The Economic Impact of Cruise

The Economic Impact of Cruise

16 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 The Economic Impact of Cruise Tourism on Jamaica Gregory L. Chase and David L. McKee Cruise tourism As part of an export-based development cruise tourism can benefit a country by increasing or improving foreign exchange earnings, profit and taxes, employment, externalities, terms of trade, and economies of scale (Dwyer & Forsyth, 1998). In addition, cruise tourism requires less infrastructure compared to stopover tourism at a tourist destination (McKee, 1998). Cruise tourism does not need large tourist facilities with high costs, such as hotels that sit idle in the off-season (McKee, 1988).

Leakages of tourist expenditures present a problem to cruise destinations. Leakages consist of tourist revenue flowing out of the country in which it was spent. The main sources of leakages are consumer goods (especially food and drink), repatriation of profits, overseas promotional expenses and amortisation of external debt (UN Commission on Sustainable Development, 1996). If the income from tourism goes to people who reside outside of the country, instead of residents, the benefits of tourism are small (Baaijens, Injkamp & Van Montfort, 1997). Cruise tourism has been criticised for imposing local costs without compensating benefits.

Cruise passenger spending is directed towards shopping where local content is low (KMPG Peat Marwick, 1996).

To maximise benefits the ports of calls need to be concerned with the local content of goods and services provided to cruise tourists (Mammozadeh & McKee, 1994) just as with any other type of tourist. Nations that wish to increase the economic impact of cruise tourists need to increase their per capita expenditures or increase the number of arrivals. In addition, cruise tourism can increase land based Abstract Tourism is the largest industry in the world and cruise tourism has been the fastest growing sector of this industry for the past twenty years (World Tourism Organization, 1998; Wood, 2000).

This growth in cruise tourism is expected to continue into the future as only a small proportion of the population who have the resources to take a cruise have done so (Dickinson & Vladimir, 1997).

Although cruise tourism can increase economic activity in a nation, there still may be a net cost to an economy rather than a net benefit. Cruise expenditures can increase overall output in an economy, but the increased costs of factor inputs may cause these expenditures to be less than the increased cost of the factor inputs (Dwyer & Forsyth, 1998; Grassel, 1999). Smaller island destinations may incur costs, which are relatively more substantial (McKee, 1998). In this investigation Jamaica will be examined with an eye to assessing the economic impact that cruise tourism has had upon that particular small island destination.

Gregory L. Chase is Assistant Professor of Economics and Business, Department of Graduate Studies, Loeb-Sullivan School of International Business & Logistics, Maine Maritime Academy, Castine, Maine, U.S.A.

David L. McKee is Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, College of Business Administration, Kent State University, Ohio, U.S.A.

tourism when cruise tourists are impressed by a location on their cruise visit, so they will return as stop-over tourists. The advantage of stopover tourists is that they spend 30 times what a cruise tourist spends (Wise, 1999). Previous studies Literature on the economic impact of cruise ships is practically non-existent (Wood, 2000). What does exist tends to focus on trends, fare structures, or passenger profiles.

However, Barnwell and Boxill (1998) evaluated the economic impact in port and city improvements of tourist facilities for cruise ships and their passengers in Port Royal, Jamaica. Their study looked at supply aspects, by analysing the receipts of the main tourist establishments in Jamaica having direct transactions with tourists. The revenues reported were assumed to represent tourist expenditures in Port Royal, Jamaica. However, Barnwell and Boxill acknowledged problems in their study due to the lack of cooperation, subjective definition of tourist businesses, and not having all receipts considered.

Since 1994 a yearly study by Pricewaterhouse, and more recently Pricewaterhouse Coopers, for the FloridaCaribbean Cruise Association has evaluated the economic impact of cruise tourism on several ports in the Caribbean region. This study is different in that it is the only known study to directly consider spending by the crew of cruise ships in the Caribbean region. The study uses a very limited number of random surveys of cruise ship passengers and crew at each port to determine the total spending on different categories of goods and services at each of these ports. The use of surveys in this manner leads to many possible inaccuracies (Barnwell & Boxill, 1998).

Using a Keynesian multiplier Mamoozadeh (1989) looked at the economic impact of cruise tourism for three jurisdictions in the Caribbean. He found that cruise tourism did not have a significant economic impact on Bermuda and Barbados, but did have a significant positive impact on the Bahamas. However, the cruise industry today is totally different from when Mamoozadeh did his study. To begin with the size of the industry today is about three times what it was then (Cruise Line Industry Association, 2001). In addition, he did not consider leakages in his model. Allowing for leakages of expenditures from an economy makes the Keynesian multiplier more accurate (Archer, 1976; Sinclair & Sutcliffe, 1982).

Model In the existing literature on the evaluation of the economic impact of tourism, the multiplier model tends to be the dominant method of evaluation. The three most commonly used versions of the multiplier model are the computable general equilibrium, input-out, and Keynesian model (see World Tourism Organization, 1999; Archer, 1976; Baaijens, Injkamp & Van Montfort, 1997). This study employs a Keynesian version of the multiplier model to consider the economic impact of cruise tourism for Jamaica. Three different regressions for three different multipliers (government, imports, and investment) were used to evaluate the impact of cruise tourism.

The version of the Keynesian multiplier model employed was taken from McDonald (1997). This model considers leakages from imports, taxes, and savings, while at the same time considering the direct, indirect, and induced spending from an additional unit of spending. The basic Keynesian model as described by McDonald is as follows: Yt = Ct + It + Gt + Xt – Mt (1) And, Ct = co + c1(1- Tt)Yt + et (2) It = io + i1(1- Tt - c1)Yt + st (3) Gt = go + g1TtYt + ut (4) Mt = mo + m1(1 - Tt)Yt + wt (5) Xt = Xt (6) Where, Y = Gross Domestic Product C = Consumption I = Investment G = Government Spending X = Exports M = Imports T = Tax Rate t = Time c1, i1, g1, m1 = Coefficients co, io, go, mo = Intercept terms e, s, u, w = Error terms To consider the impact of cruise tourism three additional variables, cruise tourist expenditures, stopover tourist expenditures, and total tourist expenditures, were added to three different variations of the model.

The first modification of the model considers the impact of cruise expenditures. So that the model becomes: It=i2+i3(1-Tt-c1)Yt+i4CRt+st (7) Gt=g2+g3TtYt+g4CRt+ut (8) Mt=m2+m3(1-Tt)Yt+m4CRt+wt (9) Where, CR = Cruise tourist expenditures i3, i4, g3, g4, m3, m4 = Coefficients i2, g2, m2 = Intercept terms The second modification considers the impact of stopover tourist expenditures. So that the model becomes: It=i5+i6(1-Tt-c1)Yt+i7SOt+st (10) Gt=g5+g6TtYt+g7SOt+ut (11) Mt=m5+m6(1-Tt)Yt+m7SOt+wt(12) Where, SO=Stopover tourist expenditures i6, i7, g6, g7, m6, m7 = Coefficients i5, g5, m5 = Intercept terms THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol.

14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 17

18 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 The third modification includes total tourist expenditures in the model, so that the model becomes: It=i8+i9(1-Tt-c1)Yt+i10ARt+st (13) Gt=g8+g9TtYt+g10ARt+ut (14) Mt=m8+m9(1-Tt)Yt+m10ARt+wt (15) Where, AR = Total tourist expenditures i9,i10, g9,g10, m9, m10= Coefficients i8, g8, m8 = Intercept terms This model considers the economic impact caused by cruise, stopover, and total tourist expenditures. Traditionally, the most important reason for developing a tourism industry is the expected macroeconomic benefit. This model is able to consider a possible improvement in the balance of payments, since it considers increased expenditures from cruise tourism, while taking import leakages into consideration.

It is important to consider the effects on imports with increases in tourism, since an increase in imports expenditures due to tourism may be large enough to trigger a decline in GDP (Grassl, 1999). Data Data for the model were collected from various sources. Data for GDP and the breakdown of the various components of GDP came from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The different tourist expenditures were obtained from the Central Bank of Jamaica, which the Jamaican Tourist Board collected for the different types of tourist expenditures. The collection method was by exit surveys of passengers at airports for stopover tourists, and at the port terminals for cruise ship passengers.

In each month a minimum of 10% of each type of tourist were surveyed to obtain the expenditures data. Individuals indicating they were visiting family or friends were omitted from the results, since they were not considered tourists. In the case of cruise ships, only passengers were surveyed and only those that left the ship. Expenditures included all monies injected into the Jamaican economy by cruise ship passengers (Tourist Expenditure Data is included in Table 1). The data on GDP, the components of GDP, and tourist expenditures were adjusted by the inflation rate, obtained from the IMF, so that all of the values are in constant domestic currency over the period of the study.

The tax rates were obtained from the Inter-American Development bank (2000). Regressions On initial runs of the regressions the Variance Inflationary Factor detected multicollinearity in many of the independent variables. The adjustment made to the data to correct for multicollinearity considered the effect of leakages from the economy in terms of imports as a percent of GDP, which was then subtracted from one. The resulting percent was then multiplied by each of the different types of tourist expenditures and subtracted from them, a procedure employed previously by McElroy and Tinsely (1982).

The tourist expenditure variables in the investment and government multipliers had additional adjustments to the method described above. For the government multipliers the resulting percentage was multiplied by tax revenue as a percent of GDP before subtracting it from the tourist expenditure values, once again employing the method of McElroy and Tinsely (1982). For the investment multipliers the resulting percentage was multiplied by income available for investment divided by GDP before subtracting it from the tourist expenditure values. The adjustments corrected for double counting revenue from tourism and reduced multicollinearity in the data.

Although, some of the multicollinearity was removed from the multipliers, the import and investment multipliers continued to indicate high levels of multicollinearity. Multicollinearity is not a violation of any assumption of the linear model and the estimates produced are unbiased (Pindyck & Rubinfeld, 1991; Table 1: Tourist expenditures for Jamaica from 1981-1999: In millions of Jamaican dollars adjusted for inflation. Stop-over Cruise Total visitors passengers Expenditure 1981 20.33045339 0.40063595 20.731089 1982 26.14921192 0.56397146 26.713183 1983 36.0816352 0.9075976 36.989233 1984 90.7806042 2.78439876 93.565003 1985 178.0426116 6.0644916 184.1071 1986 295.02128 8.95432 303.9756 1987 379.1083728 10.141836 389.25021 1988 378.15547 13.96703 392.1225 1989 478.7714888 18.0984672 496.86996 1990 873.102888 33.189912 906.2928 1991 1626.315679 80.8912168 1707.2069 1992 7863.886351 317.4920168 8181.3784 1993 11956.25101 509.1424223 12465.393 1994 23441.16231 1193.128253 24634.291 1995 33822.8774 1663.4202 35486.298 1996 49870.34806 2710.13571 52580.484 1997 50456.14686 2827.20285 53283.35 1998 58784.25237 2923.486632 61707.739 1999 72025.16389 3624.019163 75649.183

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 19 Table 2: Jamaica Government Expenditure Multipliers. Standard Coefficients Error t Stat Cruise Tourist Expenditures Intercept -1.89706686 6.922506102 -0.27404336 Tax Revenue 1.276949125 0.15238473 8.379770905 Cruise Tourist Expenditures -0.209090262 0.125882162 -1.660999934 Stopover Tourist Expenditures Intercept -0.978031259 11.14368346 -0.08776553 Tax Revenue 1.171461935 0.145706925 8.039850761 Stopover Tourist Expenditures -0.123642144 0.106066484 -1.165704176 Total Tourist Expenditures Intercept -1.493561744 24.1613404 -0.09291868 Tax Revenue 1.177110252 0.145585955 8.085328355 Total Tourist Expenditures -0.127217597 0.107325959 -1.185338557 Table 3: Jamaica Import Expenditure Multipliers.

Standard Coefficients Error t Stat Cruise Tourist Expenditures Intercept 0.111006652 0.81402735 0.136367227 Income 0.640348963 0.119652402 5.351743466 Cruise Tourist Expenditures 0.345796726 0.103040214 3.35593951 Stopover Tourist Expenditures Intercept -0.169767765 0.316355595 -0.53663589 Income 0.729416265 0.114643025 6.362500169 Stopover Tourist Expenditures 0.29424012 0.108029776 2.723694615 Total Tourist Expenditures Intercept -0.157947735 0.378896646 -0.41686232 Income 0.721391542 0.126366209 5.708737706 Total Tourist Expenditures 0.300861113 0.120161044 2.503815738 Griffiths, Hill & Judge 1993).

For the import and investment multipliers all of the results were statistically significant, so no additional corrective action was taken. The initial regressions runs showed signs of heteroscedasticity in some of the residuals. A transformation of the data to logarithmic form gave the best results in correcting for this (Gujaranti, 1978). The conversion to logarithmic form changed the coefficients in the regressions to elasticities. The Durbin-Watson test revealed serial correlation in some of the data. The Cochrane-Orcutt iterative method corrected for problems with serial correlation where it occurred.

After convergence was reached using the Cochrane-Orcutt iterative method the intercept term was adjusted for the individual regressions (Kelejian & Oates, 1974; Pindyck & Rubinfeld 1991). In runs of the regressions for the investment multipliers the Cochrane-Orcutt method failed to remove the serial correlation. An analysis of the residuals revealed an outlier in the data, which was larger than three standard errors from the mean. The data showed a huge drop in investment in 1999, which was a much larger change than in any previous time period. The outlier was dropped from the observations and the regressions were run again without the data point.

The results were greatly improved and serial correlation ceased to be a problem.

Results The results for the regressions; the coefficients, standard errors, and t-stats, for the multipliers are presented in the following tables. Government Multipliers (see Table 2). The government expenditure multipliers seem to indicate that cruise expenditures did not have a significant impact on government spending in Jamaica over the period of this study. While the results for cruise tourism are seemingly insignificant, this is actually a positive aspect of cruise tourism. The two other types of tourist expenditures gave similar findings.

Import Multipliers (see Table 3): Overall, the import expenditure multipliers suggest that cruise, stopover tourist and total expenditures did have a significant impact on import expenditures in Jamaica.

The results indicate that a substantial part of tourist expenditures leak out of the economy. With cruise tourism leakages being larger than stopover tourist expenditures. This result coincides with the impression that cruise tourists purchase more imported goods than stopover tourists. Investment Multipliers (see Table 4): The investment multipliers appear to indicate cruise, stopover, and total tourist expenditures did have a

20 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 Table 4: Jamaica Investment Expenditure Multipliers. Standard Coefficients Error t Stat Cruise Tourist Expenditures Intercept 2.720865553 0.427556739 6.363753168 Available to Invest 0.438720223 0.121858409 3.600245773 Cruise Tourist Expenditures 0.519865242 0.105011085 4.950574916 Stopover Tourist Expenditures Intercept 0.638319249 0.129999572 4.910164227 Available to Invest 0.427430914 0.144928617 2.949251318 Stopover Tourist Expenditures 0.58565638 0.138095354 4.240956433 Total Tourist Expenditures Intercept 0.631012875 0.12946161 4.874131221 Available to Invest 0.4240199 0.143978929 2.94501357 Total Tourist Expenditures 0.586769969 0.136687163 4.292794997 significant impact on investment expenditures in Jamaica.

In recent years Jamaica has been making large investments in infrastructure for tourists, such as the Port Royal Development project, as a way to increase tourist arrivals (Barnwell & Boxill, 1998). These increased investment expenditures for tourism could explain why all of these variables are significant. Overall, it seems that cruise tourism did have an impact on import and investment expenditures in Jamaica, but not government expenditures. The large development project recently undertaken in Port Royal, Jamaica, could explain why these results are significant, since this project represents a major investment and many of the goods used for these projects may be imported.

Construction materials are a major import for Jamaica (Central Intelligence Agency, 2000).

Analysis Jamaica had embarked on a major upgrading of tourist facilities for both cruise and stopover tourist facilities (see Barnwell & Boxill, 1998; Economist Intelligence Unit 2000). This explains the positive coefficients and the increase in the rate of investment expenditures for total, cruise, and stopover tourist expenditures. However, the goods and services needed for the upgrading of these facilities were most likely imported, since construction materials are a major import for Jamaica. The source of financing for the investment projects did not come from the government. The government had embarked on a deficit reduction program, resulting in a slow down in the growth of government expenditures (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2000).

However, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to Jamaica showed substantial increases going from a negative 6 million dollars in 1981 to a positive 523.7 million dollars in 1999 (World Bank, 2000a). FDI was the primary source of funding for total, cruise, and stopover investment projects in Jamaica. Thus, the government played a minimal role; so total, cruise, and stopover tourist expenditures did not have a significant impact on government expenditures.

It seems probable that Jamaica developed some import substitution industry for tourist related goods and services, as been the case in other countries (see Chase & Alon, 2002; Chase, 2002). However, it is suspected that gains from import substitution were eclipsed by the importation of goods and services due to investment. The larger coefficient value for investment compared to the import coefficient value indicates that an increase in investment expenditures would outweigh any decrease in imports, which explains the positive coefficients of imports for total, cruise, and stopover tourist expenditures.

Since the government was able to reduce overall expenditures as a percent of GDP during the period of this study, it would seem to indicate that cruise tourism, and the other types of tourism, do not have an impact on government expenditures. This can explain the insignificance of the government multipliers. However, this does not mean that cruise tourism did not have an influence on government expenditures. The 500% increase in the number of cruise arrivals over the period of this study strongly indicate that additional spending by the government would be required for certain areas. Reductions in spending could have been less in some programs and more in other programs if it were not for this increase in cruise tourism in Jamaica.

Citizens of the country of Jamaica would seem to be the losers, having a larger reduction in the number of goods and services provided by the government for them to accommodate the increase in cruise tourist arrivals. However, as stated previously about investments, these expenditures may be directed towards cruise tourists, but the locals may also benefit from them, so determining the exact loss to locals is difficult.

Findings When a country has a cruise industry there are costs to consider. Major investments in infrastructure must be made and an unfavorable change in the

THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 21 References Archer, B. (1976). Anatomy of a multiplier. Regional Studies, 10, 71- 77. Baaijens, S.R., Injkamp, P., & Van Montfort, K. (1997). Explanatory meta-analysis for the comparison and transfer of regional tourist income multipliers. Regional Studies, 32(9), 839-849. Barnwell, G., & Boxill, I. (1998). Socio-eco impact assessment Port Royal Heritage Tourism Project, 1-33, 18 January 2001.

Available: Central Intelligence Agency (2000). The world factbook, Jamaica, 18 November 2000. Available: publications/factbook/geos/jm.html. Chase, G. (2002). A contribution to understanding the economic impact of cruise ships in the Caribbean Basin region. Paper presented at the ASBBS Conference, Las Vegas, February 7-10. Chase, G., & Alon, I. (2002). Evaluating the economic impact of cruise tourism: A case study of Barbados. Anatolia, 1(1), 5-18. Cruise Line Industry Association (2001). Industry Overview, 25 January 2001.

Available: overview/industry_overview.htm.

Dickinson, R.H., & Vladimir, A. (1997). Selling the sea: An inside look at the cruise industry. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dwyer, L., & Forsyth, P. (1998). Economic significance of cruise tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2), 393-415. Economist Intelligence Unit (2000). Country profile Jamaica, London, 1-14, 20 January 2001. Available: http://db.Economist Intelligence Country+Profile+Jamaica. Grassl, W. (1999). Tourism and economic growth in the Caribbean, 1- 20, 23 December 2000. Available: collegepark/library/3954/.

Griffiths, W.E., Hill, R.C., & Judge, G.G. (1993). Learning and practicing econometrics. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Gujarati, D. (1978). Basic econometrics. New York: McGraw Hill. Inter-American Development Bank (2000). ESDB Query Facility, 24 May 2001 International Monetary Fund (1995). Direction of trade statistics. Washington, D.C.: IMF. International Monetary Fund (1988). Direction of trade statistics. Washington, D.C.: IMF. balance of payments occurs. In the case of investment, if the country pays for the infrastructure itself there will be an increase in government expenditures.

These increased expenditures by the government for cruise tourist infrastructure would mean decreased expenditures for other purposes. While locals may benefit from some of these investments, they would not have taken place without cruise tourism. However, if the country is able to finance these infrastructure investments through FDI, then they will not have a significant impact on government expenditures. The infrastructure projects required by cruise tourism contribute to an increase in imports. These projects often require large imports of construction related goods and services. Once the infrastructure for cruise tourist arrivals is in place additional investment expenditures may become inconsequential.

The demand for construction related goods and services falls and there is an improvement in the balance of payments. However, periodic upgrades of cruise facilities seem to be necessary resulting in periodic unfavorable changes in the balance of payments. Depending how these investment expenditures are financed will determine if they have an impact on government expenditures. There may be some import substitution by a country as the number of goods and services supplied locally increases, but the expenditures on imports to build and maintain the required infrastructure may outweigh the gains.

While there may seem to be no increase in government expenditures with increased cruise tourism, this may just be a shift in spending from one type of expenditure to another. Locals would feel a reduction in the goods and services provided to them by the government with this shift in spending. The exact loss of goods and services supplied by the government would depend on how beneficial the expenditures on cruise tourists are for the locals. As a final note, this study used only expenditures by cruise passengers. If the additional expenditures by the cruise ship crew and the cruise ship line itself were included the impacts would most likely be larger.

22 THE JOURNAL OF TOURISM STUDIES Vol. 14, No. 2, DEC. ‘03 International Monetary Fund (1988). International financial statistics yearbook. Washington, D.C.: IMF. International Monetary Fund (2000). International financial statistics yearbook. Washington, D.C.: IMF. International Monetary Fund (2001). Direction of trade statistics. Washington, D.C.: IMF. International Monetary Fund (2001). International financial statistics, January. Washington, D.C.: IMF. Kelejian, H.H., & Oates, W.E. (1974). Introductions to econometrics: Principles and applications. New York: Harper & Row. KPMG Peat Marwick (1996).

A study to assess the economic impact of tourism on selected CDB borrowing member countries, 1-127, 22 January 2001. Available: external/lac/lac.nsf/c3473659f307761e852567ec0054ee1b/fdf4c4b a8695ff7b852567f2006ecf6d?OpenDocument.

Mamoozadeh, A. (1989). Cruise ships and small island economies: Some evidence from the Caribbean region. Dissertation. Kent State University, Kent, Ohio. Mamoozadeh, A., & McKee, D.L. (1994). Cruise ships in the Third World: Development versus corporate financial objectives. In D.L. McKee (Ed.), External linkages and growth in small economies (pp. 91-101). Westport, CT: Praeger. McDonald, J.F. (1997). Fundamentals of urban economics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. McElroy, J.L., & Tinsely, J.F. (1982). United States Virgin Islands. In S. Seward & B. Spinrad (Eds), Tourism in the Caribbean: The economic impact (pp.

23-65). Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

McKee, D.L. (1998). Cruise tourism: Assessing its structural and environmental costs. Caribbean Affairs, 8(1), 135-147. McKee, D.L. (1988). Some reflections of cruise ships and the economic development of small island nations. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 9(2), 249-59. Pindyck, R.S., & Rubinfeld, D.L. (1991). Econometric models & economic forecasts (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2001). Economic contribution of the FCCA member cruise Lines to the Caribbean and Florida, FloridaCaribbean Cruise Association, 1-145.

Sinclair, M.T., & Sutcliffe, C.M.S.

(1982). Keynesian income multipliers with first and second round effects: An application to tourist expenditure. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 44, 321-338. United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (1996). Sustainable tourism development in small island developing states, 18 January 2001. Available: documents/ecosoc/cn17/1996/ecn171996-20a3.htm. Wise, J. (1999). How cruise ships shortchange the Caribbean; Does Kathie Lee know about this? Fortune, March, 44, 17 January 2001. Available: Wood, R. (2000). Caribbean cruise tourism.

Annals of Tourism Research, 27(2), 345-70.

World Bank (2000). World development indicators: 2000. World Bank, Washington D.C., (CD-ROM). World Bank (2000a). Data by topic, 25 April 2001, World Tourism Organization (1999). Yearbook of tourism statistics, Vol. I. Madrid, Spain: World Tourism Organization. World Tourism Organization (1998). What we offer. 23 December 2000. Available: