I. Tourism, Tourist Areas and Main Aspects of Tourist
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
177 . MUNIC IPAL INVESTMENTS PROMOTING TOURISM IN LOWER SAXONY ( FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY) Their al locat ion ond structure in reference to the state's tourist policy ( 1974-1978 ) Hans Georg MOLLER I. TOURISM, TOURISTAREAS AND MAIN ASPEC TS OF TOURISTPOLICY IN LOWERSAXONY The state of Lower Saxony is situated in the north of the Federal Republic of Germanyand has several tourist areas which are shown by fig.l. The most important areas are the islands and the coast of the southern North Sea and the Harz mountai ns. Together both areas commeto 68 % of total 28 million bed-nights spent by tourists within the state's borders in 1977/78 (1). Most of Lower Saxony' s tourist areas are situated at the periphery of the agglomerations and industrialized regions of Hannover, Salzgitter and Braunschweig. The LOneburgerHeide, t he coast of the North Sea and the Arz economically are back1~ardareas in comparision with the whole state or the Federal Republic. Tne following 't ouri st region 's are administrative areas defined by the state for measures of tourist policy . Tab, 1 - Date of Economiestructure of tourist regions (Fremdenverkehrsgebiete) in Lower Saxony (1970 Area km2 Population G D p+ %-difference of GDP(per capital of 1000 "/C % residential population) from average of sta~e ... of Fed. Rep. Nordsee 4 220 430 6,1 4 - 27,4 - 36,0 Lüneburger Heide 9 224 573 9,5 5 - 34,0 - 41,8 Weserberg- land 4 353 741 10,5 ·9 - 13,8 - 24,0 Harz 1 087 151 2,1 2 - 24, 1 - 33,2 .' al l tourist regions 18 884 1995 28,2 21 - - State of LowerSaxony 47 408 7082 100 100 - - + GDP: Gross Oomestic Product Sources Niedersachsis cher Minister für \~irtschaft und èiffentliche Arbeiten (1974, p. 10) M. Meyer (1979, p. 29) + Address of the author : Dr eans-Georg M~lle r, Geograph!sches Insci t ut der Universitic Hannover, Schneiderbêrt 30, D 3000 Hannover . ( 1) Tourist year of the statistic : l .10.197i - 30.9.1978. 178 Especially the regions of Nordsee and Lüneburger Heide shox large negative deviations of such statistical key data as population and Gross Domestic Product. On the other hand tourism contributes most te the GDPof the Nordsee (14,8 %) and Harz (14,5 %) regions, while its share in the GPDof the state only is 1,2 % (1) . As the tourist regions are less industrialized than the whole state and are monostructural areas toc , tourism seems te provide a possibility of economic growth within these regions . In the Federal Republic of Germanytourist policy nearly exclusively belongs to the duties of state-governments (2) ; therefore the recent development of tourism in Lower Saxony was considerably influenced by the state's regional and economic policies . Beth contribute to the tourist policy, which is determined by the following targets (3) a) to secure existing and to add new employment, 6) to secure existing and to find new possibilities of additional incarne, c) te reduce regional disparities in personal incarne, d) to provide recreational facilities for the demandof t he population living in the agglornerations of Lower Saxony and neighbouring contries. To corne true with these rather commontargets and to use public funds efficient ly, it was necessary to concentrate the public furtherance on special recipients, projects and areas. Tab. 2 Distribution of public subsidies to promote touris rn in Lower Saxony as proposed by the state's tourist programm(1974 -1978). Application of public grants Furtherance M and loans , subsidies to ... Million DM ~ Private enterprise operating in tourism 25 21 Communaltourist infrastructure 90 75 Public relation , advertising 5 4 Total 120 wo Tnereof : federal funds 50 42 Source M. MEYER(1979 , p. 31). Tab. 2 shows the furtherance of projects improving communalinfrastructure predominate clearly. Therefore the rnunicipalities got a key position profiting by the public furtherance. The total of subsidies granted to them by far exceeded the planned figures. Instead of the proposed 90 million DMmunicipaliti es got more than 250 million DMas grants and loans . It should be added that subsidies in most cases did not exceed 50 % of total investments (4) and that municipalities at the same time financed additional (1) NIEDERSACHSISCHERMI~ISTER ..• (1974, p. 11). (2) The federal government has t he possibility to influence states's tourist policy by gran tin g subsidies exclusive ly to projects according to th e federal tourist policy . (3) NIEDERSACHSISCf.ERMINISTER • . (1974, p . 13) (4) Subsidies of more than 50 7. (see p. 10) result from possibilities to use addi tional funds of regional policy. 179 · measures stimulating tourism by their own funds. On the other hand private enterpr ises investing in tourism only should get one fifth of total public subsidies. Which were the municipal projects to be subsidized according ta the state's tourist pol icy ? Tabl, 3 shows a large demand of municipalities for the construction of high class tourist infrastructure. Ouring three out of four years swimmingpools, festi val and sports-halls together with multifunctional colllllunication houses (Haus des Gastes) came to more than 50 % of all subsdidies. Spa-facilities were outstanding abjects of public furtherance too . On the other hand the economical less effective improvement or construction of camping grounds and open-air sports facilities staye d behind and grew at the last two years only. Tab, 3 Types of Municipal tourist infrastructure promoted by government grands and loans+ according to the tourist development policy of Lower Saxony 1974- 1978 (figures of total subsidi zed investments ) . ,----------.-------,------ .......-----,------~----~---- . Project 1974 ., 1975 1976 1977 1978 1974/ 10000M ,,, lCOOOM ;.; 10000M % lOOODM% 10000M 1978 % Indoor and open-air swimmingpools 1 36200 35 36032 38 17138 29 43790 37 14316 33 35 Fest i va 1-ha11 s, communication cen- ters (Haus des Gastes) ..• 22524 22 23484 25 23617 41 33866 28 4049 9 26 spa-equipment, spa-fiouses,curist· parks 20875 20 20361 21 12072 21 3144 3 9779 23 16 Improvmentof beaches,lakes witl bathing facilities 6765 6 1935 2 938 1 1428 1 769 2 3 Recreational and sports facilities 7024 6 4662 5 1112 2 10362 9 6263 14 7 parks ,public gar- dens, hiking paths access roads 2629 3 2225 2 1758 3 14702 12 2900 7 5 camping grounds 193 0 2159 2 320 1 6849 6 1827 4 3 Others 8459 8 5087 5 1268 2 5359 4 3381 8 5 Total 104669 100 95945 100 58223 100 195500 100 43284 100 100 + Out of 421,6 million DMsubsidized investments in tourism loans only made up for 6,4 million DMor 1,: %. The total amount of furtherance (257,3 million DM)included 2,5 % of means given as loans ; Source : M. MEYE~(1979, p. 32f). 181 The state of Lower Saxony concentrated the furtherance of tourism not lonly to special projects but also to selected municipal ities and areas . Out of more than 800 communalapplicants 60 municipalities were granted first priority and 166 second priority ta public subsidies on tourism.(l)Of the public grants and loans ta improve tou rist infrastructure, which totaled more than 250 mi11 ion DM. 157,5 mi11 ion DM(63 %) ,1ere assigned to first priority municipalities . Municipalities •11ithoutany priority only got 30 million DMor 12 % of public subsidies. Fig. 1 shows the pattern of priorities concerning municipal tourist development. Whereas municipalities wich second priority are ta be found all over the state, here are clusters of municipalities granted first priority . The latter concentrate at the rnainland resorts of the North Sea coastal area-a region with a fast developrnent of tourisrn- and in thè Harz mountains. There the new tourist spots of Zorge and HohegeiB got first prio rity as well as well-known health resorts and spas like Bad Harzburg, Bad Grund and fiahnenklee. Generally the regional concentration of rnunicipalities with first priority clearly favoured the existing and stablished tourist areas. In some cases it strengthened existing monostructures of tourisrn as for exarnple in the spa region south of Osnabrück. The spatial coïncidence of rnunicipalities granted first priority on future tourist deve lopment and of well-known and established tourist areas resulted frorn the modalities and principes of state's furtherance of tourism . The evaluation of municipalities'worthiness to get state subsidies especially had regards to the applicants ' high recreational poten tial, a relative good existing tourist infrastructure and a high ecooomic impact of tou rism to ~he private sector. These conditions clearly show the target of Lower Saxony's tourist policy , which is rather to irnprove the cornpetitive situation of ,1ell establ ished tourist municipalities t han to develop new ones. 2, THE REGIONALDISTRIBUTION AND DIFFERENCES OF MUNICIPALINVESTMENTS TO IMPROVE TOURISTINFRASTRUCTURE BYT HE STATE'SSUBSIDIES. Spatial concentrations of different measures to irnprove the municipal tourist infrastructure as they are shownby fig.2 intensely correspond to the clusters of municipa l ities grant ed first priority in public subsidies to promote touris m. Hhereas t he open-ar and 1ndoor swirnmingpools show a disperse allocation all over the state ' s territory, the main tourist areas are characterized by a spatial concentration of different rneasures to improve tourist infrastructure. As the North Sea the we11 es tab li shed and we11 equi pped i s 1and resorts started to improve their spa-equi prnent and transport facilities, three small tourist (2) In future the state will further concentrate the subsidies by furthering fewer mur.i cipalities. Especiall y the number of municipalities gran ted second priority will be reduced and will not exceed 117, 182 ai~ports were under construction there. The seaside resorts at the mainland showed a large demandfor different types of tourist infrastructure resulting from their lower level of equipment.