Ski – resort and regional development: profile of visitors ... - E-Journal

Measuring destination competitiveness: an exploratory study of the canaries, mainland spain, france, the balearics and italy
the tourist industry in different countries around the world. Based on a database drawn up
annually by the World Travel and Tourism Council (henceforth the WTTC), the TCM attempts
to overcome one of the main shortcomings of the Calgary Model.
The index is calculated for over two hundred countries and, with this information, the countries
are ranked according to their level of tourism competitiveness. The results show that the most
competitive countries, in terms of tourism, are the United States, Sweden, Norway, Finland
and Australia in that order. At the other end of the scale are Burkina Faso, Chad, Benin,
Ethiopia and Cambodia.
With Gooroochurn and Sugiyarto’s proposed monitor (2005), many countries can be compared,
given the type of variables that it uses. The main problem, however, is the results that it gives.
Except for the USA, none of the other top countries in the tourism competitiveness ranks are
among the most commonly visited countries in the world. Indeed, these supposed other leaders
do not receive very high visitor numbers (2.5% of the world total) 2 . At the same time, it also
has other shortcomings: i) It lumps together totally different types of destinations, even though
intuitively it can be assumed that the factors that make the Bahamas (a sun and sand destination)
competitive as a tourist destination will not be the same as those of Switzerland (a mountain
destination), since they offer very different tourism products; ii) The monitor lends too much
importance to variables like technology (the amount of high-technology that is exported,
number of mobile telephones etc.) and gives the environment a very secondary role, when
in literature natural resources are cited as one of the main attractions of a destination (Crouch
and Ritchie, 1999; Mihalic, 2000; Butler, 1980, Jennings, 2004, among many others).
2.1.3 Dwyer and Kim’s Destination Competitiveness Indicators (2003)
Taking a similar approach to that initiated by Crouch and Ritchie (1999), Dwyer and Kim’s
Destination Competitiveness Indicators (DCI) (2003) explore a series of factors that are
considered to determine destination competitiveness. The authors propose a number of
indicators for measuring competitiveness. Among the different factors that determine
competitiveness, they cite the available resources (natural resources, cultural assets and heritage
items), created resources (tourism infrastructure, the activities on offer etc.), supporting factors
(infrastructure in general, the quality of service, access to the destination etc.) and destination
management factors.
The main drawback to this proposal is the difficulty involved in applying it. It would no doubt
be very useful to identify the situation of each of the said determinants using indicators or
surveys, but it would be costly and, in some cases, impossible, given the lack of available
and/or comparative data for destinations. At the same time, the authors also point out that a
better insight into tourist motivations and their typologies is needed if the factors that determine
competitiveness are to be properly identified and weighted. Under no circumstances should
the aforementioned factors be considered to have the same influence on a destination’s
competitive capacity.
Tourism Today - Fall 2007 - Full Paper
63