Impact of European Union funding on tourism in the Grampian Region

ABSTRACT

The European Union (EU) has no specifictourism policy. Even though there aredivergent views on its involvement inregional development, there is a consensuson the fact that the EU is involved by itsprinciple role of ‘Subsidiarity’. There is alsocontinued participation of the EU inactivities related to tourism development inthe community. Undoubtedly, the EU ishaving an impact on regional developmentof members states. Research carried outshows the contribution of the EU inregional development and tourism. The EUfunding has tended to focus on peripheralareas and where traditional industries aredeclining. Tourism related projects (such asvisitor attractions) have benefited from suchfunding programmes, on the assumptionthat these projects will create employmentand increase visitor numbers, as well aspromote the economies of these regions.Consequently, this paper considers thecontributions of EU funding of tourismattractions in the Aberdeen and Grampianregion of Scotland and issues affecting theeffectiveness of the attractions themselves.Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Accepted April 2006

Keywords: EU funding; peripheral areas;Scotland.

INTRODUCTION

Tourism contributes considerably towardscreation of jobs, maintaining a destina-tions image and to the overall improve-

ment of economies. In recent years tourism hasmade an enormous contribution to job creationin the European Union (EU). It is estimated that8 million people are employed in this sector inthe EU and these figures represent approxi-mately 5% of total employment. Additionally,in the year 2000, the five top leading tourist destinations in the world were in the EU (Directorate-General for Enterprise, 2003a). Interms of Scotland there were 18 million visitorsin 2003 and the industry is worth £4.4 billion(Scotexchange.net, 2006a). In the Aberdeen andGrampian region ‘tourists took 1.6 million tripsto the region and spent £331 million per year inthe area’ (Scotexchange.net, 2006b).

The Aberdeen and Grampian regions arelocated in northeast Scotland and this area isconsidered to be peripheral and reliant on thedeclining industries of agriculture and fishing(although the oil industry is a major employerin parts of the area, particularly AberdeenCity). Over the past years, the EU has beeninvolved in developing this region throughfunding different tourism projects such asvisitor attractions. Funding has been providedover phases identified as ‘Objective Pro-grammes’, with each programme having spe-cific aims. These EU funds tend to be availablefor capital investment for new project or attrac-tion developments. However, Nash andMartin (2003) argue that the effect of suchfunding is leading to the development ofattractions that may not be viable in the shortterm. This study seeks to identify the contri-

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM RESEARCHInt. J. Tourism Res. 8, 247–261 (2006)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jtr.573

Impact of European Union Funding onTourism in the Grampian RegionRobert Nash1,*, Doris Koyabe1 and Paul Stansbie2

1Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University, Scotland2Department of Hospitality and Tourism, Grand Valley State University, USA

*Correspondence to: R. Nash, Aberdeen Business School,Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Phase 1, GarthdeeRoad, Aberdeen AB10 7QG, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

248 R. Nash, D. Koyabe and P. Stansbie

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Tourism Res. 8, 247–261 (2006)DOI: 10.1002/jtr

bution of the EU in the development oftourism in northeast Scotland (Figure 1). Thefocus is on EU funded projects in the Aberdeenand Grampian region. Aberdeen City isexcluded as it does not fall under the areas eli-gible for funding.

LITERATURE REVIEW

European Union Structural Funds and tourism

The European Community recognises tourismas a vital economic asset for the member states(McDonald et al., 2003). The target regions fordevelopment are characterised by stuntedgrowth, low income and high rates of unem-ployment. To ensure the effective disburse-ment of funds the EU has prepared differentfinancial support instruments identified in theTreaty of Rome as ‘financial instruments’.These have come to be known as StructuralFunds and are essentially a form of subsidy,which imposes some obligations on thewealthier regions and states. Each instrumentidentifies the policy objectives to be pursuedand monitors the effective use of the funds.

Structural Funds group together the following:

(i) European Regional Development Funds(ERDF);

(ii) European Social Fund (ESF);(iii) European Agricultural Guidance and

Guarantee Fund (EAGGF);(iv) Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guid-

ance (FIFG).

The ERDF and EAGGF and the initiativeprogrammes have direct influence on tourism.Other Community funding programmes initiatives are: Leader, Interreg, Equal, TheCohesion Fund and Instrument for StructuralPolicies for Pre-Accession ISPA. The principleobjective of the financial instruments isdevoted to eliminating structural weaknessesthat hamper economic growth within regionsor member countries. Structural funds havegrown to become a significant part of the EU budget, as illustrated by Figure 2. The‘Enlarged’ plot on the graph is the EU mem-bership that includes new states admitted in2002 and those joining in 2006; the percentageis based on 1999 prices. Over time, StructuralFund expenditure in pursuit of cohesion hasbecome one of the EU’s core activities (Wallaceand Wallace, 2000; Pinder, 2001; McDonald et al., 2003).

European Union funding is provided overphases identified as ‘Objective Programmes’,with each programme having specific aims

Objective 2

Phasing-out Objective 2

Phasing-out Objective (partly)

ABERDEEN

Figure 1. Northeastern Scotland: European Structural Funds (2000–2006) (source: DirectorateGeneral for Enterprise, 2003b).

4.87.3

9.1

25

37

3032

4.87.3

9.1

25

3735

39

0

Per

cent

age

of E

U B

udge

t

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1975 1981 1987 1992 1998 2002 2006

Year

15 Member Enlarged

Figure 2. Growth of the EU Structural Funds(1975–2006) (source: adapted from Wallace andWallace, 2000).

(Wallace and Wallace, 2000; Pinder, 2001;McDonald et al., 2003). Tourism projects bene-fiting from EU funds have aimed to improveand regenerate the regions or establish:

(i) new visitor attractions such as museum,galleries, historic buildings, monument,heritage sites, gardens, etc.;

(ii) cultural interpretative centers;(iii) health sport and marine facilities;(iv) walkways, trails;(v) urban amenity through regeneration;(vi) tourism business networks.

European Union involvement in tourismdevelopments in the Aberdeen andGrampian region

The funding involved in the Aberdeen andGrampian region is Objective 2 of the Struc-tural Funds, which ‘aims to revitalise all areasfacing structural difficulties, whether indus-trial, rural, urban or dependent on fisheries.Though situated in regions whose develop-ment level is close to the Community average,such areas are faced with different types ofsocio-economic difficulties that are often thesource of high unemployment’ (EuropeanCommission, 2004). In the Aberdeen andGrampian region the areas of concern includea decline in traditional activities in rural areasand difficulties affecting fisheries activity.

Visitor attractions are vital components ofScottish tourism and currently the number ofattractions are estimated at nearly 1000, with‘Aberdeen and Grampian having a total of 78paid and free attractions second to the High-lands of Scotland which has 87’ (Ashred et al.,2003, p. 16). Authors such as Boniface andCooper (2001, p. 30) are of the view that,‘visitor attractions are the “raison d’etre” fortourism as they encourage visits, trips or causeto travel and hence developing an industry ofits own’. Walsh-Heron and Steven (1990, p. 9)add that attractions are ‘managed to providesatisfaction to customers, have appropriatefacilities and may or may not charge an admis-sion’. The majority are ‘not-for-profit’, whereownership may be a combination of the fol-lowing: public sector, voluntary sector, chari-table trusts, preservation societies, religiousbodies, historic Scotland and National Trust for

Scotland. The major stakeholders being VisitScotland, National Trust for Scotland,Scottish Enterprise and Historic Scotland ‘whopromote and manage visitor attractions inScotland’ (Watson et al., 2004, p. 40). Manyvisitor attractions have been initiated by keyfunding bodies, such as National Trust funds,Heritage lottery funds, Scottish Enterprisefunds and the EU (Fyall et al., 2003). Theoverall influence of visitor attractions withinAberdeen and Grampian region is significant.These attractions increase tourist numbers(including local visitors) and bring revenue tothe region. They also provide a source ofincome to the local government through taxes from paid employees and sales taxes onitems bought (souvenirs) in the attractions(Swarbrooke, 2002a; Fyall et al., 2003).

The focus of this study was on EU fundedvisitor attractions within Grampian, in regionsconsidered as peripheral by the EU. The attrac-tions in this area were established as a ‘possi-ble solution for regional as well as tourismdevelopment in the region’ (Wanhill, 1995, p.68). However, the majority are heritage attrac-tions and these tend to be comparativelyunsuccessful in attracting new consumers.This is partly due to the pervading market conditions, where ever more attractions arepursuing fewer visitors and facing increasedcompetition from other sectors (Swarbrooke,2001; Garrod et al., 2002; Lennon, 2004). This isof great concern to the Grampian region wherethere are a comparatively large number of EUfunded heritage based visitor attractions, withsimilar themes, who compete amongst them-selves for visitors. This is compounded by thefact that the area is ‘directly affected by the lack of coordination or a unified policy atregional level’ (Nash and Martin, 2003, p. 177).A lack of cooperation between the key organisations involved has meant disjointedtourism policy development and consequentlyEU funding has not been utilised to its fullpotential.

Models based on analysis of strength, weak-nesses, opportunities and threat (SWOT) canassist in identifying key issues of the businessenvironment (Johnson and Scholes, 1999) andcan focus on the strategic capability of theattractions. Table 1 outlines the prevalent char-acteristics of visitor attractions in the region.

Tourism in the Grampian Region 249




RESEARCH METHODS

This research combined different approaches.Questionnaires were designed to identify theimpact of EU funding on tourism in Aberdeenand Grampian, and to determine user require-ments and their expectations. Ten pilot inter-views were conducted to test and amend theinitial questionnaire and to ensure that finalfindings are valid and could form a ‘soundbasis for generalisation or further action’(Oppenheim, 1999, p. 64). Purposive samplingwas used to identify and select cases that metthe research objectives (Saunders et al., 2000).Initial telephone contact was made to elicittheir participation in the survey. The data col-lection process involved two main stages.Firstly, semi-structured questionnaires wereused in face to face interviews with the orga-nizations, with the intention of obtaining in-depth evidence (Remenyi and Williams, 1996).The respondents included representativesfrom Macduff Marine Aquarium, BennachieVisitor Centre and Forest walks, PeterheadMaritime Heritage, Scottish Lighthouse Fraser-burgh Museum and Aberdeenshire Council.

The second phase involved self-administered questionnaires, which weregiven in person to a sample of participants,who included visitors to the attractions andresidents of the region under study. In total the

survey sample contained 145 respondents,with a return of 107 valid responses. The sta-tistical package SPSS was chosen for datamanipulation to enable cross-tabulation andcomparison of variables to produce appropri-ate findings for discussion with the reviewedliterature. The completed questionnaires weresequentially numbered and filed as they werereceived. This ensured that all questionnaireswere accounted for and enabled ease of futurereference. The data analysis technique useddepended on the data collection method used.The case-study data were descriptive in nature,at best they served to complement the litera-ture reviewed. These were analysed usingconventional tools such as PESTE and SWOTmodels. Analysis of secondary data served tocompare the performance of the projects withthe EU objectives.

Results from the survey method were codedto ease data entry and to minimise typograph-ical errors. Using SPSS, appropriate variableswere created and the relevant data codes foreach questionnaire entered on computer tocreate a data file. The initial statistical analysisperformed was to test the data for reliability by computing the internal consistency usingCronbach’s alpha, the target alpha valueshould be between 0.7 and 1.0. Line graphsand bar graphs are used to present the resultsand where appropriate figures and explana-

Table 1. Summary of SWOT analysis

Strength Weaknesses

Unique due to their heritage Common theme with little variationEligibility for public funding Reliant on same target marketEnvironment friendly Most attaining maturity statusHas support of local community Within close geographical location of each otherHigh capital outlay to set-up Dependence on subsidies for funding

Growing visitor apathyLimited space

Opportunities Threats

Diversification of product Competition from new theme attractions such as Collaborate with other attractions to create a chain science and technology based attractionsof attractions Dwindling funding from EU and other bodiesAccessibility — improve roads, increase frequency The neighbouring cities and expanded EU have rich of transport service, cheaper air fares and heritage; cheaper flights and accommodation: accommodation better value for moneyExplore providing more interactive offeringsExpansion and refurbishment

tions are included. Of the 145 self-adminis-tered questionnaires sent out, there were 107usable responses. To ease computations, 100were selected for further analysis. This yieldeda Cronbach’s alpha of 0.7636, indicating thatthe data selected were valid and reliable.Figures 3 and 4 provide the demographic char-acteristics of the respondents.

DISCUSSION

It should be mentioned at this stage that thedata collected from the Peterhead MaritimeHeritage are incomplete in places, due to thereluctance on the part of the management of this attraction to discuss, or inform theresearch. This was predominantly as a result ofthe fact that the attraction has been the subjectconsiderable press comment and criticism as aresult of its performance and its eventualfailure as an attraction.

All the attractions are located in peripheralareas with struggling economies. In contrast,neighbouring Aberdeen City has a strong business economy that is buoyed by the richoil industry. There is a spill-over effect fromAberdeen City to the neighbouring economiesbut the impacts are lessened by distance fromthe city. The case studies involved four visitorattractions situated in the Aberdeen andGrampian region and they are all over 25 milesfrom Aberdeen City (see below). In terms of

actual visitor numbers to each of the attrac-tions they were as follows: Macduff MarineAquarium, 54 105 per year in 2005; PeterheadMaritime Heritage, visitor numbers in 2004were 3820 but they ceased trading as an attrac-tion in that year; Bennachie Centre, 35 836 vis-itors used the visitor centre in 2004; ScottishLighthouse Museum Fraserburgh, 11 213 for2005.

These figures are supported by the respon-dent feedback in terms of attraction visitation.Figure 5 illustrates the percentage of respon-dents who have visited each of the attractions.

More than a quarter of the respondents havevisited Bennachie Centre. The popularity ofthe attraction may be due to its local visitorbase (see later discussion) and the outdooractivities it provides (including environmentaland sports related activities). The attractionreceives positive reviews from visitors as mostof them are local repeat visitors who haveheard of it by word of mouth (see Figure 6).Macduff recorded good visitor numbers andthis could be attributable to the fact that it isthe only marine aquarium in the region and



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Under 16 16 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 Over 45

Age

Perc

enta

ge (

%)

Figure 3. Distribution by age.

Male44%Female

56%

Figure 4. Distribution by gender.

None17%

Peterhead17%

Scottish Lighthouse

18%

Macduff22%

Bennachie26%

Figure 5. Percentage visits by case-study attractions.

Internet11%

TV3%

Other1%

Brochures23%

Word of mouth47%

Newspapers15%

Figure 6. Media through which respondents hearabout the attractions.

the attraction has an appeal for children andschool parties. However, Peterhead had thelowest visits due to seasonal closure and localresident resistance to the development (Nashand Martin, 2003). The Scottish Lighthousehad low numbers as a result of its accessibility(Nash and Martin, 2003).

How visitors know about the attractions

Almost 50% of the respondents had heard ofthe attractions by word of mouth. Figure 6identifies that word of mouth was the domi-nant medium in disseminating informationabout attractions and suggests that most of the visitors are from within the vicinity of theattractions (as confirmed by analysis of therespondent’s residence). This is supported bydata from the attractions themselves, whichsuggest the visitors tend to be dominated by local residents and local school parties.Although it is essential to have local supportthe dominance of local visitors does not max-imise the revenue potential of the attractions.Certainly in the case of Bennachie one of theirestablished goals is to limit tourist numbers torestrict damage to the environment but attractlocal visitors, to what is acknowledged as alocal attraction (F. Gordon, Personal Commu-nication, 2004).

Why do the respondents visit?

The feedback from the managers at all four ofthe attractions was that the local market dom-inated the visits to attractions (especially in thecase of Bennachie). This is supported by find-ings from the second phase of the research,where friends and family were 35% of the vis-itors and they provide the largest volume ofvisitors (Figure 7). These are people who arevisiting local residents and who come to theattractions as a result of visiting with friendsand family. They are the main target group ofvisitor attractions in the Grampian region as aresult of the buoyant oil-related industrial andbusiness sector in Aberdeen City. The oilindustry attracts workers to the area who arein turn visited by friends and family (VFRs).The percentages are based on actual visitors tothe attractions; this constitutes 72% of therespondents.

Why they do not visit

Although 28% of the respondents had notvisited any of the attractions, only 40% of therespondents ‘occasionally’ or ‘regularly’ visitthe attractions; indicating there is potential formore visitors and considerably more localinvolvement (especially in the case of Peter-head). This raises concern as to whether localinvolvement and improved access to localfacilities (other objectives of EU funded pro-jects) are being achieved. This was certainlynot the case in Peterhead where the attractionperformed very poorly and is now limited toseasonal opening. Seasonality compounds theproblems facing the sector in the area. Themain reasons impacting negatively on visitornumbers to the attractions (Figure 8) areweather, alternative forms of tourism and lackof transport, which between them account for88% of the reasons not to visit attractions.Weather is uncontrollable; however preferencefor alternative forms of tourism could be anindicator of apathy towards the attractions.This is understandable if most of the visitorsare from the region. Accessibility has been crit-icised as being poor because some of the roadswere considered to be poor, sign-posting wasconsidered to be insufficient and the transportservices were criticized as irregular or notdependable. Ten per cent of respondents donot visit simply because they do not haveinformation on the attractions. On a largerscale this also presents a potential target group.A cross tabulation of the variables on the ques-tionnaires identified that the most significantreason why people do not visit attractions ispreference for alternative tourism attractions,


Revisit4%

Other10%

Family & Friends35%

New Attraction4%

Children11%

Hobby21%

New Event11%

Work Related4%

Figure 7. Reasons for visiting attractions.


which included alternative local events andscience based attractions (Satrosphere inAberdeen City). About 15% were put off by theentry fee, which suggests there may be anargument for following the example of Waleswhere access to local authority attractions isfree. This raises the wider debate aboutwhether local authority run attractions shouldbe for the education and recreation of the localcommunity, and therefore free, or whetherthey should be subject to the same commercialpressures as private sector attractions.

Suggested improvement to visitor attractions

The normal distribution curves for the ratingsof the various aspects of the visitor attractionswere plotted and superimposed to produceFigure 9. The curves for management, facili-ties, quality and visitor experience are sym-metrical about the average rating. Whereasmarketing, information technology and signposting are symmetrical and below average.Visitor experience and facilities closely match,indicating a strong correlation between thetwo, and marketing and sign-posting/accessi-bility are also comparable.

Over 50% of respondents considered thepromotion and marketing of the attractionsinadequate and only 21% thought the sign-posting good. These can be partly explained bya lack of funds available for marketing ingeneral (especially local authority funds). Inthe case of Bennachie the centre deliberately donot advertise the through road signage andthis is used as a control mechanism by themanagement to reduce crowding at the sites.

The focus is very much on an attraction for thelocals (F. Gordon, Personal Communication,2004) and tourists are not encouraged to findtheir way to the centre.

The findings in Figure 10 are supported bysuggestions made by respondents in respect ofwhat they wanted improved in the attractions,as illustrated by Figure 10. The main areasidentified for improvement are accessibilityand signage, information technology andquality and displays. There was general accep-tance that the quality of the attractions (in par-ticular the Bennachie Centre and the MacduffMarine Aquarium) were of an acceptable stan-dard but there was concern that more could bedone to improve displays and interpretation.The responses concerning the Peterhead Maritime Museum suggested a poor quality



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

No information Entry fee Other Transport Alternativetourism

Weather

Perc

enta

ge (%

)

Figure 8. Factors limiting visits to attractions.

QualityIT

MarketingVisitor Experience

Signage

Facilities

Management

50

40

30

20

10

0

Very

Freq

uene

y

GoodVeryPoor

Fair

Figure 9. Respondents’ rating of visitor attraction.

associated with the attraction, which supportsearlier comments about local antipathytowards this attraction.

The most common suggestion identifiedunder ‘Other’ was marketing and promotion.Almost 60% of the respondents were awarethat public funds are used to finance visitorattractions, and 25% were opposed to the useof public funds in supporting visitor attrac-tions (again raising the wider debate aboutlocal authority funding of attractions).

Impact of European Union funding

European Union funding is directed at elimi-nating structural weaknesses that hamper eco-nomic growth and develop poor regionswithin member states. These are regions facingmajor changes in the industrial, services andfisheries sector, rural areas in decline and dis-advantaged urban areas. Nash and Martin(2003, p. 176) suggest that the ‘effectiveness ofthe EU in its attempts to reduce economicimbalances has been largely unsuccessful as ithas burdened Grampian with subsidisationcosts, especially in rural heritage relatedtourism projects’. This adverse influence by theEU can be linked to its role of subsidiarity,whereas in the context of its role of provisionof funds the EU could be seen as effective infulfilling its role as an enabler. However, theEuropean Regional Fund committed almost£87 million to the region in 2004 (EuropeanCommission, 2004).

For the period 1994 to 2006 (Figure 11),funding has increased from 28% to 30% of thetotal eligible costs for projects. Wanhill’s (1997)research on peripheral area tourism in Europehighlighted the contribution of EU funds in thecreation of small–medium enterprises in the

peripheral regions. He points out that the frag-mented nature of the industry as well as a widerange of disparate businesses provide a furtherchallenge to evaluating contributions of EUfunding. This complements the findings byNash and Martin (2003), who identified asimilar problem with many individual stake-holders in the Grampian region. In terms of thelevel of EU funding for the attractions thefigures are as follows: Macduff Marine Aquar-ium, £280 007; Peterhead Maritime Heritage,£539 890; Bennachie Centre, £400 000; ScottishLighthouse Museum Fraserburgh, £250 474.

The managers of each attraction were askedabout their individual objectives and these arelisted below:

Macduff Marine to create awareness of Aquarium the product and to

attract visitorsPeterhead Maritime to become a major Heritage tourist attraction and to

attract visitorsBennachie Centre to attract local visitors

and to provide an interpretation centre andorientation point for visitors

Scottish Lighthouse to attract visitors and to Museum inform visitorsFraserburgh

It is no surprise that the objectives of the man-agers (generally to attract visitors, althoughpredominantly local visitors at Bennachie)tended to reflect the objectives associated withthe EU in terms of the development of theattractions. The EU objectives centre on eco-nomic regeneration through the creation ofjobs and local income generation based on thedevelopment of the attractions and increasedvisitor numbers. More specifically the EUobjectives focused on factors that have a sub-stantial effect on the development of visitorattractions such as:

(i) community involvement;(ii) the contribution of new developments to

the economies of areas in which attrac-tions are located;

(iii) improvements in standard of living;(iv) improving support infrastructure;(v) population adjustments.


Accessibility and signage

28%

Design10%

Quality and Displays19%

Quality9%

Other11%

I.T23%

Figure 10. Respondents’ suggestions for improvements.


Community involvement

There is an apparent lack of consultation andinvolvement of the public in the implementa-tion of the local projects. Almost 80% ofrespondents indicated that they have neverbeen consulted; of which 41% were willing toparticipate, if consulted. This is an importantfinding given the EU’s insistence on local com-munity involvement. The findings from thevisitors in respect of the apparent lack ofinvolvement are surprising in relation to theBennachie Centre, which was initiated andfunded by local groups and the local authori-ties. The data collected from three of the attrac-tion managers (Bennachie, Fraserburgh andMacduff) suggest that their attractions weredeveloped as a result of ideas and enthusiasmfrom local groups. This is especially evident inthe case of Bennachie where there has beenconsiderable ongoing local support. The attrac-tion is well supported by local repeat visitorsand there is a very active local communityaction group (the Baillies of Bennachie)working alongside the management in restora-tion and fund raising activities. However, thiswas not the case at the Peterhead MaritimeMuseum where the attraction was developedas a result of the local Council’s desire for theproject. The findings from this case tend tosupport the comments made by the visitorsabout the lack of involvement and consulta-tion. This particular attraction met with localresistance from the start and this existedthroughout its life as an attraction. This localantipathy was partly responsible for the attrac-tion failing and eventually closing and being

reopened on a seasonal basis. There have beenattempts to re-focus the attraction by using thebuilding as an out-reach arm of a local College(Banff and Buchan) during the closed seasonand opening again as an attraction in thesummer season. This has had some limitedsuccess.

Possible contributions of visitor attractions

Figure 12 is a plot of the normal distributioncurves for possible contributions of visitorattractions suggested by the respondents. Mostof the respondents from the survey were inagreement with the attraction managers in that they thought the visitor attractions con-tributed to increasing visitor numbers and theconservation of heritage and the natural environment. It is of significance that mostrespondents were neutral on the suggestionthat visitor attractions contribute towardsincreasing support businesses and creation ofemployment. This is supported by the fact thatonly three full time jobs were created at two ofthe attractions (Fraserburgh and Bennachie).The Peterhead attraction made no commentconcerning the benefits that the attractiondevelopment had made to the region, and interms of employment creation there are no full-time staff employed at the attraction. However,this is not the case at Macduff Marine Aquar-ium who suggested that the local economybenefited to the tune of £5million over theperiod 1998–1999, with the individual attrac-tion employing 10 full time staff. This could beexplained by the fact that the Macduff attrac-



TotalEligible

Costs72%

GrantRequested

28%

1994 - 1999

TotalEligibleCosts70%

GrantRequested

30%

2000 - 2006

Figure 11. European Union funding (source: Scottish Executive, 2004).

tion has visitor numbers in excess of 54 000 perannum. There was more support for the sug-gestion that the attractions assist in improvingthe infrastructure, but the tendency was for therespondent’s to disagree with the premise thatthe development of the attractions help toachieve some of the core objectives of the EU,which are to:

(i) increase support businesses;(ii) create of employment;(iii) improve the local infrastructure.

Standard of living

One of the primary objectives of EU funding isto raise the standard of living of the target areasthrough the structural funds. Gross domesticproduct (GDP) provides a measure of the totaleconomic activity in a region and hence is anindicator of the standard of living. ComparingFigures 13 and 14, there is a direct relationshipbetween the rates of growth of funding receivedand the GDP of Aberdeenshire.

The managers of the attractions tended tosupport the suggestion that the standard ofliving had increased for the local population asa result of the development of the attractions(with the exception of Peterhead). They sug-gested that they had a positive impact on the

local standard of living in terms of recreationalfacilities and access to leisure and the environment.

Supporting infrastructure

Land development statistics are used as ameasure of growth of supporting infrastruc-


Strongly

Fre

uuen

cy

AgreeStronglydisagree

Neutral

50

40

30

20

10

0

* Increasing visitor numbers

* Creation of employment

* Improving infrastructure

* Increasing support businesses

* Conservation of heritage & natural

environment

Contribution of VisitorAttractions in:

Figure 12. Benefit of visitor attractions to the region.

2000 2001 2002 2003

Rat

e of

Gro

wth

(%)

Aberdeen City

Aberdeenshire

Scotland

UK

4

3

2

1

0

-1

Figure 13. Rate of growth of gross domesticproduct for Aberdeenshire (source: North East Scotland Economic Forum, 2005).


ture. Aberdeenshire Council prepared the localEmployment Land Audit which aims to bringtogether into one source document up-to-dateand accurate information on the supply andavailability of employment land in the north-east of Scotland. In particular, marketable landshould be provided in sufficient quantity andquality to meet the diverse range of industrial,business and commercial (including tourism)requirements, including the expansion andgrowth of indigenous firms that would includetourism enterprises (Aberdeenshire Council,2006). Figure 15 shows the land developmentstatistics for the period 1994–2002 and for the period 1994–1999. Aberdeenshire outper-formed Aberdeen City except in 1995 and 1997.In the period 2000–2003, however, Aberdeen-shire’s growth rate has been steady and aboveAberdeen City’s, with the notable exception of2001 when Aberdeen City exhibited a dispro-

portionate growth. This is attributable to thefoot and mouth disease outbreak at the time,which affected farming and could have causeda concentration of development in the city. Inessence there is an inverse relationship in landdevelopment between Aberdeen City andAberdeenshire. This supports the EU’s objec-tive of developing the region through improv-ing the infrastructure. Although it must beacknowledged that the development of infra-structure cannot be totally justified as a resultof the development of the tourist attractions, itshould be noted that they will have had animpact.

Population

Generally, the rate of growth of the populationbetween Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshiredepicts an inverse relationship (Figure 16),



-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Rat

e of

Gro

wth

(%)

Figure 14. European Union funding in Aberdeenshire (source: Scottish Executive, 2004).

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Per

cent

age

Gro

wth

(%

)

Aberdeenshire

Aberdeen City

Figure 15. Land development (source: Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire Council, 2004).


-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Rat

e of

Gro

wth

(%

)

Aberdeen City

Aberdeenshire

Figure 16. Population growth (source: Napier University, 2003).

with Aberdeenshire showing a much highergrowth rate than Aberdeen City. Additionally,the population of Aberdeen City is decliningwhereas that of Aberdeenshire is growing. Thispopulation movement does support the objec-tives of the EU to increase migration from thecity to the surrounding peripheral areas ensur-ing a population balance, and this may be dueto the increased employment opportunitiesassociated with economic developmentsoutside the city boundaries. However, it mayalso reflect the higher property prices associ-ated with the City of Aberdeen and a willing-ness to commute from the shire to the city. Thepopulation growth in the shire may also havea positive impact on the number of day visi-tors likely to visit the attractions in this study,given that they will be situated closer to theattractions and that travel time would bereduced.

CONCLUSIONS

The relatively buoyant economy in AberdeenCity (based around the oil industry) has anadverse influence the cost of accommodation,transport and other services within the periph-eral areas. Allied to this the decline of tradi-tional industries has resulted in increasedunemployment and reduced economic activity,with an overall reduction in the standard ofliving in many of these areas. This creates roomfor attractions to emerge as a new economicactivity, as they have the potential to createemployment. A notable finding from casestudies was the lack of supporting businesses

around the attractions. If the attractions cannotgenerate sufficient visitor numbers (as was thecase with Peterhead Maritime Museum and to a lesser extent Fraserburgh LighthouseMuseum), it would be difficult for private busi-nesses to develop on the back of these attrac-tions. It is not the core activity of attractions to engage in support businesses, however,attractions must command sufficient visitornumbers to enable the growth of small andmedium enterprises in the areas surroundingthem.

Wallace and Wallace (2000), McDonald et al.(2003), Wanhill (1997) and Pinder (2001) haveillustrated the way the EU have used structuralfunds for development and integration ofmember states. It is evident that the EU’sinvolvement in Aberdeen and Grampian isessentially for regional development as theregion falls under the objective criteria speltout for assistance in regeneration of theeconomy. Tourism benefits from these fundsthrough projects identified by organisationsrecognised by the EU, such as local authoritiesand area tourist boards. However, there isoverwhelming consensus in the literatureavailable that tourism development inAberdeen and Grampian (and Scotland as awhole) is directly affected by lack of coordina-tion and a lack of a unified policy at regionaland local levels (Wanhill, 1997; Swarbrooke,2001; Nash and Martin, 2003). A lack of co-operation between the key organisationsinvolved has meant a disjointed developmentof tourism policy in the area and EU fundingmay not have been utilised to its full potential.


A change to the present structure is both likelyand necessary if tourism is to develop as amajor industry in the area (Garrod et al., 2002;Fyall et al., 2003; Nash and Martin, 2003).Reform has to take place from the top down-wards (Scottish Executive and VisitScotland)as the local and regional composition of powerand funding arrangements are dictated fromthere.

Besides overcoming problems related tolocation (peripherality), other concerns thathave an impact on the future of the Grampianvisitor attractions are inclusive of thosecommon to the Scottish visitor attractions.There have been considerable changes infunding structures with the introduction of theNational lottery fund and the EU StructuralFunds (and the distinct possibility of thesefunds being reduced due to the increase ofmember states). Fyall et al. (2003) acknowledgefunding from local enterprise companies asproviding for ongoing revenue support/capital funding, which has a great impact on the development and reinvestment in the visitor attraction product. In contrast,Aberdeen and Grampian region is experienc-ing a reduction in funding from the localauthorities; threatening access to revenue orcapital funding for projects (Nash and Martin,2003). A survey by VisitScotland recognised aneed for attractions to appeal to a broaderaudience and generate greater levels of exter-nal income, in order to increase the productmix on offer and the choice for visitors. In thisway attractions are generating new revenuestreams, by forming partnerships with spon-soring companies, such as Macduff MarineAquarium and Telesman.

Studies on Scottish visitor attractions(Stevens, 2000; Garrod et al., 2002; Swarbrooke,2002a; Fyall et al., 2003; Lennon, 2003; Watsonet al., 2004) highlight the impact of challengesinherent in developing projects. They agreethat the sector is sagging under an oversupplyof attractions, attracting few people, becomingfinancial liabilities and hence threatening theirown existence. These challenges adverselyinfluence the effectiveness and viability of theEU funding in achieving its objectives. In thisresearch the greatest departure between theEU’s objectives (centred on economic regener-ation through increasing employment) is that

the number of full-time jobs created are limited(13 in total between all four attractions — 10 atMacduff). A fundamental issue that arises dueto the fragmented nature of the sector, resultsin a lack of purpose, with attractions merelybeing leisure outposts. This disparity can betraced to the EU’s policy that treats tourismmore as a product and less as a recreationalneed, as evidenced by the existence of theattractions (Mcdonald et al., 2003). There is aneed to review the objectives of the attractions,and co-ordinate this with the business oppor-tunities available. Areas that should be tar-geted for improvement include broadening thevisitor base and improving transport withinthe region. These are areas that rely on leader-ship from the local authorities.

Figure 17 summarises the intersector per-ceptions of the key stakeholders. These areareas where EU funding has the greatest dis-cernible impact. The intersections on the figureindicate the commonality. Areas of particularinterest are the non-overlapping segments ofeach sector, which highlight the dissatisfac-tions that create an expectation gap.

The proliferation of heritage-based attrac-tions in Scotland raises fear that the market issaturated and the market appeal for conven-tional visitor attractions is waning. These mayjeopardise the existence of the sector as it couldlead to uncertainty and closure of individualattractions (Stevens, 2000; Swarbrooke, 2002b),such as Peterhead Maritime Museum. For theattractions to survive in the face of increasingcompetition, they have to adapt to new devel-opments, such as purpose-built, multifunc-tional and multi-occupier forms of attractions(Stevens, 2000). Swarbrooke (2002a, p. 331)refers to this as ‘the creation of the “wowfactor” and the unique selling proposition’.

The high percentage of people not visitingattractions (27%) shows that there is potentialto increase visitor numbers from within theregion. However, to increase revenue flow inthe region, boost integration, create employ-ment and increase support businesses thevisitor attractions need to broaden their visitorbase beyond the local area. A trade-off betweenthe existing constraint on capacity and desireto manage the natural environment needs to befound. Eleven per cent of the respondents indi-cated they visited the attractions at children’s



behest. This is an area of potential that attrac-tions should exploit.

As mentioned earlier in the report theinvolvement of local authorities in the runningand funding of local attractions is a cause fora wider debate. The existence of subsidisedvisitor attractions that are not commerciallyviable is under threat, creating the need toreview the basis of measurement of success.Consequently the criteria should evaluate andrecognise the overall ‘worth’ of attractions asgenuine cultural assets, whose survival is oth-erwise threatened by the predominantly short-term economic criteria upon which ‘success’ isincreasingly judged. For the EU to achieve itsobjectives (which are centred on eliminatingstructural weaknesses associated with eco-nomic decline and fostering economic growth),it has to continue working alongside otherinstitutions and stakeholders in the tourismindustry. At the very least by doing so, the EUshould implement policies that are going toharmonise tourism activities in relation to

other sectors, thereby enhancing developmentof the economy of the member states.

REFERENCES

Aberdeenshire Council. 2004. Aberdeen andAberdeenshire Employment Land Audit 2004. www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/statistics (accessed 28March 2004). See http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/statistics/land/empaudit.asp#one(accessed 28 March 2006).

Ashred N, Bereziat C, Graham M, Lennon JJ, MoffatCentre for Travel and Tourism Business Develop-ment. 2003. The 2002 Visitor Attraction Monitor.Moffat Centre for Travel and Tourism BusinessDevelopment, Glasgow Caledonian University;7–125.

Boniface BG, Cooper C. 2001. Worldwide Des-tinations: the Geography of Travel and Tourism. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.

Cardoso C, Ferreira L. 2000. The effect of Europeaneconomic integration on tourism. InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management12(7): 1–10.



Increase

visitor numbers

Improve

conservation of

heritage & environment

Would like

more funding to

cater for operating

costs, marketing, expansion.

Accessibility, transport

weather

Service Providers:Macduff Marine Aquarium

Bennachie CentrePeterhead Maritime Heritage

Fraserburgh Light Hse Museum

Mismanagement of funds

Policy & Regulators:

The perspective of

EU, Local Council

Do not

improve

infrastructure

Do not create

employment

Do no increase support

businesses

Local Residents &

Visitors

Happy with EU

funding

Tourism generates

revenue

Happy with Publicfunding for

tourismNo support

servicesinfrastructure

Happy with EU funding

Threat of EU expansion on

future funds

Figure 17. Mapping the stakeholder expectations.

Clive A. 2000. The European Union: Structure andProcess, 3rd edn. Biddles: 140–145.

Directorate-General for Enterprise. 2003a. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/services/tourism/index_en.htm (accessed 23 November 2004).

Directorate General for Enterprise. 2003b. http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/atlas/united_kingdom/factsheets/pdf/fact_ukm1_en.pdf (accessed 23 February 2005).

European Commission. 2004. http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/objective2/index_en.htm (accessed 29 March 2006).

Fyall A, Garrod B, Leask A. 2003. Managing Visi-tor Attractions: New Directions. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Garrod B, Fyall A, Leask A. 2002. Scottish visitorattractions: managing visitor impacts. Journal ofTourism Management 25: 265–279.

Johnson G, Scholes K. 1999. Exploring CorporateStrategy, 5th edn. Prentice Hall: London.

Lennon JJ. 2004. Revenue management and cus-tomer forecasts: a bridge too far for the UK visitorattractions sector? Journal of Revenue and PricingManagement 2(4): 336–352.

Lickorish LJ, Jefferson A, Bodlender J, Jenkins CL.1991. Developing Tourism Destinations Policies andPerspectives. Longman Group: London.

McDonald M, Contributors. 2003. European Commu-nity Tourism Law and Policy. Blackhall Publishing:Dublin.

Napier University. 2003. http://www.nubs.napier.ac.uk/nubs/HTM/Research/attractions/revenue.htm (accessed 18 November 2003).

Nash R, Martin A. 2003. Tourism in peripheralareas. The challenges for North East of Scotland.International Journal of Tourism Research 5: 161–181.

North East Scotland Economic Forum. 2005. http://www.neser.org.uk/datasheet.cfm?datasheetid=13 (accessed 28 February 2005).

Oppenheim AN. 1999. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. Cassell:London.

Pinder J. 2001. The European Union: a Very ShortIntroduction. Oxford University Press: New York.

Remenyi D, Williams B. 1996. The nature ofresearch: qualitative or quantitative, narrative or paradigmatic? Information Systems Journal 6:131–146.

Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. 2000. ResearchMethods for Business Students, 2nd edn. PrenticeHall: London.

Scottish Executive. 2004. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases (accessed 21 January 2005).

Scotexchange. 2006a. Tourism in Scotland. http://www.scotexchange.net/know_your_market/kym_essentials_-_knowyourmarket_-_kym-essentials/tourisminscotland2003.htm (accessed27 March 2006).

Scotexchange. 2006b. Tourism in Aberdeen and Gram-pian. http://www.scotexchange.net/know_your_market/tourism_in_your_area/kym_aberdeen_and_grampian_-_aberdeengrampian_-_index.htm (accessed 27 March 2006).

Stevens T. 2000. The future of visitor attractions.Travel and Tourism Analyst 1: 61–85.

Swarbrooke J. 2001. Key challenges for visitorattraction managers in the UK. Journal of LeisureProperty 1(4): 318–336.

Swarbrooke J. 2002a. Heritage tourism in the UK —a glance at things to come. Insights. EnglishTourist Council.

Swarbrooke J. 2002b. The Development and Manage-ment of Visitor Attractions, 2nd edn. Reed Educa-tional & Professional.

Wallace H, Wallace W. 2000. Policy-making in theEuropean Union, 4th edn. Oxford University Press:New York.

Walsh-Heron J, Steven T. 1990. The Management ofVisitor Attractions and Events. Prentice Hall: NewJersey.

Wanhill S. 1995. Tourism in the peripheral areas ofEurope. Tourism Management 16: 67–72.

Wanhill S. 1997. Peripheral area tourism: a Euro-pean perspective. Journal of progress in tourism andHospitality Research 3: 47–70.

Watson S, McCracken M, Hughes M. 2004. Scottishvisitor attractions: managerial competence require-ments. Journal of European Industrial Training28(1): 39–66.



Documents

Impact of European Union funding on tourism in the Grampian Region