Journal of Travel Research http://jtr.sagepub.

com/

Evaluating Time-Series Models to Forecast the Demand for Tourism in Singapore : Comparing
Within-Sample And Postsample Results
Chi-Ok Oh and Bernard J. Morzuch
Journal of Travel Research 2005 43: 404
DOI: 10.1177/0047287505274653

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/43/4/404

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Travel and Tourism Research Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Travel Research can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jtr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jtr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/43/4/404.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 5, 2005

What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on October 4, 2012

MAY
10.1177/0047287505274653
JOURNAL
2005 OF TRAVEL RESEARCH
Evaluating Time-Series Models to Forecast
the Demand for Tourism in Singapore
Comparing Within-Sample And Postsample Results
CHI-OK OH AND BERNARD J. MORZUCH
The authors look at eight models to forecast inbound
tourist arrivals to Singapore, six of which were analyzed by
Chan and by Chu. The authors explore model performance
from a different perspective than either of these authors and
arrive at different conclusions. Major suggestions are as fol-
lows: (1) a complete comparison among competing models
during the estimation phase and a battery of performance
statistics when evaluating these models sheds light on sev-
eral top-performing models; (2) when evaluating the fore-
casting performance of competing models, different perfor-
mance statistics may lead to different model selections; (3)
among competing models, a model that performs best during
the within-sample period does not necessarily perform best
in the postsample period; (4) changing the length of the fore-
cast horizon can have an effect on the choice of the best
model; and (5) a combined model may be the one that pro-
vides the best forecasting performance.
Keywords: time-series model; within-sample and
postsample performance; forecast horizon
changes; combined model
Tourism is an important sector in established economies
and perhaps one of the most important in developing econo-
mies. It has the potential to promote economic growth and
improve the international balance of payments. Tourism
behaves in much the same manner as an economys export
sector. Effectively, outsiders travel to a region or nation to
purchase tourism services. These payments represent foreign
monetary inflows into the economy. It is in a countrys inter-
est to develop a tourism industry that generates new capital
but creates minimal environmental disruption.
According to the World Travel and Tourism Council
(WTTC; 2002a), travel and tourism are expected to contrib-
ute 3.6% to worldwide gross domestic product (GDP) and an
estimated 198,098,000 jobs, or 7.8% of total employment on
a yearly basis. A developing economy like Singapore does
not have significant natural resources and depends heavily on
international trade to promote its economic well-being. For
countries like this, international tourism becomes a source of
reducing balance of payments deficits and helps to diversify
the structure of a countrys economy and lessen the negative
impact of regional economic imbalances (Uysal and
Crompton 1985). The WTTC (2002b) reports that the tour-
ism industry in Singapore is expected to contribute 6.4% of
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on October 4, 2012
total exports (or $9.4 billion) and result in 198,010 jobs, or
9.6% of total employment.
Expenditures in a tourist-generating country offer a
robust source of income; they generally have both immediate
and delayed monetary impacts on the economy. The initial
income generated by visitors works its way through the econ-
omy as a direct source of income and jobs for people
involved in providing tourism services. Indirectly, this
income then supports other sectors of the economy through
induced consumption expenditures in the region or country.
This process of primary and secondary income flows is the
multiplier effect of tourism expenditures (Archer 1977;
Eadington and Redman 1991; Frechtling and Horvath 1999;
Milne 1987).
Because tourism can have a huge effect on an economy, it
becomes useful to estimate its potential impact. Reasonably
accurate forecasts of the number of tourists to be served, the
time of year of their visits, and their service needs are essen-
tial for planning future infrastructure and superstructure,
accommodations, transportation, attractions, promotion, and
other important services (Uysal and Crompton 1985). Accu-
rate and timely forecasts of tourist demand can assist a gov-
ernment with policy decisions and help the private sector
with decisions relating to sizing, location selection, and oper-
ations (Calantone, Di Benedetto, and Bojanic 1987). On the
other hand, the absence of accurate and timely tourism fore-
casts does not contribute to the information base that is nec-
essary for intelligent decisions. For all of these reasons, the
development of forecast models for the travel and tourism
industry has received an increasing amount of attention
during the past decade.
In light of the forecasting models presented in the tourism
literature, a fair amount of attention has focused on model
development and choice among competing models after they
are applied to postsample data. In general, the choice among
models is made on the basis of some well-established perfor-
mance statistic. Regarding model development, the choice
and comparison are usually between univariate and causal
Chi-Ok Oh is a PhD candidate in the Department of Recreation,
Park and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M University in College Sta-
tion. Bernard J. Morzuch, PhD, is a professor in the Department of
Resource Economics at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43, May 2005, 404-413
DOI: 10.1177/0047287505274653
2005 Sage Publications

models. Assessment has usually been based on applying a
specific performance statistic like mean absolute deviation
(MAD) or root mean square error (RMSE), for example, to a
fitted model that makes use of a postsample data set. The
model providing the most favorable outcome in terms of the
performance statistic is deemed to be the best.
In many tourist demand studies, minimal attention has
been devoted to comparing the within-sample performance
of competing models as the basis for model selection and to
comparing the postsample performance of a model across
different forecast horizons. As examples, Chan (1993) pro-
posed a sine-wave regression model to forecast tourism in
Singapore. Chu (1998a) demonstrated that his autoregressive
integrated moving average (ARIMA) (3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12 model
outperformed Chans model. In each study, there were no
within-sample performance comparisons among competing
models. These authors moved directly to analyzing post-
sample performance and making comparisons among mod-
els using mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). Our study
is intended to complement both of these studies by paying
attention to the within-sample performance of the competing
models. Doing so may provide more insight into the choice
of a final model for use in forecasting.
Specifically, our objectives are as follows: (1) Define a
within-sample period and a postsample period using avail-
able Singapore tourist data. Construct alternative models
of the Singapore tourism industry to be used on the within-
sample data set. Determine which model, if any, captures the
data-generating process. (2) Calculate within-sample perfor-
mance statistics for each model that we developed in the pre-
vious step. Use this result to provide guidance in choosing
the correct model to be applied to the postsample data. (3)
Apply each model to the postsample data and calculate the
same performance measures for each model in the post-
sample that we calculated in the within-sample period. Will
the model that performed best during the within-sample peri-
od perform best during the postsample period? This distinc-
tion is frequently disregarded in many forecasting studies.
(4) Examine the forecasting performance of a particular
model for different forecast horizons to determine whether a
forecasting model shows consistent forecasting power. As
indicated by Diebold (1998), the best forecasting model will
often change with the forecast horizon. (5) Suggest a strategy
for choosing a model for final use when there appear to be
several individual good model choices.
The major theme that we address in this research is that
all forecasting models are approximations to the underlying
dynamic patterns in the series that we forecast. There is no
reason that the model that provided the best fit during the
estimation period should remain the best during the forecast
period. Scant attention seems to be paid to this issue in a good
number of tourism-forecasting studies. As subtle as this con-
cern may be, it puts into perspective the fragility of a single
forecasting model that the researcher thinks is best.
LITERATURE REVIEW
One use of forecasting models in tourism is predicting the
number of arrivals to countries. According to Uysal and
Crompton (1985), the univariate time series methodology is
useful for relatively short-term forecasts. The historical val-
ues of a single time series form the basis for projecting future
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on October 4, 2012
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 405
values of the series by extrapolating the movement of the
series through time. Martin and Witt (1989) tested the fore-
casting performance for outbound tourism from five coun-
tries and showed that the nave no-change model generally
provides the most accurate 1-year-ahead tourism-arrivals
forecasts based on MAPE and root mean square percentage
error (RMSPE).
Generating monthly forecasts of visitor arrivals in Las
Vegas, Nevada, Witt, Newbould, and Watkins (1992) showed
that Winterss exponential smoothing and nave II models
outperform the nave I model in terms of MAPE. Sheldon
(1993) determined that the nave no-change model and the
double exponential smoothing model are superior to four
other proposed models in terms of MAPE when predicting
aggregate annual expenditures in the United States by tour-
ists from six countries (i.e., from Canada, Japan, United
Kingdom, West Germany, France, and Italy). Dharmaratne
(1995) used data on tourist arrivals in Barbados, and Chu
(1998b) gathered monthly international tourist arrivals data
in Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, the
Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, New Zealand, and Austra-
lia to show that an ARIMA model outperforms other models
in terms of MAPE. Witt and Witt (1995) summarized numer-
ous published articles dealing with tourism forecasting. Basi-
cally, these studies used one or two performance measures
and focused on evaluating the postsample periods.
Chan (1993) developed five models (i.e., the nave I
model, the nave II model, a simple linear regression time-
trend model, a sine-wave time-trend regression model, and
an ARIMA model), and Chu (1998a) developed another
ARIMA model to forecast visitor arrivals to Singapore. Chan
(1993) concluded that a sine-wave time-series regression
model provided the most accurate forecasts with the smallest
MAPE compared to the other proposed models. However,
Chu (1998a) pointed out that Chan ignored the seasonal
component for his ARIMA model and that when seasonal
components are properly specified, the ARIMA model out-
performed the sine-wave time-series regression model.
Kulendran and Wilson (2000) made use of MAPE and
RMSPE when evaluating Australian tourism demand fore-
cast models for a single time horizon. Turner and Witt (2001)
developed various tourism demand models for New Zealand
and evaluated forecasting performance using MAPE for dif-
ferent time horizons. Cho (2003) used three different uni-
variate approaches to predict Hong Kong tourism demand;
evaluation criteria were RMSE and MAPE. Kulendran and
Shan (2002) and Louvieris (2002) used ARIMA models to
forecast Chinas and Greeces inbound travel demand,
respectively, for a single horizon; each used both MAPE and
RMSPE as evaluation criteria.
Kulendran and Wilson (2000) and Turner and Witt
(2001) used multivariate procedures to construct forecasting
models; they made postsample evaluations using the tradi-
tional accuracy measures. Kulendran and King (1997) made
use of MAPE, RMSPE, and RMSE for four different time
horizons when using error correction models. Kulendran and
Witt (2001) compared the forecasting performance of mod-
els estimated by cointegration techniques and least squares
regression using MAPE for four different time horizons.
Greenidge (2001) used a structural time series approach to
forecast tourist demand for Barbados. He used MAPE to
evaluate his one-step-ahead forecasts. Finally, Kulendran
and Witt (2003a, 2003b) used MAPE and RMSPE to
406 MAY 2005
evaluate the performance of their ARIMA and error correc-
tion models over multiple time horizons.
In summary, the past 10 years have witnessed an explo-
sion of modeling activity. Few studies, however, have thor-
oughly examined forecasting performance using a battery of
performance measures. Furthermore, no study has compared
the within-sample performance of various models against
their performance in the postsample.
In this study, we apply our approach to the Singapore
tourist demand data using the six models proposed by Chan
(1993) and Chu (1998a), along with two of our own models.
We compare and rank the within-sample performance of all
eight models using six familiar performance statistics. We
repeat the comparisons using postsample data. We change
the forecast horizon and repeat the process. We suggest a
final model based on all of these comparisons.
TIME SERIES MODELS
The models proposed by either Chan (1993) or by Chu
(1998a) include nave no-change (nave I), nave change
(nave II), simple linear time trend, Winterss triple exponen-
tial smoothing, ARIMA, and sine-wave time-series regres-
sion. We provide no explanation for the first five because
they are fairly standard. Nave I, nave II, and linear time
trend are discussed in Witt and Witt (1992) or Newbold and
Bos (1994). Newbold and Bos likewise provide a fine discus-
sion of Winterss triple exponential smoothing and ARIMA.
Sine-wave time-series regression is perhaps the most
unique of the group. Basically, and according to Chan
(1993), this model consists of a linear trend component and a
component to capture the periodic trend. The second compo-
nent is interpreted as the magnitude of the deviation from the
linear trend model at time t.
The model is as follows:
Yt = a1 + a2t + a3sin (a4 + a5 t) + t
where YDt is the actual value of the time series variable in
time period t; 1 is a random disturbance in time period t, as-
sumed to abide by the usual classical assumptions; a1, a2, a3,
a4, and a5 are parameters to be estimated; and sin is the sine
function. More specifically, and as pointed out by Chan
(1993), a1 = intercept of the linear model; a2 = slope of the
linear model; a3 = amplitude of the sine function; a4 = phase
of the angle of the sine function; and a5 = frequency of the
sine function.
MODEL PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
We use six measures to evaluate our forecasts. The first is
concerned with determining whether the forecast is unbi-
ased. The remaining five quantify loss due to forecast error.
The test for unbiasedness is implemented as follows. Gener-
ate a series of 1-step-ahead forecasts (Y
t +1 ) using any of the
models under consideration. Match each forecast (Y
t +1 ) with
its actual value (Yt +1 ). Regress the series of one-step-ahead
actual values on the series of one-step-ahead forecasts, as
indicated below:
Yt + 1 = 1 + 2Y
t + 1 + t + 1
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on October 4, 2012
Unbiasedness suggests that 1 = 0 and 2 = 1 and that the
forecast errors (t + 1) should have a mean of zero. Conduct the
joint hypothesis test that 1 = 0 and 2 = 1. If the forecasts are
unbiased, an F test or a Wald test will permit imposition of
the restrictions. The estimated error series should behave as a
white-noise process. This procedure is explained fully in
Enders (2004, pp. 8385) and applied in Witt, Song, and
Louvieris (2003).
The five remaining performance criteria are loss mea-
sures and include mean absolute error (MAE), MAPE,
RMSE, Akaikes Information Criterion (AIC), and
Schwartzs Bayesian Criterion (SBC). MAE, MAPE, and
RMSE are straightforward. AIC and SBC deserve a brief
explanation. Essentially, they are used with relatively sophis-
ticated models that are subject to having a number of parame-
ters estimated (e.g., ARIMA models). Each imposes a pen-
alty for estimating additional parameters.
The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) is calculated as
AIC = n ln(residual sum of squares) + 2k (3)
where n is the number of observations, ln is the natural loga-
rithm, and k is the number of parameters being estimated.
The Schwartz Bayesian Criterion (SBC) is calculated as
SBC = n ln(residual sum of squares) + k ln(n). (4)
In a typical ARIMA model, k = the number of auto-
regressive parameters + the number of moving average pa-
rameters + a possible intercept term. When AIC is computed
for two competing models, the model with the smaller AIC is
selected. The same applies to SBC.
DATA
(1)
We used monthly observations from July 1977 to July
1990 on travelers arrivals to Singapore. We obtained the data
from the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board (various years).
Our intention was to replicate the studies by Chan (1993) and
Chu (1998a). We used the same data set as far as possible.
Our estimation or within-sample period was July 1977 to
December 1988, inclusive. Our out-of-sample or postsample
period was January 1989 to July 1990, inclusive. These
matched Chan (1993) and Chu (1998a). Figure 1 indicates an
upward movement in the series with seasonal variation.
Observations for the period July 1977 to December 1988,
inclusive, were used to construct each of our eight forecast
models. Each model was then used to generate 1-month-
ahead forecasts for the entire postsample period, which con-
sisted of 19 months. This amounts to a set of 19 monthly
forecasts. We repeated the process to generate 1-month-
ahead forecasts for shorter forecast horizons (e.g., 3 months
and 15 months).
EMPIRICAL RESULTS
Our starting point is Chans (1993) sine-wave regression
model and Chus (1998a) ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12 model.
(2) We were able to replicate their estimation results using the
 JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 407

FIGURE 1
TIME PLOT OF INBOUND TRAVELERS TO SINGAPORE

Number of Arrivals
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
Number

250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Jul-77

Jul-78

Jul-79

Jul-80

Jul-81

Jul-82

Jul-83

Jul-84

Jul-85

Jul-86

Jul-87

Jul-88

Jul-89

Jul-90
Month

TABLE 1 and hypothesized that a more parsimonious ARIMA model

SINE-WAVE TIME-SERIES REGRESSION RESULTS might result in better postsample forecast performance.
Within the family of ARIMA models, we expected simpler
Approximate Approxi- Approxi- to be better.
Coefficient Standard mate mate Regarding our ARIMA model, we see that it fits the data
Parameter Estimate Error t-Value p Value well. Like Chus (1998a) model, parameter estimates are sta-
a1 75,744.6 30,418.4 2.49 .014 tistically significant. We performed Dickey-Fuller tests to
a2 2,425.7 448.3 5.41 .00005 test for stationarity. For each coefficient, we were able to
a3 64,338.3 20,897.6 3.08 .004 reject the null hypothesis of a unit root. For each ARIMA
a4 0.8467 0.37 2.29 .02 model presented in Table 2, we report the AIC and SBC. Val-
a5 0.0345 0.006 5.75 .00003
ues for these statistics are slightly smaller for our model than
Note: See Chan (1993), Table 1, page 59, for matching esti- for Chus model, suggesting that our model might be slightly
mation results. better than Chus.
For both ARIMA models, we also report the Ljung-Box
Q statistic for four lag structures of the residuals. This statis-
data set described in the previous section. Table 1 presents tic is used to test whether the residuals have a mean of zero,
our estimation results for Chans model. There are slight dis- constant variance, and are serially uncorrelated. We test for
crepancies between this authors original results and our serial correlation at lag lengths 1 to 6, 1 to 12, 1 to 24, and 1 to
reestimations. As indicated previously, we obtained the data 32. The null hypothesis in this setting is that the residuals are
set from the Singapore Tourism Bureau. The bureau pointed not autocorrelated. The p value for each lag structure is very
out to us that slight adjustments were made to the data set high, suggesting that we do not have evidence to reject the
originally used by Chan and by Chu. null hypothesis that the models residuals are white noise.
In Table 2, we report our estimation results for Chus Finally, we estimated a Winterss three-parameter expo-
(1998a) ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12 model. We also report esti- nential smoothing model. Winterss method employs a
mation results for another ARIMA model that we thought smoothing process three times to estimate the level, trend,
might provide better results than Chus. This was an ARIMA and seasonal components in a series. We used an optimiza-
(0,1,1)(1,1,0) 12 model. We chose to estimate this model tion routine in SAS to obtain estimates. These smoothing
because our visual interpretation of the autocorrelation func- weights are determined so as to minimize the sum-of-
tion (ACF) for this series led us to a different conclusion than squared one-step-ahead prediction errors. (See Frechtling
Chu. Also, it was slightly more parsimonious than the [2001] for a straightforward text explanation of deriving the
ARIMA model estimated by Chu; that is, it contained one smoothing constants.) The estimated weights for level, trend,
less parameter. We adopted conventional forecasting wisdom and seasonal components were .3365, .1204, and .2626,
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on October 4, 2012
408 MAY 2005

TABLE 2
ARIMA MODEL ESTIMATION RESULTS

ARIMA (3,1,0) (0,1,0)12a ARIMA (0,1,1) (1,1,0)12

Coefficient Standard Coefficient Standard
Variable Estimate Error p Value Variable Estimate Error p Value
AR lag 1 0.494 .089 .00005 MA lag 1 0.499 .079 .00001
AR lag 2 0.231 .097 .019 AR seasonal lag 12 0.276 .09 .003
AR lag 3 0.197 .089 .029
AIC 2,288.4 AIC 2,279.0
SBC 2,296.8 SBC 2,284.7
Ljung-Box Q Ljung-Box Q
Lag 6 .9902 Lag 6 .9401
Lag 12 .1212 Lag 12 .3805
Lag 24 .1181 Lag 24 .2623
Lag 32 .0551 Lag 32 .2919
ARIMA = Autoregressive integrated moving average.
a. See Chu (1998a), Table 1, page 82, for matching estimation results.

TABLE 3
WITHIN-SAMPLE PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL MODELS

Model Unbiasedness MAPE MAE RMSE AIC SBC

Nave I 4.59 7.24 (6) 17,393.7 (5) 21,820.8 (5)
Nave II 7.17* 11.73 (8) 28,363.5 (8) 35,214.0 (8)
Linear regression 45.17* 7.12 (5) 17,651.4 (6) 22,926.7 (6)
Winterss model 0.09 2.46 (1) 5,979.9 (1) 7,707.3 (1)
ARIMA (2,1,2) 3.15 10.47 (7) 25,885.3 (7) 32,920.6 (7) 2,858.1 2,869.8
ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0)12 0.15 2.95 (3) 7,224.0 (3) 9,222.9 (3) 2,288.4 (2) 2,296.8 (2)
ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0)12 0.86 2.84 (2) 6,967.9 (2) 8,957.0 (2) 2,279.0 (1) 2,284.7 (1)
Sine-wave regression 0.01 5.56 (4) 13,348.5 (4) 16,956.1 (4)
Note: ARIMA = autoregressive integrated moving average; MAPE = absolute percentage error; MAE = mean absolute error;
RMSE = root mean square error; AIC Akaikes Information Criterion; SBC = Schwartzs Bayesian Criterion. Boldface text indi-
cates the best performance using the criteria. A number in parentheses next to each performance statistic represents a models
rank for that particular statistic.
*p < .05.

respectively. Their p values were .0001, .003, and .0002,
respectively. These estimates are not presented in any table.
Within-Sample Performance
At this juncture, we pretend that the postsample data
set does not exist. If this truly were the case, the appropriate
question is how to make use of what we have so far to deter-
mine which of our models best captures the data generating
process. The answer is to calculate the battery of perfor-
mance statistics for each of the eight models estimated dur-
ing the within-sample period; that is, from July 1977 through
December 1988, inclusive. Table 3 provides a summary of
our performance statistics.
Regarding the choice of models, Chan (1993) analyzed
the nave I, nave II, linear regression, ARIMA (2,1,2), and
sine-wave regression models. Chu (1998a) analyzed the
ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12 model. The performance statistics
reported in Table 3 are based upon our reestimations of these
models. In Table 3, we also present these statistics for our
more parsimonious ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0) 12 model and for
our Winterss model.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on October 4, 2012
Relative to the majority of studies previously cited, the
novelty of Table 3 is the inclusion of six performance statis-
tics: the unbiasedness statistic plus three to five measures that
quantify loss due to forecast error for each estimated model.
The test for unbiasedness, MAPE, MAE, and RMSE are
computed for all eight models. AIC and SBC are computed
for the three ARIMA models. Neither Chan (1993) nor Chu
(1998a) conducted this type of analysis on their within-
sample models. They emphasized MAPE only, and the
MAPE that they did report applied only to results in the
postsample. Also, Chu did report AIC and SBC in a table as
part of his estimation results.
There are important reasons for reporting multiple per-
formance statistics. Evaluating forecast performance begins
with the ability to measure loss. Ideally, if the researcher is so
familiar with the phenomenon being analyzed that he can
specify a function that captures all implicit and explicit
costs resulting from each periods forecast error (commonly
referred to as a cost of error function), measuring loss
becomes precise. When the evaluator is a passive observer of
the phenomenon, the best that can be expected when

measuring loss is to report and compare performance statis-
tics that at least capture the different aspects of the cost func-
tion itself. Any performance statistic is not all-encompass-
ing. For example, MSE and its transform RMSE capture
quadratic loss; MAE captures absolute loss. Since a given
performance statistic captures only one dimension of cost, a
suggested approach is to report several as a way of judging
consistency of the model over different loss metrics.
Witt and Witt (1992), for example, echo the sentiment
that knowledge of the tourism industrys cost function is nec-
essary when attempting to determine loss due to different
forecasting methods. Lack of information about this func-
tion, particularly as it relates to the diverse sectors of the tour-
ism industry, suggests the need to make comparisons among
alternative performance measures (rather than relying on a
single measure) as the fallback position for not knowing the
cost function itself.
Column 2 of Table 3 presents the results of the forecast
unbiasedness tests for each model listed in Column 1. The
test statistic used is Walds. It is distributed as 2 with J
degrees of freedom, where J is the number of restrictions
placed on the parameters in equation 2. In this particular
case, J = 2 because we are imposing the simultaneous restric-
tions that 1 = 0 and 2 = 1. We are forced to reject the null
hypothesis of forecast unbiasedness for the nave II and trend
models at the .05 level of significance. We cannot reject the
null hypothesis of unbiasedness for the remaining models.
Thus, if unbiasedness is an important component of the deci-
sion makers loss function, the nave II and linear regression
models would not be acceptable as candidates because they
fail the unbiasedness test.
Consider now the remaining performance measures.
While it may seem reasonable to expect models to be ranked
in the same order when using these different performance
statistics, this is not necessarily the case. For example, col-
umn 3 in Table 3 shows that the MAPE calculations for the
nave I and linear regression models are 7.24 and 7.12,
respectively. On the basis of MAPE alone, the linear regres-
sion model performs marginally better than the nave I model
because its MAPE is smaller. When using MAE as the per-
formance measure, we get 17,393.7 and 17,651.4 for the
same two models, respectively. Here, the nave I model out-
performs the linear regression model. A cursory review of
Table 3 reveals that switching in this fashion is not a big
problem. We have cited the only instance where this has
occurred. In other settings, the difference in rankings can be
quite large.
With all of this as background, we now use the results
of Table 3 to assist with the selection of the best within-
sample model. Not only do test results indicate that Winterss
model provides unbiased forecasts, but MAPE, MAE, and
RMSE are smallest for Winterss multiplicative model rela-
tive to this models seven remaining competitors. This indi-
cates that Winterss model outperforms the other models dur-
ing the within-sample estimation period. These values are
2.46 for MAPE, 5,979.7 for MAE, and 7,707.3 for RMSE.
They are highlighted in Table 3. Adjacent to each highlighted
measure is the rank of 1 for this model when using this partic-
ular performance measure. Using these same three perfor-
mance measures, we see that our ARIMA model ranks sec-
ond, Chus ARIMA model ranks third, and Chans sine-wave
regression model ranks fourth. Finally, when using AIC and
SBC as performance measures among the three ARIMA
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on October 4, 2012
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 409
models, we see that ours ranks above Chus (1998a), and
Chus ranks above Chans (1993).
In summary, to this point, and on the basis of these
within-sample results, we have evidence that Winterss
three-parameter model provides unbiased forecasts and per-
forms the best not only in terms of the smallest MAPE but
also in terms of the remaining performance statistics. Next in
line is our ARIMA model, followed by Chus (1998a)
ARIMA model. Chan (1993) and Chu do not make use of
this phase of the forecasting sequence. Rather, they apply all
models to the postsample data set directly and then select the
model that yields the smallest MAPE.
Postsample Performance
The previous section provided clear evidence of model
performance during the within-sample period. This, in turn,
leads to reasonable expectations as to how these models
might perform during the postsample period. That is, barring
a structural change during the postsample period, it seems
reasonable to expect that these within-sample rankings will
carry over to the postsample period.
To see what happens, we apply each model to the
postsample data set. More specifically, we consider the entire
holdout sample of 19 observations as the period for which we
must provide forecasts. So our forecast horizon is 19 months.
We calculate a series of one-step-ahead forecasts for the
holdout sample. We compare each forecast to its matching
actual value for that month. We then calculate the same per-
formance statistics for the postsample period that we devel-
oped for the within-sample period. This requires that we con-
struct a new table in the format of Table 3 but this time use the
postsample values. In turn, we get immediate feedback
regarding our rankings during the postsample period. The
postsample performance statistics and model rankings by
performance statistic are presented in Table 4.
Comparison Between Within-Sample
and Postsample Rankings
Regarding unbiasedness, we see that the linear regression
model provides biased forecasts during the postsample
phase; test results indicate that nave II does not provide
biased forecasts as it did during the within-sample period.
For the other performance statistics, model rankings during
the within-sample phase are different than the rankings dur-
ing the postsample phase; there is simply no consistency in
model rankings between within-sample and postsample
periods.
Regarding the top-performing models, notice that Win-
terss model consistently ranked first among the competitors
during the model construction phase (Table 3), but it ranked
third during the postsample period when using MAPE,
MAE, and RMSE (see Table 4). Chus (1998a) model consis-
tently ranked third during the model construction phase and
inconsistently ranked first during the postsample phase. With
MAPE and MAE as performance statistics, Chus ARIMA
model ranked first, and our ARIMA model ranked second.
When using RMSE, AIC, and SBC, our ARIMA ranked first,
and Chus ARIMA ranked second.
410 MAY 2005

TABLE 4
POSTSAMPLE FORECASTING PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL MODELS: 19-MONTH HORIZON

Model Unbiasedness MAPE MAE RMSE AIC SBC

Nave I 3.68 5.53 (5) 23,165.6 (5) 30,046.6 (5)
Nave II 3.97 5.54 (6) 23,297.4 (6) 30,082.7 (6)
Linear regression 189.43* 17.65 (8) 74,761.9 (8) 79,759.5 (8)
Winterss model 2.80 2.70 (3) 11,130.4 (3) 13,062.7 (3)
ARIMA (2,1,2) 1.48 8.61 (7) 36,719.4 (7) 46,038.7 (7) 416.0 419.7
ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0)12 1.60 1.79 (1) 7,429.7 (1) 9,168.9 (2) 352.7 (2) 355.5 (2)
ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0)12 0.63 1.82 (2) 7,504.5 (2) 8,997.4 (1) 349.9 (1) 351.7 (1)
Sine-wave regression 0.81 4.78(4) 19,573.6 (4) 23,632.4 (4)
Note: ARIMA = autoregressive integrated moving average; MAPE = absolute percentage error; MAE = mean absolute error;
RMSE = root mean square error; AIC Akaikes Information Criterion; SBC = Schwartzs Bayesian Criterion. Boldface text indi-
cates the best performance using the criteria. A number in parentheses next to each performance statistic represents a models
rank for that particular statistic.
*p < .05.

TABLE 5
POSTSAMPLE FORECASTING PERFORMANCE, INDIVIDUAL MODELS: 3-MONTH HORIZON

Model MAPE MAE RMSE AIC SBC

Nave I 7.86 (6)30,287.0 (6) 34,005.1 (6)
Nave II 11.68 (7)45,612.6 (7) 52,288.9 (7)
Linear regression 13.03 (8)50,458.4 (8) 54,400.3 (8)
Winterss model 2.25 (2) 8,902.8 (2) 11,308.5 (3)
ARIMA (2,1,2) 6.74 (5)25,863.8 (5) 28,481.5 (5) 69.5 65.9
ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0)12 1.96 (1) 7,414.3 (1) 8,386.2 (1) 60.2 (2) 57.5 (1)
ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0)12 2.34 (3) 8,939.5 (3) 10,521.6 (2) 59.5 (1) 57.7 (2)
Sine-wave regression 4.73(4) 17,887.7 (4) 19,422.2 (4)
Note: ARIMA = autoregressive integrated moving average; MAPE = absolute percentage error; MAE = mean absolute error;
RMSE = root mean square error; AIC Akaikes Information Criterion; SBC = Schwartzs Bayesian Criterion. Boldface text indi-
cates the best performance using the criteria. A number in parentheses next to each performance statistic represents a models
rank for that particular statistic.

Model Ranking When DISCUSSION

Forecast Horizon Changes
We changed the forecast horizon to 15 months to deter-
mine the effect that a small decrease in the forecast horizon
would have on model performance. The rankings remained
the same as with the 19-month horizon. (We do not present a
separate table showing the new performance statistics corre-
sponding to a 15-month horizon.) We repeated the process
for a 3-month horizon and present the results in Table 5.
Here, Chus (1998a) ARIMA model ranked first for four of
five of the performance statistics. Winterss model ranked
second when using MAPE and MAE and ranked third when
using RMSE. Our ARIMA model ranked third when using
MAPE and MAE, second when using RMSE and SBC, and
first when using AIC.
In summary, Chus (1998a) ARIMA model is strong for
the low-forecast horizon in particular. For the higher forecast
horizons, it remains strong but starts to give way to our
ARIMA model for forecast horizons of 15 and 19 months.
Winterss model enjoyed a rank of two for the low-forecast
horizon but then dropped to a position of third for the higher
forecast horizons.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on October 4, 2012
We have emphasized the judicious comparison of within-
sample performance statistics with their postsample counter-
parts as part of the model selection process. Whether the
researcher uses this approach will have no effect on the
choice of the single best postsample model. But doing so puts
into perspective the limitations of any forecasting model and
at a minimum suggests a subset of best-performing models.
We introduced the ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0) 12 model to this
study as an alternative to Chus (1998a) ARIMA(3,1,0)(0,1,0)12
specification. Returning to Table 3, we see that Winterss
model was the clear winner with respect to within-sample fit
over all of its competitors and using all of the performance
measures. When comparing only the two ARIMA models
during the estimation period, our ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0) 12
model performed better than Chus ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12
model.
As presented in Table 4, when applied to the postsample
data, the ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12 model performed best
among all eight specifications for the 19-month forecast
horizon when using MAPE and MAE. However, the ARIMA

(0,1,1)(1,1,0) 12 model provided the best results when RMSE,
AIC, and SBC were used to judge forecast performance.
Winterss model dropped out of the picture as the best
performer.
Generalizing these results, we see that the best fitting
model during the estimation period is not necessarily the
model that provides the best postsample forecasts. Likewise,
ranking model performance can be sensitive to the perfor-
mance statistic that is used.
Table 5 shows that when applied to the 3-month forecast
horizon rather than to the 19-month forecast horizon, these
two ARIMA models exchanged ranks in terms of RMSE and
SBC. This time, Chus (1998a) ARIMA was on top and our
ARIMA was second. This suggests that the model that pro-
vides the best postsample forecasts for a given forecast hori-
zon will not necessarily continue to provide the best forecasts
as the forecast horizon changes.
Results like these are typical when it comes to modeling
any time series. Evidence is usually neither conclusive nor
consistent regarding one clear winner. Different performance
measures and estimation periods will lead to varied results.
So where does all of this leave the researcher who ultimately
seeks the best forecast? Is there one best forecasting model?
What kind of information can be gleaned from those models
that provide respectable performance?
COMBINING MODELS
One strategy is to formulate a forecast that is some com-
bination of forecasts obtained from several of the competing
models. The result is commonly referred to as a combined
forecast. There are a number of rule-base methods for
weighting the components of the combined forecast
(Armstrong 2001; Clemen 1989). Perhaps the most straight-
forward combined forecast is the simple average of forecasts
obtained from a subset of the best performing models. Sim-
ple averaging is attractive because it is simple, it works, and it
receives support in the literature (Armstrong 2001; Clemen
1989; Makridakis and Winkler 1983).
One example of a combined forecast would be to start
with the individual forecasts from the Winterss model, the
ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12 model, and the sine-wave regression
model. The combined forecast for this selection of models
for a particular month would be the average of the forecasts
obtained from these three individual models for that month.
To illustrate, we concocted six different model combina-
tions to give six sets of combined forecasts. Table 6 presents
a list of the six different combinations. Adjacent to each com-
bination is the MAPE, MAE, and RMSE corresponding to its
forecasts. The first combination listed in Table 6 is the one
described directly above. Five other formulations are pre-
sented. Each formulation is a different combination of from
two to four of the top performing individual models that we
obtained from either the within-sample or postsample
analysis.
One attraction of a combined forecast is that it will never
perform more poorly than the poorest performing compo-
nent forecast in the combination. For example, consider
again the component models for the first combination in
Table 6. These are Winterss model, the ARIMA
(3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12 model, and the sine-wave regression model.
From Table 4, the postsample MAPEs for these individual
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on October 4, 2012
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 411
models are 2.70, 1.79, and 4.78, respectively. From Table 6,
the postsample MAPE for the combination having these
three components is 2.52. Notice that MAPE for the combi-
nation (2.52) is not worse than MAPE for the poorest per-
forming component in the combination, which is sine-wave
regression with a MAPE of 4.78.
In addition, a combination may even perform better than
the single best performing model (Makridakis and Winkler
1983). For example, the combined forecast obtained from the
ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0) 12 and ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12 models
performed marginally better than either of these models
alone when using MAE and RMSE. As shown in Table 6, for
this combination, these measures are 7,408.4 and 8,988.2,
respectively. As shown in Table 4, for the individual models,
these measures are 7,504.5 and 8,997.4, respectively, for
ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0) 12 and 7,429.7 and 9,168.9, respec-
tively, for ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12.
There is a rational explanation why combining works.
From Table 5, we see that there is a tendency for the ARIMA
(3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12 model to work better across shorter forecast
horizons. This suggests that the forecast errors are larger
when using ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0) 12 for the short term. As
the forecast horizon lengthens, Table 4 shows that ARIMA
(0,1,1)(1,1,0) 12 begins to take over in terms of better perfor-
mance. This likewise suggests that the forecast errors are
larger when using ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12 for the longer
term. When forming a combined forecast, averaging cancels
out large forecast errors for any particular month and there-
fore reduces RMSE. A combined forecast spreads the risks
of poor performance associated with any one particular
model.
CONCLUSIONS
The performance of several proposed forecasting models
has been assessed in the context of the flow of numbers of
travelers into Singapore. Most existing studies yield the con-
clusion that one forecasting model outperforms other models
in terms of a single performance statistic. Chan (1993), for
example, concluded that the sine-wave regression model pro-
vided the best performance among nave I, nave II, linear
regression, and ARIMA (2,1,2) models when using MAPE.
Chu (1998a) pointed out that Chan neglected the seasonal
component in the data and that the ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12
model performed better than the sine-wave regression
model, likewise when using MAPE.
However, in this study, an ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0) 12 model
takes turns with Chus (1998a) ARIMA (3,1,0(0,1,0) 12 model
when it comes to providing the best forecasting performance
during the postsample period. We have seen that rank
exchange between these two models is sensitive to the per-
formance statistic used and to the length of the forecast hori-
zon. If one were to rely on only one or two performance mea-
sures to assist with model selection, our results suggest that
quite a different conclusion could be reached if different per-
formance criteria were used.
Also, the model that performs best during the estimation
phase may not necessarily provide the best forecasts, even
though it ranks highest when using all performance mea-
sures. This is most reasonable because of the strong possibil-
ity of a structural change during the postsample period. The
within-sample model would simply not pick this up. We have
412 MAY 2005
TABLE 6
POSTSAMPLE FORECASTING PERFORMANCE, COMBINED MODELS: 19-MONTH HORIZON
Combined Model
Winters model + ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0)12+ Sine wave
ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0)12 + ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0)12 + Winterss
ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0)12 + Winters
ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0)12 + Winters
ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0)12 + ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0)12
ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0)12 + ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0)12 + Sine wave + Winterss
Note: ARIMA = autoregressive integrated moving average; MAPE = absolute percentage error; MAE = mean absolute error;
RMSE = root mean square error. Boldface text indicates the best performance using the criteria.
seen that Winterss multiplicative model provided the best fit
during the estimation phase but slid in rank during any of the
postsample time horizons.
Obviously, the goal of the practitioner is to select the
model that provides the best forecasting results across a vari-
ety of forecast horizons. The issues presented above indicate
the difficulties involved in terms of achieving this goal.
Indeed, a suggested and realistic alternative approach that
minimizes the risk involved with betting on just one model is
to derive forecasts based on a simple averaging of forecasts
obtained from a subset of models that perform well. Because
the two ARIMA models provide consistent and reliable fore-
casting performance across different forecast horizons, com-
bining forecasts from these two is a viable option.
The zealous researcher may pretend that the post-
sample observations are truly unavailable and decide upon a
combined model based upon the best performing within-
sample models. For our particular example, the result would
be a combined model consisting of ARIMA (0,1,1)(1,1,0) 12
+ ARIMA (3,1,0)(0,1,0) 12 + Winterss. This combined model
provides excellent performance statistics and is developed on
the premise that the postsample data cannot be seen. This is
the same setting faced when doing ex ante forecasts.
Our intent was to emphasize a comprehensive method-
ology for evaluating a forecasting model. We chose to evalu-
ate models that were predominantly of the univariate variety
to make comparisons with Chans (1993) and Chus (1998a)
univariate approaches for modeling inbound tourist arrivals
to Singapore.
This approach is similarly transferable to structural
econometric models that might be used for forecasting. One
very important limitation of univariate approaches is their ad
hoc nature relative to structural approaches that, by their very
nature, emphasize causal relationships among variables
(Song and Witt, 2000; Song and Wong, 2003; Webber 2001).
In this context, univariate methods shed little light on issues
relating to policy. However, when it comes to forecasting, it
is a fact that structural econometric models often provide
worse forecasts than univariate methods when any of the
causal or predictor variables themselves need to be fore-
casted. Univariate methods frequently lead to better forecasts
than do structural models because there are fewer reasons for
forecast error.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on October 4, 2012
MAPE MAE RMSE
2.527 (6) 10,225.7 (6) 12,288.4 (6)
1.970 (2) 8,130.9 (2) 9,676.5 (2)
2.185 (4) 9,000.2 (4) 10,428.0 (4)
2.092 (3) 8,646.7 (3) 10,249.7 (3)
1.796 (1) 7,408.4 (1) 8,988.2 (1)
2.306 (5) 9,346.3 (5) 11,036.2 (5)
REFERENCES
Archer, B. H. (1977). Tourism Multipliers: The State of the Art. Bangor Oc-
casional Papers in Economics. No. 11. Bangor: University of Wales
Press.
Armstrong, J. Scott (2001). Combining Forecasts. In Principles of Fore-
casting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners, edited by J.
Scott Armstrong. Boston: Kluwer, pp. 41739.
Calantone, R. J., C. A. Di Benedetto, and D. Bojanic (1987). A Comprehen-
sive Review of the Tourism Forecasting Literature. Journal of Travel
Research, 26 (2): 2839.
Chan, Y. M. (1993). Forecasting Tourism: A Sine Wave Time Series Re-
gression Approach. Journal of Travel Research, 32: 5860.
Cho, V. (2003). A Comparison of Three Different Approaches to Tourist
Arrival Forecasting. Tourism Management, 23: 32330.
Chu, F. L. (1998a). Forecasting Tourist Arrivals: Nonlinear Sine Wave or
ARIMA? Journal of Travel Research, 36: 7984.
(1998b). Forecasting Tourism Demand in Asian-Pacific Coun-
tries. Annals of Tourism Research, 25: 597615.
Clemen, R. T. (1989). Combining Forecasts: A Review and Annotated Bib-
liography. International Journal of Forecasting, 5: 55983.
Dharmaratne, C. S. (1995). Forecasting Tourist Arrivals in Barbados. An-
nals of Tourism Research, 22 (4): 80418.
Diebold, F. X. (1998). Elements of Forecasting. Cincinnati, OH: South-
Western College.
Eadington, W., and M. Redman (1991). Economics and Tourism. Annals of
Tourism Research, 18: 4156.
Enders, W. (2004). Applied Econometric Time Series. New York: John
Wiley.
Frechtling, Douglas C. (2001). Forecasting Tourism Demand: Methods and
Strategies. Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heinemann.
Frechtling, D. C., and E. Horvath (1999). Estimating the Multiplier Effects
of Tourism Expenditures on a Local Economy through a Regional In-
put-Output Model. Journal of Travel Research, 37: 32432.
Greenidge, K. (2001). Forecasting Tourism Demand: An STM Approach.
Annals of Tourism Research, 28: 98112.
Kulendran, N., and M. L. King (1997). Forecasting International Quarterly
Tourist Flows Using Error Correction and Time-Series Models. Inter-
national Journal of Forecasting, 13: 31927.
Kulendran, N., and J. Shan (2002). Forecasting Chinas Monthly Inbound
Travel Demand. In Tourism Forecasting Marketing, edited by K. K. F.
Wong and H. Song. New York: Haworth, pp. 519.
Kulendran, N., and K. Wilson (2000). Modeling Business Travel. Tourism
Economics, 6 (1): 4759.
Kulendran, N., and S. F. Witt (2001). Cointegration Versus Least Squares
Regression. Annals of Tourism Research, 28 (2): 291311.
(2003a). Leading Indicator Tourism Forecasts. Tourism Manage-
ment, 24: 50310.
(2003b). Forecasting the Demand for International Business Tour-
ism. Journal of Travel Research, 41: 26571.
Louvieris, P. (2002). Forecasting International Tourism Demand for
Greece: A Contingency Approach. In Tourism Forecasting Market-
ing, edited by K. K. F. Wong and H. Song. New York: Haworth, pp. 21
41.
Makridakis, S., and R. Winkler (1983). Average of Forecasts: Some Empiri-
cal Results. Management Science, 29: 98796.
Martin, C. A., and S. F. Witt (1989). Accuracy of Econometric Forecasts of
Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 16: 40728.
Milne, S. S. (1987). Differential Multipliers. Annals of Tourism Research,
14 (4): 499515.

Newbold, P., and T. Bos (1994). Introductory Business and Economic Fore-
casting. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College.
Sheldon, J. S. (1993). Forecasting Tourism: Expenditures versus Arrivals.
Journal of Travel Research, 32: 1320.
Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. (Various years). Annual Statistical Re-
port on Visitor Arrivals to Singapore.
Song, H., and S. F. Witt (2000). Tourism Demand Modeling and Forecasting:
Modern Econometric Approaches. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Song, H., and K. K. F. Wong (2003). Time Demand Modeling: A Time-
Varying Parameter Approach. Journal of Travel Research, 42: 5764.
Turner, L. W., and S. F. Witt (2001). Forecasting Tourism Using Univariate
and Multivariate Structural Time Series Models. Tourism Economics,
7 (2): 13547.
Uysal, M., and J. Crompton (1985). An Overview of Approaches Used to
Forecast Tourism Demand. Journal of Travel Research, 23: 715.
Webber, A. G. (2001). Exchange Rate Volatility and Cointegration in Tour-
ism Demand. Journal of Travel Research, 39: 398405.
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on October 4, 2012
JOURNAL OF TRAVEL RESEARCH 413
Witt, S. F., Newbould, G. D., and A. J. Watkins (1992). Forecasting Domes-
tic Tourism Demand: Application to Las Vegas Arrivals Data. Journal
of Tourism Research, 31: 3641.
Witt, S. F., Song, H., and P. Louvieris (2003). Statistical Testing in Forecast-
ing Model Selection. Journal of Travel Research, 42: 15158.
Witt, S. F., and C. A. Witt (1995). Forecasting Tourism Demand: A Review
of Empirical Research. International Journal of Forecasting, 11: 447
75.
Witt, S. F., and C. A. Witt (1992). Modeling and Forecasting Demand in
Tourism. San Diego, CA: Academic.
World Travel and Tourism Council (2002a). The Travel and Tourism Eco-
nomic Research: World. August 22. Available at http://www.wttc.org/
measure/PDF/World.pdf.
World Travel and Tourism Council (2002b). The Travel and Tourism Eco-
nomic Research: Singapore. August 22. Available at http://www.wttc.
org/measure/PDF/Singapore.pdf.