Küçük ve Orta Büyüklükteki Turizm İşletmelerinde Tarım Üreticisiyle Yapılan İş Birlikleri: Türkiye’de Farklı Turizm Destinasyonları Arasında Karşılaştırmalı Niteliksel bir Analiz

Yıl 2021, Sayı: 7, 56 - 72, 31.12.2021

Ozan Hovardaoğlu , Seda Çalışır Hovardaoğlu

Öz

Bu araştırma, turizmin başat sektöre dönüşümünden önce kırsal yerleşme niteliği taşıyan destinasyonlarda tarımsal üretimle aile ve mülkiyet ilişkilerini koparmamış turizm işletmecilerinin, turizm işletmeleri ve tarımsal üretici arasında kurdukları yeni iş birliklerinin niteliğini analiz etmektedir. Araştırma bulguları, amaçsal örnekleme ve kartopu örnekleme teknikleri kullanılarak üç farklı destinasyondaki dört yerleşmede erişilen yeme-içme ve konaklama tesisi sahibi ya da yöneticisi olan katılımcılardan iki basamaklı bir araştırma sürecinde elde edilmiştir. Bulgular, turizm işletmeleriyle tarımsal üretim arasında olağan gıda tedarik zinciri dışında yeni iş birliklerinin kurulduğunu göstermektedir. Bu iş birlikleri, turizm işletmecisi tarafından oluşturulan ve en düşük seviyede işletmede servis edilen gıda ürünleri için hammadde olarak kullanımdan, misafir ya da müşteriye çeşitli paketleme seçenekleriyle sunumu veya satışına ve en ileri seviyede işletme misafirlerine agro-turizm hizmeti sunumuna kadar geniş bir yelpazeyi temsil etmektedir. Bu iş birliklerinin hem turizm işletmecisi hem de tarımsal üretici için dolaylı ve doğrudan ekonomik fayda ürettiği; ayrıca hem enformel de olsa sözleşmeli tarım uygulamalarının yolunu açtığı hem de iş birliği yapılan üretici sayısına bağlı olarak kırsal yerleşmelerde bir yayılma etkisi oluşturabildiği, bu sayede kırsal kalkınma çabalarına da olumlu katkı ürettiği bulunmuştur. Yerli turistin başlıca hedef kitle olduğu bu iş birliklerinin seviyelerinin işletme ölçeği ve profesyonelleşme düzeyleriyle ilişkili olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Turizm-tarım iş birliği, Turizm-tarım iş birliği, küçük ve orta büyüklükteki turizm işletmeleri, turizm temelli kalkınma, kırsal kalkınma

Cooperation with Agricultural Producers in Small and Medium Sized Tourism Enterprises: A Comparative Qualitative Analysis between Various Tourism Destinations in Turkey

Öz

This research qualitatively analyses new cooperative relations between tourism entrepreneurs and agricultural producers that have been established by tourism entrepreneurs who tended to maintain family and property ownership relations in the destinations wherein tourism has gained economic dominance over agricultural production. Employing a combination of purposive and snowball sampling techniques, findings were obtained from participants, who were the owner or the manager of food and beverage or accommodation facilities, in four settlements from three different destinations. Findings show that new cooperative relations were being established apart from the ordinary supply chain. Established by the tourism entrepreneurs, those relations represent a wide cooperation ranging from using the products for food services in the lowest level to sale to the customers with various options and to agro-tourism in the highest level. It is found that those relations have direct and indirect positive economic influences both for tourism entrepreneurs and agricultural producers and paves a way for informal subcontracting relations between them which also creates spill-over effects that contribute to the rural development efforts. It is also found that domestic tourists constitute the main market, and the level of cooperation is related with the size and professionalization level of the tourism enterprises.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cooperation between tourism and agriculture, small and medium sized tourism enterprises, tourism-based development, rural development

Kaynakça

• Agarwal, S. (2002). Restructuring seaside tourism. The resort lifecycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 25–55.
• Amin, A. (1999a). ‘An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23 (2), 367–78.
• Amin, A. (1999b). ‘The Emilian model: institutional challenges’, European Planning Studies, 7 (4), 389–405.
• Amin, A. ve Thrift, N. (1995). ‘Institutional issues for the European regions: from markets and plans to socioeconomics and powers of association’, Economy and Society, 24 (1), 41–66.
• Atçı, D., Kale, A., Şeker, F. (2017). Otel İşletmecilerinin Bireysel Yenilikçilik Profili ve Çift Yönlülük (Ambidexterity) Düzeyi İlişkisi. İşletme ve İktisat Çalışmaları Dergisi, 5. 47-58.
• Avrupa Komisyonu (2010). Europe, the world's No 1 tourist destination – a new political framework for tourism in Europe. Brüksel. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC0352&from=EN (Son erişim tarihi: 15 Ekim 2021).
• Brandth, B., Haugen, M.S., Kramvig, B. (2010). The future can only be imagined Innovation in farm tourism from a phenomenological perspective. The Open Social Science Journal, 3. 51-59.
• Butler, R. W. (2009). Tourism in the future: Cycles, waves or wheels?. Futures, 41(6), 346–352. Camisón, C., Monfort-Mir, M.R. (2012). Measuring innovation in tourism from the Schumpeterian and the dynamic-capabilities perspectives Tourism Management, 33. 776-789.
• Chang, Y.Y., Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30, 1-17
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, Beş Yaklaşıma Göre Nitel Araştırma ve Araştırma Deseni, Çev. Ed. Bütün M. ve Demir, S. B. Ankara: Siyasal Kitapevi.
• Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. California: Sage Publications.
• Divisekera, S., Nguyen V.K. (2018). Determinants of innovation in tourism evidence from Australia. Tourism Management, 67. 157-167.
• Edgell, D.L., L. Harbaugh, (1993). “Tourism Development: An Economic Stimulus in the Heart of America”, Business America, 114 (2), 17-18.
• Erkuş-Öztürk, H. ve Terhorst, P. (2016). Innovative restaurants in a mass-tourism city: Evidence from Antalya. Tourism Management 54, 477-489.
• Garay, L., ve Cànoves, G. (2011). Life cycles, stages and tourism history: the Catalonia (Spain) experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 38, 651-671.
• Glaser, B. G. ve Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
• Gursoy, D. and Chi, C. and Dyer, P. 2010. Locals' attitudes toward mass and alternative tourism: The case of Sunshine Coast, Australia. Journal of Travel Research. 49 (3): pp. 381-394.
• Hall, C.M. (2009). Innovation and tourism policy in Australia and New Zealand: never the twain shall meet? Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1 (1). 2-18.
• Hovardaoğlu, O. (2018). Succeeding generations, changing trajectories: influences of generational transition on local development experiences. Charlie Karlsson, Andreas P. Cornett, Tina Wallin (Ed.), Globalization, International Spillovers and Sectoral Changes: Implications for Regions and Industries, (pp. 214 – 249), Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
• Hwang, D., W.P. Stewart, D. Ko. (2012). “Community Behavior and Sustainable Rural Tourism Development”, Journal of Travel Research, 51:328-341. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı (2007). Türkiye Turizm Stratejisi (2023), Ankara.
• Lerner, M., Haber, S. (2010). Performance factors of small tourism ventures: The interface of tourism, entrepreneurship and the environment. Journal of Business Venturing, 16 (1). 77-100.
• Luloff, A.E., J.C. Bridger, A.R., Graefe, M. Saylor, K. Martin, R. Gitelson. (1994). “Assessing Rural Tourism Efforts in the United States”, Annals of Tourism Research, 21 (1), 46-64.
• Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11, 327-344. doi: 10.1080/13645570701401305
• OECD (2014), Tourism and the Creative Economy, OECD Studies on Tourism, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264207875-en
• Omerzel, D. G. (2015). Innovativeness in Tourism: Model Development. Procedia Economics and Finance. 23. 750-756.
• Parker, C, Scott, S. ve Geddes, A. (2019) Snowball Sampling. SAGE Research Methods Foundations.
• Pearce, D.G., (1992). Alternative Tourism: Concepts, Classifications, and Questions. In Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems in the Development of Tourism, (ed.V.L. Smith and W. Eadington), New York, 15-30.
• Reisman, D. (2002). The Institutional Economy: Demand and Supply, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
• Rodrik, D., Subramanian A. ve Trebbi, F. (2004). ‘institutions rule: the primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development’, Journal of Economic Growth, 9 (2), 131–65.
• Rubin, H.J. ve Rubin, I.S. (1995) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. 2nd Edition, Sage Publications, London.
• Schutt, R. K. (2006). Investigating the social world: The process and practice of research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Sears, D.W., N. Reid,. (1992). “Rural Strategies and Rural Development Research: An Assessment”, Policy Studies Journal, 20(2), 301-309.
• Segreto, L., Manera, C., ve Pohl, M. (2009). Europe at the Seaside: The Economic History of Mass Tourism in the Mediterranean. Berghahn Books.
• Smith, N. (2008). Uneven Development: Nature, Capital, and the Production of Space. (Third Edition ed.). Athens: University of Georgia Press.
• Tucker, H., (2010): “Peasant-Entrepreneurs: A Longitudinal Ethnography”, Annals of Tourism, Vol:37 (4), 927-946.
• Wilson, S., Fesenmaier, D.R., Fesenmaier, J., C. Van Es, (2001): “Factors for Success in Rural Tourism Development”, Journal of Travel Research, 40 (2), 132-138.