The flow of tourists to various destinations around the world has changed drastically in recent years and data compiled over the past decade corroborates certain trends. New outbound markets occupy the top spots and the ranking of destinations has been turned upside down. Emerging economies are profoundly altering the global tourism market, which is now shared amongst a much greater number of countries than before.

According to World Tourism Organization (WTO) estimates, the number of international tourist arrivals reached 940 million in 2010, or a 39% increase over 2000. Seen over the longer term, growth has been exponential; only 25 million tourists travelled in 1950.

Since the WTO compiles national statistics, methodologies may vary. For this reason, results must be interpreted with caution. In addition, results for the year 2010 were estimated based on partial data.

Top-ranked destinations

Not only has the ranking of destinations changed dramatically over the years, the sheer number of countries visited by tourists has increased tremendously. Here are some interesting observations about the number of international arrivals at the most popular destinations (Table 1):

• The top 5 countries in the ranking accounted for 71% of all arrivals in 1950, and only 31% in 2010.
• The “Other” category, which represents the next ten destinations in the ranking, accounted for only 3% of arrivals in 1950, but rose to 34% in 1990 and 44% in 2010!
• Canada’s ranking dropped from 2nd in 1970 to 8th in 2000, and finally to 15th in 2010.
• China is not only a very active outbound market; it has also become an extremely popular destination.
• Malaysia, Turkey and Hong Kong have made major inroads into the tourism market.
• The tourism sector has been demonstrating its resilience for over 60 years.

The top six destinations have remained been more or less the same since the year 2000. France enjoys a comfortable lead and China – which outranked Spain in 2010 – is now closing in on the United States. Canada has not been one of the top ten destinations since 2004.

Graphs 1 and 2 illustrate, respectively, the top 20 destinations by international tourist arrivals and by international tourism receipts. The two rankings differ somewhat. In terms of tourism receipts, the United States is in the top position, well ahead of second-ranked Spain, which also outranks France. While some countries occupy similar rankings in both graphs, others appear in one and are completely absent from the other. Countries that rank in the top 20 of arrivals but not in receipts are the Russian Federation (27th), Poland (30th), Ukraine (50th), Greece (21st) and Egypt (22nd). Conversely, some countries have high tourism receipts for a relatively lower number of visitors: the Netherlands (21st), Switzerland (28th), Japan (29th), Australia (41st) and India (42nd).

In fact, not all countries have benefitted from the overall growth in international tourist arrivals. Graph 3 illustratesthe change in arrivals for various countries. While some have more than doubled the number of arrivals, others, like Canada (-18%) and Poland (-28%), have recorded major decreases.

Where do most travellers come from?

Europe is currently the top source market for tourists, generating 55% of all international tourists, followed by Asia and the Pacific (20%) and the Americas (16%) (Table 2). Asia and the Pacific, the Middle East and Africa recorded the strongest average annual growth rate for the period covered. The majority of international visitors, approximately four out of five, travel within their own region. However, it would appear that the number of trips from one region to another has increasedat a faster rate than the number of intraregional trips. Industrialized countries remain the primary source markets of international tourists. However, with the increase in disposable income, many emerging economies have experienced higher growth rates in the past few years.

The data in Table 3about tourist-generating countries is expressed in terms of international tourism expenditures, as published by the WTO, not in terms of number of trips. Total spending grew from US$478 billion in 2000 toUS$678 billion in 2005and to US$850 billion in 2009, for an overall increase of 78%. In 2009, source markets saw their international tourism expenditures fall 10% compared to 2008, due to the economic crisis and the H1N1 flu. In 2000, only 10 countries recorded international tourism expenditures of at least US$10 billion, while 23 countries did so in 2009.

The top three spots have been occupied by Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom since 2000, with France, Italy and Japan following close behind.The explosive growth of the Chinese travel industryhas pushed it into the top five even though its population has only just begun to travel. Chinabegan signing agreements in 1999 to permit leisure travel to various countries, but Canada has only very recently obtained the status of an authorized destination (June 2010). The Chinese still travel a lot within their own country, but the proportion of domestic trips to those outside the country has risen from 71 to 1 in 2000 to 38 to 1 in 2009.

Japan is the only country in the ranking below to have reduced its international tourism expenditures. Hard-hit by economic woes and fuel prices, the population has lost some confidence and travels less than before.

The Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, Australia, Singapore, Norway and Brazil more than doubled their spending during this period.

In short, the tourism market is constantly changing and welcoming more participants so it is easy to get lost in the crowd. The good news? The number of tourists from various regions around the world is growing constantly. We live in an age where physical distances are less intimidating than before and where tourists are choosing to travel just about everywhere. We must design our tourismstrategies to reflect a broader geographic perspective and not be afraid to compete with top-ranked destinations.

Sources:

- World Tourism Organization. “World Tourism Barometer, Interim Update April 2011.”

- World Tourism Organization. “Tourism Highlights, 2009 Edition.”

At what age does one become a “senior”?

There are numerous terms to describe individuals of a “certain age”: seniors, senior citizens, Golden Agers, pensioners, retirees, the elderly. The age at which one assumes the title of “senior” varies from 55 to 65, depending on the study or statistic. To distinguish seniors from Baby Boomers (those born between 1947 and 1966), who are currently 41 to 60 years old and have already been examined by the Tourism Intelligence Network, this article will focus on drawing a portrait of those aged 60 and up. Naturally, any predictions, even short-term ones, will inevitably include some Baby Boomers as they are slowly entering this market segment, creating what some have called the “senior boom” or “senior surge.” However, the seniors of tomorrow will definitely be very different from those of today.

The silent generation

At the present time, the 60+ market segment is populated by members of the “silent generation.” Marked by the war and thus, in many respects, less spoiled than later generations, this generation can be characterized as follows:

• instilled with a sense of duty
• respectful of authority
• looking for stability
• thrifty and cautious
• often neophytes when it comes to information and communications technologies

These are, of course, generalizations, and they apply in varying degrees, depending on the age of the individual in this cohort. For example, many 60-year-olds are familiar with or even experienced in information technology, unlike those aged 75 and up.

Quebec seniors

In Quebec alone, there were 1.5 million people aged 60 and over in 2006, or 20% of the entire population. According to the Institut de la Statistique du Québec, this number will grow to 2.27 million by 2026 to represent 28% of all Quebeckers. The Print Measurement Bureau (PMB) estimates that 621,000 Quebeckers aged 60 and up have taken an overnight vacation trip within Canada in the past 12 months, with 475,000 of these trips taken in Quebec. During the same period, 356,000 Quebec seniors travelled outside the country.

Figure 1
Percentage of Quebeckers aged 60 and up
who took at least one overnight trip in the past 12 months

Visiting friends and relatives

The preferred type of accommodation for seniors travelling in Canada is the home of friends and relatives (44%), followed by a hotel (25%); amongst the general population, the favourite accommodation is a hotel.

Figure 2

The primary activities of these travellers are visiting friends and relatives (54%) – which is higher than the percentage recorded for the entire population –, sightseeing (38%) and shopping (25%). Furthermore, the percentage of golfers is higher among seniors (7%) than it is among the overall travelling population (4%).

Figure 3

Walking, cultural activities and golf

Generally speaking, those aged 60 and up also engage in a number of leisure activities that can be easily practised when travelling: walking and biking, live theatre, classical music concerts, museum visits and golf, for example (Figure 4).

Figure 4
Percentage of Quebec seniors participating in leisure and sports activities

Destinations

The foreign destinations most often visited by Quebec seniors are listed in the following table. When compared to Quebeckers of all ages, a higher percentage of seniors have gone to Florida and Italy.

Table 1
Top destinations of Quebec seniors who have travelled outside the country in the past 3 years

The senior market also represents:
• one-third (32.5%) of all Quebec coach travellers (for trips within Canada)
• 30% of travellers who have taken a cruise in the past 3 years
• 57% of those who use travellers’ cheques
• 25% of the clientele of Quebec travel wholesalers (65 and over)

Products adapted to seniors

Some companies are targeting this booming market. At Boston travel agency Vantage Deluxe World Travel, the median customer age is 71 and trips and travel components are selected to meet the needs and desires of this clientele. For example:

• trips are longer than average
• itineraries are less full, meaning that sites can be visited at a leisurely pace
• cruise ships are smaller, with spacious cabins
• customers can travel alone or be paired with a travel companion

As the AG2R Group notes, to accommodate travelling seniors, one must provide secondary services:

• transfers to and from airports
• baggage transportation or even shipping bags in advance
• especially attentive and warm receptions in hotels

Some Quebec ski resorts offer lifetime passes to those aged 70 and up. These seniors must first purchase a regular season pass, which is then automatically renewed the following year. Older skiers practise the sport with friends, who are sometimes younger, or with family members, so they bring “paying” skiers with them. They also tend to visit resorts during less busy periods.

Seniors around the world

Thanks to scientific progress, human beings are living longer, healthier lives. The age pyramid is slowly becoming inverted in most developed countries. In conclusion, here are a few facts and figures about the senior phenomenon around the world:

• By the year 2050, more than one person out of five, or 22% of the world’s population, will be aged 60 and up, compared to only 10% today. The number of people over the age of 60 was 602 million in 2000; this number will rise to nearly 2 billion by 2050.
• In the United States, some 37 million people are aged 65 and over, and 9.2 million of them are aged 80 and up.
• The Americas are home to 75 million seniors (those born before 1945).
• France was home to 200 centenarians in 1950, 3760 in 1990 and 18,962 as of January 2007. According to the Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques (INSEE), this number will rise to 150,000 by 2050. France now keeps a list of “supercentenarians,” that is, those over the age of 110.
• In the United Kingdom, recreation accounts for the largest share of household spending among seniors, more than lodging and food.
• In the very near future, seniors will represent the largest customer segment for the travel industry.

Sources:
- Durand, Amandine. “Seniors: les agences de voyage spécialisées,” L’Internaute. [http://tourismintelligence.ca/2007/11/09/finally-a-look-at-canadian-online-travellers/ For the first time, US research firm PhoCusWright has conducted a comprehensive study of the online travel marketplace in Canada: the Canadian Online Travel Overview. Though it has long been thought that Canadians lag behind Americans when it comes to using the Internet to plan and purchase travel, this report finally provides an overview of the actual situation. The following article was prepared by Claude Péloquin, of the Tourism Intelligence Network of the ESG-UQAM Chair in Tourism at the University of Quebec at Montréal.

First appearing approximately three years ago, personal review sites (see: Today’s consumers influence tomorrow’s choices) like TripAdvisor already play a major role, both at the planning stage (73%) and as an influence on purchasing decisions (43%). Not surprisingly, destination portals like Bonjour Québec also continue to play an important role. It is interesting to note that meta‑search engines like Kayak and SideStep, already popular in the United States, are also becoming indispensable in Canada. According to the study, 57% of Canadian online travellers use them and 26% feel they are influential when it comes to the decision to buy.

Leisure travellers use both online and offline channels

Despite the Web’s growing popularity among travellers, it is important to remember that traditional distribution channels continue to play a role in the purchasing process, particularly among leisure travellers. In fact, only 22% of online leisure travellers purchase their travel products exclusively online (Figure 5). At the same time, the percentage of those who never use the Internet to purchase travel is even higher (27%). Almost half (48%) have adopted a sort of hybrid approach by using both offline and online channels for their purchases. Overall, approximately 35% of all travel spending is transacted online.

Still plenty of untapped potential

The online travel marketplace in Canada has not yet reached its full potential. The PhoCusWright study examines the potential interest of Canadian online travellers who, at the moment, have still not made online travel purchases. It appears that it is only a matter of time, because 68% of them said they were interested in doing so in the future.

It is often said that the Canadian online travel market lags far behind the American market. According to the new information presented in this study, the Canadian market has made obvious inroads when it comes to using the various online tools available to travellers. Now it is up to businesses to stop hesitating and take action to build an effective Web presence to tap this market.

See also:

- Today’s consumers influence tomorrow’s choices

Sources:

- PhoCusWright. Canadian Online Travel Overview, 2007.

Concerns for the US market

The rise of the Canadian dollar in relation to that of Uncle Sam has been truly spectacular over the past five years. In 2002, the exchange rate for US$1.00 was CN$1.57 (average annual rate). For many years, the exchange rate was one of the incentives used to attract our neighbours from the south with slogans like “Stretch your dollar!” Clearly, the dollar’s sudden parity is of great concern, given that stakeholders across the board are looking for ways to stimulate this declining market, so key to the health of our tourism industry.

Since 2002, a record year for the number of American tourists in Canada, the numbers have been falling steadily, apart from a brief respite in 2004. And yet, is the exchange rate truly the prime culprit? Have we overestimated its influence on the travel behaviour of Americans?

The situation elsewhere

To better understand and put into perspective how the exchange rate truly affects the travel decisions of Americans, we have compared changes in the value of the loonie with those of other currencies (see Figure 1). We have examined fluctuations in the US dollar since 1995 in relation to the Canadian dollar, the euro, the Mexican peso and the Japanese yen. At the same time, we have charted the annual number of US citizen international departures to Canada, Mexico and overseas. To make the data comparable, we have established 1995 as the reference year, with an index of 100. The lines in the graph below illustrate the increases and decreases noted in relation to the reference year.

This graph shows the decline of the US dollar in relation to the Canadian dollar (red line) is much more dramatic than the drop in the number of American tourists to Canada (broken red line). The departures in question refer to stays of one night or more, as day trips have, in fact. recently dropped more precipitously.

Venturing further afield

It is a mistake to believe Americans no longer travel due to a combination of factors like a weak currency, security concerns, a turning inward, etc. The line tracking the number of Americans travelling overseas (broken blue line) eloquently shows that Americans are more interested than ever in discovering new destinations. For example, according to a survey of AAA travel agencies, reservations for US travellers to Eastern Europe jumped 55% in the summer of 2007.

Though there was certainly a temporary drop in the period immediately following 9/11, interest in far-flung destinations rebounded as of 2003. In fact, the euro is the most relevant currency in the analysis of how exchange rates influence US travel abroad (though we have included the yen for information purposes). Like that of the Canadian dollar, the euro’s value has appreciated significantly (dark blue line) vis-à-vis the US dollar since 2001. And yet, during the same period, the number of international departures from the US increased dramatically.

The example of Mexico

Mexico is a very interesting case because its geographic proximity to the US is similar to that of Canada. Unlike the Canadian dollar, the Mexican peso has been falling steadily in value against the US dollar since 1995 (green line). However, this growing purchasing power has not affected the decision to travel to Mexico, with the number of US tourists to the country remaining relatively flat (broken green line).

A closer look at two other indicators

A basic notion in economics is the idea of “All other things being equal.” This is often used as a premise when analyzing economic phenomena. However, in real life, all other things are never equal, a caveat that must be kept in mind when referring to the analytical model presented in Figure 1.

The travel intentions of citizens are often tied to their country’s economic performance. For this reason, we felt it was interesting to compare the change in the number of American tourists travelling to Canada and overseas with two other economic vectors: the level of personal consumer spending (purple line) and the price of gas (yellow line).

Without doubt, skyrocketing gas prices do nothing to encourage proximity tourism among Americans who usually travel to Canada by car. Over the past few years, the drop in the number of these travellers has been much more pronounced than the decrease in air travellers.

The change in US personal consumer spending is another interesting indicator of Americans’ ability and desire to spend. In fact, the graph shows that the significant increase in international departures is more or less in step with the spending indicator. Though our analysis may not be truly scientific, it does illustrate that Americans’ travel interests are evolving to the detriment of Canada.

Better understand the impact

Surveys show that the exchange rate can influence travel intentions, particularly among certain customer segments. When it comes to international travel, Americans demonstrate a lower sensitivity to currency fluctuations than Canadians.

Certain outside factors can enhance the potential impact of currency fluctuations. One such factor in particular is the media coverage lavished on the phenomenon; it would seem the Canadian media is more interested than the American media in the rise of our dollar.

It is also true that although Americans may not be very aware or influenced by the loss of their purchasing power, they definitely feel it once they reach their destination. The firm Moneris Solutions has studied US credit and bank card transactions at Canadian merchants. Total transactions in US dollars dropped in July and August 2007 compared to the same period in 2006.

This study did not take into account the number of visitors involved. Nonetheless, the numbers do indicate that spending budgets have dropped in a greater proportion than the number of American tourists. Other factors like falling room prices in 2007 also had an affect on the expenditure base. The study reveals the sectors most severely affected: specialized retailers (-35%), campgrounds and trailer parks (-22%), public golf courses (-14%), hotel reservations (-13%), bus travel (-13%) and restaurants (-8%)

A major challenge

Canada’s current difficulty recovering its share of the American market is deep-rooted and not due solely to economic factors. Other studies have reached the same conclusion: Americans no longer find Canada as attractive as they once did and would prefer to set their sights on new destinations. An unfavourable exchange rate and high gas prices are merely additions to the list of deterrents, particularly when it comes to proximity tourism. Now that our currency has reached parity, we must use innovation and an enriched tourism supply to change their minds!

Sources:
- Montet, Virginie. “Les touristes américains découvrent l’Europe de l’Est,” La Presse, September 26, 2007.
- Office of Travel & Tourism Industries.
- Turner, Riva. “US Spending in Canada Sees Significant Decline,” Moneris Solutions [www.moneris.com], September 24, 2007.
- US Census Bureau.

With the arrival of the austral summer in November, tourists – more specifically, cruise passengers – are once again heading to Antarctica.

The majority of Antarctic cruises take place in the Peninsula area, which is blessed with a less severe climate and a greater diversity of attractions (i.e. fauna, flora and a large number of scientific bases and historic sites). In contrast, the other tourism area, the more remote Ross Sea region, features almost exclusively historic sites.

In addition to the more traditional cruise programs combining observation and hikes ashore, a variety of new activities have started to appear in recent years, including scuba diving, sea kayaking, rock climbing, skiing, snowboarding and camping. It is impossible to say, at this point, if these new activities are the result of the arrival of younger and more active visitors, or if the new tourism profile is emerging in response to the products offered by tour operators. What is certain, however, is that Antarctic tourism is growing.

Figures

Compared to the last austral summer (2005-2006), the number of cruise tourists has risen by 12%⁽⁴⁾ . This year, the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO), which represents 95% of the organizers involved in Antarctic tourism, expects nearly 38,000 visitors to Antarctica from mid-November to early March⁽⁴⁾:

• 27,575 tourists will participate in an Antarctic cruise with shore excursions (mainly in the Peninsula area)
• 7,500 tourists will take part in a cruise only (no shore excursion)
• 1,050 tourists will purchase a land tour (skiing, alpinism, etc., in the Antarctic’s interior)
• 1,600 tourists will participate in a sightseeing flight (these flights, generally based in Australia, do not land on the continent and involve large planes like the Boeing 737-200 and 747-400, flying at about 2000 feet (610 m) above the Antarctic coast)

More than any other, polar cruises continue to dominate the Antarctic tourism market, with the number of passengers increasing year after year (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Source: IAATO (2006b)

While polar cruise tourism will continue to increase in the Antarctic Peninsula during the 2006-2007 season, the number of visitors to the Ross Sea region is expected to decline slightly⁽⁴⁾. Compared to the 42 million visitors who entered the United States in 2004⁽⁷⁾, the data regarding tourism in Antarctica – a continent 30% larger than the surface of the USA, may appear insignificant. To understand the importance of the figures presented above, it is necessary to put them into the proper polar tourism context.

A sensitive continent

Antarctica is a continent like no other. This continent, the only one without an indigenous human population, also has extremely limited surface flora and fauna (in species diversity). In summer, when the seas surrounding the polar continent are free of ice, Antarctica and its Sub-Antarctic islands cover an area of 13.6 km². More than 98% of the continent’s surface is permanently hidden under a cover of ice⁽¹⁾⁽³⁾. This ice sheet – the biggest on Earth – may reach a thickness of up to 4.7 km in certain areas and contains no less than 90% of the plant’s fresh water reserves⁽³⁾.

Tourism, like most other human activities, takes place during the very brief polar summer. This is also the reproduction season for most of the continent’s animal species, which are very abundant at this time of year. As a result, the less than 2% of Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic island lands free of ice and snow become very precious for both fauna and visitors (scientists and tourists alike). In such a context, there is a very good chance that fauna (and, to a lesser degree, flora) could be negatively impacted. The scientific community, however, remains divided over the extent of this impact.

Negative Impact

In addition to the pollutants released when tourism vehicles (ships, inflatable boats, helicopters, large and small airplanes) burn fossil fuel, the main disruptions directly attributed to tourism activities include soil disturbances (more limited in the Antarctic than in the Arctic) and fauna harassment (mainly birds). It is important to stress, however, that atmospheric pollution remains the biggest threat to polar ecosystems. Apart from the pollution caused by burning fuel to transport tourists, most of the air pollutants affecting Antarctica are produced outside area and can therefore not be attributed directly to tourism.

Trying to protect the very resources the industry depends upon, the IAATO has created a visitor’s code of conduct entitled “Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic.” This recommends, among other things, the distances one should respect when observing the various fauna species. In the past, some observers⁽²⁾⁽⁶⁾ have stressed that the guidelines are not applied consistently. The problem is that the code is enforced by guides, who must also see to their customers’ satisfaction. Many of these customers have a hard time containing their enthusiasm once ashore. Other visitors, who have invested considerable sums of money to reach these natural areas, sometimes feel they have earned the right to approach wildlife beyond the distances allowed. According to IAATO⁽⁴⁾, however, the activities of its members have “no more than a minor or transitory impact on the Antarctic environment.”⁽⁴⁾

The organization worries, however, about the 5% of Antarctic operators who have not joined IAATO and therefore do not apply the visitors’ code of conduct. During the 2005 2006 austral summer, 4,639 visitors and an unknown number of small boat passengers set foot on Antarctica with no public record of their visit ⁽⁴⁾. In its annual report, IAATO⁽⁴⁾ expressed concern over two non-member vessels, each carrying 500 passengers, who made shore excursions in spite of the IAATO regulation limiting site access to ships carrying more than 200 passengers.

The tourism forecasts made by IAATO for the 2006-2007 austral summer indicate that the travelling public’s desire for Antarctic adventures knows no limits other than those imposed by the number of ships and places available for such journeys. Negative impacts, as well as incidents involving tourism activities such as the sinking of the Bahia Paraiso in 1989, remind us, however, that tourism growth in such a remote and isolated place as Antarctica requires safe, sustainable management approaches.

Sources:
⁽¹⁾ – Cessford, Gordon (1997) “Antarctic Tourism – A Frontier for Wilderness Management,” International Journal of Wilderness, Vol. 3, No. 3, USA, pp. 7-11.
⁽²⁾ – GRENIER, Alain A. (1998) “Ship-Based Polar Tourism in the Northeast Passage: A Case Study, ” Publication in the social sciences, University of Lapland, Rovanieni, Finland.
⁽³⁾ – HANSOM, James D. and GORDON, John E. (1998) “Antarctic Environments and Resources – A Geographical Perspective,” Longman: UK.
⁽⁴⁾ – IAATO (2006a) “IP 86 IAATO Overview of Antarctic Tourism 2005-2006 Rev 1,” International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (Website), 21 p.[http://image.zenn.net/REPLACE/CLIENT/
1000037/1000116/application/msword/Trends1992-2007.doc]
⁽⁶⁾ – VUILLEUMIER, François (1996) “Negative Impact of Tourism on Antarctic Animals and Plants,” Southern Connection Newsletter, July, No. 10.
⁽⁷⁾ – WTO (2005) “Tourism Market Trends, 2005 Edition, Annex,” World Tourism Organisation. [http://www.unwto.org/facts/menu.html]

Baffling figures

The World Tourism Organization (WTO) reported that – after declining for three consecutive years – international tourism revenues rose 9% in 2004, while also making it clear that this increase was expressed in local currencies at constant prices, thus neutralizing the effects of exchange rate fluctuations and inflation.

When you look at the 2004 growth of international tourism revenues over 2003 in US dollars (WTO statistics), there is much to be amazed by!

• Worldwide, the increase was 18.8%.
• Asia-Pacific posted an increase of 31.8% and the Middle East 24.8%.
• In Europe, only one country (Hungary) posted growth of less than 10%.
• In Asia-Pacific, a majority of destinations (12 out of 15 countries) experienced an increase of more than 20%.
• Canada can be thrilled with a 21.8% increase in tourism revenues.

However, when you look at the 2004 growth of international tourism revenues over 2003 in euros (WTO statistics), there is much to be disturbed by!

• Worldwide, the increase was 8%.
• Asia-Pacific posted an increase of 19.8% and the Middle East 13.5%.
• In Europe, only two countries (Ukraine and Poland) posted growth of more than 10%.
• In Asia-Pacific, just under half the destinations (six out of 15 countries) experienced an increase of more than 20%.
• Canada did well with a 10.7% increase in tourism revenues.

In light of these statistics, it becomes difficult to compare revenue growth rates among countries. In effect, if the yen gained more ground against the euro over the year than the Canadian dollar did, the growth rate reflects the change in the exchange rate as much as the change in revenues. It would be fairer and more illuminating if the revenue statistics were produced in local currencies and constant prices.

In which category do we want to perform best?

France was the No. 1 destination in the world in international arrivals, but third in tourism revenues. And not only did France post the worst showing in terms of average spending per international arrival among the top 12 revenue-makers, it performed worse than many other destinations as well. Conversely, the US was third in arrivals, first in revenues, and did very well in average spending (Table 1).

Unfortunately, the lack of statistics on such factors as length of stay prevents a more precise picture of the situation. But other interesting points emerge from juggling the statistics (tables 1 and 2):

• The US had 38% fewer arrivals but 45% more revenues than France. The tourist visiting the US spent three times more than in France, or $1,616 US versus $544 US.

• The US and Germany did well in all three categories (revenues, arrivals and average spending).

• In 2003, Australia was the top performer in average spending, according to the statistics (4.4 million arrivals, $10.3 billion US in revenues, average spending of $2,370 US). In 2004, it was in 10th position in revenues, but did not make it into the top 20 in arrivals (the Netherlands was in 20th place, with 9.6 million). It essentially posted the same revenues as Canada, with four times fewer arrivals than Canada.

• Japan and Belgium (2003 arrivals data) were in the top 20 in revenues (in 20th was Malaysia, with $8.2 billion US), but did not make it into the top 20 in arrivals. Their ratio of average spending was obviously very high.

• Although they didn’t make it onto the list of top 20 revenue earners, many countries (Table 2) managed to turn in better performances on average spending than some of the top 20 revenue-earning countries.

• Hong Kong, Poland, Hungary and Ukraine, all in the top 20 in arrivals, fared poorly in average spending, at less than $500 US.

• Despite six million arrivals, Tunisia did not manage to generate substantial economic spin-offs, with average spending of just $318 US per international arrival.

• With average spending of $702 CAD in 2004 (3.3 million foreign tourists and 2.3 billion CAD in revenues), Quebec surpassed the Canadian average.

What should we conclude?

When figures show France can be proud of recording 75 million international arrivals but that it managed to obtain an average spending rate of only $544 US, you have to ask yourself if the statistics speak for themselves, if they should be challenged, if information essential for accurate analysis is missing, if the methodologies were consistent?

An analysis of the data leads to the conclusion that more arrivals do not necessarily equal more revenues. In this vein, many countries would like visitors to spend more.

In the UK, the Office for National Statistics recorded an 11% increase in tourists in 2004 (27.3 million) compared to 2003, and an 8% gain in revenues (£12.8 billion). Despite these positive results, VisitBritain is obviously working to raise visitor numbers, but in particular to boost how much they spend.

Among the leading destinations, Italy had a relatively poor 2004 compared to 2003. The 2.2% dip in the number of overnight stays (336.8 millions) and the 2.4% decline in the average length of stay (4.06) cast a shadow over the revenue picture.

The situation was similar for tourism professionals in Spain, where “fewer tourists and more profitability” has become the new credo of major hotel chains and others in the industry. Government officials also feel it would be better to have fewer tourists, but for longer stays. Visitors numbers advanced 3.4% in 2004 (53.6 million), but revenue volume did not keep pace, constituting a drop in average spending.

In Quebec, the Association touristique régionale (ATR) de la Gaspésie faced a similar situation: while tourist numbers rose, visitors were not staying as long or spending as much as previously. To counter the problem, the ATR increased its presence in promotional markets, invested in training programs based on the client approach, and launched a “Quality” initiative.

Obviously, the methodology and recording of data can differ from country to country, making comparisons difficult. But beyond the figures, the question remains interesting: is the goal to attract more tourists with all the consequences of that, or is it to increase economic benefits in a perspective of sustainable development?

Sources:

- Alves, Jose. “L’Espagne remet en cause son modèle touristique,” Les Échos, No. 19338, January 27, 2005, p. 26.
- McGrath, Ginny. “Britain Needs Big Spenders,” Travelmole, February 9, 2005.
- World Tourism Organization. “Tourism Highlights,” 2005 edition.
- Voilà.fr. “L’Italie a connu une mauvaise année touristiques en 2004,” [www.voila.fr], February 11, 2005.

Fewer U.S. visitors to Canada

The marked decline in the number of Americans travelling to Canada is of concern to the entire tourism industry, although the drop has not affected all the provinces in the same way. In fact, from 2000 to 2004, compared to the other Canadian provinces, Quebec appears to have been less affected by the Americans’ decision to desert Canada.

If we do a monthly comparison of U.S. arrivals to Canada in 2000 and 2004 (Graph 1), the slump is proportionally less significant during the summer months (June: -18.8%, July: -16.5% and August: 19%). However, in absolute numbers, losses are the highest during the months of the high season (July: 981,777 visitors and August: -1,079,657 visitors).

Major drop in same-day visitors

It is important to note that 98% of the decline in U.S. visitors to Canada is due to a sharp drop in same-day visitors, a situation that affects Ontario in particular since this province welcomed three-quarters (74.4%) of the total U.S. same-day visitors in 2000 (Table 2). From 2000 to 2004, the number of same-day visitors to Ontario fell by over 7.5 million.

Therefore, if we look solely at the number of tourists (Graph 2), the decline in the U.S. travel market is much lower, proportionally speaking. In fact, from 2000 to 2004, the number of Americans spending one night or more in the country dropped a mere 1.11%. During the same period, Quebec even recorded an increase of 3.38%.

2002: Base year or exception?

In 2002, Canada welcomed a record high of 16.17 million U.S. tourists. This increase of nearly 650,000 tourists compared to 2001 occurred at a time when the number of U.S. travellers to international destinations plummeted 1.3 million. Of course, this extraordinary performance can be explained, in part, by the public’s reaction to the events of 2001: travellers sought safety by staying close to home.

The 2002 increase was fuelled primarily by a jump in leisure travel since the number of business tourists in this record year only reached 1.96 million, a decrease compared to the 2.16 million recorded in 2000 (Graph 3). Furthermore, for the past several years, business travel has made up a proportionally smaller share of Canada’s U.S. travel market.

2005: The true decline begins

Preliminary data for the year 2005 (January to October) illustrate a trend of concern to the entire Canadian tourism industry, particularly that in Quebec.

This drop appears to be due to border markets, because in the first ten months of 2005, the number of American tourists arriving by car dropped 13.5%, while the number of those using other modes of transportation increased 6.4%.

Americans travelling to see the world

In 2004, Americans travelled abroad as never before, surpassing the record set in 2000 (61.8 million vs. 61.3 million). However, during this same period, Canada recorded a decrease of nearly 175,000 U.S. tourists. An analysis of the regions visited (Table 4) demonstrates a major shift in the international travel habits of Americans.

According to Table 4, non-traditional destinations are enjoying an upswing in interest on the part of American travellers. At the same time, traditional destinations (Canada, Mexico and Western Europe) saw their market shares drop sharply from 2000 to 2004 (Graph 4).

Preliminary data from the U.S. government for the period January 1 to September 1, 2005, show that U.S. air traffic to overseas destinations rose 5%. Once again, Central America (+14%), Asia (+10%), South America (+9%) and the Middle East (+8%) recorded increases superior to that of Europe (+3%).

The Canadian tourism industry, which still hopes to repeat the success of 2002, must accept that things will never get “back to normal” because American and global realities have been so profoundly altered.

The situation according to the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC)

In the fall of 2005, the CTC formed a task force to examine the U.S. market. Its preliminary findings seem to confirm that Canada cannot blame factors like SARS, the war in Iraq, exchange rates or border-crossing issues for the country’s failure to attract U.S. tourists. The Americans interviewed by the CTC note that while they have no specific reasons for staying away from Canada, they are not motivated to come here either. This means that Canada is not successfully distinguishing itself from other destinations in an increasingly competitive field. The CTC’s final report is expected in late January 2006.

Sources:
- Canadian Tourism Commission. “US market taskforce expands mandate,” Tourism, Vol. 002, Issue 11, November-December 2005.
- Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. “Regional Tourism Profile – Provincial Markets Shares”, www.tourism.gov.on.ca/english/tourdiv/research/rtp/2003/
ComparitiveReportsProvinces/index.html
- Statistics Canada. “International Travel Survey,” Catalogue No. 66-001-PIB, January 2000 to October 2005.
- U.S. Department of Commerce, ITA, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries. “U.S. Citizen Air Traffic to Overseas Regions, Canada; Mexico 2005,” www.tinet.ita.doc.gov, 2005.
- U.S. Department of Commerce, ITA, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries. “U.S. Resident Travel Abroad Historical Visitation – Outbound 1994-2004,” July 2005.

Canada may no longer be one of the WTO’s top ten international destinations, but… when it comes to the tourism statistics produced by the World Tourism Organization (WTO), the data collection methods differ from one country to the next.

When compiling tourism data, some countries only count tourists, others include both tourists and same-day visitors, while still others report one tourist more than once during a single visit, because the tourist is counted each time he or she stays in a different hotel (see the table below).

If all countries used the same data collection method, the WTO’s infamous international ranking would be much different and Canada’s position would rise. Currently ranked 11th, Canada compiles its statistics using the TF method (see table), in other words, by simply counting the number of international tourists who enter its borders. The United Kingdom and Hong Kong, ranked 6th and 7th respectively, include both tourists and same-day visitors in their numbers (VF method). If Canada used the same method (tourists and same-day visitors) as the United Kingdom (27.7 million) and Hong Kong (21.8 million), it could add the 17.8 million same-day visitors who entered by car in 2004 to its 19 million or so international arrivals and thereby surpass both in the ranking. Germany and Austria, which rank 9th and 10th, employ the TCE method to compile their data, which means that if a single tourist stays in four different hotels during his or her stay, he or she is counted four times.

Tourism receipts: local currencies vs. US dollars

The WTO reports international tourism receipts in US dollars and in local currencies at constant prices. When tourism receipts (in yen, pesos, Euros, etc.) are converted into US dollars, figures can be compared and analyzed and used to create an international ranking. However, expressing receipts in local currencies at constant prices neutralizes the effect of exchange rate changes and inflation. When the US dollar depreciates against a given currency, this situation can inflate tourism receipts converted into US dollars. For example, Spain’s tourism receipts climbed 14.1% from 2003 to 2004 when expressed in US dollars, while they rose only 3.8% when expressed in Euros (the local currency). The same thing was true for Australia. Its receipts jumped 25.5% in 2004 when they were converted into US dollars, but climbed only 10.7% when they were expressed in constant Australian dollars. In addition, international tourism receipts include revenues generated by both tourists and same-day visitors.

Tourist activities

Statistics Canada has developed a special tool for finding out how many people engage in a given activity when travelling, but the Canadian Travel Survey (CTS) and the International Travel Survey (ITS) have different ways of reporting the number of participants. For example, let’s say that three people took a trip together. During their stay, one of them went shopping while the other two played golf.

• ITS – Regardless of which person in the group answers the survey, Statistics Canada will count 3 people as shoppers and 3 people as golfers.
• CTS – If the person answering the survey is the one who went shopping, then Statistics Canada will count 3 people as shoppers and 0 as golfers.
• CTS – If the person answering the survey is one of those who played golf, then Statistics Canada will count 3 people as golfers and 0 as shoppers.

A solo traveller is, by definition, a person travelling alone…or is it?

Statistics Canada has a very different definition of solo traveller. According to the CTS, a person is considered to be travelling alone if they are not accompanied by someone from the same household. Therefore, a person is reported as a solo traveller even if:

• he or she is accompanied by a family member (mother, daughter, brother, etc.) who does not live under the same roof,
• he or she is travelling with friends, or
• he or she is on a group tour package.

For the ITS, the method is different. People are only considered to be travelling alone if they are unable to provide any information on the expenditures and activities of the people accompanying them or if they are part of a group. However, as of 2005, the CTS was replaced by the Travel Survey of Canadian Residents, which uses the ITS definition of a person travelling solo.

Statistics will never look quite the same

When the WTO publishes its Top Ten, the data is disseminated around the globe without a word about the differences in collection methods. Statisticians must obviously work with a number of limitations if they wish to make sense of the information they gather. However, a closer look at the methodology sheds new light on the mishmash of numbers known as statistics and the way in which they are interpreted!

Sources:
- World Tourism Organization. [http://www.world-tourism.org/facts/menu.html]
- Statistics Canada, Canadian Travel Survey
- Statistics Canada, International Travel Survey
- Statistics Canada, International Travel, Advance Information, December 2004, vol. 20, no. 12, released February 2005.

It is common practice for tourism stakeholders to consult tourism forecasts when developing business strategies. People are periodically surveyed on their travel intentions so pollsters can anticipate the short-term tourism demand. We are accustomed to looking forward, but what about taking a look back? The industry has rarely taken the opportunity to compare stated travel intentions with the actual number of trips taken.

To conduct this study, we reviewed Canadian travel intentions over the past five years. To ensure reliable, homogeneous results, we looked at the findings of a poll published twice a year by the Conference Board of Canada; conducted at the same time each year, these surveys follow the same methodology and may be readily compared.

For the purpose of our analysis, we thought it best to compare the growth rate of planned vacations with the growth rate of reported trips (that is, actual trips taken). Absolute numbers are difficult to reconcile because, while vacations usually refer to stays of three days or more, Statistics Canada survey data on declared travel includes any overnight leisure trip.

Survey reliability: myth or reality?

Should the reliability of forecasts be called into question? An analysis of Figure 1 shows that projections have proven to be very different from actual outcomes when it comes to the number of trips taken by Canadians.

During the five years studied, the annual growth rates of planned trips and actual trips diverged by 17% on average, a significant gap. Furthermore, the difference between forecast and reality was never less than 10%. Obviously, many factors, including unforeseeable events, have a strong influence on the performance of a given tourism season. For example, the SARS crisis dealt a severe blow to Canadian tourism in 2003. A closer look at each year helps elucidate the reasons behind the discrepancies:

• In 1999, the economy was in full swing and the stock market was reaching new highs. Actual travel surpassed expectations by 10%.
• In 2000, the high-tech stock market bubble burst and the economy began to show signs of flagging. Actual travel was 14% lower than planned travel, indicating more Canadians decided to stay home that year.
  In 2001, the travel industry was rocked by the catastrophic events of September 11. However, since most vacations had already been taken before the day of the attacks, actual travel was nonetheless 14% higher than expected. Forecasts had underestimated the strong economic showing of the first three quarters of 2001.
• In 2002, the «post-September 11» effect had a major impact on travel intentions, which dipped to an unprecedented low. In actual fact, however, Canadians resumed travelling faster than anticipated and actual travel surpassed forecasts by 15%.
• In 2003, against the backdrop of the war in Iraq, the SARS crisis was a decisive factor in the travel decisions of many Canadians. Surveys were unable to foresee the extent of the crisis and, as a result, actual travel trailed planned travel by 21%.
• The forecasts for 2004 once again indicate negative growth and the industry remains concerned about year-end results.

Intent is not action

Unforeseeable factors aside, there is a significant difference between the absolute number of trips taken and the number of trips planned. Generally speaking, approximately 60% of Canadians actually follow through on vacation plans made six months earlier.

According to the Conference Board, some 20 million Canadians expressed interest in travelling during 2004. This represented an 8% drop compared to 2003 travel intentions. Although one can predict the direction of the economy with some success, other factors like weather conditions, exchange rates and disruptive events are difficult to anticipate and have a major impact on consumer travel decisions.

For decision-makers, tourism forecasts make up just one variable in a complex equation involving completely unpredictable elements. Travel intention surveys may herald an annual trend, but they are no substitute for managerial instincts and should not form the basis of the decision-making process.