The Relevance of Cultural Tourism as the Next Frontier for Small Island Destinations

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to apply the cultural tourism typology of McKercher and to estimate the economic relevance of cultural tourism to the context of a small island destination tourist market. Small island destinations may be confronted with environmental constraints that restrain the traditional small island tourism development model, which is based on sun, sand, and sea. The cultural tourism typology is used in order to determine whether the typology may be used to segment tourists thereby allowing researchers to determine the economic impact of different cultural tourist segments. This study draws attention to some of the foundational issues that researchers face when attempting to quantify the economic impact of cultural tourists. The results of the study indicate that McKercher’s typology may provide more refined results when incorporating the purpose of a trip; and, that cultural tourists may be a lucrative market for destinations to pursue given the results of an economic input–output model.

Keywords

cultural tourism economic impact small island destination Aruba

The purpose of this study is to empirically assess whether cultural tourism is relevant in the reorientation efforts of small island destinations regarding the dynamics of the tourism market and, consequently, the externalities of tourism development. Tourism has become critical for the economy and quality of life of small island destinations (Brau, Lanza, & Pigliaru, 2003; Hernandez-Martin, 2008). By enlarging their domestic markets, tourism development has shown its potential in overcoming the economies of scale challenges facing these destinations. Small island destinations are searching for ways to reinvent themselves in their quest to enhance their competitiveness through tourism specialization, thereby ensuring increasing returns (Croes, 2011).

Small island destinations were compelled to take up the effects of globalization by embracing tourism. One of the most pervasive effects of globalization in the tourism system is the rapidly ongoing process of standardization in the search for more efficient production processes (Smith & Robinson, 2006). This search for economies of scale collides with the small island destinations’ search for distinctiveness resulting from demand predicaments and the rediscovering of cultural identities (Cameron & Gatewood, 2008; Cole & Razak, 2009). The outcome of this paradox appears to be the prominence of cultural tourism on the agenda of scholarly work and policy makers.

Until recently, small island destinations have propagated their tourism efforts via a beach paradise image. The sun, sea, and sand model was the result. The pitfalls of this model together with the discovery of culture as a resource for tourism are propelling a broadening of the production base and the appeal of these destinations to yet untapped markets by way of increasing the product offerings (Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009). For example, the beach-dependent Turks and Caicos has been considering broadening its appeal through local culture and local history (Cameron & Gatewood, 2008). Similarly, the island of Aruba has considered culture a significant resource to broaden its appeal, aiming to increase the range of cultural attractions, tourism spending, to spread the tourist presence on the island, and to make explicit the traditional culture of Aruba (Cole & Razak, 2009).

Cultural tourism has surged as an important policy consideration in broadening the appeal and tourist offerings of tourist destinations. This thought is premised on the notion that cultural tourism is a significant and growing market segment and that cultural tourists are high spenders. This implies that cultural tourists are a discrete segment that may be identified and distinguished from other tourist segments. For example, Richards (2007), Girard and Nijkamp (2009), and Timothy and Nyaupane (2009), to mention a few studies, claim that cultural tourism has become an important impetus of tourism demand. Similarly, organizations, such as the World Tourism Organization (WTO, 2005), the Travel Industry Association (2003), and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2009) echo these claims. However, empirical validation for these claims is lacking.

Given the intense competition across tourist destinations, it seems an advantage if small island destinations could have unique attributes that could enable a distinct experience. A pertinent consideration is whether embracing cultural tourism might enhance the overall value of the tourism product in a small island destination. From this perspective, promoting cultural tourism appears to be a very important key in current economic policy supporting tourism development. However, portraying local distinctiveness as a reorientation strategy requires resources, which, in a resource-poor environment typical of small island destinations, could be challenging (Armstrong, De Kervenoael, Li, & Read, 1998; Briguglio, Archer, Jafari, & Wall, 1996; Croes, 2006; Srinivasan, 1986; Streeten, 1993). Therefore, it is an important economic concern to determine whether a distinct experience imbued with local culture will affect tourism demand and consequently the economy.

This study calls for critical attention regarding the major challenges that researchers may encounter when attempting to empirically assess the overall economic value of cultural tourists to a destination. The foundational challenge in analyzing cultural tourism consumption exists in the vast scope of meanings that the concept of culture implies. This foundational challenge gives way then to an issue regarding efficacy of accurate measurement and, consequently, units of analysis that may be considered in the empirical assessment of the value of cultural tourism (Snowball, 2008).

This study claims that cultural tourism could encourage reinvention strategies aimed at the enhancement of the competitiveness of a small island destination. The research investigates the empirical relationship between tourism and culture and measures the economic impact of that relationship in the case of Aruba. Tourism is a major economic pillar for Aruba’s economy. The WTO reports that tourist arrivals to Aruba have increased steadily over the years from 181,200 arrivals in 1986 to 825,500 arrivals in 2010. Similarly, tourism receipts increased from US$161.7 million in 1986 to US$1,264 million in 2010. The average growth rate was 9% annually, which was 2.4% higher than the average growth rate of arrivals over the time span reviewed. Aruba’s share of tourist arrivals and receipts in the Caribbean has increased over the same time span, from 4.2% to 5.3% of the total arrivals and receipts, respectively, accruing to the Caribbean region (WTO, 2011). Aruba as a tourist destination has been consistently ranked as one of the most competitive destinations in the Caribbean (Craigwell, 2007; Croes, 2011; Jayawardena & Ramajeesingh, 2003).

Aruba is an island that is highly specialized in tourism, thereby offering a tourism product portfolio that has employing events, activities, and locations that are used as promotional icons for the island (Cole & Razak, 2009; Croes, 2010). The adverse effect of this specialization for a small island is the transformation that may occur in the social makeup of the destination, which potentially may then disintegrate its local appeal absorbing its cultural authenticity in the process (Cole & Razak, 2009). Hence, the very specialized tourism products that made Aruba a tourist destination could erode the value of those products—eventually leading to diminishing returns. In order to avoid this, Aruba is repositioning itself in its search for ways to continue the path of increasing returns.

The intense competition in the Caribbean region is compelling Aruba to seek market development by increasing the range of cultural attractions that are available to tourists increasing tourists’ spending and the stimulation of local entrepreneurial activity (Croes, 2011). As this market development shift occurs, the island will be looking at new and unique product offerings in an attempt to enhance the tourist experience. Thus, the role of cultural entities, events, and new experiences could play a stronger role in attracting visitors to the island. Moreover, the island has embarked on a quest for steering its product toward more authentic experiences with the hopes of attracting culturally sensitive tourists.

The study addresses two related research questions:

Research Question 1: What are the different segments that comprise the cultural market in Aruba?

Research Question 2: What is the economic contribution of cultural tourism in the case of Aruba?

This study applies the cultural tourism typology that was forwarded by McKercher (2002) and estimates the economic relevance of cultural tourism to the context of a small island destination tourism market. The application of this cultural tourism typology is used in order to determine if the cultural tourism typologies may be used to segment tourists, thereby allowing researchers to determine the economic impact of different cultural tourist segments to tourism destinations’ economies. McKercher’s (2002) cultural tourism typology was based on the interface between centrality of cultural tourism as a trip motive and the depths of cultural tourists’ experiences.

To assess the research questions, the study entertains two central arguments. First, it argues that cultural tourism should be empirically assessed and its economic value estimated in order to determine its relevance in tourism development. Second, cultural tourism could play a significant role in ensuring incremental returns through tourism specialization. Understanding the process of cultural tourism could unleash new opportunities for product development, new markets, and new wealth, thereby underscoring the main premise of endogenous growth theories (Romer, 1994). This study is one of the first investigations to assess cultural tourism empirically as it applies to a small island destination.

Literature Review

Cultural tourism encompasses cultural activities and experiences that are highly appealing and enriching to tourists. The literature seems to indicate that cultural tourism is a new growth area of tourism demand and that it may aid in the seasonal and geographic spread of tourism, thereby increasing revenues (Cole & Razak, 2003; Richards, 1996; Richards & Wilson, 2007). Vallega (2007) contends that island culture could play an important role in promoting tourism development in small island developing states. Ramkissoon and Uysal (2010) found that the distinct character of culture makes the island of Mauritius a unique tourist product, positively influencing behavioral intentions of cultural tourists. Cultural tourism was viewed as an alternative type of tourism countering the ongoing mass tourism strategy prevalent in small island destinations. For example, Weaver (1995) proposed a Heritage Trail network for the island of Montserrat as the centerpiece of this ecotourism product. Tunbridge (2002) also advocated for the inclusion of cultural tourism as an important component of tourism development in the island of Bermuda. Other studies regarding cultural tourism and small island destinations were more cautious, fearing the erosion of authenticity of the local cultures as a consequence of tourism development (Ayres, 2002; Linneken, 1997; Soper, 2007).

Thus, destinations have increased the promotion of cultural and heritage assets for tourism consumption. And yet, according to the literature, defining cultural tourism has not been easy (McKercher, 2002). Definition of this construct has proven difficult because there are almost as many definitions or variations of definitions as there are cultural tourists. The lack of a definition has hampered an understanding of this construct and how policy makers working to improve and expand tourism as an experience may use it. Literature places cultural tourism within a broader framework of tourism and recognizes it as a type of special interest tourism, whereupon culture forms the basis of either attracting or motivating people to travel (Hughes, 2002; McKercher, 2002; Richards, 2007; Silberberg, 1995).

The WTO (2005) provided two definitions of cultural tourism. The narrower definition includes “movements of persons essentially for cultural motivations such as study tours, performing arts and cultural tours, travel to festivals and other events, visits to sites and monuments, travel to study nature, folklore or art, and pilgrimages.” The wider definition includes “all movements of persons . . . because they satisfy the human need for diversity, tending to raise the cultural level of the individual and giving rise to new knowledge, experience and encounters.” These definitions depart from other definitions of cultural tourism, such as Girard and Nijkamp (2009) and Stylianou-Lambert (2011), which are more supply focused. This strand in the literature argues that the WTO’s broad definition hampers product development and product management because the definition encompasses all recreational travel.

The departure of both WTO definitions from other definitions lies in its demand focus. The definitions capture two essential components of cultural tourism: that is, motivation and activities. Yet both definitions lack a sense of purpose. If you are motivated and engaged in cultural activities, that still does not respond to another important element of traveling, which is purpose. The level of engagement and purpose for travel constitute the most serious missing elements of these definitions, thereby failing to establish precise boundaries to the construct. This presents a major challenge in identifying and isolating economic impacts associated with cultural tourism. The implication is that the range of activities and products may be as broad as the investigator desires (McKercher, 2002).

Contributing to problematic definitional issues is also a measurement problem. The measurement problem has two dimensions. The first dimension is related to the tourist behavior. In many cases, tourists choose a mixture of culture and recreation during the same vacation. But most statistics do not track leisure and culturally motivated tourists separately. For example, the tourism statistics only specify as to the purpose of the visit (e.g., vacation, honeymoon, wedding, incentive/award travel, friends and family visits, golf, business and leisure, business only/conference/convention). Consequently, one has to rely on supplementary data in order to estimate the percentage of the tourism-related impact that might be culturally driven (Vander Stoep, 2004).

The second dimension is related to the nature of the tourism product itself. Unlike other economic sectors, tourism is a bundle of goods responding to the want of a customer in satisfying his/her needs through the purchase of a variety of services. This leads to a turnover in several economic sectors. Each of these sectors is traced separately and is not aggregated in a number representing total demand or supply of the tourism sector and is therefore not representative of the complete monetary flow (Hara, 2008).

These issues related to how cultural tourists are defined and accounted for make quantitative estimation cumbersome. It is therefore imperative to clearly establish the parameters of the methodology pursuant to answering the two questions of this study. This study embraces the demand notion of cultural tourism, thereby allowing the tourist to determine whether he or she is a cultural tourist. This approach is aided by the several cultural tourist typologies discussed in the literature, such as Silberberg (1995), Hughes (2002), Dolnicar (2002), and McKercher (2002). The current research attempts to segment cultural tourists by considering two dimensions of centrality, that is, trip purpose and depth of experience, through adoption of McKercher’s (2002) cultural tourist typologies.

A growing body of literature claims that some people are more highly motivated to participate in cultural tourism than others. Different tourists have different abilities to engage in cultural and heritage attractions based on an array of factors, which include level of education, income, prior visit, and a host of other factors. McKercher (2002), for example, suggests that considering two issues may develop a definition of cultural tourists: the main reason for the trip and the level of experiences at the destination. A number of empirical studies have attempted to implement this conceptualization process and to explore the typology of cultural tourists (Kantanen & Tikkanen, 2005).

McKercher (2002) suggests that cultural tourism may be grouped into five segments based on how important culture was in the decision to travel and on the depth of the experience at the destination. He described cultural tourists as serendipitous, purposeful, incidental, causal, or sightseeing. Purposeful cultural tourists were identified as those people who indicated that the main reason to visit a destination was to learn and experience its culture. Sightseeing cultural tourists indicated less interest in experiencing and more concern with the visiting cultural landmarks. The casual cultural tourists indicated that culture is less important in the decision to visit, and they do not get deeply involved while at a destination. Incidental cultural tourists did not consider culture as the main reason to visit and, while at a destination, were only superficially involved. Finally, the serendipitous cultural tourists stated that cultural tourism played little or no role in their decision to visit but once at a destination had a deep experience.

Yet international bodies, such as the WTO, have not provided, thus far, a disaggregation of tourism motivations that would include culture as defined beyond the traditional characterizations. Typologies continue to be based on conventional approaches, such as vacation, business, visiting friends and relatives, and others. Clearly, culture lacks a distinct mention or credible place in the list of tourist motivators. It is therefore difficult to say how much of previous international arrivals are genuinely culturally motivated. It is even more difficult to say which of these culturally motivated tourists are defined beyond the conventional definition of cultural tourism. Though cultural tourists are characteristically discrete from leisure tourists, Aruba does not honor that distinction in its statistical analysis of tourists’ motivations to visit. This study is pioneer in addressing the explicit distinction that exists between these types of tourists. To honor the distinction, this study applied the cultural tourist typology of McKercher (2002) to determine the cultural tourists patronizing Aruba and the economic impact of that patronization.

Method

The analysis of this study is based on three procedural steps. First, the typology of cultural tourists and the economic value of each of those types of cultural tourists were tested by the distribution of a survey conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics of Aruba (CBS). A total of 386 departing international tourists were interviewed at the Reina Beatrix International Airport from Brazil, Canada, Colombia, The Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, United States, and Venezuela. The sample was collected via the CBS’ systematic sampling method of every fifth departing international tourist. The CBS combined its standard monthly tourist survey with a special section on cultural tourism. The survey asked questions related to the purpose of the visit, to participation in cultural activities, tourists’ perception regarding the quality of Aruban cultural features, and spending behavior. The questions were asked in both the English and Spanish languages.

It was important to separate cultural tourists from the rest of the tourist population. The respondents were asked how important the opportunity to learn something about Aruba’s culture was in their decision to visit. The next question referred to the depth of experience on the island, followed by a question about their perception of Aruba as a cultural destination. Another question applied the standard definition of “participation” in various activities in which the tourists participated at any time during their stay.

The survey questions were the result of the comments from two focus groups that were held in December 2008, in Aruba. The participants in the focus groups represented all walks of cultural life in Aruba, ranging from various government agencies, cultural foundations, cultural associations, private entrepreneurs, and artists. The focus groups yielded a specific survey design consisting of 15 questions. The draft survey was discussed with CBS and went through a series of iterations before the final draft. The final survey section for cultural tourism consisted of six questions. The CBS administered the survey during the month of July, 2009.

The CBS collected the data and codified the results during the month of August. The segments were defined based on break points associated with a scale from “unimportant” to the “main reason to visit.” For example, the question was phrased in the manner of, “How important was the opportunity to learn something about Aruba’s culture or heritage in your decision to visit Aruba?” Cultural tourists were therefore identified and defined by the respondents’ answer selection on the survey regarding “their main reason to visit Aruba.”

Second, the same survey was used to determine the magnitude of the direct spending and the variety of spending by the different tourists’ profiles (e.g., sociodemographic makeup). Third, the economic impact of cultural tourism was assessed through a partial equilibrium setting. The relevance of this economic impact study rests on the notion that it is not adequate to only track direct tourism spending. Typically, an input–output model (I-O model) captures the economic effects of tourists’ spending. An I-O model is a mathematical model that tracks the money flow between sectors within a destination’s economy. Flows are predicted based on what each industry sector buys from each other and is determined in a dollar’s worth of output (Hara, 2008; Herrero, Sanz, Devesa, Bedate, & del Barrio, 2006). Using each industry’s production function, which in the case of Aruba is captured by its national accounts, I-O models also determine the proportion of sales that go to wage and salary income, proprietors’ income, and taxes. The I-O matrix is derived from the study conducted by van de Steeg (2009). van de Steeg (2009) developed a system of national accounts for Aruba. The I-O framework of this study has been extrapolated from van de Steeg’s (2009) work and covers 15 industry sectors, excluding the household component (see Table 4). The Aruban I-O structure consists of a 15 by 15 industrial sectors matrix and the final demand vector includes households’ consumption.

The basic concept of partial equilibrium analysis is that of a multiplier. Multipliers are used to capture the secondary effects of visitor spending in a region. There are two basic kinds of secondary effects: indirect and induced. Indirect effects are the changes in sales, jobs, and income within backward-linked industries in the region, that is, businesses that supply goods and services to tourism-related firms. For example, hotels purchase a variety of goods and services in the local area in order to produce a night of lodging. Each business that provides goods or services to hotels benefits indirectly from visitor spending in hotels (i.e., the utility and produce from wholesalers). Induced effects are the changes in sales, jobs, and income in the region resulting from household spending of income earned either directly or indirectly from visitor spending. Employees in tourism firms and backward linked industries spend their income in the local region, thus creating additional sales and economic activity. Therefore, the I-O model used in this study is closed with respect to households.

The I-O analysis starts with the development of a direct requirement or transaction table. This table shows the sales in dollars of the total output of an industry to all other industries in the economy as well as the final demand that usually comprise households, businesses, government, and exports. By convention, the rows of the table indicate the industry sales (listed to the left) for each industry sector. The final demand sectors are listed at the top of the columns. To move from the information in an I-O transaction table (denoted as z matrix) to an I-O model for Aruba, the technical coefficients of production must first be defined. The z matrix denotes the monetary flows from sector i to sector j. In order to develop the set of technical coefficients of production, or direct input coefficients, we take the observed z, which represents the flow from i to j in the transaction table divided by X, the total gross output of j. These coefficients are denoted by a, so that a = z/X.

Provided that the matrix [I-A] is nonsingular, the multiplication of X by (I-A) yields the desired vector of gross outputs as a function of final demand. This is then expressed as X = (I-A) Y. It becomes possible to now use this model to determine the total impact that the cultural tourist participants have on the Aruba economy. For example, the increase in tourism-related consumption of local cultural goods and services on Aruba’s economy may lead to a demand from other industries that are used for production of the original event-related products.

The results of the estimation of the economic impact based on the I-O model should be prefaced with a caveat. The assumption of a linear relationship between inputs and outputs has its limitations, because it assumes away externalities and increasing or decreasing returns to scale. Despite this shortcoming, the I-O model has value in its descriptive analytical power, because it addresses potential opportunities in enhancement of income and the multiplication of jobs. Therefore, this model may be used to determine the total impact that the cultural tourists survey participants have on the Aruba economy.

For example, the increase in tourism-related consumption of local cultural goods and services on Aruba’s economy may lead to a demand from other industries used for production of the original event-related products. However, not all increase in demand will turn into benefits for the economy; some increases may also generate leakage. A leakage of 0.382 was estimated based on the total Keynesian multiplier. The leakage was estimated based on the formula 1 − Total Keynesian Multiplier. The data were collected from the tourist satellite accounts of Aruba from the World Travel and Tourism Council.

Results

Demographic Traits of Cultural Tourists

The sample size included 386 departing international tourists at the Reina Beatrix International Airport. The international tourists were from Brazil, Canada, Colombia, The Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles, United States, and Venezuela. The respondents’ profile indicated that 47% of tourists were men and 53% were women. Tourists were drawn from a wide range of age-groups, with 29% being younger than years, whereas 26% were between 40 and 50 years old. However, the majority of tourists were younger than 50 years, whereas 44% were older than 50 years. Respondents have relatively high incomes, as almost half of the sample had incomes above US$50,000.00 (Table 1). With regard to the travel habits of tourists, the majority of the visitors had visited Aruba multiple times (60%) while the remainder had visited Aruba only for the first time. The overwhelming majority of tourists (80%) spent between 1 and 9 nights in Aruba whereas 17% spent between 10 and 19 nights during their stay, and 2% spent more than 20 nights on the island. This indicates that tourists to Aruba are not short-stay visitors, which is evidenced by the average length of stay of more than 1 week; more specifically, 7.8 nights with a standard deviation of 3.8.

Table 1

Cultural Tourist Demographic Information

	Sightseeing (%)	Serendipitous (%)	Purposeful (%)	Incidental (%)	Casual (%)
Origin (N = 380)
Brazil	1	1	0	0	0
Canada	1	1	1	0	1
Colombia	0	0	0	0	1
Netherlands	3	0	2	0	1
Netherlands Antilles	0	1	1	0	1
Other	1	3	2	0	1
United States	26	24	9	3	7
Venezuela	3	2	1	1	2

Previous visit (N = 380)
2-5 times	10	6	4	1	3
6 times and up	9	11	8	3	6
First	17	14	4	1	4

Age in years (N = 380)
20-29	6	4	1	0	1
30-39	6	6	3	0	2
40-49	9	8	4	1	4
50-64	11	8	5	2	4
≥65 years	4	5	2	1	1

Salary in US$ (N = 380)
<20,000	2	1	0	0	2
≥100,001	7	8	1	1	2
20,001-30,000	2	1	0	0	1
30,001-50,000	6	7	4	1	3
50,001-75,000	13	10	5	1	2
≥75,001	6	3	4	0	3

Length of stay in days (N = 380)
≥20	1	0	1	0	0
10-19	3	4	4	1	4
1-9	32	28	10	3	9

Cultural Typologies

The profile of the cultural tourist was clearly narrowed by including the travel purpose in the measurement criterion. It was revealed that only about one in seven tourists indicated that the opportunity to learn something about Aruba’s culture or heritage was the main reason to visit. This “specific cultural tourist” accounts for a little more than 124,000 tourists who visited the island in 2008 (15%). The results are similar to McKercher and du Cros (2002) in Hong Kong (13.4%) and to Binkhorst (2007) in the case of Sitges (Spain), where 15% of the tourists identified culture as their main reason to visit. These results corroborate McKercher’s (2004) claim that only a small percentage is represented by the purposeful tourist. The other types of tourists descend in order of magnitude, respectively: serendipitous cultural tourists, 36%; incidental cultural tourists, 32%; sightseeing tourists, 13%; and casual cultural tourists, 4%. Applying the McKercher’s typology of cultural tourists to the case of Aruba reveals the following (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Cultural Tourist Typology for Aruba

The results further indicate that 68% of all cultural tourists in Aruba could be classified as serendipitous and incidental, suggesting that cultural motives played a little role in their purpose for visiting Aruba. However, while at the destination, these two segments, especially the serendipitous cultural tourists, would engage in cultural learning experiences. On the other hand, the sightseeing cultural tourists represent 13% and while entertaining cultural motives, their experiences reflect limited learning opportunities.

The results also indicate that the farther tourists traveled, the higher the proportion of tourists who were seeking cultural experiences. Tourists from the Netherlands were more likely to travel to Aruba for cultural reasons than visitors from the United States and Latin America (Venezuela, Colombia, and Brazil in descending order). Tourists from Latin America in general were less likely to visit Aruba for cultural purposes. Only 6% of the Latin travelers indicated that the main purpose for visiting Aruba was to learn something about Aruba’s culture, compared with 11.5% from the United States and 29.1% from the Netherlands. These findings suggest that cultural distance may influence participation in international cultural tourism thereby confirming the claim from McKercher and Chow (2001) and Goeldner and Ritchie (2012).

In terms of the sociodemographics and trip variables, incidental and casual cultural tourists were less likely to spend more time than the purposeful cultural tourists. In general, the former spent about 6.35 nights on average on the island. About 58% of the incidental and casual cultural tourists are younger than 50 years whereas the purposeful cultural tourists were more likely to be older. The purposeful cultural tourists (48.6% earned more than US$50,000) had a higher income (40.2% earned more than US$50,000) than the incidental and casual cultural tourists.

Participation in Cultural Activities

Table 2 illustrates that all respondents participated in at least one cultural activity at some time during their stay in Aruba. The degree and scope of participation varied widely among the respondents. While in Aruba, the overwhelming majority of respondents engaged in beach and shopping activities. Gastronomy, visiting historic sites, and visiting or participating in cultural events appeared in descending order as the most likely activities that the tourists engaged in during their stay. Thirty-six percent of the respondents visited a restaurant with a local cuisine, 36% visited historic sites, and 22% visited museums, art galleries, festivals, and sites of architectural significance. The purposeful cultural tourists were more likely to visit a restaurant with a local cuisine (about one in two), a little more than one in two were more likely to visit a historic site, and more than 8 in 10 were likely to visit or participate in some sort of cultural site, activity, or event compared with the casual and incidental tourists. However, the findings suggest a high degree of dispersion of tourists among different cultural attractions, such as gastronomy, historic sites, and the traditional cultural attractions.

Table 2

Sites Visited by Cultural Tourist Typologies

Site	Sightseeing (%)	Serendipitous (%)	Purposeful (%)	Incidental (%)	Casual (%)
Beaches	36	32	16	4	13
Shopping malls	36	30	15	4	14
Center of Oranjestad	36	29	16	4	14
North Coast	33	18	30	2	18
San Nicolas	29	19	29	4	19
Gastronomy	36	29	20	5	10
Rock formations	33	13	31	4	20
Island tours	45	22	18	1	13
National park (Arikok)	35	13	29	4	19
Historical sites, Franse Pas	39	19	26	3	14
Museums, galleries, festivals	30	4	52	3	10

For the purposeful segment, the visiting of museums, galleries, and festivals were the most engaged activities (M = 52%), whereas beaches, shopping, and sightseeing were less appealing activities to this segment (M = 16%, 15%, and 18%, respectively). The sightseeing tourist, on the other hand, appeared more interested in island touring (M = 45%), historical sites (M = 39%), gastronomy (M = 36%), as well as the usual tourist behaviors manifested in beaches (M = 36%), and shopping (M = 36%). The serendipitous tourist was more interested in beaches (M = 32%), shopping (M =30%), gastronomy (M = 29%) combined with some interest in island tours (M = 22%), and historic sites (M = 19%). The incidental tourist appeared somewhat interested in the natural landscape as manifested in the visit to rock formations (M = 20%), the national park (M = 19%), the rugged north coast (M = 18%), and some modest interest in cultural attractions, such as visiting San Nicolas (M = 19%). Finally, the incidental tourist manifested little interest in visiting any cultural attractions while on the island. The results are consistent with McKercher’s (2002) typology in terms of the depth of the experience while on the island.

The participation in activities reveals that cultural tourists visiting Aruba spend considerable less time in formalized cultural environments such as museums, galleries, and historic buildings. Except for the purposeful cultural tourists, who seem to spend a great deal of their time at museums and historic sites, other cultural types spend more time shopping and dining. For example, the incidental cultural tourists spend more time shopping and dining than visiting museums, galleries, and historic sites. In addition, the cultural tourists roam all over the destination from the beach, to the downtown area, to the national natural park, to the caves, to the far eastern part of the island, and the town of San Nicolas.

The cultural experience for these tourists seems to stem more from their observation and interactional aspects with the host culture in the form of everyday life, practices, and behaviors. Everyday life experiences appear to generate tourist excitement for the Aruba product, as witnessed by the high incidence of repeat visitation of more than 60% according to the results of the study.

Perception of Aruba as a Cultural Destination

More than 7 in 10 visitors perceived Aruba as a destination rich in culture, heritage, and history, or as unique in culture (Table 3). Unfortunately, the survey did not provide the opportunity for respondents to specify the attributes that make Aruba’s culture unique. The reference of “unique” is a surprising finding for two reasons. First, there was a clear consensus among participants in the aforementioned focus groups indicating that Aruba lacks a unique culture, which is in sharp contrast to what tourists perceived about Aruba. Second, as Aruba is not richly endowed with “traditional” cultural attractions (i.e., museums, galleries, or monuments), one could speculate that the respondents were characterizing Aruba’s culture as the ordinary and everyday. This speculation is based on the current global trend to identify the realities of cultural change as an authentic interaction and engagement with the locals. Not surprisingly, the purposeful cultural tourists indicated the strongest position about Aruba’s unique cultural features when compared with the other segments.

Table 3

Perception of Aruba as a Cultural Destination

Perception	Sightseeing (%)	Serendipitous (%)	Purposeful %)	Incidental (%)	Casual (%)
Little unique culture, history, or heritage	9	17	0	0	1
Rich in culture, history, and heritage	9	2	13	2	9
Some features that are unique	18	13	3	2	4

The results thus far indicate that the main purpose for traveling to Aruba was vacationing. Cultural tourism seems to play a marginal role in the decision to visit the island. However, the cultural resource seems to play a greater role during the vacation of the tourist. For example, the serendipitous tourist in Aruba represents 36% and although they may be familiar with the local culture, they are surprised at what they experience once they become involved. These tourists were from more culturally distant regions and tended to seek deeper experiences, were younger, stayed about a week, visited Aruba multiple times, and had an income that exceeded $50,000. These cultural tourists constitute a little more than half of the tourists and portrayed a distinct profile in terms of tastes and preferences. Finally, the specific cultural tourists were likely to find Aruba’s culture unique, and they appeared to define culture more in terms of everyday life and the ordinary than the “traditional” cultural attractions.

Assessing the Economic Impact of Cultural Tourism: The Results

The findings reveal two interesting patterns about the tourists visiting Aruba. The first refers to the extent of participation in cultural activities while in Aruba. Respondents indicated that they have participated in at least one cultural activity. These activities range from entertainment, to arts, crafts, photography, books, music, education, and historical sites. The outcome of that participation equals US$23.14 million in direct spending of cultural goods and services (see Table 4). This is equivalent to 2% of the total international receipts in 2008.

Table 4

Analysis of Variance Tukey Honestly Significant Difference Results of Spending

Spending	Mean Difference (I − J)
Serendipitous
Incidental	−13.23
Sightseeing	−46.92*
Casual	−51.15
Purposeful	−131.72**
Incidental
Serendipitous	13.23
Sightseeing	−33.69
Casual	−37.93
Purposeful	−118.49*
Sightseeing
Serendipitous	46.92*
Incidental	33.69
Casual	−4.24
Purposeful	−84.80**
Casual
Serendipitous	51.15
Incidental	37.93
Sightseeing	4.24
Purposeful	−80.56*
Purposeful
Serendipitous	131.72**
Incidental	118.90*
Sightseeing	84.80**
Casual	80.56*
F statistic	13.3**

p < .05. **p < .001.

The second refers to the spending behavior. Cultural tourists to Aruba spent on average per person per trip an amount of US$30.81 on different cultural products and services. The visitor revenues were derived from the total amount of visitors times the average spending per person per trip. The average spending reflects the spending per person over the whole length of stay in Aruba. The purposeful cultural tourist was the highest spender with US$66.61, followed by the casual (US$32.95), sightseeing (US$30.81), serendipitous (US$19.12), and incidental (US$14.62). An analysis of variance test indicated that the spending behavior of the purposeful cultural tourist was significantly different than the other four segments. In addition, the spending behavior of the serendipitous and sightseeing segments was also statistically different.

Considering activities as the determinant for defining the cultural tourists, as the WTO seems to suggest, would indicate that basically all tourists visiting Aruba would correspond to some extent to one of the cultural segments as indicated by McKercher (2002). However, focusing on participation in activities as the determinant for cultural tourists provides little insight in terms of the real motivation to visit Aruba.

The contribution of the cultural tourism segment to the economy of the island includes both the direct effects of economic activities in tourism-related industries as well as the indirect and induced (multiplier) effects that ripple through the local economy (Table 5). Therefore, the roughly US$23.1 million spent by the cultural tourists in the tourism economy generated an additional US$8,931,821 in indirect economic impacts for the island. This is equal to a multiplier of 1.36. The induced effects, on the other hand, generated an additional US$27,362,531 for a multiplier of 2.19. The induced effects were significantly higher than the indirect effects, meaning that the impact is greater in the field of salaries and benefits than in sales for other businesses. The total economic contribution of the cultural tourism segments through the purchase of cultural goods and services amounted to US$59,434,211. The real total impact, which includes the leakage of 0.382, amounts to US$36.2 million.

Table 5

Direct, Indirect, and Induced Impact for all Cultural Tourists

Industry	Direct	Indirect	Induced	Total
Agriculture, hunting, forestry, fishing	0	129,525	62,294	191,819
Mining and quarrying	0	46,156	103	46,259
Manufacturing	0	830,389	737,490	1,567,879
Electricity, gas, refined petroleum products	0	971,046	1,472,779	2,443,825
Construction	4,625,875	502,531	231,902	5,360,308
Wholesale and retail trade	9,761,957	1,799,350	1,683,451	13,244,759
Hotels	4,358,398	78,120	42,020	4,478,538
Restaurants	0	106,265	667,429	773,694
Transport, storage, and communications	0	899,818	1,029,663	1,929,482
Financial intermediaries	0	1,625,417	1,090,605	2,716,022
Other business activities	0	1,636,553	3,624,773	5,261,326
Public administration/social security	4,393,574	155,282	214,617	4,763,527
Education	0	31,283	92,936	124,219
Health and social work	0	13,230	125,144	138,374
Other community social service activities	0	106,855	1,127,039	1,233,894
Households	0	0	15,160,286	15,160,286
Total	23,139,804	8,931,821	27,362,531	59,434,211

Note: All values are in US$. Calculation based on van de Steeg (2009).

The sales patterns also provide an indication of how widely spread cultural tourism is throughout the economy. Multiplier effects denote the linkages in the local economy. Linkages to retail, food and beverages, entertainment and recreation, professional and administrative services, finance and insurance, health and social services, and government have effects throughout the local economy, according to the findings of this study. Both the multipliers were above one, rendering a portion of sales into household income.

Consumption of the Purposeful Cultural Tourist

If the definition of cultural tourists is more narrowly measured, for instance, through the purpose of their visits, and if all the expenditures of this segment of tourists are taken into account, then the total number becomes significant. Fifteen percent of all respondents stated that culture was the main purpose for their visit to Aruba. This is equivalent to an amount of more than 124,000 tourists in 2008 arrivals. The total direct spending including all expenditures, such as accommodation, transportation, restaurants, shopping, entertainment, cultural goods and services, etcetera was estimated at US$245.7 million whereas its total economic contribution was estimated at US$623 million. The multiplier was 2.52 without the leakage; if the leakage is included, the total amount becomes US$385.1 million.

This study compared this segment of cultural tourists with the leisure tourist (85%) visiting Aruba. By estimating the expenditure for each segment separately, we were able to simulate the economic impact for each group. The direct spending of the leisure segment was estimated at US$1,156 million, and it generated a total economic contribution of US$2,965, equivalent to a multiplier of 2.5 (see Table 6). Tourists (both cultural and leisure) spent more than US$41 million on cultural activities and goods, which equals 3% of the total tourism receipts.

Table 6

Spending by Cultural and Leisure Tourist

	Cultural Tourist		Leisure Tourist
Categories	US$	%	US$	%
Cultural spending	12,418,834	5	29,232,052	3
Transportation	18,846,568	8	63,644,741	6
Shopping	29,334,878	12	134,854,530	12
Food	73,303,282	30	263,511,946	23
Other spending	14,461,000	6	94,379,687	8
Accommodation	56,025,237	23	346,330,044	30
Entertainment	23,876,476	10	122,531,884	11
Casino	17,398,828	7	101,850,012	9
Total	245,665,103	100	1,156,334,896	100

This study also included a t test for all spending categories per person per trip in order to test for significant differences in spending behavior. The results revealed a significant difference in cultural spending (t = 5.227), transportation (t = 4.297), and food (t = 4.135). This seems to indicate that cultural tourists spend more on cultural activities and goods, seem to enjoy eating out, and they seem to be more “footloose” around the island—their mobility affording greater opportunity for a full lifestyle experience than the leisure tourist. In addition, the cultural tourist tends to spend 16% more while on the island (US$1,981) compared with the leisure tourist (US$1,645). This result provides support regarding the claim that is made in literature that the cultural tourist is more likely to spend more money than a leisure tourist.

Conclusions

McKercher’s (2002) typology seems limited in its application to a small island destination, such as Aruba. The typology is imputed in consideration of the tourists’ behavior exhibited in their chosen cultural activities at the destination. These activities may assist in the determination of the role that culture may play in the destination choice process of a tourist. However, the typology does not allow for one to conclude whether the tourists entertain a perception of themselves as cultural tourists. In other words, although the tourist may be involved with all kinds of cultural activities while on vacation, the tourist may not consider himself as a cultural tourist. As McKercher’s typology did not require direct queries to the tourists about the purpose of their visit to a destination, it was revealed that by not asking the purpose of their trip the ability to quantify the economic significance of this segment for a small island destination could be clouded.

In addition, the typology seems to consider only activities that are heritage based. Cultural heritage does not seem to be a strong element in the choice of tourists visiting Aruba. This finding seems inconsistent with the assumption that preserving heritage is good policy for tourism development. Cultural tourism as defined by tourists who explicitly manifest culture as the main purpose of their visit appears much smaller as a segment compared with other types of tourism, such as beach tourism. Cuccia and Cellini (2007) found a similar result in their study of tourists visiting Scicli, a Sicilian town in Italy. What seems more relevant in the Aruban context is the promotion of culture as experiencing the everyday life in Aruba. The findings suggest that tourists perceive the everyday life experience as unique thereby providing Aruba with an opportunity for distinctiveness and authenticity. Authenticity has become an important element in tourism consumption (Ramkissoon & Uysal, 2010).

But defining distinctiveness as everyday life is challenging in the Aruban context. Everyday life encounters are spontaneous and ad hoc and therefore are very difficult to manage and coordinate. Managing heritage as real estate and history seems less complex than managing narratives emanating from everyday life. The government, for example, may have less control over the making of these narratives and behavior. And, the coordination efforts of the government or the destination management organization may be exacerbated by the “footloose” tourist who roams the island encountering various practices and behaviors that could affect the image of the island. In addition, culture as everyday life may run counter to the perception of culture as tradition and historic—as might be the perception of stakeholders in the focus group meeting. The meaning of culture as something related to tradition and past is also confirmed by the 2003 Tourist Framework (Cole & Razak, 2009). Culture in this sense may be viewed as preserving something related to history and not referencing the dynamic pressures for change and permutations in everyday cultural activities and lifestyles.

In the case of Aruba, the overarching theme in the discussion with local stakeholders during the focus groups was their keen desire to identify what is culturally distinguishable from other small island destinations. The local character of distinguishable cultural traits identified by the stakeholders seems related to time and memory, thereby colliding with the notion of culture as entertained by tourists consuming the Aruban product. Whereas the Aruban stakeholders seem to emphasize the preservation and enhancement of space (monuments, historic buildings, natural landscapes), the tourists seem to be more interested in the human interaction and the context of space itself. The reason seems to be that culture is a dynamic concept imbued with constant negotiations within a constantly changing context. The role of the past in defining the self as an imposed interpretation of what is authentic Aruban style in some a priori form seems to collide with the relevance of the everyday life as the most appealing trait of authenticity of the local culture. Surely, if the everyday life shapes the notion of distinctiveness and possibly defines authenticity in the local context, then Aruba may be restraining itself from creatively making culture an utilizable resource for future development.

These inconsistent characterizations may have diminished the role that cultural tourism could have played in the reinvention strategy in the context of Aruba possibly squandering opportunities to increase spending on the island. While tourists seem to consider everyday life practices and behaviors the cornerstone of Aruba’s uniqueness, Aruba has spent millions of dollars during the past decade to preserve and conserve the past. This policy followed the concerns articulated in the 2003 Tourist Framework, which are based on tangible artifacts, traditions, and history. Conserving and preserving the past clearly seems to enjoy political currency. However, these aspects of cultural tourism seem less critical in shaping the tourist experience according to the findings of this study. It appears that the experience of shopping, eating, drinking, and so on may be more critical in determining the distinctiveness of Aruba as a destination and hence plays a more significant role in the level of satisfaction and spending behaviors of the tourists.

Aruba may have missed an opportunity to enhance the overall value of its product and its competitiveness. This missed opportunity comes at a moment when the level of tourist spending is becoming a concern. Tourist spending appears to be stagnating over the past decade. For example, real spending per arrival has been relatively stagnant the past 10 years. In 2000, the real spending per arrival was US$2,003.47, compared with US$1,927.94 in 2010. Examination of the past decade reveals that Aruba has experienced a slight decrease of 0.3%. Aruba saw a real increase per arrival until 2006 (US$2,255.36) and after that a continuous slide of real spending per arrival.

This stagnation may compromise the success of Aruba’s tourism specialization strategy in the future. Despite the fact that increasing arrivals have induced higher levels of imports (a 4.5% annual rate increase over the past 25years), tourism specialization thus far has been growth enhancing (real annual economic growth is 2.6% over the past 25 years) while combining with a very high human development index (0.901; Croes, 2011). Tourism specialization in Aruba is also slowly diversifying its economy. The diversification in the economy is manifested in a decreasing leakage factor from 41% in 1996 to 38.2% in 2011. Tourism spending is closely correlated with growth, human development, and economic diversification in the case of Aruba. Determining means and methods for Aruba to increase this spending is strategically critical for the future of this small island destination.

The practical implications of this study are that small island destinations should include in their immigration cards the option of culture as a main purpose to visit along with the traditional options, such as vacation, business, and visiting friends and relatives. In addition, this study clearly indicates that there may be potential for the production of cultural tourism attractions and activities in offering tourists access to the everyday life. There is where the tourists’ curiosity seems to peak. If this were to be the case, then it seems that cultural tourists could indeed be the next frontier for Aruba. Future research should more closely investigate the meaning and economic value of the everyday life in the context of a small island destination.

Footnotes

Robertico Croes, PhD (E-mail: robertico.croes@ucf.edu), serves as the Chair of the Tourism, Events & Attractions Department and the Associate Director of the Dick Pope Sr. Institute for Tourism Studies at the Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Kelly J. Semrad, PhD (E-mail: ksemrad@hhp.ufl.edu) is the Associate Director of the Eric Friedheim Tourism Institute and an Assistant Professor at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

References

Armstrong

De Kervenoael

Read

. (1998). A comparison of economic performance of different micro-states and larger countries. World Development, 26, 639-656.

Ayres

. (2002). Cultural tourism in small-island states: Contradictions and ambiguities. In Apostolopoulos

Gayle

(Eds.), Island tourism and sustainable development: Caribbean, Pacific, and Mediterranean experiences (pp. 145-160). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Binkhorst

. (2007). Creativity in tourism experiences, the case of Sitges. In Richards

Wilson

(Eds.), Tourism, creativity and development (pp. 124-144). London, England: Routledge.

Brau

Lanza

Pigliaru

. (2003). How fast are the tourist countries growing? The cross-country evidence (FEEM Working Paper Series, 85[2003]).

Briguglio

Archer

Jafari

Wall

. (1996). Sustainable tourism in islands and small states: Issues and policies. London, England: Pinter.

Cameron

Gatewood

. (2008). Beyond sun, sand and sea: The emergent tourism programme in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 3, 55-73.

Cole

Razak

(2003). A framework for sustainable tourism in Aruba. Prepared for the National Tourism Council of Aruba and the Minister of Tourism and Transportation. Oranjestad, Aruba.

Cole

Razak

. (2009). How far, and how fast? Population, culture, and carrying capacity in Aruba. Futures, 41, 414-425.

Craigwell

. (2007). Tourism competitiveness in small island developing states (World Institute for Development Economics Research, Research Paper No. 2007/19).

10.

Croes

. (2006). A paradigm shift to a new strategy for small island economies: Embracing demand side economics for value enhancement and long terms economic stability. Tourism Management, 27, 453-465.

11.

Croes

. (2010). Anatomy of international demand: The case of Aruba. Saarbrucken, Germany: Lambert Academic.

12.

Croes

. (2011). Measuring and explaining competitiveness in the context of small island destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 50, 431-442.

13.

Cuccia

Cellini

. (2007). Is cultural heritage really important for tourists? A contingent rating study. Applied Economics, 39, 261-271.

14.

Dolnicar

. (2002). Activity-based market sub-segmentation of cultural tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 9, 94-105.

15.

Girard

Nijkamp

. (2009). Cultural tourism and sustainable local development. Surrey, England: Ashgate.

16.

Goeldner

Ritchie

. (2012). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

17.

Hara

. (2008). Quantitative tourism industry analysis. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.

18.

Hernandez-Martin

. (2008). Structural change and economic growth in small island tourism countries. Tourism and Hospitality Planning & Development, 5, 1-12.

19.

Herrero

Sanz

Devesa

Bedate

del Barrio

. (2006). The economic impact of cultural events: A case-study of Salamanca 2002, European capital of culture. European Urban and Regional Studies, 13, 41-57.

20.

Hughes

. (2002). Culture and tourism: A framework for further analysis. Managing Leisure, 7, 164-175.

21.

Jayawardena

Ramajeesingh

. (2003). Performance of tourism analysis: A Caribbean perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15, 176-179.

22.

Kantanen

Tikkanen

. (2005). Advertising in low and high involvement cultural tourism attractions: Four cases. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6, 99-110.

23.

Linneken

. (1997). Consuming cultures: Tourism and commoditization of cultural identity in the islands in the Pacific. In Picard

Wood

(Eds.), Tourism, ethnicity and the state in Asian and pacific societies (pp. 215-251). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

24.

McKercher

. (2002). Towards a classification of cultural tourists. International Journal of Tourism Research, 4, 29-38.

25.

McKercher

. (2004). A comparative study of international cultural tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 11, 95-107.

26.

McKercher

Chow

. (2001). Cultural distance and cultural tourism participation. Pacific Tourism Review, 5(1/2), 21-30.

27.

McKercher

du Cros

. (2002). Cultural tourism: The partnership between tourism and cultural heritage management. New York, NY: Hayworth Hospitality Press.

28.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). The impact of culture on tourism. Paris, France: Author.

29.

Ramkissoon

Uysal

. (2010). Testing the role of authenticity in cultural tourism consumption: A case of Mauritius. Tourism Analysis, 15, 571-583.

30.

Richards

. (1996). Production and consumption of European cultural tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 261-283.

31.

Richards

. (2007). Cultural tourism, global and local perspectives. New York, NY: Haworth Hospitality Press.

32.

Richards

Wilson

. (2007). Tourism, creativity and development. London, England: Routledge.

33.

Romer

. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 3-22.

34.

Silberberg

. (1995). Cultural tourism and business opportunities for museums and heritage sites. Tourism Management, 16, 361-365.

35.

Smith

Robinson

. (2006). Cultural tourism in a changing world, politics, participation and presentation. Clevedon, England: Channel View.

36.

Snowball

. (2008). Measuring the value of culture: Methods and examples in cultural economics. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

37.

Soper

. (2007). Developing Mauritiunnes: National identity, cultural heritage values and tourism. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 2, 94-109.

38.

Srinivasan

. (1986). The costs and benefits of being a small, remote, island, Landlocked or Mini-state economy. World Bank Research Observer, 1, 205-218.

39.

Streeten

. (1993). The special problems of small countries. World Development, 21, 197-202.

40.

Stylianou-Lambert

. (2011). Gazing from home: Cultural tourism and art museums. Annals of Tourism, 38, 403-421.

41.

Timothy

Nyaupane

. (2009). Cultural heritage and tourism in developing world. London, England: Routledge.

42.

Travel Industry Association. (2003). The historic/cultural traveler. Washington, DC: Author.

43.

Tunbridge

. (2002). Large heritage waterfronts on small tourist islands: The case of the Royal naval Dockyard, Bermuda. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8, 41-51.

44.

Vallega

. (2007). The role of culture in island sustainability development. Ocean and Coastal Management, 50(5-6), 279-300.

45.

Vander Stoep

. (2004). Challenges of estimating and using economic impacts for cultural tourism. In Proceedings of the 2004 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, GTR-NE-326 (pp. 109-117). Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2005/326papers/vanderstoep326.pdf

46.

van

Steeg

. (2009). Accounting for tourism, the tourism satellite account in perspective. The Hague, Netherlands: University of Groningen.

47.

Weaver

. (1995). Alternative tourism in Montserrat. Tourism Management, 16, 593-604.

48.

World Tourism Organization. (2005). City tourism and culture: The European experience. A report of the World Organization and of the research group of the European Travel Commission. Madrid, Spain: Author.

49.

World Tourism Organization. (2011). Facts and figures. Retrieved from http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/IT&TR.htm