the tourist generating area

Leiper’s Tourism System: A simple explanation

Leiper’s Tourism System is a basic conceptualisation of the structure of the tourism industry . It is one of the most widely accepted and most well-known models used in tourism research when attempting to understand the tourism system.

Many tourism students will learn about Leiper’s Tourism System towards the beginning of their studies alongside the history of tourism and the importance of tourism . Many people working within the industry learn about Leiper’s Tourism System in order to underpin and inform their operational plans.

But what is Leiper’s Tourism System? In this article I will tell you about who Leiper was, why he was a credible scholar (and why people listen(ed) to him) and how his Tourism System model works in the context of tourism management.

Who was Leiper?

Why was leiper’s tourism system developed, leiper’s tourism system – how does it work, the tourists, the geographical features, the tourism industry, the traveller generating region, the tourist destination region, the tourist transit region, the benefits of leiper’s tourism system, the disadvantages of leiper’s tourism system, to conclude, further reading.

Neil Leiper was an Australian tourism scholar who died in February 2010. His work was extremely influential and continues to be well cited throughout the tourism literature.

Leiper has four major areas in which he focussed his research: tourism systems, partial industrialisation, tourist attraction systems and strategy. It is his work on tourism systems that I will discuss in this post.

Leiper’s research was identified as having a significant influence on travel and tourism academic literature, as well as the conceptualisation of tourism as a discipline. This applies to both research and educational contexts.

Leiper was famed for the connections that he made between theory and strategy, which helped to bridge the gap between theory, policy and practice.

You can read more about Neil Leiper and his academic contributions in this paper .

Discussions about what tourism is and how tourism is defined have been ongoing for many years.

Leiper’s contribution to the debate was to adopt a systems approach towards understanding tourism.

Leiper (1979) defined tourism as:

‘…the system involving the discretionary travel and temporary stay of persons away from their usual place of residence for one or more nights, excepting tours made for the primary purpose of earning remuneration from points en route. The elements of the system are tourists , generating regions, transit routes, destination regions and a tourist industry. These five elements are arranged in spatial and functional connections. Having the characteristics of an open system, the organization of five elements operates within broader environments: physical, cultural, social, economic, political, technological with which it interacts.’

Rather than viewing each part of the tourism system as independent and separate, Leiper’s definition was intended to allow for the understanding of destinations, generating areas, transit zones, the environment and flows within the context of a wider tourism system.

In essence, therefore, Leiper’s Tourism System was developed to encourage people to view tourism as an interconnected system, and to make relevant assessments, decisions, developments etc based upon this notion.

So now that we understand who Neil Leiper was (and that he was a credible tourism scholar), lets take a deeper look at his Tourism System.

In the diagram above you can see the way in which Leiper depicted tourism as being a system.

Leiper did not want people to view each part of the tourism industry as being separate and independent, because it is not. Rather, each component of tourism is closely interrelated.

This means that each part of the system relies strongly upon other parts in order to function properly.

Lets take an unrelated example of a car engine. If one part of the engine isn’t working properly, the car won’t run efficiently or may not run at all…

Lets put this into the context of travel and tourism. If the airline isn’t running flights to a destination, then the hotel will have no business. And if there are no available hotels in the destination, then people will not book flights there.

Now, this is a very simplistic example, but hopefully that helps to provide a clearer picture of how the ‘tourism system’ is interconnected.

The basic elements of Leiper’s Tourism System

There are three major elements in Leiper’s Tourism System: the tourists, the geographical features and the tourism industry.

The tourist is the actor in Leiper’s tourism system. They move around the tourism system, consuming various elements along the way.

In Leiper’s tourism system he identifies three major geographical features: the traveller generating region, the tourist destination region and the tourist transit region.

I will explain which each of these geographical features means short.

The tourism industry is, of course, at the heart of the tourism system. All of the parts that make up the structure of tourism , are found within the tourism system.

The geographical features of Leiper’s Tourism System model

Leiper identifies three main geographical regions in his tourism system. These are visually depicted in the diagram above.

I will explain what each of the geographical features mean below.

Other posts that you may be interested in: – What is tourism? A definition of tourism – The importance of tourism – The history of tourism – Stakeholders in tourism – The structure of tourism – Types of tourism: A glossary

The traveller generating region is the destination in which the tourist comes from.

Exactly what this means, is not entirely clear. Does it mean the departure airport? The home country? The area of the world? The home town? Well in part, I think that this depends on the nature of the tourism that is taking place.

If, for example, a person is taking a domestic holiday , then their home town will almost certainly be classified as the ‘traveller generating region’.

However, when we travel further away, the precise details of our home locations become less important. For example, you may refer instead to the country or district in which you live. Or you may simply refer to the country.

For example, if I were to travel to Spain, I may refer to my traveller generating region as the United Kingdom.

Similarly, sometimes we refer to areas of the world. This is especially the case with travellers from Asia. Some countries in Asia (such as China ) are substantial tourist generating regions. Rightly or wrongly, however, the traveller destination region is often given the vague description of simply being ‘Asia’.

Within the traveller generating region there are many components of tourism.

Here you will often find stakeholders i n tourism such as travel agents and tour operators, who promote outbound or domestic tourism.

The tourist destination region can largely be described in the same vain.

In Leiper’s tourism system, the tourism destination region is the area that the tourist is visiting.

This could be a small area, such as a village or tourist resort. For example, Bentota in Sri Lanka or Dahab in Egypt.

The tourist destination region could be an entire province. For example, Washington State.

Likewise, it could be a country, such as Jordan . Or it could even be an area of the World, such as The Middle East.

In the tourist destination region you will find many components of tourism. Here you will likely find hotels, tourist attractions, tourist information centres etc.

The last geographical region identified in Leiper’s Tourism System is the tourist transit region.

The tourist transit region is the space between when the tourist leaves the traveller generating region and when they arrive at the tourist destination region. This is effectively the time that they are in transit.

The tourist transit region is largely made up of transport infrastructure. This could be by road, rail, air or sea. It involves a large number of transport operators as well as the organisations that work within them, such as catering establishments (think Burger King at the airport).

The tourist transit region is an integral part of Leiper’s Tourism System.

There are many benefits of Leiper’s tourism system.

Leiper’s model allows for a visual depiction of the tourism system. The model is relatively simple, enabling the many to comprehend and use this model.

Leiper’s Tourism System model has been widely cited within the academic literature and widely taught within tourism-based programmes at universities and colleges for many years.

The way in which this model demonstrates that the different parts of the tourism industry are interrelated and dependent upon each other provides scope for better planning and development of tourism .

There are, however, also some disadvantages to Leiper’s Tourism System model.

Whilst the simplicity of this model can be seen as advantageous, as it means that it can be understood by the many rather than the few, it can be argued that it is too simple.

Because the model is so simple, it is subject to interpretation, which could result in different people understanding it in different ways – I demonstrated when I discussed what ‘region’ meant.

Leiper developed this model back in 1979 and a lot has changed in travel and tourism since then. Take, for example, the use of the Internet.

Lets say that a person lives in Italy and books a trip to Thailand through an online travel agent who is based in the USA. Where in the model does the travel agent fit? Because they have little place in either the traveller generating region or the tourist destination region….

The post-modern tourism industry is not accounted for in this model, thus it can be argued that it is limited in scope because it is outdated.

Likewise, this model fails to address the way in which the tourism system is actually part of a network of interrelated systems. What about the agriculture sector? Or the construction industry? Or the media? All of these areas play an essential role in [feeding, building, promoting] tourism, but they are not represented in the model.

Leiper’s Tourism System is a key part of the foundation literature in travel and tourism.

It provides a good representation of the way that the many parts of the tourism industry work together as a system, rather than individually. However, it fails to account for many of the complexities of the industry and its ties with associated industries.

Nonetheless, this is an interesting model that is widely applicable both in an academic and practical sense.

If you would like to learn more about the fundamentals of the travel and tourism industry, I have listed some key texts below.

• An Introduction to Tourism : a comprehensive and authoritative introduction to all facets of tourism including: the history of tourism; factors influencing the tourism industry; tourism in developing countries; sustainable tourism; forecasting future trends.
• The Business of Tourism Management : an introduction to key aspects of tourism, and to the practice of managing a tourism business.
• Tourism Management: An Introduction : gives its reader a strong understanding of the dimensions of tourism, the industries of which it is comprised, the issues that affect its success, and the management of its impact on destination economies, environments and communities.

Tourism System

A system consists of several parts that are interconnected and interrelated, each part influencing each other through its dynamic nature while responding to the external influences as well.  All the components within the system work to attain a common goal or purpose.  

An influence in one part of the system will be felt throughout the system.  It can be also referred to a spider’s web.   Ludwig von Bertalanffy,  a biologist has defined ‘ General system theory’  as a set of elements that experience interrelationship among themselves and with their external environments.

A system is an assemblage or interrelated combination of things or elements or components forming a unitary whole (Hall 2008).  Tourism can be referred to as a system as it reacts to the external environments like the social, political, technological and ecological.  Elements like attraction, transport, accommodation, facilities interact with each other while it interacts with the external environment too.

Concept of Tourism as a System

Tourism is conceptualized as a system by many scholars.  It was in the 1970s that the General Systems Theory was applied to the concept of tourism and it has resulted in a number of system theories of tourism.  Scholars like Leiper, Getz, Gunn and Mill and Morrison have suggested systems model for tourism.   In his book, tourism planning

(1979), Gunn put forth the “tourism fundamental system” that involved five components: tourist, transportation, attractions, services-facilities, and information-direction. Leiper (1979) developed the whole tourism systems based on the systems theory and identified   five basic components: tourists, generating regions, transit routes, destination regions, and a tourist industry operating within physical, cultural, social, economic, political, and technological environments. He conceptualized tourism as an open system.

Neil Leiper’s Whole Tourism System Model

Neil Leiper devised a Whole Tourism System Model in the year 1979 and the same was restructured in the year 1990.  It is completely based on the Systems Approach consisting of three major components or elements.  The following are the four components embedded in the Leiper’s model. 

Pic credit-  https://www.slideshare.net/Poddar25/got-3-module-1

I.  The Human Component:

 The Tourist

II.  The Geographical Component:

•      The Generating Region

•      Transit Route Region

•      The Destination Region

III. The Industrial Component 

Iv. the environmental component.

Leiper proposed six aspects within the model which are interrelated, interdependent and interact with each other and function as a group while responding to the external influences.  Thus it is an open system where influences are found within the system as well as external to the system. 

The human component consists of the tourists, the geographical component consists of traveler-generating regions, transit route regions and tourist-destination regions, the industrial component involving the various business and organizations that provide services and finally, the environmental component comprising of the social, technological, legal and ecological aspects.  

All these aspects weave together as a whole tourism system in a structural manner.  Figure-1 provides the pictorial representation of the Leiper’s model of the components of the tourism system.

1. The Human Component

The human component specified in the model is the tourists who undertake tourism to a destination of their interests.  A tourist is a person who traverses away from his place of residence to another place for a short span of stay with an aim to spend his holidays.  

A person can be called as a tourist if he stays for at least 24 hours and not more than one year in a destination either within the country or outside the country of residence not involving in any remunerative activity.   Tourism, according to the Oxford dictionary, is “the theory and practice of touring or travelling for pleasure”.

Tourists undertake different forms of tourism as per their need like recreation, pleasure, business, education, health, pilgrimage, culture and they are called as recreational tourists, pleasure tourists, business tourists, education tourists, health tourists, pilgrimage tourists and cultural tourists in that order.  

It is based on the motivational push that tourists undertake their trip to a particular destination.  It all happens with the available forms of tourism.  Therefore, it completely depends on the purposes of travel.

As per the definition of UNWTO’s (United Nations World Tourism Organization), “tourism comprises the activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business, and other purposes”. It is clear from the definition that tourists are temporary residents of the destination of visit.  

After touring, they return to their original place of residence or their place of departure. According to Leiper (1979), the fundamentals of tourism are traced back to Greek origins, likened to a circle, reflecting a key component of tourism and returning to the point of departure.

2. The Geographic Component.

The geographic component refers to the geographical area involved in the tourism process.  Tourists depart from a geographical area – the place of origin, utilize a geographical route and reach a geographical area – the place of arrival or destination of visit.  

Similarly, they reach their area of origin after completion of the trip taking a complete cycle of the geographical components.  Thus, there are three geographical areas involved in the conduct of tourism.

The geographic components comprise of the following three aspects:

1.      Tourist Generating Region(TGR)

2.      Travel Route Region(TRR) and

3.      Tourist Destination Region(TDR) 

2.1 Tourism Generating Regions (TGR).

Tourism Generating Region refers to the place where the tourist starts and ends his tour.  It is the location of permanent residence from where he departs for tour and reaches after completion of trip. It is also referred to the source region of journey as well as the geographical area of demand. According to Dann (1977), it is the geographical setting pertaining to the motivational and behavioral pattern termed as “Push” factors.

‘Push’ factors are the intangible wishes or desires arising in the minds of a person. These are influenced by the social, psychological, and economic forces generated from within the person.

The aspects like mundane environment, exploration, self-evaluation, relaxation, prestige, family relations, and social interaction are found within the minds of the people of the tourist-generating region.  These pertain to the psychological push factors.  Influence of family, reference groups, social classes, culture, and sub-cultures are the factors pertaining to the social push factors.  

The demographic aspects like age, sex, educational qualification, income and marital status also contribute to the push factors.  The economic push factors are the disposable income added with the available leisure time joint together that play vital role in the tourist-generating region.  

Apart from the above mentioned factors in the tourist generating region, the aspects like ticketing services, tour operators, travel agents and marketing and promotional activities present in the departure area play a major role as push components.

2.2. Transit Route Region (TRR).

Transit route refers to the path throughout the region across which the tourist travels to reach his or her destination.  It is the path that links the tourist generating regions and the tourist destination regions, along which the tourists travel.  

When the tourists undertake a long haul, travel it is necessary to take a temporary stoppage called a transit route.  The transit route includes stopover points, which might be used for convenience of the tourist or due to the presence of various attractions throughout the travel route that can be visited by the tourists.

The transit route enables the tourists to change flight or stop for some time for refueling. The transit route might differ from the start of the travel from the generating region and ending of the travel from the destination region.  

The transit route may be crossed with the different types of transportation like air transport or rail transport or water transport or road transport or a combination of all these types of transports according to the necessity of the tourist. Thus, the transit rout region is a vital component in the tourism system.

2.3 Tourist Destination Region (TDR).

Tourist Destination Region refers to the destination, which the tourists prefer to visit during their travel.  It is the location, which attracts tourists for their temporary stay.  The destination region is the core component of tourism, as it is the region, which the tourist chooses to visit, and which the core element of tourism is based on.  It is the supply side of the tourism products that pull the tourists.

This component includes the natural attractions, cultural attraction, and various entertainment factors, accommodation, facilities, services, amenities, safety and security available in the destination of visit that ultimately pull the tourists. The new age tourists mostly demand now-a-days special interest tourism products available in the destination region. 

The qualitative aspects that are absent or lacking in the tourist-generating region and available in the tourist destination region form as the basic attractions that pull the tourists towards TDR.  The location has the attributes as anticipated by the tourists that retains loyal tourists from the generating regions

3. The Industrial Component..

The next important component in the Lieper’s model is the industry.  Industrial component refers to the businesses and organizations that promote tourism related products.  These firms thrive to cater to the needs and wants of the tourists.They impart full-fledged products and services to the tourists through attractions, accommodation, accessibility and amenities.

It is a composition of many small firms that provide tourist attractions and services to the tourists in an affordable manner. Tourism industry is not an individual entity and all the industrial components of the tourism industry function together as an amalgam as tourism cannot function in the absence of even a single aspect of the industrial component.  Tourism industry is a mixture of many industries.  They are:

•      Tourist Services Industry

•      Accommodation Industry

•      Transport Industry

•      Entertainment Industry

•      Tourist Attraction Industry

•      Shopping Industry

These industries are located in different places some in the tourist generating region and some in the destination region. The travel agents and tour operators are located in the tourist generating region who help in the arrangement of travel for the tourists.  

They do marketing activities motivating the tourists to visit specific destination regions while designing tailor made tourism products.  The travel agents and tour operators in  the destination region are facilitators of the tourists.  Thus, they form to be the tourist services industry.

The accommodation industry, the sub-component comprises of hotels, motels, resorts, guest- houses and home stays that provide temporary residential facility for the tourists.  There is variety of options in the accommodation sector affordable to the different category of tourists. The transport industry consists of four forms of transport like air, rail, sea and road transport.

A number of carriers are there in the transport industry transporting the tourists from the tourist-generating region to the tourist destination region through the transit route region.  It is one of the most indispensable components as tourism cannot happen without movement of people and transport industry solely takes care of it.

The entertainment industry pertains to the products provided in the destination region by the service providers with a motive to bring enjoyment, pleasure, fun, excitement, amusement and recreation to make the tourists’ leisure time fruitful and lively. Theaters, games, sports, gambling, bars and pubs are some of the products in the entertainment industry available in the destination region

The attraction industry comprises of the tourism experiences based on which tourists ultimately gets high level of satisfaction. Nature, culture, heritage, monuments, climate, beaches, events, sunshine, snow, are some of the attractions which pull the tourists towards the tourist destination region. Attractions are unique to the destinations, as these will not be found in the tourist-generating region.

Shopping Industry is another sub-component, which is unique to the destination region as tourists wish to shop products that are traditional or famous to that particular destination.  For example, Kashmir is famous for shawls and Gujarat is famous for saris.  

Therefore, tourists wish to buy souvenirs from the destinations and wherever they travel, they desire to go to some of the shopping malls to buy their choice products selected from souvenirs which happen to be ready-made wear, cosmetics / skin-care products, snacks / confectioneries, shoes/ other footwear, handbag /wallets/belts, souvenirs / handicrafts, medicine/ herbs, perfume, personal care and jewelry.

4. The Environmental Component.

The last component in the Leiper’s model of tourism system is the environment component that surrounds the three geographical regions.  Tourism is an open system and it interacts with the external environment. Environment is the surrounding circumstances that affect the tourism system and vice versa. These forces either induce positive or negative influences on the tourism system.  The environmental components that affect the tourism system are as follows:

1.      Political Factors

2.      Economic Factors

3.      Social/Cultural Factors

4.      Technological Factors

5.      Environmental Factors

6.      Legal Factors 

4.1 Political Factors

Political factors influences the tourism system according the available political situation.  An unstable political situation will hamstring the tourism development.  Tourism system will function effectively if there is political harmony and law and order are executed in a proper manner.  

It will further get developed in case the government enforces tourism policy planning, makes more investments in the tourism industry and ensures tax benefits.  If there is good relationship existing between the countries of the tourist generating region and tourist destination region tourism will flourish.  Otherwise tourism growth will be adversely affected.

4.2 Economic Factors

The economic factors influence the system of tourism as it is directly related to the per capita income of the tourist generating region, their disposable income and standard of living.  On the other hand if tourist destination region provides affordable tourism products and services tourism development is likely to go up.  

Therefore, the income and expenditure of the tourists will be balanced ensuring tourist flow.  Economic factors are also directly related to the general global financial situation.  The financial depression that was prevalent in the year 2008 had severely affected the tourism industry as the per capita income decreased all over the world.

4.3 Social/Cultural Factors

Social or cultural factors spell significant influences on the tourism system.  Based on the attitude of the local people in the tourism destination region the tourists of the generating region will be pulled towards it.  The experience of the tourists depends upon the receptive nature of the hosts of the destination.  

If aversion prevails over the behavior of the tourists in the minds of the host people, loyal tourists cannot be pulled by the destination region.  The tourists will not prefer to visit a destination which is not tourist friendly.

4.4 Technological Factors

Technology is another important factor that affects the tourism system.  Technology has been developing swiftly and it has spread its wings in all the sectors especially in tourism.  It has changed the travel behavior of the tourist of the generating region and the organizations of the tourism industry are using technology to market their their services and products of the tourist destination region.  

Internet is used by the tourists to gather information about the destinations, the transit routes and the attractions to decide on their travel.  They make reservations online instead of approaching the travel agents and tour operators – traditional methods of  distribution system.  The suppliers of the destination region and the transit route region like the airlines, hotels, and tourism attraction operators make direct contact with the tourists generating region and create great challenge to the intermediaries.

4.5 Environmental Factors

The environmental factors are related to the rich biodiversity existing in the tourist destination region.  The more the pressure given to the environmental chasteness more will be the impact on the biodiversity.  The ecosystem of the destination region is affected by the tourists of the generating region and the tourism industrial operators.

Negative impacts like pollution, loss of greeneries, congestion, over utilization creates the imperatives for making tourism sustainable for the future.  Therefore, such negative impacts have to be eliminated or reduced by the government creating awareness about sustainability of tourism resources in the minds of the stakeholders otherwise severe loss will be exerted on the tourism system.

4.6 Legal Factors

The legal factors refer to the prevalent law and order in the tourist generating region, transit route region and the tourist destination region. These laws act as a framework  to protect the tourists and the organizations of the tourism industry.  It leads to the proper development and management of tourism and the components of the tourism system.  There are laws pertaining to tourism infrastructure, conservation of natural rich biodiversity and the cultural resources.

You Might Also Like

National Parks in India

Destination Information Management

Coastal Areas of India

This post has 8 comments.

Pingback: ¥¹©`¥Ñ©`¥³¥Ô©` ¥°¥Ã¥Á ¥­©`¥±©`¥¹

Pingback: My Site

Pingback: AQW

Pingback: Adventure Quest Worlds

Pingback: ¥¹©`¥Ñ©`¥³¥Ô©` ¿Ú¥³¥ß 620

Pingback: ¥·¥ã¥Í¥ë ¥¢¥¯¥»¥µ¥ê©` ¥¹©`¥Ñ©`¥³¥Ô©`

Pingback: 時計 スーパーコピー 知恵袋

Pingback: ブランドバッグコピー

Comments are closed.

What Is the Difference Between Tourist Generating Region and Tourist Destination Region?

By Anna Duncan

Tourism is a major source of revenue for many countries, and the distinction between tourist generating regions and tourist destination regions is important to understand when it comes to planning tourism strategies. A tourist generating region is an area where people originate from before they travel to their intended destination.

These areas are typically the home countries of travelers, but they can also include other areas that are relatively close by. Tourist destination regions are the places that people actually go to visit, such as popular cities or attractions.

The difference between these two types of regions has a lot to do with the type of travelers involved and the amount of money spent by each individual on their trip. Tourist generating regions tend to have a higher population density than tourist destinations, meaning there is more potential for people from these areas to be interested in travel. Additionally, travelers originating from these areas tend to have more disposable income than those coming from other parts of the world, making them more likely to splurge on their vacation or invest in luxury accommodations.

On the other hand, tourist destination regions are typically located in exotic locations and offer unique attractions that draw visitors from around the world. These destinations often require more effort and planning on behalf of travelers in order to make their trip successful, as they may need visas or specialized travel documents in order to enter certain countries or attractions. Additionally, travelers going to these locations usually spend more money than those who come from closer origins due to potentially higher costs associated with transportation and accommodations.

When marketing a destination or developing tourism strategies, it is important for governments and businesses to understand both types of regions so they can properly Target their efforts. For example, if a business knows that most of its customers come from nearby cities or states, they may focus their marketing efforts on those areas instead of trying to attract customers from far away countries with limited disposable income. On the other hand, if a business wants international travelers who have more money available for spending on vacations, then they may direct their efforts towards Targeting those coming from further away destinations internationally.

In conclusion, there is an important distinction between tourist generating region and tourist destination region when it comes to planning tourism strategies and marketing efforts. Tourist generating regions tend to be located closer geographically while having higher populations with increased disposable income compared with other parts of the world; whereas tourist destinations often require additional effort in terms of visas or travel documents while offering unique attractions that draw visitors internationally who tend to spend more money overall on their trips.

9 Related Question Answers Found

What are the basic factors of tourist destination, what is the other word of tourist destination region, what are the basic factors of a tourist destination, what is the difference between tourist attraction and tourist destination, what attracts a tourist to a destination, what attracts tourist to a destination, what is a responsible tourist destination, what is the difference between tourist spot and tourist destination, what motivates a tourist to travel to a destination, backpacking - budget travel - business travel - cruise ship - vacation - tourism - resort - cruise - road trip - destination wedding - tourist destination - best places, london - madrid - paris - prague - dubai - barcelona - rome.

© 2024 LuxuryTraveldiva

Revue belge de géographie

Accueil Numéros 1-2 The tourist route system – models...

The tourist route system – models of travelling patterns

Examining tourism is mostly taking place on a site or regional level. Travel, however, is a movement between such sites – from home to destination(s) and back to home again (Leiper, 1979). Trying to view tourism as a movement and a dynamic function means challenges. This paper is an attempt of modelling a “tourist route system” and to show what the use of different travelling pattern models means to “tourism route research” The aim is to show what dimensions will be lacking if studies only are focused on markets, sites or destinations.

L’analyse du tourisme se place avant tout au niveau d’un site ou d’une région, mais le voyage représente un déplacement entre ces lieux – du domicile jusqu’à destination et retour (Leiper, 1979). Tenter de voir le tourisme comme un mouvement et une fonction dynamique représente un défi. Dans cet article, nous essayons de modéliser un “système d’itinéraire touristique” et de démontrer ce que l’utilisation de différents modèles de schémas de voyage signifie pour la recherche en matière d’itinéraires touristiques. Notre objectif est de montrer quelles dimensions seront manquantes si les études ne se focalisent que sur les marchés, les sites ou les destinations.

Entrées d’index

Mots-clés : , keywords: , texte intégral, the tourist route system – models of traveling patterns.

“Travel to and from the destination site and experiences associated with these phases have been ignored. A better understanding of travel behaviour could assist in the marketing of secondary trips, staging areas, and minor attractions located in the vicinity of larger, more popular destinations. Such relationship requires the cooperation of the psychologist and the tourist professional. Travellers, not laboratory subjects, must be studied in transit, at hotels, in their homes, and on site. The tourist professional can make this integrative work possible by being sensitive to the importance and implications of this type of research.” (Fridgen, 1984, p. 33).

1 Even though Fridgen is a social psychologist and this author is a geographer, our shared interest is in studying what happens during travel to and from a destination as an attempt of trying to understand the whole trip behaviour. Without such an understanding of the complete trip my view is that much of the on destination studies will be lacking important information. Since most tourists “like travelling”, their en route behaviour must be regarded as an integrated part of their complete travel experiences.

2 This paper is about “routes”, “sites” and “tourists”. Numerous volumes have defined “the tourist”, and those will not be repeated here. The focus of this presentation will, instead, mainly be on the routes used by the tourists and sometimes also about the sites along these routes. Of course, definitions of tourist and traveller types and segments will be used in connection with models and analysis.

3 Routes were important parts of the tourist products even long before tourism was defined. Some of the ancient routes are very well known, and among those is the name of the country this author comes from – Norge – or Norway – meaning the route north­wards. That route was, of course, the waterway along the long coastline northwards. Transport by boats was the only way of moving rapidly in a mountainous country, before building the railways.

4 The early travel routes were either parts of a trading system or connected to religious prac­tices. Most of the route names are created later on, to explain the subject of a route or the direction. The Silk Route through Asia is one example, the pilgrimage routes from Central Europe to Nidaros (present day Trondheim) in Norway might be another. The first real system of tourism routes might have been the Grand Tour, a complex network of routes more or less all leading to Rome (Towner, 1996).

5 The tour operated routes are just one and a half century old. The first organized tours were Ths. Cook’s from 1841. In Norway Ths. Bennett started his similar practice not long afterwards.

6 The invention of cars and later on motor coaches meant new possibilities of travel. Roads, however, were mainly built for other than tourism and recreation purposes. The system of Scenic Byways in the US started as early as 1913 (Lew, 1991). Since then the system is developed to be present in most US states. In addition to signs and maps, there are specialized handbooks available for some of those routes. Green routes were first just an indication on maps (i.e., maps provided by Michelin or Hallwag). The summer of 1998 marked the first official use of such sign-posted routes in Norway – named National Tourist Roads.

7 The explosion of travel guidebooks and travel programmes on TV, in some countries also separate travel channels, have also contributed to the rapid emerging systems of themed routes. Both media are in the need of “telling a story” – and a travel along a touristic route fills well into such needs.

8 Another route system is those used by the world around travellers. According to Pryer (1997) is there a group of “mature adventurists” who have been travelling around the world for years either because they have financial means for this or they are “working their way around”. This group does not need travel handbooks and so on, but might later on be handbook authors. They are in a way setting up routes for others to use.

9 Governing was also an important reason for travel in Norway as elsewhere in Europe, and a system of inns (in Norwegian “skysstasjoner”) were located along the routes, mainly to cater for the travel of the King’s men. Providing accommodation or meals and changing horses were the duties of innkeepers, who in addition could sell their beds to other prosperous travellers.

10 Such inns are well known and their location documented, as are the routes these travellers used. At the same time there existed another accommodation system less known – “travellers rest houses” (in Norwergian “ferdmannskviler”). This was a system giving permits to some small farms or houses along the roads to accommodate travellers needing a shelter and a meal. Such shelters could be a single room with one large bed or some beds. Travelling salesmen, transpor­ters, farmers bringing their goods to far away markets and migrants mingled together is such shelters. Those who grew up in such house were often well educated in national and international events, since the travellers had very much to tell (Forfang, 1978-85). Today, both inns and rest houses still might be part of the en route accommodation system, even though their names have changed and the houses are rebuilt or improved.

11 During the last two decades specially designed touristic routes have come more into focus all over the world – especially themed routes like Wine Tours, Bier Route (Bavaria, Germany), Malt Whisky Trail (Scotland), Belgian Textile Route, Franco-Swiss Clock Route, Glass Trail (Sweden) and Romantische Strasse (Germany). But also more general Scenic or Green Routes has been pro­moted, often to get tourists to drive outside the main highways. Even old Pilgrimage tracks have been reopened and designed for both tourists and “new” pilgrims (Maier, Ludwig & Oergel, 1994; Dewailly, 1998; Delbaere, 1994)

12 Tourism and travel as research themes are not based on a single theory, but a series of models of which some contains basic definitions that most researchers agree on. One of these common agreements is that being a tourist means leaving home, then travelling on a route, and at last returning home. Leiper (1979, 1989) has described this process in a basic model (figures 2 and 3).

13 Sites are also important parts of the trips. They must, however, be viewed and sorted accor­ding to their roles within the complete trip, not always as the site of the trip. Our findings show that every site on a specified route might also have something that makes a stop at this site special for at least one segment of travellers. Most tourism studies and textbooks, however, still “seem to pretend” that tourism is happening at a single site or in a single attraction. Of course, every author is well aware that every trip is a dynamic journey containing at least both a stay and two moves. Still this “stay-and-movement part of the travel” is seldom focused in the wider sense. Even books about tourism and sustainability often concentrate their examples on destinations or sites, not telling anything about how the tourists has travelled to these destination or how they are travelling back home.

14 The aim of this paper is to combine research of tourists’ behaviour at sites or within destina­tion areas with research based characteristics from the movement along the route itself. By doing so this author hopes that the readers could become more aware of the impor­tance that routing behaviour has on other types of tourism behaviour – both at desti­nations and sites. The first discussion is based on some general models of regional systems, transportation and tourism systems. Later more specific models explaining tourism development and tourists’ behaviour will be introduced.

15 This paper has at least four analytic dimensions:

The history of routes in the tourism products.

The diversification of routes into modes of travelling or thematic travel.

The behaviour of travelling segments on the routes or at destinations based on the routes chosen for the trip.

Strategies for future analysis of travellers and destination based on these findings will also be focused.

16 Before starting these analyses, a presentation of some models and theories based on the route dimension of tourism is needed, starting with the simple ones and then proceed to some more complicated. In the more descriptive analyses later in this paper, a return to these models is needed, sometimes supplied by new and more thematic models.

From “movement” to “surfaces” – from tracks to routes to destination areas

17 To start describing what focusing on routes have meant to the development of tourism, going back to general geographical location models is important. During the sixties and seventies, Haggett (1965) completed a series of textbooks on “Models in Geography”. His aim was to build a science of geography as opposed to the more descriptive stages of the subject. His illustration of stages in the analysis of a regional system, figure 1, could also be used to show the development of routes and regions in tourism. It is important to stress that even before tourism was regarded as a field of studies, transport and movements was examined by geographers like Haggett, some of those did also choose tourism as a subject for studies (in Scandinavia by Nordstrom & Mårtenson, 1965; Sømme, 1965 & 1970; elsewhere by Christaller, 1966).

Figure 1. Stages in the analysis of a regional system. Based on Haggett, 1965.

A Movements B Networks C Nodes D Hierarchies E Surfaces

18 How could the general location model of figure 1 also be seen as a tool for tourism development analysis? The figure must then be regarded as describing stages in a process similar to the one in the Miossec (1976) model. Those stages are described as:

Movements will be the first attempts of leaving the house, but mostly to return the same day or to the same site. The movements are not on a registered track or a sea route, but just described as a registration of where one has moved. Movements could also be described as discoveries, in the way Miossec (1976) shows.

As soon as a route (or a track) has been used for more than a single organized trip, there will be a registration of a network. Such a registration will normally contain all the three basic elements of the Leiper model (figures 2 and 3). A network, however, will at this stage basically be viewed as the route in the Leiper model.

When adding the destination region and the home to the Leiper models, stage C in figure 1 shows a system of nodes with equal strength. Still the tourist development is only based on “home -> route -> destination and return”, where each part of the trips is as important as the other.

When some parts of a route either are visited longer than the others or has more visitors, a system of hierarchies is developed. Most route systems will be based on hierarchies, either as primary attractions (Leiper, 1990) to visit or as main destinations. But hierarchies might also be viewed as markets.

The use of surfaces might be viewed as time zones from the homes or as price zones away from a tourism centre. Surfaces in this figure might also be viewed as zones of different markets: the inner zone as the reach of afternoon activities like evening skiing or cultural recreation; the next zone as a limit of week end travel and the outer as a holiday zone.

19 The stages of resort development in the Miossec model are:

Discovery of the area

Pioneer resort development starts

Multiplication of resorts within a destination area

Organization of the holiday space

Hierarchical specialization or saturation

20 All the development stages of Miossec are also examined for: access or transport, tourism behaviour and attitudes. The later both viewed from the decision makers’ and local population’s points.

21 Though tourism has developed distinctive stages through stages, even Before Christ, tourism routes were well developed within both the Egyptian, Helenistic and Roman empires. Each stage of development could be found a couple of thousand years ago, and could be found when describing what has happened the last fifty years.

22 Butler’s (1980) resort cycle model could also fit in here. But since this is only telling about a destination and not representing a travel-pattern model a further presentation must come later. Pryer (1997) has viewed the international en route tourists, especially those leaving the usual “highways” for new discoveries. He has set up some stages, mostly by focusing on the two initial ones:

Following the footsteps of early pioneers

23 After this stage reporters take over by publishing travel handbooks and survival kits (Lonely Planet) and semi-organized tourism takes over from early travellers. Pryer (1997) is also segmenting the travellers into budget travellers and credit card travellers.

24 In accordance with the node development in Haggett’s model, Pryer (1997) is quoting Vogt (1976) who identified an important aspect of the traveller culture as being the need of “gathering places” along the touring routes, mostly for the purpose of relaxation and socializing. These gathering places have later developed as travel centres. Such developments are taking different direction both due to segments of travellers visiting the site and due to the local adjustment to these travellers’ needs. Four centres are identified by Pryer:

Gateway reception centres

Attraction reception centres

“Freak centres”

Traveller sanctuaries

25 Many other centre types might be added, when describing travelling patterns of different segments.

Tourism and travelling on routes as a dynamic Geographical System

26 For a long time many attempts have been made of describing tourism as a system. Viewing travelling along routes is a dynamic approach to such descriptions. As a geographer I would like to start with “movement”, starting from a place often called “home” and by some “market”, or more correctly by Leiper (1979) called a “tourist generating region”, and then showing the routes and destinations from the travellers point of view.

27 Leiper (1979, 1989) himself and many others have tried to reproduce the original model (figure 2) into new ones (figures 3 and 4). Others have tried to widen the content of the travel experience (figures 5 and 6).

Figure 2. The geographical elements of tourism – A.

Figure 3. The geographical elements of a tourist system – B.

Figure 4. The tourism system of Mill & Morrison 1985.

Figure 5. The Tourism Environment System.

Figure 6. Destination area’s perspective of a vacation experience.

Source: Murphy, 1985

28 In his original article from 1979 Leiper points out that he has taken his elements partly from Gunn’s (1972) “tourism environment”. His description of each element is important since many authors later on are “quoting” this article. A long passage is therefore quoted here:

“A basic model of the geographic element is shown in Figure 2. The following discussion of roles and consequences of each geographical element in the system shows that the model can be developed beyond a representation of tourist flow patterns. It can serve as an analytical tool for describing the resources involved in the tourism process, in particular the industrialized resources. Moreover it facilitates delineation of areas of touristic impact.

Tourist generation regions can be defined as the permanent residential bases of tourists, the place where tours begin and end, and in particular those features of the region which incidentally cause or stimulate temporary outflow. This definition includes the basic geographical setting, together with the necessary behavioural factors pertaining to motivation. The existence and significance of ”push“ factors in tourist generation regions has been recognized in causal studies.

The generation region is the location of the basic market of the tourist industry, the source of potential tourism demand. Accordingly the major marketing functions of the tourist industry are conducted there: promotion, advertising, wholesaling, and retailing, underlying the marketing function is the question of why certain regions exhibit a tourist exodus, an issue with commercial and sociological relevance. There is correspondingly the matter of impact. What are the economic, social, and cultural effects in a community when a significant number of its members depart for tours into other regions?

Tourist destination regions can be defined as locations which attract tourists to stay temporarily, and in particular those features which inherently contribute to that attraction. In this context the attraction can be regarded as the anticipation by tourist of some qualitative charac­teristic, lacking in the tourist generation region, which the tourist wishes to experience personally. In a broader context, a definition of a tourist attraction would recognize that not all attractions draw tourists to a region: some are discovered en route.

Most tourism studies have been directed at the destination region. It is where the most significant and dramatic aspects occur. It is also the location of many parts of the tourist business: accommodation establishments, services, entertainment and recreational facilities.

Transit routes are paths linking tourist generating regions with tourist destination regions, along with tourists travel. They include stopover points which might be used for convenience or because of the existence of attractions. Transit routes are a vital element in the system. Their efficiency and characteristics influence the quality of access to particular destinations and accordingly they influence the size and direction of tourist flows. They are also a special case of tourism impacts, i.e., when changes arising from faster or longer haul transport cause stopover points to be bypassed. Transit routes are the location of the main transport component of the tourist industry.” (Leiper, 1979, pp. 396-397).

29 Even though Leiper is showing that transit routes might include attraction stopovers too little efforts is made in showing the importance of the route itself. During the last two decades the development of thematic routes like “die Romatische Strasse”, the Malt Whisky Trail, Scenic Routes, has been as an important element in travel as resort development. In the US this development started very early, the first Scenic Road came in 1913 (Lew, 1991). When adding boating, sailing, biking and trekking to the use of cars and coaches to move around, en route travel is not merely “transit”.

30 In Norway, however, such official designated “tourist route road” status were not obtained by any road until the summer of 1998 when four National Tourist Roads were selected. They are the Hardanger Fjord road, the Sognefjell Mountain Road, the Old Strynefjell road and the Coastal Road in Nordland county. All of these are situated close to our field study areas, and will be commented later as an information system.

31 Of course some roads have had an “unofficial name” presented in brochures, and sometimes even at road signs. Most of these were roads crossing the border between Norway and Sweden (the Blue Road, the Copper trail, etc.), but even some roads like the Atlantic road, the Golden route and the North Sea Road).

32 Leiper himself and others have later redrawn or extended the figure. In figure 3 the transit region or “the route environment” is more clearly defined, and the routes are indicated by direction lines. In this way the three main geogra­phical elements are still shown:

Tourist generation region or home, sometimes described as “market”

Transit region or routes, sometimes described as “the travelling environment”

Tourist destination region or sometimes described as destination and resort attractions.

33 This view has later been extended by many other authors, still the key elements will always be found! The next step might be to include further destination development first based on marketing or the transfer of information, later by including destination behaviour, and at the end – the aim of this paper – an extension to en route behaviour.

34 Some tourism development models are shown under the name of “the tourism system”. The first textbook using that name was by Mill & Morrison (1985). That book is mostly regarded as a marketing book, showing two “highways of communications”:

The awareness or marketing highway – where a destination tries to sell its image or products to a market

The transport highway ­ – where tourist actually are on the route, trying to reach the destination.

35 The content of the Mill & Morrison systems model (figure 4) does not differ much from the Leiper models, but add “marketing” as a specified tool of convincing people to travel to a certain destination. As a system of a spider web, an analysis could start at any box in the model.

36 Mill & Morrison (1985, p. xviii) gave each part a subscript:

Market – A consumer behaviour approach to market demand emphasizing both the external and internal influences on travel including the alternatives to travel, the market inputs of tourism suppliers, and the process by which a buying decision is reached.

Marketing – An examination of the process by which the destination area and individual suppliers market their products and services to potential customers with an emphasis on the effective use of distribution channels

Destination – An identification of the procedures that the destination area should follow to research, plan, regulate, develop, and service tourism activity

Travel – A description and analysis of major travel segments, travel flows, and modes of transportation used.

37 In the previous presented models, destinations have not been described and either the products or the stakeholders in destination development processes have been shown.

38 Models for analyzing travel patterns in connection to destination or resort development are many. Travis (1989) has integrated Leiper’s basic travel model with another site model looking at the destination experience – including the roles of producers. Another way of explaining this is to say that Travis also has included Mill & Morrison’s system in a destination development model. Communication of different types of information and marketing efforts are also included. The way this model is presented in figure 5 is slightly revised by this author after a personal discus­sion with Travis.

39 The upper circle in Travis’ model is similar to that of Mill & Morrison. But Travis extends the destination block into producing another circle, where “attractions” are regarded as the core of the destination, just because they seem to be the reasons for visiting a “desti­nation”. The two other elements of the lower circle are “services and facilities” and “people and place”. If we try to show the role of different producers or stakeholders in the Travis model, they might be:

People – represented by the tourist population themselves. Often a trip is entirely produced by the travellers, but other producers might be “tour operators”

Transporters – including both the travellers themselves (by own car or recreational vehicles) or different means of transport

Marketing and information persons – and later this part should be viewed in-depth

Destination developers – both including planers, governmental officials and investors

Attraction managers – representing both commercial and non-commercial bodies. Regarding business travel, meeting places and conference venues are the “attractions”.

Service and facility providers – including a group of producers formerly regarded as “the tourist trade”, the accommodation and catering sector. Shopping is also put in this block

40 and at last:

The regional human, culture and nature environment. Of course, in many cases the nature environment is also the main attraction for the travellers, especially those visiting rented or own cottages.

41 This means that the Travis’s model also functions well for describing who might be the stake­holders in a tourism development strategy. In Flognfeldt’s extension of the Travis model (figure 5) the transport part is divided into “en route-transport” and “transport within the destination area”. The latter is important, but was not directly communicated through Travis’s original model.

42 If summing up, the development of Leiper-based models has moved from movements to transit route to transport, and the inclusion of “the highway of information” or “marketing message” is supposed to move in the opposite direction. My way of research will then be to examine if actual tourists on the route adjust their behaviour to fit these models or vice versa.

The extended routes – the trip as a complete event

43 The Leiper model could also be extended to a route system in another way, by viewing the “extended route” as a way of mapping trip behaviour. This is a tradition from the mid-sixties, from before the presentation by Leiper (1979). In a study mainly focusing on how to estimate the value of outdoor recreation, Clawson & Knetsch (1965) described five stages of a trip. Their stages have been of great impor­tance, and been used by several authors in different ways. The comments below of each stage are made by this author, and describe how field work data of Lillehammer students has been used in different analyses.

Anticipation – including personal travel planning and advice from friends and relatives

Travel to site – most of the actual trip, plus things that happens during this trip

On-site experience – there might, of course, be more than one site to visit during a trip

Travel back home – the rest of the actual trip

Recollection – a process that never ends since memories of a specified trip is continuously changing often due to new travel experiences at other destinations.

44 There will most often be more than one site included in a trip. Travel to site might therefore be repeated, but there will only be one stage named “travel back home”.

45 Murphy (1985) has put the stages of Clawson & Knetsch into a more comprehensive model of development (figure 6). The model is separated into three ovals or descriptions. The outer part represent “the destination’s (promotional) point of view”, the middle part “tourists’ point of view” and the inner part an “outdoor recreation experience model” as shown by Clawson & Knetsch (1965). Such a view is very useful when examining both the destinations and the travelling patterns.

46 A similar model by Gunn (1998) is extended to seven phases of travel experience:

Accumulation of mental images about vacation experiences

Modification of those images by further information

Decision to take a vacation trip

Travel to destination

Participation at the destination

Return home

Modification of images based on the vacation experience

47 (Source: Murphy 1985)

48 By transferring Gunn’s (1998) phases 1, 2 and 7 into the Murphy model they could all be seen as destination image formation phases. If all these models should be transformed to a situation of interviewing tourists, figure 7 shows some differences based on where and when the interviews take place. One of the great challenges would be to use the different trip stages in marketing and information strategies.

Figure 7. Stages during the extended trip.

Source: Flognfeldt & Onshus, 1998

How can the “tourism systems” knowledge be used in a data collection process?

49 In the paper quoted in the beginning of this paper, Fridgen (1984) discussed every stage in the Clawson & Knetsch model. Fridgen both explained the lack of research based on the whole trip and on the transportation stages and asked for further research. In his discussion of elements in the Travel to Destination stage, Fridgen tells:

“Transit regions and destinations are competitive. The challenge for the transit region is to attract and hold tourists. The built environment is one medium used by a community to express itself, to inform travellers about its attractions and hospitality. Little is known about how empathy and curiosity are elicited in travellers as they encounter a community”.

50 For many repeating visitors to Norway, especially form Germany and the Netherlands, a pattern like this seems to be common:

“The first visit to Norway is a substantially long trip – duration 3 – 5 weeks – including either the Western Fjords, the Lofoten islands or the North Cape. The next trip is a regional one, giving possibilities of longer stay at certain destinations and shorter day stages. If they continue to visit Norway, one or a few sites previously visited are chosen as an accommodation base.” (Flognfeldt, 2000a)

51 Fridgen (1984) was also discussing the directional effects – is there a difference of how tourists view an area on the road to a destination, compared with what they view on the return back. He found no differences when viewing the beauty (of landscapes, nature and villages).

52 The destination phase, however, will both according to Fridgen and to our observation during the last 30 years, be the field which most research is centred on. In this area the roles of hosts are included in many research projects, in contrast to studies of hosts’ communities along the route. They might even be “hosts against their will” – just providing passing through access for caravans of cars on their ways to “green or eco-tourism destination environments” further North (Flognfeldt, 1997a).

53 If the “travel-to stage” has been of little concern to researchers as Fridgen underlines, the returning phase is even less understood. Themes of interest in such studies are: directional effects, social interaction patterns and constraints of time and money. Fridgen also raises a question about the need for examining where in the travelling pattern side-trips are most common? All these questions will be of great importance for those trying to make a living of transit tourist. This also includes studies of effects of local signposting and establishing scenic byways and short information based footpaths.

54 For consumption studies, these geographical areas will be divided into six time main periods (or stages in the consumption process) to show how to get a complete knowledge about all travel expenditures. Examples of such stages might be:

Pre decision stage. The expenditures of this stage are connected to the decision making pro­cess – maps, travel handbooks and other information material are the prime ones. As soon as the decision seems to be close, also some medicare expenditures like brushing up vaccinations, could be added to the “pre-paid expenses”.

Pre travel stage. The route or destination or at least the country to visit – is now chosen. Most expenditures are to pay for whole packages, or tickets, insurance and other parts of the trip. In addition clothing, sport gear, hand­books, film and medicines will complete this stage of expenditures. Some could be payments for services at the destination, others for transport to and from the destination and others are affiliated to take a trip without regards to where this trip will go.

Trip to main destination stage (Norway). In our case trips (for foreigners) from the respondents home address to Norway. Since Scandinavia until this year has been an “insular peninsula”, most foreign visitors must use either car ferries, train ferries or aircraft to enter the area.

Touring in Norway. In our case shall this be separated into three sub-stages:

D-1 On tour, before the interview takes place.

D-2 At interview site.

D-3 On tour, after interview took place.

Returning home from Norway stage.

After returning home – memories . The most focused part of this is film processing.

55 For Norwegian respondents, stages D-1 and D-3 are substitutes for stages C and E.

56 This list of possible stages (and at the same time of geographical areas) during the extended trip should be supplied by a list of possible ways of collecting information or the geographical areas where this collection might take place. Revised models might therefore be drawn to show the accurate stages of each data collection process.

57 The model of figure 7 might be extended for use in the analysis of tourists’ consump­tion. The “anticipation stage” of Clawson & Knetsch is divided into two stages:

Pre decision

58 For many practical uses such a division is important, i.e., when studying the response to different travelling information media (Flognfeldt & Nordgreen, 1999) or on consump­tion patterns (Flognfeldt, 2000).

Segmenting tourists by modes of travel

59 An important question has emerged during the ten years of field work data collecting and analysis of en route behaviour: which types of segments could better be used for explain­ing en route behaviour? The tradition in Norway, as else­where, has exclusively been to focus on nationalities for explaining travel behaviour. Expressions like: “The German do like this, opposed to tourists from the US who act like…”, seem to be widely used, even among professional market analysts. Experiences from field studies and tourism planning show that the nationality stereotypes often presented by marketers should not always be accepted as scientific without a further examina­tion that includes tests of other segments. The task must therefore be to test other types of seg­ments, in addition to nationality, such as modes of travel, use of transport, accommodation and some socio-demographic variables.

60 “Modes of travel” was tested in the first fieldwork (Flognfeldt, 1992 a & b). The origin was a model presented in Pearce (1987) based on Campbell (1966), that I thought could be interesting to use. Oppermann (1995) has been thinking in the same way by showing some models of tourism flow patterns. Figure 8 has to be explained a bit further.

Figure 8. Modes of travel according to the modified Campbell/Flognfeldt model of 1999.

61 Another of the methods of analysis was to look at the patterns of travelling to and through the region by geographical space and time models – like the one describing tour operated trips. Another is to focus on a series of different segments often descri­bed as modes of travelling.

62 This segmentation is based on the Campbell model (1966) – but reversed. Descriptions of trips according to modes of travelling:

Day trips – trips starting and finishing at home during the same day. As visitors they must be described as short time guests. Some times day trips are called “excursions”

Resort trips – trips to a place where the major part of the stay is at the accommodation location. These guest are those often favoured by marketing efforts – the reasons might be the belief that the longer stay in the region, the more profitable those guests are for the area. In some studies resorts are extended to “destination areas”.

Base holiday trips – the prime trip is going from home to a single accommodation unit with a longer stay than three nights. These visitors do take some day trips out of the accommodation area, i. e. to visit attractions, in addition to using on site attractions.

This group of travellers should have been split into two: those staying at a base in the field area and those staying outside. Only the latter group is focused in this paper since they will be short time guests. The bases differ from destination areas by the actual travel behaviour found during the visits.

Tour operated round trips – mainly by coaches – where the travellers are visiting new places every day and night. A few of those trips are based on combining railroads and local scheduled bus routes. These groups are very often staying for a very short time, either visiting an attraction during day time or just to get a nights’ sleep in a local hotel.

Round trips by private cars or recreation vehicles – are in principle organized as the tour operated ones, but those driving in private cars have a bigger freedom of individual choice during the trips. Some round trippers stay at the same site for a couple of days, others are just passing through.

63 The intention of the Campbell model was to examine modes of recreation travel. When regarding the modes of travel patterns from the point of view of the local tourism industry, also other modes of travel have to be included: in most studies, business travel and travel related to work or organizations therefore have to be added to the “Campbell modes of travel model” as important segments.

64 Not all parts of the travel experiences will take place at the area of accommodation. In Norway, types of base experiences may take place at a substantial distance away from the accom­modation bases. For middle of the day visitors to Røros we traced bases up to 250 kms away, telling that the day trips had a length of up to 500 kms plus a 4 – 6 hours stay at the attraction. Similar distances are measured for alpine ski resorts (Hafjell, Trysil, Hovden, Oppdal and Hemsedal) and theme parks like Hunderfossen Family Park.

65 Two different travelling distances or day trip fields are described in figure 9:

Visitor fields – indicating how far away from a base area might an experience take place if the visitors should be able to return to their base the same day

Attraction fields – indicating how long distance are day trippers will to go to an attraction and returning back the same day

Figure 9. Day trip commuting fields.

66 Both these distances are of high importance to those marketing accommodation areas.

67 The most usual way of segmenting travel is to use business and pleasure travel as the two different ones. This author has shown a way of segmenting travel according to when travel happens and who is paying for the trip – see figure 10.

68 Figure 10 has three dimensions: Work <-> leisure; who is paying for the trip and education travel. Flognfeldt (1979) includes five different types of travel based on these dimensions:

Holiday and leisure

Travel and commuting to/from work

Incentive travel

Business travel

Seminars and conferences

Figure 10. Segmenting according to work<->leisure and who is paying the trip.

Source: Flognfeldt, 1979

69 When looking at which type of accommodation a person is supposed to use, just examining his socio-demographic status might be lacking important information, like: “who is paying for this trip?”. The use of attractions will be different when an incentive traveller is visiting a resort com­pared to a business traveller, even if both travellers are paid by their employers. At a Saturday night train returning from the rural parts of Norway to Oslo, a group having used their second home for skiing and a commuter going for work on a road construction, will be on different trips.

70 What if the view should be turned – and seen from the local area? Another way of using the modified Campbell/Flognfeldt model is to view different groups of tourists from the way they are using a single site. This is shown in figure 10 where the point of view is from the destination area. In this way the local perception of travelling segments is another than the one regarding the whole trip.

71 At least five different travelling patterns “hit” this model region.

72 The model of figure 11 shows a very common structure of such mountain municipalities in Norway that are highly dependent on tourism. The model originates from studies of alpine ski resorts in mountain valleys. The service centre, which often also is the administrative centre of the municipality, is located down in the valley. In addition one ski resort or more are located further uphill due to better snow conditions. There will often be a competition between these two types of centres, especially on service provision and shopping possibilities (Flognfeldt, 1999 a).

Figure 11. Patterns of tourism travel – viewed from a local focus.

Source: Flognfeldt, 1995 a

73 The model indicates five different travelling patterns named after the most common segments using the pattern:

Resort tourism – where city tourism could be included by drawing the service centre and the resort functions (e.g. RBD) close to each other

En route tourists – either just passing through or choosing a short stop-over

Business travel, among others including:

Administrators

Service workers

Travel for local service demand

Base tourism

74 Especially when planning service provision to an area this model seems very useful. In addition segmentation based on the actual behaviour of the respondents has been tested, like:

Use of accommodation the night before interview

Use of modes of transport to reach the site of interview

Number of previous visits to the area, including those previously having lived permanently in the area

Trip index groups

75 Also a set of socio-demographic and psychographic descriptors will later in a later extended version of this paper be tested as segmentation tools. They seem very good in studies of attraction behaviour along the tourism routes.

Time geography models

76 The tradition of using time geography models introduced by Hägerstrand (1974 and 1978 a & b) in the early seventies. One of the aims of using such models was to look closer at how different segments of travellers (mostly daily commuters) used different modes of transport between home and office and activities (Mårtensson, 1978).

77 A very specific result of these studies was the introduction of the system of “flexible working hours” in Stockholm, Sweden. This innovation was later on adapted in many other environments resulting in a much more efficient use of transport.

78 Such time geography models were used in studies of local recreation travel behaviour, but in this author’s knowledge, not in any tourism travel behaviour study according to this author’s knowledge?

79 Why are then so few time-geography models used in tourism analyses? One reason might be that the bulk of time geography studies took place in the Seventies, some time before the studies of tourism really took off. Another must be that geographers and others have not been that interested in the dynamics of travel as Fridgen (1984) also has shown for psychologists. Studies taking place at a single resort or a regional level have had the priorities.

80 An attempt of showing three different time geography patterns of travel within a single day is described in figure 11 above.

81 Figure 12 shows the standardized geographic pattern of a day on a tour operated trip. Other figures are constructed to show a typical day trip and a similar day at a resort or an attraction type theme park.

Figure 12. Standardized pattern for a single days trip on a tour operated coach trip visiting a single and very attractive museum – like Maihaugen Open-air museum in Lillehammer or Lom Stave Church.

82 When trying to generalize these different time geography based travelling patterns into a model of potential site visitation, figure 13 shows an example model used by Flognfeldt (1999) to describe and analyze traffic patterns in the municipality of Lom in the Jotunheimen mountains of Norway.

Figure 13. How sites are located into different routes.

83 Travellers belonging to each of the four different visitor patterns described in figure 13 have very different behaviour both on attraction visitation and expenditures. Those on a pattern A trip are much more frequent attraction visitors than those on pattern B. This is seldom understood by local tourism promoters, since their main focus is to attract overnight stayers. Since short time stoppers (persons staying less than one night) are not registered in most statistics, their behaviour is under-focused in most consumption studies and other studies based on accommodation statistics.

84 Most often short time visitors are completely neglected as customers in such studies. When trying to combine economic studies based on expenditures with those based on the income of firms belonging to the tourism trade, this lack of measuring short time stoppers might be one of the reasons why there is a discrepancy between the two methods (Onshus, 1997).

Tourist that are visiting site Y just during daytime

Tourist that are just staying overnight at site Y

Tourists that are just going to visit site Y on a day-trip from home or holiday base

Tourist that are choosing site Y as a destination/resort for more than one night’s stay

85 Flognfeldt (1999) presented a survey conducted in Ottadalen 1995. On of his hypotheses was that those interviewed at a site between 1200 and 1700 hours were more likely to have been visiting a museum at the spot they were interviewed, than those interviewed later that night at an accom­modation site. The latter, however, could have been museum visitors that same day – at another site.

86 Thus both where an interview takes place and when is of high importance to the results of both consumption and attraction use studies.

87 Figure 14 shows the travel pattern registered in Ottadalen 1995. This region has a variety of nature and culture attractions. Many nature attractions are primary according to Leiper (1990), but only one cultural attraction is so. This is Lom Stave Church, a more that 900 years old church still in use for the local congregation. Lom is therefore a site to be visited by all four categories shown in figure 13.

Figure 14. Ottadalen 1995 Modes of travelling measured for 2368 respondents.

Figure 15. Population mobility in space and time.

88 When does a long lasting tourism trip become a part of a migration process instead? Bell & Ward (2000) has shown how a time and space diagram could be used to show different types of travel . Most types of movement in time and space are included in that model. Most forms of tourism are found on the shadowed part of the figure, with a duration between a day and a year.

89 This figure allows a much further discussion of time and space dimensions, both in tourism and other types of travel.

90 Measuring en route behaviour at a short stop site or for a wider destination area might also be done by using the trip index (Flognfeldt, 2000). One problem by using the trip index might be when the data collection is restricted to interviews at accommodation units.

Bibliographie

BELL M. & WARD G. (2000), “Comparing temporary mobility with permanent migration”, Tourism Geographies, 2 , 1, pp 87-107.

Butler R. W. (1980), “The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for management of resources”, Canadian Geographer, 24 , 1, pp. 5-12.

Campbell C. K. (1967), An approach to research in recreation geography , BC Occasional Papers No 7, 1967, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Carlstein T. Poukes D. & Thrift N. (1978), Human Activities and Time Geography, Edward Arnold, London.

Christaller W (1963), “Some considerations of tourism location in Europe: the peripheral regions – underdeveloped countries – recreation areas”, Regional Sciences Association Papers, 12, pp. 95-105.

C lawson M. & Knetsch J. L. (1966), Economics of Outdoor Recreation , John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, USA.

Delbaere R. (1994), La route du textile dans le Hainaut occidental belge , Paper presented at Conference on Geography of Tourism, Oppland College, Lillehammer.

Dewailly J.-M. (1998), “Images of Heritage in Rural regions”, in Butler R., Hall C. M. & jenkins J. (1998), Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas, Wiley, Chichester, UK.

Flognfeldt T. (1979) “Noen refleksjoner omkring begrepet 'reiseliv'”, (“Some reflections about the concept of 'travel and tourism'”), Plan og arbeid, no. 3, 1979.

Flognfeldt T. (1995a), Areal, sted og reiserute ( Area, site or route ), Fagbokforlaget, Bergen, Norway.

Flognfeldt T. (1995 b), Reiselivsgeografi ( Tourism Geography ), Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, Norway.

Flognfeldt T. (1997a), “Eco-Tourism in remote areas of Norway – just a green veneer?”, Paper presented at the ISMR XIII in Maynooth, Ireland 1995 and published in Byron R., Walsh J. & Breathnacht P. (1997), Sustainable Development on the North Atlantic Margin, Ashgate, UK.

Flognfeldt T. (1997b) “Cultural Attractions along the Tourist Routes”, Paper presented at the Trails in the Third Millenium Conference, Cromwell, Otago, New Zealand. Proceedings edited by Higham & Kearsley.

Flognfeldt T. (1998), Dombås – i vegen? (Dombås – in the road?) , Working paper 60/98, Lillehammer College.

Flognfeldt T. (1999 a), Trysil-prosjektet, Konsekvens- og mulighetsanalyse av en foreslått utbygging i Trysilfjellet for strekingen Innbygda – Nybergsund (The Trysil Project, A feasibility analysis for the areas of Innbygda and Nybergsund based inn a proposed Master Plan for developing the Trysilfjell area) , Working paper no 86/1999, Lillehammer College.

Flognfeldt T. (1999 b), “Impacts from the short time visitors to local communities in the mountain areas of Southern Norway”, The International Journal of Tourism Research, 1, 5, pp. 359-373.

Flognfeldt T. (2000 a), Reisendes oppholdstid på et sted. En refleksjon over bruk av opp­holdskvoter som mål på et steds betydning i reiseruta (The travellers stay at a site – a reflection of the usage of trip index to measure the importance of a site in the complete route) , Research report no. 55/2000, Lillehammer College.

Flognfeldt T. (2000 b), “Destination aesthetics along tourism routes. Architects’ and tourists’ perception of a site”, in Umbelino J. (coord.), Sustainable tourism, Centro de Estudos de Geografia e Planeamento Regional, Serie Estudos, No 3, Lisboa, Portugal.

Flognfeldt T. (2001), Developing new tourism products in the “Primary attraction shadow” , Paper presented at the 3 rd European TTRA Conference, Kiruna Sweden, Later revised for presentation in Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2002.

Flognfeldt T. & Onshus T. (1996), Reiselivsundersøkelsen i Ottadalen 1995, Rapport nr. 1. Data om de tilreisendes forbruk målt i Ottadalen juni- september 1995 (The Tourism Study at Ottadalen 1995, Report no. 1, Consumption ), Working paper no 35/1996, Lillehammer College.

Flognfeldt T. & Onshus T. (1998), Measuring tourism expenditures – methods and limita­tions , Paper presented at the IGU Study Group on the Geography of Sustainable Tourism Conference in Estoril, Portugal, August 1998, Revised 2000.

Flognfeldt T. & Nordgreen R. (1999), Information used for temporary stop decision-making along tourist routes in Norway, TTRA Annual Conference Proceedings.

Forfang H. G. (1976), The cultural tourists in Norway during the 19 th Century , Lecture at Oppland College (not published lecture notes in Norwegian).

Fridgen J. D. (1984), “Environmental Psychology and Tourism” , Annals of Tourism research, 11, pp. 19-39.

Gunn C. A. (1972), Vacationscape, Designing Tourist Regions , University of Texas, Austin, Later editions also included.

Haggett P. (1965), Locational Analysis in Human Geography , Edw. Arnold Ltd., London, UK.

Hall C. M. (1995), Introduction to tourism in Australia , Second edition, Longman, South Melbourne, Australia.

Hall C. M. (2000), Tourism planning. Policies, Processes and Relationships , Prentice Hall, Sydney, Australia.

Hägerstrand T. (1974), Orter i regional samverkan (Places in regional cooperation) , Statens offentliga utredningar (SOU, 1974-2), Allmänna förlaget, Stockholm, Sweden.

Hägerstrand T. (1978 a), “Survival and Arena”, in C arlstein T., Poukes D. & Thrift N. (1978), Human Activities and Time Geography , Edward Arnold, London.

Hägerstrand T. (1978 b), “A Note of the Quality of Life-Times”, in C arlstein T., Poukes D. & Thrift N. (1978), Human Activities and Time Geography, Edward Arnold, London.

Kleiven J. (2001), Praktisk bruk av Lillehammer-skalaene (Practical use of the Lillehammer scales), Working paper no. 121/2001, Lillehammer College.

Lees J. A. & Clutterbuck W. J. (1882), Three in Norway (From Norwegian edition 1967, Tre i Norge – ved to av dem. Tanum), Oslo.

Leiper N. (1979), “The Framework of Tourism. Towards a Definition of Tourism, Tourist and the Tourism Industry”, Annals of Tourism Research, 6, 2.

Leiper N. (1989), Tourism and Tourism Systems, Occasional Paper No.1, Department of Management Systems, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Leiper N. (1990), “Tourism Attraction Systems”, Annals of Tourism Research, 17, pp. 367-384.

Lew A. (1991), “Scenic Roads and Rural Development in the US”, Tourism Recreation Research, 16, 2, pp. 23-30.

M aier J. Ludwig J. & Hergel L. (1994), The impact of museums on the economic and cultural development in Upper Franconia, Bavaria, Paper presented at Conference on Geography of Tourism, Oppland College, Lillehammer.

M ill R. C. & Morrison A. M. (1985), The Tourism System: An Introductory Text, Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, US.

Miossec (1976), “Eléments pour une Theorie de l’espace touristique”, from Pearce D. (1988), Les Cahiers du Tourisme , Aix-en-Provence, France.

Myrphy P. (1985), Tourism – a Community Approach, Methuen, London, UK.

Mårtensson S. (1978), “Time Allocation and Daily Living Conditions”, in C arlstein T., Poukes D. & Thrift N. (1978), Human Activities and Time Geography, Edward Arnold, London.

N ordström O. & Mårtensson S. (1965), Turismen på öland , Department of Geography, University of Lund, Sweden.

Onshus T. (1997), Sommerturistenes forbruk. Hvem var høyforbrukerne i Ottadalen 1995? (The consumption of Summer tourists. Who were the high spenders in the Ottadalen valley 1995?), Unpublished Master Thesis, Buskerud College, Hønefoss/Lillehammer College.

Oppermann N. (1995), “A Model of Travel Itineraries”, Journal of Travel Research, 33 , 4.

Pearce D. (1987), Tourism Today: a geographical analysis, Longman Scientific & Technical, Essex, UK.

Pearce D. G. & Elliott J. M. C. (1983), “The Trip Index”, Journal of Travel Research , 22, 1.

Pryer M. (1997), “The Traveller as a Destination Pioneer”, Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research , 3, pp. 225-237.

R itchie J. R. B. & Goeldner C. R. (1994), Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research.A Handbook for Managers and Researchers , Second Edition, Wiley, NY, USA.

Skaarud B. (1996), Analyse av den individuelle dagsturisten til Ottadalen (fra Valdres og Gudbrandsdalen) med innslag av strategiske elementer (An analysis of the individual day-trippers to the Ottadal valley), Diploma Thesis in Tourism, Lillehammer College.

Sømme A. (1965), Fjellbygd og feriefjell (Mountain Community and Holiday Mountains), Ad Novas, Cappelen, Oslo, Norway.

Sømme A. (1970), Fritid og feriemiljø (Leisure and holiday environment) , Ad Novas no. 8, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, Norway.

Thurot J. M. (1980), Le Tourisme tropical balnéaire: le modèle caraïbe et ses extensions , Thèse, Centre d’Etudes du Tourisme, Aix-en-Provence, France, from Pearce (1987).

Towner R. (1996), A historical Geography of Recreation and Tourism in the Western World 1540-1940 , Wiley, New York.

Travis A. S. (1989), “Tourism destination Area development” (From Theory into Practice), in Witt S. & Moutinho L. (1989).

Vittersø J., Vorkinn M., Vistad O. I. & Vaagland J. (2000), “Tourist experiences and attractions”, Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 2, pp. 432-450.

Vogt J. W. (1976), “Wandering, youth and travel behaviour”, Annals of Tourism Research, 4, 2, pp. 74-105 (quoted from Pryer , 1997).

W eaver D. & Oppermann M. (2000), Tourism management, John Wiley & Sons, Australia, Brisbane.

W itt S. & Moutinho L. (1989), Tourism Marketing and Management Handbook, Prentice Hall, New York, NY, USA.

Table des illustrations

Pour citer cet article, référence papier.

Thor Flognfeldt jr. , «  The tourist route system – models of travelling patterns  » ,  Belgeo , 1-2 | 2005, 35-58.

Référence électronique

Thor Flognfeldt jr. , «  The tourist route system – models of travelling patterns  » ,  Belgeo [En ligne], 1-2 | 2005, mis en ligne le 27 octobre 2013 , consulté le 23 août 2024 . URL  : http://journals.openedition.org/belgeo/12406 ; DOI  : https://doi.org/10.4000/belgeo.12406

Thor Flognfeldt jr.

Lillehammer University College, Norway, [email protected]

Droits d’auteur

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0 . Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Numéros ouverts

• 2024 1  | 2  | 3  | 4

Numéros en texte intégral

• 2023 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2022 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2021 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2020 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2019 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2018 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2017 1  | 2-3  | 4
• 2016 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2015 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2014 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2013 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2012 1-2  | 3  | 4
• 2011 1-2  | 3-4
• 2010 1-2  | 3  | 4
• 2009 1  | 2  | 3-4
• 2008 1  | 2  | 3-4
• 2007 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2006 1-2  | 3  | 4
• 2005 1-2  | 3  | 4
• 2004 1  | 2-3  | 4
• 2003 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2002 1  | 2  | 3  | 4
• 2001 1-2  | 3  | 4
• 2000 1-2-3-4

Tous les numéros

Compléments électroniques.

• Dossiers & archives
• Comité de rédaction
• Evaluateurs / Referees
• Announcement
• Libre accès aux revues de géographie belges / Free access to Belgian geography journals
• Instructions aux auteurs – Notes for authors

Informations

• Mentions légales et crédits
• Politiques de publication

Appels à contribution

• Appels en cours
• Appels clos

Suivez-nous

Lettres d’information

• La Lettre d’OpenEdition

Affiliations/partenaires

ISSN électronique 2294-9135

Voir la notice dans le catalogue OpenEdition  

Plan du site  – Mentions légales et crédits  – Flux de syndication

Politique de confidentialité  – Gestion des cookies  – Signaler un problème

Nous adhérons à OpenEdition Journals  – Édité avec Lodel  – Accès réservé

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search

What is tourist generating area?

A tourist generating area is a place that is popular with visitors. Usually these places are historical landmarks, museums, or attractions.

Reesha Siva ∙

SAIDATUL WANIDAH BIN... ∙

Add your answer:

What is a tourist generating region?

an area that generates tourism to promote growth for the area

The Algarve is the main tourist area of which country?

The Algarve is the main tourist area of Portugal

What is the area of Mount Kumgang Tourist Region?

The area of Mount Kumgang Tourist Region is 530 square kilometers.

Identify three demands determinants of tourist generating region. Discuss your answers with possible examples?

Is kazakhstan a tourist area, what is a famous tourist area in massachusetts.

Cape Cod area

What is local tourist?

A local tourist is someone visiting interesting sites in his own area.

What area is NOT a popular tourist destination?

Pakistan and Afganistan

What is meant by a tourist generating country?

refers to the country or region that offers/ organises or books the original tourism product for purchase on behalf of an offshore wholesaler.

What are the tourist attraction in region VIII?

San Pedro Island is one tourist attraction in region VIII. Biri Rock formations are another tourist attraction in the area.

Is old harry rocks a popular tourist area?

What is the definition of a tourist.

A tourist is temporary visitor to any area away from the visitors immediate home region for the purposes of pleasure or interest.

Top Categories

• Diversity Inclusion
• Advisory Panel
• Our Audience
• Private Tourism Academies
• Tourism Ambassador Training
• Destination Training
• Tourism Keynote Speakers
• Sponsorship
• Business Class Podcast
• Skill & Knowledge
• Product Training
• Our Technology
• Become An Instructor
• Sponsorship Opportunities
• Product Training & Promotion
• Hire Us To Speak

How Does Tourism Benefit Local Communities?

Tourism is a thriving industry that not only brings in visitors from around the world but also has significant positive impacts on local communities. While the economic benefits of tourism are well-known, its contributions to social, cultural, and environmental aspects are often overlooked. This article will explore how tourism can catalyze sustainable development and create a range of advantages for local communities.

Economic Growth and Job Creation: One of the most apparent benefits of tourism is its role in generating economic growth and employment opportunities. Tourists visit a destination and spend money on accommodation, transportation, food, shopping, and various services. This expenditure stimulates the local economy, increasing business activities and new jobs. Hotels, restaurants, tour operators, and local artisans are among the many businesses that directly benefit from the influx of tourists.

Preservation of Cultural Heritage: Tourism plays a significant role in preserving and promoting the cultural heritage of local communities. Visitors are often eager to explore a destination's unique traditions, customs, and historical sites. This creates a demand for cultural experiences, encouraging locals to preserve their traditions and showcase their heritage. By valuing their cultural assets, communities are motivated to protect historical landmarks, monuments, festivals, and traditional craftsmanship, which might have been neglected or forgotten.

Community Development and Infrastructure Improvement: Tourism can lead to the development of community infrastructure and public services. The revenue generated from tourism can be reinvested in improving transportation networks, healthcare facilities, educational institutions, and public spaces. This benefits tourists and enhances the quality of life for local residents. Additionally, the need to provide a positive visitor experience can encourage communities to invest in better facilities, amenities, and attractions, which ultimately benefit both tourists and locals alike.

Encouragement of Small Businesses and Entrepreneurship: The tourism industry allows small businesses and local entrepreneurs to thrive. Locals can establish their guesthouses, homestays, restaurants, tour companies, souvenir shops, and other tourism-related enterprises. This fosters entrepreneurship and empowers individuals within the community, promoting self-sufficiency and economic diversification. The growth of small businesses contributes to a more balanced and sustainable local economy, reducing dependency on a single industry.

Cultural Exchanges and Social Understanding: Tourism acts as a bridge for cultural exchange, fostering greater understanding and appreciation between visitors and locals. When tourists engage with the community, they gain insights into the local way of life, traditions, and customs. Similarly, locals can learn about different cultures, perspectives, and values. These interactions promote mutual respect and tolerance, breaking down stereotypes and fostering a sense of global citizenship.

Environmental Conservation and Sustainable Practices: Tourism can also drive environmental conservation and sustainable practices. Destinations with natural attractions often rely on preserving their environment to attract tourists. This incentivizes local communities to protect and conserve their natural resources, such as forests, wildlife, and marine ecosystems. Sustainable tourism practices, including responsible waste management, energy conservation, and eco-friendly initiatives, can benefit the environment and the community's long-term well-being.

RELATED: Train Your Tourism Ambassadors

Conclusion: Tourism brings many benefits to local communities beyond economic gains. It contributes to cultural preservation, infrastructure development, entrepreneurship, social understanding, and environmental conservation. By embracing sustainable tourism practices and involving local communities in decision-making processes, we can ensure that the positive impacts of tourism are maximized while minimizing its potential negative consequences. As travelers, we have the power to support and promote tourism that benefits local communities, ultimately creating a more inclusive and sustainable world.

Leave a comment

Related articles, the best time to launch your tourism ambassador training, leveraging online learning to build a sustainable tourism economy: a case study of rwenzori tourism academy in uganda, bordering a unesco site, the tourism academy's role in preserving local culture and natural habitats: empowering dmos.

Travel, Tourism & Hospitality

Global tourism industry - statistics & facts

What are the leading global tourism destinations, digitalization of the global tourism industry, how important is sustainable tourism, key insights.

Detailed statistics

Total contribution of travel and tourism to GDP worldwide 2019-2034

Number of international tourist arrivals worldwide 1950-2023

Global leisure travel spend 2019-2022

Editor’s Picks Current statistics on this topic

Leading global travel markets by travel and tourism contribution to GDP 2019-2022

Travel and tourism employment worldwide 2019-2034

Further recommended statistics

• Basic Statistic Total contribution of travel and tourism to GDP worldwide 2019-2034
• Basic Statistic Travel and tourism: share of global GDP 2019-2034
• Basic Statistic Leading global travel markets by travel and tourism contribution to GDP 2019-2022
• Basic Statistic Global leisure travel spend 2019-2022
• Premium Statistic Global business travel spending 2001-2022
• Premium Statistic Number of international tourist arrivals worldwide 1950-2023
• Basic Statistic Number of international tourist arrivals worldwide 2005-2023, by region
• Basic Statistic Travel and tourism employment worldwide 2019-2034

Total contribution of travel and tourism to gross domestic product (GDP) worldwide in 2019 and 2023, with a forecast for 2024 and 2034 (in trillion U.S. dollars)

Travel and tourism: share of global GDP 2019-2034

Share of travel and tourism's total contribution to GDP worldwide in 2019 and 2023, with a forecast for 2024 and 2034

Total contribution of travel and tourism to GDP in leading travel markets worldwide in 2019 and 2022 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Leisure tourism spending worldwide from 2019 to 2022 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Global business travel spending 2001-2022

Expenditure of business tourists worldwide from 2001 to 2022 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Number of international tourist arrivals worldwide from 1950 to 2023 (in millions)

Number of international tourist arrivals worldwide 2005-2023, by region

Number of international tourist arrivals worldwide from 2005 to 2023, by region (in millions)

Number of travel and tourism jobs worldwide from 2019 to 2023, with a forecast for 2024 and 2034 (in millions)

• Premium Statistic Global hotel and resort industry market size worldwide 2022-2023
• Premium Statistic Most valuable hotel brands worldwide 2023, by brand value
• Basic Statistic Leading hotel companies worldwide 2023, by number of properties
• Premium Statistic Number of hotels in the construction pipeline worldwide 2024
• Premium Statistic Number of hotel rooms in the construction pipeline worldwide 2024
• Premium Statistic Countries with the most hotel construction projects in the pipeline worldwide 2024

Exploring tourism competitiveness in developing economies: residents’ perspective

• Open access
• Published: 17 August 2024
• Volume 5 , article number  201 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sanja Kovačić 1 ,
• Marija Cimbaljević 1 ,
• Vanja Pavluković 1 &
• Slobodan Jovanović 2  

189 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Understanding the factors that contribute to tourism competitiveness in developing economies is essential for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers, as these countries still struggle to fully capitalize on their tourism potential. The residents’ perspective, often overlooked in Tourism Destination Competitiveness (TDC) models, is crucial because they are the primary stakeholders who directly experience the consequences of tourism activities in their daily lives. Their positive attitudes can contribute to a welcoming and friendly environment, enhancing the competitiveness of the destination in the global tourism market. Up to now, there have been a few studies that relate residents’ attitudes to tourism destination competitiveness. However, none have focused on developing a tailor-made model for measuring residents’ perspectives on TDC. To develop such a specific model and contribute to the existing theory in this area, our research applied a multi-step approach, including a literature review of existing models, pilot testing for indicator selection, and model validation through CFA. The data were collected through a survey of residents in Serbia, chosen as an example of a developing country. The final model of the study consists of five factors: Natural and Cultural Resources, Quality of Tourist Offer and Infrastructure, Situational Framework of Tourism Development and Management, Destination Perception and Experience, and Pollution, containing 32 indicators. Practical applicability of the model and theoretical contributions are discussed in the paper, as well as the TDC evaluation for Serbia.

Similar content being viewed by others

Formative-reflective scheme for the assessment of tourism destination competitiveness: an analysis of Italian municipalities

Qualitative Research in Tourism - Use of WebQDA in the C’s Tourist Destination Competitiveness Matrix

Territorial Differentiation, Competitiveness and Sustainability of Tourism

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Tourism plays a crucial role in the economic development of many nations, particularly in developing economies, where it can be a significant driver of growth and employment. Formerly marginalized in the tourism sector, the developing world has now evolved into a key driver of its expansion [ 1 ]. However, advanced nations consistently hold top positions in the World Economic Forum (WEF) Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index. Meanwhile, developing economies express concerns regarding environmental sustainability, human resources, job prospects in tourism, and the prioritization of tourism [ 2 ]. According to Sanches-Pereira and associates [ 3 ], developing countries have yet to fully capitalize on their tourism potential. Therefore, understanding the factors that contribute to tourism competitiveness in developing economies is essential for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers alike.

Numerous studies have explored tourism competitiveness, aiming to comprehend the diverse factors influencing a country’s capacity to attract and retain tourists [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. The evaluation of a country’s tourism competitiveness encompasses an analysis of various dimensions, including natural and cultural resources, infrastructure, policy environment, and overall appeal to tourists. The majority of these studies were carried out in well-established destinations and emphasize the viewpoints of tourism experts and industry practitioners, who are deemed to possess the highest level of knowledge regarding management and competitiveness [ 11 ]. Unfortunately, the perspective of residents has been largely overlooked.

Residents, as integral stakeholders, contribute to the co-creation of the destination’s identity, influencing its attractiveness and sustainability. They play a crucial role in shaping the destination’s image and influencing the overall visitor experience. To achieve sustainable and inclusive tourism development in any country, particularly a developing one, and to ensure the overall well-being of local communities, residents’ attitudes towards tourism development should be acknowledged [ 12 ]. Positive attitudes can contribute to a welcoming and friendly environment, enhancing the competitiveness of the destination in the global tourism market. The residents’ perspective is crucial because they are the primary stakeholders who directly experience the consequences of tourism activities in their daily lives. Residents of different destinations may have a different view of what characterizes a good stay and well-being in a destination compared to experts or tourists [ 13 , 14 ]. Unlike tourists, residents tend to have a more complex interpretation of a destination, as it holds greater significance for them beyond being just a vacation spot. For residents, a tourist destination is a social place where they earn their livelihood, interact with community members, utilize resources that influence their living and working conditions, and enjoy natural resources and cultural offerings for their personal well-being. When they have the opportunity to leverage these resources, they actively engage in tourism-related activities by providing services to tourists [ 15 ]. Additionally, these residents possess local knowledge that can enhance the tourist experience by recommending attractions or facilities to visit [ 16 ]. Thus, their role in evaluating destination attributes is significant, as they serve as prosumers—both consumers of local services and co-creators of the tourist experience. Moreover, the evaluation of destination attributes is complex for this group of stakeholders, as their perspectives can significantly impact the residents' quality of life [ 17 ]. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the key determinants of tourism competitiveness in a developing country from the residents’ viewpoint.

In this context, Serbia was chosen as the research area because it is an emerging tourism destination and a developing economy actively seeking a stronger presence in the global tourism arena. Strategically located in Southeast Europe, Serbia boasts a diverse cultural and historical heritage, abundant tourism attractions, and faces notable developmental challenges, sustainability efforts, and deliberate market positioning. This makes Serbia an interesting area for studying tourism destination competitiveness (TDC). The country holds a relatively modest competitive position globally, ranking 83rd among 140 countries listed in the WEF Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2019 [ 2 ]. The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) reported that in 2021, the total contribution of travel and tourism to Serbia’s GDP was 3.6%, and it accounted for 5.4% of employment [ 18 ]. Recognizing tourism as a priority sector, Serbia aims to leverage it for overall economic and social growth [ 19 ]. However, academic studies on TDC in Serbia are scarce and primarily focus on the perspectives of tourism experts and industry practitioners [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no attempt has been made so far to investigate residents’ opinions towards TDC in Serbia. Therefore, this study is significant as it aims to address this gap by developing a tailored competitiveness model that considers Serbian residents’ attitudes toward competitiveness indicators.

Through a comprehensive analysis, the study aims to shed light on the key factors influencing the tourism competitiveness of a developing economy, thereby offering valuable policy recommendations for fostering sustainable tourism development in developing economies. The paper is structured as follows: Sect.  2 sets the theoretical framework, Sect.  3 describes the methodology, Sect.  4 presents the main results, Sect.  5 provides a discussion, and Sect.  6 outlines the main conclusions.

2 Literature review

2.1 the role of residents in assessing the competitiveness of a tourist destination.

Tourist destinations that demonstrate the ability to foster economic prosperity or environmental well-being, while also prioritizing environmental conservation and enhancing residents’ quality of life, are likely to positively influence residents’ perceptions of tourism and increase the overall destination’s competitiveness [ 24 , 25 ]. Numerous empirical studies have been conducted to date, applying various TDC models. These studies utilize data on specific destinations to assess the significance of attributes relevant to tourism competitiveness [ 11 , 26 ]. It is unlikely that all these factors have the same impact and significance in shaping the level of competitiveness for different stakeholders within the tourism industry. Nonetheless, it is crucial to establish a comprehensive list of relevant variables and promote research conducted from the perspective of various stakeholders for a thorough understanding of a destination’s competitiveness. The role of residents in assessing destination competitiveness can be approached from different aspects. When managing the competitiveness and development of a destination, it is important to take into account local perspectives, as residents are inherent and deeply engaged stakeholders. Furthermore, the residents’ perspectives become increasingly significant, particularly in organizational aspects, as residents will assume a foundational role in presenting the destination's image, preserving its heritage, and enhancing its attractiveness [ 9 , 27 ].

Research focusing on destination image states that residents’ positive perceptions of the destination image may positively influence their views on the impacts and changes imposed by tourism in the community [ 28 ]. Since destination image serves as a reliable measure of destination attractiveness, it naturally contributes to the destination's competitiveness [ 29 ]. As a result, residents play a crucial role in strengthening the destination image, which is vital for setting the place apart from other destinations [ 9 ]. This, in turn, can increase their intention to support the development of tourism and enhance the destination’s competitiveness. When considering the contribution of communities to promoting tourism development, residents are recognized as both carriers and actors in destination marketing and competitiveness efforts. The competitiveness of a destination encompasses not only its natural landmarks but also its unique cultural and heritage aspects inherent to the locality. Strzelecka and associates [ 30 ] discovered that residents with deeper knowledge and comprehension of natural and cultural resources manifest a stronger sense of place attachment. This indicates that residents perceive various aspects of destination competitiveness that are closely related to the distinctive local environments and accessible resources at destinations. Initially, residents tend to perceive certain characteristics of TDC at a high level, including natural and cultural competitiveness. Ahn and Bessiere [ 15 ] examine that distinctive regional characteristics like contextual and natural competitiveness are valued as crucial tourism assets by residents. Additionally, technological advancements such as mobile applications, artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and online information are recognized as significant elements of destination competitiveness. Consequently, practitioners and governments should aim to maximize the utilization of these competitive resources, foster the development of innovative travel products and activities, and create strategies for successful and sustainable destination management. Success for a tourist destination is often measured by various indicators such as the number of tourists, tourism revenue, length of stay, visitor satisfaction, and the destination’s image. However, true success goes beyond these quantitative measures to include qualitative aspects like resident satisfaction, environmental sustainability, and the overall quality of life for those living in the destination.

The connection between competitiveness and success lies in a destination’s ability to balance the needs and expectations of tourists with the well-being of its residents and the sustainability of its resources. A highly competitive destination that attracts many visitors might not be truly successful if it neglects the quality of life of its residents or the preservation of its natural and cultural assets [ 14 ]. Conversely, a destination that prioritizes resident satisfaction and sustainability is likely to achieve long-term success, fostering a supportive community and preserving its appeal for future visitors. Research by Dwyer [ 14 , 31 ] emphasizes the importance of incorporating broader measures of success into the evaluation of destination competitiveness. This includes considering factors such as resident well-being, environmental impact, and socio-cultural benefits.

Bu and associates [ 9 ] analyzed residents’ attitudes toward tourism development, focusing on perceived advantages, experienced effects, and willingness to support tourism initiatives. Their research highlighted residents’ belief in the government’s pivotal role in enhancing a destination’s image and competitiveness. This underscores the need to prioritize enhancing residents’ quality of life and well-being through tourism. Effective destination governance stresses the involvement of residents in the development process [ 32 ] acknowledging their direct experience of tourism's impacts [ 33 ]. Prioritizing residents’ interests is crucial for maximizing benefits from tourism development and fostering sustainable destination growth [ 30 , 34 ]. Detailed insights into residents' perspectives can validate planning processes and promote community-based sustainable development approaches [ 35 ]. Studies indicate that residents may perceive environmental impacts of tourism negatively. Gajdosik and associates [ 33 ] highlighted concerns such as noise pollution, water and air pollution, and issues with parking and construction. On the other hand, Vodeb [ 36 ] emphasized the importance of early engagement with residents in destination development to secure their participation and manage expectations effectively. This collaborative approach ensures that actions align with community interests and receive local support.

The role of residents in shaping the competitiveness of a destination is often underestimated but becomes apparent through their attitudes toward tourists and their impact on enhancing visitor experiences and the overall destination atmosphere. Previous studies have explored residents’ emotional responses and attitudes toward tourists [ 37 ], their behavioral interactions with tourists [ 25 ], and their cognitive assessments of tourism [ 38 ]. Local residents play a crucial role in shaping the visitor experience by actively participating in and contributing to tourism products and services. Positive interactions between residents and tourists contribute to a favorable destination image, thereby increasing competitiveness [ 9 , 27 ]. Tse & Wing Sun Tung [ 25 ] highlight various strategies for policymakers in the tourism sector to foster positive resident-tourist interactions, thereby enhancing destination attractiveness and competitiveness.

Studies also examine how residents act as ambassadors for their destinations, influencing others, including family and friends, to visit their hometowns [ 39 , 40 ]. As reliable informants, residents actively contribute to the uniqueness and attractiveness of their city when recommending it [ 41 ]. Thus, destination management organizations (DMOs) could benefit from involving residents more actively in destination promotion, potentially boosting both competitiveness and effective promotion [ 25 ].

Several studies have examined the economic impact of tourism from residents’ perspectives, revealing that residents typically view these impacts positively [ 42 ]. The competitive attributes of a destination can enhance its economic benefits, particularly when residents effectively utilize local resources [ 43 ]. This perspective suggests that increasing household income can confer a competitive advantage. Residents achieve this through various tourism-related business activities, such as selling handmade goods, running restaurants, and providing services as local travel agencies and guides [ 31 , 44 ].

Research on residents’ perceptions of tourism development and competitiveness primarily focuses on identifying, quantifying, and comparing different attributes that potentially shape perceptions of tourism and its effects [ 33 ]. Bu and colleagues [ 9 ] argue that tourism planners should actively seek input and recommendations from local residents regarding destination management and promotion, thereby evaluating resources as critical factors contributing to competitiveness. Additionally, tourism planning initiatives should offer opportunities for residents to engage in various activities and foster effective coordination among stakeholders.

While it is crucial for destinations to establish long-term competitive strategies aimed at enhancing their ability to offer diverse tourism experiences, it is equally important to understand how local residents perceive the competitiveness of their destination. Most significantly, local residents play an active role in contributing to tourism planning [ 45 ]. Despite this pivotal role, there remains a noticeable gap in the tourism literature regarding the analysis of residents' perceptions of destination competitiveness and their influential role in shaping this process. To address this gap, the present study aims to evaluate the developed model of competitiveness specifically with the local population as the target group. Developing and refining a measurement model tailored to assess residents' perspectives on tourism destination competitiveness involves creating comprehensive frameworks that capture their perceptions across different dimensions such as natural and cultural resources, quality of tourism offerings, infrastructure, management frameworks, and environmental concerns. While literature on residents’ perspectives regarding tourism destination competitiveness is currently limited, this research may prove valuable in conducting studies across developing economies to understand variations in resident attitudes and factors influencing tourism competitiveness.

The paper also outlines key points and highlights the gaps in research regarding the role of residents in evaluating TDC (see Table  1 ). Such research enables tourism planners and policymakers to assess the strengths and weaknesses of destinations [ 23 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ], drawing insights from local residents. The objective is to create a model that is tailored to the preferences and perspectives of this target group, thereby promoting the significance of local involvement and participation. Given the dynamic nature of destinations, which evolve over time and undergo continuous change, the primary contribution of the present study is to identify the key determinants and planning factors that residents perceive as crucial for enhancing the competitiveness of their destination.

3 Methodology

The creation of the model is performed in three stages: In-depth literature review, Pilot testing and Model set and validation.

3.1 In-depth literature review

In order to generate a pool of indicators for measuring TDC, a detailed literature review has been done, taking into account the Scopus database in the period of from 2000 to March 2022. A total of 558 papers with the main keywords “destination competitiveness” and “sustainable tourism indicators” were selected for the analysis, while after initial screening, 232 papers were selected as relevant for further analysis. Most of these studies utilized established models for TDC evaluation, particularly relying on well-known models such as the Integrated Destination Competitiveness model [ 50 ] or the Ritchie and Crouch [ 51 ] model, emphasizing the perspectives of tourism experts and industry stakeholders, while overlooking the viewpoint of residents. In the second round of analysis, 12 tourism experts from Serbia reviewed the indicators extracted from relevant papers and removed repetitive and irrelevant items for the analysis of TDC. After a long process of purifying the relevant indicators, a list of 165 indicators was extracted and included in the pilot questionnaire for local communities.

3.2 Pilot testing

Pilot testing was conducted from June to August 2022 via email and standard paper-pen surveys with representatives of local communities in Serbia. Participants were randomly selected from major cities and tourism destinations such as Subotica, Novi Sad, Belgrade, Niš, Leskovac, Zlatibor, and Kopaonik. The pilot research aimed to eliminate any misunderstandings related to the questions and to remove indicators that community members lacked sufficient knowledge to evaluate. Respondents were asked to estimate the relevance of each of the 165 indicators for measuring the tourism destination competitiveness (TDC) of Serbia on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 (1—not relevant at all, 5—very relevant). They were also given options to mark 6 if a question was “not well formulated” and 0 if they felt they “didn’t have enough knowledge.”

Indicators were divided into logical groups to facilitate the elimination and evaluation process. Pilot testing was conducted on a sample of 30 representatives of local communities. Typically, preliminary pilot tests are administered to a small set of respondents, with a sample size of about 30 to 50 individuals [ 52 ]. Afterwards, the responses were analyzed, and indicators were ranked based on the mean values of the answers and standard deviations. Indicators with a mean value below 4 and high standard deviations were marked for exclusion from the study. Additionally, any indicators that were unclear or beyond the scope of local knowledge were eliminated. From the initial 165 indicators, 60 relevant indicators were identified for the final stage of the research.

3.3 Model set and validation

3.3.1 participants.

A total of 456 representatives from local communities across Serbia participated in the final stage of the research. For model validation, the sample was divided into two parts: Sample 1 (N = 153 respondents) was used for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), while Sample 2 (N = 303 respondents) was used for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). In both samples, there were slightly more female respondents. The age range was from 18 to 73 in Sample 1 and up to 75 in Sample 2. The highest number had completed secondary school, followed by those with higher education. Additionally, the majority of the sample were not employed in tourism.

3.3.2 Procedure and research instrument

The field research with the local population of Serbia was carried out from June until December in 2023. A total of 456 respondents from all over Serbia participated in the survey. The largest number of respondents are from Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš, Subotica, Leskovac, Užice, Kopaonik and Zlatibor, but the sample also includes subjects from the rest of Serbia. One of the primary criteria for conducting the research was selecting cities and tourist regions that play a significant role in Serbia’s tourism industry, offer diverse tourist attractions, and have the potential to provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing TDC. The sample selection was random, with the condition that respondents reside in the given city/destination and are above 18 years old.

The survey instrument consisted of 60 items measuring TDC of Serbia, which were extracted in the previous phases of model building, as well as socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. The participants were asked to evaluate their agreement with the statements referring to TDC of Serbia on a 5-point Likert scale (1-I totally disagree, 5-I totally agree). The research was conducted using standard paper-and-pen surveys by 10 trained researchers who collected data in the field. Additionally, respondents were offered the option to complete the survey via tablet or mobile phones to accommodate different preferences and ensure maximum reach. Researchers conducted on-site intercept surveys at key locations such as parks, shopping centres, public transportation hubs, tourist attractions, as well as during some local events and gatherings. This involved directly approaching individuals in these areas and inviting them to participate in the survey. In some cases, local tourism organizations helped to distribute the survey and encouraged participation. Small incentives, such as faculty promotional gifts (e.g. pencils, folders, notepads) were offered to encourage participation. Clear and concise information about the purpose of the survey, its importance, and how the data would be used was provided to potential respondents. The survey was anonymous and voluntary, but respondents were asked to provide some basic information such as age, gender and education (Table  2 ). Statistical software IBM SPSS 23 and AMOS were used for data analysis.

4.1 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

In order to identify the latent dimensions of Serbia's TDC, EFA was conducted on sample 1 (N = 153 respondents). Item analysis showed a high KMO = 0.923, and the statistically significant value of Bartlett’s sphericity test was confirmed (χ2 = 9896.90, df = 2485, p < 0,000). The analysis of item correlations revealed a significant number of correlations with values above 0.3, which led to the conclusion that the data are suitable for EFA. Items that had factor loadings lower than 0.3 (a total of 10 items) were excluded from the further analysis [ 53 ]. The method of principal components with Promax rotation (due to established correlations between factors) and Kaiser normalization was used to extract factors. As a result, considering only factors whose eigenvalues were equal to or greater than one, five factors were extracted with total of 50 items, which explain 50,56% of the variance. The five identified factors are: F1 Natural and cultural resources, F2 Quality of Tourist offer and infrastructure, F3 Situational conditions for tourism development and management, F4 Destination perception and experience, and F5 Pollution. The results of EFA are presented in Table  3 .

4.2 Confirmatory factory analysis

CFA is used on sample 2 (N = 303 respondents) to validate and confirm the factor structure obtained by EFA. The AMOS program for the Windows operating system was used for CFA. The Mardia index of multivariate kurtosis was above 3 for all tested models, indicating significant multivariate kurtosis. Therefore, it was justified to use robust methods and indices based on this method [ 54 ]. The fit or appropriateness of the model was assessed using the following indices: Sattora-Bentler χ 2 (S-B χ 2 )—if it is insignificant, then the model has a good fit, but since it is sensitive to the number of respondents, it is mostly significant in a greater number of cases, Standardized Root Mean-Square Residual (SRMR), Root Mean-Square Error Of Approximation (RMSEA)—SRMR and RMSEA should be less than 0.08 [ 55 ], Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI)—if the CFI, NFI and NNFI are over 0.90, the model has a good fit [ 56 ]. In order to achieve adequate fit indices, modification indices were used with which AMOS suggests and proposes changes to the model.

When the first model obtained by exploratory factor analysis was tested, satisfactory fit indices were not achieved. First, it was suggested that several items should be excluded because they achieved saturation on several factors simultaneously (8 items in total). Moreover, the items that initially were part of the factor Situational conditions for tourism development and management (The positioning of the country as a tourist destination on the international market is effective, Social networks are effectively used to support the marketing activities) are suggested to be a part of the factor Destination perception and experience.

After these changes, the model was run again, and although the fit indices were visibly improved, a satisfactory fit index was still not achieved. The modification indices now suggested the exclusion of 10 more items. The final modifications related to the addition of correlations between individual items that belonged to the same factors. After these changes, a satisfactory fit model and the final structure of the competitiveness model were achieved. The final model consists of five factors: 1. Natural and cultural resources, 2. Quality of tourist offer and infrastructure, 3. Situational framework of tourism development and management, 4. Destination perception and experience and 5. Pollution.

The final fit indices are shown in Table  4 .

The final model is shown in Table  5 , it consists of the five mentioned factors and a total of 32 indicators.

Factor 1: Natural and cultural resources is a factor referring to natural and cultural resources (tangible and intangible) of Serbia. Factor 2: Quality of tourist offer and infrastructure—refers to the quality of tourist infrastructure, signalization and accessibility of destination, including the quality of tourist offer and activities. Factor 3: Situational framework of tourism development and management—refers to the extent to which the conditions in Serbia are favourable for tourism development. This factor also contains items related to sustainability and ethics in tourism, i.e., local community support for tourism development, tourism companies operate in accordance with ethical principles etc. Factor 4: Destination perception and experience—refers to the perception of the brand, the image of Serbia as a tourist destination, destination positioning, but also quality of the overall experience at the destination. This factor also includes an assessment of the possibility of booking services, and the willingness to recommend Serbia as a destination to others. Finally, the last extracted factor is Factor 5: Pollution, referring to the assessment of the noise level, water and air pollution. This factor is of immense importance, as it indicates that local population consider pollution as important element of TDC.

4.3 Descriptive statistics and measurement model validity

Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table  6 . It can be seen that Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for all variables/dimensions is above 0.7. This means that the instruments used in the study are reliable and that they measure the given constructs. The results show that Natural and cultural resources are the best-rated factor in Serbia's competitiveness as a tourist destination, which means that Serbia has rich cultural and natural resources and great potential for tourism development. The lowest rated factor is the Factor 3: Situational framework of tourism development and management, especially the item Political values, the overall political situation and stability in Serbia are favourable for the development of tourism. Only one item in this group exceeds 3.5, which is the residents support the development of tourism. This is followed by factor Quality of tourist offer and infrastructure, where the items related to the transport infrastructure and signalization Local tourist and traffic signalization is in line with the needs of tourists, a high-quality air traffic infrastructure and A high quality bicycle and pedestrian paths are the lowest rated together with the item Quality offer of amusement and theme parks. On the other hand, the highest rated item in this group is Diverse and high-quality restaurant offer. The concerning fact is also that Pollution is rated above 3.5 which could negatively influence competitive position of Serbia on travel market.

The data obtained from the research pointed to the basic shortcomings that affect the competitiveness of Serbia as a tourist destination, and they should be the focus of further tourism strategies and initiatives.

Before conducting CFA, convergent and divergent validity of the constructs was calculated to check the measurement model validity. The convergent validity of each dimension was examined by calculating the score of the average variance extracted (AVE, [ 57 ]). A substantial convergent validity is achieved when all item-to-factor loadings are significant and the AVE score is higher than 0.50 within each dimension, but AVE of 0.40 is still acceptable if the composite reliability (CR) is higher than 0.60 [ 58 ]. Results showed that all dimensions had AVE higher than 0.40 and CR higher than 0.60 (Table  6 ) which indicates good convergent validity. Discriminant validity was then checked by comparing the average variances extracted (AVEs) for each latent factor with the squared correlation estimates between latent constructs. Fornell and Larcker [ 57 ] noted that the discriminant validity is guaranteed when the AVEs are greater than the squared correlation estimates (Table  7 ).

5 Discussion

The primary aim of this study was to address significant gaps identified in previous TDC research. These gaps primarily include the lack of consideration for residents’ attitudes towards TDC indicators and the absence of specifically tailored models to assess destination competitiveness in developing countries from the residents' perspective. Existing literature has predominantly focused on residents' perceptions of destination image [ 9 , 28 , 29 ] or place attachment [ 30 , 59 ], but lacked comprehensive models for measuring destination competitiveness. It is evident that residents possess specific knowledge, information, and emotional attachment to their living destinations [ 60 ]. Therefore, assessing competitiveness from their viewpoint requires specific indicators, which may differ in some aspects from traditional TDC models where assessments are typically conducted by tourism stakeholders or tourists. To address these gaps and contribute to theory in this area, our research employed a multi-step approach. This approach included a literature review of existing models, pilot testing for indicator selection, and model validation through CFA. Through this rigorous scientific process, we selected indicators and validated a model structure tailored for assessing residents’ perceptions in developing economies. This model represents the first of its kind in the existing literature on this topic, marking a significant theoretical contribution. The final model of the study comprises five factors: Natural and cultural resources, Quality of tourist offer and infrastructure, Situational framework of tourism development and management, Destination perception and experience and Pollution, encompassing 32 indicators. The model is tailor-made through pilot testing, where residents themselves identified indicators, they could assess based on their knowledge, experiences and information levels. Those indicators were further validated through survey research involving another sample of residents, and tested through EFA and CFA.

The application of this model to Serbia, a developing economy, has yielded insightful findings. Previous research has highlighted residents’ significant role in assessing natural and cultural resources [ 30 ] and shaping destination image [ 9 , 28 , 29 ], given their extensive knowledge and role as destination promoters and ambassadors. This aligns with two factors in our model: Natural and cultural resources, and Destination perception and experience. Additionally, our model underscores residents’ crucial role in evaluating the Quality of tourist offerings and infrastructure. Residents often utilize tourism infrastructure extensively [ 61 ], granting them firsthand insights into its quality. Moreover, some residents are directly involved in tourism-related businesses, providing further expertise in this area [ 15 , 44 ]. A novel aspect of our model is the recognition of residents’ capability to assess the Situational framework of tourism development and management. This factor evaluates the conditions favoring tourism development at a destination, a role traditionally fulfilled by tourism stakeholders without residents’ input [ 32 , 45 ]. Furthermore, sustainability factors, crucial for competitiveness in developing countries, receive attention through the Pollution factor, which reflects residents’ concerns about environmental conditions at their destination. This tailor-made model for residents’ assessment of TDC serves as a new tool for enhancing local involvement and participation in TDC assessment, particularly beneficial for developing economies in their early stages of tourism development [ 3 ]. Engaging residents in understanding factors influencing TDC is essential for effective tourism decision-making and planning processes.

Additionally, this study contributes to the limited understanding of residents' attitudes toward TDC in Serbia, marking the first inclusion of their perspectives in the competitiveness assessment. It offers long-term recommendations for integrating residents into the assessment process. The model indicates that Serbia's primary competitive advantage lies in its natural and cultural resources, while significant opportunities for improvement exist in the other four factors. Residents express concerns about the Situational framework of tourism development and management, particularly noting political stability as a factor negatively impacting destination competitiveness. They also highlight areas needing improvement in the Quality of tourist offerings and infrastructure. Pollution emerges as another concern, with residents indicating room for enhancing environmental sustainability to bolster Serbia's competitive position. A detailed analysis of each factor's components provides valuable insights for destination managers regarding residents' perceptions of the current state of TDC, identifying major gaps and advantages.

6 Conclusion

Numerous empirical studies have utilized various models to assess TDC predominantly from the perspectives of tourism experts and industry practitioners, often overlooking the viewpoint of residents. Establishing a comprehensive list of TDC variables and promoting research that incorporates perspectives from diverse stakeholders are crucial for a comprehensive understanding of TDC. Notably, destinations that successfully foster economic prosperity and environmental conservation while enhancing residents' quality of life tend to positively influence residents’ perceptions and overall TDC. This study focuses specifically on developing economies, which face unique challenges and opportunities in tourism development. The model developed is tailored to these contexts, providing insights that are more relevant and applicable to similar countries, thereby enhancing the theoretical framework of TDC in these regions.

To date, several studies have highlighted the significant role of residents, among other stakeholders, in comprehending and enhancing destination competitiveness. Their active involvement contributes to enhancing the destination's image, preserving its heritage, and increasing its overall attractiveness. Moreover, positive resident perceptions of the destination’s image can improve their attitudes towards tourism impacts and changes, thereby enhancing overall competitiveness. Success in tourism goes beyond mere quantitative metrics such as tourist numbers and revenue; it encompasses qualitative factors like resident satisfaction, environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life. Hence, achieving a balance between the needs of tourists, the well-being of residents, and the sustainability of resources is critical for long-term success. Integrating residents’ attitudes provides a more holistic view of TDC and acknowledges the pivotal role of the local population in shaping a welcoming and hospitable environment.

Finally, by understanding residents' perceptions across various dimensions such as natural and cultural resources, tourism offerings, infrastructure, management frameworks, and environmental aspects, tourism planners and policymakers can better assess the strengths and weaknesses of destinations. Encouraging local involvement and participation in tourism planning is vital, given the dynamic nature of destinations. This research helps identify the key determinants and planning factors that residents perceive as important for the competitiveness of their destination, highlighting the significance of local involvement in shaping successful and sustainable tourism development. The final model in this study consists of five distinct factors: Natural and cultural resources, Quality of tourist offer and infrastructure, Situational framework of tourism development and management, Destination perception and experience, and Pollution. These factors provide a comprehensive framework for assessing TDC from a residents' perspective, which can be used as a benchmark for future studies.

7 Practical implication

The practical application of the model lies in the fact that it is made to be used for the continuous evaluation of destination competitiveness by residents in developing economies. This could be performed as a regular research procedure of local or regional tourism organisations that could include residents in assessing destination competitiveness together with other important target groups such as tourism stakeholders and tourists. The model highlights the importance of community engagement in tourism development. By fostering positive attitudes among residents, destinations can enhance their attractiveness and competitiveness in the global market. The model provides a structured framework for evaluating TDC, which can be used by researchers and practitioners to benchmark performance and identify areas for improvement. Policymakers can use the model to understand residents' attitudes towards tourism, enabling them to create policies that align with local needs and preferences. This can lead to more sustainable and accepted tourism development strategies. Industry stakeholders can utilize the insights from the model to enhance the quality of tourist offerings and infrastructure, ensuring they meet both resident and tourist expectations. This can improve overall satisfaction and competitiveness. By considering factors such as pollution and the situational framework of tourism development, the model encourages sustainable practices that benefit, the environment, the local community, and visitors. It should be also emphasized that TDC is a multi-faced concept and its assessment requires the involvement of all important stakeholders at the destination in order to get a concrete pathway to increasing tourism competitive position on the market. The involvement of the local population in evaluating competitiveness may necessitate significant shifts in attitudes toward tourism planning, development, management, and destination marketing. Anticipated outcomes include a broader understanding of the factors contributing to destination competitiveness and clearer insights into the population’s role in this process. Developing a model to measure residents’ perspectives on tourism competitiveness ensures greater relevance to the diverse realities of various destinations, considering that the validation and adaptation of existing models might be less effective across different cultural and geographical contexts. The practical benefits of the application of the model are numerous. However, the most important is the fact that measuring residents’ attitudes about destination competitiveness is essential for creating a balance between the economic benefits of tourism and the well-being of the local community. It allows for sustainable development, positive destination branding, and the creation of an overall positive experience for both residents and visitors.

Based on the research findings, we propose several recommendations for policymakers to enhance Serbia’s TDC:

Engage residents: Involve residents in tourism planning and decision-making processes, as well as in TDC assessment, to foster more sustainable and accepted tourism development strategies.

Utilize the new model: Apply the newly developed model tailored to capture residents’ TDC assessments in developing economies, gaining comprehensive insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the destination from a local perspective.

Regular monitoring: Implement a regular monitoring system using this model to track changes in TDC over time, helping to identify trends, policy impacts, and areas needing improvement.

Focus on quality improvement: Address residents' concerns regarding the quality of tourism infrastructure and services. Improvements in these areas can enhance both resident and tourist satisfaction, boosting overall competitiveness.

Address environmental concerns and promote sustainability: Recognize environmental sustainability as a key competitiveness factor. Implement measures to reduce pollution and improve environmental conditions, responding to residents’ concerns and enhancing the destination’s appeal. Encourage sustainable tourism practices that benefit both the environment and the local community.

Improve tourism development conditions: Address residents’ concerns about the situational framework of tourism development, particularly regarding political stability and favourable conditions for tourism growth, to significantly enhance the destination’s competitiveness.

Strive for sustainable development: Ensure that tourism development strategies balance economic benefits with the well-being of the local community. This includes considering residents’ satisfaction, environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life in tourism planning and development

8 Limitation and further research

The current study also has certain limitations. Firstly, the model has been tested in one developing economy (Serbia) chosen as a case study to conduct initial research. The model should be applied and replicated in other developing economies to confirm and validate the structure and prove the comparability of results obtained in various developing economies. Secondly, since this was an initial study aimed at creating a new model, the research was conducted only once. Continuous monitoring and longitudinal studies are necessary to track progress and draw conclusions about changes in destination competitiveness. Longitudinal studies play a crucial role in evaluating TDC by offering insights into trends, policy impacts, and causal relationships over time. Such information is vital for making informed decisions, especially in developing economies where understanding the long-term effects of tourism policies and interventions is critical.

Future research should also examine the impact of certain independent variables (such as their active engagement in tourism, tourism and pro-environmental attitudes etc.) and sociodemographic characteristics on residents’ perceptions of TDC. It would be also beneficial to reshape, modify and test the model for different target groups such as tourists or tourism stakeholders to enable a holistic approach to TDC research in developing countries.

Data availability

Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files Ethics approval: The consent of the Ethics Commission of the University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Science, is not required for the collection of data for the purpose of scientific research through survey research, in accordance with Article 7 paragraph 2 of the Code of Academic Integrity of the Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad number: 0601-351/5. All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Rasool H, Maqbool S, Tarique M. The relationship between tourism and economic growth among BRICS countries: a panel cointegration analysis. Futur Bus J. 2021;7(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-00048-3 .

Article   Google Scholar  

World Economic Forum (WEF). The travel & tourism competitiveness report 2019: travel and tourism at a tipping point. Geneva: WEF; 2019.

Google Scholar  

Sanches-Pereira A, Onguglo B, Pacini H, Gómez MF, Coelho ST, Muwanga MK. Fostering local sustainable development in Tanzania by enhancing linkages between tourism and small-scale agriculture. J Clean Prod. 2017;162:1567–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.164 .

Dwyer L, Armenski T, Knežević Cvelbar L, Dragićević V, Mihalic T. Modified Importance–performance analysis for evaluating tourism businesses strategies: comparison of Slovenia and Serbia. Int J Tour Res. 2016;18(4):327–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2052 .

Medina-Muñoz DR, Medina-Muñoz RD, Chim-Miki AF. Tourism competitiveness assessment: the current status of research in Spain and China. Tour Econ. 2013;19(2):297–318. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2013.0197 .

Vila TD, Darcy S, González EA. Competing for the disability tourism market–a comparative exploration of the factors of accessible tourism competitiveness in Spain and Australia. Tour Manag. 2015;47:261–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.008 .

Armenski T, Dwyer L, Pavluković V. Destination competitiveness: public and private sector tourism management in Serbia. J Travel Res. 2018;57(3):384–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517692445 .

Goffi G, Cucculelli M, Masiero L. Fostering tourism destination competitiveness in developing countries: the role of sustainability. J Clean Prod. 2019;209:101–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.208 .

Bu NT, Kong H, Ye S. County tourism development in china: a case study. J China Tour Res. 2021;17(2):249–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2020.1761501 .

Martínez-González JA, Díaz-Padilla VT, Parra-López E. Study of the tourism competitiveness model of the world economic forum using Rasch’s mathematical model: the case of Portugal. Sustainability. 2021;13(13):7169. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137169 .

Crouch GI. Destination competitiveness: an analysis of determinant attributes. J Travel Res. 2011;50(1):27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287510362776 .

López MFB, Virto NR, Manzano JA, Miranda JGM. Residents’ attitude as determinant of tourism sustainability: the case of Trujillo. J Hosp Tour Manag. 2018;35:36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.02.002 .

Abreu-Novais ML, Ruhanen L, Arcodia C. Destination competitiveness: what we know, what we know but shouldn’t and what we don’t know but should. Curr Issues Tour. 2016;19(6):492–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2015.1091443 .

Dwyer L. Destination competitiveness and resident well-being. Tour Manag Perspect. 2022;43(6):100996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2022.100996 .

Ahn YJ, Bessiere J. The relationships between Tourism destination competitiveness, empowerment, and supportive actions for tourism. Sustainability. 2023;15:626. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15010626 .

Campelo AR, Aitken MT, Gnoth J. Sense of place: the importance of destination branding. J Travel Res. 2014;53(2):154–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513496474 .

Stylidis D, Sit J, Biran A. An exploratory study of residents’ perception of place image: the case of Kavala. J Travel Res. 2014;55(5):659–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728751456316 .

World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC). SERBIA 2022 Annual Research: Key Highlights. 2022. https://wttc.org/Research/Economic-Impact . Accessed 15 Feb 2024.

Government of the Republic of Serbia, Ministry of Trade, Tourism, and Telecommunications. Tourism Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2016–2025. 2016. https://mto.gov.rs/tekst/177/strategije.php . Accessed 20 Feb 2024.

Armenski T, Gomezelj DO, Djurdjev B, Ćurčić N, Dragin A. Tourism destination competitiveness—between two flags. Econ Res. 2012;25(2):485–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2012.11517519 .

Dragićević V, Jovičić D, Blešić I, Stankov U, Bošković D. Business tourism destination competitiveness: a case of Vojvodina Province (Serbia). Econ Res. 2012;25(2):311–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2012.11517510 .

Drakulić Kovačević N, Kovačević L, Stankov U, Dragićević V, Miletić A. Applying destination competitiveness model to strategic tourism development of small destinations: the case of South Banat district. J Dest Mark Manag. 2018;8:114–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.01.002 .

Cimbaljević M, Panić A, Pavlović D, Pavluković V, Pivac T, Kovačić S, Stankov U. Systematic literature review on tourism destination competitiveness research. Turizam. 2023;27(1):51–6. https://doi.org/10.5937/turizam27-42000 .

Abreu Novais M, Ruhanen L, Arcodia C. Destination competitiveness: a phenomenographic study. Tour Manag. 2018;64:324–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.08.014 .

Tse S, Tung VWS. Measuring the valence and intensity of residents’ behaviors in host-tourist interactions: implications for destination image and destination competitiveness. J Travel Res. 2021;61(3):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287521997576 .

Fernández JAS, Azevedo PS, Martín JMM, Martín JAR. Determinants of tourism destination competitiveness in the countries most visited by international tourists: proposal of a synthetic index. Tour Manag Perspect. 2020;33:100582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.100582 .

Nunkoo R, Gursoy D. Residents’ support for tourism: an identity perspective. Ann Tour Res. 2012;39(1):243–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.006 .

Stylidis D, Dominguez Quintero AM. Understanding the effect of place image and knowledge of tourism on residents’ attitudes towards tourism and their word-of-mouth intentions: evidence from Seville Spain. Tour Plan Dev. 2022;19(5):433–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2022.2049859 .

Miličević K, Mihalič T, Sever I. An investigation of the relationship between destination branding and destination competitiveness. J Travel Tour Mark. 2017;34(2):209–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1156611 .

Strzelecka M, Boley BB, Woosnam KM. Place attachment and empowerment: do residents need to be attached to be empowered? Ann Tour Res. 2017;66:61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.06.002 .

Dwyer L. Tourism development to enhance resident well-being: a strong sustainability perspective. Sustainability. 2023;15(4):3321. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043321 .

Qian C, Sasaki N, Shivakoti G, Zhang Y. Effective governance in tourism development—An analysis of local perception in the Huangshan mountain area. Tour Manag Perspect. 2016;20:112–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2016.08.003 .

Gajdosik T, Gajdosikova Z, Strazanova R. Residents perception of sustainable tourism destination development: a destination governance issue. Glob Bus Finance Rev. 2018;23(1):24–35. https://doi.org/10.17549/gbfr.2018.23.1.24 .

Tempest I. Planning for tourists and residents in an historic destination - York UK. In: Morpeth ND, Yan HL, editors. Planning for tourism: towards a sustainable future. Wallingford: CABI; 2015. p. 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780644585.0088 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Line ND, Wang Y. A multi-stakeholder market oriented approach to destination marketing. J Dest Mark Manag. 2017;6(1):84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.03.003 .

Vodeb K. Sustainable competitiveness of destination and resident’s attitude towards tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Industry, Congress Proceedings, Trends in Tourism and Hospitality Industry; 2014, pp. 79–89.

Ouyang Z, Gursoy D, Sharma B. Role of trust, emotions and event attachment on residents’ attitudes toward tourism. Tour Manag. 2017;63:426–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.06.026 .

Tung VWS, King BEM, Tse S. The tourist stereotype model: positive and negative dimensions. J Travel Res. 2020;59(1):37–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287518821739 .

Lai PH, Gudergan S, Young T, Lee K. Resident intention to invite friends, relatives, and acquaintances: the dynamic process of place identity as a motivator. Tour Manag. 2021;84:104251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104251 .

Styvén ME, Mariani MM, Strandberg C. This is my hometown! the role of place attachment, congruity, and self-expressiveness on residents’ intention to share a place brand message online. J Advert. 2020;49(5):540–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1810594 .

Andersson M, Ekman P. Ambassador networks and place branding. J Place Manag Dev. 2009;2(1):41–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538330910942799 .

García AF, Vázquez BA, Macías CR. Resident’s attitudes towards the impacts of tourism. Tour Manag Perspect. 2015;13:33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.11.002 .

Goffi G, Cucculelli M. Explaining tourism competitiveness in small and medium destinations: the Italian case. Curr Issues Tour. 2019;22(17):2109–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1421620 .

Abou-Shouk MA, Mannaa MT, Elbaz AM. Women’s empowerment and tourism development: a cross-country study. Tour Manag Perspect. 2021;37:100782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100782 .

Boley BB, McGehee NG, Hammett ALT. Importance-performance analysis (IPA) of sustainable tourism initiatives: the resident perspective. Tour Manag. 2017;58:66–77.

Campón-Cerro AM, Hernández-Mogollón JM, Alves H. Sustainable improvement of competitiveness in rural tourism destinations: the quest for tourist loyalty in Spain. J Destin Mark Manag. 2017;6(3):252–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.04.005 .

John A, Firoz CM, Ramanan TR. Destination competitiveness of a tourist region: a case of Kerala, India. J Glob Hosp Tour. 2023;2(1):71–98. https://doi.org/10.5038/2771-5957.2.1.1021 .

Oliveira T, de Lima PM, dos Anjos FA, Feger JE. Governance and competitiveness of tourism destinations: validation of the structural model in the case of Brazil. J Qual Assur Hosp Tour. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2023.2251686 .

González-Rodríguez MR, Díaz-Fernández MC, Pulido-Pavón N. Tourist destination competitiveness: an international approach through the travel and tourism competitiveness index. Tour Manag Perspect. 2023;47:101127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2023.101127 .

Dwyer L, Kim C. Destination competitiveness: determinants and indicators. Curr Issues Tour. 2003;6(5):369–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500308667962 .

Ritchie JRB, Crouch GI. The competitive destination—a sustainable tourism perspective. Cambridge: CABI Publishing; 2003.

Book   Google Scholar  

Aithal A, Aithal PS. Development and validation of survey questionnaire experimental data—a systematical review-based statistical approach. Int J Manag Technol Soc Sci. 2020;5(2):233–51. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3724105 .

Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 4th ed. London: SAGE; 2013.

Bentler PM. EQS 6, structural equations program manual. Encino: Multivariate Software Inc; 2006.

Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21(2):230–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005 .

Hoyle RH. The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In: Hoyle RH, editor. Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc; 1995. p. 1–15.

Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 .

Huang FL. Conducting multilevel confirmatory factor analysis using R. 2017. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12391.34724

Dimitrios S. Residents’ place image: a cluster analysis and its links to place attachment and support for tourism. J Sustain Tour. 2018;26(6):1007–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2018.1435668 .

Chen N, Dwyer L. Residents’ place satisfaction and place attachment on destination brand-building behaviors: conceptual and empirical differentiation. J Travel Res. 2018;57(8):1026–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517729760 .

Mamirkulova G, Mi J, Abbas J, Mahmood S, Mubeen R, Ziapour A. New silk road infrastructure opportunities in developing tourism environment for residents better quality of life. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2020;24: e01194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01194 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by The Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia, GRANT No. 7739076, Tourism Destination Competitiveness—Evaluation Model for Serbia—TOURCOMSERBIA. Also, the authors acknowledge financial support of the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia (Grant No. 451-03-66/2024-03/ 200125 & 451-03-65/2024-03/200125).‬‬‬‬‬

This research was supported by The Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia, GRANT No. 7739076, Tourism Destination Competitiveness—Evaluation Model for Serbia—TOURCOMSERBIA. Also, the authors acknowledge financial support of the Ministry of Science, Technological Development and Innovation of the Republic of Serbia (Grant No. 451-03-66/2024-03/200125 & 451-03-65/2024-03/200125).‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Sciences, Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Sanja Kovačić, Marija Cimbaljević & Vanja Pavluković

Faculty of Business Economics and Entrepreneurship (PEP), Mitropolita Petra 8 Street, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia

Slobodan Jovanović

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SK Methodology, Investigation, Software, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing. MC Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing. VP Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review & Editing, Supervision. SJ Investigation, Writing—Original Draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marija Cimbaljević .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The consent of the Ethics Commission of the University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Science, is not required for the collection of data for the purpose of scientific research through survey research, in accordance with Article 7 paragraph 2 of the Code of Academic Integrity of the Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad number: 0601-351/5. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kovačić, S., Cimbaljević, M., Pavluković, V. et al. Exploring tourism competitiveness in developing economies: residents’ perspective. Discov Sustain 5 , 201 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00416-x

Download citation

Received : 13 March 2024

Accepted : 12 August 2024

Published : 17 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00416-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Tourism destination competitiveness
• Developing countries
• Mix-method research
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, functioning tourism interpretation on consumer products at the tourist generating region through tea tourism.

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research

ISSN : 1750-6182

Article publication date: 18 June 2021

Issue publication date: 26 August 2021

This paper aims to clarify the functions of tourism interpretations of consumer products in a tourist-generating region (TGR) as a means of marketing the tourist destination region (TDR) through tea tourism.

Design/methodology/approach

This is a case study of the Thai Shizuoka Green Tea brand working to promote tea tourism in Shizuoka, Japan. It is used to identify the functions of tourism interpretations of consumer products in a TGR related to the concept of brand identity. This paper assessed Thai consumers’ opinions on the efficiency of tourism interpretation through a sample of 404 questionnaires and with interviews of ten young females, the primary respondents.

Tourism interpretations of the TGR’s consumer products are important for promoting the TDR through five premises: 1) motivating visitors to visit the destination, 2) communicating the place’s meaning, 3) targeting potential tourists, 4) differentiating the destination from other sites and 5) activating value co-creation. Premises 1 and 2 were assumed to stem from visitors’ enjoyment of the tea; the packaging motivated their visit to Shizuoka, its origin. Premise 3 concerns young women who view the product as a premium healthy drink. Premises 4 and 5 are based on the brand’s essence, implying the tea company’s partnership between Thailand and Japan.

Originality/value

Tourism interpretation plays a significant role in TDRs’ success; however, it can be implemented with other consumer products and an efficient brand identity, to create an image of a destination.

• Japanese green tea
• Tea tourism
• Tourism interpretation
• Tourist image
• Tourist-generating region

Acknowledgements

The authors are deeply indebted to the supported staff of Ichitan, all questionnaire respondents and interviewees.

Khaokhrueamuang, A. , Chueamchaitrakun, P. , Kachendecha, W. , Tamari, Y. and Nakakoji, K. (2021), "Functioning tourism interpretation on consumer products at the tourist generating region through tea tourism", International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research , Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 340-354. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-08-2020-0187

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support