- Email: [email protected]
Domestic tourism—a chance for regional development in Turkey?
Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
Research note
Domestic tourismFa chance for regional development in Turkey? Astrid Seckelmann* Department of Geography, University of Passau, D–94030 Passau, Germany Received 5 November 2000; accepted 4 January 2001
Abstract During the last two decades tourism in Turkey has become a mass industry concentrated in the western and southern coastal areas. As these areas were part of the more developed regions of the country, tourism in its current structure contributes to the strengthening of interregional disparities in Turkey. In addition, in the centres of mass tourism socio-economical unsustainable demand and supply structures evolved. Simultanously, the domestic tourism market has increased, and it can offer a socio-economic alternative to the further expansion of international mass tourism. Thus, the so far little developed South-East and East Anatolia, with an abundance of historical sights and natural highlights, can offer new destinations for domestic travellers while contributing to a sustainable development of these regions. As a precondition a national domestic tourism policy, stable prices and a strong promotion of the new destinations are essential. r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Domestic tourism; Tourism structure; Regional development; Sustainable development; Turkey; Mediterranean
1. Introduction Tourism with regard to pilgrimages, spa tourism and summer resorts (‘‘Yaylalar’’) has a long tradition in Turkey (Ho. hfeld & Do&gan, 1986). In spite of this, the country entered the international mass tourism market late compared to other Mediterranean countries (Clements & Georgiou, 1998); for only during the 1970s did the Turkish government begin to regard international tourism as a means of economic development (Ertekin, 1997). From then on it established some tourism facilities and, more important, increased stepwise the incentives for private investments in this sector. Not until during the 1980s did the Aegean as well as the Mediterranean coast become a significant region of interest for domestic and foreign investors. During this decade the demand for Turkey as a ‘‘sun-and-seadestination’’ increased immensely, but in some sectors of the tourism industry (especially at the luxury level), the growth in supply created a superabundance of hotel . RSAB, 2000a). Thus, Turkish tourism capacity (TU development was not an unblemished successtory during the 1990s, although the number of foreigners visiting the country reached a peak in 1997 (Turizm Bakanlı&gı,
*Tel.: +49-931-509-2731; fax: +49-931-509-2732. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Seckelmann).
1999c). The tourism business in Turkey today has become a mass industry concentrated in the coastal areas in the south-western and western parts of the country. It is one of the most important economic development factors in these regions, but many problems accompany today’s structure of tourism in Turkey, which is far from being sustainable. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the development of domestic tourism could be a supplement to existing tourism and an economically and socially healthier alternative to its further expansion. 2. Characteristics and problems of current tourism industry in Turkey At the end of the millennium Turkey is ranked 19th of . RSAB, the most visited countries in the world (TU 2000a). Most visitors are attracted by its 8333 km of coast, but central Anatolia with the two natural highlights of Cappadocia and Pamukkale are also focuses of attention. The preference for the Aegean and Mediterranean regions can be observed both with foreign and domestic tourists. There are some areas in which the rate of domestic tourism exceeds the foreign as can be seen in Altınkum, for instance, where at the end of the 1980s more than 60 per cent of the hotel capacity was used by Turkish citizens (Bronny, 1990, p. 86). Among the
0261-5177/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 6 6 - 8
86
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
Fig. 1. The human development index (HDI) in the provinces of Turkey.
Fig. 2. The share of domestic tourism of total tourism of each province of Turkey.
87
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92 Table 1 Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita 1997 and human development index (HDI) for the Turkish regions 1996 Marmara Aegean
Mediterranean Central Anatolia Black Sea East Anatolia South-East Anatolia Turkeya
GDP per capita 1997 (TL)b 2,684,291 2,246,740 1,706,976 HDI 1996c 0.833 0.796 0.765
1,639,513 0.731
1,294,737 660,216 0.687 0.557
986,350 0.554
1,802,763 0.696
a
Average based on the HDI of the 76 provinces. GDP per capita 1997 at 1987 prices in TL. Source: T.C. Bas,bakanlık Devlet Istatistik Enstitu. su. /Republic of Turkey State Institute of Statistics. c Source: UNDP (1998). b
Table 2 Number of foreigners arriving in the Turkish regionsa Marmara
Aegean
Mediterranean
Central Anatolia
Black Sea
East Anatolia
South-East Anatolia
Total
2,636,829 34.7%
2,001,130 26.3%
2,021,614 26.6%
781,651 10.3%
102,681 1.4%
37,581 0.5%
18,545 0.2%
7,600,031 100.0%
a
Only foreigners arriving in licensed accommodation establishments are taken into account. Source: T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı/Republic of Turkey Ministry of Tourism (1999).
Table 3 Number of domestic tourists spending nights in the Turkish regionsa Marmara
Aegean
Mediterranean
Central Anatolia
Black Sea
East Anatolia
South-East Anatolia
Total
9,904,035 23.6%
10,464,588 25.0%
8,674,022 20.7%
5,052,219 12.0%
5,275,587 12.6%
1,667,154 4.0%
888,416 2.1%
41,926,021 100.0%
a
Source: Own calculations based on T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı/Republic of Turkey Ministry of Tourism (1999).
problems that have emerged are the following which are of high significance:1 2.1. Strengthening of regional disparities in Turkey This was recognised as a problem at the commencement of mass tourism development (Ritter, 1977), but has become even more important today (e.g. Tosun, 1999; Tosun & Jenkins, 1996). Although in each of the five-year-development plans the government stresses the capacity of tourism to eliminate socio-economic problems, this is only partly true for Turkey. The interregional disparities in Turkey are especially high between the western and eastern provinces with the latter facing large socio-economic problems. Mass tourism has developed that reinforces the economic hegemony of the western and south-western regions of the country, leaving East and South-East Anatolia behind. In 1996 these regions had only 36.6 per cent (East Anatolia) and 54.7 per cent, respectively (South-East Anatolia), of the national GDP per capita (Table 1). At the same time, the per capita GDP of the Marmara Region was more than four times that of East Anatolia while that of the Aegean Region was still 3.4 times this value. The development lag, however, is not only visible with regard to the GDP but with respect to education and
health as well. These aspects are included in the human development index (HDI) which has been prepared for the 76 Turkish provinces by the united nations development programme (UNDP, 1998).2 Looking at the average HDI for the provinces of each of the seven regions (Fig. 1), only the Marmara Region can be classified with a high human development (HDI of 0.8 and above). All the other regions show an average of medium human development, but looking at the single provinces it becomes evident that the HDI decreases extremely from the west to the east and south-east with six provinces even being on the lowest level (HDI below 0.5). This means that not only income, but also life expectancy and the general education level are very low in these parts of the country. Hence these regions need some development which not only increases the GDP but builds a better quality of life. Tourism could be such an economic sector, if it is not wholly exploitative of human and natural resources, but so far these regions have the smallest share of the country’s tourism. With the end of the political tensions cultural tourism is increasing in this region, but in comparison to the business at the coast it is of negligible significance (see Table 2 and 3).
2
1
Ecological problems, which are of importance as well, will not be discussed in this paper.
The HDI takes into account the life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, combined first, second and third level gross enrollment ratio, and the real GDP per capita (UNDP 1998, pp. 30–31).
88
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
2.2. Socio-economically unsustainable structure Tourism in general is a fragile business depending on many internal and external factors, therefore, a regional economy based on tourism only will never be sustainable. International tourism, which is subject to fashion as well as to politics, is especially susceptible to changes. Looking at the number of tourist arrivals in Turkey during the 1990s this becomes evident (Fig. 3): there have been annual growth rates between 12 and 28 per cent in 1992 and 1995–1997, but in between the growth was as little as 0.7 per cent and even transformed into a decrease of 8.1 per cent in 1993 and finally of 23.2 per cent in 1999. The changes in the tourism revenues do not follow this tendency proportionally, but show an even greater range of deviation, thus proving that neither the economy of a country or region, nor the economy of a single household, can be successfully based solely on international tourism. In Turkey’s main tourism centres, however, not only the demand, but the supply structure of tourism, too, is unsustainable. This applies to the planning process and the income distribution in the tourism areas. During the expansion process the small local investors, who formed the base of the first tourist developments, were displaced by supraregional, often foreign-based companies (Yuksel, Bramwell, & Yuksel, 1999; Bronny, 1990; Tosun, 1998). Therefore, the local population became simply a pool for the provision of a working force instead of being the main actor and beneficiary of the growing business. In addition, the jobs provided by tourism bear many disadvantages for the employees. First of all, they are usually low-income jobs and often do not require a higher education (as in the case of cleaners, drivers, waiters, shop-assistants, etc.). Second, tourism jobs are seasonal jobs and do not provide a secure income for the employees and their families throughout the year. Therefore, employment in tourism causes a special form of labour migration with jobseeking people moving to the coast during the summer months and returning to their homes in other parts of the country or to the bigger towns in search of a job during the rest of the year. Regarding the planning process it has been observed that in main tourism centres local people are disregarded and dominated by the government (Tosun, 1998; Yuksel et al., 1999; Alipour, 1996). In Turkey with the centralised government and administration, the state dominates the tourist developments at all levels. It not only determines the legal and political framework for the realisation of projects, but also develops plans and programmes itself and deals with potential investors. The central decision to grant an investor advantages or privileges and to provide land in certain areas is often contradictory to the interest of the local people, especially as a patronage system has arisen between
some civil servants and potential investors (Yuksel et al., 1999; Tosun, 1998; Bronny, 1990). The lack of participation in the planning process is causing low acceptance of central programmes among the local people. In spite of all these problems, people living in tourism areas generally support the further development of tourism, because they derive at least a small income from this economy (Kor-ca, 1998). Thus, there is an evident need for different types of tourism, which, on the one hand, allows the economic development of local people without restricting their self-determinationFhereby, enhancing social sustainabilityFand, on the other hand, contributes to a more balanced regional development. The promotion of domestic tourism has been proposed in this context (e.g. . RSAB, 2000a; Tosun, 1998). TU
3. Domestic tourism in Turkey To ascertain the potential of domestic tourism for a sustainable regional development in Turkey, it is essential to analyse the status of this economic sector. The most recent base for such an analysis is the Household Tourism Survey, published by the Turkish Ministry of Tourism in 1999. It was conducted with the objective to ‘‘collect detailed information on domestic tourism, especially for the demand side’’ (Turizm Bakanlı&gı, 1999b, p. 13). It includes information on the social status of the travellers, on their motives to travel, on their destinations, the length of stays, and on the distribution of their spending on different items such as accommodation, transportation, entertainment etc. As it is focussing on the demand, it was conducted in 18,218 households of 18 province and 100 district centres, all of them having populations of 10,001 and more. Thus, it represents the demand profile of urbanised areas. Evaluations of this survey by Turkish institutions . RSAB, 1999; Durgunay, 1998) have focussed on (TU the general economic potential of domestic tourism, stressing the fact that according to the results in 1997 more than US$5 billion have been spent in this sector. Furthermore, the demand profile of Turkish domestic tourists has been discussed, but the spatial significance of the current tourism structure, which is important for regional development, has been neglected so far. According to the data for 1997,3 almost half of the Turkish tourists travelling inside the country choose the Marmara (23.6 per cent) and the Aegean Region (25.0 per cent) as destination (see Table 3). A further 20.7 per 3
November 1996–October 1997.
89
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
Fig. 3. Tourist arrivals and tourism revenues from 1991 to 1999.
Table 4 Number of tourists with certain motivations to travel to a region (% of total tourists in each region)a Purpose of travel
Marmara
Aegean
Mediterranean
Black Sea
Central Anatolia
East Anatolia
South-East Anatolia
Visits of family/friends Holiday Other Total
45.8 49.0 5.2 100.0
24.9 70.1 5.0 100.0
30.7 64.9 4.4 100.0
66.3 23.7 10.0 100.0
78.6 6.8 14.6 100.0
79.3 4.5 16.2 100.0
96.6 0.0 3.4 100.0
a
Source: Own calculations based on T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı/Republic of Turkey Ministry of Tourism (1999).
cent head to the Mediterranean Sea. Still a quarter of the domestic tourism can be found in Central Anatolia (12.0 per cent) and the Black Sea Region (12.6 per cent), but only 4.0 per cent travel to East and 2.1 per cent to South-East Anatolia. Thus, domestic tourism is almost as concentrated in the coastal areas as foreign tourism in Turkey and further reinforces the regionally unbalanced structure. On the other hand, domestic tourism has by far the biggest share of the existing tourism in the eastern provinces (Fig. 2) and therefore might be most important for the future development of these regions. The fact that a larger share of domestic than foreign travellers heads to East and South-East Anatolia, however, cannot be explained by a larger touristic interest in the nature and culture of these regions on the part of the Turkish citizens. This becomes obvious when the motivation for the journeys is analysed. The main purpose for travelling to the eastern and south-eastern provinces is to visit relatives and friends (Table 4), which can be explained by the fact that these regions form the origin of many labour migrants who
moved to the west of Turkey. These migrants use their holidays to visit their homes and families. This type of travelling contributes only little to the economy and the tourism sector in the destination zones. Recreation and sightseeing combined with a demand for serviced accomodation provide the highest economic benefits, and it is from here that the Aegean and Mediterranean regions benefit. Yet even the Marmara region is becoming so dependent on migrants (rural population visiting relatives in the industrial regions) that this section accounts for almost as many numbers as those travelling for holiday purposes.. The difference between foreign and domestic travellers exists not only in their own behaviour, but also in the way they are treated. Foreign visitors, who often book package tours in advance, usually get prices varying only by season, whereas Turkish travellers face generally higher prices plus many increases during . RSAB, one season and, thus, are disadvantaged (TU 1999, p. 55).
90
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
4. Potential of domestic tourism in Turkey’s less developed regions If the current tourism structure shown in the Household Tourism Survey represents a valid expression of the needs of Turkish tourists, there is little reason to hope that domestic tourism might contribute to the economic development of the underdeveloped eastern and southeastern provinces of Turkey. However, the situation is not totally bleak. The current tourism structure not only reflects the demand, but also reflects the supply of tourism attractions and facilities. Demand will probably not grow unless a new range of opportunities has been developed. Turkey’s eastern and south-eastern provinces will, of course, never replace seaside holidays, but they offer a more diversified tourism product. These regions have an abundance of historical sites and cultural heritage as well as many natural highlights. Till today few planners and economists have given proper attention to this fact, but there are some attempts to promote the regions under the aspects of sports and culture. The province of Erzincan, e.g., which is the smaller neighbour of the province of Erzurum (well-known for its Paland.okken ski-centre), is in the process of developing into a centre for adventure and nature sports with possibilities of paragliding, rafting, ice-climbing, horse riding and mountain biking. Local planners develop package tours that include sports as well as visits to some cultural highlights of the regions such as the Tercan Caravanserai and the 700 years old grave of Mama Hatun (Kuleli, 1999). Their target groups are less the foreign markets than those Turkish tourists who are interested in active holidays. Erzincan is an example of tourist development neither emanating from the demand nor from the commercial supply sector, but from planners interested in the economic development of their province. At the same time there is some initiative from the private sector to support domestic tourism directly or indirectly. The ‘‘Association of Turkish Travel . RSAB) is working on the promotion of Agencies’’ (TU cultural tourism to broaden the agencies’ radius of action.4 Furthermore, its negotiations with banks and the government succeeded in opening access to loans for the purpose of travel purchase.5 At the same time the ‘‘Turkish Tourism Investors Association’’ (TYD) developed a project ‘‘Turizmde Yeni Hamle’’ (‘‘new offensive in tourism’’); one purpose of which is to increase domestic travel expenditures during the next 10 years to US$20 billion, more than three times the current amount (TYD, 1999). In this field, the interests 4 . RSAB Information given in interviews with representatives of TU . RSAB project ‘‘Gu. neydo&gu’da underlined furthermore through the TU Yeniden Turizm’’ (‘‘A fresh start in South Anatolia’s Tourism’’). 5 While the intention to introduce such loans is mentioned in . . RSAB TURSAB (2000b, p. 8), in interviews with representatives of TU (July 2000) the succesful realisation was announced.
of planners and politicians striving for economic enhancement of the eastern and south-eastern regions are congruent with those of the tour operators striving to develop new markets. If these different interest groups are successful in the creation and marketing of new tourist products some of the additional business could be directed to East and South-East Anatolia as well as to Central Anatolia and the Black Sea. For many of these areas domestic tourism is probably more appropriate than foreign tourism, because for the Turkish travellers even such destinations are of interest, which might not be highlights in an international comparison. This can be explained by the fact that of all Turkish tourists only 2.9 per cent leave their country. Almost half of the remainder travel with the purpose of holiday inside the country. This is a target group of 19,480,879 persons (1997), of which a part might be interested in alternatives to the seaside (own calculations based on T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı, 1999b). The travel market is becoming increasingly aware of this potential: in 2000, 10 per cent of the Turkish travel agencies served the domestic market only . RSAB, 2000b). (TU The number of foreign tourists, too, will increase in the medium- and long-term in some places in the east. This is due to the end of the armed conflict in this region, which permits access to the main attractions in future not only for guided tours, but also for individual travellers. Furthermore, there are some initiatives to promote religious based tourism (Gu. c- lu. , 1998; Turkish Daily News, 2000). As many of the historic religious sites in Turkey belong to the Christian tradition, these programmes are also able to focus on the international market. These international developments, however, will not contribute to regional development in the same way as domestic tourism. Since foreign tourists will probably concentrate on some places of special interest, some of the negative effects, that occurred in the coastal areas and Cappadocia, will be encountered here again. For example, external investors might dominate the business and cause an outflow of income from the region. For guided tourism even more problems have been observed: tourists are not free to shop in the place of their choice (such as the small city centres), but are transported to some big, expensive souvenir shops; furthermore, ‘‘culture and tradition have been over-commercialised by using them at the wrong place, wrong time and with wrong standards, thus, a wrong and dubious image has emerged, deliberately or not, about the local community’’ (Tosun, 1998, p. 604). Domestic tourists, on the other hand, are not dependent on the instructions of a tour guide, since they speak the local language. They move freely in the whole destination area, especially as they often use their own cars or are familiar with the local transport system. They decide themselves where they want to shop and eat
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
and are not interested in commercialised cultural performances, but in regular cultural events. Thus, they contribute to the regional income without demanding a very special infrastructure. This again allows local people to operate part-time in the tourism sector without neglecting their usual business, which reduces overdependence on the seasonal character of tourism. However, one problem said to be linked to domestic tourists is that they tend to spend less time at a place than foreign tourists.6 According to the Ministry of Tourism the average length of stay in 1998 was three nights for foreign visitors in accommodation establishments licensed by a municipality and four nights in establishments licensed by the ministry, but only two nights for Turkish citizens in both categories (Turizm Bakanlı&gı, 1999a, p. 24, 1999c, p. 19). These figures, however, show a distorted reality, because they refer only to certified tourist establishments and disregard the 69.9 per cent of domestic travellers staying with relatives and friends who often spend their complete vacation in one place (Turizm Bakanlı&gı, 1999b, p. 86). These travellers do not yield a high potential for the travel market unless the excursion business is taken into account. One-day excursions are popular within the Turkish population, but often do not have a high economic value, because they are organised as picnics with food and beverages brought from home without consuming anything at the place of destination. To open the market for excursionists, places of interest (such as historic buildings or viewpoints in special landscapes) need to be developed into sightseeing sites with attractive facilities (restaurants, picnic grounds, etc.), for which an entrance fee can be charged. Otherwise, these two-thirds of the Turkish domestic tourism market will not be reached in ways that generate significant economic benefits for the host communities. 5. Conclusion Tourism represents a growing sector of the Turkish economy. This refers to both international and domestic markets. Currently, the tourism business is focussed on the coastal areas of the Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea and so contributes to the further development of those regions in the western part of the country, which in a national sense already possess a higher socioeconomic status when compared to the east of Turkey. As a response planners and politicians in the eastern and south-eastern part of the country strive to promote their tourism sector to enhance the development of these 6 The contradictory statement for Urgup (Tosun, 1998, p. 605) has to be regarded as an individual case since the Accommodation Statistics of the Ministry for Tourism (Turizm Bakanl"ıg&"ı, 1999a, c) proves the opposite.
91
neglected regions. The attractions of these areas are mainly of cultural and natural character and cannot directly compete with the sea resorts, but they can offer some alternatives to holidays at the coast. The historic sites and natural areas, which offer many possibilities for various kinds of sports, might not in every case be of interest for foreign tourists, who choose their destination out of an international range of offers. But for the Turkish travellers, of whom 97 per cent stay in their own country, they present an appropriate supplement to the few existing travel opportunities. In addition, domestic tourism is more suitable for a socially and economically sustainable regional development, since it does not carry all of the problems linked to international mass tourism such as external investment, outflow of the income, seasonal migration, overcommercialization of culture etc. Previously undiscovered places in the less developed regions of Turkey have the potential to become destinations for domestic tourism based upon natural and cultural assets, although most of the sites of interest are not yet developed for commercial tourism. This might be the reason for the current lack of interest demonstrated in the Household Tourism Survey. There exist two needs, first, the improvement of the tourist infrastructure in these areas, and second, perhaps more important, a proper marketing of the sites to stimulate demand. Package tours, such as promoted in Erzincan, might be one component for those taking part in the growing market of organised travels. Sufficient information and some accommodation facilities and restaurants are the base needed for individual travellers and well organised sightseeing sites could finally attract day excursionists. The private sector is willing to fund investment, but such initiatives will not be successful unless a national policy for domestic tourism has been developed. Such policies must provide a long-term framework for investors and allow for the equal treatment of domestic and foreign travellers by guaranteeing fixed prices for Turkish travellers throughout the whole season. Tourism, even domestic tourism, will never be the main economic base for most of the underdeveloped regions of Turkey. Since it is a fragile sector depending on many internal and external factors, this is not desirable in any case. Nonetheless domestic tourism, that does not require an extensive investment and change as the international market, could become a basic element of a socially and economically sustainable regional development.
References Alipour, H. (1996). Tourism development within planning paradigms: the case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 17(5), 376–377.
92
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
Bronny, H. (1990). Strukturen und Tendenzen der Tourismusentwicklung in der Westt.urkei. In: J. H. Knoll (Ed.), Internationales Jahrbuch der Erwachsenenbildung/International yearbook of adult education, Vol. 18 (pp. 75–92). Cologne Boehlau. Clements, M. A., & Georgiou, A. (1998). The impact of political instability on a fragile tourism product. Tourism Management, 19(3), 283–288. Durgunay, D. (1998). Tu. rkiye’de Ic Turizm. 2. Bilkent Turizm Forum, , . niversitesi Turizm ve Otel 5–6 Aralık 1998, Ankara, Bilkent U Isletmecili&gi Yu. kseko&glu (pp. 61–62). Ertekin, A. (1997). Subventionscontrolling, Evaluation der Wirkungen tourismusspezifischer Instrumente am Beispiel der Tu. rkei, Konstanz. Gu. clu. , Y. (1998). Turkey and faith tourism. Perceptions 3, 135–141. Ho. hfeld, V., & Do&gan, Y. (1986). Persistenz und Wandel der traditionellen Formen des Fremdenverkehrs in der Tu.rkei, Wiesbaden. Korca, P. V. (1998). Residents perceptions of tourism in a resort town. , Leisure Sciences, 20, 193–212. Kuleli, E. (1999). Erzincan, Tu. rkiye’nin do&ga sporları merkezi oluyour. TU. RSAB (Tu.rkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birli&gi/Association of Turkish Travel Agencies) Aylık Dergi, 185, 28–30. Ritter, G. (1977). Der Tourismus in der Tu. rkei. Zeitschrift fu.r Wirtschaftsgeographie, 21(2), 33–43. T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı/Republic of Turkey Ministry of Tourism. (1999a). Belediye Belgeli Konaklama Istatistikleri Bu.lteni/Bulletin of Municipality Registered Accommodation Statistics 1998, Ankara. T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı/Republic of Turkey Ministry of Tourism. (1999b). Hanehalkı Turizm Araırması/Household Tourism Survey 1997, Ankara.
T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı/Republic of Turkey Ministry of Tourism. (1999c). Konaklama istatistikleri bu. lteni/ Bulletin of Accommodation Statistics 1998, Ankara. Tosun, C. (1998). Roots of unsustainable tourism development at the local level: the case of Urgup in Turkey. Tourism Management, 19(6), 595–610. Tosun, C. (1999). An analysis of the economic contribution of inbound international tourism in Turkey. Tourism Economics, 5(3), 217–250. Tosun, C., & Jenkins, C. L. (1996). Regional planning approaches to tourism development: the case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 17(7), 519–531. Turkish Daily News. (2000). TU. RSAB attempts to boost faith tourism, 9th August. . RSAB (Tu. rkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birli&gi/Association of Turkish TU Travel Agencies). (1999). Arastırma: Yurtic¸i Seyahat Pazarı , Raporu 1999. TU. RSAB Aylık Dergi, Vol. 185, pp. 33–56. . TURSAB (Tu. rkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birli&gi/Association of Turkish Travel Agencies). (2000a). Historical Background of Turkish Experience, http://www.tursab.org.tr/english/HAP01.HTM, 2nd June. . RSAB (Tu. rkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birli&gi/Association of Turkish TU Travel Agencies). (2000b). Profile 2000, Istanbul. TYD (Tu. rkiye Turizm Yatırımcıları Derne&gi/The Turkish Tourism Association). (1999). Turizm Yatırımlarının Ekonomiye Katkıları, Istanbul. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (1998). Human Development Report Turkey 1998, Ankara. Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B., & Yuksel, A. (1999). Stakeholder interviews and tourism planning at Pamukkale, Turkey. Tourism Management, 20, 351–360.
Research note
Domestic tourismFa chance for regional development in Turkey? Astrid Seckelmann* Department of Geography, University of Passau, D–94030 Passau, Germany Received 5 November 2000; accepted 4 January 2001
Abstract During the last two decades tourism in Turkey has become a mass industry concentrated in the western and southern coastal areas. As these areas were part of the more developed regions of the country, tourism in its current structure contributes to the strengthening of interregional disparities in Turkey. In addition, in the centres of mass tourism socio-economical unsustainable demand and supply structures evolved. Simultanously, the domestic tourism market has increased, and it can offer a socio-economic alternative to the further expansion of international mass tourism. Thus, the so far little developed South-East and East Anatolia, with an abundance of historical sights and natural highlights, can offer new destinations for domestic travellers while contributing to a sustainable development of these regions. As a precondition a national domestic tourism policy, stable prices and a strong promotion of the new destinations are essential. r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Domestic tourism; Tourism structure; Regional development; Sustainable development; Turkey; Mediterranean
1. Introduction Tourism with regard to pilgrimages, spa tourism and summer resorts (‘‘Yaylalar’’) has a long tradition in Turkey (Ho. hfeld & Do&gan, 1986). In spite of this, the country entered the international mass tourism market late compared to other Mediterranean countries (Clements & Georgiou, 1998); for only during the 1970s did the Turkish government begin to regard international tourism as a means of economic development (Ertekin, 1997). From then on it established some tourism facilities and, more important, increased stepwise the incentives for private investments in this sector. Not until during the 1980s did the Aegean as well as the Mediterranean coast become a significant region of interest for domestic and foreign investors. During this decade the demand for Turkey as a ‘‘sun-and-seadestination’’ increased immensely, but in some sectors of the tourism industry (especially at the luxury level), the growth in supply created a superabundance of hotel . RSAB, 2000a). Thus, Turkish tourism capacity (TU development was not an unblemished successtory during the 1990s, although the number of foreigners visiting the country reached a peak in 1997 (Turizm Bakanlı&gı,
*Tel.: +49-931-509-2731; fax: +49-931-509-2732. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Seckelmann).
1999c). The tourism business in Turkey today has become a mass industry concentrated in the coastal areas in the south-western and western parts of the country. It is one of the most important economic development factors in these regions, but many problems accompany today’s structure of tourism in Turkey, which is far from being sustainable. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the development of domestic tourism could be a supplement to existing tourism and an economically and socially healthier alternative to its further expansion. 2. Characteristics and problems of current tourism industry in Turkey At the end of the millennium Turkey is ranked 19th of . RSAB, the most visited countries in the world (TU 2000a). Most visitors are attracted by its 8333 km of coast, but central Anatolia with the two natural highlights of Cappadocia and Pamukkale are also focuses of attention. The preference for the Aegean and Mediterranean regions can be observed both with foreign and domestic tourists. There are some areas in which the rate of domestic tourism exceeds the foreign as can be seen in Altınkum, for instance, where at the end of the 1980s more than 60 per cent of the hotel capacity was used by Turkish citizens (Bronny, 1990, p. 86). Among the
0261-5177/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 6 6 - 8
86
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
Fig. 1. The human development index (HDI) in the provinces of Turkey.
Fig. 2. The share of domestic tourism of total tourism of each province of Turkey.
87
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92 Table 1 Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita 1997 and human development index (HDI) for the Turkish regions 1996 Marmara Aegean
Mediterranean Central Anatolia Black Sea East Anatolia South-East Anatolia Turkeya
GDP per capita 1997 (TL)b 2,684,291 2,246,740 1,706,976 HDI 1996c 0.833 0.796 0.765
1,639,513 0.731
1,294,737 660,216 0.687 0.557
986,350 0.554
1,802,763 0.696
a
Average based on the HDI of the 76 provinces. GDP per capita 1997 at 1987 prices in TL. Source: T.C. Bas,bakanlık Devlet Istatistik Enstitu. su. /Republic of Turkey State Institute of Statistics. c Source: UNDP (1998). b
Table 2 Number of foreigners arriving in the Turkish regionsa Marmara
Aegean
Mediterranean
Central Anatolia
Black Sea
East Anatolia
South-East Anatolia
Total
2,636,829 34.7%
2,001,130 26.3%
2,021,614 26.6%
781,651 10.3%
102,681 1.4%
37,581 0.5%
18,545 0.2%
7,600,031 100.0%
a
Only foreigners arriving in licensed accommodation establishments are taken into account. Source: T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı/Republic of Turkey Ministry of Tourism (1999).
Table 3 Number of domestic tourists spending nights in the Turkish regionsa Marmara
Aegean
Mediterranean
Central Anatolia
Black Sea
East Anatolia
South-East Anatolia
Total
9,904,035 23.6%
10,464,588 25.0%
8,674,022 20.7%
5,052,219 12.0%
5,275,587 12.6%
1,667,154 4.0%
888,416 2.1%
41,926,021 100.0%
a
Source: Own calculations based on T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı/Republic of Turkey Ministry of Tourism (1999).
problems that have emerged are the following which are of high significance:1 2.1. Strengthening of regional disparities in Turkey This was recognised as a problem at the commencement of mass tourism development (Ritter, 1977), but has become even more important today (e.g. Tosun, 1999; Tosun & Jenkins, 1996). Although in each of the five-year-development plans the government stresses the capacity of tourism to eliminate socio-economic problems, this is only partly true for Turkey. The interregional disparities in Turkey are especially high between the western and eastern provinces with the latter facing large socio-economic problems. Mass tourism has developed that reinforces the economic hegemony of the western and south-western regions of the country, leaving East and South-East Anatolia behind. In 1996 these regions had only 36.6 per cent (East Anatolia) and 54.7 per cent, respectively (South-East Anatolia), of the national GDP per capita (Table 1). At the same time, the per capita GDP of the Marmara Region was more than four times that of East Anatolia while that of the Aegean Region was still 3.4 times this value. The development lag, however, is not only visible with regard to the GDP but with respect to education and
health as well. These aspects are included in the human development index (HDI) which has been prepared for the 76 Turkish provinces by the united nations development programme (UNDP, 1998).2 Looking at the average HDI for the provinces of each of the seven regions (Fig. 1), only the Marmara Region can be classified with a high human development (HDI of 0.8 and above). All the other regions show an average of medium human development, but looking at the single provinces it becomes evident that the HDI decreases extremely from the west to the east and south-east with six provinces even being on the lowest level (HDI below 0.5). This means that not only income, but also life expectancy and the general education level are very low in these parts of the country. Hence these regions need some development which not only increases the GDP but builds a better quality of life. Tourism could be such an economic sector, if it is not wholly exploitative of human and natural resources, but so far these regions have the smallest share of the country’s tourism. With the end of the political tensions cultural tourism is increasing in this region, but in comparison to the business at the coast it is of negligible significance (see Table 2 and 3).
2
1
Ecological problems, which are of importance as well, will not be discussed in this paper.
The HDI takes into account the life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, combined first, second and third level gross enrollment ratio, and the real GDP per capita (UNDP 1998, pp. 30–31).
88
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
2.2. Socio-economically unsustainable structure Tourism in general is a fragile business depending on many internal and external factors, therefore, a regional economy based on tourism only will never be sustainable. International tourism, which is subject to fashion as well as to politics, is especially susceptible to changes. Looking at the number of tourist arrivals in Turkey during the 1990s this becomes evident (Fig. 3): there have been annual growth rates between 12 and 28 per cent in 1992 and 1995–1997, but in between the growth was as little as 0.7 per cent and even transformed into a decrease of 8.1 per cent in 1993 and finally of 23.2 per cent in 1999. The changes in the tourism revenues do not follow this tendency proportionally, but show an even greater range of deviation, thus proving that neither the economy of a country or region, nor the economy of a single household, can be successfully based solely on international tourism. In Turkey’s main tourism centres, however, not only the demand, but the supply structure of tourism, too, is unsustainable. This applies to the planning process and the income distribution in the tourism areas. During the expansion process the small local investors, who formed the base of the first tourist developments, were displaced by supraregional, often foreign-based companies (Yuksel, Bramwell, & Yuksel, 1999; Bronny, 1990; Tosun, 1998). Therefore, the local population became simply a pool for the provision of a working force instead of being the main actor and beneficiary of the growing business. In addition, the jobs provided by tourism bear many disadvantages for the employees. First of all, they are usually low-income jobs and often do not require a higher education (as in the case of cleaners, drivers, waiters, shop-assistants, etc.). Second, tourism jobs are seasonal jobs and do not provide a secure income for the employees and their families throughout the year. Therefore, employment in tourism causes a special form of labour migration with jobseeking people moving to the coast during the summer months and returning to their homes in other parts of the country or to the bigger towns in search of a job during the rest of the year. Regarding the planning process it has been observed that in main tourism centres local people are disregarded and dominated by the government (Tosun, 1998; Yuksel et al., 1999; Alipour, 1996). In Turkey with the centralised government and administration, the state dominates the tourist developments at all levels. It not only determines the legal and political framework for the realisation of projects, but also develops plans and programmes itself and deals with potential investors. The central decision to grant an investor advantages or privileges and to provide land in certain areas is often contradictory to the interest of the local people, especially as a patronage system has arisen between
some civil servants and potential investors (Yuksel et al., 1999; Tosun, 1998; Bronny, 1990). The lack of participation in the planning process is causing low acceptance of central programmes among the local people. In spite of all these problems, people living in tourism areas generally support the further development of tourism, because they derive at least a small income from this economy (Kor-ca, 1998). Thus, there is an evident need for different types of tourism, which, on the one hand, allows the economic development of local people without restricting their self-determinationFhereby, enhancing social sustainabilityFand, on the other hand, contributes to a more balanced regional development. The promotion of domestic tourism has been proposed in this context (e.g. . RSAB, 2000a; Tosun, 1998). TU
3. Domestic tourism in Turkey To ascertain the potential of domestic tourism for a sustainable regional development in Turkey, it is essential to analyse the status of this economic sector. The most recent base for such an analysis is the Household Tourism Survey, published by the Turkish Ministry of Tourism in 1999. It was conducted with the objective to ‘‘collect detailed information on domestic tourism, especially for the demand side’’ (Turizm Bakanlı&gı, 1999b, p. 13). It includes information on the social status of the travellers, on their motives to travel, on their destinations, the length of stays, and on the distribution of their spending on different items such as accommodation, transportation, entertainment etc. As it is focussing on the demand, it was conducted in 18,218 households of 18 province and 100 district centres, all of them having populations of 10,001 and more. Thus, it represents the demand profile of urbanised areas. Evaluations of this survey by Turkish institutions . RSAB, 1999; Durgunay, 1998) have focussed on (TU the general economic potential of domestic tourism, stressing the fact that according to the results in 1997 more than US$5 billion have been spent in this sector. Furthermore, the demand profile of Turkish domestic tourists has been discussed, but the spatial significance of the current tourism structure, which is important for regional development, has been neglected so far. According to the data for 1997,3 almost half of the Turkish tourists travelling inside the country choose the Marmara (23.6 per cent) and the Aegean Region (25.0 per cent) as destination (see Table 3). A further 20.7 per 3
November 1996–October 1997.
89
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
Fig. 3. Tourist arrivals and tourism revenues from 1991 to 1999.
Table 4 Number of tourists with certain motivations to travel to a region (% of total tourists in each region)a Purpose of travel
Marmara
Aegean
Mediterranean
Black Sea
Central Anatolia
East Anatolia
South-East Anatolia
Visits of family/friends Holiday Other Total
45.8 49.0 5.2 100.0
24.9 70.1 5.0 100.0
30.7 64.9 4.4 100.0
66.3 23.7 10.0 100.0
78.6 6.8 14.6 100.0
79.3 4.5 16.2 100.0
96.6 0.0 3.4 100.0
a
Source: Own calculations based on T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı/Republic of Turkey Ministry of Tourism (1999).
cent head to the Mediterranean Sea. Still a quarter of the domestic tourism can be found in Central Anatolia (12.0 per cent) and the Black Sea Region (12.6 per cent), but only 4.0 per cent travel to East and 2.1 per cent to South-East Anatolia. Thus, domestic tourism is almost as concentrated in the coastal areas as foreign tourism in Turkey and further reinforces the regionally unbalanced structure. On the other hand, domestic tourism has by far the biggest share of the existing tourism in the eastern provinces (Fig. 2) and therefore might be most important for the future development of these regions. The fact that a larger share of domestic than foreign travellers heads to East and South-East Anatolia, however, cannot be explained by a larger touristic interest in the nature and culture of these regions on the part of the Turkish citizens. This becomes obvious when the motivation for the journeys is analysed. The main purpose for travelling to the eastern and south-eastern provinces is to visit relatives and friends (Table 4), which can be explained by the fact that these regions form the origin of many labour migrants who
moved to the west of Turkey. These migrants use their holidays to visit their homes and families. This type of travelling contributes only little to the economy and the tourism sector in the destination zones. Recreation and sightseeing combined with a demand for serviced accomodation provide the highest economic benefits, and it is from here that the Aegean and Mediterranean regions benefit. Yet even the Marmara region is becoming so dependent on migrants (rural population visiting relatives in the industrial regions) that this section accounts for almost as many numbers as those travelling for holiday purposes.. The difference between foreign and domestic travellers exists not only in their own behaviour, but also in the way they are treated. Foreign visitors, who often book package tours in advance, usually get prices varying only by season, whereas Turkish travellers face generally higher prices plus many increases during . RSAB, one season and, thus, are disadvantaged (TU 1999, p. 55).
90
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
4. Potential of domestic tourism in Turkey’s less developed regions If the current tourism structure shown in the Household Tourism Survey represents a valid expression of the needs of Turkish tourists, there is little reason to hope that domestic tourism might contribute to the economic development of the underdeveloped eastern and southeastern provinces of Turkey. However, the situation is not totally bleak. The current tourism structure not only reflects the demand, but also reflects the supply of tourism attractions and facilities. Demand will probably not grow unless a new range of opportunities has been developed. Turkey’s eastern and south-eastern provinces will, of course, never replace seaside holidays, but they offer a more diversified tourism product. These regions have an abundance of historical sites and cultural heritage as well as many natural highlights. Till today few planners and economists have given proper attention to this fact, but there are some attempts to promote the regions under the aspects of sports and culture. The province of Erzincan, e.g., which is the smaller neighbour of the province of Erzurum (well-known for its Paland.okken ski-centre), is in the process of developing into a centre for adventure and nature sports with possibilities of paragliding, rafting, ice-climbing, horse riding and mountain biking. Local planners develop package tours that include sports as well as visits to some cultural highlights of the regions such as the Tercan Caravanserai and the 700 years old grave of Mama Hatun (Kuleli, 1999). Their target groups are less the foreign markets than those Turkish tourists who are interested in active holidays. Erzincan is an example of tourist development neither emanating from the demand nor from the commercial supply sector, but from planners interested in the economic development of their province. At the same time there is some initiative from the private sector to support domestic tourism directly or indirectly. The ‘‘Association of Turkish Travel . RSAB) is working on the promotion of Agencies’’ (TU cultural tourism to broaden the agencies’ radius of action.4 Furthermore, its negotiations with banks and the government succeeded in opening access to loans for the purpose of travel purchase.5 At the same time the ‘‘Turkish Tourism Investors Association’’ (TYD) developed a project ‘‘Turizmde Yeni Hamle’’ (‘‘new offensive in tourism’’); one purpose of which is to increase domestic travel expenditures during the next 10 years to US$20 billion, more than three times the current amount (TYD, 1999). In this field, the interests 4 . RSAB Information given in interviews with representatives of TU . RSAB project ‘‘Gu. neydo&gu’da underlined furthermore through the TU Yeniden Turizm’’ (‘‘A fresh start in South Anatolia’s Tourism’’). 5 While the intention to introduce such loans is mentioned in . . RSAB TURSAB (2000b, p. 8), in interviews with representatives of TU (July 2000) the succesful realisation was announced.
of planners and politicians striving for economic enhancement of the eastern and south-eastern regions are congruent with those of the tour operators striving to develop new markets. If these different interest groups are successful in the creation and marketing of new tourist products some of the additional business could be directed to East and South-East Anatolia as well as to Central Anatolia and the Black Sea. For many of these areas domestic tourism is probably more appropriate than foreign tourism, because for the Turkish travellers even such destinations are of interest, which might not be highlights in an international comparison. This can be explained by the fact that of all Turkish tourists only 2.9 per cent leave their country. Almost half of the remainder travel with the purpose of holiday inside the country. This is a target group of 19,480,879 persons (1997), of which a part might be interested in alternatives to the seaside (own calculations based on T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı, 1999b). The travel market is becoming increasingly aware of this potential: in 2000, 10 per cent of the Turkish travel agencies served the domestic market only . RSAB, 2000b). (TU The number of foreign tourists, too, will increase in the medium- and long-term in some places in the east. This is due to the end of the armed conflict in this region, which permits access to the main attractions in future not only for guided tours, but also for individual travellers. Furthermore, there are some initiatives to promote religious based tourism (Gu. c- lu. , 1998; Turkish Daily News, 2000). As many of the historic religious sites in Turkey belong to the Christian tradition, these programmes are also able to focus on the international market. These international developments, however, will not contribute to regional development in the same way as domestic tourism. Since foreign tourists will probably concentrate on some places of special interest, some of the negative effects, that occurred in the coastal areas and Cappadocia, will be encountered here again. For example, external investors might dominate the business and cause an outflow of income from the region. For guided tourism even more problems have been observed: tourists are not free to shop in the place of their choice (such as the small city centres), but are transported to some big, expensive souvenir shops; furthermore, ‘‘culture and tradition have been over-commercialised by using them at the wrong place, wrong time and with wrong standards, thus, a wrong and dubious image has emerged, deliberately or not, about the local community’’ (Tosun, 1998, p. 604). Domestic tourists, on the other hand, are not dependent on the instructions of a tour guide, since they speak the local language. They move freely in the whole destination area, especially as they often use their own cars or are familiar with the local transport system. They decide themselves where they want to shop and eat
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
and are not interested in commercialised cultural performances, but in regular cultural events. Thus, they contribute to the regional income without demanding a very special infrastructure. This again allows local people to operate part-time in the tourism sector without neglecting their usual business, which reduces overdependence on the seasonal character of tourism. However, one problem said to be linked to domestic tourists is that they tend to spend less time at a place than foreign tourists.6 According to the Ministry of Tourism the average length of stay in 1998 was three nights for foreign visitors in accommodation establishments licensed by a municipality and four nights in establishments licensed by the ministry, but only two nights for Turkish citizens in both categories (Turizm Bakanlı&gı, 1999a, p. 24, 1999c, p. 19). These figures, however, show a distorted reality, because they refer only to certified tourist establishments and disregard the 69.9 per cent of domestic travellers staying with relatives and friends who often spend their complete vacation in one place (Turizm Bakanlı&gı, 1999b, p. 86). These travellers do not yield a high potential for the travel market unless the excursion business is taken into account. One-day excursions are popular within the Turkish population, but often do not have a high economic value, because they are organised as picnics with food and beverages brought from home without consuming anything at the place of destination. To open the market for excursionists, places of interest (such as historic buildings or viewpoints in special landscapes) need to be developed into sightseeing sites with attractive facilities (restaurants, picnic grounds, etc.), for which an entrance fee can be charged. Otherwise, these two-thirds of the Turkish domestic tourism market will not be reached in ways that generate significant economic benefits for the host communities. 5. Conclusion Tourism represents a growing sector of the Turkish economy. This refers to both international and domestic markets. Currently, the tourism business is focussed on the coastal areas of the Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea and so contributes to the further development of those regions in the western part of the country, which in a national sense already possess a higher socioeconomic status when compared to the east of Turkey. As a response planners and politicians in the eastern and south-eastern part of the country strive to promote their tourism sector to enhance the development of these 6 The contradictory statement for Urgup (Tosun, 1998, p. 605) has to be regarded as an individual case since the Accommodation Statistics of the Ministry for Tourism (Turizm Bakanl"ıg&"ı, 1999a, c) proves the opposite.
91
neglected regions. The attractions of these areas are mainly of cultural and natural character and cannot directly compete with the sea resorts, but they can offer some alternatives to holidays at the coast. The historic sites and natural areas, which offer many possibilities for various kinds of sports, might not in every case be of interest for foreign tourists, who choose their destination out of an international range of offers. But for the Turkish travellers, of whom 97 per cent stay in their own country, they present an appropriate supplement to the few existing travel opportunities. In addition, domestic tourism is more suitable for a socially and economically sustainable regional development, since it does not carry all of the problems linked to international mass tourism such as external investment, outflow of the income, seasonal migration, overcommercialization of culture etc. Previously undiscovered places in the less developed regions of Turkey have the potential to become destinations for domestic tourism based upon natural and cultural assets, although most of the sites of interest are not yet developed for commercial tourism. This might be the reason for the current lack of interest demonstrated in the Household Tourism Survey. There exist two needs, first, the improvement of the tourist infrastructure in these areas, and second, perhaps more important, a proper marketing of the sites to stimulate demand. Package tours, such as promoted in Erzincan, might be one component for those taking part in the growing market of organised travels. Sufficient information and some accommodation facilities and restaurants are the base needed for individual travellers and well organised sightseeing sites could finally attract day excursionists. The private sector is willing to fund investment, but such initiatives will not be successful unless a national policy for domestic tourism has been developed. Such policies must provide a long-term framework for investors and allow for the equal treatment of domestic and foreign travellers by guaranteeing fixed prices for Turkish travellers throughout the whole season. Tourism, even domestic tourism, will never be the main economic base for most of the underdeveloped regions of Turkey. Since it is a fragile sector depending on many internal and external factors, this is not desirable in any case. Nonetheless domestic tourism, that does not require an extensive investment and change as the international market, could become a basic element of a socially and economically sustainable regional development.
References Alipour, H. (1996). Tourism development within planning paradigms: the case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 17(5), 376–377.
92
A. Seckelmann / Tourism Management 23 (2002) 85–92
Bronny, H. (1990). Strukturen und Tendenzen der Tourismusentwicklung in der Westt.urkei. In: J. H. Knoll (Ed.), Internationales Jahrbuch der Erwachsenenbildung/International yearbook of adult education, Vol. 18 (pp. 75–92). Cologne Boehlau. Clements, M. A., & Georgiou, A. (1998). The impact of political instability on a fragile tourism product. Tourism Management, 19(3), 283–288. Durgunay, D. (1998). Tu. rkiye’de Ic Turizm. 2. Bilkent Turizm Forum, , . niversitesi Turizm ve Otel 5–6 Aralık 1998, Ankara, Bilkent U Isletmecili&gi Yu. kseko&glu (pp. 61–62). Ertekin, A. (1997). Subventionscontrolling, Evaluation der Wirkungen tourismusspezifischer Instrumente am Beispiel der Tu. rkei, Konstanz. Gu. clu. , Y. (1998). Turkey and faith tourism. Perceptions 3, 135–141. Ho. hfeld, V., & Do&gan, Y. (1986). Persistenz und Wandel der traditionellen Formen des Fremdenverkehrs in der Tu.rkei, Wiesbaden. Korca, P. V. (1998). Residents perceptions of tourism in a resort town. , Leisure Sciences, 20, 193–212. Kuleli, E. (1999). Erzincan, Tu. rkiye’nin do&ga sporları merkezi oluyour. TU. RSAB (Tu.rkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birli&gi/Association of Turkish Travel Agencies) Aylık Dergi, 185, 28–30. Ritter, G. (1977). Der Tourismus in der Tu. rkei. Zeitschrift fu.r Wirtschaftsgeographie, 21(2), 33–43. T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı/Republic of Turkey Ministry of Tourism. (1999a). Belediye Belgeli Konaklama Istatistikleri Bu.lteni/Bulletin of Municipality Registered Accommodation Statistics 1998, Ankara. T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı/Republic of Turkey Ministry of Tourism. (1999b). Hanehalkı Turizm Araırması/Household Tourism Survey 1997, Ankara.
T.C. Turizm Bakanlı&gı/Republic of Turkey Ministry of Tourism. (1999c). Konaklama istatistikleri bu. lteni/ Bulletin of Accommodation Statistics 1998, Ankara. Tosun, C. (1998). Roots of unsustainable tourism development at the local level: the case of Urgup in Turkey. Tourism Management, 19(6), 595–610. Tosun, C. (1999). An analysis of the economic contribution of inbound international tourism in Turkey. Tourism Economics, 5(3), 217–250. Tosun, C., & Jenkins, C. L. (1996). Regional planning approaches to tourism development: the case of Turkey. Tourism Management, 17(7), 519–531. Turkish Daily News. (2000). TU. RSAB attempts to boost faith tourism, 9th August. . RSAB (Tu. rkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birli&gi/Association of Turkish TU Travel Agencies). (1999). Arastırma: Yurtic¸i Seyahat Pazarı , Raporu 1999. TU. RSAB Aylık Dergi, Vol. 185, pp. 33–56. . TURSAB (Tu. rkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birli&gi/Association of Turkish Travel Agencies). (2000a). Historical Background of Turkish Experience, http://www.tursab.org.tr/english/HAP01.HTM, 2nd June. . RSAB (Tu. rkiye Seyahat Acentaları Birli&gi/Association of Turkish TU Travel Agencies). (2000b). Profile 2000, Istanbul. TYD (Tu. rkiye Turizm Yatırımcıları Derne&gi/The Turkish Tourism Association). (1999). Turizm Yatırımlarının Ekonomiye Katkıları, Istanbul. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (1998). Human Development Report Turkey 1998, Ankara. Yuksel, F., Bramwell, B., & Yuksel, A. (1999). Stakeholder interviews and tourism planning at Pamukkale, Turkey. Tourism Management, 20, 351–360.