Competitiveness of Australia as a tourist destination.

A model of destination competitiveness is presented. The model seeks to capture the main elements of competitiveness highlighted in the general literature, while appreciating the special issues involved in exploring the notion of destination competitiveness as emphasised by tourism researchers.

The paper then presents the results of a survey, based on indicators associated with the model, to determine the competitiveness of Australia as a tourist destination. Policy measures to enhance the competitiveness of Australian tourism are discussed.

**********

Tourism numbers to, and expenditure within, a destination are crucially associated with its international competitiveness.

A model of destination competitiveness is presented. The model seeks to capture the main elements of competitiveness highlighted in the general literature, while appreciating the special issues involved in exploring the notion of destination competitiveness as emphasised by tourism researchers. The model was developed in a collaborative effort by researchers in Korea and Australia (1) (Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 2001).

Following the development of the competitiveness model, a survey was conducted to determine the competitiveness of Australia as a tourism destination. Underpinning the survey instrument was a set of indicators of destination competitiveness. It is acknowledged that indicators of destination competitiveness are many and varied. They include objectively measured variables such as visitor numbers, market share, tourist expenditure, repeat visitation, foreign exchange earnings, employment, value added by the tourism industry as well as subjectively measured variables such as "richness of culture", "quality of tourism experience", destination "appeal", "scenic beauty" (Hassan, 2000; Ritchie, Crouch, & Hudson, 2000; Dwyer & Kim, 2002). The selected indicators were based on a review of the competitiveness literature and also on discussions at industry workshops held in Korea and Australia. Participants at these workshops identified the important indicators of destination competitiveness falling under the main elements of the destination competitiveness model (for elaboration see Dwyer & Kim 2002). The surveys covered the competitiveness of both Korea and Australia as tourism destinations. This paper focuses on the Australian results only.

This paper has two major aims: first, to set out briefly the model of destination competitiveness underpinning the study; second, to set out the results of a survey, based on indicators associated with the model, to determine the competitiveness of Australia as a tourist destination

Model of Destination Competitiveness

Dwyer, Forsyth and Rao (2000a, p. 11) state that "tourism competitiveness is a general concept that encompasses price differentials coupled with exchange rate movements, productivity levels of various components of the tourist industry, and qualitative factors affecting the attractiveness or otherwise of a destination". The ultimate goal of competitiveness is to maintain and increase the real income of its citizens, usually reflected in the standard of living of the country (Garelli, 2000; Porter, Sachs, & McArthur, 2001). From this perspective, the competitiveness of a nation is not an end in itself but a means to an end; the ultimate goal of industry development is to increase the standard of living of people.

The model displayed as Figure 1 brings together the main elements of national and firm competitiveness as proposed in the wider literature (Porter, 1990, Moon & Peery, 1995; Waheeduzzan & Ryans, 1996) and the main elements of destination competitiveness as proposed by tourism researchers (Buhalis, 2000; Hassan, 2000; Mihalic, 2000). Space limitations preclude a more detailed discussion of the background literature on competitiveness (but see Dwyer & Kim, 2002). The model contains many of the variables and category headings identified by Crouch and Ritchie (1994, 1995, 1999) and Ritchie and Crouch (1993, 2000) in their comprehensive framework of destination competitiveness but differs in some important respects. These differences are also discussed in Dwyer and Kim (2002).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Figure 1 classifies the determinants of destination competitiveness under six main headings.

Core resources and supporting factors and resources. Are the attributes of a destination that attracts visitors and the basic foundations of a sustainable tourism industry (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999). Together, they provide the basis for destination competitiveness. Core Resources are divided into two types--Inherited (Endowed) and Created. Inherited Resources, in turn, can be classified as Natural or Cultural/Heritage. Created Resources include Tourism Infrastructure, Special Events, the Range of Available Activities, Entertainment and Shopping. As Crouch and Ritchie state:

   Whereas the core resources and attractors
   of a destination constitute the primary motivations
   for inbound tourism, supporting factors
   and resources exert more of a secondary effect
   by providing a foundation upon which a successful
   tourism industry can be established
   (1999, p. 148).

These include: general infrastructure, quality of service, accessibility of destination, hospitality and market ties.

Destination management. These factors are those that "... can enhance the appeal of the core resources and attractors, strengthen the quality and effectiveness of the supporting factors and resources and best adapt to the constraints imposed by the situational conditions (Crouch & Ritchie, 1999, p. 149). The category includes the activities of Destination Management Organisations, Destination Marketing Management, Destination Policy, Planning and Development, Human Resource Development and Environmental Management.

Demand conditions. These conditions comprise three main elements of tourism demand: Awareness, Perception and Preferences. Awareness can be generated by various means including destination marketing activities. The image projected can influence perceptions and hence affect visitation. Actual visitation will depend on the match between tourist preferences and perceived destination product offerings.

Situational conditions. Are forces in the wider environment that impact upon destination competitiveness. Situational conditions comprise those political, regulatory, legal, economic, sociocultural, technological and environmental forces that provide the context for strategic management (David, 2001). These conditions correspond to the Qualifying and Amplifying determinants as identified by Crouch and Ritchie (1999). The category includes Destination Location, the Competitive (micro) Environment, the Global (macro) Environment, Security and Safety, and Price Competitiveness.

Destination competitiveness. This is linked backwards to the various determinants of competitiveness and forwards to Regional/National Prosperity, indicating that destination competitiveness is itself an intermediate goal toward a more fundamental aim of the economic wellbeing for residents. Each of these objectives is associated with a set of indicators.

Survey of Australian Tourism Stakeholders

A set of indicators of competitiveness was identified, based on discussions at workshops held in Korea and Australia during April and May 2001. The workshops comprised industry operators/ peak groups, government officials and tourism research academics. Participants at these workshops identified the important indicators of destination competitiveness falling under the main elements of the destination competitiveness model.

There is no single or unique set of competitiveness indicators that apply to all destinations at all times. For any given element of destination competitiveness, any number of indicators may be employed as measures. And for any given destination, different indicators of competitiveness will be relevant. A list of indicators of destination competitiveness, subjective and objective, can be categorised according to the model displayed in Figure 1. These indicators appear in the first columns of Tables 2-7 of the present paper. They are discussed in more detail in Dwyer and Kim (2002).

A survey instrument, comprising questions pertaining to Australia's international competitiveness was prepared from the list of indicators of destination competitiveness and posted on the Internet at http://bus.uws.edu.au/economics/ausquest.htm. The respondents were selected from databases of tourism industry stakeholders in Australia and comprised industry operators/peak groups, government officials and tourism research academics. The main sources of email addresses were the files of the (former) Tourism Council of Australia, the nation's peak tourism industry body, and the membership of the Council of Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Educators and Researchers (CAUTHE). The list of email addresses came to around 500 but 20% of the emails that were sent "bounced back" because the person had switched jobs. One hundred and thirty-two useable responses were received, making for an overall response rate of 39%.

The scope of the project did not enable consumers to be directly surveyed; further use of the model would need to incorporate consumer input and perceptions.

The surveys required respondents to rate Australia's performance, on a 5-point Likert scale, on each of 83 competitiveness indicators, against a reference group of destinations. The options ranged from 1 (well below average) to 5 (well above average), plus 6 for don't know/not sure.

The reference set of destinations were nine major Asia Pacific destinations: Japan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan, China, Singapore, Korea and Indonesia. The reason for nominating a reference group of destinations was to provide a benchmark or yardstick for comparison of Australia's destination competitiveness, since it would be meaningless to ask respondents to give absolute ratings for any destination on any given attribute of competitiveness.

There are at least two possible limitations to the survey that should be noted prior to discussion of the results. One is that Australians were asked to rate Australia's destination competitiveness. It is arguable that an in-built bias may exist to exaggerate the competitiveness of one's own country relative to others. Another involves the meaningfulness of comparing Australia, not to individual destinations, but to a set of competitor destinations. Differences between destinations in the competitor set may have presented difficulties to respondents in estimating the "average" for the nine other destinations compared to Australia. The survey does not allow comparisons between Australia's competitiveness and that of individual destinations within the reference set.

Results

In order to obtain a clearer picture of the assessments made by respondents to the various questions, we herein group them into each of the six categories of the Model of Destination Competitiveness. Inherited Resources, Created Resources, and Demand Conditions generated the most above average responses. The calculated mean rating from highest to lowest is:

* Inherited Resources = 4.02

* Created Resources = 3.89

* Demand Conditions = 3.67

* Supporting Factors = 3.42

* Situational Conditions = 3.40

* Destination Management = 3.39

Interestingly, Inherited Resources also had the highest number of below mean responses, which can be attributed to lower ranked perceptions of Australia's arts, history/heritage, and architecture (see Figures 2-7).

[FIGURES 2-7 OMITTED]

Table 1 lists the statistical survey results of each model element by industry and education grouping. The defined average response (compared to the reference set of countries) was a value of 3 on a 1 to 5 Likert scale. The absolute (and percentage) differences between industry and education perceptions in the calculated means are:

* Inherited Resources + 0.17 (+ 4.3%)

* Created Resources + 0.11 (+ 2.9%)

* Supporting Factors + 0.09 (+ 2.7%)

* Situational Conditions + 0.13 (+ 3.9%)

* Destination Management + 0.05 (+ 1.5%)

* Demand Conditions-0.02 (-0.5%)

The differences in calculated means from the survey respondents, demonstrates that there are no significant differences between industry and education perceptions. Further, in all cases except Demand Conditions, industry perceptions were slightly higher than for educators.

For each of these groupings, bar charts were produced, utilising the mean response for each question within the grouping. The relevant bar charts are displayed (as Figures 2-7). The question with the largest mean response within the group is listed first, and the remaining responses are listed in descending order of the means. Care must be exercised in interpreting these data, because there may well be cultural bias affecting the level of the responses. However, what is important is the relative ratings of the various questions and there are considerable differences in these among the respondents. A brief discussion of each of the six groups follows. Only some of the more interesting results that appear in Tables 2-7 (which follow in the text) are highlighted for discussion.

Inherited Resources

Compared to the reference set of Asia Pacific destinations, Australia is regarded as above average in unspoiled nature, climate, provision of national parks, scenery, flora and fauna but below average in history/heritage, artistic and architectural features. The relatively high rating given to Australia's natural resources is to be expected (see Table 2 and Figure 2). It is well known that the country has extensive areas of attractive and unique natural resources, flora and fauna, both land and marine based, that are recognised worldwide and a climate that is conducive to experiencing these resources throughout much of the year. In recognition of the importance of natural resources for world heritage and for tourism flows, successive governments in Australia have gazetted large tracts of land and ocean reserves as national parks. The high ratings should not be a cause of complacency, however. Maintenance of Australia's competitive advantage in this area will require constant environmental monitoring of the impacts of development, tourism and otherwise.

The relatively high variance in the responses for Traditional Arts (variance of 1.146), Historic and Heritage sites (variance of 1.008), and Artistic and Architectural features (variance of 0.808) indicated that respondents share very different views about their perceptions of these attributes compared to the other elements of Inherited Resources. Interestingly, these same three areas were the only elements with positive skewness at values close to O. This indicates that the responses to these three questions were highly symmetrical compared to all the other questions with highly negative skewness values of less than -1. Moreover, the measure of Kurtosis (2) for Traditional Arts (kurtosis of -0.811), Historic and Heritage sites (kurtosis of -0.461), and Artistic and Architectural features (kurtosis of -0.249) demonstrated that the observations clustered less (platykurtic, and close to mesokurtic distributions) compared to the remaining observations with very high positive kurtosis values demonstrating high clustering (leptokurtic distributions).

Given much higher degrees of dispersion, and lower mean values, there appears to be less overall consistent support for highly rating Traditional Arts, Historic and Heritage sites, and Artistic and Architectural features as elements of Inherited Resources in Australia. This result is not unexpected given the relatively short history of Australia as a developed nation compared to its historically and culturally rich Asian competitors. It is unlikely that this feature can be improved through policy measures, other than to concentrate on marketing these niche areas to appropriate tourism segments, and through the passage of time enrich our cultural heritage. It does, however, raise the issue of the role of Indigenous tourism in Australia. Australian Indigenous peoples have extremely rich cultures that are unique in the world. Surveys of international visitors to Australia consistently reveal that there is substantial interest in indigenous culture (Bureau of Tourism Research, 2001). There is currently a great deal of research being undertaken in Australia into the opportunities and challenges presented by indigenous tourism, much of which is funded by the Commonwealth Government (Commonwealth of Australia 2002). The survey results indicate a perception that Australia is under-performing in this potentially important tourism market segment.

Created Resources

Australia is rated above average on each of the attributes of cuisine, airport efficiency, food services, cultural precincts, night life, convention facilities, accommodation, access to natural areas, sports facilities, theme parks, entertainment, nature based activities, events/festivals, recreation facilities, community support for events, transportation, adventure activities, water based activities, and shopping but below average in provision of cultural precincts (see Figure 3 and Table 3).

Water Activities and Sports Facilities had the smallest variances in this group with values of 0.494 and 0.568, indicating high agreement between respondents. Less consistency between respondents was found in the areas of Adventure Activities (variance of 0.994), Visitor Accessibility (variance of 0.904), Local Tourism Transport (variance of 0.921) and Diversity of Shopping Experiences (variance of 0.934), which may be an indication that the differences in awareness respondents have to these areas could be due to asymmetric information. As with Inherited Resources, most distributions in Created Resources were negatively skewed as one might expect with relatively large mean values.

Apart from Water Activities (kurtosis of 10.370), Nature Activities (kurtosis of 5.487), Sports Facilities (kurtosis of 3.104), and Adventure Activities (kurtosis of 2.900) which all shared leptokurtic distributions, most of the distributions in Created Resources shared mesokurtic or platykurtic distributions. These flatter distributions show much less clustering of responses, which either indicates varying differences in experience of these areas or higher differences in perception. The generally high degree of dispersion in evidence here indicates there may be an opportunity to raise the levels of information and product awareness in these areas through education, training, and marketing exposure to increase the overall level of information available to tourism educators and practitioners.

While shopping was rated above average, in comparison to the reference group, it was accorded the second lowest rating within the created resources category. In recent years Australia has had two major enquiries into tourism shopping, addressing issues such as opening hours, range and quality of products, presentation, and service quality (Commonwealth of Australia, 1988, 1990). The survey results imply an above average performance in this sector but indicate much room for improvement. Other dimensions that may need attention are festivals and special events, local transportation and amusement/ theme parks. With respect to the latter, Australia's low population and geographically large size make it difficult for attractions to achieve high revenues throughout the year. The survey also implies that Australia could develop greater community support for festivals and special events. This is not something that can be addressed quickly but goes to the heart of community attitudes to tourism development in general. Improvements in the quality and efficiency of local transportation can benefit residents as well as tourists and are a primary responsibility of government working in harmony with the private sector.

Supporting Factors

Compared to the reference group of destinations, Australia is rated as above average in telecommunications, direct flights, service quality, financial services, local transport, efficiency of customs, resident attitudes to tourists, attitudes of customs/immigration officials, links with travel trade, destination links with origin markets, health/medical facilities, resident hospitality programs, visitor satisfaction and communication between residents and visitors but below average in distance from source markets (see Figure 4 and Table 4).

Overall, the variability in responses to these questions was considerably higher than for the Inherited Resources and Created Resources groups. In comparison, smaller mean values and lower skewness and kurtosis values, demonstrate that more respondents had lower and more variable perceptions of the Supporting Factors areas than Australia's resources areas. There were high levels of variance in the responses, especially Communication Between Tourists and Residents (variance of 1.242), Visa Requirements as an Impediment to Travel (variance of 1.191), Programs for Residents (variance of 1.133) and Customs and Immigration Attitudes (variance of 1.077). In these cases, it is more likely that less consistent agreement results from differences in experience than differences in awareness that stems from information asymmetry. This view is supported by the lack of skewness, which infers a symmetric distribution closer to that of a normal distribution, with skewness values lying between -1 and +1, except for Health and Medical Facilities, which has a skewness value of -1.299. Naturally, as a highly developed nation proximate to lesser developed countries, it is expected that Australia would have a high perceived value for Health and Medical Facilities (mean of 4.36) with general agreement between respondents as indicated by lower variance, and high positive kurtosis demonstrating a high level of observation clustering. The high rating accorded to Australia's healthcare facilities as compared to the reference group of destinations is likely also to further underpin Australia's image as a relatively "safe" destination.

The low kurtosis values, apart from Health and Medical Facilities (kurtosis of 1.487) and Links Between Destination and Travel Trade (kurtosis of 1.456), demonstrate flatter distributions, which in several cases are close to mesokurtic or normal distributions. Australia was also rated relatively highly in respect of its links with the travel trade. This factor may well become increasingly important as strategic alliances continue to form between tourism stakeholders worldwide. Links Between Destination and Travel Trade has a low variance of 0.738 indicating general agreement among the respondents, and low skewness indicating a symmetric distribution of responses, whilst the high kurtosis shows considerable clustering of observations. There were only 110 responses to the question indicating uncertainty about existing links.

Australia rates relatively highly in respect of it general infrastructure--a predictable result given the country's level of economic development compared to others in the reference group.

Service quality in Australia was rated highly. This may indicate the success of various training program initiatives undertaken by both public and private sector tourism stakeholders in recent years. A lower rating was given to industry appreciation of the importance of service quality. This issue will need to be addressed if service quality levels are to be maintained. Customs efficiency and attitudes were rated above average. Both have undoubtedly been improved in recent years resulting in less obstruction and greater throughput of arriving passengers at international airports (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002). Respondents also considered Australia's market ties (business, trade, sporting, ethnic) to be relatively successful in generating tourism to Australia. Business travel is the major motivation for around 15% of all visitors to Australia (Tourism Forecasting Council, 2001). Since business travellers tend to spend more on average per day than other travelers it is also a high yield market. Australia's relatively large immigrant population also generates visitation from friends and relatives resident overseas (Dwyer, Burnley, Forsyth and Murphy 1994).

Falling around the middle of this group of factors, but still rated above average, are those related to Australia's hospitality towards visitors. Australian residents were rated above average in their friendliness to tourists and the ease of communication between tourists and residents. Room for improvement is also indicated regarding the provision of hospitality programs for residents. Although such programs do exist in Australia and appear to have been successful, there is scope to expand their coverage particularly in major tourism sub-regions. Of more concern was the small response total of 99 for the existence of hospitality development programs for residents. This clearly spells out a need to improve the information awareness levels of such programs for tourism educators and practitioners.

Of course, there is nothing Australia can do about its location compared to major origin markets. For some travellers, Australia's remoteness acts as an additional "pull factor". The location factor is also linked to the availability or otherwise of direct flights to the destination. Australia's visa requirements are perceived to be a barrier to inbound tourism compared to destinations in the reference set. Australia's requires tourists from many major origin markets to have a visa stamped on their passport. This requirement has been subjected to ongoing criticism from tourism industry stakeholders, but the extent to which it deters visitors is not clear. The government denies that visa requirements are a barrier to inbound tourism. The current arrangements pre-clear visitors, facilitating their entry into Australia on arrival--so-called visa free passengers would be subject to lengthy clearance processes on arrival. Moreover, the Electronic Travel Authority System (ETAS) is a more convenient system for visitors to Australia than a visa free system as the process is virtually invisible to the traveler before departure and enables fast processing upon arrival. Around 86% of all tourist and short-term business entrants are on ETAS.

Situational Conditions

Australia is rated above average in security/safety, value in shopping, and use of IT by the industry, use of e-commerce by the industry, capability of managers, destination value for money, programs to monitor visitor satisfaction, cooperation between public and private sector, investment environment, value of accommodation, business ethics, entrepreneurial qualities of managers and access to venture capital, but below average in respect of industry access to venture capital (see Figure 5 and Table 5).

Within this group there was a higher degree of dispersion and symmetry among respondents than for other determinants of destination competitiveness. This is evidenced by the higher levels of variance, despite the lower mean values, and very low skewness values. The only high negative skewness value here was Security and Safety with a skewness of -1.235, with an associated moderate kurtosis of 0.870. This may indicate that, while there is general agreement of high levels of Security and Safety, as supported by the much higher mean of 4.40 and lesser degree of dispersion and symmetry, the perceptions of respondents are not closely clustered together because of the way they perceived this question. For example, Australia is often perceived to be one of the safest countries in the world relating to levels of crime but is also perceived to be one of the deadliest countries in the world in terms of the number of venomous species of snakes and spiders. Given the concerns over terrorism that have risen again recently, the relatively high safety/security accorded to Australia as a tourist destination is an important factor for potential visitors from origin markets such as the United States, who are often more at risk in other parts of the world

Australia also rates highly in respect of destination value for money, and accommodation value for money in particular. The perceptions of the respondents are consistent with studies of price competitiveness of international tourism destinations that indicate Australia to be more price competitive than European destinations, the United States and some Asian destinations (Japan, Singapore). Australia's relatively low rate of inflation and low exchange rate are important determinants of its destination price competitiveness (Dwyer, Forsyth, & Rao 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2002).

Australia is also rated relatively highly in respect of the capabilities of tourism business managers and business ethics. Increasingly, ethical business practice is recognised to be a benchmark for good business practice. A good proportion of the tourism and hospitality courses offered at tertiary level in Australia contain business oriented subjects such as marketing, human resource management, finance, accounting, business ethics, strategic management and computing. Australia's use of information technology in general and e-commerce in particular is considered to be above the average for the reference group but it appears that there is room for improvement here as there also is regarding the extent of cooperation (strategic alliances) between different firms within Australia.

Access to Venture Capital had only 92 responses, the lowest response rate of the entire survey. Barriers to access venture capital by tourism firms in Australia have been recognised for some time, as has a general lack of entrepreneurship. The former barrier arises from the risk adversity of financial institutions in Australia, a lack of knowledge about the tourism industry and a general concern that the tourism industry is too unstable to provide high, predictable returns. It also seems to be the case that Australian investors lack a particular type of entrepreneurship, of willingness to own and control tourism assets. (Dwyer & Forsyth 1993, 1994). The most recent Foreign Investment Review Board data indicates that proposed investment has increased by 118% in Australia in 1999-2000 compared to the previous year. This indicates that Australia is presently regarded as an attractive location for investment in the tourism industry.

In summary, there was less negative skewness in the Situational Conditions observations and mostly leptokurtic distributions, demonstrating less general agreement to responses. This may present an invitation to improve education, training, and marketing in these areas and/or address specific elements themselves.

Destination Management

Australia is regarded as above average, compared to the countries in the reference set, in all attributes on this dimension (see Figure 6 and Table 6). The highest rating was accorded to the quality of tourism and hospitality training and education. Training Programs stand out as an element of this group with a reasonably high mean value of 3.97, a skewness statistic of -1.018, and kurtosis of 2.034, demonstrating a high level of observation clustering and respondent agreement. This perception of high quality tourism/hospitality training programs is consistent with the resources that Australia puts into tourism training and education. Many of these courses reflect an understanding that tourism managers must possess business skills if tourism is to develop in a sustainable way. It is important that both industry and government support arrangements that ensure good access to high quality tourism and hospitality training.

Apart from Training Programs, the dispersion and symmetry patterns in this group bear close resemblance to the Supporting Factors and Situational Conditions groups. This group had very high levels of variability in responses, with Government Leadership and Commitment yielding a variance of 1.313 as well as a relatively low mean of 3.15. Government leadership and commitment to the tourism industry, although rated above average, achieved a relatively low rating compared to the items in this category. This may be connected with the fact that half of the respondents were industry-based, coupled with the relatively "non-interventionist" stance of successive Australian governments towards the tourism industry. Apart from having one of the lowest mean values of the survey (3.15), Government Leadership and Commitment also had the lowest level of kurtosis recorded in the survey (-0.904) and the lowest skewness in the survey (-0.009) indicating a high level of confusion over the role currently being played by government in tourism development in Australia. These widely varying responses imply that tourism industry educators and practitioners require not only a greater degree of government leadership and commitment to be implemented but the specifics of this need to be more clearly articulated to increase tourism stakeholders' levels of awareness.

Historically, the tourist industry in Australia has tended to look to government for support/assistance and probably more so than many other industries. That aside, successive Australian governments have been mindful of the benefits of tourism to the economy and have established agencies such as the Bureau of Tourism Research and the Tourism Forecasting Council that play an important role in undertaking research and disseminating results to industry. The outputs of these institutions help overcome information deficiencies affecting both the supply side and demand side of tourism.

Respondents rated highly the level of awareness among tourism stakeholders of the importance of tourism development that is "sustainable". The degree of such awareness is relatively more marked in the public sector. This raises the issue of how the level of awareness might be enhanced amongst tourism operators. A relatively high rating was accorded to the extent to which the destination vision is consistent with stakeholder values. A harmony in this respect is essential for private sector support for government initiatives and thus for the sustainability of tourism development.

The perception is also that Australia rates relatively highly in terms of the amount and quality of research input to tourism policy and planning. The important thing here is that research results are taken seriously and do actually inform decision making by private and public sector managers. The Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, with government support, fosters research that addresses industry needs. The CRC is currently generating a large amount of research, much of which has implications for tourism policy and planning. It is crucial that these research outcomes be assessed for their policy significance to foster destination competitiveness.

Australian firms are rated relatively highly in terms of their responsiveness to visitor needs and particularly in respect of the packaging of destination experiences to meet these needs. The responses indicate that tourism development in Australia is above average in terms of its consistency with visitor needs. While still above average, the relatively poorest result for Australia was that relating to the consistency between tourism development, community needs and resident values. Such consistency is crucial for tourism to develop in a sustainable way with community support. The respondents also rated relatively poorly the extent to which tourism development is integrated with other forms of development. The responses here may flag issues that need addressing.

Australia rates above competitor destinations regarding the extent of foreign investment in the tourism industry. This indicates the global perception of returns to Australian tourism as there are very few restrictions imposed on investors. There is also considered to be a relatively high level of cooperation between firms in Australian tourism, indicating an appreciation by tourism operators of the potential benefits of strategic alliances and cooperative arrangements.

Demand Conditions

Australia is rated above average on the present "fit" between the destination products and visitor preferences, overall destination image, international awareness of the destination and international awareness of its specific tourism products (see Table 7 and Figure 7). Each of these items is important for generating high and stable tourism flows to Australia into the future. The perceived "fit" between the destination tourism products and visitor preferences is important in giving consumer satisfaction, meeting expectations, generating favourable "word of mouth" publicity and generating repeat visitation. The destination image of Australia is fashioned in several ways, including marketing promotion by the Australian Tourist Commission and in less formal ways through Australian films, books, music, television, and through the achievements of Australians in sport. The award winning promotional activity of the Australian Tourist Commission is considered to have helped to fashion very favourable images of Australia and to have generated visitor flows from many origin markets (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002). The continued efforts of the ATC will depend importantly on continued financial support from the public sector (State and Federal) to complement industry contributions.

With only four elements in this group, there are considerable differences in the responses. With respect to Overall Destination Image and "Fit" Between Destination Products and Preferences, respondents recorded low variance values of 0.747 and 0.692 and positive kurtosis values of 0.790 and 0.256 respectively. This demonstrates general agreement and a fair clustering of responses, which openly contrasts with the other two areas in this group. International Awareness of Destination and International Awareness of Destination Products both share high levels of variance with respective values of 1.113 and 1.219 indicating lesser levels of agreement between respondents than the other two dimensions in terms of dispersion. However, the policy implications of International Awareness of Destination and International Awareness of Destination Products are distinctively different when we examine the distributions as measured in skewness and kurtosis. International Awareness of Destination has a skewness value of -0.691 while International Awareness of Destination Products as a skewness value of -0.071 showing that Products perceptions are closer to normally distributed. Both of the international awareness categories display negative kurtosis, indicating a relatively flat distribution of responses, with Destination Product Awareness showing a particularly broad spread of responses.

Not only is Australia perceived to have a level of international awareness above average compared to the representative set of destinations but also this awareness is considered to extend to the destination's specific product offerings. This places Australia in a sound position to capitalise on this relatively high awareness in its future promotion activity.

Conclusions

The paper has displayed a model of destination competitiveness and discussed the results of a survey, based on indicators associated with the model, to determine the competitiveness of Australia as a tourist destination.

Respondents appeared to have greatest difficulty in responding to the questions relating to Destination Management, Situational Conditions and Supporting Factors on the survey questionnaire, judging by the higher levels of "Don't Know" responses to the questions in these categories (12.6%, 12.0% and 9.3% respectively). This suggests that considerable benefits could be derived by raising awareness of these attributes of tourism among both education and industry representatives.

For a substantial number of questions, there was considerable disagreement among the respondents as indicated by a reasonably large variance and a substantial negative kurtosis (showing a more balanced distribution of the responses across the five categories). Among the Inherited Resources variables, these questions included Traditional Arts, and Historic and Heritage Sites, whilst for the Created Resources variables, the greatest disagreement was for Diversity of Shopping Experience, Amusement and Theme Parks, Entertainment, Airport Efficiency and Quality, Nightlife, Accommodation Variety and Quality.

There was considerable disagreement among respondents regarding the Supporting Factors questions, in particular Communication between Tourists and Residents, Visa Requirements as an impediment, Programs for Residents, Visitor Satisfaction Programs, Access Transport to Destination, Service Quality, Telecommunications Systems for Tourists, Financial Institutions and Currency Exchange. So also there was substantial disagreement regarding the Destination Management questions, in particular Government Leadership and Commitment, Quality of Research Input, Sustainable Private Sector Tourism, Clear Policies in Socia-Tourism, Resident Support for Development, Commitment to Private Education and Training, Vision Reflecting Resident Values, Cooperation between Firms, Development to Community Needs.

Among the Situational Conditions questions, there was considerable disagreement between respondents for Investment Environment, Value for money of shopping items, Value for money in accommodation, and Entrepreneurial qualities of local businesses, whilst for the Demand Conditions questions respondents disagreed most about International Awareness of Destination Products and International Awareness of Destination Overall.

The survey reveals areas where improvements can be made to Australia as a tourist destination. Further survey work is needed to determine the views of tourists themselves as to the features of Australia that are preferred over alternative destinations. More broadly, further research is needed both to develop the model and to develop indicators of destination competitiveness. Since the model and indicators have general relevance it would be useful to explore the competitiveness of other destinations relative to other reference groups of countries, and direct comparisons between competing destinations.

The model developed here can form the basis for further conceptual and empirical research. Perhaps the major thrust of the required research agenda is to explore the role of demand side factors in comparing the competitiveness of different destinations. A substantial amount of empirical research is needed to develop suitable measures of destination competitiveness from the viewpoint of different types of tourists with their different travel motivations. The greater is our knowledge about the interrelationships between consumer preferences and destination attributes, the more informed can be decision-making by private and public sector stakeholders to enhance resident socioeconomic prosperity from tourism industry development.

Table 1

Survey Results by Industry and Education Grouping

Element                    Calculated       % below      % equal to
                              mean        average (3)    average (3)

Inherited Resources           4.02           10.41          16.20
  Industry                    4.11            8.17          16.33
  Education                   3.94           12.73          15.87

Created Resources             3.89            6.46          21.78
  Industry                    3.94            5.59          20.70
  Education                   3.83            7.73          22.61

Supporting Factors            3.42            9.84          31.47
  Industry                    3.46            9.24          28.16
  Education                   3.37           10.63          35.19

Situational Conditions        3.40            5.64          33.63
  Industry                    3.47            4.67          30.14
  Education                   3.34            6.64          37.34

Destination Management        3.39            5.13          33.61
  Industry                    3.41            5.87          29.82
  Education                   3.36            4.61          37.97

Demand Conditions             3.67            7.68          25.20
  Industry                    3.66           10.91          19.64
  Education                   3.68            4.72          30.90

Element                      % above        % don't
                           average (3)       know

Inherited Resources           70.61           2.78
  Industry                    72.88           2.62
  Education                   68.45           2.95

Created Resources             68.38           3.38
  Industry                    70.21           3.50
  Education                   66.58           3.08

Supporting Factors            49.43           9.26
  Industry                    52.92           9.68
  Education                   45.41           8.77

Situational Conditions        48.77          11.96
  Industry                    52.80          12.39
  Education                   44.54          11.48

Destination Management        48.68          12.58
  Industry                    51.41          12.90
  Education                   45.30          12.12

Demand Conditions             60.04           7.08
  Industry                    61.82           7.63
  Education                   57.94           6.44

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics--Inherited Resources

                                 N          Mean
                             Statistic    Statistic

Cleanliness                     129         4.60
Climate                         127         4.56
National Parks                  125         4.54
Natural Wonders                 127         4.53
Unspoiled Nature                126         4.51
Flora and Fauna                 127         4.49
Traditional Arts                128         3.16
Historic & Heritage             130         3.08
Artistic & Architectural        128         2.95
Valid N (listwise)              118          --

                             Variance     Skewness
                             Statistic    Statistic

Cleanliness                     .711       -2.612
Climate                         .534       -2.067
National Parks                  .735       -2.379
Natural Wonders                 .712       -2.305
Unspoiled Nature                .604       -1.897
Flora and Fauna                 .744       -2.187
Traditional Arts               1.146         .175
Historic & Heritage            1.008         .061
Artistic & Architectural        .808         .109
Valid N (listwise)              --           --

                                          Kurtosis
                                 SE       Statistic      SE

Cleanliness                     .213        7.246       .423
Climate                         .215        5.333       .427
National Parks                  .217        6.203       .430
Natural Wonders                 .215        6.059       .427
Unspoiled Nature                .216        4.137       .428
Flora and Fauna                 .215        5.390       .427
Traditional Arts                .214        -.811       .425
Historic & Heritage             .212        -.461       .422
Artistic & Architectural        .214        -.249       .425
Valid N (listwise)               --           --         --

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics--Created Resources

                                N          Mean
                            Statistic    Statistic

Water Activities               125         4.72

Nature Activities              126         4.52

Sports Facilities              127         4.46

Recreation Facilities          127         4.27

Adventure Activities           125         4.25

Variety of Cuisine             126         4.14

Visitor Accessibility          130         4.05

Accom. Variety & Quality       130         4.04

Food Services                  129         4.00

Convention Facilities          118         3.92

Airport Efficiency
& Quality                      131         3.87

Tourist Guidance
& Information                  127         3.86

Special Events                 127         3.72

Entertainment                  129         3.71

Community Support
for Special Events             122         3.61

Nightlife                      122         3.57

Local Tourism Transport        129         3.55

Amusement
& Theme Parks                  125         3.37

Diversity of
Shopping Experiences           129         3.31

Cultural Precincts             130         2.88

Valid N (listwise)              94          --

                            Variance     Skewness
                            Statistic    Statistic

Water Activities              .494        -3.093

Nature Activities             .699        -2.244

Sports Facilities             .568        -1.572

Recreation Facilities         .610         -.917

Adventure Activities          .994        -1.708


Variety of Cuisine            .859         -.963

Visitor Accessibility         .904         -.768

Accom. Variety & Quality      .719         -.461

Food Services                 .609         -.400

Convention Facilities         .823         -.616

Airport Efficiency
& Quality                     .806         -.323

Tourist Guidance
& Information                 .678         -.856

Special Events                .693         -.365

Entertainment                 .831         -.214

Community Support
for Special Events            .834         -.545

Nightlife                     .777          .018

Local Tourism Transport       .921         -.496

Amusement
& Theme Parks                 .880         -.145

Diversity of
Shopping Experiences          .934         -.238

Cultural Precincts            .868          .307

Valid N (listwise)             --            --

                                         Kurtosis
                               SE        Statistic      SE

Water Activities              .217        10.370       .430

Nature Activities             .216         5.487       .428

Sports Facilities             .215         3.104       .427

Recreation Facilities         .215          .465       .427

Adventure Activities          .217         2.900       .430

Variety of Cuisine            .216          .412       .428

Visitor Accessibility         .212         -.080       .422

Accom. Variety & Quality      .212         -.597       .422

Food Services                 .213         -.294       .423

Convention Facilities         .223          .021       .442

Airport Efficiency
& Quality                     .212         -.729       .420

Tourist Guidance
& Information                 .215          .982       .427

Special Events                .215         -.308       .427

Entertainment                 .213         -.746       .423

Community Support
for Special Events            .219          .351       .435

Nightlife                     .219         -.703       .435

Local Tourism Transport       .213          .096       .423

Amusement
& Theme Parks                 .217         -.485       .430

Diversity of
Shopping Experiences          .213         -.376       .423

Cultural Precincts            .212         -.106       .422

Valid N (listwise)             --            --         --

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics--Situational Conditions

                                N          Mean
                            Statistic    Statistic

Security & Safety              127         4.40

Value for money
in Destination
Tourism Experiences            124         3.78

Value for money
in Accommodation               126         3.72

Conformity to Principles
of Business Ethics             114         3.47

Manager Capabilities           123         3.47

Value for money
of Shopping Items              124         3.42

Use of IT by Firms             118         3.38

Cooperation Between
Public and Private
Sector                         113         3.33

Use of e-commerce              110         3.30

Performance Standards          120         3.29

Entrepreneurial
Qualities of Local
Businesses                     117         3.25

Investment
Environment                    115         3.03

Access to Venture
Capital                         92         2.40

Valid N (listwise)              71          --

                            Variance     Skewness
                            Statistic    Statistic

Security & Safety             .639        -1.235

Value for money
in Destination
Tourism Experiences           .643         -.257

Value for money
in Accommodation              .954         -.304

Conformity to Principles
of Business Ethics            .694         -.242

Manager Capabilities          .776         -.351

Value for money
of Shopping Items             .993         -.074

Use of IT by Firms            .990         -.195

Cooperation Between
Public and Private
Sector                        .901         -.320

Use of e-commerce             .928         -.261

Performance Standards         .797         -.324

Entrepreneurial
Qualities of Local
Businesses                    .912         -.216

Investment
Environment                  1.184          .031

Access to Venture
Capital                       .924          .398

Valid N (listwise)             --           --

                                        Kurtosis
                               SE       Statistic       SE

Security & Safety             .215         .870        .427

Value for money
in Destination
Tourism Experiences           .217        -.346        .431

Value for money
in Accommodation              .216        -.656        .428

Conformity to Principles
of Business Ethics            .226         .371        .449

Manager Capabilities          .218         .300        .433

Value for money
of Shopping Items             .217        -.669        .431

Use of IT by Firms            .223        -.297        .442

Cooperation Between
Public and Private
Sector                        .227        -.410        .451

Use of e-commerce             .230        -.228        .457

Performance Standards         .221         .143        .438

Entrepreneurial
Qualities of Local
Businesses                    .224        -.604        .444

Investment
Environment                   .226        -.454        .447

Access to Venture
Capital                       .251        -.131        .498

Valid N (listwise)             --           --          --

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics--Supporting Factors

                                N          Mean
                            Statistic    Statistic

Health & Medical
Facilities                     118         4.36

Telecommunication
Systems for Tourists           119         3.96

Financial Institutions
& Currency Exchange            125         3.84

Quality of Tourism
& Hospitality Services         127         3.73

Customs & Immigration
Efficiency                     124         3.62

Links Between
Destination
& Travel Trade                 110         3.60

Resident Attitudes
Towards Visitors               127         3.54

Customs & Immigration
Attitudes                      122         3.54

Destination Links with
Major Origin Markets           110         3.34

Access Transport
to Destination                 128         3.28

Visitor Satisfaction
Programs                       114         3.23

Service Quality                124         3.23

Communication Between
Tourists & Residents           124         3.16

Programs for Residents          99         3.01

Visa Requirements
as an Impediment               111         2.99

Flights into Destination       128         2.98

Distance to Destination        129         2.54

Valid N (listwise)             68           --

                            Variance     Skewness
                            Statistic    Statistic

Health & Medical
Facilities                    .712        -1.299

Telecommunication
Systems for Tourists          .922         -.558

Financial Institutions
& Currency Exchange           .877         -.272

Quality of Tourism
& Hospitality Services        .706         -.356

Customs & Immigration
Efficiency                    .985         -.849

Links Between
Destination
& Travel Trade                .738         -.804

Resident Attitudes
Towards Visitors              .806         -.433

Customs & Immigration
Attitudes                    1.077         -.607

Destination Links with
Major Origin Markets          .941         -.785

Access Transport
to Destination                .960          .122

Visitor Satisfaction
Programs                      .992         -.037

Service Quality               .924         -.078

Communication Between
Tourists & Residents         1.242         -.146

Programs for Residents       1.133         -.228

Visa Requirements
as an Impediment             1.191          .061

Flights into Destination      .850          .276

Distance to Destination       .953          .416

Valid N (listwise)             --            --

                                         Kurtosis
                               SE        Statistic      SE

Health & Medical
Facilities                    .223         1.487       .442

Telecommunication
Systems for Tourists          .222         -.411       .440

Financial Institutions
& Currency Exchange           .217         -.636       .430

Quality of Tourism
& Hospitality Services        .215          .056       .427

Customs & Immigration
Efficiency                    .217          .616       .431

Links Between
Destination
& Travel Trade                .230         1.456       .457

Resident Attitudes
Towards Visitors              .215         -.040       .427

Customs & Immigration
Attitudes                     .219          .022       .435

Destination Links with
Major Origin Markets          .230          .235       .457

Access Transport
to Destination                .214         -.623       .425

Visitor Satisfaction
Programs                      .226         -.440       .449

Service Quality               .217         -.351       .431

Communication Between
Tourists & Residents          .217         -.862       .431

Programs for Residents        .243         -.523       .481

Visa Requirements
as an Impediment              .229         -.489       .455

Flights into Destination      .214         -.176       .425

Distance to Destination       .213         -.194       .423

Valid N (listwise)             --            --         --

Table 6

Descriptive Statistics--Destination Management

                                 N          Mean
                             Statistic    Statistic

Training Programs               119         3.97

NTO Reputation
for Attracting Visitation        97         3.85

Public Sector
Recognition of
"Sustainable" Tourism           123         3.62

"Vision" Reflecting
Shareholder Values              110         3.51

Commit. to Edu.
& Training (Pub.)               124         3.50

Quality of Research
Input                           123         3.47

Packaging of Destination
Experiences                     120         3.46

Responsiveness of Firms
to Visitor Needs                122         3.43

Commit. to Edu.
& Training (Priv.)              122         3.41

Training Responsive
to Visitor Needs                116         3.38

Private Sector
Recognition of
"Sustainable" Tourism           121         3.33

Clear Policies
in Social Tourism               114         3.32

Development Responsive
to Visitor Needs                116         3.30

Development Responsive
to Community Needs              113         3.29

Cooperation Between
Firms                           106         3.23

Extent of Foreign
Investment                       99         3.22

Resident Support
for Development                 124         3.20

Development
Integration                     118         3.17

G'ment Leadership
& Commitment                    126         3.15

"Vision" Reflecting
Resident Values                 109         3.09

Valid N (listwise)               69          --

                             Variance     Skewness
                             Statistic    Statistic

Training Programs              .728        -1.018

NTO Reputation
for Attracting Visitation      .986         -.790

Public Sector
Recognition of
"Sustainable" Tourism         1.058         -.507

"Vision" Reflecting
Shareholder Values             .839         -.683

Commit. to Edu.
& Training (Pub.)              .902         -.405

Quality of Research
Input                         1.284         -.564

Packaging of Destination
Experiences                    .923         -.342

Responsiveness of Firms
to Visitor Needs               .726         -.296

Commit. to Edu.
& Training (Priv.)             .905         -.381

Training Responsive
to Visitor Needs               .759         -.745

Private Sector
Recognition of
"Sustainable" Tourism         1.190         -.222

Clear Policies
in Social Tourism             1.103         -.340

Development Responsive
to Visitor Needs               .752         -.142

Development Responsive
to Community Needs             .851         -.201

Cooperation Between
Firms                          .805         -.063

Extent of Foreign
Investment                     .889         -.462

Resident Support
for Development                .927         -.140

Development
Integration                   1.014         -.450

G'ment Leadership
& Commitment                  1.313         -.009

"Vision" Reflecting
Resident Values                .862         -.044

Valid N (listwise)              --           --

                                         Kurtosis
                                SE       Statistic      SE

Training Programs              .222        2.034       .440

NTO Reputation
for Attracting Visitation      .245         .488       .485

Public Sector
Recognition of
"Sustainable" Tourism          .218        -.196       .433

"Vision" Reflecting
Shareholder Values             .230         .560       .457

Commit. to Edu.
& Training (Pub.)              .217         .109       .431

Quality of Research
Input                          .218        -.325       .433

Packaging of Destination
Experiences                    .221        -.249       .438

Responsiveness of Firms
to Visitor Needs               .219         .077       .435

Commit. to Edu.
& Training (Priv.)             .219        -.317       .435

Training Responsive
to Visitor Needs               .225         .396       .446

Private Sector
Recognition of
"Sustainable" Tourism          .220        -.639       .437

Clear Policies
in Social Tourism              .226        -.447       .449

Development Responsive
to Visitor Needs               .225        -.138       .446

Development Responsive
to Community Needs             .227        -.540       .451

Cooperation Between
Firms                          .235        -.352       .465

Extent of Foreign
Investment                     .243        -.087       .481

Resident Support
for Development                .217        -.620       .431

Development
Integration                    .223        -.196       .442

G'ment Leadership
& Commitment                   .216        -.904       .428

"Vision" Reflecting
Resident Values                .231        -.309       .459

Valid N (listwise)              --           --         --

Table 7

Descriptive Statistics--Demand Conditions

                                 N          Mean
                             Statistic    Statistic

Overall Destination
Image                           126         4.19

International Awareness
of Destination                  124         3.90

"Fit" Between
Destination Products
& Preferences                   113         3.42

International Awareness
of Destination Products         126         3.23

Valid N (listwise)              108          --

                             Variance     Skewness
                             Statistic    Statistic

Overall Destination
Image                           .747       -.985

International Awareness
of Destination                 1.113       -.691

"Fit" Between
Destination Products
& Preferences                   .692       -.344

International Awareness
of Destination Products        1.219       -.071

Valid N (listwise)              --           --

                                          Kurtosis
                                SE        Statistic      SE

Overall Destination
Image                          .216         .790        .428

International Awareness
of Destination                 .217        -.369        .431

"Fit" Between
Destination Products
& Preferences                  .227         .256        .451

International Awareness
of Destination Products        .216        -.829        .428

Valid N (listwise)              --           --          --

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to acknowledge the constructively critical comments from the journal referees which have led to improvements in the paper.

Endnote

(1) The Authors wish to acknowledge support from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources for the study undertaken.

(2) Kurtosis is a measure of the extent to which observations cluster around a central point. For a normal distribution, the value of the kurtosis statistic is 0. Positive kurtosis indicates that the observations cluster more and have longer tails than those in the normal distribution and negative kurtosis indicates the observations cluster less and have shorter tails. Kurtosis is based on the size of a distribution's tails. Distributions with relatively large tails are called "leptokurtic"; those with small tails are called "platykurtic." A distribution with the same kurtosis as the normal distribution is called "mesokurtic." Kurtosis also measures the degree of fat tails of a distribution, that is, it measures how thin or fat the tail is in a distribution.

References

Buhalis D. (2000). Marketing the competitive destination in the future. Tourism Management, 21(1), 97-116.

Bureau of Tourism Research. (2001). International Visitor Survey. Canberra: Author.

Commonwealth of Australia. (1988). Tourism shopping in Australia: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Tourism Shopping. Canberra: DASSETT.

Commonwealth of Australia. (1990). Tourism shopping in the nineties: Report of the Tourism Shopping Implementation Committee. Canberra: DASSETT.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2002). The ten year plan for tourism: A discussion paper. Canberra: Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources.

Crouch G.I., & Ritchie, J.R. (1994). Destination competitiveness: Exploring foundations for a long-term research program. Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada Annual Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 79-88.

Crouch G., & Ritchie, J.B.R. (1995). Destination competitiveness and the role of the tourism enterprise. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Business Congress. Istanbul, Turkey, 43-48

Crouch, G.I., & Ritchie, J.R. Brent. (1999). Tourism, competitiveness, and societal prosperity. Journal of Business Research 44, 137-152.

Department of Industry, Science and Resources. (2001). Destination competitiveness: Development of a model with application to Australia and the Republic of Korea. Australia and Korea: Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Korea Research Institute, CRC for Sustainable Tourism and Australia-Korea Foundation.

David, F. (2001). Concepts of strategic management (8th ed.). NY: Macmillan.

Dwyer L., & Forsyth, P. (1993). Foreign Investment in Australian Tourism: A Framework for Assessing Impacts. Journal of Tourism Studies, 4(1), 26-37.

Dwyer L., & Forsyth, P. (1994). Motivation and impacts of foreign tourism investment. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 512-537.

Dwyer L., Forsyth P., & Rao P. (1999). Tourism price competitiveness and journey purpose. Turizam Special Issue on Competitiveness in Tourism and Hospitality, 47(4) 283-299.

Dwyer L., Forsyth, P., & Rao, P. (2000a). The price competitiveness of travel and tourism: A comparison of 19 destinations. Tourism Management, 21(1), 9-22

Dwyer L., Forsyth, P., & Rao, P. (2000b). Sectoral Analysis of Price Competitiveness of Tourism: an International Comparison. Tourism Analysis, 5,(1), 1-12.

Dwyer L., Forsyth, P., & Rao P. (2002). Destination price competitiveness: Exchange rate changes vs inflation rates. Journal of Travel Research, 40(3), 328-336.

Dwyer L., & Kim, C.W (2002). Destination Competitiveness: Determinants and Indicators. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Garelli S. (2000). Competitiveness of nations: The fundamentals: The World Competitiveness Yearbook. Switzerland: IMD.

Hassan S. (2000). Determinants of Market Competitiveness in an Environmentally Sustainable Tourism Industry. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 239-245;

Mihalic T. (2000). Environmental management of a tourist destination: A factor of tourism competitiveness. Tourism Management, 21(1), 65-78

Moon, H.C., & Peery, N. (1995). Competitiveness of product, firm, industry, and nationin a global business. Competitiveness Review, 5(1), 37-43.

Porter, M.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press.

Porter M., Sachs, J., & McArthur, J. (2001). Executive summary: Competitiveness and stages of economic development in World Economic Forum. The Global Competitiveness Report 2001-2002. World Economic Forum: i-ix.

Ritchie, J.R., & Crouch, G.I. (1993, October). Competitiveness in international tourism: A framework for understanding and analysis. Proceedings of the 43rd congress of association internationale d'experts scientifique de tourisme. San Carlos de Barilocbe, Argentina

Ritchie, J.R., & Crouch, G. I. (2000). The competitive destination: A sustainability perspective. Tourism Management, 21(1), 1-7.

Ritchie J.R., Crouch, G., & Hudson S. (2001). Developing operational measures for the components of a destination competitiveness/sustainability model: Consumer versus Managerial perspectives. Unpublished manuscript.

Tourism Forecasting Council. (2001). Forecast, Table 2. Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research.

Waheeduzzan A., & Ryans, J. (1996). Definition, perspectives, and understanding of international competitiveness: A quest for a common ground. Competitiveness Review, 6(2), 7-26.

Professor Larry Dwyer, Tourism and Hospitality Strategy Group, College and Law and Business, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith DC NSW 1797, Australia. Email: L.dwyer@uws.edu.au