...

TRAVEL AND TOURISM COMPETITIVENESS OF THE WORLD’S TOP

by user

on
Category: Documents
5

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

TRAVEL AND TOURISM COMPETITIVENESS OF THE WORLD’S TOP
Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 11(2), 2009
TRAVEL AND TOURISM COMPETITIVENESS OF THE WORLD’S TOP
TOURISM DESTINATIONS: AN EXPLORATORY ASSESSMENT
Diana Bălan1
Virgil Balaure2
Călin Vegheş3
ABSTRACT: In the recent years, competitiveness has become one of the common concepts
employed to approach and describe the sustainable development of the travel and tourism industry.
Competitiveness of the travel and tourism industry, like of the tourist destinations, is defined taking
into consideration a set of reference elements related to the major dimensions of the industry, such
as the business environment, infrastructure, laws and regulations, and resources available.
The paper assesses the competitiveness of the travel and tourism industry in the World’s top
25 tourist destinations based on the methodology and the specific results provided in the Travel and
Tourism Competitiveness Report and taking into consideration the most representative performance
indicators of this industry, international tourist arrivals and international tourist receipts, provided
by the World Tourism Organization.
Keywords: travel and tourism, tourist destinations, competitiveness
JEL codes: M31, L83
Introduction
In the recent years, competitiveness has become one of the common concepts employed to
approach and describe the sustainable development of the travel and tourism industry: specialized
literature has defined and circulated concepts such as travel and tourism or tourist destinations
competitiveness suggesting not only the importance of the concept but also the necessary focus the
tourist organizations should put on.
The competitiveness of tourism destinations and, generally, the overall competitiveness of
the travel and tourism industry, became vital for their survival and growth in the international
market, in the conditions of increasing leisure time and rising levels of disposable income (Echtner
and Ritchie, 2003). If in 1950, top fifteen tourist destinations attracted almost all of the total number
of tourists worldwide, sixty years later the percentage decreased from 98% to 57% (UNWTO,
2008). Given the situation of the world economy, with a decrease in the overall demand for tourist
services, the focus of the tourism organizations and destinations has shifted from simply attracting
more tourists to the making the tourist destinations more competitive.
Camprubi, Guia, and Comas (2008) consider the tourist destination as a network of relations
between different actors that, together, create the tourist product.
The competitiveness of a tourism destination is a complex and relative concept, a part of this
complexity being suggested by the definition given to the tourist destination seen as places or some
form of actual or perceived boundary, such as physical boundaries of an island, political boundaries,
or even market-created boundaries (Kotler, Bowen, and Markens, 2006).
As each destination may have different traditions, history, cultural and natural resources, as
1
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Marketing, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest,
[email protected]
2
Department of Management-Marketing, Romanian-American University, Bucharest
3
Department of Marketing, Faculty of Marketing, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, [email protected]
979
Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 11(2), 2009
well as unique ambitions and means of accomplishing objectives, several authors have created or
adapted different models for measuring the competitiveness of a tourist destination.
One of the tools that can be used to analyze and measure the competitiveness of a tourist
destination can be the Porter’s five forces model, which takes into consideration the factor
conditions, demand conditions, related industries, corporate strategy, structure and rivalry in the
sector (Claver-Cortes, Molina-Azarin, and Pereira-Moliner, 2007).
Seen from a macroeconomic perspective, tourism destination competitiveness has a support
the three pillars of natural resources, climate and culture (Lumsdon, 1997).
The competitiveness of a tourism destination, as well as that of the overall travel and
tourism industry, can be approached having in mind the structure of the marketing macroenvironment. Taking into account the fact that overall competitiveness of the travel and tourism is
determined and driven by the competitiveness of each of the components of the macro-environment,
there are to be taken into consideration and measured an economic competitiveness, a social and
cultural competitiveness, an environmental competitiveness, a political competitiveness and a
technologically-based competitiveness.
Price competitiveness in a frequent issue in the tourism competitiveness literature.
(Craigwell, 2007). Dwyer, Forsyth and Rao (2000) examine the price competitiveness of travel and
tourism in 19 destination countries using efficiency and productivity to show the competitiveness
among destination countries. Zhang and Jensen (2007) developed a model for explaining tourism
flows by adding to the price competitiveness the natural endowments, climate, geography, and
cultural heritage.
Consumers’ points-of-view are, also, essential in the assessment of the tourism destination
competitiveness. Resources they have to allocate in order to reach a destination – money, time and
effort, respectively, the expected return in education, experiences, fun, relaxation and memories are
among the elements to be considered in this respect (Kotler, 2006). Beerli and Martin (2004)
consider tourism destination competitiveness as being a result of the perceived image of the
destination, and this image is influenced in great extent by customer’s motivations, experiences and
socio-demographic characteristics.
Sustainable tourism, as a way of increasing competitiveness of tourist destinations, is also
mentioned by several authors (Ozturk and Eraydin, 2009, Williams and Ponsford, 2009). Mihalič
(2000) shows that proper managerial efforts in the field of environmental impact and environmental
quality management as well as environmental marketing activities have a great influence in
increasing tourism destination competitiveness.
Palmer and Bejon (in Wang ang Krakover, 2008) state that long-term competitiveness of a
tourist destination is determined in great extent by the balance between cooperation and competition
of business in tourism industry (1995). Also, branding process for a tourism destination is crucial
for long-term destination competitiveness (Boo, Busser and Baloglu, 2009).
Ejarque (2005) proposes the following set of elements to be considered in analyzing the
tourist destinations: the geographical location, environmental and physical conditions,
demographical situation, existing tourist attractions, image perceived (Royo-Vela, 2009) and image
associated with the tourist destination, tourism resources (natural, cultural, activities, infrastructure
and services).
After Ritchie and Crouch (2003) have used the concepts of comparative and competitive
advantages for describing the model of destination competitiveness, Crouch (2006) developed a
study evaluating the importance of attributes defining destination competitiveness using expert
judgment. The importance of these attributes varies from one destination to another. This is why
models like Porter (1990), Dwyer and Kim (2003), Hassan (2000) were adapted to certain particular
destinations ( in Gomezelj and Mihalic, 2008).
Cracolici and Nijkamp (2008) used a set of six factors to determine the competitiveness of
Southern Italian regions as tourism destination: natural and cultural resources, amount and quality
980
Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 11(2), 2009
of accommodation and restaurants, accessibility to transportation system, all the activities available
at the destination, tourist safety, and local resident behavior.
Even if there are some factors considered by the majority of the authors in the tourism
competitiveness literature, science has not yet agreed for an unique set of pillars to consider when
measuring this competitiveness.
Methodological Notes
The main objective aimed through the present research approach was to assess the
relationships between the overall travel and tourism competitiveness and its three major
dimensions, the consistency of these major dimensions and the specific pillars of competitiveness,
and the association between the overall competitiveness and performances of the travel and tourism
industry and the main outputs in terms of performances generated by the industry in the case of the
world’s top 25 tourist destinations.
In order to conduct the assessment, it was employed a set of data included in The Travel &
Tourism Competitiveness Report 2008 issued by the World Economic Forum in Geneva,
Switzerland. Twenty-five countries have been selected using the World Tourism Organization data
referring to the international tourist arrivals: Austria, Canada, China, Croatia, Egypt, France,
Germany, Greece, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United
Kingdom, and United States.
Selection of the tourist destinations and gathering of the corresponding data has been done
as to avoid the effect of the world economic crisis (being collected and processed data referring to
the competitiveness and performances of the selected countries for the years 2007). Although
Macau has been included on the World Tourism Organization’s list of the first 25 tourist
destinations in terms of their international tourist arrivals, this destination has not been selected due
to the as the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report does not provide any data referring to this
destination. The group of the selected countries accounts for 632.3 million tourist arrivals
(representing 70.02 % in the total of the international tourist arrivals), respectively for 576.8 billion
US Dollars (representing 67.38 % in the total of the international tourism receipts).
Variables of the research approach have been the following:
• overall travel and tourism competitiveness, as it has been defined and expressed by the
indexes determined, according to the specific methodologies, for the considered countries;
• competitiveness of the regulatory framework, business environment and infrastructure and
human, cultural and natural resources, as it has been defined and expressed by the subindexes determined, according to the specific methodologies, for all the considered
countries;
• pillars of the regulatory framework – policy rules and regulations, environmental
sustainability, safety and security, health and hygiene, and prioritization of travel and
tourism;
• pillars of the business environment and infrastructure – air transportation, ground
transportation, tourism infrastructure, information and communication technology and price
competitiveness;
• pillars of human, cultural and natural resources – human resources, affinity for travel and
tourism, natural resources, and cultural resources; and,
• performances of the travel and tourism industry and economy, as they are expressed through
the international tourist arrivals and the international tourism receipts, for the considered
countries.
Pearson correlation coefficient has been employed to conduct the measurements and
produce the aimed results.
981
Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 11(2), 2009
Main Findings of the Research
An overall assessment of the travel and tourism competitiveness at the level of the world’s
top 25 tourism destinations allows drawing the conclusion according to which these destinations do
not form a homogeneous group: there are significant differences between them as the corresponding
values of the Travel and Tourism Competitive Index (TTCI) reveal. Austria (with an TTCI score of
5.43) and Germany (5.41) are leading the hierarchy built in terms of the overall travel and tourism
competitiveness while Saudi Arabia (3.68) and Ukraine (3.76) are the tourist destinations ending it.
The average TTCI value, of 4.66 (determined on a scale from one to seven), may suggest that
although it is about the world’s top tourist destinations, their travel and tourism competitiveness
could, and probably should, be improved.
Table no. 1
Major dimensions of the travel and tourism competiveness of the world’s top tourist
destinations
Countries
Austria
Germany
Spain
United Kingdom
United States
Canada
France
Hong Kong (China)
Portugal
Netherlands
Greece
Italy
Malaysia
Hungary
Croatia
Thailand
Turkey
Mexico
Poland
South Africa
China
Russian Federation
Egypt
Ukraine
Saudi Arabia
TTCI
5.43
5.41
5.30
5.28
5.28
5.26
5.23
5.09
5.09
5.01
4.92
4.84
4.63
4.60
4.59
4.37
4.19
4.18
4.18
4.11
4.06
4.04
3.96
3.76
3.68
RF
5.86
5.67
5.24
5.28
4.75
5.31
5.57
5.91
5.50
5.35
5.46
4.99
5.04
5.40
5.02
4.46
4.57
4.30
4.51
4.31
3.91
4.21
4.54
4.53
3.83
BEI
5.27
5.43
5.32
5.32
5.58
5.40
5.28
5.04
4.83
5.11
4.63
4.77
4.31
4.18
4.32
4.17
3.73
3.62
3.62
3.85
3.45
3.56
3.47
3.24
3.78
HCN
5.16
5.13
5.33
5.26
5.52
5.07
4.85
4.31
4.93
4.58
4.66
4.74
4.55
4.21
4.43
4.49
4.28
4.62
4.42
4.18
4.81
4.35
3.86
3.51
3.43
Source: TTCI – Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index; RF – Regulatory Framework
subindex; BEI – Business Environment and Infrastructure subindex; HCN – Human, Cultural and
Natural resources subindex; Countries are ranked in the descending order of the TTC index.
Assessment of the relationships between the competitiveness of the travel and tourism and
its major dimensions at the level of the world’s top tourist destinations illustrates the very strong
association between the overall competitiveness and the business environment and infrastructure (r
= 0.97), as well as the strong associations between the overall competitiveness and the specific
regulatory framework (r = 0.86), respectively the human, cultural and natural resources (r = 0.83).
The appropriate environment and infrastructure seems to provide the background for the
development of the tourism business while the regulatory framework and the available human
982
Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 11(2), 2009
resources and natural and cultural heritage contribute significantly to the improvement and
maintaining of the travel and tourism competitiveness of the considered countries.
With an average value of 4.94, the regulatory framework appears as a factor supporting
the overall competitiveness of the world’s top 25 tourist destinations. There are significant
differences between these destinations in terms of the competitiveness of the regulatory framework:
Hong Kong (China; 5.91), Austria (5.86), and Germany (5.67) are leading the hierarchy having a
very good set of specific regulations while Saudi Arabia (3.83) and China (3.91) are the destinations
that have serious problems to solve in this respect.
Table no. 2
Major pillars of the travel and tourism competitiveness of the world’s top 25 tourist
destinations in terms of the regulatory framework
Countries
Austria
Germany
Spain
United Kingdom
United States
Canada
France
Hong Kong (China)
Portugal
Netherlands
Greece
Italy
Malaysia
Hungary
Croatia
Thailand
Turkey
Mexico
Poland
South Africa
China
Russian Federation
Egypt
Ukraine
Saudi Arabia
TTCI
5.43
5.41
5.30
5.28
5.28
5.26
5.23
5.09
5.09
5.01
4.92
4.84
4.63
4.60
4.59
4.37
4.19
4.18
4.18
4.11
4.06
4.04
3.96
3.76
3.68
RF
5.86
5.67
5.24
5.28
4.75
5.31
5.57
5.91
5.50
5.35
5.46
4.99
5.04
5.40
5.02
4.46
4.57
4.30
4.51
4.31
3.91
4.21
4.54
4.53
3.83
PRR
5.16
5.46
4.44
5.22
5.54
5.43
5.15
5.95
5.19
5.42
4.35
4.42
5.34
4.82
4.26
4.50
4.67
4.56
4.28
4.80
3.96
3.46
4.18
3.72
4.02
ES
5.57
5.82
4.95
4.02
5.56
4.90
5.75
4.56
5.36
5.56
4.85
4.87
4.79
5.05
4.84
4.27
4.11
4.20
4.58
4.92
3.92
3.79
4.25
4.23
3.44
SS
6.41
5.88
5.10
3.75
5.01
5.68
5.18
6.27
5.94
5.65
5.69
4.80
5.51
5.73
5.52
3.95
4.85
3.59
4.58
3.55
3.60
3.16
4.66
4.53
5.09
HH
6.77
6.77
5.88
5.50
5.58
5.48
6.76
7.00
5.96
6.15
6.42
6.28
4.43
6.57
5.99
4.49
4.61
4.21
4.96
3.96
3.21
6.65
3.94
6.40
2.88
PTT
5.41
4.40
5.84
5.26
4.69
5.05
5.00
5.78
5.04
3.96
5.99
4.58
5.12
4.80
4.48
5.07
4.60
4.94
4.18
4.32
4.86
3.98
5.66
3.76
3.72
Source: TTCI – Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index; RF – Regulatory Framework
subindex; PRR – Policy Rules and Regulations subindex; ES – Environmental Sustainability
subindex; SS – Safety and Security subindex; HH – Health and Hygiene subindex; PTT –
Prioritization of Travel and Tourism subindex; Countries are ranked in the descending order of the
TTC Index.
The associations between the specific pillars and the overall competitiveness of the
regulatory framework appear to be strong in the cases of the safety and security (r = 0.83),
environmental sustainability (r = 0.82), health and hygiene (r = 0.78), and policy rules and
regulations (r = 0.73), respectively moderate in the case of the prioritization of travel and tourism.
These values show, on a hand, that positions currently held by the considered countries, as top
tourist destinations of the world, are significantly supported by the results obtained under the efforts
done to improve the safety and security for the consumers of tourist products and services, to
983
Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 11(2), 2009
implement measures aiming to generate the sustainable development of the tourism activities, to
meet the specific market requirements and expectations regarding the health and hygiene, and, as a
proper background for all of these, to build and enforce appropriate policy rules and regulations in
the area of travel and tourism.
Prioritization of travel and tourism has appeared as a determinant of a secondary importance
in terms of the competitiveness of the regulatory framework. This must be the direct consequence of
the fact that countries holding the top positions in the world hierarchy of the tourist destinations had
already considered, and some of them still consider, the travel and tourism industry, with a high
priority, in their recent or current development. A higher attention given by the Governments to the
industry, a more effective marketing and branding aiming to attract an increasing number of tourists
and the better attendance at the specialized events in the industry could improve the contribution of
this pillar to the creation of a better regulatory framework supporting the development and
competitiveness of the travel and tourism industry.
Table no. 3
Major pillars of the travel and tourism competitiveness in the world’s top 25 tourist
destinations in terms of the business environment and infrastructure
Country
Austria
Germany
Spain
United States
United Kingdom
Canada
France
Hong Kong (China)
Portugal
Netherlands
Greece
Italy
Malaysia
Hungary
Croatia
Thailand
Turkey
Mexico
Poland
South Africa
China
Russian Federation
Egypt
Ukraine
Saudi Arabia
TTCI
5.43
5.41
5.30
5.28
5.28
5.26
5.23
5.09
5.09
5.01
4.92
4.84
4.63
4.60
4.59
4.37
4.19
4.18
4.18
4.11
4.06
4.04
3.96
3.76
3.68
BEI
5.27
5.43
5.32
5.58
5.32
5.40
5.28
5.04
4.83
5.11
4.63
4.77
4.31
4.18
4.32
4.17
3.73
3.62
3.62
3.85
3.45
3.56
3.47
3.24
3.78
ATI
4.25
5.47
5.34
6.34
5.65
6.65
5.50
4.96
4.19
4.85
4.62
4.43
4.18
2.98
2.96
4.32
3.71
3.78
2.57
3.79
3.98
4.14
3.06
2.44
3.46
GTI
6.03
6.57
5.54
5.45
5.85
5.01
6.56
6.57
5.03
6.35
4.39
4.51
4.95
4.81
4.05
4.15
3.79
3.28
3.95
3.89
3.80
3.25
3.43
3.24
3.85
TI
7.00
5.99
7.00
6.74
6.18
6.12
6.19
3.32
6.32
4.68
6.67
6.88
3.19
4.89
6.63
4.36
4.00
4.00
3.60
3.94
1.53
3.33
2.79
3.54
3.31
ICT
4.88
5.19
4.37
5.23
5.46
5.25
4.91
5.48
4.24
5.89
3.61
4.57
3.37
3.82
3.72
2.61
2.97
2.67
3.59
2.53
2.62
3.08
2.15
3.06
2.80
PC
4.17
3.95
4.35
4.16
3.44
3.94
3.26
4.87
4.36
3.78
3.84
3.49
5.89
4.43
4.26
5.42
4.19
4.39
4.36
5.08
5.30
3.98
5.89
3.94
5.47
Source: TTCI – Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index; BEI – Business Environment
and Infrastructure subindex; ATI – Air Transport Infrastructure subindex; GTI – Ground Transport
Infrastructure subindex; TI – Tourism Infrastructure subindex; ICT – ICT infrastructure subindex;
10PC – Price Competitiveness in the travel and tourism industry subindex; Countries are ranked in
the descending order of the TTC index.
The average value, determined at the level of the group of considered countries, of 4.45, the
business environment and infrastructure appears as one of the areas where the world’s top 25
984
Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 11(2), 2009
tourist destinations still have to make improvements. The hierarchy of the considered tourist
destinations is leaded by the United States (with a score of 5.58), Germany (5.43), Canada (5.40),
Spain and United Kingdom (both with 5.32). One-third of these destinations, particularly Ukraine
(with an average score of 3.24), China (3.45), and Egypt (3.47), should take into consideration for
their development the necessary improvements of the business environment and infrastructure.
Due to their strong association, the infrastructure of the information and communication
technology (r = 0.90), ground transportation infrastructure (r = 0.89), air transportation (r = 0.84),
and tourism infrastructure (r = 0.78) represent the pillars contributing the most to the overall
competitiveness of the business environment and infrastructure. The price competitiveness of the
travel and tourism industry (r = –0.49) seems to be moderately but inversely associated with the
competitiveness of the business environment and infrastructure, any increase in the price affecting
the business environment and infrastructure competitiveness.
As in the case of the business environment and infrastructure, based on the average value
determined at the level of the considered countries, of 4.59, the human, cultural and natural
resources is another area where the world’s top 25 tourist destinations should make improvements.
United States (with an average value of 5.52), Spain (5.33), and United Kingdom (5.26) are leading
the hierarchy of the world’s top 25 tourist destinations in terms of the human, cultural and natural
resources competitiveness while Saudi Arabia (3.43), Ukraine (3.51), and Egypt (3.86) are placed at
its bottom.
Cultural resources represent the pillar with the strongest association with the overall
competitiveness of the human, cultural and natural resources (r = 0.86) while human resources (r =
0.64) and natural resources (r = 0.52) can be characterized through a rather moderate association.
With a value of the correlation coefficient of –0.02, the affinity for travel and tourism seems to be
almost not at all important for the overall competitiveness of the world’s top 25 destinations in
terms of the human, cultural and natural resources.
Table no. 4
Major pillars of the travel and tourism competitiveness in the world’s top 25 tourist
destinations in terms of the human, cultural and natural resources
Countries
Austria
Germany
Spain
United States
United Kingdom
Canada
France
Hong Kong (China)
Portugal
Netherlands
Greece
Italy
Malaysia
Hungary
Croatia
Thailand
Turkey
Mexico
Poland
South Africa
China
TTCI
5.43
5.41
5.30
5.28
5.28
5.26
5.23
5.09
5.09
5.01
4.92
4.84
4.63
4.60
4.59
4.37
4.19
4.18
4.18
4.11
4.06
HCN
5.16
5.13
5.33
5.52
5.26
5.07
4.85
4.31
4.93
4.58
4.66
4.74
4.55
4.21
4.43
4.49
4.28
4.62
4.42
4.18
4.81
985
HR
5.62
5.50
5.34
5.91
5.87
5.79
5.50
5.83
5.26
5.68
5.11
5.22
5.53
5.03
5.05
4.98
4.92
5.05
5.18
3.81
5.07
ATT
5.45
4.74
4.99
4.29
4.54
4.76
4.62
5.70
5.05
4.68
5.12
4.76
5.47
4.33
6.25
5.51
5.14
4.59
4.06
5.02
3.92
NR
4.00
4.26
4.19
6.04
4.35
4.78
3.61
3.30
2.89
2.78
3.02
3.17
4.70
2.74
3.08
4.63
2.97
4.44
3.72
4.60
5.25
CR
5.59
6.01
6.80
5.83
6.28
4.96
5.67
2.42
6.52
5.16
5.38
5.81
2.50
4.75
3.35
2.83
4.08
4.43
4.72
3.30
5.01
Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 11(2), 2009
Russian Federation
Egypt
Ukraine
Saudi Arabia
4.04
3.96
3.76
3.68
4.35
3.86
3.51
3.43
4.93
4.83
4.87
4.82
4.32
5.28
4.83
3.99
4.58
2.83
2.39
3.75
3.57
2.52
1.95
1.16
Source: TTCI – Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index; HCN – Human, Cultural and
Natural resources subindex; HR – Human Resources subindex; ATT – Affinity for Travel and
Tourism subindex; NR – Natural Resources subindex; CR – Cultural Resources subindex;
Countries are ranked in the descending order of the TTC index.
With average values, determined at the level of the considered group of tourist destinations,
the human resources (5.23) and the affinity for travel and tourism (4.86) are the pillars for which
these destinations register values above while natural resources (3.84) and cultural resources (4.42)
are the pillars associated with values below the average one expressing the competitiveness of the
human, cultural and natural resources.
Conclusions
The world’s top 25 tourism destinations allows drawing the conclusion according to which
these destinations do not form a homogeneous group. The average TTCI value for the selected
countries may suggest that, although it is about the world’s top tourist destinations, their travel and
tourism competitiveness should be improved. The research illustrates the very strong association
between the overall competitiveness and the business environment and infrastructure, as well as the
strong associations between the overall competitiveness and the specific regulatory framework,
respectively the human, cultural and natural resources.
The regulatory framework is a factor supporting the overall competitiveness of the world’s
top tourist destinations, but there are significant differences between these destinations in terms of
the competitiveness of the regulatory framework. The associations between the specific pillars and
the overall competitiveness of the regulatory framework is strong in the cases of the safety and
security, environmental sustainability, health and hygiene, and policy rules and regulations,
respectively moderate in the case of the prioritization of travel and tourism.
The business environment and infrastructure appears as one of the areas where the world’s
top tourist destinations still have to make improvements. Due to their strong association, the
infrastructure of the information and communication technology, ground transportation
infrastructure, air transportation, and tourism infrastructure represent the pillars contributing the
most to the overall competitiveness of the business environment and infrastructure. The price
competitiveness of the travel and tourism industry seems to be moderately but inversely associated
with the competitiveness of the business environment and infrastructure, any increase in the price
affecting the business environment and infrastructure competitiveness.
The human, cultural and natural resources represent another area where the world’s top
tourist destinations should make improvements.
Cultural resources represent the pillar with the strongest association with the overall
competitiveness of the human, cultural and natural resources, while the affinity for travel and
tourism seems to be almost not at all important for the overall competitiveness of the top tourist
destinations in terms of the human, cultural and natural resources.
References
1. Beerli, A., Martin, J.D., 2004. Tourists’ characteristics and the perceived image of tourist
destinations: a quantitative analysis – a case study of Lanzarote, Spain. Tourism
Management, No. 25, pp. 623-636.
2. Blanke, J., Chiesa, T. (editors), The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2009.
Managing in a Time of Turbulence. World Economic Forum Geneva, Switzerland 2009,
986
Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 11(2), 2009
available at http://www.weforum.org/pdf/TTCR09/TTCR09 FullReport.pdf.
3. Boo, S., Busser, J., Baloglu, S., 2009. A model of customer-based brand equity and its
application to multiple destinations. Tourism Management, No. 30, pp. 219-231.
4. Brent Ritchie, J.R., Crouch, G.I., 2003. The Competitive Destination: A Sustainable
Tourism Perspective. Wallingford, UK, Cabi Publishing.
5. Camprubi, R., Guia, J., Comas, J., 2008. Destination Networks and Induced Tourism Image.
Tourism Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 47-58.
6. Claver-Cortes, E., Molina-Azarin, J.F., Pereira-Moliner, J., 2007. Competitiveness in mass
tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 727–745.
7. Cracolici, M.F., Nijkamp, P., 2008. The attractiveness and competitiveness of tourist
destinations: A study of Southern Italian regions. Tourism Management, No. 30, pp. 336344.
8. Craigwell, R., 2007. Tourism competitiveness in Small Island Developing States. Research
Paper, No. 19, UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research, Helsinki,
Finland.
9. Crouch, G., I., 2006. Destination Competitiveness: Insights Into Attribute Importance. in
Volume of International Conference of Trends, Impact and Policies on Tourism
Development, Hellenic Open University in Heraklion, Crete, June 15-18, 2006.
10. Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., Rao, P., 2000. The price competitiveness of travel and tourism: a
comparison of 19 destinations. Tourism Management, No. 21, pp. 9-22.
11. Echtner, C.M., Ritchie, J.R.B., 2003. The meaning and Measurement of Destination Image.
The Journal of Tourism Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 37-48.
12. Ejarque, J., 2005. Destinos turísticos de éxito. Diseño, creación, gestión y marketing,
Madrid, Ediciones Piramide.
13. Gomezelj, D., O., Mihalic, T., 2008. Destination competitiveness – Applying different
models, the case of Slovenia. Tourism Management, No. 29, pp. 294-307.
14. Kotler, Ph., Bowen, J.T., Markens, J.C., 2006. Marketing for Hospitality and Tourism, New
Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall International Edition.
15. Lumsdon, L., 1997. Tourism marketing. London, International Thomson Business Press
16. Mihalič, T., 2000. Environmental management of a tourist destination – A factor of tourism
competitiveness. Tourism Management, No. 21, pp. 65-78.
17. Ozturk, H., E., Eraydin, A., 2009. Environmental governance for sustainable tourism
development: Collaborative networks and organisation building in the Antalya tourism
region. Tourism management, doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.01.002.
18. Royo-Vela, M., 2009. Rural-cultural excursion conceptualization: A local tourism,
marketing management model based on tourist destination image measurement. Tourism
Management, No. 30, pp. 419-428.
19. Wang, Y., Krakover, S., 2008. Destination marketing: competition, cooperation or
coopetition? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20, No.
2, pp. 126-141.
20. Williams, P., W., Ponsford, I. F., 2009. Confronting tourism’s environmental paradox:
Transitioning for sustainable tourism. Futures, doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.11.019.
21. Zhang, J., Jensen, C., 2007. Comparative advantage Explaining Tourism Flows. Annals of
Tourism Research, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 223-243.
22. ***
UNWTO
–
Tourism
Highlights,
2008
Edition,
available
at
http://www.unwto.org/facts/menu.html.
987
Fly UP