Do key stakeholders in the tourism of the cities of Split, Šibenik and Zadar perceive the tourist system as efficient and functional?

first_imgIn the following chart, blue represents the local level, red the county level, and green the national level of the system. As can be seen, the respondents are the most dissatisfied with the national level of the system, and in terms of cities, the respondents are the most dissatisfied with the city of Zadar.For all observed tasks, all levels, local (Split, Šibenik, Zadar), county (Split-Dalmatia, Šibenik-Knin, Zadar) and national levels (CNTB) there was a negative deviation of satisfaction from the importance for each examined task, for all three cities together and for each city individually, which indicates that stakeholders believe that tourist boards are not performing tasks as they should and that tasks need to be performed more efficiently.Observing the satisfaction and importance of the activities performed by stakeholders (travel agencies, private renters, hotels, public institutions, tourist guides, restaurants, hostels) for each of them there was also a negative deviation of satisfaction from the importance. Regarding the overall satisfaction with the system, the largest number of respondents is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 43% of them, 25% of respondents are satisfied, 22% dissatisfied, 8% extremely dissatisfied and only 2% extremely satisfied. The highest overall average score of job satisfaction was achieved by Split (3,17), followed by Šibenik (3,00) and Zadar with (2,52). The overall average score for all three observed cities was 2,88, therefore, weighing towards dissatisfaction.As many as 76% of respondents support the formation of tourist boards of regions and areas in relation to the existing tourist boards of counties, towns, cities and municipalities. 67% of respondents support the financing of tourist boards primarily through sojourn taxes and tourist membership fees. 69% of respondents believe that the current distribution of income in the ratio of 65% is local, 25% national and 10% county goods and should remain so. Respondents were also asked several open-ended questions. The first question was who should be at the head of the local tourist board, the majority of respondents answered that it should be a “tourism professional with many years of work experience in tourism”, and then how it certainly should not be the mayor or someone from policy ”.Respondents cited “politics, flatulence and unprofessional staff”, “inactivity, sluggishness, slow change, inefficiency” and “lack of coordination and synergy and strategy” as key system problems. Respondents would change staff and education “” depoliticize the system, exclude political staffing “and” better coordinate and communicate with all levels of the system, better communication with the private sector, going to the field, implementing the strategy. “Based on all the above, it can be concluded that the existing system of tourist boards at all three levels from the perspective of key stakeholders in Split, Šibenik and Zadar is not efficient or functional, nor are respondents satisfied with the tasks of any of the three observed levels. Based on foreign examples of good practice and research results, the author gave an opinion on the existing problems, but also recommendations on the reorganization of the system. The first step, which is envisaged by the proposal of the Law on Tourist Boards and Promotion of Croatian Tourism from 2015, according to him, is the organization of the system according to the principles of destination management organization, which presupposes the establishment of tourist organizations primarily on geographical-historical principles and borders, often bypassing administrative borders. , and the principles of tourist offer.The future system would consist of the National Tourist Organization (CNTB), regional tourist organizations (Dalmatia, Lika and Gorski kotar, Istria, Kvarner, Central Croatia and Zagreb, Međimurje and Slavonia), tourist organizations of the area and tourist information centers. According to him, tourist organizations in the area should be mandatory, and not be established only if the mayors and mayors of two or more cities and municipalities agree, as provided by the existing law. Tourist boards of the area should be the main carriers of tourism development, create a complete tourist product imbued with geographical and historical characteristics and thematic characteristics of the tourist offer, and would be created by merging tourist boards of cities, municipalities and towns.Thus, for example, the area of ​​Dalmatia would be covered by the regional tourist organization of Dalmatia, which would be promoted and branded on the tourist market as a coastal region rich in bathing areas, rich cultural and historical identity, unique in the world. The level below it would consist of tourist organizations of the area that would be created by merging tourist boards of cities and municipalities (eg Makarska Riviera by merging tourist boards of Baška Voda, Brela, Makarska, Tučepi and others) and tourist organizations of four big cities (Zadar, Šibenik, Split, Dubrovnik ). Equally, the best example of the formation of tourist boards in the area can be Splitska zagora, or Cetina region.In the area of ​​today’s Cetina region, there are three local tourist boards, Vrlika, Sinj and Trilj. Each of them can hardly achieve significant success by promoting only their own city, but by merging the three tourist communities and forming a tourist organization of the “Cetina region”, the basis is created for the development of adventure tourism (rafting, kayaking, paragliding), cycling, cultural tourism (Sinjska Alka, medieval fortifications of the Cetina region, Our Lady of Sinj, etc.), rural tourism, agrotourism. The tasks of informing visitors and providers of tourist services would be led by tourist information centers that would be part of the tourist boards of the area and larger cities.As for the presidents of tourist boards, according to the current law, local tourist boards are headed by mayors and mayors, headed by county prefects, and headed by the national minister of tourism. The system should be completely depoliticized, as the respondents themselves pointed out, so the management of the system of tourist boards should be completely left to the tourism profession. Tourism organizations would exist as public authorities (public tourism organizations) or public-private partnerships, but would function as an independent body that works closely with city, county, and state governments.Prika. The results of the research can be used by all those who want and can act in the direction of improving the existing system of tourist social organization in the Republic of Croatia, especially decision makers or leaders of tourist boards at all levels.Author: Ante Budimir Bekan, mag.oec.Attachment: Graduation thesis Ante Budimir Bekan, mag.oec. / Analysis of the tourist social organization in the Republic of Croatia from the perspective of key stakeholders of the three selected citiesI invite all faculties to get involved in loud thinking and popularization of the profession and to send (vijesti@hrturizam.hr) scientific master’s theses and doctoral dissertations of their former students so that important research, papers and thoughts get as many readers as possible and most importantly to valuable papers gave new added value. All with the aim of educating, encouraging thinking, promoting science and constructive discussion because two voices are always smarter than one. We bring you a very interesting research and graduate thesis by Ante Budimir Bekan, mag.oec. , who for the purposes of his thesis conducted a study of the efficiency of the system of tourist boards in the Republic of Croatia from the perspective of key stakeholders in the cities of Split, Šibenik and Zadar.In the diploma thesis “Analysis of the tourist social organization in the Republic of Croatia from the perspective of key stakeholders of the three selected cities” mag.oec. Ante Budimir Bekan under the mentorship of Assoc. Smiljana Pivčević from the Faculty of Economics in Split, conducted an empirical research of the opinions of key stakeholders in tourism in the three coastal cities of Split, Šibenik and Zadar on the existing system of tourist boards in the Republic of Croatia.The system of tourist boards operates according to the Law on Tourist Boards and the Promotion of Croatian Tourism from 2008, despite its numerous shortcomings. Recently, the issue of amending the law and accepting the bill, which has been on hold since 2015, has been reopened, and it presupposes the establishment of a system according to the principles of the destination management organization. In 2015, a total of 312 units were registered in the system of tourist boards, of which: Main Office of the Croatian National Tourist Board, 20 Tourist Boards, 10 Tourist Boards, Tourist Boards of the City of Zagreb, 116 Tourist Boards, 149 Tourist Boards , 15 TZ places, 1 TZ of the island.1 Therefore, the findings of this paper and the research are very current and interesting. Moreover, to the knowledge and surprise of the authors, no research on this very topic has been conducted in Croatia so far, and therefore they are even more interesting.110 respondents participated in the research, of which 43 from the area of ​​Split, 36 from the area of ​​Zadar and 31 respondents from the area of ​​the city of Šibenik. Observing the activities, the largest number is travel agencies, private renters, hotels, public institutions (museums, galleries, etc.), tourist guides, hostels and others (associations, attractions, transportation services).The key question posed in the paper is: Do key stakeholders in the tourism of the cities of Split, Šibenik and Zadar perceive the TZ system as efficient and functional?The research used the IPA (importance-performance analysis engl.) Methodology, which compares the importance of performing a particular task and the satisfaction of stakeholders with performing it. Thus, subtracting the average rating of importance from satisfaction results in positive or negative differences (gaps engl.). Stakeholder attitudes were examined on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, and the results are shown in graphs for all three levels of the system and in total. Blue columns show satisfaction, green importance, and red the difference between them.Source: 1 List of tourist boards in the Republic of Croatia taken from: https://imamopravoznati.org/en/request/popis_turistickih_zajednica_u_rh (accessed on 28.8.2017/XNUMX/XNUMX)last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *