6 views

Uploaded by Abraham Wangila

- 10.1.1.124
- Selectivity Econometria
- Creative Tourism
- 1st article
- Wilson Chpt 1
- Exercise 15.20
- Lecture 4
- Chapter 1-bdb743f6d80f9ce82c065762a2e10364.pdf
- Background
- English Case Study(Finalized)
- Acemoglu and Yared - Political Limits to Globalization - 2010
- Risk in Developing Country
- November 30 Time Series Cross Sectional Analysis
- Study Guide Inference
- forecast combination
- Pictures-tb Board-Atachments 2-2012-2012-2016 Slovenian Tourism Development Strategy (Summary) 14629
- work force diversity
- Impact of Tourism on Indian Economy
- muestra-produccion-escrita-b2.pdf
- The History of Tourist Development Engleza 181705

You are on page 1of 13

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Tourism Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

**Analysis of international tourist arrivals worldwide: The role of world
**

heritage sites

Yu-Wen Su, Hui-Lin Lin*

Department of Economics, National Taiwan University, 21 Hsu-Chow Road, 10055 Taipei, Taiwan

h i g h l i g h t s

Investigate in the positive inﬂuence of world heritage sites on international tourist arrivals.

Divide the sample into several groups according to the number of WHSs to study effects of WHSs across these groups.

Explore the pooled, ﬁxed and random effect models with panel data (66 countries, 2000e2009).

Eliminate the problem of time-invariant variables in panel data model by increasing the number of countries.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Received 19 August 2012

Accepted 24 April 2013

This study examines the impact on inbound tourism caused by the presence of world heritage sites. The

statistics are derived from panel data for 66 countries for the period 2006e2009. The results indicate that

there exists a positive relationship between having such heritage sites and tourist numbers, and the

relationship is stronger for natural rather than for cultural heritage sites. The evidence also indicates the

presence of a U-shaped relationship between numbers of world heritage sites in a country and tourist

numbers. These relationships are found to be robust even though differences in patterns are found in

different regions.

Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

JELS:

L83

C23

Keywords:

WHSs

Tourism demand

Cultural sites

Natural sites

Panel data

1. Introduction

Tourism is one of the leading economic sectors in the world, and

represents a major source of income, employment, exports and

taxes. According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC),

in 2011 the tourism sector (domestic and international) contributed

almost 5992 billion USD to the global economy. With conﬁrmed

strong linkage effects, the tourism industry also provides almost

260 million job opportunities, accounting for nearly 9% of global

employment. In addition, according to the World Bank Carbon

Finance Unit (CFU) the tourism sector is relatively eco-friendly

compared to the manufacturing sector, and has led to more

*** Corresponding author. Tel.: þ886 2 2321 7730; fax: þ886 2 2322 5657.
**

E-mail addresses: d98323002@ntu.edu.tw (Y.-W. Su), huilin@ntu.edu.tw

(H.-L. Lin).

0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.04.005

sustainable development. Therefore, many countries are emphasizing the development of tourism to drive their ‘green’ economic

growth.

As disposable incomes and the awareness of the importance of

leisure have increased, so too have the numbers of tourists (Lim,

2006). World Tourism Organization (WTO) statistics reveal the

growth of international tourist arrivals (the x-axis on the righthand side) between 1995 and 2011, as shown in Fig. 1. The number of international tourist arrivals increased from 538 million in

1995 to 940 million in 2010, representing growth of 4.7% on average

in each year. Meanwhile, according to the World Heritage Centre of

the United Nations Educational, Scientiﬁc and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the total number of World Heritage Sites (WHSs)

has risen steadily. Fig. 1 also shows that the number of WHSs (the xaxis on the left-hand side) increased from 468 in 1995 to 936 in

2011, or by 6% per year on average. Thus, these growing trends

appear to suggest that, if the positive effect of WHSs on international tourism is proved, having such sites will lead to increases in

2 shows the pie chart of WHSs by region in 2009. . in terms of the methodology adopted. 2004. 2000). that is. Many studies have examined the key elements affecting tourism demand (e. 1999). Dhariwala. possess rich cultural and historical attractions. Ledesma-Rodriguez. Source: The World Heritage Centre. 2001.S. UNESCO. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 5. i. McCahon. each account for around 10%. should be relatively appealing to international tourists. Yang and Lin. Dritsakis. and the number of countries is increased to eliminate the problem of timeinvariant variables. 2002. Payne and Mervar. European countries. 2002. & Perez-Rodriguez. 2008. or rarely changing variables. In this paper. we investigate the relationship between the WHSs and tourism demand not only for speciﬁc countries but also on a worldwide level. we divide our sample into several groups according to the number of WHSs and study the different effects of WHSs on international tourism demand across these groups. 2. Nevertheless. In addition. Source: The World Tourism Organization (The International tourist arrivals). 2004). It has also been found that tourism destinations with typical cultural or natural elements constitute one of the chief attractions for international tourists (e. Third. we provide a literature review and brieﬂy describe the analytical framework of WHSs and international tourism worldwide based on the current situation. Second. Literature review As the number of tourists increase. which have highly developed tourism. because of the availability of the data.e. Number of world heritage sites by location in 2009. 1). inscribed on the list of WHSs by UNESCO. 2.. 2011.1000 1000 900 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 Number of world heritage sites Tourist arrivals 400 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 500 47 Tourist arrivals (million) Number of world heritage sites Y. we provide a literature review together with an analytical framework of WHSs and international tourism worldwide.g. is widely discussed (Cellini. international tourist arrivals and consequently tourism expenditure. 2010). 2005. we increase the number of countries in the panel data model to eliminate the problem of time-invariant variables. Navarro-Ibanez. we explore the positive inﬂuence of these sites on international tourist arrivals (international tourism demand). we also use the panel data model. In Section 2.K. WHSs are mainly concentrated in Europe. 2005. we present the results of the analysis and discuss the economic implications. UNESCO (The number of WHSs).g. 2001.-W. the problem of time-invariant variables. 2010) and Germany. 1. some studies employ the panel data model (e. China Fig. (e. and the Americas with 17% (the sum of the North and the South Americas). 2008. King. In Section 3. Greece Brazil Australia Canada Sweden Japan Poland Portugal Iran Czech Cultural site Natural site Mixed site 0 10 20 30 Number of world heritage sites 40 Fig.-L.2. H. UNESCO.. 2011). In addition. including almost half of all WHSs. However. McIntosh and Prentice. Italy Spain China Germany France Mexico U. & Bauer. According to data collected by the World Heritage Centre. 2005. India Russia U. Frangouli. & Anastasopoulos. 2. 2003. Lin / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 46e58 400 2011 Fig. Hungary and Romania (Light. 2000. & Miller. Su.. First. or rarely changing variables. 2002). followed by the Asia Paciﬁc with 20%. World heritage sites and international tourists In this section. in the panel data model. there have so far been few studies on this subject. However. such as England (e. Bonet. 3. Top 20 countries in terms of world heritage sites in 2009. we introduce the model’s setting and the methodology of the panel data. Deng.g. Maloney and Montes-Rojas. by using data on the number of WHSs in 66 countries between 2000 and 2009. Numbers of world heritage sites and international tourist arrivals. governments and private enterprises around the world have been eager to expand their tourism. Garin-Munoz and Amaral. 2... Africa and the countries of the Middle East. Naude and Saayman. thereby beneﬁting the economies of the destination countries. Overall. it could be argued that those attractions that are ofﬁcially authenticated. UNESCO. Yang. Since cultural or natural attractions lead to increased tourism demand. 2007. which accounts for 42% of the total amount. Other areas.g. In Section 4... Herbert. 2005. Lin. Li. & Cai. & Han. 2008. Dougan. Source: The World Heritage Centre. we apply various ﬁxed and random effects models to the panel data. Cooke and Lazzaretti. Bille and Schulze. the geographical distribution of heritage sites is relatively unbalanced. The World Heritage Centre. Wu.g. and little research has been done to expand this effect to a worldwide level. Research background With the increasing trend in terms of the number of WHSs (see Fig. Naude and Saayman. WHSs have been found to have signiﬁcantly positive effects on the promotion of domestic or foreign tourism in some speciﬁc countries. Dritsakis. studies on the positive effect of WHSs on tourism have been limited to a single country. Yang et al. 2005. we conclude.1. Fig. Tan. Patsouratis. In this paper.

and is not the development of tourism. Analytical framework There are at least two possible reasons why being inscribed on the WHS list would increase the demand for tourism (Yang et al. France U. there are more natural sites.8 million international tourists in 2009. Meanwhile. International tourist arrivals in other countries were all less than 30 million in 2009. Second. f (.-W.9 million.1. not only by travel agencies. possesses 44 WHSs. or about 60% of the number that France received. Modeling the international tourism demand To investigate the determinants of international tourist arrivals worldwide. the demand for international tourism rises. 2010). apart from Thailand. this additional beneﬁt could also raise awareness and help fund the conservation efforts.K. and 3 it is a normally distributed error term. respectively. The country with the second most WHSs. However. Spain and China were 54. received 76.9 million. Among the 20 countries in Fig. and brieﬂy introduce the data we employ. In spite of this. which is set to be linear in this paper. UNESCO). The xit are the main explanatory variables in which we are interested. respectively. in a minority of natural resourceabundant countries. including 42 cultural sites and 2 natural sites. Turkey Germany Mexico Austria Canada Greece Thailand Egypt Poland Netherlands Croatia Hungary Morocco Switzerland 0 10 20 30 40 50 Tourist arrivals (million) 60 70 80 Fig. Fig. Su. there has been little research that has done just that. The demand model is speciﬁed as yit ¼ f ðxit . 4. the zit are control variables which also affect the demand. UNESCO. a tourism demand function is estimated in this study. 4. Meanwhile. H.. 1. France. Note that qi is the unobserved country-speciﬁc variable that varies across countries but is invariant within a country over time. However. and Australia has 11 natural sites among 17 WHSs (65%). the other 9 countries in Fig. natural and mixed sites.) is a function. but also by governments. Italy.48 Y. zit Þ þ qi þ 3 it (1) where yit is the quantity of tourism demand. Spain. . the WHSs are widely used to promote or advertise tourism in destination countries. such as the United States and Australia. Therefore. a total of 11 countries possess rich world heritage sites. especially the effect of world heritage sites. the country with the most WHSs. 3.S.2 million and 50.3. according to data compiled by the World Tourism Organization. using such aid well will improve tourism conditions and further attract international tourists. Moreover. we study how this positive effect has changed. In fact.2 million inbound tourists. it is essential to study the economic effects of WHSs. First. Fig. 2. which account for around 80% of all sites. In addition. 3). a large proportion of WHSs are cultural sites. the data reveal that under the growing trend of both WHSs and international tourism. Inbound tourist arrivals in the United States. Since the government plays an important role in administering resources. 3 natural and 2 mixed sites). The total number of WHSs is the summation of three kinds of sites: cultural. and China has 38 WHSs (27 cultural. 3. 3 shows the top 20 countries according to the numbers of WHSs in 2009 provided by the World Heritage Centre. 4 shows the top 20 countries ranked by international tourist arrivals in 2009. Because of the ofﬁcially strict application and examination processes. among 194 countries around the world. has 41 WHSs (36 cultural. Since WHSs attract the attention of international tourists. Furthermore. such as Iran and the Czech Republic. Methodology and data In this section. has 12 natural sites among 20 WHSs (60%). the main purpose of our paper is to conﬁrm the positive effect of WHSs on the demand for international tourism. The U. Top 20 countries in terms of international tourist arrivals in 2009. Half of these countries are located in Europe.S. if WHSs have positive effects on tourism demand and further on tourism economies. 4 are also ranked in the top 40 according to the number of WHSs. Therefore. Source: The World Tourism Organization. Lin / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 46e58 To reveal this phenomenon in better detail. As for the demand for tourism. the simultaneous growth trends in both WHSs and international tourists are also shown in Fig. being successfully inscribed on the WHS list increases the global visibility of the destination countries. while Italy received 43. UNESCO is prepared to assist those developing countries which lack the resources or ability to repair and maintain their WHSs. the panel data model that is widely used. the most popular country for tourism. which are also ranked in the top 20 countries according to the number of WHSs (see Fig. which is ranked ﬁftieth. and the subscripts i and t denote the destination country and time period. 52.-L. each of which has 12 cultural sites. we introduce the methodology. Spain China Italy U. under the growing trend of both WHSs and international tourism. a large proportion of countries popular with tourists are those which are abundant in cultural or natural world heritage sites. Some countries even possess only cultural sites. in regard to conservation. the main purpose behind listing WHSs is to “raise awareness” and “mobilize sustainable resources for long-term conservation” (according to the World Heritage Centre. 7 natural and 4 mixed sites). For a destination country.

For example.Y. gk YEARkit þ qi þ 3 it k¼1 (2) where the dependent variable. or interaction terms. in which case the number of international tourist arrivals would decrease based on the law of demand. WHS represents the number of world heritage sites. we start with three equal parts and extend this to seven equal parts (S ¼ 3. Yang et al. the decrease pattern is the same as the one when S is equal to 3. It turns out that when S is equal to 4. ARRI. The results turn out to be quite consistent with those without the lag term.g. The data are divided into S equal parts. H. if S is too small.-W. global infectious diseases. 2010). when we decide to divide our sample. If EX goes up. the pooled OLS residual (uit) is the summation of the country-speciﬁc unobserved variable (qi) and the error term with a normal distribution (3 it): uit ¼ qi þ 3 it (5) We run the BreuschePagan test (BeP test) to test for heteroskedasticity (qi s 0) in the pooled OLS models (Breusch & Pagan. WHSs in danger. To measure the health quality of residents and the educational environment in destination countries. Moreover. The WHSit multiplied by gits make us focus on the marginal effect for a speciﬁc range of the number of WHSs.. 2005. 2006. is the international tourist arrivals in country i at time t. YEAR and AREA are dummy variables denoting the time from 2000 to 2009 and the geographical position of 6 areas. such as FDI (measuring the openness level). If the sign of its coefﬁcient. The population variable (POP) mainly controls the size of the destination country. . S ¼ 2 (as a result of dividing the sample into two equal parts). to keep the sample size as large as possible (using the lag term will reduce the sample size by 66 observations). because they are the smallest groups to capture the pattern of varying marginal effects and perform well in dividing the data into several equal parts. pooled ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is employed at ﬁrst (e. 3. The other explanatory variables (zit). In addition. which is measured on a one-toseven scale. Thus. On the other hand. the total railway lines (RAIL) in terms of kilometers in destination countries is employed as a proxy variable for the availability of infrastructure. On the one hand. However. to reveal more details. in this paper. d. As a result. the HEALTH variable is the percentage of health expenditure in GDP. we choose the original models without lag terms. Theoretically.3. possessing one more WHS would increase its inbound tourists by d visits. this effect may change by the different number of WHSs. after considering POP. However. The gross domestic product (GDP) variable represents the income level. In this distribution. When S is bigger than 5. In addition.7).. Thus. which means that the number of groups is large.. there is a potential simultaneous relationship between tourist arrivals and some explanatory variables. Other possible explanatory variables. for a destination country. Varying marginal effect of world heritage sites þ b5 FREEDOMit þ b6 HEALTHit þ b7 EDUit þ 49 The marginal effect of WHSs is the partial derivative of ARRIit with respect to WHSit in Eq. EX denotes the ofﬁcial exchange rate between the local currency unit (LCU) and the U.S. it is impossible to divide the data into too many equal parts. have also been considered but have turned out to be insigniﬁcant Marginal effect of WHS ¼ vARRIit ¼ d vWHSit (3) That is. the large subsample would reveal little of the varying marginal effect of the WHSs. international tourists prefer to travel to the richer one with higher income. we present two representative results. A country that possesses more railway lines is a country in which it is more convenient to travel. the estimated results of the U-curve effect would be similar to the case where S ¼ 5. Moreover. if S is too large. the small size of the subsample would give rise to highly sensitive estimated results. In addition. which provides the deﬁnitions and descriptive statistics of the variables. which means that the number of WHSs is an integer and the data are concentrated in small numbers. 4 . according to the number of WHSs. so they are omitted from the model. Methodology To understand the preliminary sign of each determinant. and this will attract more international tourists. are regarded as control variables capturing some possible factors which would inﬂuence the demand. (2). If a country spends more money caring for its residents’ health. However. dollar. Therefore. 3. such as GDP. the sanitary condition in the country will be further improved. which is the main explanatory variable (xit) we are interested in.-L. even though the constant marginal effect of WHSs could be easily concluded by d. the traveling price (cost) increases. and so variables in the form of a lag of one period enter the equation. is positive. 2008). the ﬁrst question is concerned with how many groups we would obtain. the positive coefﬁcient of GDP means that among countries with the same population. More details about our variables are shown in Table 1.g. to control the time and regional factors. the numbers of cultural and natural WHSs. S ¼ 3 and S ¼ 5. This d is the average effect across all countries with different numbers of WHSs. to differentiate the effects of cultural and natural WHSs on international tourism demand. Moreover. the percentage of expenditure on education in GDP (EDU) is also used as a proxy variable. The new model is speciﬁed as ARRIit ¼ a þ S X ds WHSit gsit þ b1 GDPit þ b2 POPit þ b3 EXit s¼1 þ b4 RAILit þ b5 FREEDOMit þ b6 HEALTHit þ b7 EDUit þ 6 X gj AREAjit þ j¼1 10 X gk YEARkit þ qi þ 3 it k¼1 (4) where gsit is the dummy variable for the sth group of the WHS.2. Thus. we divide our sample into several equal parts according to the number of WHSs. and is used as a proxy variable for the environmental sanitation in destination countries. The FREEDOM variable is the index of political rights and civil liberties. Naude and Saayman. we have replaced WHS by CULTURAL and NATURAL. Lin / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 46e58 More speciﬁcally. which also captures the degree of economic development in the destination country. we should note that the WHS is a discrete right-skewed variable. Song and Li. which represents the price factor in the demand function. respectively. That is. say. which is often treated as the tourism demand in the literature (e. the linear international tourism demand model is speciﬁed as ARRIit ¼ a þ dWHSit þ b1 GDPit þ b2 POPit þ b3 EXit þ b4 RAILit 6 X j¼1 gj AREAjit þ 10 X and cannot improve the model. we could say that possessing WHSs would enhance international tourism after controlling other variables. Su. the effect of the GDP and other explanatory variables could be measured accurately under the same scale of population. Lim. a smaller value of FREEDOM represents a freer political and civil environment that would make international tourists feel more secure without red tape and increase their willingness to travel.

CULTURAL.2 . then H0 should be rejected and the FE model chosen. We originally collected the data for the WHSs of 148 countries.25 In this study. what we only know is the annual . The names of these 66 countries are listed in Appendix A. while the data on the number of WHSs. there is only one.80 1331. for each variable. The data distributions of WHSs before and after combining the data are shown in Fig. EX.00 0.33 1. Su.00 2078.25 0.-L.00 42. Lin / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 46e58 Table 1 Deﬁnitions of variables and basic statistics. N. and especially for some developing countries whose statistical surveys are less comprehensive.29 6. America.20 11670.00 0.50 4.00 16.00 44. H. constant 2000 USD) Population (million) Ofﬁcial exchange rate (LCU per US$. We also show the estimated results of the pooled OLS for reference.2 (A) Original data 0 0 Density Min 1100. sifting the observations cannot only simplify the analysis but also will not critically affect the estimated results. S. However. we try to collect as many informative observations as we possibly can. the literature shows that the characteristics of the “source country” may somehow affect the tourism demand. Fortunately.22 5.48 1029. For more details about the panel data model and the Hausman test.09 0 3 6 10 20 30 40 0 Number of WHSs 3 6 10 20 Number of WHSs Fig. period average) Rail lines (total route-km) The index of political rights and civil liberties Health expenditure (% of GDP) Education expenditure (% of government expenditure) AREA Dummy variable: Africa.05 .00 7.19 6.00 246. the interested reader should refer to Chamberlain (1984).10 5. both the ﬁxed and random effects models are estimated. which may be correlated with other explanatory variables (xit or zit).1 . Variable Description ARRI WHS CULTURAL NATURAL International tourist arrivals (1000) Number of world heritage sites Number of cultural world heritage sites Number of natural world heritage sites GDP POP EX RAIL FREEDOM HEALTH EDU GDP (billion. 5.25 5. However.1 . In this research. 5355.15 .03 0. POP.00 12.D. Asia Paciﬁc. The ﬁxed effects model assumes that each country has its own qi and estimates the constant term for each country. In the pooled OLS estimation with heteroskedasticity.08 228999. In this paper.25 (B) Actual data Density .23 1. HEALTH. 3.09 . among these observations.68 659. that possesses zero WHSs.38 17065.21 42.01 6. 5.-W. more or less. Under the null hypothesis (H0). this problem could be solved in a panel data model under certain assumptions. the other explanatory variables (GDP. thus estimating one overall constant term. there are missing data.00 7. the data actually used consist of 66 countries.35 15. and NATURAL) come from the World Heritage Centre. we could eliminate the country-speciﬁc effect. Israel in 2000.56 143. omitting the unobserved variable. the data on international tourist arrivals (ARRI) come from the World Tourism Organization (WTO). S. the panel data comprise 66 countries over the period from 2000 to 2009 with 359 observations after deducting the missing data for each variable. while the random effects model assumes that qi follows a normal distribution. Therefore.50 0.05 . First. One thing we should mention is that.77 11545. Using the ﬁxed effects (FE) or the random effects (RE) technique. will cause severe problems of bias and inconsistency.15 .4. When combining these four data sets. including cultural and natural sites.00 0. Data Max 3. After combining data sets.67 25988.60 2.00 0. Distribution of WHSs. countries with too many kinds of data unavailable are deleted without loss. Europe.50 Y.21 71. and if the Chi-square statistic is significant (the p-value is small). The countries deleted are mostly those containing few or no WHSs. the RE model performs better.00 809. and EDU) are collected from the World Development Indicators (WDI) of the World Bank Online Resources. In addition.00 1.00 251. To focus on countries with relatively more information and avoid too much missing data causing a severe problem of data imbalance in the panel data. America Dummy variable: 2000e2009 YEAR Mean 1979). The data for the freedom index (FREEDOM) come from the annual report of Freedom House.89 RAIL. Two things should be mentioned. (WHS. and then the Hausman test is employed to determine which model is more accurate. Middle East.18 2. Hausman (1978) and Wooldridge (2002). UNESCO. 30 40 .

possessing more WHSs increases the international tourism demand.71** [2. 2.60*** [4.739 460. the random effects model. in which the Chi-square statistics are insigniﬁcant at the 5% signiﬁcance level. which is the point of our paper. which are assumed to have constant effects. so we consider that the country-speciﬁc factor would vary in different destination countries.16] 418605. is almost the same. 5% and 1% statistical levels. t statistics are in parentheses. Models (1). That is. we initially considered the GDP per capita. performs better.539 359 359 1. Because the data comprise a cross section of countries.57] 15548. all the random effects models are found to perform better. the result turns out to be insigniﬁcant. which also brings in relatively more tourist expenditures to the tourismrelated industries.737 461. unexpectedly performs better at the 10% signiﬁcance level. According to the Hausman test.79 [1. Note that Model (5). this positive effect proves that a country possessing more WHSs would promote international tourism.60] Yes 3631736. However. This result is quite reasonable. the pooled OLS regression with heteroskedasticity is beset by problems resulting in inconsistency and bias. *. Thus. we cannot pin down the data on GDP or POP for the source countries. Moreover.Y. According to the results of the BreuschePagan test. Increasing the number of cultural sites by one would create an additional 396. (2) are shown in Table 2.77] 89416. ** and *** denote signiﬁcance at the 10%. We are unable to distinguish from which countries these international tourists come. which is on average 21.815 22. in considering the sampling problem. while Models (4).637 in just one year after controlling other variables.07] 396658. to control for the income effect as well as the country size. WHS (1) Pooled OLS (2) Fixed effects (3) Random effects 533384. as in Model (3) and Model (6). We also explore how this effect changes for different numbers of WHSs. according to the UNWTO. regardless of which control variables are chosen. (2) and (3) use the number of WHSs (WHS) as their explanatory variable.91 [1. Empirical results Using the panel data. and the effect is greater for the natural world heritage sites than for the cultural ones. is undoubtedly an important explanatory variable. and could also be judged by the Hausman test.000) 0.26*** (p-value ¼ 0.239*** 359 0.13*** [4.78*** (p-value ¼ 0.78*** [3. 0. To sum up. while other possible explanatory variables are controlled.09] 292458. In these models.01 [1. both the cultural and natural world heritage sites could enhance international tourism. which could eliminate the effect of the country’s size because it is counted based on each person. These industrial linkages will generate several times the revenue earned from the visits to the WHSs themselves.15*** [3.-L. Models (3) and (6) assume that the marginal effect of WHSs is constant. Second.54] BeP test 116. both the cultural and natural WHSs have significantly positive effects on the number of international tourist arrivals when other variables are controlled.143) 0.69] CULTURAL NATURAL Control var. H. Thus.089) 0. the number of WHSs has a signiﬁcantly positive effect on international tourist arrivals.10] Yes 6531921.20 [1. based on the test results.-W. We could observe that the coefﬁcients are quite different 51 between the pooled OLS regression and the panel data model (both the ﬁxed and random effects models).818 25.61 [0. not only for some speciﬁc countries but for the whole world. The latter two models are ideal for dealing with the country-speciﬁc unobserved variables.606. Su.547 359 359 0. Moreover. the effect on income.00 (p-value ¼ 0. (5) and (6) separate WHSs into cultural and natural sites (CULTURAL and NATURAL) to better understand the inﬂuence of these two kinds of sites.79] 637057. which is quite a simpliﬁcation. When constructing the model. qi. Note that.53] Yes 3099144. we investigate the effect of WHSs (both cultural and natural sites) on international tourist arrivals. Lin / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 46e58 number of international tourist arrivals for the destination country. such as accommodation.000) Hausman test R-square Chi-square Observations Yes 3396688. and the results is better. the random effects model performs better.43] Yes 3148908.15*** [11.099*** 359 . This may be caused by the imprecise setting of the WHSs.27* (p-value ¼ 0. the estimated results would be unreliable.38] 111. Therefore. 4.1. so that the effect due to different source countries can be captured by a country-speciﬁc factor. we separate the GDP per capita into two different variables: the GDP and the population (POP). This result proves that the country-speciﬁc effect should be considered. and the ﬁxed effects and the random effects models. However. the panel data model is employed. while adding one more natural site would increase international tourist arrivals by 418.659 international tourist arrivals.41] (4) Pooled OLS (5) Fixed effects (6) Random effects 563357. In Model (3).64] 382637.14 [0. which usually uses GDP as a proxy variable. If we were to just grab the data and run the regression directly. the ﬁxed effects model.15 [1. Constant Yes 6461538. When the varying effects of WHSs are considered later. the coefﬁcient of WHSs.947 more tourist arrivals than for an additional cultural one. the marginal Table 2 Estimated results of international tourist arrivals (with constant effects of WHSs). Main results The estimated results for Eq. it makes sense to assume that the omitted variable is distributed randomly.95*** [10.04*** [4. transportation or even retail outlets located around the site. 4. In Model (6). adding one WHS would on average increase the number of international tourist arrivals by 382. we estimate coefﬁcients by pooled OLS regression. Fortunately.

816 22.03] 471627.93] Yes 3789343. 5% and 1% statistical levels. (12).000) Hausman test R-square Chi-square Observations Yes 1631441.44] 149397. According to the test results.78] 45192. just like in the previous analysis. t statistics are in parentheses.537 359 359 1. On the contrary.64] 574952. Based on Models (15) and (18). In Model (9).823 23. the marginal effects of cultural WHSs are 776.52 Y. and the latter two models are judged using the Hausman test.60] 415442. Thus. all the random effects models.42] 524222. For countries possessing 0e5. (15) and (18). Still.85] 514498.87 [0. the effect of WHSs on international tourist arrivals may differ between countries with an abundant supply of WHSs and countries with few WHSs. the ‘gearing effect’ of WHSs will emerge.597*** 359 . the pooled OLS. ﬁxed effects and random effects models of Eq.96] 489724.97*** (p-value ¼ 0.26] 561704. Meanwhile.34*** [4.02*** [3.749. but the estimated results of the quadratic form are not good enough. even though the number of coefﬁcients needed to be estimated increases. both cultural and natural sites have positive effects on international tourist arrivals. respectively. Meanwhile.51*** [3.14] 1245048. Note that because the sample size of natural WHSs is relatively small.33] 328116. the marginal effects of WHSs are around 692. 6e11 and more than 12 WHSs. 373. (4) are estimated. That is.32* [1. we have divided our sample into three and ﬁve equal parts. H.37] 552693.288) 0.364*** 359 0.27*** (p-value ¼ 0.67] Yes 4313752. These effects also decrease as the number of cultural and natural WHSs increases. In addition. We also considered the quadratic form of the WHSs when a Ucurve resulting in S ¼ 5 was observed. Therefore. for countries with 0e3 and more than 4 natural WHSs. the coefﬁcients of the variables are quite similar. 6 shows how these marginal effects of WHSs vary based on the number of WHSs. WHS (0e5) WHS (6e11) WHS (12 up) (7) Pooled OLS (8) Fixed effects (9) Random effects 649675. ** and *** denote signiﬁcance at the 10%. Among Models (15) and (18). the marginal effects of natural WHSs for countries with 0e3 and more than 4 natural WHSs are 514 and 419 thousand. to 580.05*** [4. the coefﬁcients are not very smooth so that the quadratic form cannot capture the pattern well.07 [0. Moreover. For countries possessing 0e3. (15) and (18). 2.03 [1. and the U-curve of the effect is quite obvious. i. the sample is also divided into ﬁve equal parts.19 [1.35] 402313. which already possess many attractions and are famous in the global tourism market.50] BeP test 132.37 [1. Su. respectively.45 [0.07] 691823. compared with Models (9).08*** [4. In addition. 285 and 509 thousand.36*** [4.62*** [2.733 466. However. after controlling for more WHSs.82] Yes 6414358. and 408 thousand. In Models (15) and (18) of Table 4.e.53*** [3. the marginal effects of WHSs for WHS-abundant countries (possessing more than 21 WHSs) increase instead. 6e11 and more than 12 cultural WHSs. This increase means that when a country possesses sufﬁcient WHSs. 10e20 and more than 21 WHSs.66*** [4. Fig. Moreover.40] Yes 2276009. the marginal effect of the WHSs is positive.74] 148088. 0.37 (p-value ¼ 0. for WHS-abundant countries. 490 and 402 thousand for countries with 0e5. The pooled OLS model is tested for heteroskedasticity by BeP test. in Model (12). are more accurate (Table 3). The positive effect of WHSs on international tourist arrivals is larger in countries with fewer WHSs. *.03 (p-value ¼ 0. this will attract more visits from international tourists. 495. Lin / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 46e58 effect may vary according to the number of WHSs. For WHS-poor countries. in Table 4.38 [1. Similarly. (12).63] 165.24] 525079. The marginal effects are 562. Model (15) with the highest R-square of 0. to better understand the marginal effect of WHSs for a speciﬁc range of numbers.30] 494946. adding one more WHS will result in a smaller increase in inbound tourists than for WHS-poor countries. the other explanatory variables merit discussion. To understand the marginal effects of WHSs in more detail.537 359 359 0.216) 0. Model (9). respectively. respectively.31* [1.91] CULTURAL (0e5) CULTURAL (6e11) CULTURAL (12 up) NATURAL (0e3) NATURAL (4 up) Control var.67 [0.64*** [4.000) 0. Constant Yes 6738359.97* [1.13] 408442. A possible reason for the badly-performing quadratic form is that. is a relatively accurate model.25*** [2.. the pattern of the decreasing marginal effects as the number of WHSs increases is almost the same.87] (10) Pooled OLS (11) Fixed effects (12) Random effects 343297.59] 431978.36*** [3. 498 and 375 thousand.34] 261853.31*** [11. 361.734 455. it is divided into two equal parts only.88] 419242. once unknown sites become famous after being included on the WHS list. and rise slightly rise to 475 thousand. This result is quite reasonable.-L.78*** [10. Correspondingly. cultural WHSs and natural WHSs are still positive. the marginal effects are 514 and 419 thousand. respectively. respectively.62 [0.39] 319811. the marginal effects of WHSs decrease from 975.-W. regardless of the number of WHSs or the cultural and Table 3 Estimated results of international tourist arrivals (with 3 variant effects of WHSs).73*** [5. 4e6. dividing the data into 5 groups creates more ﬂexibility to the varying coefﬁcients and ﬁts the model better.35 [1. this positive effect declines as the number of WHSs rises.16* [1. 7e10. the effects of WHSs.32*** [6.

09] 22989.59] 33589.82*** [3.75] 289594.-L.93] 298612.34] 1011.45* [1.48] 354455.64] 231209.62*** [11. Marginal effects of WHSs.33 [0.18] 200791.44] 750817.92] 109.69** [1.17] 1191.51 [0.56*** [5.29] 18369.99] 11419.73] 131702.96] 168.13*** [6.16] 1259993.94*** [6.11 [0.65] 3096.80] 157775.42] CULTURAL (0e3) CULTURAL (4e6) CULTURAL (7e10) CULTURAL (11e20) CULTURAL (21 up) NATURAL (0e3) NATURAL (4 up) GDP (16) Pooled OLS (17) Fixed effects (18) Random effects 214136.52] 439219.00] 51271.83] 299724. and infrastructure. the marginal effect of GDP is positive.68*** [12.95*** [5.62] 759195.000) 0.06*** [4.88*** [13.04*** [5.42*** [2.29] 360513. natural sites that are included in the model.75] Yes Yes 2887056. international tourists would be more likely to choose those smaller in size or that are less crowded.48 [1.67*** [4.03] 351.38*** [2.78] 167820.81] 102.841 19.76] 184221.38] 585643.14] 48415. This kind of destination may be easier to travel around or more suitable for short vacation arrangements.55*** [2.39 [1.26*** [2.00] 3912.52*** [7.13] 158265.93*** [3. *.31] 102.79 (p-value ¼ 0.28 [0.21*** [4.23] BeP test 181.3*** 359 0.69] 149. Lin / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 46e58 53 Table 4 Estimated results of international tourist arrivals (with 5 variant effects of WHSs). In Model (15).28* [1.56] 273159.63* [1. the signiﬁcantly negative effect of the population (POP) indicates that.76] 158.58 [1.33*** [6. WHS (0e3) WHS (4e6) WHS (7e10) WHS (11e20) WHS (21 up) (13) Pooled OLS (14) Fixed effects (15) Random effects 717354.02] 47.69] 359633. international tourists would like to travel to destinations with fewer people or smaller country size. international tourist arrivals will increase by 1192.34] 373257.36] 14762.83] 392.23* [1. t statistics are in parentheses.66 [1.01] 1071. When the GDP of the destination country (GDP) increases by 1 billion USD.07] 217766.75] 508761.23] 129725.56*** [3.83] 460859.06*** [7.69] 308048.49 [0.01 [0.00] 61.34*** [6.38 [0.52] 7087.95 [1.81** [2..79] 776329.86] 389665.39] 518235. 6.68] Yes Yes 4300985.86] 346695.08* [1.37] 516818.05 [1.23] 446149.558 359 359 0. railway lines (RAIL) have a positive effect on international tourist arrivals.46] Yes Yes 4221109.52*** [3.16] 332053. when other things are equal.68* [1.20 [1.04*** [2.46] 115.15] 580418.50*** [3.20] 913255. Meanwhile.64 [0.000) POP EX RAIL FREEDOM HEALTH EDU Hausman test R-square Chi-square Observations 223.49] 258111.17] AREA YEAR Constant Yes Yes 6039499. with the number of international tourist arrivals increasing by 102 for each extra kilometer that the .48*** (p-value ¼ 0.65*** [3.00** [2.28*** [10. H. among countries with the same numbers of WHSs.16] 45539.26*** [4.Y.78** [2.14] 1026.95] 531494.79 [1.61] 356668.65 [0.54] 716652. For instance.76 [1.73*** (p-value ¼ 0.96*** [2.486 359 359 0. Su.91] 254907. 1600 Tourist arrivals(1000) WHSs Cultural WHSs Natural WHSs 1200 800 400 0 0-3 4-6 7-10 11-20 Number of WHSs 20 up Fig.739 506.274*** 359 1.17] 22490. 2.81*** [2. cultural WHSs and natural WHSs.58** [2.75*** [4.955) 0.43*** [2.73] 25653.21] 354390.84* [1.75 [0.749 486.87 [0.46 [1.31 [1.41*** [2.471) 0.16*** [4.01] 474846. which means that tourism demand beneﬁts from economic development.65 [0.08] 284574.30] 514.67*** [2.79*** [3.37 (p-value ¼ 0.67*** [3.85*** [3. etc.12] Yes Yes 1659178. for example.01*** [4. economic achievements.64] 107881.26] 599675.66 [1.45*** [2.16 [0.97*** [5.843 11.55 [1.85] 206.22*** [3. 5% and 1% statistical levels.51 [0.27] 975394. In addition.58*** [2.-W.45* [1. ** and *** denote signiﬁcance at the 10%.06] 498169.79*** [2.85] Yes Yes 6256850.

88 [1.26 [1. the number of international tourist arrivals declines by 217.09] 633983. That is.2 [0. which means that increasing the relative price will make the number of international tourist arrivals drop.93] 11224.56] No Yes 92106.06] 245. are insigniﬁcant in Model (15). 1% of GDP. Comparison of regions and time periods The behavior of tourists may vary in different destinations.04] 107376. Even though the coefﬁcients of the WHSs are not quite constant between Models (19) and (26). The effects of other controlled variables.46 [1. based on Model (15).42*** [2.59] 368894.79] 4629. Three things should be noted. First.51] 134.11] No Yes 19603323. When the index of freedom.25 [0. Su. even though the coefﬁcient is insigniﬁcant at the 10% signiﬁcance level.767.997 5060. measured on a one-to-seven scale.01 [0.57] 102. the coefﬁcients of WHS (11e20) and WHS (21 up) are eliminated in Model (19). This further research may also be seen as a robustness check of our model.48] 895027. their marginal effects are all positive. we combine the Asia Paciﬁc with the Middle East as the ‘Asia’ group.48] 700653. especially in China.46 [0. After controlling other explanatory variables.73** [2.26] 668600.18] 52326. we separate our observations according to the region and the time period to reveal more details.-W.57] 1133299.10] 78745.17 [0. t statistics are in parentheses.72] 1270677. say. Third.02] 4338.11 [0.39*** 35 WHS (0e3) WHS (4e6) WHS (7e10) POP EX RAIL FREEDOM HEALTH EDU 1.39*** [2.01] 1130. in 2009. 2. Lin / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 46e58 railroad route is extended.46] 1709.14] R-square Chi-square Observations 0. 4.54] 689745. The political and civil freedom (FREEDOM) variable negatively affects the tourism demand at the 10% signiﬁcance level.96*** [6. Europe and America.76*** [2. In Africa.34] AREA YEAR Constant No Yes 2510878. 2004e2006 and 2007e2009.01 [0. in Models (19)e(22).60] 71233.43 [1.18*** 145 0. this U-curve is not obvious in each region.31] 601731.03 [0. On Table 5 Estimated results of international tourist arrivals (by region). 5% and 1% statistical levels.30] 21793.19 [1. In addition.41] 1491710. the health expenditure share of GDP (HEALTH) has a positive inﬂuence.42 [0. However.19*** [8.06 [1. ** and *** denote signiﬁcance at the 10%.37*** [5. Second.891 1003.31] 1556751.58*** [3. because the numbers of WHSs of African countries are all below ten. and then rises after a country possesses sufﬁcient WHSs. the price effect of tourism exists.95] 522070.47 [0. However. the exchange rate (EX) and the expenditure proportion of education (EDU).542 109.8 [1. For each region.23 [0.34 [1.96*** [3. the estimated results show that the positive effect of WHSs is quite robust so that the sign would not change for the different subgroups.18] 578652.22 [1. it should be noted that the sign of the exchange rate is negative.65 [0.1. *.86] 455643. to avoid the small sample problem.19 [0.80] 119010. the marginal effects of the WHSs exhibit different patterns.2 [1. These two dummy variables of SARS (for countries whose conﬁrmed cases were over 200 in 2003) and H1N1 (for countries whose conﬁrmed cases were over 5000 in 2009) enter our models to control for the effect of these diseases in the relatively small sample. it will improve the sanitary conditions and increase its inbound tourist visits by 308.44] e WHS (21 up) e 569240. the marginal effect declines.96*** 126 0. When a country spends more money on health.07] 450324.13 [0. Singapore and Canada. we know that as the number of WHSs increases. freer countries attract more international tourists.63] 15756.2. Therefore. international tourists are mainly attracted by countries possessing fewer than 10 WHSs.77 [0. the H1N1 epidemic also occurred in several countries.70*** [4.52] 226. especially for WHS variables.-L.66*** [2. where the numbers of WHSs are all below 10. .05] 271410.35] 27387.43] 43.79*** 53 0.21] 306748. in mid-2003.956 719.02 [1.98 [0.68*** [4. and four time periods in Table 6: 2000e2001.43*** [5. (19) Africa (20) Asia (21) Europe (22) America WHS (11e20) 311945. It thus makes sense that the destination will be more attractive to international tourists when the basic transportation is more convenient.50] 1309071.56*** [3.64 [1.15 [1.38] 465289. 2003e2003.19] GDP 6097.96 [1. H.24 [0. In Section 4. and combine North America with South America as the ‘America’ group. Asia. the SARS epidemic occurred. the marginal effect is less for WHS-poor countries than for WHS-rich countries. Later. The estimated results of eight models are classiﬁed according to four regions in Table 5: Africa.66* [1.36*** [4.00] 278.62*** [3.11 [0.86*** [4.048.61] 88542. increases by one (becoming less free).73] 108256. and some effects may also change over time.53] 350.54] 428506.03] No Yes 2528566. In Asia.58] 1696149.54 Y. namely. Thus.

27* [1.38*** [4.67 [0.889 262.782 188.11] 711.79 [0.64*** [3. Lin / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 46e58 55 Table 6 Estimated results of international tourist arrivals (by time period).73] 256215. The marginal effects are particularly large in WHSpoor and WHS-abundant countries. In Europe. the marginal effects of WHSs are found to be U-shaped. Marginal effects of WHSs (by region and time period).99 [1.92] 510984. and they are small between these two groups.81] 52.95] 1227144.01] 64066.38] 162.69*** [3. the contrary. Based on the time periods.86] R-square Chi-square Observations 0.63] 311163. these sub-samples reveal that our model is quite robust.1 120 0. 1200 2000-2001 2002-2003 2004-2006 2007-2009 7-10 11-20 20 up 1200 800 400 0 800 400 0 0-3 4-6 7-10 11-20 20 up 0-3 Number of WHSs Fig.13* [1.29*** [4.75] 318. in Europe and America.48] 909319.77] 403720.825 170. *.91] 4842.59 [0.80** [4. Su.48 [0.74 [1.84** [2.57] Yes No 2696260.16 [1.43] 340883.92 [0.55 [0.90] 179.65] 82209.2 [0. WHS (0e3) WHS (4e6) WHS (7e10) WHS (10e20) WHS (21 up) GDP POP EX RAIL FREEDOM HEALTH EDU (23) 2000e2001 (24) 2002e2003 (25) 2004e2006 (26) 2007e2009 479370.41 [1.20** [2.48* [1. ** and *** denote signiﬁcance at the 10%.45*** [4.86 [0.94] 475.57 [1.29 70 0.73 [1.65 97 1.32] 307086.58] Yes No 2939585.01] 193.Y.86 [1. 7(A).-W.36] 1047.21* [1.42*** [5.00*** [3.91] 853. 7.16 [0.71 [1.72] SARS 359981. while in America.80*** [3.25 [1.29*** [2.04] 2511.08] 411201.33 [1.51 [0.54] 376666.05 [0.93] 685.839 207.09] 360265.70] 834250.67 [1. 4-6 Number of WHSs .27* [1.88] 542954.70] 224635.-L. 1600 1600 Africa Asia Europe America (B) Tourist arrivals(1000) (A) Tourist arrivals(1000) Moreover.82] 343859.09 [0.28 [0.14 [0.04] 2306389.41*** [4. This pattern is also displayed in Fig.48 [0.47] 21720. 2.69] 13912.81] Yes No 2011503. which are classiﬁed by four time periods.32] 613022. t statistics are in parentheses. the turning point is located in the 4e6 WHSs group.05] 394058. but the turning points are different. the U-shaped features of the marginal effects of the WHSs are obvious.94] 527021. 5% and 1% statistical levels.71 [0.78] 24163.08] 245966.64] 175. the overall U-shaped pattern can be observed in Fig.64] 271689.68 [0.62] 50353.17 [0.57] H1N1 AREA YEAR Constant Yes No 3827725. in Models (23)e(26).22] 123137. Even though the individual pattern in each region is different. the turning point occurs when the number of WHSs ranges between 11 and 20.22*** [3. 7(B).39 [0.47] 309651.32] 828.27] 344.45* [1.50*** [2.47 [0.65] 442751.04] 18545.37*** [2. H.96 72 0.36] 106243.50] 284435.49* [1.

changes from negative to positive for Europe. Ethiopia (replaced by 2008 data). it should be noted that the size of the subsample used to perform the robustness check is relatively small so that the coefﬁcients would become more sensitive than those in Model (15).3. Australia. The source of this negative effect of POP may be the Asian countries. Lin / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 46e58 Table 7 Contribution of newly-inscribed WHSs in 2011. The contribution of WHSs is obtained by multiplying the marginal effect of WHSs by the average receipts (expenditure) of inbound tourists in destination countries. Comparatively speaking. Evaluation of the economic contribution of WHSs In this section. and the marginal effect of WHSs on international tourist arrivals is around 375. possesses 19 WHSs. the latest list of newly-inscribed WHSs reﬂects the 2011 vision. the . these 25 countries are divided into two groups. or around 398 million USD. based on data provided by the World Development Indicators. even though the marginal effect of WHSs is higher in China than in Australia. The larger countries in Asia. the variety of its landscapes and the exceptional quality of its tourist infrastructure are likely to be among the reasons why tourists choose to take their holidays in Europe. The ﬁrst is the in-sample country. while the average receipt is calculated by dividing the total tourism receipts in 2009 by the international tourist arrivals in 2009. Note that according to the number of WHSs in each country. the average receipts vary across countries.) Country # of WHSs Marginal effect of WHSs (1000) (A) Average receipt (USD) (B) C C C C C Mongolia Colombia Turkey Iran Japan 3 7 10 13 16 975 498 498 357 357 616 1244 965 1136 1846 600 620 480 405 659 N N C C Japan Australia Germany France 16 19 36 37 357 357 475 475 1846 4990 1959 763 659 1781 931 362 C C C China Spain Italy 41 43 47 475 475 475 838 1141 970 398 542 461 C United Arab Emirates Barbados Sudan Nicaragua Jordan Ukraine Syrian Arab Republic Kenya Kenya Senegal Vietnam Ethiopia 1 975 1032 1006 1 2 2 4 5 6 975 975 975 580 580 580 2162 712 358 916 209 621 2108 694 349 531 121 360 6 6 6 7 9 580 580 580 498 498 807 807 542 814 3391 468 468 314 405 1689 Out-of-sample countries Cultural Sites of Al Ain (Haﬁt. Bidaa Bint Saud and Oases Areas) Historic Bridgetown and its Garrison Archaeological Sites of the Island of Meroe León Cathedral Wadi Rum Protected Area Residence of Bukovinian and Dalmatian Metropolitans Ancient Villages of Northern Syria C C C M C C C N C C C Fort Jesus. Gardens and Archaeological Sites Representing the Buddhist Pure Land) Ogasawara Islands Ningaloo Coast Fagus Factory in Alfeld The Causses and the Cévennes. while the H1N1 outbreak was insigniﬁcant. The forecasted contribution of this newly-inscribed WHS is about 1781 million USD. Because the buying power and travel costs are different.3 million international tourists in 2003. the signiﬁcant effect indicates that regional differences exist in Tables 5 and 6. are relatively poor in terms of security and sanitation. According to the World Heritage Center. the two global epidemics. such as China or Russia. Su. United Arab Emirates (replaced by 2005 data). which causes the coefﬁcient to be positive. which is included in the 66 countries of our panel data. Senegal (replaced by 2007 data). SARS and H1N1.982 in 2009. In addition. international tourists may become hesitant to select them as their ﬁrst choice. 2. On the contrary. according to the UNWTO. and so do the contributions of WHSs. In 2009. because the average receipt is much lower than for other countries. Moreover.-L. The wealth of European cultures. have indeed had negative impacts on international tourism worldwide in the last ten years. C: cultural site.56 Y. we employ our model to calculate the contribution of newly-inscribed WHSs to destination countries. for example. which is not captured by any other control variables.D. amounting to 4990 USD per person. our model proves that the marginal effect of WHS on international tourist arrivals differs from country to country. is captured by the variable POP. Table 7 lists these newly-inscribed WHSs and their related economic contributions. the United Kingdom and Germany. Places of the Power (568e774 A. In addition. the average receipt from international tourists is quite high. as for the control variables. H. which are the relatively large and more populated countries in Europe. The effect of population (POP) in Table 5. The SARS epidemic resulted in a signiﬁcant reduction of around 2. the marginal effect comes from our model. with the number of international tourists being reduced by about 359. while the other is the out-of-sample country. the common factor of these countries. M: mixed site. In addition. Thus. Newly-inscribed WHSs in 2011 In-sample countries Petroglyphic Complexes of the Mongolian Altai Coffee Cultural Landscape of Colombia Selimiye Mosque and its Social Complex The Persian Garden Hiraizumi (Temples.-W. In addition. Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape West Lake Cultural Landscape of Hangzhou Cultural Landscape of the Serra de Tramuntana Longobards in Italy. Mombasa Kenya Lake System in the Great Rift Valley Saloum Delta Citadel of the Ho Dynasty Konso Cultural Landscape Contribution of WHSs (million USD) (A) (B) Type 1. for example. In Table 7. the contribution of WHSs is lower. namely. 4.000. Hili. However. Europe is the most frequently visited region in the world. Spain. Italy. France. N: natural site. ﬁve of the top ten countries for tourists in the world were in Europe. Thus. Missing data of tourist arrivals in 2009: Iran.

Speciﬁcation test in econometrics. Econometrica. 13. increasing the number of WHSs will have a signiﬁcantly and robustly positive effect on international tourist arrivals. 308e319.-H.. 827e837. C. Analysis of international tourist arrivals in China: the role of world heritage sites. & Lazzaretti. T. The effect of WHSs exhibits a U-shaped pattern as the number of WHSs increases. & D. Conclusion In this paper. & Miller. Even though the positive impact of WHSs on international tourist arrivals does not change across regions or time periods in our paper. This increase means that when a country possesses sufﬁcient WHSs. To sum up. Tourism demand modeling and forecasting: a review of recent research. A. Analysis of Japanese tourist demand in Guam. a country possessing a WHS is in a win-win situation not only for the sustainable conservation of cultural achievements and natural resources. In International handbook on the economics of tourism (pp. Dhariwala. (2005).-L. because the consumption behavior of tourists may differ across countries. Gazing on communism: heritage tourism and post-communist identities in Germany. & Mervar. 7. We also study the effect of new inscriptions on the World Heritage List. However. E. On the contrary. Handbook of the economics of art and culture). 185e205. 29. 46. once unknown sites become famous after being inscribed on the WHS list. the marginal effects of WHSs demonstrate different patterns. & Li. How elastic are sea. A. respectively. P. this effect increases slightly. (2008). J. D. M. H.-L. 422e438. An econometric model for international tourism ﬂow in Spain. It is because conservation is the only way to maintain sustainable tourism income from WHSs. Applied Economics.637.606 million for cultural and natural WHSs. U. F.. Literary places. Yang. for each region. 277e280.S. In addition. Tourism Economics. (2005). (2008)..-L. Amsterdam: North Holland. H. M. J. Lim. (2002). J. C. Creative cities.. 455e456. the number of inbound tourists will increase further. 1247e 1318).-C. Panel data and tourism: a case study of Tenerife. Frangouli. (2011). Culture in urban and regional development. but also for the development of the tourism economy. Annals of Tourism Research. Tourism Management. should 57 be explored using cost-beneﬁt analysis. More information will be gained after extending the time span or the cross section of available data associated with WHSs. a gap between tourist arrivals and tourist incomes may exist. 61e82. A. (2008). King. In V. V. when a country possesses sufﬁcient WHSs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Tourism Research. & Pagan. but rather complementary. 8. R. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing. These topics are thus both important and interesting for further research. for WHS-rich countries. the effect of natural WHSs is slightly larger than the effect of cultural ones. & Anastasopoulos. N. but also to the method in order to evaluate the economic contribution of WHSs and to budget for their conservation. A handbook of cultural economics). H. W. (2002). Modeling tourist ﬂows to Indonesia and Malaysia. (2000). Cultural tourism. 25(1). cultural clusters and local economic development.. T. T. M. & Han. a country possessing one more WHS would increase its annual international tourist arrivals by 382. T. C. The determinants of tourist arrivals in Africa: a panel data regression analysis. 7. (pp. 26. Lin / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 46e58 economic contribution of WHSs can be seen as the lower bound of the increase in tourism income while other control variables are unchanged. Tourism Economics. Ginsburgh. 1865e1870. 1287e1294. we investigate the positive relationship between the WHSs and international tourist arrivals at the worldwide level using panel data for 66 countries between 2000 and 2009. A. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. InHandbook of econometrics. Afﬁrming authenticity: consuming cultural heritage. tourism and the heritage experience. Vol. J. Lin and Han. there will be more visits from international tourists.. Evaluating natural attractions for tourism. A survey of tourism demand modeling practice: issues and implications. L. (2005). C. Wu. 111e119. Su. (2011). (2010). Z. & Schulze. Maloney. F. L. the improvement of transportation or increased political liability. MA: MIT Press. Furthermore. Yang.. After dividing our data into ﬁve equal parts. Tourism Management. A.. after considering the changes in other variables. W. extending the data will make the regional analysis more meaningful and reliable.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Deng. 12. 29(2). such as economic growth. Panel data. McIntosh. for the WHS-abundant countries (possessing more than 21 WHSs). Applied Economics Letters. 2. D. 11(3). 31. Basic linear unobserved effects panel data models. Ledesma-Rodriguez. & Montes-Rojas. 2(2). we use international tourist arrivals as the dependent variable. Cellini.. J. & Prentice. Dritsakis. Tourism Management. 203e230... Econometrica. R. G. G. (2007). & Perez-Rodriguez. Chamberlain. R. Lin. G. 47(5). G. Bangladesh Canada Denmark Germany Israel Lithuania Mongolia Philippines Slovakia Thailand Uruguay References Bille. Annals of Tourism Research. (2002). A. J. Competition in tourism among the Mediterranean countries. 37. A. B. Simple test for heteroscedasticity and random coefﬁcient variation. Lin and Han: reply. Tourism Economics. & Saayman. (2003). Y. adding one more WHS would lead to smaller increases in inbound tourists than in the case of WHS-poor countries. (2004). 32. & Bauer.). Light. 589e612.. Tourism development of world heritage sites in China: a geographic perspective. & Cai. Cambridge.). which already possess many attractions and are famous in the global tourism market. (2000). W. 29. Towse (Ed. 12(2). and bring in more income from tourism. As for WHS-poor countries. A. (1979). Tourism Geographies. 365e391. 11(2).. Tourism Management. Dougan. Breusch. Cooke. P. 5.. (2001). 1251e1271. the marginal effects of WHSs increase instead. G. we could say that these two purposes are not contradictory. Tourist arrivals in India: how important are domestic disorders? Tourism Economics. Therefore.-H. Is UNESCO recognition effective in fostering tourism? A comment on Yang. which captures the international tourism demand. 79e88. (2005). Cointegration analysis of German and British tourism demand for Greece. C.. sand and sun? Dynamic panel estimates of the demand for tourism.. 32. & Amaral. Tan. Tourism Management. V. 312e333. 525e529. Wooldridge. the authorities of the destination countries could refer not only to the result. In R. Is UNESCO recognition effective in fostering tourism? A comment on Yang. Moreover. Navarro-Ibanez.-W. F. Appendix A. Thus. (1984). B. & Lin. Hungary and Romania. In addition. 75e88. V. and this tourism income is indispensable for the further preservation of WHSs. While both cultural and natural WHSs could enhance the inbound tourism.. 45e72). (1999). R. Moreover. in considering that the marginal effect may vary with the number of WHSs. 66 countries whose data were used (in alphabetical order) Argentina Belgium Chile Armenia Benin China Australia Brazil Colombia Austria Bulgaria Croatia Azerbaijan Cameroon Czech Republic Egypt Estonia Finland France Georgia Greece Hungary Indonesia Iran Ireland Italy Japan Korea Kyrgyzstan Latvia Madagascar Malaysia Mali Mexico Moldova Morocco Netherlands Norway Pakistan Peru Poland Portugal Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Tunisia Turkey Ukraine U. and observe how this inﬂuence changes over time. However.. 103e109. the exchanges between tourist arrivals and incomes. Patsouratis. 452e454. Garin-Munoz.Y. However.. Annals of Tourism Research. the coefﬁcient itself is different and deserves further study. (1978). (2006). That is. Li. 28(2).659 million and 418. J. compared with the costs of maintaining WHSs. (2008). 247e291). Throsby (Eds. Herbert. S. L.. H. . McCahon. Tourism Management. Naude. the ‘gearing effect’ of WHSs will emerge. A note on modeling tourism revenues in Croatia. According to the estimated results. Thus. Hausman. but our results remain quite robust in different time periods. Payne. the positive effect of WHSs was found to decline while the number of WHSs actually rose. G. (2002). J. (2001).. T. Bonet.K. In Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (pp. we divided our sample into three and ﬁve equal parts to better understand the marginal effect of WHSs for a speciﬁc range of numbers. Amsterdam: North Holland-Elsevier. Song. 157e176. The marginal effects of WHSs on international tourist arrivals are 396. Applied Economics Letters.

Lin / Tourism Management 40 (2014) 46e58 Yu-Wen Su received Ph. .D. H. Her research focuses on econometrics. from National Taiwan University (NTU).-W.58 Y.-L. NTU. Su. She received Ph. from Brown University. Her research focuses on econometrics.D. industrial economics and tourism economics. Hui-Lin Lin is Professor of Economics. time series analysis and tourism economics.

- 10.1.1.124Uploaded byStephanie Smith Sandum
- Selectivity EconometriaUploaded byRoger Asencios Nuñez
- Creative TourismUploaded byDo Miranda
- 1st articleUploaded byjozefRudy
- Wilson Chpt 1Uploaded byCharleneKronstedt
- Exercise 15.20Uploaded byLeonard Gonzalo Saavedra Astopilco
- Lecture 4Uploaded byLola Sam
- Chapter 1-bdb743f6d80f9ce82c065762a2e10364.pdfUploaded byDNLDS
- BackgroundUploaded byVu H Thanh
- English Case Study(Finalized)Uploaded byYeo Jun Seng
- Acemoglu and Yared - Political Limits to Globalization - 2010Uploaded byaleczero127
- Risk in Developing CountryUploaded byKai Weng Pun
- November 30 Time Series Cross Sectional AnalysisUploaded byzebatif
- Study Guide InferenceUploaded bybalkassang
- forecast combinationUploaded bykinan
- Pictures-tb Board-Atachments 2-2012-2012-2016 Slovenian Tourism Development Strategy (Summary) 14629Uploaded bySofroni Tina
- work force diversityUploaded byRafay Khawaja
- Impact of Tourism on Indian EconomyUploaded byPreetyPriya
- muestra-produccion-escrita-b2.pdfUploaded byJeni Almirón
- The History of Tourist Development Engleza 181705Uploaded byAnastasia Perebikovskaya
- Hospitality IndustryUploaded bysmitahsya
- Problem Set EconometricsUploaded byJelac Capalac
- Adoption of Ict in the Tourism and Hospitality Sector In ZimbabweUploaded bytheijes
- Keele Kelly LDVUploaded byRobert John Doody
- Econ220 SyllabusUploaded bykcsong220_hotmail
- MIS VaibhavUploaded byUtsav Dubey
- What Does r² measure.pdfUploaded byGerson Miranda
- wisata proposalUploaded byKarlina Dewi
- Asirvatham_McNamara_613111_Effects of Impulsivity and Self-Control on Calorie IntakeUploaded bymahesh_sawant2007
- Ch 2 - APL 2016Uploaded byAshker

- 05 06 Tutor Resource Strategic Hrm Ch 2Uploaded byAbraham Wangila
- HSE JICAUploaded byismailines
- Accounting_basics Easy PC TrainingUploaded byRahul Shakya
- ToR Trends WaterUploaded byAbraham Wangila
- Finance MinistryUploaded byAbraham Wangila
- Baseline Survey Report Fair DraftUploaded byAbraham Wangila
- Advocacy Performance MonitoringUploaded byAbraham Wangila
- Community NotesUploaded byAbraham Wangila

- The Modellers GuideUploaded byDejan Ivanović
- f445 Hseq Ims Internal Audit ChecklistUploaded bynice guy
- De Buck Egyptian Reading Book Vol I Leiden 1948Uploaded byAndrea Zingarelli
- Robotics and MechatronicsUploaded byAdrian David
- Matthew's Gospel NotesUploaded byjohnson496
- CCNPv7 Quiz 2 ThsootUploaded byClaudio Aliste Requena
- Abū Yūsuf al-Qāḍī_EnIslm.docUploaded byJeremy Farrell
- ZNT13_10aUploaded byarsham1
- jar test.docxUploaded byaoi_chiep
- 5.5.4 Homework AssignmentUploaded byTino Tino
- Understanding PartitionUploaded byRadha Priyadarshini
- Fundamentals.of.RF.and.Microwave.power.measurements.(Part.1)Uploaded byDavid Lopez
- bmp180 pressure sensor tutorial docxUploaded byapi-248437787
- 3 Gas ChromatographyUploaded bylaltoo
- Sodium Hydride HandlingUploaded byAdam
- Vapour Phase Drying SystemUploaded byabetie
- Basic Science Summary for the MRCSUploaded byDrKiran Kumar Reddy
- Honey in Otorhinolaryngology_ When, Why and HowUploaded byRiadhus Machfud Alfian
- Caterpillar Motoniveladora ManualUploaded byAndres Jarrin
- SAPJCo Documenta 3.0 EnUploaded byjosechc
- Sapo 34Uploaded byYiğit Ilgaz
- 2016_AADE_ShaleCompatibilityTestingUploaded byRizki Yuda
- Kotler POM13e Student 20Uploaded byWan Khairul Ikhwan
- 2 1 BuildingUploaded byAlif Affza
- Lexical Knowledge of monolingual and bilingual childrenUploaded byTom Way
- sdflakjsldfj1111Uploaded bytaylormaddie
- IRJET-Augmenting Data Warehouse Security Techniques - A Selective SurveyUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Jee Main 2014 Question Paper Key SolutionsUploaded byLokesh Kumar
- Curriculum VitaeUploaded byNicodemus Rusdiyanto
- AP ScienceUploaded byShwetha Gowrapura Jayadevappa