residents attitudes towards tourism 2019€¦ · my city should remain a tourist destination my...

RESIDENTS ATTITUDES TOWARDS TOURISM 2019

ANTWERP, BRUGES, GHENT, LEUVEN, MECHELEN

RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY• RESULTS • CONCLUSIONS

METHODOLOGY

ANTWERP

1.276

TOTAL: 5.788 IN 2019 (5.354 IN 2017)

GHENT

1.373LEUVEN

1.046MECHELEN

765BRUGES

1.328

RESIDENTS ART CITIES

VALUABLE RESPONSE

• Resident survey 5 Flemish cities: Antwerp, Ghent, Leuven, Mechelen, Bruges

• Respondents 18 year and older

• Field: 23/7–12/12 2019

• Research in closed setting, onlyby random invitation

• Online survey, by email or paperletter invitation

• 5.788 completes, representative forgender, age, education and living area

• For Ghent, Leuven, Mechelen, Bruges in all boroughs, for Antwerp the residents within the ring road + Linkeroever

RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY

• RESULTS• Key results• Support for tourism• Impact of tourism• Drivers of support for tourism• Future• Other

• CONCLUSIONS

SUPPORT IMPACT DRIVERS FUTURE

3,9

5

POSITIVEIMPACT

LIVABILITY

NEGATIVEIMPACT

3,4

5

2,5

5

2,9

5

OWN BEHAVIOUR

POLICYCHOICES

MORE/LESS TOURISTS

PROUDNESS ECONOMIC BENEFITS

3,9

5

13%

YES

SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT

3,2

5

2,8

5

Results

Summary key concepts

RESULTS – Evolution 2017 - 2019

Key concepts (average score out of 5 – 2017 indicated with )

3,9

3,2

2,5

3,4

2,4

2,9

3,93,9

3,2

2,7

3,4

2,6

3,0

3,83,9

3,3

2,8

3,5

2,1

2,7

4,03,9

3,3

2,9

3,6

2,0

2,5

4,04,1

3,3

2,9

3,4

3,0

3,2

3,93,9

3,2

2,8

3,4

2,5

2,9

3,9

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

PSYCHOLOGICALEMPOWERMENT (PROUDNESS)

SOCIAL EMPOWERMENT BEING INVOLVED POSITIVE IMPACT LIVABILITY NEGATIVE IMPACT SUPPORT SCORE

ANTWERP 2019 GHENT 2019 LEUVEN 2019 MECHELEN 2019 BRUGES 2019 TOTAL 2019

Significant differences with 2017 are indicated by a bar placed on the 2017 results. When there’s no bar present, the 2019 results don’tsignificantly differ from the 2017 results. When an ‘N’ is placed near the statement or city, this statement/ city wasn’t part of the study in 2017. Meaning, this was a newly added statement in 2019 (for a specific city). RESIDENTS ART CITIES

RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY

• RESULTS• Key results• Support for tourism• Impact of tourism• Drivers of support for tourism• Future• Other

• CONCLUSIONS

RESULTSSupport for tourism% ‘agreement’ with the statement …

– 2017 indicated with

76%66%

85%78%

71%64%

80%

67%77%67%

83%74%79%

74%

87%82%

76%67%

87%

70%75% 67%

84%

73%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

I support tourism and want to see itremain important in my city

In general, the positive benefits of tourismin my city outweigh negative impacts

My city should remain a touristdestination

My city should support the promotion oftourism



RESULTSSupport for tourism“I support tourism and want to see it remain important in my city …“


6%

18%

76%

7%

22%

71%

4%

19%

77%

4%

17%

79%

6%

19%

76%

6%

19%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DON'T AGREE NEUTRAL AGREE



RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY

• RESULTS• Key results• Support for tourism• Impact of tourism

• Livability• Perception positive impact• Perception negative impact

• Drivers of support for tourism• Future• Other

• CONCLUSIONS


Livability

% ‘agreement’ with the statement …% ‘agreement’ – 2017 indicated with

29%

22%

11% 13%7%

15%

33% 32%

15%

22%

8%

16%17%14%

8% 11%8%

10%13% 9%

7% 6% 5%6%

58%

48%

24%

32%

9%

28%

32%27%

14%18%

7%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

In some districts I feel limited in mycomfort because of tourists

The increasing number of touristsreduces the viability of the city

The pressure of tourism has anegative impact on my daily life

Because of tourism I feel our city isno longer ours

Because of tourism I feel ourdistrict is no longer ours

Tourists in my city are a nuisance



N*

N*: no evolution possible


Livability

Tourists in my city are a nuisance


60%

26%

15%

55%

29%

16%

71%

19%10%

78%

16%

6%

40%

32% 28%

58%

26%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




RESULTS – 2019

Livability

What nuisance? – total – 2017 indicated with X


65%

2%

1%

2%

2%

4%

5%

5%

10%

10%

13%

18%

No nuisance

Other

Too many events, too much for tourists, little for…

Cars, busses, taxi's in the inner city

Inferior (shopping) supply

Things get more expensive

Respect of tourists

Parking is a problem

Litter

Noise

Dangerous roads, because of traffic density

More density, too many people

TOTAL 2019

RESULTS – Evolution 2017 - 2019LivabilityWhat nuisance? – part 1


66%

17%

6%

14%11%

5%4%

59%

24%

11%12% 14%

4% 6%

81%

9%4% 9%

6% 3% 3%

86%

5%4% 5% 3% 3%

1%

44%

29%

34%

10% 11%10% 7%

65%

18% 13%10% 10%

5% 5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No nuisance Density, too many people Dangerous roads, becauseof traffic density

Noise Litter Parking is a problem Respect of tourists



RESULTS – Evolution 2017 - 2019LivabilityWhat nuisance? – part 2


2%1% 4% 1% 3%

5%3% 3% 2%

2%1% 0% 1% 1% 2%1% 0% 1% 1% 1%

8% 6%2% 1% 3%

4% 2%2% 1% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Things get more expensive Inferior (shopping) supply Cars, busses and taxi's in the innercity

Too many events, too much fortourists, little for residents

Other



RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY




• CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS – 2019

Positive impact of tourism – 2017 indicated with X


19%

43%

48%

53%

59%

70%

71%

74%

Because of tourism in my city there is an economicaldevelopment in the district I live in

Tourism developments improve the quality of life inmy city

Because of tourism there are more shopping andrecreational opportunities

Tourism contributes to the income and quality of lifeof the people in my city

Tourism helps preserving our cultural identity

Because of tourism development the physicalappearance of my city has improved

A growth in the number of tourists strengthens theeconomy of the entire city

Because of tourism there is more liveliness in my city

TOTAL 2019

N*



Positive impact of tourism / 1


76%

70% 67%

55%

73% 68%

66%

56%

69%

72% 67%60%

82% 77%79%

67%

74%69%

72%

59%

74%

71% 70%

59%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Because of tourism there is more liveliness in my city A growth in the number of tourists strengthens theeconomy of the entire city

Because of tourism development the physicalappearance of my city has improved

Tourism helps preserving our cultural identity



N*



Positive impact of tourism / 2


52% 52%44%

27%

50%47%

40%

15%

50%

44%46%

20%

53%

52%54%

20%

58%

45%38%

15%

53% 48%43%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Tourism contributes to the income and quality oflife of the people in my city

Because of tourism there are more shopping andrecreational opportunities

Tourism developments improve the quality of lifein my city

Because of tourism in my city there is aneconomical development in the district I live in



N*


RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY




• CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS – 2019

Negative impact of tourism – 2017 indicated with X


11%

18%

19%

20%

27%

30%

36%

36%

38%

40%

40%

49%

50%

Because of tourism there is more criminal activity in my city

Because of tourism we lose the authentic character of our…

Because of the growth of tourism, the attitude of residents…

The attitude and disrespectful behaviour of tourists is an issue

An increase in tourists will lead to friction between…

Because of tourism the high streets lose diversity

Because of tourism there is more litter in my city

The growth of tourism will result in a decline of inhabitants in…

Because of tourism the city centre gets overcrowded

Because of tourism there are more traffic issues in my city

Students cause more nuisance in my city than tourists

Because of tourism the cost of living in my city increases

Because of tourism there are more parking issues in my city

TOTAL 2019

N*


N*


Negative impact of tourism / 1



52%

41%35%

44%41%

52%

52%

33%

34%39%

72%

22%

43%35%

26% 27%

72%68%

16%

64%

50% 49%

40%

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Because of tourism there are more parking issues in mycity

Because of tourism the cost of living in my city increases Students cause more nuisance in my city than tourists Because of tourism there are more traffic issues in mycity


N*


N*N*




36% 36%39%

30%

42%40% 42%

27%21% 22% 25%

17%13%15%

18%12%

63%56%

46%

52%

38% 36% 36%30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Because of tourism the city centre gets overcrowded The growth of tourism will result in a decline ofinhabitants in the city centre

Because of tourism there is more litter in my city Because of tourism the high streets lose diversity



N*

N*




% agreement % ‘agreement’ – 2017 indicated with

23% 21%17%

20%

12%

32%

19% 17%21%

9%16% 15% 13%13% 13%

12% 8% 8% 8% 6%

45%

29%

35%

24%

13%

27%

20% 19% 18%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

An increase in tourists will lead to friction betweenhomeowners and tourists

The attitude and disrespectful behaviour of touristsis an issue

Because of the growth of tourism, the attitude ofresidents towards tourists becomes an issue

Because of tourism we lose the authentic characterof our neighbourhood

Because of tourism there is more criminal activity inmy city



N*

N* N* N*


RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY

• RESULTS• Key results• Support of tourism• Impact of tourism• Drivers of support for tourism

• Proudness (Psychological empowerment)• Economic benefit (Economical empowerment)• Social empowerment• Involvement (Political empowerment)

• Future• Other

• CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS – Evolution 2017 - 2019Proudness% ‘agreement’ with the statement “Because of tourism ….”

% ‘agreement’ – 2017 indicated with

71% 77%

68% 65%

75% 78%

66%62%

75% 79%

59% 63%

81% 80%

62% 57%

79% 81%76%

69%

76% 79%

67%64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

I am proud to be a resident of my city I want to tell others what my city has to offer I am reminded I have a unique culture, that Iwant to share with visitors

I want to work to keep my city special



RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY



• Future• Other

• CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS – 2019 Personal economic benefit

“(A part of) my income is linked to tourism in my city” (N*)

12% 11% 14% 11% 16% 13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

(A part of) my income is linked to tourism in my city


% ‘yes’

RESIDENTS ART CITIESN*: no evolution possible

RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY



• Future• Other

• CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS – Evolution 2017 - 2019Social empowerment

% ‘agreement’ with the statement “Tourism in my city ….”


45% 42%

36%

49%43%

40%47%

40% 40%

46%

36%

46%45% 45%

36%

47%42% 39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

fosters understanding for other people (less prejudices /stereotypes)

creates nice encounters with visitors ensures that we are more connected to each other in ourcity



N* N*


RESULTS – 2019

Social empowerment

“Tourism in my city fosters understanding for other people (less prejudices / stereotypes)”

21%

34%

45%

19%

32%

49%

15%

38%

47%

15%

39%

46%

15%

40%45%

17%

36%

47%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%




N* N* N*


RESULTS – 2019 Social empowerment

“How badly do you want to have contact with the visitors of your city?” (N*)

12%

48%

40%

16%

53%

32%

11%

52%

37%

15%

56%

30%

16%

50%

34%

14%

51%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Reluctantly Neutral Eagerly



RESULTS – 2019 Social empowerment

“How do you want to get in contact with the visitors of your city?” (N*)

- In case respondents eagerly or neutrally want contact with visitors

58%

24%

16%

8%

18%

56%

17%15%

9%

22%

55%

26%

16%

5%

21%

47%

24%

15%

7%

24%

61%

18%15%

7%

17%

56%

21%15%

7%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

By sharing my tips during a short encounter (street conversation, at a bar, …)

By not sharing my tips personally, butonline

By sharing my personal perception of thecity during a long encounter (e.g. long

walks 2 - 3 hours)

Other I don't want to share tips



RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY



• Future• Other

• CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS – 2019

% ‘agreement’

Feeling of involvement

% ‘agreement’ with the statement: “I feel that …” (N)

13% 15%17% 19%18%22%

20% 22%23% 24%18% 20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

I have an outlet to share my concerns about the tourism developments in my city I can be heard concerning my ideas about tourism developments in my city



RESULTS – Evolution 2017 - 2019Feeling of involvement

Would you like to be more involved in the tourism policy/ initiatives of your city?


34%31%

36%26% 37% 37%29%40% 31%

19%

52%

29%30%

41%

29%28%

39%33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes, I want to be more involved It's good as it is No, I don't care



RESULTS – 2019 Feeling of involvement

% ‘agreement’ with the statement … (N*)

35%

23% 24%

47%43%

25%30%

52%

44%

16%

28%

41%48%

17%

29%

50%45%

34%41%

56%

43%

24%31%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The city council takes sufficient account of the interests ofthe local population in its tourism policy

The city government pays too much attention to tourismcompared to other policy sectors

The potential negative effects of tourism are given sufficientattention in the tourism policy

The potential positive effects of tourism are given sufficientattention in tourism policy



RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY


• Future

• Recommendations policy• How to handle pressure• More or less tourists• Move to another location

• Other

• CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS – 2019 Recommendations policy

“There are different ways to handle visitor pressure, Could you indicate to what extent you would support these severaloptions in …” - % score 4 or 5 out of 5 – 2017 indicated with X


19%

25%

37%

39%

42%

43%

44%

47%

49%

49%

50%

50%

54%

55%

60%

62%

68%

Create and apply stricter rules, e.g. for the opening hours of restaurants and cafés

Tourism should be limited to the actual tourism area in my city

Spreading visitors and tourist activities that do not burden the quality of life to 'new' destinations…

A better spread of visitors throughout the day

Spreading visitors and tourist activities that do not burden the quality of life to 'new' destinations INSIDE…

Less onerous forms of tourism should be taxed less than more onerous forms of tourism

Communicate better with visitors on how they should behave

Focus on tourism with high economic added value

Create experiences / occasions where residents and visitors can meet and integrate with each other

Focus on less burdenfull target groups (individuals, overnight guests)

A better spread of visitors throughout the year

Reduce the impact of my city's tourism sector on the world's climate

Provide a wider range of evening activities

Encourage visitors to spend more time in tourist attractions (e.g. museums)

Create route descriptions to guide visitors along specific routes

Focus on visitors who strive for immersive experiences and who take their time to discover the city

Inform local residents and local companies about and involve them in tourism planning

TOTAL 2019 Totaal 2017

N*

N*

N*

N*

N*

N*

N*

N*

N*

N*: geen evolutie mogelijk


RECOMMENDATIONS POLICY / 1

“There are different ways to handle visitor pressure. Could you indicate to what extent you would support these severaloptions in …” - % score 4 or 5 out of 5

% score 4 or 5 out of 5 – 2017 indicated with

69% 65% 61%

56%50%

67%63% 58%

55%

47%

66%

56%60%

54%48%

66%

55%59% 53%

61%70% 68%

64%57%

64%68%62%

60%

55%54%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Inform local residents and local companiesabout and involve them in tourism planning

Focus on visitors who strive for immersiveexperiences and who take their time to discover

the city

Create route descriptions to guide visitors alongspecific routes

Encourage visitors to spend more time intourist attractions (e.g. museums)

Provide a wider range of evening activities



N* N* N*

N*

N*







56%50%

53% 51%51% 53% 52%48%50% 44%

43%

52%

41% 35%33%

46%49%

60% 57%

48%50% 50% 49% 49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Reduce the impact of my city's tourism sector on the world's climate A better spread of visitors throughout the year Focus on less burdenfull target groups (individuals, overnight guests) Create experiences / occasions where residents and visitors canmeet and integrate with each other


N*

N*

N*

N*

N*







48% 46%50%

41%44%

46%45% 44%42% 38%

36% 39%

46%

33% 37% 34%

54%50%

45%48%47% 44% 43% 42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Focus on tourism with high economic added value Communicate better with visitors on how they shouldbehave

Less onerous forms of tourism should be taxed lessthan more onerous forms of tourism

Spreading visitors and tourist activities that do notburden the quality of life to 'new' destinations INSIDE

the core tourist area of my city


N*

N*

N*N*







37% 39%

20%

40%

38%

26%

33%34%

24%

31%

28%

19%

48%42%

33%

39%37%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A better spread of visitors throughout the day Spreading visitors and tourist activities that do not burden the quality of life to'new' destinations OUTSIDE the core tourist area of my city

Tourism should be limited to the actual tourism area in my city


N*N*

N*


RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY


• Future


• Other

• CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS – 2019 Handling the negative consequences

“How would you deal with the adverse effects of tourism if you had free choice and resources?”

(Multiple answers possible) - % yes – 2017 indicated with X


2%

5%

6%

7%

8%

17%

18%

32%

46%

Other, namely:

I would move to another place in the city

I would do nothing and take it for granted

I would leave the city

I would try to influence the public opinion or tourism policy (e.g. through letters, petitions,demonstrations, etc.)

I would engage in a constructive dialogue with the city

I would address visitors who cause problems

I would avoid certain places or times during the day

I have not experienced any adverse effects from tourism in the last 3 years

TOTAL 2019 Totaal 2017

N*


RESULTS – Evolution 2017 - 2019HANDLING THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES / 1


(multiple answers possible) - % yes (part 1)

% yes – 2017 indicated with

35%

20%18%

11%9%

32%

19%18%

10% 9%

22%

13% 15%7%

6%

15%12%

12%4%

5%

46%

24% 20%

8%6%

32%

18%17%

8% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

I would avoid certain places or times during the day I would address visitors who cause problems I would engage in a constructive dialogue with the city I would try to influence the public opinion or tourismpolicy (e.g. through letters, petitions, demonstrations,

etc.)

I would leave the city


N*


N* N* N* N*


RESULTS – Evolution 2017 - 2019HANDLING THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES / 2


(multiple answers possible) - % yes (part 2)

% yes – 2017 indicated with

5%6%

2%

43%

5% 7%1%

43%

5%5% 1%

57%

5%4% 2%

66%

8%5% 2%

32%

6%5% 2%

46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

I would do nothing and take it for granted I would move to another place in the city Other, namely: I have not experienced any adverse effects from tourism inthe last 3 years



N* N* N*

N*


RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY


• Future


• Other

• CONCLUSIONS


Do residents want more, as many or fewer tourists?

% more – 2017 indicated with

59% 59%

46%

41% 38%

19%15%

44% 44%

29%28%

23%

10% 10%

53% 55%

35%

48%

39%

20%

13%

57%

57%

38%53%

43%

26%

15%

47%44%

39%

18%24%

7% 7%

51% 51%

37%36%

32%

15%12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Those who stay overnight Individual tourists (couples,singles, people with children, etc.)

- not in a group

Congress tourists and businesstourists

Day travelers Recreational tourists Group tourists Cruise tourists



N*

N*



% fewer – 2017 indicated with

Do residents want more, as many or fewer tourists?

54%

28%

8% 7% 6%2% 2%

51%

40%

12% 8% 8% 5% 3%

38%

19%

5%7%

6% 3% 2%

33%

12%

3%6%

5%3% 3%

56%

49%

23%

9%9%

5% 5%

48%

32%

11% 8% 7% 4% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cruise tourists Group tourists Day travelers Congress tourists and businesstourists

Recreational tourists Those who stay overnight Individual tourists (couples,singles, people with children, etc.)

- not in a group



N*

N*


RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY


• Future

• Other

• Unique features city• Airbnb and others• Travels

• CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS – 2019

44%33%

31%

30%21%21%

20%19%

18%16%16%

13%11%11%

4%4%

2%8%

1%

Heritage

Art and culture (museums)/ tourist offer

Ecology, green, parks, water

History

Tolerance, openness, multicultural, hospitality

Relaxation and entertainment possibilities

Small-scale metropolis

Delicious food

Urban renewal (pleasant living, squares, atmosphere, cozy)

Safety and cleanliness (bicycle-friendly, car-free city centre, safety)

Location of the city

Lively, atmosphere, vibrant, young

University city

Shopping opportunities

Authenticity

Rebellious, alternative, progressive, self-aware

Beer city (Stella Artois and artisanal beers, breweries, cafes)

Other

Nothing

TOTAL 2019

UNIQUE TO THE CITY“What makes your city unique?” (N*)


RESULTS – 2019 UNIQUE TO THE CITY / 1“What makes your city unique?” (N*)

40%

50%46%

23%25%

17%14%

44%

35%

20%

34%30%

30%

13%

45%

20%20%

26%

19% 18%

26%

48%

21%26% 25%

16%22% 22%

45%

32%38% 38%

11%15%

28%

44%

33%31% 30%

21% 21% 20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Heritage Art and culture (museums)/tourist offer

Ecologie, green, parks, water History Tolerance, openness,multicultural, hospitality

Relaxation and entertainmentpossibilities

Small-scale metropolis




25%

13%

5%

17%10%

2%

18%18% 15%16%

10%

19%

10% 7%

19%17% 15%

19%16%

43%

10%13%

23%29%

20%

10%

1%9%

18%23% 22%

15%

9%

1%

10%

19% 18% 16% 16%13%

11% 11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Delicious food Urban renewal (pleasantliving, squares, atmosphere,

cozy)

Safety and cleanliness (bicycle-friendly, car-free city centre,

safety)

Location of the city Lively, atmosphere, vibrant,young

University city Shopping opportunities




2% 3%1%

9%1%5%

10%1%

8%

1%3%

1%

8% 6%1%3% 1% 2%

11%

1%7%

1% 1%6%

1%4% 4% 2%

8%1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Authenticity Rebellious, alternative, progressive, self-aware

Beer city (Stella Artois and artisanal beers,breweries, cafes)

Other Nothing



RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY


• Future

• Other


• CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS – 2019 AIRBNB“Have you ever heard of sharing platforms like Airbnb (or similar sharing economie platforms, like Windu, … in which residents rent out chambers or entire houses to tourists)?” (% YES) (N*)

91%91%

85% 84% 87% 88%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Have you ever heard of sharing platforms like Airbnb (or similar sharing economie platforms, like Windu, … in which residents rent out chambers or entire houses to tourists)?”



RESULTS – 2019 AIRBNBUsing – renting out – knowing (% YES) (N*)

– In case respondents know Airbnb

42%

1%

40%39%

1%

32%38%

3%

16%

33%

1%

20%

28%

2%

42%36%

2%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

I have used Airbnb myself (or similar sharing economie platforms like Wimdu, …) to book an overnight stay at home or abroad

I rent out accommodations myself using Airbnb (or similar sharing economie platforms like Wimdu, …)

I know people in my city who rent out accommodations using Airbnb (or similar sharing economie platforms like Wimdu, …)



RESULTS – 2019 AIRBNB% ‘agreement’ with the statement … (N*)

– In case respondents know Airbnb

% ‘agreement’

17%

33%37%

28%

17%

34%

45%

26%

14%

36%31%

27%

11%

31%

17%

27%

11%

34%39%

25%

14%

34% 36%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Tourists in an Airbnb (or similar sharing economy platforms like Wimdu, …) cause more often a nuisance

than other tourists

Airbnb (or similar sharing economy platforms like Wimdu, …) is fair competition for classic lodging

offerings

Because of Airbnb (or similar sharing economy platforms like Wimdu, …), living in my city becomes

more expensive

Sharing economy platforms, like Airbnb and similarorganisations, have more advantages than

disadvantages for society



RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY


• Future

• Other


• CONCLUSIONS

RESULTS – 2019 TRAVELS

“How often do you travel (with at least 1 overnight stay) at home or abroad?” (N*)

4%8%

15%

25%

49%

5%8%

16%

28%

44%

5%9%

17%

27%

42%

3%

9%

19%24%

45%

4%8%

15%

33%41%

4%8%

16%

28%

44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Never Less than 1x/ year 1x/ year 2x/ year 3x/ year or more



RESULTS – 2019

‘Support for tourism’ & ‘Holiday participation’ (‘not going on holiday, little or often’)

“I support tourism in my city and I want it to remain important’

Going on holiday:


16%

31%

53%

8%

24%

67%

6%

23%

71%

5%

20%

75%

4%

15%

81%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


NEVER LESS THAN 1X/YEAR 1X/YEAR 2X/YEAR 3X/YEAR OR MORE

RESIDENT STUDY

• METHODOLOGY• RESULTS • CONCLUSIONS

residents attitudes towards tourism 2019€¦ · my city should remain a tourist destination my...

Documents