A PATHWAY FOR THE NEW GENERATION OF TOURISM RESEARCHProceedings of the EATSA Conference 2016

Lisbon, Peniche & Coimbra, Portugal

Euro-Asia TourismStudies Association

A PATHWAY FOR THE NEW GENERATION OF TOURISM RESEARCH

EDITED BY FRANCISCO DIAS

Title: A pathway for the new genera!on of tourism research ­ Proceedings of the EATSA Conference 2016

Editor: Francisco Dias

Copyright © APTUR – Associação Portuguesa de Turismologia

ISBN: 978­989­20­7217­3

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, cri!cism or review, nopart of this book may be reproduced by any process without wri#en permission from the publisher.Any enquiries should be directed to francisco.dias@ipleiria.pt.

119

COMPETITIVENESS OF POLISH CITIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS MARKET

Natalia Piechota and Piotr Zmyślony1

ABSTRACT The international meetings industry has become very challenging from the destination managerial pointof view. There has been an increasing number of cities bidding for international meetings and events.To be successful, they should meet strict criteria set by associations and other institutions acting asmeeting hosts in bidding processes. Therefore, the aim of the paper is to assess the potential of Polishcities for competing in the international meetings market. A desk research was conducted to analysecritical resources divided into four dimensions: meetings industry, economic, tourist, and green. On thebasis of this research, the overall index of competitiveness and the classification of cities was identified.Moreover, cluster analysis was used to recognise which cities have a similar potential in developing themeetings industry. The results show that the most competitive Polish cities are Warsaw and Cracow.

KEYWORDSCities, cities’ competitiveness, international meetings industry, convention bureau, Poland.

Introduction Urban des!na!ons have become significant and ac!ve players on the interna!onal

mee!ngs market. This is an indirect result of how this market is structured and how it per­forms. On behalf of ci!es treated as organisa!onal en!!es and market players–and being inclose partnership with local governments–conven!on bureaux, des!na!on managementcompanies, and professional congress organisers compete with other ci!es bidding for meet­ings and events that fit those ci!es’ economic profiles and images.

Every bidding process is executed under a wide set of criteria that must be fulfilled by des­!na!ons treated as poten!al mee!ng hosts. Moreover, the period between ci!es sending theexpression of interest in hos!ng an event and the !me of the actual event is usually 2­4 years.That is why ci!es should develop various resources not only from the mee!ng infrastructureside but also those that characterise their social, economic, and development poten!als aswell as tourist a#rac!veness. Although these criteria differ in terms of details depending onthe type, scope of impact, and industrial characteris!cs of a given mee!ng, a set of them canbe dis!nguished on the basis of in­depth literature and bidding documents’ review.

When the des!na!on site selec!on criteria and the strategic aspects of bid process arestudied, it can be concluded that they refer indirectly to the ci!es’ compe!!ve advantage de­terminants in the long, sustainable term [Porter, 1990]. The more interna!onal mee!ngs andevents the city wins (and even bids for), the more compe!!ve and sustainable it becomes.

The aim of the paper is to assess the compe!!ve poten!al of Polish ci!es in the inter­na!onal mee!ngs market. To have this achieved, the index of ci!es’ mee!ngs industry com­pe!!veness will be established based on the most frequent selec!on site criteria men!onedin the literature of the subject and being in line with ci!es’ compe!!veness determinants.

| BACK TO CONTENT

1 Department of Tourism, Faculty of Interna!onal Business and Economics, Poznan. University of Economics andBusiness. Al. Niepodległości 10, 60­875 Poznań, Poland. Tel: +48 61 854 37 63, E­mail: natalia.piechota@ue.poznan.pl.Tel: +48 61 854 35 27, E­mail: p.zmyslony@ue.poznan.pl

120

The index will be verified on Poland’s ten biggest ci!es. Moreover, the assessed ci!es will beclassified using cluster analysis to find which ci!es have similar mee!ngs industry poten!al.

The paper is organised as follows. The first chapter explores the mee!ngs industry, bid­ding criteria and regional compe!!veness issues. The second discusses the methodologicalaspects of the research. The results sec!on lists Polish ci!es specified the study. Lastly, thefindings are discussed with Porter’s compe!!veness analysis.

Literature reviewMeetings industry

According to UNWTO classifica!on [UNWTO, 2010], besides personal trips, professionaland business ones are one of the two main purposes of tourist travels However, they also formthe core of the mee!ngs industry [Celuch, 2015], also called the business tourism industry orthe MICE industry [Davidson & Cope, 2003]. The names are taken from its crucial ac!vi!es, i.e.taking part in mee!ngs, incen!ves, conferences, and exhibi!ons. Another acronym describingthis industry is MCCI, which is composed of associa!ons conven!ons and congresses, corporatemee!ngs, incen!ves and exhibi!ons [UNWTO & ETC, 2015]. The term “mee!ng” can not onlybe related to one of the main kinds of events [Council Conven!on Industry, 2011; Davidson &Cope, 2003], but it can also represent all business events men!oned above [Celuch, 2015]. Be­cause of the diversity of mee!ngs and the variety of en!!es which organise them, the mee!ngsindustry is comprised of mul!ple companies and ins!tu!ons [Davidson, 2001; Rogers, 2013].They all create a local business tourism product and enable a city to win rights to host differentkinds of mee!ngs and to bring about posi!ve effects ensuing from those events.

A company or an associa!on planning to organise a mee!ng needs a set of goods andservices, rather than one par!cular product from a single producer. Therefore, previous stud­ies about the mee!ngs industry analyse the cri!cal criteria considered in the decision­makingprocess when choosing a loca!on to host a mee!ng [Baloglu & Love, 2005; Chacko & Fenich,2000; DiPietro, Breiter, Rompf, & Godlewska, 2008; Fenich, 2001; Nelson & Rys, 2000; Op­permann & Chon, 1997; Oppermann, 1996; Upchurch, Jeong, Clements, & Jung, 1999]. Allthe authors study ci!es’ ability to provide all necessary goods and services and to helpachieve the main host’s (or the mee!ng owner’s) goals. Thus, it can be stated that the re­searchers indirectly cover the mee!ngs industry compe!!veness of ci!es as analysed factorscons!tute the local resources which build a city’s compe!!ve advantage in the na!onal andinterna!onal mee!ngs market.

The systema!c literature review of the Scopus database (‘des!na!on site selec!on’, ‘siteselec!on’, bidding for mee!ngs’, ‘bid process’ were used as keywords) and other selectedpapers and documents from 1977 to 2015 has shown that the most frequent (but not nec­essarily the most important) decision factors include accessibility and tourist appeal (23 in­dica!ons, see Table 1). It is worth men!oning that there is a dis!nc!on between des!na!onaccessibility and distance (3 indica!ons) as the ease of travelling plays a vital role in choosinga host city whereas the travelling distance is barely significant in bids for interna!onal meet­ings. Another factor that is o(en referenced in this context (21 indica!ons) is accommoda!onpoten!al, i.e. the number of available hotel rooms for delegates, a hotel’s standard, etc.

Surprisingly, mee!ngs facili!es are listed as the fi(h most o(en men!oned factor (19indica!ons), just a(er cost level (20) which covers overall expenses of organising an event

A PATHWAY FOR THE NEW GENERATION OF TOURISM RESEARCH ! PROCEEDINGS OF THE EATSA CONFERENCE 2016

| BACK TO CONTENT

121

and prices of par!cular products and services. Other criteria men!oned or analysed in theliterature are climate (16 indica!ons), restaurants/catering facili!es (15), des!na!on image(14) and safety (12). It is very important to stress that these tourist compe!!veness­relatedcriteria outweigh business­related determinants such as local support (10), economic con­di!ons (8), and business making opportuni!es (4). However, the last two factors have beenmen!oned more frequently in recent years.

Towards cities’ competitiveness on the meetings marketAccording to M. Porter [1990], a sector analysis of compe!!veness is crucial as com­

pe!!ve advantages of na!ons are based on strengths in par!cular industries. Interna!onalsuccess in one of the industries depends on the compe!!ve environment for local companieswhich is determined by six groups of broad factors incorporated into the diamond model[Porter, 1990]: (1) factor condi!ons, (2) demand condi!ons, (3) related and suppor!ng in­dustries, (4) firm strategy, structure and rivalry, (5) government, (6) chance. The first grouprefers to the most important factors of produc!on being available in a par!cular industry.The second one describes the local demand, and its size, structure, etc. Next, compe!!venessof related and supplier industries can guarantee the success in interna!onal markets. Thefourth category includes all formal condi!ons determining the ac!vity of local companiesand the domes!c rivalry. Government ac!vi!es at local, regional, na!onal and suprana!onallevel can influence each of the four previously men!oned determinants of compe!!veness.The last factor, namely chance events, are random occurrences that are outside of firms’control and create discon!nui!es [Porter, 1990].

Even though many researchers have inves!gated city compe!!veness [e.g. Bailey,Docherty, & Turok, 2002; Bruneckiene, Cincikaite, & Kilijoniene, 2012; Dou, Li, Gan, Wang, &Yang, 2000; Kresl & Singh, 1999; Rondinelli, Johnson Jr., & Kasarda, 1998; Rozenblat, 2010]or tourism des!na!on compe!!veness [Crouch, 2011; Dwyer, Forsyth, & Rao, 2000; Dwyer& Kim, 2003; Enright & Newton, 2004; Kozak, Baloğlu, & Bahar, 2009; Kozak, 1999; Ritchie &Crouch, 2003, to name just a few], there is s!ll li#le analysis of mee!ngs industry compe!­!veness, especially from the regional standpoint. M. Kozak & S. Baloglu [2011] state thatthere is a need for models of sector compe!!veness strictly dedicated to the tourism industrybecause of “a fundamental difference between the nature of the tourism product and themore tradi!onal goods and services” [p. 27]. It can be claimed that the mee!ngs industryalso needs the compe!!veness model approach on the regional/city level.

The results of the literature review (Table 1) can be incorporated into Porter’s diamond ofhis compe!!veness approach. A fusion of site selec!on criteria and compe!!ve advantageanalysis reveals the structure of ci!es’ mee!ngs industry compe!!veness. Therefore, researchon compe!!veness of this industry needs a mul!­faceted inves!ga!on. Such a complex ap­proach has used in previous studies [Baloglu & Love, 2005; Chacko & Fenich, 2000; Oppermann,1996], yet they mainly describe case study research focused on the way in which conferencea#endees perceive a city’s a#ributes. That is why they do not quite refer to city compe!!ve­ness in rela!on to the mee!ngs industry and in comparison to other des!na!ons. The index ofcity’s mee!ngs industry compe!!veness is proposed based on the two approaches presentedin the sec!on. The index analyses a city’s poten!al to compete for the interna!onal mee!ngs.

COMPETITIVENESS OF POLISH CITIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS MARKET

| BACK TO CONTENT

122

Table 1. Examining site selection criteria in meetings industry – the literature review.

A PATHWAY FOR THE NEW GENERATION OF TOURISM RESEARCH ! PROCEEDINGS OF THE EATSA CONFERENCE 2016

| BACK TO CONTENT

No.Author / Factors

Accessibility

Tourism appeal

Accommodation

Costs

Meeting facilities

Climate

Restaurants / Food

Image

Safety

Shopping

On­site assistance /Local support

Economic / politi­cal conditions

Business opportunities

Distance

1Fortin &

Ritchie [1977]X

XX

XX

XX

2M

cCleary [1978]X

XX

XX

3Hall [1980]

XX

XX

4Pizam

& M

anning [1982]X

XX

XX

XX

5Var, Cesario &

Mauser [1985]

XX

XX

XX

XX

6Led &

Levite [1986]7

Reed Travel Group [1988]X

XX

XX

XX

X8

Zia [1988]X

XX

XX

9Heath [1989]

XX

10Law

son [1991]X

XX

XX

11“Checklist: Site selection” [1993]

XX

XX

X12

Successful Meetings [1993]

XX

X13

Bonn, Brand & O

hlin [1994]X

XX

XX

X14

Edelstein & Benini [1994]

XX

XX

XX

X15

Zelinsky [1994]X

XX

X16

Judd [1995]X

XX

17Kirschbaum

[1995]X

XX

X18

Opperm

ann [1996]X

XX

XX

XX

XX

19Go &

Zhang [1997]X

XX

XX

XX

XX

X20

Crouch & Ritchie [1998]

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X21

Nelson & Rys [2000]

XX

XX

XX

XX

22Fenich [2001]

XX

XX

XX

XX

X23

Getz [2003]X

XX

XX

XX

X24

Baloglu & Love [2005]

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

25Com

as & M

oscardo [2005]X

XX

XX

XX

26DiPietro, Breiter, Rom

pf & Godlew

ska [2008]X

XX

XX

XX

XX

27ICCA [2009]

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X28

Park, Wu, Shen, M

orrison, & Kong [2014]

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X29

UNWTO

and ETC [2015]X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XSum

mary

2323

2120

1916

1514

1210

108

43

123

COMPETITIVENESS OF POLISH CITIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS MARKET

| BACK TO CONTENT

1 2 3 IndicatorsCi

ty’s

com

petit

iven

ess o

n in

tern

atio

nal m

eetin

gs m

arke

t

Econ

omic

com

petit

iven

ess

business potential

PopulationGDP per capita 3

Number of firmsNumber of firms with foreign capitalOrganisations& associations 2

development potential

Level of investmentsR&D expenditureNumber of patentsPopulation aged 13 and more with higher education 1

Number of universities

accessibility

Number of direct foreign air routes 4

Average length of air routes 4

Number of rail routes 4

Number of passengers at airports

Tour

ist co

mpe

titiv

enes

s accommodationand restaurants

Number of hotelsNumber of 3, 4, 5star hotelsNumber of hotel roomsNumber of touristsNumber of foreign touristsNumber of rented roomsNumber of rooms rented to foreign touristsNumber of restaurants

tourist appeal

Number of monuments 5Number of monuments on the UNESCO World Heritage ListNumber of museumsNumber of cinemasNumber of theatres

Mee

tings

indu

stry

com

petit

iven

ess events / meetings

Number of meetings according to ICCANumber of meetings according to UIANumber of mass eventsNumber of participants in mass events

meeting infrastructure

Meeting facilitySeats in the biggest room in a meeting facilityNumber of tourist accommodation establishments with confe­rence venues 3Number of conference venues in tourist accommodation establishments 3

Number of conference seats in tourist accommodation establishments 3

local support

Convention bureau 5

Recommended PCO 5

Gree

n / S

mar

t co

mpe

titiv

enes

s safetyCrime rateLevel of air pollution

sceneryGreen spacesProtected natural areas

climateAverage temperatureAverage cloudinessTotal precipitation

Table 2. Cities’ competitiveness in the international meetings market – dimensions and categories.

Data from 2014, excep#ons: 1 2011, 2 2012, 3 2013, 4 2015, 5 2016

124

MethodDesk research among Poland’s ten biggest ci!es was conducted to inves!gate their com­

pe!!veness in the interna!onal mee!ngs market. They have more than 300 thousand in­habitants each (within the city) and that number is big enough to create poten!almetropolitan effects. It was assumed that only a city with a sufficient level of developmentis able to compete in the interna!onal mee!ngs market. The analysis was divided into fourphases (Table 2). Based on the mee!ng site selec!on criteria list compared with the diamondmodel of compe!!veness, the overall city compe!!veness is composed of four compe!!ve­ness dimensions: economic, tourist, mee!ngs industry, and green/smart compe!!veness.Each dimension includes categories and factors.

Economic compe!!veness consists of business poten!al, development poten!al, anddes!na!on accessibility (connectedness). Business poten!al refers to demand factors – op­portuni!es for associa!ons and companies to win a new market and partners. The secondcategory is linked to a city’s ability to develop and high­skilled labour availability. Des!na!onaccessibility is men!oned in literature as one of the major determinants of choosing a placeto host a mee!ng. The two remaining categories refer to Porter’s factor condi!ons.

Tourist compe!!veness dimension comprises two categories: tourist appeal, and ac­commoda!on and restaurants infrastructure. The former includes the number of restaurants,hotels, their standard and capacity, as well as demand for such services. The la#er categoryfocuses on various types of tourist a#rac!ons: museums, monuments, theatres, cinemas,and sites in the UNESCO’s World Heritage List. It is worth men!oning that such places canalso play the role of alterna!ve mee!ngs venues.

The mee!ngs industry’s compe!!veness was defined narrowly as a city’s infrastructureand knowledge needed to host mee!ngs. It is divided into three categories: mee!ngs venuesand their capacity, local support, and a city’s experience in the interna!onal mee!ngs market.It can be said that the number of interna!onal mee!ngs is the simplest compe!!veness in­dicator in the mee!ngs markets. Being successful in a bidding process means that a city wasthe most compe!!ve in the aforemen!oned fields in comparison to other candidates.

Green compe!!veness is the last compe!!veness dimension. It includes three cate­gories safety, scenery, and climate. The first consists of two components the number of com­mi#ed crimes and the level of air pollu!on, as this category is understood as social andecological safety. The group of climate­related factors includes the most typical variables, in­fluencing the weather. Scenery is represented by green spaces in a city but it should also beunderstood as a city’s overall atmosphere. Nevertheless, it is difficult to find objec!ve andquan!ta!ve indicators to measure such factors. For these reasons this research does notoffer an indicator related to city image.

Summing up, 45 factors/indicators describing a city’s mee!ngs industry compe!!venessin the interna!onal market were formulated. The research phase was mainly limited by theavailability of data sources. Among them, 41 s!mulants and 4 des!mulants were selected. Thedata were collected from various sources and the main source was the Central Sta!s!cal Officeof Poland’s database. Depending on the availability, data cover the period from 2011 to 2015.

In the next step all indicators were used to calculate the overall compe!!veness index.First, the des!mulants were transformed into s!mulants. Then, all data were normalised – theywere divided by mean value for every factor. Owing to that every result equal 1 means that a

A PATHWAY FOR THE NEW GENERATION OF TOURISM RESEARCH ! PROCEEDINGS OF THE EATSA CONFERENCE 2016

| BACK TO CONTENT

125

city represents an average level of a par!cular factor. The compe!!veness index was createdas a mean value of all indicators and it formed the basis for building an overall ranking of ci!esand detailed rankings for each field. That means that the created index is a rela!ve measure.

In the next step, a cluster analysis was applied. The aim of this was to search similari!esamong the inves!gated ci!es and therefore the clusters (groups) of similar units were created[Balicki, 2009]. In this research Ward’s method was employed, because it is objec!ve, effec­!ve, and able to clearly present the results on a dendrogram and because it uses squaredEuclidean distance, which enables considering large differences between variables [Balicki,2009; Błaczkowska & Grześkowiak, 2001; Kaczmarek, 2003]. In the literature sta!s!cal indi­cators could be found to state how many clusters should be created, but researchers’ knowl­edge of a par!cular topic is the most important [Kaczmarek, 2003]. In the research it wasdecided to establish the number of clusters’ cri!cal value on the 30­cluster level in the Eu­clidean distance. One weakness of this method is that it does not indicate in which aspectsunits are similar, therefore results can be interpreted a(er a descrip!ve synthesis of data.

ResultsAccording to the results, Warsaw had the highest value of compe!!veness index (Table

3). There is a rela!vely substan!al gap between the capital of Poland and the ci!es, as itreached the highest scores in almost every compe!!veness dimensions. Poland’s second mostcompe!!ve city in the interna!onal mee!ngs market was Cracow. The fact that its index valueis high results from the high level of tourist compe!!veness’ value. Nevertheless, Cracow isnot the greenest city. On the contrary, the green compe!!veness is one of the lowest.

Besides Warsaw and Cracow, only Wrocław and Poznań’s compe!!veness index valuesbalanced around the mean value. Then, the level of Gdańsk and Katowice’s indexes appearedto be quite low and below the mean value. However, these ci!es performed well in such di­mensions as green compe!!veness and economic compe!!veness; however, the other in­dexes were undervalued. The lowest compe!!veness in the interna!onal mee!ngs industrywas found for Łódź, Szczecin, Bydgoszcz, and Lublin, despite the fact that their green com­pe!!veness index values were overvalued.

Table 3. Competitiveness index – ranking of cities

COMPETITIVENESS OF POLISH CITIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS MARKET

| BACK TO CONTENT

Rank City City competitiveness

Economic Com­petitiveness

Tourist com­petitiveness

Meetings industrycompetitiveness

Green com­petitiveness

1 Warsaw 2.55 3.02 2.63 2.70 1.232 Cracow 1.65 1.10 2.53 1.81 0.863 Wrocław 1.02 0.97 1.13 1.03 0.914 Poznań 0.97 0.97 0.89 1.04 1.045 Gdańsk 0.83 0.79 0.69 0.77 1.306 Katowice 0.72 0.97 0.46 0.80 0.607 Łódź 0.64 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.928 Szczecin 0.58 0.69 0.41 0.40 0.969 Bydgoszcz 0.54 0.44 0.29 0.45 1.3510 Lublin 0.49 0.47 0.38 0.42 0.83

Source: own elaboration

126

On the basis of cluster method five clusters were iden!fied (Figure 1):1) Warsaw;2) Cracow;3) Wrocław and Poznań;4) Katowice and Szczecin;5) Bydgoszcz, Lublin, Łódź, Gdańsk.

Figure 1 ­ Dendrogram

The first two clusters comprised a single city. Theore!cally, they could be combined witheach other as they include the two most compe!!ve cites, but such a cluster is presented ina dendrogram as one of the last connec!ons. Moreover, Cracow recorded more than an av­erage level of compe!!veness value in tourism and mee!ngs industry dimensions, but theother dimension values were comparable with the mean value, whereas Warsaw’s value wasrela!vely 2.5 !mes higher than the average level in all dimensions except green compe!­!veness.

The next cluster consisted of two ci!es – Wrocław and Poznań. They had similar resultsapproximated to 1 and in two dimensions (economic and mee!ngs industry ones) their valueswere comparable. Their compe!!veness index’s structure differed only in terms of touristcompe!!veness – Wrocław appeared to be more compe!!ve than Poznań in this respect.

The fourth cluster seemed to be the most heterogenic. It included Katowice andSzczecin, which held the 6th and 8th posi!ons in the ranking, respec!vely. Both ci!es’ overallindex value was below the average level in all dimensions, however, they had similar scoresonly for tourist poten!al dimension. It is worth men!oning that Katowice’s economic com­pe!!veness index value was on the same level as that for Wrocław and Poznań’s andSzczecin’s index value was rela!vely much lower. The opposite was no!ced for green com­pe!!veness dimension.

The last cluster consisted of four ci!es: Gdańsk, Łódź, Bydgoszcz, and Lublin. All of themrepresented a similar structure of compe!!ve index values in the interna!onal mee!ngsmarket. The index values of three dimensions (economic, tourist, mee!ngs industry) wereon the comparable levels but the green compe!!ve index value was higher than the others.

A PATHWAY FOR THE NEW GENERATION OF TOURISM RESEARCH ! PROCEEDINGS OF THE EATSA CONFERENCE 2016

| BACK TO CONTENT

127

Findings and discussionThe results of the study revealed that Warsaw had the strongest compe!!ve poten!al

in the interna!onal mee!ngs market. Moreover, Warsaw, compe!!veness’ structure is themost stable and sustainable as every dimension of the city’s compe!!veness index was as­sessed on the high level. It can be concluded that only a city which is strong in every aspectsof its development poten!al – and not only with a substan!al amount of mee!ngs and ac­commoda!on infrastructure – is able to gain a steady compe!!ve edge in the interna!onalmee!ngs market, confirmed by the high number of mee!ngs hosted. However, the exampleof Cracow showed that the compe!!ve advantage can be built on the basis of the city’stourist appeal. Nevertheless, the strategy is also determined by the high level of mee!ngsinfrastructure development.

The literature review as well as the research results presented in the previous sec!onsof the paper make it possible to incorporate site selec!on criteria used in bid processes withthe overall framework of des!na!on compe!!veness approach proposed by Porter [1990].Moreover, the possibili!es of measuring compe!!veness were verified from the mee!ngsindustry point of view (Figure 2).

As far as a city’s mee!ngs industry compe!!veness is concerned, Porter’s factor condi­!ons consist of the majority of site selec!on criteria. Specialized infrastructure, i.e. mee!ngfacili!es and transport infrastructure ensuring accessibility in the inter­city network is nec­essary to organise a mee!ng. High­qualified staff and local capital are needed, too, to create,develop, and promote local industry products. The number of mee!ngs organised in a cityis a measureable outcome. Moreover, factor condi!ons in the mee!ngs market can be mea­sured by such categories used in the research as: mee!ngs infrastructure, accessibility.

Nevertheless, support from a local government unit and other ins!tu!ons like e.g. con­ven!on and visitor bureau, play a crucial role in forming the compe!!veness of the localmee!ngs industry by advoca!ng and featuring a city in the interna!onal market. It is also ameasureable category used in the presented research as part of mee!ngs industry compe!­!veness dimension.

Because of complexity of a city’s mee!ngs industry product, the compe!!ve advantageis significantly determined by related and suppor!ng industries. Although the strength oftheir impact depends on a kind of mee!ng [see Davidson, 2001], the most important are ac­commoda!on, restaurant/catering facili!es and shopping facili!es. However, only the lastindicator could not be measured. Instead of this, it is possible to measure more suppor!ngelements included in tourist compe!!veness dimension in the study.

The mee!ngs industry’s demand condi!ons can be understood twofold, in rela!on todomes!c demand for products and services offered by local entrepreneurs (i.e. how manymee!ngs and other events a city hosted; how many par!cipants took part in them, how hightheir expenses were, etc.), and in rela!on to business­making opportuni!es related to a givenmee!ng (e.g. what are the chances of recrui!ng new members or crea!ng new business re­la!onships or entering a new market, etc.). These factors could be indirectly included in thebusiness poten!al category and development poten!al category (which were both parts ofeconomic compe!!veness dimension).

Another compe!!ve factor in Porter’s model are a firm’s strategy, structure and rivalry.It can be stated that the real poten!al of this factor is tested during the bid process, as all

COMPETITIVENESS OF POLISH CITIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS MARKET

| BACK TO CONTENT

128

public and private stakeholders must cooperate to create and deliver a compe!!ve offer ofa city. Moreover, overall poli!cal, economic condi!ons are important.

The mee!ngs market operates in the interna!onal level and that is why occurrencesthat are outside of control of firms represen!ng this industry are a substan!al factor of city’scompe!!veness. These elements are safety (which is also a government’s responsibility), cli­mate, city and country’s tourist appeal and des!na!on image. Some of these elements canbe measured using indicators collected in the green compe!!veness dimension in the study.

Nevertheless, it can be stated that to a certain extent the bidding process is a mix ofcompe!!ve resources (represen!ng by other factors), good presenta!ons and chance itself.Some!mes winning and consequently hos!ng an important and recognizable mee!ng canpush a city into ‘upper league’ of this high compe!!ve and interna!onal game and foster alocal industry’s development. On the other hand, losing the bid ba#le can result in fewer keystakeholders and the decline of local partnership.

ConclusionThe results of the study reveal that the interna!onal mee!ngs market must be seen as

an unique industry not only because it involves territorial units as compe!!ve actors on thismarket compete on the same condi!ons as private organisa!ons. This is also the marketwhere ci!es’ ability to compete is constantly verified in prac!ce, i.e. in such a direct andshort­term way, by making them par!cipate in bid contest. That is why the interna!onal

A PATHWAY FOR THE NEW GENERATION OF TOURISM RESEARCH ! PROCEEDINGS OF THE EATSA CONFERENCE 2016

| BACK TO CONTENT

129

mee!ngs market could be treated as an on­going city compe!!on. Moreover, such compe!­!veness can be measured using the city’s index of compe!!veness on the interna!onal meet­ings market created from the site selec!on criteria used by main host organisers (i.e.associa!ons and corpora!ons) incorporated into the diamond of the compe!!veness frame­work.

However, limita!ons of the presented study must be discussed. First, compe!!venessof only ten ci!es from one country was assessed. Second, the authors faced the lack of dataconcerning important factors in the mee!ngs market such des!na!on image, shopping fa­cili!es, terrorist threat etc. Third, the data represen!ng different years were used in thestudy.

Implica!ons for further research could also be proposed. The research could bestrengthened by crea!ng ci!es new compe!!veness structure based on e.g. Analy!cal Hi­erarchy Process (AHP). It is also important that the study should be verified using the inter­na!onal scope corresponding with mee!ngs industry impact.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe paper was wri#en under the project “The role of conven!on bureau in enhancing citycompe!!veness” granted by the Polish Na!onal Science Centre (NCN) no.2015/17/N/HS4/00386.

BIBLIOGRAPHYBailey, N., Docherty, I., & Turok, I. (2002). Dimensions of City Compe""veness: Edinburgh and Glasgow

in a UK context. In I. Begg (Ed.), Urban compe!!veness: policies for dynamic ci!es (pp. 135–160).Bristol: Policy Press.

Balicki, A. (2009). Statystyczna analiza wielowymiarowa i jej zastosowanie społeczno­ekonomiczne.Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.

Baloglu, S., & Love, C. (2005). Associa"on mee"ng planners’ percep"ons and inten"ons for five major USconven"on ci"es: The structured and unstructured images. Tourism Management, 26(5), 743–752.

Błaczkowska, A., & Grześkowiak, A. (2001). Zastosowanie wybranych metod analizy wielowymiarowejdo oceny efektów kształcenia. In J. Garczarczyk & R. Skikiewicz (Eds.), Metody pomiaru i analizyrynku usług. Dylematy badawcze (pp. 20–31). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonom­icznego w Poznaniu.

Bonn, M. A., Brand, R. B., & Ohlin, J. B. (1994). Site selec"on for professional mee"ngs. Journal of Traveland Tourism Marke!ng, 3(2), 59–84.

Bruneckiene, J., Cincikaite, R., & Kilijoniene, A. (2012). The Specifics of Measurement the Urban Com­pe""veness at the Na"onal and Interna"onal Level. Engineering Economics, 23(3), 256–270.

Celuch, K. (2015). The management of research technics of mee"ngs industry in Poland based on thequan"ta"ve and qualita"ve model. Interna!onal Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Tech­nology, 5(1), 14–18.

Chacko, H. E., & Fenich, G. G. (2000). Determining the importance of US conven"on des"na"on a'rib­utes. Journal of Vaca!on Marke!ng, 6(3), 211–220.

Checklist: Site selec"on. (1993). Mee!ngs and Conven!ons, 28(5), 135–136.Comas, M., & Moscardo, G. (2005). Understanding Associa"ons and Their Conference Decision­Making

Processes. Journal of Conven!on & Event Tourism, 7(3/4), 117–138. Council Conven"on Industry. (2011). APEX Industry Glossary 2011. Retrieved January 13, 2016, from

h'p://www.conven"onindustry.org/StandardsPrac"ces/APEX/glossary.aspxCrouch, G. I. (2011). Des"na"on Compe""veness: An Analysis of Determinant A'ributes. Journal of

Travel Research, 50(1), 27–45.

COMPETITIVENESS OF POLISH CITIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS MARKET

| BACK TO CONTENT

130

Crouch, G. I., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1998). Conven"on Site Selec"on Research: A review, conceptual model,and proposi"onal framework. Journal of Conven!on & Exhibi!on Management, 1(1), 49–69.

Davidson, R. (2001). Distribu"on channel analysis for business travel. In D. Buhalis & E. Laws (Eds.), TourismDistribu!on Channels: prac!ces, issues and transforma!ons (pp. 73–86). London: Con"nuum.

Davidson, R., & Cope, B. (2003). Business Travel. Conferences, Incen!ve Travel, Exhibi!ons, CorporateHospitality and Corporate Travel. Pearson Educa"on.

DiPietro, R. B., Breiter, D., Rompf, P., & Godlewska, M. (2008). An Exploratory Study of Differencesamong Mee"ng and Exhibi"on Planners in their Des"na"on Selec"on Criteria. Journal of Conven­!on & Event Tourism, 9(February 2015), 258–276.

Dou, W.­Z., Li, G.­P., Gan, Y.­J., Wang, L.­M., & Yang, K.­Z. (2000). Urban compe""ve pa'ern and itschanges in China. Chinese Geographical Science, 10(2), 105–112.

Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Rao, P. (2000). The price compe""veness of travel and tourism: a comparisonof 19 des"na"ons. Tourism Management, 21(1), 9–22.

Dwyer, L., & Kim, C. (2003). Des"na"on Compe""veness: Determinants and Indicators. Current Issuesin Tourism, 6(5), 369–414.

Edelstein, L. G., & Benini, C. (1994). Mee"ngs market report 1994. Mee!ngs and Conven!ons, 29, 60–82.Enright, M. J., & Newton, J. (2004). Tourism des"na"on compe""veness: A quan"ta"ve approach.

Tourism Management, 25(6), 777–788. Fenich, G. G. (2001). Towards a Conceptual Framework for Assessing Community A'rac"veness for

Conven"ons. Journal of Conven!on & Exhibi!on Management, 3(1), For"n, P., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (1977). An empirical study of associa"on decision processes in conven"on

site selec"on. Journal of Travel Research, 15(4), 13–20.Getz, D. (2003). Bidding on Events: Iden"fying Event Selec"on Criteria and Cri"cal Success Factors. Jour­

nal of Conven!on & Exhibi!on Management, 5(2), 1–24.Go, F., & Zhang, W. (1997). Applying Importance­Performance Analysis to Beijing as an Interna"onal

Mee"ng Des"na"on. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marke!ng, XXXV(4), 42–49.Hall, R. J. (1980). Straight Talk to Hoteliers: A Mee"ng Planner’s View. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administra!on Quarterly, 20(4), 17–20.Heath, D. A. (1989). Global Industry Forecast: The Interna"onal Mee"ng Market of the 1990s and Be­

yond. The Mee!ng Manager, January, 26.ICCA. (2009). Interna!onal associa!on mee!ngs: bidding and decision­making. Amsterdam.Judd, D. R. (1995). Promo"ng tourism in US ci"es. Tourism Management, 16(3), 175–187. Kaczmarek, M. (2003). Zastosowanie metod analizy skupień w wielowymiarowej segmentacji rynku. In

K. Mazurek­Łopacińska (Ed.), Badania marke!ngowe – metody, tendencje, zastosowania (pp. 202–209). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu.

Kirschbaum, D. M. (1995). How to choose a mee"ng city. Associa!on Management, 81–88.Kozak, M. (1999). Des"na"on Compe""veness Measurement: Analysis of Effec"ve Factors and Indica­

tors. European Regional Science Associa!on (ERSA) Conference Papers. No. 289.Kozak, M., & Baloglu, S. (2011). Managing and Marke!ng Tourist Des!na!ons. Strategies to Gain a

Compe!!ve Edge. New York, London: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.Kozak, M., Baloğlu, Ş., & Bahar, O. (2009). Measuring Des"na"on Compe""veness: Mul"ple Des"na­

"ons Versus Mul"ple Na"onali"es. Journal of Hospitality Marke!ng & Management, 19(Septem­ber 2014), 56–71.

Kresl, P. K., & Singh, B. (1999). Compe""veness and the urban economy: Twenty­four large U.S. met­ropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 36(5), 1017–1027.

Lawson, F. (1991). Congress, Conven!on and Exhibi!on Facili!es. London: Architectural Press.Led, D., & Levite, C. (1986). Choosing a conven"on center. Mee!ngs and Conven!ons, 58–69.McCleary, K. W. (1978). The corporate mee"ngs market: Components of success in a'rac"ng group

business. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administra!on Quarterly, 18(2), 30–35.Nelson, R., & Rys, S. (2000). Conven"on Site Selec"on Criteria Relevant to Secondary Conven"on Des­

"na"ons. Journal of Conven!on & Exhibi!on Management, 2(2/3), 71–82. Oppermann, M. (1996). Conven"on des"na"on images: analysis of associa"on mee"ng planners’ per­

cep"ons. Tourism Management, 17(3), 175–182. Oppermann, M., & Chon, K.­S. (1997). Conven"on par"cipa"on decision­making process. Annals of

Tourism Research, 24(1), 178–191. Park, J., Wu, B., Shen, Y., Morrison, A. M., & Kong, Y. (2014). The Great Halls of China? Mee"ng Planners’

Percep"ons of Beijing as an Interna"onal Conven"on Des"na"on. Journal of Conven!on & EventTourism, 15(4), 244–270.

A PATHWAY FOR THE NEW GENERATION OF TOURISM RESEARCH ! PROCEEDINGS OF THE EATSA CONFERENCE 2016

| BACK TO CONTENT

131

Pizam, A., & Manning, P. B. (1982). The Impact of Infla"on on Conven"on Site Selec"on. Interna!onalJournal of Hospitality Management, 1(1), 65–66.

Porter, M. (1990). The Compe!!ve Advantage of Na!ons. London: The Macmillan Press.Reed Travel Group. (1988). Mee"ngs Market 1987. Mee!ngs & Conven!ons Magazine, 38, 74.Ritchie, J. R. B., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The Compe!!ve Des!na!on. A Sustainable Tourism Perspec!ve.

Wallingford: CABI Publisging.Rogers, T. (2013). Conferences and Conven!ons: A Global Industry (3rd ed.). London and New York:

Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group. Rondinelli, D. A., Johnson Jr., J. H., & Kasarda, J. D. (1998). The Changing Forces of Urban Economic De­

velopment: Globaliza"on and City Compe""veness in the 21st Century. Cityscape: A Journal ofPolicy Development and Research, 3(3), 71–106.

Rozenblat, C. (2010). Opening the Black Box of Agglomera"on Economies for Measuring Ci"es’ Com­pe""veness through Interna"onal Firm Networks. Urban Studies, 47(November), 2841–2865.

Successful Mee"ngs. (1993). Find the best sites at home and abroad. Successful Mee!ngs, 55–57.UNWTO. (2010). Interna!onal Recommenda!ons for Tourism Sta!s!cs 2008. New York. UNWTO, & ETC. (2015). The Decision­making Process of Mee!ngs, Congresses, Conven!ons and Incen­

!ves Organizers. Madrid.Upchurch, R. S., Jeong, G., Clements, C., & Jung, I. (1999). Mee"ng Planners’ Percep"ons of Site Selec­

"on Characteris"cs. Journal of Conven!on & Exhibi!on Management, 2(1), 15–35. Var, T., Cesario, F., & Mauser, G. (1985). Conven"on Tourism Modelling. Tourism Management, 194–

205.Zelinsky, W. (1994). Conven"onland USA: The geography of a la'er day phenome. Annals of the Asso­

cia!on of American Geographers, 84(1), 68–86.Zia, H. (1988). The mee"ngs market report. Mee!ngs and Conven!ons, 83–85.

COMPETITIVENESS OF POLISH CITIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL MEETINGS MARKET

| BACK TO CONTENT