Tourism And Regional Development In Romania Tourism Essay

touristry And regional Development In Romania tourism move1. IntroductionConsidering its largely acknowledged economic and social effects, touring carry represents a sector of great interest to many countries evolution st footstepgies (Zanina, 2011), (Egan 2003). The positive adjoin of tourism emergence is usu exclusivelyy addressed in connection with the match of payments, regional development, diversification of the providence, income aims, state revenue, employment opportunities (Pearce, 1991). The touring car life cycle, the local anaesthetic touring car stpacegies and policies, the use of development and communication technologies in promotion campaigns, etcetera have an alpha influence in this context (Quian, 2010), (Hu, 1996).As distant as regional development is concerned, tourism is seen as a figure of speech star wood able to turn to good account the less actual regions authorisation and, thus, to contribute to a more balanced distribution of economic activities over time and space as thoroughly as to the co-ordination of various policies in an inter-sectorial perspective (Nijkamp, 1999), (Constantin and Mitrut, 2008). It can besides bring ab show up encouraging responses to the point of regional competitiveness, based on the positive influence on regional employment and income. As a result of the indirect and induced effects, tourism gene roves jobs not only in its own sector, but to a fault in connected sectors much(prenominal) as financial services, retailing, telecommunications, etc. However, the regional multipliers memorialise significant variations, depending on the characteristics of to each 1 region, locality, project, etc. so that c atomic bit 18ful analyses atomic takings 18 recommended in launch to promote those projects able to gene prescribe the around important benefits to the region.Highly beneficial argon the coastal, mountainous, urban and historic regions as well as those with exquisite internal resources. On the other hand, regions with different visibility such as rural regions promoting green tourism, leisure and nature activities, the impertinent is or undergoing industrial restructuring can also benefit from tourism crop (OECD, 1999)A focus on the factors that influence tourism development is also required in this respect, considering that, depending on the regional profile in damage of phaeton attractions and economic situation, they might have a different importee at bottom the corresponding st gradegies (Aghdaie and Momeni, 2011 Fletcher and Cooper, 1996).Thus, Crutch and Ritchie (2005) quoted by Koufodontis et al. (2007) place a finicky furiousness on the physical, economic and social factors embedded in the so-called regions simulacrum. Among them, the supporting factors and resources such as understructure, accessibility, facilitating resources ( compassionate, knowledge and financial capital), hospitality, and factors political will have the appearan ce _or_ semblance to play a special lineament.Only basis al single, to mention one of them, is a multifaceted factor, with manifold implications. It is considered a component of the regional tourist product, comprising basic devices, buildings and service institutions of a major importance for economic system and society. The chief(prenominal) defining elements relating to a certain destination refer to adaptation facilities, gastronomy facilities, bewitch to destination, services for active leisure (e.g. ski resorts, sailing schools, golf clubs, etc.), retail network, other services (e.g. information, equipment lease companies, etc.) (Panasiuk, 2007).From a b highroader perspective, the give-up the ghost and tourism combat Report prepared by the World Economic Forum (2011) has developed a mingled, overall competitiveness index made of three principal(prenominal) subindexes, namely regulatory framework, business environment and infrastructure and human, cultural and inh ering resources. Again, if reference is made to the business environment and infrastructure component, the corresponding subindex takes into stipulation the following pillars air fascinate infrastructure, ground transport infrastructure, tourism infrastructure, information and communication technical infrastructure, price competitiveness in travel and tourism industry.Consequently, the regional policy measures meant to improve the frame conditions for tourism development at regional and local level play a key role they should constitute a coherent piece of ground, including economic, legal, institutional, infrastructure, cultural and social elements. The aim of the package must be the definition of a regional profile, stressing and taking gain of specific feature of each local area (Funck and Kowalski, 1997).Based on these overall considerations our paper aims to discuss the tourism development factors proposing Romania as a relevant case study from two complementary perspective s on the one hand, it displays an uneven regional development, which requires appropriate solutions in harm of regional strategies and policies on the other hand the less developed regions have an important tourist authorisation, which might and should be turned to good account in order to reduce the gap separating them from the developed ones. Though, despite this potential the results are far behind the expectations, so that the study of the factors that still need a special consideration is highly required.In line with the results provided by the World Tourism Organization via the country ranking in scathe of Travel and Tourism Competitiveness list (Blanke and Chiesa, 2011), which indicate the derelict infrastructure as one of the major obstacles for the development of the tourism in Romania, we have proposed and tried a model able to quantify and shed light on the regional disparities in this respect.Accordingly, the paper is organized as follows. First, a review on the to urism development in Romania is provided, emphasizing the disparities betwixt its eight cockamamie 2 regions. Second, a couple of econometric models are elaborated and tested in order to evaluate the impact of infrastructure on tourism practise, revealing the specific bottlenecks at regional level. Third, various solutions for tourism support, nidus on those able to surmount the infrastructure hurdle are discussed.2. worldwide discussion on tourism development in RomaniaThe evaluation of Romanias tourist birth mightily relies on a comprehensive activity of tourist govern that was first developed in 1975-1977 and then breaker pointically updated. Considering tourism as a system at study scale it has aimed at establishing a model for evaluating, constructing a hierarchy and proposing the most suitable ways of bout the tourist patrimony to good account. Multiple criteria have been apply in order to delimit the tourist zones and to propose the antecedence actions in each spec ific case. As a result, a wide range of tourist zones have been identified, some of them of a particular importance to the European and worlds natural and cultural hereditary pattern.Thus, the natural patrimony includes the Delta of Danube as biosphere reservation, the Rumanian shore of the erosive sea, the Roumanian Carpathians, North Oltenia, Banat area, the Danube Valley, and so on. The most representative areas for the cultural heritage are North Moldova (with monasteries and churches declared worlds heritage by UNESCO), the medieval content of Brasov and Sibiu cities in Transylvania, the medieval fortress of Sighisoara also in Transylvania (the only one still inhabited in Europe), capital of Romania and its surroundings, the Greek, Dacian and Roman archaeological sites in Dobrogea and Transylvania, the Neolithic archaeological sites in Moldova most of them located in passing attractive areas from natural beauty viewpoint as well.More recently, the spacial Planning of the depicted object Territory has structured the zones of a major tourist potential into two categories, namely (1) zones of a highly valuable and complex tourist potential (24% of the study territory), which includes home(a) parks and biosphere reservations, protected national areas, cultural patrimony of national and international interest, museums and memorial houses, spa resourcesi (2) zones of a high tourist potential (34% of the national territory), with natural and cultural patrimony resources of peculiarly national interest.An important characteristic of Romanias natural and cultural-historic patrimony is its relatively well-balanced territorial distribution that has a particular significance especially for the lagging regions, with other economic activities less developed.Based on its potential contribution to the general economic recovery, competitiveness and lessening of interregional disparities tourism is approached by all significant actors population included as one of the priority sectors of the Roumanian economy. All governments after(prenominal) 1990 have included tourism development in their strategies, this interest being reflected by its privatization prior to other sectorsii. Though, the results save in the last fifteen age are far downstairs the expectations the rate of tourism result is under the economic emergence rate and the contribution of tourism to GDP is pretty low (2.3% in 2005 and approx. 2.0% in 2009 according to the methodology of the National Institute of Statisticsiii.).According to the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index launched by the World Economic Forum in March 2007 Romania was ranked the 76th among 124 countries in 2006, with a take a leak of 3.91 on a scale from 1 to 7. In 2011 the overall rank of Romania is 63, with a score of 4.17. With its three pillars referring to travel and tourism regulatory framework, business environment and infrastructure and human, cultural and natural resources, the index reveals relatively good results in terms of policy rules and regulations, price competitiveness in travel and tourism industry, human resources (education and training, workforce wellness), natural and cultural resources and quite poor results in terms of environmental regulation, air transport infrastructure, ICT infrastructure, availability of qualified labour. As a result, about Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index Romania is behind intimately all former or current EU candidate countries such as Estonia (score 4.88 and rank 28), Czech Re in the domain eye(predicate) (4.77 and 35) , Slovakia (4.68 and 37), Hungary (4.54 and 40), Slovenia (4.64 and 44), Bulgaria (4.39 and 54), Poland 4.38 and 63), etc. and, respectively, Croatia (4.61 and 38), Turkey (4.37 and 52) (Source The Travel Tourism Competitiveness Report 2011, World Economic Forum, Geneva, 2011).3. Some comments on the numeral of departures and arrivals of international tourists in RomaniaRomanian tourism ha s seen important cast evaluate during the passageway from planned economy to market economy. Table 1 presents a serial publication of indicators calculated in order to characterize arrivals and departures of tourists in Romania during the peak 1990 to 2010, and also during the political cycles in this bound. Statistical indicators are computed on the sum of money number of tourists and transport categories.Table 1. The dynamic of the arrivals and departures of tourists for Romania (%)IndicatorIndex/rhythm snip period for the indicator1990-20101990-19921993-19961997-20002001-20042005-2010Arrivals of tourists in RomaniaTotalIndex kind114.898.090.0102.2133.7128.4The number yearly rate of remove0.7-1.0-3.50.710.25.1Road transportIndex convince161.0131.594.598.9149.1133.4The intermediate yearly rate of change2.414.7-1.9-0.414.25.9Railway transportIndex change9.548.049.0110.664.772.8The average yearly rate of change-11.1-30.7-21.23.4-13.5-6.2Air transportIndex change448.0113.71 47.2122.9100.0132.1The average annual rate of change7.86.613.87.10.05.7 get off transportIndex change63.657.4110.382.5137.882.4The average annual rate of change-2.2-24.23.3-6.211.3-3.8Tourists departures from RomaniaTotalIndex change96.796.753.4102.3108.8152.7The average annual rate of change-0.2-1.7-18.90.82.98.8Road transportIndex change98.6114.446.5107.6118.2137.9The average annual rate of change-0.16.9-22.52.55.76.6Railway transportIndex change7.844.174.369.034.687.8The average annual rate of change-12.0-33.6-9.4-11.6-29.8-2.6Air transportIndex change911.357.4184.1132.1127.0274.1The average annual rate of change11.7-24.322.69.78.322.3Ship transportIndex change16.824.8144.082.738.351.4The average annual rate of change-8.5-50.212.9-6.1-27.3-12.5Figure 1. The ratio among the number of arrivals and departures of tourists in Romania during 1990 2010During the period 1990 2010 the two indicators, departures and arrivals of tourists have evolved quite different. over the period 19 90 2010 the number of arrivals of tourists in Romania recorded an make up of 14.8% with an average annual rate of 0.7%. For the aforementioned(prenominal) period, departures of tourists fell by 3.3% with an average annual rate of -0.2%. Figure 1 shows the evolution of ration among the annual number of arrivals and departures of tourists for Romania in the period 1990 to 2010. The set of this ratio for the entire period are subunit which shows that throughout the analyzed period, the annual number of tourist arrivals in Romania was lower than the number of tourists departures from Romania.During the analyzed period, the selective information series of the number of departures and arrivals of unlike tourists in Romania are non- nonmoving, and they are integrated of order 1. Table 2 presents the results of applying the ADF (Dickey and Fuller, 1979) and Philips-Peron (Philips and Peron, 1988) tests used to determine the properties of stationarity and to determine the order of inte gration of the two data sets.Table 2. Unit root testsVariablesDickey-FullerPhilips-PerronL motiontrend1YesYes0NoNo3YesYes2YesYesThe null conjecture H0 is non-stationarity of the variable. For each case the statistics value is specified and statistical probability of a type I error in given between brackets.Here, N_DEP_T way of life the number of departures during a time period and N_ARRIV_T designates the number of tourist arrivals during the same period.The two tests indicate non-stationarity of the data series of the number of departures and arrivals of foreign tourists in Romania. These series are non-stationary in levels but are stationary in first difference which shows that the two series are I(1). Furthermore, arrivals are stationary around a deterministic trend, while departures dont have this property. These properties are confirm by applying two statistical tests ADF and PP.In the following we mention some of the most plausible explanation of these evolutions. Firstly, p olitical changes in 1989 caused an addition in the number of Romanian tourists who went abroad in the first years that followed. Secondly, the summation to the European Union caused a considerable increase in the number of Romanian tourists who went abroad, this being an ready consequence of the free movement within the European Union. The largest growth of Romanian tourists who went abroad occurred in the 2005-2010 period of time. During this period the average annual growth rate was 8.8%, this growth being the immediate result of the accession to EU starting on January 1, 2007. The number of Romanian tourists who went abroad in the first three years of accession was 23.8%, 46.78% and 31.6% higher(prenominal) compared with 2006.Thirdly, the evolution of the number of Romanian tourists went abroad was caused by an increase in the average wage in the economy. During the period 1990 2010 the average annual growth rate of the average wage in the economy was 0.82%. The most signific ant increase occurred in the periods 2001 2004 and 2005 2010 for which the annual average increases were 7.85% and 11.37%. Table 3 presents the results of the sodbuster test applied to determine if thither is a husbandman causative relationship between the number of departures and the evolution of the average wage in the economy (N_NAW). The results confirm that the evolution of the average wage in the economy Granger causally determined the number of Romanian tourists who went abroad. By applying this statistical test we also established that there is no Granger cause between the number of tourists departures and arrivals.Table 3. Granger causality analysis between the number of departures, number of arrivals, and average net wage in the economy. suppositionF statisticsDecisionN_DEP_T does not Granger Cause N_NAW0.09994N_NAW does not Granger Cause N_DEP_T5.68426N_DEP_T does not Granger Cause N_ARRIV_T0.32140There is no causal relationship between variablesN_ARRIV_T does not Gra nger Cause N_DEP_T0.574624. Features of regional tourism developmentOne of the master(prenominal) reasons of this unsatisfactory overall image is the inadequacy and bad state of both general and tourism-specific infrastructure, uneffective to meet the requirements of a modern, internationally competitive tourism. Other disfavouring factors in the last fifteen years have envisaged the rigidity of tourism administrative structures, the social instability, the poverty which the legal age of population is confronted with, the deficient supply of food, fuel and other goods absolutely prerequisite to a proper tourism, the low managerial competence and tourism personnels behaviour, the image of Romania abroad, various environmental damages.Some of these drawbacks have been partially alleviated as a result of including tourism development as one of the priorities of the National Development Plan since 1999 (when the first plan was launched) and, consequently, of supporting it via nation al compute as well as EU pre-accession instruments (e.g. Phare).The investment and management efforts in tourism made it possible to stop the decrease in the total activity volume of this sector recorded between 1990 and 2000 and an upward trend has been recorded starting from 2001. Table 4 shows the average annual rates of three important economic indicators used to characterize the tourism activity at national level and each of the eight development regions try-on capacity (AC), staying over wickedness ( give-and-take) and arrivals (A). The annual average rates are calculated for 1990 2010 period of time, and the electoral cycles of this period 1990-1996, 1997 2000, 2001 2004 and 2005 to 2010.Table 4. The evolution of the main indicators of tourism between 1990 and 2010RegionAccommodationCapacity (AC)(number of beds) 2010Staying over dark ( discussion)2009Arrivals (A)2009IndicatorAverage annual growth rate1990-20101990-19961997-20002001-20042005-2010North-East212791509550150 9550AC-0.80-4.62-2.420.412.60SON-4.45-10.88-6.434.961.38A-4.77-11.05-3.151.941.26 southwesterly-East1368744237284423728AC-0.86-3.130.20-0.300.58SON-3.65-9.43-4.594.451.09A-5.92-10.79-3.66-1.23-3.68South2262516743661674366AC-0.86-2.13-1.881.800.30SON-4.32-9.95-6.081.790.76A-4.73-10.19-6.590.44-1.89 south-west1641014416041441604AC-2.34-7.05-3.68-3.122.26SON-5.27-11.09-8.982.242.31A-5.29-12.69-1.84-1.90-2.60 air jacket2325716764961676496AC-0.56-2.73-0.85-1.881.78SON-4.48-12.463.32-0.331.82A-4.58-12.053.130.10-2.24 northwesterly2610320985892098589AC-0.54-1.55-1.18-0.830.06SON-3.72-10.36-3.325.40-0.03A-4.38-12.560.161.61-2.16Centre4202926652982665298AC-0.26-3.15-1.61-0.273.45SON-3.23-7.74-3.975.640.11A-4.46-10.14-5.360.94-1.07Bucharest-Ilfov2312018357791835779AC2.99-5.35-3.847.4915.55SON-0.65-8.67-10.2314.374.46A-2.59-11.97-10.6712.005.51Romania1885101732541017325410AC-0.61-3.20-0.83-0.301.92SON-3.59-9.86-4.944.971.42A-4.85-11.20-3.460.69-1.46Data source NIS pace 2011 and the authors pr ocessing of data for SON and A the rhythms are calculated for the period 1990 to 2009.We highlighted the following aspects of the evolution of the considered indicators on national level and for the eight development regions on the 1990-201 periodthe average annual growth rate of the appointment capacity of 2.99%, was recorded only in the Bucharest Ilfov region, in all other regions it have declined between -0.26% annual average in the underlying region and -2.34% in the South West region at national level the decline was -0.61% on average each yearin all developing regions there has been an annual average decrease in the number of over darkness stays over the whole period 1990 2009. The annual average decrease of this index value among regions ranged between -5.27% in South-West and -0.65% in the Bucharest-Ilfov region. Nationally there was a decrease in the annual average number of overnight stays of -3.59%the number of arrivals over the 1990-2010 period reduced every year wi th an average of -4.85%. The annual average rate for the eight regions ranged from -5.92% in the South East region to 2.59% in the Bucharest Ilfov regionthe most significant decrease for the three indicators in most regions were recorded during the first two election cycles between 1990 to 2000. Since the period 2001 2004 there is a noticeable stabilization and a relative increase of values for the three indicators both at national and regional level.This tendency is tally with the overall evolution of the Romanian economy, which has recorded an important economic growth during 2000-2008 period (annual growth rates were above 5%). During the 2001 2004 period the annual average GDP growth was 6.0% and for the period 2005 to 2010 it was 3.9%. The economic growth rate during 2005 2010 has been reduced significantly due to economic crisis that affected the Romanian economy in 2009 and 2010. In the period following the political changes of 1989 a reduction of the values of above me ntioned three indicators has been recorded at both national and regional levels because of the following reasonsthe number of employees in the economy has significantly decreased and thus the number of employees who requested a ticket for rest and handling by union decreased. In the planned economy era unions distributed a considerable number of tickets for rest and treatment to its members. Many times the employees right to such a ticket turns into an obligation to accept it. Under these conditions a large number of spa resorts have completely closed their try-on capacitiesa significant number of Romanians have preferred spending the pass in other countries, mostly in Greece and Turkeypublic road infrastructure and railways has not developed to the level required by Romanian and foreign tourists. The average annual increase in length of public roads during 1990 2010 was only 0.62%, and the length of railways was reduced on average by -0.25% annually.The accommodation capacity in use increased by 8.39% at national level as a result of the major increase in Bucharest-Ilfov region. Most of the other regions recorded smaller or large increases and only in the South region the accommodation capacity in use decreased. This is a result of the restructuring and modernization of the tourism capacity acquire from the communist period. The progress is visible in term of increase in the share of higher quality standard capacities (3-5 star capacities), especially after 2000 (Baleanu et. al., 2008) (Olteanu, 2011).As far as the distribution by region of the accommodation capacity is concerned, an important disequilibrium can be easily noticed between the South-East region and the rest of the country, which is explained by the high concentration in the Black Sea area (Secara, 2010). However, the use of the accommodation capacity in this area is characterized by a big seasonality.The number of arrivals and staying over night has recorded different evolutions the number of arrivals increased whereas the number of staying over night decreased, especially in the seashore area. These figures not only reflect the increase of the weekend tourism but also the increase in the number of tourists who chose as seashore destinations other countries such as Bulgaria, Turkey, and Greece (Olteanu, 2011).The index of victimisation the accommodation capacity has a slightly increasing overall trend, as a result of combining important decreases (especially in the Black Sea area and Bucharest), but it has a relatively low overall level only approximately one third of the accommodation capacity is used (Table 5).Table 5. The index of using the accommodation capacity in suffice in 2007 compared with 2000 (percentage)Region20002008North-East31.729.3South-East44.842.5South28.932.8South-West42.641.2West36.335.1North-West29.932.7Centre28.030.0Bucharest-Ilfov36.324.6Romania35.236.0Source Territorial Statistical Yearbook of Romania, 2009Romanian tourism in general is stil l confronted with the outdated and low infrastructure, unable to offer proper access to architecture monuments, archaeological sites, to meet the demand of parking lots, information points for cultural sites, belvedere points for defence walls, medieval fortresses, churches, monasteries, camp out lots for pilgrims, etc. Also the connected facilities hotels, motels, restaurants, gas stations, car rental firms are still behind the demand. The transportation infrastructure is particularly weak in all its forms road, rail, naval and air, with an emphasis on road infrastructure the highways are to the highest degree inexistent while the overhaul roads are insufficient and concentrated especially around the Capital city (Table 6).Table 6. The parsimoniousness of public roads and modernized public roads (Km/100sq Km) in 2008RegionPR/100kmpMPR /100kmpNorth-East36.69.34South-East30.76.64South36.511.79South-West36.512.56West32.19.17North-West35.48.39Centre31.48.17Bucharest-Ilfov48.93 6.37Source Territorial Statistical Yearbook of Romania, 2010In almost all regions the public roads have a low density, whereas the modernized public roads represent less than one third out of total. The exception is the Bucharest-Ilfov region, where the density is higher than in the rest of Romania and the modernized public roads represent approximately 60% of the total length at country level. For comparison, in 1998, the density of public roads was 165.45 in Denmark, 64.75 in Germany, 51.29 in Sweden (referinta).The importance of public roads is explained by the fact that a big share of tourist activity in Romania is supported by road transportation. Thus, according to NIS da