Competitive destination analysis in Southern European countries

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to analyse the competitiveness of the European Union Member States of Southern Europe (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain) as tourist destinations for European Union Member States of Central and Northern Europe (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden and the UK). Design/methodology/approach -Application of the market share analysis tool, initially developed by Faulkner, using secondary data from Eurostat -statistical office of the European communities. Findings -The results obtained show that France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain present distinct levels of competitiveness for the various generating countries, with changes having occurred in the period between 1999 and 2007. Originality/value -The paper offers refreshment of Faulkner's tool and an insight into tourist flows in Europe as a tool for tourism and hospitality managers.

Identifying Destination Health: Developing the Concepts of Market Indifference and Destination Dependence / Market Irrelevance

“…These results correspond closely to the “optimal” number of markets identified in Table 1, and as such, it can be argued the number of markets required to achieve a 50% and 70% arrival threshold is a reasonable proxy for the optimal number of markets. Águas, Vega, and Reis (2010) suggest one standard deviation from the mean as a sign of vulnerability. This threshold will be applied in this study, again to avoid Type I errors.…”

“…A vast amount of research has been published examining tourism destination competitiveness at a country-level unit of analysis. These studies range from conceptual works identifying possible indicators for examination (Crouch 2011; Dwyer and Kim 2003; Kozak and Rimmington 1999; Seaton 1996), academic studies usually focusing on one or a small number of destinations that have developed and tested models (Águas, Vega, and Reis 2010; De Keyser and Vanhove 1994; Enright and Newton 2004), through to texts examining this subject (Ritchie and Crouch 2003) and finally some commercial studies such as the annual Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report produced by the World Economic Forum (WEF 2017). Between 50 and more than 250 separate metrics have been developed, depending on the complexity of the model (Croes 2010).…”

“…However, as noted earlier, reliance on one or a small number of markets is not axiomatically a sign of an unhealthy relationship, especially if the origin and destination share a land border or if each is a substantive origin and destination in its own right (Águas, Veiga, and Reis 2010). Instead, we argue that the relative relationship between origin and destination is a better indicator.…”

“…A policy document written for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, for example, notes “countries with a wide range of source markets and a focus on growth markets would receive higher scores [in destination well-being] than countries with a narrow market dependency focus” (Dupeyras and MacCallum 2013, p. 17). Appealing to a large number of markets has also been used as a metric to measure destination competitiveness (Águas, Vega, and Reis 2010; Croes 2010; Dupeyras and MacCallum 2013; Dwyer and Kim 2003; Enright and Newton 2004; ETC 2014; Hingten et al 2015; Perles-Ribes, Ramón-Rodríguez, and Sevilla-Jiménez 2014). Conversely, destinations that rely on one or a small number of markets are often considered to be potentially at risk should arrivals from one or more markets fall (De Keyser and Vanhove 1994; Seaton 1996; Sirse and Mihalic 1999).…”

Market Segmentation: An Application to the Schist Village Tourism Destinations

“…The competitiveness of these destinations thus requires the diversifi cation of their products (Águas, Veiga & Reis, 2010) and their adaptation to new tourism consumer trends of greater sophistication and heterogeneity (Cunha, 2011).…”