjoy reading!... Eskişehir, Turkey İzmir, Turkey

Nazmi Kozak Metin Kozak

References Artal–Tur, A., & Kozak, M. (2017). Destination competitiveness, the environment and sustainability: Challenges and cases. Oxon: CABI. Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97–116. Crouch, G., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2012). Competitiveness and tourism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Davidson, R., & Maitland, R. (1997). Tourism destinations. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Harrill, R. (2012). Fundamentals of destination management and marketing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Heath, E., & Wall, G. (1992). Marketing tourism destination: A strategic planning approach. New York: Wiley. Howie, F. (2003). Managing the tourist destination. London: Thomson Continuum. Kotler, P., Asplund, C., Rein, I., & Haider, D. (1999a). Marketing places. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (1999b). Marketing for hospitality and tourism (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice–Hall. Kozak, M., & Baloglu, S. (2010). Managing and marketing tourist destinations. New York: Routledge. Kozak, M., & Kozak, N. (2016). Destination marketing: An international perspective. New York: Routledge. Laws, E. (1995). Tourism destination management: Issues, analysis and policies. New York: Routledge. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (2004). Destination branding – Creating the unique destination proposition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann. Morrison, A. (2013). Marketing and managing tourism destinations. Oxon: Routledge.

Preface

ix

Pike, S. (2004). Destination marketing organisations. Oxford: Elsevier. Raina, A. K. (2010). Tourism destination management: Principles and practices. New Delhi: Kanishka Publishing House. Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainability perspective. Oxon: CABI.

Contents

1

Social Media Usage Among Top European DMOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ahmet Uşaklı, Burcu Koç, and Sevil Sönmez

2

Neoliberal Collaboration of Tourism Academia and Industry: The Case of Destination Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alper Aslan and Metin Kozak

3

4

The Airline–Airport–Destination Authority Relationship: The Case of Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andreas Papatheodorou, Eirini Vlassi, Dominiki Gaki, Lemonia Papadopoulou-Kelidou, Marina Efthymiou, Dimitrios Pappas, and Paraskevi Paraschi The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrés Artal-Tur, Doaa Salman, and Yasser Tawfik

1

15

27

43

5

Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty . . . . . . . . . Andrés Artal-Tur and Noelia Sánchez-Casado

75

6

Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations . . . 101 Angela Tritto and Nicole Chang Shu Fun

7

Food as a Component in Destination Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Anna Stalmirska, Peter Whalley, and Paul Fallon

8

An Application of the EU Financial Instruments for Rural Tourism Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Elena Aleksandrova

9

Travel Bloggers as Influencers: What Compels Them to Blog . . . . . 159 Esra Ay, Kübra İpek, Nazım Bircan Özdağ, Ecem Özekici, and Maria Dolores Alvarez

xi

xii

Contents

10

Winery Operators’ Perceptions of Factors Affecting Wine Tourism Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Giacomo Del Chiappa, Maria Alebaki, and George Menexes

11

Collaborative Policy Making and Stakeholder Engagement: A Resident–Based Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Giacomo Del Chiappa, Marcello Atzeni, and Martina Gallarza

12

Non-constant Reputation Effect at Spanish Mediterranean Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Isabel P. Albaladejo and María Isabel González-Martínez

13

Turnaround Strategies in Destination Marketing Organizations . . . 227 Jeremy Fairley

14

Contemporary Urban Destination Marketing: A Comparative Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Kenneth Deptula and Alan Fyall

15

Competitiveness Factor Analysis of an Operating Tourist Destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Mariya Stankova and Ivanka Vasenska

16

A Strategic Approach to Managing Risk and Crisis at Tourist Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Ozen Kirant Yozcu and Gurel Cetin

17

How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for Practical Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 Pietro Beritelli, Gabriella Crescini, Stephan Reinhold, and Veronika Schanderl

18

French Golf Tourism and Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 Sorina Cernaianu and Claude Sobry

Chapter 1

Social Media Usage Among Top European DMOs Ahmet Uşaklı, Burcu Koç, and Sevil Sönmez

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate social media usage by DMOs at Europe’s largest and most mature destinations (France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom). A systematic random sample of 752 social media postings by DMOs on four popular social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube) in 2015 were content analyzed. Results indicate that social media is of interest to top European DMOs. The study also revealed that Facebook is the most interactive social media platform and creates much higher levels of user engagement than Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. The study concludes that DMOs extensively utilize social media as a marketing tool, rather than as a customer service tool to mitigate potential customer service problems.

1 Introduction Today’s highly competitive travel market push destinations to add new digital tools to their traditional marketing practices in order to attract visitors. Social media has emerged as a powerful and low-cost marketing tool with global reach with increasing influence. Although social media platforms have demonstrated a reciprocal and growing interest in the tourism industry (Chan and Denizci Guillet 2011; Gretzel et al. 2006; Xiang and Gretzel 2010) there is limited research on social media use in the tourism industry. This gap in research has been identified by several comprehensive literature reviews focusing on social media in tourism and hospitality (e.g., Leung et al. 2013a; Zeng and Gerritsen 2014). A. Uşaklı Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] B. Koç Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] S. Sönmez (*) University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_1

1

2

A. Uşaklı et al.

Extant research on the use of social media in tourism has focused mainly on two areas: (1) the use of social media by tourists (the user/tourist-generated content) and (2) the adoption of social media practices by tourism enterprises. What remains unknown is the type and extent of social media use by destination marketing organizations (DMOs) in general (Munar 2012) and how DMOs use social media to market in particular (Dwivedi et al. 2011; Hays et al. 2013; Munar 2012; Stankov et al. 2010). The intention of this study is to explore DMO usage of social media by European destinations, namely because they account for 51% of all international tourist arrivals (a total of 608 million arrivals in 2014) and 36% of tourism receipts (US$ 451 billion in 2015) (WTO 2016). In addition to being the world’s most visited region, Europe includes many of the world’s largest and most mature destinations with well-established national level DMOs.

2 Literature Review How society creates and disseminates information have been fundamentally altered by social media (Buhalis and Law 2008; Xiang and Gretzel 2010). Not surprisingly, social media have also changed both demand (i.e., consumer decision process) and supply (i.e., marketing/management practices for businesses/organizations) sides of the tourism industry. The majority of studies on social media in tourism are consumer-centric, focusing on travelers’ use of social media or its influence on tourist behavior (Denizci Guillet et al. 2016), with few researchers having examined social media from the tourism suppliers’ perspectives. Thus, little is known about how tourism suppliers or organizations utilize social media (Munar 2012). According to researchers, tourism enterprises use social media primarily for marketing, management, communication, and product distribution (Leung et al. 2013a). Business literature (Gelb and Sundaram 2002; Kim and Ko 2012) in general and tourism literature in particular (Denizci Guillet et al. 2016; Hays et al. 2013; Kim et al. 2015) suggest that because traditional media is no longer sufficient and social media’s popularity among consumers continues to grow, suppliers are increasing their use of social media. Indeed, a number of studies focusing on different tourism contexts (e.g., lodging, transportation, intermediaries) reveal that social media is actively used as a marketing tool (e.g., Chan and Denizci Guillet 2011; Denizci Guillet et al. 2016; Huang 2012; Leung et al. 2013b; Phelan et al. 2013). Other studies confirm that tourism organizations use social media to address management functions, such as financial management, training, career development and internal communication (e.g., Akehurst 2009; Fuchs et al. 2009; Huang 2012; Sigala 2011). Social media has also been found to serve as a communication tool that facilitates interaction and engagement between suppliers and tourists (e.g., Akehurst 2009; Kim et al. 2015; Schmallegger and Carson 2008; Thevenot 2007). It has also been suggested that social media can serve as an indirect product distribution channel,

1 Social Media Usage Among Top European DMOs

3

capable of stimulating demand and facilitating direct product distribution (Laws 2001; Noone et al. 2011), although evidence to support the use of social media as a tourism distribution channel remains extremely limited (Leung et al. 2013a).

3 Methodology The focus of previous tourism and hospitality research on social media has been on Facebook and/or Twitter (e.g., Hays et al. 2013; Hsu 2012; Jabreel et al. 2017; Kwok and Yu 2013; Mariani et al. 2016; Philander and Zhong 2016; Stankov et al. 2010). While these two were considered the most common social media platforms that tourism organizations participated in, the present study includes two additional platforms (YouTube and Instagram) not only because they have millions of users but also because they focus mainly on visual (photos/videos) rather than textual content which is essential for impactful destination marketing. DMOs of European countries comprise the target population of this study. Purposive sampling was used to select a sample of seven countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Russia, and United Kingdom). Their selection was guided by the fact that: (1) each is among the top 10 tourist destinations in terms of international arrivals and/or receipts, (2) each has a well-established DMO charged with destination marketing, and (3) each has been using a minimum of one of the most popular social media platforms for a minimum of 3 years. Data collection began with an initial scan of official web sites of the seven destinations to obtain the links of their DMOs’ official social media accounts. This exercise helped to screen out any unofficial accounts that might be administered by individuals or other organizations as part of a country’s promotional activities. Some DMOs have multiple accounts in each social media platform dedicated to the promotion of different regions of a country, which were not included in this study. Only the official and the national level DMO social media accounts were included: France Tourism Development Agency, German National Tourist Board, Italian National Tourist Board, Russian Federal Agency for Tourism, Tour Spain (TURESPAÑA), Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and Visit Britain (see Appendix 1). Only English-language social media accounts were included in the analysis. Although a great majority of DMOs have accounts operating in English, the selection of the language of the social media account presented a few minor problems. More specifically, Russia and Spain were the exceptions to the English-language rule. The Russian Federal Agency for Tourism posts only in Russian on all social media platforms. Since the authors speak Russian, it was decided that Russia’s postings would be translated for inclusion. Tour Spain, on the other hand, posts on Facebook in the target market’s official language but posts in English on the remaining three social media platforms. In other words, Tour Spain’s Facebook

4

A. Uşaklı et al.

page determines users’ language based on the Internet protocol (IP) address (using geolocation) from which they connect. Therefore, Facebook posts of Tour Spain were analyzed in the researchers’ native language. Systematic random sampling was used to select posts for analysis. Since extracting the population of posts on each social media platform for each DMO is an extremely laborious effort and the total number of posts varies greatly, a systematic random sample was created for the year 2015. Considering the number of destinations (7) and social media platforms (4) and assuming a total of 28 accounts, it was considered sufficient to limit the period of observations to 30 days (1 month). To start, a sampling interval of 12 was calculated (365 divided by 30) and a number (i.e., 7) was randomly selected from the sampling interval. Finally, a systematic random sample of every 12th date starting from January 7 and ending December 21, 2015 was selected to cover the 30 day period. In the event of several posts on a given date, two were selected (first and last post of the day). If there was no post for a selected date, the next interval day was selected. Two researchers collected the data separately to minimize personal bias. Minor discrepancies between the researchers were clarified through an iterative process of constructive discussion. The dynamic nature of social media and continual updates of DMOs on their accounts, caused some statistics to change rapidly during data collection. To address this, data were collected again in March and April, 2016 using a retrospective approach. Following the above-mentioned procedures, a total of 752 social media postings (106 Facebook posts, 318 tweets, 257 Instagram posts, and 71 YouTube videos) were obtained. Content analysis was used to evaluate social media postings because it allows researchers to “use a set of procedures to make valid inferences from text” (Weber 1990). Content of the posts were analyzed using measures adapted from Hays et al. (2013) as well as additional measures developed for this study. It is also important to note that several spreadsheets containing formulas and functions were developed specifically for this study using Microsoft Excel. These spreadsheets were utilized both in collecting and analyzing data.

4 Results Results presented below are discussed based on the four social media platforms in order to provide a comparative analysis.

4.1

Basic Social Media Statistics

Results indicate that all destinations except for Russia have an official presence on all four social media platforms included in this study. Although Russia’s DMO is not officially represented on Instagram, it has official accounts on Facebook, Twitter,

1 Social Media Usage Among Top European DMOs

5

Table 1.1 Membership dates of selected destinations for social media platforms Destinations France Germany Italy Russia Spain Turkey UK

Facebook Feb. 2010 June 2008 Jan. 2012 Apr. 2015 Dec. 2013 Feb. 2014 Dec. 2009

Twitter June 2009 Nov. 2008 Oct. 2011 July 2012 Dec. 2008 Feb. 2014 Jan. 2009

Instagram Aug. 2014 Feb. 2013 Feb. 2013 – May 2014 June 2014 Mar. 2014

YouTube Mar. 2011 Dec. 2009 Oct. 2011 Oct. 2011 Dec. 2005 Feb. 2014 Jan. 2012

and YouTube. The dates on which DMOs created their social media accounts are shown in Table 1.1. Spain became the first destination to join social media by creating its YouTube account in 2005. However, when all four platforms are considered together, Germany emerges as the only destination that is an early adopter of social media among selected countries. Other early adopters are UK and France, whereas Turkey and Russia joined social media later. Facebook does not provide the total number of posts for a given account. Therefore, this study is unable to report an accurate number of total DMO posts for Facebook. On the other hand, the total number of posts for an account was easily tracked on the remaining three platforms (Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube). From the start of their membership to December 31, 2015, the seven DMOs posted nearly 93,000 social media postings (86,695 tweets, 4367 Instagram photos, 1625 YouTube videos). These figures indicate that Twitter is by far the most commonly used social media platform by DMOs (with 93% of all posts). In contrast, Instagram (5% of all posts) and YouTube (2% of all posts) are used less often. As of December 31, 2015, Spain on Twitter (36,504 tweets) and Turkey on Instagram (1103 posts) posted the most. With a total of 418 videos, Russia ranked first on YouTube; however, the videos did not reach a larger audience (less than a half million views). Furthermore, UK accounts for slightly more than 40% of all posts on Twitter, Instagram and YouTube, clearly skewing the total number of posts for all DMOs. Conversely, France (4.73%), Turkey (3.47%), and Russia (0.50%) were the three destinations that posted the least on social media. Although it is an early adopter of social media platforms, Germany (10.65%) posted less than Spain (25.85%) and Italy (14.22%). Hays et al. (2013) argue that DMOs reach a much larger audience via social media than with traditional communication media. Thus, the audience size for each social media platform should be carefully examined. When measuring the audience size, the following measures were used in this study: total number of likes on Facebook pages (Facebook pages are followed through “likes”), followers on Twitter and Instagram, and views on YouTube. One should keep in mind that total views do not directly correspond to the number of followers on YouTube since it takes each view of every single user into account as a different user—nevertheless, it gives an idea about the number of followers on YouTube. It should also be noted that

6

A. Uşaklı et al.

Table 1.2 The audience size for each social media platform (from start of membership to December 31, 2015) Destinations France Germany Italy Russia Spain Turkey UK Combined

Facebook (likes) 1.37 million 1.21 million 368,696 5988 1.60 million 4.47 million 3.09 million 12.1 million

Twitter (followers) 20,866 24,900 80,249 786 197,199 785,110 320,653 1.4 million

Instagram (followers) 2599 60,141 18,430 – 94,413 259,779 205,442 0.6 million

YouTube (views) 170,081 1.97 million 1.49 million 458,813 5.86 million 68.15 million 10.82 million 88.9 million

these measures represent not only audience sizes but also the popularity of the social media accounts operated by DMOs. Table 1.2 displays the audience size statistics for each social media platform. Audience sizes of the combined DMOs were as follows: 12.1 million for Facebook, 1.4 million for Twitter, 0.6 million for Instagram, and approximately 89 million for YouTube. These results reveal that DMOs reach a much larger audience via YouTube and Facebook than Twitter and Instagram. For the audience size, it is important to note that Turkey ranked first on all four platforms (over 4.4 million Facebook likes, nearly 800,000 Twitter followers, over 250,000 Instagram followers and more than 68 million YouTube views), followed by UK and Spain. On the other hand, Russia was the only destination that reached the least number of people through social media.

4.2

Content Analysis of the Posts

It is important to note that the results reported here were derived from a total of 752 social media postings (106 Facebook posts, 318 tweets, 257 Instagram posts, and 71 YouTube videos) that were content analyzed during the study period (1/1/ 2015–12/31/2015). Examining the mentions (tagging people in the post) used revealed that no people were tagged by DMOs in any of the 71 videos analyzed on YouTube. The average number of people tagged was less than two for Facebook (1.8 people) and less than one for the remaining two platforms (Twitter 0.3, Instagram 0.9 people), indicating that DMOs tend to fail to attract specific users (i.e., travelers) in their posts. When examining the use of photos and videos as content material, Instagram (99.2% of posts included photos) and YouTube (all posts contained videos) posts should be ignored for an unbiased analysis since YouTube is a video-sharing platform and

1 Social Media Usage Among Top European DMOs

7

Instagram is a photo-sharing platform although short videos can also be posted. After excluding Instagram for photos and YouTube for videos, results revealed that photos (284 posts, 89.3%) were used the most on Twitter whereas videos were used the most on Facebook (14 posts, 13.2%) as content material to enrich posts. Of the 752 posts analyzed on all four platforms during 2015, only 12.6% (95 posts) contained a video (Facebook 14, Twitter 8, Instagram 2, YouTube 71 posts), which indicates that DMOs share videos less frequently than photos on social media. The most frequently used “hashtag” in the posts by each destination was also examined. “Hashtag” is a keyword preceded by a hash mark (#) that makes the post searchable in the social media platform. Hashtags were used the most on Instagram (256 posts, 99.6%) while YouTube videos (14 posts, 19.7%) contained the least. It is interesting to note that Russia is the only country that did not use any hashtag on all four social media platforms. Although the DMOs of France, Italy and Spain did not use any hashtag on YouTube, they used hashtags in their posts on the remaining three platforms. Results reveal that the most frequently used hashtags included the names of the destinations, either alone (e.g., Paris, Germany, Turkey) or in brief phrases (e.g., Rendezvous in France, Visit Spain, Love Great Britain, Join German Tradition, I like Italy). Furthermore, Italy, Spain and Turkey used the same hashtag on all platforms, whereas, France, Germany and UK used different hashtags at least on one platform. The present study analyzed user engagement with DMOs’ social media accounts. Customer engagement is defined as “behaviors that go beyond simple transactions, and may be specifically defined as a customer’s behavioral manifestations that have a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase, resulting from motivational drivers” (van Doorn et al. 2010, p. 254). These behavioral manifestations, other than purchases, can be positive (e.g., sharing DMO post and recommending destination to others) or negative (e.g., negative comment about destination on social media). To assess engagement, two different metrics were computed (i.e., average number of likes/ favorites and comments/replies) for the relevant social media platforms, which are presented in Table 1.3 for the selected DMOs. On social media platforms, “liking” and “commenting” are considered to be two common types of customer engagement (Kabadayi and Price 2014; Oviedo-García et al. 2014). As shown in Table 1.3, Facebook (average number of likes ¼ 2694.4) and Instagram (2534.6) posts of DMOs create much higher levels of engagement in terms of likes than YouTube (81.9) and Twitter (63.2) posts across all DMOs. “Liking” a post is the simplest form of engagement on social media, but a second type of engagement focuses on users’ comments or replies to posts. It has been argued that “commenting” is the most effective type of engagement on social media since it takes more time to write a comment when compared with liking a post (Mariani et al. 2016). The results indicate that Facebook (average number of comments ¼ 50.9) and Instagram (41) provide the highest level of customer engagement for DMOs. While a YouTube video created an average number of less than six comments, a tweet by a European DMO generated only an average number of 2.4 replies.

8

A. Uşaklı et al.

Table 1.3 Average number of engagement metrics per post in 2015 Destinations France Germany Italy Russia Spain Turkey UK Combined

Facebook L/F 3.7 71.4 3387.0 3.0 242.8 11,605.1 1360.1 2694.4

C/R 3.0 6.7 72.0 0.6 6.3 199.1 24.3 50.9

Twitter L/F 11.9 21.5 12.9 0.8 66.8 203.8 64.9 63.2

C/R 1.1 1.2 0.5 1.6 1.8 7.3 2.8 2.4

Instagram L/F 103.0 1524.5 202.8 – 3178.6 4355.4 4304.4 2534.6

C/R 2.4 34.2 0.4 – 71.6 59.8 53.3 41.0

YouTube L/F 5.2 49.2 40.4 1.2 7.9 208.8 22.5 81.9

C/R 1.6 6.4 2.4 0.3 0.5 13.3 0.9 5.4

L/F Likes/Favorites, C/R Comments/Replies

Table 1.4 The degree of interactivity of posts during 2015 Destinations France Germany Italy Russia Spain Turkey UK Combined

Facebook 40.0% 61.1% 48.0% 42.9% 38.9% 43.8% 57.1% 47.2%

Twitter 69.6% 52.1% 25.0% 40.0% 30.0% 32.7% 40.0% 42.1%

Instagram 69.6% 36.4% 18.2% – 39.1% 38.9% 13.3% 37.7%

YouTube 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 12.5% 56.5% 23.8% 31.0%

In terms of “likes,” Turkey emerged as the only destination that ranked first among seven destinations for user engagement across all social media platforms (with an average number of 11,605.1 Facebook, 203.8 Twitter, 4355.4 Instagram, and 208.8 YouTube likes per post). In terms of “comments,” Turkey once again ranked first on three platforms (with an average number of 199.1 Facebook, 7.3 Twitter, and 13.3 YouTube comments per post), whereas Spain ranked first on Instagram by creating an average number of 71.6 comments per post. Russia, on the other hand, created the lowest level of user engagement in terms of both “likes” and “comments” across all platforms. The extent to which DMOs use social media to interact with their users is another major issue in social media research. In this study, “interactivity” refers to a post that directly poses a question to users or requests input from users, such as feedback, photos or videos (Hays et al. 2013). For instance, a post by Turkey’s DMO (Whether pistachio or even rose. . . there’s a Turkish delight of every flavor & color! Which is your favorite?) was considered interactive. Table 1.4 summarizes the degree of interactivity for selected DMOs on each social media platform.

1 Social Media Usage Among Top European DMOs

9

Table 1.5 The degree of promotional posts vs. customer service related posts during 2015 Destinations France Germany Italy Russia Spain Turkey UK Combined

Facebook P 86.7% 88.9% 100% 100% 94.4% 87.5% 100% 92.5%

CS 13.3% 11.1% 0% 0% 5.6% 12.5% 0.0% 7.5%

Twitter P 91.1% 89.6% 87.5% 80.0% 78.3% 71.4% 78.3% 82.4%

CS 8.9% 10.4% 12.5% 20.0% 21.7% 28.6% 21.7% 17.6%

Instagram P 80.4% 93.2% 95.5% – 91.3% 92.6% 97.8% 91.4%

CS 19.6% 6.8% 4.5% – 8.7% 7.4% 2.2% 8.6%

YouTube P 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

CS 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

P Promotion-related posts, CS Customer service-related posts

Of the 752 posts analyzed on all four platforms, only 40.3% (303 posts) were classified as interactive, indicating that the majority of posts (59.7%, 449 posts) across all platforms was not interactive in nature. Furthermore, during 2015, the degree of interactivity of the posts for the combined DMOs ranged from 31.0% (YouTube) to 47.2% (Facebook), making Facebook the most interactive social media platform for DMOs of all seven destinations. It was found, however, that some DMOs were much more interactive on social media than others. For instance, Germany on Facebook (61.1%), France both on Twitter (69.6%) and Instagram (69.6%), and Turkey on YouTube (56.5%) ranked first in terms of interactivity. Interestingly, none of the YouTube videos posted by Germany and Italy were interactive. Moreover, the least interactive destinations on the three remaining platforms were Spain on Facebook (38.9%), Italy on Twitter (25.0%), and UK on Instagram (13.3%). It has been argued that DMOs typically utilize social media to promote their destinations (Hays et al. 2013; Mariani et al. 2016); however, social media has also become a customer service platform for most business organizations (HennigThurau et al. 2010; Trainor et al. 2014). Thus, it is important to understand whether or not DMOs use social media solely as a traditional marketing channel or as a customer service platform as well. For this purpose, DMOs social media postings were classified either as “promotion-related” or “customer service-related.” Within this context, a post that directly promotes attractions, hotels, restaurants, foods, events, or a specific location within the country was classified as promotional. On the other hand, posts responding to travelers’ criticisms, praises, or enquiries were categorized as customer service-related. Table 1.5 presents the type and distribution of posts (promotion- vs. customer service-related) used by top European DMOs during 2015. Across all platforms, the social media postings of DMOs are mainly promotional, ranging from 82.4% (Twitter) to 100% (YouTube), indicating that DMOs use social media to a great extent for marketing purposes. In other words, it is clear that social

10

A. Uşaklı et al.

media is not primarily used by DMOs as a customer service tool. With more than 17% of its posts, the Twitter accounts of DMOs ranked first in terms of providing customer service, followed by Instagram (8.6%) and Facebook (7.5%). Furthermore, a great majority (77.8%) of all customer service-related posts (67 out of 86 customer service related posts) were only responding to the praises of the travel experience (i.e., thanking customers). In terms of providing customer service, France ranked first on both Facebook (13.3%) and Instagram (19.6%), and Turkey on Twitter. As indicated in Table 1.5, none of the videos posted by DMOs on YouTube focused on issues related to customer service, revealing that YouTube is solely used as a promotional tool. Conversely, all Facebook posts of the DMOs of Italy and Russia were promotional and with more than 90% of its posts, France used Twitter the most for promotional activities.

5 Conclusion Results confirm that social media is of interest to DMOs of top European destinations. For six of the seven destinations in our sample, DMOs were found to have an official presence on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. Russia’s DMO does not have an official presence on Instagram but it has official accounts on the remaining three platforms. Although the dates on which DMOs have created their social media accounts vary, Germany emerges as the only destination that is an early adopter of all four platforms. Other earlier adopters of social media are UK, France, and Spain while Turkey and Russia joined social media later. Nevertheless, the membership period does not directly correspond with some of the results, which are used to measure success in social media, such as “audience size” (e.g., total number of likes on Facebook, followers on Twitter and Instagram, total views on YouTube). In other words, the length of time on social media is not a predictor of success or activity. Accounts operating for a longer period of time might have fewer followers or likes than an account operating for a shorter period of time or vice versa. Across all platforms, Turkey is the most obvious example of this—it ranks first in terms of total number of likes, followers, and views. When all posts of the DMOs (from start of their membership to December 31, 2015) are considered, Twitter emerges as the most commonly used social media platform, followed by Instagram and YouTube. Twitter’s popularity is explained by the fact that its users generally update their status more frequently than they do on other social media platforms (Hays et al. 2013). Additionally, despite its popularity as a social media platform, the less frequent use of YouTube by selected destinations’ DMOs might be explained by the fact that more time and other resources are required for recording promotional videos, hence the lower level

1 Social Media Usage Among Top European DMOs

11

of its use over other platforms. Furthermore, the distribution of all posts revealed that UK, Spain, and Italy are the top three destinations in the frequency of social media use. The content analysis of posts indicate that DMOs generally use hashtags that are familiar in their traditional advertising campaigns (e.g., I Like Italy, Visit Spain, Love Great Britain) rather than using hashtags that represent the unfamiliar or unique characteristics of their destinations. The study also found that Facebook is the most interactive social media platform and creates much higher levels of user engagement than the remaining three platforms. In terms of engagement, Turkey ranked first across all platforms, whereas Russia ranked the last. In terms of interactivity, Germany on Facebook, France both on Twitter and Instagram, and Turkey on YouTube ranked first. The least interactive destinations based on the platforms were Spain on Facebook, Italy on Twitter, UK on Instagram, and Germany and Italy tied on YouTube. Finally, the present study investigated whether or not DMOs provide customer service through social media in addition to its usage as a marketing tool. The posts classified as customer service-related were extremely low, suggesting that DMOs still utilize social media to a great extent as a marketing tool and perhaps missing some opportunities to use it as a customer service tool. All videos posted by DMOs on YouTube were promotion-related, clearly indicating that YouTube is not used for providing customer service. The combined degree of promotional posts across all platforms revealed that Turkey and France used social media the most frequently in order to provide customer service, whereas Russia and Italy utilized social media the least for issues related to customer service. It is important to note that this study is exploratory in nature since it addresses an area of research that has been little developed. Therefore, the limitations of the present study should be properly recognized for future research directions. First, a small sample of European destinations is used in this study. In order to gain insight into the complex social media marketing practices of tourism destinations, it would be beneficial to replicate this study using a larger sample size and by extending the number of measures used in the content analysis. Second, the present study included only the top tourism destinations that have well-established DMOs. Thus, future research could investigate this topic with a focus on emerging destinations that have limited financial and human resources for traditional marketing campaigns. Third, the present study analyzed only social media postings of DMOs; while the content analysis of the posts provided interesting findings, more qualitative future research involving interviews with DMO managers would increase our understanding of this increasingly important research area.

www.germany-tour ism.de www.italia.it www.spain.info www.hometurkey. com www.russiatourism.ru www.visitbritain.com

Germany

facebook.com/ germanytourism facebook.com/italia.it facebook.com/spain.info facebook.com/ TurkeyHomeOf facebook.com/rostourisma facebook.com/ lovegreatbritain

Facebook page facebook.com/visitfrance

@rostourizm @visitbritain

@italia @spain @Turkey_Home

@germanytourism

Twitter username @UK_FranceFR

N/A @lovegreatbritain

@italiait @spain @turkey_home

@germanytourism

Instagram username @ukrendezvousenfranceb

youtube.com/user/RUSTOURISM youtube.com/LoveGREATBritain

youtube.com/user/JoinItaly youtube.com/user/spain youtube.com/user/TurkeyHomeTV

YouTube page youtube.com/user/ AtoutFranceUKIrelandc youtube.com/user/germanytourism

Note. The above listed social media accounts (obtained from official DMO websites) were used during the data collection period (March and April, 2016). Due to the dynamic nature of social media, it is not uncommon for account owners (DMOs) to change their account names (links) or to close their existing accounts and open new ones. Therefore, the above listed social media accounts are likely to change over time. For instance, as of November 27, 2016, the following changes were observed a The web URL for the Facebook page of the Russian Federal Agency for Tourism was changed to “facebook.com/russia.travel.official” b Instagram account of the France Tourism Development Agency is no longer available. No new account was found on the official DMO website (http://uk. france.fr) c YouTube page of the France Tourism Development Agency is no longer available. The official DMO website (http://uk.france.fr) redirects users to another YouTube page (youtube.com/c/FranceFR)

Russia UK

Italy Spain Turkey

DMO website http://uk.france.fr

Destination France

Appendix 1: Official DMO Websites and Social Media Accounts Used in the Study

12 A. Uşaklı et al.

1 Social Media Usage Among Top European DMOs

13

References Akehurst, G. (2009). User generated content: The use of blogs for tourism organisations and tourism consumers. Service Business, 3(1), 51–61. Buhalis, D., & Law, R. (2008). Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the internet – The state of eTourism research. Tourism Management, 29(4), 607–623. Chan, N. L., & Denizci Guillet, B. D. (2011). Investigation of social media marketing: How does the hotel industry in Hong Kong perform in marketing on social media websites? Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28(4), 345–368. Denizci Guillet, B., Kucukusta, D., & Liu, L. (2016). An examination of social media marketing in China: How do the top 133 hotel brands perform on the top four Chinese social media sites? Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(6), 783–805. Dwivedi, M., Yadav, A., & Venkatesh, U. (2011). Use of social media by national tourism organizations: A preliminary analysis. Information Technology & Tourism, 13(2), 93–103. Fuchs, M., Scholochov, C., & Höpken, W. (2009). E-Business adoption, use, and value creation: An Austrian hotel study. Information Technology & Tourism, 11(4), 267–284. Gelb, B. D., & Sundaram, S. (2002). Adapting to “word of mouse”. Business Horizons, 45(4), 21–25. Gretzel, U., Fesenmaier, D. R., Formica, S., & O’Leary, J. T. (2006). Searching for the future: Challenges faced by destination marketing organizations. Journal of Travel Research, 45(4), 116–126. Hays, S., Page, S. J., & Buhalis, D. (2013). Social media as a destination marketing tool: Its use by national tourism organisations. Current Issues in Tourism, 16(3), 211–239. Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E. C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A., & Skiera, B. (2010). The impact of new media on customer relationships. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 311–330. Hsu, Y. (2012). Facebook as international e-marketing strategy of Taiwan hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 972–980. Huang, L. (2012). Social media as a new play in a marketing channel strategy: Evidence from Taiwan travel agencies’ blogs. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17(6), 615–634. Jabreel, M., Moreno, A., & Huertas, A. (2017). Semantic comparison of the emotional values communicated by destinations and tourists on social media. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6(3), 170–183. Kabadayi, S., & Price, K. (2014). Consumer – Brand engagement on Facebook: Liking and commenting behaviors. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 8(3), 203–223. Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity? An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1480–1486. Kim, S., Koh, Y., Cha, J., & Lee, S. (2015). Effects of social media on firm value for U.S. restaurant companies. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 49, 40–46. Kwok, L., & Yu, B. (2013). Spreading social media messages on Facebook: An analysis of restaurant business-to-consumer communications. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(1), 84–94. Laws, E. (2001). Distribution channel analysis for leisure travel. In D. Buhalis & E. Laws (Eds.), Tourism distribution channels: Practices, issues and transformations (pp. 53–72). London: Continuum. Leung, D., Law, R., van Hoof, H., & Buhalis, D. (2013a). Social media in tourism and hospitality: A literature review. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(1/2), 3–22. Leung, R., Schuckert, M., & Yeung, E. (2013b). Attracting user social media engagement: A study of three budget airlines Facebook pages. In L. Cantoni & Z. Xiang (Eds.), Information and communication technologies in tourism 2013 (pp. 195–206). Berlin: Springer. Mariani, M. M., Di Felice, M., & Mura, M. (2016). Facebook as a destination marketing tool: Evidence from Italian regional destination management organizations. Tourism Management, 54, 321–343.

14

A. Uşaklı et al.

Munar, A. M. (2012). Social media strategies and destination management. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 12(2), 101–120. Noone, B. N., McGuire, K. A., & Rohlfs, K. V. (2011). Social media meets hotel revenue management: Opportunities, issues and unanswered questions. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, 10(4), 293–305. Oviedo-García, M. Á., Muñoz-Expósito, M., Castellanos-Verdugo, M., & Sancho-Mejías, M. (2014). Metric proposal for customer engagement in Facebook. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 8(4), 327–344. Phelan, K. V., Chen, H. T., & Haney, M. (2013). “Like” and “check-in:” How hotels utilize Facebook as an effective marketing tool. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 4 (2), 134–154. Philander, K., & Zhong, Y. (2016). Twitter sentiment analysis: Capturing sentiment from integrated resort tweets. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 55, 16–24. Schmallegger, D., & Carson, D. (2008). Blogs in tourism: Changing approaches to information exchange. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 99–110. Sigala, M. (2011). Social media and crisis management in tourism: Applications and implications for research. Information Technology & Tourism, 13(4), 269–283. Stankov, U., Lazić, L., & Dragićević, V. (2010). The extent of use of basic Facebook user-generated content by the national tourism organizations in Europe. European Journal of Tourism Research, 3(2), 105–113. Thevenot, G. (2007). Blogging as a social media. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(3/4), 287–289. Trainor, K. J., Andzulis, J., Rapp, A., & Agnihotri, R. (2014). Social media technology usage and customer relationship performance: A capabilities-based examination of social CRM. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1201–1208. van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Doreen, P., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 252–266. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. World Tourism Organization (WTO). (2016). Tourism highlights 2016 edition. Retrieved from http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145 Xiang, Z., & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel information search. Tourism Management, 31(2), 179–188. Zeng, B., & Gerritsen, R. (2014). What do we know about social media in tourism? A review. Tourism Management Perspectives, 10, 27–36.

Chapter 2

Neoliberal Collaboration of Tourism Academia and Industry: The Case of Destination Governance Alper Aslan and Metin Kozak

Abstract In contemporary neoliberal world, the collaboration of tourism academia and tourism industry is taken for granted. This collaboration is encouraged for successful destination governance. Most academics promote this collaboration around the words of “community”, “participation”, and “empowerment”. However, in this study, we object to this collaboration. The chapter first notes how neoliberal governmental practices shape the academic milieu. Then, it addresses how the collaboration of tourism academy and tourism industry depends on neoliberal governmental practices. The chapter ends by relating this collaboration to post-political practices and remarks how it privileges certain interests.

1 Introduction The emphasis on economic development, innovation and entrepreneurship blurs the boundaries between academia and industry within the neoliberal world. Several academics support this in order to produce relevant knowledge for the industry. However, some scholars defend clear boundaries between academia and industry, and academic freedom against the commercialization of knowledge (Lam 2010). Academia and the industry can collaborate within diverse practices including joint research, meetings, consulting and training (D’Este and Patel 2007; Feighery 2011). Within this collaboration, academia is privileged for producing knowledge that is highly respected for its rigour. However, the practices of knowledge production do not reflect the world as it is, as they are “performative”; they “(help to) make social realities and social worlds” (Law and Urry 2004, pp. 390–391). Law and Urry (2004) point out that performative research practices do not reflect “relativism”

A. Aslan Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Turkey M. Kozak (*) Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_2

15

16

A. Aslan and M. Kozak

(p. 395) but emphasize the existence of different social worlds that appear within diverse research practices and arrangements (p. 397). In this sense, the “tourism knowledge system” is not innocent; it represents and represses certain interests and values as research practices determine “what counts as knowledge and what does not and further who speaks with authority and who does not” (Tribe and Liburd 2016, p. 46). Within these practices, certain tourism publics—state, academia, industry and community—collaborate and make certain tourism worlds (Hollinshead et al. 2009; Law and Urry 2004; Tribe and Liburd 2016). Additionally, in tourism studies, several scholars aim to eliminate the gap between academia and industry by producing relevant knowledge for managerial purposes. These scholars have neoliberal or managerial wor(l)ds. They encourage the production of “relevant knowledge” for competitiveness, innovation, service quality, customer satisfaction and sustainable development. Within these wor(l)ds, the collaboration of academia and industry is seen a prerequisite for competitive destinations and businesses (see Cooper 2006, 2015; Pyo 2012; Scott and Ding 2008; Xiao and Smith 2007). In this study, drawing on neoliberal governmentality, we criticize the collaboration of tourism academia and tourism industry. Our inspiration for this study departs from the fact that tourism scholars in Turkey have invested in several attempts to increase the academia–industry collaboration. Of these, first, almost all expressions both at formal and informal settings touch upon the importance of the collaboration of academia and industry. In lectures, academics emphasize the value of improving the practical skills of students in the industry to become an expert in one’s future professional career. Second, the industry people speak loudly about the lack of practical issues in the university’s curriculum. Moreover, the theme of academic conferences or panels is occasionally devoted to investigating the possibilities and benefits of the academia–industry collaboration. All these efforts simply indicate the hegemony of neoliberal governmentality in tourism academia (Ayikoru et al. 2009; see also Franklin and Crang 2001; Tribe et al. 2015). In line with the neoliberal and managerial world, the theme of 17th National Tourism Conference, in Turkey—held in Bodrum, 2016—is ‘academia-industry meeting’. Within this conference, representatives of tourism academia and tourism industry celebrated, encouraged and demanded more collaboration of tourism academia and tourism industry in producing relevant knowledge and (technical) education for the industry. Given the prevalence of neoliberal governmentality, these demands are not extraordinary. However, the fact that none of the academics critically engages with these demands in the conference is not acceptable, as the aforementioned collaboration can ruin the academic ethos and serve the elite. In this study, we aim to problematize the collaboration of tourism academia and tourism industry, particularly for destination governance, within neoliberal governmentality. First, we discuss neoliberal governmentality and how it changes the academic milieu. Then, we explain how neoliberal governmental practices refer to the post-political condition. We discuss that the collaboration of tourism academia and tourism industry does not serve all under the post-political condition. Moreover, we suggest addressing destinations as “political” rather than managerial and technical.

2 Neoliberal Collaboration of Tourism Academia and Industry: The Case of. . .

17

2 Theoretical Framework Foucault (1983, 2008), in his late studies, addresses “productive power” which incites and seduces. For Foucault, power is not an entity that is possessed. As he explains, power is enacted “as a way of acting upon an acting subject or acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable of action” (Foucault 1983, p. 220). In this sense, power is related to “government” (Foucault 1983, p. 221). Foucault (1983) use the concept of government in its broadest sense to refer to “the way in which the conduct of individuals or of groups might be directed” (p. 221). Government embraces “shaping”, “guiding” and “affecting” (Gordon 1991, p. 2) the conduct of citizens, refugees, workers, families and consumers, among others, by intervening in their “milieu”. The milieu encompasses individuals’ relations with themselves, with others, with things, and with events (Foucault 1991, p. 93). Moreover, government encompasses individuals’ efforts to govern themselves (Gordon 1991; Lemke 2001). Governmentality refers to “governmental rationality” (Gordon 1991, p. 1). Governmentality, however, does not refer to abstract rationalities; it addresses the practices of diverse actors including the state, non-governmental organizations, international organizations, private enterprises, consultants and individuals. Within these practices certain problems, concepts, justifications, identities, valuations, calculations and solutions are determined and represented (Lemke 2001, p. 191; Miller and Rose 2008, p. 20). As a governmental rationality, neoliberalism cannot be reduced to economic policies. Neoliberal governmentality addresses neoliberalism as a “rationality” of a social coexistence (Foucault 2008; Dardot and Laval 2013, pp. 2–4). For the neoliberals, the “competition”, rather than “exchange”, is the essence of the market. Since the competition does not emerge naturally, neoliberal governmental practices enact this competitive milieu (Foucault 2008). Moreover, neoliberal governmental practices do not restrict competition as the essence of social coexistence just for the market; they aim to make competition the essence of the entire social coexistence: “what is sought is not a society subject to the commodityeffect, but a society subject to the dynamic of competition. Not a super-market society, but an enterprise society” (Foucault 2008, p. 147). This competitive milieu produces and values entrepreneurship, innovation, empowerment and creativity. However, neoliberal governmental practices do not only promise success and survival; they also produce risks and losers, since neoliberal subjects are self-responsible for not only what they achieve but also what they do not. They are constantly anxious about not being competitive and good enough. Joronen (2013) points out that neoliberal governmentality produces technical subjects rather than political ones. Neoliberal subjects evaluate things, relations and events in order to have maximum profit and performance. Thus, depending on cost– benefit analysis, they try to augment their human capital to be competitive and entrepreneurial in all spheres of social coexistence (see also Dardot and Laval 2013; Foucault 2008). As for academia, neoliberal governmental practices are “calculative”; they aim to produce a competitive and entrepreneurial academia (Larner and Le Heron 2005;

18

A. Aslan and M. Kozak

Jankowski and Provezis 2014; Olssen and Peters 2005). Calculative practices make academia comparable and accountable in terms of the appraisals of students, publications, received funds and patents, among others. Calculative practices are not “neutral”; in other words, they are not just related with numbers; they value and “govern” academia within the principles of the market (Larner and Le Heron 2005; Olssen and Peters 2005). Neoliberal governmental practices change how academia produces knowledge. To compete in the neoliberal world, academia values knowledge in terms of its relevancy to industry. With this, relevant knowledge is seen as essential for innovative and creative economies. Hence, academia, with decreased state funding, strives to build relations with the business world (Larner and Le Heron 2005; Olssen and Peters 2005; Shore and McLauchlan 2012). Olssen and Peters (2005) explain that within the neoliberal academia, academics must demonstrate their utility to society by placing themselves in an open market and accordingly competing for students who provide the bulk of core funding through tuition fees. If academic research has value, it can stand up to the rigors of competition for limited funds. (p. 328)

Academics strive to secure their jobs mostly by the practices of teaching, getting grants and researching. Especially, publication records determine the tenure and reputability of academics. Neoliberal governmental practices make academics anxious about losing their jobs or not performing enough (Berg et al. 2016; Knights and Clarke 2014). However, the competition of publishing can strike at the value of academic autonomy and ethos (Knights and Clarke 2014), as neoliberal governmental practices force academics to work within “short-termism (in grants, in writing, in publishing) so as to be seen as ‘path–breaking’” (Berg et al. 2016, p. 171). This forces academics to engage with topics that can be funded and published with ease (Courpasson 2013). Within this competitive milieu, some academics survive and some lose. One of the efficient ways to be successful in getting funds and publishing depends on building relations with industry. These winner academics, as Shore and McLauchlan (2012) point out, are knowledge brokers and mediators with track records for income-generation; individuals who are able to successfully operate in the space between the academy and industry, able to leverage external funding for their research and to employ teams of researchers and support staff. (p. 272)

As for tourism academia, neoliberal governmental practices also demand the production of relevant knowledge for the industry and getting funds (Ayikoru et al. 2009; Fennell 2013; Hall 2010). Tourism academics can collaborate with industry especially for the governance of tourism destinations. Within this collaboration, neoliberal governmental practices bring mutual benefits: producing relevant knowledge for destination competitiveness, bringing neoliberal tourism growth; grants, tenures and publications. However, the credibility of this collaboration should be problematized, as this collaboration restricts tourism wor(l)ds to certain interests (Hall 2007; Feighery 2011; Thomas 2011).

2 Neoliberal Collaboration of Tourism Academia and Industry: The Case of. . .

2.1

19

Collaboration on Destination Governance and the Post-political View

Neoliberal governmental practices associate development with competitiveness, entrepreneurship and innovation. They encourage individuals and communities to govern issues that had been addressed by the state, on the grounds that state-led development is hierarchic, uncreative and inefficient, whereas participatory approaches are innovative, creative, empowering and democratic (Kamat 2015; Swyngedouw 2005). Thus, governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, regional agencies and consultants aim to make subjects—and destinations—participatory, responsible, entrepreneurial and competitive for developmental purposes (HerbertCheshire and Higgins 2004; Li 2007; Ilcan and Phillips 2010). Neoliberal governmentality, as Kamat (2015) underlines, can bind competition and entrepreneurship with “community empowerment and inclusion” in regards to development (p. 68). In this sense, Miller and Rose (2008) underline that the concept “community” is “a means of government” (p. 93) within neoliberal (they use “advanced liberal” instead of neoliberal) governmentality. The community as a means of government refers to a weakening of the welfare state and “obligation of between citizen and society” (Miller and Rose 2008, p. 87). This weakening values the entrepreneur, competitive and self-responsible individuals. However, neoliberal governmentality also exploits community values. Individuals are occasionally made responsible for their “neighbourhood, community and workplace” (Miller and Rose 2008, p. 87). This responsibilization enables diverse and multiple problems of the individual, specific communities, and destinations to be governed. Moreover, it motivates individuals and serves to build consensus with the idealized values of community (Miller and Rose 2008, Chap. 4). The concepts of participation, collaboration, partnership, social capital, capacity building, entrepreneurship, competition, etc. become buzzwords within neoliberal governmentality, although their simultaneous usage can be contradictory (Miraftab 2004; Kamat 2015; Ilcan and Phillips 2010). These buzzwords embrace several consultants and experts who play major roles in governing individuals and communities. For instance, they determine the problems, the human and social capacities; they categorize, calculate, train, educate, persuade, motivate and mediate, etc. (Miller and Rose 2008). Regional development is one of the main targets of neoliberal governmentality. In this sense, “tourism is the biggest game” that is played (McGuigan 2005, p. 231). Tourism development is seen as vital for the competitiveness of rural and urban destinations worldwide. In line with neoliberal governmental practices on development, tourism destinations are conceptualized as networks of diverse actors including the “enterprises, governments, and other organizations” (Cooper 2015, p. 114; see also Sheehan and Ritchie 2005). Thus, “community participation”, “empowerment”, “partnership”, “competitiveness”, “entrepreneurship” and “collaboration” are valued for successful tourism destination governance.

20

A. Aslan and M. Kozak

Neoliberal governmental practices in tourism development, as Feighery (2011) points out, “have spawned new objectives, techniques and practices of development and, in turn, a growing demand for consultancy expertise”. (p. 1041). The practice of consultancy for the governance of tourism destinations encourages the collaboration of tourism academia and tourism industry (Feighery 2011; Thomas 2011). Tourism academia can collaborate with the tourism industry within the projects funded by diverse actors—European Union, World Bank, Regional Development Agencies, etc. Within these projects, tourism academia undertakes diverse practices: master plans, strategic plans, feasibility studies, impact assessments, facilitating the participation, capacity building of communities, building the entrepreneur milieu, etc. Thus, tourism academia can become one of the main advocates of neoliberal governmentality of communities and tourism destinations (Feighery 2011, p. 1042). This advocacy facilitates collaboration with diverse actors. For instance, in the 17th National Tourism Conference of Turkey, industry and municipality representatives demanded a master plan from academia that can boost tourism at the rural destinations of Muğla. Boosting tourism in rural destinations resonates with neoliberal governmental practices which embrace community empowerment, entrepreneurship, sustainable and competitive destinations, and also the collaboration of tourism academia and industry. However, tourism academics need to reflect critically on this collaboration (Feighery 2011; Hall 2007; Thomas 2011), as neoliberal governmental practices depoliticize the governance of tourism destinations (see Kamat 2015). In recent years, several scholars have addressed how neoliberal governmental practices are related to “the post-political”. The conceptualizations of post-political can vary (see Wilson and Swyngedouw 2015). The post-political, however, broadly speaking, refers the closure of antagonism—conflict, disagreement—within the neoliberal governmental buzzwords of empowerment, participation, collaboration, competitiveness, sustainability, capacity building, etc. (Allmendinger and Haughton 2012, p. 90). In other words, neoliberal governmental practices are also post-political because they produce “consensus” across diverse domains and issues of human coexistence for the sake of a market-based society (Allmendinger and Haughton 2012; Haughton et al. 2013; Mouffe 2005; Oosterlynck and Swyngedouw 2010). Mouffe (2005), a notable scholar on the post-political, makes a distinction between “politics” and “the political”. Mouffe (2005) remarks that “politics” and “the political” refer to “ontic” and “ontological” levels respectively (see also Joronen 2013). For her, politics embrace practices through which an order and human coexistence is produced; on the other hand, the political is the “antagonistic” and constitutive dimension of human coexistence (Mouffe 2005, p. 9). In other words, while the political engages with the (im)possible ways—or groundless ground—of organizing human coexistence, politics is enacted within certain grounds (Mouffe 2005, p. 8–9). Oosterlynck and Swyngedouw (2010) explain the difference of politics and the political: . . .politics tends toward consensus, toward papering over the absent ground of the social, the ontological given of differences and antagonisms which split the One of the people into the many of the multitude. The field of politics/the political is thus split into two: on the one

2 Neoliberal Collaboration of Tourism Academia and Industry: The Case of. . .

21

hand, the political which stands for the constitutive lack, the ontological condition of society’s absent ground or, in other words, the impossibility of securing a stable ground/ basis on which to found society (like community, ‘class’, ‘the people’, ‘the nation’); whereas politics stands for the ontic, the always contingent, precarious, and incomplete attempt to institutionalise the social, to offer closure, to suture the social field, to let society coincide with community. (p. 1581)

Because politics tries to organize society within the context of “contingency”, it excludes other possibilities of organizing human coexistence by imposing an order (Mouffe 2005, pp. 17–18). Thus, politics remove the antagonism by harmonizing and reconciling conflicts (Mouffe 2005). Hence, the post-political reduces the political to politics (Oosterlynck and Swyngedouw 2010, p. 1581). Within the post-political neoliberal governmental practices, actors can have various debates and critiques; however, these debates and critiques are restricted within the ontic level. They do not affect the taken for granted order of market society. They provide managerial–technical solutions through which diverse views are harmonized, and from which all actors are promised to benefit (Oosterlynck and Swyngedouw 2010). As Diken (2015) points out, within the post-political neoliberal governmentality, critique is not “emancipatory” but “revisionist”, which “consolidates what exists” (p. 129), or eliminates the antagonism. The endurance of the antagonistic dimension is a prerequisite for the political. However, the antagonistic dimension can also produce enemies who try to eliminate each other and describe other’s views as illegitimate. To prevent being enemies, Mouffe (2005) explains that antagonistic dimension should not be eliminated but tamed. This taming refers to “agonism”. Agonism does not produce consensus; it recognizes the legitimacy of conflicting views and actors by diverse practices. Thus, it embraces democratic practices in which actors are “adversaries” not “enemies”, and the ontological conflicts can endure without a consensus (Mouffe 2005, p. 20). In this sense, the buzzwords of neoliberal governmentality are depoliticizing (Miraftab 2004). They take communities as homogenous and devoid of power relations, and promise that market dynamics will serve the community. They, however, mostly serve elites (Haughton et al. 2013, p. 231). Tourism destination governance also depends on post-political neoliberal governmentality. Tourism destination governance literature mostly aims to build consensus on destination governance, as Cooper (2015) remarks, “the real challenge for tourism comes in the form of developing a culture that embraces learning, sharing, changing and improving, all through the collective intelligence and knowledge of the people who make up the sector” (p. 117). The above quote also implies “community participation” in which antagonisms are eliminated. Community participation within neoliberal practices is encouraged by international organizations (World Bank, IMF etc.), states, regional agencies and non-governmental organizations (Butcher 2008, 2010). In tourism literature, most studies value community participation. Although this mantra refers to empowerment, sustainability, and democracy for the local people, it remains rhetoric (Butcher 2010; Mowforth and Munt 1998). Some studies address how participation can be made technically effective; the problem, however, is not technical but political

22

A. Aslan and M. Kozak

(Cooke and Kothari 2001; see also Butcher 2008, 2010). As Butcher (2010) points out, “the issue of what is being participated in is decided prior to the community’s involvement—and this is no less true in the case of small scale, ‘sustainable’ initiatives than it is with mainstream tourism” (p. 202). The fact that consensus precedes participation enframes the practice of participation. In other words, within neoliberal governmental practices, participation is reduced to the ontic level. Since the prior interests and methods determine participation—for instance, not every view can be thought, expressed and legitimized—it can mask what has been decided by manipulating people (Mosse 2001; Kothari 2001). This manipulation puts the people into the participation game. Within this game, the autonomy of individuals is restricted. The non-conformers, who demand ontologically what is not predetermined, are qualified as deviants (Kothari 2001). Thus, tourism academia can serve to produce consensus on industry priorities by the practice of consultancy (Feighery 2011; Thomas 2011). Several tourism academics are seduced by the buzzwords of neoliberal governmentality and the funding opportunities for their research. However, the projects that mostly depend on the governance of tourism destinations and businesses “nurture the priorities of the ‘industry’” (Feighery 2011, p. 1034; Thomas 2011). Although the projects sound good and promise competitiveness, sustainability and inclusion, they serve the neoliberal world and thus produce inequalities (Tribe 2008, p. 253; Tribe et al. 2015, pp. 33–34). There are many cases showing the coexistence of neoliberal ideals and inequalities, because when destination governance is enframed to produce consensus, the elites’ priorities prevail (see Mowforth and Munt 1998). For instance, Yüksel et al. (2005) address the decentralization of tourism governance in “Belek, Turkey”. In Turkey, the neoliberal shift in tourism development—with its emphasis on “the role of the market, and industry participation” (Yüksel et al. 2005, p. 881), among others—produced “The Belek Tourism Investors’ Association” (BETUYAB) as the dominant actor in Belek. BETUYAB was an association of commercial elite businesses which have close relations with the ministry. Yüksel et al. (2005) note that the local municipalities, as local actors, could not operate properly because of the central administrative control and lack of financial and human resources (pp. 872–874). This enabled BETUYAB, thanks to its close ties with the ministry, to dominate the governance of Belek. BETUYAB, however, mostly pursued its commercial interests. As Yüksel et al. (2005) explain, the decentralized governance and participatory approaches may enable economic and political elites to incorporate dissenting groups and to manage potential conflicts broadly within their own agendas. One issue is that the wider dispersal of authority in more diffuse arrangements may make accountability less clear and can establish undemocratic sites of exclusion. (p. 882)

Thomas (2011), based on his experience of a non-executive director of the Yorkshire Tourist Board, critically reflects on the collaboration of tourism academia and tourism industry. Thomas’ (2011) main argument is that this collaboration is dominated by the industry priorities—mainly to boost industry and destination

2 Neoliberal Collaboration of Tourism Academia and Industry: The Case of. . .

23

competitiveness; this hinders academics from critically engaging with tourism destination governance because knowledge that does not serve the industry is not produced (see also Bramwell and Lane 2006). Since academia is highly respected for producing (relevant) knowledge, industry can use the collaboration with academia as a means to justify what has been decided (building consensus) and mask certain interests. For instance, one participant of tourism industry in the 17th National Tourism Conference of Turkey remarks that since they (the industry) represent the business world and money, their demands regarding to tourism governance can be seen as discredited. However, he added, the collaboration with academia can justify their demands. We believe that the participant is naïve—as most of the participants of the conference—with his belief that academia produces objective knowledge, and the collaboration serves all. However, this case requires academia to ask Thomas’ (2011) striking question: “. . .is the work of academics being used to provide a stamp of independence and authority to make a case that is misleading or partial?” (p. 498). As the aforementioned question provokes, within the collaboration of tourism academia and tourism industry, the tourism academia produces consensus—a neoliberal tourism world— by providing managerial-technical solutions to destination governance. Since consensus is produced with certain assumptions, the non-elite voices or alternative voices are mostly dubbed as infeasible, unthinkable and also not debatable. Hollinshead (1999) remarks that tourism practitioners and researchers should enact continuous (self)-criticism on the credibility of tourism governmentality, as this can produce “the need to discover resistant/alternative/background storylines for given destination, given sectors styles of management cultures and for the given developmental strategies with which they are concerned (p. 17)”. Foucault (1983) remarks that power is not possessed but enacted; additionally, individuals can resist within neoliberal governmental practices. In this sense, tourism academia should problematize the collaboration of tourism academia and tourism industry (Feighery 2011). This requires making destinations as spaces of political rather than spaces of managerial–technical solutions. When destinations are political, academia is the “adversary” of industry (see Mouffe 2005, p. 20). And being an adversary of industry requires academia to express what is partial and manipulative with the interests of industry, and to be the voice of the suppressed. With this, tourism academia can think what has not been thought, debate what has not been debated, and thus, enact other tourism wor(l)ds (Hollinshead et al. 2009).

3 Conclusion Several tourism scholars value the collaboration of tourism academia and tourism industry for producing relevant knowledge and destination competitiveness. For the destination governance, we notice how this collaboration is placed within neoliberal governmental practices. We remark that this collaboration is not innocent, since it can be post-political. The post-political collaboration of tourism academia and

24

A. Aslan and M. Kozak

tourism industry produce consensus for the neoliberal governance of destinations, and thus provides technical–managerial neoliberal solutions. We note that this privileges industry interests and marginalizes other interests (Feighery 2011; Tribe 2008). Thus, industry can take control to determine self-oriented questions such as “what is important”, “what should be addressed”, “who will guide whom”, “how should it be addressed” within the neoliberal tourism world (Feighery 2011; Tribe and Liburd 2016). We do not claim that academia should stay in an ivory tower and we agree that most tourism knowledge is desperate to address even the realities of the neoliberaloriented tourism industry (Butler 2015). However, as tourism scholars, we argue that our knowledge production should not be restricted to industry’s priorities within neo-liberalism, but should engage “critically” with industry’s priorities, and search for the possibilities of other tourism worlds rather than neoliberalism (Tribe 2008; Tribe and Liburd 2016). The restriction within the neoliberal tourism world, as Belhassen and Caton (2011) suggest, hinders the means “to work on behalf of public good in ways that transcend the promotion of short-term gains in economic productivity” (p. 1390). Our study can be enriched by situated data that are collected through the outputs of academia–industry meetings. Thus, future studies can analyse how the academia– industry collaboration is justified or problematized in situ by both parts and how academics can respond to the expectations or requirements of these meetings in terms of both conformity and resistance within research practices and material arrangements (Feighery 2011).

References Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2012). Post-political spatial planning in England: A crises of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), 89–103. Ayikoru, M., Tribe, J., & Airey, D. (2009). Reading tourism education: Neoliberalism unveiled. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(2), 191–221. Belhassen, Y., & Caton, K. (2011). On the need for critical pedagogy in tourism education. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1389–1396. Berg, L. D., Huijbens, E. H., & Larsen, H. G. (2016). Producing anxiety in the neoliberal university. The Canadian Geographer, 60(2), 168–180. Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2006). Policy relevance and sustainable tourism research: Liberal, radical and post-structuralist perspectives. Journal of Sustainable Tourism Research, 14(1), 1–5. Butcher, J. (2008). The myth of agency through community participation in ecotourism. In P. Burns & M. Novelli (Eds.), Tourism development: Growth, myths and inequalities (pp. 11–27). Oxfordshire: CABI. Butcher, J. (2010). The mantra of ‘community participation’ in context. Tourism Recreation Research, 35(2), 201–205. Butler, R. (2015). The evolution of tourism and tourism research. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(1), 16–27. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). The case for participation as tyranny. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 1–15). London: Zed Books.

2 Neoliberal Collaboration of Tourism Academia and Industry: The Case of. . .

25

Cooper, C. (2006). Knowledge management and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(1), 47–64. Cooper, C. (2015). Managing tourism knowledge. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(1), 107–119. Courpasson, D. (2013). On the erosion of passionate scholarship. Organization Studies, 34(9), 1243–1249. D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295–1313. Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2013). The new way of the world (Translated by G. Elliott). London: Verso. Diken, B. (2015). Religious antinomies of post-politics. In J. Wilson & E. Swyngedouw (Eds.), The post-political and its discontents: Spaces of depoliticisation, spectres of radical politics (pp. 126–145). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Feighery, W. G. (2011). Consulting ethics. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1031–1050. Fennell, D. (2013). The ethics of excellence in tourism research. Journal of Travel Research, 52(4), 417–425. Foucault, M. (1983). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208–226). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burhell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect (pp. 87–104). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics, (Translated by G. Burchell). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Franklin, A., & Crang, M. (2001). The trouble with tourism and travel theory. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 5–22. Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: An introduction. In G. Burhell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect (pp. 1–51). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hall, C. M. (2007). Tourism and regional competitiveness. In J. Tribe & D. Airey (Eds.), Developments in tourism research (pp. 217–230). Oxford: Elsevier. Hall, C. M. (2010). Academic capitalism, academic responsibility and tourism academics: Or, the silence of the lambs? Tourism Recreation Research, 35(3), 298–301. Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P., & Oosterlynck, S. (2013). Spaces of neoliberal experimentation: Soft spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality. Environment and Planning A, 45(1), 217–234. Herbert-Cheshire, L., & Higgins, V. (2004). From risky to responsible: Expert knowledge and the governing of community-led rural development. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(3), 289–302. Hollinshead, K. (1999). Surveillance of the worlds of tourism: Foucault and the eye-of-power. Tourism Management, 20(1), 7–23. Hollinshead, K., Ateljevic, I., & Ali, N. (2009). Worldmaking agency—worldmaking authority. Tourism Geographies, 11(4), 427–443. Ilcan, S., & Phillips, L. (2010). Developmentalities and calculative practices: The millennium development goals. Antipode, 42(4), 844–874. Jankowski, N., & Provezis, S. (2014). Neoliberal ideologies, governmentality and the academy: An examination of accountability through assessment and transparency. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(5), 475–487. Joronen, M. (2013). Conceptualising new modes of state governmentality: Power, violence and the ontological mono-politics of neoliberalism. Geopolitics, 18(2), 356–370. Kamat, S. (2015). The new development architecture and the post-political in the global south. In J. Wilson & E. Swyngedouw (Eds.), The post-political and its discontents: Spaces of depoliticisation, spectres of radical politics (pp. 67–85). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Knights, D., & Clarke, C. A. (2014). It’s a bittersweet symphony, this life: Fragile academic selves and insecure identities at work. Organization Studies, 35(3), 335–357. Kothari, U. (2001). Power, knowledge and social control in participatory development. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 139–152). London: Zed Books.

26

A. Aslan and M. Kozak

Lam, A. (2010). From ‘ivory tower traditionalists’ to ‘entrepreneurial scientists’? Academic scientists in fuzzy university-industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40(2), 307–340. Larner, W., & Le Heron, R. (2005). Neo-liberalizing spaces and subjectivities: Reinventing New Zealand Universities. Organization, 12(6), 843–862. Law, J., & Urry, J. (2004). Enacting the social. Economy and Society, 33(3), 390–410. Lemke, T. (2001). ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 30(2), 190–207. Li, T. M. (2007). The will to improve: Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham: Duke University Press. McGuigan, J. (2005). Neo-liberalism, culture and policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(3), 229–241. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present. Cambridge: Polity. Miraftab, F. (2004). Making neo-liberal governance: The disempowering work of empowerment. International Planning Studies, 9(4), 239–259. Mosse, D. (2001). ‘People’s knowledge’, participation and patronage: Operations ad representations in rural development. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny? (pp. 16–35). London: Zed Books. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge. Mowforth, M., & Munt, I. (1998). Tourism and sustainability. London: Routledge. Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345. Oosterlynck, S., & Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Noise reduction: The postpolitical quandary of night flights at Brussels airport. Environment and Planning A, 42(7), 1577–1594. Pyo, S. (2012). Identifying and prioritizing destination knowledge needs. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(2), 1156–1175. Scott, N., & Ding, P. (2008). Management of tourism research knowledge in Australia and China. Current Issues in Tourism, 11(6), 514–528. Sheehan, L. R., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2005). Destination stakeholders: Exploring identity and salience. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 711–734. Shore, C., & McLauchlan, L. (2012). ‘Third mission’ activities, commercialisation and academic entrepreneurs. Social Anthropology, 20(3), 267–286. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governancebeyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006. Thomas, R. (2011). Academics as policy-makers: (Not) Researching tourism and events policy formation from the inside. Current Issues in Tourism, 14(6), 493–506. Tribe, J. (2008). Tourism: A critical business. Journal of Travel Research, 46(3), 245–255. Tribe, J., & Liburd, J. J. (2016). The tourism knowledge system. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 44–61. Tribe, J., Dann, G., & Jamal, T. (2015). Paradigms in tourism research: A trialogue. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(1), 28–47. Wilson, J., & Swyngedouw, E. (2015). Seeds of dystopia: Post-politics and the return of the political. In J. Wilson & E. Swyngedouw (Eds.), The post-political and its discontents: Spaces of depoliticisation, spectres of radical politics (pp. 1–22). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Xiao, H., & Smith, S. L. J. (2007). The use of tourism knowledge. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(2), 310–331. Yüksel, F., Bramwell, B., & Yüksel, A. (2005). Centralized and decentralized tourism governance in Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 859–886.

Chapter 3

The Airline–Airport–Destination Authority Relationship: The Case of Greece Andreas Papatheodorou, Eirini Vlassi, Dominiki Gaki, Lemonia Papadopoulou-Kelidou, Marina Efthymiou, Dimitrios Pappas, and Paraskevi Paraschi Abstract The latest European Aviation structural changes have significant implications for the tourism industry and facilitate the formation of a new contractual arrangement among destination stakeholders. Greece has experienced full air transport liberalization since 1998 being a member of the European single aviation market. However, although there is a rise in the country’s international tourism receipts this is not in line with arrivals growth and consequently per capita tourism receipts decrease. Given the unprecedented economic crisis faced by Greece today, it is very crucial to rationalize expenditure and make the best use of the very limited available public resources. An agreement under the defining aspects «Win—Win—Win» which has been developed among airports, airlines and destination authorities needs further economic and legal investigation. This chapter discusses the complex relationship that exists among the three stakeholders in the Greek marketplace.

1 Introduction 2017 marks the 20th anniversary since the completion of the liberalisation process in the intra-EU (European Union) air transport market. In particular, the Third Package of policy measures fully implemented by the EU in 1997, liberalizes the protected domestic aviation market of the Member States; makes market accessible to airlines; and launches the concept of Community Air Carriers to substitute previous reference to National Airlines. Community air carriers may now freely determine fares for passengers and cargo and have access to all intra-community routes without any license or authorization, with the exception of certain specific routes on which A. Papatheodorou (*) · E. Vlassi · D. Gaki · L. Papadopoulou-Kelidou · D. Pappas University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece e-mail: [email protected] M. Efthymiou Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland P. Paraschi University of Patras, Patras, Greece © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_3

27

28

A. Papatheodorou et al.

Member States may impose Public Service Obligations (PSOs) under certain conditions and for a limited time period. In the same spirit, airport management shifts gradually away from public service-oriented authorities towards commerciallyminded private operators (Efthymiou et al. 2016; Halpern and Graham 2013). In many cases, airports are now free to set airport charges (subject to certain regulatory constraints); recognize new route opportunities; and develop marketing strategies that until recently were initiated solely by airlines (Graham 2013). These structural changes in the European aviation industry have caused significant impacts on the tourism industry and the formation of related contractual arrangements. In fact, destination stakeholders are aware of the important role that airports and airline networks play in the economic development and attractiveness of their region (Malina et al. 2012; Allroggen et al. 2013). Consequently, the converging interrelated interests of Airports, Airlines and Destination Authorities in this fragile and demanding environment make their relationships complex and raise the need for new participatory practices to optimize the performance of all parties and enhance sustainable tourism development (Papatheodorou 2016). An emerging agreement among the three (3) parties, namely the community air carrier (airline), an airport and a Destination Management/Marketing Organization (DMO)—the latter as a collective representative/coordinator of local destination interests—undoubtedly constitutes a new contractual arrangement in the modern economy that is regulated neither by domestic private law nor by the EU Directives or Regulations and consequently needs further economic and legal investigation. Economic research should focus on synergies and conflicts, partnership dynamics and transaction costs, while legal research should elaborate and stipulate the framework within which embedded parties act, negotiate and collaborate. The above consist the backbone of the tripartite relation that can help deter behaviours infringing upon competition and institute economic and legal safety valves for all stakeholders thus stimulating them to trust the negotiation mechanism for their mutual benefit. As Greece struggles to recover from the severest economic recession of the last 50 years, air transport liberalisation can possibly boost international tourism arrivals and revenues causing promising direct and indirect effects by enabling foreign investment; enhancing overall productivity; and encouraging innovation. The fourteen (14) regional airports that have been recently conceded to FraportGreece aim at being profitable within a competitive, free market environment. Nonetheless, as discussed in Papatheodorou and Arvanitis (2009) and Farmaki and Papatheodorou (2015) even if air transport liberalisation is necessary it is certainly not a sufficient condition to achieve sustainable tourism development to the benefit of involved stakeholders. For this reason, this chapter expands on the business triangle that involves the following business stakeholders: airports, airlines and destination authorities. Amongst them, interdependent, conflicting and/or competing relations of a transactional nature are established. These relations and their implications on the Greek tourism industry are thoroughly discussed. Economic and legal conflicts and obstacles governing the triangular relation and preventing the sustainable development of tourism are explored in the second section. Literature and current research are reviewed in Sect. 3 to reveal the important role of aviation

3 The Airline–Airport–Destination Authority Relationship: The Case of Greece

29

and tourism in the sustainable economic development of Greece without ignoring the potential shortcomings that may arise. Moreover, airports, airlines and destination authorities and their role in boosting tourism demand for Greek areas on a sustainable basis are extensively examined.

2 Air Transport and Tourism: Interdependence and Transactional Complexity Air transport plays a major role in the contemporary service economy. It mainly consists of the aviation industry (airlines, airports and ancillary services) and the civil aerospace industry (aircraft manufacturing and maintenance). Despite the period of turbulence which commenced in 2000 with the September 11th incidents in the United States and continued with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the SARS syndrome and more recently the hike in oil prices, the swine flu and the global economic recession, commercial airlines carried about 3.57 billion passengers in 2015 and generated revenues of 718 billion US dollars (IATA 2016). Moreover, the airline and airport industry employed about 9.9 million people globally in 2016; when indirect and induced effects are also taken into account, it is estimated that air transport generates about 63 million jobs at a global level (ATAG 2016). In addition to its well-established linkages with local, regional and national economies (Debbage and Delk 2001; Gillen and Hinsch 2001; Goetz 1992), air transport is explicitly related to tourism (Bieger and Wittmer 2006). Using the concept of the ‘tourism ratio’, i.e. tourism related receipts of a specific industry expressed as a percentage of its total turnover, it may be argued that civil aviation is a tourism industry par excellence as its related figure is often over 90%. Interestingly, about 54% of international tourists travelled by air in 2015 (UNWTO 2016), whereas the related percentage in 1980 was only 38% (UNWTO 2012b). In addition, and according to ATAG (2016), the direct employment effect of air transport on tourism is estimated at 15.9 million jobs; when multiplier effects are considered, the total effect rises to 36 million. Having the above in mind, a thorough examination of the air transport—tourism nexus is needed in the context of a concise stakeholder framework involving airlines, airports and tourism destination authorities. In fact, if the three stakeholders under consideration focus solely on maximising narrowly defined, short-term individual objectives, then they are unlikely to reach a jointly efficient outcome due to the conflicting elements arising in the tripartite interactions. Transaction costs theory provides the ground for gaining a deeper understanding of the forces governing this triangular relationship. Transaction costs exist when a product is assembled from different resources and providers as with package holidays (Stabler et al. 2010). Williamson (1996) compares transaction costs with frictions that exist in mechanical systems. Misunderstandings, delays and breakdowns are some examples that can

30

A. Papatheodorou et al.

cause loss of energy in a business environment. Transaction costs can be further distinguished into coordination and motivation costs. The former relate to problems like matching potential consumers with producers while the latter are associated with information incompleteness and imperfect commitments (Milgrom and Roberts 1992). In the triangular relationship of airports, airlines and destination authorities, available information sources are limited. The decision-making behaviour of the involved parties is subjugated and indissolubly affected by the narrow extant information. The potential parties of the specific transaction miss information needed to determine if transactions’ terms are acceptable from all the parties and if they are going to be met. Transaction is characterized by information asymmetries as parties possess information but reveal only a small part of it when negotiating. Asymmetric information is expressed by hidden actions (airlines secretly deal with various airports and destinations) and hidden characteristics (airlines use price discrimination to detect customers’ willingness to pay for a seat). Asset specificity is demonstrated as the most important aspect in transactions (Williamson 1996; Milgrom and Roberts 1992) that can take many forms and can distract ex ante incentives or can affect ex post governance structure. Some types of asset specificity are site specificity, human specificity, physical asset specificity, brand name specificity and dedicated asset specificity. Airports infrastructure can be characterized as a high-risk investment since the built assets cannot be redeployed to other uses. On the other hand, while airlines cannot fly to a place where there is no airport, they can easily switch destinations and redirect their aircraft elsewhere. Consequently, there is a structural interdependence shaped among airports and airlines and therefore airports ask for compensation for their irreversible investment while airlines are charged for retaining their flexibility to relocate (Papatheodorou 2003). The potential market power of airport operators depends on the specific characteristics of each airport (Gillen and Niemeier 2008; Starkie 2002). Thus, airports with the heaviest volume of traffic (particularly if congested) are expected to be most susceptible to charge high aeronautical fees to airline operators. Likewise, airports that serve as hubs are more likely to charge higher fees than peripheral ones. Furthermore, airports with a high volume of long distance traffic and those located on islands are less vulnerable to competition from other modes of transport such as road transportation or high-speed rail. The absence of competition may also derive from the absence of any neighbouring airports with a different management company. In such instances, it is possible that the airport operator will exploit its market power. Finally, privately managed airports may have greater incentives to charge higher fees compared to public providers (Zhang and Zhang 2001). Low Cost Carriers (LCCs) and airlines with a high traffic share seem to have a stronger countervailing power against airport managers (Borenstein and Rose 2014; Brueckner 2002). For this reason, we can expect conflict arising between airlines and airports in the determination of airport fees. From a destination perspective, a clearly defined destination management structure can provide destination managers and stakeholders with a place to negotiate and agree

3 The Airline–Airport–Destination Authority Relationship: The Case of Greece

31

on the various strategic issues (S.T.O. 2015). Therefore, with regards to the role of a Destination Management Organisation (DMO), managers and planners must formulate and implement processes which ultimately satisfy not only shareholders (characteristic for classical corporate approach) but also other various groups related to the business (Perić et al. 2014). The central task in this process is to manage and integrate the relationships and interests of all the identified stakeholders in a way that ensures the long-term success of the firm (or destination). Ideally, a DMO should be a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), to better represent all involved stakeholders and keep an objective status with the legal framework to support its role. A DMO must also be able to identify opportunities and select the optimal solution as well as to assist in using the most suitable infrastructure available—nobody would want a ‘white elephant’ in the room, i.e. grandiose infrastructure built for a reason but not used to achieve its potential. A DMO may best serve to facilitate dialogue among the private and public sectors as well as other stakeholders that may otherwise never collaborate or understand how their decisions reverberate down a destination’s long tourism value chain. Because of this unique capability, DMOs can prove invaluable, especially in developing destinations where tourism is an important economic driver and mechanism for equitable social capacity building. Transaction costs and asset specificity raise substantially the level of complexity in the airline-airport-tourism destination authority relationship and thus render the study of power, negotiation and systemic conflict management (Nikolopoulos 2013) of great added value. In fact, airlines seem to have a leading negotiating power against airports and destinations in terms of asset specificity. Airlines’ property (aircraft) is spatially transferable whereas airports’ and destinations’ infrastructure is fixed in location. A badly handled conflict may lead an airline to move away from an airport and its served destination resulting in a loss of business at a local level. Airlines constantly struggle to change the economic terms of the contracts and agreements they sign with airports. Aeronautical charges are a big issue for airlines. Airports, on the other hand, have an incentive to impose high aeronautical fees on airlines to increase their revenue especially in cases where they have a locational advantage due to absence of substitutes and/or strong brand of local destinations. A battle of aeronautical charges can be an endless win-lose procedure. A strong international Low-Cost Carrier (LCC), such as Ryanair, and/or an airline vertically integrated with a major European tour operator, such as TUI, has many alternatives and hence a higher negotiating power vis-à-vis airports and destinations especially when the latter’s brand name is weak. To resolve the above conundrum, airports are often willing to expand their non-aeronautical offering to increase inbound and outbound passenger flows. Such an expansion may include shopping centres, hotels, entertainment parks, restaurants etc. that causes conflict with high street shops, which also claim a part of tourist expenditure. Nonetheless, local tourism authorities may become suspicious of airport cities developing rival commercial activities outside the formers’ tax and administration jurisdiction. A fortiori, airports and airlines seem to be absent from local destination boards such as the DMOs, i.e. they are not somehow represented in

32

A. Papatheodorou et al.

a decision-making process that affects their performance. Moreover, airlines and airports are interested in both incoming and outbound point-to-point and network traffic, while local tourism authorities are only interested in inbound traffic. Likewise, local tourism authorities and airlines care much more about the sociodemographic profile of tourists/passengers compared to airports whose passengerrelated aeronautical revenue is based solely on volume. Having all the above in mind, the emerging high transaction costs may be reduced via vertical governance or even integration. While the latter may face managerial and legal challenges, the interrelation of the three main stakeholders (i.e. airlines, airports, destination authorities) motivates cooperative practices. Incentive schemes covering marketing and advertising, revenue guarantees and discounts in aircraftrelated or passenger related charges are common practices aiming to share start–up costs and financial risks when airlines establish a new route or further developing existing ones (Halpern and Graham 2013). A research carried out by Malina et al. (2012) shows that from a sample of 200 European airports about the one-third adopted incentive programmes providing lower aeronautical charges and promotional payments when negotiating with airlines (66 of the 200). Moreover, 33 bilateral agreements in the form of fixed payments guarantee were detected among airports and airlines and 26 among destination authorities and airports. The rationale behind state or other form of aids provided to airlines and especially to LCCs is that reduced fares boosts tourist flows and increased local employment and income (Papatheodorou 2003). In Greece, Athens International Airport offers incentive programmes to airlines and until the entry of Fraport Greece, it was the only airport in the country following such practices. Legislation on state aid and competition (mergers, alliances, pricing, etc.) is in force and applicable to ensure the level playing in the unified and deregulated EU aviation market. In 2014, the European Union, which supports open market and is against state-aid measures, announced new guidelines to improve competitiveness and reinforce further development in the aviation industry. While subsidization is not considered an appropriate practice, new forms of cooperation seem to optimize the performance of all the parties. In essence, and despite the various conflicts and frictions all three stakeholders seem to desire satisfied passengers/tourists and increased levels of revenues and profits. Nonetheless, their relationship seems to be transactional rather than based on bonding, trust and long-term cooperation for a common future that is worth to invest in. This is because route development can only prove sustainable if it results in a triple-win situation; to achieve so, however, related risks should be properly understood and possibly shared by all involved parties and compensated by appropriate returns. Further research should be conducted to demonstrate the plausibility of a triple win outcome by raising the profile of practices where common ground may be found. Among others, an airport may accept reduced aeronautical revenue if compensated by a rise in non-aeronautical revenue and partial financing of its infrastructure by the other two stakeholders. Likewise, an airline may accept reduced advertising income from the local tourism authority if the authority commits to improve the brand name of the destination and the airport agrees to fix reduced charges over a long period of time. A tourism authority may accept tax concessions

3 The Airline–Airport–Destination Authority Relationship: The Case of Greece

33

and provide other services to the partnering airline and airport if its overall promotional budget is reduced and/or not funnelled exclusively to the other two involved stakeholders. If such agreements are realised in the context of transparent systemic external governance, then seamless sustainable development can be achieved.

3 Aviation and Tourism in Greece: Current Situation and the Role of Institutional Changes As expected, the structural interrelation between air transport and tourism is apparent in all tourism destination countries such as Greece. In fact, the travel and tourism economy accounts for 18.5% to GDP, and 23.1% of total employment in Greece (WTTC 2016). Inbound tourists were slightly over 23 million in 2015, accounting for 15.6 billion US dollars in tourism receipts (UNWTO 2016). On the contrary, domestic tourism decreased by 22.6% from 2008 to 2013 (RIT 2015) due to the economic depression: illustratively, Greek GDP per capita decreased from 21,844 euros in 2008 to 16,181 euros in 2015 and the unemployment rate rose from 8.6% in 2008 to 23.1% in December 2016 (ELSTAT 2017a). Moreover, the country’s gross public debt as a percentage of GDP rose from 109.4% in 2008 to 183.4% in 2016 (IMF 2016). Consequently, and since domestic tourism struggles to recover from the severest recession in the last 50 years, increasing emphasis should currently be placed on inbound tourism, which is largely (i.e. about 75%) air transport dependent (Papatheodorou and Arvanitis 2014). Sustainable development requires the joint consideration of the economic, ecological and sociocultural environment (Ritchie and Crouch 2003). Such an approach is of outmost importance in remoted and island destinations characterised by fragile environments. Moreover, a 2001 UNWTO report underlines the importance of exports including tourism for the population’s wellbeing in island destinations, but policymakers should also consider the impacts of tourism development in an insular periphery (Arvanitis and Papatheodorou 2015). Although islands have limited contribution to the planet’s climatological change due to lack of industries, they are more vulnerable landscape changes and other negative effects caused by the environmental change. The high values of the Tourism Climate Index recorded in the Ionian and Aegean Sea islands proclaim the possibly negative footprint of tourism in the long-term viability of these popular destinations. According to the Institute for European Environmental Policy (2013), the cost of adequate water supplies for Greek islands is expected to cumulatively range from 0.9% to 1.3% of the Greek GDP in the period 2041–2050. Although many island economies rely on tourism in the short run, adverse environmental changes may cause a decrease in tourist flows in the longer term. Furthermore, the sociocultural environment of a country that already suffers from poverty—with the poverty rate estimated at 21.4% in 2015 and the number of emigrants to rise from 43,044 in 2008 to 109,351 in 2015 (ELSTAT 2017b)—is more vulnerable to ecological changes.

34

A. Papatheodorou et al.

The number of ‘environmental refugees’ is expected to increase in the forthcoming years to the detriment of the Greek society (BoG 2011). To avoid the aforementioned impacts of environmental and sociocultural change, consultation and coordination of destination stakeholders is urgently needed; in fact, a co-creation process should be followed to highlight the importance of sustainable development. In addition, Greece’s position deterioration in the widely acknowledged Tourism Competitiveness Index (produced by the World Economic Forum (WEF)) during the years of the crisis is an issue of great concern. Greece ranked 24th in 2009, 31st in 2015 among 141 countries and returned to the 24th position among 139 countries in 2017 (WEF 2009, 2015, 2017). Although there is a rise in the country’s international tourism receipts (from 10.7 billion in 2005 to 14.1 billion euros in 2015), this is not in line with arrivals’ growth (from 14,388,000 in 2005 to 26,114,000 in 2015), i.e. per capita tourism receipts decrease. Moreover, in terms of price competitiveness (which considers among others airport charges, ticket taxes and fuel price levels), Greece occupied the disappointing 90th position in 2017. Likewise, although the importance of tourism is undeniable and national spending in marketing campaigns aiming to enhance the destination brand image is high, the country’s brand strategy ranked in the 67th position in 2017. In terms of overall air transport infrastructure, the drop from the 19th position in 2009 to the 26th in 2017 also causes concern especially for peripheral regions; moreover, in terms of air transport infrastructure quality Greece ranked 43th in 2017. Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) have not been exploited as the number of companies using them for businessto-business (98th position) and for business-to-customer (82nd position) transactions seems low. A matter of great importance is also environmental sustainability where Greece ranked 39th in 2017; when combined with the fact that the country’s business environment ranked 103rd this casts doubts for the development of tourism and the Greek economy in general. Having the above in mind, it is evident that tourism plays a very important role in the Greek economy, which is though largely dependent on developments in the air transport industry. A prerequisite for gaining deeper appreciation of the triangular relation that exists among airports, airlines and destination authorities in Greece is to examine the current situation and the role of each individual stakeholder in tourism growth; to understand the existing interrelations; and to reveal transaction costs that should be acknowledged and addressed.

3.1

Destination Management Organization

DMO’s functions in Greece are implemented by the State, the Departments of the respective local authorities or organizations under the supervision of Local Government Organizations (LGO) in the legal form of municipal non-profit corporations. Destination management and marketing can generally be performed at national (by Greek National Tourism Organisation—GNTO), regional (by Regional Authorities and Prefecture Tourism Promotion Committees) and local level

3 The Airline–Airport–Destination Authority Relationship: The Case of Greece

35

(by Municipalities and their subsidiary agencies). The Greek National Tourism Organisation (GNTO)‘s structure and role changed many times throughout the years. Since 2014 (Law 4254/2014 (Hellenic Government Gazette 2014)) GNTO’s competences have been limited to market research and promotion of Destination Greece (RIT 2015). The Ministry of Tourism is responsible for tourism planning and development. DMOs act and operate as intermediary bodies of management and implementation of funding activities (e.g. managing EU programmes in the context of the National Strategic Reference Framework, etc.); this is because the modern Greek legislation restricts the definition of entities or persons acting as intermediate operators of subsidized programmes only to a limited number: among them are the Developmental SA Companies of LGO (DevSALGO). A DMO can also be established under a different form, e.g. as a joint SALGO by one or more municipalities or communities, which operates in accordance with the provisions of Law 2190/1920 (Hellenic Government Gazette 1920). In this case, the majority of its share capital (at least 51%) is held by LGO or other bodies of local government or public entities or the State, while the remaining share capital may be held by other natural or legal persons of the private sector. Nonetheless, the disadvantage of joint SALGOs which can develop activity as DMOs is that they cannot act as intermediary managing bodies of EU programmes according to the current Greek legislation; thus, LGOs gradually prefer and choose the corporate formations of DevSALGO as DMOs. Illustratively, a DevSALGO DMO called “Athens Development and Destination Management Agency” was established in Athens in 2003 aiming to boost the city’s sustainable development by increasing competitiveness and entrepreneurship, improving quality of life, coping with poverty. There is another DMO currently in its infancy in Hersonissos, Crete and efforts to that direction can also be detected on the island of Santorini. The low number of DMOs operating in Greece today confirms the absence of leadership and coordination that can enhance destination competitiveness and ensure long-term prosperity.

3.2

Airlines

UNWTO (2012a) argues that tourism growth is strongly interlinked with air transport liberalization. In fact, in Europe, civil aviation policymakers adopted a stepwise approach to air transport liberalisation, also known as ‘the three packages’ way to the formation of the European Common Aviation Area (ECAA). The Third and most important Package came into full effect in April 1997 giving carriers complete freedom in terms of market entry and exit, determination of seat capacity and setting of fares within the ECAA (Papatheodorou 2002). Greece implemented the Third Package in July 2008 having been granted an extension by the European Commission to deal with issues directly related to the country’s multi-island geographical structure. Back in the 1990s a number of carriers such as SEEA, Apollo, Cretan, Venus and Axon entered the Greek market. In the early 2000s the market consisted of two major groups, i.e.: (a) Olympic Airlines (which incorporated Olympic

36

A. Papatheodorou et al.

Aviation and Macedonian Airlines), the ex-flag carrier, privatised by the government in 2008–2009 (and at that point acquired by MIG Group) to imminently resolve a multitude of financial and other problems; and (b) Aegean Airlines (which incorporated Air Greece and Cronus), a privately owned airline and member of Star Alliance, i.e. the global airline alliance led by Lufthansa and United Airlines. The European Commission accepted the acquisition of Olympic by Aegean Airlines in 2013 and today only one major Greek carrier operates in Greece. Small companies also exist in niche passenger markets (e.g. Astra Airlines, Sky Express, Ellinair), air taxi and cargo segments. Furthermore, LCCs started operating in Athens International Airport and in Thessaloniki since the late 1990s but their operations did not expand to include other regional airports until 2012 (Arvanitis and Papatheodorou 2015). Ryanair, the Irish carrier placed in the top ten airlines with the largest number of passengers worldwide (IATA 2016), has established three (3) bases in Greece, i.e. Athens, Chania, Thessaloniki, and operates in a multitude of international and domestic routes. There are also other LCC operating services on a seasonal base connecting tourism origin countries with Greek sunlust destinations such as Heraklion, Corfu, Zante etc.

3.3

Airports

The third stakeholder to consider in the triangular relationship relates to airports. Due to its mountainous geomorphology and the 6000 islands (only 227 are inhabited) Greece requires many airports to face peripherality. 39 airports operate currently in Greece (+7 closed): 11 are located on the mainland and 28 on the islands; 34 are state-owned, 4 are municipal and one (that is Athens International Airport) operates as a joint venture owned 55% by the Greek state, 40% by the German company AviAlliance and 5% by members of Kopelouzos family. 15 airports are authorised to receive international traffic, 13 are of hybrid status whereas 11 receive domestic flights only. In terms of traffic activity in Greek airports, about 444,249 aircraft movements (42.2% domestic and 57.8% international flights) were recorded in 2015 related to 48.8 million passengers in total; these can be further classified into 14.5 million domestic and 34.3 million international passengers (Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority 2015). It is also important to mention that a high degree of concentration and asymmetry related to the fragmented geographical relief of the country is depicted in the air traffic pattern (Arvanitis and Papatheodorou 2015). Greece has 1 “A” class airport (>10 m pax)—that is Athens International Airport—which accounts for 39.97%% of total traffic; 2 “B” class airport (5 < . < 10 m pax), i.e. Heraklion International Airport in Crete and Thessaloniki International Airport in Central Macedonia with 23.35% of total traffic; 6 “C” class airports (1 < . < 5 m pax) with 29.96% of total traffic; and finally, 30 “D” class airports (< 1 m pax) with 9.72% of total traffic (Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority 2015). Many among the D class airports rely on Public Service Obligation (PSO) routes; there are currently 28 such routes connecting remote islands and isolated

3 The Airline–Airport–Destination Authority Relationship: The Case of Greece

37

areas in Greece. A PSO regime is actually imposed by the state and determined by the operation of scheduled air services between an airport in the Community and an airport serving only a peripheral or development region in the territory of a Member State, or an air service with low traffic, if it is considered vital for the economic and social development of the region that the airport serves. There are 13 routes connecting Athens with islands of the Aegean and the Ionian Sea; one connecting Athens with Kastoria and Kozani; five connecting Thessaloniki with islands of the Aegean and the Ionian Sea; one connecting Thessaloniki with Kalamata; five connecting islands of the Aegean and the Ionian Sea; one connecting Alexandroupoli with Sitia; and one last connecting Aktio with Sitia (Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority 2017). As also evidenced by WEF (2015) many airports in Greece require direct investment for redevelopment or reconstruction purposes—lack of public transport intermodality to seemingly connect the airports with the major metropolitan centres is also identified as a problem in many cases (Efthymiou and Papatheodorou 2015). In business practice, such investment is usually undertaken either by the private sector with funds derived from developmental—operational programmes, usually co-financed by the European Structural and Investment Funds or by a private entity in partnership with a public body, after public tender (PPP contributory public works, see the European Commission Green Paper on PPPs—Community law on public contracts and concessions, 2004). In fact, the high importance of airports for the country’s prosperity convinced the Greek government to welcome the idea of a concession in 2013 and to invite private investors to manage, maintain and operate 14 of the remaining 38 airports given that Athens International Airport was already operating as a private entity (HRADF 2013). The Greek parliament sealed the concession to Fraport Greece, a joint venture of Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide and Slentel Limited (unit of Kopelouzos Group) in 2015 (HRADF 2015). The process was completed in April 2017. In this case, the development and exclusive exploitation of the fourteen (14) regional airports is exclusively assigned to Fraport Greece under contract of work or service concession and not under public works contract (see on Kitsos, I, the Directive 2014/23/EC on the award of concession contracts, Athens 2016). In an airport concession agreement, the right to exclusive use of the project (airport) is given in exchange for the construction or reconstruction—redevelopment, which is performed through the financing by the project concessionaire—contractor (private investment—private funds). The contractor, i.e. Fraport Greece, is the one who undertakes the business risk of the financing repayment and subsequently the project management (airport). This funding may be provided directly to the concessionaire—contractor by private investment of third parties (e.g. financial institutions). However, none of these ways actually negates the other, as blurring boundaries have been observed between public works contracts and works concessions, leading to confusion in applying the most appropriate legal regulatory framework per case. Irrespectively of the above, Greek airports display considerable heterogeneity and face different challenges (Papatheodorou and Arvanitis 2009). Many of them are located on islands receiving a bulk of traffic during the high summer season, which

38

A. Papatheodorou et al.

causes severe congestion while remaining underutilized for the rest of the year. Likewise, there are several airports located in the mainland (such as Kalamata, Araxos and Ioannina) that receive very low traffic flows despite their high growth potential. At the same time, the Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority (HCAA) is undergoing a radical restructuring process, waiving its role as operator of airports and air navigation service provision and focusing solely on market regulation. Having the above in mind, the ‘one size fits all’ pricing scheme—the single charging scheme implemented for all Greek airports operated by the state entities- is inadequate to deal with the improved efficiency goals: according to the new regional airports concession agreement, the charges in the fourteen (14) airports will be set by Fraport Greece and monitored by the HCAA. Given that the level of airport charges may raise conflicts between airlines and airports to the possible detriment of a tourism destination too, an optimal pricing scheme should be designed to meet the objectives of all involved parties.

4 Conclusion This chapter discusses the air transport and tourism dynamics in Greece focusing on the evolving relationship among airports, airlines and the local region/tourism destination authorities as represented by a DMO. Profit or welfare maximization of the three involved stakeholders from an individual perspective will inevitably lead to a conflict of interests as a result of the existing revenue/cost structure and the emerging transaction costs. Risk sharing is always a major issue to consider but constructive negotiations, which will lead to an optimal relationship subjected to stakeholders bargaining power and mutual dependencies, can lead to optimal relationships. In spite of the increased emphasis placed on tourism as the growth pole to exit the deep financial crisis in Greece, the 2017 WEF competitiveness report shows that in terms of air transport infrastructure Greece is ranked in the 29th position among 139 countries and in terms of quality of air transport infrastructure in the 43rd position. Consequently Greek air transport industry needs to experience radical changes in its structure and performance. This should be seriously taken under consideration as tourism is difficult to thrive without reliable aviation services since both inbound and outbound travel flows and tourism mobility are sometimes severely constrained by surface or water transport services. In this context, the Greek government welcomed in 2013 the idea of a concession and invited private investors to manage, maintain and operate 14 airports, a process that was completed in April 2017. Such institutional changes and policies concerning the smooth co-operation of tourism and aviation can make a big difference in the prosperity of tourism destinations; it is to be validated of course whether this will also prove the case in Greece.

3 The Airline–Airport–Destination Authority Relationship: The Case of Greece

39

References Allroggen, F., Malina, R., & Lenz, A. K. (2013). Which factors impact on the presence of incentives for route and traffic development? Econometric evidence from European airports. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 60, 49–61. Arvanitis, P., & Papatheodorou, A. (2015). Greek airports in transition: From public ownership to PPP concessions. Journal of Airport Management, 9(3), 284–295. ATAG. (2016). Facts and figures. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.atag.org/facts-andfigures.html Bank of Greece. (2011). The environmental economic and social impacts of climate change in Greece. Climate Change Impacts Study Committee. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www. bankofgreece.gr/BogEkdoseis/ClimateChange_FullReport_bm.pdf Bieger, T., & Wittmer, A. (2006). Air transport and tourism—Perspectives and challenges for destinations, airlines and governments. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(1), 40–46. Borenstein, S., & Rose, N. L. (2014). How airline markets work. . . or do they? Regulatory reform in the airline industry. In Economic regulation and its reform: What have we learned? (pp. 63–135). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Brueckner, J. (2002). Airport congestion when carriers have market power. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1357–1375. Debbage, K. G., & Delk, D. (2001). The geography of air passenger volume and local employment patterns by US metropolitan core area: 1973–1996. Journal of Air Transport Management, 7(3), 159–167. Efthymiou, M., & Papatheodorou, A. (2015). Intermodal passenger transportation and destination competitiveness in Greece. Anatolia – An International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 26(3), 459–471. Efthymiou, M., Arvanitis, P., & Papatheodorou, A. (2016). Institutional changes and dynamics in the European aviation sector: Implications for tourism. In Global dynamics in travel, tourism, and hospitality (pp. 41–57). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. ELSTAT. (2017a). Employment status and unemployment rate (January 2004–December 2016). Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.statistics.gr/en/statistics/-/publication/SJO02/ ELSTAT. (2017b). Living conditions in Greece. Available http://www.statistics.gr/documents/ 20181/2810519/LivingConditionsInGreece_0317.pdf/4965ade8-5194-47c3-8cc48805595226cf Farmaki, A., & Papatheodorou, A. (2015). Stakeholder perceptions of the role of low-cost carriers in insular tourism destinations: The case of Cyprus. Tourism Planning & Development, 12(4), 412–432. Gillen, D., & Hinsch, H. (2001). Measuring the economic impact of liberalization of international aviation on Hamburg airport. Journal of Air Transport Management, 7(1), 25–34. Gillen, D., & Niemeier, H. M. (2008). The European Union: Evolution of privatization, regulation, and slot reform. In C. Winston & G. Rusde (Eds.), Aviation infrastructure performance. A study in comparative political economy (pp. 36–63). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Goetz, A. R. (1992). Air passenger transportation and growth in the US urban system, 1950–1987. Growth and Change, 23(2), 217–238. Graham, A. (2013). Managing airports (4th ed.). London: Routledge. Halpern, N., & Graham, A. (2013). Airport marketing. London: Routledge. Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority. (2015). Information on airports. Athens: Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.hcaa.gr. Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority. (2017). Public Service Obligation (PSO) routes. Athens: Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.hcaa.gr. Hellenic Government Gazette. (1920). Governmental Gazette (Α-37), Law 2190/1920. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.et.gr Hellenic Government Gazette. (2014). Governmental Gazette 85/07-04-2014. Law 4254 Measures to support and develop the Greek economy in the context of implementation of Law 4046/2012

40

A. Papatheodorou et al.

and other provisions (in Greek). Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick. aspx?Fileticket¼hL%2FXuG%2B4%2Bho%3D&tabid¼37&language¼el-GR HRADF. (2013). Regional airports: Invitation to submit an expression of interest. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.hradf.com/en/procurement/view/213/regional-airports-invitation-tosubmit-an-expression-of-interest HRADF. (2015). Concession agreement signed for managing 14 Greek regional airports. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.hradf.com/en/post/375/nea IATA. (2016). World air transport statistics. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.iata.org/ docx/WATS_2016-infographic.pdf Institute for European Environmental Policy. (2013). Impacts of climate change on all European Islands. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.ieep.eu/assets/1292/Final_report_EP_CC_ impacts_on_islands_FINAL_clean.pdf International Monetary Fund. (2016). World economic outlook October 2016. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/ Malina, R., Albers, S., & Kroll, N. (2012). Airport incentive programmes: A European perspective. Transport Reviews, 32(4), 435–453. Milgrom, P. R., & Roberts, J. D. (1992). Economics, organization and management. London: Pearson Education. Nikolopoulos, A. (2013). Alone against all: The negotiation strategy. Athens: Patakis Editions. Papatheodorou, A. (2002). Civil aviation regimes and leisure tourism in Europe. Journal of Air Transport Management, 8(6), 381–388. Papatheodorou, A. (2003). Do we need airport regulation? The Utilities Journal, 6(10), 35–37. Papatheodorou, A. (2016, November). The Airline – Airport – Tourism destination authority relationship: An eternal business triangle? Presented at the 23rd annual Global Airport Development (GAD) conference, Lisbon. Papatheodorou, A., & Arvanitis, P. (2009). Spatial evolution of airport traffic and air transport liberalisation: The case of Greece. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(5), 402–412. Papatheodorou, A., & Arvanitis, P. (2014). Tourism and the economic crisis in Greece: Regional perspectives. Region et Développement, 39, 183–203. Perić, M., Đurkin, J., & Lamot, I. (2014). Importance of stakeholder management in tourism project: Case study of the Istra inspirit project (No. section4–6). University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management. Research Institute for Tourism. (2015). Greek-tourism_Hotel-performance. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.grhotels.gr/GR/xee/ITEP/DocLib2/Greek-tourism_Hotel-performance_2014_ Nov2015-Final.pdf Ritchie, J. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. Oxon: CABI. Stabler, M. J., Papatheodorou, A., & Sinclair, M. T. (2010). The economics of tourism (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Starkie, D. (2002). Airport regulation and competition. Journal of Air Transport Management, 8(1), 63–72. Sustainable Tourism Online. (2015). Effective destination management structures. Accessed July 7, 2017, from www.sustainabletourismonline.com Williamson, O. E. (1996). The mechanisms of governance. New York: Oxford University Press. World Economic Forum. (2009). The travel and tourism competitiveness report 2009. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GCR_TravelTourism_Report_2009. pdf World Economic Forum. (2015). The travel and tourism competitiveness report 2015: Growth through shocks. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/TT15/WEF_ Global_Travel&Tourism_Report_2015.pdf

3 The Airline–Airport–Destination Authority Relationship: The Case of Greece

41

World Economic Forum. (2017). The travel and tourism competitiveness report. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TTCR_2017_web_0401.pdf World Tourism Organization. (2012a). Global report on aviation: Responding to the needs of new tourism markets and destinations. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://cf.cdn.unwto.org/sites/all/ files/pdf/unwto_globalreportonaviation_lw_eng_0.pdf World Tourism Organization. (2012b). Tourism highlights 2012. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284414666 World Tourism Organization. (2016). Tourism highlights 2016. Accessed July 7, 2017, from http:// www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145 World Travel and Tourism Council. (2016). The economic impact of travel and tourism March 2016. Accessed July 7, 2017, from https://www.wttc.org/-/media/files/reports/economic% 20impact%20research/regions%202016/world2016.pdf Zhang, A., & Zhang, Y. (2001). Airport charges, economic growth, and cost recovery. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 37(1), 25–33.

Chapter 4

The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations Andrés Artal-Tur, Doaa Salman, and Yasser Tawfik

Abstract Since the beginning of the Arab Spring movements and instability in the North of Africa, a relevant share of international tourists have changed their plans, relocating their holiday time from southern to northern shores of the Mediterranean. In this context, Spain has been one of the most benefited countries, making the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 historical records for international arrivals with more than 70 million tourists. However, times of exuberance could bring important imbalances for the future. The present chapter seeks to analyse the impact of the booming process occurring in Spanish tourism destinations, with a focus on the side of economic sustainability. In particular, we address two main issues: First, and relying on survey data of international tourists in Spain for years 2010–2015, we analyse the changes taking place in the profile of tourists arriving to four leading destinations in the country (Catalonia, Madrid, Canary islands and Balearic Islands). Second, we run expenditure functions for these destinations to estimate the main factors explaining spending decisions of tourists. Combination of these two analyses help us to get deeper understanding of the changes occurring in international tourism arriving to Spain in this period, and how these could be affecting the economic sustainability of destinations in the near future.

1 Introduction A number of important socio-political events have been occurring in the Mediterranean region in recent years. Those include the Spring revolution movements started December 2010 in Tunisia and January 2011 in Egypt, the Syrian war, the terrorist attacks in Egypt, Tunisia, France, and Turkey, or the Libyan question (Galal and Reiffers 2014). The impact on the tourism industry has been remarkable, resulting in A. Artal-Tur (*) Technical University of Cartagena, Cartagena, Spain e-mail: [email protected] D. Salman · Y. Tawfik October University for Modern Sciences and Arts, Cairo, Egypt © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_4

43

44

A. Artal-Tur et al.

important drops in visitors to the south shore of the Mediterranean, mainly in Tunisia and Egypt (Al Battat and Som 2014). In contrast, in the north shore, international arrivals have remarkable grown (Cirer-Costa 2017). In this context, the Mediterranean region still represents the most visited destination in the world, making up 19% of global tourist arrivals, and attracting additional 52 million international tourists in years 2010–2015 (UNWTO 2016). Inside the region, Spain shows a leading position as a safe and competitive destination. The very same year of 2011 when Arab Spring started, particular Spanish destinations, i.e. the Canary Islands, were receiving a disproportionate number of tourists. Exceltur, one of the leading entrepreneurial associations in the tourism industry of Spain, estimates in 12 million the number of relocated tourists in Spain since the beginning of the Arab Spring (footnote 2; CirerCosta 2017).1 The competitiveness position shown by the country, reaching the top of the world ranking in the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index in 2015, 2016 and 2017 (TTCI 2017) is reflected in the capacity of attracting international visitors, that were growing by 5 million annually since 2013, reaching historical records of 75 million in 2016 (FRONTUR 2016). However, times of exuberance could bring important imbalances for the future (Ortega and Peñalosa 2012). In this context, the present chapter seeks to analyse the impact of the booming process occurring in Spain with a focus on economic sustainability. In particular, we are interested in addressing two main issues: First, and relying on survey data of international tourists in Spain for 2010–2015, we will analyse the changes taking place in the profile of tourists arriving to four main country destinations. Second, we will run expenditure functions for these destinations in order to identify the main factors explaining spending decisions of tourists. The matching of these two broad measures will shed more light on the changes occurring in growth of international tourism and related revenues taking place in Spain in this period. Main focus will be on how these trends could be affecting the economic sustainability of the tourism industry in the country for the near future, and related socio-cultural sustainability issues emerging from the analysis.

2 Sustainability in Tourism Studies Sustainability in tourism has become an important topic. An accepted definition of sustainable tourism refers to the tourism that takes full account of the current and future economic, social and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities (UNWTO 2005). The triple bottom line has been established as the paradigm of analysis in the study of tourism sustainability, recognising the complex nature of the concept and including its economic, socio–cultural and environmental dimensions (Stoddard et al. 2012).

1 See http://www.hosteltur.com/118538_15-millones-turistas-prestados-llegaron-espana-verano. html and http://www.exceltur.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ABR.15.008.pdf

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations

45

Given the remarkable extension of tourism activities around the world, the impact of tourism is more than evident nowadays (Almeida et al. 2015). However, the economic benefits of tourism continue to be the central objective of stakeholders at destinations (Bojanic and Lo 2016). Even international institutions as The World Tourism Organization and The World Travel and Tourism Council usually focus on economic measures as arrivals and revenues when measuring the performance of the tourism industry on their annual reports (see. i.e. UNWTO 2016). The capacity of tourism to create income, jobs, attract new investments and increase well-being of local population leads to a growing interest of countries in joining these activities. Resilience of tourism in times of crisis also explains the global scope acquired by the tourism industry (Garau-Vadell et al. 2016). The use of indicators is a commonplace when measuring the sustainability of destinations. With the extension of this methodology, a number of indicators have been settled out when defining the three pillars of tourism sustainability. The original contribution of Choi and Sirakaya (2006) focused on indicators for community tourism. A panel of experts provided input to conform a set of sustainable indicators relying on communities’ characteristics, including experts from the academy and stakeholder groups, including the resident community, industry experts, government planners, policy-makers and non-governmental organizations. As this study states, sustainable development for community tourism should aim at improving the residents’ quality of life by optimizing local economic benefits, protecting the natural and built environment and providing a high quality experience for visitors. Another study of Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) develops a system of indicators based on literature search, and verified and validated by Delphi method. The process was adapted to the tourism industry, allowing for the identification and quantification of tourism impacts. Two types of indicators arise in the literature for the analysis of tourism sustainability, namely simple and complex/synthetic indicators (Sánchez-Rivero and Pulido-Fernández 2008). Indicators of the first type are based on primary statistics, while complex indicators combine a number of simple indicators using a weighting system that reflect their relative importance. Simple indicators are useful for detecting specific impacts while complex ones facilitate integrated understanding, though interpreting derived results use to be more complicated and subjective (Carrillo and Jorge 2017). There is another possibility by relying on a system of indicators, a structured set of simple indicators the results of which are interpreted jointly. Although sets of indicators and indices are often seen as serving different purposes, they can also complement each other so that general tendencies can be identified. New approaches to tourism sustainability incorporate the perspective of stakeholders in defining the relevance of each indicator in the system, according to their perception of tourism impacts at destinations. Lee and Hsieh (2016) provide a system of indicators from the perspective of the visitor, resident, NGOs, business sector, and governmental level. The authors define indicators for the economic, social, cultural and environmental dimensions of sustainability, employing information provided by stakeholders and contextual information. This approach recognises the central role of local stakeholders as key actors in designing and implementing

46

A. Artal-Tur et al.

sustainable strategic planning (Boley et al. 2017; Franzoni 2015). Discrepancies arising among stakeholders and complexity of tourism planning at destinations are also acknowledged by the stakeholders’ approach (Lyon et al. 2017). Another important contribution in the analysis of tourism sustainability is the one recognising that different visitors present different impacts on destinations. Some authors investigate how different tourist profiles and trip characteristics could lead to diverging impacts. Age of the tourist, income level, days of visit, type of accommodation chosen, company while travelling, type of activities developed, ethnicity and origin country, level of education, or gender constitute attributes of the visitor explored when studying the impact of tourists behaviour at destinations (Boley et al. 2017). The type of specialisation and tourism products offered at the destination is also explored to better understand how places can manage sustainability issues in a long-run scenario (Stoeckl et al. 2006). In sum, as Choi and Sirakaya (2006, p. 1276) point out, “First, there is no doubt that sustainable tourism must be economically feasible, because tourism is an economic activity. Economic sustainability, in this regard, implies optimizing the development growth rate at a manageable level with full consideration of the limits of the destination environment. Moreover, the economic benefits from tourism should be fairly well distributed throughout the community. Second, environmental sustainability recognizes that natural resources of the community and the world should be no longer viewed as abundant and are, in fact, constantly being depleted. The natural environment must be protected for its own intrinsic value and as a resource for present and future generations. Third, socio-cultural sustainability implies respect for social identity and social capital, for community culture and its assets, and for a strengthening of social cohesiveness and pride that will allow community residents to control their own lives”. In general, we have seen that nowadays sustainability is recognised as a necessary attribute that destinations should invest in, becoming a key piece in ensuring that the extension of tourism results into increases of the quality of life of local population (Mathew and Sreejesh 2017). In this chapter we will focus on the economic side when measuring sustainability of destinations, this being the outstanding dimension of the recent boom in international tourism in Spain (BALANTUR 2016; Cirer-Costa 2017). However, we will add measures on socio-cultural and environmental dimensions in Spain when data is available. Table 4.1 includes a selected summary of indicators for tourism sustainability. After a review of the literature, we compile the most frequent indicators employed to proxy the economic, socio-cultural and environmental pillars of sustainability. The economic dimension of sustainability use to be measured through quantitative indicators such as tourist expenditure, arrivals, investment, infrastructures, employment, tourism facilities created at the destination level, diversification of demand (age, origin, tastes), effects on prices and living cost, job quality or tax revenue levels. More qualitative economic indicators include measures of seasonality of demand, tourist satisfaction levels, type of accommodation employed, job insecurity and quality of jobs, opportunities of professional development, or the general benefit of tourism activities on the local economy. Regarding the sociocultural level of sustainability of tourism, our list includes indicators on shares of

Economic sustainability

Effects on prices and increased cost of living Job insecurity and bad-quality jobs

Tourist satisfaction

Diversification of demand

Seasonality of demand

Employment in tourism industry and related sectors Opportunities of professional development Facilities and basic services

Infrastructures

Investment in tourism sector

Presence of second-homes

Number of arrivals

Expenditure of tourists

Garau-Vadell et al. (2016)

Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Garau-Vadell et al. (2016)

Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Garau-Vadell et al. (2016)

Table 4.1 Selected indicators of tourism sustainability and related literature

Mathew and Sreejesh (2017)

Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Mathew and Sreejesh (2017) Choi and Sirakaya (2006)

Lee and Hsieh (2016) Mathew and Sreejesh (2017) Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Choi and Sirakaya (2006)

Carrillo and Jorge (2017) Boley et al. (2017)

Mathew and Sreejesh (2017)

Lee and Hsieh (2016)

Carrillo and Jorge (2017)

Carrillo and Jorge (2017) Lee and Hsieh (2016)

Franzoni (2015)

Boley et al. (2017)

Mathew and Sreejesh (2017) Mathew and Sreejesh (2017) Mathew and Sreejesh (2017) Lee and Hsieh (2016)

Mathew and Sreejesh (2017)

Mathew and Sreejesh (2017) Mathew and Sreejesh (2017)

(continued)

Franzoni (2015)

Franzoni (2015)

Boley et al. (2017) Franzoni (2015)

Franzoni (2015) Franzoni (2015)

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations 47

Socio-cultural sustainability

Lee and Hsieh (2016) Mathew and Sreejesh (2017)

Impact on community life and social cohesion

Garau-Vadell et al. (2016)

Better knowledge and uderstanding of other cultures Protection of local culture

Protected heritage and new cultural facilities Reduction of general level of life quality

Support for tourism

Origin of tourist demand

Diversification of tourist attractions

Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Garau-Vadell et al. (2016)

Garau-Vadell et al. (2016)

Tourism is beneficial for general development of the local economy Tourist and resident population—ratio of tourist to locals Congestion and crowding issues

Type of accommodation employed Hotel occupancy ratio Increase in tax revenes

Garau-Vadell et al. (2016) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Lee and Hsieh (2016) Carrillo and Jorge (2017) Garau-Vadell et al. (2016)

Rise of real estate prices and rentals Accommodation offer

Table 4.1 (continued)

Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Garau-Vadell et al. (2016) Lee and Hsieh (2016) Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Choi and Sirakaya (2006)

Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Lee and Hsieh (2016) Choi and Sirakaya (2006)

Carrillo and Jorge (2017)

Lee and Hsieh (2016) Boley et al. (2017) Boley et al. (2017) Lee and Hsieh (2016) Boley et al. (2017) Boley et al. (2017)

Lee and Hsieh (2016) Lee and Hsieh (2016) Carrillo and Jorge (2017) Mathew and Sreejesh (2017) Lee and Hsieh (2016)

Carrillo and Jorge (2017)

Franzoni (2015)

Franzoni (2015)

Mathew and Sreejesh (2017)

Boley et al. (2017) Boley et al. (2017)

Mathew and Sreejesh (2017) Mathew and Sreejesh (2017)

Franzoni (2015) Franzoni (2015)

Franzoni (2015)

Franzoni (2015)

48 A. Artal-Tur et al.

Environmental sustainability

Environmental practices in tourism planning

Pollution: Air, noise, water

Resource consumption: water, energy, recycling Impact on natural resources

Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014) Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque (2014)

Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Choi and Sirakaya (2006) Choi and Sirakaya (2006)

Lee and Hsieh (2016) Lee and Hsieh (2016) Lee and Hsieh (2016) Lee and Hsieh (2016)

Mathew and Sreejesh (2017) Mathew and Sreejesh (2017) Mathew and Sreejesh (2017) Mathew and Sreejesh (2017)

Boley et al. (2017) Franzoni (2015) Boley et al. (2017) Boley et al. (2017)

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations 49

50

A. Artal-Tur et al.

local versus tourist population, congestion issues at some particular places or destinations, cultural benefits of tourism, including the increase in related facilities and cultural offer, mixing and interaction with foreign cultures and tourists, the protection of local culture. Negative indicators account for reduction of quality of life of residents, or the impact in community life and social cohesion. Environmental indicators include impact on natural resources, water, energy, and wastes optimization and recycling, pollution and adoption of a general sustainability focus in the tourism planning of destinations.

3 General Trends of International Tourists Arriving to Spain In this section, we begin reviewing the main trends arising in the Spanish tourism industry for recent years of boom 2010–2015. In doing so, first we present the main changes taking place in the profile of international tourists visiting the country in this period. Then, in Sect. 4, we run an econometric model on factors explaining tourism expenditure in Spain in order to shed more light on the evolution of tourism economic sustainability in the Spanish market in recent years. In this context, it is important to note that Spain continues to be a leading destination in the world tourism market. In 2016 the country received the visit of 75 million international tourists spending around 70,000 € millions, what keeps the country in the first places of the world tourism ranking according to World Tourism Organization (UNWTO 2016). Figure 4.1 shows the remarkable trend followed by inbound tourism in Spain. Departing from 52 million of arrivals in 2010, arrivals 75050 72000

69923 Tourist Arrivals (in thousand people)

67000

56177

52002

63094 59270

52673

52000 47000

57465

69746

64931

60672

62000 57000

67832

53931

Tourist Expenditure (in million euros)

48917 2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Fig. 4.1 International tourist arrivals and expenditure in Spain 2010–2016. Source: FRONTUR, INE, Spain

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations

51

have grown 5.6% per year in the period 2010–2015. Receipts have even grown to a higher rate, around 6.5% annually. Moreover, as a general trend, international and domestic tourism in Spain have followed diverging paths along these years. While international tourist arrivals grow remarkably since 2010, domestic travelers have been noting the impact of the crisis, not recovering positive rates until the end of 2013 or beginning of 2014. Amount spent by tourists also differs for seaside and urban destinations. Madrid experienced an important adjustment of the tourism industry along the years of economic crisis. Canary and Balearic Islands adjusted the supply side of the market to the new economic conditions too, but benefited majorly from the boom in international tourism demand. Catalonia has grown the most in the Spanish market, with new 4 million people since 2010, and historical 17 million visits in 2015 (INE-EOH various years; INE-EPA various years).

3.1

The Changing Profile of International Tourists Visiting Spain

This subsection builds on the information provided by a large survey data set for international tourists reaching Spain in years 2010 and 2015. Data comes from the Institute of Tourism Studies (IET) of the Ministry of Tourism of Spain. The data set includes information gathered by the IET at the moment of departure of international tourists. It comprises monthly data, and collects information for more than 100,000 tourists per year. The survey, named EGATUR (Tourism Expenditure Survey), is designed to provide data on expenditure of tourists, including detailed information on the profile of visitors, the type of activities pursued in vacations, and trip characteristics.2 In this study we will focus on four main destinations of Spain, including the two Islands, Balearic and Canary Islands, and the two most advanced regions in the country, Catalonia and Madrid. The first group makes up the most visited single seaside, sun and sand, destinations in the country, with 11 million tourists per year and region in 2015 (9.2 million in Balearic Islands and 8.6 million in Canary Islands in 2010). The second group includes the two main cities in the country, Madrid, the capital, and Barcelona. Catalonia received 17 million of international tourists in 2015 (13.1 million in 2010), while Madrid made it for 5 million visitors (4.6 million in 2010). These four destinations represent around 65% of total inbound international tourism in Spain in 2015 (FRONTUR 2016). Along this subsection, we are interested in understanding the changes occurring in the profile of visitors reaching the country between years 2010 and 2015 and their relation to sustainability issues. Year 2010 is the beginning of the booming tourist cycle in Spain, while 2015 is the last year with available information. The analysis of

2 For details on questionnaire, please consult: http://estadisticas.tourspain.es/en-EN/estadisticas/ egatur/metodologia/referencia%20metodolgica/Technical%20Sheet.pdf

52

A. Artal-Tur et al.

data by origin country of visitors in Table 4.2 shows that European arrivals make the bulk of international flows in Spain. Relative share of traditional tourists from EU (European Union) include that of British (18%), German (16%), French (11%) and Italian (8%) tourists. Although all these EU tourists have continued growing in these years, rates of growth have been far below those of other new visitors which increased from 7.1 million people in 2010 to 12.5 million in 2015, including those from rest of Europe (24%), MENA countries (4.2%), and North America (3.8%) (BALANTUR 2016). Regarding changes identified on tourist profiles in Table 4.3, we see an increase in the relative share of younger tourists of 25 to 44 years old, those with tertiary studies, and with middle-income levels. Trip characteristics in Table 4.4 show the

Table 4.2 Tourist arrivals in Spain (in percentage of the total sample)

4 regions 2010 11 9 23 17 17 5 2 2 14 100

Country of origin France Italy UK Germany Rest_of_EU North of Europe Middle East countries North America Rest of the World Total

Table 4.3 Tourist profiles Age Age1524 Age2544 Age4564 Age_more65 Gender Female Male Level of studies Primary Secondary Tertiary Income level High_income Middle_income Low_income

2015 11 8 18 16 15 9 4 3.5 15.5 100

4 regions 2010

2015

10 49 32 9

10 53 30 7

44 56

43 57

4 33 63

3 26 71

31 61 8

34 62 4

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations Table 4.4 Trip characteristics Trip purposea Business Visiting friends & relatives (VFR) Food & gastronomy Cultural activities Sun & sand Leisure_other Company Alone Couple Family Friends Previous visits First_visit Visits_2–5 Visits_6–10 Visits_more than 10 Nights of stay Accommodation 5-star hotels Rent apartments Own house VFR house a

53 4 regions 2010

2015

13 10 28 52 49 13

12 15 39 65 48 14

28 40 13 19

33 43 14 10

19 28 17 36 7.5

21 29 16 34 7.8

5 15 5 17

7 21 4 22

Each tourist uses to pursue more than one single trip prupose

increase of visitors travelling for leisure and engaging in food & gastronomy and cultural activities or visiting friends and relatives. International tourists in Spain also use to travel alone or in couple, with the former group gaining relative positions along these years. We also observe an increase in first-time visitors, and average length of stay has slightly increased up to 7.8 nights per visitor in this period. In terms of accommodation, sample data shows the increasing role of rent apartments and the use of houses of friends and relatives, while 5-star hotels are the only type of hotels increasing their share in this period. Regarding the use of Internet in tourism, this has been generalised for all type of purposes, including travel and accommodations booking, and for general information. Changes in tourist behaviour in Table 4.5 shows an increase in very satisfied visitors. Table 4.5 also shows that total expenditure at destination, net from travel cost and in constant 2010 euros, increased from 904 to 1047 euros per average trip, and daily average expenditure at destination moves from 121 to 134 euros in these years. Regarding data on seasonality of visits, summer and springtime continue to be the preferred months for international tourists in Spain, but autumn season have been scaling positions. Canary Islands shows lower seasonality issues, given the

54 Table 4.5 Some tourist behaviour

A. Artal-Tur et al. 4 regions 2010 Overall level of satisfaction of tourists Very_satisfied_9 28 Very_satisfied_10 18 Very_satisfied_9 & 10 46 Trip expenditure (in 2010 euros) Total per trip 904 Daily 120 Travel fee 157 Season of the visit Winter 25 Spring 33 Summertime 25 Fall 17 Use of internet For travel tickets 57 For accommodation 36

2015 28 21 49 1047 134 171 20 27 31 19 68 52

subtropical climate characterising this destination. Balearic Islands clearly show the seasonal pattern of a seaside Mediterranean destination. Catalonia accumulates the bulk of the visits from January to May given the dominant urban nature of the destination, as well as Madrid, the capital of the country.

4 Estimating the Dynamics of Tourist Expenditure in Spain After studying the changing profile of international tourists, in this section we focus on the analysis of the economic sustainability at destination by trying to identify how the notable increase in inbound tourism flows in Spain has been affecting the spending pattern of tourists at selected destinations. In first place we will run expenditure equations in order to identify what changes occurring in the Spanish market would be helping to increase the economic sustainability of destinations. Additionally, we will add other group of variables in the analysis directly related to the economic sustainability of destinations, such as the seasonality of demand, the pattern of accommodation, or the level of income of visitors (Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque 2014). A few references to socio-cultural and environmental sustainability dimensions would be also included in the investigation, as they can enrich the analysis (Cucculelli and Goffi 2015). In sum, the present chapter would address the following testable hypothesis: General Hypothesis of the research: “Changes in the expenditure pattern of tourists are increasing the economic sustainability of destinations in Spain along the booming process of 2010–2015”. This general hypothesis would be tested according to three sub-hypotheses:

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations

55

H1: Changes in the profile of international tourists increase the economic sustainability of destinations. H2: Changes in the trip characteristics of international tourists increase the economic sustainability of destinations. H3: Determinants of tourist expenditure differ among Spanish destinations.

4.1

Modelling Tourist Expenditure

An important literature exists analysing the determinants of tourism expenditure at a micro-level. Researchers use to model total trip tourism expenditure (per person, per group or per day) employing a number of independent variables. Recent review studies include those of Wang and Davidson (2010), Marcussen (2011) and Sainaghi (2012). Brida and Scuderi (2013) also provide an extensive review of the methods and results in the tourist expenditure literature. Main findings show that models use to include data on tourist socio-demographic characteristics and trip-related features of the holiday stay, plus other control variables capturing destination characteristics. In this chapter, the modelling strategy includes estimating expenditure equations to identify the role of key covariates driving expenditure at Spanish destinations, and potential changes arising between years 2010 and 2015. The dependent variable is the daily expenditure computed as the total expenditure at destination over the length of stay for each tourist in the sample. We rule out travel cost in order to make results more comparable between short and long distance tourists reaching Spain. This type of dependent variable shows both non-negative and non-integer values. In dealing with these features of the data distribution, we will employ a Poisson PseudoMaximum-Likelihood (PPML) estimation method. Following Santos-Silva and Tenreyro (2006) this type of estimators avoid typical bias of OLS traditional estimators in the presence of heteroskedasticity for log-linearised models, also providing consistent estimates, and increasing efficiency regarding OLS and NLS estimators. PPML estimators show robustness to measurement errors in the dependent variable too. In particular the expenditure equation would take the form of: yi ¼ expðxi βÞ þ εi , with yi  0 and E ½εi jx ¼ 0 using STATA 14 software for estimations. Regarding the explanatory variables of the expenditure model we include: Profile of the Tourist Origin of the tourist: accounting for geographical areas such as the European Union (EU), North of Europe, Middle East and North America. Some detail is included for traditional visitors of Spain, such as German, French, Italian and British tourists. Company of the tourist while in vacations: alone, in couple, with family, or friends.

56

A. Artal-Tur et al.

Age of the tourist: 15–24 years old, 25–44 years, 45–65 years, and more than 65 years old. Gender: male or female. Studies: primary, secondary and tertiary level of studies. Income level: high-income (more than 80,000 euros per year), middle income (between 80,000 and 18,000 euros per year) and low income (less than 18,000 euros per year). Trip characteristics Purpose of the visit: including leisure, business, personal (visiting friends and relatives-VFR), sun and sand, and first-time visitors. Activities pursued in vacations: sport events, gastronomy (food-related activities), culture. Accommodation type: hotel 5 stars, hotel 4-3 stars, rent apartment, own house (second-home). Season of the visit: all four seasons of the year. Overall trip satisfaction: in a likert scale 0–10, with 10 being the highest level of trip satisfaction. Use of the Internet: for travel tickets, for booking accommodation services. Region of the visit: including Canary Islands, Balearic Islands, Catalonia and Madrid. All data comes from the survey EGATUR of IET, Spain. Results are presented for years 2010 and 2015. The defined category of reference in the sample, in order to avoid perfect collinearity, is “a tourist coming from the Rest of the World, with the couple, of about 45–65 years old, male, with tertiary level of studies, low income level, coming for leisure, to a hotel of 4-3 stars, in the summertime season, with low to mid level of trip satisfaction (0–8 likert scale)”, and visiting the Canary Islands in the jointdestinations equation. Table 4.6 includes results of the expenditure model for the joint four regions in Spain. As we can see, the joint model is quite significant with R-squared value between 0.44 and 0.39 depending on the year of estimation. Individual significance of the covariates in the model is also higher than 99% as seen. Results for 2010 show that the most important covariates explaining levels of daily expenditure per international visitor are those of the origin of the tourist, purpose of the visit, income level, and accommodation type (Table 4.6 and Fig. 4.2). In general, tourists significantly increasing expenditure per day are those coming from new and distant destinations, such as North America (USA, Canada, Mexico), and Middle East countries (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE). Category of reference in this covariate is that of the “Rest of the World”, so negative coefficients would be pointing to countries of origin that relatively reduce this daily spending. In particular this is the situation of traditional EU visitors, as French, British, German and Italian ones, while tourists from north of Europe and rest of the Europe would be showing higher levels of expenditure regarding traditional EU visitors. Results for 2015 show that along the boom process of international tourism in Spain, Middle East and Italian tourists decreased expenditure per day considerably, while British visitors slightly increased it. Continuing with results of Table 4.6, other variable leading expenditure of tourists is that of the purpose of the visit. Business tourists spend much more on average than

Trip characteristics

Tourist profile

Purpose of the visit (leisure)

Income level: (low-income)

Gender (male) Studies: (tertiary educ)

Age: (45–65 years old)

Company: (couple)

Category of reference: Origin of the tourist: (Rest of the World)

Variable: France Italy UK Germany Rest_of_EU North_Europe Middle East North America Alone Family Friends Age1524 Age2544 Age_more65 Female Primary Secondary High_income Middle_income Business VFR Sun & sand First_visit

Table 4.6 Expenditure model for joint 4 destinations in Spain 2010–2015 4 regions 2010 coeff. p-value 0.2100 0.000 0.1786 0.000 0.2562 0.000 0.2087 0.000 0.1377 0.000 0.0241 0.124 0.4720 0.000 0.1335 0.000 0.2129 0.000 0.1860 0.000 0.1626 0.000 0.1702 0.000 0.0355 0.000 0.1772 0.000 0.0422 0.000 0.2170 0.000 0.0743 0.000 0.2017 0.000 0.1568 0.000 0.4211 0.000 0.4320 0.000 0.3417 0.000 0.0413 0.000

(continued)

4 regions 2015 coeff. p-value 0.2297 0.000 0.2669 0.000 0.1967 0.000 0.1905 0.000 0.1637 0.000 0.0311 0.001 0.1546 0.000 0.1527 0.000 0.2339 0.000 0.1840 0.000 0.1512 0.000 0.1713 0.000 0.0039 0.487 0.1995 0.000 0.0665 0.000 0.1710 0.000 0.0668 0.000 0.2795 0.000 0.1004 0.000 0.3319 0.000 0.3511 0.000 0.2530 0.000 0.0665 0.000

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations 57

Region of the visit: (Canary Islands)

Overall trip satisfaction: (Mid and low satisfied) Use of the internet:

Season of visit: (SUMMER time)

Accommodation type: (hotel 4–3 stars)

Category of reference: Activities:

Internet for travel tickets Internet for booking accomodation Catalonia Madrid Balearic Islands Constant N R-Squared Log-likelihood AIC BIC

Variable: Sports Food&gastronomy Cultural_activities Hotel_5 stars Rent_aptm Own_house WINTER_TIME SPRING_TIME FALL_TIME Very_satisfied

Note: All regressions with robust standard errors. VIF test show no multicollinearity problems

Regional fixed effects

Table 4.6 (continued)

0.1264 0.1253 0.1309 0.0832 0.0642 5.2362 54,920 0.4486 1,516,186 3,032,448 3,032,787

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

4 regions 2010 coeff. p-value 0.1066 0.000 0.0256 0.008 0.1009 0.000 0.3383 0.000 0.0124 0.221 0.3237 0.000 0.0181 0.031 0.0154 0.058 0.0276 0.002 0.1073 0.000 0.2019 0.1978 0.1124 0.1033 0.0565 5.1803 69,852 0.3942 1,737,317 3,474,710 3,475,058

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

4 regions 2015 coeff. p-value 0.0669 0.000 0.1357 0.000 0.0702 0.000 0.3211 0.000 0.0654 0.000 0.2728 0.000 0.0250 0.000 0.0174 0.006 0.0083 0.225 0.0821 0.000

58 A. Artal-Tur et al.

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations

59

Balearic Islands Madrid Catalonia int_pay_res_lodg int_pay_transp very_satisfied FALL_TIME SPRING_TIME WINTER_TIME own_house rent_aptm hotel_5stars cultural_acƟviƟes food&gastronomy sports first_visit sun&sand

2015 2010

VFR

business middle_income high_income secondary primary female age_more65 age2544 age1524

friends family alone north America Middle East north_Europe rest_of_EU Germany UK Italy France

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Fig. 4.2 Expenditure model for joint 4 destinations in Spain 2010–2015

leisure ones, which acts as the category of reference, while tourists visiting friends and relatives and pursuing sun-and-sand activities spend so much less, as shown in Fig. 4.2. By accommodation type, visitors in 5 star hotels spend much more per day, while those in second-homes spend so much less. High and middle income visitors spend so much more than low income ones, as well as people traveling alone or with friends in comparison with those coming with family or in couple. Tertiary educated visitors, and middle-aged (45–65 years old) are another higher spending group, as well as visitors engaged in culture, sports, food & gastronomy and coming for the first time to the destination. All three destinations show positive effects on expenditure in comparison with reference category of the Canary Islands. In general, between 2010 and 2015, Table 4.6 shows that daily spending has increased more significantly for British and North American tourists, those with high levels of income, visiting friends and relatives, in sun-and-sand activities, firstvisitors, with food & gastronomy activities, accommodated at 5-star hotels, coming in fall time and using the internet for booking accommodation. Decreases in relative expenditure between years 2010–2015 appear for visitors from Middle East, coming for business trips, and using the Internet for buying travel tickets. When we move to results at the level of destinations in Table 4.7 we can see differences between single destinations in terms of coefficients in the model. In Canary Islands we see much higher impact on expenditure levels of high income and

Trip characteristics

Tourist profile

Purpose of the visit (leisure)

Income level: (low-income)

Gender (male) Studies: (tertiary educ)

Age: (45–65 years old)

Company: (couple)

Category of reference: Origin of the tourist: (Rest of the World)

Variable: France Italy United Kingdom Germany Rest of EU North of Europe Middle East North America Alone Family Friends Age_1524 years old Age_2544 Age_more than 65 years old Female Primary Secondary High_income Middle income Business Visit to VFR Sun & sand First visit 0.0584 0.0525 0.0256 0.2191 0.0872 0.2376 0.2176 0.1373 0.0898

0.0223 0.0007 0.0083 0.2012 0.0784 0.3886 0.3339 0.1816 0.0217 0.000 0.976 0.365 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.067

2015 coeff. 0.0940 0.1798 0.1583 0.1529 0.0652 0.0127 0.1557 0.1183 0.1815 0.1235 0.1278 0.0733 0.0116 0.1474

Canary Islands 2010 coeff. p-value 0.0553 0.132 0.1504 0.000 0.2171 0.000 0.1670 0.000 0.0982 0.000 0.0133 0.000 0.3822 0.000 0.1122 0.000 0.1427 0.000 0.1319 0.000 0.1026 0.000 0.0740 0.000 0.0057 0.535 0.0841 0.000

Table 4.7 Expenditure model for single destinations in Spain 2010–2015

0.000 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.178 0.000 0.0284 0.0176 0.0068 0.3466 0.0918 0.4334 0.3813 0.1105 0.0452

0.000 0.629 0.577 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003

Balearic Islands 2010 coeff. p-value 0.0972 0.003 0.1581 0.000 0.1436 0.000 0.0863 0.000 0.0323 0.000 0.0161 0.000 0.1821 0.000 0.0763 0.000 0.1811 0.000 0.1787 0.000 0.1475 0.000 0.0912 0.000 0.0046 0.741 0.1177 0.000 0.0516 0.0489 0.0116 0.2948 0.0721 0.2460 0.2765 0.0802 0.0276

2015 coeff. 0.1113 0.1871 0.0893 0.1161 0.0165 0.1120 0.1135 0.1231 0.2359 0.1768 0.1966 0.1084 0.0126 0.1629

0.000 0.011 0.268 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.043

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.236 0.000

60 A. Artal-Tur et al.

Overall Trip Satisfaction: (Mid and low satisfied) Use of the Internet:

Season of visit: (SUMMER time)

Accommodation type: (hotel 4-3 stars)

Activities:

0.000 0.000

0.1206 0.1158

Internet for travel tickets Internet for booking accommod. Constant N R-Squared Log-Likelihood AIC BIC 4.7999 0.000 17,838 0.2407 242,966 486,041 486,461

0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.860 0.843 0.000

0.1361 0.1267 0.0464 0.2019 0.0265 0.1826 0.0399 0.0019 0.0021 0.0829

Sport events Food & gastronomy Culture Hotel_5 stars Rent_apartment Own_house WINTER time SPRING time FALL time Very_Satisfied

0.000

0.000

0.148 0.000 0.135 0.000 0.052 0.000 0.023 0.387 0.003 0.000

4.8931 0.000 18,594 0.2888 283,282 566,680 567,134

0.1987

0.2108

0.0827 0.1685 0.0114 0.2346 0.0274 0.2778 0.0250 0.0101 0.0331 0.0938

4,981,481 12,410 0.3239 264,092 528,294 528,703

0.1025

0.1322

0.0301 0.1212 0.0690 0.1264 0.0797 0.1789 0.05293 0.0844 0.0633 0.1291

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.618 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.002 0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.056 0.001 0.032 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

(continued)

4,914,084 16,132 0.2516 314,164 628,446 628,900

0.0635

0.0826

0.0994 0.1030 0.0206 0.1762 0.0508 0.1683 0.0715 0.0753 0.0686 0.1419

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations 61

Tourist profile

Income level: (low-income)

Gender (male) Studies: (tertiary educ)

Age: (45–65 years old)

Company: (couple)

Category of reference: Origin of the tourist: (Rest of the World)

Table 4.7 (continued)

Variable: France Italy United Kingdom Germany Rest of EU North of Europe Middle East North America Alone Family Friends Age_1524 years old Age_2544 Age_more than 65 years old Female Primary Secondary High_income Middle income

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.782 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Catalonia 2010 coeff. 0.2211 0.1673 0.1536 0.1486 0.0786 0.1328 0.1241 0.1208 0.2839 0.1605 0.1037 0.1048 0.0041 0.2054 0.0724 0.2203 0.0852 0.1251 0.0759

0.0319 0.2774 0.1380 0.2640 0.1116

2015 coeff. 0.1241 0.2383 0.1298 0.1838 0.1763 0.0956 0.1721 0.2130 0.2439 0.1466 0.0963 0.1757 0.0062 0.2127 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.588 0.000 0.0149 0.3581 0.0986 0.1394 0.1351

Madrid 2010 coeff. 0.0818 0.1840 0.2903 0.1493 0.1419 0.1137 0.1902 0.0892 0.2026 0.1164 0.1310 0.2527 0.0423 0.2046 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000

p-value 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.0291 0.2687 0.0239 0.1967 0.05074

2015 coeff. 0.1080 0.2392 0.1304 0.0361 0.1126 0.1284 0.1371 0.1229 0.2076 0.1125 0.1148 0.2740 0.0417 0.1555

0.013 0.030 0.093 0.000 0.005

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001

62 A. Artal-Tur et al.

Overall Trip Satisfaction: (Mid and low satisfied) Use of the Internet:

Season of visit: (SUMMER time)

Accommodation type: (hotel 4-3 stars)

Activities:

Purpose of the visit (leisure)

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.342 0.000 0.116 0.000 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000

0.056 0.000 0.000

0.3565 0.2327 0.2000 0.0156 0.1242 0.0351 0.1581 0.3051 0.0795 0.2390 0.1565 0.0901 0.0635 0.1591

0.0456 0.1218 4,778,382 13,494 0.4112 448,275 896,662 897,083

Business Visit to VFR Sun & sand First visit Sport events Food & gastronomy Culture Hotel_5 stars Rent_apartment Own_house WINTER time SPRING time FALL time Very_Satisfied

Internet for travel tickets Internet for booking accommod. Constant N R-Squared Log-Likelihood AIC BIC 4,879,094 21,879 0.4081 631,207 1,262,535 1,263,015

0.1567

0.0150

0.3277 0.1890 0.2671 0.0674 0.0891 0.0449 0.1349 0.2331 0.0708 0.2653 0.0451 0.0176 0.0262 0.1292

Note: All regressions with robust standard errors. VIF test show no multicollinearity problems

Trip characteristics

0.000

0.000

0.482

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.158 0.061 0.000

5,080,621 11,178 0.5165 394,733 789,584 790,016

0.0305

0.1042

0.2955 0.1269 0.1060 0.0008 0.0469 0.0201 0.2118 0.2520 0.1538 0.0185 0.0456 0.0168 0.0323 0.0821

0.000

0.148

0.000

0.000 0.000 0.016 0.959 0.126 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.781 0.006 0.345 0.058 0.000

4,863,847 13,406 0.5479 340,461 681,043 681,493

0.1209

0.0964

0.2032 0.1281 0.1000 0.0360 0.0905 0.1254 0.0898 0.2697 0.1131 0.0868 0.0514 0.0236 0.0072 0.0723

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000 0.000 0.028 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.042 0.000 0.080 0.617 0.000

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations 63

64

A. Artal-Tur et al.

business visitors, as well as for sports events, food & gastronomy tourists, and visitors in 5 star hotels. By the contrary, coefficients are shown to be more negative for VFR and second-home tourists in this destination. In the case of Balearic Islands, particular values of the coefficients arise for first visitors, sport and food-related activities and visitors in 5 star hotels. Catalonia shows positive values for people traveling alone, with tertiary studies, high income level, coming for culture and accommodated in 5 star hotels, while negative values for sun-and-sand tourists. Finally, Madrid outstands because of middle income and cultural tourists in positive terms, and younger and older aged visitors and those with primary level of studies in negative terms. Regarding changes appearing in 2015 in comparison with results of 2010, Canary Islands show that factors increasing expenditure are those of company while on vacations, income, purpose of the visit, and accommodation type. For Balearic Islands, we see the prominence of variables related to the company (alone, friends), age (older visitors), income level, purpose of the visit (business vs VFR), and accommodation (5 star hotels, and own house). In 2015 Catalonia shows higher estimated values for coefficients of variables related to high income tourists, French visitors, and the decrease of values for Italian, younger tourists (15–24 years old) and people not coming in the summertime. Madrid also shows an increase in values of coefficients for British and German tourists, older aged, with high-income levels, for sports and food & gastronomy activities, and coming to their second-home residence.

5 Results Table 4.8 summarises the main findings of the expenditure equations and related effects on sustainability issues. Results show a number of trends emerging for international tourism in Spain since the beginning of the boom period. In first place, new source countries have been appearing in the Spanish market, leading to a reduction in the economic dependence on traditional markets and pushing up spendings, implying a positive impact on the economic sustainability of Spanish destinations (Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque 2014). Increases in the number of visitors traveling alone and with tertiary level of studies present two main implications. First, from the business side it accounts for new segments of demand, both being higher spenders at urban destinations. Second, and given the particularities of highly educated people, it can result in rising levels of socio-cultural sustainability for destinations (Artal-Tur and Villena-Navarro 2016). The growth of mid income visitors should improve the economic sustainability of destinations too, given the positive relationship between income and spending (Thrane and Farstad 2011). By types of accommodation chosen by tourists, trends show an increase in visits to houses of friends and relatives VFR in times of crisis. Rent apartments have been growing in relevance as a new type of accommodation, given the on-line resources and sharing economy emerging in recent years. In this way, both types of accommodation

Trip characteristics

Tourist profile

Accommodation type:

Activities:

Studies: Income level: Purpose of the visit

Age:

Company:

Origin of the tourist:

European traditional visitors North of Europe Middle East North America Alone Family Friends Younger tourists (15–24 years) 25–44 years old Older tourists (+65 years old) Tertiary studies High income Business trips VFR Sun & sand First visit Sport events Food & gastronomy Cultural activities 5 star hotel Rent apartment Second-home (own house)

Factors leading tourist expenditure 4 regions Canary Balearic Spain Islands Islands    + + + ++  + + + + + + +    + + ++    + + +    ++ + + + ++ ++ ++ + +       + + + + + + + ++ + + + + ++ ++ + +      Catalonia  ++ + + ++  +    ++ + +   + + + ++ ++  

Table 4.8 Summarising the effects of expenditure estimates on tourism sustainability for Spanish destinations 2010–2015

Madrid  ++ + + +  +    ++ + +    + ++ ++ ++  

(continued)

Effects on sustainability SocioEconomic cultural  + + + + + + + +    + + + + + + +   + + + + + + + +  

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations 65

Summer seasonality Winter-spring seasonality Very satisfied tourist (9–10 likert scale) Use of Internet for travel tickets Use of Internet for booking accommodation  ++

 +

 +

 ++

Catalonia + + ++

Factors leading tourist expenditure 4 regions Canary Balearic Spain Islands Islands + + +    + + ++  ++

Madrid +  +  +

+ +

Effects on sustainability SocioEconomic cultural + +  + + +

Note: + () sign means this factor contributes to increase (decrease) the level of tourism expenditure at destination, or the sustainability of tourism at destination

Overall Trip Satisfaction: Use of the internet:

Season of visit:

Table 4.8 (continued)

66 A. Artal-Tur et al.

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations

67

would result in lower levels of expenditure at destination in comparison with tourists in hotels, reducing the economic sustainability of the destination (Marrocu et al. 2015). However, tourists in 5-star hotels have been growing in Balearic Islands, leading to an opposite result. For purpose of the visit, sun and sand tourists reduce average expenditure, while first visitors and business tourists increase it. As first visitors increased their share in Spain in these years they contribute positively to economic sustainability of the country, while sun and sand reduced it. Food & gastronomy and cultural activities clearly favour an increasing level of expenditure. Visitors engaged in these two activities substantially increased in 2010–2015, clearly contributing to raise the level of economic sustainability. Seasonality still remains important at Spanish Mediterranean destinations for the spring and summertime, while urban destinations show lower frequency of visits along the winter months. Both issues open new avenues for tourism planning for the high and the low seasons of the year, always in line with a sustainable focus. Tourists declaring the highest level of satisfaction have also increased at Spanish destinations, with an effect on growing tourism income, and pushing economic sustainability (Lee and Hsieh 2016; Torres-Delgado and López-Palomeque 2014). Cultural activities have become the preferred ones by tourists in their leisure time at Spanish destinations, this being a European trend too. Culture, nightlife, food & gastronomy and sports also represent growing activities in Spain, fostering expenditures and economic sustainability for the future. All these facts bring the attention towards the importance of culture for the future of European and Spanish destinations. It results in new investments in cultural infrastructures and events with positive effects for the residents themselves, also bringing increasing levels of cultural and social sustainability for destinations (Artal-Tur and Villena-Navarro 2016). The use of the Internet in preparing the trip would be increasing expenditure for the accommodation choice, but decreasing in the travel tickets case. In general, the positioning of destinations on the Internet and Social Networks help to increase the competitiveness of destinations, as shown by the TTCI Report (TTCI 2017). Moreover, the use of new technologies could also help to improve satisfaction and expenditure of tourists at destinations. In this way, despite tourists could be saving part of the budget in some vacational items when booking by the internet, i.e. in lodging and travelling tickets, they can employ this extra-budget in making higher spendings in other concepts while on holidays, as shown by literature (EugenioMartin and Inchausti-Sintes 2016). The idiosyncrasy of the four Spanish destinations is shown in Table 4.8 too. Seaside destinations, Canary and Balearic Islands, show higher values of coefficients for factors such as those of high income tourists, food & gastronomy visitors, people coming with friends, and very satisfied tourists, while factors negatively affecting expenditure here are those of VFR and sun and sand visitors. More urban destination like Madrid and Catalonia show particular positive values of coefficients for visitors from the North of Europe, coming alone, with tertiary studies, for food-related and other cultural activities, and very satisfied tourists, who use to employ the Internet for booking accommodations.

68

A. Artal-Tur et al.

In general terms, changes taking place in the profile and behaviour of international tourists arriving to Spain along the boom years 2010–2015 let us know a general increase in economic sustainability from the perspective of expenditure at destinations. Most of the covariates in the model show positive contributions to economic sustainability in Table 4.8, with new types of tourists reaching the country helping to increase expenditure per day. Negative contributions and reduction of economic sustainability at destination is shown for traditional pattern of tourism in Spain, such as EU visitors coming with the family for sun and sand activities at summertime season. Moreover, some trends have pointed to other related effects positively affecting socio-cultural sustainability of destinations. These include new visitors from other countries leading to an enrichment of the local society and growing interactions with local culture (2016). The presence of younger tourists, with high level of education, engaged in cultural and sport activities, highly satisfied with holidays and increasingly using new technologies to search for tourist services at destination also increase the level of social sustainability of Spanish destinations in these years according to literature findings. In sum, we can see that hypotheses H1 to H3 cannot be rejected by empirical findings, with some specific profiles of tourists clearly driving expenditure levels up and increasing economic sustainability at Spanish destinations (H1). The same result arises for particular trip characteristics of tourists (H2). Moreover, as stated in H3, determinants of tourist expenditure appear to vary among Spanish destinations, although sharing common trends too. As a result, we cannot reject the general hypothesis of the model, stating that “changes in the expenditure pattern of tourists led to an increase in the economic sustainability of destinations in Spain along the boom of international tourism in years 2010–2015”. Finally, Table 4.9 shows a more general overview on changes of sustainability indicators. According to official statistics,3 economic sustainability has been improving in Spain in years 2010–2015 in general. Expenditure grew 6% annually these years while arrivals did it at 5% (FRONTUR 2016). Employment in the tourism industry grew from 2.07 million to 2.45 million, with main employment creation concentrated in the hospitality and food & beverage industry (INE-EPA various years). Opportunities of professional development also increased with international tourism. Tourist satisfaction, accommodation offer, and tax revenues has grown in Spain because of the boom of tourism (EGATUR various years). Demand diversification raised with new visitors from extra-EU countries, as well as tourism investments, infrastructures and facilities for tourism. Seasonality slightly decreased, and accommodation offer reduce the plant of hotels from 14,838 in 2010 to 14,011 in 2015, with occupancy ratios increasing from 51% to 58% (INE-EOH various years). Rent apartments is the segment of accommodation concentrating the highest growth, with capacity raising for 35% in these years, including the informal offer linked to new developments in the so-called sharing economy (Richards 2016). Negative

3

This paragraph is based on official statistics from Spanish National Institute of Statistics (INE) and Ministry of Tourism.

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations

69

Table 4.9 Summarising the effects on tourism sustainability for Spanish destinations in years 2010–2015 Economic factors

Socio-cultural factors

Environmental factors

Expenditure of tourists Number of arrivals Presence of second-homes Investment in tourism sector Infrastructures Employment in tourism industry and related sectors Opportunities of professional development Facilities and basic services Seasonality of demand Diversification of demand Tourist satisfaction Effects on prices and increased cost of living Job insecurity and bad-quality jobs Rise of real estate prices and rentals Accommodation offer Type of accommodation employed Hotel occupancy ratio Increase in tax revenes Tourism is beneficial for general development of the local economy Tourist and resident population—ratio of tourist to locals Congestion and crowding issues Diversification of tourist attractions Origin of tourist demand Support for tourism Protected heritage and new cultural facilities Reduction of general level of life quality Better knowledge and uderstanding of other cultures Protection of local culture Impact on community life and social cohesion Resource consumption: water, energy, recycling Impact on natural resources Pollution: Air, noise, water Environmental practices in tourism planning

+ + + + + + + + + + +     + + +   + + +

+

   +

Note: + () sign means this factor has increases (decreased) along the boom in international tourism in Spain

effects on economic sustainability concentrate in indicators such as the growth in prices that raised 4.2% in these years, but still below CPI index for the whole economy that raised 7% (INE, www.ine.es). Growth in real estate prices in the tourism industry, for example the offer linked to “Airbnb-type” apartments, is resulting in a huge impact on rental prices in urban centres as Barcelona for example, leading to significant distortion in the house rental market (Valls et al. 2013). In terms of socio-cultural sustainability, main effects of this boom period concentrate

70

A. Artal-Tur et al.

on an increase in number of tourists at city centres, with non-desired congestion and crowding related effects (Richards 2016). Part of the local population linked to tourism business has been more eager to support tourism activities in the boom period (Garau-Vadell et al. 2016), but a growing negative impact on resident population is appearing, mainly in the Mediterranean coast of Spain, given the remarkable growth in international arrivals along these years (Almeida-García et al. 2016). In environmental terms, the impact of tourism has also grown, given the highest number of people visiting destinations, and the budget adjustment situation suffered by local administrations along the years of economic crisis. However, the analysis of the environmental dimension and related sustainability issues transcends the objective of the present chapter, which main aim has been to focus on expenditure issues and its relationship to economic sustainability.

6 Conclusion The years 2010–2015 have resulted in the boom of international tourism in Spain, with additional 23 million people reaching the country, spending around new 20,000 million euros. Top ranking competitiveness position characterising the country, plus more than 12 million new trips relocated since the beginning of the Arab Spring resulted in historical record of visitors. In this chapter, we have started to investigate the impact of this process on the economic sustainability of destinations. In doing so, we have built on a large survey data set in order to capture how the characteristics of tourists have changed in these years, and what are the factors driving expenditure of tourists in the country. Estimates of the expenditure model have led to some important results. In first place, the surge of new profiles of tourists help to increase spending at destinations. These include international visitors coming from non-traditional origin countries, people traveling alone, middle-aged tourists, with tertiary studies, and high level of income, all them pushing up tourism economic sustainability in Spain in this period. First visitors, people pursuing cultural and sport activities, and those with high levels of trip satisfaction, are three collectives increasing their presence and adding to the economic sustainability of destinations too. Other findings include the opportunities linked to the use of the Internet in preparing vacations, and people traveling in mid-season, mainly at wintertime. These new arrivals and tourist profiles also provide benefits to the socio-cultural sustainability of destinations as shown by literature. Main findings of the model in this regard include new visitors from north Europe, America and Middle East, helping to enrich the cultural diversity and interactions with foreign cultures of the resident population. The presence of young and highly educated visitors also improving social sustainability. The prominent role that culture and cultural offer is acquiring in Spain as a tourism product, leading to new facilities, events, exhibitions and investments also help to enrich the

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations

71

cultural life.4 The presence of highly satisfied tourists, and those employing Internetbased technologies for planning their trips, will lead to a number of business opportunities and on-line interaction with segments of tourists, improving the economic sustainability and management of destinations, while opening opportunities to the local population for interact and being engaged with international visitors. Regarding the environmental side, this dimension has not been addressed in the study because of the lack of data, although the boom in arrivals of these years claim for a careful planning of the environmental dimension for Spanish destinations. On the other side, the study have raised notable challenges for the near future at Spanish destinations. One of the most important is the need to increase spending of traditional EU visitors, as they continue to represent around one half of the total international tourism demand reaching Spain annually. Further, overcrowding of arrivals in Catalonia in last years have resulted in important congestion problems in the city of Barcelona, clearly affecting the performance of the destination. The impact on residents has become important, in terms of congestion issues affecting life in certain neighbourhoods and leading to real estate price bubbles (Valls et al. 2013). Canary Islands have also shown some delay in the renovation of tourism supply and hospitality facilities, issues that the boom period has kept more or less hidden, and should be faced soon. Madrid has been embarked in the reconversion of the industry, given the sharp decline in business and domestic tourism taking place in the years of crisis. In this sense, culture has been emerging as one of the key attractions in the city. Balearic Islands continue with the renovation process of its mature seaside model, with good results for emerging quality products complementing the sun-and-sand offer, as those of rural-inland-quality-nature tourism and sports and gastronomy tourism as a way of dealing with seasonality issues. Relevant opportunities emerge according to the findings of the study, showing specific profiles of visitors and trip-related characteristics in Spain that should be targeted in order to increase the level of expenditure at destinations and economic sustainability in general. All these issues require specific policies at tourism destinations, as well as important efforts in tourism marketing campaigns. Culture should become the cornerstone of European tourism in the near future. Creative tourism, local-tourists interactions, valuing of the local heritage, gastronomy, ancient folklore, art crafts street markets, etc., are all key pieces for renewing the tourism offer. Building on those issues would result in an enrichment of the social and cultural dimensions of destinations too, increasing the positive returns of tourism towards resident population, and their support for tourism development. Acknowledgement We acknowledge funding from FEMISE Research Network (Project FEM 41-04) supported by European Union (ENPI Project 2014/354-494). Dr. Andres Artal-Tur also wants to acknowledge financial support from Groups of Excellence Program of Fundación Séneca, Science and Technology Agency of the Region of Murcia, project 19884/GERM/15.

4 Gastronomy activities have been also defined in literature as a representation of the tangible and intangible cultural heritage of a region or locality (Melgar 2013).

72

A. Artal-Tur et al.

References Al Battat, A. R. S., & Som, A. P. M. (2014). Impacts of the Arab Spring on the tourism industry in Malaysia. Available https://www.academia.edu/3849211/Impacts_of_the_Arab_Spring_on_ the_tourism_Industry_in_Malaysia Almeida, F., Balbuena, A., & Cortés, R. (2015). Residents’ attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 13(1), 33–40. Almeida-García, F., Peláez-Fernández, M. A., Balbuena-Vázquez, A., & Cortés-Macías, R. (2016). Resident’s perception of tourism development in Benalmádena (Málaga). Tourism Management, 54, 259–274. Artal-Tur, A., & Villena-Navarro, M. (2016). Turismo cultural y sostenibilidad del destino: el caso español (Vol. 113, pp. 123–148). Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internationals. BALANTUR. (2016). Balance del Turismo. Resultados de la Actividad Turística en España (Annual balance of the tourism industry). Madrid: IET (Institute of Tourism Studies), Ministry of Tourism. Bojanic, D. C., & Lo, M. L. (2016). A comparison of the moderating effect of tourism reliance on the economic development for islands and other countries. Tourism Management, 53, 207–214. Boley, B. B., McGehee, N. G., & Hammet, A. L. T. (2017). Importance-performance analysis (IPA) of sustainable tourism initiatives: The resident perspective. Tourism Management, 58, 66–77. Brida, J. G., & Scuderi, R. (2013). Determinants of tourism expenditure: A review of microeconometric models. Tourism Management Perspectives, 6, 28–40. Carrillo, M., & Jorge, J. M. (2017). Multidimesional analysis of regional tourism sustainability in Spain. Ecological Indicators, 140, 89–98. Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainability indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 1274–1289. Cirer-Costa, J. C. (2017). Turbulence in Mediterranean tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 22, 27–33. Cucculelli, M., & Goffi, G. (2015). Does sustainability enhance tourism destination competitiveness?. Evidence from Italian destinations of excellence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 111 (part B), 370–382. EGATUR (various years). Encuesta de Gasto Turístico (Tourist Expenditure Survey). Madrid: IET (Institute of Tourism Studies), Ministry of Tourism. Eugenio-Martin, J. L., & Inchausti-Sintes, F. (2016). Low-cost travel and tourism expenditures. Annals of Tourism Research, 57, 140–159. Franzoni, S. (2015). Measuring the sustainability performance of the tourism sector. Tourism Management Perspectives, 16, 22–27. FRONTUR. (2016). Encuesta de Movimientos Turísticos en Fronteras. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). Galal, A., & Reiffers, J. L. (coords.) (2014). Vers une nouvelle dynamique pour le maintien des equilibres economiques et sociaux. Rapport du FEMISE sur le partenariat Euro-Mediterraneen. Available http://www.femise.org/category/publications/rapport_euromed/ Garau-Vadell, J., Gutierrez-Taño, D., & Díaz-Armas, R. (2016). Economic crisis and residents’ perception of the impacts of tourism in mass tourism destinations. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management., 7, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.08.008. INE-EOH (various years). Encuesta de Ocupación Hotelera (Hotel Occupancy Survey). Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). Available. http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do? type¼pcaxis&path¼%2Ft11%2Fe162eoh%2F&file¼inebase&L¼0 INE-EPA (various years). Encuesta de Población Activa (Labour Force Survey). Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). Available. http://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/operacion.htm? c¼Estadistica_C&cid¼1254736176918&menu¼resultados&secc¼1254736195129& idp¼1254735976595 Lee, T. H., & Hsieh, H. P. (2016). Indicators of sustainable tourism: A case study from Taiwan’s wetland. Ecological Indicators, 67, 779–787.

4 The Recent Boom in Spain: Economic Sustainability of Destinations

73

Lyon, A., Hunter-Jones, P., & Warnaby, G. (2017). Are we any closer to sustainable development?. Listening to active stakeholder discourses of tourism development in the Waterberg Biosphere Reserve, South Africa. Tourism Management, 61, 234–247. Marcussen, C. H. (2011). Determinants of tourist spending in cross-sectional studies and at Danish destinations. Tourism Economics, 17, 833–855. Marrocu, E., Paci, R., & Zara, A. (2015). Micro-economic determinants of tourist expenditure: A quantile regression approach. Tourism Management, 50, 13–30. Mathew, P. V., & Sreejesh, S. (2017). Impact of responsible tourism on destination sustainability and quality of life of community in tourism destinations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31, 83–89. Melgar, S. (2013). La gastronomía en el sistema turístico. Buscando nuevos productos, mejorando destinos. El caso de la isla de Fuerteventura. PASOS Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 11(2), 483–494. Ortega, E., & Peñalosa, J. (2012). The Spanish economic crisis: Key factors and growth challenges in the Euroarea. In Occasional Papers 1201. Madrid: Bank of Spain. Richards, G. (2016). El turismo y la ciudad: ¿hacia nuevos modelos?. (Tourism and the city: towards new models?). Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals, 113, 71–87. Sainaghi, R. (2012). Tourist expenditures: The state of the art. Anatolia, 23, 217–233. Sánchez-Rivero, M., & Pulido-Fernández, J. I. (2008). Medida de la sostenibilidad turística. Propuesta de un índice sintético. Tribuna Fitur Jorge Vila Fradera. FITUR Prize in Tourism Research 2008. Madrid: Editorial Universitaria Ramón Areces. Santos-Silva, J. M. C., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641–658. Stoddard, J. E., Pollard, C. E., & Evans, M. R. (2012). The triple bottom line: A framework for sustainable tourism development. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 13(3), 233–258. Stoeckl, N., Greiner, R., & Mayocchi, C. (2006). The community impacts of different types of visitors: An empirical investigation of tourism in North-West Queensland. Tourism Management, 27, 97–112. Thrane, C., & Farstad, E. (2011). Domestic tourism expenditures: The non-linear effects of length of stay and travel party size. Tourism Management, 32(1), 46–52. Torres-Delgado, A., & López-Palomeque, F. (2014). Measuring sustainable tourism at the municipal level. Annals of Tourism Research, 49, 122–137. TTCI. (2017). Travel and tourism competiveness index 2017. Davos: World Economic Forum. UNWTO. (2005). Making tourism more sustainable: A guide for policy makers. In United Nations environment programme. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. UNWTO. (2016). UNWTO tourism highlights 2016 edition. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Valls, J. F., Banchini, S., Falcón, L., & Valls-Tuñón, G. (2013). Repositioning of Barcelona’s image in the light of a redefinition of the urban tourism planning model. PASOS Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 11(1), 89–105. Wang, D., & Davidson, M. C. G. (2010). A review of micro-analyses of tourist expenditure. Current Issues in Tourism, 13, 507–524.

Chapter 5

Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty Andrés Artal-Tur and Noelia Sánchez-Casado

Abstract The study of tourists’ satisfaction and loyalty is a very fruitful area of research. In this chapter we get deeper insight on the determinants of tourists’ satisfaction and loyalty behaviour, and how both variables influence each other. With this objective, we estimate two main equations employing survey data on five Spanish destinations. The models account for information on tourist profiles and holiday trip experiences. The analysis allows investigating how the relevance of explanatory factors in the models shift according to destination characteristics and the level of the overall trip satisfaction declared by tourists. In the satisfaction model main results show that all variables increasing the set of information on the destination previous to the holiday experience help to increase the trip satisfaction level of visitors. In the case of loyalty model, an interesting result points that the overall trip satisfaction plays a second-order role in driving loyalty behaviour of tourists, with key variables appear to be those of place attachment and geographical distance to the destination.

1 Introduction The study of trip satisfaction and loyalty behaviour of tourists has resulted in an extensive literature. Originally, authors focused on the analysis of satisfaction as reflecting the performance of a destination (Murphy et al. 2000). Further, they concentrated on loyalty behaviour of visitors as the relevant outcome ensuring

We acknowledge funding from FEMISE Research Network (Project FEM 41-04) supported by European Union (ENPI Project 2014/354-494). Dr. Andres Artal-Tur also wants to acknowledge financial support from Groups of Excellence Program of Fundación Séneca, Science and Technology Agency of the Region of Murcia, project 19884/GERM/15. We would also like to thank the student Ms. Iveta Cutakova for her valuable work along the making of this paper. A. Artal-Tur (*) · N. Sánchez-Casado Technical Universitry of Cartagena, Cartagena, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_5

75

76

A. Artal-Tur and N. Sánchez-Casado

destination competitiveness (Kozak and Rimmington 1999). Main approaches to the measurement of tourists’ satisfaction rely on the Importance-Satisfaction Analysis (ISA) of Tongue and Moore (2007), and on the expectancy-disconfirmation paradigm (Oliver 2010), where the level of satisfaction depends on the distance between holiday expectations and on-trip experiences. In both theories the features of tourism supply are the basic drivers of the perceptions of visitors. Similarly, satisfaction has been defined as a mediator variable between destination image and repeating behaviour of tourists. Hence, destination image and attributes, and service quality, have been employed as the basic factors determining loyalty behaviour of individuals (Chen and Tsai 2007; Zabkar et al. 2010). In summary, supply factors hold a central place in this literature. Furthermore, in tourism research the approach of the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) points out how different attributes of tourism products (e.g. destinations) can influence a tourist’s travel decisions. Then, according to Lundberg (2017), IPA can help to understand and work strategically with customer satisfaction relating to tourism products, giving insights into visitor satisfaction. Then, the aim of this chapter is to extend the framework of analysis for satisfaction and loyalty in tourism. First, we allow for additional factors determining tourists’ perceptions and behaviour by including demand-side factors linked to tourists’ profiles and trip characteristics. Second, we test for this framework by running an empirical model for five competing destinations at the Spanish Mediterranean coast. In doing so, we apply ordered logit models based on more than 120,000 questionnaires. Third, we analyse loyalty behaviour by focusing on “actual” data and not in “future expectations” of individuals as many previous papers do. Fourth, our analysis allows to disentangling the relationship between satisfaction and loyalty of tourists.

2 Literature Review Overall trip satisfaction is the extent of global pleasure attained by tourists, resulting from the ability of the trip experience to fulfill the desires, expectations and needs generated by the trip decision (Chen and Tsai 2007). The level of satisfaction reached by a tourist provides crucial information on how a destination performs (Kotler 1994; Schofield 2000). It becomes then necessary to extend the number of explanatory factors when facing the analysis of satisfaction and loyalty of tourists. In this way, it is important to take into account the role that tourists’ profiles and their motivations for travelling play in this process. This requires employing information on individual profiles of tourists but also consider the activities developed by tourists at their holiday time, or the own characteristics of the tourism product or destination chosen (sun and sand, nature, health, urban, etc.). For instance, Oom do Valle et al. (2006) find that education level of tourists, nationality and duration of the stay, are important variables in influencing perceptions and loyalty behaviour of visitors of Arade in Portugal. Some authors highlight the role that nationality and culture might have on conforming perceptions of

5 Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty

77

visitors. For example, Kozak and Rimmington (2000) build on a survey of British and German tourists visiting Mallorca and Turkey note that the former were more satisfied with almost all individual destination attributes than the latter. G. de Menezes et al. (2009) find that Dutch tourists are always less satisfied than the average one in their visit to Azores Islands, while French (female) tourists are found to be more satisfied. Moreover, the destination image is affected by tourist’s country of origin (Beerli and Martin 2004). Actually, destination image mediates the relationship between cultural values and destination attachment amongst tourists visiting Malaysia, considering five different countries of origin and residence: Iran, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (Kani et al. 2017). Then, based on the previous ideas, we propose the next hypotheses: H1a: Culture and origin influence the overall trip satisfaction. H1b: Culture and origin influence the destination loyalty. According to some studies, nowadays it is quite necessary to understand the consumer profile to support the development of strategies, which can enhance competitiveness of tourist destinations and increase levels of satisfaction (Miragaia et al. 2016). Actually, some differences in behavior arise when it comes to the use of the several information sources depending on tourists’ profiles (nationality and socio-demographic characteristics) (Almeida-Santana and Moreno-Gil 2016). For instance, British tourists seem to value primarily cognitive, then affective, and least conative images, while Russian tourists’ intention to revisit a destination is based primarily upon conative, then upon cognitive, and least upon affective images; then, their tourist profile explains the divergence on tourists’ intention to revisit a destination (Stylos et al. 2017). Moreover, tourists interested in some specific tourism experiences (e.g. Indigenous) are often female, younger, better educated and more likely to be from North America and (Northern) Europe and this can inform strategic marketing activities which, in turn, encourage higher levels of demand through participation and satisfaction (Ryan and Huyton 2002; Pabel et al. 2017). According to this, we propose the next hypotheses: H2a: Tourist profile influences the overall trip satisfaction. H2b: Tourist profile influences the destination loyalty. Over the last few years, tourists have included the Internet and social media as a critical way of searching for information when planning their holidays, but also show the vital importance of these sources in inducing loyalty to destinations (AlmeidaSantana and Moreno-Gil 2016). Furthermore, as some authors suggest, the perceived cultural differences, perceived safety and convenient transportation indirectly influence destination loyalty through the mediation of relationship quality comprising satisfaction and trust (Huang et al. 2006). Based on these previous ideas, the next hypothesis is proposed: H3a: Trip characteristics influence the overall trip satisfaction. H3b: Trip characteristics influence the destination loyalty.

78

A. Artal-Tur and N. Sánchez-Casado

In a more general approach, some investigations analyze the role of perceived satisfaction as a mediator variable connecting destination attributes, that conform the image of a destination, and the affective relationship a tourist develops with the destination (loyalty issues) (Geng-Quin Chi and Qu 2008). Main findings show that destination image and satisfaction with destination attributes positively influence overall declared satisfaction of tourists, with the level of overall satisfaction driving the loyalty behaviour of tourists. However, it seems that destination attributes and image have only limited explanatory power on satisfaction and loyalty of visitors. Geng-Quin Chi and Qu (2008) observe that these two dimensions of destinations (image and attributes) just account for 25% of the variance of the overall declared satisfaction of tourists, while overall satisfaction plus attributes and image explain 44% of the variance of the destination loyalty for their own case study. Then, we propose the next hypotheses: H4a: Destination characteristics and attributes influence the overall trip satisfaction. H4b: Destination characteristics and attributes influence the destination loyalty. Other studies analyze how “push” (psychology-related) and “pull” (destinationrelated) factors lead tourists’ choices, and how destinations respond to this challenge. Results point to an increasing need of tourists for new experiences helping them to break the daily routine, including adventures, experiences increasing personal knowledge, or social activities where making new friends. As a result, it is recommended to pay special attention to the activities offered by destinations in order to increase their level of competitiveness and the satisfaction or loyalty of visitors. Then, we suggest: H5a: Activities developed during the holiday influence the overall trip satisfaction. H5b: Activities developed during the holiday influence the destination loyalty. Given the close relationship between satisfaction and loyalty issues, the study of loyalty has been gaining presence in the literature (Yuksel et al. 2010). Repeating behaviour of tourists towards a destination, defined as loyalty, has generally been regarded as a desirable target for several reasons (Oppermann 2000). First, marketing costs required to attract this type of clients are found to be lower than those required for first-time visitors; second, a return behaviour is the most direct indicator of the satisfaction of tourists with one destination; and third, an inertial attitude of high repeaters increases their likelihood to return, creating some kind of captive demand (Alegre and Juaneda 2006). Loyalty relationships could also lead to higher expenditure of repeating tourists if they pursue search-for-quality paths in their following visits, as a result of the greater knowledge they have on supply opportunities of the destination (Hallowell 1996). Other relevant variables regarding loyalty of visitors include the role of geographical and cultural distance of tourists when choosing their holiday destinations, and the nature of second-home tourists while conforming affective links with destinations (Correia et al. 2005). Furthermore, the

5 Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty

79

satisfaction of tourists is an important factor, as it may influence decisions to return to the same tourist destination (Miragaia et al. 2016). Then, the next hypothesis is proposed: H6: Overall trip satisfaction influence destination loyalty. After suggesting these six hypotheses and departing from previous findings of the literature, the present investigation analyses the factors influencing the overall trip satisfaction and destination loyalty. With this objective, we define a comprehensive framework accounting for supply and demand variables. We build on an econometric exercise in order to identify the role that every set of factors plays in this process. It would allow us to better understand the relationships emerging between these two relevant variables of tourism studies.

3 Methodology In this section the econometric model for the study is proposed. Firstly, the framework of analysis was built on two equations, one for the overall trip satisfaction declared by tourists and another one for destination loyalty. In the first equation it is related an index of overall trip satisfaction with a set of explanatory factors, including tourist’s origin and culture, tourist profile, trip characteristics, destination characteristics, and set of activities. In the second equation we relate an index of destination loyalty, with a similar set of explanatory factors than in the previous equation, plus an additional variable reflecting the overall trip satisfaction. Then, seven variables were defined as it is shown in Table 5.1, to be then added into the model. Given that the dependent variable is defined as an ordinal scale, we employed an ordered logit model in running the econometric exercise. The basics of the ordered logit model are as follows: let us assume that the degree of overall trip satisfaction/ destination loyalty attained by individual i (y
i ) is related to a set of variables xi by the following relationship: y
i ¼ xi β þ Ei , where β is a vector of parameters, and Ei is an error term. However, instead of observing directly the exact degree of overall trip satisfaction or destination loyalty, y
i , the survey only provides data on the response categories where this variable falls. In the ordered logit framework it is assumed that the following scheme determines the mapping between the (unobserved) level of satisfaction and the item selected in a likert (N + 1)-item scale, represented by the variable yi (which, consistently is a discrete variable which has a limited number of distinct values, say 0,1,2, . . . ,N):

80

A. Artal-Tur and N. Sánchez-Casado

Table 5.1 Variables included in the research model and its definition Variable Tourist’s origin and culture Tourist profile Trip characteristics

Destination characteristics Set of activities Overall trip satisfaction

Destination loyalty

Definition Dummy variables for the country of residence of the tourist, capturing individual and cultural specificities Gender, age, income level, level of studies, and occupation of the tourist Information on the company while travelling, booking the trip as a package, using the internet for planning the trip/getting information about the destination, type of accommodation, length of stay, and the mean of transport used for travelling Dummy variables for the specificities (image, attributes, concept of place) about the destination chosen Sports, culture, amenities, gastronomy, daily trips, family visits The tourist assesses for trip satisfaction when leaving the country Original data range between 1–10 Likert scale (least-most satisfied), but it was recoded it in 5 categories or recoded ordinal data levels The interval ranges among the value (y ¼ 0), representing a “no satisfied” tourist, and (y ¼ 4) for a “highly satisfied” tourist It is the dependent, categorical variable in the trip satisfaction equation and a relevant one in the loyalty equation The number of times a tourist has revisited a destination Four categories were included in this variable: 1 ¼ first visit to the destination; 2 ¼ 1–3 previous visits; 3 ¼ 4–9 previous visits; 4 ¼ 10 or more visits

Source: Own elaboration

8 0 > > > > < 1 2 yi ¼ > > ⋮ > > : N

if y
i  μ1 if μ1 < y
i  μ2 if μ2 < y
i  μ3 if μN < y
i

Thus, the probability of choosing a given category j (j ¼ 0,1,2, . . . ,N) by the individual i is given by     Prðyi ¼ jjxi Þ ¼ Pr μj < y
i  μjþ1 jxi ¼ Pr μj  xi β < Ei  μjþ1  xi βjxi , being straightforward to derive explicitly this probability if the error term Ei is distributed according to a logistic distribution, as the conditional logit specification implies. Finally, vector of β coefficients can be estimated by maximum likelihood. The first equation (overall trip satisfaction equation) is defined as: SATi ¼ β1 RESi + β2 TPFi + β3 TRIPi + β4 DESTi + β5 ACTIVi + εi where, SAT: Overall trip satisfaction declared by the tourist. RES: Tourist origin or country of residence.

5 Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty

81

TPF: Tourist profile. TRIP: Trip characteristics. DEST: Destination characteristics. ACTIV: Set of activities pursued by tourists along the stay. and i are tourists (individuals) in the sample. The second equation (destination loyalty equation) is defined as: LOYi ¼ β1 RESi + β2 TPFi + β3 TRIPi + β4 DESTi + β5 ACTIVi + β6 SATi + ει where: LOY: Destination Loyalty SAT: Overall trip satisfaction declared by the tourist. RES: Tourist origin or country of residence. TPF: Tourist profile. TRIP: Trip characteristics. DEST: Destination characteristics. ACTIV: Set of activities pursued by tourists along the stay. and i are tourists (individuals) in the sample. With the aim of accomplishing our research goal, the destination chosen was the Mediterranean region, as it is one of the top world tourism destinations, with 225 million of arrivals and 175 € billion of receipts in 2015. Spain is a leading destination inside this area, ranked third in terms of international tourist arrivals (68.2 million in 2015), and also in international tourism receipts (56.5 € billion in 2015) (UNWTO 2016). Then, our empirical model builds on the Tourism Expenditure Survey (EGATUR) of the Spanish Institute of Tourism Studies (IET).1 The sample comprises around 120,000 questionnaires characterizing foreign tourists visiting the Spanish Mediterranean coast (including Catalonia, Valencia, Region of Murcia, Andalusia and Balearic Islands) for leisure purposes. The visited destinations of the sample are similar enough: all of them are located in the Spanish Mediterranean area, with more than 65% of total foreign arrivals, what represents around 35 millions of tourists. The questionnaire provides information on sociodemographic profiles of visitors (gender, age, studies, occupation, etc.), trip characteristics (length of stay, accommodation, activities developed during the stay), destination, and specific questions on overall trip satisfaction and destination loyalty. The data set expands from years 2004 to 2009, since during this period the economic and financial crisis had not appeared yet. As interviewed tourists usually change their destination every year it is not possible to run a panel procedure, so we decided to pursue pooled data estimations. In order to control for possible time heterogeneity, we included time dummies. Taking into account that some variables included a set of answers, a reference category was developed to avoid collinearity

1 IET is the statutory body in charge of studies on the tourism industry in Spain (www.iet.tourspain.es). We want to acknowledge this institution for providing data for the investigation.

82

A. Artal-Tur and N. Sánchez-Casado

problems. This category is “a female tourist, with more than 65 years, coming from the United Kingdom, with a high education level, medium income level, travelling with the family by plane, with a more than 10 days duration stay, accommodated at her own property or second-home, employed, and coming to Valencia in 2007”. By this way, results of the econometric model must be read according to this reference category.

4 Results According to the main descriptive statistics shown in Table 5.2, the profile of an average tourist is a male, from 25 to 44 years old, coming from United Kingdom, with secondary education level, a medium income level, buying a package tour and travelling with a couple or partner by plane. Moreover, these visitors are usually loyal to this destination (coming for 10 times of more), use the Internet for planning and booking their holidays, choose hotels or second-home property as accommodation, mainly visiting Catalonia, stay for 10 days or more, and declare to come for enjoying gastronomy and cultural activities. A deeper look at data shows that foreign tourists arriving in Spain come from Europe in 95% of cases (United Kingdom, France and Germany), and commonly travel with the family. Tourists have mainly secondary or upper education, and a medium income level of 25,000 €–50,000 € per year. Catalonia and Andalusia are visited by at least half of tourists, who usually do it by plane. Tourists from nearby countries, such as France and Portugal, use the car as a mean of transport and international tourists predominantly choose hotels and own properties for accommodation. Table 5.2 also shows a high degree of loyalty shown by visitors. In this sense, the average tourist has already visited Spain for four times, while the 41% of the sample for 10 times or more. Tourists have taken part in a wide range of activities that can be classified into six main sets, namely: sports (including golf, sailing, other water sports, hunting, hiking, or adventure sports), culture, gastronomy, amenities (spa, thematic parks, casinos, clubs and discos), daily trips and family visits. Some activities such as land-based sightseeing, cultural performances and scenic/natural attractions are the most popular between tourists, closely followed by gastronomy and related activities. The majority of tourists reveal to be highly satisfied with their trip, with an average rating of 8.4 out of 10 points.

4.1

Factors Influencing Tourists’ Satisfaction

The “overall trip satisfaction” variable was recoded and Table 5.3 includes the distribution of it, showing that levels 9 and 10 of satisfaction (3 and 4 in the recoded variable) accumulate around 45% of total responses, while the value 8 (2 in recoded values) accumulates the highest number of respondents (38%).

5 Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty

83

Table 5.2 Sample descriptive statistics of tourists visiting the coast of Spain in 2004–2009 Variable Statistics Tourist’s Country of residence origin and culture France Benelux Germany UK Tourist profile Gender Female 35.5% Male 64.5%

Trip characteristics

Destination characteristics

Set of activities

Destination loyalty

21.0% 10.4% 12.8% 34.6% Age 65

Italy 7.1% Rest of EU 9.3% America 3.6% Rest of the world 1.2% Income level 7.7% Low 5.7% 6.0% Medium 66.7% 36.4% High 27.6% 9.9% Level of studies Occupation Primary 9.2% Employed 80.1% Secondary 42.3% Retired 13.6% Superior 48.4% Jobless 0.7% Student 5.6% Company while Travel package Use of tools to plan the travelling trip Alone 15.2% Yes 72.7% Yes 62.1% Couple/partner 50.2% No 27.3% No 37.9% Family 22.7% Friends 11.9% Accommodation Length of stay (days) Transport Hotel 48.9% Short (1–3) 16.4% Flights 73.3% Own property 35.1% Medium (4–10) 26.6% Own car 25.7% Rent house 8.4% Long (>10) 57.0% Rent car 0.7% Campings/other 7.6% Other 0.4% Andalusia 20.7% Balearic Islands 14.9% Catalonia 44.4% Valencia 17.7% Murcia 2.3% 13.5% Sports Culture 62.1% Amenities 35.6% Gastronomy 93.7% Dayly trips 41.7% Family visits 13.1% Previous number of visits to the destination 0 15.6% 1–3 20.5% 4–9 22.5% 10 or more 41.4%

Source: Data from EGATUR survey (IET) processed by authors

84 Table 5.3 Distribution of the recoded “overall trip satisfaction” variable

A. Artal-Tur and N. Sánchez-Casado Original likert scale 1–6 7 8 9 10

Recoded variable 0 1 2 3 4 Total

Obsv. 4374 15,178 47,850 30,955 26,053 124,410

Freq. 3.52 12.20 38.46 24.88 20.94 100.00

Source: Data processed by authors

Then, the empirical analysis was carried out into two tables. While Table 5.4 shows the regression results, in Table 5.5 it is computed the marginal effects for every interval of the dependent variable (from p (yi ¼ 0) to p (yi ¼ 4)). Table 5.4 shows the sign of estimated coefficients, reflecting how every factor influences the overall trip satisfaction (increasing for positive sign or decreasing for negative sign). Coefficients must be understood according to the reference category (in parentheses) or in direct form for the rest of variables. As all variables are defined as dummies, marginal effects are evaluated at its positive value (yi ¼ 1). The reference category is also included in parentheses. Generally, results show high levels of significance for all explanatory variables in the model. All four cuts in the ordered logit model are also significant at 95% level, revealing the modeling specification to be correct. The joint equation is shown to be significant according to the Wald test, while pseudo-R2 and usual information criteria indexes (AIC and BIC) are reported too. Table 5.5 describes with greater details the results of the empirical model. Two columns for every interval of the dependent variable (from p (0)-less satisfied to p (4)-most satisfied) were included. Significance levels equals that of Table 5.4 for each cut in Table 5.5, while only results with relevant marginal effects being highlighted in bold in Table 5.5. In the first column the marginal effect is specified for each variable (either positive or negative); in the second column it is included a standardized value of the first column’s data, with the coefficient showing the size of the related effect on overall trip satisfaction. For the rest of the columns we just keep those effects with relevant values.2 Obviously, the summatory of first columns’ values for all intervals of every single covariate equals zero, neutralising each other. As an example, being French increases the probability of a tourist of declaring lower levels of overall trip satisfaction (intervals 0, 1 and 2) in comparison with the reference category (being British), while being French decreases the probability of declaring higher levels of overall trip satisfaction (intervals 3 and 4) in comparison with the reference category (being British). Summarizing the results, Table 5.5 shows that main variables influencing the probability of a tourist to reach the highest levels (levels p3 or p4) of overall trip satisfaction are those of destination characteristics (Valencia, Murcia), tourist origin (British, Americans), and trip characteristics 2 Classical standardisation is applied, subtracting the mean value and dividing for the standard deviation.

5 Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty

85

Table 5.4 Ordered logit results of trip satisfaction model for reference tourist Variable Country of residence (UK)

Gender (female) Age (65 years or more) Income_level (medium) Level of studies (higher than secondary) Employment (employed) Company through the visit (family) Is this a Did you plan the trip by using the Accommodation (second-home) Duration of stay (long stay) Mean of transport for traveling (plane) Region of visit (Valencia)

Year of visit (2007)

Set of dummies France Benelux Germany Italy Rest_of_EU America Rest_of_World Male Less24 Bt25–44 Bt45–64 Low High Primary Secondary Retired No_job Student Alone Friends Couple Package_tour? Internet? Hotel Rent_apartmt Camping_others Sstay Mstay Own_car Rent_car Other Andalusia Balearic Catalonia Murcia y2004 y2005 y2006 y2008 y2009

Coeff. 0.4321 0.3748 0.2010 0.2138 0.2161 0.1849 0.0985 0.2017 0.2721 0.2206 0.1681 0.1359 0.0652 0.2398 0.2195 0.0421 0.2156 0.0745 0.2080 0.0227 0.1412 0.3870 0.3072 0.2749 0.1039 0.1629 0.2700 0.1128 0.2931 0.5757 0.0446 0.1046 0.8642 0.7632 0.5492 0.1403 0.1387 0.1450 0.0384 0.0430

Std. err. 0.0186 0.0186 0.0185 0.0226 0.0207 0.0290 0.0484 0.0117 0.0364 0.0258 0.0236 0.0268 0.0129 0.0208 0.0118 0.0218 0.0695 0.0319 0.0193 0.0206 0.0140 0.0471 0.0125 0.0142 0.0215 0.0222 0.0165 0.0135 0.0484 0.0763 0.1197 0.0201 0.0220 0.0183 0.0443 0.0186 0.0171 0.0171 0.0165 0.0205

z 23.21 20.10 10.86 9.43 10.42 6.36 2.03 17.21 7.46 8.52 7.12 5.06 5.04 11.49 18.58 1.93 3.11 2.33 10.78 1.14 10.07 8.21 24.44 19.31 4.82 7.34 16.34 8.34 6.04 7.54 0.37 51.97 39.2 41.51 12.38 7.51 8.09 8.46 2.33 2.16

P > |z| 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0420 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0541 0.0023 0.0200 0.0000 0.2712 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.7114 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0205 0.0363

(continued)

86

A. Artal-Tur and N. Sánchez-Casado

Table 5.4 (continued) Variable Activities developed

N Wald X2 (46) Prob Log-pseudolikelihood

Set of dummies Sports Cultural Amenities Gastronomy Daily trips Family visits Cut1 Cut2 Cut3 Cut4 124,410 10,912.21 0.0000 169,900.7

Coeff. 0.1567 0.0133 0.0633 0.1040 0.0903 0.1234 4.4938 2.8423 0.9019 0.3640 Pseudo R2 AIC BIC

Std. err. 0.0164 0.0123 0.0118 0.0232 0.0115 0.0179 0.0645 0.0630 0.0624 0.0623 0.0351 339,901 340,388

z 9.56 1.08 5.37 4.48 7.84 6.88 69.6 45.1 14.4 5.8

P > |z| 0.0000 0.2805 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

(the use of tools such as Internet to plan the trip, package tours). All these variables appear as first order factors in leading satisfaction, capturing the important role conferred by the literature to destination attributes, and that of cultural and individual idiosyncrasy of the tourist. Results are shown in Fig. 5.1, where hypotheses H1a to H5a are tested. The figure plots the marginal effects for those intervals capturing the highest levels of tourists’ satisfaction, that is, columns p3 and p4 in Table 5.5. Marginal effects are computed regarding the category of reference, so values below the zero show that such particular variable decreases the probability of the tourist to be declaring higher levels of satisfaction, in comparison with the category of reference. Panel A in Fig. 5.1 includes the general results of the model, with all variables, showing again the role of destination characteristics (H4a), and trip characteristics (H3a) in driving satisfaction. Panel B checks these two sets of factors, focusing on the role of the rest of variables in the model. Tourist’s origin and culture clearly determines the level of overall trip satisfaction (H1a); for instance, British show a higher probability to be satisfied than the rest of tourists, with the exception of American tourists. Sociodemographic characteristics or tourist profile also matter, as the majority of satisfied tourists are female, of an older age, with high level of studies and income, and retired or student (H2a). Regarding the effects of trip characteristics (H3a), we observe that coming with the family (coming with friends is not significant), accommodating in your own property (second-home), and staying for long periods (more than 10 days), increases the overall trip satisfaction (H4a). Finally, although all activities seem to be important for tourists, sports, amenities and gastronomy increases the overall trip satisfaction, while daily trips decreases it. As expected, doing a visit to the family increases the probability of undergoing a satisfied stay (H5a). As a result, we can accept hypotheses H1a to H5a.

Is this a Did you plan the tripl by using the

Company through the visit (family)

Employment (employed)

Level of studies (higher than secondary)

Income_level (medium)

Gender (female) Age (65 years or more)

Country of residence (UK)

France Benelux Germany Italy Rest_of_EU America Rest_of_World Male Less24 Bt25–44 Bt45–64 Low High Primary Secondary Retired No_job Student Alone Friends Couple Package_tour? Internet?

p(0) 0.0143 0.0127 0.0063 0.0068 0.0069 0.0050 0.0030 0.0057 0.0089 0.0065 0.0050 0.0042 0.0018 0.0077 0.0065 0.0012 0.0070 0.0021 0.0065 0.0006 0.0041 0.0124 0.0094 165% 136%

Satisf 1–6/10 95% 79% p(1) 0.0426 0.0375 0.0192 0.0206 0.0208 0.0159 0.0092 0.0180 0.0267 0.0202 0.0155 0.0128 0.0058 0.0232 0.0202 0.0038 0.0210 0.0066 0.0198 0.0020 0.0128 0.0373 0.0287

Table 5.5 Marginal effects of trip satisfaction model for reference tourist

172% 142%

Satisf 7/10 101% 83% p(2) 0.0488 0.0414 0.0240 0.0252 0.0255 0.0251 0.0121 0.0264 0.0312 0.0280 0.0211 0.0165 0.0084 0.0280 0.0277 0.0054 0.0250 0.0098 0.0249 0.0029 0.0180 0.0455 0.0380 179% 156%

Satisf 8/10 111% 88% p(3) 0.0422 0.0372 0.0191 0.0205 0.0207 0.0152 0.0092 0.0175 0.0265 0.0199 0.0153 0.0128 0.0057 0.0231 0.0199 0.0037 0.0209 0.0064 0.0197 0.0020 0.0126 0.0369 0.0283 178% 148%

69%

Satisf 9/10 105% 87% p(4) 0.0636 0.0544 0.0305 0.0321 0.0325 0.0309 0.0152 0.0326 0.0403 0.0349 0.0263 0.0208 0.0104 0.0359 0.0345 0.0067 0.0321 0.0121 0.0316 0.0036 0.0224 0.0583 0.0478

(continued)

173% 149%

67%

55%

64%

110%

Satisf 10/10 105% 84%

5 Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty 87

Activities developed

Year of visit (2007)

Region of visit (Valencia)

Mean of transport for traveling (plane)

Duration of stay (long stay)

Accommodation (second-home)

Table 5.5 (continued)

p(0) Hotel 0.0081 Rent_apartmt 0.0031 Camping_others 0.0051 Sstay 0.0086 Mstay 0.0034 Own_car 0.0080 Rent_car 0.0131 Other 0.0012 Andalusia 0.0424 Balearic 0.0345 Catalonia 0.0238 Murcia 0.0208 y2004 0.0043 y2005 0.0042 y2006 0.0044 y2008 0.0011 y2009 0.0012 Sports 0.0043 Cultural 0.0003 Amenities 0.0018 Gastronomy 0.0032 Daily trips 0.0026 Family visits 0.0034 78%

76%

86% 42%

368% 291% 187% 158%

122% 172%

Satisf 1–6/10 p(1) 0.0251 0.0097 0.0155 0.0261 0.0104 0.0255 0.0433 0.0040 0.1138 0.0940 0.0717 0.0586 0.0132 0.0130 0.0136 0.0035 0.0038 0.0137 0.0012 0.0057 0.0097 0.0082 0.0109 82%

64% 78%

91%

343% 276% 200% 155%

131% 192%

Satisf 7/10 p(2) 0.0350 0.0128 0.0196 0.0318 0.0141 0.0394 0.0856 0.0058 0.0885 0.0749 0.0916 0.0519 0.0172 0.0170 0.0178 0.0048 0.0055 0.0209 0.0017 0.0081 0.0128 0.0115 0.0163 89%

64% 78%

103%

233% 191% 242% 120%

160% 302%

Satisf 8/10 68% p(3) 0.0246 0.0096 0.0154 0.0259 0.0103 0.0244 0.0349 0.0039 0.1069 0.0898 0.0686 0.0574 0.0131 0.0129 0.0135 0.0034 0.00380 0.0133 0.0011 0.0056 0.0097 0.0081 0.0106 84%

66% 81%

94%

337% 275% 200% 159%

134% 171%

Satisf 9/10 p(4) 0.0436 0.0161 0.0248 0.0406 0.0176 0.0486 0.1071 0.00719 0.1378 0.1137 0.1185 0.0740 0.0216 0.0214 0.0224 0.0060 0.0069 0.0258 0.0021 0.0101 0.0161 0.0143 0.0201

86%

63% 77%

99%

275% 220% 231% 129%

151% 284%

Satisf 10/10

88 A. Artal-Tur and N. Sánchez-Casado

Fig. 5.1 Marginal effects of trip satisfaction model for reference tourist in intervals with higher levels of satisfaction (p3 and p4)

5 Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty 89

90

4.2

A. Artal-Tur and N. Sánchez-Casado

Destination Loyalty of Tourists and its Relationship with Overall Trip Satisfaction

In this section the factors leading destination loyalty of tourists are identified. As recommended by literature, we employ a definition of loyalty building on behavioural actions of tourists instead of attitudinal future actions (Oom do Valle et al. 2006). Then, the measure for destination loyalty builds on the question which asks for tourists about the number of times they have revisited the same destination previously. The dependent variable has been recoded and originally defined for an interval of numbers. Table 5.6 includes information on the distribution of the loyalty variable, with a high percentage of visitors showing high levels of loyalty to destination, as the 41% of tourists have revisited the destination 10 times or more for holiday purposes. On the contrary, just the 15% of tourists was visiting the destination for the first time. We run again an ordered logit model, with a similar set of explanatory variables than in the satisfaction equation but also adding the overall trip satisfaction as a new variable to see how it influences on the destination loyalty. Results are presented in Table 5.7. The model is significant, as well as every single variable. All fitting intervals of the model (cuts) and satisfaction dummies are significant too. Table 5.8 shows marginal effects for the loyalty equation, remarking the special role of some variables: tourist’s origin and culture, age, having a secondhome, destination characteristics and the overall trip satisfaction. All these are key findings in understanding the destination loyalty. First, the age of the tourist appears to be highly correlated with the probability of revisiting a destination. Second, tourist’s origin and culture is also a crucial issue on revisiting behaviour; in this regard tourism flows seems to be clearly driven by the concept of proximity and the distance to destination plays a special role. Third, the concept of attachment to destination appears to be roughly captured by the tourist choice of having a secondhome, what in turn considerably promotes loyalty as shown. In contrast, visitors coming to hotels do not seem to develop such a feeling, being low repeaters, although to a lesser extent than tourists in rent apartments and doing camping. Fourth, destination characteristics also play a key role in the destination loyalty of tourists, particularly for some locations in the sample. For instance, while Balearic Islands promote a high level of destination loyalty on tourists, Catalonia does not. Nevertheless, this latter attracts a lot of tourists per year (14 million in 2011,

Table 5.6 Distribution of the recoded “tourists’ loyalty” variable

Original scale 0 1–3 4–9 10 or more

Recoded variable 0 1 2 3 Total

Source: Data processed by authors

Obsv. 19,466 25,506 27,994 51,444 124,410

Freq. 15.65 20.50 22.50 41.35 100.00

5 Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty

91

Table 5.7 Ordered logit results of loyalty model for reference tourist Variable Country of residence (UK)

Set of dummies France Benelux Germany Italy Rest_of_EU America Rest_of_World Gender (female) Male Age Less24 (65 years or more) Bt25–44 Bt45–64 Income_level Low (medium) High Level of studies Primary (higher than secondary) Secondary Employment Retired (employed) No_job Student Company through the visit Alone (family) Friends Couple Is this a Package tour? Did you plan the trip by Internet? using the Accommodation Hotel (second-home) Rent_apartmt Camping_other Region of visit Andalusia (Valencia) Balearic Catalonia Murcia Year of visit y2004 (2007) y2005 y2006 y2008 y2009 Activities developed Sports Culture Amenities Gastronomy Daily trips Family visits

Coeff. 0.0890 0.1595 0.0688 0.7745 0.3584 2.1878 2.0485 0.1059 1.5952 1.0086 0.3810 0.1723 0.1475 0.1494 0.0353 0.3409 0.4508 0.2222 0.0812 0.0033 0.1596 0.8451 0.0261

Std. err. 0.0214 0.0197 0.0175 0.0217 0.0205 0.0338 0.0638 0.0120 0.0416 0.0319 0.0300 0.0275 0.0140 0.0251 0.0125 0.0264 0.0751 0.0322 0.0203 0.0207 0.0150 0.0211 0.0139

4.16 8.10 3.92 35.55 17.42 64.59 32.08 8.76 38.30 31.56 12.70 6.25 10.47 5.95 2.81 12.90 6.00 6.90 4.00 0.16 10.62 40.03 1.88

P > |z| 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.871 0.000 0.000 0.060

1.4540 1.2550 1.6706 0.0454 0.4865 0.4681 0.1910 0.0023 0.0729 0.0204 0.0457 0.1023 0.1207 0.6496 0.0910 0.1228 0.1752 0.0476

0.0154 0.0224 0.0264 0.0201 0.0212 0.0184 0.0428 0.0197 0.0182 0.0172 0.0167 0.0220 0.0179 0.0129 0.0123 0.0255 0.0121 0.0197

94.22 55.84 63.15 2.26 22.88 25.39 4.46 0.12 3.99 1.19 2.73 4.65 6.73 50.25 7.35 4.80 14.44 2.42

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.907 0.000 0.236 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016

z

(continued)

92

A. Artal-Tur and N. Sánchez-Casado

Table 5.7 (continued) Variable Tourists’satisfaction (Osat_dumm 0)

N

Set of dummies Osat_dumm 1 Osat_dumm 2 Osat_dumm 3 Osat_dumm 4 Cut1 Cut2 Cut3 124.410

Wald X2 (45) Prob Pseudo R2

45,161.89 0.0000 0.1704

Coeff. 0.1851 0.3230 0.3855 0.3332 4.8341 3.3492 2.0249 Logpseudolikelihood AIC BIC

Std. err. z P > |z| 0.0338 5.47 0.000 0.0316 10.19 0.000 0.0324 11.87 0.000 0.0330 10.08 0.000 0.0602 80.3 0.000 0.0593 56.4 0.000 0.0587 34.4 0.000 135,811.87 271,719.7 272,186.9

18 million in 2016). Comparing results for the five destinations, destination attributes are important for loyalty, although to a lesser extent than in the case of satisfaction analysis. Fifth, the level of overall trip satisfaction seems to affect destination loyalty. This means that satisfied tourists develop a sense of loyalty to the destination. And sixth, other relevant factors increasing destination loyalty are those of being retired (people with lower time restrictions), coming with couple, having a high level of income, not buying a package tour, and pursuing activities such sports and gastronomy. In this case, the use of the Internet for planning the trip does not seem to play a special role for loyalty issues. Figure 5.2 shows how all variables affect the behavior of tourists for intervals with high levels of destination loyalty (p2 and p3). Distance to destination, age of the tourist, and type of accommodation chosen, clearly emerge as major factors driving the process. Satisfaction level and destination attributes also promote loyalty, although to a lesser extent. To sum up, regarding hypotheses H1b to H5b, culture and origin of tourists are mainly relevant in terms of distance to the destination (H1b); “profile of tourist” is important in terms of age of tourists (time restriction and tourist life cycle) and occupational status (retired) (H2b); “trip characteristics” are important in terms of accommodation employed (second-home) (H3b); “destination characteristics” play an important role in terms of loyalty (i.e. for Balearic Islands, and Andalusia) (H4b) and some activities generate destination loyalty to certain places (gastronomy), while others reduce it (cultural visits) (H5b). Finally, as it was proposed in H6, the level of trip satisfaction influence at a certain extent the destination loyalty of tourists. This allows us to accept H1b to H5b and H6 hypothesis, but from a different point of view than in the satisfaction equation. A summary of the empirical model is included in Table 5.9. Hence, the model of satisfaction and loyalty improves the predictive capacity of an analysis simply based on distributional frequencies. This table is usually computed in ordered logit exercises (Greene and Henser 2012). All in all, the model improves the predictive

Is this a Did you plan the trip by using the Accommodation (second-home)

Company through the visit (family)

Employment (employed)

Level of studies (higher than secondary)

Income_level (medium)

Gender (female) Age (65 years or more)

Country of residence (UK)

France Benelux Germany Italy Rest_of_EU America Rest_of_World Male Less24 Bt25–44 Bt45–64 Low High Primary Secondary Retired No_job Student Alone Friends Couple Package_tour? Internet? Hotel Rent_apartmt Camping_other

p(0) 0.0070 0.0136 0.0057 0.0826 0.0328 0.3636 0.3385 0.0087 0.2195 0.0864 0.0323 0.0149 0.0116 0.0127 0.0028 0.0250 0.0439 0.0195 0.0064 0.0002 0.0129 0.0595 0.0021 0.1248 0.1552 0.2349 96% 130% 218%

201%

362% 334%

0 visits

Table 5.8 Marginal effects of loyalty to destination for reference tourist p(1) 0.0114 0.0207 0.0089 0.0972 0.0466 0.1317 0.1306 0.0137 0.1572 0.1268 0.0493 0.0224 0.0190 0.0194 0.0045 0.0430 0.0584 0.0289 0.0104 0.0004 0.020 0.1035 0.0033 0.1761 0.1418 0.1585 237% 182% 209%

81% 120%

117%

78%

206% 157%

165% 163%

110%

1–3 visits

p(2) 0.0025 0.0025 0.0014 0.0164 0.0015 0.1651 0.1578 0.0024 0.0902 0.0182 0.0067 0.0024 0.0043 0.0024 0.0008 0.0142 0.0029 0.0024 0.0023 0.00008 0.0039 0.0409 0.0006 0.0287 0.0541 0.0984 105% 214%

131%

194% 75%

380% 361%

11%

4–9 visits

p(3) 0.0211 0.0370 0.0161 0.1634 0.0810 0.3301 0.3113 0.0248 0.2865 0.2315 0.0884 0.0398 0.0350 0.0346 0.0083 0.0823 0.0994 0.0510 0.0192 0.0007 0.0376 0.2039 0.0061 0.3296 0.2429 0.2951

(continued)

226% 154% 197%

78% 122%

115%

76%

190% 145%

226% 211%

89%

More than 10

5 Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty 93

Tourists’satisfaction (Osat_dumm 0)

Activities developed

Year of visit (2007)

Region of visit (Valencia)

Table 5.8 (continued)

Andalusia Balearic Catalonia Murcia y2004 y2005 y2006 y2008 y2009 Sports Cultural Amenities Gastronomy Daily trips Family visits Osat_dumm 1 Osat_dumm 2 Osat_dumm 3 Osat_dumm 4

p(0) 0.0036 0.0344 0.0390 0.0167 0.0001 0.0060 0.0016 0.0037 0.0080 0.0094 0.0499 0.0074 0.0104 0.0144 0.0039 0.0142 0.0255 0.0290 0.0250 59% 72% 76% 71%

82%

0 visits

p(1) 0.0058 0.0606 0.0603 0.0249 0.0002 0.0094 0.0026 0.0059 0.0131 0.0155 0.0820 0.0118 0.0159 0.0227 0.0061 0.0236 0.0414 0.0489 0.0423 86% 114% 126% 116%

85%

145% 50%

1–3 visits

p(2) 0.0012 0.0230 0.0098 0.0023 0.00005 0.0015 0.0005 0.0010 0.0031 0.0037 0.0226 0.0021 0.0021 0.0040 0.0010 0.0064 0.0097 0.0146 0.0126 14% 6% 7% 2%

27%

4–9 visits

p(3) 0.0107 0.1181 0.1092 0.0439 0.0005 0.0170 0.0048 0.0107 0.0243 0.0287 0.1546 0.0214 0.0285 0.0411 0.0111 0.0443 0.0766 0.0925 0.0800 83% 110% 123% 113%

70%

70% 81%

144% 44%

More than 10

94 A. Artal-Tur and N. Sánchez-Casado

Fig. 5.2 Marginal effects of loyalty model for reference tourist in intervals with higher levels of loyalty (p2 and p3)

-0,3400

-0,2900

-0,2400

-0,1900

-0,1400

-0,0900

-0,0400

0,0100

0,0600

0,1100

France Benelux Germany Italy Rest_of_EU America Rest_of_World male less24 bt2544 bt4564 low high primary secondary rered no_job student alone friends couple package_tour internet hotel rent_apartmt camping_other Andalusia Balearic Catalonia Murcia y2004 y2005 y2006 y2008 y2009 sports cultural amenies gastronomy day_trips family_visits osat_dumm1 osat_dumm2

p(3)

p(2)

osat_dumm3 osat_dumm4

5 Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty

95

96

A. Artal-Tur and N. Sánchez-Casado

Table 5.9 Predictive capacity of the ordered logit model versus data distributional frequencies Satisfaction equation for the average tourist p (0) p (1) p (2) 3.0 11.0 39.2 Prob. (osat ¼ xi) ordered logit Prob. based on frequencies 3.5 12.2 38.4 Change in pred probabilities 14.3% 9.8% 2.1% Loyalty equation for the average tourist p (0) p (1) Prob (loyalty ¼ xi) ordered logit 8.9 21.2 Prob. based on frequencies 15.6 20.5 Change in pred probabilities 43% 3.4%

p (3) 26.9 24.5 9.8% p (2) 31.7 22.5 41%

p (4) 19.8 20.9 5.3% p (3) 38.1 41.3 7.7%

Source: Own elaboration

capacity in both equations, although predictive gains are shown to be higher in the case of the loyalty model.

5 Conclusion This chapter pursues to improve our understanding on factors driving both trip satisfaction of tourists and destination loyalty. Along the research, there have been several contributions regarding previous literature. First, the investigation has built on larger information sets, with more than 120,000 interviews to foreign tourists visiting the Spanish Mediterranean area. Second, we have pursued a comprehensive approach to the issue, enlarging the set of explanatory factors playing a relevant role in this context. It includes information on tourists’ profiles, trip characteristics, and those of the destination visited. Third, we have applied ordered logit models through the estimation procedure, quantitatively identifying the contribution of every covariate in that setting. All these contributions have improved the robustness and quality of the analysis, extending the traditional framework of this type of studies. On one hand, results of the investigation have shown how perceptions of the overall trip satisfaction are closely related to the idiosyncrasy of the destination, and that of the particular profile of tourists. Destination characteristics (H4a) and trip characteristics (H3a) appear to be of major relevance in leading satisfaction. In this way, destinations attributes and destination image are key factors influencing customers’ satisfaction. Management of destinations continues to be of paramount importance, with robust fixed effects at the level of destination appearing in data once controlled for the rest of factors in the model. The role of information about the holiday experience emerges as a crucial variable influencing tourists’ satisfaction. Internet, packages, and any tool in the tourism market that could help in realizing tourists’ expectations would surely result in higher levels of satisfaction of customers. Actually, Internet communication technologies or applications and social network sites offer a very fruitful field in

5 Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty

97

this regard, helping to improve knowledge of destination and opportunities of tourists in self-designing their holiday experience. Finally, trip characteristics, tourist’s culture and activities at destinations also appear as relevant variables. Then, both public and private agents in the tourism market should consider them when defining tourism-related policies for the near future. The relationship between trip characteristics and overall trip satisfaction is primarily captured by package tours and the tools such as Internet for planning the trip. Both variables seem to be key elements in reducing uncertainty of the tourist regarding the holiday time, improving the match between expected and obtained experiences during the holiday. In this way, results show how relevant is becoming the Internet and any other tools in choosing some trip characteristics (transport, accommodation, or the destination itself), as well as the role played by tour-operators in providing reliable products for holiday consumers. Both relevant issues of the current tourism market allow handling with the risk-aversion implicit in the holiday choice, clearly reducing the searching time for it. They also provide opportunities of cost-saving for the tourist. In this way, they clearly promote higher trip satisfaction levels. Another variable influencing level of satisfaction is arriving by car. Given that tourists arriving by car mainly come from neighbouring countries of Portugal and France, it seems that such a result is also related to the level of knowledge or familiarity of tourists with the destination and related holiday experience, in line with previous results. These results reinforce main findings of the literature, where satisfaction analysis is addressed by focusing on destination image and attributes, and service quality approaches. In addition, we have also found that all information reducing uncertainty about the trip (internet, packages, proximity) clearly increases the level of overall trip satisfaction declared by tourists. Trip characteristics and activities also seem to play a role for satisfaction, although to a minor extent. In conclusion, the management of all these factors would afford for higher levels of satisfaction of tourists, achieving better performance of destinations. On the other hand, main factors influencing destination loyalty are those of tourist’s origin and culture, profile, trip characteristics (type of accommodation) and activities. Results have clear implications for destination management in terms of destination loyalty of tourists. The promotion of short-distance travels, focusing on products for older groups of tourists, and developing residential tourism patterns (second-home and holiday homes’ product), would result in higher levels of loyalty of visitors. Ensuring significant levels of visitors’ satisfaction is also important for promoting levels of loyalty, but to a lesser extent. Taking care of destination characteristics, attributes and image, is also relevant in influencing the loyalty behaviour of tourists. Finally, the feeling of place attachment appears to be one of the leading variables influencing loyalty behaviour of tourists, with gastronomy clearly promoting that feeling in the Mediterranean region. In this case the concept of “place attachment” transcends those of “place attributes and image”, which are more closely related to the issue of tourist’s satisfaction. In sum, we can observe the differences between factors influencing satisfaction and loyalty behaviour of tourists, concepts traditionally linked in the literature, but clearly different in essence as we have seen.

98

A. Artal-Tur and N. Sánchez-Casado

Distance to destination (transport costs, cultural distance), age of the tourist (time restrictions, familiarity with destination), and those variables capturing a sense of attachment to the place (property of a second-home, preference for some destinations) appear to be first order factors for destination loyalty. Particular destinations create higher attachment feelings than others, although this variable does not appear to be as relevant as in the case of satisfaction. Furthermore, satisfaction influences loyalty, although it doesn’t seem to show the same explanatory power than previous variables. Although the use of tools such as Internet and package tours is not promoting destination loyalty, they seem to encourage tourists to explore new ones. In general, the framework employed in the analysis of satisfaction and loyalty of tourists has improved our knowledge on factors affecting both relevant issues for tourism destination management. It has allowed to disentangling which are the main factors driving every process, while controlling for additional variables not included in previous studies. Our approach has also relied on a quantitative and rigorous methodology of analysis, showing important differences between factors driving satisfaction and loyalty behaviour of tourists. In policy terms interesting findings emerge from the empirical analysis. The promotion of arrivals of certain collectives would have important effects on loyalty and satisfaction of visitors. For example, attracting older tourists would improve loyalty of visitors. However, promoting the arrival of younger tourists (less than 45 years old) would lead to new first-comers, this being a representative group in today’s worldwide tourists (more than 50% of our sample), with increasing free time and resources to spend. Focusing on more distant visitors, such as American and Asian citizens, would also improve the average trip satisfaction of tourists, although with a declining probability of revisiting the destination. Of course long-run policy recommendations must be addressing the central issues of improving destinations’ image, attributes, and in general the quality level of supplies, in order to affect tourists’ satisfaction. A closer focus on visitor’s profiles, trip characteristics, and more generally on specialisation pattern characterising tourism destinations (tourism product, residential homes), would surely provide important guidelines for destination managers in terms of loyalty issues. Finally, an interesting finding of the investigation remarks the role of Internet and Tour-operators in improving tourists’ satisfaction and loyalty, an interesting issue that deserves more attention in future investigations.

References Alegre, J., & Juaneda, C. (2006). Destination loyalty: Consumer’s economic behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3), 684–706. Almeida-Santana, A., & Moreno-Gil, S. (2016). New trends in information search and their influence on destination loyalty: Digital destinations and relationship marketing. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 6(2), 150–161. Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657–681.

5 Exploring Tourist Satisfaction and Destination Loyalty

99

Chen, C., & Tsai, D. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions. Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115–1122. Correia, A., Oom do Valle, P., & Moço, C. (2005). Modeling motivations and perceptions of Portuguese tourists. Journal of Business Research, 60, 76–80. de Menezes, A. G., Cabral, J., & Carvalho, J. (2009). Assesing tourist satisfaction in the Azores: A microeconometric approach. European Journal of Tourism Research, 2(1), 91–122. Geng-Quin Chi, C., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the structural relationships of destination image, tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: An integrated approach. Tourism Management, 28, 624–636. Greene, W. H., & Henser, D. A. (2012). Modeling ordered choices: A primer. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hallowell, R. (1996). The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability: An empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7, 27–42. Huang, H., Chiu, C., & Kuo, C. (2006). Exploring customer satisfaction, trust and destination loyalty in tourism. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 10(1), 156–159. Kani, Y., Abdul Aziz, Y., Sambasivan, M., & Bojei, J. (2017). Antecedents and outcomes of destination image of Malaysia. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 32, 89–98. Kotler, P. (1994). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation and control (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International. Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (1999). Measuring tourist destination competitiveness: Conceptual considerations and empirical findings. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18, 273–283. Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38(1), 260–269. Lundberg, E. (2017). The importance of tourism impacts for different local resident groups: A case study of a Swedish seaside destination. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 6 (1), 46–55. Miragaia, D., Conde, D., & Soares, J. (2016). Measuring service quality of ski resorts: An approach to identify the consumer profile. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 9(Suppl-1, M7), 53–61. Murphy, P., Pritchard, M. P., & Smith, B. (2000). The destination product and its impact on traveller perceptions. Tourism Management, 21(1), 43–52. Oliver, R. L. (2010). Satisfaction: A behavioural perspective of consumer (2nd ed.). New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc. Oom do Valle, P., Silva, J. A., Mendes, J., & Guerreiro, M. (2006). Tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty intention: A structural and categorical analysis. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 1(1), 25–44. Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 78–84. Pabel, A., Prideaux, B., & Thompson, M. (2017). Tourists’ preferences with Indigenous tourism experiences in the Wet Tropics of Queensland, Australia. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31, 142–151. Ryan, C., & Huyton, J. (2002). Tourists and aboriginal people. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 631–647. Schofield, P. (2000). Evaluating Castlefield Urban Heritage Park from the consumer perspective: Destination attribute importance, visitor perception, and satisfaction. Tourism Analysis, 5(2–4), 183–189. Stylos, N., Bellou, V., Andronikidis, A., & Vassiliadis, C. A. (2017). Linking the dots among destination images, place attachment, and revisit intentions: A study among British and Russian tourists. Tourism Management, 60, 15–29. Tongue, J., & Moore, S. A. (2007). Importance-satisfaction analysis for marine park hinterlands: A Western Australian case study. Tourism Management, 28, 768–776. UNWTO. (2016). Tourism highlights 2016 edition. Madrid: World Tourism Organization. Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., & Bilim, Y. (2010). Destination attachment: Effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tourism Management, 31, 274–284. Zabkar, V., Brencic, M. M., & Dmitrovic, T. (2010). Modeling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and behavioural intentions at the destination level. Tourism Management, 31, 537–546.

Chapter 6

Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations Angela Tritto and Nicole Chang Shu Fun

Abstract In managing World Heritage Sites, collaborations among stakeholders are essential to concretise projects aimed at sustaining heritage preservation practices. The case of George Town World Heritage Site (GTWHS) in the State of Penang, Malaysia, is emblematic of this intricate set of partnerships and collaborations, which link civil society groups to government agencies. This study examines the role played by each group of stakeholders in creating and sustaining the winning coalitions and the long-term viability of projects in the context of heritage preservation. It uses a two-step analysis using Schmeer’s stakeholder analysis table and Eden & Ackermann’s Power/Interest grid to explore the ties between George Town World Heritage Incorporated (GTWHI), the main body responsible for heritage management, and other governmental and civil society groups. Results show a dominant role of governmental and hybrid institutions in driving these collaborations and a lack of representation of the actual voice from residents and interest groups.

1 Introduction The question of rehabilitating and adequately preserving old inner-city centres in the face of globalisation and rapid economic development has fascinated scholars since the 1990s (Chang et al. 1996; Lee 1996; Steinberg 1996). In his study, Steinberg noted the importance of linking urban heritage and sustainability. He studied “the built environment and built expressions of culture, of military, economic and religious powers and forces” that form national heritage as a preservable asset that can benefit the present and the future of cities not only culturally, but also for economic purposes. Over the years, many studies have looked at urban A. Tritto (*) The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, People’s Republic of China e-mail: [email protected] N. C. S. Fun Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_6

101

102

A. Tritto and N. C. S. Fun

development, place-making initiatives, tourism development strategies, governance and conservation policies that are applicable to historical cities (see Licciardi and Amirtahmasebi 2012). The context of Asia is characterised by “Place-wars” among cities to lure foreign investments (Yeoh 2005), and by other issues, among which the concern for lack of civil society involvement in the main discourse on development versus conservation (Winter and Daly 2012). By looking at the case of George Town World Heritage Site (GTWHS), which has often been praised for the vocal role of civil society and community groups (Cheng et al. 2014; Goh 2014; Jenkins 2008; Zabielskis 2008), this study seeks to provide an analysis of project collaborations undertaken by GTWHI—the leading authority in charge of heritage preservation in GTWHS.

2 Stakeholders’ Collaboration for Sustainability of a World Heritage Site “No one business or government establishment can operate in isolation” (Gunn 1988, p. 272). More so in the case of World Heritage Sites (WHS). From the process of inscription (Van der Aa et al. 2004), to the planning of tourism activities (Jamal and Getz 1995; Reed 1997; Sautter and Leisen 1999), and management of the site (Aas et al. 2005; Millar 2006; Wilson and Boyle 2006), scholars have extensively documented and analysed a variety of collaborative approaches. In fact, the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO 1998) suggest that “a partnership approach to nomination, management, and monitoring [. . .] of World Heritage properties and the implementation of the Convention” would provide a significant contribution towards the overall goal of an effective conservation. Several studies have analysed and documented cooperation, collaborations, and partnerships in sustainable tourism planning and heritage management. In his manual for managing tourism at WHS, Pedersen (2002, p. 37) claims, “Any sustainable tourism programme must work in concert with stakeholders, or interested parties, including government agencies, conservation, and other non-governmental organisations, developers and local communities.” This participation is “paramount” to prevent conflicts; however, knowledge is an “essential prerequisite for effective public participation” (Pedersen 2002, p. 37). In practice, scholars have noted the great challenge in achieving these collaborative approaches (Jamal and Getz 1995; Aas et al. 2005). The idealistic rhetoric of bringing concepts such as world ownership and Outstanding Universal Values to the reality of the local context, where the WHS status has usually brought indiscriminate mass tourism, lack of authenticity, loss of traditional values among other adverse impacts, can be very problematic (Millar 2006). In this scenario that characterises post-modern heritage, Nuryanti (1996) depicts the tensions between tradition and modernity in which conservationists must compromise the preservation of historic structures with the needs of the local communities that inhabit them, and who constitute an essential component of

6 Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations

103

the heritage. Aas et al. (2005) highlighted the importance of finding common ground between the different interests of stakeholders in order to benefit all parties, and to have an open dialogue. However, they point out two essential issues: whether the stakeholders involved represent the local community(ies); and how to define it (them)—geographically, or by shared origins and ethnicity. These points are crucial for the case of GTWHS, which encompasses a variety of ethnic communities that share the same geographical proximity. Borges et al. (2011) remarked that it is not easy to determine who in the community needs to be involved, and what degree of involvement is required. Consultations exercises tend to be perceived as costly and time-consuming. Nevertheless, the engagement needs to be regular and comprehensive. Their study noted a weak link between the private sector and the heritage managers, despite the benefit that would arise from a collaboration with the local entrepreneurial community. One final remark needs to address a seldom-investigated issue in Asian heritage cities: development. Winter and Daly (2012) pointed out that Asian cities present a variety of modes in which conservation and development coexist. Since the late 1990s, the cultural and creative industries took a dominant role in leading urban regeneration of historical and industrial areas of cities (Kong and O’Connor 2009). However, development has also brought much homogenisation of landscapes, especially in cities where skyscrapers and other mega architecture have been promoted for urban placemaking (Winter and Daly 2012). On top of this, three main trends distinguish Asia’s situation. First are the unbalanced levels of developments, accompanied by fast changes in wealth accumulations. Second is the trend in land speculation, which leads to skyrocketing land prices, as well as the common sell-off of government land, which often results in the disappearance of historical buildings, forests, nature reserves, archaeological sites and villages to give way to new developments. Finally, the authors have also observed, especially in countries dominated by central planning and single-party politics a predilection for master plans and mega-projects (Winter and Daly 2012, p. 16).

3 George Town World Heritage Site (GTWHS) Situated in the northern region of the Malaysian Peninsula, George Town occupies the north-eastern corner of Penang Island (Pulau Pinang) which, together with Seberang Perai, the area on the mainland, forms the State of Penang. The latter is the second largest metropolitan area in Malaysia with an overall population of 2,251,792. The inner city, which encompasses the heritage zone, has a population of 510,996 as of 2010 (DSM 2011). George Town’s unique heritage value is threefold. First, it represents a remarkable example of multi-cultural trading centre in East and Southeast Asia, shaped by the trades and civilization exchanges of Malay, Chinese, Indian and European cultures (criteria ii). Second, it represents a living testimony of the multi-cultural heritage and tradition of Asia, in both of its tangible and intangible forms—with

104

A. Tritto and N. C. S. Fun

particular reference to the coexistence of different religious cults (criteria iii). Third, with its largest collection of shophouses and townhouses, endowed with outstanding architectural features, George Town’s unique architecture, culture and townscape reflect the mixture of autochthonous cultural elements with those from India, China and Europe (criteria iv, see Malaysia State Government 2008). These three aspects combined form the Outstanding Universal Value for which George Town was nominated as a WHS by UNESCO.

3.1

Birth of NGO Conservation Movement and Process of Inscription

The heritage conservation movement started after the development of KOMTAR (i.e., a 65 storey tower that envisioned to become the Penang New Urban Centre, as part of the 1970 Penang Master Plan) in 1974. Ironically, the very architect that designed this building initiated it (Jenkins and King 2003). Referring to Fig. 6.1, KOMTAR took the place of several shophouses and other low-rise buildings, which were forcibly purchased by the Municipal Council, and inevitably changed the landscape of the inner city by dividing its inner core.

Fig. 6.1 Zoning of George Town’s inner city in 1996. Source: Jenkins and King 2003

6 Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations

105

The silver lining of this was the establishment of the first Conservation Plan and zoning, which were published in the official gazette in 1974. This, together with the Rent Control Act (1966–1997) that protected the tenants of 8259 premises in the heart of George Town (Nadarajah 2007), prevented further large-scale interventions in the inner city. However, the repeal of the Act led to a series of evictions that left many buildings vacant and irremediably eroded the intricate set of relationships that characterised the various mercantile communities (Jenkins 2008). In 1986, the said architect founded the first non-governmental organization that sought to safeguard the tangible and intangible heritage of Penang, namely the Penang Heritage Trust (PHT). From its early days, the composition of this organisation was primarily of upper middle class people from the Chinese and Malay community, as well as academicians, and retired expatriates (Jenkins 2008; Loh-Lim 2011). This organization aimed to bring heritage to the public agenda (Cheng et al. 2014), also by seeking international recognition by UNESCO (Nadarajah 2007). The first collaborations happened right away in 1986. It was among PHT, PAM— the northern chapter of the Professional Architect’s Association, the Planning Department of the Municipal Council, and a small group of residents to organize an International Conference on Urban Conservation and Planning. The aim of the conference was to open a dialogue and generate awareness on conservation issues, and resulted in the formal adoption of the Town and Country Planning Act in 1976 (Jenkins and King 2003). The establishment of the Structure Plan Unit (SPU) ensued. This entity prepared the Draft Structure Plan, which was published in the official gazette in 1989 and revised in 1996 by adding a new conservation area (Jenkins and King 2003; see Fig. 6.1). Meanwhile, the situation in other parts of Malaysia had evolved in parallel. A group of concerned professionals in Kuala Lumpur (Loh 2011) formed Badan Warisan Malaysia (BWM), also known as the Heritage Trust of Malaysia, in 1983. The federal and state government attempts to inscribe Melaka in the World Heritage List had started since the late 1980s but had yet to achieve a positive outcome (Cheng et al. 2014). After failed attempts in Melaka, civil society efforts spearheaded by PHT, which invited a UNESCO mission in 1997 to evaluate George Town’s suitability, led the Federal Government to envision a joint nomination. Loh-Lim (2011) described this as a bottom-up process in which the voice of public advocacy made remarkable impacts among politicians, set conservation benchmarks, and allowed conservation awareness to diffuse among the public. The concerted efforts for the nomination as WHS concretised in 2008. In the following years, PHT continued to promote awareness-raising initiatives and contributed to the drafting of critical studies and guidelines by voicing the opinion of civil society to the state government. Examples of these initiatives include the Penang Heritage Guidelines (Loh-Lim 2011) and the Inventory of Intangible Heritage. This vocal and robust role, however, gave rise, over the years, to a ‘love-hate’ relationship characterized by the ‘interplay of fight and talk’ between state and civil society (Cheng et al. 2014). Recent years have also seen the appearance of other conservation-related groups, such as CHANT and the George Town Heritage Action (GTHA), whose relationship is similar. These organizations are characterised by the

106

A. Tritto and N. C. S. Fun

use of social media as primary vehicle to advocate their views on development projects and report breaches in conservation practices.

3.2

Formation of Hybrid Institutions for Heritage Preservation

The status of WHS provided a new impetus for urban renewal in George Town. Several new organisations were formed to assist, represent, or support government efforts in this new phase. One example is George Town World Heritage Incorporated (GTWHI), registered as a company but set up by the Penang State Government “to manage the site by working together with all the stakeholders” (GTWHI 2014). Its role includes active cooperation and collaborations with the federal, state, and local government as well as several non-governmental organisations and community groups, aimed at the management, monitoring, promotion, and execution of heritagerelated activities (GTWHI 2014). Since its establishment, GTWHI has had three changes of leadership. An interview with the newest appointed general manager revealed the advantages of this ‘hybrid’ formula (i.e. being an independent entity funded by the Penang State Government): “we have the government resources, its trust, a good degree of freedom and political will to push things ahead if we need to, along with financial resources”. As Badaruddin et al. (2012) noted, since its establishment, GTWHI has proved to be a high-performing organization, which brought several innovative projects to completion. Some examples include a greening programme to improve the streetscape and walkability of the area within Armenian Park, Acheh Street, and Armenian Street; and a way-finding system to beautify and standardise the signage and interpretation contents for landmarks within the WHS. Both projects were undertaken through collaborations with several stakeholders, among which Think City Sdn. Bhd. The latter, like GTWHI, is another example of a hybrid institution that has contributed to heritage preservation and urban renewal in GTWHS. Established in 2009 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Khazanah Nasional Berhad—the strategic investment fund of the government of Malaysia, Think City has promoted projects that brought together different levels of government, international agencies, local experts, community and civil society groups to enhance local capacity building. Since their establishment, the two agencies have been at the centre of George Town’s heritage and urban renewal debate.

4 Methodology This study looks at stakeholder collaboration in the management of GTWHS by taking GTWHI as the unit of analysis, and examines the ties of this organisation with other governmental institutions, civil society, and resident groups. By selecting two projects initiated by GTWHI (i.e. the set-up of Integrated Heritage Database System and the regulation of public art by the Public Arts Review Panel), this study aims to

6 Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations

107

identify, categorise, and analyse the involvement of different stakeholders groups. The research uses qualitative data collected through interviews and a public forum and secondary information compiled through desk review. This study defines stakeholder as an actor, in the form of a group or an individual, who can affect or be affected along the process of achieving the strategic goals/ objectives of the two selected projects (Freeman 1984; Nutt and Backoff 1992; Johnson and Scholes 2002). Each individual or group that has power or influence to respond, negotiate with, cause an impact or consequence on the selected projects is taken into consideration by the analysis (Eden and Ackermann 1998; Lewis 1991; Mitchell et al. 1997). As mentioned by Wood and Gray (1991), although in a collaboration process decisions are made jointly on a consensus basis, stakeholders are autonomous as they retain their independent decision-making powers while abiding by shared rules within the collaborative alliance. This study looks at the role played by each group of stakeholders in creating and sustaining the winning coalitions and the long-term viability of the project (Bryson and Crosby 1992; Van Schendelen 2002) towards the overall goal of GTWHS’s sustainability. The analytical framework is an adaptation of Schmeer’s stakeholder analysis table (1999) and Eden and Ackermann’s Power/Interest grid (1998, p. 122). The first table identifies the characteristics of stakeholders involved in each project following Schmeer’s classifications, as shown in Table 6.1. Each column reflects the stakeholders’ features by employing categories, levels, or rankings, as per below definitions. 1. Internal/External: Internal stakeholders work within the project; all other stakeholders are External. 2. Knowledge of Project: According to the levels of knowledge that each stakeholder has about the project (i.e., the setting up of IHDS/PARP), each stakeholder is ranked as having (1) a low or no knowledge; (2) medium; and (3) high level of knowledge. 3. Position: This column identifies the stakeholders who agree (Supporter); disagree (Opponent), or have a neutral position toward the project. 4. Interest: The motivation that drives the stakeholder’s involvement/engagement in the project is identified and categorised as having little direct interest (LDI); for the sake of fulfilling duty, such as consultancy mandate (DF); directly benefitting from the project (DB); having disadvantage or loss due to the project implementation (DA) and to be in line with the stakeholder’s organisational mission (OM). Subsequently, based on the level of importance/influence of the motivation that leads the stakeholder’s involvement in the project, each stakeholder is ranked as having a (1) low; (2) medium; or high level of interest (3). 5. Resources: This column lists out the different kind of resources that each stakeholder has, ranging from the financial (F); technological (T); knowledge/skills (K); workforce (W); and political (P). When a stakeholder has no applicable resources for the project, NA is applied. 6. Power: The level of power or ability of the stakeholder that affect the success of the project is measured as little (L), medium (M); and high (H) based on the consideration of the amount or ranges of resources a stakeholder has as well as his/her capacity to mobilize those resources for or against the project.

Stakeholder Stakeholder A Stakeholder B

Internal/ External I: Internal E: External

Knowledge of project 1. Low/None 2. Medium 3. High Position S: Supporter O: Opponent N: Neutral

Table 6.1 Framework for stakeholder analysis table Interest 1. Low (LDI-Little direct interest) 2. Medium (DF-Duty fulfilling) 3. High (DB-Direct benefit; DA-Disadvantage; OM-Organisational mission)

Resources F: Financial T: Technological K: Knowledge W: Workforce P: Political NA: Not applicable

Power 1. Little 2. Medium 3. High

Leadership Yes/No

108 A. Tritto and N. C. S. Fun

6 Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations

109

7. Leadership: According to the stakeholder’s willingness to initiate, convoke or lead action for or against the project, a remark of either “Yes” or “No” is applied. Based on the information filled in the stakeholder analysis table, further analysis is carried out using the Power/Interest grid to determine the stakeholders’ roles. Roles include players (who have both an interest and significant power); subjects (who have an interest but little power); context setters (who have power but indirect interest) and crowd (which consists of stakeholders with little interest or power).

5 Results This section outlines the two case studies of projects initiated by GTWHI. The first case examines the collaboration among stakeholders for the development of the Integrated Heritage Database System, aimed at improving the management of information in GTWHS. The second case investigates collaborations in regulating public artworks around GTWHS through the Public Art Review Panel.

5.1

The Setup of Integrated Heritage Database System (IHDS)

The uptake of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology in Malaysia was initiated by the Department of Survey and Mapping of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment. In the mid-1980s, the department established the Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) and the National Topographic Database (PeGIS 2015). The first national and state-led initiatives that followed were George Town’s and Malacca’s. In the 1990s, the Building or Planning Departments of these two states started the implementation of GIS software to document land use and maintain building records. In 1992, Penang became the first State in Malaysia to embark on a GIS project covering the entire State territory. The pilot project, which was then handed over to the Penang State Government, was known as PeGIS (Penang Geographic Information System), and subsequently became a corporate body under the control of the Penang Development Corporation that up to recent days offers GIS-related services (PeGIS 2015). The use of GIS technologies to facilitate the management of the newly nominated GTWHS started with a pilot project in 2009. The mastermind behind the project was the first manager of GTWHI, who was the former director of the Department of Planning and Development in the Municipal Council of Penang. Throughout her former experience in the Municipal Council she had already started to implement

110

A. Tritto and N. C. S. Fun

GIS software to map George Town; hence, the idea of utilising the system to manage the WHS came from her extensive background in urban planning. During Phase I, three main stakeholders collaborated with GTWHI to assist with the required expertise: PeGIS, the Penang Town and Country Planning Department (JPBD), and the Department of Municipal Services (JPP). Local NGOs and GIS experts from the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) were employed to conceptualise Phase II, adding primary data and knowledge into the system, which was then verified and complemented with additional information gathered on site. A prototype was realised in a very short time by using the available resources from PeGIS, which contributed with the technology, its server, and software. The Municipal Council and JPBD provided data such as planning permissions and zoning plans (Lee 2010). One year after Phase I, in 2010, the municipal council obtained financial support from the State government to initiate the Integrated Heritage Database System. The project was led by GTWHI in collaboration with PeGIS, JPBD, a local expert from USM, and several municipal departments, meant to be the primary users of the platform. ArcGIS geodatabase software was used to input information on both tangible and intangible heritage in the form of different layers. For the tangible heritage part, the system differentiated into 82 categories of buildings. An independent consultant created an online platform to allow different users to monitor information such as the state of dilapidated building, granted permits, ownership of the building, and building plans. The database also allowed some analytical functions, such as overviews of how many buildings are in a precarious state, or the ownership status (see Fig. 6.2). Information on the buildings were gathered from the archives and satellite images of the years 1997, 2004, 2007, 2012 and 2015. “Building IDs” were created to organise the variety of data, which could be scattered across different documents and could be relevant to more than one building. The building identification system allowed storing information from different departments under the same file—including intangible heritage-related data, such as traditional arts and trade activities. Through a separate collaborative project funded by the Penang State Government, GTWHI, PHT, and other experts from local NGOs collected and combined data to build an Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage in George Town. At the time of research, information on earthworks often used to avoid potential damages to other buildings during construction works was gradually been integrated into the system, while information on infrastructure, such as sewerage lines could not be integrated due to a lack of expertise in the relevant departments. Initially, the IHDS worked through a shared server that connected GTWHI, the departmental servers in the City Council,1 and the public—to which restrictions on the accessibility of certain information and edit functions were applied. In this way, whenever a new note appeared in the system (i.e., someone from the public signals a

1

In 2015, the entire Penang Island, not just George Town, was granted city status by the Malaysian federal government. The former Municipal Council (MPPP) has been upgraded to the Penang Island City Council (MBPP).

6 Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations

111

Fig. 6.2 Penang Heritage Inventory. Function to analyse the number of dilapidated buildings and menu features

building in a dilapidated state), a form was submitted by GTWHI, which in turn updated the system of the Heritage Department in the City Council (MBPP). This system made it easier to check permissions and ownership status, which other departments inputted in the database. One key limitation to the development and functioning of the IHDS was the lack of network infrastructure within the heritage perimeter, which inhibited the installation of a fast internet line. Hence, in 2015, the system was split into two servers: one for the database and the other one to support the traffic generated, both located into KOMTAR. The City Council, the Heritage Department, GTWHI, and the public conduct the monitoring of breaches in heritage regulations. In the process of gathering feedback from the public, interviewees noted how social media such as Facebook and WhatsApp are becoming increasingly important for monitoring heritage and environmental issues. As an example, GTWHI relies on three main Facebook pages of local NGOs and action groups and has established a WhatsApp group called ‘Heritage Alert’ with over one hundred participants.

112

5.2

A. Tritto and N. C. S. Fun

Regulation of Public Art at GTWHS by Setting Up Public Arts Review Panel

Street art started to flourish in Penang since 2012, when the Lithuanian artist Ernest Zacharevic was commissioned to paint ‘Mirrors George Town’, a collection of street murals within the inner city of George Town to portray the local culture and heritage elements. Since then, public art such as sculptures, murals, and street art installations started to proliferate within GTWHS. The Penang State Government’s attitude has always been supportive of creative public artwork, including murals, as one of the attractions for GTWHS’s visitors. However, after the burgeoning artworks threatened to affect the city’s heritage status, a limit had to be set. Following numerous complaints on the quality or substance of the artworks that failed to meet with the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) requirement (Mok 2014; Phuah 2014), in July 2014 the government set up a special committee—the Public Arts Review Panel (PARP). Its role is to regulate and monitor artworks displayed at the public domain within GTWHS (Mok 2014). The panel is “empowered to recommend the removal of any paintings that detract, subtract, and retract from George Town’s tangible and intangible heritage OUV’s” (GTWHI 2015). PARP is chaired by the general manager of GTWHI and comprises members with an art-related background. The members include a private art gallery curator, the director of the Penang State Museum & Art Gallery, the general manager of Penang Global Tourism (the State’s tourism bureau), and three academicians in arts and design from different local institutions of higher education (Claudia 2014). The setting up of this panel requires those who intend to create public artworks in George Town to liaise with GTWHI. An application with the proposed artwork needs to be submitted to GTWHI, which initiates the reviewing process by the panel. The panel meets once every 3 months to deliberate over the submissions. With the panel’s agreement, GTWHI can endorse the proposal and at the same time issue a letter to the applicant, notifying the Heritage Department at the City Council. With the letter, the applicant can proceed to apply for a permit from the said department before beginning his/her work (Claudia 2014). Any public artwork created without the permit is considered illegal. A month after the establishment of the panel, 46 illegal public artworks had been identified and reviewed by the team. They requested the building owners and the artists to remove illegal artworks or legalise artwork that the panel agreed to retain through the standard procedure (Claudia 2014). In this process, both the MBPP and GTWHI shared the same organisational mission: to ensure street and public arts within the heritage site plays its role in protecting George Town’s OUV by representing the city’s cultural heritage identity (Ngui 2014; Organisation of World Heritage Cities 2015). To accomplish this mission, PARP was established to assist GTWHI in the reviewing process. This phase was a prerequisite for GTWHI to advise the Heritage Department on the decision to either reject or issue the permit to the applicants. From this operation flow, two collaborative ties emerge. Firstly, an active collaboration built between

6 Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations

113

GTWHI and the members of PARP. They act as an internal group responsible for executing the inspection, review, and assessment, which subsequently consults GTWHI on the decision-making. Secondly, a partnership formed between GTWHI and MBPP, where GTWHI acts as an external consulting body that advises the Heritage Department in performing the task of permit issuance. To achieve PARP’s objective and to accomplish GTWHI’s and MBPP’s shared-mission, the first collaboration must be successful before the second one starts. The success of the first collaboration strongly depends on the effective partnership among PARP’s members, which include representatives from diverse groups. Few months after the establishment of PARP, controversy arose between the street artists and the local authorities during Malaysia’s first international street art festival—Urban Xchange. Local groups including artists, art associations and societies, the public, GTWHS’s residents, and the heritage conservation proponents (i.e., the individual parties and NGOs) expressed their disapprovals against some of the murals painted around the heritage site during the festival. These groups criticised the murals’ contents by saying they did not reflect Penang’s culture and did not conform to GTWHS’s OUVs (Chin 2015; Loh 2014). The festival was co-organized by a local private art centre (the Hin Bus Depot Art Centre) and a Berlin-based urban art centre (Urban Nation) and featured about 20 murals by local and foreign artists, mainly within George Town’s city. According to PARP’s chairperson, those murals were completed without the panel’s endorsement and the proposals submitted to the panel were still under review. At the Urban Xchange Forum (a public forum held in conjunction with the festival), attendants debated over the practicality of regulating public arts. Those who opposed the regulation included artists and the festival’s curator. Unexpectedly, opposing comments also came from some heritage conservation proponents and a member of the PARP. They argued that art is subjective and regulation on art affects freedom of expression and creativity. However, one of PARP’s chairperson insisted on the need to control illegal public art that is rapidly diffusing within the heritage site to avoid delivering any offensive message to the public. The forum ended with no practical resolution. In early 2015, a news article once again reported about the views from key stakeholders involved. A chairperson of Think City, the president of PHT, and some heritage conservation proponents publicly supported PARP’s mission. They insisted that heritage buildings are delicate and graffiti or street art might interfere with heritage preservation if no careful monitoring and handling are performed (Chin 2015). Conversely, some stakeholders still doubt about the role and function of the panel. Based on a recent interview with a street art project curator in Penang, the procedures involved from the proposal submission up until the permit issuance may take months, due to the infrequent meeting schedule of the panel and to the dual applications required (i.e., first to GTWHI, then to the Heritage Department). He explained that usually, a public art project requires the artist or the curator to act promptly in meeting the pre-planned schedule set together with the clients and the sponsors.

114

A. Tritto and N. C. S. Fun

6 Discussion Based on the above case studies, a two-step analysis is performed below. Tables 6.2 and 6.3 show the results of the stakeholder analysis. Subsequently, Fig. 6.3 combines the results derived from the columns of ‘Interest’ and ‘Power’ presented in the two tables to form the Power/Interest Grid. The latter determines the stakeholders who are acting as the players, subjects, context setters, and crowd based on their involvement in these cases. Table 6.2 shows the different characteristics of stakeholders involved in the development of the IHDS. The table shows the prevalence of government agencies involved as key stakeholders. Since they are the primary beneficiaries of the IHDS, their knowledge of the Table 6.2 Stakeholder analysis table for the development of IHDS Stakeholders GTWHI PeGIS JPBD MBPP Depts. USM (ind) Indep. Consultant Local public

Internal/ External I I I I E E

Knowledge of project 3 3 3 3 3 2

Position S S S S S S

Interest 3 DB 3 OM 3 DB 3 DB 2 DF 2 DF

Resources F, T, K, W, P T, K, W, P T, K, W, P K, W K, W T, K, W

Power 3 3 3 2 2 1

Leadership Yes Yes Yes No No No

E

1

N

1 LDI

NA

1

No

Table 6.3 Stakeholder analysis table for the regulation of public art by PARP Stakeholders GTWHI PARP Heritage Dept. of MBPP Street artists/ Public art project curators Heritage conservation proponents (NGOs, individuals) Other artists, local art associations/ Societies Local public Tourists/Visitors

Internal/ External I I I

Knowledge of project 3 3 3

Position S S S

Interest 3 OM 2 DF 3 OM

Resources F, K, W, P K, W, P K, W, P

Power 3 3 3

Leadership Yes Yes Yes

E

2

O

3 DA

K

1

Yes

E

2

S&O

3 DB

K

1

No

E

1

S&O

1 LDI

NA

1

No

E E

1 1

S&O N

1 LDI 1 LDI

NA NA

1 1

No No

6 Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations

115

Fig. 6.3 Power/Interest grid for the two case studies. (a) Case study on IHDS; (b) Case study on PARP

project is thorough, as is USM expert’s. The independent consultant presents a lower degree of knowledge and interest. The public has so far shown little interest in the project. There are mainly three reasons for this. Firstly, most people are not aware of it. Secondly, the public may have limited knowledge of how to use the database. Thirdly, there are only a few features opened to all users. However, the potential benefit of opening up such database and include features to file complaints or submit renovation or license applications is noteworthy. This project is within the overall mission of PeGIS, which is to promote the use of GIS and spatial information services, even though PeGIS does not directly benefit from it. The other government agencies are instead direct beneficiaries, as through the database they can share and retrieve information more efficiently, as well as perform monitoring and analytical tasks. Concerning resources, GTWHI has the greatest capacity owing because to the Penang State Government, which uses GTWHI to channel funding and backs it up politically. The technology, meaning the servers and the software used in the project, are shared among the leading agencies of the project—GTWHI, PeGIS, and JPBD. Knowledge includes technical and data-related information. GTWHI, PeGIS, and JPBD, which host the main servers, hold the first; whereas the second is shared across all stakeholders and partially with the public, which however up until nowadays has no opportunity to feed in information. Stakeholders also inputted the workforce employed by this project: the system administrators work in government agencies and GTWHI,

116

A. Tritto and N. C. S. Fun

whereas the people who consulted on the project and verified the information were individuals from university and GTWHI. Table 6.3 depicts the stakeholders involved in the regulation of public art by PARP. Three main stakeholders, namely GTWHI, PARP, and the Heritage Department have a thorough knowledge of the regulation’s objective, the standard procedures, and their respective roles. The target group under this regulation (i.e., street artists and public art project curators) are categorised as having strong interest and a certain degree of knowledge—which is at least to understand the application procedures, for their advantage. This is however based on the supposition that the artist or curator in question is willing to abide by these regulations. Despite being external stakeholders, heritage conservation proponents demonstrated a keen interest and in-depth knowledge. They are direct beneficiaries as this regulation helps to protect GTWHS’s OUV, which is coherent with their aim. Under this collaborative case, PARP is assigned to the review and recommendation process to assist GTWHI’s decision-making. Hence, PARP is mainly fulfilling a duty, instead of having a direct interest in the issue. GTWHI and the Heritage Department’s interest in the project is strong, since this regulation helps them fulfil their organisational mission. Even though other artists, local art associations, and the local public commented on the regulation of public art, their knowledge is considered limited due to their little direct interest. Similarly to the previous case study, GTWHI has the greatest access and capacity to mobilise the required resources. This has empowered GTWHI to take a leading role in initiating, facilitating, and coordinating the whole regulation process. Being a special committee team with members from different fields (ranging from the art, heritage and tourism), PARP has adequate human resources, knowledge, and political resources. Each member plays a role in consulting GTWHI during the reviewing process based on his or her expertise. The Heritage Department, which also has adequate resources, especially the knowledge of heritage and conservation protocols, will execute the final stage of regulation—the issuance of a permit to the applicant. Based on the above tables, a combined Power/Interest grid is plotted following the level of power and interest of each stakeholder. The grid shows that in the context of both cases, GTWHI and other government departments are closest to the top right corner of the ‘Players’ quadrant. This confirms the influential role played by government and hybrid institutions in driving projects for the management of GTWHS. The results from both cases were achieved in a relatively short time, which highlights the ability of the leading agency (GTWHI) to reach out to other governmental and non-governmental stakeholders and bring them on-board. Two key resources distinguish this organisation: financial and political. In the first project, they collaborated with other stakeholders to obtain technology and knowledge related to technology and data, whereas in the second project they collaborated to obtain consensus and bring in expertise to outsource the consulting process, gaining therefore another important yet very scarce resource: time. The public and other external stakeholders are set as having ‘little direct interest’ due to the low level of engagement and power in addressing the issues or in

6 Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations

117

contributing towards a successful outcome. However, little has been done to bring the local communities to the decision-making table. Initially, the IHDS envisioned an active citizen role for the input of data, also in order to track intangible heritage, but over time the project was scaled down due to leadership changes and the need to replenish financial resources, until eventually the database was taken offline in 2018. The second case highlights the absence of a voice from local residents, who should be the first to decide whether the artworks represent their heritage or not. Hence, the question noted by Aas et al. (2005) of whom in the community needs to be represented—the upper-middle class behind civil society groups or the old town dwellers, is still a pressing one. The role played by other key stakeholders reflects different levels of engagement and cooperation. For the first case, the cooperation with the MBPP departments, experts and consultant in the ‘Subject’ quadrant is vital for the project’s success. In the second case, the compliance by the stakeholders in the ‘Subject’ quadrant is the key to achieving the project’s aim. The opinions of the highly-engaged heritage conservation proponents contributed towards a positive result. The PARP committee members, who are appointed to share GTWHI’s burden and risk, hoping to achieve a higher consensus in executing this controversial regulation, play the role of context setters. In the involvement of ‘secondary’ stakeholders, meaning stakeholders outside the ‘Players’ quadrant and in ensuring the resource’s sustainability, a question of ‘continuity’ persists. The first case shows a strong first impetus, especially in the pilot project, since the ‘originator’ of the idea was still involved in it. However, with the first change of leadership that happened halfway through Phase 2, this impetus slowly dissolved, until its final dismissal in 2018. In particular, since the last change in leadership, there was a significant reduction of the role played by stakeholders such as civil society groups, academic experts, and residents. Overall it has to be noted that the challenges encountered in the two collaborations are also related to the different nature and objectives of the projects (i.e., the first is for data-sharing among users while the second is to establish a regulatory system in response to a pressing issue). The first collaboration was actively supported by all stakeholders involved, and encountered fewer challenges in achieving the expected outcome. However, in the second collaboration, the disputes among different groups as well as the resistance from opponents complicated the collaborative process. In this scenario, as emphasized by Aas et al. (2005), an open dialogue could help to find common ground between the stakeholders’ diverging interests.

7 Conclusion Stakeholders’ collaboration plays a vital role in managing the difficulties and opportunities that arise from the UNESCO inscription. The case of George Town demonstrated strong government efforts to adjust to the changing needs and demands for the development of the city. This study has shown how collaborations

118

A. Tritto and N. C. S. Fun

can bring together a very diverse range of stakeholders, allowing them to benefit from each other’s strengths and resources. In the case of the IHDS, the need to gain technical experts, the benefit of sharing data across different governmental agencies, and the advantage of collaborating with local NGOs to collect data on intangible heritage through their networks were the main reasons that brought stakeholders together. In the case of PARP, it was the immediate need to regulate the proliferation of murals around the inner city that prompted GTWHI to seek expertise and consultation on the matter. However, the analysis has also shown that these efforts and the committed resources need to be consistent through the leadership changes. Results have shown that the most significant challenge comes from sustaining a productive collaborative relationship among different stakeholders groups throughout the various stages of the project. Moreover, the analysis has evidenced an active role of hybrid institutions but at the same time, a lack of genuine input from the local residents that in both cases are excluded from the decision-making. Ways to include them either through a consultative process or via regular channels would benefit not only the projects but also generate a more inclusive development. This study has analysed the role of different stakeholders by using a two-step analysis performed by using Schmeer’s stakeholder analysis table and Eden & Ackermann’s Power/Interest grid. This allowed a more structured investigation that brought together data on the two case studies. Future studies should improve this framework and seek to review and examine the role of hybrid institutions in urban governance and conservation.

References Aas, C., Ladkin, A., & Fletcher, J. (2005). Stakeholder collaboration and heritage management. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 28–48. Badaruddin, M., Gelareh, A., & Shida, I. O. (2012, September 8). Conservation and revitalization of the historical inner city: The case George Town World Heritage Site. In Paper presented at the 3rd International Academic Consortium for Sustainable Cities (IACSC) Symposium Conference. Bangkok, Thailand. Accessed November 2, 2016, from https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Shida_Irwana_Omar/publication/294871702_Conservation_and_Revitalization_of_a_ Historical_Inner_City_The_Case_of_George_Town_World_Heritage_Site/links/ 56c47e7d08ae7fd4625a2530.pdf Borges, M. A., Carbone, G., Bushell, R., & Jaeger, T. (2011). Sustainable tourism and natural world heritage – Priorities for action. Gland: IUCN. Accessed November 2, 2016, from http:// cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/sustainable_tourism_and_natural_world_heritage_report.pdf Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1992). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chang, T. C., Milne, S., Fallon, D., & Pohlmann, C. (1996). Urban heritage tourism. The globallocal nexus. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 284–305. Cheng, E. W., Li, A. H. F., & Ma, S. (2014). Resistance, engagement, and heritage conservation by voluntary sector: The case of Penang in Malaysia. Modern Asian Studies, 48(3), 617–644. Chin, C. (2015). The paint that protects the past. The Nation. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.pressreader.com/thailand/the-nation/20150112/281990375902719

6 Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations

119

Claudia, C. (2014, August 25). Review panels to monitor public artwork in George Town. News article, MSN Malaysia News. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://news.malaysia.msn. com/tmi/review-panels-to-monitor-publicartwork-in-george-town DSM Department of Statistics, Malaysia. (2011). Population distribution and basic demographic characteristics 2010. In Population and housing census of Malaysia. Accessed November 4, 2016, from http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/download_Population/files/census2010/ Taburan_Penduduk_dan_Ciri-ciri_Asas_Demografi.pdf Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (1998). Making strategy: The journey of strategic management. London: Sage. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Goh, D. P. S. (2014). Between history and heritage: Post-colonialism, globalisation, and the remaking of Malacca, Penang, and Singapore. TRaNS: Trans-Regional and -National Studies of Southeast Asia, 2(1), 79–101. GTWHI. (2014). Chairperson’s message. In George Town World Heritage Incorporated (GTWHI) webpage. Accessed November 3, 2016, from http://www.gtwhi.com.my/regulate/public-artsreview-panel.html GTWHI. (2015). Public Arts Review Panel (PARP). In George Town World Heritage Incorporated (GTWHI) webpage. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.gtwhi.com.my/regulate/ public-arts-review-panel.html Gunn, C. A. (1988). Tourism planning (2nd ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis. Jamal, T. B., & Getz, D. (1995). Collaboration theory and community tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1), 186–204. Jenkins, G. (2008). Contested space: Cultural heritage and identity reconstruction. Conservation strategies within a developing Asian City. Zurich: Lit Verlag Gmbh & Co. Jenkins, G., & King, V. T. (2003). Heritage and development in a Malaysian city: George Town under threat? Indonesia and the Malay World, 31(89), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13639810304441. Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (2002). Exploring corporate strategy (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education. Kong, L., & O’Connor, J. (2009). Creative economies, creative cities: Asian-European perspectives. In The GeoJournal library (Vol. 98). Heideliberg: Springer. Lee, S. L. (1996). Urban conservation policy and the preservation of historical and cultural heritage. The case of Singapore. Cities, 13(6), 399–409. Lee, L. M. (2010, July 15). George Town heritage building inventory. A proposal for multi-agency collaboration. Presentation at the sharing session of Phase I of the project. Lewis, C. (1991). The ethics challenge in public service: A problem-solving guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Licciardi, G., & Amirtahmasebi, R. (Eds.). (2012). The economics of uniqueness. Investing in historic city cores and cultural heritage assets for sustainable development. Washington: The World Bank. Lim, T. C. (2011). Culture heritage tourism engineering at Penang: Complete the puzzle of “The Pearl of Orient”. Systems Engineering Procedia, 1, 358–364. Loh, L. (2011, December 12–13). Managing heritage organisations: The heritage of Malaysia Trust. In Paper presented at the International Conference on Heritage Conservation 2011. Hong Kong. Accessed November 4, 2016, from http://www.heritage.gov.hk/conference2011/en/pdf/ 12_Mr.%20Laurence%20Loh.pdf Loh, A. (2014, November 20). Art not Penang enough artist: Public art should express the state’s multi-racial heritage. News article. The Star Online. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http:// www.thestar.com.my/news/community/2014/11/20/art-not-penang-enough/ Loh-Lim, L. L. (2011, December 12–13). The case for the George Town world heritage site and the Island of Penang. In Paper presented at the International Conference on Heritage Conservation 2011. Hong Kong. Accessed November 3, 2016, from http://www.heritage.gov.hk/confer ence2011/en/pdf/paper/lin_lee_loh_lim.pdf

120

A. Tritto and N. C. S. Fun

Malaysia State Government. (2008). Nomination dossier. Historic cities of the Straits of Malacca: Melaka and George Town. Executive summary. Accessed November 2, 2016, from http://whc. unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1223bis.pdf Millar, S. (2006). Stakeholders and community participation. In A. Leask & A. Fyall (Eds.), Managing world heritage sites. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Mitchell, R. K., Angle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. Mok, O. (2014, August 25). Penang sets up special review panel to regulate public artwork. News article. The Malay Mail Online. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www. themalaymailonline.com/print/malaysia/penang-sets-up-special-review-panel-to-regulate-pub lic-a Nadarajah, M. (2007). Culture of sustainability: Multicultural reality and sustainable localism – A case study of Penang (George Town), Malaysia. In M. Nadarajah & T. A. Yamamoto (Eds.), Urban crisis: Culture and the sustainability of cities. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. Ngui, A. (2014, August 25). Only approved public art. News article. The Sun Daily. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1151051 Nuryanti, W. (1996). Heritage and postmodern tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(2), 249–260. Nutt, P., & Backoff, R. (1992). Strategic management of public and third sector organizations: A handbook for leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Organisation of World Heritage Cities. (2015). Mayors & heritage: Rt Hon. Dato’ Patahiyah bt Ismail, Mayor of George Town, Penang (Malaysia). A write of an interview. Organization of World Heritage Cities. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.ovpm.org/en/mayor_ george_town_penang_malaysia Pedersen, A. (2002). Managing tourism at world heritage sites: A practical manual for world heritage site managers. Paris: UNESCO. PeGIS. (2015). History of GIS in Malaysia. PeGIS. Accessed Jun 1, 2016, from http://pegis.penang. gov.my/dokumentasi/gishistory.pdf Phuah, K. L. (2014, August 26). Street artists get the thumbs down. News article. New Straits Times Online. Accessed November 1, 2016, from http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/09/street-artistsget-thumbs-down Reed, M. (1997). Power relations and community-based tourism planning. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(3), 566–591. Sautter, E. T., & Leisen, B. (1999). Managing stakeholders: A tourism planning model. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 312–328. Schmeer, K. (1999). Stakeholder analysis guidelines. In policy toolkit for strengthening health sector reform. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates Inc. Steinberg, F. (1996). Conservation and rehabilitation of urban heritage in developing countries. Habitat International, 20(3), 463–475. UNESCO. (1998). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention. Paris: UNESCO. Accessed November 2, 2016, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide12en.pdf Van der Aa, B. J., Groote, P. D., & Huigen, P. P. (2004). World heritage as NIMBY? The case of the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea. Current Issues in Tourism, 7(4–5), 291–302. Van Schendelen, R. (2002). Machiavelli in Brussels: The art of lobbying the EU. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Wilson, L. A., & Boyle, E. (2006). Interorganisational collaboration at UK World Heritage Sites. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(6), 501–523. Winter, T., & Daly, P. (2012). Heritage in Asia: Converging forces, conflicting values. In Routledge handbook of heritage in Asia (pp. 1–35). Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139–167.

6 Destination Management Through Stakeholders’ Collaborations

121

Yeoh, B. S. A. (2005). The global cultural city? Spatial imagineering and politics in the (multi) cultural marketplaces of South-East Asia. Urban Studies, 42(5/6), 945–958. Zabielskis, P. (2008). Towards a moral ecology of the city: A new form of place-based identity and social action in Penang, Malaysia. International Development Planning Review, 30(3), 267–291.

Chapter 7

Food as a Component in Destination Marketing Anna Stalmirska, Peter Whalley, and Paul Fallon

Abstract The assumption is often made in the academic literature that just about every destination can identify and market unique assets, thereby achieving a point of difference against competitors. However, as the competition between destinations is increasing this is becoming difficult for destination marketing organisations (DMOs) which face problems in identifying resources that will differentiate their destination from competing places offering similar attributes and benefits. In recent years, an increasing importance of food as a destination marketing tool and a way of achieving uniqueness and difference has been noted. Accordingly, this chapter provides an insight into the use of food in the marketing of a tourist destination at a national level—in this case, England. In particular, content analysis of the Visit England website identifies four dimensions of destination marketing which illustrate how the use of experiential narratives is developed to encourage visitors to become more than passive observers, and therefore actively supports the achievement of competitive advantage for the destination. A question that arises in this chapter is the meaning of “local” food. This is easier to define in rural areas, however becomes more complex in urban places where the “local” is not only difficult to define, but often difficult to make distinctive and unique.

1 Introduction This chapter provides an insight into the use of food as a marketing medium for a tourist destination at national level, using the case of England, one of the top ten tourist-receiving destinations in the world. According to the destination marketing literature, there are three main purposes to destination marketing. Firstly, the destination should, where possible, attempt to differentiate itself by highlighting its unique features (Pike and Page 2014). Pike (2016, p. 180) states that a successful destination marketing strategy “achieves a point of difference against competitors”. A. Stalmirska (*) · P. Whalley · P. Fallon Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_7

123

124

A. Stalmirska et al.

Secondly, Morgan and Pritchard (2014, p. 414) posit that it is important to build destination marketing on “assets or associations which uniquely connect a destination to the audience”. Finally, Pike (2016, p. 179) emphasises that destination marketing should be carried out in a way that “offers benefits sought by travellers, represents the interests of tourism suppliers and does not commodify residents’ sense of place”. Consequently, destination marketing should be based on unique propositions which are original, sustainable, credible and relevant (Morgan and Pritchard 2014). In line with the recent shift from destination marketing to management (Presenza et al. 2005), destinations should formulate a combination of offerings and benefits that can meet the expectations of a broad range of investors, new businesses and visitors (Kotler et al. 2014). However, destination marketing is becoming extremely competitive worldwide (Buhalis 2000; Kozak and Kozak 2016). Whilst tourists enjoy a plethora of choices of available destinations, DMOs at all levels are competing for attention amongst an increasing amount of marketing activity (Wang and Pizam 2011). Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly difficult for destinations to differentiate against rivals offering similar attributes and benefits. Morgan et al. (2004, p. 60) state that most destinations “have superb five-star resorts and attractions, every country claims to have a unique culture, landscape and heritage, each place describes itself as having the friendliest people, and high standards of customer service”. In a more recent text, authors reiterate that most destinations use similar images in their marketing- their history, rich culture and beautiful scenery (Morgan and Pritchard 2014). There is no widely accepted model for DMO structure, as evidenced by the great variety of types DMOs in existence, such as authorities, commissions, boards, tourist organisations, bureaux, tourist offices, corporations, departments, councils, ministries and the rise of QUANGOs (quasi-government bodies) (Morrison et al. 1995, p. 606). However, it is widely recognised that in most countries DMOs operate at three levels: national, regional and local. At a national level, DMOs are often organised as a governmental agency, usually supported by the private sector, and they “set the overall agenda for tourism” in a country (Morrison 2013, p. 26). As international competition increases, destinations more than ever need to consider all the available strategies and tools that can enhance competitiveness. Among these, DMO websites now arguably represent the most important marketing tools engaging in communications with actual and potential visitors (Horng and Tsai 2010; Romanazzi et al. 2011). According to Morrison (2013, p. 373), “websites are the global shop windows for promoting destinations”. DMO websites have become much more than an informative source for tourists. For example, at the early stages of the “visitor journey” before booking a trip, websites are also generally used for “dreaming and enthusing about potential destinations” (Morrison 2013, p. 375) i.e. they “whet the appetite” of the visitor. While academic theory provides a wealth of possibilities and recommendations for tourism practitioners it is often “easier said than done” (Pike 2016, p. xix). This is in part because of the difficulty facing DMOs in identifying resources that will differentiate their destination from competing places offering similar attributes and benefits (Pike and Page 2014), notwithstanding the influence of other constraints on

7 Food as a Component in Destination Marketing

125

DMOs such as the availability of funding. As competition in the tourism industry intensifies, culture is increasingly seen as an asset for and means of product differentiation (Richards 2009). This is because of recent shift from an era of industrial to one of cultural capitalism (Yeoman et al. 2015) as well as the rise of the experience economy and experience marketing (Pine and Gilmore 1999). For that reason, culture has been more prominently employed as an aspect of the tourism product and in destination marketing strategies. The predominant direction of this expansion has been into culture which is seen to include the cultural activities of everyday life (Williams 2002). This exemplifies a movement away from the traditional view of cultural tourism associated with high culture and with “cultured” people (Richards 2007). High art is used and celebrated in destination marketing alongside “popular”, “everyday” and “street” culture (Smith 2016). At the destination level, building on cultural resources and experiences becomes an important aspect in contemporary tourism (Yeoman et al. 2015). While eating is a basic human need, food can also be a tourist attraction and a reason for travel. Increasingly food, as an element of culture, is being used in many destination marketing and management strategies to benefit not only the tourism industry and the visitor, but also economic, social and environmental aspects of a destination. This is because when combined with tourism, food can provide a natural competitive advantage, not easily replicated when specific to a location and a culture (Mulcahy 2015). Food not only differentiates destinations, but reflecting the second purpose of marketing previously mentioned, also provides an opportunity for DMOs to supply tourists with a more meaningful form of experience based on active participation rather than simple and passive consumption (Smith and Xiao 2008). In the context of the experience economy, the focus of many tourists has changed from the classic “must see” physical sights towards a “must experience” desire to consume intangible expressions of a destination (Pine and Gilmore 1999). This approach is entirely distinct to the “gaze” perspective that has privileged gazing, sightseeing, and aesthetics over other embodied senses (Urry 2002). Food offers one of the ultimate sensual tourism experiences, involving all of the senses as well as an immersive physical consumption of a culture, as opposed to a detached and passive or observational stance (Everett 2008). Accordingly, food can provide a multidimensional experience transcending ocular engagement through a process of embodiment (Everett 2008). Given the prominence of websites and that tourists generally spend on average one-third of their travel expenses on food (UNWTO 2012) the content of DMO websites is very important for promoting a destination’s food culture. These websites help to shape and create a virtual experience for tourists. As such, based on other perceived opportunities of food in destination marketing, destinations are capitalising on the potential to promote their cuisine as a unique product and a source of differentiation (Karim and Chi 2010; Okumus et al. 2007). Furthermore, such activity is inclusive given the recent publications relating to areas of the world that are not traditionally known for their cuisine or as having a clear culinary identity, including: Canada (Hashimoto and Telfer 2006), Croatia (Henderson 2009; Meler and Cerovic 2003), Albania (Brokaj 2014), Hong Kong (Kivela and

126

A. Stalmirska et al.

Crotts 2006; McKercher et al. 2008; Okumus et al. 2007; Tsai and Horng 2012), Austria (Scheuch 2012), Nordic Countries (Casciola et al. 2014; Getz et al. 2014), Singapore (Henderson 2014; Tsai and Horng 2012), South Africa (Du Rand et al. 2003; Du Rand and Heath 2006), and Turkey (Okumus et al. 2007). The above examples of different countries using food in their marketing activities demonstrate that this approach is gathering momentum in destination marketing (UNWTO 2012). In today’s’ extremely competitive global tourism environment, destinations are increasingly using food as a means by which to differentiate themselves and to broaden their market base. However, although there have been numerous studies on marketing tourism destinations, the empirical evidence on how food is used in destination marketing is still limited (Lee and Scott 2015). This case provides an investigation into how food is used in the destination marketing of England. The choice of England may seem controversial and surprising given that England has often been associated with poor quality food. Nevertheless, beyond the stereotypes of food and its perceptions, Visit England (the country’s national tourist board) widely incorporates food in its destination marketing and food is becoming one of the prominent features in the marketing of England as a destination. England is among the top 10 destinations in the world (UNWTO 2016) and as stated, there has been an increasing emphasis on the crucial role of food in tourism. For example, in 2016 Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) announced a campaign aiming to celebrate England’s world-class food industry and culture, drive tourism growth and jobs in the industry and establish the destination’s reputation as a great food nation. As part of the campaign, local food and tourism organisations were able to apply for a dedicated £150,000 grant to fund food tourism projects principally delivered in England. Several other initiatives in support of the development of food and tourism are also underway, including the emergence of nationally and regionally branded foodstuffs which can act as a means of re-establishing cultural differences and achieving uniqueness and differentiation (Meethan 2015). It is the ability to provide such distinction and uniqueness that has been recognised as the essential basis for food in destination marketing (Everett 2012; Everett and Aitchison 2008; Lee and Arcodia 2011). However, while food has clearly emerged as a part of the tourism offer, there has been no empirical evidence examining this phenomenon in the context of destination marketing in England. For that reason, this study aims to examine this and provide an understanding of how food is used to market England as a tourist destination.

2 Methodology A content analysis was applied which is seen as a careful, systematic and detailed explanation and interpretation of a particular body of material in an effort to identify patterns, themes and meanings (Neuendorf 2002; Neuman 2014). It was believed that such approach would enable us to evaluate textual and visual information used

7 Food as a Component in Destination Marketing

127

to represent food on the official Visit England website. This methodological approach was informed by a number of previous content analysis studies of websites and brochures with a focus on food in tourism such as Okumus et al. (2007) and Horng and Tsai (2010). For the purpose of this study the decision was made not to develop a coding scheme prior to the data collection. The main reason for this was to keep the relevant codes and themes true to the essence of the data and to avoid making data fit predetermined categories. This was in line with previous studies supporting the choice of analysis for the present study (such as: Frochot 2003; Lin et al. 2011; Silkes et al. 2013). In keeping in particular with the approach of Silkes et al. (2013) an open coding was applied to discover the themes and to avoid making the data fit pre-conceived categories. Given that different yet overlapping approaches to qualitative content analysis exist (such as for example: Altheide and Schneider 2013; Krippendorff 2013; Richards and Morse 2013; Schreier 2012) certain similarities were noted that tend to recur in the application of this particular research method. In particular, the protocols identified by Finn et al. (2000) and Berg (2014) were used to facilitate this qualitative content analysis. This involved the following steps: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Generate a research question Sample selection Open-coding Codes are transformed into categorical labels or themes Reviewing categories Reporting results

Stage one of the content analysis entailed the identification of the aims and objectives of the research. In this case, the aim of the content analysis was to ascertain how food is used in the context of the destination marketing of England. The second stage involved the selection of the sample to be used in the research. The non-probability sample for this study consisted of the official Visit England (DMO) web pages. The official national destination website was selected, as this type of media has been used to investigate the use of food in a destination in the previous studies (for example: Boyne and Hall 2004; Du Rand and Heath 2006; Frochot 2003; Horng and Tsai 2010; Jalis et al. 2014; Kim et al. 2009). In January 2016, the official DMO website (www.visitengland.com) was manually scanned to identify food-related content. The “Food and Drink” section was downloaded and saved in a pdf format. Two categories, namely “Vineyards and wine tasting” and “Breweries and distilleries” were excluded from the content analysis, as wine tourism, and the more recent phenomenon of craft beer tourism, are studied and marketed independently (Mintel 2014). In the third stage, qualitative content analysis identified and explored the dimensions of food in the destination marketing strategy. An open coding technique was applied to keep the relevant codes true to the essence of the data (Silkes et al. 2013). This process involved unrestricted coding of the data, and codes that emerged were entirely tentative. In total, 71 pages of textual material and 283 photographs were

128

A. Stalmirska et al.

Table 7.1 Content analysis main categories Category Style Location Food types Food experiences Descriptions Theme(s)

Definition/description The format and style in which information on food was presented Geographical location of food Types of food promoted Types of food-related activities and experiences Keywords and adjectives used as description The context in which food was presented

analysed using NVivo 10 which allowed for more efficient data management (Bazeley and Jackson 2013). The textual material was examined line-by-line and sometimes word-by-word. Photographs were coded by first describing what the photograph depicted and then allocating it to a code that appeared to best represent the photograph. In some instances, multiple codes were attached. Open coding at this stage involved breaking the data apart and creating codes to stand for interpreted meanings of raw data. For the purpose of this research codes were identified through an analysis of the manifest content—those elements that are physically present, as well as the latent content—the symbolism, hidden meanings and messages underlying the physical data (Neuman 2014). In stage four, when open coding was completed, the researcher started searching for themes in the data. During this stage, all codes were examined to identify broader patterns of meaning and then transformed into categorical themes. In essence, the coding frames were developed to organise the data (Berg 2014). Stage five involved reviewing categories through the identification of similar themes, patterns, relationships, similarities and differences. This stage also included deciding on a definitive name for each theme. The themes identified in Table 7.1 provide a basis for understanding how food is used in the destination marketing of England. It has to be noted that at no stage were numbers assigned to any category. According to Krane et al. (1997, p. 214) placing a frequency count “is tantamount to saying how important it is”. However, in some cases, the rare finding may be the most enlightening one. As a conclusion to the final stage, the research findings are presented in a descriptive format. This was believed to be the most suitable format, as the aim of this exploratory study was to provide some insights into an area on which there is limited empirical evidence.

3 Results Destination marketers inundate potential tourists with marketing messages meant to influence decision making with regard to visiting the destination. To understand how food experiences are featured on Visit England’s website, the material was analysed for food cues.

7 Food as a Component in Destination Marketing

129

Table 7.2 Experiential aspects of food in destination marketing of England Experiential aspects Invitation

Promise

Sensory interaction

Producer interaction

Textual example Calling all foodies Loosen your belt Reward yourself Treat yourself Dreamed of becoming a chef? Fresh food that will get your taste buds tingling There is sure to be something to tempt your taste buds Whatever the dish of the day, it will make your mouth water Your taste buds will come alive Awaken your senses to the flavours, tastes and smells Give your taste buds a feast Indulge in a gastronomic experience Tuck into a variety of scrumptious food Create menu and watch chefs at work Meet artisan food experts Meet local producers Watch artisans and chefs work their magic

The use of semiotics in connection with tourism marketing is a relatively new phenomenon, and the research into the link between the two has been scarce. Nevertheless, tourism researchers and academics are increasingly acknowledging semiotics as a valuable tool when planning the communication between potential tourist and the destination (Echtner 1999). Table 7.2 represents four different types of experiential aspects of food identified in the destination marketing of England. However, it has to be noted that these four different categories should not be seen as exclusive and fixed, as there is a considerable overlap between them. In the first category, there is an invitation encouraging the potential tourist to research further. The purpose is to give the visitor a reason for wanting to learn more. The invitation occurs at the beginning of the marketing message and is designed to give the potential tourists a reason to take notice. Using persuasive language establishes a premise that is compelling enough to encourage or inspire potential visitors to further investigate. The second category is more seductive—this is achieved by a promise of, and almost temptation with, the great taste of the food. It generates interest by outlining how the promise will be delivered i.e. focussing on “what is in it for me?”. The content here is a combination of information, persuasion and temptation. The third category creates desire through the offer of more substantial and wider sensory interaction, and savouring of food. This is achieved through marketing messages integrating food cues and one or more of the five senses. The aim is to convert the tourist’s interest into a desire to consume and to experience food. By appealing directly to their senses, visitors to the website should be able to visualise the experience of food which should lead to dreaming and enthusing about potential food experiences. This dimension triggers the shift from the initial interest and curiosity to making the decision “I want this for myself”.

130

A. Stalmirska et al.

The final category acknowledges the processes of food production and creation rather than their outcomes. This involves the tourist, food experience and at least one of the stakeholders of food tourism—individuals or groups that may influence or be influenced by the actions, decisions, policies and practices of food tourism in the marketing of destination. This could include the local residents and community, travel industry (public sector organisations and local government), and providers of food and food tourism experiences (restaurant owners, food shop owners, food festival organisers). By engaging tourists in a more experiential and participatory way, this dimension can create an enduring and memorable connection. The interpretation of marketing cues presents its own challenges, not least that it should entail more than the exchange of information, but should also inspire and provoke interest. What is the relevance of all this to destination marketing? It is that effective destination marketing involves the use of narrative to connect with potential visitors, to attract their attention, entice them to visit, and then to provide a richer, more memorable experience when they do visit. The experiential aspects of food cues in destination marketing help DMOs not only to promote the destination product in a unique and distinctive way, but also to convey an imagery of tourist experiences uniquely connecting a destination to the audience. The use of food narratives in an experiential way thus ensures that the visitor does not remain an observer, but can actively participate in the co-creation of competitive advantage at the destination level. Most importantly, experiential aspects of food in destination marketing help to convey a sense of place. Is this not the essence of sustainable destination development and management, sustaining and promoting the unique characteristics and qualities of the destination, while meeting tourist demand? This element appears essential to Pike (2016) and Smith (2015) who see this ‘sense of place’ as being at the heart of a more authentic marketing of tourist destinations. In a very crowded marketplace marketing messages conveying an individual sense of place and identity can make the destination more distinctive and unique (HavenTang and Jones 2006).

3.1

Descriptions

It was noted that on the DMO website, people who may have a focal interest in food were referred to as “foodies” and “food lovers” and at the same, time food-related tourism was described as “culinary adventure”, “culinary experience”, “foodie break”, “journey on a taste”, “taste experience” and “tasty weekend away” showing the increasing positioning of food as a pillar of the tourist experience. A content analysis of key words and adjectives used to describe food on the website identified more than 40 food descriptors. A word cloud was created to provide a visual representation of word frequency. As it can be seen from Fig. 7.1 the more frequently used words are effectively highlighted by occupying more prominence in the representation (McNaught and Lam 2010).

7 Food as a Component in Destination Marketing

131

Fig. 7.1 A word cloud of food descriptors

Interestingly the most often used adjective was “local” which shows that the primary focus of England’s DMO’s food-related promotion is on marketing locally sourced food products. This is not surprising, as according to the literature local food can help differentiate destinations by offering tourists unique and authentic experience (Du Rand and Heath 2006). All indicators are that local food holds much potential and can contribute to the various elements of a sense of place in a particular destination. For example, local food can prevent cultural erosion or misappropriation, enhance destination attractiveness, and empower local communities by means of job creation and fostering of local pride (Telfer and Wall 1996). Furthermore, local food in destination marketing can contribute to the establishment of a destination that is both sustainable and competitive (Elmont 1995). As such, in the increasingly competitive tourism industry, it can be seen exactly why destinations are keen to market local food as a way to achieve and promote this local distinctiveness and sense of place. However, this then begs the rather more tricky questions of: what is “local”? Is “local” authentic? And what is “authentic”? Despite a recent increase in the number of studies on local food and tourism, some basic tenets have not yet been established. In particular, there has been no precise definition for the term “local food” (Coit 2008; Tovey 2009). Most previous studies on local food do not even address this issue. This is alarming, as a good starting point to a discussion including local food in tourism and the marketing thereof would be to define the concept of “local”, yet most studies leave this to the interpretation, or confusion, of the reader.

132

A. Stalmirska et al.

While “local” can obviously be described in relation to geographical proximity, the question of where the local area ends and another (non-local) area begins is subjective and dependent on the context (density of populations, rural or urban character). Another important issue in this debate includes the complexity of the food supply chain as well as the distinction between the origin of the ingredients and the place of production. Is it grown there? Is it produced there? Is it manufactured there? This shows that adopting a geographical definition of “local” can be complicated by the distinction between the origin of the ingredients and the place of production. In the worlds of Allen and Hinrichs (2007, p. 269): “the ambiguity about what local means (. . .) allows it to be about anything and, at the margin, perhaps very little at all”. This lack of clarity further problematizes the issue of authenticity. As suggested by Richards (2013) and others, the “local” has become the new “authentic”. This is emphasised in destinations, where tourists can “live like a local” and “eat like a local” which implies that the places are “real”. However, as noted by Russo and Richards (2016, p. 254) “all too often this apparent ‘authenticity’ can be misleading, with the ‘local’ being constructed for tourists just as effectively ‘authentic’ dance performances were staged for tourists in the past.”

3.2

Themes

Following the initial content analysis, clear differences emerged in the marketing of food in rural and in urban destinations. For that reason, two main food marketing themes were identified—rural and urban—which are discussed below.

3.2.1

Rural Dimension

The marketing of food in rural destinations portrayed a “rural idyll” of tranquil nature, green rolling countryside and tradition, as information on food was accompanied with peaceful and relaxing images of the English countryside. Food presented on the website tended to show only traditional and regional dishes such as for example Melton Mowbray Pork Pie, Bakewell Tart, Wensleydale Cheese or Lincolnshire’s sausages. Emphasis was also placed on home-made and hand-made artisan foods such as cheeses, chocolates and speciality breads. Farmers’ markets and food festivals were actively promoted in rural destinations. Traditional dishes were presented in a way that indicated a direct connection with tradition and culture. This was achieved by presenting photographs of people dressed in folkloric dresses and engaging in vernacular traditions. As a result, this created an impression of these speciality products as being authentic and unique. What is more, food marketing in rural destinations emphasised seasonality, freshness and locally sourced ingredients which were demonstrated in the quotes below:

7 Food as a Component in Destination Marketing

133

– “Enjoy Yorkshire’s best seasonal foods—from forest floor to plate” (Visit England 2016); – “Indulge in fresh food, straight from garden to plate” (Visit England 2016). As it can be seen from the above, in rural areas there was a strong emphasis on locally sourced and unique ingredients reflecting the place. This could be linked to the concept of the “terroir” (an untranslatable French word that connotes the local spaces and soils). Terroir can be simply defined in environmental terms, however the origins and significance of the phrase may be located within much wider philosophical, historical, social and cultural debates that define a particular destination (Tresidder 2015). While Croce and Perri (2010) propose that the terroir is the combined effect of soil, topography, subsoil and climate, others propose that it also includes the customs and ceremonies of the people who produce local dishes (Hammer 2011). As such, the concept of terroir can be seen in food products associated with a specific place and underpinned by a particular set of production and consumption practices that are directly informed by local traditions and then reinforced by institutions to shape the ways that taste comes to define a place and its people (Trubek 2008). In the context of the above, one could argue that marketing of food in rural destinations in England was shown as rooted in the environment and culture of a destination and reinforced by its local traditions. This could be seen as a counteracting process to an apparent erosion of food distinctiveness in the face of globalisation pressures (Everett 2016). Rural areas were presented as resilient to homogenising forces of globalisation and possibly the last sanctuaries of authenticity. Food was clearly presented as being embedded in the landscape and local traditions and potentially in opposition or contrast to the Fordist production regime (Fonte 2002). The importance of using food to convey a sense of place, create a unique visitor experience and to differentiate tourism destinations while providing economic benefits to the local community cannot be underestimated in destination marketing. In particular, this is crucial in rural destinations which tend to lack tourist attractions and name recognition in comparison to more popular urban destinations. There is also an assumption that a common problem of tourism development and marketing in rural destination is its limited drawing power and that “individual rural destinations are often too small to form a critical mass required of a primary destination” (Cai 2002, p. 738). Not surprisingly there is a dearth of academic research on destination marketing in rural areas. While “destinations are becoming more globalised and alike in their offerings and infrastructure” (Ooi 2004, p. 112), this provides an opportunity for rural areas to capitalise on their principal assets as a tourism destination—that is, their distinctive food culture and agricultural links (Haven-Tang and Jones 2006). Rural destinations must, therefore, capitalise on the significance of food in the tourism offer and its’ contribution to unique visitor experiences produced in a socially and environmentally sustainable manner. Food in rural areas can play a fundamental role in stemming the tide of perceived homogenisation and dilution of food distinctiveness: “rural areas are thus seeing themselves becoming spaces of reconciliation, welcome and affirmation of culinary heritages” (Bessière 2001, p. 118).

134

3.2.2

A. Stalmirska et al.

Urban Dimension

Urban destinations, on the other hand, were presented as being modern, exciting and diverse places. Images tended to show busy restaurants and positive social interactions, with people smiling and interacting with each other. Serving staff were shown as participants in the total experience, as very often they were present in the images. Photographs of food included diversified dishes representing various cuisines (Caribbean, Chinese, French, Indian, and Italian). There were also photographs of food districts reflecting the multicultural structures of urban destinations. Urban destinations were described as cosmopolitan with an emphasis on a wide range of diverse food choices which was demonstrated in the quotes below: – “With over 100 restaurants covering 20 different cuisines from across Asia and the globe, Chinatown is one of the most diverse culinary destinations in London” (Visit England 2016); – “Manchester is well known for its vast selection of dining opportunities, with a huge range of international cuisine spread across the city” (Visit England 2016); – “With 4 Michelin star restaurants and nearly 30 cuisines throughout the city, you will never be stuck for food choices in Birmingham” (Visit England 2016). It can be assumed that the purpose of the quotes above was to present urban destinations as truly cosmopolitan in the form and guise of a contemporary global metropolis. According to Rennie-Short (2013) the availability of different products, the opportunity to sample different cuisines, the overall sense of that the rest of the world is available in various forms all mark a truly cosmopolitan city. This is true for urban destinations in England’s destination marketing, as the abundance and global variety of food available were heavily promoted. To take this argument even further, the marketing of food in urban destinations can be seen to possibly reflect the global character of contemporary tourism and the multicultural nature of cities. Indeed, it has been claimed that patterns of migration have led to England becoming a more multicultural society which in turn has influenced its culture and cuisine. The social heterogeneity of England has been historically driven by consecutive waves of migration from the former colonies and territories such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Caribbean, South Africa, Kenya and Hong Kong. Other immigrants have come as asylum seekers, seeking protection as refugees or from member states of the European Union. Contemporary urban destinations are not only places of large scale movement and agglomeration of people, but other types of intersecting and coalescing flows also occur. In particular, the new mobilities paradigm (Sheller and Urry 2006) considers flows of visitors, residents, workers, goods, capital, images and information. From this perspective, food in urban places can be seen as a medium reflecting encounters, intersections and “contaminations” among several mobility processes creating a global sense of place. Not surprisingly then, England appears “to have reached a situation where “multicultural” food is the norm, reflecting contemporary society” (Panayi 2008).

7 Food as a Component in Destination Marketing

135

While the new mobilities paradigm allows for an understanding of food practices in global cities, it can still be claimed that the marketing of food in urban destinations had some degree of predictability (Ritzer 2013) evidenced in the wide choice of cuisines. Predictability is one of the key components of McDonaldization (Ritzer 2013) which highlights how the dominance of global franchised operators, such as McDonalds and Starbucks, can lead to predictability of products and services in destinations. Ritzer sees this as far-reaching homogenisation and considers McDonaldization as being equivalent to previous broad shifts in production and consumption, such as Taylorism and Fordism. Although the nature of customer service and experience in each place may be different, the choice of cuisines in urban areas incorporated some degree of predictability which could lead to an increasing sameness and identikit destinations rather than delivering uniqueness and difference. However, one could argue that this predictability of food in urban destination marketing offers tourists a sense of security. When travelling and seeking food in unfamiliar environments, one often wants predictable forms of goods and services. Predictability may seem dull and lead to increasing sameness, however as Ritzer (2008, p. 97) said: “it also provides a sanctuary for those feeling lost”. Nevertheless, the central question of the role of uniqueness in destination marketing still remains. It can be argued that while Visit England’s aim was to promote urban destinations as cosmopolitan, there was a tendency to market the same set of international cuisines alongside standardised marketing messages—every urban destination claimed to have something for every taste, budget and occasion etc. This could be seen as a clear example of “the marketing of everything approach” as opposed to one based on uniqueness and difference (Heeley 2015). This uniformity and standardisation is surprising given that, according to theoretical ‘best practice’, destination marketing is quintessentially a process of achieving a competitive superiority through marketing uniqueness and difference. This discontinuity suggests there may be a possible gap between the theory and practice of destination marketing. The assumption is made in the academic literature that just about every destination can identify and market unique assets achieving a point of difference against competitors. In reality, however, this does not appear to be reflected in urban destination marketing and is probably easier said than done in practice.

4 Conclusion In recent years an increasing importance of food as a destination marketing tool and as part of the culture of destinations has been noted. For that reason, this chapter has discussed and illustrated how England, one of the top tourist-receiving destinations in the world, uses food as a component of destination marketing. As we have pointed out in this chapter, the competition between destinations is increasing, and now more so than ever before it should be crucial for destinations to follow the main principles of destination marketing theory. Firstly, the destination

136

A. Stalmirska et al.

should, where possible, attempt to differentiate itself by highlighting its unique features (Pike and Page 2014). Secondly, it is important to build destination marketing on assets which uniquely connect a destination to the audience. And lastly, destination marketing should be carried out in a way that “offers benefits sought by travellers, represents the interests of tourism suppliers and does not commodify residents’ sense of place” (Pike 2016, p. 179). However, as demonstrated here, while academic theory provides a wealth of possibilities and recommendations for tourism practitioners it is often “easier said than done” (Pike 2016, p. xix). The work discussed in this chapter highlights the idea that in the digital age websites are now possibly the most important part of destination marketing. As explained, DMO websites have become much more than an information source for tourists or a shop-window for destinations. Before booking a trip, websites are used for “dreaming and enthusing about potential destinations” (Morrison 2013, p. 375). As presented in this chapter, Visit England uses food related marketing messages to attract the visitors’ attention, entice them to visit and then provides an opportunity for a richer, more memorable experience when they do visit. In particular, four identified types of experiential aspects of food in destination marketing illustrate how the use of food narratives in an experiential way can help to ensure that the visitor does not remain a passive observer, but can actively help to co-create competitive advantage in the destination. This is crucial, as in a very crowded marketplace, marketing messages can help DMOs not only to promote the destination product in a unique and distinctive way, but also to construct and convey an imagery of tourist experiences while uniquely connecting a destination to the audience. A question that arises in this chapter is the meaning of “local” food. As it was shown, the most often used adjective on Visit England’s website was “local” which shows that the main focus of England’s DMO is on marketing local food products. While on one hand, this is not surprising, as according to the literature local food can help differentiate destinations by offering tourists unique and authentic experiences, on the other hand, this raises the question of the definition of the “local”. What is “local”? Is “local” authentic? And what is “authentic”? Despite a recent increase in the number of studies on local food and tourism, some basic tenets have not been established. In particular, there has been no precise definition for the term “local” food leaving this open to the interpretation, or confusion, of the reader and the visitor. It is interesting to consider the implications of this in the context of rural and urban areas. “Local” is potentially easier to establish in rural areas where food is shown as rooted in the environment and culture of a destination and reinforced by its local traditions. In particular, the concept of terroir sees food products as associated with a specific place and underpinned by a particular set of production and consumption practices that are directly informed by local traditions and reinforced by institutions to shape the ways in which taste then comes to define a place and its people (Trubek 2008). This, in turn, creates a sense of place which can reflect benefits sought by tourists, and represent the interests of tourism stakeholders without undermining the authenticity of a destination.

7 Food as a Component in Destination Marketing

137

However, the meaning of “local” is more complex in the context of urban destinations. Not only is the “local” difficult to define, but often difficult to make distinctive and unique in urban destinations. For example, urban areas have the sense of the local availability of global products and culture(s), as demonstrated in urban places boasting a range of ethnic cuisines. In particular, under the framework of the new mobilities paradigm, food in urban places can be seen as a medium reflecting encounters, intersections and contaminations among several mobility processes creating a global sense of place. However, this further raises the question of authenticity and uniqueness. What is more, the tendency to market the same set of international cuisines alongside standardised marketing messages in urban areas is particularly surprising given that, according to theory, destination marketing is quintessentially a process of achieving a competitive superiority through marketing uniqueness and difference. Finally, we must ask the very important question as to whether Visit England’s marketing of food in urban areas represents a “marketing of everything approach” and reinforces standardisation and predictability through an inability to develop and market uniqueness and difference? Alternatively, is there a danger that such an approach to destination marketing could lead to identikit urban destinations, rather than attempting to differentiate places by highlighting their unique features? The assumption is made in the academic literature that just about every destination can identify and market a unique asset achieving a point of difference against competitors. However, in reality, this is not reflected in urban destination marketing and is probably easier said than done in practice. As such, does this then suggest that there a gap between the theory and practice of destination marketing? Clearly, such an exploratory study cannot be exhaustive and there are many elements that remained outside the scope of this research. Without a doubt, the findings presented in this chapter need to be interpreted within the context for which this research was designed—that of destination marketing in England. It is believed, however, that both the methodological approach and its application mean that the findings should be useful for those responsible for destination marketing both in England and elsewhere as well as for researchers in this field in suggesting further areas of work. However, it is hoped that this study has whetted the appetites of students, academics and practitioners interested in the use of food as a component in destination marketing.

References Allen, P., & Hinrichs, C. (2007). Buying into ‘buy local’: Engagements of United States local food initiatives. In D. Maye, L. Holloway, & M. Kneafsey (Eds.), Alternative food geographies— Representation and practice (pp. 255–273). Oxford: Elsevier. Altheide, D. L., & Schneider, C. J. (2013). Qualitative media analysis. Los Angeles: Sage. Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Berg, B. L. (2014). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.

138

A. Stalmirska et al.

Bessière, J. (2001). The role of rural gastronomy in tourism. In Rural tourism and recreation: Principles to practice (pp. 115–118). Wallingford: CABI International. Boyne, S., & Hall, D. (2004). Place promotion through food and tourism: Rural branding and the role of websites. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 1(1), 80–92. Brokaj, M. (2014). The impact of the gastronomic offer in choosing tourism destination: The case of Albania. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 3(2), 249–258. Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97–116. Cai, L. A. (2002). Cooperative branding for rural destinations. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(3), 720–742. Casciola, C., Laurin, U., & Wolf, E. (2014). Developing a food tourism destination. In E. Wolf (Ed.), Have fork will travel: A practical handbook for food and drink professionals (pp. 221–232). Portland: World Food Travel Association. Coit, M. (2008). Jumping on the next bandwagon: An overview of the policy and legal aspects of the local food movement. Journal of Food Law & Policy, 4(45), 45–70. Croce, E., & Perri, G. (2010). Food and wine tourism: Integrating food, travel and territory. Wallingford: CABI. Du Rand, G. E., & Heath, E. (2006). Towards a framework for food tourism as an element of destination marketing. Current Issues in Tourism, 9(3), 206–234. Du Rand, G. E., Heath, E., & Alberts, N. (2003). The role of local and regional food in destination marketing: A South African situation analysis. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 14(3–4), 97–112. Echtner, C. M. (1999). The semiotic paradigm: Implications for tourism research. Tourism Management, 20(1), 47–57. Elmont, S. (1995). Tourism and food service: Two sides of the same coin. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(1), 57–63. Everett, S. (2008). Beyond the visual gaze? The pursuit of an embodied experience through food tourism. Tourist Studies, 8(3), 337–358. Everett, S. (2012). Production places or consumption spaces? The place-making agency of food tourism in Ireland and Scotland. Tourism Geographies, 14(4), 535. Everett, S. (2016). Food and drink tourism: Principles and practice. London: Sage. Everett, S., & Aitchison, C. (2008). The role of food tourism in sustaining regional identity: A case study of Cornwall, South West England. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2), 150–167. Finn, M., Walton, M., & Elliott-White, M. (2000). Tourism and leisure research methods: Data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Harlow: Longman. Fonte, M. (2002). Food systems, consumption models and risk perception in late modernity. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 10(1), 13–21. Frochot, I. (2003). An analysis of regional positioning and its associated food images in French tourism regional brochures. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 14(3–4), 77–96. Getz, D., Robinson, R., Andersson, T., & Vujicic, S. (2014). Foodies and food tourism. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers. Hammer, B. A. (2011). Terroir and cultural identity. Diversipede Journal of the University of Alberta, 1(1), 22–34. Hashimoto, A., & Telfer, D. (2006). Selling Canadian culinary tourism: Branding the global and the regional product. Tourism Geographies, 8(1), 31–55. Haven-Tang, C., & Jones, E. (2006). Using local food and drink to differentiate tourism destinations through a sense of place: A story from wales-dining at Monmouthshire’s great table. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 4(4), 69–86. Heeley, J. (2015). Urban destination marketing in contemporary Europe: Uniting theory and practice. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Henderson, J. C. (2009). Food tourism reviewed. British Food Journal, 111(4), 317–326. Henderson, J. C. (2014). Food and culture: In search of a Singapore cuisine. British Food Journal, 116(6), 904–917.

7 Food as a Component in Destination Marketing

139

Horng, J., & Tsai, C. S. (2010). Government websites for promoting East Asian culinary tourism: A cross-national analysis. Tourism Management, 31(1), 74–85. Jalis, M. H., Che, D., & Markwell, K. (2014). Utilising local cuisine to market Malaysia as a tourist destination. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 144, 102–110. Karim, S., & Chi, C. (2010). Culinary tourism as a destination attraction: An empirical examination of destinations’ food image. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(6), 531–555. Kim, Y. H., Yuan, J., Goh, B. K., & Antun, J. M. (2009). Web marketing in food tourism: A content analysis of web sites in West Texas. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 7(1), 52–64. Kivela, J., & Crotts, J. C. (2006). Gastronomy tourism: A meaningful travel market segment. Journal of Culinary Science and Technology, 4(2–3), 39–55. Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. C. (2014). Marketing for hospitality and tourism. Pearson new international edition (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson. Kozak, M., & Kozak, N. (2016). Destination marketing: An international perspective. London: Routledge. Krane, V., Andersen, M., & Strean, W. (1997). Issues of qualitative research methods and presentation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19(2), 213–218. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lee, I., & Arcodia, C. (2011). The role of regional food festivals for destination branding. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13(4), 355–367. Lee, K., & Scott, N. (2015). Food tourism reviewed using the paradigm funnel approach. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology, 13(2), 95–115. Lin, Y., Pearson, T. E., & Cai, L. A. (2011). Food as a form of destination identity: A tourism destination brand perspective. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 11(1), 30–48. McKercher, B., Okumus, F., & Okumus, B. (2008). Food tourism as a viable market segment: It’s all how you cook the numbers! Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 25(2), 137–148. McNaught, C., & Lam, P. (2010). Using Wordle as a supplementary research tool. Qualitative Report, 15(3), 630–643. Meethan, K. (2015). Making the difference: The experience economy and the future of regional food tourism. In I. Yeoman, U. McMahon-Beattie, K. Fields, J. N. Albrecht, & K. Meethan (Eds.), The future of food tourism: Foodies, experiences, exclusivity, visions and political capital (pp. 114–126). Bristol: Channel View Publications. Meler, M., & Cerovic, Z. (2003). Food marketing in the function of tourist product development. British Food Journal, 105(3), 175–192. Mintel. (2014). Global food tourism. London: Mintel. Morgan, N., & Pritchard, A. (2014). Key issues in destination brand management. In S. McCabe (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of tourism marketing (pp. 411–424). London: Routledge. Morgan, N., Pritchard, A., & Pride, R. (2004). Destination branding: Creating the unique destination proposition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Morrison, A. M. (2013). Marketing and managing tourism destinations. London: Routledge. Morrison, A. M., Braunlich, C. G., Kamaruddin, N., & Cai, L. A. (1995). National tourist offices in North America: An analysis. Tourism Management, 16(8), 605–617. Mulcahy, J. D. (2015). Future consumption: Gastronomy and public policy. In I. Yeoman, U. McMahon-Beattie, K. Fields, J. N. Albrecht, & K. Meethan (Eds.), The future of food tourism: Foodies, experiences, exclusivity, visions and political capital (pp. 75–86). Bristol: Channel View Publications. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson new international edition (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson. Okumus, B., Okumus, F., & McKercher, B. (2007). Incorporating local and international cuisines in the marketing of tourism destinations: The cases of Hong Kong and Turkey. Tourism Management, 28(1), 253–261.

140

A. Stalmirska et al.

Ooi, C. (2004). Poetics and politics of destination branding: Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 4(2), 107–128. Panayi, P. (2008). Spicing up Britain: The multicultural history of British food. London: Reaktion Books. Pike, S. (2016). Destination marketing: Essentials (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Pike, S., & Page, S. (2014). Destination marketing organizations and destination marketing: A narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism Management, 41, 202–227. Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre and every business a stage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Presenza, A., Sheehan, L., & Ritchie, J. B. (2005). Towards a model of the roles and activities of destination management organizations. Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure Science, 3(1), 1–16. Rennie-Short, J. (2013). Global metropolitan: Globalizing cities in a capitalist world. London: Routledge. Richards, G. (2007). Introduction: Global trends in cultural tourism. In G. Richards (Ed.), Cultural tourism—Global and local perspectives (pp. 1–24). New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press. Richards, G. (2009). The impact of culture on tourism. Paris: OECD. Richards, G. (2013). Creating relational tourism through exchange. Paper presented at the ATLAS Annual Conference, Malta, November 2015. Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2013). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Ritzer, G. (2008). The McDonaldization of society (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Pine Forge Press. Ritzer, G. (2013). The McDonaldization of society. 20th anniversary edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Romanazzi, S., Petruzzellis, L., & Iannuzzi, E. (2011). “Click & experience. Just virtually there.” The effect of a destination website on tourist choice: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 20(7), 791–813. Russo, A., & Richards, G. (2016). Reinventing the local in tourism: Producing, consuming and negotiating place. Bristol: Channel View Publications. Scheuch, M. (2012). The culinary experience: A major pillar of Austrian tourism. In Food and the tourism experience: The OECD-Korea workshop (pp. 133–145). Paris: OECD. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: Sage. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38(2), 207–226. Silkes, C. A., Cai, L. A., & Lehto, X. Y. (2013). Marketing to the culinary tourist. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 30(4), 335–349. Smith, S. (2015). A sense of place: Place, culture and tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 40(2), 220–233. Smith, M. K. (2016). Issues in cultural tourism studies (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. Smith, S., & Xiao, H. (2008). Culinary tourism supply chains: A preliminary examination. Journal of Travel Research, 46(3), 289–299. Telfer, D. J., & Wall, G. (1996). Linkages between tourism and food production. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 635–653. Tovey, H. (2009). “Local food” as a contested concept: Networks, knowledges and power in foodbased strategies for rural development. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 16(2), 21–35. Tresidder, R. (2015). Eating ants: Understanding the terroir restaurant as a form of destination tourism. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 13(4), 344–360. Trubek, A. B. (2008). The taste of place: A cultural journey into terroir. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Tsai, C. S., & Horng, J. (2012). Exploring marketing strategy of culinary tourism development in Hong Kong and Singapore: A resource-based theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17(3), 1–18.

7 Food as a Component in Destination Marketing

141

UNWTO. (2012). Global report on food tourism. Madrid: UNWTO. UNWTO. (2016). UNWTO tourism highlights. 2016 edition. Accessed November 3, 2016, from http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145 Urry, J. (2002). The tourist gaze. London: Sage. Visit England. (2016). Food and drink. Accessed September 5, 2016, from https://www. visitengland.com/ Wang, Y., & Pizam, A. (2011). Destination marketing and management: Theories and applications. Wallingford: CABI. Williams, R. (2002). Culture is ordinary (1958). In B. Highmore (Ed.), The everyday life reader (pp. 91–100). London: Routledge. Yeoman, I., McMahon-Beattie, U., Fields, K., Albrecht, J., & Meethan, K. (2015). The future of food tourism—Foodies, experiences, exclusivity, visions and political capital. Bristol: Channel View Publications.

Chapter 8

An Application of the EU Financial Instruments for Rural Tourism Development Elena Aleksandrova

Abstract Tourism development in rural areas has been the focus of numerous governmental activities and plans in the past decade. All efforts aiming at its stabilization have been performed by actions as to establish sustainable European tourism as well as to keep it in a good shape as a continuous process. Bearing this in mind as well as emphasizing the specific problems means creating development plans. Development plans have been intended for and aimed at public organizations, private business and other organizations at a European, national, regional and local level. By participating in the EU pre-integration and then integration programmes, Bulgaria has chances for developing a sustainable tourism, which will make it possible to unite all sides.

1 Introduction Tourism development in Bulgaria has been the focus of numerous governmental activities and plans over the past decade. All efforts aiming at its stabilization have been performed by actions which establish sustainable European tourism as well as keep it in a good shape as a continuous process. Throughout the years, due to the development of society and the increased information awareness of the population it has established itself as a dynamic sector, which has been among the engines of Bulgarian economic growth in the past decade.

1.1

Financial Resources

Based on a review of the key European programmes, is very important to see the way they contribute to tourism development and its competitiveness in the rural areas of the country. E. Aleksandrova (*) South-West University, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_8

143

144

E. Aleksandrova

Supporting the different kinds of tourism in Bulgaria by funds from the EU was initially implemented by the following pre-accession programmes: • SAPARD programme—a special programme for integration in the field of agriculture and development of rural areas; • PHARE programme—it supports NGO-s in the field of cultural tourism, municipalities—to improve infrastructure etc; • Cross-Border programmes for cooperation with Bulgaria’s neighboring countries; During the programme period 2007–2013 funding of projects for tourism development was implemented in an inter-complimentary way by several European programmes: • Operational programme “Regional Development”; • Rural Development Programme—RDP; • Operational programme “Development of the Competitiveness of the Bulgarian Economy”—OP “Competitiveness”. These European programs represent the organizational and regulatory frameworks in Bulgaria through which EU funds are provided and used. After the accession of the country to the EU, all analyzes and subsequent recommendations for development of both rural tourism and all other sectors of the national economy are implemented according to them, with the exception of the already implemented SAPARD and PHARE programmes.

2 Programme and Theoretical Framework The first steps in stabilizing Bulgarian tourism by using EU financial instruments were taken through the SAPARD pre-accession programme. The major interests in the field of tourism at that time was the development of rural tourism i.e. reconstruction and modernization of existing houses and construction of new guest houses and family hotels with up to 20 rooms to accommodate tourists in rural municipalities. At a later stage the RDP 2007–2013 it was possible to have investments in the sphere of tourism, which were implemented by performing activities focused on constructing and creating of sites for tourism development. According to the new normative basis the investments allowed are connected to constructing and renovation of tourist infrastructure and visitor attractions as well as tourist products development and marketing. In 2005 tourism has contributed directly to 4.5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 3.9% of employment (111,000 work places). However, it should also evaluated its indirect impact—15.9% of GDP and 13.6% of employment (400,000 work places). Tourism contribution is a bit above the average level for the EU (direct contribution 3.8% of GDP and 4.1% of employment and indirect—10.1% of GDP and 11.5% of employment) and is considerably higher compared to the one in

8 An Application of the EU Financial Instruments for Rural Tourism Development

145

Central and East Europe (direct contribution to GDP—2%, and to employment— 1.7%, indirect—9.1% to GDP and 7.4% of employment). The development of rural tourism in Europe began to develop after the World War II. Rural tourism first appeared in highly developed countries and this is not paradoxical, although it may be more logical to start in countries where agriculture has a larger share than the GNP structure. The need for a form of unification of rural tourism providers, farmers, individual farmers, food producers, drinkers, craftsmen and other actors in organizing this type of tourism is quite logical after its emergence. France and Italy are among the first to have regulations. To this end, in 1987, the National Federation of Accueil Paysan was established in France, which is a partner and works with the Ministry of Agriculture of the country (www.accueilpaysan.com/ fr/). In Italy, this type of tourism receives legal recognition and regulation. In 1985 a special law on agrarian tourism was adopted. The adoption of such a law is dictated by the fact that the country has great opportunities to develop this kind of tourism. From the Balkan Peninsula, as representatives of EU countries developing this type of tourism are Romania and Croatia, where rural tourism is experiencing some difficulties in its development. Some of them were analyzed by Marian (2017), in Croatia—by Demonja (2014) and others. Rural development and rural tourism can not be carried out on other types of territory of the country, which makes it necessary to achieve a certain degree of harmonization between rural and other categories of national territory through regional development policy. It should take into account the impact of urban and urban areas on rural areas because of the fact that there is a certain impact. This is necessary because these two categories of territories can change their spatial outlines over time. An appropriate tool for reporting these spatial changes is remote sensing methods (Dijkstra and Poelman 2008). The choice of criteria for defining rural areas depends on this the geographical size of individual EU Member States and the hierarchy of their administrative units. Most OECD countries use data on the number of local people to identify rural areas. The size of municipalities or their respective administrative units in most EU countries is essential. Some EU Member States use the sectoral employment structure (focusing on the employment structure for agriculture) or the model of daily trips (Copus et al. 2008). In Bulgaria, according to Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food №14/2003, 231 out of 264 municipalities (LAU 2), which are the lowest hierarchical administrative level, are defined as rural areas. In most countries, as well as in Bulgaria, the interaction in the economy is most often a function of the joint actions of the public and private sectors. The development of small and medium-sized businesses, some of which is rural tourism, is not feasible without state support and without the EU’s financial instruments. During the past decade, most tourism indicators have improved. It has been observed that the bed-capacity has increased substantially. It is also important to note that the share of higher category beds has increased significantly.

146

E. Aleksandrova

After privatization processes in Bulgaria a huge part of the enterprises has become privatesed and at present small and medium-sized enterprises prevail. As a result of the improved tourist basis, even though it has been achieved by small and medium-sized enterprises, the number of tourist arrivals has enjoyed a substantial rise in the past several years. Most tourists who come to Bulgaria do so in order to have a holiday. However, inner tourism has been developing significantly slower. On the one hand, this has been due to the low income of the population, and on the other—to lack of information among local population. The aim of this work is to present the development of this sector in the periods before Bulgaria’s membership in the EU, before 2007 and its development after the implementation of not only SAPARD, PHARE pre-accession programmes of the European Union, but also the implementations of the programs from 2007–2013 first programme period. The first steps leading to stabilization and development of Bulgarian tourism by using EU financial instruments started through the pre-accession programme SAPARD. The subject of the study is to present the impact of the EU grants for rural investments in Bulgaria as an opportunity to develop rural tourism and increase its competitiveness. Activities related to its development are also one of the ways of relative stabilization of the population in these areas. There are different definitions of the concept of “competitiveness”. There are different definitions of the concept of “competitiveness”. For example, according to D’Hauteserre (2000), this is the ability of a destination to preserve and/or expand its market niche in relation to its competitors. Enright and Newtown (2005) opinion is different. Their understanding is based on the possibilities of the attractive potential of the destination to attract potential tourists as well as to satisfy their needs for tourist services. Dwyer and Kim (2003) offer an “integrated model for the analysis of the competitiveness of the destination”. It includes the following key factors to make it possible to assess the competitiveness of a destination: – – – – –

inherited resources; created resources; supporting factors and resources; destination management; situational conditions (environmental conditions).

A number of conditions and factors affect the competitiveness of a destination. Maintaining constant competitiveness is very important because only this way this destination will maintain and increase its competitive position on the tourist market. Maintaining and enhancing competitive advantages already achieved is impossible without effective destination management, including targeted actions in the following main directions: – maintenance and renovation of the accommodation base; – raising the level and culture of service; – offering clean and, if possible, prepared local food from local produce, something most hotels can not offer; – having basic linguistic knowledge in at least one foreign language;

8 An Application of the EU Financial Instruments for Rural Tourism Development

147

– permanent marketing and advertising research not only to provide services but also to explore strategies and business intentions of competitors from both the location of the accommodation base and its associated services, if possible on a larger scale; – maintaining flexible pricing of services, especially around holiday days, as well as group visits to some social groups such as students and retirees; – actions aimed at reducing seasonality by offering alternative attractions, especially during the winter season, when not all outdoor activities and services are possible. According to the OECD, the competitiveness assessment may have made 11 key indicators divided into four groups: – impact assessment of tourism; – monitoring the quality and competitiveness of the provided tourist services in relation to the offered by the competitors; – assessing the attractiveness of the destination; – an assessment of the political and economic environment. However, more detailed assessments should be made by measuring the following indicators—relative share of tourism revenue in the structure of GDP, revenue received on average per tourist, labor productivity in the sector, parity of purchasing power of the foreign currency used on the local tourist market, prices, presence or absence of a visa regime and others. By analogy with foreign trade, tourism is a kind of “invisible trade,” as well as transfers of cash flows to and from a country, and to assess its effectiveness at national level, is appropriate, and it is done to compare “Tourist exports” (tourists from one country visited other countries and thus exported funds) with “tourist imports” (foreign tourists visited the country and contributed certain financial resources to it). If the balance is in favor of imports, then there is an “active tourism balance”, in the opposite case this balance is “passive”. Therefore, each country, in principle, seeks to achieve an active tourism balance. Ritchie and Crouch (1999) offer a model of a tourist destination with several groups of factors influencing and defining its sustainable development, functioning and competitiveness. According to their opinion, a destination is competitive only in the presence of general or complex economic, ecological, cultural and social sustainability. Their model is based on the following groups of competitive factors: – – – – –

main resources and attractors; supporting factors and resources; policy, planning and development of the destination; destination management; modifying and complementing the factors.

With its membership in the EU, Bulgaria has already many new opportunities through the EU financial instruments. Each country, whether a member or a preparatory period, is given the opportunity to work on key issues, to improve its supply, to introduce standards of goods and services, as well as tourism products. The development of tourism in rural areas at this stage in Bulgaria can be said to be

148

E. Aleksandrova

prerequisites for its definition as a competitive one, which with its development will increase its competitiveness. Already with its initial development, rural tourism in Bulgaria has begun to be researched, researched and analyzed in order to reduce the competitive distance with regard to other types of tourism. SAPARD was one of the preparatory programmes from which funds were provided for the development of tourism in the rural regions of Bulgaria. The financial aid provided by this programme has aimed at modernization of farms, of the food-processing industry, as well as at modernization and improvement of the quality of living in rural areas. The EU has financed up to 70% of the value of project proposals. The rest of the funding has been covered by the State. This financial aid has been provided on programming basis. This programme for agricultural development was endorsed by Bulgaria based on the National Plan for Agriculture and Rural Development (NPARD). This plan includes a strategy for the desired development level of rural areas, as well as the priorities of Bulgaria concerning the pre-membership financial aid, which involves specific measures for each priority and location in each region. The main conditions for the start of the program was: NPARD endorsed by the European Commission; an available accredited agency responsible for execution and payments as well as a reliable system for execution, monitoring and control of the program. The strategic goals and priorities of the NPARD was: 1. Development of effective agricultural production, improvement of the market and technological infrastructure and strategic investment policy with a goal to achieve European standards. 2. Balanced development of rural areas in accordance with the best ecological practices through creation of alternative employment, diversification of the economic activities and construction of the necessary infrastructure, to result in the improvement of living conditions. It can increase the chances for employment and income for people living in rural municipalities. The two strategic goals of SAPARD Programme encompass the following priority fields: improvement of production conditions, processing and marketing of the agricultural products and improvement of activities for conservation of arable land and forests; integrated development of rural areas with the goal of preserving and stabilizing their economic conditions and communities, and assisting in limiting the process of depopulation in these areas; and investments in human resources— qualification acquisitions and education of employees.

3 Methodology The resource of tourism is the topic of observation in the current paper. And more precisely, the paper analyses tourism and looks at the existing and new opportunities connected with it, which would help for the utilization and development of the resource in order to improve the quality of living in rural regions.

8 An Application of the EU Financial Instruments for Rural Tourism Development

149

The main goal in the NPARD is the improvement of accommodation conditions as well as provision of services and tourist products that facilitate rural tourism; also investing funds into marketing and advertising activities for rural products on local and international level. Due to the variety in the current tourism potential of different regions in the country, for the purposes of financing by the EU funds, it was defined rural tourism as tourism based in rural regions, which can be cultural and historical tourism, community tourism, natural tourism, spa tourism, ecotourism, etc. For the purposes of realization, adoption and development of the types of tourism mentioned above, there have been funds invested in the renovation, reconstruction and structural adaptation of buildings for the use of rural tourism. These are buildings that are of historical or cultural interest, such as cellars, windmills, etc., which are private or municipal property. Also, the funds have been invested in the construction of accommodation places and the creation of accommodation facilities outside (like camping grounds, recreation and sport centers, etc.). Before Bulgaria became a member of European Union, there had been existing camping facilities as well as recreational centers, but with time many of them have not been fit for use or have been closed down due to inadequate maintenance. It has been impossible for small municipalities and local people in rural areas to maintain and modernize these facilities. On the other hand, tourists visiting Bulgaria, regardless whether they are visiting popular seaside or winter resorts, almost always visit smaller villages either inadvertently or by chance. Tourists are informed people, they are guided by their curiosity and desire to see not only different places, but also to get to know new cultures and a different way of life. In Bulgaria, the small municipalities are mainly responsible for the preservation of culture and way of life as it was in the past and, respectively, for connecting traditions with the present changes in the country. To attract the current and future tourists in the country to visit the rural areas, it is necessary to improve the supply of attractions by more obtaining more financing through the utilization of operational programmes of the EU. According to (Fig. 8.1), the tendency for an increase in tourist numbers in Bulgaria began before the country’s membership in the EU. The foreign visitors in Bulgaria during 2008 were 8.5 million, which was with 10.4% more than 2007. Visits by EU citizens dominated—5.7 million, which amounted to 67.1% of the total number of trips of foreign citizens in Bulgaria.

Fig. 8.1 Visits of tourists for the period 2004–2008. Source: National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria

10000000

6981597 7282456 7499117 7725747 8532972

8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000

2004

0 1

2005 2

2006 3

2007 4

2008 5

150

E. Aleksandrova

From the 8.5 million foreign citizens who visited Bulgaria in 2008 more than 60% were citizens of EU countries, namely 5.5 million, which signifies the popularity of the country in Europe as a tourist destination. The majority of the visits were realized in the period April to October. Due to the seasonal character of the climate in the country the period of April to October is particularly suitable for seaside and mountain tourism. The mountain conditions are adverse during winter, which is important for the small picturesque villages, which are situated predominantly at the mountain regions (Rhodopes, Pirin, Rila, Strandzha and the Balkan Mountains). When setting goals and planning a strategy on how to create rural tourism in a given country, it is very important that proposals are innovative to create a workable planning approach. The planned approach is a scheme (Dimitrov 2012) which guides and directs the diverse activities of many people involved in the development of innovation from the idea to its commercialization. According to Stankova (2013), the investment activity of the tourism enterprises is mainly operational and strategic direction in the organization and management, ensuring stable economic development, profitability and efficiency of the economic entities. The analysis and assessment of the regional disparities and the competitiveness of the individual tourist regions in Bulgaria will be considered with regard to the investments made to improve the tourist infrastructure as investment in tourism is crucial to improving the competitiveness of the regions. That is why a lot of guest houses were built in the villages in the pre-membership period. This is due to the rising interest of visitors, who apparently want to stay at small family-size hotels or guest houses during their ski vacations, not at the huge hotels in the ski resorts. In accordance with the normative legislation of Bulgaria, the European funds has supported regions with tourism potential with a maximum amount of an endorsed project of € 200,000. The main goal has been the improvement of the accommodation facilities for tourists and provision of services and tourist products to support the development of the rural tourism. Other essential elements for the development of tourism have also been supported, such as marketing and advertising of rural products at local and international level. Bulgaria has 264 municipal units, which are within 28 administrative regions. The existing legislation has determined which areas qualify for financial support and which do not require such support. There are 217 municipalities within the qualifying number for financial support from EU funds during the pre-membership period, which is almost 90% of the country’s territory. The total amount of financing for the 7-year period of SAPARD has been € 408 million. At 31 October 2007, the date when Bulgaria ceased signing contracts, the sum of already signed 2424 projects. Under this programme, 422 project proposals for tourism development in rural areas are funded with EUR 44 million were accepted. With respect to the funds used for tourism development purposes, there has been mainly financing for renovation and reconstruction of buildings with historical and cultural importance (old cellars, windmills, etc.), which are private or municipal ownership. What has been financed is the construction of places and facilities for outside accommodation (camping facilities, recreation and sport centers). Also, there

8 An Application of the EU Financial Instruments for Rural Tourism Development

151

have been improved facilities with the purpose of recreation and relaxation during leisure time. This way, there have been provided opportunities for relaxation and sport (horse riding, fishing, mountain biking, trails, etc.). Investments have been made also with respect to advertising activities; multifunctional centers with information for rural tourism have been constructed. In addition, there have been funds for creation and modernization of controlled hunting areas (accommodation places, outside facilities and facilities for animal care). With regard to fishing tourism there have been done: – – – – –

Creation and modernization of specialized fishing areas; Construction and renovation of accommodation centers for tourists; Improvement of the existing infrastructure; Creation and improvement of outside facilities—areas designated for picnic etc.; Purchasing of fishing equipment.

One of serious problems is a lack well-qualified employees enough. On the other hand, there have been investments for construction of hotels, guest houses, recreation centers, and overall increase of accommodation capacity and visits of tourists in the rural areas. As the European programmes are being implemented in Bulgaria, there are numerous schemes and measures that are applied, which aim at improving life in rural areas, but tourism is one of the main means for supporting regional and local development. The growth in the sphere of tourism may have a positive impact not only on the very sector itself, but also on the development of spheres that are connected to it like industry and services, employment and the general economic condition of the areas (accelerating and multiplying effect of tourism). This is important for the peripheral areas, where opportunities for development are limited. Clear evidence of this is the fact that the municipalities with developed tourism have stronger economy when compared with similar municipalities without or with a limited opportunity for development of tourism, as well as the fact that in numerous cases tourism has successfully managed to compensate for the loss of work places and opportunities for income after establishing a specific region as a tourist one. Despite the efforts put in its development, the significant potential of a great part of the country’s territory has remained unused or underused, and the local business and population cannot take advantage of tourism assets. Even though besides the measures whose objectives are to develop tourism in rural areas there are several measures implemented to different operational programmes aiming at improving the qualification of the local population, training and development of human resources, tourism still has its weaknesses and problems. An especially important competitive advantage is the information resources. The modern information centers, created in almost every municipality, provide the information resources in the settlements and aim for better service on the basis of a developed marketing strategy for the tourist sites in the country. For this purpose, a manual for the work of the tourist Information centers in Bulgaria has been created which provides the methodological and legal framework for the establishment and

152

E. Aleksandrova

functioning of the centers in the country (Ministry of Tourism). This document is linked to tourist information centers in order to make them an important element of the hierarchical management structure of the tourist destination and a basis for integrated policy and governance. Advertising informational subjects play an important role for the distribution of the image of a specific tourist product. The demand depends on their work, which refers to the income i.e. their importance for the economic development of a certain destination is huge. The aim of this work is to investigate several criteria, which will make it possible for them to be used as a basis of comparison of the condition of small municipalities in the period before and after the EU funding. It is essential that we make feedbacks with the people who have used the financial instruments of the European Union, with the citizens, and with the ones who use the goods. The efforts put in acquiring resources from European Union funds aim not only at improving the infrastructure and superstructure, but also at providing the population with some assistance in the form of provision of employment, enhancing qualification and improving the general condition of rural areas. The next very important financial instrument which was used for funding and development of rural regions and which contributed to the development of tourism in our country is the RDV, which was implemented in the 2007–2013 period. This programme supported the tourist sector in rural areas in small municipalities in two directions that were focusing directly on the development of tourism in rural areas; measure—Support for the creation and development of micro enterprises in rural areas and measure— Promotion of tourists’ activities and some other measures that were similarly connected to the development of tourist activities. Under the first direction “Support for the creation and development of micro enterprises” there were numerous small family hotels, guest houses and accommodation places etc constructed. Under the second direction “Promotion of tourists’ activities” there were a lot of places for rest, ecopaths, tourist centres, facilities for visitors of attractive routes and many more created. The competitiveness of the tourist destination is determined by external and internal indicators, according to Ribov (2013). External factors for the destination are those that create an environment in which all tourism companies in the industry work and compete. They largely predetermine the actions and success of the destination. As far as internal factors are concerned, they are mainly influenced by external factors but are the subject of governance. They are a product of the tourism enterprise’s strategy, its efficiency and effectiveness. To increase their chances of success on the global market, tourist destinations need to produce their products more efficiently than their competitors. In other words, they must have comparative advantages. According to some of authors, the competitive advantage stems from two elements: competence and resources. The competence includes abilities, managerial experience, technology or know-how, and resources are all the inputs the organization uses in the production process. The funds cover five main groups: human resources, financial resources, physical resources (buildings, material resources, equipment, etc.), operational resources (procedures, instructions, production

8 An Application of the EU Financial Instruments for Rural Tourism Development

153

technologies, management and control systems) and intangible resources, etc.). The appropriate determination of criteria and indicators for the competitive advantages of rural tourism is essential for their measurement. Each product choice contains some preferences in its quality, and the basis of any preference is certain criteria. The criterion can be seen as a “verbal expression” (Ribov 2011), which allows product varieties with the same purpose to be assigned the same denominator and subject to evaluation for purchasing decision. The World Tourism Council (WTC) develops a system of indicators that aim to assess the competitiveness and the level of tourism management in the individual countries. The indicators used are: infrastructure, environment, accessibility, social environment, price competitiveness, human resources, technological progress. An additional set of indicators should be added to this publication, such as: number of realized projects, absorbed funds, etc. to the part of the competitiveness indicators approved by the WTC with regard to rural tourism and realized project proposals. Here the focus is only on the implementation of the projects in the first programming period for Bulgaria after its admission to the EU (2007–2013).

4 Results As results of the investments made in the rural areas there can be noticed several directions—improved basic services for the population and the rural infrastructure; improved protection of the environmental and cultural heritage; thousands of tourists have been more attracted in rural areas; new work positions have been opened. Last, but not least there has been a significant improvement in the access and quality of some basic services and infrastructure in the rural areas.With the help of financial resources, it is possible to trace how the different regions increase their tourist competitiveness towards each other (Fig. 8.2). When the RDP was launched and it began to be applied, there was a interest in tourist activities may be considered an indicator for this as well as the investments in tourist activities based on the number of beneficiaries who have used the European funds; the spheres in which these investments have had their influence; financial indexes, as well as their significance for maintaining the existing ones that work while creating new once. The main activities under the RDP, under which projects related to the development of tourism are financed, are the measure “Diversification to non-agricultural activities”, in which major guest houses and small hotels are financed. The other measure on which the construction of tourist sites is funded is “Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises”, where tourism projects from microenterprises related to rural tourism are also implemented here (Fig. 8.2). The funding of the rural development projects presented was fully in line with the main objectives and priorities of the RDP to stimulate the development and diversification of the economic activities in which the tourism, revival and development of the settlements, the preservation of the rural heritage and the cultural traditions,

154

E. Aleksandrova

Blagoevgrad Sofia Lovech Smolyan Pazardzhik Burgas Haskovo Kyustendil Plovdiv Stara Zagora Montana Gabrovo Varna Veliko… Kardzhali Sliven Yambol Vidin Shumen Dobrich Pleven Pernik Vratsa Ruse Targivishte Silistra Razgrad 0

135 82 60 44 43 39 30 29 27 25 25 24 21 19 17 15 14 14 12 12 10 10 9 8 5 4 4 50

100

150

Fig. 8.2 Number of realized tourism projects in the rural areas of the administrative regions under the RDP 2007–2013. Source: SFA

the development and modernization of the local infrastructure, etc. were important. Evidence of the important place of tourism is the number of realized projects in the rural areas of administrative regions (Table 8.1). Other activities funded in the initial period of EU membership are directed to services for the economy and the population in the rural areas. Funds are invested in cultural centres, created and renovated of sport facilities, projects for social services, projects for development of information and communication technologies. As a main component of the indexes is that the rural areas have strengthened and diversified their own economies, which provide the rural population with a good standard of living. There is a tendency of improving the quality of life and of diversifying the employment opportunities in rural areas by the creation additional full-time work positions. Another operative programme was RDP, which was implemented in the period 2007–2013. There were five priority axes being implemented under this programme; priority axis three—sustainable development was primarily focusing on tourist activities. The key target groups at whom the activities of management and

8 An Application of the EU Financial Instruments for Rural Tourism Development

155

Table 8.1 SWOT ANALYSIS—Improvement of the quality of life in rural areas SWOT ANALISIS—Improvement of the quality of life Strengths Weaknesses • A well-developed net of towns and • High level of unemployment in rural areas; villages with rich historical and cultural • Lack of or dilapidated infrastructure for water traditions supply, sewerage, roads, garbage processing, • Various natural and climatic recycling conditions and maintained traditions • Insufficient spread of modern communication and allowing the development of alternative information technologies; tourism • Underdeveloped human and social capital; • Rural areas don’t attract/keep young people, who migrate to urban areas (as a result the quality of the work force in rural areas deteriorates) • Underdeveloped citizen society, especially in rural areas Opportunities Threats • Improvement of the infrastructure by • Deterioration of environment conditions/natural EU finansial resourses; Spread of the conditions due to the climate changes modern communication and information technologies through activities funded by European funds; Increase in the number of tourists who visit the rural areas

acquisition of European funds aim are: potential new candidates, and beneficiaries who had already finansed their projects. Its main objectives are: informing the potential candidates about the opportunities the European funds provide and raise interest in applying; supporting the beneficiaries when implementing their projects; obtaining an assessment about the application of the measures and activities, as well as getting feedbacks from the target groups; spreading information about the progress, achieved outcomes; the benefits from the development of rural areas and environment protection. The means for getting feedbacks are: courses and discussion forums for trainings of trainers, informational and consulting seminars for beneficiaries, for journalists, lectures, issuing information materials, media appearances, and social networks. Tourism is perceived as a priority sector for development in the National Strategy for Regional Development, in all regional development plans and municipal development strategy, as well as in most municipal development plans. It is a priority of all governing state authorities and the respective local authorities to develop numerous programs.

5 Conclusion Since the population has been concentrated in the urban areas and investments have been made only in the developed municipalities, it is imperative that investments be made in the rural areas and the underdeveloped parts of the country. Namely because

156

E. Aleksandrova

of that reason, it is necessary that they participate in the European programmes as to improve their quality of life, work environment and provide opportunities for enhanced regional competitiveness and sustainable development. The analysis is of this work will contribute to information awareness about the application of the schemes, measures and activities of European programmes, and will estimate to what extent they are beneficial for the economic development of Bulgaria. By implementing the actions included in the activities planned in the programmes for development of tourism in Bulgaria, it is intended to increase the competitiveness and attraction of the regions and municipalities, to lower the differences between the industrial, housing, social, ecological and cultural environment of the urban areas and the accessibility of the rural areas in reference with the road, information and communication infrastructure that concern the impact on tourism. However, several successive projects of the EU programmes identified this lapse and were meant to solve it. They not only noted the existing need of such intervention on local level, which cannot be satiated by using the pre-accession funds, but they also created the idea of the desired and most suitable actions, the typical setbacks by contributing to building up a capacity and getting experience in development and implementation of projects by a significant number of local and national participants. By assessing the benefits of the support, the improved information awareness of the public and the life quality enhancement it would be able to estimate which the right direction is for development and where it would be necessary to focus our efforts. The implementation of tourism development programs in Bulgaria has led to an increase in the competitiveness and attractiveness of rural areas. This in turn helps to improve the social, environmental and cultural environment in rural areas on the one hand and road, information and communication networks related to the development of tourism and its ratification as a sustainable process on the other.

References Copus, A., Psaltopoulos, D., Skuras, D., Terluin, I., & Weingarten, P. (2008). Approaches to the typology of rural areas in Europe unification. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. D’Hauteserre, A. M. (2000). Lessons in managed destination competitiveness: The case of Foxwoods Casino Resort. Tourism Management, 21(1), 23–32. Demonja, D. (2014). Pregled i analiza stanja ruralnog turizma u Hrvatskoj. Sociologia i Prostor, 52(198(1)), 69–90. Dijkstra, L., & Poelman, H. (2008). Remote rural areas: How do you feel about a city? The implementation of rural areas. Regional Focus No 01, Brussels: DG REGIO. Dimitrov, P. (2012). Innovation and innovative thinking in tourism (p. 84). Sofia: Avangard Prima. Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003). Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369–414. Enright, M., & Newtown, J. (2005). Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in Asia Pacific: Comprehensiveness and universality. Journal of Travel Research, 43, 340. Marian, I. (2017). Rural tourism and agro-tourism in Romania. In Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series (Vol. XVII, pp. 227–229). Constanta: Ovidius University of Constanta, Faculty of Economic Sciences.

8 An Application of the EU Financial Instruments for Rural Tourism Development

157

Ribov, M. (2011). Competitive advantages in tourism (p. 58). Sofia: Thrace. Ribov, M. (2013). Quality and competitiveness systems (p. 436). Sofia: Trakia-M. Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (1999). Tourism, competitiveness, and societal prosperity. Journal of Business Research, 44(3), 137–152. Stankova, M. (2013). Increasing the competitiveness of the tourist destination (p. 119). Blagoevgrad: University Publishing House “Neofit Rilski”.

Internet Sources Eurostat statistics exploined. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Main_Page Ministry of Tourism. http://www.tourism.government.bg/bg/kategorii/rezultati-po-priklyuchiliproekti/naruchnik-za-rabota-na-turisticheskite-informacionni National Plan for Agriculture and Rural Development. http://www.vn.government.bg/stranici/ strategii/bg/NSPAgriculture-2006-03-30.pdf National statistical institute—Bulgaria. http://www.nsi.bg/ Operational programme “Regional Development” 2007–2013. http://www.bgregio.eu/ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—OECD. Pre-accession programme SAPARD. http://old.europe.bg/htmls/page.php?category¼329&id¼20965 Rural Development Programme—RDP. https://www.mtitc.government.bg/upload/docs/Programa_ razvitie_selski_raioni_2007_2013_r.pdf State Fund Agriculture—SFA. http://www.dfz.bg/bg/prescentar/to_2016_news/-311-312-2007-2013/ World Travel & Tourism Council. http://www.wttc.org/eng/Tourism_Research/, www.accueilpaysan.com/fr/, http://www.oecd.org/

Chapter 9

Travel Bloggers as Influencers: What Compels Them to Blog Esra Ay, Kübra İpek, Nazım Bircan Özdağ, Ecem Özekici, and Maria Dolores Alvarez

Abstract Travel blogs have become an influential source of travelling information. Bloggers share their travel experiences and are generally considered as a trusted source of knowledge. They influence readers’ opinions and perceptions of places, affecting travel decisions. Despite the importance of bloggers as influencers, there is limited research on the factors affecting these individuals to blog about travel destinations. This is the topic of our study, which is based on data collected through interviews to Turkish travel bloggers. The interviews covered issues concerning motivations of bloggers, existence of collaboration and bloggers’ perceptions concerning their role as influencers. The research has important implications for theory and practice, since an improved understanding of these factors can help destinations market themselves better through blogs.

1 Introduction Each travel has its unique story that is meant to be told, and which may be read via different social networks and digital channels. According to IPK International (2015) and Technorati (2013), Internet has become the preferred and most popular travelling information source. Among these, travel blogs are considered as particularly important (Volo 2012; Rosenkranz 2016). Blogs are defined as “personal, journal-like written online stories on the web page created by anyone” (Kaikkonen 2016, p. 1). Travel bloggers share their travel experiences, opinions, thoughts via social media platforms, and they are generally considered as a trusted source of information (Kaikkonen 2016). Therefore, travel bloggers become influencers and they affect readers’ opinions and perceptions of places via their writings, somehow inspiring their travel decisions (Kaikkonen 2016; Thurm 2014). Thus, it is important to understand what motivates bloggers to blog about a travel destination. Previous researchers have mainly focused on how blogs are used to market a destination, and on the techniques used to reach this medium (Dobele et al. 2015; E. Ay · K. İpek · N. B. Özdağ · E. Özekici · M. D. Alvarez (*) Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_9

159

160

E. Ay et al.

Hsu and Ou Yang 2013; Uzunoglu and Misci Kip 2014). As Davydova (2012) mentions, the actual factors that influence bloggers to blog are not well defined. Therefore, this research aims to find out what factors influence travel bloggers to blog about a particular travel destination.

2 Literature Review This section will first review the existing literature on destination image formation process. It will then examine travel blogs as a source of information for travellers. Finally, the literature on bloggers will be examined.

2.1

Destination Image Formation

Destination image is the total of all positive and negative thoughts and feelings that come up in tourists’ mind about a specific place (Jenkins 1999). From a broader perspective, destination image is most often described as “a picture or idea formatted by knowledge, impressions, attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of a place created by tourists and visitors or, by consumers” (Kaikkonen 2016, p. 6). Tourists generally decide which destination they desire to travel to depending on these images. Therefore, many researchers (Alvarez and Campo 2011; Baloglu and McCleary 1999; Beerli and Martin 2004; Frías et al. 2008; Tseng et al. 2015) have mentioned the relationship between destination image and tourists’ intentions to visit a particular place. Goodall (1991) based his studies on the destination selection process and suggested that all destinations in the universe constitute the initial opportunity set. Some are eliminated from this category because either they are unknown to the person who will choose them, or they suffer some monetary or time-related problems that hinder the ability to visit it (Goodall 1991). The image formation process gains importance especially in the tourism industry because intangibility of services and experiences makes it more difficult to have real-like opinions before consuming the tourism service (Pike 2008). For this reason, drawing pictures in people’s mind and building some feelings upon such intangible experiences are crucial. This creates a sense of tangibility and increases the saleability of a destination (Pike 2008). The image of the destination and its various components is formed through information that the individual is exposed to (Gartner 1994). Gunn’s (1972) early study suggested that organic images related to the destination that are created thanks to sources that don’t have a commercial intention, such as stories, movies, etc., and induced images made by sources that are used by the destination area managers intentionally as marketing tools to promote it, are the different ways of formation. Besides, Phelps (1986) mentioned that primary images are created through visitation, and secondary images are influenced by external sources (Gartner 1994). As a

9 Travel Bloggers as Influencers: What Compels Them to Blog

161

result of these investigations, Gartner (1994) came up with eight image formation agents that vary from traditional to popular, and differ in their credibility, cost for destination promoters, and control over the sources of information. Among all of the existing information sources Internet takes an important place because of 24/7 access, availability of updated, real-time information and interactive communication (Frías et al. 2008). In addition, the Internet, through social media, can also be a vehicle to disseminate word of mouth. Therefore, tourists do not always need friends or relatives because they can find whatever they need by checking the web pages or social media accounts of people from all around the world, including locals (Pan et al. 2007). When discussing sources of information, one of the most important issues is the level of control that the marketer has over it. Many studies (Alvarez and Campo 2011; Baloglu and Mangaloglu 2001; Gartner 1994) describe the sources created by travel agents or tour operators as more formal, professional and controllable because those are generated with the motivations of promotional factors and consulting concerns (Frías et al. 2008). However, with the development of the Internet, tourists find new platforms that they can use to arrange their flights, make a reservation in a specific hotel, share their experiences and learn from others (Pan et al. 2007). These sources that are not under the control of the travel agents are named as autonomous sources of information (Gartner 1994), and they are also perceived as being more credible (Schmallegger and Carson 2008). In addition, information transmitted through the Internet can be reached by thousands of people from around the world, (Frías et al. 2008), making these autonomous and non-controllable Internetbased information sources important in shaping people’s destination choices (Alvarez and Campo 2011).

2.2

Blogs as an Uncontrollable Information Sources

People generally make choices considering those activities or experiences that may provide them with stories to remember and tell in the future (Woodside et al. 2008). This makes them more open to sharing their experiences with others and to learning from other people. As mentioned before, tourism services are not like other products and people seek information generated by those who have already experienced them (Schmallegger and Carson 2008). Thus, opinion leaders, defined as influential members of a community, group or society to whom others turn for advice, opinions, and views (BusinessDictionary.com n.d.), gain significant power. This is where user generated content sites become useful. User generated content (UGC) is “any data or media that is contributed by the users of a website—rather than being created by professional journalists and editors” (Mackenzie 2011). In this research, travel blogs will be examined as uncontrollable user generated content. In general, blogs are the written version of experiences, observations, and opinions of the writer or group of writers (Dictionary.com n.d.). They have become favoured means of searching for information and they are the best way to read and

162

E. Ay et al.

learn about others’ experiences and comments (Kaikkonen 2016; Sepp et al. 2011; Volo 2012). Blogs are seen as a trusted source of knowledge since authentic information is provided based on personal experiences (Kaikkonen 2016; Vrana et al. 2012). The term ‘blog’ derives from a blend of the word ‘web log’ and it was first coined by Peter Merholz in 1999 (Davydova 2012). Blogs have many advantages with respect to other sources of information (Kaikkonen 2016). The possibility of easily creating and updating blogs is one of their main benefits (Kaikkonen 2016). Blogs are also flexible in structure (Davydova 2012; Schmallegger and Carson 2008). Travel and tourism blogs can be classified into three categories: individual, collaborative and corporate (Davydova 2012; Thevenot 2007). Individual blogs are also called personal blogs, and they generally take the “form of an online diary” (Davydova 2012, p. 10). These blogs usually describe the blogger’s personal life or a specific topic that the writer wants to share or comment on (Davydova 2012; Thevenot 2007). The second type of blog is the collaborative blog, which includes more than one author’s writing posts. Thus, the information range increases, so that the number of readers grows, and posts are regularly updated by the bloggers (Davydova 2012). Since the collaborative blogs follow specific topics, they tend to be more organized than personal blogs (Davydova 2012; Thraenhart 2007). Finally, the third type of blog is the corporate blog. This kind is generally published by a specific organization and categorized as internal or external (Thraenhart 2007). The former is written for employees in the organization who can reach those blogs via their intranet systems. In contrast, external blogs are for the public and they are commonly related to travel topics written by tourism professionals, businesses and tourism organizations (Davydova 2012; Thraenhart 2007).

2.3

Bloggers as Influencers

Bloggers are becoming more important in marketing (Zúñiga et al. 2011). According to Çakmak and Isaac (2012) many researchers evaluate blogs as successful word-ofmouth commercials and they acknowledge that they have enormous influence on the image formation of a destination. So, bloggers, who write or update a blog, are the new type of influencers with the power to push people to take a specific action (Kaikkonen 2016; Rosenkranz 2016; Strugatz 2016; Uzunoglu and Misci Kip 2014; Volo 2012). Influencers are people who are embedded actors in the social media and actively use various kinds of social media networks and blogs where they share their thoughts and experiences, and influence the audience by spreading their discussions (Kaikkonen 2016; Uzunoglu and Misci Kip 2014). According to Technorati (2013), 86% of influencers are active bloggers (Kaikkonen 2016). So, blogs have started to take an important place in our lives. The literature (Bates 2016; Jung et al. 2012; Li et al. 2012; Liao et al. 2010; Nardi et al. 2004; Zúñiga et al. 2011) includes several studies that concern the factors influencing travel bloggers’ writings about destinations, such as motivation,

9 Travel Bloggers as Influencers: What Compels Them to Blog

163

collaboration, perception as influencers and choice of destination. Motivation is the key factor of any action and it leads to actual behaviour (Huang et al. 2007). Bloggers initiate their blogs with heterogeneous motivations, and subsequently their motivations can also change (Li et al. 2012). According to Gurak and Antonijevic (2008), blogs address the basic elements of human nature. Those are “to express one’s identity, create community, structure one’s past and present experiences” (Gurak and Antonijevic 2008, p. 60). Bloggers convey their thoughts and feelings via posts and photos uploaded. Some bloggers keep their blogs in order to become a well-known blogger (Trammell and Keshelashvili 2005). They post new contents regularly and aim to increase the number of followers. This makes them feel powerful or fulfil some underlying desire. Huang et al. (2007) provide a model that explains the relationship between various motivations categorized under five subheadings; these include “self-expression, life documenting, commenting, community forum participation and information seeking” (Huang et al. 2007, p. 474). In another study, Liao et al. (2010) categorize bloggers into two groups: those with intrinsic motivations and those with extrinsic ones. Intrinsic motivational factors are listed as “killing time by blogging, having space to store my data and file, enjoying sharing my life with others, pouring out my feelings on my blog, gaining achievement by blogging” (Liao et al. 2010, p. 675). Extrinsic motivational factors include “looking forward to other’s response, finding good topics when talking with others, regularly connecting with people I know, meeting new friends, understanding other’s feelings and opinions” (Liao et al. 2010, p. 675). These studies (Huang et al. 2007; Liao et al. 2010; Nardi et al. 2004) determine that bloggers regard their blogs as an educational tool for their personal development and that they may receive contributions from their blogging activities, such as increased writing skills, improved creativity, access to information, etc. Blogs may in turn allow their authors to become better writers, better thinkers and more knowledgeable in their fields, therefore increasing their confidence (Becker n.d.). Moreover, bloggers may also enjoy helping their readers via their blogs, sharing what they have experienced before, or giving some useful hints (Gunelius 2017; Websudasa 2016). Bloggers become more motivated and pay more attention to their blogs when they receive comments from followers and know that their voices are heard (Nardi et al. 2004). Another reason why people write a blog is related to the function of blogs as meeting platforms. Blogs allow individuals to meet with new people all around the world. Especially, those who have the same interests as the blog’s writer can become part of their major audience (Websudasa 2016). Keeping a blog helps bloggers reach like-minded people and share ideas (Gunelius 2017). In addition, reaching thousands of people, sharing ideas or experiences, and meeting with new people give bloggers the power to influence people’s choice of destination during the pre-purchase stage (Bullas 2013). When they present their competences through their blogs, they are regarded as proficient in what they do (Trammell and Keshelashvili 2005). So, people care about the advices, solutions or stories written on their blogs. According to Bullas (2013), blogs are the third most influential tool when people make purchase

164

E. Ay et al.

decisions. The perception of being regarded as influencers may increase bloggers’ level of self-satisfaction, which can be another motivation factor for writing a blog (Trammell and Keshelashvili 2005). In addition, blogging provides some benefits, such as free tickets, full package hotel stays, various discounts, etc.; bloggers are generally influenced by the idea of making money through their hobbies (Netherwood 2014). There are many professional bloggers who gain their income from blogging, so they quit their previous jobs and direct their attention to their blogs (The Skool of Life n.d.). Different paths are available to get paid while blogging. Bloggers can create their own brand and promote it, or get involved in sponsorship or collaboration activities (Caz 2014). Indeed, most of the travel bloggers engage in various forms of collaboration. Travel bloggers may earn money from content marketing, freelance writing, advertising, and affiliate sales (Shain 2014). Advertisements and affiliate sales are the key earnings for most of the travel bloggers, although the contribution of other marketing strategies can’t be underestimated (Karsten 2014). In order to activate an advertisement in their websites, bloggers place some special codes within their blogs. By doing so, they can display ads that are relevant to the content of their website (Karsten 2014). This provides a regular source of income to the blogger via reader clicks on the ads. Another form of collaboration is content marketing, which is often referred to as the new way of marketing since it involves creating and sharing valuable content to engage a community (Karsten 2014). Therefore, customers are both entertained and educated and a relationship is built. Instead of pushing a sale on them, bloggers give advice to these customers (Shain 2014). Another common source of income for bloggers is freelance writing and editing. Bloggers may get paid to write articles for various websites, since sites need content and bloggers have stories to share (Karsten 2014). Companies also pay travel bloggers to advertise on their websites, blogs or social media accounts (Karsten 2014). Because most of the bloggers have a loyal audience, companies just want to access it. This collaboration is generally well paid, but bloggers usually blog about those companies that they like and trust (Shain 2014). These partnerships can last from 3 months up to a year and are called long-term ambassadorships. Affiliate sales are also another way that travel bloggers often use to earn money. They generally get a cut from the products that customers buy through the links that they promote (Shain 2014). Bloggers may share and endorse different products through a tracking link. When they endorse destinations, they may also get discounted or free hotel stays, car rentals, and activities in the area (Shain 2014). In many cases, a country’s tourism board invites bloggers to visit and write about their experiences at the destination. The blogger’s activities, accommodations and flights are generally covered by the destination managers (Karsten 2014). On the other hand, travel bloggers may have different tastes and priorities when choosing a destination. According to Alexander (2016) “travel bloggers have their own plans and visions for the development of their blogs; they’re not merely freeexperience-junkies that will go for whatever is offered”. Therefore, bloggers’ choices can depend on various factors such as their visit and experience with the

9 Travel Bloggers as Influencers: What Compels Them to Blog

165

destination, existing trends and sponsorship and collaboration opportunities. Sometimes travel bloggers want to write about a place after visiting it, even if they had no intention of doing so in the first place (Alexander 2016). Other times they have an urge to share the beauty of the destination with their followers (Alexander 2016). Current trends may also influence bloggers’ choice of a destination to blog about. Bloggers might want to go to a destination because it is already a popular place; they want to explore what is already fashionable and see it with their own eyes (Makepeace 2014). Although there is an emerging literature on travel blogs, the level of blogging activity and the extent to which collaboration is available to travel bloggers is not the same worldwide. In addition, cultural factors may also influence bloggers motivations and other factors concerning the blogging activity. Therefore, this research is carried out in the context of Turkish travel bloggers. The methodology used in this study is reviewed in the next section.

3 Methodology The research question looks into the factors affecting travel bloggers to blog about a tourism destination. To get answers to this question and to obtain an in-depth understanding of the factors lying under travel blogging activities, a qualitative and descriptive study is conducted. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with Turkish travel bloggers. Judgment sampling was used to access the Turkish travel bloggers to be interviewed. First, a list of the most popular travel bloggers was created, by including those blogs that have been selected as “Top 100 Travel Blogs” by Biletall.com. This source of information was useful because Biletall.com has developed an algorithm for ranking blogs in terms of social media access and number of clicks obtained. Adding other bloggers not included in Biletall.com’s list was also thought to be necessary to increase the diversity of the bloggers in the sample. For this purpose the researchers also searched the Internet using various Turkish keywords related to travel blogging. Thus, a final list of 125 Turkish bloggers who blog about destinations in Turkish was obtained; the bloggers in the list were grouped under three main categories: single travellers, families, and friend bloggers. Moreover, only those bloggers who have more than 5000 followers were thought to be relevant for the research and included in the sample. There are no clear sources stating the minimum number of followers required in order to be called an influencer; however, 5000 followers is set as an arbitrary number by the researchers. In addition, the study aimed to include different types of bloggers, since they might have varying motivations. Thus judgmental sampling was used to reach those bloggers who are in the best position to provide the information required and to select different types of bloggers in terms of gender, number of followers and category (whether they blog individually, as a family or with their friends). Target bloggers were contacted and asked whether they would be willing to participate in

166

E. Ay et al.

Table 9.1 Characteristics of the respondents Participant’s number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Gender Female Male Female Male Female Female Male Female Male

Travel status Family Single traveller Friends Single traveller Friends Single traveller Single traveller Family Single traveller

Accessibility in social media Facebook/Instagram/Web Facebook/Instagram/Web Facebook/Instagram/Web Facebook/Instagram/Web Facebook/Instagram/Web Facebook/Instagram/Web Facebook/Instagram/Web Facebook/Instagram/Web Facebook/Instagram/Web

Number of followers 5214 42,100 19,000 22,500 38,300 155,000 71,400 110,000 7761

the research. For those who were not available, the next person with similar characteristics on the list was accessed. Following this methodology, 9 bloggers who agreed to participate in the research were reached. Therefore, the sample includes 5 bloggers who are classified as single travellers, 2 bloggers who are included under the category friend bloggers, and 2 bloggers who are family travellers. The composition of male/female is also shown in Table 9.1. Semi-structured Skype-based interviews in Turkish were carried out and audiotaped. Respondents were asked to give information about how they carry out their blogging activity, how they started blogging, why they blog, whether they benefit from any collaboration activities, how they choose the destination to blog about, etc. The data obtained in this manner was analysed using ethnographic summary techniques, and is described below.

4 Results 4.1

Motivations

The interviews revealed that each blogger has unique motivations to blog. The main factors underlying their blogging activities include helping other people and creating information sources for their trips. Participants emphasize the limited information sources in Turkish that they had access to while arranging their trips. So, they willingly put the effort to introduce a place in Turkish, describe the activities specific to that area and give other related suggestions to make other people’s travels easier and joyful. Creating useful contents for their readers and being helpful encourages them to keep their blogs. In addition, most of the respondents have a vision, which is inspiring other people to travel. They try to introduce the idea that there is no impossibility when arranging

9 Travel Bloggers as Influencers: What Compels Them to Blog

167

trips. So, they write contents accordingly and they get positive feedback from readers. Participant 1 explains why she is a source of inspiration for her readers: I made more than 30 international trips within a year even when people said that I would not be able to arrange them with a baby. So, the motto of my blog is ‘The era that a mother cannot go anywhere until her baby grows is closed. I can travel with my baby as well.’ By sharing my knowledge and experience, I may inspire other mothers to travel. Therefore, I give suggestions to families about traveling with a baby in my blog.

Besides to inspiring readers via shared experience or knowledge, there are some bloggers who also start monetarily supported projects to open new paths in their readers’ lives. Participant 2 started a project that provides a grant for those who desire to examine a specific area and financed it thanks to a world tour. In addition bloggers mention that travelling and blogging are their hobbies. They regard time consumed on their blogs as time spent on themselves. Furthermore, the contributions of blogging activities to personal development cannot be underestimated. These are mentioned in interviews as improved writing skills, deep knowledge in a topic gained by reading other blogs or sources and by travelling, increased general knowledge, ability to be systematic while doing a job, and creativity. Bloggers are developing their skills while engaging in their hobbies and define this effect as a kind of therapy. Participants 5 and 6 turned their blogging activities into their jobs. So, they are earning money and meeting all their needs through blogging. Thus, they state that they are doing a job related to their hobbies. They mention that earning money is not their main motivation source, but it is a consequence of their blogging activities. Besides earning money, bloggers get some special treatments, such as discounts, gifts, or free hotel stays, etc. Specially addressed gifts can be accepted; however any special treatment that is not going to apply to regular customers is thought to create a bad image among the readers. So, bloggers don’t put any effort to get these benefits. This does not seem to be a source of motivation for them, but rather a small contribution to their blogs. On the other hand, becoming a well-known person is not defined as a motivating factor but as a result of the blogging activity. In fact, there are two different points of view among the bloggers interviewed. One group of bloggers enjoys being known and receiving people’s interests. Participant 3 summarizes it as: People stop me and ask ‘Are you P3?’ and start to talk about destinations that I wrote about. This motivates me because I know that people are really interested in my writings and I try to do my best. We are in a conversation with these people thanks to my blog. Also, the more people you reach, the more motivated you are.

However, another group prefers to stay in the back-stage and they are tired of being invited to interviews, TV programs or events. Becoming personally known is regarded as a kind of intrusion into their private life and as a factor that keeps them away from their aim. Participant 4 explains this situation: I never wanted to be a well-known person. I prefer to be an angel that helps people invisibly; however, I cannot say that I achieved this goal of being invisible due to social media. I also became known when my blog became popular. So, people always try to talk with me; but how can I create time while I am not able to see even my friends? This makes me feel bad.

168

E. Ay et al.

Networking is defined as an inseparable part of blogging but the general opinion is that social media tools such as Facebook and Instagram have an effect on increasing the number of people that they can contact, compared to their blogs. When networking is examined as a motivation to blog, the results are parallel with the answers for being well-known. The people who enjoy and become motivated when they reach more persons also like the opportunity to network and meet new people. However, those who do not become motivated by an increased number of followers claim that their social environment is getting bigger, but that this is not a motivation source. In addition one motivation became apparent after the interviews. Blogs allow users to store their writings, photos, etc. and express themselves. So, some bloggers initiated this activity just to keep their important moments and share it with their close social environment.

4.2

Perception as Influencer

Bloggers perceive themselves as someone who has an influence on people’s travel decisions. Some of them explain that they take care not to affect travel decisions and direct people to specific destinations, but just to inspire them by sharing their experiences with them. However, they believe that they have impacts because people ask questions all the time or convey their thanks via emails and comments. Participant 8 explains: People take our suggestions seriously. We can follow this effect even by checking the number of bookings that are made through our website. The readers with whom you share the same tastes and expectations know you and those are the ones who become real followers. So, when I suggest that the Maldives are a boring choice for honeymoon, they give up their plans and arrange new ones, asking us or reading our blog. All bloggers are opinion leaders for their target readers.

4.3

Choice of Destination

According to the results obtained none of the bloggers chooses the destination that they want to write about. They first travel, experience the area and then they acquire a desire to write about it. They do not create a content or travel guide regarding a place that they have never been to. Their personal interest concerning a destination is a priority. Furthermore, there are two different points of view concerning whether to write about trendy destinations. One group of bloggers believes that writing about trendy destinations is not beneficial because people can find many sources about these places. There is no need for blogs at that point. Participant 3 explains: There are many places that are unfamiliar for many people and I prefer those because even the pictures that have been taken in known or trendy places and the contents are the same.

9 Travel Bloggers as Influencers: What Compels Them to Blog

169

Another group thinks that writing about trendy places can still be beneficial. Participant 5 supports this idea: When a place becomes popular, it arouses curiosity and many individuals choose that destination for their trips. So, we think that we should experience that place before everybody sees it and form a travel guide. Choosing trendy destinations stems from our aim of being helpful to others.

Moreover, bloggers claim that they do not choose a destination based on sponsorships. They state that they do not want sponsorship agreements to manipulate their choice of destinations. To overcome this effect, some bloggers are not looking for sponsorships and state that they are not open to projects or agreements, while others take the responsibility of arranging trips on behalf of sponsors only if they decide where to go. As a result, it can be said that sponsorship agreements do not seem to shape the destination choice of bloggers.

4.4

Collaboration

As mentioned in the literature, there are several forms of collaboration, and every blogger has a different understanding related to it. Bloggers generally do not accept collaboration that does not suit their image. Many of them explain that they only make agreements with third parties when they are sure that their aim to blog and the aim of the project are parallel. There seems to be a consensus among the bloggers interviewed in the fact that they claim they will never share the products or services that they have not used. Even those who blog in a more professional manner do not emphasize the monetary gain to be obtained from blogs. Moreover, bloggers do not make any special effort to find ways to collaborate, because they care more about their image than about making sponsorship deals. They also comment on the risk of their image getting hurt due to these sponsorships. Thus, even though they are generally open to collaborate with destinations and third parties, they are concerned about credibility and possible harm to their blogs. Participant 8 explains it in details: We have a well-known blog name and people trust us. Therefore, we cannot put this name in danger by making agreements with the brands that don’t really reflect us. I never make collaborations with the brands or services that I haven’t used. So, long term collaboration is so important for us. Otherwise, we lose credibility and people don’t trust us. As a result, we don’t want to turn our blog into a platform with high commercial concerns.

When bloggers mention about their involvement in collaboration, two categories stand out. Those are affiliate sales, which include buying through links inserted in page and projects supported by sponsors. Bloggers usually accept a project partnership, but it has to be a long-term one and they do not accept the deal if the sponsor will be the one who is going to choose the destination. Advertisements are not desirable because it is believed that they give commercial messages and damage the image of the blog. Only one of the bloggers interviewed claims to be involved in freelance writing for other magazines as well.

170

E. Ay et al.

As a result, collaboration is seen as an inseparable part of blogging activities, but the extent to which bloggers engage in it or their desirability depends on the aim of the bloggers and their readers. Working on long-term collaboration is quite crucial for Turkish bloggers. They usually accept to collaborate with people they know or with those with whom they believe that they can have a long lasting sponsorship with. However, there is one more obstacle behind the collaboration in Turkey. Participant 5 says: In Turkey, collaboration doesn’t work well. When you look at this topic abroad, you can observe that people are aware of influencers and their effect on consumers’ buying habits. Even if Turkish people and brands are quite knowledgeable about this topic, they are not open to give bloggers what they deserve. So, it is hard to say that making collaboration is a positive thing. That is why we are seeking long term partnerships.

All in all, the bloggers interviewed are not against collaboration. They see it as a part of the nature of blogging, but they are careful not to lose their credibility and be forced to share contents that they don’t think are beneficial.

5 Conclusion Although types of collaboration and their effectiveness are discussed in the literature (Karsten 2014; Shain 2014; What is Content Marketing? n.d.), Turkish bloggers emphasize the difficulties of collaboration in Turkey. Indeed, collaboration in Turkey is not institutionalized and developed as much as in other more developed countries. Creating partnerships, making deals and gaining money through blogs are one of the goals for bloggers in other countries (The Skool of Life n.d.). In contrast, Turkish bloggers debate whether collaboration is beneficial for their blogs or not; even those who write blogs as part of their jobs. So, bloggers are seeking long term collaborations that do not damage the image of their blogs and that do not affect their credibility in the eyes of readers. While doing this, bloggers have to put more individualistic effort rather than being part of a systematic cycle in which all stakeholders can reach each other easily and are bonded through certain rules. Another striking finding which is not prominent in the literature is the fact that being a source of inspiration seems to be most important for Turkish bloggers. They become motivated when they know that they affect major decisions in people’s lives. Because of the Turkish culture, many people may be exposed to negative comments from their close environment regarding travel decisions. Therefore, opening new paths and introducing different points of view to travellers seem to be one of the biggest motivations of Turkish bloggers. In addition, according to our findings, providing benefits to readers and helping them thanks to content published through their blogs gains importance for Turkish bloggers. This motivation does not come to the forefront in the literature. Turkish bloggers care more about being useful than about becoming well-known. Being well-known is regarded as a result of blogging activities that they enjoy; not as a first

9 Travel Bloggers as Influencers: What Compels Them to Blog

171

aim. This can be the result of the blogging activity being mainly carried out as an individualistic effort, instead of a systematic attempt to become well-known and increase one’s network, which also fuels the invitations for collaboration. However, as mentioned, collaboration is only a small portion to Turkish bloggers’ motivations, as compared to being helpful and inspirational to their readers. Another finding, which is supported in the literature, relates to how these individuals view their blogging activities. Expressing their lives, networking, saving memories (Gurak and Antonijevic 2008) and articulating ideas through writing (Nardi et al. 2004) or information seeking (Huang et al. 2007) are all explained as motivating factors in the literature. One of the intrinsic motivational factors mentioned in the literature includes killing time by blogging (Liao et al. 2010). However, Turkish bloggers don’t seem to see their blogging activity as a spare time activity. They are doing this for their own well-being. They pursue their hobbies and passion of travelling and turn them into their jobs sometimes. Their experiences help others and inspire some people, in turn obtaining positive feedback from readers, which keeps them motivated. Finally, as mentioned in the literature (Gunelius 2017; Websudasa 2016), meeting like-minded people, being connected with other bloggers and also reaching service providers easily are the benefits that bloggers take advantage of. This opens new paths in their private as well as their professional lives, and keeps them writing actively. As a result, networking is seen as an inseparable part of blogging. According to the results obtained from the interviews to Turkish bloggers, it can be suggested that destinations that are willing to collaborate with bloggers should make detailed analyses on potential bloggers. They should try to understand who the bloggers that they should collaborate with are, what their aims are and what kind of collaboration types would be best for this partnership. As mentioned, bloggers don’t like to be forced to introduce a destination or create a content that is already prepared by destinations. So, the aim of the destinations should be clearly set and bloggers should be selected accordingly. To develop a project partnership, destinations should be flexible in designing it because bloggers generally have free souls and follow their own experiences or dreams. For example, it is hard to convince a blogger who likes to stay in a tent and to explore the nature via bicycle tours to accommodate in a 5 stars hotel for a project. Instead, experience-based activities can be put forward to attract the blogger’s attention towards a specific place and to promote the destination. Being the new digital opinion leaders, bloggers can use their webpages as a marketing tool and destinations can benefit from this activity. However, there is a lack of institutionalized effort while being involved in collaboration in Turkey. This deficit can be covered by constituting a systematic cycle in which all stakeholders can reach each other easily and are bonded with certain rules to make collaboration work better. Our last suggestion is relevant for trendy destinations. Destinations can invite bloggers to prepare a city guide that includes their contributions after they have experienced the place. When trendy destinations promote the usage of this city guide, the idea of forming creative guides for tourists can change bloggers’ opinions

172

E. Ay et al.

towards trendy destinations, which initially they may be reluctant to write about. In this way, several contributions can be provided to destinations, while bloggers’ motivations of being helpful and being an influencer are satisfied. Limitations in this research stemmed from the difficulties in forming a systematic list of bloggers and communicating with them. A major problem encountered rose from the fact that travel bloggers are not stable in a place. Those that we tried to contact had varied schedules in different countries. So, the initial plan of arranging face-to-face interviews was given up. Instead, skype interviews were carried out. Bloggers were open to helping us during our research, but some restrictions, such as limited internet facilities or loss of connection, were experienced during the skype interviews as well. This affected the research process and healthy communication. Besides, a comprehensive list of travel bloggers in Turkey could not be reached. Only blogs registered to Biletall.com were available and included information on the number of followers. Additionally, professional and corporate bloggers were difficult to reach, and therefore were not included in the research. The inability to include these bloggers in the study may explain the lower levels of collaboration seen with the bloggers in the sample. Thus further research may consider including these more professional bloggers to determine whether their views on collaboration and their motivations are different. In addition, this study was conducted among Turkish bloggers. Therefore, a future study could be carried out in other countries because in different places and cultures, motivations to blog may change and different results may thus be obtained. So, researching non-Turkish bloggers writing about Turkey or other countries, and comparing them with Turkish bloggers can be another topic for further research. Moreover, the bloggers’ initial motivations may also change over time. Thus, further studies may choose to carry out longitudinal studies that track the evolution of bloggers over a given period of time. Finally, helping others and inspiring people to travel are mentioned as the bloggers’ main motivation. However, to what extent do they influence their readers? Therefore, studies on the readers’ point of view, on what they understand and gain from blogs, and on the impact that these blogs have on their travel decisions would also be fruitful area of research.

References Alexander, N. (2016). How to make the most of working with travel bloggers. ASTOM. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from http://www.astom.org/en/how-to-make-the-most-of-working-with-travelbloggers/ Alvarez, M. D., & Campo, S. (2011). Controllable versus uncontrollable information sources: Effects on the image of Turkey. International Journal of Tourism Research, 13(4), 310–323. Baloglu, S., & Mangaloglu, M. (2001). Tourism destination images of Turkey, Egypt, Greece, and Italy as perceived by US-based tour operators and travel agents. Tourism Management, 22, 1–9. Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868–897.

9 Travel Bloggers as Influencers: What Compels Them to Blog

173

Bates, T. (2016). Travel bloggers: Who do they think they are? Travel and tourism research association: Advancing tourism research globally, 13. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from https:// scholarworks.umass.edu/ttra/2014/Student_Colloquium/13 Becker, J. (n.d.). 15 Reasons I Think You Should Blog. Becoming minimalist. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from http://www.becomingminimalist.com/15-reasons-i-think-you-should-blog/ Beerli, A., & Martin, J. D. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 657–681. Bullas, J. (2013). 10 Insights on social media and blogging influence: New research. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from http://www.jeffbullas.com/2013/03/11/10-insights-on-social-media-andblogging-influence-new-research BusinessDictionary.com. (n.d.). What are opinion leaders? Definition and meaning. Retrieved May 29, 2017, from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/opinion-leaders.html Çakmak, E., & Isaac, R. (2012). What destination marketers can learn from their visitors’ blogs: An image analysis of Bethlehem, Palestine. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 1, 124–133. Caz. (2014). How we make money travel blogging. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from https://www. ytravelblog.com/how-to-make-money-travel-blogging/ Davydova, E. (2012). The role of Travel Blogs in the process of Travel Planning (Unpublished BA thesis). Haaga-Helia University of Applied Science, Finland. Dictionary.com. (n.d.). The definition of blog. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from http://www.dictio nary.com/browse/blog Dobele, A., Steel, M., & Cooper, T. (2015). Sailing the seven C’s of blog marketing: Understanding social media and business impact. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 33(7), 1087–1102. Frías, D. M., Rodríguez, M. A., & Castañeda, J. A. (2008). Internet vs. travel agencies on pre-visit destination image formation: An information processing view. Tourism Management, 29(1), 163–179. Gartner, W. C. (1994). Image formation process. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 2(2–3), 191–216. Goodall, B. (1991). Understanding holiday choice. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Progress in tourism, recreation, and hospitality management (pp. 58–77). London: Belhaven Press. Gunelius, S. (2017). Here are the top reasons to start a blog: What you need to know. Lifewire. Retrieved April 19, 2017, from https://www.lifewire.com/top-reasons-to-start-blog-3476742 Gunn, C. (1972). Vacationspace: Designing tourist regions. Austin, TX: Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas. Gurak, L. J., & Antonijevic, S. (2008). The psychology of blogging: You, me, and everyone in between. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(1), 60–68. Hsu, C., & Ou Yang, S. (2013). Achieving online relationship marketing via tourism blogs: A social network perspective. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(4), 2. Huang, C., Shen, Y., Lin, H., & Chang, S. (2007). Bloggers’ motivations and behaviors: A model. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4), 472–484. IPK International. (2015). ITB world travel trends report 2015/2016. Berlin: Messe Berlin GmbH. Jenkins, O. H. (1999). Understanding and measuring tourist destination images. International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(1), 1–15. Jung, Y., Song, H., & Vorderer, P. (2012). Why do people post and read personal messages in public? The motivation of using personal blogs and its effects on users’ loneliness, belonging, and well-being. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1626–1633. Kaikkonen, A. (2016). Destination image and travel blogs: Influences of travel bloggers and blog collaboration on destination image formation (Unpublished MA Thesis). Sweden: Lund University. Karsten, M. (2014). This is how I get paid to travel the world. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from https://expertvagabond.com/paid-to-travel-world/

174

E. Ay et al.

Li, Y., Lin, G., & Yat-sen, S. (2012). Exploring the extrinsic and intrinsic motivations in blogging: A survey on Hong Kong university students. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 1(4), 96–115. Liao, H., Liu, S., & Pi, S. (2010). Expectancy theory predictions of blogging intention and conducts. Issues in Information Systems, 11(1), 669–677. Mackenzie, J. (2011). How to increase sales and maximize revenue with traveler reviews. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from http://www.tnooz.com/2011/08/19/how-to/how-to-increase-sales-andmaximize-revenue-with-travel-reviews/ Makepeace, C. (2014). How to choose travel destinations. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from https:// www.ytravelblog.com/how-to-choose-travel-destinations-2014/ Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D. J., Gumbrecht, M., & Swartz, L. (2004). Why we blog. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 41. Netherwood, K. (2014). 9 Reasons to start a travel blog by destination unknown. Destination unknown. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from http://www.mydestinationunknown.com/9-reasonsto-start-a-travel-blog/ Pan, B., MacLaurin, T., & Crotts, J. C. (2007). Travel blogs and the implications for destination marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 35–45. Phelps, A. (1986). Holiday destination image – The problem of assessment. Tourism Management, 7(3), 168–180. Pike, S. (2008). Destination marketing. An integrated marketing communication approach. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Rosenkranz, T. (2016). Becoming entrepreneurial: Crisis, ethics and marketization in the field of travel journalism. Poetics, 54, 54–65. Schmallegger, D., & Carson, D. (2008). Blogs in tourism: Changing approaches to information exchange. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 99–110. Sepp, M., Liljander, V., & Gummerus, J. (2011). Private bloggers’ motivations to produce content – A gratification theory perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 27, 1479–1503. Shain, S. (2014). How travel bloggers make money. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from http:// susanshain.com/how-travel-bloggers-make-money/ Strugatz, R. (2016). Bloggers and digital influencers are reshaping the fashion and beauty landscape. latimes.com. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from http://www.latimes.com/fashion/la-igbloggers-20160809-snap-story.html Technorati. (2013). Technorati media 2013 digital influence report. Retrieved February 16, 2017, from http://technorati.com/report/2013-dir/ The Skool of Life. (n.d.). 7 Benefits of blogging. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from http:// theskooloflife.com/wordpress/7-benefits-of-blogging/ Thevenot, G. (2007). Blogging as a social media. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7, 282–289. Thraenhart, J. (2007). Destinations and the benefits of blogging. Retrieved from http://www. jensthraenhart.com/cblog/archives/256-Destinations-and-the-benefits-of-blogging.html Thurm, M. C. (2014). The impact of travel blogging on the tourist experience: An e-ethnographic investigation. Tilburg: Tilburg University. Trammell, K. D., & Keshelashvili, A. (2005). Examining the new influencers: A self-presentation study of A-list blogs. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 968–982. Tseng, C., Wu, B., Morrison, A. M., Zhang, J., & Chen, Y. (2015). Travel blogs on China as a destination image formation agent: A qualitative analysis using Leximancer. Tourism Management, 46, 347–358. Uzunoglu, E., & Misci Kip, S. (2014). Brand communication through digital influencers: Leveraging blogger engagement. International Journal of Information Management, 34, 592–602. Volo, S. (2012). Blogs: “Re-inventing” tourism communication. In M. Sigala, E. Christou, & U. Gretzel (Eds.), Social media in travel, tourism and hospitality: Theory, practice and cases. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.

9 Travel Bloggers as Influencers: What Compels Them to Blog

175

Vrana, V., Zafiropoulos, K., & Vagianos, D. (2012). An exploration of wine blog communication patterns. In M. Sigala, E. Christou, & U. Gretzel (Eds.), Social media in travel, tourism and hospitality: Theory, practice and cases. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing. Websudasa. (2016). Top 10 reasons why people blog. ShoutMeLoud. Retrieved April 19, 2017, from https://www.shoutmeloud.com/top-10-reasons-why-people-blog.html What is Content Marketing?. (n.d.) Content marketing institute. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/what-is-content-marketing/ Woodside, A. G., Sood, S., & Miller, K. E. (2008). When consumers and brands talk: Storytelling theory and research in psychology and marketing. Psychology and Marketing, 25(2), 97–145. Zúñiga, H. G., Lewis, S. C., Willard, A., Valenzuela, S., Lee, J. K., & Baresch, B. (2011). Blogging as a journalistic practice: A model linking perception, motivation, and behavior. Journalism, 12 (5), 586–586.

Chapter 10

Winery Operators’ Perceptions of Factors Affecting Wine Tourism Development Giacomo Del Chiappa, Maria Alebaki, and George Menexes

Abstract Wine tourism development requires the willingness of the winery owners to undertake tourism activities when running their business, thus meaning that a shift from a ‘pure product’ orientation to a tourism and hospitality mindset needs to occur. The analysis of the perceptions and attitudes toward wine tourism has gained huge attention in the last few years. However, in Italy very little research has been devoted to this topic adopting a supply-side perspective at a national level. This study was therefore carried out on a sample of 308 Italian wineries to deepen the knowledge about their involvement in wine tourism. Findings reveal that for the most part wineries are SMEs, or even micro, already somewhat involved in wine tourism. However, wineries lever on tourism as a further channel to both distribute and promote their wine production, while the desire to intentionally become a pole of tourism attraction is not so relevant. The marketing and promotional tools they use are mostly traditional, with a relatively low use of social media marketing activities; further, wine producers were reported to keep little data on visitors’ sociodemographic profiles and satisfaction.

1 Introduction During the last few decades, wine tourism has been recognised as an important area of tourism in many countries around the word (e.g. Hall and Mitchell 2000), with wine tourism being considered to provide a useful tool for economic, social and environmentally sustainable tourism development of rural regions (Alonso and Liu 2012). Further, wine tourism is widely recognised to be a lever to promote the local G. Del Chiappa (*) University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy e-mail: [email protected] M. Alebaki Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece G. Menexes Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_10

177

178

G. Del Chiappa et al.

identity and authenticity of any geographical area (Hall and Mitchell 2000), to affirm a unique destination brand positioning and to gain a competitive advantage over competitors (Bruwer and Johnson 2010). According to Hall and Macionis (1998, p. 197) wine tourism can be defined as “. . .visitation to vineyards, wineries, wine festivals, and wine shows for which grape wine tasting and/or experiencing the attributes of the grape wine region are the prime motivating factors for visitors”. Sparks (2007) broadens this definition considering a wider range of recreational and entertainment activities such as wine tasting, wine and food, the enjoyment of regional environs, day trips or long-term recreation and the experience of many different types of cultural, nature based and lifestyle activities. In fact, according to existing studies, visitors may not travel to wineries as their sole intention (Alebaki et al. 2015); on the contrary, they often tend to visit other attractions and/or experience other activities not related to wine, thus further reinforcing the role of wine tourism as a vehicle of destination promotion and tourism development (e.g. Correia et al. 2004). This explains the reason why current researchers and practitioners widely agree with the idea that an effective wine tourism development cannot be achieved by relying exclusively on wine producers (Brás et al. 2010). Despite this fact, it remains evident that wine tourism development relies largely on the way wine producers approach the tourism and hospitality sector delivering services and experiences to visitors (e.g. Getz 2000; Howley and van Westering 2008). There is considerable evidence that Europe, notwithstanding its rich viticultural history (Rose 2011), has not yet maximized its wine tourism potential (Charters and Carlsen 2006; Wargenau and Che 2006). Further, wine tourism research in the so-called Old World has been marked by a lack of empirical data (Charters and Menival 2011), despite the significant progress noted by Alonso et al. 2015). This is particularly evident in Italy where wine tourism literature remains a relatively inchoate academic research area. Few notable exceptions include the studies of Asero and Patti (2009); Brunori and Rossi (2000); Presenza et al. (2010); Romano and Natilli (2009). Yet, it is important to note that wine tourism already makes an important contribution in sustaining the competitiveness of wine producers and Italian tourism destinations. According to the XII Report on wine tourism in Italy (Associazione Nazionale Città del Vino 2016), in 2015, the Italian domestic market has suffered significantly; hence, wine tourism could be considered a valid and effective distribution channel (e.g. Bruwer 2003) in further internationalising the markets of Italian wine producers. Current academic research is particularly limited with respect to the analysis of wine producers’ perceptions and attitudes toward wine tourism development. To the best of our knowledge, there is a recently released business report on wine tourism in Italy that is devoted to analysing this topic (Associazione Nazionale Città del Vino 2016) but it is confined to the analysis of a relatively small sample of 80 wine producers belonging to “Città del Vino”. The latter constitutes a national Association founded in 1987 with the aim to reposition the image and reputation of Italian wine production and -relying on this reputation- to promote Italy as a wine tourism destination. According to this business report, 41.3% of Italian wine producers are

10

Winery Operators’ Perceptions of Factors Affecting Wine Tourism Development

179

sole proprietors, 45.3% are in a partnership and 13.3% are corporations; overall, the average number of employees is 12.17 individuals. Despite this report providing useful information about wine production in Italy and the attitude of wine producers toward wine tourism development (in terms of services and facilities, promotion channels and media, etc), it remains relatively narrow in its scope, given the limited number of respondents. This study was therefore carried out to deepen the scientific debate on wine tourism development in Italy presenting and discussing findings of a survey of 308 Italian wine producers. In particular, by adopting a supply-side perspective focused on owners and managers of Italian wineries, the study aimed: a. to investigate the motivations that drive wine producers to develop wine tourism activities; b. to analyse the specific types of tourism activities that are offered to visitors, and c. to explore the main factors that affect wine tourism development.

2 Theoretical Framework Several authors (e.g. Brunori and Rossi 2000; Bregoli et al. 2016; Getz 2000) underline that wine tourism development can bring many benefits for both businesses (e.g. and increase in cellar door sale for wineries) and destinations (e.g. enhancement of destination awareness and image, an increase in number of arrivals, a contribution to spread tourism seasonality, etc). According to Martin and Williams (2003) factors affecting wine tourism development can be internal and/or external. On the one hand, internal factors refer to the capability and commitment of local stakeholders to engage themselves in wine tourism activities; as far as this point is concerned, education, networking ability, availability of financial resources, competences and skills, etc., are relevant factors. On the other hand, external factors refer to policy and macroeconomic forces that create a favourable environment for wine tourism to occur effectively in terms, for example, of regional infrastructure, preservation of natural environment, and training of local stakeholders. Similarly, Hall (2003) argues that many barriers can prevent effective wine tourism development. Among these, the author suggests considering poor networking stakeholders (wine-related, tourism-related, and belonging to other sectors); a poor consciousness of wineries concerning the benefits that tourism can bring to the wine industry; poor skills and abilities in tourism marketing; and tourism product development. Existing literature, especially the one developed in the New World Countries, has analysed and emphasised both developmental and entrepreneurial aspects of wine tourism (e.g. Alonso and Liu 2010; Hojman and Hunter-Jones 2012; Kunc 2009; Skinner 2000; Sparks and Malady 2006; Stewart et al. 2008; Wargenau and Che 2006). Yet, these studies comprise different perspectives and levels, leading Getz and Brown (2006) to call for a systematic cross-regional comparison. With this goal in mind, Getz and Brown (2006) proposed a comprehensive framework suggesting standard measures and indicators to be used to make benchmarking analysis among wine tourism destinations. These measures/indicators

180

G. Del Chiappa et al.

include the characteristics of the wine industry, as well as tourism/hospitality services and infrastructure. This approach has been adopted by several studies that employed a winery-based perspective, mostly focusing their analysis in wine tourism destinations in the Mediterranean area. Getz and Brown (2006), in their study based on Okanagan Valley in Canada, showed that critical success factors for wine tourism are, for example, the possibility to count on an increased number of independent visitors to wineries; the availability of wine festivals and events; and the effectiveness of regional tourism promotion. Tomljenović and Getz (2009) investigated success factors in Medimurje and Plešivica (Croatia) and identified among the most critical the following ones: availability of destination activities (tourist attractions nearby the wineries, wine festivals and special events); and promotional activities (both at a winery and destination level). Similar results were derived by Tomljenović and Razović (2009) who explored wine tourism in a region of Middle Dalmatia (Croatia). In their study in Goriška Brda (Slovenia), Jurinčič and Bojnec (2009), identified the critical role of having financial support to run and implement wine tourism activities and, broadly, to sustain wine tourism development; this confirms prior observations underlying the relevant role that the availability of financial funding has for the competitiveness of any tourism destination (Ritchie and Crouch 2003). According to a relatively recent study carried out in Northern Greece (Alebaki et al. 2014), political-institutional factors, regional infrastructure, tourism facilities in the winery, promotion and wine tourism events are the more relevant aspects of wine tourism activity. Friendly and service-oriented staff; staff knowledge of wines; clear signposting; educational programmes; and translation/interpreter services have been found to be relevant for wine tourism development in Stellenbosch, South Africa (Kirkman et al. 2013). Howley and van Westering (2008), in their UK-based investigation, stressed the need to establish stronger networking among wineries and other tourism and non-tourism related stakeholders (e.g. herb gardens, zoos, botanic garden, cheese farms, hotels, etc), who also aim to create, promote and distribute organised tours to the tourism market. This latter point further confirms that the competitiveness of wine tourism needs strong inter-organisational relationships among local stakeholders. These relationships can be horizontal (i.e., between businesses belonging to the same industry and involved in the same type of activity, e.g., wineries, etc.); vertical (i.e., between businesses belonging to the same industry but that are involved at different stages of the supply-chain, e.g., wineries and distributors, etc.) and lateral (i.e., between businesses working in different industries, e.g., wineries and hotels, wineries and museums, etc.) (Bregoli et al. 2016; Wargenau and Che 2006). As far as the Italian context is concerned, to the best of our knowledge, there are only two studies that applied a supply-side perspective to wine tourism development. In their fieldwork with 37 winemakers in the Campania Region (South of Italy), Mancino and Lo Presti (2012) stressed the need to create and develop tourism routes, to implement entertainment and public initiatives, to increase promotion efforts, to improve services and infrastructures, and to provide more significant economic and financial incentives. Bregoli et al. (2016) analysed the main challenges for wine

10

Winery Operators’ Perceptions of Factors Affecting Wine Tourism Development

181

tourism development in Tuscany, Sardinia and Lombardy (Italy); specifically, by adopting a wine-route-based view; The authors confirm and further stress the need to establish stronger networking among wine-related businesses, tourism-related businesses, other businesses (neither wine nor tourism-related), and regional/local institutions. Within this framework, the present chapter aims to deepen the scientific debate about wine tourism development in Italy, by adopting a perspective that is exclusively focused on owners and managers of 308 Italian wineries operating across Italy. Hence, our findings will provide a useful contribution to the international debate about wine tourism, allowing comparisons with previous studies with similar approach that were carried out in other wine regions around the world. Further, the findings provide useful information to support policy makers, destination marketers and wine producers in their attempt to plan and implement actions and activities aimed at further exploiting/developing wine and tourism activities at both micro- and macro- level.

3 Methodology According to the XII Report on wine tourism in Italy released in 2016 (Associazione Nazionale Città del Vino 2016), in 2015 Italy attracted around 10 million visitors seeking wine-related experiences (primary or secondary travel motivation), with wine tourism generating an economic value of around 2.5 billion Euro. Despite its high economic relevance, wine tourism development has not received great attention in existing academic research, especially when it comes to the analysis of wine producers’ attitudes toward tourism activities. This study seeks to provide a situational analysis of wine tourism development in Italy, by simultaneously addressing critical success factors as perceived by wineries owners and/or managers. To achieve this goal, our empirical investigation follows the approach adopted by Alebaki et al. (2014) who used a census survey designed to compile the profiles of the wine industry, examine the winemakers’ level of involvement with tourism activities and explore their perceptions and attitudes towards the factors that facilitate wine tourism development in the geographical area of Northern Greece. In particular, this study’s survey instrument was based on previous studies (i.e. Alebaki et al. 2014; Getz and Brown 2006). The questionnaire included different sections aimed at collecting data regarding general information on wineries (e.g. legal form, year of establishment, annual wine production, etc), their involvement in wine tourism, winemakers’ reasons for being involved in tourism activities, the type of infrastructure and activities/services available for visitors, the activities used to promote wine tourism services, and the factors that winery operators perceive as being most critical in effectively developing wine tourism. By using the two most known wine-related web-sites in Italy (i.e. Movimento del Vino—www.movimentoturismovino.it; Bere il Vino—www.bereilvino.it) a total number of 3500 wineries and related email addresses were identified. Hence, these

182

G. Del Chiappa et al.

wineries received an email inviting them to fill in the online questionnaire by clicking on a link provided in the email. The authors of this study caution the readers that in some cases the respondent of survey was not the winemaker but another representative of the company (i.e. the manager, or someone else). Data were collected in the period between May and June 2013, including some significant follow-up actions. Taking into consideration that in some instances the contact details of wineries resulted to be invalid (this could have been due to several reasons such as, bankruptcy, updating process not carried out, data-entry error, etc), the overall number of stakeholders who were actually eligible for the survey reached 3200. Hence, a total of 308 completed surveys were returned, thus representing a response rate of 9.6% which is considered as being the norm when collecting data from micro-businesses (Jay and Schaper 2003). SPSS v.19.0 was used for data analysis. In addition to descriptive statistics, Principal Component Analysis with a VARIMAX rotation (Nunnally and Bernstein 2006) was applied to explore the dimensionality along with the structure of the scale used to measure the winery operators’ perceptions of the critical success factors of wine tourism development. In all cases, methodological triangulation (Denzin 1970) was used. However, the analyses of all the cases are based on an interpretive approach. Securing trustworthiness of findings in such studies is crucial (Lincoln and Guba 1986). In the cases analysed, the methodological triangulation, as well as the prolonged engagement and interaction with the managers of the cases, and the formal and informal testing of findings by soliciting reactions from the managers, aimed to sustain the trustworthiness of the findings (Lincoln and Guba 1986). Thus, in all cases a development process was followed longitudinally and interpreted inter-subjectively by involving interpretations of several researchers as well as managers of the companies.

4 Results As shown in Table 10.1, 23.6% of wineries were established prior 1960 (being older than 51 years today), thus showing a long life and tradition in Italy’s wine sector. However, 22.2% of wineries were reported to have been established in the period 2000–2012, thus showing that the sector is still attracting new incomers. The majority of wineries can be considered as small (or even micro) organizations. In fact, 73.3% of them have an annual production of 100,000 L or less. Only 5.19% of wine producers have an annual production that exceeds 1,500,000 L), 41.1% is personally owned, and 36.4% has up to 5 employees (Min ¼ 1, Max. ¼ 0.33, Mean ¼ 15.0, SD ¼ 35.6). The overwhelming majority (91.2%) of the respondents declared that their companies are somehow involved in wine tourism activities, while 5.8% (18) of them purport to invest in tourism facilities in the near future. The remaining 2.9% (9 wineries) reported not being involved in wine tourism. Table 10.2 shows the main reasons for which wineries decided to develop wine tourism activities. As also widely recognised in existing literature, the main reason

10

Winery Operators’ Perceptions of Factors Affecting Wine Tourism Development

183

Table 10.1 Sample characteristics Variables Year of establishment 2010–2012 2005–2009 2000–2004 1995–1999 1990–1994 1985–1989 1980–1984 1975–1979 1970–1974 1965–1969 1960–1964 Pre 1960

%

Variables Ownership type Sole proprietor General partnership Limited partnership Cooperative company Guarantee company Annual production in litres Up to 100,000 100,001–500,000 More than 500,000

2.5 6.4 13.3 10.3 9.9 5.9 8.9 4.0 4.4 3.9 6.9 23.6

% 41.1 19.6 4.8 5.3 29.2 73.3 13 13.7

Table 10.2 Reasons for developing wine tourism activitiesa I developed wine tourism to. . . Achieve cellar door sales

M 4.2

SD 1.1

Increase sales margin

3.9

1.2

Earn additional income

3.5

1.3

Acquire a customer list Get in contact with the consumer Raise the profile of the winery in this region Raise the profile of the winery in Italy

3.0 4.0 3.9

1.3 1.0 1.2

3.8

1.2

I developed wine tourism to. . . Raise the profile of the winery internationally Improve brand recognition of our wines Improve brand awareness of local wines Raise the profile of Italian wineries Extend the visitors’ length of stay Become a pole of tourism attraction Contribute to local tourism development

M 4.0

SD 1.2

3.9

1.2

3.8

1.2

3.5 3.2 2.9

1.3 1.3 1.4

3.7

1.1

M Mean, SD Standard Deviation Answers were provided based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 ¼ not at all important, 5 ¼ extremely important) a

behind winemakers’ decision to develop wine tourism activities was the possibility to achieve cellar door sales (M ¼ 4.2; SD ¼ 1.1), followed by the possibility to raise the profile of the winery both internationally (M ¼ 4.0; SD ¼ 1.2) and regionally (M ¼ 3.9; SD ¼ 1.2), the will to improve the brand recognition of their wine production (M ¼ 3.9; SD ¼ 1.2), and the need to get in contact with the consumers (M ¼ 4.0; SD ¼ 1.0). It is very interesting to note that all the above reasons are related to the possibility of levering on tourism as a further channel to both distribute and promote wine production, while the desire to intentionally become a pole of tourism attraction is not so relevant in driving wine producers’ choice to set up tourism activities (M ¼ 2.9; SD ¼ 1.4).

184

G. Del Chiappa et al.

Table 10.3 Who is responsible for welcoming the visitors in the wineries? The winemaker One of the family members A person who is dedicated to this activity Whoever is available at that time

Never 28.8 9.7 28.7 33.2

Rarely 18.4 8.2 3 20.7

Sometimes 24 6.8 8.4 17.1

Often 16.8 26.7 19.8 8.8

Always 12 48.6 40.1 20.2

Table 10.4 Type of services and activities offered Do you offer...? Wine tasting room Dining room in the winery Dining facilities outside of the winery Retail shop Corner Accommodation External facilities (garden, etc.) Organised tour in the winery Organised tour in the vineyards

Yes (%) 99.6 19.5 31.7 80.4 81.9 52.5 77.7 97.3 91.5

Do you offer...? Audiovisual presentation Cellar door sales/wine Sale of other products (local food, handcraft etc.) Wine tasting Provision of printed materials (brochures, books, brochures, etc.) Social events (e.g. weddings) Special events at the winery Conferences and meeting Other services (wine tasting/cooking classes, etc.)

Yes (%) 27.8 98.8 42.8 100 95.1 46.0 63.0 39.2 37.2

Table 10.3 presents the results with respect to question “who is responsible for welcoming visitors in the winery”. The sum of responses in the cases of “Often” and “Always” indicates that in most wineries this duty is covered by one of the family members (75.3%), followed by ‘a person who is exclusively employed for this activity’ (59.9%), ‘whoever is responsible at that time’ (29%), and ‘the winemaker’ (28.8%). Table 10.4 presents the type of services and activities that wineries deliver to their visitors. Wine tasting is provided by all wineries (100.0%), while almost all of them offer cellar door sales (98.8%). Notably, selling products not related to wine is relatively limited (42.8%). Furthermore, most of the respondents reported that they offer a guided tour in the winery (97.3%) and in the vineyards (91.5%), as well as information brochures (95.1%). Respondents also declared that they organise festivals or special events in the winery (63.0%); albeit at a lower extent, and that they also host special occasions, such as weddings (46.0%). Around half of the sample reported providing accommodation facilities to potential interested visitors (52.5%). Relatively few wineries host conferences or meetings (39.2%) and even fewer provide audio and visual equipment (27.8%). Wine tasting is offered by all wineries (100.0%), while almost all of the respondents (98.8%) offer cellar door sales to the visitors. It is worth mentioning that, selling other products, aside wine, is relatively limited (42.8%). The

10

Winery Operators’ Perceptions of Factors Affecting Wine Tourism Development

185

Table 10.5 Promotion and marketing methods employed by wineries Do you use...? Ads in wine-related magazines Ads in non wine-related magazines Own brochures/leaflets Own web-site Traditional guest books e-guest book Visitors satisfaction survey Newsletter

Yes (%) 28.6 7.8 46.8 70.1 10.7 19.2 20.5 37.7

Do you use...? Facebook fanpage Own Twitter profile Partnership with travel agencies Social media marketing via wine-related blogs Road signs Entrance signs Tourism fairs and exhibitions Membership in wine routes

Yes (%) 50.3 24.7 38.6 18.5 42.5 45.8 53.9 39.9

Italian wine tourism product also includes a guided tour in the winery (97.3%) and the vineyards (91.5%), as well as the provision of information brochures (95.1%). Respondents also declared that they organise festivals or special events (63.0%) and host special occasions, such as weddings, albeit to a lesser extend (46.0%). Audio and visual equipment for presentation purposes is available in only a few companies (27.8%). Table 10.5 describes the most widely used promotion and marketing activities. Most respondents reported having their own web-site (70.1%), taking part in tourism fairs and exhibitions (53.9%), having their own Facebook Brand Page (50.3%), and making use of brochures and leaflets (46.8%). A relatively significant number of the respondents reported to be members of wine routes (39.9%). Relatively few wineries carry out surveys to measure their visitors’ satisfaction (20.5%); make use of social media marketing activities to participate in wine-related blogs (18.5%); and implement advertisement activities in wine-related magazines (28.6%). Even fewer invest in non-wine-related magazines (7.8%).

4.1

Critical Factors for Italian Wine Tourism

As shown in Table 10.6, respondents were asked to assess the extent to which a list of 18 factors is critical to wine tourism development. Respondents gave their answers by using a 5-point Likert Scale (1 ¼ not at all important, 5 ¼ extremely important). On the whole, respondents think that the most critical factors to support wine tourism development are ‘to better promote wineries as tourism attractions’ (M ¼ 4.1, SD ¼ 0.96); ‘to better promote the area as a wine tourism destination’ (M ¼ 4.0, SD ¼ 1.0), ‘to establish stronger networking and cooperation among local stakeholders’ (M ¼ 4.0, SD ¼ 1.1), having more accommodation in the area (M ¼ 3.9, SD ¼ 0.9), ‘to improve the signage for wine tourism attractions’

186

G. Del Chiappa et al.

Table 10.6 Critical factors that affect wine tourism development: percentages and mean values Items Better promotion of my winery More accommodation in the area Better promotion of wineries as tourism attractions Better promotion of the area as a wine tourism destination Provision of financial incentives to support wine tourism development Better community cooperation and support Organisation of special events at the winery Availability of accommodation facilities at the winery Improvement of the road network Improvement of signage for wine tourism attractions More promotion of local wines Fine dining/restaurants in the area Legislation supporting business development Reasonable number of stores selling local food and handicrafts in the area Training wine producers about tourism and tourism marketing Reasonable number of wineries open to the public Wine festivals and events in the area More convention facilities in the area

1–2 (%) 8.2 5.7 5.8 8.7 16.5

3 (%) 25 25.8 20.8 19.8 15

4–5 (%) 66.8 68.5 73.4 71.5 68.5

M 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.0 3.9

SD 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2

9.8 14.8 25.4 23.4 11.6 7.3 8.2 37.2 20.6

22.5 25.4 25.8 27.3 18.4 24.4 26.6 22.1 32.8

67.6 59.8 46.8 49.3 70 68.3 65.2 40.2 46.6

4.0 3.6 3.3 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.0 3.4

1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.0

15.6 18.7 23.4 31

31.2 31.5 28.8 36.5

53.2 49.8 47.8 32.5

3.6 3.4 3.4 3.0

1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1

(M ¼ 3.9, SD ¼ 1.1), ‘to better promote local wines’ (M ¼ 3.9, SD ¼ 1.1) and ‘to better promote the winery itself’ (M ¼ 3.9, SD ¼ 1.0). In line with Alebaki et al. (2014), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and specifically, Principal Components Analysis (PCA) with VARIMAX rotation, was used to reveal the underlying factors in the data. This procedure allowed us to identify three factors which explain the 74.8% of the total variance (Table 10.7). The KMO-index (Kaiser-Myer-Olkin ¼ 0.861) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (chi-square ¼ 7548.280, p-value0.3 and larger, with a corresponding coefficient of significance Sig. < 0.05) (Step 4). Calculating the correlation matrix (Step 5) and applying Varimax method (Step 6) and setting the results in rank. Results: (a) correlation matrix n—six sets of conditions yi—resultant variable (parameters for competitiveness) y1—tourist infrastructure y2—tourist superstructure y3—attraction y4—basic and additional services y5—ecological y6—local potential xi—number of users Using the SPSS and the abovementioned method eigenvalues of the correlation matrix and the absolute values were calculated. 8 1 > > > > r21 > > > > < r31 R r41 > > r51 > > > > > r61 > : r71

r12 1 r32 r42 r52 r62 r72

r13 r23 1 r43 r53 r63 r73

r14 r24 r34 1 r54 r64 r74

r15 r25 r35 r45 1 r65 r75

r16 r26 r36 r46 r56 1 r76

r17 r27 r37 r47 r57 r67 1

9 > > > > > > > > = > > > > > > > > ;

where r is the correlation coefficient and x and y are the averages of the two variables. From baseline data x and y were calculated for a period of 10 years. At n ¼ 6, r ¼ 1, as r2 ¼ 1.

268

M. Stankova and I. Vasenska

Table 15.1 Correlation matrix Correlationa

Sig. (1-tailed)

y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 y6 x1 y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 y6 x1

y1 1.000 0.357 0.014 0.468 0.178 0.700 0.266 0.156 0.485 0.086 0.311 0.012 0.229

y2 0.357 1.000 0.412 0.027 0.491 0.102 0.120 0.156 0.118 0.471 0.075 0.390 0.370

y3 0.014 0.412 1.000 0.076 0.149 0.516 0.369 0.485 0.118 0.417 0.340 0.064 0.147

y4 0.468 0.027 0.076 1.000 0.079 0.029 0.340 0.086 0.471 0.471 0.414 0.468 0.168

y5 0.178 0.491 0.149 0.079 1.000 0.115 0.592 0.311 0.075 0.340 0.414 0.376 0.036

y6 0.700 0.102 0.516 0.029 0.115 1.000 0.146 0.012 0.390 0.064 0.468 0.376

x1 0.266 0.120 0.369 0.340 0.592 0.146 1.000 0.229 0.370 0.147 0.168 0.036 0.343

0.343

Determinant ¼ 0.012 a Correlations > 0.3; Sig. 0.7, in this case—the connection is strong, respectively, when r ¼ 1 it follows that the number of users has an impact on the parameters of competitiveness. In its increase, it appears a growing impact on the parameters of competitiveness and leading to their increase as values. Conclusion of the correlation matrix (Table 15.1): The matrix is symmetrical. The determinant is 0.012, it is not formally 0 and the factor analysis may be performed. Of importance are only correlations with values >0.5. Their respective levels of importance of the lower half of the table in this case, have significance level of Sig. 0.5, Bartlett test had a significance level of Sig. ¼ 0.017 < 0.05. The analysis of the distribution of variation between components, identifies three major factors that explain the total 81.327% of the whole sample. The fourth component will provide up to 92.998% in total. The factor model indicates that the first factor is grouped by parameters .gamma.4, with weights x1 0.658 and 0.843. Factor 2 grouped u6 and S3 and Factor 3—v5 and y2 (Table 15.3). F1—y4, x1 (parameter of the basic and additional services, number of users) F2—y3, y6 (parameter attractiveness, parameter for local potential) F3—y2, y5 (parameter tourist superstructure, ecological parameter)

15

Competitiveness Factor Analysis of an Operating Tourist Destination

269

Table 15.2 Display of correlation matrix y1 y2

1.000 0.357 0.014 0.468 – 0.700 0.266 0.156 0.485 0.086 0.311 0.012 0.229

0.357 1.000 0.412 0.027 0.491 0.102 0.120 0.156 0.118 0.471 0.075 0.390 0.370

0.014 0.412 1.000 0.076 0.149 0.51 0.369 0.48 0.11 0.41 0.34 0.06 0.147

0.468 0.027 0.076 1.000 0.079 0.029 0.340 0.086 0.471 0.471 0.414 0.468 0.168

0.178 0.491 0.149 0.079 1.000 0.115 0.592 0.311 0.075 0.340 0.414 0.376 0.036

0.700 0.102 0.516 0.029 0.115 1.000 0.146 0.012 0.390 0.064 0.468 0.376

0.266 0.120 0.369 0.340 0.592 0.146 1.000 0.229 0.370 0.147 0.168 0.036 0.343

0.343

Determinant—D12, is the factor loading, xi is the load

Table 15.3 Key factors for the competitiveness of the tourist destination Infrastructure and superstructure • Basic infrastructure – Roads – Railway network – Air transport – A form of ownership • Technological infrastructure – ICT – Telecommunications – Internet • Educational infrastructure – Educational institutions • Quality of place – Accommodation facilities – Restaurants – Entertainment – Natural resources – Cultural landmarks – Safety

Visitors and local potential • Demographic characteristics – Increase in the average age of tourists – Formation of new consumer models • Demographic characteristics – Increase in the average age of tourists – Formation of new consumer models • Highly qualified workforce – Knowledge-intensive skills

Source: Authors’ collaboration

Environmental sustainability and the environment • Entrepreneurial culture – Low barriers to entry of firms – Knowledge and willingness to take risk • Sectoral concentrations – Balance/addictions – Employment/concentration – Activities with high added value • International relations – Export/sales worldwide – Investments – Business culture – The nature of foreign direct investment • Innovations – Patents – Levels of research and development – Research institutes and universities – Connections between companies and research centers • Management and institutional capacity • Capital stock • Specialization • Competitiveness

270

M. Stankova and I. Vasenska

Summing up the empirical data, it was established that the key factors that determine the competitiveness of tourist destinations are namely infrastructure and accessibility; human capital; environmental sustainability.

5 Conclusion In conclusion, it can be assumed that the factor analysis helps to deter-mine the causal relationship of different characteristics of the studied tourist destination. It supports and solves various generic problems by identifying the key actors, the analysis of their structure and revealing analysis of the factor structure of the studied characteristics. Moreover, this method makes it possible to recreate a factor coordinated space the image of the studied subject—a tourist destination, and to determine its distinctive characteristics. The application of factor analysis in competitiveness modelling has proven to be significant. The implementation showed that for the studied destination Bansko significant impact on the competitiveness parameters has the number of tourists. With the increase of visitors and increasing the burden on the parameters. At the same time, competitiveness is dependent on three factors groups: F1—y4, x1 (parameter of the basic and additional services, number of tourists; F2—y3, y6 (parameter attractiveness, parameter for local potential); F3—y2, y5 (parameter tourist superstructure, ecological parameter). The results are made in the immediate environment of recent global trend which demonstrating that larger number of tourist are seeking after the most popular destinations and is evident that this trend is increasing. The later observation gives us the bases to accept this trend as a clear threat to the destination’s stability and in a certain degree makes them vulnerable. A lack and scarcity of expertise in the management and modern methodological application tools are among the reasons for the weak development of not only traditional but also specialized in specific types of tourism destinations. Therefore, tourist destinations managing companies, representatives of national and local business organizations, investors and experts in tourism at national and local level should be familiar with the latest management trends. As well as systems for quality assurance and stability sustenance. Such preliminarily preparation, secured by factor analysis could be the basis on which to model its competitiveness and increasing local, regional and national level.

References Bachvarov, M., & Tonchev, T. (2007). Basics of tourism. Sofia: Tilia. (In Bulgarian). Bekhtereva, N. P., Bundzen, P. V., Kaplunovsky, A. S., & Matveev, Y. K. (1971). Functional organization of activity of cerebral neuronal assemblies in humans during short-term verbal memory. Sechenov Physiological Journal, 57(12), 1605–1621. (In Russian).

15

Competitiveness Factor Analysis of an Operating Tourist Destination

271

Cooper, C., Fletcher, J., Fyall, A., Gilbert, D., & Wanhill, S. (1993). Tourism: Principles and practice. Harlow: Pearson Education. Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39, 164–182. Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis (3rd ed.). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Cho, D. S. (1998). From national competitiveness to bloc and global competitiveness. Competitiveness Review, 8(1), 11–23. Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1999). Tourism, competitiveness and societal prosperity. Journal of Business Research, 44, 137–152. Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. W. (2001). Destination competitiveness: Development of a model with application to Australia and the Republic of Korea. Report prepared for Department of Industry Science and Resources, Australia and Korea Tourism research Institute, Unpublished Report. University of Western Sydney, Sydney. Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. W. (2003). Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369–414. Dwyer, L., Livaic, Z., & Mellor, R. (2003). Competitiveness of Australia as a tourist destination. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 10(1), 60–79. Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Livaic, Z., Edwards, D., & Kim, C. (2004). Attributes of destination competitiveness: A factor analysis. Tourism Analysis, 9(1–2), 91–101. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Introducing statistical method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Giannakopoulos, X., & Valpola, H. (2001). Nonlinear dynamical factor analysis. In Bayesian inference and maximum entropy methods in science and engineering. AIP Conference Proceedings, 568, 305. Goodrich, J. N. (1977). Differences in perceived similarity of tourism regions: A spatial analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 16, 10–13. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Haahti, A. J., & Yavas, U. (1983). Tourists’ perceptions of Finland and selected European countries as travel destinations. European Journal of Marketing, 17(2), 34–42. Hong, S., & Harshman, R. A. (2003a). Shifted factor analysis – Part II: Algorithms. Journal of Chemometrics, 17, 379–388. Hong, S., & Harshman, R. A. (2003b). Shifted factor analysis – Part III: N-way generalization and application. Journal of Chemometrics, 17, 389–399. Heij, C., & Scherrer, W. (1997). System identification by dynamic factor models. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 35(6), 1924–1951. Jafari, J. (1986). Systemic view of sociocultural dimensions of tourism (pp 33–50). In the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. Jensen, C. F. (1997). The dynamic destination. A resource based perspective of tourism. Edinburgh: Congress Paper. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jurowski, C., Uysal, M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). A theoretical analysis of host community resident reactions to tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 36(2), 3–11. Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (1999). Measuring tourist destination competitiveness: Conceptual considerations and empirical findings. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(3), 273–283. Kim, J., Klekka, U. R., & Muller, C. U. (1989). Factor, discriminant and cluster analysis. Moscow: Finance and Statistics. (In Russian). Lawley, D. N., & Maxwell, A. E. (1962). Factor analysis as a statistical method. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician), 12(3), 209–229. Leiper, N. (1995). Tourism management. Melbourne: RMIT Press. Loehlin, J. C. (1987). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path and structural analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

272

M. Stankova and I. Vasenska

Murphy, P. E. (1985). Tourism: A community approach. New York: Methuen. Narashima, S. (2000). Organization knowledge, human resource management and sustained competitive advantage: Toward a framework. Competitiveness Review, 10, 123–135. Pearce, D., Moscardo, G. M., & Ross, G. F. (1996). Tourism community relationship. Oxford: Pergamon. Pearce, D. G. (1997). Competitive destination analysis in Southeast Asia. Journal of Travel Research, 35(4), 16–24. Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2000). The competitive destination: A sustainability perspective. Tourism Management, 21(1), 1–7. Stankova, M. (2009). Improving the management of the tourist destination. Sofia: Avangard-Prima Publishing House. (In Bulgarian). Stankova, M. (2013). Increasing the tourist destination’s competitiveness. Blagoevgrad: University Publishing House of the South-West University “Neofit Rilski”. (In Bulgarian). Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association. Vasileva, I. (2006). Design of indicators for the Bulgarian economy with summarized dynamic factor models, agency for economic analysis and forecasting. K.I.B.I.2006.pdf. (In Bulgarian). Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94. Zuur, A. F., Fryer, R. J., Jolliffe, I. T., Dekker, R., & Beukema, J. J. (2003). Estimating common trends in multivariate time series using dynamic factor analysis. Environmetrics, 14, 665–685.

Chapter 16

A Strategic Approach to Managing Risk and Crisis at Tourist Destinations Ozen Kirant Yozcu and Gurel Cetin

Abstract Tourism is highly vulnerable to internal and external shocks as diverse as economic downturns, natural disasters, epidemic diseases, terror attacks and political conflicts. Therefore, there is a need for recommendations on measures that can be taken by the destinations before (risk management), during (response) and after (recovery) the crises. Hence, the aim of this chapter is to identify strategies destinations use to cope with and minimize negative effects of crises, how to manage risks and explore effectiveness of crises management tools for destinations based on Turkey as a case study. Understanding key measures that can be taken by destinations before, during and after crises might result in a more efficient design of crises response systems, strategies and their implementation.

1 Introduction Over the past six decades, tourism has experienced continued expansion and diversification to become one of the fastest growing economic sectors in the world, expected to keep a pace of 3.5% growth by 2030 and reach 1.8 billion arrivals. Tourists created US$ 1.3 billion international receipts in 2015, making 10% of GDP with direct, indirect and induced effects and currently constitutes 7% of global exports. Considering scale, rate of growth and the multiplier effect it creates, local economies are increasingly becoming more dependent on tourism income (Cetin et al. 2017). Yet, tourism is also among the most vulnerable industries affected by various factors other than the state of local economy. Numerous external issues; political events, natural disasters, epidemics, accidents, terror and so on also affect tourist flows to a great extent. Because of its international nature, the situation in

O. Kirant Yozcu (*) Boğaziçi University, Beşiktaş/Istanbul, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] G. Cetin Istanbul University, Fatih/Istanbul, Turkey © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_16

273

274

O. Kirant Yozcu and G. Cetin

tourist generating countries also affects a destination’s tourist arrivals which further complicate managing and forecasting demand. Thus tourism destinations are becoming places where economic viability depends mainly on tourism activities and satisfying traveler’s needs. Because tourism industry is one of the most vulnerable industries to crises, destinations should incorporate crisis management planning into their overall tourism planning, marketing, and management strategies. Thus, risk and crisis management is an integral part of destination management. This chapter offers various strategies for anticipating, preparing for, responding to and recovering from crises that can affect tourism destinations by exploring Turkey as a case country.

2 Literature Review In order to understand crisis, and offer a framework for managing crises, it is necessary to outline its definitions and characteristics. A number of authors have studied the definition of a crisis to help improve understanding of this phenomenon. A crisis is defined as an unexpected, disruptive situation that threatens the existing business assumptions (Avci et al. 2011) and long term operations of organizations (Campo et al. 2014). Pauchant and Mitroff (1992 in Ritchie 2004, p. 670) describe crisis as a “disruption that physically affects a system as a whole and threatens its basic assumptions, its subjective sense of self, its existential core.” Selbst (1978 in Faulkner 2001, p. 136) defines a crisis as “any action or failure to act that interferes with an organization’s ongoing functions, the acceptable attainment of its objectives, its viability or survival, or that has a detrimental personal effect as perceived by the majority of its employees, clients or constituents.” According to Coombs (2006), crisis can differ from small scale organizational issues such as staff illness, crimes to external factors such as terrorist attacks, earthquakes, fires. This chapter focuses on external factors that can affect the tourism system and subsequently the destination. From the perspective of tourism; a crises can be defined as an event or a set of circumstances which might damage the reputation, sales and operations in a destination and organizations within the tourism region (PATA 2011). Particularly after 9/11 the physical safety has become a major concern for travelers. Dwyer and Kim (2003) also discuss safety and security as a critical qualifying determinant of destination competitiveness. Political unrest, social instability, civil riots, probability of terrorism, crime rates, record of transportation safety, corruption of administrative services, quality of sanitation, prevalence of disease outbreak, availability and reliability of medical services and so on are also listed as critical elements of destination safety (Aksu et al. 2017; Crotts 1996; Issa and Altinay 2006; Kim et al. 2016). Crises can also require various immediate actions, decisions and countermeasures based on the extent and duration of its consequences (UNWTO 2016). This

16

A Strategic Approach to Managing Risk and Crisis at Tourist Destinations

275

comprehensive effort of managing crises has been explained in three stages by Santana (2004): Crisis planning (types and phases should be clarified), crisis training (cultural, organizational, human and technical training on crisis management should be supplied), and stakeholder involvement: By means of communication activities, stakeholders should be involved in the crisis management process.

2.1

Types and Impacts of Crises in Destinations

A number of authors have studied typologies of crisis that can be useful in developing and understanding the crisis and creating correct managerial responses. Meyers, for example, has stated nine types of business crises; crises in public perception, sudden market shifts, product failures, top-management succession, finances, industrial relations, hostile takeovers, adverse international events, and (de)regulation (Evans and Elphick 2005). Coombs (2006) has classified crisis based on stakeholders’ perceptions. Such perceptions are whether the crisis is internal or external and result from intentional (e.g. terrorism) or unintentional (e.g. accidents) acts. Seymour and Moore, have suggested that crises are of two types: the cobra and the python according to the way in which they develop (Evans and Elphick 2005). For example, a “cobra” type of crisis usually comes as a shock. “Python” type of crisis on the other hand usually accelerates over time. Booth argues that there are three types of crises based on their predictability; these are classified as gradual, periodic and sudden threats (Evans and Elphick 2005). Sausmarez (2007), has defined two types; “exocrises” refer to crises triggered by external events (e.g. volcanic eruption) and “endocrises” are those triggered by events within the tourism industry (e.g. food poisoning). Corroborating with these, crises that affect tourism might be classified based on their origin and their impacts. Regarding their origin; two broad categories can be identified. Internal crises might refer to incidents that result from internal organizational human induced issues such as financial fraud, loss of data, crime, food poisoning, fire, flood etc. that result from deficiency within internal management. External crises on the other hand refer to events that are beyond the control of immediate management such as natural disasters, political conflicts, social unrest, epidemics, acts of war and terrorism. Considering their impacts; Parsons (1996), suggests three types of crisis; immediate crisis (1), where little or no warning exists (e.g. earthquakes). Emerging crisis (2), which develop slowly and may be stopped or confined (e.g. economic crises). And sustained crises (3) (e.g. climate change), which may last for weeks, months or years. The impact of these events therefore might be immediate and long-lasting depending on type of crises, its intensity, whether tourists were targeted or affected, which locations are involved, the extend of infra-structural damage, time of the year, the scale and extent of media coverage, travel warnings issued and so on. Contrary to major belief acts of terror has a relatively short term impact whereas political unrest

276 Table 16.1 Crisis typology and impacts

O. Kirant Yozcu and G. Cetin Crisis type Economic crisis Environment crisis Health crisis Informational/reputational crisis Structural crises Political crises Sociocultural crises Technological crises

Major impact level Macro Macro/micro Macro/micro Micro Macro/micro Macro Macro/micro Macro/micro

Source: (Zech 2016)

has a much more gradual impact and often lasts for a longer time. Safety and political stability become prerequisites for tourism (ITB 2015). Impacts of crises can also be divided into macro and micro indicators. Micro refers to organizational issues that can be manageable at some level while macro perspective includes various uncontrollable factors such as environmental, technological, economic and political crises. Table 16.1 categorizes the impact of crisis at macro and micro level and states that political issues have macro impact on destinations. Depending of the severity of the crises destinations might experience sharp declines in arrivals and receipts. Egypt for instance lost 8% of international tourism receipts after Sharm el Sheikh and Dahab attacks in 2006. After Arab Spring during 2011 the arrivals dropped from 14 million to 9 million. Yet, although Egypt recovered to 11, 5 million arrivals in 2012, because of political unrest the volume of international arrivals once more dropped to 9, 5 million in 2013. During Lebanon and Israeli war, arrivals to Lebanon also dropped by 17%. In Ukraine because of the political conflicts with Russia in 2008, the country experienced an 18% decrease in arrivals (WTTC 2015). Usually competition is positively affected by the crises; Turkey, Greece and Cyprus as substitute destinations benefited from crises in Egypt, Israel, Lebanon and Jordan in the 1990s. Yet there are some instances where countries are perceived as complementary. For example, because of the political unrest in Sri Lanka its ad on destination Maldives were also negatively affected. Forest fires in Indonesia in 2015 also affected arrivals to Malaysia. Thus because the impacts of crises are international and unpredictable, countries should incorporate crises management structures into their planning especially considering image building, assurance, safety and recovery incentives for the industry. A crises management plan and a task force to deal with potential crises are required at NTO (National Tourism Organization) and DMO (Destination Management Organizations) levels. Minimizing losses, ensuring safety and a convenient return home and limiting negative media presence, effective search and rescue efforts, provision of safe shelter for tourists, tightening security in touristic areas are other immediate actions to be considered. In the long term image recovery efforts are also required and public relations and media activities gain importance at the destination level (Cetin et al. 2017). Yet, there are other stakeholders affected by crises other than tourists; locals and tourism industry should also be supplied with recovery options.

16

2.2

A Strategic Approach to Managing Risk and Crisis at Tourist Destinations

277

A Strategic Approach to Risk and Crises Management

After studying types and impacts of crisis, stages of crisis should also be explored as their scale and magnitude can play a significant role while developing and implementing strategies. Fink and Roberts both developed different models about life cycle of crisis and using this model Faulkner (2001) studied the first tourism specific crisis disaster management framework. According to Faulkner (2001), crisis has six stages. First is pre-event stage. In this stage contingency plan, scenarios or probability assessments play a critical role. Second is prodromal stage where the crisis is unavoidable. At this stage warning and command centers are established and actions in contingency plans are initiated. The third emergency stage is the acute stage that crisis already hit and damage. In this stage internal and external coordination should be in place to protect community, tourists and destination. Fourth is intermediate and fifth is long term (recovery) stage which both refer to cleaning up, post -mortem and self-analysis phase. During recovery stage damaged areas such as; roads, hotels, transportation and other services have to be reconfigured. A good public relations and communication strategy is developed. The last stage is resolution which aims to achieve a new improved state. Feedback to the system to improve crisis management is very valuable at this stage. Ritchie (2004) has suggested a strategic management and planning approach to crisis which can be useful for tourism management. In his model there are three main stages; prevention and planning, implementation, evaluation and feedback. Integrating these two studies an effective strategic management model has been developed by Ritchie (2004) based on the lifecycle of crisis. Consistent with Ritchie’s (2004), Faulkner’s (2001) and Sonmez’s et al. (1999) studies, this study reproduced strategic management framework for risk and crisis management. As Sonmez et al. (1999) have discussed in their study, destinations should be prepared for crisis management. This means that there should be proactive planning and strategic action plan for the destination as stated in Ritchie (2004). So at the pre-event and prodromal stage of a crisis, risk analysis should be taken into consideration. In the first part of the reproduced model, risk analysis, environmental analysis and scenario planning should be used. Risk is an antecedent of crises and its management is one of the initial steps in preventing and managing crises in destinations. As discussed above tourism destinations face a range of risks that are both within or -out the organizations’ (e.g. DMO) span of control. Crises management on the other hand includes strategies and processes utilized to prevent, cope with and recover from crises. Thus crises management starts with risk management (prevention), continues with initial response (cope) during the crises and recovery strategies after the crises. The lack of such a strategic approach to risk and crisis management can result in a sustained decline in number of visitors to the destination, damage destination’s image and result in decrease in revenues.

278

2.2.1

O. Kirant Yozcu and G. Cetin

Preventative Risk Management Strategies

When risks are well calculated, assessed and managed, crises become predicted events rather than rapidly occurring emergencies. When risk management is overlooked destinations would only react rather than pro-act on crises and their impacts. For example certain weather events can be predicted such as tropical storms and hurricanes; accidents stemming from technical failure and human error might also be minimized through a better risk management. The probability of various crises therefore should be assessed and emergency evacuation plans and other preparations (e.g. infrastructure) should be adopted. New Orleans might have incurred less of damage and a shorter recovery from Hurricane Katrina in 2010 if an efficient risk management plan was in place. The impacts of various crises can also be forecasted and thus preventative risk management becomes possible. Sonmez et al. (1999) has discussed a framework for crisis management guidance for destinations for their initial stages based on four main concepts. First, destinations should be prepared for crisis management. Second, destinations should have an organization task force to manage crises. Third there should be a guide book for crisis management and the last one is partnering with law enforcement officials. In order to manage the risks and their probability a six steps process (i.e. identify, analyze, plan, track, control, communicate) of risk management were identified by PATA (2011). Identification of risks; analyzing their possible impacts and duration; creating contingency plans and prioritizing tasks based on probability, vulnerability and severity of crises; tracking and monitoring risks, controlling deviation from plans and communicating information; providing feedback for all stakeholders involved are major and continuous steps of risk management for destinations (PATA 2011). Faulkner (2001, p. 145) has also listed disaster management planning process as; risk assessment, prioritization, protocols, community capabilities audit, disaster management command center, media and monitoring activities, warning systems as well as a flexible structure. These activities should also be included in crisis management process. Hence establishing crisis response teams, improving safety and security measures, investing on infrastructure, enhancing and auditing stakeholder competence, creating effective communication and early warning systems might be examples of preventative risk management strategies. Collaborating with law enforcement creating a set of protocols for tourism industry is also critical (Sonmez et al. 1999).

2.2.2

Crisis Response Strategies

Without an efficient response strategy, risk management strategies are of little use. The speed of the response to crises is of critical importance as well as the appropriate action. During the response stage a quick assessment of the crisis and its impact is made, appropriate measures are identified in the crisis response manual and

16

A Strategic Approach to Managing Risk and Crisis at Tourist Destinations

279

implemented. Promptness during this stage is critical to minimize possible negative impacts and accelerate recovery. Organizations should also have a task force dedicated to crises management (Sonmez et al. 1999). During implementation of this stage; strategic evaluation and control, crisis communication, resource management, understanding and collaborating with stakeholders emerge as important phases of action (Ritchie 2004). There should also be a responsible body to decide and implement these actions. This task force can be a group of representatives from organizations in tourism industry. There are various public (e.g. central and regional governments) and private organizations (e.g. hotels, tour operators) that are related to and affected by tourism crises. Central government usually has an NTO responsible for tourism development, management and marketing. Various regional destination management organizations (DMO) also report to NTO. Although the structure of these DMOs differ on public-private continuum, an efficient destination management is only possible when these two sectors (public and private) collaborate. Hence, an initial stage in risk management at destinations is establishing a multi-representative institutional meta-management structure. This might as well be a committee comprised of members representing public, private and NGO stakeholders within the existing DMO to act as a crises management organization. Yet this structure also needs an integration and effective coordination with national bodies and emergency plans. This committee should also develop a crisis response manual to be used for rapid decision making when a crisis occurs. This structure can also be organized into teams according to the tasks they are responsible. For example; communication and public relations team can have responsibilities such as publicity, sponsorship, event management, content management for marketing activities appropriate to the type of crisis. To ensure effectiveness and efficiency of these task teams, each member of team should be selected and authorized based on their expertise. Marketing communications also emerge as a significant issue for crisis response strategies. The impact of media both print and electronic and their power to manipulate events have been covered in literature (e.g. Sonmez et al. 1999). Thus immediate and correct flow of information and public relations are crucial in response strategies, to prevent and counter unrealistic sensational content. Use of social media in order to disseminate seamless information is also an efficient tool to be used by the DMOs and NTOs. Thus destinations should have such instruments (e.g. Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter) in place to join and manage the conversation during the crises. Crisis communication and control is mainly related with transferring correct and timely messages to the community and improving the image of the destination. A crisis communication plan can help limit the effect of crisis (Preble 1997). Marra (1998) has explained that a good communication strategy would lead to successful crisis management and poor communication strategy can deteriorate a potential recovery from crisis. Stressing that the area of disruption was limited during the Arab Spring demonstrations was a strategy adopted in Egypt where the protests were centered on Tahrir Square in Cairo while the Red Sea resorts were unaffected.

280

O. Kirant Yozcu and G. Cetin

Lobbying on unrealistic travel warnings and official travel advisories is another strategy that would be adopted during this stage. Minimizing losses, ensuring safety and a convenient return home and limiting negative media presence, effective search and rescue efforts, provision of safe shelter for tourists, tightening security in touristic areas are immediate actions to be considered. Improving investments; offering financial support, tax reductions and incentives; competitive pricing, short term result oriented promotional campaigns, facilitating local demand are other effective response strategies.

2.2.3

Crises Recovery Strategies

These strategies include post-crises activities that aim to remove all negative impacts and return to pre-crisis conditions. Naturally these strategies have a longer time span not only to recover but also create a better preventative risk management in destinations. An organization’s vulnerability to crisis and effectiveness of their recovery efforts differ in many ways. The challenge of the recovery phase is, to return operations to normal level, to think more radical in reshaping the offer. Social and physical tourism infrastructure, equipment and even staff may have to be replaced, new models of operation may be developed and new markets may be targeted (Scott et al. 2007). Thus crises might also be perceived as opportunities for a more resilient industry. A vicious cycle, which at each stage is feeding and learning from previous stages, is required in managing crisis. According to Ritchie (2004), recovery stage may refer to resolution, evaluation and feedback phases. In this stage destination starts to recover from crisis and try to control or reduce its impacts. Faulkner (2001), in his crisis lifecycle model, discussed recovery strategies in the fourth intermediate and fifth long- term stage. In the fourth stage, the main focus is to restore services and community to normal state and during the fifth stage reconstruction and reassessment begins. In this final stage damaged infrastructure should also be fixed and environmentally discredited areas should be examined and rehabilitation programs should be initiated. Investment plans should be constituted in the destination. Organizations, local and national governments should support these investment programs in order to maintain consumer and business confidence. Consensus should be achieved about what to do, how to do and who should take the responsibility of the situation, thus leadership becomes a critical issue in prioritization, redirection and creation of new models of post event activity during recovery stage (Scott et al. 2007). Individuals and communities who have experienced these crises are the best responders to similar circumstances in the future if they learn from the past. So a guide book for risk assessment and crisis management should be studied after each crisis in the destinations. Consistency of responses is a key element for managing crisis. Lessons learned documents should be created, communicated and implemented for future crisis prevention and risk management. These files document the history of crises, discuss the current situation and suggest alternative scenarios for future.

16

A Strategic Approach to Managing Risk and Crisis at Tourist Destinations

281

Fig. 16.1 A strategic framework for crisis and risk management. Source: Adapted from Ritchie 2004, Faulkner 2001 and Sonmez et al. 1999

Creating detailed contingency plans, defining the decisional and informational roles and responsibilities are more structured when based on such evidence. Enhancement in infrastructure, long-term investment facilitation, market and product diversification, legislative measures are other courses of action at this stage. Different models of strategic approach to risk and crisis management have been discussed in Ritchie’s (2004), Faulkner (2001) and Sonmez et al. (1999). Preble (1997) has also explored the integration of crisis management and strategic management. Integrating these with the literature above, Fig. 16.1 offers a framework for risk and crisis management as follow.

3 The Turkish Case Turkey has been experiencing a rapid development in tourist arrivals. 10 million international arrivals in 2005 reached to 40 million in 2014, making the country as the sixth largest country considering tourist volume. Despite serious crises within the last 3 years, Turkey still has enjoyed 25 million arrivals in 2016. International arrivals to Turkey and corresponding receipts by years have been displayed in Table 16.2. Despite the importance of tourism in her economy, Turkey is one of the countries faced continuous crises (Yarcan 2007). Economic crises (e.g. exchange rate fluctuations), terror (e.g. PKK), natural disasters (e.g. Earthquake), political crises (e.g. EU), wars (e.g. Gulf War), epidemics (e.g. Avian Flu), social unrest (e.g. Gezi Park demonstrations), refugee crises (e.g. Syria) and even an attempted coup are major events that affected tourism in Turkey since 1990s. Some of the recent crises have been detailed below;

282 Table 16.2 Tourist arrivals and receipts of Turkey (1995–2016)

O. Kirant Yozcu and G. Cetin Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Arrivals (‘000) 7,083 7,966 9,04 8,96 6,893 9,586 10,783 12,79 13,341 16,826 20,273 18,916 26,122 29,792 30,187 31,364 34,654 35,698 37,795 39,811 39,478 25,352

Receipts (US$ billion) 4.957 5.650 7.002 7.177 5.203 7.636 10.067 11.901 13.203 15,888 20,76 19,137 21,662 26,446 26,331 26,318 30,302 31,566 36,192 38,766 35,413 22.100

• Terrorist attacks: Tourists and civilians have been target of various terrorist attacks in Turkey organized mainly by PKK and ISIS. Since 2015, 432 lives were lost and at least 54 of these were tourists. Among a total of 12 attacks three has directly targeted tourists. Together with other events in the country Turkey lost 30% of its European visitors within 2 years after 2015 because of intense terror attacks. A list of terror attacks in Turkey since 2015 can be observed in Table 16.3. • Gulf War: In 2003 allied forces from several nations led by the United States and Great Britain, invaded Iraq. Yet the invasion was opposed by local groups and created insurgency up until 2011 when foreign forces completed their withdrawal in Iraq. Although Turkey was not directly involved in the conflict, as a neighbour it was affected. • Syrian War: The civil war in Syria is a part of a wider wave of the 2011 ‘Arab Spring’. The Syrian crisis has a direct impact on Turkey. Besides the refugees that Turkey was forced to deal with, the country also became a target of terrorism which is partly related to the Syrian conflict. Although the Turkish tourism has proved resilience to several crises including social unrest and violence, the impact of the repetitive terrorist attacks within the last 2 years have proved to have a significant negative impact on the tourism industry.

16

A Strategic Approach to Managing Risk and Crisis at Tourist Destinations

283

Table 16.3 Terror attacks in Turkey (2015–2017) Date July 2015 October 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 May 2016 June 2016

August 2016 November 2016 December 2016

January 2017

Event Attack in Şanlıurfa to civilians—33 dead Attack in Ankara to civilians—101 dead Attack in Sultanahmet Square—Top tourist site in Istanbul. Killed 11 people, it was aimed a tourist group of Germans and a Peruvian Attack in Ankara—28 dead Attack in Ankara that killed 35 people and another attack in Istiklal Street, another important tourist site in Istanbul, four tourists dead Attack in Diyarbakır, 16 dead Attack in Istanbul, 12 dead including. Another attack in the same month to Ataturk Airport International Terminal with three suicide attacks ended up killing 41 people Attack in Gaziantep during a wedding, 51 dead Attack in Adana, two dead Attack in Istanbul, after a football game near Inönü Stadium with two bomb attacks 44 people lost their life. Attack on military transport killed 15 soldiers in Kayseri Assassination of Russian Ambassador to Ankara During the first hours of the new year the most popular night club in Istanbul, Reina was attacked by gunmen and 39 people lost their lives

Source: Resort Journal 2017

• Downing of Russian air fighter: A Russian warplane was shot down in November 2015 by a Turkish F-16 after several warnings of continuous violation of Turkish airspace. Consequently, among other sanctions, Russia banned most charter flights to Turkey. As the second largest generating market of Turkey, this ban resulted a decline from 4.5 million arrivals in 2014 to 3,6 million arrivals in 2015 from Russia. • Attempted coup: Although Turkey have witnessed several military coups long before (last one in 1980), there has been another attempt in 2016 which faced intense resistance by the locals and failed. 294 people were killed and many others injured. Besides the violence during the attempt, there have been some criticisms after the coup in international media as to the measures taken during the state of emergency. • Refugee Crises: Since 2011 because of the civil war in Syria as a neighbor Turkey have been welcoming more than 3 million refugees that costed an estimated 10 billion USD to the country. The refugee crises have also impacted the image of the country as a safe destination in a negative way, as the country also imported terror while trying to help refugees. Up until 2015, although these crises have undermined the potential growth in tourism, but Turkey still enjoyed remarkable growth in tourism volume. Temporary declines were always recovered and were limited in scale. Despite tourism industry has survived various external crises in the past, recent bundle of crises in Turkey is considered to be the most serious in the history of the country. Particularly from

284

O. Kirant Yozcu and G. Cetin

2015 onwards, frequent acts of terror committed by various different terror organizations, refugee crises, international political tensions with Russia, Syria and European Union (Cankurtaran and Cetin 2016) and most importantly the attempted coup in July, 2016, resulted in sharp decreases in international tourism arrivals. Cumulative effects of these consecutive serious events (e.g. a total of 12 terror attacks, attempted coup, Syrian conflict and its political and social implications) the country recorded sharp decreases up to 40% in tourist arrivals. Concerning the preventative risk management measures; not much is undertaken except improving safety and security measures such as improved border control. Because the central body responsible for tourism (NTO-MoCT) lacks resources and efficiency to create a comprehensive risk management structure and in the absence of regional DMOs; prevention and risk management customized for tourism industry at regional level does not exist. Concerning response strategies however various activities were put into action. Offering incentives (e.g. financial incentives for tour operator charter flights landing to specific airports during certain periods), bank credits, postponement of taxes, rents and other fees, employment incentives (e.g. partly waiving social security contribution fees) were utilized. Yet in the absence of a structural body to represent tourism industry and manage crises (e.g. DMOs), the responses takes too long to actualize partly because of central government bureaucracy. As to the recovery strategies realizing importance of private sectors know-how and efficiency, besides the central marketing efforts by the NTO, some private sector marketing and promotion efforts (e.g. promotional material, participation to international fairs) were subsidized by 50%. After various crises and sharp declines in its major generating countries Turkey also intended to diversify its markets by improving its accessibility (e.g. new flight routes by Turkish Airlines) from Asia, Middle East and Africa. The country also adopted a more flexible visa regime towards these countries. Product diversification also became part of strategy plans (e.g. Tourism 2023). More investment incentives were utilized for alternative special interest tourism types such as winter tourism, golf tourism, culture tourism and cruise tourism. Foreign diplomacy has also been proven successful in several cases. For example Turkey has resolved conflict with Russia stemming from downing of the Russian plane. The heightened tension with EU during local elections in 2017 was also reduced.

4 Conclusion In recent years, increasing number of terrorist attacks, political unrest, natural disasters, epidemics and other events affect tourism movements (Dogru et al. 2017; Kozak et al. 2007; Paraskevas et al. 2013). And because the impacts of these events on demand are to a large extent unpredictable; risk and crises management has become an important issue for all stakeholders in tourism industry. With globalization and growth of international tourism, these events also tend to affect a broader area rather than the specific region that the crises originated.

16

A Strategic Approach to Managing Risk and Crisis at Tourist Destinations

285

Because of increased frequency and global nature of negative events such as terrorism, crisis management became essential for all destinations (Santana 2004). The multi stage (i.e. risk management, response and recovery) and multidisciplinary nature of crisis management (e.g. economics, politics, sociology, psychology, environmental science, management etc.) systemic approach is needed and a comprehensive effort should be utilized during crisis management process. Considering the preventative risk management stage before the actual crises; various risks and their impacts are calculated and action plans are prepared. Based on these action plans, various risks and preventative measures should also be communicated with the stakeholders. Risk communications are created based on the results of risk analysis and credibility of these messages is important. They should match with needs, background, culture, experience and values of the stakeholders at the destination. Educational programs can also be organized regarding potential threats and encourage appropriate preparation and risk reduction measures. Establishing crisis response teams, improving safety and security measures, investing on infrastructure, enhancing and auditing stakeholder competence, creating effective communication and early warning systems, setting up collaboration networks with law enforcement, creating a set of protocols for tourism industry is also critical during this stage. Concerning the response stage during the crises, the communication is a major activity. Short-term marketing communications, media planning, public relations (PR) and advertising are significant during this stage. PR massages should provide instructions and information about crisis such as what was happened, what went wrong, why and how this crisis occurred and what is being done in response. So in this stage messages should be informative, transparent and prompt. There should be a communication plan which includes all these communication activities. Preserving the image of destination is the main objective during the response stage. Emergency plans prepared during the risk management stage should also be initiated. Spokespersons during the crisis should be credible and accessible for positive image as well. Improving investments; offering financial support, tax reductions and incentives; competitive pricing; short term result oriented promotional campaigns; facilitating local demand might also be listed as short term response strategies. Post-crisis or recovery stage on the other hand is a period when PR becomes more critical as community starts questioning the causes of crisis, exploring suitability of responses and responsibility. So in this stage first, community should be informed and persuaded about ongoing rebuilding efforts, improvements, and enhancements in the destination. Special campaigns may be developed by governments, organizations, agencies to reinforce the positive image. Also long term monitoring of effectiveness of these communication activities is needed. At the end of each crises based on the effectiveness of responses, lessons learned documents should also be created to enhance the capabilities and competencies for future risk management. Enhancement in infrastructure, long-term investment facilitation, market and product diversification, legislative measures are other effective measures that should be considered during the recovery phase.

286

O. Kirant Yozcu and G. Cetin

References Aksu, A., Uçar, Ö., & Kılıçarslan, D. (2017). Golf tourism: A research profile and security perceptions in Belek, Antalya, Turkey. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 6(12), 01–12. Avci, U., Madanoglu, M., & Okumus, F. (2011). Strategic orientation and performance of tourism firms: Evidence from a developing country. Tourism Management, 32(1), 147–157. Campo, S., Díaz, A. M., & Yagüe, M. J. (2014). Hotel innovation and performance in times of crisis. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(8), 1292–1311. Cankurtaran, B. S., & Cetin, G. (2016). Ideology, foreign policy and tourism: The case of TurkeyMiddle East relations. International Journal of Turcologia, 11(21), 45–64. Cetin, G., Alrawadieh, Z., Dincer, M. Z., Istanbullu Dincer, F., & Ioannides, D. (2017). Willingness to pay for tourist tax in destinations: Empirical evidence from Istanbul. Economies, 5(2), 21. Coombs, T. W. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies. Journal of Promotion Management, 12(3–4), 241–260. Crotts, J. C. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on tourist criminal victimisation. Journal of Tourism Studies, 7(1), 2–9. Dogru, T., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Crouch, G. I. (2017). Remodeling international tourism demand: Old theory and new evidence. Tourism Management, 60, 47–55. Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003). Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators. Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369–414. Evans, N., & Elphick, S. (2005). Models of crisis management: An evaluation of their value for strategic planning in the International Travel Industry. International Journal of Tourism Research, 7, 135–150. Faulkner, B. (2001). Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tourism Management, 22(2), 135–147. Issa, I. A., & Altinay, L. (2006). Impacts of political instability on tourism planning and development: The case of Lebanon. Tourism Economics, 12(3), 361–381. ITB. (2015). ITB world travel trends report. Berlin: Messe Berlin. Kim, H., Schroeder, A., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2016). Does culture influence risk perceptions? Tourism Review International, 20(1), 11–28. Kozak, M., Crotts, J. C., & Law, R. (2007). The impact of the perception of risk on international travellers. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(4), 233–242. Marra, F. (1998). Crisis communication plan: Poor predictors of excellent crisis public relations. Public Relations Review, 24(4), 461–474. Paraskevas, A., Altinay, L., McLean, J., & Cooper, C. (2013). Crisis knowledge in tourism: Types, flows and governance. Annals of Tourism Research, 41, 130–152. Parsons, W. (1996). Crisis management. Career Development International, 1(5), 26–28. PATA. (2011). Bounce back – Tourism risk, crisis and recovery management guide. Bangkok: Pacific Asia Travel Association. Preble, J. F. (1997). Integrating the crisis management perspective into the strategic management process. Journal of Management Studies, 34(5), 770–791. Resort. (2017). Son iki yılda bazı ülkelerde meydana gelen terör olayları. Resort Tourism and Travel Journal, 169, 8. Ritchie, W. B. (2004). Chaos, crises and disasters: A strategic approach to crisis management in the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 25, 669–683. Santana, G. (2004). Crisis management and tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 15(4), 299–321. Sausmarez, N. (2007). Crisis management, tourism and sustainability: The role of Indicators. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(6), 700–714. Scott, N., Laws, E., & Prideaux, B. (2007). Tourism crises and marketing recovery strategies. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 23(2/3/4), 1–13.

16

A Strategic Approach to Managing Risk and Crisis at Tourist Destinations

287

Sonmez, S. F., Apostolopoulos, Y., & Tarlow, P. (1999). Tourism in crisis: Managing the effects of terrorism. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 13–18. UNWTO. (2016). World tourism organization tourism highlights, 3. WTTC. (2015). Economic impact analysis. Accessed July 2, 2017, from http://www.wttc.org/ research/economic-research/economic-impact-analysis/ Yarcan, S. (2007). Coping with continuous crises: The case of Turkish inbound tourism. Middle Eastern Studies, 43(5), 779–794. Zech, M. N. (2016). Crisis management within the hotel industry – A stakeholder relationship management approach. University of Latvia Faculty of Economics and Management, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.

Chapter 17

How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for Practical Impact Pietro Beritelli, Gabriella Crescini, Stephan Reinhold, and Veronika Schanderl

Abstract The practicalities of destination management present daunting challenges. We introduce «The Visitor Flow Approach» as a way to deal with those challenges. This practical approach to destination management is an example of how research on destination management can bridge the divide between insights and impact despite theorizing tourism as a complex social phenomenon. Specifically, we illustrate how Swisscontact, a development agency, blends the theory of flow-based destination management and the six–step method of the St. Gallen Model for Destination Management to create real impact in emerging and developing countries. We present their experiences and lessons learned from four specific contexts (Laos, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Indonesia) and additional applications across four continents.

1 Introduction In destination management, practitioners and researchers share a main concern: How can we establish and explain sustainably successful tourist destinations (e.g. Laesser and Beritelli 2013; Zehrer et al. 2016). To address this question, a lot of attention has been paid to DMOs, those organizations tasked with destination marketing or management (e.g. Fyall 2011; Pike and Page 2014). In general, supply of tourist services has received a lot of attention. However, the foundations of destination management originate from a set of demand-related challenges, associated with visitors and their experiences in specific places (Gunn 1972). To address those challenges, destination actors need to understand what tourists and visitors want and how they behave while traveling. This applies regardless of a destination actor’s P. Beritelli (*) · S. Reinhold University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected] G. Crescini · V. Schanderl Swisscontact, Zürich, Switzerland © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_17

289

290

P. Beritelli et al.

self-concept—as single enterprise, as part of a particular tourism service chain, or as one player with multiple roles among many other actors, embedded in a public space with natural and cultural resources (Beritelli et al. 2015). The success of whatever geographic area we define as ‘the destination’ depends on a systemic synergy that results from the behavior of manifold suppliers on site: How those suppliers—consciously or not—respond to market dynamics and to changing traveler needs. From a supply perspective, the collective efforts of all private and public actors in a destination are critical to competitiveness (Bahar and Kozak 2007; Kozak and Rimmington 1999; Ritchie and Crouch 2003). Research on destination marketing and management offers a wealth of mechanisms, models, and frameworks to make sense of supply and demand in destinations. Practical attempts at interventions in destinations, however, have been burdened with two problems: first, managerial recommendations are based on retrospective (‘best practice’) studies of successful cases; and second, they excessively rely on DMO capabilities and resources—although DMOs’ actual contribution to the development of destinations may well have been overstated (e.g. Beritelli et al. 2015; Pike and Page 2014). In practice, we observe an increasing tendency to delegate responsibility for a broad range of services (from product development to communications and even sales) and strategic tasks to DMOs (Beritelli et al. 2014; Bornhorst et al. 2010). In the hope that DMOs are best equipped to manage future development, the rest of the destination actors forgo the opportunity that arises from collaboration and joint development of the destination’s future. In general, few studies have addressed the pivotal role and contribution of those other actors, particularly of private enterprises, to the overall development of the tourist destination (e.g. Johns and Mattsson 2005; Russell and Faulkner 2004). In this contribution we present a new participative planning approach, commonly known among practitioners as «The Visitor Flow Approach», which puts those destination actors center stage and alleviates problems of DMO- and supplycentered destination planning. Specifically, we demonstrate how this approach: (1) reinstates tourist behavior (demand side) as starting point for destination marketing and management; (2) methodologically assists practitioners in analyzing, learning and decision making; (3) benefits a broad range of actors; (4) is both intuitive and reduces tensions often inherent to collaborative planning processes. This chapter introduces the theoretical background and main principles of the visitor flow approach. We describe how the corresponding method, named the St. Gallen Model for Destination Management (SGDM) (Beritelli et al. 2015) achieves alignment in instruments as well as actor attitude to benefit destination development. Stakeholders who are part of a specific visitor flow can assume immediate ownership for the outcome of their flow. Supply is planned and developed by those stakeholders who care for the specifics of a distinct visitor flow (e.g. attractions and activities); not by a designated destination strategy group or committee. Overall, the approach establishes the foundation for a rapid assessment of the tourist potential in a specific area. Simultaneously, it engages private and public stakeholders and

17

How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for. . .

291

creates buy-in. In our practical experience, this significantly shortens the usual, lengthy, and tedious research and coordination phase. At the same time, it creates awareness and prepares partners for future collaborative interventions. Finally, the tools help actors to visualize any need for public sector development and prioritize investments. Chapter 4 presents four destination cases in emerging and developing countries. In those contexts, Swisscontact1 (www.swisscontact.org), an NGO, has successfully applied the visitor flow approach. Swisscontact mostly works in destinations with little to no presence of a DMO. We consider their positive impact a strong indicator that practical destination management should be foremost a question of mindset and method—not of institutions. As of writing this, Swisscontact has applied the approach in several countries on four continents. The approach has achieved positive results independent of the destination or development stage. The approach involves all interested stakeholders in a destination. It reduces frictions and produces comprehensible priorities in decision making without resorting to vague strategies or smallest common denominators (Reinhold et al. 2017). Chapter 5 concludes with lessons learned and an outlook.

2 Theoretical Framework This chapter provides an overview of the theoretical background and principles necessary to understand the practical application and implications of the visitor flow approach. For a more detailed discussion of the theoretical foundations of flow-based destination management, please refer to Beritelli et al. (2014, 2015).

2.1

Visitor Flows and Tourist Production

A theoretical key concept of flow-based destination management are visitor flows. People move and travel along flows (e.g. Castells et al. 2006; Sheller and Urry 2006). This occurs both for work (e.g. on the commute) and leisure purposes (e.g. exploring an unfamiliar city) (MacCannell 2001). Recent GPS-based

1 Swisscontact is the business-oriented foundation for international development cooperation. Working in 34 countries with over 1200 staff, Swisscontact has been fostering economic, social, and environmental development since 1959. Tourism development as a means for local economic development has been in Swisscontact’s portfolio since the early 1990 and has focused on destination and tourism skills development. Aware of tourism not only creating benefits but also bearing risks for social and ecological impact, Swisscontact in recent years has defined 18 dimensions for assessing a broad spectrum of impact of tourism development. Swisscontact works with the St. Gallen model for destination management since 2013. The stakeholder-centered orientation of this approach allows Swisscontact to facilitate and support tourism development without taking an active role in local markets.

292

P. Beritelli et al.

reconstructions of those flows (e.g. Lau and McKercher 2006; Shoval and Isaacson 2010) point to several common features. In a region, city or country: • • • •

flows concentrate in particular areas while other areas are free of or count very few visitors; each flow is characterized by a specific visitor profile, activity set, and sequence; visitors of similar profiles and activities align themselves in repeated flows, constant in space and time.

That tourists are (co-)producers of their own travel experiences is no new insight (Smith 1994). Some authors, though, take this argument further and maintain that tourism production hinges on the presence of a visitor (Kaspar 1995) and include the tourist as a factor in economic production (Maggi 2014; Reinhold et al. 2015). In sum, those insights provide the basis to reconstruct visitor flows. We can follow their spatial paths and analyze what visitors do when, where and with whom, how much they spend, etc. This provides a reasonable approximation of travel reality and explains how a destination is shaped from a visitor’s perspective (Gunn 1972; Leiper 1979; Miossec 1977; Pearce 1979). While some travel decisions that determine behavior in flows are taken before a trip (e.g., which country/region, what means of transport, where to sleep), travel research demonstrates that most decisions are taken en route. Travel activities are constantly adjusted dependent on many contextual variables on a day-to-day basis (DiPietro et al. 2007; Fesenmaier and Jeng 2000; Hyde and Laesser 2009; Moore et al. 2012). Figure 17.1 exemplifies the reconstruction of visitor flows. The majority of travel activities concentrate at particular locations and connect along similar paths (see left side of Fig. 17.1). Even individual travelers are social beings and use common

Fig. 17.1 Significant and repeating visitor flows. Source: Beritelli et al. (2015, p. 34)

17

How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for. . .

293

decision heuristics to navigate destination-scapes (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier 2011). This generates repeated flows of visitors in different spaces at different times, in relatively stable quantities, which allows segmentation or assignment of individuals to particular flows (see right side of Fig. 17.1). Assuming a visitor perspective and understanding the underlying social forces that drive visitor flows are the principle tasks and the first vital step toward understanding the current tourist demand and supply in a destination (actual visitor flows) and toward envisioning a realistic future (new visitor flows).

2.2

Multiple Flows and Implications for Actors

The implications of the flow-based perspective for suppliers as well as other destination actors are far reaching: The reconstruction of visitor flows helps them recognize what roles they assume in different supply chains. The left side of Fig. 17.2 visualizes demand in red and supply elements in green for a single visitor flow. Those green elements are the cornerstones of a holistic tourist experience in a destination (e.g., specific suppliers, points of attraction, activity zones, natural tourist resources, etc.). For tourists, those elements signal stations and waypoints along a flow, which they follow in a specific sequence. For suppliers and other destination actors, the reconstruction offers two benefits: First, a characterization of a specific demand group for marketing and management purposes; and second, scope for action to support development of a specific flow. For example, the reconstruction of a flow might point to potential for collaboration with another tourism enterprise that has hitherto been considered a competitor.

Fig. 17.2 Visitor flows as production process and the portfolio perspective. Source: Own illustration

294

P. Beritelli et al.

The right side of Fig. 17.2 points to the diversity of and dynamic in co-occurring flows in a destination. Demand for tourist experiences is dynamic, motivated by shifts in preferences, in demographics, in substitutes, in competing offers, etc. In consequence, flows do not last forever; they follow a specific life cycle pattern (Miossec 1977)—albeit certain cultural sites are visited for centuries by different flows. Business based on a single visitor flow is risky for suppliers and for destinations. Hence, in most contexts, economic success depends on multiple flows whose prospects need to be managed as a portfolio in the mid- to long-term. The right side of Fig. 17.2 depicts four different flows at different life cycle stages. Those four flows activate the supply (services) of the enterprise or attraction in the center (the green dot). Knowledge of those flows and their life-cycle position, allows this supplier to assess the health of its essential supply and demand networks (Tremblay 1998) and to assess the dynamics that drive individual flows in the portfolio. These implications translate 1-to-1 to an entire local area, region, city, or country. Ultimately, the economic viability of a destination depends on the ability of destination actors to renew and revive a rich portfolio of diverse visitor flows. Akin to a biological ecosystem: As context and conditions change, so need members of the ecosystem to adapt and evolve. Flow-based destination management conceptualizes tourism as a complex social phenomenon and destinations as complex dynamic systems of interdependencies activated by visitor flows in a certain space for certain periods of time (Beritelli et al. 2015). Attempts at theorizing closer to the complexity of real, social systems run the danger of producing insight and recommendations too impractical or complicated to serve tourism practice. The visitor flow approach is our attempt at making the theorized, real complexity and dynamics intuitively understandable as well as associated tasks and activities clear and accessible to practitioners.

3 Methodology The St. Gallen Model for Destination Management (SGDM) (Beritelli et al. 2013, 2015) introduces a six step method that helps reconstruct, visually analyze, and compare visitor flows on maps. The method results in actionable, strategic information and operative advice to continuously monitor destination development. Based on visitor flow maps, actors in the destination can identify their position in the complex portfolio of visitor flows present in a destination—both for the current situation and for what is projected to develop or planned in the future. In addition, the information gathered on those maps (and complementary legends and tools) points to specific projects, activities, and responsibilities. We will not reiterate the full six-step method here (cf. Beritelli et al. 2015). Instead, we point to two specific parts of this method for flow-based destination management particularly relevant to practical impact: first, the Destinorama as an alternative work space for destination management and, second, its different work mode to facilitate interaction and collaboration among stakeholders. Those two peculiarities are relevant to

17

How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for. . .

295

Fig. 17.3 Visitor flow mapping, Colombia. Source: Swisscontact Colombia

understanding how the method facilitates market-based learning, planning, and decision-making while creating stakeholder buy-in and collaboration (Fig. 17.3).

3.1

Destinorama: Changing the Planning Setting

The Destinorama (~ destination + panorama) provides an overview of all reconstructed, present and future visitor flows (e.g., based on seed projects etc.). Those flows are presented in two forms: (1.) as single maps with corresponding legends or (2.) as variable geometries. Variable geometries are aggregate maps that visually overlap selected flows to either test specific hypotheses or gain a better overview of what is happening in specific areas (e.g., use of space and other resources, traffic and mobility patterns, etc.) or certain periods of time (e.g., lifecycle of flows in winter season). Variable geometries are accompanied by tables that demonstrate strengths and challenges for individual and aggregate flows. Figure 17.4 shows an example of an empty map with legend and a selection of single visitor flows from various destinations and countries. Figure 17.5 subsequently presents two variable geometries from original source material. The Destinorama is a collaborative, public physical and/or digital space. It is open to destination stakeholders and the public to access a destination’s visitor flow maps and variable geometries. To date, the data and information for the reconstruction of visitor flows is primarily provided by local informants (e.g., front-line employees

Fig. 17.4 Map specimen (left) and selection of reconstructed flows (right). Source: Own illustration and Swisscontact Kosovo and Laos

296 P. Beritelli et al.

How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for. . .

Fig. 17.5 Exemplary variable geometries. Source: Original source material IMP-HSG

17 297

298

P. Beritelli et al.

and entrepreneurs as well as other actors who are in regular contact with visitors of one or more flows). In the future, we expect these verbal accounts to be complemented (not replaced) by machine data on visitor movement patterns. Setting up and updating a Destinorama is a process characterized by intermittent phases of information gathering and validation as well as of collective reflection, discussion, and decisions. When destination actors confront the Destinorama for a first time, they usually add information and complement data before engaging in selective analysis. Their strategizing is focused on what they consider in their best (business) interest and responsibility.

3.2

Orchestrating Multiple Projects: Changing the Planning Mode

The Destinorama serves as an open learning platform that facilitates participative planning. Destination actors can use it to identify their position in the set of identified visitor flows. This helps them to quickly validate their own market assumptions in context of the available flow information. In addition, they correct maps or complement missing data. For instance, a hotel owner might not have realized where her guests exactly stop on a tour and who else promotes and develops products for a specific visitor flow. However, she might have a good grasp of the average daily expenditure of visitors of a particular flow and add this information to a map. Furthermore, the complemented information can help her to develop scenarios and determine action based on life-cycle information and her own strategic agenda. Alongside individual strategic action, the Destinorama facilitates joint projects and initiatives. It provides the platform and information to discuss such projects on neutral ground. The maps provide a clear rational why it is meaning full for destination actors to engage along flows. Moreover, variable geometries point to the potential interdependencies and feedback loops of projects that impact multiple flows. Variable geometries are a helpful tool to broaden scope and complement individual perception. Overall, the way individual actors and cooperative teams contribute to the Destinorama creates a sense of engagement and buy-in that we have not witnessed with traditional strategic planning tools in destination settings. We experience it as a key strength that the Destinorama and associated methods allow integrating different stakeholder logics (Beritelli 2011a; Beritelli et al. 2016; Tkaczynski et al. 2009) under one intuitive and universally understandable meta-framework, which transcends explicit formal restrictions, local peculiarities, or implicit norms and rules (Beritelli 2011b). This produces decentralized (not centralized), distributed (not shared), and time-staggered (not simultaneous) transformational leadership (Beritelli and Bieger 2014). Figure 17.6 contrasts the planning mode of the visitor flow approach with a more traditional strategic planning mode. The latter is premised on the assumption that a

How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for. . .

299

Fig. 17.6 Old vs new planning mode. Source: Own illustration

17

300

P. Beritelli et al.

destination is an amalgam to be managed, united under a single brand, vision, and image and that the DMO takes core responsibility for getting all stakeholders to agree on and align with a common strategy (Buhalis 2000). The old mode imitates a stylized, teleological corporate strategy process, with problem definition, analysis, strategy development, action plan, implementation, and control stages (Reinhold et al. 2017). As we have illustrated above, the reality of destination management is different: The evaluation of a destination sometimes depends on the action of a single supplier that attracts a new visitor flow and creates synergies for the entire portfolio of flows. The destination is not a clearly delimited area. Its borders are blurry and can just be loosely identified by groups of suppliers connected by numerous different visitor flows. This requires a new mode of analyzing, reflecting, learning, and decision making. Because there is no need for destination actors with loosely tied interests to decide on a single strategy, flow-base strategic action knows fewer tensions—is more relaxed. The Destinorama enables actors to focus on their particular interest in the context of the overall destination development. They see the trees (flow maps) and do not lose track of the forest (overall portfolio). The old mode requires all actors to focus on the destination amalgam, which is the center of attention as well as of personal interests and desires. This self-centered view risks not only to make the actors blind to tourist concerns and expectations, it also forces them to be strong advocates of their own, supply-sided viewpoints. The strategy, master- and marketing plan (or whatever other artifact results from the strategy process) are the outcome they perceive to have influence on. In contrast, the visitor flow approach allows parallel, simultaneous, and loosely connected initiatives (red boxes). All of that action is based on visitor flows (demand). It only joins supplier efforts where objectively necessary. There is no need for destination actors to focus on a single destination definition. Actors make sense of ‘their destination’ by means of visitor flows. Their sensemaking evolves as the flows and their business change. Hence, the visitor flow approach disciplines destination actors to focus on what is relevant for tourism (i.e. the visitor) and circumvents unnecessary power games.

4 Four Exemplary Case Studies This chapter presents a summary of four selected cases in emerging and developing countries: Laos, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Indonesia. The destination development processes in those national contexts are managed and facilitated by Swisscontact. The visitor flow approach and the six steps of the SGDM are relevant to all cases. However, regional staff has implemented them in slightly different ways to account for cultural specificities and differences in destination maturity. This is reflected in the way the four case reports are presented. Each subchapter summarizes the intermediate results in two ways: Change in mindset among destination actors and projects implemented in those areas.

17

4.1

How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for. . .

301

Champasak, Laos

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) supported the Government of Laos to develop the national strategy for tourism. When it came to defining the decentralized structure to deliver the support services, Swisscontact was mandated to develop sustainable destination management structures together with the decentralized local actors. A visitor flow analysis was the basis for identifying the most suitable management structure and establishing a destination management network (DMN). The national DMN and four sub-national network instances have been approved by the government as the main mechanism to manage tourism destinations in the Lao PDR. The network and its instances assume responsibility for implementing specific destination development functions, which have been identified as priority projects in the visitor flow analysis. There are currently four network instances at sub-national level and one for the entire country. The visitor flow analysis has also been the foundation for elaborating destination management plans for four sub-national provinces and the national level. For example, this is reflected in the way that tasks are broken down into sub-tasks per individual visitor flow. These plans are important because they serve as a key instrument to allocate funds to tourism development in these respective locations (Table 17.1 and Fig. 17.7).

Table 17.1 Immediate practical impact in Laos Who Local public sector authority (Champasak Province)

National level public sector authority (Ministry of Tourism)

What Use the Destination Management Plans (DMPs) for budget allocation Established a local destination management network office with appointed staff Use the DMPs and DMNs as main instrument and mechanism for destination development and management Some of the task forces established as part of the DMN and DMP mechanisms are being used beyond the destination itself (marketing taskforce currently used for the national branding process)

Factor for change Having a plan with specific activities and budget allocations facilitated work with local authorities Push from national level authorities supported the use of those plans ADB support to DMP and DMN based on the process required the ministry to deliver on these issues Strong networking with national level stakeholders needed

Immediate change Immediate understanding of the opportunity and constraints Budget allocated to a certain extent per key visitor flows and key task forces (hospitality, marketing, etc.) Improved, more trustful coordination and collaboration between public and private sector partners

302

P. Beritelli et al.

Fig. 17.7 Stakeholder workshop, Laos. Source: Swisscontact Laos

4.2

Mavrovo, Macedonia

In Yugoslavian times, Mavrovo had already been a small skiing destination in southwestern Macedonia. At the time, under a Socialist regime, demand-oriented services were of limited priority. Tourists were allocated to recreation resorts and hotels were thus well occupied throughout the season. With the transition process and privatization of tourism enterprises came an increasing need for market and service orientation. Mavrovo has since proven an exceptionally demanding context to relaunch and renew a tourist destination: The destination is not an inhabited village and the biggest part of its land is under national park legislation. Development was hampered by relationships based on mistrust and resentment. From its first stakeholder engagement meeting, Swisscontact used the visitor flow approach. As soon as participants started to work on the maps—on their destination—enmities took a back seat. Represented stakeholders (from hotels, national park, municipality, guides, the ski resort and national outgoing tour operators) engaged to discuss solutions as well as how to promote and foster product development around specific visitor flows (Table 17.2 and Fig. 17.8).

4.3

Peja, Kosovo

In Western Kosovo, Swisscontact supports the development of nature and adventure tourism for summer and winter mountain activities. Within a programme entrusted by the Swiss Government, Swisscontact had to pursue the goal of establishing a destination management organization. The DMO was established in 2014 and has since then been supported in developing and delivering services to the local tourism businesses. The Destinorama was first used when defining the role and services of the DMO with all destination stakeholders. The process of setting up the Destinorama ensured transparency for all stakeholders. They are clear what the

17

How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for. . .

303

Table 17.2 Immediate practical impact in Macedionia Who Ski resort & hotels

What Co-creation of full extended winter season offer

National Park

Take on destination development process

Factor for change Competing stakeholders together addressed problems together, with a focus on solutions No hierarchy in discussions Accountability through written statements and follow-up in sub-groups Action plan orientation Focus on a solution, not on the problem

Immediate change Developed joint offer for winter season, cross selling of ski lift tickets on a commission-base by hotels Developed a joint destination calendar Joint promotion campaign

Improved coordination and collaboration between public and private sector partners Concrete and targeted promotion of the destination

Fig. 17.8 Preparations for stakeholder workshop, Mavrovo, Macedonia. Source: Swisscontact Macedonia

tourist offer is and had a shared hand in prioritizing what to develop further. Unlike in other national contexts, the Kosovo project has access to a dedicated fund that allows co-financing prioritized flow-based activities. The visitor flows were used to visualize the destination and break tasks down into manageable business cases and sub-groups. This was helpful in prioritizing interventions in the context of the overall project and to measure progress. In this national setting, anchoring flow-based destination management with local stakeholders and the DMO has proven particularly difficult. There is too much competition for attention among (international) development actors, projects, approaches and funding sources in Western Kosovo (Table 17.3 and Fig. 17.9).

304

P. Beritelli et al.

Table 17.3 Immediate practical impact in Kosovo Who DMO

What Visualize and prioritize development interventions

Factor for change Tangible approach to a destination. Everybody understands and can contribute.

Local NGO

Creation of tourism product complementary to existing offer: Improved cave accessibility (pathways, light) Via Ferrata trail for climbers triggered positive development of the selected visitor flow

Development of the offer based on tourists’ pre-existing interest

Local climbing NGO and private sector

Visitor flow analysis assisted prioritization of projects to be supported Media response and coverage in news beyond the destination itself Partners perceive tangible increase of tourism numbers

Immediate change Reduced complexity and common understanding for priorities Increased understanding of tourism product development Marketing plan created based on outcomes of coordination meetings 20,000 visitors after first 6 months of operation Four restaurants near the cave approximately doubled their income Additional Via Ferrata and zip-lining developed by local climbing NGO (and co-financing from Swisscontact) Product is replicated in Northern Kosovo by a tour operator with separate funding from another donor

Fig. 17.9 Identification of visitor flow during destination assessment workshop, Kosovo. Source: Swisscontact Kosovo

4.4

Tanjung Puting and Toraja, Indonesia

Tourism development is a key priority of the Indonesian government in its national development planning. Swisscontact was mandated by the Swiss Government to support this process in selected tourism destinations. Based on first experiences on Bali’s neighbouring island Flores, Swisscontact’s work expanded into additional

17

How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for. . .

305

Table 17.4 Immediate practical impact in Indonesia Who Private sector Tanjung Putting Private sector Tanjung Putting

Local stakeholders Tanjung Putting Local population Toraja

What Use the visitor flows approach to develop the tourism offer Stakeholder typically critical towards destination development activities now got involved

Understanding among stakeholders

Improved understanding that houses’ typical architecture form part of the tourism destination’s attraction

Factor for change Tourism development reduced to its most relevant and practical elements for stakeholders Destinorama made individual input visible and valued Realizing «this is something that concerns me, personally» Stakeholders that had no lines of communication started talking in visitor flow workshops School children joined the workshop and asked what a “destination” is. The SVF facilitators explained.

Immediate change Reduced fear of tourism as a complex subject

Higher degree of identification of individual stakeholders with their destination Stakeholder contributed information Improved communication, collaboration and understanding Visitor flow analysis and preparations of the Destinorama facilitated education and identification process

destinations across the country. In these new destinations, the focus shifted from the classical set-up of a DMO to a visitor-flow driven approach in which “structure follows process”. Tanjung Puting, Toraja and Labuan Bajo started exploring visitor flows in their respective destinations. The approach was adapted to the specific locations. Each of these destinations is characterized by a vastly different degree of development as well as differences in understanding tourism development, in problems and the possibilities for tourism’s positive and negative impact, and motivations as well as preferences for future development. The stage of development determined stakeholders’ willingness to attend a first get-together. We realized, the more donor activity took place in a destination, the less stakeholders were willing to contribute to destination development. Despite this complacency, we started working in small, visitor flow-specific groups– each of which has its own timeline and dynamics—after those first get-togethers (Table 17.4).

4.5

Selected Learnings

Across the four cases and our application of the visitor flow approach elsewhere, we have come to realize that there are at least five universal practical learnings we can hold on to: Learning 1: Working Together with Uncertainty and Challenges Through the hands on, pro-active and inclusive approach, all destination stakeholders—be it civil society, the big conference center or the owner of a small

306

P. Beritelli et al.

boutique hotel—take equal responsibility for the future development of their respective visitor flows. Every input is valuable and worth taking into account. Its substance can be validated later on. In addition, a lack of knowledge and missing services or infrastructure are not limitations to the process but complete the destination assessments. They are built into the process from the start. We do not claim to have perfect information. Challenges and problems are no longer framed as obstacle to progress. We purposefully take them as hints for possible solutions. Learning 2: Co-opetition in an Open and Transparent Setting Being involved in visitor flows on equal terms empowers local actors. We involve all stakeholders that are possibly relevant as long as they have a directly or indirectly hand in a specific visitor flow. Thereby, the approach helps us to join up stakeholders that would not normally interact or even talk to each other. For the destination, this generates additional information, helps to exchange know-how and experiences, and facilitates the identification of initiatives and actions, relevant to visitor flow(s). A critical contingency exists, however: When working with visitor flow assessments— as in all known destination processes—collaboration is more difficult when there is a stark asymmetry. That is, when one or two very strong and powerful players dominate the resources of the entire destination. This is, however, mitigated by the decentralized work mode of the visitor flow approach. In fact, there are even in places strongly dominated by single organizations, always flows that do not solely depend on these organizations. Or, in other words, as diverse the flows are in a destination, so are the combinations of responsibilities and dependencies. Learning 3: Raising Concern, Responsibility, Accountability, and Action By identifying the people responsible for specific visitor flows, we can create immediate accountability. People interested in the development of a specific flow automatically take responsibility it into their own hands. They get direct financial benefit or have other, non-monetary motivations to develop, valorize, and protect a specific flow. They feel responsible for the future development of “their flow”. Analyzing destinations from a visitor flow perspective has proven useful to seize a destinations’ individual strengths, address weaknesses, and understand tourists’ movements in space. Learning 4: DMOs Assume the Role of a Service Providers With the help of the approach, actors can better identify the services best provided by a DMO. This applies to services for single flows or those that benefit complex flow combinations. In any case, with or without a DMO, those processes need local facilitation, support, and resources. Collaborative projects and initiatives present different configurations with regard to the partnering organizations and institutions. They result from the best and most meaningful combination of resources to solve specific problems. Therefore, a DMO with a standard set of tasks and capabilities is no longer the default option for destination management in development initiatives (Fig. 17.10).

17

How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for. . .

307

Fig. 17.10 Prioritization of visitor flows against jointly defined evaluation criteria, Colombia. Source: Swisscontact Colombia

Learning 5: Grass Root Development Process Benefits Local Actors and Organizations For development cooperation initiatives, the visitor flow approach not only helps to keep a focus on tourists and their needs (market-orientation). It also supports their disciplined focus on the flows most relevant; those that help create sustainability in tourism and vital project outcome (e.g. creating employment and income). This is particularly beneficial to developers and development agencies when they decide which initiatives are best suited, should be supported, and funded. Realization of those benefits and sustaining the immediate effects require a consequent process management, work in small, manageable steps with the actors of an individual visitor flow and other relevant stakeholders.

5 Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to present how «The Visitor Flow Approach», a combination of theory and method produces tangible, practical results in destination management. While the destination management literature offers a wealth of managerial recommendations, tourism professionals and development agents frequently struggle to realize their real-world gains. Specifically DMOs trying to implement those recommendations have experienced major setbacks and failures. If we just consider the input to those implementation attempts, DMOs faced four significant hurdles: (1) limited attention to the demand perspective and tourist expectations, (2) the multitude of destination actors pursuing different goals in highly fragmented networks, (3) planning modes mimicking teleological strategic planning modes, and (4) superficial as well as unreflected theoretical transfer from the general management, marketing, and political science literature.

308

P. Beritelli et al.

Tourist destinations and the visitor flows that constitute the main engine of those places have their own peculiarities. This is acknowledged and leveraged in the visitor flow approach. Our practical work with Swisscontact and other partners suggest that the flow-based view of the destination (as a phenomenological theory) and the SGDM method (as a hands-on, intuitive procedure) are a viable alternative. The visitor flow approach includes all willing destination actors and shows them their multifaceted roles as well as how they can contribute to the development of their destination. The approach helps them and development agents handle the complexity and dynamics of tourist destinations. This is all the more relevant in developing context, where industry experience and professional know-how are yet to be acquired. In emerging and developing countries, Swisscontact’s role is to facilitate the adoption of new processes to local contexts and to foster local economic growth. Work with the visitor flow approach therefore involves developing and managing destination processes. This includes close collaboration with local training centers and universities, who integrate the SGDM in their curricula. It also requires anchoring the approach with local stakeholders and selected key actors who can assume responsibility for continued local facilitation. Based on the experiences in and learnings from different countries, Swisscontact – has adapted the SGDM to assist destination assessments and determine the local potential for tourism development in different contexts; – has developed a pool of specialist who are capable of facilitating the approach in Swisscontact’s activity domain around the world; – is combining flow-based destination analysis with sustainability considerations to assess the opportunities and risks resulting from tourism; and – is continuously revising and updating the approach for its future application in tourism destination in emerging and developing countries to the benefit of local destination actors (Fig. 17.11).

Fig. 17.11 Sustainability check of visitor flows using the impact wheel, Colombia. Source: Swisscontact Colombia

17

How Flow-Based Destination Management Blends Theory and Method for. . .

309

We conclude with an outlook in two directions. First, we have learned from the several cases in developing countries but also from cases in industrialized countries, such as Switzerland, Austria, and Italy, that information and figures referring to the single visitor flows are much more important than easily available, but aggregate statistics. Not only validating the information across the workshops but also adding more from digital sources (e.g. social media, recommender systems) helps gaining a better understanding. Big data could be helpful in the near future, especially when collected along the travel experiences. Second, the visitor flow approach is successful in tourism because it considers (1) demand co-production, (2) distributed in space, (3) in time, (4) across fragmented supply chains. We think that other industries with comparable peculiarities such as the health industry, or education, could benefit from the learnings in tourism because they present similar features. Applying a demand flow analysis could help, particularly in developing countries, where many industries are still emerging and have not yet reached large scales.

References Bahar, O., & Kozak, M. (2007). Advancing destination competitiveness research: Comparison between tourists and service providers. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 22(2), 61–71. Beritelli, P. (2011a). Do actors really agree on strategic issues? – Applying consensus analysis of stakeholder perceptions in tourist destination communities. Tourism Analysis, 16(4), 219–241. Beritelli, P. (2011b). Tourist destination governance through local elites – Looking beyond the stakeholder level. Post-doctoral thesis, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen. Beritelli, P., & Bieger, T. (2014). From destination governance to destination leadership – Defining and exploring the significance with the help of a systemic perspective. Tourism Review, 69(1), 25–46. Beritelli, P., Laesser, C., Reinhold, S., & Kappler, A. (2013). Das St. Galler Modell für Destinationsmanagement – Geschäftsfeldinnovation in Netzwerken. St. Gallen: IMP-HSG. Beritelli, P., Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2014). The new frontiers of destination management – Applying variable geometry as a function-based approach. Journal of Travel Research, 53(4), 403–417. Beritelli, P., Reinhold, S., Laesser, C., & Bieger, T. (2015). The St. Gallen model for destination management. St. Gallen: IMP-HSG. Beritelli, P., Buffa, F., & Martini, U. (2016). Logics and interlocking directorships in a multistakeholder system. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(2), 107–116. Bornhorst, T., Ritchie, B., & Sheehan, L. (2010). Determinants of tourism success for DMOs & destinations: An empirical examination of stakeholders’ perspectives. Tourism Management, 31 (5), 572–589. Buhalis, D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination of the future. Tourism Management, 21 (1), 97–116. Castells, M., Francke, M., & Ham, E. (2006). The space of flows (pp. 1–12). Retrieved from http:// socgeo.ruhosting.nl/html/files/geoapp/Werkstukken/CastellsFlows.pdf website. DiPietro, R. B., Wang, Y., Rompf, P., & Severt, D. (2007). At-destination visitor information search and venue decision strategies. International journal of tourism research, 9(3), 175–188. Fesenmaier, D. R., & Jeng, J. (2000). Assessing structure in the pleasure trip planning process. Tourism analysis, 5(1), 13–27.

310

P. Beritelli et al.

Fyall, A. (2011). Destination management: Challenges and opportunities. In Y. Wang & A. Pizam (Eds.), Destination marketing and management: Theories and applications (pp. 340–357). Cambridge, MA: CAB International. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual review of psychology, 62(1), 451–482. Gunn, C. A. (1972). Vacationscape: Designing tourist environments. Austin: Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas. Hyde, K. F., & Laesser, C. (2009). A structural theory of the vacation. Tourism Management, 30(2), 240–248. Johns, N., & Mattsson, J. (2005). Destination development through entrepreneurship: A comparison of two cases. Tourism Management, 26(4), 605–616. Kaspar, C. (1995). Management im Tourismus. Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt. Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (1999). Measuring tourist destination competitiveness: Conceptual considerations and empirical findings. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 18(3), 273–283. Laesser, C., & Beritelli, P. (2013). St. Gallen consensus on destination management. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(1), 46–49. Lau, G., & McKercher, B. (2006). Understanding tourist movement patterns in a destination: A GIS approach. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(1), 39–49. Leiper, N. (1979). The framework of tourism: Towards a definition of tourism, tourist, and the tourist industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 390–407. MacCannell, D. (2001). Tourist agency. Tourist Studies, 1(1), 23–37. Maggi, R. (2014, June 10–13). “Get there”, “Stay there”, “Live there” – Household production of the tourist experience and its implications for destinations. Paper presented at the 2nd Biennial Forum “Advances in Destination Management”, St. Gallen (Switzerland). Miossec, J. M. (1977). Un modèle de l'espace touristique. Espace géographique, 6(1), 41–48. Moore, K., Smallman, C., Wilson, J., & Simmons, D. (2012). Dynamic in-destination decisionmaking: An adjustment model. Tourism Management, 33(3), 635–645. Pearce, D. G. (1979). Towards a geography of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(3), 245–272. Pike, S., & Page, S. (2014). Destination marketing organizations and destination marketing: A narrative analysis of the literature. Tourism Management, 41, 202–227. Reinhold, S., Laesser, C., & Beritelli, P. (2015). 2014 St. Gallen consensus on destination management. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(2), 137–142. Reinhold, S., Laesser, C., & Beritelli, P. (2017). The 2016 consensus on advances in destination management. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8(2), 426–431. Ritchie, B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. Oxon: CABI. Russell, R., & Faulkner, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship, chaos and the tourism area lifecycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(3), 556–579. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and planning A, 38(2), 207–226. Shoval, N., & Isaacson, M. (2010). Tourist mobility and advanced tracking technologies. New York: Routledge. Smith, S. L. J. (1994). The tourism product. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 582–595. Tkaczynski, A., Rundle-Thiele, S. R., & Beaumont, N. (2009). Segmentation: A tourism stakeholder view. Tourism Management, 30(2), 169–175. Tremblay, P. (1998). The economic organization of tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4), 837–859. Zehrer, A., Smeral, E., & Hallmann, K. (2016). Destination competitiveness—A comparison of subjective and objective indicators for winter sports areas. Journal of Travel Research, 56(1), 55–66.

Chapter 18

French Golf Tourism and Sustainable Development Sorina Cernaianu and Claude Sobry

Abstract Over the last few years, golf has increasingly contributed to the development of tourism. In order to attract many golfers it is necessary to develop quality infrastructure, meaning not only golf courses, but also restaurants, hotels and leisure facilities. Based on data provided by diverse golf associations, federations and other organizations, we described the development of the golf tourism market in Europe, focusing more precisely on France, which has all the assets to make golf a first class sector of activity, both by developing domestic practice and attracting golf tourists. For golf tourism to become a tourism industry similar to what winter sport tourism, it is necessary for the actors to imagine a long-term strategy of coordinated investments and communication.

1 Introduction Golf is one of the sports that developed the fastest the last 30 years. The number of golfers worldwide was evaluated at 56 million in 2012 (Boulo 2012), against 65 million in 2015. In Europe in 2015, there were over 4.1 million registered golfers and nearly 7000 standard golf courses. The top ten markets hosted 85% of all registered golfers and 82% of all golf courses. France counts 10% of all registered golfers and 18% of all golf courses in Europe (KPMG 2016). With 407,569 registered golfers ( 0.2%/2014), golf is the fourth individual sport activity practiced in France (Fédération Française de Golf 2015). France has been elected to host the 2018 Ryder Cup at the Le Golf National near Versailles. It is an opportunity for the country to revitalize the activity. Golf

S. Cernaianu (*) University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania URePSSS (EA 7369), IRNIST, Lille, France C. Sobry University of Lille, Lille, France URePSSS (EA 7369), IRNIST, Lille, France © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 N. Kozak, M. Kozak (eds.), Tourist Destination Management, Tourism, Hospitality & Event Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16981-7_18

311

312

S. Cernaianu and C. Sobry

developed vigorously in the 1980s and 1990s. Nonetheless, it is now facing some issues despite its many advantages, probably because it is struggling to adapt to the new market conditions. Almost half of the courses opened since 1985 have suffered from at least one forced sale due to operating losses. They were frequently sold between 25–30% of their initial development cost (Boulo 2012). The sociologic evolution of players and of the international competition calls for innovative solutions. To come back on the international stage, the French golf structures must integrate the notion of sustainable development. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the current situation of French golf taking sustainable development into account, before synthesizing the contributions of the different golf experts and putting them into perspective. Sustainability does not only include the environmental, but also the social and economic dimensions. It is what is called triple bottom line sustainability, an accounting term coined by Elkington (1997). The importance of the impact of sport tourism on the global economy in terms of economic and social contributions, as well as its potential for growth, is now widely recognized (Fyall and Jago 2009; Gibson et al. 2012). The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) introduced the concept of sustainable sport tourism in 2010 (UNWTO International Summit on Tourism, Sport and Mega-events 2010). The Brundtland Report defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability for future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Liu (2003) describes sustainable tourism as encompassing all forms of tourism that are “compatible with and contribute to sustainable development”. O’Brien and Chalip (2008) suggest that the triple bottom line should support the sport events strategies in an attempt to move the focus beyond the mere economic development. However, we can argue that the development of a sport activity, even when it is not just a sport event but a long-term development such as a golf course, must also keep the triple bottom line in mind. To develop a golf course and incidentally economic activity based on the management of several courses, it is necessary to consider the social and environmental impacts. Practicing golf in a hall or in a stadium is impossible; it requires natural surroundings. Cater (1993) developed the idea that any sustainable tourism development plan must take tourism requirements into account. There are numerous tourism preferences and motivations. The very definition of sustainable tourism must encompass all of them. Tourism development “requires simultaneously meeting the needs of the tourists, the tourist businesses, the host community and the needs for environmental protection” (Liu 2003). The French golf industry relies widely on golf tourism. Even if the main concern remains to determine the conditions for economic success, it is vital to focus on the conditions necessary to the development of the industry. Are local communities involved in this development or are they merely considered as potential clients? Golf used to have a dreadful reputation on the environmental level; what is the reality in the field today? What has changed over the last years? What has been done to attract tourists and gain their trust? Which policies could be developed during in the near future, galvanized by the success of the 2018 Ryder Cup?

18

French Golf Tourism and Sustainable Development

313

Starting from the definition of golf tourism “. . . as travel for non-commercial reasons to participate in golf activities away from the traveller’s local environment” (Hudson 2003) and taking into consideration data provided by diverse golf associations, federations and other organizations, we describe how the golf tourism market has developed in Europe and more precisely in France, and how this country promotes an environmentally responsible policy concerning the practice of golf.

2 Elements of Context The European golf market experienced a strong growth in demand and supply growth for about 25 years before reaching a peak in 2009, during the economic crisis. The number of golfers increased approximately 5% per year on average, and the supply increased by about 3% per year. Between 2009 and 2013, the European golf activity decreased by 4% before stabilizing between 2014 and 2015 with a very slight decrease of 0.3% (KPMG 2016). In 2015, the level of participation either stabilized or increased for 67% of golf associations. In the meantime, 33% of other European markets experienced a decline (KPMG 2016). The decrease in golf participation does not seem to be strongly associated with the economic crisis during and after 2008. Instead, it appears to be mostly caused by the actual technical difficulty of the game. Still, at a European level, the amount of golf courses increased with 16 facilities (0.2%) compared to the previous year, which reveals a stabilization of the European market (KPMG 2016). Founded in 1937, the European Golf Association counts 47 member countries today. Only six of them (12.77%) have more than 400 courses, while 22 countries (46.81%) are equipped with less than ten. Regarding the number of players, six countries (12.77%) register more than 200,000 golfers, 19 countries (40.43%) have between 1000 and 99,999 players and 16 countries (34.04%) have less than 1000 players. The latter are mostly countries from Central and Eastern Europe (see Table 18.1). By calculating the ratio between the number of players and the number of golf courses we observe that this value is very high in countries like Netherlands (1927.5 players/course), Finland (1106.6 players/course) and Sweden (1059.8 players/ course) (see Table 18.1). These countries have less than 500 courses and less than 500,000 registered players. According to data provided by the European Golf Association, France counts 597 golf courses, which represents a 20% increase over the last 10 years. This number puts France at the top of the continental European countries for the number of courses, ranking third place after England (1849 courses) and Germany (728 courses). However, the situation of the economic model of French golf raises queries. The majority of golf courses in France has 18 holes (57%—340 courses), followed by 9 hole golf courses (30%—181 courses) and 27 holes (8%—50 courses). Only 5% feature 36 and 45 holes (26 courses).

314

S. Cernaianu and C. Sobry

Table 18.1 Figures about golf in Europe, sorted by number of courses—the place of France (table created with data provided from European Golf Association 2016) No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

Country England Germany France Scotland Sweden Ireland Spain Italy Netherlands Denmark Norway Austria Wales Finland Czech Republic Switzerland Portugal Belgium Iceland Poland Russia Slovakia Turkey Slovenia Hungary Cyprus Estonia Kazakhstan Greece Bulgaria Croatia Lithuania Luxembourg Romania Ukraine Bosnia and Herzegovina Andorra Azerbaijan Israel Latvia Serbia Albania

Number of coursesa 1849 728 597 545 448 413 348 275 201 188 165 156 151 129 102 96 86 84 65 32 28 22 18 13 12 9 9 9 8 7 6 6 6 6 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 1

Total playersa 678,372 639,137 408,388 199,764 474,777 194,151 280,712 91,713 387,429 150,699 102,007 103,225 49,084 142,757 56,438 88,523 14,094 60,867 16,371 3739 1341 7644 6776 8762 1498 1303 2668 650 2350 843 1420 568 3557 300 547 118 79 104 795 1004 747 64

Players/courses 366.9 877.9 684.1 366.5 1059.8 470.1 806.6 333.5 1927.5 801.6 618.2 661.7 325.1 1106.6 553.3 922.1 163.9 724.6 251.9 116.8 47.9 347.5 376.4 674 124.8 144.8 296.4 72.2 293.8 120.4 236.7 94.7 592.8 50 136.8 39.3 39.5 52 397.5 502 373.5 64 (continued)

18

French Golf Tourism and Sustainable Development

315

Table 18.1 (continued) No. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

Country Armenia Georgia Liechtenstein Macedonia Malta

Number of coursesa 1 1 1 1 1 Total

a

Total playersa 55 50 632 119 546 Courses 6840

Players/courses 55 50 632 119 546 Players 4,186,787

Data retrieved on 7 March 2016

During the 20 years when golf developed rapidly, the French local authorities, especially on the coastline and in the Alps, invested in golf either to extend the tourist season—trying to attract tourists during a few extra weeks during the “busy season”—, or to develop an “off season” activity, especially in the mountains, to create a summer golfing season complementary to the winter sports season. It is amusing to point out that this dynamic is the exact opposite of what happened a century earlier with the invention of “winter sports”. At that time, to access the courses golfers were required to join a club and be registered within a federation, which structured the economic model of golf. Today, the situation is drastically different. Memberships and contributions can no longer ensure the financial equilibrium of a golf facility. There is a general lack of interest for golfers in joining a club. Based on data shared by local golf associations, non-competitive golfers are less and less prone to get a membership. Currently, golfers in Great Britain, Ireland and France, among other noticeable markets, do not feel the need to join a structure to play and can practice their sport casually by paying a “green fee”. The Golf Union of Wales estimates that there are about twice as many unregistered golfers as there are registered golfers (KPMG 2016). The emergence of these “nomadic” golfers, the democratization of golf, the appearance of loyalty cards offering “green fees” at discounted prices and the development of online “green fees” reservations made the business model more complex (Fawcett 2014). Commercial golf clubs do not require an entrance fee or a yearly membership. Instead, the players only have to pay for a “green fee” to start playing. They generally come along with an estate development program and have rapidly developed with the creation of nine-hole courses and urban compact golf courses. Some courses offer the possibility to play six holes rather than nine or 18. France, set on building hundreds of short urban courses, shows a general tendency to move towards shorter courses. The French committed to develop a hundred shorter urban courses, with six to nine holes. It is part of a development strategy which seeks to increase the number of registered French golfers from 400,000 to 700,000 within a decade (Hudson and Hudson 2014).

316

S. Cernaianu and C. Sobry

The golfers’ sociological profile has changed significantly. In 2015, adult male golfers accounted for approximately two thirds (66%) of all registered golfers across Europe. Adult female and junior golfers represented respectively 25% and 9% of all registered golfers across Europe. In France, the average age of golfers has increased from 45 years old in 2000 to 48 years old in 2010. The average age of golf tourists is considerably higher. The fastest growing age category in France is the over 55-yearold, and, in absolute terms, the number of golfers in the 56–69 age group is about twice that of the 34–37 and 38–41 segments. To get a fair idea of the context in which French golf tourism must find its place, we must also take into account the emergence of countries that have based the development of their tourism industry on golf. In the south of Europe, the most popular golf destinations are the Spanish coastal area of Andalusia, from Malaga to the Portuguese border, which extends along the Algarve coast. Morocco is another popular destination for golf tourism and it is currently developing a fierce development policy.

3 The Situation of Golf in France We can distinguish two main types of golf products: private and associative golf courses, and public golf courses (Fawcett 2014). Commercial golf clubs are courses that do not require a joining fee or a yearly membership but where the players have to pay a “green fee” to start playing. They generally go hand in hand with an estate development program, and have rapidly developed due to the creation of nine-hole courses and compact urban courses. The public sector is divided in two broad categories: • the first category comprises mainly tourism-oriented facilities, which objective is to extend the traditional tourist season. This category can generate additional revenues for the local economy (hotels, restaurants, etc.), thus justifying investments. These additional revenues can represent up to four times the amount of tourism “green fees”; • the second category comprises urban or peri-urban golf courses. They are generally part of a “sport for all” local policy, which makes these facilities as well as other equipment subsidized by the municipality available to local population. In both cases, the golf business induces a strong proportion of fixed costs (up to 80% of the total charges) and, except for the most popular destinations, often generates an extremely irregular seasonal income. Few golf courses manage to survive through tourism only. It can lead to conflicts of interest between local golfers, golf associations and operators. For instance, accessing courses on Sundays can be a source of conflicts especially when competitions are organized, because for tourists who stay for a week, it is the first day they can play. The following question is crucial: why do almost half of new golf courses in France operate at a loss or depend of complementary financial sources?

18

French Golf Tourism and Sustainable Development

317

We can estimate that 5–10% of the golfers worldwide travel abroad to practice their passion. The international market for golf tourism can therefore be estimated between 2.8 and 5.6 million players (International Association of Golf Tourism Operators—IAGTO, cited by Boulo 2012). Parallely, France welcomes 80 million foreign tourists per year due to culture, nature and gastronomy, among other assets. No other country than France comprises such a wide variety of golf courses. It features courses nestled in the dunes of the Atlantic Coast, Normandy and Pas-deCalais, in natural alpine surroundings, in the Mediterranean landscapes of the French Riviera and of the Languedoc, as well as in domains of character, parks and castles, near Paris. Yet, France is not seen as an unavoidable and priority golf destination. Where does this lack of interest come from? There are several explanations. One of them is undoubtedly related to the type of accommodation offered to golf tourists. We detailed the profile of the typical golf tourist earlier on. They usually look for a leisurely vacation, with golf as the central element to a more complete experience including quality accommodation and a range of recreational activities. They seek for accessible, less challenging courses with good economic value. The key motivation for this mixed gender group is intimate shared time and they tend to travel with close friends or couples. They are between 45 and 70 years old and go on vacation three or four times a year. Golf vacations are a conveyor of relaxation and shared leisure experience. In the United Kingdom and the United States, hotel chains have invested in the golf market. More recently, Turkey, built tailor-made accommodation compounds to meet expectations of the high-standards tourists and golf clientele. However, in France, hotel and para-hotel groups are more scarce. They are only occasionally present into the golf market, depending on opportunities and with no structured policy. Golf and accommodation facilities, often hotel residences built due to tax exemption, are essentially designed for a family-based, summer time and non-golfer clientele. The average golfer is close to 50 years old. Obviously, many of them are retired. The type of accommodation offered in France—convertible bed in the living room, bunk beds in the second bedroom, a single bathroom, all in rather badly heated buildings—is not suitable for them. Therefore, it is not attractive. It is neither a choice investment for retirement nor even an attractive option for an off-season getaway. It contributes to the concentration of golf practice in France over the summer season and to the fact that tourism represents only 20% of the turnover of the golf sector in France (Boulo 2013). The global market for golf tourism is lucrative and it is expanding. On average golf tourists spend 120% more than other tourist categories, which represent an estimated 170 € per day (Boulo 2013). Neglecting this market means missing out of business opportunities. Countries like Spain and Portugal take full advantage of this market and work fiercely to operate their facilities. Others like Morocco or Mauritius which integrate golf in their major tourism projects. Several factors may explain the reluctance of hotels and restaurants investors to step in the field of golf. One of them is that in France, tourists are attracted to

318

S. Cernaianu and C. Sobry

historical city centers. Golf tourists come to play on a course, then dine and enjoy the downtown area rather than stay in the impersonal and off-site surroundings of a golf hotel. This raises a double issue: the scattering of the courses and the impossibility of combining business tourism and golf tourism. The French golf courses are often far away from each other and from accommodation of international standard. It makes it difficult for golf tourists to enjoy more than one or two courses during their stay, and for operators to develop packaging offers such as “golf passes”. Moreover, the marketing of golf tourism in France lacks structuring and it is behind other tourism sectors. It is mostly done by private operators. When large-scale hotel infrastructures exist, it is possible to combine both the markets of Meeting, Incentive, Convention and Events (MICE) and tourism. The French market offers few facilities, about ten at most, that are capable of combining these markets. This situation mainly contributes to the concentration of golf practice on weekends and school holidays and to a notorious shortfall. Because of the scattered courses, the lack of resorts and specialized hotels, and the impossibility or, at least, the lack of structures allowing to combine MICE and golf tourism, it is impossible to generate a critical mass able to influence airline companies. It is another factor that makes it more difficult for golf tourists to come to France. To conclude with the economic aspect, it is necessary to underline a French particularity linked with the seasonality of golf practice. Indeed, very few new golf courses manage to make profit without having a complementary activity as an additional source of income. The structural weaknesses of the hotel industry generally make it financially non-viable. As a result, the French golf courses cannot rely on the sole basis of tourism. It is essential to have a strong local demand and/or a wider range of complementary products such as hotels, spas, restaurants, and meeting and convention centers. Regarding the social aspect, the golf industry directly or indirectly generated 13,000 permanent jobs—four jobs for ten hectares regardless of the unpaid workers, when agriculture only creates three jobs per 100 hectares. Among these jobs 7650 come directly from running golf courses. It is also a major asset for the non-qualified workforce, as 41% of these workers do not have an undergraduate degree (baccalaureate) (BIPE 2007). According to Boulo (2012), one of the keys for the development of golf tourism and, coincidentally, for the creation of new golf courses, is to convince the local authorities that golf can be “environmentally-friendly”. If golf courses used to have a dreadful reputation because of their environmental impact (the use of drinking water, fertilizers and weed killers), today the green keepers are convinced that golf is not a source of pollution. In fact, they even claim that it helps preserving the environment. On an environmental level, the French Golf Federation (Fédération Française de Golf—FFG) has adopted an approach based on ecology and sustainable development. On February 2nd, 2006, the FFG signed with the authorities the Charte sur

18

French Golf Tourism and Sustainable Development

319

l’Eau (Charter for Water), that aimed to reduce the amount of water used coming from public services by 30% in 3 years, and to reduce the amount of weed killers and chemical fertilizers used on the courses. This implies developing a policy of rain and waste water recycling, controlled watering, more economical water-spraying techniques, etc. At the same time, the FFG and the Musée d’Histoire Naturelle (National Museum of Natural History) signed an agreement running from 2007 to 2009 that aimed to observe the impact of golf courses on the local fauna and flora. A survey realized on the National Golf shows that if managed the right way, golf courses can help protect the biodiversity. A new agreement called the “Charte Nationale Golf et Environnement” (National Charter for Golf and Environment) was signed in September 2010, following the ideas developed in 2006 (FFG 2010). It added more restrictive elements such as a yearly survey to analyze the quality of water, the recycling of waste water, the classification of golf as a “nature sport”, etc. It also stipulates that it is the responsibility of the owners and of the architects to respect this agreement when building a new golf course. This completes the order issued on August 2nd, 2010 about recycled water, that is to say the water coming from wastewater treatment plants. Today golf courses generally use 50% less water and 75% less chemicals than intensive agriculture (Boulo 2012). In 2013, golf used on average 14% less water than during the previous 5 years, and the use of water coming from the public network was reduced by 20%. Moreover, 90% of the water used on golf courses is non-drinkable, water that comes from water runoff, drilling, water treatment plants, etc. (Lesay 2013). The use of public water decreased more than expected (with a 20% reduction against an expected 10%). To obtain that result, it was necessary to solve some technical problems, such as leaks (20% of the consumption), but also to make the various actors of the field aware of the situation, in order to practice a more targeted and responsible watering. It appears that the courses that follow these rules have seen a positive impact on their profitability. Regarding the use of the different products employed to maintain the greens, it is important to spot the difference between the objectives fixed by the aforementioned agreements—which are figures, and can therefore be verified—and the arguments coming from the FFG. The French golf sphere denies any environmental impact. It insists on the fact that the areas that requires maintenance only correspond to a small percentage of the total surface of the course. These areas are the greens and the starting points which represents two hectares (five acres) per course, for a total of 11 km2 all courses combined. The pesticides used represent less than 0.1% of all pesticides used on the entire territory. Based on French as much and international surveys, one of the FFG’s main arguments is that golf courses would produce vast quantities of oxygen. According to them, an 18-hole course could provide enough oxygen for 4000 people on average. Moreover, the areas kept undisturbed would serve as a shelter for a great number of species.

320

S. Cernaianu and C. Sobry

Today, the sensible development of golf courses has a lesser impact on the environment than it did in the past; it can even generate some positive effects in terms of oxygen production and the preservation of fauna and flora. Yet, some problems remain, not only in France. For instance, golf balls are an environmental problem. They are made of rubber, paint and plastic. Hundreds of thousands of golf balls are lost every year in the nature surrounding golf courses. Some are found and recycled; but what about the others? More importantly, as aforementioned, golf courses must provide or be surrounded by other facilities in order to attract customers (restaurants, hotel, etc.) as well as, of course, parking lots. These structures are impervious surfaces. How could this problem be solved with the help of new technologies? Overall, we can observe that on the environmental level, the FFG and the facilities’ executives follow the instructions coming from international institutions or programs, aimed to reduce the negative effects of golf on the environment—such as the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA), or the most famous of these programs, the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf.

4 Discussion In the following we introduce the three cases and present the findings about how tourism place experience co-creation took place in each of the cases and with what results. Subsequently we present the conclusion of the chapter based on the findings of all three cases. Winning the bid for the 2018 Ryder Cup gave France the opportunity to accelerate the reforms necessary to revitalize its golf market and to gain international recognition. In view of this competition and under the aegis of the French Golf Federation, the French golf promotional agencies are working towards convincing the local authorities of the interest of developing the smaller and less costly “pitch & putt”, as well as high-quality compact courses on their territory. The objective is to develop a hundred “local” courses by 2022, in order to create a real synergy between the available courses, the hosting areas and other tourism sectors, in order to improve the image of France as a major golf destination. However, other elements must be taken into consideration. The creation of small golf courses within or close to the cities could give birth to a new generation of golfers. Still, the essential factor for the development of golf in France is probably the development of golf tourism, which represents 20% of the total turnover of French golf clubs (excluding auxiliary revenues). Bringing all the operators involved in golf to work together would help exploit the global market. Several conditions are required in order to maximize the impact of the investments. The most important is probably the vertical integration of the whole tourism structure, along with the development of partnerships between golf courses, hotels and other business and leisure facilities located in the same geographic area.

18

French Golf Tourism and Sustainable Development

321

Promotional strategies are necessary on both the national and regional levels for France to be seen as an international golf destination, as is already the case for tourism in general. However, as aforementioned, golf cannot survive via tourism only. It is necessary to operate changes in the overall approach of the economic model of this sport. In addition to what has been proposed above concerning the multiplication of smallscale proximity structures, it would be necessary for future golf structures, mostly relying on local customers, to find sites that are close to major urban centers and easily accessible. It would require the support of the local authorities to provide spacious lands in suitable locations. A golf education policy could be developed to attract young people and thus to support local structures, to develop their activity and to ensure their profitability. This policy is already enforced in several countries. For instance, Morocco involves its local populations in golf, starting with an initiation at school. It can serve as a stimulus to keep children who want to drop out of school or to create qualified jobs for the most disadvantaged. A true community economy can be developed around golf much more efficiently than around many other sports because it requires multiple skills and an important workforce. It appears that the development of golf tourism requires the creation of several golf courses (at least three). Therefore, it is necessary to study the possibility to develop several courses close to each other. Such investments should be based on marketing research taking into account multiple variables, including the economic impact, but also the social consequences in terms of jobs, training, etc., as well as the environmental effects. Some authors emphasize the idea of imitating what exists in North America with the Residential Lifestyle Resort Communities (RLRC). These are residential areas considered as an alternative to timeshare apartments and consist in a combination of main and secondary residences, hotels and para-hotels, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, commercial areas and, of course, golf courses. It would be a way to decrease the investment risks, reduce the issue of seasonality and boost the development due to the potential of attractiveness of this type of destination. This approach joins the one adopted for stadiums, for example, that represents part of a big real estate, hotels and commercial areas, becoming part of a vast living area. The advocates of this approach highlight the benefits associated with this type of project: stable employment over the years that does not dependent on the season, a number of related services to meet the policy expectations such as the development of several social services, becoming a full-time destination, reaching sufficient quotas for transporters to be interested (especially low-cost airlines), etc. It would stimulate other forms of tourism in the same area and thus other direct or indirect economic activities, with the development of a multiplier effect of the initial investments. Bearing this in mind, wouldn’t it be necessary to set up the conditions for tourism in a general sense before being able to act on the transport companies? Turkey built about 15 golf courses in the region of Antalya within a 15 km radius, including

322

S. Cernaianu and C. Sobry

20 specialized hotels and resorts, each with 250 rooms. It generates a critical mass capable of influencing all kinds of operators. However, do the tourists who come to Turkey and to France have the same profile? Do they have the same motivations? Others offer a more modest approach. They consider it would be possible to develop one or several compounds dedicated to golf on the French territory, but only by developing synergies with existing economic actors. Tourists from the approach mentioned previously remain within a limited and programmed geographical area. The aim here is to bring the benefits of tourism to other economic actors. In this case, accommodations adapted to the golf market are considered, in terms of fitting. Finishing the bottom of the range, it is necessary to offer a level of quality and comfort with the rates of “green fees” and the consumers’ expectations. This approach relies, of course, on synergies between actors and existing infrastructures, and most importantly on airports.

5 Conclusion To conclude, France bears all the assets to make golf a first class sector of activity, both by developing domestic practice and attracting golf tourists. But the various public and private actors should soon adopt a long-term strategy and develop it rapidly to face the ever more fierce and aggressive international competition. Hosting the 2018 Ryder Cup should be the opportunity to structure a long term development strategy. Golf is now an Olympic discipline and millions of people follow the performance of golf athletes on TV. For several weeks, the TV cameras will focus on the French greens and tourists will travel to attend the tournament. It will be the ideal time to develop an advertisement campaign promoting not only the already existing facilities, but also what is being prepared for the future. It means that the French Golf Federation must be very quick to develop strategies concerning the new courses, their location, their number and their proximity to accommodation structures to facilitate the tourists’ stay. Another concern should be to contact the hotel companies to build structures dedicated to golf players, taking their age and social status into account. They are specific customers with specific needs. They represent a business niche and must be treated specifically. The golf tourism market is important enough to be considered as an independent sector, instead of being merely included within general tourism. Still, if this market is to be developed specifically, it must be related to other French tourism markets in order to offer a whole range of touristic facilities and possibilities. To achieve this goal, all of the actors of tourism must work together towards a common policy and communication strategy. Developing the French golf tourism market will require tremendous investments, hence the importance for all parties involved to collaborate. If the multiple tourism sectors cannot find a way to work together, golf tourism will remain a mere seasonal activity and the managers will keep on struggling to keep their business financially

18

French Golf Tourism and Sustainable Development

323

viable. For golf tourism to become a tourism industry similar to that of winter sport tourism, it is necessary for all actors to imagine a long term strategy of coordinated investments and communication. Will they be able to seize the opportunity offered by the Ryder Cup to launch such a program?

References BIPE. (2007). Le poids économique du golf en France. Rapport final [The economic weight of golf in France. Final report]. Accessed February 20, 2016, from http://www.ffgolf.org/content/ download/18985/266284/file/Poids%20%C3%A9conomique%20du%20golf%20-%20Etude% 20du%20Bipe%20-%20Oct%202007.pdf Boulo, G. (2012). Le développement du golf et du tourisme golfique en France: bien préparer son jeu [The development of golf and golf tourism in France: How to prepare one’s game]. Accessed November 15, 2016, from http://www.reussir-au-quotidien.fr/le-developpement-du-golf-et-dutourisme-golfique-en-france-bien-preparer-son-jeu-partie-12/ Boulo, G. (2013, May 9). Tourisme golfique en France: trésor caché ou trésor gâché [Golf tourism in France: Hidden treasure or ruined treasure]. Accessed November 15, 2016, from http://www. reussir-au-quotidien.fr/tourisme-golfique-france-golf-1/ Cater, E. (1993). Ecotourism in the third world: Problems for sustainable tourism development. Tourism Management, 14(2), 85–90. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The TBL of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing. European Golf Association (EGA). (2016). Accessed March 7, 2016, from http://www.ega-golf.ch/ Fawcett, M. (2014). Le renouvellement et le contrôle des cessions de golf [The renewal and control of golf assignments]. Accessed November 20, 2016, from http://www.reussir-au-quotidien.fr/ renouvellement-concessions-golf-collectivites-locales-1/ Fédération Française de Golf (FFG). (2006). Charte sur l’eau. [Charter for water.]. Accessed March 2, 2016, from http://www.ffgolf.org/Environnement/Eau/Le-golf-et-l-eau/Chartes Fédération Française de Golf (FFG). (2010). Charte nationale golf et environnement: premier rapport quinquennal. Préservation de la ressource en eau. Etude quantitative [National Charter for Golf and Environment: First quinquennal report. Preservation of the water resource. Quantitative study]. Accessed March 2, 2016, from http://www.ffgolf.org/content/download/ 37394/505681/file/1e%20rapport%20quinquenal%20eau.pdf Fédération Française de Golf (FFG). (2015). Statistiques 2015. Les licences FFGOLF [Statistics 2015. FFGOLF licences]. Accessed November 12, 2016, from http://www.ffgolf.org/content/ download/68660/861797/file/Dossier%20statistiques%20licences%202015.pdf Fyall, A., & Jago, L. (2009). Sustainability in sport and tourism. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14, 77–81. Gibson, H., Kaplanidou, K., & Kang, S. J. (2012). Small-scale event sport tourism: A case study in sustainable tourism. Sport Management Review, 15(2), 160–170. Hudson, S. (Ed.). (2003). Sport and adventure tourism. New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press. Hudson, S., & Hudson, L. (2014). Golf tourism (2nd ed.). Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers. KPMG. (2016). Golf participation report for Europe 2016. KPMG Golf Advisory Practice in EMEA. Accessed November 10, 2016, from http://static.golfbenchmark.com/media/3/0/0/4/ 3004.pdf Lesay, J.-D. (2013, March 25). Golf: les greens passent au vert [Golf: Greens go to green]. Banque des Territoires. Accessed November 20, 2016, from http://www.veilleinfotourisme.fr/golf-lesgreens-passent-au-vert%2D%2D103512.kjsp Liu, Z. (2003). Sustainable tourism development: A critique. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 11, 459–475.

324

S. Cernaianu and C. Sobry

O’Brien, D., & Chalip, L. (2008). Sport events and strategic leveraging: Pushing towards the triple bottom line. In A. Woodside & D. Martin (Eds.), Tourism management: Analysis, behaviour and strategy (pp. 318–338). Oxfordshire: CABI. UNWTO International Summit on Tourism, Sport and Mega-events. (2010, February). Johannesburg, South Africa. Accessed November 10, 2016, from http://summit.ersvp.co.za/pages/ default.asp World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.