Evolution of Tourism in Amsterdam

Tourism in Amsterdam in History

Amsterdam’s Tourism industry is closely related to its cultural heritage. Traditionally in the Netherlands, culture was linked to the quality of life of citizens and was not used as a commodity to attract tourists (Richards, 2005). For that reason, using culture or “selling culture” was not a common strategy that was used in order to gain economic benefits. Similarly, monuments and other cultural heritages were not made for using but rather to be conserved. This traditional characteristic of culture in the Netherlands later became conflictual as the culture began to be targeted as touristic production. For instance, tourism policy which was developed in the earlier phase of tourism promotion, as Bonink (1992) notes, was considered incompatible with monument policy because the monuments were supposed to be conserved rather than utilised. The trend of emphasising cultural heritage as primary touristic attraction continues today in European tourism marketing with 2018 being declared as the year of European Culture and Heritage (European Commission, 2017).

However, with the growing competition in the tourism industry within Europe along with the realisation of its potential for economic development, the view of culture in the Netherlands gradually shifted from the earlier idea that tourism and cultural heritage cannot be compatible. In 1983, the Ministries of Economic Affairs and Welfare, Housing and Culture produced a report which concluded that “making heritage attractions more user-friendly, through animation, and for integration of the different attractions through theming and regional collaboration (Richards, 2005, p. 172).” Subsequently, the Masterplan for Cultural-Historic Tourism was developed in 1988, in which easier accessibility to cultural attractions and the need to increase the attendance of global and national visitors was suggested, which eventually led to the introduction of a national tourism plan in 1990 through “Enterprise in Tourism (Ondernemen in Toerisme)”. The realisation of economic benefits of tourism coupled with the increasing conservation cost of heritage encouraged the promotion of culture as a financial source through tourism (Richards, 2005). As a consequence, the emphasis of cultural heritage as a tourism attraction has grown in the Netherlands.

In promoting cultures in the cities of the Netherlands, Amsterdam was advantaged to facilitate cultural tourism due to its relatively good supply of traditional cultural facilities. Amsterdam aimed to join the monumental capitals of European countries including Rome, Paris, London, and Berlin (Bianchini and Fischer, 1988). However, Amsterdam critically lacked cultural capitals compared to those cities that are competing on the international level. Seen from this perspective, the tourism marketing can be understood that developing more “cultures” by producing and reproducing cultural facilities was a necessary strategy to attract more culture tourists for the city (Dahles, 1988).

On top of its aspiration for competing in the international arena, it is also helpful to see Amsterdam in the perspective of competition within its national boundary to understand its path towards today’s tourism marketing trends. As the cultural capital in the Netherlands, Amsterdam is without a doubt the symbol of national culture (Dahles, 1996). In order to stay competitive, however, Amsterdam has to maintain its cultural advantages over other large cities in the Randstad which are Rotterdam, The Hague, and Utrecht. Amsterdam’s effort in continuing to reproduce its cultural heritage for the gaze of tourists is part of its strategy to remain competitive in tourism industry on both national and international level.

Reproducing culture in the context of tourism is a distinctive feature of Amsterdam tourism marketing. Rather than focusing on enriching and involving people with the cultural heritage, the emphasis is placed on making and producing for the consumption. Cultural tourism, according to Richards (1996), does not indicate or promote the involvement in cultural processes, rather it is designed to promote consumption of cultural goods. Along with the act of reproduction, the scope of cultural production has further expanded to areas which were previously not considered as culture, including the everyday life of local people and sampling of local food, for instance (Dahles, 1996).

With the changed “use” of culture, the conflict between the users and the consumers of the culture has become more visible. Dahles argues that “While residential functions of the city are a high priority in urban policy, a perspective on how Amsterdam residents actually live their lives—how they dwell, work, recreate, and play—is virtually absent from the strategies of city marketing (1988, p .65).” In the light of the relation between the urban policy and its residential functions, Amsterdam has experiences which go back to the history when the urban policy did not take into account the liveability of the city residents. With the objective of urban renewal being the focus, the squatting movement became a new phenomenon in Amsterdam since 1965. More and more affordable housing disappeared and the residents of the city began to take possession of buildings that were either empty or scheduled to be demolished to accommodate new projects (Priemus, 1983). As a result, the government tried to ban squatting by criminalising the actions, which the court ruled not to be a criminal act under certain circumstances. Housing shortage and high renting costs led to more and more squatting movements and a protest in 1975, which contributed to political discussions on housing shortage and the constitutional state (Draaisma & van Hoogstraten, 1983).

Tourism in Amsterdam Today

As a trade city, Amsterdam has been strongly influenced by the world economy and globalisation. The role of cities in the process of globalisation is typically defined in economic terms and culture as a dependent variable, while lacking the significance of locality in globalisation debate (Nijman, 1999, p. 147). Some scholars, alternatively, view cultural globalisation as an autonomous process that accelerates exchange of cultural symbols as well as change in local cultures and identities (Nijman, 1999). The exchange of cultural symbols is enabled through the availability of communication and mobility. Further, with the enhanced means of technology of communication, consumption of culture has expanded its meaning from material commodity to a broader and intangible extend such as idea, information, and value. One of the well-known examples is the liberal ideas and tolerance for which the city is known, as evidenced by the hippie culture in the 1960s, the squatter movement, and its tolerance of soft drugs. Cultural symbols along with cultural commodities and the marketing efforts have fuelled the growth of the tourism industry in the city of Amsterdam.

For instance, culture plays an integrating role in the Netherlands’ tourism marketing themes which are water, history, cities, and coast. Consequently, the supply of museums, monument, theatres, and events has shown spectacular growth in line with the cultural marketing strategy (Richards, 2005). As evidenced by the result that 82% of international tourists visited one or more museums in Amsterdam according to the recent survey conducted by Amsterdam Marketing (Amsterdam Marketing, 2016). However, Amsterdam is not only known for its rich cultural and historical heritage. Amsterdam today is a place with “conspicuously different lifestyles, the ongoing spectacle of ‘fun-city’ with its variety of leisure services, shops, theatres, terraces, cafés (Dahles, 1996).” The city as a touristic destination also invokes the images of tightly packed buildings alongside the canals and of sexual liberalism and narcotic tolerance.

Its liberalism and tolerance have been known for the city’s value throughout the history. The hippie culture in the 60s, legalisation of prostitution, and the tolerance of soft drugs are the relatively recent examples. Apart from the “high culture” as a touristic destination, these iconic features of Amsterdam are increasing the discrepancy between the responsible institutions, namely the local government which is accountable for making tourism policy, and the Amsterdam Tourist Board, as well as residents and tourists. For instance, the policy in the 1990s put a lot of emphasis on cultural heritage such as the Golden Age, Van Gogh, Rembrandt, and Mondriaan. The Tourism Board, on the other hand, wanted to promote canals, famous buildings, and the sea in addition to museums (Dahles, 1996). In a recent case, the Board marketed Amsterdam as the ‘The Gay Capital of the World’ in the United States, which the city objected to as it might risk losing more conservative target tourist groups (Dahles, 1996, p. 230).

From interviewing a representative of Amsterdam’s City Government, Hiske de Ridder, we learned of Amsterdam Marketing's approach to tourism, namely its two main strategies. The first would involve the notion of quality tourism, that is, visitors going to Amsterdam for culture, art and business visitors. The city indeed prefers to facilitate less tourists in terms of the number and replace them with more high-spending tourists. Consequently, the preferred target group of the city is the relatively wealthy, well-educated, middle-aged population who are likely to spend substantial amount of money on accommodation, food, and cultural attractions, in comparison with young backpacker tourists, for instance. We were also informed that Amsterdam has not been promoting itself as an explicitly entertainment destination and as somewhere to go to be free and do whatever you want for years.

Nonetheless, it is evident that the number of tourists is on the rise and the tourism industry of Amsterdam is growing. In 2014, 42% of the hotel bookings of the Netherlands took place in Amsterdam metropolitan area (OECD, 2017). Hotels and tourists tend to concentrate in the city as well as its neighbourhood including the canal district. As urban tourism is rising, more pressure is being put on the city’s neighbourhoods and infrastructure such as water systems and waste management (Gerritsma & Vork, 2017). The growing number of visitors to Amsterdam is an indicator of rising economic benefits for the city. However, it is regarded with mixed feelings by the residents as evidenced by the growing number of complaints and protests via newspapers and social media (Gerritsma & Vork, 2017). For instance, according to the study of Hoffschulte (2015), residents of the Western canal district acknowledge the tourists’ interest in the area as a positive side, but the effect it has on their neighbourhood is less positive, as evidenced from the fact that a third of the respondents said the disadvantages coming from the saturation is greater than the benefits.

The concentration on the centre is also responsible for the rising private rental costs due to the growth of accommodations, which particularly threatens middle income households who are not qualified for social housing (OECD, 2017). Airbnb, one of the online rental platforms has more than 14.000 homes available for rental in Amsterdam (Gerritsma & Vork, 2017, p. 87), and the illegal rental operations continue in spite of the restrictions designed to limit the impacts of short-term rental on neighbourhood such as increased housing price and noise from parties held by tourists.