Holland, the American way

Tilburg University

Holland, the American way

Binkhorst, E.

Publication date: 2002

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Binkhorst, E. (2002). Holland, the American way. Tilburg University, Faculty of Social & Behavioral Sciences.

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

7//

K.U.B.

Bibliotheek Ttlburg

Holland, the American way

Transformations of

the

Netherlands

into US vacation experiences

PROEFSCHRIFT

ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

aan de Katholieke

Universiteit

Brabant,

op gezag van de rector magnificus,

prof.dr. EA. van der Duyn

Schouten,

in

het openbaar teverdedigen ten overstaan van

een door het _{college voor promoties aangewezen}commissie

in de aula van de Universiteit op vrijdag 21 juni 2002 om 11.15 uur

door

Esther

Maria

Huberdina

Binkhorst

geboren op 25 december 1968 te Rozenburg

Promotor: Prof.dr. Th.A.M. Beckers Copromotor: Dr.ir. H.J.J. van der Poel

© Esther_{Binkhorst, 2002 / Faculty of Social &} Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University

Dir onderzoek is gefinancierd doorde Stichting voor de Economische en

Sociaal-cul-turele en Ruimieli ike Wetenschappen (ESR) van de Nederlandse Organisatie voor

Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), projectnummer 51()-50-0()7, en werd mede

mogelijkgemaakt doorde_{financiele steun van de J.E. Jurriaanse}Stichting, Rot:terdam.

Cover picture: C.EM. Binkhorst ISBN 90-75001-52-5

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprintedor reproduced orutilized in

any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter

invented, including photocopying and recording, or any information storage or

retrieval _{system, except in case of briefquotations embodied} in critical articles and

Preface

From the moment Istartedworking on this dissertation, my life became anot entirely

unpleasant struggle between a need tosee through to completion this task that I had

undertaken andarestlessness and need coescapethesolitudeand sometimes tedium of

academia.Asenseofperspectivewasneededtobalancedriveandescape,providing both

their reasonableshare. When I temporarily lost this perspective, there wereothers who

helped me, each in their own way.

NWO,

in particular ESR, and the Department

of

Leisure Studies of Tilburg

University financed and facilitated this research project. Theo Beckers and Hugo van

der Poel initiatedthe researchproposalthataroused my interest. I thank them fortheir

faith in my ability to complete this job and for their supportand feedback throughout

the years,particularly during thefinalstage of writing this book.

Thanks are due to allmy (former) Ph.D. mates at the Leisure StudiesDepartment.

Bertine Bargeman, Karin Bras, Koen Breedveld, Agnes Elling, JokeJanssen, Margit

JakBvi, Antonis Klidas,Pascale_{Peters, Johan Steenbergen, and}SandraTrienekens, with

whom I enjoyed numerous discussions about our research and all chatitentails. Special

thanks go to _{Bertine, my} 'Wageningse' colleague in Tilburg; I enjoyed the time we

spent together, I very much appreciated the valuable comments you made on earlier

versions of this book and I thank you for volunteering your services as asecond at my

defence ofthis thesis. Pascale, thanks go to you for all your interestand insights,

par-ticularly into the concept ofmodularisation. Antonis, your expressionsofappreciation

on working on a thesis in combination with two 'noise factories; as you dubbed my

sons,often helped me toput things in perspective. I hope that you will one day be our

personal guide onasplendid tour through yourhomecountry ofGreece.

I would also like to thank all ofmyOther(former)colleagues at theDepartment of

Leisure Studies. Heidi Dahles, for the time she spent to getting me started with the

project and for ourworktogether on the student researchproject. Koen van Eijck, Joke

Janssenand Stephan Raaijmakersfortheirvaluablestatistical advise andsupport, which

I so badly needed. Greg Richards forthe 'gezellige' (Christmas and birthday) cocktail

parties we held atthe Department, intheGrand Caft and even on thetrainrides home.

Thanks as well to Greg, for commentsonearlier versions of this book bothwith regards

tothecontent as well as theEnglish grammar (Ialwayswonder howyoufound the time

to do allthe things you do and I hope to find some time inthe futuretofinish the

arti-cles we once started...). Ren6 van der Duim, for his time at the Department, which made it feel a bit more like 'home' to me. Mieke Lustenhouwer and Nettie Verhagen,

each _{for being} the _{Department's 'personal face' and for always helping me out quickly}

and professionally.HenrietteDerks,CeesGoossens, Mark van denHeuvel,Erik Hitters,

joys and trials ofbeing a Department _{member. Thanks are also due to all of the VTW}

students who participated in the student research proiect. Special thanks go to Pheona

Kuypers. Andrl Baas, and Alexandra Zduncyk who, through their MA theses,

provid-ed me with interesting data, work which was supervisprovid-ed from the Universityof

Illinois-Champaign Urbana by Daniel Fesenmaier.

I am grateful to WORC, particularly toNicole Geerts, Ton Heinen and Eis

Ver-hc,even for their support with courses, conferences, computer and other facilities and,

most importantly...money. I very much appreciated the hospitable and professional

help of Ingrid Beerends who _{provided me with all the literature that I could not find}

myself and, in _{addition, who}wasalways interested in the person behind the literature

requests. I would also like to thankthe Tilburg University Language Centre, in

parti-cular, Mark Vitullo for their work in polishing the English ofthe final draft of this

book. I am _{grateful to} Peter van de Waerden ofthe Technical _University Eindhoven,

who, seemingly in no time, solved some of the statistical 'string problems' that I had

been struggling with for far too long. Without Wim van der Knaap, the GIS expert at

Wageningen University and _{beyond, this book would not have been illustrated so}

pro-fessionally. _{Thanks Wim, for the time} you managed to spend on my work and for a

pleasant working relationship.

One ofthereasons formy interest inthis researchproject was the link with the 'real' world;

the international tourism industry and tourists. both to befound 'on the street' and not

in books. This, indeed, became what made this period oflearning so valuable to me.

First of all, I am very grateful to the Netherlands Board ofTourism who welcomed

my research _{plans and supported them in innumerable ways.} Herman Bos advised me

on the research-related _{topics and provided me with access to many studies that would,}

otherwise, have been difficult for metoobtain. Specialthanks go to MichielvanDiggele.

I very much enioyed our meetings in which we made plans and discussed my doubts.

Somehow, Michiel continued supporting me both mentally and materially without

claiming an>· credit. He provided opportunities ti,r me to work at the NBT

headquar-ters in New York, where I fell into the hands of another enthusiastic _{and hospitable}

host, Cees Bosselaar. I am most_{grateful to Cees and his team for the unforgettable time}

I had with them. I want to thank, inparticular,Tonnie Koedijkforassisting mein

find-ing the right tour operators and Corina for showing me the ropes of Goldmine. Working at the NBT offices in Chicago and Los _{Angeles were} each _{unique and}

phe-nomenal experiences as well. Iam grateful to Jennifer and Jette for their hospitality in

sharing with me their small offices and _{supporting me with} whatever I needed.

I am thankful to Mr. Bob Whitley oftheUSTOA, Ms. Susan Cook of the TIA. the

KLM headquarters in New York,and, above all, all of thetouroperators in the US (see

appendix 2) who were willing to spend their _{valuable time on an interview with me.}

Meeting so many people in as many different and new _{places was, to me, one of the}

The VVV Amsterdam, particularly Hans Dominicus, Sheila Post and Marjolijn

van Haaften, Marie-Jos6 Rijnders of the Anne Frank House, Toon Weijnenborg and

RosaofCamping Zeeburg, Robert Henke, Rudi Serleand Otherstaff of theCity Hostel

Vondelpark, Annemiek Janssen of Coster Diamonds, Carlo Braun and Marjorie van

Campen of theEden Hotel,VanessaLoudon of the Holland Experience, Anneke

Schol-ten of Holland International Canal Cruises, Aafde Ruiter of Holland International

Excursions, Miranda de Keijzer and other staff ofthe Keukenhof, Marielle Willems of

Madurodam, Titia Fellinga of the Rembrandt House, Ellis Kamphuis of the

Rilks-museum, Hans Martens of Schiphol Airport, Marly Turlings-Schoors and Marlies

Sprangers ofKLMRoyal Dutch Airlines, Annelies vandeNadordr ofWens Reizen and Tieneke Nederlof of Holland International Groups are thanked for their cooperation

regarding fieldwork in theNetherlands. All of them contributed to the questioning of

American tourists at or near their properties, a job thar would have been impossible

without them. Cooperation with 'the field' has shown that the distance between the

academia and the industry is much closer than many believe it is. Above all, I would

like to thank all ofthe Americans whowere

willing

tospend afew minutes in order to

provide me with insights into theirvacation experiences in the Netherlands.

Finally, I am verygrateful to all ofmy friendsandfamily. Although I have always tried

to balance my social life and work, during the final coupleof months of writing this book I worked at the _expense of being with others. Thank you all foryour patience...

Special thanks go to my parentsfor providing me with all the ingredients I

need-ed and fortheir trust in letting me become who I am. Mom, thank you for your

ongo-ing support and interest and for spendongo-ing your sparse free time taking care ofRobin

and Niels when I had to work orneededabreak... Cleem,thank you for all youradvise,

for your help when my computer crashed, forvisiting me in New York, and for your

assistance _{in checking} the _manuscript and _{illustrating this book. Toon and Anny, I} would like to thank you for your unquestioning hospitality in 'Hotel Voskens', where

there was always a room available after a late night's work, and for being such great

grandparents to our children.

In a special way, Caroline became an important friend to me a long time ago.

Caroline, I very muchrespect the way you have beencoping with life after all that has

happened to you. Thank you for our friendship and for yourinterest in my work. I am

happy to have you near at thedefence ofthis thesis.

Mydeepest regards goto Ronald, Robinand Niels. Combining the raising of two

boys with the

writing of

adissertation leftsomedoubtabout thecompletion of the

lat-ter. Although it undeniablydrove me todistractionat times,the combination

of

these

tasks,however, was the last thing to leave me in doubt. Rather than keeping me away

from it,

Ronald, Robin, Niels and ayet unborn member ofourtribe, enable(d) me to

reflect on what actually counts in life.

believed in, in this case, completing this dissertation. In gloomier moments, when I

askedyouwhether I should quit or continue, restingthedecision at least in part on your

shoulders, youranswer chat it would not makeany difference toyou, clarified that the

decision was mine alone. I am morethan grateful to you forpossessing such an

inde-pendent soul, guaranteeing us each space for our uniqueness while, at the same time,

providing a _{solid basis for the two of us, and for our children. I am more than happy}

thar this chapter has come to an end and I am looking forward to taking Up the

chal-lenges charlie ahead of us.

Stellingen

1. Het feit dat men in Amerika spreekt van vacations entravel terwijl dat in

Engeland holidays entourismgenoemd_wordt,geeft aan dat ermeer gepraat

wordtover globalisering dan dat ersprake is vanglobalisering.

2. Beelden van typisch Nederlandse landschappen met grazende koeien in

groeneweiden zijn bijnanostalgie.

3. Met Londen en Parijs als Europese topbestemmingen voorAmerikanen is

hetwellicht raadzaam om die teverkopen en daarbij een gratis bezoek aan Nederland aantebieden.

4. _'Seks,drugs engezelligheid' in combinatie met'tulpen, klompenenmolens' is de ideale mix voor Amerikaanse toeristeninNederland.

5. Molens zijneentoeristischetopattractie in Nederland. Moderne windturbines zijn daaromeendubbele investering indetoekomst.

6. Met _{het gebruik} van Internet caf6s in de verste _{uithoeken op aarde om}

vriendenenfamilietemailen overiedere stap die_{ondernomen wordt, laat de}

moderne 'individuele' toerist zien datde grenzen tussen de contrastructuur vandevakantie enhet_alledaagselevensteeds_{meer vervagen.}

7. Veel theoretische _{concepten zijn geconstrueerd} om onderzoekers van de

straattehouden terwijl ze zich juist meer opstraatzouden moeten begeven

om onderzoek te doen.

8. Je leert je eigen landkennen door het toeristisch producttebestuderen. 9. E6n vandegevolgen vanglobalisering isdat partners diegeografisch ver van

elkaar_{verwijderd zijn zichverenigen.Hoe verder weg,hoe groter de interesse}

lijkt om dat tedoen.Samenwerking_{dichtbij, met name op de.werkvloer, kan} productiever zijn enisbovendien duurzamer.

10. De inhoud van dit boek zou _{veel interessanter geweest zijn wanneer de}

verpakking een creatief, unieke omslag was in plaats van de _werkelijke standaardkaft zoals die is_{voorgeschreven}door_d6uitgever..

Esther Binkhorst

Holland, the American way

Transformation oftheNetherlands intoUSvacation_experiences

Propositions

1. The use oftheAmerican words vacations and travel instead oftheEnglish words holidays and _{tourism, illustrates} that there is more fuss being made about globalisationthan actualglobalisation takingplace.

2. Dutch_{images of cowsat pasture are}almost_nostalgic.

3. With London and Paris as top destinations for _Americans, offering these

tourists afreevisit totheNetherlands, may bethething to do.

4. 'Sex, drugsandgezelligheid' in combinationwith 'tulips. wooden shoes and

windmills' istheperfect mix forUS tounsts intheNetherlands.

5. Windmills are one of the Dutch top tourism attractions. Modern wind

turbinesare,therefore,aninvestment forthefuture.

6. The blurring

of

boundaries between the contra-structural domain of the

vacationand everyday lifeis shownby today's 'independent' travellers when

they use Internet cafes in the farthest corners ofthe world toe-mail their friendsand familiesaboutevery step they take.

7. Many theoreticalconcepts areconstructedinorder tokeepresearchers from

the streets while they should be on the streets more often to conduct

research.

8. You get to know yourcountrythroughresearchingits tourism product.

9. One of the consequences

of

globalisation is the merger

of

actors from

distant places. The further away, the greater the interest to join forces.

Cooperation nearby, particularly on the work-floor, would be much more

productiveand,besides, farmoresustainable.

10. The content of this bookwould have been much more interesting when its

package was a _creative, unique _cover, instead of the standard cover prescribed by the publisher.

Esther Binkhorst

Holland,theAmerican way

Transformation oftheNetherlands intoUSvacation_experiences

Table

of

Contents

List

of

tables 11

List

of

figures 13

Chapter 1 Tourism in the Netherlands 15

1.1 Introduction 16

1.2 US travel to the Netherlands 18

1.3 Tourism in the Netherlands from aEuropean perspective 26

1.4 Research on the Netherlands as atourism destination 31

1.5 Research aim and structure of the book 37

Chapter 2 The modernisationof tourism 39

2.1 Introduction 40

2.2 Tourism and _{modernity 40}

2.3 Other reality or everyday

experience? 53

2.4 The social constructionoftourism experiences 61

Chapter 3 Tourism

transformations 79

3.1 Introduction 80

3.2 The transformation model 80

3.3 Thecurrent Study in the transformation

model 89

3.4 Aim

and research questions 95

Chapter 4 Methodological

design 97

4.1 Introduction 98

4.2 Design ofthestudy 98

4.3 Questioning US touroperators 100

Chapter 5 How LS tour operatorsdevelop Dutch travel products 121

5.1 Introduction 122

5.2 Tour operator typology 122

5.3 The coupling mechanism and decisive factors 128

5. 4 Content of travel products including the Netherlands 149

5.5 Exchangeability of Dutch elements and ofthe Netherlands 17 ()

Chapter 6 US group and independenttravellers in the Netherlands 181

6.1 Introduction 182

6.2 Travel style 182

6.3 Why go to theNetherlands? 188

6.4 Time-spatial characteristics ofEuropean vacations 199

6.5 American Bubble 221

6.6 Modularisationand _spatial destination relatedness 227

Chapter 7 _{Reflections, conclusions}

&

_{recommendations 237}

7.1 Introduction 238

7.2 _{Methodological} reflections 240

7.3 Conclusions on the transformations of the Netherlands

into US_{vacation experiences} 245

7.4 Theoretical reflectionsand recommendations 256

References 267

Appendices 277

Summary 293

List

of

tables

Table 1.1 Number (*1000) ofAmericanguests in Dutchaccomodation

establishments,

1992-1999 20

Table 1.2 _Receipts(million guilders) from US guests in the Netherlands,

1993-1999 21

Table 1.3 Most important tourismareas for incoming tourism in the

Netherlands, 1998 23 Table4.1 Methodological design ofthecurrent study in a timetable,

1995-2002 99

Table 4.2 Company characteristics of UStouroperator sample (N=39) 105

Table 4.3 Fieldwork (in days) per location, April - August 1999 111

Table 4.4 Gender and age forgroup (G)and independent (I)

travellers (G=196; I=375) 115

Table 4.5 Employment statusand numberofvacation days for

group (G) and independent (I) travellers (G= 196; I=373) 116

Table4.6 _{Paid vacation days for group (G)}and _{independent (I)employed}

travellers (G=63;I=170) 116

Table 4.7 Education and income _{for group (G) and independent (I)}

(student)travellers 117

Table 4.8 Residential area_{for group (G)}and _{independent (I)}

travellers (G= 194,1=374) 118

Table 5.1 Number of US tour operators that offered this type of

product including the Netherlands in 1997 126

Table 5.2 Stages of the extensiveproduct developmentprocess for

standard products 130

Table 5.3 Thedifferent reasonsor factors distinguished in US tour

operating 133

Table 5.4 _Tangibleand _{intangible unique selling points (usp's) in}

Amsterdam and the Netherlands 151

Table 5.5 Tour itinerary 'Best ofEurope': 18 days, 8 European countries 153

Table 5.6 Tour itinerary 'The very best of Holland at tulip time'

9 days, only in the Netherlands 155

Table 5.7 Tour itinerary 'Hollandat tulip time': 7 days, only in

the Netherlands 157

Table 5.8 _Separate modulesofhotels and sightseeing in the Netherlands:

19 hotels and 5 _sightseeingtours 158

Table 5.9 Tangible and intangible elements of US tour operator images

Table 6.1 Combinations oftravel companions for the total sample (N=573) 183

Table 6.2 Elements of the travel product booked before departure by

group (G) and independent (1) travellers (N= 572) 184

Table 6.4 _{Combination of reservations}

by group (G)and _{independent (1)}

travellers (G- 196. I=363) 185

Table 6.4 _{Intermediary used for each product element bygroup (G) and}

independent (I) travellers(N-572) 185

Table 6.5 Most important reasonsfor choosing the Netherlands for

group (G) and _{independent (I) travellers (G=198; I=372) 189}

Table 6.6 Elements oftheNetherlandsreportedas important in choosing the

Netherlands for group (G)andindependent(I)travellers (N=279) 193

Table 6.7 Dutch _priceand service level_{compared with the US and} with other European countriesforgroup (G)and independent (I)travellers 195

Table 6.8 Uniqueness ofthe Netherlands for groupand independent

travellers (G= 198; I=375) 196

Table 6.9 Total vacation duration _{in nights for group (G) and}

independent (I) travellers(N=505) 201

Table 6.1() _{Length of stay in the Netherlands in nights for group (G) and}

independent (I) travellers (G= 193; I-367) 201

Table 6.11 Numberofother _European countries visited _{by group (G) and} independent (I) travellers who combined the Netherlands with

other_{European countries (G- 163; I=290) 205}

Table 6.12 Numberofother _{European countries visited by the total}

vacation duration _{in nights for group (G) and independent (I)}

travellers_{who combined the Netherlands with other European}

countries (N = 390) 205

Table 6.13 Countries visited in combination with [he _{Netherlands by at}

least 10% ofthe group (G) and independent (I)

travellers (G-168, I=298) 208

1-able 6.1-1 _{Places visited in the Netherlands} by group (G) and

independent (I) travellers whovisit Other places besides

Amsterdam (G= 135, I=222) 217

Table 6.15 Places visited in the Netherlands by the length of stay in the

Netherlands (in nights) for group (G) and _{independent (I) travellers}

who indicated having visitedplacesbeyond Amsterdam (N-350) 218

Table 6.16

Attitude

towards familiarelements forgroup (G) and

independent (I) travellers (G=198; 1-375) 223

Table 6.17 Cat:egorisation of attractive elements of_{theNetherlands}

List

of

_figures

Figure 1.1 Most importanttourism areas for incoming tourism in the

Netherlands, 1998 23

Figure 3.1 Transformation

model 82

Figure 3.2

The current study in the transformation model 89

Figure 3.3 Transformation _{processes and the} modular_{system 93}

Figure 3.4 Modularisation and destination relatednessofelements 94

Figure 5.1 General tour operator typology (N=39) 124

Figure 5.2 Dutch product providers typ010gy, 1997 (N= 28) 127

Figure 6.1 Part ofthe total vacation spent in the Netherlands for group

and _{independent travellers (G=185;} I=309) 202

Figure 6.2 Europeancountries combined with theNetherlands by

at least 10%, by less than 10%, and by none of thegroup

and independent travellers 207

Figure 6.3 _{River group} cruises 211

Figure 6.4 Continental group tours including the UK 211

Figure 6.5 Continental group tours excluding the UK 213

Figure 6.6 All ofEuropegroup tours 213

Figure 6.7 All of_{Europe independent tours} 215

Figure 6.8 Continental independent tours including theUK 215

Figure 6.9 Modularisationand spatial destination relatedness of

Dutch elements 230

Figure 7.1 Transformation _{processes and} the modular_system 239

Figure7.2 Improved modularisationand spatial destination relatedness

15

Chapter 1

16 Holland, the American way

1.1 Introduction

While I was doing fieldwork in 1997, the first 'Mayo Clinic: a take away sellingFrench

friessimilar tothose in theNetherlands, opened in New York City. Originally a_Belgian

dish, but on all Dutch tourism menus, French fries are different from all other fries because theyare served in a paper cone and one has a large choice ofmayonnaise

top-pings. The following year, the first Dutch bagel shop opened in Amsterdam, selling

American bagels with avariery ofcreamycheese tOppingS.

The recent opening of the above-mentioned French fries and bagel shops illustrates that one hardly has to travel anymoretoexperiencedistant cultures. Conversely, when

travel-ling, it is hardtoescapefrom familiar things. Throughreproduction onaglobalscale,local

cuisine specialities have become readily accessible away from their places oforigin. The

more people travel, the moretheir cultures travel, leavingtheirtraces inotherplaces. Yet, andmaybe because of this, many people goon holiday once or twice or even more times a

year. Besides the fun, adventure, interaction with family or friends, business, relaxation,

and thelike,people traveltoexperienceaforeign culture and another way of life. However,

if

other places bearincreasing resemblance to one's own placeoforigin ortoplaces already

visited, why would one wanttotravel? Do familiar things in transit environments and at

vacation destinations facilitate and thus stimulate travel? What, in other words, is the

importance ofthe character of a place inchoosingavacationdestination

For tourism developers, trying to catch the eye ofpotential travellers has become a

tough job requiring increasing inventiveness in order to excel in a competitive global

marketin whicheverydestination ispresented asunique. Fortravellers, with the

increas-ing flow of informationandoptionsavailable, what are the decisive factors when choosing

a holiday destination? Depending on one's needs at a certain _{moment, authenticity,}

variety, novelty, uniqueness, convenience, price,quality, and so on, are important factors.

On return, the ultimate feeling of satisfaction (or otherwise) with the holiday experience

will

tell whether needs and expectations have been fulfilled by the destination visited.

Was it as authentic as promised' Was there alocal flavour with, at the same time, a

suf-ficientoutside influence' Was ir 'spoilt' by modernisation) There are as manyanswers to

these questions as there are tourists, makingtourism developmentacomplex job of mass

customisation involving many partners. How canone createacustomised mixofvacation

ingredients ranging from local unique elements toelements meeting globalstandards?

The research setting to study these topics is the Netherlands. WhileAmsterdam

tries to be open and accessible toaninternational public, at thebeginning of the 1990s,

the city dropped to number seven in the top ten of Europe's most popular tourism

cities. This drop, together with an academic interest in temporal and spatial aspects of tourism, induced the Department ofLeisure Studies _{of Tilburg University} to _explore

the Netherlandsmore thoroughly asa tourism destination. Complementaryto research

intothe decision-making processesofdomestictravellers,1 international travel flows to

Tourism in the Netherlands 17

the Netherlands were studied. What induces travellersto spend their vacations in the

Netherlandsi Is it a must? Is it unique or is it easily interchangeable with other

Euro-pean countries? Is it a step in transit to other destinations? If so, is it properly linked

with certain routes? Moreover, in view of the unificationofEurope andotherprocesses

of scale-enlargement, should countries today still beconsidered in termsoftheirnational geographical boundaries? Are peoplevisiting 'the Netherlands' or, rather, 'Europe'? As the

American visionary, Kaplan (NRIT-Actueel, 2000a:2, EB), stated, "in the future, the

Netherlands will be one big city following US cities' examples that are constantly

ex-pandingand_{splittingupagain} into different districtswiththeirown centreand_identity'.

Excluding the consumer's view, interest was raised in verifying the nature of the

Durch tourism product from an international supplier's perspective. What makes the

Netherlands amarketable destinationin today's'global village'? Does it have to do with

the natural conditions of the Netherlands, its indigenous historical geographical features? Or does it have to do with man-madeconditions,features created, formed, and

influencedby human interactions?

Several factors contributed to the fact that the current study deals with American

tourism to the Netherlands. Firstly,tourism hereisconsidered in view of the advancing

process ofAmericanisation,2 makingit interesting tostudy travel from the 'new world'

to the 'old world'. Particularly, Americans find elements of theirhome country

world-wide owing to the very processofAmericanisation. Secondly,America and the

Nether-lands havestrong historical ties. It wasthe Dutch who first sent fur traders to the area

now known as New York, in 1621, and they settled there in 1625 when the Dutch

West:India Company established afurtrading postat Manhattan called 'New

Amster-dam'. Broadwaywascalled 'Breede Wegb',and 'Harlem' still has its Dutch name. In the

Museum of the City of New York, Dutch Delftware and many otherremnantsof Dutch

New Yorkaredisplayed. TheDutch lost theircolony to theEnglish, whocontrolled it

until the second half of the 18th century, when America finally gained independence.

Oncehaving broughttheirEuropeancultures co America tostart anewworld,

Ameri-cans(ofEuropean origin) now wish to experience theold world during theirvacations

in Europe. In many cases, they come to See the placesfrom which theyortheirancestors

originated. Or, where they Or their forefathers freed the Dutch from the Nazis in the

SecondWorld War. Thirdly, tourismis viewed fromthe perspective ofmodularisation

as a consequence of themodernisationprocess, making it: evenmore naturaltofocus on

the US travel flow, since modularity originates from the US(seeChapter 2). Fourthly,

the tourism flow from the US to the Netherlands is even more interesting, because of

its dependenceonairlines,touroperators, and travel agents, as well as other intermediaries,

since Americans have tO CrOSS the Atlantic Ocean to reach Europe. This barrier forces

people to use certain travel facilities, which enables us to study not only the choice of

the Netherlands as a holiday destination for US tourists but also the construction and

IF# Holland, the _{American way}

marketing ofEuropean iravel products by US intermediaries. As a matter of fact, the

purchase of a travel product including the Netherlands by American travellers is

conditic,ned by the options provided by suppliers, who are. for their part, conditioned

by the marketability of the Netherlands. Finally, US tourism is of relatively reat

economic significance in the Netherlands.

An impc,rtant aspect to note is the use of the terms 'America' or 'North America'

Both refer to the United States of America including the USA or US and Canada.

H(,wever, within the scope of this study, only tourists or intermediaries originating

from and currently living or operating in the US (i.e., all states including _Alaska,

Hawaii, and PuertoRico, excludingCanada)are_{considered. Many (statistical) resources}

present the US and Canada togetheras Americaor North America. Data in the present

study are given in the same form as they were originally made available. This means

that when data on _(North-) America are presented these include Canada., When clara

represent the US only, theyare reported as US(A)data.

Finally, throughout the rest of the text, the word travel is used more often than

tourism, and the American word vacation(s) is used rather than holiday(s). In Europe,

people tend to speak of tourism, tourists, tourist industry, etc., whereas in America,

they generally speak of travel, travellers, travel industry, etc. Although the destination

studied is European, the intermediaries and those spending their leisure time studied

are American. It is, therefore, decided to speak of US travellers on vacation instead of

US tourists on holiday.

The following section reflects on ihescopeand nature of the travel flow from the US to

the Netherlands. Tourism developments in the Netherlands and the international

pc,sitic,n of the Netherlands as a tourism destination are presented in Section 1.3.

Section 1.4 fi,cuses on studies thai have been undertaken in the _{past t(, analyse US}

rourism in the Netherlands. This chapter ends with a description of- the aim of this

thesis:incl the organisation of the book in Sectic,n 1.5.

1.2 L S travel to the Netherlands

US tourist arrirali in Europe and in tbe Netherlands

Several factors stimulate travel. A healthy economy, low unemployment and inflation,

a growth in real _{disposable income and personal spending, and the internet spur}

in-terest in international travel in the US (US Department ofCommerce, 2000; Travel Industry Association, 2000). On the otherhand. travel flows are heavily dependent on

political climates; the Gulf War, the tall of the 'iron curtain, and the Kosovo crisis caused a considerable decrease in travel. The tragic incident thar happened in the US

Tourism in the

Netherlands 19

on September 11 th 2001, and the war against terrorism that followed subsequently, will

undoubtedly effect drastic changes in travel

behaviour, not only in the US but

worldwide. At the moment _{of writing, figures indicating the effects of this} occurrence

on travel behaviour are not available. As the current study was conductedmainlybefore

this date,the figures presented here are also derived fromsources that date from before

September 11[11 2001. No speculations will be made in the following _chapters

regar-ding the possible effects of the event of September 1 1 th. The presentation of travel figuresisalwaysasnapshot in time; who knows what

will

happentomorrow?Therefore,

the focus is on data that are available and, consequently, past trendsare examined and

predictions for thefutureareavoided.

The US _{pleasure travel} market' consists of 37.4 million persons, representing

18.59 of all US adults, according to one ofthe leadingconsultants on American travel

behaviour, the Menlo Consulting Group (MCG, 1999).

Although the market for

outbound travelhas_{grown substantially and Europes}share of the marketis _increasing,

nevertheless, 81.5% of theUS adult population do not leavethe country foravacation.

Only 13% of all US inhabitants own a passport, signifying chat most never cross the US border. In 1999, almost half of all US outbound travellers (a total of 58.4 million that year) visited overseas destinations (24.6 million). Another 17.7 million departed

for Mexico and 16.0 million visited Canada (US Department of Commerce, 2000).

AmongUSpleasure_{travellers, the MCG distinguishes}Europe pleasure travellers. These

are travellers in the sense of the definition given in footnote 4 who say they are likely

tovisitEuropeforpleasure within the nextfive years. In 1999, they made up 47.5% of

all US outbound pleasure travellers and 8.8% of all US adults. They comprise

ap-proximately 17.8 million persons(MCG, 2000:21).

According to the MCG (1999:3), Europe is the primary long-distance destination

with. in 1999,ashare of 36% of the USpleasure travel market asdefined by the MCG.

Europeis_{followed by}Asia(79), Central America (69 ),South America (5%), the South

Pacific (4%), the Middle East (3%), and Africa (2%) in the US long-haul travellers

market. Americans are travelling more frequently, and the number ofoutbound trips

taken in the preceding threeyears by frequent travellershas risen from 4 in 1987 to 10

in 1999. European tripShavebecomeslightlyshorter and theinterest in'long weekend'

trips to Europe is increasing (MCG, 1999:4). Prospects are good for European travel

since theUS interest in European countriesfarexceedsactual visitation and,according to the MCG, first time international travellers are increasingly turning to Europe.

The Dutch share ofEuropean vacations taken by US travellers is 9% (NBT, 1998:25).

According tO

Statistics Netherlands' and the

Netherlands Board

of

Tourism

4 _{Pleasure[ravellersarepersons whohavetaken at least one [rip in the past[hreeyearsoutside che I· in[inental US,}

primarilyforpleasure andlasting five ormore_{nights (MCG, 1999).}

2() Holland, [he American way (NBT),c· the following numbers ofAmerican guests registered in Dutch

accommoda-tion establishments from 1992 to 1999(Table 1.1).

Table 1.1 Number (* 1()00)of American guests in Dutch accc,mmcidati,in establishments. 1992-1999

1992 I994 1994 1995 1996 _{199- 1998 1999}

Americanguebrs 61() 56(1 6-(1 "2() 66(1 9(1(.1 114(J 11 6()

Total ti,reignguest 6()80 5-6() 6180 65-(j 6580 -84) 932(1 988(1

Anierg,iii fhari c'; 1 1(1 1(, 1 1 1 1 1(1 12 12 12 NI,ref: Iii 1l»)-.there was a [borough update cit- thl' CBS databisl· ot Dutch accommodation establishments. A switch from an _{integral ro a sample approach data collection method in 1997 improved CBS statistics. In 1998, the CBS} database _{of smaller accommodations was completed, consisting at-hotels, boarding houses, and}

youth ho[els with a minimum of five beds and other accommodations wirh a minimum ot- 2()beds_{(previous to 1998,}thesenumbers were 2() and 50 beds, respectively) (CBS/NBT200Ob:14 3).

Source:_{CBS/NBT (20009:84; 2000b:84)}

Several aspects need to be taken into consideration when looking at these figures.

Firstly, these numbers represent all the Americanguests registered in Dutch

accommo-dation establishments. That is to Say, they also contain those staying forreasons other

than a vacation, such as meetings, conferences, and incentives. Those visiting family,

friends, orrelatives, however, are not includedunless_{staying with relatives}iscombined

with staying inahotel orother establishment. Consequently,the numberofAmericans visiting theNetherlands only for a vacation will be smaller than the numberof

Ameri-can guests presented above.- Secondly, the numberofguests originating from the US

only issmallerbecause_{the numbers presented} inTable 1.1 also includeCanadian_guests.

Thirdly, these figures are derived from different studies and jointly edited by the CBS

and _{NBT. Differences in definitions and methodologies used in the original studies may}

cause slight variations inoutcomes (CBS/NBT, 200()b:144).

Although the number _{of Americans visiting the Netherlands is still increasing, their}

relative share in the total group ofincoming Visitors is quite stable and has fluctuated

between 109 and 12% since 1992 (CBS/NBT, 2000b).Most

incoming visitors to the

Netherlands originate from otherEuropean countries. After Germany (44%)and Great

Britain (13%), North America iS the third major source ofincoming tourists to the

Netherlands (NRIT, 2000:82). TheAmerican sharewithin thegroupofnon-European

tourists to the _{Netherlands (60%) has} not shown any significant changes since 1992

(CBS/NBT, 2()0()a). Many international visitors to the Netherlands are repeat visitors;

7 out of 10 Germans have been to the Netherlands before and this is also the case for

almost 50% ofthe visitors from North America.

G

In the year 2(10(), [he Netherlands Board of Tourism (NBT) merged with 2 orher Dutch tourism organisations m Icirm Tourism Recrea[ion Netherlands' (TRN). Consequent|>·, the NBT shoutd be called TRN. However. as many (it che NBTs sources used m the curren[srudy datefrom beforethemerge of 2000 and. besides, [he NBT still

Tourism in the Netherlands 21

Generally,incoming tourism fromoverseas fluctuates more thanEuropean tourism

to the Netherlands. This is,amongotherreasons, duetospecial events that attract more

overseas_{visitors. Yet, the effect of}eventsshould not beoverestimated. Just over a quarter

(28%) of allUS ViSitorS to the VanGogh exhibition(s) in 1990 and only 12% ofall US

visitors oftheRembrandtexhibition in 1991/1992 Say that theywould not have visited

theNetherlandswithout thisexhibition (NBT 199lb, 1992b). The vast majority of US

visitors, however, say they would have visited the Netherlands anyway, asdid 72% of

all non-Dutch Floriade visitors in 1992 (DTV Consultants, 1992). The Gay Games in

1998 attracted extrainternational visitors, as did the 'Glory oftheGolden Age'

exhibi-tion in the Rijksmuseum in 2000, although no exact figures are available. For 'Euro

2000', the VVV Amsterdam Tourism Board (2001) reports an additional number of

visitors to the city of300.000. With such events, there is always a slight chance that

some _{tourists, afraid of}the crowds, will stay away.

U S tourism receipts in tbe Netberlands

Americans _spend a _{relatively large} amount of _{money in} a _relatively short _{period of}

vacation in the Netherlands. Figures of theUS DepartmentofCommerce (2000) show

that the daily spending ofUS overseas travellers in Western European destinations is

higher than in all other overseas destinations. In 1999, the average daily spending by

US travellers to overseasdestinations was US $84, while, inWestern Europe, this was

US $90 and, in SouthAmerica, US $68.

Inthe Netherlands, Americans havea reputation ofbeing relatively bigspenders.

Table 1.2shows receipt:ss fromUSguests in the Netherlands over theperiod 1993 to 1999

Table 1.2 Receipts(millionguilders) from US guests inthe Netherlands,1993-1999

1993 1996 1997 1998 1999 US receipts 1506 1629 1891 2235 2365

Total internationalreceipts 863() 1095; 12337 13475 14522 US share (.9) 18 15 15 17 16 Source:CBS/NBT(2()()()b: 1'33)

TheUSshareofinternational receipts in the Netherlands fluctuatedbetween 15 and 18

percent from 1993 to 1999. The annualgrowth ofUS receipts in theNetherlandsvaries

significantly. Although there was an enormous growth, of 18%, between 1997 and

1998, in contrast to an average growth in international receipts of 9% in the same

period, receipts fromUS guests grewonly

6%

between 1998 and 1999(compared with

8 Although [he CBS and NBT call them tourism receipts, aH receipts in [he Netherlandseach _yearare_{added up}

DD

-- Holland, the Ameriian Wit)

an average growth in international receipts of 89/ in this period). Although there is no

data available to support this, the excessive _{growth between 1997 and 1998 can,}

perhaps, beascribed to the_{Gay Games, which were held in Amsterdam in 1998.}

Daily expenditures during vacations vary significantly among nationalities. In the

Netherlands, Germans spend theleast whereasAmerican andJapaneseguestsspend the

most. In 1999, international tourists spent an average of 192 Dutch guilders

(approxi-mately € 87) per day in theNetherlands. This includes money spenton accommodatic,n

(CBS/EZ/TRN, 2002: 105). Spending an _{average of 315 Dutch guilders per person per}

day, noother nationalitysurpassed the Americans in the Netherlands in the same year.

Parricularly their relative expenses on transport and shopping are twice the average,

compared with other nationalities vacationing in the Netherlands (ibid.). A clear

relation can be seen between consumer patterns and the distance travelled in order to

visit the Netherlands. The Closer tothe Netherlandsthe _{tourist lives, the more that is}

spent on accommodation, food and beverages, and the less that is left for purchasing

goods (CBS, 1995b).

Time and space in tbe Netherlands: tbe American u·ay

For_{most Americans,}avacation intheNetherlands means_{making a pitstop'}in

Amster-damwhilepassing throughEurope (see also _{Binkhorst, 1996).}Theaveragelength ofstay

of US travellers in overseas destinations was 15.1 nights in 1999. On trips to Eastern European _{destinations,} US overseas travellers stayed 24.1 _{nights outside the US, while} trips to the Caribbean lasted only 8.4 nights in 1999 Trips to Western European

destinationslastedexactly theaveragenumber of nights stated foroverseas_{destinations,}

namely, 15.1 nights (US Department of Commerce, 2()00). Americans do not spend

much time in the Netherlands asthey often combine several countries on one trip. The

average nuniber of nights that Americans stayed in one accommodation in the

Netherlands in 2()00 was 2.0. a slight decreasecompared with 1996, when theystayed

2.2 nights, on average, in one accommodation. Tc,compare, Germans stayed an average

of 4.1 nights in one accommodation in the Netherlands in 2000, and tourists from (.Ireat Britain stayed an average ot 2.2 nights in one accommodation (CBS. 2()()1:3()).

Traditionally, springandsummer are themostpopulartourism seasons in the

Nether-lands. Despite ongoing attempts to create a better temporal _spread, tourist arrivals in

the Netherlands still peak in springand summer (CBS/NBT, 200Ob:77), although the

peak in August has been topped during the past few years by the months between

spring and summer (VVV Amsterdam Tourist Board, _{2000:6). Indeed, "Europe}

cap-cures only 35.3%

of

American travellers during the peak-season months of June. July,

and August. Significant numbers of them are open to travelling to Europe during the

shoulder season months of April, May, September, and _{October" (MCG,} 1997:11()).

Although theabsolute numberofovernight stays of American guests in Dutch

accom-modation establishments is higher in spring and _{summer than in autumn and winter,}

Tourism inthe Netherlands 23 Netherlands in 2000 was at its highest in the summer (13.5%), followed by winter

(11.5%), autumn(9.1 %), and _Spring (8.79)(CBS, 2001:43).

The spatial use of the Netherlands for tourism purposes is also unequal. For most

incoming tourists, in particular those fromoverseas,whichincludes Americans,visiting

theNetherlands means _visiting Amsterdam. More than 50% of all foreignguests stay

in only two of the twelve Dutch provinces. Theother half ofthe foreign guests travels

approximately equally over the otherten provinces, resulting in an average of 3% per

province. TheprovinceofNorth Holland, includingthecapital city, Amsterdam, is the

most_{popular province, receiving 52% of}allforeignguests(CBS/NBT, 200Ob:78). The

relative shareof North Holland has only increased by 1

0%

since 1992.

Using tourism regions instead of the geographical borders ofthe twelve Dutch

provinces, more than three-quarters of all overnight stays of foreign tourists take place within the seven tourism areas_{presented in Figure 1.1 and Table 1.3.}

F igure 1.1 _North

_--X

-Most important tourismareas _Sea

TheFristanislands 6% for incoming touris,11 intbe

C==

44 '5 ..:.b, i, · Netbertands. 1998 _{0) L,}

S a F.T.

'll- ... C :,1

3 252

4- .,

Lr

Vorth Sea coastal reso

1Jssel

Table 1.3 Most important tourism

19% 4

coa

areas fcirincoming tourism in the Amste am 1 7/

pLA

Netherlands. 1998 9 ,k'-7"

Tourism area 03 The Hagu «4, 1·9 Four largest cities 3 1 '9.'I-&,-e/

North Sea coastal resorts 1 9 - 1 2,-1Delta area

The Frisian islands 6 6%

East Brabant, Nor[h andMid West andMid East B , /6

Br ant 5% Northan 0 11

Limburg,Realm of Nilmegen 6

Realm of ...

West and Mid Brabant 5 6% +

-Delta area 5 'u g Usselmeercoast 5 · , . 7 Source: NRIT (2()()0:80) .IA-i

There has been astructural increase in the relative share of the four cities in tourism,

while the share of theNorth Seacoastal resorts,EastBrabant,North and MidLimburg,

and theRealmof Nijmegen hasdecreased over the last fewyears_(NRIT, 2000:80). The spatial development of tourism and recreation in the Netherlands, in terms of absolute

2.4 Holland, the American way

ministry of Economic Affairs. In the lastten years, however, thestrongestgrowth in the

share of tourism and recreation among the Dutch working population has taken place

outside the 'Randstadi" with the exception of Schiphol and the lakes around Utrecht

(Ministerievan Economischezaken/TNO-Inro, 1998).

T(,urists visiting Amsterdam frequently undertake day or half-day sightseeing

excursions to places _{around the city. and sometimes} venturefurther afield. Americans,

however, tendto return and stay overnight inthecapital city, where they predominantly

stay in hotels and guesthouses, this being the accommodation most _{preferred among}

American travellers (CBS, 2001). Younger travellers from the US showastrong preference

for youth hotels or hostels in Amsterdam.

Maastricht, a major city in the south ofthe _Netherlands, is becoming increasingly

popular. The cityisdeveloping as a 'hub and spoke'destination for those who want to combine

visits toneighbouring countries in_{thispartofEurope.AfterDutch, English,andGerman}

tourists, US tourists are thefourth most important group ofguests in this city, with 19.300

overnight stays, followed by Japaneseguests (13.200 nights)(NRIT-Actueel, 200Ob).

Large numbers of international visitors come to the Netherlands as part ofa European

tour. Only 13% of the US tourists who visited the Netherlands in 1993 considered the

Netherlands to betheprimarydestination of their vacation(NBT, 1994a,b). Americans

visit: an average of 1.6 countries on a vacation to Western Europe, a number that has

decreased over [he years (US Department ofCommerce, 2000). Although the number

of countries visited per vacation has _decreased,theNetherlandsisstill an 'add on'

desti-nation forAmericans. Most tourists from the US arrive by aeroplane. A large number

of European roundtrips departing from the US beginat Schiphol Airport, 'the gateway

to Europe' Few Americans orother incoming travellers arrive in the Netherlands by

train from other European countries(CBS, 1995a, 1995b).

In addition to promoting the growth in arrivals, overnight stays, and expenditure.

Dutch tourism policy is directed towards the extension of the tourism season and a

better spatial distribution of tourism across the Netherlands (NBT, 1996a, 1996b, 1999b). .Amsterdam-Plus' products, according to the NBT's future vision covering the

period 200()-2005 (NBT, 1999b), intendto _spread tourism around the_{capital city and}

to cities that may be visited in combination with Amsterdam. Promotion throughout

the year should attract people during the off-season. The Amsterdam Tourist Board

(ATB)isaiming at abetter spread of tourism flows in and around Amsterdam'c _because

tourism at present tends to be concentrated within the historic inner city (VVV

Amsterdam Tourist Board, 2()00).

The 'Rands[ad isthe urbanwestern parr ot the Netherlands, including the cities *,t Utrecht, Amsrerdam, The Hague, and Rotterdam.

1 The ATB developed a pcilvcen[ri, c ltv model including various independent tourism cen[res [hat aim at a betrer

Tourism in the

Netherlands 25

Better temporal and spatial spreading of tourism throughout the year and across

the country is desirable for several reasons. Clearly, thereare problems directly related

tothe carrying capacity ofareas, such as _{traffic- ams,} queues, locals being bothered by

too much bustle

in their streets, environmental pollution, overbooking, etc.

Furthermore, the economic benefits in terms of yield and employment would be better

spread throughout the year and thecountry if there was no 'low season' and tourism was

better spread throughout the country. Indirect problems, like tourists being poorly

acquainted with a destination when they visit it for only a day or a few days, and the

one-sidedintroduction to theDutch tourism product when only Amsterdam is_visited,

are actually as important (not only in termsofrevenue) butgenerally neglected.

Conditions of time and space cbaracterising tbe American uay of travel

US conditions of time and space have an impact on American vacation behaviour.

Compared to many other nationalities, Americans with paid work havea fairly limited

numberofvacationdaysannually.According toRichards(1996c), Americans belong to

the category 'time poor and money rich', having an _{average of} 23 vacation days

annually, compared with 40 vacation days annually for Dutch employees. US pleasure

travellers with an interest in travel to European destinations were questioned by the

MCG about timepressure. The results show that 75% of them agree with one of the

followingstatements: 'I always feelpressed for time", "For me, time ismore scarce than

money , and "I would happily trade a week's pay for an extra week of vacation' (MCG,

1999:6). Consequently, approximately half of the pleasure travellers to Europeprefer

trips ofnolonger thantwo weeks and 10% prefer a trip of one week or shorter. In "The

overworked American" and "The overspent American", Shor (1991 and 1998, respective-ly) describes the phenomenon of'time-squeeze', referring to the increasing pressure on

leisure timeon account ofthegrowing importance of paid work in the US. Employees,

workinglonger hours inexchange for high salaries and better employment conditions,

help to push upconsumption levels that increase livingstandards. Besides 'up scaling'

and_{'overspent' Americans,}sheobservesa_{growing number}of'downshifters' in America;

people who voluntarily work and earn less in order to have more free time.

Having abroad viewofspace because ofthe large area of the US, andowing to the

large number ofEuropean countries located within a relatively small area,a _European

vacationfor Americans generallymeansvisitingseveralcountries during the same trip.

When mass tourism evolved, the American way ofundertaking European vacations

resulted in the _{coining of the expression 'doing Europe', and it was} even _comically

portrayed on screen in the movie "It's Tuesday so it must be Belgium". Being used to

travelling long distances, Americans generally do not make a fuss about distances within Europe and hop from country to country.11 With the increase in travel

oppor-11 Speaking in [erms ofstereotypes.Americansareknown as the 'been [here, done that' type of travellers, referring

26 Hcilland. the American way

tunities partly due to increased li\·ing standards, a European vacation is not a 'once in

a lifetime experience for Americans anymore. Onecan easily return the following year a, visit some other countries or to see one of them in more depth. Consequently, US

trips to Europe are becoming slightly shorter. According to the MCG (1999), 61'.4 of

all European trips last a maximum of two weeks and only 389 last 15 days or more.

Wanting 'value for money' and_{having in mind a list of countries to be visited,}however,

meansthat often a combination of countriesis visited ona vacation or that just one city

is visited on a weekend. The rise of the latter type of _{vacation, the} Yity-breaki is

perhaps the _{culmination of modern travel. With the ease of air travel, price discounts,}

and frequent flyer miles, escaping from the rush of daily life by taking a City break

across theAtlantic Ocean is _{becoming more than just} adream.

1.3 Tourism in the Netherlands from

a European perspective

Alany competitors on a small scale

In the _{American market,} the Netherlands _{competes particularly with} Great Britain,

France, Germany, Italy, Belgium,and Switzerland as atourism destination. The Dutch

share in the European tours available on the American market has remained stable in

the last few years. The city trip competitors of Amsterdam are Vienna, Berlin, and

Barcelona (NBT, 1998). International tourism flows are highly influenced by the

existence of cities. _{Europe, consisting of arelatively large} numberofnations on asmall

scale, is famous for its many and varied cities. Research by Van der Borg (1994)shows

that 19 'classic cities can be distinguished in Europe: Amsterdam, Athens, Barcelona,

Berlin. Budapest, Dublin, Florence.Istanbul, Lisbon, London, Madrid,Moscow, Paris,

Prague. Rome, St. Petersburg. Stockholm, Venice. and Vienna. Most of the 'classic

urban toitrism destinations are capital cities. Amsterdam ranked fourth in the top 10 of

European cities in 1999 on the basis of the number of foreign overnight stays(FECTO,

in VVV Amsterdam Tourist Board, 2000). In the same year, Amsterdam rose from twelfth to ninth place for the hotel room _{rates,thereby becoming comparable}to cities

like Para. LI,tidon. Rome. :ind Milan.

With a total of 9.9 million foreign visitors in 1999. the Dutch market share of

tourism within North-West Europe is approximately 109 (NBT, 1996b, 1999b).

Figures from OESO and Eurostar edited by the NBT (1998) show that incoming tourism to the Netherlands grew more than average during the last: few years when compared with most ofits North-West European competitors. This increase, however,

was particularly due to a relatively stronggrowth intourismarrivalsfrom neighbouring

countries. As the Netherlands is part of the European continent. a brief outline of

developments in tourism in Europe is provided here. International tourism 12 increased

the east [o rhe west cous[. or when thev visit the Cir,ind Canvcin by taking the main r(,adthrough the National

Park to rake a picture on the brink of the Canvon'v precipice without going down for a few day's hike inic, [he Canyon.

Tourism inthe Netherlands 27

from 25 million arrivals in 1950 to 657 million arrivals in 1999 and are predicted to

top 1.561 _{billion by} the year 2020, according to the 'Tourism Vision 2020' of the World Tourism Organisation (WTO, 1998). 59% of all internationalarrivalsarrived on

the Europeancontinent in 1999 (385.9 million) (WTO, inWRIT, 2000:18). Although

predictions regardingthegrowth of international tourism in Europediffer, 14according

to forecasts of the WTO, the number of international arrivals in Europe

will

reach

approximately 717 million in 2020 (WTO, 1998). Intercontinental tourism to Europe (about 11% in 2000) is growing faster than tourism within Europe itself. The main

contributors to this growth are South and East Asia and Africa, while the American

increase remains less than _average (NRIT, 20()0:25).

Traditionally, Europehasplayedapredominant role in the pattern of international

tourism flows, withashareof64% of the total volume ofinternational tourism in 1985

Uansen-Verbeke and Spee, 1995). Nevertheless, the position of Europe is dropping.

Travel flowstoEuropearehighly dependent on the interestofnon-Europeansinchoosing

aEuropean country asatourismdestination. The increasing marketshareofother continents negatively affects the European share (NBT, 1998). The relatively slower growth of

tourismin Europe compared with the rest of the world is also due to the fact thatahigher

saturation level in the field ofinternational tourism has been reached in Europe than

elsewhere in the world. In 1989, the NBT and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) warned that the European tourism product was historically positioned in the mature life

cycle stage and,thus, losing its global market share. The 'Wetenscbappelijke Raad voor bet Regeringsbeleid'14(1991) also states that Europe is affected by the attraction of many

other possible destinations for North American, Japanese, and Australian tourists.

Europe's historical and cultural assets have to compete with such exotic locations as

Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, and Central andSouth America. Within the European

continent, countries and _{regions also vary considerably in popularity. Compared with}

Europe as a _whole, North-West Europe,15 including the cities of Amsterdam, Berlin,

Dublin, London, Paris, and Stockholm, has lagged behind in tourism growth since

1993 (NBT, 1998). WTO (1998) forecasts for 2020 predict that Central and Eastern

Europe

will

overtakeWestern Europe aS the _{maior tourism destination.}

In summary, in spite ofthe optimistic tourism forecasts worldwide, as a part of

Europe, the Netherlands faces serious competition from other continents. Moreover,

geographically, being located in the least popular part ofEurope, the Netherlands has

co compete with Central and Eastern European countries for popularity among international tourists.

13 The Economist Intelligence Unic (EIU, 1995) is most optimistic and estimatedanannual growthof' interna[io-nal [ourism in Europe of 5.196 fortheperiod 1995-2000, while the NetherlandsResearchInsti[ure for Recreation and Tourism (NRIT, 2000) estimated a 3.39 growth for thesameperiod. The WTO ( 1998) estimatesan average annualgrowth in international tourisminEurope of 3.19 until 202().

14 Dutch Scientific Council forGovernmentPolicy.

15 _North-West

Europe includes France, Germany, Grea[Britain,Ireland, Sweden,Denmark, Norway, Finland, Belgium,

28 Holland. the American way

(lompetition about u·bat f

The Netherlands is a small, centrally located country in North-West Europe. Bordered

by the North Sea coastline and a number ofother countries, the country is easily accessible by land, sea, and air. The image of the Netherlandsis based on symbols such

as tulips.cheese.clogs, and windmills but it lacksa_landmark,which is much debated.'c' Yet, the Netherlands iswidely known forthese symbols (see also Binkhorst, 2000,2()()1).

Commissioned by the Ministry ofForeign _{Affairs, Research International Qualitative} (2()()0) recently analysed the image of the Netherlands abroad. The authors concluded that the Netherlands needs a new image that characterises the present Dutch society.

The image of tulips, wooden shoes,and windmills is outdated and should be replaced

by (a) symbol(s) expressing the liberal and modern attitude towards ethical dilemmas

and the progressiveattitude of the Dutch towards theenvironment and spatial control.

The ethical dilemmas referred toare relatedtotopics such asthe legalisationof prostitution,

soft drugs, _{abortion, euthanasia, and} environmental issues, including, for instance, the

historical struggleagainst thewater. Compared withmanyother_{European countries, the}

Netherlands has a less attractive _{landscape and} climateand _{there are very few}

opportu-nities for nature-oriented and adventurous holidays. As far as cultural attractions are

concerned, neighbouring countries such as Great Britain, Germany, France, and Italy

have much more tooffer.

However, one important aspect

of

Dutch tourism is the human factor. The NBT

strategic marketing plan for 1991-1995 implicitly recognized this; 'Holland, as no

other country, has a _{great variety} of tourism attractions in a small area and its

population is very hospitable and internationally oriented" (NBT, 199la; Goossens,

1991). The human factor concerns not only the friendliness and multilingual abilities

of the Dutch, but also their organizational talent, their level of knowledge, and their

skills in creating surroundings that fit thevisitors' wishes. Due to its historical

activi-ties abrc,acl, the Dutch are an internationally oriented pei,pleequipped with an

inter-nationallv oriented tourism infrastructure. The relatively strong orientation towards the

US and the presence of US (service) companies in the Netherlands is probably an

additional advantage with regard to international tourism and travel from the US.

Exploitation of these strengths for the benefit of tourism not only contributes to the

maintenance and improvement of the Dutch position within the international tourism

market, but may also promote employment in the Netherlands.

National Dutch tourism Policy

Despite having a relatively strong orientation towards incoming tourism because of irs

mature holiday market (Van der Borg, 1994), there isagrowing deficit in the tourism

](

in rheir S[ra[egic Marketing and (.(immunicarion Plan fi,r 2()()1-2(1().1. [he VVV Amsterd,im Tourist Bliard

Tourism in the

Netherlands 29

trade balance in the Netherlands (NRIT, 2000). Traditionally, Dutch expenditures abroad have been _{higher than foreign receipts.}Tourism has_{gained more}attention from

theDutch government since itwasrecognised as animportant contributor tothe nation's

economy. Aseconomicsector,tourism istheMinistryofEconomic Affairsportfolio, but

related issues are still treated at different governmental ministries; the

Ministry of

Agriculture, Nature Conservation, and Fisheries,deals withrecreation, the Ministry of

Education,Culture,and Sciencedeals with culture, and theMinistry ofHousing,

Environ-mental Planningand Management dealswith spatial issues.

Spatial aspects are becoming more and more acknowledged in national tourism

planning and policy. With the 'Vii4leNota Ruimtelijke Ordening'i7_{the Dutch government}

(Ministerie van _{Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening} and Milieubeheer, 2001) is

continuing the spatial planning policy that was initiated in 1991 with the 'VierdeNota

(Extra)' (ibid., 1991). Since 1990, the Dutch government has paid more attention to

the renewal of spatial structures within the Netherlands and Europe, as has been

expressed in several policy documents. The tourism policy document 'Nota Ondernemen

in Toerisme'18_{(Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 1990), directing tourism policy for}

the 199Os,distinguished four themes. All of them, except 'cultural-historicalheritage', are

spatially oriented: 'the Netherlands-country ofwater', .the coast', and 'urban junctions'.

The importance ofthe spatial quality in relation to public facilities as an important

resource forrecreation and tourism is also put forward in the policydocument 'Kiezen voor Recreatie'19(Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, 1991). The document

'Ruimte voor regio's. Het ruimklijk economiscb beleid tot2000'20 (Ministerie van Economische

Zaken, 1995) also underlines the importance of highquality spatial conditions in the

Netherlands inorder tobecompetitivewithinEurope.According to the latter document,

economic differences between thevarious parts ofthe Netherlands aredecreasing. The

international _economyis_{increasingly developing according to infrastructure} networks.

To maintain its _{central position} within North-West Europe, the Netherlands should

improve and ascertain its connection to these networks by improving its two main

ports; Schiphol Airport and the seaport of Rot:terdam (ibid.). The document 'NotaBelvedere'

(Ministerie van Onderwils, Cultuur en Wetenschappen, 1999),focuseson spatialplanning

in relationtocultural heritage. In'

Werkenaan concurrentiekracbt. Toeristiscbbeleidtot2000'21

(Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 1996), the NBT and 'Toerisme

6

Recreatie AVN'22

(AVN) aredesignated as the principal bodies in the field of tourism and recreation in

the Netherlands. They

jointly

presentedtheirviews ontheDutchtourismproduct with

regard to the themes of coast and culture/cities in the document 'Zee van Cultuur'23

17 ·Fifth Reporton PhysicalPlanning'. 18

'EnterpriseinTourism'. 19 'Choice forOutdoor Recreation'.

20 _{'Spacefor regions, the spatial-economical policy to 2000.}

21 _'Workon

competicion. Tourismpolicy to 2000'.

22 _{'TourismandRecreation AVN'.}