CC BY
14
Научни трудове на Съюза на учените в България-Пловдив, Серия A. Обществени науки, изкуство и култура, том П, Съюз на учените сесия 5 - 6 ноември 2015. Scientific works of the Union of Scientists in Bulgaria-Plovdiv, series А. Public sciences, art and culture, Vol. П., Union of Scientists, ISSN 1311-9400, Session 5 - 6 November 2015.
СЪСТОЯНИЕ НА ТУРИЗМА В ОБЛАСТ ПЛОВДИВ Елена Петкова Софийски университет „Св. Климент Охридски", катедра „География на туризма"
STATE OF TOURISM IN THE DISTRICT OF PLOVDIV
Elena Petkova Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski", Geography of Tourism Department
Abstract:
In this paper the state of tourism in a specific region of Bulgaria - the District of Plovdiv - is evaluated through questionnaire filled by tourists and local people. They have had the opportunity to estimate the components of the overall tourism product of the region.
Key words: tourism, district of Plovdiv
Introduction
In order tourism development of a region to be realized certain conditions must be met. Key among those is the availability of tourist resources, sights and attractions. Other import conditions are the availability of accommodation establishments, food and beverage facilities, transport to and within the region, information, infrastructure, etc. Often those prerequisites or conditions are combined or synthesized into models so they are analyzed together as components of the overall tourism product of the region.
Such is the system model, which presents the region or the tourist destination as a system. Thus Laws and Le Pelley argue that „all tourism destination systems consist of elements (or subsystems) in the form of natural or primary attractions such as climate," or historic city, or cathedral, „supported by secondary features such as hotels," guest houses, shopping and catering attractions, etc. [1]. The model allows some of the factors or conditions for tourism development to be derived and in turn studied as components of the overall tourism product of a destination.
According to Russo and Van der Borg the factors that determine the competitiveness of the destination could be synthesized in the „tourist product"... Thus the components of the tourism product are: primary tourist products; secondary or complementary products; the image of the destination; the external accessibility of the destination; and the internal accessibility to attractions [2]. The overall assessment of tourism in a destination or a region given by tourists could be done through the estimation of those components. Moreover, some attributes of the region should also be assessed, such as prices, attractiveness, atmosphere, safety, quality of service, variety of services, etc.
Methodology of Study
In this paper the state of tourism in a specific region of Bulgaria - the District of Plovdiv - is evaluated through questionnaire filled by tourists and local people. The respondents have had the opportunity to estimate the components of the overall tourism product of the region.
The district of Plovdiv is located in the central part of Southern Bulgaria and occupies an area of 5972.9 sq. km, which represents 5.4% of the territory of Bulgaria. The district has convenient 176
transport geographic position and is characterized by high natural, economic and human potential, highly productive lands, thermal mineral waters and extremely valuable cultural heritage. The favorable geographic position of the district is complemented by the availability of transport infrastructure [3].
The questionnaire has been prepared in Bulgarian, English and Russian. It consists of 2 questions. One of them requires respondents to fill in their country or district of residence. The other includes 30 attributes of Plovdiv District that should had been evaluated by a 5-point scale with estimates from 1 to 5 as 1 means very bad and 5 - very good condition of the attribute. The questionnaire is distributed during the first half of 2014 in the district center - the city of Plovdiv, where significant prerequisites for tourism development are available. It is completed by 38 people. The results are summarized and shown by mean values.
Results of Study
Half of the respondents are local people - from district of Plovdiv (50%). The rest are Bulgarians from other regions of the country (45%) and only 2 people (5%) are foreigners (Table 1).
Table 1. Region of Residence of Respondents number share
Plovdiv district 12 50%
The rest of Bulgaria 17 45%
Foreigners (Romania, Russia) 2 5%
Total 38 100%
The highest estimates of most attributes of tourism in the district of Plovdiv are given by the local people. Exceptions are the cultural and historic monuments, sights and heritage, atmosphere, safety and security and prices, which have received the highest estimates given by Bulgarians of the other districts of the country and the mineral water, spa and wellness, value for money and price discounts, which have received the highest mean values by foreigners. To sum up, residents of Plovdiv District have given the highest estimates of the attributes of tourism in the district with the exceptions of the ones related to prices, some attractions (cultural and historical sites, monuments and heritage and mineral waters, spa and wellness), as well as the atmosphere and safety and security of the region.
Among the attributes, residents of Plovdiv District have given the highest estimates (mean values) both to scenery, climate, terrain and natural resources (4.74) and entertainment, nightlife and shopping (4.74). High mean values have received the variety of services (4.61) and cultural and historical monuments, sites and heritage (4.58), followed by food and beverage facilities (4.56) and transport to the region (4.56), in turn followed by religious monuments (4.53), accommodation establishments (4.50) and the overall impression (4.50). The lowest estimates (among good and average) have been given by local residents to cleanliness (3.67) and the attributes concerned with price policy within the region namely: price discounts (3.67), prices (3.61) and value for money (3.61).
Domestic and international tourists have given the highest estimates to cultural and historic monuments, sites and heritage. Meanwhile, local residents have given the fourth highest value to that attribute. It could be summarized that although Plovdiv District is rich in cultural and historical sites, they are not visited by local residents as often as they are visited by tourists. The highest value by local residents has been given to scenery, climate and natural resources. That attributes ranks second according to domestic tourists but 23-rd according to foreigners. The highest value by local residents has also been given to entertainments, nightlife and shopping. That attributes ranks fourth according to domestic tourists but 27-th - according to international tourists.
Table 2.State of Tourism of District of Plovdiv - assessments of visitors -mean values Total District of Plovdiv The rest of Bulgaria Bulgarians overall Foreigners
Scenery, climate, terrain, natural resources 4.45 4.74 4.29 4.53 3.00
Cultural and historic monuments, sights and heritage 4.63 4.58 4.71 4.64 4.50
Cultural events (concerts, festivals, exhibitions, theatre performances, etc.) 4.26 4.47 4.06 4.28 4.00
Religious monuments 4.11 4.53 3.76 4.17 3.00
Mineral water, spa and wellness 3.79 3.89 3.50 3.78 4.00
Sport and sporting events (competitions, tournaments, etc.) 4.05 4.42 3.82 4.14 2.50
Conferences, seminars, fairs, trade shows and other business events 4.14 4.32 3.75 4.15 4.00
Entertainment, nightlife, shopping, etc. 4.37 4.74 4.18 4.47 2.50
Hospitality of local people 4.11 4.28 4.06 4.17 3.00
Acquiring knowledge 4.08 4.28 4.06 4.17 2.50
Discovering new places 4.16 4.39 3.94 4.17 4.00
Getting acquainted with unknown people, communities, new languages 4.03 4.22 4.00 4.11 2.50
Hotel establishments 4.22 4.50 4.06 4.29 3.00
Restaurant establishments 4.38 4.56 4.29 4.43 3.50
Transport from and to the region 4.32 4.56 4.12 4.34 4.00
Transport in the region 4.11 4.22 4.00 4.11 4.00
Information and advertising 4.03 4.33 3.71 4.03 4.00
Infrastructure of the district 4.00 4.17 3.82 4.00 4.00
Variety of services 4.30 4.61 4.00 4.31 4.00
Quality of service 3.89 4.11 3.65 3.89 4.00
Promptness of service 3.95 4.11 3.82 3.97 3.50
Atmosphere 4.11 4.11 4.12 4.11 4.00
Cleanliness 3.65 3.67 3.65 3.66 3.50
Safety and security 3.70 3.72 3.76 3.74 3.00
Convenient working hours of sites 4.15 4.22 4.00 4.15 4.00
Prices 3.62 3.61 3.65 3.63 3.50
Value for money 3.65 3.61 3.65 3.63 4.00
Price discounts 3.62 3.67 3.53 3.60 4.00
Attractiveness 4.32 4.50 4.18 4.34 4.00
Whole impression 4.30 4.50 4.12 4.31 4.00
The residents of Plovdiv District ranked high variety of services (third highest value), food and beverage facilities (fifth), transport within the region (sixth) and religious monuments (seventh), followed by attractiveness, overall impression and accommodation establishments (eighth, ninth, tenth). The lowest ranks by them are given to price-related attributes: prices (29), value for money (30), discounts (27), as well as to cleanliness (28).
Domestic tourists ranked high food and beverage facilities (at second place) and attractiveness (forth), followed by the overall impression, transport to the region and atmosphere (sixth, seventh and eighth). The lowest estimates they have given to mineral waters, spa and wellness (30th place), price-related attributes: discounts (29), prices, value for money, as well as cleanliness and quality of service (at 25th, 26th, 27th and 28th places).
The ranking of foreigners is little different but the small number of respondents of that group should be bored in mind. At the forefront positions they ranked attractions such as cultural and historical monuments, cultural events, religious monuments, mineral waters, spa and wellness, business events, specific characteristics that motivate tourist visits, such as discovering new places, components of the overall tourist product, such as transport to and in the region, information and infrastructure, the variety and quality of services, the atmosphere, the attractiveness, the overall impression, as well as value for money and price discounts (from 1st to 18th place). Average mean values are given by them to safety and security, hospitality of local people and religious monuments and negative, below average values are given to: the opportunities of sport tourism, acquisition of new knowledge and acquaintances with unknown people, communities and languages. Probably, it is necessary more of those opportunities to be provided to foreigners (as likely they are - to Bulgarians) (Table 2).
Conclusion
Based on the analysis presented above, we consider that two important recommendations could be given. Firstly, cultural and historic monuments, sites and heritage should be more accessible to local residents. The later should realize that those are the main advantages of the region and thus would seek to promote those more intensively among tourists. The local people should also realize the benefits of cultural tourism development. In this regard, discounts should be available for local people visiting cultural and historical sites, such as vouchers that should be distributed in various organizations, companies, institutions and especially educational institutes. It is necessary to work in several areas, such as improving cleanliness in the district and establishing more flexible pricing policy, expressed in price discounts. Sport facilities and sporting events, religious monuments, entertainments and nightlife should be more accessible to foreigners. Like domestic, international tourists should also have broader opportunities to acquire new knowledge and get acquainted with local culture. To meet their requirements the quality of accommodation establishments and safety and security in the region of Plovdiv should be improved.
References
[1] Laws, E., B. Le Pelley (2000). Managing Complexity and Change in Tourism: The Case of a Historic City. International Journal of Tourism Research 2: 229-246
[2] Russo, A., J. Van der Borg (2002). Planning Considerations for Cultural Tourism: A Case Study of Four European Cities. Tourism Management 23: 631-637
[3] www.pd.government.bg - June, 2015
