Research Note
Is International Tourism Growth Supported
by Increased Tourism Receipts?
Helena Nemec Rudež
University of Primorska, Faculty of Tourism Studies – Turistica, Slovenia
helena.nemec@fts.upr.si
Tourism demand growth during the period between 2000 and 2016 in 25 European
countries is calculated using different tourism indicators. It is shown that the number
of tourist arrivals and aggregate tourism receipts increase during the period. Tourism
receipts per arrival at current prices show a slight increase in themajority of selected
countries, while tourism receipts per arrival at constant prices more or less stagnate,
ranging from –2 to +2, and even exhibit sharper decrease in some countries of
Southern and Eastern Europe. It can be concluded that tourism growth is predom-
inantly fueled by the increasing number of tourist arrivals and not by receipts per
tourist arrival.
Keywords: international tourism, demand growth, European countries
https://doi.org/10.26493/2335-4194.13.153-156
Introduction
There are plenty of data reports highlighting the re-
markable growth of tourism demand worldwide and
discussing the challenges and issues related to tourism
expansion. Since there is plenty of literature in the field
of tourism demand (for instance, Dogru et al., 2017;
Peng et al., 2014; Song et al., 2012) and the tourism in-
dustry is one of the most important industries nowa-
days, generating an important share of gdp and ex-
port in many countries, the concept of tourism de-
mand growth should be understood properly. There
are various indicators used to measure it in the liter-
ature (for instance, Crouch, 1994; Lim, 1997; Li et al.,
2005; Song et al., 2010), finding that the number of
tourist arrivals is the most-used indicator of tourism
demand in academic papers, followed by tourism re-
ceipts; on the other hand, the average length of stay
and the number of overnight stays are rarely used.
Indeed, from the suppliers’ viewpoint, the number
of tourist arrivals is relevant for transport suppliers
and tourist attractions, while the number of overnight
stays is obviously more relevant for accommodation
facilities. As tourism receipts are important for the
country’s economy, tourist receipts per arrival give
additional information on tourists’ spending during
their stay and price level.
Sheldon (1993 in Song et al., 2010) and Garcia-
Ferrer and Queralt (1997 in Song et al., 2010) high-
lighted the difference between the growth in interna-
tional tourist arrivals and the growth in international
tourism receipts. Looking at quantitative tourism in-
dicators (World Tourism Organization, 2018), fluc-
tuations in their values are expressed in short-term
periods, while steady long-term growth is observed.
The increase in physical indicators (number of arrivals
and overnight stays) that is higher than the increase in
tourism receipts in the long-run period underlies ori-
entation of tourismdemand towards low cost products
(such as budget accommodations and low-cost travel)
along with the boost of sharing economy providers,
promotion sales and sharp competition causing the
prices to drop.
There arises a question why tourism demand is in-
creasing – is the reason only in the higher number of
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 153
Helena Nemec Rudež International Tourism Growth
tourist arrivals or do tourists really spend more? In
times when academics, managers and tourism plan-
ners are discussing tourismgrowth at length, the paper
attempts to assess the quantitative changes in tourism
growth in 25 selected countries across Europe which
still has the highest share of international tourists in
the world.
Methodology and Data Sources
The research deals with 25 selected European coun-
tries during the 17-year period between 2000 and 2016
in order to research average annual growth rates of
tourism indicators. For this reason the following an-
nual data for the 25 European countries were gathered
separately: (a) the number of international arrivals, (b)
international tourism receipts for travel items (in usd,
current prices) (see http://dataworldbank.org) and, (c)
gdp deflator (2010 = 100) for usd (see http://www
.imf.org), in order to get changes in tourism export at
constant prices. Based on these data, the following in-
dicators were used for further analysis for each coun-
try:
• The number of international arrivals;
• Tourism export (at current prices)1 represented
by international tourism receipts for travel items
(in usd, current prices);
• Tourism export per international arrival (at cur-
rent prices) which is calculated by dividing tour-
ism export (in usd, current prices) by the num-
ber of international arrivals;
• Tourism export per international arrival (at con-
stant prices) which is calculated by dividing tour-
ismexport (in usd, constant prices)2 by the num-
ber of international arrivals.
Sixteen annual growth rate coefficients (ri; where i
stands for 2, 3, . . . , 17) were calculated for each of the
four indicators for each country as follows:
1 Data for international arrivals for Denmark between 2000
and 2004 are adapted using average annual growth rate be-
tween 2005 and 2016.
2 Tourism export at constant prices in usd (tereal) is cal-
culated using tourism export at current prices in usd
(tenominal) and usd gdp deflator (2010 = 100) as follows:
tereal = tenominal/(usd gdp deflator/100).
ri =
value in year n
value in year n − 1 , (1)
where n represents 2, 3, . . . , 17.
Based on sixteen annual growth rate coefficients
(ri), the average annual growth rate coefficient (r) was
compounded for each of the four indicators for 25
countries separately. The following equation was used:
r = 16
√
r2 × r3 × · · · × r17. (2)
Findings
Looking at Table 1, the number of international tourist
arrivals has increased the most in Iceland (11.8) dur-
ing the period between 2000 and 2016 whereas in
Poland it has remained more or less at the same level.
Thus, average annual growth rate was positive in all
25 countries. Besides Poland, very low average annual
growth rate in the number of tourist arrivals is found
in mature destinations, like France (0.4) and Bel-
gium (0.9). Higher growth rate, around 1 on aver-
age, is detected in Western countries, like Denmark
(1.1) and Italy (1.5). In contrast, average annual
growth rate of international tourist arrivals is higher
in Turkey (7.5) and in some Eastern European coun-
tries that represent emerging markets, like Estonia
(6.1), Latvia (8.2) and Slovenia (6.6). Since these
are countries with lower purchasing power along with
lower price levels compared to the Western European
countries, we can assume that price competitiveness
of Turkey and Eastern European countries might have
played a vital role in attracting tourists.
Receipts of foreign tourists are measured by tour-
ism export. The average annual growth rates of tour-
ism export by selected country are shown in Table 1.
The lowest growth rate of tourism receipts is found
in a mature destination – France (1.6). The high-
est ones were found in Iceland (15.9) and two East-
ern European countries. In addition, compared to the
growth rate of international tourist arrivals, interna-
tional tourism receipts have grown faster in the ma-
jority of countries researched (with the exception of
Slovenia, Hungary, Greece and Turkey).
Besides aggregate measures, the tourism demand
per arrival gives better information about an aver-
age tourist’s consumption behaviour. International
154 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020
Helena Nemec Rudež International Tourism Growth
Table 1 Average Annual Growth Rate Coefficients of
International Tourist Arrivals, Tourism Export at
Current Prices, Tourism Export per Arrival at
Current and Constant Prices in Selected European
Countries during the Period between 2000–2016
Country () () () ()
Austria . . . .
Belgium . . . .
Czech Republic . . . .
Denmark . . . .
Estonia . . . .
Finland . . . .
France . . . .
Germany . . . .
Greece . . . .
Hungary . . . .
Iceland . . . .
Ireland . . . .
Italy . . . .
Latvia . . . .
Luxembourg . . . .
Netherlands . . . .
Norway . . . .
Poland . . . .
Portugal . . . .
Slovakia . . . .
Slovenia . . . .
Spain . . . .
Sweden . . . .
Turkey . . . .
uk . . . .
Notes Column headings are as follows: (1) average annual
growth rate coefficient of international tourist arrivals, (2)
average annual growth rate coefficient of tourism export
(current prices), (3) average annual growth rate coefficient
of tourism export per international arrival (current prices),
(4) average annual growth rate coefficient of tourism export
per international arrival (constant prices 2010 = 100).
tourism receipts per arrival (at current prices) perform
a positive but modest average annual growth rate in 21
out of 25 countries during the period between 2000
and 2016. The highest one is perceived in Slovakia
with an average annual increase of 7.8, followed by
Luxemburg, Poland and Latvia with an increase be-
tween 4.0 and 4.3. In Slovenia, Turkey, Greece and
Hungary average annual growth rate of international
tourism receipts per arrival is less than 1, confirming
that receipts per arrival have been decreasing in four
out of 25 countries during this period.
By removing the impact of price changes, interna-
tional tourism receipts per arrival at constant prices
reveal real changes in tourism receipts per arrival
over time. It has ranged between 2 to + 2 in the
majority of 25 countries. Further, Greece, Hungary
and Slovenia were confronted with a negative average
annual growth rate of international tourism receipts
per arrival at constant prices between –2 and –3,
whereas Luxemburg, Latvia and Poland have reached
the one between +2 and +2.3. The strongest nega-
tive growth rate in receipts per tourist arrival in real
terms was found in Turkey (below 3) and the highest
positive one in Slovakia (above 5).
Concluding Remarks
International tourism growth is fueled by the increas-
ing number of foreign tourist arrivals as well as by in-
ternational tourism receipts, but tourism receipts per
arrival more or less stagnate. However, there are dif-
ferences between countries. The highest difference be-
tween the average annual growth rate of the number of
tourist arrivals and the average annual growth rate of
tourism receipts at constant prices is found in Turkey,
followed by Iceland and Slovenia. On the other hand,
Poland, Slovakia and Luxemburg have had an even
slightly higher average annual rate of tourism receipts
at constant prices than that of tourist arrivals; both av-
erage annual growth rates are also practically equal in
Denmark.
It can be derived from this that some countries
have not succeeded in attracting tourists who spend
more money during their stay, probably due to the
increased level of competition. In other words, the in-
creased number of international tourist arrivals re-
lated to mass tourism is not reflected in substantive
additional receipts per tourist. It can be explained in
two ways. Firstly, low-cost business models (such as
Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020 | 155
Helena Nemec Rudež International Tourism Growth
low-cost airlines, budget accommodation) and fierce
competition among traditional suppliers as well as
the sharing economy suppliers (in the field of accom-
modation, dining, travel guiding, transport) lead to a
price decrease and, in turn, a decline in international
tourism receipts per arrival. Secondly, the decreasing
average length of overnight stays in line with the trend
of travelling more times a year for a shorter period of
time has probably had an impact on the growth rate of
international tourism receipts per tourist arrival.
Further research could identify the reasons why
the growth rate of international tourist arrivals out-
paces the growth rate of international tourism receipts
per tourist in real terms, how is it related to pric-
ing strategies and what, consequently, are the percep-
tions and attitudes of residents towards tourists. Ad-
ditional research could be extended to the overnight
stays’ growth rate in order to give additional knowl-
edge about how international tourism receipts per
overnight stay change.
The limitation of the study is that the growth of in-
ternational tourism receipts is calculated per arrival as
a unit and not per overnight stay, giving somewhat dif-
ferent results, especially for countries with a longer av-
erage period of stay. An additional limitation is that
only international tourism is analysed. Moreover, it is
worth noting that tourism export data use usd, en-
abling some exchange rate distortions in time series
due to exchange rate fluctuations. The analysis is ori-
ented towards demand in the European region where
tourism demand is growing slower than in other re-
gions, so the findings cannot be generalised world-
wide.
References
Crouch, G. I. (1994). The study of international tourism de-
mand: A survey of practice. Journal of Travel Research,
32(4), 41–55.
Dogru, T., Sirakaya-Turk, E., &Crouch, G. I. (2017). Remod-
eling international tourismdemand:Old theory and new
evidence. Tourism Management, 60, 47–55.
Garcia-Ferrer, A., & Queralt, R. A. (1997). A note on fore-
casting international tourism demand in Spain. Interna-
tional Journal of Forecasting, 13(4), 539–549.
Li, G., Song,H., &Witt, S., F. (2005). Recent developments in
econometric modeling and forecasting. Journal of Travel
Research, 44(1), 82–99.
Lim,C. (1997). Review of international tourismdemand.An-
nals of Tourism Research, 24(4), 835–849.
Peng, B., Song, H., & Crouch, G. I. (2014). A meta-analysis
of international demand forecasting and implications for
practice. Tourism Management, 45(1), 181–193.
Sheldon, P. J. (1993). Forecasting tourism: Expenditures ver-
sus arrivals. Journal of Travel Research, 32(1), 13–20.
Song, H., Dwyer, L., Li, G., & Cao, Z. (2012). Tourism eco-
nomics research: A review and assessment. Annals of
Tourism Research, 39(3), 1653–1682.
Song, H., Li, G., Witt, S. H., & Fei, B. (2010). Tourism de-
mand modeling and forecast: How should demand be
measured? Tourism Economics, 16(1), 63–81.
WorldTourismOrganization. (2018). unwto TourismHigh-
lights.
156 | Academica Turistica, Year 13, No. 2, December 2020