See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233685183

Rural Tourism Demand in Galicia, Spain

Article  in  Tourism Economics · March 2006

DOI: 10.5367/000000006776387178

CITATIONS READS
44 570

2 authors:

Fidel Martínez-Roget Xosé Antón Rodríguez

University of Santiago de Compostela University of Santiago de Compostela
92 PUBLICATIONS   483 CITATIONS    69 PUBLICATIONS   374 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tourism in Rural Areas View project

Modelling and analysis techniques applied to the tourism sector View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Xosé Antón Rodríguez on 12 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tourism Economics, 2006, 12 (1), 21–31

Rural tourism demand in Galicia, Spain

FIDEL MARTÍNEZ ROGET AND XOSÉ A. RODRÍGUEZ GONZÁLEZ

School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Santiago de Compostela,
Avda. Juan XXIII, s/n, 15782 Santiago de Compostela (A Coruña), Spain. Tel: +34
981563100. Fax: +34 981563637. E-mail: eafimaro@usc.es (F. Martínez Roget);
ecanton@usc.es (X.A. Rodríguez González).

This paper is a study of rural tourism demand in Galicia by means

of panel data. The dependent variable used is the number of over-
night stays. Empirical results suggest that the number of overnight
stays in rural tourism establishments depends basically on economic
determinants, such as the price of services in rural tourism establish-
ments, the extent of transport (travel) costs and the economic cycle
(tourists’ income). The income variable exhibits the highest elasticity.
Besides the influence of economic determinants, rural tourism de-
mand depends mainly on the reputation (prestige) and peculiarities
of each establishment. In light of these results, conclusions are drawn
and policy implications are discussed.

Keywords: rural tourism; demand; panel data; Galicia; Spain

JEL classification: C23, R15

According to Yagüe (2002), in OECD countries, and especially in Spain, there

has been an increased tendency among urban people to choose rural areas for
their holiday destinations. This development has brought about an upsurge in
rural tourism, which is most probably due to growing demand together with
the combined influence of two motivating factors: environmental quality and
a search for the authentic. Other contributing factors are the growing tendency
towards splitting holiday periods, which are no longer concentrated entirely in
the summer, and the preference for short-distance travel.
With regard to supply, tourists expect to take advantage of the landscape
and of environmental, natural and architectural resources. According to Fuentes
(1995), rural tourism is especially attractive to the segment of the urban
population aged between 25 and 45, with strong socio-cultural interests and
medium–high purchasing power.
In Spain, the number of visitors making overnight stays in rural tourism
establishments is currently around 10% of the total visitors and overnight stays
of Spaniards (Tourist Research Institute, 2002a and 2002b). In Spain, the
northern regions are those in which rural tourism has a greater relative impor-
tance in terms of the supply of accommodation. Galicia (a Spanish region
22 TOURISM ECONOMICS

located in the north-west of the Iberian Peninsula) is one of the most important
rural tourism destinations.
We study rural tourism demand in Galicia using panel data. Most of the
work in this field uses price and income variables in order to explain rural
tourism demand. In this study we explore the influence of other determinants,
such as promotional factors, quality factors and characteristics related to the
destination (Galicia). In light of the results, conclusions and policy implications
are offered.

Rural tourism activity in Galicia

In Galicia, rural tourism establishments were first regulated as recently as 1995
(Xunta of Galicia, 1995). From 1995 to 2001, there was a strong growth in
rural tourism activity, as evidenced by the fact that the number of establish-
ments and the supply of accommodation grew at an annual rate of over 20%,
while the numbers of visitors and overnight stays grew by around 40% each
year.
The recent strength of rural tourism in Galicia can be explained by the great
potential it offers, based on natural, patrimonial and cultural resources. Other
factors, such as hospitality, service quality or infrastructure and promotional
expenditure are very important factors in attracting visitors.
As a result of these favourable factors, Galicia accounts for 5% of the total
number of rural tourism establishments in Spain and offers 7% of the total beds.
On average, Galician establishments are larger than those in the rest of Spain
(eleven beds in Galicia as opposed to eight beds in the rest of Spain). This
supply is provided by ‘village houses’, ‘farm houses’ and ‘pazos’. The village
houses form the bulk of supply (62% of the total) and farm houses are the least
important in quantitative terms (15% of the total beds). The pazos, or ‘country
houses’, have a large structural capacity in that they offer 23% of the total beds
but make up only 16% of the total establishments.
The contributions of rural tourism can be expressed not only in financial
terms but also through the creation of new jobs, in addition to the injection
of new vitality into traditionally weakened economies. In Galicia, rural tourism
has begun to play an important role as an alternative to traditional agricultural
activities, contributing to integrated local development, providing the rural
population with a complementary source of income, creating employment and
making the development of new services possible.

Modelling tourism demand

The vast majority of empirical papers that estimate the determinants of tourism
demand use multivariate regressions. For instance, we can point to the papers
by Pulido (1966), Witt and Martin (1989) and Witt and Witt (1991) for the
case of international tourism demand; Barry and O’Hagan (1972) for tourism
demand in Ireland; Jud and Joseph (1974) for tourism demand in Latin
America; Bon et al (1977) for tourism demand in the OECD; Fujii and Mak
(1980) for tourism demand in Hawaii and Florida; Esteban (1987), Padilla
 Rural tourism demand in Galicia 23

(1988), González and Moral (1993) for tourism demand in Spain; and
Papatheodorou (1999) for tourism demand in the Mediterranean region.
Most of these papers use causal models, in which some indicators of tourism
demand are estimated in relation to different determining factors. In order to
make predictions of short-run demand, the methodology of time series has also
been used, as in the case of Padilla (1988), but causal models usually make
better predictions in the medium term.
From a purely practical standpoint, data on the quantities of goods and
services consumed by tourists at different destinations are virtually non-existent.
Researchers therefore use two alternative proxies to measure demand: tourist
numbers and nights. According to Crouch and Shaw (1992), most of the studies
that estimate tourism demand have chosen the number of the tourists as the
dependent variable.
An enormous variety of factors at individual level influence the demand for
tourism. In order to define possible determinants of tourism demand, different
lists of factors have been drawn up (WTO, 1993, 2001; Figuerola, 1985;
Esteban, 1987; Rey, 1998). According to these studies, the factors can be
categorized as follows: socio-economic factors, demographic factors, factors
related to the trip or journey, factors related to destination areas, tourists’
motivations, and other factors that do not fit within these groups. Most of the
papers in this field include some indicators of tourists’ purchasing power, the
cost of the trip and the cost associated with the consumption of tourism goods
and services at a given destination.

Data and variables

In empirical studies, the output variable, the independent variables and the
techniques of estimation to use depend on the available sample data. Given that
rural tourism in Galicia was first regulated as recently as 1995, long time series
are not available. Moreover, official cross-sectional data on individual establish-
ments are non-existent. Another difficulty for empirical analysis is that rural
establishments are quite small: they are mainly family-owned companies whose
economic data are difficult to disentangle from the data relating to other family
activities.
For this reason, in our paper the principal source of data is the study by
Martínez (2003). This study (a long doctoral dissertation) makes a significant
contribution to the understanding of the economic characteristics of rural
tourism in Galicia. In the research carried out by Martínez, information on 49
rural tourism establishments distributed uniformly throughout the four Galician
provinces was obtained. In order to ensure that the sample was representative,
the two basic types of establishment (the pazos and houses of rural tourism) were
randomly selected. In this survey three aspects are considered: the characteristics
of the establishments, labour data and economic data.
The variable number of overnight stays (PERN) was obtained from the
reference study and is used here as the dependent variable (that is, the indicator
of tourism demand). PERN is defined as the number of tourists lodged multi-
plied by the number of nights for which they stayed. We take the number of
overnight stays as our dependent variable because it is a more precise measure
of rural tourism demand than the number of tourists lodged.
24 TOURISM ECONOMICS

In accordance with the available sample data, the characteristics of rural

tourism in Galicia and studies estimating the determinants of tourism demand,
we considered the following as possible determinants.

(a) Economic determinants:

• Real prices of services in rural tourism establishments. An index of real prices
adjusted for each establishment was calculated according to the services
offered (IPREC). (Source: Martínez, 2003.)
• Real income per capita of visitors. A weighted indicator of income was estimated
according to the level of income of the tourists’ places of origin. The
indicator was expressed in levels (RENTA) and growth rates with respect
to the previous year (CRENTA). (Source: Spanish Statistical Office, INE, and
Foundation of Confederate Saving Banks, FUNCAS).
• Cost of the trip. The vast majority of the tourists who stay in rural tourism
establishments travel by car. Thus, to capture the impact of the ‘effective
travel cost’, the most appropriate method is to use a weighted average of
real fuel prices as a proxy variable (PCARB). (Source: Ministry of Economy,
General Hydrocarbon Subdivision).
• Economic cycle. According to the tourists’ place of origin, a weighted indicator
of the increase in GDP was calculated (CICLOEC). (Source: INE).
(b) Promotional determinants:
• Promotional expenditure. This includes the annual spending by Turgalicia
(Society of Image and Tourist Promotion of Galicia, SA) on the promotion
of Galicia as a tourism destination (GPROMO). (Source: Turgalicia.)
• Work with agencies. Two dummy variables are included to differentiate those
establishments that work with tourism agencies from those that do not
(AGENCI), and those that work with Turgalicia from those that do not
(TURGA). (Source: Martínez, 2003.)
(c) Quality determinants:
• Supply of activities in the establishment. The variable number of complementary
leisure activities supplied by the establishment was considered (ACTIVI).
(Source: Martínez, 2003.)
• Hiring of employees. The number of wage-earners working in the rural tourism
establishment was taken into account (ASALA). (Source: Martínez, 2003.)
• Category of the establishment. A proxy variable was used (TIPON) to differ-
entiate the first-class establishments (pazos) from other establishments (farm
houses and village houses). (Source: Martínez, 2003.)
(d) Determinants related to destination:
• Quality of infrastructure. To capture the impact of improvements in commu-
nication infrastructure, we included the growth in kilometres of motorways
(KMAU) and Galicia roads (CARRET). (Source: Economic and Social Advice
of Galicia (CES-Galicia) and Ministry of Public Works and Economy.)
• Establishment location. A proxy variable was used to indicate whether or not
the establishment was located on the ‘Santiago Way’ (CSANTI). (Source:
Martínez, 2003.)
 Rural tourism demand in Galicia 25

• Tourist tradition. A proxy variable (ASANTO) was included to take into

account the impact of the Holy Year, 1999.
• Sector regulation. A proxy variable (EFREXA) was included to reflect the
effects of the regulation of sector (1995).

Model specification and empirical results

With regard to rural tourism demand in Galicia, and taking into account the
available sample data, the paper by Ledesma-Rodríguez et al (2001) is very
interesting. This paper is a study of tourism demand using panel data techniques.
The case chosen is that of the island of Tenerife, which has similarities with
Galicia in that it is a restricted geographical area with important tourist activity.
According to Ledesma-Rodríguez et al (2001), panel data permit the use of
a more complete database in order to explain the influence of several variables
in decisions made by tourists. Panel data thus allow for the control of individual
heterogeneity, reducing the problem of collinearity and providing more degrees
of freedom while making it easier to infer the outcome when samples are small.
Moreover, panel data represent the adjustment dynamics more accurately by
identifying and estimating the effects not detected in studies using only cross-
section or pure time series data (see Hsiao, 1986; Greene, 1998; Matyas and
Sevestre, 1996).
In order to estimate the determinants of demand for rural tourism in Galicia,
we follow previous research in this field and use a multivariate regression.
Consequently, the basic framework for this analysis is the generalized regression
model:
PERNit = αit + βi’Xit + εit (1)
where PERNit is the number of overnight stays of the ith establishment (i =
1, 2, .….N) in the tth period (t = 1, 2……T); Xit and βi are k-vectors of
independent variables (determinants) and parameters respectively; αit is the
component which includes the specific characteristics of each establishment
(individual effects), and εit is the disturbance. The appropriate estimation method
and the estimators’ properties will depend on the characteristics of αit and εit
(and on the relationship between them), as well as on the relationship between
the independent variables and the disturbance.
A common formulation of model (1) assumes that differences across estab-
lishments can be captured by differences in the constant term. Thus, αit = αi
and each αi is an unknown parameter to be estimated. This is the fixed effects
(FE) model and can be, in general, estimated appropriately by ordinary least
square (OLS) using the ‘within groups’ (WP) estimator when the residuals are
contemporaneously uncorrelated and homoskedastic across individuals and over
time. The Seemingly Unrelated Regression (SUR) method is a feasible gener-
alized least square (GLS) specification correcting for both cross-section
heteroskedasticity and contemporaneous correlation. As an alternative specifi-
cation, the random effects (RE) model treats intercepts as random variables
across pool members. Thus αit = α + ui, and the component ui is the random
disturbance characterizing the ith establishment and is constant over time. In
general, the RE model can be estimated appropriately by GLS using the
Balestra–Nerlove (BN) estimator.
26 TOURISM ECONOMICS

In this paper, given the characteristics of the available sample data, we have
built a panel with 249 observations (information on 49 establishments, with
annual data starting in 1996 and going through to 2001). The small degree
of seasonality in the numbers of visitors during recent years (due basically to
the growing demand for rural tourism at weekends and the increasing tendency
to split holiday periods) is one reason for the use of annual data. However, we
did not study the properties of the time series used in this paper because the
annual observations are quite small. As Shiller and Perron (1985) and Davidson
and Mackinnon (1993) point out, the power of the unit root tests depends
basically on the span of the data (the number of years the sample covers).
The Econometric Views 4.1 program was used in this study.
The firm-specific form of the demand model is:
PERNit = αit + β1D(IPREC)it + β2D(PCARB)t + β3CICLOECt + (2)
+ β4PERNit–1 + bεit
In Equation (2) D indicates first differences, and stability in the βi coefficients
is considered. As we can see, there are two groups of variables: those that depend
on both time and the individual establishment and those that depend only on
time. The income variable we used was economic cycle (CICLOEC) and as price
(cost) variables we used the real prices of the services in rural tourism estab-
lishments (IPREC) and real fuel prices (PCARB). According to Ledesma-
Rodríguez et al (2001), the lagged endogenous variable (which shows the
influence of past decisions on the current decisions of tourists) is included in
the dynamic models in an attempt to capture inertia, and the degree of
repetition of tourists in order to overcome the asymmetric information prob-
lems. Thus, the high degree of repetition is a mechanism that permits suppliers
to acquire a reputation. This ‘mixed dynamic model’ is especially appropriate
for distinguishing the influence of past decisions on current decisions from the
effects of increases in exogenous variables on the dependent variable (Guisán
et al, 2001).
In the preliminary phases of this research we estimated model (2) using fixed
effects (OLS-WP method) and random effects (GLS-BN method) specifications.
Given the panel data characteristics, the SUR method is not applicable. The
coefficients estimated are shown in Table 1. On balance, the two models appear
to be relatively robust. The adjusted R2 statistics indicated good explanatory
power for a model drawing on panel data. All the variables (with the exception
of D(IPREC) in the FE model) were significant according to the t-statistic. The
Wald tests for W(α1=α2=…=α49) and W(α1=α2=…=α49=0) indicates rejection
of the null hypothesis of the non-existence of individual effects and non-
significance of the FE (these results seem to indicate that establishment pecu-
liarities are relevant as determinants of rural tourism demand). From the
Hausman test we can conclude that the FE model is better than the RE model.
If we take into account the endogeneity of the lagged dependent variable
(PERNit–1), then the fixed effects (OLS-WP method) and random effects (GLS-
BN method) models are not appropriate and the valid estimation method is
the instrumental variables method. Two methods within the instrumental
variables class are Two-Stage Least Squares (TSLS) and Three-Stage Least Squares
(3SLS). Thus we apply these to the FE estimations and the parameters can be
calculated consistently using valid instruments. Given the panel data nature of
 Rural tourism demand in Galicia 27

Table 1. Estimates of model (2), FE-OLS and RE-GLS estimation.

Variable FE-OLS RE-GLS

α –721.01410
(–4.7617801)*
D(IPREC) –0.23176 –0.36739
(–1.14126) (–2.00210)*
D(PCARB) –10.33209 –16.94499
(–3.27496)* (–5.18786)*
CICLOEC 138.62680 252.99630
(3.10010)* (5.60703)*
PERN(–1) 0.62083 1.03613
(10.13365)* ( 83.25321)*
Adjusted R2 0.95704 0.94923
Durbin-Wat 2.51486 2.45605
W(α1=α2=…=α49) 75.60264*
W(α1=α2=…=α49=0) 100.60980*
F-statistic 1829.16600*
Hausman test 1118.11290*
Note: T-ratios appear in parentheses; *significant at the 5% level.

Table 2. Estimates of model (2), FE-TSLS and FE-W2SLS estimation.

Variable FE-TSLS FE-W2SLS

D(IPREC) –0.24793 –0.18813

(–1.18128) (–3.24735)*
D(PCARB) –10.79033 –7.01499
(–3.33572)* (–8.51686)*
CICLOEC 158.05040 116.73830
(3.36761)* (11.19745)*
PERN(–1) 0.47033 0.34654
(6.66531)* (5.95343)*
W(β1=β2=β3=β4=0) 46.55556* 140.60470*
W(α1=α2=…=α49) 97.90360* 180.81580*
W(α1=α2=…=α49=0) 128.91610* 330.89010*
Note: T-ratios appear in parentheses; *significant at the 5% level.

our study, the 3SLS method is not applicable, and therefore we use the TSLS
method and Weighted Two-Stage Least Squares (W2SLS). The W2SLS is an
appropriate technique when some of the right-hand side variables are correlated
with error terms and there is heteroskedasticity in the residuals. The estimations
for the FE model appear in Table 2.
The results presented in Table 2 vary slightly with respect to the earlier
estimates presented in Table 1 (FE-OLS). The PERNit–1 coefficient takes a lower
value and the D(IPREC) variable is significant at the 5% level in FE-W2SLS
estimation. The FE-W2SLS estimation produces better results in terms of the
individual and joint significance of the parameters and the fixed effects. In this
28 TOURISM ECONOMICS

estimation the statistical joint significance (as shown by the Wald test for the
said hypothesis: W(β1=β2=β3=β4=0)) and the individual significance of all the
parameters (as shown by the t-statistic) are very high. These results suggest that
rural tourism demand depends basically on economic determinants and the
establishment’s reputation (the significance of the one-period lagged dependent
variable could reflect the importance of reputation).
Given the results presented in Table 2, we can conclude that the null
hypothesis of the non-significance of the FE is rejected. In order to consider
the specific peculiarities of the different rural tourism establishments, new
independent variables have been incorporated: AGENCI, ACTIVI, ASALA and
TIPON. For these variables the individual and joint non-significance are not
rejected.
Other variables used in the models which depend only on the time (not on
the individual establishment) are probably not significant because there are few
annual observations in the sample used. This is the case for determinants such
as quality of infrastructure, promotional expenditure, tourism tradition or sector
regulation. These variables show a positive effect on tourism demand but are
not statistically significant. Moreover, establishment location also shows a
positive effect but is not significant. This is probably due to the characteristics
of the available sample data in that the majority of these establishments are
located in the ‘Santiago Way’ and there is thus little capacity to discriminate.
However, we think that the ‘Santiago Way’ is an important determining factor
for rural tourism.
While it is interesting to analyse the determinants of demand in the tourism
sector, it is also important to study the degree of influence of these determi-
nants. For this reason, all variables can be expressed in logarithms, which allows
us to obtain the demand elasticities with respect to relevant variables:
LogPERNit = αi + β1 LogIPRECit + β2 LogPCARBt + β3 LogRENTAt +
+ β4 LogPERNit–1 + εit (3)
In model (3) the independent variables are not expressed in differences and the
income variable used is a weighted indicator of the real income per capita of
visitors lodged (RENTA). Given the results obtained from model (2), model
(3) is estimated with FE-W2SLS. The results are shown in Table 3 and are in
accordance with those estimated from model (2). The variables are individually

Table 3. Estimates of model (3), FE-W2SLS estimation.

Variable Coefficient T-ratio

LogIPREC –0.22696 –2.64652*

LogPCARB –0.52579 –5.85436*
LogRENTA 0.79593 3.88338*
LogPERN(–1) 0.35862 6.64569*
W(β1=β2=β3=β4=0) 59.13155*
W(α1=α2=…=α49) 201.74430*
W(α1=α2=…=α49=0) 204.06380*
*Significant at the 5% level.
 Rural tourism demand in Galicia 29

Table 4. Short-run and long-run elasticity using results from Table 3.

Variable Short-run Long-run

Log(IPREC) –0.22696 –0.35387

Log(PCARB) –0.52580 –0.81978
Log(RENTA) 0.79593 1.24096

and jointly significant and the null hypothesis of the non-significance of the
FE is rejected. The number of overnight stays shows a small elasticity with
respect to IPREC, CARB and RENTA. However, the income variable exhibits
the highest elasticity of demand.
Moreover, the presence of the lagged endogenous variable in the model would
imply the estimation of long-run dynamic multipliers, distinguishing the short-
run from the long-run effect (Guisán, 1997). Therefore, the long-run elasticities
can be calculated from the short-run estimates derived from model (3), using
the formulation [βi/(1–β4)]. Table 4 shows short-run and long-run elasticities
using results from Table 3.
The results observed in Table 4 show clearly that the long-run elasticities
are greater than the short-run elasticities; in the case of income, the long-run
elasticity is greater than one. These results are not directly comparable with
those obtained by Ledesma-Rodríguez et al (2001) for the case of the tourism
demand in Tenerife, but in both cases the conclusions are similar with regard
to the significance of the economic determinants and the high income elasticity.
However, the income elasticity is smaller in the case of rural tourism demand
in Galicia.

Conclusions and policy implications

In this paper we have studied rural tourism demand in Galicia. Given the
characteristics of the available sample data, we estimate panel data models. The
results indicate that the number of overnight stays in rural tourism establish-
ments depends mainly on economic determinants such as the price of services
in rural tourism establishments, transport (travel) costs and the economic cycle
(tourist income). The income variable exhibits the highest elasticity. Conse-
quently, the determinants of rural tourism demand in Galicia are not substan-
tially different from traditional tourism demand (such as ‘sun and sand’).
The significance of the one-period lagged endogenous variable could indicate
the prestige or reputation of the establishment type, capturing the high degree
of repetition of tourists who lodge in such an establishment. This is probably
determined by factors that tourists value positively, such as hospitality, tran-
quillity, service quality or local gastronomy. However, we believe that the
lagged endogenous variable also shows the influence of other factors (past
decisions) that have a deferred effect in time, such as improvements in the
communications infrastructure or promotional campaigns.
In the estimations, the hypothesis of the non-existence of individual effects and
the non-significance of the FE are rejected. These results seem to indicate that
establishment peculiarities are relevant as determinants of rural tourism demand.
30 TOURISM ECONOMICS

In order to consider the specific peculiarities of the different rural tourism

establishments, new independent variables were considered, but these variables
were not individually or jointly significant. Other variables used in the models
which depend only on time (not on the individual establishment) are probably
not significant because the annual observations are quite small in the sample used.
This is the case for factors such as the quality of infrastructure, promotional
expenditure, tourism tradition and sectoral regulation. The characteristics of the
sample data (the majority of the establishments are located on the ‘Santiago Way’)
possibly prevent the significance of the location determinant.
In light of these results, rural tourism policies in Galicia should take into
account the sensitivity of demand to tourist income (economic cycle). Govern-
ment policy should encourage all factors that have an influence on the reduction
of prices (costs) associated with demand and on facilitating tourists’ movements.
It will be necessary to improve the price–quality relationship of services,
hospitality, complementary activities, local gastronomy, infrastructure and pro-
motional expenditure. Moreover, the potential of the ‘Santiago Way’ (that is,
its capacity of attraction) must be strengthened and the integrated management
of the establishments should be encouraged.

References
Barry, K., O’Hagan, J. (1972), ‘An econometric study of British tourist expenditure in Ireland’,
Economic and Social Review, Vol 5, No 2, pp 143–161.
Bond, D., Cohen, B., and Schachter, G. (1977), ‘The spatial distribution of tourism demand and
exchange rates variation: OECD European countries’, Revue de Tourisme, Vol 32, pp 13–17.
CES-GALICIA, Memoria sobre a situación económica e Social, Economic and Social Advice of Galicia,
Santiago de Compostela.
Crouch, G.I., and Shaw, R.N. (1992), ‘International tourism demand: a meta-analytical integration
of research findings’ in Johnson, P., and Thomas, B., eds, Choice and Demand in Tourism, Mansell,
London, pp 175–207.
Davidson, R., and MacKinnon, J. (1993), Estimation and Inference in Econometrics, Oxford University
Press, New York.
Dielman, T. (1989), Pooled Cross-sectional and Time Series Data Analysis, Marcel-Dekker, New York.
Esteban, A. (1987), Análisis de la demanda: aplicación a la actividad turística de las técnicas de predicción,
doctoral dissertation, Universidad Complutense of Madrid, Madrid.
Figuerola, M. (1985), Teoría Económica del Turismo, Alianza Editorial, Madrid.
Fuentes, R. (1995), El turismo rural en España. Especial referencia al análisis de la demanda, Instituto
de Estudios Turísticos, Madrid.
Fujii, E., and Mak, J. (1980), ‘Forecasting travel demand when the explanatory variables are highly
correlated’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol 17, pp 31–34.
FUNCAS (various years), Balance económico regional, 1996–2001, Foundation of Confederate Saving
Banks, Madrid.
Galician Institute of Statistics (various years), Estatística continua de turismo rural, 1994–2001.
González, P., and Moral, P. (1993), ‘An analysis of the international tourism demand in Spain’,
Working Paper No 9310, Economics Faculty, University of País Vasco, Bilbao.
Greene, W. (1998), Análisis Econométrico, Prentice Hall, Madrid.
Guisán, M.C. (1997), Econometría, McGraw-Hill, Madrid.
Guisán, M.C., Cancelo, T., Neira, I., Aguayo, E., and Expósito, P. (2001), Modelos de crecimiento en
los países de la OCDE. Modelos de crecimiento y empleo en Irlanda, Francia, España, Alemania, USA
y Japón, Estudios Económicos de la Asociación Hispalink-Galicia, Santiago de Compostela.
Hsiao, C. (1986), Analysis of Panel Data, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Jud, G., and Joseph, H. (1974), ‘International demand for Latin American tourism’, Growth and
Change, Vol 5, No 1, pp 25–31.
 Rural tourism demand in Galicia 31

Ledesma-Rodríguez, F.J., Navarro-Ibáñez, M., and Pérez-Rodríguez, J.V. (2001), ‘Panel data and
tourism: a case study of Tenerife’, Tourism Economics, Vol 7, No 1, pp 75–88.
Martínez, F. (2003), Turismo rural: características de la actividad e impacto económico en Galicia, doctoral
dissertation, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela.
Matyas, L., and Sevestre, P. (1996), The Econometrics of Panel Data: Handbook of Theory and Applications,
Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Ministry of Economy (various years), Informes anuales de evolución de precios. Precios de gasolinas y gasóleo,
1996–2001, General Hydrocarbon Subdivision, Ministry of Economy, Madrid.
Ministry of Public Works and Economy (various years), Estadísticas de autovías y carreteras, 1996–
2001, Ministry of Public Works and Economy, Madrid.
Padilla, R. (1988), ‘La demanda de servicios turísticos en España’, Revista de Investigaciones Económicas,
Vol 12, No 1, pp 133–157.
Papatheodorou, A. (1999), ‘The demand for international tourism in the Mediterranean region’,
Applied Economics, Vol 31, No 5, pp 619–630.
Pulido, A. (1966), Introducción a un análisis econométrico del turismo, Tourist Research Institute, Madrid.
Rey, C. (1998), Economía del turismo: estructura de mercados e impacto sobre el desarrollo, Hispalink-Galicia
Association, Santiago de Compostela.
Shiller, R.J., and Perron, P. (1985), ‘Testing the random walk hypothesis: power versus frequency
of observation’, Economics Letters, Vol 18, pp 381–386.
Spanish Statistical Office (2003), Spanish Regional Accounts, http://www.ine.es.
Tourist Research Institute (2002a), Encuesta de ocupación de alojamientos de turismo rural (DATATUR),
Tourist Research Institute, Madrid.
Tourist Research Institute (2002b), ‘El turismo realizado por los españoles durante el año 2001’,
Movimientos turísticos de los españoles (FAMILITUR), Tourist Research Institute, Madrid.
Witt, S.F., and Martín, C.A. (1989), ‘Forecasting tourism demand: a comparison of the accuracy of
several quantitative methods’, International Journal of Forecasting, Vol 5, pp 7–19.
Witt, S.F., and Witt, C.A. (1991), Modeling and Forecasting Demand in Tourism, Academic Press,
London.
WTO (1993), Recomendaciones sobre Estadísticas del Turismo, World Tourism Organization, Madrid
WTO (2001), Referencias básicas sobre Estadísticas del Turismo, World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
Xunta of Galicia (1995), Tourism: Regulation of Rural Tourism Establishments, Official Journal, Autono-
mous Government of Galicia (DOG 22 February 1995, No 37).
Yagüe, R.S. (2002), ‘Rural tourism in Spain’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol 29, No 4, pp 1101–
1110.

View publication stats