RESIDENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS TOURISM | ART CITIES FLANDERS

logo
Designed by jetpackLogo
ProudSocialInvolved0%0%25%25%50%50%75%75%100%100%Agreement RatioAll CitiesDrivers BEINGPROUD TELLOTHERS SHARECULTURE OWNEFFORT NICECONTACTS FEELINGCONNECTEDUNDERSTANDINGOTHERS OUTLETFORCONCERNS BEINGHEARD BEINGINVOLVED20172019
all
Support
all
Impact
all
Drivers
all
Future
all
All
all
Antwerp
mechelen
Mechelen
leuven
Leuven
gent
Ghent
Brugge
Bruges

For the second time Visit Flanders and the 5 tourist boards of the Flemish Art Cities (Antwerp, Ghent, Leuven, Mechelen, Bruges) organized a large-scale tourism resident study. Almost 6,000 residents in these cities were asked about the impact of tourism on their lives. Two years after the very first large-scale study, we are able to explore the evolution of the perceived impact of tourism in the art cities.

Support and Impact

SUPPORT

The inhabitants of the Flemish Art Cities are rather positive with regard to supporting tourism in their city. Exactly three-quarters of the residents support tourism in their own city. This result remains the same as in 2017. Only 6% of the residents does not support tourism.

Nearly 70% of the residents believes that the benefits of tourism outweigh the disadvantages.

The vast majority of residents believe that their city should remain a tourist destination, a slight decrease compared to 2017.

Residents of the different cities have very different opinions on the question whether their city should promote itself as a tourism destination.

POSITIVE IMPACT

Compared to 2017, more residents also think their city has become more beautiful thanks to tourism (from 63% to 70%).

Tourism brings more liveliness to the city. 74% of all respondents agreed to this statement.

However, there is less agreement that tourism improves the quality of life in the city (43%).

LIVEABILITY
There is a growing concern about the perception of the impact of tourism in the environment of the inhabitants. One in three say they are limited in their comfort in certain areas of the city, with large differences between cities.
In Bruges almost 60% is limited in comfort.

In Leuven and Mechelen only about 15%.

Residents look more critically at the impact of tourism on the quality of life of their city. One in six inhabitants experience nuisance due to tourism and
27% say that the quality of life decreases due to tourism.
NEGATIVE IMPACT

A number of residents experience a negative impact of tourism, such as crowding. Behind these figures are important differences between the cities. Respondents mentioned the shortage of parking spaces, the increasing cost of living and traffic problems.

An increasing amount of inhabitants also think they have a place to go to with concerns about tourism developments. This is especially the case in Bruges and Mechelen.

Drivers

Perceived impact of tourism and support for tourism could be influenced by several factors such as involvement in decision-making, feelings of pride, economic dependence on tourism and social empowerment.

PROUD

Three-quarters of the residents say they are proud of their own city, thanks to tourism.

Over 60% is willing to make efforts to keep the destination special for visitors.

SOCIAL

In 2019, 4 in 10 residents think people in the city are more connected to each other through tourism, a sharp increase of 10 percentage points compared to 2017.

INVOLVED

More and more residents feel involved in new policy choices and in the organization of tourism. 4 out of 10 residents think they are sufficiently involved, compared to 3 out of 10 in 2017. The group that does not feel sufficiently involved, decreases from 38% in 2017 to 28%. The remaining group is not interested.

Future

Residents were asked how they see tourism in their city in the future: more or less visitors, ideas for the policy makers and how they would personally deal with the impact of tourism.

POLICY

Support for a number of policy options remained more or less stable compared to the first study. For example, 68% of respondents still think residents and local businesses should be informed about tourism planning in their city.

Yet, an increasing amount of residents finds it important that their city informs visitors about how they should behave (from 35% to 44%).

PERSONAL

Respondents were also asked how they would deal with the adverse consequences of tourism, if they had free choice and the means. About 46% of them responded that tourism didn’t even generate one negative impact in the last three years.

"Avoiding certain places or certain moments" is the most popular action to take (32%).

The inhabitants of Bruges in particular tend to avoid specific places in their city or certain moments during the day.

TRAVELERS

Residents want their city to remain a tourist destination, but this doesn’t always mean they want more tourists. If residents are still open to tourism growth, they choose to have more individual travellers who stay overnight (51% in 2019 compared to 61% in 2017).

Concerning group tourists, day tourists and cruise tourists, a clear drop in interest has been observed.

Methodology

At the request of Tourism Flanders and the 5 tourism services of the Flemish Art Cities, the research agency iVOX conducted an online survey of the residents of Antwerp, Bruges, Ghent, Leuven and Mechelen. The fieldwork took place from July to mid-December 2019. Only residents who were randomly invited could participate in the study. In total, answers were collected from 5,788 residents, older than 18 years and representative by gender, education, age and borough / district. Click here for more information about the surveys.
logo