CC BY
4QTaCh and Practice
Journal Bulletin of Stavropol Region
UDK 338.48
Czabadai L.
A METHODOLOGY FOR POSTIONING TOURISM IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Abstract: Nowadays tourism is playing a key part among economic sectors when we are talking about intervention points and development possibilities. Therefor the examination of tourism is relevant and necessary, it raises interesting questions. The European Union and Hungary also have been offering varied and large-scale support for different tourism purposes. However, the effective application of these subsidies and the implementation of sustainability are meaning a common problem.
Czabadai L. -
Ph. D., student Szent Istvan University,
Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences H-2100 Godollo,
Pater Karoly u. 1.
E-mail: czabadai.lilla@gmail.com
Discussion
The Hungarian Central Statistical Office (CSO) publishes the ranking of the most visited settlements in every year based on the number of indigenous and foreign guest nights. Therefore I tried to create an index which takes into account not only the number f the guest nights but besides several other factors for example the number of the population. By this step we could answer the question that are the smaller settlements have a chance two the touas a main sector and if so, which settlements are these? Rely on the result we could define the specifically «tourism-profile» settlements inside of the recreational areas. In this way modified (which are different from the prevous ones) or new recreational areas could be created and the resorce allocation could be more effective.
In the marketing strategy of the Hungarian Tourism Ltd. confirms that the tourism became a key sector of the economy with 9 % share from GDP and 11 % share from employment. As a future goal they mentioned the holding and exceedance of these excellent results and the balancing of the develeopment in geographical and time-related meaning.Furthermore they highlighted that it is important to cooperate with other sectors, mainly with agriculure in order to evolve internationally competitive services. Budapest and the Balaton area will stay priority areas, but they will try to offset Budapest-centered situation [6].
Despite of the increasing of the number of indigenous and the foreign guest nights, the average duration of stay is stagneted. Is it worth to mention that the average duration of stay in the case of foreign guest is longer than the indigenous guests' staying although their number is almost equal - in 2013 4497 indigenous and 4388 thousand foreign guests were stayed in commercial accomodations [7].
The biggest dilemma in several cases that what will be the best solution: allocate money for smaller, more disadvantaged regions or concentrate supports for developed, center areas. Another interesting question is whether all the settlements have enough tourist attractions in order to having investments or we should really focus on only the highlighted areas.
Key words: rural development, tourism, settlement.
We could be informed from the Hungarian Central Statistical Office's (2014) publication about the achievement of tourism that the number of the indigenous and foreign guests and the number of the nights spending by them are also increased. However the foreign guest traffic shows a huge territorial concentration because more than the half of the guest nights have been spend in the capital and further a quarter of the nights have been registrate in the Balaton area [5].
These results confirm the pertinence of the objectives from the marketing strategy - we should try to decrease the monopolistic role of the capital. The content of the CSO study from 2015 (which was made with similar methodology like the previous one) doesn't differ significally from the trends of 2013. According to their analysis the number of the indigenous and foreign vistors (and guestnights as well) is much more than the previous year. Henceforward, the half of the tourists prefer Budapest and the destination of the quarter of the visitors is the Balaton area [7, 6].
The two CSO studies based on the number of the guest nights, define in details the 10 most popular towns in Hungary. The range of the most hottest settelements had been build up by the same 10 towns, aside form 1-2 exceptions. If we examine the rankings of the list we could see that sequence is almost same year by year, so these settlements are really popular destinations.
According to the World Tourism Organization: «destination is a physical scenery, where the tourist spend at least one night. It contains tourist attractions, products, related servives, which are needed to satisfy at least the one-day-staying of the tourist. The destination has physical and administrative borders which define its management and it has image and perception. The destina-
A gricultural
Bulletin of Stavropol Region
№ 4(24)/2 Supplement, 2016
tion includes several affected, it could capable to networking and cooperation thereby it could be a larger destination» [3]. A competitive destination assumes the following measurments (on higher standard thanthe competitors):
- provide satisfaction for the guests;
- gaining profit for tourist businesses, growth of the area's tourism;
- improving the living conditions of the population in the receptive area;
- protection of the natural environment [4].
«The fact that a place in who could generate hap-
iness depends on several things (for example travelling experiences, attitude, religion). But those places, which could positively influence the life quality, could be identify» [2].
So we could see that several conditions are define one place's (settlement, region, country) tourism supply and attractiveness why tourist are visit it. The measurment of this is difficult to implement mainly internationally. Models trying to take into account indicators which represent sustainability, hapiness and well-being, however the models don't consider for example the countries' specialities. According to the World Economic Forum Hungary could be the compositor of Unitad States of America [3].
«The main conclusion from the models is that the tourism competitveness could be infulenced by any consituent factor from the tourism system»[4].
The often-mentioned CSO ranking formed the bases of the methodology. My aim was to create an index which contains the mostly relevant indicators in relation with tourism and which could help to define the position of the settlements correlate to the country level. In order to build up the modified methodology I collect the datum in settlement level from the National Regional Development and Spatial Planning Information System (NSIS). The transformation of an old method (Tivadar Bernât and Gyorgy Enyedi, 1961) gives the bases of the analysis. I compared the settlement and country level datum to the number of the population not to the area. Using eight indicators instead of one means further changes. In details:
- number of foreign guests in other accommodations (2);
- number of guest nights by foreigners in other accommodations (2,5);
- number of guests in other accommodations (1);
- number of guest nights in other accommodations (1,5);
- number of all foreign guests in commercial accommodations (3) 5;
- number of all guest nights by foreigners in commercial accommodations (4);
- number of all guest nights in commercial accommodations (2,5);
- number of all guests in in commercial accommodations (2).
First of all I applied normalization6 in order to processing the settlements' values. I'm tried to weight all of the selected eight indicators that the index could meet the expectations. I thought that that nights spend by the guest is the most determinative because in Hungary it is very important to increase the duration of stay. Although the "one-night-tourism" is more typical in the case of indigenous journeys, I gave a larger weight to the foreign guests. I did the same with regard to other accommodations. In these type of accommodations the number of guest nights by foreigners gives the same weight as the nights spend in commercial accommodations. I strive not to create a disproportionate dispersion, so I did the weighting in a scale 1 to 4 (the values of the weighting shown in the brackets after the listing).
The transformed and simplified formula received the following notation in picture 1.
(/«-*>(7 éa-fc)
IL
Oé
T
/ —
' Or
'e ^n
Figure 1 - The transformed formula of the indicator's values by settlement and population of the country
Whereis Tq a-h = the indicator's values by settlement, Oq = the indicator's value by country, f a-h = the value of the indicators' weight, Tn = population of the settlement, On = population of the country.
The new ranking created with the help of the index has been illustrate in two ways by the Geomarket program. The aim was to show the difference between the two approaches, so one map has been made without the comparison of population and one supplemented with it.
Results:
Maps on the next figures show the main results of my examinations. Figure 1. shows the role of the tourism at settlement level without comparison to the number of the population. According to the notation those areas, which were signed with light blue color, the tourism has an insignificant role or it hasn't got any role at all. The dark blue-colored settlements' tourist attraction is stronger, the sector has a greater significance. The green color means the most important potential of tourism, which increasing from the light to the dark shades of green. I missed Budapest's datum from the Geomarket system for two reasons. Firstly, in this kind of analysis the capital produced an exceptionally high value, that in order to show the correct situation I had to ignore its results. The second reason was that the Geomarket program only works with district datum in the case of Budapest, so the visualization of the values had some technical obstructions in picture 2.
5 In the case of the last four indicator commercial accommoda-
tion datum I used own calculations to aggregate the values.
25m_*100, where Ei = value
. Emax~^min
of the settlement, <^min = the lowest value in the sample,
6 Normalizatipon formula
of the settlement, Emvt Emax = the highest value in the sample
18 QTaCh and Practice
Journal j-m.Bull«<in of Stavropol Region
Terutetek
□ 0000 0.110
o 0 110 1 010
>.010 2.010
□ 2010 4.010
□ 4 010 5 010
i i 5010 1001
m 10.01 16 00
Figure 2 - The role of the tourism
Source: The author's own edition with the help of Geomarket program, 2015.
Figure 3 - The role of the tourism in comparison to the number of the population
Source: The author's own edition with the help of Geomarket program, 2015.
This figure shows the role of the tourism at settlement level in comparison to the number of the population. It could be seen compared to the previous map, that the categories expand caused to the decreasing of the difference between the mid-points. It means that the in the case of the population-comparison more settlements appear on the «palette of tourism» than without the completion of scaling. Notations work similarly to the previous logic. On the light blue areas the importance of tourism is negligible, which situation gets improve going from the dark blue colored territories to the green shaded areasin picture 3.
Due to this figure, we can see technical reasons Budapest also fell out from this analysis although its ranking dropped significantly (didn't produce an exceptionally high value).
Conclusions
Based on my investigations I made conclusions from several aspects. In methodologycal point of view it does matter what kind of statistical analyses
are selected ( however this statement is true in every kind of territorial difference studies). We can experience significant differences between the simple and the population based-indexes. Without involving the number of the population the result will be very similar to the CSO ranking where Budapest, Hajduszoboszlo, Heviz, Buk leading quartett despite of the expanded indicator system is still keeps its leading position, however Gyula, Harkany, Zalakaros and Egerszalok lost their posotions.
If we compare the datum to the number of the population, the ranking of the settlements has change. For example Budapest fall back 158 positions from the first place. Heviz and Buk are still stay inthe front of the list, but Hajduszoboszlo has dropp in the 24th place. But we can not see any different from the previous facts that the settlements which have significant tourism potential take place near by the Balaton (Balaton Priority Recreation area) and concentrated around those areas which own thermal water and spas.
A gricultural
Bulletin of Stavropol Region
№ 4(24)/2 Supplement, 2016
The curiosity of the results based on the fact that despite of the center-periphery theories there are existing smaller settlements in disadvantaged situation (from other point of view) which could capable to compete with larger town's attractiveness (for example Marokfold, Matraszentimre, Hegyko, Vonyarcvashegy). These areas are also located near by Balaton lake and in the mountains as well.
Compared the settlements (and its location) that I mentioned before with my analyses (that I gave a highest weight to the foreign guests and the guest nights spend by them) we could conclude that the demand for this kind of tourist destinations is increasing. Foreign guest feel comfortable these plac-
es for some reason therefore it would be importatnt to identify the motivatios, experiences and endowments in order to And find the right directions of the future development and marketing strategies.
It is essential to mention that there are a large amount of settlements where the importance of tourism based on the examination is very low. In details during the two analyses 1725 settlements received 0 valu. In these areas it would effective to generate the oppsite actions of the abovementioned ones. It is important to made it clear for the decision makers that even though the external conditions of the tourism (natural environment etc.) are prepared they couldn't build on the development strategy on this one sector.
REFERENCES:
1. Bernât T., Enyedi G. Y. Production districts of Hungary. Budapest: Mezôgazdasâgi Kiado, 1961. P. 13-15.
2. Grudeva E. National peculiarities in perception of the seasons in the Russian and English languages (on phycholinguistic experiment data) // Paradigmata poznani. 2017. № 1. C. 62-65.
3. Michalko G. Blissful trip / MTA (Hungarian Scientific Academy) Geographical Research Institute. Budapest, 2010. 70 p.
4. Papp Z. S. The competitiveness of tourist destinations : overview of models and methods / Z. Bajmocy, I. Lengyel, G. Mâlovics. Regional innovation skill, competitiveness and sustainability. Szeged : JATEPress, 2012. P. 225-238.
5. Tôzsér A. Competitive tourist destination: Formation of a new tourism-competitiveness model / Dr. Piskoti Istvân. Hungury / University of Miskolc Faculty of Economic Sciences. 2010.
6. CSO 2014: Report about the output of tourism in 2013. URL: http://www.ksh.hu/docs/ hun/xftp/idoszaki/jeltur/jelturl 3.pdf. Downloaded on: 2015.08.10.
7. CSO 2015: Tourism and Hospitality. 2014. URL: http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idos-zaki/jeltur/jeltur14.pdf. Downloaded on: 2015.08.10.
8. Hungarian tourism Ltd. Tourism in Hungary in 2014 (with preliminary data), Budapest, 2014. URL: http://itthon.hu/ documents/28123/8118959/StatElo_2014_ HU_oldalankent.pdf/dda853ce-c385-4-fa3-ac56-1c271ee102ca. Downloaded on: 2015.08.10.
9. Hungarian tourism Ltd. Marketingstrat-egy 2015-2017. URL: http://szakmai.it-thon.hu/documents/28123/15005854/ MTZrt-Marketingstrategia_2015-2017.pdf/ eb13a95e-11c4-47e5-b457-d7fdd74a1c97. Downloaded on: 2015.08.10.
