tourism and regional development in the agean region of turkey

tourism and regional development in the agean region of turkey

TOURISM AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AGEAN REGION OF TURKEY
Prof. Dr. Sedef Akgüngör
Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Business
[email protected]
Assoc. Prof. Yeşim Kuştepeli
Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Business
[email protected]
Assoc. Prof. Yaprak Gülcan
Dokuz Eylül University, Faculty of Business
[email protected]
Abstract
Tourism sector has become a mass industry in the last two decades in Turkey and is considered to be a
significant sector for regional development particularly in the coastal areas of the south-western and
western regions (Seckelmann, 2002). Thus, the tourism sector is a highpoint industry and a crucial public
policy area for the Mediterranean and Aegean Regions. A long term national policy is necessary for
sustainable public and private investment on tourism sector and thus on the regional development
initiatives.
The aim of the study is to investigate the potential of successful and sustainable contribution of the tourism
sector for regional development in the Aegean Region of Turkey. In particular, the study aims to: 1)
explore the differences in Aegean region’s cities (eight NUTS3 regions) with respect to differences in the
importance of the tourism sector and 2) investigate the impact of transportation infrastructure and
investment initiatives on the growth of the Aegean region’s tourism sector. The analysis aims to compare
the NUTS3 regions from the perspective of the potential of the tourism industry for regional development
in order to identify current challenges and opportunities for sound public policies.
The employment data as well as investments are used on tourism and transportation in NUTS3 regions for
the period of 1995-2006. The analysis intended to 1) calculate the location quotients for the tourism
industry for each NUTS3 region in the Aegean region and 2) use an econometric model to understand the
impact of investments on transportation and tourism on the growth of the tourism industry in the region.
1. INTRODUCTION
Tourism industry is one of the greatest sources of economic growth and job creation.
Tourism sector generates jobs not only in its own sector but also via indirect and induced
effects in connected sectors such as financial services, retailing, and telecommunications.
Tourism has a positive influence on regional employment and income, but the magnitude
of regional multiplier will vary according to the characteristics of each individual region.
As tourism and regional development are closely linked, regions and local authorities
play a key role in the formulation of policy and the organization and development of
tourism and thus coordination between local authorities increases the benefits of policies
such as large scale infrastructure projects (Constantin, 2000).
Tourism sector’s potential for economic development is vastly dependent on
improvements to transportation infrastructure. Although investment in transportation
infrastructure is treated as a necessary but not sufficient condition for economic
development, inadequate transportation conditions don’t support economic development
(US Department of Transportation, 2003).
Transportation infrastructure needs improvement in order to provide both efficient
linkages to the regional system and internal connectivity. Rather than starting with a set
of pre-defined transportation improvements and estimating the associated economic
benefits, the planning can begin with first examining the region's economic development
strategy, and then determining the transportation investments that would be needed to
support this strategy. This approach is demonstrated in the following exhibit:
2
Source: US Department of Transportation, 2003.
Public
policies
based
on
privatization,
liberalization,
deregulation,
and
decentralization, etc. provide incentives for efficiency and growth. The anticipated
growth of the economy is expected to exert more pressure on infrastructure support
facilities. In terms of transportation infrastructure, private sector should promote its
participation in transport development. Local government unit should enhance its action
in administering, implementing, and developing infrastructure facilities (Ministerial
Conference on Infrastructure, 1996).
Tourism sector has become a mass industry in the last two decades in Turkey and
is considered to be a significant sector for regional development particularly in the
coastal areas of the south-western and western regions (Seckelmann, 2002). Thus, the
tourism sector is a highpoint industry and a crucial public policy area for the
Mediterranean and Aegean Regions. A long term national policy is necessary for
sustainable public and private investment on tourism sector and thus on the regional
development initiatives.
The aim of the study is to investigate the potential of successful and sustainable
contribution of the tourism sector for regional development in the Aegean Region of
Turkey. In particular, the study aims to: 1) explore the differences in Aegean region’s
cities (eight NUTS3 regions) with respect to differences in the importance of the tourism
3
sector and 2) investigate the impact of transportation infrastructure and investment
initiatives on the growth of the Aegean region’s tourism sector. The analysis aims to
compare the NUTS3 regions from the perspective of the potential of the tourism industry
for regional development in order to identify current challenges and opportunities for
sound public policies.
The employment data as well as investments are used on tourism and
transportation on in NUTS3 regions for the period of 1995-2006. The analysis intended to
1) calculate the location quotients 1 for the tourism industry for each NUTS3 region in the
Aegean region and 2) use an econometric model to understand the impact of investments
on transportation and tourism on the growth of the tourism industry in the region.
1
The Location Quotient is a tool to show whether the regions is specialized in a particular industry thus
revealing the city’s opportunities in tourism sector calling for public policy.
4
2. TOURISM IN THE AGEAN REGION
Tourism in the Aegean Region is vastly based on sea tourism due to the coasts
and thermal tourism. For Afyon, thermal tourism is dominant (Gazlıköy, Hüdai, Heybeli,
Ömer-Göcek Thermals). Afyon has the advantage of being in the centre of the
transportation net connecting the metropolitian cities to the coastal cities. In Aydın,
Didim and Kuşadası are crucial points for sea tourism, In addition to Germencik,
İmamköy and Davutlar Thermals. Thermal tourism is the most important tourism in
Denizli. Most importantly, Pamukkale travertine which is a natural beauty is in Denizli.
There are also several (Yeşilkaya, Çivril, Buldan, Goncalı, Sarayköy, Akköy, Honaz,
Çardak, Kale thermal springs in Denizli.
For Manisa (Kurşunlu, Sart, Urganlı, Saraycık, Hisar, Menteşe Thermals and
Sakız Watering Place), Kütahya (Ilıca, Hisarcık-Sefaköy, Hisarcık-Hamamköy and EmetYeniceköy thermals) and Uşak (Hamamboğaz, Banaz, Örencik, Aksaz and Emirfakılı
Thermals) thermal tourism has a higher share.
İzmir located at the far west part of Turkey is famous for sea tourism. Some of the
famous spots are Selçuk-Pamucak, Urla, Gülbahçe, Çeşme-Ilıca, Altınkum, Gümüldür,
Özdere, Dikili, Çandarlı, and Foça. Muğla also with long coastal lines is very popular in
sea tourism. Bodrum, Dalaman, Datça, Fethiye, Ölüdeniz, Köyceğiz, Marmaris, Dalyan,
and Gökova are attractive places for internal and external tourists.
In order to explore the differences in Aegean region’s cities (eight NUTS3
regions) with respect to differences in the importance of the tourism sector, which is the
first aim of this paper, we have analyzed hotels and restaurants in these eight provinces in
detail.
Table 1 shows some numerical observations regarding the hotels in the Aegean
Region provinces. It can be seen that, Muğla has the highest share in Aegean Region’s
total number of employees, in Agean Region’s total tourism output and in Agean Region’s
total tourism value added. For these three shares, Aydın and İzmir respectively follows Muğla.
Table 1. Hotels in Agean Region I (1997-2001)
5
Share
in
Agean
Region’s
Share
in
Agean Share
Total Region’s
Number
in
Agean Share
in
Total Region’s Total Tourism Province’s
of Tourism Output
Value Added
GDP
Employees
Aydın
22,88
28,25
34,73
1,44
Afyon
5,24
3,19
4,06
0,53
Denizli
4,5
3,18
3,00
1,24
İzmir
22,82
18,55
20,46
7,21
Kütahya
0,43
0,18
0,17
0,80
Manisa
0,43
0,31
0,24
2,17
Muğla
43,41
36,24
37,25
1,47
Uşak
0,30
0,10
0,10
0,37
Table 2 shows the average number of hotels, beds, rooms and employees in
hotels. Once again, Muğla is the leader for all of these and Aydın and İzmir respectively
follows Muğla.
Table 2. Hotels in Agean Region II (1995-2001)
Average Number of
Average Number
Average Number
Average Number of
Hotels
of Beds
of Rooms
Employees
Aydın
198
28012
13809
4932
Afyon
12
5169
1997
1114
Denizli
40
7915
3945
983
İzmir
132
24061
10975
4766
Kütahya*
8
759
367
109
Manisa*
7
722
343
114
Muğla
360
60880
28987
9322
6
Uşak*
5
282
152
76
*: 1997-2001
Percentages changes in the number of hotels, beds, rooms and employees are
given in Table 3.
Strikingly, Afyon has the highest percentage changes in hotels.
Number of hotels has changed by %129, number of beds by % 905, number of rooms by
% 492 and number of employees by % 277. This can be attributed to the rapid
development of thermal tourism in Afyon in the last decade.
Table 3. Hotels in Agean Region III (1995-2001)
% Change in
% Change in
% Change in
% Change in
Average Number of
Average Number
Average Number of
Average Number of
Hotels
of Beds
Rooms
Employees
Aydın
% 78
% 40
% 40
% 41
Afyon
% 129
% 905
% 492
% 277
Denizli
% 60
% 79
% 76
%5
İzmir
% 63
% 67
% 50
% 26
% - 12.5
% - 5.02
% - 2.97
% 6.73
Manisa
% 33
% 51
% 38
% 83
Muğla
% 44
% 28
% 30
%9
% 25
% 28
% -1
% 37
Kütahya*
*
Uşak
*
*: 1997-2001
7
Figure 1. Location Quotient (Hotels) in the Aegean Region Provinces in 2000
Location
Quotient (Hotels)
2000
7,0000
6,0000
5,0000
4,0000
3,0000
2,0000
1,0000
0,0000
Afyon
Aydın
Denizli
İzmir
Kütahya
Manisa
Muğla
Uşak
8
Figure 2. Share of the Value Added (Hotels) of the Province in the Aegean Region in
2000
(Value Added of the Province / Population of the Province) /
(Value Added of the Aegean Region / Population of the Region)
(Hotels )
5,0000
4,5000
4,0000
3,5000
3,0000
2,5000
2,0000
1,5000
1,0000
0,5000
0,0000
Afyon
Aydın
Denizli
İzmir
Kütahya
Manisa
Muğla
Uşak
9
Figure 3. Share of the Value Added (Hotels) of the Province in Turkey in 2000
(Value Added of the Province / Population of the Province)/
(Value Added of Turkey / Population of Turkey)
(Hotels)
9,0000
8,0000
7,0000
6,0000
5,0000
4,0000
3,0000
2,0000
1,0000
0,0000
Afyon
Aydın
Denizli
İzmir
Kütahya
Manisa
Muğla
Uşak
10
The analysis of restaurants in the NUTS3 regions of the Aegean Region is given
in Tables 4 and 5. Unfortunately, data is not available for Kütahya and Uşak for the
restaurants; it is also limited for the other NUTS3 regions. With these limitations in mind,
it can be seen from Table 4 that İzmir has the highest number of restaurants, tables and
employees in restaurants.
Table 4. Restaurants in Agean Region I
Average Number of
Average Number of
Average Number of
Restaurants
Tables
Employees
Aydın
1995-1998
13
162
84
Afyon
1998-2001
3
193
68
Denizli
2000-2001
5
196
86
İzmir
1995-2001
49
3538
1350
Kütahya
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Manisa
1997-2001
4
348
67
Muğla
1995-2001
12
488
587
Uşak
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
In Afyon and Manisa, the percentage change in number of hotels is % 33, highest
in the Aegean Region. Aydın has the highest percentage change in number of tables (%
76) and employees (% 109).
Table 5. Restaurants in Aegean Region II
% Change in Average
% Change in Average
% Change in Average
Number of Restaurants
Number of Tables
Number of Employees
Aydın
1995-1998
%0
% 76
% 109
Afyon
1998-2001
% 33
% 52
% -4
Denizli
2000-2001
%0
% -3
%6
İzmir
1995-2001
% 31
% 50
% 13
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Kütahya
11
Manisa
1997-2001
% 33
% -12
% -33
Muğla
1995-2001
% -9
% -1
% 41
Uşak
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Figure 4. Location Quotient (Restaurants) in the Aegean Region Provinces in 2000
Location
Quotient (Restaurants)
2000
4,0000
3,5000
3,0000
2,5000
2,0000
1,5000
1,0000
0,5000
0,0000
Afyon
Aydın
Denizli
İzmir
Kütahya
Manisa
Muğla
Uşak
Figure 5. Share of the Value Added (Restaurants) of the Province in the Aegean
Region in 2000
(Value Added of the Province / Population of the Province)/
(Value Added of the Aegean Region / Population of the Region)
(Restaurants)
7,0000
6,0000
5,0000
4,0000
3,0000
2,0000
1,0000
0,0000
12
Figure 6. Share of the Value Added (Restaurants) of the Province in Turkey in 2000
(Value Added of the Province / Population of the Province)/
(Value Added of Turkey / Population of Turkey)
(Restaurants)
14,0000
12,0000
10,0000
8,0000
6,0000
4,0000
2,0000
0,0000
Afyon
Aydın
Denizli
İzmir
Kütahya
Manisa
Muğla
Uşak
13
3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS
AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AGEAN REGION
Infrastructure is considered to be a major determinant of the attractiveness of
destination. Roads, water, electricity, safety services, health services, communication
services are key determinants of international arrivals.
Figure 7. Share of transportation investment in region’s total investment
90,0
80,0
70,0
60,0
% share or
transportation 50,0
investment in
regions' total 40,0
investment
30,0
20,0
0,0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
10,0
Afyon
Aydın
Denizli
İzmir
Kütahya
Manisa
Muğla
Uşak
14
Table 6. Transportation Infrastructure and Tourism
Share of Transportation
% Change in
% Change in
% Change in
Investment in Total
Average Number
Average Number of
Average Number
Investment
of
Beds
of Employees
Hotels
Aydın
1
% 78
% 40
% 41
Afyon
22
% 129
% 905
% 277
Denizli
17
% 60
% 79
%5
İzmir
17
% 63
% 67
% 26
Kütahya*
10
% - 12.5
% - 5.02
% 6.73
Manisa*
7
% 33
% 51
% 83
Muğla
11
% 44
% 28
%9
Uşak*
13
% 25
% 28
% 37
0,42
0,62
0,45
Correlation
*: 1997-2001
15
Panel Data Analysis
Tourism – Hotel
VAH it = β 0 + β 1 NGDPPC it + β 2 BED it + β 3 PINTO it + β 4 PINTC it + β 5 PINTR it (1)
where VAH: value added hotel, NGDPPC : nominal GDP per capita, BED: number of
beds, PINTO: public investment in tourism , PINTC: public investment in tourism and
communication, PINTR: public investment in transportation.
Table 7 shows the estimation results of equation (1) with random cross section
effects.
Table 7. Panel data estimation for hotels: Random cross section effects
Method: Panel EGLS (Cross-section random effects)
Sample: 1995 2001
Total panel (balanced) observations: 56
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
C
-18493549
6414693.
-2.882998
0.0058
BED
1081.189
242.4299
4.459800
0.0000
NGDPPC
0.026077
0.004615
5.649971
0.0000
PINTO
-0.310717
6.029963
-0.051529
0.9591
PINTC
-0.056045
0.112607
-0.497701
0.6209
16
PINTR
-0.564552
0.632454
-0.892636
0.3763
Weighted Statistics
R-squared
0.601517
Mean dependent var
24715555
Adjusted R-squared
0.561668
S.D. dependent var
49718760
S.E. of regression
32917109
Sum squared resid
5.42E+16
F-statistic
15.09516
Durbin-Watson stat
0.360382
Prob(F-statistic)
0.000000
Table 8. Panel data estimation for hotels: Random cross section effects and random
time effects
Method: Panel EGLS (Two-way random effects)
Sample: 1995 2001
Total panel (balanced) observations: 56
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
C
-18493549
6946939.
-2.662115
0.0104
BED
1081.189
262.5450
4.118109
0.0001
NGDPPC
0.026077
0.004998
5.217093
0.0000
PINTO
-0.310717
6.530287
-0.047581
0.9622
PINTC
-0.056045
0.121951
-0.459569
0.6478
PINTR
-0.564552
0.684931
-0.824246
0.4137
Weighted Statistics
R-squared
0.601517
Mean dependent var
24715555
Adjusted R-squared
0.561668
S.D. dependent var
49718760
S.E. of regression
32917109
Sum squared resid
5.42E+16
F-statistic
15.09516
Durbin-Watson stat
0.360382
17
Prob(F-statistic)
0.000000
Tourism - Restaurant
VAH it = β 0 + β 1 NGDPPC it + β 2 TAB it + β 3 PINTO it + β 4 PINTC it + β 5 PINTR it (2)
where VAH: value added hotel, NGDPPC : nominal GDP per capita, TAB: number of
tabls, PINTO: public investment in tourism , PINTC: public investment in tourism and
communication, PINTR: public investment in transportation
Table 9. Panel data estimation for restaurants: Random cross section effects
18
Method: Panel EGLS (Cross-section random effects)
Sample: 1995 2001
Total panel (balanced) observations: 56
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
C
-1354174.
383157.0
-3.534253
0.0009
TAB
1944.457
347.8160
5.590477
0.0000
NGDPPC
0.001522
0.000289
5.270788
0.0000
PINTO
3.242001
0.330365
9.813399
0.0000
PINTC
-0.024303
0.008178
-2.971800
0.0045
PINTR
0.008186
0.056461
0.144977
0.8853
Weighted Statistics
R-squared
0.787638
Mean dependent var
1922979.
Adjusted R-squared
0.766402
S.D. dependent var
5120390.
S.E. of regression
2474785.
Sum squared resid
3.06E+14
F-statistic
37.08948
Durbin-Watson stat
1.420082
Prob(F-statistic)
0.000000
Table 10. Panel data estimation for restaurants: Random cross section effects and
random time effects
Method: Panel EGLS (Two-way random effects)
Sample: 1995 2001
19
Total panel (balanced) observations: 56
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
C
-1642599.
696301.8
-2.359033
0.0223
TAB
1935.334
464.1181
4.169916
0.0001
NGDPPC
0.001836
0.000512
3.584289
0.0008
PINTO
3.195180
0.436758
7.315677
0.0000
PINTC
-0.024422
0.010811
-2.259032
0.0283
PINTR
-0.004924
0.076583
-0.064301
0.9490
Weighted Statistics
R-squared
0.776528
Mean dependent var
1264577.
Adjusted R-squared
0.754181
S.D. dependent var
4884215.
S.E. of regression
2421599.
Sum squared resid
2.93E+14
F-statistic
34.74843
Durbin-Watson stat
1.379132
Prob(F-statistic)
0.000000
20
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The
research
investigates
the
role
of
tourism
on
Agean
Region’s
development.Tourism itself has a significant role in the economics in the Agean Region.
This role differs across provinces: Aydın and Muğla in hotels, İzmir and Muğla in
restaurants. There is potential for growth with respect to hotels for Afyon and Denizli,
whereas there is potential for growth with respect to restaurants for Afyon and partly
Manisa, Muğla. Such potential is significantly correlated with the transportation
investments in these regions (particularly Afyon and Denizli).
The share of transportation investments in total investments is relatively larger in
Afyon, Denizli, Mugla and İzmir. In order to investigate the role of infrastructural
variables on the value added of the tourism sector, a panel data regression was run. The
results indicate that tourism value added (hotels) is significantly and positively related
with number of beds and nominal GDP per capita of the region. Tourism value added
(restaurants) is significantly and positively related with number of tables, nominal GDP
per capita of the region, public investment in tourism.
The results in general show that the potential role of tourism in economic
development of the region is significant. Transportation infrastructure in particular has a
role in the growth of the tourism industry. Further development in tourism depends on;
1. public policies directed towards specific investments which is tailored according to
the needs of the region on tourism, such as coastal regions may choose to specialize
on small boutique hotels which provides high quality. On the other side, regions like
Afyon and Denizli by being on the cross section to Anatolia and serving to domestic
tourists may still prefer to invest in 5 star hotels which provides a standard service.
2. efforts to increase the number of hotels/ restaurants (beds /tables) in the region
3.
significant efforts to increase per capita GDP through subsidies, tax deductions, etc.
Increase in per capita GDP enhances the absorption capacity of the region not only
for tourists but also for the local people. Local people learn to dine outside and be
more tolerant to tourist coming from different cultures. By the same token wealthier
people have an urge to travel and learn more about the rest of the world which in
return brings creative ideas for the tourism sector.
21
In this paper, only highways is used as transporation infrastructure and results
mostly signifies the role of the domestic tourists in regional growth in tourism sector.
A further reserch that includes airlines and maritimes as transportation infrastructure
and not only the amounts of investments but the physical units will needed to find
sound results to recommend policies in the region.
22
REFERENCES
Constantin, Daniella, (2000), “Tourism and Environmentally Sustainable Regional
Development: The Case of Romania” 40th Congress of the European
Regional Science Association, 29 August-1 September 2000.
__________, and Constantin Mitrut, (2007), “Strategies For Cultural Tourism,
Sustainability And Regional Development. A Case Study in Romania”, 47th
Congress of European Regional Science Association, Paris.
Ministerial Conference on Infrastructure, (1996), “Infrastructure and Tourism
Development”, Country Report t for the Philippines, 23-31 October 1996,
New Delhi.
OECD Programme of Research on Road Transport and Intermodal Linkages, (2000),
“The Impact of Transport Infrastructure on Regional Development”,
Abstract ITRD Number: E112022.
Russo, Antonio, (2000), “The Sustainable Cultural Cluster, Notes on agglomeration,
tourism policy and information technologies in tourist cities”, 40th Congress
of the European Regional Science Association, 29 August-1 September
2000.
Seckelmann, Astrid, (2002), “Domestic Tourism-a Chance for Regional Development in
Turkey?”, Tourism Management 23, 85-92.
Unutmaz, Hakan, (2000), “The Definition of planning principles of Holiday Villages
Built in Turkey”, 40th Congress of the European Regional Science
Association, 29 August-1 September 2000.
23
24