BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY School of Applied Disciplines Department of Tourism Administration TRM 492.01 Tourism Research Topics “The Importance of Intangible and Tangible Resources in Choosing a Tourism Destination: Case of İstanbul” Yasemin Aksoy Günce Malan Neşe Roman
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
BOGAZICI UNIVERSITY
School of Applied Disciplines
Department of Tourism Administration
TRM 492.01
Tourism Research Topics
“The Importance of Intangible and Tangible Resources in Choosing a Tourism Destination: Case of İstanbul”
Yasemin Aksoy Günce Malan
Neşe Roman
Moderator: Maria Dolores AlvarezSubmission date: 02.06.200
5
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study is to investigate the importance of intangible and tangible
resources in choosing Istanbul as a tourism destination. Whether we could distinguish tangible
and intangible resources and also to investigate the most important determinant factors in
choosing Istanbul as a tourism destination.
In the highly competitive tourism industry, the importance of tangible and intangible
resources important to determine the marketing strategies of the destination. İstanbul is the
leading city of Turkey and in this study the importance of tangible and intangible resources
are analyzed in the case of İstanbul.
The combination of historical and cultural heritage as well as art life is attracting the
attention of the World. There is a movement from mass tourism to cultural tourism in recent
years and Istanbul's historical background and its geographical position in terms of intangible
and tangible resources carry meaning. According to grouping of the variables from the
analysis, it is not possible to distinguish between tangible and intangible resources. The
tangible can only be understood and interpreted through the intangible.
Tangible and intangible resources are complementary resources and considered as two
sides of a coin (ICOMOS, 2008). While considering the importance of tangible resources, the
intangible ones support cultural identity and desirability of its preservation to recognize
cultural diversity from the perception of tourists (Smith, 2006). Time period, only targeting
5
four European leisure tourists and using nonprobability sampling are the limitations of the
research.
The implications that give us clue on how to promote Istanbul. First five important
factors according to the respondents are Bosporus scene, cuisine, old palaces and fortresses,
historical buildings and architecture in terms of choosing Istanbul as a tourism destination.
From the findings about demographic factors, except the marital status and income level,
there is a significant difference among age groups, nationality, gender, first visit and
educational levels. Lastly, according to the visiting times, there is a tendency to the resources
from the historical buildings and old palaces and fortresses to art.
Keywords: Destination image, European tourists’ choice, Tangible and Intangible resources,
Istanbul.
5
Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………….. 5
Literature Review………………………………………………………………….. 6
Research Question………………………………………………………………… 19
Conceptual Model and Operationalization………………………………………... 20
Research Design and Methodology……………………………………………….. 21
Findings……………………………………………………………………………. 22
Limitation………………………………………………………………………….. 32
Implications, Further Research and Conclusion…………………………………… 33
References…………………………………………………………………………. 35
5
INTRODUCTION
The fascinating history of Istanbul, from its foundation to the present, is a guide for
the curious travelers as well as an evocation of an illustrious past. The city has an impressive
history and one of the myth of Istanbul is in the following paragraph that appeals to the
visitors.
The first historically significant settlement in İstanbul was founded by a Megarian
colonist named Byzas from Greece. According to legend, before coming here, he consulted
the oracle in Delphi to find a new settlement. The answer was ‘opposite the blind’. When
Byzas and his small colony came to the Bosporus in 657 BC, they saw a small colony living
on the Asian shore at Kadıköy (Chalcedon). They saw the superb natural harbor of the Golden
Horn on the European shore and thought ‘those people in Kadıköy (Chalcedon) must be
blind’. They called their new settlement ‘Byzantium’. After the name of Byzantium, the city
name changed in to Constantine, Constantinople, Konstantiniyye, Polis, Stimpol, Estanbul,
Istambol and Istanbul (Maxvell, 2008).
Istanbul is a destination where various cultures and different civilizations meet
throughout the centuries. The combination of historical and cultural heritage as well as art life
is attracting the attention of the World. In the city, you can come across with people who have
different ethnic backgrounds. In the daytime, the Muslim’s azan’s sound mix as with the
Christian’s churches’ bell’s sounds. The historical peninsula and the metropol city life are
intertwined.
Destinations in order to differentiate themselves from their competitors not only use
their tangible resources but also attempt to manage their intangible resources in many very
ways.
5
So, intangible heritage is unique and it belongs to the destinations as a competitive
advantage all over the other cities. Especially, destinations who are mostly serving for Sun-
lust tourism are basically providing tourists with the same type of product so, what they do is
using various selling strategies in order to accomplish differentiation and more sales.
This research will help us understand the cultural heritage of Istanbul with its rich
tangible and intangible resources in choosing Istanbul as a tourism destination. This paper
defines the tourism commons holistically as the collection of all tangible and intangible
resources and argued that they are to the tourist destination.
In sum, the objective of the study is to investigate the importance of intangible
resources and tangible ones in choosing Istanbul as a tourism destination.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Tourism is an activity that indicates travel to and around a destination, with the
purpose of consuming particular features of the destination such as attractions, local culture,
accommodation, and catering, sightseeing, entertainment, specialized and general services
(Inskeep 1991; Pearce 1989). Recent research, determines that destinations’ images that also
encompass intangible resources such as culture, trade, information. The importance of cultural
activities such as international music and film festivals, biennials and international exhibitions
have increased and provide recognition of the destinations’ in the international culture arena
(Kuzgun, Göksel,Özalp, Somer, Alvarez, 2010).
Since tourism industry is composed of intangible products, and there is a time lags
between the purchase of the product and its actual consumption, so that, travelers create a
cognitive image of the destination (Mansfeld and Pizam, 1999). The awareness and the image
of a destination, from the perception of potential visitors, are essential factors that affect
5
destination competitiveness. A favored image of a destination combined with high level of
awareness in an important factor to attract the target market (Crouch and Ritchie, 2003).
To understand about urban tourism, we need to know what the tourists want to
experience in the cities they visit (Ashworth, 1992). The reasons for the visit of a specific
place could be location, function, appearance, and cultural inheritance of the cities. Studying
about urban cities provides us interesting findings about uniqueness of the destinations
(Pearce, 1993).
Studies on tourists’ destination choices made great strides in understanding how
parameters affect the tourist behavior (Lin and Morais, 2008). Cognitive distance, for
example, has a significant effect on tourists’ choices of which destinations they will visit and
what routes they will take (Cadwallader, 1976). Another example might be the cuisine (Uraz,
2007). Depending on the eating habit of the visitor, a destination may have an advantage
among others just because of the proximity between the cultures.
In order to describe a city as a cultural city, it should consist of competitive advantages
among peers. These advantages of the city are divided into two cultural dimensions as
tangible and intangible resources (Uraz, 2007). Intangible ones include local culture (cuisine,
norms, and religion), music and film festivals, and biennials (Uraz, 2007). Tangible resources
encompass accommodation, museums and historical heritage among others (Uraz, 2007).
Potential travelers usually have limited knowledge about the qualifications of
a destination which they have not visited before. For this reason, the image and features of a
place as a travel destination are likely to be critical elements in the destination choice
process, irrespective of whether or not they are real representations of the place has to offer
(Crompton and Um, 1990). Destination choice is very important part of the travel plan and
cities has to create differences to get the first place on visitors’ choice.
5
In tourism marketing, images that have of a destination which is influenced by books,
novels, movies, TV and newspaper reports or word of mouth (Gun, 1988), rather than by
advertising and promotion, these explain us how people perceive a place. This perception is
the first stage in the awareness of a person in destination choice (Sealy and Wickens, 2004).
In 2000, Istanbul has an objective to increase its competitiveness through culture and
also to be a top city for arts and culture. Istanbul will be using its ‘European Capital of
Culture 2010’ as a contributory factor for reanimating the tangible and intangible heritage
which the city has owned for centuries. While experiencing quite different nations and their
own culture, Istanbul accomplishes its ‘City-growth’ through this cultural process. Hence,
Istanbul’s unique; mix culture has become a powerful mean of city branding in the
competition for investors and popular for visitors (Uraz, 2007).
Istanbul, being considered as a historically dominant city, has large distribution of
cultural capital and pictographic buildings (Newman, 2005). Moreover, Newman (2005)
states that such dominant cities are less flexible in terms of changing trends in cultural
development.
“Instead of culture springing from the inner workings of our cities, we see it as a way
to make our cities work...” (Jonathan Glancey, The Guardian, 29 March 2003 cited in Wilks-
Heeg, S. And North, P. 2004). Local culture is the most dominant factor for the destinations.
As Glancey illustrates the current perception of culture today perfectly adopts the new
experiences for local society because it consists of symbolic values. Culture helps community
differentiate themselves from each other as it is unique to one city, even to a single district
(Scott, 2000). Culture, in addition, alters the creative methods through cities or regions
(Kunzmann, 2004). It encourages creative action in city development (Landry, 2000) though
5
mutually sympathizes with the creative class that can also change the culture of a city
(Florida, 2002).
Including Istanbul, all destinations are selling their features that are composed of both
intangible and tangible resources either for wander-lust tourists or sun-lust tourists. Both
intangible and tangible resources rely on each other when it comes to understanding the
meaning and importance of each (ICOMOS, 2008).
Intangible resources and tangible resources are two sides of the same coin, both carry
meaning and helping store in memory humanity’s past. Furthermore, both tangible and
intangible resources rely on each other when it comes to understand meanings and importance
of each individually (ICOMOS, 2008).
For a destination, its image is very significant as affecting its success in tourism and its
potential visitors. The image of Turkey affects the image of Istanbul (Kerimoğlu, 2006). The
political problems, economic conditions and the effect of the religion of Turkey have a
negative effect on the Istanbul’s potential visitors (Kerimoğlu, 2006). Actually, the natural
and cultural values of the city have a more impressive effect on visiting Istanbul than any
other artificial attractions (Kerimoğlu, 2006).
The tourism commons are heterogeneous and variable that are composed of natural
and built tangible and intangible resources (Briassouli, 2002). There is a deep- seated
interdependence between the intangible cultural heritage and the tangible ones. This point was
reinforced as that cultural heritage should speak through the values that people give it and not
the other way round. However, the tangible can only be understood and interpreted through
the intangible (Smith, 2006). While considering the importance of intangible resources, the
intangible ones support cultural identity and desirability of its preservation to recognize
cultural diversity from the perception of tourists (Smith, 2006).
5
Destinations’ intangible resources that have intrinsic productive values that are used to
describe aesthetic, spiritual, and symbolic or other social values people may associate with a
site. For example; place’s genius loci, smellscape and soundscape, legends, films, festivals,
dances, poetry, which has an effect on intangible resources (ICOMOS, 2008)?
UNESCO also defines intangible heritage as being all forms of traditional and cultural
works originating in a given community. These works consist of oral traditions, music, arts
and all kind of special skills that are connected with culture. For many populations, the
intangible the vital heritage is source of the identity that is deeply rooted in history
(Kirshenblatt- Gibmlett, B, 2004).
The basic factor which can be determined as an intangible resource and creates
differentiation among destinations is ‘Place’s genius loci’. The feeling of the place grants its
own identity and its main position that refer to its main characteristics to the place. If we have
a closer look at Istanbul, the city has been welcoming numerous people from different ethnic
roots, natinalities and religions for centuries by showing its multiculturalism (Karlığa, 2009).
In Istanbul, in the beginning of classical Roman religion a genius loci was the protective spirit
of a place and the idea was about, being the Emperor's genius which is the genius loci of the
entirety of the "place" of the Roman empire (Day, 2002).
Between 17th and 19th centuries, the sounds of the cities are completely different than today’s
noises. In 20th century, people try to escape the city sound whereas in the old times sounds of
the city are the main source of information. There are many different sounds in a city. In the
history, people heard the noise of the horse shoes, but now they hear the sound of traffic.
Bells of the old towns transformed into alarm clocks. The sound of swords disappeared, the
After applying factor analysis, shopping facilities and language were under 0.5 that
means that they have low commonalities when we compare them with the rest of the
variables. So, they were extracted from the variables and the test carried out without these two
variables.
5
Rotated Component Matrix / Varimax Rotation
Variables1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Cronbach's Alpha
Old palaces and fortress
0,816
Historical places 0,731Historical buildings
0,749
Architecture 0,606
Religious places 0,653
Intangible and tangible aspects 0,209
Atmosphere of the city
0,646
Religion 0,617
Libraries 0,482
Bosporus -0,46
Nightlife 0,896
Entertainment 0,894Nightclubs 0,877
Museums 0,734
Cultural activities 0,584
Art 0,731
Traditions 0,491
Festivals 0,431
Cuisine 0,832
Tourism services 0,679Dining facilities 0,831
Accommodation 0,639
Soundscape 0,921Feeling of the city 0,835
Smellscape 0,876
Souvenirs 0,74
Antiques 0,596Hammams and baths
0,64
Handicrafts 0,598
5
Traditional dress 0,697
Traditions 0,456Dances 0,628
Songs 0,791
Literature 0,613Books and Poems
0,567
Music 0,462
Bazaars 0,779 0,47
Legend 0,626
Films 0,825
0,332Well-known roads
0,459
Total 6,399
Table 7 : Factor Analysis for the dimensions of the tangible and intangible variables.The results show that the tangible and intangible resources of the
city can be categorized in eleven dimensions which are Old Palaces and
Fortresses, Historical Buildings and Architecture in a group that is named
as historical places, Religious Places, Atmosphere of the city, Religion,
Libraries and Bosporus in another group that is named as intangible and
tangible resources, Nightlife and Nightclubs in a group that is called
entertainment and so on. From the table, Cronbach’s Alpha rate indicates
that some of the dimensions have low reliability due to the fact that it is
just an explatory factor analysis and that is to say, it is difficult to come up
a single definition. However, most of the dimensions have higher alpha
rate and shows that there is a mix of tangible and intangible resources.
Shortly, it is difficult to separate tangible and intangible resources.
LIMITATIONS
A few limitations of the study should be addressed. First, the time is
the major limitation of the research. We could reach our sample only in the
5
spring season at the end of April. If the time limitation was eliminated, a
larger sample could be aimed. Another limitation is that we only targeted
four European leisure tourists that are German, French, Spanish and
English. We also did nonprobability sampling that is to say we could not
represent our population well. Another major limitation of our research is
that we reached only the tourists who were currently in the Sultanahmet
area. Lastly, the survey was found long by the tourists.
IMPLICATIONS, FURTHER RESEARCHES AND CONCLUSION
After doing various analyses once again it is seen that tangible and
intangible resources are as ICOMOS (2008) states, two sides of the same
coin, both carry meaning and help store in memory of humanity’s past.
Furthermore, both tangible and intangible resources rely on each other
when it comes to understand meanings and importance of each
individually. Moreover,
Smith (2006) states that the tangible can only be understood and
interpreted through the intangible. While considering the importance of
tangible resources, the intangible ones support cultural identity and
desirability of its preservation to recognize cultural diversity from the
perception of tourists. The results of our tests supported these which were
5
written in the literature review and we come up again the same result that
is according to grouping of the variables from the analysis, it is not
possible to distinguish between tangible and intangible resources.
From managerial implications that we get from our findings,
Bosporus scene, cuisine, old palaces and fortresses, historical buildings
and architecture are very important factors in terms of choosing Istanbul
as a tourism destination. These first five important factors give us a clue
on how to promote Istanbul.
When it comes to demographic factors, according to the results,
except the marital status and income level, there is a significant difference
among age groups, nationality, gender, first visit and educational level
and that make sense in the promotional purposes.
Last implication of our findings from previous visit results, shows that
tourists who have visited Istanbul for the first time, want to visit old
palaces and fortresses and historical buildings and festivals. However, if it
is their second or third visit, the t test analysis indicates that they give
more importance to art.
Finally, for further research, a larger sample size which would be
more representative of the population can be used. Besides, this research
may be done including all purposes of the travel not only for the leisure. In
addition to these, the research may be done for more nationalities not
only focusing on four nationalities, for example; we could add Chinese
tourists to our target market because China is a growing market in
Istanbul and their responses could change the implications on how to
promote Istanbul. The research could also cover people who have not
5
come to Istanbul yet, so we can see the difference between these two
groups in terms of their perceptions in choosing Istanbul as a tourism
destination. Lastly, we only did explatory factor analysis and our findings
were not hundred percent reliable. Confirmatory factor analysis may be
used to develop the research and to confirm the dimensions of the scale.
REFERENCES
Ashworth, G., J., (1992), Is there an urban tourism, Tourism Recreation Research.
Vol. No.172. pp. 3-8.
Bağlı, H., Öğüt, Ş., (2009), Towards an Analysis of the Signs of the 'Unknown':
Objects with Rituals in Turkish Culture, Vol.12 No. 3 Pp. 365-382.
Barutcugil, H. (2009) “Ebru Sanati”. In Bilgili, Ahmet E. (Ed.), Istanbul Kültür
Turizm. İstanbul: TC Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı İl Müdürlüğü.
5
Bayir, D. (2009). Istanbul’da Kutuphanelerimiz ve Kutuphaneciligimiz”. In Bilgili,
Ahmet E. (Ed.), Istanbul Kültür Turizm. İstanbul: TC Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı İl
Müdürlüğü.
Baytin, C, Canbay Turkyilmaz, C, Kıran, A, & Tunbis, M. (2003). İstanbul -
Bosphorus as Our Cultural Heritage, the Process of Change Over Time. Proceedings of the
XIX CIPA Symposium. http://cipa.icomos.org/ANTALYA.html
Beyazıt, E. & Tosun, Y. (2006). Evaluating Istanbul in the Process of European
Capital of Culture 2010”. 42nd ISoCaRP Congress 2006
Briassoulis, H.( 2002). Sustainable Tourism and the Question of the Commons.
Annals of Tourism Research,Vol.29. No.4. pp.1065-1085.
Burtensaw, D., Bateman, M., Ashworth, G.J. (1991). The European City, A Western
Perspective. London, Wiley.
Cadwallader, M. (1976). Cognitive distance in intraurban space. In G. T. Moore & R.
G. Golledge( Eds.) Environmental knowing: Theories, research, and methods.Stroudsburg,
PA: Dowden, Hutchhinson & Ross. Pp. 275- 284.
Crompton, J., Um, S. (1990), Attitude Determinants in Tourism Destination Choice,
Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 17. Pp. 432-448.
Crouch, G., Rithchie, B. (2003), Competitive Destination: A Sustainable Tourism
Perspective, Cabi Publishing 1st Edition.
Day, Christopher. Spirit and Place: Healing Our Environment. London: Architectural
Press, 2002.
Demirci, K. 2006. Istanbulda Inanc Turizmi ve Onemi. Istanbul Kültür Turizm 2008
Değerlendirmesi. Pp. 335-337.
Dökmeci,V,Balta,N.(1999)European Planning Studies, 1469-5944, Vol. 7. No.1. Pp.