Cultural Heritage, Natural Resources And Competitiveness Of The Travel And Tourism Industry In Central And Eastern European Countries

Abstract

Competitiveness has become one of the common concepts employed in the recent yearsto approach and describe the sustainable development of the travel and tourism industry. Culturalheritage and natural resources represent two significant pillars of the tourism’s sustainabledevelopment: that is why the development of the tourism based on the cultural heritage and naturalresources could provide a consistent support for increasing the competitiveness of the Central andEastern European countries as tourist destinations. The paper assesses how important are andwhat are the contributions of the cultural heritage and natural resources to the overallcompetitiveness of the travel and tourism industry and to its performances based on specific datareferring to the Central and Eastern European countries.

Full text

Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 12(2), 2010
742
CULTURAL HERITAGE, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND COMPETITIVENESS OF THE TRAVEL AND TOURISM INDUSTRY
IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES
Diana Dugulan
1
,
Virgil Balaure
2
,
Ioana Cecilia Popescu
3
,
Călin Vegheş
4
ABSTRACT: Competitiveness has become one of the common concepts employed in the recent years
to approach and describe the sustainable development of the travel and tourism industry. Cultural
heritage and natural resources represent two significant pillars of the tourism’s sustainable
development: that is why the development of the tourism based on the cultural heritage and natural
resources could provide a consistent support for increasing the competitiveness of the Central and
Eastern European countries as tourist destinations. The paper assesses how important are and
what are the contributions of the cultural heritage and natural resources to the overall
competitiveness of the travel and tourism industry and to its performances based on specific data
referring to the Central and Eastern European countries.
Key words: cultural heritage, natural resources, tourism competitiveness, Central and Eastern Europe
JEL codes: L83, M31.
Introduction
The competitiveness of a the travel and tourism industry represent a complex and, in the
same time, a relative concept, a part of this complexity being determined by the definition given to
the tourist destinations, seen as places or some form of actual or perceived boundary, such as
physical boundaries of an island, political boundaries, or even market-created boundaries (Kotler,
Bowen, and Markens, 2006), and the specific methods employed to assess it. Due to the impressive
growth in the last decades, with the exception represented by the recent years of the economic
downturn, tourism has become one of the fastest growing and still remains one of the largest
economic sectors (WTTC 2009).
Tourist destination competitiveness has as support the three pillars of the natural resources,
climate and culture (Lumsdon, 1997), to which can be added the existing infrastructure, political
stability and currency fluctuation, and some other factors that can decrease the competitiveness,
such as violence, natural catastrophes, adverse environment factors and overcrowding (Kotler,
Bowen, and Markens, 2006). Other elements to be considered in the analysis of the tourist
destinations competitiveness include the geographical location, environmental and physical
conditions, demographical situation, existing tourist attractions, image perceived and image
associated with the tourist destination, tourism resources – natural, cultural, activities, infrastructure
and services (Ejarque 2005). Ability to increase tourism expenditures, to increasingly attract
1
Academy of Economic Studies in Bucharest, balan_diana1@yahoo.com
2
Romanian-American University.
3
Academy of Economic Studies in Bucharest, ipopescu@ase.ro
4
Academy of Economic Studies in Bucharest, c_veghes@yahoo.com

Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 12(2), 2010
743
visitors, to provide tourists with satisfying and memorable experiences in a profitable manner, to
contribute to the enhancement of the well-being of destination residents and the preservation of the
natural resources for the future generations are other characteristics of the competitive tourist
destinations (Brent Richie and Crouch, 2003).
With millions of people engaging in international and domestic travel to experience heritage
of general interest or of a more personal nature, the cultural heritage has become the essence of
tourism in many tourist destinations worldwide (Dallen, 2006). The increased demand for cultural
experiences as well as employing cultural heritage to attract tourists to the various destinations
(Bowitz and Ibenholt, 2009) have given an enhanced position to the cultural resources as a pillar of
the travel and tourism competitiveness. As a consequence, has been introduced and defined the
concept of heritage tourism, defined as a subgroup of tourism in which the main motivation for
visiting a site is based on the place’s heritage characteristics according to the tourists’ perception of
their own heritage (Poria, Butler, and Airey, 2001), the heritage tourism being approached as a final
stage of the “heritagization” (Poria and Ashworth, 2009).
Together with the cultural heritage, natural resources and climate have been identified
among the significant factors, together with the sport, recreation and education facilities, shopping
and commercial facilities, infrastructure, and the cost of living (Tang and Rochananond, 1990)
determining the attractiveness of a country as a tourist destination and, by extension, the
competitiveness of the travel and tourism industry. Forests, soils, water, fisheries, minerals, and
energy can be taken into consideration when approaching the natural resources in relationship with
the sustainable development of the tourism industry (Lovins, Lovins, and Hawken, 2007; Hart,
2007). In the context of the inherited and fixed ecology versus economy trade-off – benefits of
environmental standards versus higher prices and a reduced industrial competitiveness (Porter and
Van der Linde, 2008), the environmental worries became more diversified and impacted
significantly the tourism industry. Climate change, energy, water, biodiversity and land use,
chemicals, toxins, and heavy metals, air pollution, waste management, ozone layer depletion,
oceans and fisheries, and deforestation are the top environmental issues affecting the sustainable
development of the tourism industry (Esty and Winston, 2006).
As the countries of the Central and Eastern Europe are not uniform but diverse entities in
terms of location, topography, climate, history, culture and economic development, each of these
will have to identify its own competitive advantage (Hughes and Allen, 2005). Cultural heritage and
natural resources could represent important advantages supporting their competitiveness as tourist
destinations and the overall competitiveness of their tourism and travel industries.
Methodological Notes
The main objectives to be reached through the present research approach referred to the
assessment of the correlations between the cultural heritage, natural resources and overall
competitiveness and performances of the travel and tourism industry and economy and between the
determinant factors and the overall competitiveness of the natural resources in the case of the
selected CEE countries.
In order to assess the impact of the cultural heritage and natural resources over the travel and
tourism competitiveness it was employed a set of data included in The Travel & Tourism
Competitiveness Report 2009 (called further TTC Report 2009) issued by the World Economic
Forum in Geneva, Switzerland. Ten countries of the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) have been
selected from an initial list of 22 based on the affiliation to the region and their status as members of
the European Union: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
Variables of the research approach have been the following:

Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 12(2), 2010
744
• overall travel and tourism competitiveness, as expressed by the specific indexes
determined according to the methodologies employed for all the 133 investigated
countries covered by the TTC Report 2009;
• performances of the travel and tourism industry and economy: GDP and travel and
tourism industry and economy, employment in travel and tourism industry and economy,
international tourist arrivals and international tourism receipts;
• factors describing the cultural heritage and natural resources competitiveness: number of
the World Heritage cultural and natural sites.
Pearson correlation coefficient has been the statistical tool employed to conduct the
measurements and produce the aimed results.
Major Findings
The overall assessment of the travel and tourism competitiveness in the Central and Eastern
Europe countries allows drawing the conclusion that there are less significant difference between
these countries in terms of their competitiveness: although Czech Republic (with an overall score of
4.86) and Estonia (4.83) appear slightly distanced in the upper part of the hierarchy, all the ten
countries form a relatively uniform group (the average score at the level of the group being of 4.41).
Regulatory framework seems to be the most supportive dimension of their competitiveness while
the business environment and infrastructure and the human, cultural and natural resources exert an
apparently unfavorable impact over the competitiveness of these countries.
Table no. 1.
Natural resources and the travel and tourism industry, economy and performances in the
selected CEE countries (2009)
Countries TTC CH NR HS NS GDPi EMPi GDPe EMPe ITA ITR
Czech Rep. 4.86 5.41 2.89 13 0 3607 98.9 20664 5002 93363 6618
Estonia 4.83 2.26 3.83 4 0 620 17.3 2926 79 4304.8 1035
Slovenia 4.53 2.68 2.98 0 1 1380 32.8 6261 125 54439 2483
Hungary 4.45 3.92 2.60 7 1 3755 180.5 9275 261 39125 4728
Slovakia 4.34 2.69 3.73 6 2 1459 38 9402 223 32905 2013
Latvia 4.31 2.11 3.00 3 0 425 13.4 1803 56 4489 671
Lithuania 4.30 2.39 2.49 6 0 432 12.8 2156 63 4625 1153
Bulgaria 4.30 3.13 3.11 8 2 1478 89.2 5629 336 8204 3130
Poland 4.18 5.08 3.53 12 1 7157 265 32040 1100 58613 10627
Romania 4.04 2.85 2.87 7 1 3073 272.8 8289 544 5273 1464
Notes: TTC – Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index; CH – Cultural Heritage competitiveness index; NR – Natural
Resources competitiveness index; HS – number of the World Heritage cultural sites; NS – number of the World
Heritage natural sites; GDPi – GDP and travel and tourism industry (US$ millions, 2009); EMPi – employment and
travel and tourism industry (thousand jobs, 2009); GDPe – GDP and travel and tourism economy (US$ millions, 2009);
EMPe – employment and travel and tourism economy (thousand jobs, 2009); ITA – international tourist arrivals
(thousands, 2009); ITR – international tourism receipts (US$ millions, 2008); countries ranked in the descending order
of the TTC index.
Cultural heritage does not appear as a supporting pillar for the travel and tourism
competitiveness in the countries of the Central and Eastern Europe (r = 0.18) due not necessarily to
a lack of these resources but rather to an insufficient or ineffective promotion. Impact of the cultural
heritage upon the competitiveness of the travel and tourism industry in the considered countries has
been assessed considering the scores expressing the competitiveness of the cultural heritage and the
performances in terms of the gross domestic product and employment (for the industry and for the
economy), international visitor arrivals and receipts at the level of the ten countries (see Table 1).

Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 12(2), 2010
745
Measurement of the association between the indicators expressing the performances of the
travel and tourism industry and economy and the scores expressing the competitiveness of the
cultural resources in the considered countries shows strong relationships between these variables, in
the cases of all the variables: the gross domestic product and travel and tourism economy (r = 0.90),
gross domestic product and travel and tourism industry (r = 0.85) and employment and travel and
tourism economy (r = 0.77), respectively a moderate relationship in the case of the employment
and travel and tourism industry (r = 0.57).
Based on these results, it can be concluded that a more effective promotion and employment
of the cultural resources available in the considered countries could determine a growth both in
terms of the gross domestic product generated by the travel and tourism industry and economy and
the number of new direct or indirect workplaces created.
Association between the number of the international visitor arrivals and the international
tourism receipts and the competitiveness of the cultural resources in the considered countries shows
very strong relationships between these variables (r = 0.83, respectively r = 0.92). These results
provide a supplementary support of the idea that specific efforts should be made by the considered
countries to preserve, promote and employ their cultural resources.
According to the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report, number of UNESCO cultural
World Heritage sites is one of the variables describing the content of the cultural resources pillar.
The analysis of the relationships between the number of the World Heritage cultural sites and the
macroeconomic performances of the travel and tourism industry in the considered countries, allow
the observation of the following results:
• there is a strong correlation between the number of the World Heritage cultural sites and
the gross domestic product generated at the level of the travel and tourism economy (r =
0.77) and industry (r = 0.72); registering an increased number of cultural sites on the list
of the World Heritage sites, accompanied by an appropriate promotion, will contribute to
the increase of the weight in the gross domestic product created by the travel and
tourism industry;
• there is a moderate (r = 0.57), respectively a strong (r = 0.77) correlation between the
number of the World Heritage cultural sites and the employment in the travel and
tourism industry, respectively economy; again, an increased number of cultural sites
registered in the World Heritage list, properly promoted and made available will
contribute to the creation of new workplaces both direct, within the industry, and
indirect in connected activities and industries;
• finally, there is a rather moderate correlation between the international visitor arrivals (r
= 0.49), respectively a strong correlation between the international tourism receipts and
and the number of the registered World Heritage sites in the considered countries (r =
0.76); these results support the necessity to conduct marketing campaigns to promote
them appropriately and to benefit from their extended cultural heritage.
Impact of the natural resources on the competitiveness of the travel and tourism industry in
the CEE countries has been assessed considering the scores expressing the competitiveness of the
natural resources and the performances in terms of the gross domestic product and employment (for
the industry and for the economy), international tourist arrivals and receipts at the level of the ten
CEE countries.
Extremely surprisingly, natural resources (assessed through the number of UNESCO natural
World Heritage sites) appear to be very poorly related to the competitiveness of the CEE countries
as travel and tourism destinations (r=0.18). This may suggest that although these countries have
several natural attractions their contribution to the overall competitiveness of the travel and tourism
industry and activities at their level is rather less significant. Also, CEE countries seem to

Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 12(2), 2010
746
unfortunately not have the knowledge and/or found the capacities for an effective employment of
the natural resources as a critical driver of their competitiveness.
Measurement of the association between the indicators expressing the performances of the
travel and tourism industry and economy and the scores expressing the competitiveness of the
natural resources in the CEE countries shows rather poor relationships between these variables in
the cases of the gross domestic product and travel and tourism economy (r=0.27), and employment
and travel and tourism economy (r=0.22), respectively very poor relationships in the case of the
employment and travel and tourism industry (r= –0.11) and gross domestic product and travel and
tourism industry (r=0.07).
A more effective employment of the natural resources available in the CEE countries seems
to not determine a significant improvement in terms of the macroeconomic performances generated
by the travel and tourism industry and economy (gross domestic product growth and/or a higher
number of newly created workplaces). Or, in other words, CEE countries should orientate their
efforts, on a shorter-term perspective, toward the improvement of the business environment and
infrastructure, respectively the regulatory framework as these appear to be the major determinants
of their overall travel and tourism competitiveness.
Association between the number of the international tourist arrivals and the international
tourism receipts and the scores expressing the competitiveness of the natural resources in the CEE
countries shows also a very poor relationship between these variables (r=0.06, respectively r=0.11).
These results may suggest the necessity for these countries to expand the specific efforts of
preserving, promoting and taking advantage of their available natural resources. In spite of the less
significant present, these resources should become one, considering a medium or a long-term
horizon, one of the most important motivators of the international tourists in their selection of the
CEE countries as destinations for the travel and holidays to be made.
Assessment of the correlation between the number of UNESCO natural World Heritage sites
and the overall competitiveness of the travel and tourism industry in the CEE countries indicate,
surprisingly, that there is a moderate and inverse correlation between the overall competitiveness
and the number of the World Heritage natural sites in the investigated CEE countries (r= –0.45);
apparently, a lower number of the natural sites registered by UNESCO (at least by comparison to
other tourist destinations worldwide) should transform these countries in more attractive
destinations for the international tourists, generate higher receipts (and revenues) and influencing in
a favorable manner the overall competitiveness of the travel and tourism industry.
Conclusions
Although their overall scores vary around the determined average value, the investigated
group of CEE countries form a relatively uniform assembly in terms of their travel and tourism
competitiveness characterized through a higher attention given to the appropriateness of the
business environment and infrastructure and the regulatory framework and a less concern for
capitalize the existing natural heritage. The overall scores registered by these countries according to
the TTC Report 2009, place them in the middle area of the hierarchy built in terms of the travel and
tourism competitiveness.
Cultural resources contribute, surprisingly, in a very poor measure to the overall
competitiveness of the considered countries seen as travel and tourism destinations. Knowledge and
capacities for an effective employment of the cultural resources become essential for these countries
in their attempts to transform these in critical drivers of their travel and tourism competitiveness.
Focus on particular capitalization of the existing cultural heritage appears to be critical as
the relationships between the competitiveness of the cultural resources and the macroeconomic
performances of the travel and tourism industry in the considered countries reveal a strong

Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 12(2), 2010
747
association. A more effective promotion and employment of the cultural resources would determine
a growth in terms of the GDP generated and of the number of workplaces created by the travel and
tourism industry of these countries. Taking advantage of the available cultural resources, inclusively
through the development of the heritage tourism, should be reflected in the specific industry’s
performances as an increased competitiveness of these resources could determine significant
increases in the number of the international visitor arrivals and of the international tourism receipts.
Natural resources are also very poorly related to the overall competitiveness of the CEE
countries seen as travel and tourism destinations although it would have been expected a more
consistent contribution in this respect. Again, knowledge as well as the capacities for an effective
employment of the natural resources become both essential for the CEE countries in their attempts
to transform this category of resources in a key driver of their travel and tourism competitiveness.
A lower number of the natural sites registered by UNESCO in the World Heritage, and a
lower number of known species (at least by comparison to other tourist destinations worldwide), as
well as an expanded surface of the protected areas and an overall better quality of the natural
environment should transform these countries in more attractive destinations for the international
tourists, generate consequently higher receipts and revenues, and exerting a favorable influence
over the competitiveness of the travel and tourism industry.
References
1. Blanke, J., Chiesa, T. (editors), 2009. The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2009.
Managing in a Time of Turbulence, World Economic Forum Geneva, Switzerland 2009,
available at http://www.weforum.org/pdf/TTCR09/TTCR09_FullReport.pdf
2. Bowitz, E., Ibenholt, K., 2009. Economic impacts of cultural heritage e Research and
perspectives, Journal of Cultural Heritage, Vol. 10, pp. 1-8.
3. Brent Ritchie, J.R., Crouch, G.I., 2003. The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable
Tourism Perspective, Cabi Publishing.
4. Dallen, T. J., 1996. Tourism and the Personal Heritage Experience, Research Notes and
Reports, pp.751-754.
5. Ejarque, J., 2005. Destinos turísticos de éxito. Diseño, creación, gestión y marketing,
Madrid, Ediciones Piramide
6. Esty, D.C., Winston A. S., 2006. Green to Gold, Yale University Press New Haven and
London.
7. Hart, S.L., 2007. Beyound Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World, Harvard Business
Review on Green Business Strategy, Harvard Business School Press
8. Hughes, H., Allen, D., 2005. Cultural tourism in Central and Eastern Europe: the views of
1. ‘induced image formation agents’, Tourism Management, Vol. 26, pp. 173–183.
9. Kotler, Ph., Bowen, J.T., Markens, J.C., 2006. Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism, New
Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall International Edition
10. Lumsdon, L., 1997. Tourism marketing, London, International Thomson Business Press
11. Lovins, A.B., Hunter Lovins, L., Hawken, P., 2007. A road Map for Natural Capitalism,
Harvard Business Review on Green Business Strategy, Harvard Business School Press
12. Porter, M.E., Van Der Linde, C., 2008. Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate,
Harvard Business Review on Prifiting from Green Business, Harvard Business Press
13. Poria, Y., Ashworth, G., 2009. Heritage Tourism—Current Resource for Conflict, Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 522–525.
14. Poria, Y., Butler, R., Airey, D, 2001. Clarifying Heritage Tourism, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 1047–1049.
15. Tang, J.C.S, Rochananond, N., 1990. Attractiveness as a Tourist Destination: A

Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 12(2), 2010
748
Comparative Study of Thailand and Selected Countries, Socio-Economic Planning Science,
Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 229-236.