Sunteți pe pagina 1din 18

Journal of Travel Research

http://jtr.sagepub.com/ The Impact of Distance on International Tourist Movements


Bob McKercher, Andrew Chan and Celia Lam Journal of Travel Research 2008 47: 208 originally published online 8 July 2008 DOI: 10.1177/0047287508321191 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jtr.sagepub.com/content/47/2/208

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/47/2/208.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Oct 6, 2008 Proof - Jul 8, 2008 What is This?

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

The Impact of Distance on International Tourist Movements


Bob McKercher Andrew Chan Celia Lam
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Journal of Travel Research Volume 47 Number 2 November 2008 208-224 2008 Sage Publications 10.1177/0047287508321191 http://jtr.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

This article examines the impact of distance on global tourist flows through an analysis of departing visitor share from 41 major source markets to 146 destinations. The study concludes that 80% of all international travel occurs to countries within 1,000 kilometers of the source market and that, with few exceptions, distant destinations have great difficulty attracting more than a 1% or 2% share of departures. However, high volatility in share within each distance cohort was also noted. Regression analysis of variation in share by distance suggests that market access and the level of tourism development within a destination distort movement patterns regardless of distance. Relationship variables played an important role in short-haul travel; a mix of source, destination, and relationship characteristics influence travel to medium haul destinations; and destination attributes influence share at long-haul destinations. Keywords: distance decay; tourist flows

Introduction

his paper examines the impact of distance on international tourism movements. It has two broad goals. First, the validity of the distance decay concept is tested at a generalizable level. In doing so, source markets that show divergent movement patterns are identified, and the reasons for this divergence are proposed. Second, individual origin-destination relationships are examined within discrete distance parameters to test the universality of distance decay. Arrival data for 1,915 origin-destination pairs are analyzed, representing 41 major outbound markets visiting 146 destinations. The data account for 77.3% of global tourism in 2002. Distance decay theory suggests that demand for any good or service should decline exponentially as distance increases. It is thought to play such an important role in all spatial relationships that it has been identified as the first law geography (Eldridge and Jones 1991). It can, therefore, be considered a universal construct. The idea has been tested empirically in various tourism settings and found to be broadly applicable (Baxter 1979, Greer and Wall 1979, Hanink and White 1999, Kerkvliet and Nowell 1999, McKercher and Lew 2003, Paul and Rimmawi 1992, Zhang et al. 1999). However, these studies usually involved small samples in single locales. No systematic analysis has

been undertaken using global tourism movement data to test its validity; hence, the first objective. In addition, if distance decay is indeed a law, then one could argue that it is a deterministic factor that affects destination choice. All destinations located in close proximity to source markets should have an inherent advantage over more distant destinations. When measured by share, therefore, all proximate destinations should record higher shares than any more distant one. Such an assertion seems intuitively illogical, for it ignores the effect of differences in market appeal, tourism infrastructure, level of development, ease of entry, and a host of other factors affecting tourism flows. It further contradicts contemporary thinking about destination choice that sees it as a complex and often messy process involving the consideration of a bundle of tangible and intangible attributes (Sirakaya and Woodside 2005), with many contextual influences (Decrop and Snelders 2005), where the ultimate choice represents the means by which consumers can gain the multiple benefits they seek (Klenosky 2002). Yet, if true, then it should apply in all situations. Intervening factors may moderate its impact, but the underlying pattern should still be present. Hence, the second objective tests whether distance decay can be considered as a deterministic variable at an individual origin-destination relationship level.

208
Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

McKercher et al. / The Impact of Distance on International Tourist Movements 209

Context
Distance decay is widely used in many areas. Tobler (1970, p. 236) called it the first law of geography, observing that everything is related to everything else, but near things are more related than distant things. Thus, the gravitational pull of a proximate place is higher than that of a more distant location resulting in observed differences in the level of demand. And, as with other gravitational effects, the impact is geometric. It has been used in such diverse fields as biology, ecology, location planning, and attractiveness measurement. Poulin (2003) examined the rate at which similarity of parasites decayed as distance increased. Nekola and White (1999) looked into the distance effects on similarity of plants, Farhan and Murray (2006) used it in planning the location of a facility-like stations and shops, and Drezner (2006) examined the relationship between the attractiveness of a shopping mall and the distance. McKercher and Lew (2003), summarizing the tourism literature, note that distance decay was popular in tourism research in the 1960s and 1970s, when it was used as a proxy for forecasting. However, it fell into disuse as more sophisticated forecasting techniques were developed. Today, relatively little attention is devoted to this issue as a discrete topic in the tourism literature, yet, distance principles are implicit in the modeling and forecasting of tourist flows through such proxy variables as the cost of travel. The studies cited above found it to be broadly applicable, but the shape of the curve and the rate of decay seemed to be modified by a range of source and destination considerations as well as the relationship between markets and destinations. Greer and Wall (1979) observed that the type of trip undertaken influences the decay rateshort duration trips experienced the steepest curve, while longer duration trips tended to display more of a plateauing curve. Paul and Rimmawi (1992) add further that a large source population located some distance from the destination may provide a disproportionately large volume of visitors, appearing to distort the impact of distance on demand when raw numbers are considered. The authors address this concern by calculating share of total departures rather than absolute volume. Hanink and White (1999) note that the appeal of the destination or the quality of the asset will also affect demand, with higher quality places having greater perceived value and generating a proportionately higher share of visitors per unit of distance traveled. The relationship between the origin and possible destinations seems to exert the greatest impact on changing rates of demand over distance. Both Fotheringham (1981) and Eldridge and Jones (1991) suggest that the rate of decay is a function of the overall spatial structure

of the receiving area. Space warping, in which equivalent distances have spatially uneven effects on interaction, can occur because of differences in the number of intervening destination opportunities. The decaying effect can be accelerated when few intermediate opportunities exist, whereas an extended decay relationship can exist when a large number of relatively nearby destination opportunities are present. In addition, cultural distance, the degree of cultural similarity between the origin and destination, will also influence movements (Hanink and White 1999, Smith and Xie 2003), with culturally similar destinations attracting more visitors than culturally distant ones. Indeed, cultural dissimilarity can be a major inhibiting factor for travel to proximate destinations. Three types of tourism-oriented distance decay relationships have been identified (figure 1). The classic curve suggests that demand peaks close to the origin and then declines exponentially as the perceived costs of travel distance and time increase (Bull 1991). McKercher (1998a) identified a second plateauing pattern. The dampening effect was caused by a limited number of destination choices located along a linear touring route that resulted in the dispersal of demand over a longer distance. Demand fell only after a certain distance threshold was reached. McKercher and Lew (2003) identified a third pattern with a secondary peak or tail located at some large distance from the source market. This model recognizes that some very attractive, but distant, destinations may have such great market appeal that their pulling power supersedes the normal frictional effect of distance, thus distorting the decay curve. Their study also identified the existence of an Effective Tourism Exclusion Zone (ETEZ), an area where effectively no tourism activity occurs. It can be comprised of spatial (i.e., oceans, unpopulated areas) or product voids in which prospective destinations offer little of interest to the source market. They speculated further, but did not test empirically, that the existence, proximity, and width of the ETEZ could distort tourist movements. A large ETEZ in close proximity to a source market could dampen international travel propensity overall due to the high costs and time required to cross it. It would also effectively displace or shift the starting point of the decay curve to the outer boundary of the zone, resulting in higher market shares for distant destinations than would normally be expected if no ETEZ was present. A large ETEZ located a moderate distance from the source market, on the other hand, would tend to concentrate tourism activity prior to its inception, producing an abnormally high demand spike close to home. There is also a high probability of a secondary peak located after the outer boundary is crossed. Little impact

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

210 Journal of Travel Research

Figure 1 Distance Decay Curves


Classic Decay Curve Plateauing Decay Curve

VOLUME

DISTANCE FROM ORIGIN Decay Curve with a Secondary Peak

VOLUME

DISTANCE FROM ORIGIN

VOLUME

DISTANCE FROM ORIGIN

may be felt if the ETEZ is narrow or if it is located a great distance from source markets. The tourist literature suggests a relationship exists between distance traveled and tourism behavior. Nyaupane, Graefe, and Burns (2003) found a positive relationship between distance and age of the tourists, destination expenditure, and place attachment, but noted a lower propensity to revisit. Yeoman and Lederer (2005) further discuss the aspirational nature of much long-haul travel and how it is viewed as a rare, often once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. Short-haul travel, by extension, is more common, and the motives are more escapist or recreationoriented. Perhaps because of these factors, people choosing nearby destinations focus on price and value for money considerations when they buy, while those choosing more distant places consider quality and product features (Lo and Lam 2005) and are less concerned about price (Song and Wong 2003). Hwang and Fesenmaier (2003) and Tideswell and Faulkner (1999) observed that long-haul tourists engaged in multi-destination trips and sought to have multiple trip purposes satisfied, while short-haul tourists tended to take single destination, single purpose trips. McKercher and Lew (2003) further note that short-haul trips tend to be of a short break nature and are often booked as part of a packaged tour, while longhaul travel involves longer trip durations, a substantial

touring element, and are far more likely to be organized independently.

Method
This study investigates international tourism movements for the year 2002 between 41 source markets and 146 destinations. Market shares for 1,915 discrete origindestination pairs are analyzed. The census year was selected because it is the last non-SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) year where complete departure and arrival statistics were available when the project commenced. Outbound, or departure data were derived from the United Nations (UN) World Tourism Organization (WTO) Tourism Market Trend reports (WTO 2004), while inbound or arrival data were sourced from the UNWTO Annual Statistical Reports (WTO 2005). As such, countries are the unit of analysis. The initial goal was to analyze movements from all source markets that generated at least one million departures in 2002. Fifty-six markets met this criterion. But for reasons discussed below, 15 markets were subsequently excluded, leaving the final sample of 41 outbound markets. Nonetheless, 444,884,000 international overnight departures were registered by these markets, while the destinations recorded a total of 543,715,000

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

McKercher et al. / The Impact of Distance on International Tourist Movements 211

arrivals. These latter figures represent some 77.3% of the 703 million arrivals reported by UNWTO members in 2002 (WTO 2005). No formal record of departures is maintained. Shares were calculated by dividing the number of visitors entering the destination from a source market (numerator) by the total number of tourists departing from that source market (denominator). The production of valid share figures, therefore, was dependent on both the origin and destination using the same method to count departures and arrivals, respectively. However, departures and arrivals can be measured in different ways. The majority of source markets count overnight departures, while a small number count all overnight and day trip departures in one figure. Likewise, the majority of destinations record overnight arrivals, while a small number do not differentiate between same day and overnight visits. Unrealistically high share figures will result if all arrivals forms the numerator and overnight departures acts as the denominator. Unrealistically low figures will result when the opposite case applies. Because most destinations count overnight trips, reliable figures could not be generated for source markets that did not distinguish between day and overnight departures. Austria, Spain, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malaysia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey count all departures, and therefore, were excluded. Seven countriesIran, Chile, Morocco, Oman, Sweden, Syria, and Tunisiawere also subsequently excluded due to insufficient arrival data reported by destinations. The study team set a minimum criterion that 70% of total outbound share had to be explained by the set of origin-destination pairs examined to gain an accurate image of changes in demand over distance. This proved impossible in the case of these seven countries, as most destinations did not record discrete arrivals for each. Instead, their arrivals were grouped with other source markets. Aggregation may occur for one of two reasons. In some cases, multiple sources from the same area are thought to behave in a homogenous manner and are, therefore, treated as a single entity. This situation was especially notable in Scandinavia. In other cases, aggregate arrivals can be reported because the source provides so few visitors or is of so little strategic importance that no benefit is gained from keeping separate records. This situation was common when arrivals from South America, Central Asia, and the Middle East were reported. The final sample of 41 source markets is shown in table 1. The table also identifies the proximity of the nearest destination, the total number of origin-destination pairs analyzed, and the total share of departures represented by these pairs. The sample includes countries from all inhabited

Table 1 Source Markets, Proximity of Nearest Neighbor and Number of Origin-Destination Pairs Analyzed
Nearest Number of Destination Origin-Destination Total Share (km = kilometers) Pairs Analyzed Represented Land neighbor Land neighbor 2,001-3,000 km Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor <1,000 km Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor <1,000 km Land neighbor Land neighbor <1,000 km Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor 2,001 3000 km <1,000 km Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor <1000 km Land neighbor Land neighbor Land neighbor 25 53 59 20 54 53 30 83 44 35 57 37 23 55 76 73 29 46 46 39 75 65 28 20 42 23 24 55 63 48 35 33 57 35 29 45 59 31 36 80 95 75.30 95.80 179.10 131.20 248.30 81.00 84.00 107.40 90.70 73.40 164.40 72.50 95.40 103.90 183.80 142.40 149.90 94.60 108.00 75.90 89.30 128.60 76.80 143.60 104.50 102.70 92.50 114.90 180.60 126.10 133.10 122.00 79.40 256.00 86.80 85.70 110.60 79.40 139.10 110.50 123.20

Source Market Algeria Argentina Australia Azerbaijan Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada China Colombia Denmark Egypt Estonia Finland France Germany Hong Kong India Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Korea Latvia Lithuania Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Philippines Romania Russia Singapore Slovenia South Africa Switzerland Taiwan Thailand United Kingdom United States

continents, with the largest number coming from Europe (17) and Asia (13). The set includes both source markets in the developed and developing worlds and a number of markets that Westerners would not normally associate with large volumes of international tourists. The number of origin/destination pairs ranges from a low of 20 for Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and 23 or 24 for Baltic states, to more than 80 for the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

212 Journal of Travel Research

A median of 45 pairs was calculated for each source market. The following section describes the selection process for candidate destinations. The total outbound share ranges from 75% to more than 250% of departures. The reasons why shares may exceed 100% are explained below. It was operationally impossible to include arrival figures from all 204 UNWTO member countries and territories. Many destinations simply do not record this information, and others record it in a manner that is not compatible with the denominator. In addition, so few people may visit that the calculated market share, reported to two significant digits, is effectively 0.00%. Consequently, protocols were developed to select likely candidate destinations. Destinations had to satisfy one or more of the following criteria to be considered: 1. 2. 3. immediate land neighbors; one of the 15 most popular destinations for each source; one of the 20 leading global destinations, irrespective of the volume generated by a source market; and regionally significant destinations from each continent.

4.

These criteria ensured breadth of coverage. They are not mutually exclusive. France, for example, is an immediate land neighbor of Germany, is one of the Germanys 15 most popular destinations, and also qualifies as one of the worlds top 20 destinations. Origin-destination pairs were grouped by distance from the source market for ease of analysis. Land neighbors are identified as a separate category. After that, cases are grouped in increments of 1,000 kilometers up to 10,000 kilometers from the source, and in 2,000 kilometers increments up to 14,000 kilometers away. A final greater than 14,000 kilometers category includes all other cases. The numbers of source markets and origin-destinations pairs represented within each distance cohort are shown in table 2, along with the volume of arrivals and share figures. The names of source markets not represented in the cohort are also reported. Not all sources are represented in every distance cohort. For example, only 34 source markets have immediate land neighbors that permit cross border travel. Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Taiwan are islands. South Korea is deemed to have no immediate land neighbors for tourism purposes, due to travel restrictions to North Korea. China now considers Hong Kong as a domestic destination, and as such, does not report arrivals to the UNWTO. Singapore and the United Kingdom, though, actually do have direct land neighbors. Singapore is connected to Malaysia through a vehicular causeway, while the

United Kingdom shares a land border with Ireland, and has a direct, albeit underwater, link with France through the Channel Tunnel. In other cases, sources may be excluded because large destinations may cover more than one distance category. For example, Canada has no destinations within 1,000 kilometers, because of the size of the United States. And, as mentioned in other instances, separate arrival data may simply not have been recorded by some destinations. Different methods were used to calculate distance depending on the location of the origin and destination. Since the UNWTO data do not identify either the originating city or the destination area within the receiving country, precise distance measurements cannot be made. A Canadian living in a major city going to the United States, for example, could live anywhere from immediately adjacent to the United States (Vancouver and Windsor) to more than 600 kilometers away (Edmonton), and could be overnighting in destinations that may sit on the United States/Canada border (Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Detroit, Bellingham) or be traveling as far away as Hawaii, which is a nine-hour flight from Toronto. To overcome this problem, distances between origin-destination pairs located within the same continent were calculated on based on the shortest distance between their borders. For example, the distance between Belgium and Switzerland presented as the shortest distance between each countrys borders. This approach also recognizes that much intra-regional travel is done by car and that outbound travel could be generated from anywhere within the source market. The weakness of this method is that the actual travel distance from populated regions between countries sharing a land border may be quite large, especially in the case of some South American countries, which could distort figures. Brazil shares land borders with Venezuela, Colombia, and Peru, for example, but these frontiers abut the sparsely populated Amazon River and are up to 3,000 kilometers away from the densely populated southeastern coastal regions. However, for sake of consistency in measurement, these pairs are deemed to be immediate land neighbors. Distances for inter-continental origin-destination pairs or for pairs between origins and island destinations were calculated by measuring the physical distance between major gateways. For example, the distance between the United Kingdom and China was calculated based on the distance between London and Beijing. This approach recognizes that most long-haul tourists usually depart through their home countrys major hub and arrive in the receiving countrys gateway hub. Australia, the United States, and Canada have major gateways on both the east and west coasts. Distances from these countries were calculated from the nearest gateway to the destinationSydney, New

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

Table 2 Summary of Data Set by Distance

Distance (km = kilometers) 136 249.8 56.1 9.6-171.6 <0.1-171.6 16.7

Number of Source Markets Represented Mean Individual Share

Number of OriginDestination Pairs

Source Markets Not Represented in the Distance Cohort

Total Number of Arrivals (millions)

Share of Total Departures (sum = 122.2%)

Range of Cumulative Outbound Share for Each Source 6.1

Range of Individual OriginDestination Shares

Median Individual Share

Land Neighbor

34

1, 000 km, but not a land neighbor 185 106.9 24.0 0.3-107.7 251 57.8 13.0 0.2-36.4

34

0.3-107.7

4.8

1.0

1,001-2,000 km

37

0.1-28.2

1.5

0.4

2,001-3,000 km 3,001-4,000 km

40 36

163 100

24.0 11.8

5.4 2.7

0.3-64.7 <0.1-25.1

<0.1-57.5 <0.1-13.3

2.1 1.3

0.6 0.2

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

4,001-5,000 km

28

70

6.9

1.6

<.01-28.1

<0.1-27.3

1.3

0.1

5,001-6,000 km

23

65

Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Philippines, Taiwan Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, South Africa Argentina, Australia, India, New Zealand, United States Brazil Brazil, Colombia, Latvia, New Zealand, Slovenia, Switzerland Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Egypt, Hong Kong, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States Algeria, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Estonia, Hong Kong, Israel, Jordan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Taiwan 19.8 4.4 <.01-17.5 <0.1-6.4

1.1

0.4

213

(continued)

214

Table 2 (continued)

Distance (km = kilometers) 117 13.1 2.9 <.01-23.7 <0.1-14.6

Number of Source Markets Represented Mean Individual Share 0.7

Number of OriginDestination Pairs

Source Markets Not Represented in the Distance Cohort

Total Number of Arrivals (millions)

Share of Total Departures (sum = 122.2%)

Range of Cumulative Outbound Share for Each Source

Range of Individual OriginDestination Shares

Median Individual Share 0.2

6,001-7,000 km

35

7,001-8,000 km

36

143

11.0

2.5

<.01-27.6

<0.1-17.7

0.8

0.2

8,001-9,000 km 139 9.6 2.2

37

147

11.9

2.7

<.01 - 25.8 <.01 - 11.6

<0.1-22.0 <0.1-8.1

0.8 0.6

0.2 0.2

9,001-10,000 km

36

10,001-12,000 km

33

171

12.4

2.8

<.01-14.1

<0.1-9.0

0.6

0.2

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

12,001-14,000 km

24

80

4.1

0.9

<.01-18.4

<0.1-11.8

0.6

0.2

> 14,000 kilometers 148

38

Colombia, Japan, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Slovenia, Taiwan Algeria, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Singapore, Switzerland Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, Switzerland Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, India, Romania, Slovenia Bulgaria, Egypt, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia Algeria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Egypt, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland, United Kingdom Philippines, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand 4.6 1.0 <.01-62.6 <0.1-20.3

0.6

0.1

McKercher et al. / The Impact of Distance on International Tourist Movements 215

York, and Toronto in the east and Perth, Los Angeles, and Vancouver in the west, respectively. As noted in tables 1 and 2, total share figures can exceed 100%. Up to 250% of departures are noted in table 1. The sum of arrival shares reported in table 2 from the 1,915 pairs equals 122.2% of total departures. Individual share figures were calculated for each origindestination pair and then summed to produce a cumulative figure. A cumulative share in excess of 100% can arise from one of two causes. On the one hand, the same person engaging in multi-destination travel would be counted separately on entry into each country. For example, a tourist visiting France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Germany during the same trip would be counted at least four times. This phenomenon is most prevalent among long-haul travel, especially to Europe, which has a large number of small countries. It is especially noticeable in figures reported for Australia. On the other hand, it could be due to double counting the same individual entering one country on different legs of the journey. For example, a Malaysian may make an overnight transit stop in Singapore on the outward leg of a journey and overnight again on the return leg back to their home country. This person would be counted as two separate arrivals. This phenomenon occurs most noticeably in land neighbors in which the destination serves as an overnight transit stop on the way to a third destination. These destinations have been labeled as transit destinations for the sake of this study.

Figure 2 Cumulative Volume of Arrivals


550 500 450 Volume (millions) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
nd < ne 10 = 1 igh 01 00 bo 20 - 0 r 0 2 k 30 1 - 000 m 0 30 k 40 1 - 00 m 0 40 k 50 1 - 00 m 0 5 k 60 1 - 000 m 0 6 k 70 1 - 000 m 0 70 k 80 1 - 00 m 8 90 01 00 km - 0 10 01 90 km 0 - 1 00 12 01 00 km 00 - 1 00 1 20 km - 1 00 4 k >1 000 m 40 k 00 m km

100 90 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Outbound Share (%) 80

La

Distance Cumulative volume Share

Two-Stage Analysis
Aggregate tourism movement patterns are examined first to test the generalizability of distance decay. Source markets and destinations that display anomalous characteristics are identified, with reasons for the anomalies posited. The second stage examines variability of share within specific distance cohorts to test the universality of the phenomenon. Ordinary least squares regression using the stepwise function is used to explain observed fluctuations in market share. Stepwise regression was used because it does not require the causal ordering of variables for entry into the model.

Aggregate Movement Patterns


The number and share of arrivals as a percentage of total departures are reported by distance in table 2 and shown graphically in figure 2. The impact of distance on demand is striking. Land neighbors account for 57% of all departures recorded. This figure is especially compelling, considering that 7 of the 41 markets did not have

any direct land neighbors. Destinations located within a 1,000-kilometer radius captured one-fourth of departures. Together, these two most proximate regions accounted for 80% of departures, yet represented only 17% of total origin-destination pairsa classic Pareto relationship. Destinations located within a 2,000 kilometer radius of source markets remained somewhat attractive. Global tourism demand declines sharply thereafter, though with cumulative shares stabilizing at between 2% and 3% of departures, with the exception of a small blip between 5,000 and 6,000 kilometers away. Absolute aggregate demand, therefore, falls by about 50% with each 1,000 kilometers of added distance from the source market. Analysis of mean share per market within each distance category reveals an even faster rate of decay, and poses an even greater challenge for distant destinations trying to attract significant volumes of international visitors. Mean demand per destination declines by twothirds with every additional 1,000 kilometers traveled, falling from 17% for immediate land neighbors, to 5% for destinations within 1,000 kilometers, to 1.5 percent for destinations located more than 1,000 kilometers away. Average shares remain stable at slightly over 1% for travel between 3,000 and 6,000 kilometers from home, before declining again to well under 1% for travel over 6,000 kilometers from home. Just under half (42%)

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

216 Journal of Travel Research

of all land neighbors generate a minimum 10% share of outbound travel. By contrast, 90% or more of all destinations located more than 1,000 kilometers from the source market attract 5% of departures or less. Movement patterns from 39 of the 41 source markets adhered to the one of the three distance decay models. But as shown in figure 3, the presence of the ETEZ does seem to exert a significant moderating effect on seven markets. New Zealand, the Philippines, India, and Israel have substantial proximate ETEZs: the first two are a function of their island status; the latter two are politically induced. Regardless of the cause, though, the impact of a proximate ETEZ is similar, effectively shifting the curve to the outer edge of the zone. A decay curve with a substantial secondary peak results. The ETEZ for Brazil, Colombia, and the United States is located between 1,000 and 3,000 kilometers from the borders of these nations. The result is a modified decay pattern. Strong demand occurs among direct land neighbors, but the ETEZ here shifts demand, producing an almost equally strong secondary spike. In the case of travel from Brazil and Colombia, the spike corresponds with travel to the United States. It is the most popular destination for these two countries, generating 18% and 27% share, respectively. Only Japan and Australia defied the overall pattern. Their movements are shown in figure 4. Japanese outbound travel displays distinct short-haul and long-haul distance decay patterns. The short haul pattern coincides with travel within Asian destinations, with the peak found at a distance equivalent to travel to China and Taiwan. The long-haul pattern peaks at a distance equivalent to travel to the United States. Australia has three distinct peaks coinciding with travel to the South Pacific (peaking in New Zealand), South East Asia (peaking in Singapore), and Europe. The European peak requires further explanation. Europe is a popular destination, with the United Kingdom alone attracting 20% of Australian outbound travel. The cumulative share of 62% of all Australian departures beyond 14,000 kilometers must be read with caution, for it is caused by multiple counting of the same individual on a long duration, multi-destination trip. Arrival shares were also examined at a destination level to determine if any destination had broad enough appeal to distort demand across a number of markets. Some destinations may have special relationships with individual source markets that may produce anomalous share figures, as noted in the origin-destination relationship between Australia and the United Kingdom. However, the ability of a single destination to distort share figures from multiple origins is rare. Only two destinations were found to have such appeal, the United States and Spain. Table 3 shows the

Figure 3 Impact of Effective Tourism Exclusion Zone on Movements


Proximate ETEZ
70.0 60.0 Cumulative Share (%) 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
ne <= ighb o 01 100 r to 0km 20 01 200 0 30 to 3 km 01 00 0 40 to 4 km 01 00 0 50 to 5 km 01 00 0 60 to 6 km 01 00 0 70 to 7 km 01 00 0 80 to 8 km 01 00 90 to 0 k 01 90 m 00 10 to ,0 1 01 0,0 km 0 12 t ,0 o 1 0 k m 01 2, 00 to 14 0 km ,0 >1 00 k 4, 00 m 0 km 10

La

nd

Distance India Israel New Zealand Philippines

Markets With Mid Range ETEZ


70.0 60.0 Cumulative Share (%) 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0
ne <= igh b 01 100 or 0k to 20 m 01 200 to 0 k 30 m 01 300 0 40 to 4 km 01 00 0 50 to 5 km 01 00 0 60 to 6 km 01 00 0 70 to 7 km 01 00 0 80 to 8 km 01 00 90 to 0 k 01 90 m 00 10 to ,0 10 k 01 ,0 m 00 12 to ,0 01 12, km to 000 14 k ,0 m >1 00 4, km 00 0 km 10

La

nd

Distance Brazil Colombia USA

disproportionately strong drawing power of each destination. The United States is such a strong attraction that it will distort movements on a global scale, while Spains appeal is more localized, affecting movements only from within Europe.

Share Variation Within Each Distance Cohort


Table 2 documents substantial fluctuations in individual share within specific distance categories. For example, departure shares from land neighbors range from a low of

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

McKercher et al. / The Impact of Distance on International Tourist Movements 217

Figure 4 Anomalous Movement Patters from Australia and Japan


70.0

60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0

Distance
Japan Australia

Table 3 Impact of USA and Spain on Outbound Share


Mean Share for All Destinations 16.8 4.8 1.5 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 Mean Share for United States 88.8 4.1 1.1 4.7 9.3 2.4 4.5 5.8 4.1 Mean Share for Spain From European Source Markets 46.8 20.5 15.5 7.4 6

Distance (km = kilometers) Land neighbor 1,000 km 1,001-2,000 km 2,001-3,000 km 3,001-4,000 km 4,001-5,000 km 5,001-6,000 km 6,001-7,000 km 7,001-8,000 km 8,001-9,000 km 9,001-10,000 km 10,001-12,000 km 12,001-14,000 km >14,000 km

The purpose of the following discussion is to determine the influence of origin, destination, and/or relationship variables on share. Using outbound data taken from the UNWTO Tourism Market Trend reports (WTO 2004), separate regression functions were estimated for each distance cohort. Origin variables relate to, for example, the size of the country, its population, gross domestic product (GDP), and GDP per capita and travel expenditure. Destination variables include such factors as size of the country, population, GDP, and GDP per capita, the number of hotel rooms, plus data relating to inbound tourism arrivals and receipts and tourism balance of payments. Relationship variables record, for example, the number of land neighbors, the ratio between origin and destination GDP, and a comparison of tourism balance of payments and tourist movements. In addition, dummy relationship variables were added to reflect findings in the previous section, including the identification of transit destinations in which double counting of arrivals may occur, the United States and Spain demand anomaly, and the distance from the source to the first destination encountered or between the first and subsequent destination clusters to account for the ETEZ. The Distance between destinations dummy variable represents the number of distance categories between the first destination category encountered and the next destination category encountered. It is coded as 1 for no gap, 2 for one-distance threshold gap, 3 for a two-distance gap, and 4 for a three-distance threshold gap. Other dummy variables were coded as 1 if a respective characteristic was present and 0 if not present. Stepwise regression was used to select the variables that were to be included in the models, taking multicollinearity into consideration. The general model can be summarized as: SH = (S, D, R) where: SH = share of visitors from a source country, S = source country factors, D = destination factors, and R = source-destination factors. The findings are presented in table 4. The models explain between 35% and 83% of share variance depending on the distance category examined. Generally, it is more reliable for proximate and distant destinations and less reliable in explaining variations observed in travel between 6,000 and 10,000 kilometers from the source. Four variables loaded most frequently, suggesting they exert broad influence on share, regardless of distance. Distance to the first destination and Island status relate to the relationship between the origin and destination while the USA/Spain pull anomaly and Inbound receipts reflect destination attributes. Otherwise, relationship variables were most influential in
(text continues on p. 14)

less than 0.1% to a high of 171.6%, with shares from destinations located more than 14,000 kilometers from the source market also varying from less than 0.1% to more than 20%. This observation suggests that although distance decay may be a generalizable concept at a global level, it may not be a universal law at an individual origin-destination case level. The second goal of the study, therefore, is to explain this variability. Ordinary least squares regression analysis is used to examine variation in share within each of the specified distance cohorts.

La nd n < ei 10 = ghb 01 10 or 00 20 to k 01 20 m 0 30 to 0 k 01 30 m 0 40 to 4 0 k 01 00 m 50 to 0 k 01 50 m 0 60 to 0 k 01 60 m 0 70 to 0 k 01 70 m 0 80 to 8 0 k 01 00 m 90 0 t k 0 o 10 1 to 900 m ,0 10 0 k 0 12 1 to ,00 m 0 ,0 01 12, km to 000 14 km >1 ,00 4, 0 k 00 m 0 km

Cumulative Share (%)

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

218 37 41 36 28 23 35 35 37 36 33 24 38 251 163 100 70 65 117 143 147 139 171 80 148 1,915 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 28.2 57.5 13.3 27.3 6.4 14.7 17.7 21.2 8.1 9 11.8 20.3 0.621 0.609 5 0.816 0.811 6 0.510 0.492 5 0.553 0.536 3 0.897 0.889 4 0.781 0.753 6 0.368 0.348 4 0.413 0.391 3 0.514 0.498 4 0.327 0.314 2 0.778 0.770 5 0.795 0.782 4 0.618 0.606 4 0.137 0.573 0.565 -0.189 0.209 5 0.170 2 0.187 -0.146 0.440 -0.140 0.093 2 2 1 0.169 0.556 0.873 0.321 0.320 0.123 1.278 8 (continued)

Table 4 Regression Analysis by Distance (km = kilometers)

Land 1,0012,0013,0014,0015,0016,0017,0018,0019,00110,00112,001Neighbor 1,000 km 2,000 km 3,000 km 4,000 km 5,000 km 6,000 km 7,000 km 8,000 km 9,000 km 10,000 km 12,000 km 14,000 km >14,000 km Totals

33

33

136

185

<0.1

Number of Source Markets Represented Number or OriginDestination Pairs Outbound Share Range Low Outbound Share Range High

171.58

107.7

Regression r2 adj r2 Variables (total number)

0.754 0.739 6

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

0.193

Source Market Island Source Market Per Capita Expenditure On Trips Population Size of Country GDP Per Capita

Destination Factors Spain or 0.185 United States anomaly

Table 4 (continued)

Land 1,0012,0013,0014,0015,0016,0017,0018,0019,00110,00112,001Neighbor 1,000 km 2,000 km 3,000 km 4,000 km 5,000 km 6,000 km 7,000 km 8,000 km 9,000 km 10,000 km 12,000 km 14,000 km >14,000 km Totals 0.591 0.515 3

0.112

0.184

0.198

0.242

0.207

1.446

0.514

0.750

1.379

0.190

0.263

0.543 0.135

0.249

0.230

0.840

0.219

0.297

0.420

0.716

0.805

3 3 1 4 1

Tourism Balance of Payments Inbound Receipts Per Arrival Inbound Receipts (Total) Population GDP Per Capita GDP (Total) Number of Rooms Arrivals Per 100 Head of Population Size of Country 0.120 0.493 0.517 0.496 0.279 0.245 0.293 0.220

0.259

3 1 2 7

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

0.305

Relationship Between Origin and Destination Number of Land 0.128 Neighbors Transit 0.698 0.584 Destination Distance to 0.181 First Destination Distance Between Destinations Ratio of Origin 0.081 GDP Per Capita to Destination GDP Per Capita 0.218

(continued)

219

220

Table 4 (continued)

Land 1,0012,0013,0014,0015,0016,0017,0018,0019,00110,00112,001Neighbor 1,000 km 2,000 km 3,000 km 4,000 km 5,000 km 6,000 km 7,000 km 8,000 km 9,000 km 10,000 km 12,000 km 14,000 km >14,000 km Totals 0.081 0.218 2

0.110

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

Ratio of Origin GDP Per Capita to Destination GDP Per Capita Ratio of Departures Per 100 Head of Population to Arrivals Per 100 Head of Population Ratio of Origin Tourism Balance of Payments to Destination Tourism Balance of Payments 0.149

McKercher et al. / The Impact of Distance on International Tourist Movements 221

short-haul travel; a mix of source, destination, and relationship characteristics influence medium-haul travel; and destination variables become increasingly important in long-haul travel. The emergence of distance to the first destination and island status as significant variables explaining share difference across a large number of distance cohorts confirm the observed impact of the ETEZ on tourist movements. Destinations that serve markets with no nearby neighbors tend to generate a higher share of arrivals compared to their other markets that have direct land neighbors, regardless of distance. This finding also raises some interesting observations of the impact of market access on tourism flows. Market access is a little discussed concept in the tourism literature. It is a term that assesses destination attractiveness or competitiveness based on relative proximity to source markets, rather than by absolute distance (Pearce 1989). Relative proximity can be measured by the number of intervening opportunities offering similar experiences before the ultimate destination is reached. As with distance decay, it argues that more proximate destinations have an inherent advantage over less proximate ones. But unlike distance decay, absolute distance becomes less important than the number of intervening opportunities. McKercher (1998b) cited the example of residents of the sub-tropical city of Brisbane, Australia, that have the choice of literally dozens of beaches within a 150-kilometer radius of the city, but must travel more than 2,000 kilometers to access Australias nearest downhill ski resort, Falls Creek, to explain how market access works. A beach located 100 kilometers from the city may be deemed to have poor market access (or been seen to be uncompetitive) if the consumer must pass many other beaches, while a ski resort located 2,000 kilometers away might enjoy strong market access because no other closer opportunities exist. This study suggests that market access is an influential factor in international tourism movements as well. The impact of the United States/Spain pull anomaly and the level of inbound receipts is largely self explanatory. Developed destinations are relatively more attractive than less-developed ones. The model demonstrates that relative attractiveness increases with distance. Thus, developed destinations that are proximate to source markets may enjoy some competitive advantage over their less-developed neighbors. But, the advantage increases dramatically with distancedeveloped destinations have a larger opportunity to attract long-haul visitors. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the United States and, to a lesser degree, Spain seem to be unique in their ability to overcome distance barriers.

Most of the observed variation in share among shorthaul destinations, though, was attributable to the inflationary effect of double counting that occurs in neighboring transit destinations. Proximate destinations play one of two roles in international tourism. They can act as attractive main destinations in their own right, or can serve as necessary secondary, transit destinations for tourists on the way to third countries. In fact, the dummy transit destination variable added robustness to the model, increasing the adjusted r2 figure from .413 to .739 for land neighbors and from .373 to .609 for destinations located within a 1,000 kilometers radius. Not unexpectedly, the number of land neighbors also emerged as a significant variable, as one would expect dilution of share with more opportunities. The inflationary effect caused by double counting also explains the apparent inconsistency between the positive association of source market expenditure with share, with the contradictory observation of a negative relationship between inbound expenditure from land neighbors and share. One indicates that the more the source market spends on trips, the higher the share, while the other indicates that the less spent by the arriving visitor, the higher the share. Outbound tourists who engage in multi-destination, longer-haul travel generate the highest expenditures, but often stay for very short periods of time in transit destinations. Thus, while their total origin expenditure may be high, their transit destination expenditure per visit may be low. A different set of dynamics affects share for travel between 1,000 kilometers and 4,000 kilometers, for here the population of the source market plays a significant role. Destination attributes are most influential in explaining share between 1,000 kilometers and 2,000 kilometers, while source market attributes are more influential at greater distances. These findings would suggest the presence of a demand shadow from the most populous source markets. Greer and Wall (1979) suggested that the unique shape of the tourism distance decay curve with a peak located some distance from the persons home is caused by the human desire to exact a sense of escape when traveling. McKercher (1998a) further noted that some segments seemed more willing to travel further to exact that sense of escape as a possible explanatory factor for the plateauing decay curve in domestic tourism. The same situation may apply in international tourism as well, where some residents of populous source markets feel the urge to travel further to engender that sense of escape. Relatively few destinations are located between 4,000 and 6,000 kilometers from major source markets. This area coincides with much of the Pacific and Atlantic

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

222 Journal of Travel Research

Oceans and South America for travel from North America, the Atlantic, much of Middle East, and Western and Sub-Saharan Africa from Europe and the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as well as the Middle East from Asia. It is not surprising that destination factors influence share, more than anything else. The impact of the United States/Spain pull anomaly is especially strong here, as is the level of tourism development as reflected in the inbound receipts. The model proved least effective in explaining travel between 6,000 and 10,000 kilometers from source markets, with few variables other than the aforementioned distance to first destination and the United States pull anomaly influencing variation. The model becomes more robust again after 10,000 kilometers from source markets, where destination attributes appear to exert the greatest influence on long haul share. Some far off destinations that have developed tourism infrastructure may be regarded as being more exotic and effect a stronger pull power that overcomes the inherent resistance to long distance travel.

Discussion and Conclusions


This study examined the effect of distance on international tourism movements using the receiving country as the unit of analysis. Outbound travel from 41 major source markets was analyzed that accounted for more than threefourths of all arrivals in 2002. Generally, the principle of distance decay was supported. Tourist flows from 39 of the 41 source markets corresponded closely to one of the distance decay patterns identified in previous research. Thirtytwo source markets displayed the classic decay curve with demand peaking at immediate land neighbors and then declining rapidly. Seven others reflected patterns that were moderated by the presence of a substantial ETEZ. Only Japan and Australia demonstrated aberrant movement patterns, with two distinct distance decay relationships evident from Japan and three from Australia. Aggregate arrival figures and mean cumulative share figures reveal that international travel is tightly concentrated in proximate destinations. More than half of all international travel is generated in immediate land neighbors, and 80% is concentrated in countries located within 1,000 kilometers of the source markets border. Aggregate global tourism demand declines by about 50% with every 1,000 kilometers traveled, while mean demand for any destination declines at an even faster rate, falling to 2% or less beyond 1,000 kilometers. Although widespread, the decaying impact of distance on demand is not equal, as wide share fluctuations were noted in each distance class. These variations could be

explained largely by the existence of an ETEZ, which tends to push demand to its outer boundary, the level of destination development in general, and of the United States and Spain in particular. The latter two variables confirm the assertion that appealing assets have disproportionately strong pulling powers. The necessity to use proximate destinations as transit points has the greatest influence on share among land neighbors, while the apparent desire to escape compatriots plays some role in attracting medium-haul tourists. Destination attributes alone influence long-haul travel. Three broad implications arise from the study. First, the results demonstrate unequivocally that the vast majority of international tourist movements can be defined as short haul in nature. Relatively few people are willing to travel more than 2,000 kilometers from their home country, and those that do are often forced to do so due to the presence of a substantial destination opportunity void that pushes them farther. The vast majority of destinations located more than 2,000 kilometers from any market attract less than 1% share of visitorsthose that do are developed destinations. The ability of most destinations to attract longhaul markets, therefore, is limited. Only rarely will distant destinations manage to attract a significant share of visitors, and even here, that share will most likely be capped at 2% to 3% or less unless the destination exerts some exceptional appeal to the source market. This observation suggests that few long-haul destinations will gain significant share from emerging source markets such as China, the former Soviet Union, and India. The ubiquity of distance decay suggests, instead, that proximate destinations will benefit most as these markets emerge, while distant ones will fight for small shares. However, the absolute size of these markets may make them attractive for long-haul destinations, as a 2% share of the China market could equate to 2 million arrivals by 2020. Proximate destinations face just the opposite problem. They are at risk of being overwhelmed by large numbers of new tourists unless they plan for the expected demand. Instead, most destinations will receive greater returns on their marketing efforts and generate larger visitor numbers by focusing on nearby source markets and especially on immediate land neighbors. The importance of these markets may be taken for granted, for they may not been seen as having a particularly up market or high spending visitors. But, source markets located within 1,000 kilometers of the destination represent the backbone of inbound tourism for almost every destination. Second, the study focused exclusively on outbound tourism and not arrivals. Outbound share is an important

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

McKercher et al. / The Impact of Distance on International Tourist Movements 223

consideration to understand the aggregate willingness of markets to travel certain distances, but it may not be particularly relevant for small island destinations with limited capacities to cater for visitors, for their size may limit their ability to increase share. A country like Jamaica, for example, attracted 1.7% of U.S. outbound travel, but Americans represented 73.1% of all arrivals in 2002. The United States is, therefore, a critical source market, while Jamaica is a largely unimportant destination for most Americans. The level of dissonance between market dependency, on the one hand, and destination irrelevancy, on the other hand, creates a number of challenges for destinations that are reliant on a single market. Third, these findings challenge some of the assumptions about destination choice. The prevailing literature suggests that distance does not play an explicit role in destination selection. Yet, the findings of this study are unequivocaldistance is closely related to share. Thus while distance may not be a deterministic variable, per se, distance is a valid proxy variable that reflects the culmination of a number of factors, including time availability, cost considerations, preferred transport mode, travel budget, the likely willingness or ability to engage with different cultures, and a variety of other factors that influence how far people are willing to travel. As such, distance can be considered as a proxy variable that accounts for many other factors that do affect the attractiveness or unattractiveness of travel between two points. The impact of distance on tourism flows has not received the attention it deserves in the tourism literature in recent years. Yet, this study demonstrates clearly that international tourist movements are affected by distance on a global scale. The outbound travel patterns of 39 of the worlds leading 41 major source markets adhere closely to distance decay principles, with the other two showing multiple regional distance decay curves. The profound and ubiquitous decaying effect of distance on global tourism demand cannot be ignored. Only a small number of tourists are willing or able to travel long distances each year, and an even smaller number of destinations have the ability to overcome that level of resistance.

References
Baxter, M. J. (1979). The Interpretation of the Distance and Attractiveness Components in Models of Recreational Trips. Geographical Analysis, 11 (3): 311-15. Bull, A. (1991). The Economics of Travel and Tourism. Melbourne: Pitman. Decrop, A., and D. Snelders (2005). A Grounded Typology of Vacation Decision-Making. Tourism Management, 26 (2): 121-32. Drezner, T. (2006). Derived Attractiveness of Shopping Malls. Journal of Management Mathematics, 17: 349-58.

Eldridge, D., and J. P. Jones (1991). Warped Space: A Geography of Distance Decay. Professional Geographer, 43 (4): 500-11. Farhan, B., and A. T. Murray (2006). Distance Decay and Coverage in Facility Location Planning. The Annals of Regional Science, 40: 279-95. Fotheringham, A. S. (1981). Spatial Structure and Distance Decay Parameters. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 71 (3): 425-36. Greer, T., and G. Wall (1979). Recreational Hinterlands: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. In Recreational Land Use in Southern Ontario (Department of Geography Publication Series No. 14), edited by G. Wall. Waterloo, Canada: Waterloo University, pp. 227-46. Hanink, D. M., and K. White (1999). Distance Effects in the Demand for Wild-Land Recreational Services: The Case of National Parks in the United States. Environment and Planning, 31: 477-92. Hwang Y., and D. Fesenmaier (2003). Multidestination Pleasure Travel Patterns: Empirical Evidence from the American Travel Survey. Journal of Travel Research, 32: 166-71. Kerkvliet J., and C. Nowell (1999). Heterogeneous Visitors and the Spatial Limits of the Travel Cost Model. Journal of Leisure Research, 31 (4): 404-19. Klenosky, D. (2002). The Pull of Tourism Destinations: A MeansEnd Investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 40: 385-95. Lo, A., and T. Lam (2005). Long-Haul and Short-Haul Outbound All-Inclusive Package Tours. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 9 (2): 161-76. Lue, C. C., J. L. Crompton, and D. R. Fesenmaier (1993). Conceptualization of Multi-Destination Pleasure Trips. Annals of Tourism Research, 20 (2): 289-301. McKercher, B. (1998a). The Effect of Distance Decay on Visitor Mix at Coastal Destinations. Pacific Tourism Review, 2 (3/4): 215-24. McKercher, B. (1998b). The Effect of Market Access on Destination Choice. Journal of Travel Research, 37 (August): 39-47. McKercher, B., and A. Lew (2003). Distance Decay and the Impact of Effective Tourism Exclusion Zones on International Travel Flows. Journal of Travel Research, 42: 159-65. Nekola, J. C., and P. S. White (1999). The Distance Decay of Similarity in Biogeography and Ecology. Journal of Biogeography, 26: 867-78. Nyaupane, G. P., A. Graefe, and R. C. Burns (2003). Does Distance Matter? Differences in Characteristics, Behaviors, and Attitudes of Visitors Based on Travel Distance. Proceedings of the 2003 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, GTR-NE-317. Paul, B. K., and H. S. Rimmawi (1992). Tourism in Saudi Arabia: Asir National Park. Annals of Tourism Research, 19: 501-15. Pearce, D. (1989). Tourist Development, 2nd edition. Harlow, UK: Longman Scientific & Technical. Poulin, R. (2003). The Decay of Similarity with Geographical Distance in Parasite Communities of Vertebrate Hosts. Journal of Biogeography, 30: 1609-15. Smith, S. L., and P. F. Xie (2003). Estimating the Distance Equivalence of the Canada-U.S. Border on U.S.-to-Canada Visitor Flows. Journal of Travel Research, 42 (2): 191-94. Sirakaya, E., and A. Woodside (2005). Building and Testing Theories of Decision Making by Travelers. Tourism Management, 26 (6): 815-32. Song, H., and K. Wong (2003). Tourism Demand Modeling: A Time-Varying Parameter Approach. Journal of Travel Research, 42 (1): 57-64. Tideswell, C., and B. Faulkner (1999). Multidestination Travel Patterns of International Visitors to Queensland. Journal of Travel Research, 37: 364-74.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

224 Journal of Travel Research Tobler, W. R. (1970). A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region. Economic Geography, 46: 234-40. Yeoman, I., and P. Lederer (2005). Scottish Tourism: Scenarios and Vision. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 119 (1): 71-87. WTO (2004). Tourism Market Trends, 2004 edition. World Tourism Organization, Madrid. WTO (2005). Yearbook of Tourism Statistics Data 1996-2003. World Tourism Organization, Madrid. Zhang, J., G. Wall, J. K. Du, M. Y. Gan, and X. Nie (1999). The Travel Patterns and Travel Distance of Tourists to National Parks in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 4 (2): 27-34.

Bob McKercher is a professor in the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR. Andrew Chan, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR. Celia Lam is a research assistant in the School of Hotel and Tourism Management at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR.

Downloaded from jtr.sagepub.com at Nat'l Hogeschool Toerisme en Verkeer on October 4, 2011

S-ar putea să vă placă și