Modeling International Tourism Demand:

Model Specification and Structure

CLIVE MORLEY

Multiple regression is used widely as a tool for estimating tourism demand functions.
Problems of heteroscedasticity, multicollinearity, and autocorrelation are well recognized
by modelers, but questions ofmodel specification are less widely understood. Misspecifi-
cation of the model, such as failure to include an important explanatory variable or a
wrongfunctionalform, can have significant impacts on the model estimated. The evidence
to date is that more complex or general functional forms give better models than more
simple functions such as the commonly used log-linear model. It is reasonable to expect
that tourism demand is a dynamicfactor, so the lag structure oftourism demand should be
considered in any model. A quadratic functionalform for this structure is derived.

Forecasts of tourism demand are needed for planning,
policymaking, and budgeting purposes by tourism operators,
investors, and government bodies concerned with tourism.
Nearly all forecasting methods generally available can be
applied to tourism demand, as is demonstrated by Uysal and
Crompton (1985) and by Calantone, di Benedetto, and
Bojanic (1987). Time series methods (such as moving aver-
ages, Holt-Winters exponential smoothing, decomposition,
and Box-Jenkins methods) rely on the continuance of past
time relation patterns into the future, while causal or econo-
metric methods model the demand as related to other, explana-
tory variables. The assumption that past trends and patterns
will continue into the future is an uncertain one for tourism
demand; also, tourism planners consider that demand is influ-
enced by other, exogenous variables such as exchange rates,
fares, and incomes. Because of these factors, causal methods
which estimate a specified demand model in terms of chosen
explanatory variables using multiple regression techniques to
estimate the model parameters are often preferred. Econo-
metric models have the advantages of enabling investigation
of causal effects of changes in the explanatory variables on the
demand variable and of &dquo;what if&dquo; simulations (Witt and
Martin 1987; Uysal and Crompton 1985). There is also the
encountered. Econometric texts such as Judge et al. (1982)
discuss these matters at the necessary depth. There are also
model specification difficulties (see Judge et al. [ 1982] for an
introduction to this complex area). For example, misspecifi-
cation of the model structure, such as failure or inability to
include an important explanatory variable in the model or use
of an inadequate functional form for the model, sometimes
manifests itself as significant evidence of heteroscedasticity.
Multiple regression is used to fit the model form specified by
the modeler with those variables chosen for inclusion by
modeler. The necessary and important decisions as to model
form and explanatory variable set are made subjectively,
perhaps expertly, by the modeler and not by the methodology.
The use of methods such as &dquo;best subsets&dquo; regression or
stepwise regression cannot negate the importance of the
modeler’s own input.
In a study of the suitability of regression analysis for
estimating tourism demand, Summary( 1987) concludes that
&dquo;
’typical’ multivariate demand functions estimated by ordi-
nary least squares regression may not represent the optimal
technique to use in all tourism demand studies.&dquo; This cau-
tiously worded but negative conclusion is critical of the
common use of regression for demand modeling, which con-

option of using more complex models which attempt to
combine the time series and causal methods, such as econo-
metric models which incorporate time series structures and
Box-Jenkins methods, with transfer functions. Such models,
along with the incorporation of tourism into large, multiple
equation econometric models, pose special problems in anal-
ysis and interpretation.
With the widespread availability of computer packages
which can perform the necessary calculations, multiple re-
gression is now reasonably easy to use. Less widespread is an
understanding of some of the subtle difficulties that may be
present in any use of the technique, such as those arising from
the error distribution and from model misspecification.
Heteroscedasticity, multicollinearity, and autocorrelation
problems may be discovered in error distributions, and tech-
nical methods are available for addressing such problems.
However, the available methods cannot handle all of these
problems, nor do these problems exhaust those that may be
Clive Morley is at the Graduate School of Management,
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Victoria, Australia.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
40
siders a limited set of independent variables to &dquo;explain&dquo;
demand and minimal theoretical or practical consideration of
the model form. It is unlikely, however, that the widespread
use of multiple regression for estimating tourism demand
functions will diminish, given its widely perceived advantages
over other ways of forecasting demand. The demand mea-
sured by a regression model is a theoretical construct involv-
ing the functional form and the variables included in the
model. Using it as a demand measure involves assuming that
most of the effect of determinants of demand is captured by
the explanatory variables included in the model, is adequately
modeled by the functional form of the model, and is pre-
dominantly systematic. If these assumptions are valid, then
the error structure, which is made up of the differences be-
tween the modeled demand and the actual numbers of tourist
visitors, will have values which are, for practical purposes,
random and allow the effects of the determinants to be reliably
estimated. In this article the functional form of the demand
model, the variables used in the model, and the inter-temporal
structure are discussed to suggest ways the typical demand
modeling of tourism using the powerful tool of multivariate
regression analysis can be improved.
 FUNCTIONAL FORM
Many admissible functional forms for travel and tourism
demand models exist, and it is not practical to consider all the
possibilities every time a model is to be estimated. The set of
forms to be considered can be reduced to manageable propor-
tions by deriving forms theoretically from basic principles
inherent in the structure of the demand being modeled. Alter-
natively, a fairly general form can be used and the specific
form derived by estimation from the data. Less soundly based
is to assume a specific form and ignore other possibilities.
Many studies assume a multiplicative form of model made
linear by a logarithmic transformation of the variables-the
log-linear form (Arbel and Ravid 1985; Poole 1988; Strong
and Redman 1982; Summary 1987; Witt and Martin 1987).
Other functional forms that have been used to model tourism
demand include the Almost Ideal Demand System (O’Hagan
and Harrison 1984; White 1985), logit regression (Sheldon
and Mak 1987), a Box-Cox transformation of the variables
(Fujii and Mak 1981), and a specifically built form (Witt
1983). The functional forms that can be used range from
simple linear regression models to complex forms derived
from statistical or econometric theory, which are more dif-
ficult to estimate.
Misspecification of the structure of the model can be tested
for with tests such as the RESET test of Ramsey (1969,
1974) and Ramsey and Schmidt ( 1976). Godfrey, McAleer,
and McKenzie (1988) conclude an assessment of this and
other such tests with recommendation of the RESET test for
its simplicity of use, robustness to non-normal error distribu-
tions, and good power. Gaudry and Wills (1978) have
shown that whether an explanatory variable is significant or
not, or even has the correct sign, can depend on the functional
form of the model. So an error in specification of the model
form can result in the incorrect inclusion or exclusion of
explanatory variables and false estimates of the values of
parameters measuring the impact of variables on demand,
such as elasticities. Further, the choice of functional form
affects the distribution of the residuals and bias of the test
statistics. While the theory of mathematical statistics leads us
to expect such impacts, Gaudry and Wills show that they are
also important in practice in the estimation of travel demand
models. Oum (1989) finds similar effects in freight transport
models. Oum compared five functional forms for estimating
freight transport demand models. The forms are:
1. the linear model - a straightforward and easily applied
model, but the assumption of linear effects of all variables is
usually considered too simplistic to be realistic for tourism
demand modeling and the model is not often used;
2. the log-linear model - the logarithm of demand is specified
as a linear function of the logarithms of the explanatory
variables; a commonly used form in transport and tour-
ism studies, it assumes constant elasticities and is easily
estimated;
3. the logit model - applied to demand market shares, it can be
derived from a random utility function model in a discrete
choice context, which provides a convincing theoretical basis
for the model form; it is also not difficult to estimate and has
been known to yield reasonable-seeming results;
4. the translog model - a flexible functional form giving a
quadratic approximation to the unknown true form of the
utility function, with variation in own and cross-elasticities
allowed for, it is more difficult to estimate;
5. the Box-Cox transformation - as a generalization of the
first two model forms.
Oum replicates Gaudry and Wills’ finding that the values
of elasticities and the variables found significant in the model
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
depend on the functional form, and that more complex and
general forms perform best, notably the translog form ahead
of the Box-Cox transformation and then the log-linear form,
with the linear and logit forms further behind. Gaudry and
Wills (1978) use the Box-Tukey transformation (Tukey
1957; Box and Cox 1964) as a general functional form,
estimating the parameters of the transformation from the data
using maximum likelihood. The Box-Cox transformation,
and hence the linear and log-linear functional forms, is a
special case of the Box-Tukey transformation. Gaudry and
Wills conclude that this flexible functional form is superior to
commonly used forms such as the log-linear form for total
demand and the logit model for modal shares. They argue that
as the best functional form (the one with maximum likelihood
estimated parameter values) has the most convincing signs
and values for elasticities then the practice of trying a few
forms and using the one that yields the best results has some
rationale and can improve on the use of standard model forms.
While these studies are not conclusive, they do indicate that
the choice of functional form for a model can have a signifi-
cant impact on the results and that conclusions, such as on the
importance of variables in affecting demand, derived from a
particular form are not necessarily applicable to another
form. They also suggest that the more complex, general or
flexible functional forms are likely to repay the extra effort
involved in their estimation with more reliable results.
Parameter estimates are also sensitive to different error
distribution assumptions. Coursey and Nyquist ( 1988) pro-
duce empirical evidence to show that the effect of assuming
different error distributions, and hence varying the appropriate
estimation technique, is of a similar magnitude to structural
assumptions of functional form or explanatory variables. The
demand equation specification should therefore consider the
possibilities of error distributions other than the usual assump-
tion of a normal distribution of errors, and robust estimation
techniques should be considered as well as least squares
techniques.
VARIABLES
The literature on the estimation of variously specified
international tourist demand equations, examples of which
have been cited previously, suggests a large number of pos-
sible variables for inclusion in a model of tourism demand.
Schulmeister (1979) lists the following variables as being
the most important exogenous variables in an economic
model of tourism demand:
Disposable income of private households
Gross National Product (to capture the effect of both
private households’ incomes and total production)
Private consumption
Prices of consumer goods
Tourism prices
Transport costs
Incomes
Consumer economic expectations
Special factors (for example, the Olympic Games or
social unrest in the destination country)
Short-term factors (e.g., school holidays, weather)
Long-term factors (stock of private cars, length of holi-
days, population by age group, degree of urbanization)
Relative prices between domestic and foreign tourism
Relative prices between destinations
Other econometric demand studies use various subsets of
these variables, sometimes supplemented by the variables
listed below (with examples of studies which have incorpo-
rated them):
41
 Time trend (replacing Schulmeister’s long-term factors):
Johnson and Swits (1983), O’Hagan and Harrison
(1984), White (1985)
Marketing expenditure: O’Hagan and Harrison (1984)
Exchange rate between source and destination countries’
currencies (as a measure of relative prices): Loeb
(1982), O’Hagan and Harrison (1984), Rosensweig
(1986), Summary (1987), Witt and Martin (1987).
Variables such as price, income, and consumption are
sometimes lagged, and the lagged dependent variable has
been included as an explanatory variable reflecting habit
build-up, word-of-mouth reporting, and rigidity of supply
(Witt and Martin 1987). Faulkner (1988) discusses possible
factors which impinge on the number of tourist arrivals in
Australia from overseas in the light of recent rapid increases
in the numbers. He identifies some permanent and transient
changes to which he ascribes the observed effect on tourist
numbers. The variables are
Value of the Australian dollar in international exchange
Promotion of Australia as a tourist destination overseas
both explicity via Australian Tourism Commission
advertising and marketing, and informally through
Australian films and entertainment personalities
Increase in both quality and quantity of the supply of
tourism services in Australia
Consumer perceptions of safety, through the impact of
terrorist acts and other events (e.g., Chernobyl) on
other destinations’ attractiveness
Product life cycle of other destinations possibly approach-
ing saturation level while Australian tourism is at an
earlier, high growth, stage in its cycle.
Not all of the variables in the lists above can be included in
models of international tourism demand. Schulmeister in-
cludes three measures of income in his list, and there are often
obvious overlaps between the lists. Problems of data avail-
ability and quantitative measurement difficulties are signifi-
cant practical issues. Further, it is simplistic to assume that all
the variables are exogenous. For example, the promotion of
a destination may be deliberately varied in response to
changes in demand, and tourism prices are well known for
varying seasonally in response to expectations of demand
based upon past demand patterns. In countries such as
Greece and Spain, international tourism is a significant com-
ponent of Gross National Product, which is thus not exo-
genous in tourism demand models for such destinations.
In a typical empirical demand study, Poole ( 1988) lists 13
factors as influencing overseas tourist arrivals in Australia.
He argues for the empirical necessity of having a much
smaller number of variables in a model and that those factors
which are difficult to quantify should be those left out of the
model (to be incorporated post hoc subjectively via a Delphi
panel), seemingly unaware of the misspecification biases
potentially introduced by this method. The list of factors is
further reduced by excluding factors which do not vary sig-
nificantly over the data time period, and it is assumed that
supply factors have not affected demand. Following Hollander
( 1982), Poole estimates log-linear demand equations for six
major sources for different reasons for travel (holiday, visiting
friends or relatives, business, other-the estimation of sep-
arate demand equations for different reason categories is
typical of Australian studies) using fares, source country
GDP (as a proxy for disposable income), deflated exchange
rates and, in the business equations, Australian GDP as the
independent variables. The presence of serial autocorrelation
in the estimation is noted. The approach adopted by Poole is
similar to that recommended by Summary (1987). In her
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
42
study of Kenyan tourism, demand from five source countries
was regressed in log-linear form on source country per capita
income, fares, the currency exchange rate, a relative price
variable and, for some sources, a dummy variable for years of
closure of the border with Tanzania. Autocorrelation was
seen to be less of a problem than in Poole’s (1988) study, but
multicollinearity among the explanatory variables was identi-
fied as a concern. These two examples illustrate some of the
problems with the variables that arise. In particular, they
show how small is the set of explanatory variables actually
considered in many models in comparison with the lists of
potential variables given above. Theoretical models of tour-
ism demand and the practice of demand modeling are far from
integrated. The presence of serial autocorrelation in models
and time-related misspecification, which may contribute to
multicollinearity problems, suggests that the dynamics and
lag structure of tourism demand may need closer analysis
than they have previously received.
INFORMATION FLOWS AND
THE LAG STRUCTURE
The discussion above has highlighted the problems that
occur when modelers fail to deal adequately with the struc-
tural questions that modeling raises. The lag structure is one
such question and in this section a theoretical model of the lag
structure is presented as an example of an approach to coming
to terms with a commonly ignored structural problem. The
theoretical structure derived is based on consideration of
tourism-relevant information flows and, as is usual in model
building, involves making simplifying assumptions to build a
reasonably tractable model. The necessary empirical testing
of the model will establish whether the result is a practical
contribution to international tourism demand modeling.
Potential tourists will restrict their choice of destination to
the set of destinations they have some information about. In
this respect the tourism decision is similar to the migration
decision of potential migrants, and a tourist search field-the
spatial field over which a potential tourist investigates pos-
sible destinations-can be defined which depends on infor-
mation networks in the economy. As in migration theory
(Malho 1986; Greenwood 1985), these information net-
works can be expected to be often hierarchical in nature, and
thus there can be posited class and educational differences,
for example, in the coverage of search fields. Information
networks will also depend on previous tourism patterns, in
that the more tourists from source i to destination j that there
have been in the past the greater will be the spread of infor-
mation about j in i. Hence it is likely that the current level of
tourism from i to j will be higher (if the content of the infor-
mation is positive, or lower if it is negative) than if there was
less tourism from i to j in the past. The number of past tourists
is a function of those variables which determined past tourism
flows and also an influence on the current tourism level.
Current tourism flows are determined by the relevant vari-
ables indirectly via past tourism as well as directly, so that if
the impact of past tourism is neglected the effect of the rele-
vant variables considered will tend to be overestimated.
Many of the empirical tourism demand studies cited above
neglect the lag structure.
The effect of information flows in a population is an aggre-
gate effect and modeled as such over the relevant population
at a tourist source, so the lag structure is based in a market
analysis. The model of aggregate demand will be dynamic, as
it incorporates the inherently dynamic concept of information
flows. In the following discussion the dependence of the argu-
ment on a particular source, i, and destination, j, is suppressed
in the notation, but a gravity-type model with subscripts i andj
is implicit.
The flow of information to new tourists can be considered
to occur via a deliberate search for information on the part of
the potential tourist, through random contact with relevant
information and word of mouth dissemination from past to
potential tourists. Sibly (1988) has an analysis of similar
methods of flows of information about products to new cus-
tomers which can be adapted to the tourism situation. Assume
that there are N potential tourists for a particular destination
at a source, of whom nett N are at time T past tourists of
destination. That is, N is the number of people whose utility
functions are such that they would choose to travel to the
particular destination if it were in their search field and n( T) is
the cumulative total number of time T of people at the source
who are past tourists to the destination. Denote the flow of
tourists to the destination as a result of a search for informa-
tion by nl’ then if it is assumed that potential tourists find
information about the destination independently and with
equal probability the flow of new tourists (that is, those with
no previous experience of tourism to the destination) resulting
from a search for information is proportional to N-n(T). So
nl’ a(N-n(T) ) for some a, 0 <_ a ~1.
=
Some new tourists will obtain information about the desti-
nation not as a result of a deliberate search but by a chance
encounter with the information. If information is dissemi-
nated at random in terms of its potential reception, then the
number of information messages received in this way will be
some fraction of the potential N-n(T). If the amount of infor-
mation sent out is constant, then-assuming independent and
equally likely exposure to the information and a constant
probability of choosing the destination for those with the
information-the flow of new tourists to the destination owing
to receipt of information randomly is N2’ = b(N-n(T) ). It
can be hypothesized that the parameter b may depend on
variables such as the level of advertising. The third possible
method of information flow is word of mouth through the
conjunction of a past tourist and a potential tourist. The flow
of new tourists due to this information flow, n3’, is propor-
tional to both the number of past tourists and the number of
potential new tourists, analogous to the spread of a new
product in a market (Deaton and Muellbauer 1980, p. 371).
Thus
There will also be a flow of repeat business, n4’, by tourists
who choose a destination using information about the desti-
nation from a past visit. Assuming a constant proportion of
past visitors choose to return,
n4’ = d.n(T).
Thus if n’ is the total flow of tourists due to these means
information transmission,
Re-arranging gives
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
where
As c > 0 this model implies an eventual leveling off of
tourist numbers at a destination (in the absence of significant
changes in exogenous variables). If valid, it implies that
extrapolative methods of forecasting tourist numbers, as
commonly used, will eventually tend to overestimate tourist
numbers, through failure to predict the leveling off. The valid-
ity of this aspect of the model can be tested by testing the
hypothesis that c 0. The parameter a* = (a+b)N can be
=
estimated, but a and b cannot be uniquely estimated from the
one data set; this degeneracy requires independent data on the
parameters for its resolution.
CONCLUSIONS
Tourism demand is typically modeled using multiple re-
gression to fit a linear or log-linear model with a small set of
explanatory variables. This methodology has the advantage
of simplicity, but it ignores much of the current state of know-
ledge with respect to estimation problems in multiple regres-
sion, the effects of misspecification of model structures, and
different error distributions. The results obtained from demand
models, such as estimates of elasticities and the significance
of explanatory variables, can be highly reliant on the func-
tional form of the model, with the consequence that policy
decisions and demand forecasts can be made which are as
much an outcome of the model form chosen by the modeler as
they are of the data. Evidence in the econometric, statistical,
and transportation economics literatures indicates that more
general, flexible functional forms give better results than the
simple forms often used.
The lag structure of tourism demand has received little
explicit analysis, despite indications that it is likely to be an
important aspect of a well specified model. From considera-
tion of information flows to potential tourists there is con-
structed a dynamic structural model for tourism demand as a
quadratic function of the total prior visitors to a destination.
REFERENCES
Arbel, A., and S. A. Ravid(1985). "On Recreation Demand: A Time-Series
Approach." Applied Economics, 17: 979-90
Box, G. E. P., and D. R Cox (1964). "An Analysis of Transformations."
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 26: 211-43.
Calantone, R J., C. A. di Benedetto, and D. Bjanic (1987). "A Compre-
hensive Review of the Tourism Forecasting Literature." Journal of
Travel Research, 26: 28-39.
Coursey, D., and H. Nyquist (1988). "Applications of Robust Estimation
Techniques in Demand Analysis." Applied Economics, 20: 595-610.
Deaton, A., andJ. Muellbauer( 1980). Economics and ConsumerBehavior.
Cambridge University Press.
Faulkner, B. (1988). Patterns of Tourism Demand in Australia: An Analysis
of Recent Trends. BTR Occasional Paper No 4. Canberra: Bureau of
of Tourism Research.
Fujii, E. T. and J. Mak (1981). "Forecasting Tourism Reward: Some
Methodological Issues." Annals of Regional Science, 15: 72-82,
Gaudry, M. J. I., and M. J. Wills (1978). "Estimating the Functional Form of
Travel Demand Models." Transportation Research, 12: 257-89.
Godfrey, L. G., M. McAleer, and C. R McKenzie (1988). "Variable Addi-
tion and Lagrange Multiplier Tests for Linear and Logarithmic Regres-
sion Models." Review ofEconomics and Statistics, 70: 492-503.
Greenwood, M. J. (1985). "Human Migration: Theory, Models and Empiri-
cal Studies." Journal of Regional Science, 25: 521-44.
Hollander, G. (1982). Determinants of Demand for Travel To and From
Australia. Working Paper No. 26. Canberra: Bureau of Industry
Economics.
43
 Johnson, R L., and D. B. Swits (1983). "A Statistical Analysis of the
Demand for Visits to U.S. National Parks: Travel Costs and Season-
ability." Journal of Travel Research, 22: 21-24.
Judge, G. G., R C. Hill, W. E. Griffiths, H. Lutkepohl, and T-C. Lee (1982).
Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Econometrics. New York:
Wiley.
Loeb, P D. (1982). "International Travel to the United States: An Econo-
metric Evaluation." Annals of Tourism Research, 9: 7-20.
Molho, I. (1986). "Theories of Migration: A Review." Scottish Journal of
Political Economy, 33 396-419.
O’Hagan, J. W., and M. J. Harrison (1984). "Market Shares of U.S. Tourist
Expenditure in Europe: An Econometric Analysis.
"Applied Economics,
16: 919-31.
Oum, T. H. (1989). "Alternative Demand Models and Their Elasticity
Estimates." Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 23: 163-87.
Poole, M. (1988). Forecasting Methodology. BTR Occasional Paper No. 3.
Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research.
J. B. (1969). "Tests for Specification Errors in Classical Linear
Ramsey,
Least Squares Regression Analysis." Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society Series B, 31: 350-71.
&mdash;(1974). "Classical Model Selection Through Specification Error Tests."
In Frontiers in Econometrics, P. Zarembka, ed. New York: Academic
Press, pp. 13-47.
Ramsey, J. B., and P. Schmidt ( 1976). " Some Further Results on the Use of
OLS and BLUS Residuals in Specification Error Tests." Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 71: 389-90.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2016
44
Rosensweig, J. A. (1986). "Exchange Rates and Competition for Tourists."
New England Economic Review, July/August: 57-67.
Sheldon, P. J., and J. Mak(1987). "The Demand for Package Tours: A Mode
Choice Model." Journal of Travel Research, 25: 13-40.
Schulmeister, S. (1979). Tourism and the Business Cycle. Vienna: Austrian
Institute for Economic Research.
Sessa, A. (1983). Elements of Tourism Economics. Rome: Catal.
Sibly, H. (1988). "Modelling Information Flows in Customer Markets."
Typescript, University of Melbourne.
Stronge, W. B., and M. Redman (1982). "U.S. Tourism in Mexico: An
Empirical Analysis." Annals of Tourism Research, 9: 21-35.
Summary, R (1987). "Estimation of Tourism Demand by Multivariate
Regression Analysis: Evidence from Kenya." Tourism Management,
8: 317-22.
Tukey, J. W. (1957). "On the Comparative Anatomy of Transformations."
Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 28: 602-32.
Uysal, M., and J. L. Crompton (1985). "An Overview of the Approaches
Used to Forecast Tourism Demand." Journal of Travel Research,
23 (Spring): 7-15.
White, K. J. (1985). "An International Travel Demand Model: U. S. Travel
to Western Europe." Annals of Tourism Research, 12: 529-45.
Witt, S. F. (1983). "A Binary Choice Model of Foreign Holiday Demand."
Journal of Economic Studies, 10: 46-59.
Witt, S. F., and C. A. Martin (1987). "Econometric Models for Forecasting
International
Journal of TravelTourism Research,
Demand." 25: 23-30.