Vol. 8 No. 2 (2020): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPETITIVENESS OF KASTAMONU PROVINCE IN TERMS OF CORE RESOURCES AND ATTRACTORS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS

Gülizar AKKUŞ
Asisst. Prof. Dr., Kastamonu University
Savaş BÖYÜKYILMAZ
PhD Student, Kastamonu University

Published 2020-06-25

Keywords

  • Keywords: Destination competitiveness, Hospitality businesses, Stakeholders, Kastamonu.
  • Anahtar kelimeler: Destinasyon rekabetçiliği, Konaklama işletmeleri, Paydaşlar, Kastamonu.

How to Cite

AKKUŞ, G., & BÖYÜKYILMAZ, S. (2020). ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPETITIVENESS OF KASTAMONU PROVINCE IN TERMS OF CORE RESOURCES AND ATTRACTORS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(2), 1131–1166. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i2.1444

Abstract

1. LITERATURE
1.1. RESEARCH SUBJECT
After extensive Turkish and English literature review, it has been determined that there are many conceptual and empirical researches conducted to measure destination competitiveness. It can be said that conceptual studies are mostly done to develop more models and indicators (Akkus, 2017: 101). It is possible to divide empirical research into two as supply-side and demand-side. While the tourism sector stakeholders are taken as a basis in supply-side research, tourists are targeted in demand-side research. Table 1 presents key information on empirical research evaluating destination competitiveness from a stakeholder perspective.
In most of the studies listed in the table, various destination competitiveness models were adapted to the relevant tourism region and stakeholder views on the subject were evaluated. In this research, an interview form was prepared based on the Conceptual Competitiveness Model of Ritchie and Crouch (2003) and in-depth interviews were conducted with stakeholders. For this reason, some information was shared about similar research (Hudson, Ritchie ve Timur, 2004; Hallmann, Müller, Feiler, Breuer ve Roth, 2012; Dragičević, Jovičić, Blešic, Stankov ve Bošković, 2012) based on the model developed by Ritchie and Crouch.


1.2. RESEARCH PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE
In this study, it was aimed to reveal the core resources and attractors of the province of Kastamonu and evaluate their situation in detail in terms of competitiveness.

1.3. CONTRIBUTION of the ARTICLE to the LITERATURE
After extensive literature review, it has been determined that research on destination competitiveness is frequently included in foreign literature. In Turkish literature, the number of researches on the subject is very limited.

2. DESIGN AND METHOD

2.1. RESEARCH TYPE
In this research, a qualitative method has been adopted as it provides a holistic approach that is more appropriate to the natural environment, collecting first-hand information about the data and communicating with the participants. The research has the nature of exploratory research.

2.2. RESEARCH PROBLEMS
The main research problem is to reveal the core resources and attractors of Kastamonu province.

2.3. DATA COLLECTION METHOD
Interviews can take various forms, and in this research, fixed format survey interviews were adopted. This type is similar to the structured interview in terms of content and method, but there are a number of predefined questions. While creating the interview questions, the seven components that constitute the basic resources and appeal factors in the Conceptual Competitiveness Model of Ritchie and Crouch (2003: 110-129) were used and each component was measured using multiple items and the 5-point Likert scale (1: Well below average, 2: Slightly below average, 3: Average, 4: Slightly above average, 5: Well above average). These components are divided into physiography and climate (10), culture and history (12), mix of events (22), special events (7), entertainment (7), superstructure (21) and market ties (10). Seven components were evaluated in detail and comprehensively with a total of 89 items. In order to increase the comprehensibility of the items for all participants, some probes were added next to the items in parentheses.
The universe of the research consists of the accommodation management managers in Kastamonu province. However, since it is not possible to reach all business managers, sampling has been done. Easily accessible case sampling was preferred from the purposive sampling methods. The research is limited to the accommodation enterprises in the city center. The number of facilities with tourism operation certificate in the city center of Kastamonu is 25 and there are 25 public guesthouses (Kastabil, 2020). Among the 50 facilities in total, 15 facility managers or owners, who were relatively easy to access and warm to the meeting, were interviewed. However, care was taken to select all facility managers included in the sample from stakeholders who play an active role in provincial tourism.
While all the interviews were held in the working environment of the stakeholders, most of them were made appointments via telephone, and some of the interviews were made without an appointment and the meeting was requested. Interviews were held on certain days of November and December 2019 and lasted an average of half an hour.

2.4. QUANTITATIVE / QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS
The analysis of the interview questions designed in the survey format was provided through the SPSS Package Statistics Program. Open-ended questions asked for seven components arranged in accordance with the theoretical framework were subjected to descriptive analysis.

3. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. FINDINGS as a RESULT of ANALYSIS
In terms of physiography and climate, it is determined that the accommodation sector stakeholders find Kastamonu more competitive than its competitors with the highest average in terms of forest resources (4.66) and landscape beauty (4.60). In terms of culture and history, the statement with the highest attendance of stakeholders with an average of 4.33 was the interior and exterior architecture option, which has a region-specific appearance. In terms of the mix of activities, the stakeholders of the accommodation sector stated that the city is in a competitive position in terms of adult activities (4.66) and activities based on difficult adventure (4.60) among the activities held in Kastamonu. In terms of special events, the highest participation (4,06) stated that events for historical milestones can be held in Kastamonu. The highest average entertainment element has been traditional festivals (3.33). Tourism superstructure component has been evaluated as quantity and quality in terms of functional elements, improved structural elements and improved natural/normal elements. The component with the highest participation of stakeholders in terms of the quantity of functional elements was bed & breakfast facilities with 3.73. When the same title is evaluated in terms of quality, it is stated that the most competitive superstructure element of Kastamonu with 3.40 is the translation centers. In terms of improved natural/normal elements, stakeholders have quantitatively evaluated Kastamonu as competitive compared to its rivals with its mosques and madrasahs. Qualitatively, mosques, madrasahs and historical sites have the highest participation with the same average. The title with the lowest averages among all tourism superstructure components has been structural superstructure elements, both quantitatively and qualitatively improved. In particular, unique office buildings / towers were found quantitatively and qualitatively, and famous houses were qualitatively inadequate. Finally, stakeholders found Kastamonu slightly above average compared to its competitors, especially in terms of market ties established due to religious visits (4.06).

3.2. DISCUSSING the FINDINGS with the LITERATURE
It was determined that among all components, stakeholders think that the strongest component of Kastamonu compared to its competitors is physiography and climate. Seven of the responses to a total of ten statements have an average of four and above. Similarly, nature and natural richness are accepted by many tourism researchers as an important component of tourism supply (Olalı, 1990: 117; Tuna, 2007: 17). In addition, it has been supported in researches that nature tourism is the main tourism type that is carried out in the province and constitutes a great potential (Akkus and Akkus, 2019a).

4. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATION AND LIMITATIONS

4.1. SUGGESTIONS BASED on RESULTS
• Highlighting the city with its climate, air quality, forest and water resources, flora and fauna will provide competitive advantage.
• The protection of historical and cultural values, especially the promotion activities for tourists seeking originality, will provide an important competitive advantage.
• Attention should be paid to the promotion of activities that include authentic experiences of the region such as the herb festival held in Alaçatı.
• The diversification of activities, especially the inclusion of disadvantaged groups (individuals with disabilities), will both increase participation and strengthen the image of which they have awareness. However, only activities for children or activities based on children and families spending time will both provide social benefits and satisfy visitors to the city.
• What mega-event or events Kastamonu can host should be demonstrated through feasibility studies and necessary infrastructure investments should be made. Many such suggestions were made in the text.

4.2. LIMITATIONS of the ARTICLE
Considering the research limitations and findings, more inclusive and generalizable data can be obtained by reaching all the tourism sector stakeholders in Kastamonu in future research. In addition, similar field researches are carried out in provinces with close competitors of Kastamonu, and the competitive aspects of destinations can be compared with each other. In addition, the perceptions of demand and supply side can be evaluated together by measuring the perceptions of the tourists, who are qualified as demand-side stakeholders of the destinations, about the city. By evaluating these and similar research findings, a short, medium and long term action plans can be developed for the future of Kastamonu tourism.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Akkuş, G. (2016). Destinasyon rekabetçiliği için deneyimsel turizm: Turist perspektifinden bir değerlendirme, (Doktora Tezi). Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  2. Akkuş, G. (2017). Destinasyon rekabetçiliği analiz teknikleri. Ankara: SAGE Yayıncılık.
  3. Akkuş, G. ve Akkuş, Ç. (2019a). Kastamonu ilçeleri temel turistik arz kaynakları envanteri: Tabiat turizmi alt türleri ve doğa sporları, Uluslararası Türk Dünyası Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 146-164.
  4. Akkuş, Ç. ve Akkuş, G. (2019b). Kastamonu’nun önemli inanç turizmi merkezlerinin iç turizm pazarındaki durumu, 2. Uluslararası Helal Turizm Kongresi, 4-6 Nisan 2019, Alanya.
  5. Al Masroori, R. S. (2006). Destination competitiveness: Interrelationship between destination planning and development strategies and stakeholders support in enhancing Oman’s tourism ındustry (Doktora Tezi). Avustralya: Griffith Business School Department of International Business and Asian Studies.
  6. Armenski, T., Marković, V., Davidović, N. ve Jovanović, T. (2011). Integrated model of destination competitiveness, Geographica Pannonica, 15(2), 58-69.
  7. Armenski, T., Omerzel, D. G., Djurdjev, B., Đeri, L. ve Aleksandra, D. (2011). Destination competitivenes: A challenging process for Serbia, Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, 5(1), 19-33.
  8. Armenski, T., Omerzel, D. G., Djurdjev, B., Ćurčić, N. ve Dragin, A. (2012). Tourism destination competitiveness-between two flags, Economic Research, 25(2), 485-502.
  9. Balcı, A. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler (10. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  10. Benedetti, J. (2010). The competitiveness of Brazil as a Dutch holiday destination. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Hollanda: Breda University of Applied Science-Tourism Destination Management.
  11. Chens, C.-Y., Sok, P. ve Sok, K. (2008). Evaluating the competitiveness of the tourism industry in Cambodia: Self-assessment from professionals, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 13(1), 41-66.
  12. Crouch, G. I. (2010). Destination competitiveness: An analysis of determinant attributes, Journal of Travel Research, 20(10), 1-19.
  13. D’Hauteserre, A- M. (2000). Lessons in managed destination competitiveness: The case of Foxwoods Casino Resort, Tourism Management, 21, 23-32.
  14. Dragićević, V., Jovičić, D., Blešić, I., Stankov, U. ve Bošković, D. (2012). Business tourism destination competitiveness: A case of Vojvodina Province Serbia, Economic Research, 25(2), 311-332.
  15. Dragićević, V., Armenski, T., Dwyer, L., Mihalič, T ve Cvelbar, L. K. (2014). Addressing travel trends to achieve destination competitiveness: Evidence from Serbia, The 45th Annual TTRA International Conference: Tourism and the New Global Economy, 18-20 Haziran 2014, Brugge-Belçika.
  16. Dwyer, L. ve Kim C. (2003). Destination competitiveness: Determinants and indicators, Current Issues in Tourism, 6(5), 369-414.
  17. Dwyer, L., Cvelbar, L. K., Edwards, D. ve Mihalič, T. (2012). Fashioning a destination tourism future: The case of Slovenia, Tourism Management, 33, 305-316.
  18. Dwyer, L., Dragićević, V., Armenski, T., Mihalič, T. ve Cvelbar, L. K. (2014). Achieving destination competitiveness: An importance–performance analysis of Serbia, Current Issues in Tourism, 1-28.
  19. Dwyer, L., Mellor, R., Livaic, Z., Edwards, D. ve Kim, C. (2004). Attributes of destination competitiveness: A factor analysis, Tourism Analysis, 9, 1-11.
  20. Ekin, Y. (2004). Turizm paydaşları perspektifinden turizm gelişimi ve destinasyon rekabetçiliği: Antalya örneği. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Antalya: Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  21. Enright, M. J. ve Newton, J. (2004). Tourism destination competitiveness: A quantitative approach, Tourism Management, 25, 777–788.
  22. Enright, M. J. ve Newton, J. (2005). Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in Asia Pasific: Comprehensiveness and universality, Journal of Travel Research, 43, 339- 350.
  23. Faulkner, B., Oppermann, M. ve Fredline, E. (1999). Destination competitiveness: An exploratory examination of South Australia’s core attractions, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(2), 125-139.
  24. Goffi, G. (2013). Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness: A theoretical model and empirical evidence. (Doktora Tezi). İtalya: Università Politecnica delle Marche-Facoltà di Economia “Giorgio Fuà”.
  25. Güripek, E. (2013). Turizm destinasyonlarının rekabet gücünün artırılmasında stratejik destinasyon yönetimi: Çeşme Alaçatı destinasyonu üzerine bir uygulama. (Doktora Tezi). İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
  26. Hallmann, K., Müller, S., Feiler, S., Breuer, C. ve Roth, R. (2012). Suppliers’ perception of destination competitiveness in a Winter Sport Resort, Tourism Review, 67(2), 13-21.
  27. Hassan, S. S. (2000). Determinants of market competitiveness in an environmentally sustainable tourism industry, Journal of Travel Research, 38, 239-245.
  28. Huang, J.-H. ve Peng, K.-H. (2012). Fuzzy Rasch Model in TOPSIS: A new approach for generating fuzzy numbers to assess the competitiveness of the tourism industries in Asian Countries, Tourism Management, 33, 456-465.
  29. Hudson, S., Ritchie, B. ve Timur, S. (2004). Measuring destination competitiveness: An empirical study of Canadian Ski Resort, Tourism and Hospitalty Planning and Devopment, 1(1), 79-94.
  30. Kastabil (2019). Erişim adresi: https://www.kastabil.gov.tr/veritablolari/kastamonu/kultur turizm/kulturturizm-turizm Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2019.
  31. Kastabil (2020). Erişim adresi: https://www.kastabil.gov.tr/veritablolari/kastamonu/kultur-ve-turizm/kultur-ve-turizm-kultur Erişim Tarihi: 25.01.2020.
  32. Kastamonu İl Kültür ve Turizm Müdürlüğü (2019). Etkinlik takvimi. Erişim adresi: https://kastamonu.ktb.gov.tr/TR-250318/2020-yili-festival-ve-yerel-etkinlikler-takvimi.html Erişim tarihi: 15.12.2019
  33. Kim, C. (2000). A model development for measuring global competitiveness of the tourism industry in the Asia-Pacific Region. Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, Korea National Committee for Pasific Economic Cooperation, APEC Study Series 00-03.
  34. Kim, C. ve Dwyer, L. (2003). Destination competitiveness and bilateral tourism flows between Australia and Korea, The Journal of Tourism Studies, 14(2), 55-67.
  35. Kuzey Anadolu Kalkınma Ajansı (KUZKA) (2019). TR82 Bölgesi Kastamonu. Erişim adresi: https://www.kuzka.gov.tr/Icerik/Dosya/www.kuzka.gov.tr_16_DY3Y51PJ_02-kastamonu.pdf Erişim Tarihi 07.12.2019.
  36. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı (2020). Yatak kapasite istatistiği, Erişim adresi: https://yigm.ktb.gov.tr/TR-201136/turizm-yatirim-ve-isletme-bakanlik-belgeli-tesis-istati-.html Erişim Tarihi 28.02.2020.
  37. Lee, C.-F. ve King, B. (2009). A determination of destination competitiveness for Taiwan’s Hot Springs tourism sector using the delphi technique, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 15(3), 243–257.
  38. Mulec, I. ve Wise, N. (2013). Indicating the competitiveness of Serbia’s Vojvodina Region as an emerging tourism destination, Tourism Management Perspectives, 8, 68–79.
  39. Olalı, H. (1990). Turizm politikası ve planlaması, İşletme Fakültesi Yayını: 272, İstanbul.
  40. Omerzel, D. G. (2011). The local business sector’s perception of the competitiveness of Slovenia as a tourist destination, Tourism Original Scientific Paper, 59(1), 25-46.
  41. Omerzel, D. G. ve Mihalic, T. (2008). Destination competitiveness—applying different models, the case of Slovenia, Tourism Management, 29, 294–307.
  42. Pınarbaşı Belediyesi (2019). 3. Kanyon Doğa Sporları Festivali. Erişim adresi: http://www.pinarbasibelediyesi.com//etkinlik/turkiye-3-kanyon-doga-sporlari-festivali.html. Erişim tarihi 07.12.2019.
  43. Pike, S. ve Mason, R. (2011). Destination competitiveness through the lens of brand positioning: The case of Australia's Sunshine Coast, Current Issues in Tourism, 14(2), 169-182.
  44. Ritchie, J. R. B. ve Crouch, G. I. (2003). The compettive destination-A sustainable tourism perspective. UK: CABI Publishing.
  45. Sarıışık, M., Ulama, Ş. ve Polat, S. (2013). Sakarya ili turizm sektörünün rekabetçilik analizi. 14. Ulusal Turizm Kongresi, 5-8 Aralık 2013, Kayseri: Detay Yayıncılık.
  46. Schalber, C. ve Peters, M. (2012). Determinants of health tourism competitiveness: An Alpine case study, Tourism Review, 60(3), 307-323.
  47. Tseng, H.-P. ve Chen, C.-H. (2013). Exploration of destination competitiveness framework, city as a destination. 2013 Seventh International Conference on Complex, Intelligent, and Software Intensive Systems, 3-5 Temmuz 2013, Taichung-Tayvan.
  48. Tuna, M., (2007). Turizm, çevre ve toplum (Marmaris örneği). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  49. Vodeb, K. (2012). Competitiveness of frontier regions and tourism destination management, Managing Global Transitions, 10(1), 51–68.
  50. Wang, C.-Y., Hsu, M. K. ve Swanson, S. R. (2012). Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in China, Journal of China Tourism Research, 8(1), 97-116.
  51. Wilde, S. J. ve Cox, C. (2008). Linking destination competitiveness and destination development: Findings from a mature Australian tourism destination, Proceedings of the Travel and Tourism Research Association (TTRA) European Chapter Conference-Competition in Tourism: Business and Destination Perspectives, Helsinki-Finlandiya.
  52. Wondowossen, T. A., Nakagoshi, N., Yukio, Y., Jongman, R. H. G. ve Dawit, A. Z. (2014). Competitiveness as an indicator of sustainable development of tourism: Applying destination competitiveness indicators to Ethiopia, Journal of Sustainable Development Studies, 6(1), 71-95.
  53. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Genişletilmiş 10. Baskı. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  54. Yüncü, H. R. (2010). Şarap turizmi bölgelerinin rekabet edebilirliğine yönelik bir model önerisi: Kapadokya örneği. (Doktora Tezi). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.