Travel Reference
In-Depth Information
arguing that domestic tourists have a lower
purchasing power.
Fifth, there have been notable policy
changes to respond to a market environment,
and appropriate administrative structures have
been set up. The role of the state is now mainly
limited to legal and administrative regulation
and destination marketing.
As noted earlier, attempts, albeit still insuffi-
cient, are being made to change the structure
of the country's tourism product from a sole
emphasis on summer seaside holidays to a
wider range of activities and locations including
mountain and cultural tourism. This is related to
attempts to establish a new image to better posi-
tion Bulgaria in the international market. This is
particularly required to counteract mass media
generalizations concerning 'war in the Balkans'
that had a strongly deflecting effect on potential
tourists during the 1990s. International promo-
tion of the country as a tourist destination was
almost totally abandoned during this time, and
between 1990 and 1997 official tourism offices
abroad were reduced from 27 to just four.
Recently their number has increased to 12, but
all are within EU countries, except those in
Moscow and New York.
Arguably, a major reason for the recent suc-
cessful development of tourism in Bulgaria is the
country's political stability since 1997, along with
the privatization of the tourism infrastructure and
catering facilities. A further reason is the consi-
derable foreign investment in Bulgarian resorts.
As a result, in just a few years the Bulgarian Black
Sea region has been thoroughly modernized and
is now better prepared to accommodate the
requirements of Western tourists. Generally, the
Bulgarian tourist product has been found attrac-
tive to those of lower or average income. An
investigation in 1998 disclosed that only 2% of
foreign tourists belonged to the affluent segment
of the market. A recent survey in Poland of 540
internet users found that low-spending tourists
from Central and Eastern Europe remain a prob-
lem, with 61% of those planning to spend their
holidays in Bulgaria having a budget of less than
€
360 (from the website
www.bulgaricus.com,
2005). As might be expected, the largest reve-
nue contribution is provided by visitors from
Germany, the UK, Greece, Russia, Benelux
and Scandinavia who stay for longer periods.
By contrast, visitors from neighbouring countries
tend to stay for a short time and often for non-
leisure purposes.
Transformation Trends
Since 1990, Bulgarian tourism has faced a radi-
cal transformation (Vodenska, 1992; Harrison,
1993; Bachvarov, 1997a; Kasatschka and
Marinov, 2003), and a number of trends can be
distinguished. First, as might have been expec-
ted, there has been a significant change in mar-
kets, with the share of EU countries in foreign
tourism overnights increasing from 36% in
1990 to 72% in 2002. Such a trend might be
expected to continue.
Second, there has been a substantial
reduction in the domestic tourism market. A
major reason for this is changes that have taken
place in subsidized welfare and recreation due
to the withdrawal of financial support from the
state. The majority of trade union and spa
facilities have been privatized, and have often
changed their function, while some have been
abandoned. At the same time, better-off domes-
tic tourists have more frequently used commer-
cial accommodation in the mountains and at
the seaside. By contrast, many former domestic
tourists will have been adversely affected by
short- to medium-term rising prices and rela-
tively lower incomes.
Third, tourists from former COMECON
countries, so numerous in the 1970s and 1980s,
have almost entirely disappeared, with the
notable exception of wealthier Russians and
Ukrainians, who, in the 1990s, represented a
large share of tourists and were preferred as
customers by the local population. In 2001,
Bulgaria introduced a visa requirement for CIS
visitors and the result was a considerable reduc-
tion in arrivals from former Soviet countries.
Fourth, the rapid privatization of state
property - hotels, catering, shops and many
services - has taken place, while outdated infra-
structure in the resorts is still run by the state or
local government. This causes constant prob-
lems with hotel and restaurant owners. In many
cases tourism facilities were built on land now
claimed by its former owners or their heirs.
Koulov and Marinov (1997) assessed that 80%
of land in the coastal resorts of Slunchev Briag
and Albena is liable to re-privatization.
