You are on page 1of 19

International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938

Assessing the Role of Marketing Promotion in


Tourism Development in a dynamic time series
Frameork!
Seetanah Boopen
Faculty oI Law and Management
University oI Mauritius,
Reduit,
Republic oI Mauritius.
b.seetanahuom.ac.mu
Tel: 230 403 7883.
.
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'
%( August %)*)1
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
A+stract
While there exists a number oI studies on the determinants oI tourism development in the
literature, however, tourism promotion eIIorts as an ingredient in the tourism demand have
been overwhelmingly neglected in rigorous studies. Moreover, even the very Iew studies that
could be traced Iocused exclusively on developed country cases and we did not come across
any study have been undertaken island economies Ior which tourism accounts signiIicantly to
their economies. The paper thus attempts supplement the dwarI literature on tourism
promotion impact and models the latter role on tourist arrival Ior the case oI the small island
state oI Mauritius using an ARDL approach. AIter controlling Ior the classical determinants oI
tourism demand, our analysis interestingly reveals that tourism marketing and promotion
appears to be a signiIicant element, although relatively to a lesser extent than some classical
ingredients oI the tourism equation.
,ey ords
Tourism Promotion efforts$ Autoregressive Distri+uted "ag Model!
Introduction
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'
%( August %)*)2
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
The beneIits oI tourism are widely acknowledged and it plays an important role in (a)
contributing to the growth oI domestic industries that supply the tourism industry, (b) the
economic and technological development oI nations by stimulating the development oI basic
inIrastructure and (c) attracting Ioreign investment (especially in hotels) and Iacilitating
transIer oI technology. The positive and signiIicant eIIects oI tourism on a destination`s
economy, especially on island states, have been documented by Sinclair (1998) and Durbarry
(2002, 2004) and recently Seetanah (2010), among others. Subsequently a second strand oI
studies has been Iocusing on the determinants oI tourism demand in an economy and among.
Among the most prominent determinants oI Ilows in the existing empirical literature are
income in country oI origin, the cost oI travel, relative prices, exchange rates and tourism
inIrastructure (Witt and Witt, 1995, and Lim, 1997). It is noteworthy that however, very little
studies have Iocused on the role oI tourist promotion agencies and marketing eIIorts in
tourism development, despite that many government have been injecting money Irom their
limited budget, via the said agencies in an attempt to market the destination and the services
oIIered. This study attempts to Iill in the gap by making an assessment oI the tourism
marketing promotion on tourism development Ior the case study oI Mauritius. In Iact Irom a
theoretical pe4rspective, although Crouch and Ritchie (1999, 2000) identiIied the various
elements that make a destination attractive, yet it is believed that Ior tourism to be aware oI
such elements, marketing and promotion eIIorts are necessary and this is even more important
given the high level oI competition in the tourism industry.
Following the advent oI sugar sector and the declining trends oI the EPZ, international
tourism has become a major industry in Mauritius during the past decade. It has surpassed
Mauritius traditional exports and there has been a signiIicant increase in the number oI tourist
arrivals and receipts (ReIer to Appendix 1). The sector now positions itselI as the second
pillar oI the economy and there exists Iirm government intention to Iurther promote tourism
as witnessed by the increasing promotion budgets, introduction oI a brand name, business
Iacilitation initiatives and also by the wave oI air access deregulation and liberalization.
Given the importance oI this sector to the economic growth oI the country (see Durbarry,
2002, 2004, Seetanah, 2010), the objective oI the study is to identiIy and quantiIy the
ingredients that could explain Mauritius as an attractive destination to tourists in the Iirst
instance. More importantly we shall Iocus on the importance oI tourism promotion eIIorts in
destination development. As it stands little serious research has been undertaken in this
respect and the novelty oI this paper is that is extends a classical demand Ior international
tourism Iunction to include tourism promotion eIIorts and also takes into account the time
series properties oI the data by using an Autoregressive Distributed Lag Model (ARDL).
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'
%( August %)*)3
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
Moreover the study is based on the small island oI Mauritius over the period 1979-2008. The
study thus provides an assessment oI the relative impact oI promotional expenditure and is
likely to have insightIul policy implications and impact assessments.
The structure oI the paper is as Iollows: section II deals with the theoretical underpinnings oI
the role oI tourism promotion eIIort in a destination`s attractiveness and also with a brieI
literature review oI major studies in the area, Section III explains the model speciIication,
data collection and discusses the empirical results. Section IV concludes and deals with some
policy implications.
Related "iterature
Tourism Marketing Promotion and the Role of National Tourism
Promotion Agencies-.rganisations /NTPAs0!
Theoretically tourism promotion eIIorts (in terms oI attendance in road shows, marketing,
publicity and brand name among others) aim principally at disseminating as much
inIormation as possible about a destination and its attractions in an attempt to make it better
known in the ever increasing competitive international tourism market. This is particularly
true Ior island economies which are quite remote Irom the major tourist generating areas.
Moreover, as tourists have grown more sophisticated and knowledgeable about diIIerent
destinations and tourism products, there is an increasing demand on promotional agencies to
provide greater level oI inIormation pertaining to services oIIered (including hotel), activities,
uniqueness oI the destination and culture among others.
In eIIect the major bulk oI tourism promotion eIIorts are undertaken by the central or local
government (through budgetary grants or allocations as well as tourism related tax) through
specialised institutions such as National Tourism Promotion Organisations/Agencies
(NTPAs). In Mauritius, promotion eIIort is done nearly exclusively by the central government
via the Mauritius Tourism Promotion Agency (MTPA). National Tourist Organisations engage
in sales promotion activities in an attempt to persuade potential tourists to visit the
destination, and these activities may take various Iorms including media advertising and
public relations (Witt and Witt, 1995). They typically conceptualise the marketing campaign,
designs promotional strategies, and implement the program. They are also responsible Ior
designing the advertising literature, brochures, media advertisement, designing and
maintaining oI eIIective web sites and other publications to support the marketing campaign.
As a matter oI Iact, nearly 75 oI the developed countries` population has access to the
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'
%( August %)*)4
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
Internet Irom home. In addition 94 oI internet users make travel arrangements using the
Web. The internet is by Iar the number one resource Ior planning travel and vacations at least
Ior developed. Moreover, the promotion eIIorts can take Iorms oI road shows and Salon Du
Tourism` in major origin countries as well. Most tourism promotion institutions are in charge
oI operating a network oI overseas oIIice to market the country Ior Ioreign visitors. The above
are designed to present a uniIied image oI the country and Iocuses on international market.
1mpirical 1vidences!
Existing empirical researches in assessing the relative contribution oI tourism promotion
eIIort have been particularly scarce and have mainly been based on developed countries
cases. An overwhelming amount oI studies have Iocused on the general determinants oI
international tourism and only a Iew studies have been including tourism promotion eIIorts. It
is noteworthy that these were based either on survey analysis or by the estimation oI an
international demand Ior tourism equation using time series data.
Among the pioneering works Ieature Gearing et al (1974) who oIIered one oI the most
comprehensive resource inventories in determining the attractiveness oI a tourist destination
by taking Turkey as a case study. They identiIied the Iollowing the list oI attribute groups
which were seen to be important namely natural Iactors, social Iactors, historical Iactors,
recreational and shopping Iacilities, Iood and shelter. Subsequently Richtie and Zins (1978)
and Ferrario (1979) among others also identiIied more or less the same Iactors which they
Iound to contribute to the attractiveness oI a tourism destination. These authors seemed to
have identiIied the important Iactors Ior a successIul tourism development but still promotion
oI these are judged to be equally important Ior the tourist to be aware and Iully inIormed oI
the destination`s products and attractions. Braithwaite et al (1998)
1
also reported on research
looking speciIically at the Iactors responsible Ior ensuring success oI tourism in 13 regional
areas oI Australia. Analysis oI the survey results showed that attractions (natural, cultural and
man made) were considered as the most pivotal Iactor in regional tourism. Equal second were
what they termed inIrastructure and marketing and promotion` Iollowed by other Iactors.
The second set oI studies perIormed in the Iield oI the determinants oI tourism was based on
the estimation oI an international tourism demand equation. Witt and Witt (1995) and Lim
(1997) provided a comprehensive overview oI the regression analysis, model speciIication,
attributes and proxies. Among the most common independent variables used and reported to
be important in the literature are income oI origin country, cost oI travel, relative prices,
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'
%( August %)*)5
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
exchange rate, tourism inIrastructure and level oI development in home country among
others. It should be noted that marketing promotion was a relatively under-researched
element. Indeed, one oI the Iew study analysing tourism eIIorts was provided by Uysal and
Crompton (1984). They considered promotional expenditure as a Iactor aIIecting international
tourism Ilows to Turkey using an international tourism demand equation. The authors
reported tourism promotion eIIorts to be signiIicant on six oI the 11 countries studied and that
coeIIicients were low, less than 0.6 in each case (inelastic in all cases ranging Irom 0.022 Ior
France to 0.596 Ior Spain). These Iindings suggest that investment in tourism promotion Ior
Turkey as a tourist destination has had some beneIits. Barry and O`Hagan (1972) earlier and
Papadopoulos and Witt (1985) with a coeIIicient oI 0.175 (but not signiIicant) later on
conIirmed the above. The review oI literature by Witt and Witt (1995) summarized a median
coeIIicient value oI 0.1 Ior the case oI tourism promotion.
Another rare study in the AIrican context was that oI Naude and Saayman (2004) who studied
the determinants oI tourist in the case oI AIrican countries using panel data regression
approach. Apart Irom the classical usual Iactors, the authors also identiIied political stability,
personal saIety, available inIrastructure and tourism marketing eIIorts as important Iactors.
The latter was proxied in the context by the number oI internet users. Using cross section
OLS and Least Absolute deviation (LAD) estimators the authors reported a positive eIIect oI
tourism promotion eIIort in nearly all panel sets analysed namely the total tourist arrivals,
arrivals Irom America, Europe and AIrica respectively. However, when using static and
dynamic (Generalised Methods oI Moments) panel estimates, mixed results were Iound with
respect mainly to the signiIicance level oI the tourism marketing promotion variable.
We hardly came across any study using rigorous time series analysis related to co-integration
and error correction econometric modeling and including marketing promotion eIIort as a
likely potential Iactor as part oI the explanatory variables. Moreover, studies on small island
economies has been very scarce and empirical Iindings in the above context (especially with
respect to the smallness and remoteness aspects oI such economies) is believe to add valuable
insights in the growing body oI literature.
Methodology and Analysis
Model Specification and Data Source
The study is based on the small island oI Mauritius over the year 1979- 2008. The economic
model pertains to an estimation oI a demand Iunction Ior international tourism and augmented
1
In TTF (2003)
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'
%( August %)*)6
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
Ior the sake oI this study by a proxy Ior tourism promotion. Our preIerred model is consistent
with the general literature (see Witt and Witt, 1995; Lim 1997; Nordstom, 2002; Eilav and
Eilav, 2003, Naudee and Saayman, 2004)) and particularly to Seetanah (2008) Ior the case oI
island economies. The Iunction speciIied is thus as Iollows
TR
t
=f (GDPH
t
,GDPF
t
, ROOM
t
, AIRLIB
t
, RELATIVE
t
, PROMO
t
)
/*0
The dependent variable (TR), the total number oI tourist arrivals per annum is the measure oI
demand Ior tourism to Mauritius. The data were available Irom the Central Statistical OIIice
oI the country.
The key independent variables in the model are total tourism expenditures and relative
tourism prices. We Iollow the literature (Nordstom, 2002 and Naude and Saayman 2004) in
using real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in countries oI origin (weighted average)
as proxy Ior total expenditures on tourism. Overseas travel (especially recreational) is
expensive and oIten regarded as a luxury good in which case the discretionary income oI
origin become important.
As Ior the case oI relative prices (measured as RELATIVE), we Iollow Eilat and Einav (2003)
and Naudee and Saayman (2004) by using the CPI oI a destination country adjusted by the $
exchange rate as a proxy Ior relative tourism prices. The inverse oI it shows the many baskets
oI goods a tourist has to give up in his home country in order to buy a basket oI goods in the
destination country. This measure oI relative prices captures changes in the real exchange rate
over time as well as cross sectional variation in the cost oI travel. Demand Ior overseas travel
in a particular destination is expected to be negatively related to relative tourism prices as
higher within the country and relatively higher cost oI living would make most tourists less
enthusiastic about the destination.
Urbanisation and development level (GHPH) oI a destination country is consistent with more
tourist arrivals, especially Irom developed countries Tourist might preIer more developed
destinations or a minimum development level in choosing their destination. This is proxied by
the income oI the destination country. All the above three variables were obtained and
constructed Irom the Penn World Table 6.1.
In case oI tourism inIrastructure, we Iollow the standard literature and use hotel rooms
(ROOM) available in the country as a measure Ior the capacity oI the tourism sector. The
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'
%( August %)*)7
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
more the room the more the capacity and more competitive that country`s tourism sector
(cheaper price as competition). Moreover a minimum is hotel accommodation size needed Ior
a destination to reach its critical mass and also to convince airlines to establish routes (Naudee
and Saayman, 2004). Data on the number oI rooms were obtained Irom the Central Statistical
OIIice oI the country.
Air Liberalisation variable (AIRLIB) was also included in the model. Air transport
liberalisation has been an important Iactor in the tourism success in the island as tourist
arrival has nearly exclusively been dependent on air services given our relative geographic
isolation Irom most oI its major tourism markets. Liberalisation oI air transport is expected to
result in a signiIicant expansion in airline capacity and competition on a destination`s major
routes with increases in air services between the destination and its major markets. The
process also enlarges market access, de-restricts routes and allows competition in some or all
oI them, and abolishes or easing price controls. The aim is thus to introduce competition (or
increase it) and enhance eIIiciency, so as to obtain lower Iares. The beneIits ultimately would
translate in more tourist arrival in the destination. In Iact Mauritius has been engaged in the
liberalization oI air transport since the 1970 and has as to date some 30 bilateral air service
agreements signed by the government. The only consistent measure available is the number oI
bilateral air service agreements (BASA) signed by the Mauritian government with other
countries since the Iirst one in early 1970. This was made available by the Ministry oI
External Communications.
The explanatory variable oI interest is tourism promotion eIIort (PROMO) and this is
measured by tourism promotional expenditure (see Clarke (1981) and Uysal and Crompton
(1984)) as allocated to the Mauritius Tourism Promotion Agency (MTPA) by the government.
It is good to point out that promotion and marketing oI tourism is nearly exclusively done by
the country`s central government. The Iigures were provided by the Central Statistical OIIice,
Tourism Department oI the island and Irom the Accountant General Annual report.
1conometric Modeling
The regression model oI equation 1 can be written as
tr
t
=
0
+
1
gdph
t
+
2
gdpf
t
+
3
airlib
t
+
4
relative
t
+
5
roo
it
+
6
proo
t
+
t
/%0
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'
%( August %)*)8
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
The speciIication is oI a log linear one and the small letters denotes the natural logarithm oI
the variables Ior ease oI interpretation oI parameters.
Tests of Stationarity!
To investigate the data univariate properties and to determine the degree to which they are
integrated, both the augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) (1979) and Phillips-Perron (PP) (1988)
unit-roots tests have been employed. The tests in Iact provide solid evidence and tend to
suggest that that the series are non-stationary in levels but indeed stationary in Iirst diIIerence
except Ior the case oI proo and airlib which were Iound to be an I(0) variable.
ARD" /Autoregressive Distri+uted lag model0
Given that not all the variables are integrated to the same order, we employ the testing and
estimation procedure advanced in Pesaran et al (1997) and Pesaran and Shin (1999) to
examine the existence oI a long-term relationship (cointegration) in our analysis namely the
ARDL approach. Unlike other cointegration approaches such as the Johansen`s (1988)
Maximum Likelihood technique, the ARDL technique does not require the variables in the
model to be I(1), or oI the same order. The approach also allows us to incorporate some
dynamics in the analysis.
For the speciIication 1 above, the error correction versions oI the ARDL model in the
variables tr! gdph ! gdpf !airlib! roo! relative and proo is given respectively by
t
r
"
+
t
r
" "
g
d
p
f "
relat
ive " "
roo
# "
proo
+

=
b

i
$+
gdph
t

i
+
d + e
t i
f+airl
ib
t

i
+
g
+
h
0 i t i i t ii i i i
i
=1 i=1 i =1 i =1
i
=1 i =1 i
tr

+gd
h
t

+gd
pf
t

1
+
relative
t

1

airlib+
+roo

t
1
+
proo
t

+

1
t

1 2 3 4 5 t 16 7 t
/20
Since we have annual observations, we chose n1 Ior the maximum order oI lags in the ARDL
model in both cases and carry out the estimation over the period oI study. In Iact the same lag
length was chosen when using the Iinal prediction error due to SBC.
For the model, the hypothesis that is being tested is the null oI non-existence oI the long run
relationship` deIined by
Ho%
&
'
(
'
)
'
*
'
+
'
,
'
-
'.
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'%(
August %)*) 9
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
And the alternative hypothesis is
H
&
%
&
.!
(
.!
)
.!
*
.!
+
.!
,
.!
-
.
The recommended statistic is the F statistics Ior the joint signiIicance oI
&
!
(!

)!

*!

+

,
and
-
. Computation oI this F statistic requires running the Iollowing regression
tr = +b tr +$ gdh
+d
gdpf
+
e
relat
ive

1
+ f airlib + g roo
+h
proo

1
+

t 0
t

1
t

1 t1 t
t

1
t

1 t t
/&0
and a variable addition test is subsequently made by including the Iollowing.

1
tr
t

1
,
2
gdph
t

1
,
3
gdpf
t

1
,
4
relative
t

1
,
5
airlib
t

1
,
6
roo
t

1
,
7
proo
It should be noted that the distribution oI the F statistic is non-standard, irrespective whether
regressors are I(0) or I(1). Pesaran and al (1997) have tabulated the appropriate critical values
Ior diIIerent number oI regressors and whether the regressors contain an intercept or a time
trend.
The F-Statistics F(tr/gdph!gdpf! airlib!roo!relative! proo) turned out to be 6.21 and
exceeds the upper bound oI the critical value band. We thus reject the null hypothesis oI no
long run relationship between the variables irrespective oI their order. The test results thus
suggest that there is a long run relationship between the variable. (This is also conIirmed by
the Maximum Eigein values and Trace Values oI the Johansen test Ior cointegration)
1stimation results
Given that the speciIication is cointegrated, the unrestricted error correction representation oI
the ARDL model is given by equation 3. The next stage oI the procedure would be to estimate
the coeIIicients oI the long run relations and the associated Error Correction Model (ECM)
using the ARDL approach. The order oI the distributed lag on the dependent variable was
selected by the Schwartz Bayesian Criterion (SBC)
2
and turned out to be one.
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'
%( August %)*)10
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
The SBC criteria selects the ARDL (1,1,1,1,0,0,0) Ior the model. The long run estimated
coeIIicients are shown in the table 1.
Ta+le *3 1stimated "ong run 4oefficients +ased on ARD" approach3 Dependent
varia+le is tr
Regressor 4oefficient t'ratio
/S54 *$*$*$*$)$)$)0
gdph ..*,/ &.0*
gdpf ).-,/// (.1(
relative 2..0+/ 2&.00
airlib ..&0// (.(*
roo ..)0/// (.1*
proo ..&,/ &.-0
$o"#ta"t +.)*/// *.0&
It is observed that tourism promotional eIIort may have indeed contributed positively to the
tourist arrival in the country in the long run thus conIirming its importance as a potential
ingredient in tourism destination. In Iact a 1 increase in the promo is associated with a 1.6
increase in the number oI tourist arrival in the island. The level oI development oI the island
and tourism inIrastructure is also seen to be important Iactors. The income in the country oI
origin, a measure oI income elasticity seems to indicate that Mauritius is a luxury destination.
As such tourist are reported to be price sensitive as revealed by the negative and signiIicant
coeIIicient oI the variable relative. Air Access Liberalisation is also seen to be an important
element in the development oI tourism in the country and this is in line with the theoretical
underpinnings and also with the studies oI Seetanah (2007).
We proceed to the estimation oI the autoregressive distributed lag estimates and the error
correction model associated with our long run estimates using SBC. The results are reported
in table 2 below.
Ta+le %3 Autoregressive Distri+uted lag estimates3 Dependent varia+le is tr
2
Pesaran et al (1997) Iound that SBC is preIerable to AIC, as it is a parsimonious model that selects
the smallest possible lag length, while AIC selects the maximum relevant lag length
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'%( August %)*)
11
International Research Symposium in Service
Management
ISSN 1694-
0938
Regressor 4oefficient t'ratio
S54 /*$*$*$*$)$)$)0
tr(lagged ) 0.345*** -.&&
gdph ..))*/ &.00
gdph(lagged) ..&,* ..+*
gdpf (.()// (.&)
gdpf (lagged) ..,1// (.(&
relative 2..+)*/// 2).()
relative(lagged) 2..(() 2..1,
airlib ...1+/ &.-1
roo ..)(+// (.)+
proo ..&*)/ &.-*
3o"#ta"t ).--/// ).()
R sqr ..1&(
Dw (.(
The selected ARDL model passes the standard diagnostic tests (Serial Correlation, Functional
Form, Normality and Heteroscedasticity) and highlights once again the positive link between
tourism marketing and promotion eIIort and tourism arrival in a dynamic Iramework and
where there is the presence oI lagged eIIects. The positive coeIIicient oI the lagged dependent
suggests that repeat tourism is a common phenomenon Ior the Mauritian case. Moreover, the
positive constant term indicates that visitors have a good opinion oI the island as a destination
resort.
Ta+le 23 1rror 4orrection Representation for the Selected ARD" model3 Dependent
varia+le is tr
Regressor 4oefficient t'ratio
S54 /*$*$*$*$)$)$)0
gdph ..))*/ &.00
gdpf (.()// (.&)
relative 2..+)*/// 2).()
airlib ...1+// &.-1
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'%( August %)*)
12
International Research Symposium in Service
Management
ISSN 1694-
0938
roo ..)(+// (.)+
proo ..&*)/ &.-*
Ecm(-1) ..)1/// *.&(
R sqr ..-&
DW (.(
Table 3 suggests that the impact oI tourism promotion on the tourism development has been
positive and signiIicant in the short run as well with a coeIIicient oI 0.143. This which is
slightly lower than the estimated long run coeIIicient oI 0.16 suggesting that it these
marketing and promotional eIIorts may take some time to have their Iull eIIect. The
coeIIicients Ior the other explanatory variables are well behaved and have the expected sign
and signiIicance. In particular, the long run coeIIicient Ior the Ioreign income is slightly more
than reported in the literature and conIirms that Mauritius is seen as a more luxury destination
in the market. Relative prices and exchange are Iound to negatively impact on the
attractiveness oI Mauritius as a destination. The negative and signiIicant adjusted CPI
indicates the tourists are relatively price sensitive. It is however estimated to be less than in
the literature which reported that the price elasticity oIten Iall with the range oI unitary
(Crouch, 1999) thus indicating that tourists might be less price sensitive. The positive and
signiIicant coeIIicient oI domestic income, used as an indicator Ior development, suggests
that a higher level oI development is consistent with more tourist arrival.
Lastly, the coeIIicient oI the error correction model (ECM) oI the selected ARDL is negative
and highly signiIicant at 1 level. This conIirms the existence oI a stable long-run
relationship and points to a long-run co-integration relationship between variables. The ECM
represents the speed oI adjustment to restore equilibrium in the dynamic model Iollowing a
disturbance. The coeIIicient oI the ECM is around -0.4 in implies that a deviation Irom the
long-run equilibrium Iollowing a short-run shock is corrected by about 40 per cent aIter each
year.
Summary 6 Policy implications
The link between tourism promotion eIIort and tourism arrival has been analysed using an
Autoregressive Distributed Lag Iramework Ior the small island state oI Mauritius Iollowing
rigorous time series properties tests. Results Irom the analysis show that tourism promotion
eIIorts may have contributed positively, though relatively not to a sizeable level to the number
oI tourist arrival in both short and long run. The income and price elasticities Irom the study
Iurther revealed that the Mauritius is considered to be a luxury and that tourists are
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'
%( August %)*)13
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
also price sensitive. Tourism inIrastructure and the country development level are also part oI
the overall ingredient Ior Mauritius`s successIul tourism development. Moreover the
phenomenon oI repeat tourist is well present in the country.
As Iar as policy recommendations are concerned, it is believed that the government should
have a consistent policy with respect to tourism promotion allocations and grants especially in
times oI budget constraint. The case oI private Iinancing and joint public/private Iinancing
arrangements should thus be less ambiguous so long there is addition to the Iunding oI such
eIIorts and government should ensure that the private sector have suIIicient incentive to
contribute. There should be an awareness between all stakeholders that such promotion is Ior
a common cause and mutually beneIicial Ior all. A spillover beneIit oI public private
partnerships in tourism is that private sector has more sense oI entrepreneurship and is more
responsive than the government these industry members and can thus provide valuable
expertise Ior a market driven promotional and marketing activities.
References
Buhalis, D (2000) Marketing the competitive destination oI the Iuture, Tourism Management 21 (116)
Clarke C P (1981) An analysis oI the determinants oI demand Ior tourism in Barbados`, Unicersity
MicroIlims International, Ann Arbor, Michigan; London UK.
Durbarry, R, (2002), The economic contribution oI tourism in Mauritius, Annals oI Tourism Research,
Vol 29, No 3, pp 862865.
Durbarry, R (2004), Tourism and economic growth: the case oI Mauritius, Tourism Economics, 10(4),
pp 389-401
Eilat Y and L Einav, (2004) Determinants oI international tourism: a three- dimensional panel data
analysis, Applied Economics 36, 13151327
Ferrario, F (1979), The evaluation oI tourist resources, 4o5r"al of Travel Re#ear$h 17(3):18-22
Gunn, C.A. (1988) Tourism Planning (second edition), New York: Taylor & Francis.
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'
%( August %)*)14
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
Gearing, C.E (1974), Establishing a Measure oI Touristic Attractiveness, Journal oI Travel Research,
12, 1-8.
Heneghan P (1976) Resource allocation in tourism marketing, Tourism International
Press, London, UK 1976
Kulendran, N. (1996) Modeling quarterly tourist .ows to Australia using cointegration analysis,
Tourism Economics, 2, 20322.
Lim C (1997), Review oI international tourism demand models, Annals oI Tourism research, Vol. 24,
No 4, pp 835-849
Martin, C. A., & Witt, S. F. (1988). Substitute prices in models oI tourism demand. Annals oI Tourism
Research, 15, 255-268.
McElroy J, L (2003) Small Island Tourist Economies Across the LiIecycle, Paper prepared Ior the
International ConIerence, Beyond MIRAB: The Political Economy oI Small Islands in the
21st Century, School oI Economics and Finance, Victoria University, Wellington, New
Zealand, 23-25 February 2004
Naudee W A, Saayman A (2004) The determinants oI tourist arrivals in AIrica : A Panel Data
Regression Analysis, Paper presented at the International ConIerence, Centre Ior the Study oI
AIrican Economies, University oI OxIord
Nordstrom J (2002) Dynamic and Stochastic Structures in Tourism Demand Modeling, Umea
Economic Studies No 596, Umea University, Sweden
Papadopoulos, S I and S F Witt (1985) A Marketing analysis oI Ioreign tourism in Greece, in : S Shaw,
L Sparks and E Kaynak, eds, Marketing in the 1990s and beyond: Proceedings oI the Second
World Marketing Congress (University oI Stirling, Stirling) 682-693
Pesaran, H. M. and Y. Shin. (1995) Autoregressive distributed lag modeling approach to
cointegration analysis, DAE Working Paper Series! No. 9514, Department oI Economics,
University oI Cambridge.
Pesaran, M. H., Y. Shin and R. Smith. (1996), Testing Ior the Existence oI a Long -run Relationship,
DAE Working Papers 9622, Department oI Applied Economics, university oI Cambridge.
Pesaran, M.H and Y. Shin (1999), An Autoregressive Distributed Lag Modelling Approach to
Cointegration Analysis, Chapter 11 in S.Storm(ed.), Econometrics and Economic Theory in
the 20
th
Century: The Ragnar Firsch Centennial Symposium, Cambrigde University Press,
Cambridge.
Phillips, P.C.B and Perron, P (1988), Testing Ior a Unit Root in Time Series Regression, Biometrica,
75, pp 335-46
Ritchie, B. J. R. and Zins M. (1978) Culture as a determinant oI the attractiveness oI a
tourist region, Annals oI Tourism Research, 5(2): 252-267.
Sinclair, T. (1998), Tourism and economic development: a survey, Journal oI Development Studies, Vol
34, No 5, pp 151.
Smith, S. L. J. (1994). The tourism product. Annals oI Tourism Research, 21(3), 582-595.
Tang and Rochananond (1990), Attractiveness as a tourist destination; a comparative study oI Thailand
and selected countries, Socio-Econ Planning, Vol 24, No 3
Tourism Task Force (TTF) (2003), Down the track; better ways to deliver tourism`s land transport
inIrastructure. Available on www.ttI.org.au
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'
%( August %)*)15
International Research Symposium in Service Management ISSN 1694-0938
Uysal M and Crompton J L (1984) Determinants oI demand Ior international tourist Ilows to Turkey,
Tourism Management, 5(4), 288-297
Witt S and Witt C (1995) Forecasting tourism demand: A review oI empirical research, International
Journal oI Forecasting, Vol. 11 pp 447-475
Appendi7 A
Ta+le A*3 Some key figures a+out the Mauritian Tourism Sector
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'%( August %)*)
16
International Research Symposium in Service
Management
ISSN 1694-
0938
*89) *88) *889 *888 %))) %))* %))% %))2 %)):
Population
/;)))0 1060 1080 1159.7 1174.4 1186.1 1189 1190.3 1195.4 1197.5
No! #otels 43 75 90 92 95 95 95 97 110
#otel 2101
Rooms 4603 6809 7267 8255 8657 9024 9647 10233
Tourist
arrival
/;)))0 115 291.5 558.1 578 656.5 660.3 681.6 702 810
Tourism
Receipt
/million0 7500 9207 11890 14668 14234 18166 18238 19397 21865
Tourism
Receipts
/< of
=DP0 6 10 13 13 14 15 16 17 20
6o5r$e% 36O 7(..08
"e Meridien #otel$ Mauritius$ %&'%(
August %)*) 17